DNA samples from Saiful’s anus ‘pristine’
There is absolutely no evidence that Saiful’s DNA samples had degraded, according to Australian expert
McDonald said the sample – taken from the higher rectum which was predominantly from “Male Y”, while another which was predominantly Saiful’s – was inconclusive. However, the DNA expert said that all three had no evidence that degradation had occurred and were “pristine DNA”.
Teoh El Sen, Free Malaysia Today
The DNA samples extracted from Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s anus, which were supposed to have degraded, appeared to be in “pristine” condition, the High Court here heard today.
“There is absolutely no evidence of degradation… ” said Australian consultant molecular geneticist, Dr Brian Leslie McDonald, at the Sodomy II trial.
McDonald agreed with defence counsel Ramkarpal Singh that the DNA test results were “inconsistent with the history (of the case)”.
Yesterday, McDonald had testified that the DNA samples – which were extracted from Saiful’s anus 56 hours after the alleged sodomy, and later kept in a drawer for 43 hours – would have degraded.
Australian forensic expert Dr David Lawrence Noel Wells, the head of forensic medicine at the Victoria Institute of Medicine, had also testified that the poorly kept samples were unlikely to have returned a positive result.
The defence team claimed the testimony today supports its argument that the evidence was tampered with.
“This is a very important issue. How could we have a new sample when the sample was supposed to have degraded with bacteria? Where did they get the sample from?” Anwar told reporters outside the court.
Earlier, Ramkarpal asked McDonald to give his opinion on the chemist report done on three DNA samples (B7, B8, B9) which were taken from Saiful’s higher and lower rectum.
Mere guesswork
McDonald said the sample – taken from the higher rectum which was predominantly from “Male Y”, while another which was predominantly Saiful’s – was inconclusive.
However, the DNA expert said that all three had no evidence that degradation had occurred and were “pristine DNA”.
McDonald also criticised the way government chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong had conducted the tests on the samples.
According to him, Seah did not identify where the swab samples were taken from and had merely labelled them as numbers in her chemist report.
“One is left not knowing – and have to assume – where the samples were swabbed from…” said McDonald.
During the prosecution’s case, the DNA samples from Saiful’s anus had been identified by chemists as that belonging to one “Male Y”, which were matched to samples taken from several items in Anwar’s lock-up.
Earlier, McDonald said Seah’s conclusions in her chemistry report, which subsequently enabled the prosecution to allege that Anwar’s sperm was found in Saiful’s anus, were based on mere guesswork.
He said Seah’s report was not “scientifically objective”.
Yesterday, he said that in sexual assault cases, it was critical to be able identify that a DNA sample is derived from the sperm cells.
In order to conclusively say that a DNA profile comes from the sperm cells, as opposed to other types of cells, a chemist needs to separate sperm cells from the other types of cells by conducting a “differential extraction process”.
“This process was not done properly (by Dr Seah),” McDonald told the court when questioned by Ramkarpal.
He said this was evident in her own “guess” that there were still other types of cells present after the separation process.
“If she maintained that the DNA (identified as belonging to Saiful) comes from epithelial cells (non-sperm cells), then she should have done the separation process again,” he said.
