est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Murder or Manslaughter? Depends on Who is the Killer

In the case R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy I1924), Lord Chief Justice Hewart, in quashing the conviction, said: “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” On November 8, 2008, 16-year old Anna Druzhinina died a horrible death at the hands of Omar McCollin and…

, , , , , ,
Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union
Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union

In the case R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy I1924), Lord Chief Justice Hewart, in quashing the conviction, said: “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

On November 8, 2008, 16-year old Anna Druzhinina died a horrible death at the hands of Omar McCollin and Teereth Persaud, who received 16 and 21 years respectively for their crime.

I have heard this case discussed by several persons, all laymen, and all of them, like me; believe that this child’s killers have gotten away with murder. As I understand it one will walk out of prison in 12 years and the other in 15 years and 9 months. That is a small price to pay for such a gruesome killing.

They were originally charged with murder but pleaded guilty to manslaughter. While I have the highest regard for both the judge and prosecutor, and personally believe that their integrity is beyond reproach: I am of the view that one or both of them should have recused themselves from taking part in the case. My belief has nothing to do with any wrongdoing or bias on the part of either the judge or the prosecutor, who accepted a plea and did not allow a jury to deliberate on the evidence in a murder trial. From the layman’s perspective, it has everything to do with the appearance that justice was not done in this case. One of the killers, the judge and prosecutor are all Guyanese. For that reason, and only that reason, there is an appearance that justice was not done in this case.

224 responses to “Murder or Manslaughter? Depends on Who is the Killer”

  1. zipanel Avatar
    zipanel

    Reblogged this on zipanel.

  2. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Bush Tea

    And this is your man … You must certainly be a flipping idiot. Caswell is impressed with criminal law. Well Caswell should do what ever it takes to be anything else than a flipping layman on such issues (that is of course that he desires to be taken seriously ..)

  3. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Bushie. Unfortunately, I have to agree with BAF this time.

    @Casewell. This is rubbish.

  4. David Avatar
    David

    Anyone care to elaborate on why they disagree with Caswell?

  5. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    Bushie FULLY agrees with Caswell.

    They should either have recused themselves OR meticulously followed due process.
    Accepting a lesser plea in circumstances where the Guyana / Barbados relationships at the time were as raw as they were, was NOT in the best interest of “appearing to dispense Justice”

    The thing about Caswell is that he understands the dark side of humanity and that “if you give a man an inch he will take a yard.”
    Some of us are much more simple minded and console ourselves with the notion that persons in high positions can always be TRUSTED to do the right thing…….despite all the evidence otherwise…

  6. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    Perhaps wunna now beginning to see why Caswell will be an EFFECTIVE supervisory Committee Chairman….

    Baffy, you like you a bit more naive than Bushie thought yuh…. That deputy pick looking shaky…. 🙂

  7. Rosemary Parkinson Avatar
    Rosemary Parkinson

    I could not believe my eyes when I read about this yesterday. What kind of justice is this? Those two rats from hell pleaded guilty to manslaughter? And who allowed them to do this? A pre-meditated murder such as this one? Those two, or at least one, planned this totally. The horror that child must have gone through at the hands of these two less-than-human beings. They took her and hung her for Christ sake…did they think she could live through that because after all, they did not mean to kill her? What planet do they live on I would ask?

    I do not know how this child’s parents, after the crime, even remained in Barbados employing Caribbean people in their business. Just the thought of my child being murdered, even if it had been by gunshot and quick, would have been enough to want me to leave ’bout hey for the memories alone would have haunted me for ever. To have had to go home and experience what they did, to see their child hanging like some piece of meat from a rafter, the house in flames. To know later that those men were still in the house intending to kill them too. I would have been petrified to even say a word to one of my staff in case they decided to take such revenge. But they stayed. And worked. And kept people employed. And showed love for this island no matter what.

    And now…to have this thrown in their face. To know that taxpayers money will be helping these two horror stories called human beings to live a fairly decent life up at Dodds…and that in a moment of time, both will be free again…must bring up such hatred from deep within the soul. I wish this mother and father strength and may the light of peace cover them and help them through this second ordeal particularly during this season where the to them the world is festive but they are suffering a degradation that is actually worse than death.

    And my feelings are not about just them…I feel for any parent whose child has been removed from them, their breath taken away just like that because of some cockroach who always seems to land up having a good old time in their skin…such judgements as this one handed down by our judicial system makes a mockery of our island. I hope all who were involved can sleep at night…! And may God help us if we do not make a fuss about this at the highest level because it will show what we are all about too.

    And may those of us who have our families intact (for now) think about this. Carefully. This could have been one of us…it could have just been one of us.

  8. David Avatar
    David

    @Rosemary

    Correct, murder when it rears its head is a horrible thing. When it involves children it causes all our sensibilities dormant and otherwise to go haywire. There is some substance in Caswell’s concern, not sure why Amused and Baffy would ignore the not too subtle point made.

  9. lawson Avatar
    lawson

    When children are molested or killed and the criminals are given a less than satisfactory verdict, we console ourselves that once in jail the other prisoners will mete out the justice deserved. What a sad commentary on our legal system

  10. Observing(...) Avatar
    Observing(…)

    @david
    May not be disagreement, but uncertainty as to the “stretch” of the article and its diversion from a reasonable initial point. What next? Question the nationality of the sales persons in food lines at a restaurant cause our plate is lighter than the GT in front of us? Or to not have bajan prosecutors and judges preside over bajan murder trials? Of lucians or vincies for that matter? Or God forbid a guyanese child gets more marks in maths than my child in class cuz the teacher emigrated from down south years ago.

    This is just one of those times when it appears that Caswell creates the smoke, shouts fire, then walks backwards to elaborate on how the whole incident started to begin with, using his skills of “deduction” (or rather induction).

    It would have been enough to say that justice was not served. Full stop. The sensationalistic targeting of nationality is unnecessary and prejudicial at best…xenophobic at worst.

    Observing

  11. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    From all that I have read, and that is all that I am relying on, the Guyanese man went to that house with one thing on his mind – murder. Because he knew enough to say that he did not intend to kill does not mean that murder was not on his mind. Why would you put a rope around a person’s neck and tie that rope to a rafter unless you wanted to kill? This case should have gone to a jury.

  12. Observing(...) Avatar
    Observing(…)

    And just for the record, the drop to manslaughter given the facts of the case and nature of the crime was ridiculous borderlining travesty… regardless of judge, jury, nationality or lawyer.

    That’s the point that we should be hammering home.

    @david
    If there is truth to that subtle point, then we are wasting our time here daily commenting. Wasting our time as a nation, as a region, as leaders, as families and as a people. I think amused and baffy like myself choose to deal with the facts of the case rather than the inference of the personalities including the victims and co-conspirator. If we don’t do this, then we need to be fully prepared for the rabbit hole we’re going to be headed down as a result.

    Just observing

  13. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Observing

    Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

    Can you say that justice can be seen to be done in this case? You must remember that the people doing the seing would mostly be those with untrained legal eyes, the masses.

  14. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    I do not care to comment on the merits of this matter since the DPP’s prosecutorial decision is largely discretionary [that is, whether he thinks a verdict of murder will be reached by the jury of laymen].

    But surely the ground offered by Caswell for any recusal is absurd. Does it apply also if they were all black; which they were? Or all graduates of a given University? Or all West Indian? When does it end?

    I am sure this is what Amused was referring to @4:38 am.

  15. St George's Dragon Avatar
    St George’s Dragon

    I agree with the sentiment about the apparent leniency of the sentences but not with the final message of this post.
    If it is right for the judge and the prosecutor to have recused themselves from the case because they are the same nationality as the accused, then it should also be the case that no Bajan judge should sit on a case involving a fellow national.
    This is ridiculous.

  16. Observing(...) Avatar
    Observing(…)

    @caswell
    How many other times is justice NOT seen to be done right here almost daily in various circumstances? The clarion call for justice is correct. I agree to the pointing out of the injustice of the lesser charge. But I disagree with the latter part.

    Let’s say a bajan killed a guyanese. The judge and prosecutor are bajans as well. Should they recuse themselves? Where then would we stop? Where would the line be drawn? Which aspect of life would this be immune from?

    If we try to advocate for better and justice (which you generally do admirably by the way), we need to be clear where the tip point of the advocacy spear points, else we run the risk of missing our target so much that absolutely no gain is made in the long run and the detractors have too many openings to continue with their sordid status quo.

    Keep up the good fight.

    Just observing

  17. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Observing
    Skippa, if you feel that there are some things…. Like Race, like Judges, like ethnicity etc that are beyond your questioning…that is fine with Bushie.
    HOWEVER, no such boundaries exists with the Bushman.
    Bushie questions EVATHING!! Even the Trinity….LOL

    It is that predisposition that has allowed white people in Barbados to get away with our brand of Apartheid now for half a century. You probably won’t want to question why after 50 years of independence and education the Boardrooms of our businesses are still dominated by a small minority of the population…..or why after all this time there is still such a clear difference between US and THEM.
    …..so it will continue.

    If Bushie was a Judge in Trinidad, and a Bajan Man was brought before Bush for any crime, UNLESS IT WAS ABSOLUTELY STRAIGHT FORWARD, Bushie would be tempted to recuse – out of fear of being unduly HARSH with his Bajan donkey…for letting down the side.
    Others may be tempted to be a bit more partisan…..

    Wisdom is about LOOKING AT ALL SIDES, not choosing to be blind to some things because they are “sensitive”……

  18. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Jeff

    You have the privilege of possessing a well trained legal mind and you would obviously come to that conclusion. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people of this country are not similarly blessed. Do you remember the drug case involving Ricky Singh’s sons, people were making similar comments.

    Sent from my iPad

  19. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Mr Cumberbatch
    Sir, don’t be simplistic. It is a matter of CONTEXT.

    In circumstances where there is an open dispute about a certain nationality being seen as undesirable in Barbados, and where cross words are being tossed to and fro across the national fronts, SURELY you are not comparing a call to recuse with normal circumstances?
    While a man of your intellect and standing may be well able to see beyond the public verbiage, the ordinary man in the street CANNOT, and thus in the cause of APPEARING to act in the best interest of justice, it would have been best to recuse…..even for the fairest and most competent official.

  20. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    @ Caswell & Bush Tea,

    I do understand clearly what you are both saying and I sympathize. I was not always a law scholar. And I can understand the sentiments of those who would question the seeming clemency in the whole matter and seek to find an explanation, any explanation for that. But to find it in the accident of birthplace which is common to the accused, the DPP and the judge and to argue that there should be therefore be a recusal by the judge is to “strain at a gnat”.

    I said “birthplace” because I am not so sure that at least two of the individuals have retained, up to now, the nationality of their birth. They have certainly resided here far longer than they resided there.

    But my main point is that a judge is only obliged in law to recuse him or herself if he or she has a personal interest in the matter or in the accused, has a personal knowledge of the facts in dispute, or has a financial interest in the outcome. A mere coincidence of birthplace, nationality, race, colour, religious belief etc. will NOT suffice.

    Perhaps what Caswell should have said is that he is suspicious of the entire trial because of the coincidence he observes, but not that in law there should have been a recusal.

  21. Amy L. Beam Avatar
    Amy L. Beam

    Barbados DPP Charles Leacock did not present the available evidence in a murder trial for Teerath Persaud when there was overwhelming evidence plus testimony from the accomplice to demonstrate intention to murder Anna Druzhinina. The disturbing question remains, why didn’t DPP Leacock press a murder charge and conduct a trial for the brutal hanging murder of the 16-year-old Russian teenager?

    1. Who surprised who?
    In 2010 at the manslaughter trial for the accomplice McCollin, DPP Leacock stated Persaud and McCollin surprised Anna. As they entered through the bottom of the house, they could hear her upstairs drawing water to water the plants. They surprised her in her bedroom at her computer. McCollin stated in his confession that Persaud dragged her across the bedroom rug by her hair, put the noose around her neck, put his foot on her back, and jerked her head back and forth viciously enough for McCollin to state he was “frightened” from Persaud. In 2012, DPP Leacock eliminated these facts and reversed his statement, stating Persaud and McCollin were surprised by Anna.

    2. Who was the leader?
    In 2010, Andrew Pilgrim, Defence attorney for McCollin, said the facts “clearly revealed who was the leader and who was the follower. McCollin was led by the man [Persaud] and he was a secondary part of the plan. He had no interest in the offence other than robbery. He was told by the principal actor that he would get some weed whackers.” McCollin states he was frightened of Persaud when he watched the manner in which he yanked Anna’s head back and forth with the noose around her neck. DPP Leacock recommended 16 to 20 years for manslaughter for McCollin. In 2010, after McCollin was sentenced for manslaughter, Leacock explained he had to accept McCollin’s manslaughter plea in order to have him testify as a witness in the murder trial which he promised for Persaud. Yet, none of McCollin’s eyewitness testimony was ever used and no murder trial was held.

    In 2012, Leacock reversed the roles of McCollin and Persaud, portraying McCollin as the mastermind, saying he “instructed” Persaud to get some wire, and he “instructed” Persaud to get some paint canes. In spite of clear evidence and statements to the police to the contrary, Leacock accepted Persaud’s plea that he never laid a hand on Anna, was not in the room when she was tied up, did not go to see her hanging when she collapsed off the paint cans, and did not search the house for items to steal. Leacock recommended 25 years for Persaud, longer than he had recommended for McCollin the accomplice.

    3. Was a towel tossed over Anna’s head?
    Leacock presented to the court that a towel was tossed over Anna’s head so she could not see. Logically, this did not make sense. In order not to see out from under a towel tossed over one’s head, the towel would have to be a large bath towel. If that were the case, then how could the noose be tied without the towel interfering? A common blue checkered kitchen towel was folded and tied tightly around Anna’s eyes catching her long hair in the knot. When the Jackson’s found her, the towel was slipped down around her neck. When they identified the knotted towel later at the police station, Anna’s hair that had been pulled from her head was still tied in the knot. This evidence is not disputed. Why did DPP Leacock misrepresent the evidence and say a towel was “tossed over her head?”

    4. Who put her on the paint cans?
    In 2010, DPP Leacock stated Druzhinina was home alone when the two entered. DPP Leacock stated they seized her, bound her hands and feet as she screamed and begged for her life. But in 2012, Persaud’s defence attorney stated to the court “the facts reveal he [Persaud] wasn’t even in the room.” Leacock did not contest this. Since Anna was placed to stand on the paint cans, she must have been conscious in order to stand. They put something in her mouth, because they stated she was screaming. Quite obviously, it would have taken two people to restrain her while one went for the electrical cord, and then while they tied her hands and legs, blindfolded her, put a noose around her neck, and put her to stand on the cans. McCollin must have held her while Persaud went downstairs to the store room to get the electrical cord with which he made the noose, or possibly they came with the cord in the first place. Persaud had to have been in the room in order to bring the cord to tie Anna. McCollin’s testimony states it took the two of them four attempts to get her balanced on the paint cans. If McCollin did most of the lifting, it would have been due to the fact that Persaud was still recovering from the gunshot wound to his left arm. Knowing these facts, having accepted the written confession of McCollin whom Leacock in 2010 stated he would use as a witness against Persaud, in 2012, DPP Leacock presented the case stating that according to Persaud he was not in the room when Anna was bound and when she was put on the paint cans at the top of the stairs. Leacock did not present the evidence that clearly showed Persaud did touch Anna and was in the rooms with her.

    5. How long was Anna on the cans?
    Persaud and McCollin entered the house at approximately 5:20 PM. Up until approximately that time, Anna had been active on her FaceBook. The co-accomplices did not leave until the Jackson’s returned home at 11:30 pm. In 2010, Leacock stated that while Anna stood on the cans, both Persaud and McCollin sat on the front balcony drinking drinks from the refrigerator, waiting for her parents to arrive home. Persaud confessed they put Anna to stand on the paint cans for “a very long time.” They then searched the house. In 2012, Leacock stated Anna fell off her perch while McCollin was searching the house for things to steal. One might infer from Leacock’s statement that Anna stood on the cans for only a few minutes before falling and hanging. Evidence clearly shows they were in the house for over six hours. They had finished searching the house, stacked the computers ready to steal and sat down to wait. While sitting on the balcony waiting, they heard the paint cans fall. When Anna’s father arrived home at 11:30 pm, he ran into the bedroom and stomped out the flames on the carpet, then scooped up Anna’s body and put his cheek on hers. It was still warm and her body was limp. Rigor mortis takes 3 hours to set in.

    6. Did Anna slip, jump, or collapse?
    In 2010, Leacock stated Anna “slipped off by accident” when presenting McCollin’s manslaughter case. In 2012, DPP Leacock changed “slipped” to “jumped”. Leacock stated that Persaud said McCollin said Anna “jumped off” the cans. Would Anna willing “jump” to her death? These terms of “slipped off by accident” and “jumped off” offend one’s senses. They are loaded with fault for Anna’s behavior, not Persaud’s intent to kill her, as if Anna carelessly brought about her own death by accident. Must the public endure such contempt from DPP Leacock by being told it was an accidental death? Why didn’t DPP Leacock present the unadorned brutal truth with the most accurate definition of what happened? Anna collapsed either from exhaustion or lack of circulation and was hanged. How long did she stand barefoot on those cans, fighting for her life, struggling to breathe with the noose around her neck cutting off her air every time her body sagged, before she inevitably gave out? When she collapsed, her death by strangulation did not come quickly. Her body must have turned and twitched as is normal in a hanging death. Since McCollin stated “She is not dead,” when she collapsed, Persaud had time to lift her body to save her. Instead, he ordered McCollin to “Leave her. That’s one less for us to deal with.”

    7. Revenge or robbery?
    In 2008, an altercation over $100,000 BB in missing money occurred between Teerath Persaud and his employer, John Jackson, owner of S0-LO wholesale food store in Black Rock. Jackson states Persaud came at him with a knife and he shot Persaud in the left arm. When police arrived they found the knife which is in police custody as evidence. It has twice been presented in court. While recovering in the hospital, nurses heard Persaud promising to take revenge on John Jackson. After being discharged from the hospital, Persaud rented a room walking distance from Palmers Plantation up in the country. Two months after being shot, Persaud had his revenge by murdering Jacksons’ daughter.

    In 2010, DPP Leacock stated Persaud came for “revenge and robbery” and recruited his accomplice Christopher McCollin by telling him they were going to go for a robbery. In 2010, DPP Leacock stated that after stringing Anna up, they then searched the house.

    In 2012, DPP Leacock has now changed Persaud’s motive from “revenge and robbery” to “going to steal some garden tools.” Leacock now tells the court that Persaud stated he did not participate in searching the house for things to steal, thus further confirming the fact that he came for revenge alone, not robbery as portrayed by Leacock. Evidence shows that the garden tools were never touched. Persaud and his accomplice waited six hours in the house for Anna’s parents to return home. Is this the behavior of thieves intent on stealing some garden tools? How much insult must we endure with such a preposterous lie?

    8. Why did they burn the house?
    Persaud and McCollin both stated they burned the house to destroy the evidence. This statement is not supported by the facts which DPP Leacock failed to present. John Jackson had taken five years to build a section attached to the old plantation house at the back, as a gift of love for his wife, Larisa. It was a beautiful, large bedroom suite, surrounded by windows and a magnificent view of the ocean. One had to climb a staircase detached from the main house to get to it. Persaud knew of the significance of this new part of the house. It was as far from the spot of the murder as one can get. They did not burn it to destroy evidence. Persaud instructed McCollin to burn it as part of his revenge on John Jackson to inflict maximum pain. McCollin started the fire by lighting the cover and sheets on the king size bed. No fuel was used.

    The other section they set fire to was the front bedroom where they lay Anna across the bed. This, too, was not the scene of the hanging. Petrol and diesel was poured all over Anna’s body with a 6” line of it on the rug and tile floor, leading out the door and 5’ across the balcony. As the Jackson’s car came up the long driveway, Persaud told McCollin and McCollin lit a match to the line of petrol then hid in the hallway so that when the parents entered the house they would see their daughter’s body burning. Persaud was positioned in the room adjoining the bedroom waiting with the spear gun to attack Mr. Jackson when he came to Anna’s body. Fortunately, John Jackson got to Anna’s body before flames engulfed her and he stomped out the flames. The spear gun malfunctioned and Persaud fled the scene out the back balcony. When McCollin saw Persaud leaving, he too left down the staircase.

    The new bedroom suite on the back was entirely destroyed. The burning was part of Persaud’s revenge plan. They did not bother to pour petrol or light a fire in the part of the house where they knocked Anna down, tied her up, or carried her to stand on the paint cans. All evidence of the actual location of their crime remained untouched by fire. None of this explanation was presented to the Court as evidence.

    Persaud, not McCollin, must have got the fuel cans because the three dogs (including a Great Dane and Rottweiler) would have attacked McCollin if he went downstairs to search for fuel cans. Persaud was known to the dogs. Also, it was dark and there was no electricity for lights in the storeroom. Only someone who knew the house would know where to get the fuel cans.

    9. Murder or manslaughter?
    DPP Leacock stated, “We could not prove the necessary intention to kill, but placing someone, who is tied, to stand on a bucket is wanton and deliberately reckless.” Leacock further stated Persaud placed Anna in “a situation where death is almost certain.” The police statements stated the co-accomplices warned Anna that if she moved she would die. They knew with a certainty that she would die because they admitted to telling her as much, and then they left her until she collapsed to her certain death. What part of this does not demonstrate clear intent? There was a chair right next to the stairs where they hanged Anna. They could have stood her on the chair instead of small paint cans precariously stacked one on top of the other on a wood floor that was sagging and unlevel. More obviously, they could have tied her to the chair to immobilize her. No. Persaud knew that Anna’s father had hanged himself at the top of the stairs when she was a baby. Persaud’s revenge plan was to hang Anna in the same manner in order to inflict maximum pain to her mother and step-father. Persaud confessed that Anna pleaded for her life, pleaded for him not to hang her because her father had died like that. When they heard her fall, McCollin’s confession states THEY got up to go see her. “They” changed in 2010 to “McCollin” in 2012 presentations to the court. McCollin said “She is not dead.” Persaud instructed him “Leave her! That’s one less for us to deal with.” If this is not premeditated murder with clear intention to kill Anna, then what is?

    10. Remorse or lack of human feeling?
    On Dec. 4, 2012, on the date scheduled for his sentencing, Persaud said, “I would never expect something like that would happen. I know I have sinned.” It took Persaud more than 4 years to express one word of remorse. The judge sternly told Persaud, “Although you admitted to police that you were present in the Jackson’s home when Anna Druzhinina fell off the cans and were intimately aware of the circumstances of her death, you quite curiously told the Probation Officer that you were “saddened to hear of death of the victim”. Persaud told the probation officer, Ms. Dixon, he was not there at Palmers Plantation. The judge stated, “Far from conveying true remorse and a recognition that your acts and those of your co-accused had resulted in the victim’s death, your comments instead suggested to the Court a level of detachment from the victim – a girl you had known for many years which the Court found somewhat disconcerting.” In open court, while recognizing Persaud’s so-called statement of remorse, the judge added her disdain to her prepared text, “You showed no emotion that a normal human being would show.”

    11. Arrest warrant for Persaud prior to murder
    The probation report given to the court states Persaud had a clean record and discounted his sentence for this. Prior to the murder, Persaud attacked a man named Allan and burst the eardrums by blows to the head during the beating. Allan at the time of Persaud’s attack on him was living in Blades Hill, with his wife and step-daughter. Persaud moved in with the step-daughter after marrying her bigamously to fraudulently obtain Barbados citizenship. An arrest warrant was issued for the arrest of Persaud. Mr. Jackson wrote to Leacock informing him of this. Even though there was an arrest warrant for Persaud, when Persaud was in the hospital and after his release, he was not arrested. DPP Leacock misrepresented the facts to the court in stating Persaud had a clean record.

    12. Why wasn’t maximum allowable sentence given?
    Justice Crane-Scott stated in her sentencing of Persaud that “Guidelines as currently framed are woefully inadequate to enable the Court to do justice in this case.” However, she also stated, “maximum custodial sentence which may be imposed on any person convicted of manslaughter is imprisonment for life . . . to be reserved only for the most serious manslaughter offences.” Leacock argued and the judge concurred that the death of Anna “bordered on murder,” placing it in the category of “most serious manslaughter”.
    So if the maximum allowable sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment, but because of the law, the Court cannot “do justice in this case,” then one must conclude a harsher sentence is justifiable but not allowed. What sentence is harsher than life in prison? Only execution. Why then did DPP Leacock give a starting point of 25 years before discounting for time already spent? Why did Justice Crane-Scott sentence Persaud to just over 20 years instead of life imprisonment?

  22. Amy L. Beam Avatar
    Amy L. Beam

    You can read Madam Justice Crane-Scott’s sentencing statement of Teerath Persaud here: http://www.lawcourts.gov.bb/lawlibrary/events.asp?id=892

  23. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Amy L. Beam

    I was not aware of all the details that you presented. If what you are saying is true the DPP should also be serving time at Dodds Prison. However, I sincerely hope for the sake of this country that your comment is not accurate. Because if it is God help us!

    Sent from my iPad

  24. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Observing. I completely agree with all you have said. And you have said it so well that I have absolutely noting to add.

    @Jeff. You are correct, as you well know. That is precisely what I was referring to.

    @Bushie. Sorry, but you haven’t changed my mind this time (probably for the first time) and I continue to agree with BAF, unfortunately.

  25. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    Well Well Well!!

    So you were saying Observing….
    Who are we to question these things…..?

  26. Observing(...) Avatar
    Observing(…)

    @bushie
    Everything is open to questioning! And I think most of us here have passed the stage where our eyes are wide shut
    !
    But, Caswell’s post takes a straight fast ball, turns it into a googly and then tries to curve, all at the same time . If you want him to lead BUP and head the NSC ya have to help him present his arguments!

    @Amy
    Excellent job of presenting your case. We now have an issue to debate/discuss without the superfluous. And facts/opinions to dissect. Will have a read of the judgment and come back later.

    The question is, where does/did the DPP lie in all of this and how did we get here A question that has been asked of him elsewhere at other times….and nationality wasn’t an issue in those cases!

    Just Observing

  27. Amy L. Beam Avatar
    Amy L. Beam

    My statements come from these sources:

    1. I have had phone conversations and email concerning this case from 2008 to 2012 with DPP Leacock, whom I used to count as a friend. Nothing could be truer than for me to say I am deeply disturbed by his betrayal to Anna, to me, and to the public. Leacock’s failure to press a murder charge is deeply disturbing. He had all the evidence necessary for a premeditated murder conviction. In 2010, when I protested to Leacock over the manslaughter conviction of McCollin, and asked why? Leacock told me it was necessary to accept manslaughter in order to get the confession of what happened and to have him testify against the mastermind of the murder: Teerath Persaud. DPP Leacock promised me in 2010 that by the end of 2010 he would hold a murder trial for Persaud. He promised that manslaughter would not be accepted. What happened between 2010 and 2012? This is not a rhetorical question. It is one that demands an answer and the public should join me in demanding this answer and correcting this injustice.

    2. I have had long conversations with the parents, Larisa and John Jackson, with whom I have been family friends since Anna was 9. For two weeks after the murder the parents met on almost a daily basis with police who were investigating the murder and interrogating Persaud and McCollin. It was important that all details of the confessions be reviewed repeatedly for accuracy so as not to later jeapardize the trial. For example, you couldn’t state the murderers put Anna on a Berger paint can if it turned out to be a Harris paint can. The police read Persaud’s confession to the parents. They allowed the Jacksons to read the hand-written confessions of McCollin. That is how I know about the confessions and police statements. The Jacksons identified many items from the crime scene, including the kitchen towel with Anna’s hair in it that was used to blindfold her.

    4. I spoke in person to Allan Aker who was attacked and beaten by Teerath Persaud. Aker’s eardrum was burst. For several weeks after Persaud moved into a house up the road from the Palmer Plantation, Mr. Aker called the police to tell them the address where Persaud was living so they could arrest him. His latest call to the police was on Nov. 6, 2008, two days before Anna was murdered. There needs to be a police inquiry into why police did not arrest Persaud either in the hospital or at his home after release from the hospital when there was a warrant for his arrest. Because of the failure to arrest Persaud, he was able to murder Anna two days later.

    5. I have personal knowledge of the layout of Jackson’s Palmers Plantation house. The back part of the house that was burned is nowhere near the part of the house where Anna was murdered.

    6. I carefully compared of reports carried in the Advocate and Nation News, Barbados’ two mainstream newspapers. The accomplice, McCollin, was found guilt of manslaughter in 2010, when DPP Leacock stated in court that Persaud went for “revenge and robbery”. In 2012, Leacock is on record as stating to the court that Persaud went for robbery to steal some garden tools. No mention of revenge was made by Leacock in 2012.

    7. I was present in Court room number 5 on Dec. 11, 2012, when Justice Crane-Scott read her sentencing to Teerath Persaud and looked up from reading her prepared statement and told him that he lacked all signs of human emotion that a normal person would feel.

    8. I was present in Court on Dec. 4, 2012, when Justice Crane-Scott gave a lecture stating she would not be “influenced” by Victim Impact Statements summitted to her by me and also by Larisa Jackson, Anna’s mother. Crane-Scott found it quite unusual for information to reach her in this manner. She was visibily angry and gave a five-minute lecture, directed at DPP Leacock. Quite rightly, because the information should have been presented by DPP Leacock which he failed to do. When Leacock asked the judge in court about bringing contempt charges against me and Larisa Jackson, the victim’s mother, for writing to the judge, Crane-Scott stated, “No, because the law in Barbados is silent on how victim impact statements should be handled.” If anyone is in contempt, it is DPP Leacock for not holding a murder trial and presenting all the evidence.

    I stand by everything I have stated as factual and true. I want an answer from DPP Leacock to my question, “Why wasn’t a murder trial held?” If there is no justifiable evidence, then he should not be serving this country as DPP.

    So now, Barbados can become known as the island paradise where one can literally get away with murder. We have drug dealers sentenced to prison for longer terms than the murderers of Anna Druzhinina.

  28. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Mr Cumberbatch

    Bushie has great respect for you and for your scholarship. You see the manner in which you recognize our little ‘gnat’ of a concern although it goes beyond the letter of the law? …..well THAT is what constitutes a great jurist.

    In fact though, it is NOT a little gnat, but is indeed a major BEAM. It is no light matter that we have taken this approach of having persons of non- native background (including Bajans who have been schooled and raised in other jurisdictions) dispensing justice in Barbados. It is something that MUST be carefully considered.

    Jurist routinely interpret the law based on their own inbuilt precepts and principles. A judge born and raised in a Burnham Guyana will not have the same willingness to go against the establishment as one raised in Jamaica for example.
    It is also quite possible for such a Jurist to see the seriousness of a particular circumstance in the light of what is ‘normal’ from their own experience rather than from that df a typical Bajan….

    THIS CAN LEAD TO SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

    When foreign Jurist are engaged it should be with the clear intent of addressing a weakness in our system or improving an area of operations. (Perhaps as was the intent with the CJ), and even then their work must be carefully monitored…otherwise we will find ourselves importing habits and activities that can be completely destructive to society as we know it…..

  29. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Amy L. Beam

    Maybe, you should write the Prime Minister and see if he would order a commission of inquiry into this matter. Better yet, the provisions of section 105 of the Constitution should be invoked to bring about his removal if what you say is true.

    I don’t know if Amy L. Beam is your real name but you have done enough to sufficiently identify yourself that Mr. Leacock would have no other option than to institute civil proceedings for defamation of character against you, If what you say is not true. I will reserve judgment until such time and failing a judgment against you, I would have to accept everything that you said as gospel truth. Then I would expect to see the authorities take action against the DPP.

    Sent from my iPad

  30. mash up and buy back Avatar
    mash up and buy back

    Thank you Ms Amy Beam!

    Thank you Caswell and Bush tea.

    Others were all ready with their stones to pelt at Caswell but thankfully Amy Beam came in and provided information which supported Caswell’s theory that the DPP acted in a manner that was not above board.

    From all I heard of leacock he is not deserving of the position he now holds.

    If you think that class,race,nationality,school tie and lodge connections are not taken into consideration by those dispensing justice,then think again.

    A murderer is about to be let loose in our society and it seems that one of the above considerations factored into the case.

  31. Observing(...) Avatar
    Observing(…)

    Gee wee bushie. Ya tek Caswell ants nest and turn um inta a full blown volcano!!

  32. David Avatar
    David

    Another black eye so soon after Crawford?

    @Jeff

    BU is onside with Caswell and Bush Tea as stated earlier. Ordinary citizens will form perception based on their prism/reality. As Bushie articulately stated ‘instinct’ must be recognized at times until fully explored. Instinct is not always a nebulous origination.The problem with Bajans which has worked to our advantage over the years is our belief that all is pure in Bimshire.

  33. Observing(...) Avatar
    Observing(…)

    @david
    All is indeed not pure in bimshire, but, it goes past caswell’s nationality thesis. “Mash up” put it well. Tie, lodge, class, race, nationality and others.

    We can’t box the issue around the “current” or convenient explanation of nationality. As bushie is “hinting” and Amy is proposing it goes deeper, longer and farther than that.

    If we want to bring such to the surface we had better get some very big paint rollers, rather than one or two small brushes, and be prepared to paint morning, noon and night

    If we are to be the change agents it’s a battle that requires tact, strategy and clear focus. My heart goes out to Amy and the family for what seems like a grave injustice. Only God can provide the solace you need. To the others let’s advocate, demand and expect more from all in positions of authority with maturity. This would be our best response.

    Just observing

  34. David Avatar
    David

    @Observing

    Your esoteric point is understood but Caswell’s framing of the issue is a starting point and oftentimes that is all that it required. There are many issue which continue to swirl in Barbados which traditional media and others in the establishment continue to wait for a holistic thesis to emerge. In real life it does not work so!

  35. Observing(...) Avatar
    Observing(…)

    @David
    you really think that Caswell satisfied with starting points?? lol

    Thesis: a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections

    We don’t have theses in Barbados, we have facts, realities and incontrovertible observations.

    Who needs holisitc?! Set the day and the time let’s Occupy Independence Square 🙂

    just Observing

  36. David Avatar
    David

    @Observing (…)

    Then let us console ourselves that we maybe close to the tipping point of what is required to feel justly proud of the investment in education over the years.

  37. David Avatar
    David

    Those interest can read the Nation newspaper report, not the DPP’s response to the fourth estate:

    http://www.nationnews.com/index.php/articles/view/deaths-load/

    By Maria Bradshaw | Sun, December 23, 2012 – 12:01 AM

    THEIR daughter’s death by hanging was the worst for a human being to go through.

    That is why John and Larissa Jackson will never come to grips with the 16 and 21 years which their daughter’s killers – Omar McCollin and Teereth Persaud – received, respectively, for killing 16-year-old Anna Druzhinina on November 8, 2008.

    They wanted a life for a life.

    Anna, who was born in Russia but came to Barbados at the age of seven, was hanged from a rafter in the Jacksons’ home at Palmers Plantation, St John, a day after celebrating her 16th birthday. She died from ligature strangulation.

    The gruesome death was a “revenge killing” by Persaud, 44, who three months earlier had been shot in the arm by John, after they got into an altercation following the disappearance of $100 000 from John’s wholesale business So-Lo Wholesalers in Black Rock, St Michael.

    As far as John and Larissa are concerned, it was the most horrific form of punishment another human being could give them.

    “He wanted to cause us the maximum amount of pain,” wrote John, who has since returned to England, in a lengthy letter to the SUNDAY SUN following Persaud’s sentence two weeks ago.

    “If this is not murder, then tell me what is?” he asked.

    The two men were originally charged with murder but pleaded guilty to manslaughter. However, John and Larissa felt that had they been tried for murder, there was no way that either could have escaped the hangman’s noose with such overwhelming evidence.

    John, who lived in Barbados for more than 30 years, was Anna’s stepfather. He and Larissa, 42, are still undergoing counselling as well as medical treatment in England as the brutal killing has taken a toll on their lives.

    The heartbroken couple said they would never forget the night when they returned home around 11:30 to find Anna’s lifeless body on her bed, her arms and feet bound behind her back and a kitchen towel tied around her neck.

    They had driven up the long driveway not thinking anything was amiss until they reached upstairs and noticed a fire at the back of the house.

    Larissa ran to that area while John headed for Anna’s bedroom. The lights were off but he was immediately blinded by rising flames from the carpet around the bed.

    Instinctively, John started furiously stamping out the flames and it was at the corner of his eyes through the light which the flames provided that he spotted Anna’s body on the bed.

    “I shouted, ‘Anna, what are you doing!’”

    There was no answer and he ran to the body, touching Anna but getting no response. It was then that, in shock, he realized her arms and feet were tied behind her back and she had no pulse even though her body was still warm.

    “I scooped her up in my arms and started crying,” adding: “No, not Anna.”

    John said he knew there and then who had killed his precious daughter.

    He trembled uncontrollably as Larissa ran to the room and he told her that Anna, her only child, was dead.

    They also noticed that the sheet around her bed was soaked in kerosene oil. If John had not gone to the room in time, the flames from the carpet would have caught the bed and he would have been greeted with a burning inferno of Anna’s body.

    Horrified, the couple called the police as well as the Barbados Fire Service and John wasted no time in telling the cops: “Teereth did this.”

    Persaud and his accomplice were picked up a few days later and from their confession statements, John and Larissa were able to piece together the gruesome events of that fateful day.

    The couple went out that morning leaving Anna behind. Little did they know that Persaud, who had babysat for Anna for several years and knew the house inside out, had just been released from the hospital and had rented a room at a house a short distance away from their home.

    He had hired McCollin, a 26-year-old, who was described as a “simpleton”, to help him in his dastardly crime by telling him that he was going to commit a robbery.

    The two entered the house around 5:30 p.m. and immediately started working on Anna. According to their statements, they placed a wire around her neck, threw it over the rafter and placed her to stand on two paint cans at the top of the stairs.

    John told the SUNDAY SUN that Persaud, who worked as a security officer at So-Lo, knew that Anna had celebrated her birthday the day before and that her biological father had hanged himself in the same manner when Anna was just a toddler.

    “She pleaded for her life. She told him, ‘Please don’t kill me like this, my daddy [John] will give you anything you want’ but he stuffed a cloth in her mouth to stop her from screaming. He did this to hurt Larissa. He knew Larissa was devastated at the way Anna’s father had died and he wanted her to feel it all over again.”

    As to the fire at the back of the house, John said Persaud also knew that it was his labour of love for Larissa; that he had worked on it for five years and it was finally completed.

    “He knew it was my labour of love and he started the fire there. He did not burn the house to hide any evidence as he told the police. He started the fire at the back of the house where I had built this beautiful room for Larissa,” he cried.

    John also now believes that Anna was not the only one who was supposed to die that day. According to Persaud’s statement, when they reached home he was still there hiding behind a door with John’s speargun in his hand. The gun jammed.

    “They entered the house at 5:30 p.m. and waited for five hours until we got home at 11:30. They sat on our balcony drinking drinks from our refrigerator while Anna was inside the house hanging. When they saw our headlights approaching, they set the house on fire, put Anna on the bed, soaked it with kerosene oil and lit it so that we could come in and see her body in flames.”

    They said McCollin’s statement was proof enough that Persaud’s sole intent was murder. He told the court: “In no way I wanted her to die. I tried my best to prevent it but I couldn’t do anything about it. I also feared for my life but I saw the anger go through him [Persaud]. I tried my best.”

    The happy memories which John and Larissa shared with Anna at Palmers Plantation have all but been erased by the cruel events of that night.

    The couple believe that had the police arrested Persaud while he was still in the hospital for wounding their caretaker Alan Akeer, Anna might still be alive today.

    While they have found some comfort in Justice Maureen Crane-Scott’s statements that “ . . . in the view of the court the victim suffered a thousand deaths before her inevitable death by strangulation took place. Surely such a death recklessly brought about by you and your accused must place this offence on the borderline of murder”, John and Lariss believe that with such strong evidence against them, Persaud and McCollin should never see the light of day again for their callous actions.

    “Anna is dead but they get to walk out prison some day soon,” John lamented.

    When contacted about this matter Director of Public Prosecutions, Charles Leacock, stated: “I do not discuss matters with the press.”

  38. David Avatar
    David

    @Jeff

    Can you distill for the BU family the following which was posited by the DPP at sentencing?

    “… with the abolition of the felony murder rule or the doctrine of constructive malice, which had formerly said that once you do something like this it would constitute murder…the Prosecution now is required to prove specifically an intention to kill…. and from the evidence on this file, we cannot establish a specific intent to murder. And it is for that reason I am obliged to accept… the plea of manslaughter. Because what I can specifically establish is … conduct that is so reckless that constitutes manslaughter at its highest, very borderline to murder, but I can’t establish a specific intention to kill Anna on the evidence. And it is for that reason I have so acted….”
    http://www.lawcourts.gov.bb/lawlibrary/events.asp?id=892

  39. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    @David,

    This blog has clearly gone beyond Caswell’s earlier assertion about perceptions of similar nationality and morphed into alleged incompetence or fraud on the part of the DPP according to Ms Beam. Ordinarily, the presence or absence of a defamation suit should, as Caswell suggests @ 12:34 pm, settle the issue, but defamation suits against blogs are not always the easiest things to pursue or to win.

    David, what the DPP means in the passage you have italicised is that it is no longer sufficient to convict someone for murder merely because a death occurred at his or her hands while he or she was engaged in another crime. So if A goes to B’s house intending to commit burglary and encounters B there and strikes him then, if B dies, A will be guilty of murder irrespective of A’s true intention when he struck B. The intention to kill will be presumed from the fact that A was engaged in the felony of burglary. This rule has now been abolished.

    It is now necessary to prove that the accused had an intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm to the victim. So long as that cannot be established on the facts, then a murder charge will not be made out. He was of the view that it could not be made out and he has exclusive authority to decide this. Clearly some bloggers differ from his view.

    I shall respond later to some of Ms Beam’s assertions, especially those on law.

    Incidentally, Bush Tea@ 12:21pm; we have been using this same cultural argument against the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for years. But, according to your current notion, it should also put paid to the concept of a CCJ since all the islands in the region are different and hold that Barbados’ final appeal court should be based in Bridgetown alone!

  40. Well Well Avatar
    Well Well

    What i want to know is why they guy who was cleaning a gun in front of his son, allegedly, and killed that child did not go to jail in Bim, and was just given community service and a small fine. Yet the yound man who honestly forgot a new baby in his car is being locked up, what is wrong with these pictures in Bim, no wonder the island is now a laughing stock.

  41. David Avatar
    David

    @Well

    As far as BU is aware the baby’s father was given bail and is scheduled to return to court early in 2013.

  42. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    http://barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=columnists&NewsID=11487

    @ BU, see the above for a good local article on the topic.

  43. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ David
    What do you want to bet that this is all tied to that stupid and irresponsible commitment that the AG gave on his appointment that we will “abolish hanging by the end of 2011″?

    What we have are a bunch of jokers play the donkey with vital national institutions like Justice, Education, Law and Order, health etc. if wunna cannot yet see the VITAL NEED to have someone of the calibre of Caswell monitoring and reporting on what is being done to our institutions then as we used to say ” Dat is wunna dead”.

    Caswell is definitely NOT the most tactful person in Barbados, nor is he perfect, BUT he is a special GIFT to this country in terms of what is currently a VITAL need in the AREA OF NATIONAL GOVERNENCE…. (Especially now that he back in the shirt Jac 🙂 )

    @ Observing
    You know what the problem is? We Bajans came along and found things much too easy. We think that life is easy and that things NATURALLY work out all right in the end…… BALLS!!

    Freedom, democracy, justice and peace are sacred blessings that NEED and DESERVE all of our best brains, our best efforts and the interest and involvement of ALL OF US….
    This lazaire faire approach that we have in Barbados will shortly cause us to lose much of those blessings which we enjoyed before….

    There is NO WAY that such idiots as we presently have in vital positions should be there – while our brilliant minds (GP, Hants, Jeff, Amused, Hal……) languish in obscure (all be it lucrative) positions….

  44. pat Avatar
    pat

    These two blokes are serving their time.

    Where is Bjerkman, what time has he served or is serving for killing his own son? Where is the commission of inquiry?

    Did Daphne King and Carl Yarde serve any time for the murder of old man Peterkin?

    One of the best magistrates in Barbados was a Guyanese whom I worked with – Perry.

    nuff said.

    Merry Christmas to all the Christians on the blog. Happy Holidays to the others. Stop fretting about things you cant and know will NOT change.

  45. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    David

    Felony murder rule or not that man committed murder by any definition if I am to believe what Amy L. Beam posted. He showed a clear intention to kill and he did kill, murder plain and simple. When she fell of the cans he is reported to have said one less to take care of. He could have saved her life if he had no intention to kill.

    The evidence from Amy L. Beam should lead to at least the removal Mr. Leacock from office if she is telling the truth. Her statement has potential to undermine the justice system if left unchallenged.

    Jeff

    It is not difficult to prosecute Amy L. Beam in this case, blog or no blog. She claimed that she met with the DPP and she also wrote the judge in this matter. They know who she is if Amy L. Beam is not her real name.

    Sent from my iPad

  46. David Avatar
    David

    @Caswell

    Amy Beam seems to be a competent professional so you should not worry too much about her.

  47. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    What sue what?!?
    The problem with suing people is that the truth comes out. “Um woulds be even worser din the AX commission of inquiry.”

    How many officials in Barbados can AFFORD to sue anybody? Suing is just a bullying tactic intended to be settled quietly out of court.

    Officialdom will sit quietly and wait until this too passes..like the Rhonja Juman case…. The Vaughn case…..

  48. John Jackson Avatar
    John Jackson

    John Jackson is my realname.
    I do not see a reason to hide behind another,if the DPP of Barbados Charles Leacock ,feels maligned.I shall more than happy to have the matter thrashed out legally in a British court,where there is a legal system NOT able to be “assisted” the the said DPPof Barbados.
    Maybe he cant do , as he says he cant do.But that I feel, is a matter for discussion.
    The actionsof the DPP,and they say actions speak louder than words,so far in this /these case/s,have not suggested he wanted to do other than distort evidence at each trial.
    I know Charles Leacock ,not closely, but enough to determine he is a pompous and unapproachable individual.There is ,it appears,Leacocks Law or NO Law.
    He has stage managed the trial evidence his has given in the cases concerning the Murder of Anna,to acheive an objective ,that only he has knowledge of.
    Certainly NOT for a fair and just trial in both of the cases.
    If there is another conclusion to draw , I would be glad for him to explain it and preferably publically.
    It has appeared to my wife and I that there are deep ulterior motives persued by Leacock .
    Why would my wife and I be asked to attend Courts on numerous occassions and stood feet from the Guyanese murderer for extended periods, and then informed that the case was NOT proceeding and asked to leave and return again at a later date.
    Why would a legal department of the Goverment contact Charles Leacock at the first trial and inform me that ,they had Leacocks agreement ,that in the first case of Christopher McCollin,he would allow me to address the judge.
    Yet when I appeared at the Court I was Physically barred from entering and not alowed to enter ,until the case was in the last seconds of being closed and then NOT allowed to speak.
    I asked LEACOCK in front of many witnesses as he left the Court,why I was precluded from speaking to the Judge.
    Leacock told me “I did not know you wanted to and I did not know you were in the Court”
    Yet at the a later date Leacock has stated he was unable to carry on the case as I was required as a witness and delay it for more than two years after the trial of McCollin.
    During this time he was pressuring that I return from UK where I am in medical care and also awaiting surgery and then LEACOCK approached the Magistrate who was in charge of the case where I am the accused,that of shooting the Guyanese,who murdered Anna.
    Leacock asked in writing,the magistrate ,to make the person who held bail for me ,be made to forfeit the 20,000$ because of my “continued Non appearances in Court” even tho LEACOCK is fully aware that there is current medical evidence from Specialsts and my own GP that travel is not an option and all of the resons why.
    Why when my case is absolutely NOHING to do with the trial of Persaud,should Leacock strongly suggest that my bail be revoked?
    Why should the Court proceedings at each hearing be told “Jackson has been charged with shooting Persaud”
    Why report PART of the matter.
    IF Leacock had wanted to say anything I would have thought at least it should have been mentioned that Persaud had been alledged by me to have attacked me with a knife after an alledged theft by him ,from me ,of 100,000$ and in the course of this alledged attack Persaud was shot in the upper left arm.
    Should Leacock ,not have also queried WHY the then Police at Blackrock REFUSED to take action against Persaud (and obviously with Leacocks consent, as I also wrote to Leacock at the time saying there was an arrest warrant out for Persaud on an Assault charge)) to persue a charge of serious bodily harm against me.
    The police told me ,they have been instructed to charge me, therfore they cannot Charge Persaud as it would cause” CONFLICT”

    My wife and I have written to the DPP saying that we wish to give evidence we have been ignored totally on all ocassions.When I was unable to travel ,my wife travelled twice to Barbados for trial dates(which we had to find ourself the DPP relayed nothing to us) she was ignored ,the trials either did not start or dates were changed.We had then one email stating the trial was not able to be done as Mr John Jackson must be present that the defence wanted to question me about the shooting of Persaud.
    My wife relayed medical evidence , to the DPP,that I was medically unfit, and stated she was present ,and saw all that went on when Persaud attacked me and could attend and give evidence.She was ignored.

    I also would like to bring to your attention, LEACOCK then persued another prosecution of me brought by the Blackrock Police ,that I had committed an assault with a gun on a male Barbadian,this assault, stated as BEFORE the shooting of Persaud , but brought a YEAR after the confiscation of my gun for the Persaud incident. A YEAR later I am charged??
    This meant I had been in Blackrock police station very very many times because of the Persaud shooting and then after the murder of my daughter and for a YEAR the police has said nothing.
    WHO then did instruct them to charge me.
    The person who I was charged with assaulting , then transpired was a life long criminal, who was in Dodds; at the time of the Prosecution of me ,serving time for theft AND an individual who I had reported to the SAME Blackrock police on the SAME day as the Blackrock police said I had assaulted him,for attacking me with a broken bottle and a rock after I had cought him stealing from my bond warehouse.
    Does all of this seem somewhat strange to you.
    The great delay on the Persaud case and the stacking up of evidence against me that I am some sort trigger happy Gangster.
    Almost as tho Leacock was hustling me thro the Courts BEFORE the Persaud trial.
    WHY?
    I think DPP LEACOCK has a lot of answering to do.
    Not that he ever will, as Observer says,we are in the real world ;problem is it is not the REAL WORLD ; ONLY the REAL BARBADOS World.

    Just as a PS.
    The second charge of assault on the man, by me with my gun.
    The Individual concerned,came from Dodds to my Bond, as he was let out, I was told that the Guyanese had told him to tell me that he (the Guyanese) would see I would end up DEAD or permanently Paralysed.
    The man also said if I wished to pay him 5000$ he would then NOT proceed with the Gun Assault Charge, after I refused, he threatened to kill me himself.
    I reported the matter to the DPP office and the Commisioner of police dept ,The Blackrock police and telephoned Dodds prison and complained.
    NO ACTION was taken BY ANYONE.
    Two weeks later I managed to obtain a meeting with the British Consul to lodge a complaint, shortly after the meeting ,the police concerned in Blackrock were “Transferred”
    As I am now seriously ill and under hospital treatment and need surgery, I have disposed of my Business S0-Lo trading, but I am informed now ;that relations with Black Rock police are 100% and that their is no longer any harrassment ,in fact quite the reverse..
    When I feel a little stronger I will be glad to fill you in in the TOTAL harrassment that my wife and I have endured.
    What I have written above ,is shortened as the stress of the continued harrassment and sunbjected to the actions of the DPP of Barbados,I find intolerable.

  49. Amy L. Beam Avatar
    Amy L. Beam

    Shoot the messenger. Do you think that is the best way to advance the cause of justice? Dr. Amy L. Beam.

  50. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Observing

    Is on mark … I ain’ gotta say a t’ing more. The harsh reality is that once again I end up on the same side as Amused … I gotta stop wid dis drinkin’ t’ing man …!

1 2 3 … 5
Newer Comments

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading