YOURSAY ‘There must be a failure of process to constitute a miscarriage of justice.’

I'll be free on Tuesday, says hopeful Anwar

Ferdtan: How credible is Jude Pereira, an ex-cop who is qualified to be a lawyer on retirement?

He has been rightly disallowed by the High Court to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor. Reason: “He was found to be ‘ not to be a credible witness ’ during the a human rights hearing in the case involving the arrest of five lawyers in Kuala Lumpur.

If Jude Pereira was not so truthful witness in one trial so why not another, which is far more important to his police boss and the government he served?

Axolotl: RPK (Raja Petra Kamarudin) may not be the world's most reliable political gossipper but he is often right about certain things.

For instance, when RPK reported that Saiful Bukhari Azlan had met with SAC II Rodwan Yusof in Room 619 of Concorde Hotel on June 25, 2008, the fact has never been challenged or disputed.

So when RPK suggests that lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah played a major role in numerous shady intrigues within the inner circles of power at Putrajaya, I am inclined to think he is right on this score.

We have seen how Shafee was also involved in trying to get Abdul Razak Baginda and PM Najib Razak off the hook during the Altantuya Shaariibuu investigation with countless SMS exchanges between Shafee and Najib.

Casey: "Allegations against the IO (Jude) are a serious travesty of justice," submitted Shafee Abdullah.

If that was indeed what he said, I'm baffled by his understanding of the phrase "travesty of justice" or "miscarriage of justice".

The term 'travesty of justice' is sometimes used in place of "miscarriage of justice" for a gross, deliberate or manifest injustice.

In the case of R (Muller) v Home Secretary (2004), the meaning of the term "miscarriage of justice" in a provision as appear in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was inconclusively discussed.

In particular, it remains undecided whether the phrase can naturally cover only those now thought to be innocent; or whether it covers those whose innocence is not established but whose trial was unfair.

In the case of R (Allen) v Secretary of State for Justice (2008), the court held that a quashed conviction alone is insufficient, for there must be a failure of process to constitute a miscarriage of justice.

In this case, it is Anwar who is seeking to quash a conviction that, on the face of it, overwhelmingly points to a failure of process. How on earth would an attempt on the part of the defence to discredit an investigating officer’s findings constitute "travesty of justice"?

Fz2379: So far none of Anwar's "lawyers" here in this Malaysiakini forum addressed the fact his DNA (extracted from his semen) was found in Saiful's anus. None of the defence team addressed this too.

"Where can the IO get the semen sample in between (ie, June 30 and July 17) to tamper with the (first sample)?" Shafee had asked.

Pemerhati: What was purportedly found in Saful’s anus was Anwar’s DNA and that could have come not only from semen but from a variety of sources such as his blood, saliva, etc.

Thus to frame Anwar the conspirators could have collected someone else’s spermatozoa and mixed it with Anwar’s blood, saliva, etc, and then inserted it into Saiful’s anus.

You can only say with absolute certainty that Anwar’s sperm was in Saiful’s anus if the spermatozoa (the important constituent of the seminal fluid with the head and tail) were isolated and their DNA determined.

But this was not done and hence it is wrong to conclude that the DNA came from the sperm as the DNA could have come from blood, saliva, etc.

It is relatively easy to obtain someone’s body fluids and test them for DNA but much more difficult, although not impossible, to obtain someone’s spermatozoa.

Shafee's romantic twist to 'ring of truth'

Odin: Was the supposed sodomy act consensual or non-consensual? Technically speaking, and assuming that what Saiful had claimed has indeed transpired, then it was non-consensual.

The term ‘non-consensual' is normally applied to cases where one party is unwilling and forced to surrender, or has been fed with some kind of drugs that renders him or her unable to repel the advance, and thus the act constitutes rape.

Was the particular act a rape? If it was a rape, then Saiful was a very willing victim. Didn't he have with him a tube of K-Y jelly?

The whole shenanigan is just a badly written drama script acted out. Maybe Najib might want to get Red Granite to commission a competent scriptwriter from Hollywood to write a script for Sodomy III.

Mind Liberator: If I'm not mistaken, the sperm cell in dispute contained the DNA of Saiful, Male Y and an unidentified third party.

The government chemist did not separate the sperm cell from the non-sperm cell. So how could you positively say that it was Anwar's sperm when the DNA of Saiful and an unidentified third party were in it as well.

Secondly, how do you describe an employee of an opposition leader while still in the employment having had meetings with his employer's main political rival and other high-ranking officials?

All these were done without the knowledge of his then employer.

Can anyone be blamed for speculating that there must have been a special mission being discussed at such meetings?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.