'Is Saiful a passive homosexual?'

Defence lawyer Karpal Singh stole the thunder in cross-examining a government chemist this morning, asking Dr Seah Lay Hong if she thinks sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan ‘is a passive homosexual’.

The focus of the Sodomy II trial in the Kuala Lumpur High Court was on whether the Chemistry Department had followed international standards in handling DNA samples provided by the police.

Karpal, who was the last member of the defence team to cross-examine Seah, a DNA specialist, questioned her about the multiple DNA profiles found in Saiful's rectum.

“Is it reasonable to conclude the victim is a passive homosexual?” he asked.

Seah said she could not answer the question, and Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah initially indicated he would not allow the question.

However, when Karpal pointed the relevancy of the question, the judge backed down.

Karpal said: "(With) the profile of more than one contributor inside Saiful's anus, it is a logical conclusion, to show the complainant as a passive homosexual.”

Seah said she neither agreed nor disagreed with this.

Karpal also asked, after the prosecution raised an objection, how someone's DNA could end up in Saiful's rectum if the pro-forma medical form states that the issue relates to an ‘attempted sodomy’.

Karpal: If it is attempted sodomy, you will not find other people's DNA inside the anus?

Seah: Not possible.

Karpal left the courtroom soon after he finished asking this question.

Doubts raised on samples

Earlier, lawyer Sankara Nair cast further doubts in the prosecution case, on the labelling of the exhibits.

He questioned Seah on the standards adopted by the Chemistry Department, to which she said her department carried out tests correctly, reliably and of international standard, as it has been accorded the ISO 17025 certification and also the American certification.

Seah said her department adopted strict quality control in handling samples and it also had guidelines on quality assurance in treating semen samples.

However, the witness did not know whether the police or hospital had adopted quality controls in collecting samples.

This prompted Sankara to argue how that could be as her department's certification had depended on this. Seah replied that the department often issued guidelines to the police on how to preserve, collect and document samples.

“If this is not done, it (the sample) will be rejected,” she said.

The witness said she examined the packages she received from the police, including the seals and they were in order and intact. She also said the department had a pro-forma form for accepting exhibits, but that this was electronically documented.

Sankara then  pointed to discrepancies in the labelling of the cotton swab B4, the body swab, and B5, the peri-annal swab, which were placed in a receptacle.

He showed Seah the peri-annal swab recepticle that was dated “26/6/08” denoting June 26, 2008, and but that the month also seemed like an “8”, suggesting the possibility of it being in August. Similarly, the B4 swab showed a similar date.

However, earlier evidence given was that the samples were retrieved in the evening of June 28, 2008. When shown another recepticle, marked B6, Seah read the date as "28/6/08".

Sankara: Should you realise something amiss, what do you do?

Seah: Normally, we do not act on this.

Sankara: What about your duty and protocol when faced with such a situation?

Seah: We are not bound to reject (the samples).

This resulted in an argument between Sankara and the prosecution when the lawyer said going by international practices, the samples would be rejected for such a discrepancy.

Seah: I disagree, as the labelling was not done by me.

The witness also disagreed when it was put to her that she did not record such findings in her log book.

“I did put it on record, but did not only notice this today,” she said.