The Anna Druzhinina murder – Part 2: “Leave her. That’s one less for us to deal with.”

“In 2012, Director of Public Prosecutions Charles 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 cans.”

While sitting on the balcony waiting, they heard the paint cans fall.

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.”

If that isn’t murder, then what is?

Part 2 of 3 – a look at the Anna Druzhinina murder. Read Part 1 here.

By Amy L. Beam, Ed.D.

Who surprised who?

In 2010 at the manslaughter trial for the accomplice McCollin, as reported in the local press, 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 did not present these facts and reversed his statement, stating Persaud and McCollin were surprised by Anna.

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 testimony was 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 cans.  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.

Was a towel tossed over Anna’s head?

Justice Crane-Scott stated in her sentencing, presumably from DPP Leacock’s representation,  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?”

Who put her on the paint cans?

In 2010, DPP Leacock stated Druzhinina was home alone when the two entered.  According to local press coverage, 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.  If they arrived with the cord for the noose, it shows intent to murder.  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.

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.   Justice Crane-Scott, in her sentencing stated, “She was placed to stand on a precarious perch with a noose round her neck and in the view of the Court the victim suffered a thousand deaths before her inevitable death by strangulation took place.”

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”, as this is the word used by Justice Crane-Scott in her sentencing.  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. 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.”

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 (screaming, I am told) 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?

36 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law, Police

36 responses to “The Anna Druzhinina murder – Part 2: “Leave her. That’s one less for us to deal with.”

  1. Amy L. Beam

    PHOTOS OF RUSSIAN TEENAGER ANNA DRUZHININA

    Anna’s friend, Raee in Barbados, made a memorial video of her after she was murdered. She was loved by all who knew her. Take a look at the beautiful, smiling young lady who brought joy to so many people. Lyrics: “Will the past be a shadow that will follow us around? Will these memories fade when I leave this town? I keep, keep thinkin that it’s not goodbye. Keep on thinkin it’s a time to fly. As we go on, we remember all the times we had together.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP-_vVjVlf4 5:40 mins.

    Anna Druzhinina’s mom, Larisa Druzhinina-Jackson, has a youtube channel “Larisa JD” and she’s uploaded a lot of WONDERFUL photos and videos of smiling Anna, Enjoy a 40-minute photo album of Anna smiling at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXdT-Sknsa4

    Balloon release by Anna’s classmates at her funeral in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy2Gc-OjySU 2:09 mins.

    Song for written and sung at Anna’s funeral by her close friend T-Ray Armstrong (of CoverDrive); lyrics “What’s the world coming to? This could happen to me or you.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZjVXPM-gUQ 3:37 mins.

    Red-headed Anna dressed up at a party in Barbados:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9FUbv8QBYI 2:16 mins.

    Anna swimming with her dogs in Palmers Plantation pool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKRGNQowuo 16 secs.

    This is what Anna’s murder did to John and Larisa Jackson’s life and their SO-LO business in Black Rock, Barbados:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw6FW8D-npk 10 secs.

  2. why?

    How does the DPP keep his job for his criminal misrepresentation of facts
    at the price of the dignity of the victim and the price of justice to all Barbadians?

    Is this the same man that authorized a vaginal search of a Mother looking for a rent payment at the same time as traumatizing her son?

  3. Robert Ross

    After round 2 of this, may I ask what it is precisely we are supposed to conclude and with what object. EG, is it all intended to demonstrate Leacock’s incompetence? Well, yes if true it does seem to. Or to show Leacock manipulates the system? Well, I guess we know that. Or to show that McCollin was the lesser of two evils? Maybe – but even as a secondary party he would be responsible as if he were the perpetrator. Or to ‘vent’ on behalf of the family? Perfectly understandable. Or, more generally, truth telling? Nothing wrong with that – except that the writer is asking us to make both legal and moral judgements too. It certainly makes for very sad reading but I do think that at this point Amy L Beam Ed D should state clearly what his/her agenda is. It seems that he/she has been investigating similar cases. Is she then a student who is giving us the benefit of her research? I do think she might say, however roughly, who or what she is.

    Incidentally, in the last post Comment made some remarks about the modus operandi of the DPP’s Office with which I entirely agree. And yes, the results, at times, do seem very strange indeed.

  4. Well Well

    This is an aside question, not to take away or add to the grief – but how did a black man allow an indian man to lead him into something that despicable??? If the police had done efficient evidence gathering and processing the DPP would not now be flip flopping. There is something slimy about the DPP, years ago I had occasion to be standing too near him and he made my skin crawl.

  5. Amy L. Beam

    Mr. Robert Ross, Thank you for your comments. I have known Anna and her parents as close family friends since Anna was 9. Family and friends waited with frustration, but patient silence, for 4 years for DPP Leacock to bring us justice. We did not want to taint the investigation or trial. I’m glad you’ve done your research. Yes, I am a strong defender of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, independent journalism, human rights, and truth and justice in general. I am not a journalist and not a lawyer. When a battle falls on my head, I do not shy away. I am transparant and do not need to hide my identity. My answer to your question is why aren’t there 279,000 people in Barbados taking a stand against injustice and asking why DPP Charles Leacock did not charge Persaud with murder and ask for life in prison? I think this country deserves a free, unfettered press and a public explanation or investigation.

  6. Well Well

    The problems run a whole lot deeper than that!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. Eva

    Here is an interesting side of Charles Leacock saga. After 4 years of complaining to Nation News paper to investigate Leacock, On Christmas day the news paper wrote a superficial story on Earl Victor being held at Dood Prison by Leacock for 4 years without due process of law. http://www.nationnews.com/index.php/articles/view/too-long-on-remand/
    The reporter, Maria Bradshaw pick December 25 to write her story knowing most Bajans and others around the world would not be reading the news on Christmas day therefore protecting Leacock, Dottin and other corrupt officials from public scrutiny.

    Why would a story about gross human rights violation with major international implications is being reported in the Nation News when most readers are drunk or busy opening their Christmas presents?

  8. Robert Ross

    Amy L Beam

    Thankyou for your explanation. Your persistence is to be applauded. Perhaps you will also join the little band of ‘free Garcia-ists’.

    I do agree with you that a murder charge might have been brought – NOT because I think necessarily that in the conventional sense those fellas had the aim or purpose to kill or cause GBH but because, as I said in the first post, doing what they did the evidence is pretty overwhelming that they foresaw death or gbh as a virtual certainty. Leacock seemingly made no mention of that and so his law is severely wanting.

    I do not think you should be upset by the suggestioin that the child might have ‘jumped’. Whether she did or didn’t is purely a question of fact and not in any sense a condemnation. Moreover, in the event whether she did or didn’t was not held to have any legal significance. An enterprising counsel might have wanted to argue that she brought her death upon herself so that there was a break in the chain of causation and therefore NOT ANY SORT OF HOMICIDE. Maybe Leacock had this in mind if murder had been charged. But he took what Comment has identified as the simpler course and achieved his manslaughter convictions with little trouble. As I make clear above, I don’t for a moment approve of that, of course – and not least because it prevents the Courts of Barbados from developing a sophisticated understanding of criminal jurisprudence in which concepts are worked through and developed on the anvil of argument.

  9. Amy L. Beam

    Eva, the more troubling question is if Earl Victor was released in 2010 and charges dropped for murdering Rodney Stanford in 2006 in Barbados, then who DID murder Stanford? Why were charges dropped? Once again, a web search finds no information of the death of Rodney Stanford nor one word as to who he was. . . . another disturbing case of disappearing history.

  10. Well Well

    A whole lot deeper!!!!!!

  11. Robert Ross

    Eva
    There is a danger in taking conspiracy theories too far. IF the Nation didn’t want the story read it needn’t have printed it at all. The timing was no doubt a simple matter of space filiing. It happens all the time and not least to those of us who have been known to write to the press.

  12. beautiful memorial tribute

    congratulations to all those that put this beautiful memorial to Anna up on you tube

    it reminds us how precious and short life is.

    the rights of these free and young spirits to live in a safe environment has been violated by those in the Barbadian Justice system who use and abuse it!

    Barbados deserves much much better!

  13. Sandbox

    @ Robert Ross.
    I think you like to see yourself as the voice of reason sounding among the clamour of erratic emotion ,Whereas to others you do sound a little of a pompous ass, and pedantic in the extreme.
    Whatever , as normal people and not some type of robotic proccessor of facts.
    We can all see that these men viciously and violently murdered and tortured a beautifull young girl.
    I also think(am sure) that if a trial had been held, all of the erudite arguments of people like yourself “the Lawyers” would never have persauded ,any of the Jury otherwise that there had been ,exactly what there was.
    A premeditated Torturing and murder of an Innocent child by the two men
    .After which the right verdict ,after all the overwhelming evidence,would have been reached and the result would have been a proper sentence to fit the crime..
    Further regardless of erudtion ,the DPP Charles Leacock committed what appears to be Gross misconduct and even criminal acts.
    He CHANGED all of the Evidence he has previously given to a court as the truth.
    How LEGALLY do you explain THAT away.
    He lied thro his teeth and then walked clean away. No comebacks.
    Regardless of all of your “reasoning” all of that and more, is rendered TOTALLY useless,when the man CHARLES LEACOCK DPP of Barbados can lie and change evidence and make the law of Barbados a Laughing Stock.
    He makes you look stupid and totally inefectual as whatever carefull rendition or translation you can come up with with regards to “the facts”, he simply negates you, with a few movements of his tongue; you and the law become a JOKE.
    He is your master and you are a nonentity .
    He just changes the rules and silences you at a stroke.

