The Robinson petition

Why would the Royal Gazette run a story about a online petition to clear the name of Dennis Robinson, one of the murderers of the Cooper twins, then not give the website's address?

I hope it wasn't a deliberate omission. That would suggest a judgment on the Gazette's part about the petition's worth - a judgement that they should leave to their readers.

Does anyone know the URL?

» The petition can be found here. Thanks to youngbermudian for providing the link.

Comments

[Terry Cloth on 09.02.06 at 07:41]

I would like to have a look at it as well. I have searched for it with no success.

As far as I am concerned, Robinson is where he belongs. Under the law, he had no obligation to help the twins, but morally he is the lowest of the low. Further, he helped transport their bodies. He got what was coming to him.

[loki on 09.02.06 at 07:44]

I really don't think that the Gazette should be assisting a convicted murderer of disseminating a petition (presumably for his release) unless there's some compelling public interest. The guy was convicted on the basis of compelling evidence, both direct and circumstantial:

1. DNA evidence linking the deceased to both Bugess and the crime scene;

2. Eyewitnesses, who testified that they saw and heard Burgess beating the twins with a baseball bat whilst Robinson prevented the twins from leaving by guarding the door (in law, this makes him as guilty as Burgess).

What's puzzling is why he didn't take the stand: surely his counsel realized that no one was going to buy Burgess's defence? All Robinson would have had to have said was that he was in the room, but he just watched and wasn't guarding the door. Very strange.....

[Adjustah on 09.02.06 at 07:57]

A quick google search brings up this:

http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/hot-new/pressrel/2000/0114-01.htm

Is this the same Robinson? No joy finding the petition. I would be interested in having a look.

[jake on 09.02.06 at 08:42]

I think I found it!

www.guiltybastard.com

Yeah, it's right there.

[Full Fullish on 09.02.06 at 08:48]

Does it really matter? I'm sure he'll be out of paroll in about 2 years anyways. ;)

[loki on 09.02.06 at 09:02]

"A quick google search brings up this:

http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/hot-new/pressrel/2000/0114-01.htm

Is this the same Robinson? No joy finding the petition. I would be interested in having a look."

Yes, it's the same Robinson. I don't think he'd been out too long before the murders occured, actually.

[Terry Cloth on 09.02.06 at 09:10]

Exactly - it is the same one. Which strengthens the argument that he is right where he belongs.

[Onion on 09.02.06 at 09:29]

Loki,

I would've expected better from the lawyers on this blog.

You say,

"1. DNA evidence linking the deceased to both Bugess and the crime scene;

2. Eyewitnesses, who testified that they saw and heard Burgess beating the twins with a baseball bat whilst Robinson prevented the twins from leaving by guarding the door (in law, this makes him as guilty as Burgess)."

Loki, none of this was evidence in the case against Robinson. No evidence suggested that he prevented anyone from leaving the room. This was RG fabrication and the RG's usual shoddy court reporting on this point was the subject of a complaint during the trial by defence counsel. The judge did not even deny that the RG had it wrong.

The RG continues to say that Robinson admits to being present in the room. This again is rubbish. The defence case was "if we are to accept the prosecution's version that Robinson was present, then taking this evidence at its highest, there is nothing to link him to the murder. He was a bystander, no different from the other eye-witnesses."

No evidence submitted by the prosecution suggested anything other than Robinson being present in the room. Just because you are present in a room does not make you guilty of murder. The prosecution provided no evidence to suggest he was aware any muder was to take place. No evidence suggested that he encouraged the murder or prevented anyone from leaving the room. Not even the star witnesses suggested anything of the sort. There was no evidence which suggested he shared the state of mind of Burgess. The felony murder rule does not kick in because there was no felony taking place. There wasn't even any evidence that he assisted in forcing the twins into the building.

If he helped dump the body, as suggested by prosecution, then he would be guilty of being an accessory after the fact- NOT of murder. As far as I'm concerned there was no compelling evidence to convict Robinson.

I don't think a petition is appropriate nor effective. However, in my view, he was charged with the wrong crime, and no doubt this will rightly form part of his appeal.

I'll say something else on this point. Sources tell me the jury went about 4 hours and could not get a majority verdict against Robinson. At 5:30 pm they were told that since they could not agree on a verdict they would be sequestered overnight in a hotel.

They reached a verdict within 20 minutes.

Jake, I don't know if you were joking or not but are we now going to encourage unsafe convictions just to make a statement against crime in Bermuda?

[loki on 09.02.06 at 09:35]

"Loki, none of this was evidence in the case against Robinson. No evidence suggested that he prevented anyone from leaving the room."

If that is, indeed, the case (as you know, I'm relying on press reports), then I have no idea how the judge could have allowed the case to go to the jury. If, however, the prosecution did adduce evidence that he played a role in preventing the twins from leaving, or preventing others from intervening, then I maintain that the decision to no take the stand was a very strange one, indeed.

[Onion on 09.02.06 at 09:43]

Loki, I agree. Many thought it would've been thrown out on a no case submission. But I think Ground is conservative and was anxious not to attract the same controversy that Meerabux received when he threw out the Middleton charge on a no-case.

The prosecution case depended on two eye witnesses (one of whom is about to stand trial for other offences). Under cross examination both of them accepted that Robinson never forced them into room and never prevented anyone from leaving.

If Robinson took the stand he would have given up his right to have his QC address the jury last. Another antiquated rule in our legal system.

[loki on 09.02.06 at 09:55]

"Under cross examination both of them accepted that Robinson never forced them into room and never prevented anyone from leaving."

If that's correct, I'm very surprised at Mr. Justice Ground: I would expect more of him. My opinion of Robinson's guilt was based on my understanding that the witnesses had maintained that Robinson was playing some active role in securing the premises and/or preventing people from coming and going. If they said what you have indicated under x-exam, then I would say that the case was far too shaky to put to a jury.

[Bill Cook on 09.02.06 at 10:15]

I am assuming that the jury did not take its instructions from the Royal Gazette ?

If we are to place our faith in the jury system then we must respect its decision making even if it takes them 15 minutes to reach a decision or 15 days.

I am more concerned at the lack of convictions of the guilty than the conviction of low life scumbags who will never be missed except by other low life scumbags.

It is always illuminating to see who supports the scumbags however and often their selection of who to support.

[loki on 09.02.06 at 10:36]

"If we are to place our faith in the jury system then we must respect its decision making even if it takes them 15 minutes to reach a decision or 15 days."

Sorry, Bill, but that's not the way the system works. If what Onion says is correct, the case against Robinson should never have even been put to the jury. Believe me, I think that pretty much everyone involved in that case, both victims and accused, are scumbags, but I'm perplexed as to how the judge could have justified putting the case to the jury.

[Bill Cook on 09.02.06 at 10:48]

Loki,

Exactly my point.

We do not have a jury system that can ask the right questions.

I assume they heard all the evidence and on the basis of evidence presented were able to make a decision.

Does that make the judge or the jury incompetent or both ?

Sometimes incompetence works to the betterment of the public at large but not often in my experience.

[loki on 09.02.06 at 10:52]

Bill, I'm biased as I do not believe in the jury system: I think that it creates more injustice than justice. I've always maintained that a jury is made up of twelve persons of average ignorance.

[Bill Cook on 09.02.06 at 11:08]

Loki

I am with you on that and I take a lot of stick for saying so.

I am disqualified from serving on Jury so do not have that experience.

However I have a friend nice chap but would have difficulty finding his D... without the aid of Radar, and they made him foreman at once, that really scared me.

I think we are too small to get an impartial jury because of all the obvious reasons but it will be hard to change in my opinion.

[Two Cents on 09.02.06 at 11:14]

How does one become disqualified from serving on a Jury?

Excuse the civics question, as I probably should know...but hey I am ignorant to this fact (among others)

[Terry Cloth on 09.02.06 at 11:25]

It is my understanding that Robinson became active when he ran outside to try to "get" the witness that was at the window. That as I see it changed him from a witness with no duty to help the twins to an active participant to the crime.

