When Adib died of his injuries, police reclassified the case as murder. And yet, instead of instructing the police to re-arrest the suspects (who had been released on police bail), AG Tommy Thomas decided to hold an inquest.
“As police has classified the case under Section 302 of the Penal Code, it is only right that the suspects are rearrested and remanded to prevent a failure of the legal system.” – Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, President of Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia (PPBM)
Whether or not those suspects were the killers is secondary at this juncture but if Tommy gets his way for the outcome of the inquest to conclude that Adib was not assaulted then the killers won’t be hunted down. They will be free because the police won’t be going after anyone at all. NFA. Tutup file. Tommy will be the hero of the Indian community.
When Tommy Thomas called for an inquest, many suspected that the purpose was to manipulate the legal system to complicate the murder case to get the killers of the hook.
This was after earlier on:
(1) Tommy Thomas himself said that it was a brutal attack;
(2) Tun Mahathir himself said that there was intention or attempt to kill Adib;
(3) The then IGP Tan Sri Fuzi Harun had said Adib’s injuries were due to him having been assaulted.
“He (Tommy Thomas) said that they considered the incidents with utmost gravity, as they have caused much alarm among the public and that the brutal attack on firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim was particularly appalling.”
– The Star 29/11/2018
“Melihat kepada keadaan mangsa, nampak jelas orang yang melakukannya mempunyai niat untuk membunuh. Kita sedang berusaha sebaik mungkin mencari pelakunya.”
– Tun Mahathir (MalaysiaKini 28/11/2018)
“Kalau tak dipukul, macam mana dia boleh jadi cedera sampai kritikal ketiki ini.”
– Tan Sri Fuzi Harun
Tommy Thomas is an interested person in the temple fiasco and inquest
So why the u-turn by Tommy Thomas? Public perception is that he is afraid he will be seen as a failure by the Indian community. If he could get Lim Guan Eng, Rafizi, Siti Kassim, Kim Jong-nam’s assassin and the maid’s abuser off the hook then why shouldn’t he do the same with Adib’s murder suspects?
What motive would Tommy Thomas have? Read: Tommy Thomas conflicted: He mediated on behalf of Seafield Hindu Temple!
RPK was very blunt in suggesting there was going to be a cover up: https://www.malaysia-today.net/2018/12/20/police-dispute-fireman-adibs-autopsy-report/
Whatever the hidden motive or reasons, his actions and words speak the loudest. They show that he wants the inquest to conclude that Adib was not beaten up despite evidence to the contrary. Tommy Thomas is up to no good.
Inquest to determine cause of Adib’s death
The temple’s priest claimed Adib was mowed down by a fire truck but this was proven to be untrue. Adib, who was part of the EMRS team, was wearing a regular camouflage uniform (right picture) while the person referred to by the priest wore a fire-resistant Nomex suit and helmet (left picture).
The person the priest saw was not Adib. It was someone else in the Nomex suit– Mohd Hazim Mohd Rahimi, who did run past a fire truck but was not mowed down.
This was further confirmed by PDRM’s ASP Lew Keng Joe of the Subang Jaya district police headquarters.
The first time that Adib’s vehicle was hit, he was still in the vehicle. He was not injured.
Anggota bomba, Muhammad Adib Mohd Kasim masih berada di dalam van Unit Bantuan Perkhidmatan Kecemasan (EMRS) ketika jentera Fire Rescue Tender (FRT) berundur sewaktu diserang sekumpulan orang awam. Pegawai Perubatan yang juga pemandu van EMRS berkenaan, Ahmad Shahril Othman, berkata ketika FRT berkenaan berundur, ia seperti menolak kenderaan dipandunya. Katanya, ketika itu Muhammad Adib berada di sebelahnya dan mereka masih berkomunikasi.
“FRT tidak berapa laju sangat. Saya masih berkomunikasi dengannya (Muhammad Adib).
Adib was not outside of the vehicle when the fire truck hit the EMRS. So he could not have been sandwiched between the fire truck and the EMRS van nor be hit by door of the van — because he was in the van at that time (before later being forcibly pulled out).
Adib said he was beaten up
You can call hundreds of witnesses but what is not so clear cut about Adib’s own testimony?
Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim mengakui dirinya dipukul dengan peralatan dan ditarik daripada van Unit Bantuan Perkhidmatan Kecemasan (EMRS), pada 27 November lalu. Pengakuan Muhammad Adib itu dibuat selepas 15 soalan dikemukakan kepadanya oleh Ketua Balai Bomba dan Penyelamat (JBPM) Subang Jaya, Syed Shahril Anuar Syed Sulaiman, 39.
“Saya tanya, Adib boleh tulis? Dia angguk dan nurse (jururawat) bagi papan putih dan pen marker.Dia ambil dokumen itu dengan tangan kiri dan pegang. Dia baca dokumen itu dan saya kata akan bacakan dan mohon tandakan mana satu nak jawab. Adib bagi isyarat pen dan saya serahkan pen kepadanya. Ketika itu, Adib bersandar di katil, saya di kiri katil dan Syafik di sebelah kanan katil”
1. Adakah musuh cuba buka pintu kenderaan masa kenderaan berundur? Ya.
2. Adakah Adib cuba halang dan tahan pintu daripada terbuka? Ya
3. Adakah mereka berjaya membuka pintu EMRS? Ya
4. Apakah perasaan Adib ketika mereka cuba buka pintu kenderaan? Tertekan.
5. Adakah Adib ditarik keluar dari kenderan EMRS? Ya.
6. Jika ditarik, adakah mereka tarik Adib di bahagian mana? Bahu
7. Apakah Adib terjatuh selepas ditarik. (Tiada jawapan).
8. Adakah semasa Adib terjatuh selepas ditarik, Adib dipukul? (Tiada jawapan).
9. Semasa Adib dipukul, adakah sedar atau tidak? (Tiada jawapan).
10. Adakah mereka memukul dengan peralatan? Ya.
11. Jika gunakan peralatannya adakah nampak? Tidak.
12. Peralatan apakah yang digunakan semasa pukul? Lain-lain.
13. Adakah Adib sedar semula di lokasi atau hospital? Hospital.
14. Adakah Adib terasa terancam ketika situasi itu? Ya.
15. Adakah Adib cuba bertindak mempertahankan diri ketika itu? (Tiada jawapan).
Adib was beaten up. There was no reason for him to lie.
Prof Dr Shahrom Abd Wahid vs Dr Ahmad Hafizam Hasmi
Dr Ahmad Hafizam (24th witness) is forensic expert with Hospital KL and was the forensic doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on Muhammad Adib.
Dr Shahrom (29th witness) was forensics expert at UKM Medical Centre / former senior forensic and pathology consultant at Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz. He was brought in by Syazlin Mansor, the lawyer who represented Kementerian Perumahan & Kerajaan Tempatan, Jabatan Bomba and Adib’s family (before she withdrew under Tommy’s instruction).
(1) Dr Ahmad Hafizam Hasmi’s report — nonsense
“I was informed by the investigating officer that the driver of the Fire and Rescue Department’s Emergency Medical Rescue Services (EMRS) van, who was with the deceased in the van, said he (Muhammad Adib) was not inside the van after the fire truck suddenly reversed, which had caused the rear of the truck to hit the front of the van.
“Based on that information, I am of the opinion that the most probable event that happened – if indeed the deceased was outside of the EMRS van – was that the deceased was standing and facing the rear of the van with his back towards the fire truck (when the fire truck reversed into the EMRS van).
“The (upper back) left side of the deceased’s body received the full impact of the edge of the left front passenger door of the EMRS van and this led to his back ribs – ribs number one to seven – to break.
“The impact from the door frame also caused the deceased to lurch forward and fall with his limbs outstretched, facing forward.
“The right side of his torso collided with a hard surface that was raised, such as the curb at the road shoulder or any other hard structures around the area, with force and this caused injuries on the deceased’s right thorax,” he said.
He added that scratches on Muhammad Adib’s right knee and left elbow were also consistent with him falling forward due to the impact.
All this, he told the coroner’s court, happened within 10 seconds.
Dr Ahmad Hafizam also said Muhammad Adib’s injuries were inconsistent with being beaten up.
“The pattern of injuries on the deceased’s thorax was inconsistent with that of being kicked or punched.
“Apart from that, there were no injuries on the face, head, abdomen, upper limbs and lower limbs that would match injuries sustained after being hit or while defending one’s self that could be found on the deceased,” he said.
However, he did not rule out the possibility that the fireman’s injuries were caused by him being sandwiched between two vehicles.
Source: The Star 23/3/2019 – Expert: Adib likely hit by van
If you ask me, Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s theory is too iffy and wishy washy. He already qualified and assumed that Adib was outside the van when the fire truck hit the EMRS. Remember he said, “if indeed the deceased was outside of the EMRS van” and there is no evidence nor rational explanation to show that Adib was outside when the two vehicles collided. If? If your aunty had a moustache she’d be your uncle.
Furthermore, the EMRS driver said that Adib was not inside the van after the fire truck suddenly reversed, not at the time that the van was hit. In fact, the driver’s testimony was very clear when he said, “Adib Mohd Kasim masih berada di dalam van… ketika jentera Fire Rescue Tender (FRT) berundur sewaktu diserang sekumpulan orang awam“. This was further confirmed by PDRM’s ASP Lew Keng Joe.
It follows that everything else about how Adib fell and sustained the injuries is nonsense. I’m not saying Dr Ahmad Hafizam lied but that his theory was fundamentally flawed when premised upon the false presumption that Adib was outside the vehicle when the fire truck hit the EMRS when clearly the EMRS driver said that Adib was in the van.
Dr Ahmad Hafizam also did not rule out the possibility that Adib was sandwiched between the two vehicles, which really doesn’t make any sense at all. How can injuries as a result of being sandwiched between the two vehicles be the same as being hit by a door and then falling down causing more injuries? My point is that it seems Dr Ahmad Hafizam had already decided (or had been instructed to say) that Adib was not assaulted hence also later saying that injuries were not consistent with being beaten up.
Sorry, I don’t buy Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s iffy theory. Now let’s listen to Dr Shahrom.
(2) Dr Shahrom’s report — realistic
Dr Shahrom said that Muhammad Adib’s injuries were not self-inflicted, but were caused by “persons other than the fireman”.
“The victim died due to critical injuries to his left and right lungs, which were caused by blunt force trauma.
“The blunt force trauma was not self-inflicted but was done by two or more persons,” he told the coroner’s court.
He added that the possible course of events was that Muhammad Adib was pulled out of the van, and while he was between the van and its door, someone forcefully kicked the door, and as the fireman was pulled further outwards, the door was kicked again.
He said that he made the conclusion based on the injuries to Muhammad Adib, which were scrape wounds (luka sagat) on his right chest, the back of his waist, while his ribs were broken.
“The injuries suggest that the victim was pulled out from where he was sitting (front passenger side).
“The edge of the door was then forcefully kicked (from the outside) which caused the scrape wound and broken ribs on the right side of his chest,” he said, adding that the door was kicked again, causing bruises on the fireman’s upper right arm.
He said that Muhammad Adib’s uniform was also missing buttons number one, two, and four, which supported the theory that the fireman was forcefully pulled out from the EMRS van.
“There was also a scrape wound at the back of his waist – that would not have been there if one was to come down on his own from the van,” he added.
He said that the whole incident could have taken place in a short time, from five to eight seconds.
Source: The Star 9/4/2019 – Adib inquest: Possible fireman was forcibly pulled out of vehicle, says forensics expert
Dr Shahrom’s theory makes sense. Definitely much more sense that Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s. Unlike Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s qualified statement (“if indeed the deceased was outside the EMRS van”), Dr Shahrom did not have to speculate if indeed this or if indeed that.
Shahrom considered as incorrect the hypothesis that Adib had got down by himself and was then hit by the van’s door while it was reversing and thus should be examined.
Based on the controlled experiment which he conducted, Shahrom concluded that it was almost improbable to say that the accident could have broken any of Adib’s ribs.
“The hypothesis states that Adib got down from the van by himself and was hit by the front door when the van reversed, then flung to the front and landed on the road shoulder.
“I find that the hypothesis was not tested.”
Shahrom said there was also a big possibility that Adib was attacked by rioters from behind or near the van.
Source: The Mole 19/4/2019 – Adib inquest: Doctor confused by contradictions in autopsy summary
Dr Ahmad Hafizam was then recalled to explain the differences between his report versus Dr Shahrom Abd Wahid’s theory:
Dr Ahmad Hafizam tries to discredit Dr Shahrom’s theory
Dr Shahrom had stated that Muhammad Adib could have been forcefully pulled out of the EMRS van as several persons were kicking the door of the van at the same time, resulting in his injuries. Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s report, on the other hand, stated that Muhammad Adib’s injuries were inconsistent with an assault. Dr Ahmad Hafizam said that the areas at the side of the EMRS van’s front passenger seat and driver seat were considered as danger zones, as the van was being pushed backwards by the fire truck then.
“In my opinion, in this situation the (front passenger door) side of the EMRS van was a danger zone. This goes for the (driver’s) side on the right as well, taking into account the large size of the fire truck. So if the door of the passenger side was opened, it can be a dangerous object and it can hit anyone who was within the danger zone. If someone was pulling him from behind, the door can hit the person pulling him as well,” he said.
He said Dr Shahrom’s theory was inconsistent with the situation and the surroundings. Dr Ahmad Hafizam also asserted that injuries found on the body of Muhammad Adib during the autopsy were inconsistent with the theory that the fireman was forcefully pulled out of the van.
“Clinical forensics examination and the autopsy found no injuries matching with that of being pulled out, such as bruises or scratches on the neck or defensive wounds on the hands,” he said.
Dr Ahmad Hafizam also pointed out a flaw in Dr Shahrom’s theory that several individuals were kicking the door of the EMRS van, due to the fact that the van was reversing at that time.
“The person who was kicking the door several times needs to move consistently with the speed of the EMRS van as it was reversing. So if there were several people, they all had to be on the same speed as the van,” he said.
Source: The Star 15/5/2019 – Forensics expert debunks ex-pathologist’s theory
There he goes again. Another speculative “if” from Dr Ahmad Hafizam: “So if the door of the passenger side was opened, it can be a dangerous object and it can hit anyone…”. If? What did I say about if your aunty had a moustache?
Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s theory is illogical and still nonsense
Firstly, even if the rioters got injured while pulling Adib out of the vehicle, their (the rioters) injury won’t be serious compared to Adib because the rioters are outside i.e. it is easier for them to move along with the vehicle. Whereas Adib would be half in and half out of the vehicle and will be subjected to not only beatings but also being crushed when the rioters repeatedly slam the door against him, and worse still after he is fully dragged out, after which the door could then have further knocked him down. But the fact remains he was pulled out of the vehicle.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the door was indeed open and Adib was outside. Would Adib have been the one who opened the door while the van was moving? Of course not. And while the door was open, would Adib have gotten down? Of course not. Common sense lah dey… you don’t have to be a forensic expert to figure that out.
Secondly, of course the rioters can easily kick the door while the vehicle is moving slowly and they can do so without injuring themselves. Furthermore, it does not have to be the same persons kicking the door as the van is reversing. Whoever is facing the door at the the time can kick the door while the vehicle is moving. Meaning, as the vehicle is reversing, different people could be kicking the door at different times without hurting themselves.
Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s assumption that Adib voluntarily got out of the EMRS van while it was reversing is speculative, illogical and nonsense. And even if he voluntarily got out of the van (which already is illogical), being hit by the door (and falling down as a result) would not be enough to cause those serious injuries.
Dr Shahrom: “I was approached by counsel Syazlin Mansor, who represented the Housing and Local Government Ministry and the Fire and Rescue Department to give my opinion on the case in March this year. Based on the information and documents given to me, I came up with my own simulation of the incident and concluded that injuries suffered by Adib were due to an impact with EMRS van door.”
Dr Shahrom: “However, I believe Adib was pulled out of his van based on injuries that he sustained on his upper back and the missing buttons on his shirt. I also believed that someone had kicked the EMRS door multiple times, causing Adib to sustain fractures on his right ribs and bruises on his right lung. After the impact with the EMRS door, I believe that someone grabbed Adib and pushed him towards the edge of the van door. The impact of the push must have been really hard in order to cause the injuries,” he said, adding the power of the push could have been more than 3000 N (Newton units), equivalent to the power of three and a half men.”
Syazlin: Do you agree that Adib had been pulled out from a reversing vehicle?
Dr Shahrom: Yes.
Syazlin: What would have been the pattern of the fracture if Adib was hit by the edge of the door from a reversing EMRS and fell on the road curb?
Dr Shahrom: He would not have sustained any (fracture) as the force from a reversing EMRS is not enough to fracture the ribs.
He said Adib’s cause of death was from severe injuries to his lungs due to multiple blunt trauma impacts.
“All impacts (blunt trauma) were not self-inflicted and due to acts by several people,” he said.
Source: NST 9/4/2019 – Pathologist suggests Adib could have been pulled out of EMRS vehicle
Being recalled to dispute Dr Shahrom’s theory was not based on any new or compelling evidence. Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s theory remains speculative and unsubstantiated. Dr Shahrom’s theory remains the most realistic based on evidence, facts and eyewitness accounts — and common sense.
Rather, Dr Ahmad Hafizam made it worse for himself…
Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s calculation was wrong
Dr Ahmad Hafizam provided wrong calculations to the court regarding the impact force and then offence when lawyer Syazlin pointed out his mistake. The manner in which he reacted was unprofessional and does not seems to reflect an upright character.
Dr Ahmad Hafizam: “I have always emphasised that I am not a physicist. I might have misunderstood (about the request to calculate the impact force). When asked by the lawyer, I thought I had explained it to the coroner.“
Syazlin: The calculation on the force of gravity you presented in court is wrong, let an expert talk about this. You do not have to confuse the court further.
Dr Ahmad Hafizam: I am not making it confusing for the court. Yesterday, I thought I was told to do the calculation, so I came up with a new calculation. I should not be humiliated over this calculation.
Syazlin: Earlier you said the calculation by Prof Shahrom was wrong, but when you showed a new calculation on gravitational force, I see that it is incorrect. So, I am saying that you are wrong and confusing the court, I am not trying to embarrass you.
Source: The Star 17/5/2019 – Adib inquest: Forensics expert says he was humiliated in court
Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s credibility is out the window. I don’t trust him.
When trying to save face, create a diversion
Two expert witnesses testifying in the inquest into the death of fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim claim they have been threatened. Selangor CID chief Senior Asst Comm Fadzil Ahmat in a statement said that the two witnesses, both specialist doctors in the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) forensic department, had lodged a report on the matter on Saturday (April 20).
Source: The Star 23/4/2019 – Two forensics experts testifying in Adib’s inquest lodge police report over threats
Oh, come on lah. Surely Tommy and his forensic experts can do better than this. Just stick to the facts of the case instead of treating us to another PHollywood movie.
Whoever did threaten them, if there is truth in their claim, Dr Shahrom wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t him so he was wise to also lodge a police report.
The 29th witness in the inquest into the death of fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim has lodged a police report, denying that he had threatened other witnesses. Dr Shahrom Abd Wahid, a former senior forensic and pathology consultant at Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz, lodged the report at the Subang Jaya Police headquarters on Tuesday (April 23).
The lawyer representing the Housing and Local Government Ministry and the Fire and Rescue Department, Syazlin Mansor, said a news report, which claimed that Dr Shahrom had threatened other witnesses in the inquest, was untrue and unfounded.
“For information, Dr Shahrom retired in 2017, but he’s still willing to share his expertise for free and assist in the inquest. We did not expect that he would be accused of something like this,” Syazlin said in a statement here on Thursday (April 25).
Source: The Star 25/4/2019 – Specialist in Adib’s inquest lodges police report
If you can’t beat ’em, remove ’em
And then guess what happens next: Lawyer Syazlin Mansor pulls out of the inquest — after being instructed to withdraw. By whom? AG Tommy Thomas. And what did Tommy Thomas have to say about this? Tommy says: “I have no comment“. What the hell is going on…
Of course, the public slammed Tommy’s disgusting manoeuvre and he had then to do some damage control after his intitial “I have no comment” response.
“Firstly, the housing ministry and fire department, like other government department and ministries are required to seek legal advice from this Chambers (AGC), with external counsel being appointed by the Attorney General/ Public Prosecutor.”
“Secondly, Pn Syazlin was in a conflict of interest position when she agreed to act for the housing ministry and the fire department as she was also acting for the deceased family, who have a direct interest in the inquest. The interest of these parties may conflict, and it is unacceptable for her to act for all three parties.
“Thirdly, my officers, who are performing their additional role as counsel assisting the coroner, have informed me that Pn Syazlin takes an active part in the inquest, often contradicting the positions our DPP’s have taken, thus causing embarrassment in her capacity as the ministry’s lawyer,“
“Fourthly, Pn Syazlin’s husband is employed as press secretary to the housing minister. It is for these reasons that I requested the housing minister to immediately revoke her appointment from further representing the ministry and fire department,“ said Thomas.
Source: Malay Mail 27/5/2019 – Minister: Lawyer quit Adib inquest after instructed to withdraw
The real reason is the third reason.
The conflict of interest position is a flimsy and pathetic excuse. This is an inquest, not a trial. The purpose of an inquest is to get to the truth after considering all facts and views. Even if there is a conflict of interest, it is merely a factor for the coroner to take into consideration after listening to all views and theories. It shouldn’t matter that one view contradicts the other even if from within the same team because the idea is to discover the truth based on plausible scenarios, evidence, facts and rationale.
Therefore, why should the AGC decide to champion only one view? Does Tommy Thomas know what an inquest is?
— a legal or judicial inquiry, usually before a jury, especially an investigation made by a coroner into the cause of a death.
— A judicial inquiry to ascertain the facts relating to an incident.
— When an inquest is held, a public official hears evidence about someone’s death in order to find out the cause.
— an official process to discover the cause of someone’s death.
No particular person is being accused of murder. Nobody is on trial and yet Tommy Thomas is treating the inquest like a trial. However, the irony is that Tommy, who is supposed to be a prosecutor, is trying to convince us that Adib was not assaulted while Syazlin is trying to show that Adib was assaulted. If it were a trial, the roles have been reversed and Tommy’s role is extremely uncharacteristic of that of a prosecutor.
Why should we be surprised at Tommy’s despicable behaviour when his direct intervention resulted in the release of Lim Guan Eng, Rafizi Ramli, Siti Kassim, Kim Jong-nam’s assassin, the killer employer of Adelina Jerima Sau and also giving away Pulau Batu Puteh.
Even more obvious is when Tommy unwittingly alleges that Syazlin often contradicts the positions his DPP’s have taken, thus causing embarrassment. In other words, his DPP’s have taken the position that Adib was not assaulted. They had already made up their mind — or Tommy Thomas made it up for them — instead of treating the inquest as a truth-seeking mission. Obviously Tommy instructed for Syazlin to be withdrawn because he was furious that she was doing a good job unravelling the truth.
Anyone with an open mind can see that Tommy Thomas was biased and prejudiced — which is not unusual – but what is extraordinary is that they were playing the role of defence lawyers instead of prosecutor. That’s how twisted they have become — when it suits them.
AG Tommy Thomas incriminates himself
Then out of the blue we hear that the AGC had filed an affidavit claiming that Adib had not been beaten. What??
“Lawyer M Visvanathan, representing the task force (Save Seafield Mariamman Temple Task Force), said the applications were withdrawn based on the affidavit filed by the AGC on April 3 this year. He claimed the affidavit, affirmed by deputy public prosecutor Hamdan Hamzah, stated that Adib’s death was not due to being beaten. According to Visvanathan, the affidavit also stated that a forensic pathologist had testified at the inquest that the injuries sustained by Adib, which led to his death, were not sustained due to beating.”
Source: Malaysia Kini 15/4/2019 – Temple withdraws appeal after ‘Adib not beaten’ affidavit by AGC
Wait a minute…. isn’t the inquest still ongoing? What kind of idiot would file such an affidavit before the conclusion of the inquest? You got it… the same kind of idiot who would withdraw corruption charges against Lim Guan Eng, Rafizi Ramli and Siti Kassim instead of letting the court decide.
Why did AGC file such an affidavit before even waiting for forensic expert Dr Shahrom’s findings and views, which was less than a week later? As it turned out, Dr Shahrom’s conclusion was that Adib had been assaulted thereby contradicting the affidavit.
So this is what Tommy Thomas was really referring to when he said that Syazlin had often contradicted the positions the DPP’s had taken, thus causing embarrassment.
Read again that Tommy’s statement that the DPP’s have already taken a position — that Adib was not assaulted. This defeats the whole purpose of an inquest. What kind of AG is this?
Of course, one could argue that Syazlin had also taken a position but that is irrelevant because she is neither the AG nor the coroner. She is investigating from an angle — based on evidence and facts (that Adib was beaten up). At the same time other members of the AGC’s team can also investigate from another angle (that Adib was not beaten up). Both can challenge each other’s assessment and findings but it is not for the AG to prematurely take a position according to his own whim and fancy. He is pre-empting the inquest and the coroner as evident from the affidavit he filed on 3/4/2019.
Tommy Thomas does not realise that he may incriminated himself. He is unfit for the task .
(1) Adib was in the EMRS van when the fire truck hit the van. It also makes no sense for Adib to voluntarily get out of the van while it is moving.
(2) Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s theory that Adib was knocked down by the EMRS van’s door was based on the speculative and false presumption that Adib had voluntarily got out of the van. There is no evidence or rational explanation to suggest that he did or why he would voluntarily do so.
(3) Dr Shahrom’s theory is consistent with witness testimonies and Adib’s own testimony to conclude that Adib was pulled out of the van by force and assaulted.
(4) Dr Ahmad Hafizam’s character is questionable in the manner he tried to discredit Dr Shahrom’s theory but instead his own calculation on the impact force was wrong and felt humiliated as a result (probably out of a sense of guilt).
(5) AG Tommy Thomas has been proven to be biased and prejudiced in taking the position that Adib was not assaulted. He has incriminated himself by (i) prematurely filing an affidavit claiming that Adib was not assaulted and (ii) admitting that AGC’s prosecutors had already taken a position (that Adib was not assaulted) — despite the inquest being ongoing.
AG Tommy Thomas must resign or be sacked for trying to mislead the public and for being in contempt of the proceedings of the inquest. Sign the petition.
– AA –