Razak Baginda acquitted


http://www.malaysiakini.com
S Pathmawathy | October 31, 2008

The Shah Alam High Court today acquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda of abetting the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.

MCPX

Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ruled that the prosecution has failed to prove a case against Abdul Razak.

razak baginda acquitted 311008 14“I find there is no prima facie case for him to answer his charge. He is therefore acquitted and discharged,” said Mohd Zaki.

Abdul Razak, a close associate of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak had faced the death penalty by hanging if found guilty of abetting the 2006 murder of his former lover Altantuya, whose body was blown up with explosives in a jungle clearing.

razak baginda acquitted 311008 09In one of the longest hearings in Malaysia’s history, the court spent 151 days hearing testimony from 84 witnesses on whether Abdul Razak and two police officers accused of carrying out the murder should face trial.

The court however ordered chief inspector Azilah Hadri, 32 and corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 37 – from the elite Special Action Force (UTK) which guards the prime minister and deputy prime minister – to enter their defence to the charge of murder.

Both have elected to testify under oath and will take the stand on Nov 10.

The prosecution is expected to file an appeal against Abdul Razak’s acquittal.

razak baginda acquitted 311008 10Deputy public prosecutor Tun Majid Tun Hamzah said the decision could be contested.

“We will consider appealing the decision. The battle is not over yet,” he said.

On hearing that he could walk free, Abdul Razak, 48, hugged his wife and daughter from the dock while his elderly parents sat crying in the court.

“I just want to go home,” he said as he was escorted out through a huge media scrum at about 10.10am.

Altantuya’s father distraught over decision

Altantuya’s father Setev Shaariibuu, who has repeatedly criticised the handling of the case, was left distraught by the decision.

razak baginda acquitted 311008 07“I am not satisfied. My daughter knows only one Malaysian and it is Razak Baginda. Now my daughter is dead and Baginda is freed… the country has lost credibility in the (eyes of the) world,” he told reporters.

Karpal Singh, who represents the Altantuya’s family, said that based on the evidence Abdul Razak should have been called to defend himself against the accusations.

“They should not have acquitted him at this stage of the trial,” he said.

Najib, who is expected to be appointed premier next March when Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi stands down, has vehemently denied any involvement in the case.

razak baginda acquitted 311008 13Top blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin has repeatedly linked Najib and his wife to the murder on his popular website Malaysia Today. Raja Petra was detained since last month under the tough security law for insulting Islam.

Abdullah last month defended his deputy over new allegations that Najib interfered in the case, after Malaysia Today published an SMS text message exchange purportedly between the deputy premier and Abdul Razak’s lawyer.

razak baginda acquitted 311008 06Altantuya, the mother of two sons aged four and 10, was allegedly shot before her body was blown up with explosives two years ago.

Azilah and Sirul are jointly charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, at a location between Lot 12843 and Lot 16735 in Mukim Bukit Raja, Selangor between 10am on Oct 19, 2006 and 1am the following day.

Abdul Razak was charged with abetting them. He is a known confidante of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, having worked on government arms procurement projects while the latter was defence minister.

Anwar wishes Abdul Razak well

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, during the lunch break in his sodomy trial case, said that he wished Abdul Razak well.

the altantuya trial fact box 050607“At the personal and family level, I wish Razak well. He is now back with the family, but the issue here revolves around the court procedure and the investigation (into the murder).

“There is growing perception that the investigation was not done professionally. There is a clear motive to cover up (the murder), a lot of evidence was not adduced.

“The prosecution has failed to conduct the case professionally from the beginning, changes were (also) made to the court and the judge.

“Now that there is more allegations involving DPM Najib – the SMSes and (other) evidence the public has raised a number of times – this case clearly is bigger (than just Abdul Razak).”

Anwar himself faces trial over sodomy allegations, which he says have been concocted by leading figures in the government because they fear he could use information on the Altantuya case to bring about their downfall.

58 thoughts on “Razak Baginda acquitted

  1. Din,

    You have to wait, he’s making himself a sandwich for lunch. Pity him, we are enjoying roti canai, nasi padang and char koay teow. 😀

  2. It’s so painful looking at Mr Setev Shaariibuu who has lost almost everything and life’s so unkind to him while those murderers are celebrating!

  3. Something is brewing…

    The sms exchanges between Shafie and Najib were revealed.

    Khairy’s photo of drinking in The Heritage Mansion, Asian Heritage Row was released.

    Expect more after Razak Baginda’s release…

    The gloves are off and it’s time to get dirty!

  4. “The Shah Alam High Court today acquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda of abetting the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.” S Pathmawathy for Malaysiakini.

    There is a very important difference between an acquittal or a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, and simply one of “no case to answer.”
    Apparently Razak Baginda’s counsel stood up at the end of prosecution’s opening submission and made his submission of “no case to answer” and the trial judge agreed.

    If you’re charged with a crime or crimes and you undergo a trial at the end of which you are found “not guilty” you cannot then be charged and tried again for the same crime. Lawyers refer to that as the “rule against double jeopardy”. You cannot be put at risk twice. Otherwise there is no end.

    There is mention of the prosecution “filing an appeal”. The trial proper for Razak Baginda has not even begun. He was never called to make his defense. Counsel for the prosecution was in fact stopped in his tracks by a submission of no case to answer by defense counsel and agreed to by the trial judge. How then do you go about filing an appeal when there is no case to answer to begin with, when it never went beyond the preliminary stage?

    The only way Razak Baginda could face trial for the same charge is when there is fresh evidence which was not presented or not available at the time he was freed. He could still face trial for conspiracy to murder.

    It helps if the journalist reporting the case is someone trained in criminal law and law of criminal procedure. Clearly in this case he is not.

    Any legal eagles in the room who disagree??

  5. The case is not over for Abdul Razak Baginda yet,indeed. Setev can still take him to the civil court.
    The glaring point in the criminal case which everyone seems to overlook is that both prosecution and defense conveniently avoided the motive aspect of the case – even if the two defendants are quilty as charged – it has not been established who ordered the killing, a question that begs to be answered if the justice is to prevail !
    What say you, Mr.Bean ?

  6. “In the absence of the rebuttal evidence against them, coupled with the fact that there is no legal onus for him to rebut any statutory presumptions, there is clearly no reason for the statements to be ignored and rejected.”

    “I agree with the counsel that the exculpatory parts which are corroborated in material particulars (by four witnesses) and other surrounding circumstances have clearly negated and nullified the act of abetment as alleged against the accused”

    Exculpatory evidence is evidence which tend to establish a criminal defendant’s innocence. The statements he made in his affidavit are hearsay evidence and are self-serving!

    It doesn’t make sense!

  7. “The case is not over for Abdul Razak Baginda yet,indeed. Setev can still take him to the civil court.” Ocho

    In OJ’s case, he was tried for murder in a criminal court and found not guilty after applying the higher criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. He was later sued for wrongful death in a civil action and found liable after applying the lower standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.

    In this case the next of kin of the deceased would have to wait to see what evidence would surface in the course of the trial involving the duo. A guilty verdict against the duo would improve his chances of winning a wrongful death suit against Razak But what good would a wrongful death suit serve against the duo because these are men of straw??

  8. “The statements he made in his affidavit are hearsay evidence and are self-serving!”

    Which in essence and fact are what have been attributed to all the SD’s that waved and weaved though the Malaysian sky. What has the Kaki of our JUDICURI done now?

    Why have we seem to have lost that will and interest in the motive essence of Justice? We know it is not right. Are we lying to ourselves? Have we lost our intellectual honesty? Or is some big Foot stuck and firmly lodged in our mouth?

  9. Some of us have no daughter, only sons.

    Were she mine how would I feel about this immeasureably precious loss? Her death need not have happened!

    It would not have mattered if I could marry 15 more wives!!! 😦

    You have a daughter Razak Baginda !!! What would you do now? Become a sanitized eunuch for Najib Razak?

  10. Friends,

    This case is a very messy one, legal arguments aside. Mr. Bean has spoken but as a citizen, I would like to know why Najib, Rosmah, P. Subramanian and Raja Petra were not called to appear before the Shah Alam court. The statutory declarations made by Raja Petra and Subramanian were not brought in by the Deputy Public Prosecutor and his team to challenge statements in Razak’s bail affidavit. The judge cannot do much if the Deputy Public Prosecutor does not do a thorough job (depending of course on how you look at it).

    Is it incompetence or deliberate act on the part on the prosecution not to embarass the Pirme Minister-in-waiting—let us hope he waits forever– and his diabolical spouse? To me, the idea that an appeal would be entered against this judgement is just a ploy. On what grounds? New grounds that is.

    Granted, Razak is a free man. Then the questions that remain are: who gave the order to exterminate Altantuya? Who authorised the use of C4 to blast the Mongolian model to smithereens? Dr Stev’s daughter is dead and he and his family are left in grief with no justice in sight. Are we a bunch of power made animals?

    The trial of Azilah and Sirul will resume on November 10. The NST (Saturday November 1, 2008) indicated both Raja Petra and P. Subramaniam will likely be called.Najib and Rosmah should be directed by the Shah Alam court to testify. Let us hope that the Deputy Public Prosecutor, Tun Majid and his freshie looking back-up team can do a better job.

    It is time the public knows the truth nothing but the whole truth and we must also wait to hear the testimonies of Azilah and Siril whose lives are on the line. Will they sequeal?—Din Merican

  11. Razak Baginda won the case without being call to defence himself. He and his family could celebrate his freedom.

    On the hand, Altantuya’s children and her family will have to accept the fact that Altantuya was murdered by her lover in foreign land.

    Malaysia as a country would be seen as a place where might is right. Well connected criminals could walk free while Raja Petra is still being caged for a crime as decided by the Home Minister who is also the council for prosecution, defence and the trial judge all 3 in 1.

  12. It’s so painful to watch a very distraught Setev Shaariibuu on tv and pix all over the blogs. He simply refused to speak to the mainstream media, yes the Malaysian media. He must have felt cheated and has lost everything, a loss that’s immeasurable – his hopes and expectation for years in retirement with a loving family and his daughter Altantuya by his side and now, he does not even know how to smile! Even for us watching from the sidelines the pain is unbearable while hoplessness sets in.

    Has enough justice been done? This is definitely another regression in our judicial system.

    It’s so obvious that Najis has got the right ‘cleaning agent’ for his closetful of shit and dirt! His arrival cannot be more timely!

  13. we have to learn hard to live with these …
    we are hopeless and weak in our own mindset to stand for our birth right from day one.
    Lets not blame others for a simple thing about life that we ourselves have no guts to change.

  14. “Granted, Razak is a free man. Then the questions that remain are: who gave the order to exterminate Altantuya? Who authorised the use of C4 to blast the Mongolian model to smithereens? ” – Din Merican

    Yes, unanswered questions that have been deliberately ignored to protect that despicable scumbag and his fat blob?

    WHO ordered Altantuya killed?
    WHO ordered for C4?
    WHO accepted the ‘order to issue’ the explosives?
    WHO ordered Sirul and Azilah to Altantuya and what were their order?
    WHO ordered Altantuya’s immigration record be erased?

    The murders must be NAILED at all costs!

  15. While we can’t question the ruling of the learned judge, or the incompetence-deliberation of the DPPs’ – each of us will have to come to our own conclusions as to whether ‘justice’ was done.
    It is well and good to see our self denial, Jimm; but it will also be wise to realize that one cannot launch a revolution to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy to launch a revolution.
    At the end of the day, we can only hope that ‘blind’ justice rights itself.

  16. #”You must have a democracy to launch a revolution.”

    #”While we can’t question the ruling of the learned judge”.

    Wa, brother! What to launch?

    If you can’t question, this ruling, passive though it’s act maybe, you’re gonna do same with the coming revolution! 😉

  17. Remaining two will soon be off and free in due time
    all drama in Malaysia land of the UMNO. Just use C4 C5 or any of the like as long as UMNO is power no worry . In this nation UMNO is the untouchable.

  18. “Are you talking about yourself or what?” Jong

    Are you talking to yourself? 😉

    Just lock up your daughter! All Malaysians should lock up their daughters. There are 2 Razaks on the loose!

    Razak Baginda and Najib anak lelaki Razak Hussein! 😦

    May God bless Baginda’s daughter!

  19. “He could still face trial for conspiracy to murder.

    What circumstances permit this? Or it is so blatantly glaring it blinds us?

    Bean,

    would you need to send the whole AG Chambers and the Minister in Charge of Law through a cleansing steam room? Or a public bath? Or up the tallest tree in Padang Merdeka?

  20. Yo bro Salak, yep, u’r right – there ain’t no real democracy here yet.
    Basically, we can’t take this sitting down on the jamban and ruminating on the next course of action – but the reality is that in bumnoland our voices of dissent are stifled until the next GE. After that, maybe we can send those goons to the bleachers. Elephant memories and justice coupled with your head-hunting skills… yah!
    Cheers, mate.

  21. Mr.Bean,

    “Motive is not required to prove murder ”

    I know. 🙂

    Also, a lot of posters may not agree with me on this – I believe that Abdul Razak Baginda is innocent. He may be guilty of other crimes but not murder – he doesn’t fit the profile!
    In this case, Justice has been served for him but what about justice for Setev and his murdered daughter?
    And if indeed the two defendants are guity of commiting the act ,who sanctioned their acts, who gave the order? The person or persons who gave the order is as guilty as the persons who pulled the trigger!

  22. ” but it will also be wise to realize that one cannot launch a revolution to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy to launch a revolution.”

    🙂 Who needs a revolution if we have democracy ? It is undemocratic acts of governance like suppression, oppression,segregation,disunification, manipulation,etc that breeds revolution ! 🙂

  23. We now a someone waiting, itching, dying to become the next PM of Malaysia, someone who has been accused of having ‘anal intercourse’ and the murder of that particular Mongolian. My, my what does the world think of that? NOTHING? Is Malaysia THAT much above the rest of the planet that he can get away with murder (and the billions of our money, not forgetting)? What kind of country is this?

  24. Barry,

    Sadly, that’s the case here – it has happened and will continue to happen if we remain complacent and fail to take immediate action to topple this bunch of scumbags!

    They have no conscience, they are brutal and daring in heinous crime and if you are a threat to that
    someone in power, a threat to his/her political ascend to top office, you’d be executed with two bullets to the head, no ifs no buts! As if not enough, your dead body would be blasted off with C.4 so that no one should find it.

    And if you should say the wrong thing that threatens his future, you will be subject to the full brunt of his power – conveniently you’d made to disappear into Bolehland’s thin air!

  25. In Malaysia, as long as you’re well connected to anyone in ‘absolute’ power, you’ll be freed, regardless of whatever ‘crime’ you have done. Just remember this sms quote:

    “RB may have to face a tentative charge but all is not lost.”

  26. Barry,Jong,

    If I am not mistaken, the Malaysian constitution states that if the PM resigns, it is the function of the Agong to decide who to appoint as the next PM.
    The DPM can only take over as PM if the incumbent PM dies in office or is incpacitated .
    The fact that the President of UMNO or the majority ruling power will become the PM is only a precedent and not law.
    What is your take on this, Mr.Bean ?

  27. Yes Ocho-onda, you may be correct but it has been a set precedence, definitely not spelt out in our Malaysian Constitution.

    On Agong’s function – since when the Agong does things without the “advice” of the PM? Unless this Mr Snoozy PM decides to drop Najib because of his alleged involvement in Altantuya’s murder or for a different reason, then that’s different matter. Let’s hope this will be done and we can kiss him and his fat blob goodbye!

  28. The trouble with Mr Snoozy is he has so much power but he is not using them, and instead gets bullied and edged off the power platform. Idiot!
    He can do so much to turn this ‘state of depression’ around but he prefers to snooze.

  29. With this Baginda decision our judiciary has sunk to new lows!

    It is generally easy to clear that first legal hurdle i.e. the prosecution making a prima facie case against the accused stick.

    Like what is happening in the present U.S. Presidential. Election, all John McCain need to do is follow the kitchen sink strategy i.e. throw everything you got including the kitchen sink and hoping something would stick. In the end usually something would.

    In a court case and at this stage of the trial it would not be the smartest thing to do, however, because then you’d reveal all the evidence when we should reserve the best for last. For the prosecution to reveal the entire case against the accused this early would be a strategic blunder. But it is their call to make. I don’t think in Baginda’s case the prosecution had expected the defense to make their submission of no case to answer or for the judge to so rule that the defense has no case to answer. I certainly didn’t. Because there is evidence the veracity of which is such if the evidence is allowed to go unrebutted would tend to prove the guilt of the accused. That is the test here and Baginda “passed” that test.

  30. “Also, a lot of posters may not agree with me on this – I believe that Abdul Razak Baginda is innocent. He may be guilty of other crimes but not murder – he doesn’t fit the profile!” Ocho

    Ocho,

    Let’s have some ocha.

    Innocent?? Now you don’t know that since there is no trial. – and our opinion or personal belief does not matter and is not relevant. You know that 🙂

    It would appear that your argument is based on good character evidence expressed by you here as “he doesn’t fit the profile (of a murder)”. Good character evidence is not enough to exculpate the accused. Furthermore this issue if relevant would arise during the rebuttal and when the accused makes his defense. In the case of Baginda his defense was not even called!!

    I have not seen the charge sheet and do not profess to know the language of the Malaysian Penal Code regarding the crime of abetment or conspiracy, enough to render a legal opinion on aspects of such crimes. I do not know how the charges have been framed.

    But going through reports by the media over months, the prosecution has in my opinion met the standard and has shown a prima facie case against all three accused – for murder and abetment or conspiracy to murder. There is affidavit evidence even (which is unusual) from the accused admitting to the relationship between the accused and the victim, and there is evidence from the testimonies given by various witnesses that the accused had wanted some kind of harm to fall upon the victim if she didn’t stop her attempts to harass and blackmail him for a huge sum of money.

    The veracity of such evidence cannot be denied and it is such if it goes unrebutted would tend to show guilt on the part of the accused. The only way the accused could rebut these allegations against him would be by making his defense, by revealing his side of the story and the evidence which goes to show that after applying the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, he is not guilty. This could only happen during the trial proper.

    Now we have the ruling by the trial judge that the accused has no case to answer – and more, his ruling appears based solely on the exculpatory portions of the affidavit evidence from the accused!

    It does not take a QC or Queen’s Counsel to know that it does not pass the smell test!

  31. hey guys .. sorry lor ..
    don’t mean to be that stuck up with a statement …
    our coutry are running at the highest corrupted level of power abuse with far too many VVIPs are involved in national level scams.
    it’s hard for rakyat to put things back into prospective and clean.
    the corruption level have reached such a higher level of VVIPs that they cannot stop the wheel from spinning ..
    whether it’s for good or worst…..
    everyone have to take care of their greeds and needs there …

  32. Jong,

    In a jury trial there is enough evidence for the jury to hear the case.

    Could Baginda be later dragged to court to answer the case? Yes – but only if there is fresh evidence of his involvement in the crime. We’ll have to wait and see.

    In the joint trial of the remaining two accused for murder, we can expect them to give evidence against each other in order to escape the gallows. In the mud throwing, some would stick on Razak Baginda. The question is would that be enough to try him for the crime of abetment or conspiracy to murder?

    We all know that any role allegedly played by Najib (after all these are members of his security detail) could be known and examined if Baginda went on trial and take the witness stand in his own defense. If he decides to remain silent which is his constitutional right to do so, he does so at his own risk.

    What we really want to know is the link between Najib, Baginda and the victim, and the role played by the deceased in the Malaysian government purchase of the French submarine. I believe what many of us hope to see happen is that during the trial there would surface enough evidence to put Najib on trial for corruption later on.

    Altantuya is a piece of a puzzle, if you will, albeit an important piece. We are hoping the pieces would fall into place at the end. They still could. It could still happen.

  33. I hope they will nail him and Najib as the man behind the ‘power’ to issue those C4 explosives and to have Altantuya’s immigration record erased. That is enough to prove ‘motive’ and ‘intent’, won’t it?

    I am sure Immigration should have back up info to submit to the court.

  34. Mr.Bean,

    “Innocent?? Now you don’t know that since there is no trial. – and our opinion or personal belief does not matter and is not relevant. You know that ”

    Thanks for the pointer ! You are a star ! Cheers! 🙂

  35. “On Rohaniza’s alleged contradictory evidence, Zaki said while her explanation may not be satisfactory, her credibility, considering her evidence as a whole and the evidence of the rest of the prosecution witnesses to that extent, is restored and saved.”

    I disagree. If I remember correctly, she made inconsistent statements. Those statements were admitted into evidence and read out in full in court. Impeaching this witness is the easiest thing to do. Still the judge was able using his convoluted reasoning to arrive at his decision that this witness has her credibility intact. The same goes for the other witness’s impeachment. This is one BS large enough to fit this judge’s ass!

    This is why it is important to bring back jury trials in case of murder. The issue of credibility of witnesses, like all other questions of fact, would be best left to the jury to decide. The judge limits himself to issues of law.

    “On the application to leave out Azilah’s confession to the police about where the Mongolian woman was shot and blown up as he was allegedly led to the scene, Zaki said: “I find there is no tenable grounds for me to exercise my said discretion to exclude them.”

    Zaki also said the same of an application by Sirul’s counsel for the court to exclude apparent confessions by the second accused on where he had kept the Mongolian woman’s jewellery.

    If this judge could, he would! I agree – these are fruits of the poisonous tree. The confession is admissible to show knowledge. Who would know where the murder weapon is hidden if not the murderer??

    But what is striking is the way the judge worded his ruling. It is as if he has been requested by someone higher up to look into the use of his discretion to see if the evidence could be excluded as a matter of discretion, and let the court of appeal (if there is an appeal) decide if the use of that discretion is proper. It is almost as if this trial judge was saying to that other person, “There is nothing here that would allow me to use my discretion to exclude this important piece of evidence. Sorry.”

  36. Jong says,

    “Ocho-onda, how does Najib look to you? I know he has shifty eyes, what else?”

    Najib has shifty eyes because he’s always shifting his positions 🙂 To prevent that Rosmah would need to put her hands on his joystick and not allow him to go on too many joy rides.

  37. I don’t think Rosmah needs to do that afterall she has shifty eyes herself, and she controls the elevator and aileron which inturn control an aircraft orientation. That’s enough. She can tell Najib to fly kites! 😀

  38. Mr.Bean,

    What’s the obsession with joysticks and asses ? 🙂
    You better look for another day job, if you are a P.D.! You’ll make a mean D.A. ! 🙂 🙂

  39. The Malaysian Insider ran a story with the title “Razak Baginda saved by his affidavit” – http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/11612-razak-baginda-saved-by-his-affidavit
    =================================================================================

    Who saved who?

    Commenting on the decision, Anwar Ibrahim said the verdict seems to be ” a prearranged script for a prearranged outcome”.

    One has to sit in any court and hear the judges’ verdicts. They can utter strange mumbo-jumbo or some gobbledygook to back their decisions.

    Isn’t it a norm that all cases begin with the examination-in-chief, then comes the cross examination followed by the defence case (if the accused is called to make his defence).

    In this case, the trial seems to have begun with the defendant’s affidavit, deemed 100% true and nothing but the absolute truth by the judge, and he has placed the onus on the prosecution to debunk its contents.

    Shouldn’t it be the defendant who should corroborate with evidence and witnesses the veracity of his affidavit?

    Since when was the onus placed on the Prosecution ‘to debunk the contents’ of a defendant’s affidavit? Did the Defense’s case begin before the Prosecution’s?
    http://mrsmith2.blogspot.com/

  40. Razak had faced the death penalty by hanging if found guilty of abetting the 2006 murder of his former lover Altantuya, whose body was blown up with explosives in a jungle clearing.

    Bean,

    It’s amazing how the Law works.

    The murderer(s) have not been established. How could Razik Baginda have been said to have or not abetted in the crime.

    The principal active doer(s), if established would prove that he/they acted by themselves or had accomplices. Would you educate us here, Mr Bean?

  41. Salak,

    Look at it this way.

    Najib conspires with Rosmah to grab Abdulah Badawi’s joystick as the latter flies his new helicopter. Assuming grabbing Abdullah Badawi’s joystick is a crime, Najib’s agreement to help Rosmah grab Abdullah’s joystick when the helicopter is in flight meets the definition of a conspiracy. Now get this! The conspiracy to grab Badawi’s joystick while the helicopter is in flight is a separate crime – meaning you don’t need to show the commission of one crime in order to show another has been committed.

    Having said that, conspiracy is never easy to prove. I expected Baginda to be acquitted at the end of the trial of the crime of conspiracy or abetment after applying the high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. But to be freed because the prosecutor had failed to provide prima facie evidence of the crime of abetment?!! Well, that’s a first for me.

  42. Then if you want to go on, there is the accessory after the fact, and there is the accessory before the fact. Razak Baginda could have been found guilty of one of these crimes.

  43. “That to me, is misstep of justice on the part of the Chief Justice!” JONG

    CJ? The case has yet to go to the Court of Appeal, let alone the highest court of appeal in the country 🙂

    This is a different Zaki.

  44. It is a big conspiracy ! They have conspired at every turn in covering up the perpetrator(s) tracks – they have everyone in their pockets , so we should not be surprised anymore even of the performance of the prosecution in this case !

  45. Then if you want to go on, there is the accessory after the fact, and there is the accessory before the fact. Razak Baginda could have been found guilty of one of these crimes. – Bean

    Before or after, you still have to deal with facts first, Bean!

    When can you challenge for a mistrial? Whatever that means?

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.