Doehms’ attorney to seek bail

By
Updated: July 13, 2017

Expecting that bail would have been denied in the magistrate court, attorneys for David and Anke Cannon, Richard Bradley and Ellis Arnold began the paper work to apply for bail in the Supreme Court. Bradley says it is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.

Richard Bradley – Attorney
“Myself and Mr.Arnold discussed and said that given the nature of these very serious allegations that we had already gone ahead and prepared an application for the Supreme Court which I know I will be filing in mine tomorrow and I’m sure my colleague will also finalize his for filling. The law is that a person must satisfy the court that they have some ties to Belize that they are just not going to get up and leave the country, they have their children here, their business. You would have heard some of the things being said they are what we call in court hearsay, how do you know that the business is not doing good, how do you know that they are not making money and the fact that the man wants to keep himself and not selling clothes in the wife’s boutique doesn’t mean that the business is not doing well but that is neither here nor there. We have said from the outset and we advised the two accused persons that it is a matter that should best be dealt with at the Supreme Court level. Speaking of the Supreme Court the learned DPP has also indicated that these allegations will not be tried in a magistrate court in Belize that she is going to take it to a Supreme Court where there will be a jury and a judge and there is more chance of a better ventilation of the pros and cons of the matter so the matter of their freedom goes to the proper place which is the supreme court that upholds the freedom of everybody who is charged an allegation and can satisfy the court that we have no reason to get up and run we want to clear our name. In fact we cannot run to the United States because we have extradition with them they put them on a plane and send them right back so that is the situation.

Cheryl Lin Vidal – DPP
“We honestly believe that they are a flight risk given all the circumstances that I would have outlined in court today and the situation will not change if the matter is before the Supreme Court instead of the magistrate’s court and we intend to continue our objection to them being admitted to bail.”

 

David and Anke Cannon have been detained by police since Thursday, July 6. They have been charged for possession of control drugs which David pled guilty for. He was fined one hundred and eighty five dollars which was paid this morning. Police also attempted to bring pornography charges against the duo but that failed. Officer Commanding San Pedro, Superintendent Henry Jemmoth told the media last week that the charges were some sort of holding tactic as they mounted evidence for Faye Lin’s murder. Bradley brought up the matter when before the Chief Magistrate today.

Richard Bradley – Attorney
“The application for their freedom and you did hear Ellis Arnold kind of joke it off but also made an issue of it that the police are usually now a days getting involved in putting a holding charge. Mr.John Deshayes was under investigation by the FBI turned out there is nothing against him but they took him to Placencia and Independence and did a holding charge over some gambling machine so we were saying that perhaps maybe they are trying to see if they can find information or a more serious charge and have brought this charge and the reason why they are asking the court to hold onto them is in the hopes that perhaps they will be able to get some further information in the investigation.

Cheryl Lin Vidal – DPP
“I believe that the counsel was suggesting that because we were unable to charge anyone for murder we came up with these charges as I said earlier in relation to the offence that David Doehm pleaded guilty for they admitted to the police under caution that they were administering Valium to this 13 year old child and that they had the Valium at home and that they did not have a prescription for the Valium that is an offence and they were charged for that offence because there is a primary investigation to the killing of the child that does not mean that if there is other evidence in relation to the commission of offence that police are not going to act. Likewise as I said before there is evidence that substantiates this charge of cruelty to a child and should we saw ‘well because there is a big investigation we are not going to bother to lay a charge?’ We’ve laid the charge because there is evidence in support of it and you did not hear either counsel say in court today to the magistrate that we do not have any evidence to support the charge and therefore these persons should be granted bail. There was this oblique reference to the fact that there is a term being bandied about holding charges these are not holding charges these are charges based on the evidence that is available to us.