Credibility of police work in Bali case raises doubts

Credibility of police work in Bali case raises doubts

Fitri Wulandari and A'an Suryana, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta/Bali

Oddities in the police investigation into the Bali bombing
need further explanation for the sake of credibility, an
intelligence analyst said on Sunday.

A former State Intelligence Coordinating Board (Bakin)
official, AC Manullang, said the police had to work hard to
collect more evidence before reaching the conclusion that Amrozi
and his accomplices were truly the suspects in the high profile
case.

"It is hard to believe that a junior high school graduate such
as Amrozi could be part of a professional team who exploded bombs
in Bali," he told The Jakarta Post.

Manullang questioned why Amrozi stayed for only two days in
Bali, as the police claim, to prepare for the bombing. True
professionals, he said, required more time for such preparations.

He also pointed out how easily the police found a set of VCDs
(Video Compact Discs), photo albums and other evidence in
Amrozi's house in East Java.

"Usually, a suspect hides or destroys incriminating evidence,"
said Manullang.

Amrozi, a mechanic, was apprehended after almost one month of
investigation, which was marred by some false arrests. Police
said the 40-year-old man had bought a car which carried the bomb
that exploded in front of Sari Club nightclub. At least 190
people were killed in the blast, with nearly 100 others remaining
unaccounted for.

Despite some odd facts, Manullang refused to say that the
police were engineering the case.

"I don't want to talk about politics," he asserted.

Separately, the police force expressed concern about
allegations that police had engineered the case using Amrozi as a
scapegoat.

Brig. Gen. Edward Aritonang, the spokesman for the joint
investigative team, said the police carried out the probe based
on credible evidence and testimonies from the witnesses.

"From the evidence and witnesses, we believe that Amrozi was
involved in the bombing. It is not engineered," Aritonang told
reporters on Sunday.

The investigation has run smoothly, in stark contrast to other
bombing cases in the country and even the terrorist attack on the
United States on Sept. 11 last year blamed on al-Qaeda.

Dismissing the doubts, Aritonang said that the investigation
had been conducted in a professional manner.

"Evidence and testimonies from witnesses are enough to prove
that Amrozi is a prime suspect in the case," Aritonang said.

The evidence includes the Mitsubishi L-300 minivan, explosive
materials and some rented houses, which had been used to plan and
assemble the bombs, Aritonang said.

Aritonang added that the receipts for the purchase of
chemicals as the explosive raw material had strengthened
accusations leveled at Amrozi.

Also, the testimonies from witnesses helped the police reach
their conclusion, he said.

"Amrozi initially denied that he bought the Mitsubishi minivan
where the bomb was planted. But, we could produce witnesses who
confirmed that Amrozi had bought the car," Aritonang said.

Meanwhile, amid the controversy, criminal law expert Loebby
Loeqman called on the public not to prematurely judge police
work.

"The investigation is still underway. The police need more
time to collect more evidence and witnesses, in order to obtain a
more comprehensive picture of the case," said Loebby.

Loebby asserted that the police may have strong indications,
besides the evidence that led them to declare Amrozi a suspect.