Journalist Truong Chau Huu Danh said that Mr. Le Ai Dan – the procurator who had the right to prosecute the murder case of Cau Voi Post Office in 2008 has left Long An province to Hanoi and went to the Supreme People’s Procuracy to work.
It is likely that the Supreme People’s Procuracy has begun work on the search for additional grounds necessary for the case and that, in addition to the chief investigators of the case, Mr. Le Ai Dan is one of the focal points who had 13 years of access to the details of this case.
It is worth noting that the signs of deliberate wrongdoings of the case have been made public, but up to now, no legal body has confirmed that charges are being made against falsifying case files and why not to prosecute, although this request was submitted many years ago.
Explaining Mr. Le Ai Dan’s move to Hanoi, journalist Truong Chau Huu Danh said: “In this case, Mr. Dan made a mistake, so he is the best person to understand what is wrong.”
Mr. Danh also revealed that there were 2/17 supreme judges secretly cooperated with him to provide unexplained suspicions of Cau Voi Post Office case, even though only 2 out of 17 people but it is enough for us to hope that there are still good people and the strong voice of public opinion that can awaken people’s conscience, even though they have given up their hands to vote, they have faithfully repented.
The latest finding was also published by the journalist on his Facebook page “The person detecting the crime in the post office has not signed in the case’s file.”
Mr. Danh said that most of the most important and earliest testimonies of witnesses who directly saw and heard related events while the case happened and early the next morning were dissappeared from the case’s file. The testimonies of the first witnesses such as Ms. Kim Tuyen (who claimed to hear victims’ outcry at 20.00); Mr. Long (the last person who saw Van when she was still alive); Coi and Tri (the last two people who saw the suspect) were withdrawn from the case. Now it turns out that Phung Phung Hieu’s testimony was not in the official record. And after the appeal hearing which upheld the death sentence of Ho Duy Hai, more than 2 years after the lawyer raised the question, the Supreme People’s Procuracy took the testimony of Mr. Phung Phung Hieu.
Specifically, Phung Phung Hieu, the first person discovered two female bodies lying in the corner of the stairs early the next morning on January 14, 2008.
According to Mr. Hieu, after he reported to the Police about the incident, a few days later the Police of Long An Province (PC14) recorded his testimony, but did not ask him to sign the minutes and let him go home. The reason why Phung Phung’s testimony is not in the file but it is still acknowledged by many newspapers is that he was the first witness to discover the massacre.
The Cong An Nhan Dan (People’s Police) newspaper dated January 15, 2008 stated that: “At 7.00 on January 14, 2008, Mr. Phung Phung Hieu, a postman of the Thu Thua District Post Office, delivered the newspaper daily to the commune Post and Telecommunications points.
When he arrived at the cultural post office No. 2 in Nhi Thanh commune, Thu Thua district, located along National Road 1A in hamlet 5, Nhi Thanh commune (Cau Voi area), I did not see the door opening. Calling for a while but no one responded, he climbed the fence into the side of the wall to the back glass door to look inside when he found two female bodies lying in the corner of the stairs.”
Police newspaper also said: “Colonel Le Van Huu, the director of the province’s Police Department and his deputy Colonel Phan Chi Thanh were present at the scene to direct the professional forces to investigate the case.”
Mr. Danh wrote: “Mr. Phung Phung Hieu – the postman who discovered the bodies of two victims at Cau Voi post office immediately climbed out the fence and reported it to the police. He is both a postman and a relative of the two female victims.”
“Information about Phung Phung Hieu appeared in the press a lot, but the public kept wondering: Did the post gate open that morning? Was there a lock or not? Why did Ho Duy Hai climb the fence to get his motorbike and the case file did not say Hai closed the gate after taking his vehicle?
Currently, I have the written form of Hieu’s testimony. But this testimony was taken out after both courts had declared the death penalty. Minutes of testimony made on September 26, 2011, by Mr. Do Xuan Tuu – deputy director of the 3rd Supreme People’s Procuracy. Meanwhile, the appeal hearing court upheld the death sentence for Ho Duy Hai on April 28, 2009. That is, more than two years after the death penalty took effect, the minutes of taking Mr. Phung Phung Hieu were made.
Hieu testified, a few days later he was given testimony, but no one asked to sign the minutes.
A shocking case, testimonies of Mr. Hieu (who discovered the victims’ bodies), Ms. Kim Tuyen (who testified to hear outcry of the victims at 20.00); Mr. Long (the last person seeing Van still alive); Coi and Tri (the last two people who saw the suspect) were withdrawn from the case.
The initial testimony is very important, as it was taken as soon as the case happened. However, the initial testimony of these very reliable people was taken out. It was not until the arrest of Ho Duy Hai that other testimonies were made, and there were phenomena that were shaped to fit the scene – but many of the testimonies were proven to be changed.
Because they wanted to have solid accusation against Ho Duy Hai so all the unfavorable testimonies for the conviction disappeared.
Over nearly 13 years, these records in turn appear to clarify the case.
Thank you investigators, prosecutors and 2/17 supreme judges for trusting us to work for a transparent justice together,” Journalist Truong Chau Huu Danh concluded.
Lawyer Tran Hong Phong said about this incident as follows:
“The first floor’s door’s was opened and lights up the night of the murder so who was in the upstairs, taking off the power and closing the two front gates?”
For many years, we also raised in suspicion that the first floor of Cau Voi post office had signs of involvement of the culprit. The reason is shown in the following points:
– 1st floor was the place where victim Hong and his lover Nguyen Mi Sol slept (they were living together as husband and wife) whenever Mi Sol comes from Ho Chi Minh City to visit Hong. Mi Sol declared that he went to the Cau Voi post office during every weekend (the night of January 13, 2008 was Sunday). At Cau Voi post office on the ground floor there was only 1 bed. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to have more room for sleeping on the first floor, because the another female victim Van needed a separate place for sleeping.
– At least 2 witnesses, Mr. Nguyen Van Thu and Ms. Le Thi Thu Hieu, said that the night of January 13, 2008 (between 20.30 and 22.00) the lights on the first floor was turned on. Hieu’s testimony showed that the night of January 13 / 2008 Mi Sol returned to Cau Voi post office (meanwhile there is no testimony or other documents in the case file showing the night of January 13, 2008 what Mi Sol did and where).
– The door of the 1st floor cannot be in a “deadlock” condition, no one can enter and exit, when the post office operates normally, inside, there were machines, equipment, electricity, water tanks on the roof with balcone and down people were living. Therefore, when the scene examination on January 14, 2008 police did not go to the first floor, but simply recorded in the Minutes as “there is no trace on the upstairs, where machines and equipment were placed” was difficult to understand and may miss criminal signs (as police said they did not go up to check, how they knew the machinery?).
Unexpectedly, the photo taken on the scene on January 14, 2020, showed what we suspected was grounded: The door of the upstairs was open during the evening of Jan 13, and someone were there.
Also related to the circumstances of the first floor, there are two important information that has yet to be verified. That is:
– In the morning of January 14, 2008, when police investigators came to examine the scene, the electricity and water in the lavabo faucet ran out. Who took off electricity during the previous night?
– According to Phung Phung Hieu’s presentation (verified by the Supreme People’s Procuracy in 2012), the first person to visit the Cau Voi post office at 7.00 on January 14, 2008 (to deliver the newspaper), two wings of the gate were closed.
Meanwhile, Ho Duy Hai did not have any testimony about closing the post office gate after the crime.
Experimental process of investigation also did not recognize that Hai closed the gate after the “crime” but only took the motorbike to the gate and ran home. Who closed the 2 post office gates in the night?