Public Prosecutions Must Be Held Responsible

1163 Words5 Pages
Now, to the layman, that appears simply to be a frame up – when you arrest and charge and find the evidence subsequently. To make matters worse, when we examine the manner in which that evidence was put forward by the prosecution (a matter for which the director of Public Prosecutions must be held responsible), we find some startling inconsistencies, strange and frightening things. Like one man giving three statements. – two of them before Arnold Rampersaud was arrested, never mentioning the accused or anything to do with the accused. A third statement made after he had been arrested conveniently mentions the accused. We recall that at the last trial, these three statements were withheld from the defence; they were not allowed to be perused by the defence. Instead, the judge chose to accept portions of the third statement as the evidence against the accused. We recall that the second individual to mention Arnold Rampersaud was someone who took some two weeks to recollect what he had seen and heard that night. And when, under cross examination, that individual either is unable or refuse to remember anything else that he had done that night, then the plot thickens, the smell gets more repulsive. One individual in that trial. One of those same key witnesses, was so concerned with telling the court that he could not remember other than that which it was convenient for him t remember, that, when asked on one occasion what he was doing last Christmas, he asked, in turn: “What date was last Christmas?” He couldn’t remember! This is the kind of ludicrousness that has taken place throughout this trial. And if it were not that a man’s life was on trial, it would be nothing but a comedy show. The Defence committee sets itself up specific... ... middle of paper ... ...ence or guilt of this Indian from the Corentyne. What after all, do we expect of a jury? What is its task? These twelve people, supposedly the peers of the accused, are supposed to come to a rational, logical decision as to whether the crime would have been, or was committed by this particular individual concerned. That is why, in the United States, back men have been fighting against white minority juries. They have been saying: “White juries cannot be our peers in a society where those white people do not live in our community, do not understand our community. To be put to be judged by a jury that comprises a majority of whites is, in fact, to threaten our very freedom, our very liberties.” So that, under normal circumstances, it is general, it is accepted, that he trial will take place in the area of jurisdiction in which the crime, or alleged crime, took place.
Open Document