AG admitted that sling bag of TBH was initial searched and the note was not found. This was a proof that the "suicide note" was not originally there by the own admission of AG.
What happened 2 months later could be easily planted by any unknown person, most probably from the work of high profile cover-up as officials from MACC are blamed to be responsible for the death of the key witness.
Now the IO should be investigated for his poor work and must be fired for non-disclosure of the "personal note" to TBH's family. If it was genuine, it was a personal note and no one can conceal it from his family.
If it was a fake note, most probably so based on the weight of evidence that "According to the Investigation Officer it was not found when he first searched the deceased's sling bag after the incident." which is a proof that the suicide note does not exist after the death of TBH but being planted 2 months later.
Just review the nature of injuries of Teoh Beng Hock. Are these photos of a person who committed suicide?
Clues:
1) The shoe's base shows severe abrasion possibly caused from dragging
2) The trouser's buttock was torn possibly from hitting the aluminium windowsill
3) The underwear was not torn as bad as the trouser proving that the pull was likely on the trouser to lift TBH from the floor to the window
Quote
Good Lord, a suicide note from Teoh Beng Hock!
Posted by Took almost a year to get it out to the open ! on August 10, 2010 at 06:36:01:
Good Lord, a suicide note from Teoh Beng Hock!
Share
Richard Loh
Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:24
teoh-beng-hock-summary-of-2009 OPINION 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: In italic is the AG statement and my rebuttal in normal font.
"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. According to the Investigation Officer it was not found when he first searched the deceased's sling bag after the incident."
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". 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?
To me, the only reason is to plant fabricated evidence.
"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."
Should not all parties be informed unless they are trying to fabricate evidence.
"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."
These are just frivolous statement, a camouflage for appeasing those who are stupid.
"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.
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."
This is indeed a masterpiece, base on psychiatric advice, they went hunting for a suicide note and wallah! a suicide note was discovered. How convenient, they found nothing in the first search, but after talking to the psychiatric they suddenly managed to find one suicide note.
Can you see how sloppy they are? Even when wanting to plant fabricated evidence.
— Malaysia for AllUnquote
