Another NTU stabbing Facebook group

There is another NTU stabbing Face Book Group, Investigate The Death of DAVID WIDJAJA Thoroughly - USUT TUNTAS KEMATIANNYA.

This group has even more members than the other group, 1420 at present day. And quite a large number of the members are Indonesians or have indonesian sounding names.

What is the world coming to?

And below is the group description statement:

--------------------------

I am one of David Hartanto's close friend and I am here to give you some facts, assumptions, possibilities about this case

Facts:

1. Lok Tat Seng: Dean of Student of NTU gathered all Indonesian students in International Student Center on evening after incident and he just said there was witness on the spot who saw David's body lying on the ground, dead. Dean did not said that witness saw David jumped from balcony. And that is, according to him, all he has saw.

2. The only official statement from police is: David was found dead at the crime scene, they did not mention whether he commited suicide.

The link: http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIM...20at%20NTU.pdf

They also just mention 'The professor was believed to be stabbed'. The police did not say that 'the professor was stabbed'. Where this assumption come from? Why they did not say about it?

3. I and some Indonesian students gather tonight, 3 March 2009, at 8 pm, at International Student Center and talked to David's parent. They have seen his body. There was NO WOUND whatsoever on his wrists and police also has confirmed it.

I assumed that his parent would not lie it means that all media news about 'David slashed his wrist' was FAKE.

4. The wounds found on David's body, according to his parents, were on his head (It is assumed due to fall injury), and slash wound on his neck. The wound on his neck is very suspicious, in my opinion. How he received that wound?? Again, according to his parent, police guessed that it may be happened when the bottom part of his head smashed the ground. In that case, his chin will have broken and it did not.

My question is: WHERE DOES THAT SLASH WOUND ON HIS NECK CAME FROM?


Assumptions:
1. David stabbed professor. How did you know? The crime scene is closed room, only David and that professor. No one see what has happened. Eye-witness only saw David run out from that room.

2. David commited suicide. How could someone who commited suicide drop himself into glassed roof, instead of directly drop himself to ground.

3. David slashed his wrist. I do not know where this news came from...

4. David's motivation.

4.1. He pissed off since his prof did not give satisfactory grade
The grade has not been released and he even has not submitted the report. It is also NTu policy not to inform the student about the grade which they got before release of the result.

4.2. He has mental problem
No record in Student Counselling Centre about his attendance. For bright student as him, I did not believe that he did not attend counseling if he has some problems. Also, he still brought bag with usual daily stuff, on incident day, such as drink bottle, towel, etc. If David planned to kill someone why would he prepare to bring such things. It is easier for him to just bring one knife and stab his prof on spot.

4.3. He pissed off because his scholarship has been revoked
I knew David since I was his roommate for 2 consecutive years during Mathematical Olympiad training camp. He almost did not qualify for IMO, only managed to get at 14th rank from 15 people selected. He still joked and laughed to me at that time. He also did not get anything from IMO and still fine, not seemed depressed whatsoever, and according to his parents, he said 'At least, I managed to represent Indonesia at IMO' .

He also still play Hammerfall game in Facebook at 2 am on the incident day. My friend saw his Facebook account online. How come a murderer played game in the night before incident? If I was him, I will seriously think how would I prepare myself tomorrow


Possibilities:
1. Professor attacked David. I deduced this thing for several key points.
According to many reports, David's cloth was soaked on blood. If the blood is the result from slashing his wrist, it should not soak his cloth since wrist is far from body. If the wound is from neck, it is easier.

2. David tried to run from Professor. After he realized that he was attacked, he resisted and run from that room, with wound on his neck.

3. David falled because of unconsciousness. He became panic and probably lose his common sense because of terrible bleeding, drop himself down into glassed roof to escape from his Professor.

I am responsible for what I have written here, and contact me at kaminari.no.me@gmail.com if you need any clarification.

"NTU stabbing" conspiracy Face book group

I was reading about the NTU stabbing when I came across this Facebook group, For the Truth Behind the NTU Stabbing Incident.

The group currently has 887 members and is founded by this seemingly creepy looking guy Aen. Aen strongly felt there is more than meets the eye and that David Hartanto Widjadja may not have been the aggressor in the stabbing incident .

I am definitely NOT promoting or joining this group. The concept behind the group smacks too much of some media-police conspiracy cover up theory.

The the fact that such a group can even manage to gather 887 members is scary. Either that guy Aen has a lot of friends out there or there are that many crazy people out there who actually shared the belief that there is a conspiracy against a foreign student's death.

Anyway, below is the description statement of the Face Book group. Read at your own risk!

-----------------------------

I was not eager to name this group based on the "stabbing" incdent in NTU because nobody can be sure what really happened. Police investigations are underway and the media has been doing a lousy job with their rotten, biased and sensationalist reports. Nonetheless, I have chosen to name as such because everybody had come to know of this news as such.

Like myself a few days ago, many of you might not have been fully aware of what had happened in NTU on March 02 morning. The gist of it is, unlike what the media has vividly but groundlessly reported, a bloodied David Hartanto Widjadja, an NTU student from Indonesia had been seen running out from NTU Professor Chan Kap Luk's office and subsequently jumped onto a linkway between two blocks from the fifth storey and then falling off the linkway to his death. Any details in between are currently all speculation, some realistic, some biased and some ridiculous. But all of them raise questions. Questions that begs us people to police the media and the authorities. What we want is the truth and the truth can only be told with utmost transparency and honesty. As a united group of people who have confidence in the Singapore justice system, we demand no less than transparency and honesty. This group has been set up to question if the need arises. We will not accuse but we will aggressively question.

__________________________________________
What Has the Media Done?
Shortly after the incident happened, the media was quick to report as vividly as they could what they think have happened, that David stabbed Professor Chan and then slit his wrists and jumped off a building to his death, based on "witness" accounts, even though doors of the office where it happened were closed. They published the biased stories anyway, and many have guess, possibly as an attempt to shift the blame to David Hartanto Widjadja, portraying him as a deranged, depressed, vengeful, suicidal and murderous loner while victimizing Professor Chan Kap Luk. The fact could be very far from what is reported as David's family has reported no slit wounds on his wrists.

__________________________________________
What Can You Do?
Don't believe what the media says and help to ensure the correct informations gets circulated. Combat the biased and unfair reports by telling people around you what are facts and what are not. You should also spread the word by recruiting more members to this group. The more voices we have, the stronger our message. You can do this by inviting ALL your friends to the group and posting the group on your profile by using the "share" feature. You can also blog about the group and mention it to people. Your help is needed in our campaign. We will be a voice to be reckoned with should the time comes for us to speak up.

__________________________________________
The Next Step
have a thing to say? Thoughts on this matter? More speculation? Have an idea that would improve the system? Go to the forums and join a discussion, or even start one. We are getting bigger and stronger. Let's put our numbers to good use.

NTU Stabbing

I was discussing this with SO.

What a waste of a young life? What happened to make a maths genius go bonkers?

Frankly, if I was him, and I really want vengeance or something, I would have stabbed the other person a few more times and deeper, since after all, I would be dead a few mins later, by suicide, by jumping.

I was nearly there and thus I understand the feeling of almost losing everything in life.

Maybe that's what he felt? That his life was over? That desperation? That loss? That drove him over the edge?

I am no psycho but there were times I really feel like stabbing someone. That great was my rage.

But that was when I was younger and angrier. Some years back.

These days, very few things can ruffle my feathers to the extend that I would want to kill someone.

I suppose that age mellows a person.

-------------------------

Channel News Asia
2 Mar 2009

Singapore's NTU stabbing incident leaves one dead and another injured

SINGAPORE: A final-year engineering student at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) jumped from a campus block after stabbing a professor on Monday morning.

The professor was in his office at the engineering faculty when the student stabbed him in the back with a knife, leaving him injured.

After stabbing the professor, the male student - who was in his 20s - slit his wrists and jumped off a five-storey building.

Police said they received a call about the incident at 10.35am, and arrived to find the student dead at the bottom of the engineering block.

Eyewitnesses had also told Channel NewsAsia that a person had been stabbed, and that a student, believed to be an Indonesian-Chinese had slit his wrists before jumping off a building.

An NTU spokesman later confirmed that a final year student from the School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering was involved in the stabbing.

It, however, did not name the two people involved, and only said that their next-of-kin had been notified.

The student is said to be 21-year-old David Hartanto Widjaja and the professor is believed to be Chan Kap Luk, who was left with injuries on his back and arm.

Widjaja was a former president of the NTU Electronic Sports Club.

Professor Chan, a Singaporean in his 40s, was sent to the National University Hospital for treatment and is said to be in a stable condition.

The professor has been with NTU's School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering since June 1992.

Professor Chan, who is Deputy Director of the Biomedical Engineering Research Centre at NTU, is said to have been the supervisor of the student in a project.

NTU's president, Su Guaning, pledged to help the families of the professor and student and has mobilised its counselling professionals to help. He also said the matter will be investigated thoroughly.

"The university is deeply shocked and saddened by what has happened... The university community will rally together at this difficult time and do our utmost to help the student's family, the professor and his family, and those traumatised by the incident," added Dr Su.

Speaking to the media at the NUH in the evening, Dr Su said Professor Chan might be discharged in a few days. The stab wound in the professor's back was "deep" but no vital organs were injured. His arm was also not "too badly hurt".

It is understood that at the time of the incident, Widjaja was discussing his final-year project with Professor Chan, as he had difficulty obtaining a pass grade.

Dr Su said Widjaja was a "very good student" whose grades had slipped recently, but he was still considered above average. He said Professor Chan had expressed regret that he could not help his student earlier.

The NTU president said he hopes to prevent such an incident from happening again. "I think it's an overall pastoral care system that is necessary. We've already set up such a thing, with the Student Affairs Office, many counsellors keeping an eye on students with problems.

"Unfortunately, the student never showed that he had problems. ... We would like to review the system to see how we can pick out better students who have such problems, even if they don't communicate with others."

- 938LIVE/CNA/sf/ir

Not guilty does not equate innocence

We have often heard of the term, Innocent until proven guilty.

And now we know that just because one is not found guilty in court did not necessary mean one is innocent.

So what does that mean? That no one is truly innocent once that person is charged in court?

And that guilt or innocence is just by reasonable doubt? And that by innocence, it is only legally innocent and not really innocent.

------------------------

The Straits Times
25 Aug 2008

Not guilty = innocent?

A MAN is charged with a crime. After a trial, he is acquitted and goes free. Does that mean he is innocent?

Not necessarily.

Witnesses may have changed their evidence or a technicality may have got in the way. The end result: The prosecution is unable to convince the judge that the man had done the deed.

And once there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, duty requires that the judge acquit the man.

Said Law Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday: 'It is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. No serious lawyer will question this possibility.''

He was responding to two lawyer-MPs, who wanted him to clarify the position of the Attorney-General on the subject of acquittals.

The issue of guilt and innocence has been in the air since mid-May when AG Walter Woon stated that an acquitted person may be 'not guilty'' in law, but guilty in fact.

Two months later, Appeal Court Judge V K Rajah weighed in on the issue, noting that such comments could undermine confidence in the courts' verdicts and the criminal justice system which is predicated on the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty''.

Not so, said Mr Shanmugam.

He described the presumption of innocence as an 'important and fundamental principle'' which the Government is 'absolutely committed to upholding.'' 'There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt should at all have arisen about this,'' he said.

Nor does the Government have any intention to encroach on the functions of the Courts.

'It is for the courts, and the courts alone, to exercise judicial power and decide the question of guilt, in a trial.''

The position taken by the AG was a logical one, the same as that taken by his predecessor Chan Sek Keong, now the Chief Justice, he said.

CJ Chan had pointed out in a lecture in 1996 that the trial process was designed to prove guilt - not innocence.

Quoting from the lecture, Mr Shanmugam reported the then-AG saying that the presumption of innocence is a presumption that an accused is 'legally innocent."

'It is simply an expression, that in a criminal trial, the procesecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,'' said Mr Shanmugam.

The AG's position was also consistent with jurisprudence from Commonwealth countries, such as England and Scotland.

----------------------------

The Straits Times
26 Aug 2008

Govt defends A-G's stand

Law Minister reiterates that 'not guilty in law' does not mean 'innocent'

By K.C.Vijayan

A MAN is charged with a crime. After a trial, he is acquitted and goes free. Does that mean he is innocent?

Not necessarily.

Witnesses may have changed their evidence, or a technicality may have got in the way. What this amounts to: The prosecution is unable to convince the judge that the man had done the deed.

And once there is any reasonable doubt as to an accused's guilt, duty requires that the judge acquit him.

Law Minister K. Shanmugam told Parliament yesterday: 'It is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. I emphasise this: No serious lawyer will question this possibility.'

He was responding to two lawyer-MPs, who wanted him to clarify the position of the Attorney-General on the subject of acquittals. The issue has been up in the air since mid-May, when Attorney-General Walter Woon stated that an acquitted person may be 'not guilty' in law, but 'guilty' in fact.

Two months later, Appeal Court Judge V. K. Rajah weighed in on the issue. He did not refer to what the Attorney-General said, but made it clear that such comments could undermine confidence in the courts' verdicts and the criminal justice system, which is based on the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Not so, said Mr Shanmugam.

He described the presumption of innocence as an 'important and fundamental principle' which the Government is 'absolutely committed to upholding'.

'There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt should at all have arisen about this.'

The Government has no intention of encroaching on the functions of the courts either, he added. 'It is for the courts, and the courts alone, to exercise judicial power and decide the question of guilt, in a trial.'

The Attorney-General's position is similar to that of his predecessor, Mr Chan Sek Keong, now the Chief Justice, Mr Shanmugam said.

CJ Chan had pointed out in a lecture in 1996 that the trial process was designed to prove guilt, not innocence.

Quoting from the lecture, Mr Shanmugam reported the then Attorney-General as saying that the presumption of innocence amounts to saying an accused person is 'legally innocent'.

'It is simply an expression that in a criminal trial, the prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,' said Mr Shanmugam.

The system in places such as England and Scotland is similar. In fact, Scotland has a third verdict - 'not proven' - besides 'guilty' and 'not guilty'. While 'not guilty' is a positive declaration of innocence, 'not proven' implies that guilt has not been conclusively proven.

Even as he stuck to his guns, Mr Shanmugam cautioned against jumping the other way. 'Just as a person acquitted may not necessarily be innocent, he may well also be, in fact, innocent.'

Lawyers The Straits Times contacted said the concepts of legal innocence and factual guilt have always been there, and agreed with Mr Shanmugam that accused persons may sometimes go free.

Association of Criminal Lawyers Singapore president Subhas Anandan said he had defended clients in the past who were acquitted for one reason or other, but whom he felt were guilty in fact.

'An accused person is not going to bother if he is factually guilty. All he wants is to be be able to walk away free.'

The reverse also applies: where a person is factually innocent but legally guilty. 'This happens where the accused wants to plead guilty to a lesser charge and end the case... because his interest is to walk away as quickly as possible.'

-----------------------------

The Straits Times
12 July 2008

Judge: No question of 'factual guilt' after acquittal

Justice V.K. Rajah takes issue with Govt's position on guilt and innocence

By K. C. Vijayan

A HIGH Court judge has taken issue with the Government's position that people acquitted of crimes may not necessarily be innocent.

Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah said it was a cornerstone of the justice system that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and it was for prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

He said: 'If the evidence is insufficient to support the prosecution's theory of guilt, and if the weaknesses in the prosecution's case reveal a deficiency in what is necessary for a conviction, the judge must acquit the accused and with good reason: it simply has not been proved to the satisfaction of the law that the accused is guilty, and the presumption of innocence stands unrebutted.

'It is not helpful, therefore, for suggestions to be subsequently raised about the accused's 'factual guilt' once he has been acquitted.'

To do so, he added, would be to undermine the court's not-guilty finding. It would also 'stand the presumption of innocence on its head, replacing it with an insidious and open-ended suspicion of guilt that an accused person would be hard-pressed to ever shed, even upon vindication in a court of law.'

His remarks on acquittal, innocence and guilt came near the end of his written judgment explaining why he acquitted former teacher William Ding, 36, of molesting several schoolboys.

While he did not say so, his comments appear directed at the position taken by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) in The Straits Times on May 8 and May 14.

The AGC was quoted in the first article as saying that a judge was bound by law to acquit a person if the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

'This means that if there is any reasonable doubt, the accused gets the benefit of it. It does not mean that the accused was innocent in the sense that he did not do the deed,' its spokesman said.

The AGC later wrote to the Forum Page and said that the nuance of an acquittal was often not clearly appreciated by the public.

'(The accused person) may be guilty in fact, but innocent in law because the evidence was not there,' its spokesman said.

That position took many, including lawyers, by surprise. Lawyer N. Sreenivasan wrote to the Forum Page saying such a view was of 'grave concern'.

'If the prosecution, with the full resources of the police, the power to interrogate accused persons, interview witnesses, seize evidence and rely on various presumptions, cannot prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, then the prosecution should not cast any cloud on the acquittal of the accused,' said Mr Sreenivasan.

In his written judgment, Justice Rajah said he had no doubt that prosecutions are begun only after careful investigation, but emphasised that 'the decision of guilt or innocence is constitutionally for the court and the court alone to make'.

'The court cannot convict if a reasonable doubt remains to prevent the presumption of innocence from being rebutted,' he added.

'In that result, there is no room for second-guessing or nice distinctions; there is only one meaning to 'not proved' and that is that it has not been established in the eyes of the law that the accused has committed the offence with which he has been charged.'

The question a court has to decide on is not whether it suspects the accused has done the deed, he added, but whether the prosecution has proven it beyond any reasonable doubt.

'Objective and not subjective belief is the essential touchstone of guilt and there is simply no place for subsequent speculation or implication that an acquitted accused may be 'factually guilty',' said Justice Rajah.

He noted that Singapore's adversarial system was not flawless, and perfectly proper prosecutions may sometimes fail for unexpected reasons. But the system was 'eminently credible, pragmatic and effective'.

'The rules are clear and precise, and neither the prosecution nor defence can or should complain if they fail by them,' he said.

Justice Rajah, who has been on the bench since 2004, was made a Judge of Appeal last year and also headed a committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the legal sector.

The judge also said that the doctrine of reasonable doubt was neither abstract nor theoretical.

'It has real, practical and profound implications in sifting the innocent from the guilty: in deciding who should suffer punishment and who should not,' he said.

Calling it a 'a bedrock principle of the criminal justice system' here, he said it was one which served public confidence that Singapore's system punishes only those who are guilty.