As the novel progresses, I'm certainly bombarded with more questions on what seemed to be a "murder mystery". The narrator took the role of pseudo-investigator by trying to put the broken pieces together of the mystery. In this chapter, I noticed numerous flaws in this-so-called investigation and it makes me think of how low the credibility of the conducted investigation on Nasar's murder.
First of all, the narrator has mentioned several times in the previous chapter that the appointed investigator of Nasar's murder failed to give a comprehensive report and lacked evidence and contained flaws in his autopsy and other relevant aspects of the murder. Then in chapter four the narrator introduces that Father Carmen Amador, a priest, was forced to perform the autopsy in the absence of Dr. Dionsio Iguaran. Why in the world would you assign such a task on a priest with no prior medical experience? Apparently it was the mayor who assigned the obligation to him and the mayor himself "was a former troop commander with no experience in matters of law" and on top of that, "he was too conceited to ask anyone where he should begin". (73)
This really frustrates me because this is not the first time in the novel where someone simply doesn't know how he/she should take action because they're just not experienced in such situations or they don't have the courage to go out of their way and contribute a difference (referencing to Father Amador in the previous chapter). The narrator even goes on to note that "the mayor knew that his autopsy would have no legal standing" (74) but suspiciously enough "Father Amador's report seemed in order and the investigator incorporated it in the brief as a useful piece of evidence." (75) That doesn't only make me angry at the mayor and the priest, but also questioning once again the credibility of the investigator. If he decided to use the "massacre" autopsy as evidence for Nasar's case, then just imagine how flawed all other pieces of "evidence" are to the investigation.
Source: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXjjV386wCFdDYB7m9TKrDx1VAw7enn6dVdCnsTynSD0NcCy_y
All of these flaws in the investigation of course would also question the credibility of the real cause of the murder, reclaiming Angela Vicario's honor. As Juliana had brought up in our last Socratic seminar, it hasn't been proven that Santiago Nasar was the one who stole her virginity. In fact, the narrator even states that Angela "on the contrary, she would recount it in all its detailed to anyone who wanted to hear it, except for one item that would never be cleared up: who was the real cause of her damage, and how and why, because no one believed that it had really been Santiago Nasar." (89) Furthermore, there's an explanation of how "they belonged to two completely different worlds", therefore it was highly unlikely for Nasar to be the culprit.
WHY DIDN'T THE NARRATOR MENTION THIS EARLIER? Well, it might have been that he recounts the chronicle of Nasar's death the same way as everyone else had experienced this compelling mystery. People never considered that thought in the first place, but only thought of Santiago Nasar as a dirty rich man and the Vicario twins proving their status as men by reclaiming the honor of their sister. However, after everything has settled down, people begin to take a rational perspective on this whole "mystery".
Yes, I also noticed how suspicious the investigation was. The narrator put in so many details about Nasar's wounds that Father Amador's autopsy seemed very professional and accurate. Of course, it wasn't professional at all. Nasar's guts were spilling all over, he was rotting to pieces and his body was falling apart. How would anybody be able to get accurate information while working with such a corpse? It was also surprising to me as to how disrespectful they were of Nasar. It raises an interesting aspect of Colombian culture, do they not care for the dead?
ReplyDeleteBut back to what you said about Angela Vicario and how it was unlikely that Nasar actually raped her. I was absolutely shocked at the latter part of the sentence on page 89 - how nobody really believed that the culprit was Nasar. THEN WHY DID THEY ALLOW HIM TO BE KILLED????? It really changed my opinion of the people because I had thought that most everybody believed Angela Vicario's word and as a result thought it necessary for the honor killings. Was everybody just playing along with her? Allowing the murder because it was the easiest way to solve the mess? I'm flabbergasted.