The motives of love, lust, lucre and loathing

Aiyah sayang saje, if only I didn’t focus on writing Vice greater than 7 Deadly Sins yesterday, I would have pipped my hero Karpal Singh in asserting the centrality of ‘motive’ in murder, specifically in the murder of Altantuyaa Shariibuu.

It’s not that I’m a learned erudite lawyer like my Bai guru but wakakaka I have read a few books on crime, of course only for knowledge and entertainment.

In the most simple approach, and avoiding the pitfalls of legal definitions, I would say that if someone has been killed and there was motive, it’s murder. If there wasn’t any motive, then it’s probably manslaughter.

Only the most mindless moronic murderer wakakaka would deliberately kill someone without motive, but then I suppose his lawyers could plead insanity (and he would probably win too), wakakaka.

Karpal has been, probably still is angry with the bizarre statement of the Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin, who astonishingly said "Whatever the motive was, it is a matter of law that the motive, although relevant, has never been the essential to constitute murder."

And this was AFTER he admitted that Abdul Razak Baginda could have had a motive to murder Altantuya as she was blackmailing him.

But then the most learned judge stunned every legal person in Malaysia (well, almost everyone) by declaring the motive cannot be the basis to call for Razak Baginda's defence.

So, my Lord, what basis if not motive should be the case then? Would a videoclip of the murderer (plus 4 witnesses) plunging the knife (or detonator) into the victim's heart do?

The famous British crime author, P.D. James, who served for thirty years in various departments of the British Civil Service, including the Police and Criminal Law Department of Great Britain's Home Office, as well as a magistrate and as a governor of the BBC, wrote in her book The Murder Room that “All the motives for murder are covered by four Ls: Love, Lust, Lucre and Loathing.”

So did those four L’s, love lust, lucre (money) and eventually loathing exist in the relationship between Altantuyaa and Razak Baginda?

Well, everyone including the most learned judge knows that Altantuyaa was blackmailing her ex lover Razak Baginda with such aggression that he became terrified enough to ask for special protection, so most would say there was initially love and lust in their relationship, and then when the passion and ardor turned cool and relationship soured, the blackmailing for money (lucre) kicked in, with the final outcome of loathing, probably of a mutual nature.

But I suppose his Lordship knows best in asserting that motive cannot be the basis to suspect someone, so much so that Karpal Singh was moved to say:

The High Court has provided a precedent for the acquittal of a person with a motive to murder and charged with abetment without calling his defence.

It’s the first time in this country that an affidavit used for the purpose of bail and later tendered as an exhibit was used to acquit an accused person.

Mind, I’m no longer surprised by our amazing judiciary ever since the unbelievable (original) Adorna ruling where the Malaysian court (supposedly of law) helped crooks relieve rightful owners of their properties.

Tomorrow or during the weekend I will attempt to analyze the murder of Altantuyaa Shariibuu based on all the readings I have done (and not reckless emotions).

But in the meanwhile, we can say our judiciary, like our equally remarkable police, has done a Boleh-one again.