YOURSAY | ‘What to make of this inquest, the scope of which seems so narrow?’
Newday: I am just as curious as the lawyer Syazlin Mansor as to when the late firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim got out of the Emergency Medical Rescue Services (EMRS) van.
At yesterday’s hearing, the EMRS van driver Ahmad Shahril Othman stated that Adib was seated next to him in the front, and then there was no mention of where he was. They then inquest skipped to later action. There is a big and critical gap in the information provided yesterday.
The driver had a good view of what was happening, so why did he not state what happened? Did Adib leave the truck or didn't he? There should be a simple answer to that question.
Hang Tuah PJ: Adib was recovering for three weeks before he succumbed to the injuries he sustained in the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman riots.
During the three weeks, he had numerous visitors, and pictures seen in the media showed that he was awake for a time. Didn't Adib say anything about the incident?
I am very sure any parent in such a situation would have asked him what had happened, and doctors would have asked for their own record. Isn't there any recorded statement?
Anonymous_b3cdcd05: With due respect to the deceased, this inquest seems to put the cart before the horse. It is akin to ignoring the elephant in the room, but trying to determine how a rodent was trampled.
What can you make of this inquest, the scope of which seems so narrow and limited to the evidence of uniformed personnel at the scene?
What about the temple attackers, injured devotees and rioters on the second night? And since the postmortem findings are unknown, it would be more fruitful to have an independent inquiry into the entire episode involving the Seafield temple incident.
That would possibly shed more light, and who knows, even open up the Pandora's box on the true cause of Adib's injuries and those who were directly and indirectly responsible, one way or another.
If it was a riot, where were the police? Why did the firemen put themselves on the line without police backup? It appears that the postmortem did not concur with the police claim that Adib was pulled out from his van and attacked by the rioters.
The fact that the request for representation by the temple committee was snubbed by the court raises suspicions about its integrity.
Why must an inquest court spurn an interested party that willingly came forward? Is a high-level cover-up job in progress? What will the final verdict be - attacked by unknown assailants, with the police and fire chiefs off the hook? Case closed?
Is the Pakatan Harapan government interested in establishing the truth, or have they opted for the safety of the inquest findings? The ball is – literally – in Harapan's court.
Abasir: What we see unfolding appears to be an inquest with elaborately coached witnesses, rivalling the confounding ‘motive is irrelevant’ trial of murdered Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu and the farcical Teoh Beng Hock inquiry.
While troubling in itself, this politicised circus proves that nothing, in terms of law, order and justice has changed since last May – and nothing will.
The Wakandan: Looks like Shahril will be a key witness. Adib was with him all the time. He should be able to tell whether Adib was pulled out of the van by the mob, or came out by himself for whatever reason.
If it was the latter, it was possible that he was run over by the reversing fire truck and not assaulted by the mob. Let’s hear what Shahril has to say.
Hang Tuah PJ: Shahril told the inquest: "Arwah (Adib) was (sitting) next to me. He was still communicating with me."
This means that Adib was seated to his left at the front seat in the EMRS van. Shahril also said that in the chaos, the fire truck suddenly reversed and knocked the van. That may be why the police officer who testified said no one got out of the van. Does this mean that Adib did not get injured by the crowd, but was injured inside the van?
Anonymous_1527925538: When two persons are in a dangerous situation together, the natural thing is that they will communicate with each other on what to do. In plane crash inquiries, where there is a danger of the plane losing control, do a pilot and co-pilot just do their own thing without communicating to each other?
So it seems strange that the EMRS van driver only realised Adib was missing after he left the scene.
On the Other Hand: The fact that the Coroners Court did not allow the temple committee to be represented as an interested party in the inquest tells you all you need to know.
The lawyers don't seem to be interested in asking questions that would elicit the truth, but are instead beating around the bush.
Old Fella: The investigating officer has presented a totally biased case. Why did the police not stop the vehicle being set on fire? Why did the police allow the vehicle to be set on fire? Was the vehicle on fire, or was it being set on fire?
A firefighter’s duty is not to prevent a fire. Who called the fire brigade? When did the fire start? Why was the vehicle set on fire? When did the commotion start? Are these not relevant questions?
Anonymous 080: The door of the EMRS van was seen and left outside the temple area on the morning of the riot. How the hell could the door be ripped off from the van?
The EMRS van driver has not said what happened to Adib in the few minutes after they were in communication.
Somehow the story is continued 20 minutes later. Something is really amiss here and there is a gap in evidence. Has the verdict on who killed Adib and how already been decided?
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.