In the first case, an
investigator can use pre-conceived notions –including stereotypes – in
interpreting the evidence. Let’s take a popular stereotype that government is
corrupt or may be that the government is always guilty until it proves
innocence –which is an impossible task especially in a public opinion court considering
people’s gullibility. In such a case scenario, a lazy investigator will only
have to produce scanty evidence pointing to possible corruption in a certain
ministry. Then they will defend this position by omitting evidence that may point
otherwise. In this first case, the crime
will define the evidence –an investigator will seek to convict a possible
culprit based on prior knowledge of the culprit rather than the evidence at
hand.
In the second case, an
investigator follows the evidence, sieving carefully through the strongholds of
stereotypes to clearly lay the evidence first and interprete it later. Such an
investigator is ardent and seeks to uncover the truth not to entrench a popular
stereotype. This is the hardest thing to do especially when you are up against
a public opinion court. It all depends with the gullibility of the people since
such an investigator has to protect possible misconceptions and judgments taken
by the public. This second case leads to conviction of the real culprits. The evidence
defines the crime –here the investigator follows the evidence to get to the
real culprit. Or rather the evidence is used to uncover the culprit.
After understanding
these two cases, let’s now look at the recent case in the NYS Saga. The evidence
is that there was an attempt to misuse some cash. The media broke the news –however
sensational they tried to make it- with an aim of convicting the Devolution CS.
So the evidence was interpreted to fit the crime and the possible criminal. After
this, new evidence arose, the Devolution CS pointed that a larger amount was on
the line but her office stopped it. However, since this leaves the investigator
without the preferred culprit, this piece of information is not given
prominence. In fact, it is interpreted to mean that there was a crime
committed. So people go on the street –for different reasons of course. Since the
media has the pre-conceived notion that government is corrupt or the government
is always guilty until it proves innocence; the matter is left for the public
to grapple with –and I must add the gullibility of the masses will determine
the fate of the targeted culprit.
This is what I read
from the few facts I know about the NYS Saga. First, there is no money lost. Secondly,
the IFMIS platform was used to detect possible malpractice. Thirdly, somebody
hacked into the system to try to get paid corruptly. With these three pieces of
evidence, –note I am leaving all the politics involved out- I am not convinced
that the person who hacked into the IFMIS platform wanted to defraud the
government, it is evident that it is next to impossible –unless you are a Chinese.
I am convinced that the alleged whistle-blower got this information from the on
CID investigation or was involved in the attempted hack into the IFMIS system.
In my opinion, somebody wants to derail possible projects budgeted in the
2015/16 budget. In my opinion, the media should do us a favor and investigate
the real issue. The real issue is not the money –since there is no money lost. The
attempted hack is a starting point to a real issue. Who stands to gain if the NYS
projects do not succeed? Start there and then give us unbiased news.
