Nur Ronal Ardes Amir arrives at the Shah Alam Court Complex ahead of the trial. -NSTP/Saddam Yusoff

SHAH ALAM: The defence in the murder trial involving the late Cradle Fund chief executive officer Nazrin Hassan alleged in the High Court today that prosecution witness Nur Ronal Ardes Amir was lying to the court.

Lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah persistently cross-examined Ronal, 39, a retired corporal from the Petaling Jaya district police headquarters Mobile Patrol Vehicle unit, in the proceedings before judge Datuk Ab Karim Ab Rahman.

He combed through Ronal’s written and oral statements, questioning the accuracy of the witness’ memory of what transpired on June 14, 2018, the day Nazrin was murdered.

Tan Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah. - NSTP/Saddam Yusoff

He pressed the witness over inconsistencies between her police statement, her witness statement and her oral reply on Oct 4 and suggested that Ronal was making up stories of what had transpired surrounding the incident.

Shafee: You told the police that Samirah (Samirah Muzaffar - the first accused) found the key first and then took the foreign currencies. The witness statement states that Samirah took the foreign currencies first and then searched for the key. Which is correct?

Ronal: She found the key first.

Shafee: So the written statement is incorrect. Samirah first searched for the key, then the cash.

Ronal: I did not realise this (witness) statement was wrong.

Shafee: This witness statement was prepared by an experienced DPP and you were allowed to re-read the statement. You did not correct it then?

Ronal: This is my mistake.

Ronal disagreed with Shafee’s claim that she made-up stories to be a hero and stressed that her statements were not “made-up”.

Shafee reminded Ronal to only speak the truth as this case involved people’s lives.

“Puan (Ronal), you told the court that Samirah had taken some foreign currencies only after claims were made about the possibility that the money could have been stolen. Is that why you are telling this story now?

“Are you being influenced by the IO (investigating officer)? Are you making this claim to cover-up (the theft) by the police and fireman?” he asked.

Shafee also questioned Ronal over her statement involving Samirah’s maid.

Samirah Muzaffar (right) looks on as she arrives for the hearing. - NSTP/Saddam Yusoff

He asked: “When you made a statement saying that Samirah had said that she had no maid, could it be she (Samirah) said the maid was not present in the house at the time? Do you agree to that.

“No. Samirah mentioned she had no maid and that she had to do all the housework,” Ronal replied.

Rolan further said she did not suspect any criminal element (in the incident) when she was at the scene until she watched a TV3 news.

Under re-examination by deputy public prosecutor Datuk Salim Soib @ Hamid, Ronal said: “I disagree (with the defence’s remark) because I was present at the house where the incident occurred and there is no reason for me to make-up stories. I did not know the deceased or the accused.

“I only went to the house after receiving information of a fire incident from the motorcycle patrol unit (URB) personnel and was asked to be present to help the female victim in the house,” she said,

Nazrin's wife, Samirah, along with her two teenage sons, aged 17 and 14, and an Indonesian, Eka Wahyu Lestari, believed to be Samirah’s maid (who is still at large), are charged with murdering Nazrin.

They are alleged to have committed the offence at Mutiara Homes, Mutiara Damansara, Petaling Jaya, between 11.30pm on June 13, 2018, and 4am the following day.

Hearing continues on Nov 29.