So far, the key points of the crime in Cau Voi Post Office in 2008 have been revealed, even though 12 years have passed, it seems that everything has been erased. New discoveries but still thanks to the old written which have been lost mysteriously and inaccessible for lawyers.
In fact, three years later, lawyer Tran Hong Phong approached one of witnesses, Mr. Dinh Vu Thuong to confirm that he did not identify the young man in the Post Office as Ho Duy Hai, a fact that was contrary to the claim of the indictment saying Dinh Vu Thuong saw Hai in the Post Office.
Only one detail is enough to cause the prosecution agency to be prosecuted for falsifying the case file. Not to mention the fact that a series of other important evidences imprinted on the perpetrator also disappeared, but the judicial system from the first instance to the Supreme level still ignored.
Further, witnesses Dinh Van Coi and Le Thanh Tri testified to identify a young man different from Ho Duy Hai, and these markers were lost. The lawyer could not read these statements to defend Ho Duy Hai. The Supreme People’s Procuracy has also not read these testimonies too. Those are the testimonies of Dinh Van Coi, the written file No. 139, and Le Thanh Tri’s testimony No. 141.
In addition, thanks to the camera of the gas station at 21.01, it is possible to predict that the female victim named Van bought the fruit then and returned to Cau Voi Post Office after about 3-5 minutes. Thus, the time of the crime should be later than the time determined by the investigation officers and the real perpetrator(s) will be different than Hai who was convicted by the three hearings, including the cassation hearing held on May 6-8.
On the Clean Newspaper, journalist Trung Bao made the latest comments about the perpetrator with the title: Who is the young guy at the post office on the night of crime?
Journalist Trung Bao wrote as follows:
“During more than 10 years of studying files regarding the double murders in Voi Cau Post Office to protect convicted Ho Duy Hai, lawyer Tran Hong Phong had never heard names Dinh Van Coi and Le Thanh Tri. There are any profile pages that mention these two witnesses.
These two names suddenly appear mysteriously as witnesses with testimony on the night of the tragedy. Accordingly, both saw a young man sitting with two victims in the post office between 19.40 and 20.00.
Over 12 years ago, Dinh Van Coi was a major of the Mobile Police – Protection and Justice Support Office (PC 22) of the Long An Province Police Department. On the night of January 13, 2008, Coi and Tri before going to Cau Voi post office to buy phone cards, they eat duck porridge at Cau Van, a place about 2.6 km from the post office. According to the record of Coi testimony, the two left the duck porridge restaurant at 19.30. Both arrived at the post office at about 19.40 by motorbike.
At the post office, both Tri and Coi claimed to see a young man sitting beside victim Hong on the lounge chair behind the counter. Victim Van was a seller of phone cards for Coi and Tri.
Describing to the investigating agency, Tri said, “I saw a young man aged 30-33, with short hair, a round face, a dark yellow short-sleeved T-shirt.”
Coi also said “to see a young man about 28-30 years old … people slightly fat, fair skin, round face, slightly dull hair, wearing pale yellow short-sleeved T-shirt.”
So from the testimonies of these two witnesses, we can see the similarities are young people with round faces, short hair, and wearing yellow short-sleeved T-shirts. The young man appeared at Cau Voi post office during the time when he was thought to be culprit Ho Duy Hai to present the case.
Both statements were made on January 15, 2008, just two days after the tragedy happened. At that time, the “object” was not identified as Ho Duy Hai.
However, when coming to the indictment (No. 97 / QD.KSĐT) on October 1, 2008, Ho Duy Hai was charged with murdering two victims by the testimony of the only witness, Dinh Vu Thuong. The indictment wrote: “Eyewitness Dinh Vu Thuong discovered that Ho Duy Hai sat in a chair at the Post Office at 19.39.” Even in this indictment was also seriously wrongly written: “in line with the testimony of Dinh Vu Thuong, the person who made the last call to the accused.” Thuong and Hai had never known each other before, so how did Thuong call Hai?
In a manuscript written by Dinh Vu Thuong to lawyer Tran Hong Phong, this person wrote: “I did not confirm the identity of the young man, which I saw on the evening of January 13, 2008 at the Cau Voi post office.” Dinh Vu Thuong also confirmed that he was not invited to attend the court as a witness. This manuscript was written on January 7, 2011.
According to the case files, Ho Duy Hai wore a blue striped shirt, had two bangs, and at that time Hai was only a 23-year-old young man. According to the case files, no testimony from any witnesses Dinh Van Coi and Le Thanh Tri was included although these testimonies were kept as the investigation records for the case.
Dinh Vu Thuong’s testimony was “changed” to accuse Ho Duy Hai and used as the only witness testimony in every court despite Thuong was not invited to the two hearings. The testimonies of two other witnesses who did not coincide with Ho Duy Hai’s identity, taken immediately after the murder date, were silently withdrawn from the record.
What if the judges in the cassation hearing knew that the testimonies were completely different from the indictments but were not included in the investigation findings? The case in the past is gradually unraveling as more and more details and unprecedented images are sent to the public by anonymous people.
One of the factors that accuses Ho Duy Hai is based on the testimony of witnesses who saw “a young man” present at the Cau Voi Post Office between 19.30 and 20.30. These are the testimony of witness Dinh Vu Thuong, and the testimony of fruit seller Nguyen Thi Bich Ngan on the time to buy fruit from Van’s victim.
There is no need to repeat the testimony of Dinh Vu Thuong because this witness later confirmed to lawyer Tran Hong Phong – defending Ho Duy Hai, seeing only a young man, not seeing Ho Duy Hai like conclude the investigation, and also cannot remember Dream motorbike’s license plate number in front of the post office.
A new fact that we have just discovered is that the time to buy fruit of the victim Van is not similar to what the investigation findings stated.
Fruit seller – Nguyen Thi Bich Ngan whose husband is Nguyen Thanh Long, is an employee of Cau Voi gas station. This gas station was about 50m from the fruit selling stand (also the house of Ngan – Long). On the night of the murder (January 13), Long was present when his wife sold fruits to Van and left the fruit stand to walk to the gas station. At the gas station equipped with a camera, record the presence of Long at 21.01. Again, the distance from the fruit stand to the gas station is about 50m.
According to the investigation agency’s conclusion, Van went to buy fruits at 20:30. According to our actual test of the distance from Cau Voi post office to the fruit purchasing stand, both commuting and returning (approximately) took about 7 minutes. That test was live-streamed for all readers to follow.
Victim Van’s purchase of fruits at 21.00 is consistent with our estimation about the scene. There were noodles and scattered rice, the food in the stomach of the victims was almost digested. It shows that one person at home cooks late-night noodles and one went to buy fruit desserts. Please note, this is speculation by Clean Newspaper.
Ho Duy Hai was arrested and convicted of killing two victims at Cau Voi post office because of a witness seeing “a young man” present at the scene between 19.30 and 20.30. Other suspects had alibi during that period but Hai did not.
So, there are other testimonies that identify “a young man” with a different appearance and age than Hai, and those claims have never appeared in the investigation documents.