Finger pointing at MACC on suspicion, hearsay and politics ...

... but without absolutely any conclusive proof for now.

The detractors of MACC and critics of the Federal Government kept pointing their finger at MACC, but what is their proof? Their reaction to sceptics like me is like the cartoon above.

It's miraculous that a murder or suicide or murder that look like suicide but suspiciously professional organised crime work can identify the guilty party within hours after it happened.

A father made the accusation, the son made a press statement to accuse and idiots getting emotionally worked up without any justifiable basis are accusing along in virgils, yesterday's demonstration and tomorrow's public rally.

They can doubt MACC's statement to claim Teoh Beng Hock was released at 3:45 am but stayed on to sleep till last seen at 6:00 am. But what proof do they have to doubt that? Is there conclusive proof to back their gut feel that young anxious Teoh who is supposed to register his marriage yesterday, would return home immediately?

It is possible and highly probable but is it a sure thing? Is there totally no possibility at all that what was said is true?

As far as the MACC is concerned, they have proof on their side. They have Klang Councillor, Tan Boon Hwa who complained about MACC interrogation method but confirmed seeing Teoh in the pantry at 6:00 am looking hunched and tired.

MACC have got papers and document to back their claim and said it on record that Teoh was released at 3:45 am. It is fine to doubt the claim but what proof to back Teoh was still under custody say after 6:00 am, or perhaps 7:00 am. That's the time the "sudeen death", the current police categorisation, happened.

Is it MACC practise to place a person under custody at the waiting room or free to move about to the pantry? What more when MACC made a statement that Teoh Beng Hock was not a suspect, cooperative and not adverserial during the "interview"?

As far as I see, all claim and statement, except wild accusation, by all is to be taken in good faith until proof is available to refute such.

Andrew Ong of Malaysiakini, not NST or Utusan, reported Shukri Abdul, MACC Investigation Division Director said verbatim the following:

"The man was asked to come to Selangor MACC last night at 5 pm for his statement to be recorded and this procedure was completed at 3.45am."

"We recorded his statements until (all questions) were completed. He was released at 3.45am. We have to complete (recording) his statements. He promised to return today."

"He said once he obtained the documents he would come back to us."

"He said he wanted to rest."

"At 6am, he was seen here. Our officers were working non-stop last night. Some were sleeping in their respective rooms. We allowed him to sleep on a couch in a office."

"He was cooperative."

The Sun, not The Star, written by Maria J.Dass reported with Tan in his press conference and snippets relating to Teoh Beng Hock are below:

At a press conference today, Tan told reporters he last saw Teoh at 6am in the pantry when he went for a toilet break during the interrogation ...

If the detrators of MACC claim they practise unacceptable interrogation method and down to violent ways, can we assume they know the law and how to cover their tracks. The question is are they that stupid to murder someone and place the dead body at near the building of their MACC office?

Logically, the last thing they would want to do is to be trailed back to them. I do not have the proof but can I claim that someone wants to frame and create public anger towards MACC?

Elementary my dear Watson?

More fundamental in any crime, there must be proof to back that MACC wants this young man dead. The proof must fulfill the criteria "beyond reasonable doubt" or it is just coffeeshop talk cock.

If MACC claim Teoh was cooperative, not adversarial and not suspect, is there any motive for MACC to kill him? In fact, if Teoh had been cooperative, not adversarial and not suspect, there is motive for those, under investigation and are suspect, to exterminate him?

However I have no proof.

But do you have proof to back your accusation? If you don't, shut the f**k up and stop being emotionally stupid. That my dear Watson is elementary!