Font Size 
30 Minutes: Some hard questions for Scarlette's mother
Published on Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 22:11, Updated on Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 22:24 in Nation section
Tags: 30 Minutes, Scarlette Keeling , Panaji
QUESTIONS FOR FIONA: The police want to know why Fiona left 15-year-old Scarlette in the care of a virtual stranger.
Panaji: Several questions still surround the Scarlette Keeling case. Arrests have been made after heavy media pressure, but will the charges stick? Scarlette's mother, Fiona Mckeown has taken on the system, but did one forget to ask her some hard questions?
Police sources have privately admitted that Fiona, with her lawyer Vikram Verma, managed to keep the media spotlight on Scarlette's death, which prevented them from investigating Fiona's background — something the police had clearly found suspicious from the very beginning, and something which is now being confirmed by Goa's Home Minister, Ravi Naik.
"Such type of tourists should not be allowed in our country. We have to check into her source of revenue. She has so many children and has married several times over," Naik said.
The grounds of the police investigation were:
- With no income, who was paying for Fiona's stay, with her eight children, in Goa?
- Why did Fiona regularly visit Gokarna, a beach in Karnataka, infamous for drugs?
- Fiona knew 15-year-old Scarlette was a heavy drinker and was sexually active and so could be prosecuted under the Goa Children's Act
However, with Fiona now safely back in the UK, she can no longer be questioned.
So, what about justice for Scarlette? The police claim they cracked the case in just a few days, but CNN-IBN found that the case is in fact, a defence lawyer's dream.
The first question that comes to the mind is: Why didn't the police arrest Fiona under the Goa Children's Act?
Those accused of drugging, raping and killing 15-year-old Scarlette were charged under the Goa Children's Act, but then Fiona too was liable for arrest for allowing her minor daughter to stay with Julio — a criminal offence under the Goa Children's Act.
Lawyer for accused, Peter D'Souza said, "The question is whether Julio was staying with a minor girl and the mother of the girl was aware of this. The mother's statement is very clear that she knew her daughter was staying with Julio. So then, why is the mother not being made a co-accused?"
The Goa Children's Court has granted bail to two of the accused — Julio, Scarlette's boyfriend and the main accused, Placido Carvalho, saying there was no prima facie evidence against them.
The court said there was no evidence to show that Carvalho had given ecstasy tablets or cocaine to Scarlette or to link him to her rape or murder.
The next question that comes to the mind is: Did media hype influence police investigations?
After several days of media pressure, the Goa Police finally made a case.
This is what IGP Goa, Kishen Kumar has said then: "Placido Carvalho alias Shanuboy drugged Scarlette and gave her alcoholic drinks also. Thereafter Samson D'Souza repeatedly sexually assaulted the girl."
But police sources have disclosed to CNN-IBN that these charges will not stick in the court. Here's why:
- The police says Scarlette was raped, but is silent about the vaginal swab report. The presence of sperm in the report would confirm that Scarlette was raped.
- The police say a British eyewitness, Michael Manyon, saw Samson sexually assaulting Scarlette, but the post mortem reports only confirm several bruises on the body. There is no mention of serious injury around the vagina, which in legal-scientific terms would point to sexual assault.
The IGP had however said this in the first press conference that was held to announce that Scarlette's murder had been solved: "Carvalho gave Scarlette ecstasy, LSD and cocaine."
The police say Carvalho sourced ecstasy from Samson and gave it to Scarlette, but Scarlette's viscera examination showed no trace of ecstasy.
The police also say Scarlette took cocaine, but again, the viscera examination showed traces of morphine, which points to heroin use and not cocaine.
The police is also silent about the exact sequence of events. For instance, where and when did Scarlette take heroin — even as eyewitness accounts and scientific evidence indicate that between 8.30 pm and 2.00 am Scarlette was already heavily drunk and high on heroin.
The third question is: Does Goa Police have evidence to prove Scarlette's murder?
The police is yet to say a confident yes to this. The so-called confessions from the accused are not admissible in court, as they were not recorded before a magistrate.
Carvalho's lawyer, Peter D'Souza says, "There is no evidence of rape. Where is the evidence of rape?"
Even Fiona's lawyer agrees with the defence.
"I quite agree with it. I'm afraid the evidence would not be very useful for the prosecution," says Vikram Verma.
So after all the hue and cry, where does the Scarlette Keeleing case stand? With Fiona gone, it seems like the truth has been successfully buried.
With drugs, sex and crime so strongly linked to Goa's image as an international beach destination, will things ever change? Or has Scarlette Keeling managed to change Goa? That is yet to be seen.
(With inputs from Pramod Acharya in Goa)
| Related links: | |
Read Comment | Post Comment
Read more comment »