Why Is This Case Different Than The Others Tossed For Want Of Prosecution.…

Those who sup­port INDECOM in Jamaica are blind­ed to the fact that this agency has an agen­da which does not line up with the well-being of the Island, but may be defined fair­ly as a tax­pay­er fund­ed plat­form for Terrence Williams to be relevant.

One of the issues this writer con­tin­ue to ham­mer away at is the fact that the crim­i­nal courts are allow­ing tri­al lawyers to cir­cum­vent the process by ask­ing for unend­ing adjourn­ments which allows seri­ous cas­es like mur­der to be tossed out because wit­ness­es even­tu­al­ly die, emi­grate, or become frustrated.

This is a prob­lem across the board which all Jamaicans should be alarmed about. Why would any sane cit­i­zen, of any coun­try, want to have mur­der­ers walk­ing away with­out consequence?
It seem how­ev­er that there is a sick dis­joint­ed view that it’s okay for non-police killers to walk free as long as enough time has passed , regard­less of what caused the case to be lagging.
In fact the Island’s Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck wants the courts to toss out all cas­es of mur­der that has dragged on for over five years.

Chuck insists that he wants cas­es tossed regard­less of the mur­der­er’s guilt. What I am a lit­tle per­plexed about is how can a deci­sion be arrived at regard­ing inno­cence or guilt before a trial?
I thought that was the rea­son we had trials.….
Since I’m not a lawyer I will leave my Jamaican con­tem­po­raries to con­tin­ue to wal­low in the mis­con­cep­tion that these are actu­al­ly smart peo­ple who have the inter­est of the coun­try at heart as opposed to edu­cat­ed morons who have their own agendas.

No mur­der­er should walk away from a court of law with­out hav­ing to answer for his/​her crime. It mat­ter not whether the killer is a reg­u­lar cit­i­zen or police offi­cer. Police work is quite pos­si­ble with­out mur­der­ing any­one. I did it for ten (10) years with­out mur­der­ing any­one, even when I was shot in the line of duty.
Jamaica can ill-afford to allow crim­i­nals to walk free after they have killed, par­tic­u­lar­ly when only 7% of mur­der­ers actu­al­ly see the inside of a court­room as a defendant.
It high­lights the incom­pe­tence, com­plic­i­ty and utter shit­ty-ness of the crim­i­nal court sys­tem which can­not even deal with the pal­try 7% of mur­der­ers who come before the courts.

So even as we are out­raged that “any­one” be being allowed to walk after tak­ing anoth­er per­son­’s life, it is curi­ous to say the least that when civil­ian thugs do so it’s okay but when police do there is outrage.
According to Jamaican media a res­i­dent mag­is­trate dis­missed a case in which Nakiea Jackson was shot and killed by the secu­ri­ty forces under con­tro­ver­sial cir­cum­stances in January 2014. His rel­a­tives and res­i­dents of his Orange Villa com­mu­ni­ty cried foul and accused the cops of killing Jackson in cold blood. A spe­cial con­sta­ble attached to Area Four of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) was arrest­ed and charged with his death. However, the case did not reach the Supreme Court for tri­al because it was dis­missed by the mag­is­trate last Thursday in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court.

The Preliminary inquiry has been an inte­gral part of the sys­tem for­ev­er; it is faulty to say the least. However, as opposed as we all should be at any mur­der­er evad­ing jus­tice, there can­not be two sets of rules.
The pre­lim­i­nary Inquiry was designed to see whether a pri­ma facia case has been made out by the pros­e­cu­tion which would allow the case to be moved on to a high­er court to be tried.
If the sys­tem failed this fam­i­ly let us be out­raged at the sys­tem across the board but let us not be out­raged because the alleged offend­er just hap­pen to be a police officer.
INDECOM the agency respon­si­ble with car­ry­ing out inves­ti­ga­tions lied to the court that a crit­i­cal wit­ness in the case alleged that he was threat­ened and as such is fear­ful for his life.

As fam­i­ly mem­bers demon­strate their out­rage at the court’s deci­sion as they should be, INDECOM now revers­es that lie say­ing that the wit­ness did not say he was threat­ened, just that he is fearful.
According to Nigel Morgan a mem­ber of INDECOM the wit­ness insist­ed that he would not attend the inquiry because he feared for his life, even though a sub­poe­na was issued for him to attend.
What I find curi­ous is why was it report­ed that this wit­ness was threatened?
Why is there spe­cial out­rage at this case being dis­missed as against the oth­ers which gets tossed out week­ly even when the deca­dent are police offi­cers who are killed doing their jobs?