Wednesday, September 26, 2007

MORE PICS & Video – Day 39 Altantuya Murder Trial; IT Police Cops Testified No Time Limit Amending Reports & Procedure - Officers only, Not for Public

Malaysiakini has skipped for the 2nd Day any mention of the Altantuya Murder Trial and concentrate on the Lingam Video Clip top issues OnIndependent panel to probe Lingam tape Sep 25, 07 2:30pm,

'It's unacceptable, we want royal commission' Soon Li Tsin | Sep 25, 07 6:23pm and

Tengku Adnan: I'm no judicial fixer Sep 25, 07 8:32pm

MORE PICS & Video – Day 39 Altantuya Murder Trial; IT Police Cops Testified No Time Limit Amending Reports & Procedure by Officers only; Not for Public

ABOVE: An artist impression of Court on Day 39 Trial and BELOW: Focus now on Azilah, the 2nd accused

UPDATE: Day 39 – Altantuya Murder Trial25th sept 2007

No time limit to amend reports, says cop

DAY 39, from theSun

SHAH ALAM (Sept 25, 2007): Amendments could be made at any time to reports filed by police officers, the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial was told today. This is because there is no time frame indicated for the alterations to be made, a police personnel testified. Cpl Sim Gek Huang, 35, of the federal police headquarters’ Information Technology (IT) department in Bukit Aman, said no restrictions were placed on requests from officers and men who had filed a report to make amendments at a later time.

ABOVE & BELOW: The fresh face police cops from IT Police Dept who testified on Day 39 trial seemed to enjoy the media photographers attention. Now which one is which, the older 2-strip Cpl Sim Gek Huang, 35 is on the Left ans the other must be Const Mazlinwaheeda Mansor, 23,

The policewoman, whose duties include supervising the computerised Police Reporting System (PRS), was replying to questions posed by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah on the 39th day of the trial. Referred to the copy of a report filed by ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, the operations officer in the serious crimes division (D9) of the Kuala Lumpur police contingent headquarters, and asked if amendments had been made by the officer to his earlier report, Sim said yes. She said the amendments included changes to Zulkarnain’s second name which had been wrongly spelt, the insertion of his handphone number and also the inclusion of Sirul Azhar Umar’s name as the suspect in the murder case. Replying to Tun Abdul Majid’s question, Sim said the PRS which was introduced in 2002 allowed all reports to be viewed online.

She said the PRS is now accessible to the enquiry office, criminal investigation department (CID), narcotics and the commercial crime departments. When asked to look at a copy of the Nov 7, 2006, report filed by Zulkarnain, Sim said the officer had called her on the day to make the above mentioned amendments. The amendments were made without any changes to the date and time, which was contained in the original report, she added, when questioned further by Tun Abdul Majid. During cross-examination by Sirul Azhar’s lawyer, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, Sim said each user is given a password and ID to access the PRS and his details would automatically be recorded when he files a report. Asked how long it would take before the requested amendments are made, Sim said at most it would be done by them in half-an-hour.

She said Zulkarnain did not explain why he requested the particular report to be amended and neither did she ask the reason for the change. Sim also said it was not her responsibility to inform the police station where the report was originally filed about amendments as it was up to the officer who made the request to do so. She said, according to procedure, the officer who makes the amendment will inform the station concerned and the personnel at the enquiry counter will print out the amended copy of the report and paste it on top of the original report. To another question posed by Kamarul Hisham, Sim agreed that other than the officer concerned and the PRS personnel, other people would not be able to ascertain if amendments had been made to a report.

Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda’s lawyer, Wong Kian Kheong, asked Sim if the public had access to the PRS and if they had ever contacted the PRS personnel to make amendments to police reports filed by them. Sim replied the public did not enjoy the facility and she had not come across outsiders calling in to amend their reports. Judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin asked Wong the relevance of his line of questioning, and the lawyer replied the relevance would be clear at the end of the prosecution’s case. Sim also said the PRS personnel do ask the reason for amendments and if changes are not significant, the request is usually entertained. She however added that there were instances when requests for amendments were rejected. She cited the case when they rejected a request to amend the weight of drugs seized by the narcotics department as it affected a material part of the original report. "We will ask them to file a new report, in such cases," said Sim.

