In an effort to enable the public, who did not attend our recent trial of alleged assault and threatening behaviour against Henry Talbot, Jr., we, John and Peter Bromby give our side. You may make your own judgment.

Mr. Henry Talbot, on 16 May, 2004, never complained to either of the four policemen that he was assaulted.

19 May, 2004 was the first mention of assault on record by Mr. Talbot;

The policeman, Acting Sgt. Jermaine Tucker, on the witness stand, gave evidence to the fact that he asked Mr. Talbot on May 19, 2004 if he had been injured as a result of the alleged assault to which Mr. Talbot replied; ?No?. We now find the fact that he tried to introduce photographs of an alleged injury, along with a medical statement, fictitious. We remind you that these photos along with the alleged medical report were not permitted as evidence and we find his ZBM News report to be scandalous and libellous.

We are disturbed that Mr. Talbot suggests that the Police acted in a biased way towards us and we submit the following altered Police statements from which it is clear there is evidence of bias, but not as Mr. Talbot would have you believe. In fact, we believe the bias is prejudicing the case against us. We suggest you ask Acting Sgt. Jermaine Tucker why the sentence pertaining to injury was deleted from his statement dated 14 September 2004. Please read the enclosed two statements.

We suggest that Mr. Talbot, as a Trustee of the PLP, has considerable influence in both Government and the Police Department. This is supported by the fact that on the day in question, he was arrested at the scene and released without being charged. He was taken home from the Police Station by a PLP MP who was recently responsible for the Department of Planning. We would have expected that same MP, who is our MP as well, to be a little more sympathetic with our side of the dispute. We found no sympathy from the MP and, in fact, are still awaiting a reply from letters we wrote on 19 and 20 May, 2004, respectively, to him and our other Sandys PLP MP concerning this matter.

We find it ironic that no charges have been laid against Mr. Talbot by the Planning Department with regard to this day in May when we see on the news people being prosecuted for comparably minor infractions that happened since this major violation.

During the trial, Mr. Talbot?s sole witness, who admitted he was a convicted thief, Earl Waldron, stated that despite seeing his boss, Mr. Talbot, on a daily basis and being driven to the Police station by Mr. Talbot one-and-a-half-months later to give a Police statement, they had never once discussed the events of the day in question. We find that impossible to believe. Mr. Waldron alleged that John Bromby was waving a stick in front of him and that he saw both John and Peter hitting Mr. Talbot and he alleged that Peter jabbed Mr. Talbot in the stomach. We, therefore, find it incredible that the Magistrate, when he repeatedly asked Mr. Waldron which of the two men across the courtroom was Peter, Mr. Waldron said he was confused. He was unable to positively identify Peter in the courtroom. It was evidence that he did not know who Peter was and yet this is the man who ?saw? Peter strike Mr. Talbot. This was especially concerning to us, as it was key evidence in the trial but failed to feature in the judgment.

We question the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt judgment considering there were four witnesses of reputable character who were present on the beach on May 16, 2004 and witnessed the entire incident. Each one of these witnesses gave consistent testimony that neither John nor Peter ever threatened Mr. Talbot verbally or physically and, in fact, never had any contact with Mr. Talbot.

Mr. Talbot also said on the news that his Police statement was not permitted when, in fact, he had two Police statements submitted, one dated 25th June, 2004 and the other, 19 July, 2004, (both signed by him) despite giving evidence that he only submitted one. He would have you believe that the Police were biased against him and yet he entrusted Acting Sgt. Jermaine Tucker to write his statement and then signed it without reading it.

Mr. Talbot gave evidence that he feared for his life but, in fact, photographic evidence showed him walking, of his own free will, towards and encountering us.

Both of us went down to the beach, one holding a hoe handle and the other a pipe. We stated that we took these items with us in self defence and kept them at our side in a non-threatening manner throughout the whole incident, as testified by two other witnesses for the defence.

It has been inferred that we were not provoked. Mr. Talbot illegally used an excavator to put hug boulders (approximately 800 pounds) blocking our legal access to the beach. Surely anyone would find this to be provocation.

At no time were we on Mr. Talbot?s property.

In the summation one was led to believe that Mr. Talbot never said anything during the incident on the beach when in fact witnesses testified that he was the most vociferous out of the three of us on the beach.

Would you not, if you had been assaulted, upon the arrival of the Police, complain immediately that you had been hit by two 6ft 4in men, with a hoe handle and a pipe if, in fact, this had just happened?

There were two other workers of Mr. Talbot?s, besides Mr. Waldron, on the beach that day. Interestingly, they didn?t testify at all. Why didn?t they testify? Why didn?t they come to his defence if he was being assaulted?

Why would Mr. Talbot tell the Police three days later that he, in fact, had no injuries and in court say the opposite?

Was this not a case of Peter and John merely protecting their legal right of way? Or was this, in fact, malicious intent by Mr. Talbot against the holders of their legal right of way?

Would you sign two Police statements from a Police officer, written on your behalf without reading it? (bearing in mind that you allege that the same Police are buddies with the defendants)

Don?t you think it strange that the defendants were calling the Police as witnesses and not the prosecution, as is the norm? We remind you that Mr. Talbot?s claim that the Police were buddies with us, is still to this day unsubstantiated.

What he may have perceived as ?bias? was a pre-judgment by the Police against him, who on a number of previous occasions had attended Gilbert?s Bay as a result of complaints by members of the public. Why has he not been prosecuted on any of those occasions?

In light of the facts and much strained legal system we find it hard to believe that what we consider to be a malicious prosecution, was even considered, let alone made a priority. In conclusion, we maintain our innocence of assaulting or using threatening words against Mr. Henry Talbot.