The defence team for Rushelle Foster asking the jury to believe that the fatal stabbing of young Reggae Girl Tarania “Plum Plum” Clarke was an act of self-defence.

But the prosecution, in its closing arguments, rubbished that defence and suggested that Foster’s statement was not to be believed as she was trying to fabricate an incorrect account of the athlete’s temperament to help her case.

The prosecutor reminded the jury that the eyewitness testified to Foster being the confrontational and jealous one and was trying to wrestle a cellphone from Clarke and that she was the one who began the physical altercation. They pointed out that she was the one who introduced the knife into the dispute. It has been confirmed by police personnel that she admitted to owning the knife is question, but Foster claimed she had it for protection because of where she lives.

“She painted a picture that Plum Plum was this violent person, a violent person she went to meet” noted the prosecutor. She also pointed out that Foster’s claim of being hit by Clarke when she ended their relationship was never brought up by the defence during the course of the trial and that Foster did not mention that Clarke was stabbed twice in her statement.

The forensic pathologist who testified did, in fact, confirm that Clarke received two stab wounds, one of which pierced a lobe of a lung and caused her death. In her unsworn statement, Foster did not account for a second stab and claimed to be alerted to Clarke’s stab wound when she lifted her shirt after pushing Foster to the ground.

In counter arguments, lead attorney for the defence Courtney Rowe suggested that the Crown’s eyewitness was a family friend and had vested interest in saying Foster murdered Clarke. He contended that she did not immediately report what she saw to the police or contacted any of Clarke’s family. Rowe pointed to these issues as well as the inconsistencies in the statements of other Crown witnesses, Rowe raised issues with their credibility.

Rowe contended that murder needs to be “deliberate and unlawful with intent” and based on that standard, his client cannot even be guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter as this was purely self-defence.

The presiding judge will give his summations today, following which the jury will retire for deliberations.