The whole incident with Ms Myrie is very unfortunate to say the least. Looking on from a distance I hear little variations in the story lines. Her lawyer mentioned today that it’s the police who they are targeting.
Maybe the minister McClean was right… it was neither Customs nor Immigration who did the “searching”. Let’s watch and see when the truth gets shaken out.
That old saying about the mortar and the pestle…

We Bajans better come clean with this one. This will not be good for us if this woman was “finger raped” and we are proven wrong in court.  Then again, it might be good for us as we might be forced to make the necessary changes to prevent this from happening again. Concerned Bajan living in Canada.

From the inception I questioned this young lady’s story, She made those allegations against the authorities because she was denied entry into Barbados.A few Questions I would like to ask. Do the Jamaican Immigration DEPT. allow every visitor to Jamaica to enter the Country? Do they do Body searches?  I do believe that sometimes Officials can be rude and go over board, but I just don’t believe it happen in this case. I will say it again, any Country in the world has the rights to protect its PEOPLE and BORDERS.If this had happened in the USA or England as it often does would we be hearing all of the talk?

The alleged indecent is a very serious allegation, from the story given by the accuser it would appear that only two individuals were present when it took place, the accuser and the accused. The public at this point is hearing one side as given and some people are believing that this may have happenned without hearing the other side, if there was another side to the young woman’s story. She’s adamant that it happened, she got those behind her believing her story. Let’s hope that this matter can be resolved in the best interest of all involved.

Now the focus has shifted to the Police as the culprits. Who has done the identification here, Mr Hylton or Miss Myrie?

If Barbados is one of Mr. Hylton’s favourite countries, then why is he hauling the government before the International Court of Human Rights, and even before a thorough investigation has begun? As a lawyer, Mr. Hylton should know better than to base his case merely on HEARSAY.

Mr Hylton is doing his Job as a lawyer. If I visited Jamaica and was treated as the alleged victim was in this case, then I would want my Barbadian lawyer to take my case too - even if he likes Jamaica.  I would want justice too.  After all, myself an my fellow decent Bajans should be treated with respect when they visit Jamaica or anywhere else in the world.

You have totally missed the point, Peter Lane.  He said it happened and he will prove it.  What investigation has he done?  Explain.

Mary Yearwood:  This is how the legal system work Mary.  Like it or not.  When a lawyer takes a case, his or her job is to fight on behalf of the client.  Our (Barbados Authorities) job is to investigate or get third party to investigate and prove that this never happened.  The alleged victim has every right to work with their lawyer.  Hope this helps.

From my reading of the many responses it would seem that people are laying blame on the Barbados Authorities without knowing the real truth of the matter, a person was denied entry to the country and that person could come up with a scheme on how to discredit Barbados, all is entitle to his / her own opinion. We know they’re some people that will go about trying to destroy others reputation if they’ve been rejected. It will be very disappointing when the truth eventually be told, as we know a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Peter, Get a grip…and some insight!  Where in my statement did I say a lawyer is not to work for his/her client?  Can you say for sure that Mr. Hylton has all the facts to do as he has threatened to do with the Barbados government officials?  Oh, if we (some Barbadians) had the blind loyalty to our homeland as others who would tear down its reputation have for theirs.  Notwithstanding the ‘alleged’ facts so far, Peter, are you beginning to understand my point yet, or do you still need some time?

MARY YEARWOOD:  Mr Hylton spoke directly with his client.  You need to look up HEARSAY in your dictionary before you post another comment.  If you missed my point, I am sorry.

Mary Yearwood, the role of the lawyer is indeed to prove the case for his client. You are or should be familiar with the phrase most in the profession use, “I cannot disclose that information… that is a matter currently before the courts.” It is my hope that you are not insinuating that the lawyer be forced to disclose such information via the media.

Secondly, lawyers conduct their own investigations by hiring private investigators, so I urge you to not jump the gun, and simply wait for the learned council to present his case before the courts before having to make criticisms of him without being “reliably informed”- another phrase lawyers are wont to use.

@ Peter, actually in this case, the relevant authority in Barbados is the defence as it is an action brought against that authority. So in general terms, it is the prosecution that must prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and the defence must argue on a ‘balance of proababilities’. This means that it is Myrie’s counsel that must rely on breaches of procedures as proof of negligence, or the close relation of the criminal act to the office held by the officers as proof of vicarious liability or any other line of argument that counsel may choose to take. The defence may simply raise the issue as to the credibility of the facts, the issues and/or even the witnesses.

Peter, I see you got all ‘hot under the collar’ from reading my comment to you.  I must say I was a little too eager to respond to you after you failed to get the point that I was trying to make.  Also, ‘HEARSAY….(worldwide web and Random House), unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one’s direct knowledge’.  See Peter, I’m game for doing research anytime.  Oh, and the official definition of ‘hearsay’ here is not the one where you whisper a rumour into someone’s ear as I presume you might have thought.  I’m sure Mr. Hylton has not verified his facts, and until he does he has no case and should not condemn before he’s absolutely sure.  That’s all I was trying to say.

Dave Collins, Don’t put words in my mouth (well, in my blog, in this case).  Go back and read what the lawyer told the media about what he knows and what he intends to do.  His comment is what caused me to pounce. 
Also, are you sure that all lawyers hire private investigators to conduct investigations?  Can you say for sure that this learned counsel has been ‘reliably informed’?  I won’t pick too much on your ending statement, which is a little, might I say, incoherent, but I would suggest you re-read the learned counsel’s comment and then tell me how you interpret it.

Perhaps I am more read in legal thinking. Hylton said: “It did happen, and we will prove it….We know the hurdles in the law and we will get around it.” Whats the problem? The Minister stated that it did not happen and “there is no record”. What is the problem?

Let me break it down, “It did happen” means that he has evidence that it happened, “and we will prove it”, means that such evidence will be presented in court. Where the article says “declined to speak further on this accusation” simply means that he does not want to jeopardize his case.

We can therefore conclude that Hylton has information from which he can make the claims, that he has made, and will be present it in court.

Furthermore, I simply sought to ease your inquiring mind about “what investigation has he done?” by mentioning private investigations and urged you not to jump the gun. The man clearly is tight-lipped about his case against the negligent authorities and rightly so, so as not to jeopardize his case. In all honesty, it would have been better if you said simply that you hope that his information is sufficient and credible.

MARY YEARWOOD:  I am not “hot under the collar” as you say.  Dave and others have responded quite eloquently to your post but I will add further. 

Something that was said, heard, seen, smelt or felt first hand by a witness is not considered hearsay – However, if this witness reports to a second party that she or he said, heard, saw smelt or felt anything, the second party’s account of what was said, heard, seen, felt or smelt is considered hearsay.

The best evidence rule requires the use of the most original source of any evidence wherever possible – a first hand witness as in this case.

We can’t let our bias for our country cloud our thinking.  Think about it for a moment, if you were the victim of a crime, are you trying to say that the evidence you provide to your lawyer is HEARSAY?

I just read this report from a Jamaica Newspaper regarding the Myrie Case.
http://go-jamaica.com/news/read_article.php?id=27820
Does not look good for us so far.

Peter, I am not a lawyer and never claimed to be one.  The rules and exceptions for hearsay are too broad and complicated for me to decipher, and I agree with your second paragraph. 
We are all a little biased at times, especially when people shoot off their mouths to the media before an investigation has been completed and it’s us that they are condemning.