jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 10.5.2010 May 10, 2010

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Sodomy II, Transformation in PKR.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Mahkamah Tinggi J3 KL

Full Transcript in English After  ++++++++++++

Yang Arif  Hakim Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah
Pihak-pihak: Pasukan Pendakwaraya (PP): kecuali Hanafiah Zakaria.

Peguam Bela (PB):     Karpal Singh (KS), Sankara Nair (SN),CV Prabakaran(CV), Ram Karpal(RK), Marissa, Radzlan,
Watching Brief:     Zamri Idrus (for SP1), Rajpal Singh, P. Suppiah dan Abdul Syukor Tokacil (for Bar C)Jennifer Robinson (for IBA)
AI hadir

[09:45 am]
MY:     Memperkenalkan pihak-pihak.Kecuali HZ ada kes di MR. Kes untuk sambung, sepatutnya PB memulakan soal-balas.
KS:     Before we proceed, in regard to the list of witnesses(W) of the PP, we made a few attempt to get the list but failed. This is []. Requirement of a fair trial, what is a fair trial? The essence would be to ensure the PP and the defence, have the equality of arms. I’ve made an application for that list; among other documents under s.51 CPC, for a fair trial, YA has made order for the list to be supplied. The list is not under s.51A of CPC. The PP required to supply documents intent to be use, but YA said it must be supplied (the list). Any court must have inherent power to ensure a fair trial, put aside CPC, this is to ensure justice is done. I ask MY for the interest of justice, to get the list of the W. It would be a gentleman and professional but if MY did not give it, then, I did not know what to say in reverse. How does a defence operate without knowing who is the W for the PP? It is in a British legal system and all this while, thru’ the convention, in my 40 years in practise, never come across the PP refuse to supply the W list. Ask for the list to be supply. Under s.51 CPC, it is the intention of the Parliament, it is not legally obliged, it is morally obliged, this is the court of law and not the court of moral. We need this for the reason we want to know whether the defence W is in that list, this is in relation of alibi. We’re [] to give notice of alibi together with the W, to support the defence of alibi. We applied the NOP from this court, we have been supplied with the evidence of PW1, but less the proceeding in camera. Why? It is the evidence recorded from the PW1, we are made to understand that it is the order from YA.
YA    We want the lawyer to come and collect, it is the evidence in camera.
KS:    A lawyer did come, Wan Anwar Shahdat, I am prepared for the cross examination. But we want the list of W. If MY decline now, is the court now prepare to invoke inherent power to ensure there is a fair trial? Does the court have that list? As of right we must have it. I want to look at the list of W. The role of YA, the role of PP? The role of PP is not to persecute, not even to prosecute, but just to assist the court. Any ordinary man, not only AI, is entitled to that list. If this court cannot direct the PP, use the inherent power as a precedent to all the subordinate court in this country. The most important aspect of this trial is that evidence given by any witnesses is in this court, the trial of the 1st instance, even the appellate court will not disturb the trial court, a fair trial start here. We’re entitled to this. The PP should also ensure there is a fair trial.
MY:    I think KS brought the same issue to Court of Appeal / Federal Court, the apex court decided that the PP do not have to supply the defence with the list of the W. The PP do not have to comply, but as a matter of practise. At the end of PP case, we offer W to the defence. It is nice to talk about inherent power. I have come across for example Sir Jacob talk about inherent power, in relation to control of person, control of process, in what manner the list of W would make KS unable to  cross exam PW1? I do not see the connection. All this have been addressed in the Court of Appeal/Federal Court (COA/ FC). It is not appropriate to raise it again and again. It is good for the public to hear this but it is not for this court. After the apex court decided that the list need not be supply. For what KS want to used the list and to know who we want to call? From the PW1 evidence, they can know who the witnesses we’re going to call.  Even the W is only those people that are acquainted to the case and the fact before the court. About the NOP, the court has no problem.

YA:    Apa FC kata?
MY;    FC tak allowed coz the list is among other documents not to be produce / supply. The law said only for the smooth running of the case. At this time, in what manner the list of W would make the defence unable to cross-examine PW1?
KS:    MY said FC / COA have decided, as I say earlier, the list of W does not come under S.51A(1)(a)(b), the FC decision,  do not arise as the list is not a document to be tender by the PP.

YA:    I’ve ordered for the list to be supplied but it was over-turned.
KS:     But the list x come under S.51A. This court has inherent power, I did not ask the court to act under S.51A, and I’m saying this because the court has inherent power. At the end of PP case, they’re required to do so. [] In the course of PW1, a lot of thing didn’t pop up in his evidence. Defence of alibi, we’re required under S.402A  to give notice and the name of W (alibi), the W required to be identified by PW1, how can we know that the W for the defence is not W for the PP? Are there attempt made to influence this W? Why is there reluctance? All this years, it is a convention, all the DPP in the AG, the list always is supplied, not under the OSA. To go against the convention required more than what MY has addressed in this court. We suspect attempt be made to influence the W for the defence. I want to know if the W for the defence alibi is in the list? At this stage, we more that suspect that there is. The PM is involved, there is a political conspiracy. This is no ordinary trial.
MY:    I think this has gone too far. I don’t need to hear your speech.
KS:     I have the floor. Only YA can stop me.
PM is involved. PW1 will said afterward. Any power include political conspiracy. To start of, a list of W should be supply. Why MY is against convention? Unprofessional conduct? Is he doing this? Against establish principle?
Ask the court to invoke inherent power. YA should take time to consider this.

YA:     Stand down.
[10:16 am]
[10:35 am]

Pihak-pihak seperti terdahulu dengan kehadiran Teoh Lip Peng (trslator for Mark Trowell) and Hanifah Mydin for the defence.
YA    :Berhubung permohonan senarai saksi, jika diteliti perintah saya terdahulu adalah senarai saksi, ini telah ditolak oleh COA/ FC, Makamah Tinggi(MT) terikat dengn keputusan itu. Permohonan PB ditolak.

Pemeriksaan Balas SP1
SP1 – angkat sumpah BM
Q:     Berapa lama beri keterangan di mahkamah hari yang pertama?
Tidak ada bersumpah?
A:     Berkata benar

Q:     Itu tidak benar? Bukan?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Benar sahaja tidak mencukupi dalam bagi keterangan? Do you speak English?

YA:     Jawab dalam BM sebab SP1 angkat sumpah dalam BM

Q:     Baca sekali lagi sumpah itu
A:    [PW1 baca sumpah sekali lagi]

Q:     Yang terakhir melainkan yang benar?
A:     Ya

Q:     Bukan senang masuk dalam kandang itu? Ada kewajipan?
A:    Ya

Q:     PM Najib Tun Razak, kenal?
A:    Ya, PM, kenal sejak kecil lagi. Ada jumpa PM

Q:     Ada jumpa PM?
A:     24 Jun 2008

Q:     Jumpa di mana?
A:    Di kediaman PM di Taman Duta, KL

Q:     Masa itu dia TPM?
A:    Ya

Q:     Jumpa TPM untuk apa?
A:    Saya mengadukan pada beliau tentang masalah saya

Q:     Pada 24 Jun?
A:    Ya

Q:     Lepas itu ada jumpa dia?
A:    Tak jumpa lagi, langsung tidak jumpa

Q:     Dengan isteri?
A:    Tidak pernah

Q:     Kenal seseorang nama Mumtaz?
A:    Rakan keluarga, kenal sejak kecil

Q:     Pernah jumpa isteri PM?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Kejadian berlaku bila?
A:     26 Jun 2008

Q:     27? 28? Ada jumpa PM?
A:    Tidak jumpa

Q:     PM ada menyatakan awak ada jumpa dia?
A:    [saksi tidak menjawab]
MY:     I don’t think KS should insisted

Q:     Ada pernah jumpa PM?
A:    Itu tak pasti tetapi saya jumpa dia 24 Jun, langsung tidak jumpa lepas itu

Q:     ASP Rodwan? Sekarang dia ACP?
A:    Ada jumpa

Q:     Bila jumpa?
A:    24 Jun 2008 malam di Hotel Melia di Jalan Imbi

Q:     Pukul berapa?
A:    Pada masa itu dia yang telefon saya, beliau masa telefon kata nak bertemu dengan saya.

Q:     Tujuan apa? Apa terjadi bila jumpa dia?
A:    Dia nak tahu masalah apa yang saya sedang hadapi

Q:     Pernah jumpa sebelum 24?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Jumpa Rodwan selepas jumpa PM?
A:    Ya

Q:     Siapa yang arahkan Rodwan jumpa kamu?
A:    Saya tidak pasti, tidak pasti bagaimana dia dapat tahu no telepon saya

Q:     Tanya mana dapat no kamu?
A:    Saya tak tanya dia

Q:     Lepas jumpa dia?
A:    Saya bagitahu saya diliwat oleh AI beberapa kali

Q:     Jadi, apa bagitahu pada PM adalah apa terjadi sebelum 26?
A:     Ya

Q:     Itu saja berkenaan dengannya?
A:    Ya

Q:     Ada buat kenyataan umum bahawa kamu diliwat tanpa kerelaan?
A:    Ya, dalam laporan polis

Q:     Baca P3
[PW1 baca repot P3]

KS:     We objected the word ‘lagi’ earlier.
YA:     You asked him to read. Tinggalkan part itu. To what extent you want him to read?
KS:     The whole part

[PW1 sambung baca repot]

Q:     26 Jun?
A:    Ya

Q:     Selepas 26 Jun ada diperiksa oleh Dr?
A:    Ada

Q:     Sebelum 28?
A:    Ada

Q:     Oleh siapa?
Oleh Dr di Pusrawi tetapi bukan sepenuhnya dan yang kedua [][]

Q:     Kejadian 26? Laporan 28?
A:    Ya

Q:     Kamu orang Islam yang baik?
A:    Try my best to be

Q:     Ada sembahyang 5 kali sekali?
A:    Ada, dulu ada tertinggal

Q:     Dalam bulan Jun 2008?
A:    Semasa kerja dengan AI kurang sikit sembahyang

Q:     Selepas itu?
A:    Lepas buat laporan telah insaf dan sembahyang 5 waktu

Q:     26-28 ada sembahyang? Kewajipan orang Islam
A:    Saya ada pergi sembahyang Jumaat

Q:     27 ada? 26?
A:    26 tidak sembahyang

Q:     Kenapa? Ini kewajipan?
A:    Saya tidak bersolat. Ini mungkin kerana saya telah diliwat

Q:     26?
A:    Tidak solat

Q:     27?
A:    Ada sembahyang Jumaat

Q:     Ada cuci badan sebelum sembahyang, 27?
A:    Ada, mandi sedikit sahaja, tetapi tidak saya tidak cuci di bahagian dubur

Q:     Cuci badan sepenuhnya, bukan sebahagian, kalau nak sembahyang?
A:    Ya

Q:     Mandi junub, diwajibkan?
A:    Ya

Q:     26 tak solat?
A:     Tidak

Q:     Tidak mandi?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Solat 27 adalah tidak sah?
A:    Ya

Q:     Bermakna kamu adalah bukan seorang Islam yang baik?
[Saksi x sempat jawab]

MY:     Ini opinion
KS:     I have the right
YA:     Nanti they can attack AI characters.
KS:    It’s ok, they can do so.

Q:     Kamu tak ikut cara dalam Islam?
A:    Pada tempoh tersebut saya tidak

Q:     Kamu bukan Islam yang baik?
A:    Saya dalam keadaan darurat pada ketika itu kerana kalau saya mandi [saksi dihalang dari meneruskan]

Q:     28 ada mandi wajib?
A:    Tidak
Q:     Kamu tak ikut cara Islam?
A:    Saya terpaksa

Q:     Dalam darurat?
A:    Ya

Q:     Sebelum pergi hospital di HKL, ada jumpa Dr. lain?
A:    Di Pusrawi

Q:     Ke Tawakkal dan Pusrawi?
A:    Ya

Q:     Tujuan?
A:    Dapatkan pemeriksaan

Q:     26 tidak diperiksa? 27 pun tidak?
A:    Tidak, hanya 28

Q:     Nama Dr Pusrawi yang kamu jumpa?
A:    Dr. Osman

KS:    Call Dr Osman
[Dr Osman dipanggil]
A:     Ya.

Dr. Mohd Osman bin Abdul Hamid dicamkan

Q:     Ada buat apa-apa aduan sebelum diperiksa?
A:    Saya hanya kata saya sakit di bahagian dubur

Q:     Tidak ada aduan lain?
A:    Sakit perut dan dubur, sebelum dia periksa tak ada apa lagi aduan
Q:     Ada buat aduan sdr?
A:    Sebelum periksa saya kata pada beliau saya sakit perut dan dubur, semasa dia periksa saya, saya kata saya diliwat

Q:     Dalam pemeriksaan dia, saya nak tunjukkan laporan dari Dr. ini.
[PW1 dirujuk kepada document laporan Dr]

KS: Ini adalah document yang dibekalkan oleh PP under S.51A

Q:     Dalam laporan ini ada ditulis “introduction of plastic into the anus”
A:    Kurang jelas tulisan ini, tak boleh baca tulisan ini

Q:     Adakah ini benar mengenai ini?
A:    Saya adalah tidak pernah menyatakan ini kepada Dr ini

Q:     Dr akan bagi keterangan, masih berpegang pada keterangan tadi?
A:    Ya

Q:     Kenapa Dr. tulis begini, Dr. ini bohong?
A:    Saya tak tahu kenapa ini di tulis, tetapi ini adalah bohong dan tidak benar

Q:     Pergi HKL?
A:    Ya

MY:     This is document intentionally use by the PP, can we tender it?
YA:     You can tender and mark it as IDD, we mark as laporan PUSRAWI peguam.
IDD16 – laporan Pusrawi PB

Q:     Tidak Dr kenal sebelum itu? Sebelum 28?
A:    Ya, tidak kenal

Q:     Siapa hantar kamu pada dia?
A:    Pergi dengan uncle saya, uncle Tuah

Q:     Dr ini bohong?
A:    Mengikut laporan ini, Dr berbohong

Q:     Ada apa-apa sebab dia bohong, ada berselisih faham dengan dia?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Lepas itu HKL?
A:    Ya, cadangan Dr Osman

Q:     Dalam pukul 3?
A:    Ya, tiba di HKL pukul 3

Q:     Ke PUSRAWI pukul 2?
A:    Ya

Q:     Dr pukul 3 – 9 mlm ada di HKL?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Jadi?
A:    3-12 dan keesokkan hari, kerana di masukkan ke wad

Q:     Dr. Danial?
A:    Tak periksa hanya arahkan saya ke OSCC

Q:     Is Dr Danial here?

MY:     This is cross-examine, masalahnya, they need at least 8 hours notice, mereka pakar bedah di HKL
KS:     This is problem of not supplying the list of W
YA:     Esok boleh datang?
MY:     All the Dr?
KS:    All of them
YA:     Proceed
KS:     They not us to identify the W

Q:     Ada Dr di sana yang rekodkan latarbelakang / medical history?
A:    Saya tak pasti, tapi berkali-kali tentang masalah yang saya hadapi seperti laporan saya

Q:     Repot di HKL?
A:    Ya, saya buat di wad

Q:     Polis datang untuk buat repot?
A:    Ya, ada 2 orang polis

Q:     Siapa?
A:    Saya tak kenal

Q:     Jude Blacios ada di sana?
A:    Ya

[Jude dicamkan]

Q:     Pegawai ini ada jumpa?
A:    Semasa pemeriksaan ada jumpa di bilik

Q:     Ada diperiksa oleh 3 Dr? Lelaki?
A:    3 tetapi ada seorang Dr perempuan, yang periksa 3

Q:     Pemeriksaan rapi?
A:    Ya

Q:     Adakah kamu dapat dapatan Dr ini?
A:    Tidak

KS: Rujuk dengan laporan Dr. HKL
[PW1 rujuk dengan salinan laporan Dr. HKL]

Q:     Rujuk muka surat 2? Anal examination to the external anus tak show any recent of injury? Tidak ada apa-apa kecederaan, do you agree on that?

MY:     It is very difficult for the W to agreed or disagreed.
YA:    Let us see the W answer.

A:     Saya tak dapat lihat bahagian anus saya saudara

Q:     Sekarang dirujuk pada kamu apa masalahnya? Apa yang ada disini? Apa pendirian kamu tentang ini? Nothing wrong with your anus?
A:    Ini dia yang tengok. Saya tak dapat simpulkan laporan perubatan ini

MY:     Ini soalan patut ditanya pada Dr
KS:     Of course he can’t see his anus. So what?
[]
A: Semasa saya diliwat ada gunakan lubricant

Q:     Rujuk m/s terakhir, summary / conclusion? Tiga Dr menyatakan “no conclusive clinical finding of anus penetration?
A:    No comment

KS:     Mark as IDD
IDD17 – salinan laporan perubatan HKL

Q:     Ada pernyataan direkodkan dari kamu oleh sesiapa, polis?
Ada, keterangan pernyataan, saya tidak ingat, banyak kali

Q:     Berapa kali selepas laporan?
A:    Banyak kali oleh Jude

Q:     Statement yang direkodkan ada baca balik?
A:    Ada setiap m/s

Q:     Diliwat tanpa kerelaan?
A:    Ya, seperti laporan saya

KS:     I’m making an application to the court for his 112 statement to be read in court
YA:     I need submission on this. Peguam minta dibekalkan dengan semua statement S.112 CPC
MY:    What is the legal basis for this application?
KS:     Coz he’s not telling the truth
YA:     Any other basis? Under which provision you are applying?
KS:     Generally it is a privilege but there is an exception.
YA:     If the PP want to refresh the W memory. But this is not the case here. Let us have a short break on this.

Stand down
[11.30 am]

[12:30]
KS:     We have discussed this matter, for a 112 statement taken [], there is an exception. We need time to put up a full submission. We pray for this court to allow this postponement.
MY:     No objection.
YA:     For the postponement till tomorrow?
MY:     Yes.
YA:     Tomorrow at 9 am

[Mahkamah ditangguhkan]

+++++++++++++++ English Version +++++++++++++++++

10 May 2010
J3, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

Y.A. MZMD
Parties:

PP: with the exception of Hanafiah Zakaria.

PB:     KS, SN,CV Prabakaran, Ram Karpal, Marissa, Radzlan,
WB:     Zamri Idrus (for SP1), Rajpal Singh, P. Suppiah and Abdul Syukor Tokacil (for Bar C); Jennifer Robinson (for IBA)
AI present

[09:45 am]
MY:      Introduces parties, explains that HZ is not present as he has another case at the Lower Court. Trial for continuance, with Defense to commence cross-examination.
KS:     Before we proceed, in regard to the list of witnesses(W) of the PP, we made a few attempt to get the list but failed. This is []. Requirement of a fair trial, what is a fair trial? The essence would be to ensure the PP and the def, have the equality of arms. I’ve made an application for that list; among other doc under s.51 CPC, for a fair trial, YA has made order for the list to be supplied. The list is not under s.51A of CPC. The PP required to supplied doc intent to be use, but YA said it must be supplied (the list). Any ct must have inherent power to ensure a fair trial, put aside CPC, this is to ensure justice is done. I ask MY for the interest of justice, to get the list of the W. It would be a gentleman and professional but if MY did not give it, then, I did not know what to say in reverse. How does a def to operate without knowing who is the W for the PP? It is in a British legal system and all this while, thru’ the convention, in my 40 years in practise, never come across the PP refuse to supply the W list. Ask for the list to be supply. Under s.51 CPC, it is the intention of the Parliament, it is not legally obliged, it is morally obliged, this is the ct of law and not the ct of morale. We need this for the reason we want to know whether the def W is in that list, this is in relation of alibi. We’re [] to give notice of alibi together with the W, to support the def of alibi. We applied the NOP from this ct, we have been supplied with the evidence of PW1, but less the proceeding in camera. Why? It is the evidence recorded from the PW1, we are made to understand that it is the order from YA.
YA    We want the lawyer to come and collect, it is the evidence in camera.
KS:    A lawyer did come, Wan Anwar Shahdat, I am prepared for the cross examination. But we want the list of W. If MY decline now, is the ct now prepare to invoke inherent power to ensure there is a fair trial? Does the ct have that list? As of right we must have it. I want to look at the list of W. The role of YA, the role of PP? The role of PP is not to persecute, not even to prosecute, but just to assist the ct. Any ordinary man, not only AI, is entitle to that list. If this ct x direct the PP, use the inherent power as a precedent to all the subordinate ct in this country. The most important aspect of this trial is that evidence given by any witnesses is in this ct, the trial of the 1st instance, even the appellate ct will not disturb the trial ct, a fair trial start here. We’re entitle to this. The PP should also ensure there is a fair trial.
MY:    I think KS brought the same issue to Court of Appeal / Federal Court, the apex ct decided that the PP x have to supply the def with the list of the W. The PP x have to comply, but as a matter of practise. At the end of PP case, we offer W to the def. It is nice to talk about inherent power. I have come across for example Sir Jacob talk about inherent power, in relation to control of person, control of process, in what manner the list of W would make KS unable to  cross exam PW1? I x see the connection. All this have been addressed in the COA/ FC. It is not appropriate to raise it again and again. It is good for the public to hear this but it is not for this court. After the apex ct decided that the list x to be supply. For what KS want to used the list and to know who we want to call? From the PW1 evidence, they can know who are the witnesses we’re going to call.  Even the W is only those people that is acquainted  to the case and the fact before the ct. About the NOP, the ct have x problem.

YA:    What did the FC decide?

MY;    FC x allowed coz the list is among other doc x to be produce / supply. The law said only for the smooth running of the case. At this time, in what manner the list of W would make the def unable to cross-examine PW1?
KS:    MY said FC / COA have decided, as I say earlier, the list of W does not come under S.51A(1)(a)(b), the FC decision,  do not arise as the list is not a document to be tender by the PP.

YA:    I’ve ordered for the list to be supplied but it was over-turned.
KS:     But the list x come under s.51A. This ct have inherent power, I x ask the ct to act under s.51A, Im saying this because the ct have inherent power. At the end of PP case, they’re required to do so. [] In the course of PW1, a lot of thing x pop up in his evidence. Def of alibi, we’re required under s.402A  to give notice and the name of W (alibi), the W required to b identified by PW1, how can we know that the W for the def is x W for the PP? Are there attempt made to influence this W? Why is there a reluctance? All this yrs, it is a convention, all the DPP in the AG, the list always b supplied, not under the OSA. To go against the convention required more than what MY has addressed in this ct. We suspect attempt be made to influence the W for the def. I want 2 know if the W for the def alibi is in the list? At this stage, we more that suspect that there is. The PM is involved, there is a political conspiracy. This is no ordinary trial.
MY:    I think this has gone too far. I x need 2 hear your speech.
KS:     I have the floor. Only YA can stop me.
PM is involved. PW1 will said afterward. Any power include political conspiracy. To start of, a list of W should be supply. Why MY is against convention? Unprofessional conduct? Is he doing this? Against establish principle?
Ask the ct to invoke inherent power. YA should take time to consider this.

YA:     Stand down.
[10:16 am]
[10:35 am]

Parties as aforementioned with the presence of Teoh Lip Peng (translator for Mark Trowell) and Hanifah Mydin for the defence.

YA    : With regards to the witness list, if you review my earlier request concerning the witness list, it has been rejected by COA/FC. MT is subject to this ruling. Request is denied.

Cross examination SP1

SP1 – Takes oath in BM
Q:     How long did you testify in court the first day? You have sworn to oath?
A:     That is correct

Q:     Isn’t that true? No?
A:    No

Q:     Truth alone does not suffice when giving evidence? Do you speak English?

YA:     Reply in BM as SP1 has taken the oath in BM.

Q:     Read once again the oath.
A:    [PW1 reads the oath again]

Q:     The end, “nothing but the truth”?
A:     Yes

Q:     It isn’t easy to adhere to that. Is there an obligation?
A:    Yes

Q:     Do you know PM Najib Tun Razak?
A:    Yes, the Prime Minister, I’ve known about him since I was younger.

Q:     Have you met him?
A:     24 June 2008

Q:     Where did you meet?
A:    At the PM’s residence, at Taman Duta, KL

Q:     At that time, he was DPM?
A:    Yes

Q:     You met the DPM for what?
A:    I complained to him about my problem

Q:     On 24 June?
A:    Yes

Q:     Did you meet him again after that?
A:    Did not meet again, definitely did not meet.

Q:     With his wife?
A:    Never

Q:     Do you know of someone by the name of Mumtaz?
A:    A family friend, have known since I was young.

Q:     Have you met the PM’s wife?
A:    No

Q:     When did the incident happen?
A:     26 June 2008

Q:     27? 28? Met the PM?
A:    No

Q:     PM said that he met you?
A:    [witness does not reply]
MY:     I don’t think KS should insisted

Q:     Met the PM?
A:    I met him on 24 June and never again after that.

Q:     ASP Rodwan? Now he is ACP?
A:    I’ve met.

Q:     When?
A:    On the night of 24 June 2008 at Hotel Melia, Jln Imbi

Q:     What time?
A:    He called me, saying he wanted to meet me.

Q:     What was the intention? What happened when you met him?
A:    He wanted to know what problem I was facing.

Q:     Did you meet before 24th?
A:    No

Q:     You met Rodwan after meeting the PM?
A:    Yes

Q:     Who instructed Rodwan to meet you?
A:    I do not know. I do not know how he knew my phone number.

Q:    Asked him where he got your number?
A:    I didn’t ask him.

Q:     After meeting him?
A:    I told him I was sodomized by AI several times.

Q:     So what you told the PM was what happened before 26th?
A:     Yes

Q:     That was all that concerned him?
A:    Yes

Q:     Did you make a public statement that you were sodomized against your will?
A:    Yes, in the Police Report

Q:     Read P3
[PW1 reads P3 report]

KS:     We objected the word ‘lagi’ earlier.
YA:     You asked him to read. Leave that part. To what extent you want him to read?
KS:     The whole part

[PW1 continues reading]

Q:     26 June?
A:    Yes

Q:     After 26 June, was there an examination by a doctor?
A:    There was.

Q:     Before 28?
A:    There was.

Q:     By whom?
By the doctor in Pusrawi but not fully, and the second.

Q:     Incident on 26? Report on 28?
A:    Yes

Q:     Are you a good Muslim?
A:    Try my best to be

Q:     You pray 5 times a day?
A:    I do, before I would miss a few.

Q:     During the month of June 2008?
A:    When I was working with AI, I prayed less often.

Q:     After that?
A:    I made the report, I started praying 5 times a day.

Q:     26-28, did you pray? It’s a Muslim’s obligation.
A:    I went for Friday prayers

Q:     Also on 27? 26?
A:    I did not pray on 26

Q:     Why not? It’s obliged?
A:    I did not pray. That is perhaps because I was sodomized.

Q:     26?
A:    Did not pray.

Q:     27?
A:    I went for Friday prayers

Q:     Did you wash yourself before praying on 27?
A:    Yes, I washed up a bit but no, I did not wash the area around my anus.

Q:     You would wash your whole body, not just a part, if you want to pray?
A:    Yes

Q:     Ablution is obliged?
A:    Yes

Q:     26 did not pray?
A:     No

Q:     Did not bathe?
A:    No

Q:     Your prayers on 27 didn’t count?
A:    Yes

Q:     Meaning you are not a good Muslim?
[Witness does not answer]

MY:     This is an opinion
KS:     I have the right
YA:     Later, they can attack AI characters.
KS:    It’s ok, they can do so.

Q:     You do not follow the ways of the Islam faith?
A:    At that time, I did not

Q:     You are not a good Muslim?
A:    I was in a dire situation at that time because if I had bathed [witness was stopped from continuing]

Q:     28 did you bathe?
A:    No
Q:     You didn’t follow the teachings of Islam?
A:    I was forced.

Q:     In dire situation?
A:    Yes

Q:     Before going to the KL Hospital, did you see any other doctor?
A:    At Pusrawi

Q:     At Tawakkal and Pusrawi?
A:    Yes

Q:     The purpose?
A:    To be examined

Q:     Not examined on 26? Not even on 27?
A:    No, only on 28

Q:     Name of the doctor you met at Pusrawi ?
A:    Dr. Osman

KS:    Call Dr Osman
[Dr Osman is called]
A:     Yes

Dr. Mohd Osman bin Abdul Hamid is identified.

Q:     Did you make any complaint before the examination?
A:    I just told him I had a pain in my anus.

Q:     Nothing else?
A:    Stomach ache and the anus, nothing else before I was examined.
Q:     Any other complaints?
A:    Before I was examined, I told him I had pain in my stomach and my anus, when he started to examine me, I told him I was sodomized.

Q:     From his examination, I would like to show the doctor’s report.

[PW1 refers to the documented doctor’s report]

KS:     This is the document provided by PP under s.51A.

Q:     In this report, it is written “introduction of plastic into the anus”
A:    The writing is not very clear, I cannot read the writing.

Q:     Is this true about that?
A:    I never said that to the doctor

Q:     The doctor will testify. Do you still hold on to your claim?
A:    Yes

Q:     Why did the doctor write that? The doctor is lying?
A:    I do not know why he wrote that but it is a lie and not the truth.

Q:     Went to HKL?
A:    Yes

MY:     This is doc intentionally use by the PP, can we tender it?
YA:     You can tender and mark it as IDD, we mark as laporan PUSRAWI lawyer.

IDD16 – laporan Pusrawi PB

Q:     Did you know the doctor before that? Before 28?
A:    I did not know him

Q:     Who sent you to him?
A:    I went with my uncle, Uncle Tuah.

Q:     This doctor is lying?
A:    According to this report, he is lying.

Q:     Any reason for him to lie, any misunderstanding with him?
A:    No

Q:     After HKL?
A:    Yes, as suggested by Dr Osman

Q:     About 3pm?
A:    Yes, arrived at HKL at 3pm

Q:     To PUSRAWI at 2pm?
A:    Yes

Q:     From 3pm – 9pm at HKL?
A:    No

Q:     So?
A:    3-12 and the next day as well, as I was warded.

Q:     Dr. Danial?
A:    Did not examine me – just directed me to OSCC.

Q:     Is Dr Danial here?

MY:     This is cross-examination. The problem is they need at least 8 hrs notice, they are surgeons at HKL
KS:     This is problem of not supplying the list of W
YA:     Tomorrow can be present?
MY:     All the doctors?
KS:    All of them
YA:     Proceed
KS:     They x us to identify the W

Q:     Was there a doctor who recording the background/medical history?
A:    I’m not certain but many times concerning the problem I had as per the report.

