Cerita dan spekulasi tentang nota bunuh diri TBH bukanlah baru. Awal Ogos atau sekitar Julai, malah sebelum itu, blogger-blogger UMCO sudah menulis fasal hal ini. Saya kira nota itu hanya teori dan spekulasi. Namun hal ini dimaklumkan kepada peguam TBH dan perkembangan terbaru itu sudah tentulah membuatkan mereka berang. Kata Gorbind:

‘Prosiding inkues sudah berjalan selama setahun dengan beberapa pakar tampil memberi keterangan dan tiada siapa pun yang maklumkan tentang wujudnya bukti tersebut.

‘‘Hari ini, seminggu sebelum Dr. Pornthip memberi keterangan, mereka mengaku dokumen itu berada dalam simpanan mereka selama ini. Dokumen itu sangat penting dan sepatutnya ia dikemukakan sejak awal lagi,’’ tegas beliau.

Gobind turut mempertikaikan tindakan Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail yang kononnya menyembunyikan dokumen tersebut selain mendakwa kemungkinan masih terdapat dokumen lain yang belum dikemukakan.

Katanya, bahan bukti tersebut merupakan satu perkara serius dan kegagalan mengemukakannya sebaik kes bermula adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah.

Orang yang mengikuti kes ini tentu berasa pelik. Mengapa baru sekarang nota itu muncul? Walhal nota itu dikatakan telah dijumpai 3 bulan selepas TBH meninggal dunia. Mengapa cerita fasal nota ini sampai ke blogger UMCO dahulu dan bukannya pasukan peguam TBH? Jika benar nota itu wujud sebelum bermulanya inkues atau pada awal inkues, mengapa bukti sepenting itu tidak dibentangkan lebih awal kerana tindakan itu dapat menyelamatkan duit dan masa daripada dibuang untuk mengadakan inkues dan sebagainya?

Selain itu, agak pelik apabila orang yang mahu membunuh diri menyimpan nota tentang hal itu sehingga sukar dijumpai oleh orang lain. Berdasarkan laporan di bawah ini, nota itu dijumpai selepas pegawai penyiasat membuat pemeriksaan kedua terhadap beg yang dimaksudkan. Maknanya, mereka tidak menjumpai nota itu ketika pertama kali meyelongkar beg itu. Walhal orang yang ingin membunuh diri akan memastikan nota tentang hasratnya itu mudah dijumpai oleh orang lain.

Jika benarlah kes ini dirasmikan sebagai kes bunuh diri, saya kira ini adalah kes bunuh diri yang unik dan luar biasa selain orang yang membunuh diri itu dikatakan mahu berkahwin dan bakal menjadi bapa tidak lama sebelum "dia memutuskan" untuk membunuh diri, nota bunuh dirinya pula begitu misteri sifatnya!

Banyak persoalan yang mahu dilontarkan. Saya berkongsi pendapat dengan blog Malaysia For All. Daripada saya menulis semula persoalan tersebut, saya pautkan kirimannya untuk dikongsikan dengan anda. Saya petik:

Why want to waste the public fund and the hundreds of man-hour spent on the inquest of Teoh Beng Hock's death. The AG is such a powerful man that he can order the case shut and just chop the usual NFA on the file. Or is it the AG wanted to show Malaysians and the world how our justice system can be toyed around by the powerful leaders as and when they like and even to the extend of their capability to cover-up murders?

I must admit that there is no time limit for evidences to surface even if the case is closed and should it warrant, the case can be re-opened. Likewise for the murder of Altantuya, even though the murderers had been found guilty and sentence to death, should new evidence surface to show another person or the mastermind 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 Chamber regarding this new found evidence is nothing more than to show how sloppy the investigation was carried out from the initial stage and heavy suspicion of planting fabricated evidence.

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 red.

"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 wanted 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 but only after two months then they discovered it.

From a layman understanding, after the police, macc, AG, the forensic and hospital had fully completed their investigation all personal belongings of the deceased would have been itemised, tagged and recorded after a thorough searched. 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 was 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 the psychiatric advised, they go hunting for a suicide note and wah lah, a suicide note was discovered. How convenience, they found nothing in the first search but after talking to the psychiatric they managed to find one suicide note.

You still cannot see how sloppy they can be, wanting to plant a fabricated evidence?

Selamat memasuki ke alam misteri...


* Maaf, gambar sekadar hiasan.