Twitter Updates since 8.25am:
Coroner adjourns 1 wk to Aug 5
11.53am from TwitterBerry
Ct told on DNA checks – 1dna swap 2 males 1from TBH 1unknown male dna taken from 90 persons want dna from 12 others
11.51am from TwitterBerry
Ct resumes
11.41am from TwitterBerry
The 30 min adjrnmt of inquest has dragged out 4 more than an hour What is happening?
11:30am from TwitterBerry
79 witnesses summoned 4inquest why necessary 4so many most of whom cannot b relevant? TBH father brother sister fiancee also summoned
10:52am from TwitterBerry
Coroner adjourns inquest 2date 2b anncd in half hr
10:24am from TwitterBerry
Malek n Bar Council supports Gobind 4 adjournment
10:13am from TwitterBerry
Ct rules require minimum 2 wk notice of inquest b given 2deceased fmly n 4 1st mention max 3 wks b given 4 parties 2appear why now the rush?
10:08am from TwitterBerry
Gobind submission – Documents whether postmortem forensic dna rpts need 2be studied by ind experts why is govt in such hurry?
09:49am from TwitterBerry
Other reasons applying postponement – family counsel not given documents esp pathologist rpt
09:43am from TwitterBerry
Substantive issue – gobind says TBH fmly participates inquest in protest as it wants PM seyt up RCI as cabinet meets 2day applies 4 postpone
09:40am from TwitterBerry
Coroner allows gobind appln 4lawyers rep family Sel govt. Arguments over status bar council lawyers coroner allws them 2hold watching brief
09:35am from TwitterBerry
Gobind applies 4 formal observer status 4 Karpal gobind sankaran 4 family malek 4 sel govt n 6 lawyers 4 bar council watching briefabout
09:28am from TwitterBerry
Inquest into TBH death begins
09:19am from TwitterBerry
Gobind 4TBH family Malek Imtiaz 4Sel govt Coroner Azmil Muntapha Bar Council watching brief by Hisham Tehh n others Bar President Ragu here
09:18am from TwitterBerry
But why the desperate hurry without giving adequate time 4deceased family lawyers 2prepare? Also 4family 2convince Najib 4RCI 2b formed?
09:06am from TwitterBerry
1st time in remembered history AG given fiat 2leading criminal lawyer Tan Hock Chuan 2lead inquest proceedings instead of by DPP
09:02am from TwitterBerry
Arriving ShahAlam ct 4 TeohBengHock inquest Still maintain inquest shd b adjourned 4Royal Commission Inquiry Public confidence requires it
08:37am from TwitterBerry
#1 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 11:40 am
Family members must be relevant, I would have thought. Suicide cannot be ruled out. We only know he is dead, every reason ought to be considered. It would be unfortunate to set a precedent of excluding witnesses / outcomes at this stage.
#2 by k1980 on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 12:11 pm
OrangRojak says “Suicide cannot be ruled out.” You mean he was so scared of his fiancee he was to wed the next day that he jumped from the 14th floor?
#3 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 12:35 pm
Exactly k1980. ‘Shotgun wedding’ is a well-known colloquialism in the UK – do you have an equivalent here? I appreciate your sarcasm is well-intended. It is my profound wish that TBH did not commit suicide. People do. It would be incompetent of the Inquest to rule it out. If you’ve read any of my other posts on this subject, you will see that I believe the best evidence to explain his death must be disinterred. The incontrovertible truth is that without evidence, the Inquest is going to conclude very little, despite what we believe and hope.
#4 by pulau_sibu on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 1:23 pm
Can it be that he was ‘killed’ by MACC and then thrown down the window in order to fabricate a suicide case?
#5 by Ken G on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 1:43 pm
Why can’t suicide be ruled out? If if can’t be ruled out then we shouldn’t rule out heart attack, assassin, temporary insanity, etc.
For any possibility, it is only necessary to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. From the testimony of his family, fiance and friends it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Teoh was in no mind to commit suicide. Only the most unreasonable will still keep the possibility of suicide open and that is with an agenda of protecting the MACC.
Similarly, it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Teoh was not released at 3.45am as claimed by MACC. His handphone and wallet were not returned to him, there was no signed statement to indicate that the questioning had concluded and no reasonable person would stay and sleep in the MACC office when his car is in the carpark.
#6 by jbozz on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 1:47 pm
Here’s to sum up why TBH must die
1) MACC seized and interrogated all evidence relating to corruption within DAP
2) Order received to kill him
3) Create public attention
4) Create a blog to the general public alleging that DAP is corrupted and link to the underworld.
5) Surprisingly all the Info from the blog claimed UMNO doing the corrupt practice more decent and proper compare to DAP.
6) Who create this blog? who customize these evidence? Why the police and the star newspaper suddenly can be so sure and start writing about it, “New twist to TBH death” who discover the blog?
#7 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 2:35 pm
@Ken G: Only the most unreasonable will still keep the possibility of suicide open
Well, for highly local values of ‘reasonable’, I expect that some among us may reject any result other than “Pink Lips did it”. What’s ‘reasonable doubt’ for one may not be ‘reasonable doubt’ for another. I expect an Inquest that isn’t going to suffer early accusations of bias will have to set the bar high for reasonable doubt. Likewise, those of us who have already decided what the likely scenarios are should probably keep our reasonable certainties to ourselves, lest we are also accused of bias.
Does anybody know if we (or LKS for hosting the discussion) run any risk of contempt for publishing our discussions of the Inquest while it is in ongoing? I imagine contempt like “monkeys cannot lah” is not contempt, but I wonder about second-guessing the process or anticipating the result.
@pulau_sibu: that’s what I first thought!
@jbozz: Who create this blog?
Has a police report been made about it? I posted a couple of comments here and there about a clue, albeit a poor one. It probably should be followed up by someone more familiar with Malaysia’s political / blogging scene … who is also reasonably computer-literate. You could always ask TM – but I have reasonable doubt.
#8 by sightseeing on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 3:08 pm
//Exactly k1980. ‘Shotgun wedding’ is a well-known colloquialism in the UK – do you have an equivalent here?// OrangRojak
——————————
Please show some human decency and stop beating the death.
#9 by House Victim on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 4:00 pm
1. The non-providing of pathologist (or other forensic, if any) Report is anther mishandling of procedures besides intentionally mis-classified the cause as “Sudden Death” under 329 e) of CPC and not 329 d) as “that the body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known how he came by death”.
2. Section 328 of CPC (Criminal Procedure Code)
Meaning of ‘Cause of Death’
“include not only the apparent cause of death as ascertainable by inspection or post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased, but also all matters necessary to enable an opinion to be formed as to the manner in which the deceased came by his death and as whether his death resulted in any way from, or was accelerated by any unlawful act or omission on the part of any other person”
3. Section 337 of CPC – Inquiries to be made by Magistrate
“A Magistrate holding an inquiry shall inquire when, where, how and after what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of death”
Both 2 & 3 above, requires Investigation of the mishandling of MACC and the circumstances leading to the death of TBH cannot be isolated and should be included in the RCI inquiry!!
4. Section 329 (2) (3) (4) (5) require a Police Report on the investigation and apparent cause of death be available.
5. Therefore, Gobind must make sure
a) the cause be classified under Section 329 d) and not e).
b) Police Report under point 4 above be available besides the Pathologic Report and the Report from MACC,
c) The inquest of Cause of Death to be pended subject to RCI inquiry which should include the circumstances leading to the Death of TBH.
#10 by Jaswant on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 6:44 pm
“Both 2 & 3 above, requires Investigation of the mishandling of MACC and the circumstances leading to the death of TBH cannot be isolated and should be included in the RCI inquiry!! ”
Pakatan wants to connect the two and think public interest is best served with a commission of inquiry rather than a simple inquest. The ruling party does not want to connect the two for fear of opening a can of worms.
Meanwhile Pakatan makes politcal capital of the death of one of their own.
Don’t you think you should step back a little and let the Teoh family have some closure? It is hard enough because you can never get real closure over such matters.
If people are going to be charged with anything then the way forward is for the inquest to come up with the right verdict – and quickly.
#11 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 7:34 pm
‘6) Who create this blog? who customize these evidence? Why the police and the star newspaper suddenly can be so sure and start writing about it, “New twist to TBH death” who discover the blog?’ (jbozz)
Any one who lives long enough in Malaysia will know that The Star is the official newspaper of Barisan Nasional. The Group Chief Editor of the Star Group is a well-to-do member of MCA. All the official news which any influential BN leader wants to make known to the Malaysian public will be disclosed to The Star first. The Star is the most reliable channel for the BN leader to convey message to the public because The Star will never refuse publishing of such a made-up news purportedly asked by the BN Leader in order to serve the political purpose.
Therefore, the murderer of Teoh Beng Hock could possibly be linked to someone who intended to publish the “Black Blog” news!
#12 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 7:56 pm
“It is my profound wish that TBH did not commit suicide. People do. It would be incompetent of the Inquest to rule it out.” (OrangRojak)
OrangRojak,
Don’t worry! The coroner will of course make inquest into the possibility of Teoh’s committing suicide. This is a normal procedure which will have to be followed by the court, especially when the inquest will involve an intense argument between a Deputy Public Prosecutor and a representing legal counsel of the family of the deceased!
However, as a man-on-the-street, I myself will prefer rule out “commit suicide” as a possible cause from my mind now to continue boggling on “commit suicide” as a possible cause. Many circumstantial evidences already pointed out to the very little chance of justifying “commit suicide” as a possible cause.
If I am going to marry a fiancee of mine who already carries my baby and I know that my fiancee loves me so much (please read the blog “Fiancee’s tribute to Beng Hock” which can be linked at the right corner of Lim Kit Siang’s blog), the first thing I want to do is nothing but to ensure that I can live much longer in order to earn much more income to raise my family. This is the essence of the typical Chinese value system which encourages the Chinese people to take up the “family responsibility” and strive hard to provide the best education to the offsprings. Teoh Beng Hock has a good-looking fiancee who is now pregnant. If he could still be alive, he would have another 25 years’ family responsibility in order to for him to raise up his kid as a highly educated person who will contribute much to the society. I really do not see any good reason for Teoh to want to commit suicide.
#13 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 8:31 pm
If there is anything useful for having a good start in the inquest into the true cause leading to Teoh Beng Hock’s death, then I think there is possibility of existence of a murder motive, which might be prompted by “uncontrollable racist hatred” upon suspecting that DAP committed corruption case which was perceivably worse than Umno. It was because DAP was accused for being too greedy by creating fititious transactions in order to pocket 100% contract sum as the supplier income in comparison to Umno’s only pocketing 20% commission from Project Upfront!
Notwithstanding, I do not find the trustworthiness of the accusation of fititious transactions by DAP politicians because the allegation was not supported by strong evidences but only by a make-up story in Sepang which comes with many loopholes!
#14 by goldeneye on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 10:07 pm
Clinging to the possibility of suicide when there are strong circumstances to indicate that Teoh had no reason to commit suicide but every reason to live is perverse. Where is the suicide note?
There are also 3 disturbing questions begging for answers:
1) Why did the MACC have to question him at night?
2) Why as a “cooperative witness’ he had to be grilled for 10 hours if we believe MACC that he was released at 3.45am.
3) Why didn’t Teoh go back immediately when he was released as MACC claimed when his car was parked there?
Let’s postulate that Teoh was abused during interrogation to coerce him to admit an untruth which he refused and the abuse was carried too far which may include threatening to throw him out of the window.
Is this a more believable explanation than suicide? Does this answer the 3 questions above? The answers immediately fall into place:
1) Naturally rogues need the cover of darkness to do evil.
2) They were not questioning him but trying to break him.
3) He was not released at all.
