Ho Duy Hai case: who intentionally falsifies case file?

So far, the public has witnessed many grounds to prove that Ho Duy Hai was innocent, Hai did not kill but was wrongly detained for 12 years in the solitary confinement cell of death row inmates. Serious procedural violations of relevant nature from the process of investigation and prosecution to trial of first instance and appeal hearing, and even recently, the cassation had not changed.

The press has published a series of written files and specific scene images to show that the nature of the case was completely changed.

However, the true killer has not been proven, and the plot to cover up the culprit has been revealed with the tactics of destroying evidence and records such as a knife, cutting board, newspaper, chair, fingerprints and many written testimonies of important witnesses.

These procedural violations are sufficient signs for “Crime of falsifying case files” and authorities should have prosecuted this case for a long time.

Lawyer Tran Hong Phong on May 27, 2020 sent a petition to the Director of Long An province’s Police Department for new findings- the disappearance of six written testimonies, including four of witnesses Dinh Van Coi and Le Thanh Tri, the two written tesstimonies of Mr. Nguyen Thanh Long

Ho Duy Hai’s family has provided a lot of evidence to prove with the petition for “Crime of falsifying case files” since 2017, but was ignored and silent by the authorities.

Just yesterday journalist Truong Huy San, on his Facebook page having 310,000 followers, made a call with two very specific requests: “The People’s Procuracy should look for signs of intentionally misleading the case” and “should immediately remove Ho Duy Hai from Long An’s detention centers.”

This is a clear basis that the indictment has arbitrarily changed the witness’s testimony, distorting the truth. Because the person sitting in the sofa with Hong was a different young man who has been identified by witnesses Dinh Van Coi and Le Thanh Tri.

Testimony of witness Dinh Van Thuong stated that he “did not identify the young man at Cau Voi Post Office and was not invited to attend the trial” while the indictment stated that Dinh Vu Thuong “Found that Hai was sitting in Cau Voi Post Office.”

In the series of Thoibao.de, if you follow also see a series of errors such as:

Many written testimonies were lost like the testimonies of Major Dinh Van Coi, of Mr. Nguyen Thanh Long- the husband of the fruit seller, the wrong quotation of the testimony of witness Dinh Vu Thuong.

Exhibits such as newspapers, glasses, bowls, cutting board chairs, locks, labo washbasins, etc., with the perpetrator’s fingerprints scattered all over the place.

The young man identified, assuming so-called Trung engineer was never summoned …

The ignorance or covering of the perpetrators all lead to the prosecution of a case called “Deliberately falsifying case files at Cau Voi Post Office.”

Back to Ho Duy Hai case in which the perpetrator was concealed, the act of falsifying the case file is shown in the following signs, with all the grounds that Ho Duy Hai’s family and Lawyer Tran Hong Phong provided:

1. Withdrawing, reducing the evaluation results and / or interpreting the results of the assessment with a falseness – unfavorable to suspect Ho Duy Hai.

2. Particularly serious: Withdrawal of conclusions on expert examination of fingerprints, and misinterpretation of the results of fingerprint verification – while this is an alibi of suspect Ho Duy Hai.

3. Arbitrarily correcting and changing the identification results (about “motorbikes” and “young people“) of witness Dinh Vu Thuong – causing particular disadvantage to Ho Duy Hai.

4. Arbitrarily correcting witnesses ‘testimonies about knife sizes (Ho Duy Hai was accused to have used to cut the two victims’ necks), causing disadvantage for Ho Duy Hai.

5. Withdrawal from the files related to Nguyen Van Nghi – a particularly important witness, with signs related to the deaths of two victims.

4/7 groups of acts that falsify the case files of the Police Investigation Agency and the People’s Procuracy of Long An province are listed specifically in the denunciation letter.

On the right is a picture of Ho Duy Hai on his 20th birthday and on the left are gifts from Ho Duy Hai sent from prison to his lawyers Hoa, Phong, Dat and Tao

1. Eliminate and withdraw from the Investigation Conclusions and Indictments 6 out of 9 inspection results/confirm and at the same time cut and interpret misleading about the assessment results on “ashes” collected at the Ho Dynasty Duy Hai:

All the results that the police investigation solicited expertise, showed that all of them are not related to Ho Duy Hai. For ash only, police investigators solicit expertise to determine “in the coal ash collected there are ingredients to make belts, clothes, sim cards or not?”. Then the inspection results/conclusions clearly state that “there are not enough factors to conclude that the components of materials for making belts, clothes and sim cards.

But in the investigation and indictment conclusions, the Police investigation agency and the People’s Procuracy removed the most important evaluation conclusion, while describing it as “consistent” with Ho Duy Hai’s testimony because of “fabric and Polyter.” Such interpretation has falsified the assessment conclusions, detrimental to suspect Ho Duy Hai.

2. Particularly serious: discarding the assessment conclusion about fingerprints – is an alibi of Ho Duy Hai. Misinterpretation of fingerprint assessment results at trial:

At the assessment conclusion No. 158/KL-PC21 dated April 11, 2008 – Written file No. 53), the following conclusions were concluded: “Fingerprint traces were collected at the crime scene. The finding did not coincide with the fingerprints of Ho Duy Hai – this is his alibi.

No findings coinciding with the 10-finger print on Ho Duy Hai’s plate. But at the first-instance trial, the Procurator said that “fingerprints cannot be verified“.

Diagram inside the Cau Voi Post Office and photos of the counter, where witnesses of Thuong, Coi and Mr. Tri stand and observe the living room with a long chaise lounge, where 5th suspect can sit and talk with victim Hong.

3. Ignoring evidence about the time of the crime and the death of the two female victims, and making arbitrary consclusion about their deaths:

Through signs of autopsies, stomach samples and testimony of witnesses (included in the case file), it is possible to solicit expertise on determining the time of death of two victims. However, Police investigation agency did not do this.

4. Fabricating, falsely interpreting the testimony of the only witness Dinh Vu Thuong in “recognizing Ho Duy Hai at the scene of the crime“:

The police investigators took the testimony of Mr. Đinh Vũ Thường (Minutes of testimony on March 31, 2008, written files No. 249, 250, and 251). The content of Mr. Thuong’s testimony about the young man he saw was as follows: “Not clearly seeing the young man’s face, unable to identify accurately.”

But in the indictment, it was changed into: “Witness Dinh Vu Thuong found that suspect Hai sat in the post office (where the case happened) at 19.39.”

Thus, it is clear that the Long An province’s People’s Procuracy intentionally falsified or even fabricated the testimony of witness Dinh Vu Thuong. And this is especially detrimental to suspect Ho Duy Hai.

5. Misinterpretation of identification results for used Ho Duy Hai motorbikes, a series of contradictions about vehicle number plate:

Concluding the investigation, the Police Investigation agency had “transformed” the license plate of the motorbike Mr. Thuong recognized into a license plate 62F5 – 0842 (Nguyen Thi Ruoi’s vehicle). Strangely, in the Indictment, it was 62F5 – 0842, sometimes it was 62F6 – 0842 (?).

6. Arbitrarily changing witnesses’ testimonies about knife sizes available at Cau Voi Post Office:

After capturing Ho Duy Hai, the police investigators sent people to buy knives and cutting boards at the market to use as evidence to “illustrate” their point of condemnation. In other words, this case has no evidence-based material evidence – as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. Only illustrations.

A picture of the scene of the cutting board lying close to the victim’s head with two long blood stains. Surely the culprit left a fingerprint on this cutting board, but the chopping board has disappeared from the scene unreasonably

7. Unusual: withdrawing from the case file all documents and circumstances related to “particularly important witness” named Nguyen Van Nghi:

– Nguyen Van Nghi is the lover of Nguyen Thi Anh Hong (shown in the testimony of Mr. Cao Hoang Tuan Anh)

– On the night of the case, Nguyen Van Nghi stopped by Cau Voi Post Office and had a testimony to see a young man in the post office on the evening of January 13, 2008.

– Nguyen Van Nghi fled the night of the case, went home the next night and was arrested.

– The investigating authority once held and took Nguyen Van Nghi’s testimony.

But it is unusual to:

– Nguyen Van Nghi was not included in the list of “witnesses“.

– All information and documents related to Nguyen Van Nghi were removed from the case file.

– Why police investigators have not let Nguyen Van Nghi identify Ho Duy Hai?

– Why they have not taken fingerprints of Nguyen Van Nghi?

Now, Long An police suddenly said that the person named Nguyễn Văn Nghị was named Nguyễn Hữu Nghị with a different age from 1984 instead of 1979 and the residence also jumped from Tiền Giang to Long an.

Thoibao.de (Translated)

Bình luận