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?

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….

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.

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….. :)

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.

Exculpate the accused? That’s one hell of a stretch by any definition!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

“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!

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!

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.