1848: Clear tt Mr Karpal wanted to impeach Saiful. High Court judge should have taken steps to call for Saiful's statements.
Dr Osman -doubts were cast on him by Shafee that he was incompetent etc. but he has gone back to Myanmar, he had no motive. On Dr Osman's typed notes, he said he added that Saiful was assaulted by plastic immediately after examining him.
CoA did Dr Osman a great injustice & further the typed notes were not even marked as evidence.
It's 7 pm - marathon hearing to continue tmrw at 3 pm. Gopal Sri Ram to continue.
Wei magrib! Balik lah!!!!
6.40pm: Moving to Pusrawi Hospital’s Dr Osman, Gopal says since the doctor is not here to defend himself, he (Gopal) must defend him.
"The country invited him to be a doctor as he is a foreigner. He returned home after finishing service. He had no motive to side with the appellant (Anwar).
"His notes show that a plastic instrument had been inserted (into Saiful’s anus)," he says.
Jam 1843: Dah masuk chicken tandoori pulak. Berenti! Berenti! Dah dinner time untuk cina ...
1836: Gopal Sri Ram - distingushing Tandoori murder case. In that case, there were other witnesses & he absconded. On Tandoori murder case - further he alleged conspiracy but no evi was produced to support that claim.
Lastly Indian law has statutory provisions that allow for adverse inference to be drawn for failure to follow up on defence
6.20pm: Gopal cites that condominium owner Hasanuddin could not be called as he had been harassed.
He says Anwar had denied the sodomy incident occurred.
"Our defence witnesses cannot come forward as they were scuttled," he adds.
Initially, Anwar submitted a list of 13 alibi witness but none were called.
6.25pm: Gopal says the provision in India's 'Tandoor' case, as cited by Shafee, is different and should not be applied here.
-----------------------
Punya auta ... sapa pula kacau hasanuddin. DIa mahu jadi saksi tapi Anwar takut dia tak membantu. Hasanuddin marah anwar guna kondo dia untuk balun jambu.
Jam 1835 Macam konspirasi lagi... boleh pulak kenyataan dari dock
1830: On drawing adverse inference for failing to testify - law is settled in Spore because there is statutory provision. Stmt from the dock abolished in Spore but still exists in our CPC & recognised by our courts.
No adverse inference should have been drawn by the CoA agst Anwar - CoA went completely off the rails.
6.20pm: Gopal cites that condominium owner Hasanuddin could not be called as he had been harassed.
He says Anwar had denied the sodomy incident occurred.
"Our defence witnesses cannot come forward as they were scuttled," he adds.
Initially, Anwar submitted a list of 13 alibi witness but none were called.
Jam 1800:
1816: No adverse inference should be drawn agst Anwar for failing to call witnesses unlike drug case where there is a presumption. Without statutory presumption of burden of proof on the defence - the burden lies entirely on the prosecution.
Saiful s testimony "tanpa kerelaan saya" means without his consent. Court cant accept any other meaning suggested by Shafee
6.03pm: Sitting resumes, with Gopal reading out Saiful's evidence on the KY jelly.
Saiful, he says, offered the gel as an exhibit on June 28 but DSP Jude declined to take it. Jude only seized it in his office the next day.
"It is highly improbable that the item is refused if Saiful had handed it."
Most of Anwar's children and grandchildren are in the court complex, the grandchildren just outside the courtroom.
6.10pm: Gopal is now submitting on adverse inference that could be inferred on Anwar, if alibi witnesses are not called.
6.15pm: The defence counsel says the principle only applies to drug cases and not a case like this.
In this case, there is no presumption against Anwar either statutory or common law and hence such assertions are incorrect.
Gopal refers to Saiful's testimony of "tanpa kerelaan", which means without consent.
"It is not right to give a different connotation," he adds.
Jam 1809: Lak dah main konspirasi teori pulak? Mana fakta mana point of law, hujah dgn marah!!!???
1533 Saiful was fearful to lodge police report hence delay - but he went to see the DPM in his house? Met SAC Rodwan? Called IGP?
Saiful is adding salt & pepper to his story, spicying it up, cooking up a story.
Referring to notes of evidence of discrepancy of KY jelly allegedly used but declined to be seized by IO. Highly improbable such an important piece of evi was refused by IO. Its existence is suspect esp no traces in chemist rpt
5.29pm: Gopal says Saiful has the courage to meet the DPM not only in his office but also at the home of the deputy prime minister.
Shafee asks for a break to reply to what was submitted by Gopal.
The judge allows a 20-minute break for prayers.
Jam 1730: Anwar arah ni suruh nafi kasi suit Brioni. Takut T shirt kat luar mahkamah tak laku
Jam 1733:
Alleged Brioni suit given by Anwar from evidence given from the bar by Shafee - but the pants seized does not have a label! on notes of evidence - suit was described as Browney not Brioni. Evidence that Saiful was given expensive suit can no longer hold water. Evidence of special treatment came from Saiful but his credibility is suspect, not to be believed.
5.20pm: Gopal now turns to the evidence of special treatment and Brioni suit given to Saiful by Anwar.
"I think your lordships could not afford it. It is a 16,000 dollar suit," he jokes.
He says Saiful produced the pants in court but there is no label.
"Surely, if he sent it to a tailor there would be a label," he says, adding there is no evidence of the Brioni suit submitted.
5.26pm: Gopal says the underwear seized was a Levi's brand.
"If this is believable, then fairies also exist," he says when questioning Shafee's submission and asks if it was a "Brioni or a brownie" suit.
Shafee stood up to reply that the prosecution listened to the transcript again, and it was Brioni and it "sounded like Briyani".
"Yes," Gopal quips, "But the Brioni suit costs more than Briyani".
Gopal says even Saiful's underwear had a label but not the pants, which was alleged to be Brioni.
1648: More tales from Saiful as he testified that door was locked from inside - so how did tea & curry puff appear after sex act? In this case, prosecution is trying to introduce similar fact evidence - extremely prejudicial to accused.
Prosecution trying to show existing of previous relationship but in this case - wrong as all evidence came from Saiful. To include similar fact evi - balancing exercise must be done by trial judge & he excluded it due to prejudicial effect.
Jam 1445: Gopal kata ada motif untuk Saiful kenakan Anwar. Dia goda pendakwaraya?
1437: Gopal Sri Ram now going thru evidence of a defence witness that showed that Saiful hated Anwar. Witness said Saiful had campaigned for BN & once uploaded a pic of Anwar & called him munafik. Trial judge never considered evidence of this witness Najwan.
Materials were placed before HC but somehow appeals record have excluded them. Saiful had seduced a member of prosecution! This is no ordinary boy! He wanted to elicit info from prosecution. There is now evidence of motive.
Jam 1437 Gopal Sri Ram panggil pembantunya rubbish
1418 Gopal Sri Ram - evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the sodomy act never happened. Saiful's version requires a carpet but there is no carpet.
Carpet seized in the other unit does not have any stains/ KY jelly as reported by chemist. Point is no evidence that the carpet was moved other than Shafee's statement from the bar.
Point is not in dispute & refers to the seizure list. Referring now to Hamidon's evidence ie officer who went to seize items with Saiful & IO Jude. Hamidon went to both apts to seize items. other than a strand of hair, no other items were seized from 11-5-1.
But in 11-5-2 - carpet was seized. That demolishes Saiful's version!
Quoting judgment that "hurt pride is a ferocious beast." There is evidence of motive & his evidence is not to be believed.
4.24pm: Ram points out that the judge visited the site, but Justice Arifin states that the site visit was not recorded.
Gopal reiterates that there is no evidence on record that the carpet moved, when asked repeatedly by the judges.
"Shafee was just giving evidence from the bar," he says.
In his submissions, the lead prosecutor claimed that the carpet was moved to the other unit.
Jam 1607: Gopal Sri Ram - main plank of prosecution's case is Saiful. Depends on probability whether the act has been commited. Scene of crime is apt unit 11-5-1 ie in police report. Description of act is in Saiful's testimony.
Reading Saiful's evidence of sex act on carpet, with towel laid down, with KY jelly in the apt. During examination in chief, Saiful testified incident happened in 11-5-1. But testified further police went to 11-5-2 to seize carpet.
Shafee said the carpet miraculously moved. "I dont believe in flying carpets". And no evidence was led that carpet was moved. I m not saying to draw adverse inference but there is a gap in prosecution's case.
The act of sodomy never happened, it is a figment of Saiful's imagination as there is no carpet.
4.06pm: Lead defence counsel Gopal Sri Ram says the prosecution's case of past incidences is based on probability.
Now he refers to Saiful's police report, where he says the last incident happened at 3.30pm at the Desa Damansara condominium unit 11-1-5.
He says the description of the offence in Saiful's evidence is that he was forced to take position on a carpet.
"The act was performed on a carpet and that is the prosecution's case," he adds.
4.13pm: Gopal says a China silk carpet was seized from unit 11-5-2 by police forensic officer Supt Amidon Anan.
He says the police also seized a strand of hair at 11-5-1 but the carpet was seized at 11-5-2.
Noting that the prosecutor claimed that the carpet was moved, Gopal says, "But I do not believe in flying carpets."
"There is no evidence that the carpet was moved. The owner of the condominium Hasanuddin was not called," he adds.
Justice Abdull Hamid asks was Saiful shown the carpet, and Gopal replies he did identify the carpet.
4.21pm: Gopal says the act of sodomy did not take place as the incident was alleged to have happened on a carpet in unit 11-5-1 but the carpet was found in the other unit.
"Based on this, the act of sodomy never took place," he adds.
Jam 1533: Dari adik ke adik ke abang pula
1333 Gobind - burden of prove lies throughout the trial on prosecution. Not for defence to explain how DNA of Male Y ended up in Saiful's rectum. Prosecution tried to link Anwar with Male Y saying he's sole occupant of lockup. But DNA evi contaminated w unidentified 3rd party.
Drawing comparison with drug cases on possession of drugs & sole occupancy in lockup. Unexplained "allelle 18" contaminated items.
Prosecution has not excluded "allelle 18" - the unidentified 3rd party in Saiful's rectum.
In TBH inquest, coroner did exclusion exercise to exclude unexplained DNA on TBH's belt. MACC personnel gave samples to be tested.
3.25pm: Gobind says that there were attempts to connect 'Male Y' to Anwar.
The High Court held that since Anwar was the sole occupant of the cell, Male Y must be him, he says.
He adds that somebody else could have access to those items.
"It is a finding based on sole occupancy, but if there is a person with direct access to the cell, then how," he asks.
3.32pm: Gobind cites the Hanif Basree case, where Justice Abdull Hamid Embong was the trial judge from the High Court.
He says this case is similar as there was also evidence of the accused DNA and there was another person's DNA in it.
"Evidence exists that there was an 18 allele (another person)."
Hanif, an engineer, was acquitted of murdering Norita Samsuddin because of the presence of another person's semen or DNA.
Gobind urges the court to reject the evidence from the lock-up and question how did "Male Y" get to those exhibits.
"Prosecution has failed to prove that Male Y is the appellant."
Jam 1510: Shafee gave further evidence from the bar that lawyer who was present with Anwar must have been informed of grounds of arrest. In view of everything - what is to stop the police from planting evidence of Male Y.
Jjudges always have discretion to exclude improperly obtained evidence - tt is prejudicial, unfair even tho technically admissible
3.00pm: Sangeet says the police became desperate when Anwar did not allow his specimen to be taken and this led them to possibly use questionable means.
3.15pm: Also in the public gallery is former Bersih chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan.
Sangeet suggests that the person who possessed the “allele 18" could be the perpetrator.
She concludes that the trial judge was right in initially not admitting the three items retrieved from the cell i.e. the mineral water bottle, toothbrush and towel.
"Without these items there is no link to Anwar and this leads to the question who is 'Male Y'," she says.
Jam 1420: Mana dia point of law? Dok rewind juga
Jam 1420: Sangeet - there was CCTV in the lockup but it was not working at the time. High Court & CoA misdirected when found that Anwar had used lockup items. Judge wrong to reverse its ruling that the items were obtained by unfair means by later saying that arrest was lawful.
2.45pm: Sangeet says evidence revealed there is a CCTV camera in the cell but it was not working.
She says the court should reject the circumstantial evidence and accept the direct evidence.
Sangeet says there were several policemen manning the cell who were not called as witnesses and suggested those samples could come from the two (who were not called).
She adds the sample were obtained through unfair means.
Jam 1432: Sangeet - basic that DNA evidence must match the accused. If it does not match then it is a non starter. It is not the accused's DNA in Saiful's rectum - but Male Y.
It is for prosecution to prove the lockup items were used by Anwar. not proven & not put to Anwar. Shafee gave evidence from the bar that Anwar must have used toothbrush, Good Morning towel even though no water pipe in lockup.
Various inferences can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence - not just in favour of prosecution. Unsafe to rely on evidence. If 2 views/ inferences can be drawn from circumstantial evidence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Inference that it must have been Anwar's DNA in lockup items must be rejected as no evidence at all that he had used items.
Setakat ini, mereka masih dilihat GAGAL untuk meyakinkan barisan 5 orang Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk menolak keputusan yang telah ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan.
Apa yang mereka lakukan hanya mempertikaikan bukti serta hujah yang telah dibentangkan sebelum ini. Sebaliknya, mereka tidak membentangkan 'Point of Law' untuk menolak kes tersebut.
Malah, mereka juga turut mengulangi keterangan Politik yang dibuat oleh Si Ketua Penipu tu diluar kandang tertuduh sebelum ini dengan menyatakan bahawa kes ini hanya sebuah Konspirasi.
Walaubagaimana pun, pihak Pembelaan tetap juga GAGAL untuk membuktikan kenyataan tersebut berdasarkan bukti yang sah dan hanya bersandarkan kepada 'Hear Say' semata - mata.
Manakala dipihak Pendakwaan pula menyaksikan persoalan mengenai saksi alibi yang GAGAL ditampilkan oleh pihak tertuduh bagi membuktikan bahawa Si Ketua Penipu tu tidak meliwat Si Saiful.
Persoalan mengenai kenapa peguam Si Ketua Penipu tu tidak memanggil isterinya sendiri untuk menjadi saksi terus menjadi satu tanda tanya. Begitu juga dengan isu berkaitan DNA Si Ketua Penipu tu sendiri.
Soal yang dibangkitkan ialah kenapa Si Ketua Penipu tu enggan menyerahkan DNAnya secara sukarela apabila diminta oleh pihak Polis untuk dibuat ujian silang bagi membuktikan bahawa dia tidak bersalah?
Hari ini giliran pihak Pembelaan untuk membalas hujah - hujah yang telah dibangkitkan. Maka persoalannya, adakah mereka akan menjawab 'Point of Law' yang telah dibangkitkan?
Atau, adakah mereka akan tetap menggunakan hujah lapuk dan mendakwa ini semua hanya sekadar 'Konspirasi Peringkat Tertinggi' tanpa menampilkan bukti yang kukuh terhadap dakwaan tersebut?
Petikan dari Semut Hitam
No comments:
Post a Comment