Anwar, the 62-year-old PKR de facto leader, is charged with sodomising Saiful at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
The former deputy prime minister has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power”
Of all the persons in Malaysia, why should Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan tsee NAJIB, GHANI PATAIL, rodone and ezam, who see Anwar as their deadliest enemy, a day or two prior to lodging the police report ? After all, under normal circumstances, an allegation of such nature is not that important to warrant their attention.
Conspirators can try to fabricate imaginary events and cover up the truth with lies and deceit but the truth will eventually come out like water dribbling out of a leaky container. Small details which do not fit get in the way like jagged edges which rip the story apart. Lies may need more lies to cover up the holes that appear under examination but more lies may punch more holes in the framework until the whole thing collapses and the deception is exposed.
In Saiful’s allegation of sodomy against Anwar Ibrahim, so many contradictions and gaping holes have appeared in his story that it has all but fallen apart. No reasonable person will believe that the alleged act actually happened in the face of such contradictions and illogical explanations bordering on the bizarre and the ludicrous.
A contradictory charge
In the first place the charge itself is a serious contradiction to the star witness’s public insistence that he was sodomized against his will.
So why was Anwar charged for consensual sodomy under Section 377B when it should have been Section 377C for non-consensual sodomy? This is not a matter of the Attorney-General’s prerogative to prefer a charge which carries a lighter sentence as claimed by the prosecution. Whether there was consent or not changes the whole nature of the act and the thrust of the prosecution. In 377C the prosecution must prove force was used, in 377B it need not. In forced sodomy the prosecution has a co-operative witness to testify against the accused, in consensual sodomy it must find other ways. In real life one does not the luxury of a co-operative witness AND not having to prove force which is clearly a distortion of the truth and prejudicial to the defense.
Naturally the prosecution would rather not take up the daunting task of proving how a frail 62 year old man with a bad back can forcibly sodomize a lad bigger and stronger than him. But now we have a case in which the charge does not tally with what the accuser claimed happened. In any healthy judiciary the case would be thrown out of court based on this crucial contradiction but we do not have a healthy judiciary.
If indeed the act was consensual why mobilize the whole apparatus of state to investigate and prosecute Anwar with countless manhours and millions spent when the act was allegedly between two consenting adults? Why such ferocious effort when has the government shown no interest in prosecuting anybody else for consensual sodomy despite a thriving gay community?
Saiful’s contradictory behaviour
Saiful claimed to have been sodomized a total of eight times against his will over a period of months so why didn’t he report to the police the first time it happened? We know that he is not gay as he has a fiancé and being sodomized must be downright humiliating and disgusting so it is incredulous to think that he did nothing but tolerated the act.
Bearing in mind that Anwar is physically no match for him and as an opposition leader has no power to put him in any fear, Saiful’s claim of being sodomized multiple times is a serious contradiction to his public stance that the act was non-consensual.
After the last alleged incident in the condominium, Saiful waited for two days before making a police report. He went to work as usual the next day and in the evening attended a function in Anwar’s house where he served drinks to the guests. The next day he sent a cheerful quit e-mail to Anwar. By no stretch of the imagination is this the behaviour of a person who has been forcibly sodomized against his will.
Saiful’s public insistence of non-consensual sodomy goes beyond the material contradiction in the charge preferred against Anwar. He had sworn this on the Koran in a mosque during the Permatang Pauh by-election campaign under the glare of the press and TV cameras and allowed BN to make political capital of this against Anwar. If we believe his claim in court that he had no political motive we have to admit that he must be the most publicity hungry rape victim in the world bar none, male or female.
Although Saiful’s response to the supposedly non-consensual acts is bewildering and abnormal, details of the persons he met prior to making his police report would blow any doubts of a political conspiracy away.
Saiful’s meetings
Saiful has admitted in court that he met Najib Razak who was the deputy prime minister at that time two days before the last alleged act to discuss his problem. For an ordinary citizen to be able to gain access to the second most powerful person in the country is highly suspicious but what he told the court of the DPM’s response is even more unbelievable. According to Saiful, Najib said his problem with Anwar is a personal matter and he could not do anything.
We are asked to believe that Najib passed over the opportunity to capture and destroy his greatest political nemesis over a criminal act. Bearing in mind that Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that it is an offence for anyone to withhold information and not to make a police report if they know a crime has been committed this would mean that Najib knowingly abetted a crime.
Saiful also admitted that he met a high ranking police officer, SAC Rodwan in the Concord Hotel Shah Alam a day before the last alleged sodomy act. Prior to this he had talked to Rodwan on the phone at least 8 times. Rodwan is well known for his dubious role in spiking a mattress with Anwar’s blood sample in sodomy I. Furthermore, Saiful has also talked to the IGP Musa Hassan at least once over the phone.
Why would a meeting with a police officer ostensibly to discuss his sodomy problem be held in a hotel room if not to keep it secret? Why the need for such secrecy if not to discuss something shifty? Why did the police fail to set a trap for Anwar to catch him red handed and with video recordings “Chua Soi Lek style” if indeed the sodomy claims were true? The reason why such a trap was never set up was because no sodomy ever took place.
Saiful also said that he met Ezam, political turncoat who betrayed Anwar’s trust and Mumtaz, an aide of Rosmah Mansor, Najib’s wife and both of them advised him against lodging a police report. We don’t know which is more incredulous – that he shared his humiliating problem with people whom he has no close personal relationship with or that they advised him not to make a police report.
Saiful’s court testimony
Saiful testified in court that he was propositioned indecently by Anwar in a condominium in Kuala Lumpur and he was shocked, horrified and disgusted by Anwar’s direct advance.
Let us pause a minute here. This is a man who claimed to have been sodomized no less than seven (7) times before all over Asia so why the shock, horror and disgust? The details do not match the alleged circumstances.
Even more telling is his description of what happened later. After his supposedly “shock, horror and disgust,” he took a shower, emerged with a towel and lay down on the bed after which Anwar pulled the curtains, switched off the lights and the alleged non-consensual act took place. Surely this is stretching the definition of non-consensual too far?
Saiful also claimed that he did not wash his anus and did not pass motion for 2 days to preserve the evidence. If he had wanted to nail Anwar why didn’t he go immediately to the police instead of engaging in such heroics for 2 days before making a report?
Saiful’s claim that Anwar was his idol is contrary to his college mates who said he was known to be very pro-BN and anti-Anwar. In an interview which was recorded on video, one college mate said that when he heard that Saiful has taken a job in Anwar’s office he assumed that Saiful’s intention was to do something bad to Anwar.
Prosecution or Persecution?
In sexual offences of this nature the primary fact to be established first is medical evidence of penetration. No prosecutors in any healthy, functioning democracy will bring such a case to court without supportive medical evidence.
Here we have this dubious case rammed to trial despite two independent medical reports certifying that there was no evidence of penetration which shows clearly that this is no ordinary case of a victim seeking justice.
The prosecution has also fought tooth and nail to transfer this case from the Sessions Court to the High Court despite the lower court being qualified to hear the case. If they have any real evidence they could have convicted Anwar in any court instead of behaving as if their whole case depends on who hears it.
Why did the prosecution refuse to give the witness list, witness statements and details of any evidence beneficial to the defense as required under the Criminal Procedure Code, even fighting all the way to the Federal Court? This appears to be a trial by ambush with the flexibility to change the details as required to suit the ongoing trial.
The only physical evidence possessed by the prosecutors appears to be Anwar’s DNA sample allegedly extracted from Saiful’s rectum. As doctors have found no evidence of penetration how can this be possible?
Let us reflect a moment on this. Without penetration there can be no incriminating DNA extracted from Saiful’s rectum. So either two independent medical reports were false or the so-called evidence was cooked. The first medical report was done by a highly experienced expatriate Burmese doctor who examined Saiful without knowing beforehand the political circumstances of the case. The second medical report was prepared by three specialists at a government hospital (HKL) who confirmed the first doctor’s finding.
Meanwhile the investigation and prosecution is under the control of a government known to be authoritarian and economical with the truth with an arrogant attitude of might makes right. Malaysians will remember the shameful spectacle of sodomy I and the conviction of Anwar in 1998 by a kangaroo court. Many of the actors in sodomy I such as Gani Patail (chief public prosecutor in sodomy I, now Attorney-General), Musa Hassan (chief of police investigation team and mattress carrier in sodomy I, now IGP) and SAC Rodwan (DNA evidence fabricator in sodomy I, now highest ranking police officer in Melaka) are also playing starring roles in sodomy II.
Against this background the reader should decide who is more trustworthy – the four doctors or the prosecutors?
Lies and liars
All that has transpired so far points to a sordid political conspiracy to put the opposition leader behind bars and destroy his political career at a point when the political hegemony of the ruling regime has been threatened like never before.
Saiful has come off as a simpleton liar who fails to make his lies logical, believable and consistent. His tale is full of contradictions and his behaviour does not match the circumstances which he paints to the world. Although we should not expect too much of a college dropout he appears to have been badly coached.
The prosecution has given the unmistakable impression of a crude political persecution rather than seeking justice in good faith. The court processes fall far short of international standards for a fair trial.
On the sidelines Malaysians and the international community are left bewildered at the arrogant recklessness of the ruling party to try to pull off such a transparent stunt under the watchful eyes of the international press in the era of rapid information dissemination via the Internet.
The BN government is either dense enough to believe that they can pull off a brilliant conspiracy to convince the world of Anwar’s guilt or are contend to join the ranks of international pariahs like Zimbabwe, Myanmar and North Korea.
At this point the conspiracy has all but broken apart. Any sensible regime with any sense of survival would abandon this vile conspiracy but the BN regimes seem hell bent on executing its own destruction.
What else can it be other than a clear cut CONSPIRAY. Everybody knows that except the judge hearing the case. Had the judge been clean and God fearing, he would have thrown the case out long ago. thus saving the taxpayers money
Subpoena all those bastards and grill them .Expose to the whole world of their rottenness.
The sodomy trial of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim took a graphic turn today when a government doctor testified that evidence of semen in the complainant’s anal region was sufficient to indicate penetration.
Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim, one of the three doctors who had examined Anwar’s accuser, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, on June 28, 2008, said the swab samples taken from Saiful’s anus showed signs of semen, but that there was no tear or injury to the anus. The examination was done two days after the alleged sodomy.
“With all the reports before me now, I would say that there is evidence of penetration even without clinical injuries.
“With presence of semen, there is evidence of anal penetration,” said Dr Razali in response to the prosecution’s questions in court today.
Solicitor-General II Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden had earlier asked Dr Razali about his own report dated June 28, which stated that there were “no injuries, no tear... no conclusive findings of penetration to the rectum.”
The doctor explained that, at the time, he had no knowledge of the location of swab samples which were taken from Saiful.
“I checked and found around anal anatomy appears to be moist, but I can’t find evidence of injury or trauma.”
“I only found small haemorrhoids, which is not significant in this case,” he said.
The swab samples, according to another report, had evidence of semen.
The report was only made known to Dr Razali (right) today by the prosecution during questioning.
This led Dr Razali to change his conclusion based on the new report, which shed light on the areas from which the swab samples had been taken.
He read out the report which stated swab samples B5, B7, B8, and B9 as containing semen.
It is understood that swabs B5, B7, B8, and B9 were taken respectively from the perianal region, high rectal swab, and low rectal swab.
“I would conclude (now) there is evidence of penetration,” said Razali.
Razali told the court that he was the surgeon on-call on June 28, 2008, from 8am-8am (June 29) and had examined Saiful at an emergency room of Hospital Kuala Lumpur at 9pm that night.
“On 7pm, I was called... informed that there was a sodomy case. I went to emergency unit at 9pm,” he said.
Razali said once there, he met a few people — two specialists as well as several police officers.
The two specialists, Dr Khairul Nizam Hassan and Dr Siew Sheue Seng, were then brought in to be identified in court.
Razali claimed he only saw Saiful in the emergency room after a briefing with police and medical officers who informed him of the case.
“I examined the bottom part of victim, anal and rectal. Upon Saiful’s permission, I examined the internal part of anus using special tools,” said Dr Razali.
A protoscope (a tool used for rectal examinations) was then produced in court.
Judge Datuk Mohamed Zabidin Mohd Diah fixed tomorrow morning for Anwar’s team to cross-examine the doctor, after objections from Karpal.
What penetration? Let's get the facts right, says Sivarasa
And it looks like they may have guessed correctly.
On Thursday, lead prosecutor Mohd Yusof Zainal Abidin managed to get Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim, one of three HKL doctors who examined complainant Saiful Bukhari Azlan, to stun the Court by agreeing that there was anal penetration.
"With all these reports I have now, there is evidence of penetration even without clinical injuries found on the complainant," Mohd Razali said.
No, he did not reverse or overturn his own HKL medical report, which in fact, he stood by. Corroborated by two colleagues, the report had stated there were no conclusive clinical findings suggesting there was penetration of the anus nor were there any significant defensive wound on the complainant's body.
A second medical report from Hospital Pusrawi also came to the same conclusion. Why then did Dr Mohd Razali, who has handled more than 100 cases involving the anal area, tell the Court that he “would say there was penile penetration"?
Malaysia Chronicle spoke to Sivarasa who explained that it was because Mohd Razali was making an inference based on the Chemistry Department's report and not from his own direct evidence, which is the HKL medical report.
“Mohd Razali has no right to make such an inference as it is outside his scope. He is responsible only for his own medical examination and report, which he has confirmed. He stands by the HKL report which states very clearly there were no signs of penetration,” Sivarasa said.
“But based on the Chemistry Department’s report of having found semen on the swabs, Dr Mohd Razali put two and two together and now he claims there was penetration. Obviously, we will ask the Court to reject this inference and focus on the doctor’s direct evidence, which I repeat is the HKL medical report.
"The chemistry report is none of his business. It is the Chemistry Department which is responsible for the identification of the semen and DNA samples and not the Dr Mohd Razali. Any inference on this aspect should come from the Chemistry Department as it is their direct evidence, not Razali's.”
During Anwar's first sodomy trial in 1998, the Chemistry Department found semen on a mattress but the findings were so weak that during cross-examination, its testimony was discredited and had to be rejected by the Court.
Dr Mohd Razali will be cross-examined by the defense soon, while the Chemistry Department has yet to testify.
Nevertheless, the doctor's sensational testimony has stirred up a media storm with the mainstream media quick to insinuate that the medical evidence did indeed show penetration.
“Not true at all. As I said, Razali actually confirmed the HKL medical report that there was no evidence of penetration. He only deduced there was penetration when he was asked by the prosecutor to take into account the Chemistry Department’s report and he should not do that,” Sivarasa said.
Karpal had wanted more time for preparation in light of Dr Razali’s testimony today.
Another lawyer, Sankara Nair, agreed with this.
“This is an ambush, unprofessional prosecution. I want time. What the doctor has said just now is merely an assumption during examination-in-chief.
“He is just a general surgeon. He says he’s seen many [posteriors], [it] doesn’t make him an expert. We will ask him why he didn’t know (about the swab samples),” said Sankara.
The Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader claimed that there were “two or three semen samples” found on Saiful, but did not elaborate any further.
“The question is, whose semen is this? You’d be surprised to know whose semen is it from,” said Anwar.
Earlier on in court, Karpal claimed that Anwar was in unit 11-5-2 of the Desa Damansara Condominium during the time of the alleged sodomy, not in 11-5-1 as Saiful had claimed.
This did not sit well with Saiful, who insisted that Anwar was with him in unit 11-5-1 at the time.
“No, your honour, it’s not true,” said Saiful.
Karpal also stressed that this would be the defence team’s strategy.
“Our defence is alibi,” said Karpal.
Anwar, the 62-year-old PKR de facto leader, is charged with sodomising Saiful at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
The former deputy prime minister has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power”
No comments:
Post a Comment