Shah Alam High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin yesterday acquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda of the charge of abetment in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu on October 19, 2006 on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to contradict or challenge the exculpatory parts of Razak’s affidavit in his earlier unsuccessful bail application.
The judge said: “In the absence of the rebuttal evidence against the statements, coupled with the fact that there is no legal onus for Razak to rebut any statutory presumptions, there is clearly no reason for the statements to be ignored and rejected”.
Most Malaysians are baffled by the very technical reason for the acquittal.
While it would not be right for anyone to prejudge the guilt or innocence of any person in the murder of Altantuya, the fact of the abominable and heinous murder of the Mongolian translator, shot twice in the head in a jungle clearing in Shah Alam and blown up with C4 explosives available only to the military, setting off political, diplomatic and international reverberations that have not subsided , is a fact that cannot be extinguished.
With the acquittal of Razak Baginda in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, it is even more imperative that the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Najib Razak should submit himself to a Royal Commission of Inquiry on all the allegations ranging from murder to corruption dogging and haunting him and Malaysia.
I reiterate my call during the debate on the 2009 Budget in Parliament for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate and clear Najib of all the allegations made against him so that he could take over as the sixth Prime Minster of Malaysia next March unencumbered by the weight of grave and serious allegations against him – whether locally or internationally.
Najib had all along pleaded innocence to all the allegations. He should all the more support the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry which can more credibly and authoritatively vindicate his innocence.
If Najib is still unprepared to agree to the establishment of a full-fledged Royal Commission of Inquiry to clear him of all the allegations ranging from murder to corruption haunting and hounding him, I would expect him to make a fulsome statement in Parliament on all these allegations when he speaks in the Dewan Rakyat for the first time as Finance Minister and Prime Minister-in-waiting on Tuesday (November 4) during the government reply on the 2009 Budget debate, when he is to announce the government strategy for the country for the global financial meltdown and the world’s worst economic crisis in 80 years.
Razak Baginda’s “exculpatory statements” –
- Even though I had appointed P. Balasubramaniam, the harassment by Altantuya against my family and I did not stop. Hence, I asked DSP Musa Safri for help. I know Musa from my business dealings at the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, a non-profit organisation.
- I asked DSP Musa for help to install a police beat box at my house and increase patrols in the area. I also sought help to be introduced to a police officer from the Brickfields police station as my house was under their jurisdiction.
- DSP Musa told me that he would introduce me to an officer who would help me.
- On Oct 26, 2006, in a meeting with Balasubramaniam and Dhiren Norendra (a lawyer), Balasubramaniam advised me to lodge a report to deport the deceased (Altantuya) from Malaysia. Dhiren and I refused.
- On Oct 17, 2006, the deceased came to my house and wanted to meet me. I was not at home at that time, and my wife learnt of her visit.
- On the night of Oct 17, 2006, I was at home with my family and there was a commotion outside the house.
- I called DSP Musa’s handphone but I could not get through. So I called Balasubramaniam and Dhiren to help me. As a result, a police patrol car arrived to settle the matter. I did not lodge a police report and Dhiren never advised me to do so.
- DSP Musa later called me and said that a police officer would call me to help me sort out my problem with the deceased. According to DSP Musa, the officer who would be calling me was the Brickfields district Criminal Investigation Department chief.
- On the morning of Oct 18, 2006, Azilah Hadri called me and introduced himself as the police officer who was referred by DSP Musa to help me with the harassment by the deceased.
- I subsequently met with Azilah at my office. I told him that the deceased had caused a commotion at my house, and asked him to conduct patrols around my house. I gave him my house address, my father’s name, the deceased’s name, “Hotel Malaya”, and where she stayed, based on the information given to me by Balasubramaniam. I also told Azilah that I had engaged Balasubramaniam and gave him his name and number. Before he left my office, Azilah asked me to contact him if she harassed my family and me again.
- On Oct 19, 2006, Balasubramaniam called me and told me that there was a commotion outside my house. I was out with my family at that time to break fast. So I called Azilah for help.
- Balasubramaniam told me that three plainclothes police officers came to my house in an unmarked car to take the deceased away. I believed they had taken her to the police station for interrogation.
- On Oct 20, 2006, I went to the deputy prime minister’s office for official duties and bumped into DSP Musa. I asked him what happened the night before and DSP Musa told me Azilah did not tell him anything. Several days later, I asked DSP Musa about the deceased, but his answer remained the same.
#1 by human1 on Sunday, 2 November 2008 - 2:49 pm
I can’t help myself but to liken this case to the 1987 movie “No Way Out”. We see similarities to a certain extent: sex, murder, mistress, the alleged sharing of mistress, defence affairs, aide to defence minister, scandalous coverup.
In the movie, the audience knows who killed the girl. In the Malaysian version, the public is led to follow the pieces of statutory declaration, affidavit and witness testimony; while the truth and motive of the murder may never find its way out.
In the midst of allegation and evidence tainting the credibility and integrity of our judiciary system, we see the following links and key figures:
Altantuya – brutally murdered, shot twice and blown up with the unknown-origin C4. She reportedly had an affair with Razak Baginda that lasted until 2005. She reportedly had worked as Abdul Razak’s translator on a deal he was brokering for the Malaysian government to buy submarines from France. The pair seem to have travelled to Paris together for the submarine deal. After the breakup, she had been reportedly harassing and blackmailing Razak Baginda.
Abdul Razak Baginda – charged with abetting Azilah and Sirul in the murder of Altantuya but has since been acquitted. He was a defence analyst and close aide to Defence Minister Najib, especially when Najib is on the defence shopping spree.
In 2002, he owned Ombak Lauk, the company which owned Perimekar that brokered the purchase of three French Scorpene submarines by the Royal Malaysian Navy. The government paid euro 1 billion for the three submarines, for which Perimekar being the middleman received a commission of €114 million. Yes, this long forgotten deal has truly belittled the Eurocopter deal as peanut.
Quoted then Deputy Defense Minister Zainal Abdidin Zin in Parliament, the money was paid for “coordination and support services” which is 11% of the sales price. The amount was multiple times larger than Eurocopter. Razak Baginda is a recipient of the Legion d’Honneur for his contribution in pushing through the deal.
Najib – the then defence minister claimed he did not know Altantuya. He publicly swore according to Islam at Masjid Jamek Guar Perahu that he never knew her. The opposition has consistently accused Najib of involvement in dubious large amount of commission payment to close associates for the defence deals.
Precedently before the decision to defer Eurocopter, we have seen the purchase of Scorpene submarines and Sukhoi fighter jets under his administration. Unconfirmed source indicated Najib introducing Altantuya to Razak Baginda at an international diamond convention in Hong Kong.
Chief Inspector Azilah – member of the police elite force, at the time assigned to the office of Najib to play the role of bodyguard to the VVIP. He was reportedly introduced to Razak Baginda through DSP Musa Safri.
Razak Baginda reportedly seeked help from Musa, due to the harassment from Altantuja. The day the commotion broke out, Azilah and two other officers took away Althantuja from Razak Baginda’s house, Altantuya was never seen in public again and found to be murdered.
Corporal Sirul – like Azilah, member of the police elite force.
DSP Musa – then security aide of Najib. In the affidavit filed by Razak Baginda, Musa said Azilah did not tell him anything the night before the three officers took Altantuya away.
Judge Zaki – pointed out the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Abdul Razak is guilty of abetment. Due to the affidavit filed by Razak Baginda, thus there is no prima facie case against him. While for the two accused, they have to enter defence because there is evidence they “pull the trigger”.
Prosecution team – there was a last-minute change of the prosecution team. Tun Majid Tun Hamzah was called in to lead the new prosecution team. Court trial was postponed to allow th new team to examine the evidence.
RPK – now under ISA detention and charged with civil defamation and criminal sedition suit. In a statutory declaration, RPK accused Najib’s wife, Rosmah of being one of three individuals who was present at the crime scene when Altantuya was murdered. The other two were Lt-Col Aziz Buyong and his wife Lt-Col Norhayati, Rosmah’s aide-de-camp.
PI Bala – a private investigator hired by Abdul Razak, made a statutory declaration that Abdul Razak had told him that Najib had had a sexual relationship with Altantuya, introduced her to Abdul Razak, and made arrangements to protect Abdul Razak from the murder trial. He and his family are now reportedly hiding in a neighbouring country.
No one at this point can tell the complete picture of this high profile murder. If Razak Baginda chooses to remain silent since being acquitted, he can be assured of the bright future in continuing his career as the defence analyst and arms broker. Else, it is logical for him to fear the phantom force that is capable of silencing voices that threaten the position of the high ground, which may be unwilling to unveil the dirty truth at all costs.
If the prime-minister-to-be Najib remains silent and is unwilling to clear the air in a Royal Commission of Inquiry, the people will always remember him living in the shadow of Altantuya during the tenure of his premiership.
#2 by 318 on Sunday, 2 November 2008 - 5:50 pm
every court case depend who was involve
#3 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 1:44 am
“The judge found that 13 statements in the affidavit were not rebutted by evidence put forward by prosecutors. In a nutshell, they recounted how Abdul Razak had asked Musa Safri, a security aide of the deputy premier, for help because of Altantuya’s harassment.” MalaysianInsider
Not rebutted by evidence?? It is for the defence to rebut the allegations made against the accused, supported by whatever evidence the prosecution has introduced.
It is the duty of the prosecutor to lay down the foundation, facts during this stage of the trial, provide some evidence as to the involvement of the accused in the crime he was charged with. The crime is that of abetment. The judge looks at the evidence put forward by the prosecution and decide if they can be believed. If they can be believed it would call for a rebuttal by the defendant. For the rebuttal to occur the defendant would have to be called to make his defence.
But instead the judge ruled that there is no case to answer. There is a case for the defendant to answer. He would have to take the stand in his own defence and tell the court, for example, the circumstances that led to him knowing police officer Sirul. Razak Baginda would have to be examined and cross-examined on the alleged facts contained within his affidavit. It is his right to remain silent but then he may decide to take the stand in his own defence. We are entitled to know what he would have said.
#4 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 1:53 am
“There are more unanswered questions than a simple acquittal. Someone should start a “X-File” investigation.” Jamesy
Someone is dead i.e. murdered. The next one could be your sister, or your mother or your grandmother who could be raped and murdered. This is not the time to show a callous indifference to the suffering of others.
#5 by Jeffrey on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 4:31 am
“…When Obama was accused a Muslim, when he was accused a racist etc. was there a Royal Commission formed to clear his name?”… imranj78 asked, as if this kind of accusations – which, according to Obama, was drawn only from his having lived, when young, in Indonesia, and once attended a school that was mostly Muslims for a few years – and which even the McCain camp dissociates from, could rightfully be compared and treated at the same level and accorded the same serious concerns as that of Altantuya’s murder case, with all its shortcomings in investigations relating to it.
When one uses a grape to compare with durian as basis of argument, no meaningful exchange can be expected to ensue from trying to respond to such an argument.
#6 by Jamesy on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 4:44 am
undergrad2 Says:
Today at 01: 53.53 (2 hours ago)
“There are more unanswered questions than a simple acquittal. Someone should start a “X-File” investigation.” Jamesy
Someone is dead i.e. murdered. The next one could be your sister, or your mother or your grandmother who could be raped and murdered. This is not the time to show a callous indifference to the suffering of others
—————————————————-
What makes you think my comment renders any callous indifference to the suffering of others and hence your interpretation of “funny”? Do you understand the quote unquote X-File? Then again, my comment is not for you to understand. My suggestion to you – understand this quote – “It’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and resolve all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln. But then again, you might not understand.
#7 by Evenmind on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 5:15 am
Zimbabwe , eat your heart out, here comes Malaysia, overtaking you in every aspect, this banana republic preactices the jungle law that is used to deceive the citizens, the other two persons accused of killing Altatantuya would also be freed soon , as the corrupt gomen does not want to make it too obvious, all the top ministers are involved in this cover up, itr just so obvious.,
Tax payers monies are being used for this purpose , and they think the citizenxs are all fools, how on earth the NEP’s policy is to b acheived , if this the way the country is being governed?????
