Sunday, June 29, 2008

Pictorial dossier of Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan

Malaysia Today has just made public a set of pictures of Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 23, who is believed to be the person who has lodged a police report against former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for "sodomising" him recently. It is very clear from the set of photographs, whose authenticity has not been in dispute, that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a very tall and physically well-built ex-student of Universiti Tenaga Nasional who has married with a woman, is close - and enjoys access - to several Umno leaders with Cabinet positions.

BN' s smear against Anwar Ibrahim intensifies

6 Comments:

Blogger Raizzèn said...

He's famous now isnt he ? Shallow idiotic looking faggot who'd even dare think that someone actually has got the appetite to rape him.

4:48 AM  
Blogger red_devilz88 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:48 AM  
Blogger red_devilz88 said...

he's famous alrite...for all the wrong reasons...well my friend raizzen...let me enlighten u on some current issue in Malaysia if u havnt heard...
Grandmother was raped by young man of 20's...
Children at home molested at home by their own brothers...
Jz in case the newspaper is deprived in ur area...

11:40 AM  
Blogger Aiyzek said...

Hi guys,
I quoted this from renovation blogged by stephendoss concerning Anwar’s sodomy cases issued previously…check it out..
“FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS, I HAVE EXTRACTED FROM THE PAST THE JUDGMENT BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA, ANWAR’S APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY. THE FOLLOWING IS A MAJORITY DECISION REACHED BY THE JUDGES SITTING IN THE FEDERAL COURT ON THE ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY.
PLEASE NOTE AND READ CAREFULLY THE VERDICT, THAT ALTHOUGH THE JUDGES HAD NO DOUBT IN THEIR MINDS THAT THE ACT OF SODOMY BY ANWAR IBRAHIM HAD TAKEN PLACE, BUT TO RELY SOLELY ON AZIZAN’S EVIDENCE WOULD BE UNSAFE FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPHOLDING THE JUDGEMENT.
SO DID THE ACT OF SODOMY TAKE PLACE ? YES ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES. BUT DUE TO A TECHNICALITY THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DISMISS THE CASE.
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 05-6-2003 (W)
ANTARA
DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. 05-7-2003 (W)
SUKMA DARMAWAN SASMITAAT MADJA … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN
CORAM:
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.
RAHMAH HUSSAIN F.C.J.
TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.
MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.
AND TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.
In this judgment, Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim will be referred to as “the first appellant” and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja will be referred to as “the second appellant”.
The first appellant was charged with an offence punishable under section 377B of the Penal Code.
The second appellant was charged with two offences. The first charge is for abetting the first appellant in the commission of the offence with which the first appellant was charged. The second charge is similar to the charge against the first appellant i.e. under section 377B of the Penal Code.
Both the appellants were tried jointly. The first appellant was convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment commencing from the expiry of the sentence he was then serving in the first trial. High Court Kuala Lumpur Criminal Trial No. 45-48-1998 (1999)2 M.L.J. 1 (H.C), (2002)2 M.L.J. 486 (C.A.) and (2002) 3 M.L.J. 193 (F.C.)). The second appellant was convicted on both charges and sentenced to six years imprisonment and two strokes for each charge with the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. For the judgment of the High Court in the present case, see (2001) 3 M.L.J. 193.
They appealed to the Court of Appeal. Their appeals were dismissed – see (2004) 1 M.L.J. 177.
They appealed to this court and this is the majority judgment of this court.
Section 87(3) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) provides that a criminal appeal to this court “may lie on a question of fact or a question of law or on a question of mixed fact and law.” The position is the same as in the case of the Court of Appeal hearing an appeal from a trial in the High Court as in this case – see section 50(3) CJA 1964.
To summarise our judgment, even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law. We may be convinced in our minds of the guilt or innocence of the appellants but our decision must only be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else.”

1:23 AM  
Blogger Philip said...

If it is consentious sex between two person (man-man or man-woman or woman-woman), then BOTH are guilty and both should go to jail? If it is NOT consentious then it is IMPOSSIBLE for one man to force "into" another man's ass... I think the Judges erred, if sexual acts had not been demonstrated physically in court, and their judgement based on reports and evidence which are all fabricated by experts??

Only an International Court, not bias or polically appointed, can be trusted. Malaysian Judges we know from the lingam stories, cannot be held in high esteem... sorry.. but thats the facts

11:37 AM  
Blogger red_devilz88 said...

It it the prosecutor which hold the burden of prove.
Here, it is just to say that the prosecutor had not gathered conclusive and concrete evidents to support their charge. It's not that they must show sexual act in court.

Consent is not must always given from freewill...the victim must have the capacity of mind and freedom to give consent to this sexual activity. Thus, consent must be agreed on the 'quality' of the act. It doesn't mean that a man cannot force himself into another man's anal hole. The victim might had consented under duress, or had been lied upon the 'quality' of the act itself.
In the charge of rape, if the AR(actus reus) the guilty act itself establish, then its just the bit in consent(Mens Rea) which is in need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Consent is the very essential of a Sexual Offence. Simply to say, if there is no consent, the defendant can clearly be adduce to had rape without consent.

So, in the judges stating that they must decide upon evident given. It's irrelevant on what the judges think whether or not the offence was committed, as this is just their statement of opinion. But as for their ratio decidendi(decided judgment), they cannot charge Anwar for these charges as evidents presented was not conclusive enough.
Phillip, you think the judges dare to screw up again after the Linggam's Case? The heat is still on, judges might not had the best esteem right now, but they are smart enough to know when is the worst time to be impartial.

12:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home