*** media release from the attorney of Ms. Judith Roumou ***
PHILIPSBURG – For immediate release – July 11, 2015. On behalf of my client Ms. J. Roumou, I would like to make the following known:
I have requested the public prosecutor to hear several witnesses, including some of my client’s accusers, officers of the St Maarten Police Force as well as the prosecutor who was handling this case (T. Kamps).
This request was extremely detailed and supported by facts and circumstances that question the potential ulterior motives behind said accusers and police officers to be willing to insist on an arrest and prosecution of my client in this case. In my previous media release I outlined what potential ulterior motives could be.
I also outlined the fact that I wanted to hear the individual who works at Stichting Justiele Inrichtingen Bovenwindse Eilanden who without motivating her reasoning, concluded that my client should be released but that she would have to (among other things) be subjected to talks and or tests by the Mental Health Foundation. I explained to the Judge of Instruction that I have noticed a deliberate attempt to have my client classified as crazy as a way to nullify her remarks and/or silence her.
I have also outlined that I find it unbelievable that simply reading the hard drive of my client’s laptops, etc has taken more than 10 days already whereas securing the information on a hard drive is a matter of maximum a couple of hours. The longer the laptops remain in police custody, the more I have reason to question what exactly is being done with my clients items. My client is considering filing an injunction case next week to obtain her items as she is dependent on those items to provide for herself.
The public prosecutor has (K Van Nie), despite sufficient reason to do so, has informed the Judge of Instruction yesterday (July 10th 2015) that she wants the Judge of Instruction to refuse my requests to hear witnesses because my client is no longer in custody, and according to her, my client would no longer have the right to call for witnesses as a consequence thereof.
Ms. Van Nie also indicated that she, who also has the right to hear witnesses regardless as to whether or not my client is [still] detained, does not see the need to hear the witnesses.
I informed the judge yesterday evening that I consider the response of the public prosecutor’s office to be alarming and concerning as the goal of the public prosecutor’s office in a criminal investigation is and must always be to find out the truth of the matter regardless as to who is the person filing the complaint and who is the person being accused of committing a crime.
I further informed the Judge of Instruction that I am beginning to seriously question who’s interests the public prosecutor’s office is protecting and if they are using their power to (continue) to hide the real reason my client was arrested and to continue to muzzle my client.
As my client is clearly being silenced by the public prosecutor’s office by them not returning her items to her, not hearing witnesses and not providing timely updates in this case, I was forced to bring these unfortunate developments to the public arena with my client’s permission.