Today’s Editorial May 08: The truth and the fact

Our story today about Deputy Police Commissioner Rudolph Dixon once again raises serious questions about the conduct of the UK Metropolitan Police force’s on-going independent investigation here.

Last week’s announcement about former top cop Stuart Kernohan and RCIPS Chief Superintendent John Jones being cleared in the UK Met team’s probe of alleged corruption within the police service was likely a welcome relief to the two men, and at least brought some closure to the case for members of the general public.

However, once again, the glaring omission of another individual, Mr. Dixon, from that announcement was quite a surprise.

When the Caymanian Compass questioned the police about Mr. Dixon’s status, we were first informed that ‘he was never under investigation’ regarding the initial probe of the UK Met team.

When pressed, the police revealed that, while he apparently had been under investigation at some stage, he was never ‘made a formal suspect’ in the initial case.

They then astoundingly added that, while police were seeking a search warrant against Mr. Dixon early last year in connection with the case, those documents never indicated he was a suspect and, in fact, the warrants obtained were never used.

This statement is made despite a ruling by the Chief Justice that declared: ‘Of the three subjects (referring to Jones, Kernohan and Dixon), he (referring to Dixon) is the only one whom, it could reasonably be suspected, might be aware of Mr. (Lyndon) Martin’s fabrications.

We are not suggesting that Mr. Dixon should still be under investigation. If he was ‘not a formal suspect’ in this portion of the probe, it should be stated. The Caymanian Compass, at least, has done so.

What we are suggesting is that it is another example the investigators started the probe by picking certain individuals to zero in on, built their case around earlier suspicions, and gathered only the facts that would support their suppositions.

If the Chief Justice indicated that evidence lent credence to the granting of a search warrant against a certain individual and not against others, then surely someone might have at least checked that line of enquiry? Perhaps by executing a warrant?

To put it another way, it might appear that the police in this case weren’t necessarily after all the facts. They were after the so-called truth

The truth can be a dangerous thing when it comes to the law. Because truth is based at least partly on someone’s personal belief. The truth to you may not be the same as the truth to someone else.

Facts do not inhabit such messy grey areas. And neither should fact-finders