#8 by Jeffrey on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 5:16 am
Where the prosecution has outlined and adduced evidence in support of its case along lines pointing a certain direction (say) direction “A”, then the accused may be acquitted based on having no case to answer to the Prosecution only if the Prosecution evidence adduced at the close of its case has not quite reached the minimum standard or cover the minimum distance (what is in Latin called the “Prima facie” standard) in the direction “A” for the case to be justified proceeding further thereby requiring the accused to push the line towards direction “A” backwards against it until it is so far backwards that overall a reasonable doubt has been created, failing which, by the accused, the Prosecution case would have covered the minimum distance required and that prima facie line would have held to secure a conviction.
What has happened here, in the simplest terms, to explain what Undergrad2 is (I think) trying to say is that the acquittal here is justified based on Razak Baginda’s earlier first affidavit (“First Bail Affidavit”) filed two years ago to obtain bail before the trial started, which the court ruled that First Bail Affidavit’s contents had been neglected and not been rebutted by the Prosecution.
Now the First Bail Affidavit is not in direction “A” built by the Prosecution during trial. Prosecution skipped attention to it. The contents of this First Bail Affidavit are pointing another direction of enquiry – lets call it “B” – initially put forward by the accused more for securing in the early stages a bail rather than for purposes of actual trial.
It is not for the Prosecution to contradict and rebut – push back the line in direction “B” taken by the defence for bail.
It is only neccesary for Prosecution to cover that distance in direction “A” that it has formulated: if not, Defence need not be called to rebut, if so it has to.
It is therefore strange that instead of the above preceding, Defence was given victory of having no case to answer because Prosecution has allegedly not covered sufficient distance in terms of evidence towards direction “B”, when Prosecution case has all along been proceeding along direction “A”, which it is its duty to prove having covered sufficient distance in direction “A” – not direction “B”!
#9 by pulau_sibu on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 6:37 am
to fabricate a sodomy case, how much people’s money was wasted?
for a much much more serious case as murdering using explosive, we should use all possible resources to find out the truth and send ALL the convicted to hell. That is why I suggested Dr. Henry Lee should be hired to solve the mystery
#10 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 8:39 am
“But it turned out to be an astute move. High Court judge Mohamed Zaki Mohamed Yasin on Friday ruled that the tell-all affidavit had helped clear him of the charge of asking two policemen to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu.” Malaysian Insider 3/11/08
His affidavit helped clear him of the charge?? Affidavit evidence cleared him of the charge? People, help me understand!!
If all I need to do to clear myself of the charges against me is for me to take the witness stand and make hearsay statements which are self-serving or have those statements reduced into writing and admitted into evidence without me having to be cross-examined as to their truth and accuracy, then there are criminals out there walking our streets who should have been locked up!
The accused need to be cross-examined as to the truth of the statements he made in his affidavit. With the judge ruling that the accused has no case to answer, the people have been denied the use of one powerful tool – that of cross examination.
I thought trials are about the search for the truth and the pursuit of justice??
#11 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 8:42 am
“Do you understand the quote unquote X-File? Then again, my comment is not for you to understand. My suggestion to you …” Jamesy
Is that all you have to say?? That’s pathetic!
#12 by taiking on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 9:27 am
Someone’s dead and in pieces. And someone must surely be responsible for it. The public is looking. Mongolians are looking. Bastards. In fact the whole world is looking. Not something we can be proud of. Certainly, not this sort of publicity. Not with the strongly denied political connection which the case was rumoured to have.
Razak Baginda – the political analyst – and two others were roped in by the police. It is clear that they hoped to nail the “You are responsible” tag upon the three heads. I am sure the police have done their homework. And have therefore came to the conclusion that their hope is hope-able and pursue-able, actually. Ask the AG. He was satisfied wasnt he? Didnt he give the green signal to prosecute?
Of course, now Razak is out. No need to testify. Its plain – not a prima facie shit against him, ruled the court (not in these words, quite clearly). So Razak is right all along and his wife too was right about him all along. And the judge must be right to have chucked his prosecution out of the window. Is this a case of poorly done homework by the police and badly made decision by the AG? A question I cant resist posing.
