Now that PI Bala has finished giving his examination-in-chief and subjected to cross-examination, one glaring gap has emerged.
What the Tamil-speaking Bala has said in the examination-in-chief was actually nothing new as most of it was already in Razak Baginda’s affidavit. What was eagerly anticipated was that the Defence lawyers could get more out of him by way of cross-examination. But what a let down.
The issue of how he could identified Azilah Hadri as the driver of the red Proton Wira which took Altantuya away on the night of Oct.19, was not pursued at all. Bala identified Azilah as the driver without hesitation and yet did not know the other two persons in the same car. Unless Bala had known Azilah before. If not then the three in the proton wira came to him as total strangers and yet pointing out Azilah was that straight forward to him. Was there any prompting.
Instead the cross-examination was taken up on Bala’s opinion why Razak Baginda need not make the police report on extortion. This would not carry any weight at all because it was not an opinion of an expert or legal person. If Razak’s personal lawyer were to give the same opinion then he may be in trouble with the law and the Bar Council because extortion is a criminal offence and has to be reported as such.
Another discrepancy was the fee he said he charged Razak. During examination-in-chief he said it was RM4,000. Then during cross-examination he said it was RM600 per day or RM7,000 per package of 20 days. The conjecture is that he was paid much more otherwise how can he afford “MAH82 Merz my car”.
What the Tamil-speaking Bala has said in the examination-in-chief was actually nothing new as most of it was already in Razak Baginda’s affidavit. What was eagerly anticipated was that the Defence lawyers could get more out of him by way of cross-examination. But what a let down.
The issue of how he could identified Azilah Hadri as the driver of the red Proton Wira which took Altantuya away on the night of Oct.19, was not pursued at all. Bala identified Azilah as the driver without hesitation and yet did not know the other two persons in the same car. Unless Bala had known Azilah before. If not then the three in the proton wira came to him as total strangers and yet pointing out Azilah was that straight forward to him. Was there any prompting.
Instead the cross-examination was taken up on Bala’s opinion why Razak Baginda need not make the police report on extortion. This would not carry any weight at all because it was not an opinion of an expert or legal person. If Razak’s personal lawyer were to give the same opinion then he may be in trouble with the law and the Bar Council because extortion is a criminal offence and has to be reported as such.
Another discrepancy was the fee he said he charged Razak. During examination-in-chief he said it was RM4,000. Then during cross-examination he said it was RM600 per day or RM7,000 per package of 20 days. The conjecture is that he was paid much more otherwise how can he afford “MAH82 Merz my car”.
5 comments:
Great insight on Altantuya case, keep it up dude. Been reading your profile...former SBC, huh. I used to do alot of on-air promo and below the line for SportsCity and Channel 5, maybe we are there at different time.
Drop by my site, I've got a digital post card with embedded music on her...
Cheers
hatz, tks for your kind words. we will meet one fine day. rgds Simon
"What the Tamil-speaking Bala has said in the examination-in-chief was actually nothing new as most of it was already in Razak Baginda’s affidavit."
In that case it serves to confirm and to corroborate the affidavit evidence given by the accused. It is a relevant line of questioning.
"What was eagerly anticipated was that the Defence lawyers could get more out of him by way of cross-examination. But what a let down."
I think the Prosecution should have offered this witness to the Defense and wait to see if the Defense calls him as their witness. The Prosecution could then cross-examine this witness more effectively and through the power of cross-examination elicit more evidence than he is prepared to give.
This witness is not a witness of the truth as he has reason or reasons to lie or at least to hide to protect himself. He knows a lot more than he is prepared to give.
"Another discrepancy was the fee he said he charged Razak. During examination-in-chief he said it was RM4,000. Then during cross-examination he said it was RM600 per day or RM7,000 per package of 20 days."
Are these discrepancies material to any of the issues? Does it mean that he is not to be believed? Does this lapse in memory mean that he has a credibility issue? I don't think so.
Much obliged for anon's critical analysis. I am aware of the legal requirements. Even Altnatuya's father has to repeat her name in court. My piece was to show to fellow bloggers that news-anglewise they were missing nothing from Bala's testimony as Banginda has already revealed it himself during bail application.
But one thing we now know is that Bala despite advantage of 4-1, feared for their safety from a lone PI by the name of Ang. Why fear the knock on the door when one does nothing wrong.
I am glad that at least you agree with me that Bala needs to be grilled fruther to exact the truth.
Post a Comment