Before Fr Bismarck there was Scarlett Keeling. The circumstances were much more grievous and far more gruesome. There was drugs, sex, power - everything. The case became a landmark not because of one girl’s demise but the way it exposed Goa’s dark underbelly in the Calangute-Baga-Anjuna belt.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I was the first reporter to broadcast that story on CNN IBN. Technically, I broke that story, but frankly it was a small news item reporting an “unnatural death” of a British teenager on Goa’s most famous beach. But it did not remain that much. There was mass hysteria, grilling media trial, unprecedented international attention and wild plus bold accusations. Sadly, I was a party to all of the above.
However, I learnt some important lessons of crime reporting during those cumbersome days. And while analyzing another “unnatural death” case, I feel, those parameters need to be applied.
1. Circumstantial evidence: The scene of crime is sacred and the first panchnama is holy. Although this evidence does not solve a crime, they leave a trail of logic. They give you the first theory. They establish first hand references to a complex proposition.
2. Forensic evidence: If a crime scene is sacred than forensics is divine. Not just post mortem reports, but every bit of evidence found at a crime scene constitutes a solid base for a sound forensic analysis of a criminal investigation. It not only elaborates on the circumstantial evidence but it reveals the probable characters in an intriguing drama. It points at possible suspects, conniving accomplices and unfortunate victims.
3. Eye witnesses: If forensics is divine, eye witnesses are the protectors of divinity. They add substance to the “logic” provided by the circumstantial evidence and the “proofs” provided by the forensics. They give you the first solid leads on the perpetrators of crime.
4. Surveillance apparatus: In the age of technology, this mode of investigation unveils the most crucial sustentative evidence. Be phone call records, social media communication or personal messaging through various apps, they reveal a conversation which can help in establishing motive of a crime.
5. Supportive evidence/ statements: These bits and pieces come from the friends, acquaintances or the individuals who came in touch with the victims/culprits in the events leading to the crime. These people help in establishing the chain of incidents leading to a criminal activity. They substantiate other eye witnesses and strengthen your theory supported by motive and forensics.
But most importantly, all of the above needs to corroborate with each other. There cannot be discrepancies, differences and diversions in the narratives provided by all of the above to an investigative agency. Any indication of that and you need a deeper and more focused probe.
Any probe agency needs three most crucial aspects for a convincing murder investigation.
1. Corpse (for forensics and to establish “who”)
2. Motive (to answer “why”) and
3. Weapon or mode of killing (to establish “how”).
Unless an investigation officer gets clear and scientific answers of the above aspects, he practically cannot proceed ahead with a “murder” investigation. Even if he does, due to public pressure or media scrutiny, it will not stand for a minute in the court of law.
Let’s go back to the Scarlett case. Police registered the “death” case as “rape and murder” (sec 376 and 302 respectively of the IPC) due to intense pressure on them but finally folded it as 304 (II) culpable homicide not amounting to murder, 354 (assault or use of criminal force to a woman with an intent to outrage her modesty), 328 (administrating stupefying drug with an intent to cause hurt).
And mind you, this did not happen in the court of law. This happened during the charge-sheet stage. And let me remind you, the charge-sheet was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, after fresh investigation and relook at each piece of evidence.
Simply put, we need to accept facts when it comes to Fr Bismarck death case. Let’s see it one by one.
1. Circumstantial evidence: doesn’t point at murder
2. Forensic evidence : doesn’t point at murder
3. Eye witnesses : do not suggest murder
4. Surveillance : doesn’t indicate foul play
5. Supportive statements : don’t hint at murder
Now, the question remains about the viscera report and the new evidence that has surfaced almost two weeks after the commission of crime. The chemical analysis of viscera and DNA testing of the vest supposedly with “stains” that look like blood can give finality to this controversy.
If the viscera suggests drugging or the vest reveals that the stains are indeed blood stains and the blood stains of Fr Bismarck Dias then we have to fight for justice. If not, we need to accept the truth. Till then, we need to take a time out. We need to stop this “reality” war. The time for theories is over. This is a hardcore investigation and it is sustained by only and only one aspect: evidence. May it be circumstantial, forensic, viscera or vest “ the word is evidence.
So the request is simple. Let’s not make the already chaotic environment more hysteric. Let’s not make the already bitter surroundings more vicious. Let’s wait for the final pieces of evidence and its analysis. We can always rise again; fight again if the remaining evidence points at “murder”. But till then, can we just hold on?
Pramod Acharya is Editor, Prudent Media
