Once upon a time, a murderer was charged for the murder of a politician. In the peoples' court he swore that he did not kill the man. The peoples' court decided to accept this sworn statement as swearing is accepted by the institution as a divine rule of truthful self-declaration. He died many years later.
When he met St. Peter at Hellcourt, St. Peter asked him: "Why did you swear that you didn't commit the crime when the truth is we know that you did? Do you know you would be sent to hell for lying?
The man replied: "Tell me, St. Peter, would a murderer be sent to hell after he died on earth?
St. Peter: "Yes, of course!"
The man asked another: "Tell me, St. Peter, will a liar be sent to hell for lying about his crime?"
St. Peter: "Yes, of course!"
The man asked again: "Tell me, St. Peter, would a murderer who told the truth and wouldn't lie to the earthly court, when he died, would he be sent to heaven for telling the truth?
St. Peter: "Definitely No! He is a murderer and he can be truthful but he remains a murderer and it would be injustice to the victim to have this murderer share the same place in heaven. He must be sent to hell for his crime."
The man asked again: "Tell me, St. Peter, is there two different hell - one for an honest murderer and one for a murderer who lied and who swear falsely?"
St. Peter: "There is only one hell and one set of rules for those in hell; all who are sent to hell have the same fate and punishment; they are all equal."
The man said to St. Peter: "I lived my last few years in a liberal world enjoying all the freedoms and pleasures of life. I know I would be punished when I come here, but at least I don't have to suffer my last few years in a jail."
A brother confessed to the court that he did rape his sister after watching porn. He was sent to jail. He should accordingly be sent to hell hereafter.
A girl alleged that her brother raped her in their parents' bedroom. If the boy is willing to swear that he did not commit the heinous act, will he be incarcerated or exonerated or exculpated?
News from Malaysiakini
Zamri read Saiful's handwritten note which called on Anwar and the public to not interfere with police investigations into the matter.
In the three-paragraph note, Saiful, 23, also said he was waiting for the police to complete their investigations before he swear by the Quran.
Zamri said Saiful was also waiting for the police to wrap up their probe before doing so.
Zamri also revealed that Saiful is still motivated to seek justice.
Saiful just wants everyone to leave this case to the police. "Let the police investigate..." he pleaded.
Malaysiakini posed this question to Zamri: "We don't understand why you are holding this press conference?"
(It is uncommon for a sodomy victim to request for a press conference to plead to the public to leave everything to the police and it is puzzling that a victim who suffered a sexual crime would prefer to swear after the police had completed the investigation to the crime. What if the police say: "No case?" Does that mean he would use the Quran to testify to persist on such a crime? What if the police say there's sufficient evidence of a crime committed; the swearing becomes irrelevant unless the victim wants to confer something else that is metaphysical)
This is another article at Malaysiakini:
Experts: First medical report relevant
"Dr Mohamed Osman's observation showed no obvious physical evidence to support such a claim which could raise a reasonable doubt if the doctor in HKL observed the opposite...," said the doctor who has years of experience in handling rape and sodomy cases.
"Dr Mohamed Osman is experienced enough and couldn't be wrong not to notice the obvious signs like bruises, tenderness, swellings, scratch marks, fissure and bleeding per rectal and so on," said the doctor who requested anonymity.
"To associate tenesmus with sodomy, the complaint has to come after the event, and there would be evidence of injury to the anal mucosa like fissure or scar should be seen (to cause the pain) and there may be also some traces of blood seen."
But she said that since Saiful had alleged that he was sodomised two days before he was physically examined, it would be "almost impossible" to have any trace of material for DNA identification be available unless he used the same underwear that was not washed since the alleged event.
"There would be impossible also to find any recognisable material for DNA identification as well. Thus, asking for a fresh DNA sample is highly questionable because it is not a fresh sodomy/rape case where the evidence is still available."
Another medical expert told Malaysiakini that based on Mohamed Osman's medical report, Saiful had complained about being assaulted by a piece of plastic.
"There cannot be a charge of sodomy unless there is actual contact between the penis and anus. If an object was used, then the charge has to be assault," said the retired medical doctor who had carried out medical examination involving rape cases in a government hospital.