Bits and pieces of information filtering out from investigating authorities and the victim's family on the Percy Lapid murder case appear to zero in on former Bureau of Corrections director, General Gerald Bantag, as the mastermind or one of the two masterminds. This legal mind's eyebrows are raising on the finding that there are two masterminds.

There can only be one brains behind the slay plot of the radio commentator unless they are looking at the death of the alleged middleman as a separate murder hatched by another person who has nothing to do with the assassination of the broadcaster, which is unlikely and improbable because the contract broker's killing is intertwined with the first murder given that he was named by the confessed gunman and murdered within four hours following his identification.

Logically, whoever is the mastermind would order the elimination of the one who contracted the hit because the latter's trail would ultimately lead to him. For that matter, all those who have links, either as participants or those who gained information on the circumstances of the two murders would automatically, by such connections, place their lives in peril because they are vital witnesses to the successful prosecution of the crime and the conviction of the killers.

The Secretary of Justice was quoted as saying that, "In terms of investigation, it is 90 percent to 95 percent closed. It's just a matter of having more details brought in. The findings were the product of good investigative work and cooperation between the NBI and the police."

Despite this upbeat assessment, there are matters that bother this columnist. The finding that there are three Bilibid gangs that pooled their resources to raise the P550,000 as blood money or consideration to perpetrate the crime strains our intelligence. For one, P550,000 is not a hefty sum.

The person behind the crime can easily raise that on his own, especially if he is a high government official. Why does he have to tap several prison gangs to raise the amount? Doing such would be sowing evidence to hang himself as he spreads the number of persons privy to the murder plot. That goes against the thinking process of the man they will charge as a principal by inducement who is trained in police work. An intelligent criminal mind, as a rule, if he wants to kill someone, and he cannot do it himself, will bring into his confidence the least number of persons to execute the dirty work.

At most two accomplices, and not three prison gang commanders with dozens, nay hundreds of members! It is reported by probers that there is an inmate in the Iwahig colony who has knowledge of the crime and was brought to Manila and apparently would be presented as another witness. If we are to believe this scenario, this mastermind must be of a different mold for he would be the only killer who would spread his dastardly plan to everybody in prison, even in a far-flung prison. Wow! Are we expected to swallow that line?

The confessed triggerman submitted a supplemental affidavit naming a "Bantag" from inside the national penitentiary as the one giving the order to kill the broadcaster, as told to him by the dead middleman two days before he was killed. Why didn't he volunteer that information in his first affidavit, as well as in his public confession? His excuse was that he became fearful when the source of his information turned up dead. But his justification for confessing to the crime was the fact that his face was publicized as a suspect and he was afraid he would be killed.

But by confessing publicly, he already put his life in danger. Certainly, the mastermind will eliminate him, so what is the difference? The justification doesn't hold. It obviously is an afterthought.

Moreover, not only is the allegation in the supplemental affidavit, hearsay, the informant is already dead hence the claim cannot be corroborated. Also, he did not specifically point to General Gerald Bantag as the "Bantag" referred to by the dead informer. So where is the link?

Was the identified middleman really murdered? The first autopsy report conducted by the NBI concluded that there were bodily injuries found hence it excluded the probability of foul play in the death. The toxicology report also indicated that no lethal substance was ingested by the victim, bolstering the finding that the latter was not killed. However, a second independent autopsy of the body was made, and according to the private forensic expert, the deceased died of asphyxia which according to her, is consistent with her other findings of pulmonary congestion, edema and hemorrhages.

Given those findings plus the information that the victim expressed fear of being killed as well as added information from some inmates, she concluded, more appropriately speculated, that the inmate died of suffocation as a result of a plastic bag placed over his head. This may contradict the physical evidence showing that there were no visible bodily injuries. Before you place a plastic bag over the head of a person with the intention of killing him, you need two or four men to hold him to make him still because a person to be divested of oxygen by force will, as a natural reaction, forcibly struggle to resist the attempt to snuff out his life.

Since there will be both forced resistance and counter-resistance, it cannot be helped that parts of the body of the victim will contain bruises or abrasions. But the second autopsy report validated the absence of physical injuries. So how do you explain the absence of telltale signs of struggle? The explanation forwarded is that the victim accepted the certainty of death hence he did not offer any resistance. That argument will go against the instinct of self-preservation. The forensic doctor said that the man was healthy and therefore not handicapped to mount a forceful defense of his life. So was he really murdered or did he die of natural causes?

We are told that the sister of the dead man texted her and gave her the information of the three gang leaders who would be responsible in the event of his death. But no phone of the deceased was recovered, so how can we now validate the testimony of the sister anent the information she received? What if the sender of the text message was not the brother, but somebody else to mislead investigators?

Have the investigators considered the angle that their principal BuCor official suspect may well be being framed by the crime syndicate lords who want him removed from the prison camp to exact vengeance, as well as to continue with their nefarious and lucrative activities without their nemesis and tormentor hounding and stopping them?

The questions posed above need to be answered if we want to unravel the truth behind this crime.