Actually we don’t have to speculate but that was exactly what Tan Boon Wah said he went through.
There are also factors to collaborate this theory such as:
1) Testimonies from previous victims of MACC interrogation have complaint of torture.
2) Teoh’s handphone and wallet was not returned to him when he was “released”.
3) No signed statement to indicate his interrogation was over.
4) MACC was chasing after S’gor PR assemblymen when no public complaints had been lodged against them which indicate malice.
Everything falls elegantly into place and you are not required to make wild and improbable speculation of human behaviour unlike the suicide theory.
So draw your own conclusion.
#15 by Jaswant on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 10:30 pm
Suggested answers to “begging” questions:
Q. Why did the MACC have to question him at night?
A. We never thought it could take longer than a hour but we were forced to keep him in the room until we got back after checking on some information he gave.. He was left alone for most of the time. He was given light refreshments while in our custody. We could not release him because we believed he might interfere with the evidence.
Q. Why as a “cooperative witness’ he had to be grilled for 10 hours if we believe MACC that he was released at 3.45am.
A. He was not “grilled for 10 hours”. He was left on his own for most of the time.. He had to be held incommunicado while we checked on the sources of some information he gave us.
Q. Why didn’t Teoh go back immediately when he was released as MACC claimed when his car was parked there?
A. We can’t answer for him. We don’t know.
#16 by House Victim on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 11:20 pm
#10 by Jaswant on July 29th, 2009 18:44
1. Does the Teoh family want to have a quick “closure” before the cause of Death of TBH being thoroughly revealed?
2. Can PK asked for a RCI when there are not sufficient points of Laws to called for one? Please read the posting in http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2009/07/25/inquest-into-teoh-beng-hock’s-death-on-wednesday-should-be-halted-to-allow-cabinet-to-review-and-widen-terms-of-reference-of-royal-commission-of-inquiry-into-causes-of-teoh’s-death-to/#comments
and my comment #44.
3. Can you explain what is meant by “Simple” inquest?
Do you mean the Court should make a “quote of context” from Section 328 & 337 of CPC?
4. Do you think it is correct for the Police to classify the case as “Sudden Death” so that the Inquest can be “simple” without the going into “the manner in which the deceased came by his death and as whether his death resulted in any way from, or was accelerated by any unlawful act or omission on the part of any other person”?
5. The Inquest is trying to put up the Whole Picture of what could caused the Death of TBH, directly and indirectly. It is for the sake of everyone involved. MACC and the one causing the interrogation are among the suspects of the Cause. Don’t they want to release themselves from any suspicions?
Under the existing “Police State” operation of this country, do you think the General Public should not demand a Strict and Fair Investigation besides PK?
6. Do you think the existing Police, AG and the Court will do it fairly, if they are not properly monitored and be more transparent?
7. Can you see how many BIAS or mishandling had been done so far by those “Governmental” parties involved in this case?
CALLING A FULL RCI INQUIRY IS NOT A POLITICAL MOVE!1 But, legally sound and socially justified!!
PLEASE TAKE THE MATTER FROM THE POINTS OF LAWS AND LOGIC, or Personal Experiences if you have any with the Police, KUP, AG, Court!!
#17 by goldeneye on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 11:20 pm
Jaswant,
The interrogation started at 5.30pm. Tell me what sort of “checking information” can you do after office hours? Which office is open to access documents and who will be around? Are the MACC people so hard working to chase after people at night (after tracing them to their homes) on a RM2400 case?
Truth is simple and has a ring of truth which does not require implausible explanations. It does not throw up more questions in the answers like yours.
#18 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 11:51 pm
Jaswant,
If your reasoning about the MACC investigators’ behaviours is true, then why do you think the DPP officer from Shah Alam DPP office refused to disclose the cautioned statements of two MACC investigators to the representing legal counsel of Teoh’s family, Mr. Gobind Singh?