  14. Rastaman

    @Sandbox: Wow, you said it all.

  15. Annette Baker

    Let Anna rest in peace. Despite what happened, not one of us was there, we had to depend on the same two men to tell the tales. In the end, it does not matter who says what, Cosmic Law fullfils!.

    The legal system may have taken around 4 years to deal with the case, it may not be that long afterwards that those two men would not go crazy as a result of their conscience speaking to them, after which they will make every attempt to commit suicide and will eventually succeed in their attempts – that is their fate whether you want to believe it or not! Despite the authorities’ attemps to stop them, they (authorities) will finally realise that when you break a universal law, no earthly entity can stop the demise that you have contracted with yourself. Let us sit quietly and await the outcome.

    The same happens to those persons who have been given opportunities to sit in authority in the Civil Service particularly but who pride themselves in blocking committed and caring workers from being promoted up the ladder of mobility in the. Trust me, “everything will come out in the washing”. At the appointed times, you watchers must be honest with yourselves when you see the demise of such persons (some of whom may be your family members or personal friends) and do not pretend that you never knew “so and so” did in it too! Again, may Anna rest in peace and take her time before venturing out on another earthly journey.

  16. Robert Ross

    Sandbox

    I think you need to learn to read.

  17. Justice 101

    Why is it that almost every murder case in Barbados is downgraded to manslaughter regardless of the brutality and the murderous intent of the perpetrators . If found guilty of this lesser count they are slapped on the wrist and given sentences as light as three years by these bleeding heart judges like Randall Worrell a former defence attorney and the other female Judge Judy impersonators . I think the term lord goes to their heads.What is the criteria for choosing judges in this country I would really like to know ? What message are they sending to the youth out there most of whom are prone to violence .Kill if you want to we will reduce your charge to manslaughter and you will be out in three years and to rapist you can get twenty years for rape but if you kill her you can get five . I think most of them might choose to do the latter. That is the message that is being sent by our judicial system. The decision to reduce these murder charges is made solely by Charles Leacock our DPP who would sell his soul once the right price is offered. He is as corrupt as one can get and in a lot of these cases money talked .He makes a mockery of the law for his own purposes and is never challenged . Remember the Bjerkam incident a child died and the accused got a small fine and he laughed all the way to the bank. Don’t expect Charles Leacock to be patriotic he is not a Barbadian just another corrupt Guyanese.

  18. Justice 101

    @ well well What does their race have to do with anything .McCollin is a simpleton and that would explain it.The police did their job and what evidence there was to gather was gathered . You do not know what you are talking about .it has nothing to do with what the DPP did .He always makes a mockery of the system

  19. SANDBOX

    @Robert Ross

    I READ:
    The Judge said to the Wretched Guyanse Excuse for Humanity,
    “This child must have suffered a THOUSAND deaths before you actually murdered her”
    What else do I NEED to READ?
    It was said in Court.He let her die as “it was One less we have to deal with”
    or maybe I READ that wrong?
    To die strangling on the end of Guyanese made wire noose takes around 20 minutes to half an hour.
    Take a look at your watch READ THAT watch 60 SECONDS pass and the Guyanese watched the child die for 20MINUTES or more..
    Then cut down her body and took 50$ she had been given for her birthday the day before.
    READ ME??
    She begged him for her life and asked him” PLEASE do not kill me like this”
    I READ that he then took four tries to get her up on the cans .he balanced her on, tied her wire neck noose off on a beam and went and left the child to struggle to live for hours and then fall off and strangle to DEATH over 1/2 and hour. YOU CAN READ THAT??

    I also READ THAT

    some smart assed African dropout Lawyer claimed “HIS CLIENT was NOT IN THE ROOM even when the child died”

    I READ that the DPP of Barbados did NOT dispute that statement.

    I READ and I READ and I READ and Mr Robert Ross I ENT LIKE WHAT I READ cos what I READ says we in Barbados ent got NO RIGHTS,, GOT NO PROTECTION GOT NO LAW .
    While I READ what stinking lies the DPP CHARLES LEACOCK get paid to SPEW out

    I READ THAT we still in SLAVERY.

  20. Amy L. Beam

    SANDBOX:

    Thanks for making things clear! I will clarify only one point from what I wrote. I am not sure Persaud said in court “Leave her. That’s one less we have to deal with.” It is my understanding from Anna’s parents, who were allowed to read McCollin’s confession in 2008, that the co-accused McCollin stated this to the police during the investigation. I am not sure if DPP Leacock presented this to the court.

    The problem with ascertaining the truth is that some of the gatekeepers in this country think the public is not legally entitled to transcripts from a criminal matter heard in a public court room. When I attended Supreme Court #5 with Madam Justice Crane-Scott in Dec 2012, I was ordered to put my notepad and pen in my purse. To make SURE I did not try to sneak any notes, an officer of the court came across the court room and sat next to me while the judge read her sentencing statement.

    Afterwards, when I asked for a copy of the judge’s statement I was ADAMANTLY and repeatedly told that I could not have it; that no one in the history of that court that they were aware of had every been allowed to have a copy of the sentencing statement. I was told to “read about it in the paper tomorrow.” Oh, I did not know the local papers are the sole guardians of the truth. I had to spend 15 minutes demanding from 3 court officials to know the procedures for getting the Justice’s sentencing statement. I had to spend another two days demanding it before it was posted online. The judgment from 2010 against McCollin is still not posted online. Why not?

    Today I went to the Supreme Court building to request transcripts and was told at least 3 to 5 times by a Ms. Sealy that once a case is closed NO ONE can ever have a copy of a document from that file. I know, it’s hard to believe, but I don’t make this up. Then finally Ms. Sealy told me she works in the court of appeals and I had the wrong person. I was connected to her phone by the person working at the customer service desk as you enter the court house. Because the registrar was gone for the day, I left my letter to the registrar, Ms. Marva Clarke, requesting transcripts and was told I can return and get them in person while I wait. We will see.

    A side-line question arises: could it possibly be true that, according to Ms. Sealy, in the Court of Appeals all documents are sealed after a case is completed? Is it TRUE we live in a society where legal proceedings are conducted and held in secret? Wouldn’t such secrecy mean any document, evidence, and testimony can be easily changed?

    Am I really the only person in this country who has a problem with a public criminal court in which a person cannot take notes and for which transcripts of criminal proceedings are kept secret? I am no expert on Barbados law, but I am guessing the transcripts of criminal matters are public. Possibly some of the court staff think they are doing a community service by telling people requesting transcripts that they cannot have them.

    No democracy can thrive in a state of secrecy. Just take a look at the big country to the north of us.

  21. Robert Ross

    Sandbox

    Poor thing…try reading what I actually said rather than in indulging in your usual round of personalized invective which adds nothing to the subject.

    Your statement referring to “some smart assed African dropout lawyer” says it all about you and no serious person would treat you other than with a high level of pity or utter contempt. I take the latter position after that remark of one who was simply doing his job and actually has a very good reputation as an advocate. But then, finer points elude you..

  22. Robert Ross

    Amy L

    The practice of forbidding notetaking is to be found also in the UK. Personally like you I think it stupid but then it is one way that information from the public domain which is inaccurate is not disseminated in the name of truth – another problem on the so-called ‘free presses’.

    I’m not clear why you would be refused a transcript though you would have to pay for it. The cost in the UK is in excess of 600 pounds for three hours worth of transcribing. Photocopies of documents fall into a different category. Whenever I want a report of a case photocopied I usually ask a lawyer friend to get it for me from the Court Library. This avoids the danger of questions like “Who are you and what do you want it for.”.

  23. Amy L. Beam

    It is way overdue for Barbados to have a Freedom of Information Act. As for defending the practice of disallowing note-taking in public court rooms so the “free press” won’t distort the truth, we all know that argument cannot stand up. The mainstream media worldwide is used by those in power to spin a story and distort the truth to suit those in power. Thank goodness for independent press and THAT IS WHY we need to be allowed to take notes in a court room. Secrecy is the tool of fascism.

  24. Robert Ross

    Yes, one other thing. Many writers here speak of the damaging effect cases of this kind have on our reputation. Yet three bloggers have referred to racial origin as some kind of argument. We have had “How can a black man be led by an indian” (Well Well of “slimy’ Leacock fame);’ Leacock the corrupt Guyanese who takes money’ (Justice 101); and now, of course ‘smart assed African drop-out’ (poor sandbox). What a miserable bunch…sorry, did I say ‘bunch’. Mmmm

  25. Robert Ross

    Amy Beam

    Sorry you’re beginning to sound like a BFP editor.

  26. POOR Sandbox

    @Robert Ross
    Yes darling I never realised you were so sensative .Poor Soul.Cuh dear!!
    Legally inclined and thin skinned.not a good combination.
    As for the “smart assed African dropout” WHO do you know that has a high opinion of this person.?
    I merely reiterrated what I was told by a legal associate of the person.
    Judging from the fact it was asked of the judge, for a term of 10 years for the client,I therefore see, by your comments you concur with the request for 10 years as you find it ” doing his job”
    Very encouraging that you see this terrible murder of a young woman as equateable to a 10 year sentence. Is that because she was white??
    Well it has to be something!!?That would be Racialist of you.If of course you DID think so.
    As the facts show this case was one of the most terrible murders committed on this little rock.That you find this person you support as”has a having good reputation as an advocate”Well I do feel yes that you may be correct that from a clients point if the lawyer can “get him off” with a ten year stretch after the enormity of the crime,it could be classed gaining ” a good reputation”
    When ,to the man in the street ,the regular Bajun,it seems like an insult, and a slur on the child involved, and a typical “Smart assed lawyer move” who is concerned with reputation and therefore of course HARD CASH.
    The|Justice and Law of the situation of the matter, seems to have got LOST somewhere in the translation,from African to Bajun.
    But then again AS YOU SAY,the FINER points slip by me.

    Where does “smart assed” etc make a racial comment?
    Like as if someone referred you as a bigotted,pedantic,paronising Bajun( or from wherever) Wannabe,that would be racialist or just an objective comment?
    The person is/was from Africa,why would the person come here if they could make it ,where they came from.
    Lawyers are not know for benevolent attitudes and I do not see this lawyer does “Pro bono” work for our Bajun “brothers.?
    May be tho as you say ,the “finer points ” slip past me.
    Well I wish you well old son,and welecome you one day to reality.

  27. Robert Ross

    This post has become a joke.

  28. Watching

    @ R Ross
    I am sure the parents will be comforted that you feel so!

  29. Robert Ross

    Watching

    IF the child’s parents are reading this I am sure they will understand why it has been turned into a joke by those who use it to purvey racism. Disgusting, childish and, yes, an insult to the subject matter as well as the parents. The racism is not serious of course. It is a wilful artifact to keep the post going and, for anyone who understands how this works, entirely normal. The happy band of pilgrims, who are to be seen as one, and this may include you, really need to grow up.

  30. Robert Ross

    Watching

    Just seen your latest effort on Part 3. Sweet Jesus fella, move into long pants and stop the onanism.

  31. Robert Ross

    BTW Poor Sandbox

    LOL fella – you’ve surpassed yourself, I have no idea where Mr B comes from and I don’t care very much. Why should you? But try telling your Africa argument to 90% of the population of Bim. I suppose they couldn’t make it there either. Gee. ‘I know a man who says’…..oh dear. You betta go back and study your own ass. You won’t learn much but it might be more profitable than writing total rubbish. But I will stop now for the sake of whatever is left of the integrity of the post. See ya around poor Sandbox.

  32. Mark Fenty

    What about Peter Bradshaw, who sat on death-row for close too 20 years, for the killing of a plantation-owner at the age of 19? And whose sentence has been commuted to life in prison because of police misconduct. We could only imagine the anguish the victim family continues to experience because of this unpardonable crime

  33. Amy L. Beam

    As of today, I have waited over one month for the chief registrar in the court’s registrar’s office to provide me with the written statements of DPP Leacock in the sentencing recommendations for McCollin (2010) and Persaud (2012). In common parlance, this is known as stone-walling. Silence does not mean I’m finished with this issue. Also, I was told at the court house that Persaud is appealing his sentencing. So Barbados is a country with complete judicial secrecy. In the courtroom I was not allowed to have paper, pen, or recording devices. Now I have been refused ALL documents relating to both of the convicted men. The case is over, the verdicts and sentencing have been rendered, yet the documents are being kept secret. Does Barbados SEAL DOCUMENTS AFTER A MURDER OR MANSLAUGHTER TRIAL? Is the international community taking note?

  34. Pingback: Anna Druzhinina murder: Persaud appealing sentence, Barbados Court stonewalls journalist | Barbados Free Press

  35. Is definitely an Rca Wireless Would you More Cost effective?

  36. theloudestconscience

    @Robert Ross:

    It is unhealthy for your head to be so far up your ass, that you lose sight of the tragedy of the case.
    Let Anna’s beautiful soul rest peacefully.
    And may a similar fate fall upon these criminals.