Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's defence enters its third day today with the prosecution cross-examining forensic pathologist Dr David Wells.
The Australian expert, who is the third defence witness, has yesterday told the court that the alleged semen sample retrieved from sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan could not have revealed the desired results. This was because the sample was taken more than two days after the alleged incident.
The alleged sodomy incident happened in the afternoon of June 26, 2008, and the sample was retrieved from Saiful between 9pm and midnight on June 28, 2008.
In addition, he said that the sample was not properly stored in the police station and it was given to chemist for testing two days later.
Dr Wells, who is an expert in the field of sexual assault cases, also testified yesterday that when retrieving samples from alleged victims, he would be working alone and only assisted by nurses. This, he said, was to prevent contamination.
In the case of Saiful, four doctors attended to complainant in retrieving samples in the present of investigating officer Supt Jude Blacious Pereira. It expected that the prosecution will question Wells on Saiful's Hospital Kuala Lumpur medical report, which the doctor had described as inaccurate.
After Wells, another Australian expert hired by Anwar, DNA specialist Dr Brian McDonald, is expected to take the witness stand.
9.03am: Court called into session with High Court justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah presiding.
9.05am: Yusof continues his cross-examination. He suggests what Wells said was speculative to which Wells disagreed.
9.07am: Wells replies that medical history is an account given by patient for the benefit of medical practitioner to diagnose.
9.10am: Wells is shown Saiful's police report.
Yusof: Can this be history.
Dr Wells: Yes I agree. It could be a source of the information.
9.12am: Wells explain history should also indicate whether there was any lubricant was used, was there violence, issues of other sexual acts. He adds that past medical history, including bowel history, is also important.
9.14am: The witness says bowel history is important to note in sodomy cases to identify whether the patient had previously undergone surgical procedure for bowel problems.
9.17am: Wells is shown the proforma form where Yusof claims is complete.Yusof: Is it sufficient?
Dr Wells: No, it is still lacking. It allows doctors to report the complainant's words to the allegation, rather than what is stated in the form.Proforma should be an aide memoir like the handling/use of lubricant, to ensure nothing is missed.
9.22am: Wells says all the details on whether there is violence should be noted in the form. "If a person is grabbed forcefully and turn down, it would be different." "It's more likely affect interpetration. Violent manner but checks reveal no injuries, it would bring to question," he says.
9.24am: Yusof: What do you understand by a complete physical examination.
Dr Wells: There will be top-to-toe examination. The prosecution has a short exchange with Sankara when Yusof was seen trying to limit Dr Wells' answers.
9.30am: Wells says the proforma did not express the findings of checks (cotton swab) of Saiful's mouth.
9.31am: However, Wells says he would not take a swab in Saiful's mouth if the incident happened more than 48 hours ago. Saiful was examined by Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) doctors two days after the alleged incident.
9.32am: Yusof shows a copy of a book written by Wells.
9.33am: Yusof notes what Wells had testified yesterday is also mentioned in the book which he had written.
Wells: I am relieved.
9.36am: Yusof says complete desirable physical examination to all areas of the body is stated in his book.
Yusof: Top-to-toe examination. Wells says he agrees there is a need for top-to-toe examination. "If there is any doubt, then you do the top-to-toe examination. If no doubt, then there is no doubt. I agree it is a point of discussion." The solicitor-general II appears to be trying to test Wells' credibility.
9.43am: Yusof asks when a person alleges sodomy, would it be safe to assume the act includes foreplay and so on. Wells replies "yes".
9.45am: Wells questions why areas of Saiful's hair was recorded, where else there were no notes on details of the complainant's mouth.
9.48am: Yusof says Saiful's medical report is "safe" because it is based on the proforma. Wells however disagrees.
9.52am: Wells agrees with Yusof he had come across cases of questionable forensic practises in Australia. Anwar couldn't resist interjecting from the dock: "There are many here too."
9.54am: Wells questions the relevance of some terms in the proforma. The reason, Wells says, "you take swab is because you want to ensure there is contact with another person".
9.57am: Wells agrees that with semen you cannot see through naked eye, and you need a cotton swab.
9.58am: Yusof suggest swab taken in the peri-annal, rectum and upper rectum would indicate the presence of semen. "There was presence of semen on B5, B7, B8 and B9." Wells says that should come from the lab report. "They rely on someone else's interpretation of analysis."
10.02am: Yusof: Who should interpret there was penetration.
Wells: It should be the scientist, not the doctors. But if they are confident of the finding, the doctors can say on assumption.
10.06am: Yusof asks for 15 minutes break. The judge orders the court to stand down.
10.25am: Court resumes. Yusof asks Wells if there should be proper labelling on the container, to which Wells agrees.
10.28am: Wells says the time and date should be stated on the labels.
10.35am: Yusof goes into the subject of contamination.
10.36am: Wells says contamination can come from hospital attendants and police vehicles.
Yusof: In Saiful's case, there is a crime scene?
Dr Wells: Yes.
Yusof: There are four doctors involved.
Dr Wells: Yes.
Yusof: Would you agree that the swab would include the four person?
Dr Wells: Yes, but it can also come from the trousers, because it comes into contact with the skin.
10.38am: Yusof asks what the risk is of contamination, to which Wells reply that he would never guarantee that contamination would never occur. "There would be other procedures, including cleaning of the room. Contamination may come from the examiners, individuals whom he met or clothing."
10.40am: Wells says contamination can occur during procedure, but there is a need to reduce it.
Yusof: The protoscope went beyond it and went 4cm in.
Wells: It would reduce contamination, as the walls of the rectum or vagina are closed.
10.44am: Yusof asks Wells to look at the proforma form. The examination took place after 56 hours following the alleged incident, he notes.
Yusof: If a person is not there and had not come into contact, his DNA would not be found?
Dr Wells: Yes, if there is no contact with doctors or other factors.
10.48am: Yusof goes to the finding in the medical report where a witness was said to be not happy with the sentence "no conclusive finding that there was penetration." Wells says that it could be a matter of semantics, as there is the word "conclusive". "Why should there be the word conclusive there?"
10.53am: Yusof is now referring to Dr Wells' book.
10.54am: Yusof reads out that in the majority of subjects there were no injuries on the victim, to which Wells agrees. "So, it is not odd if there is no injury on Saiful," he said.
10.55am: Yusof says unforceful entry may produce signs of blunt trauma, to which the witness agrees.
10.57am: Wells says he described the medical report as ambiguous because he felt uncomfortable with the use of the words "conclusive" and "does not reveal" penetration.
10.58am: Wells says he has many doubts in Saiful's medical report. "Other people who read it may also agree because of the word “conclusive."
Yusof: Is it ambiguous or inaccurate?
Dr Wells: Well, you need to find a thesaurus (to help me). But I believe it is more ambiguous.
11.01am: Wells expresses concern about certain safeguard not being in place (as it would lead to not a desired result).
11.02am: Wells is shown by Yusof another book authored by another person.
11.03am: Yusof reads out that bruises may not become prevalent in sexual acts, to which Wells agrees.
11.06am: Yusof asks whether Wells is alleging that the container wherein the sample is placed could be tampered. Wells says it is not the container but the sealing used, because the sample is retrieved (from) inside (ie, it is not exposed)
11.10am: Yusof asks if a person plants a sperm, must you must have the sperm of the person there? Wells replies that this was something he would leave to the DNA expert.
11.11am: Wells says you have to identify the sperm or DNA. There was sperm found inside Saiful's rectum, from the sample taken. The chemist has shown the DNA is Anwar's.
11.14am: Wells is asked: how long can sperm last? He says it can be between 36 and 48 hours. Yusof shows an article from a journal.
11.18am: Yusof cites a case where there is sperm head can lasts more than 48 hours.
Wells cautions such a statement, saying: Yes, this is a 30 year-old literature, but all cannot depend on this solitary case alone.
11.21am: Yusof asks Wells why he said the specimen may not be there after 36 hours. Wells explains that this is based on his experience, as it is extremely rare that you can get specimen after 36 hours.
11.24am: Reading from a 2009 source, Yusof says anal and vaginal swabs can be taken after three days.
11.26am: Wells: "I am not aware of any case as this, where a sample can be obtained after 56 hours," says the Australian professor. "There is 36 to 48 hours from anal specimen, there are others involving vagina where specimen can be retrieved after five days," he says.
11.32am: Wells says he always keeps an open mind in this area. Yusof asks for short break to check whether he has covered all areas.
12pm: Karpal is wheeled in.
12.09pm: Court resumes. Yusof informs the court that he has finished cross-examination of Wells.
12.10pm: Sankara asks about history-taking. Wells says it is very important, as it forms the basis of management and diagnosis. "It is a fundamental part of medical practice."
12.14pm: Wells says that after 54 hours, the samples can be obtained is zero. "That is why I say the pro-forma is deficient."
12.16pm: Wells agrees that all parts of the proforma form should be filled.
12.23pm: Sankara says if Saiful claims the act was "laju and rakus" (fast and furious) and he felt "senak" pain, could there be injury.
Wells says there is a likelihood of injury.
Sankara: It depends on how much force?
Wells: Yes.
12.25pm: Sankara says that it could cause trauma or tear. Wells replies there is an increasing likelihood of such happening.
12.29pm: Wells says he cannot see a sperm lasting more than 48 hours.
12.32pm: Wells says the finding of a third DNA shows contamination.
12.37pm: Wells agrees it is good practice for doctors to take DNA samples of other people in the examination room.
12.40pm: Sankara says the integrity of the sample and history should correlate with findings later on.
Wells: Yes, you may need to go to the other partner to get the sample.
12.43pm: Sankara finishes questioning. Wells is released.
12.45pm: Pusrawi administration manager Yusni Ali is called as fourth witness.
Karpal refers to IDD 60 (Pusrawi) medical report.
12.48pm: Karpal: Are you the custodian of the file 'Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan'?
Yusri: Yes. It is kept in the general manager's office.
Karpal: Is this the original?
Yusri: This is a copy.
12.50pm: Yusni says he does not know where the original lies, as when he took over the position, "that is what we have".
12.51pm: There is a problem as the original is nowhere to be found.
Karpal says it could be kept by the police.
12.54pm: Court adjourns. Hearing to continue tomorrow at 9am.
source:malaysiakini
Pendakwa soal balas pakar asing
No comments:
Post a Comment