Please Include The Coroner In The Lie Detector Test And Star Is Misreporting What The Policeman Said.

I really feel that it is going beyond ridiculous. Huge amounts of public funds, human resources (that could be better used elsewhere) and time are being wasted in the latest round of Police investigations after the Coroner ruled that the case is a murder instead of an accident or kemalangan.

Here is a Star news report and a video and then I have some comments :

lie detector test will be used question certain witnesses 

during investigations into death of fireman 

Bukit Aman CID director Huzir said that they would be working with MACC 

those that are needed to have the test conducted 

will tap expertise of MACC to conduct polygraph tests

This is to ensure that their statements are true

seven individuals main witnesses

because they were near where incident occurred

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/11/20/cops-to-use-lie-detector-tests-for-witnesses-in-probe-into-fireman-adib039s-death#LB3z7CiShOpblI3b.99

Here is the video :  

If the video does not pop up here is the link :  https://www.thestartv.com/v/cops-to-use-lie-detector-in-adib-s-probe?jwsource=cl

My comments : 

Straight away may I suggest that the lie detector test also include the coroner.

Just ask the Coroner a simple question : Do you really believe the fireman was murdered, please answer either Yes or No.

That's all. Lets see what the lie detector says.

If they are going to use a lie detector test, then to get to the truth and to be fair, please apply the lie detector test on everyone who gave testimony at the Inquest.

The Star has misreported that the lie detector test will only be used on seven witnesses. 

'Huzir said seven key witnesses believed to be present during the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple chaos will undergo a lie detector test' - The Star.

The Policeman said no such thing. 

You can see the video yourself at minute 1:40 onwards where the Policeman said (or close to this ok - you can listen to the video again) -

1:40 mendapat kerjasama daripada pihak SPRM yang telah menganalisa dua video dalam inkues berkenaan . . pihak SPRM juga telah membuat cadangan bahawa beberapa saksi yang kita perlu panggil semula untuk kita rakam percakapan mereka dan kita buat polygraph (lie detector).

There is no mention of lie detector test  for seven witnesses only. 

The Policeman says SPRM membuat cadangan bahawa beberapa saksi yang kita perlu panggil semula ...

May I also suggest that the hospital staff who looked after the late Adib also be called to take the lie detector test. 

Especially that story where Adib was said to have communicated to just one hospital staff using sign language that he had been "pulled out of the van". 

This story has to be carefully checked out because very strangely Adib never used sign language or normal language to say any such thing to his own mother or father or to the Police who did monitor him while he was recovering in hospital.

The other two fellows who must also be given the lie detector test should be that 

1. Bomba truck driver that crashed into the EMRS van 

2. as well as that other fellow who said that he climbed back into the EMRS van (just before it was rammed by that Bomba truck??) 

There is something else very peculiar. If you listen to minute 1:21 of the video above the Policeman says :

1:21 "di mana tempat kejadian kemalangan tersebut".

He uses the word 'tempat kejadian kemalangan'.  A kemalangan is an accident.  Which is exactly what the Hospital Kuala Lumpur pathologist "indicated" - that Adib was hit by the van (which in turn was hit by the reversing Bomba truck - my words).

The coroner has already ruled that this is a murder case - kes pembunuhan.  But the fact that the Police keep referring to 'tempat kejadian kemalangan'  seems to reflect the real feelings of the Police about this case. It was a kemalangan or accident.

The IGP is already on record as saying that there is no more new evidence. Meaning they have to relook the existing evidence that has been already provided. 

A lie detector test should help although I don't think the results of lie detector tests are permissible in a Court of Law.  

I do hope the lie detector tests are used fairly and objectively - not to intimidate or bully anyone into bungling, fumbling or mumbling their answers and such. 

Prof Shahrom and that physicist are also going to be called.