Yesterday, as suggested, I attended one of Mayor Sheila Dixon’s public events. It was a tree-planting ceremony at Dewees park, in the north of the city. It did not go well.

I arrived just before 9am, ahead of the mayor, and told her spokesman that, if possible, I would like to speak with her about crime and the issues I have witnessed during my visit. He took the message to her and I was told that it may be possible at the end.

An hour later the spokesman again raised the subject with the mayor and she made it clear there would be no interview. “What does he want?” she asked her spokesman. She said she did not want to speak about crime and added: “I’m planting trees today.”

So there will be no voice from the mayor in anything I write back home.

I leave Baltimore this evening after a spending a week here. I would like to think I have seen many sides of the city. Because of the nature of this exchange, I spent most of my week in neighbourhoods with high crime rates.

But many people throughout my trip had urged me to make sure I also visited the good parts of Baltimore. Yesterday I did that. I walked around Fort McHenry and the inner harbour and then went to some bars in Fells Point.

The city, due to its high homicide rate, is inextricably linked with crime, something which has no doubt been exacerbated by The Wire. But throughout my stay I have also witnessed the many good things the city has to offer.

While certain parts of the city are intimidating, I can assure fellow Brits that the whole of the city is not the murderous, drug dealing haven as is portrayed on the television.

During my time in Baltimore I have endeavored to look at the whole spectrum of crime in the city. I have spoken to people who have taken and sold the drugs which have fuelled much of the murder.

I have spent evenings with uniformed police officers on the front line whose job it is to prevent and solve crime and I have chatted with detectives at murder scenes.

I have spoken to whole host of community groups who are working to try and resolve the issues in their neighborhood, which, depending on the area of the city, can include poverty, drug dealing, gun crime, gang-affiliation and murder.

And I have visited the court system and met with federal and state prosecutors who are charged with bringing Baltimore’s criminals to justice and have heard the problems they face.

Unfortunately I have not been granted an audience with, arguably, the two people ultimately responsible for rectifying Baltimore’s high crime rate.

Both the Mayor and the Police Commissioner have refused to be interviewed during this week-long exchange. The official reason is scheduling issues. Neither of them have had the time to speak with me.

However I can’t help but think that, because the ostensible reason for my trip is The Wire, they could be disinclined to meet with me for fear that I will focus on nothing but the negative image of the city as portrayed on the show.

Ultimately I do not think their refusal or inability to co-operate has impacted too much upon my ability to get a good impression of the city’s crime picture. Although perhaps their input would have lifted my coverage and informed my views and observations.

I am aware that the mayor has a public schedule and I have been told that I am more than welcome to turn up and attempt to speak with her. I may attempt this tomorrow but there is a caveat. Her office says there is no guarantee she will speak with me.

Drugs, I am told, are the main cause of crime in Baltimore. Not only are they responsible for much of the theft and burglary but most of the murders too.

Tens of thousands of people in the city are addicted to narcotics such as heroin and crack cocaine. They buy their fixes from dealers in open-air drug markets such as the busy one I walked past yesterday at the corner of Park Heights Avenue and Cold Spring Lane.

As well as the many drug dealers on that corner there is also a building which is home to the ‘I Can’t We Can’ rehabilitation progam. Inside the building is a large room where men sit on one side, women the other, and share their experiences of addiction with each other.

I spoke to people like Karen Royster, a 46-year-old woman who became homeless and lost custody of her six children because of her addiction to crack cocaine. Terry Bullock, a 36-year-old man who has admitted he would steal and attack people to fund his habit. And Kathalene, a 48-year-old who had been taking drugs since 11 and has been arrested ten times.

All of them are now clean and have been for varying periods of between five years, in Kathalene’s case, to just a month, in Terry’s.

Yet they did it not through a government-funded initiative, but through a  group run on a shoestring budget from inside a run-down building behind a supermarket.

Not because they wanted to, but because the I Can’t We Can program is, according to everyone I spoke to there, the only one in the city which offers treatment on demand. In other words, users who turn up there will be seen instantly.

Other programs involve a waiting list. This is unappealing because if drug addicts turn up asking for treatment and are told to return at a later date the chances are that, in the intervening period, they will return to using drugs.

The I Can’t We Can program does not offer its subscribers a substitute, such as methadone. The organizers say that simply giving users another drug does not solve the problem. They would no doubt disagree with a government-backed pilot scheme currently being run in the UK.

 It involves giving heroin addicts two injections a day of actual heroin, not the usual methadone subsitute. It is highly controversial but, after three years, those running it claim that they have seen a huge drop in crime by those taking part.

East Baltimore seems to me to be the worst neighborhood in the city in terms of crime and violence. A quick look at the homicide stats shows that 85 of this year’s 189 homicides have taken place in the Eastern, Northeastern and Southeastern districts.
Residents obviously recognise this and yesterday I spent time with two groups who are working to reduce the violence.
Living Classrooms is an organisation which takes teenagers from East Baltimore who have been convicted of crimes and so are known to the Department of Juvenile Services. The programme then trains the children in certain practical skills (woodwork, electrical engineering, hairdressing etc…) to help them get a job at the end of a 10 month course.
Every child graduates with a job and I’m told that the current success rate is that 71 per cent of the kids are still in employment three years after graduation. I spoke with two of the newest recruits. They asked me not to name them.
One, who was 19, told me how, previously, he was selling marijuana to help raise his daughter. He explained that drug dealing put money in his pocket daily and instantly whereas in a job he would only receive a pay cheque once a month, fortnight or week. He said that he joined the Living Classrooms because: “I realised I needed to become a father for my daughter to look up to”.
The other said that he had previously had “problems” and said that his neighbourhood contained: “A lot of killing and violence. You can get trouble even if you don’t want it.” He said he wanted a “fresh start”.
The effort the boys were putting in to changing their lives around really impressed me. As did the work of the Safe Streets programme. They are a group of reformed criminals who include in their number men who have served prison sentences for murder and former drug dealers. They now mediate in disputes between rival gangs in the area in an effort to reduce murders and violence.
The aspect of their work that most intrigued me, however, was the fact that they do not share any of the information they receive with the police. The reason is understandable, I suppose. They feel that if they were to co-operate with the police it would damage their credibility and effectiveness.
I can’t help but wonder how homicide detectives feel about the situation whereby an anti-violence group may have valuable information about a murder but refuse to reveal it.

Given the fact that homicides in the city occur almost daily (and shootings even more frequently) I should not have been surprised that our first call was to a report of a man shot in a car in west Baltimore.

The victim, 28-year-old Joseph Leegreen Taylor, was not dead when we arrived. He died later in hospital.

The scene was one which must be familiar to officers, but was new to me. A car riddled with bullet-holes was crashed into another vehicle. Through the open passenger door I could see blood soaking the seat. And on the ground were multiple bullet casings, circled with red chalk and each marked with a yellow number.

After listening to detectives exchange theories on what might have happened we left and headed to a project block nearby. There we met two patrolmen who suspected some men in the projects of holding a drug stash. The four police officers split up, two went one side, two the other. Justin and I followed the union guys.

Two minutes later, amid the shouts of “five-0”, we heard a scream. The union cops ran in the direction of the shout. Justin and I, for some reason, ran too. When we reached the other side of the projects we learned that the scream was that of a man who was now in handcuffs. After some questioning and a search (no drugs were found) he was released and told to go home.

Our ridealong was coming to the end, but the most intense action was to come. The jovial chat in the car was interrupted by the announcement of a “signal 13” – officer in distress – on the police radio. That was followed by the shout of an officer who screamed: “I need another unit. Give me another unit”.

We switched on the lights and sirens and blazed through the streets. We did not know what we were attending at the time, but it later transpired that an officer making a car stop had requested the back-up when men in the car jumped out and fled.

Upon arriving at the scene the officers we were with jumped out of the car and, again, Justin and I followed. We ran into the back garden of a house where cops, some of whom had drawn their guns, were searching the bushes with a handgun. As a helicopter shone a spotlight on the garden, the police radio declared: “The suspect is a black male wearing a blue hat and blue jeans,” And then added the following detail: “He is armed. Repeat, the suspect has a handgun.”

It was at this point I decided that, while I am keen to see crime in Baltimore, I don’t want to become a victim of it.

Despite its reputation, I have to say that, during the short time I have spent in the Baltimore, I have never once felt in any more danger than I do when walking the streets of London or any other large city.

But on hearing that radio announcement I realized that perhaps I had gotten a bit too close to the action. I was armed with nothing more than a notepad and was unwittingly involved in the search for a gunman. In any city that is a dangerous situation. One best observed from a safe distance like the back seat of police patrol car, which is where I watched the rest of the search.

Last year the police charged nearly 55,000 people. Of these nearly 10,000 were declined by the prosecutor. A further 15,000 needed substantive changes. That means that in almost 65 per cent of cases the police were not doing their job properly when it came to charging suspects. Mrs Jessamy described the relationship between the two bodies as “schizophrenic”.

There are two reasons that the charges either do not stick or need to be changed, according to Mrs Jessamy.

The first is that officers are arresting and charging people whom they want removed from the streets, but who they know has committed no real offence. When the charge sheet reaches prosecutors these ‘offences’ are considered ‘abated by arrest’. The second is that the police, under pressure to hit their clearance rates, charge people when they know the evidence will not withstand the scrutiny of a prosecutor.

In the UK there is a difference which eliminates these issues. Police officers cannot charge people with crimes. That is the job of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The officers make the arrest, interview suspects and witnesses and gather evidence. Then they must pass the file to the CPS who will consider whether the case is strong enough to succeed.

This method was introduced so as to avoid allegations that police officers were charging suspects simply to hit performance targets, as is the suggestion here in Baltimore. It works relatively well although there is still tension between the two bodies, especially when police officers are told that a case, upon which they have spent considerable time, is not strong enough for trial.

Another issue I was aware existed in Baltimore’s court system was witness intimidation. Last year more than 2,800 criminal cases were dropped because a witness failed to appear at court. A further 665 were discontinued because a witness changed their story, very probably because they were intimidated.

In the UK we too have a similar issue. Witnesses are promised protection which can include relocation and anonymity. They can also give evidence from behind a screen or even via video link where the witness does not have to be in the same room (or even city) as the defendant. And, in the most serious cases, there is the promise of voice-changing techniques, making it harder for the witness to be identified.

In Baltimore I am told that very dangerous criminals remain on the streets because no-one will testify against them. In the UK I know of cases which remain unsolved for the very same reason. The simple fact remains, in both countries, that if a witness is simply too scared to testify, nothing will make them change their minds.

I have also visited Central Booking, the first stop for those arrested and charged. The system seemed chaotic, with scores of handcuffed suspects sitting on rows of wooden benches waiting to be told whether or not they are to receive bail or spend months waiting for a trial. More than once my attempt to follow proceedings was interrupted by the frustrated mumbling of a suspect who complained, in much coarser language, that they had “been waiting all day”.