REAL NEWS- Chief Magistrate Joanne Walsh threw out the alleged victim’s testimony in a criminal case brought against Elvis Murray Watkins, President of the Antigua and Barbuda Red Cross, after the Prosecution stopped the trial.
In March this year, Watkins was charged with grievous bodily harm after the woman claimed he had used his fist on her.
He was taken before Magistrate Dexter Wason, who remanded Watkins to Her Majesty’s Prison for 10 days, with the understanding that he would remain there until April 6, at which time Wason would review the matter and decide whether to grant bail.
The matter came up for trial on Tuesday, August 30, and was transferred to Chief Magistrate Joanne Walsh (who was Acting Director of Public Prosecutions when the matter was first brought to court).
However, as the Prosecution was proceeding with its case, it was noted that the testimony of the complainant – the only witness in the matter – was not matching up with the evidence.
Reportedly, the offense had occurred on October 31, 2021. However, the woman made a report to the Police only five months later – in March 2022 – and visited a doctor at that time, as well.
The doctor’s report could not corroborate the injury the woman claims she sustained. Rather, the doctor noted only that she had complained of pain in the area. Reportedly, she also lied to the medical practitioner about the date on which the alleged incident had taken place.
It was during cross-examination by Watkins’ attorney, Wendel Robinson, that most of the discrepancies and contradictions reportedly came out.
The woman claimed the Police had not given her the customary medical form to consult a doctor, and that she was not familiar with the procedure – although she has two brothers who are members of the Force.
Further, she claimed she did not want to bring the case against the Red Cross President, and she also did not report to the Police alleged threats he made against her life.
Explaining her reason for reporting the alleged offence some five months later, the woman said she was afraid that Watkins would stop paying her.
Reportedly, she and Watkins had worked together at the Red Cross. She alleges that she was not paid after the altercation took place, and is owed money – but has become a teacher since leaving that job.
The woman told the Police that she and Watkins had been in a relationship for seven years; but, during her testimony in court, said it was for two years.
On the night in question, the complainant allegedly had gone to Watkins’ home, where he was entertaining another guest, and the incident allegedly ensued.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Another loser trying to destroy a man’s life.
They’re trying desperately to undermine you. Hold strong 💪🏿
Who should he sue first? Yea
The man left you, so you file battery charges some 5 month later, Waw. And they throw this man in jail for 10 days on hear say evidence? Does Antigua have any law suit laws against wrongful imprisonment? I’ve been paying attention more and more to Antigua news over the last 2yrs, and I just smh on the news that comes out this little island.no laughing matter, but I just got to lol.
Very crazy situation when people want to have there way think he should sue her and the police
Antigua news room why each time I make a comment to any topic you all remove it .I have been observe the action of this institution
Is it possible the complainant was corrupted to achieve the very anticipated result?
Given what is at stake for the accused and the brilliance of his advisor is it possible the victim was corrupted?
The victim is now being ridiculed. One thing is certain something must have happened, it is difficult to accept that the complainant did not go over her statement before walking into court. Surely the prosecutors wanted a conviction and would have done the necessary things to prepare the complainant for court.
The magistrate shouldnhave launched an investigation to discover if the complainant was corrupted by the accused or anyone acting on his behalf.
Together with every little thing which seems to be developing within this particular subject matter, many of your opinions tend to be rather exciting. On the other hand, I appologize, because I can not subscribe to your entire theory, all be it refreshing none the less. It seems to everybody that your comments are not entirely justified and in reality you are generally yourself not really thoroughly confident of your point. In any case I did enjoy examining it.
Comments are closed.