The barristers for one of the four men accused of murdering Alex Innes in Jericho last November blew out his cheeks as he summarised the ‘circumstantial evidence’ and the pixelated CCTV footage gathered together in a bid to prove his client’s guilt.

“That’s it,” Tyrone Smith KC said as he completed his overview of the evidence for jurors at Oxford Crown Court on behalf of accused Keyarno Johnson-Allen.

“The prosecution say to you be sure he’s jointly responsible for the murder of Mr Innes?”

READ MORE: Jeremy Clarkson: Council breaks silence after appeal decision

He blew out his cheeks and gave an almost imperceptible shake of the head.

Summarising his case yesterday afternoon, Mr Smith said: “Mr Innes was stabbed. He was killed, you might think, in a completely unnecessary fashion.

“It wasn’t done with the assistance and encouragement of Mr Johnson-Allen, you might think - on the evidence.

“If you think he’s guilty, find him guilty. That’s the oath that you took.

“What we submit to you [is this]; if you follow the directions, as you’re bound to do, [given] by the judge and consider the evidence dispassionately and fairly, and you draw appropriate inferences, then the right verdicts are not guilty of murder, not guilty of manslaughter, not guilty of possession of a knife.”

ALL OUR LIVE BLOGS FROM TRIAL

Over the best part of an hour and a half, Mr Smith sought to dismantle the prosecution’s claim that Johnson-Allen was not – as he told detectives in a series of prepared statements – a friend of Mr Innes’ who had gone to his aid after he collapsed in the street, but rather an important secondary party in the Kidlington man’s murder.

Johnson-Allen did not go to Love Jericho that night with the intention of seeing Mr Innes, Mr Smith reminded the jury.

He was not involved in the alleged dispute between ‘stabber’ Greg Muinami and Mr Innes over a £100 debt for some trainers.

Oxford Mail: Oxford Crown Court Oxford Crown Court

He disputed there was any evidence that Johnson-Allen had a knife on him that night. From the CCTV camera on the Co-op, opposite Love Jericho, he was the first to stop running after Mr Innes as he, Bradley Morton and Michael Oluyitan appeared to chase after the older man up Walton Street.

Mr Smith also said his client had been ‘bang on’ about a 999 call the teenager claimed to have asked a friend to place once Mr Innes fell to the ground. Blood found on his clothing was consistent with his having gone to the victim’s aid.

He accused the Crown of amassing ‘circumstantial’ evidence. And the problem with ‘circumstantial evidence’ was that, in the hands of a ‘powerful advocate’ like the prosecutor was that it ‘has an appearance of being much stronger than it is’, Mr Smith said.

“We don’t find people guilty on prosecution by announcement, you find people guilty on the basis of the evidence brought before you,” he said.

Oxford Mail: Click here to sign up to the Crime and Court newsletter Click here to sign up to the Crime and Court newsletter (Image: Newsquest)

Mr Smith told the jury: “Don’t fall into the trap of coming to factual decisions in respect of one defendant and on one issue and, on the same issue in respect of a different defendant, come to a completely different factual conclusion.

“Let’s imagine for a moment all the evidence you have heard is consistent with the following proposition.

“Alex Innes did not go round the corner looking for a knife fight. Neither did he expect one. Just like Remel Yearwood didn’t, just like Mr Hart didn’t.

“Alex Innes put his glass down at the bar before he went round the corner.

“Would Alex Innes have gone round the corner if he thought it would be a knife fight? He would have stayed at the bar.

“Alex Innes wasn’t found with a knife on him; no one’s suggesting for a minute he had a knife.

“So why would he go round the corner if he expected someone else to be tooled up with a knife and getting ready to stab him?

“Now, next point. What if someone had a bit of beef with Mr Innes and likewise Mr Innes had some beef with someone else?

“And there is an argument over a hundred pounds and they’d gone round the corner to continue their argument?  

“And, in the heat of the argument, one of the parties loses their temper, one of the parties without warning pulls out a knife […] and stabs Mr Innes because he’s angry.

“Not because he’d been encouraged by anyone else but because someone stupidly – someone who thinks they’re a big man – pulls out a knife and decides to stab somebody.

“Then he’s responsible for the killing.

“If that might be the case, defendants two, three and four [Oluyitan, Morton and Johnson-Allen] are not guilty.

“The act of one stupid man.

“That’s a simple, factual conclusion that you might […] come to on the evidence.

“To some extent, you’re invited to come to that conclusion by the Crown: no waving around of the knife; one defendant is getting angry over a debt, they say; one person doesn’t remain at the scene, they say; you can eliminate the others on the CCTV as being the principal, they say; no defensive injuries of any note according the pathologist; it doesn’t appear that Mr Innes was expecting a blow with a knife.

“That’s a possible and reasonable conclusion to come to on the evidence.

“What are the other three doing in the dock?”

Greg Muinami, 19, of Cranham Street, Michael Oluyitan, 19, of Waynflete Road, Bradley Morton, 19, of Cumberlege Close, and Keyarno Johnson-Allen, 19, of Furlong Close, all deny murder, manslaughter and possession of a bladed article.

The trial continues.