CBI, police probes had same angle

PANAJI

The case was registered as an unnatural death by Anjuna Police on February 18, 2008.

It was registered as murder after considerable delay on March 9, 2008 with Samson D’Souza and Placido Carvalho as the accused only when Scarlett’s mother, Fiona Mackeown, lodged a formal complaint suspecting foul play.

But by the time the matter was handed over to the CBI, PI Braz Menezes had already had submitted the chargesheet before the Children’s Court on May 31, 2008.

CBI took over the case on June 5, 2008 and went on to register a fresh FIR on the basis of the same complaint.

However, the judgement in the case has observed, “There is not much of additional or further investigation carried out by the CBI, other than recording statements of witnesses already relied upon by the Anjuna Police Station.”

The CBI investigating officer also admitted that statements of the same witnesses have been recorded before he filed the supplementary chargesheet with his own observations.

The most glaring gap that CBI failed to fill was through the testimony of ‘eye witness’ to the sexual assault, Michael Mannion ‘Mike Masala’.

“Despite several opportunities given to the prosecution and after considerable time, the investigating agency failed to secure Mike Masala’s presence and then to get his testimony recorded by means of video-conferencing,” the judgement noted.

Besides Mike Masala, Charles Carter ‘Charlie’, another British National, who was also present at the shack on the fateful night, was not examined before the Court.

The prosecution also did not examine Lisa Camp, proprietor of ‘Bean Me Up’ where Julio Lobo dropped Scarlett and Lisa’s sister Ruby, with whom Scarlett spent the evening of February 17, 2008.  

This was coupled with the discrediting of owner of Luis Shack, Luis Coutinho and Murali Bolloju as credible witnesses owing to constant variations and improvements in their versions.

The Court inferred that Coutinho cannot be considered to be a trustworthy witness as he has deposed in a manner to save himself from the criminal liability under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and a breach of licence conditions laid down by the Excise department.

Murali’s testimony was also found to be totally inconsistent and full of omissions and contradictions on material making him an un-creditworthy witness in the eyes of the Court. The final nail in the prosecution’s case was that it could establish neither the last seen theory nor the argument of duty of care through evidence or testimonies.

The last seen theory forwarded previously by the prosecution did not hold ground as the accused were seen with Scarlett in an open public place at around 4.30 am. Her dead body was found between 6 and 6.30 am, after a considerable gap of around 1.5 hours.

Moreover, it was pointed out that the chain of incriminating circumstances as claimed by the prosecution was not fully complete.

“The circumstances of this case also do not make out such a degree of recklessness or negligence on the part of the accused towards the victim, as alleged,” states the judgement ruling out intention or even knowledge on behalf of the accused of imminent injury, harm or death or deliberate subjection of the girl to risk of harm. It was also noted that none of these persons were in the ‘care’ of Scarlett. The Court added that there is nothing on record to prove that the accused administered or caused Scarlett to take any drink or drugs.

Delivering the final blow, the judgement states, “Both the accused and the victim were strangers to each other till the fateful night. There was no motive to cause harm or cause death of the girl on their part.”

Referring to Carvalho, whose right hand was in a sling after an accident, the judgement held that none of the witnesses spoke about his active participation in the alleged crime, except his presence in the shack kitchen at the relevant time.