Sarawak Report: Truth, Lies or Bullshit?

As highlighted in my earlier press statement 1MDB: Truth at last, I already pointed out that in its postings on 1MDB, Sarawak Reported only provided excerpts from emails allegedly sent by the parties involved without showing the email header which, according to Wiki forensics, “are lines of metadata attached to each email that contain lots of useful information for a forensic investigator.”

Consider the following email header. The parts in bold font are the IP addresses of the sender and receiver of any email.

Delivered-To: xxx@gmail.com
Received: by 10.202.102.222 with SMTP id m91csp274255oik;
        Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.84.179 with SMTP id a19mr74823051wjz.29.1435206628359;
        Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <bounces+11142-69ec- gmail.com@email.yyy.com>
Received: from o6.email.yyy.com (o6.email.yyy.com. [50.31.63.158])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i2si50571837wjr.23.2015.06.24.21.30.27
        for <xxx @gmail.com>
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of bounces+11142-69ec-xxx =gmail.com@email.yyy.com designates 50.31.63.158 as permitted sender) client-ip=50.31.63.158;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of bounces+11142-69ec-xxx=gmail.com@email.yyy.com designates 50.31.63.158 as permitted sender)

The IP addresses of the sender and receiver of the emails, signature fields, letterheads are missing – all of which can verify the authenticity of the evidence. Sarawak Report never ever showed any header in all the email excerpts in their 1MDB posts . 

Clearly, they had something to hide. 

Here’s another reason why the credibility of Sarawak Report is at stake.

This document of the drawdown at http://documents.sarawakreport.org/Petrosaudi_1MDB-notice-of-drawdown-23-07-10.pdf  appears as a draft typed in word format with no official chop/letterhead/signatories/signatures  to prove it is indeed a legal and official document. Why?

Did Sarawak Report interview contacts directly or merely depended on unverified secondary info?

Sarawak Report has the email addresses and contact details. Did they and/or all the other sites which carried the damning articles on 1MDB contact the persons mentioned in their posts (such as Jho Low, Li Leen Seet, Tiffany Heah, Patrick Mahony, Prince Turki bin Abdullah,  Tarek Obaid, Shahrol Halmi, Casey Tang,  chr.zuc.a1@bsibank.com, PM Najib, 1MDB officials, PetroSaudi officials and all implicated in the evidence provided) to verify the information featured in Sarawak Report?

Or did they assume that just because it is posted in SR, all is the truth, nothing but the truth and did not bother to verify the information?

Or is it because they were just NOT bothered at all to verify and test the information. Responsible or irresponsible?

Comments from online website readers foolishly defended other portals that carried news from Sarawak Report saying those sites were merely reporting news. 

I beg to differ. 

Any news agency/site must always verify news before publishing it to ensure the information is accurate, credible, timely and indisputable. 

The damage inflicted by irresponsible editing is almost irreversible as can be seen by how many STILL believe SR is giving accurate information and that the status quo is wrong despite damning evidence and statements.

Did  SR report Tiffany Heah to the Sarawak Advocates Association and other implicated lawyers (including the company and personnel listed in the Joint Venture Agreement posted at http://documents.sarawakreport.org/KULDMS-425890-v4A-JVA_PSI_IMDB.pdf) to their respective disciplinary boards to lodge official complaints? 

Failure on their part to take such proactive steps clearly confirms Sarawak Report was not sure of the veracity of the information in the documents and were not at all bothered as long as those information could discredit the PM and 1MDB.

Drafts

Bear in mind some samples provided by SR are listed as DRAFTs.  How can readers react to mere drafts? Any ORIGINAL legit document must have legit stamps, chops, letterhead, ID No and names. The ones posted in Sarawak Report lack such official details.

The question is who released those drafts. And why to Sarawak Report? Who is the intermediary between Justo and Sarawak Report? RPK has made very interesting postulations HERE.

From a legal viewpoint, a draft is a draft and holds no water legally speaking, and fails in its purpose to discredit 1MDB. Yet, Malaysians and editors devoured and reposted the Sarawak Report news items hungrily, ever ready to think the worst of 1MDB. 

Does this make sense?

Strong Accusations

Sarawak Report made such strong accusations on notable figures including:

• PetroSaudi legal team from White & Case in London, headed by the lawyer Tim Buckland

• SHAHROL AZRAL BIN IBRAHIM HALMI whose signature was allegedly in this document at http://documents.sarawakreport.org/petro-saudi-1mdb.pdf (That document is not legal at all                because the IC numbers of the signatories are missing and there are no witnesses to the signing            of the agreement as should be the case in all legal agreements)

• Tarek Obaid etc

Have the aforementioned responded to Sarawak Report or other portals? Their silence shows how petty and worthless are those samples posted due to the inadequacies therein.

Bank Account

In the letter of demand published by Sarawak Report at http://www.sarawakreport.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-02-27-at-10.08.551-650x698.png, the references and account numbers are provided. Did Sarawak Report and other news portals contact JP Morgan Chase Bank in New York to verify the information? 

What was the outcome? Or did they gobble all the information without verifying it as long as they could discredit 1MDB and parties implicated?

Discrepancies

Please explain the glaring contradictions/discrepancies from http://www.sarawakreport.org/2015/02/heist-of-the-century-how-jho-low-used-petrosaudi-as-a-front-to-siphon-billions-out-of-1mdb-world-exclusive/ :

However, Sarawak Report has established from the documentation* that the signatory and Chief Investment Officer for Good Star was none other than Jho Low’s deputy Li Lin Seet.
Seet had acted as the tycoon’s key right hand man throughout the management of the deal *between 9th-29th September 2009 and was copied in on all the correspondence* we have received relating to the deal.

* What legit documentation was used to establish the fact stated?

* What is meant by management of the deal?

* How can being copied in correspondence be used as solid evidence for such a conclusion?

Non-response

The Prime Minister and various departments have issued various statements and taken concrete steps to restore public confidence in 1MDB. Sarawak Report and other detractors have never given their constructive comments about these actions – only the reverse.

Verification of file

SR claims it verified details via a jpeg file here http://www.sarawakreport.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-02-26-at-14.01.47-650x316.png There is no formal signature to verify it is indeed an original and legit document.  

The document appears to have been spliced at the top. Why have such documents been used? 

Can SR please show the original evidence?

Please refer to the appended files at the end of this post.

Mismatch in dates

There is a glaring mismatch in dates in the information from Sarawak Report. Evidence 1 from http://documents.sarawakreport.org/Petrosaudi_Loan_Agreement.pdf  My comments in boxes are in red and black font.  

All this shows the veracity of information provided by Sarawak Report is highly questionable.

Sarawak Report, tell us once and for all. Are you sharing truth, lies or bull shit?