By Phyllis Thomas, News Editor 
THE POLICE are being congratulated for a job well done in bringing in the country's most wanted fugitive, 40-year-old Joel Andem.
Not a shot was fired. There was no blood. It seemed as if the execution was swift and clean. We are not going to take away anything from them. We congratulate them too. This is a demonstration that things can be done differently. It tells us that people are learning.
But I am not altogether comfortable about the strength of the case that will be presented to secure a conviction. This is not just Thomas's cynicism. I am going from past experience. Take the results of the Canterbury case for example. That was a case for which the police were also commended for their professional handling and for bringing in the guns after an eight-hour gun battle last year October. But on Thursday, the men who were arrested in the incident and charged for illegal possession of firearm, wounding with intent and shooting with intent were set free by the Western Regional Gun Court.
What concerns me is the reason why the men were released. According to news reports, the case lacked substantial evidence on which to convict the six men. This is not about whether I believe they are guilty or innocent. I am not in a position to determine that, I am not even qualified or competent to do that. But I am reminded of a verse of a song by Ernie Smith some decades ago: Well, it must be a duppy or a gunman... In the Canterbury case, although I would be entirely outside of my league in trying to make any assertion as to the men's guilt or innocence, it was no duppy shooting at those policemen in Canterbury on October 15, 2003.
EVIDENCE QUESTIONABLE
But according to Dalton Reid, attorney for one of the men, the not guilty verdict was influenced by the fact that the identification of the men was weak and the integrity of the forensic evidence questionable, among other reasons.
That's just one case. There are so many more like that where suspects who might have been guilty were able to walk free. This speaks to a major deficiency in our justice system, hence my anxiety where the Andem case is concerned. If he is guilty of the charge or charges laid against him, will he be convicted?
Among the difficulties that present themselves to the police in these cases is the unwillingness of eyewitnesses to give evidence in court.
Deputy Superintendent Bertram Lee said, in a Gleaner Editors' Forum in February, "Most times the police are aware of who the perpetrators of crimes are, but when we get out there and arrest them, the witnesses are not coming forward and the accused persons have to be released."
But I will never condemn anyone who is unwilling to give an eyewitness account because of fear. It has become too easy to kill eyewitnesses and it is happening too often, although we introduced what we called a Witness Protection Programme since the 1980s. If people had confidence in the justice system they would feel comfortable that they could talk and live. Talking would not mean signing their death warrant. How many times has this newspaper reported on cases in which witnesses have been gunned down?
One murder which comes to mind is that of Michael Blake, of Rock district, Trinityville, St. Thomas, a complainant in a case. He was killed within hours after he attended the Gun Court for the trial of Gairy Thompson and David Montaque, labourers of Jarrett Lane, off Mountain View Avenue, Kingston 2, who were charged with illegal possession of firearms and wounding with intent. Blake, who appeared in court because of a gunshot injury to his foot on May 10 last year, had expressed fear for his life when he went to court, the police reported.
KILLED IN THE PROCESS
They were reported as saying that they were in the process of preparing the relevant documents to put him in the Witness Protection Programme when he was killed, that they had taken him to a bus stop, but that night gunmen invaded his home in Rock district and shot him dead.
There is no confidence in the Witness Protection Programme. Even Commissioner of Police Francis Forbes acknowledges this. He told The Gleaner's senior associate editor, Lloyd Williams, in a recent interview: "Everybody may have a fair idea that an individual is committing crime, and in fact, in many communities within 24 hours after a crime has been committed, particularly a crime of violence, the name of someone comes to the police but the difficulty in Jamaica is getting evidence that can be taken to court and stand scrutiny. And this is one part that the public doesn't frequently seem to understand. And of course, because there is a lack of confidence in the Witness Protection Programme, no matter how hard we try, we still don't seem able to convince sufficient 'I saw' witnesses to come forward and to give statements and then go to court."
The state has a lot of work to do in overhauling the justice system so that persons who are guilty of crimes can be punished. At a forum on Criminal Violence in Jamaica The State/Institutional Response held at the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona, in February last year, Director of Public Prosecutions, Kent Pantry, proposed that Jamaica move fully toward the international trend of accepting forensic evidence over eyewitness evidence. He said it is far more reliable because it does not suffer from human frailties such as poor eyesight, problematic hearing or mistaken identity.
Also, it is easier for criminal elements to murder the eyewitness than to tamper with the forensic evidence.
Comments? E-mail me at phyllis.thomas@gleanerjm.com