I guess the MACC investigators will never disclose the truth about their hidden motive in their cautioned statements. The hearts of these callous MACC investigators could have been blinded and hardened by their uncontrollable outrage due to irrational racist hatred because DAP was suspected to have eaten up all the State Government’s money by creating fititious transactions to draw money from the Government Grants, even though this allegation was a false accusation based on no good evidence!
#19 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 - 11:57 pm
Further investigation has to be done on all the bank accounts in relation to the relative of the MACC investigators who were directly involved in the detention of Teoh Beng Hock! We should not rule out the possibility that the MACC investigators were being paid by a mysterious outsider to initiate such a unlawful detention after office hours upon Teoh Beng Hock in order to defame DAP!
#20 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 30 July 2009 - 12:07 am
How are the MACC investigators going to justify that they were spending the whole night interrogating Teoh Beng Hock and Tan Boon Wah simply because of a suspected corruption case involving RM2,400? Why didn’t the MACC investigators just plan out an investigation agenda like sending an undercover or spy to DAP in order to gather much more good evidences? Why did they want to interrogate Teoh Beng Hock and Tan Boon Wah in such a hasty manner? Were they paid by a BIG OUTSIDER BOSS to do the overtime job in the MACC building in order to frame up some evidences against DAP Exco members in Corruption case?
#21 by House Victim on Thursday, 30 July 2009 - 3:56 am
1. http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/general_opinions/comments/ags_explanation_misleading_updated_1230pm_29_july_2009.html
Another BIAS or “Misplacement” of “Professional” or “Joke”! How can a Deputy Registrar of the Shah Alam High Court, Azmil Muntapha Abas, be appointed as the coroner?
Is AG really serious on investigating the Truth?
2. The Bullies Way of Interrogation by MACC are obvious
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/general_opinions/comments/in_memory_of_teoh_beng_hock.html
3. The Post-mortem Report
#4 by nkkhoo on July 20th, 2009 20:25
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2009/07/20/nation-mourns-for-teoh-beng-hock/
4. The Bullies of the Disciplinary Forces that caused Death are too many
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ySV-_sfsiw&eurl=http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/elements_of_incompetency_found_in_pkfz_project.html&feature=player_embedded
5. “Sudden Death”
See how experience the Police is to “impose” “Sudden Death” with the help of even the Health Ministry!
http://politickler.com/2009/05/04/understanding-kugans-post-mortem-in-simple-language/
Should any reasonable minded people have confidence with the Police, AG and the related Government agents via the existing system?
Death of ANYONE should not be foul played!!
#22 by Jaswant on Thursday, 30 July 2009 - 4:35 am
Everything you have said and others have said here is probably true. But I was only suggesting to the MACC officers those were the answers they probably would like to consider giving to investigators. Nobody says that is the truth or that you should take that as representing the truth.
The object of the inquest is not to attribute or apportion blame or culpability to any one party. The sole purpose of the inquest as in all other inquests is to determine the cause of death and to determine if there is foul play meaning a crime has been committed by person or persons unknown. In the event of a finding of foul play, criminal investigation and charges will have to be filed against the suspect or suspects. Those are matters outside the scope of the inquest.
The finding of the inquest will provide the foundation for any criminal investigation. If the finding is one of suicide then what’s left to investigate?
#23 by Jaswant on Thursday, 30 July 2009 - 4:50 am
There is no need to hold a commission of inquiry. Of course, Pakatan would want that for obvious reasons. Among others, to create political capital for use and in readiness for the coming general elections. Justice for the Teoh family is secondary. That’s the sad truth.
Truth has but only one version. It does not matter if you are with BN or with Pakatan.
#24 by House Victim on Thursday, 30 July 2009 - 1:59 pm
#21 by Jaswant on July 30th, 2009 04:35
“The sole purpose of the inquest as in all other inquests is to determine the cause of death and to determine if there is foul play meaning a crime has been committed by person or persons unknown”
In this case, should the foul play of MACC be one of the points? And, wasn’t it the target of inquiry by the RCI proposed by the PM?
#25 by Jaswant on Thursday, 30 July 2009 - 5:48 pm
One step at a time. The rest is the work of the CID.