June 5, 2001
JAMAICANS UNITED AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY Dear Friends, We have repeatedly pointed out that police extra-judicial killings is a state policy. By this we mean that it is condoned by government. We should never be fooled by the rare pronouncement by this or that government minister that they support the rule of law and due process. Were this true there would at least be some kind of government reaction to police lies about shootouts to cover their killings. An outraged government would ensure that policemen are routinely brought before a court to explain their actions. Secondly, various institutions of state and within the judicial system even while participating in the charade of "due process" have built in mechanisms of bias to protect the police and ensure that they kill with impunity. The Jamaican criminal justice system not only exhibits a pro-police bias but it is patently corrupt and oppressive towards the poor. Due process is an empty concept when it involves police murder. The following are some observations that have been made at recent Coroner's Court sittings involving some of the few policemen have been forced to answer questions about killings they have committed. (1) Policemen who are the object of murder inquiries enter the Coroner's Court with their side arms. The propriety of this privilege is highly questionable and must surely have an intimidatory effect on the jury and the proceedings. (2) The Clerk of Courts (who represents the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)) was observed giving a file in her possession to a policeman who was about to testify. The file is believed to contain information from the previous days' proceedings when the policeman's colleagues testified. It is inconceivable that there could be any legitimate reason for the Clerk of Courts to share a file with someone who is about to testify and is the object of a murder investigation? This reeks of blatant corruption. (3) The following report is an observation about how the Clerk of Courts operates. "The clerk of the courts seemed more like a defence lawyer, taking her witnesses through their statements. She was asking no pointed questions, and if she pursued any angle, it was in support of the police. Furthermore, a family member who was in court last week on the inquest of her son, quoted a private statement form the clerk of the courts when she heard police had killed two men. She apparently said ‘Two more off the streets.'" We have no doubt she was expressing more than just a personal feeling. (4) "The judge can ask questions, and so can the jurors. The judge was mainly clarifying data for his notes, and the jurors had virtually no questions to ask, even when [police] witnesses were tripping over themselves. If people are depending on the system for justice then they are in a lot of trouble if they cannot afford a lawyer." (5) Without a lawyer appearing on behalf of the victim's family to probe police lies then neither the Clerk of Courts or the judge can be depended upon for the probity that is required. (6) Even after testifying that the victim received multiple gun shot wounds to the back of the head, torso and leg the pathologist is extremely reluctant to admit the impossibility of the victim receiving these wounds while facing the policeman, and so could not have been shot while in the act of shooting at the police. The state employs the pathologist and the pathologist's reluctance to be forthcoming is an example of state playing a complicitous role in police murder. (7) The DPP has the power to send cases of police killings directly to trial but rarely does so. He apparently sends most of them, if any, to the Coroner's Court. However, with and average of 150 police killings each year only a handful are ever heard at this level. In other words most of the killings are never investigated by a court of any kind. No wonder one policeman in response to the lawyer appearing on behalf of the victim's family expressed surprise that he had been called on to explain himself in court. We say unequivocally that the state's chief law enforcement office is corrupt and facilitates police killings. (5) The jury in the Patrick Genius case had no hesitation in deciding that three policemen were criminally responsible for his death. But the DPP, with the same information, was unable to arrive at the same conclusion. He sent the case to the Coroner and only the vigilance of human rights activists ensured that the policemen responsible for killing him will now be put on trial. (6) The police routinely plant a gun in their victim's hand and smear the hand with gun powder. A forensic expert testified that the gun powder is likely to lodge on the back of the hand and into the pores and not on the palm where gun powder was found in this case, suggesting that the victim's hand was smeared after being killed. A routine forensic test is able to put to lie police claims that the victim fired a gun or to expose planted gun powder smears. The question to be determined is whether these forensic tests are done in all cases and if so why have they not lead to more convictions? Dr. Leth, the Danish pathologist, claimed that such tests were not done by the Jamaican pathologist in the Braeton case. We anxiously wait to hear whether this was done by anyone else. (7) The family of Janice Allen, the 13 year old girl killed by the police, was threatened by police officers. Her brother was locked up on false charges and eventually released under pressure from human rights groups. Police visited her mother on several occasions trying to coerce her into dropping the case. The police commissioner has yet to state what disciplinary measures, if any, he has taken against the police officers involved in this criminal act. Once again the police commissioner is showing the impotence of his relations with policemen and we suggest that he should be forced by public pressure to resign. Finally, we commend Families Against State Terrorism (FAST) for its demonstration last week in front of Police Commissioner's office demanding accountablity for police murders. We hope these demonstrations will continue and help to heigten the public's awareness that the police have killed thousands of people and have never had to account for their actions. For our part JUAPB is set to resume its picketing of the Jamaican Consulate. Lloyd D'Aguilar
EVIDENCE FROM THE FORENSIC SCIENTIST IN THE PARTICK GENUIS CASE (Observer's notes) Mrs Dunbar [the forensic scientist] described steps by which gunpowder residue is deposited on the hand when someone fires a gun. She said as a result of the explosion and subsequent burning, a cloud of vapour is formed that forces out the projectile. This action causes a cloud of smoke to be expelled on the arm. She said it was usual to expect an elevated level of gunpowder on the back of the firing hand. Residue could also be deposited elsewhere on the hand, depending on how the gun was held. Levels of deposit may vary, depending on what happens after the firing; if the hand is rubbed, or if the hand sweats, the residue may decrease. Mrs Dunbar described two transparent plastic bags divided in two sections, containing: #1swab taken from the back of the right hand of Patrick Genius #2 swab allegedly from the palm of the right hand of Patrick Genius #3 swab taken from the back of the left hand of Patrick Genius #4 swab allegedly taken from the palm of the right hand of Patrick Genius She said her examination and analysis of the swabs. Revealed: - presence of gunshot residue on #2 exhibit at trace level - no presence of gunshot residue on #1, #3, or #4 CROSS EXAMINATION ATTORNEY (Representing Victim's Family): If a firearm is discharged, is there more residue on the back of the hand than on the palm of the hand? FORENSIC SCIENTIST: Yes ATT'Y: Is this the case with any hand gun? A small gun? FS: Yes ATT'Y: Is it also the case that residue will remain evident on a dead person for a longer time than if the person were alive? FS: Yes, residue will last up to 72 hours on a dead body. ATT'Y: Do you agree that as a consequence of body processes, residue diminishes on a live person after three hours? FS: There is no timetable. It can last beyond three hours. ATT'Y: Is it possible to transfer residue from one person’s hand to another? FS: Yes ATT'Y: You said you found evidence of residue on #2 swab. FS: At trace levels ATT'Y: No residue on the back of the right hand? FS: None ATT'Y: No residue on the palm or the back of the left hand? FS: none Click here to return to Jamaicans United Against Police Brutality homepage. |