Dear Editor,
I confess to growing astonishment, if not unease, with some rather startling developments involving murder investigations. On the surface of things, and to a reasonable man, they seem to be too many, too quickly, too easily.
First, let me say that I would be the last man to undermine, undo, or in any way negate good police work. From all reports, there have been some stellar efforts recently. I laud the toil and dedication of the professionals.
In the next instance, I am perplexed at this spate of confessions that either have been extracted or volunteered. Here it is that men hauled in for questioning (interviewing) on one murder matter admit freely and readily to the commission of another (or others) from way back. Cold cases suddenly crackle with discovered heat. Even those who may not have had priors or came under the radar of suspicion, appear to be falling over themselves to say, “I did it.” Somehow, this looks too smooth, too sweet, and too convenient.
I mean some of those subject to (intense) interrogation are not exactly wilting lilies, but seasoned highwaymen well-travelled on the criminal pathways. Somehow I do not see them locating either god or conscience; or having any remote fraternity with truth. Hence, my bewilderment grows.
Let there be no mistake: if these confessions are according to the book, then there are no concerns, absolutely no problems from yours truly. And again, the sleuths should be recognized for jobs well done.
Talking about sleuths, one has to inquire whether new techniques, new procedures, and new methods have been implemented, given the results. I have to ask also if new people are involved as part of the investigatory process. I so question, given the paucity of results in capital offences (or most others for that matter) in the last several years.
If all of these are on sound footing and can pass jurisprudential muster, then there is much appreciation. Celeritas et veritas prevail. If not so, then some disturbance follows.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
