INDECOM RULED NO ACTION IN OFFICER KEMAR BECKFORD’S DEATH INVESTIGATION

A cry of injustice
Family of slain cop in Hanover knocks INDECOM ruling, wants judicial review

THOMAS … the police had produced a redesigned murder sceneGregory Bennett

The family of slain police constable K’Mar Beckford is fuming over the ruling by the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) that no action should be taken against the police inspector who shot him dead 13 months ago in Hopewell, Hanover.

INDECOM, in a report dated April 14, recommended that no disciplinary action be taken, nor criminal charges laid against Inspector Wayne Jacobs, the man who admitted to shooting Beckford 13 times in what was reported as a robbery attempt at a bar owned by Jacobs. The incident occurred on April 4, 2015.

The family, led by Beckford’s mother, Lenorah Thomas, a guidance counsellor by profession, challenged the report that the young policeman was in the process of robbing the bar early in the morning, and suggested that he was murdered.

In a letter to INDECOM Commissioner Terrence Williams dated May 2, the family described the ruling as a “travesty of justice” and questioned the credibility of the organisation set up eight years ago to probe such incidents involving the police.

“We put forward to the Commission that there are grounds on which to charge Inspector Jacobs… We propose to the Commission that its ruling lacks credibility and was done only on the basis of a police version and statements from witnesses in support of Inspector Jacobs,” Thomas wrote on behalf of the grieving family. She was responding to the INDECOM report at the invitation of the agency.
“You have further arrived at your decision by failing to use the benefits of ballistic and forensic pathological analysis. Elements within the police department have corrupted the investigation and INDECOM has not done much to the credibility of investigating and detecting it. Like the police, you have not used the benefit of scientific data as well as other data to appropriately present the facts,” Thomas said in the letter, copies of which were dispatched to Police Commissioner Dr Carl Williams, Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn, chairman of the Public Services Commission Prof Gordon Shirley, head of the Inspectorate of Constabulary Assistant Commissioner Ray Palmer, Williams Campbell of the Coroner’s Office, and Jamaica Police Federation Chairman Sgt Raymond Wilson.

The family said that the fight to clear Beckford’s name was far from over, and outlined its intention to aggressively continue the mission to achieve justice.

“We therefore intend to present our claim, and to advise you that we intend to legally fight this matter and seek redress from the institutions of justice through all channels. As ruled by your Commission, we strongly disagree on the following terms that:

(a) Inspector Jacobs will not be held criminally liable for the shooting death of Constable Beckford

(b) That he acted in self-defence

(c) That the matter must be referred to the coroner to be heard or either written off

(d) We reject the ruling that Constable Beckford was acting unlawfully when he was killed and that he, by his actions, had placed others in danger.

“In addition, we put to you that your ruling is based only on the allegations made, and that it relied on police and witness statements only. You have failed in making your decision without using scientific data relating to forensic pathology, ballistic analysis and photographic evidence to support the ruling you made. By doing so, your decision has added further failure to protect Constable Beckford’s right to the presumption of innocence as well as the right to a just, equitable and fair investigation. Was there any consideration that he has no witness in the matter to support him, or because he was successfully labelled?

“You have also accepted from Inspector Jacobs and elements within the police force, a carefully designed falsehood based strongly on police squaddy-ism. The commission has ruled on an enacted crime scene relocated from outside the bar. We put to you that INDECOM acted with negligence in failing to properly investigate the matter, resulting in the kind of ruling made,” Thomas wrote.

“Constable Beckford was not killed in a robbery as reported by the police; neither was his action a threat to anyone when he was killed. The statements and witness account said he entered with

(a) A gun in hand

(b) Stood facing them in the bar

(c) Was in total command, giving orders to witnesses to come up front, meaning towards him.

There are supporting statements and witnesses sufficient for one to believe that he faced these people and was in total control. This is as soon as he entered the bar.”

Thomas pointed out that one witness, in his statement, “said the man had a black gun in his right hand and was standing at the front of the room two to three feet away from the entrance/exit.”

Another witness, said “the man was positioned about five feet from the entrance door, describing the man as the same deceased.

A third witness, a woman, Thomas pointed out, “said Kim was walking towards the entrance/exit door when the man with the gun stopped her”.

Yet another female witness, in pointing out the position where Constable Beckford was standing towards the entrance, said she “was the first one to walk towards him as she proceeded towards the front door”.

Thomas pointed out further that another female witness “agreed that the deceased was in the position facing the door”.

Said Thomas: “There is enough corroborative evidence that Constable Beckford was standing to the right of Inspector Jacobs where they say he was killed. This would have made the point the witnesses conveyed as to where the deceased was and what he was doing when he was accused of robbing and shooting others, but is this true?”

She also, in the letter, raised questions about the seating positions in the bar and how the shooting unfolded.

“There were witnesses telling where Inspector Jacobs was sitting at the bar. He himself said he was seated at the customer end of the counter in the corner counting money when Constable Beckford walked in through the entrance/exit door. There are more than enough witnesses to substantiate that Mr Jacobs was on the right of Constable Beckford when he entered the building. Mr Jacobs got up from his seat to challenge Constable Beckford on account of what he said he saw and the witnesses’ claim of what they say Beckford was doing,“ Thomas wrote.

“A challenge began and Beckford had a gun in his hand shooting. Mr Jacobs started firing at Mr Beckford in quick succession, and Beckford lay dead on the floor after the shooting ended. Other persons were injured, to include Mr Jacobs. This has defined that Mr Jacobs is saying Constable Beckford was killed in the bar, and he fell in the position that he was found by the investigators, but is this true?” Thomas asked.

Citing excerpts from the autopsy report done by pathologist Dr Parthasarathi Pramnik, the family also highlighted what it said were inconsistencies.

“In the post-mortem/autopsy report done on April 27, 2015, he (Dr Pramnik) indicated that there were 12 gunshot entry wounds to the body of Cons Beckford and one bullet graze. Ten of the 12 gunshots were fired into the deceased’s body and another grazed him. This is from an amount of 13 to 14 that the police and INDECOM said were fired by Mr Jacobs.

“The autopsy report further stated that 10 of the 12 gunshots entered the deceased’s body on the left side of his body. He reported that he tracked these bullet wounds that moved through his body, travelling left to right. A copper bullet was also removed from his body, one bullet entered the back of his neck and another entered his buttocks.

“How could the deceased, having been reported to face Mr Jacobs from a rightward position, his right side turned towards him (Jacobs) and both men opened fire on each other and the bullets that killed Beckford entered the body through his left side, and not the right side of deceased?” Thomas asked.

“This is what the police, their witnesses and INDECOM would want us to believe by accepting that their witnesses are corroborative, and that Mr Jacobs acted in self-defence,” she added.

The family also charged that the crime scene was altered, and pointed to a recommendation made by INDECOM for disciplinary action to be taken against a police constable in relation to that matter.

INDECOM, in its report, had recommended that Constable Omardo Heavens “be subjected to internal disciplinary measures of the Jamaica Constabulary Force in the matter of failure in his duty to preserve the incident scene in accordance with provisions of Section 22 of the Independent Commission of Investigations Act and the ‘Directions’ issued.”

This, the family argued, was an indication that something was amiss.

“There are clear and undisputed evidence from the crime scene that Beckford was killed on the front porch of the same bar as he exited the building through a glass entrance/exit door. He was not killed inside the building as the police, INDECOM, and witnesses would want us to believe. He was killed outside as he walked on to the verandah, stepping down the steps towards the soft shoulder of the road,” Thomas wrote.

“Crime scene investigator Alex Cummings, who processed the scene, in his report confirmed this when he alluded to several stains resembling blood that he observed on the soft shoulder of the roadway, onto the steps of the bar leading up to, and through the entrance/exit door. He also confirmed that blood stains were seen in the vicinity of a front window on the northern wall. He further reported, like the police did, that he saw Beckford’s body lying on the floor inside the bar on his left side with his feet through the entrance/exit glass door. Beckford was killed on the outside, with evidence of blood on the outside, yet his body was found on the inside of the bar,” Thomas stated.

“Photographic evidence circulated by social media showed huge drag marks from Beckford’s body indicating he was pulled into the building and repositioned in the bar where his body laid, marked by his blood that flowed profusely from his bullet-riddled body, as well as other wounds he received. These impressions were clearly evident of the relocating of the body to reconstruct the crime scene. Alex Cummings reported observing the blood marks trailing from the soft shoulder up the steps, into the bar,” Thomas wrote and asked what was the motive for tampering with the crime scene.

She said the manner in which Beckford was killed rubbished the police and witnesses claim that any person or persons in the bar were under attack by him and refuted a number of other claims, including that he was killed in the place where his body was laid; that where the inspector said he was when he fired was true; that it was the deceased’s weapon that shot the inspector and other persons in the bar; that Beckford was wearing a mask; that he entered the bar to rob; and the claim by IDECOM that his death was justifiable and was an act of self-defence.

“Evidence from the crime scene examiner Alex Cummings on page 20 of the report given by INDECOM stated that:

(a) A projectile strike and a copper colour bullet was found lodged in the base of the window to the right side of the entry door at the eastern wall of the building

(b) On page 18, he alluded to several drops of blood he observed on the soft shoulder of the roadway, onto the steps of the bar leading up and through the entrance door, on the floor to the right of the exit/entry door in the vicinity of the front window of the bar on the northern wall, and trailed from the entrance/exit door to the roadway near the bar.”

Thomas argued in her letter that based on the circumstances surrounding the young constable’s death there is absolutely clear evidence to lay a charge against Inspector Jacobs. She also charged that the police had produced a redesigned murder scene inside the bar, claiming that Beckford entered and acted unlawfully.

She also said that “evidence supports the fact that he was pulled back inside the bar from the outside where he was shot and killed to aid the re-enactment of the designed crime scene in the bar. It is on these grounds that the family remains resolute that Constable K’Mar Wainwright Beckford was unlawfully killed and has been treated with indignity and great impunity as well as robbing him the right to be presumed innocent.

“We are therefore asking for a judicial review as we continue to demand that justice be served in this matter.”