|
|
Kes DSAI lagi - tolong komen dengan rasional
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Post Last Edit by rashiman at 22-3-2011 17:11
betul ke kes DSAI ni akan digugurkan sebab semasa perbicaraan sedang berlangsung pihak pendakwa baru nak cari bukti bukan sebelum perbicaraan bermula dulu.
Maksudnya tak releven baru nak cari DNA untuk meneruskan pendakwaan?
srumut Post at 22-3-2011 16:32 
Pendakwa dah lama cari dan dah temui bukti melalui sample DNA dari berus gigi,botol mineral dan tuala, ianya sepadan dgn. lelaki Y. Cuma bukti tersebut tidak mendapat kebenaran oleh pihak Mahkamah kerana diperolehi tanpa kebenaran pemilik. Kalau Mahkamah benarkan bukti tersebut, pendakwaan sudah selesai dan tak perlu minta sample DNA DSAI lagi secara sah atau sukarela. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
betul ke kes DSAI ni akan digugurkan sebab semasa perbicaraan sedang berlangsung pihak pendakwa baru ...
srumut Post at 22-3-2011 16:32 
Tak logik kalau pendakwa teruskan pendakwaan "knowingly" dorang x cukup bukti. Sebab ini sume akan jadi precedent ye ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tak logik kalau pendakwa teruskan pendakwaan "knowingly" dorang x cukup bukti. Sebab ini sume ak ...
jojiekejung Post at 22-3-2011 17:41
Kes-kes yg lain yg melibatkan DNA, pihak tertuduh boleh mencontohi DSAI, tak payah bagi sampel DNA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DNA hak yang terpelihara. Tidak beri tidak bererti bersalah. Beri sebab mengapa perlu diberi.
InsyaAllah DSAI pasti berkerjasama.
Mcm aku katatadi, DNA diminta semasa perbicaraan dan bukan pada awalnya disediakan oleh pendakwaraya. Bukti tak cukup nak dakwa apa? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kes-kes yg lain yg melibatkan DNA, pihak tertuduh boleh mencontohi DSAI, tak payah bagi sa ...
rashiman Post at 22-3-2011 17:45
Exactly  ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly ...
jojiekejung Post at 22-3-2011 17:49
mudah bebas dari tuduhan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DNA hak yang terpelihara. Tidak beri tidak bererti bersalah. Beri sebab mengapa perlu diberi.
InsyaAllah DSAI pasti berkerjasama.
Mcm aku katatadi, DNA diminta semasa perbicaraan dan bukan pada awalnya disediakan oleh pendakwaraya. Bukti tak cukup nak dakwa apa?
srumut Post at 22-3-2011 17:48
DNA tidak diminta semasa perbicaraan jika pihak mahkamah menerima bukti yg diambil semasa tahanan DSAI. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DNA hak yang terpelihara. Tidak beri tidak bererti bersalah. Beri sebab mengapa perlu diberi.
Ins ...
srumut Post at 22-3-2011 17:48
Tunggu aje esok, keputusan mahkamah mengenai permohonan pendakwa mendapatkan sampel DNA DSAI secara sah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dulu bukan ke DSAI punya DNA pernah diambil(LIWAT 1)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post Last Edit by jojiekejung at 22-3-2011 18:00
DNA hak yang terpelihara. Tidak beri tidak bererti bersalah. Beri sebab mengapa perlu diberi.
Ins ...
srumut Post at 22-3-2011 17:48
Uols kena tahu ni; proses pengumpulan bukti boleh berlaku di sepanjang perbicaraan. Tapi pendakwaan kena maklumkan pada court dan defendn yg dorg jumpe*** bukti baru, dan ada tempoh masa untuk diberi utk dorang conference ke hape ke, even in chambering untuk tgk bukti tu boleh pkai ke tak.... persetujuan di capai oleh kedua pihak, ofkos during this time kedua dua pihak tak akan dedahkan strategi masing2, wlaupun in this case pendakwa punye strategi terdedah trang tang tang.... yg juga terang2 memberi kelebihan pada defndn. And in this case, its DNA ... solid and standalone, the needed conference itself is for the defndn to kasik comparison sample. Tu je. By right, kenapa bukti lain defndn nak confren berbulan2 tapi bukti DNA terus tak nak confrn ? Then again its the beauty of the law that people make. You make it, you can play around it, you can manipulate it. As what Karpal singh is sssoooo good at ..
***jumpe : termasuk proses saintifik, pengesahan data, kebenaran bla bla bla yg mungkin mengambil masa. DNA takes months to process .. katenye. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dulu bukan ke DSAI punya DNA pernah diambil(LIWAT 1)?
srumut Post at 22-3-2011 17:57
Alaa uols sayang Jangan la beat around the bush hehe. Jauh beno tetinggal ketapi nih. Ye diambil, kan court ruling kate DNA tu tak boleh sebab technicality. Bukan application. Jadi, mmg tak boleh pakai lah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why the need to ask whose article I cut and paste?? It is as if I cant write one? One's Intelligent is god (Allah) given and not a privilege to a you only (if at all you consider you are intelligent) Therefore stop underestimating people's intellect as you are prone to. I dont need to cut and paste other people's article to argue my case intelligently...
Al Lebam Post at 21-3-2011 17:43
Am I actually prone to underestimate people's intellects? I guess I'm not, but yet I do have a tendency to condemn whenever I feel that some are not exercising their diligence to the utmost in reflecting this case. Bear in mind that I am & was never a fan of DSAI...& I couldn't care much even if he's held guilty if, & ONLY IF he did in actual fact commit such horrendous & despicable act against Sepol, or perhaps 'with' Sepol should there also be an element of voluntariness on his part.
First off I'd like to ask you one thing...now tell me exactly under which section of Penal Code did they charge DSAI? Don't you think that if DSAI's charged under s.377B & should DSAI be found guilty as charged later after this, eventually Sepol could & should also be held jointly liable for such offence...i.e.: for voluntarily involved in a carnal intercourse against the order of nature.
As a matter of fact, some idiots are clamouring that DSAI has sodomized Sepol & is charged for committing sodomy, but do they realize that DSAI was actually charged under s.377B of Penal Code for committing anal sex rather than sodomy???
Yes justice is no laughing matter...no monkey business nor to be talked about by laymen. Laymen tend to perceive things about laws & procedures wrongly...& this what's happening is DSAI's case. Some had already been toyed by media in relation to DNA, they were led into believing that DSAI's voluntary submission of his DNA or bodily fluid will surely bring all these razzmatazz to an end.
Still agree that justice is no laughing matter though...however if Malaysian judicial systems are truly preserved & upheld by the authorities without any unnecessary intervention, I'd like to ask you about what had happened in the case of DSAI vs Tun M when Augustine Paul J. was the one who heard the case? Justice was probably overlooked in this case, especially regarding Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of the Highcourt
when the late Augustine Paul seemed like Tun M's defence council by objecting most of DSAI's applications.
p/s: I do admit that you have some knowledge about laws & legal profession...& I fully respect that.  |
Rate
-
1
View Rating Log
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alaa uols sayang Jangan la beat around the bush hehe. Jauh beno tetinggal ketapi nih. Y ...
jojiekejung Post at 22-3-2011 18:07
Oh gitu. Jadi DSAI wajib kasi la ye |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh gitu. Jadi DSAI wajib kasi la ye
srumut Post at 22-3-2011 18:10
Jawapan nye : VOID.
Kerana apa saja tindakan dia, nak kasi ke tak, akan jadi precendent. Sebab ini (arguably) adalah kes pertama dan prinsiple dalam sejarah undang2 Malaysia dan akan jadi kerangka dan amalan undang2 di masa depan.
Dan for now, nobadi by existing law boleh pakse dia kasik DNA sebab mcm disebutkan tadi the law is still void at this point. Yang ada cuma kuasa Hakim yg mirip kepada budi bicara. Tapi masalahnye, kuasa Hakim yang ada tu pun belum pernah dipakai untuk kes seumpamanya kerana ... well .. this is a first and landmark case! Youre seriously watching a very important history being written here!
Dan Karpal Singh punye argument (last stand seriously!) adalah kuasa hakim tu tak relevan utk kes ni and for the first time i see the a very weak argument by Karpal. Karpal banyak dapat favour sebab dia pandai main dengan precedent yg sebelum ni. Quote sana sini bagaii ...but this time hes dealing with VOID .... and in void, you listen to the people. Who are the people ? Look out there. |
Rate
-
1
View Rating Log
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aku tgk forumer berdebat scr baik dlm thread ini...
anyway keep up good works |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aku tgk forumer berdebat scr baik dlm thread ini...
anyway keep up good works
dauswq Post at 22-3-2011 18:38
Insya-Allah....harap2nya begitulah.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.siapa punya lain2 DNA yg ditemui dibontot sepol?...mustahak sangat ka?.
...
Anak_Nogori Post at 21-3-2011 12:16
kenapa sepol tak dakwa orang2 lain yang ada DNA mereka melekat kat dia tu...tak kan dia tak ingat n cam muka orang tu semua..
kenapa anwar sorang ja...dari sini dah nampak tuduhan ni berasaskan politik...
patutnya dia buat dakwaan dia diliwat beramai2...bukn oleh anwar je...kes ni dah makin pelik...tapi menarik |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ye tak ye...dia syok kat anwar je kot  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kenapa sepol tak dakwa orang2 lain yang ada DNA mereka melekat kat dia tu...tak kan dia ta ...
suargh Post at 22-3-2011 20:01
kau mana tahu ada org lain, yg ada Air mani Lelaki Y. yg DNA org lain bukan air mani. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 22-3-2011 05:10 PM
Author
Post time 22-3-2011 06:38 PM
![[tvN/Netflix 2024] QUEEN OF TEARS - Kim Soo Hyun, Kim Ji Won, Park Sung Hoon](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/f6/f613b76788751ed27a22bff90355c844.jpg)
