Any Connection Between TBH and TBH?

Shall the Councillor TBH2 worries he was a "suspect" in TBH1's death?

He should not worry, because following questions may help to clear the clue:
- If someone applied force and took control over TBH1, should there be any traceable marks such as bruises found on TBH1, especially on the both wrists.

- if police have found any suspicous mark on TBH2, TBH2 should have been detained. And there was no report that police found any suspicous mark such as scratches on TBH2.

- as reported in "O" Daily during the 1st week of TBH1's death, there was no suspicous specimen found from TBH1's nails. That might be due to TBH1 had not put up a fight. If TBH2 was the person caused TBH1 to fall, commonsense should tell that before the fall, TBH1 should be fighting back. Only when people seems "authorised" could command over TBH1, which make TBH1 dare not fight back. Common sense still apply.

- if TBH1 was brought back to M to assist in investigation but was not a suspect, how about TBH2? Why M let TBH1 and TBH2 met in the pantry? Why M did not provide sufficient protection for TBH1 if TBH2 could be the party that was investigated? Why didn't M prevent such opportunity for a meeting between two (or even more?)?