Todds, even yr beloved, trusted FBI contradicts you

I juz read that the Todds threw a tantrum making more accusations against the police. Even this believer of the tendency of our police to do incompetent things (Example) thinks the Todds’ are going to far, now that a FBI report contradicted them

The external hard drive accessed by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) three days after American engineer Shane Todd was found dead in his Singapore apartment in June last year was identical to the one the Todd family handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to examine in March this year, according to a report by the FBI.

 At the ongoing coroner’s inquiry into Mr Todd’s death, the court heard yesterday that the FBI had come to this conclusion after the SPF had officially asked the FBI on March 19 this year to confirm whether the two external hard drives were, in fact, one and the same.

 The FBI’s report appears to conflict with allegations made by the Todd family in a Financial Times report earlier this year, where his parents Richard and Mary said that they found the hard-disk drive at Mr Todd’s apartment themselves and kept it.

 According to the SPF, Sergeant Khaldun Sarif took the Seagate hard drive back to the Central Police Division after he was called to the scene of Mr Todd’s death on June 24, 2012. After viewing the hard drive on the night of June 27, 2012, he gave it to Mr Todd’s parents on June 28, 2012. (BT 15 May 2013).

Interestingly, they still do not deny the implication of the FBI report that they lied:

Their claim that they had found the hard disk drive has been central to their claims that their son did not take his own life. As I wrote here, I was about to stop reading the FT story and bitch to the FT that a reputable paper like the FT had better things to do than print the rantings of grieving parents. I didn’t because I next read that they claimed that had found the drive which implied that the police had missed it. The claim put things in a different light: our police could have cocked up, like over the Suntec beatings (Incidentally, we still don’t know the result of the police disciplinary action against the investigator. Can a PAP MP or Mrs Chiam ask? WP MPs presumably too busy handing out contracts to supporters)

As they had then wanted the FBI to supervise the investigations of our police (which annoyed me), the FBI finding that the drive given to them by the parents, is the same as the one the police gave the Todds, tells us they misrepresented the facts.

Sergeant Khaldun Sarif was generous to the Todds, yet they behaved like vicious snakes towards him. He could have played it by the book and retained the drive. He handed it to the parents and look at what they did. They claimed to have found it to give credence to their claims that their son was murdered, putting him in a bad light: that as investigator he had missed the drive.

The Todds are bad or mad: that’s the conclusion any reasonable person would draw from the FBI report. Grief over the death of their son is one thing, trying to fix  Sergeant Khaldun Sarif or blame others is another. But would bad people lie about the origins of the drive, and handed it over to the FBI? So grief may have driven them mad, and they tot that they found the drive?

 

Waz that again Law Soc?

Or “Law Soc in denial?” or “More patients for you Dr Fonz?”

The Law Society seems to want to be like the PM and his DPMs: trying to be comedians. And no, I don’t mean to talk about its officer,Wong Siew Hong, turning up in court without his jacket (bit like appearing at a wedding in one’s underwear), but this: “LSS asks that commentators check their facts, preferably with LSS, before making their comments.” Ain’t the Law Soc forgetting something?

Forgot that it retracted earlier statements? Statement that many netizens used when commenting on the Law Soc’s actions. The boys and gals at TRE did a good article on this retraction.

But even funnier is: “LSS believes that it is important that the public has confidence in LSS as an independent professional body which has always balanced the interests of the public and individual lawyers.” Come on, pull the other leg, its got bells on it. Ever since the changes initiated by the government in the 1980s, many members of the public and even many lawyers regard the Law Soc as part of the Dark Side: to publicly deny this perception amounts to a form of insanity: denial of a perception.

No, I’m not going to make fun of, “Any suggestion of a conspiracy involving the LSS is untrue and irresponsible” because I’m waiting to see if Ravi denies a report in ST that he was involved in an incident at a temple on Sunday the 15th of July. I mean it’s ST, part of the constructive, nation-building media, and more importantly, the sister publication of STOMP where a ”content producer” fabricated a story, and where ”content producers” posed as citizen journalists and members of the public.

If it could happen at STOMP, it could happen at ST where during the Hougang by-election, pixs were used very judiciously. One got the impression that Ah Huat was Low’s proxy, while Desmond Choo was “his own man”. And again in that by-election, there was no mention that Desmond’s “model” (his uncle, an ex-PAP MP) is a convicted cheat, facing fresh charges. If it had been Ah Huat’s uncle, I’m sure we would’ve been reminded of the relationship with a criminal.

If Ravi doesn’t deny the story, then I’ll blog on why Wong Siew Hong and Dr Fones should be commended for being good civic-minded S’poreans, even if they did not do things the proper way, and why the Law Soc Council does not deserve any respect. But taz another day.