Understand the lawyer words carefully:
First, it is a hearsay, because no video has brought fourth to prove his claim and the lawyer is not at the scene to witness it firsthand.

Second: "people in police uniforms", so the lawyer take a safe route by not directly blaming it on real police, by using vague words like "people in police uniform".

Earlier thread in /k, the story was "unknown" people taken her, now change to people in police uniform pulak, dah almost 4 weeks missing, story keep changing, which is true?

Then why in the other thread in /k only mentioned 3 unknown vehicles took her, without mentioning police uniform?

Why not just plainly say that "she was took by police", why must use vague word like "she was took by people in police uniform"?

Dah masuk 4 weeks, but keep changing storyline and withholding information?

Because the storyline doesn't add up.

Like Malaysiakini journalist recently gone to "supposed" undercover accepting the bribes as "evidence".

Which kind of moron journalist take cash knowingly as evidence for his investigation?

He got CSI lab to detect DNA on those cash "evidence", is it?