The suicide of the retired Army Officer, who claimed to have killed Sunday Leader Founder Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, has resulted in new questions being asked, even before answers to the old questions were found.
The most burning question that is currently being asked is who gave orders to the 51 year old retired Army Officer to kill Wickrematunge, and if he was re-employed by the main culprits after his retirement to carry out the assassination. The Army Officer retired in 2007; however Wickrematunge was murdered in 2009. Therefore, the biggest question is who hired him, and which unit in the Army rehired him.
The officer who had committed suicide in his home at Kegalle had left a very unemotional note stating ‘to whom it may concern’ –claiming he had killed Lasantha, and it was not Premananda Udalagama, who is currently in remand for his alleged involvement to the Wickrematunge murder.
However, what analysts point out is that, usually when a person commits suicide due to remorse, then his letter will contain some sort of an emotional factor, and will never be drafted in a formal tone, using terms such as ‘to whom it may concern.’
“After all, the army officer who committed suicide is a father, he had children, he would have at least had some sort of remorse because he had to leave them behind,” an analyst pointed out.
Another point that was highlighted is to verify if the hand writing was in fact the retired Army officer’s handwriting or whether the note was a plant.
It was also noted that the CID should now grill Udalagama and verify if he in fact knew the retired army officer, and if the army officer visited Udalagama in prison.
“If he committed suicide due to remorse, has he confessed his crime of killing Wickrematunge to any of his family members?” the analyst questioned.
However, the most important point is that not one, but at least two motorcycles followed Wickrematunge on the day he was killed, and then how can the retired Army officer alone take the blame for the murder, because there were other men present at the scene according to the eye witnesses.
“How come he never mentioned the names of the other men who were part of the group,” the analyst questioned.
“Was this a red herring to close the case? Were the officers investigating the murder onto more and did the perpetrators and those who gave orders aware of the progress?,” he asked.
Just mid this week, President Maithripala Sirisena came to the defence of army officers despite them committing criminal offences. “The President’s statement was made only a couple of days before the so called suicide. Certainly the tone and substance of the President’s statement should have given some form of mental relief to those who committed the murders of Lasantha and Prageeth Ekneligoda, since the suspects are all from the Army. Given that, was there a necessity to commit suicide?,” the analyst asked.
“Whoever did introduce that suicide note (which appears to be a plant) must accept that more questions have been raised than answers. Was it suicide in the first place? Did money money exchange hands? Surely the CID and Courts would ask the same questions?,” he added.