Previous
Information needed to combat fear
It is nearly three weeks since a murder investigation began on the back roads of Uxbridge township. As we’ve discussed in these pages, such an occurence is rare indeed; as far as anyone can recall, it’s been more than half a century since the last one. And in a community where such things almost never happen, even though we believe in our hearts that this is a safe place to work, live and play, a safe environment in which to raise our children, when such a crime happens, and especially when it happens to a young person, a cold fear inevitably seeps into the back of our minds. We want to be reassured that our community continues to be safe.
One piece of information would go a long way towards calming that fear: the knowledge that the murder of Margarita Shumakova did not take place in Uxbridge, the proability that her killer chose our Concession 8 randomly as a remote location in which to temporarily hide his crime, perhaps giving him enough time to make his escape.
Despite the fact, however, that investigation by the local media has uncovered no connection whatsoever between Ms. Shumakova and Uxbridge, Durham Police have refused to confirm that her murder took place elsewhere. Instead, since the discovery of her body on July 8, we have received exactly four pieces of information about the case:
1. The location of her body - but no information about how she got there, or the circumstances in which she was found.
2. The name and age of the victim - but absolutely nothing else about her. The Toronto media are the ones who found friends to fill in the blanks about her life and family circumstances.
3. The fact she was murdered - but nothing about the cause of death, or time, or most importantly, location of her murder.
4. The name of a suspect - but nothing about him, or why he is suspected, or where they think he might be headed.
Police won’t even tell us when their records say the last Uxbridge murder occured. The DRPS’ media person told us that members of the force believed there had been other cases, but they were too busy to look them up and provide us with the information. A homicide section with an average of less than a handful of cases per year (the Shumakova case is the second of 2011) can’t easily find when the last murder in Uxbridge took place? That seems hard to believe.
In our lamentably brief update on page 9, we quote Sgt. Dave Selby thus: “I can assure you that, if there was an immediate threat to the safety of citizens in any town or neighbourhood, we would have advised you of that threat.” This implies that no threat exists, that perhaps the murder did take place elsewhere. But if there was or is no threat, why did our questions have to drag that information from the police?
Murder is surely among the worst of crimes. Considering the fear factor, could the DRPS not have scheduled weekly press conferences here in Uxbridge to update the three weeklies on the case? If indeed the police discovered early on that there was “no immediate threat” to the people of Uxbridge, despite a teenager being found murdered in their midst, would simple kindness and courtesy not have led them to tell us so?
As journalists, since information is our business, it might be difficult to understand why revealing the cause of death or location of the murder would compromise the investigation. But we must assume the DRPS knows its business, solving crimes. So perhaps we ask too much. But in this case, it seems to us, considering how urgently our readers need to know, we believe the police are saying too little.
