It is now blatantly apparent
that serious misappropriations and miscarriages of investigative procedures
are to blame for the so called final verdict given by Madam Justice,
Faith Marshall Harris in pronouncing the death of Mr. I’Akobi Maloney
as “Death by misadventure”.
There are several salient points
to be raised and many pointed questions need to be answered concerning
the forensic procedures carried out and the post autopsy investigations
which are yet to be revealed to the public. It is not without
some concern that the forensic pathology and autopsy investigative reports,
photographs and audio narrative autopsy recordings are yet to be brought
before the court for analysis. Where are they? Throughout
the entire court proceedings no mention of these very important and
highly valued forensics analysis proceedings and recordings has been
made, or presented to, the court or the family of the deceased.
It is standard forensics autopsy
proceedings in any death whether homicide, suicide or by other means
to video record all relevant procedures during the autopsy accompanied
by a continuous narration of those procedures. Photographs of
relevant injuries, wounds, lacerations and broken bones usually also
accompany a complete radiological (X ray) scan of the body, in order
to verify whether excessive force from human, weapons or other instruments
contributed to, or were responsible for, the cause of death.
Impact points on the body that are not accompanied by lacerations or
wounds are also carefully noted, in order to ascertain how the body
may have struck, or was struck, by an object or structure in a particular
way. Where are these records?
The two policemen who allegedly
witnessed Mr. Maloney “jump off the cliff “ have given no specific
time lines as to when, or exactly where, this young man met his end
other than to accompany a judiciary entourage to the scene of his death.
The questions here arise around the fact that, if Mr. Maloney did in
fact deem it necessary to jump from the cliff in an apparent loss of
mental faculties, did the two police officers present, who saw him jump,
immediately radio RBPF Operations Control to request an ambulance and
It is a well known medical
fact that in any case of severe trauma to the human body the first 60
minutes immediately following injury, is the “ Golden Hour “ or
time frame where a 98% chance of survival is almost certain, provided
medical support services are able to respond suitably. Given
the remote location of the scene of death and possible confusion over
its exact location by emergency personnel, it is highly likely that
darkness would have fallen by the time any meaningful rescue efforts
could have been mounted. Furthermore, given the precarious
nature of the body’s location; i.e. at the foot of a cliff, the only
personnel capable of successful rescue would have been select members
of the Barbados Defense Force who would have been dispatched with specialized
equipment for recovering the body. This gives rise to the
immediate question of “how long did it take before the body was recovered
and when were emergency personnel summoned as a result of the incident?”
The body was not recovered until the next morning which is a blatant
lack of respect and a callous and inhumane act on the part of the Police
who did have access to all means necessary in having the body recovered.
The timeline also appears to be of no relevance in the proceedings thus far, as no mention of it has been put to the public in any form whatsoever. Why not? Madam Justice, Faith Marshall Harris also completely overlooked the fact that no thorough investigation into establishing a credible timeline was ever carried out, when she ruled that “5 minutes was not accounted for” and therefore there could be no way of knowing what occurred in that time. This is a poorly concealed admission of absolute failure of forensic investigative procedure and due process.
Did Mr. Maloney in fact deem
it necessary to entertain doing serious bodily harm to himself, despite
suffering from severe back pains and other physical distresses, and
then carried out his actions in an attempt to implicate the police officers
for harassment and serious bodily harm? If so, then it is certain
that he had no intention to die because he would have instantly become
the victim of his own demise.
Furthermore, if this had been the case, why the secrecy and collusion of Police statements which match each other so closely as to warrant internal investigation into if they were copied from one another? Would it not be the epitome of “to protect and reassure“ the motto of the RBPF, to utilize all resources necessary in order to save this man’s life? And having done so with all possible speed, to immediately seek the attention of the family in order to have them aware of the apparent attempt at suicide?
Not only that, but to immediately
begin localized house to house interviews with all residents who may
have seen the deceased in order to establish an accurate timeline leading
to when police officers first arrived at the scene? Why
have these questions not been addressed? Why did it take over
six months or more for police statements and other relevant procedures
to be started? When did the independent witness, Mr. Collymore,
first deem it necessary to include his account of the incident, no matter
All these points immediately
lead to further questions surrounding the issue of drug snuggling activity
in the area. Police officers, Messrs Walkes and Headley
stated that they observed a whitish colored boat leaving the area upon
arrival at the scene and where they first encountered Mr. Maloney.
This information has never been corroborated by any one person whether
witness, resident or casual observer at anytime during the hearing.
Had a boat been in the area, which may have been owned or operated by
any local fishermen, a simple survey of all fisher folk or boat owners
as to their location or days activities on that particular day, at the
request of the RBPF, would have turned up a ready volunteer who would
have been able to assist in the investigation. Why was this
simple procedure not carried out?
This lack of plain ordinary
old fashioned Police work which is so astutely touted as the operating
standard of the RBPF is clearly an attempt to seduce public opinion
and debate into linking the deceased to known, or possible, drug smuggling
activity. Furthermore, the statement that a boat was observed
leaving the area, would lend itself to suggest that the deceased had
in some way warned the occupants of the vessel that imminent police
action was likely, and they fled the scene. Clever but groundless,
due to the fact that no short range radio transmitter/receiver, flags
or any other communications device was found among the deceased belongings.
The deceased cell phone was seized by the officers and was not returned
to the family until months later. Plenty of time to have any vital
clues as to the victims intentions or contacts erased, or more importantly
have falsely conceived incriminating messages added. Welcome
to the World of Electronic Evidence, both innocent and corrupt.
Given the officers statements
that the sea was raging and it was windy, there would have been no way
possible for the human voice to convey a warning to anyone within 50
yards far less a boat several hundred yards out to sea and against the
wind. Could the mention of a boat of whitish color, which is not
a definite identification of any color known, and coming from a supposed
veteran of Police operations, be in keeping with the professional duty
of a the RBPF where thorough investigation and accurate identification
is the modus operandi? Definitely not, which leads to the question,
was the statement made inclusive of the detail about a “whitish boat
leaving the area” in order to provide a measure of justification in
how the said officers conducted their alleged questioning of the deceased,
and could have led to him deciding to take his own life? Furthermore,
if he did take his own life, where is the evidence to support that fact?
Evidence of suicide by jumping
off a cliff has been catalogued in many different Police departments
worldwide and this evidence, as recorded by the resident forensics pathologist
present at the scene, would have been carefully recorded and archived.
Wounds and impact points on the body would have been noted, depth of
lacerations in keeping with body position and physical mechanics would
have been analyzed and a scientific recreation of the circumstances,
and actions of the individual would have been carefully researched and
carried out in order to learn more about the actual incident, and bringing
closure for the family.
If the deceased in question,
Mr. Maloney, did in fact take his own life, why was a thorough forensics
procedure inclusive of all of the scientific methods described above
not carried out? If the individual had been a visitor to
the island and of Canadian, European or American nationality would it
have made a difference in how the police and the judiciary proceeded?
Or is it just because the deceased was a Rastafarian that the case was
treated with a distinct air of nonchalance and disrespect, of a grieving
family and brotherhood?
It is common practice in forensic
science for investigations into un-natural deaths to warrant the use
of life size figures or mannequins in order to replicate exactly the
positions, actions and subsequent findings of any case of homicide,
suicide or other causes of death. Mannequins are widely used in
the automotive industry in order to research and study human body impact
behavior as a result of an automobile collision. In forensic
science these same mannequins are constructed from a material known
as Ballistics Gel, which replicates the mass, weight and consistency
of human flesh exactly. Given the testimony that the deceased
jumped off the cliff, would not a thorough analysis of the evidence
of injury found on the body of the deceased, be complete if a scientific
research project using a mannequin to replicate injury, wounds and broken
bones be carried out in order to verify consistency of damage with that
of the deceased?
It stands to reason that the
use of a mannequin constructed to replicate the deceased accurately
in weight, height and mass would have the exact fall characteristics,
impact resolutions and depth consistent wound lacerations of the original
victim. Furthermore, once this evidence was examined and found
to be consistent with those of the victim, it would be a matter of proving
to the court that the verdict of “misadventure” was flawed
given the evidence as found during the forensics reenactment.
However, if the forensics analysis should find the wounds, lacerations
and broken bones inconsistent with those of the victim, it would warrant
further and immediate investigation and the case reopened.
How did the victim die?
The fastest man in the world is Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt being able to cover the hundred meter sprint race in less than 10 seconds. Bolt’s speed was calculated at approximately 34 feet per second. Were Bolt to have run off the edge of the said 45ft cliff at 34 feet per second, given his speed, weight and body mass, he would carry on approximately 12 feet laterally before gravity would take over and his body would prescribe an arc to its point of impact at approximately 47 ft away from the cliff face, in the ocean. (See chart below)
This fact is arrived at by observing Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion
Where; the rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the force acting on it, and takes place in the direction of that force.
Knowledge of the victim’s
weight would be valuable in order to accurately calculate how far he
fell and with what velocity. Having the relevant information
it would only be a matter of principle calculation in order to arrive
at a reasonable forensics deduction as to how the victim met his end.
Did he jump or was he thrown from the cliff edge?
Given the deceased complaints of severe back pains and other ailments it is with serious doubt that the testimony regarding his suicidal leap off the cliff edge is regarded. This is due to the fact that the independent witness, Mr. Collymore, stated that the police officers stopped their vehicle approximately 8 feet from the cliff edge and began to question the subsequent victim.
If the victim had in fact leapt
off the cliff in a suicidal action, and supposing he had an 8 ft distance
to accelerate, his body would not prescribe the parabolic arc as that
of a body under constant force and prolonged time of acceleration, and
thus would have landed approximately a mere 16 feet away from the cliff
edge. Did he jump or was he thrown to his death?
Messrs Walkes and Headley state that the victim, Mr. Maloney, ran from them. They also state that the victim was bare foot and this can be verified due to the fact that shoes were recovered among the personal belongings. However, what has never been proved is if in fact the victim had been fleeing the officers when he met his end, or as they would have it “leapt to his death”.
Forensic autopsy observations
and photographs of the victim’s feet would verify this claim as the
soles of the feet should show lacerations, abrasions or scuffing consistent
with running action. However, no records of this fact seem to
exist. Why not?
Had the victim fled from the
officers in question, and given his weight and approximate speed, the
abrasions or scuffing marks left by the tortuous terrain (wind eroded
rocky surface) would have been easily identified on the balls of the
foot, toes, outer instep edge and the heel. Furthermore,
any lacerations or scuffing would have small remnants of debris trapped
within them which could easily be matched to the surrounding terrain
for consistency of organic material and geological structure.
This simple procedure for trace evidence could have been carried out
using a Scanning Electron Microscope utilizing Compound Infra Red Identification
filtering and Shadow/ Light Evocation Spectrometry and would accurately
identify the direction of the scuffing or lacerations and calculate
with some accuracy the speed at which the victim may have been traveling
when they occurred, proving conclusively whether the victim had in fact
been fleeing the officers.
In questioning the fisherman
who is reported to have met the victim a few hours before his death,
he said that Mr. Maloney alighted from a Speightstown bus at approximately
12.30 p.m. in the afternoon of the day in question. He was unable
to accurately identify any reasonable timeline leading up to when he
first heard about the incident and observed the deceased lying at the
foot of the cliff. What is of concern
in this case is; that no one besides this individual can account for
the victim being present at or nearby the scene, which leads toward
to the question of; had the victim been on his way to the cove, “to
chill for awhile” as was reportedly stated by those who spoke to him,
and given the time of day, namely early afternoon, why was he reportedly
found “behaving strangely” over quarter of a mile away from the
nearest shaded area in Little Bay of his last known location and well
over one mile (walking distance) from the shaded tree area of Gays Cove?
Would it not make more sense for someone who desired a little peace
and relaxation to gravitate toward a shaded area with trees and a tranquil
setting away from the hot afternoon sun? Why then did the
victim say he was going to “chill out for awhile” if he had no intention
of seeking shade and a tranquil setting in which to do so?
This leads to the further question
of; did the victim disembark at the entrance to Little Bay but then
walk across to Gays Cove? If so, did the Police officers
in question intercept him whilst en route? Highly unlikely due
to the fact that the last reported sighting of the victim was at 12.30
p.m. and the arrival of the Police was reported to be 5.46 p.m. leaving
plenty of time for the victim to walk to Gays Cove. It is
therefore highly speculative, but not beyond the realm of possibility,
that the victim was accosted at Gays Cove, beaten severely and then
transported to the Land Lock area and disposed of. If so,
why was this question not raised by the lawyer of the family especially
when reports by the very same officers at the scene, indicated that
there were other members of the RBPF at Gays Cove when they encountered
the victim at Land Lock?
The statement by Messrs Walkes
and Headley that they could see other members of the Police Force at
Gays Cove would immediately lead to the question of; why was a call
for back up assistance in dealing with what they reported as a “disturbed
individual” not immediately put out? And, if it was, why was
the fact not documented in the statements of the other RBPF members
or be confirmed by Operations Control? There is a very serious
issue at stake here. A young man is dead under reportedly suicide conditions
but no evidence to support that fact either forensic, criminal or circumstantial
has been deemed necessary of thorough investigation.
There is also the question that has not been asked by either lawyer, witnesses, family or the Madam Justice herself during the inquiry of; from which direction did the independent witness, Mr. Collymore, observe the unmarked Police Vehicle S 940 approach across the terrain?
This is absolutely crucial to proving possible pre death Police involvement in that; if the vehicle had approached from the South, from the direction of Gays Cove, across the rough terrain, it could be deduced that the victim might have been previously accosted and was in fact moved from a former location and placed at Land Lock. The natural self preservation instinct of the human mind would dictate that if the victim had died during a severe beating, the most cost effective and readily sought avenue of disposal without leading to an official crime scene and thus lengthy criminal investigation, would be to dispose of the body at a lonely place where there would be the least likely hood of being observed, and at a time when distinct detail could not be established due to failing light.
Furthermore, given the two
most likely observation points and taking particular notice of their
individual layout, both being dwelling houses, it is unlikely that anyone
did observe a vehicle from these locations due to the rooms of those
houses being bedrooms and thus, more probable to being unoccupied at
that time. Given that the one independent witness, Mr. Collymore,
was using binoculars over a distance of a mere 400 yards, why is it
that he is as yet unable to supply pertinent details as to color and
items of clothing of the victim but has been able to clearly identify
the vehicle registration number as S 940 and that both officers were
in plain clothes?
This immediately calls into to question the validity of this witness as a verifiable source of information. Furthermore, given reliable and corroborated local resident reports of his frantic behavior at the scene following the incident, in which he is reported to have offered a sum of
$500 dollars to anyone who
would be willing to climb down the cliff and perform a rescue of the
body, a clearer picture of how this witness’ information came to be,
can be deduced. If this witness “turned away” from his
window as he stated and therefore did not see anything take place, why
the urgent and frantic efforts to perform rescue on someone he didn’t
even know or may have had no interest in knowing? Any good
citizen would rush to rescue a fellow man; therefore if he had no means
to perform the rescue himself offering to pay someone to do it would
This kind of behavior is commonly known as Suspect Behavioral Abnormality (SBA).
In criminal investigations
worldwide it is well documented fact where persons realizing their responsibility
to report what they might have seen or observed in the course of time
leading up to an incident, become over enamored with an urgent sense
of civic duty to the point where they actually attract unnecessary attention
to themselves during criminal proceedings. This is so due to ever
diligent police observation of human behavioral trends in which a potential
suspect can be identified due to his or her abnormal, or unusual, actions
immediately following the incident. Given reliable local resident
reports, this was indeed the case of the one Mr. Collymore on the evening
in question, when a large crowd had reportedly gathered to observe the
body of the victim on the rocks below.
Had the scene been professionally
secured by placing Police personnel all around the area, this individual’s
behavior would have been observed and taken note of for further investigation.
However, due to the now blatantly apparent police collusion and subsequent
judicial cover up none of these very important and absolutely necessary
steps at preserving the scene in every way and taking note of any, and
everything, taking place around it was ever conducted. Why not?
Furthermore, given this unusual
behavior by the independent witness, why was this not relayed to the
Police? Or if it was, why wasn’t it acted upon by bringing the
witness to the Holetown Police station for a thorough questioning.
The witness may have been questioned by Police, it is not known, but
if the questioning had been thoroughly conducted and analyzed, the questions
being raised here would have been answered. Furthermore,
had the witness been subjected to a polygraph test, the results would
have quickly ruled out irrelevance from the facts thus leading to the
possibility of a completely different scenario of events, than was portrayed.
Why was the witness not subjected to polygraphist analysis?
In addition, why were Messrs Walkes and Headley also not subjected to
polygraphist analysis? Isn’t “truth” the reason
that forensic science was established in the first place?
Local residents of the area
reliably report that the said Mr. Collymore is well known to be a Police
informant. This fact could be established with an enormous
amount of accuracy if the witness was subjected to polygraph testing.
Furthermore, carefully engineered questioning by a trained professional
over several hours would expose any psychological weaknesses and could
possibly lead to the identification of an accurate timeline, and the
complete scene as to how and when the incident occurred.
Subsequent to the verdict an even further injustice was leveled against
the family and Rastafarian community when Police Commissioner Darwin
Dottin publicly called for more cooperation of the Rastafarian community
with the RBPF. Given the questions posed and suggested use
of investigative science and technology outlined above, how does he,
even in his wildest patriotic dreams, propose for that to happen?
The family of the victim has had to endure serious post death trauma and heartbreak, and in the circumstances, it is incumbent upon the judiciary to realize that; serious, unprofessional and blatant obstructions of justice brought about by amateur and willful breaches of due process, have led to an unequivocally skewed coroners decision that is seconded only by the nauseatingly repulsive and obnoxious self preserving attitude displayed by the Royal Barbados Police Force.
Crime and Justice >