Hearing continues tomorrow.
Updated: 05:42PM Tue, 25 Sep 2007

ABOVE: The two hooded ones, Azilah & Sirul arrving on Day 39 and BELOW: The 3rd accused Abdul Razak Baginda

= = == =from Bernama, different emphasis

September 25, 2007 19:34 PM ; Witnesses Explain Overlapping Police Reports

SHAH ALAM, Sept 25 (Bernama) -- Questions raised by the defence in the trial for the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu pertaining to several overlapping police reports last month, were answered by two police personnel from the information technology (IT) division Tuesday. Overlapping reports happened when amendments were made to the original report, said Cpl Sim Gek Huang, 35, of the Bukit Aman IT division. Referring to a police report made by investigating officer ASP Zulkarnain Shamsudin on November 7, he said the Police Report System (PRS) allowed the report list and copy to be printed. "The document was prepared by ASP Zulkarnain between 6pm and 6.30pm. He had communicated with the Bukit Aman PRS operation and I answered the line.

ASP Zulkarnain applied to add words in report Tun HS Lee 28948/06. "Before I made the amendment, I took out the list report for review as to where ASP Zulkarnain wanted to add sentences in the report. The police report was on Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar's alleged disclosure of Altantuya's jewellery. Asked by Deputy Public Prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah during the examination-in-chief about the difference between a report list and a report copy, Sim said: "At the foot of the report list, there is no space for signatures of the complainants and staff at the enquiry office while in the report copy, there is space for signatures." Only the report copy would be given to the complainant if he wanted to buy it, he said. "If a complainant or any police officer wants to only look at a report, a PRS user will normally use the report list facility," he said. He also confirmed that several handwritings on the report list were his.

Sim is the 26th prosecution witness.

He said that according to the notes, the spelling of the name of Zulkarnain's father was to be altered by removing a `h' and `d', the suspect's name - Sirul Azhar bin Hj Umar was also to be added on the second line and the word "penama" was to be replaced with "suspect" on the third line. He also added "sesuatu" after "mendedahkan" on the last line, replaced "yang" with "ada" and amended "berhubung" to "bersangkut".

In previous proceedings, Sirul's lawyer, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, had raised doubts pertaining to the handwritings and questioned the overlapping of several police reports especially when Zulkarnain was giving evidence. "Before making the draft, I asked Zulkarnain to send a damage report which stated what was to be done by him through the help desk. "When the damage report came to me, I used the system administrator facility to add and amend the sentences according to the damage report sent by Zulkarnain," he said.

He said that after the damage report, the amended report would be sent back to the relevant station and Zulkarnain needed to put it in the Pol 41 book (police station record book). He stressed that even though the contents of Zulkarnain's reports had changed, the report number, date and time remained as they were. When cross-examined by Kamarul, Sim said amendments were only made on the basis of necessity and he admitted that people who were not familiar with PRS and IT would find it difficult to identify which was the amended report. He, however, agreed that Zulkarnain did not say why the reports were to be amended.

Sim said an amendment took about 15 to 30 minutes and there was no time limit for amendments to be made on police reports by police personnel. Sim added that the original report by a police officer was normally printed first to be kept manually in a file because under PRS, old reports would be deleted when amendments were made. Another personnel in the IT division, Const Mazlinwaheeda Mansor, 23, said she received a phone call from Zulkarnanin at 1 am to amend a police report about Sirul's home address. She said that the Kota Damansara 4638/06 report dated Nov 7, 2006 was amended on Dec 13, 2006 and she also printed the original report for storage and reference. After that, Mazlinwaheeda said Sirul's address was changed from 5-2-7 to 5-3-7.

The trial, which entered its 39th day today, also saw two officers-in-charge of police stations (OCS) taking the witness stand. Tun HS Lee OCS C/Insp Erwansyah Abdul Basir, 32, said the original report by Zulkarnain (made on Nov 7, 2006) was kept in the POL 41 book at his station while the amended report was not kept together but in another section according to the date of amendment. Sgt Major Latif Awang, 52, who is Kota Damansara OCS, said the station only had a copy and he did not know whether it was the original or amended one because it did not show any amendment had been made.

Erwansyah kept a police report pertaining to Sirul's alleged disclosure while Latif kept the report on the search at Sirul's house. The two OCS said Zulkarnain did not tell them about amendments being made to the original reports. Sirul, 36, and C/Insp Azilah Hadri, 31, are jointly charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, in Mukim Bukit Raja here in October last year. Political analyst Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, 47, is alleged to have abetted the policemen in committing the murder. The trial before Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yassin continues tomorrow.

= = == =Watch Video Clip - Day 39 Trial

being compiled for loading soon

= = == = == = == = == = == = ==

UPDATE Day 40 Trial on Sep 26 07

MORE PICS & Video – Day40 –Altantuya Murder Trial; Seized Document from Azilah’s office Matches Abdul Razak’s Handwriting; Tonny A/K Lunggan mistaken as an Indian

Handwritings match Abdul Razak's'
Cpl assumed ASP Tonny A/K Lunggan an Indian

R. Surenthira Kumar and Maria J. Dass; the SUN
DAY 40

ABOVE & BELOW: Accused arriving in court on Day 40 of Trial

SHAH ALAM (Sept 26, 2007): A document examiner testified in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial that handwritten notes on the sheet of paper seized from Chief Insp Azilah Hadri’s office matched Abdul Razak Abdullah’s handwriting.

ABOVE & BELOW: Wong Kong Yong, 48, (ABOVE) an accredited document examiner with the Chemist Department, confirmed perfect match in Abdul Razak's Handwriting.

Wong Kong Yong, 48, (ABOVE) an accredited document examiner with the Chemist Department, said he came to the conclusion after finding 18 similarities in the handwriting, based on comparisons between the document taken from Azilah’s office and notes written by Abdul Razak on sheets of A4 size papers and two small notebooks. The A4 size document seized from Azilah’s office contained the name and address of Abdul Razak’s father - Datuk Abdullah Malim Baginda and 22, Jalan Setiajaya, 50490 Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur - a handphone number 012-2132303, name of private investigator P. Balasubramaniam’s assistant, Suresh, Hotel Malaya room number 823 and address, Jalan Hang Lekir and the word 'Amina'.

"My conclusion is, the handwriting in P80A and the specimen handwriting in P105A, P105B, P85A, P86A, except for the handwriting in the middle right portion of P80A, is written by one and the same person," said Wong. P80A is the A4 size single sheet of paper seized from Azilah’s office, P105A and P105b are two sets of documents containing five sheets of A4 size paper each, and P85A and P86A are the two small notebooks. The 10 sheets of A4 size papers and notebooks contained jottings made by Abdul Razak. Wong was replying to questions by Deputy Public Prosecutor Manoj Kurup during examination-in-chief on the 40th day of the murder trial before judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin.

Asked what he looked for when making comparisons between the specimen documents and the document in question, Wong who has testified in about 100 cases, said among the things he looked out for were similarities and characteristics in the handwriting, formations of letters and numbers in the handwriting, connecting strokes and pen-lift between letters as well as sequence of strokes of writing letters. He said the differences in characteristics that was observed were in terms of the size of the writing.
Asked to elaborate on the similarities found by him during his examination, Wong said he discovered the following;

* the formation of the numbers 4 and 2;
* the connecting strokes between figure 5 and 0, and the sequence of stroke for the number 9;
* the formation of letter H;
* there was no pen-lift for the letters g, h, t and s from the word Heights;
* the sequence of stroke of the formation of the letter g; * the formation of the letters L and e from the word Lekir and S and u from the word Suresh; * the formation of the number 5;
* sequence of stroke for the formation of the words Setiajaya, Abdullah and Jalan;
* sequence of stroke for the formation of the alphabet P;
* the formation of the letter L and the numbers 7, 2, 3 and 8;
* there was a pen-lift between the letter I and s from the word "Isnin"; and
* the formation of the letters m and i for the word "Amina".

Asked if he found any differences during the examination, Wong said the only difference was in the overall size of the handwriting. He said the only part in the document, where the handwriting did not match was in the middle portion of the sheet of paper seized from Azilah’s office. It was not told in court what the portion contained, as Wong only pointed the portion to Mohd Zaki. Asked by DPP Manoj Kurup as to what his conclusion was with respect to the authorship of all the documents, Wong said: "I found the questioned handwriting on the documents P22A, P22B, P22C, P22D, P22E, P23A and P21A shows similar handwriting characteristics, and therefore I am of the opinion that these questioned handwritings were all written by the same person."
"You are able to come to these conclusion even without specimen samples?," asked Manoj.

Wong : "Yes. By inter-comparison of all the questioned handwriting on the documents."

= == = == = == = == == = == = =
Cpl assumed ASP Tonny A/K Lunggan an Indian

SHAH ALAM (Sept 26, 2007): Tun HS Lee police station information office chief Cpl Siros Mat Isa had the court puzzled and tickled at the same time when she said she assumed that ASP Tonny Lunggan was of Indian origin, because of his name spelled as. Siros had also mentioned in the report that a cautioned statement had been taken from an Indian man. "How did this Indian man appear in the picture?" asked DPP Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah. "I assumed that ASP Tonny was an Indian based on his name which had an A/K," Siros replied. "But how did you assume that ASP Zulkarnain (Samsudin) had taken a caution statement from ASP Tonny?" asked Tun Abdul Majid.
"That may be my mistake,"
Siros said.
She said her assistant L/Cpl Ramzan Kamarudin had typed out the report based on what she had written in her 24-hour report.
Later when grilled by Tun Abdul Majid on the mistake Ramzan said he had just retyped the summary of the report given to him by

"Why did you blindly copy this down?" asked Tun Abdul Majid, to which Ramzan replied: "I also do not know."Both Siros and Ramzan denied that Zulkarnain had indeed interrogated an Indian man and that could be why the reported stated as such, when questioned by Sirul’s counsel Ahmad Zaidi Zainal. Both police personnel only realised that Tonny was not an Indian when they met him at the Kuala Lumpur Contingent Headquarters later on prior to the commencement of this trial.

Earlier C/Insp Ahmad Abu Bakar, 35 from the Kuala Lumpur police contingent Headquarters serious crimes division (D9) said that he was asked by D9 deputy head DSP Gan Teck Guan to get a sample of Abdul Razak Baginda’s handwriting. Ahmad told the court that he then headed to the D6 unit office in Bukit Aman where Abdul Razak was being held. There he met DSP Zainudin Abdul Samad who advised him on how to obtain the sample.
He said although Abdul Razak asked him why he needed to take his handwriting sample again on Nov 15 since he had already done so the day before, the latter was cooperative on both occasions. On both occasions Abdul Razak had written out on five sheets of paper what was dictated to him by Ahmad.
Ahmad said it was a norm to get writing samples from suspects- three days in a row. He said he the handed over the samples to Investigating Officer ASP Tonny

= == = Bernama brief report ONLY on Corporal's mistake and NOTHING on the matching of Abdul Razak handwriting. See how truth is being suppressed from people

September 26, 2007 21:13 PM
Corporal Admits Mistake In Naming Investigating Officer A Suspect

SHAH ALAM, Sept 26 (Bernama) -- The trial for the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu which entered its 40th day today, heard a corporal admitting her carelessness in naming an investigating officer a suspect in the police log. Cpl Siros Mat Isa, 46, a counter supervisor of the Dang Wangi Police Station, said she could not remember how the mistake happened but admitted that it was due to her working round-the-clock on Nov 7 last year. Asked by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah during examination-in-chief on how it could have happened when the police report, about a cautioned statement, was made by investigating officer ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin and not by ASP Tonny Lunggan (another investigating officer), she said: "I am not sure." Siros said she made the mistake because she thought the cautioned statement was made by Tonny and that he was an Indian man based on an "ak" in his name. According to the record of previous proceedings, the cautioned statement was made by Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar during an interrogation by Zulkarnain. "I only skimmed through the police report and thought the 'ak' in Tonny's name meant he was an Indian man. The mistake happened probably because I only glanced through the police report made at about 2.30pm on Nov 7 last year," she said. Siros, who is the 32nd prosecution witness, said she instructed her assistant, L/Cpl Ramzan Kamarudin, to enter the details including the report number in the log. She also said she realised the mistake when she was asked to see Tonny at his office at the Kuala Lumpur Police Headquarters later. Sirul, 36, and C/Insp Azilah Hadri, 31, are charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, in Mukim Bukit Raja here on October last year. Political analyst Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, 47, is alleged to have abetted the two policemen in committing the murder.

= == == = ==


MORE PICS & Video – Thousands Marched For Justice -Putra Jaya Sep 26 07; Cars Blocked - Hundreds Walked; A 4-member delegation submitted 2 Memos to PM Office


Post a Comment

<< Home

Get complete protection against viruses, worms and Trojan horse programs – CA Anti-Virus 2008! Click here for cheap hotels
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Multidimid. Make your own badge here.
Blogroll Me!

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Add to Google Add to Google