jump to navigation

Altantuya trial shocker continues June 14, 2007

Posted by elizabethwong in Current Affairs, Democracy, Human Rights, International, Malaysia, Note2Self, Politics, Women.

Die. While cleaning up malaysiakini’s bag of unnecessary codes, I’d accidentally saved over my original writeup. Hope there’s cache somewhere.


Here’s the newsflash, first up among the news portal. The flash was probably so blinding that everything else disappeared…

(Reconstruction underway. Feeling 0.0000001% of what Said Zahari must have felt when his notebook, where his finished manuscript resided, was stolen.)


人民公正党首领安华,今日举行记者招待会,揭露目前出现两个有关蒙古女郎炸尸案的传闻 并要求总检察长阿都干尼出面澄清与解释.

安华是在其八打灵的办公室透露,第一个传闻是指被控唆使杀人的政论家阿都拉萨巴金达以及至少一名被控告谋杀的被告将会被撤销控状。第二个传闻则是指承审法官 莫哈末查基(Mohd Zaki Md Yusni)可能会被撤换。若此传闻成真,这也意味着此案的承审法官已经是第三次被撤换。









1. AlexMoi - June 14, 2007


2. arifabdull - June 15, 2007
3. simon wee - June 20, 2007

The first two days of trial saw the reporters unable to agree on this point: Did or didn’t Razak Baginda make the police report of extortion by the late Altantuya. There are conflicting versions on it. Sample this:

The Star

Tun Abdul Majid said that upon confiding in a senior police officer friend about his problems, Abdul Razak was advised to lodge a police report in view of the serious threats.

However, the political analyst did not do so and in turn, asked his friend to keep whatever he told him a secret. Abdul Razak then met C/Insp Azilah at his office at the Bangunan Lembaga Getah Asli on the morning of Oct 18 after his friend gave him his number.

New Straits Times

Balasubramaniam: Because she was extorting money from him.

Tun Majid: Based on your experience, isn’t extortion a criminal offence?

Balasubramaniam: Yes. I advised him to lodge a police report.

The court was told that Razak did lodge a police report. He was accompanied to the police station by a lawyer friend identified only as Darren.


He said that after Abdul Razak refused to meet Altantuya at his office, she went to his house and caused a scene before she was taken to the police station to lodge a report.”Abdul Razak, through his private investigator, asked the deceased not to lodge a police report because he was worried about the publicity in the press and the private investigator also advised him to lodge a police report but he didn’t. He also did not follow the advice to get the help of Immigration to deport the deceased,” he added.


Rentetan cerita tersebut tidak terputus apabila terdapat keterangan yang menunjukkan Abdul Razak telah menceritakan masalah ugutan Altantuya kepada rakannya, seorang pegawai kanan polis.

Rakannya itu telah menasihati Abdul Razak untuk membuat laporan polis memandangkan ancaman Altantuya adalah serius, namun tertuduh itu tidak berbuat demikian.
Abdul Razak yang telah meminta rakannya itu supaya merahsiakan apa yang telah diceritakan, sebaliknya telah meminta rakannya itu memperkenalkan seorang pegawai polis dari Balai Polis Brickfields untuk membantunya menyelesaikan masalah dengan Altantuya.

If he did make the police report over the extortion bid then he might have nothing to hide and this could be just a simple extortion case went wry.

If he did not make that police report then he might really something inside the closet. All the inferences that this case has a political implication could well be further bolstered.

At this initial stage what has been unfolded in court is purely a love affairs turned sour leading to the murder. The political inferences may come during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and later the testimonies of the defence witnesses.

The case also underscores the importance of getting the right person for the right job.

Getting policemen with access to explosives and firearms would result in a “blow” job (jeffooi’s joke).

Private investigators of which I was one, with no access to explosives and firearms would resort to cleaner and quieter resolution.

There was a case in Singapore in which a man befriended a vagabond, insured him for S$500,000 and then took him to Cambodia where he drown in a bath tub.

He returned to Singapore and made the insurance claim but was rejected, He sued and the case was dismissed on the following grounds:-

1. The vagabond’s drowning was under mysterious circumstances; and
2. The man had no “insurable interest” over the vagabond.

If the drowning were to happen in Singapore he would not only lose his claim but also his life as well via hanging for murder.

A private investigator would instead advise to him to lure her to Cambodia on promises of reconciliation and then adopt the bath tub strategy.

Of course the PI would have other methods as just as clean and quiet. But the moral of the story is: If one must take a bath in Cambodia, never use a bath tub.

4. dlquill - June 20, 2007

a man like razak baginda is afraid of treat from a foreign girl in malaysia? she must be a fierce mafiaso or have gansters connection in kl. honestly, i wonder wat the girl can do to him, maybe scratch him! then after that he found some c4 and done her in? i must be nuts if i believe thing like these!

5. simon wee - June 21, 2007

The past 4 days of Trial has revealed actually nothing new. Most of what the Private Investigator said in his examination-in-chief were all in Razak Baginda’s affidavit.

However a point of contention has emerged over the revelation of the bounty of US$500,000.

According to the PI it was an extortion bid by the late Altantuya. From what Anwar has hinted earlier, there is always the possibility that the US500,000 bounty was the late Altantuya’s share of the kickback. It can be easily conjectured that she had made the demand for the money for almost a year but was ignored. When she finally came to Malaysia where she had to get the services of again a private investigator to locate him that her fate was sealed.

As a side show, the NST and Star today both a deep conversation Razak Badinga with his family members. The Star repoted that his daughter wailed “Its suicide, father. Its stupid!”.

Now could this be a sign of capitulation. Will there be plea-bargaining for a lesser charge?

At this stage with the whole world watching including Mongolia the trial should run its course. Many things are at stake.

Another interesting observation was that why the Private Investigator has to testify in Tamil. As one blogger said “I am sure he knows English or Malay.” He gave an account of the conversation with Altantuya. In what language? Definitely not in Tamil.

Again a moral lesson from this case: If one doesn’t want a blow job, get a private investigator instead for a more satisfying resolution.

6. simon wee - June 21, 2007

A point just came to mind:

The Tamil-speaking Bala has told the court of his fear for his and his men’s safety because Altantuya also employed a private investigator by the name of Ang.

I don’t see anything to fear as both are professional people doing a job unless of course Bala, taking a cue from Razak, has threatened Altantuya. Threatening another person is a criminal offence. Maybe the defence lawyers could cross exmine Bala on this.

7. wits0 - June 21, 2007

If the defense lawyer don’t properly do that, they can only be sleeping on the job or following a preset script that fools no one who can think.

8. simon wee - June 22, 2007

Now that PI Bala has finished giving his examination-in-chief and subjected to cross-examination, one glaring gap has emerged.

What the Tamil-speaking Bala has said in the examination-in-chief was actually nothing new as most of it was already in Razak Baginda’s affidavit. What was eagerly anticipated was that the Defence lawyers could get more out of him by way of cross-examination. But what a let down.

The issue of how he could identified Azilah Hadri as the driver of the red Proton Wira which took Altantuya away on the night of Oct.19, was not pursued at all. Bala identified Azilah as the driver without hesitation and yet did not know the other two persons in the same car. Unless Bala had known Azilah before. If not then the three in the proton wira came to him as total strangers and yet pointing out Azilah was that straight forward to him. Was there any prompting.

Instead the cross-examination was taken up on Bala’s opinion why Razak Baginda need not make the police report on extortion. This would not carry any weight at all because it was not an opinion of an expert or legal person. If Razak’s personal lawyer were to give the same opinion then he may be in trouble with the law and the Bar Council because extortion is a criminal offence and has to be reported as such.

Another discrepancy was the fee he said he charged Razak. During examination-in-chief he said it was RM4,000. Then during cross-examination he said it was RM600 per day or RM7,000 per package of 20 days. The conjecture is that he was paid much more otherwise how can he afford “MAH82 Merz my car”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: