Dear Source:
Attorney Judith Bourne says that she has been "marveling" at the "campaign being waged against the St. Croix Avis for publishing an article that was apparently both truthful and relevant." Come along, Ms. Bourne. As an attorney, have you not properly researched to seek the truth? Judging from your letter, you finally did a "google" on Epstein and discovered what many of us knew obviously way before your brilliant discovery because some of us just happen to keep up with not only stateside news but world news.
Cecile DeJongh was either a full or part-time employee of an EDC corporation which just happened to be owned by Epstein. Since when is a remote employee responsible for the alleged criminal activities of the employer? I stand by my open forum letter and its amendment. The Avis article which directly connected both John and Cecile DeJongh to Epstein was, in my opinion, most scurrilous. It still boggles my mind that Rena Broadhust not only published the piece but then repeated it. Pollitical intimidation? And "Why don't we choose the good things rather than the shameful practices!" And your point?
Mr. Derrick Francis, I have read your words and I understand from where you're coming, even though I don't necessarily agree with you.
Anna Clarke
St. Thomas
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to source@viaccess.net.
