Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah
Pihak-pihak:-
PP : Semua hadir
PB : KS, SN, Ram Karpal (Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Marissa, Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB : Zamri Idrus (for Complainant)
Expert for defence: Prof. David Wells, Dr. Brian McDonalds
AI hadir
Sambung bicara 45-09-2009
[8.44 a.m.]
MY: Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung pemeriksaan balas SP4, Dr. Khairul.
SP4 mengangkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.
Q: I refer you to P22. This is a joint report, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: The report was put up by you, together with Dr. Siew and Dr. Razali?
A: Yes.
Q: So all three of you are responsible for the report?
A: Yes.
Q: Was there any other person involved in the preparation of the report?
A: Only the three of us prepare the final report.
Q: Before the examination of SP1, wouldn’t the three of you plan on how to go about it?
A: Yes.
Q: And there is a procedure in the examination of a witness, especially someone who alleged sodomy.
A: Yes.
Q: You have in the past done many cases, examined persons alleged being sodomised. How many?
A: Yes. About 20 cases.
Q: What is the procedure?
A: Based on the standard operating procedure and the management of OSCC, it should be attended by medical officer from Emergency Department. After that
only referred to OSCC.
Q: In this case is Dr. Suresh, isn’t it? Who started it?
A: Yes.
Q: And from him three of you were called?
A: Yes.
Q: Wouldn’t it normally in the examination like SP1 in this case, the police will not be involved at all, isn’t it?
A: Normally the police will be there all the time, unless the patient came to us first in OSCC.
Q: Are you saying that the police would be there during examination?
A: Will be there.
Q: Has to be there?
A: Once a police report is made, the police has to be there.
Q: Do they have to be there during examination?
A: During examination, we still keep privacy of the patient when it comes to examination.
Q: During the interview of the person?
A: Yes.
Q: In this case who was there?
A: DSP Jude.
Q: Any other police personel?
A: I only remember him.
Q: What was his role?
A: He has the police report, he has to make sure the handling of the specimens and [].
Q: In this case it was DSP Jude?
A: Yes.
Q: He handed you the report made by Saiful?
A: No. I didn’t see it.
Q: But normally a police report will be considered, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: It is important, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the police report referred to three of you?
A: I didn’t refer to it.
Q: Did the others look at it?
A: I don’t know.
Q: You didn’t go through it?
A: No.
Q: How about the others?
A: I’m not sure.
Q: You said it is important, isn’t it? Is it important?
A: Yes.
Q: But in this case it was not adverted to by any of you?
A: Not by me. I’m don’t know about the others.
Q: Was there any discussion about the alleged incident among the three of you?
A: Yes.
Q: There was discussion, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: And the police officer was there?
A: Yes. He briefed us.
Q: He briefed you based on the report made?
A: Yes. Based on the complaint.
Q: And also the content of the report, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: What did the report show? What offence?
A: SP1 alleged that he was sodomised by a well known public figure.
Q: Without his consent?
A: Yes.
Q: The report would be referred to by DSP Jude, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the three of you informed of any allegation of oral sex?
A: Yes.
Q: And it is based on the report?
A: Yes.
Q: You read up the report, don’t you?
A: We were briefed.
Q: You were briefed based on the report, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: And there was specific mention of oral sex.
A: That part I discovered from my …
Q: Not discovered, but specific mentioned by DSP Jude.
A: I can’t remember. But what I remember is the patient alleged sodomised by a public figure.
Q: What is sodomy?
A: Sexual penetration of the anus.
Q: Anal sex, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Oral sex is not anal sex. It can’t be isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Couldn’t it before you proceed there was a pro forma?
A: Yes.
Q: Who fill it up?
A: Dr. Siew.
Q: I refer you to that pro forma. Wouldn’t this be your pro forma?
A: Yes.
Q: The one filled by Dr Siew?
A: Yes.
Q: You are familiar with the pro forma?
A: Yes.
Q: And the requirement to fill it up?
A: Yes.
Q: I go to page 1 of the pro forma. On medical examination, item 6. Medical examination is carried out using the guidelines on pages 6-15. Would that be
right?
A: Yes.
Q: Page 3. Bottom of the page. There are 4 doctors referred to. Who are the doctors referred to it?
A: Myslef, Dr. Razali, Dr. Siew Sheue Feng and Dr. Razuin.
Q: There were 3 or 4 doctors?
A: Examination was done by the three of us.
Q: There were 4 doctors?
A: Yes.
Q: 4 of you examined him?
A: Only three of us.
Q: What is Dr. Razuin’s role?
A: She jot down all the information we verbally said. She took down notes.
Q: She took down everything?
A: Yes.
Q: And she went there as to the protocol of the examination?
A: Yes.
Q: She would have taken done everything?
A: Yes.
Q: Those notes available?
A: Yes.
Q: Page 5. What is the importance of the examination of the complaint by SP1? To take down the history?
A: Yes.
Q: That is prerequisite of the examination?
A: Yes.
Q: A very important one?
A: Yes.
Q: Page 5. On top of the page. Would it be right certain details are not included at all? For example circumstances that lead to the incident. Very
important to record circumstances adverted to by the complainant when he is being examined, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: And also the place of incident and so forth. Important to record all that?
A: Yes.
Q: 1.2, site of incident, 1.3 place. Is required to be specified?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it specified here?
A: No.
Q: Have to fill up?
A: Yes. But it is just a guideline.
Q: Circumstances that lead to the incident? Very important, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: In fact, a prerequisite?
A: Yes.
Q: []
A: Yes.
Q: Circumstances of incident? Did not fill in?
A: No.
Q: Important to fill in?
A: Yes.
Q: 1.5. Force/violent used. What are the answer?
A. No.
Q: No force use? Answer by SP1?
A: Yes.
Q: That is why he fill in. Did SP1 put up resistance?
A: Yes.
Q: [] in what circumstances resistance was used?
A: It was not specified.
Q: It was supposed to be specified, but not specified.
A: Yes.
Q: 1.6, the details are important?
A: Yes.
Q: Type of sexual act. What is written there?
A: Oral attempted.
Q: Oral attempted / perform ejaculation?
A: Yes.
Q: Oral sex was attempted?
A: Yes.
Q: Not fulfilled?
A: Attempted.
Q: No perform ejaculation. Attempted?
A: Yes.
Q: Not perform?
A: Yes.
Q: [] would that be there?
A: Yes.
Q: That is what SP1 told you and therefore was included in here.
A: No. He didn’t say that.
Q: Here it wrote whether rectal attempted and the answer is yes. Would it be right? It is there?
A: It is written there.
Q: Estimated duration of caitus. How many minutes?
A: 30 minutes.
Q: Page 6. Item 1.8. at the top of the page. Under history of events after the incident. Did he wash his mouth after that?
A: No answer.
Q: That he wiped/ wash his body? No answer?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he has a bath since the incident?
A: No answer.
Q: Did he defecate?
A: No answer.
Q: Was he seen by a doctor before coming to the hospital? No answer?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the doctor give him treatment? No answer?
A: Yes.
Q: Item 1.12 – Sexual history. Previous masturbation. No answer?
A: Yes.
Q: Previous coitus. No answer?
A: Yes.
Q: Date of last coitus? No answer?
A: Yes.
Q: It is a very important aspect here. And it required to be fill in as prerequisite in this case but was not done.
A: Yes.
Q: Page 7. Medical history. Important to be filled isn’t it? Not fill in at all.
A: Yes.
Q: Physical examination. Not fill in?
A: Yes.
Q: All very important requirement. Important prerequisite. But not fill up.
A: Yes.
Q: Page 10. Item 2.6.3 – Rectal examination. In this particular case is it important?
A: Yes.
Q: Rectal examination.
A: Yes.
Q: Very important requirement?
A: Yes.
Q: Not fill in at all.
A: Yes.
Q: Important aspect, anus/anal canal . No examination done as far as the pro forma is concerned.?
A: It is not fill up.
Q: Important to fill up?
A: Yes.
Q: Sketches not fill up?
A: Yes.
Q: Important to fill up?
A: Yes.
Q: Muscle tear.
A: Yes.
Q: Important?
A: Yes.
Q: Ought done so?
A: Yes.
Q: Faecal staining?
A: Yes.
Q: Important? Not fill in at all.
A: Yes.
Q: Swelling?
A: Yes.
Q: Important?
A: Yes.
Q: Not fill up?
A: Yes.
Q: Anal sphincter?
A: Yes.
Q: Important?
A: Yes.
Q: But not fill up?
A: Yes.
Q: P22. Done by 3 of you on 13th July 2008. Very important document?
A: Yes.
Q: History. Sodomised by a well known public figure, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Nothing about oral sex?
A: Yes.
Q: Not mentioned at all?
A: Not mentioned in this.
Q: But important to have been mentioned?
A: Yes.
Q: Last page of P22. Summary/conclusion. [read conclusion 1]. Is that correct?
A: Yes
Q: Clinical finding. What is the meaning of it?
A: What we can see from our clinical examination
Q: But is based on other documents also such as police report?
A: No.
Q: Chemist report?
A: No.
Q: No chemist report at that time?
A: No.
Q: Page 3. “Please refer to chemist report…for full details”. It is all before you when you made the conclusion?
A: Yes.
Q: So the chemist report were there before the 3 of you?
A: Yes.
Q: Based on the chemist report, final conclusion were made?
A: Yes.
Q: So you have it that time? Including chemist report. Everything was there?
A: Yes.
Q: Based upon all that, you made the conclusion?
A: Yes.
Q: And that was “No clinical finding suggestive of penetration”.
A: Yes.
Q: There is no clinical findings suggestive of penetration?
A: Yes.
Q: The complaint by SP1 it is attempted sodomy, based on the pro forma. Would that be right?
A: Yes.
Q: Attempted sodomy, would that be right?
A: Yes.
Q: Attempted oral sex.
A: Yes.
Q: That is what SP1 said. The pro forma was filled based on what SP1 said.
A: Yes.
Q: No indication of sodomy at all. Only attempted. That is what SP1 says to three of you.
A: No.
Q: Based on the pro forma it was attempted sodomy?
A: Yes.
Q: Based on the pro forma it was attempted oral sex?
A: Yes.
Q: And the pro forma is based on what SP1 said?
A: Yes.
Q: So far as P22 is concerned, everything is before you including chemist report.
A: Yes.
Q: It is important for purpose of ultimate finding of no clinical finding suggestive of penetration?
A: Yes.
Q: And the ultimate finding is no clinical finding suggestive of penetration. There was no penetration because it was attempted as said by SP1 based on
the pro forma.
A: Yes. The history is based on what he said. But this is just a pro forma.
Q: []
A: It is just a pro forma.
Q: In the pro forma it was attempted sodomy?
A: Yes.
Q: Attempted oral sex?
A: Yes.
Q: What is fill up in the pro forma is based on what he said.
A: Yes
YA: Let him answer that.
KS: []
MY: []
KS: The pro forma was based on SP1 said.
MY: But SP4 did not fill it.
Q: The pro forma is based on what SP1 said?
A: It was a guide.
Q: But pro forma show it was attempted sodomy?
A: Yes. Based on the pro forma.
Q: But the pro forma is based on what he said.
A: Whatever he complaints. It is not rigidly has to be fill. He did not say it was attempted.
MY: Can we leave it for submission? He clearly didn’t tell the doctor [].
KS : What he recorded is based on what SP1 said.
Q: Based on what SP1 said, the pro forma reflect it was attempted sodomy.
A: Pro forma, yes. He didn’t say it was attempted, that’s the only thing.
MY: YA, we have to move on.
KS: []
MY: You are repeating the same thing. Of course witness will not agree with it. []. We accept that.
KS: You re-examine him. []
A: Based on pro forma yes, but…
Q: But the pro forma is based on what SP1 said. Can’t be anything else.
A: It is just a guideline. He didn’t says attempted sodomy.
Q: He said attempted sodomy?
A: Based on the pro forma.
Q: But recorded as attempted sodomy.
A: Based on the pro forma.
Q: But the pro forma is based on what SP1 said. It is something which is so obvious. [].
A: Yes.
KS: SN will continue.
YA: Jangan repeat apa yang KS soal.
Cross-examination by SN.
Q: You fill up the pro forma as guideline?
A: Yes.
Q: And you fill it up?
A: Yes.
Q: You have to fill it up?
A: Yes.
Q: When three of you interviewed SP1, DSP Jude was there all through?
A: Yes.
Q: When was he not there?
A: He just come there and go.
Q: Was he there during the interview?
A: Yes.
Q: I refer you to P6(J) (container). There are 2 signatures on top.
A: Yes.
Q: Are they intact?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you agree that all sample must be put in tampered proof containers?
A: Yes.
Q: And it means iy will show if it is tempered, right?
A: Yes.
Q: If you look at the container, are the signature intact? Whose signature is on the top?
A: Dr Siew.
Q: Is it intact?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know if it has been opened for chemical testing? Obviously there has been a tear of the seal. Are the seal intact?
A: Someone have opened it.
Q: But signatures are intact?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it not good practice to prevent tampering of evidence signature has to be below the opening so that when somebody open it, the signature will
defaces,
A: Yes.
Q: But signature is intact?
A: Yes.
Q: But the seal is broken?
A: Yes.
Q: I refer you to a literature by referred to yesterday where at page 1 there was sexual offences swab, 65 hours. I refer to page 139, para 2. [read]
Only two were recorded. And further down it says [read]. And this is a 1981 literature where there was no DNA profiling. Is it correct?
A: I do not know whether DNA profiling was there at that time.
Q: Para 2. [read]
A: Yes.
Q: [read] Do you agree with this statement?
A: It is a scientific studies.
Q: []
A: I agree because I’m not the man in this expertise.
SN: I’m done subject to recall. Just one more. I don’t intend to recall SP2. But I would like to put []. [].
MY: []
SN: In that case that’s all.
Re-examination by NH.
Q: Who prepare this pro forma?
A; By Forensic Department.
Q: Who fill up the details in the pro forma?
A: Dr. Siew.
Q: Page 3, 5 and 6. Bottom portion of the pages. Do you see the signature at the bottom?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell the court whose signature was that?
A: Probably Dr. Razuin.
Q: So you are not sure?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recognize the signature of Dr. Siew?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this his signature?
A: No.
Q: If a person signed the bottom of the document, what does it mean?
A: Probably he is the one who fill up the pro forma.
Q: Just now you mentioned Dr. Siew is the one who fill up the pro forma, after looking at your signature and after your answer just now was it Dr. Siew
who fill up the pro forma? Can you be sure?
A: No. I’m not sure.
YA: So you are not sure the pro forma was filled up by Dr. Siew?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you personally interview SP1 before you examined him on 28th June?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was were with you?
A: Dr. Siew and Dr. Razali. But I’m the leading person taking the history.
Q: Only 3 of you involved?
A: Yes.
Q: You were asked about oral sex. Did SP1 informed during the interview about oral sex?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he told you exactly?
A: He said he is asked to perform oral sex.
Q: Is that the reason why you take samples from the mouth of SP1?
A: Yes.
Q: What is his main complaint when you interviewed him?
A: He was sodomised.
Q: Did he mentioned by who?
A: He told he was sodomised by a well known public figure.
Q: You did mentioned SP1 informed you before examination. When did he told you?
A: During history taking process.
Q: Did SP1 at any time informed you that there was an attempted sodomy?
A: No.
Q: Did he at any time informed you there was attempted oral sex?
A: No.
Q: With regard to the pro forma, did the person who wrote this pro forma cross-refer the content of the pro forma with you?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the person who wrote this cross-refer the content to you?
A: What do you mean cross-refer?
Q: Being shown to you.
A: No.
Q: Do you agree that this pro forma that was shown to you is for medical examination of a rape victim?
A: Yes.
Q: With regards to history taking, you said you personally took the history of SP1 before examination.
A: Yes.
Q: And you reflect it in your P22? The gist of it?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you read the history in P22?
A: [read]
Q: Based on that history taken before examination, is it sufficient for you and the two doctors to proceed with the examination based on it?
A: Yes.
Q: At that particular time on 28th June 2008, do you have a pro forma for medical examination for suspected sodomy case?
A: No.
Q: So this pro forma is just a guide for medical examination for sodomy cases?
A: Yes.
Q: You mentioned about a doctor by the name of Dr. Suresh who alerted you. Did Dr. Suresh himself examined SP1?
A: No.
Q: What about Dr. Daniel? Did Dr. Daniel examined SP1?
A: No.
Q: Look at the pro forma again. Page 1. All suspected rape cases must be treated as emergencies in view of evidence collection. They are classified as
follow: fresh case for any case less than 72 hours after the incident and cold case for any case more than 72 hours after the incident. So, this is a
guideline for sodomy when you examined SP1?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you also consider at that particular time that fresh case as less than 72 hours?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you explain?
A: One of the textbook of the medical examination says that specimens or evidence can still be traced up to 3 days and this decision to come up with the
[] is based on discussion and studies.
Q: You were shown your report, P22. And you were asked pertaining your conclusion no.1 [read-no conclusive clinical finding suggestive of
penetration..]. And you were asked about the chemist report. Have a look at ID25. Page 2 of the report. [read..I found the presence of semen]. My question is
do you know the sight of B5, B7, B8 and B9 when you read the report on 13th July 2008?
A: No.
Q: Who prepare the marking of B5, B7, B8 and B9?
A: I do not know.
Q: ID24. Page 2. When were you shown the document? If you can remember. Is it in court or before?
A: Before…
Q: When you prepare P22, do you have ID24 with you?
A: No.
Q: So when you testify in open court that there was anal penetration, do you also refer to ID24 to come to the conclusion in court?
A: Yes.
Q: You were also asked regarding the presence of Jude during examination of SP1 and also the report. Did Jude read that report to you?
A: No.
NH: YA, itu sahaja. May the witness be released?
KS: Just one question through court. With regard to pro forma.
Questions through court.
Q: Page 5 of the pro forma. On the top of the page. [read - the following should be noted regarding the alleged sodomy].
A: Yes.
Q: So it was in respect of sodomy that this pro forma was done?
A: This is…
Q: Top page. It was converted to sodomy.
A: Yes.
KS: YA, can we have this pro forma tendered as exhibit. It is an important document.
MY: In fact throughout my observation I was thinking about this. It is supposed to be produced out of refreshing memory and this is supposed to be
referred to by counsel with regard to [] of this pro forma which was referred to in answering their question. And it end up like this. And today they want to
tender this.
KS: Then make it the prosecution exhibit.
YA: You are the one asking for the document. All this while the witness is giving oral testimony.
KS: But it is important now, YA.
MY: I don’t have problem.[]
YA: We mark it as D 28.
Pro forma by Forensic Department filled up by Dr. Siew is tendered and marked as D28.
YA: That’s all? Re?
NH: Tiada.
YA: Doktor boleh balik.
MY: Saksi kami seterusnya ialah Dr. Seah. Kami mohon short break.
[10.03 a.m.] Stand down.
[10.54 a.m.]
MY: Saksi kelima adalah Dr. Seah Lai Kong. Pn. Noorin akan menyoal saksi ini.
EIC by NB.
SP5 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.
SP5 : Dr. Seah Lei Hong, Forensic scientist in the Chemist Department in Petaling Jaya.
SN: May I apply for Dr. Brian McDonald to sit together with us?
YA: []
Q: Please inform the court since when you are attached with the Chemist Department in Petaling Jaya.
A: Since 1991.
Q: Please inform your current designation at the department.
A: Head of Serious Crime Unit.
Q: And what do you do as the head of the [] crime unit in your department?
A: …
[10.57 a.m.] Stand down (because no electricity).
[2.25 p.m.] Pihak-pihak masuk ke dalam Kamar Hakim.
[2.29 p.m.] Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.
Kes disambung esok kerana CRT tidak berfungsi.
[2.30 p.m.] Adjourned.
Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 14 Februari 2011 February 15, 2011
Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Sodomy II.
Tags: Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Mohd Saiful Bukhari, Sodomy II
add a comment
Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah
Pihak-pihak:-
PP : Semua hadir
PB : SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, (KS, Ram Karpal, Marissa, Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB : Abd Shukor bin Tokachil (Bar Council), Zamri Idrus (for Complainant)
Expert for defence: Prof. David Wells
AI hadir
Sambung bicara 45-09-2009
[9.05 a.m.]
MY: YA, pihak-pihak masih seperti dahulu. Kes untuk sambung pemeriksaan balas SP3.
PC: KS is not here yet. He will be here in 10 minutes. There’s a traffic jam on the way to the court. He is just 10 minutes away.
YA: Who’s going to cross? KS?
SN: Yes. On his part. And I will doing on my part.
YA: MY, stand down for 10 minutes.
[9.07 a.m.] Stand down
[9.41 a.m.]
MY: YA, kes untuk sambung pemeriksaan balas. SN akan sambung.
YA: Panggil SP3.
Pemeriksaan balas oleh SN
SP3 mengangkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.
Q: Dr. Siew, the last instance you are supposed to give to us the pro forma. Did you give it to us? As ordered by the judge. The entire set?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have the copy of the pro forma with you?
A: Yes.
Q: It appeared that you have filled up page 1, 2 and 3. Would that be all?
A: YA, I filled up page 3, 5 and 6 of this so called pro forma for the suspected rape case examination.
Q: Why did you said “this so called pro forma”?
A: Because the pro forma is for rape cases. I’m dealing with a sodomy cases.
Q: Sodomy cases does not fall into that?
A: No. This pro forma is designed mainly for ladies victim.
Q: Why then don’t you have the pro forma for sodomy?
A: There was no specific pro forma in the hospital for sodomy cases.
Q: Is that because there is no sodomy cases reported then?
A: There was, but there was no pro forma for such allegation.
Q: Why don’t you have it?
A: I’m not the hospital management.
Q: You are the forensic scientist. Don’t you have a pro forma for sodomy cases?
A: No. All the time we only have this pro forma. We don’t have specific one for suspected sodomy victim, only pro forma for alleged rape victim.
Q: Why is page 4 missing?
A: Page 4 is for the consent in rape cases. It is not suitable for my case. Therefore I have to fill another form for the consent of the sodomy case
victim which I’ve tendered in court.
Q: How different could it be for consent of rape victim and a sodomy victim? I find it very hard to understand.
A: In the original consent of a victim, the word “rape” is used.
Q: Examination. At page 5, why did you cut the word rape and put sodomy there?
A: At that time there was no pro forma.
Q: If you can’t get the consent for rape, then how come there is a consent of a sodomy case here?
A: There was a time when there was no pro forma for sodomy cases, and most of the doctors try to adapt the pro forma for sodomy victim. But in this
particular case, after filing the 6 pages, it is not suitable for us to fill up the form. Therefore it is better for us to write notes rather than filing up
the subsequent form.
Q: You admit there were sodomy cases. But there is no pro forma for it. And you don’t intend to do one.
A: This is government standard form. But there is no sodomy form at that time.
Q: What is the grand difference?
A: Sodomy is for men and women while rape is for women.
Q: This is a medical examination pro forma. Are you suggesting the minute a person come for asthma, you need another pro forma and when another person
come for meningitis you need another pro forma? So there is specialise pro forma for sexual assault cases, agree or not?
A: No. It is very clear in page 1.
Q: Does it matters or not whether it is sodomy or rape case?
A: I did not agree.
Q: Explain
A: At page 1 of the pro forma, it is stated it is for rape victim of women. More to the examination of private part of a woman and asking about history
of the woman, e.g. menstrual history, sexual history. Some of this examination is more pertaining to a woman. Even on the later examination, it is also meant
for a woman. The diagram also show the front of a woman. []. The pro forma is meant for a woman.
Q: Did you alone fill up the pro forma? Page 3
A: No. Page 3, 5 and 6 was filled by Dr Razuin bt. Rahimi under our supervision.
Q: Who is Dr. Razuin?
A: A medical officer who was present with us during the examination. She documented the thing for us.
Q: What was her role there?
A: Documentation.
Q: Did she fill this one up?
A: Yes
Q: Every word of it?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you very sure of it?
A: Yes. The signature is here.
Q: Page 3, look at the name of DSP Jude Pierera. Are the handwriting the same?
A: No.
Q: But you said she fill up.
A: But…
Q: So looks like there is 2 different handwriting here. Is that correct? Why?
A: Yes. Jude Pierera is the police officer.
Q: Police officer fill up the document? It is a doctor’s document, not a police document.
A: Maybe the police officer fill up himself.
Q: Have you seen the Kuantan’s pro forma?
A: Yes. You showed me before.
Q: Kuantan is more a hospital clinic compared to HKL. And Kuantan has a proper sodomy pro forma. Do you agree with that?
MY: YA, at this point in time I would like to ask what is the relevancy of the question.
SN: The relevancy would be the relevancy of expertise. I’m saying that HKL is the most top notch hospital in Malaysia.
YA: It does not follow the procedure. Is that what you are saying?
SN: Yes.
YA: Objection overuled. So you can proceed.
MY: YA, my concern is this. There are about 15 pages of this pro forma. And he mentioned about Dr Razuin whom he mentioned first time when KS is
examining. But he also says that he had prepared a report not in form of a pro forma. And at the end of the day, what is important is whether or not you put
in in form, no matter what form it is.
YA: Let them ask question.
MY: He cannot be asked on what Kuantan Hospital did.
SN: The prosecution at all time []
YA: Nevermind. You proceed.
Q: Assuming that this is not the real format for the pro forma. But you did fill up certain pages. You only fill up page 3, 5 and 6. Can you explain
this.
A: We have it written down as notes.
Q: The notes, do you want to produce it in court?
A: No. I can give it orally.
Q: You have left several pages blank in the pro forma. And now we know there is another set of notes that you would have depend for your finding.
Compared to Kuantan’s pro forma, it is complete although it is more inferior. Can you produce the notes to compliment the pro forma that you have?
A: I do not need to produce the original notes until it is ordered by the court. The Kuantan’s form is very complete because Dato’ Dr. Zahari is the
first person who specialized in this subject.
Q: Do you agree the history taking is the corner stone, the crust of any medical officer? Therefore don’t you think the production of the notes is
important to ensure the completeness of the court?
MY: I remember the court made a ruling on 24 Nov for the production of the pro forma because it was referred under S.159. [] And the whole pro forma has
been supplied to the defence. The question of whether the notes should be made available does not arise.
SN: My question is this, the pro forma is complete at that time, but I don’t know there is separate notes on the examination, []. If this report is going
to be produce, it has to be a complete report. If you have a supplementary notes to the pro forma, then you should supply it in court and show it to us.
YA: They are not entitled to give the pro forma sheet. They are required to give you the pro forma because they referred to it. []
SN: []
YA: So ask him about the notes. Not asking him to produce it. That’s it.
Q: Explain to the court what are the exact question that you put to SP1.
A: The patient came to us complaining that he is being sodomized by a VIP for eight times since…
Q: I’m talking about the history, others than regular history. Other aspect of the history.
A: May I know which portion of the history?
Q: I’m refering to McLeod’s book on Clinical Examination. This is an extract of the book on page 113.
A: Mine is page 23. The psychiatric history.
SN: I’ll come to it later. Let me read from the book.
Q: The history is crucial in making diagnosis. Do you agree?
A: Yes.
Q: One of the important history is past history.
A: Yes.
Q: You also ask about drug history? Family history? Social history?
A: Yes. Yes. Yes.
Q: Why would you ask family and social history?
A: Social history is to know the patient’s behaviour in the social circles. Family history mainly for some of family members characters, any known
disease.
Q: When you ask about family history, what did he said? Did you ask about the family history?
A: I did not ask the family history per se. I have to admit.
Q: Why did you did not ask? Is it a protocol?
A: This case came with a complaint of sodomy, so they are more pertaining to ask about the social history, some of the medical history, surgical history
and it is not important to ask about family history. This is not about a congenital problem or heart attack. Sodomy is not inherited from the family.
Q: So doctor need not ask about the family history?
A: We need to ask importantly pertaining to the past history because the past history is very important to build up with the current examination. The
past history in this case is very important to me especially the past episode.
Q: Why didn’t you ask about the family history?
A: Usually we ask for any of the heredity disease like diabetes, hypertension, heart related problem.
Q: How many times or how often in your caree a person come to E&T and say I have been sodomised by a famous public figure?
A: This is the first time.
Q: That’s why. You must also take the history of psychiatric and mental state of this person. Why did you role it up?
A: It is not the first thing in mind. It is the last thing we have in mind after we do examination. Later if there is a problem, we will conduct
psychiatric test.
Q: Did you role it up any way?
YA: Jawab saja ada tidak.
A: We did not role it up.
Q: Doctor, do I have to look at the medical book again? You have to do it also.
A: YA, I did not examine a psychiatric patient.
Q: This is a basic question on examination level. You don’t need to be a psychiatrist to ask the question.
MY: Why are you quarelling with him. He said he did not ask. That’s it.
YA: You should ask why he did not ask. Tapi if you keep on quarrelling with him susahlah. [] Proceed.
Q: Do you agree when you examine patients you would look into his biological history, medical clinical history and you’ll also touch on his
psychological state of mind.
A: I’m a forensic doctor not a psychiatrist. I just examine patient who alleged being sodomised.
Q: Is it a basic standard of a doctor? Isn’t it a basic protocol that a doctor need to know about the psychological state of mind of the patient?
A: Yes.
Q: Part of your duty. Any medical doctor. Not only you.
A: The medical history depends on what is the case I’m attending. In that particular case, the patient claimed to me that he was sodomized. He give full
cooperation and he did cooperate with good manners. So I did not need to go into the psychological part because the content is straight foward which he
claims sodomy.
Q: Was Saiful attended by another person in HKL before he went to see you?
A: Saiful came, first attended as an outpatient. Subsequently he was referred to ED, which is then referred to OSCC for our examination.
Q: Who first attended Saiful because he went to A&E first? Which doctor attended him when he went there at 6 o’clock?
A: I just know that the patient referred to outpatient department, later referred to E&T, but I was not in charge in any of it. I only came at 9.00 p.m.
Q: Who first attended him at 6.00 p.m.?
A: A doctor in outpatient department.
YA: They want to know the name. What is the name of the doctor?
A: Some name I know is Dr. Suresh. But in sequence I don’t know because when he is referred from one department to another there must be a doctor
attending him. I am a forensic doctor, not part of the hospital management.
Q: You should know it.
A: YA, Dr. Khairul will be the one who knows it.
Q: Did you talk to Saiful and questioned him?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ask him?
A: I don’t ask about that part. First, he was attended in the outpatient department, then E&T, then referred to OSCC, then attended by us. There is Dr.
Suresh who attended him, but I don’t know the exact sequence.
Q: Was there a Dr. Daniel?
A: I’m not very sure.
Q: Did you ask Saiful about Dr. Daniel?
A: I don’t ask.
Q: You didn’t ask him what happened in E&T?
A: No.
Q: Since you said that P22 is made based on your notes, don’t you think Dr. Daniel’s notes relevant?
A: Yes.
Q: Why is it important? Because, can I say he is the first person in contact with Saiful?
A: Yes.
Q: Therefore there has to be some level of history and examination taking, correct?
A: History, yes. Examination no.
Q: But do you know there is examination taken?
A: Usually they don’t do examination. In this type of cases, usually they will refer straightly to OSCC. The moment they know it is a sodomy case, they
don’t exam further. They let the doctor in charge to do it.
Q: Then what happened in between? Because you assemble at 9.00. I need to know.
A: The patient came to outpatient at 3.25 p.m., subsequently he is referred to E&T. But in between they lodge a police report because they have not file
it. I don’t know about that but maybe Dr. Khairul knows it because he is attached to E&T. I was informed about him at 7.30 p.m. by Dr. Razuin.
Q: How many years you have been dealing with Forensic unit?
A: Since the year 2000.
Q: How many case of sodomy cases?
A: About 20.
Q: Rape cases?
A: I don’t really count.
Q: Many? Hundreds?
A: Not up to that. Because rape cases is handle by O&G.
Q: What happen normally when someone has been sodomised or raped? Did they go straight away to E&T in HKL or how? What is the normal sequence of the
event take place?
A: Usually, the patient come and escorted by the police. The moment they admit of being a sexual assault case, we straight away send them to OSCC
because we don’t expose them to the public. We straight away admit them to OSCC. They will be referred to a specific doctor who will manage them in OSCC.
But in this particular case, Saiful come to out patient department first, but the doctor came to know about the sexual assult, then he is subsequently
referred to E&T and later to OSCC.
Q: Is it normal for a patient to go and lodge a police report first and later go to the hospital?
MY: I don’t think that question should be ask. KS keep on saying SP3 is an expert. Then ask him relating to expertise. Why must the person goes to the
doctor, not to the police. This is beyond him. I think that is []
SN: We are not wasting anybody’s time. This is a serious matter.
MY: []
SN: []
MY: He is not an investigator. I mean we have heard from Dr Razali, Saiful and we had been informed what is this case. And they came to examine and it is
not for them to investigate why did you came to us, why didn’t you go to the police first.
SN: It is wrong use of word. I did not ask him to investigate. []
MY: You only allowed to ask relevant question.
SN: This is relevant.
YA: At this stage I’m going to allow the question. Ask only relevant question. At this stage I have yet to see the relevancy.
Q: Didn’t it come in your mind that this gentlemen come straight to E&T and not the police first.
A: As from my experience we don’t refuse patient when they came to us without lodging a police report.
Q: How often did you get people go directly complaining to E&T?
A: I did not manage the hospital.
Q: []
A: For example in child abuse or sexual assault case, the parents usually come to see the doctor first to confirm then lodge a police report. Sometimes
they don’t want to lodge a report because of shame. But sometimes these patients went to the police and lodge a report and subsequently the police would send
them over directly to the hospital. In this case, the patient went to the hospital first. For me it’s alright either way so long they make examination.
Q: You ask for social history, but not family history. What else did you ask?
A: We ask about the previous history, mixed up with the current history. Because it is relevant as it is done by the same person over some period of
time.
Q: Personal history?
A: For example, if he is a smoker or non smoker. I asked whether he has sexual experience before, he denies. And what he is working as, he said private
assistant.
Q: So I assume what you said just now recorded and I have no way to have access of it?
A: I give oral testimony.
YA, may I refer to IDD 16, Laporan Perubatan Hospital Pusrawi.
Q: Doctor, what is this document?
A: Notes by a doctor.
Q: What is the name of the doctor?
A: Dr. Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid.
Q: Can you read what is mentioned there? First page. The history.
A: [read] unable to read. [read] not very sure. [read] not very sure when passing motion. [read] YA, I’m not able to read some of the handwriting.
Q: Did you ask or did Saiful tell him that he went to Dr. Osman?
A: Yes. We get to know it from the outpatient department where we are told he went to Hospital Pusrawi.
Q: In the report it says “Pain when passing motion”. What could cause pain?
A: Could be any of the condition, such as injury to the area, [] and a lot of [].
Q: [] ? Possible?
A: Possible.
Q: Trauma?
A: Yes.
Q: If a person comes at 2 o’clock and he says to doctor “I’ve pain in passing motion”. Is it possible for somebody who demonstrate pain that a
proctoscope would have been inserted for examination?
A: Usually if the patients is in tremendous pain, the doctor usually don’t put a proctoscope. no if [] pain.
Q: And also even touching that spot is very sensitive?
A: Yes.
Q: And so more the reason why a proctoscope will not be use. Agree?
A: If the patient is in pain.
Q: So, if he had pain there, and SP1 came to you at 9.00 pm. Would the pain dissipates at that time?
A: When we exam the patient, he was comfortable, calm and cooperative he did not complaint of pain at all. He only complaint of being sodomised.
Q: Then who is telling the truth here. The doctor in IDD 16 says there is pain but you said he told you there is pain.
A: It’s not my role to decide.
MY: I don’t think that’s a proper question. Who is stating the truth is not his expertise.
SN: But the doctor here wrote there is pain.
MY: YA, to begin with, this is not even admissible. It is IDD only. He is not in the position. Neither the court at this position can tell who is telling
the truth. I mean what kind of question is this.
SN: He examined the patient and says there is no pain. And there is another report here saying there is pain. What’s wrong of asking the question?
YA: That’s why we allow you to ask the question. But when it comes to a stage who is telling the truth, that one…
SN: []
MY: Opinion may be asked to him. But with regards to who is telling the truth, surely it is not his expertise.
YA: Objection sustain. You can submit later on who is telling the truth. But not from this witness.
Q: I refer to page 3 of IDD 16.
A: I only have page 1 and 2.
SN: I have it in my copy here, YA.
YA: Is it part of IDD 16?
MY: No.
SN: Yes.
YA: You only tender two pages.
SN: I want to cross-examine on page 3. Are you objecting to it?
MY: Make it IDD 16A.
YA: Okay.
[Notes made and signed by Dr. Osman] is refered and identified as IDD 16A.
Q: Doctor, can you read the notes?
A: [read]
Q: “He presented with pain in the anus for two days. He cannot sit down because of pain”. Ordinarily, if the patients says that, can the pain be
dissolved about 7 hours thereafter? I’m talking about that kind of pain.
A: If it is so severe, it won’t be. But the doctor managed to put the proctoscope in and managed to see the inside also even when the patient complaints
of pain.
Q: [] Can the pain be dissolved in 7 hours? Yes or no?
A: No.
Q: About your forensic qualification and experience. Doctor, what papers have you published in this field especially sexual assault?
A: I’ve published a paper of medical science together with other doctors.
Q: When? Which year was that?
A: It was last year.
Q: How many papers?
A: Only one. But other paper is not in medical science, more to death.
Q: From what you have told, would you accept that your case load is low compared to international standard?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: Some doctors have about 2000 cases per year but you only have about 200-300 cases in the last 13 years and that makes it about 69 cases per year. Do
you agree it is low compared to the international standard?
A: Yes.
Q: How many times have you testified in court?
A: More than 100 times.
Q: How many forensic pathologist were there in HKL in June 2008, at the time of this complaint?
A: Approximately 5 at that time.
Q: How are they chosen to deal with cases?
A: On-call. [Explain further]
Q: Are the other forensic pathologist as qualified as you in terms of experience and qualifications?
A: There are those who are older than me. Some have more cases than me. Some are more experienced than me.
Q: This is a public interest cases. Why would not the more experienced one handled the case?
A: I was on-call at that time doing co-covering for clinical cases. I was not chosen to handle the case but it was my duty to handle this case.
Q: Lets go to standards here. Are the standards adopted in your forensic recognised by any international standards? In your forensic unit.
A: There are some accreditations on…
Q: What accreditations?
A: The Malaysian standard.
Q: What is the standard?
A: I don’t go through that. I don’t know about that.
Q: But you said there is a standard.
A: There are some accreditation, but I’m not in charged on that portion.
Q: But you are assuming there is a standard?
A: Yes.
Q: But you don’t know who and what. And would that be international standard. How can you say it is?
A: I don’t really know about it.
Q: So you don’t know. You may not even be accreditated. You are not very sure?
A: I can check for it if you want.
Q: What are the quality forensic control that you use at your place?
A: I will locate it on that session.
Q: Lets go to the lab. You have a lab at HKl, don’t you?
A: I don’t manage the lab.
Q: But you have a lab?
A: I don’t have it in the Forensic Department.
Q: Nevermind. Forensic should be accreditated for it to be of quality. Is it correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And you say you have quality. When you have a lab, what kind of quality control do you have?
A: We don’t have a lab in my department.
Q: What is the quality control in your work to avoid cross-contamination in your unit?
A: YA, may I have time to find it in a proper way?
YA: Can we move to some other question? So right now you can’t give the answer?
SP3: Let me find it out. And I’ll give it to you.
Q: Have you been to courses for quality control?
A: No. Some other doctor have been.
Q: Why?
A: Chosen one will be.
Q: Why you said chosen one? This is a standard quality control. You are doing your job everyday. So that’s why I’m asking you. When you do your job
everyday, there has to be courses you go because your job is ever changing. Therefore there has to be certain standards and protocol and you’ve not gone to
any courses.
A: I don’t go to the course.
SN: YA, can we take a short break for 10 minutes? KS is here.
YA: Stand down for 10 minutes.
[10.49 a.m.] Stand down.
[11.09 a.m.]
YA: What happen to KS?
SN: He is stuck at the Royal Commission inquiry. He made a submission and is waiting for the decision.
YA: Saksi diingatkan masih dibawah sumpah.
Q: Do you have a control system in your unit where you can get feedback?
A: YA, may I find out that thing for you?
Q: Your position and role as forensic pathologist. Do you agree you run you unit in un-bias manner?
A: Yes.
Q: That you should as well without fear or favor?
A: Yes.
Q: All complaints by patients treated equally and fairly, without exception?
A: Yes.
Q: In some countries, the forensic and DNA testing is at the same unit. Here in Malaysia what is the position?
A: The DNA is sent to the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.
Q: So you don’t run your own lab?
A: No.
Q: But there is a lab in HKL?
A: No. Not in my department.
Q: In your qualification you have mentioned of the years of experience. So you would be required to have done, you have read ID25 the Laporan Kimia. Is
that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Therefore you ought have to have knowledge in DNA, some level in DNA, sample of testing.
A: No. It is more pertaining to scientific role, DNA expert role.
Q: But you are an expert. You should have some knowledge of it right? How it is prepared.
A: Not expertise.
Q: Not expertise. Knowledge. What is DNA? I’m sure you know what is DNA, how it is extracted, right? I’m not asking for specific analysis, because it is
not your expertise. But when you read something, for example ID25, you would have an idea how DNA test is generally conducted, right?
A: Some idea, YA.
Q: And you read the report, don’t you?
A: I read the report for interpretation.
Q: But for interpretation you ought to have some knowledge, right?
A: Some knowledge, yes.
Q: So, therefore there has to be a symbiotic relationship between the forensic doctor and a forensic scientist. There is some understanding of each
others work. It is sometimes overlap, right?
A: I disagree.
Q: Why did you disagree that there are some level of overlap?
A: Because the forensic scientist is more to the lab, more to the analytical aspect. For the doctor it is more to the interpretive aspect. We interpret
the result from the report, we don’t do the analysis.
Q: I’m saying there is some overlap, undertsnading of each others work. That’s all. I’m sure you know what is electro-pyrosis. You don’t need to be a
DNA expert to know it. Correct? That’s why I’m referring to knowledge. Some level of overlap.
A: Yes. Some basic knowledge of it.
Q: You supplement each other, right?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you aware that our Jabatan Kimia is an accreditated lab?
A: Yes.
Q: What accreditation?
A: I don’t know what it is specifically.
Q: What level? International standard? SIRIM? Singapore standard? What?
A: I don’t know about that.
Q: You have confidence that the Jabatan Kimia is accredited.
A: Yes.
Q: And whatever they come out with you’ll believe it?
A: Yes.
Q: I refer to ID25, Laporan Kimia. Who prepare the report?
A: The DNA report is by Dr Seah Lai Kong and the toxicology analysis report was prepared by Mr. Mohan.
Q: You said you have confidence in what Dr Seah is reporting because her lab is accreditated.
A: Yes.
Q: You have in your area of expertise certain manner of reporting. Meaning protocol in reporting.
A: Yes. We have a general guideline on how to prepare the report.
Q: Do you have a copy with you?
A: No. In preparing the report, you have to do the biodata, the history, the examination, the test done, the result you received and the conclusions and
diagnosis, the cause of death. That is the general guideline for all the doctors.
Q: So, those guidelines are used to prepare P22.
A: Yes. Generally.
Q: The basics have to be there?
A: Yes.
Q: And it must be done un-biasly.
A: Yes.
Q: And in P22, Medical report HKL. In your summary you said “No conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration. In fact there is no clinical
findings indicative of suggestive penetration” . []. That one you found?
A: Yes.
Q: So this is part of the protocol you always follow?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it considered as protocol?
A: Guideline.
Q: So I assume even the DNA scientist will follow similar protocol?
A: I don’t know about their protocol.
Q: You don’t know, but you think there is a protocol?
A: I don’t know. []
Q: Examination of the patient. Why did you choose just swab? Wouldn’t that be anything that you can use to take samples from SP1?
A: [] To take sample.
Q: But you go to the peri anal region. []. Is there any other methods and other procedure of taking further sample.
A: I don’t understand.
Q: Why didn’t you use slides? To smear on the slide from each swab.
A: The slides is for the study of the otality of the sperm to estimate the last time since the last intercourse happened. But in this particular case,
in our opinion, the swab is more appropriate because the incident already happened two days before so we want to preserve whatever evidence for DNA. That’s
why we choose the swab.
Q: Isn’t that international standard? I put it to you that you that it is international standard that apart from taking the swab you smear it on the
slides. Not only for that reason, but more than that. What other thing that is used to smear on the slides?
A: In this particular case, we don’t know there is a point to do the slides. The swab is more valuable in our case because the patient came two days
after the incident. The slides is prepared for the biological studies of the sperm. To see whether the sperm is intact or [] or to estimate the time since
the last intercourse. But in this case the patient came almost two and a half days and we are worried whether the sample still remain there or not. That is
why we choose to get whatever valuable to sent which is more sensitive case in this particular case.
Q: Even if you take the swab and then smear, how will you lose the sample? It is the same sample you test. In what way will it affect?[]
A: Depends on the method.
Q: Yes or no?
A: Please repeat the question.
Q: You take the slides and smear on it too. Because you want to identify whether there was sperm. So one of the methods apart from taking the swab, put
it in the bag and send it over, you also smear it on slides. It is always a double because if you miss that you have it here. Therefore it is more than that.
It is actually a safeguard. Do you agree?
A: It depends on what type of method I want for the analysis done. I want the DNA, I prefer the swab. If I want to study the microscope, I use the
slides. But in this case the DNA studies is more valuable than microscopic test in our opinion. That’s why we used the swab.
Q: That is not an international standard. []. If you smear it on the slides, the microscope will give instant answer whether there was present sperm. Do
you agree?
A: Yes. It will be faster.
Q: And immediate? And you will see instantly, right?
A: Yes.
Q: It doesn’t be whose it was, but it will be there, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And with the microscopic you also take the photograph.
A: I don’t have the facility in our department. But it is possible if we have the facility.
Q: And that slides you can even send it to Jabatan Kimia. There would be no problem.
A: That should be the domain of the [].
Q: But you would have done it.
A: I’m not an expert on [].
Q: But you don’t do it.
A: I don’t think I need to do it in this particular case.
Q: But it will be a good practice. Do you agree?
A: Depends on the case. But in this case we don’t think.
Q: Why not in this case?
A: Because in this case it involved sperm. Every male has sperm. But the DNA…
Q: You are going too far. I’m asking you just for the identification of the sperm. It doesn’t have to be whose.
A: Ideally sperm, but []. That’s why we choose for DNA. It is more sensitive.
Q: You do that. But you can also do this. Agree?
A: Not in this case. In this case I would prefer to send for DNA.
Q: This could have been done?
A: Yes. But I prefer to send it for DNA.
Q: Would a photograph of a sperm be a good evidence?
A: It is just to show sperm. It is evidence but…
Q: May I refer witness to ID 25, Laporan Kimia. You have made some opinion in court during EIC about anal penetration.
A: Yes.
Q: In your reporting of P22, can you show in ID25 there’s a reference in page 3 of it. Whatever contains in ID25 you have transferred it in P22?
A: No.
Q: Why would you not?
A: Some of the sample from the whole report are not from me.
Q: So you only recorded what is from you?
A: Yes.
Q: You have read and testifies during EIC that Dr. Seah’s report is complete. Look at DNA profile. Item 4 of ID 25, Para 3. Can you read the last part?
A: [read].
Q: “One other male contributor”. How did you extract it and put it in P22?
A: In my report, “a mixture of male DNA found on swab B5”.
Q: So general?
A: General.
Q: But this is something you examined. You take the swab. You said you reported whatever that is related to you. Why is it selectively short here, but
the other one got more information? Why didn’t you put the whole thing in that?
A: The report has “a mixture of male DNA” from the chemist report also.
Q: [] Why didn’t you put it in here?
A: Because I wrote “please refer to chemist report..for full details”
Q: Why didn’t you write it in full here, but you left it? One male contributor. It could happened from cross-contamination also.
A: I’ve mentioned “refer to chemist report for the full details”.
Q: Why didn’t you do it here?
A: This is more to my summary of the chemist report.
Q: An independent forensic scientist will have to report whatever even if he find something odd.
A: I’m not a forensic scientist. I’m a forensic doctor.
Q: []
A: I’m using the result of the forensic scientist to my case.
Q: Why didn’t you put at least a notation? Since you are interpreting here. Read ID25, page 4 para 2.
A: [read]
Q: Whose semen is it there?
A: I don’t interpret this because the specimen is not from me. The underwear.
Q: Para 1 of same page. Read.
A: [read]
Q: Basically “two seminal stains are found on the trouser of Saiful Bukhari and belongs to him”. Isn’t that odd? That he is being sodomised but his
semen or seminal stain was found? A notation could have been put there that it is odd because you are dealing with a sodomy case here.
A: No notation is made because the specimen is not from me. I only interpret the specimens that I sent.
Q: Page 4. B7, B8 and B9. Can you see from Para 5, 6 and 7 is there any word or any indication of semen or seminal stain?
A: …
Q: Sorry. Once more. B5 is peri anal, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: B7, B8 and B9, which will two high rectal swab and one low rectal swab. In Para 5, 6 and 7, is there any word of semen or seminal stain?
A: No.
Q: All it say is it is intact for DNA profile?
A: Yes.
Q: When you did your report in P22, you were only shown ID25.
A: Yes.
Q: Is there any indication in ID25 as to who male Y is?
A: No. We don’t know.
Q: You didn’t do smear on slides. In ID25, where is it mention there is was a test done for semen or seminal stain?
A: Page 2, [], above (a), [read..I found the presence of semen..]
Q: I can say there is semen and B can say there is urine. There must be a test to confirm. Isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: What are the common test? What is acid phosphatase test?
A: To test the presence of semen.
Q: []
A: []
Q: What is RSID?
A: That is also in forensic science domain.
Q: What other method for testing?
A: Ultra[]
Q: What about PSA test?
A: That one is the forensic science domain.
Q: Of this test, which is the most accurate?
A: Refer the DNA.
Q: Why?
A: Because it can identify the []
Q: I’m asking of all the test, which is the most accurate?
A: That’s not my domain.
Q: I tell you. RSID. Can you show in ID25 where the test is conducted?
A: Not mentioned.
Q: We discuss about protocol just now. What is the protocol here (ID25)?
A: This is not my report.
Q: Precisely. But you read the report. [] Therefore, where is it stated in here? No, right?
A: No
Q: Then don’t it trigger your mind how can she say there is a semen or seminal stain because there is no test here? It is very important.
A: Chemist will answer it.
Q: Yes or no?
A: …
SN: He is not answering YA. I don’t understand why he don’t want to answer it.
Q: Since it is not known shown this male Y, therefore you wouldn’t even know who it is in the first place.
A: Yes. We don’t know.
Q: In EIC, you have said that the specimens were sent also for seminal analysis. You were asked on it. [read] Basically what you are looking is for
seminal analysis?
A: Yes.
Q: “have you personally read this chemist report?”
“Yes”
You said further you want to refer to ID24 because you don’t know the sight.
A: Yes.
Q: “Having identified the sight of the sampling”, []. So you are referring to what Saiful told you that he was sodomised by DSAI and you are explaining
your story here. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: The entire court heard your testimony. []
A: Yes. He said he was being sodomised by a VIP but I don’t know who is the VIP.
Q: Then you came to the conclusion that “After seeing this ..”.You have gone through ID25. [] and you have interpreted the chemist report more than once
and you have full confidence of Dr. Seah on her expertise and her lab is accreditated. All that is unclear, yet you believe there was semen and seminal
stain. Therefore you are saying seriously that there is penetration, more so anal penetration. How can it be? If the report is flawed, then your answer
should not be this. But you said you are independent.
A: In chemist report, page 2 indicate that “the plastic containing B1 to B9 was respectively sealed with Kementerian Kesihatan…and the chemist found
the presence of semen on B5, B7, B8 and B9 but no other semen from others]”. Then later I came to know B7 and B8 are the high rectal swab and B9 are the low
rectal swab. And according to the forensic principle, every contact leaves traces, therefore there is a male organ contacting the area and leave the sperm in
the low rectal and high rectal swab. And that is evidence of penetration.
Q: My question is this. There is no acid phosphotase test done in the chemist report. Therefore the chemist report is flawed. And you have based your
opinion that it is true. [] My question is, you have based your finding on a flawed report, on a report that is not tested.
A: I don’t agree.
Q: But you agreed there is deficiency.
A: I don’t agree with that also.
Q: Then you were asked “..under what circumstances can penetration []..”. And you answered “delay attend by doctor, use of lubricant, no force and no
undue resistance”. Delay attend by doctor, in what way can it not find the injury?
A: I mentioned those are causes without injury. The injury may be very superficial, very small and the patient came after two days and there will be no
trace of it since there is delay attended by doctor.
Q: But you have question Saiful as to what happened. And what did he say to you?
A: There was penetration.
Q: He told you there was pain.
A: He deny of pain.
Q: And use of lubricant, right?
A: Yes.
Q: That is an interesting point. When you examined, surely it will in your mind that lubricant was used. Did Saiful told you that?
A: He said that lubricant was used by the suspect.
Q: Then why didn’t you order for the test of the lubricant?
A: The patient went to a private hospital earlier, Hospital Pusrawi. And there was lubricant used prior to this. And the doctor used lubricant so there
is no point of having the test. And during our examination, we again use lubricant.
Q: How did you know lubricant was used?
A: It is in the history. It was told by the patient that some lubricant was used during examination. And just now I also know that the doctor put
lubricant at the tip of the proctoscope.
Q: But it is now. You should ask for the test then. In 2008.
A: We also put lubricant to facilitate our examination.
Q: I mean before you touch anything, you take sample. You don’t contaminate the samples. []. This is the process for elimination, right? []
A: Yes.
Q: And then “there was no undue force”. What did he told you about was there force used on?
A: The patient told not much resistance on the last incident.
Q: But what is the complaint by SP1?
A: He complaint of being sodomised.
Q: But he said it was non-consensual, right?
A: He didn’t say. He just say there is no force used.
Q: Do you know that SP1 says in his EIC that it was non-consensual?
A: No.
Q: So during examination did you ask him whether it is consensual or not?
A: He said no force was used.
Q: If it is non-consensual, the patient can contract the splinter? His anal muscle can be contracted. Tight, right?
A: I disagree with that.
Q: When you first saw Saiful, were you open minded when dealing in this case?
A: Yes.
Q: Did anyone brief you about this case?
A: Yes. By the police officer, DSP Jude Pierera.
Q: And what did he exactly tell you?
A: The patient has been sodomised by a VIP and he also mentioned the name of the VIP, DSAI and after that it was not the first time.
Q: Did you then immediately call Dr. Daniel?
A: No. Because the case has already been referred to us.
Q: Maybe there is examination was done by Dr. Daniel.
A: There was no examination done by Dr. Daniel because the patient was referred direct to us.
Q: How come you can be so sure that no examination was done?
A: In sexual assault case, the patient will be referred and examined by specialists at the OSCC. They don’t do examination.
Q: My question is so different from your answer. You are not answering. You are so sure no examination was done. But you also do not know what
examination Dr. Daniel did.
A: The doctor just referred to us the case to be examined by us.
Q: In rape and sodomy cases, how many doctors attend to a patient at a time?
A: In sodomy case, you need the E&T doctor, surgery doctor together with the forensic doctor.
Q: So, are you suggesting that in sodomy cases there will be 3 doctors attending a patient?
A: Yes. At HKL.
Q: Is that part of your guideline?
A: It is an instruction.
Q: Why would you require a police officer all the way?
A: The police officer is the one who send the case. He’ll be there to see the case he brought to us and we need the police photographer to be around for
documentation.
Q: Police photographer? For documentation of your examination?
A: Yes.
Q: Is the private part photographed?
A: Yes, if there is consent from patient.
Q: Is it usually and commonly done in HKL?
A: In my case, yes.
Q: Your cases or this case alone?
A: My cases.
Q: But you said it is a guideline, right?
A: It depends on the doctors.
Q: []
A: Guideline is just to guide you. But ultimately is the doctor who have access of the case.
Q: DSP Jude saw the entire examination?
A: He was around.
Q: Did he see or not?
A: I don’t know.
Q: But you said he was there. Did he see the entire examination?
A: He was there but I don’t know whether he sees it or not.
Q: What is the Lockhart’s principle?
A: Every contact leaves traces.
Q: []
A: I’m not sure.
Q: When you were briefed by DSP Jude when you saw the patient, SP1 what was on your mind straight away? To take the swabs from the rectum, right?
A: We will get the history, exam the patient and then we will take swabs.
Q: After you get the history, and exam the patient what did you do? Since the patient complaints of being sodomised, straight away it will come to your
mind to take anal swabs, right?
A: Not necessarily. It depends on cases presentation. If the case come in less than 3 days, there is a chance of recovering evidence. If the case come
in later than that, I wouldn’t even bother to take swabs.
Q: Did he described generally to you as to what happened?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you decided to swab the anus, right? Plus you swab the top also, right?
A: Yes.
Q: If you seriously want to see DNA, you go to the back portion and butt, isn’t it? At least to do a touch of DNA, right?
A: We collect from the peri anal swab.
Q: But surely you will take swabs at the buttock and back portion, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But you only take swabs from [], tongue, and..It is in P22.
A: …
Q: Surely it cross your mind as an experienced man that if he touch any part of the body there must be DNA. It need not be at the inside of the anus or
anywhere, right? It would indicate that you have done a thorough examination without being in any way influenced by DSP Jude’s story. Right? Why didn’t you
take swabs from the back part?
A: We did body swab of saliva for licking and sucking of the body.
Q: But the simple is body touch. You have read the Lockhart’s principle, the DNA principle. So it would be a right thing to do, right? That will show
you un-bias, right?
A: Yes.
Q: So, you didn’t do.
A: I did one, for saliva test.
Q: You said you use tampered proof seal at the point of taking your sample. There is an international standard on sealing and handling of samples. What
standard did you follow?
A: I follow international standard not to contaminate the sample.
Q: I’m talking about ISO 2009:2002. There’s so many like Australian NATA,etc. What standard did you follow?
A: So far I’ve not come to any standard, but there is a guideline to collect specimens on our working procedure in our department.
Q: This guideline is of some standard, right?
A: It’s the department standard operating procedure.
Q: You have produced the pro forma, so can you produce the standard to me?
A: I’ll get permission from my Head first.
Q: You said tampered proof seal. What is tampered proof? Do you have a sample of that tampered proof seal?
A: I don’t have it here.
Q: Can you bring it in the afternoon?
A: YA, can I just show the one with the specimen, instead?
YA: The one that is tendered, you can refer to it.
SN: Is it intact?
YA: Of course it is not intact now.
MY: We didn’t open the tag.
YA: Then use that one.
Q: Why does doctors collect forensic exhibits?
A: To look for evidence.
Q: What are the general principles in collecting the exhibits?
A: The most important is to avoid contamination of the specimens.
Q: What are the specific []?
A: To make sure the instruments and the bottles are sterile to avoid contamination. And the procedure must be correct also. For example, wearing a glove
to avoid direct touching of the specimens.
Q: Why is the labelling and packaging security is very important?
A: Labelling is to ensure the specimens does not cross over with other person’s specimens and to ensure the specimens [] and does not mixed up.
Packaging is to avoid different type of specimens from mixing up and contamination during the transfer process.
Q: You said you have put the specimens in tampered proof beg. Look at this. [refer court to container containing specimens in a plastic bag]. In what
manner this can be considered a tempered proof seal?
A: The bottle is sealed with a tape around its cap and there is a security tag across the tape. The security tag is very fragile, it is tissue paper.
Any moment you can break this security tag, it is very fragile for the labelling. And on top of that, to ensure nobody use the same label, I put my signature
and Saiful’s signature on the security seal. If somebody ever open and seal with that, there won’t be same signature as me and Saiful. All the security
measure are intact. This seal is provided by my department but there is further security to ensure my signature and Saiful’s so nobody can [] this thing.
Q: This is a paper tag. It is not a modern sealing method. It is just a normal paper tape.Thus, how can it be tampered proof?
A: What is important is the security tag across the cap that any moment you cannot break this circling tape. It also ensure that nobody moves it around
and contaminate it.
Q: Is this open?
A: It was open. There was a cut.
Q: The chemist will cut using a knife, right?
A: Yes.
Q: If you say your security label is your back up guarantee, plus your signature. And if the chemist has cut it and not tear, the other portion should
be here, right? How come it is not here? If a person cuts, the portion will be there. But if the person tear, the portion will not be there.
A: The chemist can cut the my security seal but cannot open the tape, so they have to twist. So the moment they twist, the tag will break of and some of
it will fall of. That’s why you see it as being tempered.
Q: Some are, some are not. Especially ID6. This is just a plastic on top. Anybody can put a plastic. Your seal is the one. So if the chemist cut the
seal, the balance of the thing should be here. Why is it in this specimen it is not?
A: Not necessarily. Some portion attached to the plastic and the tape also. When you twist it will fall of.
Q: It is outside. So it can easily be removed.
A: No. They have to twist the bottle.
Q: Correct. But the other portion under the twist should remain.
A: Not necessarily.
Q: If it is cut, the other portion would be there.
A: Yes. But when they twist the thing will drop of.
Q: Cut or twist doesn’t matter. It should be there.
A: Not necessarily. Because the other protion is on the tape.
Q: Your signature is on top here and Saiful here. If it is tempered, your signature will remain there. Because it is not at the exact cut.
A: This security tape I’ve a lot in my department. Somebody can imitate one. But the security bearing my signature and Saiful’s is only on these
bottles.
Q: Correct. But it should be on the part where the chemist cut where your signature will be cut into two. But your signature is intact here.
A: I put the signature not for it to be cut into two or break when the chemist twist it.
Q: []
A: []
Q: I put it to you it is not tampered proof.
A: No. The tempered proof is for the tape. The signature []
Q: Your signature and Saiful’s are all intact. And it should break when it is cut. That means it is tampered proof.
A: No.
Q: Did you tell the police officer how to handle the sample? How to keep it. How to store it?
A: Yes. Put in freezer on transit send it to Chemist Department as soon as possible.
Q: You ought to tell him specifically right?
A: Put in the freezer, but do not freeze it.
Q: How many degrees you require?
A: Depends on how long to store. Ordinarily 4 degree celsius but for prolong storage it is -30 degree celcius .
Q: Did you tell him that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you also advise him to as quickly as possible send it to the Chemist?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know how long does he takes to send it to the chemist?
A: I don’t go through this detail. But when they give the chemist report, it says it was received on the 30th of June.
Q: You gave it to him?
A: On 29th June 2008, midnight. But I don’t know the day. Probably Saturday or Sunday.
Q: Are you aware that Jude delivered it on 30th June?
A: Yes.
Q: How many hours was that?
A: After 24 hours.
Q: Is it merely 48 hours?
A: Not yet I think.
YA: Can we continue at 2.00 pm?
SN: Yes.
MY: Yes.
[12.32] Stand down.
[2.13 p.m.]
KS: My apologies for not being here this morning.
YA: we manage to proceed.
Saksi diingatkan masih dibawah sumpah.
Q: We’ve discussed earlier about the time line when SP1 went to ENT and then you said you have been instructed at what time?
A: Around 7.36 pm
Q: You have a higher officer? You have a boss?
A: Yes. Dr Mohamad shah, head of forensic department
Q: You give instruction and advice to DSP Jude as to how to store and deal with the exhibits. Is it correct?
A: I just advice him and tell him the way to put it.
Q: And you said you tell him to store it under certain temperature?
A: Yes, to preserve it.
Q: What time and when did you delivered it?
A: 26 June 2008, at about 12.35 a.m.
Q: You took the swab? With your friends?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you then seal them before you handed it to Jude?
A: The bottles were labeled first, after that, I tell the sequence to my friends, for the next samples after the examination. After the doctor collected
the samples, I open the cap of the sterile bottle, I put the swab stick within the bottle and break it. After that, I cap the bottle. I put all the bottles
on the table under my supervision, I sealed it after the specimens were completed together. First, I turned it around with the tag, subsequently after that,
I cross the tag. After that, I completed this procedure, I signed on the tag, as well as I asked Mr. Saiful to sign on that.
Q: How many did you collect?
A: The samples? Ten swabs.
Q: After you sealed the individual bottles, what were you do with them?
A: I wrote a form, all chemistry form, all the necessary particular, I give it to DSP Jude.
Q: You’ve been into the details. After taking the samples, what happen?
A: I put the bottle in the security bag, and I handed it over to the Jude, together with the chemistry form.
Q: How do you describe the bag?
A: it s a plastic bag, and it was sealed.
Q: How did you seal it?
A: Just open up and sealed it.
Q: Did you sign on the bag?
A: I remembered on that day, I didn’t sign on that.
Q: You say you didn’t sign it?
A: On that day, no. I signed on the individual samples.
Q: Ok, when you said it is a flat seal, did you sign it? I mean the security bag.
A: I did not sign it, but my handwriting was on it.
Q: You did sign the bottles, but you did not sign this one? Why?
A: I did sign each and every bottle of the specimens.
Q: It is a good security isn’t it, to do another one?
A: Yes, but I did sign on every bottle.
Q: When you say it is sealed, it is gum?
A: Yes.
Q: It can easily be torn?
A: Yes.
Q: Then how do you say it is temper proof?
A: Because, each and every bottled had been signed and sealed. The bag is just an additional bag I gave him.
Q: May I refer to P27. Is this the bag?
A: Yes this is the bag. The bag is sealed.
Q: So the red seal is the so called seal?
A: Yes.
Q: And you considered it as temper proof?
A: Yes.
Q: But it can be removed?
A: Yes, but it will leave marks, after removal.
Q: What marks?
A: Some of the remaining of marks, it will remain there.
Q: But you could done the right thing by sign on it right?
A: YA, it’s a good thing to do, but I had already signed on the individual samples.
Q: You said earlier, that you didn’t do the smear on the slide? And you also said it was more than two days?
A: Yes.
Q: If that is the case, then why do you took alcohol and drug test?
A: Because I want to know whether the patient was under the influence of drugs or alcohol or not.
Q: It’s been two days. Even if someone took the beer, it will go in two days. Are you kidding? The right test you did not want to do, but this one, you
did it?
A: I said, after the incident.
Q: If you are so particular about it, why don’t you take the smear test as well?
A: The smear is not very indicated to my case. This is based on our clinical judgment at that time. We don’t need the smear, we need more precise test
at that time, which is the DNA.
Q: You are medico legal man here, therefore there must be medico legal procedure here. Do you agree?
A: Yes, but based on the case. Not every case we did the same thing.
Q: Don’t you agree that alcohol and drugs can go very fast in the body?
A: The patient may have consumed drugs and alcohol afterwards.
Q: Does it matter afterwards?
A: Yes, it was important for me to know. See whether the patient was under influenced when he came to see us, see whether his mind was conscious, so we
can draw our inference during that episode. Alcohol can be inserted before, during, or after the sexual assault.
Q: If you are so meticulous, why don’t you fill up the form properly?
A: I filled up the form properly.
Q: Only three pages? Tell me the truth, please. This is the court of law. Of course I’m going to submit it later, but here, you are the witness of
truth!
YA: So, what is your question?
Q: My question is, if the slide indicated that there was a sperm. Wouldn’t it be good for any forensic officer to say that yes, there was a sperm. So
wouldn’t it be good to do that test?
A: I agree that it is important, but I do not agree that it must be done in this case.
Q: You are utterly incompetent, I put it to you
A: That is your opinion.
Q: You took swabs on tonsils and tongue, why?
A: It was performed by Dr. Khairul. It was because, from the history, the patient told us that he was asked to perform oral sex.
Q: He told you that?
A: Yes.
Q: You go to all irrelevant parts, but the relevant one, you didn’t go. I put it to you that you didn’t do it!
A: The most relevant part is to know whether there is a proof of penetration.
Q: You want to know whether there is a proof of penetration or not, but you took swabs on tonsils and tongue. And then you go into blood and alcohol
test later. Why didn’t you do the smear test?
A: I don’t have to answer this.
Q: Let’s go back to taking sample again. Did you know when Jude did passed the sample to Jabatan Kimia?
A: I didn’t know until the chemist received the specimen.
Q: So, when did the chemist report received? I take it as 30th of June 2008, at 7.45 pm.
A: On the 29th.
Q: Early morning?
A: Yes.
Q: How many hours would that be, from the time you gave him? 48 hours?
A: Roughly, not more than 48hours. It was about 43 hours.
Q: So, when did you get the report back from chemist?
A: I received it by my department on 11th of July 2008 through the police officer.
Q: And you read the report on the 13th?
A: Yes.
Q: How long normally would it take to get the report?
A: What report?
Q: Any chemist report? Normal chemist report.
A: should ask to the chemist, not me. I am not preparing the report.
Q: You’ve said before, you do deal with the chemist report. Based on experience, how long does it take for the chemist report to be return to you?
A: The duration is very vary. It depends on how fast the police officer give it to us. Actually, we get or received it through the police officers.
Unless the case is sudden death, then we will get the copy.
Q: So generally, 1 month, 2 months or 3 months?
A: It is very vary. Usually it takes about 3 months, but sometimes, it could be faster.
Q: So 3 months, or 4 months, is possible?
A: In very complicated case, yes.
Q: This case, it was only 12 days, right? Would you agree, this is super fast?
A: Fast, but not super fast.
Q: How long you take medical history from SP1?
A: Half an hour, approximately.
Q: What were you having in mind as to ask to establish for yourself?
A: Asking the history or..?
Q: Most of the doctors, I want to establish with you that you’ve gone to the entire basic things to ask as a doctor? What did you ask about his personal
life?
A: Whether he had married, sex activities prior to this event, smoking etc.
Q: What about his family?
A: As I said, no. I did not go into details.
Q: Isn’t it is important to ask?
A: Not in this case. If I’m dealing with some other case, like psychiatrist illness, then it is important. Like in this case, for sodomy case, we are
more concentrate with the complaint and about the sex assault, what he has been done. We are more particular about that aspect, rather than the family
history.
Q: I now refer to you why it is important to ask about psychiatry history done as well, look at this carefully, at page 23. [READ AN ARTICLE]. Do you
agree with that?
A: Yes.
Q: This is no case of a man complaining that he got asthma. This is a boy complaining a sexual assault. Did you take his demeanor down, record his
demeanor down, his facial expression?
A: Yes, we recorded it down. The complainant is calm, cooperative, well manner. And that what was we observed on the patient.
Q: Did you record it down somewhere?
A: Yes.
Q: You want to produce it?
A: No, I’ve already gave my oral statement.
Q: If a person that had complained that he has been sexually assaulted, don’t you think he will look flustered, angry, irritated, in agony?
A: Different people will take it differently. Some people will jump, some are not. It is all depends on the patient personality.
Q: You are very independent person, you are very unbiased. Did you at least consider that this person should take psychiatry examination?
A: No. When we recorded his history, we also observe the way he answered our question, the way he communicate with us. We are under impression that this
patient came to us under purely sexual related assault problem and not related to psychiatry problem.
Q: So, you take a person who had been sodomised, would also come in kind of demeanor?
A: Not necessarily, shouting, aggravated after the sexual assault. Some patients are not like that. This patient coming cool and calm. This is normal
also after the incident of sexual assault, accept it as the way it is.
Q: Is it more agitation than happiness, or more cool and calm?
A: I don’t know. I cannot answer precisely.
Q: Most of them agitated or come coolly?
A: Most of them, if man, come coolly. Man, can take it better than lady.
Q: There was earlier you did mention about Dr Osman right?
A: At that time, he was only mentioned that he was gone to a private hospital, not a name of Dr. Osman.
Q: You were aware that some examination done on him?
A: Yes.
Q: A protoscopy test as well?
A: Just an instrument inserted, not any name of that instrument mentioned.
Q: What do you mean by instrument then?
A: Instrument was put on him.
Q: What instrument put on him?
A: That what the patient told. But of course, when it comes to my mind, most lightly the doctor used protoscope.
Q: Did you agree that in any case of a crime, the scene cannot be disturbed, the first person coming to that scene should get the scene as untempered as
possible. But this one, it appears to be that protoscope had been used, therefore, when you examine it for the second time, your result may have been
contaminated. Did you agree?
A: There is always a possibility.
Q: There is a lot of..Back to Jude..Did you know that Jude actually broke the main seal of the bag?
A: Yes, I knew.
Q: When?
A: Cannot remember.
Q: Recently, or before you come to court?
A: I cannot remember, because that was the labeling problem on that.
Q: Before you coming to the court, isn’t it?
A: Yes, there was a labeling problem, that’s why we cannot link with the labeling by the police officer.
Q: So the bag was open? P27? Contain all the specimens right?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you aware that Jude broke the seals on the bag?
A: I aware that he was re-label the things inside the bag.
Q: Can you say that the bottles you used were air tight?
A: Yes.
Q: We went to P22, and ID 25 earlier on, where you have imported some of the findings there into your report.
A: Yes.
Q: You have taken some, and then you have left some.
A: Yes.
Q: I put it to you, that you have to say that you are independent and neutral. Why did you do that? Isn’t it a good practice to take it all and put it
in your report?
A: I only tried to interpret what had been sent by chemist report.
Q: Why did you don’t put everything there? Why don’t you take the exact sentence, why did you summarize it into your own words?
A: I did summarize it.
YA: No, they want to know why you summarized it. Why don’t you put everything there, that’s the thing they want to know?
A: I sent the specimen because I want to know the result to help me to interpret the case.
Q: Why didn’t you put in full? I mean you only said about the mixture, you didn’t say about the unknown male. Why, because you are independent, neutral
and honest man?
A: YA, I’ve already said that it is the mixture of DNA.
Q: But you’ve left the important part. I put it to you that you are acting very dishonestly. You are hiding something. You are supposed to be
independent, but in fact you are being biased!
A: I don’t hide anything. In fact I asked to refer to the full chemist report to the full report.
Q: YA, but what’s the point. And then we just gone through in ID25 that Dr Seah didn’t do an AP test, didn’t do proper semen’s test, didn’t record that
she did a test, and did not show how she came about in identifying the semen.
MY: At this point of time, may I interject? ID25 is the report of the chemist, report of her analysis. What we agreed the test was not mentioned, but to
say that she didn’t conduct the test is ridiculous.
SN: I come to that later, but I’m afraid that it is not presumptuous, but he just agreed on what she put in her report.
YA: He just said that he wasn’t mention about it. Never mind, proceed and put that in your submission if you want.
SN: But again, protocol-wise, if she did the test, she should record it, and he agreed with me.
YA: Did you asked about that?
A: No, I haven’t been asked about the chemist protocol. I didn’t know about it.
Q: Now you give me another story already.
A: YA, I didn’t know about the chemist protocol, because I’m working as medical officer, and I didn’t know how she did it.
Q: You agreed that those tests weren’t shown there. You said you have some knowledge that the tests is carried out.
YA: But he never said that those unmentioned test, meant that those tests had never been carried out.
Q: You should know that there could be flawed.
A: You have to ask the chemist.
Q: No, you’ve been dealing with it every day! You imported the report 100% and then you said that there was seminal and stain. And that’s when you come
into conclusion of penetration, agree or not?
A: Not agree YA. The role of a doctor is just to interpret.
Q: I put it to you that such things didn’t even take place and you depended on the flawed and insufficient report to come to a wrong conclusion – there
was a penetration and penal anal penetration?
A: I’m not agree.
Q: You also said, that whatever you’ve done in P22, you followed the protocol and the guidelines. And whatever you got, you wrote it down?
A: Yes.
Q: If you have follow protocol, she should do the same?
A: We’ve done a very different thing. So I cannot interpret the things she did, or she should do. I don’t know about her.
Q: Any professional should follow the protocol.
YA: But he said he doesn’t know about the protocol of the chemist.
SN: Every expert must know, that’s why I’m asking him. Protocol is a must to follow. That was what happened normally. She also has to follow the
protocol, but she didn’t follow it.
A: I don’t know how to answer other people protocol or other discipline. It is not my protocol. I only did the medical protocol. I don’t know how to
answer that question.
Q: From the evidence you’ve given here, and the manner you wrote P22, you have practice selective importation of information? Do you agree?
A: I don’t understand your question.
Q: Firstly, you only want to put what is prejudicial to my client. Then you also simply enunciated that the samples were my client’s without even
knowing. So I put it to you that you are selectively put things that are prejudicial to my client.
A: To be very honest, until now who is the Male Y. My interest is through my patient to know whether there was an evidence of penetration. I didn’t know
who Male Y is until now.
Q: I put it to you that you are biased in your reporting?
A: No, I cannot confirm who is Male Y also.
Q: You don’t even highlight that in your report, and you said that you are independent. I put it to you that you are not independent, and you have acted
very pro police.
A: No.
Q: And much of the information you’ve given here are uncertain and full of lies.
A: Not agree at all.
Q: Did you first tell other person in HKL when you first examined this patient that you’ve found nothing?
A: There’s nothing..
Q: And then after the police saw you, you changed your statement?
A: Examination of the sexual assault case is based on the interpretation of the physical examination as well as [] together.
Q: My question is simple. Did you tell somebody that there’s nothing, and then week later after the police saw you, you changed your tune?
A: No, but the statement I will say yes.
Q: But did you tell somebody else that you found nothing?
A: Yes, during the police statement. We didn’t find anything during the police statement regarding the physical injury.
Q: No, I’m talking about the swabs. That after you took the swabs you said that nothing was in the swabs, and then a few days later, you changed the
stories.
A: No.
Q: What did you said earlier?
A: Then, the police come and take the statement. We told them we didn’t find anything during the physical examination per se.
Q: I put it to you that you told somebody else in HKL about it.
A: To the police who came there.
Q: Not the police. Someone else.
A: No.
Q: I also put it to you that there are a lot of things that need to roll out, but you did not rolled up? Like putting a notation when we discussed ID25,
about the semen and seminal stain found.
A: My notation is cross referred to chemist report, and I even put the number of the report, full details. It is obvious that I put it in two liners
there.
Q: You should highlight it, but the thing you highlighted is the peri anal swab not the DNA mixture?
MY: I think we have gone through this time so many times, YA. Enough with that.
SN: I’m just rounding it.
Q: HKL, I’m putting it to you,that they had put up a lot of activities against DSAI. Dr. Rahman, and now we have..
MY objected.
YA: Takpelah, he is from HKL, let him answer.
A: I don’t think I have to answer this question, because I came here to do within my professional area which is connected with this case.
YA: So, you don’t know?
A: I’m not involved with those things. I am not interested in knowing the past things about HKL. The thing I know is, I’m doing a good thing so far.
Q: You said just now when ID25 was referred to you that you didn’t know who it was, who was Male Y. But you said that Jude told you before that, he was
DSAI.
A: No.
Q: Come on, before you know that he was DSAI, now you want to change it?
A: I don’t know who is who. I’ve been told that the VIP is DSAI, but until now I don’t know who Male Y is. I didn’t compare the profile.
MY: No, he knew who the alleged assailant was, but when the report told about Male Y, I mean the name, he doesn’t know about it.
YA: If he put the report based on what they told him, surely the complaint would be there.
SN: He already know the link. But he denies it now. That’s what I’m telling that he’s biased now. He seems to contradicting himself.
A: I based on the scientific report.
Q: Ok, now you’ve said that, let’s go to ID25. Who is Male Y?
A: I don’t know.
Q: You know that he is DSAI, because you’ve been told by Jude!
A: Not necessary, YA. Unless if I see that DNA can link with that profile, that one I can confirm. I was told, but I cannot confirm, unless I see the
profile.
MY and SN quarrelling.
SN: I’m quite done, YA.
YA: Yes, any Re-examination?
SN: Yes, YA.
RE-EXAMINATION of SP3.
Q: During cross-examination, you agreed that P22 which is your report reflected that there was no conclusive prove of penetration. This is your initial
answer to the counsel. You then agreed with the counsel that in your testimony report, you testified that there was an anal penetration.
A: Yes.
Q: Then you’ve been asked further by counsel, I quote in light of what you answered of the ID25, the chemist report. My question, please look at P25. I
believe you have read para 1 of P25?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you agree that para 4 till para 1 page 2, it states that Envelope B2-B9, each contained a plastic packet inside which a plastic contains a swab
stick, do you agree?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you read at page two, 2nd para?
A: [read]
Q: Did you make the marking of B2-B10?
A: No.
Q: Do you know who make those markings?
A: Police officer.
Q: Do you know the site of sampling B7,8 ,9 where the semens samples were found?
A: No.
Q: On the 13th of July when you prepare P22, and having known the ID 25, do you know the sites of sampling of B5, B7, B8 and B9?
A: No.
Q: Do you have any reason to doubt about chemist report prepared by Dr Seah?
A: No.
Q: May the witness been referred ID 24. When you prepared P22, on the 13th of July 2008, were you given or shown ID24?
A: No.
Q: When were you first shown ID24?
A: In the court, when giving evidence.
Q: And by looking at ID24, were you be able to know the site of the sampling B5, B7, B8 and B9?
A: Yes.
Q: So, when you testified in open court that there is an evidence of penetration, were you also referred to ID 24, besides ID25?
A: Yes.
Q: It means, together with ID25, and this ID 24. Doctor, when in cross-examination, you said that you’ve took the history from the patient, that he was
alleged being sodomised by a well known high profile public figure, so my question; is this history given by SP1 sufficient for you, Dr Khairul and Dr.
Razali to proceed to examine SP1 on the 28th of June 2008?
A: Yes, it is sufficient.
Q: In cross examination, you were shown IDD16, you were then asked whether the insertion of plastic be the medical history in the earlier cross
examination. On the 28th of June, when you met SP1, what was his complaint?
A: He was sodomised.
Q: Did he complaint any word plastic had been inserted to his anus?
A: Not the word plastic.
Q: I show to you ID26. In your testimony, you said that this form was prepared by you. You mention in Para d, alleged sodomy. Is it correct?
A: Yes correct.
Q: Where stated in ID26, mention about the patient alleged insertion of any plastic into anus?
A: No.
Q: In cross-examination, you said that there were photographs taken on 28th June, and taken by police?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you refer to any of the photographs that were taken by the police when prepared the report of P22?
A: No.
Q: Did you need any of those photographs to prepare the report of P22?
A: No need.
Q: Did you refer to any photograph when you testified in open court that there is evidence of anal penetration?
A: No.
Q: Did you need those photographs to assist you to testify that there was anal penetration?
A: No.
Q: You were also asked about the labeling of those specimens. Did you write on the label the location of the specimens taken from SP1?
A: Yes, each and every.
Q: On the label?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see all the containers, after putting all the samples in the containers?
A: Yes, all on my own.
Q: Air containers were air tights?
A: Yes.
Q: When you passed it to DSP Jude, were all the seals intact when handed to Jude?
A: Yes.
Q: You were shown and asked the great details of the so called Pro forma. What Is the purpose of having that Pro forma?
A: Generally to guide the doctor on how to handled and exam the case.
Q: Did you really need the Pro Forma to assist you to testify in open court to establish that there was an anal penetration?
A: No.
Q: Look at the Pro forma. You agree that this Pro forma is for suspected rape victim?
A: Yes, it is written there.
Q: Does the Forensic Department of HKL have the Pro forma form for the sodomy victim?
A: At that time, no.
Q: Have a look at para 2, you mentioned that [read Para 2 – fresh case, any case less than 72 hours after the incident]. My question is, can you tell
the court why did you consider a fresh case is case less than 72 hours after the incident?
A: If less than 72 hours, there are higher chances to recover the evidence. This was documented in the Journal Article by William and Alan in 1981. The
sperm in the rectum is up to 75 hours, where the anus is about 46 hours.
Q: This is also the guide to HKL in sodomy cases?
A: Yes.
Q: You were also asked about the Pro forma, first page, the handwriting was not the same. Can you tell the court which part is not the same? Under what
topic?
A: Yes.
Q: Which part? Under what topic?
A: Under the name of the police officer [read Name of Jude Perreira] and IC, the rank, and where he is from.
Q: The particular of the police officer.
A: Yes.
Q: The next question asked by counsel, the IO was presence throughout the examination of SP1?
A: Yes.
Q: Did IO tell you what to do during the examination?
A: No.
Q: The IO interfere in any of your works in taking samples during the examination of SP1?
A: No.
Q: You did mention that you haven’t take the family history, The family history of SP1 relevant in so called sodomy case?
A: Not relevant in this particular case.
Q: Is it unusual for victim to come to hospital first before lodging a police report?
A: It is common also.
Q: You were also asked several times about your report, that because of that, you are deemed to be biased. Please have a look at P22. Look at the
conclusion, para 1. [read PARA 1]. Is it helpful to the police to get evidence against the suspect?
A: No.
Q: You were also shown page 3. Just because you mentioned mixture of male DNA type from swab B5. You did not mention the details. My question, is it the
ordinary practice, to put everything in chemist report in your own report?
A: No.
Q: You mention clearly here, please refer to chemistry report [read lab number] for full details. If you put this, is this the intention for the person
to hide something?
A: No. This is to ask them to read the full report.
Q: You were also asked about an issue that you did not smear on the slide or rather take the swabs from those parts. Again, in this particular case, is it important for you to smear on the slide and to do as what suggested by the counsel?
A: In this particular case, even though I detect the sperm on the slide and it was very fast, but I can’t locate who’s the person the sperm was belong
to. But however if I send a swab for DNA, it is not only can detect, but the profile also can be compared to a potential suspect. It is more important for me
to do this because you can link it to a suspect.
Q: You were also shown to ID16(a). Before that you were shown page 1, about pain complaint by SP1. If a patient was in tremendous or great pain, can the
doctor insert the proctoscope into the anus?
A: No, too painful.
Q: In the report by Dr Osman, did he mention about proctoscope had been inserted in SP1’s anus?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you read those portions?
A: [READ]
Q: So protoscope was inserted by Dr Osman?
A: Yes.
Q: You were also asked earlier whether you are an expert. And then you said, it is for the court to decide. You are forensic medicine specialist?
A: Yes.
Q: Since 1998?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it true that your work scope also include clinical forensic examination?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it not you have conducted 200-300 examination?
A: Yes, clinical examination.
Q: Is it not that you have done sample taking and collection of sampling about 200 times?
A: Yes. On the tag, there are more than 1000.
Q: Is it not that you have attended 20 sodomy cases?
A: Yes
NH: I have one extra question which had been asked through SP2. Regarding the period of spermatozoa remain in the anus. But of course, subject to
cross examination.
SN: Rather that can we recall Dr Razali, because I also want to ask some question. He is the surgeon.
YA: The questions not asked and not arise before through Dr. Siew?
