Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Star (Used by permission)
by Cecil Fung

SHAH ALAM: Contradictions and concoctions – that was how a lawyer described a police officer’s testimony against his client in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial

Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, counsel for accused Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, highlighted various portions of Asst Supt Zulkarnain Samsudin’s testimony which appeared questionable.

Among others, he questioned why there was a need for ASP Zulkarnain to interrogate his client again on Nov 7, 2006 when a special team from Bukit Aman had already done so the day before.

Kamarul Hisham said it appeared as if his client was suddenly “seized with an inspiration” to make the disclosure about the location of Altantuya’s jewellery to ASP Zulkarnain that day even though he had not said anything about them the day before in the full-scale interrogation.

He contended that this second round of interrogation was an orchestration by the police in order to legitimise the alleged statement that led to the discovery of the jewellery.

Kamarul Hisham was making submissions on why ASP Zulkarnain’s testimony that Kpl Sirul Azhar had led police to recover the jewellery from his Kota Damansara flat should be made inadmissible.

Submitting further, the lawyer questioned why ASP Zulkarnain had recorded the disputed statement in a police report rather than in his client’s cautioned statement.

“The reason is this – by making the police report, he (ASP Zulkarnain) can come to court and say what he wants to say. The accused will not get the chance to verify the truth and accuracy,” he told a High Court here yesterday.

Even the time that the disclosure had been made was not consistent – ASP Zulkarnain said in his investigations diary, it was around 1.45pm but in his testimony it was 2.20pm.

Kamarul Hisham further submitted that the police officer had attempted to conceal the existence of two amended police reports he had made, as they only came to light when he noticed differences in his copies (the originals) from those of the prosecution (the amended reports).

Noting that ASP Zulkarnain’s subordinate C/Insp Koh Fei Cheow had changed his story during the trial-within-a-trial to match ASP Zulkarnain's, the lawyer questioned why they did not disclose any of this during their testimonies?

“Why didn’t they give this version in their initial testimonies? It’s because they were hoping that no one would find out about the amended reports,” he argued, noting that even ASP Zulkarnain father’s name was misspelled in one version and his year of birth wrongly stated in another.

Kamarul Hisham cast more doubts on ASP Zulkarnain’s credibility when he pointed out that the officer had claimed to have relied on his memory when he dictated to C/Insp Koh, who typed out one of the reports, but in the same breath said he referred to his investigations diary.

The lawyer also disputed the set of three keys tendered to court as Kpl Sirul Azhar’s housekeys, pointing out that his client’s superior Asst Comm Mastor Mohd Ariff and colleague Sjn Rosli Ibrahim both said they were not the right ones.

He said ACP Mastor, Sjn Rosli and Kpl Sirul Azhar himself had said that the original set of keys had more than three keys and were quite old, unlike the shiny ones tendered to court.

When Kamarul Hisham submitted that the inference drawn from this was that the police had a duplicate set of keys to Kpl Sirul Azhar’s flat, Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin interjected with an observation of his own – that the set tendered to court might not even be the keys to the flat as no one had applied to verify them at the flat.

The submissions continue today.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed