No evidence ‘Male Y’ DNA came from sperm cells, sodomy trial told

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

September 19, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 19 — An Australian DNA expert said today there is no evidence to show that DNA profiles obtained from “Male Y” in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial came from sperm cells.

Dr Brian McDonald, a defence witness in the high-profile trial, went so far to suggest that the prosecution had no proof whatsoever to the type of cells the DNA profiles were taken from.

He also challenged laboratory findings done by government chemists Dr Seah Lay Hong and Dr Nor Aidora Saedon, and pointed out the possibility of contamination to the samples taken and tested by chemists, which he claimed had been ignored by them.

“There is no evidence presented which allows the prosecution to draw that conclusion,” said Dr McDonald when asked by defence lawyer Ramkarpal Singh whether the prosecution had proven that DNA profiles taken from Male Y came from sperm cells.

“We don’t not know what cell of types the samples were taken from,” he said.

Dr McDonald had previously said the DNA profiles in three sperm samples taken from the complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s rectum showed “no evidence of degradation”.

Dr McDonald said the tests done by the government chemists had failed to show where the DNA samples were taken from. — File pic

He had told the High Court that the DNA profile in one high rectal sample was pre-dominantly from “Male Y”, another was pre-dominantly Saiful’s, and the third — from the low rectal area — was inconclusive.

Dr Nor Aidora testified last February that the “Male Y” DNA profile matched those found on a “Good Morning” towel given to Anwar during his overnight detention in a lock-up three years ago, when he was arrested for allegedly sodomising Saiful.

The focus today was on the B9 cotton swab from the high rectal area retrieved from Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s rectum and the white towel retrieved from Anwar’s cell when he was detained overnight.

Dr McDonald also said that Dr Seah and Dr Nor Aidora had ignored findings which suggested the presence of a third DNA sample.

“They should have conducted further tests to amplify the findings on the 18 allele. Both of them (Seah and Nor Aidora) did not offer any explanation as to why further tests were not done.”

The foreign expert said the tests done by the government chemists had failed to show where the DNA samples were taken from.

“That evidence does not tell us (whether) it came from sperm or saliva,” said Dr McDonald.

MORE TO COME