On the 15th day of the trial (of a trial within a trial – established to determine whether the accused made his confession voluntarily):

Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, the 2nd accused in the Altantuya murder case is said to be an “absolutely confused man”. His counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin said he was (a) confused by the simplest question (b) not a calculative witness (c) described as a robot with an anxious state of mind (d) contradicted himself four times (when questioned by his counsel).

(note: if a man is described as a robot, he can’t also have an anxious state of mind, can he? robots have no brains!)

This makes Sirul’s confession (on not) to UTK deputy commander ACP Mastor Mohd Ariff during their flight from Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur on November 6, last year, INADMISSABLE on the grounds that (1) He did not make his confession voluntarily (2) He was confused of the allegation that he killed a woman (3) He was oppressed and induced to confess because he was “under the custody and control” of the person who attempted to extract a confession from him. He was oppressed and clearly cannot phantom the repercussions of his confession – if there was one (4) He did not give in writing or signed the confession he made about killing a woman (5) the prosecution has failed to call other material witnesses who were with Sirul at all material time (sergeant Jelima Tasiran and corporal Zamri Abu Bakar).

(note: does this mean that Sirul has ab alibi? or were there more people involved in Altantuya’s murder?

Looks like the Police force and DPPs have failed to do their duties appropriately. First they tricked the guy into leaving his duties in Pakistan, then they deceived him about his ex-wife, later they (allegedly) forced him to confess. Now there are others with him at the “material time”. Will they be called to the witness stand as well?

There are examples where cases are thrown out of court because proper procedures were not respected. This is a grave injustice to all concerned.

Oh, man…if he is not confused, I am! Yet, the question remains: did he or did he not kill Altantuya?

Source Malaysiakini.com


49 responses »

  1. nwjgds says:

    Why is he such an absolutely confused man? Because the explosion of the C4 grenades he set off was so loud that it muddled up what little he has in his brains. So now he can claim insanity when committing (wo)manslaughter and escape the hangman’s noose.

  2. kjlll says:

    yeaHH..i agreed with u!!!!! or else he wont be so stupid killing someone and get caught easily! using C4 to kill & left the remains in d estate is a foolish action….

  3. susan loone says:

    hey people, has the prosecution prove that this accused killed the victim? they haven’t! all we hear are hearsays. so we cannot say for certain that this is the killer. i know we all want to nail the murderer, but we must also be fair. no proof means no conviction! and no murderer.

  4. farizrani says:

    I agree with SL. So far I haven’t seen any proof whatsoever. And of course, the majority of people are acting like monkeys and jumping to their own conclusions (no offense nwjgds and kjlll).

  5. nwjgds says:

    Only 2 men were with the Mongolian when she was blown apart. If the killers are not those 2 men (plus the one(s) who gave the orders), then who else? Don’t tell me it’s Santa Claus! Or the Orang Minyak?! Or perhaps The Old Man on The Moon?

  6. Raja says:

    First, did it meet the definition of a confession? Secondly, what did he confess to? Thirdly, was the confession voluntary? The second and third are issue of fact. The first is an issue of law.

    If the statement (oral or reduced to writing) is adverse to the maker, then it meets the definition of a confession. It must be adverse and unequivocally so Anything less than that may not been the legal definition of a confession that is needed to convict the accused.

    What did he confess to? If he confessed to something less than murder then it is not the confession needed to convict him of the crime he is charged with.

    These are not difficult to show since they are issues of fact. It is a matter of evidence.

    However, the issue of voluntariness is a much more difficult to answer. But then you may ask why can’t a confession howsoever made especially when he later led police to the body, be admissible in a court of law. It is after all true like all confessions are. Remember, the statement made is adverse to the maker and so it must be true. He admitted to killing her! What more do you want?

    At common law, confession is admissible under an exception to the common law rule against hearsay. But when they discover that it encourages law enforcement agencies to extract confessions to help them in their investigations through promise or inducement and threats and in others through torture then there is a danger that some innocent ones wrongly accused of the crime would not have ‘confessed’ but for the promise, inducement, threat and torture. To protect those few, it is important that police investigating the case do not resort to the use of threat. torture or promise and inducement. In our Evidence Act confession is only admissibel if it is voluntarily made – ‘voluntariness’ is not a term of art but carries with it the popular definition of the word.

    Sirul’s definition looks voluntary to me though tricked into making it. The problem is it was not reduced to writing. The reason given was the ACP who accompanied him was not the Investigation Officer and was not taking S.112 or S. 111 statement signed by the maker. They would have liked to ask him to make it in writing – but then he would have become defensive and not make it at all. Was that a ‘trick’? I don’t think so.

    Is there a requirement that he be read his Miranda rights and made his statment in the presence of counsel? No such requirements. Not in our legal system. Was he under arrest at the time he confessed? No. So he made the statement to a superior officer voluntarily.

    Of course in court his only defense to the admissibility of the confession is to say that it was not made voluntarily. But evidence suggests the contrary.

  7. Raja says:

    However, it is a trick to tell the accused that his accomplice in the crime has already confessed and told them that he had helped in the murder, when his accomplice did not (confess). Is this sufficient to exclude the confession? I don’t think so.

    But do not mistake the written statement that he could have possibly made to the IO during interrogation with his oral confession to his superior officer in a less confrontational circumstances.

  8. farizrani says:

    nwjgds your intelligent comments are totally mindblowing. What amazes me most is how you got all those facts? At which part during the trial was it disclosed that it was definitely those 2 men who were with the Mongol when she was blown up? And at which part was it definitely proven that ARB gave the order? I have no idea which trial you’re following, but your source of information is totally bs. No offense of course.

    Oh a little bit of advice for you. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don’t say anything. You might be perceived as an idiot. No offense of course.

  9. fariz says:

    f U!

  10. farizrani says:

    Thanks Raja for your comment. Just want to clarify, is the confession admissable if:
    1. His superior officer tricked him as you said, by telling him that Azilah already confessed?
    2. He allegedly confessed to his superior officer and not the IO?

    If ‘yes’ to both questions, is that enough for the confession to become inadmissable?

  11. Raja says:

    Sueanne says,

    “…but we must also be fair. no proof means no conviction! and no murderer.”

    Not just any proof!

    Bear in mind this is a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is the high criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” – and not the lower standard of proof “on the balance of probabilities”.

    Remember the OJ Simpson trial !They could not convict him in the criminal trial but in the civil trial when the lower standard of proof was applied, he was found liable.

    So even though there is some proof that the accused could have done the crime in the case here, the evidence presented may not meet the burden of proof required i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof beyond reasonable doubt? It is the kind of proof required before you put your life’s savings into a particular stock or stocks. It does not have to be a certainty – just more likely than not.

  12. anonymous dud says:

    i don’t understand why is hearsay. The witnesses say whatever they see and hear, repeat what the accused told them. If everything they says is taken as hearsay, why are they called up to court. Is like the accused tell the witness that I kill em, cannot be taken account coz is hearsay. The fact accused contradicted himself because he’s full of shit. He already signed the confession because he is “forced – maybe out of guilt” to tell the truth, and when he sees “law” at his side, he’s taking advantage to deny everything. And on evidence, it’s the bomb that kill the woman, and since it leaves no fingerprint, no record, no EVIDENCE, all 3 of them should be acquitted. Ah, there’s blood in the car, but defense is just from cuts, it does not mean they are murderer. So, using C4 to kill is brilliant idea afterall, and it sends me message that so easy to become murderer, and acquitted one.

  13. Raja says:

    Dear Farzani,

    Q. 1 is asked and answered.

    Yes, in my opinion. Azilah could have given some evidence. But then he may not have. Does it matter? Since no promise, inducement or threat or torture is involved? This is just a tool of investigation employed by those in law enforcement.

    Q.2 For it to be a confession according to statute, he is required only to confess to a superior officer – does the Evidence Act say it has to be to an Investigation Officer or IO? iI don’t have a copy of the Act with me. You could help us define confession as given by the Act.

    “If yes to both, is it enough for the confession though true to be declared inadmissible?”

    You’d have to refer to the Evidence Act. At common law it is admissible under an exception to the common law rule against hearsay.

  14. anonymous dud says:

    i remember canny ong case. The murderer should walk free, or charge him raping (semen found in the body, but can also argue consensual, since no evidence of coercion, the confession is involuntarily). They didn’t find the knife, so no evidence, no conviction, so should be acquitted. The gas station worker in court – hearsay – not that guy coz he does not show his ic and the one buy the petrol could be look alike, or maybe he bought petrol to refill his car.

  15. Raja says:

    “i don’t understand why is hearsay. The witnesses say whatever they see and hear, repeat what the accused told them.” Anonymous dud.

    It is hearsay. It is not hearsay if the maker comes to court and repeat what he said earlier to the police. His testimony is the evidence. This is an out-of-court statement repeated by someone else (not the maker) in court to prove the truth of its contents – and is therefore hearsay.

  16. farizrani says:

    Thanks Raja. I am not a lawyer by profession and I don’t have access to the Evidence Act so the jargon in the news (malaysiakini) was a bit confusing. Thanks for helping to clear that up a bit.

  17. Raja says:

    I do not know the facts of that case but if I am not mistaken it was not proved beyond reasonable that the accused did the crime. He may have done it. Not everybody who walks out a free man is innocent. Not guilty does not mean innocent.

  18. Raja says:

    OK Farizani.

  19. Let’s say there’s a murder with 2 killers involved. Police caught the 2, throw them into separate room for interrogation. Killer #1 keep quiet. So police tricked killer #2 that killer #1 reveals everything, so killer #2 blurts out every detail of the incident. Is this confession valid then ? court rules confession inadmissable and both killers walk out free happy men. What a justice.

  20. Raja says:

    Question asked and answered, Anoynymous!

  21. Raja says:

    It is a tool police use when investigating a crime. They often trick you into confessing and your confession if voluntary would be admissible into evidence in a court of law. What matters is it must be made voluntarily.

  22. Raja says:

    “Is this confession valid then ? ”

    It is not a question of its validity. It is always valid. The question is could his confession be admitted in evidence in a court of law since it is after all an out-court-statement repeated in court as truth of contents. The answer to that is found in our Evidence Act.

  23. To convict a murderer, it requires a motive and evidence. Even motive can be deluded, is like I hate you so I kill you – doesn’t make sense. And there’s no evidence – they use bomb (who says this idea is stupid is stupid).

  24. wits0 says:

    First, bad management of C4 and other explosive ordnance as an accepted standard practice.

    Second, a confused accuse presented.

    Very clever way to terminate the case without real conclusion. Remember Karthigesu and Jean Perera? Confusion leads to a light sentence but I’m believe Kathisgesu did the cutting.

  25. Joe says:

    A confession on a plane should be ruled invalid.
    Cabin pressure and altitude has been known to affect the mind.

  26. oA says:


    Police story gone HAYWIRE … LoL

    They should have gotten a better script writer. The prosecutor should be thinking about impeaching the officer and charge deputy commander for perjury with intent of disrupting the case at hand.


  27. pd guy says:

    Joe, I agreed with you, any confessioned (if really happen), should be recorded. Why mastor not recorded or somebody to witness it. So it will be a strong case to mention in court

  28. hantutelur says:

    In Detective Conan the stories always end with the criminal admitted to the crime. I don’t remember anyone taking notes. Sometimes even without the presence of a lawman

  29. Raja says:

    Anonymous dude says,

    “To convict a murderer, it requires a motive and evidence. Even motive can be deluded, is like I hate you so I kill you – doesn’t make sense. And there’s no evidence – they use bomb (who says this idea is stupid is stupid).”

    No. Motive is not required to prove murder. What is required is what lawyers refer to as the ‘actus reus’ and the ‘mens rea’ to murder – which is the act itself and intent to kill or malice aforethought which is the ‘mens rea’ to murder.

    So in the Mongolian murder case all you need to prove is the shooting and the subsequent use of some sort of explosives to get rid of the evidence (without a body there can be no murder, and without the computer records of her ever entering the country would corroborate the fact that she is alive somewhere but not in Malaysia!); and the malice aforethought i.e. somebody thought about it, planned the murder and carried it out.

    I think these the two accused planned the murder and carried it out. The attempt to delete all records of the deceased ever entering the country shows there is some degree of government involvement – but only maybe. It could be someone in the IT department doing it without authorization in which case it does not necessarily involve the government but a ‘rouge’ government employee acting outside the scope of his employment. The question of who else is involved is not required to prove murder by the two accused. They may have accomplices in and out of the government but that goes to the issue of conspiracy and like all conspiracies iti s hard to prove.

  30. Raja says:

    I think there is insufficient against Razak to show conspiracy. He is going to walk. Too bad.

  31. Raja says:

    “Joe, I agreed with you, any confessioned (if really happen), should be recorded. Why mastor not recorded or somebody to witness it. So it will be a strong case to mention in court” PD Guy

    No. A confession is a confession. It could be orally made to anybody.

    The S. 112 statement or other statements issued to the police in the course of police investigation is HEARSAY and INADMISSIBLE to prove the truth of contents. it is not evidence that can be admitted to prove Sirul murdered Altantuya. (It can be admitted to prove other things but that is another matter).

    For example, Sirus says to the IO “I confessed to blowing up Altantuya with grenades after she was shot twice in the head by Azilah” which was reduced to writing by the IO and Sirul signs (or refuses to sign). This statement cannot be admitted into evidence as a confession because it is hearsay.

    But there is a confession. How do you admit this confession?

    The IO could be called as witness and he could repeat what Sirul told him – that is his testimony and it is evidence of Sirul’s confession. The earlier out-of-court statement is not proof of confession.

    In this case ACP Mastor though not an IO investigating the case of murder was told that by Sirul. Mastor came to court and repeated what he heard. This is not hearsay. But suppose Mastor died before the court case but before he died he told another officer what Sirul told him. Now for this officer to come to court to repeat what Mastor told him what Sirul said would be hearsay and will not be allowed.

  32. farizrani says:

    Raja there is insufficient evidence against ARB because he didn’t conspire to murder. I believe that wholeheartedly.

  33. Raja says:

    That does not mean however that he innocent! I am not saying he is guilty. You are as guilty as the evidence shows you are.

  34. Raja says:

    I don’t think the Prosecution has made out a prima facie case for him to answer. His defense is unlike to be called.

    What the evidence shows so far is that he employed the services of detectives and bodyguards to senior politicians (which may include the PM and the DPM) and government VIPs to keep Altantuya at bay as she was harassing him. The only connection to Najib is the bodyguards – but that does not prove conspiracy.

  35. arifabdull says:

    Raja, thanks for ur comments….. keep it up

  36. Raja says:

    Najib could be involved – yes! but there is no evidence other than the fact his bodyguards committed the murder.

    The deletion of computer records is interesting because whoever is responsible for it must know that without a body and without documentary evidence of her ever being in the country, her murder could never be proved. To prove a murder there must be a body.

  37. Raja says:

    “I think these the two accused planned the murder and carried it out. ”

    Allow me to paraphrase this one. Evidence shows that the two planned and carried it out. There is a confession which is admissible and there is the fact that Azilah led the police to the scene of the crime.

    Our opinions are not relevant.

  38. ghenjis khan says:

    The ” Prisoners Dilemma” is supposed to be played in the Interrogation Room and NOT in the court room.

    It is a method that has been well researched and part of the Psychology subject.

    There is even a suggestione arlier that these 3 x accused should have been charged separately in court., thus, allowing the AG some levy to at least convict one of them.

    The PP has taken the easy way out much to their disadvantage and detriment with the near possibility of a technical error and miscarriage of Justice.

    All may be acquited without their defence being called!

  39. Raja says:

    If I were the Prosecutor I would apply for separate trials. This is allowed. Rather than have a joint trial.

    The two policemen could be tried together. If tried together one would try to blame the other and would end up giving evidence which the state could then use against the remaining accused, Razak Baginda in another trial.

    It is a matter of strategy. The trial transcript of the first trial could be used as evidence in the later trial.

  40. Raja says:

    “There is even a suggestione arlier that these 3 x accused should have been charged separately in court.”

    Not charged separately but tried separately.

    They can be named as defendants in one charge sheet but later tried separately if the court consents.

  41. Raja says:

    OK here is the Sec. 24 of the Evidence Act:

    “Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal proceeding

    24. A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him.”

    Apply the facts of the case to the law.

    Sirul’s confession is clearly voluntary and therefore admissible. He is a gonna.

  42. kittykat46 says:

    The case against the two UTK policemen looks pretty much locked up to me. The prosecution doesn’t even have to establish the motive – just sufficient to prove they did “it”.

    Bag’s case is more complicated. The prosecution has to prove that he was complicit in having organised the murder. So they have to prove motive, intention, communication, actions.
    He appears to have a rock-solid alibi as far as not being at the scene of the murder, so no way to tie him directly to the murder.

    So we are back on the question of motive. Why would he want to order her killed ? Having an affair with another woman may break up a marriage, but murder ?? WHAT ELSE was involved ?
    Somehow I don’t think the answers will come out of this court.
    This is Bolehland after all, and the prosecution has a conflict of interest in trying to make sure SOMEBODY ELSE’s name doesn’t get dragged into the court.

  43. Raja says:

    Motive again!

    Motive is not necessary to prove the commission of a crime. You do not need to look and find a motive before finding the accused guilty of a crime. This is true even with conspiracy.

    In the crime of conspiracy to commit murder (a separate crime from murder) two or more persons must be shown to have got together and form an agreement. Each may have different motives. One may not even have a motive so long as they act together in furtherance of a crime and the crime is committed. That proves conspiracy.

    It is not conspiracy however when your act helps to advance the commission of a crime without an agreement. There must be an agreement.

  44. Raja says:

    In the Mongolian murder case there is no evidence of an agreement involving Razak or insufficient evidence.

  45. Raja says:

    “He appears to have a rock-solid alibi as far as not being at the scene of the murder, so no way to tie him directly to the murder.”

    The crime of conspiracy is separate from the crime itself. In this case there is a crime – murder which was committed. You do not need to be anywhere near the scene of the crime to be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. You could be away in Timbuktu for all we care and still be found guilty of the crime of conspiracy.

  46. ghenjis khan says:

    but then what is ” prima facie” if not, beyond reasonable doubt !

    poor if not dismal performance by DPP, they have not proven anything but circumstantial evidence, even that is flimsy, inconcrete, and lack of association with the other 2 ie. Azilah and far removed Razak Baginda …

    Sirul did not attend the meeting with Razak at Bangunan Getah ….. wasn’t Azilah alone with Razak ?

    remember, Azilah is NOT Sirul’s superior officer !

    they were ordered by somebody MUST be superior to Azilah’s superiror and Sirul’s superior , such wise, that they had to work as a TEAM in a covert operation.

    that can be safely INFERRED by default.

    who is that somebody ?

    and if that somebody who MUST be an UTK Senior Officer then, by default, he MUST have got the “suggestion, REQUEST, plea” from somebody who is above IGP, Chief of Army or a spouse of the female kind !

    [btw there was NO QUESTIOn by the DPP who should have asked a simple question, who gave you Azilah and Sirul, the order to act in manner …..

    under whose INSTRUCTIONs or COMMAND did both of you ACT to commit this action ….

    these two UTK chappies can only ACT upon an Order and an Order comes from a Superior Officer of a Senior Ranking …..

    if such a question arises, then, somebody from the National Security Council of which PM or DPM sits as Chairman …will INVOKE silence as it breaches National Security …..

  47. kittykat46 says:

    Historically, conspiracy to commit murder is difficult to prove .

    Often times, you can get conviction for the guy who actually pulls the trigger or whatever other murder weapon, but convicting the behind the scenes conspirator is another matter. Such people often know well not to leave behind any evidence trail linking them to the murder.

    How do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an agreement made ? One person’s word against another is not enough.

  48. […] that Sirul’s response was INVOLUNTARY. It would not even be mentioned in the trial. It is INADMISSIBLE, as he was ‘forced’ to have made that […]

  49. […] by the defense, the witness (hotel manager Low Mow Chan) gave contradicting answers. Another “absolutely confused” […]

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