LETTER: Justice or Judgement? Community Divided Over Wendel’s Representation of Mejia

I did not even read the whole article. What was done to this young child is reprehensible, but every accused is entitled to representación. Time to stop the foolishness, we should be more than that

Justice knows no color, race, religion, politics, politician, nor social status.
Though some have influenced Justice with their largesse, it should not have happened and defeats the very system they claim to safeguard.
Why should one be offended by Wendell Robinson’s decision to represent the accused while at the same time acknowledging the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty?
A crime is a crime.
For anyone who finds difficulty or issues with Robinson’s decision to represent the young lady i urge you to ask yourself this question, “would you have the same concerns if the accused was your family member?
Justice is not selective.
Justice is not about emotions.
It is not a process that should be manipulated to suit personal interests.
Rather we must see it as the result of a fair process by a duly recognized and competent court.
When we begin to see it as such we will not have issues with any lawyer who is approached taking up a case to represent anyone who is still considered innocent.
Do you work Mr Wendell Glenroy Alexander ¡!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do you think? This man spent years in the police force, and know all the knacks like politicians ordering the mishandling of crime seen to create a different outcome at the courts, all the political instructions between the judiciary and politicians, he knows quite a lot to get things in his favor, I can remember the late Elton Martin, at his 5 am in the morning report each day to Lester back then as prime minister, he would get some expletives each mornings and have to humbly answer yes sir to the prime minister at the time. Their is a lot of political machinations behind the police work the reason why vere Brown returned to the virgin islands, and Mr Pompey and Mr Burnett keep them corner.
So Wendell can navigate the loop holes and our do the police because obviously he knows the technical weaknesses of the police posits on empirical evidence.

What do you think? This man spent years in the police force, and know all the knacks like politicians ordering the mishandling of crime seen to create a different outcome at the courts, all the political instructions between the judiciary and politicians, he knows quite a lot to get things in his favor, I can remember the late Elton Martin, at his 5 am in the morning report each day to Lester back then as prime minister, he would get some expletives each mornings and have to humbly answer yes sir to the prime minister at the time. Their is a lot of political machinations behind the police work the reason why vere Brown returned to the virgin islands, and Mr Pompey and Mr Burnett keep them corner.
So Wendell can navigate the loop holes and out do the police because obviously he knows the technical weaknesses of the police posits on empirical evidence.

No matter how heinous the crime, she is entitled to representation.
The crown ( must prove her guilty) beyond a reasonable doubt.
We will probably never know exactly what happened in that case.
She will not implicate herself in any crime.
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens here 🤔

I think what we’re all afraid of is not Wendell representing her…it’s the people that represent the crown.

The question of whether a defense lawyer should be removed from a murder trial because he previously served as a prosecutor and as Commissioner of Police requires a careful balance between fairness, perception of justice, and the right of the accused to counsel of choice.

At its core, the criminal justice system guarantees an accused person the right to legal representation. This right is not easily curtailed. Courts are generally reluctant to disqualify defense counsel unless there is an apparent conflict of interest, a demonstrated breach of professional ethics, or a real and substantial risk to the integrity of the proceedings. The mere fact that a lawyer once worked as a prosecutor or held a senior policing role does not automatically disqualify him from defending a client.

That said, the prosecution may reasonably raise concerns if the lawyer’s prior positions create either:

A conflict of interest – for example, if he had direct involvement in investigating or prosecuting the very case now before the court (which he did does not), or if he has access to confidential prosecution strategies or privileged police files that were not disclosed through proper discovery channels, continues to have unauthorized access through back channels.

An appearance of unfairness, his presence could undermine public confidence in the impartiality of the trial, particularly where his inside knowledge of policing methods, investigative weaknesses, or prosecutorial discretion could be seen as giving him an undue advantage.

However, the idea that his past roles automatically enable him to distort the facts of the case is tenuous. A defense lawyer, no matter his background, is bound by professional codes of conduct and the rules of evidence. He cannot fabricate, conceal, or misrepresent facts without risking sanctions or disbarment. His experience may make him more effective at cross-examining police witnesses or identifying investigative flaws. Still, effectiveness does not equate to distortion, it is part of robust defense advocacy.

Ultimately, unless the prosecution can show that the lawyer’s prior service creates a real conflict of interest in the specific case or gives him access to confidential, case-related information that compromises fairness, the court is unlikely to remove him. To do so solely based on his career history would risk undermining the accused’s constitutional right to choose counsel and would set a troubling precedent that punishes lawyers for professional experience.

The prosecution may apply to the court for removal, but such an application must be based on more than speculation about an unfair advantage. Past service as a prosecutor or Commissioner of Police does not, by itself, justify disqualification. The integrity of the trial depends not on removing capable lawyers but on ensuring that all parties abide by the rules of disclosure, evidence, and ethical advocacy.

Justice for Chantal Crump!!!
Bring back the death penalty!!!

The charges for the accused will be abduction/kidnapping (weak charge) and disposal of a corpse. If she’s found guilty and most likely will be, there will be appeals. At this juncture of this case, it looks like the accused could walk out free with time served.