PANAJI
Goa Children’s Court 107-page judgment on the 2008 case of death of Scarlett Eden Keeling has made a very rare observation of the influence wielded by victim’s relatives, their legal counsel and the media on the probe into a high-profile homicide case.
“The entire process of investigation was seen monitored by the mother of the victim and her advocate at every stage, thereby creating serious doubt about the impartiality of the investigation,” states the judgment.
Several instances are noted which show that every policeman, doctor and government official connected with probe was under media pressure with, Fiona and her legal counsel Vikram Varma pressing the authorities to probe foul play in Scarlett’s death.
Dr Silvano Sapeco of Goa Medical College and Hospital, Bambolim conducted the first autopsy and at the first instance, held the cause of death to be ‘due to drowning in beach sand waters’. Adv Varma was the first to raise concerns over why it had taken five hours to conclude the first autopsy when it could have been done in two hours. He also questioned Dr Sapeco about other aspects of the forensic procedure and caused the Superintendent of Police (North) to direct the investigating officer to conduct discreet inquiry in the locality to find out if there was foul play.
Mackeown, who suspected foul play, requested for second autopsy.
Pressure built by media speculations over cause of death eventually forced every officer, including sub-divisional magistrate, who ordered second autopsy to be conducted by a panel of GMC doctors.
The second autopsy was conducted by a panel of three doctors from GMC on March 8, 2008 in order to rule out foul play in Scarlett’s death. However, it was after this second autopsy that the investigating officer was ordered to probe the death as homicidal in nature. This pressure penetrated even the final report of Dr Sapeco, who said that one of the injuries is suggestive of signs of struggle and homicidal drowning. However, in her judgment Goa Children’s Court President Vandana Tendulkar observed that this final report was given by Dr Sapeco only after meeting Scarlett’s relatives.
It was suggested that the report was influenced by the relatives and was not supported by the second autopsy as well as AIIMS. Besides, no finger marks were found on any part of Scarlett’s body to show that she was forcibly held under water.
In addition to this, when sought for its opinion, AIIMS, New Delhi did not rule out accidental drowning as the possible cause of death. It was also said that the suspicious injury found in the first autopsy was not sufficient to cause death. AIIMS ruled that the death was ‘due to ante-mortem-drowning’ and it offered the considered opinion that death could be ‘accidental in nature’.
Apart from this glaring impediment, the probe was marred by considerable delay in filing the complaint, in attachment of vital pieces of evidence as well as in recording of the statements of the witnesses. For instance, the allegations of sexual assault couldn’t be proved with the so-called eye witness of the alleged sexual assault, Mike Masala, remaining unavailable for his deposition till the very end. On this charge, the Court relied on GMC doctors and AIIMS, both of whom ascertained that the deceased had experienced sexual activity. But it couldn’t be stated whether she suffered rape or sexual assault. There was a delay of three days in attachment of Scarlett’s clothes and sandals. Besides, with varying testimonies about recovery of these items, the prosecution’s case was highly unreliable in respect of attachment of Scarlett’s clothes from the place of offence. The articles were found near a pathway close to Luis Shack. While Mackeown said that she found the belongings in the morning of February 21, officers of Anjuna Police said that they recovered these articles at the instance of Scarlett’s boyfriend, Julio Lobo.
