Expunge Najib's involvement in Altantuya case - was there a directive from someone?

THE POLICE LEFT OUT CERTAIN DETAILS IN THE STATEMENT....

"They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 am to 6pm everyday for seven consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Najib Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out...." - P Balasubramaniam

This is really bad - as police officers should be independent and do their work. They should not choose to "include" or "exclude" portions of a witness's statement recorded. Just record it all - and do not censor it. I hope that there will be immediate investigation with regard the police officers involved.

Were they just acting on their own? Were they acting on instructions from someone? A police personnel investigating a crime must do it truthfully and correctly - and if there is interference, be it orders or directives, then a good police person will report it.

If the statement depicts the reality of the Malaysian police, then public confidence in the police will certainly erode further... (after all, it seems that statements could be adjusted to not show relevant or some information).

That is why, we really do need electronic recording of all interrogations and the taking of statements so that such 'hanky-panky', if it did happen could be avoided.

Now, what we may have following this Statutory Declaration maybe statements by the affected police personnel and/or others denying what Balasubramaniam declared . Who will we believe - would have been good if we could refer to the recordings of the interrogations and the statement taking, would it not.

They, the police, wants people to install CCTV with recording capabilities to deter crime and make investigations easier - but alas in that one place where more and more 'crime' is happening, i.e. the police station -- they seem to NOT have CCTV with recording capability. In Hong Kong, these recordings involving a person will so easily be made available to the lawyers.

THE PROSECUTOR JUST DID NOT ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS...

"I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Najib Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Najib Razak and/or his wife. .."- P Balasubramaniam

Of course, the prosecutors can choose to ask this question and not that.... BUT here, reading the Statutory Declaration gives the impression that the said Abdul Razak Baginda would not have even known the said Altantuya Shaaribuu (who also called herself 'Aminah' according to Balasubramaniam) if it was not for Najib Razak...

Najib Tun Razak is the Deputy Prime Minister, and investigations may have disclosed that he was not involved in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu, and in the interest of "national security" or maybe "Najib's political standing and future", there is really no reason for the police or the prosecution to bring up the Najib-connection -- is that it. Who decided that? The police? The prosecutors? The IGP? The AG? The PM? or just the DPM?

Najib may not have killed or ordered the killing or was in any way involved in the killing of Altantuya Shaaribuu, but it was wrong for the police and the prosecution to 'hide' that involvement. Bring forth all relevant facts, and let the court decide...

A woman has lost her life....and the lives of other persons are now involved - the TRUTH must be revealed, and JUSTICE must be done.

DO WE NOW BELIEVE BALASUBRAMANIAM?

I really do not know...

Why now? Interesting how it contains a statement that allegedly Najib is also inclined to 'sodomy'.. [A diversion :- Maybe only acts of sodomy without consent should still be a crime. It is time that oral sex, anal sex, or other forms of creative sexual positioning and preferences between consenting adults are no longer considered a legal crime, to be found in our Penal Code....It may be considered immoral or even unnatural BUT really should it still be a crime.]

Interesting how it comes out just when Malaysia is all excited with the new allegations of Sodomy against that former DPM, now de facto leader of PKR.

Interesting, how it comes out just after Anwar's report about the current IGP and the AG, and the similarity in the allegations about the police and the prosecutors..

"...Anwar lodged a report at the Selangor police headquarters against Musa [Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan] and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail...He alleged that the duo had purportedly hidden facts and falsified information regarding Anwar’s case a decade ago...." - Malaysiakini, 2/7/2008 "Cops to probe Anwar's report against their boss"

But then, we must not forget that even during the Anwar trial, there was an application to disqualify the prosecutors, and that disqualification application was based on a Statutory Declaration made by lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon and also a letter that had written to the Attorney General alleging that Prosecutors Dato' Abdul Gani Patail [now our AG] and Encik Azahar bin Mohamed were actively involved in requesting one Dato' Nallakaruppan to fabricate evidence against Anwar Ibrahim.. I know that lawyer Zainur Zakaria was cited, found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, and finally the Federal Court allowed Zainur's appeal.

But , I do not remember whether there was any investigation into that allegation about the fabrication of evidence...WHY, I wonder...

In any event, maybe it is just for the court, who should be provided with ALL information and facts concerning the case - and at the end of the day decide on what is before the court irrespective of the position or the power of persons involved. Court will decide without fear or favour - without worrying about possible transfer, or delayed promotions, etc..

The full 16-page statutory declaration sign by Abdul Razak Baginda's private investigator P Balasubramaniam on July 1 can be found in Malaysiakini today (3/7/2008) - "Private investigator's statutory declaration in full"
[http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/85502], and below are some extracts on points that I did comment on, and just stuff that is interesting... like the 'sodomy' issue here again :-

"...Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that:

1) He had been introduced to Aminah by Najib Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

2) Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

3) Najib Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the deputy prime minister.

4) Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

5) Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a US$500,000 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris. ..."

"They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 am to 6pm everyday for seven consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Najib Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out...."

"I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Najib Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Najib Razak and/or his wife. .."