Expert: 43 hour old DNA sample 'won't be pretty'

Anwar Ibrahim's defence goes into the second day today with the expected testimony from Pusrawi hospital doctor Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid and two foreign experts.Mohamed Osman was the first doctor to examine Anwar's accuser, former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

The two Australian experts - forensic pathologist Dr David Wells and DNA specialist Dr Brian McDonald - have been with Anwar's defence team since they heard testimony from the police, Hospital Kuala Lumpur doctors and chemists.

It would be interesting to see whether the prosecution will apply to cross-examine Anwar, who had yesterday given an unsworn statement from the dock to the surprise of many.

Solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden had told the court that he “would love to cross-examine Anwar”. This was despite that testimony or statement from the dock by an accused in principle cannot be cross-examined.

"I will have to study past case laws as I would love to cross examine Anwar, whose defence was merely a political statement," said Yusof.

Anwar, in denying that he had sex with Saiful, had detailed how it was a conspiracy hatched by then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak just before he was about to return to active politics by contesting the Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat.Anwar has also pointed out that despite such evidence going against the prosecution, the court had ordered him to enter his defence.

LIVE REPORTS

8.31am: Lead defence counsel Karpal Singh already arrives in the Kuala Lumpur High Court at the Jalan Duta Court Complex.

8.48am: The team of prosecutors led by solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden enters the courtroom.

8.51am: Lawyer Sankara Nair arrives with the two Australian experts, Dr David Wells and Dr Brian McDonald.

Queens Counsel Mark Trowell is also here on watching brief for the Inter Parliamentary Union.

9.05am: The accused, Anwar Ibrahim, arrives with wife and PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. Unlike yesterday's proceedings, the court is not filled to the brim this morning.

9.12am: Court hearing begins with judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah presiding.

9.13am: Pusrawi doctor Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid (right) called to the witness stand.

9.17am: Witness says Saiful met him at Pusrawi Hospital on June 28, 2008.

Dr Osman asks to refer to his medical notes marked as identification. He then says Saiful complained of anal pain and of not being able to defecate for the past week.

9.20am: Osman says the patient alleged he was assaulted by the introduction of a plastic object into his anus.

"I did record this after Saiful told me this after examining him," he says.

"I checked with a protoscope."

9.24am: Now Osman is being cross-examined by Mohd Yusof.

Yusof asks whether the introduction of plastic is part of the medical history.

"I agree what I write down is little. He complained of pain in (the) anus when passing motion."

"I asked him what caused the pain. I thought it was constipation, bleeding."

9.26am: Yusof asks Osman why he did not ask Saiful as to what caused his pain.

Osman says he thought it was constipation, as there was no bleeding

Yusof: Do you agree that had you asked, you would not write (about) this plastic (object) allegedly inserted (into the anus)?

Osman: Yes

Yusof: Did Saiful know what you wrote in the report?

Osman: No.

9.29am: Asked by Yusof, Osman agrees that Saiful had claimed he was sodomised by a VIP.

"I did not ask," says Osman.

Yusof: Is (insertion of) plastic (object) sodomy?

Osman: He told me after the examination that he was sodomised and a plastic was inserted.

Yusof : You only mentioned plastic when a further statement was recorded by police this year. They asked you about this. When was this added?

Osman: This year they did not ask me anything.

Yusof: I apologise. It was May 18, 2010.

Osman: Yes, I recorded the statement.

Yusof: The note (about the plastic) was added later?

Osman: The note was added as post-examination.

Yusof: I put it to you that he did not say any plastic.

Osman: He told me.

9.37am: Osman says he worked at Pusrawi for six months and he does not know who this Azlan is.

Yusof: Did you prepare a statutory declaration?

Osman: Yes

Yusof: Why did you prepare (it)?

Osman: I was very scared.

Yusof: Who asked you to prepare (it)?

Osman: One commissioner of oaths, 'Anwar', and a lawyer named Yusri.

9.40am: Yusof : It seems we cannot find the record.

Osman: I gave it to Dr Rustam on the same day. One 'Dr Azlan' wants to keep it in the file.

9.42am: The witness says the police never asked him to write the statutory declaration.

"I thought the lawyer is acting for Pusrawi. He is not acting for Pusrawi."

Yusof: My suggestion is that you will do anything for anybody?

Osman: No

Yusof: I suggest that this was added later (the plastic thing)

Osman: No.

Karpal, in re-examination, asks whether this note was recorded on another day.

Osman says no. He recorded it the same day as when it was uttered by Saiful.

9.46am: Osman is released from the witness stand.

Karpal says he is calling in experts, and asks for a 15-minute break.

10.01am: Dr David Wells (left) is called to the stand, and is now undergoing examination-in-chief by Sankara Nair.

10.07am: Wells explains his curriculum vitae. He is the head of forensic medicine at the Victoria Institute of Medicine, and an associate professor at Monash University.

10.11am: Wells says he was awarded the Order of Australia medal, his field of specialisation is sexual violence and has written several books and articles on sexual violence.

10.15am: Wells says he has also testified as a witness in Australia and the United Kingdom.

10.16am: Wells says he has also trained police officers, nurses and doctors who are doing forensic medicine. He also conducts courses in Malaysia and has helped to train doctors here.

10.38am: Wells says he has testified at all levels of court, from the magistrate's court to the high court, and he believes his testimonies have been accepted by courts.

10.40am: Wells informs the court that he had previously stayed in Malaysia for seven years' and his father had worked with Malaysia's first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman.

10.42am: Wells explains the importance of history taking.

"It allows doctors the time to asses the patient, the confidence (of the patient) and also records what the person tells you."

"It's an important (aspect) of documenting a patient-led process," he says.

Wells says it is important to record the details of sexual cases, as it would detail what has happened and it would be scrutinised by many people.

10.55am: Wells also explains the importance of having a proforma form to serve as a guideline: "As a rule, the police normally is not present in examining (a sexual assault) victim," he said.

Sankara: Is it important to record the bowel habits of a sexual assault victim?

Wells: It is important in recording.

11.02am: Sankara shows Wells Saiful's medical report from Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

Wells says the report is deficient.

11.08am: Wells says the medical report contains no conclusive findings suggestive of penetration to the anus/rectum nor any significant defensive wounds on the body of the patient.

"I would also not write a report with the presence of Male DNA types B5, B7, B8 and B9. I would not want to record if you want to interpret it," he said.

11.13am: Wells also says that it is not right to state objective findings in the medical report.

11.21am: Sankara asks for a 15-minute recess.

11.47am: Court resumes. Wells says he cannot see the significance of the findings recorded in the HKL medical report.

"I am a little disappointed on the history recorded."

11.49am: Wells says he would put 'no clinical finding'.

"The word 'conclusive' is misleading and ambiguous at best. It does not actually record."

Sankara: Is it presumptive as well?

Wells: It is inaccurate, yes.

11.52am: Wells is now looking at the HKL proforma form.

"Some portions of the proforma is partially completed. The question should be asked whether there is any resistance."

11.57am: Wells notes that while Saiful's proforma form states there was bleeding, the finding showed otherwise.

Sankara: The proforma should be filled in properly.

Wells: It must be filled in to show all of the examination was done accordingly. I am puzzled by the crucial missing parts.

12.12pm: Wells says contamination is real issue, as you always run into the risk of other DNA being there.

"Contamination is not exclusive with the use of protoscope."

12.14pm: Wells says he would not use lubricant but instead sterile water, as this would prevent contamination.

12.20pm: Wells says you cannot guarantee that DNA contamination can be stopped.

Sankara: (So it's) not safe to rely on DNA evidence?

Wells: Yes, there can be other tests to back it up.

Sankara: Human errors are possible?

Wells: Yes.

12.24pm: Wells says he prefers to work alone when doing an examination.

"I will take cotton swab, seal the specimen," he said, adding there would be nurses assisting him.

Earlier he hd testified that he also prefers that there be no policeman present during an examination.

12.28pm: Justice Zabidin adjourns session, says proceedings will continue at 2.30pm.

2:36pm: The hearing resumes with Australian forensic pathologist Dr David Wells on the witness stand. He is being examined by defence lawyer Sankara Nair.

2.42pm: Sankara asks for Well's opinion on Kuala Lumpur General Hospital's medical report. Pointing to a particular paragraph, Sankara wants to know if Wells would read it as "pain when passing motion" or "pain when attempting to pass motion".

Wells: I would read it as pain when passing motion.

2.52pm: Referring to the swab samples taken when Saiful first complained of sexual assault, Sankara asked Wells to explain if the procedure in which the swab was taken and stored were proper.

Wells explained that he has no qualms with the procedure when the swab was taken but the storing of swab for DNA testing is crucial.

"It's is critical to note if the specimen was air dried, frozen immediately or taken for testing immediately."

Sankara: Is sending the swab for testing 43 hours after the swab was taken acceptable?

Wells: It certainly won't be pretty.

3.00pm: Wells explained that "in a well moist environment" bacteria will be able to damage any protein element in the DNA sample.

Wells says he has never come across cases of semen being extracted from a victim's body 56 hours after an alleged assault.

3.15pm: Sankara finishes his examination. Wells will be cross-examined tomorrow. The next defence witness is another Australian DNA specialist Dr Brian Mc Donald.

The trial has been adjourned to 9am tomorrow.

Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/173808