Devon Dick

Today marks the first anniversary of the death of Bob Woolmer, former Pakistan cricket coach. This tragedy took place one day after Pakistan's surprise and early exit from the Cricket World Cup staged here in Jamaica.

This death tarnished the name of Jamaica around the world as an unsafe place because of the pronouncement that he was strangled and the speculation that he was poisoned. In addition, this investigation was a fiasco. In that scenario the former Minister of National Security, Dr Peter Phillips asked retired judge Ian Forte to investigate how the investigations were conducted.

Six months ago the report was handed to the Honourable Derrick Smith, minister of national security, but alas! not a word.

We need the report because of what Mark Shields, deputy commissioner of police, said in last Sunday's Gleaner. Lucius Thomas, then commissioner of police said, "We acted in haste". However, Shields said that he disagrees with Thomas and added that, "given similar circumstances, the police would not change their procedure" (page B 8). This is a frightening statement on many accounts.

That statement means that either Thomas was incompetent or Shields is incompetent. In addition, for Shields to make that statement it means that he is privy to the contents of the Forte Report, which must have agreed with him.

Learnt nothing

It seems arrogant to state that the police would follow the same procedure. It meant that Shields and the police force have not learnt anything from the Woolmer fiasco. It is usually a foolish person who would claim infallibility of a procedure especially one that caused untold grief to a country not to mention Woolmer's family, friends and fans.

If Shields' statement is true that he and the police would not change their procedure then he and all those who think that way should be retired in the publics interest by the Police Service Commission.

Let us recall that recently Minister Smith said that we had expected more from these police personnel from Britain. And a couple weeks ago, Winston Lawson of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, made a diplomatic statement. He said no disrespect to the British police but we need police from New York. Since no other British officer here has publicly demonstrated any incompetent handling of his portfolio, I interpret those statements as a no confidence vote in Shields.

Dissatisfaction

In addition, Kevin Chang wondered how Shields and the pathologist have not resigned. There is dissatisfaction with Shields performance but nobody wants to say it. Remember also that Andy Gallacher, a seasoned BBC reporter, said the police news conference was an attempt to shift the blame to the pathologist. And to this day Shields is placing the blame on the pathologist. Shields decided to accept and act on the pathologist's report even before the toxicology report was received. That was a flawed procedure.

Pathology is just one of the tools available to the police in trying to solve a homicide.

Furthermore, there was no need to fingerprint the whole Pakistani team. The most that should have been done was to fingerprint those who entered Woolmer's room. These acts of fingerprinting cast unnecessary aspersions on the team. In addition, all Shields should have said was that the police was investigating the matter and all options are on the table. More flawed procedures!

We need the report into the Bob Woolmer fiasco to determine whether Thomas or Shields is correct. This is not an academic exercise or witchhunt but goes to the core of whether the police have the "brains" to fight this high murder rate.