 Photo proof ... This photograph showing Loh (right) with lawyers V.K. Lingam (left) and Manjit Singh (deceased) in Lingam’s living room was tendered to the commission by Loh’s lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu yesterday. It was taken by Loh’s son on Dec 20, 2001, the night the video clip was recorded.
©The
Sun (Used by permission)
by R. Surenthira Kumar
• It's VK Lingam's voice in video clip
• Lingam said it was Ahmad Fairuz: Loh
• ACA officer asked to explain 11 discrepancies
• VK Lingam makes brief appearance
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 15, 2008): What the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Lingam
Video Clip heard today:
• "Yes, he did mention. It was Datuk (now Tun) Ahmad Fairuz. In fact, I didn't
know anybody; he (Lingam) had given me the answer that he is the chief justice
of Malaya." -businessman Loh Mui Fah on what Datuk V.K. Lingam had told him when
asked who he was speaking to on his handphone.
• "Based on the findings and analysis conducted on the video
file, the digital forensics lab strongly believed that the video file is
authentic and not tampered as the video frames were found consistent." -
CyberSecurity Sdn Bhd’s senior analyst at the forensics digital division, Mohd
Zabri Adil Talib.
He also said a voice sampling test done at a Spanish laboratory verified that
the voice of the person in the controversial video clip matched that of Lingam.
• "He was sent to deliver handphones and bags to (former chief justice) Tun
Eusoff Chin's house at night. So he is an important witness." - lawyer Wee Choo
Keong, in applying for the commission to subpoena Lingam's younger brother as a
witness in the inquiry.
• "If you compare the copies, one version (the
Anti-Corruption Agency's) does not have the highlighted part." - Bar Council
representative Ranjit Singh in drawing the commission's attention to 11 material
discrepancies between their transcript and the ACA's.
It's VK Lingam's voice in video clip
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 15, 2008): A sampling test done in a Spanish laboratory has
verified that the voice of the person in the controversial video clip matched
that of Datuk V.K. Lingam, the five-member Royal Commission of Inquiry was told
today.
Cyber Security Sdn Bhd’s senior analyst at the forensics digital division, Mohd
Zabri Adil Talib, said the known source of voice sample belonged to Lingam, a
verification that was made after the samples were sent for analysis at the
Biometric Agnitio S.L. laboratory in Madrid on Jan 8.
He said based on comparisons in the voice sample analysis, with samples taken
from the unknown person in the video clip, the known source and 21 other random
samples from the Malaysian population, the voice sample of the unknown person
and the known source matched.
Mohd Zabri had to use a slide presentation to explain to the commission how the
results were obtained.
The explanation, which was quite technical in form, showed the method employed
in obtaining the results.
"The source of likelihood reading stood at 185, which indicated a strong support
of the findings," said Mohd Zabri.
The commission was also told that the analysis was done with voice samples of
"impostors" to find out whether they could match the voice in the video-clip,
but none came near the scale used in the analysis.
Mohd Zabri said the report, prepared by him after the analysis was conducted,
summarised the voice recognition procedure conducted on the voice samples of the
known source, the unknown source and the reference population showed that the
unknown voice originated from the same source as the known voice.
He said the report also focused on the video frames in the clip to detect
whether it had been tampered or edited.
He said the analysis focused on the movements of the jaw of the person talking
in the video-clip.
"Based on the findings and analysis conducted on the video file, the digital
forensics lab strongly believed that the video file is authentic and not
tampered as the video frames were found consistent," said Mohd Zabri.
He was replying to questions posed by Datuk Azmi Ariffin, of the
Attorney-General's Chambers, who is assisting the commission, on the second day
of the inquiry today in a courtroom in the Jalan Duta court complex here.
Lingam said it was Ahmad Fairuz: Loh
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 15, 2008): Lawyer V.K. Lingam was speaking on his handphone
with former chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in the
controversial video clip on the alleged brokering of judicial appointments, the
Royal Commission of Inquiry heard today.
Businessman Loh Mui Fah, 58, said Lingam told him he was speaking to Ahmad
Fairuz after the conversation was recorded by Loh's son using an "advanced
camera" when both of them were in Lingam's house on Dec 20, 2001.
"In fact, I didn't know anybody, he (Lingam) had given me the answer that he is
the chief justice of Malaya," he said.
To a question by Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Nordin Hassan whether Lingam
mentioned the person's name, Loh answered, "Yes, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz".
Loh said that at that time, Lingam was answering the call.
He also confirmed that he was the person seen talking to Lingam after the
telephone conversation towards the end of the 14-minute-long video clip that was
played on the first day of the hearing.
Loh said while he could hear the entire conversation because he was just a few
feet away from Lingam, he however, could not understand its contents.
To a question by Nordin whether he had seen the video clip which led to the
setting up of the royal commission, Loh replied: "Yes, I have seen it".
Nordin: Do you know who recorded the video clip.
Loh : Yes, I know, it was my son (Gwo Burne) who recorded it.
Nordin: Did you know at that particular time.
Loh: No, I didn't know.
Nordin: When did you find out.
Loh: After it went public, in the internet.
Loh said one of his office staff told him that it was his son who recorded the
video clip but could not remember who was the staff.
He also told the inquiry, during questioning by his lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu,
that he had written to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Nov 5,
2007, offering to be a witness, after an independent panel was set up previously
to investigate the authenticity of the video clip.
However, there was no reply from the Prime Minster's office even though he had
sent a registered letter.
Loh said he had also sent an e-mail, offering the same, to the panel, based on
the e-mail address published in the newspapers by the panel which had requested
those who had information on the clip to contact the panel, last Nov 6 and 11,
but again there was no reply.
He added a copy of the mail was also sent to the Bar Council, but he also did
not get any reply.
To a question from Commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar, Loh said he used the
pseudonym Loiss L in his e-mail for security reasons.
ACA officer asked to explain 11 discrepancies
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 15, 2008): Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) senior superintendent
Chuah Lay Choo, who is the investigating officer in the video clip case, was
directed by the Royal Commission of Inquiry to go through 11 discrepancies in
two different transcripts tendered in the inquiry.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor gave Chuah until tomorrow to
read through the two sets of documents - one from the ACA and the other from the
Bar Council - and explain the discrepancies raised by the Bar Council today.
Asked whether she had recorded statements from all the six individuals mentioned
in the transcription, Chuah replied she had not because she assumed they were
not important.
She said she had recorded statements from 23 people and mentioned lawyer
R.Thayalan, who is representing Datuk V.K. Lingam, as one of them.
ACA's head of the forensics and IT unit Supt Wan Zulkifli Wan Jusoh also took
the stand and testified that he downloaded the alleged video clip recording from
the website www.anwaribrahim.com.
The downloaded recording was copied into his computer hard disk and later copied
onto a CD before it was sent to CyberSecurity Sdn Bhd for an analysis.
Wan Zulkifli said he accompanied CyberSecurity's forensics digital analyst Mohd
Zabri Adil Talib to Madrid to analyse the clip and voice samples.
Earlier, lawyer Wee Choo Keong applied to the court to subpoena Lingam's younger
brother, K.V. Thirunama Karasu, as a material witness, saying he would be of
assistance as he was the driver who regularly went to the former chief justice
Tun Eusoff Chin's house.
Wee, who said he is representing Thirunama Karasu, said: "He was sent to deliver
handphones and bags to Eusoff's house at night. So he is an important witness."
Commissioner Mahadev Shankar then asked Wee if his client could come forward
without being subpoenaed.
Wee said if he was to do so, he would not be accorded the same recognition as
those who had been subpoenaed.
Haidar then said the commission would give leave to Wee to appear on behalf of
his client, but that Thirunama Karasu's application would be decided as the case
progressed.
VK Lingam makes brief appearance
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 15, 2008): Lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam, the central figure in the
controversial video clip, made a brief appearance before the Royal Commission of
Inquiry set up to probe the autenticity of the clip today.
Lingam walked into the courtroom from a separate entrance, where the witnesses
are kept in a holding room, and bowed before the Commission.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Nordin Hassan asked businessman Loh Mui Fah, 58,
if the person before the commission was Lingam, Loh nodded and confirmed it was
the lawyer whose house he went to on Dec 20, 2001.
Lingam smiled and also took the opportunity to look at Loh, whose face was
expressionless.
The commission also wanted to know the position taken by Lingam after the
submission of evidence by two main witnesses - Loh and CyberSecurity Sdn Bhd
forensics digital analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib - if the person in the video
clip was the lawyer himself.
Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar asked Lingam’s lawyer, R. Thayalan, if
Lingam admitted it was him who appeared in the clip.
"Is it your position that your client is not him in the clip?" asked Mahadev.
"He said it looks and sounds like him in the clip," replied Thayalan.
Mahadev pressed Thayalan further and asked if Lingam admitted the details which
appeared in the transcript was uttered by Lingam.
"I have to take instructions from him, but his stand now is that it looks and
sounds like him," replied Thayalan.
Commissioner Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kion also pursued the issue and asked
Thayalan to explain his reply.
"What do you mean, look like him… can you explain," said Shim.
"The image is not clear ... let me get back to him … that was his stand," said
Thayalan.
Prior to that Thayalan questioned Loh on the recording of the video-clip.
Loh said his son always carried around a camera with him, but he was not aware
of the recording.
He also refuted Thayalan’s suggestion that he had been to Lingam’s house on more
than one occasion.
Loh maintained he only went there once, and it was to discuss his legal matter
and the Lingam’s house was chosen to be the venue for the meeting after he
complained of not being able to discuss the matter in a peaceful situation.
He said Lingam was always on the phone when he met him in the office and it was
the same when the venue was switched to a restaurant for them to discuss his
case.
Asked if the conversation Lingam was having in the clip was from a call he made,
Loh replied it was a call received.
Loh said he had told Lingam that the next meeting they had to discuss his case,
Lingam should not be busy making calls to others and instead concentrate on his
case.
But he said Lingam told him that he was not making call but receiving calls.
Loh said he went there with his son on Dec 20, 2001, to discuss about his case
after Lingam invited him.
He added during the time a woman appeared and he was introduced to her by Lingam
who said it was his sister, who left after discussions with the lawyer for about
half an hour.
Loh said after dinner, another lawyer Manjit Singh, who also handled his case
with Lingam arrived and this was when his son took their photograph, which was
tendered in court by Loh’s lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu.
 |
News/Articles/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Direct Access Mastercard Exclusive Rebates
