Vincy man found guilty of murdering his Cuban wife at their son’s school (+Videos)

A Vincentian man was today (Wednesday) found guilty of murdering his wife in January 2020 at their son’s school in Kingstown.

A 12-member jury deliberated for two hours and 25 minutes before returning the verdict, ending a trial that at times came across as a Grenadian seeking justice for a Cuban killed in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

As he was led back to prison along the darkened streets of the capital, the defendant, Mitchel Israel, who was wearing a face mask, used a folder as an additional shield from photographers.

Lawyer Linton Lewis, who along with his daughter, Maffica Lewis, represented Israel, told iWitness News that he was “extremely shocked” by the verdict but could not say immediately whether there would be an appeal.

Justice Rickie Burnett, who presided, has ordered that a social inquiry report be submitted to the court by Sept. 18. Lawyers on both sides will then make submissions on sentencing by Oct. 2, ahead of the sentencing on Oct. 13.

The defendant, Mitchell Israel, who has been in custody since the date of the shooting, was further remanded to prison to await sentencing.  

The jury had opted to deliberate immediately after the judge’s summation rather than Thursday morning, as Crown Counsel Richie Maitland had suggested after Justice Burnett concluded his summation of the evidence at 4:12 p.m.

In the absence of the jury, Maitland had cited a Privy Council ruling that the jury should deliberate in the absence of any pressures, such as worrying about how they would get home or how their children would be picked up.

But Lewis objected to the suggestion that the deliberation take place on Thursday morning, saying that none of the jurors had indicated that they were opposed to deliberating immediately. 

Burnett began his summation at 11:36 a.m. and concluded it at 4:12 p.m. after two rather lengthy breaks.

However, when the matter was put to the jury, they opted to consider their verdict immediately, rather than returning Thursday morning.

The judge’s summation and the jury’s deliberation came three weeks after prosecution and defence gave their closing submission on July 21.

“Now, foreigners in a country are vulnerable to all forms of abuse,” Maitland, who was born in Grenada told the jury as he delivered his closing argument at High Court No. 2, in Kingstown.

“They lack the deep-rooted, long-standing relationships — familiar and friendly — which would protect them socially from people who would want to tell them anything and who would want to do them anything,” the prosecutor further said.

“Arianna Israel didn’t have a father or brothers or male cousins to protect her in this instance,” Maitland told the jury said, referring to the victim, a 44-year-old Cuba-born naturalised Vincentian nurse who died after being shot at one of her son’s schools in Kingstown on Jan. 30, 2020.

“As such, she now relies on you, a panel of 12 Vincentians, to see that justice is done. And the prosecution asks you that you in fact see that justice is done by returning a verdict of guilty for Mr. Mitchel Israel,” Maitland said.

And three weeks later the jury agreed that the prosecution, which included Director of Public Prosecution, Sejilla McDowald and Crown Counsel Kaylia Toney, had proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.

In so doing, they rejected the defence’s case that Israel had shot his wife accidentally.

‘Mr. Israel’s only day in court’

During his closing submission, also on July 21, Lewis pleaded with the jury to free his client and allow him to go home to his family.

“Again, I ask you, please, to remember this. It is Mr. Israel’s only day in court. He has come before you and he has presented his evidence. And now he seeks justice from you. And he seeks justice under the law,” Lewis said.

“Mr. Israel is innocent of the crime and should be convicted — sorry acquitted. He’s innocent of the crime and should be acquitted. He should not be convicted,” the lawyer said.

“I don’t know what more can be said,” Lewis further told the jury at the end of a three-hour submission.

“I ask you please, members of the jury, having heard the evidence in this case, not what is heard outside but what you heard here, please ….

“I don’t have to prove the defence case but I’m proving it to you… I beg of you, jury, to do what is right in accordance with the law, acquit Mr. Israel and let him go home to his family,” Lewis said.  

The crime

On Jan. 30, 2020, Mitchel Gary Gene Israel aka Mitch, then two months away from his 58^th birthday, went to St. Martin’s Secondary School (SMSS) in Kingstown — as he had done every school day since one of his sons enrolled there — to pick up his sons.

Holstered under his shirt was his .32 revolver, a weapon he had inherited from his father and for which he had a permit.

According to his account, the weapon was loaded with four rounds of ammunition — two less than its maximum capacity.

When Israel, a former public servant, left the school compound, his wife, with whom he had been in a relationship for about 20 years — was lying mortally wounded in the school yard.

She had been shot three times by rounds discharged from her husband’s gun.

After she was wounded, Taylor-Israel received no assistance from the man to whom her first word had been “loco” — Spanish for “crazy” when he began to woo her as she was walking to work in Kingstown, almost two decades earlier.

Shortly after the shooting, Taylor-Israel, a nurse, was pronounced dead at Milton Cato Memorial Hospital, where she worked, about a quarter mile from where she was shot.

Her husband had left her mortally wounded on the ground and driven to Campden Park, throwing away the firearm in Montrose.

According to the prosecution’s case, he stopped at a shop and had a beer. He later told one of his former co-workers that he had given his wife six shots.

An autopsy conducted the following day by Dr. Ronald Child, a pathologist, concluded that Taylor-Israel died as a result of three gunshot wounds, one of which was definitely responsible for death.

During his trial for his wife’s murder, Israel said that his blood pressure was extremely high on the day of the shooting and he had problems seeing and had asked the former co-worker to drive him home.

He told the court that he loved his wife and had accidentally shot her during a squabble after she attacked him with her phone.

The defence

Israel mounted the stand in his defence and testified that about 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 30, 2020, he saw his wife and their sons sleeping on the bed and a space was created for him to lie between them.

He said Taylor-Israel got up and ironed some clothes and he asked her if she was working that day but she did not answer.

In his attempt to get her to say something, he further asked her if she was dancing that morning, saying, in Spanish, “Baila. Baila.”

Taylor-Israel told him how to pronounce the word correctly and he went back upstairs and told his wife not to prepare any lunch for him.

She told him, “Let the rats you have down the road prepare it for you”, Israel told the court, adding that he asked his wife what “rat” she was talking about and she said, “All the girls you bring in the house”.

Israel said he told his wife that if he brought girls in the house, he “would brush them in that room, in that room”, and she laughed.

“Brush” is a somewhat vulgar Vincentian term meaning “to have sex”.

The defendant testified that his wife responded, “Bring them. They will become friends.”

He said he told the children to get ready and Taylor-Israel said she wanted some money, which he told her he would get at the ATM.

Israel said that after dropping off the children, the car appeared to have had some problems so he took it to a mechanic to have it checked. He left after midday and about 2:20 p.m., he considered not going back to work and decided to go home as he had to pick up their sons from school.

He said he WhatsApped their son, Matthew, who was going to an audition to play for his school and asked him if he had heard from his mother.

Matthew told his father that his mother was at their other son, Mitch’s school — SMSS — and the father and son promised to meet each other there.

The defendant testified that when he drove into the schoolyard he saw his wife on the grass “outside of the Mormon’s church” and she started to walk toward the vehicle.

The defendant said his wife came to the edge of the parking lot and he stopped about five feet from her.

She was on the phone and he asked her if she did not work that day but she did not answer, Israel said.

He said he went back into the vehicle, turned the engine off and went to rest his hand on the hand his wife had around her stomach and told her that they needed to talk.

Taylor-Israel did not say anything so he “nudged” her to get her attention, Israel testified, saying that his wife was still on the phone and came down with her phone to hit him.

He said that as she was coming down with the phone again, he grabbed her hand and they started to wrestle and pull.

Israel said that his gun belt was moving freely around his waist as he had lost some weight.

He said the gun moved from side to side to his groin and as he tried to move it back to his side, his wife grabbed onto it.

They were both pulling and a shot went off between his legs and the pulling and tugging continued during which another shot went off.

Israel said that his wife was still holding on to his hand, and there was a slight slope near a flagpole in the yard and he slipped almost to his knees, while his wife was still upright.

Israel said he pulled and his wife pulled back and a shot went off and she came towards him with all her weight and stumbled towards him. He told the court he and his wife were almost side to side.

“I could have looked into her face and she was watching me. She has a way she does look when she mad. She was looking at me. I look over to her. The gun was between us. I took it up. I just did not know what to do.  I walked towards the vehicle, sat down for some seconds, a minute and drove slowly out of the yard,” he told the court.

During cross examination by Maitland, Israel denied telling psychiatrist Dr. Karen Providence one week after the shooting about his wife and their relationship and denied saying their relationship was volatile.

He said he did not know that his wife was shot before he left the scene.

Israel said they had had a talk at home but it was not an argument.

The defendant agreed that a week before the shooting he and his wife had gone to an event and she had danced with several persons but said they had no argument at the event. He also agreed that his wife exited the vehicle at the Catholic church and he drove off, leaving her there.

Israel told the court it was incorrect to say he and his wife were arguing about the dance and he said he had no idea why their son, Matthew, would call an argument the talk that he and his wife had.

He said he did not find it strange that his wife did not respond to him at the school. He said he had touched her on her hand to get her attention, adding that “nudge”, which he had used in his evidence in chief, was not the appropriate word.

The defendant said that after he “tapped” his wife, she struck her with the cell phone and as they struggled, the gun belt got loose.

He said that she was holding on to the gun when it moved to his groin and she did not reach for the gun before it moved to his groin.

The defendant said the gun was in both he and his wife’s hands but his hand was not on the trigger and that prosecution witness Mohammed Dowers was lying when he said he saw Israel over his wife shooting her.

‘I love my wife’ … ‘love is patient, love is kind’

But in his closing address, Maitland cited the Bible as he sought to portray Israel’s actions as a perversion of love.

“‘I love my wife! I love my wife!’ So says Mitchel Israel. But love is patient, love is kind…” Maitland said, quoting a portion of scripture often read at weddings.  

The prosecutor told the jury that Israel had left his wife rolling around in a pool of blood, her shoes off and her glasses askew.

He said the couple’s son held his mother while they sped to the hospital, where she later died.

Maitland told the jury that there was no doubt that Taylor-Israel died of gunshot wounds or that the gunshots were fired from her husband’s firearm.

“Where there seems to be contention … is whether or not Michel Israel shot Arianna Israel intentionally and deliberately,” Maitland said.

He asked jurors to consider that Israel had threatened to kill his wife, and she reported the threat to the police.

The prosecutor said that the threat was “so credible” that the Police Constable Linton Frederick proffered a charge of threatening language against Israel on Jan. 26, 2020, one day after the threats were allegedly made.

Maitland noted that Israel had said during cross examination that he had no idea that his wife had told police that he had threatened her or that a charge was issued.

“Well, we can ask ourselves, what reasons she would have to lie on him?” Maitland said, and reminded the jury that Israel had described his wife as virtuous.

He said there are accounts given by people and “the humanity” of the accounts shows that they are genuine.

The prosecutor pointed out that under cross examination, Frederick said he had not gone to arrest Israel because his wife had said she did not want her or their sons to be at home when this was done.

Maitland said Dowers, a SMSS student, testified that Taylor-Israel was heard screaming before the shots were heard being fired.

He noted that Dowers said he saw “Mitch’s (Mitchel Israel Jr.) daddy shooting Mitch’s mom”. The prosecutor said the witness held up “under rigorous cross examination” by defence counsel.

“He maintained his position that he was able to identify … the defendant as the person who was shooting Arianna Israel,” Maitland said.

The prosecutor further reminded the jury that witness Fidel Akers, another student, said that he saw the van that he associated with Israel drive into the compound.

Akers testified that he saw a man exit that van, walk toward Taylor-Israel, after which a confrontation ensued and the man shot Taylor-Israel.

“The prosecution says that that man is Mr. Israel,” Maitland said, adding that by Israel’s own evidence, he in fact approached Taylor-Israel, who was ignoring him.

“So, Ms Israel was not the antagoniser, as he claims,” Maitland said.

‘I gave her six shots’

He reminded the jury of the evidence of Kareem John Lewis, one of Israel’s former subordinates at the PetroCaribe LPG plant in Camden Park.

Israel accepted that he had known Lewis for a number of years, that Lewis had previously been to his home and that Lewis would have no reason to lie on him.

Lewis testified that after the shooting, Israel visited him in Campden Park and told him he had just given his wife six shots.

“According to Mr. Lewis’ evidence, Mr. Israel did not say to him, that there was a scuffle and there was an accident and my wife was shot. Mr. Israel said, ‘I gave her six shots’,” Maitland said

The prosecutor pointed out to the jury that detective Sergeant Biorn Duncan had put to Israel the allegation that he had told people that he had shot and killed his wife.

“He did not, in fact, deny it. What the defence did was send six pictures to a doctor three days ago, Dr. Dailsey and brought him here to talk theory based on a make-believe scenario, fed to him by the defence.”

Maitland reminded the jury that the witness, Harry, testified that the person was lying on the ground but that she could not at the time see that it was Taylor-Israel.

Harry, however, said the person she saw on the ground was moving, Maitland reminded the jury, adding that this is important in that if Taylor-Israel was moving after she was shot, she was certainly moving when she was being shot.

Minute versus significant detail

Maitland pointed out that Israel said there was an encounter between him and his wife, during which they were both moving. “Remember, when Mr. Israel was asked to demonstrate how his wife was able to receive the specific wounds which he received, he said that everything happened so fast that he couldn’t remember,” the prosecutor said.

He said that despite this, the defence wanted the prosecution witnesses to remember minute details, for example, the type of shoes and colour of the clothes that Taylor-Israel was wearing as well as the precise timing of who was where and when.

He told the jury that human beings remember significant things and forget the insignificant ones.

“So, you might not remember the glasses that I wore when counsel called me ‘an arrogant Grenadian’ but you will recall that during a trial you heard one professional lawyer referred to another professional lawyer as ‘an arrogant Grenadian’,” Maitland said.

The prosecutor said that while he could not say what the defence would posit in its closing argument, “I’m pretty sure that they would seek to confuse you to throw sand in your eyes by raising the issues of discrepancies.”

Maitland said that prosecution witness Petrus Gumbs, though unable recall “insignificant, minute details”, was able to see what happened and testified that the event was hard to forget.

“Who would forget that?” Maitland said.

The prosecutor pointed out that in his caution statement to Duncan, the defendant said he couldn’t recall details about the shooting of his wife, which had just happened.

“So, Mr. Israel himself couldn’t remember important … details of the occurrence but they expect witnesses to now come years after the incident to speak to what she had on her feet, what colour clothes she wore, the specific time.”

Maitland admitted that the prosecution was unable to say who was where when the shooting occurred.

“But I ask you, is that significant?” he said, adding that the witnesses testified that they saw Taylor-Israel in the school yard, her husband’s van drove into the school yard, there was a confrontation between them, after which Israel shot Taylor-Israel.

“According to Mr. Israel’s own testimony, they were moving up and down. At some point in time he was kneeling, she was standing at some other point in time, she was kneeling he was standing and he couldn’t say for sure when the shots went off…” Maitland said.

He reasoned that not even the defence could explain the dynamics of how the specific bodies were moving when the shooting occurred.

“They can’t even explain it. But the expectation is that prosecution witnesses should be able to explain it,” Maitland said and accused the defence of going to pains to cause the jury to believe that the shots were fired at close range. 

“That’s not random,” Maitland said, adding that the defence was seeking to present a case that Taylor-Israel was shot at close range during a struggle.

Forensic pathologist didn’t examine body

He said that in support of its theory that Taylor-Israel was shot at close range, the defence called to testify, Dr. Hubert Daisley who told the court that he saw what resembles stippling on one of the wounds.

Maitland said this is significant as Daisley did not say he observed stippling on any of the other wounds.

“Also significant, is the fact that Dr. Daisley never had the opportunity to actually examine the body,” the prosecutor said and reminded the jury that the forensic pathologist was basing his finding on six photographs sent to him three days earlier.

“So, whose evidence is more convincing? The pathologist who actually examined Mrs. Israel’s body, who was able to feel the tissue, to observe, as opposed to the person who, as much as he might be a professional, only received six pictures three days ago, upon which to form his analysis?”

He said that in relation to Child’s autopsy report, Daisley said, “One does not question it at all” but he went on to refer to things which were at variance with Child’s report and represented a challenge to Child’s findings.

“He is saying that ‘one does not question the actual pathologist’ and that is Dr. Child,” Maitland said.

The prosecutor said that the defendant claimed that the shooting was an accident and both he and his wife were holding the gun when the shooting occurred but he couldn’t explain how it happened.

“Yet he had the presence of mind … to walk away coolly, to drive away coolly and to discard the firearm — a prized possession, an heirloom which he received from his father.”

‘things were bad, or things were doubly bad’

Maitland said Israel was deliberate in killing his wife, adding that importantly, the defendant had the motive and the means to do so.

He noted Lewis testified that the defendant had told him after the shooting that he had been fed up of his wife and that Lewis would see him on the news.

The prosecutor also noted that in one of the caution statements given to detective Duncan, Israel said: “I was in an uncomfortable position with my wife. We were arguing all the time, for about three weeks now.”

Maitland said this is corroborated by the couple’s son, Matthew, who testified that on the morning of the shooting, he was awoken by his parents arguing about a dance.

“So, we have many indications that the marriage was in fact bad; that there were problems,” the prosecutor said, adding that there is also other evidence from which the jury could draw this inference.

“When it reaches to a wife actually reporting her husband to the police and insisting that he be charged, you know that the marriage was bad,” Maitland said.

“When a husband would throw his wife out of a car at night, and drive off, not caring how she got home, we know that the marriage was bad. When he was calling the son, Matthew, to find out where she would meet him, instead of just directly calling his wife, we know that the marriage was bad.”

Maitland said that when “pots dashing and food smashing” and things are left ransacked in the house, one knows that the marriage was bad.

He reminded the jury of what Israel referred to as his wife’s “three-day vexation”.

“… according to him, in phase two of Mrs. Israel vexation … she would be in bed with Enrique. That morning, she was in fact in bed with both of the boys.

“So, the inference that can be drawn is either that things were bad, or things were doubly bad,” the prosecutor reasoned.

“We especially know that things were bad when the husband is lying about how bad things really were.”

‘brushing other women in their marital home’

He said that Israel had testified that on the morning before the shooting he and his wife had a light, loving joking exchange, “among other things about him brushing (having sex with) other women in their marital home.

“How unusual. They were joking about that. It wasn’t an argument as the son describes it. They were just having fun,” the prosecutor said sarcastically.  

Maitland reminded the jury that Israel testified that when he was in school on the day of the shooting, he approached his wife.

He initially said he “hit” her on the hand, then changed it to “nudged” and later to “tapped”.

“So, he himself is lying about all bad things really were,” the prosecutor said and reminded the jury of the evidence that Taylor-Israel spent the day of the shooting with a friend in whom she confided and spoke about getting divorced.

“So, for all these reasons, we say that the marriage was … in a terrible state. So, Mr. Israel … had the motive for killing his wife.”

‘taking this jury’ for fool

Maitland accused the defence of “taking this jury” for fools. He said that the jury already knew what means Israel had to kill his wife — a .32 Scott and Webley revolver.

On the issue of whether or not Israel, when he shot his wife, intended to kill her or to cause grievous bodily harm, Maitland told the jury that if they find that Israel deliberately and intentionally shot his wife, they must find that he intended to kill or cause her really serious harm.

“… who discharges multiple shots, shooting someone three times unless you plan to kill them or to cause them really serious bodily harm?” the prosecutor said. “And Mr. Israel walked away and left her to die. Love, he calls that.”

He reminded the jury that Dr. Karen Providence, the psychiatrist who interviewed Israel less than a week after the shooting, indicated that he was “normal”.

The prosecutor asked the jury to notice a trend in the finding of the professional who assessed Israel immediately after the shooting and those who the defence called as witnesses.

“The defence only sought to pull them into the case almost at the end of the trial,” he said, adding that a week earlier, these professionals knew nothing about the defendant.

“It tells you what the defence thinks about their own evidence,” Maitland said. 

He said that Dr. Dominic Nkwolo, the forensic psychiatrist who testified for the defence, said there was nothing in Providence’s reports which he challenged.

Nkwolo also testified that his analysis was done based on the accuracy of the information provided by the defence, stating that if the information was inaccurate, the analysis would be also.

Maitland pointed out that Nkwolo testified that if it was the case that the shooting was deliberate, it could be that the shooter was callous or cold-hearted.

The psychiatrist also testified that a man who deliberately kills his wife can exhibit post-traumatic stress disorder or nervous shock.

But Maitland argued that Nkwolo’s evidence does not assist the court because he could not speak to Israel’s mental state at the time of the shooting.

“We are not disputing that he might have been in a nervous shock,” the prosecutor said. “One can imagine that someone who kills, even deliberately, having had the weight of that action descend upon them subsequently, … may very well be in a state of nervous shock.”

He said this does not mean that at the time of the killing, the person did not intend to kill.

The prosecutor noted that according to Providence’s report, one week after the killing, Israel was not only normal, but he was also not sad nor remorseful.

“’I love my wife’ but he wasn’t sad neither was he remorseful,” Maitland said.

‘details aren’t always important’

He noted that while Israel, in his electronic interview with police, had a right to refuse to answer questions, he exercised this right only in relation to certain types of questions.

Maitland noted that Israel was warned in the interview about the inference which might be drawn if he chose not to answer certain questions.

“Despite that warning, he made that choice. He didn’t put his case. He didn’t respond to the questions. And so, we now invite you the jury to rightfully draw the inference, which was suggested, which is that Mr. Israel is not being truthful.

“He’s being evasive. He shot his wife and he did not want to incriminate himself.”

The prosecutor pointed out that Israel took the same position during his interview with psychiatrist Providence and made it clear that he would not speak about the shooting of his wife.

Maitland told the jury that before crossing “to the bright side” he used to be a defence counsel.

He said his senior taught him that trials are easy to win, “You just have to confuse the jury…

“And the defence now wants to confuse you by trying to persuade you to focus on the missing pieces …  the details that witnesses may have forgotten or which witnesses may have confused,” he said and reminded the jury that the shooting took place in 2020.

He said that the prosecution was not saying that details are not important.

“What we are saying is that details aren’t always important,” he said, adding that this is particularly the case, when one can still see the big picture.

He likened the case to a picture puzzle of a thousand pieces in which one can still see the picture despite a few pieces being missing.

“… looking at the entire picture puzzle, one can still see the picture it paints and that picture painted is one of Mitchel Israel in their sons’ school yard, standing over his wife and shooting her,” Maitland said.

‘simplicity and power’ versus ‘complication and falsity’

The prosecutor contrasted for the jury “the simplicity and power” of the Crown’s case with “the complication and falsity” of the defence’s case.

Maitland pointed out that Israel testified that he left home very happy that morning but also said in his caution statement that things were bad and he had been arguing with his wife for weeks.

Israel further said that he was surprised when he arrived at the schoolyard and saw his wife there.

“… the evidence also shows that Mr. Israel accepts that he had called the son and was told by his son that their mother would meet the son at the schoolyard.”

Maitland said that ultimately, Israel’s story was that at the schoolyard Taylor-Israel was able to reach his firearm holster, which was affixed to a belt and concealed under his shirt.

“She was able to unlatch the clasped strap, which secured the firearm in the holster… She was able to manipulate the safety of the gun. The trigger was pulled multiple times … accidentally while both their hands were on the gun, struggling,” the prosecutor said, noting that it required 8 pounds of trigger force each time the firearm was discharged.

He said that the defence’s story was that Taylor-Israel did not let go of the firearm until she was shot the third time, which the defence claimed was the fatal shot.

But the prosecutor said that Israel, however, said that after the shooting, his wife looked at him angrily

“She was on the ground. She seemed as if she was struggling to breathe and that she was looking at him angrily. Yet he continued to walk away … That is love. So that is love. kill your wife in cold blood and turn around and blame her for her own death.

“Paint her as volatile; cast her as violent; imply that she is crazy. Not even in the afterlife is she allowed to rest in peace.”

Maitland told the jury that throughout Mitchel Israel’s testimony he appeared to be crying but it was “tearless cries of a man who says that he loved his wife”.

The prosecutor, however, said that Israel would rather protect himself and run from criminal responsibility for his wife’s death “than simply admit it that he had shot his wife, the woman who he describes as virtuous, as a crown upon his head.

“She might have been a thorn in his side though. He was fed up and he shot and killed her in cold blood.”

He urged the jury not to believe the defence, saying that according to their story, the students, teachers, police officers, Mitchel Israel’s former co-workers are all lying.

“But he telling the truth,” Maitland said, adding that somehow the prosecution was able to “corral … into our grand conspiracy to come to lie on Mr. Israel to convict him” people from all across the country, who were living different lives, are of different ages, with no ill will towards the defendant.

He said that Israel gave in 2023 an account that conflicts with all of the prosecution witnesses, who have been consistent since 2020, when the shooting occurred.

Maitland said it was implausible that both Mitchel and Taylor-Israel’s hands were on the gun at all times when it was discharged, as the defendant claimed.

“The holster has a latch with a catch. He had been accustomed to gun safety for years,” Maitland said, adding that Israel was not accustomed to be moving around with his firearm with the safety off and described himself as a responsible firearm user and owner.

“So, he should have known that one should not callously, irresponsibly discharge shots in the public,” Maitland said.

He said neither of the experts that the defence called — a forensic pathologist and a forensic psychiatrist — assisted Israel’s case.

“He now runs a defence of accident and that is implausible. There is such a thing as a deliberate accident and this is what we now see.”

The prosecutor reminded the jury that Daisley said that one of the injuries was instantly fatal.

“Yet Mr. Israel indicates that his wife was able to watch him as if she was angry before he left to go to his vehicle.”

Maitland further noted that people who assisted in carrying Taylor-Israel to the hospital said that during the ride and at least up to the time she was brought to the hospital she was still alive.

“So how can it be that one of the shots was instantly fatal according to Dr. Daisley?” Maitland said.