Appeal court hears about mystery of the bloody slippers
Earlier, Tun Abdul Majid pointed out that the cautioned statement made by Sirul of which was published in Raja Petra Kamarudin’s blog was never raised in court. Neither was it brought to the attention of the High Court judge, he said.
Sean Augustin, fz.com
A pair of blood stained slippers aroused the interest of judges at the appeal hearing for the former policeman found guilty of murdering Altantuya Shaariibuu.
The subject about the footwear came to light after Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah surmised that the victim must have traveled in a car, where the slippers were discovered, just before she was brutally murdered.
When asked by Justice Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali, who led a three-member panel which also included Datuk Linton Albert and Datuk Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, as to how the bloodstain got unto the slippers, Tun Abdul Majid said he was unsure as Altantuya was blown up.
Tun Abdul Majid then went on to suggest the possibility of Altantuya being injured, prior to her death, even though no fresh or dried blood was discovered at the crime scene in Shah Alam.
When Mohamed Apandi said that there were a lot of speculations and pointed out that it had not been established that the Mongolian was injured, Majid cited the blood test which showed otherwise.
The judge then asked who the slippers belonged to.
Tun Abdul Majid: “We didn’t check. They were found in the car”.
Mohamed Apandi: “That begs more questions. Does it belong to the deceased?”
Tun Abdul Majid: “We do not know”.
Former police Special Action Unit personnel Sirul Azhar Umar, along with former chief inspector Azilah Hadri, were found guilty and sentenced to death in 2009 for killing Altantuya, then 28, at Mukim Bukit Raja in Shah Alam between 10pm on Oct 19, 2006 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006.
Earlier, Tun Abdul Majid pointed out that the cautioned statement made by Sirul of which was published in Raja Petra Kamarudin’s blog was never raised in court. Neither was it brought to the attention of the High Court judge, he said.
He went on to ask if the defence counsel, who had previously sought to declare a mistrial by claiming the judge may have been influenced by the “adverse publicity”, was relying on what bloggers have been saying.
“A counsel is in court and takes instruction from his client. Is the counsel now taking instruction from bloggers? What is the counsel attempting to establish?
“Are we now turning the court into a court of bloggers where hearsay evidence becomes the order of the day?” he asked.
Mohamed Apandi said they will later fix a date for the decision as it could not be done in haste.
“We need to be fair to everybody,” he said.
