Malaysiakini reports retraction of yesterday's statutory declaration by private investigator, P Balasubramaniam. Statutory declaration after statutory declaration is become a big 'joke' in our political and legal circle for a particular group to regain 'power'. It all started by MalaysiaToday blogger, Raja Petra Kamaruddin filing a SD to state that Rosmah Mansor was present at the site of the murder on that particular day as informed to him. Yesterday, private investigator, P Balasubramaniam who was engaged by Abdul Razak Baginda to deal with Altantuya in 2006 when she started ‘harassing' the former head of think-tank and a close confidant of DPM Datuk Seri Najib made a SD identifying that Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had a sexual relationship with Altantuya and that he was the one who had introduced Altantuya to Abdul Razak Baginda. Today the same private investigator has retracted certain statements claiming that he made them under 'duress'. Its becoming a 'BIG JOKE'.
It is now learned that after the press conference yesterday, private investigator P Balasubramaniam was summoned by the police to the Brickfields Police Station at about 4.45pm yesterday as reported by his yesterday's lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, who had dropped him at the police station. Since then, this lawyer has been replaced.
It sounds like 'police force' and 'political force' must have been the reason for certain important statements to be retracted.
The Malaysian political scene is currently facing a turmoil and any ill-effects will undermine its confidence.
It clearly shows that 'THERE IS MORE TRUTH TO BE UNCOVERED'. Its very clear that certain top politicians must be directly involved and this murder must at all cost be 'COVERED' to protect his political life.
Malaysians must be ready for the BIGGEST COVER-UP of the century unless we Malaysians have the conscience to UPHOLD NATURAL JUSTICE.
news n certain photo courtesy of Malaysiakini. Another photo courtesy of Agendadaily
6 comments:
I would believe the first SD he made. For a simple layman, we would be scared to offend or disclose anything about a policeman whatmore if he is a DPM. I believe the first SD made was not under threat or pressure especially the power is still in DPM's hand. The second SD is more likely under threat especially Bala is a family man against a C4 guy.
I agree with you firefly. He must be under threat to retract the 1st SD. Now the 2nd SD with any reference to we-all-know-who is deleted??? Sounds very fishy indeed.
As easy as abc, even primary student knows what is going on. C4 keep on denying it. As PM said, the accuser will always deny it. Now all the shit expose. Ha! Ha! this is what malaysian are waiting for. Justice for altantuya.
As easy as abc, even primary student knows what is going on. C4 keep on denying it. As PM said, the accuser will always deny it. Now all the shit expose. Ha! Ha! this is what malaysian are waiting for. Justice for altantuya.
Didn't see the 2nd SD yet. Conceal information is wrong but if the material difference is only in the omitting of ref to najib - it is not wrong I think. Sometimes people just don't want to report it (or made public), especially if it is more of a hearsay.
In the 1st SD Bala said "...Razak told me...Najib..." Even quoting a person to person conversation might contain an error, what else if it involves second layers of quotation - second hand information. How much a person hate or love somebody, we got to be fair to him.
I remember Karpal Singh used to read some sentences with different emphasis, intonations and pauses to come up with different meanings of the sentence.
Seen the summary of the 2nd SD. Oh hell this is an "either/or" issue. Just investigate all elements from both SD. May be we really need a royal commission to clear any doubt.
Post a Comment