nwsdesk@thesundaily.com
SHAH ALAM (July 29, 2008) : Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda never intended to hurt Altantuya Shaariibuu and the surrounding circumstances of the case which corroborates with his affidavit proves this, his counsel Wong Kian Keong told the murder trial today.
"Abdul Razak never retracted his affidavit which stands to be scrutinised by all and sundry. It is an affidavit of truth and proves that the accused is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt," he said during his submission for the trial proper.
Wong said the surrounding circumstances and corroborating testimonies by prosecution witnesses show that Abdul Razak never meant to harm Altantuya and instead chose to play "the waiting game" – which was to wait until she had exhausted all her finances following which she would return to her home in Mongolia.
"This he had made known to private investigator Balasubramaniam who testified that Abdul Razak paid him RM4,000 for protection services required until Altantuya ran out of cash and returned home," he said.
"He never told Balasubramaniam to harm Altantuya," Wong said, adding that all this showed that Abdul Razak had intended that Altantuya returned safely to Mongolia.
Abdul Razak had also made his relationship to Altantuya known to his wife Mazlinda, daughter Rowena, parents and staff Siti Aisyah Mohd Azlan, Wong said. 
He added that Abdul Razak also appointed lawyer Dhiren Rene Norendra and contacted police officers who are duty bound to uphold the law including DSP Musa Safri who had referred him to officers at the Brickfields police station.
He also told Siti Aisyah that a police Special Action Unit (UTK) officer C/Insp Azilah Hadri would be coming to the office and to show him in when he showed up.
"All this are not consistent with the behaviour of a person planning a murder," Wong argued.
"His family and neighbours too knew what was happening and Abdul Razak had even asked Musa what happened to Altantuya as mentioned in the affidavit," he said of Abdul Razak's openness.
He said Abdul Razak had only met Azilah once and had never known or met Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar, adding that it was unlikely that he would appoint two police officers to carry out a murder instead of a hired killer.
"Furthermore, he would not have been so stupid as to allow Altantuya to be abducted from in front of his house for everyone to see if his intention was to murder her," Wong added.
Azilah and Sirul both UTK personnel are charged with murdering the Mongolian woman at Mukim Bukit Raja between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006 while Abdul Razak is charged with abetting them.
Wong also argued that the charge against Abdul Razak was defective based the manner of the charge, the 36 hour time-frame given, (between 9.54am on Oct 18 and 9.55pm on Oct 19) and because the specific place of where the purported event took place was never mentioned. The charge only states the place as Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, he said.
Wong added that the testimony of prosecution witness L/Cpl Rohaniza Roslan who is facing impeachment should not be thrown totally out as some of the statements can be adduced.
He was referring mainly to a statement by Rohaniza that she did not know Abdul Razak, which Wong said was corroborated by a witness from telecommunication company Maxis Goh Peng Chew who clarified that there were no call transactions between the two.
Judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin commented that some people who knew each other never called one another.
Wong will tomorrow be submitting on six grounds as to why Abdul Razak is innocent. He said these are:
> Overwhelming credible prosecution evidence to prove that Abdul Razak is innocent of the abetment charge
> No direct nor circumstantial evidence to prove circumstantial evidence to prove Abdul Razak committed the abetment charge.
> Totality of the prosecutions evidence clearly raises at the very least, a reasonable inference that Abdul Razak did not commit the abetment charge which should be adopted by the court.
> There should is more than reasonable doubt about the third accused guilt in the abetment charge.
> Adverse inferences should be drawn against the prosecution for failure to call certain material witnesses and to explain how Abdul Razak was alleged to have been the registered user of phone number 012-9042042 which was co-related in telephone logs prepared by CyberSecurity Malaysia Bhd.
>The abetment charge is defective for not specifying the manner, approximate time and place of the alleged abetment which irreparably prejudices Abdul Razak’s defence.
ARTICLES SOURCE: http://www.thesundaily.com
No comments:
Post a Comment