Crime potato

I am stumped at the way our police system thinks.  Or doesn't.

Exhibit A, the mystery of the man buried in cement.  Robert Rosillas was shot, laid on a bed of soft cement in his bedroom, and then covered with half a foot more of cement.  His sister Katrina, suspected to have a grudge against him for inheriting the family home, was discovered to have purchased cement. Her boyfriend Gamaliel de la Cruz, a policeman, had a gun, which was surrendered for forensic investigation.

After questioning, the couple flees, disappearing until their bodies are found lifeless in a hotel room.  Both have ingested rat killers and liquid drainage cleaners (the usual recipe for those unable to afford high society painkillers).  Suicide notes are found, requesting they be buried beside each other.

What do our finest say?  Since the bodies of the suspects have been found, the case of the mysterious burial will be considered closed.

To my several seasons of CSI television- trained mind, there is a gaping hole.  The police have the gun.  All they need to do is compare whether the gun and the bullet match.  Then they can conclude that indeed, the police boyfriend's gun caused Robert's death.  Then, that's the time the case should be closed.  And yet, our cops say, because the suspects are dead, the exercise of matching gun and bullet "doesn't seem very important anymore".

What happened to closing the loop?  Tying loose ends?  Writing finish to the chapter?  More importantly, what does it say about the industriousness or thoroughness of our police investigators?

Exhibit B, the case of the sandwiched bus driver.  Albert Nava, a bus driver, is trolling along a highway when his bus is hit from behind by a truck.  Albert's bus loses control, slams into a vehicle in front of him, and five more cars get involved in a nasty pile up.

Truck driver dies, together with his two companions, while fifteen bus passengers are also fatalities.  Albert Nava is arrested.  The police writes up a report, which concludes that the truck behind Nava's bus suffered a mechanical failure.  The families of the victims come and hug Nava, telling him he is not to blame.

Guess what the next twist to this heartwarming tale is?  Well, city police go ahead and file charges against Nava, for committing the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicides and physical injuries.

Did I miss something here?  The police themselves confirm that Nava did not cause the accident, and yet they turn around and charge him with a crime?  Where did that come from?  What about the concept of husbanding precious government resources and utilizing those only for the most important cases?

While seemingly complete opposites, I would hazard the theory that both instances demonstrate the same trait: laziness.  In the cement murder case, it seems like an unprofessional eagerness to close a case.  In the bus accident case, it appears to be a "let's pass the buck on to the judge to let him decide for himself what to do with Nava" tactic.

It's stories like these that make one want to throw up one's hands (or simply throw up) and give up on the hope of ever getting, in this country, any semblance of justice via the government's crime busting ability. Are we that backwards?  In too many instances we rely on tips, luck, the CCTV camera of a helpful neighbor, or the sheer stupidity of the perp to catch criminals.  What would happen to us if really smart individuals turn to crime? Will our finest even stand a chance?

I wouldn't bet on it today.