YOURSAY ‘The mastermind may not be the murderer but he/she is definitely part of the murder scheme.'
Altantuya judgment: Murder motive 'not essential'
Kairos: I am not a lawyer but I always thought that in any murder, motive is key. All the movies and TV dramas tell us that.
I am sure every law student is taught that. How come in this strange baffling case, the judge says 'motive is not essential'.
One of the accused had said that he had no motive to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu and in such a brutal way as well. He was right.
Why would a bodyguard want to kill a Mongolian woman? The only logical explanation is that as an elite special force soldier, he was commanded to do so.
Doesn't the learned judge want to know by whom? Strangely, there is not even a mention by the judge as to the possibility that someone ordered the killing.
Even a fool knows that something is fishy here and somebody high up is being protected. Where is justice in this country? Every Malaysian should bury their heads in shame.
Wira: A murder without motive? If that is the case, the two convicted must have been thrill murderers.
However, there were no investigations nor reasons to believe they were. The body was blown up, thus suggesting that the death of Altantuya wasn't accidental nor unintentional.
Please forgive a member of the rakyat like me for disagreeing with a murder being committed without a motive. The special action forces police officers were no thrill killers. They must have received instructions.
Eric Koay: "An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
"The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
"If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals.
Altantuya judgment: Murder motive 'not essential'
Kairos: I am not a lawyer but I always thought that in any murder, motive is key. All the movies and TV dramas tell us that.I am sure every law student is taught that. How come in this strange baffling case, the judge says 'motive is not essential'.
One of the accused had said that he had no motive to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu and in such a brutal way as well. He was right.
Why would a bodyguard want to kill a Mongolian woman? The only logical explanation is that as an elite special force soldier, he was commanded to do so.
Doesn't the learned judge want to know by whom? Strangely, there is not even a mention by the judge as to the possibility that someone ordered the killing.
Even a fool knows that something is fishy here and somebody high up is being protected. Where is justice in this country? Every Malaysian should bury their heads in shame.
Wira: A murder without motive? If that is the case, the two convicted must have been thrill murderers.
However, there were no investigations nor reasons to believe they were. The body was blown up, thus suggesting that the death of Altantuya wasn't accidental nor unintentional.
Please forgive a member of the rakyat like me for disagreeing with a murder being committed without a motive. The special action forces police officers were no thrill killers. They must have received instructions.
Eric Koay: "An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
"The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
"If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals.
"The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing theactus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement." - Wikipedia.
Both Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Omar are just accessories to murder, they don't have the mens rea. The principal is still free.
Anonymous: Murder requires the elements of mens rea and actus reus which translates to motive, means, and opportunity. All these elements were undeniably evident and present.
The fact that there is a murder to prosecute, not an accidental death or death by misadventure, is sufficient to go the whole nine yards by any jurisprudential standard.
Yet this judge refuses to acknowledge Article 162(6) of the Federal Constitution, which gives him ample latitude even if he lacks the aptitude.
If only justice VT Singham could have presided over this case, Malaysia would have reached the zenith of its endurance as a nation.
Puchong Mali: Motive leads to the mastermind behind the murder. The mastermind may not be the murderer but he/she is definitely part of the murder scheme and should be caught and punished. Justice is not served if this has not been accomplished.
2cts Worth: I beg to disagree with some netizens who say the mastermind is not the murderer. In fact, he is as good as having committed the dastardly deed himself.
The two police officers were his instruments for murder. A knife cannot be a murderer, but the one who holds it is one.
Swipenter: The big unanswered question on everybody's mind is 'Who gave the order to kill Altantuya?"
That is why murder motive is "not essential" to the two faceless men found guilty of murdering Altantuya.
The plotters made the mistake of not completely making Altantuya disappeared from the surface of the earth without trace. They could not because she did not travel alone to Malaysia.
AntiRacial: We are not interested in who murdered Altantuya. Both accused have no solid reason to murder her. We wanted to know who instructed them to murder her and who were behind this whole episode.
