jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 23 Februari 2011 February 28, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in 1Malaysia.
trackback

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

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

[8.50 a.m.]

MY:    Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung pemeriksaan semula SP5.

Sambung pemeriksaan semula SP5 oleh NB.

SP5 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SP6, Nor Aidora bt Saedon.

Examination-in-chief of SP6 by NB.

SP6 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q:    Anything else?
A:    No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sambung pemeriksaan utama SP5 oleh NB.

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

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

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

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

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

DSP Jude is identified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Envelope “D” is marked as ID57.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NB:     May I have this envelope marked as ID58?

Envelope “D1” is marked as ID58.

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

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

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

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

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

A white toothbrush is marked as ID58A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Envelope “D2” is marked as ID59

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A “Good Morning” towel is marked as ID59A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Envelope “D3” is marked ID 61

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CACTUS mineral water bottle is marked as ID 61A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NB:     May we have this report marked as ID62.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11.41 a.m.] Stand down.

[12.02 p.m.]

Sambung pemeriksaan utama SP5 oleh NB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NB:    The hair is ID57A, YA.

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

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

NB:    YA, that would be ID60B.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NB:     Page is is ID58B, YA.

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

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

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

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

Q:    At locus D3S1538?
A:    Yes.

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

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

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

NB:    ID61A, YA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sambung pemeriksaan utama SP6 oleh NB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: