EPISODES
/ (2/3) Prima Facie —
The Name of the Game
CONTINUED FROM PART I
Since its inception, Sarawak Report has posted countless articles containing accusations against the present Governor of Sarawak, and its legitimately-elected Government, none of which to date had been successfully determined to be prima facie against their — then — sworn enemy.
Public pressure following exposés and instigations by Sarawak Report and its sister organisation, the Bruno Manser Fonds (BMF) have triggered promptings of investigations by various authorities around the world, none of those even bore any fruit of the sort that Sarawak Report and ilk would have liked to harvest.
Presently, we are again witnessing the same methodical attempt being tested in another, wider superset of population, which is the country of Malaysia itself.
[RELATED: CURRENT / JUSTO AND THE EDGE MEDIA GROUP — “Yes, we misled him. But that was the only way to get hold of the evidence to expose how a small group of Malaysians and foreigners cheated the people of Malaysia of US$1.83 billion (S$2.5 billion).” — Datuk Tong Kooi Ong and Ho Kay Tat, July 24, 2015]
[RELATED: BREAKING / BUSINESSMAN AT CENTER OF MAJOR MALAYSIAN CORRUPTION SCANDAL IS JAILED IN THAILAND “I did pursue him doggedly to get the material. In the end he surrendered it for free.” — Clare Rewcastle Brown, August 17, 2015]
[RELATED: BREAKING / SWISS NATIONAL GIVEN 3-YEAR JAIL TERM FOR 1MDB-LINKED BLACKMAIL — “…the editor of the Sarawak report, wanted to use the data to ‘bring down the Malaysian government,’ [and they] had evoked the possibility of “modifying the documents”, which Rewcastle-Brown has denied. The country’s anti-corruption agency later said the $700 million was donations, effectively clearing Razak of wrongdoing.” — FultonCounty.COM, August 17, 2015]
[RELATED: FOCUS / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN’S IGNORANCE OF HER OWN COUNTRY’S LEGAL CODES -”2– Fraud by false representation; (2) A representation is false if — (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.” — UK FRAUD ACT 2006, August 16, 2015]
[RELATED: EPISODES / DRAMATIS PERSONÆ — WHO’S WHO OF CLARE BROWN — “Therefore, it was only after strikingly similar financial information was submitted in a court hearing related to Abu Bekir’s divorce and then printed in all the Malaysian media, that we too subsequently quoted what the Malaysian media reported had been said in court.” — Clare Rewcastle Brown, January 10, 2015]
[RELATED: CURRENT / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN’S INTERVIEW ON CHANNEL NEWSASIA REGARDING THE WARRANT FOR HER ARREST — “The Prime Minister has now finally had it announced through the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that that was not anything to do with 1MDB money, which actually certainly I and I don’t know of any investigative reporters who said it was.” — Clare Rewcastle Brown, August 5, 2015]
[RELATED: SENSATIONAL FINDINGS! PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK’S PERSONAL ACCOUNTS LINKED TO 1MDB MONEY TRAIL — MALAYSIA EXCLUSIVE — Sarawak Report, July 2, 2015]
[RELATED: CURRENT / JUSTO AND THE EDGE MEDIA GROUP — “Yes, we misled him. But that was the only way to get hold of the evidence to expose how a small group of Malaysians and foreigners cheated the people of Malaysia of US$1.83 billion (S$2.5 billion).” — Datuk Tong Kooi Ong and Ho Kay Tat, July 24, 2015]
The method is nearly identical and seems genuine enough at the beginning: allege, present documentation as evidence, repeat accusations. But then something near-magical starts to happen as this extra step is secretly added: repeat accusations as fact.
This — on the surface at least — seems to be the process that Sarawak Report employs in building up prima facie against its adversaries, but they seem totally impotent when it comes to actually providing authentic and verifiable evidence that is inherently incriminating without needing even the slightest addition or omission.
These two crucial criteria are reiterated — as a universal example of their widely accepted usage — by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive,
“You must ensure that all exhibits are kept safely and that there is a clear, identifiable audit trail from the moment that exhibits are seized to the moment they are presented in evidence. This is because the prosecution may have to prove that the exhibit before the court is the same exhibit that was referred to by the witness in his or her statement, or that the exhibit has not been tampered with illicitly while being retained for court proceedings.”
(Health and Safety Executive of the UK — Collecting physical evidence — Preparing evidence for court.)
The important line, “the same exhibit that was referred to by the witness in his or her statement, or that the exhibit has not been tampered with,” sums up the two most important things that a legitimate court of law would look for in evaluating any evidence presented: that the evidence must be the same evidence given by the witness (authenticity), and also must be untampered and pristine (integrity).
END OF PART II
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ♥ ON THIS PIECE TO SPREAD THE TRUTH
Listen to Prima Facie — The Name of the Game on SoundCloud.
Originally published at ninequestionsforsarawakreport.blogspot.com on August 2, 2015.
NEXT ON SARAWAK REPORT COVERUPS
PREVIOUSLY ON SARAWAK REPORT COVERUPS
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ♥ ON THIS PIECE TO SPREAD THE TRUTH
