In Alkaline Case Police Make Silly Unforced Errors.….

mb

A Kingston Judge this morn­ing ruled that dance hall DJ Earlan Bartley o/​c Alkaline either be charged with a crime by the police or be released by 6.00 pm today.

The police asked the DJ to turn him­self in as part of their inves­ti­ga­tions of the mur­der of Rohan Morris in Maverley on January 13.
Bartley, has been in cus­tody since Thursday when he report­ed to the Area Four Headquarters at Harman Barracks in Vineyard Town, accom­pa­nied by his lawyer Peter Champagnie.

No one can fault the judge for respond­ing that way in response to the writ of habeas cor­pus Champanie filed on his behalf.
If I was in lock­up with­out charge I would absolute­ly be livid.

It is impor­tant to note that as part of an inves­ti­ga­tion the police can ask a mem­ber of the pub­lic to come in for an interview.
In cas­es where this is nec­es­sary the police should always be polite in request­ing that the per­son come in, even if they have sub­stan­tive evi­dence that would neces­si­tate a charge.

There is noth­ing wrong about ask­ing some­one to come in for an inter­view , even if there is no evi­dence to charge. Interviewing a wide range of per­sons is quite nor­mal in order to get to the truth.

If there is no evi­dence to charge the indi­vid­ual after that ini­tial inter­view, then the thing to do is to allow the per­son to go with a thank you for com­ing in.
This is true even if there is sub­stan­tial evi­dence that (1) the per­son is lying or (2) the per­son is involved in the crime.
Allowing the per­son to go is the right thing to do until enough evi­dence is gath­ered, unless there is a seri­ous flight risk involved .
If there is a flight risk , then any good detec­tive, with­in the bound­aries of the law, knows the ins and outs of find­ing ways to ensure that the per­son is not allowed to flee

My ques­tion for the police is this.
“If you ask some­one to come in and you do an inter­view and do not have evi­dence to charge, why keep the per­son in custody”?
As it was twen­ty five years ago the police con­tin­ue to make the same mis­takes today.
That is a lack of super­vi­sion, it is also a lack of com­mon sense.

Separate and apart from the judge’s rul­ing on the habeas cor­pus application .
The police have got to be more proac­tive in deal­ing with crim­i­nal investigations.
The Judges are extreme­ly hos­tile to the pros­e­cu­tors in Jamaica, they know that. If they don’t then they are even more sim­ple-mind­ed than many peo­ple believe.

The mere involve­ment of cer­tain lawyers in a case ought to tell police how that offend­er will be han­dled with kid gloves by judges , regard­less of the alle­ga­tions against them. Peter Champagnie is one such lawyer.
No one need remind the police that many of the judges are in league with the crim­i­nal defense lawyers and are active­ly engaged in releas­ing mur­der­ers and oth­er seri­ous felons back onto the streets for a vari­ety of rea­sons includ­ing mon­e­tary reasons.

It is impor­tant that the police stop com­mit­ting these unforced errors which only serves to embold­en crim­i­nals, while reduc­ing their ow credibility.
Do your job right.

2 thoughts on “In Alkaline Case Police Make Silly Unforced Errors.….

  1. You. Too had a great case then u lost. Common sense at the end. The law state that 72 hours is the extent of deten­tion with­out charge so the police was in fact break­ing the law and should be made to answer but they won’t. Am all for mur­der­ers pay­ing but. Yes police must also fol­low the law

Comments are closed.