The prosecution in the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial will continue to cross-examine foreign DNA expert Dr Brian McDonald for the second day when hearing continues today.Yesterday, the prosecution questioned McDonald's credibility when it showed the court that some of his testimonies in other cases came under disrepute.
McDonald also conceded to making a mistake when he said during the examination-in-chief that it was wrong for chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong(right) to have the acid phosphatase test on the cotton swabs retrieved from the victim. He agreed with solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden over a finding in a journal that sperm can last in the rectum for 113 hours.
However, McDonald disagreed with the prosecution when shown a Thai hospital finding that semen can last for 19 days in a female's private part. The prosecution is expected to finish its cross-examination of McDonald today.
9.58am: Proceeding starts, with Justice Zabidin presiding.
9.59am: McDonald takes the witness stand, with cross-examination done by Yusof. Yusof asks McDonald about differential extraction and whether he conducts such procedures in his labs. McDonald says he does not have a lab as he is merely a consultant. Yusof asserts that McDonald is testifying based on personal experience, but the witness says he does not understand the question.
10.02am: Yusof asks McDonald if he had made the accusation that the procedure conducted by Seah was flawed. McDonald disagrees with that statement, and explains that (he said) Seah did not do certain procedures to separate the cells. The witness claims that the DNA came from epithelial cells, not the actual DNA of a proper person.
10.10am: Yusof is asking questions based on an article McDonald used in court.
10.11am: Yusof says if one does not do the slide, then one cannot see the cells below. McDonald agrees.
10.28am: Yusof claims Seah had correctly conducted the extraction process.
McDonald disagrees with this.
Yusof says Seah recovered spermatozoa in Saiful's anus before the extraction process.
McDonald replies that there are two cell types and two contributors. Seah must prove that cell type produced the right DNA.
10.34am: Yusof is focusing on where the slide procedure was to be done after extraction. McDonald reads a paragraph showing it needs to be done. An argument ensures.
10.37am: Yusof suggests McDonald is misleading the court. Sankara objects, saying it is an unfair allegation.
10.39am: McDonald says Yusof is wrong in suggesting that the slide procedure need not be done.
10.40am: McDonald says one needs to do the slide to provide a meaningful explanation process.
10.41am: Now, McDonald is accuses Yusof of misleading the court.
"You need to take the slide at the different process."
10.43am: McDonald claims Seah did not do the slide after the first extraction process.
10.46am: Yusof says there was only one single profile from the B7 high rectum swab.
McDonald adds, allegedly.
Yusof says it came from the non-sperm fraction of the donor (Saiful).
10.50am: Yusof says if there are other DNA from non-sperm cells, it would also appear.
McDonald says yes.
10.54am: McDonald says that on the B9 swab there is an unidentified person's profile which was not reported.
"It does not belong to Saiful or Male Y."
11am: Yusof asks how Saiful's sperm was found in his own anus.
11.02am: Yusof says if there was a rape victim and sodomy took place after that, you will also have the DNA of the victim from the act of sodomy. How is this possible in Saiful's case, as he is a male?
McDonald says he saw it in the results given by Seah. Saiful's DNA was in there.
11.05am: Yusof asks for short break.
11.43am: Court resumes. Yusof asks about the Petaling Jaya forensic lab accreditation.
11.47am: Yusof shows the required document.
11.48am: McDonald explains that there is a transition from ESCLAP Legacy to Pioneer programme.
"There are things which you have to comply to receive the ISO 17025 accreditation.
"The lab is not accreditated to the ISO 17025."
Yusof: Is the lab not competent?
McDonald: There will be consequences, as it may result in the view the lab is being incompetent.
11.53am: McDonald notes that the Pioneer certification lasts until next month, but the swab tests were done in 2008.
McDonald says he does not know the precise information.
11.57am: Yusof: Is accreditation an issue for the Petaling Jaya lab in 2008?
McDonald: I don't know, as no one has inspected the lab since 2005.
12pm: Yusof says that as far as 2008, the Malaysian lab is accreditated under the pioneer programme.
McDonald: I do not have the information.
Yusof: There is no real reason for you bringing up the issue?
McDonald: Something was brought up, that the lab was accreditated under ISO 17025. But it was not.
12.05pm: Yusof shows McDonald the notes of proceeding. "Seah says the lab is accredited with ESCLAP 2005."
12.15am: Court adjourns to 2.15pm to give McDonald time to search where Seah said the lab is certified ISO 17025.
more to come
source:malaysiakini
cheers.
Breaking News
PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu was this morning charged with criminal defamation in a Butterworth Sessions Court for challenging the official account of the 1950 Bukit Kepong incident at a ceramah in Tasek Gelugor on Aug 21.Judge Ikmal Hishan Mohd Tajuddin fixed Oct 27 for mention of the case and Dec 5-9 for trial. Bail was set at RM15,000.
Mohammad Hanafiah Zakaria, Ishak Mohd Yusoff and Suhaimi Ibrahim are prosecuting, while Hanipa is Maidin is appearing for Mat Sabu.
Mat Sabu mengaku tak bersalah
Mat Sabu didakwa, minta dibicarakan
cheers.
3 comments:
mekassih bang, dapat jugak baca malaysiakini kat sini. wink2 :D
Dah serupa mcm holocaust ~ langsung xbley bincang, takut pecah tembelang ~ 'Act 574 Penal Code
Statements conducing to public mischief
505. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour
or report—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any
officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Malaysian Armed
Forces or any person to whom section 140B refers, to
mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such;
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or
alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby
any person may be induced to commit an offence against
the State or against the public tranquillity; or
(c) with intent to incite or which is likely to incite any class
or community of persons to commit any offence against
any other class or community of persons'
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two
years or with fine or with both.
Exception—It does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this
section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement,
rumour or report has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement,
rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it without any
such intent as aforesaid.'
Bang itu akibatnya ambil pakar yang bukan pakar dan membayar pakar suruh mengelirukan mahkamah. Siapa tak kenal Anwar dan kuncu pegvuamnya yang selalu cuba hendak menipu dan mengelirukan rakayat. Itu sebab anwar takut nak beri keterangan di kandang saksi takut disoal balas oleh Pendakwa.
Post a Comment