NH: Not yet.
YA: I think counsel have the right to cross after this. Proceed. This questions through court ya.
Q: When ejaculating the person anus , how long can the seminal fluid or spermatozoa remains in the anus or rectum approximately?
A: The anus is about 46 hours. That’s the longest, documented by study.
Q: What about the rectal area?
A: 65 hours.
Q: Do you have any literature to support your answer?
A: Yes. May I show it the literature?
YA: Mention of the name of the literature.
A: The literature is General Forensic Science International volume 19, in the year 1983.
Q: Just look at the summary. Where does it stated the rectal swab is 65 hours?
A: [READ THE RELEVANT PART]
Q: If this result or statistic based on microscopic or DNA analysis?
A: Microscopic.
Q: Based on DNA analysis, would the period is longer?
A: I’m not sure, I think the chemist will be best explaining that.
Q: Do you have any other literature to assist us on this issue, the period time of the spermatozoa remains in the rectal area?
A: There’s a very old literature, but I cannot download it from the internet anymore.
Q: You get this literature about clinical forensic medicine.
A: Yes, I have the book.
Q: About anal intercourse? Do you have it with you? Can you read the title of the book?
A: Clinical Forensic Medicine 3rd edition, edition 2009, [read the title].
Q: Can you read page 146, chapter 13.
A: [READ THE RELEVANT PART].
Q: You mention here that it may be identified..
SN: This is a laboratory report.
NH: You still can cross after this.
YA: So this is still remain questions through court which you have the right to cross afterwards.
NH: YA, I think that’s it. I have no more questions to ask.
YA: Yes, counsel. Please confine yourself to this area only.
Q: Did you agree that this document is lab experiment?
A: No, it is not. It is a form of actual sample of the victims, that being analyzed.
Q: Yes, but this is done by the lab. You need to have a lab to do all this.
A: This is actual cases, which the lab studied the samples sent to them.
Q: It is a lab job, you agree?
A: Yes. I’m giving a forensic interpretation. The lab is about the analysis. The doctor is giving interpretation.
Q: You can’t keep changing your answer. I may have to reserve on this. I need time to study.
SN: There is a lot of matters can arise from this document. And also I also want to ask Dr Razali more so. I want to apply to court to recall him
MY: I don’t know about Dr Razali, because I remember when I ask him, he gave an answer. I asked him whether he has the literature, and he answered no. So
now, you asking the same question to Dr. Siew, and he answered he has. At the end of the day, all of this will be part of our submission. So, what’s the
point?
SN: You said you don’t want to bring. But now you bring it.
YA: Never mind, about re calling of Dr. Razali, I will hear from both of you later on whether to recall him or not.
Q: This talk about spermatozoa. Not semens, not seminal fluid. Why didn’t you seriously do a smear on the slide? It doesn’t matter who identity that you
want to show.
A: This document is prepared in the year of 1981, at that time we don’t have DNA technology yet. That was the time that they looking at the sperm. But now, we have DNA technology which is much more superior.
Q: But more the reasons, because you are referring to the old one, why don’t you do the smear, because it is a good practice?
A: In my particular case, it is more important for us to send out the samples for DNA because we can get the suspect person. Sperm we cannot identify
the identity.
Q: You should have done it, you didn’t even do the basic test. Isn’t it a good practice?
A: It is a good practice but now we prefer to do and to have DNA to identify the suspect which was more precise than sperm. Sperm, any male can produce
the sperm. It is
Q: In that case, you should not bring this one in. This is connected to spermatozoa.
A: I’m saying that spermatozoa can go up to 65 hours. Nowadays with DNA, it is more sensitive although I’m not in the position to answer this question.
Q: D25 no mention of sperms. Right? The chemist report.
A: I found the presence of semens. Sperm is a component of a semen.
Q: Even though there was not a test being done. And then you gave conclusion based on the flawed report. You are accepting a report that you don’t know
that it is true or not.
A: I don’t agree the report is flawed.
SN: I have to recall Dr. Razali.
YA: Never mind, as I said, I need to hear submission from both of you first, later then I decide whether to recall. No more questions on this witness?
SN: No, subject to recall.
NH: May this witness be released, YA?
YA: Yes.
NH: Can we call Dr Khairul? Cross examination of SP 4.
SN: Can we start it on Wednesday morning? It won’t be very long I think. I pray Your Lordship to start it on Wednesday morning?
NH: At least you can start with Dr Khairul with basic questions, then you can check the facts later?
SN: But the facts is relate with cross examination.
YA: Yes, proceed with few preliminary questions first. I’m sure you want to ask him about qualification and so forth. Then we go to the substance on
Wednesday.
Cross-examinantion of SP4.
SP4 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.
Q: Dengan izin, you were one of the 3 doctors who were summoned to examine SP1?
A: Yes.
Q: What time on the day you asked to join the team?
A: I was instructed to join around..actually I was first notified by the first attending medical officer, roughly around 4.30 pm.
Q: Who was the doctor?
A: Dr Suresh.
Q: Was there any other earlier doctor to examine this patient?
A: I was informed that SP1 went to out-patient department, to see medical officer there, prior he came to Emergency Department.
Q: And who was that person, can recall him?
A: No.
Q: And you were in charge of ENT?
A: Yes.
Q: For how long?
A: I was in HKL as specialist from 2006, December.
Q: What would your job entail of?
A: I was a specialist in Emergency Department, which was also include One Stop Crisis Centre.
Q: Administrate or examine patient?
A: Examine patients.
Q: And what would be your nature? OSCC? It can be rape, or what?
A: It can be rape, child abuse, sodomy.
Q: How many sodomy cases you have been attended to.
A: 20 cases of sodomy so far?
Q: At OSCC?
A: Many, uncountable.
Q: Isn’t it the norm for any complainant to make police report first, and then police refers it to you?
A: Actually, the idea of OSCC is to facilitate the victims.
Q: But normally in the sexual assault, they are always run to police station first to complaint, right?
A: Some of it, but in case if the patient first come to us; we will examine them also and facilitate them to lodge police report.
Q: I agree if that was domestic violence cases because you want to take immediate treatment. But when it comes to sexual assault?
A: Same.
Q: Which is more, which is less?
A: In the process if they come to us, we will entertain them first. We have both experiences. More or less the same.
Q: Did you keep records?
A: No.
Q: Who refer them to you? Police officers?
A: We have log book and we keep record of that.
Q: At what time were you alerted?
A: 4.30.
A: Who alerted it to you?
A: Dr Suresh.
Q: Why didn’t he examine the patient?
A: Because he mentioned that it involved a high profile public figure.
Q: And that what happened? Did you form the team or what?
A: He just informed me, and also, as a medical officer he was also facilitates me in calling all the necessary disciplines that involved in that
particular case, which are surgical and forensic.
Q: They are on call, are they?
A: Yes.
Q: How long it usually took them to come? Generally?
A: Within one hour.
Q: Normally around one hour?
A: Yes.
Q: How many doctors attended to one patient in OSCC?
A: Usually more than one. Because it involved more than one discipline, it depends on the nature of the case.
Q: But one doctor can also handled it right?
A: Actually, we get the best person to examine the patient.
Q: All the time?
A: Yes.
Q: Can’t the forensic people entertain the same person?
A: At OSCC, we need to facilitate the patient, when it comes to that particular case we will call the best doctor to do examination.
Q: Won’t one forensic person can attend one patient?
A: In my opinion, yes. But in this case, 3 doctors. Because, we want to get the best person to examine the patient.
Q: Within one hour you can get the team ready and assembled because they were on call. Do you know what time Saiful made a complaint?
A: He lodged the police report around 4 pm. Then for his instance, he first came to OSCC, and then when we knew that there was no police report lodged
yet, we facilitate him to make the police report.
Q: But that was about 6 o’clock?
A: He made the police report was earlier than that, around 4.30 p.m.
Q: Do you want to check your report?
A: Yes, 4.30, at OSCC.
Q: Within 1 hour you assembled already rite?
A: Around 9.
Q: Why it is so long?
A: Prior to that, we have our medical officer from emergency and forensic department who handling the initial part of the history taking. We need time
to inform the specialist, because some of them were outside of the hospital and all. By the time they finished the history taking is already 5 o’clock, so we
manage to get the specialist. First the process is the medical officer will handled the case and they will informed the specialist and asking the specialist
to get involved later on.
Q: Why are you not waiting for higher authorities? Were you not reporting this to DG himself?
A: No, usually we will handled it ourselves first. We informed DG later on because I have to tell my head of department first.
Q: Who assembled the team?
A: Dr. Suresh.
Q: Who ordered and assembled the team?
A: Actually, the work flow is like that.
Q: What do you mean by that?
A: We have a flow chart of case management. For instance, for this case, what we must do at emergency level etc.
Q: And it takes so long to 9.45?
A: Roughly about 9. We have everyone assembled around 9.
Q: 4 o clock you said he reported, and then taking history. How long did it take?
Q: Very short.
A: Was he examined by Dr Suresh?
A: No.
Q: Not anybody else?
A: No.
Q: Why are you so sure?
A: Because this is a high profile case. He had to inform me first.
Q: Did you asked for Dr. the notes?
A: No.
Q: Why didn’t you?
A: I was informed by Dr. Suresh.
Q: Did you know that the first doctor attended to Saiful is Dr. Danial?
A: Yes. Based on the notes, he immediately brought Saiful to us when Saiful told him about the nature of the case. He ordered SP1 to go to Emergency
Department.
Q: And did you have a meeting, among yourselves before you started the examination?
A: Yes.
Q: Why must you have the meeting?
A: There are 3 of us, so we want to minimize the time taken and conduct in order of the examination.
Q: Did you brief to anybody? Apart from the doctors?
A: There was a police officer.
Q: What was his role?
A: The person was there not from the very beginning, because he needs to be there to take the samples from the victim.
Q: Did he brief you about the entire case?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he say?
A: He said the patient is being alleged sodomised by a high profile person, and a brief history on that.
Q: Normally, when you took the case, you look at the person as the patient, you should not be biased right?
A: Yes.
Q: What was your role in these whole things of examination? Did you take history again from him?
A: Yes.
Q: For how long?
A: For 10 minutes- 15 minutes.
Q: Don’t you think that you should take more than that?
A: Because I have the preliminary history taken by medical officer, Dr. Suresh, so I just add on whatever he left.
Q: Do you remember what he said about his psychological state of mind? Into his demeanor?
A: I remember asking him whether he understand his allegation. He looked calm.
Q: Would it be normal?
A: Could be.
Q: It is more abnormal than normal right?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it recorded down?
A: Yes because he was calm and well composed.
Q: And you found that to be normal?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ask him whether he was angry?
A: He said he took sometimes to make a police report. And he prepared all the consequences that he might face.
Q: Did he sound irritable as well?
A: No, he was calm.
Q: How did you divide your work?
A: I also entertain trauma cases so we divided our duty like firstly; I examined the physical and external examination. Then, when it comes to specific
part, I give it to my colleague from surgical department.
Q: You took it from the navel above?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Because the part that he complaint I let it best to our friend from surgical.
Q: Why there is no need to do anything above?
A: We relate to the history given by the patient.
Q: Are you aware of Lockhart principle? Contact DNA?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you look at the contact DNA as well?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you take personally the DNA from the part of the body?
A: Yes.
Q: Part of the top as well?
A: Yes.
Q: May he been shown P22, please. Page 1 and 2. You took a swab from saliva, tongue, nipple, areola. Where it shown that you’ve taken swab from
back and buttock?
A: No I didn’t.
Q: Why didn’t you do so? This is an allegation of sodomy. Human body, contact is available. Therefore, if there is human contact, you can get some level
of DNA there right?
A: Because it is for this case, we relate to the last activity of the perpetrator and the complainant. Based on history taken by SP1, I take from the
necessary area only.
Q: Why didn’t you cover the whole body?
A: Because it was already pass two days.
Q: He said he cleaned and washed himself?
A: Yes.
Q: Let’s go to Dr Siew. What was his role?
A: He is a forensic pathologist.
Q: Why didn’t he take the swabs? Why he gave it to Dr. Razali?
A: Because Dr Razali is the best person to perform the examination on that particular area.
SN: YA, could we stop there, so I can make a further reading when I come back? It’s already 4.15.
YA: So how, Dato’ Nordin?
NH: If you ask me, we still can continue to maybe 4.45.
YA: Never mind lah, we will come back later at 8.30 pm, Wednesday morning.
[4.18] Adjourned.
0 comments: on "PERBICARAAN ANWAR IBRAHIM - KES LIWAT 2 - 2011 - HARI 31"
Post a Comment