KimQ lends an analysis...

Sex video – technical insights & rationale



By Kim Quek



24.03.2011



This article was actually written yesterday (Mar 24), but upon completing the article, I was stunned by the explosive news of the sudden appearance of the trio behind the sex video. Concerned that my article might have been overtaken by this sudden turn of events, I withheld its release yesterday. However, upon a review of the latest events, I find that the technical insights and rationale put forward therein are still valid and pertinent to the issue at hand. I hence present my following article with the hope that it will add to the understanding of this fast evolving drama.



There is one simple way to find out whether ‘Datuk T’s’ pornographic video showing a look-alike of Anwar Ibrahim is a hoax, and that is to go to Anwar’s face book from your own face book account and look for his entries at the time when the video was supposed to be recorded, which is 10:23pm to 10:45pm on Feb 21, 2011.



I just did that, and I found that Anwar made entries on that day at 10:40pm, 10:49pm, 10:50pm, for which he received 9 comments, 17 comments, 8 comments respectively. And thereafter, he made another 7 entries, up till 11:028pm. The fact that Anwar was actually posting messages in face book at the relevant time clearly indicates that Anwar couldn’t have been doing what was indicated in the video.



As jokingly exclaimed by Anwar during the press conference on Mar 21, hours after the exposure of the video: How could he be carrying out the sex act and typing on his computer at the same time? Obviously, ‘Datuk T’ had neglected to look up Anwar’s face book before he launched his pornographic piece.



QUESTIONABLE TIME FRAME



Purely on a technical level, another question that puzzled me was: How could so many acts be compressed into the purported duration of 22 minutes as indicated in the video? Journalists who had viewed the video said that the love-making part lasted 17 minutes. This means that within the remaining 5 minutes, the following events had to be completed:



Pre-sex act:



· Anwar look-alike (Mr. X) walked into the room with the conductor who gave instruction to the prostitute who was already waiting there. The conductor left the room.

· The couple undressed.

· Woman went into the bathroom and took a bath, which should include wiping dry with a towel (the undressing and bathroom part of the video was skipped by ‘Datuk T’, but he said the woman took a bath).



Post-sex act:

· Mr.X wiped his lower part with tissue, and went into the bathroom to clean himself, which presumably included washing and wiping dry with a towel.

· Mr. X came out from the bathroom, dressed himself and walked off the room.



It should be obvious that when one tallies up the reasonable time allowed for completing each of these events, the total will far exceed 5 minutes. This conflict of time frames further undermines the credibility of the video clip.



PLOT IMPLAUSIBLE



‘Datuk T’ said that the sex romp took place in a Spa which provides sex in Kuala Lumpur.



Will anyone believe that opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim – who has been subjected incessantly to all sorts of cruel and unjust political persecution for the past 13 years, branded as enemy number one, for which the ruling power has been desperate to see that he is politically annihilated – would even condescend to walk into a place of such disrepute at the peak hours, where he would be instantly recognized by almost everyone present there, not to mention having sex with a prostitute in the same place? Haven’t ‘Datuk T’ and the plotters behind him overstretched their imagination, if they think the people would swallow such a story?



‘Datuk T’ also claimed that Anwar sent him to the room to look for his lost watch.



If Anwar had patronized a prostitute in the room, would he be so foolish as to send someone to the room to look for his watch? Wouldn’t that stupid act amount to a virtual confession to others what misdeed he had done there? And wouldn’t that confession spell the end of his political career? Who will believe that Anwar would value the watch more than his family, his political career and the destiny of his country and his people?



Despite the indefatigable effort of the ruling power to fix Anwar all these years, has it produced an iota of evidence of his political or moral misconduct, such as corruption, abuse of power, religious or moral sins?



If Anwar has shown none of these weaknesses, why should Malaysians believe ‘Datuk T’ in preference over Anwar, when what the former has displayed so far is nothing but crass acts of character assassination that serves the evil design of his political masters?





Kim Quek