Police accuse SKNVibes of misinformation
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THIS writer is appalled by and flabbergasted to find that a recent press release from the Public Relations Office of the Royal St. Christopher and Nevis Police Force (RSCNPF) is accusing this media house of not trying to establish accuracy of information prior to publication of incidents.
The accusation has its genesis in an incident that occurred on Friday (Nov. 9) involving a civilian and a police officer, who at the time was dressed in civilian clothing.
The release reads: “Once again the Royal St. Christopher and Nevis Police Force has raise concerns with publications in the local media. This is not an attempt to prevent Freedom of Speech or Free Press/Media. However, Media Houses must first try to establish the accuracy of information or accounts of incidents before publication.
“This release is sent as a result of a publication on SKN VIBES website, dated Tuesday 13th November 2012 and titled: "Civilian Charged For Defending Self Against Police Officer". This account of the events as publish is far from what transpired.
“Not giving the full account but to point to critical areas of the incident. First, Mr Alfred Stevens committed an offence in the presence of the officer, while the officer was engaging him concerning that offence. The officer had reason to search Mr. Stevens which resulted in the find of illegal drugs. As a result, he attacked the officer. The officer resisted the attack and was able to arrest Mr Stevens, having received assistance.
“He was taken into police custody and subsequently charged for the four offences: (1) Battery (2) Obstruction Under the Drug Act (3) Indecent Language (4) Resisting Arrest. Mr. Stevens knew the officer since childhood days, and the officer identified himself to him.”
Firstly, this writer pellucidly and unequivocally states that a thorough investigation was done with regards to the incident, but the police had withheld the officer’s side of it and waited until its publication to fabricate an act perpetrated by yours truly.
On Sunday (Nov. 11), SKNVibes published an article headlined “Police Officer and civilian wrestle for gun in Newtown”. This particular article did not possess much detail and because of a visit to this media house by Alfred ‘Smokie’ Stevens of Keys, and also as the Editor-in-Chief, this writer decided to embark on a thorough investigation of the incident.
The investigation revealed Stevens had alleged that while speaking with an elderly woman, who resides at Pond Road and Carty Alley in Newtown, she had uttered an indecent word, and a young man had accused him of using indecent language and held him in a bear-hug from the rear.
Stevens stated that he subsequently pulled away from the young man who responded by brandishing a handgun and striking him in the back with it as well as biting him twice on his upper arm. (See details in related article headlined “Civilian charged for defending self against police officer”)
Secondly, this writer visited the scene of the incident, where he met and spoke with a number of individuals who claimed to have been present when the incident occurred.
One such individual is Ms. Lewis, the elderly woman with whom Stevens was conversing, and also two males and a female who, on condition of anonymity, corroborated Steven’s account of the incident.
Today (Nov. 15), after receiving the police’s press release, this writer again visited the scene and spoke with Ms. Lewis and also a male individual. The elderly woman reiterated that she was the one who uttered the indecent word and categorically stated that the officer did not identify himself to Stevens.
The male claimed that yesterday the police officer had visited the Top Class Barber Shop on Pond Road and allegedly said that he had intended to drop the charges against Stevens, but because of him visiting this media house he had changed his mind.
The male individual also claimed that the officer allegedly said that he was ordered by his superiors to produce a statement after they had learnt of the incident through its publication by SKNVibes.
Thirdly, this writer, in an effort to have balance to the article, contacted the Police Press and Public Relations Officer, Inspector David.
David was apprised of the allegations Stevens made against the officer. He was then asked to confirm the charges proffered against Stevens and also to confirm that the 37-year-old man was bailed. To these questions, David answered in the affirmative but he did not comment on the allegations when asked.
Therefore, this writer finds it ludicrous for the police to state in their release that “Media Houses must first try to establish the accuracy of information or accounts of incidents before publication”.
How could this media house publish the police officer’s side of the incident when the designated spokesman for the RSCNPF was ignorant of the facts and had only provided answers to two questions, leaving the most important one for this writer go fishing without bait?
Could it be that the person(s) who dictated the contents of the press release to the Public Relations Office did not communicate with Inspector David?
Could it be that the accusations expressed in the release originated from Inspector David? If so, how is it that he declined when asked by this writer to comment on Stevens’ allegations?
If Inspector David had bothered to provide the media with information concerning this incident, the public would have had the benefit of both perspectives.
Fourthly, the release states that Stevens was charged with “(1) Battery (2) Obstruction Under the Drug Act (3) Indecent Language (4) Resisting Arrest”.
Also, in the release, it is states that “The officer had reason to search Mr. Stevens which resulted in the find of illegal drugs”.
If this were the fact, why then only four charges were proffered against Stevens? And if it were that he was actually charged with possession of illegal drugs, why did that not form part of the press release?
All press releases emanating from the Police Public Relations Office concerning drug-related charges would entail what the offence is and the day it was committed. For example, an individual caught with a small quantity of marijuana would be charged with “Possession of marijuana”. And if the quantity is large, he/she would be charged with “Possession of marijuana and Possession with intent to supply”.
Additionally, the release states, “Mr. Stevens knew the officer since childhood days, and the officer identified himself to him.”
Today, when questioned on the above statement, Stevens reiterated that the officer did not identify himself, and he firmly denied knowing the officer, noting, “That is another of their strategies to frame innocent people.”
Footage of the incident was caught on a security camera and this media house has requested to get same from the owner who resides in the USA.
This is not the first time SKNVibes has been subjected to such baseless attacks by the law enforcement institution. Globally, it is common knowledge that the police and the media are supposed to be partners in fighting crime, but these attacks suggest that this media house, and by extension, this writer, should only report on what is fed by the RCSNPF.
Should the media shirk the responsibility of informing, entertaining, educating and teaching the public because the police, for whatever reason, are mum on certain incidents and issues?
