NAJIB'S NEW AG & HIS ALLEGED DEAD GF ALTANTUYA: Apandi's weak excuses only increases belief in Al-Jazeera video

‘How could Najib’s name come up? It’s not in the script.’

Kim Quek: Attorney-general (AG) Mohamed Apandi Ali, all the claims you made to exonerate Najib Abdul Razak from this murder case are, unfortunately, false.

Irrefutable facts fly in the face of your patently dishonest claims that Najib was never implicated in the trial, all relevant witnesses were called to testify, and every piece of evidence subjected to intense scrutiny.

This was most vividly demonstrated in the court drama on Day 10 of the trial (June 29, 2007) when the victim Altantuya Shaariibuu’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg stunned the court with the shocking revelation that her cousin showed her a photo of Abdul Razak Baginda, Altantuya and Najib taking a meal together.

In a scene that could only occur in a Malaysian court, both the prosecutor and the defence lawyer jumped to shut Burmaa up from testifying further along this line - with the concurrence of the judge.

Only days earlier (Day 7, June 6), a similar incidence occurred, when a Mongolian witness told the court that immigration entry record of Altantuya and her two Mongolian companions were mysteriously erased. At the insistence of both the prosecution and the defence, this piece of evidence was expunged.

Where in the democratic world can you see the prosecutor, defence lawyer and the judge working in unison against the interests of the victim’s family by blocking crucial evidence that could have incriminated the culprit?

That the entire criminal judiciary system had been heavily manipulated in this trial was evident even before the trial started, when all the three parties - prosecutors, defence lawyers and the judge - were replaced without explanation before hearing commenced.

Res Ipsa: This article should be titled ‘Najib not allowed to be implicated’. The entire episode was merely a big drama from the time Razak Baginda and the two policemen were charged.

During the course of the trial, Razak's demeanour clearly showed that if he was found guilty, he would bring certain people down together. Those who were following the trial closely would know about the threats made.

So at the end of the High Court trial (Part One), naturally it was expected that Razak Baginda will be let off scot free.

But then again, a murder has taken place and someone has to take the rap for it. The fall guys remaining were the two policemen - Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar - since the AG did not appeal against acquittal of Razak Baginda.

Part 2: Their appeal at the Court of Appeal. The panel of three judges chaired by guess whom, AG Apandi. The conviction thrown out and case deemed closed.

Part 3: The then AG files appeal against acquittal partly due to the public outcry. Federal Court reinstates conviction, though no motive proven.

Odin Tajué: Mohamed Apandi, you are a man of no integrity, principles, morals, and spine. You are ever ready to make a decision according to the wishes of Najib and/or Umno or to make a statement to put Najib and/or Umno in the clear - which is not surprising, as you are (or at least you were) an Umno man also.

This is very plain from your contention now that putting DSP Musa Safri on the stand would have served no purpose, whereas when you were hearing the case as an appellate court judge, you had pronounced that the non-calling of Musa at the previous hearing constituted a serious misdirection by the prosecution and thus contributed to what amounted to a mistrial.

Several people, including those with legal background, have questioned, among other things, the manner in which the trial processes had been conducted.

As for we the lay people, and that is to say people sans legal training, we have observed various elements surrounding the matter and have come to the firm conclusion that Najib was indeed involved.

You are actually wasting your time in making this pronouncement of yours, for your word, as betokened by your own action and utterances previously made, is worthless.

Anonymous #63753867: How could his name come up? It is not in the script. Is it any wonder why the judge, the defence and prosecution were all changed at the 11th hour before the trial.

Any wonder why the defence and prosecution jumped when Najib's name was mentioned during the trial.

Azilah Hadri, Sirul Azhar Umar, Musa Safri, Nasir Safar, Rohaniza Roslan, Razak Baginda were all linked, in one way or another, to the murder - don’t tell me none of these people had any connection with Najib. Don't take the rakyat for fools.

Quigonbond: Of course, there is no evidence implicating Najib - because the investigation did not address the issue of motive. The AG is quite disingenuous to delink Najib from the case this way. In which case, he does not understand what Malaysians want.

It may well be that criminal law does not require motive, as long as there is intention to kill, but because of the nexus to those in corridors of power, Malaysians require a higher standard of investigation - because while motive may not be relevant, incitement or abetment to commit crime remains a criminal offence - and should not be swept under the carpet.

Turvy: Realise the flaw in your argument, AG, before you proceed to so blithely exonerate anyone. Your view of the case is that of the perverse prosecutor who is indifferent to anything but what is brought before him.

You accept the evidence from a single path of inquiry and only one of several theories that would explain the crime, even if as in this case the theory explains no motive and the crime screams for more.

Let me ask if it is credible that, for a minor misdemeanour, a shunted lover, an allegedly young pregnant woman, needed the attention of an elite section of the police and you find nothing unusual that such attention led to the cream of our force blowing her up? And for no plausible motive? Come on, a rookie law student would do better.

Now, reverse the process and start with the atomised body and the traces of government-issued C4. See the immediate causal link to the two policemen that leads to the acquitted abettor. And through him to so many plausible explanations. A sieve will hold water better than your reasoning.

JusticeNow!: When the immediate supervisor of the killers were considered irrelevant and not called to testify, the person who has problem with the deceased that started the whole thing was declared not involved, a statutory declaration (SD) was signed and withdrawn with details that did not make sense, two police commandos just decided that they should kill a girl whom they have never met and blown her to pieces, the entry record of deceased mysteriously erased, case solved?

What international conspiracy, please don't flatter yourself as if it matters to world powers what happens to you. AG, please remove all reasonable doubt before making your declaration.

Apa Nama: How come this trial is considered comprehensive and exhaustive when a motive is not established at all? The trial is actually not a trial but a serial drama. Whether Najib was involved or not is not the issue.

Why was the motive for the murder not established? When both Azilah and Sirul mentioned they did not know Altantuya before the murder, why then did they commit the heinous crime in the very first place?

This is pure common sense that the court had allegedly tried to avoid.

Where is Justice: Najib is afraid of his own shadow. What international conspiracy to topple you? What value can you bring to the betterment of the civil world?

You do more harm to the humankind than good. So please topple yourself. You bring shame to Malaysia. - M'kini