The Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial will today see defence witness Dr Brian McDonald cross-examined by the prosecution, who is assisted by chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong. Seah and another chemist, Nor Aidora Saedon, received flak following McDonald's contention yesterday that they did not fulfill or follow established standards and standards in examining DNA samples submitted to them by the police.McDonald had also questioned their methods in arriving at their conclusions, and queried their failure to include certain procedures - such as ensuring the DNA samples were clean and without contaminants.
Among the unanswered questions, he noted, were the lack of evidence to indicate where the actual DNA samples came from, as well as how samples retrieved from Anwar's accuser - Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan - could be in “pristine condition” when it was submitted more than 100 hours after the alleged sodomy act. The Australian expert also cannot said he could not dismiss the possibility of Saiful's own sperm being present in his anus based on the findings.
It also remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor will take the stand this week as anticipated.
9.18am: Court starts with High Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah presiding. McDonald takes the stand. Defence counsel Ram Karpal informs the court that he has one more question to ask McDonald about an Australian case. McDonald's report dated April 24, 2011 is marked as evidence.
9.21am: Cross-examination being done by solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden. Yusof goes on with the 2007 Australian case where the appellate court had rejected the appeal. Yusof says he will show McDonald is not an expert despite earlier saying he was impressed with the Australian credentials.
9.30am: Yusof asks whether in 2002 McDonald was required to attend any examination programmes. McDonald replies there is no formal research certification in the examination.
9.31am: McDonald says he is a certified NATA evaluator of forensic labs for the ISO 17025 certification.
9.36am: Yusof continues to attack McDonald's credentials as contained in his curriculum vitae. Yusof asserts that McDonald's qualification obtained in 1992 is obsolete due to the developments in the field since.
9.41am: McDonald says he has not attended any forensic DNA testing course.
Yusof: Have you been trained formally? To interpret, to analyse?
McDonald: I am trained formally as a scientist.
Yusof: Do you train people?
McDonald: Yes, in all areas including interpretation.
9.45am: Yusof ask how McDonald had acquired his expertise, to which the Australian replies he worked in the field, did testing and did analyses.Yusof: When was the last time you conducted DNA testing?
McDonald explains that in 2004, “I would have conducted some of them. Those are now done by robots now. I am a senior scientist when those things are done by junior people and robots."
9.52am: Yusof says that in ISO 17025, they would visit and get to know the scientists and whether they have the necessary qualifications. "The scientist, as part of the accreditation, the scientist Seah Lay Hong and Nor Aidora , must consistently be tested," says Yusof.
McDonald replies in the negative.He says only senior scientists are only allowed to interpret results.
"They have to have the necessary qualification."
10.03am: McDonald says he does not know whether the lab accreditation is conducted every two years.
10.05am: McDonald says he did not conduct the tests in his 2004 lab in Australia, as it was done by robots.
"I only interpret the results."
Yusof now refers to a Brunei case where McDonald was hired. Yusof says the court had not accepted the foreign expert's (McDonald) evidence, although the judge was impressed with the government chemist.
"I don't know I am not here in a popularity contest," McDonald quips.
10.14am: McDonald says he disagrees that the Brunei case did not accept his evidence.
10.15am: Yusof asserts that McDonald gave evidence on DNA in the Brunei case, and that the Australian was not able to persuade the Brunei court.
McDonald says he does not know about that.
10.21am: Yusof now refers to an Australian case where he said the court thought McDonald lacked neutrality.
McDonald says that was the judge's opinion, but was not established as fact.
10.27am: Yusof refers McDonald to another case where a retrial was ordered and the judge had reservations about McDonald's testimony.
"The court has issues of his credibility in this case."
Justice Zabidin allows McDonald to explain further.
10.34am: McDonald explains that on appeal, the judges accepted his evidence.
10.41am: McDonald reads from a paragraph of the same case where it was said that he was a truthful witness and the jury should accept the evidence.
10.46am: Yusof reads from another case which describes McDonald as not an expert witness.
10.59am: Yusof continues attacking McDonald's credibility and expertise by showing cases where the court rejected or questioned his evidence.
11.03am: Yusof reads out from an article that said McDonald does not have the necessary experience and qualifications in molecular genetics or general knowledge of DNA, and that he relied on journals to gain knowledge.
11.08am: McDonald says these are statistical matters. He admits that he does not have an expertise in sub-population.
11.11am: McDonald says some of the views expressed by the judges was the court's opinion.
11.16am: Yusof indicates that the prosecution has finished questioning on McDonald's qualifications.
He wants to go into the next subject of semen.
Yusof asks for a half-hour break. Justice Zabidin allows.
12.04pm: Trial resumes with Yusof cross-examining McDonald. He goes on to cite several cases. McDonald says he has testified in 150 cases, and he cannot remember all details.
12.08pm: Yusof says McDonald was hired by the defence. He asks McDonald to give short answers to his questions.Yusof: Is this your area of expertise?
McDonald: Yes.
Yusof: You must be fair?
McDonald: Yes.
Yusof: You must not make a prediction?
McDonald: I do not fully understand it.
12.12pm: Yusof asks McDonald whether he is an expert to determine matters about semen found on samples taken after 56 hours and given to chemist 48 hours later.
McDonald replies he is an expert.
"This is our reference, the one that is reported. Even in genitalia, it (sperm) can last for 120 hours," Yusof states.
12.24pm: Yusof shows McDonald a Thai-language journal, but the Australian expert refuses to answer questios on the matter since he cannot understand what is written.
Yusof: On assumption that this article is true...
"No," McDonald replies emphatically.
CV Prabhakaran: I object. We cannot ask based on assumptions.
12.30pm: McDonald says there is no base value.
Yusof says the journal says semen can lasts in a vagina for 19 days.
McDonald: I can't agree because I cannot understand the (language) base (it is written in Thai).
12.36pm: Yusof asserts that based on the journal, it is not unusual that one can find semen on swab after it was retrieved after 113 hours.
The judge asks for break. The proceeding will continue at 2.30pm.
source:malaysiakini
cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment