Masked man attacks woman

| 13/08/2009

(CNS): A 47-year-old woman has received serious injuries to her head and arm during on assault by a masked man on Wednesday night, 12 August, in West Bay. The Royal Cayman Islands Police Service said it is now investigating the robbery which took place along Watercourse Road as the woman was riding her bicycle. The man reportedly jumped out at the female cyclist and attacked her with a stick.

Police said that the 911 Emergency Communications Centre received a call at 10:30pm reporting that a woman had been assaulted and robbed by a masked man. Police and medics responded and found the 47-year-old female victim with injuries to her head and arm. She said she had been riding home from work on her bicycle and that upon reaching the junction of Watercourse Road and Ebanks Road, she was pounced upon by a masked man armed with a long stick who proceeded to hit her several times on her head and left arm.

The victim tried to get away from her attacker by running and screaming. However, she was pursued by the attacker, who grabbed her handbag, which contained an undisclosed sum of money and personal effects. The attacker then escaped on foot. The victim was taken to hospital where she was treated for non-life threatening injuries and subsequently released.

“This was a horrifying act which could have led to a tragic outcome,” said Acting Detective Chief Superintendent Marlon Bodden. “Thankfully, although the victim was seriously hurt, her condition is not considered life threatening, but given the severity of the injury, it clearly suggests that her attacker meant serious bodily harm and we appeal for anyone with information to come forward”.

Anyone with information about crime taking place in the Cayman Islands should contact their local police station or Crime Stoppers on 800-8477 (TIPS). All persons calling Crime Stoppers remain anonymous and are eligible for a reward of up to $1000 should their information lead to an arrest or recovery of property/drugs.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

About the Author ()

Comments (30)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    I have no problem in contracting the RCIPS  out to the Canadians if half or more of their officers coming into Cayman are of West Indian descent. Cayman is a Caribbean country and could easily end up like certain areas in the U.S. where there is racial profiling by white cops towards young black and hispanic men,if something like this was to ever happen (contracting Canadian police officers) in Cayman, a proper study would have to be done.Can you imagine an all white police force in our country, would be like when the all black West Indian regimen came to Cayman to keep order in the 1840’s , white Cayman (ex slave owners) was angry and fought all the way to get them out of Cayman after a few months of serious tension, same thing could happen this time, the only diffrence would be bloodshed in Cayman’s street!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Canada is culturally very diverse.  There are white cops and black cops and various shades in between, as well as Sikh cops, Christian cops, Hindu cops, Muslim cops, and agnostic cops.  One common characteristic they have is that they police a group of citizens who are white and  black and various shades in between, as well as Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and agnostics…  The racial tension that is prevalent in the US (especially in the South and the major cities) and that filters through down here is not really going on that much up there.  I add immediately that there are bad apples in every barrel, so not each and every one is perfect.  On the other had, they are specifically trained to respect cultural diversity.  That would be useful around here.  In the end, they are good and respectful people, and effective at what they do.

      Having said all of that, I’d be surprised if there would be any difficulty building a police service for Cayman from the RCMP with half of the members of Caribbean descent. 

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:
        In matters where an officer’s discretion must be exercised, which culture would prevail, Canadian or Caymanian?
        • Anonymous says:

          It would actually depend on the instructions given to the officer.  I knew of one Sikh officer from Canada’s largest city who was sent to the arctic for a duty cycle with the Eskimos (the RCPM post the officers in various spots as a matter of course).  His instructions were the same as every RCMP officer gets: the law is the law and it applies in the arctic exactly as it applies in Toronto, but respect the lifestyles of the people and learn how to interact respectfully with them.  Earn their trust by treating them fairly, but fairly also means that everyone who has committed an offence is treated the same way.  No favours or prejudice.  All people are treated equally.  

          All that said, I don’t know that culture changes an exercise of discretion.  Either Cayman wants the laws enforced effectively and uniformly irrespective of the offender, or it wants something else.  

          One thing you wouldn’t get is a Canadian cop pulling over a young lady to try for her phone number, nor would you see one snoozing at the side of the road in their cruiser.  Any RCMP doing that would be suspended on the first infraction and terminated on the second.  Of course I would expect that with any force outside of Cayman.  The police leadership here is really something else.

          Finally, the RCMP know how to take a tip.  If you say to them "you know, I think that the guy 2 houses down is doing _____, but don’t tell him that I told you", then that information will not leave the lips of the officer again.  Their notes will read that "a confidential informant provided information that led me to investigate _____, and on investigating we found…".   They are VERY careful to preserve the trust of the people.  That would be useful around here – a cop everyone can trust, both the good guys and bad guys.

    • Anonymous says:

      should do this here in Cayman!!!!!!!





