Message From A Time To Kill Truth Without Prejudice

---

It could be about Dato Najib's case or any other cases still dragging its feet in the court.

Najib's popularity is on the up. The public loved his critics and laughed at his troll on the policies of the current Malaysia Baru government.

However, the perception from the years of endless propaganda, slanders and fabricated lies by Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Daim, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, Tony Pua, Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, Rafizi etc. against Najib with relate to the 1MDB debacle is so embedded in the mind of the public.

Even among members of the public appreciative of his concern for the peoples' welfare refer him as Robin Hood. The tale of Robin Hood is of an outlaw who steals from the rich to give it to the poor. Mahathir's "pencuri, perompak, penyamun dan penyangak" labelling still stuck in their mind.

After giving the present government, law enforcement agencies, and judiciary the benefit of the doubt to do their job, it is time to speak. There are serious doubts on the legality of the cases Najib is being charged and it is seen as more political than true implementation on the rule of law.

Assuming there is truth in the claim US Department of Justice have all the evidences and received cooperation from all the foreign enforcement agencies. Why are Jho Loh and his conspirators not charged under criminal law but civil law?


This is where the John Grisham's 1996 movie, A time to Kill comes in. The plot summary can be found in IMDb here.

Matthew McConaughey played the defense lawyer, Jake Tyler Brigance for Carl Lee Hailey played by Samuel L Jackson.

Brigance delivered what was described as the most persuasive closing argument. Matthew McConaughey acted that scene in this You Tube link here, but the following scene acted out by  Youtuber, Erniel y Yoe Dueñas did not left out any punchy opening and ending lines as below.


The text of the speech below:
I had a great summation all worked out, full of some sharp lawyering. But I'm not going to read it. I'm hear to apologize. I am young and I am inexperienced.

But you cannot hold Carl Lee Hailey responsible for my shortcomings. You see, in all this legal maneuvering something has gotten lost, and that something is the truth.

Now, it is incumbent upon us lawyers not to just talk about the truth, but to actually seek it, to find it, to live it. My teacher taught me that. Let's take Dr. Bass, for example. Now, obviously I would have never knowingly put a convicted felon on the stand -- I hope you can believe that. But what is the truth? That he is a disgraced liar? And what if I told you that the woman he was accused of raping was 17, he was 23, that she later became his wife, bore his child and is still married to the man today. Does that make his testimony more or less true?

What is it in us that seeks the truth? Is it our minds or is it our hearts?

I set out to prove a black man could receive a fair trial in the south, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. That's not the truth, because the eyes of the law are human eyes -- yours and mine -- and until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be evenhanded. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices, so until that day we have a duty under God to seek the truth, not with our eyes and not with our minds where fear and hate turn commonality into prejudice, but with our hearts -- where we don't know better.

Now I wanna tell you a story. I'm gonna ask ya'all to close your eyes while I tell you this story. I want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to yourselves.

This is a story about a little girl walking home from the grocery store one sunny afternoon. I want you to picture this little girl.

Suddenly a truck races up. Two men jump out and grab her. They drag her into a nearby field and they tie her up, and they rip her clothes from her body. Now they climb on, first one then the other, raping her, shattering everything innocent and pure -- vicious thrusts -- in a fog of drunken breath and sweat. And when they're done, after they killed her tiny womb, murdered any chance for her to bear children, to have life beyond her own, they decide to use her for target practice. So they start throwing full beer cans at her. They throw 'em so hard that it tears the flesh all the way to her bones -- and they urinate on her.

Now comes the hanging. They have a rope; they tie a noose. Imagine the noose pulling tight around her neck and a sudden blinding jerk. She's pulled into the air and her feet and legs go kicking and they don't find the ground. The hanging branch isn't strong enough. It snaps and she falls back to the earth. So they pick her up, throw her in the back of the truck, and drive out to Foggy Creek Bridge and pitch her over the edge. And she drops some 30 feet down to the creek bottom below.

Can you see her? Her raped, beaten, broken body, soaked in their urine, soaked in their semen, soaked in her blood -- left to die.

Can you see her? I want you to picture that little girl.

Now imagine she's white.

The defense rests your honor.------------------

The case is highlighted for someone who face public prejudice because he had not came out to defend himself in the light of the lies, fabrication and slander made against him in public for decades.

His privacy will be respected but the the need to convey the message to seek truth without the prejudice and presumptions commonly done by Malaysians seldom do not bother to seek sufficient information but reliant on "someone or my friend said".

Malaysian have short memory and gullible to lies, fabrication and slander by the likes of Mahathir. The pentaksub (fanatics) immediately reject any doubts of the man and crack their brain to spin and divert from the truth.

A better example to prove how prejudice seldom shadowed the truth would be something current like the cases of Dato Najib.


Case #5 against Najib and Arul is a plain stupid one. Tan Sri Ambrin said it is not the final draft. Even though there could be heated arguments, the final report is Ambrin call. Defense will call for the case to be dismiss upon Ambrin's testimony in court.

It does not matter what Tan Sri Abu Kassim claim Ambrin privately said to him. It is sheer heresay and Abu Kassim have been caught many times before.


Case #4 against Najib and Tan Sri Irwan is absolute nonsense. Irwan is not a favourite person to this pro-UMNO blogger seeking good governance. The truth remains the truth.

Say you are managing your company's finances, and you have money meant for payment 6 months down the road. But you choose to use the money to pay for something current. Its not only no case, but a case that is wasting tax payers money.

Heard the lawyers at AGC are embarassed with the way cases are being managed under Tommy Thomas, Gopal Sri Ram, Sulaiman Abdullah, and Khairuddin Zainal.

More so, heard this one was a case charge first, IP later.


Lets just elaborate on the opening question on case set #2 relating to RM2.6 billion money into his bank account.

Dato Gopal Sri Ram, and it is believed he did so in direct consultation with the Mahathir, made a criminal case against Najib when the US is only making civil case against Jho Loh and his co-conspirators and not Najib.

Criminal case need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Civil cases could be decided on balance. Are the Malaysian prosecution and investigators that thorough to have investigated by themselves or reliance on overseas findings?

DOJ had not change their target from Jho Loh and the gang to Najib despite him losing his so-called political immunity under the Vienna Convention as Prime Minister.       

Ponder this: As far as the money trail of the 1MDB money in the Petrosaudi deal that allegedly ended up in Najib's account, can the prosecution get witnesses from the various foreign banks and foreign authorities to verify the money trail in the Malaysian court against Najib?

The social media dispute the cheques revealed Najib bank-in into his account did not totalled RM2.6 billion, why then prosecution only raise on 4 transactions and not bring out all the transactions that would total RM2.6 billion?

Why is the prosecution not be truthful to bring out the transactions in the open?

Wonder would the government be keen to charge Jho Loh if he returns to face charges? Daim said he knows where he is but only said no deal with him.

Probably government is not serious as it will take the global and local attention away from Najib. That is not what the political propagandists want.

There are many more, but it is for those that could remove the prejudice in their heart and open for the truth. If Najib is wrong, he is wrong. The guilty person should be sent to prison and not politicised.

---