Q:     Report at HKL?
A:    Yes, I did it at the ward.

Q:     Police came to take the report?
A:    Yes, 2 officers

Q:    Who were they?
A:    I didn’t know them

Q:     Jude Blacios was there?
A:    Yes

[Jude is identified]

Q:     This officer met you?
A:    During the examination, I did meet him in the room.

Q:     Examined by 3 doctors. Male or female?
A:    3. One was a female

Q:     Detailed examination?
A:    Yes

Q:     Did you get the doctors’ opinion?
A:    No

KS: Refer to HKL doctor’s report
[PW1 refers to copy of HKL doctor’s report]

Q:     Refer to page 2? “Anal examination to the external anus x show any recent of injury” There was no injury, do you agree with that?

MY:     It is very diff for the W to agreed or disagreed.
YA:    Let’s us see the W answer.

A:     I could not see the area of my own anus.

Q:     Now referred to you, what’s the problem? What is here? What is your opinion about this? Nothing wrong with your anus?
A:    That is something that he was seeing. I cannot comment on his report.

MY:     This question should be asked to the doctor.
KS:     Of course he can’t see his anus. So what?
[]
A:     When I was sodomized, lubricant was used.

Q:     Refer to the last page, summary/conclusion? 3 doctors claim “no conclusive clinical finding of anus penetration?
A:    No comment

KS:     Mark as IDD
IDD17 – Medical report from HKL

Q:     Was any statement form you recorded by anyone, police?
There was, clarification of statement, I can’t remember, many time.

Q:     How many times after the report?
A:    Many times by Jude

Q:     Did you read the recorded statement?
A:    Yes, each time

Q:     Sodomized without consent?
A:    Yes, as per my report

KS:     I’m making an application to the ct for his 112 stmnt to be read in ct
YA:     I need submission on this. Counsel requests to be provided with all statements s.112 CPC
MY:    What is the legal basis for this application?
KS:     Coz he’s not telling the truth
YA:     Any other basis? Under which provision you are applying?
KS:     Generally it is a privilege but there is an exception.
YA:     If the PP want to refresh the W memory. But this is not the case here. Let us have a short break on this.

Stand down
[11.30 am]

[12:30]
KS:     We have discussed this matter, for a 112 stmnt taken [], there is an exception. We need time to put up a full submission. We pray for this ct to allow this postponement.
MY:     No objection.
YA:     For the postponement till tomorrow?
MY:     Yes.
YA:     Tomorrow at 9 am

[Court adjourned]

Comments»

1. Anonymous - May 10, 2010

Karpal tak tanya kat AI ada mandi junub tak lepas ehem ehem pada 26th

Anonymous - May 11, 2010

Punyalah bangang, itu kerja pihak pendakwalah tanya AI bukan Karpal.

2. Pemerhati - May 11, 2010

Karpal sepatutnya tanya “kalau u bukan orang Islam yang baik, manalah kita tahu yang u sedang memberi keterangan dan bukan sedang bercerita?”

3. ngapsayor - May 12, 2010

yg mengaku tu sialpul
kena tanya sialpul lah

4. kapalzink - May 12, 2010

Sepatutnya ditanya soalan kepada karpal singh….
“Adakah awak saorang bengali yang baik?”
“Kalau bengali yang baik , dia akan pakai SERBAN @ TURBAN’
“Ini awak tak pakai benda tu…. macamana nak jadi bengali yang baik !”…..

to kapal - May 19, 2010

ilmiahlah sikit joe oii.ini kes dengan saiful………tu la…. masa sekolah dulu tak bagi perhatian kat cikgu tibatiba melalut je sudahlah …diam saje….. bikin malu orang umno yang educated macam aku…….tak dak ilmu diamla joe

5. alfonso - May 14, 2010

saya ada pakai turban juga ini dalam sluar…itu rambut ada panjang jugak…cuma kapla tarak pakei….

6. to alfonsot - May 19, 2010

kalau jahil tu jangan merapu disini…………….disini bukan tempat untuk saudara………bikin malu orang umno yang educated macam aku…….tak dak ilmu diamla joe

7. bongok & bangang - May 26, 2010

saya manyak ketawa lah, lu semua macam cirkus.

Cerita2 itu saya manyak lucah…….

8. bongok & bangang - May 26, 2010

Eh, satu lagi ah, Ini anwar; mahu masuk deepan balakang, tak boleh oh!! Main politik ah – boleh masuk poket sahaja.
Mesti peki Thailand – sana, mana mana pun boleh masuk.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: