Followers

Nuffnang

The Unspinners

0

Posted by Unknown | Posted on 11:38 PTG | Posted in

sumber :-

The Unspinners


DNA Anwar dijumpa merata, DNA ke 3 hanya 1 lokus

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 10:33 PM PST


DNA ke 3 yang tidak diketahui itu adalah benda biasa. Tan Sri Shafee tidak tahu dan pelbagai kemungkinan. Maka saja dia katakan mungkin Saiful terkutik DNA itu dari duduk atas tandas atau apa-apa kemungkinan.

Rafizi mengambil peluang untuk mereka isu dan begitu juga peguam-peguam anwar.

CUba kita baca kembali apa yang Shafee katakan:

  Jam 1040: LFL: Shafee - unfair to say entire football team have been to Saiful s anus just because of presence of unidentified 3rd party DNA.

Shafee - 3rd party DNA in Saiful's rectum could also be explained by the fact that he sat on the toilet seat.

Mkini;

 10.40am: Shafee says Male Y is Anwar.

The peri-anal area of Saiful was obtained, where Male Y and another male contributor were found. Shafee says he will explain about the other male contributor later.

Shafee says chemist Noraidora Saedon testified that the DNA swab from the toothbrush  corroborated with that of Male Y.

Justice Arifin asks whether the unidentified male was only found in the peri-anal swab and Shafee replies in the affirmative.

He says the allele 18 was only in sperm extract in low rectal b9.

"What the chemist says appears in one locus (18 allele) and we ignored it," he adds.

 10.55am: Shafee says Anwar and Saiful's DNA were found on the latter's grey underwear.

The prosecutor says in the peri-anal swab from Saiful, Anwar and Saiful's DNA were present from "top to bottom".

He adds that Anwar's DNA was also found on the high rectal non-sperm extract.

"It is on every locus," he said.

Shafee explains the third person could have been as a result of Saiful sitting on a toilet seat.

11am: Shafee says there is no third person according to (chemist) Seah as it (the 18 allele) is considered a dropping.

----------------

Jelas sekali DNA pihak ke 3 itu hanya dijumpai di satu tempat (one locus) manakala DNA Anwar dijumpai di merata locus yang diuji.


Dalam ujikimia, memang biasa dalam analisa atau experimen akan terjumpa reading yang lain atau by product kimia dari tindak balas yang tak diharapkan.



Yang penting adakah ianya signifikan atau tidak.

Oleh itu ....sudahlah Rafizi!




Adakah Anwar ingatkan anak-anaknya solat?

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 10:00 PM PST


Hehehe ...

Apa lagi auta Nuor?????

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 09:40 PM PST




Sampai bila Nuor? Wasted your life and family ....



Setpol Azmin guna Porsche? Ada menyamar Setpol? Letih ...

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 09:30 PM PST


Setpol mana pulak ni? Mungkinkah ini Setpol Azmin? Azmin pakai Ferrari merah, Setpol guna  Porsche merah....

Kalau ada orang menyamar sebagai Setpol, ia juga mungkin Setpol pada Federal punya Menteri...

Hai susah nak menjawab ni ...

Kalau betul setpol menteri federal, macam mana Setpol jawab d bawah bila ditanya rakyat harga arang naik, subsidi minyak nak ditarikbalik, SPAD nak naikkan kos pengangkutan awam ...

Mungkin dia pandai jawab, dan diterima dna boleh ditangani politik tempat bossnya, maka lantaklah.

Porsche ni bukan Porsche baru, dah lama ... murah kot. Kalau mampu lantaklah ... mungkin dulu berniaga dengan jaya sebelum jadi Setpol.

Cuma tolonglah pikior sikit. Kamu orang politik akan sentiasa dipandang orang.

Bila orang bertanya tolong jawab. Jgn buat dunno bila dijadikan isu politik!!!!

LIVE from Putrajaya: Kenapa Anwar tak panggil alibi?

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 09:23 PM PST




Jam 1300: Mahkamah bersambung esuk pagi  ... sebelum itu Anwar dipersoalkan kenapa tak bawa alibi yang enam orang? Salah seorang adalah bekas Pengarah MIER Prof Arief

Takut lagi banyak bocor dalam pembelaannya?????

Mkini

1.00pm: Shafee now submits on Anwar not calling the alibi witness.

"None of these witnesses are called to prove the alibi," he says.

Justice Arifin tells Shafee that he has another one and a half hour to submit tomorrow and then it is done.



Jam 1240: Judge asked Shafee why prosecution did not impeach Dr Osman when 3 cautioned statements were taken from him?

Shafee - no need to impeach as Dr Osman s testimony was totally discredited during cross examination by prosecution.

 Shafee - prosecution has discretion to call witnesses & need not call a witness who is unreliable.
Jam 1220: LFL: Dr Osman is a liar & the DPP would have lost his job if he had been called as a witness.

Mkini:

12.25pm: Shafee says when cross-examined by (then solicitor-general II) Yusof, Dr Osman had said the type written report was prepared on June 30, two days after examining Saiful.

He further reads Osman's cross-examination, over a statutory declaration which he made.

"The defence wanted us (prosecution) to call him. This is clearly a witness who was lying," he says.

Justice Arifin asks whether Osman was impeached, and Shafee says no.

Ram Karpal interjects saying there were three statements taken from Dr Osman.

Shafee says Dr Osman's statement was not added, and says it clearly shows the doctor included the (plastic object) after the meeting and added it for someone's benefit.

 12.45pm: Shafee says Yusof made the right decision in not calling Dr Osman.

Justice Arifin asks Shafee to produce Dr Osman's cautioned statements, but he cannot show it.

Ram earlier says police recorded three statements but when asked for assistance by Shafee to show them, Ram replies, "I would not do so."




Jam 1230:

LFL: Prosecution was right in not calling Dr Osman ie first Dr who saw Saiful because he was an incredible witness. Shafee now questioning Dr Osman's medical report why did not ask further regarding plastic that was inserted in Saiful's anus.

The plastic in Saiful's anus remark in Dr Osman's medical report was fabricated.

Mkini

12.05pm: Shafee further submits on Saiful's credibility with regard to Pusrawi Hospital's Dr Mohd Osman's testimony.

Shafee says Saiful claimed that Dr Osman had lied when he wrote that a plastic object was inserted in the complainant's anus.

He says the doctor may have written what was there in a hurry.

"Doctors do not normally note down patient history," he adds.

Shafee further questions what was the plastic object, allegedly used, was it sharp, short, long etc"

"However, in Dr Osman's typed report there is no mention of plastic object," adds the prosecutor.


LFL: Shafee reading cross examination notes of Dr Osman - explaining about the plastic & whether Saiful said he was sodomised by a VIP.

 12.20pm: Shafee further reads Dr Osman's medical report on Saiful.

In the type-written report, he says, the doctor mentions that Saiful was sodomised by a VIP.

"This is crystal clear the kind of witness Dr Osman is. It is his imagination or he created it to benefit something else," he adds.


(On cross-examination then by solicitor-general II, Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, Dr Osman admitted he had written the report after seeing Saiful).




Jam 1205

LFL: Saiful brought KY jelly in order to protect himself. Saiful's detailed explanation of the alleged sodomy act proved that he did not invent the story. Saiful could be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.


Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them.  More in Wikipedia here



Jam 1140-1155:

LFL: Shafee - previous sexual encounters admissible to show a narration. Judges able to distinguish prejudicial effect.

Mkini:

11.40am: Shafee further submits on why Saiful's claim of previous incidents should be admitted in ourt.

"Previous episodes and encounters with the accused should be allowed as issue of credibility is at stake. This is important to understand the context," he says.

The prosecutor says there is no serious danger of pre-judicial evidence.


11.45am: Reading from Saiful's testimony, Shafee says the alleged victim could not stand it anymore.

He repeats the portion of Anwar ejaculating inside Saiful as before and that the latter felt pain every time the sexual act happened.

The prosecutor says to understand the context of the KY jelly being used, all this has to be taken into context.

"Why shower him with gifts like expensive suits, as this was given as he (Saiful) was dominated by the appellant.

"These gifts are necessary and the court should see Saiful's testimony on the context (of past incidents)."

 11.55am: Shafee notes that when Saiful says he 'tak rela' (unwilling), what he means is that he could not stand it anymore.

"Saiful says it was done without his (kerelaan) (involuntary). Saiful lodged the report after two days as a result of him being in a predicament," he says.

Saiful, he adds, could explain the way he was sodomised.

"It is not the first time it happened. It could have been 'rehearsed' before," he says.



I

Cuba pikior .. pelacur pun tak mahu dirogol

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 08:00 PM PST


Dulu Karpal kata apa? Tu pasal Jokowi no comment ... Kah kah kah

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 07:49 PM PST



LIVE from Putrajaya: DNA didubur bukti Anwar liwat Saiful

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 07:36 PM PST


Jam 1125: Mahkamah berehat

LFL: Shafee explaining how samples from Saiful were taken to minimise risk of contamination.

Shafee explaining why there is penetration despite no signs - sperm in Saiful's anus, use of KY jelly & no struggle.

 sperm in Saiful's anus is conclusive proof there was penetration



Jam 1040: LFL: Shafee - unfair to say entire football team have been to Saiful s anus just because of presence of unidentified 3rd party DNA.

Shafee - 3rd party DNA in Saiful's rectum could also be explained by the fact that he sat on the toilet seat.

Mkini;

 10.40am: Shafee says Male Y is Anwar.

The peri-anal area of Saiful was obtained, where Male Y and another male contributor were found. Shafee says he will explain about the other male contributor later.

Shafee says chemist Noraidora Saedon testified that the DNA swab from the toothbrush  corroborated with that of Male Y.

Justice Arifin asks whether the unidentified male was only found in the peri-anal swab and Shafee replies in the affirmative.

He says the allele 18 was only in sperm extract in low rectal b9.

"What the chemist says appears in one locus (18 allele) and we ignored it," he adds.

 10.55am: Shafee says Anwar and Saiful's DNA were found on the latter's grey underwear.

The prosecutor says in the peri-anal swab from Saiful, Anwar and Saiful's DNA were present from "top to bottom".

He adds that Anwar's DNA was also found on the high rectal non-sperm extract.

"It is on every locus," he said.

Shafee explains the third person could have been as a result of Saiful sitting on a toilet seat.


11am: Shafee says there is no third person according to (chemist) Seah as it (the 18 allele) is considered a dropping.

It appeared only once, he adds.

The judges take turns to ask about the conflicting DNA evidence.

"If you can read it, it is not degraded. You either can read or can't. This is an important point to remember," says Shafee.



 11.10am: Shafee appears to sidestep when Justice Arifin asks how the 18 allele could be there.

He moves to another topic regarding the three HKL doctors's testimony that they followed the required guideline.

"They used a proctoscope and the possibility of contamination is less as all equipment were sterilised.

"The doctors could not say there was penetration. After they looked at the samples four centimetres into Saiful's anal they found there is penetration."

Justice Arifin asks whether Saiful's testimony of other incidents could be considered pre-judicial.

However, Shafee says the truth is relevant citing the Harun Idris case.


Jam 1010 - 1026: LFL: No prejudice for judge to look at subsequent evidence in main trial to reverse the finding in trial within a trial. Illegally obtained evidence is admissible if it was relevant.

Mkini

10am: Shafee argues now on the admissibility of the evidence.

He says the late Karpal Singh had questioned Jude extensively during the initial trial.

He says there is no need for a 'trial within trial' to be held to admit the three pieces of evidence.

Shafee says while defence has countered that the evidence must be admitted in a trial within trial, he points out that it could also be admitted during the main trial.

"In the main trial, the counsel is required to question all, and Karpal did cross-examine Jude (again).

"There is no prejudice for the judge to admit the evidence," Shafee says

He adds that the judge at the time had ruled on the production of the original warrant of arrest, and had allowed the tendering of those items as evidence.

 10.13am: The prosecutor further submits case laws where entrapment evidence could be allowed in court.

"The court has no discretion to exclude it,' he submits.

The defence had earlier submitted that the evidence from the cell was done through trickery and deception.

 10.25am: Shafee says even if court admits the items were illegally obtained, it could still be accepted by the court as evidence.

He adds that the evidence from the lockup were those used by Anwar, as the police witnesses had testified.

Reading the lockup report, Shafee says the cell was clear and clean before Anwar arrived.

"If Anwar was brushing his teeth, Anwar could use the tap inside (the cell)" he adds, countering the defence claim that it was not possible.

 10.35am: These exhibits from the cell, he says, are admissible in fact and also in law.

Anwar, he adds, had refused to give his sample at Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL) even though there is evidence that a cotton bud had been inserted in his (Anwar's) anal region there.

"However, this cotton bud was not used as Anwar refused to give his sample though it could comprise of powerful evidence."

Now, Shafee moves on to Saiful's underwear, another piece of evidence admitted earlier.






Jam 1001: Adalah 20 orang yang baca yaasin. Nampaknya semua sekali ada dalam 35 orang yang kumpul depan POJ????

Wang sudah elek ka????


9.50am: Shafee moves on to the circumstances of Anwar's arrest.

The defence, the prosecutor says, is akin to asking if "the cow is jumping over the moon".

Shafee says Anwar would be the last person not to know what the offence under Section 377 is.

"The offence is a serious and seizable offence? It is carnal intercourse outside the order of nature and there is no need for a warrant of arrest."

"This is a valid arrest, and he was informed of the grounds at the police station. There is no infringement of his constitutional right."

Justice Suriyadi points out that the warrant of arrest states a different numbered condominium unit address and Shafee admits it was an error.

What is important, says Shafee, is that the complainant (Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan) was named.

Shafee argues it is not necessary for the grounds of arrest to remain the same, as it is up to the prosecutor.


Jam 0945:

LFL: Grounds of arrest were communicated to Anwar & his lawyer S.Nair at time of arrest.

Mkini:
9.45am: Shafee says the police testimony was neutral and there is clear fact that Anwar brought the bottle of mineral water and consumed it while in the lockup.

He adds that the evidence should not be considered illegally obtained evidence.

"Anwar was arrested when his car was stopped (when heading to his Bukit Segambut home). However, what is not in dispute was that the warrant of arrest was shown to Anwar at the IPK Kuala Lumpur."

"Anwar was communicated the grounds of his arrest and shown the charge."



Dari Mkini:
 9.25am: Shafee begins his submission. He informs there is a third bundle which he has submitted to the judges.

He is now submitting on the items seized from Anwar's cell on July 17, 2008.

The prosecutor says police had taken a strand of hair, the 'good morning' towel, toothbrush, water bottle to be used as evidence.

Anwar had placed these items on the half wall inside the cell.

Supt Amidon Anan, he says, took extra precaution when retrieving the items and sending it to the chemist via the investigating officer (IO, DSP Jude Blacious Pereira).

 9.33am: Shafee says while the defence had earlier raised the manner in which the recovery of the items had been made, he pointed out this was not raised during the Court of Appeal hearings.

He says the police were not cross-examined on the issue.

The prosecutor says a police officer had heard Anwar brushing his teeth, and this was not challenged by the defence team at the time.

"All this are not challenged. When Anwar left the lockup these items, which were previously in a plastic bag were all over the floor.

"This shows usage of these items by the appellant (Anwar)."

Last week the defence argued that there was no sink in Anwar's cell and therefore he could not have brushed his teeth.

The seized items were used to procure Anwar's DNA.

 9.38am: Shafee concludes there would have been no opportunity for fabrication of evidence.

He now reads the testimony where the police witnes (the officer on duty manning the cell) testify that he saw Anwar bring the mineral water bottle into the cell.

The police, he adds, allowed Anwar to bring the bottle.

Jude, the prosecutor says, also testified that when escorting Anwar to the lockup he saw Anwar bring a mineral water bottle.

"Jude says Anwar carried the 'Cactus' mineral water bottle. The item recovered from the cell (the next day) was also a Cactus mineral water bottle."

In the face of the evidence from the two police officers, Shafee says those items should be accepted as evidence.

"They were simply stating what they saw. There is no conspiracy," he adds.

The mineral water bottle, toothbrush and towel were tested for Anwar's DNA.



Jam 0920: Dari LIB Twitter:

Shafee submitting on chain of evidence - search of lockup where Anwar stayed overnight - toothbrush, Good Morning towel, water bottle.

Items were bundled, sent to IO to be forwarded to the chemist. sentries on duty were not cross examined during trial & it is too late bring up the matter now.

It is circumstantial evidence ie inference that Anwar had used the items in the lockup.

Maknanya Sangeet tak boleh buat andaian barang2 tak diguna di lokap pasal pembelaan tak buktikan dengan panggil pengawal lokap! 


Jam 0900: Abdullah Sani bakal dahului Yaasin. Hmmm ... ini orang yang halau bini dan kepala union yang auta pasal nak bela pegawai-pegawai kontrak PKNS. Apa cerita?











Jam 0805-0830 : Sekitar POJ agak lengang dengan wartawan, peguam dan pemerhati kedutaan mengambil diri.

Anwar sampai pukul 0830.

Ketika Saiful sampai ramai penyokong melaungkan hukum peliwat


Mkini tuduh hakim nak tutup apa?

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 05:34 PM PST


Bila Gopal Sri Ram terdedah, mereka nak serang balas melalui hakim ke? Baca SINI.


Baca SINI

Selalu bila mereka serang hakim, adalah cerita sebaliknya.


Adakah mereka dah dapat pegang hakim?

Kononnya ada hakim dah Sri Ram pegang satu pasal penyokong kuatnya masa dalam kehakiman. Ada satu boleh dipengaruhi. Konon yang pengganti dipilih sebab tak berapa cekap hal jenayah, lebih undang-undang syarikat dll.

Ini hanya cerita khabar angin saja. Tak mahu tuduh. Hanya nak highlight mereka are up to something lalu Mkini tuduh to coverup.

Ada 14, ada hakim ... tu pun Shafee tak boleh?

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 05:20 PM PST


Takyah ABIM jaja Qardawi ... PAS tak sokong sesat kikiki

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 05:06 PM PST




Baca balik Unspinners di SINI

Sementara itu, budak ni apa nak jadi ....


Atas telekong, pertahan peliwat dan penzina? Bawah takpa?



Kesian Tuan Guru Mat Sabu


Tungkus lumus cytro pro liwat malam tadi sebar

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 04:32 PM PST

Semalaman cytro pro liwat tungkus lumus ajak orang ke mahkamah dan nak cetuskan reformasi 2.








Yahudi pun bantu sebab Anwar pertahan hsk Israel untuk selamatkan diri dari Palestin yang tak berkelengkapan senjata.




Marah Yahudi Obama tak layan Anwar ...



Masih guna orang asing ...


Hujah-hujah Shafee untuk diingat kembali

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 03:30 PM PST


Antara hujjah menarik perhatian kita dari Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Tan Sri Dr. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah di pagi hari Jumaat, 31 Oktober 2014

(Hujjahnya akan disambung di sebelah pagi hari Isnin (petang Isnin tiada pendengaran)
kemudian diikuti hujjah penggulungan oleh ketua pembelaan Anwar iaitu Datuk Gopal Sri Ram pada pagi Selasa)

1. Anwar Ibrahim bukanlah individu biasa. Beliau seorang yang berkarismatik dan berupaya untuk mempengaruhi pemikiran seorang budak muda seperti Saiful. Selepas meliwat Saiful, Anwar berpesan kepada Saiful supaya jangan meninggalkan solat.

(Nota: Bukan saja saja Saiful, malah orang lain juga yang tidak mengenali siapa Anwar sebenarnya)

2. Saiful yang gagal menamatkan pengajian degreenya dilantik oleh Anwar sebagai Pembantu Peribadi dengan gai gaji lumayan, elaun yg tinggi dan pelbagai lagi kemudahan lebih daripada staf Anwar yg lain.

3. Saiful dibawa ke mana saja oleh Anwar. Singapura, Hong Kong dan lain-lain negara.


4. Anwar juga memberikan Saiful sut Brioni yang bernilai hampir Rm 24,000 (USD 7,700) yang pada mana sebahagian daripada mereka yang hadir ke mahkamah hari ini tidak pernah dengar pun jenama ini. Tetapi mengapa Anwar hendak menjaga dengan baik hubungan beliau dengan Saiful, soal Shafee.
http://www.brioni.com/

5. Selepas Saiful menguruskan jadual perjalanan seharian, Anwar telah bertanya, "Can I f*ck you today?" Ini jelas menunjukkan keintiman perhubungan tersebut, ujar Shafee.
Saiful agak keberatan dan ini telah menimbulkan kemarahan Anwar di mana Saiful telah didominasi sepenuhnya (secara mental) oleh Anwar dan mereka ke bilik tidur utama untuk melakukan aktiviti liwat tersebut.


6. Shafee berkata bahawa kejadian liwat itu telah berlaku di antara 3 petang sehingga 4.30 petang di Kondominium Damansara.

Hujah Shafee menyatakan bahawa Anwar meliwat Saiful tanpa kerelaan Saiful tetapi tidak bermaksud tanpa kebenaran. Ini adalah satu dilema psikologi dan moral apabila seorang individu yang dominan, majikan dan juga idola seperti Anwar Ibrahim mahu meliwat Saiful.
Perbuatan meliwat ini tidak ada kaitan dengan kebenaran kerana pada waktu ini Saiful telah tergamam dan tindakan tanpa melawannya itu dianggap tanda persetujuan oleh Anwar Ibrahim.

Liwat tersebut berlaku dengan tanpa kerelaan Saiful Bukhari. Maka dengan itu, Saiful bukanlah bersubahat dalam melakukan aktiviti liwat tersebut.

Atas bukti-bukti seperti ini, apa yang dikatakan oleh Saiful ada kebenarannya. Saiful takut kepada Anwar. Ini dapat dijelaskan dengan baik oleh gambar yang pihak peguambela sendiri bawa pada hari pertama yang menunjukkan Saiful masih menghidangkan air di rumah Anwar sehari selepas diliwat.
Muka Saiful bukanlah muka individu yang gembira ataupun ceria. Tetapi muka seseorang yang terpaksa berselindung di atas kejaidan trauma yang berlaku kepada dirinya sehari sebelum itu.

7. DNA 'Lelaki Y' yang ditemui di dalam dubur Saiful adalah sama dengan DNA yang diperoleh dari lokap Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar sama sekali tidak mahu sebarang benda (saliva, darah dsb.) diambil darinya untuk dibuat DNA profiling).

8. Bahan bukti yang didapati dari hospital seperti semen adalah intact dan tidak compromised sebagaimana yang telah disahkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan sebelum ini.

P/S Hari ini baru 30% hujah dari pendakwa raya, tu pun dah beri panas telinga buat anwar ibrahim, hehe.. kita tunggu isnin nanti.

Headbomb

Terdesak sangat bila guna tekanan kuasa asing

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 06:27 AM PST


Rancangan di atas untuk serang kerajaan terbatal sebab Habibie sakit dan Anwar lagi "sakit". Namun benteng terakhir Anwar untuk mendapatkan sokongan asing

Dijangka banyaklah forum, seminar, dan konferensi antarabangsa baik dalam dan luar negara akan diguna sebagai platform untuk bela Anwar peliwat laknatullah.

Sebagaimana pernah dilaporkan Utusan Malaysia, benteng terakhir Anwar  nampaknya tinggal tekanan, desakan dan sokongan dari baik NGO dan juga individu asing.

Pihak pembangkang cuba gambarkan salah seorang bekas hakim Persekutuan Australia membela beliau.


Namun hakikatnya, pihak pemerhati asing yang sama melihat tidak ada masaalah dengan perbicaraan. Malah laporan itu kelihatan seperti satu SPIN.


Anwar memang  berusaha mengenakan tekanan terhadap kerajaan melalui pihak luar. Ia bermula dengan usaha Rafizi ke Australia yang nampaknya gagal untuk dapatkan sokongan rasmi melainkan dari penyokong kuat Anwar iaitu Senator gay Nicholas Xenophone.

Ekoran dari itu, Anwar cuba berpura-pura dia tak bekerjasama dengan asing.



Hakikatnya terlalu jelas untuk dinafikan nama-nama oraag asing yang telah disusun menurun strategi terakhir dan terdesaknya:




Kenyataan terbaru hari ini pula datang dari The Economist.

Siapa pula orang Malaysia yang bekerja atau pernah bekerja yang membantu?

Tidak ketinggalan, pelakun Hollywood pun dipinta bersuara untuk mengambil watak dalam wayang tinggi productionnya.


Economist terbaru hanya meluahkan rasa kecewa perkara sama berlaku. Mereka juga berkata sebelum ini supaya tak usah harapkan pada anwar lagi ...



Tanpa disedari Anwar, permainan persepsi batu sudah bermula.




Elok 14 tahun... 1 tahun 1 lawyer, tambah 1 tahun untuk 1 ex hakim ular

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 04:10 AM PST




Suka sama suka ka ... Rakus dan ganas paksa ka ... Wan Azizah paksa suruh liwat ka ... Saifullentik mata ka ....

Isunya Anwar tak nafi dan penafiannya dari dock adalah penafian kosong yang menggunakan cerita wayang tinggi konspirasi basi.

5 tahun tak cukup, 20 tahun lama ... elok 14 tahun untuk satu loyar 1 tahun. tambah 1 untuk pasal satu loyar yang diguna itu bekas hakim yang korup dan salahguna kuasa.

Baca kisah Gopal Sri Ram di SINI, SINI, SINI dan

Penafian, konspirasi dari KANDANG TERTUNDUH layak DITOLAK MAHKAMAH

Posted: 02 Nov 2014 12:00 AM PDT


Ianya tidak dilakukan bersumpah dan tidak boleh disoalperiksa untuk dikenalpasti kebenaran dan kesahihan.

Maka penafian dan cerita auta konspirasi Wayang Tinggi Anwar cuci taik di jamban Dewan oscar holywood pun tak layak diterima oleh Mahakamh sebagai bukti. Walaupun hakim boleh terima mungkin atas budi biacara mereka, atas asas apa untuk hakim nak terima bulat-bulat?


Ada kes melibatkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi menunjukkan kenyataan tanpa bersumpah dari dock atau kandang tertuduh (bukan kandang saksi) tidak diterima sebagai bukti oleh mahkamah.

Kami memetik dari ABITW:

.... Wong Heng Fatt v Public Prosecuto [1959] MLJ 20 and Ng Hoi Cheu & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 53.

In the case of Wong Heng Fatt, at p. 21, Smith J who heard the case held as follows:

"I do not consider that a statement by an accused from the dock is evidence in view of the provision of s4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance 1949 the essential part of which reads "… oaths shall be taken by witnesses, that is to say, all persons who… give evidence… before the court…". Since the appellant was not sworn or affirmed he did not give evidence." (my emphasis added)
Section 4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance 1949 is now replaced by Section 6(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Act 1949, which reads:
"(1) Subject to section 7, oaths shall be taken by the following persons –

 (a) witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may be lawfully examined, or give or be required to give evidence, by or before any court or person having, as mentioned in section 4, authority to examine such person or to receive evidence."

Satu lagi kes menyerahkan pada budibicara mahkamah...

....in the case of Ng Hoi Cheu & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 53, Chang Min Tat J (as his Lordship then was) disagreed with the view of Smith J....

.... relying on Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1950 which defines "evidence" as, inter alia, "all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matter of fact under inquiry: such statements are called oral evidence…".

Read more ABITW HERE