The below timeline of Teoh's note 'not-found-and-found' is based on report by Malaysiakini - Teoh's death: AG's Chambers denies suppressing evidence.
July 17 2009:
Teoh died and his body found.
Investigating Officer (IO) ASP Ahmad Nazri found a note but 'suppressed' it when he first searched Teoh's sling bag after the incident.
Somewhere between Sept 17 and Oct 8 2009:
After being advised by a psychiatrist that, ordinarily, a note would be left in a suicide case, ASP Ahmad Nazri dia a thorough searh and 'found' the note and it was immediately translated.
Oct 9 2009, analysed by a document examiner at the Chemistry Department
Oct 20 2009, analysed again by a document examiner at the Chemistry Department.
After October 20 2009:
July 17 2009:
Teoh died and his body found.
Investigating Officer (IO) ASP Ahmad Nazri found a note but 'suppressed' it when he first searched Teoh's sling bag after the incident.
Somewhere between Sept 17 and Oct 8 2009:
After being advised by a psychiatrist that, ordinarily, a note would be left in a suicide case, ASP Ahmad Nazri dia a thorough searh and 'found' the note and it was immediately translated.
Oct 9 2009, analysed by a document examiner at the Chemistry Department
Oct 20 2009, analysed again by a document examiner at the Chemistry Department.
After October 20 2009:
The document examiner prepared his report. Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail himself where the attorney-general was not convinced of the authenticity of the note due to insufficient samples to verify the handwriting, in particular the Chinese characters.
Moreover, the note was said to have been discovered some two over months after Teoh's death and that this would raise suspicion over its authenticity and discovery.
Since then, AG Gani was of the view that the note should not be tendered until and unless the investigation officer could provide a satisfactory explanation.
Recent development:
Ahmad Nazri 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.
WOW! Such a convincible and crucial chronology of events!
Now, the three important questions regarding the TWIST AND TURN OF EVENTS:
1. What took the IO so long to provide a satisfactory explanation?
2. What is the satisfactory explanation now that the AG has decided to tender the note?
3. Is the tender based on the fact that the IO 'owned up' that he found the note on July 17, 2009?
Next, the two important questions regarding the PROFESSIONALISM OF THE IO:
1. Is Teoh Beng Hock's case the first suicide or homicide case for the IO?
2. Did the IO consult the psychiatrist because the former was incompetent?
Lastly, the most important question regarding the INTEGRITY OF THE IO:
1. Why did the IO say that the note was not found when he first search Teoh's sling bag after the incident and recently do a turn around?
2. Did the IO consult the psychiatrist because the former was incompetent?
Lastly, the most important question regarding the INTEGRITY OF THE IO:
1. Why did the IO say that the note was not found when he first search Teoh's sling bag after the incident and recently do a turn around?
No comments:
Post a Comment