Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar denied today that the two-minute internet clip of the video allegedly showing Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim having sex was leaked from the police.
When asked how the snippet was leaked as the mysterious trio known as “Datuk T” have said the only copy is with the police, he replied: “That’s what he says.”
“Of course it did not come from us. That is illegal and immoral. How can I allow such a thing?” Ismail (picture) said.
“We don’t know where the video came from. Who uploaded it, we don’t know,” Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein added at a press conference here.
Tan Sri Ismail Omar lashed out today at calls for the police to arrest the mysterious trio known as “Datuk T”, stating that it is up to him to decide on arrests in connection with the alleged sex video of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.“Why should I arrest anyone based on what you say? Let us carry out the investigation and then I will decide on the right time and who to arrest,” the Inspector General of Police said to reporters today when asked why the men who claimed responsibility for the video have not been booked.
Demands for Datuk T — former Malacca Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, businessman Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Perkasa treasurer-general Datuk Shuib Lazim — to be arrested have grown louder, especially from Anwar’s PKR, since the 21-minute video emerged two weeks ago.
A 107-second snippet surfaced on the Internet on Sunday, just two days after police said the video was not doctored, but has since been taken down from YouTube for violating its policy on nudity and sexual content.
PKR immediately claimed that the clip proved the man in the video was not their de facto leader and repeated their demand that the trio be arrested for pornography.
Ismail also called for the public to trust the police to do their job and promised that the investigation into the video that was shown would cover all aspects.
“We cannot be expected to explain every step and detail of the investigations,” said the police chief.
Ismail had said last week that the police had begun its probe into the video based on Opposition Leader Anwar’s police report on March 22, the day after the video had surfaced.
He confirmed today that the investigation was for pornography under section 292 of the Penal Code and possibly the Film Censorship Act.
He said the police have no plans to take action against any individual as of now.
Anwar has denied he is the man in the video and accused Umno of a politically-motivated “scurrilous attack” on him.
The involvement of former Umno Youth chief Abdul Rahim has lent credence to the claim as Umno sought to distance itself from the video.
During a March 24 press conference, Abdul Rahim said the video was exposed to show “a man who wants to be prime minister is not qualified.”
A recent opinion poll found that 51 per cent of those surveyed did not believe Anwar was the man in the video, with 39 per cent saying Barisan Nasional had masterminded the video — more than twice as many as those who said the ruling coalition was not involved.
That's the message from the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision vacating a $15 million dollar jury award for John Thompson, a Louisiana man who spent 14 years on death row (in all, 18 years in prison) for back-to-back armed robbery and murder convictions. He was weeks away from being executed, until his investigator found blood evidence on the robbery victim's clothing that proved Thompson's innocence (he was Type O, but the blood evidence was Type B) that had been hidden from Thompson's lawyer by a team of prosecutors in the New Orleans Parrish District Attorney's Office, and ultimately led to his murder conviction. As one of these rogue prosecutors had stated to Thompson: "I'm going to fry you. You will die in the electric chair."
This grisly, almost unimaginable story of U.S. criminal justice gone amok, was closed by the Supreme Court this week in a decision by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy, that has to rank as one of the Court's most questionable opinions in the area. Thompson, in his civil rights lawsuit after his exoneration, claimed that New Orleans District Attorney Harry Connick, Sr. at the time was "deliberately indifferent" to the constitutional rights of defendants prosecuted by his office - one of the prosecutors actually "confessed" to another having allegedly suppressed the exculpatory blood evidence - and, in fact, knowingly allowed prosecutors in his office to engage in repeated acts of misconduct, especially hiding exculpatory evidence, without any adverse consequences to them. Critical to Thompson's argument, which the jury, as well as two lower federal courts, found persuasive, was proof that Connick willfully failed to train his prosecutors about how to handle exculpatory evidence. Connick's office, the civil jury learned, had one of the worst records in the country in mishandling such evidence. Connick astonishingly claimed in his own testimony that training would make his job more difficult.
Agreeing that an office policy of deficient training could establish a prosecutor's deliberate indifference, the Supreme Court majority reasoned that there was insufficient evidence of deficient training in Connick's office, and even if there was such evidence, it was irrelevant to the violation of Thompson's constitutional rights. The majority's bizarre reasoning goes like this: whereas police officers need extensive training, for example, when they chase fleeing felons and need to know when they can use deadly force, prosecutors, by contrast, are lawyers who have been extensively trained in law school on how to interpret and apply legal rules, and how to use evidence, and they have passed a bar examination demonstrating their fitness to practice law. Moreover, prosecutors receive abundant on-the-job training on the use of evidence. And anyway, according to the majority, the constitutional principle at stake in Thompson's case did not require special training; it was an aberrant act - the supposed act of "one rogue prosecutor," all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding - and training would have made no difference.
Unaccountably, the majority ignored, dismissed, or misstated the massive evidence that the jury heard and accepted that the absence of education and training in Connick's office contributed to a culture of deliberate indifference to the rights of defendants, which produced Thompson's horrific miscarriage of justice. This evidence was described in the powerful dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, which Justice Ginsburg took the unusual step of reading from the bench. Her dissent was so contemptuous of the majority's decision that it provoked a gratuitous concurring opinion from Justice Scalia in a likely effort to seek to legitimize the majority opinion from her savage rebuke.
As the jury learned, under Connick's watch, the misconduct by Thompson's several prosecutors was neither isolated nor aberrant. There was considerable evidence that both Connick and prosecutors in his office were ignorant of the constitutional rules regarding disclosure of exculpatory evidence; they were ignorant of the rules regarding disclosure of scientific evidence; there was no training, or continuing education, and no procedures to monitor compliance with evidentiary requirements; prosecutors did not review police files; and shockingly, Connick himself had been indicted by federal prosecutors for suppressing a lab report of the kind hidden from Thompson.
Moreover, the culture of misconduct in Connick's office was not unfamiliar to the Supreme Court. A few years earlier, in Kyles v. Whitley, the Court, in an influential 5-4 decision, vacated a capital murder conviction prosecuted by Connick's office based on egregious prosecutorial misconduct, especially hiding exculpatory evidence that, as in Thompson's case, provided a vivid example of how an innocent man had been railroaded to the death chamber by unscrupulous prosecutors. The salient difference betweenKylesand Thompson, of course, is that Justice Alito replaced Justice O'Connor.
District Attorney Connick is fortunately gone from office. His famous son might, on his behalf, croon in Sr.'s defense his version of "Please Don't Talk About Me When I'm Gone." For those who would seek to reform the continuing frailties of the criminal justice system, the truth is that what happened to John Thompson in Connick's office must be talked about. Prosecutors may indeed be smart, but some may sometimes cause unimaginable injustices
.
.
Malaysians were rudely awakened and shocked when they were fed with the titilating stories of Sodomy I. If that was not sedating enough, a sequel re-appeared called Sodomy II.
The tides of sex and sin did not stop there. It went on with one lady threatening that she would not hestitate to expose it all even if it meant severing ties with kin and family.
And now, the topping on the ice cream - for the time being, is the stellar Datuk T & Trio porn stuff. Even school kids are eager to watch it given the senstional peddling by certain political machineries.
Well, since sex, porn and sin are the favored ammunitions of political battles as expressly marketed by BN and or their compatriorts these days, why not have a no-holds-barred spill into the public foyer of all such incidents of similar sins these past two decades.
The new media for example has been repeatedly talking about some encrypted sagas of sex and sin. Some of these are The Port Dickson affair; An Underaged girl's rape; The Mongolian beauty episode; the ministerial extra-marital affairs; and many others.
So since this is the season for Sins of Sex in the Open, let us have all of it out for all to read and finally decide what future they want for themselves and their children's children.
Let us take an inventory count of which political party has produced the largest number of sex and sin incidents. And let the public know what happened to all these sinners till this day.
That will be very interesting and most edifying for all citizens who want to take a more responsible role in ensuring the future of the nation. At least they can then vote with a clear conscience come the GE or even in the Sarawak Elections.
Any new media operator willing to take on this responsibility of providing a no-holds-barred researched effort to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and tell all accounts of sex and sin these past two decades or so?
Repackaging their empty promises in lame excuses has been taken to a sublime art by a handful of city cops whose big talks have started sounding emptier than pre-poll assurances. The expressions these cops have while letting you know that a sensational detection is around the corner but for a few hindrances can even beat histrionics of seasoned actors.
"Give us just a couple of more days before our squad's major success stuns everyone. We have nearly got hold of the main suspect. Huge recovery is just a matter of time when the kingpin is in our net," a constable is in habit of syaing. Since the last couple of years, the constable's 'main guy' has remained elusive and so has his success.
A personnel from local unit of state Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) would convincingly let the world know about a sensational disclosure about country's security within a short period. His words would always be underlined with animated actions, voice modulations and associated facial expressions. The man would repeat his words in a style more convincing than the previous one every time he needed to offer an explanation. It has been going on for last couple of years but except for netting some youths with crude firearms made by local blacksmiths, he hasn't done much by way of making the nation secure. On the contrary, he got dragged into controversy after chasing businessmen who are into providing hawala cash transfer services.
Such cops are far better with their story-telling ability than with their investigations. They would narrate a series of incidents or a chilling story spinning it around the involvement of a notorious kingpin only to end it stating the mastermind could not be caught. "Every day we are laying traps near his residence, his girlfriend's residence, his mistress' residence, at the liquor den but he remains elusive. His cellphone is switched off. It seems he has left the city for some unknown destination," said the constable repeating the stale excuses leaving with almighty alone knowing the truth.
As if blaming luck is not sufficient, the cops blame their lack of success on seniors too. The tendency has gained epidemic proportions. Some cops try to leave an impression, specially when high on spirits, that they would have eliminated half a dozen terrorists or Naxals through single-handed encounters, if only seniors would not have pulled them back.
"I have the list of the names and addresses too but cannot do anything because seniors would not support us," said another ATS official who would often keep his service revolver on the table to embellish his image as a tough guy. "Recently we had set off for an operation with our squad for a secret destination. Our squad had nearly reached the place when a senior pulled us back," said this man. To spice up his story, the officer always promised to take the media along on such a mission assuring a 'never before' opportunity to cover a live drama. Needless to say, that opportunity has never come.
Tan Sri Ismail Omar lashed out today at calls for the police to arrest the mysterious trio known as “Datuk T”, stating that it is up to him to decide on arrests in connection with the alleged sex video of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
“Why should I arrest anyone based on what you say? Let us carry out the investigation and then I will decide on the right time and who to arrest,” the Inspector General of Police said to reporters today when asked why the men who claimed responsibility for the video have not been booked.
Demands for Datuk T — former Malacca Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, businessman Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Perkasa treasurer-general Datuk Shuib Lazim — to be arrested have grown louder, especially from Anwar’s PKR, since the 21-minute video emerged two weeks ago.
A 107-second snippet surfaced on the Internet on Sunday, just two days after police said the video was not doctored, but has since been taken down from YouTube for violating its policy on nudity and sexual content.
PKR immediately claimed that the clip proved the man in the video was not their de facto leader and repeated their demand that the trio be arrested for pornography.
Ismail also called for the public to trust the police to do their job and promised that the investigation into the video that was shown would cover all aspects.
“We cannot be expected to explain every step and detail of the investigations,” said the police chief.
Ismail had said last week that the police had begun its probe into the video based on Opposition Leader Anwar’s police report on March 22, the day after the video had surfaced.
He confirmed today that the investigation was for pornography under section 292 of the Penal Code and possibly the Film Censorship Act.
He said the police have no plans to take action against any individual as of now.
Anwar has denied he is the man in the video and accused Umno of a politically-motivated “scurrilous attack” on him.
The involvement of former Umno Youth chief Abdul Rahim has lent credence to the claim as Umno sought to distance itself from the video.
During a March 24 press conference, Abdul Rahim said the video was exposed to show “a man who wants to be prime minister is not qualified.”
A recent opinion poll found that 51 per cent of those surveyed did not believe Anwar was the man in the video, with 39 per cent saying Barisan Nasional had masterminded the video — more than twice as many as those who said the ruling coalition was not involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment