 Tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan arriving at the court yesterday. •
Hearings in camera so that only relevant testimony is allowed
©New Straits Times
(Used by permission)
• Lingam wants to call own digital experts
• Two to know decision on Monday
KUALA LUMPUR: Tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan made an appearance in court yesterday
morning but did not take the stand.
He remained in a witness room until noon and was told to
return on Tuesday to give evidence.
On Monday, former chief justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, will be
called to testify, followed by another former chief justice, Tun Eusoff Chin,
who will be recalled to continue with his testimony.
The commission last week had temporarily stopped Eusoff from giving evidence as
he was without a lawyer.
He has since engaged a team comprising Zamani Ibrahim, Mohamd Fozi Md Zain and
Datuk Hazman Ahmad.
Fairuz was the top judge from 2003 to November 2007, while
Eusoff held the post between 1994 and 2000.
Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, a chief justice from 2000 to 2003, is expected to
testify on Tuesday morning.
Anti-Corruption Agency officer Chuah Lay Choo will also be recalled to update
the commission of her investigation with regard to the phone conversation
between Lingam and supposedly Ahmad Fairuz.
Businessman Loh Mui Fah testified before the commission that Lingam had told him
that it was Ahmad Fairuz on the other side of the line.
So far, 13 witnesses including Lingam, had given evidence.
There was a lull at the court complex yesterday as proceedings for most of the
day were held in camera.
Only officers from the Anti-Corruption Agency, lawyers representing the
witnesses, various NGOs and the Malaysian Bar were allowed into the courtroom.
But that did not stop Anand Ang, 70, who flew all the way from Sabah to follow
the proceedings, from turning up in court.
"This is history in the making and I want to tell people that I was a part of
it," said the grandfather who has conquered Mount Kinabalu four times.
Lingam wants to call own digital experts
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam has applied for his own digital forensics
experts to be called as witnesses.
 Lingam's counsel R. Thayalan said the foreign experts will
allow the commission to compare the evidence with that of CyberSecurity
Malaysia's senior forensics analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib.
In his testimony on Jan 15, Zabri confirmed that it was Lingam in the video
clip. He had said that audio tests confirmed this.
But Thayalan argued yesterday that the two London-based digital experts they
consulted said it was not possible to conduct audio and video identification
tests on a copy of a digital file.
Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor at this point, shook his head.
"We already have two witnesses (Loh Mui Fah and his son Loh
Gwo Burne) who gave direct evidence that it was Lingam who spoke on the video
clip.
"Now we have to test the evidence of expert witnesses," he remarked.
But Thayalan persisted: "The task for determining authenticity must be done from
the original recording."
He was referring to the memory card from Gwo Burne's camera which was deleted
after the recording.
Haidar: Okay, then put the question to him (Zabri, who was recalled to the
stand). You should be asking whether authenticity can only be ascertained from
original recordings.
Thayalan then asked Zabri: Do you agree that you will need an original recording
to determine the authenticity of the recording?
Zabri: No. The evidence provided was sufficient and authentic enough for
analysis.
Thayalan: From the copy given to you, can you say for sure that its beginning
and ending hadn't been deleted?
Haidar at this point interjected: "So what?"
"The context will then be different," said Thayalan.
"What difference does that make?" asked commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar.
Haidar: We are focusing on the 14 minutes that we have in the video clip. That
is the only thing we are concerned with.
Thayalan: But before you is only a copy of the original.
Haidar: As far as the 14 minutes are concerned, why do we need to know whether
it was longer or shorter? He (Zabri) has already given his view that
authenticity can be ascertained.
Mahadev asked Thalayan for clarification when he finished his questions.
Mahadev: What I understand is that you are saying that if Zabri had used more
sophisticated equipment, we would be more sure of the clip's authenticity?
Thayalan: Yes.
Mahadev: And nowhere in your examination of Zabri have you suggested that his
evidence is wrong.
Thayalan: No.
Some light was also shed on the issue of original recordings when Zabri replied
to questions posed by Gwo Burne's counsel Alex de Silva.
de Silva: When digital images are stored in a memory card, then transferred to a
PC , would the digital images or data be altered?
Zabri: No. In electronic form, a copy is an exact copy, no matter how many times
it is transferred.
de Silva: You're saying that when digital data or information is transferred
from a memory card to a PC, they're all original?
Zabri: True.
Earlier, Thayalan asked Zabri whether, when he conducted the audio recognition
tests, he knew that the 'unknown voice' was Lingam's.
When Zabri said he didn't know before conducting the tests that it was Lingam's
voice, Thayalan referred to the names of the audio files.
"The first file was named 'VK to CJ' while the other was named 'Sample V.K.
Lingam'. I'm suggesting that you knew that the unknown voice and sample were V.K.
Lingam's," Thayalan said.
"I don't agree. 'V.K.' can stand for many things," responded Zabri.
Haidar then remarked: "That's right. Just like, there are many Indian women
called 'Jeyanthi'," to the laughter in the gallery.
While testifying on Thursday, Lingam had responded likewise when asked why his
secretary's name appeared on Tun Eusoff Chin's itinerary for his New Zealand
trip in December 1994.
The panel will decide on Monday if there is a need to admit the two London-based
digital experts as witnesses.
Two to know decision on Monday
By : V. Anbalagan, Anis Ibrahim, Rina De Silva and K.
Harinderan
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and V. Thirunama Karasu will know on
Monday if they can testify before the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Lingam
video clip.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor deferred
decision after the five-member panel heard submissions behind closed doors.
Most of yesterday's proceedings were held behind closed doors as names of
several personalities in the judicial and legal fraternity were brought up in
submissions.
Counsel M. Puravalen, who is appearing for Anwar, and Wee Chee Keong who is
representing Thirunama Karasu, submitted that the testimonies of their clients
were relevant to the terms and conditions of the inquiry.
Anwar is Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser while Thirunama Karasu, is Datuk V.K.
Lingam's brother.
The Bar Council, represented by Christopher Leong, is said to
have supported the submissions by Puravalen and Wee.
However R. Thayalan, counsel for Lingam and Zamani Ibrahim, a counsel for former
chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin, submitted that the evidence of the two men was
irrelevant.
Last week, Puravalen and Wee had submitted documents that allegedly revealed
judicial impropriety for the commission to scrutinise.
Anwar was initially subpoenaed to give evidence on how he obtained the clip,
purportedly showing Lingam brokering judicial appointments, with a top judge.
His appearance, however, was put on hold as businessman Loh Mui Fah who gave
evidence last week said it was his son who filmed the clip.
It was revealed in court that the recording was made at Lingam's house in Kelana
Jaya on Dec 20, 2001. Mui Fah's son, Gwo Burne, testified that he had made the
recording.
Yesterday, Mohd Zabri Adil Talib, a senior digital computer forensic analyst,
was recalled to be examined by Thayalan.
The lawyer told the commission that Mohd Zabri's findings could be inaccurate as
he had relied on inferior equipment to carry out the video and audio testing.
Mohd Zabri then testified that scientific analysis of the clip revealed that it
was not tampered with.
The commission, which was to wound up its inquiry by this week, will now take
another week to complete gathering evidence.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Invitation to the Launching of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) Website 
