untuk carian lebih pantas sila taip katakunci dalam kotak dibawah dan klik butang 'search'

Monday, February 28, 2011



Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

PP : Semua hadir kecuali MM
PB : SN, Ram Karpal, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, (KS, Marissa Fernando, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB : Zambri Idrus (for Complainant)
Expert for defence: Dr. Brian McDonalds
AI hadir

[8.50 a.m.]

MY: Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung pemeriksaan semula SP5.

Sambung pemeriksaan semula SP5 oleh NB.

SP5 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q: You were asked about the feedbacks you received about your services which is the court testimony which you said also as part of your quality assurance. The question is, what is the quality assurance as regards to court’s testimony?
A: That is a component of standard 12 of the [] audit document and one component of that standard was each analyst court’s testimony should monitored at least once a year or annually. The monitoring of court’s testimony is not the monitoring of judgment.

Q: So, it’s the monitoring of the court’s testimony and not the judgement?
A: Yes. And that monitoring is carried out during the course of the testimony and not after that.

Q: Regarding the dates on P6(E) the body swab from sample B4 (P35), P6(F) from sample B5 (P36), P6(G) from sample B6 (P37). On P6(E) the date was 28.06.2006, on P6(f) the date was also again 28.06.2008 which you told the court in your testimony yesterday it could be 28.06.2008 or 28.08.2006 or 06 while P6(G) is 26.06.2008. You were asked did it not strike you something was odd in this scenario because you said you knew the samples were taken on 28.06.2008. You disagree that by your standard you ought to have them rejected. Please explain why do you disagree by the contention by the counsel?
A: Our return procedures are not on basis for rejection, it’s at the point where the samples were received from the submitting officer. And any labelling afterwards i.e after examination, are documented but those documentation, if there were errors on those documentation which is done by another party we will note it down in the documentation. But at that point, we have not form any basis for rejection.

Q: When you received these samples specifically the three samples, were the seals intact?
A: Yes, they were intact.

Q: Did the dates affect the integrity of those samples when you received them on 30.06.2008?
A: No, they do not.

Q: Why?
A: Because the seals were intact and the labelling was handwritten.

Q: Can you confirm that the dates were not written by you?
A: The dates were not written by me.

Q: To the question that you should also look at other samples in suspicion, you said you should give the benefit of the doubt. Would you like to explain now what do you mean by this?
A: That was because the three receptacles that was shown to me where one of it is dated 28.06.2008 and another one was dated 26-060.2008, the samples has some discrepancies when it was documented down. And I said you should give the benefit of the doubt to the person who labelled that because transcription errors can occur in writing and labelling.

Q: According to standard of Jabatan Kimia Malaysia on sampling, what would you considered as tempered seal container?
A: Tempered proof container would mean that if an authorized person had opened it before me, then it can be detected.

Q: In this case, would you consider that the samples were put in tempered proof containers?
A: It is.

Q: In this case if the seals of the samples had been tempered, would you know it?
A: I would.

Q: How?
A: If the cap is opened as demonstrated yesterday you have to peel the top but you have to peel it down to the other end to open the other end. You have to open the receptacles to have access to the swab sticks. That means you have to peel it down to the other end. And if that happens you can’t replace back without leaving any traces that it has been peeled.

Q: Would you note down any samples which you believed or think had been tempered in your analysis?
A: Yes.

Q: Would you reject that samples?
A: That would form a basis for rejection then.

Q: In this case, did you reject any of the samples?
A: No, I did not.

Q: On the articles again, the DNA Commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics, the recommendations on the interpretation on mixtures. Do you know whether this recommendation has been adopted as standards?
A: No. They have not been adopted as standards particularly in the interpretation of mixtures. This is a very dynamic field.

Q: Is there a body or organisation of your community that will set standards to be followed?
A: There are two big international groups that would normally set the standards for laboratories that carried out DNA profiling, one is the International Society of Forensic Genetics and another society from North America, SWGDAM (Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Method s). They are the two big international groups that endorses best practices for carrying out DNA profiling in the laboratories. But as I have stated yesterday, labs that have guidelines that are not endorsed by these bodies does not necessarily mean they do not make a standard.

Q: In this particular guidelines laid down in this article, do you know whether it has been adopted as standards by these two bodies?
A: No. There are newer approaches and even until today the approaches are still changing. As I’ve said, mixtures interpretation is a dynamic field.

NB: YA, itu sahaja soalan semula saya terhadap saksi ini. Sekiranya tiada soalan daripada mahkamah, saya mohon saksi ini dilepaskan.
YA: You can go back.

NB: YA, izinkan kami memanggil seorang lagi saksi kami SP6, iaitu seorang lagi ahli kimia, Puan Aidora.

SP6, Nor Aidora bt Saedon.

Examination-in-chief of SP6 by NB.

SP6 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Nor Aidora bt Saedon, 38 years old, Address per i/c. Chemist at the Forensic DNA Laboratory , Forensic Divison, Chemistry Department PJ.

Q: Please inform the court since when were you attached at the Chemist Department PJ?
A: I’ve been attached to the Chemist Department of PJ since 1998.

Q: What is your present or current designation at the department?
A: At the moment, I’m the Ketua Unit of DNA paternity.

Q: How long have you been in your current designation?
A: I’ve been in this current designation since 2008.

Q: Please tell the court what are your main functions and duties at this unit?
A: I received, analyse and report case pertaining to murder, rape, assault and any other cases that needs DNA analysis on biological evidence.

Q: Please inform the court as to your academic qualification.
A: YA, I’ve prepared my CV. May I tender my CV?

NB: Can you give your CV to be given to the counsel.

A: I have a basic degree in chemistry graduated from UM in 1998. I’ve a Masters Degree from university of Auckland in 2007.

Q: Please state the courses that you have attended in relation to your line of work, locally and internationally.
A: [read Topic 6 of the CV]

Q: You mentioned that you have attended this training, [Item 11 of Topic 6] Onsite Training of ABI 3100 Genetic Analyser. Please elaborate further on this.
A: Basically I’m trained to handle the instrument, trained to detect the irregularities on the instrument, trained to run the instrument as well as generate profiles results from the instrument. Basically how it works, what are the function of the instruments and ability to run and detect irregularities so that I can call the technician to fix the irregularity.

Q: And you have a certificate on this?
A: Yes, I have,

Q: What about the training of Promega Powerflex 16?
A: Basically I learned about Promega Powerflex 16.

Q: What is this Promega Powerflex 16?
A: In the world there are only 2 companies which has the ability to come out with the forensic amplification kit which are Applied Biosystem and Promega. Currently in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia we are using the Applied Bio-system which are called Identifiler. However, we also need to evaluate other amplification kit in the market. Therefore I went for the training of Promega Powerflex 16 which is another set of amplification kit to see how it works and to learn about the differences.

Q: Did you also obtained certificate from this training?
A: No.

Q: Are you a member of any professional bodies relating to your work?
A: I’m an associate member of Jabatan Kimia Malaysia since 2000. I’m also the counsel for Forensic Society of Malaysia since 2009.

Q: Anything else?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever attended any proficiency test?
A: Yes, I have. It is on the last page of my CV. Just for the court’s knowledge, being DNA analyst of Chemist Department Malaysia, we are accredited under ASCLD and it’s a criteria for DNA analyst to take proficiency testing twice a year and we are required to passed. The proficiency test that I attended are [read Topic 11 of CV]. I’ve passed all my proficiency testing without any doubt.

Q: Apart from the training that you have attended and the proficiency tests that you have undergone and passed, did you make any presentation of any papers in any international symposium?
A: Yes.

Q: What are the papers you have presented before?
A: [read CV].

Q: This proficiency test that you stated just now that you have undergone, are these tests accepted internationally and by all the scientists in the area of your work?
A: Yes. The coordinator and the agency involved in the international quality assurance is the Collaborative Testing Services both are accepted by ASCLD as the provider for proficiency testing.
Q: Before you were posted in your current designation, were you attached to any other department in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: I’ve been working in the forensic laboratories since 1998 and I have not been posted to any laboratory. Before I’m a Ketua Unit, I’m a chemist there.

Q: Have you ever testified in court before?
A: Yes

Q: How many times?
A: I cannot recall how many times I have given testimony in court before, but I think more than 15-20 times.

Q: In your line of work as a chemist, do you any experience in analysing blood samples?
A: Yes, I do.

Q: Is there a DNA laboratory at the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia PJ that you were attached to?
A: Yes, there is a DNA lab at the department

Q: What are the equipments available at the lab for the purpose of DNA analysis?
A: There are a lot of equipments available at the laboratory for DNA analysis. However the mains are the genetic analyser, also thermocycles, realtime PCR for quantisation and also other instruments relating to DNA analysis.

Q: Is the DNA lab and the equipment is the same or similar in other DNA labs in the world?
A: I wouldn’t be able to say all over the world, however the places that I’ve been to which is Sydney, US, New Zealand and I’ve also spoken to most of the assessor of the ASCLD, our labs equipment are similar to the others that I’ve been to and I’m sure any other labs have similar equipment.

Q: Has your lab been accredited internationally?
A: Yes, our lab has been accredited with the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors since 2005. Basically, to earn the accreditation is not easy. We are the third lab in Asia after Hong Kong and Singapore to have that accreditation. So, to us it is a big thing, important as to the quality assurance.

Q: Now, we talk about standards used by your department in relation to DNA analysis. Are the scientists in the same line of your area of work in the world adopts the same standards, procedure used by your department in relation to DNA analysis.
A: The procedures that is adopted by Department of Chemistry Malaysia are the procedures that has been validated in the Department of Chemistry Malaysia based on the guidelines and recommendations from the international bodies such as the Scientific Working Group of DNA Analysis Method (SWGDAM) and these methods have been accepted wide world and in the forensic society.

Q: What about the quality assurance of your department?
A: Whatever that has been analysed in the department, the quality assurance is as per the international standards where we have segregated rooms where the samples are handled with the outmost care with all the quality assurance that we have , i.e the positive control, the negative control, reagent blank to ensure the DNA profile generated by the Department of Chemistry are the actual profiles and to ensure the quality assurance of the DNA profiles.

Q: Have your lab received any ISO certificate for that matter?
A: Yes. We have ISO 9001 as well as ASCLD accreditation which is enough for us.

Q: How many times have you conducted DNA analysis since you were attached to the Chemistry Department on the request of the police or other government bodies?
A: I’ve been working in the lab for 12 years and I can safely says it is definitely more than 100 thousand samples.

Q: In cases involved request by the police, what are the types of cases where DNA analysis are needed?
A: The cases that I received are murder, rape, assault, paternity, drugs and any other cases pertaining to biological evidence that requires DNA analysis.

Q: Were you working on 17.07.2008 at about 6.56 p.m.?
A: Yes, I was working at the Chemistry Department Malaysia in PJ on 17.07.2008 at 6.56 p.m.

Q: Did you on this date, received a request from the police?
A: YA, may I have the permission to refer to my report and my notes?

SN: My Lord, at this stage we have to raised an objection as I’ve been instructed by the lead counsel that he wants to make a serious objection to certain [] evidence at this stage in respect to this report. He is on his way from Shah Alam. [].
YA: What evidence? So far it’s about her qualification.
SN: New evidence coming from her…
YA: We don’t know what evidence as yet. How am I going to make a ruling if kita tak tahu apa evidence yang dibawa masuk.
SN: It will affect the source of the evidence and the source of the police coming in. This would be a contentious issue. We’ll put submission.
MY: YA, at this point in time, I did not see anything above reasonable. We are talking about a chemist who received a request from the police to analyse certain specimens . []. Even if she gives evidence with regard to all the analysis and the result, it will not implicate anybody. This is a witness of both expert witness and witness of fact. She received the sample – that is a fact, and then she analyse and this is her reading. I don’t see anything above reasonable . []. We’ve not come to any stage which necessitate you to raised up an objection. That’s all.
SN: The point is very clear here that some of the evidence is brought by Jude. That’s the issue here. That is subject for legal and [] submission. There are admissibility issues there. At this stage I have to raise an objection so that can be []. Therefore I think your Lordship should stand down this matter and probably we can argue it up in chambers whether your Lordship would want to consider that it. Otherwise at this stage it will be too late and it will prejudice us. []
YA: The problem now is you just raised an objecting without knowing the evidence that you are going to object. []. Anyway, I’m going to stand down for a while and if there is an objection, I will hear it.
[9.34 a.m.] Stand down.

[9.37 a.m.] Pihak-pihak masuk ke dalam Kamar Hakim.
[9.55 a.m.] Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.

[10.33 a.m.]
KS: My apologies for not being here this morning.
YA: You would like to see me in chamber?
MY: No. []. Can we continue with the EIC?

Sambung pemeriksaan utama SP5 oleh NB.

Q: You said you were working on 17.07.2008 at about 6.56 p.m. Did you on this date received a request from the police?
A: Yes. I did.

Q: Was the request accompanied by POL 31?
A: Yes.

Q: Who was the police officer who made the request to you?
A: DSP Jude Blacious.

Q: Would you be able to identify the said office?
A: Yes.

Q: Is this the said DSP Jude Blacious that you mentioned just now?
A: Yes.

DSP Jude is identified.

Q: Did you received any items in relation to the request from DSP judy?
A: Yes.

Q: Were those items you received correspond with the items reflected in POL 31?
A: Yes.

Q: Please inform the court what was the items that you received from the said DSP Judy Blacious?
A: I received 4 envelopes respectively marked D, D1, D2 and D3 which all are sealed Polis Diraja Malaysia 330 and Polis Diraja Malaysia Forensic.
Q: When you received those envelopes, what were the conditions of the envelope, the seals in specific?
A: When I received the envelopes, the enevelopes are in good condition and the seals are still intact.

Q: Were there markings on the envelope?
A: There are markings apart from the one I told the court just now.

Q: Did you issue any laboratory number for the envelopes you received on that day?
A: Yes. I issued a receipt bearing the laboratory number (PJ) FOR 6334/08-3

Q: You issued the laboratory number on the envelopes first?
A: When I received the exhibits, I register the case. The laboratory number was given and the laboratory number were placed on the sticker placed on the envelopes I received.

Q: Did you issue any receipt?
A: Yes, I issued a receipt bearing the laboratory number.

NB: May I refer the witness to a Resit Rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia dated 17.07.2008.

Q: Is this the receipt that you have issued?
A: Yes, this is the receipt that I issued.

Q: Can you confirm there is your signature on the receipt?
A: Yes. I confirm this receipt is generated by me and signed by me.

Receipt from Chemist Department dated 17th July 2008 issued by Aidora is marked as P55

Q: Were they any seals of Jabatan Kimia Malaysia on those items, on the envelope?
A: After I received it and analysed it, I sealed it thus there is the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia seal now.

NB: I now refer the witness to the envelopes mentioned just now. First, I refer the witness to envelope marked “D”.

NB: Looks like I have to ask another question first, YA.

Q: After you have received these envelopes, you returned the exhibits after you conducted your analysis and examination?
A: Yes.

Q: How did you put the items when you returned them?
A: Upon receiving, the items were placed into a plastic packet which is Jabatan Kimia Malaysia plastic packet bearing the laboratory number and my signature, heat seal and after the analysis, I also sealed all the envelopes with my seal, the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia security label, placed into the same plastic packet and heat seal again with my signature.

NB: I refer the witness a plastic packet containing envelopes in it.

Q: Will you be able to confirm this is the plastic bag?
A: Yes. This is the plastic bag that I put all the exhibits with the laboratory number (PJ) FOR 6334/08-3, my name and there is a heat seal and it has my signature over here. I hereby confirm this is the plastic bag supplied by me.

Q: Is the heat seal is still intact today in court?
A: Yes.

Q: So you confirm again this is the plastic bag you that you have provide after you have done your examination and the seal is still intact today?
A: Yes.

NB: May I have this plastic bag be marked as P56.

Plastic bag from Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bearing laboratory number (PJ) FOR 6334/08-3 is marked as P56.

Q: You told the court that you put all the exhibits in this plastic bag earlier . Will you be able to identify the envelopes if it is shown to you?
A: Yes, I will be able to identify.

NB: May I have the permission of the court for this particular witness to open the package?

Q: How many envelopes are there?
A: There are 5 envelopes.

Q: You said you received 4 envelopes.
A: Yes, I received 4 envelopes which is labelled “D”, “D1”, “D2” and “D3”. During the course of my analysis and examination, I found a hair on the exhibit labelled “D2” which I then put into an envelope as exhibits D2(a), thus having 5 envelopes now.

Q: Can you please tell the court now what are the envelopes?
A: Envelope “D” with marking on it, that is for Travers Report 4350/08, 17/07/2008, sehelai bulu di atas lantai, IO J.B.Pierera. This is the envelope that was given to me. This is the the PJ laboratory number sticker, my seal and my signature on the seal.

Q: When you received the envelopes, was the seal Polis Diraja Malaysia seal and Polis Diraja Malaysia Forensic still intact?
A: Yes, when I received them they were intact and I can it is now.

Q: You can confirm this is the envelope that you received on 17.07.2008?
A: Yes, this is the envelope that I received on 17.07.2008.

Q: Are the seals now, Polis Diraja Malaysia seal, Polis Diraja Malaysia Forensic seal, and your seal today in court are still intact?
A: Yes, the Polis Diraja Malaysia seal, Polis Diraja Malaysia Foirensic seal, my seal and my signature are still intact.

NB: If there is no objection on the part of my learned friend, may this envelope marked as P57?
YA: P57.
MY: YA, just like what we discuss in chamber just now I would agree for this envelope and whatever content of it today marked as ID first.
YA: So, ID57.

Envelope “D” is marked as ID57.

Q: Did you examine the content of this particular envelope?
A: Yes, I examined the content of the envelope.

Q: Envelope D, marked ID57?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the content of the envelope?
A: YA, may I have permission to look at my report and my notes? In envelope “D” is one strand of hair taped onto a piece of white paper.

Q: If you were to see this exhibit, will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes.

Q: How would you be able to identify?
A: It would have my (PF) FOR laboratory number sticker.

NB: May I have permission from court today for the witness to open the envelope?

A: A piece of paper, white paper, my PJ laboratory number sticker, my signature, the strand of hair, the writing here Travers Report 4350/08, 17/07/08 – this is done by somebody else, the signature is not mine. []

Q: Did you confirm that this is the strand of hair taped onto a piece of white paper that you received?
A: Yes.

A hair taped onto a piece of white paper is marked as ID57A.

Q: What is the next envelope?
A: Envelope “D1”.

Q: Will you be able to confirm this is the envelope you received?
A: Yes, this is the envelope that I received with my PJ laboratory number, also my seal is here with my signature, Polis Diraja Malaysia initial seal is also here. The seals are all intact, the envelope are still intact.

Q: There are some writings on the envelope. Were those your writing?
A: No.

NB: May I have this envelope marked as ID58?

Envelope “D1” is marked as ID58.

Q: Did you examine the content of this envelope?
A: Yes.

Q: What did you find in the envelope?
A: In the envelope “D1” contains white toothbrush which I have swab for DNA analysis.

Q: How would you be able to confirm?
A: It has my laboratory number sticker on it.

NB: May I have this particular witness to open this envelope, YA?
A: Toothbrush with PJ laboratory number and the marking “D1”.

Q: Do you confirm that this is the item you received?
A: Yes, this is the item I received on the envelope “D1”.

A white toothbrush is marked as ID58A.

Q: You said that you swab this toothbrush for DNA analysis.
A: Yes.

Q: Perhaps you can show to the court which part of the toothbrush that you did for swabbing.
A: I did the swabbing on both part which is the bristle of the toothbrush as well as on the handle.

Q: Next envelope?
A: Envelope “D2” bearing my laboratory number sticker, my seal, my signature as well as the initial police seal.

Q: Are the seals still intact today in court ?
A: Yes, the seals are still intact.

Q: Tare some markings on this envelope apart from the writings here. Can you confirm the writings on the front page is yours?
A: No, not mine.

Q: There is here behind, handwriting, written here “Note: for DNA profiling”, there’s a signature, dated 17.07.2008. Is this your handwriting?
A: It is as per the other two envelopes. But it was not done by me.

NB: May I have this envelope marked as ID59, YA?

Envelope “D2” is marked as ID59

Q: So, you inspect and examined the content of this envelope?
A: Yes, I did.

Q: What did you find in the envelope “D2”?
A: In envelope “D2”, a “Good Morning” towel bearing one strand of hair which I collected as exhibit “D2(a)”. The towel was swabbed for DNA analysis.

Q: Will you be able to identify the exhibits?
A: Yes, I will be able to identify it as the exhibits will have my laboratory number sticker.

NB: May I have the permission of this court for this particular witness to open the envelope.

A: This is the “Good Morning” towel bearing my laboratory number and marking “D2”. There are writings on the towel. The signature and 17/07/08 is not done by me. However the writing “D2(b)”, “D2(c)”, “D2(d)” and “D2(e)” are done by me.

Q: What are those marking for? “D2(b)”, “D2(c)”, “D2(d)” and “D2(e)”.
A: This towel is big, therefore for swabbing DNA analysis I have to divide it into 4 parts. I swab the whole towel and therefore the towel has four parts which is 1, 2 3 and 4 (demonstrate to court).

Q: So you did four swabbing on this towel.
A: Yes, I swabbed four area of the towel.

NB: May I have this towel to be marked as ID59A, YA?

A “Good Morning” towel is marked as ID59A.

Q: You said that in this “Good Morning” towel bearing a strand of hair.
A: Yes.

Q: What happened to the hair?
A: The hair was collected as exhibit “D2(a)”.

Q: Where do you put this strand of hair that you found on the towel?
A: This strand of hair is taped on a piece of paper and put into an envelope.

Q: Is that envelope yours?
A: Yes, it is Jabatan Kimia Malaysia envelope bearing my seals as well as my signature.

Q: Are the seals still intact today?
A: Yes, the seals are still intact.

Q: The marking “D2(a)” on that particular envelope, did you do the marking?
A: Yes. I did the marking.

Q: So you took that strand of hair on that “Good Morning” towel and put it in this envelope?
A: I taped the strand of hair on a paper and then I put it in a plastic bag and then put it in this white envelope.

Q: Will you be able to identify this strand of hair that you taped on a paper?
A: Yes, I will be able to identify.

NB: May I have this envelope “D2(a)” be marked as ID 60, YA?

Envelope D2(a) by Jabatan Kimia Malaysia is marked as ID 60.

NB: May I have permission for this particular witness to open the envelope in court?
A: A plastic packet bearing my laboratory number, “D2(a)”, hair found on “D2”. The writing is done by me.

Q: Did you seal this plastic?
A: No, I did not. I stapled it.

Q: Is the hair taped onto the paper now?
A: Yes.

NB: Can I have this plastic marked as ID60(A), YA?

Plastic inside envelope “D2(a)” is marked as ID60A

NB: May I have the permission of the court for this witness to open the stapled plastic?

A: A piece of paper, a hair taped. My laboratory number, “D2(a)”, [] taken for DNA analysis, my handwriting and my signature.

NB: May I have this strand of hair taped on a paper be marked as ID60B.

A strand of hair taped on a paper is marked as ID60B.

Q: Next, what is the next envelope did you received?
A: Envelope “D3”, the marking, bearing my PJ laboratory number, my seal, my signature, the initial seal Polis Di-raja Malaysia 330 seal, Polis Diraja Malaysi forensic seal. All the seals are still intact.

Q: Again, can you confirm all the handwriting on the envelope is not by you?
A: No, the handwriting is not by me.

NB: May I have this envelope now marked as ID61?

Envelope “D3” is marked ID 61

Q: Did you inspect and examined the content of this envelope?
A: Yes, I did.

Q: What did you find in it?
A: In envelope “D3”, an empty “CACTUS” mineral water plastic bottle which was swabbed for DNA analysis.

Q: Will you be able to identify this mineral bottle in this particular envelope?
A: Yes, I will be able to identify it. It bears the laboratory number sticker.

NB: May I have the permission of this court for the witness to open the envelope?

A: Mineral water CACTUS bottle is empty and there is the laboratory number and marking “D3”. I hereby confirm this is the exhibit that I received.

Q: Did you do any swabbing on this mineral water?
A: Yes, I swabbed the handle area which is the body of the bottle and also the inner mouth of the bottle, the mouth area.

NB: May we have this mineral bottle now marked as ID61A.

CACTUS mineral water bottle is marked as ID 61A.

Q: Again, which part of the bottle that did you did swabbing?
A: The handle and the top mouth area.

Q: Where did you keep these items after you received them?
A: Upon receiving them, I kept in the chest freezer which is locked.

Q: are there any items for other cases in that freezer?
A: Yes, there are other items of other cases in that freezer.

Q: How do you ensure that the other items in other cases do not mixed with the items in this case?
A: Upon receiving the envelopes, I put them in the plastic packet, I heat seals it with my signature bearing my laboratory number, therefore the samples do not leaves out of the bag nor can any other samples interfere with my exhibits that I have in here.

Q: Did you put it in P56?
A: Yes, in P56.

Q: This chest freezer, is there anyone else who have access to the chest freezer?
A: Yes, all the laboratory personnel in the Forensic Section will have access to the chest freezer.

Q: On 17,07,2008, what was the request made to you regarding these exhibits that you have received?
A: The IO request that I do DNA profiling on this exhibits.

Q: Did you conduct analysis as requested?
A: Yes, I did.

Q: When did you start conducting the analysis?
A: I start on 18.07.2008.

Q: When did you finish conducting the analysis?
A: The examination part of the exhibits was completed on 18.07.2008 itself.

Q: After conducting or completing your analysis, did you prepare a report?
A: The examination was completed on 18.07.2008 and then I started doing DNA analysis on 19.07.2008 and completing by 21.07.2008.

Q: As a result of the analysis that you have conducted and completed, did you prepare a report?
A: Yes. A report bearing laboratory number (PJ) FOR 6334/08-3.

NB: May I refer this particular witness to the report of (PJ) FOR 6334/08-3 dated 22.07.2008.

Q: Is this your report?
A: Yes. This is a copy of my report with my signature. I hereby certify that I prepare the report and the signature is mine.

NB: May we have this report marked as ID62.

Chemist report bearing laboratory number (PJ) FOR 6334/08-3 dated 22.07.2008 is marked as ID62.

Q: You told the court that you conducted DNA analysis on 18.07.2009?
A: The examination of the exhibits were done on 18.07.2008, but the DNA analysis is started on 19.07.2008.

Q: Please inform the court the meaning and concept of DNA and DNA profiling.
A: DNA stands for []. DNA profiling is the DNA profile that is generated from the biological evidence which is DNA which is found on evidence. In this particular case I was requested to do DNA analysis on these items which is traced or contact DNA analysis. Therefore all the items apart from hair were swabbed for traced DNA.
After I have done the swabbing, the swabs were later subjected to DNA analysis. DNA analysis is segregated into 4 parts. First, the traced DNA is extracted out where DNA is extracted from the swabs. Second, the extracted DNA is quantified to determine the concentration of DNA. Three, the extracted DNA is amplified using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on the STR (short tandem repeats) loci. Fourth, the amplified product were later run through the genetic analyser to get the DNA profile.

Q: I think what you have just explained to the court is the technique that you used. My question again is the concept of DNA and DNA profiling.
A: Every human being or living things have DNA. It consist of 4 bases [] or as people know it, a, c, t, g which is the basis for human being. The difference between humans and other plants or animals is the sequence of the bases. In human, there are 6 billions bases that consist of DNA.
This genetic material is unique to human being. There are no human being which has the same DNA profile unless the people are identical twins which means that one ovum fertilised by one spermatozoa and if God willing it become two or three. In this condition, your DNA will be identical. Even if they are twin, but two separate ovum fertilised by two spermatozoa, the DNA will still be different. So, they are very unique.
Because of the uniqueness profile for individual, for forensic use, it is used for identifying people or individuals and in forensic context, it is to compare the origin of certain biological evidence.

Q: On the examination of the exhibits. Please tell the court the exhibits that you have conducted DNA examination and analysis.
A: I examined and analysed exhibit “D” which contains hair, “D1” – DNA traced swabs from toothbrush, “D2” – the traced DNA from “Good Morning” towel, “D2(a)” – the hair found on the “Good Morning” towel, and “D3” – traced swabs from the mineral plastic bottle.

Q: What was the method that you used in your DNA analysis?
A: The technique used is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on DNA profiling analysis which was carried out on the genetic locus for gender determination which is amelogenin and 15 STR (short tandem repeats) loci mainly DS81179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D3S1358, TH01, D13S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818 and FGA which is the names of the 15 STR loci which I conducted analysis.

Q: Please inform the court what is the procedures that you followed in conducting the DNA profiling.
A: ¬Again, I start from the DNA analysis. First one is the DNA extraction. Basically the traced DNA swabs were subjected to chelex extraction method, [] standard extraction method that they used world wide. It is accepted, it also have been published in journals since 1990. And then quantification steps is done on the realtime PCR where I’m able to get the concentration of the DNA. The third, the amplification technique using the PCR technique. The PCR technique is the common technique where the technique was validated, the procedures have been validated throughout the whole world. It is wherever you are going now for DNA analysis people are talking about PCR and this 15 loci and amelogenin as per what I’ve told you earlier on which is a product of amplification kit for forensic use, which is a product by Applied Bio-system and this Applied Bio-system were given mandate to validate their kit and this kit were used and the name of the amplification kit is Identifilier. And lastly the amplified product is subjected to the Genetic Analyser instrumentation where the DNA were separated according to their size and therefore we gather DNA profile which will later then summarized and put into this report.

Q: Was there a calibration done on your analysis?
A: During every steps of my analysis from extraction, quantification, amplification and the instrumentation has all the quality assurance that is needed where at every stage there were positive control, negative control, as well as the reagent blank and all the instrument used has been maintained and ensure it is in working order. Even prior to the used of the instrument, it is checked to ensure that it is in the best condition order so that the results produced are free of any contamination and free from error.

Q: You mentioned in your testimony a while ago about the Genetic Analyser. Is it software?
A: It is an instrument.

Q: At that point of time when you were conducting examination and analysis, was this machine operating in its ordinary course of business.
A: Yes, they were in working order.

Q: Was the machine working in its ordinary course of business?
A: Basically, the is working fine and I’ve already check prior to put the samples in and even putting the samples, I run the samples together with the positive control. Positive control are known DNA profiles which is not done by me, it’s given together by the Applied Bio-system kit which shows that the result must tallies this profile. So the positive control samples were okay, the results were fine, the negative control was fine, so therefore yes, the instrument is in its ordinary course of business.

Q: What are the results that you have obtained from your analysis?
A: The DNA profiles were successfully developed from the toothbrush “D1”, towel “D2” and bottle “D3” but not from hairs ”D” and “D2(a)”. This DNA profiles matched each other indicating that the DNA identified originated from the same source.

NB: I’ll come to this stage, YA where I’ll go with the appendix attached together with the electro-phoreogram which I will tender shortwhile. YA, I’m going to take a little while []. So, may I have a 10 minutes break?
YA: 12 p.m.

[11.41 a.m.] Stand down.

[12.02 p.m.]

Sambung pemeriksaan utama SP5 oleh NB.

Q: We are now at your results of your analysis and your examination. You informed the court that DNA profiles were successfully developed from the swabs from the toothbrush, the towel and the bottle but not from the hairs.
A: Yes.

Q: Did you also mentioned that this DNA profile match each other.
A: Yes.

Q: Indicating that from these three items “D1”, “D2” and “D3” it originated from the same source?
A: Yes. The DNA profile of the toothbrush “D1”, towel “D2” and bottle “D3” were of a common origin of a single source DNA profile.

Q: You have the summary of your STR results attached to your report.
A: Yes.

Q: Where did you get the summary of your STR results here?
A: The summary of the STR results was summarized from the electro-pherogram generated by the Genetic Analyser.

Q: Do you have the electro-pherogram chart with you today?
A: Yes, I have

Q: Can you confirm that the chart comes from the machine Genetic Analyser?
A: Yes.

NB: YA, saya ingin merujuk kepada saksi dan mahkamah satu lagi set electo-phoreogram graph.

Q: Did you produce it from the machine? Did you print it out?
A: Yes. This is the copy of electro-phoreogram that is generated from the samples.

Q: Can you confirm that there is 16 pages here of the electro-phoreogram graph?
A: Yes.

Q: Were you the one who produced the graph?
A: The photocopy is printed by the name there Adzeera on 27.07.2009 which was wanted by the prosecution and the defence counsel but the one that I derived my conclusion is printed on 19.07.2008.

Q: Did you compare the electro-phoreogram graph with your copy?
A: Yes. And it is the same.

Q: On the date when you printed out your copy, was the machine in good working order?
A: On the date I printed the graph, the machine was in good working order. However when it is done and produced, whenever you printed it out again, it will give always give the same profile.

NB: May I have this electro-phoreogram graph as well to be marked as ID 63, YA?

Electro-phoreogram graph from the sam ple examined by Aidora is marked as ID 63.

Q: We cross-refer the appendix (I) of your ID61 and the electro-phoreogram graph of ID63. We go to page 1 of ID63. Please tell the court, which samples does the electro-phoreogram graph refer to?
A: Number one, 6334/08-3 refers to the laboratory number. Marking “D” refers to the hair.

NB: The hair is ID57A, YA.

Q: What is the result here according to the electro-phoreogram graph?
A: As you look at the graphs there are no peaks there indicating no DNA was detected. So, there is no DNA profile produced.

Q: Page 2.
A: Again, 6334/08-3 refers to the laboratory number. “D2(a)” refer to the hair that I found on the towel “D2”.

NB: YA, that would be ID60B.

Q: And what is the result according to the chart?
A: As you can see there is small peaks here but it is not conclusive therefore no DNA profile were detected.

Q: Lets go to page 3.
A: Page 3, it’s written there blank done on the hair. Blank of the hair mean [whenever we do DNA extraction of any samples we run with the reagent blank which is subjected to the same procedure but just without the hair to ensure there is no contamination to ensure that the extraction method throughout are done in the correct manner. As you can see on the blank there are no DNA profile which means the hair when it was don ethere is no contamination as well.

Q: Is this one of the quality control that you exercised in your lab
A: Yes, it is.

Q: Next.
A: 6334/08-3 refers to the laboratory number. “D1” refers to the exhibit which is the white toothbrush. (a) refers to the area which I swabbed, on the handle.

Q: You did 2 swabbing, at the handle and at the bristle.
A: Yes.

Q: Page 4 is the bristle?
A: It is the swabbing for the handle of the toothbrush. Page 5, 6334/08-3 is the laboratory number, “D1(b)” refers to the swabbing I did on the bristle of the toothbrush.

NB: Page is is ID58B, YA.

Q: Now we go to page 6. What does it refers to?
A: Page 6 refers to 6334/08-3 which is the laboratory number. “D2” is the towel. As I informed the court earlier on, I swabbed the towel into 4 different parts which I labelled as “D2(b)”, “D2(c)”, “D2(d)” and “D2(e)”. Therefore the electro-phoreogram graph on page 6,7,8 and 9 all are from the towel D2.

Q: So, the electro-phoreogram graph on page 6,7, 8 and 9 refers to ID59A consisting of four different area that you swab on the towel?
A: Yes.

Q: Lets look at page 9. This will be the towel, one of the area on the towel that you swabbed. The towel is marked ID59A. In this graph, is there unaccounted allele from this graph?
A: Yes. At locus D3S1358. There’s 3 alleles, 15, 18 and 19. In my report, on D3S1358, I did not report allele 18 there.

Q: Allele 18 here is considered as uncounted allele and you did not report it?
A: Yes.

Q: At locus D3S1538?
A: Yes.

Q: Why didn’t you report this allele?
A: Based on the RFU of the entire profile, the profile is still consider traced DNA which means small amount of DNA. Allele 18 is the stutter peak of allele 19. The stutter peak range occurs usually 15%-20% of the actual peak height. Allele 18, the peak height is 77 and allele 19, the peak height is 306. If you do the calculation mathematically, probably it will be more than 20%.
However, you have to understand that this is traced DNA, therefore[] amount of DNA. When it comes to low level of smaller level of DNA, the stutters occurances tend to be higher or more enhanced than the normal DNA. This can be found in most published journals. Therefore I did not report it.
Just for the court’s knowledge, stutter is one repeat unit smaller than the actual peak. In this case the actual peak is 19 and the stutter is 18 which is one repeat unit lower.

Q: I’ve asked this form Dr. Seah. Perhaps you can repeat it. What is the reporting threshold for allele?
A: The reporting threshold is 50 RFU.

Q: We go to the next page.
A: Page 10 will be 6334/08-3. D3(a). D3 refers to the mineral water bottle.

NB: ID61A, YA.

A: I’ve informed the court that I did 2 swabbing on the bottle. D3(a) refers to the mouth and inner side of the bottle.

Q: What about the other part? The handle?
A: It is D3(b) at page 11.

Q: What about page 12?
A: Page 12 is for the blank which is for the trace. This sample is different from hair because it is traced DNA. Therefore due to our quality assurance, we have to do a reagent blank for it. This is the reagent blank that is being done together with the traced swabs, just that it is without the swabs. As you can see that there are no contaminations there, it’s really no DNA there. Therefore it is quality assured that the extracted DNA and the DNA profile are free from contamination.

Q: Page 13 and Page 14? Is this called the allelic leather?
A: Page 13 and 14 is the allelic leather. Basically the allelic leather contains all the know repeats unit that exist in this 15 unit STR loci and of course anmelogenin is is X,Y, it’s either male or female. And this allelic leather is used for the instrument to see the number or the allele of these samples.

Q: For page 15, what is it?
A: The reagent blank is done during the extraction and followed through until amplification where you can see the results right now. The negative control is introduced during the amplification steps just to ensure that if there is contamination then you’ll be able to see. Again, quality assurance to ensure amplification is done correctly. If you can see that the negative control has no DNA profile, therefore it is of authentic negative.

Q: Page 16?
A: On page 16, you have the positive control. Again, introduced during the amplification step together with the reagent blank and the sample to ensure that the amplification and the running of the instrument, everything is correct. This DNA profile of the positive control is known to be compared with the manufacturer known controls to ensure that it is correct. This controls was okay, meaning that the results and the instrumentation were all in working order and no contamination at all.

Q: This is the summary of your STR result. You can confirm again that you managed to obtained DNA profile from the exhibits?
A: Yes.

Q: And, can you also confirm that the profile of this DNA belongs to a male?
A: Yes. Because the anmelogenin is X,Y.

Q: We are done with the electro-phoreogram graph and the STR result. We’ll come back later. When you were not conducting the test, where were the items kept?
A: In the chest freezer.

Q: The same chest freezer you mentioned earlier?
A: Yes, it was kept in the chest freezer that was mentioned initially.

Q: When you are not conducting the examination and analysis, have you ever left the exhibits unattended?
A: No.

Q: Was there anyone assisting you on the examination of this exhibits?
A: No. The examination was done by me alone.

Q: Once you have completed your examination and analysis, what did you do with the exhibits?
A: Once I’ve completed my examination and DNA analysis, I checked again the exhibits whether it is in order, then I placed it back in the envelopes and the hair which is found on “D2” is put in another envelope which is my envelope and all these envelopes are sealed with my own seals which is Jabatan Kimia Malaysia security label, initialled and placed back in the plastic packet, heat seal and initial on the heat seal and kept into the strong room while awaiting for the police collection.

Q: When did you returned the items to the IO, DSP Judy Blacious?
A: The items and 3 copies of my report was given to DSP Judy Blacious Pierera on 22.07.2008 at 2.15 p.m.

Q: What was the condition of the seals on those items when you handed them over to DSP Judy?
A: The seals are all intact, the envelope are heat seal and my signature is till there.

Q: After you have completed your examination and your analysis, subsequently were you shown report made by Dr. Seah?
A: Based on the POL 31 and police request that my results were to be compared the report generated by Dr. Seah Lay Hong bearing PJ laboratory number 6334/08-0 and (PJ) FOR 6334/08-2 dated 07/07/2008. I obtained a copy of Dr. Seah’s report from my Ketua Seksyen which is Mr. Lim Kong Boon.

NB: May I refer the witness to P25, YA?

Q: Please look at P25. Is this the report of Dr. Seah Lay Hong that you received from Lim Kong Boon that you were asked to compare with your report?
A: It is the same copy except that I don’t have the toxicological report. Others are the same copy as per I have.

Q: And what was your finding on the comparison made by you?
A: On further comparison of the DNA profiles obtained by me and the DNA profiles reported by Dr. Seah Lay Hong in the Department of Chemistry Malaysia report (PJ) FOR 6334/08-0 and PJ FOR 6333/08-2 and dated 07/07/2008, I found the DNA profile developed from the toothbrush “D1”, towel “D2” and bottle “D3” to match with the DNA profile attributed to the unknown contributor male Y in her report, thus indicating that the DNA identified originated from the same source.

Q: Did you state this in your report?
A: Yes, it is stated in my report.

Q: You said in your report as well as in your testimony in court today that the DNA profile developed from the swabs toothbrush, the towel and the bottle, you said to matched the DNA profile of the unknown contributors male Y in Dr. Seah’s report. Did you conduct a match probability?
A: Yes, I did conduct a match probability.

Q: How did you conduct it and what was the result of the match probability?
A: Department of Chemistry Malaysia has a DNA profile of population database on the major ethnic groups of the Peninsular Malaysia namely Malay, Chinese and Indian. Based on the anmelogenin and the 15 STR loci as per I have told before. And this population database were then put in a statistical software which is developed by Dr. Charles Berner as called the DNA view. And I did a match probability and the match probability is…

KS: YA, this document has not been supplied to us.
YA: They are not producing it. They are referring it to refresh the memory.
NB: We are not tendering the document. We are taking it from the oral .evi of this witness.
KS: But the document is being used…
YA: Yes, but to refresh the memory.
NB: She’s refreshing her memory. She can refer to her notes.
RK: But this evidence is based on the document. The evidence she proposed to give now would be based …
YA: This is oral evidence but to refresh her memory she refer to the document. They are not referring to the document .
RK: I think under S.51 A, YA.
SN: S.51A, YA.
MY: [] just like the pro forma that Dr. Siew refresh his memory to answer question and to [] and the court accepts.
SN: This is the same as P25 where it is supplied under S.51A.
MY: I mean even from the previous chemist, those document were never given.
YA: Unless there is further submission. Parties want to give submission or what?
KS: I think we have to, YA.
YA: Yes. You are objecting for?
KS: YA, S.51A talks about the document that is intended to be used and tendered by the prosecution. It is now being used. As simple as that. It is being used. And thus it must be supplied to us before the commencement of the trial under S.51A. And S.51A is the provision which is mandatory. The case in point is DSAI case itself []. We will supply it to your Lordship after lunch.
That document is intended to be used. I think is very significant. The use of it at this time would [] unless it is supplied to us []. Refreshing memory doesn’t arise. It is being used for the purpose of giving evidence, not to refresh memory. There’s a difference.[].
RK: YA, also if I may add on to KS submission. The fact that this match probability that this witness is about to give evidence on is not part of her report although she has given oral evidence in relation to it. I can’t see it in the report, unlike the report P25 of Dr. Seah where at page 3 (i) she has stated “ the probability of a coincidental match from a randomly selected, unrelated individual…”.
In another words, there is evidence on the report of Dr. Seah’s of the match probability. In other words, this witness is adding on to her report now. This is oral evidence which is being added on to a report that is necessary to be reduced into writing under the law and supplied to us.
In other word I would like to add further that the oral evidence of hers is [] contravention to the Evidence Act pertaining particularly to to S.91 which prohibits contradictory oral evidence to a document required to be reduced into writing by law. That is the second part of the submission. Of course the first is S.51A as submitted by my learned friend, KS.
From those two grounds, the oral evidence ought to be rejected and on top of that secondly the document which she is referring to now or she is using now [].
MY: My Lord, as your Lordship has pointed out that S.51A is for document to be tendered and in this particular regard we have supplied the counsel with ID62. Today this particular witness had from time to time ask permission from this court to refer either to her report or to notes to answer questions. In fact, I’m surprised all this while my learned friend will be asking the witness to refer to notes. [].
This witness has stated in her report, ID62 on page 2 that she has made the comparison [] and I found it to be necessity, similar to the profile attributed to the unknown contributor named as “male Y” []. What being asked now is how did she arrived and she has to refer to her notes. And as far as the notes are concern, S.159 Evidence Act applies and it is open for my learned friend to access to the notes and observe the notes and question later on.
With regard to S.91 and S.92 I think the celebrated case of Dato’ Harun Idris [] says that S.91 and S.92 prohibits explanation with regard to []. It doesn’t apply to this, if there is contradiction. Here, I don’t see any contradiction. What my learned friend is saying there is an omission on the match probability test. An omission cannot be a contradiction.
With regards to her reference as to what Dr. Seah is saying, the witness now is looking at her own graph. She mentioned about two profiles from two different sources, the one that is profiled by Dr. Seah and the one that she profiled.
I did not see at this point of time how S51A CPC applies neither I can see S.91 and s.92 Evidence Act applies. Because notes are not something which the law requires to be reduced into writings. Kit doesn’t belong to that category of document. Report, yes. But not the worksheet all that. But of course in this particular case, it is referred to because she has wrote down all that but that is not the class of document or categories of document which the law in S.91 or S.92 [].
I urged your Lordship to allow this witness to answer and if necessary to order the witness to make available the notes. For the court’s record, neither the prosecution had any access to the notes. We don’t have the reports. []. We have the report, acknowledgment receipt and the electro-phoreogram. So whatever the defence have, we have. Nothing more, nothing less.
KS: It is necessary for us to look at the document being used.
YA: They have the right.
MY: Yes. I have no objection to that.
KS: The point we are making is this, she is not refreshing memory. She is using that document. And S.51A is very clear. Any document that is intended to be used by the prosecution is being used now. Refreshing memory has limited purposes []. That’s not the purpose of S.159 otherwise the witnesses will come to the court and read document. That is not refreshing memory. At this stage, it is a document which falls under S.51A. It ought to be excluded. The authorities mentioned just now make it mandatory for the document to be supplied to us.
MY: YA, just like when you asked Dr. Siew, what is the i/c number of Saiful. I mean he can memorize it and have to read it correctly. If I may just read both S.159 and S.160 Evidence Act. [Read s.159 and S.160]. What it says is that []. S.160 says that you can testifiy from the content if you know it to be correct, she is the one who prepared the notes. She won’t be able to memorize all. S.160 says she can testify from the document.
YA: So your intention now is for her to compare the match probability?
MY: Yes. Because she said she compared it, how is she going to come to conclusion on page 2 of the report since she did the match probability test. []. Because I’m sure if we don’t ask, the defence will ask. []
SN: It is not simply a pro forma.[]
MY: It’s not fair. I thought when he ask for the document, he agrees that it refers to S.159 []. You cannot have a look now and says “I still have objection”.
KS: Our objection is under S.51A. It is as simple as that.
YA: I’ve heard enough from both sides. So, we start at 2.30.
[12.53 p.m.] stand down.

[2.30 p.m.] Pihak-pihak masuk ke Kamar Hakim.
[3.05 p.m.] Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.

[3.10 p.m.]
KS: In view of the [] made by my learned friend regarding with the supply of document, we are not proceeding with the objection [].
MY: I confirm that, YA.
YA: So, can we proceed?

Sambung pemeriksaan utama SP6 oleh NB.

Q: We stopped at the match probability that you done. What again is the match probability that you have done on this sample male Y when you compare with the profile reported by Dr. Seah?
A: The match probability of a randomly selected unrelated individual to have a matching profile at this 15 STR loci is approximately in 1 in 470 quintillion (470×10 of the power of 18) to be calculated based on the Malaysian population database of Malay race. 1 in 52 quintillion (52×10 to the power of 18) as calculated based on the Malaysian population database of Chinese race. 1 in 210 quintillion, (210 x 10 to the power of 18) as calculated based on the Malaysian population database of Indian race.

Q: The document that you referred to, what is that document?
A: DNA view statistical calculation.

Q: What is the content of the DNA view statistical calculation document?
A: It consist of the DNA profile that I obtained, the alleles, what are the frequencies, and what are the probabilities.

Q: If you were not to refer the document, you’ll not be able to come out with it?
A: I did not memorize the figures.

Q: That document is the same as reflected in the DNA view software?
A: Yes.

Q: You made the DNA view statistical evaluation to see the probability match.
A: Yes.

Q: If you were to based on the summary of both STR result alone, can you also come to the conclusion that the source of male Y comes from the same origin?
A: Yes, I can.

Q: Did you do comparison between your STR result with Dr. Seah’s STR result?
A: No. I did the statistical evaluation based on the DNa profile I made.

Q: That is on the comparison on the probability match. On comparison of profiles, can you based it on the STR results?
A: I compared the STR result of the profile that I obtained with that of Dr. Seah’s .rpt that is supplied and I come to the conclusion that the common DNA profile that I obtained from the swabs of the toothbrush D1, towel D2 and bottle D3 to matched with the profile attributed to the unknown contributors of male Y in Dr. Seah’s report indicating it originate from the same source which is known as common origin .

NB: YA, itu sahaja soalan saya.
RK: YA, we’ve just been given with the document. During lunch, I’ve discussed with my expert who informed me that certain things could be done with regard to this document. But I need some time to look out for other sources to see whether I can challenge it but I don’t have at this time.
MY: I don’t have objection if my learned friend require some time to decide whether to use this document or not. What I propose and I’ve spoken to KS, if your Lordship is allow not to continue with the cross-examination of this witness today or tomorrow. What we propose is the prosecution will call other witness so that RK can go through the document and discuss it with their expert so that tomorrow we’ll still have witnesses to examined.
YA: Tomorrow we’ll continue with some other witness until they are ready to cross. I expect RK to be ready with your cross on Friday morning. Saksi, Pn. Aidora esok tak payah datang. Datang hari Jumaat. So, petang ni? Adjourned till tomorrow.
[3.21 p.m.] Adjourned.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011



Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

PP : Semua hadir
PB : KS, SN, Ram Karpal, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Marissa (Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB : Zambri Idrus (for Complainant)
Expert for defence: Dr. Brian McDonalds
AI hadir

[9.01 a.m.]
MY: Kes ditetapkan untuk ambung pemeriksaan balas SP5, Dr. Seah Lay Hong.

RK: YA, Dr. Seah, you told us how did you determine the number of contributors in certain fixtures. Do you have any guidelines for this purpose?
A: Yes. By determine the total number of alleles at each locus.

Q: Having determined the number of allele for each locus, how did you proceed to the number of contributors?
A: Taking into consideration the number ratio, the presence of any known contributors.

Q: This case you have one known contributor, the complainant; Saiful Bukhari. You obtained it from the blood sample, in which you called it the reference sample, isn’t it, as B10?
A: Known contributor is because that sample is taken from a known individual.

Q: The sample for this case would be B10, is that right?
A: B10 is the particular sample where the mixture appears.

Q: Saiful’s sample is B10.
A: That’s correct.

Q: There is only known contributor, as far as you concern?
A: Yes.

Q: If you have more than two alleles, two peaks, there must be a mixture?
A: Yes.

Q: If there is more than four alleles, four peaks, there must be at least two people?
A: That’s correct.

Q: So the number is absolute, at least two?. But the maximum number is not absolute?
A: Yes.

Q: If you have 3 contributors in the mixture, would you agree that they are quite unlikely to share the alleles?
A: No. They could share.

Q: So, it is not going to form more than 4 alleles?
A: Yes. It is possible.

Q: Can I refer you to P25, particularly on page ii) of the Appendix 1, on the 3rd column? Swab B5. You claimed that this swab has 3 contributors. Can you reasonably expect that it is more than 4 alleles as the result of that

conclusion of yours?
A: Could.

Q: Can you show me any loci in your analysis with more than 4 alleles, more than 2 contributors?
A: The matching number of B5 was 4.

Q: Any sample?
A: The maximum number is 4, for swab B5.

Q: Have you found more than 4 alleles? There must be more than 2 people?
A: Yes.

Q: If you have more than 4 alleles, you must have at least 2 people?
A: Yes.

Q: Look at the 15 loci, this is the standard PCR, number of loci isn’t it?
A: No, it depends on PCR system which is adopted by each laboratory.

Q: No, for this case?
A: Yes, this is the loci that we examined.

Q: Do you agree that none of your loci shows certain clear evidence of more than two people?
A: I disagree.

Q: Can you show us any loci with clear evidence of more than 2 people?
A: You have to look at the electropherogram. This is just the alleles which is extracted from the interpretation which required from the actual electropherogram.

Q: Can you tell from this or not (from the STR result) whether there is clear evidence of more than 2 contributors?
A: No.

Q: From this, can you or not from the STR result?
A: There could be more than two.

Q: Can you show us the first one?
A: For instance, from the first locus, 12, 13, 14, 15. That is the understanding from 4 alleles that there could be more than 2 individuals.

Q: Is there any evidence that point absolutely to more than 2 contributors, in other words, more than 4 alleles?
A: Yes but that does not indicate you know, less or more than 2 individuals.

Q: I take you to the electropherogram to page 11 which is B5. Sorry, page 6 of the graphs. What is B5?
A: Peri anal swab. Just one perianal swab.

Q: Can you tell us in laymen term, where is perianal area?
A: Peri means around, region around the anus.

Q: Around Saiful’s anus? You have been given this information isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to non sperm extract of B5. Before we go into it, can you tell us whether you saw sperm in this sample swab?
A: Yes.

Q: How did you identify sperm as the positive result from the STR result as well as from the microscopic slide that you observed?
A: Yes, from this two tests, I found sperm.

Q: D2S1338. You told us that the complainant is the contributor. What are the complainant’s alleles?
A: 20 and 24.

Q: Were it right to say if you were to observe 20 and 24 alleles, you will know for sure that the complainant is not excluded in the contributor?
A: The Complainant is the donor of the sample.

Q: The question is if we want to see 20, 24 in that particular locus, you can confidently tell us that Saiful is known donor there?
A: He is already a known donor.

Q: I’m talking about this particular locus, if that particular peaks were there, he has not been excluded isn’t it?
A: But this is not the question, he is already a known contributor here.

MY and RK & SN quarrel.
RK: Purpose of she’s here is to answer the question. She is the scientist.

Q: If there is 20, 24, you can confidently tell us that Saiful is not excluded?
A: It is belong to Saiful.

Q: It is not excluded?
A: Yes, but it is in wrong context la.

YA: Never mind, you can explain later in RE.

Q: Without making a further finding, just by looking at this locus, there not being 24 there, can you confidently tell us that Saiful is not excluded?
A: Yes.

Q: By looking at just two peaks, you can only see 20, you can confidently?
A: We cannot see that only.

Q: I’m asking specific question.
A: A specific question must be comprehensive.

Q: Just by looking at this D2S, you can’t see 24 there right?. Now you only see 20. Can you tell us confidently that Saiful is not excluded?
A: He is still included.

Q: When I see 20 I can still say Saiful is there. Before you without go into drop out?
A: This is not the way DNA profile is examined! There is allele drop out of 24.

Q: From 20 alone, can you see Saiful is there?
A: I can see he is not excluded here.

Q: I take you to locus D18S51. What is Saiful’s allele for this locus?
A: 15 and 16.

Q: Is there a 16 there?
A: It’s not indicated there.

Q: Generally, if Saiful is 15, 16, only you can see 15, he is not excluded?
A: He is not excluded again.

Q: I take you to the next page. This is the continuation.
A: Yes

Q: Can I take you to page 7. What is Saiful’s alleles?
A: 25.

Q: Is there 25 there?
A: No

Q: From all these loci, D2S, D18, and FGA, in your finding/conclusion, Saiful is there, he somewhere isn’t it, despite his alleles not there on the face of your report?
A: Yes.

Q: You’ve assumed that there is drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: That’s your assumption isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: All this assumption, did you carry out any further statistical evaluation before came to that assumption?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it necessary to do it?
A: No if he is a known contributor.

Q: But you did it here?
A: Yes. Because it is vital to do so.

Q: We called that statistical evaluation, right? So, would it be correct to say that certain calculation done in statistical evaluation? What is in the statistical evaluation?
A: It’s evaluating the possible donors in this particular profile, whether particular individual is excluded or not.

Q: So it is important for the identification of the contributor in your analysis isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: It is vital to do further step even though you said you didn’t need to?
A: Yes.
Q: It is important, isn’t it?
A: This is for the known contributor. Yes.

Q: Would you agree that the statistical evaluation form parts of your report here.
A: Not for B5.

Q: It is all there, in summary form. You have summarized that from various sources. So the statistical evaluation forms the part of your report.
A: Yes.

Q: You are in possession of that?
A: Not now.

Q: It is a separate document isn’t it? How many pages of locus D2S, D18, FGA?
A: It is not done like that.

Q: You have a statistical evaluation. It has one page?
A: More than 1 page.

Q: How many pages are there?
A: 3 pages, but not for B5, just for A3(a) and A3(b).

Q: You have statistical evaluation right? How many pages for the entire statistical evaluation?
A: 3 pages.

Q: And for B5, how many pages?
A: It is only done electronically.

Q: No statistical evaluation for B5?
A: It is more necessary to put it in formal form of this.

Q: You don’t have or not be able to enlighten us on the statistical evaluation of B5?
A: No, this one doesn’t require us to put in the statistical evaluation in formal form for B5.

Q: Can I take you to the next locus, for those three loci just now; you ignored allele 24, 16 and 25 respectively, isn’t it? Because you consider that they had drop out.
A: Not ignored, that was the interpretation.

Q: Which means you have don’t take it into account?
A: It has to be taken into account, even it is not there.

Q: But it is not taken into account in that particular locus?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I take you to page 6, locus CSF1PO. First column on the right. Again, what is the complainant allele’s number?
A: For B5?

Q: What is the Saiful’s allele number?
A: 12

Q: Does that drop out?
A: No.

Q: No 12 at the CS1PO, is the furthest to the right?
A: Yes it is the largest amplicon.

Q: You told us 12 does not drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: On your evidence given on Friday, you told that you look at the totality of the loci to come to your conclusion. There are 3 examples of loci just now, which show that your conclusion in court today are not supported isn’t

A: No. That’s not right.

Q: Not supported by the statistical evaluation isn’t it?
A: ..(tak jawab)

MY: Since Friday, until now, she had repeated as far as B5 is concerned, no statistical evaluation. It is only confine to A3 and here every time counsel is putting words on these 3 loci, they are referring to B5. And she repeats it

3, 4 times.
YA: They are cross examining; therefore they can put words into her mouth. So let her answer. Objection overruled. So Mr. Ram, please not repeat.

RK: I’m not repeating YA. This is necessary to know.

Q: If we look at the alleles, based on these 3 loci, for reason best put to you?
A: It is not being considered.

Q: Because the drop out occurs furthest of the right most of the time?
A: At the larger amplicons, and if I may add, he is the minor contributor in this loci.

Q: And dropout number FGA locus is not furthest to the right?
A: For this particular lane, it is the largest amplicon.

Q: Is that furthest to the right? The 25 allele?
A: Yes.

Q: What about CSF1PO, is also to the right?
A: Yes.

Q: Compare that to D18, number 16 alleles, the CSF1PO is further to the right compare to D18 isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Your conclusion as to drop out, you have not done the statistical evaluation for B5. Your conclusion of the drop out because it is furthest to the right?
A: I disagree.

Q: Drop out is the situation where alleles that are supposed to be found are not found?
A: Yes

Q: Do you agree that the implication of the drop out of samples found in crime scene for example occurring in B5 is very major implication?
A: Yes.

Q: It is important to get it right? We must get this drop out things right.
A: Absolutely.

Q: We are exposed to mistakes isn’t it? It is the human error.
A: Yes.

Q: We assumed that a person’s allele has drop out, can there still be a contributor?
A: Yes.

Q: But if the allele is not presence to start of it, can we assume that the person had been excluded as the contributor?
A: Not just based on one locus. That conclusion is not based on one locus.

Q: How many exclusions that you required, before you excludes somebody?
A: I think the recommendation is manual of 6 loci is sufficient for an association.

Q: What do you mean by association?
A: Association means that he could be a contributor of that stain. A minimum of 6 loci in which the particular individual is included.

Q: You want to exclude a person, you got a situation that you called drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: When you said about drop out, although his alleles are not there, he is still there. Another situation is, the alleles are not there, but it is not a drop out. In that situation, he can be reasonably expected to be excluded.
A: No for mixture (tak sempat jawab)..

Q: Do you agree or not, we got 2 situations. In the former situation, you can still say that the person is contributing, although his allele is not there. Next, the allele is not there, but it is not drop, he is completely not there?

Can you say that he is not excluded?
A: That should be based on the totality.

Q: So, you would not exclude?
A: I would consider the remaining loci before I come to the conclusion.

Q: That is important isn’t it, because that would indicate the presence of the contributor isn’t it? That’s the entire purpose of your analysis.
A: Yes.

Q: So you have to go through the exclusion?
A: Yes.

Q: You want us to know that Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C was there?
A: Yes, that’s correct.

Q: The methods in DNA profiling that there are certain things you must do to exclude Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, you have a situation when there’s not a dropout. Say Mr. C is 10, 11. 11 is not there. Can you exclude Mr. C?
A: 10, 11 is not there?

RK: I wonder if my learned friend to ask the witness to answer the question. I have been accused of repeating. The reason why I repeat it because she was the one who refused to answer it.
YA: To the witness: if soalan ‘I put it to you’, just answer agree or not, okay.

Q: I go back to the example again. Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C. Mr. C allele’s is 10, 11. 11 is not there, and you conclude that 11 is not drop out. Can you possibly exclude Mr. C in that situation? Yes or no?
A: Not excluded.

YA: She’s already answered.

Q: I’m asking you very simply. 11 is not there, and you concluded that it is not drop out. Excluded or not?
A: He’s known to be 10, 11? If I conclude is 11 is not drop out, so he is excluded.

Q: That’s all I want. I’m sure you don’t want to be here all day, right?

Q: You told us on Friday that you are a member of the International Society of Forensic Genetic? How long have you been the member of it?
A: Since 1999.

Q: Still a member today?
A: Yes

Q: So you get the monthly journal or periodically journal?
A: Yes.

Q: When you are talking about dropout. Over times, this particular society..but before that, can we talk about this organization. It is a credited body?
A: It is established to promote the understanding of DNA profiling and so on, particularly.

Q: Well respected organization?
A: Yes.

Q: The views that come out in the publications are well respected are they?
A: They provide good guidelines for laboratory.

Q: And you subscribe to those guidelines? And respect it?
A: We do.

Q: Did you agree that the same society over the past few years, make recommendation in relation with the treatment of the drop out. They tell you to how to treat the drop out, how to conclude the drop out, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: It is not a simple thing. Since it is quite complex, and technical?
A: Yes.

Q: When we talk about the T-value, your laboratory doesn’t use it? You didn’t used in this case?
A: Yes we do have. We used it as only a guidelines. I do use it in calling of the alleles in this particular case.

Q: Is there any record of yours which show that you used T-value?
A: No, we don’t call alleles. We do practice T-value as []

Q: May I refer the witness to an article. This is published by the same International Forensic of Genetic, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: The title is Recommendation on the Interpretation of Mixtures. This is relevant to our case. More than one samples in this case.
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to page 97. Under B1. Or before B1, page 95. Under number 7, drop out. It laid down the treatment of drop out, use certain recommendation and so on. I take you to page 96; second on the left column which is

recommendation 7. [read], then the prosecution analysis is not supported.
A: Yes.

Q: Under recommendation 8, [read], then a biostatistical interpretation should be done, isn’t it?
A: It is not saying there.

Q: No, it is telling you a recommendation, that a drop out is not as simple as you think. That you have to consider high peaks and so on. It goes on and on, and it gives you further consideration, on 97. For drop out, it is not a

simple thing. Apart from the recommendation given earlier, they give you further consideration. [read]. And they give you figure 6. Your lab’s T-values is [] applies to both hetero and homozygotes?
A: Yes.

Q: YA, I will be referring to this article later as we go along to other parts of it. I wonder can we marked it as exhibits at this stage, as the defence exhibits?
MY: I have no problem.
YA: I think we should mark it as IDD, because she was not the author of it.
RK: YA, you can take judicial notice, YA when a situation like this occure.
YA: Whether it is marked as ID or D it is not matter. Later on, I will take judicial notice if I want.
RK: No, if it is marked as ID, then YA can’t. That’s the difference. We are not seeking to prove on the fact. It is only to assist the court. I can submit on that.
YA: Judicial notice we don’t have to mark. If you are just referring, no problem with being tender or not. But since the PP not object, mark as IDD.
MY: YA, It is only reference, it is not an exhibit.
YA: Council, move on.

Q: In relation to the T-value drop out threshold, is there a standard guideline for all samples?
A: Yes.

Q: You also told us previously, that you used DNA view software. Can you just briefly to us, what was the software is for?
A: This statistical package is a software which to allow the statistical analysis of a DNA profile and the modules which are available for DNA view [] calculating [] compared [] for mixture, for match probability of the mixed

stain, for probability of the exclusion carried out test or [] also in the newer edition which was updated allow even for the mass disaster purposes.

Q: It comes with a calculation?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you use it for statistical evaluation for mixture in this case?
A: Not for this case. Because as I said, the mixture are from known individual.

Q: But the purpose of DNA view software is to view the statistical evaluation isn’t it? And you didn’t do that?
A: No, it was used where a crime stain indicates presence of an individual and there’s a reference sample provided to calculate the likelihood of that person here. But in this particular case, it is not being used because the

finding of the mixture is found for the known individual.

Q: So, that’s the reason you did not use this software to evaluate?
A: Yes, that is the reason the statistical evaluation was not carried out.

Q: So, you got the statistical evaluation for A3 (a) and (b)?
A: Yes because that is the reference source to make association between the crime stain profile and the known contributor.

Q: It is necessary to link the donor to the crime sample?
A: Yes.

Q: Everything must be done correctly. Everything must be perfect.
A: Yes.

Q: But it is subject to interpretation, isn’t it?
A: The statistical evaluation?

Q: Your report, the statistical evaluation isn’t it? That would apply to statistical evaluation as well?
A: Yes.

RK: Can we take 5 minutes break? I need to go through this document. 10 minutes at the most.
YA: We start back at 10.20 a.m

[10.08 a.m] Mahkamah ditangguhkan.

[10.28] Kes dipanggil semula.
RK: Before we continue, we required Notes of evidence urgently.
YA: We can give the CD to you. You can transcribe it on your own.

Q: At page 97 that we have gone through just now [read]. Provided that there is symbols represent the first peak? Ok, for every individual there is 2 alleles, right either homozygote or heterozygote?
A: Yes. Homozygotes means there is one peak.

Q: So for example, Saiful’s peak at 12 and 13 so there is a pair there, right? Now, continue with the article that say provided at the symbol, do you know what it is?
A: It is a sign, used to designate.

Q: Does it represent the first peak? For example 12, 13. It means number 12 isn’t it? The peak that doesn’t drop out, is what the symbol means isn’t it? So the first peak, lah? The left peak. I ask generally first.
A: Here, it is not necessarily. Out of the pair, it doesn’t mean any particular one.

Q: One is drop out, and 1 will remain. These symbols represent the remaining peak?
A: Yes.

Q: Provided that the remaining peak, the RFU is more than the T-value?. The sign triangle is means larger than/more than. If that happens, if the remaining peak is more than t value, then the probability of drop out which is

represented in PR(T) is closed to zero. Is practically nil.
A: Yes.

Q: It is quite scientific, but if the height of the remaining peak is more than T-value, then the next peak drop out is close to zero. That’s what it’s telling us?
A: Yes.

Q: Refer to B5 again, page ii) non sperm extract. Locus D2S1338. You’ve told us that Saiful’s alleles produced by that particular locus is 20, 24.
A: Yes.

Q: 20 is there isn’t it? What is the height of the third peak??
A: 65 RFU.

Q: So height of the first remaining peak in the particular locus is 65. Your threshold in your lab, is 50. So this particular allele, exceeds your T value isn’t it, 15 more.?
A: Yes

Q: Go back to what we just read in the article. is it more than T value, the chances of the next peak is practically nil?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I interpret that it is unlikely that drop out would occur that the remaining peak, exceeds the T-value, according to this article?
A: I disagree.

Q: According to this article that you subscribed? You are the member of it? Would you agree that drop out occurring to the next, is practically nil?
A: This is what this article says.

Q: In this case, involving this accused, did you follow these international guidelines?
A: No. But this guidelines had changed…

Q: I take you to the next locus D18S51. You told us that Saiful’s allele is 15, 16. 15 is there, 16 has dropped out. Can we call that, 15 is the remaining peak? What’s the height of the remaining peak?
A: 81.

Q: Again, it is exceeds the T-value. T-value is 50, so 31 more. It is higher than the first one. Again, according to this guideline, we stand guided, and we can conclude from it that the next peak which you claim to drop out is

very unlikely to drop out. Your findings are inconsistent with international guideline?
A: I disagree. It is consistent because this guidelines is 5 years old already.

Q: You got the guideline in front of you. Very clear. I’m asking you a very simple question. For locus D18S51, your method of coming to that conclusion is inconsistent with international guidelines?
A: Yes. In this particular case.

Q: Had you followed this international guideline, you would not have come to the conclusion that number 24 and 16 dropped out, won’t you?
A: I will still come to this conclusion. Because the probability approaches 0, it is not 0.

Q: It is very unlikely right?
A: It is unlikely, but there is still a likelihood

Q: Practically said no, but you still say that it is drop out?
A: Unlikely means there is still a likelihood but the likelihood is more.

Q: What is likely and what is not likely?
A: That’s not this sentence means.

Q: This paper told us that your finding here, what we see here in this two loci, that it is extremely unlikely that the dropout wouldn’t occur, yet you tell us that there is drop out. Tell us what do you consider as unlikely? If it

approaches 0, it is extremely unlikely?
A: I totally disagree.

Q: I’m suggesting to you that your report is biased.
A: I totally disagree.

Q: You have been highly influenced by the information that you received, and you are not a partial witness to this. Agree or not?
A: I totally disagree.

Q: I put it to you that you failed to follow international guidelines.
A: This is not the one and the only guideline.

Q: You did not follow this.
A: This is the recommendation.

YA: You agree or not? Just answer.

Q: You are not new to be a witness. You know how things work. Agree or not that you did not follow international guidelines?
A: I agree.

Q: You told us on Friday that you able to enlighten us on your lab stutter guidelines. Before that, can we just remind ourselves, page 6. Can you just pointed out one stutter? Anywhere?
A: Yes on D16S539.

Q: Where is the stutter?
A: Before 30. The small one.

Q: The stutter is not reported?
A: Yes.

Q: What are your guidelines? How would you list the stutter guidelines?
A: There is a range for stutter percentage.

Q: Calculated in percentage wise? It is relative to what?
A: Yes. To the parent allele.

Q: What are the percentages?
A: We complete that range from the sample. And we have a range on each particular locus. It lies usually within the range of 10-20 percent. But I can’t tell you for certain. I don’t have it before me now.

Q: I take you to page 12 of your graphs, B7. It is a high rectal sample, this is found up Saiful’s anus, deep inside Saiful’s anus?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, can I take you to D7S820, and at the same time take out page ii) of your report, because you read it together. What is Saiful’s allele here?
A: 11.

Q: I take you locus CSF1PO as well, which is the next one. What is Saiful’s allele there?
A: 12

Q: You told us just now, you measured stutter by way of percentage. Right?
A: Yes.

Q: Now in this case, which one is the principle P?
A: 12

A: 13.

Q: You look at the lowest one, compare it to the highest one, you came out with the percentage?
A: Yes.

Q: Now for DS7820, would it be correct it is about 11.4% of that?
A: It is about that.

Q: Do you have a calculator? I need you to be exact.
Q: So can we just calculate the allele for []

A: 11.3

Q: For CSF1PO, is allele 12, 12.4% of 13?
A: 14%.

Q: You reported both of these alleles, isn’t it? In other words, you don’t consider them as stutter, otherwise you wouldn’t report them?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to page 35. A6 is grey underwear, marking (a) and marking (b). (b) is the lower marking?
A: Lowest spot.

Q: Locus CSF1PO, can you tell us, Saiful’s allele here?
A: 12, that’s the smallest peak.

Q: What is the percentage of 12 out of 13?
A: 14.4.

Q: That is not a stutter?
A: That would be a stutter.

Q: 14.4% here is greater than allele 12, in locus DS820?
A: 14.4?

Q: You calculated it just now it is 14%. For B7 you have reported allele 12 which is smaller than allele 12 in A6 (b) which is higher. A stutter is a small peak isn’t it? The higher the peak, then it is reported. Here you have

reported a smaller peak, and you have not reported a higher peak because you consider it as a stutter, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to A6 (b). Before that, I take you to your report, page i) of the STR report. Talking about A6 (b) now, 4th column, under sperm extract. For locus CSF1P0, it is appear only 14 there. 12 was not reported.
A: Yes.

Q: I take you again to A6(b) just look at the entire graphs from 4 columns there. According to this graphs, a quite glance would indicate the presence of Male Y. Would you agree that, if 12 is reported, it would change the

complexion of this graphs completely?
A: 12 cannot be reported.

Q: But if it were to be reported, it would change the complexion of this graphs slightly?
A: Yes.

Q: It would be different because, there could be another party is involved now, isn’t it? Your conclusion will be different.
A: Can you read out what conclusion?

Q: That there is presence of Male Y will be different. The reason it would be different is because 12 is there?
A: Yes.

Q: And now, it would different is significant way, because 12 will tell the presence of another party’s semens found on the underwear.
A: Yes.

Q: 14.4% you didn’t report, but 14% you report? Can you calculate 12, 14 again? My calculation is a bit different from yours. CSFIPO of the B7 sperm extract, page 12 on the last locus on the right?
A: For B7. CSF1PO?

Q: Just now I asked you to calculate, 14%?
A: it is 12.3%.

Q: Peak 12, is only 12.3%, yet you reported it. The short peak, the more likely it is a stutter.
A: Yes.

Q: You found it to be reported. 14% is much higher, logically it ought to be reported as well?
A: 12.3% is that of the mixed stain.

Q: I’ve given you 2 loci here.
A: It is a mixed stain.

Q: Small peak?
A: Small peak of a mixed stain.

Q: It is a crime scene sample here. B7 and A6 (b), both found in the place where it is allegedly occurs?
A: Not a crime scene sample. It is a known sample.

Q: It is a known sample. So you got two unknown samples here. You don’t know anything about it, you were given by the police, and say please analyze this. So you go and do your analysis. How many days you take to

A: 5 days.

Q So you come out with the result? And you found the small peak.
A: In the mixed stain, yes.

Q: You reported it? And you think it is a stutter.
A: Yes.

Q: 14.4% is greater than 12.3%, but it is still a stutter to you?
A: Correct.

Q: Before that, I put it you that if you report properly or accurately which you are required to, you have found the presence of another party apart from Male Y at A6(b)?
A: I disagree.

Q: Would you agree that in the light of this discussion, the stutter guideline is very important?
A: Yes it is.

Q: Do you have with you today?
A: No.

Q: Can I take you to B9, sperm extract. Page 18 and 19 of the graphs; locus D3S1358. How many alleles are there?
A: 4 alleles.

Q: This is reported at page iii)?
A: Yes.

Q: At page 18, on the same locus, there are more than 4 alleles right? There are 18 as well right? You didn’t report the 18?
A: Yes.

Q: Had you reported the 18, would it be different of your finding?
A: Yes.

Q: It could be the presence of another party. Or it is possibly be.
A: It could be.

Q: Can you calculate again for me, the 18 allele, relative to 19. How much in percentage terms?
A: 28.

Q: 28.4?
A: Yes.

Q: You agree that neither Male Y or Saiful has 18 alleles?
A: Yes.

Q: When there is 5 alleles, it would been, it must have been at least 3 contributors, it could be Male Y, Saiful and somebody else isn’t I, unknown person?
A: Yes.

Q: B9 is swab from where?
A: Lower rectum.

Q: From Saiful’s anus?
A: Yes.

Q: There would be another person’s found in the Saiful’s anus. All this unknown people. So, would you agree that the implication of there been an 18 allele is significant, and 28.4% is a high peak?
A: Yes, but not when it is 56 RFU.

Q: Just now you reported 12.3. This one is double, right, more than twice. The greater the height, the greater the chances it will get reported. So, you report something that is so small. Now you have 28.4% but you don’t want

to report that. You report the small allele, but you don’t want to report that.
A: This is the condition by me. The condition by the DNA result.

Q: 28.4% is a high peak, isn’t it?
A: Not if it is from the 197 peaks.

Q: You yourself told us that you guided by the stutter guidelines. Your own evidence, you said that all lab units have stutter guidelines.
A: Yes.

YA: (KEPADA PUBLIC GALLERY): So pada yang duduk dalam gallery tu, pada yang ikut prosiding, jangan bising. I don’t want to hear the gallery to bising. Sorry to disturbed you counsel.

Q: In the light of your evidence, which I just repeated to you, I’m asking you very simple question. 28.4 is a very high peak?
A: Yes, as a percentage.

Q: What you are guided by. Isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: You just choose not to report that high peak.
A: It is not a high peak.

Q: But you’ve said that!
A: As a percentage, yes.

Q: Have you reported that, your result will be different? There would be another party inside the anus isn’t it?
A: No. This is 56.

Q: There is DNA who we don’t know here. Forget your totality. This is a very simple question. You were not answering my question, not because I want to repeat my question. For 18 allele, nobody has it. Not Male Y, not

Saiful. So, if there is presence of 18, it came from someone else that we don’t know. Am I right?
A: Could be.

Q: Could it be come from Saiful? Come from male Y?
A: No.

Q: Then why did you say it could be from another person? It must be from another person!
A: It could be drop in.

Q: Would you agree, that had you reported the 18, which is the high percentage, twice the height things that you reported earlier..
A: Twice the percentage.

Q: Okay, Had you reported that, there could be a conclusion that there is another unknown person?
A: No.

Q: Don’t beating around the bush!
A: I’m not beating around the bush.

Q: I’m gonna ask you for the last time. You have 18 allele, not belong to Saiful, not belong to Male Y. We don’t know who it came from. And it may come from don’t-know who. And it was found on Saiful’s anus.
A: Not possibly found from Saiful’s anus.

Q: Could it be the possible conclusion?
A: No.

Q: So we got B7 possible presence of 12 allele just now. B7 is the sperm extract on the high rectal area. Deep inside Saiful’s anus, that you got A6 (b), 14.4% allele? You got somebody DNA in Saiful’s pants, which is

unknown. Now, you’ve got B9 in the lower rectum area. Again, somebody some unknown person DNA was there.

Q: Now I take you now to A3(a) of B7 of the graphs, this is the black trousers. So you got two markings, marking (a) and (b). So this is A3 (a). I take you to locus D3S1358, page 27. What is the allele of Saiful’s here?

A: 12,13.

Q: Look at page 27. There’s another allele there, 11 right? That allele if reported will paint different picture again on this locus.
A: Yes. There could be DNA of another person.

Q: That 11 allele is not share by anyone else?
A: Yes.

Q: Again, if you reported allele 11, then you can conclude there must be an unknown person found on Saiful’s trousers?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you calculate allele 11? Compare it to allele 12, what was the percentage?
A: 16.5%.

Q: Earlier you reported 12.3%. Now you have 16.5%. You again not report the significant peak.
A: Yes.

Q: You not reported it.
A: Yes.

Q: You’ve chosen only to report 12, 13, what you know when Saiful is involved in the case. So you don’t want to report other than that. That’s the nature of your report? You don’t want to report of certain individuals that we

don’t know, would that be correct?
A: It’s an interpretation.

Q: Your report does not accurately reflect what’s in the graphs. P25 is your end result, it is quite different with what’s in the graphs isn’t it?
A: No, P25 is already an interpretation.

Q: No, but you didn’t report, for example allele 11 in B5. So it is different isn’t it? I take you to page i) for locus D3S1358? You only report 12 and 13 there. Where you observed an 11, it is 16.6%, but you don’t want to report

that. If you reported that, things would be different? You agree?
A: Yes.

Q: In your report, page 2. You’ve listed here all the items that you received for analysis. B7, plastic, plastic receptacles, swab stick etc. do you know, where it came from?
A: As labeled on the receptacles.

Q: And you go on Envelope A. is it correct that this list set out what you received?
A: From page 1 up to page 2 (of the report)

Q: Received from?
A: DSP Jude Blacious.

Q: What role he plays in this case?
Q: He is very important to this case?
A: Yes.

Q: Is he here?
A: Yes.

Q: You’ve met him before?
A: Yes, when he gave me the list of this exhibits.

Q: Was anybody else presence at the meeting, when he gave you the exhibits.
A: There was one police officer accompanying him

Q: Where does this meeting take place?
A: In Jabatan Kimia, DNA laboratory. Not in my office.

Q: They gave you all exhibits.
A: Yes.

Q: When was that?
A: There are two occasions. First occasion is on 30th June.

Q: 30th June and he gave you all listed? And the next round?
A: 1st of July. He gave all the A’s. all the B’s he gave on 30th June.

Q: On 1st of July, where was the meeting?
A: In Jabatan Kimia, in receptionist area.

Q: Alone, or he came accompanied by anyone else?
A: He was accompanied, but I can’t remember by the same police officer or not.

Q: What did he give you?
A: 8 exhibits. A1,A2, to A8.

Q: Whatever is listed here, exactly what you received?
A: Yes.

Q: That’s the protocol, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: You agree with that guideline, you must list down what did you receive? Otherwise there could be accusation of bias?
A: Yes.

Q: If you look at envelope A, P43, would that be right that the info that you gathered from that, is what you written on the envelope la? What you interested is what is written there right? So what did you received from the

envelope A?
A: Satu helai bulu di atas lantai belakang pintu.

Q: What does satu helai bulu means?
A: A strand of hair.

Q: How did you report it on the items you received on the report?
A: Strand of pubic hair.

Q: What you have been reported is different from what did you received isn’t it?
A: No.

Q: You received a stand of hair. And you’ve told us there is protocol to only list down what had you have received. Satu helai bulu right, in that envelope?
A: That is after examination.

Q: So if you have followed guidelines, protocol and procedure, you ought to report what you have received isn’t it?
A: No I (tak sempat jawab).

Q: Did you know that it was a pubic hair during that meeting with Jude and another person?
A: No, only after examination.

Q: You stated because Jude told you it was a pubic hair.
A: No, I totally disagree. That was only after examination.

Q: You don’t report exactly what you received right?
Q: We report exactly what we received, after examination

Q: So why didn’t you report for B7 for an example, a swab stick from higher rectal area?
A: We cannot substantiate it from high rectal, but we can substantiate it that it was from a pubic origin from our examination.

Q: After your analysis?
A: After we analyzed it we cannot ascertain where it was come from, but we can determine from the hair characteristic, whether it is from head hair, scalp hair, or a pubic hair. Before the examination, I wouldn’t be able to

know where it came from.
Q: I’m referring to P47, envelope marked A6. Can you read out what’s on the envelope?
A: Satu helai seluar dalam warna kelabu hitam jenama Levi’s.

Q: That’s what you received?
A: Yes.

Q: So when you received these entire items, you were not conducting any test, nothing? On the 1st of July, Jude came to your office, and said to you do something to all of these. Did you make a report on what you received?
A: Yes, based on the envelopes.

Q: Record?
A: That’s where the receipt shows.

Q: So where’s the report?
A: The report is after we done the examination.

Q: I put it to you, that it just a basic aspect of your analysis that again, you have failed to follow basic protocol, you can’t even get your receipt right. You report something which you didn’t receive. Agree or not?
A: Totally disagree.

Q: Again, go to page 2 of the report. Exhibits A1, A2, A5, and A7. That’s a multi colored carpet, duvet, blue underwear and long sleeve green shirt. All this items were given to you by Jude?
A: Yes.

Q: When you received P45, P46 and P48, you received them from Jude, for analyzing DNA profiling?
A: Yes.

Q: All this were given to you because those things relevant to alleged crime.
A: Not entirely based on that, it also must be based on that exhibits, bears any stains whether it would warrant further testing.

Q: Before that, all these were given to you by the police officer. Jude would have told you that, these are items that relevant to the crime, so please do some test. So that information, as far as you are concerned, this items

could have been recovered from the crime scene.
A: Could have.

Q: So, the carpet and the duvet could have from the crime scene. I am sure there are many carpets in the crime scene in the apartments. But, perhaps maybe one come into contacts with the crime, as the possibility of

having DNA. A1 and A2, the reason they give it to you was because they possibly had DNA stain on it?
A: Possibly.

Q: You found nothing on the duvet and the carpet. No detectable stain at all?
A: Yes.

Q: And the same things apply to blue underwear, and also the long sleeve shirt? Nothing on it, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Dr., you further determine the reference sample. Is a common term in this field isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: What does it means?
A: Specimen, collected from a known individual.

Q: So, have you heard of crime scene samples. Normally be unknown isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: In this case, were you provided with the samples? What sample was that?
A: Yes, B10.

Q: How did you described it?
A: It is a blood, stain on FTA card.

Q: The donor gave it voluntarily?
A: It is known that collected from him. Yes.

Q: It gives you the confidence, right?
A: Yes

Q: Did you do any test to determine that it belongs to Saiful?
A: The DNA profiling was carried out in B10.

Q: So you did the profiling on the samples as well?
A: Yes.

Q: Apart from Saiful’s B10, did you received any other reference sample in this case?
A: No.

Q: You said in your report, you have come out with a certain of identification of Male Y.
A: Yes.

Q: You have also observed unknown sources, haven’t you?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you carry out further test to determine the identity of the unknown individual?
A: No.

Q: So, we don’t know who the unknown person is.
A: Yes

Q: So, you have in your report, a few further unknown persons, I suggest to you, whether you agree or not, but you yourself had at least identified 3 individuals?
A: Yes

Q: Page iv). I just read it. (read) . You know it is Mohd Saiful, because it was this reference sample. Is that right?
A: Yes, and also because of it was collected from him.

Q: Then you go on to say that [READ that para again], that is how you connected it?
A: Yes.

Q: So, here, as far as you concern, all the dropout theories, and all that, you still found an unknown contributor?
A: Yes

Q: Could it be as the result of contamination?
A: Could be.

Q: Could possibly it happen because what you analyze was contaminated?
A: No, it is not happening in the laboratory.

Q: Maybe DNA of Jude contaminated it? Possibly right, because he handled the things?
A: I can include or exclude him.

Q: This unknown male could be Jude. Possibly, but unlikely in Saiful’s anus.
A: Anyone is possible.

Q: So there are many possibilities here, are there? It is extremely important when we talked about DNA profiling. We don’t know who Male Y is. Till today have you been provided with the reference sample of Male Y?
A: No, he still remains unknown for me.

Q: There are 2 unknown.
A: Yes.

Q: Why did you not call the other unknown as Male X?
A: Because I cannot infer his profile

Q: But you couldn’t infer Male Y as well don’t you?
A: I can infer from A6.

Q: But you didn’t know who Male Y?
A: Yes, I don’t know.

Q: So, this contamination taken place?
A: From B5?

Q: From any sample as well. When could it occur?
A: Even before the event or it could occur after the event.

Q: The samples, it must be taken as soon as possible from the time allegedly committed, to avoid possible contamination?
A: The time frame is probably to preserve the life.

Q: It is also to preserve and to prevent the contamination isn’t it?
A: It depends on what type of specimens do you mean.

Q: Like B5?
A: Could be.

RK: YA, could we take a short break to gather few things?
YA: No, I think we move on sampai 1230, then kita terus ambil lunch break.
RK: Very well.

Q: I take you to forensic article earlier. Page 93, para 5.3, under the heading of ‘steps to interpret a mixture’. Do you agree that this guidelines have recommended certain types of testing in relation to mixture of DNA profiling.

You told us also in your evidence on Friday, that it was not possible to determine the mixture ratio.
A: Yes.

Q: Why?
A: Because of the variation of those loci.

Q: Can you repeat that? Why did you said there is not possible to determine mixture ratio?
A: Because of the variation of prosperous loci. Mixture loci which you determined at one locus, could vary at another locus.

Q: Impossible?
A: They will be vary.

Q: Can’t fix it for certain.
A: Yes.

Q: You can’t pin point right? So, what is the next best thing you can do?
A: The only mixture that will allow, probably be major minor in the contributors.

Q: I take you to the steps again, page 94. Steps 4. ‘Estimation of the mixture proportion or ratio of the individual of contributing to the mixture’? Is it possible?
A: It is not possible.

Q: Just estimate? From this, it is possible to estimate?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, at this stage, I’m reading out again (read), this is such a case right? What do you understand from that?
A: It means that there could be variation.

Q: Just from what I read, do you understand it?
A: Yes.

Q: What do you understand from that?
A: Approximately preserve, means there could be a certain indication of ratio by certain contributors but there might be variation.

Q: It can be estimated?
A: Yes, approximately be estimated, but not totally.

Q: Does it not mean that the mixtures are not completely different from locus to locus? It is not impossible? It is possible?
A: Approximately.

Q: Do you mention also about LCN. Do you know what is it?
A: It is profiling of DNA carried out on DNA template which are of low amount, usually it refers to the less than 250 peakogram.

Q: This is also part of the DNA profiling isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Does you lab familiar with this?
A: No.

Q: Did you do the mixture ratio for any of the analysis in this case?
A: No.

RK: YA, at this stage I have finished. I got one more final thing to cover. That’s the longest, which will be later. Maybe I take about most an hour and half, depending on the answer. If I were to start now, I won’t be able to finish

it before lunch.
YA: Nair, you have one area to cover?
RK: That one is the continuity of my part.
YA: Ok, we will start at 2 p.m
[12.08] Stand down

[2.19 p.m.]

Q: Dr. Seah, earlier in your evidence this morning, you mentioned drop-in. You mentioned drop-in in relation to B9. The 18 allele.
A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us what is drop-in?
A: A drop-in is usually a single allele of relatively low RFU compared to the true allele and it usually occurs from a sporadic contamination.

Q: So, can I say drop-in means contamination?
A: Yes, but it is of a rampant sporadic type.

Q: So, B9 could have been possibly contaminated?
A: It could have been a drop-in.

Q: But it is contaminated.
A: Could be from a sporadic contaminant.

Q: When you used the term drop-in, that would mean that the drop-in occur at the lab? That mean contamination happened at the lab?
A: Not necessarily.

Q: You told us last week that you adopted a few steps in the analysis of the forensic samples namely firstly the Acid Phosphotase (AP) Test. Can you briefly tell us the descriptions of what it means.
A: The Acid Phosphatase Test is based on an enzyme called acid phosphatase which is present in seminal fluids or seminal stains. And this test depends on the presence of this enzyme in seminal fluid and the test is

designed using a subscript that is catalyst by this enzyme.

Q: It is an enzyme to detect something, isn’t it?
A: No. It’s a test designed to detect the presence of this enzyme.

Q: What is the purpose of the AP?
A: The AP is usually used on specimens or samples where the size does not permit a quick test and it is designed with zero [] where the seminal stains are.

Q: It’s designed to detect seminal stain?
A: Yes.

Q: Would it be correct to say that the purpose of the AP is to detect the presence of seminal stain.
A: Yes. It is used to detect where is the seminal stain.

Q: Do you agree that the AP is not designed to quantify semen and amount of `semen from an AP test?
A: Yes.

Q: You can only tell that the semen is there, that it is there.
A: Yes.

Q: You mentioned about Prostate Specific Antigen process that you went on, PSA test.
A: Yes.

Q: You also told us it is a confirmatory test.
A: Yes, it is.

Q: What does it confirm?
A: It confirm the presence of semen.

Q: Again, the presence, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it used to quantify semen?
A: Not in this particular test.

Q: The AP test and the PSA test that you carried out in this case were merely to detect presence of semen?
A: Yes.

Q: Not to quantify the said semen?
A: Yes.

Q: The PSA, is it found in other bodily fluid apart from semen?
A: Yes. But the PSA method that was used to detect the presence of semen here, the Seratac [] set the sensitivity will not detect the PSA level of other fluids.

Q: You also went on to say that you did a microscopic slides.
A: Yes.

Q: To observe semen.
A: Presence of sperm cells.

Q: This microscopic slide technique, can you quantify semen from this?
A: No, you can’t.

Q: You can’t tell the number of sperm?
A: You can tell the number but not the exact number.

Q: But can you tell the relative amount of sperm?
A: That depends on how much samples did you cut out. There are hundreds of layers of the slides, so you can’t quantify the total number of sperm cells.

Q: You had before you slides. I take it you prepare it yourself?
A: I prepared it with my assisstant.

Q: The slides were not taken from HKL?
A: No, they were not.

Q: It was not done immediately after examination? I rephrase. The examination at HKL was on 28.06.2008. It started at about 9.00 p.m. and went on for about 3 hours, so finish at about midnight. That take us to the

29.06.2008. After the examination, you are sure that you are not given slides of whatever taken there?
A: No.

Q: When was your slides taken?
A: The slides were taken from the exhibits that I received.

Q: When? You received the exhibits on 30.06.2008 and 01.07.2008. So, when did you prepare this slides?
A: The first batch is on 01.07.2008, those were exhibits that are received on 30.06.2008.

Q: You took out the slides 2 days later? After examination, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it normal or is it usual in your experience in sexual assault cases for doctors to take slides? It’s important, isn’t it?
A: I’m not aware of the operating procedures.

Q: But you agree don’t you that the earlier slides were taken the better, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So, the quality of what you are going to examine is better had it been taken at the [] immediately after examination?
A: Yes.

Q: Have you in any other case received slides from doctors?
A: No.

Q: Did you record how many sperms you saw?
A: No, those were not recorded.

Q: But did you observe sperm?
A: Yes, there were sperms cells.

Q: The quantity of your sperm is important to your analysis and examination?
A: Yes, and the quality.

Q: The quality as well as the quantity?
A: Yes.

Q: Until today, you have no idea how much sperm are there? You are not able tlo tell us how much sperm you saw?
A: There’s no way to quantify the number of sperm cells that is obtained.

Q: For the microscopic slides observation, did you do for all the swabs?
A: Yes, I did.

Q: All the swabs?
A: Yes.

Q: All the B samples?
A: No. Only those swabs that were positive for semen.

Q: Can you tell us which one they were?
A: They were as stated in my report. Samples B5, B7, B8 and B9. Only those samples were PSA positive.

Q: Then you went on to the next steps?
A: Yes.

Q: After having concluded these three steps, you embark on differential extraction process. Is that correct?
A: Yes.

Q: What’s the purpse of differential extraction process? Why do you need to do it?
A: It is designed to separate the non-sperm cells from the sperm cells.

Q: Is it also called the epithelial cells?
A: Yes.

Q: Those are the non-sperm cells?
A: Yes.

Q: That’s why in your report you have some part which are sperm extract and some are non-sperm extract.
A: Yes.

Q: Is it also necessary to exclude or get rid of the degraded sperm?
A: …

Q: The differential expression process, is it also in order to get rid of degraded sperm?
A: No.

Q: It’s only for epithelial cells?
A: No. To separate the sperm cells from the non-sperm cells.

Q: Did you see any epithelial cells when you look down on the microscope?
A: Yes, there were some epithelial cells but the walls were not ideally intact.

Q: Having done the differential expression extraction, will you again put it on the slides?
A: No. It was done on the slides before the differential expression.

Q: Having done that, you’ve got them separated into two. Do you then confirm that there are only sperms present at the microscopic slides?
A: I don’t understand the question.

Q: After you have separated the two, do you confirm further by way of a slides? After having the epithelial cells separated, do you then again confirm there is only sperms by way of microscopic slides?
A: No, we don’t do that. That is done before differential expression extraction.
Q: Would it not be helpful to confirm there is only sperms there?
A: No. The confirmation has already been done before the extraction.

Q: Did you stain the sperm in order to see it?
A: Yes.

Q: what sort of stain did you use?
A: It’s called the Christmas Tree Stain.

Q: That’s the best stain, isn’t it?
A: Yes, the contrast is much better with this.

Q: So you can see the sperm clearly?
A: There are contrast between the sperm and the other [] environment.

Q: That means, the reason you have to stain the sperm would be to differentiate it from other cells?
A: Yes.

Q: That means there are other possible cells in that slides?
A: Yes.

Q: After staining the sperm, what type of cells did you observed from the slides apart from the sperm cells?
A: Epithelial cells.

Q: Did you see any bacteria from the slides?
A: There could be presence of some [].

Q: Did you observe any bacteria from the slides?
A: Yes.

Q: You did a record on this?
A: I only make a record of presence of sperm cells.

Q: Bacteria is also important, isn’t it?
A: Not in this case.

Q: Bacteria is important?
A: No, unless it is of significance. In this case the bacteria observed were very few.

Q: So, you only record of the sperms that you observed?
A: Yes.

Q: Is that the record that you do after the Christmas Tree staining?
A: Yes.

Q: Where is the record?
A: That record is in our Sperm Isolation worksheet.

Q: That record will tell us how much sperm there was.
A: No, how much sperm that was observed.

Q: That record book is part of your analysis, isn’t it?
A: Yes, it’s part of our procedures.

Q: It’s relevant to this proceeding, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Would you agree that the record form part of your record here?
A: Not necessarily.

Q: That’s part of your analysis and the end product of your analysis is your report. So, the record has something to do with your report. What was the name of the record?
A: Sperm Isolation record.

Q: That record is part of your analysis. Is that correct?
A: Yes.

Q: So, it is part of your report. Do you agree?
A: It forms the basis of my report.

Q: The Sperm Isolation record would have been recorded in it the quantity of sperm of B5, B7, B8 and B9. Is that correct?
A: No. The number of sperms observed for that slides, not the total quantity of the sperm on the swab.

Q: The Sperm Isolation record would be able to show us how many sperm cells were observed for B5, B7, B8 and B9.
A: Yes.

Q: And all these will be in your case file which is in your possession, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: And it is important when talking about the analysis of this case?
A: Yes.

Q: You can’t remember all that. The quantity. You need to refer to it.
A: Yes.

Q: You are not able to tell us the quantity of the sperm observed from B5, B7, B8 and B9 without having the benefit of the Sperm Isolation record which you had?
A: Yes.

Q: Having done all that, you proceed to PCR. That’s the final stage of testing. That’s what you do after staining of the sperm and looking at it and having observing it.
A: Yes.

Q: Do you know what is the reaction volume for PCR?
A: Yes.

Q: What is it? Can you tell us very briefly?
A: The reaction volume is the total volume of the PCR mix.

Q: And how are they measured?
A: In micro litres.

Q: What reaction volume did you used in your lab?
A: 20 micro litres.

Q: All PCR kit comes with manufacture recommendation, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you know what is the manufacturer’s recommendation reaction volume for PCR?
A: Yes.

Q: What are they?
A: Could be 20 or 25.

Q: Can you tell us how much is the volume of DNA for each samples? One by one. Did you add to the reaction volume?
A: Approximately 0.8 nanograms. Or less with those samples with low DNA template.

Q: For B5, how much DNA did you add to the reaction volume? Before that, how much DNA samples did you find in non-sperm extract in B5?
A: I wouldn’t be able to tell offhand unless I have the record.

Q: Record are not here?
A: Yes.

Q: DNA volume is important, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: If that is so, how are we going to rely on your evidence in the absence of the record?
A: As I said, some of the DNA samples were not that high, less than the optimum amount to be used.

Q: So, you have various volumes?
A: No. Various template amount.

Q: All of it is recorded somewhere?
A: Yes.

Q: Where is it being recorded?
A: In the case notes.

Q: Do you have a name for the record?
A: The analysis worksheet.

Q: This information can be found in the analysis worksheet?
A: Yes.

Q: You have it with you in the lab?
A: Yes.

Q: Would you be able to tell us without the analysis worksheet how much DNA samples did you add for the optimum amount?
A: Not all the samples. There were some where the DNA extract were low.

Q: How much?
A: I can’t tell…

Q: Again, the record is not here. []
A: Yes.

Q: This is crucial information, isn’t it? Important, isn’t it?
A: Important information, but not exactly crucial.

Q: In order to properly appreciate your finding we should know whatever the result is, isn’t it?
A: This is also an important parameter to consider in the assessment.

Q: What about cycles? Do you go through cycles when you do the PCR?
A: 28 cycles.

Q: That is standard isn’t it? That’s why you can tell us.
A: Yes.

Q: Having done that, you’ll put it in the PCR machine, PCR do it’s jobs and it will come out with graphs, right?
A: No. After that it will be analyse on the Genetic Analyzer and the end result is the electro-phoreogram graph which was printed out.

Q: Before you get the electro-phoreogram graph, you will inject an amount of PCR product into the PCR, right?
A: Yes.

Q: There’s a protocol on this. What guidelines are these? Where can we find this guidelines?
A: Yes. This is in our test method for analysis for genetics [].

Q: Is this a standard guideline?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you use a standard amount or did you differ or use separate amount in each samples?
A: They are the same amount of 1 micro litre of the PCR product.

Q: After you have done that the electro-phoreogram graph will comes out.
A: Yes.

Q: I notice on those graphs there are a lot or reamps. Please tell jus briefly what is reamp means.
A: It means that the PCR is carried out for the second time.

Q: Can it be the third, fourth time and so on? More than one, right?
A: If it is third time, it will reamp second.

Q: Is there a need to reamp in certain cases?
A: Yes, because the profiles that was obtained indicate a division. A partial profile is obtained.

Q: It is not adequate? Not sufficient?
A: No. It has to be corrected if there is division by clean up which removes the inhibitors and after which second PCR was carried out .

Q: There’s quite a few reamps done in this case. Was it due to inhibitors?
A: Most of it were due to inhibitions.

Q: Can you tell us which reamps was due to inhibition?
A: B5f, B6f, B7m, B8m, B9m, A3af, A3bf, A3bm, A6bf and A6bm.

Q: It’s important also to know what is the result of pre-reamps also, isn’t it?
A: The pre-reamps result were used to assess the problem.

Q: Are those pre-reamps result with you today?
A: No, they are in the case notes.

Q: Where can we find it in your file?
A: In the PCR analysis worksheets and results.

Q: Broadly speaking, this is a case of alleged sodomy with ejaculation of semen into the anus. And the ejaculation of semen allegedly more than 48 hours before it was taken for sample. Are you aware of this?
A: I’m not aware fo the exact incident.

Q: The incident is allegedly happened on 26.06.2008. The examination was done on 28.06.2008 at about 9.00 pm for three hours and thus finished the next day at 12.00 a.m. The incident happened about 54-56 hours before

samples were take. You’ve got a situation here where the ejaculation in the anus for about 56 hours. In such situation, would you expect to see degradation in the sperm and DNA in case like this?
A: Yes.

Q: In terms of your electro-phoreogram graph, please tell us how would you recognise degradation.
A: It’s difficult to recognise.

Q: Generally, you should see a declined in the peaks?
A: Generally there will be decline of the peaks.

Q: And that decline in the peak will go to the right of the graph?
A: Not generally.

Q: If we saw the peaks declining to the right, that will be evidence of degradation, right?
A: There could be other reason also for declining of peaks, but that could be one of the indications.

Q: I take you to the reference sample, B10. Page 20 of electro-phoreogram graph. The peaks seemed to declined to the right, isn’t it?
A: Not significantly.

Q: But they do, don’t they?
A: This is normal for a multiplexing.

Q: What is multiplexing?
A: Meaning the amplifying at multiple loci simultaneously.

Q: I take you to page 26 and 27 of your A3. And also (i) of your report. At A3(a). This is a mixture of a major and a minor, isn’t it?
A: No, this is not a major minor.

Q: Predominantly of the profile of the complainant?
A: Yes.

Q: Is A3 is a reamp?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us the result of the pre-reamp?
A: That is a partial profile.

Q: Are you assuming it?
A: That was the reason for reamplification.

Q: But you can’t confirm the pre-reamps result?
A: Yes.

Q: What about the sperm fraction? Page 28 for A3am.
A: There were no significance peak.

Q: In other word, there is no DNA?
A: There could be minor amount of DNA.

Q: But it is negligible and not worth of reporting?
A: Yes.

Q: In other word, as far as reporting is concern there is no DNA so there was nothing to report?
A: Yes.

Q: Were there no peaks at all in this graph?
A: There were some rampant peaks.

Q: There’s no reportable peaks here?
A: No.

Q: And this is the sample from the black trousers?
A: Yes.

Q: So there were no sperm found?
A: Not necessarily.

Q: Don’t you think that it is necessary for reamp here?
A: No. Because the DNA amounts was very low.

Q: So, there is no need to reamp for that?
A: There wouldn’t be a chance of success with the reamp.

Q: You make assumption?
A: Not assumption. It was a scientific judgment.

Q: How much DNA exactly was there?
A: I don’t have the exact amount.

Q: You can’t tell us how much DNA was there in order for us to know if there is a need for reamp. Without the benefit of those records earlier, you can’t tell us how much DNA was present and not present.
A: Yes.

Q: You need the results in order whether to reamp or not, correct?
A: Yes.

Q: You don’t have that information now, right?
A: I can’t exactly tell you but I know this is a case where the DNA amount is very low.

Q: You can’t make assumptions now without the benefit of the record.
A: No. That’s the reason for not to reamplification for this.

Q: Because you are assuming from this.
A: No. Because the amount is low, but the amount I cannot tell you.

Q: The amount you cannot tell, right?
A: Yes, but it is very low.

Q: Look at semen stain at the black trousers A3a. Can you tell us how much DNA did you saw under the microscope for A3a?
A: It is recorded in the Sperm Isolation record.

Q: Important information and you have the record of it?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us the amount of DNA you found in the extraction?
A: I need to refer to my record because you want an exact figure.

Q: You can’t tell us for both sperm and non-sperm fraction, don’t you?
A: Yes.

Q: Both sperm and non-sperm fraction amount will only be found in that particular record?
A Yes.

Q:: Did you identify a mixture in A3af since this is the case of a mixture?
A: It’s not mixture.

Q: So, you don’t identify mixture?
A: No.

Q: So, the complainant’s DNA was found on the semen stain on his pants?
A: Yes.

Q: On his own pants Saiful’s semen was found?
A: Yes.

Q: Inside the pants, near the zip area, at the upper part?
A: Yes, A3a.

Q: A3b. Page 29 and 30. Stain found at the lower part of the zip. Does the stain differs from the sperm found at the upper part of the zip, A3a?
A: This is stronger.

Q: How much stronger?
A: I can’t tell unless I have the exact amount.

Q: You can’t tell without having the benefit of the record and the record is not here?
A: Yes.

Q: What made A3b stronger?
A: Because the DNA is found in both fraction.

Q: You’ve got the non-sperm nd sperm fraction. Look at the non-sperm fraction. This would be at page (i) of your result. You agree that this show a single profile of Saiful?
A: Yes.

Q: From this, do you see degradation?
A: It’s hard to diagnose degradation.

Q: From the graph?
A: It’s hard to pin point degradation.

Q: From the whole graph.
A: Degradation is a whole process altogether.

Q: What is the process of degradation?
A: Degradation can happened when no DNA [] is extracted. It cannot be deducted or deduced…

Q: How can you conclude degradation?
A: I cannot conclude degradation just….

Q: But you said degradation is a whole different process. What is the process?
A: It’s a different process from analysing. It’s a process where the DNA starts breaking down.

Q: So what do you do?
A: It’s a continuous process of degradation where the break down continuous.

Q: How to determine the degradation?
A: It’s hard to determine degradation from DNA profile.

Q: But it is important to determine degradation, right?
A: Not for me.

Q: So if semen is in somebody anus, for more than two days, and you told us you can easily expect degradation, the quality of the semen will be weak because of degradation. And you are telling that there is no further step

taken to determine degradation?
A: No if the DNA is readable.

Q: You neglect degradation altogether?
A: It’s hard to determine degradation. I’ve not known any test that can determine degradation.

Q: Look at the graph. There is degradation, right?
A: Probably you are more an expert than me for determining degradation from the DNA profile.

Q: You can see degradation from the graph, isn’t it?
A: It’s hard to pinpoint degradation.

Q: You don’t want to answer the question?
A: No. Because things had to be cleared out that being the scientific []

Q: Look at A3af. How many times did you test it?
A: This is a second amplification, a reamp.

Q: Which means you read it the first time, hence there is a need for reamp?
A: Yes.

Q: So, you can’t tell us the result of the pre-reamps but you have a record of it?
A: Yes.

Q: Look at the sperm fraction A3am. I take it you can’t tell us how much DNA was in it and you have a record of it?
A: Yes.

Q: It’s important?
A: Yes.

Q: How many times did you test A3am?
A: Once.

Q: Page 30. A3b result. The sperm extract fraction. A3b is the spot on the black trousers. Would you agree that in page 30 we see a single profile that is Saiful?
A: Yes.

Q: We can see Saiful’s single profile?
A: Yes.

Q: Does not that mean that is only not the DNA but also the sperm of Saiful on the front part of the trousers?
A: Yes.

Q: That is what you conclude from A3af and A3am, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Having a look at page 29 and 30, can you be sure that the sperm fraction is not just carried over from the non-sperm fraction?
A: There’s only one population of cells here that is sperm cells. The question is not carried over but the fact of digestion of differential fraction.

Q: Is there carry over here?
A: The term is not carry over.

Q: Then what is the term?
A: ….

Q: There is no carry over here?
A: I think there is a misconception here.

Q: Can i take it there is no carry over here?
A: The term carry over that is used here caused a misconception.

YA: What do you mean by carry over?

Q: Both of the samples look identical?
A: They look identical…

Q: Carry over can happen when there is identical [] like here?
A: It’s not a matter of carry over. If you mean carry over during analysis, it is not carried over.

Q: So you don’t agree to that suggestion?
A: No.

Q: I take you to A6a and A6b. These are the underwear. You found two stains on the front of the trousers, upper and bottom. And on the underwear, you also found two stains on the front of the underwear, upper and bottom.
A: Yes.

Q: If you wear the underwear, surely it will touch the pants, right?
A: Yes.

Q: You did expect it to come into contact?
A: Yes.

Q: It must come into contact, right?
A: If it is worn together.

Q: Underwear is worn inside and you’ve got stain a and b. and also on the trousers you also got a and b. surely it is worn together.
A: If it is worn together.

Q: That is reasonably to be expected that they come into contact of each other, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Go to the profile of A6a and A6b. In the light of the strong possibility that the underwear and the pants are came into contact with each other, don’t you agree that there is a strong possibility that the seminal stains on the

trousers and the underwear matched each other?
A: If it is worn together.

Q: Did you find the seminal stains on the back of the trousers?
A: No.

Q: This is a case of sodomy so it would be reasonably expected that there will be leak out at the back. If somebody has ejaculated in Saiful’s anus, wouldn’t it be reasonable that there will be leak out from his anus?
A: Yes.

Q: It is reasonable to expect that seminal fluid is at the back of the underwear, isn’t it?
A: I think this is sepaculative.
Q: It’s possible isn’t it? It’s a reasonable suggestion that is ejaculation happened in the anus and after 56 hours it will expected to be leakage which would have resulted in seminal stain at the back of the underwear.
A: That is hypothetical.

Q: I’m suggesting that you would have reasonably find seminal stains on the back of the underwear. Do you agree with that?
A: I can’t agree on hypothetical suggestion. I also can’t disagree either.

Q: A6b. Page 33 and 34. This stain is adjacent, next to A3b. A3a correspond with A6b and A3b correspond with A6b. Is that right?
A: Yes.

Q: The A3b results which we talked earlier, that only has the complainant’s profile in the sperm and non-sperm fraction. That is the black trousers. What about the underwear? A6b is the underwear. You told us that the black

trousers A3b has Saiful’s profile only. His sperm is found there, it is detected there.
A: Yes.

Q: Focus on A6b now. There appears to be a lot DNA on this stain and you have to dilute it one at a time. There are a lot of DNA, isn’t it?
A: There are a lot of DNA and also inhibition that shows inhibitors…

Q: There’s a big amount of DNA here. So you have to reamp here
A: Yes.

Q: What was the result? Wasn’t the result a mixture DNA of the complainant and male Y.
A: Yes.

Q: They should have come into contact, isn’t it? A3b and A6b. They correspond with each other if they are worn together. You have an underwear, someone wearing black trousers on top. Right?
A: Yes.

Q: A3a, A6a. A3b, A6b. You told us that it is reasonable that the underwear and the trousers will come into contact with each other. They correspond with eaxch other, right? And you told us that A3b has got only Saiful’s

profile in the sperm and non-sperm extraction.
A: Yes.

Q: Now we are talking about A6b. Corresponding spot on A6b. Suddenly you found a male Y on A6b. Had this two spots come into contact with each other and correspond with each other, wouldn’t it be likely that you would

have also found evidence of male Y in A3b as well.
A: If they are worn together and adjacent to each other.

Q: Assuming that would be the case, it would be likely, right?
A: Yes.

Q: That you would have found male Y.
A: If the fabric of A6 permits easy diffusion. There are also fabrics that does not fuse.

Q: So you now talk about fabric in your analysis.
A: Yes, fabric can affect the transfer. Depends on the fabric type.

Q: Did you considered that possibilities of fabric that affect your result although now you are telling us you can?
A: I did not considered that. The fabric can affect on the hypothesis that you foward just now.

Q: It’s a possible hypothesis, right?
A: Yes.

Q: And now you are telling us fabrics can have effect on your findings?
A: On the hypothesis by you.

Q: Did you give allowance on that possibilities?
A: I have not considered it.

Q: So, you have left that area grey?
A: No, that’s not my task.

Q: Your task is to just find male Y, the complainant and any other unknowns.
A: It is to carry out DNA profiling and assess the DNA profile.

Q: I’m going to ask again. I’m putting it to you that has A3b and A6b come into contact, there would be a strong likelihood that A3b also having male Y. Do you agree?
A: I would agree if it is the hypothesis and the condition…

Q: That’s all I want. Look at page 35. A6b. Look at the graph. Can you see degradation?
A: Again, it’s hard to tell degradation.

Q: But you know degradation is possible, isn’t it?
A: Degradation is possible.

Q: Especially in the case where the sample has been in the anus for 56 hours. Possible? Very possible isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Having known the history that the samples are in complainant’s anus for 56 hours, you knew that there is possibility of degradation when you analyse this sample? You must have known that.
A: It’s not my concern.

Q: I’m not asking about your concern! I’m asking you what you knew. You have this samples. DSP Jude come to you and you have a meeting together on the morning he submit the samples. He has given you all the samples

in the meeting. You knew the samples have been in Saiful’s anus for 56 hours.
A: No. This is on the []

Q: Do you know how old this samples were?
A: I wouldn’t know.

Q: Did you open your mind or did you consider the degradation?
A: No. That is not the concern.

Q: So, there are occasions where you carried out DNA analysis where you are not concern with degradation.
A: This is not a concern here.

Q: For example in this case, you are not concern with degradation.
A: This is not the concern why analysis was carried out.

Q: But were you concerned with degradation?
A: It would be concerned if the profile had been incomplete…

Q: You received samples. You have been given samples. So many possibilities. That’s why you have to carry out test. And degradation is one of it, right? You wan t to know whether there is degradation. It is important to

know degradation in this case. Do you agree?
A: No.

Q: Is it not important to know if degradation occurred in this case?
A: We wouldn’t know if degradation occurred.

Q: But you’ve got to find out, don’t you?
A: If the samples is well preserved, it will not show signs of break down.

Q: Look at B7. Page 11. This is in the anus. Before that, back to B6. Page 33. DNA is found in non-sperm extraction. How do you explain finding out of DNA in a non-sperm fraction?
A: That usually happen in differential extraction where two sources of the same type, the minor contributor appear in non-sperm fraction and the major contributor in both fractions. And we have observe that from many stains

form other mixtures.
Q: Is there a minor contributor here?
A: Yes.

Q: Where?
A: The minor contributor is of Saiful. Look at [].

Q: I’ve just asked how DNA is found?
A: That’s because of the differential expression process.

Q: This is a mixture of two people, right?
A: Yes

Q: Please explain the result.
A: This has to be read with A6bm.

Q: You can read it on its own.
A: Yes, but it is a mixture.

Q: Does it not show?
A: Yes it is a mixture of two individuals here, two contributors.

Q: It could be shared more or less?
A: Yes.

Q: Equally mixed?
A: Yes.

Q: So, there is no minor contributor there to look at page 33.
A: Yes, if to look at page 33.

Q: How do you explained that the DNA was found there? Does it have anything to do with degradation?
A: No.

Q: B7. Page 11,12 and 13. This is a high rectal swab. B7f. You agree that there is no male Y here or anyone else except Saiful?
A: Yes.

Q: Were there any degraded sperm in this sample?
A: No.

Q: You can tell there is no degradation here?
A: There is no sperm fraction in B7f.

Q: Go to the sperm fraction. Page 12 and 13. This is a mixture, predominantly of male Y. Again, is there any evidence of degradation here?
A: I would be able to tell.

Q: You are telling us that degradation is not important here?
A: It is not a concern if the DNA is readable.

Q: Degradation is always an important consideration when analysing DNA?
A: Yes.

Q: And the reason is important to if the DNA is reliable or not?
A: Yes.

Q: One of the main thing that we have to do to ensure that the DNA is reliable is to ensure that it is degradation free, isn’t it?
A: The primary concern of the examiner…Even if there is degradation, if the DNA is readable it’s okay.

Q: So, you don’t need to consider degradation?
A: Only if degradation results in no DNA profile, in a break down of a DNA profile.

Q: Sperm fraction. Page 12 and 13. You told us this is predominantly of male Y. Is there evidence of DNA of other person other than male Y in page 12? B7m.
A: Yes.

Q: Look at loci D21S11. There’s evidence of someone other than male Y, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: What about locus D7S820? Is there also evidence of someone other than male Y?
A: Yes.

Q: Look at locus CFS1PO. Is there also evidence of someone other than male Y?
A: Yes.

Q: So, in the high rectal, in the higher region of Saiful’s anus there is DNA of a male person other than male Y, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Have you identified that person?
A: Yes. Saiful.

Q: Other than that?
A: No. Other than that will be male Y and Saiful.

Q: How do you explain that?
A: Interpreting it with a non-sperm extract which is the profile of Saiful. And sperm extract has a dominant contributor which is of that male Y. In addition, there is a minor contributor. Since this is a sperm extract which

actually came from the semen spot of the non-sperm extract and those the other minor contributor has been interpreted as [] coming from the non-sperm extract of that profile of Saiful.

Q: So, you are talking about the sperm extract which is B7m found in Saiful’s higher rectum anus is Saiful’s own sperm?
A: Yes.

Q: Saiful’s own sperm was found up in his anus?
A: No.

Q: But you said you found the presence of other DNA.
A: That’s DNA, not cells type. I said the presence of DNA.

Q: In the sperm fraction?
A: His DNA is in the non-sperm fraction.

Q: But in the sperm fraction you also found Saiful’s profile?
A: Yes.

Q: That is how you explain the presence of other DNA other than male Y in sperm fraction?
A: That is defusion.

Q: Is that a carry over?
A: No.

Q: You have on the face of sperm fraction you found Saiful’s semen?
A: [] occurs during differential extraction where not all sperm fraction is totallly digested and therefore some results in the non-sperm extract is being observed in the sperm extract. This is how the non-sperm extract of Saiful

is seen over.

Q: That is not carry over? []
A: To me carry over mean during analysis the [] is carried over to the next.

Q: So that is not carry over?
A: Not the term that we used.

Q: What is the term you used in a situation like that?
A: There is no term on how the non-sperm extract is found on the sperm extract.

Q: Refer to B8. Page 14 and 15. This is also the high rectal swab. You can’t tell us how much DNA was observed?
A: No.
Q: Just like B7. Were there any degradation in this chart?
A: As I have answered before, I’m unable to tell.

Q: Look at the sperm fraction. It’s a mixture here. And it is predominant of the complainant?
A: Yes.

Q: And you need reamp on this as well?
A: Yes.

Q: So this suggest isn’t it that Saiful’s profile was a predominant profile found as opposed to B7?
A: Right.

Q: This mean that saiful semen was found in his anus?
A: No.

Q: Why?
A: Because his profile has been found in the non-sperm extract.

Q: It is very clear that Saiful is the predominant contributor in the high rectal swab of B8.
A: Yes.

Q: He is the main person found there.
A: Yes.

Q: Everything else is still insignificant?
A: Yes.

Q: And you still refuse that his semen is found in his own anus?
A: No. Because his DNA is found in the non-sperm extract and it could be a swab that contain excessive amount of his [].

Q: Is this the swab that contain excessive amount?
A: It could be.

Q: No! Tell us for sure. We don’t want could be. Was it an amount that contain excessive…?
A: That would be if I consider this set of electro-phoreogram results.

Q: Where are the results? Where are the results of this being excessive of DNA content?
A: They are not with me.

Q: Exactly. How can it be coud be or could not have been? You are speculating1 you are making assumptions!
A: I’m not speculating. I totally disagree.

Q: Tell us for sure now.
A: That is the epithelial cells from the rectum.

Q: Where is the information for that? From where did you found the information from?
A: First of all, this is from a known region.

Q: I’m asking the amount of DNA.
A: That is on B8f.

Q: How many were there?
A: There were many but I can’t tell.

Q: You are making assumption here.
A: No.

Q: It’s important to know the amount of the DNA.
A: Yes, there is a lot of DNA. But do I need to tell you the exact figure? Do I have to look at the quantifition amount?

Q: You don’t have it here?
A: Yes.

Q: When you say could be, you are actually not sure without the benefit of that record.
A: I disagree.

Q: I put it to you that without having the benefit of those record you can’t tell us for certain the amount of DNA found in this profile?
A: I disgaree.

Q: I suggest that the fact that the predominant profile in B8 is [] of Saiful, the complainant. It can be interpreted to me that the semen is found in his own anus.
A: I disagree.

Q: B9. Page 17, 18 and 19. This is the low rectum swab taken from the low rectal area. Again you have a sperm and non-sperm fraction. Look at page 17. This is a single profile of the complainant?
A: Yes.

Q: No evidence of degradation or whatsoever?
A: No.

Q: Don’t you find it strange that the swabs taken from the anus for 56 hours, does it not come into your mind that there is no degradation or whatsoever?
A: That swab is not from the anus. It was taken from the anus.

Q: I’m suggesting to you that samples that was taken from that area was in the anus for 56 hours.
A: The swabs that contain Saiful’s DNA wasn’t in his anus. The swabs were taken at the time [] leaving epithelial cells at the [].

Q: All these were taken when?
A: At the time when the swabs were taken, those rectal [] is living.

Q: When was it taken?
A: I wouldn’t know since I don’t do the swabbing. The incident happened 56 hours before examination but that rectal cells were…

Q: You are saying that there is no degradation because it was taken at the epithelial cells that were living at that time?
A: Yes.

Q: :How about B7 and B8?
A: Those were taken also at the same time.

Q: So, you would expect some degradation also, don’t you?
A: No. B7 and B8 are taken at the same time. They are also living rectal cells.

Q: So, degradation won’t happen?
A: It will happen.

Q: Why did you not consider this important aspect of case?
A: …

MY: I think we have gone on to this so many times. []. It is not her concern in this particular case because it is readable. That’s all. Only if it is unreadable then she will be concerned.
YA: Counsel, what is your reply to MY’s objection?
RK: I’m sorry…
YA: You didn’t hear it?
MY: You asked about degradation so many times and it is not her concern. She can’t answer.
RK: I’m asking in relation to different swabs now.
MY: It’s the same thing.
RK: No. It’s not the same thing. One is the higher rectum, one is at the lower rectum and now she is telling us that that is epithelial living cells. So, it’s not the same thing.
YA: Proceed.

Q: You are talking about epithelial and non-epithelial cells. B9. You found sperm and non-sperm fraction?
A: Yes.

Q: In the sperm, were there epithelial cells?
A: They were.

Q: Did you do differential test properly?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the purpose of that extraction process?
A: To separate the sperm fraction form the epithelial cells.

Q: So you arrived at the sperm and non-sperm fraction?
A: It’s not an ideal process.

Q: Was it done properly?
A: Yes.

Q: You would have done it properly if []
A: We don’t have the indication of the amount of the epithelial cells [].

Q: That’s why it is important to look down the microscope to see the sperm and do differential process.
A: You still want it quantified from just looking down at the microscope.

Q: If you have microscopic slides, you will be able to know the other cells that was there apart from the sperm cells.
A: Yes. But it is important in the differential process whether you would find…

Q: You’ve passed the differential test.
A: Yes. That’s why some of the non-sperm extract can be found in sperm extract. And the quantity of the epithelial cells are high.

Q: That’s the whole idea of differential extraction process?
A: Yes.

Q: We have to separate the two.
A: You.

Q: You are saying that it might not be properly differentiated in B9?
A: Yes.

Q: Look at the sperm fraction. Page 18. This is 50-50 complainant and male Y? More or less equal?
A: Yes.

Q: Equal mixture. Do you agree that from this graph, yet there is evidence of unknown person besides complainant and male Y.
A: No.

Q: Look at locus D3S1358. That locus has how many alleles?
A: 4 alleles.

Q: How many alleles?
A: 4 alleles and 5 peaks.

Q: How many alleles are there?
A: 5 alleles.

Q: You have reported which allele?
A: 15, 16, 17,19.

Q: You have not reported 18.
A: Yes.

Q: What is the percentage of allele 18? It’s 28.4, right?
A: Yes.

Q: It’s a high peak?
A: It’s a high percentage if you consider it to be a stutter.

Q: You have a stutter guidelines. You consider 18 is not important.
A: I’ve said earlier this is a drop in.

Q: This sample is possibly contaminated?
A: It is sporadic contaminant. [] low RFU.

Q: Assuming it was reported, there would be other person, won’t it?
A: I’ve consider it as a drop in.

Q: And you are not reporting it as per your guideline?
A: I’ve interpreted this as a drop in.

Q: According to your own guidelines?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you follow any independent guideline in this regard?
A: This is also phenomenon that were observed by other…

Q: You decided on your own that this should not be reported without observing other guideline.
A: This is also phenomenon that was observed by other labs.

Q: I suggest to you that te results in B9, sperm fraction particularly, indicate other party than male Y and Saiful in his lower rectum?
A: I disagree.

Q: Non-sperm extract. Page 33. For A6b. They are in large amount of epithelial cells.
A: I’m not certain what type of cell is this.

Q: What sorts of cells are they?
A: They could be sperm cells too.

Q: How could that be after you have conducted the differential extraction process?
A: Because this is semen stain.

Q: So?
A: It’s possible if the whole extraction contains sperm cells. Even the non-sperm extract, we will be extracting out sperm cells.

Q: Would that be that there are sperm cells here?
A: Yes.

Q: From both parties?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you show to us where is it in the graph?
A: You can’t tell cells type from the electro-phoreogram.

Q: []
A: It is based on information that this is semen stain.

Q: From where did you know it is semen stain?
A: From the exhibits. This is specimens taken from the underwear. This is from the testing of the underwear.

Q: Where is the result which resulted you stating it in your report?
A: It is not our procedure to state it there.

Q: Do you have a record of that?
A: No.

Q: You can confirm and tell without the record that there are sperm extract and non-sperm extract.
A: Yes.

Q: How do you that A6b sperm extract contain only sperm cells?
A: Because extraction is positive for sperm cells.

Q: Where is the detection?
A: The Sperm Isolation record.

Q: You can’t confirm without the record, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

RK: YA, can we have a short break? I want to wrap up. Maybe there are one or two left, otherwise I can’t []
YA: Nevermind, you can consult.
RK: YA, I’ve got no further question.
YA: Are we finished with this witness or do you have more question?
RK: My learned friend will take other area.
SN: May we have as 10 minutes break so that we can organize ourself? And also can we have a final check on the exhibits?
YA: You took 3-4 hours last time. How long will it take for your cross-examination?
SN: It might take awhile. 45 minutes just on that. Cross-examination will take about an hour.
YA: The reason why I’m reluctant to stand down is the moment I stand down, it’s really hard to assemble back. You need 10 minutes? We start at 4.30 p.m. MY? 4.30 or we start tomorrow?
MY: We start tomorrow, YA.
YA: Because there is a lot of information to digest. We start tomorrow.

[4.19 p.m.] Adjourned.