Saiful's police statements: Why so secretive?
'If the complaint sheet that is meant to be given to the defence lawyer and up to this point in time it is still not, what sort of recourse a defence has?'
Judge blocks defence's access to Saiful's statement
Md Imraz Ikhbal: Oh, what the hell. Just cite Karpal Singh for contempt and throw Anwar Ibrahim into prison. The guilty verdict had already been determined well before the police report by Saiful. Why even bother taking us on this costly charade of so-called justice with court trials and all? Cut the chase and save the rakyat's money please.
You think this nation and the rest of the world are fools not to know what is really happening here and what the outcome will be? Nothing surprises any more and it is sickening to the stomach.
Ultimately we all know that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan being allegedly sodomised by Anwar is not really the case here. Rather, it is the integrity of our courts that has been sodomised by Umno and BN.
Just Great: This is the only country in the world (especially one aspiring to be a developed nation by 2020) to deny a defendant a copy of the complainant's statement to the police to enable the defendant to prepare his defence.
Cala: If the complaint sheet that is meant to be given to the defence lawyer and up to this point in time it is still not, what sort of recourse a defence has?
Looking at the way the trial is going, Karpal Singh may not be sustainable under a system bent to set things up against Anwar. The defence may need a team of lawyers, the way they did in Sodomy I.
Is this another Augustine Paul court?
JusticeNow!: This is preposterous, an absolute absurdity of justice, a ridiculous and bankrupt judicial system. How is it possible that the defence not be accorded the most basic item of a court case - the complaint.
It is becoming clear that the only reason for not allowing the defence to have access to the complainant statement is so that it can be amended as the trial proceed. It is absolutely sinister, evil and wicked to say the least. What is becoming our beloved Malaysia?
Eugene: The judge said that "the witness statement is not in conflict over the incident (of sodomy)."
How can the judge determine there is no conflict and assume the incident had happened when he was never there? How does he know Saiful is not lying?
Singa Pura Pura: Is it not a jurisprudential mystery and a marvel of our criminal justice system that, even at this stage of the trial, the accused does not know three-quarters of the allegations that have been made against him by the complainant and by the prosecution, apart from the fact that he has been charged under a section of the Penal Code that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years?
Wira: I remember in Sodomy I that even though the alleged victim Azizan Abu Bakar repeatedly told the defence counsel in front of the judge, the prosecution and all the witnesses in court that Anwar did not sodomise him, the judge ruled that there was no contradiction in the witness' testimony and stuck to the original line that Azizan's police statement was to be taken as the truth.
Sodomy II is just a sequel, in front of a different set of players but the same victim.
Kevin Phang: Justice Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah proves us right, yet again, that the judiciary is subservient to the BN/Umno government. A flawed charge is okay? Wow. This judge is really something. What else can we expect from this trial?
Multi Racial: Based on the judge decision to dismiss Karpal's application for access to complainant Mohd Saiful's statement which he gave to the police, it certainly appears to Malaysians that Anwar's case is as good as gone.
It is Anwar's counsels against prosecuting counsels and judge. If it was not by force, why is it Saiful not also charged?
It looks like the whole government machinery, namely the judiciary, the Attorney-General's Chambers and police have ganged up on Anwar to put him in jail by hook or by crook. The verdict is known.
Chee Hoe Siew: Isn't it clear enough that there are enough discrepancies to show that there is a problem with the accusation? There are so many loopholes that the prosecution's argument cannot even stand.
What is so secretive about the police statements made by Saiful that it cannot be revealed to the defence? Is he saying that the defence has no right to know the events as described by the accuser?
The Malaysia's judicial system is becoming an international joke. Even a blind man knows that the purpose is not to see whether a person is guilty or not but to ensure someone goes to jail for good. Why not just announce Anwar guilty already and spare the public from paying for this trial?
Good men: What they want to do is to see what the defence raises, then amend statements accordingly to prosecutions benefit. The same as when in Sodomy I, they changed the date when the defence provided a solid alibi for that day. This time they won't even let you see the claim first.
In the Altantuya Shaariibuu case, her immigration records disappear. There is no need to ask how, and why the two bodyguards killed her when they didn't even know her. Malaysia really boleh.
Teh: What a coincidence. He (Saiful) was in the house of the country's then-second most powerful politician. He overheard a conversation and he had the presence of mind to note the phone number of the country's most powerful police officer.
How did he remember the number? Did then-DPM Najib Abdul Razak mention the number one by one and he (Saiful) take out his mobile to key them in?
Or did he ask Najib, ‘Please repeat the number slowly' so that he can take it down? Of did Najib tell him to take down the number so that he can call police chief Musa Hassan later?
Malaysiakini
13/05/10
'If the complaint sheet that is meant to be given to the defence lawyer and up to this point in time it is still not, what sort of recourse a defence has?'
Judge blocks defence's access to Saiful's statement
Md Imraz Ikhbal: Oh, what the hell. Just cite Karpal Singh for contempt and throw Anwar Ibrahim into prison. The guilty verdict had already been determined well before the police report by Saiful. Why even bother taking us on this costly charade of so-called justice with court trials and all? Cut the chase and save the rakyat's money please.
You think this nation and the rest of the world are fools not to know what is really happening here and what the outcome will be? Nothing surprises any more and it is sickening to the stomach.
Ultimately we all know that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan being allegedly sodomised by Anwar is not really the case here. Rather, it is the integrity of our courts that has been sodomised by Umno and BN.
Just Great: This is the only country in the world (especially one aspiring to be a developed nation by 2020) to deny a defendant a copy of the complainant's statement to the police to enable the defendant to prepare his defence.
Cala: If the complaint sheet that is meant to be given to the defence lawyer and up to this point in time it is still not, what sort of recourse a defence has?
Looking at the way the trial is going, Karpal Singh may not be sustainable under a system bent to set things up against Anwar. The defence may need a team of lawyers, the way they did in Sodomy I.
Is this another Augustine Paul court?
JusticeNow!: This is preposterous, an absolute absurdity of justice, a ridiculous and bankrupt judicial system. How is it possible that the defence not be accorded the most basic item of a court case - the complaint.
It is becoming clear that the only reason for not allowing the defence to have access to the complainant statement is so that it can be amended as the trial proceed. It is absolutely sinister, evil and wicked to say the least. What is becoming our beloved Malaysia?
Eugene: The judge said that "the witness statement is not in conflict over the incident (of sodomy)."
How can the judge determine there is no conflict and assume the incident had happened when he was never there? How does he know Saiful is not lying?
Singa Pura Pura: Is it not a jurisprudential mystery and a marvel of our criminal justice system that, even at this stage of the trial, the accused does not know three-quarters of the allegations that have been made against him by the complainant and by the prosecution, apart from the fact that he has been charged under a section of the Penal Code that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years?
Wira: I remember in Sodomy I that even though the alleged victim Azizan Abu Bakar repeatedly told the defence counsel in front of the judge, the prosecution and all the witnesses in court that Anwar did not sodomise him, the judge ruled that there was no contradiction in the witness' testimony and stuck to the original line that Azizan's police statement was to be taken as the truth.
Sodomy II is just a sequel, in front of a different set of players but the same victim.
Kevin Phang: Justice Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah proves us right, yet again, that the judiciary is subservient to the BN/Umno government. A flawed charge is okay? Wow. This judge is really something. What else can we expect from this trial?
Multi Racial: Based on the judge decision to dismiss Karpal's application for access to complainant Mohd Saiful's statement which he gave to the police, it certainly appears to Malaysians that Anwar's case is as good as gone.
It is Anwar's counsels against prosecuting counsels and judge. If it was not by force, why is it Saiful not also charged?
It looks like the whole government machinery, namely the judiciary, the Attorney-General's Chambers and police have ganged up on Anwar to put him in jail by hook or by crook. The verdict is known.
Chee Hoe Siew: Isn't it clear enough that there are enough discrepancies to show that there is a problem with the accusation? There are so many loopholes that the prosecution's argument cannot even stand.
What is so secretive about the police statements made by Saiful that it cannot be revealed to the defence? Is he saying that the defence has no right to know the events as described by the accuser?
The Malaysia's judicial system is becoming an international joke. Even a blind man knows that the purpose is not to see whether a person is guilty or not but to ensure someone goes to jail for good. Why not just announce Anwar guilty already and spare the public from paying for this trial?
Good men: What they want to do is to see what the defence raises, then amend statements accordingly to prosecutions benefit. The same as when in Sodomy I, they changed the date when the defence provided a solid alibi for that day. This time they won't even let you see the claim first.
In the Altantuya Shaariibuu case, her immigration records disappear. There is no need to ask how, and why the two bodyguards killed her when they didn't even know her. Malaysia really boleh.
Teh: What a coincidence. He (Saiful) was in the house of the country's then-second most powerful politician. He overheard a conversation and he had the presence of mind to note the phone number of the country's most powerful police officer.
How did he remember the number? Did then-DPM Najib Abdul Razak mention the number one by one and he (Saiful) take out his mobile to key them in?
Or did he ask Najib, ‘Please repeat the number slowly' so that he can take it down? Of did Najib tell him to take down the number so that he can call police chief Musa Hassan later?
Malaysiakini
13/05/10
No comments:
Post a Comment