       These are some of the reasons why:

      Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the ‘tent city jail’ to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison  complex.

      He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

      He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but ‘G’ movies. He says:
      ‘They’re in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assaultinnocent people when they leave.’

      He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer’s money.

      Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn’t get sued fordiscrimination.

      He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.

      When asked why the weather channel, he replied: ‘So these morons will know how hot it’s gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.’
      He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he toldthem, ‘This isn’t  the Ritz/Carlton. If you don’t like it, don’t come back.’
      He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

      With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record for June 2nd2007), the Associated Press reported: About 2,000 inmates living in  a barbedwiresurrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to theirgovernment-issued pink boxer shorts.

      On theWednesday, hundreds of men  wearing pink boxer shorts were overheardchatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees.
      ‘This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace,’ said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2years with 10 more to go. ‘It’s inhumane.’
      Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. ‘Criminals should be punished for their crimes – not live in luxury until it’s time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things  many taxpayers can’t afford to have for themselves.’

      The same day he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: ‘It’s between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!’

      Way to go, Sheriff! If all prisons were like yours there would be a lot less crime and we would not be in the current position of running out of prison spaces.

      If you agree, pass this on.
      If not, just delete it.

      Sheriff Joe was just re-electedas Sheriff in Maricopa County , Arizona   



  2. Anonymous says:

    I agree with contracting out the police force to the Canadians.  Not just the street patrol but the whole works.  Just start over with real officers from a real world-class police force and ditch the present bunch of yahoos.  Seriously – if they can’t be trusted with sidearms, how can they be trusted to be our police officers???

    These are real criminals we are dealing with, not tourists jay-walking.  We need real police officers.

    We need them right now.

  3. Anonymous says:

     "The police are always armed and have always been armed. Just because you do not see weapons that does mean they are not there."

    Complete drivel.  Even if the cops did have a gun hidden back in their car, which they don’t, it wouldn’t do much good when the gunfight starts and they are more than an arm’s length away from their weapon.  

    They are unarmed. Face reality and stop drooling drivel…

  4. noname says:

    The police are always armed and have always been armed. Just because you do not see weapons that does mean they are not there. That is obviously not the problem. We apppear to be going to a Police state if this continues

  5. Anonymous says:

     Arm the police, anyone with a t-shirt on thier face is a threat and up to no good , shoot on sight.

    You probably wouldn’t have to do it but once or twice…Enough is enough…We have an innocent child in West Bay that might not walk again…I say enough is enough. How in the heck can we continue like this? What at this point, is the downside of arming our police force? This is like a war…What are we worried about…police corruption? I am ready to take my chances, for the good of the community as a whole….We are losing this battle. We are sitting ducks.

  6. Anonymous says:

    "The only rule which works is to say you cannot arm yourself.  If you do then we live in a vigilante state."

    This means that the only people with weapons are the criminals.  It guarantees that the public can be victimized by the criminals, because they know that they have guns and we don’t.   How does that make sense? 

    The "social contract" theory says that  I will give up carrying a gun on the condition that (a) everyone else agrees to do so as well and (b) the police enforce the social contract on those who don’t obey.  This theory FAILS OUTRIGHT when the police cannot enforce the contract and the criminals no longer agree to it. 

    Once the criminals decide to arm themselves and the police cannot disarm them, then there is no social contract to be made on that point.  People need guns to protect themselves from criminals with guns, and if your lawmakers try to keep a law that says that you can’t have a gun, then they are ordering you to allow yourself to be a victim. Fire those lawmakers.  DEMAND a law that says you can have a gun, just like the criminals.

  7. Anonymous says:

    To all those who advocate arming themselves – arm ourselves don’t wait for the police, pepper spray etc – please remember this.  It is illegal to do so.  Recently a young man appeared in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands for sentence having pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm.  His lawyer spent several court days trying to pursuade the judge that he should not get the statutory minimum of 7 years imprisonment because he had the gun to defend himself.  He said that having been shot twice and the police had not protected him or managed to charge anyone in connection he had no choice but to defend himself.  Should the judge have said that he should not get 7 years and let him off?  On your arguments the answer would be yes because it should not be illegal to do this.  But here is the flip side of the coin.  This man was associated with a number of others all who had criminal convictions.  He had convictions for consumption of ganga.  Should he be allowed to walk round with a gun?  If yes then how do we know he wouldn’t use it in drug offences.  If he shouldn’t be allowed then how do you draw a difference between one man defending himself and another – why can one be allowed to and not another.  The only rule which works is to say you cannot arm yourself.  If you do then we live in a vigilante state. 

    • AJ says:

      I would say it depends on the situation the person puts themselves in.  Such as to say that an innocent, law-abiding person with no criminal ties should be allowed to carry some form of defense on them to at least protect themselves from assaults.  But now, if the person puts themselves in a crowd that has a reputation for violence, then any form of defense that person carries is seen as a weapon whether or not they are actually involved in any acts.  "Birds of a feather flock together."  Not to mention, if you do hang out with a violent crowd, you would be considered just as much an enemy to your friends’ enemies (I hope I worded that correctly) even if you didn’t do anything in the first place.  Shameful, I know but that’s how it goes sometimes.  Plus, bullets know no friend nor foe nor face they can only go in one direction once fired. 

      I am not a lawyer, so I’m not sure of the laws but I think that is what it would look like to the court.  Feel free to disagree.

      • Anonymous says:

        I am sorry. I cannot agree with you.

        I am a law abiding citizen, from the outside based on your opinion. We can never know who is actually using these weapons in a wronful manner. If we legalize weapons, then any Tom, Dick and Harry would have a good reason to own a gun. Soon, you will here about people robbing people of their gun, not possessions. – See where I am coming from.

        What I think is – try and keep one step before trouble. Be vigilant and be safe. People call me paranoid all the time but guess what – a criminal will be GOOD to catch me off guard.

        Anything is possible, never live saying "That would never be me"

        • Dennie Warren Jr. says:
          To: anonymous 08/14/2009 – 16:10,
          Re: “If we legalize weapons, then any Tom, Dick and Harry would have a good reason to own a gun.”
          Firstly, thank you for taking the time to publish your views on this subject. There are a number of things that I would like to discuss with you, but I will limit my comments to three items, because some demonstrations are necessary for you to truly appreciate my other points.
          Secondly, clearly you are unaware that private ownership of firearms has always been and still is legal in the Cayman Islands. Only a very stupid person would be pushing to legalize firearms in a society where legal ownership is already the law.
          Thirdly, subject to you supplying me with a clean police record, I offer you one hour of my time, at no cost, to stimulate your mind about how vulnerable you really are, despite your confidence to the contrary.

          Ph me at: 345-926-0716

          • Chuck Norris says:

            I agree with you entirely Dennie and I find that your posts in general are well-informed, and well informing.  Thank you for them.

            I am an expat senior professional, my neighbour on one side owns a business in Cayman, on the other side he is in government, and his next neighbour in turn owns another business in Cayman.  If these are the Toms, Dicks and Harrys that might have guns, I have absolutely no problem with that.  They watch my place and I watch their places.  We are law-abiding citizens all.  We all have sufficient IQs to know how to handle and store guns safely, and to know when to pull the trigger and when not to.  I trust them.

            This guy who thinks he can stay safe by wishing it were so should not post under the name "Anonymous".  He should use a better descriptor: "Victim".  He obviously has no idea of his vulnerability.  I hope he learns better without injury or great loss.

            As an aside, I cannot contact you directly on that other post as requested – as an expat I need to stay under the radar.  I trust you will understand.

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:
      Dear Anonymous 08/14/2009 – 14:27,
      Section 14 of Penal Code (2007 Revision) reads, “Subject to any express provisions in this or any other law in operation in the Islands, criminal responsibility for the use of force in the defence of person or property shall be determined according to the principles of English common law.”
      Since section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision) reads, “No person shall discharge any firearm on or within forty yards of any public road or in any public place EXCEPT in the lawful protection of his person or property or of the person or property of some other person”
      While in your own home, if an assailant attacks you with some “offensive weapon” and in your view, is attempting to seriously harm or kill you. If you respond by drawing a legally owned firearm and instructing the would-be assailant to stop get down on the ground and s/he complies with your instruction, but then you start kicking the would-be assailant in the face and ribs a few times, that is vigilantism. That is not self-defence. However, if you do not kick the would-be assailant after s/he had complied with your instructions and calls the police to arrest s/he, that would be a lawful act of self-defence.
      Conversely, where the assailant ignores your instruction to stop and continues attacking, you should consider what Lord Parker CJ said in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130, which is still the case law on self-defence in the UK today. His Lordship said, “…. where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ….”
      If you want to spray perfume, feel free, but don’t expect me to. By the time you discover how ill prepared you are; it will be too late for you. I wish you the best!
  8. Concerned Citizen says:

    Hey CNS:  Why are you removing the actual self-defence recommendations?  Surely it is not unlawful or improper to discuss how to defend yourself when presented with an imminent violent threat.

    CNS: I think it probably is unlawful to promote unlawful actions. Any lawyers out there can step in at any time…….

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:
      "Concerned Citizen" and "Chuck Norris", I would like to read the comments of the both of you which CNS has refused to publish.  Would be so kind to forward your comments to me a
  9. Chuck Norris says:

    Come on Wendy – post my recommendations on self defence…

    Nicky: No, it was really creepy.

  10. jj says:

    What a joke acting is what exactly is going on, Cayman Those person who thought they could "run tings" have put us in a real mess their little power grab has got rid of some excellent officers to be replace by their cronies and minions. They have endangered the safety of the residents of this islands very foolish indeed. It has also cost us millions now to try and correct this situation. Yeah certain PPM protectors aint in power now eh!

  11. Wesbaya says:

    I recall after the unfortunate incident with Estella someone suggested carrying Tabasco sauce in a spray bottle. (Get a purse-size one.) Of course you would have to be able to get to it but at least if you have something on you it increases the chance of defending yourself. (Hang it round your neck or carry it in a pocket so it’s easily accessible.) Get creative or get dead! Another suggestion was that if you drive and your key has an alarm, keep your finger on that while you’re walking from/to your vehicle.

    Stay safe!

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:
      If you carry “Tabasco Sauce” for personal protection, the police could arrest you for carry an “offensive weapon”.  Section 78(1) of the Penal Code (2007 Revision) reads, “offensive weapon” means any object made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him"
      The Penal Code prohibits persons with a clean police recordfrom carrying pepper spray for personal protection, but it does allow you to carry a firearm. However, the Commissioner of Police is giving people the impression that he does not respect your right to own or carry any device for self-defence. We are expected to only hope that when attacked that we will be allowed to escape with our lives.
      If you want to do something about this stupid legal position, send me an email with your name and contact information to: at People for Referendum.  Alternatively, text your information to 345-926-0716.  My Blackberry PIN is: 20DAEF5B
      • Expat 333 says:

        I couldn’t agree more – this is stupid.

        No matter what the law says though, I’ll pick being tried by 12 over being carried by 6 any day.  You can kill a person with a pencil, properly used, and no officer or prosecutor can prove that I intend to possess it for the purpose of causing injury to someone.

        I would gladly sign up with my name to give you support politically, but alas I am only an expat and I therefore have no vote, representation or say here.  I only have the 2 choices: staying to see how ugly it really gets, and going home when it gets ugly enough.  It’s getting pretty ugly already…

    • Durrrr says:

      Good idea! An added bonus is that you’ll never have to worry about finding some hot sauce for your oxtail!

    • Anonymous says:

      Your suggestion would be likley to put people before a Judge as carrying prepared to be used as a weapon would be illegal.

    • Anonymous says:

      A small bottle of spray perfume works quite well…kept it in your is legal!

  12. Richard Wadd says:

     I fail to understand WHY certain people in our Society are so against the ‘Judicial Application of Corporal Punishment’ to those who seek to violate our rights, do us physical harm, and dis-enfranchise us of our hard-earned property.

    Surely such a violent attack against an Innocent law-abiding citizen warrants the application of an Impressionable form of punishment upon the offender/s? Surely this woman’s terrifing ordeal will not be in vain?

    BRING BACK THE WHIP ….. and drive FEAR into the hearts of the criminals.

    Free the innocent victims from the reign-of-terror that we now face each day.




  13. Meamamma says:

    Its time to put a stop to this madness, arm ourselves now dont wait for the police, and yes why should pepper spray be illegal, it is a form of defense for us innocent people, I am so angry at these  type of people,  this is not just a spat of events, this is a pre planned thing to destroy this island, they know damn well what they are doing, thugs, animals, useless low life scum bags, no use to society, should have died  at birth, country would be better of today with out them. Use them for shark bait

  14. Anonymous says:

    What a mess we are in!!!

    You can’t carry pepper spray to protect yourself, because the law says so. The law abiden citizens are at the mercy of the criminals; who can do what they want and don’t give two hoots about the law or anything for that matter.

    I am afraid to see what this little island is like in 5 – 10 years!

  15. Twyla M Vargas says:

    SO SORRY READING ABOUT THE WOMAN ATTACKED IN WEST BAY.  Ladies it seems that we cannot be too careful being by ourselves, because we will surely be attacked.  Now the question is what do we do.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  I mean we cannot expect the police to be escorting every woman home from work or the supermarket, so we just have to be prepared to protect our selves, hoping the police will understand when we are found with a dangerous weapon.  We got to do something.  Any better suggestions, then give them to us women.

    It may sound silly but the women of Cayman  in each districts need to call meetings.  Whether it be at a friends home or elsewhere to discuss means and ways of informing and assisting women how to protect themselves.  It would be a great idea for the police to be in on these private meetings to give us some ideas.   We cannot wait until one of us are killed again, and the police cannot be behind us every move we make.  Do not visit the supermarkets alone at nights, or anywhere for that instance.  Always be alert while out by yourself, and Learn to become agressive at any attacker with your two side machette.  What else can we do? Some one take the mike and make suggestions.  Walk good.