It is difficult to prove of course, but surely a decent lawyer would advise Robinson to take the stand give evidence that he saw it all and did not take part (if of course that is what Robinson maintains). Perhaps a no case submission would then succeed thereby avaoiding having to go to the jury and risk blurring the line between law and morality.

[Intrigued on 09.02.06 at 11:28]

Bill:

While emotionally I agree with you in not frettign over what may have been an inappropriate conviction, and I do indeed believe that Robinson is certainly not a desirable individual, a blind eye is never warranted. Too often individuals, with limited funds and poor counsel, get convicted inappropriately. Unless there is a universal rigour at ensuring that the underlying precepts of the system are adequately and competantly exercised innocent people will pay. When errors occurred, or even a suggestion of an error exists, we should always support a thorough review/appeal and assume innocence. Even if the individual is a scumbag.

[Point Finger on 09.02.06 at 12:12]

If Robinson was so innocent, why didn't he take the stand?

If I was innocent I would be on the stand in a second.

He has to take responsibility for his inaction in the judical process.

[jake on 09.02.06 at 12:15]

Onion,

The blood in his Van was from his participation in the crime - after the fact or not, the jury had basis for the finding that they made. They heard the evidence - we did not.

If on Appeal the CA takes a different view - on the law - then that is a matter for them. As far as I am concerned, the issues of fact have been made out.

There is far too much lawlessness in Bermuda, and I for one welcome verdicts that challenge the perception that one can 'get off' if one hires the right lawyer.

I am also glad they don't allow lawyers on juries. We are too often bamboozeld one way or the other. I am far too conservative, and you my friend, are far too liberal.

Who knows, perhaps he can do his law degree while he is up there, and launch his own appeal.

[jake on 09.02.06 at 12:18]

Too often individuals, with limited funds and poor counsel, get convicted inappropriately. - Intrigued

With the legal aid he got, we paid for a Barrister and a Queens Counsel, from England to boot!

He got the best defense money can pay for, and now he will get the best prison money can pay for.

I think he has been treated very fairly.

[tong on 09.02.06 at 12:19]

Too often individuals, with limited funds and poor counsel, get convicted inappropriately

This certainly wasnt the case with Burgess... Who was Robinson's lawyer?

[SmokingGun on 09.02.06 at 12:40]

I would assume Robinson must have had an opportunity to plea bargain and testify angainst Burgess claiming he was there through-out and even helped dispose of the bodies. He could have claimed Burgess threatened to kill him if he didn't co-operate.

At the end of the day he didn't plea bargain, he didn't testify in his own defense and he let his case become dependent on Burgess's outcome. His appeal might be based on poor legal advice. Knowing the way things work in Bermuda his appeal could take a lot longer than if he just shuts up, does his time and gets out early on good behaviour.

[Tiger Bay on 09.02.06 at 12:44]

Robinson was represented by John Perry QC and Charles Richardson.

John Perry was previously Justis Smith's lawyer, securing his acquittal in the Middleton murder trial.

http://www.25bedfordrow.com/media/html/members_profile_new.asp?memberid=48

[RedOnion on 09.02.06 at 12:58]

Two Cents, you are not liable for jury duty if, amongst other things, you are a Police Officer, Prison Officer, or former Prison Officer. There are a few other occupations that also will relieve you of duty.

[silencedogood on 09.02.06 at 12:59]

Are the trial transcripts available online or only through a paid request?

[Terrycloth on 09.02.06 at 15:04]

Interesting point about the QC from England. Did he require a work permit? If so, I didnt see the advertisement for his position in the RG. We have a couple of well regarded QCs here. Did he pay the same taxes (deductions) that we do?

And if Legal Aid did pay for the defense, is there any legal aid money left? Surely these guys must have drained the account. Im assuming that such a high profile lawyer didnt stay at the Brightside Guest Cottages or eat at the Buckaroo!! Am I the only one with a problem with all of this?

[thisgrassman on 09.02.06 at 15:20]

Let me get this right - you are trying to solicit sympathy for local lawyers who are being hard done by because foreign QC's are allowed in to work?

Such a worthy cause – I mean it must be hell trying to get by on the rates the profession so reasonably charge.

And if the courts are such a disgrace (as noted by Griffiths) why doesn’t the legal profession make a contribution towards their renovation?

[Onion on 09.02.06 at 15:58]

No Jake,

Blood in your van doesn't on its own make you guilty of murder. At best, it could make you an accessory after the fact. Plain and simple. You cannot connect the dots of evidence with this presumption of guilt. Furthermore, do you know who was driving the van at the relevant time? None of prosecution witnesses could answer this.

I am looking at the law dispassionately as taught to me by the same text books of evidence that you read. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It is about interpreting the law and applying it fairly. As much as I abhor the lawlessness that seems to be prevalent in our society, just locking up anyone for life, regardless of their role in the matter, is not the answer. One day it might be you or me in that position. I am also disturbed by the perception that anyone with the funds thinks he can "get off" so long as he has a good counsel (although I'm sure none of us would argue if OUR client took that view:-). That does not mean we should feel justice has been done regardless of the facts of the case. That does not mean I should support an unsafe conviction. The best money will always get you the best lawyer, whether this be in criminal or commercial.

I do not criticize the jury as their autonomy is sacred in our legal system. But I do not believe that he was charged with the right offense and as such, in my view, the jury were misdirected and he should appeal.

[Onion on 09.02.06 at 16:00]

Terry Cloth, legal aid does not pay all these QC's fees.

[Darkside on 09.02.06 at 16:47]

Terrycloth, yes he did require a work permit ... a temporary work permit for a specific job for a period not exceeding 3 months ... no requirement to advertise.

[jake on 09.02.06 at 18:05]

Onion,

Because I agree with this verdict does not mean I am the enemy of due process.

I think that in circumstances where a close relationship can be shown, where on the evidence it is clear that you were there, where the truck with the blood is your truck (meaning it was used and cleaned), where you offer no other explanation, where the explanation offered by your legal team (owing no duty) whilst true in law, is absurd in the context of a trial for your life, means that a jury may connect the dots.

I believe that criminals are getting better at what they do. They clean up. They dump the bodies. They follow a logical trial strategy.

What is also happening is that juries are getting wise too. They see through co-defendants, one of whom says he was not even there, and whose wife seeks to support the fact that he was 'gambling', and they say - hey - this is all a bunch of lies. That guy is lying, and the other guy is not talking. Why is that? They draw inferences. That is their job.

He has no legal duty to tell them anything, but they can rely on a theory - a theory - of the case that is supported by the facts that do exist. You cannot blame them. You can blame him, because he should have spoken up for himself and not let the prosecution's voice be the only one heard. He is entitled to do that of course. But then his risk is that the jury will not see things his way.

Frankly, I do not care. Two lives were taken in a brutal fashion. This is what our society has become. If he helped in the murders, he goes to jail. If he had spoken up to save them, if he had not helped to carry the bodies, if he had helped the police, if he had taken the stand, he might be free. Instead he helped a murdering lunatic, obstructed an investigation, did not aid the Police, offered no evidence at trial, did not refute an obviously false testimony given by his accomplice and STILL you think the system is the one at fault.

This is why our country is so fucked up.

[SmokingGun on 09.02.06 at 18:14]

I believe that criminals are getting better at what they do. They clean up. They dump the bodies. They follow a logical trial strategy.

Jake this is very true. It is being referred to as the CSI effect. I wouldn't be surprised if they start selling bleach by prescription....

[Uncle Elvis on 09.02.06 at 18:54]

"How does one become disqualified from serving on a Jury?

Excuse the civics question, as I probably should know...but hey I am ignorant to this fact (among others)"

I'm taking notes, too, 2¢!
Looks like you might be out, lucky!

[loki on 09.02.06 at 18:56]

"I think that in circumstances where a close relationship can be shown, where on the evidence it is clear that you were there, where the truck with the blood is your truck (meaning it was used and cleaned), where you offer no other explanation, where the explanation offered by your legal team (owing no duty) whilst true in law, is absurd in the context of a trial for your life, means that a jury may connect the dots."

