In intelligence, you don't rush into conclusions.
While the administration of justice is our main target, we should gather all the facts to fill any gap. In my knowledge, a criminal situation should be re-examined over and over to reach a consensus.
Maseno University graduate confessed that he took part in the raping of the three girls as the Standard reported. Reports had it that one of the victims had also identified him.
There are various issues of interest here whatsoever:
Did Sylvester Langat confess willingly or he did it under pressure? When a mob is standing right there, you have no control over what to say.
Can we rely on the victim's claims as sufficient evidence? Was the suspect given a chance to respond to the young lady's pointing finger?
Why would a person of that calibre go back to the scene of the crime when the victims are still alive?
Of course, he would have wanted to rub any suspicion on him or rather find out if the police investigations have the potential of tracing back to him. If the suspect wasn't covered in a mask during the crime, why would he go back to the scene of a crime of that magnitude?
Why did the offenders kill the grandmother and spare the rape victims? Was the killing premeditated or by accident? It looks like rape was the premeditated crime in this case, would you think of that for a whole university graduate? Of course, he can do it, but the probability remains minimal considering the level of interaction with females back at the university.
There are chances that the suspect might have been battling mental illness if at all he doesn't posess a criminal history of rape.
I am not trying to say that the suspect was innocent, but just as it is with the law, only the guy at the bench declares if one is guilty.
It was a painful experience for the three minors and the prosecution office owe them proper justice.
#hivisasaoriginal