Screenshots

UPDATED VERSION. Someone, from somewhere, must have been feeding the local Media, and locally-based journalists working for foreign media, with an overdose of red herring. Has the fishy smell still remained today?

The Mongolian Woman

First, she was named Anna Ana Ang. Google says theSun, The NST, The (new) Malay Mail, even Bernama, used it.

November 7, national news agency Bernama named her with an Arabic/Islamic flavour, Al Tantuya@Aminah.

Umno-owned Harian Metro and (new) Malay Mail wouldn't let go of the sensationalism and followed suit. And naive and gullible bloggers -- like this one and this one -- fell for the bait.

Her identity is now coded as Altantuya Shaariibuu.

None of the Press which took the red herring has stepped forward to account for the erased codes: Anna Ana Ang and Al Tantuya @ Aminah. If unproven by the Press that reported them, they will go down in history as Malaysian Press hoax.

The 16-month-old baby

November 8, national news agency Bernama said the Mongolian woman, before she was murdered, had claimed that an accused in the murder case was "her husband and the father of her 16-month-old baby boy".

November 9, the International Herald Tribune (IHT) picked up a story from Associated Press datelined Kuala Lumpur, and a day earlier, The Star, Malaysia's best selling newspaper, ran a similar story in which the existence of the purported 16-month-old baby was prominently mentioned.

Did the Star and AP question the authenticity of the existence of the purported 16-month-old baby? Because what later developed was rather bizarre.

The Star, which subsequently sent staffer Eddie Chua on a probing trip to Mongolia, reported November 16 that the murdered Mongolian woman never did have a 16-month-old baby at the point she died.

She had two children aged 10 and three, though, The Star said, based on a story reported in a Mongolian publication, Truth, which quoted Altantuya's mother, Sh Altantsetseg.

Incidentally, Altantuya's father Shaariibuu Setev was quoted in The NST (Nov 17) as confirming that Altantuya has two sons, aged nine and three.

Earlier, The NST (Nov 15) ran a story that indicated that even the honorary consul of Mongolia in Malaysia, Syed Abdul Rahman Alhabshi, might not have quality information at his disposal. In the NST story, the honorary consul of Mongolia said Altantuya has a son, which factually contradicted what has been reported by the local publication in Mongolia, and what Altantuya's father had told The NST when he was in Malaysia to verify the remains of his murdered daughter.

Which version about this existence of Altantuya's 16-month-old baby is correct? None of the Press which had reported about the 16-month-old baby, The Star and AP included, had cared to step forward to account for what they had gone to town with -- it's a media hoax if it remained unproven.

C4 plastic explosives

November 8, The Star reported that C4 explosives were used to blow up the Mongolian woman's body "in an effort to destroy evidence", linked to three police personnel, two of whom have now been charged.

Wikipedia tells us that the C4, or Composition C-4, is a common variety of military plastic explosive.

Keyword: Military.

Question: How could exclusive explosives used by the military fall into the Police hands in the demolition of human life?

It's the Media that raised the question, and yet it's the same Media that have yet to step forward to explain it to erase doubts in the public.

Naming a suspect who was assisting police investigations

Why was Razak Baginda put on trial by media way before he was officially charged? Why did The Star and Utusan Malaysia choose to break this fundamental human right in according a person being 'innocent-until-proven guilty', a legal maxim that is applicable unto a layman and dignitaries alike?

This has become the contention of an editorial in theSun (Nov 13), and subsequently in The NST (Nov 17), that questioned the abuse of media ethics as had been irreversiblly displayed by the newspapers that chose to nail Razak Baginda before he was official charged.

Taken into consideration that responsible newspapers would have practised absolute caution before putting a trialby media in circuit, The Star and Utusan must have solid reasons why thery should nail Razak Baginda before he was officially charged.

Was there an authority from someone representing the legal and general interests of Razak Baginda, then merely a de facto suspect detained under remand to assist in police investigations related to Altantuya's murder, that his name could be expressly revealed and published for mass consumption in the mainstream media -- BEFORE he was officially charged?

That said, we should also ask the stern question whether other newspapers, which did not expressly name Razak Baginda before he was charged, but had resorted to cheeky reporting that perpetrated the "jigsaw effect" that culminates in defamation?

As early as November 11, Screenshots had brought up the issue of the "jigsaw effect" that culminates in defamation, a practice of news reporting where individuals are put on trial by media that tactically identify them by location or circumstance for a crime yet to be proven in court -- a practice which essentially is forbidden by ethical press worldwide.

The Star and Utusan -- and those papers that had resorted to perpetrate the "jigsaw effect of defamation" -- owe us a good explanation as to why Razak Baginda should be abused his basic human right in that he is made to look 'guilty until proven innocent'.

We are also mindful that the principle of 'innocent-until-proven-guilty' has been incorporated by the United Nations in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, under Article Eleven, Section One. The same maxim was later incorporated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as in Article 14, Section 2.

If the bad practice of 'guilty until proven innocent' is sustained as a standard procedure by the bad Press, imagine what nightmare would one day befall us Joe Public?

'The Prime Minister'

On the day Razak Baginda was formally charged November 16 for abetment of the Mongolian woman's murder, the accused's wife was reported to have exclaimed that her husband has been framed, and made an outburst in the court compound, that:

“He is a good man. He is not the Prime Minister of this country. He doesn’t want to be one.

"He is not interested in all that.”

What's the riddle in bringing up the context of 'Prime Minister? None of the Media that reported it has explained it.

Najib's Pantun

Meanwhile, a day after Razak Baginda was charged (November 17), the next-in-line Prime Minister recited a poem in the presence of his present boss -- the party chief and the national delegates with voting rights -- hinting at the end of an old era:

Setiap pemimpin ada zamannya,
mereka berjasa kepada rakyat,
Pelbagai dasar telah dicuba,
menjadikan negara kita hebat.

Bertahun-tahun negara dibina,
segala bakti kita kenang,
Tidak lupa pesanan lama,
pucuk pimpinan mesti dijulang.

Kini tiba zaman Pak Lah,
tiga tahun menabur jasa,
Negara ini semakin berubah,
memulia agama, membela bangsa.

Pak Lah kita beri sokongan,
ahli parti mestilah setia,
Segala barisan kita kukuhkan,
demi agama, bangsa dan negara.

The timing couldn't have been so consequential and concurrent in normal circumstances, and we know the PM needs a strong Deputy PM as his backbone.

Last week, the media reported that the police have summoned numerous journalists -- including those from Bernama, Utusan Malaysia, theSun, Sin Chew Daily, Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press -- over their 'inaccurate' reports on the gruesome murder of Altantuya. However, it is also noted that Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan had explained the calling up of the journalists was not scare tactic but done to avoid complications when the case is heard.

What are the politicians, the Press, and the accused's wife, trying to tell us in between these red herrings? And who fed the red herrings?

The plot thickens.