Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this

The police advised the public not to speculate on the Canny Ong case but what could we do if reports have been inconsistent, conflicting and other times incredible.

Earlier we read that based on the shopping complex's close circuit televisions, three men were involved in the abduction. Now we hear that there was only one.

The suspect was supposed to have single handedly abducted a Tae Kwon Do exponent armed with only a knife, and drove around all around town in a four to five hour period (Kelana Jaya Subang Jaya and Old Klang Road) and stopping at two locations before killing her.

I would imagine it would be difficult to drive the car after crashing through a barrier pole, changing gears and yet still be able to occasionally brandish a knife at the victim with one hand.

Unless she was tied and bundled at the back of the car, but there was no suggestion of this throughout. Entirely baffling is the fact that the victim had apparently two opportunities to escape, and didn't try.

The storyline is surreal. The suspect was supposed to be some kind of serial rapist who carried condoms in order not to contract Aids. When approached by two plainclothes policemen he was able to hand over not only his identity card but Canny's as well.

What were the plainclothes policemen doing? Didn't any of them look into the car? And when the car sped off didn't they report the car or its number to central control for patrol cars to look for it? The suspect supposedly made a police report the following day that he lost his IC!

On another occasion, the abductor "got out of the car to ask a couple for directions near Sunway"! The whole episode is not a simple rape case but murder of non-resisting victim, as he took time to come back and burn the body the following day.

In all fairness to the victim's family and the public, the police should conduct a deeper investigation rather than quickly wrap up the case.

How does one prosecute a case with such a story line and convince a judge based on legal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt when even layman like us find the storyline doubtful?