A woman who had drinks poured on her head during a pub row was accused of passing on information to the man who allegedly killed Elle Edwards.
Connor Chapman, 23, allegedly fired 12 shots from a Skorpion sub-machine gun at a group of people outside The Lighthouse, Wallasey Village, shortly before midnight on Christmas Eve last year.
Elle, 26, was struck twice in the head, while five men were also wounded, including "intended targets" Kieron Salkeld and Jake Duffy. Chapman, of Houghton Road in Woodchurch, is on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of Elle's murder and the attempted murders of Salkeld and Duffy, plus wounding the three other bystanders and possessing the Skorpion and ammunition with intent to endanger life.
READ MORE: Elle Edwards latest: Live updates from court as Connor Chapman stands trial for murder
Another man, 20-year-old Thomas Waring, of Private Drive in Barnston, is also on trial accused of possessing a prohibited weapon and assisting an offender in relation to the murder
Nigel Power, KC, prosecuting, has already told the jury the Crown's case is that Elle was the "wholly innocent" victim of a feud between criminals in the Woodchurch estate and the Beechwood/Ford estate in Wirral.
Today the jury heard part of the "prosecution case theory" is that a series of calls were made by the woman to a man who in turn attempted to contact Chapman, following a dispute inside the Lighthouse pub involving Salkeld, who is connected to the Beechwood estate.
The jury has heard the woman had a number of drinks poured over her head as part of the row, which related to her ex-boyfriend, at around 7.36pm that evening. At 8.17pm, the woman called a man, who also cannot be identified. That prosecution have said the man then attempted to call Chapman, although the call did not connect, and then also contacted Waring's phone.
Chapman is alleged by the prosecution to have left his home in Houghton Road at 8.44pm, driving to the Wallasey Village area in a stolen black Mercedes A-Class car which was used by the gunman.
Mark Rhind, KC, defending Chapman, today questioned Detective Constable Steve Duke about the significance of the calls made by the woman, suggesting there was "no evidence" she and Chapman "knew of each other's existence". DC Duke agreed there was no evidence of a "direct link" but pointed out that the woman had made calls to a man who also contacted Chapman.
Mr Rhind, referring to a document charting phone calls made by various parties on the night of the shooting, said: "This is the point you were making about numbers in common. The reason this is here is because the prosecution theory is; she has disclosed the presence of Kieron Salkeld or Jake Duffy, or both of them, to somebody and that has come into Connor Chapman’s knowledge."
Mr Rhind pointed out that the woman finally left the pub at 9.05pm and called 999 to make a complaint about her ex-boyfriend, a call that was automatically recorded. CCTV footage seen by the jury showed her walking along Wallasey Village, with her phone to her ear, towards Green Lane where her car was parked.
CCTV also showed that the woman walked straight past the stolen Mercedes used by the killer, which lurked outside the pub for around three hours before the murder.
Mr Rhind said: "She was on the phone to the police when she was walking down Green Lane. You’ve got the conversation she had on the phone to the police. It’s a 999 call, and it was recorded. You can literally hear what she’s saying as she walks down that road.
"There’s no suggestion she acknowledges anyone. She’s saying she can’t take any more. She’s had about 10 drinks poured over her head and she’s claiming it’s harassment. She’s not blaming Kieron Salkeld or Jake Duffy for what happened. She’s ringing 999 saying she wants to make a statement about her partner, who she blames for having drinks poured over her head.
“The conversation continues until she is in the car. The call continues on Bluetooth as she drives away...
“In fact, there were two further calls to the police that night by (the woman) about this complaint. It follows, doesn’t it, that whatever happened, whatever she spoke to (the man who cannot be identified) about, her complaint that night was not about Salkeld or Duffy?”
DC Duke responded: “Yes that’s right." Mr Rhind said: “It would be unfair to take from this that she deliberately disclosed anything to anyone?"
At that point trial judge Mr Justice Goose interjected and suggested that Mr Rhind's point was something that should be expressed in closing speeches rather than in questions to the witness.
The prosecution case is due to close tomorrow.
