You have to begin with a premise. Destroy a reputation, totally. How? Use abuse of men, women and power, add in a dash of corruption but thankfully no wine, no song. And there you have it! Perfect!

Episode 1: The purported men Munawar/Sukma

Dr Munawar Ahmad Anees and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja were purportedly arrested under the Internal Security Act, turned over, then released and immediately rearrested, detained for a further day and then charged under section 377D of the Penal Code. This was tantamount to charging the victim and not the assailant. The purported assailant was at that time still free and very much around.

There was no 'investigation' as such. The entire prosecution case was founded on purported police interrogations of Munawar/Sukma and nothing more.

The charge sheet concealed the original date of arrest and had no complainant [the arresting officer was slotted in as the complainant]. In a typical sexual accusation the victim is the complainant. That was certainly not the case here.

The charge was vague and omitted material particulars.

The offence was one that came within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Courts but the prosecution went forum shopping and registered the matters in the Sessions Court. Amazingly two supposedly independent courts displayed great consistency in handing down exactly similar sentences of six months imprisonment.

The matters were completed with great speed and maximum publicity yet both Sessions judges saw no reason to consider the state of the accused. In Munawar's case he was seen visibly trembling in court when the proceedings were underway.

The prosecution came ready prepared to receive pleas of guilt.

Defence counsel, not appointed by the accused, came ready with pleas in mitigation. Typed, to say the least. Where did these lawyers come from? In Munawar's case the lawyer appointed by the family was turned away by the police and refused access to his client. Typically where the police keep lawyers away from arrested persons, here the police went out of the way to find two user-friendly lawyers and provide them clients, ready-made pleas of guilty and facilities to boot.

Defence counsel went to town in the prepared mitigation pleas and coloured their pleas with 'admissions' of offences that were not even before the court but were being advanced for the benefit of the waiting press. Consistency requires juicy details from the prosecution. Here the user-friendly lawyers undertook the task. The judges 'played' along. Sukma's lawyer even 'conveniently' tendered a confession during his mitigation.

The mitigation 'qualified' the pleas. The judges turned a blind eye to this. Consider a rape victim pleading that she was raped against her will. Consistency requires the guilty pleas to be rejected and the matter to be set down for trial. That would have defeated the police machinations being undertaken. However inconsistency ruled the day and qualified pleas were conveniently overlooked. The alternative to that would have been cases literally beyond proof.

Consistency demanded that the accused be left alone to pursue his legal remedies after the Sessions Court fiasco. Inconsistency enabled the police and the user-friendly lawyer to attempt to hound Munawar into not challenging or exposing the lies.