The defence in the Sodomy II trial today pointed out the possibility of contamination of the samples taken and tested by chemists, and which had been ignored.

The focus was on the B9 cotton swab retrieved from the high rectal area of complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan and the white towel retrieved from the cell Anwar Ibrahim was put in when he was detained overnight for questioning.

dr brian mcdonald sodomy ll Conducting the examination-in-chief, Ram Karpal Singh pointed this out following the discovery of an 18 allele in the reading, denoting the possibility of a third person.

DNA specialist Dr Brian McDonald (right) said the two chemists - Dr Seah Lay Hong and Nor Aidora Saedon - should not have ignored this.

“They should have conducted further tests to amplify the findings on the 18 allele,” said McDonald.

Asked by Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah why this was necessary, McDonald more tests should have been done to identify whose DNA it was (on the 18 allele).

“Both of them (Seah and Nor Aidora) did not offer any explanation as to why further tests were not done.”

McDonald said contamination was a crucial issue in DNA testing as there was DNA that did not come from either of the two people named.

“This should be explained further and further tests should have been conducted,” he stressed.

NONE Citing another example of the B5 cotton swab from the peri-anal area, the Australian expert said there was DNA of a third contributor or person.

However, no test was conducted to amplify the findings (to rule out contamination).

“Both Seah and Nor Aidora (right) failed to recognise mixtures in samples retrieved from Saiful and allegedly in Anwar's cell. This is so following the discovery of the 18 allele, which is found higher in percentage but ignored,” he said.

The 18 allele was not found in the DNA of Male Y or Saiful.

Chemist’s assumption

McDonald, who initially refused to speculate where the contamination may have originated from, agreed later with Ram's suggestions that it may have come from the forensic lab or from the police handling the samples, based on illustrations and cases in Australia.

"You do not ignore it. You should report it," he said.

NONE He went on to assert that Seah (right) had made assumptions in deriving and concluding that the semen may have come from ‘Male Y’ only.

“The witness said Seah may have relied on information from the police and Nor Aidora also fell into the same trap into believing that the samples (from the police cell) came from one contributor, whereas there is no evidence to suggest this,” he said.

McDonald also questioned Seah’s determination of where the samples came from, as there were posers as to where she had obtained the information.

“The only information or documentation as to where the samples came from were given later, on Aug 20, 2008, that is two months after the examination was done. I find this perplexing - was she shown this document first or later (after test were performed)?”

Before concluding the examination-in-chief, Ram asked how Seah could have determined the presence of sperm as suggested by the prosecution.

Ram: Has the prosecution shown that the DNA of Male Y came from sperm?

McDonald:

There is no indication that it came from the sperm as there was no documentary evidence to prove this.

He suggested that the swab be swiped on a plastic receptacle for proper documentation of sperm and to perform the sperm count.

Inconsistency with history

Mc Donald also pointed out that the samples taken from swabs B7 (low rectal swabs), B8 and B9 (high rectal swabs) were not consistent with the history of these being taken 56 hours after the alleged  incident, as there were no signs of degradation and there was no documentation of sperm.

azlan From the three samples, McDonald said, the B7 cotton swab showed that Male Y was predominant and a minor component of Saiful's (right in photo) DNA.

"Seah did not cover B8, where you find the DNA component of the complainant to be the major contributor, while the minor is from Male Y. She should have made a slide, instead of guessing in her explanation as to why this is so.

"These are two contrasting features to the B7 and B8 swabs. In B9, there are equal amounts of Male Y and the complainant's DNA.

"None of the sperm fractions show any degraded DNA. If it comes from sperm at all, it should have shown signs of degradation, especially after 56 hours in the rectum and 46 hours (outside before being given to the chemist)."

He said it was not known whether the samples retrieved from B5, B7, B8 and B9 had come from saliva or from a blood sample.

McDonald is due to be cross-examined by DPP Noorin Badaruddin

when hearing resumes tomorrow.