Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1016519
24 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 19 AUGUST 2018 OPINION GIVEN everything we've been through in the last month or so, one would think a little extra caution might be warranted before spectacularly pole-vaulting to instant conclusions on any given topic. But no. It's actually the other way round: we seem to have become more prone – not less – to pronouncing in- stant 'guilty' verdicts in the absence of any proof. And it seems we are also far likelier to form lynch- mobs today, than at any other point in our recent past. Take 'the curious case of the cat that was killed in the daytime', for instance. Last Monday, Malta awoke to the story of a young stray cat that wandered into a restaurant – the Apple's Eye in Golden Sands – only to end up being bludgeoned to death on the premises, allegedly in front of numer- ous witnesses, by an as-yet unidentified 'elderly man'. The story was uploaded as a post on Facebook – which automatically means that every last detail of that one eyewitness account must have been Gospel truth, no questions asked – and within less than 24 hours, an entire army of online sleuths had already solved the mystery. It was the father of the restaurant owner who bashed the cat to death with a stone. And anyone who says otherwise (including the restaurant owner, who insists it was someone else) must be lying. Over the next 24 hours, photos of the presumed cat- killer – duly looted from his daughter's Facebook page (before she was compelled to shut it down by multi- ple death-threats) – were already being circulated on- line. The accompanying text read: "Now we have the face of the scumbag kitten killer... Apple's Eye owner may twist the truth as much as she wants... All we know is that this asshole beat the poor kitten to death... And she stated they didn't know who he was.. But funnily enough he left restaurant in car with her mother... U know what... let's see what justice does.... In the meantime... memorise his face." Hmm. Let's try and break down the 'logical' thought processes that led to this particular conclusion. Normally, criminal detec- tion works by a process of elimination. The first ques- tion to ask is: who could it NOT have been? One of several possible answers would be: 'anyone who was not physically present at that restaurant on that particular morning'. And interest- ingly enough, the restaurant owner insists that her father was not even there when that cat was killed. Ah, but her version does not conform to the more popular account that has already solidified into a hard-boiled fact, merely for having been repeated so often on the social media. And on that basis alone, we can all safely conclude she is 'twisting the truth'. Meanwhile, once we have duly eliminated all those potential suspects who have alibis – including me, by the way: I was nowhere near Golden Sands last Sunday ('Thou canst not say I did it; never shake thy gory locks at me', etc.) – all that remains is to ask ourselves who it could really have been, on the basis of the known facts. Immediately, we are beset by a small problem. What known facts? All we have to go on is the word of one eyewitness (who has since taken down the accusatory post): even though – accord- ing to the original account – "two tables of tourists screamed and shouted at the man" while he was actually perpetrating the deed. Oddly, it occurred to no one at this packed restaurant to try and film or photo- graph the incident with their mobile phones. Yet the cat itself was photographed at least twice: a 'before and after' case, where it was first seen alive under a restaurant table... and then dead, pre- sumably a few minutes later. Later still, when the man was reportedly driven from the scene of the crime by the restaurant owner's mother, no one bothered to take down the car registration number... or even, for that matter, tell us what type of car it was. Nor did any of those 'screaming tourists' even re- port the crime to the police: instead, it was the restaurant owner herself who filed the only police report to date. So unless I am missing some- thing here – for instance, another post uploaded to Facebook, which never came into my line of vision – this entire story revolves only around the given word of one eyewitness: who, it must be said, never explicitly identified the suspect as the owner's father in the first place. How, then, was everyone so darn convinced that 'this was the asshole wot dun- nit'? On what basis was that conclusion reached? Going on all the reactions I have seen so far, there is only one answer to that question. Gut-feeling. Our gut-feeling tells us that he did it; and for most people, that appears to be grounds enough to (almost literally, in this case) hang, draw and quarter a suspect without trial. OK, now for the usual disclaimer part. Speaking for myself: I don't know who killed that cat. I'd like to know, naturally: because it really was a grisly crime, and the sooner perpetra- tor is caught and brought to trial (through a proper, legitimate judicial process, not by a pitchfork-wielding mob), the better. And for all I know, the man in question may indeed be the cat-killing monster so many believe him to be. But that is precisely the whole point. 'Belief' – in this and any other case – is simply not enough to form a solid judgment upon. For that, evidence is needed – and on the basis of eve- rything I've seen and read so far, the existing evidence only points to that man be- ing a suspect in this case. It does not add up to a confir- mation of guilt. I must say I find it astound- ing that I should even have to point all this out, after everything that recently hap- pened in this country. It's not just Egrant, mind you. Since then, we have also had news reports of an attempt- ed child-abduction at Mel- lieha... which later turned out to be a false report, filed only to prevent someone from 'usurping' a little tow- el-and-umbrella space on a crowded sandy beach. More recently still, we had another Facebook post by a woman claiming to have been beaten up by a karrozzin driver... only for other witnesses to step forward, alleging that it was actually the woman herself who threw the first punch (note: not that it really justifies beating her to a pulp, but you get the picture. Facebook posts are not always reliable source of unbiased news.) And all along, 'instant judg- ments' keep coming thick and fast. It seems that, no matter how often our preju- dices are belied by subse- Raphael Vassallo 'Instant judgments' keep coming thick and fast… no matter how often our prejudices are belied by subsequent developments, we still cling to this unhealthy habit of reaching automatic conclusions The curious incident of the cat in the