-Father of child responds to allegations published in media
Fatima Martin was Tuesday granted bail in the amount of Gy$100,000 after her attorneys Sase Gunraj and Emily Dodson filed an application for bail, pending the results of an appeal which they had previously submitted to the court.
Gunraj, who appeared in court on behalf of Martin pro bono, related that he thinks the sentence delivered by Magistrate Sueanna Lovell to the defendant was too harsh.
He also opined that he is representing the defendant because he wishes to see justice adequately and righteously dispensed in the case.
Martin was on Thursday sentenced to 60 months in prison after she appeared in the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court before Magistrate Lovell. She pleaded guilty to the charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm on one-year-old Sanjana Edmond.
Subsequent to her sentencing, several women’s rights activists took to the streets in protest, describing the penalty as harsh and biased, noting that Martin might have been scared to express herself adequately because of the social status of the virtual complainant’s family.
Geeta Chandan-Edmond
They also claim that Martin was assaulted by a police officer, Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond and her husband Joel Edmond, allegedly threatened to shoot her and put her in a bag.
Red Thread Director Karen DeSouza said the allegations of assault against the magistrate and her husband are reflected in the police’s statement.
Martin admitted to family members who visited her on Monday, February 17, at the New Amsterdam Prison, that she did hit the child. However, she said that she was beaten by the parents when she told them about the incident at the house.
According to a relative, Martin claimed that she was beaten again at the police station in the presence of a female police officer.
Not true
Meanwhile, Joel Edmond, the father of the infant, in a statement on Wednesday said he nor his wife at any time assault the accused.
The statement also refuted several claims that have appeared in sections of the media as it relates to the story.
He stated that Martin was employed by him and his wife in November 2013, subsequent to an advertisement in local newspapers for a nanny. He added that when she came for the interview, she gave her address as 719 Kaneville, Grove, East Bank Demerara.
He noted too that Martin was only hired because she showed some persistence in wanting the job, returning just one week after her interview, pleading with the couple to hire her as their babysitter.
“It would be a malicious misrepresentation of the facts to say that, either my wife or I trafficked Fatima Martin from Lethem to work with us in Georgetown.”
Edmond further stated that upon commencement of the job, the accused was given a room with modern amenities and was not made to sleep with the baby as was earlier reported, noting too that she was paid Gy$10,000 a week.
The father of the baby also stated that medical reports given to him by doctors at the St Joseph Mercy Hospital indicated that the baby was assaulted on several occasions.
The medical reports also indicated the injuries suffered were caused by blunt trauma of a fist and signs of being strangled. These reports did not correspond with what would have been the injuries had the baby fallen off the bed as reported by Martin.
Alleged admittance
He said that it was only after another visit to a medical institution that they confronted Martin, who reportedly told them “Sir Joel, I want to tell you the truth, I cuff up the baby.”
Edmond also denied allegations that his wife influenced the ruling of Magistrate Lovell. He said he will not allow the focus to be shifted away from the real victim in the story. “I will be Sanjana’s voice” he declared.
With regard to the accused being granted bail, Edmond related that he was not surprised at the development. He related that the attorneys had done their work. “All the publicity was to incite the granting of bail,” he contended.
Meanwhile, Magistrate Lovell, who has faced mounting criticisms in recent days for sentencing the babysitter to five years in prison, has defended her judgment.
Lovell, when approached by members of the media on Wednesday, said “I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment at this time, I understand that the matter is the subject of an appeal and I prefer to let the Appellate Court speak,” she said, adding that “I operated within the confines of the law.”
The magistrate stated that she identifies with the reason for the perception in the delivery of her ruling, but said the views expressed in the media are not true.
