Attorney explains acquittal of 3 men charged in murder case

As we’ve told you, the tragedy of Raylene’s cruel death has been compounded by another travesty – the matter never even reached full trial, and the three men walked. On Tuesday state-appointed attorneys for the three accused informed Justice Hanomansingh that the confessions to the crime were not obtained in accordance with the law, and after examination and analysis, their claims were borne out. With that, the men were free to go on Wednesday, destroying any hope of justice for a young girl who never got to see her newborn grow up.  Today attorney Dickie Bradley explained the acquittal of the men. We warn that some of the language used is graphic and may not be suitable for all audiences.

  FOR VIDEO CLICK HERE

.

Dickie Bradley, Attorney for Aracely Cahueque

Dickie Bradley

“It is a sad day for us that in fact an elementary matter like obtaining a statement can turn out to be that officers are violating the law in the worst kind of way…that they are engaging in torturing persons, beating persons and finding ways to get around the law and to obtain a statement improperly. The judge cannot in the face of overwhelming evidence that the law has been broken, breached, violated in order to obtain a statement…the judge cannot ignore the evidence that comes to him in a voir dire. And in this particular case a judge with the experience of Justice Hanomansingh will not allow statements that are obtained unlawfully, improperly in violation of clear, straightforward guidelines. And so he adjourned and went over the evidence and then he came to the conclusion that the statements cannot be allowed. That case fell apart because of misbehavior in relation to obtaining the statements. One statement is detailed and gruesome. All the statements back up that statement…that they used force and cut that young lady’s head off her body…that in fact the knife was a small knife and the head could not completely come off and they broke off her spinal cord and ripped off her head and threw it in the river. So that case did fall apart two days ago and the accused persons walked. I know it’s a little confusing when a statement is being challenged. It is not what is inside the statement. The truthfulness of the statement, the accuracy of the statement, the facts of the statement are matters that are dealt with in the proper trial.”

Cahueque returns to court on Monday for the continuation of her voir dire. It is believed that she will be put on the stand to offer testimony.