His evidence is fraught with; inter alia, contradictions, incongruous statements and ambivalence, to say the least:
J: Semasa pemeriksaan baru dijalankan dia nak masukkan saya tak tahu apa tu saya
terus berterus terang dengan beliau yang saya telah diperlakukan sedemikian. Jadi beliau
terus berhenti.
S: Sebelum 28 ?
J: Ada
S: Oleh siapa?
J: Oleh doctor di Pusrawi, tapi itu pun tak full pemeriksaan”
– This is in direct contradiction with Dr Osman’s (DW2) evidence in chief, when DW2 testified on 23rd August 2011 in this court, that he indeed inserted a proctoscope fully into PW1’s anus on the 26th of June 2008. Excerpts of DW2’s testimony are reproduced below – when examined by the Defence Counsel:
“Q: Did you examine him with a proctoscope?
A: Yes
Q: Did it go in all the way?
A: No I just checked the [inspection] and after that I asked my staff to get the proctoscope and lubricant. I use lubricant and put into the patient’s anus. I checked thoroughly to see anything. ”
“Q: After examination did he tell you anything?
A: After examination I inform my patient, Your anus is normal and healthy. I did not see any injury or anything. While he was putting on his trousers and I’m washing my hand he said “No doctor. This is sodomy”. From his action and words I understand its sodomy. He continues and talked to me saying a VIP is involved, he is scared to go to the police to report. I’m very shock because I put the protoscope into the patient’s anus to check before he told me the story. If he tell me the story I won’t touch his anus because it is normal procedure if it is a legal case we have to send to government hospital.”
– D16A Type written report of DW2 is also referred.
Datuk Seri Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin 