MARK SHIELDS LICKING OUT PAN JCF’S INCOMPETENCE

0 thoughts on “MARK SHIELDS LICKING OUT PAN JCF’S INCOMPETENCE

  1. Because Jamaican laws are different from British Laws ,the defence could easily dismiss those result .Wedda the DNA came back conclusive or not it does not prove a murder took place without a body .Jury might find him guilty but appeal court will set him free .That’s the reality of murder cases especially in poorer countries .

    1. Valid point Jay I concur with you, BUT it’s what the jury hears and sees that is important. If all they are hearing is “this didn’t match”, some element of doubt will be cast in their minds. Most people will Belive what they hear or see at firsthand. The biggest blow so far is that a witness who was at the scene of the crime has testified to what he saw and heard. Did they believe him, it’s left to seen.

      1. @Jay yuh right and you brite, big ups.@WWW.Com, the star witness cannot say conclusively that he saw lizard dead, not moving does not constitute death. Plus he said dog kid Fartel and him took Fartel to the hospital, that means Fartel’s lawyers can say his client was at the hospital and have no idea what became of Lizard because he was not there, so you see reasonable doubt. If the jurors are voting based on facts presented and not with their passions, am sad to say that he maybe found not guilty,( not because he is, but because the evidence is lacking or questionable. RIP Lizard, mi sad fi im cause my mother lost a son 20 yrs ago and the pain still real fi har.

        1. @It’s me, yes the witness did say he saw the victim motionless on his back and as you rightly put it that doesn’t constitute death. The witness also testified that both himself and the victim were SUMMONED to the house by kartel to give account for the missing gun/guns, what transpired after that is at best blurry, but if I go somewhere with a friend and we are attacked by several individuals and I ran only to return and see my friend laying down on his back not moving and person/persons are positioned over his body with building blocks then the person is never heard from nor seen ever again those are the factors the jury wants to hear.

          1. but did he see him on his back before or after he took fartel to the hospital for the dog bite? and if the returned after why is he still alive?

  2. Why him never institute the procedures while he collected his big salary in the Police Force, When he is out he is highlighting the deficiencies. He had the chance to make a change. He did not

    1. 100% in agreement. Mek dem never offer we de use a dem labs and experts? phuck shield, him know him should not be commenting at this time.

    1. I too asked that question but someone had pointed out to me that even if the DNA test comes back as a positive match it doesn’t necessarily means a murder was committed, I agreed, however what it does is CLEARLY shows that the victim was at the scene of the crime and suffered injuries…… and that is what the jury NEEDS to hear!!!

        1. Not really enuh, without a body blood is considered connective tissue, the presence of blood does not mean it is there as a result of lizard’s death. A lawyer cud argue that lizard frequented the house and cud’ve had a nose bleed etc. and that is how the blood got there, for blood evidence to prove death there would have to be a substantial amount of blood where the coroner would argue that the person who bleed so much blood, could not have survived the attack. What they should have done is spray the place with luminol, that is a chemical that react to the presence of blood then they would’ve known how much blood was there.

          1. Wrong. People get sentence without a body being present. Nose bleed? You think is a drop of blood? lol. Spray place wid luminol? Why do I feel like me a watch CSI?

      1. Actually the only thing it would mean is that a male person who was related to the person that they tested left some blood on the scene.

        Everything else are allegations

        1. Which relative would that be???? The witness based on his testimony placed the victim at the crime scene, the defense lawyer also placed the victim at the crime scene when he/she said the witness could not have seen what actually took place inside the house because he was outside in the yard…. science is ABSOLUTE eye witness testimony is crucial the jury now has a picture painted right before their eyes!!!

          1. yes. Science states the facts. Persons interpret. The only fact that the DNA could conclude is that a male relative of the one that was tested left blood at the location.

            Thus the DNA has added no further clarity to the matter so far. In fact, it raises doubt. That’s why I am surprised that the prosecutor called for it.

  3. They had to use the DNA reference, they have no body. The blood is proof that the person was at the location as stated by the eye witness.

    1. The blood did not match… hence I am surprised why the prosecutor used it. Even if it did match, it would not give time and date, or how it got their.

      The DNA helps the defenses case in this instancde. So puzzled why the prosecutor used it.

  4. The case is really hard to prove because the people concerned are all of questionable character .What Mark Shield is suggesting would not stand up to scrutiny in court .Mark is from a very peaceful country where few murders take place ,Jamaica should have gone for someone from Chicago or somewhere like that .How do you prove it’s Lizards comb or other belongings beyond doubt ?
    The uncle is probably not related to Lizard .Lizard was placed at the scene by a witness ,Kartel was removed from the scene by the same witness .It’s tuff.

    @It’me ,all evidence gathering have to fit within the law and capabilities of the people gathering the evidence .Jamaica is dealing with a monster that countries with a hundred years head start over us are not capable of dealing with .Things that were standard in the UK investigations in 1913 is still not standard in Jamaica today .

    1. it does not matter if Kartel was at the scene or not. He is not charged for murder because he is the trigger man ( I think it is alleged that “Mad Suss” is the one who actually killed him with a block). All are charged with the same offense because of “Common Design”.

      1. Careful with names, this is a public forum we don’t want the administrators of the site to be subpoenaed to appear before the courts for slander or defamation of character.

        1. I was not there. The witness said in court that he saw Mad Suss with a half a block in him hand over lizard motionless body. That is public information. I don’t know Mad Suss different from Mad Puss

    2. Hey Met. Ethically… Shield should know better O.

      If Y chromosome isn’t in that 99.9999999 then there is no need to use the word ‘probably’. A Jacket inna de family wardrobe. The blood is present in large amounts and the source left splattered pattern. From the blood isn’t from a nonhuman then the DPP office have alrights to include it.

      Q: Why would such a large amount of blood be present in a home that was also on fire? Where is the source of the blood? Also, the blood contaminated from fuel source of the fire and other factors.

    3. Just read your comment in detail. The witness removed kartel from the scene after the fact not prior. It was after seeing Lizard on the ground that he fled then kartel gave chase.

  5. Met the cybercrimes expert is now testifying but not infront the jury, the press and regular citizens. This is another twist!! They are saying the matter is so sensitive it cannot be viewed by those barred from seeing it. So I guess all this talk about video recordings where true.

  6. So when video and phone conversation come out unno still a go sey a di police a try frame kartel because ano fi him voice and ano him ina di video.Ass,com.police Elan Powell sey dem have video evidence a di killing and until proven otherwise mi a go belive him,,\becausehim love fi video him f**kry deeds too much.Dats a one a him track record.

  7. Suh unu jus trow out wah di fire expert testify seh? Why was di place deliberately set a blaze? Nuh mus fi cover somn? kartel an his cronies contaminate di crime scene by setting fire to di place…Dat shud have bin anodda charge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top