MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku


Friday, January 30, 2015

Black holes in Altantuya case – Ravinder Singh

The judiciary has closed the book on Altantuya Shaariibuuu’s case with its verdict that the two accused are guilty of murder and have to pay with their lives.
Now, one of those who was initially arrested and charged in connection with this case, but was freed and went to the United Kingdom has “broken his silence” and given his own verdict that it was a “straightforward” case for which the two on death row are solely responsible. He is reinforcing the court’s judgment. Good try, but childish, and why?      
This reinforcement of the court’s findings only makes more black holes in the mother of all murders.
In how many murder cases is the victim taken alive to a Godforsaken place in the middle of the night where the killing is to take place?
In how many murders is the body disposed of with the use of C4 explosives that only the armed forces keep in store and which cannot be purchased from any drug store?
The two accused are policemen and not armed forces men. So how did they get hold of the C4? The court was not interested in finding out this. Why?
Altantuya is a foreigner and entered Malaysia on a passport. But the Immigration records showed no such person had come to Malaysia.
How did the two policemen “kau tim” (make a deal) with the Immigration to play Houdini with the records of her presence in Malaysia? Was the court interested in finding out this?
Why would Immigration have sympathised with the two accused, now sentenced to death, to perform an illegal act of deleting the records? Did the court enquire into this?
No matter what, when someone kills another, or even injures another or destroys the property of another, conscience, if not the law also, dictates that the reason for the act being done must be discovered so that appropriate, conscionable, sentence is passed.
What happened to the conscience of the judges who found the two guilty of murder despite so many black holes?
It’s a wonder that the conscience of the judges, who presided over this case and found the two guilty of murder, does not prick them.
Where in the annals of murder cases has any judge said that it is not necessary to discover “motive” of the accused in committing the crime they committed? Even children are curious to know why something happens.
The Federal Court having accepted that motive is not necessary (in this murder case) has set a precedent that motive is not necessary in murder cases. The prosecution in future murder cases will surely be citing this precedent to get accused found guilty without showing motive for the crime.
What kind of a precedent have the Federal Court judges set for the country? This precedent will hold sway until some future Federal Court decides that motive is necessary for an appropriate judgment to be made and appropriate sentence passed. 
Just because the courts have made a decision, are even the curious people expected to believe that in this the mother of all murders, “motive” is not necessary?
Which law book(s) say that judges have the discretion to decide whether motive must be discovered in any murder cases, or that it can be dispensed with without giving any reason.
It is said that God does things in mysterious ways. This is one such case. No one would have known of this murder if not for the sole angler who was fishing within earshot of the C4 explosion in this place far from human habitation at dead of night.
Had he not been there, this would have been the perfect crime, without any trace of the victim or any evidence of the victim having been in this country.
Could anyone have then been accused of killing somebody who had not even stepped foot on Malaysian soil?
* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insider.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.