Police: We didn’t torture the boy

That day, I wrote THIS. It was alleged that the police from Kampar police station “tortured” a 10-year-old schoolboy because of alleged stealing.

Today, the StarOnline posted this article:

KAMPAR: The police here have denied abusing 10-year-old N. Logeswaran who was picked up on suspicion of stealing a teacher’s purse.

Responding to news reports about such allegations, Kampar OCPD Supt Nordin Manan said his officers did not abuse or threaten the pupil after picking him up from his school here on Aug 6 at 12.45pm.

“The clinical findings from Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun did not show any signs of physical abuse,” he told a press conference here yesterday.

Supt Nordin said the alleged injuries looked more like rashes than wounds.

He also said that the boy was not handcuffed and was not detained in a lock-up.

“How can they claim that the parents were not informed when they saw us pick him up at the school?” said Supt Nordin.

A spokesman at for the school said Logeswaran’s parents were informed about the matter. “The mother was even at the school when police picked him up.”

Now, this is very confusing. The police say they didn’t manhandle the boy. The school says the mother was there when the police came to pick the boy up.

BUT, the lawyer representing the boy and his family has this to say, also from the same article:

Lawyer G. Balasundram, speaking for Logeswaran’s parents, maintained that the school did not inform them about the arrest.

Parti Sosialis Malaysia central committee member Dr D. Jeyakumar also insisted that the school had not informed the parents.

“The mother only knew that her child had been picked up when she went to the school to fetch him home,” said the Sungai Siput MP.

Dr Jeyakumar, a medical doctor by profession, claimed the abrasions on the child were consistent with physical abuse.

Classic example of “two sides to every story”. Only that in this case, there really shouldn’t be this big of a discrepency.

They can’t even agree on whether the parents knew about it or not.

To be honest, I cannot see any reason why the boy, or his family, would want to lie about this. What good do they get out of it?

The logical way of thinking for me would be that it actually DID happen the way the boy alleged it to have happened, but the school is denying it to maintain their image (as I imagine they wouldn’t want to tarnish it with irresponsibility of not informing the parents), and the police are denying it because.. well, they just aren’t supposed to behave that way!

But then, in the StarOnline article, there is a photo of the police showing another photo of the alleged bruises that the boy suffered from while under their custody. The police say they are rashes. I couldn’t really make it out, I blame it on the grainy photo of a grainy photo.

But in the article, the police also mentioned about a certain Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun. Why was this hospital mentioned? And what has the hospital got to do with this report? What is their role?

According to the previous article, the boy was sent to the Kampar Hospital. Shouldn’t any clinical finding of the bruises/rashes come from that hospital instead?

And seriously, what does the boy stand to gain from lying about being abused?


One Comment on “Police: We didn’t torture the boy”

  1. cikjoi says:

    “And seriously, what does the boy stand to gain from lying about being abused?”

    He would escape prosecution. Attacking first. Muddling the case, to divert attention away from his alleged crime. If it’s a lie, i doubt it’s the boy’s idea. Could be from adults around him. Heyy, with anwar & the gang showing the way, anybody could do it.

    He could be sent to the main hospital so experts could examine him upon referral from Kampar. The case has become a public interest case and the police would not want to take any chances.

    But, what i found interesting is, why does your logic leans towards the boy telling the truth and the authorities (schools and police) lying?
    _______
    Your question is an interesting one. I guess it’s easier to side with the underdog.

    I fail to see what this has to do with Anwar though. Except, maybe, that the boy’s lawyer is from PSM.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s