Comment: Labour is the best government in St Kitts and Nevis we as citizens should appreciate all the man hard work and dedication towards this country he nurshed dis country like a mother nurshered her baby dis man is and Icon i respect this man as the leader of st kitts u all are haters in dis country all u all who voting pam u think they care about u they only care about dem self tell grant and say give up cause theirs no hope for him LABOUR is WORKING and will continue to work as time goes by!!!!!!!

Comment: Since the Doc says that anyone could register anywhere, why is he changing the boundaries? What is the point? What is the rush wid all these emergency meetings etc????

Comment: A man is breaking the law of the land and people are still giving him support. What is the matter with you people? Only a matter of time before we will pay for our wrongdoings. No wonder the youths donot have any respect for the law.

Comment: Shuffle Dougie Shuffle..............tek care u not cutting the whip for u party BUTT!! If the ppl want Labour back they will vote so & if they don't well time for change. So Shuffle Dougie Shuffle but if Labour lose u got yourself to blame.

Comment: I want to apologize to concerned living abroad as i post a response to your comment with the view that your comment was directed to me based on the fact that it was post directly above my comment without realize that it was for someone else. However, my comment do stand for any who may view my comments as been bias.

Comment: Now that all the evidence and all the witnesses have been brought forward lets now do a final analysis of to prove whether or not the accused it guilty or not guilty. Firstly lets look at some of the similarities. The little boy stated that the murderer had something on his head and not his face and like wise the key witness stated that the accused pulled a hoodie over his head but had nothing on his face. They both also heard the argument relating to a money issue. The lady was indeed on the veranda like the little boy said. Now lets look some of the contradicting statements. Other witnesses stated the murderer had something on his face where as evidence given by two other stated the opposite. The little boy stated that abaloo was shot 3 times after which he fell to the ground while the key witness stated 3 shots followed by a foot chase and then more shots after a struggle. The key witness stated that she saw the accused face but to the contrary the little boy stated he could not identify the person face, given the fact that in this instance he would have been the closest one to the victim as well as the murderer and would have been able to easily recognize the face or faces in a line up etc., which makes this piece of evidence very very vital. The key witness stated that the little boy came on her veranda and they spoke but to the contrary the little boy stated he did not go on her veranda or neither did they speak. While the key witness stated she saw the accused on the scene of the crime other stated he was elsewhere despite the evidence given by sergeant drew stating that it was possible to commit the crime and be in the area where the accused initially stated he was at the time of the murder. The key witness stated that the victim was wearing a mustard colored hoodie at the time of the incident but to the contrary the investigating office stated that he observed no mustard colored hoodie. The key witness also stated that the victim was not wearing any sun glasses or a hat at the time but to the contrary the investigating officer found some sunglasses and and a hat approximately two feet away from the victim. Now that we have look and some of the facts of the case can we honestly say there is a clear verdict of guilty or not guilty? As we all know a conviction is based mainly on the facts not irregularities or sketchy evidence given. If we were to do a process of elimination as to which statements or evidence should be taking in account, then all evidence and statements given in my opinion would not be relevant in concluding a conviction.

Comment: I want the PM to also change number six send every village except the Republic of St Paul's. But then again He done win. We don't to be taken for-Granted

Comment: see it dey! the lord knows why He dont want Grant them in there...Grant do not have the best interest of this land, he is only after his own selfish gains to get back the lands for his family......see it dey , see it dey

Comment: 'Forensics' I like the way that you dissect the facts that come before you. However, the young man on trial and his criminal gang are well-known. They would lie for each other to beat the law, kill again and again if they can get away scot-free. While his alibi may stir some doubt as to whether or not he is guilty of the murder, let us keep in mind that there was an eyewitness. God and He doesnt sleep. There is an old saying that bad deeds are like chickens they always come home to nest.

Comment: Good job Dr. Wilkson that was a very good idea for the youths, to try and help them build self comfidence with in them self, if itana can do it so can they, the youths are young but they are getting better, day by day, keep up the good work in Sandy Point, with God help you will, God answer prays and I no he will answer Sandy Pointers, we need a change down there time for Labour to take back S.P. God Bless.