Sodomy II comes to a close
The Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial came to a close today after 87 days of hearing, with the Kuala Lumpur High Court now left to hear submissions from the prosecution and the defence.
The Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial came to a close today after 87 days of hearing, with the Kuala Lumpur High Court now left to hear submissions from the prosecution and the defence.
The court today heard from two Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) doctors as rebuttal witnesses on whether the politician could have performed the alleged sodomy on Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan on June 26, 2008.
Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah
(left)
then fixed Nov 23-24 for oral submissions.
The rebuttal prosecution witnesses testified after Dutch orthopaedic surgeon Dr Thomas Hoogland said it was unlikely for Anwar to perform the sex act.
Defence lawyer Sankara Nair told reporters later that the defence maintains this as its line of argument.
“Although the rebuttal witness were called, the prosecution has failed to rebut what Hoogland has stated,” he said.
Today a major portion of testimony by senior HKL consultant physician Dr S Jeyaindran was heard in camera following a defence application, since the witness was testifying on the medical examination done on Anwar on July 16, 2008.
This followed Anwar's highly-publicised arrest that afternoon, after which police recorded his statement.
Anwar also spent a night at a lock-up in the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters, where his DNA was retrieved from three items - a mineral water bottle, a toothbrush and a white towel.
Anwar had, during on the examination at HKL, refused to give his samples when asked by the doctors, including Jeyaindran.
The public gallery was emptied during Jeyaindran's testimony, which was heard for more than 20 minutes. He responded to questions from the prosecution and was cross-examination by the defence.
Although the prosecution and defence have closed their respective case, one matter is still pending decision - Anwar's appeal over the court's decision to strike out the subpoenae served on premier Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor.
Questions about signatures
Apart from Jeyaindran, HKL director Dr Zaininah Mohd Zin, investigating officer DSP Jude Blacious Pereira and assistant investigating officer Sergeant Ahmad Abdullah also testified today.
Zaininah told the court that, some time in 2009, Sankara's law firm had written to the hospital for a copy of Anwar's medical report. She referred the request to Jude, to whom the hospital had handed the medical report - dated July 16, 2008 - in August.
The report was handed to Sankara's office on Dec 24, 2009.
Jude who took the stand for the third time in the proceedings confirmed that he had received the medical report and kept it.
“When I received the report it was only signed by Jeyaindran only. Although two doctors carried out the examination, the report was only signed by Jeyaindran,” he replied to questions from DPP Nordin Hassan.
“Another report was handed to me later by Jeyaindran, which had two signatures in it. The other doctor (consultant surgeon Dr Ee Boon Leong) had signed the second medical report.”
On cross-examination, lead defence lawyer Karpal Singh asked: “Isn't it surprising or strange to have two doctors signing one document while in the earlier one there was (only) one (signature)?
Jude initially kept quiet, but then agreed that it was “strange”.
Karpal: You did not investigate?
Jude: No, I did not think it was important.
The witness said he had received the second medical report from Jeyaindran, on Dec 21, 2008.
Karpal: Did you supply the second medical report to Sankara Nair?
Jude: No.
Karpal:
You know that a report which has one signature cannot be accepted by the court?
Jude, who holds a degree in law, did not reply the question.
There was also confusion in that the police copy was marked ‘Sulit’ (confidential), while the one handed to Sankara did not have this marking.
Jude said the police copy was marked ‘Sulit’ after he had photocopied it and given a copy to Sankara.
Sankara later said the contents of the two reports are the same, with the only difference being the number of signatures on each.
Related stories
Dep minister denies sex tape screened at gov't event

