While the main reason for my sloppier research is my health problems, another important reason is that I am weary of doing research online.
I have been weary of using Internet for a long time. I believe that I wrote about it in my first report. Please check on that yourself, please.
After I embarked on my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang, I encountered many incidents where my online activities appeared to have been monitored. I wrote very few of them. For example, a cartoonist at Globe and Mail appeared to be stealing my blog idea in early 2005.
A recent example was, sadly, probably related to Dr. Guobing Jiang's death on July 21.
As I wrote in my open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it was on May 18 when I realized that RCMP/CSIS was the culprit of Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder:
"On May 18, an Armstrong, BC police spokesman defended the force's decision on CBC Radio of not issuing an Amber Alert in the Carmen Kados abduction case. (This girl was later found alive, fortunately.) He said that there are strict conditions for issuing Amber Alert, including description of suspect or suspect's vehicle."
After realizing Harper's desire to protect RCMP's image, I consciously made the decision to moderate my actions. I went to Ottawa on that weekend. I was going to hand over my file to PMO and trust Mr. Harper would do what's right for Canada. However, I was ignored by PMO.
Still, I continued to be modest in my actions. That's one of the reasons why, when I wrote my analyses of Min Chen trial, I purposely postponed drawing my conclusion about RCMP/CSIS's role in the crime so as to give PMO ample opportunity to provide leadership in my file.
My first analysis on Min Chen's motive was posted on June 3, almost one month after the trial. I did not post my second analysis, What happened at Min Chen "trial", until July 13, some additional 40 days later. In between, I called PMO on June 22 and was again ignored.
After my second analysis, some pundits noticed that I left out some key comments by Chen's lawyer John Lee from a source article I used. ("Stripped-pants cover backsides", as they say.) These comments were more related to the question of Who Killed Cecilia, which was going to be the title of my next and final analysis of the trial. Actually, I wrote an introduction of it before I realized the Dr. Jiang's death was also related to me and I had to deal with this new and shocking development.
Here is the first section from my draft:
Who killed Cecilia?
Introduction
In my previous analysis of Min Chen "trial", I left out the single most egregious comment by John Lee because it is more related to the following key question: Who Killed Cecilia Zhang?
Despite his role as Chen's defence lawyer, John Lee was unequivocal that Chen killed Cecilia Zhang. And he provided a seemingly "solid" logic -- to people who are new to Canadian justice system anyways - for his assertion, quote unquote:
�栗钧解释说，既然检控方有能力以超越合理的怀疑标准认定陈敏在张东岳失踪时非法进入了那个房子，他便与张东岳失踪脱不了关系。既然陈敏与张东岳失踪有关、张东岳又死了，陈敏又不能对她的死做出他没有责任的合理解释，他就必须要对张东岳的死负责。因为，没人相信九岁的小女孩在半夜自己跑到离家四十多公里的地方去自杀。所以，如果案件进行庭审，即便陈敏不作证，陪审团也会定他一级谋杀；如果陈敏作证、陪审团不相信他，还是会定他一级谋杀。�I have no doubt, too, that the prosecution could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Min Chen did enter Zhang house illegally at the time of Cecilia's disappearance. But isn't it true that the onus was not on Chen to explain why he did not kill Cecilia Zhang, but on the prosecution to prove, again beyond a reasonable doubt, that Chen did commit the manslaughter or the murder, whether it be first-degree, second-degree? Isn't it true that there are many more possibilities on how Cecilia died, beyond the two Lee mentioned, i.e., that (1) Chen killed Cecilia and (2) Cecilia killed herself? And if the onus was on the prosecution, how could Lee be so sure that a jury would convict Chen of first-degree murder, irregardless of whether Chen choose to testify or not?
But the more serious question is this: Was this how the defence team actually advised Chen? In other words, did the defence team tell Chen that he needed to convince a jury that he did not kill Cecilia Zhang? If that's the case, I can see for someone who was relatively new to Canada, how Lee's advice could have a devastating effect on his own convictions.
I should point out that there is no evidence whatsoever linking Chen to Cecilia's death, as admitted by the prosecution. I should also point out that, when the prosecution said that it "does not completely accept the version of events surrounding the death of Cecilia Zhang as admitted to or asserted by the Defendant" in the masterly crafted ASOF, it also left the door open about the possibility that Chen did not in fact kill Cecilia Zhang.
Next in my analysis, I was going to write about my main conclusion that RCMP/CSIS was the culprit of Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder. My strongest circumstantial evidence was that Toronto Police issued an Amber Alert after Cecilia was abducted when it clearly should not. Just to make sure I remembered correctly what the Armstrong, BC police officer said on CBC Radio, I went on the Internet and did some research on Amber Alert in the first half of the week of July 17-21. My research on Amber Alert might have alerted RCMP/CSIS and triggered the death of Dr. Jiang in Toronto on July 21. (For other circumstantial evidence related to Dr. Jiang's case, please see my open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. - I would put the "conditional probability" to be around 40 percent that Dr. Jiang's death was a foul-play involving RCMP/CSIS, if my allegation that RCMP/CSIS killed Cecilia Zhang turns out to be true.)
That's why I have since become even wearier about doing research online.
Update 20070104:
Naturally, other circumstantial evidence implicating RCMP/CSIS's role in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder can be found in my open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
