Questions are now popping up over a “note” found last year in Teoh Beng Hock’s sling bag ‘that may throw some light regarding his death’ after the Attorney-General’s Chambers denied suppressing evidence in his death inquiry.
The AG’s Chambers issued a statement last night about the discovery of the note by Investigating Officer ASP Ahmad Nazri Zainal last October 7, more than TWO months AFTER Teoh’s death.
Question 1The public has a right to know as the AG’s statement last night was scarce on details.
Why did the investigating officer take two months to say he found the note in Teoh’s sling bag a day after the political secretary to Selangor executive councilor, Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16 last year.
Why do the police look like they are lackadaisical in investigating this death?
Did they need a psychiatrist to tell them to look for a suicide note?
Why would the police even consider it a suicide case before finding the note?
Were they looking for evidence to show its suicide?
Why did it take time after the note was translated to verify it?
Wasn’t it a matter of utmost urgency?
Is it really a note in Teoh’s handwriting?
What proof is there?
Why is the AG’s Chambers revealing it now and not immediately after it tested the note for authenticity or at the outset of the inquest?
If the AG wasn’t satisfied then, why is he satisfied now to speak about the existence of the note?
Will the AG be satisfied to reveal the note on August 18 when the inquest resumes and hears Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand’s testimony?
She did say it was probably 80 per cent homicide and only 20 per cent suicide.
How many people had access to the sling bag before the police officer found the note?
Is there a chain of evidence and custody to show the bag has not been tampered with? The inordinate amount of time is suspicious.
Why would a man about to be married to the mother of his unborn child commit suicide after overnight questioning?
Did a psychiatrist think such a man would consider suicide?
Is this ‘note’ the tipping point to end the inquest, to clear the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and to remove the need to have a Royal Commission of Inquiry into their investigating procedures?
All it said was Ahmad Nazri recently owned up that he did find the note when he searched the sling bag on July 17 last year but did not realise the significance of it as other documents were also found and that they were written in both Chinese and Roman characters.
Good Lord, a suicide note from Teoh Beng Hock!
Read here for more
Why waste public funds and the hundreds of man-hours spent on the inquest of Teoh Beng Hock's death?
The AG is such a powerful man he can order the case shut by just stamping 'NFA' on the file.
Or does the AG want to show Malaysians and the world how our justice system can be toyed with by the powerful as and when they like - even to the extent of their capability to cover-up murders?
I must admit that there is no time limit for evidences to surface even if a case is closed and should it warrant, the case can be re-opened.
Likewise for the murder of Altantuya, even though the murderers have been found guilty and sentenced to death, should new evidence surface to show another person or the mastermind who was behind the murder, that person can still be charged.
In Teoh Beng Hock's case, it looks suspicious when a new piece of evidence, widely believed to be a suicide note was found inside the deceased’s sling bag.
The press statement from the AG's Chamber regarding this new found evidence does nothing more than to show how sloppy the investigation was carried out right from the initial stage.
There is heavy suspicion of fabricated evidence being planted.
You can read the full press statement here..
Let us take a look at what the AG statement claimed:
"The Attorney-General Chambers was informed of the discovery of the note by the Investigating Officer, ASP Ahmad Nazri bin Zainal on 7.10.09 some two over months after Teoh Beng Hock’s death.Can you see how desperate they are to fabricate evidence by saying something that stupid to try and convince you "it was not found when he first searched the deceased’s sling bag after the incident".
According to the Investigation Officer it was not found when he first searched the deceased’s sling bag after the incident."
They DID search the sling bag after the incident but the 'supposed' suicide note was NOT there.
Yet after two months, they managed to discover it.
From a layman's understanding, after the police, MACC, AG, the forensic and hospital had fully completed their investigation, all personal belongings of the deceased should have been itemised, tagged and recorded after a thorough search.
Those items that required to be produced as evidence will be retained under locked and key while the rest should be returned to the family members.
The questions are:
- Why was the sling bag not returned to the family members?
- If it was not returned, how was it to be used and considered as evidence in the inquest/trial?
- If they really needed to make a search again, why were all parties not informed?
"The note was immediately translated and there was sufficient cause to send it to be analysed by a Document Examiner of the Chemistry Department. The said note was sent on 9.10.09 and subsequently on 20.10.09.These are just frivolous statement, a camouflage for appeasing those who are stupid.
The Document Examiner prepared his reports and they were considered by the Attorney-General himself where the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail was not convinced of the authenticity of the note due to insufficient samples to verify the handwritings in particular the Chinese characters.
In addition, the note was said to be discovered some two over months after the death and that this would raise suspicion over its authenticity and discovery.
Having considered these factors, Tan Sri Abdul Gani was of the view that the note should not be tendered until and unless the Investigation Officer could provide satisfactory explanation as to its discovery."
Should not all parties be informed unless they are trying to fabricate evidence.
"As regards the note, the Attorney-General’s Chambers was earlier briefed by the Investigation Officer that he conducted a thorough search after being advised by the psychiatric that ordinarily there would be a note left in a suicide case.This is indeed a masterpiece, base on psychiatric advice, they went hunting for a suicide note and wallah! a suicide note was discovered.
However, recently the Investigation Officer owned up by admitting that he did in fact find the note when he searched the sling bag on 17.7.10 but did not realise the significance of it as there were other documents found and that they were written in both Chinese and Roman characters."
How convenient, they found nothing in the first search, but after talking to the psychiatrist they suddenly managed to find one suicide note.
Can you see how sloppy they are? Even when wanting to plant fabricated evidence.