One of the greatest crimes of the corrupt is their habit of omitting the truth.
The importance of the truth can never be understated. A faithful representation of a chain of events is useful. In this manner, adequate decisions can be made, because they are grounded in factual observations. A falsehood is also useful, to some extent – it tells you plenty of information about who utters it if you know what to listen for.
Long spells of silence interspersed with vague utterances, on the other hand, are useless. Unlike a statement that is true, false, or at least somewhere in between, there is no information to gather. Silence creates a vacuum, which is then often filled with nonsensical speculation.
Our government is infamous for being both silent and vague. It is silent when its greatest atrocities are exposed and vague when it is forced to answer questions about its omissions. It only speaks to put on a facade of respectability while spending the rest of its days hunting down critics.
With all this as context, I must confess I feel no small measure of trepidation when I think of writing about Karl Gouder. For one, I did not know the man, though that is usually a good sign as far as I’m concerned. Decent men don’t crop up on the radar of someone focused on organised crime and corruption, and judging from the genuine, heartfelt tributes that have poured in since his death was announced, Gouder seems to have been just that – a decent man doing his very best.
Karl Gouder. Photo: Facebook
However, the fact that I did not know him and that he was widely respected by both colleagues and adversaries alike does not merit avoiding the subject entirely.
I also have a few years’ worth of practical experience having very long conversations with suicidal clients at the mental health service I used to work for, so I can find some reassurance in knowing I am leaning on my own understanding of the human psyche, one that is informed by direct experiences.
My only objective is to share my informed perspective and contribute to the conversation accordingly, and I stand to be corrected by anyone who knows more than I do. I also ran the contents of this piece past a fellow professional with far more experience than me, and was met with a seal of approval after a few key adjustments.
Speak first, ask later?
It is disturbing to note how the police force handles suicides involving persons whose designation automatically makes their personal lives of public interest. Initial media reports immediately suggested that Gouder’s death “was not being treated as suspicious,” yet no reason was given for this serious claim. At publication time, police are yet to justify their statement. No crime conference has been announced by the police commissioner.
How can the police force be so ready to make such an assertion when those closest to Gouder suggested that absolutely nothing seemed untoward about him mere hours before his death? I will go into more detail about what this can signify in the context of male suicide in another section of this article further below.
How can they so readily claim that Gouder’s death is not suspicious when online sleuths quickly pieced together that Joseph Muscat’s apparatchik Neville Gafa’ had publicly slandered Gouder just before his body was discovered?
If it is indeed confirmed that Gouder was facing threats beyond what Gafa’ published and hastily deleted – because the denials of a liar and the accusations of another mean fuck all, really – then the circumstances are definitely questionable. Bullying someone into taking their own lives is a serious crime, something which Mark Camilleri already pointed out.
The vacuum of information which the government has failed to fill in is being plugged by ad hoc sources instead. It should be the authorities’ responsibility to inform the public.
It is also disconcerting to think about the fact that media houses plainly refuse to call it a suicide while writing up every other detail of the story in such a way as to all but spell it out. As journalists, we are duty bound to report the news, no matter how grim it may be. Not describing things for what they are – or finding creative ways to say something without any clear references – only undermines that.
The fact is that Gouder’s suicide is obviously of public interest considering that he was a public figure set to assume a major role in the country’s second biggest political party. While there should be respectful boundaries with grieving family members and friends, it is crucial for people to know what led to a public individual’s suicide, especially if there are valid suspicions about the circumstances.
Male suicides
In suicide cases – and I strain myself to underline that this is a generic comment and not about Gouder’s death – the person contemplating death by suicide may present a carefully curated exterior prior the execution of their plan. While this is not something that is exclusive to male suicides, it tends to manifest itself more in men, who are statistically more likely to die by suicide (see one example of US CDC statistics here).
Understanding this is crucial to gauge whether the person in question is experiencing suicidal ideation (fantasising about death but not being committed to suicidal plans) or suicidal intent (active planning, preparation, and then actually attempting to die by suicide).
In simple and very grim terms, a person who fantasises about death may outwardly appear to be more conspicuous and talkative about it while someone who has moved on from ideation to intent would not, because they do not want anyone to thwart a plan they are committed to. You can read more about the distinction between ideation and intent here.
It is precisely why suicide cases are so hard to process: even the sharpest therapist in the world can miss someone’s active plans to die by suicide, because the odds of completing an attempt increase proportionately to the person’s ability to camouflage their real feelings. It is also why effective suicide awareness campaigning places so much emphasis on seeking help about even the most fleeting of thoughts about ending one’s life – intervention at the ideation stage is far likelier to save a person’s life than it is at the intent stage.
There is another aspect to consider. If the notion that a person was secretly preparing their suicide can be disproved with confidence, then the other logical scenario that is normally considered is that something immediately urgent presented itself in the hours leading up to suicide. Most suicidal individuals do feel the need to document why they decided their time was up, and would often leave some sort of trail to attest to it.
If nothing is left behind, then the theory that the individual experienced something extremely dramatic right before they committed suicide becomes more likely, because it implies that explaining the subsequent action was not as much of a priority as addressing the immediate stressor causing it.
It is for these reasons that it is absolutely crucial for everyone to follow his family’s public appeal for information about Gouder’s activity in the days leading up to his suicide.
Whichever scenario appears likeliest to the investigators on the case – whether it was a long, drawn-out struggle or a sudden turn of events – will be key to unraveling why such a prominent, hopeful rising star in the PN’s ranks would take his own life a mere few days before ascending to a prestigious post within the party.
There is also one, final, but absolutely crucial point to add here: figures tabled in Parliament in February of this year show that last year, 27 people died by suicide, 24 of which were men. In the two cases discussed below, it is pertinent to note that both individuals had a driven, ambitious streak in them and were facing great challenges in their lives. Male suicide is often driven by socio-cultural tendencies that lead to men eschewing seeking help for their problems, making it far likelier that they would consider suicide as a better way out.
The disturbing parallels between the cases of Karl Muscat and Karl Gouder
Photos of former Attorney General prosecutor Karl Muscat, who was found dead in his apartment from a suspected overdose in October 2022. Photos: Facebook
One more disclaimer before this section: the point of this bit isn’t to compare the individuals themselves or the circumstances surrounding their deaths. What I am interested in the most is how the authorities and the press collectively responded. I will leave the arduous task of decoding the circumstances to the magistrates who’ve been appointed to oversee an inquiry on both cases, both of which are ongoing.
Just like the police force leapt to the conclusion that Gouder’s death is not being treated as suspicious, the same happened with Muscat.
Within a mere few hours, the police’s official spokesperson was on site telling the cameras that foul play was largely being excluded, though nothing was completely off the table. At the time, speculation about what led to Muscat’s suicide was at a fever pitch due to the extensive list of high-profile corruption cases on his desk at the office of the attorney general.
This speculation prompted a response from Muscat’s brother, Luke, who told Times of Malta that he found it unlikely that someone had murdered a widely respected state prosecutor who was reportedly dealing with personal turmoil at the time of his death.
That same day, the autopsy report had confirmed traces of unspecified narcotics and alcohol in Muscat’s blood prior to his death. Yet again, at no point in time did the police force hold a crime conference detailing all this. The information we do have about Muscat’s death was obtained solely through press reports. Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg, Muscat’s former employer, did not utter a single word in public about Muscat’s case.
Meanwhile, mainstream press reports yet again refused to bluntly state whether Muscat’s case was being considered a suicide or not – it was merely implied, yet again preparing fertile ground for nonsensical speculation.
The cycle of the information vacuum was the same: vague, misleading statements from the police, a total failure of accountability from the government, a distant mainstream press that is always very reluctant to have a responsible, mature discussion about suicide, and then mass unease.
In a country which witnessed the murder of an investigative journalist less than seven years ago, how can anyone rest assured that two suicides involving prominent sons of the country’s political and legal fora were indeed free of suspicious and/or dubious circumstances surrounding their deaths if nobody is willing to take on the significant responsibility of talking about it? Silence and vagueness breed suspicion, and in a mafia state, we seem to have a never ending supply of both.
How can we ever address suicide in our society when we refuse to talk about it in general? Suicides occur in silence because we tend to refuse to talk openly about the reasons why people feel compelled to contemplate death by suicide in the first place. It is such an overwhelmingly sad experience for us to witness suicide that it is only natural for us to want to turn away and avoid talking about it as much as possible, in the same way we avoid talking about chronic illnesses or other similar harrowing experiences.
I understand that it is difficult to force ourselves to have this conversation and I understand that my writing may upset some of you. But we are talking about two high-profile suicides in as many years and we have a glaring lack of clarity about either scenario, and suspicions will always remain if the truth doesn’t emerge.
Christ knows this country needs some measure of closure, at least just this once.
***
If you or someone you know is experiencing suicidal ideation or intent, please call 1770 or 1579 for immediate support.
Our sincerest condolences to the Muscat and Gouder families.
