Almost three years after Cuban national Arianna Taylor-Israel was gunned down on the compound of the St. Martin’s Secondary School in broad daylight, her husband Mitchel ‘Mitch’ Israel is awaiting sentencing for the murder.





A 12-member jury, six men and six women, on Wednesday, found Israel, a former civil servant, guilty of murdering Taylor-Israel, who was employed here as a nurse and was Israel’s wife for 20 years.





Upon conviction, Justice Rickie Burnett ordered that a Social Inquiry report on Israel be submitted by September 18 and that sentencing submissions be filed by October 2.





Israel is expected to be sentenced on October 13.





Surgical Pathologist, Dr. Ronald Child concluded that Taylor-Israel died from multiple gunshot wounds, including one to her neck, one to her chest, and one to her shoulder.





The Crown’s case was that Israel deliberately and intentionally shot and killed his wife shortly after 3 p.m. on the date in question, but the defense sought to establish a case of an accident, arguing that Taylor-Israel was shot accidentally during a struggle with her husband.





Attorney Dr. Linton Lewis represented the accused while Richie Maitland, an attorney attached to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), led the case for the Crown.





Witnesses for the crown





The Crown called 27 witnesses but relied heavily on the evidence of two eyewitnesses – Fidel Akers, at the time a student of the St. Vincent Grammar School, and Mohammed Dowers, then a student of the St. Martin’s Secondary School.





Akers told the Court that he was sitting on a rail when he saw a vehicle pulling into the yard of the St. Martin’s Secondary School around 3:30 p.m. When a man alighted from the vehicle, he said the man had something in his hand which he (Akers) later recognized to be a gun. He said there was a struggle between the lady and the man.





According to Akers, "They were tugging and pulling for the gun, and the gun went off. The struggle continued, and three more shots went off, and the lady fell to the ground. The man went back into the vehicle and left.”

Under cross-examination by Lewis, Akers said, "She grabbed the gun, it was pointed towards the abdomen, and I heard three more shots.” He admitted to hearing four shots in all.





Dowers said he saw the woman "fighting up” with Israel and that she slipped and fell, and Israel shot her several times.





But under cross-examination, Dowers said he could not recall whether the woman was shot while standing or lying on the ground. He was also unable to recall if there was a struggle, how close the man and the woman were to each other, or if he had given a statement to the police.





There was evidence from a friend and former co-worker of Israel, that after the shooting Israel told him that he had shot his wife six times. He said Israel told him that he was ‘fed up’. The witness added that Israel complained of not feeling well that day, and asked that he drive him home.





There was also evidence from a police officer that Taylor-Israel had made a report to the police that her husband had threatened to kill her. But Justice Rickie Burnett, in his summation on Wednesday, told the Jury they would have to determine what weight, if any, they should give to his evidence, as Taylor-Israel was deceased, and therefore could not be there to testify, and be cross-examined.





The case for the defence





Israel, in his defense to the Court, said that when he went to the school’s car park that afternoon to pick up his sons from school, he saw his wife on the compound making a phone call, and he touched her to get her attention. He said she struck him with the phone, and he held onto her hand. A struggle ensued, and he could feel his licensed firearm’s holster, which was under his shirt, moving from side to side. He was trying to pull it back, and she grabbed onto it, as to pull it from him, and a shot went off.





He said there was struggle and tugging during which more bullets went off and she knocked him back, and they fell. She came close to him and when he looked over to her he saw the gun between them. He took it up and went back into his vehicle not knowing that she was shot, until the police at Questelles told him that she was killed.





Forensic pathologist, Professor Hubert Daisley of Trinidad and Tobago, who was called by the defense, said the victim could not have sustained those injuries if she was lying on the ground on her back, with the shooter standing over her. The Professor said he detected gunshot residue which means that Taylor-Israel had to be shot at close range, say about 18 inches.





Closing arguments





In his closing arguments, Maitland referenced evidence in which Israel told the Investigator Sergeant Biorn Duncan that he was in an uncomfortable position with his wife. He quoted Israel as saying, "We have been arguing for about three weeks now.”





Maitland also referenced the evidence of Israel’s son Mathew, who said there was an argument between his mother and father on the morning she was shot. He also told the Court that on that morning there was a marital exchange between them, with the senior Israel saying he would bring women into the house to have sex with them.





"Mr. Israel would have had a motive for the killing of his wife. He had a .32 revolver which he inherited from his father”, Maitland said, adding, "He (Israel) had numerous opportunities to indicate that she held onto the gun, but he did not do that”.





But defence attorney Dr. Lewis argued that Israel’s son Mitchel Israel Jr. said in his testimony, that his mother was always the one to start the arguments. "He (son) could not think of any incident of his father hitting his mother or threatening her with a gun.”





Dr. Lewis pointed out that, based on the boy’s evidence his mother always had the propensity to be aggressive and erratic, and that their father always had to come to their defense when she was beating them.





He stressed that Akers admitted there was a struggle between Israel and his wife, and while Akers’ evidence supported that of his client, it vastly contradicted the evidence of the other eyewitness, Mohammed Dowers, and both Akers and Dowers were prosecution witnesses.

The Jury rejected the defense’s version of the events.