Why didn’t Anwar do DNA test abroad to disprove sodomy, Shafee tells court
(The Malaysian Insider) – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim could have conducted his own DNA analysis in another country and used it to counter court evidence that he sodomised his former aide, the prosecution in the politician’s appeal against his sodomy conviction said today.
The opposition leader could have done this instead of claiming fabrication and tampering of evidence, prosecutor Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah told the Federal Court which is hearing Anwar’s appeal.
Anwar could have done so in “Australia or Europe”, Shafee said, to disprove that he is “Male Y”.
“Male Y” refers to the DNA sample found in the rectum of the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, and which matches the DNA profiles taken from items allegedly used by Anwar while he was held in a police lock-up.
Anwar had refused to have his samples taken by government doctors on the night he was arrested for investigations on the alleged sodomy, in 2008. His lawyers said the lock-up items were taken unlawfully in order to retrieve his DNA.
The prosecution’s case that Anwar did sodomise Saiful rests on the match between “Male Y” and Anwar’s DNA.
The defence has also contended that Saiful’s DNA samples used in the trial were degraded and compromised because of poor handling.
Shafee today said that the government chemist who profiled Saiful’s DNA never denied that degradation had occurred. She had even admitted that some form of degradation had happened since the samples were only swabbed from Saiful some 54 to 56 hours after the alleged sodomy.
Chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong never claimed the DNA samples were “pristine”, as said by the defence team, rather, she said the “reading was perfect”, Shafee submitted.
“The reading is a 16 pointer. All 16 point to Anwar,” said Shafee, reading from Dr Seah’s testimony. The number refers to the points on a DNA profile which identifies the sample as belonging to the person.
“As long as a DNA sample is readable, that’s it. There is no test to see the degree of deterioration,” Shafee said.
DNA protein was also known to be more robust than other proteins when subjected to harsh environments, he added.
He then cited a case law from India, known as the “Tandoori Murder” where a woman’s body was burnt in a tandoor oven but her DNA could still be identified.
He also cited a rape case in Australia where the perpetrator’s DNA was identified from a sperm sample on the victim’s towel 13-and-a-half years after the crime.
Shafee said the defence had misunderstood that a clear reading of a DNA profile meant it had to be a “fresh” sample.
He refuted the testimony of the defence expert witness, Dr Brian McDonald, who Shafee said did not conduct the DNA test personally.
