If you?re an avid reader of crime novels, you probably know how the police proceed when there?s a crime. If you watch those new TV serials on crime, you know how technology has replaced good old detective work and how crimes are nowadays solved chiefly by forensic science.

That?s good to know of course, but the million-dollar question is: how do the police proceed in Mauritius? Unfortunately, the answer is anybody?s guess.

A knock on your door. A policeman is at your door because he wants to question you about the murder of somebody you know very well. You know that you have nothing to do with this but yet the policeman looks like he means business.

You are forcibly taken to the police station and everybody acts like you?re a murderer. What do you do?

Regardless of what you do you may well find yourself in court one day, having to answer to a charge of murder or manslaughter.

Are you doubtful? For sure, the French government has graciously donated new software for ?portrait-robot? that makes it slightly easier to identify culprits but of course this doesn?t help if the main witness is dead. Also, apparently ? or so we are told ? the Forensic Science Laboratory is making some progress. But does this mean that the trial and error method is now history?

In any case, according to lawyer Jean Claude Bibi, trial and error is exactly what happened to Bernard Maigrot, prime- and only ? suspect in the murder of Vanessa Lagesse.

It could have been. The problem is, we shall never know.

A couple of weeks ago, Bernard Maigrot was discharged as a suspect in the case of Vanessa Lagesse because the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) dismissed the charges against him seven years after Maigrot was declared to be the main culprit in this sordid affair.

The problem is - as rightly pointed out by Bibi in a press communiqué ? the DPP?s decision did not clear Maigrot of all suspicions; it merely said that the evidence against Maigrot was insufficient for the DPP to recommend that the case be tried by the Assizes court.

<B>Suspect?s Confession</B>

So now nobody knows who murdered Lagesse. And nobody knows for sure whether Bernard Maigrot didn?t do it.

The prejudice caused is two fold - to the parents of murdered Vanessa Lagesse and to Bernard Maigrot himself who has spent seven years of his life being known as the suspected murderer of Vanessa Lagesse.

Innocent until proven guilty has been an empty rhetoric in this case. Bernard Maigrot, regardless of guilt or lack of it, has been beaten up by the police - Jean Claude Bibi says in his communiqué that the forensic report by Dr Satish Boolell proves beyond reasonable doubt that Maigrot was tortured by the police as the injuries sustained were documented in the report.

If Maigrot is to be believed- and Bibi bases his argument on this possibility ? does it follow that the police was consistently off the track while trying to solve this particular case?

It seems to be, because seven years later, the DPP strikes the case off. Lawyer Jean Claude Bibi, writing on behalf of the JUSTICE organization says the reason why ?criminal proceedings against Bernard Maigrot have stopped? is because the State Law Office (SLO) would have had to explain the injuries on Maigrot?s body to the assizes court and that the SLO knew that the case rested only on an alleged confession obtained through torture.

The SLO as well as the police are guilty in this case, argues Bibi.

He may well be right. For seven years, the SLO went ahead with the police and maintained that there was a case against Maigrot. Turns out the DPP?s office doesn?t believe the case stands.

Where does this leave us?

Jean Claude Bibi suggests that the law be reviewed regarding ?confessions? by suspects. In actual fact ? and this information is confirmed by many lawyers, most cases are brought before the court and rest mainly on the suspect?s confession.

Prime minister Ramgoolam replying to a parliamentary question on Tuesday ? and recognizing that there is a serious problem, said, government is ?sparing no efforts to enhance the capability and professionalism of the Police personnel and to provide the necessary tools and resources to enable them to operate in a most effective and efficient manner.?

So Police officers go on training courses, experts in forensics are invited to train local scientists; modern equipments and software are bought.

Is this enough to prevent another Bernard Maigrot scenario?

The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating. Unfortunately.

I guess that?s more trial and error until we get it right.