In the afternoon, Seah, who is the fifth prosecution witness, testified that her department follows strict guidelines as it is bound by international quality control standards and forensic guidelines. Seah said the department also has its internal guidelines to ensure it abides by the required standards as their work is a tightly regulated field.
The witness also agreed that Saiful's DNA blood sample was used as a reference specimen but denied that it had caused bias or influenced her in her decision. Ram asked, “You relied heavily on that information and there was a possibility of you being influenced by the information which was given to you.”
“Yes I used the reference sample in B10 (Saiful's blood sample) but I am not influenced by it. It is used as a reference,” she said.
She also revealed in court that it uses the DNA View and the Applied Biosystem Genetic Analysis machine which is 10 years old. “It uses a Gene Matter software which is regularly updated,” she said.
Asked by Ram when it was last updated, she said it was in 2007/ 2008.
The witness said although the manufacturer and software providers have their own set of written guidelines, the lab can adopt its own guidelines as recommended by the International Society of Forensic Genetics of which she is also a member.
Seah also revealed that the department also has specific guidelines if the DNA was mixed as in this case.
She agreed that dropout will occur in DNA sampling and there will be what is termed as a “T-value” threshold value whose charts are available and used in her analysis. However, Ram complained that the chart was not provided to the defence, resulting in McDonald being unable to refer to it. Prosecution did not address B8 and B9 swabs
It is interesting to note that during the examination-in-chief earlier today by DPP Noorin Badaruddin, she did not address the cotton buds marked B8 and B9. Yesterday, she stopped her line of questioning at B7.
B8 concerns the high-rectal swab where Saiful's DNA and "Male Y" DNA were found, while B9 is the lower rectal swab where both DNAs were also found.
DPP Noorin only focused her line of questioning on the electropherogram chart which was printed by the Applied Biosystem Genetic Analysis, which was tendered as evidence. There was no reference made by the defence on a strand of pubic hair found, which has been tendered as evidence. The chemist's report states that the hair has no “DNA profile”.
Dr Seah Lay Hoong bertindak defensif dan enggan menjawab beberapa pertanyaan mengenai protokol dan mode operasi makmal beliau. Malah, peguam Ram Karpal pada sesi prosiding petang terus mempersoalkan cara ujian DNA oleh Dr Seah.
Ram bertanya adakah Makmal Jabatan Kimia Dr Seah mematuhi standard yang ditetapkan badan International Society for Forensic Genetics yang Dr Seah juga merupakan seorang ahlinya.
Peguambela Sankara Nair ketika ditemui wartawan di lobi menyatakan rasa terkejutnya dalam hal ini.
"Saksi kena jawab, tahu atau tidak, tapi ada yang dia tak tahu, sebagai contoh, Dia adalah ahli senior International Society for Forensic Genetics, apabila Ram tanya mengenai intrepertasi graf itu. Prosedur DNA, dia adalah ahli badan antarabangsa, tapi bila kita tanya dia tanya balik, Ini tunjukkan samada dia tak faham atau tak nak bekerjasama,"katanya.
Malah Applied Biosystem Genetic Analysis yang digunakan untuk mengeluarkan laporan tersebut turut dipersoal oleh Ram. Pasukan pembelaan dibantu pakar DNA Australia Dr Brian McDonald. Dr Seah menafikan ia perisian lama sebaliknya menyatakan ia selalu dikemaskini dan kali terakhir pada 2007 atau 2008.
Menurut Sankara, tujuan hasil penyiasatan ini ialah bagi melihat samada cara laporan kimia yang digunakan telus dan baik, serta boleh dinilai Hakim Zabidin Mohd Diah.
Kita katakan kalau prosedur tak betul, keputusan tak betul, sebab itu kita soal balas di sini untuk tahu mode atau cara kajian dilakukan, jadi kalau mode itu salah, keputusan akan salah.
Perbicaraan disambung pada Isnin nanti dan peguambela akan terus menyoal balas Dr Seah.