I hear where you're coming from, Jake. Certainly, I have little in the way of sympathy, given that he was certainly an accessory after the fact. However, I also believe in the rule of law and, sorry, but what you are saying is absolutely not the law. Onion is correct. None of the facts you have cited would - in law - entitle a jury to draw inferences that he was an accomplice to the murder itself. Having gone back, at Onion's suggestion, and actually read the quotes of what the witnesses actually said, as opposed to what the prosecution and/or the gazette said, I'm astonished that the judge let this go to the jury. The prosecution said the Robinson was guarding the door. The witnesses did not. Indeed, they admitted that he made no attempt to stop anyone from coming or going. Frankly, Robinson's witnessed behaviour at the scene and during the events leading up the scene don't appear to me to be any different from that of thw witnesses! Personally, I feel pretty foolish for not reading the extensive newspaper coverage more carefully at the time, as I had taken the evidence to be something that it was not. Onion, I suspect, is less rusty in the field of criminal law than I am (I haven't picked up a copy of Archbold in about three years), but based on my understanding of the law, Robinson should have walked after the close of the prosecution case. That's not my moral judgment of him: the guy's clearly a scumbag, but I think that it's right that judges respect the rule of law and do what the law compels them to do.

[Bill Cook on 09.02.06 at 20:23]

We appear to have a very poor judicial system.

I tend to believe that the law should protect the law abiding public from criminal behaviour and see that those who break the law are punished in accordance with the crime or crimes committed.

My fear is that the law or laws need constant revision to protect the public at large from criminal behaviour.

Simply put if you break the law or laws you should be punished accordingly, not by having more money for a smart mouth piece lawyer who is smarter than the state prosecutor, or having a good lawyer who for his or her own best reasons offers the service free if the case is one that fits their agenda.

What I feel is that this case shows us that two people were taken and brutally beaten in a particularly horrific manner having their skulls broken and crushed etc rather than simply executed which leads me to believe that it was a warning to others.

It puzzles me why the charges were not such as to carry the maximum penalty rather than 15 yrs which drug importers could get with no loss of life.

It seems that once again we screwed up and the charges were not what they should have been for these most brutal and premeditated crimes.

I only hope that with an appeal that could bring a retrial it would be for more serious charges that would carry a longer period of incarceration without parole.

[Linda on 09.02.06 at 20:41]

Who cares about his petition? Even if he did not participate in any beatings, he also did nothing to prevent them. The jury found him guilty based on evidence presented. My probelm with the whole thing is that life in prison comes down to a mere 15 or 20 years. Life should mean that the convicted leaves prison in a body bag with a toe tag. Judging from sentences meted out for serious crimes these days, it is painfully obvious that there is no justice for the victims.

[loki on 09.02.06 at 20:43]

"My probelm with the whole thing is that life in prison comes down to a mere 15 or 20 years."

No it doesn't. Get your facts straight: they are not eligible to be even considered for parole until 15 years have passed. That does not mean that they will be granted parole after 15 years.

[RedOnion on 09.02.06 at 20:48]

A petition signed by 15,000 voters to ask for a referendum hasn't seemed to have prompted any action, so what good will Robinson's petition do?

Personally, I was very surprised from the evidence I read in the RG that he was charged with murder and not with being an accessory to murder. IMO he didn't testify, as to do so would have been to implicate Burgess, there was no doubt that he was there at the time of the murders, but what could he say, that he simply stayed near the door while Burgess beat the twins? He might have done that if they had seperate trials, but not with them being tried together. I guess the DPP had a strategy, obviously it worked, but a lot can change with appeals.

[loki on 09.02.06 at 20:51]

"Personally, I was very surprised from the evidence I read in the RG that he was charged with murder and not with being an accessory to murder."

Under Bermuda and UK law, there's no difference: the guy who assists the murderer is as guilty as the murderer himself. Being an accessory after the fact, well, that's a different matter.

[Bill Cook on 09.02.06 at 22:14]

What I think Linda says reflects the average persons opinion of the law or legal system sometimes wrongly called the justice system IMO.

