Comments on: Police Black Eyes

By: anna brella

anna brella — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:17:19 +0000

Two black eyes, huh?

Perhaps the police are now trying to follow that legal tenet that says justice must be blind to be impartial.

However….125 RPC recommendations!!……wow!..long way to go…

“Imagine Power To The People” John Lennon

By: taiking

taiking — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:09:17 +0000

I am not familiar with criminal law. But dont the special branch keep anwar’s dna profile in its record? like finger prints.

If they do, cant they use it? I.e. to compare it against the dna extracted from the complainant?

That should be enough. In court, it would be a matter of establishing the special branch’s record of his dna profile for admissibility purposes. Wouldnt it?

If that is so, why is there a need to get fresh body tissue samples?

By: undergrad2

undergrad2 — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:34:28 +0000

“WHY DO THE POLICE NEED A FRESH DNA FROM AN INNOCENT MAN ???”

To find out where his dong has been???

By: acalcio

acalcio — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:37:59 +0000

LKS said so - what a waste of productivity - is there any way we can take legal action against the government for lost productivity and opportunities?

The fuel debate and this police traffic mismanagement demonstrates the government’s gross iniquity.

By: hanuman

hanuman — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:38:19 +0000

I am just a layman.

01. My understanding of the law is one is innocent until proven
guilty.
02. Police must produce the warrant of arrest before arresting.
03. There must be a police report before a warrant of arrest is
issued.
04. A warrant of arrest is issued by a magistrate or court.

My logical conclusion
01. Warrant of arrest was not shown to Anwar during his
arrest.
02. If there is no warrant of arrest, then Anwar was kidnapped.
03. The police cannot produce the police report against Anwar
til todate.
04. Hence there is no warrant of arrest.
05. ANWAR IS INNOCENT SINCE THERE IS NO POLICE REPORT.

WHY DO THE POLICE NEED A FRESH DNA FROM AN INNOCENT MAN ???
YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY !!!
IN THIS CASE YOU ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT !!!

WITH DOUBT THERE IS A POLITICAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST ANWAR FROM UMNO.

GOD SAVE MALAYSIANS !!!

By: despin

despin — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:08:00 +0000

It is a conspiracy after all. Here are some reasons why:
1.When Badawi said that it is not a conspiracy, then there is a very high probability the opposite is true. Over the last five years, he has a tendency to say one thing but meant another;
2.Arch-enemies Khairy and Mukhriz seeing eye-to-eye on the same subject;
3.Father of all hypocrites, Mahathir, wading in because he and his former cronies have most to fear (and lose) if Anwar came to power.
4.Wong Chun Wai’s theStar front-paging the keyword DNA for two consecutive days.
Assuming Anwar were to give fresh DNA samples, are we going to witness a stained blue shirt or underwear, ala Monica Lewinski’s blue dress, being presented as evidence in court? It is certainly easier to bring a piece of clothing in and out of court instead of a giant mattress don’t you think?

Mr. Prime Minister, while I would like to believe you that it is not a conspiracy, another 10 million Malaysians would not. Stop this nonsense and concentrate on the economy lah!

By: Loh

Loh — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:17:24 +0000

A person accused of manslaughter was acquitted when the witness was able to confirm seeing the accused pointing a pistol at the deceased but could not confirm that he saw the accused pulling the trigger. The bullet could have gone out of the pistol automatically, and so there was benefit of doubts to be accorded to the accused.

Now even if, for the sake of argument, DSAI’s sperms were found on Saiful’s body, has there been evidence that the sperms got into Saiful’s body through sodomy?

The police is said to have DNA evidence from DSAI, and it requires DSAI to provide his DNA to prove ‘mismatch’; a match would confirm DSAI guilty as charged. The ministers including the PM are claiming that a mismatch is guaranteed if DSAI is innocence. Is it?

DNA sample could be obtained anywhere from body besides blood sample. It could be the hair, the sweat, or the saliva. Such DNA samples could be obtained easily by any person who was able to come physically close to the accused. In fact it would be possible to obtain a condom-full of sperms, if there was a scheme to get it, without sodomy. The police should prove that the act against the law had been performed.

The pattern of DNA does not change, and the police would have DNA data of DSAI on its files. The police should have evidence to charge DSAI for sodomy based on the standards before the advent of DNA. DNA alone cannot prove sodomy when sodomy was not the only means when DNA sample could be found on Saiful.

PM AAB said that the DNA sample of DSAI was too old to be useful. Is he suggesting that the police has been keeping DNA samples of DSAI all these years? It would be a waste of resources if police actually keeps DNA samples of accused persons, rather than the data on DNA patterns. If it is not the case, why does the police have a special interest in keeping DNA samples of DSAI, and now finding that the sample has deteriorated over time.

By: Godfather

Godfather — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:51:47 +0000

Why the obsession with getting a new DNA sample ? possible reasons:

1. Police lost the old samples which can’t be surprising given the efficiency of the force.

2. Samples deteriorated to the point of them being unusable. Unusable as in being useless for planting evidence.

I think it is more likely the Police lost the samples of old, and can’t make a positive ID of whatever that was left behind in the “victim”. It would be too embarrassing of the Police and the AG’s chambers to admit to losing the original samples.

By: lopez

lopez — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:28:44 +0000

When a feudalistic gomen exist among other advance cultures of other nations, they have nothing else to brag about.
Theirs is just a bunch of tribal people in the world’s forests occasionally discovered.
Predictably ethnic tribal feelings are still strong in hum no loonies.
but like everything else natural, some learnt to adapt some dont
some like to proud themselves that they have discover how to make fire
but others already learn how to use fire.

what are u?