How Is A Person Innocent & Not Knowing?

How is a person innocent and not know he is innocent?
In the case of Razak telling Altanturya, “I got nothing to do with you, if you want to do anything, go ahead”, Altanturya is completely innocent but she does not know she is innocent and may even blame herself for being bad to pester Razak.
She is innocent because Razak is lying to say he has got nothing to do with her when they had an affair. His advice if you want to do anything, go ahead is never sincere but also a lie and he is guilty not Altanturya.
THUS IN REGARD TO RAZAK’S STATEMENT, “I GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING GO AHEAD” ALTANTURYA IS ENTIRELY INNOCENT AND IT IS LIKELY SHE FEELS GUILTY WHEN SHE WAS THUS TICKED OFF BY RAZAK.
THEREFORE SARIPUTTA IS NOT TALKING NONSENSE WHEN HE SAID THE PERSON WHO IS INNOCENT AND KNOWS HE IS INNOCENT (EG ME) IS HIGHER THAN A PERSON WHO IS INNOCENT AND DOES NOT KNOW.
Razak Is The Lowest Person:
By saying that he got nothing to do with Altanturya and if she wanted to do anything go ahead and obviously thinking he is righteous, Razak (and those who see nothing wrong with what he said) has unwittingly objectively demonstrated himself to belong to the lowest category according to Sariputta of those who are guilty and do not realize they are guilty.
Because heaven is a community of beings living in harmony it is vital that all beings behave righteously and benevolently to each other, otherwise it will not be heaven much long. Therefore it is not how much medicine or science or philosophy or poetry that you know how much you see and know of conduct that is beneficial for yourself and others that is important in determining whether you go to heaven.
People seldom just sin but they often try to push the blame of their conduct on others.
As I have said some years ago, this world may be compared to a room in darkness with many people and when the light came on there was a big pile of shit on the table and they all pretentiously looked away and started pointing their fingers at each other for being responsible for the shit.
It is important that one recognizes what shit on the table belongs to one and clear it off and then washed one’s hands off shit in the future. If you are undiscerning and start to accept shit that in truth belongs to others, you will become overburdened and confused.
You may think you are magnanimous but you are a fool to accept blame and feel guilt for others’ shit.
The significance of Altanturya’s police report:
On the eve of Altanturya’s murder she made a police report in which she expressed fears that Razak may kill her.
Not all police reports of threats to life have the same significance. The significance of each report depends on the unique circumstances surrounding each case. In Altanturya case, there are many unique circumstances that taken together with the report will point the finger even infallibly at the suspect more than in other cases.
Everything that happens, even if it is false, has implications or meaning that can be defined as such and such are the implications of her report and it is likely that ordinary people (including the judge and lawyers) will fail to grasp totally the significance of that police report and therefore fail to make the conclusions that can be made from the report.
Wanting to convict a person in a human law court is not necessarily the same as wanting to establish by logic what happened. Law courts are inflexible or regimented and logic does not necessarily prevail in its deliberations because they are crucially dependent on the logic and wisdom or the lack of in its judge and prosecutor. Often the evidence available is sufficient to convict a person but the judge or jury fail to join the dots together or make the correct inferences to come to the right conclusion.
Few murdered people make police reports before hand and most murders are premeditated by people known to the victims rather than strangers.
The fact that Altanturya was murdered the next day after the report indicates her fears has basis.
Because Altanturya only raised fear about Razak, if the murderer was not Razak or someone linked to him, he must be unsuspected by Altanturya otherwise she would have mentioned this person in her report. If you are in fear of your life enough to make a police report and you are aware of other potential significant threats other than Razak surely you would have articulated them in your report.
Because Altanturya is a foreigner who is not resident in this country, if you exclude the possibility the policemen killed her without instructions on their own volition, how many unknown or unsuspected enemies would she have in this country who would not only want to kill her but managed to conveniently get her killed through the agency of the Malaysian police who whisked her away to her death from the house of Razak so that Razak will be the prime suspect because Altanurya had singled him out in his police report?
How likely is it that there should be another unknown Malaysian unrelated to Razak whom Altanturya did not voice suspicion who also want her killed and conveniently got her killed not personally by himself but indirectly by policemen whom the police force has acknowledged took her away from Razak’s house that night?
If this person who is responsible for Altanturya’s death is not Razak, he must be unsuspected by Altanturya, must be able to get her killed through agency of the police. He must be very lucky to have a competitor in Razak who has motive and professed intention through his private investigators to kill her and conveniently got her disappeared in front of Razak’s house so that he is the prime suspect for her murder.
Whilst it may be argued that the policemen exceeded their authorities to kill her, it is preposterous that policemen will go to the trouble of killing and blowing her up to smithereens with exclusive C4 explosives instead of dumping her somewhere and by coincidence her immigration records were erased.
From This Day I No Longer Have A Daughter:
Quote: From today, I no longer have a daughter – those were the words of Teh Tatt Beng, father of Jess Teh who was remanded to help with investigations into the shocking death of her daughter, Shearwey Ooi Ying Ying.
Most if not all emotional people utter such strong words at the spur of the moment and then they forget and undertake words or actions that render what they said void, that they no longer have a daughter false not realizing that this too incur serious karma for them.
Emotions are evil and when their emotions are aroused to intense levels that they cannot control, they utter foolish words that incur karma for themselves. Unless it is true and irrevocable, you should not say that from this day I no longer have a daughter however disappointed and angry you are with her. Such words are said to hurt her and that is karma too because it is ill will. As it is her world has fallen apart and you do not need to pour oil into a fire and you are deluded if you think you are justified to say that because if afterwards you hug and make up it renders you a liar for saying you no longer have a daughter.
THOSE WORDS ‘FROM THIS DAY I NO LONGER HAVE A DAUGHTER’ ARE SAID ANGRILY DRIVEN OUT OF ILL WILL TO HURT HER AND ILL WILL IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN BUT PERDITION. IF AFTERWARDS YOU RENEGE ON YOUR WORDS TO MAKE UP WITH HER YOU HAVE RENDERED YOURSELF A LIAR NOT SUCH A KIND HEARTED PERSON WHO HAS FORGIVEN HER.
If Altanturya had disappeared elsewhere:
If Altanturya had disappeared elsewhere eg at a shopping mall or the policemen whom the police acknowledged took her cannot be traced to Razak then a credible case may be made Razak may not have done it.
But in the circumstances of this case where Altanturya has made a report about Razak and nobody else, for her to disappear in front of Razak’s house after being taken by policemen brought in by Razak whom he admitted he knew had killed many people makes the conclusion that Razak is seriously involved compelling if you linked the dots together.
IT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO CONFIDENT OF GETTING AWAY WITH IT THAT THEY DID NOT PLAN TO TAKE HER AWAY AT A MORE NEUTRAL VENUE BY POLICEMEN WHO COULD NOT BE SO EVIDENTLY LINKED TO RAZAK.
No remorse:
If Razak has concern for Altanturya whom he had a presumably passionate relationship in the past, he would have expressed remorse that his action in calling in the police led to her demise. Instead according to his secretary, he was anxious to lay the blame on Azilah the police officer for doing it without his permission.
In an ideal world the policemen will admit they killed her and who ordered them to kill her but in a real world where there is a court case going and a verdict must be reached, what is the wise verdict?
If Razak ordered the killing it would be hypocritical for him to express regret and so it would be more convenient for him to ignore his feelings about what happened to her and his role in at least bringing in the policemen instead of suing her for blackmail (she apparently wrote a note she passed to Razak through his secretary asking Razak, “Your money or your life?”). That she pestered and even threatened him is no reason to kill her because as an analyst you should analyze that with the evidence she foolishly supplied, you can take her to court and jail her.
If the intention of the police in arresting Altanturya at Razak’s house is to charge her, why did they not do so officially by going to her hotel to arrest her or arrested her when she came earlier with her friends but instead it appears a mysterious call made her go back late at night even against the advice of her friends?
If Razak would not seek official police assistance with this matter of Altanturya harassing him, what is the purpose of private policemen taking her away to police headquarters?
RAZAK IS ALREADY TO BE BLAMED FOR TAKING THE LAW INTO HIS OWN HANDS AND PULLING STRINGS (UNRIGHTEOUSLY ABUSING HIS CONNECTIONS) BY CALLING IN HIGH POWERED POLICEMEN TO ACT IN A SUSPICIOUS WAY NOT ARRESTING HER AT HER HOTEL OR EARLIER WHEN SHE CAME WITH OTHERS, TAKING HER AWAY LATE AT NIGHT WHEN THEY HAD NO POWERS TO DO SO BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ACTING OFFICIALLY.
Unless you believe rogue policemen killed her without permission in such suspicious circumstances (taking her away secretly alone at night from Razak’s house) something that is unlikely if not impossible because she was alleged to have been blown up with exclusive explosives and her immigration records deleted (the court should have ordered immigration officials to testify if it is true records were deleted and who did it if it is possible to find out), then if there was someone else other than Razak who ordered her murder, Razak must be extremely unlucky to have her, a Mongolian national who is not resident here and therefore is unlikely to know too many people who would want her killed, being taken away from his house by policemen he acknowledged he called in, in private capacity and he himself has serious motives to get rid of her and has declared intention to kill her through his private investigators (the fact that he hired private investigators that repeatedly hounded Altanturya in unseemly hours and made her fearful for her life enough to lodge a police report indicates Razak has serious ill intention towards Altanturya).
Razak has demonstrated objectively that he told lies in quite a few places (eg I got nothing to do with you, anything you want to do, go ahead, he told the police not to harm her when his private investigator said Razak wanted to kill her or arrange her suicide in such a convincing manner she lodged a police report against him). The behavior of his associates in wearing T shirts and displaying banners supporting him, his wife punching Altanturya’s father are all unrighteous and intended to exert unfair advantage on proceedings.
THUS TAKING IN CONSIDERATION THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT SEEING EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, ONE MUST CONCLUDE THAT RAZAK IS GUILTY, IF NOT ENTIRELY THEN TO A VERY SERIOUS EXTENT AND THOUGH HE MAY ESCAPE THE FULL PENALTY OF HUMAN JUSTICE (HE HAS ALREADY GOT MUD THROWN ALL OVER HIS FACE & FACE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO GOATS), THE DIVINE PENALTY IS EVEN FAR MORE PAINFUL. EVEN THE MAN WHO CALLS HIS BROTHER YOU FOOL IS IN DANGER OF THE FIRE OF HELL, WHAT MORE THE FAR WORSE THINGS THAT HE HAS DONE IN THIS CASE.
15 Seconds for WMP to play:
It takes 15 seconds or more for window media player on Vista Home Premium to start playing a song from clicking it whilst it takes ALS 4 seconds to start.
Thus it is troublesome if you are editing and trying to sample tracks.
All this may be because of the jazz or glitch associated with WMP that slows it down.
Razak & the policemen broke the law:
Merely by unofficially arresting Altanturya, the policemen involved have broken the law and should be charged and dishonorably discharged from the police force and Razak for seeking unofficial assistance from the police force is guilty of abusing his privileges (association with the deputy PM) and acting unlawfully.
Thus whatever happens, Razak and the policemen are guilty of serious misdemeanor and the fact that the police and politicians see nothing wrong, think it is understandable and do not take actions to reprimand them reflects the state of tolerance of abuse and double standards.
RAZAK HAS SERIOUSLY BROKEN THE LAW BY PROCURING POLICEMEN AND THE POLICEMEN HAS BROUGHT SHAME TO THE POLICE FORCE BY RUNNING ERRANDS FOR OTHERS WHILST ACTING AS POLICE OFFICERS.
You are responsible for people under your care:
By taking her in, she is under their care and Razak & the policemen are responsible for whatever happens to her in their care. If Altanturya was not taken in under the instruction of Razak or the policemen then they have no responsibility for what happens to her.
If a person dies as a result of a legal action (eg operation by a surgeon) the person is responsible depending on his negligence even if he did not intend to harm the person but if a person should die as a result of an illegal action then the persons involved in the illegal action (Razak and the policemen) are even more responsible even if they had no intention to harm them.
If the policemen were acting illegally in arresting Altanturya on a private errand for Razak in suspicious circumstances (late at night in a secluded place whilst she is alone) and Razak illegally requested the police to assist him then they are seriously responsible for the consequences of their action, the violent death of Altanturya no matter how they may disclaim responsibility.
Who asked Razak to call in these policemen to go against the law to act privately but as if on official business?
Who asked the policemen to obey Razak who is not a commanding officer to go to Razak’s house to take her away?
Although ordinary people may see nothing wrong, such actions by both parties incur deadly karma especially when it results in the death of the victim.
No justification for the arrest:
There is no reason for police, let alone police illegally acting on a errand to arrest Altanturya at such an odd hour in such an odd location. If police on an official arrest mission could politely wait for Razak to finish his breakfast and be even served refreshment by him, they can wait to arrest Altanturya at a more appropriate hour.
The only reasons for police to detain someone are to take him in for interrogation or he is a danger to the public. It is farfetched to think that there is such urgency to take her in for interrogation (they can go to her residence to take her in) or that she is a danger to public safety.
Instead the reason why she was arrested in such a remote location in the dark is never an accident but the motive is nefarious. If your intention is for her to disappear without trace then it will be desirable that she be taken away alone without witness and on transit she is under the cover of darkness (therefore night time is a more suitable time to transport victims to their disappearance than day time. Usually at night there is less likely people will be around (eg joggers) where they want to dispose of her body.
THUS IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT BUT FITS IN WITH NEFARIOUS INTENT THAT ALTANTURYA SHOULD BE ARRANGED TO BE TAKEN AWAY FROM RAZAK’S HOUSE IN A SECLUDED AREA WITHOUT WITNESSES, TRANSPORTED UNDER THE COVER OF DARKNESS AND DISPOSED OFF AT NIGHT IN A REMOTE AREA WHERE MOST PEOPLE ARE LIKELY TO BE ASLEEP THAN JOGGING. IF THE POLICEMEN HAD LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR TAKING HER AWAY THEY COULD BLAMELESSLY VISITED HER AT HER PREMISE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT.
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT RAZAK ADMITTED HE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH ALTANTURYA AND ALTANTURYA BLACKMAILED HIM FOR MONEY AND PESTERED HIM AND HE HAD INTIMIDATED ALTANTURYA THROUGH HIS PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR THAT HE WANTED TO KILL HER SO MUCH THAT SHE FELT IT FIT TO LODGE A POLICE REPORT, RAZAK ADMITTED UNRIGHTEOUSLY CALLING IN THE POLICEMEN WHO ENDED UP SOMEHOW GETTING HER KILLED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO LEAVE NO TRACES, SHE WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM RAZAK’S HOUSE AT SUCH AN UNSEEMLY HOUR WITHOUT HOSTILE WITNESSES, TRANSPORTED IN DARKNESS AND DISPOSED OFF IN DARKNESS, EXCLUSIVE C4 EXPLOSIVES HAVE BEEN ALLEGEDLY USED AND THE COURT SEEM NOT BOTHERED TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER IT IS TRUE ALTANTURYA’S IMMIGRATION RECORDS HAVE BEEN DELETED LET ALONE FIND OUT WHO DID IT, THE CASE IS COMPELLING THAT RAZAK IS SERIOUSLY INVOLVED AND IT IS NOT A ROGUE KILLING. IF THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE IN MALAYSIA UNRELATED TO RAZAK WHO WANTED TO KILL ALTANTURYA, A NON RESIDENT WITH FEW CONTACTS HERE, AND SHE IS TOTALLY UNAWARE AS NOT TO STATE IT IN HER POLICE REPORT AND HE COULD ARRANGE FOR HER MURDER THROUGH THE HANDS OF THE POLICE AND VIA RAZAK'S HOUSE SUCH AS TO STRONGLY IMPLICATE RAZAK, RAZAK MUST BE AN EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE MAN TO HAVE SUCH A RIVAL TO DISPOSE OF ALTANTURYA AT THE SAME TIME.
Najib: Exodus shows no confidence in leaders of PKR (Anwar’s party).
Comment: Whether you are justified to come to this conclusion based on the number of people leaving Anwar’s party or you are using the occasion to mock PKR and falsely mislead the gullible that PKR is tottering (seeking political gain) can be objectively known.
If you have no right to jump to this conclusion and you do so, you yourself must emotionally want to believe this is true and because it is presumptuous, not based on reality you are embracing falsity that you fail to realize is increasingly realistic to you, in other words you will descend into madness where what did not or cannot happen has happened or you think can happened when you are debilitated by old age or in an acute crisis.
You don’t need a sledge hammer to crack a nut:

If the purpose of calling the policemen is to patrol around the house as Razak contended or to arrest Altanturya for being a nuisance, you do not need to covertly, illegally trouble high standing bodyguards assigned to protect the deputy prime minister who are highly trained killers, experts of firearm use and athletic swift, covert tactics but you only openly & legitimately need ordinary policeman and you could arrest Altanturya at any convenient time at her place of residence but if your purpose is to take her away to be killed and disposed off without trace, as has happened, then you don’t want to delegate the task to amateur policemen who may botch it but you want the best there is, highly trained killers who are experts of firearm use and swift, covert athletic tactics, especially if they are available to you by privilege to carry out the task under the cover of darkness, you need to take her away not at her residence but in a secluded spot with the minimal risk of the presence of hostile witnesses with overwhelming force and efficiency that would ensure her resistance is in vain and she cannot escape and she would be killed and destroyed without remorse as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thus despite Razak’s protestations to the contrary, all the relevant details of what has happened indicates a premeditated plot to kill and dispose of her, not a random killing by rogue policemen. Altanturya paid her price for her folly as all foolish people will but her murderers from executioners to mastermind will weep and gnash their teeth even for another eternity for their parts.

Whilst people do occasionally use sledge hammers to crack nuts because they are mad, it is a much less likely scenario in this case and thus the use of specialist policemen is an indication of the intent.

Even a person proficient in the use of firearms may botch an assignment to shoot stray dogs because the dog does not sit still for you to shoot but it can sense danger and run away at the hint of danger thereby frustrating your mission or you might just wound it allowing it to escape and tell tales that an attempt was made on its life. Even though you are good at firearms you might bungle it by alarming people around or you might cause 'collateral' damage.
Whilst there may be policemen amongst the rank and file of the police force who could have successfully carried out the disposal of Altanturya if you were the mastermind you would not want to leave anything to chance, you would want people who are expert killers, who have killed before, who would know how to overpower their victims so that they will not raise alarms or alert people who happen to pass by, who would not become squeamish or emotionally disturbed by the sight of death or identify with their victims and carry out the considerable task of transporting the victim to the location of her execution and disposal by explosion with the minimum of publicity and as quickly as possible.

EVEN THE SIMPLEST THINGS ARE OFTEN EASIER SAID THAN DONE AND IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT A MURDER SUCCESSFULLY BEARING IN MIND THAT THERE MAY BE NO SECOND CHANCES AND THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE & DISCOVERY (THE DEATH SENTENCE) YOU WOULD WANT THE KILLING TO BE ENTRUSTED TO SOMEONE WHO IS AN EXPERT, EXPERIENCED & FIT KILLER SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCES OF FAILURE (ALTANTURYA STRUGGLING AND ALERTING OTHERS OR ESCAPING).

THUS ALL THE PIECES IN THE STORY OF ALTANTURYA'S MURDER FIT TOGETHER NICELY THAT IT WAS PREMEDITATED AND EXECUTED BY EXPERT POLICEMEN OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO THE MASTERMIND BY PRIVILEGE AND TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCES OF FAILURE. THAT THE EXPERT POLICEMEN SHOULD HAVE CARRIED OUT THE MURDER ON THEIR OWN IS AT ODDS WITH THE OTHER PIECES OF THE STORY.

IF RAZAK DID NOT MASTERMIND ALTANTURYA'S MURDER HE MUST BE EXTREMELY UNLUCKY TO BE THE FALL GUY FOR SOME OTHER MURDERER UNRELATED TO HIM OR FOR ROGUE POLICEMEN WHO JUST COINCIDENTALLY DECIDED TO KILL HER WHEN HE IS THE ONLY PRIME SUSPECT WHO HAS MOTIVE AND DECLARED INTENTION TO KILL HER (THROUGH HIS PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR) AND WHOM ALTANTURYA HAD FINGERED (AND NOBODY ELSE) AS THREATENING TO KILL HER. IF HE IS SO UNLUCKY HE DESERVES TO BE CONVICTED EVEN IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE INNOCENT. HOW UNLUCKY CAN YOU GET TO HAVE ALL THE SHIT PLACED AT YOUR DOORSTEP WHEN YOU ARE THE ONLY SUSPECT WITH MOTIVE AND INTENTION TO KILL AND YOU DID NOT DO IT?

The painful consequences of believing in lies:
If you (facetiously or indifferently or don’t care) believe what Razak said that he merely called the policemen in to patrol around his house and told them not harm Altanturya then you are gullible or naïve and you are vulnerable to be cheated to pay dearly even with your life in some future situations that are vital for you to distinguish clearly what is possible is possible and what is impossible is impossible and not as you like to believe that occasionally what is impossible (what Razak contends) is possible.
THEREFORE IF AS A RESULT OF INDIFFERENCE (YOU DON’T GIVE A DAMN) OR ANTAGONISM (YOU LIKE TO ARGUE WITH MY POSITION) YOU CONTEND THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE POLICEMEN UNDERTOOK A ROGUE KILLING, THEN YOU ARE EMOTIONALLY CONDITIONING YOURSELF TO FALSE LOGIC, TO ENTERTAIN FALSE LOGIC THAT WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY BIZARRE SO THAT YOU WILL FINALLY GO MAD WITH AGE OR YOU ARE AT RISK OF BEING CONNED BY OTHERS TO THEN EVEN PAYING WITH YOUR LIFE.
Why Two Policemen Were Up To No Good At Hotel:
Hotel video footage presented in court suggests that the same two policemen who are specialist bodyguards of the deputy prime minister were present and loitering at the hotel where Altanturya stayed on the day before she disappeared.
Their prior presence at the hotel indicates their subsequent encounter with Altanturya in front of Razak's house the next evening is not due to chance but they have done groundwork or targeting leading up to their taking her away from in front of Razak's house.
One must remember that just as these two policemen are expert bodyguards they are not expert investigators proficient at investigating wrongdoing who are the right persons to send to trail Altanturya in the name of gathering evidence to convict her. Further there have been no official complaints or accusations of wrongdoing against Altanturya and therefore the police had no reason to be shadowing her and even if there have been official complaints surely policemen who are specialist bodyguards of the deputy prime minister who are not trained to do investigative work and are likely if not certain to be busy in their official protective duties, are not the appropriate choices for investigating Altanturya.
BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFICIAL COMPLAINT OF WRONGDOING AGAINST ALTANTURYA, THE POLICE IN GENERAL HAS NO REASON TO VISIT ALTANTURYA AT THE HOTEL SHE WAS STAYING LET ALONE LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN WHO ENDED UP KILLING HER WHO ARE SPECIALIST BODYGUARDS AND NOT INVESTIGATORS OF WRONGDOING, WHO WERE FURTHER NOT ACTING LAWFULLY BUT ACTING UNLAWFULLY ON A PRIVATE ERRAND FOR RAZAK, TO VISIT HER AT THE HOTEL. THEREFORE THE MOTIVE FOR THEIR VISIT TO THE HOTEL THE DAY BEFORE ALTANTURYA'S DISAPPEARANCE MUST BE SINISTER, THEY MAY BE PREPARING GROUNDWORK LEADING UP TO THEIR TAKING HER AWAY (INDICATES THEIR TAKING AWAY AND SUBSEQUENT KILLING AND DESTRUCTION OF HER BODY IS PREMEDITATED) OR THEY WERE THERE TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF KILLING HER LIKE STAGING HER SUICIDE BY JUMPING OFF THE HOTEL. (RAZAK'S PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS MAY HAVE BALKED AT DOING THIS BECAUSE THE RISKS TO THEM IF CAUGHT MAY BE TOO GREAT)
THEREFORE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN WERE PRESENT AT THE HOTEL ALTANTURYA STAYED THE DAY BEFORE SHE DISAPPEARED SUGGESTS THEY WERE THERE WITH SINISTER MOTIVES, THERE IS PRIOR PREPARATIONS OR CONTACT BEFORE SHE DISAPPEARED IN THEIR HANDS THAT IS ILLEGITMATE BECAUSE THESE TWO POLICEMEN ARE NOT ACTING ON OFFICIAL CAPACITY BUT ON A PRIVATE ERRAND AND THEY ARE NOT TRAINED TO BE INVESTIGATIVE OFFICERS.

POLICEMEN WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO BE BODYGUARDS FOR THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER MUST BE VERY BUSY PEOPLE WHO MUST ACCCOMPANY THE DEPUTY PM ANYWHERE ON SHORT NOTICE AND THEREFORE EMINENTLY NOT SUITABLE FOR ASSIGNMENT TO PATROL AROUND RAZAK'S HOUSE AND NOT HARM HER AS RAZAK CONTENDED. FURTHER THEY HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE AND BUILD A CASE AGAINST ALTANTURYA WHO HAS NOT BEEN ACCUSED OFFICIALLY OF ANY WRONGDOING, SO WHAT BUSINESS HAVE THESE SAME TWO POLICEMEN TO LOITER AROUND THE HOTEL THE DAY BEFORE SHE DISAPPEARED EXCEPT THAT IT IS SINISTER?

ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOUR INTENTION IS TO DISPOSE OF ALTANTURYA WITHOUT TRACE THEN IT IS PERTINENT THAT YOU SHOULD SEEK POLICEMEN WHO ARE EXPERTS AT KILLING AND COVERT OPERATIONS, WHO CAN DO THE JOB FOR YOU IN THEIR FREE TIME AND IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE WHY THEY MIGHT WANT TO VISIT ALTANTURYA AT HER HOTEL BEFOREHAND TO SCOUT OR EXPLORE OTHER POSSIBILITIES OF FULFILLING THEIR MISSION.
THE PRESENCE OF THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN IN THE HOTEL BEFORE ALTANTURYA DISAPPEARED FURTHER UNDERMINES RAZAK’S CREDIBILITY THAT HIS INSTRUCTION WAS ONLY TO PATROL AROUND HIS HOUSE AND NOT HARM HER BECAUSE IT IS FAR FETCHED THAT PATROLLING AROUND HIS HOUSE COULD EXTEND TO ALTANTURYA’S HOTEL AND THAT ROGUE POLICEMEN WHO KILLED WITHOUT INSTRUCTION IN THE COURSE OF THEIR RANDOM CONTACT WITH HER THROUGH PATROLLING WOULD ALSO SCOUT AROUND HER HOTEL WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS. WHILST THEY MAY HAVE INCENTIVES TO KILL HER (EG THE SEXUAL GRATIFICATION OF RAPE) WHAT MOTIVES OR GAINS DO THEY REAP IN GOING TO HER HOTEL?
Altanturya’s Police Report:
The fact that Altanturya was able to make a police report regarding fear for her life at a local police station and it was allowed to stand indicates there is no police coordination, local police at the station were unaware of her significance and she is not officially under taps (because no official complaints have been filed against her) but the attention of the two policemen were private on the behalf of Razak and there was a cock up, it was far more vital to delete the police report than immigration records of her entry into the country.
You should make your lies credible otherwise it incriminates you:
The policemen implicated in Altanturya's murder did not voluntarily involved themselves but by Razak's admission they became involved upon his request to their seniors and therefore if Razak's tendered version of what he requested from the police is untenable or preposterous, it must mean that his actual request (which must exist and he and the policemen must know) is incriminating or cannot be revealed otherwise he would have saved himself a lot of trouble fabricating by plainly stating the truth of what he actually instructed the police to do and therefore that his explanation of what he requested the police to do is untenable must mean he is seriously involved in Altanturya's death more than he concedes (that he merely asked the policemen to patrol around his house and not to harm her).

If in truth he did not ask the policemen to kill her why did he not say exactly what he instructed the policemen?

That his actual instructions to the policemen were to patrol around his house and not harm her cannot be true because unless he is out of his mind, the appropriate response of the policemen's superior would surely have been to get on his phone and contact the local police to arrange more patrols around his house rather than second highly trained policemen who have important duties to perform and can be summoned away to follow the deputy prime minister and therefore totally unsuitable to regularly keep an eye on Razak's house. It is physically unfeasible for such specialized policemen to organize regular patrols around Razak's house as he is supposed to have requested but it is entirely feasible for the local police force to increase the frequency of their patrols to Razak's house.
As the two policemen's senior police officer or the two policemen themselves, you must be out of your mind if your response to Razak's request for police assistance in the form of more police patrol around his house and not to harm her is to second highly trained bodyguards to the deputy prime minister or to yourself as bodyguards of the deputy pm to patrol around Razak's house. Do you seriously believe that bodyguards of the deputy prime minister have nothing better to do than to personally mount patrols around Razak's house and not harm her?
If you think this is untenable then Razak's statement of his request to the policemen must be false and if it is false it must mean that his actual instructions to the policemen must implicate him because if in truth he was not involved his actual instructions cannot implicate him and so why won't he just tell the truth what he actually instructed the policemen?
THE NEW DISCLOSURE THAT THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN MAY HAVE BEEN TO THE HOTEL ALTANTURYA STAYED INDICATES THAT RAZAK’S CONTENTION THAT HE MERELY TOLD THEM TO PATROL AROUND HIS HOUSE AND NOT HARM HER IS FALSE AND IF IT IS FALSE, THEN HIS TRUE INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM THAT HE WILL NOT DIVULGE MUST BE DAMAGING AND HE IS SERIOUSLY INVOLVED IN ALTANTURYA’S DEATH.
What they did not do:
The two policemen did not go to the hotel to interview or gather data because there is no record they informed Altanturya of their arrival and interviewed her.
The two policemen were not keeping taps on her because they did not stay for long, they went up to the floor where she stayed and looked around and left suggesting they must be there to inspect for example for any opportunity for mischief.
IF THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN WHO ENDED UP KILLING HER DID NOT GO TO THE HOTEL TO INTERVIEW HER, DID NOT KEEP TAPS ON HER (DID NOT STAY LONG) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THEIR VISITING HER BEARING IN MIND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE HER AND THEY ARE ON A PRIVATE ERRAND FOR RAZAK?
Hotel’s CCTV shows figures of two men
THE still images from a closed-circuit television system at Hotel Malaya where Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu stayed before she went missing reveal the figures of two men.
The hotel’s operations manager Jimmy Loo Mow Chan confirmed that the shots were captured about 5pm on Oct 18, last year, one day before the murder victim went missing.
The two men – one stout-looking with a receding hairline and wearing a yellow T-shirt, the other lean with longer hair and wearing a white short-sleeved shirt – were featured at the main lobby area, the lobby lifts and the lifts area on the seventh floor.
The first still showed the man in white standing just outside the coffeehouse at the lobby while the man in yellow was heading towards the “information box” where the hotel kept its brochures.
In the few scenes, the two men were seen together at the information box area before they walked towards the lobby lifts and then entered a lift.
Another still showed them facing each other on the seventh floor just outside the lifts. They were then pictured back at the lobby looking as if they were leaving through the hotel’s main entrance.
All these were captured between 4.54pm and 5pm that day.
Loo and his front office assistant N. Haridharan, 22, later confirmed in their testimonies that Altantuya had checked into a room on the eighth floor when she arrived at the hotel at 2am on Oct 9 last year.
They also said that she had changed rooms twice but all the rooms were on the eighth floor.
Loo, 50, said that he had on Nov 10, last year handed over three videotapes containing the footages and 20 sheets of guest folios to the police.
The folios, he said, were for charges made to Altantuya during her stay at the hotel.
“The folios contain charges for the hotel guest such as charges for the room, telephone and laundry as well as coffeehouse bills.
“They will also reflect change of rooms,” Loo said, adding that Altantuya had initially been assigned to Room 817 when she first checked in on Oct 9.
He said Altantuya moved into Room 801 later the same day and Room 821 on Oct 14, last year.
Asked why he had testified last week that one of the photographs of the still footage was captured on the eighth floor instead of the seventh floor like what he said yesterday, Loo said that was what he thought when the police came to take the photographs in May.
No business to be at hotel:
There must be a purpose or intention for the two policemen who are specialist bodyguards of the deputy PM for visiting the hotel otherwise they are mad.
They have no legitimate business to be at the hotel because the Malaysian police did not assign them to keep track of or investigate Altanturya and therefore whatever purpose they had going there must be private as part of the errand for Razak.
Whatever their private business is, it is not to establish contact with her because they never introduced themselves to her nor is it to keep taps on her because they left very shortly according to hotel records.
The fact that they went up to the seventh floor indicates they are interested in familiarizing themselves with the location where she stayed, they were after something that is related to Altanturya.
IN FACT THE TWO POLICEMEN COULD BE CHARGED BY THE POLICE FORCE FOR MOONLIGHTING AND BRINGING THE POLICE FORCE TO DISREPUTE FOR UNDERTAKING TASKS THAT APPEAR TO BE ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE FORCE BUT ARE NOT AND ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE REPUTATION OF THE POLICE FORCE.
She was never under official surveillance:
If Altanturya was under official police surveillance the policemen trailing her would have seen her enter the local police station and contacted the local police station as to what she was doing and who she was but it indicates she is not under surveillance that the local police station accepted her police report ignorant of its significance and who she was.
The people who is trailing her is not the police but private investigators hired by Razak and rogue police officers moonlighting for Razak and because despite their powers or clout they are isolated without eyes and ears everywhere, Altanturya was able to lodge her report unmolested and it was allowed to stand providing an important incriminating finger as to who she thinks want her dead if she should die.
If anybody should know who wants her dead and it then happened, surely she herself would have a very good idea.
IF THE TWO POLICEMEN WERE NOT AT THE HOTEL ON OFFICIAL ASSIGNMENT, WHICH THERE NEVER WAS, THEY ARE THERE ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE INITIATIVE AND SINCE THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO BE THERE IT MUST BE AS PART OF THE ERRAND FOR RAZAK AND THEY MUST THEREFORE BE UP TO NO GOOD.
Altanturya paid for her false logic with her life:
If Razak repeatedly will not see you on many occasions, did not see you when you turn up at his house earlier in the evening with your friends who were probably acting as guardians, it is impossible he genuinely wants to see you if you returned alone but it is a set up with sinister motives in mind and you should not accept the invitation to return alone at night.
Because Altanturya has obsessed (emotionally) regarding seeing Razak for reasons best known to her, her desire to see him distorted her perspective and she believed that it was a risk worth taking going back alone. Razak is not a shy man, why should he be so coy as to only want to see her alone? Any honorable man will see someone who turns out to see him, not let him go and request he return alone.
ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE ADVANCED FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT IS COMPELLING, IT IS THEIR FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT IS DICTATING TO THEM AND WILL PUSH THEM TO A FUTURE CLIFF THAT THEY MUST JUMP IF THEY DON’T TURN BACK AND RE-EQUIP THEMSELVES WITH TRUE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION.
If you asked Najib whether he said what he meant that ‘the exodus from PKR (Anwar’s party) showed no confidence in its leaders’ he is likely to say “definite” or “absolute” and yet he is not saying what he meant because there is always emotional baggage in what he said. If he were to truly say what he meant he must say that “I would like to express my delight and derision at the apparent disarray in the PKR, draw your attention to it so that you can write off the party bearing in mind there is going to be an election not too long down the line.” What he said is an apparently factual statement but it may seriously exaggerate the disarray in the PKR party and the reason he said it is not because it is factual but to extract political mileage and gloat.
You don’t send a factory Rottweiler guard dog to the airport to sniff for drugs nor would you send a drug sniffing dog to ward off intruders at your factory and therefore it is ludicrous and impractical to second highly specialized bodyguards who can be called at any moment’s notice to follow the deputy prime minister to (consistently) patrol around your house or do investigative work regarding Altanturya (if they are not investigating Altanturya why are they at the hotel where she stayed?)
Why you must always say what you mean and mean what you say:
If you do not say what you mean and mean what you say, you must be beset by confusion, doubt and uncertainty (one of three lower fetters to future states of woe that includes hell) apart from a certain mad perception and logic because people increasingly believe and see as logical what they say that they do not mean or do not say what they actually meant.
For instance when Najib said ‘the exodus from PKR (Anwar’s party) showed no confidence in its leaders’ he has many things in mind that he wants to convey not directly but implicitly or he hope listeners will jump t conclusions that he desires. Did he say he was experiencing glee or delight or he wants to mock PKR? If he did not say so but he has the intention in his mind and they are reflected in the emotional way he said it, he did not say what he meant but merely hinting or prompting the listener.
Whenever you speak you must only convey one message and that is what your words mean as they stand or literally not by allegory or aspersions or not calling a spade a spade or with emotional baggage like disdain or anger or delight at others troubles. Otherwise you are conditioning yourself to confusion and conflict that becomes more intense with practice and will end in madness you do not believe you are headed for.
IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE MESSAGES, SOME OF WHICH ARE EMOTIONAL IN WHAT YOU SAY AND YOU DO NOT DRAW THE LISTENER’S ATTENTION TO THEM, YOU DO NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY AND ARE HEADED FOR TORMENT. IN TRUTH ORDINARY PEOPLE NEVER MEAN WHAT THEY SAY NOR SAY WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THERE IS STYLE AND EMOTION ACCOMPANYING WHAT THEY SAY THAT IS ALWAYS MEANINGLESS. HOW CAN YOU MEAN THE STYLE (STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS) OR EMOTION THAT ACCOMPANIES WHAT YOU SAY THAT ARE MEANINGLESS MANIFESTATIONS OF FORCE? BECAUSE STYLE AND EMOTIONS ARE MEANINGLESS YOU CAN NEVER MEAN WHAT YOU SAY OR SAY WHAT YOU MEAN.
NEVER MEAN WHAT THEY SAY:
THE ANGER OR ‘EXQUISITE SOFT GENTLENESS’ THAT ACCOMPANIES WHAT YOU SAY IS ALL ABOUT HOW YOU USE FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS. BECAUSE STYLE, LIKE AND DISLIKE AND EMOTIONS THAT ALWAYS ACCOMPANY ORDINARY PEOPLE’S SPEECH ARE ALL MANIFESTATIONS OF FORCE ARE ALL ABOUT USING FORCE AND FORCE HAS NO MEANING OR ANYTHING EVERLASTING, THEY ARE JUST TRANSIENT (STRESSFUL & CONDITIONING) RECURRING DISTURBANCES OF YOUR AND YOUR LISTENER’S MENTAL FORCE, YOU CAN NEVER MEAN THE STYLE (ANGER OR GENTLENESS), LIKE OR DISLIKE OR EMOTION OF WHAT YOU SAY AND THEREFORE ORDINARY PEOPLE NEVER MEAN WHAT THE SAY (EMOTIONS OR STYLE IN WHAT THEY SAY IS MEANINGLESS) AND NEVER SAY WHAT THEY MEAN (THEY NEVER TELL YOU THEY MEAN TO BE STYLISH, MEAN TO TRULY OR FAKE LIKE OR DISLIKE YOU).
THE FACT THAT YOU STILL INSIST YOU CAN AND DO MEAN WHAT YOU SAY, AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME REFLECT THE INTENSITY OF YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION AND LOGIC (DELUSION) THAT WILL END IN TEARS AND GNASHING FOR YOU.
BEINGS ARE IN THIS WORLD OF SUFFERING (AND NOT HEAVEN) BECAUSE THEY NEVER MEAN WHAT THEY SAY NEVER SAY WHAT THEY MEAN.
Altanturya did not let her yes be yes only:
If Razak has expressed just once that he did not wish to see you then if you let your yes be yes only you accept what he said as truth even if he did not mean it and you let matters rest or forgive him for whatever you want to see him about to allow natural justice to take its course. Alternatively you must explore alternatives like suing him.
If you do not let your yes be yes, you are conditioning yourself to future madness by keeping on pestering him such that increasingly you cannot accept an answer for what it is, you refuse to accept reality and that is certain future madness.
If you offer food to another and he declines it even if secretly he desires it but is playing hard to get or thinks it is below his dignity to accept then you accept his decision right or wrong and don’t insist he change his mind and take it.