The carpet where Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim allegedly sodomised his former aide was used to highlight more gaps in the prosecution's arguments in the defence's closing statement of Anwar's appeal against his sodomy conviction at the Federal Court this afternoon.
Lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram began wrapping up the defence's closing statement by using the carpet to show that the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, was not a credible witness.
The carpet had been seized by police from a condominium unit, number 11-5-2, which was not where the alleged crime had occurred. The carpet also did not yield any forensic evidence to the alleged crime.
Saiful's charge against Anwar was that the opposition leader had sodomised him in unit 11-5-1 of a condominium in Bukit Damansara on June 26, 2008.
Sri Ram said the carpet could have been moved from one unit to the other, but there was no evidence to this effect. The two units were also not connected from the inside.
In order for the alleged sodomy to have taken place, Sri Ram said, the carpet had to be found in the right unit or there had to be at least evidence that the carpet was moved.
He told the apex court's panel of five judges that the carpet had perhaps been moved by "flying cows", and added, "I don't believe in flying cows".
Sri Ram said that without the carpet, the prosecution had no case against Anwar as the carpet was central to Saiful's claim.
The retired federal court judge also submitted that Saiful was adding "salt and pepper" to his claims.
He said Saiful ultimately contradicted himself by testifying that the door of the unit was locked from inside while the alleged sodomy happened. Yet, he also testified that they had tea and curry puffs after the alleged incident.Sri Ram questioned how the food and drink had been brought to the unit if the door was locked from the inside.
He also rebutted the prosecution's claim that Anwar had used "Machiavellian" techniques to control Saiful, and also claimed that Saiful "idolised" Anwar.
Sri Ram submitted that Saiful "hated" Anwar, based on evidence from his posts on his Friendster account.
Saiful had put up posts which showed he was pro-Barisan Nasional, he told the court.
Saiful's friend, named Najwan, was also called to testify in the trial and he had said that Saiful could not be trusted.
"Najwan had even emailed Anwar to warn him of Saiful," said Sri Ram.
The prosecution, however, had dismissed this evidence, calling Najwan "jealous" of Saiful as he was working for the opposition leader.
Sri Ram urged the court to take Najwan's testimony seriously, as it debunked the prosecution's claim that Anwar and Saiful had a "relationship".
To the prosecution's claims that a luxury suit, perks and allowances given to Saiful were proof of a relationship, Sri Ram said that during trial Saiful produced in court what he claimed was the pants from a Brioni suit, but the pants had no label. The jacket of the supposed suit was also never produced.
"Evidence that he was given an expensive suit can no longer hold water," Sri Ram said, adding that all claims about perks and allowances had come from Saiful only, whose credibility was now in question.
The lead counsel also submitted that Saiful was not as innocent as made out to be and referred the court to the affair he allegedly had with a female public prosecutor during the trial.
"He seduced her to get confidential information," Sri Ram said.
Rebutting other points raised by the prosecution, Sri Ram cast doubt on the lubricant allegedly used during the sexual act, which had been cited as evidence that the sodomy took place.
Sri Ram said the investigating officer Supt Jude Pereira had at first refused the gel given to him as evidence by Saiful, but the next day took it for investigation purposes.
"Added to the fact was that no trace of the jelly was found on the carpet (where the alleged sodomy occurred)," he said.
On the lack of alibi witnesses called, Sri Ram said no adverse inference should be drawn against Anwar for this. The defence's 13 alibi witnesses initially named were not called after one was allegedly harassed by the police.
"We were unable to go forward because our witnesses had been scuttled," he submitted, adding that the prosecution could have produced video evidence of the police questioning to prove that there was no harassment, but they failed to do so.
Sri Ram said Anwar in his unsworn statement from the dock during the trial had denied committing the crime.
He reminded the court that Malaysian law recognised the right of the accused to make a statement from the dock, and no adverse inference should be made from this.
Sri Ram's last point this evening was to defend the first doctor who examined Saiful after the alleged sodomy, Dr Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid, who found that there was no evidence of penile penetration.
Dr Osman had instead found that a plastic object had been inserted into Saiful's anus, based on Saiful's own claim during the medical examination.
The doctor had no motive for fabricating that piece of information in his written report of the examination, Sri Ram said, as he was no longer in Malaysia having returned to Myanmar, his home country.
The defence has not finished making its closing reply and Sri Ram will continue tomorrow when the hearing resumes at 3pm.
It will be the eighth day of this hearing, the longest any criminal appeal has been heard at the Federal Court in Malaysia. – November 6, 2014.
*Reporting by Tarani Palani, The Edge Financial Daily.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/no-carpet-no-case-says-defence-in-anwars-sodomy-appeal#sthash.Da8pi4iS.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment