jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 25 October 2010 October 25, 2010

Posted by malaysianstory in Karpal Singh, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
Tags: , , , ,
trackback

******* The Full English Version (In Blue) After “+++++++++++”

Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

PP:    Semua hadir kecuali NH
PB:     KS, SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswam, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Ram Singh, Marissa, Prof. David Wells, Dr. Brian MacDonalds
WB:    Zamri Idrus (untuk SP1)
AI hadir

[9.28 a.m.] Kedua-dua pihak memasuki kamar Hakim.
[9.47 a.m.] Kedua-dua pihak keluar dari kamar Hakim.

[9.49 a.m.]
MY: Hari ini ditetapkan untuk soal balas SP2, SP3 dan SP4. Sebelum KS mulakan soal balas, saya memohon mahkamah ini untuk memanggil Dr. Siew, SP3 untuk bertanya soalan untuk satu isu.
YA: KS, ada bantahan?
KS: Tiada bantahan.

EIC of Dr. Siew (SP3) by MY

SP3 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q: Dr. Siew, you informed the court on 14 October 2010 that all the specimens taken by Dr Khairul and Dr Razali are handed to you and put in the container.
A: Yes. On 28th June, I put it in the container all the specimens.

Q: You said you hand over the container to ASP Jude.
A: Yes.

Q: How did you hand it?
A: I placed all the sealed containers in a plastic bag and handed them to ASP Jude.

Q: Can you describe this bag?
A: It’s a plastic bag labelled with Forensic Department.

Q: Did you write anything on the specimens?
A: Yes. The type of specimens and my signature.

Q: May I show the witness the plastic bag? Can you tell the court and describe what this is?
A: This is the secure plastic bag which carries the label of “Forensic Department Hospital Kuala Lumpur” with the name Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan, case number, i/c number, the nature of the specimens which I seal and put in container and put in the plastic bag [read list of specimen written on the plastic bag]. I didn’t sign the bag. Just now I made mistake.

Q: Is this the plastic bag you put the container?
A: Yes.

Q: Is this the same plastic bag you use?
A: Yes.

Q: Who’s handwriting?
A: My handwriting.

Plastic bag from Forensic Department HKL dikemukakan dan ditandakan sebagai P27.

Q: Was it sealed when you hand it over?
A: I just seal like this [show to the court how he sealed it]

MY: YA, I have no question.
KS: We reserve cross for SP3.
YA: So you wants to cross SP2 first? We have SP2, SP3 and SP4.
KS: Yes.

Cross-examination of SP2, Dr. Razali b. Ibrahim.

SP2 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q: Bercakap dalam BM atau BI?
A: English
YA: If angkat sumpah dalam BI kena jawab dalam BI.

Q: You took an oath just now.
A: Yes.

Q: What was it?
A: A declaration to tell the truth to the court.

Q: Not exactly isn’t it? You are here not to tell truth but the whole truth. [] more than the truth. The consequences can be really fatal if you don’t tell the truth.
A: The court will decide it.

Q: Are you aware of the consequences?
A: Accused for not telling the truth.

Q: Not accused of, but charge for not telling the truth.
A: Understood.

Q: When did you qualify?
A: I qualified as a medical doctor in 1998 from USM.

Q: You are a general surgeon?
A: Yes.

Q: No particular specialization?
A: Not yet.

Q: At this point in time just a general surgeon?
A: Yes.

Q: You qualified in 1998?
A: Yes. As a medical doctor.

Q: Did you take any oath as a medical doctor?
A: It’s the oath we took the moment when we enter medical school. Hypocrite Oath.

Q: Not hypocrite oath, but Hippocratic Oath.
A: Yes.

Q: You are here as an important witness. Are you a doctor or surgeon?
A: Yes. You can call both.

Q: Have you had experience in attending sodomy cases?
A: I have two cases before this, examination, but this is the first time I’m called into the court to testify.

Q: Two is not so many.
A: Yes.

Q: Exactly two?
A: The one I remember is two before this case.

Q: What about the rest?
A: The one I can remember is two.

Q: These two what were they?
A: Cases where the patient alleged to be sodomized.

Q: When did you go to court for these two sodomy cases?
A: I’ve never been called to court for this cases. This is my first time.

Q: What are the normal procedure when someone come and alleged  to be sodomized?
A: If any of this case, first it is being attended by medical officer from Emergency Department. They attend the case, and if subsequently they need further check-    up, it’s either us or other department, Forensic Department to further assess this case.

Q: Normally it is only one doctor who attended the case?
A: It’s always 3 doctors in HKL.

Q: The first thing to be done is to advert to the medical history of the patient?
A: Yes. So that it can be assessed by the Emergency Department.

Q: In this case, who did it?
A: Dr. Khairul.

Q: What’s your role?
A: I was called to do examination of the bottom part of anus/rectum to see evidence which support the allegation.

Q: What was the medical history supplied to all of you? The one of the Emergency Department referred to all of you?
A: it was summarised by a police officer the moment I arrived at the room.

Q: What do you mean?
A: The story as to what happened to the victim before he was produced to us.

Q: Done by Dr. Khairul?
A: Yes. It was done by Emergency doctor and Forensic Doctor.

Q: Both Dr. Khairul and Dr. Siew?
A: Yes.

Q: So you are not involved?
A: No. Not me.

Q: In what form?
A: Recorded in emergency notes.

Q: It must be in notes and details isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So, they were notes pertaining to that?
A: Yes.

Q: Are they available?
A: Yes.

Q: You talk about police officer just now. How did he get into the picture?
A: The case is considered as medico-legal. Usually in this case, we have a report done, or someone to contact the police officer in the case.

Q: In this case it is DSP Jude?
A: Yes.

Q: Who called him?
A: I don’t know. When I was there he was already there.

Q: At 8.30 p.m.?
A: I was there at 9.00 p.m.

Q: Are you present throughout the examination?
A: Yes.

Q: You did the examination of SP1, Saiful?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the purpose of the police officer to be present at the examination?

MY: The witness has explained. This is a medico-legal case.
KS: []
YA: He has explained. We assume the role of the police officer is pertaining with medico-legal case.

Q: What is his role then? Within the parameters the Lordship has explained just now.
A: To make sure that the chain of event of the examination and specimen been taken and send to respective place properly and it was to observe the protocol being done.

Q: What’s the protocol in this case?
A: It’s whatever specimens taken was properly done and send to the proper place.

Q: You did a joint report by you and the other two doctors?
A: Yes.

Q: I refer to the report, P22. When was this prepared?
A: Examination on 28th June 2008.

Q: Examination on 28 June 2008, 9.00 pm?
A: Yes.

Q: Extended the work period for few hours?
A: We finished the exam on 12.00 a.m.

Q: 3 hours?
A: Yes.

Q: Was ASP Jude present at the whole time?
A: Yes. As far as I remember.

Q: P22, look at the wording “Medical History”. Just two (2) lines isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: That’s not normal is it? A history must go beyond two lines?
A: Not necessarily. Depends on the important things that you want to highlight.

Q: History can be more than one line?
A: Yes.

Q: In this report, the history is in two lines. Was there any mention by SP1 who sodomized him? Under the history?
A: No. Just mention ‘public figure’.

Q: Just ‘public figure’ and nothing beyond that?
A: Yes.

Q: The examination was conducted on 28th June 2008. When was this report (P22) prepared?
A: On 13th July 2008.

Q: Was this report requested by anyone? By any authority?
A: I’m not informed. By a higher authority.

Q: You assume it?
A: I was not directly involved.

Q: You assume it was requested by a higher authority?
A: Yes.

Q: Why is that?
A: Because usually the higher authority needs the report.

Q: What was the reason behind it?

MY: Don’t go on assumption.
KS: []
MY: S.60 of EA is very clear. He was talking on what he knows, not what he don’t know.
KS: Yes. Assumption.

Q: What is your assumption?
A: I was invited, was called to be present.

Q: What’s assumption?
A: This is a medico-legal case. So must by higher authority.

Q: Higher authority means the police?
A: I don’t know. Maybe.

Q: Normally in this case, by police?
A: Yes. Should be the police.

Q: On the 13th July 2008?
A: By the police.

Q: Was any report prepared on 28th June 2008?
A: Initial report.

Q: By the three (3) of you on 28th June?
A: Yes. Only on history and examination.

Q: It is a separate report from this one?
A: Yes.

Q: The initial report, would it be available?
A: Yes.

Q: Those notes are available? The one you prepare on 28th June 2008?
A: Yes.

Q: Typed written?
A: Yes.

Q: Just like this one, P22?
A: Yes.

Q: So the initial report is typed written and prepared by the three of you and available?
A: Yes.

Q: Can it be produce in the court ?
A: Depends on the court. It’s not my authority to say so.

Q: This is a public document, so it must be made available.
A: Depends on the court.

Q: Is it available?
A: Yes.

Q: Who signed it?
A: I can’t remember.

Q: Is it signed on 28th June 2008?
A: The date I can’t remember.

Q: When was the examination conducted?
A: The examination was done on 28th June.

Q: The report was done on 28th June 2008?
A: I can’t remember,

Q: The report was done subsequent to the examination?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you sign it?
A: Yes.

Q: Was the report requested by higher authority?
A: Yes. Could be or could not be. But I don’t know who.

Q: Assuming the Higher authority means the police?
A: I don’t know. Could be.

Q: On 28th June 2008, what was the material before the three of you? What did you have? You have a police report, don’t you?
A: I was not aware of the police report. I was called for examination, so I not aware of any report.

Q: Was that police report made available?
A: I’m not sure. But it’s there.

Q: Subsequently, there was a police report?
A: Yes. The report of Travers Report 4350/08.

Q: Who signed P22?
A: The three of us.

Q: You are one of the signatories?
A:    Yes.

Q: [refer P22.] Is there any police report mentioned there?
A: Travers report 4350/08.

Q: So there’s a report? You have the sight of the report?
A: During the event of 28th June 2008, I didn’t see it.

Q: Was there a report made available to you? Unless it is not included in your report.
A: I don’t see the police report.

MY: Don’t quarell la.
YA: Yang belakang jangan bising sangat. I don’t’ want to hear you guys, I just want to hear the parties. If not, you have to go out.
MY: [] at the time of exam what did u have. []
YA: []
KS: This is cross-examination. so I can ask anything and []
YA: You have to give time. Otherwise he can’t answer.
KS: Witness must co-operate.
SP2: I’ll give my co-operation.

YA: Your question, on 28thJune was the police report available to you?
SP2: There’s a police report, but I don’t know what’s the content of it.

Q: What do you mean?
A: There’s a report but what was written in it is not available to me.

Q: Did you read the report before you sign it?
A: Yes.

Q: Isn’t it clearly stated Police Report 4350/08. So it must’ve been available to the 3 of you.
A: It was in the file, but not with me.

Q: It is stated that there’s a police report, but was it available to you?
A: No.

Q: Was it there in front of the 3 of you?
A: I can’t remember, it’s in the file.

YA: Police report ada dalam fail, did you see the report?
A: I don’t really see and remember which is which.

Q: Did you read Page third line?
A: Yes.

Q: So the report was there. Mentioned there?
A: Yes.

Q: What was the report mentioned about?
A: The report was there. But I don’t go into the detail.

Q: The report was there?
A: Yes.

Q: You saw it?
A: Yes, but don’t go into the details.

Q: Did the 3 of you discuss about the police report?
A: It wasn’t discussed. We discuss merely on the examination.

Q: On 28th June 2008 examination was conducted. Between 28th June 2008 and 13th July, there’s another report during that time?
A: The history and examination of the patient.

Q: So the history is more detailed than in this report?
A: I can’t remember.

Q: []
A: []

KS: The initial report is very important. Contemporaneous. That’s why we need all the reports.

Q: The report, is it possible to be made available afterwards?
A: It is not within my territory to say that.

KS: Does the report exist?
YA: Which report? Your last question, are you talking about the history?
KS: I’m asking for the report.

Q: Whether the report is available now?
A: I don’t know because I don’t know where is it now.

KS: []
MY: [] available.
KS: Of course it’s available, as my learned friend says.
MY: YA, what my learned friend concerns is history.
KS: Not history. But the report. I’m not interested on the history but on the report. Is it available?
YA: You’ve to ask him whether it is available now.
KS: The witness says so. And also the DPP.

Q: Is the initial report available at the hospital?
A: Should be.

YA: Boleh di kemukakan?
A: Has to ask the hospital. It is not with me now.

MY: I have to find out first because this is the only one we have.
KS: We wish to get the report, YA. It’s very important [].
YA: Kalau dibenar balik ke hospital, boleh bawak if available?
KS: The consequence is broken. P22 is important but another report prepared between 28th June 2008 and 13th July 2008 is more important.
YA: You cannot force him now.
KS: I did not force him.
YA: Kita suruh dia check balik. Kalau ada, he will produce it. I think we reserve itu dulu and sambung dengan yang lain. P22 is available now, it’s with you. Tapi the initial report dia tak ada now.
KS: P22 is the most important apart from the other one. It was connected to the other one.
YA: So what you wants to do now?
KS: []
MY: If I may suggest we proceed with cross-exam. And also under Section 157, oral evidence is important, but not the report. The person who examined should proceed to be question on his oral testimony.
KS: The entire case depends on the P22 and the initial report. Now we know the existence of the initial report and therefore we need both the reports.
YA: But it depends whether it is admissible or not. Kalau tak, no point. I’m going to adjourn for a while and resume when all parties are ready.

[10.41 a.m.] Stand down.

[12.17 p.m.] Kedua-dua pihak memasuki kamar Hakim.
[12.25 p.m.] Kedua-dua pihak keluar dari kamar Hakim.

[12.27 p.m.]
MY : Saya ingin memaklumkan kepada mahkamah semasa mahkamah ditangguhkan saya telah berjumpa dengan ketiga-tiga doktor mengenai laporan perubatan. []. Saya difahamkan kemungkinan report itu tiada sekarang. Tetapi Dr. Siew     mempunyai unsign copy of the report. Saya memohon satu tarikh untuk permohononan secara rasmi dibuat kepada HKL untuk SP2 []  but at the moment we have the unsigned copy. For this point of time, I’ve only the unsigned copy but this one we can make it available to KS untuk melihatnya. Saya mohon jika diizinkan masa diberikan kepada doktor dan IO untuk mendapatkan laporan itu daripada HKL sekiranya ada. Minta perbicaraan ditangguhkan kepada esok. Saya percaya rakan saya tiada bantahan.
KS: No, except this. The unsigned copy has no consequences. The copy signed by the three doctors is what we want.
YA: If ada, we should give them time.
KS: It is available because the witness says there’s a signed copy..
YA: So you want to locate for the signed copy?
KS: Yes.
YA: Sambung besok pada 9.00 a.m. sharp. Saksi datang balik esok.
[12.31 p.m.] Adjourned.

“+++++++++” The Full English Version “+++++++++++”

Criminal High Court 3 KL

Before Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

PP : All present except NH

Defence : KS, SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswam, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Ram Singh, Marissa, Prof. David Wells, Dr. Brian MacDonalds

WB : Zamri Idrus (for SP1)

AI present

[9.28 a.m.] Both parties enter Judge’s chambers.

[9.47 a.m.] Both parties leave Judge’s chambers.

[9.49 a.m.]

MY: Today is set for the cross-examination opf SP2, SP3 and SP4. Before KS commences cross-examination, I request the court’s permission to call Dr Siew SP3 to answer questions related to an issue..

YA: KS, any objection?

KS: No objection.

EIC of Dr. Siew (SP3) by MY

SP3 takes oath in English.

Q: Dr. Siew, you informed the court on 14 oct 2010 that all the specimens taken by Dr Khairul and Dr Razali are handed to you and put in the container.

A: Yes. On 28th June, I put it in the container all the specimens.

Q: You said you hand over the container to ASP Jude.

A: Yes.

Q: How did you hand it?

A: I placed all the sealed containers in a plastic bag and handed them to ASP Jude.

Q: Can you describe this bag?

A: It’s a plastic bag labelled with Forensic Department.

Q: Did you write anything on the specimens?

A: Yes. They type of specimens and my signature.

Q: May i show the witness the plastic bag? Can you tell the court and describe what is this?

A: This is the secure plastic bag which carries the label of “Forensic Department Hospital Kuala Lumpur” with the name Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan, case number, i/c number, the nature of the specimens which I seal and put in container and put in the plastic bag [read list of specimen written on the plastic bag]. I didn’t sign the bag. Just now I made mistake.

Q: Is this the plastic bag you put the container?

A: Yes.

Q: Is this the same plastic bag you use?

A: Yes.

Q: Who’s handwriting?

A: My handwriting.

Plastic bag from Forensic Department KL Hospital HKL submitted and marked as P27.

Q: Was it sealed when you hand it over?

A: I just seal like this [show to the court how he sealed it]

MY: YA, I have no question.

KS: We reserve cross for SP3.

YA: So you want to cross SP2 first? We have SP2, SP3 and SP4.

KS: Yes.

Cross-examination of SP2, Dr. Razali b. Ibrahim.

SP2 takes oath in English.

Q: Would you prefer English of Bahasa Malaysia?

A: English

YA: If oath is taken in English, answers should be in English.

Q: You took an oath just now.

A: Yes.

Q: What was it?

A: A declaration to tell the truth to the court.

Q: Not exactly isn’t it? You are here not to tell truth but the whole truth. [] more than     the truth. The consequences can be really fatal if you don’t tell the truth.

A: The court will decide it.

Q: Are you aware of the consequences?

A: Accused for not telling the truth.

Q: Not accused of, but charge for not telling the truth.

A: Understood.

Q: When did you qualify?

A: I qualified as a medical doctor in 1998 from USM.

Q: You are a general surgeon?

A: Yes.

Q: No particular specialization?

A: Not yet.

Q: At this point in time just a general surgeon?

A: Yes.

Q: You qualified in 1998?

A: Yes. As a medical doctor.

Q: Did you take any oath as a medical doctor?

A: It’s the oath we took the moment when we enter medical school. Hypocrite Oath.

Q: Not hypocrite oath, but Hippocratic Oath.

A: Yes.

Q: You are here as an important witness. Are you a doctor or surgeon?

A: Yes. You can call both.

Q: Have you had experience in attending sodomy cases?

A: I have two cases before this, examination, but this is the first time I’m called into the court to testify.

Q: Two is not so many.

A: Yes.

Q: Exactly two?

A: The one I remember is two before this case.

Q: What about the rest?

A: The one I can remember is two.

Q: These two what were they?

A: Cases where the patient alleged to be sodomized.

Q: When did you go to ct for these two sodomy cases?

A: I’ve never been called to court for this cases. This is my first time.

Q: What are the normal procedure when someone come and alleged  to be sodomized?

A: If any of this case, first it is being attended by medical officer from Emergency Department. They attend the case, and if subsequently they need further check- up, it’s either us or other department, Forensic Department to further assess this case.

Q: Normally it is only one doctor who attended the case?

A: It’s always 3 doctors in HKL.

Q: The first thing to be done is to advert to the medical history of the patient?

A: Yes. So that it can be assessed by the Emergency Department.

Q: In this case, who did it?

A: Dr. Khairul.

Q: What’s your role?

A: I was called to do examination of the bottom part of anus/rectum to see evidence which support the allegation.

Q: What was the medical history supplied to all of you? The one of the Emergency Department referred to all of you?

A: it was summarised by a police officer the moment I arrived at the room.

Q: What do you mean?

A: The story as to what happened to the victim before he was produced to us.

Q: Done by Dr. Khairul?

A: Yes. It was done by Emergency doctor and Forensic Doctor.

Q: Both Dr. Khairul and Dr. Siew?

A: Yes.

Q: So you are not involved?

A: No. Not me.

Q: In what form?

A: Recorded in emergency notes.

Q: It must be in notes and details isn’t it?

A: Yes.

Q: So, they were notes pertaining to that?

A: Yes.

Q: Are they available?

A: Yes.

Q: You talk about police officer just now. How did he get into the picture?

A: The case is considered as medico-legal. Usually in this case, we have a report done, or someone to contact the police officer in the case.

Q: In this case it is DSP Jude?

A: Yes.

Q: Who called him?

A: I don’t know. When I was there he was already there.

Q: At 8.30 p.m.?

A: I was there at 9.00 p.m.

Q: Are you present throughout the examination?

A: Yes.

Q: You did the examination of SP1, Saiful?

A: Yes.

Q: What is the purpose of the police officer to be present at the examination?

MY: The witness has explained. This is a medico-legal case.

KS: []

YA: He has explained. We assume the role of the police officer is pertaining with medico-legal case.

Q: What is his role then? Within the parameters the Lordship has explained just now.

A: To make sure that the chain of event of the examination and specimen been taken and send to respective place properly and it was to observe the protocol being done.

Q: What’s the protocol in this case?

A: It’s whatever specimens taken was properly done and send to the proper place.

Q: You did a joint report by you and the other two docs?

A: Yes.

Q: I refer to the report, P22. When was this prepared?

A: Examination on 28th June 2008.

Q: Examination on 28 June 2008, 9.00 pm?

A: Yes.

Q: Extended the work period for few hours?

A: We finished the exam on 12.00 a.m.

Q: 3 hours?

A: Yes.

Q: Was DSP Jude present at the whole time?

A: Yes. As far as I remember.

Q: P22, look at the wording “Medical History”. Just two (2) lines isn’t it?

A: Yes.

Q: That’s not normal is it? A history must go beyond two lines?

A: Not necessarily. Depends on the important things that you want to highlight.

Q: History can be more than one line?

A: Yes.

Q: In this report, the history is in two lines. Was there any mention by SP1 who sodomized him? Under the history?

A: No. Just mention ‘public figure’.

Q: Just ‘public figure’ and nothing beyond that?

A: Yes.

Q: The examination was conducted on 28th June 2008. When was this report (P22) prepared?

A: On 13th July 2008.

Q: Was this report requested by anyone? By any authority?

A: I’m not informed. By a higher authority.

Q: You assume it?

A: I was not directly involved.

Q: You assume it was requested by a higher authority?

A: Yes.

Q: Why is that?

A: Because usually the higher authority needs the report.

Q: What was the reason behind it?

MY: Don’t go on assumption.

KS: []

MY: S.60 of EA is very clear. He was talking on what he knows, not what he don’t know.

KS: Yes. Assumption.

Q: What is your assumption?

A: I was invited, was called to be present.

Q: What’s assumption?

A: This is a medico-legal case. So must by higher authority.

Q: Higher authority means the police?

A: I don’t know. Maybe.

Q: Normally in this case, by police?

A: Yes. Should be the police.

Q: On the 13th July 2008?

A: By the police.

Q: Was any report prepared on 28th June 2008?

A: Initial report.

Q: By the three (3) of you on 28th June?

A: Yes. Only on history and examination.

Q: It is a separate report from this one?

A: Yes.

Q: The initial report, would it be available?

A: Yes.

Q: Those notes are available? The one you prepare on 28th June 2008?

A: Yes.

Q: Typed written?

A: Yes.

Q: Just like this one, P22?

A: Yes.

Q: So the initial report is typed written and prepared by the three of you and available?

A: Yes.

Q: Can it be produce in the court ?

A: Depends on the court. It’s not my authority to say so.

Q: This is a public document, so it must be made available.

A: Depends on the court.

Q: Is it available?

A: Yes.

Q: Who signed it?

A: I can’t remember.

Q: Is it signed on 28th June 2008?

A: The date I can’t remember.

Q: When was the examination conducted?

A: The examination was done on 28th June.

Q: The report was done on 28th June 2008?

A: I can’t remember,

Q: The report was done subsequent to the examination?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you sign it?

A: Yes.

Q: Was the report requested by higher authority?

A: Yes. Could be or could not be. But I don’t know who.

Q: Assuming the Higher authority means the police?

A: I don’t know. Could be.

Q: On 28th June 2008, what was the material before the three of you? What did you have? You have a police report, don’t you?

A: I was not aware of the police report. I was called for examination, so I not aware of any report.

Q: Was that police report made available?

A: I’m not sure. But it’s there.

Q: Subsequently, there was a police report?

A: Yes. The report of Travers Report 4350/08.

Q: Who signed P22?

A: The three of us.

Q: You are one of the signatories?

A: Yes.

Q: [refer P22.] Is there any police report mentioned there?

A: Travers report 4350/08.

Q: So there’s a report? You have the sight of the report?

A: During the event of 28th June 2008, I didn’t see it.

Q: Was there a report made available to you? Unless it is not included in your report.

A: I don’t see the police report.

MY: Don’t quarell la.

YA: Yang belakang jangan bising sangat. I don’t’ want to hear you guys, I just want to hear the parties. If not, you have to go out.

MY: [] at the time of exam what did u have. []

YA: []

KS: This is cross-examination. so I can ask anything and []

YA: You have to give time. Otherwise he can’t answer.

KS: Witness must co-operate.

SP2: I’ll give my co-operation.

YA: Your question, on 28thJune was the police report available to you?

SP2: There’s a police report, but I don’t know what’s the content of it.

Q: What do you mean?

A: There’s a report but what was written in it is not available to me.

Q: Did you read the report before you sign it?

A: Yes.

Q: Isn’t it clearly stated Police Report 4350/08. So it must’ve been available to the 3 of you.

A: It was in the file, but not with me.

Q: It is stated that there’s a police rpt, but was it available to you?

A: No.

Q: Was it there in front of the 3 of you?

A: I can’t remember, it’s in the file.

YA: Police report ada dalam fail, did you see the report?

A: I don’t really see and remember which is which.

Q: Did you read Page third line?

A: Yes.

Q: So the report was there. Mentioned there?

A: Yes.

Q: What was the report mentioned about?

A: The report was there. But I don’t go into the detail.

Q: The report was there?

A: Yes.

Q: You saw it?

A: Yes, but don’t go into the details.

Q: Did the 3 of you discuss about the police report?

A: It wasn’t discussed. We discuss merely on the examination.

Q: On 28th June 2008 examination was conducted. Between 28th June 2008 and 13th July, there’s another report during that time?

A: The history and examination of the patient.

Q: So the history is more detailed than in this report?

A: I can’t remember.

Q: []

A: []

KS: The initial report is very important. Contemporaneous. That’s why we need all the reports.

Q: The report, is it possible to be made available afterwards?

A: It is not within my territory to say that.

KS: Does the report exist?

YA: Which report? Your last question, are you talking about the history?

KS: I’m asking for the report.

Q: Whether the report is available now?

A: I don’t know because I don’t know where is it now.

KS: []

MY: [] available.

KS: Of course it’s available, as my learned friend says.

MY: YA, what my learned friend concerns is history.

KS: Not history. But the report. I’m not interested on the history but on the report. Is it available?

YA: You’ve to ask him whether it is available now.

KS: The witness says so. And also the DPP.

Q: Is the initial report available at the hospital?

A: Should be.

YA: Can it be produced?

A: Has to ask the hospital. It is not with me now.

MY: I have to find out first because this is the only one we have.

KS: We wish to get the report, YA. It’s very important [].

YA: If you are allowed to return to the hospital, can you retrieve it if available?

KS: The consequence is broken. P22 is important but another report prepared between 28th June 2008 and 13th July 2008 is more important.

YA: You cannot force him now.

KS: I did not force him.

YA: We asked him to check. If it is there, he will produce it. I think we reserve first and continue with something else. P22 is available now, it’s with you. But the initial, report he does not have now.

KS: P22 is the most important apart from the other one. It was connected to the other one.

YA: So what you wants to do now?

KS: []

MY: If I may suggest we proceed with cross-exam. And also under Section 157, oral evidence is important, but not the report. The person who examined should proceed to be question on his oral testimony.

KS: The entire case depends on the P22 and the initial report. Now we know the existence of the initial report and therefore we need both the reports.

YA: But it depends whether it is admissible or not. If it isn’t, there’s no point. I’m going to adjourn for a while and resume when all parties are ready.

[10.41 a.m.] Stand down.

[12.17 p.m.] Both parties enter Judge’s chambers.

[12.25 p.m.] Both parties leave Judge’s chambers.

[12.27 p.m.]

MY : I wish to inform the court that during the adjournment, I met with all 3 doctors about the said report. I am made to understand that there is the possibility that the report is no longer available. However, Dr Siew has an unsigned copy of the report. I request for a date for an official request to be made to HKL for SP2 but at the moment we have the unsigned copy. For this point of time, I’ve only the unsigned copy but this one we can make it available to KS to view. I request that time be given to the doctor and IO to obtain the report from HKL if it is avaialble. Request hearing be adjourned to tomorrow. I believe my learned friend has no objection.

KS: No, except this. The unsigned copy has no consequences. The copy signed by the three doctors is what we want.

YA: If it is available, we should give them time.

KS: It is available because the witness says there’s a signed copy..

YA: So you want to locate for the signed copy?

KS: Yes.

YA: Continue tomorrow at 9.00 a.m. sharp. Witness to come back tomorrow.

[12.31 p.m.] Adjourned.

Comments»

1. Dal - October 26, 2010

Anwar gets what he wants
To prolong the show
But most of us see different …

It’s like his show in bed
He’s prolonging the foreplay
He’s prolonging the middle game
He’s prolonging the end game

How long can he last?

Unlike a grandmaster and his chessboard
Whe manipulates the opening gambit
Whe sacrifices pieces in the middle game

But alas ….
The end-game is out of his hands.

He’s laughing too soon.

KS is smiling from ear to ear for the sacrifices he makes. “Tail I win, head you lose,” he says.

2. La - October 26, 2010

A waste of public funds. There are better things for the DPPs and this judge to do than hearing an Umno orchestrated-fabricated case. No visible signs of rectum injury; kept buttock and arse for two days without washing so that sperm is still intact; and still this Umno’s directed Dpps wants to waste their time. Saiful must have injected the sperm with a lubricrated injector.

The better course of action if Umno wants to proceed with the case is for that stupid and servile AG/PP to give a fiat to Umno lawyers to prosecute the case on his behalf. That would save public funds.

3. V - October 27, 2010

I agree that its a waste of public fund. Let me ask: What’s different to Rakyat if Anwar is Gay or not? It makes no different, this is his private life, why use public fund to do such a nonsense?

4. viagra ohne rezept - November 10, 2010

Hey, I attempted to email you pertaining to this post but aren?t able to reach you. Please e-mail me when get a moment. Thanks.


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: