24 June 2013

Kes Altantuya - Bekas pembantu Najib saja yang boleh sahkan kebenaran afidavit Razak Baginda...

Peguam kepada tertuduh dalam perbicaraan kes pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu hari ini membangkitkan kegagalan pendakwaan untuk memanggil pembantu peribadi kepada timbalan perdana menteri pada waktu itu Datuk Seri Najib Razak, untuk memberi keterangan.

Peguam kepada Koperal Sirul Azhar, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin memberitahu Mahkamah Rayuan bahawa kegagalan pendakwaan untuk berbuat demikian menjadikan perbicaraan tersebut sebagai perbicaraan silap.

Katanya, hanya Musa boleh mengesahkan kebenaran afidavit kontroversi yang difailkan oleh tertuduh ketiga dalam kes berkenaan, penganalisis politik Abdul Razak Baginda.

Kamarul berkata rekod telefon Abdul Razak menunjukkan komunikasi melibatkan lebih 30 mesej teks di antara Abdul Razak dan Musa di antara 7 Oktober dan 19 Oktober 2006.

Daripada jumlah itu, 12 mesej direkodkan pada 19 Oktober 2006 – pada malam Altantuya dibunuh.

"Hanya Musa yang boleh mengesahkan kredibiliti dan kebenaran afidavit Abdul Razak. Bagaimanapun pendakwaan memutuskan untuk tidak memanggil Musa untuk mengesahkan perkara ini.

"Bagi kami, Musa sepatutnya dipanggil oleh pendakwaan (dalam perbicaraan kes pembunuhan di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam) untuk mengesahkan atau menolak apa yang didakwa Abdul Razak dalam afidavit tersebut.

"Pastilah, dengan afidavit tersebut dan sekiranya Abdul Razak dipanggil, beliau akan berpegang kepada apa yang tertulis. Namun tiada peluang untuk pendakwaan mempersoalkan perkara tersebut kerana Musa tidak dipanggil,” kata Kamarul.

Oleh yang demikian, mahkamah tidak mengetahui perkara yang diperkatakan antara Abdul Razak dan Musa pada malam tersebut.

Kamarul juga membangkitkan bahawa penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yassin juga tidak menyatakan motif pembunuhan tersebut.-malaysiakini

Bukit Aman tak simpan letupan C4, kata peguam...

Peguam kepada cif inspektor Azilah Hadri berkata, jenis letupan yang digunakan dalam pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu tidak berada dalam simpanan Bukit Aman.

Peguam Hazman Ahmad berkata, berdasarkan rekod Bukit Aman, anak guamnya hanya dibekalkan pistol Glock dan magazin peluru.

"Justeru, terdapat persoalan tentang bagaimana jenis letupan ini didakwa digunakan," katanya.

Hazman juga berkata, Azilah tidak mempunyai atau mempunyai kawalan terhadap letupan C4 kerana ia tidak pernah dikeluarkan oleh Bukit Aman.

Altantuya didakwa dibunuh dan kemudian diletupkan pada malam antara 19 Oktober hingga 20 Oktober 2006.-malaysiakini

Bukit Aman does not keep C4 explosives, says lawyer...

A lawyer for Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri said that the type of explosives used in the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu is not in Bukit Aman's stock.

Lawyer Hazman Ahmad - in submitting on one of the grounds - said, hence, questions arose as to how Azilah had allegedly procured the type of explosives.

“Azilah's log record from Bukit Aman shows that he was only issued a Glock pistol and magazines. Hence, there is a question as to how this type of explosives was allegedly used.

NONE“My client did not have possession and control of the C4 explosives used as it was never issued by Bukit Aman,” he said.

Altantuya was allegedly shot and then blown-up at a jungle clearing on the night between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am of Oct 20, 2006.

Besides this, lawyer J Kuldeep Kumar also argued that the court did not take into consideration on the notice of alibi issued by Azilah where he was supposed to be in Bukit Aman, and later at Wangsa Maju, on the night of the incident.

Kuldeep further argued that Azilah's phone records could have been manipulated and altered by Celcom to frame his client.

“There are witnesses from Celcom who acknowledged that what they supplied during the trial was not the master list, but a compilation of it. Hence, there is a chance of it being altered and manipulated,” he said, adding that the trial judge had failed to recognise this.
Azilah and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, who are members of the elite Special Action Unit, are appealing against their death penalty for murdering Altantuya.

'Resourceful media personnel'

Hazman also submitted before the three-member bench over suggestions made by police witnesses, who claimed that Azilah had directed them to the crime scene sometime in November 2006, and suggested that his client had probably been fixed for this purpose.

The lawyer said there had been inconsistent statements from the police witnesses over the matter, as one had asked another to be on standby to be brought to the scene at 11am, but another claimed that the same officer was alerted at 3pm, and later at 5pm, when the police decided to go there.

"When the police left from the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters and arrived at the scene in Puncak Alam, there were already media reporters at the scene.

"Hence, questions remain as to who had tipped off the media, whereas the testimonies of the police witnesses say that Azilah had directed them to the scene," he said.

To this, Justice Md Apandi Ali - who is leading the three-member bench - replied that the media personnel are resourceful.

"Sometimes they are more efficient than the police as they are very investigative," remarked the judge.

Besides Justice Apandi, the other members on the panel were Justices Linton Albert and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.

Hazman also pointed out that there was another discrepancy in the testimonies from police witnesses, as one told the court that Azilah had showed them the scene where Altantuya was blown-up and then showed where the Mongolian had been shot.

He said another witness described it the other way around, whereby his client had first showed the place where Altantuya was shot and then showed the place where the lady was blown up.

"This showed the inconsistency and the possibility of putting the blame on my client with this," Hazman said.

Justice Apandi then interjected and asked: "This happened at the same crime scene, right?", to which Hazman replied yes.

The hearing continues tomorrow with the prosecution's reply. -malaysiakini

Defence: Not calling Najib's ex-aide-de-camp is mistrial...

Not calling in a former aide-de camp of then deputy prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, Deputy Supt Musa Safri, to testify in the murder trial of Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar constituted a mistrial, the Court of Appeal was told today.

Lawyer Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, who is acting for Sirul Azhar, the second accused in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial, said only Musa could verify the veracity of the controversial affidavit filed by the third accused in the murder, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, which led to Abdul Razak's acquittal.

altantuya razak baginda murder 030707 dsp musa safriKamarul said Abdul Razak's phone records showed more than 30 text messages that the political analyst sent to Musa (left) between Oct 7 and 19, 2006, of which 12 were recorded on Oct 19, 2006, the night Altantuya was murdered.

"It is only Musa who can vouch for the credibility and veracity of Abdul Razak's affidavit. However the prosecution decided not to call Musa in to verify this.

"For us, Musa should have been called by the prosecution (for the murder trial in the High Court in Shah Alam) to verify or rebut what Abdul Razak claimed in his affidavit.

"Certainly, with the affidavit there and if Abdul Razak had been called, he would have stick to what was written. But there was no opportunity for the defence to challenge this as Musa was not called," Kamarul said.

Therefore, he added, the court was deprived of what took place in the conversation between Abdul Razak and Musa on that fateful night.

Prior to this, Kamarul said, Abdul Razak called Musa about his problem with Altantuya, his former girlfriend, saying she had barged into his Damansara home several days before thefateful night

abdul razak baginda pc 201108 05“This led to Azilah calling Abdul Razak (right) the next day and all this is stated in the political analyst's affidavit. However, we are being deprived as to the instructions that were given by Musa, (who is Azilah's) superior.

“Furthermore, Musa's phone records were never produced in court and the defence was deprived of this. The defence is deprived of a test on Abdul Razak's credibility in the affidavit,” he said.

Truly, Kamarul argued, Abdul Razak was freed without his defence being called as a result of the affidavit he filed during his remand. This was revealed in the Shah Alam High Court judgment, in which portions of the affidavit were made public.

'No motive' questioned

NONEKamarul(left) also pointed out that Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yassin's judgment did not state any motive for the murder.

He said one of the greatest debates emanating from the murder of the Mongolian woman, during and after the trial and even till today, was the lack of motive as cited in the judgment in which the two former police officers were found two guilty.

"Whatever the motive was, it is a matter of law that the motive, although relevant, has never been the essential to constitute murder," Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin said in his 70-page judgment released in March 2012.

Kamarul said this when submitting before a three-member bench headed by Justice Md Apandi Ali. The other judges are Justices Linton Albert and Tengku Maimum Tuan Mat.

As with any other criminal trial, he added, motive is an essential factor to determine the guilt of a person.

Adverse publicity

The defence counsel also argued over the adverse publicity, an additional ground put in earlier this month, which may have influenced the judge's mind following the late P Balasubramaniam's statutory declaration and his retraction, and also Sirul Azhar's cautioned statement, which was uploaded on the Internet by blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin.

"Such publication has resulted in adverse publicity to my client as the judge was in the process of hearing submissions at the end of defence case," Kamarul said

Justice Apandi retorted, asking where in the judgment did the judge indicate that he was influenced.

He asked whether the lawyer thought the judge had the time to look at the Internet.

"We act on facts and what is presented in the case. Do not challenge our independence in delivering our decision," Justice Apandi said.

Kamarul agreed, but told the court there is public perception otherwise and now could be the time for the court to address this issue.

To this, Justice Apandi concurred and asked deputy solicitor-general II Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah and the other DPPs why the prosecution did not charge those who acted sub-judice in making  comments, unlike previously.

“In the judiciary, we are silent as we act as punching bags and do not have the opportunity to punch,” the judge remarked.

Doubts over blood stains
Lawyer Hasnal Rezua Merican, also acting for Sirul, raised doubts on the blood stains, purportedly that of Altantuya, on his client's shoes which were found in his car.

Hasnal said that prior to Sirul's stint in Pakistan sometime in early November 2006, (when accompanying the then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), the police corporal had handed his house and car keys to Bukit Aman.

“Hence, there was an opportunity for policemen to duplicate the keys and fabricate evidence to put the blame on my client.

“My client had stated that before he left, the shoes were not in the car and somehow when he returned the shoes were there. Altantuya's jewellery were also found in his apartment. They could have been planted.”

Hasnal said when the police went to Sirul's apartment, they do not take long, just less than a minute, to open the doors, as if they already knew the keys to use.

Kamarul also submitted on questions related to the DNA evidence from the shoes and jewellery, as this were merely “empty DNA”, which did not prove that the blood was Altantuya's.

Based on these grounds, Kamarul argued, the conviction of his client by the High Court in Shah Alam should be set aside and Sirul's appeal allowed. -malaysiakini

Anwar Ibrahim at Padang Merbok

Yang ditahan polis dekat Parlimen...

32 Aktivis Yang Ditahan Sebentar Tadi...

Mereka yang ditangkap sewaktu protes di Parlimen pagi ini sekarang di lokap Polis Jinjang. Mlm ini ada "candlelight vigil" untuk mereka, menunggu mereka dibebaskan.

Dan berikut apa yang TV3 suku laporkan....

Bertindak ganas? Merempuh bangunan parlimen? Ko ingat bangunan parlimen tu plastic ke apa nak main rempuh2?

nasihat dari Pi M

Amongst the 8 Malaysian Companies listed involved with the Burnings in Indonesia causing the HAZE included...

"One of them is PT Tunggal Mitra Plantation, a unit of Minamas Plantation, a subsidiary of Malaysia-based Sime Darby Plantations, one of the world’s largest listed oil palm plantations.

Another is
PT Adei Plantation, owned by Kepong Berhad."

Wiil Najib TAKE ACTION against his cronies?... read here


No comments: