|
 •
Credibility of police witness questioned
•
Lawyer: Cop’s testimony inconsistent
•
Sirul never made any disclosures, says lawyer
©The
Sun (Used by permission)
by Maria J.Dass
SHAH ALAM (July 24, 2008): The defence team in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder
trial today questioned the credibility of statements by C/Insp Koh Fei Cheow and
ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin and the validity of the methods they had used to extract
a purported disclosure from second accused Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar, 37.
Sirul’s counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, in submitting for a trial within a
trial held to determine if the alleged disclosure by Sirul which led to the
discovery of Altantuya’s jewellery and belongings in a jacket in his apartment
can be adduced as evidence, pointed out discrepancies in the testimonies by the
two policemen in relation to the time the disclosure was made.
"The disclosure, according to records in Zulkarnain's investigations diary (ID),
showed the time of the disclosure as 1.45, but according to his testimony in
court the interview only started at 2pm and the disclosure was made at 2.20pm,"
Kamarul said.
"This is an explanation of a liar, to put it bluntly."
Kamarul stated that Zulkarnain had later claimed that he entered 1.45pm into his
diary because that was the time he received the instruction from DSP Gan Tack
Guan, forgetting that he had earlier testified that he received instruction at
12.30pm.
He also said Zulkarnain had failed to inform the court of amendments to the
police report he had made on the disclosure, which was only discovered when the
defence team realised they had the original copy, and the prosecution had the
amended copy.
Kamarul also questioned why Koh had entered Sirul's disclosure in the form of a
police report instead of a caution statement.
"He hid behind the law, because he said that he was not obligated to show the
police report to the accused," he said.
"The question then arises on why he chose a police report over a caution
statement when he had access to preparing a caution statement in his office," he
said.
"It is clear, because if it was a caution statement, he would be required to
allow the accused to read the contents and then sign it, while he is not
required to do so for a police report," Kamarul said.
"He (Zulkarnain) chose to do that because he would be free to attribute any
words to Sirul without the accused having the chance to verify the truth and
accuracy thereof and without anyone in this court being able to challenge his
version," he said.
Kamarul also said there was a stronger case here because there was no caution
statement recording of the actual words of the caution and Zulkarnain never gave
evidence what the words of the caution were, "thus we can conclude that he
either never delivered the caution, and even if he did there is no evidence of
what words he used".
Kamarul also pointed out that there were differing testimonies by the two
policemen in relation to the preparation of the report.
Koh had said he had seen Zulkarnain preparing the report in his office, while
Zulkarnain later said there were several mistakes in the report, including the
misspelling of his father’s name because Koh typed it out while he (Zulkarnain)
dictated it.
Sirul had testified that he did not see Koh type anything. He only saw Koh bring
in a A4 sized paper on Zulkarnain’s instruction five minutes after the
interrogation.
In completing his submissions for the trial within a trial to determine if a
disclosure by C/Insp Azilah Hadri was admissible, Azilah’s lawyer J.Kuldeep
Kumar questioned the availability of a video recording made at the crime scene
as DSP Mohd Koey had in his testimony said that the Crime Scene Investigation
team had brought a video camera to the area.
Investigating officer ASP Tonny Lunggan had denied that there was any video
recording made during the disclosure and investigations at the crime scene.
Hearing continues.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Harinder Veriah Trust - International Law Award 2009