Fortunately we are not all lawyers and get confused with terms like life which does not mean life and justice which does not mean justice and so forth.

Rather than bending down and whistling up our ass holes we want the public PROTECTED by those we pay to do just that not bullshitting about in a manner that sees all kinds of reaction when some murderous son of a bitch may be getting what he deserves or close to it as IMO the death penalty should still apply.

We do not have consumers affairs to address the crap service we get from our judicial system so is it any reason that just about every single Bermudian is totally pissed off at the incompetence we are subjected to daily ?

If only those who are so vocal on the rights of these parasitical scumbags were equally vocal on the rights of the average law abiding public maybe we could effect meaningful change.

[Adjustah on 10.02.06 at 09:29]

So, has anyone found the URL?

[Onion on 10.02.06 at 09:29]

Jake says:

"Instead he helped a murdering lunatic, obstructed an investigation, did not aid the Police, offered no evidence at trial, did not refute an obviously false testimony given by his accomplice and STILL you think the system is the one at fault.

This is why our country is so fucked up."

Come on Jake,

I know you don't think that is what I'm saying. I voiced my opinion on the evidence presented in the case. I never said the system was at fault and I invite you to show me where I even implied this. I specifically stated that I don't criticize the jury because "their autonomy is sacred in our legal system". Our system contains an appeals process and I merely said that, given the facts of this case I am of the view that Robinson should appeal.

I reiterate that I abhor the rise in crime in our society. But that doesn't mean I am going to support the view that every man who finds himself in the dock is a guilty bastard, just to appease public concern over crime. Like I said, one day it might be you in the dock and suppose there was some juror in your case who held your view point.

[youngbermudian on 10.02.06 at 17:52]

the link is

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dennisr

[Casual Observer on 14.02.06 at 15:43]

To Jake, Loki, Bill Cook and the rest...

Had you taken the opportunity to actually step inside the courtroom or read the transcripts of the case, you might find, and rightly so, the outcome of Robinson's case very disturbing.

There was absolutely no evidence to suggest that Robinson played any greater role in the crime than the other witnesses. If it was the prosecutions case that Robinson assisted in the disposal of the bodies, then as Onion rightly pointed out, they should have charged him as an accessory.

It would be nice if people took the time to review the facts for themselves rather than relying on hearsay and the good ol' RG on which to base their opinions...

The charge that the defense had to meet was one of murder, which the Prosecution failed to present. The fact that the case against him was even put to the jury is very questionable as it should have never been allowed to go that far.

Those perpretrators of violent crimes need to be convicted, but wrongful convictions should not be allowed simply because it helps all of us sleep better at night. The wrongful conviction of an innocent man is just as much of an abhorration as a guilty man getting off for a crime that he did commit...

[Bill Cook on 14.02.06 at 16:05]

Regrettably the instances of the guilty getting off greatly outnumber those of the innocent getting convicted.

It is not the fault of the law abiding public that we have a bumbling bunch of incompetents running our judical system who fail to bring the proper charges against these unsavory characters that stimulate such ardent attention.

[loki on 14.02.06 at 16:14]

'Casual Observor' - why don't you read all of my comments, and not just the first one, before taking a pot-shot at me?

[Casual Observer on 14.02.06 at 16:31]

Bill Cook,

Agreed. But that should not stop us from demanding justice.

Loki,

Apologies. In my haste to respond to individuals commenting on a matter they are clearly not informed about, I mistakenly included you in the lot.

[loki on 14.02.06 at 16:38]

Not a problem, 'Casual Observor'. These things happen. What's interesting is that, if you actually go back and read the Gazette articles in detail, the witness quotes don't support the contention that he was guarding the door at all. I'm just trying to think back to the articles: did the Gazette actually suggest that the witnesses had stated otherwise. My recollection is that the Gazette did not, but I may be wrong. What they did do - to my recollection - is repeatedly quote the prosecution's contention that Robinson had guarded the door.

Based on the witness quotes that I have read so far and my knowledge of the law, I would expect the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction.