I refer to the letter Why I believe Anwar is guilty which was in response to my previous letter, Why I believe Anwar is not guilty.

1. In response to my contention that bisexuality is very rare, the writer mentioned Elton John and comedian Andy Dick.

Two persons do not prove your point. Bisexuals remains a rare group compared to gays or lesbians and none have been able to maintain a stable marriage.

Andy Dick was only married four years and he was afflicted by drug abuse and anti-social behaviour including being arrested for indecent exposure. Neither is Elton John the poster boy of the family man.

2. ‘The highly controversial sodomy conviction of 1998 was thrown out because two of the ten judges involved in the case did not believe so. The eight other judges believed 'some' homosexual acts had taken place.’

That has been repeated time and again by Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Do some research and read up on what actually happened during the trial and you’ll see that the whole court proceedings was nothing more than a badly managed show trial.

I could write much more on this but this letter would be too long. As for the judges, seven of them gave their judgement during Mahathir’s tenure. Did they have the courage?

3. In response to my point that those on the cusp of attaining political power would not be so stupid as to risk everything, the writer mentioned mentioned Bill Clinton with Lewinsky, John F Kennedy with Marilyn Monroe and the recent call girl scandal with former New York governor Elliot Spitzer.

Sorry, but none of them were on the cusp of attaining political power when they had their indiscretion. They had already attained it.

4. ‘The FBI has noted that serial killers often use psychological techniques such as body language to lull victims into a false sense of security.’

We must distinguish body language from playacting. One is consciously done, the other is unconscious and very hard to fake. Even when a person is playacting, subtle signs will give the game away.

Anwar’s reaction and body language have been very consistent in all his ceramah spread over a period of time. Neither could Saiful fake his body language to depict something which never happened; in that respect, he was a total disaster!

5. The writer said that ‘if Anwar is innocent, then why run? Let them arrest him. If he is innocent after all, he has nothing to fear’.

When one has been arrested on trumped up charges and beaten within an inch of his life on his first night in prison, he can be forgiven for having plenty to fear.

6. ‘Saiful’s resignation e-mail - If Saiful wrote that he was leaving because Anwar sodomised him, would they release that letter?’

I suppose they would treat the e-mail differently but it doesn’t change the fact that Saiful wrote a friendly e-mail to resign which is totally out of character of a traumatised, sodomised person.

What is the point here?

7. ‘Rape victims or victims of abuse can freeze up in fear or shock when abused by their peers. They freeze up because they are being betrayed by people they respected or trusted.’

A person in a position of authority or held in high esteem can sometimes induce a shock effect on their victims but Saiful claimed he was sodomised eight times.

How long can we expect the ‘shock effect’ to last?

I appreciate the writer’s time to respond but he has not made a convincing case in refuting my points.

I leave it to the readers to judge which is the most likely reality based on the available facts.