Sybil Hibbert, Contributor
At Left: Reneto Adams (left), walks free from the Kraal murder trial at the Supreme Court. At Right: The defence team which ensured a not-guilty verdict in the Kraal trial. The team was led by Churchhill Neita and Valerie Neita-Robertson (both centre). - RUDOLPH BROWN/CHIEF PHOTOGRAPHER
MUCH HAS been written and said on radio, television, the print media and elsewhere on the outcome of the Kraal murder case.
I wish to comment on certain statements that have been noised abroad on the subject by various persons, to wit:
1. The case seemed to have been compromised.
2. The Chief Justice's remark, during his summing up, about distractions in his court, was unfortunate and disrespectful of the person involved.
3. The jury seemed to have disregarded vital evidence, including the forensic evidence, in arriving at their verdict.
4. A juror who was a member of the same social club as Defence Counsel, Mr. Churchill, Neita, Q.C., was allowed to serve on the panel, although this fact was brought to the attention of the Chief Justice in Chambers.
5. The absence of Mr. Danhai Williams as a prosecution witness was the fault of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Kent Pantry and the police.
In respect of Point 1, the question is, if the case has indeed been compromised, I wonder, compromised by whom?
I happened to have been in Court a number of days, enough for me to assess the case, both from a prosecution point of view and from the point of view of the defence. And what evidence I did not garner during testimony, as an experienced court reporter, I was appraised of during His Lordship's Summing Up.
My knowledge of the Courts, and in particular, the Home Circuit, dates back to early 1958 when I first entered those corridors as a young reporter and I have covered from the Claudius Henry insurrection, Reynold Henry et al. murders, Green Bay Enquiry, Green Bay Murder and, among others, the murder trials of Dennis Barth o/c Copper; Renford Solomon, Keith Clarke and the 13 policemen charged in the case of Claudius Massop.
INCONSISTENCIES
I know inconsistencies when I hear them and to put it briefly, as the Chief Justice said in the course of his summation, 'in all his years on the Bench, it is the first time that he has come across a case where the prosecution is relying on witnesses who have given so many statements and the additional statements are the ones upon which the prosecution was relying to connect SSP Adams and the others to the alleged murders.'
As far as I am concerned, if I were on the jury, that in itself would throw the case against SSP Adams through the window as well as the evidence of the forensic ballistic expert, Mr. Mastaglio, who was consulted by U.K.-imported Deputy Commissioner, Mark Shields, lead investigator in the case.
The prosecution, obviously not happy with Mr. Mastaglio's findings, failed to call him and the defence, by the process of discovery, obtained and utilised to their advantage, those findings.
Mr. Mastaglio, a forensic ballistic expert with over 25 years of experience and attached to the British Forensic Science Services, was careful to point out that his organisation was independent of the Metropolitan Police Services at Scotland Yard and had been set up by the Home Office to preserve that independence. His Agency, he said, had a number of forensic scientists in different spheres, for example, ballistics, pathology, handwriting, etc. unlike our scientific lab in Jamaica.
PEER REVIEW
He testified that he subjected his analysis to peer review and he and two of his peers, with experience totalling 90 years, were unanimous that the fragments which the local expert found were discharged from the barrel of a particular M-16, that of Cpl. Patrick Coke, that the material was inconclusive to such a finding in respect of that weapon or any of the weapons they examined, that is, the weapons carried by the six accused.
There was the Witness Statement of Sopholeta Clayton who was killed by gunmen shortly after her statement to the police, in which she reported overhearing a conversation between Chen Chen and prosecution witness Fearon, after the incident and she is said to have heard talk of shots being fired by Chen Chen and others.
And what of the Winchester 308 rifle that was found on the floor? The prosecution never explained how it got there and that, certainly, was the only weapon that could have fired the 7.62 calibre bullets tendered in evidence.
Another interesting twist to this case was the manner in which Notices to Adduce fresh evidence from witnesses whose names did not appear on the back of the Indictment, were being served on the defence. I am told that no fewer than ten such Notices were served on the Defence up to and after the start of the trial.
As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that up to April of last year when the case was set for trial, apart from the fact that SSP Adams led the CMU party to Kraal, there was no evidence to remotely involve him. The additional statements that linked SSP Adams to the Common Design which the prosecution was seeking to establish, came in the form of those given by Cons. Tyrone Brown in late June and early July this year and Donovan Thompson, given in July this year.
As regards Point 2, the lade in question who caused, what is regarded as the Chief Justice's outburst, in my view she was fortunate not to have been cited for Contempt of Court. In any jurisdiction, the Judge is in charge of his Court, especially the High Court of Justice. There are no sacred cows in a Court of Law.
