The Kuala Lumpur Traveler

Well, the last part was not said by Lingam directly of course. After all, which thief would admit he or she is a thief? Now, if you look at what was reported by Malaysiakini today:

Chuah reluctantly revealed that it was Lingam who had identified the other person featured in the clip as Loh Mui Fah during an interview pertaining to the second portion of the clip.

Coming public for the first time in January, Loh told Malaysiakini that he had been harassed by ACA officers.

Americk: Did you instruct any of your team officers to locate Loh Mui Fah?

Chuah: Yes.

Americk: Out of 26 million Malaysians, why did you pick Loh Mui Fah?

Chuah: Because from investigations we found he was the person who appeared in the second part of the video.

Americk: Who pointed this out to you?

Chuah: Through investigations. (Stuttering)

Haidar: Ya. Who?

Chuah: It was information from VK Lingam.

Haidar: Then say so lah … don’t hide.

Americk: When VK Lingam identified Loh Mui Fah as the other person in the video, did he at the same time identify himself as being in the clip?

Chuah: He say it appears like him and sounds like him.

Americk: Did he give you Loh Mui Fah’s particulars and was that how you traced him?

Chuah: Yes.

Read more at Malaysiakini

I am not a legal expert here but this is just common sense that does not need rocket science to infer that if Lingam himself had told ACA that the other person in the second video was Loh Mui Fah, then the person that appears like Lingam and sound likes Lingam must be….. you-know-who!

I rest my case….. no need to comment on the ACA’s conduct here. But it would be interesting to see how the Commission will conclude this case later.

[tags]VK Lingam[/tags]