Monday, May 19, 2008

Hypothetically Speaking.

A Case Study (Nothing to do with any person or persons, dead or alive).

Say, I am a Public Prosecutor and I want to charge certain ex-premier of ABC state (bearing in mind his stellar records, for argument sake, as the Head of Executive) for corruption (misuse of power, maybe?) and/or sedition (I'll think of something, later lah) and/or violating certain Official Secrets Act provision and/or obstruction of justice and/or anything under the provisions of the Penal Code.

This is what I have for my case. Hypothetically speaking that is.

List of possible witness/co-accused:
1. Self confessed "I may have been drunk at the material time" Indian man, probably a solicitor and he was seen and heard talking to himself on a mobile phone. He was videotaped while at that. He admitted that he may be drunk too.
2. The maker of the said video tape is a Member of Parliament for rival political party/headed by political nemesis to the accused.
3. A businessman, a senior politician and two ex-chief justices that would vehemently denies any connection of wrongdoings between themselves.
4. Politicians and other parties with obvious interests with regard to the accused and/or co-accused and the outcome of the case itself.

Facts/Evidence surrounding this (hypothetical) case:
1. Videotape of one man (No. 1 of the above) speaking to his mobile, while appearing to have a conversation via his mobile.
2. No evidence whatsoever to proof that so and so was the one speaking on the other line except for that "I may have been drunk" solicitor's admission to the maker right after the videotaped tele-conversation.
3. The maker of the video tape keep telling the world that there are other parts of the tape, somewhere at a far away place, maybe lost forever, making the main evidence that I have may only be a part of the bigger picture.
4. The time taken for the tape to surface from the date that it was recorded. The maker of the evidence’s timing in revealing the videotape to the world. The reason behind the recording of the same and the likelihood that it may have been pre-planned.
5. Finding of a certain commission that may have been as follows, *"While noting that the group's ultimate aim could not be ascertained, given the limitation of the terms of reference, the commission said it was reasonable to suggest that it could not be anything but self-serving." Yes, the group’s ultimate aim could not be ascertained.
6. Circumstances surrounding at the time of the prosecution i.e. political motives of various interested parties (so happen that they may be the main witnesses to the case) and the resulting prejudicial effect to the case.
6. errrr, let's stop at that.

Is my case any good? Would I proceed with the prosecution?

Mmmmmm. Thank God this is only hypothetically speaking.


Anonymous said...

Nice write up loyar kampung.

Anonymous said...

How you find ideas for articles, I am always lack of new ideas for articles. Some tips would be great