An international observer wrote a short but powerful letter to the Jamaican Gleaner newspaper pointing out why he thinks Adidja Palmer’s trial was unfair.
As a member of the Jamaica diaspora based in Hong Kong and a regular reader of The Gleaner online, I would like to think that the letters page gives a snapshot of the prevailing sentiment of the domestic and foreign Jamaican community.
So it has been with keen interest since that I regularly logged into the website to read the articles, commentary and letters on the recent Vybz Kartel murder trial.
First, I was somewhat dismayed to read that the trial resulted in a guilty verdict, not because I believed Mr Palmer to be innocent – I am relatively agnostic as to his guilt or otherwise – but because the evidence presented did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In more sophisticated judicial nations of the world, such evidence, as presented, would have clearly been inadmissible.
Admittedly tampered evidence, while in the possession of the State, absolutely should not be allowed.
Unreliable witness statements and spurious technical presentations do not convey truth or support a guilty verdict proved beyond reasonable doubt, which has to be the litmus test for all forward-thinking honorable societies.
But my disappointment has been compounded by the letters published by The Gleaner regarding the verdict. Where do some of these bombastic people come from?
It would seem to me that each published letter praising the shonky verdict was trying to outdo the prior by the use of big-sounding words and long sentences that actually say nothing, but seek to separate those whose educational level did not reach the heights of loquaciousness and grandiloquence from those who did.
M. BARRYKowloon, Hong Kong
mrmbarry@hotmail.com
