The defence case in the Sodomy II trial took a hit when its witness, an Australian DNA expert, agreed with the prosecution’s assertion that sperm can last in the rectum for four to 113 hours.

dr brian mcdonald sodomy ll Solicitor-General II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden put this to Dr Brian Mc Donald (right) when cross-examining him today in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Yusof made reference to a 1997 article entitled ‘Sexual Assault and Semen Persistence’ written by GM Willot and JE Ellard and which was published in a medical journal.

Yusof: Based on this journal, is it not unusual to find sperm in a swab retrieved from the anus after four to 113 hours?

McDonald: I agree.

In a 1982 article, Ellard had stating his finding that sperm can last for 65 hours in the rectum. The matter has been a subject of dispute within the scientific community.

McDonald had testified on the possibility of deterioration and contamination of semen samples which had only been retrieved from complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan's rectum after 56 hours and given to chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong 48 hours after that.

NONE Investigating officer Supt Jude Blacious Pereira (left) had also told the court that the samples were not kept in the refrigerator as recommended by Hospital Kuala Lumpur doctors.

During examination in chief, McDonald had told defence lawyer Ramkarpal Singh said he found it puzzling that the samples retrieved were in “pristine condition”.

However, when Yusof showed McDonald an article on research in the Srinagarind Hospital - stating that sperm can last for 19 days in the female genitals - he refused to respond to the assertion that this could be assumed to be true.

McDonald said he cannot read the Thai language, although there were a few paragraphs summarised in English.

“I have to know what the basis of the finding is - I cannot read this as I cannot understand what is written,” he said.

Credibility questioned

This morning, the prosecution spent almost two hours attacking McDonald's credibility as a DNA expert when it cited a Brunei case and five Australian cases in which he had testified.

In Bropho vs the State of Western Australia , Yusof said the district court judge had ruled that McDonald's evidence was inadmissable.

NONE Yusof (right) cited part of the ruling: ‘The court also found his qualifications and fellowship of a number of bodies namely the Human Genetics Society of Australasia in molecular genetics, where it was found there was no curriculum and nobody enrolled in the course.

‘The court also found it was unable to accept McDonald's experience in the field of molecular genetics training as he had not attended any course on population genetics, and such knowledge seems that he had learned from journals or other people.”

McDonald explained that he could not comment on some of the cases, as these involved the judge's opinion. However, he read out part of a judgment in the same case at the Court of Appeal, which found him to be a truthful witness and then accepted his testimony.

Yusof then cited a Brunei murder case in which the court had not accepted McDonald’s evidence, although the judge was impressed by the government chemist.

To this, McDonald replied that his evidence was accepted but quipped: “I don't know, I am not here in a popularity contest.”

The witness also was involved in many exchanges with Yusof as the solicitor-general II tried to test the Australian's credibility by trying to show law journals where his testimony was in question.

However, McDonald stood firm and maintained the truth of his credentials.

Related stories :

Prosecution: Can Saiful's rectum be the crime scene?

Expert's credibility questioned after mistake

An intricate plan unravelled... by a foreigner