Over two decades ago when I was a forensic reconstruction expert working primarily for the defence, I got a file from K Churchill Neita regarding a murder accused that he was defending in Alligator Pond, St Elizabeth.

My job was to forensically reconstruct the evidence from the file, and by examination of the actual location where the murder took place. After reading the file, I remember thinking… “This yute gone a prison.” The evidence was so overwhelming that in my mind not even the great Churchill Neita could help this man. I sympathised with him. I saw where he was provoked, but he used an illegal gun, albeit he was protecting his life.

The witnesses all spoke to cold-blooded murder. They saw everything, up to the colour of his eyes.

When I drove to the scene and placed myself in the position of the witnesses in an effort to see their line of sight and construct same with the use of photography, I realised that a fence was between them and the crime scene.

Another witness, who saw everything whilst he was cooking, would have to have looked through two walls. Needless to say, the man was acquitted. Oddly enough, he was not even convicted for the use of an illegal gun. I recall this may have been an oversight when he was charged for the murder.

I learned a few things because of that case. One was, never to underestimate K Churchill Neita. The other was not to judge a case from a physical file. Lastly, never try to come to judgment when you only have pieces of information.

Recently, I was interviewed in another publication in respect of comments made by other experts in the field about their opinion on a recent shooting incident. I spoke about the practice, commonly called ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacking’. It really seemed to upset a lot of people.

As a writer, I appreciate when I have ignited passions to participate in debate. A fellow academic from the Diaspora wrote a rather lengthy piece disapproving of my use of the term, ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacking’. I also appreciate his contribution to the discussion.

A regular practice in Jamaica by many, to include other members of the press and writers like myself, the public, and the experts, is they often try to analyse with the information released to us. This information is often sketchy and incomplete. This cannot be considered a scientific evaluation of what occurred in any incident whatsoever, because unless you are part of the tribunal that is conducting the investigation, and you are given all possible facts, you cannot reasonably stand in judgment of any incident whatsoever.

And even when you have all the written material and the photographs, you cannot come to a conclusion because you need to examine the witnesses, inspect physical evidence, and be privy to the scientific analysis.

When you hear an expert give his opinion, bear in mind it is an opinion. I fear that there is a disconnect between what the public believes a police officer’s job entails, and what it is in many respects. I also believe that oftentimes what experts give as their opinion, the public treats as facts.

One academic actually compared the view of the expert to a post-operation investigation; an administrative review, if you will. It is just an opinion that we are giving based on the same facts that are released to the public. It is not the result of an investigation.

There is also that core group in the public that always seems to want to find the police wanting, brutal, and unprofessional. They are not necessarily bad people who want to play this blame game, they just want to find fault with the police.

The academic term is cophateism, which is specifically a term used in law enforcement context to describe dehumanising hatred directed at the entire police profession.

Why this is so prevalent in Jamaica? It derives from a society that went through centuries of State oppression, and a long period of influence after the Morant Bay Rebellion. That was then.

This current police force is a force working for one purpose — to reduce homicides. They are not out there at 4:00 am climbing through hills and informal communities because they want to. They are doing so because it is necessary.

When a high-risk entry results in an officer being shot, it doesn’t mean that cops are making a mistake. There is no 100 per cent formula that makes a high-risk entry safe. You are entering a dwelling you do not know to engage in possible combat with someone who does know the building. You are approaching board houses without cover against men with weapons that can fire through wooden walls.

We are too willing to criticise our own, even if they have fallen, and mask it with phrases like the public has a right to know. We are pushing narratives based on knowledge gained in hindsight, hence the term ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’.

Many of the people who talk the loudest do not even live here, but they speak with authority on topics that they not only have little or no knowledge or experience of, but in addition, have the ability to demotivate the officers we are relying on with their rants.

The sad fact is that the consequences of a demotivated police force will not be felt in New York, Florida, or Atlanta. It will be felt here, by us who live here.

The essence of what I am saying is that we need to stop coming to conclusions; none of us know everything about incidents that occur when we were not there.

So stop the Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com