News from the Turks and Caicos Islands for
|
|
Commentary: Woman in threesome with TCI Premier Misick exculpates him of rape
|
| Published on Monday, September 1, 2008 |
Email To Friend Print Version |
By Anthony L Hall
Hon. Dr Michael Misick, Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), might be guilty of many crimes, but, according to a credible witness statement, rape is not one of them.
No doubt you recall the sensational allegation of rape an American woman filed against Premier Misick last March. And, no doubt, few people believed him when he issued the following denial:
“I strongly and categorically deny these false and outrageous allegations... I am confident that I will be completely and fully exonerated.”
 |
|
Anthony L. Hall is a descendant
of the Turks & Caicos Islands,
international lawyer and political
consultant - headquartered in
Washington DC - who publishes
his own weblog, The iPINIONS
Journal, at http://ipjn.com
offering commentaries on
current events from a
Caribbean perspective
|
However, the signed statement of another woman -- whom I shall refer to only by her first name, Vanessa -- tends to corroborate the Premier’s denial. Not least because she claims to have not only witnessed but also participated in the sexual acts that gave rise to the allegations.
Specifically, Vanessa states that she and the Premier began a sexual relationship in Paris sometime in February. Further, that she was a houseguest at his residence in TCI on March 28 when the alleged rape occurred. She confirms that the Premier’s wife, First Lady LisaRaye, was traveling at the time.
Vanessa states that the Premier threw a party at which “everyone was having a good time drinking and singing and going into the pool.” And that at some point, just she and the Premier’s accuser – whom I shall refer to only by her first name, Cynthia - ended up in the pool together.
Vanessa states that after a little girl talk, Cynthia suggested they get naked. She notes here that fellow partiers “Mike Pernod and Andrew Ashcroft walked by the pool at one point and saw them but left after saying hello.”
Vanessa states that Cynthia then “surprised” her with a kiss on the lips. And that they then proceeded to engage in lesbian sex acts that “went on for a long time.”
Vanessa states that at some point the Premier arrived and saw them in flagrante delicto. Further, that she invited him to join in the fun and that he took off his clothes and jumped right in. At this point, she claims that their ménage-a-trois involved her having “sexual contact even while Cynthia was having sexual intercourse with the Premier.”
Vanessa states, more to the point, that:
“...at no time during their sexual encounter did she hear any complaints from Cynthia....”
Vanessa then states that after a while, they “all agreed to continue inside the guesthouse,” but soon they all fell asleep.
Vanessa states that she heard the Premier get up and leave the next morning. And that when Cynthia finally got up Vanessa “asked how she was feeling and started to talk about all the sex with her and the Premier.”
Vanessa states that she was “very hurt” when Cynthia became “uptight and agitated”; especially when Cynthia insisted that:
“...she didn’t remember anything about that and she has a boyfriend and... she doesn’t do that...”
Vanessa ends her statement by noting that “the Premier along with Ashcroft came to the guesthouse” later that morning. And that after pleasantries, during which “Cynthia didn’t say anything” to the Premier about being raped, Ashcroft drove her to her hotel at Nikki Beach.
And that’s the material thrust of her statement! (Incidentally, I have omitted the more pornographic parts of her statement in the interest of public decency.)
Of course, acquaintance rape (or date rape) is notoriously difficult to prosecute – as the prosecutor in the William Kennedy Smith case can readily attest. But this is because such “she said, he said” cases rarely have eyewitness testimony that can corroborate either the allegation of the accuser or the denial of the accused.
In this case, I can’t imagine any prosecutor filing charges, let alone winning a conviction, against the Premier given Vanessa’s statement. Moreover, it renders waiting for FBI forensic evidence a complete waste of time since any finding would be entirely consistent with consensual sex.
Which brings me to TCI Attorney General Kurt Defreitas; because TCIanders have been waiting anxiously for over five months for AG Defreitas to either charge the Premier or announce that there is insufficient evidence to do so. Moreover, I believe there is not only compelling public interest in putting this matter to rest, but also a categorical imperative to remove the cloud of suspicion from our Premier if prosecuting him has virtually no prospect of success.
That said, I am acutely mindful of widespread suspicion that the Premier paid off Cynthia (with either millions of US dollars or acres of Crown land) to recant her allegations. And I appreciate that many will immediately suspect that he paid Vanessa to provide this exculpatory statement as well.
However, the problem with these suspicions is that, even if true, the alleged payoffs would expose the Premier only to charges for witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Because they would also fatally compromise any indictment against him for rape since Cynthia’s credibility as a victim, having accepted the payoff, would be irremediably impeached.
Accordingly, I urge AG Defeitas to quell the fury of speculation over this rape case by issuing an immediate statement either assuring the public that there is just cause to continue the investigation, or conceding that there is not. In addition, it behooves him to indicate if Vanessa’s statement has already been factored into the investigation, or if it constitutes newly discovered evidence which might finally compel him to drop the allegations against the Premier - as I believe justice now demands.
That said, I also feel obliged to urge AG Defreitas to re-examine his decision not to prosecute the Premier on assault and obstruction of justice charges stemming from his alleged assault of Mr. Arthur Robinson MP last year. Because I believe there is (was?) sufficient (direct and circumstantial) evidence in that case to convict him.
Not to mention that, arguably, there is more compelling public interest in holding the Premier to account for his alleged assault of Robinson than for his alleged rape of Cynthia.
NOTE: I am reliably informed that members of the Commission of Inquiry into government corruption in the TCI are currently conducting extensive forensic investigations into the business and banking activities of government officials and other suspect individuals. Furthermore, that this phase of the Inquiry will continue for several more weeks -- at which time select individuals will be invited to give oral testimony.
But bear in mind that this Commission will have access to all of the evidence TCIslanders submitted to the UK Foreign Affairs Committee a few months ago.
Related Articles:
TCI Premier accused of rape
No public interest in prosecuting the Premier for assault…? | | | | Reads : 1026 |
Back...
| Comments: |
|
| No comments on this topic yet. Be the first one to submit a comment. |
|
Back...
| | | |
|
|
