McDonald boys case - there was once a report that a private Detective probed into the case and the boys’ Father seem to be most suspicious For whatever reasons known only to him he did not pursue further.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
6 Jan 1979 : Unsolved Geylang Bahru Murder of 4 Children
- Thread starter AhMeng
- Start date
In The 1979 Geylang Bahru murder case, is very obvious that malaysian neighbour is the murderer. The circumstantial evidence is very strong.
1)No forced sign of entry, hence must be someone known to the murdered children.
2)The murderer knows that on 3 days from Mondays to Fridays, an elderly woman will be along the corridor washing her hair and he chose a day that the old woman does not wash her hair along the corridor to commit the murder, this proves he is a resident in that block.
3)The kid's parents left the house at 6.30am and by 7.10am another neighnour came to knock the door, hence the time to commit the murder is very short, hence again proving should be someone staying in that block.
4)A taxi driver correctly identified the malaysian neighbour with bloodstains in his clothes and a knife banging against his taxi door on the same day that the murder occured.
I think in the 1960s and 1980s also got another 2 case whereby the murderer was charged with murder based solely on circumstantial evidence.
This 1979 Geylang Bahru murder case the circumstantial evidence is very strong, hence it is very strange why that IO handling this murder case release that malaysian neighbour after the taxi-driver already correctly identified him out at the police station.
My personal guess is and I want emphasize this is my personal guess, My personal guess is why the IO release the malaysian neighbour was becos the IO himself was also a malaysian-chinese or he himself was a former malaysian-chinese and maybe he was reluctant to detain and proceed to charge the malaysian-chinese guy for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence and his thinking maybe was to release the malaysian first until if more physical evidence surface then go arrest him again.
Because throughout the past 30 years, I got came across some singaporean-chinese that are born in malaysia or ex-malaysians, these ex-malaysians/malaysia-born singaporean-chinese are very defensive and biased towards those malaysian-chinese that had committed evil acts or offences or crimes in singapore.
The circumstantial evidence in this 1979 Geylang Bahru murder case is very strong, pointing the malaysian neighbour as the murderer. The IO handing this case should not had released the malaysian neighbour. The IO made a mistake.
The IO should had proceeded to charge the malaysian neighbour for murder based on the very strong circumstantial evidence and should not had released the malaysian.
I think there are 2 other cases in 1980s and 1960s whereby murderers are charged for murder based only on circumstantial evidences only.
And it was later revealed the malaysian neighbour moved out from the block and returned to malaysia
1)No forced sign of entry, hence must be someone known to the murdered children.
2)The murderer knows that on 3 days from Mondays to Fridays, an elderly woman will be along the corridor washing her hair and he chose a day that the old woman does not wash her hair along the corridor to commit the murder, this proves he is a resident in that block.
3)The kid's parents left the house at 6.30am and by 7.10am another neighnour came to knock the door, hence the time to commit the murder is very short, hence again proving should be someone staying in that block.
4)A taxi driver correctly identified the malaysian neighbour with bloodstains in his clothes and a knife banging against his taxi door on the same day that the murder occured.
I think in the 1960s and 1980s also got another 2 case whereby the murderer was charged with murder based solely on circumstantial evidence.
This 1979 Geylang Bahru murder case the circumstantial evidence is very strong, hence it is very strange why that IO handling this murder case release that malaysian neighbour after the taxi-driver already correctly identified him out at the police station.
My personal guess is and I want emphasize this is my personal guess, My personal guess is why the IO release the malaysian neighbour was becos the IO himself was also a malaysian-chinese or he himself was a former malaysian-chinese and maybe he was reluctant to detain and proceed to charge the malaysian-chinese guy for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence and his thinking maybe was to release the malaysian first until if more physical evidence surface then go arrest him again.
Because throughout the past 30 years, I got came across some singaporean-chinese that are born in malaysia or ex-malaysians, these ex-malaysians/malaysia-born singaporean-chinese are very defensive and biased towards those malaysian-chinese that had committed evil acts or offences or crimes in singapore.
The circumstantial evidence in this 1979 Geylang Bahru murder case is very strong, pointing the malaysian neighbour as the murderer. The IO handing this case should not had released the malaysian neighbour. The IO made a mistake.
The IO should had proceeded to charge the malaysian neighbour for murder based on the very strong circumstantial evidence and should not had released the malaysian.
I think there are 2 other cases in 1980s and 1960s whereby murderers are charged for murder based only on circumstantial evidences only.
And it was later revealed the malaysian neighbour moved out from the block and returned to malaysia
Last edited:
What is the likely motive ? Revenge ?
The very strong circumstantial evidence in this 1979 murder case is already very strong, pointing to the malaysian neighbour as the murderer, no need forensic science.
Interesting opinion.
I remember read somewhere that becos of 4D winnings
something that the kids parents bought for someone 4D
tiok already say boh tiok
that person buay song killed all their 4 kids
Last edited:
I remember read somewhere that becos of 4D winnings
something that the kids parents bought for someone 4D
tiok already say boh tiok
that person buay song killed all their 4 kids[/QUOTE]
Why can't they reopen the case and investigate again?
I posted this comment in 1999 (20 years after the murders and 20 years ago) and am posting it again now.
Do consider looking at the parents as the motive instead of looking at them as the victims.
this case can close book liao
cos I believe all those who were involved in this case
already jiak curry chicken liao
KNN that period got several type of cases that can make children fear to go out KNN another one was bayi kidnapping and chop children's head to build bridges KNN
The circumstantial evidences from my 4 points listed in my first post is already very strong and pointing to the malaysian neighour as the murderer and is sufficient for the IO to proceed to charge the malaysian neighbour with murder but he strangely released him. No other explanation to explain the IO's action except the one which I wrote in my above post.
My personal guess is why the IO release the malaysian neighbour was becos the IO himself was also a malaysian-chinese or he himself was a former malaysian-chinese and maybe he was reluctant to detain and proceed to charge the malaysian-chinese guy for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence and his thinking maybe was to release the malaysian first until if more physical evidence surface then go arrest him again.
Because throughout the past 30 years, I got came across some singaporean-chinese that are born in malaysia or ex-malaysians, these ex-malaysians/malaysia-born singaporean-chinese are very defensive and biased towards those malaysian-chinese that had committed evil acts or offences or crimes in singapore.
Last edited:
A few years ago, got 1 caucasian woman made a short video clip about this 1979 Geylang Bahru murder case in Youtube and there are hundreds of singaporeans posting their views in the Youtube comment section and the overwhelming vast majority of comments also wrote that is very obvious is the malaysian neighbour committed these murders.
No forced entry means the murderer knew the kids who voluntarily opened the gate and door?
damn. if only DNA testing was available in the 70s, all these brutal murder cases would have been solved much sooner.
damn. you have no common sense.
Since there are no signs of forced entry, it is common sense that this mean the kids knew the murderer.
And it was also reported that the malaysian neighbour came over to their flat to use the telephone almost every day and the kids call him 'uncle'.
Okie..lol
Similar threads
