Clarification sought from Tommy Thomas on the sex videos

Dear Tommy,

You timed your media statement perfectly i.e. soon after Azmin Ali’s ally, Latheefa Koya, made MACC the shame of Malaysia with her clown performance.

Even the IGP didn’t know you were going to make the announcement, especially when there was supposed to be a joint statement made by you and PDRM.

If we did not know any better, you timed it knowing that Latheefa Koya’s clown performance may dilute attention from your low standards of criminal investigation and blatant abuse of power.

Image too blur or AG too blur?

The question that had been on any doubter’s mind was never about images being too blur but whether the sex videos were authentic and not deepfake as claimed by many of Azmin Ali’s supporters and Tun Mahathir himself.

“You believe it? Please don’t tell me you are stupid to that extent. Nowadays, you can produce all kinds of pictures if you are clever enough. One day, you may see my picture like that, too.” – Tun M

What does that mean? It means Tun M, like everyone else who is not blind as a bat, easily recognised Azmin Ali in the videos except that he could not believe that the videos were authentic. There was no question who the person looked like regardless if it was animated, edited or doctored.

Therefore, the issue was initially never about facial recognition — because everyone recognised Azmin Ali (including his own sister) and Haziq — but what remained to be established was whether the sex videos were authentic and not deepfake.

So it is utter nonsense and a blatant lie for you to claim that the image was too blur or the resolution too low for you to recognise Azmin Ali. Look at the face lah, not his backside or penis.

Do you understand, Tommy? To borrow Tun M’s words, please don’t tell me you are stupid. I know you are but please don’t tell me you are. Even Anwar Ibrahim knew that Tun M knew.

According to Anwar Ibrahim, the Police had earlier confirmed that it was Azmin Ali in the video.

Your media statement was vague, ambiguous and a load of waffle. You did not address some critical facts. It is as if you can later weasel your way out of being charged for lying and obstructing the course of justice when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Azmin Ali was the man in the sex videos.

We are neither blind nor stupid, Tommy. We have seen your abuse of position in other cases: Lim Guan Eng, Rafizi, Siti Kassim, the Adib Inquest

Tommy, in your media statement you said:

Cyber Security Malaysia concluded that whilst the videos were authentic, facial recognition could not be achieved due to poor resolution of the video recordings upon which such analysis were performed.

You further said:

… independent report confirmed Cyber Security’s findings, amongst others, that ‘the inability to identify individuals in the viral videos is primarily due to the low resolution and quality of the viral videos and the relatively few number of video frames in which the suspect is clearly visible‘.”

QUESTION 1: What was the resolution of the video recordings in terms of pixels upon which such analysis was performed? Pick from the following: 640×480, 800×600, 960×720, 1024×768, 1280×960, 1400×1050, 1440×1080, 1600×1200, 1856×1392, 1920×1440, and 2048×1536.

The reason I am asking is to establish whether the videos you analysed were of lower resolution than those in Lokman Adam’s possession.

You admitted that there were indeed a few number of video frames where the suspect (Azmin Ali, of course) is clearly visible. However, you decided those clearly visible frames were “relatively too few” to give you a probable reason to believe it was Azmin Ali. Usually a few photographs would be enough to positively identify a person. Therefore:

QUESTION 2: How many clearly visible frames were there? (It should be easy to count because you said there were relatively too few).

QUESTION 3: How many clearly visible frames would you have needed to make a positive identification?

QUESTION 4: Based on those clearly visible frames, few as they may be, and observing with your naked eye, did the suspect resemble Azmin Ali? Yes or No. (Please don’t say “Saya tak tahu”).

QUESTION 5: Did Cyber Security, the US forensic expert and/or the UK forensic indicate the percentage probability (or confidence level) that the suspect in the video was indeed Azmin Ali? Yes or No.

QUESTION 6: If Yes, what was the percentage probability given that the suspect in the video was Azmin Ali?

This is what I mean by percentage probability, in case you’re too thick to understand my question:

Based on basic facial recognition software used by a netizen, the probability that Azmin is the man in the video is 87%. 87% means A or A+ for an exam paper.

QUESTION 7: Were Azmin Ali and Haziq in the same hotel in Sandakan at the time of the video recording? Yes or No.

QUESTION 8: Presumably you have viewed the hotel CCTV recordings of the hotel. So did Azmin Ali and Haziq stay at the same hotel while they were in Sandakan? Yes or No. If Yes, then why do you not consider this as corroborating evidence that Azmin is the man in the sex video?

Criminals have been positively identified with poorer quality images

QUESTION 9: Did you ask Azmin Ali’s sister (who positively identified it was her brother in the video) if the suspect in the video was her brother? If you did ask, what was her response? If you didn’t ask, why not?

QUESTION 10: Did Haziq make false confession? Yes, No or Don’t know. If Yes, then any idea why Azmin did not sue Haziq for defamation despite being challenged to do so by Haziq?

QUESTION 11: Did you or did you not consider that Azmin Ali’s testimony (denial) would not be credible since he lied when he claimed he only knew Haziq from afar whereas there is clear evidence he was well acquainted with Haziq.

You said:

… my Deputy Public Prosecutors unanimously recommended to me that no charges be proffered in connection with the videos.

I find it incredible that such a recommendation was unanimous (that none of them could identify Azmin Ali in the videos) and it sounds like many DPPs can’t be wrong so I would like to ask:

QUESTION 9: How many of your DPPs made such a unanimous recommendation to you?

QUESTION 10: What other factors did your DPPs list down that made them arrive at their recommendation? (Don’t tell me they too relied solely on the facial recognition not being 100%).

QUESTION 11: Since you don’t believe the persons in action were Azmin and Haziq, are you then saying that there were two other unknown persons who happened to be in the same hotel in Sandakan who, by great coincidence, happened to resemble Azmin and Haziq? Do you then intend to track down those two bisexuals?

QUESTION 12: From the hotel CCTV footage, have you identified the person who went into Azmin’s room? Did Azmin tell you the name of that person who entered his room?

QUESTION 13: Did Tun Mahathir instruct or advise or suggest to you to find ways to not prosecute Azmin Ali? Never mind, don’t bother answering this question unless you’re hooked up to a polygraph.

And how convenient that, soon after, you also concluded that there was also no case against Anwar Ibrahim. There was no way you could prosecute one and not the other, isn’t that right, Tommy?

Lastly, can I advise you something, Tommy? Make sure you’re not drunk when investigating a case that requires good eyesight and average intelligence.

Yours sincerely,

– AA –

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s