Open Letter to the Media Fraternity: Does a Crime Define the Evidence or Does the Evidence Define a Crime? The Case of a Bias Media

You see in any crime scene there are several things that can happen, but I will concentrate on the two most important things that happen. One can lead to a conviction of an innocent person and the other can lead to an empirical reasoning and interpretation of the evidence.  First, the easier way can be to interpret the evidence to fit a certain pre-conceived theory or a chain of thought. Secondly, the harder way is to use the evidence to come up with a credible theory or a chain of thought. Sounds confusing, right? Okay! Let Me Explain!!!

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.