UMNO is on trial again.After Sodomy 1 fabrication,UMNO lost their 2/3 majority and 5 states to Anwar.After sodomy 2@fitnah 2,they are going to lose the GE and Putrajaya.The rakyat are no more taking Dope like Khairi.Everyone knows
Gani Pattail got promoted to AG For his role in Anwar’s case for sodomy
Reincarnation Judge Augustine Paul UMNO FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, THEY ONLY KNOW HOW TO BULLY TO GET THEIR WAY AND NOW THINK IT IS THEIR BIRTHRIGHT.
Before opening your mouth, you should read Gopal Sri Ram's defence submission today . He has quite neatly asserted political implication in the whole episode KJ face the inconvenient truth that 52% of Malaysians are aware of. Yes Putrajaya is on trial, even a retard can see how bias the whole case has been. You and the BN ministers simply do not have any credibility to discuss this issue.The reason is simple that such a charlatan like KJ finds hard to hide. It is the government that is on trial because it is the government that is seen to be the hand initiating, directing and influencing this trial. KJ may want others not to see the connection, but the elephant in the room cannot be hidden.
If such politicizing of justice Supreme Court should be capable of ensuring these simple rules, which surely do not infringe on any constitutional provisions.UMNO will not needle a member of another party Anwar needlessly, as the unwritten code in politics If such politicizing of justice is to be discouraged, it may help what’s wrong with the Supreme Court? Just when we thought the Supreme Court was by and large giving progressive judgments in tune with the evolving understanding of personal liberties, and human rights, why have they gone and set the clock back more than a 100 years with a grossly retrograde judgment? In the Victorian era it may have been the business of the law raises issue of whether
Surendran says there was misdirection by the Court of Appeal.
To a question by Justice Abdull Hamid, he says the High Court judge did not evaluate Anwar's statement from the dock.
As such, Surendran says there is serious error in Court of Appeal's decision, in describing Anwar's statement as a mere denial.
"What the High court judge did not say it was mere denial. The Appellate court was wrong to say it was mere denial. This is not a syntax error."Lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said there had been "a miscarriage of justice", as the High Court and Court of Appeal had not given the evidence tendered the "strictest scrutiny".In building a case against Saiful's credibility, Sri Ram said his testimony was inconsistent with the evidence and the court had failed to evaluate the contradictions during trial stage.
"Anwar has explained why he was giving an unsworn statement from the dock. There is a web of lies depicted. Anwar says he could not get justice in the present case," he adds.
Justice Suriyadi asks if Anwar is stating that he has no faith in the courts.
Surendran replies that there was a series of decisions made by the judiciary which went against Anwar.
Surendran further says Anwar's statement from the dock only strengthen his claim of a conspiracy against him.
"The complainant was a drop-out and used (this) to achieve a devious end.
"This confirms that there was a pre-arranged plan. Statement from the dock is evidence only the weightage is less," he says.Hearing resumes with defence co-counsel N Surendran saying that the evidence of a pre-arranged plan refers to a conspiracy theory.
The lawyer says this was mentioned in the High Court and Court of Appeal but it was not evaluated.
Except for one paragraph referred in the Court of Appeal judgment, there is no mention of the conspiracy theory.
Surendran says that similarly in the High court judgment, there is only one paragraph cited.
"Saiful admitted that he went to meet Najib at his residence on June 24, 2008. He first met (then deputy prime minister's advisor) Khairil Annas.
"He also met (police senior assistant commissioner) Mohd Rodwan later that day.
"The meeting happened two days before the incident. Saiful contacted then IGP Musa Hassan."
He says that Saiful also had a series of meetings before lodging his report, including with now BN senator Ezam Mohd Nor and former national athlete Mumtaz Jaafar on June 27, 2008.
Surendran says Saiful met Rodwan in a hotel room on June 24, 2008 after the policeman called and then he met Najib.
"The meeting did not take place in the lobby. Is it probable or not there is a pre-arranged plan?" the lawyer submits.
The pre-arranged plan was also brought up by Anwar in his statement from the dock, says the lawyer.
"These are not innocent meetings but a pre-arranged plan," he adds.
Gani Pattail got promoted to AG For his role in Anwar’s case for sodomy
Mahathir purposely brought himTo stop and kill Anwar Ibrahim
They now trying to do the same scenario
Najib, Musa, Gani Pattail, , the trioTrying, again to do it all over
But round one went to Anwar’s favour
Najib, Musa, Gani Pattail, , the trioTrying, again to do it all over
But round one went to Anwar’s favour
The judges have become brave and daringSaying enough is enough to your raping
Of the court and the judiciary With your repeated cases of sodomy
Of the court and the judiciary With your repeated cases of sodomy
Reincarnation Judge Augustine Paul UMNO FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, THEY ONLY KNOW HOW TO BULLY TO GET THEIR WAY AND NOW THINK IT IS THEIR BIRTHRIGHT.
your time has come to face god almighty and all things you did on earth will be relevant my dear judge. hope god shows you mercy. and history will remember you and your family will carry that burden. just see how people speak of your death.may god bless you. Other judges, policemen, MACC men… you will also be judged by god when your time comes. you can escape the law on earth but God awaits you. Ahmad Said try not to speak bad about the judge in Australia cos he will get more credit from god than you
Allah S.W.T says in his mighty Al-Quran Chapter No. 27 : Verse No. 50 …”So they plotted a plot: and We plotted a plot, while they perceived not. “While Mahathir and Co plotted a plot to jail and maim Anwar, Allah S.W.T had a great plan for these evil men! Subahanallah! All Praise to God!
Trial judge Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah concluded that there was a prima facie case against the 63-year old Pakatan Rakyat (PR) de facto leader, facing a second sodomy case charge in 13 years.
He was sacked as deputy prime minister and finance minister after the first case came to light in 1998.
“Prosecution proven all facts to define charge. Prima facie case made out against accused. Accused therefore called to enter defence,” said Mohd Zabidin today.
Anwar’s lawyers, in their submissions throughout the prosecution’s case, have attacked the credibility of the star witness Saiful as well as the lab findings of the government chemists.
They had charged that Saiful had lied in open court, and charged that there were many loopholes in his testimony.
The judge, however, quashed all arguments relating to Saiful’s credibility, saying that the complainant’s testimony was indeed reliable.
“I found PW1 credible witness, his evidence reliable,” said Mohd Zabidin.
The judge also ruled that there was nothing “inconsistent” with clinical findings by Hospital Kuala Lumpur specialists in the case.
“All three doctors testified positively, conclude there was penile penetration,” said the trial judge.
Defence lawyer Sankara Nair argued against accepting the DNA samples in the trial as the samples were kept by investigating officer ASP Jude Pereira for 97 hours before being given to the chemist.
The prosecution team, led by Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, argued that the DNA samples taken from three items in a cell where Anwar spent the night on July 16, 2008 matched with the “Male Y” DNA profile.
Yusof had also said Anwar was the sole detainee in the lockup at the time when the items — a “Good Morning” towel, toothbrush and mineral water bottle — were retrieved.
Chemist Dr Nor Aidora Saedon and Supt Amidon Anan were called earlier in April to identify the items to be marked as exhibits.
Government scientist Dr Seah Lay Hong testified last March that she had found two unknown male DNA profiles from samples retrieved from around Saiful’s anus, one of which s
Umno Youth chief has poured scorn on Anwar Ibrahim's bid to make his sodomy appeal a litmus test for the government, stressing that it is the opposition leader and not Putrajaya that is on trial.Of course it is Anwar who is on trial. But whether he gets a fair trial is about the country, its judiciary, what UMNO has done to the judiciary, and hence about UMNO and its leaders. Yes, KJ, you are on trial too.
Justice Suriyadi asks if Anwar is stating that he has no faith in the courts.Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's claim of a political conspiracy in his sodomy charge and conviction
The prosecution's appeal against the acquittal was initially scheduled for hearing in April this year, but was brought forward to March.
Sri Ram said the defence team had asked for time to make submissions to the Court of Appeal, but it was turned down.
Earlier, Sri Ram, a retired federal judge, had outlined other mistakes made in the earlier stages of the trial.
He said the charge had been wrongly framed to begin with, as the complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan had said during trial that the sodomy was not consensual.
Sri Ram added whereas the charge against the opposition leader was under a different section of the Penal Code for consensual or voluntary sodomy. Saiful could have been impeached for this, as a charge should be framed based on what the complainant said.
Anwar also had an alibi, Sri Ram told the Federal Court, adding that the defence did not pursue it because police had intimidated the main alibi witness, who is the owner of the condominium, named only as "Hasanuddin".
However, the Court of Appeal had zoomed in on it, and had cited the lack of an alibi in its written judgement as one of the reasons it overturned the High Court's acquittal.
"(The function of the Court of Appeal) was to review findings of facts made by the trial court. (It is in) no part of appellant court's judgment to make findings of its own," Sri Ram said.
The prosecution during the appeal stage had submitted that Anwar had failed to call an alibi witness, but Sri Ram said this could not be used against his client because the prosecution's petition of appeal did not include it.
Sri Ram returned to the evidence on the lubricant allegedly used by Anwar on the complainant, which he said was mishandled by the case investigating officer and the trial judge earlier this morning.
Arguing on the point that Saiful was not a credible witness, Sri Ram said that there was no trace of jelly found on the carpet in the condominium where the alleged offence took place.
-
Anwar's lawyer N. Surendran, took over from lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram in continuing the defence's submission to the five-member bench.
Surendran said the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan had met with senior police officer Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) Datuk Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof on June 24, 2008, before the alleged sodomy on June 26
Anwar's lawyer N. Surendran, took over from lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram in continuing the defence's submission to the five-member bench.
Surendran said the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan had met with senior police officer Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) Datuk Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof on June 24, 2008, before the alleged sodomy on June 26.
He had also met with then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak on June 24, and had also made contact with then Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan on June 25, 2008, Surendran said.
Saiful had admitted to these meetings, Surendran told the Federal Court.
"These are not mere allegations of conspiracy plucked out of thin air. There are dates of meetings," he submitted.
Surendran said Anwar had given a statement from the dock during the trial "not once but five times".
"Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal took those statements (in its judgments) as though there was no explanation," he said.
The dates of the meetings and Saiful's admission were evidence of a "pre-arranged plan" which supported Anwar's statement from the dock, Surendran added.
Gopal says in the reversal of an acquittal or an affirmation of acquittal, the apex court should intervene if the finding was wrong.
He says the High Court and Court of Appeal state that Saiful is a credible witness but his testimony against others, differ.
"It had not undergone the strictest scrutiny. There has been a miscarriage of justice," he adds.
He says the High Court and Court of Appeal state that Saiful is a credible witness but his testimony against others, differ.
"It had not undergone the strictest scrutiny. There has been a miscarriage of justice," he adds.
He said such statements by the accused should have been weighed, but the Court of Appeal had disregarded them.
In court this afternoon, Surendran read out excerpts of Saiful's cross-examination during the trial conducted by the late Karpal Singh. The excerpts showed the evidence of a conspiracy, Surendran said.
But the High Court did not review Anwar's statement from the dock and the Court of Appeal later regarded it as "a mere denial" of the charge.
To a question by Justice Abdull Hamid, he says the High Court judge did not evaluate Anwar's statement from the dock.
As such, Surendran says there is serious error in Court of Appeal's decision, in describing Anwar's statement as a mere denial.
"What the High court judge did not say it was mere denial. The Appellate court was wrong to say it was mere denial. This is not a syntax error."Lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said there had been "a miscarriage of justice", as the High Court and Court of Appeal had not given the evidence tendered the "strictest scrutiny".In building a case against Saiful's credibility, Sri Ram said his testimony was inconsistent with the evidence and the court had failed to evaluate the contradictions during trial stage.
Sri Ram also said when the Court of Appeal heard the prosecution's petition against Anwar's acquittal by the High Court, it was rushed and hastily done, so that the manner in which the conviction was decided was "unsafe".
Looking at the Court of Appeal judgment, Surendran says there were adverse comments made which led to the wrong finding."Anwar has explained why he was giving an unsworn statement from the dock. There is a web of lies depicted. Anwar says he could not get justice in the present case," he adds.
Justice Suriyadi asks if Anwar is stating that he has no faith in the courts.
Surendran replies that there was a series of decisions made by the judiciary which went against Anwar.
Surendran further says Anwar's statement from the dock only strengthen his claim of a conspiracy against him.
"The complainant was a drop-out and used (this) to achieve a devious end.
"This confirms that there was a pre-arranged plan. Statement from the dock is evidence only the weightage is less," he says.Hearing resumes with defence co-counsel N Surendran saying that the evidence of a pre-arranged plan refers to a conspiracy theory.
The lawyer says this was mentioned in the High Court and Court of Appeal but it was not evaluated.
Except for one paragraph referred in the Court of Appeal judgment, there is no mention of the conspiracy theory.
Surendran says that similarly in the High court judgment, there is only one paragraph cited.
"Saiful admitted that he went to meet Najib at his residence on June 24, 2008. He first met (then deputy prime minister's advisor) Khairil Annas.
"He also met (police senior assistant commissioner) Mohd Rodwan later that day.
"The meeting happened two days before the incident. Saiful contacted then IGP Musa Hassan."
He says that Saiful also had a series of meetings before lodging his report, including with now BN senator Ezam Mohd Nor and former national athlete Mumtaz Jaafar on June 27, 2008.
Surendran says Saiful met Rodwan in a hotel room on June 24, 2008 after the policeman called and then he met Najib.
"The meeting did not take place in the lobby. Is it probable or not there is a pre-arranged plan?" the lawyer submits.
The pre-arranged plan was also brought up by Anwar in his statement from the dock, says the lawyer.
"These are not innocent meetings but a pre-arranged plan," he adds.
Moving into Anwar's alibi, Gopal says his client gave notice of the alibi but abandoned it at the trial, and had explained why he did so in his statement from the dock.
"When the prosecution appealed, their petition did not contain the alibi witness," he adds.
The defence lawyer says the prosecution's appeal over the acquittal was mainly on DNA.
He argues that the appellate court went beyond this notion of alibi where the DPP submitted the failure of Anwar to call an alibi witness.
"The notice of alibi was not pursued but it cannot be used against the appellant. The apex court should intervene when there is clear misdirection," he submits.
Gopal says the condominium owner, one Hasanuddin, was subjected to the police to 30 hours of interrogation.
Hasanuddin has two units adjacent to each other at the Desa Damansara condominium, and Anwar's alibi was that he was not in the other unit, where the alleged sodomy incident took place.
"When the prosecution appealed, their petition did not contain the alibi witness," he adds.
The defence lawyer says the prosecution's appeal over the acquittal was mainly on DNA.
He argues that the appellate court went beyond this notion of alibi where the DPP submitted the failure of Anwar to call an alibi witness.
"The notice of alibi was not pursued but it cannot be used against the appellant. The apex court should intervene when there is clear misdirection," he submits.
Gopal says the condominium owner, one Hasanuddin, was subjected to the police to 30 hours of interrogation.
Hasanuddin has two units adjacent to each other at the Desa Damansara condominium, and Anwar's alibi was that he was not in the other unit, where the alleged sodomy incident took place.
Gopal says the charge should have been framed based on what is claimed by the complainant.
The defence lawyer says the trial judge was wrong in ruling that the defence cannot have a copy of Saiful's cautioned statement.
"Saiful says that the sodomy was non-consensual. By charging under a different section, Saiful risked being impeached," he adds.
The defence lawyer says the trial judge was wrong in ruling that the defence cannot have a copy of Saiful's cautioned statement.
"Saiful says that the sodomy was non-consensual. By charging under a different section, Saiful risked being impeached," he adds.
Gopal says the point is that the evidence presented by the prosecution constitutes corroboration in law.
On the third point, the defence lawyer scrutinises Saiful's testimony of consensual and non-consensual sodomy.
"Saiful testified that the alleged sodomy was non-consensual but the appellant was charged under Section 377b and not Section 377c (of the Penal Code)," he says.
Section 377b reads: Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.
Whereas Section 377c reads: Whoever commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature on another person without consent or against the will of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt the person or any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.
: Gopal further scrutinises Saiful's testimony.
Saiful, he says, testified that the lubricant had dropped on the carpet during the alleged sodomy incident.
The defence lawyer says the carpet was seized by DSP Jude on June 30.
On the third point, the defence lawyer scrutinises Saiful's testimony of consensual and non-consensual sodomy.
"Saiful testified that the alleged sodomy was non-consensual but the appellant was charged under Section 377b and not Section 377c (of the Penal Code)," he says.
Section 377b reads: Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.Whereas Section 377c reads: Whoever commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature on another person without consent or against the will of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt the person or any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.
: Gopal further scrutinises Saiful's testimony.
Saiful, he says, testified that the lubricant had dropped on the carpet during the alleged sodomy incident.
The defence lawyer says the carpet was seized by DSP Jude on June 30.
"He went to the scene of the crime with a forensic team along with the complainant. There they found a strand of hair and seized a carpet.
"The chemist found no semen or K-Y jelly stains on the carpet.
"Hence, we submit what amount to corroboration should be in favour of the defence as the offence never took place," he says.
(Saiful testified that Anwar was rough during the sodomy act resulting in Saiful to accidentally press the jelly tube and it stained the carpet.)
"The chemist found no semen or K-Y jelly stains on the carpet.
"Hence, we submit what amount to corroboration should be in favour of the defence as the offence never took place," he says.
(Saiful testified that Anwar was rough during the sodomy act resulting in Saiful to accidentally press the jelly tube and it stained the carpet.)
What the judge said
In a speech lasting nearly two hours, the judge read from case notes and pointed out key events in the case.
“What was needed to be proved is a prima facie case, credible evidence to ingredient of offence, whether Saiful was a credible witness” said Mohamad Zabidin.
“It was not surprising defence had tried to paint a picture of Saiful as someone who has zero credibility. With greatest respect, I find this irrelevant. Saiful followed instructions of accused after incident, did not immediately lodge police report. He was given preferential treatment in the office, compared to senior colleagues. Saiful is a young man, not just any employee but personal assistant to the accused.”
“I find Saiful’s evidence remains intact. I find him to be a good, true witness, evidence is reliable, if accepted can be used. After finding Saiful credible, not affected by failure to run away or not report, the question is whether opportunity for the act to take place.”
“I find accused and complainant at crime scene, opportunity for crime to take place. (Tne) chemist’s evidence shows swabs taken from Saiful. These swabs confirmed presence of semen. All three doctors testified positively, conclude there was penile penetration. I find nothing inconsistent with doctors’ findings.”
“I find nothing inconsistent with doctors’ findings. The other crucial evidence is DNA evidence. The accused was the last occupant in cell before towel, mineral water bottle, toothbrush was taken for DNA sampling.”
What the defense said
To Anwar’s lawyers, it was clear the Judge only saw what he wanted to see and ignored all the rest. They pointed out that initially Anwar was initially charged for ‘raping’ Saiful in that there was physical compulsion involved.
Yet, it is impossible for the 64-year old and frail Anwar to physically force Saiful, who is a well-built 6-footer and the charge was quickly and controversially amended to consensual although Saiful has stuck to saying Anwar had compelled him. Saiful also never explained why, if it was not consensual, did he not run away from Anwar.
“The judge just skirted around the conflicts in the issue. He also talked about Saiful’s character and yet somehow forgot about Saiful’s romance with Farah Azalina, the deputy public prosecutor, during the trial and how they kept the romance secret from the court. Is a man who two-timed his fiancee with a newly-met DPP a man with good character?” one the defense team told Malaysia Chronicle.
“The judge talked about the Hospoital Kuala Lumpur doctors’ report and how the doctors agreed there was penetration. He does not mention the initial HKL report had denied any penetration at all. The judge also never took into account the doctor’s testimony from the Pusrawi Hospital, which again clearly states no penetration. He never mentioned at all why the prosecution refused to allow the Pusrawi doctor to testify.”
“As for the toothbrush, mineral water bottle and towel, did the judge remember that even he himself had rejected them as sampling items for DNA matching because they were illegally taken from Anwar and the samples were kept for days in the Investigating Officer’s drawer before being sent to the Chemistry De[partment. This would surely have caused degradation. How can such unreliable samples be allowed? Then the judge completely ignores the DNA analysis sheets which showed the presence of DNA belonging to more than two men in Saiful’s anus. Five unidentified male DNA was found. Yet, the judge completely ignores this factor. How can such a thing happen unless either Saiful was a sex maniac or DNA was planted on the swabs.”
Monday, October 27, 2014
Anwar remind Najib that he was put in jail for six years Najib and Mahathir have not solved the problems
Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader trying to unseat Najib, has been dragged through public ignominy like few men in modern times.A decade since a judge freed Anwar Ibrahim from prison over sodomy and corruption charges, the beleaguered 67-year-old Malaysian opposition figure is again facing the prospect of a lengthy jail term on similar allegations.
In a decision in March that took just 90 minutes, judges allowed a government appeal against his 2012 acquittal on charges of sodomy - a crime in Malaysia - and sentenced him to five years in prison.
Anwar and his lawyers return to court on Tuesday to appeal the ruling and, they say, hopefully reverse it once and for all.
"There's a lot of concern about whether the court will adjudicate fairly, justly, based on facts of the law," Anwar said during an interview at his party headquarters on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur. "Nobody, certainly not my family, not at my age, wants me to return to prison, but what do I do? I have to endure. [I must] continue this fight with courage."
Anwar was a senior figure in the ruling party and deputy prime minister before being sacked and jailed at the height of the 1998 Asian financial crisis, bringing thousands of supporters onto the streets. Anwar, who was denied bail and beaten in custody during the first trial, has long maintained the charges against him are politically motivated.
They think they can solve the problems of Malaysia by putting Anwar in prison. I must remind them that they put Anwar in jail for six years already, and they have not solved the problems.
Gopal says the first complaint was made in Pusrawi, and the prosecution did not call Dr Osman.
The point, he says, is the complaint to the Hospital Kuala Lumpur cannot be admissible, as it does not amount to corroboration.
"Only first complaint can be used for corroboration and not subsequent complaint," the former Federal Court judge says.
Pointing to the Court of Appeal judgment, Gopal says there is no independent finding that Saiful could be an accomplice.
"He is a participant in an offence, in the surrounding circumstances he must have his evidence corroborated," he argues.
Gopal says since the evidence of past incidences had been expunged, this evidence cannot be taken into consideration.He submits that a fair inference is that Saiful was spicing it up.
He says the evidence from Saiful is inherently improbable, inherently incredible, and there is no evaluation of the learned judge on critical points that casts serious doubts on the evidence given.
"If he was non-consensual then why did Saiful bring the lubricant, where else he had met Rodwan.
"Why did he bring the lubricant and washed his underwear. A man of such grit, he preferred not to wash his anus," he adds.
These questions, Gopal says are not found in the prosecution's case.
He says the trial judge's finding of credibility cannot stand.
Gopal says evidence of Saiful saying there was past evidence of sodomy has been expunged.
However Justice Abdull Hamid says Saiful did testify that the appellant had ejaculated in his anus like before.
Justice Md Raus says this was mentioned during cross-examination of Saiful.
Gopal says Saiful's conduct is inconsistent with a person being sodomised 24 hours earlier.
He says Saiful met a police officer (Mohd Rodwan) before the sodomy incident, and there was no reason for Saiful to wait for two days until he lodged a police report.
Gopal says the photograph is to show Saiful's demeanour. The witness, he adds, admitted it was him in the photograph.
The photograph was not tendered as evidence and only marked as ID (identification).
Justice Abdull Hamid asks if Gopal wants to show his (Saiful’s) demeanour.
"Yes, he has admitted he was there and did not want to reply to the question when asked by Karpal that he looked happy.
"Cameras don't tell lies. He was not glum,” he replies.
Gopal says the trial judge made an error of law in not admitting this photograph.
Justice Suriyadi says Karpal has let it be marked as ID.
However, Gopal says that was a concession made at that time and cited case law where such evidence is admitted.
"His demeanour was normal and inconsistent to the case of alleging he was violently sodomised before," he adds.
Hearing resumes with Gopal continuing to submit for the court to accept the photograph of Saiful serving tea at Anwar's house, a day after the alleged sodomy incident.
"Saiful agreed that he went to Anwar's house at 5pm on June 27 and when shown the picture the then lawyer noted Saiful seemed quite happy in the picture," he says.Gopal says Saiful identified himself in the photograph with members of the Anwar Ibrahim club.
"There was admission of his presence (and it should be accepted)," he adds.
Gopal questions Saiful's conduct of not going to the toilet for two days and he was seen in Anwar's house the next day after the alleged sodomy incident.
He submitted a photograph of Saiful taken at Anwar's house.
However, Chief Justice Ariffin notes the picture was not tendered as evidence. He asks Gopal to submit on the matter whether the picture could be accepted as evidence.
readmore
No comments:
Post a Comment