So even if it's illegal, it's admissible?

'This was said in a court of justice? Even if it is illegal - is this what courts are all about? That it is alright to steal as long as the end justifies the means.'

Final arguments before crucial decision in mini-trial

Kangaroo: The failure to call investigating officer DSP Jude Pereira is fatal. Prosecution has something to hide. It is incumbent on Pereira to explain why he detained Anwar Ibrahim overnight even though his statement was completed a day earlier. This unexplained event only shows there was bad faith on the part of the police.

Evidence obtained not in accordance with the laws should be rejected. Pereira also has no respect for a solicitor's undertaking. It clearly shows the police were bent on obtaining his DNA after they failed to obtain his blood samples after one of the doctors refused sign the form.

If evidence is allowed by this manner, it would setting a very dangerous trend.

What about the arrest warrant? How can the prosecution be so careless as mislay the warrant, only to find it suddenly the next day? The arrest was manifestly unlawful. Basically, there were two arrests.

It's becoming very clear now that Anwar was fixed:

1. What was the necessity of using armed men to arrest Anwar? Is Anwar a thug or a terrorist?

2. His solicitors had given an undertaking that they would produce Anwar for a statement. The police have no respect for the solicitors' undertaking. What was the hurry?

3. Why an attempt was made to obtain his blood samples in a degrading manner.

4. The statement was already recorded a day earlier by 5.30pm, so why was it necessary to detain him overnight? Obvious, isn't it? To obtain his DNA.

There can be no other reasons. It was also not explained as to why they did not believe Anwar's solicitors' undertaking. The whole case smells of trickery, injustice, bad faith, etc. The judge should now defend his reputation by telling all those concerned that the whole trial smacks of injustice.

Sabawak: "Even if it is illegal, it is admissible"? This was said in a court of justice? Even if it is illegal - is this what courts are all about? That it is alright to steal as long as the end justifies the means. The judge did not interrupt him to seek an explanation? What kind of judge is this?

Michael Angelo: "The prosecutor argues that there was no mala fide (bad faith) on the part of the police."
If there was no bad intention, why send in balaclava-clad 'SWAT' team to block Anwar in an open street just to arrest him? The police could have just followed him quietly to make sure he turned up at 2pm. This is actually first-class intimidation.

Anonymous_5fb: It looks like solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden was doing the submission for the trial and not the 'trial within a trial'. He submitted that the items were taken without tricks being employed... but he was silenced on the motive, which is just as bad.

Anonymous_3e97: "Anwar was not tricked into using the toothbrush, towel or bottle. He was not induced or threaten to do it. There was no oppression. Even if it is illegal, it is admissible."

As cunning as the Devil - the modern version of "the serpent tempting Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree...".

Do you need to force someone to use the toothbrush or towel or drink water? Anwar could have been detained for longer period if he refused to use these items on the first day of detention.

Anak Bangsa Malaysia: When in the first place, an action is done illegally, then the subsequent actions are deemed illegal as well. Otherwise the law itself is flawed. Is there a section where it states that evidence taken illegally is acceptable in the eyes of the law? If there is none, then the trial judge should throw the evidence obtained illegally.

Rahmat Ibrahim: Why was there a need to introduce a law on taking samples from accused persons if what has been done in this case is legal? There must be a reason for the law to have been passed before samples can be taken illegally. Since the law has not been passed, this sample is illegally taken.

Josephine: I think even if the evidence from the water bottle, toothbrush and towel are declared illegally obtained, it would still not help Anwar's cause. The rural folks will be told (assuming the case was thrown out) that Anwar used his money to hire clever lawyers to exclude the evidence which 'so clearly' show he is guilty. It is lose-lose for Anwar, I'm afraid.

Pakman: Yusof should not just look at the evidence throughout the whole proceeding. but the whole event which linked to Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan's meeting with PM Najib Razak at his residence, meeting ASP Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof at one of the hotel in Kuala Lumpur and the report by the doctor from Puswari Hospital.

The motive to detain Anwar and treat him like a terrorist are clear intention of conspiracy of the highest order to frame him. The court is just a sandiwara to deceive the ignorant rakyat into believing that the court uphold justice in its true sense.

Retrieving evidence from the prison illegally is prearranged and unethical. The numerous cases cited by Yusof to support his submission are not relevant to this case as this is political persecution, not criminal case.

No 'trick or threat' in obtaining Anwar's samples

Pakman: How could this charges be classified under seizable offence, when DSAI (Anwar) was charged under Section 377B (consensual unnatural sex - i.e. sodomy - of the Penal Code)?

Unethical and immoral means to gathered DNA evidence itself proof that conspiracy involving top leaders in the current regime cannot be denied. So trickery or otherwise, the evil motive cannot be hidden from the world at large, and more so from the rakyat.

Atan-Toyol: Who witnessed the extraction of sperm from the 'victim's' asshole? This is most contentious issue as the evidence could have been planted. Do you just take the police's word for it, knowing that the police is working hand in gloves with the BN, the probable conspirator of the case.

What has BN to gain from DSAI's conviction? Plenty. DSAI poses the greatest threat to PM Najib Razak's quest to perpetuate BN rule. BN does not gain anything from the imprisonment of an ordinary guy. But DSAI is no ordinary guy. So, we Malaysians believe this is a set-up to put DSAI away for a long, long time.

Lim Chong Leong: Superintendent Ahmad Taufik Abdullah has nothing to gain? Everyone involved in the successful persecution stands to gain something. See Sodomy I, and how Abdul Gani Patail became attorney-general and Musa Hassan became inspector-general of police.

Everyone in the 1MalaysiaBoleh team will get a bonus and promotion. - Malaysiakini