- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 223
- Points
- 0
Dear ALL,
With the acquittal of Razak Baginda, and the ratio decidendi behind it only proves one point - that there are more questions left unanswered.
The reason for the acquittal according to Justice Zaki is that there is no prima facie case against the accused as set out by the Prosecution. And that the Prosecution had failed to establish the link between the act or that the accused ordered the two policemen to kill and blow up the victim.
This is my take, if Razak Baginda did not order the killing of Altantuya Shaariibuu then what reason would the two policemen have to kill her?
Yes, this goes to motive but if the motive is established then clearly the person that bears interest in seeing the outcome of the victim's death surely is also culpable.
Why did they even need to do such an act unless there was something to cover up?
Would any two career policemen who have the "prestigious job" of protecting VVIPs do such a thing?
Was there duress, coercion or reward?
Have they had previous contact with the victim?
Have they had dealings with her?
If they had no dealings (which they shouldn't have, given their jobs) were they acting on their own volition in killing her?
If no to the above then, under normal circumstances surely they must have been ordered or compelled to do so by someone.
The question that goes abegging now is WHO is that someone if Justice Zaki thinks that Razak Baginda is not that someone.
Speculation is rife, and with Raja Petra Kamaruddin in detention under the ISA, his blog is now without the evidence that he so openly declared that he will provide should there be an acquittal to show that Razak Baginda and PM-in-waiting Najib Razak have hands this dastardly deed.
However, all would perhaps be apparent when the two co-accused enter their pleas in court later this month.
I remember a couple of months ago when our own Minister for Law clearly stated that an acquittal on a technicality doesn't mean innocence. It is just that there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed with the charge. Sheesh!
Cheers,
MentisMortis
With the acquittal of Razak Baginda, and the ratio decidendi behind it only proves one point - that there are more questions left unanswered.
The reason for the acquittal according to Justice Zaki is that there is no prima facie case against the accused as set out by the Prosecution. And that the Prosecution had failed to establish the link between the act or that the accused ordered the two policemen to kill and blow up the victim.
This is my take, if Razak Baginda did not order the killing of Altantuya Shaariibuu then what reason would the two policemen have to kill her?
Yes, this goes to motive but if the motive is established then clearly the person that bears interest in seeing the outcome of the victim's death surely is also culpable.
Why did they even need to do such an act unless there was something to cover up?
Would any two career policemen who have the "prestigious job" of protecting VVIPs do such a thing?
Was there duress, coercion or reward?
Have they had previous contact with the victim?
Have they had dealings with her?
If they had no dealings (which they shouldn't have, given their jobs) were they acting on their own volition in killing her?
If no to the above then, under normal circumstances surely they must have been ordered or compelled to do so by someone.
The question that goes abegging now is WHO is that someone if Justice Zaki thinks that Razak Baginda is not that someone.
Speculation is rife, and with Raja Petra Kamaruddin in detention under the ISA, his blog is now without the evidence that he so openly declared that he will provide should there be an acquittal to show that Razak Baginda and PM-in-waiting Najib Razak have hands this dastardly deed.
However, all would perhaps be apparent when the two co-accused enter their pleas in court later this month.
I remember a couple of months ago when our own Minister for Law clearly stated that an acquittal on a technicality doesn't mean innocence. It is just that there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed with the charge. Sheesh!
Cheers,
MentisMortis
