MORE PICS - Loh Mui Fah: Lingam Talking in Clip, Call From - Ahmad Fairuz; Lingam's Voice Verified in Lab; Looks & sounds like him - Lingam’s lawyer

UPDATE: January 16, 2008 16:11 PM
I Was Not Influenced By Anyone, Says Samsudin

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 16 (Bernama) -- Former chief secretary to the government Tan Sri Samsudin Osman told the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip Wednesday that the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim to top posts in the country's judiciary was in accordance with the Federal Constitution. Samsudin, 60, who is now Putrajaya Corporation president, said that he was not influenced by anyone in Tun Ahmad Fairuz's appointments as Chief Judge of Malaya and Court of Appeal President. Normally the Chief Justice would submit the list of names of the potential candidates, he said when questioned by conducting officer Datuk Nordin Hassan. Samsudin is the sixth witness on the third of the inquiry to ascertain the authencity of the video clip of a lawyer purported brokering judicial appointments with a senior judge. He said that as chief secretary to the government, he headed the secretariat which handled the appointments of high court judges, the chief judges of Malaya and Sabah and Sarawak, Court of Appeal President and the Chief Justice

= = == = January 16, 2008 15:51 PM

ACA Officer Ordered To Get Fairuz's Phone Record

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 16 (Bernama) -- A Royal Commission of Inquiry Wednesday ordered an Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) officer to obtain phone records of former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim. Datuk Mahadev Shankar, who is a member of the commission, said ACA senior superintendent Chuah Lay Choo, 52, should obtain the phone records from the telecommunication provider as soon possible particularly on the calls made on Dec 20, 2001. Chuah, earlier, told the commission that from her investigation, Fairuz had been using a Celcom 013 number since 2000 but when asked to give the exact number, she said she could only remember 013393.

The commission, set up to investigate a video clip showing a man talking on a handphone about the appointment of judges, was told Tuesday that the video was recorded on Dec 20, 2001 and the man on the clip was lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam while the person on the other line was Fairuz, who was then the chief judge of Malaya. Chuah also said that she was unable to obtain the mobile phone number used by Lingam. She said Lingam told her he could not remember the number because he had been using a prepaid line most of the time.

= == = == =ORIGINAL POST BELOW

MORE PICS – Businessman Loh Mui Fah: Lingam is the one Talking in Video Clip, Call was From - Ahmad Fairuz; Lingam's Voice Verified in Spanish Lab; “Looks & sounds like him”- maintained Lingam’s lawyer Thayalan

The Video Clip is authentic (a 30 sec sample that was done way back in Nov 07 and my conclusion is that the Clip is not tampered with and authentic, see samples below and more details in previous post H E R E).
As a matter of fact the 3-member Panel headed Haider had hinted earlier that the Clip is not authentic (when it was first evaluated by other experts, details H E R E)

ABOVE & BELOW: Sample results of the test run. Note the split sec (30 frames per sec) smaller images do not show any "ghost" i.e. no tampering

But when Lingam’s lawyer Thayalan was asked about the person talking in the Clip, he was evasive and maintained the instruction from Lingam is that it ; “Looks & sounds like him”. When pressed further, he said the images are not “clear”. Loh’son must be a amateur Videographer who cannot focus the scene he was taking. It is doubtful if this 5MP camera (a Sony Brand it transpired) is a good one as such as under the poor lighting condition, the video images are all under exposed – orange –yellowish in colour.

The hero must be the businessman Loh (ABOVE, on the 2nd Day RCI) (of Nissan fame) who came out with all the juicy details and the 3-member Panel led by Haidar must answer WHY his offer of evidence was not taken up.

And Lingam's lawyer in hot spot. A great number of lawyers seem to be smarter than the experts in making a lot of suggestions; in this case asking for the impossible - the original of the clip. Just like asking you to produce the original digital photo that was recorded on an SD card. And this problem can be seen in the current Altantuya Murder trial where there is great fuss over the "exact" times when the calls were made and expect all systems are set to an automatic atomic clock

= == = == = =

UPDATE: = == = == = = Too Late - letter received after Panel’s finding
January 15, 2008 23:55 PM

No Response To Offer Of Assistance To PM's Office, Says Businessman

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 15, Bernama -- Businessman Loh Mui Fah said he sent a letter to the Prime Minister's Office and an e-mail to the special independent panel (the first panel set up to look into the "Lingam" video clip case) offering his assistance but he received no response. Loh told the Commission of Inquiry today that when he realised the panel was set up, he wrote to the Prime Minister (PM) offering his assistance to become a witness and sent an e-mail to the panel stating that he could come forward to assist them.

Questioned by his lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu whether the letter was received by the PM, Loh said after the letter was sent through his secretary on Nov 5 last year, he received an acknowledgement from the PM's Department, which meant that it was received. He said he did not receive any official response from anyone until some time in December last year, and by that time the panel had already made their findings.

Loh said on Dec 28 last year, he was intercepted by two ACA officers when he was on his way to Singapore from Malacca but he did not receive any official letter from the ACA asking him to assist them. "I read in a newspaper that anybody could assist the panel, so I contacted the panel through an e-mail using the address provided by the panel as highlighted in the newspaper on Nov 6 and Nov 11 and sent the carbon copy to the Malaysian Bar since it didn't have any official address."

However, Loh said, he did not receive any response from all the parties. Meanwhile, commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar said that on the date the e-mail was sent to the panel, the panel had already made their findings and had their last sitting on Oct 29. "For the benefit of all, I am very sure of the date but it is subject to correction. We met on Nov 5 and submitted the report on Nov 6 last year. The e-mail could have been received after the panel had completed their work. Don't think we knew there was a potential witness but we didn't call him", he said. Loh was not named as a witness in the inquiry but the commission decided to call him to take the stand today following his revelation to the media that his son was the one who recorded the video clip.

In the letter which was tendered during today's proceeding, Loh who was not in the country at that time stated that he suspected he might be the so-called witness in the controversial video clip case. He felt that by offering his assistance, it might be useful to the investigation; otherwise he might be accused later for not coming forward voluntarily and for not cooperating with the government in case he happened to be the witness. Loh said he also wanted an assurance that his safety would be guaranteed as deduced from the argument between Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz dan the Bar Council, that there is no such provision yet under the existing law for such protection.

= == = == = =

= = = and from STAR, the Smart Lingam's lawyer who came to court with "no instructions" , insisted on "original" of Clip from Camera and suggested that Video Tape can be easily doctored. And cannot be found out?

Wednesday January 16, 2008

Lingam’s lawyer grilled

KUALA LUMPUR: A lawyer was put in a tight spot when commissioners grilled him over whether his client Datuk V.K. Lingam had admitted to being the person embroiled in the controversial video clip about the brokering of judges’ appointments. R. Thayalan, representing Lingam before the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the video clip, was also queried if his client had said the things contained in the clip’s transcript. When commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar asked if it was Lingam’s position that he was not the person in the video clip, Thayalan said: “His position is that it does look like him and sound like him.” Mahadev: But he’s not prepared to say that that is him?
Thayalan: This is what he told me. Let me take instructions from him on this.
Mahadev: Is it his position that he said the things in the transcript? Can we have a direct answer to that?
Thayalan: I have to take instructions. I don’t have an answer to that.
Mahadev then reminded the lawyer that the law only permitted him to put in questions if he had instructions.
“Your answer to my first question is to take instructions. Your answer to my second question is also to take instructions,” he said.
Commissioner Tan Sri Steve Shim then noted that it was strange that Thayalan had not gotten instructions from Lingam on the matter.
The lawyer could only repeat his earlier reply that this was what his client had told him.
When Mahadev asked if it was Lingam’s instructions for the lawyer to suggest that the clip had been doctored, Thalayan said:

“Yes, the technology is available now for the video clip to be edited or have something taken out.”

Mahadev: I’m a bit perplexed. Since he said it looks like him and it sounds like him, how is it that you’re suggesting that it’s been tampered with?
Shim: “It looks like me or sounds like me.” What does it mean?
Thayalan: The images are not that clear..
At this point, Mahadev said: “You are making our lives very difficult.”
The lawyer then said: “Please allow me to take instructions on his stand.”
Thayalan was first put in a spot when he applied for the compact disc tendered on Monday to be excluded from the exhibits.
His reason for making the application was because second witness, Anti-Corruption Agency Senior Supt Chuah Lay Choo, had confirmed that the clip stored on the disc was a copy.
“We would like the maker to produce the original,” he said.
However, Mahadev told him that the inquiry was not a court of law and as such, the way of marking exhibits was different.

“We mark as we like now but the weight to be attached to it is a different thing later. You can make submissions on this,” he said.
Shim added that there was no need to change the marking as yet.
At this point, Mahadev pointed out to Thayalan that his name had been mentioned in the video clip and because of this, he could be a potential witness in the case.

“Have you considered your position as counsel?” the commissioner asked.
Thayalan replied that he was not a material witness and would re-examine his position if he turned out to be one.
When Mahadev asked the lawyer if he had determined himself not to be a material witness, Thayalan said no.
At this, Shim reminded Thayalan that it was up to the commission to decide whether or not he would be a material witness.

= == = == = = =

It was Ahmad Fairuz'

R. Surenthira Kumar, theSUN

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 authenticity 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 (ABOVE, not clear?, if he turned to "ashes", anyone who knows him can identify him)... 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.

ABOVE & BELOW: The souvenior shots taken by Loh's son in 2001

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

(BELOW), arriving on 2nd Day and being frisked for weapons.

= = == == = == = =

January 15, 2008 22:13 PM

Video Clip And Audio Authentic, Not Edited Says Expert

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 15 (Bernama) -- A digital forensic expert told the Royal Commission of Inquiry today that the "Lingam" video clip was authentic and that it had not been edited. Cyber Security Malaysia senior analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib said the analysis based on three CD samples and one DVD sample were handed over to the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to verify their authenticity. "An analysis report was also given to the commission's investigation officer (Chuah Lay Choo) on Jan 14 (yesterday). "The analysis found that the object's movements recorded were consistent. This proves that the recording was authentic and had not been edited," he told coordinating officer Datuk Azmi Ariffin. Mohd Zabri, 28, a Computer Science graduate from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) was the fifth witness called to testify on the second day of the inquiry into the video recording purportedly showing a senior lawyer on the phone with a senior judge discussing judicial appointments.

= == = = == ==