Mamak gives Cops a bad name
Flawed investigation reflects badly on police — Lim Sue Goan
The development is certainly helpful. The RCI hearing so far has also exposed the problem of lack of professionalism in the police investigation.
RCI chairman Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen said that he could not understand why the police forensic teams did not conduct the second investigation more seriously when they returned to Plaza Masalam, where the political aide was found dead, three days later.
He pointed out that evidence might have been destroyed as they only returned to the scene three days after Teoh’s death.
Foong also wondered why the team for the second investigation didn’t collect the fingerprints and a shoe print for examination at the crime laboratory.
Two police officers, meanwhile, had given conflicting evidence at the inquiry.
According to C/Insp Mazli Jusoh of the Selangor police forensics department, no shoe print was found at a window frame of Plaza Masalam’s 14th floor on the day when Teoh was found dead.
But Bukit Aman’s DSP Shahrul Othman Mansor, who conducted the second investigation three days after Teoh was found dead, testified that a shoe print was found at the bottom of the window frame when scanned with an ultraviolet light.
Since there are two versions of findings, shouldn’t their superiors take immediate actions to find out whose finding is right rather than wait until the RCI hearing?
Since a 9-inch show print is found, shouldn’t the police investigate the shoe sizes of related Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officials to see whether any of their shoe print matched the shoe print found at the scene?
Another “startling discovery” is that after Teoh was found dead on 16 July 2009, his mobile phone had been switched on the next day and two SMSes were read.
Foong was surprised to hear the testimony of Insp Mohd Zaidi Abu Hassan, an investigating officer in the computer crime section. Foong also tried to confirmed with the commissioner responsible to guide witnesses whether the discovery had been mentioned during the inquest.
Foong had repeatedly asked whether anyone had brought up the question before. In fact, it is also a question asked by the public.
Why didn’t the authorities find out who had read the SMSes? It should not be difficult to do so since not many people had access to Teoh’s mobile phone.
The sixth witness also revealed that the police had not found anything to indicate that Teoh had jumped out of the window. Why didn’t we hear of such testimony before?
Too many questions and a flawed investigation had led the RCI to appoint independent investigators to help probe the cause of Teoh’s death. The Malaysian Bar Council has suggested that the RCI seek the assistance of the Hong Kong Police.
If the independent investigators are given sufficient power, then they can conduct an in-depth investigation based on the doubtful points raised at the RCI so far. They will have to seek the assistance of mobile phone experts to recover deleted SMSes and call records in Teoh’s mobile phone.
From another perspective, would the appointment of independent investigators be a blow to the police image, suggesting that they had been incompetent?
Hopefully, the police force will learn a lesson from Teoh’s case and enhance its professionalism to maintain its credibility. — mysinchew.com
Comments