[Public Prosecutor vs Rutinin Bin Sulaiman – K42-60-2010] 1. That there is no direct evidence the accused posted the remark in 90 question. 2. The internet could have been accessed by anyone from the computer in question. 3. The workers of the accused who were called by the prosecution testified that there were others at the shop at the material time. He 95 said the workers could not verify if the accused was at the shop at the material time the posting in question was made. 5. Finally he held that the prosecution had not given sufficient evidence in respect of IP and MAC address “spoofing” which is actually impersonation of the IP and MAC addresses. Learned 100 counsel for the accused had asked the Telekom Malaysia Bhd witnesses if “spoofing” is possible. At a later date which is not stated, the learned Session Court Judge gave further grounds. 105 1. That there was a break in the chain of evidence in respect of the seizure of the exhibit, i.e. the computer when it was transported from the Kota Kinabalu Airport to the KLIA as they were “checked in”. 2. The original box was not an exhibit. 110 3. Details of the “check in” of the exhibits were not tendered. 4. Witness statements taken at the time of the raid were not complete. The second set of witness statements were recorded much later. 4