It was an investigation in the reverse, where the crime of murder was assumed and the police were coerced to find evidence to prove it
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More often than not, it is the police who face brickbats. In the Scarlett case, the court noted that the impartiality of the investigation was compromised by the mother of the girl, Fiona Mackeown, her legal counsel and the media which together exerted pressure on doctors, government officials and the police. The court clearly noted that, “the entire process of investigation was seen monitored by the mother of the victim and her advocate, thereby creating serious doubt about the impartiality of the investigation.
This is a serious observation because it indirectly means the police lost control of the investigation and the course of the probe was determined by external actors, mainly Fiona and her legal counsel, who exerted tremendous pressure through the media in a bid to steer the investigation towards murder. It was an investigation in the reverse, where the crime of murder was assumed and the police were coerced to find evidence to prove it, which is impossible if no murder has taken place. So intense was the pressure that the forensic expert, who had first held that cause of death was due to drowning, later reversed his findings and insisted that the Scarlett was forcibly drowned. And to back his claim he pointed to an injury on the lip of the victim. This theory, built under external pressure, was not accepted by the court because there were no visible signs, like finger marks. Another reason why this theory was discarded was because of the expert findings of forensic experts from AIIMS, which pointed to accidental drowning.
What is even more significant is an observation that the CBI did not unearth any additional clues and the only work undertaken by the investigating agency was to interview the same people as the State police. In other words there was no significant difference between the two investigations, which speaks highly of the probe undertaken by then PI Braz Menezes. Maybe it’s time to give the State police some credit, at least in this investigation.
There will always be pressure on the police, especially in high profile cases. There will always be alternative theories and family members and activists will champion their own causes and attempt to steer the investigation in a particular direction. If one were to compare the Scarlett and the Bismarque cases, then the only difference is that in the case of the death of the priest, the political leadership stood by the police and the used the evidence to guide them. In the case of the Scarlett Keeling, the then government, caved in completely to the pressure exerted by the mother, her counsel and the foreign media. The political leadership went out of its way to get a murder case registered and that is why its registration was delayed. The second autopsy was held specifically to facilitate registration of a murder case.
The role of the media, relatives of the victim and pressure groups is to ensure that an investigation does not get derailed, but sometimes the opposite happens. The Scarlett Keeling death is one such case, where excessive pressure and media attention actually derailed the investigation.
