Friday, July 31, 2009

Fortun Strikes Again

PNP crime lab hits back at forensic expert

MANILA, Philippines—The chief of the police Crime Laboratory on Friday lashed back at a forensic expert who claimed the body found in a steel drum fished out of the waters off Navotas was not that of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez.

“We did our best,” Chief Superintendent Arturo Cacdac on Friday said, adding in the end it would be up to the courts and the Department of Justice whom to believe.

The camp of Manuel Jimenez II, citing Dr. Raquel Fortun’s findings, has claimed that the body recovered by police was not of Ruby Rose.

My take:

The PNP may not be the most credible institution in the country today. But despite all its failings and shortcomings, to be bamboozoled like this by Fortun is the height of arrogance on the part of the Jimenezes and Fortun herself. Fortun may have won the public in the Failon suicide case. But looking at the bottomline, if Ted really wants to completely exonerate himself, why did he refuse a joint autopsy between Fortun and the PNP Crime Lab people? Why, is he afraid that Dr. Fortun may not be able to defend her findings if challenged by PNP doctors in front of Trina's body?

And now here comes again Dr. Fortun saying that the body fished out Manila Bay cemented in a drum is not of Ruby Rose's? Despite the testimony of the perpetrator himself who has nothing to gain and everything to lose in confessing to the crime except to just clear his conscience? This appears to be Failon Scandal all over again. As very authoritatively pointed out by Atty Alan Paguia in a forum before the National Press Club, to warrant a conviction, you need proof beyond reasonable doubt. With the statements of Fortun, doubt is now injected in the case.

So how credible is Fortun? Google says that she is the 18th prosecution witness in the Nicole Subic Rape case. She was was the one who said that a police lab exam that found no traces of semen on the condom that was said to have been used in the alleged assault or on the woman’s underwear was an “old” procedure no longer used in modern forensics. “It is believed unreliable,” Fortun said.

Her testimony was among those considered in the conviction of Daniel Smith. And now we know the truth...

No comments:

Post a Comment

tell me what you think!