Defence lawyer Ram Karpal resumed his examination-in-chief of Australian DNA specialist Dr Brian McDonald in Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial today. The hearing continue today after the Hari Raya break with Anwar potentially facing another scandal when an Umno-friendly blogger threatened to release allegedly another sex video dated Jan 12 this year.Lead defence counsel Karpal Singh had in the past sought the court to take action against individuals who are seemed bent on interfering the administration of justice in this controversial trial. McDonald, who is the fourth defence witness, is expected to take another two days to complete his testimony with cross-examination by the prosecution pending.
It remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor will take the stand this week.
9.38am: Court begins with Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah presiding. Dr Brian McDonald called to the stand.
9.42am: McDonald tells the court he got to know there is one case which he knew that his evidence was not accepted in an Australian case concerning sub-population case. "I am not expert statistician."
McDonald says the samples taken in B7, B8 and B9 were not consistent with the history as the samples were taken after 56 hours. "No slides were made according to international standards.”
9.49am: McDonald says there was no information as to the sperm documented, although Seah says she saw sperm.
9.52am: There was no interpretation of degraded sperm, says McDonald. From the three samples, B7 there is predominant Male Y and a minor component of the complainant (Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan).
"Seah did not cover on B8. B8 is high rectal swab (...) is major DNA component is that of complainant and minor is Male Y. She should have made a slide instead of guessing in her explanation as to why this is so.
"These are two contrasting features to the high rectal swab (ie, B7 and B8)." As to B9 low rectal swab, McDonald says there are equal amounts of Male Y and the complainant's DNA.
"None of the sperm fraction shows any degraded DNA. If it comes from sperm at all, it should show degradation, especially after 56 hours in rectum and 46 hours (before giving to chemist)."
9.58am: McDonald says the finding is not consistent with the history of it being kept a long time. As to B5, it came from the peri-anal swab, McDonald says. Seah said she saw spermatozoa, but it is not known how many.
10.01am: McDonald says Seah testified that there was the DNA of three individuals, with the main contributor being that of an unknown male.
"Male Y, Seah noted, came from the degraded sperm."
"Seah reasoning that the unknown male came from (a) toilet seat is because he did not find any other in the rectal swab.
"Seah did not conduct tests on this sperm sample. There is unknown male which Seah concluded is from toilet seat, but she did not conduct tests.
" However, McDonald says the complainant says he did not go to the toilet for the past two days.
10.06am: McDonald says Seah was only guessing in coming to the conclusion.
10.08am: Looking at McDonald's own 15-page dated April 2008, the witness says that Seah was only guessing from the sample taken as there were mixtures of sperm taken.
Ram Karpal: At the moment, we do not know which cells the DNA came from.
McDonald: No.
10.13am: McDonald says it is not known whether the sample retrieved from B5, B7, B8 and B9 had come from saliva or a blood sample.
"That evidence does not tell us (whether) it came from sperm or saliva."
10.15am: Ram and McDonald going into a discussion on the field of contamination.
McDonald says contamination is a crucial issue in DNA.
10.18am: Ram: Do you find any evidence of contamination?
McDonald: It is difficult question to answer, as there are some instances where the DNA obtained could be related to the offence.
"There is DNA which does not come from either of the two people, and this should be explained."
10.24am: McDonald says Seah has misinterpreted what the chemist described was a starter.
10.35am: McDonald says Seah did not re-amplify the B5 sample (peri-annal swab), which she should have done.
10.37am: He also says chemist Nor Aidora Saedon had also failed to recognise mixtures in samples retrieved from Anwar's cell.
10.41am: Ram: There is a third contributor in the tests conducted by Seah and Nor Aidora.
"Nor Aidora ignored all criteria on mixture, which she must do (sic) as an objective scientist."
10.45am: When questioned by Justice Zabidin, McDonald says there should be more tests to identify whose DNA it is.
10.48am: Ram Karpal says would it be reasonable to conclude that the person in the lab or the police who handled the samples may have contaminated it.
McDonald says they could have contaminated the DNA.
10.50am: McDonald refuses to speculate, however, when asked by Ram Karpal as to whom may have contaminated the sample.
"Without documents, I cannot say who or where it came from, but based on some Australian cases, the element could have come from police."
10.53am: McDonald shows there is a mixture sample in Nor Aidora's tested sample which she had ignored.
Ram: As it stands, would it be correct to say it is not a single profile but a mixed profile.
McDonald: Yes, it is wrong."
11am: Ram: Both Seah and Nor Aidora found an '18 allele', but they had ignored it?
McDonald: Ya, both of them did not offer an explanation.
11.03am: Ram Karpal asks for short break and says he can finish it by lunch. Trial to continue at 11.30am.
11.49am: Court resumes with Ram Karpal continuing questioning.
11.55am: McDonald says there are assumptions made by Seah where she concluded that any semen must come from "Male Y".
"The assignment is, she relied on information from the police and the number of contributors."
McDonald says Nor Aidora also fell into the trap, (of believing) that the samples came from one contributor, whereas there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
12pm: McDonald says there is no basis for Seah to make those assumptions.
"There was no degraded sperm and Seah accepted it at face value, whereas she should have considered the history of the samples based on established literature."
Ram Karpal: In this case, it is crucial where the DNA source comes from.
McDonald: Yes.
Ram Karpal: There is no information where the swab stick came from?
McDonald: I assume Seah may have some documentation. According to international guidelines, we must know where the samples came from.
Judge: Where can she get the information?
McDonald: It should be from the labelling of the sample itself. But there is no evidence Seah has seen it. Because it is vital for Seah to know where it comes from.
12.13pm: Ram says the document which shows where the samples were taken from were only dated Aug 20, 2008, that is two months after the examination was done.
"I find this perplexing, as, was she shown this document first or later?" McDonald says.
12.17pm: Yusof objects to this question as this was not put to Seah previously.
The judge allows the objection.
12.18pm: Ram asks: Has the prosecution shown that the DNA of Male Y came from sperm?
Mcdonald: There is no indication it came from sperm.
Ram Karpal: Did it come from non-sperm cells?
McDonald: There is no evidence that it came from one cell type, the other came from another cell type.
Ram finishes questioning.
12.21pm: Yusof asks for cross-examination of McDonald to be done tomorrow, saying there are several literature materials to be shown.
Court adjourns to 9am tomorrow.
source:malaysiakini
DrBrian: normally in sexual assaults, main source of DNA is drainage on underwear; here no drainage but semen stayed in rectum,most bizarre!
Court: Dr Brian- Saiful's sperm(his trousers) and none found fr the accused.Dr Seah's assumption that semen must be ...
cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment