Logically, if a person is found to have died of an “unnatural” cause, what can it be if it’s neither suicide nor homicide? How about accident? If someone threatens you, pushes you towards an open window, where you lose your balance and fall through by “accident” and die, is this homicide? No? At least it is a case of manslaughter? No? How about using one of Simon Winchester’s favorite words” chance-medley”?
The following paragraph caught my attention when I was reading Winchester’s book “The Professor and the Madman”, not least because I was so intrigued and upset by the two cases of bizarre death – for want of a better description --at MACC office.
According to Simon Winchester: “… chance medley is a wonderful legal word – the language of law offers up a profusion of delights – is ancient (first seen in 1494) and is defined as an
accident or casualty not purely accidental, but of a mixed character.
Chiefly in manslaughter by chance-medley (for which later writers have used chance-medley itself): “the casual killing of a man, not altogether without the killer’s fault, though without an evil intent; homicide by misadventure…….”
My questions are: Shouldn’t someone be held culpable for a chance-medley? The Bar Council claims that the foreign forensic expert did not conclude that Teoh Beng Hock committed suicide. So, it was RCI who made this conclusion, but substantiated by what evidence? Will there be another RCI for the case of Ahmad Sarbani Mohamed? I am waiting with bated breath….
No comments:
Post a Comment