Although the mongolian model is not about to raise from where she now lie with this piece of news, I believe she might have stirred around a bit. Can we blame her or those pieces of her? The thought of he/they who is/are responsible is/are still about would stir sensible soul. Somewhere out there, he still lurks.
But what about the two who must now defend themselves. Lets see what would happen to them. I have something to say but must refrain for that would be an interference with the ongoing prosecution of the two. In a more fanciful term, the case is sub judice.
#13 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 9:41 am
Jeffrey,
If you are the affiant, you make declarations on paper and signed and sworn etc. Yes, declarations are what they are. It does not matter first, second and what the purpose was when you made them. Their truth will have to be examined. If you are the accused making these declarations, you will have to be examined in open court and cross examined as to their truth and accuracy.
That can only happen when you are called to enter your defense. Here the judge basing on your affidavit or affidavits you filed for whatever purpose, ruled you have no case to answer and need not make your defense. I’m struggling to understand why!
#14 by Jamesy on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 9:43 am
# undergrad2 Says:
Today at 08: 42.15 (57 minutes ago)
“Do you understand the quote unquote X-File? Then again, my comment is not for you to understand. My suggestion to you …” Jamesy
Is that all you have to say?? That’s pathetic!
———————————————————-
Not as pathetic as you for your pathetic comment on others without seeking elaboration!
#15 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 9:59 am
We have heard the testimonies of the different witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense. Some made inconsistent statements and attempts were made to impeach them and throw out their entire testimonies. These failed. We heard testimonies from key witnesses. They were examined and cross examined by counsel. Enough issues have been raised and doubts cast. Now we need to hear from the accused what he has got to say.
The judge’s ruling has prevented us from hearing directly from the accused. Should the accused decide to remain silent and not take the witness stand then we are entitled to ask why.
#16 by Toyol on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 10:12 am
We all knew that Baginda will not be charged. But with all the written and implied accusations against DPM, why isn’t he called for questioning. Is he above the law? Looks that way.
1) Why was Altantuya’s cousin witness testimony expunged?
2) Who erased the immigration records?
3) Who has authority to take C4 from the armoury?
4) The accused were DPM’s body guards?
5) It was the UTK’s chief testimony that these guys don’t act without orders. Who’s giving the orders?
With these questions hanging unanswered, how is it possible under any criminal court that the DPM is not called to the witness stand.
#17 by Jeffrey on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 11:46 am
“Yes, declarations are what they are. It does not matter first, second and what the purpose was when you made them. Their truth will have to be examined. If you are the accused making these declarations, you will have to be examined in open court and cross examined as to their truth and accuracy.”
I have not followed the trial closely as reported in newspapers when it was going on. Hopwever from secondary report of The Malaysian Insider, and even Mainstream papers as far as the reportage of verdict is concerned, and its basis, it seems that Prosecution has failed to cross-examine the first affidavit of Baginda (tendered for bail) which contents unrebutted/uncontradicted, according to judge, exculpated him. What can be expected done of Prosecution proceeded another direction and did not focus on or seek to cross examine the first Affidavit?
#18 by Jeffrey on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 11:47 am
Ooops – “…What can be expected done IF Prosecution proceeded another direction ….”
#19 by imranj78 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 10:24 pm
Jeffrey posted:
`as if this kind of accusations – which, according to Obama, was drawn only from his having lived, when young, in Indonesia, and once attended a school that was mostly Muslims for a few years – and which even the McCain camp dissociates from, could rightfully be compared and treated at the same level and accorded the same serious concerns as that of Altantuya’s murder case, with all its shortcomings in investigations relating to it.
When one uses a grape to compare with durian as basis of argument, no meaningful exchange can be expected to ensue from trying to respond to such an argument.’
Maybe you should try to re-read my post and improve your command of English! I never used Obama’s case as a basis of my argument. Rather it was meant to be an example of how people can smear someone’s name even when there is no proof whatsoever!!
I will repeat a part of my earlier post again for your sake. Try to re-read it slower this time please so that you may understand:
The presence of rumours and hearsays are not sufficient to call for such an inquiry. I would agree to such an inquiry if there are based on strong evidences. But to this day, are there any? Seriously I ask you, are there any?
#20 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 11:24 pm
“….it seems that Prosecution has failed to cross-examine the first affidavit …” Jeffrey QC
I didn’t know about that or the details; and media reports on the proceedings are from the distant past!
But it would appear that based on the failure of the prosecution (it must be one heck of a team not to do it) to cross examine the affiant on the contents of the affidavit, it translates somehow to insufficient evidence to make up a prima facie case.
What about the testimonies given by the various witnesses? Have they not raised issues, doubts enough to make up a prima facie case against him?? I should think so.
#21 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 11:28 pm
“…Prosecution has failed to cross-examine the first affidavit of Baginda (tendered for bail) which contents unrebutted/uncontradicted, according to judge, exculpated him.” Jeffrey
Exculpate the accused? That’s one hell of a stretch by any definition!
#22 by Jeffrey on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 11:43 pm
imranj78, well I am here to argue about your better command of English but command of understanding : if you think that public disquiet about Altantuya’s case is just about rumours and hearsays of a smearing nature, then I think you do not really know much about the entire situation including anomalies relating to investigation of this case (right from the beginning) and what has just been discussed in this blog thread about the court judgment….
#23 by Jeffrey on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 11:44 pm
“….well I am NOT here to argue about …”
#24 by undergrad2 on Monday, 3 November 2008 - 11:46 pm
“So Razak is right all along and his wife too was right about him all along. And the judge must be right to have chucked his prosecution out of the window. Is this a case of poorly done homework by the police and badly made decision by the AG? A question I cant resist posing.” taiking
The AG receives the dossier, the results of the police investigation into the role played by Baginda, reads it, makes some enquiries and after consulting the opinions of his subordinates decides if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. If he feels there is enough evidence to proceed to prosecution, he may or may not refer to the Home Minister or the PM or whoever his political masters are that he takes his instruction from. He has to feel comfortable with the evidence available. There must be enough evidence to make up what lawyers call a prima facie case against the accused. If there is insufficient evidence he may send it back to the police so that more could be gathered. But to prosecute based on insufficient evidence would not only be a waste of tax payer money but subsequent prosecution would fall foul of the rule against double jeopardy.
The rule to remember is that our system of justice is an adversarial one. There is the presumption of innocence which means if you allege you must prove and failure to show a prima facie case against the accused would result in his acquittal. Baginda is free to walk and it would appear it is because the prosecution team has bungled the job! It does not mean he is innocent of the crime he was charged with. It does not mean he has been found ‘not guilty’. It merely means there is insufficient evidence presented and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused because of the presumption of innocence referred to earlier. He could still be hauled to face trial for abetment to murder if fresh evidence not available at the time surfaces later.
#25 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 - 12:16 am
imranj78, what you have done is to try bring the Altantuya’s case to same level as Obama’s by saying both are are smeared by rumours/hearsays, mocking LKS call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) as if his call proceeds only on basis of rumours/hearsays (as defined by you), which is NOT the case because (1) the circumstances surrounding these so called rumours/hearsay eg Bala SD1 & 23 are not exactly the same stature as rumours of Obama being a muslim and (2) LKS’s call for RCI is based not just on the alleged rumours and hearsay of Bala/RPK but wider considerations of the perceived anomalies in the conduct of investigations and court case in striking departure from the ordinary.
It seems to me that you have selectively defined LKS’s call being based on narrower parameters that what they really are and used your own d efinition of the narrow parameters to discredit his call, which essentially shows either:
1. you lack understanding or knowledge of the bigger picture of the existence of anomalies stated; or
2. deliberately choose to ignore these, and to define LKS’s call as being based on narrow parameters of rumours/hearsays just so to discredit his call, engaging in what is esentialy a dishonest argument, which of course is easier facilitated by your unsual better command odf English….. :)
#26 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 - 1:35 am
Toyol Says:
Yesterday at 10: 12.14
We all knew that Baginda will not be charged. But with all the written and implied accusations against DPM, why isn’t he called for questioning.”
But Baginda was charged – and was free to walk because the prosecution did a botch job!
DPM is not on trial and could only be called to testify as a witness if relevant issues arise during the court proceedings and his testimony in court is relevant to collaborate the testimony or testimonies given by other witnesses or to rebut those given.
Apparently if Baginda had been called to make his defense, DPM would likely be called as a witness by either side and if he lies on the stand it would be perjury. That was what we all had hoped to happen. It didn’t and no one was surprised. If the trial of the alleged co-conspirators were to end in a ‘not guilty’ verdict, any appeal would be on issues of law and not fact.
We want to know what the DPM knows and it looks like we are never going to know now.
#27 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 - 1:37 am
He could still be called though
#28 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 - 6:15 am
Razak Baginda’s trial is not the only trial in town having anything to do with Altantuya Shaariibuu.
#29 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 - 6:47 am
If LKS calls for a RCI based on reasons (say) a, b,c, d and e in combination, and a detractor of his frames/defines his reason for calling so as being based (narrowly) on only (say) reason (a) [ie rumours/hearsay] without taking into consideration the balance of total considerations b, c, d and e taken into consideration and proceed further to ridicule reason a. as being a sufficient justification by pointing out by comparison another example (rumours pertaining to Obama) where no RCI was called or it would be ridiculous to do so by reason of a. alone, what has such a detractor done?
He has committed unwittingly (in such a case, an act of lack of understanding) or deliberately (in this case an act of dishonest argument) committed more than one facllacies of reasoning and argument…….
1st fallacy is that of Framing — by using a too narrow approach or description of the situation or issue in order to draw a different conclusion based on the narrower premises presented.
This variation of this kind of fallacy is sometimes called “contextomy,” a practice of “quoting out of context”, sometimes also referred to false attribution in which a other parts supporting an argument are not taken into consideration and severed from its surrounding context in such a way as to deliberately distort its intended purport.
Quoting out of context is often a means to set up what is called “straw man” arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not actually held by an opponent (LKS), but which may be attributed to him and ridiculed by reason of it bearing superficial similarity to another instance of Obama’s case where the attribution on narrower premises (just rumours/hearsays) is justifiably discredited for calling a RCI.
The 2nd fallacy is assuming that something (as in a rumour/hearsay) is necessarily true/false because it has not yet been proven false/true or prevented from being proven true/false.
There are other fallacies : but I shall stop here for the time being….
#30 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 - 7:36 am
Fallacy or fellatio??
#31 by ktteokt on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 - 9:56 am
Despite “judgment” being passed by our newly appointed Chief Justice on the two accused police personnel involved in the case, on just a “prima facie” case against them, many question are still unanswered as far as the murder case of Altantuya is concerned.
Who actually killed her and how?
Who ordered her to be killed?
Do these two police personnel have any personal interest which necessitated the killing?
Where did they get the C4?
Who erased the immigration records of the victim?
Who had the power to obtain C4 from the army artillery department?
Did the storekeeper at the army artillery department keep proper records on the amount of C4 stored?
If the erasure of the immigration records has been accepted, which means Altantuya was NEVER in Malaysia, then how did she get killed in Malaysia and her body blown to bits and pieces?
Did all these questions never cross the minds of the prosecution, the defence and the presiding judge? If all these points weren’t included in arriving at the judgment, then what were the criteria for the judge’s decision in acquitting the key accused?
And what sort of court and judge do we have where the accused can wrap himself up like a mummy when being presented in court. How the hell is anyone, whether the judge, the prosecution or the defence is going to know that the one in the dock is actually the one whose guilt is to be determined? And even if the death sentence is passed eventually on them, who the hell can be sure the two hanged are actually the two criminals who stood trial for the 100+ days? Right from Day#1, no one has seen their faces, so I bet even the EXECUTIONER who finally carries out the hanging cannot be SURE that he is hanging the right people!!!!
By “mummifying” themselves, these two accused have actually committed “contempt of court”! Why didn’t the presiding judge say anything?