From The Star Online @about12.15PM, I read the headline saying the two accused were found guilty and sentenced to death, so I picked up the story, but am writing this commentary at the start of post without reading the news report beyong the HEADLINE.
DESIDERATA:When Razak Baginda was acquitted of the abetment tomuder charge, I had already cast doubt on the court case which reminded Desi very much of DS Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial a deacde earlier -- Kangaroo court away from Down Under.
I have had the benefit of some Criminal Law education for one academic ear and many aMore years while earning B&B as a reporter, including coverging the court&crime beat.
From a layman's ground perspectives, here's some 3sen's worth of my look at this Altantuya's case:
FIRST, in order to commit a crime, there is the requisite for
mens rea, basically meaning the "motive" for doing the wrongful act.
In the case of Razak Baginda, the AG's office put the cart before the horse by treating him as a secondary player WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND HENCE TO BE PROSUCUTED FOR MURDER, definitely not the accessory act to murder.
WHY? Because Razak had what could easily be determined as having mens rea -- having known the murder victim, even acknowledging having an affair with her, and also engaging her services as official interpreter using her language skills in his various arms deals.
If there was any charge the present two now found guilty of murder they could have been guilty of, theirs was as accomplices to the principal in committing murder. BUT
NO, THE TWO BLIGHTERS WERE INSTEAD GIVEN "STAR" TREATMENT instead of playing minor roles (in Kantonis, we call it
CareLeFare!)The two convicted could have been fall guys who did not know the victim in the first place before the Mongolian girl became a real player on the Malaysian scene; they were merely roped in at a later stage in a Play featuring Razak Baginda and Altantuya(and OTHERS...?) and became what I would term as COLLATERAL DAMAGE to some body's else' "firing gun". "Gun" here can been figuratively used as well if you know what Desi knottily means...:(
The other OUTSTANDING
features of events leading up to yesterday's CONVICTION of the duo, I would recall -- I stand corrected on this -- some outstanding features:
*** Prosecution team was replaced at the last minute by a completely new team with npo good rime or reason given;
*** WHY WERE CERTAIN KEY PEOPLE NAMED IN COURT EVIDENCE not produced in court to explain their roles and relationships with the players involved?
*** And WHY WERE THE ERASURES OF IMMIGRATION RECORDS SHOWING ENTRY INTO MALAYSIA OF ALTANTUYA AND HER RELATIVE/S OR FRIEND/S NOT INVESTIF=GATED. Such a lead could be useful in following a trail that leads to POWERFUL OFFICES and you know where and what are the power centres in NegaraKu, don'tyou?
As an Agatha Christie's HERCULE POIROT and Sir Arthur Conon Doyle's SHERLOCK HOLMES fan Desi, says a finale prayer:
DARE IS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE, DR WATSON. I rest my case. I hope poor Altantuya can also rest ... in peace or in pieces. May God have no mercy on the real muderer/s!
Amen
Altantuya murder: It's death for Azilah and Sirul (Update)
SHAH ALAM: Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri,32, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 36, were found guilty and sentenced to death for the murder of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu three years ago, wrapping up the country's longest trial ever.
Judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin said that the two had failed to cast any doubt on the prosecution's case and that they only blamed each other.
He said that he had analysed and tested all submissions by all the parties.
Defense counsels said they would appeal.
Azilah, 33, is represented by two counsels, Datuk Hazman Ahmad and J. Kuldeep Kumar while Sirul Azhar, 37, who is represented by Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, Hasnal Redzua Marican and Ahmad Zaidi Zainal.
In the high profile trial that hogged the local and international media, the duo were charged with murdering Altantuya, who was 28 then, between Lot 12843 and Lot 16735 Mukim Bukit Raja near here, between 10 pm, Oct 19 and 1 am, Oct 20, 2006.
Initially they were tried together with the Executive Director of Malaysian Strategic Research Centre (MSRC), Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, 48, who was charged with conspiring in the murder of Altantuya.
However on Oct 31, 2008, the political analyst walked out a free man after the court found that the prosecution had failed to furnish proof on an important element on the conspiracy charge.
Abdul Razak since has left to United Kingdom and is said to be taking up PhD at Oxford University.
While Azilah and Sirul Azhar who pleaded not guilty are hoping to be released, the prosecution is going all out to prove they are the ones behind Altantuya's murder and the disposal of her remains using explosives.
The prosecution team consisting of Deputy Public Prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah, Noorin Badaruddin, Manoj Kurup and Hanim Rashid stressed in their submissions that Azilah and Sirul Azhar are the people behind Altantuya's murder.
Based on the evidence gathered from prosecution witnesses, the explosive used to blow up Altantuya's body was probably placed in her mouth.
Manoj noted at the end of the prosecution's case that both accused had the motive to kill and it was a preplanned crime.
Manoj noted that several circumstantial evidence that the prosecution tried to prove were never denied, explained or answered by both defendants.
"Several of the strong evidence deduced from the testimonies when spun together will make two ropes that are strong enough to hang each one of them.
"The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt on the actions of the duo calls for their conviction on the murder carried out with the common intention," he had said.
Azilah who started his testimony on Jan 15 stated that he had no motive to kill or destroy the woman and instead he only met Altantuya to advise her politely not to harass Abdul Razak or create a ruckus outside the latter's home.
Azilah also told the court that he was ordered by a superior, DSP Musa Safri to help Abdul Razak and thus he would not have done something stupid like killing and what more when he was a policeman.
While defending himself Sirul Azhar broke down a few times and related to the court that he has been made the 'sacrificial lamb' in the murder.
The case has set many records including being the most number of days for hearing (159 days) and 84 witnesses at the prosecution stage and two at the defence stage, and it remained the high profile case for almost two years before Abdul Razak was released.
According to records, Azilah has been incarcerated at the Sungai Buloh Prison for 891 days while Sirul Azhar 895 days.
While there are many conspiracy theories still going around, the verdict on Sirul Azhar and Azilah may put to an end many of these theories.
PS: A relevant, maybe irreverent:(, borrowing from
malaysia-today.net wit' tacit agreement of the author:)Evidence, or the lack of it Posted by admin
Thursday, 02 April 2009 20:56
Christopher Fernando told the court that Anwar Ibrahim was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin There are those who are of the view that Najib Tun Razak should first be cleared of any involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder before he be allowed to take over as Prime Minister. And the way to do this, they feel, would be through a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
Anwar Ibrahim was once convicted of corruption and sodomy and was sentenced to 15 years and seven months in jail not because there was evidence he had in fact committed a crime. The court found him guilty because there was just an allegation he had committed a crime and Anwar was not able to prove otherwise.
In short, the burden of proof was placed on Anwar, the accused, and not on the prosecution. And Anwar was made to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.
Now, if they apply the same standards of burden of proof on Najib as they had on Anwar, not only would Najib not be able to become the next prime minister, as what happened to Anwar, but he would also be sent to jail, as what happened to Anwar.
The issue here is not the evidence of a crime having been committed but the lack of evidence of a crime not having been committed. That was how they denied Anwar the job of Prime Minister and sent him to jail. Should that not also be what Najib is subjected to?
Anyway, to demonstrate what I mean, I am republishing below the court transcripts of Anwar’s trial of 25 March 2003 as argued by his lawyers.
***************************************
The burden of proof is on the prosecution but was shifted to the defence instead
An accused person is not required to prove his innocence. Instead, his accusers have to prove his guilt. In Anwar Ibrahim’s case, however, he was placed in an unenviable position of having to prove his innocence.
Anwar was charged for ‘committing sodomy one night, at 7.45pm, between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’. Even with such a wide and vague charge, Anwar still managed to provide alibis for all those 90 days except one.
Yet, the judge still insisted that Anwar had not established his alibi. But the judge was not able to say which one of those 90 days Anwar’s alibi had not been established.
“All an accused person has to do is to create reasonable doubt,” said Christopher Fernando. “He does not have to prove anything or establish his defence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“He is not required to prove anything conclusively with respect to his defence of alibi. But the judge held he had to and the he had not proved it 'conclusively'.”
“Conclusive proof is a standard even higher than beyond reasonable doubt.”
Fernando then told the court that Anwar was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.
“This is most unusual; alien to the law,” argued Fernando
“All Dato’ Seri Anwar had to do was to raise reasonable doubt.”
“Between 4 February and 31 March 1993, Dato’ Seri Anwar managed to establish his alibi, except for 19 February 1993, said the judge.”
“There was no rebuttal at all by the prosecution to counter Dato’ Seri Anwar’s alibi.”
“The prosecution failed to observe this very basic principle of law.”
“Dato’ Seri Anwar had to prove he was not in the Tivoli Villa in the 90 days between 1 January and 31 March 1993.”
“Instead, it should have been the prosecution’s task to prove that he was there.”
The burden of proof was on the prosecution, argued Fernando. But in Anwar’s case it was the other way around.
“In spite of the monumental task to prove Dato’ Seri Anwar was not there (Tivoli Villa) the defence still managed to do so.”
“Yet the judge still insisted the defence did not establish his alibi.”
“But the judge did not say which one day over the 90 days the alibi was not established.”
“From 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993 the apartment was under renovation.”
“So, from 4 February 1993 onwards, the alibi needs to be proven, and it was proven.”
“Witnesses were brought to testify and documents submitted to support the alibi.”
“The judge’s mind was cluttered. He was very confused and could not see the wood for the trees.”
“Tivoli Villa was not occupied. It had no furniture and was under renovation and the prosecution never rebutted this alibi.”
“The prosecution said Sukma had free access to the apartment but this was never proven.”
Azizan Abu Bakar had testified that he had been sodomised in the Tivoli Villa and that the act had taken place on a bed in a fully-furnished apartment, complete with carpets and all. He further testified that the act had taken place prior to 1993.
The defence, in turn, managed to prove that the apartment was under renovation from 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993, and that from 4 February 1993 to 31 March 1993 Anwar was never in the apartment.
“The judge tried to buttress the evidence. He was trying to prop up a case that was so weak and unconvincing.”
“He said Azizan’s evidence is as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar.”
“Preposterous is too mild a word to use.”
“No judge in the history of this nation has gone this far to build up the credibility of a witness such as this – a witness who has no credibility whatsoever.”
Fernando explained that if there is any benefit of the doubt, it should have been given to the accused, not the prosecution. Instead, it was the opposite in Dato’ Seri Anwar’s case.
“This is a basic fundamental principle of law.”
“Azizan should have been impeached. This is not difficult as clearly he lied.”
“If Azizan had been impeached, the hearing would have ended then and there as the entire trial hinged on Azizan’s testimony.”
UPDATEd @8.22AM April 10, 2009,
BECAUSE Desi is at THY SERVICE,and RPK is at OUR MAJESTIC SERVICE:)~~ YL, Desi, knottyaSsusual:(
The Altantuya murder: snippets from The Times of UK Posted by admin
Thursday, 09 April 2009 17:36
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20406/84/
Now that the court has delivered its verdict as to whether the two UTK officers are guilty of murdering Altantuya Shaariibuu, maybe we can flashback on just some of the things that
The Times of UK wrote about the matter since the story first broke in late 2006.
And why The Times of UK? Well, The Times of UK would not lie like how Malaysian Bloggers normally would.NO HOLDS BARREDRaja Petra Kamarudin 10 November 2006An inquiry into the disappearance of a Mongolian model, who was apparently shot before her body was blown apart with explosives, was ordered by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the Malaysian Prime Minister, yesterday.
His intervention came after police held a prominent political analyst in connection with the case that has caused a sensation in the country. Abdul Razak Baginda, 46, a member of the World Economic Forum, is the fourth person to be remanded in custody in connection with the death of the 28-year-old Altantuya Shaariibuu, whose body was found on Monday. He is a member of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, a television political pundit in Malaysia, and is studying for a doctorate at Oxford.
The others held after Miss Shaariibuu’s body was found on wasteland near Shah Alam are a police chief inspector and two police lance corporals, one male and one female. Mr Badawi said he had told the inspector-general of police to “investigate the case thoroughly and properly through due process”.
It has been reported that Mr Baginda met Miss Shaariibuu in Mongolia two years ago and the two had a relationship. The girl’s father in Mongolia said he believed they were married and that Mr Baginda was the father of her baby son.
His arrest sent Malaysian society reeling. Unnamed politicians and intellectuals described him as a “good” and “affable” man to the Malaysian Star newspaper. One said that Mr Baginda had showered Miss Shaariibuu with diamonds and other jewellery and had deposited $30,000 in her bank account. They had been on holiday together to Europe and South Africa.
“The father of murdered model Altantuya Shaariibuu will come with the marriage certificate to prove that they were married. He will also bring his grandson to undergo DNA tests to prove he is Abdul Razak’s son,” Mongolia’s honorary consul, Syed Abdul Rahman Alhabshi, said.
18 June 2007
An adviser to Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister ordered two police officers from an elite bodyguard unit to murder his beautiful Mongolian lover, a politically-charged murder trial heard today.
The remains of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old translator, part-time model, and unmarried mother of two from Mongolia, were found blown up by explosives in a jungle clearing near Kuala Lumpur late last year.
Abdul Razak Baginda, 47-year-old father of a teenage daughter, planned the murder, prosecutors said in what promises to be the most closely-followed trial in Malaysia for years. Mr Abdul Razak and the two police officers face the gallows if found guilty.
Mr Abdul Razak is alleged to have turned to the police officers – from a unit charged with protecting Malaysia's leaders - after Miss Shaariibuu began blackmailing him when their relationship turned sour.
He was well known in Kuala Lumpur as a high-flier close to the ruling party and a friend of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, who has been forced to deny any knowledge of the case.
The trial, which has already been postponed in controversial circumstances, is being widely seen as a test case for a judicial system, which has often been criticised in the past as vulnerable to political interference.
Tun Majid Tun Hamzah, for the prosecution, told the High Court in Shah Alam that Mr Abdul Razak abetted the police officers "in planning and giving instructions so that the deceased is killed." He denies the charge.
He said that the officers, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30, and Constable Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, carried out the killing and that Sirul had confessed. The two officers are charged with her murder.
After their arrest, Mr Azilah had led police to the clearing where Miss Shaariibuu’s remains were found.
Miss Shaariibuu had threatened Mr Abdul Razak's child unless Mr Abdul Razak paid her, the prosecutor said.
Mr Tun Majid said that a pathologist's report would show that the cause of death was 'probable blast-related injuries'. A pair of slippers found in Mr Sirul's house were stained with what DNA tests proved was Miss Shaariibuu's blood, he said.
The trial had been scheduled to start earlier this month but was postponed after the attorney general replaced the prosecutor after he was seen playing badminton with the judge.
Before the trial started it had become a political football, with former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim calling for fairness and lamenting what he described as the failure of police to question Deputy Prime Minister Najib.
No evidence has emerged to link Mr Najib with the case and the Deputy Prime Minister issued a statement insisting that he had had no involvement with the dead woman.
Malaysia's judiciary has often been the subject of criticism. Nearly ten years ago Mr Anwar was himself dismissed by then premier Mahatir Mohammad and convicted of corruption and sodomy, a decision which was widely criticised abroad.
Mr Anwar has said that the judiciary and police are on trial in today's case, and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has pledged there will be no cover-up.
22 March 2009
A FRENCH arms company is at the centre of a deepening scandal involving the sale of three submarines, the murder of a beautiful Mongolian interpreter and the man most likely to become prime minister of Malaysia next month.
All three have been linked in a sensational sequence of revelations that has convinced many Malaysians that the woman was killed to silence her demands of a share in the rewards of the transaction.
The scandal exploded last week after the French newspaper Libération alleged that the submarines deal and the murder of Altantuya Shariibuu, 28, were connected.
A glamorous, cosmopolitan woman, Altantuya grew up in St Petersburg, spoke Russian, Chinese, Korean and English, moved in elite circles and has been dubbed “a Far Eastern Mata Hari”.
She became the mistress of a Malaysian political fixer and was allegedly trying to extort money from him at the time of her violent demise.
Two members of an elite Malaysian police unit that protects top politicians are on trial in Kuala Lumpur, accused of shooting her in the jungle and then blowing up her body with military explosives.
Azilah Hadri, 32, and Sirul Azhar Umar, 36, officers in the Special Branch, could go to the gallows if convicted of abducting and murdering Altantuya on October 19, 2006. A verdict is expected early next month.
Their trial is unfolding as Najib Razak, the country’s deputy prime minister, stands on the verge of taking over as premier after a ruling-party leadership election, due within days.
Najib was accused by a young opposition MP, Gobind Singh Deo, in parliament, of involvement in the murder. Deo was suspended by the Speaker for making the remark. The deputy prime minister has strongly denied any involvement.
Testimony in an earlier court case has established an intimate personal and financial connection between the dead woman and a close aide to Najib, who was minister of defence at the time of the submarine deal.
The aide, Abdul Razak Baginda, was acquitted by a court last November of being an accessory in the murder. He has since been working on a doctorate at Trinity College, Oxford.
Baginda admitted that the dead woman was his mistress for about a year and prosecutors said she had pestered him for money after their break-up.
Just before her death she arrived in Kuala Lumpur, accompanied by a Mongolian shaman, who was to put a curse on Baginda if he did not pay up.
Altantuya was dragged away from outside Baginda’s home by two Special Branch officers, but he was acquitted after maintaining that he never gave orders for her to be harmed.
The Libération exposé linking the murder to the shadowy world of arms contracts has embarrassed the French war-ship firm DCNS. Armaris, a firm now merged with DCNS, sold the three submarines to Malaysia in 2002 for £937m.
Attention has centred on why Armaris paid £107m to a Malaysian company called Perimekar in 2006.
Opposition leaders alleged in parliament that the payment was a “commission” for intermediaries and that Perimekar was secretly owned by Baginda. Najib replied that it was not a “commission” and that Perimekar was a “project services provider”.
Libération has alleged that Altantuya, who toured France with Baginda in a Ferrari, wining and dining at expensive restaurants, learnt of the payment. It said she was demanding $500,000 (£345,000).
DCNS has refused to comment. It is already the subject of a French judicial investigation into corrupt practices, thanks to a whistleblower who has detailed bribery and industrial espionage allegations.
Last week, efforts to contact Baginda, a self-styled political analyst, at his new home in Oxford were unsuccessful.
Najib has avoided public comment but his politically influential wife, Rosmah Mansor, told the French news agency AFP that she was “shocked” by attempts to link her husband and her to the case.
The Times is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
B.U.M 2009 
