jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 16 Februari 2011 February 18, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

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

Pihak-pihak:-
PP    : Semua hadir
PB    : KS, SN, Ram Karpal (Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Marissa, Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB    : Zamri Idrus (for Complainant)
Expert for defence: Prof. David Wells, Dr. Brian McDonalds
AI hadir

Sambung bicara 45-09-2009

[8.44 a.m.]

MY:    Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung pemeriksaan balas SP4, Dr. Khairul.

SP4 mengangkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q:    I refer you to P22. This is a joint report, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    The report was put up by you, together with Dr. Siew and Dr. Razali?
A:    Yes.

Q:    So all three of you are responsible for the report?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Was there any other person involved in the preparation of the report?
A:    Only the three of us prepare the final report.

Q:    Before the examination of SP1, wouldn’t the three of you plan on how to go about it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And there is a procedure in the examination of a witness, especially someone who alleged sodomy.
A:    Yes.

Q:    You have in the past done many cases, examined persons alleged being sodomised. How many?
A:    Yes. About 20 cases.

Q:    What is the procedure?
A:    Based on the standard operating procedure and the management of OSCC, it should be attended by medical officer from Emergency Department. After that

only referred to OSCC.

Q:    In this case is Dr. Suresh, isn’t it? Who started it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And from him three of you were called?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Wouldn’t it normally in the examination like SP1 in this case, the police will not be involved at all, isn’t it?
A:     Normally the police will be there all the time, unless the patient came to us first in OSCC.

Q:    Are you saying that the police would be there during examination?
A:    Will be there.

Q:    Has to be there?
A:    Once a police report is made, the police has to be there.

Q:    Do they have to be there during examination?
A:    During examination, we still keep privacy of the patient when it comes to examination.

Q:    During the interview of the person?
A:    Yes.

Q:    In this case who was there?
A:    DSP Jude.

Q:    Any other police personel?
A:    I only remember him.

Q:    What was his role?
A:    He has the police report,  he has to make sure the handling of the specimens and [].

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

Q:    He handed you the report made by Saiful?
A:    No. I didn’t see it.

Q:    But normally a police report will be considered, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    It is important, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Was the police report referred to three of you?
A:    I didn’t refer to it.

Q:    Did the others look at it?
A:    I don’t know.

Q:    You didn’t go through it?
A:    No.

Q:    How about the others?
A:    I’m not sure.

Q:    You said it is important, isn’t it? Is it important?
A:    Yes.

Q:    But in this case it was not adverted to by any of you?
A:    Not by me. I’m don’t know about the others.

Q:    Was there any discussion about the alleged incident among the three of you?
A:    Yes.

Q:    There was discussion, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And the police officer was there?
A:    Yes. He briefed us.

Q:    He briefed you based on the report made?
A:    Yes. Based on the complaint.

Q:    And also the content of the report, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What did the report show? What offence?
A:    SP1 alleged that he was sodomised by a well known public figure.

Q:    Without his consent?
A:    Yes.

Q:    The report would be referred to by DSP Jude, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Was the three of you informed of any allegation of oral sex?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And it is based on the report?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You read up the report, don’t you?
A:    We were briefed.

Q:    You were briefed based on the report, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And there was specific mention of oral sex.
A:    That part I discovered from my …

Q:    Not discovered, but specific mentioned by DSP Jude.
A:    I can’t remember. But what I remember is the patient alleged sodomised by a public figure.

Q:    What is sodomy?
A:    Sexual penetration of the anus.

Q:    Anal sex, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Oral sex is not anal sex. It can’t be isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Couldn’t it before you proceed there was a pro forma?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Who fill it up?
A:    Dr. Siew.

Q:    I refer you to that pro forma. Wouldn’t this be your pro forma?
A:    Yes.

Q:    The one filled by Dr Siew?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You are familiar with the pro forma?
A:     Yes.

Q:    And the requirement to fill it up?
A:    Yes.

Q:    I go to page 1 of the pro forma. On medical examination, item 6. Medical examination is carried out using the guidelines on pages 6-15. Would that be

right?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Page 3. Bottom of the page. There are 4 doctors referred to. Who are the doctors referred to it?
A:    Myslef, Dr. Razali, Dr. Siew Sheue Feng and Dr. Razuin.

Q:    There were 3 or 4 doctors?
A:    Examination was done by the three of us.

Q:    There were 4 doctors?
A:    Yes.

Q:    4 of you examined him?
A:    Only three of us.

Q:    What is Dr. Razuin’s role?
A:    She jot down all the information we verbally said. She took down notes.

Q:    She took down everything?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And she went there as to the protocol of the examination?
A:    Yes.

Q:    She would have taken done everything?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Those notes available?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Page 5. What is the importance of the examination of the complaint by SP1? To take down the history?
A:    Yes.

Q:    That is prerequisite of the examination?
A:    Yes.

Q:    A very important one?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Page 5. On top of the page. Would it be right certain details are not included at all? For example circumstances that lead to the incident. Very

important to record circumstances adverted to by the complainant when he is being examined, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And also the place of incident and so forth. Important to record all that?
A:    Yes.

Q:    1.2, site of incident, 1.3 place. Is required to be specified?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Was it specified here?
A:    No.

Q:    Have to fill up?
A:    Yes. But it is just a guideline.

Q:    Circumstances that lead to the incident? Very important, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    In fact, a prerequisite?
A:    Yes.

Q:    []
A:    Yes.

Q:    Circumstances of incident? Did not fill in?
A:    No.

Q:    Important to fill in?
A:    Yes.

Q:    1.5. Force/violent used. What are the answer?
A.    No.

Q:    No force use? Answer by SP1?
A:    Yes.

Q:    That is why he fill in. Did SP1 put up resistance?
A:    Yes.

Q:    [] in what circumstances resistance was used?
A:    It was not specified.

Q:    It was supposed to be specified, but not specified.
A:    Yes.

Q:    1.6, the details are important?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Type of sexual act. What is written there?
A:    Oral attempted.

Q:    Oral attempted / perform ejaculation?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Oral sex was attempted?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Not fulfilled?
A:    Attempted.

Q:    No perform ejaculation. Attempted?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Not perform?
A:    Yes.

Q:    [] would that be there?
A:    Yes.

Q:    That is what SP1 told you and therefore was included in here.
A:    No. He didn’t say that.

Q:     Here it wrote whether rectal attempted and the answer is yes. Would it be right? It is there?
A:    It is written there.

Q:    Estimated duration of caitus. How many minutes?
A:    30 minutes.

Q:    Page 6. Item 1.8. at the top of the page. Under history of events after the incident. Did he wash his mouth after that?
A:    No answer.

Q:    That he wiped/ wash his body? No answer?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Did he has a bath since the incident?
A:    No answer.

Q:    Did he defecate?
A:    No answer.

Q:    Was he seen by a doctor before coming to the hospital? No answer?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Did the doctor give him treatment? No answer?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Item 1.12 – Sexual history. Previous masturbation. No answer?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Previous coitus. No answer?
A:     Yes.

Q:    Date of last coitus? No answer?
A:    Yes.

Q:    It is a very important aspect here. And it required to be fill in as prerequisite in this case but was not done.
A:    Yes.

Q:    Page 7. Medical history. Important to be filled isn’t it? Not fill in at all.
A:    Yes.

Q:    Physical examination. Not fill in?
A:    Yes.

Q:    All very important requirement. Important prerequisite. But not fill up.
A:    Yes.

Q:    Page 10. Item 2.6.3 – Rectal examination. In this particular case is it important?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Rectal examination.
A:    Yes.

Q:    Very important requirement?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Not fill in at all.
A:    Yes.

Q:    Important aspect, anus/anal canal . No examination done as far as the pro forma is concerned.?
A:    It is not fill up.

Q:    Important to fill up?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Sketches not fill up?
A:    Yes.

Q:     Important to fill up?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Muscle tear.
A:    Yes.

Q:    Important?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Ought done so?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Faecal staining?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Important? Not fill in at all.
A:    Yes.

Q:    Swelling?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Important?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Not fill up?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Anal sphincter?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Important?
A:    Yes.

Q:    But not fill up?
A:    Yes.

Q:    P22. Done by 3 of you on 13th July 2008.  Very important document?
A:    Yes.

Q:    History. Sodomised by a well known public figure, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Nothing about oral sex?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Not mentioned at all?
A:    Not mentioned in this.

Q:    But important to have been mentioned?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Last page of P22. Summary/conclusion. [read conclusion 1]. Is that correct?
A:    Yes

Q:    Clinical finding. What is the meaning of it?
A:    What we can see from our clinical examination

Q:    But is based on other documents also such as police report?
A:    No.

Q:    Chemist report?
A:    No.

Q:    No chemist report at that time?
A:    No.

Q:    Page 3. “Please refer to chemist report…for full details”. It is all before you when you made the conclusion?
A:    Yes.

Q:    So the chemist report were there before the 3 of you?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Based on the chemist report, final conclusion were made?
A:    Yes.

Q:    So you have it that time? Including chemist report. Everything was there?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Based upon all that, you made the conclusion?
A:    Yes.
Q:    And that was “No clinical finding suggestive of penetration”.
A:    Yes.

Q:    There is no clinical findings suggestive of penetration?
A:    Yes.

Q:    The complaint by SP1 it is attempted sodomy, based on the pro forma. Would that be right?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Attempted sodomy, would that be right?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Attempted oral sex.
A:    Yes.

Q:    That is what SP1 said. The pro forma was filled based on what SP1 said.
A:    Yes.

Q:    No indication of sodomy at all. Only attempted. That is what SP1 says to three of you.
A:    No.

Q:    Based on the pro forma it was attempted sodomy?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Based on the pro forma it was attempted oral sex?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And the pro forma is based on what SP1 said?
A:    Yes.

Q:    So far as P22 is concerned, everything is before you including chemist report.
A:    Yes.

Q:    It is important for purpose of ultimate finding of no clinical finding suggestive of penetration?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And the ultimate finding is no clinical finding suggestive of penetration. There was no penetration because it was attempted as said by SP1 based on

the pro forma.
A:    Yes. The history is based on what he said. But this is just a pro forma.

Q:    []
A:    It is just a pro forma.

Q:    In the pro forma it was attempted sodomy?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Attempted oral sex?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What is fill up in the pro forma is based on what he said.
A:    Yes

YA:    Let him answer that.
KS:    []
MY:    []
KS:    The pro forma was based on SP1 said.
MY:    But SP4 did not fill it.

Q:    The pro forma is based on what SP1 said?
A:    It was a guide.

Q:    But pro forma show it was attempted sodomy?
A:    Yes. Based on the pro forma.

Q:    But the pro forma is based on what he said.
A:    Whatever he complaints. It is not rigidly has to be fill. He did not say it was attempted.

MY:    Can we leave it for submission? He clearly didn’t tell the doctor [].
KS :     What he recorded is based on what SP1 said.

Q:    Based on what SP1 said, the pro forma reflect it was attempted sodomy.
A:    Pro forma, yes. He didn’t say it was attempted, that’s the only thing.

MY:    YA, we have to move on.
KS:    []
MY:    You are repeating the same thing. Of course witness will not agree with it. []. We accept that.
KS:    You re-examine him. []

A:    Based on pro forma yes, but…

Q:    But the pro forma is based on what SP1 said. Can’t be anything else.
A:    It is just a guideline. He didn’t says attempted sodomy.

Q:    He said attempted sodomy?
A:    Based on the pro forma.

Q:    But recorded as attempted sodomy.
A:    Based on the pro forma.

Q:    But the pro forma is based on what SP1 said. It is something which is so obvious. [].
A:    Yes.

KS:    SN will continue.
YA:    Jangan repeat apa yang KS soal.

Cross-examination by SN.

Q:    You fill up the pro forma as guideline?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And you fill it up?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You have to fill it up?
A:    Yes.

Q:    When three of you interviewed SP1, DSP Jude was there all through?
A:    Yes.

Q:    When was he not there?
A:    He just come there and go.

Q:    Was he there during the interview?
A:    Yes.

Q:    I refer you to P6(J) (container). There are 2 signatures on top.
A:    Yes.

Q:    Are they intact?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Do you agree that all sample must be put in tampered proof containers?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And it means iy will show if it is tempered, right?
A:    Yes.

Q:    If you look at the container, are the signature intact? Whose signature is on the top?
A:    Dr Siew.

Q:    Is it intact?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Do you know if it has been opened for chemical testing? Obviously there has been a tear of the seal. Are the seal intact?
A:    Someone have opened it.

Q:    But signatures are intact?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Is it not good practice to prevent tampering of evidence signature has to be below the opening so that when somebody open it, the signature will

defaces,
A:    Yes.

Q:    But signature is intact?
A:    Yes.

Q:    But the seal is broken?
A:    Yes.

Q:    I refer you to a literature by referred to yesterday  where at page 1 there was sexual offences swab, 65 hours. I refer to page 139, para 2. [read]

Only two were recorded. And further down it says [read]. And this is a 1981 literature where there was no DNA profiling. Is it correct?
A:    I do not know whether DNA profiling was there at that time.

Q:    Para 2. [read]
A:    Yes.

Q:    [read] Do you agree with this statement?
A:    It is a scientific studies.

Q:    []
A:    I agree because I’m not the man in this expertise.

SN:    I’m done subject to recall. Just one more. I don’t intend to recall SP2. But I would like to put []. [].
MY:    []
SN:    In that case that’s all.

Re-examination by NH.
Q:    Who prepare this pro forma?
A;    By Forensic Department.

Q:    Who fill up the details in the pro forma?
A:    Dr. Siew.

Q:    Page 3, 5 and 6. Bottom portion of the pages. Do you see the signature at the bottom?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Can you tell the court whose signature was that?
A:    Probably Dr. Razuin.

Q:    So you are not sure?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Do you recognize the signature of Dr. Siew?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Is this his signature?
A:    No.

Q:    If a person signed the bottom of the document, what does it mean?
A:    Probably he is the one who fill up the pro forma.

Q:    Just now you mentioned Dr. Siew is the one who fill up the pro forma, after looking at your signature and after your answer just now was it Dr. Siew

who fill up the pro forma? Can you be sure?
A:    No. I’m not sure.

YA:     So you are not sure the pro forma was filled up by Dr. Siew?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Did you personally interview SP1 before you examined him on 28th June?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Who was were with you?
A:    Dr. Siew and Dr. Razali. But I’m the leading person taking the history.

Q:    Only 3 of you involved?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You were asked about oral sex. Did SP1 informed during the interview about oral sex?
A:    Yes.
Q:    What did he told you exactly?
A:    He said he is asked to perform oral sex.

Q:    Is that the reason why you take samples from the mouth of SP1?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What is his main complaint when you interviewed him?
A:    He was sodomised.

Q:    Did he mentioned by who?
A:    He told he was sodomised by a well known public figure.

Q:    You did mentioned SP1 informed you before examination. When did he told you?
A:    During history taking process.

Q:    Did SP1 at any time informed you that there was an attempted sodomy?
A:    No.

Q:    Did he at any time informed you there was attempted oral sex?
A:    No.

Q:    With regard to the pro forma, did the person who wrote this pro forma cross-refer the content of the pro forma with you?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Did the person who wrote this cross-refer the content to you?
A:    What do you mean cross-refer?

Q:    Being shown to you.
A:    No.

Q:    Do you agree that this pro forma that was shown to you is for medical examination of a rape victim?
A:    Yes.

Q:    With regards to history taking, you said you personally took the history of SP1 before examination.
A:    Yes.

Q:    And you reflect it in your P22? The gist of it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Can you read the history in P22?
A:    [read]

Q:    Based on that history taken before examination, is it sufficient for you and the two doctors to proceed with the examination based on it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    At that particular time on 28th June 2008, do you have a pro forma for medical examination for suspected sodomy case?
A:    No.

Q:    So this pro forma is just a guide for medical examination for sodomy cases?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You mentioned about a doctor by the name of Dr. Suresh who alerted you. Did Dr. Suresh  himself examined SP1?
A:    No.

Q:    What about Dr. Daniel? Did Dr. Daniel examined SP1?
A:    No.

Q:    Look at the pro forma again. Page 1. All suspected rape cases must be treated as emergencies in view of evidence collection. They are classified as

follow: fresh case for any case less than 72 hours after the incident and cold case for any case more than 72 hours after the incident. So, this is a

guideline for sodomy when you examined SP1?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Do you also consider at that particular time that fresh case as less than 72 hours?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Can you explain?
A:    One of the textbook of the medical examination says that specimens or evidence can still be traced up to 3 days and this decision to come up with the

[] is based on discussion and studies.

Q:    You were shown your report, P22. And you were asked pertaining your conclusion no.1 [read-no conclusive clinical finding suggestive of

penetration..]. And you were asked about the chemist report. Have a look at ID25. Page 2 of the report. [read..I found the presence of semen]. My question is

do you know the sight of B5, B7, B8 and  B9 when you read the report on 13th July 2008?
A:    No.

Q:    Who prepare the marking of B5, B7, B8 and B9?
A:    I do not know.

Q:    ID24. Page 2. When were you shown the document? If you can remember. Is it in court or before?
A:    Before…

Q:    When you prepare P22, do you have ID24 with you?
A:    No.

Q:    So when you testify in open court that there was anal penetration, do you also refer to ID24 to come to the conclusion in court?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You were also asked regarding the presence of Jude during examination of SP1 and also the report. Did Jude read that report to you?
A:    No.

NH:     YA, itu sahaja. May the witness be released?
KS:    Just one question through court. With regard to pro forma.

Questions through court.

Q:    Page 5 of the pro forma. On the top of the page. [read – the following should be noted regarding the alleged sodomy].
A:    Yes.

Q:    So it was in respect of sodomy that this pro forma was done?
A:    This is…

Q:    Top page. It was converted to sodomy.
A:    Yes.

KS:    YA, can we have this pro forma tendered as exhibit. It is an important document.
MY:    In fact throughout my observation I was thinking about this. It is supposed to be produced out of refreshing memory and this is supposed to be

referred to by counsel with regard to [] of this pro forma which was referred to in answering their question. And it end up like this. And today they want to

tender this.
KS:    Then make it the prosecution exhibit.
YA:    You are the one asking for the document. All this while the witness is giving oral testimony.
KS:    But it is important now, YA.
MY:    I don’t have problem.[]
YA:    We mark it as D 28.

Pro forma by Forensic Department filled up by Dr. Siew is tendered and marked as D28.

YA:     That’s all? Re?
NH:     Tiada.
YA:     Doktor boleh balik.

MY:     Saksi kami seterusnya ialah Dr. Seah. Kami mohon short break.
[10.03 a.m.] Stand down.

[10.54 a.m.]
MY: Saksi kelima adalah Dr. Seah Lai Kong. Pn. Noorin akan menyoal saksi ini.

EIC by NB.

SP5 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

SP5    : Dr. Seah Lei Hong, Forensic scientist in the Chemist Department in Petaling Jaya.

SN:    May I apply for Dr. Brian McDonald to sit together with us?
YA:     []

Q:     Please inform the court since when you are attached with the Chemist Department  in Petaling Jaya.
A:     Since 1991.

Q:     Please inform your current designation at the department.
A:    Head of Serious Crime Unit.

Q:     And what do you do as the head of the [] crime unit in your department?
A:    …

[10.57 a.m.] Stand down (because no electricity).

[2.25 p.m.] Pihak-pihak masuk ke dalam Kamar Hakim.
[2.29 p.m.] Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.

Kes disambung esok kerana CRT tidak berfungsi.

[2.30 p.m.] Adjourned.

Comments»

1. Malaysian - February 22, 2011

This is getting bizarre.

As evidence revealed numerous DNA profile inside Saiful’s asshole. (since it was not stated whether it is semen or any other source of DNA, we shall keep this possibility open. Sources of DNA, could be skin, hair, saliva, shit, urine, semen anything. If semen from Anwar, high possibility Anwar committed sodomy. But if anything else, then we can safely conclude the DNA is planted)

But clinical report by Forensic Department stated:

“No clinical finding suggestive of penetration”

I think the only truth will be for Saiful to explain on the many DNAs found inside his asshole.


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: