MORE PICS & Video – Day 26 Altantuya Murder Trial; Sirul’s Disclosure Of Crime Scene Expunged;Lead DPP wants Review; Azilah voluntarily Surrendered
ABOVE & BELOW: As usual Malaysiakini always have the early news on the same day with an afternoon & evening Coverage of the Day 26 Trial. Details H E R E & H E R E by subscription
= = == == = == = = =
1. Prosecution witness' statement EXPUNGED
2. ASP: I was instructed to arrest Azilah
R. Surenthira Kumar and Maria J. Dass; SUN
SHAH ALAM (July 26, 2007): The High Court today expunged a statement by a prosecution witness that Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar had told him where Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered. Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ordered that the testimony by Chief Insp Kamaroszaman Othman be expunged from the record as the information given by Sirul Azhar during the 20-minute interrogation by Kamaroszaman on Nov 6 was not within the ambit of Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950. The prosecution had sought to admit the information as evidence under Section 8 to show that there was a disclosure by Sirul Azhar which led police to the crime scene.
Kamaroszaman,(ABOVE) of the Bukit Aman interrogation branch, had earlier told the court that Sirul Azhar told him the murder took place in Puncak Alam, Shah Alam, near a PUAS water tank. He said this during examination-in-chief by DPP Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah who wanted to know what information he had obtained from Sirul at the Kuala Lumpur Police Contingent headquarters (IPK KL).
Kamaroszaman said Sirul told him he could tell the truth and point out the location. "I then made it seem that I did not take note of what he said and asked him what he said again. He then told me the incident took place in Puncak Alam, Shah Alam, near the PUAS water tank ..."
Sirul's counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin objected, saying this was a statement as defined under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The proper procedure as in Tan Hung Song is to get the evidence to the discovery first, otherwise it will be prejudicial at this stage."
Tun Abdul Majid (ABOVE): This is not section 27. If we are mindful to follow Tan Hung Song, then well and good, as I did with the first accused (Azilah Hadri). But now the facts presented by the witness has no value anymore, because the leading discovery is only involving the first person to give the discovery. This witness (Kamaroszaman)' statement is only pertaining conduct."
Judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin then asked the DPP to continue with his questioning to determine if the statement was leading to a discovery.
Kamaroszaman then continued and said the jungle in Puncak Alam was a place where he used to recce for hunting. He said after this he called L/Cpl S.Sivakumar and asked him to call C/Insp Koh Fei Cheow to take Sirul.
Koh came in with ASP Tonny Lunggan to take Sirul and when Koh had taken Sirul away, Kamaroszaman said he told Tonny about the disclosure by Sirul. Kamroszaman then said he followed the convoy to the crime scene although the interrogation had been completed, and even though there were no instructions for him to do so. The court erupted in laughter when Kamaroszaman told them that he had just joined a convoy that was leaving IPK KL although he had no idea where it was going and who was in the convoy. "I saw them leaving IPK in a group and when I saw this, I just followed."
Kamaroszaman said he followed the convoy all the way to the foot of the hill near the crime scene, but could not drive up the hill with his Iswara. He said since he could not go up the hill, he went back home. Kamaroszaman had the court in stitches again when he said he did not know the place, but felt that there was an ITM (Institute Teknologi Mara) in the area.
Mohd Zaki then asked Kamaroszaman: "Where is this place, Kedah,
"I think it was Selangor," Kamaroszaman replied.
Mohd Zaki then asked what the status of the information was.
Tun Abdul Majid:This is more of a chain of information - not under section 27 (Evidence Act) and is only with regard to Section 8 (Evidence Act pertaining conduct) and based on the fact that the witness (Kamaroszaman) was told and the witness was then taken there.
Kamarul: (ABOVE) We are applying for this statement (on the crime scene) to be expunged because it is not a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and is non-admissable.
A disclosure that does not lead to discovery is highly prejudicial and if convicted, the conviction will be quashed."
Tun Abdul Majid We are not putting this under section 27, but we are putting in under Section 8 for conduct, and evidence which is not relevant will be disregarded."The words "can show the crime scene" coupled will conduct will show if this witness is not called, it can be taken against the prosecution on why this witness was not called.
"In anticipation of this, we call him to show that there was a disclosure, and that amounts to conduct to show that Sirul did lead the police to the scene." he said.
The leading to discovery itself is of no value at all.
Mohd Zaki: It is of no value but you want it here? As to knowledge?
Tun Abdul Majid: Yes, knowledge.
The court then took a 15 minute break after which Zaki allowed the expunging of the information pertaining the disclosure.
"As a statement can give a clear picture of the real story, the information including that pertaining to the PUAS water tank and hunting recce is not information and not conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act," he ruled.
"Section 8 does not include statements, therefore this statement is expunged," he said.
= = == = =
2. ASP: I was instructed to arrest Azilah
SHAH ALAM (July 26, 2007): A police officer told the High Court Chief Insp Azilah Hadri surrendered at the Kuala Lumpur police contingent headquarters (IPK KL) on Nov 1. ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin (ABOVE), who is with the IPK KL's Serious Crime Division (D9), said he was instructed by the head of D9, Supt Zainol Abu Samah, to arrest Azilah. He was replying to questions posed by Deputy Public Prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah.
Zulkarnain: I was instructed to arrest Azilah when he surrenders at the D9 office.
Tun Abdul Majid: Did he come and surrender?
Tun Abdul Majid: What time?
Zulkarnain: About 11am.
Tun Abdul Majid: You arrested Azilah as soon as he arrived at IPK KL?
Zulkarnain: Yes, in the D9 office.
Tun Abdul Majid: Immediately after arresting Azilah, what did you do?
Zulkarnain: I seized a Nokia handphone, two SIM cards and a wallet belonging to Azilah.
Zulkarnain also told the court he interrogated Azilah for about two hours at the D9 office but did not obtain any information.
He informed his immediate superior, DSP Gan Teck Guan, about the arrest and seizure of Azilah's personal belongings.
After Azilah was returned to the lock-up, Zulkarnain said he instructed one of his men to arrest L/Cpl Rohaniza Roslan in the Petaling Jaya district police headquarters.
They also seized a red Proton Wira Aeroback belonging to Rohaniza and took it back to IPK KL and handed over the car keys to the investigating officer, ASP Tony Lunggan.
On Nov 6, Zulkarnain said he followed a team of police officers and men, headed by Lunggan, together with Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar, to the scene where the alleged crime took place, at about .
When Zulkarnain went on to say further, after he claimed Sirul Azhar showed and pointed the location where the crime allegedly took place, Sirul Azhar's lawyer, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, objected.
Judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin: The word cannot be recorded. Just say Sirul Azhar showed a spot near the bushes, that's all.
Tun Abdul Majid: After that, anything else said?
Zulkarnain: Yes, he showed the spot where the woman ...
Kamarul Hisham: Objection, this is clearly Section 27 (of the Evidence Act). It was attempted to be adduced under the Section. It amounts to a confession or admission and it is not admissible.
Mohd Zaki: The earlier objection, I did not record.
Tun Abdul Majid: It will not be Section 27 anymore. Even if it is, it has no value as the police had discovered the place earlier through another accused. Again, if an accused person said, this is the place ..., it is still admissible under Section 8. At most, it shows knowledge. At this particular stage, I'm afraid I have to request for a full submission under Section 8 as I will request for your lordship to review your earlier ruling at the end of the prosecution case.
Mohd Zaki then told both parties to submit further on the issue on Monday.
What happened today (Day 26)
* Head of interrogation unit at Bukit Aman police headquarters DSP Zainudin Abdul Samad ended his testimony, after re-examination by the prosecution.
* Chief Insp Kamaroszaman Othman, of the Bukit Aman interrogation branch and who had interrogated murder accused Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar, testified. * After him, ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, an officer with the KL Serious Crimes Division who arrested Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, took the stand before court adjourned. The trial resumes on Monday (July 30).
= == and from the STAR, the lighter side of the trial
Court in stitches over replies;
WITH a loud and clear voice, a Bukit Aman interrogator appeared strict and serious as he testified in court on Day 26 of the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial.
C/Insp Kamaroszaman: Explains how he took two hours to get from Bukit Aman to IPKKL. But despite his straightforward answers, the 22nd prosecution witness managed to leave the courtroom, including the three accused in the dock, in stitches.
C/Insp Kamaroszaman Othman, a 44-year-old officer from Bukit Aman’s interrogation division (D6A), kept a straight face as he started his testimony yesterday.
But barely 10 minutes into it, he had everyone laughing when he explained why it took him and his three subordinates nearly two hours to get to the Kuala Lumpur police contingent headquarters (IPKKL) after they left the federal police headquarters around 9am on Nov 6 last year.
“Bukit Aman and IPKKL are not very far apart right? Why did it take you so long?” Deputy Public Prosecutor Tun Abd Majid Tun Hamzah asked when he examined the witness.
“Minum dulu, Yang Arif (We had a drink first, my Lord),” the officer replied with a straight face, sparking the first round of laughter from the public gallery.
Moments later, when Tun Abd Majid asked how second accused Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar was handed over to him on that day, C/Insp Kamaroszaman replied: “He was handed over to me by ‘Chief Inspector KFC’ in handcuffs.”
Laughter again filled the courtroom.
He immediately corrected himself and said that he was referring to C/Insp Koh Fei Cheow, the officer who arrested Kpl Sirul Azhar.
When he referred to C/Insp Koh as KFC for a second time, Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin queried the witness on the matter.
Justice Mohd Zaki: “Do you really call him KFC?”
C/Insp Kamaroszaman: “Yes.”
Justice Mohd Zaki: “He likes to be called KFC?”
C/Insp Kamaroszaman: “Yes.”
From then on, the witness referred to C/Insp Koh as KFC throughout his testimony.
Later, when Tun Abd Majid asked C/Insp Kamaroszaman about the results of his 20-minute interrogation of Kpl Sirul Azhar, the witness’ response amused everyone again.
The prosecutor had posed the question to the officer in Bahasa
This prompted Tun Abd Majid to ask in English: “What did you get from your investigations?”
C/Insp Kamaroszaman immediately replied: “Kpl Sirul Azhar disclosed something.”
The court burst into laughter, followed by the following remark from Justice Mohd Zaki: “Oh, now you understand.”
For the first time since he started his testimony, the witness flashed a smile.
During cross-examination by Hazman Ahmad, C/Insp Kamaroszaman amused those in the courtroom again when he was asked about the revelation made by Kpl Sirul Azhar during interrogation, the details of which had been expunged by the court earlier.
The lawyer had asked the witness earlier if he knew which part of his testimony earlier was expunged from the court records, to which he replied he did.
Hazman: “When KFC brought Kpl Sirul Azhar out of the interrogation room, you told ASP Tonny Lunggan what Kpl Sirul Azhar told you, right? What did Kpl Sirul Azhar tell you during interrogation?”
C/Insp Kamaroszaman: “It’s already expunged.”
(The court erupted in laughter)
Hazman (controlling his own laughter): “Okay, I will ask you in a gentle manner using the soft approach (referring to the interrogation style used by C/Insp Kamaroszaman’s superior DSP Zainudin Abdul Samad). Did you tell ASP Tonny about Kpl Sirul Azhar’s revelation?”
C/Insp Kamaroszaman: “Yes, I did.”
Hazman: “So ASP Tonny knows the location after you told him the revelation?”
C/Insp Kamaroszaman: “I only told him.
“Whether he knew or not, that’s up to him.”
Laughter was heard in the courtroom again.
The trial resumes on Monday.
= = == = = == = = == = = from Bernama
Prosecution Fails To Admit Sirul Azhar's Disclosure Of Crime Scene
SHAH ALAM, July 26 (Bernama) -- The prosecution suffered another blow when it failed to get the High Court to admit Sirul Azhar Umar's information to the police disclosing the location where Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered. Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ordered that the information produced by the prosecution through its 22nd witness, Chief Insp Kamaroszaman Othman, be expunged from the record. In his oral ruling, Mohd Zaki held that the information given by Sirul Azhar, the second accused, during the 20-minute interrogation by Kamaroszaman (BELOW) on Nov 6 last year was not within the ambit of Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950.
The prosecution had sought to admit the information as evidence under Section 8 to show that there was a disclosure by Sirul Azhar which led the police to the crime scene. Mohd Zaki ruled that the information given by Sirul Azhar was a statement and Section 8 did not include statement. Sirul Azhar, 36, together with Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, both of the Bukit Aman Special Action Force, are charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, at a location between lots 12843 and 16735, Mukim Bukit Raja, between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 last year. Political analyst Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, 47, is charged with abetting them in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur between on Oct 18 and on Oct 19 last year.
The judge also ruled that the information given by Sirul Azhar did not fall under the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 27, it must be proven whether or not information leading to the discovery of crime scene given by a accused person under police custody is a confession of guilt. Earlier, when Kamaroszaman, 44, from the interrogation branch of the Bukit Aman CID revealed the information which he had obtained from Sirul Azhar during interrogation, Sirul Azhar's counsel, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, objected to its admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Deputy public prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah, however, said that the prosecution was not adducing the information under Section 27 but under Section 8.
Kamarul Hisham then applied for Kamaroszaman's evidence relating to the information to be expunged from the record as it was not evidence under Section 27. He also said that the evidence was not within the ambit of Section 8 as Sirul Azhar's conduct during the journey to the alleged crime scene was not known to Kamaroszaman.
The court on July 10 also threw out Sirul Azhar's alleged confession to the crime.
ABOVE: Karpal Singh, holding watching brief for Altantuya family & the Mongolian Government arriving in court
Court resumes on Monday 30th Jul 2007
= == = =Watch Video Clip 1 min 50s - Day 26 Trial
being edited and loading soon