Sodomy 2: Appeal focuses on DNA evidence
The prosecution has delivered a copy of its petition to Anwar’s team.
(FMT) – Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah failed to consider the absence of evidence that semen samples were tampered with when he acquitted Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy, the prosecution claims in its appeal against the acquittal.
A copy of the petition of appeal, signed by senior deputy public prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin, was served on the opposition leader’s lawyers late yesterday.
Anwar was acquitted last Jan 9 of the charge of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at the Desa Damansara condominium on June 26, 2008.
Noorin said it was wrong for the high court to conclude that the integrity of samples collected from Saiful had been compromised because there was no way for the investigation officer to tamper with them.
She said the court did not establish how investigation officer Blacious Judy Pereira had obtained the samples and how the results of DNA testing on them were compared with DNA profiles obtained from samples collected from the lock-up where Anwar was kept overnight.
The judge failed to consider “in total” how the samples were “collected, handled and analysed”, she added.
Noorin referred to the two chemists called by the prosecution, Dr Seah Lee Hong and Nor Aidora Saedon, saying their testimonies were based on detailed analyses carried out at the Chemistry Department.
She said both chemists had considered “all the possibilities” raised by experts in ensuring that their findings on the DNA samples were conclusive.
She acknowledged Pereira’s testimony that he had cut open a plastic bag containing receptacles for the sample, but said there was no evidence to indicate that the receptacles were tampered with.
She noted that both Dr Seah and Nor Aidora testified to the receptacles being intact.
Judge misdirected himself
Noorin contended that Mohamad Zabidin misdirected himself when he took into consideration the evidence of DNA experts called by the defence without giving weight to expert views and medical literature provided by the prosecution.
She claimed that the testimonies of the defence experts were based on theories in DNA profiling that had not been established.
