Let the spins begin Rejal Arbee, the former group editor of the Malay language daily, Berita Harian, said in his column, �One thing that must be accepted by people is that Anwar's release from the charges does not mean he was not involved in homosexual activities. What was said by the Federal Court when it overturned the case against Anwar and Sukma was that the dates when the act happened as stated in the charges cannot be proven. This is what people must understand.� Reme Ahmad of the Singapore Straits Times had this to say, �In the court's landmark 2-1 decision that overturned the sodomy conviction, the written verdict had the following words: 'We find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen�.� Malaysia Today has already pointed out that, even in the eleventh hour, there were attempts to get the judges to reverse their verdict. Since this was impossible seeing that news of Anwar Ibrahim�s pending release had been circulating two weeks before Judgment Day of 2 September 2004, the best the judges could do was to assist the government in some sort of damage control. They would still have to free Anwar but they would state that they believe Anwar is still guilty nevertheless. This would help the spin-doctors spin stories that Anwar is an immoral person, thereby thwarting any attempt for his return to active politics, in particular to Umno, which most in the ruling party are most worried about. But this seems to suit the opposition well. They too, especially the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS), is most worried that Anwar would indeed return to Umno. They would prefer he heads the opposition coalition instead. Now that Umno has closed its doors to Anwar, PAS is reassured and has no complaints about the judges� comments. After all, none in the opposition or PAS believe the allegations anyway. So it does not matter what the judges believe or say they believe. The fact that Anwar is free, on grounds that there is no evidence to keep him in jail, is sufficient enough. Let us look at what the judges have said and compare their statement to what transpired in the last six years during the course of Anwar�s trials and see whether we can reconcile that with what the judges and the spin-doctors have said. First off all, they said, �We find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen.� Now, if there certainly is evidence that the incident did happen, how come they cannot use this evidence to uphold the conviction? Why were they forced to release Anwar? And what is this �evidence� that they are talking about? This was never specified. Okay, let us look at the first �evidence� that they carted in and out of court during the course of the trial -- the mattress. The mattress that the police confiscated from the Tivoli Villa was paraded for all and sundry to see as if this was the most crucial piece of evidence they had against Anwar. The mattress was in fact confiscated BEFORE the case against Anwar developed. There was as yet no case against Anwar. Why the need therefore to confiscate the mattress? In the cross-examination, the police testified that the mattress was kept in a store. The store is not a security area and no one stood guard over it. The police admitted that anyone could have gone into the store to tamper with the mattress. The judge subsequently ruled that the mattress could not be used as evidence and all mention of it was expunged from the records. In one swoop, the mattress evaporated and no longer existed. Anyway, during the time the mattress was still considered the prosecution�s most crucial piece of evidence, they called a chemist to testify about the tests he had done on the mattress to determine whether any sexual acts had been committed on the mattress. Why a simple chemist? He is not even a DNA expert. In all other high profile cases, like the Monda Fendy trial, they called the Chief Pathologist of Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL), Dr Halim Mansar, to testify. Why was Dr Halim�s services not used in this most high profile of all Malaysian trials? According to a reliable source, Dr Halim was summoned to the police headquarters. Why was it necessary to summon him to the police headquarters and what was it the police instructed him to do? Was it to keep his mouth shut or to ask him to testify against Anwar? And did he refuse -- that is why he was never called to testify? Eventually, all tangible evidence was demolished one-by-one and finally they had to only depend on the testimony of the prosecution�s star witness, also the so-called victim of the sodomy act. In a sex-related case, where there is absolutely no tangible evidence, then the testimony of the witness becomes very crucial. However, as most sex acts are committed behind closed doors, then the witness� testimony needs to be corroborated. This means, his testimony alone is not enough. It must also be supported by other witnesses� testimony or some sort of �evidence� -- such as a medical examination, DNA test, etc. This, however, was not done. The alleged victim was never given a medical examination though the defence asked for one to be done. So there was absolutely no evidence or doctor�s testimony that he was indeed sodomised. Only his word that he was sodomised was the �evidence�. In this case, since the court had only his word to go on, then his word must be impeachable. But the trial judge himself declared that the star witness� word is suspect. �He cannot even answer simple questions,� the judge irritatingly retorted. �He says one thing today and another tomorrow.� Even the trial judge found the prosecution�s star witness as unreliable, or worse, lying. Then, while testifying during the cross-examination, the alleged victim and prosecution�s start witness declared that he HAD NOT been sodomised. And he declared this THREE times while on the witness stand. When asked why then did he allege he had been sodomised, he said the police had told him to say so. When asked whether he had complained to anyone or to the police he had been sodomised, he said �no�. When asked whether he had made a police report on the matter, he also said �no�. Who then had complained or informed the police about it? And, to this, he replied he does not know. This was the �crucial evidence� to convict Anwar, the sole testimony of the alleged victim and prosecution�s star witness. But his entire testimony and allegation was totally demolished by his own admission he was never sodomised. What else then do they have as evidence? The dates? Well, they shifted the date THREE times because they could not pinpoint the actual date when the alleged sodomy act had taken place. Finally, they had to settle on �ONE DAY IN 90 DAYS, BETWEEN 1 JANUARY AND 31 MARCH 1993�. Never in Malaysian judicial history has any charge been so vague. Anyway, then, instead of the prosecution having to prove that the crime did happen, the defence instead was made to prove it did not. In a criminal trial, the defence need not prove anything. All it needs to do is to raise a doubt, and the benefit of the doubt is always given to the defence, not to the prosecution. The prosecution instead needs to prove that the crime did happen, not the other way around. Nevertheless, the defence, though given the impossible task of proving that the crime did not happen, did so. They accounted for Anwar�s whereabouts those entire 90 days. Prior to the trial, the police raided Anwar�s office and confiscated all his diaries those years he was the Deputy Prime Minister. Subsequently, all the diaries were returned except that for the year 1993, the year the alleged crime was supposed to have been committed. When the defence asked for the diaries to be returned so that it could prove Anwar was never near the Tivoli Villa between 1 January and 31 March 1993, the prosecution said that all the diaries are in their possession except that for 1993. Somehow, the 1993 diary had been misplaced and cannot be found. The 1993 diary, which would demolish the prosecution�s entire case against Anwar, mysteriously vanished from the face of the earth. I could go on and on and this piece would run into 100 pages or more. But suffice I stop here. It is extremely difficult to reconcile the judges� view that they have evidence Anwar is indeed guilty of sodomy. If they did, Anwar would not today be in Germany undergoing medical treatment. Their statement is merely to help the spin-doctors embark on a damage control exercise to save the government�s face. ------------------------------------------------ ADIL-Net will remain a Free Forum until further notice. Disclaimer: The opinions and views posted are not necessarily that of the list owner's or ADIL's -------------------------------------------------- Send a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - to subscribe to the list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - to unsubscribe from the list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - to switch your subscription to normal [EMAIL PROTECTED] - to switch your subscription to digest ADIL Homepage: http://members.easyspace.com/reformasi/
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
- [ADIL-Net] Paintings Raja Petra Kamarudin
- [ADIL-Net] Paintings rosdan
