MACC wanted to delay reporting Teoh's death by 1 day!

In The Malaysian Insider’s Court orders probe into DAP man’s accounts we now know of a very important revelation from the MACC officer being cross–examined by Gobind Singh Deo in the inquest into Teoh Beng Hock’s inexplicable death (or perhaps manslaughter if not murder).

The revelation is actually shocking!

The Malaysian Insider reported: Speaking to reporters after the inquest, he [Gobind] stressed that the pattern of [MACC officer] Mohd Anuar’s testimony from the witness box “were consistent with somebody having something to hide.”

“If you look at what he said, if he had been directed not to report, he would not, despite the law requiring him to do so,” Gobind added, referring to the MACC man’s admission, under questioning that he had been “ordered” by the deputy director of Selangor MACC, Hishamuddin Hashim, to wait one day before reporting Teoh’s death to the police.

Above underlining are mine.

Imagine, a MACC senior officer instructed his subordinate not to report Teoh’s death to the police until one day later, yes, ONE DAY LATER!

You may ask yourself why - what was there to hide?

Put this revelation together with the following three facts:

(1) On the day of Teoh’s death (or was it the actual day Teoh had died? Now I'm not sure?) MACC slammed shut its door for unexplained reason – read my previous post The attempted metamorphosis of MACC where I wrote:

Something terrified MACC at around 1:30 pm, when it was claimed that a janitor discovered Teoh’s body. Kim Quek wrote in Malaysiakini’s Teoh's death: Mysteries abound (extracts):

… Why was the outer timber door of the MACC office unprecedentedly closed for some half an hour at the time when some one discovered Teoh's body?

The Chinese section of Malaysiakini reported on July 17 that its reporter Rahmah Ghazali observed an inexplicable happening at the MACC office at the 14th floor, where the outer timber door was mysteriously shut between 1.15 pm and 1.35 pm, and re-opened shortly before 1.50pm on July 16. [...]

What did the staff do behind that timber door at that crucial moment that they would not want outsiders to see? The mystery seems to deepen.

What had caused that ‘sealing’ of the building at that crucial time? Was it the discovery of Teoh’s body? Or was it an interrogation technique that had gone horribly wrong? At this juncture, around 1:30 pm, it should be noted that Tan Boon Hwa was then suddenly released.

(2) Kim Quek also wrote: What happened between 1.30 pm and 5 pm?

Though Teoh's body was discovered at 1.30 pm, it was not until after 5 pm that MACC disclosed the news to assemblymen Ean Yong and Ronnie Liu who had been waiting for over an hour in the MACC office insisting to meet Teoh. Why should MACC have hidden the news for so long unless there were compelling reasons which in all probability might not be guilt-free?

(3) Why was Teoh’s body not removed from where he had fallen until late into the evening, at around 8 pm to 9 pm?

When I put all these four together, especially the instruction by deputy director of Selangor MACC, Hishamuddin Hashim, according to the testimony by MACC officer Mohd Anuar, to wait one day before reporting Teoh’s death to the police, I gather a nauseating suspicion that the objective was to heighten the rate of Teoh's decomposition.

I don't know, but would decomposition have helped mask certain bruises or surface markings?

Ask yourself again: why would a MACC senior officer - a man identified by the whistle-blower’s letter as the very person interrogating Teoh prior to the latter’s strange death, a man reported to employ a notorious manhandling technique of seizing and holding up his unfortunate victim by the belt - instruct his subordinate to delay reporting to the police of a death in MACC custody for a whole day, if there was nothing untoward to hide?

Gobind then made Mohd Anuar read out loud Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which deals with the duty of a police officer to investigate deaths, where it says:

“Every officer in charge of a police station on receiving information -

(a) that a person has committed suicide;
(b) that a person has been killed by another, or by an animal, or by
machinery, or by an accident;
(c) that a person has died under circumstances raising a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has committed an offence;
(d) that the body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known
how he came by his death; or
(e) that a person has died a sudden death;

... shall with the least practical delay transmit such information to the officer in charge of the police district.”

That’s right, “with the least practical delay”!

So let me end this post by repeating what I have written at the very top:

Gobind] stressed that the pattern of [MACC officer] Mohd Anuar’s testimony from the witness box “were consistent with somebody having something to hide.”

“If you look at what he said, if he had been directed not to report, he would not, despite the law requiring him to do so,” Gobind added, referring to the MACC man’s admission, under questioning that he had been “ordered” by the deputy director of Selangor MACC, Hishamuddin Hashim, to wait one day before reporting Teoh’s death to the police.