Below are some perturbing questions relating to the video which depicts a man resembling Anwar Ibrahim having sex with a woman.
1) Time-stamp: Now you see it, now you don't
When Shazryl Eskay Abdullah, the chief proponent of the Datuk T trio, showed the video to Malaysiakini journalist Hazlan Zakaria in Carcosa Seri Negara on March 21, he took pains to point out the time-stamp which appears at the bottom of the clip.
"Take note of the date and time code," said Eskay pointing to the date, which was 2011/2/21 and the time stamp, 22.23.
When an edited version of the video - about two minutes long - was released on YouTube last week, the time code was replaced by a white strip with words in Thai language, "Phaholyothin Road, Bangkok, Thailand 10400, Copyright 2011".
The number is the postcode of Din Daeng, a suburb north of the Thai capital. Phaholyothin Road is a major thoroughfare in Bangkok which runs north all the way to another province.
Eskay (right) has been very careful to ensure that he has the one and only copy of the clip. Indeed, journalists who watch the video were told to leave their handphone, pen and notepad outside the room, and were required to wear ankle-length jackets.
The question: If Eskay has the only copy of the clip, which was later surrendered to the police, who leaked the edited version to YouTube? And why the Thai script on the leaked tape and why the need to cover up the time stamp?
2) Made in Malaysia or Thailand?
"This video was shot in a spa in KL," Eskay, who formerly served as honorary Thai consul in Langkawi, told Malaysiakini journalist Hazlan.
Soon after Eskay was interviewed by the police, there were reports that they visited a number of places in the Ampang area.
A Malaysiakini journalist staked out an apartment building for a full day after hearing that it could be raided by the police, but returned to the office empty-handed.
The police have, however, said that they had visited the place where the video was recorded.
While the police have been liberal with a lot of information on their investigation of the sex video - that it was "not doctored" and that they were in search of the Omega watch owner - they are surprisingly tightlipped about where the sex video was filmed.
The footage, however, has no audio and thus no collaborating evidence as to the identity of the man and whether the trio in the video were speaking in a foreign language.
Interestingly, Eskay has made references that he and Anwar had visited Thailand a number of times and demanded that the politician reveal details of the alleged trips.
The question: Was the video made in Malaysia or elsewhere?
3) The stamina of a 63-year-old
Eskay has insisted that the sex act was recorded on Feb 21, 2011. On that day, Anwar Ibrahim spent the whole day in court for his sodomy trial - from 8.35am to 4.15pm.
According to the time stamp on the video shown by Eskay, the sex act took place at 10.23pm on that day and it lasted about 17 minutes.
Malaysiakini journalist Hazlan, one of the few who have seen the video, said the couple engaged in rather vigorous sex - beginning with the woman on top, followed by man in the missionary position, and in different parts of the bed.
It appeared that the man came twice but this could not be positively confirmed.
Then again, when he is on the campaign hustings, Anwar has the energy which can easily put those younger than him to shame.
The question: Is it possible for a 63-year-old man who had a slipped-disc operation to have a physical bout of sex, in particular the woman-on-top position?
4) Is it an old or new video?
Much has been said about the man in the video, who resembles Anwar but spotting a slight pouch along with prominent ‘man-breast'.
Some have suggested that the video was recorded 15 years ago or much earlier but that does not tally as Anwar in his younger days was slimmer than he is today, and definitely more slender than the man in the video.
Eskay has admitted he was the other man in the video, "You see me in the tape", he told a press conference two days after the infamous screening.
But when pressed on why he was there with the couple, he said: "I cannot tell you! I am in the tape, why should I lie to you?"
The other man in the video indeed looks like Eskay.
The video is apparently recorded by an old generation CCTV which was common more than five years ago. New CCTVs record in full colour, produce higher resolution images and the footage directly downloaded into a hard disk.
As with this sex video, it was recorded into a tape. Either the person who made the recording did not upgrade the equipment or the video footage was taken at least five years ago.
The question: When exactly was the video taken, if not on Feb 21, 2011 as claimed by Eskay? And why was Eskay in the tape?
5) Motive: National interest or self-interest?
Eskay has contended that he exposed the video because he wanted the truth to be revealed.
"It's about time, enough is enough. I had enough of being used," said Eskay, though he did not elaborate as to how he was used by presumably Anwar.
In the wake of the sex video, the former bodyguard of a minister who knows Eskay had offered an alternative motive.
According to Mohamad Mahti Abdul Rahim, former bodyguard of the late deputy home minister Megat Junid Megat Ayob, Eskay was sore at Anwar for refusing to be a witness in his RM20 million civil suit involving the 'crooked bridge' project.
"(Eskay) said, 'I am going to Thailand to collect evidence to take Anwar down," said Mahti.
The question: Was Eskay genuine about exposing the truth or out to fix Anwar?
6) The Omega watch: Why the fuss?
This is Eskay's story - he discovered the tape when he was asked by the man in the video to retrieve a gold Omega watch. He claimed that while searching for the watch he discovered the recorder in a drawer.
After confirming that the video was "not doctored", the special sex video task force set up by the police has focused its investigation on the mystery Omega watch, which was handed to them by Eskay.
Eskay told Malaysiakini journalist Hazlan that the Omega watch was "stolen" by the woman in the video.
In the video, after the sex act and while the man was in the bathroom, the woman was seen to be riffling through the heap of clothing that the man had earlier deposited on the side table.
"It is this watch that Datuk T claimed the opposition politician later found to be missing and asked him to retrieve. He further related that he was looking for the watch when he discovered the cameras and recording devices," said Hazlan.
But Hazlan did not see what, if anything, was taken by the woman. The Omega watch did not feature in the video.
The question: If the video did not show the Omega watch being taken, why are the police looking for the watch owner, and how did Eskay manage to retrieve the watch from the woman?
7) Who are the three arrested?
On March 25, four days after the infamous video screening at Carcosa, the Star reported that two individuals - believed to be Eskay and former Malacca chief minister Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik (left) - had been arrested in connection with the case.
It quoted Bukit Aman police secretary Ghazali Md Amin confirming that a number of items were seized by the police as evidence.
"One of them even told us where the sex video was filmed and we have sent a forensics team together with investigators to the scene," he told the Star. This suggests that the location of the sex act is somewhere in Kuala Lumpur.
Then came the twist, on that same day, the two men denied that they had been arrested by the police.
A week later, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein confirmed that no one had been arrested.
But the very next day, police chief Ismail Omar contradicted Hishammuddin when he said three individuals were indeed arrested, but were released on police bail. However, he declined to reveal the identities of the three.
The question: Were there any arrest made and if so, who are the three nabbed?
Statement yet to be taken from woman in sex video