Dear Editor,
The recent case in the Supreme Court of our young nation, in which a man, charged with the murder of three persons (three not one!) was acquitted, has indeed raised several questions in my mind. And I do feel constrained to ask them in the hope that someone in the Bahamian legal community will indeed enlighten me. For, they really have caused me deep concern.
My purpose , in this contribution, must be most sharply and clearly defined. Let me state that I have no problems with the verdict which was taken by the jury upon the instruction of the judge from whom I have the greatest respect. Nor can one fault the defence attorney, who, as might be expected, executed a brilliant defence of his client. With these two caveats, I proceed with my questions.
First and foremost, I just wonder why the accused was charged with “three counts of murder!” It is well known that a murder trial is a once-for-all legal affair; that a person cannot be tried for the murder of the same victim twice. There is no appeal, no chance of a second trial and not bringing of new evidence once a person is acquitted of murder.
Moreover, since murder is such a very serious crime that it alone carries the possibility of the death penalty under, our system, it is only necessary to charge a person with one count of murder, with the murder of one person at a time. Thus, if he is acquitted and new evidence comes to light concerning another murder alleged committed, then he can be brought to Court again. However, if one is charged with three counts at one time and is acquitted, then, there is no possibility of further legal action.
It has always been my understanding that an individual charged or rather suspected of committing more than one act of murder, is charged with just one, or at least one at a time. I have never, in all my years, heard of a person charged with “three counts of murder”!
Secondly, one wonders why there were THREE separate statements to the police by the key witness”. Normally, just one statement should be sufficient. Two at the very most. But three? No wonder there were inconsistencies in her descriptions of the accused! The fact of the matter is that the more statements you make about another person, the more you are inclined to be inconsistent in your description of him/her.
Evidently, the key witness got confused and the Defence rightly pounced on her inconsistencies to discredit her as a witness. Once this was done the ” Crown’s case” was doomed.
It is easy to understand how one could be inconsistent in describing the person on THREE different occasions to the Police. There is an individual which the writer of this contribution has known virtually all his life. Yet, if called upon to describe that person he might on once occasion describe him as “brown skinned”, On another as “light brown”, on another as “dark brown”. ONE STATEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH!
It is also quite hard to understand how such a serious charge as three murders should rest entirely or almost entirely upon the evidence of one witness. Was there no ballistic evidence? It seems to me that the Prosecution should have waited until it had more evidence!
As already indicated, the above are troubling questions. They are raised here with the hope that someone with expertise in legal matters help in providing the writer with answers to them.
Yours etc.,
The Rev. Dr. Emmette Weir
A Letter To The Editor
