Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim during a coffee break at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya today morning. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Nazir Sufari, November 6, 2014.
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 had also testified that they had tea and curry puffs after the alleged incident.
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 had 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.
MORE TO COME
- TMI
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.