BYE, BYE, TO LATE ALIBIS…
SODOMY TRIALS SHOULD BE VERY EASY TO SETTLE, UNLESS IF THERE ARE ATTEMPTS TO TAKE THEM ROUND AND ROUND SO THAT A CONVICTION WITH AN OBVIOUS AND PREDICTABLE OUTCOME IS UNNECESSARILY DELAYED.
By Mansor Puteh
WHO SAID SODOMY TRIALS ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO SETTLE THAN THOSE INVOLVING MOLEST CASES?
THAT MAY ONLY BE TRUE IF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF SODOMY HAVE A BANK OF LAWYERS. BUT IT’S NOT SO IF THEY ARE UNKNOWNS WHO DO NOT HAVE MUCH TO LOSE ANYWAY.
DID SOMEONE SERVE THE CAUSE OF THE PERSECUTION WHEN HE SPILLED THE BEANS ON HOW SOMEONE IN THE DEFENSE TEAM OF A CELEBRATED SODOMY TRIAL IS SAID TO BE INVOLVED IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIIP WITH THE VICTIM?
Couldn’t the person keep his mouth shut and allow the trial to go on unhindered so that if there is a judgment on it, the defense can use the mysterious ‘romantic’ links between a junior member of the persecution team and the victim to turn the judgment in their favor instead?
Who was the blogger serving then? Has he managed to destroy the case for the prosecution that way? I doubt it. He may only have provided blank bullets to the defense to create a circus who can now put the matter behind their backs for a while.
The blogger always insisted that the cases he are faced with rest on the prosecution to prove and not for him to deny. Yet, in many instances, he has written things which convict people by making mere allegations.
It was like the lawyers who charged a particular building had not been ready for occupancy where an alleged sodomy had taken place. This left the prosecution to create a new date for the sodomy to happen.
If the lawyers had kept quiet about this fact on the construction of the building, and allowed the trial to proceed unhindered, the verdict could have easily been denounced and overturned.
Someone had written in the internet on how he had passed by the building in Bangsar many times and found that it could not have been ready at the material time when the sodomy had taken place.
This information was seized by the defense team who used it wrongly and too prematurely.
But the central issue of this analysis concerns something different yet related to the issue, which is on sodomy trials versus molest trials.
There seems to be some smart lawyers who are trying to tell everybody that sodomy trials are more difficult to handle than those concerning molest?
And why must this be so, when molest trials have been executed so expeditiously which often took pages in the back of the national newspapers and none in the tabloids or more sensational supermarket counter weeklies.
Many people who had been charged for molesting some others had been convicted without them complaining about the state of the judiciary. There was no fanfare, no discontent.
In reality, sodomy trials are the ones which are easiest to execute since the evidences are solid and can be proven chemically, and by the relationship that had been created prior to the creation of the sodomy, compared to murder and molest trials.
There is a long scenario that leads a sodomist to come to the point until he succeeds in sodomizing his victim, who at an earlier time may want to have such a peculiar relationship between two consenting men.
But somehow religious factors soon crept into the consciousness of the victim so now he is a victim of someone else’s lust.
And herein lies the trials, which are not new in Malaysia.
In the past sodomy cases and trials had been executed expeditiously without those who had been charged and convicted creating a ruckus; they accept it as their fate, and walk to prison to service their sentences without complaining.
And recently a man was convicted of sodomy and was sentenced to thirty-seven years in jail with fifteen lashes of the cane. There was no hoopla, no sideshows, except the announcement o the sentence.
However, if the alleged sodomists are some who want to test the court, they can, but they have to pay a huge price for it, and having to bear a huge financial costs for the emolument of the panel of lawyers who are all too eager to serve them in the trials that can be stretched beyond any stretch of the imagination.
The longer they are stretched, the better for them, as the trials can give them a lot of attention and also activity.
And this part concerns alibis.
The defense team had tried to introduce an alibi to the court for its consideration.
Alibis that appear from nowhere and all of a sudden, long after the case had been exposed and the trial started can cause every member of the public, never mind the persecution and the judges, to feel suspicious.
The brief scenario created by the defense does not make it sound to be sound enough, without it crashing on its own weight.
Alibis are normally offered very early in the case, when it first appeared in public, if it is too obvious that the physical factor and element can cause charges be instantly dropped.
However, once this physical factor and element could not been created and produced, then it will be very difficult for anyone, let alone the defense team to create one after so long.
And the most damaging and dangerous part about producing alibis that involve other characters is that there are strings of events leading each of the character to the physical entity, so that they all agree with each other and there are no ‘plot holes’ for the persecution and judges to walk or drive through effortlessly.
So we can say, bye-bye to late alibis, especially those that involve other persons, since the persons have to justify that they were not elsewhere at the material time when they were said to be in the company of the accused.
How can this happen if indeed there were no such persons?
There can be some who can agree to be there, even when they were not there at all, especially if the hours prior to the happening or gathering, they were not in the company of the others who can bear witness to their whereabouts.
But their conscience can later act up, especially when in older age, and when they become more pious that guilt creeps in so they will want to spill the beans on what had actually happened, in the alibi which had managed to allow the accused to go scott-free.
This can happen if just one of the characters becomes guilty.
Alibis, therefore, can be damaging in the short-run as well as long-runs.
So, its best to go away with any of them unless if they are facts which could not be denied or disputed.
But after so long, and with no real alibi, chances are there is none that the defense can use to their advantage.
For now it’s bye-bye to late alibis…and the best method is to delay the trial for as long as possible and necessary. And the long it goes on, it just means and logically too, that there is truth in the charges.
Since lies can be disputed so easily, but not truth which is fail-safe.
So, don’t let any lawyer allows anyone to think that sodomy cases are more difficult to prove in court than molest ones.
By Mansor Puteh
WHO SAID SODOMY TRIALS ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO SETTLE THAN THOSE INVOLVING MOLEST CASES?
THAT MAY ONLY BE TRUE IF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF SODOMY HAVE A BANK OF LAWYERS. BUT IT’S NOT SO IF THEY ARE UNKNOWNS WHO DO NOT HAVE MUCH TO LOSE ANYWAY.
DID SOMEONE SERVE THE CAUSE OF THE PERSECUTION WHEN HE SPILLED THE BEANS ON HOW SOMEONE IN THE DEFENSE TEAM OF A CELEBRATED SODOMY TRIAL IS SAID TO BE INVOLVED IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIIP WITH THE VICTIM?
Couldn’t the person keep his mouth shut and allow the trial to go on unhindered so that if there is a judgment on it, the defense can use the mysterious ‘romantic’ links between a junior member of the persecution team and the victim to turn the judgment in their favor instead?
Who was the blogger serving then? Has he managed to destroy the case for the prosecution that way? I doubt it. He may only have provided blank bullets to the defense to create a circus who can now put the matter behind their backs for a while.
The blogger always insisted that the cases he are faced with rest on the prosecution to prove and not for him to deny. Yet, in many instances, he has written things which convict people by making mere allegations.
It was like the lawyers who charged a particular building had not been ready for occupancy where an alleged sodomy had taken place. This left the prosecution to create a new date for the sodomy to happen.
If the lawyers had kept quiet about this fact on the construction of the building, and allowed the trial to proceed unhindered, the verdict could have easily been denounced and overturned.
Someone had written in the internet on how he had passed by the building in Bangsar many times and found that it could not have been ready at the material time when the sodomy had taken place.
This information was seized by the defense team who used it wrongly and too prematurely.
But the central issue of this analysis concerns something different yet related to the issue, which is on sodomy trials versus molest trials.
There seems to be some smart lawyers who are trying to tell everybody that sodomy trials are more difficult to handle than those concerning molest?
And why must this be so, when molest trials have been executed so expeditiously which often took pages in the back of the national newspapers and none in the tabloids or more sensational supermarket counter weeklies.
Many people who had been charged for molesting some others had been convicted without them complaining about the state of the judiciary. There was no fanfare, no discontent.
In reality, sodomy trials are the ones which are easiest to execute since the evidences are solid and can be proven chemically, and by the relationship that had been created prior to the creation of the sodomy, compared to murder and molest trials.
There is a long scenario that leads a sodomist to come to the point until he succeeds in sodomizing his victim, who at an earlier time may want to have such a peculiar relationship between two consenting men.
But somehow religious factors soon crept into the consciousness of the victim so now he is a victim of someone else’s lust.
And herein lies the trials, which are not new in Malaysia.
In the past sodomy cases and trials had been executed expeditiously without those who had been charged and convicted creating a ruckus; they accept it as their fate, and walk to prison to service their sentences without complaining.
And recently a man was convicted of sodomy and was sentenced to thirty-seven years in jail with fifteen lashes of the cane. There was no hoopla, no sideshows, except the announcement o the sentence.
However, if the alleged sodomists are some who want to test the court, they can, but they have to pay a huge price for it, and having to bear a huge financial costs for the emolument of the panel of lawyers who are all too eager to serve them in the trials that can be stretched beyond any stretch of the imagination.
The longer they are stretched, the better for them, as the trials can give them a lot of attention and also activity.
And this part concerns alibis.
The defense team had tried to introduce an alibi to the court for its consideration.
Alibis that appear from nowhere and all of a sudden, long after the case had been exposed and the trial started can cause every member of the public, never mind the persecution and the judges, to feel suspicious.
The brief scenario created by the defense does not make it sound to be sound enough, without it crashing on its own weight.
Alibis are normally offered very early in the case, when it first appeared in public, if it is too obvious that the physical factor and element can cause charges be instantly dropped.
However, once this physical factor and element could not been created and produced, then it will be very difficult for anyone, let alone the defense team to create one after so long.
And the most damaging and dangerous part about producing alibis that involve other characters is that there are strings of events leading each of the character to the physical entity, so that they all agree with each other and there are no ‘plot holes’ for the persecution and judges to walk or drive through effortlessly.
So we can say, bye-bye to late alibis, especially those that involve other persons, since the persons have to justify that they were not elsewhere at the material time when they were said to be in the company of the accused.
How can this happen if indeed there were no such persons?
There can be some who can agree to be there, even when they were not there at all, especially if the hours prior to the happening or gathering, they were not in the company of the others who can bear witness to their whereabouts.
But their conscience can later act up, especially when in older age, and when they become more pious that guilt creeps in so they will want to spill the beans on what had actually happened, in the alibi which had managed to allow the accused to go scott-free.
This can happen if just one of the characters becomes guilty.
Alibis, therefore, can be damaging in the short-run as well as long-runs.
So, its best to go away with any of them unless if they are facts which could not be denied or disputed.
But after so long, and with no real alibi, chances are there is none that the defense can use to their advantage.
For now it’s bye-bye to late alibis…and the best method is to delay the trial for as long as possible and necessary. And the long it goes on, it just means and logically too, that there is truth in the charges.
Since lies can be disputed so easily, but not truth which is fail-safe.
So, don’t let any lawyer allows anyone to think that sodomy cases are more difficult to prove in court than molest ones.
Comments