Saturday, March 21, 2009

Did Walcott’s victim feign injury?

...............
Posted by at

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not "a nurse who has worked for over 20 years in the London health care system", but I am a person who can type "google", and I just read that surgery is not always necessary and that fractures from trauma will heal in 8 to 10 weeks with rest, bracing, and pain medications.

One would think that someone presenting themselves as a journalist would at least do a little research into this before publishing such a letter.

March 21, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Thommo said...

While it is true that the extent of the injury will determine the severity of the punishment it does not negate the fact that the accused abused the young lady and he must be taken to account.

There should be zero tolerance towards domestic abuse in St. Lucia. We must do everything possible to rid our country of the culture of violence towards women in particular, towards each other, and especially our visitors-the lifeblood of our fragile economy.

Any man who beats a woman is a coward and needs to prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The apologists who claim that she was not injured that badly are forgetting that she was injured and needed to be treated at a hospital. This is the crux of the case against the accused.

I clearly understand that his lawyer would put up a vigrous defence as this is what he's being paid for. I also understand that the accused deserves to get the presumption of innocence, but dont trash the victim in the process.

Such a stance would only serve to diminish the seriousness of the epidemic of violence that pervades our country. We must all adopt the position that violence against women will not be tolerated under any circumstance. Period.

March 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...

To "Anonymous", if you had taken the time to read the entire article throughly you would realize that the reporter is merely presenting the facts by presenting the letter, and not making judgments on the young woman's condition.

In fact, the article seemed to be focusing more on the defense's argument, and whether what's stated in the letter by the "assumed nurse" is the argument that the defense may use.

So before finding fault with the journalist, maybe you should become a more insightful reader.

March 23, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...

To "Mel P.", your contention that "the reporter is merely presenting the facts by presenting the letter", reinforces my objection to the publication of this letter, because, as I have shown, the letter does not present the facts that surgery isn't always necessary.

By publishing the letter, the reporter has tried to give it a credence that it does not merit, especially when it is introduced with the phrase "could shed some light on the matter".

Notwithstanding the title to the story questioning whether or not the victim feigned injury, perhaps the journalist really meant to convey that the letter was a plant by the defence team, and, if that is the case, I apologize, even though I am wondering why the intent of the story was so obscured, or even why the newspaper allowed itself to be used in such a way.

March 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...

I am an anonymous who happened to be in the contry of St. Lucia while that issue was in its hottest stage. I was wondering, is there any possibility for a miracle? I was told that something happened right before they rushed her to the airport, someone was in the hospital and prayed for her injury to recover. Can it be a miracle?

March 24, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)