Devon Dick

In a few weeks' time the country will get a report from the Ian Forte Commission on the circumstances surrounding the handling of the death of Bob Woolmer, former Pakistani cricket coach. This report is necessary because the police's news conference, to borrow the analysis of BBC's Andy Gallacher, was an attempt to shift the blame to the pathologist. It was also a lame attempt to shield the police force.

No apology to the country

It is sad that to date there has been no apology to the country for this botched investigation from the police. There has only been praise for a professional job.

The police should also have stuck to the first conclusion that the results from the autopsy were inconclusive, even after getting different reports from the same pathologist. Inconclusive meant that all options were available, that is, homicide, suicide, natural causes or accident. It made no sense for the police to move from inconclusive to suspicious then to murder/manual strangulation without additional hard evidence.

The police and the local pathologist should not have used the word murder.

Murder is a deliberate and malicious act of killing, which the court would have to determine. A better term would have been homicide, which would include murder, manslaughter or possible self-defence. It was an irresponsible use of the word murder.

I found it strange that the police concluded and announced to the world that the cause of death was manual strangulation even before the results of the toxicology and other tests were returned. A professional police team would not have made such a hasty claim.

Revealing foreign pathologists

The Gleaner did this country a great service by publishing the reports of the three foreign pathologists. We were able to compare the reports and arrive at our conclusions. The police should have awaited the other three pathological reports before a definitive pronouncement.

Everybody now knows that pathology is not an exact science. Therefore, to rely definitively on one report was a sign of incompetence. In any case, pathology is just one of the tools available to the police in trying to solve a homicide. Therefore, the police force has to examine a wide range of evidences in order to interpret what might have happened.

The Gleaner's report of the press conference was excellent because it ignored the staid public relations of the press conference and instead made the headline the comment 'We were too hasty'. That is a fact.

There was also no need to fingerprint the whole Pakistani team. The most that should have been done was to fingerprint those who entered Woolmer's room. In any case, if more fingerprints were necessary, they could have been obtained later. These acts of fingerprinting cast aspersions on the character of the cricket team. The police team was too jumpy. However, it was more than exuberance. This Bob Woolmer fiasco has demonstrated glaring incompetence, an unwillingness to accept mistakes, arrogance and making someone else a scapegoat. This is untenable and goes to the heart of the competence and credibility of the police.

The local pathologist's report is baffling. A high school student, without examining the body but, based on the news reports, said it was not strangulation. She thought it was poison. So how did the pathologist conclude what he did? This needs further explanation. And worse, there was a report that the pathologist insisted that it was murder. That act of defiance, if not supported by scientific evidence, is worrying and also untenable.

The press conference was used to 'Shield' the police, but let us hope that the report from the eminent judge IanForte will call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they may.