2nd accused, corporal Sirul Azhar Umar’s confession about Altantuya’s murder to his superior officer has been thrown out of court. Sirul was said to have made the confession to UTK deputy commander ACP Mastor Mohd Ariff during their flight from Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur on November 6 last year. Judge says 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 confession.

Now, where does that leave us? For someone who is being described as a robot with an anxious mind, an absolutely confused man, will he now walk free?

UPDATE: Says Thomas Fuller of IHT:

But what has perhaps captured the most attention is the testimony about police interrogation methods and the secretive and elite Special Action Squad. Mastor Mohamad Ariff, the deputy commander of the squad, told the court that his men were trained never to question their orders.”In other words, they are like robots?” asked the lead prosecutor, Abdul Majid Hamzah, according to accounts in the Malaysian media.

“Yes, they only receive instructions from their superiors,” Mastor said.



41 responses »

  1. 2legit2quit says:

    I am not at all surprised Susan. Frankly I think justice for Altantunya will not be servered in this trial. I have this feeling that all trree accused will be released in the end in Bolehland.


  2. wits0 says:

    The whole thing was manoeuvered towards this conclusion.

  3. susan loone says:

    raja, where are you? what is your legal opinion on this?

  4. 2legit2quit says:

    Yep, boring is the word…Yes, I know you and many dedicated to this blog sincerely want justice to be done for Altantunya. How are we ever going to defeat these evil forces. wits0 any intellectual suggestion??

  5. wits0 says:

    By not attempting to be accepted by obliging the the STFU expectation of evil via political correctness. Certainly not by Hawk’s prescription of passivity and throwing the responsibility back to his ‘God’.

  6. lucia says:

    gosh! what a very ‘intellectual’ suggestion from wits0 indeed… so much so that me poor non intellectual mind don’t understand! haha.

    i agree with 2legit. don’t be suprised if in the end, all 3 are realeased. the court (both defence and prosecution!) will come up with all sorts of excuses they had nothing to proof beyond a shadow of the doubt (is that the phrase?) that all 3 or either one committed the murder.


  7. kittykat46 says:

    I can just see the prosecution’s case slipping out of their hands, step by step.
    At this rate they may all go free..

  8. wits0 says:

    The writing’s is on the wall by now. An anti-climax not unexpected.

  9. Raja says:


    I am back! Hey it’s still 5.57 as I type this….Need need some coffee to wake me up sorry! BRB.

    Needless to say. I am shocked!

  10. susan loone says:


    Your learned comments is very much needed now 🙂

    Relax, have coffee, then ‘surprise’ us!

  11. wahaha says:

    In the end, the orang halus in Ampang will be found guilty of the murder. All 3 accused will be aquitted for lack of evidence. Fortunately Tian Chua was not passing by that area on the night in question or else he woild be accused of that murder. ( A doctored photo of the victim, Razak Bags and Tian would be presented as evidence )

  12. Roxanne says:

    Surely people, have more faith in justice. The only person most likely to walk is Razak but even so, life has always a way of punishing those who get away. Why would someone – presumably smart like him – give the address of a difficult-to-get-rid-of woman to a bodyguard, who had “claimed” killing ten or so persons? What was on his mind? It’s for you to figure out and he to know the answer. Anyway, even if he’s found not guilty, he’s not innocent. He’s going to live the rest of his life “haunted” by the murdered woman. You don’t “unintentionally” or “unwittingly” cause the death of a woman with two children and go happy to bed every night. And yes, where’s Raja?

  13. Roxanne says:

    Oh, he’s back. Good

  14. Raja says:

    OK I’m sorry Susan but I am 12 hours behind KL which leaves me disadvantaged compared to you guys! That is my confession and I am making it voluntarily without inducement, threat or promise. Sorry, it is not adverse to me or my interest and therefore fails to make the legal definition of ‘confession’ as stated under our Evidence Act.

    The judge on the other hand obviously has been promised his promotion.

  15. Raja says:

    There is a chance that on appeal this ruling by this judge may be reversed.

  16. Raja says:

    “Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ruled that the confession was not made voluntarily because there was an inducement by Sirul Azhar’s superior, Special Action Unit Deputy Commander ACP Mastor Mohd Ariff, to procure the confession from Sirul Azhar.” NST

    The facts do not reveal inducement, threat or promise. This is the reason why Malaysia must bring back jury trials. In the case of Malaysia without the jurors chosen from among the peers of the accused, and with the judge as the trier of the law as well as the facts, injustice may result. In this case it has clearly resulted in injustice since we have been denied a vital piece of evidence.

    Remember that the confession is true. He did say he killed her. But this statement is not allowed into evidence because in the opinion of the judge after the vore dire it is not made voluntarily. It was made with inducement i.e. tricked into saying it. Let us analyse that.

  17. Raja says:


    1. He was told that they needed him back in Malaysia. The reason given concerned his ex-wife.
    2. He was asked to surrender his firearm at the hotel and to leave his luggage behind except for a backpack(?)
    3. Mastor testified in the voire dire that during the trip back to Malaysia the accused confessed to killing the Mongolian girl:

    a. In his testimony in court albeit in the voire dire and not in open court, Mastor said Sirul’s demeanor was serious and behavior deliberate and fully conscious of the circumstances he was being made familiar to.

    b. Mastor spoke of a man who was calm and deliberate in his response. Mastor said Sirul paused for a few minutes apparently to reflect on what had happened and to weigh the issues before him and then made his confession.


    A confession if obtained through the use of threat, inducement or promises say of a light sentence is not voluntary and in accordance with S. 24 Evidence Act is not admissible into evidence.

    It is otherwise true and accurate.

    Assuming there was evidence of ‘inducement’, there is still the issue of ‘causation”.

    A man of the standing of this police corporal who tried to dispose of a dead body through the use of explosives cannot be so easily induced into making a confession with ‘facts’ involving his superior office who it seemed had told all to the police.

    Was there evidence of ‘inducement’?

  18. Raja says:

    Sirul was apparently tricked into making his confession when told that his superior officer Azilah had told all he knew and that there was no point holding back any information. Does this constitute ‘inducement?

    You will need to return to S. 24 Evidence Act. But the Act does not define ‘inducement’ and so the term is not a term of art. It is to be understood in terms of its popular meaning.

  19. Raja says:

    Where is the inducement? Was it when he was told to return because there was this matter about his ex-wife. He said he didn’t believe it. So this man is not a simpleton who would believe anything and everything told to him.

    He was told that he might as well speak out since there was no point in denying anymore. Many accused of a crime when ‘exposed’ became remorseful and confessed. It is the confession that later became the only evidence.

    The judge has to consider the full facts surrounding the circumstance and the man making it before he is able to say this man had been induced. If there was inducement, was he induced?

  20. Raja says:

    Is there any significance in the fact that they sent ACP Mastor the senior officer of the other accused to speak to him? Would it be different had they sent Sirul’s own direct superior officer? Or the IO in charge of the case – remember nobody has been charged yet.

    How did this judge come to make his ruling? What was his reasoning?

  21. ghenjis khan says:

    Is Chief Inspector Azilah a DIRECT superior officer of Sirul Azhar? No, he is NOT!

    But in this particular TEAM action, it must be ordered or instructed or commanded by somebody more Superior to Azilah .

    Corporal Sirul Azhar has to be obedient to the command, instructions and orders of Chief Inspector Azilah for this particular Covert Operation !

    Please, remind ourselves, did the DPP ask the most pertinent question :
    from say, Oct 17th to Oct 21st of 2006 , what orders, instructions, commands received by this Sirul fellow?

    Every morning, each and every other UTK fellow must be briefed to get ORDERS or Standing Orders for the week rescinded by an urgent Order or Command from somebody Superior .

    By questioning along this line you get exactly what these fellows are up to for the week or month unless abrogated by another Order.

    It is all about Orders in this disorderly behaviour.

  22. Raja says:

    This Section of the Evidence Act has a direct bearing to the issue of whether there was in this case inducement, promise etc:

    “Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.

    29. If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because —

    (a) it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk;

    (b) it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions; or

    (c) he was not warned that he was not bound to make the confession and that evidence of it might be given against him.

  23. Raja says:

    The confession by Sirul was made in consequence of a deception practiced on the him for the purpose of obtaining his confession is not to become irrelevant – provided it is relevant. In this case it is relevant to prove the commission of the crime.

    The key words: “not to become irrelevant”

    So why did the judge rule out the confession?

  24. now the odds become all 3 walk free. The case becomes xfile, the murderer becomes mystery.

  25. Raja says:

    In a jurisdiction like that of the U.S. the emphasis is on ‘due process rights’ of the individual accused. You have to be read your Miranda rights (You are under arrest. You are not obliged to say anything. Should you choose to speak anything you say may be used as evidence against you in a court of law. If you cannot afford a lawyer one will be given to you).

    However in jurisdictions like that of the U.K. and Malaysia (and other common law countries) the police does not even need a search warrant signed by a judge before they could enter and search your house!

    Sirul was not under arrest in any case.

  26. Raja says:

    “Now the odds become all 3 walk free. ” anonymous dude

    It is premature to make any conclusion. Judgment is based on the totality of the evidence – and we have yet to hear the rest of the evidence.

  27. Raja says:

    There is no evidence of inducement but there is evidence of deception. Though deceived his confession is admissible: S. 29 (a) EVIDENCE ACT.

  28. simon wee says:

    It is difficult that a person of Sirul stature–elite force member with intimate knowledge of explosive and who himself must have tortured others–could easily be induced. He is not one of those from the “omni bus”. As such we would expect the judge to be more circumspective. The moral of the story may be if one wants the accuseds to be acquited, then pick a prosecutor from the AG’s civil litigation department.

  29. simon wee says:

    The subjective test as in the British case of Keane should be submitted for the benefit of the judge.

  30. simon wee says:

    Having said what I have said above, I am inclined to go along with Raja that any adverse conclusion is premature. In the case of Dato’ Mokhtar bin Hashim, even though his confession was thrown out, he ultimately was found guilty of murder. He wasn’t hanged because of an agong pardon.

  31. Raja says:

    Yes, which is why we must bring back jury trials. Let the judge be the trier of the law and the jury be the trier of the facts!

    Without a jury the trial judge first decides what he wants to do i.e. the judgment he wants to make; he recites the applicable law and then looks at the facts of the case, applies the law to the facts as he sees them to arrive at the decision he wants to make!

    That is a corruption of the entire judicial process!

  32. Raja says:

    I am curious to find the route or the reasoning the trial judge used to come to his conclusion that the confession made was not voluntary. As it was made during the voire dire, the public does not know how he came to make this ruling.

  33. PI Ramasamy says:


    1) RB sentenced to life imprisonment. Due to his age and for good behaviour, will only serve six months in jail;

    2) S & A sentenced to hang. Just bring in two unclaimed drug addict corpses, put them into sealed coffins and send them to the respective kampungs of S & A for burial. Nobody is allowed to see the corpses of hanged persons once they are sealed in the coffins. S & A will assume a different identity and sent to live perhaps in Indonesia or Thailand. After a few years, when all is forgotten, they will be allowed to come back, but of course with different names.

  34. simon wee says:

    Raja, it would be interesting to see how the confession of Azilah would turn out. Beside the Evidence Act, there is also the Criminal Procedure Code namely s112 (statement from those not under arrest yet) and s113 (statement from those arrested). In Dato Harun’s case, a s112 statement can be converted into a s113 statement and admissible.

  35. simon wee says:

    Susan, your new format looks better. congrate…

  36. Raja says:

    Simon says,

    “Beside the Evidence Act, there is also the Criminal Procedure Code namely s112 (statement from those not under arrest yet) and s113 (statement from those arrested). In Dato Harun’s case, a s112 statement can be converted into a s113 statement and admissible.”

    Yes but these are hearsay statements. They are hearsay statements because they are out-of-court statements and if presented to prove the truth of their contents would be inadmissible in a court of law.

    The right procedure is to bring the maker of the statement which has been reduced to writing, to court. – in which case it is his testimony that constitutes evidence and not the statements given during police investigation.

    But there are other ways to bring such hearsay statements into evidence. For example, when the witness fails to come to expectation in her testimony in court and repeat what she said to the police accurately. Counsel could impeach her as witness even though she is their own witness. To impeach her and show she is a witness whose credibility is seriously in doubt, counsel is allowed to use the out-of-court statement not as proof of contents but to prove the inconsistencies.

    It is a good strategy.

  37. Raja says:

    When you say,

    “In Dato Harun’s case, a s112 statement can be converted into a s113 statement and admissible” you are implying that such statements are admissible in evidence. Not quite! It all depends on how you use them.

  38. pope says:

    when the 3 walk free from this trial, the remaining question will be who kill altantuya?
    who instruct the utk to kill her?
    god, help us please.

  39. hawk says:


    I was not here and yet I see my name.

    I dont think I m passive and leave this to GOD. I see Ayantula as a lost cause. Ive told u ppl, I m also aware of a death sentence condemned man got his sentence taken up by a les miserable.

    And dont be surprsed if u see the likeness of Mona Fandi at ChowKit selling charms. It may not be a ghost.

    The justice and the truth we are fighting for is for us!! U think we can achieve this without believe in GOD and seeking HIS help? GOD is not passive. By seeking HIM is not an action of passivity.

    Thats why I seek the endorsement GOD among all of you. And, most of you want to throw me OUT!!.

    Since Ayantula is a lost cause, lets ensure there will be no more Ayantula s in the future. How we are to achieve this? We need a two party system, to decide our govt. Then there will be effective check and balances. Can we work to achieve this, regardless of race or religion?

  40. hawk says:

    GOD was not passive on his father.

    His judgement was passed on him when the people cant even questioned him of his terrible wrong.

    His premiership was cut short.

    Better be judged by man than by GOD.

    The words at such blogs may drive terror to their hearts. But we never know how politicians are. They have evolved to endure things that regular guys cant.

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