With reference to the letter entitled Court believed in Anwar's sexual shenanigans by LJ.

Kudos to LJ for having read the judges' judgment. But sadly, he had only read the parts he liked and I guess has not followed the whole Anwar case from the very beginning.

I refer to the judges's statement: 'We find evidence to confirm that the appellants (Anwar and Sukma) were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen'.

This evidence the judges's had found were adduced from the testimonies of a doctor and the former inspector-general of police Haniff Omar at the High Court stage.

The doctor in his evidence said, having examined Sukma's anus, he had found healed scar which he claimed may have been caused by some hard objects being inserted into it. However, Sukma presented medical evidence to show that the scar was due to a medical problem that he had which required a doctor's treatment using hard medical apparatus.

I would need to mention here that Azizan Abu Bakar's anus was, however, never examined by any doctor.

Haniff Omar's evidence in court was that he met Anwar at the latter's office and advised him to stop his alleged homosexual activities. Anwar in turn claimed, via his lawyer, that Haniff was called to Anwar's office as Anwar had wanted to advise him, as a Muslim, not to accept a post with a famous Malaysian gambling company.

Haniff, who had eventually accepted the post, had this to say in court: 'I've not found a word in the Quran that says gambling is prohibited.'

But as the IGP at that material time, with full knowledge of law, knowing that Anwar was involved in criminal actions, why didn't he inform the prime minister, launch a full-scale investigation and get Anwar prosecuted when he was still holding office?

Hence, after three alterations to Anwar's charge sheet involving the alleged dates the sodomy took place, including a period when even the place where the alleged sodomy took place was not even built yet, the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident took place on the dates stated.

If all these are enough for the learned judges to hand down their verdict, I'm curious what else LJ would want to appease himself?

In fact in my mind (and all other thinking Malaysians) the sodomy incident never took place. I will have this stand until Azizan's anus is thoroughly examined and there is evidence of a healed scar which may have been due to some hard object being inserted into it.

Even then, the question would be who inserted what into it?