WHY DID RAZAK BAGINDA HAS WAIT FOR THE A.G OFFICE PROSECUTION NOT FOLLOW THRU WITH AN APPEAL BEFORE HIS FIRST MEET PRESS? WHAT WAS HIS MESSAGE TO THE MALAYSIANS WHO ARE THE SUCKERS
GHOST ALTANTUYA SAYS THE ROPE IS AROUND YOUR NECK SAY YOUR LAST PRAYERS ROSMAH MANSOR
Its just too damned obvious that PI Bala,
WHY WAS BALA KIDNAPPED BY MUSA HASAN’MEN TAKEN TO PRINCE HOTEL IN JALAN CONLAY INSTEAD OF BUKIT AMAN?
being an experienced investigator, knew what was going on. With the DPM Najib desperately making sms messages to Razak Magainda and with hook and crook, got Razak aquitted from the murder trial, it is just that Najib all along had planned for Razak to be his fall-guy and to be paid handsomely.click this A.G OFFICE FRAME ANWAR FOR SAYING ‘GELEDAH ‘ SENT HIM TO 7YEARS NOW the sms Bala can link WITH ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND WITNESS TO SENT NAJIB TO JAIL FOR ABUSE OF POWERIt does not make sense for Razak to murder Altantuya with C4, after all even he is charged with the murder, his position does not give him the authority to involve so many uniformed personnel to carry out this scenario. Thus Najib can claim to be not involve with Altantuya. Now that Razak is aquitted and he cannot be charged again with the same charge, Najib thinks that he can still get away with this cruelsome murder. If Abdul Razak Baginda didn’t order two elite cops to kill a Mongolian translator, who did?
After one of the lengthiest trials in Malaysian history, a politically well-connected insider was acquitted Friday of ordering the murder of his jilted lover, a woman whose death had the potential to reach into the highest levels of the ruling party.
With the acquittal of political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, the question was left hanging of who ordered the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu on October 19, 2006, allegedly by Police Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar. After ordering Abdul Razak freed, High Court Judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ordered the two put on a defense.
Altantuya, aged 28 at the time of her death, was executed by two shots to the head in a jungle clearing near the Kuala Lumpur suburb of Shah Alam on October 19, 2006 and her body was blown up with C4 explosives available only to the military. She reportedly had come to Malaysia to confront Abdul Razak over his decision to end their affair.
The two belonged to an elite bodyguard unit under the control of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who appears likely to become the country’s next prime minister, and who was one of Abdul Razak’s best friends.
During the 151-day trial, in which 84 prosecution witnesses testified, none of them was Najib although two statutory declarations and other evidence linked him to the dead woman. According to a detailed sworn statement by P. Balasrubramaniam, a private investigator that Abdul Razak hired to keep Altantuya away from him after he had broken off their affair, the political analyst told him he had inherited the Mongolian woman as a lover from Najib because Najib didn’t want to be harassed as deputy prime minister.
However, almost immediately after Balasubramaniam made the statement public, he was hustled to the Brickfields police station in Kuala Lumpurwhere he said he had been coerced into making the statement and recanted it entirely. He and his entire family have since disappeared. Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the influential blogger who printed the statement in his Internet publication Malaysia Today, was arrested under the country’s Internal Security Act and is serving two years in prison. He is also being sued for criminal defamation over some of his reports that tied Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, to the murder. He has also been charged with sedition for publishing other articles on the murder.
Rosmah has denied Raja Petra’s allegations but said she would not sue. Asked why not, she told local media on July 1: “If you are innocent, what is there for you to address? I am not a politician and I am not running for any post. I’m just the wife of a politician.”
If Najib or his wife had filed the charges, under the law they would be subject to motions for discovery and cross-examination, which presumably would not happen if the state instead filed the charges. More than once the filing of defamation charges has bounced back on the plaintiff because of that reason.
According to evidence introduced at the trial and other sources, Abdul Razak contacted Najib’s chief of staff, Musa Safri, to ask Najib’s bodyguards, Azilah and Sirul, to “do something” about Altantuya. Musa was not required to appear as a witness. Deputy Commander Mastor Mohd Ariff, an associate of the two bodyguards, said members of the unit were required to follow all orders of their superiors without question, describing the unit’s members as “like robots” who would only take orders from their superiors. Abdul Razak, a civilian and friend of Najib’s, was not a superior officer. According to an affidavit filed by Abdul Razak, Azilah contacted Abdul Razak after Altantuya’s disappearance to say that “tonight encik (sir), you can sleep well.”
Testimony by the murdered woman’s cousin indicated that immigration records of Altantuya and the two Mongolian companions who had come toMalaysia with her to confront Abdul Razak disappeared from the government’s immigration files. She also responded to a question that she had seen a picture of Altantuya having dinner with Najib before she was hurriedly hushed up by both prosecution and defense lawyers.
Testimony by the murdered woman’s cousin indicated that immigration records of Altantuya and the two Mongolian companions who had come toMalaysia with her to confront Abdul Razak disappeared from the government’s immigration files. She also responded to a question that she had seen a picture of Altantuya having dinner with Najib before she was hurriedly hushed up by both prosecution and defense lawyers.
Nonetheless, Judge Mohd Zaki dismissed a bid in July to call Najib as a witness in the trial. Zaki also refused to call Balasubramaniam despite his written declaration, which implicated Najib in the events leading up to the murder. In addition to other lurid details, Balasubramaniam described text messages between Najib and Abdul Razak in which the latter was asking for help to avoid arrest.
Later, a series of text messages was made public indicating that Najib had been involved in finding a lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, to represent Abdul Razak. One message from Shafee to Najib said: “We provided (the police) everything, including old PDAs and notebooks and a couple of bills. Nothing incriminating.” Malaysia Today said the exchange raises questions if anything “incriminating” was kept from the police.
Besides allegations that Altantuya was the lover of both men, the case has raised additional concerns of corruption at the top of the United Malays National Organisation, the leading political party in the national ruling coalition. The Mongolian woman appears to have been the translator on a controversial transaction in which Malaysia, with Najib as defense minister, paid €1 billion for French submarines, netting a company tied to Abdul Razak US$111 million in “commissions.”
A letter written by Altantuya shortly before she disappeared indicated that she was attempting to blackmail Abdul Razak for US$500,000, raising suspicions that she had inside knowledge of the transaction. The woman’s father, Shaariibuu Setev, a psychology professor in Ulan Bataar, said she had been killed because she “knew too much,” although he never elaborated on what she knew.
The trial has been rife with other irregularities. At the start, the original judge was replaced by Mohd Zaki. The prosecution was hurriedly changed so quickly that the trial had to be postponed. There were numerous attempts to limit the introduction of physical evidence. Sirul’s confession was ruled invalid because it was not cautioned.
The prosecution also sought to impeach two of its own important witnesses. One, Lance Corporal Rohaniza Roslan, was the girlfriend of the senior of the two bodyguards and said she saw Altantuya being taken away in a car by her boyfriend. Later she said her testimony had been coerced. Another was Yusri Hasan Basri, a member of the bodyguard team and a colleague of Sirul, who said he had important information on physical evidence in the home
The more he tries to elude from this unending probe into his involvement the more evidence will surface with the help of the spirit of Altantuya. On 11th October, Malaysia Today carried a post entitled ‘Abuse of power by the Deputy Prime Minister’ that laid out a series of sms’es alleged to have passed between Najib and senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah in relation to Razak Baginda’s arrest and remand in the days before Baginda was charged.
The more he tries to elude from this unending probe into his involvement the more evidence will surface with the help of the spirit of Altantuya. On 11th October, Malaysia Today carried a post entitled ‘Abuse of power by the Deputy Prime Minister’ that laid out a series of sms’es alleged to have passed between Najib and senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah in relation to Razak Baginda’s arrest and remand in the days before Baginda was charged.
Najib was publicly asked to comment about these sms’es and he never denied the authenticity of the same.
Now, there’s one other exchange of sms’es, this time allegedly between Razak Baginda and Najib. I do not recall Najib himself having ever addressed or denied or admitted the correctness or otherwise of these sms’es directly, as he did with the series of sms’es referred to in the MT posting.
I am referring to the 2 sms’es mentioned at paragraphs 51 and 52 of the first statutory declaration of private investigator Balasubramaniam. Let me reproduce below both paragraphs 51 and 52 of that first statutory declaration.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Najib Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11am today … matter will be solved … be cool”.
Like all of you, I am aware of Bala’s second statutory declaration contradicting the first, but we also have to acknowledge that the circumstances surrounding the making and public announcement of the second statutory declaration, and the subsequent disappearance of the maker of both, might make it prudent for us to defer adjudging which of the two statutory declarations narrates the truth until such time that Bala is available to fully disclose andexplain the circumstances surrounding the making of both statutory delcarations.AS THE TAXI DRIVER SAW…ALTANTUYA’S LAST HOURS.
THIS TAXIDRIVER HAVE BEEN HELPING HER FROM DAY ONE BUT THE MAINSTREAMMEDIA SAID THE IS HER PRIVATE P’I YOUR WRONG BUDDY SHE HAS TOLD EVERY THING TO HIM HIS LAST RESEARCHED ARTICLE HIS BLOG WAS CLOSED DOWN THEY FORGET I HAD THE HARDCOPYHer last journey starts at night when she gives a slip to bala’s men watching her movements, she took her last taxi ride from hotel Malaya to bagindas house. What could have been the topic of her discussion with the taxi driver? Was he the one who took down the car registration no, which was used in a grab at bagindas house?.
What she told about EVERYTHING NAJIB abandon her at the last moment, she was helpless? As the taxi stop she was grabbed and bundled into that car and driven off. If only they had waited, for the taxi go then they had grabbed her, they could have pull off the perfect MURDER
With her name erased from the immigration entries, she will be in the missing persons list. But god was on her side that day, because she had to be scarified, in order to bring to open the evil forces that are planning to rule this country. But to PAS PRESIDENT it just a murder why we have to make it an issue out of it?
With her name erased from the immigration entries, she will be in the missing persons list. But god was on her side that day, because she had to be scarified, in order to bring to open the evil forces that are planning to rule this country. But to PAS PRESIDENT it just a murder why we have to make it an issue out of it?
The taxi driver went back to the stand at hotel Malaya to be confronted by the victim’s cousin sister to whom he gave the vital informations. The Rest is history…………………………
LASTEST NEWS BALA COME TO VISIT SURESH PAID HIS DUE WILL WE EVER KNOW WHO KILLED ALTANTUYA SHAARIBUU AND WHO AUTHORISED USE OF C4?I’M SURE S’PORE HAVE THE VIDEO RECORDINGS OF 3 OF THEM AT THE DIAMOND EXHIBITION. SUCH EXPENSIVE EXHIBITION AND HIGH TECH COUNTRY….OR MAYBE JUST RELEASE THE VISITOR’S REGISTRATION BOOK.SCENE8 DAYLIGHT STING AT HIGH NOON MINISTER MENTOR LEE KUAN YEWHAVE THE VIDEO RECORDINGS OF 3 OF THEM AT THE DIAMOND EXHIBITION. SUCH EXPENSIVE EXHIBITION AND HIGH TECH COUNTRY….OR MAYBE JUST RELEASE THE VISITOR’S REGISTRATION BOOK. SO HE GOT THE DEAL DIRT CHEAPNAJIS HAVE SWORE THAT HE HAVE NEVER MET ALTANTUYA BEFORE IN A MOSQUE, COME ON S’PORE, JUST LET US HAVE THE VIDEO. WE WON’T SAY IT’S FROM YOU. WE JUST WANT THE TRUTH, THAT’S ALL…..PROOF TO US YOU ARE TRULY ASIAN!
Two parts in Bala’s SD, explains PI’s lawyer: Razak Baginda had every opportunity of denying all Bala had said in his first SDThe first statutory declaration signed by controversial private eye P Balasubramaniam consists of two parts – one on what was told to him and the other involves what he personally saw himself..from a most unhlikely source, I have been reliably informed…..straight from the Steppes of Inner Mongolia comes this conversation. I was also reliably informed that this was sent to Malaysia Today as a sequel to the letter sent by Altantuya’s father. Read on
The following text message correspondence is between YAB Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, and Dato’ Shafee Abdullah, a Malaysian lawyer who initially represented Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda who is on trial for abeting the murder of Mongolian national, Altantuya Shaariibuu.
The following text message correspondence is between YAB Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, and Dato’ Shafee Abdullah, a Malaysian lawyer who initially represented Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda who is on trial for abeting the murder of Mongolian national, Altantuya Shaariibuu.
While it does not answer lingering questions about Najib’s alleged past relations with Altantuya, the text messages show clearly Najib’s active intereference in the case very early on. The messages highlight Najib’s willingness to speak with both members of the Attorney General’s Chambers and Inspector General of Police about the case, something that suggests an abuse of executive power.
What is particularly revealing and troubling is that the counsel, Shafee, keeps asking Najib for details indicating some political intervention that may have influenced the case. This observation is strengthened by Najib’s message to Shafee on 16 November 2006: “Pls do not say anything to the press today. i will explain later. RB will have to face a tentative charge but all is not lost.” This message raises a lot of questions about Najib’s role in this case. Why did he mention “tentative” charge and that “all is not lost” for RB (Razak Baginda)? How would Najib know this before Razak was charged? Is there already a deal in place that will see Razak aquitted? These are important questions which will have ramifications not just on this case but far beyond.
The text messages were transmitted between Najib’s personal mobile phone. Those who seek the truth should challenge Najib and Shafee to deny that this correspondence took place between them. Perhaps a record of the messages still resides in the server of the relevant telecommunications company.
The truth is buried somewhere. Those who know what truly happened hope that the truth has been buried deep with Altantuya. But the funny thing is, the truth always finds its way into the hands of those who fight for justice – sometimes in the most mysterious circumstances……
The truth is buried somewhere. Those who know what truly happened hope that the truth has been buried deep with Altantuya. But the funny thing is, the truth always finds its way into the hands of those who fight for justice – sometimes in the most mysterious circumstances……
WHYMUST HE GET HIS ADC INVOLVED? WHERE IS BALA?HIS SD STATE THE SAME
According to Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu , the first part involves statements that the private investigator was in a position to ascertain their truth.
“He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.”
This include where Balasubramaniam said he was told about the fact that Najib and murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu had a relationship.
“The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence.”
Examples are the message Balasubramaniam saw on Abdul Razak Baginda’s mobile phone on the day the political analyst was arrested.BALA IS ONLYWITH ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND WITNESS TO LINK NAJIB
The SMS message, purportedly from Najib Abdul Razak, informing Razak Baginda that the then deputy prime minister was “seeing the IGP (inspector-general of police) at 11am that day and to be cool”.
Razak Baginda, known to be Najib’s close confidant, was later freed from the charge of abetting the murder of his former lover Altantuya.
Americk also said that the Altantuya trial raised more questions than answers and where certain evidence was not brought to court.
“As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason. This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.”
The following is the final of a three-part interview:
Malaysiakini: When you recorded Bala’s first SD, did you feel he was telling you the truth?
Americk: I have said this before. I have no reason to doubt the contents of Bala’s first statutory declaration (SD). However, it must be borne in mind that there are actually two parts to Bala’s first SD.
The first part involves statements that Bala says were told to him by third parties. Bala himself cannot verify the truth of these statements. That is why I said at the first press conference that these statements reflect exactly that.
All Bala was saying is that these statements were made to him and that he perceived them with his own senses. He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.
why didn’t the prosecution follow thru with an appeal and more importantly why the courts granted the acquital to Mr Baginda in such a contradictory fASHION
this is what is left after c4 who ordered itInhumanity talks!READ THIS RELATED ARTICLEUnfair To Drag Wife Into Husband’s Politics –Najib his 2nd wife rosmah,murdered Altantuya, because she “knew too much,”Would people believe what he was saying? Being a confidant of Najib, he is out to defense his boss as directed?! Anyway, all fair-minded people have already formed their opinions and no matter how strong the defence is, ‘two wrongs cannot make one good’!
According to Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu , the first part involves statements that the private investigator was in a position to ascertain their truth.
“He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.”
This include where Balasubramaniam said he was told about the fact that Najib and murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu had a relationship.
“The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence.”
Examples are the message Balasubramaniam saw on Abdul Razak Baginda’s mobile phone on the day the political analyst was arrested.BALA IS ONLYWITH ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND WITNESS TO LINK NAJIB
The SMS message, purportedly from Najib Abdul Razak, informing Razak Baginda that the then deputy prime minister was “seeing the IGP (inspector-general of police) at 11am that day and to be cool”.
Razak Baginda, known to be Najib’s close confidant, was later freed from the charge of abetting the murder of his former lover Altantuya.
Americk also said that the Altantuya trial raised more questions than answers and where certain evidence was not brought to court.
“As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason. This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.”
The following is the final of a three-part interview:
Malaysiakini: When you recorded Bala’s first SD, did you feel he was telling you the truth?
Americk: I have said this before. I have no reason to doubt the contents of Bala’s first statutory declaration (SD). However, it must be borne in mind that there are actually two parts to Bala’s first SD.
The first part involves statements that Bala says were told to him by third parties. Bala himself cannot verify the truth of these statements. That is why I said at the first press conference that these statements reflect exactly that.
All Bala was saying is that these statements were made to him and that he perceived them with his own senses. He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.
why didn’t the prosecution follow thru with an appeal and more importantly why the courts granted the acquital to Mr Baginda in such a contradictory fASHION
this is what is left after c4 who ordered itInhumanity talks!READ THIS RELATED ARTICLEUnfair To Drag Wife Into Husband’s Politics –Najib his 2nd wife rosmah,murdered Altantuya, because she “knew too much,”Would people believe what he was saying? Being a confidant of Najib, he is out to defense his boss as directed?! Anyway, all fair-minded people have already formed their opinions and no matter how strong the defence is, ‘two wrongs cannot make one good’!
Will people be interested with the so-called new chapter of his stinking life? Not at all because he’s unorthodox in human nature and cruelty and brutality is his name! We wonder how he is going to forget his old chapter when Altantuya will keep haunting him, whenever he dine, he will see his hand full of blood! Can he gracefully thanks God that he’s given free tomato sauce?!
All people will be waiting to read the footnote of his new chapter – “This great man full of sins has been pardoned by God”, ash to ash is the retribution! I will puke at it!
In legal parlance these statements were hearsay and would not be admissible as evidence in a court of law until and unless they could be supported by other independent evidence and even if they were, the weight of this combined evidence is something a judge would have to consider before accepting or rejecting it.
Examples of statements under this category would include the following:
1) That Altantuya had a relationship with Najib.WHY DID ALTANTUYA HAVE TO DIE?Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government NOTE THIS BLOG WAS CLOSED BY ROSMAH
2) That Razak Baginda was introduced to Altantuya by Najib at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
3) That Altantuya was promised a commission of US$500,000 for her services in the Scorpene submarine deal.
The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence. Examples of these statements include the following:
1) That he had contact with Altantuya on a number of occasions in October 2006.
2) That Razak Baginda hired him to keep Altantuya away from him.
3) That he saw Azilah (Hadri) and Sirul (Azhar Umar) bundle Altantuya into a car outside Razak Baginda’s house on the night of Oct 19, 2006.
4) That Altantuya, at that time and place, had asked Bala to arrange for her to see Najib.
5) That Bala had, on Oct 21, 2006, received a call on his mobile phone from Musa (Mohd) Safri whilst he was outside the front gate of Razak Baginda’s house, asking to speak to the police officer who was there attempting to persuade three of Altantuya’s friends to disperse.
6) That Bala had given evidence for the prosecution in the Altantuya murder trial and had not been asked a number of very pertinent questions.
7) That Bala had himself seen a message on Razak Baginda’s mobile phone (the day Razak Baginda was arrested), purportedly from Najib, informing Razak Baginda that he was “seeing the IGP at 11am that day and to be cool”.
It is also pertinent to note that Razak Baginda had every opportunity of denying all Bala had said in his first SD, at the press conference he called after his acquittal. However, he chose not to say anything except that he had given his statement to the police.
If there is any doubt as to the veracity of Bala’s first SD, this can be tested by comparing it to two other statements recorded from him.
The first statement was recorded by the investigating officers in the Altantuya murder case. This is the statement Bala complained of in his press conference and first SD. He alleged that all ’sensitive’ information he had given the police was erased from that statement.
The second statement was given to senior federal counsel Sallehuddin (Saidin) just prior to the commencement of Altantuya’s murder trial. It must be remembered Sallehuddin was one of the prosecutors on the first prosecution team but dropped when the second prosecution team was mustered.
According to Bala, this second statement is 76 pages long and details everything that appeared in his first SD.
If the police are really keen in looking into this whole matter again to determine the truth, my suggestion would be to obtain copies of both these statements and compare them to the contents of his first SD. After all, they were prepared by the prosecuting authorities and should be readily available to the police.
What prompted Bala into making the first SD?
As Bala pointed out, he was a little frustrated that the police had not investigated the murder properly and that the prosecution had not conducted their case appropriately. He had been called to give evidence as a prosecution witness but was not asked a number or relevant questions.READ THISAn unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.
He felt the police and the prosecution were trying to cover up the possible involvement of other parties in this murder.
There is no doubt Azilah and Sirul shot Altantuya in the head and blew her body up with C4 explosives. The court has already found them guilty.
There is also available on the Internet a full confession under s.113(1)(a)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, signed by Sirul and dated the 9.11.2006 (Travers report no. 7380/06) in which he has detailed the circumstances in which he and Azilah committed this murder.
There is also a mention of a promise of a reward of RM100,000 for these services. This statement was recorded by one inspector Nom Phot Prack Dit at Bukit Aman. This statement was not allowed to be tendered at the murder trial.
Azilah and Sirul did not give evidence under oath in their defence and therefore avoided any cross-examination on motive.
As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason.
This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.
In his experience as a police officer attached to the Special Branch, he found it rather odd that two policemen would kill someone without receiving instructions to do so from their superiors.
In this case Azilah and Sirul were Najib’s bodyguards and were supposed to take instructions from Musa Safri, Najib’s ADC (aide-de-camp).
Bala felt Musa Safri, at least, should have been called to the stand to testify.
Do you think the Altantuya murder trial was conducted in a fair manner?
Fair to who?
I think the first question that ought to be asked is why it was necessary to change all the players in this trial even before it started? No doubt this is the prerogative of the accused in their choice of counsel, and of course the Attorney General’s Chambers in the appointment of prosecutors it feels more suitable. Of course a judge can be changed as well, but all three parties at once seems a little odd.
As the trial proceeded, it became obvious that there was a concerted effort by the prosecution and the defence to prevent any highly fragile evidence from being adduced. This became even more obvious during the questioning of Altantuya’s cousin, Burmaa Oyunchimeg, by Karpal Singh, who was holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family.
Burmaa, whilst being questioned by the prosecution had mentioned a photograph shown to her by Altantuya that showed Altantuya, Razak Baginda and a senior government official at a meal. The prosecution and the defence vehemently objected to the eventual answer that Burmaa gave, ie that the senior government official was Najib.
This episode begs the question as to whose interests the defence was supposed to have been protecting? Certainly not their own clients.
It is also interesting to remember Sirul’s statement from the dock at the end of the trial. He said, and I quote, “A black sheep that has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or faced questioning”.
I think that says it all. Mkini
POSTED BY THE TAXIDRIVER786 AT 6:18 AM
In legal parlance these statements were hearsay and would not be admissible as evidence in a court of law until and unless they could be supported by other independent evidence and even if they were, the weight of this combined evidence is something a judge would have to consider before accepting or rejecting it.
Examples of statements under this category would include the following:
1) That Altantuya had a relationship with Najib.WHY DID ALTANTUYA HAVE TO DIE?Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government NOTE THIS BLOG WAS CLOSED BY ROSMAH
2) That Razak Baginda was introduced to Altantuya by Najib at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
3) That Altantuya was promised a commission of US$500,000 for her services in the Scorpene submarine deal.
The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence. Examples of these statements include the following:
1) That he had contact with Altantuya on a number of occasions in October 2006.
2) That Razak Baginda hired him to keep Altantuya away from him.
3) That he saw Azilah (Hadri) and Sirul (Azhar Umar) bundle Altantuya into a car outside Razak Baginda’s house on the night of Oct 19, 2006.
4) That Altantuya, at that time and place, had asked Bala to arrange for her to see Najib.
5) That Bala had, on Oct 21, 2006, received a call on his mobile phone from Musa (Mohd) Safri whilst he was outside the front gate of Razak Baginda’s house, asking to speak to the police officer who was there attempting to persuade three of Altantuya’s friends to disperse.
6) That Bala had given evidence for the prosecution in the Altantuya murder trial and had not been asked a number of very pertinent questions.
7) That Bala had himself seen a message on Razak Baginda’s mobile phone (the day Razak Baginda was arrested), purportedly from Najib, informing Razak Baginda that he was “seeing the IGP at 11am that day and to be cool”.
It is also pertinent to note that Razak Baginda had every opportunity of denying all Bala had said in his first SD, at the press conference he called after his acquittal. However, he chose not to say anything except that he had given his statement to the police.
If there is any doubt as to the veracity of Bala’s first SD, this can be tested by comparing it to two other statements recorded from him.
The first statement was recorded by the investigating officers in the Altantuya murder case. This is the statement Bala complained of in his press conference and first SD. He alleged that all ’sensitive’ information he had given the police was erased from that statement.
The second statement was given to senior federal counsel Sallehuddin (Saidin) just prior to the commencement of Altantuya’s murder trial. It must be remembered Sallehuddin was one of the prosecutors on the first prosecution team but dropped when the second prosecution team was mustered.
According to Bala, this second statement is 76 pages long and details everything that appeared in his first SD.
If the police are really keen in looking into this whole matter again to determine the truth, my suggestion would be to obtain copies of both these statements and compare them to the contents of his first SD. After all, they were prepared by the prosecuting authorities and should be readily available to the police.
What prompted Bala into making the first SD?
As Bala pointed out, he was a little frustrated that the police had not investigated the murder properly and that the prosecution had not conducted their case appropriately. He had been called to give evidence as a prosecution witness but was not asked a number or relevant questions.READ THISAn unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.
He felt the police and the prosecution were trying to cover up the possible involvement of other parties in this murder.
There is no doubt Azilah and Sirul shot Altantuya in the head and blew her body up with C4 explosives. The court has already found them guilty.
There is also available on the Internet a full confession under s.113(1)(a)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, signed by Sirul and dated the 9.11.2006 (Travers report no. 7380/06) in which he has detailed the circumstances in which he and Azilah committed this murder.
There is also a mention of a promise of a reward of RM100,000 for these services. This statement was recorded by one inspector Nom Phot Prack Dit at Bukit Aman. This statement was not allowed to be tendered at the murder trial.
Azilah and Sirul did not give evidence under oath in their defence and therefore avoided any cross-examination on motive.
As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason.
This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.
In his experience as a police officer attached to the Special Branch, he found it rather odd that two policemen would kill someone without receiving instructions to do so from their superiors.
In this case Azilah and Sirul were Najib’s bodyguards and were supposed to take instructions from Musa Safri, Najib’s ADC (aide-de-camp).
Bala felt Musa Safri, at least, should have been called to the stand to testify.
Do you think the Altantuya murder trial was conducted in a fair manner?
Fair to who?
I think the first question that ought to be asked is why it was necessary to change all the players in this trial even before it started? No doubt this is the prerogative of the accused in their choice of counsel, and of course the Attorney General’s Chambers in the appointment of prosecutors it feels more suitable. Of course a judge can be changed as well, but all three parties at once seems a little odd.
As the trial proceeded, it became obvious that there was a concerted effort by the prosecution and the defence to prevent any highly fragile evidence from being adduced. This became even more obvious during the questioning of Altantuya’s cousin, Burmaa Oyunchimeg, by Karpal Singh, who was holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family.
Burmaa, whilst being questioned by the prosecution had mentioned a photograph shown to her by Altantuya that showed Altantuya, Razak Baginda and a senior government official at a meal. The prosecution and the defence vehemently objected to the eventual answer that Burmaa gave, ie that the senior government official was Najib.
This episode begs the question as to whose interests the defence was supposed to have been protecting? Certainly not their own clients.
It is also interesting to remember Sirul’s statement from the dock at the end of the trial. He said, and I quote, “A black sheep that has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or faced questioning”.
I think that says it all. Mkini
POSTED BY THE TAXIDRIVER786 AT 6:18 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment