THE FACTS DON’T ADD UP TO DRINK AND DROWN THEORY

In a 2-part series, Herald traces every step of Father Bismarque’s movements on the last day/night of his life Nov 5/6, to bring to you why the “murder” angle cannot be dismissed

St. Estevem:
The ball point pen
A blue and white ball point pen, believed “most certainly” to be of Father Bismarque’s by his family members, was found not too far from where his body was found, near the water. This was a good distance from the manos from where Father Bismarque is supposed to have jumped off into the water. The pen didn’t have trace of mud, though it fell on wet soil on the water bank, indicating it was fresh fall. If Father Bismarque dived into the water at a different spot leaving his clothes and cell phone, he couldn’t have carried his pen in his hand or tucked in his underwear while swimming.
n Needle of suspicion:  His ‘body’ entered the water at more or less the same spot where it was found and the one could have dropped off during a struggle.
Beer drinking
We now know that according to two witnesses, one the brother of the 17-year-old boy who was seen with Father Bismarque and the other, a close friend of the other boy who was with Father Bismarque, Darren, the trio (Fr Bismarque, Darren and the 17-year -old (name withheld) Vaichi Vaat, a one space in the village amidst the fields, frequented by people in the evenings. Herald found nine caps of Kingfisher pint bottles lying there. This place is at least 2 kilometers from the point where the motorable road ends and the narrow path though the fields, though thick-forested vegetation to the manos (tide gate). This is where Father Bismarque was believed to have last been seen with the boys drinking again (as per the boys version). The distance between the motorable road ends and the walk precariously narrow path with the river on either side and then through very thick forested path another two kilometres or so and absolutely impossible to walk with a crate full of beer and in the pitch dark. The version in one of the papers, written by so-called unnamed “citizen journalist” that  one of the boys had a torch with him, is not borne out by facts on the ground Herald discovered. None of the two boys left with torches from the home of the younger 17-year-old boy, where Father Bismarque spent the afternoon.
n Needle of suspicion: If a minimum of nine bottles were consumed at vaichi vaat, how is it so easily believable that he asked the boys to pick up yet another case of beer after 10 pm? He and the boys were at vaichi vaat till at least 9.30 pm, since two people despatched to look for the two young boys with Father (the brother of one of the boys and a friend of the other) found Father and the boys drinking at Vaichi Vaat at 20.59 (8.59 pm) on Nov 5. And as stated above, carrying another crate of beer through a precarious narrow forested road is almost unbelievable. News reports announcing that this happened were based on the version of the two boys with Father Bismarque, who are suspects, till cleared. This, the story of the second beer crate bought and carried through the treacherous forest route in pitch darkness fails the test of common sense and probability.
Fr Bismarque, the boys, and money for the beer
One is 18 and the other 17. According to Sidney who runs a bar next to Bismarque’s home, Father bought a bottle of beer from him to drink it with his friend Jackson, who actually forced him out of his house and brought him here, for company. Right next to the bar lives the 17-year-old, one of the two boys who were seen drinking with him at vaichi vaat. Father actually told Sidney that there are a lot of robberies going on in the area and he needs to speak to the 17-year-old (it’s not sure but it could be that he felt that this boy could be involved in these activities). He then sat in the home of this boy from around 2 pm to about 7.30 pm. In the process he asked the 17-year-old to go Sidney’s bar and pick up another bottle. The Rs 70 for this was given by the boy and not Bismarque, duly verified by Herald. His family did not know of his whereabouts though he was sitting next door. His sister-in-law Maria called at 6.45 pm and he said, “I’m in the village”. At 7.30 pm he left the boy’s house and said he has no  money and needs to go home to pick up more money to buy beer (this version is of the brother of the 17-year-old and not corroborated by anyone else).
However when Herald, tracing his exact steps he went back to his house and asked his mother, she said, “He just came in took the keys of his bike and left.” He did not go upstairs where his personal belongings and some money is kept. This flies in the face of a report claiming to be diary of Father Bismarque’s last 12 hours that he went up to pick up Rs 500 and gave the money to the boys to buy beer from somewhere else because “he didn’t want the young boys to be seen buying beer in the village” (according to Father’s so called diary published in a paper). This doesn’t at all pass muster, since less than an hour ago Father had asked the 17-year-old to go and buy beer from a village bar for which Father did not even pay. (Corroborated by the bar owner and not according to a version of the boys).

Share This Article