As long as this is not revealed to public, the trial is a waste of time.
Kgen: The two goons, who have no motive to murder the victim, were convicted. The one who has a motive to murder her was released without his defence being called. If this isn't a political judgment, what is it?
Teh: What's the judge's motive for downplaying the motive for the murder?
Multi Racial: In following this case, you do not need to be a homicide expert to conclude that Azilah and Sirul were merely pawns.
They were either directed or paid, or both, to do the job. There is no doubt they are guilty of murdering Altantuya but justice will not be served if the mastermind gets off scot-free.
Even a junior investigator will tell you in any murder case, there has to be a motive. Azilah and Sirul did not have any motive. To them, it was merely a job that needed to be done and they did it.
It must be someone powerful and influential that both Abdul Razak Baginda and DSP Musa Safri know. Azilah and Sirul would not know as they get their instructions from someone.
So judge, I agree Azilah and Sirul deserved to be severely punished for the crime in which they were involved.
I somewhat agree that Razak Baginda didn't have a strong motive to murder Altantuya, although I am not totally satisfied with his innocence.
But justice is still not serve as the mastermind/s is or are still free out there. - Malaysiakini
Both Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Omar are just accessories to murder, they don't have the mens rea. The principal is still free.
Anonymous: Murder requires the elements of mens rea and actus reus which translates to motive, means, and opportunity. All these elements were undeniably evident and present.
The fact that there is a murder to prosecute, not an accidental death or death by misadventure, is sufficient to go the whole nine yards by any jurisprudential standard.
Yet this judge refuses to acknowledge Article 162(6) of the Federal Constitution, which gives him ample latitude even if he lacks the aptitude.
If only justice VT Singham could have presided over this case, Malaysia would have reached the zenith of its endurance as a nation.
Puchong Mali: Motive leads to the mastermind behind the murder. The mastermind may not be the murderer but he/she is definitely part of the murder scheme and should be caught and punished. Justice is not served if this has not been accomplished.
2cts Worth: I beg to disagree with some netizens who say the mastermind is not the murderer. In fact, he is as good as having committed the dastardly deed himself.
The two police officers were his instruments for murder. A knife cannot be a murderer, but the one who holds it is one.
Swipenter: The big unanswered question on everybody's mind is 'Who gave the order to kill Altantuya?"
That is why murder motive is "not essential" to the two faceless men found guilty of murdering Altantuya.
The plotters made the mistake of not completely making Altantuya disappeared from the surface of the earth without trace. They could not because she did not travel alone to Malaysia.
AntiRacial: We are not interested in who murdered Altantuya. Both accused have no solid reason to murder her. We wanted to know who instructed them to murder her and who were behind this whole episode.
As long as this is not revealed to public, the trial is a waste of time.
Kgen: The two goons, who have no motive to murder the victim, were convicted. The one who has a motive to murder her was released without his defence being called. If this isn't a political judgment, what is it?
Teh: What's the judge's motive for downplaying the motive for the murder?
Multi Racial: In following this case, you do not need to be a homicide expert to conclude that Azilah and Sirul were merely pawns.
They were either directed or paid, or both, to do the job. There is no doubt they are guilty of murdering Altantuya but justice will not be served if the mastermind gets off scot-free.
Even a junior investigator will tell you in any murder case, there has to be a motive. Azilah and Sirul did not have any motive. To them, it was merely a job that needed to be done and they did it.
It must be someone powerful and influential that both Abdul Razak Baginda and DSP Musa Safri know. Azilah and Sirul would not know as they get their instructions from someone.
So judge, I agree Azilah and Sirul deserved to be severely punished for the crime in which they were involved.
I somewhat agree that Razak Baginda didn't have a strong motive to murder Altantuya, although I am not totally satisfied with his innocence.
But justice is still not serve as the mastermind/s is or are still free out there. - Malaysiakini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.