Activist Mary John Refutes Claims of Narrowly Derailing Trial Proceedings

BELOW IS THE STATEMENT FROM JOHN POSTED ON HER FACEBOOK PAGE:

Observer journalist, the prison officers daughter that i have made several reports against, your title is a lie. There was no way that the activists actions almost derailed trial when Judge agreed there was “no possibility”.

Observer Newspaper, AT NO TIME AT ALL do you want to hear from Mary John before publishing stories about said person FOR A REACTION. I am Mary John. I have always condemned alleged pedophiles/child rapists (if case is not concluded) And I have always called for maximum penalties for such persons and been outraged if the sentence is minimal.

Wendell Robinson had a private conversation with me regarding my comments. I told Wendell you do your job and allow me to do mine. I told Wendell I would expect him to have a problem with what I said because he is the defendants lawyer and I asked what did I say to “pervert the course of justice”? He said nothing but told me to be careful.

The private message I sent to that individual mentioned in article was PRIVATE. I said nothing publicly that could affect the trial.

Justice Smith who thought my comments and private message was “atrocious” is the same Judge who found me guilty although the prosecution failed to present one piece of evidence to support “INTENTIONALLY sending false information for the purpose of causing hatred and insult”

Many victims and their family contact me either before or after they involve the police. What is the problem if I publicly invited the victim to contact me ? Did I call her name? To this day I don’t know who victim is. Did I call the defendants name? No I did not.

So my friend Wendell tried a shot. And OBSERVER decides to make a big story of it with emphasis on “atrocious” acts on my behalf and “narrowly escaping” case to get thrown out” which is not true.

Serpent Watts again I ask yourself and Dave Lester Payne for an audience. I have been relentless in this request for the past many years to no avail. I have made legitimate complaints against said Court reporter on many occasions.

HERE IT THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION FROM THE DAILY OBSERVER: A sexual assault trial narrowly avoided dismissal after Justice Ann Marie Smith ruled that social media posts by community activist Mary John, while they were “atrocious” did not prevent the possibility of a fair trial.

Justice Smith delivered her ruling on a preliminary objection raised by defence counsel Wendel Alexander last week.

Alexander had argued that Facebook posts and private messages by John, along with a news article published by Observer, could prejudice the jury against his client, who faces indecent assault charges stemming from an incident in February 2022.

The prosecution alleges that the defendant, a local businessman, offered the complainant a ride during rainfall before making unwanted advances and inappropriately touching her.

The defence presented several pieces of evidence of John’s social media activities. These included comments under the said article requesting the complainant to contact her, criticism of the investigating officer for allegedly not doing his job, and comments referring to, but not naming, the accused as a paedophile. Additionally, WhatsApp messages sent to the Indian High Commissioner suggested the accused was being protected, with one message directly naming the defendant and requesting to speak with the commissioner.

The Observer newspaper had also published an article detailing the incident but did not reveal the identity of any parties involved. The defence argued that this coverage, combined with John’s social media activities, could influence potential jurors.

The Crown countered that the publicity did not rise to a level that would prevent a fair trial.

While acknowledging that social media publicity could potentially compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial, Justice Smith agreed with the prosecution’s position. She stated that “while the actions of Mary John are indeed atrocious and completely out of line,” proper jury directions would be sufficient to mitigate any potential prejudice.

Had the court sided with the defence, the proceedings could have been stayed or the indictment quashed. Instead, following Justice Smith’s ruling, the trial proceeded with the complainant’s testimony.

During her evidence, the complainant stated that the businessman touched her several times despite being told to stop. She testified that while he eventually ceased the touching, he then proceeded to pull over and masturbate with her in his car.

The complainant appeared deeply affected by recounting the ordeal, becoming visibly shaken and beginning to hyperventilate during cross examination.

The trial is still ongoing.

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]