Ten questions about ‘Teoh’s note’

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 10 (Malaysian Insider)— Questions are now popping up over a “note” found last year in Teoh Beng Hock’s sling bag ‘that may throw some light regarding his death’ after the Attorney-General’s Chambers denied suppressing evidence in his death inquiry.

The AG’s Chambers issued a statement last night about the discovery of the note by Investigating Officer ASP Ahmad Nazri Zainal last October 7, more than two months after Teoh’s death.

Question 1 — Why did the investigating officer take two months to say he found the note in Teoh’s sling bag a day after the political secretary to Selangor executive councilor, Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16 last year.

Question 2 — Why do the police look like they are lackadaisical in investigating this death? Did they need a psychiatrist to tell them to look for a suicide note?

Question 3 — Why would the police even consider it a suicide case before finding the note? Were they looking for evidence to show its suicide?

Question 4 — Why did it take time after the note was translated to verify it? Wasn’t it a matter of utmost urgency?

Question 5 — Is it really a note in Teoh’s handwriting? What proof is there?

Question 6 — Why is the AG’s Chambers revealing it now and not immediately after it tested the note for authenticity or at the outset of the inquest? If the AG wasn’t satisfied then, why is he satisfied now to speak about the existence of the note?

Question 7 — Will the AG be satisfied to reveal the note on August 18 when the inquest resumes and hears Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand’s testimony? She did say it was probably 80 per cent homicide and only 20 per cent suicide.

Question 8 — How many people had access to the sling bag before the police officer found the note? Is there a chain of evidence and custody to show the bag has not been tampered with? The inordinate amount of time is suspicious.

Question 9 — Why would a man about to be married to the mother of his unborn child commit suicide after overnight questioning? Did a psychiatrist think such a man would consider suicide?

Question 10 — Is this ‘note’ the tipping point to end the inquest, to clear the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and to remove the need to have a Royal Commission of Inquiry into their investigating procedures?

The public has a right to know as the AG’s statement last night was scarce on details.

All it said was Ahmad Nazri recently owned up that he did find the note when he searched the sling bag on July 17 last year but did not realise the significance of it as other documents were also found and that they were written in both Chinese and Roman characters.

The statement said the AG’s Chambers was equally startled by the discovery of the note and had instructed an investigation to be carried out.

The note was immediately translated and there was sufficient cause to send it to be analysed by a document examiner at the Chemistry Department on October 9 and subsequently on October 20 last year, it added.

It said the document examiner prepared his report and they were considered by Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, himself and who was not convinced of the authenticity of the note due to insufficient samples to verify the handwriting, in particular the Chinese characters.

In addition, the note was said to have been discovered some two over months after Teoh’s death and that this would raise suspicion over its authenticity and discovery.

It statement noted that the AG’s Chambers was earlier briefed by the investigation officer that he conducted a thorough search after being advised by a psychiatrist that, ordinarily, a note would be left in a suicide case.

“As a result of this, the attorney-general decided to put the note in and directed the investigation officer to explain this in court to avoid any repercussion in future and let the coroner decide on its weight after considering the explanation by the investigation officer and the document examiner’s report,” it said.

The statement said the AG’s Chambers felt that there was no suppression or withholding of evidence and that the decision for not tendering the note earlier was made based on the document examiner’s report as well as the discovery of the note which could give rise to suspicion.

“The Attorney-General’s Chambers will tender the document as evidence only when and until it is satisfied that any shroud of suspicion surrounding it is lifted,” it added.