Whodunnit? Tested against any rule on elementary grammar, this word "whodunnit?" does not make a sentence. There may be a subject here, if broken into three words who dunn it, but the predicate, aside that a word is wrongly spelled, is incomplete. Whatever reason there was for the evolution of this mangled English, grammarians and linguists (is there anyone else?) should come out to explain in the hope that those of us who care but do not know might find some understanding.
From the little that I have gathered though, this is a colloquial English which, if completed, really means to ask either who did it or who has done it. It therefore assumes that something, more of the unthinkable, unimaginable, devious or evil character, is done but the author or culprit strives to keep his identity from being known and thereby remains to be unidentified.
In any case, the current question that almost everyone likes to ask is "who dunn it? Who is responsible for the writing of the three, or perhaps, more of the papers now derisively called Napolist? And more importantly, who is behind their sudden appearance and why?
I do not have to write anymore of the case(s) of this Janet Lim Napoles. She is now a public figure and the accusations leveled against her are well publicized. It is known to us that she met in person, not very long ago, Secretary Leila de Lima, of the Department of Justice. Their conversation lasted for many hours. Then it became also known that she gave to the justice secretary a draft and therefore unsigned affidavit accompanied by a list containing the names of high officials with whom she dealt with in connection with the abuse of people's money called PDAF.
We had in our mind, the names of Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla, as the top three in that supposed list because charges were accordingly filed with the Ombudsman against them already. If indeed, there was such a list given to Sec. de Lima, public clamor soon began to build for her to reveal it. People cared less for the affidavit it being reportedly only a draft. Yes, people wanted to know if it confirmed the identities of the three senators as we desired to know who were other personalities Napoles transacted with.
The justice secretary blinked. For some apparent reasons, she delayed in showing us what the list contained. Her delay gave a chance to some wicked mind to do damage control.
As it later came about, there was not just one "Napolist". Former Senator Panfilo Lacson and a whistle blower named Sandra Cam came forward with the claim that they too were in possession of other lists. Lacson said that his list came from the husband of Janet without telling us why he was given such a thing. It is not clear how Ms. Cam got hers. Who dunn it is now difficult to fathom.
It is incredible that Mr. Napoles would write his own list with some names different from those contained in the paper written by his wife. The effect of such listing by the husband would make his wife all the more untruthful and her statements unreliable. Why would he do that? Why risk the chance of his wife being considered as a state witness? Is it not that if Ms. Napoles could be persuaded by the cloak of immunity to tell all, her testimony, with documents in her control bared for all to examine, she can evince the plunder committed by the prospective accused?
And why Sen. Lacson? I have some speculations in that regard that I would rather keep to myself but yes, the choice of Sen. Lacson is purposeful.
The assertion of Ms. Cam that she is in possession of another list with some names different from those in the original Mrs. Napoles' list only aims to add to the confusion that the claims of Sen. Lacson has generated. In other words, both the Lacson and Cam lists are of the same kind and for similar purpose such that these are probably prepared under one command.
Whose mind was it that was quick to arrest the situation presented by the delay of Sec. de Lima's revealing the list? Who is that person who has the track record, the resources and the capability to spin tales? And who is that person who would benefit most from the doubts and suspicions generated by the presence of three or more Napolists? Whodunnit?
***
Email: aa.piramide@gmail.com.