Killer stays on death row

The appellant Kenrick London and his wife Chandroutie were convicted of the murder of their daughter Vydia on April 4, 2003 and were sentenced to death.

The toddler’s body was exhumed from a latrine pit in the yard of a house once occupied by the family on December 2, 1997. Vidya, who reportedly was a source of conflict between her mother and grandmother, was killed on a date unknown between October 25, 1993 and November 30, 1997.

London appealed both the conviction and sentence, which was heard by Justices of Appeal Roger Hamel-Smith, Stanley John and Paula Mae-Weekes.

London’s appeal was based on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law in rejecting the no-case submission made on his behalf and that the verdict was unreasonable since it could not be supported by the evidence heard during the trial.

London also contended the judge tarnished his character before the jury by admitting information on his previous convictions into evidence.

However, Hamel-Smith, John and Warner concurred that his grounds of appeal had failed, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. During the appeal, London’s attorney Margaret Rose argued that since there was no evidence of cause or time of death, it could not be proven without a reasonable doubt that Vidya was alive at the time London assisted her mother in tying a large stone to the bag containing the child’s body and throwing it into the latrine pit. Vidya might have died at the point of being wrapped in the cloth and paper and tied in the bag by her mother, after being squeezed and dropped to the ground, Rose contended.

She said while the judge’s direction to the jury in his summation of the case was correct in law, there was no evidence to support the guilty verdict returned.

Counsel for the State Celeste Jules argued there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that Vidya had died prior to being thrown into the pit.

The appeal panel ruled that there was nothing on the evidence to suggest that Vydia died when she was tied in the bag, adding that the jury was entitled to make the findings they did.

The panel also ruled that they found no fault with the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion in allowing the appellant’s previous convictions of obtaining cash with intent to defraud and assault occasioning actual bodily harm to be admitted into evidence.