//How would outsiders know that TBH needed to be silenced?// – Loh

Just need someone in the inside in complicity with the outside to make a phone call to the outside of what TBH was going to sign and who’s going to implicate, and then later open the door from one of the lesser used entrances (not monitored by CCTV) for outsider to come in!

///I am very doubtful about TBH’s case because in today’s newspaper, the LINGAM case is closed/// – #26 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 22 October 2009.

If you’re looking for the truth of who killed TBH, the foregone conclusion is that 99.999% it will never be known.

The inquest, which is to find out ‘whodunnit’, has to proceed on facts investigated by police. However the police have not investigated it with open mind that it could be suicide or homicide. Instead according to 9th witness Government DNA expert Dr Seah Lay Hong, instructions from police investigators did not include the possibility of Teoh Beng Hock being murdered and that angle had not been specifically considered in her analyses operating within the framework of “suicide” only. Govt forensic psychiatrist Dr Prashant Samberkar postulated suicide theory but conceded under cross examination that it was important to know the psychological state of the deceased to determine suicide (which he didn’t know). Now suddenly to fill in the psychiatric angle, they’re calling in Hiew Kim Boon, Kajang municipal councillor Tan Boon Wah and DAP MP Teresa Kok’s assistant Mandy Hui to be interviewed by psychiatrists in order to determine the state of mind of Teoh Beng Hock prior to his death.

The suicide theory also reposes on TBH’s climbing on the ledge and jumping off but there’s no forensic evidence of his finger prints on the dusty window or ledge to show that he climbed it. The fact that TBH’s belt had irregular tear in his belt (consistent with someone holding on to it to fling him out of the window) and DNA profiles of at least two unidentified men in TBH’s jacket and trousers also contradict the suicide theory. And now a callous investigation into TBH’s finances – just to show that financial pressure in meeting weding costs could drive him to suicide – show that investigation has, right from beginning being skewed to prove suicide than to ascertain the unvarnished truth of how and whodunnit! So what chance is there that the Inquest could ascertain the truth when it only has from the forensic investigations of govt forensic experts selective facts to buttress the theory of suicide presented in evidence before it by people whose livelihood depend on being in good books of the powers-that-be?

Selangor state govt gets a neutral Thai Forensic expert (Dr Pornthip) to give her findings of 80% homicide possibility. NST already put her on first page under byline “Bombshell in Court”.

I don’t know “bomshell” is a reference to her testimony of 80% homicide or her wearing a tight top, long black skirt and boots, and sporting funky red and light brown streaks in her hair to the Inquest!

The govt’s acceding to request of Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) is based on Inquest findings being unsatisfactory. If the findings were “suicide”, then there is no RCI. And even if there were RCI, it is probably addressing MACC’s investigative techniques and procedures, not necessarily related how he dies or who caused it within Inquest’s purview. RCI on V.K. Lingam video clip already established authenticity of the tapes – the conversations were heard and events corroborated them – yet today they have decided no action would be taken against VK Lingam or even former chief justice holidaying with him in New Zealand. It is reported that no evidence is found to prove abuse of power in judicial appointments. There’s no evidence because there’s no active investigation of these issues, and today VK Lingam is still counsel acting for Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad successful bid to strike out the appeal filed by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in a RM100 million defamation suit against TDM for calling him a homosexual.

So how hopeful are we that the RCI could in context of TBH’s case get us anywhere (if the Inquest were not in position to find out the truth?)

Moral of the story: the “System”, instead of having within itself check and balances to prevent abuse of power, is sending out the signal that it always takes care of its own; that you are either part of the system and protects it as it will in turn profit you – and protect you even when you’re out of office or you are against the system where every part of its component parts will operate in unison against you.

A lot of good men and salt of the earth will not be prepared to fight the system – unless a Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s exceptional type.

Even armed with truth and justice, one generally can’t fight the system and win when the level playing field is tilted all around against him by a solid monolithic system with money and power dedicated to its own self preservation.

Of course to many they will take the realistic approach of joining that which they cannot fight and win.

Section 332 of the Penal Code – Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.

But Magistrate said “even a video recording submitted by the defence showed he had resisted arrest. Although the video recording did not show the biting, I believe it did as the policeman had testified that he had punched the accused and Chua had retaliated by biting.” – Source Malaysiakini report

This is then a case of policeman (Constable Rosyaidi) punching Tian Chua first and Chua had “retaliated” by biting (in magistrate’s words).

Now police have the right to use reasonable force if one resists arrest. He can for example physically wrestle your arm to hand cuff you.

However, does reasonable force include punching Chua??? Is it discharging public duty to punch? Who is voluntarily causing hurt?

Doesn’t a party like Tian Chua, attacked in this way by force (punch) likely to cause bodily harm, have right to self defence by biting to avert further punches?

Onlooker Politics,

Whatever institutionalised racism there is (generally) in policies and even attitudes of law enforcement agencies, I don’t think that in a multi racial country we should just so readily (in frustration and anger) attribute and interpret any abuse of power along racial lines without clear proof of the specific circumstances and persons under review. (This kind of atribution aggravates the racial divide, don’t you think so?)

For example, the abuses alleged to be commited by MACC when interrogating : it is easy to say TBH was treated such because he was non-Malay when for all we know it could happen to even a Malay.

We tend to selectively forget, for example, the other allegation by UMNO Maran Division Committee Member Halimi Kamaruzzaman that he was roughed up and forced to strip by MACC officers in a politically-motivated investigation targeting another UMNO politician Norza Zakaria.

It seems to me that if true, the overzealousness of doing everything outside the book to implicate a target could be more influenced by desire to ingratiate the boss by getting the politically desired result than motivated by the race of the victim mistreated. Anwar Ibrahim himself was roughed up in custody by no less a person than the then IGP!

///Pornthip fails to indicate how she came to the consclusion of 80% murder and 20% suicide./// – grkumar

The preponderence of Pornthip’s assessment is 80% homicide based on forensics (strangulation in neck, brises on thighs & injury at anus) and generally what Loh observed above.

When grKumar says, “suicide is the consequence of a mental state of mind resulting in a decision to take one’s life and is not the function of the body”, he should first question government forensic experts, how prior to determining TBH’s mentals take, they came to inference that it was suicide!

Take for examples:

· Govt forensic psychiatrist Dr Prashant Samberkar postulated suicide theory but conceded under cross examination that it was important to know the psychological state of the deceased to determine suicide (which he didn’t know); or

· according to 9th witness Government DNA expert Dr Seah Lay Hong, instructions from police investigators did not include the possibility of Teoh Beng Hock being murdered and that angle had not been specifically considered in her analyses operating within the framework of “suicide” only’.

Why doesn’t grkumar question the bias of government’s forensic psychiatrist DNA expert or police investigations concentrating on suicide theory without prior examination of TBH’s state of mind earlier?

And to say that “Malaysia’s lawyers are about 99% half baked”, thats patronising, and I wonder what’s the basis he says that, whether he include government lawyers as well, and whats the relevance of this toan assessment of Pornthip’s findings discussed here.

If our lawyers are 99% half baked I woonder whose lawyers are full baked – English, American, Singapore’s or Thai lawyers or what? Hah ha ha!