I have been to the Old Bailey in London, the House of Lords and the UK Privy Council and that type of behaviour would not have been tolerated in any of those courts. In fact, I don't think it would have been attempted, for the silence in those courts is deafening.
But nearer home, early in the 60's, the late Mr. Justice Ronald Small, later the Sr. Puisne Judge, sitting in the No. 1 Home Circuit Court, was presiding over a murder trial. Then Director of Public Prosecutions, the late Mr. Huntley Munroe, Q.C. was prosecuting and the Judge was enquiring of the Director, if a witness had been subpoenaed, why was the witness not in court. In those days, a Senior Police Officer had to be present at Circuit every day to deal with any such situation and the then SSP hurried into the Well of the Court to inform His Lordship of the position.
His Lordship: Mr. Director, did I near a voice?
Sr. Supt.: Mi Lord...
The Senior Superintendent got no further. His Lordship advised him that if he opened his mouth again, he would be cited for Contempt of Court and he ordered the Police Officer to stand in the Well of the Court until the rising of the Court at 1 p.m. This took place about 11 a.m. and there was the SSP standing at attention in the Well of the Court until the Court rose for lunch.
I think Point 3 is adequately covered in Point i, but I will only add that this Jury was the kind every Defence Counsel fears because they paid undivided attention to the case, never seemed bored and took copious notes.
As regards Point 4, I personally would not have allowed the Juror to remain on the Panel, only for the reason of public perception. But I did not hear the arguments of Counsel and I am not in a position to say what led to the decision of the Chief Justice. I was not in Chambers and therefore am in no position to speculate. I find it ironic, nonetheless, that there is no criticism in relation to the juror who had a relative in the office of the DPP.
In respect of Point 5, the absence of Danhai Williams to testify for the prosecution, I ask, how is the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible here? This is a Police matter and the Police obviously fell asleep on this particular duty. It is for the Commissioner of Police now to take whatever steps he may deem necessary in the circumstances.
In the aftermath of the May 2003 killings at Kraal, there was vociferous clamour for foreign experts and of the 44 witnesses who testified for the prosecution, eight were United Kingdom forensic science experts. As far as I can recall, this is the first time in Jamaica that so many experts, both foreign and local, have testified in a murder trial for the prosecution; also it is the first time, to my mind, that a Home Circuit Court jury has retired for 5 1/2 hours, sending for exhibits, time and time again, as they deliberated.
Yet, this Jury has been lambasted for doing their civic duty and their integrity and honesty have been questioned. One can well understand if hereafter jurors are unwilling to serve. It ought to be appreciated that the Jury System is the balance between arbitrary government and the proper administration of justice.
It is my view though, that in general, the Police are viewed as the enemy. In any organisation, there are always bad apples and the Police Force is not singular. But some people in this country and elsewhere would like all of us to believe that every policeman in Jamaica is a liar, a thief and a vagabond.
A few days ago, my brother-in-law called from London to inform us of a documentary on Channel 4 in which he says it appears the British Press is unhappy over the Adams verdict.
My response to that was the recent shooting death by the British Police of an unarmed and innocent man in the transit station whom they claimed they suspected to be a terrorist and had not one scintilla of evidence to support such action. They have some nerve!
In this instance, a jury of 12 men and women, good and true, returned that verdict after long deliberation. I was there and watched as they sent for the various exhibits/including television - the CVM/footage showing the Winchester rifle and pistol -- Ex. 2 -- on the floor.
I don't think the Jurors were in the Jury Room playing dominoes or discussing who would be the next president of the People's National Party or for that matter, planning their Christmas party. And they were, quite properly, in my view, directed on the application of the law and facts by one of the finest jurists of our time, the Chief Justice, the Hon. Lensley Wolfe.
At the end of his summation, no counsel on either side, in response to his queries, took any issue with the correctness of his directions on the law.
When are some people going to realise that there is no 'P' in Crime? Crime is neither PNP. nor JLP. and it is time for the people who claim to have the interest of the poor at heart, to stop using Crime and the Police as their political football.
The majority of well-thinking Jamaicans, like myself, hold no Ph.D's or plethora of degrees but we certainly have C.S. (Common Sense) and I am told by those who know, that C.S. is not that common after all.
And we know that most of those voices we hear, whether by clique or claque, couldn't care one rat's behind how many more duppies are manufactured in Jamaica day after day, including the aged, the infirm, innocent young men and women, babies and the very Police, without whom many of us would not be able to sleep so comfortably in our beds at night.
So gwaan talk! Those of us, God's willing, who survive, I wish you all God's richest blessing for 2006.
Sybil Hibbert is a retired Gleaner Court reporter. She wrote for this newspaper between 1958-1976.
