Describing Saiful as a "consummate liar", counsel Sankara Nair (right) said the evidence given by the former was fraught with holes that were consistently and successfully challenged by the defence.
Fellow defence counsel Karpal Singh submitted that Justice Zainal Abidin Mohd Diah's finding that Saiful was a "truthful witness" in establishing a prima facie case has been "demolished".
Among the contradicting statements honed in by the defence was the complainant's account of the first medical check-up on Saiful, conducted at Pusrawi Hospital on June 26, 2008.
Referring to evidence from defence witness Dr Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid, who had examined Saiful, Sankara said the doctor testified he had inserted the protoscope into Saiful's anus and concluded the checks before being informed that Saiful had been sodomised.
However, Saiful had claimed that the doctor stopped just as he was to insert the protoscope, when he told the doctor that he had been sodomised.
Both counsel also raised the question of a plastic object inserted into Saiful's anus, as noted by Mohd Osman in his medical report.
"(Saiful) had denied under cross-examination that he had not told (Mohd Osman) that plastic had been inserted into his anus," Karpal said.
The mystery of the curry puffs and coffee, which Saiful testified he consumed with Anwar after the alleged sex act at the Desa Damansara Condominium on June 26, 2008, was also raised.
'Magical curry puffs and coffee'
Referring to the testimony of the star witness, Sankara submitted that Saiful said he latched the door from the inside, but the food and beverage was somehow delivered.
"If the door was latched from the inside, there is no way anyone could have had access into the unit to deliver the '3-in-1 coffee' and the curry puffs, unless (Saiful) engaged the services of the infamous David Copperfield," Sankara said.
Besides a "bad CCTV recording" that had no running timeline, Sankara submitted that no evidence was adduced to prove that Saiful (left) was ever at the condominium during the time of the alleged crime.
The complainant was also accused of telling a "tall tale" when he testified he overheard then Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan's contact number when then deputy premier Najib Abdul Razak asked for it from an aide.
"Even assuming... (Najib) had not saved Musa's number in his phone, he would have logically asked the pembantu (aide) to place the call, rather than ask for the number with the intention of personally dialing from his own phone," Sankara submitted.
Najib's involvement was also submitted as proof of "conspiracy" in the meeting between Saiful and the then DPM at the DPM's residence, which was referred to as the "epicentre" of the web.
Sankara said the involvement of Musa and SAC Rodwan Mohd Yusof, whom he called Anwar's "nemeses" as they had been involved in the politician's first sodomy investigation in 1998, also raised reasonable doubt.
Saiful's evidence that he had "idolised Anwar", the lawyer said, was challenged by the testimony of the complainant's college mate, Mohd Najwan Halimi, who said the former had "hated" Anwar and called him a munafik (hypocrite) even before working with him as an aide.
The emergence of a tube of KY Jelly, which Sankara contended was not tested with the initial batch of seized evidence, raised suspicion that it was included into the evidence "as an afterthought" to explain why no injuries or signs of trauma were found on Saiful's anus.
The credibility of the DNA swabs taken from Saiful anus were also put through the wringer, with the defence submitting that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that the specimens indeed came from the complainant.
'DNA samples not from Saiful's anus'
Third defence counsel Ram Karpal said the evidence adduced by the prosecution raised "more questions than answers":
1. Why was there no evidence adduced as to why the specimens were in "pristine" condition after 56 hours in the anus and 48 hours without preservation in an office drawer?; and
2.Why did the two Chemistry Department scientists not report the consistent finding of the 18 allele in both their analyses, thus raising questions as to whether the allele belonged to another person.
"Can the court simply ignore the very real possibility that it belonged to someone who handled the same items (the Good Morning towel obtained from Anwar's lock-up cell on the night of the arrest and Saiful's rectal swab)?" Ram (at right in picture) asked.
Also, why was there no evidence adduced to show that the DNA samples were indeed sperm cells, and not from other cells?
"It is respectfully submitted the (DNA evidence) cannot be said to corroborate the complainant's evidence. It suggests the incident complained of did not happen!
"In these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that (Anwar) ought to be acquitted and discharged," Ram added.The prosecution, led by solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abidin, will make their submissions tomorrow.
Wujud keraguan munasabah, keterangan Saiful perlu dinilai semula
Najib dalangi konspirasi kes liwat Anwar
Najib mastermind in Sodomy II ‘plot’
Yang aku risau ni apakah hakim tu betul2 faham penghujjahan pihak pembela?
Kalaulah hakim 'blur' apa saja yang dihujjah pihak pembela adalah semuanya tak betul kerana dari awal dulu hakim kata "Saifool,seorang saksi yang berintegriti"
hakim 'not relevant' pn dah mati..
Post a Comment