LIVE REPORTS
5.29pm: Gopal says Saiful has the courage to meet the DPM not only in his office but also at the home of the deputy prime minister.
Shafee asks for a break to reply to what was submitted by Gopal.
The judge allows a 20-minute break for prayers.
5.26pm: Gopal says the underwear seized was a Levi's brand.
"If this is believable, then fairies also exist," he says when questioning Shafee's submission and asks if it was a "Brioni or a brownie" suit.
Shafee stood up to reply that the prosecution listened to the transcript again, and it was Brioni and it "sounded like Briyani".
"Yes," Gopal quips, "But the Brioni suit costs more than Briyani".
Gopal says even Saiful's underwear had a label but not the pants, which was alleged to be Brioni.
5.20pm: Gopal now turns to the evidence of special treatment and Brioni suit given to Saiful by Anwar.
"I think your lordships could not afford it. It is a 16,000 dollar suit," he jokes.
He says Saiful produced the pants in court but there is no label.
"Surely, if he sent it to a tailor there would be a label," he says, adding there is no evidence of the Brioni suit submitted.
4.57pm: Gopal is now submitting that the evidence given by Saiful on past incidents should not be accepted.
He says the prosecution tried to show a relationship and that the complainant and appellant habitually did it but this should not be accepted.
4.53am: Gopal questions the serving of coffee and curry puffs after the incident. He says Saiful testified that the door was locked so how can curry puffs be delivered.
4.47pm: Gopal says Saiful is not an ordinary boy as he tried to illicit information from then DPP Farah Azlina Abdul Latif.
4.45pm: Anwar's supporters continue to brave the heavy rain, seeking shelter under a makeshift tent.
PKR secretary-general Rafizi Ramli tells the supporters that Anwar might be acquitted and the supporters are praying.
4.40pm: Gopal says Saiful even seduced a member of the prosecution team. He was reading Anwar's statement from the dock.
4.30pm: This, Gopal says, demolishes the prosecution's case.
"Without the carpet, the prosecution cannot prove (its case)."
Gopal now questions Saiful's credibility in saying he idolises Anwar when in fact, he (Saiful) hates Anwar.
The former federal court judge says there is evidence by Najwan Halimi.
"Saiful usually uploads images of himself with leaders and in the emblem of BN and a photo of Anwar as 'pemimpin munafik' (hypocrite leader)," he reads Najwan's testimony.
Gopal says Najwan was shocked to see Saiful working for Anwar.
4.24pm: Ram points out that the judge visited the site, but Justice Arifin states that the site visit was not recorded.
Gopal reiterates that there is no evidence on record that the carpet moved, when asked repeatedly by the judges.
"Shafee was just giving evidence from the bar," he says.
In his submissions, the lead prosecutor claimed that the carpet was moved to the other unit.
4.21pm: Gopal says the act of sodomy did not take place as the incident was alleged to have happened on a carpet in unit 11-5-1 but the carpet was found in the other unit.
"Based on this, the act of sodomy never took place," he adds.
4.13pm: Gopal says a China silk carpet was seized from unit 11-5-2 by police forensic officer Supt Amidon Anan.
He says the police also seized a strand of hair at 11-5-1 but the carpet was seized at 11-5-2.
Noting that the prosecutor claimed that the carpet was moved, Gopal says, "But I do not believe in flying carpets."
"There is no evidence that the carpet was moved. The owner of the condominium Hasanuddin was not called," he adds.
Justice Abdull Hamid asks was Saiful shown the carpet, and Gopal replies he did identify the carpet.
4.06pm: Lead defence counsel Gopal Sri Ram says the prosecution's case of past incidences is based on probability.
Now he refers to Saiful's police report, where he says the last incident happened at 3.30pm at the Desa Damansara condominium unit 11-1-5.
He says the description of the offence in Saiful's evidence is that he was forced to take position on a carpet.
"The act was performed on a carpet and that is the prosecution's case," he adds.
3.55pm: Gobind now refers to DSP Jude's false testimony at Suhakam and also the Teoh Beng Hock case over the unidentified DNA sample on the deceased's belt.
The investigating officer in Teoh's case, he says, was pro-active in calling all the MACC people to give their samples to exclude them.
"The IO (investigating officer) in Anwar's case did not do that," he adds.
3.43pm: Gobind says there is something wrong in this case that Saiful was sodomised by one person as the evidence suggests two people had sodomised him.
This is because we have this allele 18. On that score alone, Anwar should be acquitted.
Even Shafee goes on to explain that the allele 18 could be Dr Osman and this is as if he is supporting the defence contention, says Gobind.
3.32pm: Gobind (right) cites the Hanif Basree case, where Justice Abdull Hamid Embong was the trial judge from the High Court.
He says this case is similar as there was also evidence of the accused DNA and there was another person's DNA in it.
"Evidence exists that there was an 18 allele (another person)."
Hanif, an engineer, was acquitted of murdering Norita Samsuddin because of the presence of another person's semen or DNA.
Gobind urges the court to reject the evidence from the lock-up and question how did "Male Y" get to those exhibits.
"Prosecution has failed to prove that Male Y is the appellant."
3.25pm: Gobind says that there were attempts to connect 'Male Y' to Anwar.
The High Court held that since Anwar was the sole occupant of the cell, Male Y must be him, he says.
He adds that somebody else could have access to those items.
"It is a finding based on sole occupancy, but if there is a person with direct access to the cell, then how," he asks.
3.15pm: Also in the public gallery is former Bersih chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan.
Sangeet suggests that the person who possessed the “allele 18" could be the perpetrator.
She concludes that the trial judge was right in initially not admitting the three items retrieved from the cell i.e. the mineral water bottle, toothbrush and towel.
"Without these items there is no link to Anwar and this leads to the question who is 'Male Y'," she says.
3.00pm: Sangeet says the police became desperate when Anwar did not allow his specimen to be taken and this led them to possibly use questionable means.
Also in court is Kuala Krai MP Dr Mohd Hatta Ramli.
2.45pm: Sangeet says evidence revealed there is a CCTV camera in the cell but it was not working.
She says the court should reject the circumstantial evidence and accept the direct evidence.
Sangeet says there were several policemen manning the cell who were not called as witnesses and suggested those samples could come from the two (who were not called).
She adds the sample were obtained through unfair means.
2.30pm: Now Sangeet Kaur Deo is submitting.
She says that it is not Anwar's DNA which is in Saiful's rectum but that of "Male Y".
Sangeet (right) also argues that the police did not see Anwar use the given toothbrush.
The defence lawyer says the prosecution has referred to a police witness' testimony that Anwar brought a mineral water bottle to the cell.
2.26pm: Hearing continues.
Also present in court is former PKR deputy president Senator Syed Husin Ali and Kelana Jaya MP Wong Chen.
1.05pm: Ram says there are serious doubts and this entitled Anwar to an acquittal and discharge.
The court breaks for lunch.
1.00pm: Ram says there is a real possibility that the samples have been tampered with and these could be different samples.
One of the samples taken from Saiful shows degradation but not the others and this creates doubt, he adds.
"Penetration did not take place in this case, how could the samples be found up the rectum?" he asks.
Saiful, he says, is not a convincing witness as described by the Court of Appeal.
12.55pm: Ram says there is reason to doubt or disbelief DSP Jude's testimony as he had been found to be a "liar" in different proceedings.
Secondly, he says, the samples are off different character and thirdly Jude (right) cut open the big plastic bag P27.
"How then do we explain these samples are clearly different. He was the custodian of criminal samples to this case.
"Anwar is entitled to a fair investigation and this has not been done," he adds.
Ram now cites Dr Thomas Hoogland's evidence where there is evidence to say Anwar cannot perform the sexual act as claimed by Saiful.
Anwar had a back surgery in 2004, after his acquittal with regard to his charge.
Ram says Hoogland's evidence carries great weight.
In conclusion, the defence counsel says this case is “riddled with doubt”.
"It is not a coincidence for Saiful to meet (Prime Minister) Najib (Abdul Razak), and in contrasting with the Tandoor case the suspect politician did not meet the prime minister of India."
12.35pm: Ram questions (chemist) Seah's qualification. In her testimony, she said she has done DNA testing since 1994, but her PHD in criminal testing was only obtained in 2000.
He says the evidence of the government chemists ought not to have been called at the High Court.
He then talks about tampering and the break in chain of evidence.
Ram says there was no reason for DSP Jude to open the big plastic bag containing the HKL samples.
"He was there when the physical examination was done on Saiful and if he wants to make sure they are labelled properly, then he should have asked the HKL doctor, Dr Siew Sheue Feng, to label it with B1 and B2 and so on.
"He should not have opened the plastic bag as this created doubt," he adds.
Ram further reads Jude's testimony during the Suhakam hearing on the arrest of five lawyers where Shafee, who was then chairing the panel, found the police officer not to be a credible witness.
He then reads Jude's testimony in court when cross-examined by the late Karpal Singh (Anwar's former lead counsel) and pointed out that the apex court should be careful in accepting the police officer's evidence.
12.31pm: Now Ram tries to defend forensic expert Dr Brian McDonald's (left) reputation following the Court of Appeal describing him as an "armchair expert".
Shafee had also noted earlier that McDonald's testimony was not even accepted in his own country Australia.
12.20pm: Ram warns that chemist guidelines should be followed and a copy should be made available to the defence.
The effect of not giving the guidelines will result in people being convicted of murder or other crimes just because the department does not want to give the guidelines or they (chemists) do not follow them, he adds.
12.12pm: Ram notes that what the HKL doctors had labelled on the sample is different.
This is because DSP Jude had relabelled them when he cut open the big plastic bag containing the HKL samples at his office.
Justice Abdull Hamid asks based on (chemist) Seah's analysis and what the HKL doctors testified that there could be penetration, could it have been hearsay evidence.
Ram agrees.
This reinforces what we say that they cannot be the same samples, as Saiful was not sodomised, adds the lawyer.
12.07pm: Hence, Ram says there is the question whether actual penetration took place.
At this point, DAP's Kepong MP Dr Tan Seng Giaw walks into the courtroom, approaches the dock and shakes hand with Anwar before taking his seat.
12 noon: Now, Ram submits on the issue of penetration.
He says there is no medical evidence to suggest previous encounters.
He (Shafee) was just giving a statement from the bar, says the defence lawyer.
"Previous encounter should not be taken into consideration that penetration did take place," he adds.
What is important, he says, is that four doctors (one from Pusrawi) and three from HKL said there was no penetration.
Shafee had pointed to Saiful's testimony that Anwar ejaculated inside his anus "as always".
5.29pm: Gopal says Saiful has the courage to meet the DPM not only in his office but also at the home of the deputy prime minister.
Shafee asks for a break to reply to what was submitted by Gopal.
The judge allows a 20-minute break for prayers.
5.26pm: Gopal says the underwear seized was a Levi's brand.
"If this is believable, then fairies also exist," he says when questioning Shafee's submission and asks if it was a "Brioni or a brownie" suit.
Shafee stood up to reply that the prosecution listened to the transcript again, and it was Brioni and it "sounded like Briyani".
"Yes," Gopal quips, "But the Brioni suit costs more than Briyani".
Gopal says even Saiful's underwear had a label but not the pants, which was alleged to be Brioni.
5.20pm: Gopal now turns to the evidence of special treatment and Brioni suit given to Saiful by Anwar.
"I think your lordships could not afford it. It is a 16,000 dollar suit," he jokes.
He says Saiful produced the pants in court but there is no label.
"Surely, if he sent it to a tailor there would be a label," he says, adding there is no evidence of the Brioni suit submitted.
4.57pm: Gopal is now submitting that the evidence given by Saiful on past incidents should not be accepted.
He says the prosecution tried to show a relationship and that the complainant and appellant habitually did it but this should not be accepted.
4.53am: Gopal questions the serving of coffee and curry puffs after the incident. He says Saiful testified that the door was locked so how can curry puffs be delivered.
4.47pm: Gopal says Saiful is not an ordinary boy as he tried to illicit information from then DPP Farah Azlina Abdul Latif.
4.45pm: Anwar's supporters continue to brave the heavy rain, seeking shelter under a makeshift tent.PKR secretary-general Rafizi Ramli tells the supporters that Anwar might be acquitted and the supporters are praying.
4.40pm: Gopal says Saiful even seduced a member of the prosecution team. He was reading Anwar's statement from the dock.
4.30pm: This, Gopal says, demolishes the prosecution's case.
"Without the carpet, the prosecution cannot prove (its case)."
Gopal now questions Saiful's credibility in saying he idolises Anwar when in fact, he (Saiful) hates Anwar.
The former federal court judge says there is evidence by Najwan Halimi.
"Saiful usually uploads images of himself with leaders and in the emblem of BN and a photo of Anwar as 'pemimpin munafik' (hypocrite leader)," he reads Najwan's testimony.
Gopal says Najwan was shocked to see Saiful working for Anwar.
4.24pm: Ram points out that the judge visited the site, but Justice Arifin states that the site visit was not recorded.
Gopal reiterates that there is no evidence on record that the carpet moved, when asked repeatedly by the judges.
"Shafee was just giving evidence from the bar," he says.
In his submissions, the lead prosecutor claimed that the carpet was moved to the other unit.
4.21pm: Gopal says the act of sodomy did not take place as the incident was alleged to have happened on a carpet in unit 11-5-1 but the carpet was found in the other unit.
"Based on this, the act of sodomy never took place," he adds.
4.13pm: Gopal says a China silk carpet was seized from unit 11-5-2 by police forensic officer Supt Amidon Anan.
He says the police also seized a strand of hair at 11-5-1 but the carpet was seized at 11-5-2.
Noting that the prosecutor claimed that the carpet was moved, Gopal says, "But I do not believe in flying carpets."
"There is no evidence that the carpet was moved. The owner of the condominium Hasanuddin was not called," he adds.
Justice Abdull Hamid asks was Saiful shown the carpet, and Gopal replies he did identify the carpet.
4.06pm: Lead defence counsel Gopal Sri Ram says the prosecution's case of past incidences is based on probability.
Now he refers to Saiful's police report, where he says the last incident happened at 3.30pm at the Desa Damansara condominium unit 11-1-5.
He says the description of the offence in Saiful's evidence is that he was forced to take position on a carpet.
"The act was performed on a carpet and that is the prosecution's case," he adds.
3.55pm: Gobind now refers to DSP Jude's false testimony at Suhakam and also the Teoh Beng Hock case over the unidentified DNA sample on the deceased's belt.
The investigating officer in Teoh's case, he says, was pro-active in calling all the MACC people to give their samples to exclude them.
"The IO (investigating officer) in Anwar's case did not do that," he adds.
3.43pm: Gobind says there is something wrong in this case that Saiful was sodomised by one person as the evidence suggests two people had sodomised him.
This is because we have this allele 18. On that score alone, Anwar should be acquitted.
Even Shafee goes on to explain that the allele 18 could be Dr Osman and this is as if he is supporting the defence contention, says Gobind.
3.32pm: Gobind (right) cites the Hanif Basree case, where Justice Abdull Hamid Embong was the trial judge from the High Court.He says this case is similar as there was also evidence of the accused DNA and there was another person's DNA in it.
"Evidence exists that there was an 18 allele (another person)."
Hanif, an engineer, was acquitted of murdering Norita Samsuddin because of the presence of another person's semen or DNA.
Gobind urges the court to reject the evidence from the lock-up and question how did "Male Y" get to those exhibits.
"Prosecution has failed to prove that Male Y is the appellant."
3.25pm: Gobind says that there were attempts to connect 'Male Y' to Anwar.
The High Court held that since Anwar was the sole occupant of the cell, Male Y must be him, he says.
He adds that somebody else could have access to those items."It is a finding based on sole occupancy, but if there is a person with direct access to the cell, then how," he asks.
3.15pm: Also in the public gallery is former Bersih chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan.
Sangeet suggests that the person who possessed the “allele 18" could be the perpetrator.
She concludes that the trial judge was right in initially not admitting the three items retrieved from the cell i.e. the mineral water bottle, toothbrush and towel.
"Without these items there is no link to Anwar and this leads to the question who is 'Male Y'," she says.
3.00pm: Sangeet says the police became desperate when Anwar did not allow his specimen to be taken and this led them to possibly use questionable means.
Also in court is Kuala Krai MP Dr Mohd Hatta Ramli.
2.45pm: Sangeet says evidence revealed there is a CCTV camera in the cell but it was not working.
She says the court should reject the circumstantial evidence and accept the direct evidence.
Sangeet says there were several policemen manning the cell who were not called as witnesses and suggested those samples could come from the two (who were not called).
She adds the sample were obtained through unfair means.
2.30pm: Now Sangeet Kaur Deo is submitting.
She says that it is not Anwar's DNA which is in Saiful's rectum but that of "Male Y".
Sangeet (right) also argues that the police did not see Anwar use the given toothbrush.The defence lawyer says the prosecution has referred to a police witness' testimony that Anwar brought a mineral water bottle to the cell.
2.26pm: Hearing continues.
Also present in court is former PKR deputy president Senator Syed Husin Ali and Kelana Jaya MP Wong Chen.
1.05pm: Ram says there are serious doubts and this entitled Anwar to an acquittal and discharge.
The court breaks for lunch.
1.00pm: Ram says there is a real possibility that the samples have been tampered with and these could be different samples.
One of the samples taken from Saiful shows degradation but not the others and this creates doubt, he adds.
"Penetration did not take place in this case, how could the samples be found up the rectum?" he asks.
Saiful, he says, is not a convincing witness as described by the Court of Appeal.
12.55pm: Ram says there is reason to doubt or disbelief DSP Jude's testimony as he had been found to be a "liar" in different proceedings.
Secondly, he says, the samples are off different character and thirdly Jude (right) cut open the big plastic bag P27."How then do we explain these samples are clearly different. He was the custodian of criminal samples to this case.
"Anwar is entitled to a fair investigation and this has not been done," he adds.
Ram now cites Dr Thomas Hoogland's evidence where there is evidence to say Anwar cannot perform the sexual act as claimed by Saiful.
Anwar had a back surgery in 2004, after his acquittal with regard to his charge.
Ram says Hoogland's evidence carries great weight.
In conclusion, the defence counsel says this case is “riddled with doubt”.
"It is not a coincidence for Saiful to meet (Prime Minister) Najib (Abdul Razak), and in contrasting with the Tandoor case the suspect politician did not meet the prime minister of India."
12.35pm: Ram questions (chemist) Seah's qualification. In her testimony, she said she has done DNA testing since 1994, but her PHD in criminal testing was only obtained in 2000.
He says the evidence of the government chemists ought not to have been called at the High Court.
He then talks about tampering and the break in chain of evidence.Ram says there was no reason for DSP Jude to open the big plastic bag containing the HKL samples.
"He was there when the physical examination was done on Saiful and if he wants to make sure they are labelled properly, then he should have asked the HKL doctor, Dr Siew Sheue Feng, to label it with B1 and B2 and so on.
"He should not have opened the plastic bag as this created doubt," he adds.
Ram further reads Jude's testimony during the Suhakam hearing on the arrest of five lawyers where Shafee, who was then chairing the panel, found the police officer not to be a credible witness.
He then reads Jude's testimony in court when cross-examined by the late Karpal Singh (Anwar's former lead counsel) and pointed out that the apex court should be careful in accepting the police officer's evidence.
12.31pm: Now Ram tries to defend forensic expert Dr Brian McDonald's (left) reputation following the Court of Appeal describing him as an "armchair expert".Shafee had also noted earlier that McDonald's testimony was not even accepted in his own country Australia.
12.20pm: Ram warns that chemist guidelines should be followed and a copy should be made available to the defence.
The effect of not giving the guidelines will result in people being convicted of murder or other crimes just because the department does not want to give the guidelines or they (chemists) do not follow them, he adds.
12.12pm: Ram notes that what the HKL doctors had labelled on the sample is different.
This is because DSP Jude had relabelled them when he cut open the big plastic bag containing the HKL samples at his office.
Justice Abdull Hamid asks based on (chemist) Seah's analysis and what the HKL doctors testified that there could be penetration, could it have been hearsay evidence.
Ram agrees.
This reinforces what we say that they cannot be the same samples, as Saiful was not sodomised, adds the lawyer.
12.07pm: Hence, Ram says there is the question whether actual penetration took place.
At this point, DAP's Kepong MP Dr Tan Seng Giaw walks into the courtroom, approaches the dock and shakes hand with Anwar before taking his seat.
12 noon: Now, Ram submits on the issue of penetration.
He says there is no medical evidence to suggest previous encounters.
He (Shafee) was just giving a statement from the bar, says the defence lawyer.
"Previous encounter should not be taken into consideration that penetration did take place," he adds.
What is important, he says, is that four doctors (one from Pusrawi) and three from HKL said there was no penetration.
Shafee had pointed to Saiful's testimony that Anwar ejaculated inside his anus "as always".
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.