Vic Puran’s daughter says he was murdered
I refer to a letter by the 17 year old son of Vic Puran, Mikel Puran in yesterday’s KN (September 6) accusing me of vilifying the name of his dead father. As someone much older than this young man, I ought to understand the misplaced passion of youth. I will not be harsh on him for the utter lack of research that went into his letter. But I am sure as a law student his professors must be wondering about his prospects.
It is unpardonable in the year 2016 for someone to write on topical issues in the news and not use Google. Google is perhaps used billions of times each day. If Milkel Puran had Googled his father’s name, he would see right in this and other newspaper that his sister, Mikhaila Puran is asking the police to investigate her father’s death because she knows he was tortured and murdered. I would suggest he talk immediately to his sister and together pursue the matter with the police. I really don’t know why he would want a stranger (me) to give the police information on his father’s death when his sister wrote that she knows who killed him and who stood to benefit from his death. Is it possible that young Puran read what his sister wrote but is scared to face the reality of who his sister is pointing to?
If Mikel Puran had gone to Google he would have seen that his father wrote a letter in the newspaper in response to my comments and he mentioned that it was a family purchase of the Foreman shoe repair building and 28 (yes, 28) family members joined in. He never mentioned anything about brother-in-law. I would suggest to young Puran, he speak with AFC Parliamentarian, Michael Carrington on his father’s ownership of the Foreman building, because at the time of purchase Carrington was the tenant. Carrington will enlighten Puran on the ownership.
If Miken Puran had used Google, he would see the accusations I made against his father when his father was alive in several columns and letters. He would have also seen the times I came to his father’s rescue as a media operative. I am simply baffled why he did do a simple Google click. That simply Google click would have revealed that the prosecutor left the treason case and Puran was invited to prosecute. I will not reveal at this time the circumstances as to how Vic Puran became the prosecutor, but I will do so later.
Finally, young Puran sounds scary when he wrote in his letter that a prosecutor does not look at the circumstances surrounding evidence in a prosecution case. That is what professional lawyers do. Prosecutors do not prosecute based on non-existent evidence. If the evidence is not there, it is the morally and legally decent thing to do and not to go ahead with prosecution. The three treason accused were freed because the evidence was not flimsy or opaque; it was non-existent. Vic Puran had no moral conscience when he took that case to send three persons to their death on fictional evidence.
I will forgive young Puran for his research paucity because he is still young but if he continues to ignore the cardinal rules in making analysis and disregard research, he may not graduate. Why should he? Finally, I will overlook a son’s exuberance of his farther. After all, Mikel Puran was just twelve when his father was murdered. And his father fathered him when he was in his middle fifties, so Mikel Puran would have missed out on knowing the details of his father’s long career in politics and law. But a child should not be forgiven for glossing over the heinous and repugnant things their parents committed against others. If your dad sent you to university, bought the best jewels and cars for you, that does not wash away the people he killed when he was in power. I hope Mikel Puran learns that vital lesson of life.
Frederick Kissoon
