Dear Editor,

With the passage of time and pronouncements already made by human rights spokespersons, the commissioner of police, defence counsel, and the DPP, new complexions are emerging in the deadly Buckfield incident, even though a solid wall of outrage is holding strong.

One should take pains to not prejudge the ultimate outcome of what will be a significant legal matter. However, there may be value in taking a look ahead, even at this initial stage, at some angles that might yet play themselves out over the course of this affair.

Recall that in March 1991, an initial stop by a California Highway Patrol team escalated into a vicious beating of an intoxicated Rodney King by a team of officers from the Los Angeles Police Department. The mauling was captured on video, at least significant portions of the beating. There was instant wide-spread revulsion and outrage, and charges were laid against the officers.

At trial, two officers were fully acquitted and two others were convicted on lesser charges. Less than two hours after the verdict, LA was in flames. End result: 54 people were dead, hundreds of people injured, 7,000 persons arrested and over US$1 billion in property damage.

Without a doubt, the genesis of the Rodney King episode is altogether different from that of the Buckfield incident. Let us hope that Jamaicans will display restraint, regardless of the outcome, and that proactive co-ordinated efforts between stakeholders will prevent even a shadow of the crisis that overtook LA that day in April 1992.

If the DPP’s call is not met for the original videographer of the killing of Ian ‘Ching Sing’ Lloyd to step forward, the Crown will have to rely solely on any witnesses that will come forward and on the best forensics that can be mounted.

This brings to mind how the Rashoman effect may impact the case, as it did in the Rodney King case where various witnesses to the same event gave varying testimonies.

In essence, the Rashoman effect is that of subjectivity of perception on recollection by which multiple observers of an event produce substantially different yet plausible accounts of the same event. It is named for Akira Kurosawa’s film Rashomon, which presents four different accounts of a contested event — the murder of a Japanese nobleman and the rape of his wife.

Already, defence counsel is asserting that the so-called Buckfield video making the rounds cannot be accepted as factual evidence against his client, the detective sergeant. And counsel is not the only one making those statements; there will be others.

In the Rodney King case, the few minutes of video were agonisingly presented in the slowest of motions, frame-by-frame, allowing the defence to defeat the stark impact of the clip that was so heavily broadcast that a CNN executive called it “wallpaper”. So even if the Buckfield video is entered into evidence, we can expect defence counsel to do as was done in the King trial.

A growing body of social science research indicates that eyewitness testimony is less reliable than most laypeople may think. Even if the DPP’s call results in the videographer presenting himself along with his recording device, good police work and first-rate forensics offer the best prospects for the Crown winning the day in court.

Regardless of the settled outcome of this sure-to-be-celebrated case, let us hope that a mature and informed Jamaican society, as we are, will react in a way that serves the greater good of all.

Christopher Pryce

christopherjmpryce@yahoo.com