Friday, January 6, 2012

Anwar Ibrahim 901 Judgement Day and Foregone Conclusions?

UPDATE 7 January

Anwar pleading to be freed?

6 January 2011

Azmin Ali is sure but not so sure.

Should the outcome not be favourable to the Pakatan pack, they will continue to protest until their demands are met. On this, Azmin is very sure,
“We will continue. The same night we have a programme in Penang. If he is acquitted, then Anwar will celebrate in his home state. If not, we will go to Penang and continue our demands,” he said.
Which means Anwar Ibrahim will be free when the court(s) accede to the Pakatan pack demands. And with that, all faith in the justice system will be restored.

When called to enter his defense, Anwar chose to give an unsworn statement from the dock.

Loyarburok provides Anwar Ibrahim's full statement from the dock.

Being the good people in the youthful legal fraternity, Loyarburok posts an opinion piece begging the question, "Why Did Anwar Ibrahim Give An Unsworn Statement?"

But for sure the impact of that statement from the dock, for whatever reason or value that can be placed upon it, would want and achieves a desired effect. That of convincing Anwaristas as well as for the foreign media and various organisations, of a plan pulling out all the stops to deprive him of power to form the next government by finding him guilty of a heinous crime.

All would be wise to consider, if it were so, whether this tactical "conspiracy" would have the desired effect on the part of the "conspirators"?

Of course not. Certainly not.

On the contrary, politically, it would have the opposite effect.

We all know that. It's suicidal and just plain stupid.

The opposition have, however, deigned and taken with extreme pain, to indoctrinate their dog determined followers, describing the case as proof of the ruling party's stupidity, carrying out a plan knowing it to be stupid.

Out of desperation, it seems.

One such organisation that is monitoring Sodomy II is the Inter-Parliamentary Union or IPU, through an observer (whether officially assigned is in question, see rebuttal link following), Mark Trowell QC.
"From the earlier court records, Mark Trowell QC was holding a watching brief for LAWASIA. It has not been reflected in the court records that Mark Trowell QC was an observer for IPU."
That Mark Trowell (and some usual suspects can be found) took an interest in another report, way back when Anwar was acquitted by the Federal Court, when,
"To summarise our judgment, even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law."
gives rise to suspicion of impartiality of the same said report; skepticism arising out of the structure and tenor of the report. Note the following also from the report,
"First, may I extend my appreciation to both the Australian Bar Association and International Commission of Jurists for requesting that I represent their interests at the appeal."

"Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy (at the time Vice-President of the Geneva based International Commission of Jurists) is a passionate advocate for human rights."

"Chief Justice of Western Australia David K. Malcolm AC (also Chair of the Judicial Wing of LAWASIA)....David Malcolm QC (as he then was) attended as the LAWASIA observer at the sedition trial of Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy (then President of the Malaysian Bar Council) who at that time was under attack from the Malaysian Government in 1986."
Objectively, the Federal Court's dismissal and written judgement of Anwar's corruption charges is also covered and included by the Mark Trowell report.

Reading both judgements exclusively, one will be able to form an opinion or conclude the veracity of these judgements.

Mark Trowell's suspect impartiality has not gone unnoticed by the Malaysian IPU delegation in this rebuttal to the Queens Counsel's various reports to the IPU.
"However, the general impression that could be gleaned from these 2 reports prepared by Mark Trowell QC, would be that the reports were actually prepared by one of the members in the Anwar Ibrahim’s defence team and not by an objective observer to the trial."
Reading the prosecution submission (here and here) to establish prima facie, one will also be able to form an opinion conclusively, even at that stage. (Source for links.)

Admittedly, while not having the full transcript of submissions by the defense, and relying on various news reports, the prosecution submission above, however, had addressed some of the points raised by the defense such as reported here by The Sun Daily, at the close.

Admittedly also, I am no legal expert. I understand and express matters as a layman.

Be that as it may, I am at a loss to understand how the defense, in submitting a conspiracy of sorts or ulterior motive to create reasonable doubt as reported,
"In this sordid episode the puppeteer is SAC Rodwan and by extension behind Rodwan is Tan Sri Musa Hassan the director. The puppet is Saiful."
but does not call Musa and Rodwan to testify.

Or in reporting Sankara Nair's submitting grounds for alleged "conspiracy",
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers today accused Datuk Seri Najib Razak of being responsible for the current sodomy charge against the PKR de facto leader, claiming that the prime minister’s “fingerprints” were “all over” the case.
when the reasons put forth by leading counsel Karpal Singh to subpoena PM Datuk Seri Najib, at an earlier time and reportedly because quote,
"Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s testimony is crucial to the Sodomy II trial, veteran lawyer Karpal Singh argued today, saying it could shed light on the disposition of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s accuser in the days leading up to the alleged incident."
“It is necessary to obtain evidence from the prime minister with regard to SP1’s (Saiful) state of mind, and whether he was frightened, or whether the prime minister would have expected SP1 to follow his advice,” Karpal said today.
Karpal requires Datuk Seri Najib's testimony not about any "conspiracy" but rather the 'state of the complainant's mind'.

Of note, is one of the defense main witnesses, Brian McDonald the DNA expert.

If a blogger was able to make a disclosure that could cast serious doubts on the credibility of this witness, automatically questions would be asked in the defense choice of witness. Surely, they would have checked thoroughly before deciding on the suitability of the witness.

The most persuasive and consistent defense witness, that may sway the court's decision in Anwar's favour, had been the spine specialist, Dr Thomas Hoogland.

Dr Hoogland's testimony, despite rigorous cross-examination by the prosecution, remained steadfast and sound.

If the court were to accept Dr Hoogland's testimony thereby deciding for Anwar, the whole of the prosecution's case crumbles, and at the same time supports the allegation of "conspiracy".

But, but, that being the case, would it not have been more formidable not only providing Dr Hoogland but also two, three or more spine and a host of the finest orthopedic specialists, together with the latest medical reports, to demolish the prosecution's case?

And by extension, why was there the need for all the other witnesses, whatever motives and all the "solid" alibis?


I still hold on to a hope that Anwar Ibrahim will be acquitted for some technical reason as with his acquittal by the Federal Court in Sodomy I.

For I have seen and believed.

No comments: