attorney Kay Bacchus-Baptiste
May 18, 2018
Ex-cop cleared of incest charges still loves his family, says defence lawyer

The ex-cop who was charged with incest and unlawful sexual intercourse with his young daughter is elated at having been acquitted on Tuesday, and says that he still loves his family.

This was according to his defence attorney Kay Bacchus-Baptiste, with whom SEARCHLIGHT spoke the day after the verdict was announced.However, the attorney says that she was not there in person to witness the result, but was in her office when she found out.

“It was a majority verdict, I am told because I was not even there for the verdict… they did not call me as was the norm, sitting in my office waiting. When the defendant walked into my office, that’s how I knew he was out.”

The jury, after contemplating for over three hours, and listening to a trial that lasted over a week, brought back a majority verdict of eight to one, in favour of ‘not guilty’, and therefore acquitting the defendant of all charges laid against him.

The former SSU officer was extradited from the United States of America (USA) to answer charges of incest, indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, after living there since he left this country in 2013.The young girl was eight in January 2013, when she was admitted to the Milton Cato Memorial Hospital (MCMH) and found to have gonorrhoea, a sexually transmitted disease, which she was reported to have said was given to her by her father.

However, Tuesday’s result did not come as a surprise to Bacchus-Baptiste who disclosed, “I anticipated that the jury was going to acquit him because it would have been the right thing to do based on the evidence that was presented to the court and they gave a true verdict according to the evidence which is all that they would be asked to do…. I expected it to be unanimous if anything, but it was a difficult case so I am satisfied that justice was served.”

She described three things that she thought stood out to the jury and followed in an acquittal.She noted a discrepancy in evidence given as it relates to January 26, 2013, saying, “Her (the complainant’s) baby sister was sick, the mother took them to the hospital, the father came there, and picked her up, saying he’s taking her home to change her school clothes and bring her back…it turned out that the 26th was a Saturday so there’s no way she could have been in school clothes.”

“The mother in particular, she remembered that date because the baby vomited and she had a special cooking class, and so the date was set in her mind. Nobody bothered to check if the date was a school day, and it was only after the fact that they realized that it was a Saturday,” she continued.

“The other evidence was that on the 31st of January when she was admitted to the hospital, her father took her home again to change, to get clothes for her to stay in the hospital, and he had sex with her,” Bacchus-Baptiste indicated.

She said two issues came out in relation to this evidence, namely that it was at variance with the mother’s, who said that her daughter never left the hospital that day but that she went home with the father.Secondly she said, “the issue was that there was sex on the very day that she was admitted. The hospital would have found recent marks, found semen, you know, all the other physical evidence to prove that she was raped.”

She opined that the other ‘perplexing situation’ was that the child had contracted gonorrhoea but, “There was absolutely no evidence that the defendant had gonorrhoea, in fact the defendant was also sleeping with the wife throughout the period, she did not get gonorrhoea.

So it is clear that who gave her gonorrhoea was somebody else.”The attorney stated firmly, “Despite how hard the prosecution tried, and despite the fact that, yes she looked like an innocent child, it was clear to me, and I think I was able to convince the jury, that she was not telling the truth.”The case was prosecuted by crown prosecutor Karim Nelson, and saw 12 witnesses taking the stand, the only defence witness being the accused himself.

Now, after two years of being in custody, the ex-cop is free, and Bacchus-Baptiste described his reaction as, “Elated…I mean his life has been virtually destroyed, he still loves his family, he says he still loves his wife too…he still loves his family and he would like to regain the relationship but it is going to take a very long time to build it back up, but he’s elated that he’s free of course.”

Also, summing up her feelings on the outcome for the trial, she insisted, “This is why every defendant is entitled to a fair defence, even if the majority of the populace think that he’s guilty, even without a trial. He’s entitled to it, the Constitution guarantees it, our laws guarantee it, and he is entitled to have his lawyer of choice to defend him. This time, justice was served.”