Sigh, not this too...

My head hurts. Too many things are not gelling in the independent commission on the ear squat episode. Yesterday’s proceedings (the second day) were disquieting enough, but today’s just grills your patience. I don’t have enough to comment on today’s - it is still going on - except that The Sun has reported that the alleged owner of the video clip, police constable Dzul Fatah has denied showing the clip to his l/kopral colleague. From the testimonies heard so far, it is safe to conclude that lies are being fabricated.

Either members of the commission are dim and dense or the media is doing a poor job of documenting the proceedings. Or both. Not enough is being done to allay the flood of questions in a reader’s head as he/she reads. And I’m no lawyer.

My questions – and they are not exhaustive:

a) How is it established that the main witness is indeed the real victim in the MMS video saga? Where is the concrete evidence? Just because the woman says so? The media mentions that all the while her back is to the gallery so the public and media do not see her face. This concurs with AP’s report. But no member of the commission is reported to have said on record affirming she is indeed the person. There was no mention of police statements with mug-shot nor court files presented to the Commission strengthening the claim. Not yet anyway. Shouldn’t that be basic protocol? Shouldn’t that be the first thing a DPP produces even before calling in the main witness? Shouldn’t references be made to those documents?

She identified herself as a Malay Malaysian and was arrested along with five other men on June 29 this year at Damansara Jaya.

Her race isn’t the concern. Or is it? I can’t tell anymore. Ultimately, I’m more concerned about how information is obtained, evaluated, packaged and dispersed, and finally stamped as truth. I find the process frightening because of the lack of critical questions and demand of reason.

b) Did she come forward to the authorities upon hearing that what she went through was possibly abuse of power? Or did the police trace her for this hearing?

c) What was her height, and in relative to policewoman’s? I wouldn’t describe the woman in the video as “petite” as noted by the media of the alleged victim. The actual victim seemed taller than the policewoman. Without too much difficulty and using the lockers as a scale, one can make reasonable estimates on the actual victim’s height and square that with the alleged victim. Reporters, you were there. Tell us.

d) Were her clothes checked for illegal items? Before or after the strip-down? What is the typical process of searching like? Body search then strip search? This is important to establish the rationale for strip searches in the first place. It is pointless if drugs which might be hidden in clothes and accessories such as hair bands, buckles and false bra lining are not examined closely and confiscated. It is observed the actual victim puts on her clothes after the ear squats. Her clothes were next to her suggesting she wore them into the locker room before being asked to strip. Had the police checked her clothes and accessories prior? Do they carry out these procedures with the same temerity as they observe ear squats?

e) How is it true that this was indeed taken at predawn on June 29, 2005? Just because one policeman’s account apparently concurred with the alleged victim’s story? What makes him so sure it was June 29, 2005 and not April 29, 2005 or Oct 29, 2005 or whatever day when he was on night shift? How was this ascertained? Too many variables – it could have happened on a different dawn thus taking the proceedings towards a totally different direction.

f) The alleged victim claimed she was not aware if there was a window in the locker room. Honey, the victim looked directly at the camera – at least twice. The window – as evidenced in the video – was clearly in the open position. The windowsill as testified to the Commission is 4 ft-10 inches high from the floor. Judging from the video, it likely spans the breadth of the circulation space in the locker room. It is likely a casement window with more than one leaf utilizing metal stays (that’s the prong you see in the foreground of the video). At that size, height, make and position, it is hard to not notice the window. It is in your face. And probably what you look for first when asked to strip.

g) There may be a blue protective coat over the glass panes. But the video clearly shows it as being in the open position. For a window to be opened from the outside, it has first to be left unlocked from the inside.

h) How many rooms are used for ear squats? The Chinese nationals reported being in a different kind of room. That’s assuming they are telling the truth, of course.

i) Three months before the next step? The handphone technician claims he received the order to transfer the clip onto a laptop sometime during the fasting month. Nevermind he’s been struck with amnesia over the identity of the policeman. But if his other account was true, then it was a clear three months before whichever person/s possessing the clip did anything more. The L/Kpl testified that he watched the video played to him by the Konstabel some 90 minutes after the incident. What else happened after that? Is it normal for a voyeur who was so eager to show off his bounty to his colleague suddenly remain silent for three months? Hey, even the technician got so excited he emailed the clips to two friends that very night.

Something in the process stinks. You can’t allow someone to claim she was the one, and accept it as the truth. If that was the case, hundreds of women (and some men) could possibly lay claim to the same story.

And the media was wrong to accept that at face value as well. Wrong and dumb. On this I congratulate The Straits Times (Singapore) and AP for headlining: “Malay woman claims to be victim in police nude video”. That’s more responsible journalism.

Until more concrete answers emerge, I am taking this only as a work in progress.