THE row at the Three Cooks Bakery which led to Jimmy Mizen's death lasted less than three minutes.

Jake Fahri never denied throwing a glass dish at the 16-year-old but claimed he was acting in self-defence and did not intend to hurt Jimmy.

And so the case rested on some key arguments:

Why did Fahri throw the dish?

This question was central to Fahri's self-defence claim.

Prosecution:

Lawyer Crispin Aylett argued from the start of the trial that Fahri threw the dish at Jimmy Mizen to get revenge.

He told the court that Fahri's ego had been damaged after Jimmy and his brother Harry bundled him out of the shop in the first violent exchange.

It was argued that Fahri was intent on causing harm to Jimmy in order to “get the last laugh”.

Defence:

Lawyer Sally O'Neill argued that Fahri threw the dish out of “sheer panic”. Fahri and Jimmy were both pulling on an advertising board in a tug-of-war and Fahri was scared Jimmy would get hold of it and use it as a weapon. Therefore, she said, Fahri “flung” the dish at Jimmy to force the 16-year-old to let go of the sign.

How hard did he throw the dish?

This was a key question. To be convicted of murder the prosecution must prove “intent to really seriously harm” the victim.

Prosecution:

The forensic pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination on Jimmy's body was called into the witness box.

Dr Benjamin Swift said: "For the dish to impact and break into pieces and continue with sufficient force to break the skin and continue through to the bone, I would say it's more in the severe end of the force spectrum."

A face and jaw surgeon who specialises in glass attack injuries also spoke at the Old Bailey.

He said: “Bone injury in glass incidents is extremely rare so to pass right the way through four centimeters of soft tissue, including skin and a substantial artery, and leave a clear mark on the bone in the neck, requires severe force."

Defence:

Glass scientist Marcus Brew analysed the fragments which remained on the bakery's floor.

After studying the marks left on the glass pieces he concluded there was a "moderate energy impact rather than very high or low".

In what condition was the dish when it was thrown?

This was an important factor when deciding how hard Fahri threw the dish.

Prosecution:

The prosecution always maintained the reason the dish smashed on Jimmy's neck was because Fahri was out of control and trying to hurt Jimmy.

Defence:

Sally O'Neill saved her glass expert for the trial's conclusion. Scientist Marcus Brew told jurors “a scratch can reduce the strength of glass by up to a quarter”.

After studying the marks left on glass pieces in the bakery, he added that the dish, measuring 27cm x 17.5cm x 5cm, was “seriously cracked and weakened”.

Ms O'Neill told jurors the dish smashed because it was made of weak glass, and not because it was thrown really hard.

Why did Fahri re-enter the bakery after the first fight with the Mizen brothers?

This was something which was argued in great length during the trial. It was again central to Fahri's claim that he was acting in self-defence.

Prosecution:

Towards the end of the trial, Mr Aylett labelled Fahri's self-defence claims as “ridiculous”. He said Fahri re-entered the shop because his ego was damaged after being “punched and pummelled” by the Mizen brothers.

Mr Aylett said Fahri was intent on causing Jimmy harm as he “wanted the last laugh”.

Defence:

Speaking in the witness box, Fahri claimed he was “dazed and confused” when standing on the pavement after being “beaten up” by the Mizen brothers.

He said he looked inside the bakery and saw Jimmy walking towards him which made him feel “threatened”.

He claims he re-entered the shop because he wanted to “get some distance” between himself and Jimmy.

Fahri said he wanted to push Jimmy back with an advertising board “like a lion tamer”, before running away.

Is Jake Fahri a liar?

Speaking during the trial, Fahri appeared polite but bold and confident. He spoke loudly and clearly and asked Judge David Calvert-Smith if he could stand when giving his evidence.

The defendant was not afraid to refer the jury to various exhibits, and used every opportunity to point out inconsistencies in previous witness evidence.

Prosecution:

Under cross-examination, Mr Aylett told Fahri he had concocted an elaborate story to justify his actions on May 10. He suggested the 19-year-old spent three days planning his self-defence story before finally turning himself into police.

Defence:

When answering his own lawyer's questions, Fahri painted himself as a naive, vulnerable youngster who was out-numbered in a physical fight.

He claimed he “panicked” and threw the dish at Jimmy because he thought he was about to be hit with an advertising sign.