Emergency MCA GA to decide whether MCA should make public apology for producing MCA President /Deputy President charged for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ sc

DAP

The assertion by the MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek that there was no reason to apologise for the two top MCA leaders who were Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy as whatever happened was the personal conduct of the leaders concerned and his strident denial that “MCA is a cheating party” have raised eyebrows nation-wide, even in Barisan Nasional parties including his own MCA!

Firstly, let me clarify that I had not asked Chua as MCA President to apologise over Ling and Chan on the ground that they were guilty of “grand corruption” as their trials have not even started – and I go along with the legal maxim that a person is innocent unless found guilty by the courts.

I had however asked Chua whether as MCA President he would apologise to Umno, Barisan Nasional and all Malaysians for producing a MCA President and MCA Deputy President who are charged in court for corruption in the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal based on Chua’s own comments as published by the Star on Tuesday (1.3.11), viz:

Dr Chua said anyone who had committed an offence in the eyes of the Attorney-General’s Chamber should face the music.

“This shows that the Government is fair because it doesn’t just go after the small fish but also the big fish,” he said.

Since Chua as MCA President fully supported the Attorney-General’s prosecution of the two top MCA leaders for corruption in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, isn’t his next logical and responsible action (regardless of the outcome of the trials) should be to make a national apology for a MCA President and MCA Deputy President being charged for corruption in the PKFZ scandal when they were Transport Ministers?

Chua yesterday made another three more contributions to Malaysia’s lexicon of Political “Quotable Quotes”. On Monday, Chua had said that the charges against Chan will not affect the MCA.

Chua’s three new “Quotable Quotes” contributions are:

• MCA is not a cheating party.

• Corruption charges against Ling and Chan concerned their personal conduct.

• No need to apologise.

Let me comment on Chua’s latest three “Quotable Quotes”.

Firstly, on Chan’s assertion that MCA is not “a cheating party”: the MCA President is not the most qualified person to give such an answer, which should come from the Malaysian Chinese whom the MCA claims to represent as well as the Malaysian people.

Secondly, on the pathetic attempt to dissociate Ling and Chan from MCA for their corruption charges by claiming that they concerned their “personal conduct”, the simple retort from ordinary Malaysians is whether Ling and Chan would have become Transport Ministers in their “personal capacities”!

Thirdly, is Chua speaking for himself or is he speaking on behalf of the entire MCA Central Committee that there is no need for an official MCA apology for producing a President and a Deputy President who have been charged for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – when no personalities from the other Barisan Nasional parties have been charged?

I do not think Chua can really speak on behalf of all MCA leaders and all levels of the MCA membership when he made the infamous quotes of “Charges against Chan will not affect MCA”, “Charges against Ling and Chan are their personal conduct” and “No Need to Apologise”, as I believe there are still many MCA members of honour and integrity in their rank-and-file.

If Datuk Ong Tee Keat is still MCA President, for instance, I think he would tender such a national apology on behalf of MCA to Umno, Barisan Nasional and the Malaysian public if asked to do so without qualification whatsoever.

May be, Chua should convene an emergency MCA General Assembly to allow the MCA delegates to decide whether MCA should tender a public and national apology to Malaysians for producing a MCA President and Deputy President who betrayed public trust and are charged for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal!

Court's attention drawn to discrepancies...

While the focus in the trial-within-a-trial is whether Anwar Ibrahim's arrest was legal or unlawful, counsel for the Permatang Pauh MP has drawn the court's attention to the discrepancies between the original statement recorded from the opposition leader, and that given to his solicitors.

The matter was highlighted when Anwar was recalled to the witness stand by the prosecution led by solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden (right) to answer questions on his arrest. Anwar's statement was recorded under Section 112 of Criminal Procedure Code before investigating officer DSP Jude Blacious Pereira, Anwar and was accompanied by lawyer Sivarasa Rasiah.

Both copies, the original and the copy handed to Anwar's solicitors, were tendered as evidence.

The discrepancies as identified by Anwar included:

The word sulit (confidential) which is printed on the original copy on every page does not appear in the copy given to the solicitor.

The name and signature of the recording officer Pereira appeared in the original copy but not on the one given to the solicitor, and

There appeared as if an insertion had been made on the second page in the original, compared to the copy given to the lawyer.

The opposition leader said that in recording his statement, he had denied the charge, and gave full cooperation.

I asked Jude (Pereira) if everything was finished. He said it was finished. I sought for this as I wanted to be released! Anwar said.

Despite this, he said he was not released and instead was held overnight by the police after earlier going to Hospital Kuala Lumpur for a medical examination.

He also said no grounds were given by Pereira for the arr! est and only the charge was read out to him.

There must be reason to arrest a person. The police must state the basis for the arrest, he said.

Anwar signed document

Earlier, Anwar was asked by Yusof to read through the document and confirm its authenticity.

The solicitor-general II referred to two pages of the statement which state that Anwar disallowed the police to videotape the recording of his statement and over the allegation of sodomy by complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Anwar agreed with Yusof that he signed something but that was in IPK KL.

Prior to that while in the police vehicle, the police did not state the grounds for my arrest.

It was only at the IPK that they read out the charge, said the Permatang Pauh MP.- Hafiz Yatim

source:malaysiakini

'Karpal tak jadi panggil Musa Hassan, Syed Hamid'

cheers.

Anwar back on the witness stand...

The trial-within-a-trial in Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy case resumes with lawyer and Subang Jaya MP R Sivarasa testifying for the defence.He is one of three lawyers who were with Anwar when he was at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Kuala Lumpur police headquarters on July 16, 2008.

Anwar had yesterday related the manner in which the police had apprehended him, describing how he had been subjected to medical examination where his private parts - penis, anus and pubic hair - were inspected and measured. Although Anwar agreed that he was not physically harmed by the authorities during the one-day detention, he questioned the manner in which his arrest was made, where 10 to 15 balaclava-clad Special Action Unit personnel armed with sub-machine guns had stopped him just before he reached his home, when he had already promised to meet the police at 2pm on that same day.
The opposition leader and Permatang Pauh MP had also told the court the arresting officers did not indicate the grounds of his arrest, although he acknowledged that a police report had been lodged against him by sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Following Sivarasa's testimony today, another two witnesses for the prosecution are expected to give their testimony in the trial-within-a-trial. This will be followed by submissions by both parties. A ruling may not be expected today.

9.23am: Hearing begins with High Court judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah presiding. Solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden informs the court that he wants to recall Anwar. Anwar back on the witness stand.

9.26am: Anwar tells the court that he had indeed signed the document of his arrest at IPK KL. He however cannot recall if it was a warrant of a! rrest. Y usof shows a photocopy of the document. Karpal objects, saying that the original must be shown.

9.33am: Karpal says the Evidence Act is not relevant here; the prosecution must produce a copy of the document which is not a photocopy. Yusof says a carbon copy can be produced. Karpal asks for adjournment.

"Okay, if you object, I will withdraw the question," says Yusof. The solicitor-general adds that he wants to ask some other questions.

Yusof: You remember signing certain documents, but you can't remember?

Anwar: I remember signing but cannot remember what it was.

Yusof: Did you ask (investigating officer) Jude (Pereira) why you were there?

Anwar: I did ask why I was required. I insisted to see the police report against me (Saiful's report). The police report was only furnished months after that.

9.41am: Yusof shows the original 112 statement recorded from Anwar on July 16 and July 17, 2008.

"Yes, this is my statement, but I have to make sure there is no alteration after my experience with the prosecution," says Anwar.

Karpal requests to allow Anwar go through the statement.

9.43am: Anwar reads the document and confirms the authenticity of the 112 statement. Yusof says he wants to refer to two pages of the 112 statement in this trial within the trial.

9.47am: The pages read by Anwar is about the opposition leader not allowing the police recording of the statement to be videotaped. Anwar reads page two where there was a complaint made by Saiful regarding the sodomy incident. It is pointed out that the court is photocopying Anwar's statement.

Justice Zabidin allows a 15-minute break. The court stands down.

10.31am: Court resumes. Anwar takes the stand. Karpal begins questioning.

1033am: Karpal asks Anwar to look at page 2 of the statement.

Karpal: (Is this the) copy of the 112 statement served on your solicitors?

Anwar: Y! es.
< br>Karpal: I want you to refer to your copy served to you. I want it marked. Are there any differences between the copy supplied to you and the one shown to you?

Anwar: Yes, there is 'sulit' (confidential) in the original; it's not written 'sulit' in my copy.

10.36am: Anwar says the word 'sulit' does not appear in his copy on every page. He also notes the difference in page 2 between his copy and the original, saying it is as if pages have been inserted.

10.38am: Karpal: 'Rakaman percakapan lisan selesai' on pg 21?

Anwar: I denied the charge, and gave full co-operation. I asked Jude if everything was finished. He said it was finished. I sought for this as I wanted to be released!

10.42am: Karpal: Were you informed of the grounds of arrest by Jude?

Anwar: No

Karpal: Only the charge was read, no grounds of arrest was given by Jude?

Anwar: Yes (that's right). There must be reason to arrest a person. The police must have basis for the arrest.

Yusof now requests permission to ask questions through the court.

10.46am: Yusof: After page 21, it is written the portion of the examination at HKL (Hospital Kuala Lumpur)?

Anwar: Yes the major part is on the examination at HKL

Karpal asks to look again at page 2 of the original document, not numbered in his copy, asking if it is similar to the page included.

Anwar: Now that I have seen the copy, I am not sure whether this is the same one. There is no similar signature in page 2.

Karpal: What is the difference there?

Anwar: It only states 'Borang Rakaman Percakapan' (Form for recording of statement), no signature by me or Jude on page 2.

10.56am: Anwar says what is sent to his lawyers is not a copy of the original.

10.59am: Anwar says it is clear is that the original 112 statement and t! he one g iven to his counsel are different.

"The signatures are clearly different," he says.

11.03am: Sivarasa Rasiah takes the stand.

11.05am: Sivarasa tells the court he has been an advocate and solicitor since 1987.

Karpal: Do you know Anwar?

Sivarasa: I know him well

Karpal: July 16, 2008. You met him (Anwar)?

Sivarasa: Yes, the first meeting was the morning of July 16, 2008. At the MACC office in Putrajaya. The MACC report is regarding (Anwar's) 'black eye' incident.

11.09am: Sivarasa says he went back separately from the others, and got to know of Anwar's arrest only subsequently.

I went to IPK at about 2pm. Myself and Sankara Nair were taken to a meeting room.

Other officers were present . I remember ACP Razali and Yahya. I was the only lawyer present when (Anwar's) statement was recorded.

11.12am: Sivarasa says that Anwar was not released, and Jude had informed them that they will bring Anwar to the hospital.

I was present with him at HKL. The police (Jude) made a request for a blood sample.

Anwar consulted me, and I consulted other lawyers as part of the team, and I advised him to decline, said Sivarasa.

Sivarasa says he recalled Anwar explaining why he was declining, based on his experience in1988 (during his previous case), where (the samples) were illegally used for other purposes.

source:malaysiakini

'Anwar kembali ke kandang tertuduh'

'Salinan asal rakaman percakapan dan fotostat berbeza'

'Anwar: Kenyataan saksi 2008 dan dibekal hari ini jauh berbeza'

'Anwar claims statement to police altered'

Jika rekod immigration Altantuya Shaaribu pun boleh dipadamkan, maka aku tak hairan dengan pindaan yang mereka buat kepada kenyataan polis setebal 112 muka surat itu.....

cheers.

Taib has good reason to fear Radio Free Sarawak

Taib Mahmud will be celebrating 30 years as Sarawaks Chief Minister on March 28. Although he expressed a desire to quit politics, he was apparently persuaded by other leaders of Parti Pesaka Bumiputera to continue for the foreseeable future.

Taib governed Sarawak with an iron fist and for four decades, he opened up large tracts of land to be exploited first, for logging, and later for oil palm cultivation. With vast areas being controlled by companies connected to Taib, the indigenous people were relocated to areas which were unable to sustain their way of life.

Although Sarawak is blessed with mineral wealth and has, for over a hundred years been a major producer of oil and gas, very little of the oil money has reached the average citizen.

On the other hand, Taibs family has become fabulously wealthy, not from hard work or creative business skills. They became obscenely rich from the corrupt exploitation of government office, by abusing Taibs position as Chief Minister and by diverting the monies derived from Sarawaks natural resources.

This is the culture of corruption that Clare Rewcastle Brown, the founder of Radio Free Sarawak and the author of the Sarawak Report blog is trying to expose. Last week, she and Peter John Jaban, Sarawaks own freedom fighter, have both vowed to expose Taibs alleged corruption and hence remove him from power.

In the days after these two went public in London, Clare shot back at Barisan Nasional who said her radio broadcasts were illegal. They accused her of trying to overthrow Taib and of trying to stir up trouble in Sarawak.

Clare is aware that she has a powerful weapon in the form of the RFS and SR websites. Another secret weapon is the Iban, Peter John Jaban, a broadcaster who once worked for a radio station in Saraw! ak which was controlled by Taib.

Together, they make a formidable duo. Both were born in Sarawak. Both have a deep love and affection for the country and its people. Both have seen the destruction of the rainforest and witnessed a degradation of the lives of the indigenous population.

Their combined aim, using RFS and SR, is to broadcast and inform the people of Sarawak and Malaysia, how Taib is abusing the trust placed in him as the Chief Minister of Sarawak.

Platform for voices

But just as important is their ability to listen to the people. They do this by airing the concerns of the people who contact them and tell them interesting and important information, which may not be common knowledge or which the authorities may want suppressed. In other words, RFS is a platform for their voices to be heard.

People from longhouses across Sarawak tell RFS about the land grab issues, their poverty, their lack of medical facilities and the lack of concern shown by the authorities towards their general well-being.

Their stories are the ones we, in the wider world, rarely get to hear about. They tell of harrowing stories of maternal deaths from lack of medical intervention, or of children having skin diseases from bathing in contaminated water sources, or of being stranded when bridges get washed away in floods and heavy rains.

With a voice provided by RFS, villagers who thought they were suffering in isolation, are now able to share with others, the same concerns and issues and hence get assistance from people who are able to help.

No wonder Taib is scared. Clare and Peter have in a few months, been able to connect rural and distant communities and put them together by sharing many things. These people find they have the same hopes and aspirations and more important, they have a common bond. More importantly, RFS and SR have informed the world of Taibs neglect of his own people.

For four decades of rule, Taib increased his powerbase by di! viding t he people and by keeping them ignorant and isolated.

Taib had billions which he siphoned out of the country for his own use unlike Clare, who had a few thousand dollars start-up capital to initiate the radio broadcast to Sarawak, to help inform the Sarawak people.

Unlike the people of the longhouses who are willing and ready to be interviewed by RFS, those who fear being interviewed are the BN politicians. Clare said, BN politicians are not used to being interviewed by a free press .They are afreaid of being asked embarrassing questions about athings they shoulndt have done.

Dirty propaganda war

In the days following going public, both the RFS and SR website have seen a surge of 50% more viewers, or an increase from 20,000 hits a day, to 30,000 hits.

The increased popularity seen by RFS and SR does not mean it should slow down.

Both BN and Taib are desperate. Already the dirty propaganda war has started and steps are being taken to undermine both RFS and SR.

Sarawak BN youth chief Fadillah Yusof said they would be forming a legal team to study the RFSs contents to see if it breached Malaysian laws.

If they do, well lodge a police report against them and we want relevant agencies to take action, said Fadillah.

A variety of protest marches against Taibs corrupt rule have been organised in UK, Canada and America. The first of these kicked off in London last Monday.

Incredibly, Umno diehards claimed that the people who attended the London march were paid 100 each, to take part. Perhaps, Umno supporters have inadvertently revealed how they managed to get coachloads of people to turn up at their ceramahs, which in the past, have been known to fill up stadiums. Paid audiences are alleged to have been given between RM20-30 each to attend.

The interest generated by RFS and SR is increasing. Sarawakians are keen to have their voices heard, just as BN and Taib would like to see them silenced.

Now that the state el! ections are approaching, the immediate priority for Clare and Peter is to keep up the pressure on Taib with more revelations about his hidden assets.

Sarawak needs a free and open society, where the press is allowed to flourish and to question and criticise politicians. We know from experience, that this makes our society stronger and it is the best check on political corruption. It also makes each individual in our society safer and more valued by those politicians who need their votes, said Clare.

Mariam Mokhtar is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.

Ummisucksumi

A Boomerang is a flying tool with a curved shape used as a weapon or for sport. The most recognized type is the returning boomerang, which is a throwing stick that travels in an elliptical path and returns to its point of origin when thrown correctly. Returning boomerangs were used as decoy birds of prey, thrown above long grass in order to frighten game birds into flight and into waiting nets.

Everyone has a past whether good or bad. But certain people tend to forget when they are arrogant, thinking that they are immune from karma and above the law. Some with their wealth, thinking they can cover up everything that is unpleasant or work against them.

2011 have brought a sense of justice to the Arab world. North Korea has already place their nuclear in the direct path of South Korea. Cambodia and Thailand are already on the red alert. Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand have experience cyclone and earthquake. Singapore and Malaysia have the floods.

So it is a wonder that our Malaysian Government still think they are above the wrath of Allah and that karma does not work for them.

Kerdau and Merlimau the double by-elections are similar in many ways to the just concluded Tenang by election.

Money, dinners and household items are given freely without shame openly. What does EC officers do? They of course turn blind and deaf to all.

So it is no wonder that a few people have make themselves permanent fixture to UMNO since Kuala Selangor by-election till today to earn a living. In Kuala Selangor they receive RM50 plus food, accommodation and transport per day. In Tenang they were given RM150 plus all the same benefits and in Kerdau and Merlimau RM300 per day thanks to Rustam and Isa Samad. Yes the same Isa who depended on! the syn dicate to win in Bagan Pinang. With the blessing of Mr Rosmah, Army, Police and EC, Isa since then have been recruiting the syndicates to help in every single election.

What is interesting though is using Ummi Hafilda Ali as a decoy to cover their dirty tracks.

In Sodomy 1, Ummi was superwoman who knew every detail of Anwars link, affairs and movements which even the latter was not aware. By chance I met Dr Ristina Majid before her death, enquiring whether she manage to settle her debts of RM300,000 which she had taken from a specialist based at Pantai Hospital. She replied that Ummi had settled that debt and even given her daughter AUS20,000.

After the trial of Sodomy 1, Dr Ristina accompanied Ummi to Singapore to collect RM2 million as promised by Mahathir from Daim. Ummi went to see Daim alone and wanted to have sex with him. Knowing Ummis reputation for sleeping around with every Tom, Dick and Harry, he decline instead told her to suck his cock. Ummi did just that and went back to her hotel happy.

So which path will the boomerang return to in Kerdau and Merlimau?

In the meantime my friends are a happy lot getting free money and are looking forward to another death for the month of March.

PAS: Pahang is bankrupt for real

PAS blasts Adnan's debt theory, repeats bankruptcy warning

By Harakah Daily

PAS has blasted Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob's explanation that the state's huge debt of RM2.17 billion was 'normal'.

Pahang PAS commissioner Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man said Adnan should instead be concerned over the continuous increase of state debt owed to Federal government.

“The state government’s revenue is only at RM532 million whereas the operating cost (for 2011) is already RM600 million, and development fund is set at RM270 million bringing the total budget to RM871 million.

"This means the extra RM300 million is dependent on loan from the Federal government,” said Tuan Ibrahim, repeating fears that the state government’s debt had not been remedied by its 2011 budget and would therefore continue to rise.

Adnan attempted to deny allegations that the state government would be bankrupt, saying it had suffered only two deficit budgets to date.

Several quarters including PAS had earlier cited its 13th consecutive deficit budget and warned of its continuing rise in debt.

Tuan Ibrahim said the ratio between the state government’s revenue and debt was now more than 200 percent, citing that Greece was declared bankrupt when the debt of country was more than 100 percent of its GDP (gross domestic product).

Car number plates and surau signboard

Tuan Ibrahim, who is also the PAS vice president and director of the party's election machinery in the Kerdau by-election, attributed Pahang's failure to increase revenue to Adnan’s poor management and financial control.

“For example, the state government was willing to spend the people’s money to buy the car plate CCC9 at the price of RM48,000,” he said.

Adnan, who paid a whopping RM48,000 for the MB's car number plate CCC9, had in 2007 brushed aside critics, saying the sum was not a wastage.

“Where got waste? The money goes from government to government. It's not for Adnan Yaakob (but) for the government," he was reported as saying.

Political owners cause bad journalism

By uppercaise

Aziz Ishak’s reported remark that Utusan Malaysia felt duty-bound to support Umno and the Barisan Nasional falls in the great tradition of who pays the piper calls the tune.

Great tradition — lousy journalism.

Anyone who expected Aziz Ishak to say otherwise would be very naive. As naive as those who criticise him for his lack of journalistic ethics or journalistic principles. What Utusan does has nothing to do with ethics. It’s about survival — the editor’s survival, as well as his owner’s survival.

Who owns the media?

• Umno owns Utusan Melayu, the publisher of Utusan Malaysia and other papers.
• Umno’s proxies own Media Prima and New Straits Times Press, publishers of the New Straits Times, Berita Harian and other papers, and owners of TV3 and all other commercial TV stations.
• The MCA owns The Star and its other media properties.
• MIC politicians or their families own Tamil Nesan, Malaysia Namban and Makkal Ossai.
• Barisan-friendly business tycoon Vincent Tan and son own The Sun
• Barisan-friendly timber tycoon Ting Hieng Kiew owns Sin Chew, Nanyang Siang Pau, China Press and Guang Ming.
• Barisan-friendly business tycoon Ananda Krishnan owns Astro, the satellite TV channel, and a monopoly on satellite television broadcasting
• Pas owns and publishes Harakah, DAP publishes the Rocket, and PKR Suara Keadilan. They are party organs.

Who controls the media?

• Businessmen, frightened of offending Umno, have control of the media’s future by choosing not to advertise in campaigning newspapers or non-BN media
• Umno politicians control the information ministry, which runs the state-owned Radio-Television Malaysia networks, the state-owned Filem Negara and the Film Censorship Board

Whistleblower film incriminates Sarawak Chief Minister

By Bruno Manser Fund, Basel/Switzerland

Sarawak Report releases video on the late Taib US aide Ross Boyert’s ties with the corrupt Malaysian top politician.

SEATTLE (US). Less than 24 hours ahead of a planned street protest in front of the FBI‘s Northwestern Regional Headquarters in Seattle, which is owned by the Malaysian Taib family, new incriminating evidence against Abdul Taib Mahmud („Taib“), the billionaire Chief Minister of the Malaysian state of Sarawak, has surfaced in the internet. A video posted by Sarawak Report (www.sarawakreport.org) today shows Taib whistleblower Ross Boyert speaking out against the Malaysian top politician. Boyert, who administered the Taib family’s US properties during 12 years, was found dead last September in a Los Angeles hotel room with a plastic bag tied around his head.

The video contains interviews with Boyert and his wife only weeks before Boyert’s mysterious death. In the video, Boyert confirms that all the US properties held by Sakti International, Wallysons Inc and two other US corporations are indeed owned by the Sarawak Chief Minister himself: „He was the boss. (...) Taib is the owner of this company and of all of its assets.“ Boyert also incriminates Taib’s son-in-law, the Canadian national Sean Murray who chairs the Taib-linked Sakto corporation in Ottawa, to act upon instruction of the Sarawak Chief Minister: „Taib was the one who instructed Sean Murray to take over Sakti International.“ Today, both Sakti International and Wallysons are being run from Sean Murray’s office at 333 Preston Street in Ottawa, Canada.

In the film, Boyert accuses the Sarawak Chief Minister of having mounted a systematic psychoterror campaign to discredit and ruin him: „We are talking about an extensive, expensive operation. (...) It’s designed to break you down. It’s designed to make you so discredited that noone will believe you. (...) You sue me and we’ll show what will happen to you and your family.“ According to Boyert, he and his family had been harassed ever since he took his former employer to court for unlawful dismissal and breach of contract.

The Bruno Manser Fund and its campaign partners in the US, the UK and Malaysia are asking the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to probe the circumstances that led to the death of former Taib US aide Ross Boyert, to review the FBI‘s rental contracts with the Taib-controlled firm Wallysons Inc and to freeze all Taib assets in the United States.

Abdul Taib Mahmud has been in power since 1981 and is the chief culprit for the large-scale destructive logging of Sarawak’s tropical rainforests and for the marginalization of its indigenous communities. - Ends -

Sign our online petition against timber corruption: www.stop-timber-corruption.org

Follow our campaign on twitter: www.twitter.com/bmfonds

Bruno Manser Fund, Socinstrasse 37, 4051 Basel / Switzerland, Tel. +41 61 261 94 74

What’s in it for Petronas?

Big projects handed out to party-linked companies (PLC) are still the order of the day. Gamuda-MMC Corporation Bhd will be getting the Mass Rail Transit (MRT) project.

Now, the donkey work is being done by the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD).

We don’t know what to categorise SPAD as. Is it a government organisation? Or is it a mule for big companies?

I have even heard remarks that SPAD is just a corporate pimp – soliciting and dressing up projects with the required credentials and handing them over to the project delivery partner.

It will appear that all the Entry Point Projects (EPPs) are already all spoken for.

Gamuda-MMC gets the MRT. Ekovest-MRCB gets the River of Life Project.

Sapura-Kencana Petroleum gets the marginal oil fields farmed out by Petronas.

By the way, let’s hear Petronas define what a marginal oilfield is.

A marginal field is an oilfield that is nearing its end in terms of output. The benchmark of 35,000 bbl/day is usually taken.

Not economical

For the resource owner such as Petronas, that quantity is not economical.

But has price of oil per barrel been taken into consideration? If we can produce 35,000 bbl/day but the price of oil is US$100 per barrel, that’s a huge revenue earning volume.

Indonesia which also practises production sharing contracts (PSC) with contractors seems not to think so. A field producing 35,000 bbl/day at US$30 per barrel maybe is.

If it’s a field already worked to a level that’s no longer profitable for the resource owner to work, then why is Petrofac-Sapura-Kencana interested?

Perhaps because a lot of the capital expenditure (Capex) items were already in place by the original resource owner, in this case Petronas.

Hence it would be reasonable to assume the capex component of the investment by the trio is minimal and the bulk of the US$800 million is for operating expenditure (Opex) items.

And the Opex is spread over seven years which makes the amount bearable.

So whether the Berantai fields are marginal would depend on the expected reserves and the price.

What if the field can still produce more than the minimum 35,000 bbl/day and the price of gas and oil is high like US$100?

Then it would mean, Petronas is signing away an important revenue-earning asset.

Compare definitions

The risk partners are actually getting a good field instead of a near depleting field. In any case, most of the costs are already sunk.

So let’s hear how Petronas defines a marginal oilfield.

Then perhaps we can compare its definition with those from other oil-producing countries such as Indonesia and Nigeria.

In its long history, Petronas has been able to nurture only two local companies – Kencana and Sapura.

We know who is behind Kencana whose public and politically correct face belongs to Mokhzani Mahathir. (Former premier) Dr Mahathir Mohamad is coincidentally still the adviser of Petronas.

Petronas recently awarded its first marginal oil and gas field project to a consortium of three firms, led by Petrofac Energy Developments Sdn Bhd in partnership with two local contractors, SapuraCrest Petroleum Bhd and Kencana Petroleum Bhd.

The Berantai oil and gas field, located 150km offshore Terengganu, is estimated to cost US$800 million (RM2.54 billion) to develop.

Petrofac has a 50% interest in the risk service contract (RSC), alongside local partners Kencana Energy Sdn Bhd (“Kencana”) and Sapura Energy Ventures Sdn Bhd (“Sapura”), both of which hold a 25% interest (together the “Berantai partners”).

The Berantai partners will develop the field and will subsequently operate the field for seven years after the first gas production.

Joint owners

The Berantai partner will exploit the Berantai Fields in two phases.

In Phase One, as part of the fast-track development, a wellhead platform will be installed to support the drilling of 18 wells, with a second wellhead platform expected to be installed in a subsequent phase.

Both platforms will be connected to a floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel which will be jointly owned by the Berantai partners.

The FPSO will undergo modification to ensure suitability for the Berantai development.

Produced gas will be exported by subsea pipeline via the Angsi Field, while oil will be offloaded via shuttle tanker.

Under the terms of the RSC, the Berantai partners will receive a rate of return linked to their performance against an agreed incentive structure, including project costs, timing to first gas and sustained gas delivery after project completion, with an ongoing incentive structure based on operational uptime.

What are these?

If I were to read these lightly, then the Berantai partners are just service providers.

They will recover the operating costs, will get some incentives and will get further rounds of incentives.

Unfortunately, we the public are in the dark as to the acceptable level of IRR (internal rate of return) and when are the incentives triggered off?

Usually incentives operate as soon as a certain target, defined by the resource owner, is reached.

We hope to hear more revelation of this marginal oilfield projects.

What’s in for Petronas over this deal? As custodian to a national asset, I think the public has a right to know.

This is part one of a two-part series by FMT columnist and former assemblyman Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz.

from Free Malaysia Today » Opinion by Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz

1. Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 1 Mac 2011 March 3, 2011

by malaysianstory in 1Malaysia.

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

Pihak-pihak:-
PP : Semua hadir
PB : KS, SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran (Ram Karpal, Marissa Fernando, Radzlan

tidak hadir)
WB : Zamri Idrus (for Complainant)
AI hadir.

[8.55 a.m.] Pihak-pihak masuk ke dalam Kamar Hakim.
[9.13 a.m.] Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.

[9.15 a.m.]
MY: Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung bicara.

SP14-L/kpl Mohd Hazri bin Hassan, 39 tahun, Jurufoto Bahagian bantuan teknik Bahagian JSJ Bukit Aman
SP14 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

Examination-in-chief by NH

Q: Sejak bila bertugas sebagai jurugambar?
A: Sejak 25 Mac 2001

Q: Pada 17.7.2008 adakah kamu bertugas?
A: Ya.

Q: Pada 17.7.2008, jam lebih kurang 11.40 pagi ada kamu menjalankan apa-apa tugas?
A: Ada. Bertugas sebagai jurufoto di tingkat 7 di IPKKL.

Q: Di bahagian mana di IPKKL kamu bertugas?
A: Di lokap D9.

Q; D9 bahagian jenayah berat siasatan khas?
A: Ya.

Q; Di lokap D9 IPKKL ini siapa beri arahan tugas untuk kamu?
A: Supt. Amidon bin Anan

NH: Mohon Supt Amidon dipanggil utk dicamkan

Q: Adakah ini Supt Amidon?
A: Ya.

Bekas Supt Amidon bin Anan dicamkan.

Q; Di lokap D9 IPKKL ini apakah arahan yang diberikan oleh cik amidon kepada kamu?
A; Untuk ambil gambar di lokap IPK KL D9.

Q; Adakah kamu ada ambil gambar seperti diarahkan?
A: Ya.

Q; Kamu ingat berapa keeping gambar yang kamu ambil di situ?
A: Sebanyak 14 keping.

Q; Jika dirujuk gambar2 tersebut kamu boleh camkan?
A: Boleh

NH: Mohon rujuk 14 keping gambar.

Q: Lihat satu persatu. Adakah ini gambar 14 keping yang kamu ambil di IPKKL tersebut?
A: Ya.

Q; Ada negative.
A: Ya.

NH: Mohon rujuk negative 14 keping gambar tersebut

Q; Adakah ini negative bagi 14 keping gambar tersebut?
A: Ya.

P78A-N utk 14 gambar
P78N(a)-(n) untuk negatif

Q: Cuba rujuk P78 gambar 1. Boleh beritahu mahkamah ini gambar apa?
A: Sebelah kanan lokap menghala ke dalam dari pandangan luar.

Q: Sel lokap adalah yang di dalam itu? Yang ada tag 4 itu ke?
A: Ya.

Q; Awak Nampak tag 4 di gambar 1?
A: Ya.

Q; Masa awak ambil gambar itu adakah awak tahu apa gambar di tag 4 ini?
A: Tidak tahu.

Q: Adakah gambar2 ini diambil pada kedudukan asal ia ditemui?
A: Ya.

Q; Lihat gambar 2. Jika kita lihat tag 5,6 dan 7. Gambar tag 7 gambar apa?
A; Botol air mineral.

Q; Adakah gambar ini diambil pada kedudukan asal ia ditemui?
A: Ya.

Q; Rujuk gambar 3, gambar apa ini?
A; Gambar dekat pintu masuk sel lokap.

Q; Rujuk gambar 4, 5 dan 6. Kalau lihat ketiga-tiga gambar tahu apa yang gambar diambil kalau ikutkan anak panah di situ?
A: Sehelai bulu.

Q; Adakah ini gambar ini diambil dalam lokap?
A: Dalam lokap.

Q; Rujuk gambar 7 dan 8. Ada tunjuk anak panah hijau di situ. Ini menunjukkan apa?
A: Sebatang berus gigi.

Q; Adakah gambar2 ini diambil pada kedudukan asal ia ditemui?
A: Ya.

Q; Rujuk gambar 9. Anak panah ini menunjukkan apa?
A; Menunjukkan sehelai tuala putih good morning.

Q; Adakah ia diambil pada kedudukan asal ia ditemui?
A: Ya.

Q: Gambar 10, 11 dan 12 menunjukkan gambar apa di tag 7 di situ?
A; Botol air mineral pandangan dekat.

Q; Adakah ia diambil pada keduukan asal botol itu ditemui?
A: Ya.

Q: Seterusnya gambar 13 dan 14 menunjukkan apa?
A: Barang2 kes yang telah dipack/diseal.

Q: Semasa kamu mengambil gambar2 14 keping ini dan sepanjang dalam lokap D9 tersebut adakah kamu memakai sarung tangan?
A: Ada.

Q: Adakah kamu memakai pakaian khusus?
A: Ya.

Q; Siapa yang menyediakan pakaian khusus tersebut?
A: Supt. Amidon.

Q; Sepanjang kamu berada di dalam lokap tersebut ada atau tidak kamu ada menyentuh atau memegang mana2 barang kes dalam lokap tersebut?
A: Tidak.

Cross-examination
KS: No question.
NH: Mohon saksi dilepaskan.
YA: Kamu boleh turun.

SP15-Amidon bin Anan, 60 tahun, Pensyarah pelawat di UiTM dan UKM

Examination-in-chief by NH.

NH: Yang Arif, saksi hendak berdiri utk beri keterangan
SP15: Saya minta izin Yang Arif

Q: Kamu adalah pesara polis?
A: Ya.

Q: Bila kamu bersara dari pasukan PDRM?
A: 2008, bulan Ogos.

Q; Bila kamu menganggotai PDRM?
A: 1976.

Q: Apakah jawatan terakhir yang kamu sandang dalam PDRM?
A: Jawatan terakhir sebelum saya bersara ialah Ketua Bhgn CSI Makmal Forensik PDRM, Bukit Aman Kuala Lumpur.

Q: CSI ini ialah crime scene investigation?
A: Ya.

Q; Sejak bila kamu menjadi Ketua CSI di Bukit Aman ini?
A; 2005.

Q; Sebelum kamu menjadi Ketua CSI di Bukit Aman ini, kamu bertugas di mana?
A: Sebelum itu saya bertugas sebagai Ketua unit CSI ibupejabat polis kontinjen Selangor.

Q; Sejak bila bertugas di unit CSI Selangor?
A: Sejak 1994.

Q; Boleh kamu maklumkan kepada mahkamah apakah sebarang latihan formal yang kamu telah lalui dari aspek csi, latihan-latihan dan kursus?
A: Saya mempunyai masters dalam sains sukan dan dalam tempoh berkhidmat saya telah dihantar dari aspek siasatan di tempat kejadian kursus2 yang dianjurkan oleh FBI, pihak Australian Police dan Scotland Yard London. Selain itu saya menghadiri kursus2 asas forensic sains yang dianjurkan oleh UPM dan Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.

Q: Pernah kamu beri keterangan di mahkamah sebelum ini?
A: Banyak kali.

Q: Lebih kurang berapa kali?
A; Setakat ini lebih kurang 900 setakat ini.

Q: Pada 30 Jun 2008 adakah kamu bertugas?
A: Ya. Ketika itu saya masih bertugas di makmal forensic PDRM Bukit Aman.

Q; Dan pada tarikh tersebut adakah pasukan forensic yang kamu ketuai diminta utk bantu siasatan?
A; Ada.

Q; Siapa yang minta bantuan?
A: Ketika itu DSP Jude.

Q: Kamu kenal DSP Jude. Mohon dipanggil Supt. Jude utk pengecaman. Adakah ini DSP Jude?
A: Ya.

Supt Jude dicamkan

Q; Apakah bantuan yang diminta oleh DSP Jude ketika itu?
A: Untuk menganalisa tempat kejadian.

Q: Di mana tempat kejadian ini?
A: (izin rujuk catatan saya). Di sebuah kondo di Damansara.

Q: Di unit mana kondo tersebut?
A: Di unit 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2.

Q; Adakah kamu pergi ke unit-unit ini di kondo tersebut?
A: Saya bersama pasukan saya menghala ke kondo tersebut.

Q; Lebih kurang pukul berapa sampai di kondo tersebut?
A: Kami bersama IO sampai di kondo tersebut l/k jam 12.20 tengah hari.

Q; Adakah kamu ada membuat pemeriksaan di unit-unit tersebut?
A: Ya.

Q; Ada apa2 ambil apa2 barang di kondo 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2?
A; Ada.

Q: Ada kamu buat pemeriksaan di unit 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2 di kondo tersebut?
A: Kami kemudiannya ada menjalankan pemeriksaan di kedua-dua unit kondo tersebut.

Q; Seterusnya adakah kamu ambil apa-apa barang di kedua-dua unit tersebut?
A: Ada.

Q: Boleh beritahu mahkamah apakah barang-barang yang kamu ambil di kedua-dua unit kondo ini?
A: [mohon rujuk catatan]. Dari unit 11-5-1 saya rampas sehelai bulu yang ditandakan sebagai nombor 1.

Q: Bulu ini ditemui di bahagian mana unit kondo tersebut?
A: Bulu ini ditemui di bilik hujung sekali di unit 11-5-1.

Q; Selain dari bulu apa lagi barang yang diambil?
A; Sehelai bulu sahaja yang dirampas.

Q; Selain itu?
A; Kami jalankan pemeriksaan di 11-5-2. Di unit tersebut kami merampas satu carpet Chinese silk yang ditandakan sebagai eksibit no.2 dan seterusnya satu blanket duvet atas nama Pasaya yang ditandakan sebagai eksibit no.3.

Q; Apakah tujuan barang2 ini diambil?
A: Untuk melakukan dna profiling seterusnya.

Q: Seterusnya barang-baang yang kamu ambil di kedua-dua unit ini adakah dimasukkan dalam envelope atau dibungkus?
A: Kesemua eksibit seperti bulu dimasukkan ke dalam envelope manakala carpet dan duvet dibungkus dengan kertas brown paper.

Q: Setelah kamu buat pembungkusan adakah barang-barang tersebut disealkan?
A: Semua barang2 diseal sebelum diserahkan kepada IO.

Q; Barang-barang ini kamu serah pada IO di mana?
A: Semasa di tempat kejadian.

Q; Siapa IO yang kamu maksudkan?
A; Saya serahkan kepada DSP Jude.

Q; Semasa penyerahan barang kes adakah kamu tandatangan borang serah menyerah barang kes?
A: Ada.

Q; Ada tandatangan pada borang tersebut?
A; Ada.

NH: Pohon saksi dirujuk dengan borang serah menyerah bertarikh 30.6.2008.

Q: Sila lihat adakah ini borang serah menyerah yang ada tandatangan kamu?
A: Ya. Saya tandatangan di muka surat 2 di sebelah kiri.

Q; Ada DSP Jude tandatangan?
A: Ada. Di sebelah kanan muka surat 2.

NH: Mohon ditandakan.

P79 – Borang serah menyerah bertarikh 30.6.2008.

Q; Rujuk saksi eksibit P43A. Adakah ini envelope di mana kamu masukkan sehelai bulu yang kamu ambil ke dalamnya?
A: Ya.

Q; Lihat dalam sampul P43A, iaitu P43C, cuba lihat dalam sampul ini ada atau tidak bulu yang kamu katakana?
A: Ya.

Q; Ada apa-apa penandaan pada kertas putih yang bulu ditampal di atasnya?
A; Saya ada turunkan tandatangan saya di atas kertas putih A4.

Q: Mohon saksi dirujuk eksibit P49 satu bungkusan yang mengandungi eksibit P49A. Adakah ini bungkusan yang kamu buat tandaan nombor 2 dan seal dari forensic?
A: Nombor 2 adalah tulisan yang saya buat dan seal PDRM forensic.

Q; Adakah ini carpet yang kamu ambil dari unit 11-5-2?
A; Ya.

Q; Pohon saksi merujuk bungkusan P50 yang mengandungi P50A. Adakah ini bungkusan yang kamu buat penandaan dan mempunyai seal forensic PDRM?
A: Saya sendiri tulis nombor 3 manakala belakang bungkusan saya tulis for ‘dna profiling for victim-suspect’. Ia adalah satu duvet yang saya rampas di unit tersebut.

Q; Semasa pasukan kamu dan kamu buat pemeriksaan di unit 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2 adakah kamu dan anggota kamu memakai sarung tangan?
A; Sebelum kami memasuki siasatan forensic kami memakai overall, bersarung kaki dan bersarung tangan.

Q: Tujuan sarung tangan dipakai?
A; Adalah amalan forensic utk tidak memindah atau transfer traces of evidence kepada barang2 kes.

Q; Seterusnya pada 17.7.2008 adakah kamu masih bertugas pada ketika itu?
A: Ya.

Q; Pada tarikh tersebut 17.7.2008 l/k 11.40 pagi adakah kamu dan pasukan kamu ada jalankan apa-apa tugas?
A: Ya. Kami diarahkan ke IPKKL.

Q; Di bahagian mana IPKKL?
A; Kami menghala ke pejabat D9 IPKKL.

Q; Apakah tujuan kamu ke situ?
A; Saya telah ditaklimatkan utk membuat rampasan barang2/eksibit yang ada dalam lokap di D9.

Q; Siapa beri arahan?
A; OCCI Dato’ Khoo Chi Wah.

Q; Apa tujuan pasukan pasukan forensic PDRM pergi ke sana utk dapatkan barang-barang kes?
A: Barang-barang rampasan spt mana ditaklimatkan oleh dato khoo adalah utk dna profiling.

Q: Secara spesifik di ipkkl ke mana tujuan kamu atau di bahagian mana kamu tuju?
A; Di lokap D9 IPKKL.

Q; Semasa kamu ke lokap di IPKKL kamu ingat ada berapa sel lokap?
A: Saya masih ingat ada satu lokap dan di dlm lokap tersebut hanya ada satu sel sahaja.

Q: Semasa kamu tiba di lokap D9 tersebut adakah sel ini berkunci?
A: Semasa saya sampai, lokap tersebut dikawal oleh 2 anggota dan dalam keadaan berkunci.

Q; Siapa yang buka kunci sel lokap tersebut?
A: [rujuk catatan].Lokap dibuka oleh Konst Adnan bin Safril.

Q; Mohon panggil Konstable Adnan bin Sabri. Adakah ini konst Adnan bin Safril yang buka lokap?
A: Ya.

Konst Adnan bin Safril dicamkan.

Q; Seterusnya adakah kamu dan anggota kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap tersebut?
A: Kami masuk ke dalam lokap dan kemudian ke dalam sel.

Q; Semasa kamu hendak masuk ke dalam sel adakah pintu sel lokap telah dibuka?
A: Lock tapi tidak bermangga.

Q; Siapa lagi anggota kamu yang masuk bersama-sama kamu ke dalam sel lokap?
A: Pada peringkat awal saya seorang sahaja.

Q; Selepas itu?
A; Selepas itu bila jalankan proses pembungkusan pada peringkat akhir barulah anggota2 saya masuk ke dalam sel lokap.

Q; Boleh beritahu anggota yang masuk ke dlaam lokap?
A; Yang saya ingata C/Insp nizam , C/Insp aizam, woman inspector Ayuni dan Kpl Mat Dani.

Q; Mohon dipanggil C/Insp Mohd Nizam bin Husain, C/Insp Aizam, Sgt Mohd bin Mohd Dani, Insp. Nurayuni Dayana. Adakah ini anggota-anggota kamu yg membantu kamu di tempat tersebut?
A: Ya.

C/Insp Mohd Nizam bin Husain, C/Insp Aizam, Sgt Mohd bin Mohd Dani, Insp. Nurayuni Dayana.

Q; Semasa kamu kata kamu masuk seorang dalam lokap apa barang2 yang kamu lihat dalam sel lokap tersebut?
A; Selepas buat pemerhatian, siasatan awal saya menjumpai sehelai rambut dan seterusnya saya tagkan sebagai nombor 4 dan dapati satu berus gigi di atas lantai yang mana kemudiannya saya tagkan sbg nombor 5. Seterusnya sehelai towel good morning juga atas lantai yang kemudiannya saya tagkan sbg nombor 6 dan akhir sekali satu botol minuman mineral atas nama cactus’ yang saya nomborkan 7.

Q; Adakah tag 4,5,6 dan 7 diletakkan di tempat asal barang-barang ditemui?
A: Ketika itu saya tidak ubah.

Q; Adakah kamu arahakan sesiapa untuk ambil gambar barang-barang yang kamu tagkan?
A: Saya panggil jurugambar dalam pasukan saya untuk ambil gambar-gambar tersebut di dalam sel tersebut

Q; Siapa jurugambar tersebut?
A; L/kpl Hazri.

Q; Yang mengecam kamu tadi?
A; Ya.

Q; Mohon saksi dirujuk gambar2 P78(a)-(n). Cuba lihat gambar 1 sehingga 12. Lihat satu persatu.
A: Ya, ini gambar-gambar barang kes yang dirampas dalam sel lokap tersebut.

Q; Adakah tag-tag itu diletakkan di tempat asal barang-barang ditemui?
A: Ya. Ini kedudukan sebenarnya semasa saya masuk ke dalam sel.

Q; Cuba rujuk gambar 4, 5 dan 6. Beritahu mahkamah anak panah pada tag4 ini menunjukkan apa?
A: Sehelai rambut yang dijumpai atas lantai sel tersebut. Manakala gambar 5 dan 6 zoom-in kepada eksibit2 yang ditanda sebagai tag 4.

Q; Rujuk 7dan 8 anak panah hijau pada tag 5 ini menunjukkan apa?
A: Gambar 7, n4 kedudukan berus gigi yang dirampas dan gambar 8 zoom-in kepada berus gigi.

Q; Seterusnya rujuk gambar 9.
A; Barang kes bertanda tag 6 dan gambar zoom-in gambar good morning towel.

Q; Seterusnya rujuk gambar 10,11 dan 12 tag 7 menunjukkan barang apa?
A; Gambar 10 menunjukkan kedudukan gambar mineral bottle cactus secara overview dan gambar 10 dan 11 dan 12 adalah gambar zoom in barang tersebut.

Q; Setelah kamu ambil gambar dan letak tag, ada buat apa-apa penandaan kamu sendiri pada tuala good morning?
A: Saya masih ingat saya ada tandatangan di hujung towel menggunakan ball point.

Q; Bagaimana pula dengan botol mineral cap cactus ini?
A; Saya gunakan marker dan tandatangan di bontot botol.

Q; Bagaimana dengan berus gigi?
A; Kemungkinan saya ada buat tandatangan di batang berus gigi.

Q: Seterusnya, setelah buat penandaan, bagaimana kamu masukkan barang-barang tersebut ke dalam envelope untuk diseal?
A; Selepas proses penandaan saya arahkan woman Inspector Ayuni utk sediakan penandaan barang2 kes tersbeut. Dia catat di bahagian luar envelope tersebut. Selepas dia sediakan,dia serahkan kepada saya dan saya letak kesemua eksibit ke dalam envelope-envelope yang disediakan oleh woman Inspector Ayuni.

Q; Envelope-envelope yang diserahkan kepada kamu tulisan di hadapan envelope itu tulisan siapa?
A; Woman Inspector Ayuni.

Q; Boleh terangkan apa barang yang kamu masuk dalam enevelope dan penandaan-penandaannya pada envelope-envelope tersebut?
A: Pada eksibit no.4 sehelai rambut, spt mana dalam proses sebelum ini di kondo dimasukkan dalam envelope saya seal sendiri dengan seal evidence dan saya tandatangan di belakang envelope tersebut.

Q; Ada letak apa-apa nombor?
A; Ada, nombor 4.

Q; Siapa buat nombor 4?
A: Disediakan oleh woman Inspector Ayuni.

Q; Seterusnya?
A; Berus gigi juga diletakkan ke dalam envelope dan saya seal sekali lagi dengan seal evidence dan kemudian saya tandatangan.

Q; Envelope ini ditandakan dengan nombor berapa?
A; Ditandakan sebagai eksibit no.5.

Q; Seterusnya?
A; Barang kes nombor 6 ialah good morning towel selepas diisi dalam envelope oleh Insp Ayuni yang saya tandakan sebagai nombor 6,saya tandatangan dan seal.

Q; Akhirnya?
A; Envelope no.7 saya isikan botol mineral cactus, dan saya sekali lagi seal evidence dan tandatangan di belakang envelope.

Q; Envelope ini nombor berapa?
A; Nombor 7.

Q; Bahagian mana lokap tersebut kamu seal kan barang-barang?
A; Dalam sel tersebut oleh saya sendiri.

Q; Setelah kamu masukkan barang-barang kes ke dalam envelope dan diseal ada arah sesiapa untuk ambil gambar?
A; Selepas semua pembungkusan dilakukan dan sebelum serah kpd IO saya arahkan jurugambar Hazri utk mengambil gambar eksibit tersebut.

Q; Rujuk gambar 13 dan 14 P78.
A: Ini gambar2 barang2 kes yang dibungkus.

Q; Lebih kurang jam berapa kamu selesai tugas kamu di lokap D9 tersebut?
A: Lebih kurang pukul 2.20 petang.

Q: Seterusnya keempat-empat barang kes yang kamu tandakan dan seal kamu serahkan kepada siapa?
A; Kemudian saya serahkan kepada dsp jude di pejabat D9 IPKKL.

Q: Semasa kamu buat serah menyerah di IPKKL ada buat borang serah-menyerah?
A: Ada.

Q; Mohon saksi rujuk borang serah-menyerah bertarikh 17.7.2008. Adakah ini borang serah menyerah yang kamu maksudkan?
A; Ya, ini adalah borang serah menyerah barang kes antara saya dan Jude.

Q; Ada tandatangan kamu?
A; Sebelah kiri manakala DSP Jude sebelah kanan.

NH: Mohon ditandakan sebagai P80- borang serah menyerah bertarikh 17.7.2008

P80- borang serah menyerah bertarikh 17.7.2008

Q; Mohon rujuk ID57. Ada tandatangan kamu di envelope ini?
A; Di bahagian belakang ada saya tandatangan dan note ‘for dna profiling’.

Q; Itu tulisan kamu?
A; Ya.

Q; Masih ada seal?
A; Ya. Masih ada seal forensic dan Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.

Q; Bi bahagian hadapan tulisan tersebut, siapakah yang tulis?
A: Travers Rpt 4350/03 dan tulisan bertanda no. 4 ditulis oleh Ayuni.

Q; Cuba lihat butiran di situ. Apa dicatitkan?
A; Butiran: 17.7.08 sehelai bulu di atas lantai.

Q; Cuba lihat kandungan dalam ID57 iaitu ID57A. Cuba lihat .
A: Dalam ini mengandungi sehelai bulu dan saya ada tandatangan dan mencatatkannya.

Q: Tunjukkan kepada Yang Arif.
A: (saksi tunjuk)

Q; Berdasarkan pada catatan dan t/tangan adakah ini bulu yang kamu temui di lantai lokap di D9 IPKKL?
A; Ya.

NH: Yang Arif, at this juncture bolehkah eksibit ini ditandakan sebagai P?
KS: We are objecting and to it’s admissibility and we ask for trial within a trial.
YA: What is the basis of your objection. The court needs to know. Maybe you can mark as ID at this stage. I don’t know.
SN: It is ID and …..
NH: As long as saksi ini sudah camkan semua kita boleh convert kan kemudian selepas hujahan nanti.
YA: Ya. Kita markkan sebagai ID dahulu.
NH: Kita tidak perlu panggil saksi ini lagi. Kita boleh convertkan terus.
YA: Tak apalah. Kalau nak panggil pun tak apa. It won’t take time.
KS: He has to be called .
YA: Tak apalah. Itu kemudian.
KS: It has to be later and depend on admissibility

Q; Mohon saksi dirujuk ID58. Ada tandaangan kamu pada envelope ini?
A; Di belakang envelope ini ada saya tandatangani dan saya seal yang saya buat dan catat ‘for dna profiling’.

Q; Tunjukkan mana seal yang kamu buat?
A; Seal yang berwarna merah.

SN: Can we have a look at it?

Q; Seterusnya ada butiran di hadapan sampul ini. Siapa yang buat?
A; Catatan di envelope nombor 5 ini ditulis Travers Rpt dan mengandungi catatan sebatang berus gigi warna putih yang dilakukan oleh woman inspector Ayuni.

Q; Mohon saksi membuka sampul dan melihat ID58A.
A; Ya, ini berus gigi.

Q; Cuba lihat pada batang berus gigi ini (mohon izin buka tagging)kalau ada apa2 tandaan
A: (saksi buka tagging yg terdapat di batang berus gigi) Tidak ada.

Q; Adakah berus gigi ini penuh atau telah…..
A; Semasa dirampas ianya dalam keadaan sebegini.

Q; Rujuk ID59. Ada tandatangan kamu pada envelope ini?
A; Di bahagian belakang saya tandatangan dan nota ‘for dna profiling’.

Q; Bagaimana dengan seal?
A: Selain seal PDRM, saya letak seal warna merah forensic.

Q; Lihat kandungan ID59A.
A: Sehelai towel “Good Morning”.

Q; Ada apa-apa catatan kamu pada tuala “Good Morning” ini?
A; Di hujung towel saya ada tandatangan.

Q; Adakah ini tuala “Good Morning” yang kamu temui di lokap D9 di IPPKL pada 17.7.2008?
A; Ya. Ini tuala yang saya rampas di sel lokap D9.

Q: Rujuk ID61. Ada tandatangan kamu pada sampul ini?
A: Ada tandatangan saya dan catatan ‘for dna profiling’ berseal forensic PDRM.

Q: Ada seal forensic PDRM?
A: Ya.

Q; Adakah butiran di hadapan envelope Ayuni yang lakukan?
A: Butiran di hadapan tanda sebagai eksibit no. 7 satu botol air minuman mineral cactus 500ml di atas tembok tandas lokap.

Q; Mohon saksi buka sampul ID61 dan lihat kandungan ID61A. cuba lihat di bahagian bontot botol. Ada tandatangan kamu di situ?
A: Ada.

Q; Adakah ini botol yang kamu jumpai dalam lokap ID9 di IPPKL pada 17.7.2008?
A: Ya.

Q; Semasa kamu dan anggota kamu membuat pemeriksaan dan mengambil barang-barang kes, sepanjang tempoh tersebut adakah kamu dan anggota kamu ada memakai baju keselamatan dan sarung tangan?
A: Seperti di kondo kami masih dalam overall,sarung kaki dan sarung tangan.

Q; Adakah untuk tujuan yang sama?
A: Tujuan yang sama untuk elak contamination dan transfer of evidence.

Q; Sebelum kamu masuk ke dalam envelope ada anggota yang memegang barang-barang tersebut?
A; Tidak. Hanya saya seorang saja yang memproses dan memegang barang-barang tersebut.

NH: Itu sahaja soalan saja.
KS: No cross-examination.
NH: Mohon saksi dilepaskan.
YA: kamu boleh turun.

SP 16- Inspektor NurAyuni Dayana Binti Mohd Fuad
Inspektor Latihan di Makmal Forensic PDRM, 28 tahun

Examination-in-chief by NH

Q; Pernah bertugas di Makmal Forensik PDRM?
A; Ya.

Q; Sejak bila kamu bertugas di Makmal Forensic PDRM?
A; Saya bertugas di Makmal Forensic PDRM sejak 2007.

Q; Pada 17.7.2008 adakah kamu bertugas?
A: Ya.

Q; Pada tarikh tersebut lebih kurang jam 11.40 pagi adakah kamu menjalankan apa-apa tugas di lokap D9 IPKKL?
A; Pada tarikh tersebut saya bertugas membantu Supt. Amidon bin Anan untuk proses lokap di IPKKL.

Q; Semasa di lokap di D9 IPKKL ada kamu sendiri masuk ke dalam sel lokap tersebut?
A: Ada.

Q; Semasa kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap tersebut ada lihat apa-apa barang di dalam sel berkenaan?
A: Saya telah melihat berus gigi, ubat gigi, tuala putih, baju oren dan botol air.

Q; Seterusnya ada sesiapa yang meletakkan tag-tag pada barang-barang di dalam lokap tersebut?
A; Ada.

Q; Siapa?
A; Supt. Amidon.

Q; Setelah tag-tag diletak pada barang-barang yang ditemui dalam sel lokap tersbeut ada ambil gambar?
A; Ya.

Q; Siapa ambil?
A; L/kpl Mohd Hazri.

NH: Rujuk gambar P78A-N.

Q; Adakah ini gambar-gambar yang diambil dilokap D9 berkenaan?
A; Ya.

Q; Rujuk kepada gambar 3-12. Gambar 3 di bawah tag 6 adakah ini baju oren yang kamu maksudkan?
A: Ya.

Q; Rujuk gambar 7 dan 8. Adakah ini gambar berus gigi yang ditemui dalam lokap D9?
A: Ya.

Q; Adakah ini kedudukan asal barang ditemui?
A: Ya.

Q; Gambar 9. Apakah anak panah menunjukkan?
A; Anak panah menunjukkan gambar tuala putih.

Q; Di bawah tuala tersebut ada apa?
A; Di bawah tuala tersebut ada baju berwarna oren.

Q; Gambar 11 dan 12 tag 7 menunjukkan gambar apa?
A; Gambar botol air.

Q; Adakah ianya diambil di tempat asal ianya ditemui?
A: Ya.

Q; Seterusnya setelah gambar diambil dan letak tag ada pembungkusan barang kes dibuat?
A: Ya.

Q; Apa peranan awak dalam pembungkusan barang kes yang dibuat ini?
A; Saya telah menulis butir-butir barang kes pada atas envelope.

Q; Setelah itu kamu serahkan kepada siapa?
A; Saya serahkan kepada Supt. Amidon untuk masukkan eksibit ke dalamnya.

Q; Dimana kamu tulis di envelope?
A; Di luar sel dan masih dalam kawasan lokap.

Q; Dan kamu masuk dan serahkan pada Amidon?
A; Ya.

Q; Setelah Amidon masukkan barang-barang ke dalam sampul, adakah sampul disealkan?
A; Ya.

Q; Ada Amidon tandatangan di sampul yang disealkan tersebut?
A; Ada.

Q; Mohon saksi dirujuk ID57 sekali lagi. Cuba lihat id 57. Siapa yang tulis butiran di hadapan sampul ini?
A; Saya.

Q; Bacakan tulisan.
A; Travers 4350/08 , 17.07.2008 sehelai bulu di atas lantai,IO DSP J Pereira.

Q; Nombor 4 siapa yang tulis?
A; Saya.

Q; Kalau lihat sampul ada tulis sehelai bulu di atas lantai. Cuba lihat kandungan ID57A lihat. Ada atau tidak tandatangan Amidon di atas kertas ini?
A; Ya.

Q; Dan ada sehelai bulu ditampalkan di situ?
A; Ya.

Q; Rujuk saksi kepada ID58. Siapa yang tulis di hadapan envelope?
A; Saya.

Q: Tandaan nombor 5 siapa yang tulis?
A; Saya.

Q; Apa butiran yang ditulis?
A; Travers Report 4350/08- 17.7.2008 sebatang berus gigi di atas lantai, IO DSP J Pereira.

Q; Kandungan ID58A ada atau tidak catatan kamu tulis berus gigi?
A; Ada.

Q; Rujuk ID 59. Siapa yang tulis di hadapan envelope?
A; Saya.

Q; Apakah butiran yang ditulis di situ?
A; Travers Report 4350/08 17.7.08 sehelai tuala warna putih jenama good morning di atas lantai, IO J Pereira.

Q; Lihat dalam envelope ada tuala “Good Morning” di dalamnya?
A; Ya.

Q; Rujuk ID6. Siapa yang buat tulisan di hadapan sampul?
A; Saya.

Q; Baca butiran.
A; Travers Report 4350/08 17.7.08 satu botol air minuman jenama Cactus 500 ml IO J pereira

Q; Camkan tulisan kamu?
A; Ya.

Q; Kandungan ID61 ada botol mineral yang kamu maksudkan?
A; Ada.

Q; Setelah barang-barang ini diseal ada gambar-gambar diambil?
A; Ada.

Q; Adakah ini gambar-gambar yang diambil? P78 gambar 13 dan 14.
A; Ya.

Q; Semasa pemeriksaan di lokap D9 adakah kamu ada memakai sarung tangan dan baju khas forensic?
A; Ada.

Q; Bagaimana kasut khas?
A; Ada.

Q; Apakah tujuan pemakaian ini?
A: Untuk mengelakkan pencemaran.

Q; Adakah anggota-anggota yang bersama kamu juga memakai pakaian yang sama?
A; Ada.

Q; Sepanjang kamu berada di lokap D9 di IPKKL ada atau tidak kamu sendiri ada memegang mana2 barang2 kes yang disebutkan tadi
A; Tiada.

Q; Lebih kurang jam berapa kamu selesai bertugas di lokap D9?
A: Lebih kurang jam12.40 tengah hari

Q; Adakah kamu tahu keempat-empat barang-barang kes yang diseal diserahkan kepada siapa?
A; Ya. Kepada DSP Jude.

Q; Di mana?
A; Di bilik mesyuarat di tingkat yang sama.

Q; Tingkat berapa?
A; Tingkat 7.

NH: Itu saja soalan saya.
KS: No cross-examination.
NH: Mohon saksi dilepaskan
NH: Saksi-saksi seterusnya adalah pasukan lokap. Boleh kita teruskan atau kita break…
YA: Short break. Kita start balik jam 11.00. Half an hour.
[10.35 a.m.] Stand down.

[11.09 a.m.]
SP17- DSP Yahya bin Abdul Rahman
54 tahun, Pegawai Siasatan Kes Bunuh IPKKL

Examination-in-chief
Q; Pernah bertugas di siasatan jenayah berat dan siasatan khas di D9?
A: Pernah.

Q; Sejak bila.
A: 23.2.2008.

Q; Sehingga bila?
A: Sehingga sekarang.

Q; Apakah jawatan kamu di D9 IPKKL?
A: Jawatan saya ialah DSP kes bunuh di IPKKL.

Q; Post yang you pegang?
A: Sama.

Q: Adakah lokap D9 IPKKL di bawah pengawasan dan penyeliaan kamu?
A: Ya.

Q; Lokap D9 berada di tingkat berapa di IPKKL?
A; Tingkat 7.

Q; Dalam lokap ini ada berapa sel.
A; Satu sahaja.

Q; Jelaskan sebelum masuk ke sel adakah perlu lalu ke kawasan penjaga lokap.
A; Sebelum masukkan ke D9 ada inquiry office dan terus ke belakang ada pintu lokap dan ada meja sentry di dalam dan kemudian masuk ke sel itu.

Q; Kawasan lokap sentry itu ada pintu lokap?
A; Pintu utama.

Q; Di lokap D9 IPKKL ada disediakan atau tidak buku lawatan lokap?
A; Ya.

Q; Buku itu adakah di bawah jagaan kamu?
A; Pada masa itu, ya.

Q; Mohon rujuk buku lawatan D9- adakah ini buku lawatan lokap D9.
A; Benar.

Q; Kamu camkan buku ini?
A; Ya.

NH: Mohon ditandakan sebagai P81- Buku lawatan lokap m.s. 191.

P81- Buku lawatan lokap m.s. 191.

Q; Cuba lihat entry 191. Siapa yang tulis entry ini?
A; Saya sendiri yang tulis.

Q; Cuba bacakan entry yang ditulis.
A; 17.7.2008 jam 00:10 hrs, dsp yahya rahman. Yang bertugas constable 145182 terdapat okt nama anwar Ibrahim[read]

OKT dalam keadaan sihat dan terkawal.

Q; Kamu buat lawatan lokap pada 17.7.2008 jam 12.10?
A: Ya.

Q: Apakah tujuan lawatan kamu itu?

KS: It is not admissible because we are not supplied the document under section 51A
SN: I have no recollection about the document being served
NH: Ikut maklumat kami sudah serve.
YA: You all have to sort things out.
KS: We have to sought it out to determine the admissibility.
NH: Can we mark it as ID first Yang Arif.
KS: Can we sought this out?
NH: If that is the case, boleh saya tanya soalan untuk refresh memory?
KS: From this document?
NH: Yes
YA: Jangan ditandakan lagi. It is not marked as exhibit yet. You have to ask him orally lah
NH: Yes, I will ask him orally.

Q; Kamu ingat 17.7.08 jam 12.10 ada kamu buat lawatan lokap?
A; Ada.

Q; Kamu ingat?
A; Ingat.

Q; Semasa lawatan kamu itu ada sesiapa dalam lokap?
A; Ya.

Q; Siapa?
A; DSAI.

Q; Ada dia di mahkamah?
A; Ada.

Dsai dicamkan.

Q; Apakah tujuan kamu membuat lawatan itu?
A; Yang pertama untuk memastikan anggota bertugas jalankan tugas. Pastikan orang yang ditahan diberi layanan semasa dalam lokap menurut hak-hak lokap. Juga untuk memastikan keselamatan dan supaya anggota bertugas jalankan tugas dengan betul.

Q; Semasa kamu buat lawatan di lokap pada 17.7.2008 jam 12.10 itu adakah kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A; Tidak ke dalam sel. Hanya di lokap sahaja.

Q; Semasa membuat lawatan lokap, siapa anggota yang sedang bertugas?
A; L/Kpl Konst Bala dan Rosmaidi.

Q; Mohon panggil L/ Koperal Rosmaidy dan L/Kpl Bala. Adakah ini mereka?

L/Kpl Rosmaidy dan L/Kpl Balaguru dicamkan.

Q; Semasa buat lawatan pada 17.7.08 12.10 pagi tersebut adakah kamu serahkan barang kepada pengawal lokap?
A; Ada.

Q; Serah barang apa dan kepada siapa?
A; Kepada L/Kpl Rosmaidy ada bungkusan ada tuala, berus gigi, satu tiub ubat gigi dan sabun.

Q; Barang-barang ini untuk siapa?
A; Untuk tahanan pada masa itu iaitu DSAI.

Q; Adakah barang-barang yang kamu serahkan itu ianya government issued untuk kegunaan tahanan?
A; Ya.

Q; Pohon saksi ditunjukkan satu contoh barang-barang yang diserahkan tuala, ubat gigi, berus gigi dan sabun. Adakah barang yang kamu berikan kepada Rosmaidi serupa dengan ini.
A; Ya.

Q; Ada cop PDRM di situ?
A; Ya.

NH: At this juncture mohon ditandakan P untuk dibuat perbandingan.

YA: P82- Bungkusan mengandungi tuala, berus gigi dan ubat gigi dan sabun.

P82- bungkusan contoh mengandungi tuala, berus gigi dan ubat gigi dan sabun yang diberikan kepada tahanan.

Q; Semasa kamu buat lawatan selain dari DSAI, ada tahanan lain dalam sel tersebut?
A; Tidak ada.

Q; Seterusnya di lokap D9 itu ada atau tidak disediakan buku perharian lokap?
A; Ada.

Q; Mohon saksi dirujuk buku perharian lokap D9 IPKKL. Adakah buku ini di bawah jagaan dan kawalan kamu?
A; Ya.

Q; Ada tandatangan kamu?
A; Ada, di bahagian depan.

P83- Buku Perharian Lokap

NH: Sebelum itu Yang Arif, kita hendak tunjukkan yang kita sudah serahkan sesalinan buku lawatan lokap kepada pembelaan. Ada tandatangan Cik Nair pun.

SN: Only the first page.
YA: So dia terima satu muka surat sahaja lah.
NH: Kalau begitu kita rujuk muka surat itu sahaja.
YA: Ya lah. Jangan rujuk semua buku lah.
NH: Kita akan merujuk kepada muka surat itu sahaja. Kalau kita tidak masukkan buku sebagai eksibit kerana telah diserahkan muka surat entry 191 sahaja.
KS: Not the whole book
NH: Ya.
YA: Ok lah. That will be entry berapa.
DN: Pohon entry 191 ditanda sebagai P83.

P83 – Entry 191.

Q; Cuba lihat P83 rujuk entry 4142 m.s 147 Buku Perharian Lokap P83. Bacakan
A: [Jude Pereira bawa satu lelaki melayu.. read].

Q; Bila tarikh dan masanya?
A: 2305 hrs (11.05 malam) 16.7.2008.

Q; Soalan saya, adakah kamu ada bersama-sama semasa DSAI dibawa masuk ke lokap IPKKl D9.
A; Ada.

Q; Siapa lagi pegawai selain kamu semasa DSAI dibawa masuk ke dalam lokap
A; Saya tak pasti tapi yang saya pasti saya ada di luar

Q; Bagaimana dengan DSP Jude. Ada dia disitu
A; Ada

Q; Sebelum DSAI dibawa masuk ke dalam lokap d9 kamu tahu dia dibawa dari mana?
A; Bilik mesyuarat D9

Q; Tingkat berapa
A; Tingkat 7

Q; Adakah kamu ada juga di bilik mesyuarat D9 tersebut
A; Ada

Q; Semasa DSAI menuju ke lokap siapa yang iringi DSAI ke lokap
A; Saya dan DSP Jude

Q; Semasa menuju masuk ke lokap, ada DSAI bawa apa-apa di tangannya
A; Sebotol mineral water

Q; Botol mineral water dibawa sampai ke mana?
A; Masuk ke dalam sel

Q; Siapa yang membenarkan DSAI membawa air mineral water ini masuk ke dalam sel ini?
A; Saya sendiri

Q; Adakah air botol mineral ini govt issued/diberikan oleh kerajaan
A; Tidak

Q; Selain dari botol air mineral ini, ada atau tidak barang-barang lain yang bukan govt issued yang dibawa oleh DSAI?
A; Ada. DSAI minta kebenaran saya untuk bawa 2 tuala besar

Q; Kamu benarkan
A; Ya, budibicara saya

Q; Masih ingat tuala ini berwarna apa
A; Berwarna cerah

Q; Cuba lihat entry 4163 m.s 153. Entry menunjukkan apa? Kalau ikut entry ini adakah DSAI dibawa keluar
A: Ya

Q: Jam berapa
A; 0800 hrs (8 pagi)

Q; Dari mula DSAI ditahan di lokap d9 sehingga beliau keluar jam 8 pagi adakah tahanan lain selain dari DSAI ditahan di lokap tersebut
A; tidak

Q; Setelah DSAI keluar dari lokap berkenaan adakah kamu beri arahan kepada anggota penjaga lokap
A; Ya. Saya arahkan anggota yang bertugas iaitu l/kpl Mohd Adnan dan l/kpl Jasni supaya kunci sel lokap tersebut dan jangan benarkan sesiapa masuk

Q; mohon panggil l/kpl Jasni dan l/kpl Mohd Adnan. Adakah ini l/kpl Jasni dan l/kpl Adnan yang kamu arahkan
A; ya

Dicamkan

Q; Adakah kamu sendiri melihat keadaan sel lokap
A; Ada

Q; Dari mana kamu lihat
A: Dari luar sel

Q; Kamu tak masuk
A; Ya

Q; Apa yang kamu lihat?
A; Barang-arang yang saya serahkan seperti tuala, botol air mineral, berus gigi dan yang lain saya tak berapa nampak

Q; Kalau kamu boleh ingat berus gigi dan tuala kamu lihat di bahagian mana dalam sel lokap itu
A; Di lantai

Q; Bagaimana dengan botol air?
A; Berhampiran dengan bilik air iaitu di atas tembok bilik air

Q; Mohon saksi rujuk P78 (gambar) gambar 11 dan 12. Adakah di sini tempat kamu lihat botol air tersebut?
A; Ya

Q; Seterusnya gambar 7. Adakah di sini kamu lihat gambar berus gigi dan tuala?
A; Benar

Q; Ada atau tidak pada bila-bila masa kamu menyentuh atau memegang berus gigi tuala dan botol air atau tuala yang disebutkan tadi?
A; Tidak ada

Q; Cuba lihat gambar 2. Kalau kita lihat gambar 2 ini, meja pengawal lokap ini di sebelah mana?
A; Di sebelah kanan

Q; Sekiranya pegawal duduk di meja pengawal lokap, boleh atau tidak dia lihat botol air di gambar 11?
A; Dari sudut itu tidak boleh nampak

Q; Entry 4162 m.s 153. apakah yang dinyatakan di sini?
A; [read. 0745 hrs DSP Yahya sampai melawat menanyakan sarapan pagi kepada DSAI]

Q; Kamu buat satu lagi lawatan pada tarikh yang dinyatakan, ada atau tidak kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A; Tidak

Q; Entry 4166. Cuba bacakan butiran
A; [read] Timbalan Pegawai Turus, telah memasuki sel lokap untuk mengambil buku DSAI yang berwarna merah

Q; Siapa timbalan pegawai turus D9 IPKKL
A; Saya

Q; Kamu ada masuk sel lokap untuk ambil buku?
A; Ya

Q; Siapa yang meminta kamu untuk ambil buku?
A; Saya tak pasti

Q; Buku ini buku apa?
A; Buku surah yasin

Q; Semasa kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap ini mengikut entry ini ada atau tidak kamu sentuh barang-barang seperti tuala, botol dan berus gigi
A; Tidak, saya lihat dari luar. Saya tidak masuk dalam

Q; Lihat entry 4167 bacakan
A; [read] supaya barang-barang kepunyaan DSAI tidak diusik, sentuh atau dialih dari tempat asalnya

Q; Pegawai turus D9 ini adalah kamu sendiri
A; Ya

Q; Kamu yang beri arahan supaya barang-barang DSAI dalam lokap tidak diusik dan disentuh atau dialih
A; Ya

Q: Seterusnya rujuk entry 4168. Cuba bacakan
A: [read]. terima arahan DSP Yahya untuk ambil dua tuala DSAI dari lokap

Q; Arahan ini dikeluarkan oleh kamu
A: Ya

Q; Siapa yang minta tuala itu dibawa keluar?
A: Saya

Q: Atas permohonan siapa?
A: Sebab masa itu tahanan akan dibebaskan

Q: Jadi kamu bawak keluar barang yang bukan government issued
A; Ya

Q; Siapa konst 14765 ini. Tengok entry
A; Anggota tadi. Salah seorang Jasni atau Adnan

Q; Selanjutnya, selain daripada buku, 2 tuala besar dibawa DSAI ada atau tidak pihak DSAI meminta apa-apa barang lain di lokap dibawa keluar
A; Tidak

Q; Di kawasan lokap D9 IPKKL ada atau tidak dilengkapi dengan CCTV
A; Ada

Q; Adakah cctv ini berfungsi?
A; Telah lama tidak berfungsi

Q; Sejak kamu masuk
A; Sejak saya masuk lagi tidak berfungsi

Q; Boleh beritahu mahkamah apakah barang-barang yang standard issue di lokap D9
A; Set barang-barang tuala berus gigi

Q; Adakah botol air ini standard issue?
A: Tidak, itu budibicara

Cross examination by Karpal Singh
Q; Lihat eksibit P68 gambar. Lihat semua gambar dalam eksibit. Jawab dengan ikhlas. Keadaan lokap ini adalah seperti kandang haiwan. Setuju
A; Tidak

Q; Kenapa
A; Itulah std yang dibuat oleh…

Q; Pandangan sendiri. Gambar 11 keadaan baik, elok
A; Memang begitulah keadaannya

Q; Adakah ini dicuci bila-bila masa?
A; Agak kurang memuaskan

Q; Lokap D9 ini ada CCTV?
A; Ada.

Q; Biasanya beroperasi?
A; Tidak berfungsi masa itu

Q; Umumnya beroperasi
A; Ya

Q; Seseorang dalam tandas gambar boleh ditangkap oleh CCTV?
A; Tidak boleh nampak

Q; Di mana ditempatkan CCTV?
A; Focus kepada pegawai bertugas, bukan dalam

Q; Siapa yang arahkan kamu DSAI dimasukkan dalam lokap ini?
A; Saya tak pasti. Tapi saya diarahkan oleh pegawai atasan

Q; Siapa
A; IO yang boleh jawab. Dia pegawai penyiasat

Q; Siapa yang arahkan?
A; Saya dan DSP Jude. Pegawai penyiasat yang boleh jawab

Q; Siapa yang arahkan?
A; Saya tidak tahu tapi IO case lah

Q; Jude yang arahkan?
A; Ya

Q; Bila dia arahkan
A; Sewaktu kita ada bincang di bilik mesyuarat dengan DSAI dan selepas itu kita arahkan untuk tahan orang kena tuduh

Q; Adakah DSAI dibekalkan dengan katil, bantal dan selimut?
A; Tidak ada

Q; Kenapa
A; Memang standard begitu. Saya tidak diisukan benda-benda itu bagaimana saya nak isukan

Q; Itu semua standard tahanan?

Q; Ada blanket dibekalkan
A; Tidak

Q: Tidak ada katil atau apa-apa?
A; Ya

Q; Itu standard di Negara ini
A; Itu saya tak tahu tapi yang saya jaga saya tahu

Q; Adakah masa apabila DSAI dimasukkan dalam lokap ini adakah kamu tahu DSAI dia mengalami sakit tulang belakang?
A; Ada dia maklumkan

Q; Walaupun itu dia tidak dibekalkan dengan selimut [], bantal, tilam
A; Tidak

Q; Kenapa, tidak pedulikan kesihatannya?
A; Sebab itu kita benarkan dia bawa kain selimut

Q; Itu mencukupi?
A; Tak ada satu lokap pun di Malaysia yang bekalkan bantal kepada tahanan

Q; No human rights
A; Ada human rights. Tidak ada bantal dan katil dibekalkan

Q; Itu basic keperluan manusia
A; Saksi tidak menjawab.

Re examination

Q; Adakah katil bantal selimut merupakan standard isu government kepada tahanan
A; Tidak

Q; Tidak ada katil dan bantal
A; Ya

Q; Kamu ada lokap D9 kurang memuaskan. Ada atau tidak lokap dicuci bila tahanan keluar?
A; Dicuci dan dibersihkan

Karpal: One question thru the court. Regarding the toilet

Q; Lihat gambar 11 P78. Tandas itu adakah bersih?
A; Bersih tetapi orang kena tahan yang lain-lain bila kita bersih mereka akan conteng-conteng. Mungkin Nampak kotor tapi bersih. Nampak kotor sebab cat dah luntur

Q; Ini adakah bersih dengan ikhlas
A; Kurang bersih lah

NH: Mohon saksi dilepaskan.
NH: Kita ada 4 lagi saksi lokap tak berapa panjang. Boleh kita sambung petang.
KS: At 2.45 pm I have the decision[].
YA: Ok. 2.45pm.
[11.59 a.m.] Stand down.

[2.56 p.m.]
NH: Dengan izin, mohon panggil Lans Koperal Nik Rosmady Nik Ismail.
SN: YA, could we just make a comment? We objected to Buku Lawatan for reason that the front cover doesn’t given to us. The second page is given to us, but the cover was not, that’s why we couldn’t recognize. It was given to us earlier. What can I suggested is, maybe we can just compare before it start.

SP18: Nik Rosmady Nik Ismail
Bahagian trafik Jalan Bandar, umur 29 tahun.
SP18 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Q: Sebelum bertugas di trafik Jalan Bandar, kamu bertugas di mana?
A: Di IPK Kuala Lumpur, kem komandan.

Q: Kamu adalah bertugas sebagai Penjaga lokap?
A: Ya, sentry lokap.

Q: Di lokap D9 di IPK KL, ada sediakan buku per harian lokap?
A: Ada.

Q: Mohon rujuk P83. Lihat entri 4136 m/s 146. Boleh beritahu mahkamah siapa yang tulis entry ini?
A: Saya yang tulis.

Q: Menurut entri ini, kamu masih bertugas pada 16 Julai jam 7.01 malam?
A: Benar.

Q: Dengan siapa kamu masuk bertugas ketika itu?
A: Konstabel Balakuru.

Q: Semasa kamu bertugas, ada atau tidak tahanan dalam sel lokap itu?
A: Tiada OKT dalam tahanan. Lokap kosong.

Q: Rujuk entry 4140 m/s 417, siapa yang tulis?
A: Saya.

Q: Mengikut entri ini, kamu ada buat pemeriksaan lokap?
A: Benar.

Q: Apa yang kamu dapati?
A: Tahanan masih tiada. Lokap kosong. Keadaan terkawal dan baik.

Q: Seterusnya, entri 4141, ada atau tidak kamu buat pemeriksaan lokap?
A: Saya ada buat pemeriksaan, lokap masih kosong.

Q: Semasa kamu buat pemeriksaan, kamu seorang diri atau bersama Encik Bala?
A: Saya bersama Konstabel Balakuru.

Q: Semasa kamu buat pemeriksaan pada entri 4141, kamu kata lokap kosong. Ada kamu jumpa apa-apa barang dalam lokap?
A: Tiada sebarang barang pun dalam lokap.

Q: Rujuk 4144, m/s 148, siapa yang tulis entri ini?
A: Saya.

Q: Adakah entri ini merujuk pada daftar barang kes OKT?
A: Benar.

Q: Rujuk entri 4142. Siapa yang tulis?
A: Saya.

Q: Mengikut entri ini, apa yang berlaku?
A: Pukul 11.05 malam, satu OKT dibawa masuk oleh Tuan Jude. OKT tersebut ialah DSAI.

Q: Kalau kita rujuk balik entri 4144, kamu daftarkan barang-barang OKT, maksudnya barang siapa?
A: Barang DSAI.

Q: Semasa kamu membuat pendaftaran, DSAI berada di mana?
A: Dalam sel lokap.

Q: Mohon saksi rujuk buku lawatan lokap, P81, entri 191. Kalau mengikut entri ini, ada lawatan yang dibuat sesiapa ketika itu?
A: Masa itu, satu orang pegawai melawat lokap, iaitu DSP Yahya.

Q: Semasa DSP Yahya membuat lawatan lokap pada tarikh itu, ada DSP Yahya serah apa-apa pada kamu?
A: Ada. Satu bungkus plastic putih, yang mengandungi berus gigi putih, ubat gigi, tuala good morning, dan seketul sabun kecil.

Q: Mohon saksi rujuk P82. Adakah barang yang diserah itu ialah ini?
A: Benar.

Q: Semasa barang tersebut diserahkan kepada kamu, ada dimaklumkan barang-barang tersebut untuk siapa?
A: Untuk tahanan OKT, DSAI.

Q: Cam DSAI, ada di mahkamah?
A: Ada.

DSAI dicamkan.

Q: Selepas kamu menerima barang-barang ini daripada DSP Yahya, apa yang kamu lakukan kepada barang-barang tersebut?
A: Saya terima daripada DSP Yahya dan saya serahkan kepada DSAI. Beliau terima di dalam sel, dan letak atas lantai lokap.

Q: Masuk tak sel lokap?
A: Saya tak masuk.

Q: Sila rujuk entri 4145 m/s 150. Siapa yang tulis entri ini?
A: Saya.

Q: Apa yang dicatatkan?
A: DSP Jude telah bawa keluar DSAI.

Q: Entri 4146?
A: Saya tulis. DSAI dibawa masuk balik oleh Jude.

Q: Semasa DSP bawa keluar DSAI, ada Jude bawa masuk sel lokap tersebut?
A: Tiada.

Q: Beliau ada masuk sel lokap ketika bawa masuk DSAI dalam lokap?
A: Tiada.

Q: Sepanjang DSAI dibawa keluar oleh DSP Jude, ada atau tidak tahanan lain dimasukkan ke dalam sel lokap ini?
A: Tiada.

Q: Entri 4147, siapa tulis?
A: Saya.

Q: Mengikut entri ini, pukul berapa kamu selesai tugas?
A: 1.30 pagi.

Q: Sebelum kamu selesai tugas, ada periksa lokap?
A: Ada, saya lihat DSAI dalam lokap.

Q: Ada apa-apa lagi kamu lihat di lantai lokap?
A: Tiada.

Q: Setelah kamu selesai tugas, siapa yang ambik alih tugas kamu?
A: Lans Koperal Nadimin dan Konstabel Azry.

Q: Sepanjang kamu bertugas pada 16 Julai 2008 jam 7.01 malam sehingga 17 Julai jam 1.30 pagi, ada atau tidak kamu masuk ke dalam lokap di mana DSAI ditahan?
A: Tiada.

Q: Sepanjang tempoh kamu bertugas, ada kamu sentuh apa-apa barang dalam sel berkenaan?
A: Tiada.

NH: YA, itu sahaja soalan untuk saksi ini.
KS: Tiada soalan cross.
NH: Pohon saksi dilepaskan.

NH: Pohon saksi seterusnya dipanggil, SP19.

SP19 - Konstabel Azry bin Mohd Toyab
Pengawal Sentri Lokap D9 IPK KL, umur: 26 tahun.
SP19 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu. Pengawal Sentri Lokap D9 IPK KL, umur: 28 tahun.

Q: Sejak bila kamu bertugas di D9, IPK KL?
A: Selama 3 tahun, sejak 2008, bulan 8.

Q: Di lokap D9, ada atau tidak buku per harian lokap disediakan?
A: Ya.

Q: Mohon saksi dirujuk buku harian lokap P83. Cuba lihat 4148, m/s 150. Mengikut entri ini, ada kamu bertugas?
A: Ada bersama Kopl Nadimin.

Q: Pukul berapa kamu masuk bertugas?
A: Ada, pukul 1.30 pagi, 17/7.

Q: Ada tahanan dalam sel lokap?
A: Ada. DSAI.

Q: Cam, ada di mahkamah?
A: Ada.

DSAI dicamkan.

Q: Rujuk entri 4160, kalau ikut entri ini pukul berapa kamu selesai bertugas?
A: 7.25 pagi. 17/7.

Q: Sepanjang kamu bertugas Dari 1.30 pagi hingga 7.30 pagi, selain DSAI ada tahanan lain dalam lokap?
A: Tiada.

Q: Rujuk entri 4150 m/s 151, semasa kamu bertugas dengan Encik Nadimin, ada atau tidak lawatan di buat?
A: Ada. C/insp Zulkifli bin Fajar.

Q: Seterusnya, 4151, ada atau tidak satu lagi lawatan dibuat? Siapa?
A: Ada. C/insp Zulkifli bin Fajar.

Q: Di kedua dua lawatan ini, ada atau tidak C/insp Zulkifli bin Fajar masuk dalam sel lokap?
A: Tiada.

Q: Rujuk 4158, satu lagi lawatan semasa kamu bertugas, siapa yang melawat?
A: C/insp Zulkifli bin Fajar.

Q: Semasa lawatan ini, ada atau tidak beliau masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A: Tiada.

Q: Sepanjang kamu bertugas pada tarikh yang disebutkan, ada atau tidak kamu atau Kopl Nadimin, masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A: Tiada.

NH: Itu sahaja soalan saya, YA.

KS: Tiada soalan cross.

NH: Pohon saksi dilepaskan.

NH: Pohon panggil SP20, L/Korp Mohd Jasni bin Jaafar, (bertugas anggota polis bahagian trafik).
P20 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Q: Sebelum bertugas di cawangan trafik, kamu bertugas di mana?
A: Cawangan kem komanden, IPK KL.

Q: Pengawal lokap pada ketika itu?
A: Ya.

Q: Lokap mana?
A: Lokap D9 IPK KL.

Q: Pada 17 Julai 2008 semasa kamu bertugas sebagai penjaga lokap, sebelum itu, ada atau tidak sediakan per harian lokap?
A: Ada.

Q: Ada atau tidak kamu membuat catitan dalam buku perharian lokap tersebut?
A: Ada.

Q: Cuba rujuk P83, di entri 4161, m/s 152, siapa yang tulis entri ini?
A: Saya.

Q: Pada pukul berapa kamu mula bertugas?
A: 7.26 pagi, 17/7/2008.

Q: Siapa anggota bersama-sama kamu bertugas pada hari tersebut?
A: Konstabel Adnan Basri.

Q: Semasa kamu bertugas pada tarikh berkenaan, ada atau tidak tahanan dalam lokap?
A: Ada. DSAI.

Q: Kamu cam?
A: Ya.

Q: Ada dalam mahkamah?
A: Ada.

DSAI dicamkan.

Q: Masa kamu buat perhatian, adakah kamu tahu di mana dia berada?
A: Ada.

Q: Ketika itu apa yang kamu lihat di dalam lokap?
A: Tahanan OKT iaitu DSAI .

Q: Masa kamu masuk itu, kamu buat perhatian dalam sel lokap, apa kamu lihat dalam lokap tersebut?
A: Barang-barang seperti tuala mandi, tuala kecil, buku berwarna merah, ubat gigi dan berus gigi dan sabun mandi dalam sel lokap.

Q: Rujuk entri 4163, m/s 153, kalau mengikut entri ini, ada sesiapa buat lawatan ke dalam lokap?
A: Ada, ACP Razali bin Basri dan ASP [] bin Ahmad.

Q: Ada mereka masuk dalam sel lokap?
A: Tidak.

Q: Ketika mereka berada dalam kawasan lokap, ada perbualan yang kamu dengar? Apa?
A: ACP Razali menanyakan DSAI mengenai sarapan pagi, dan seterusnya bawa DSAI keluar lokap.

Q: Setelah mendengar perbualan itu, ada kamu dengar DSAI lakukan?
A: Ada, DSAI menuju ke tandas lokap lalu saya mendengar seolah beliau menggosok gigi.

Q: Apa yang anda lihat lagi? Selepas itu, ada atau tidak ACP Razali dan ASP Zhafni membawa DSAI keluar?
A: Ada.

Q: Cuba lihat entri 4164 m/s 153, pukul berapa DSAI dikeluarkan?
A: Pukul 8.10 pagi, 17/7/2008.

Q: Selepas beliau dibawa keluar, ada atau tidak pintu sel lokap tersebut dikunci?
A: Ya.

Q: Selepas pintu sel lokap itu dikunci, ada atau tidak mana-mana tahanan dibawa masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A: Tidak.

Q: Setelah DSAI dibawa keluar, ada atau tidak kamu memerhati ke dalam lokap sekali lagi?
A: Ada.

Q: Rujuk entri 4165. Siapa yang buat entri ini?
A: Saya.

Q: Cuba bacakan apa yang Encik dapati selepas DSAI keluar lokap? Cuba bacakan.
A: Tuala mandi, tuala kecil, buku berwarna merah, berus gigi, ubat gigi dan sabun yang mandi masih dalam sel lokap.

Q: Selain itu, ada tak buat catatan dalam poket diari encik?
A: Ada.

Q: Pohon saksi dirujuk pocket book saksi. Pocket book ini kepunyaan siapa?
A: Saya.

Q: Baca entri 62 di m/s 41.
A: Lans Kopl 142183 dan Konstabel 147675 periksa lokap D9 IPK KL dapati barang-barang DSAI seperti dan sabun mandi masih lagi berada dalam sel lokap, termasuk pakaian lokap berwarna oren.

Q: YA, mohon tanda dan kemuka pocket book sebagai P84.

Pocket book ditanda sebagai P84.

Q: Rujuk entri 4166. Siapa yang tulis entri ini?
A: Saya.

Q: Mengikut entri ini, ada DSP Yahya masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A: Ya.

Q: Untuk mengambil buku merah?
A: Ya.

Q: Dan selain DSP Yahya, ada orang lain masuk bersama DSP Yahya?
A: Tiada.

Q: Rujuk entri 4167, siapa yang tulis?
A: Saya.

Q: Mengikut entri ini, apa arahan yang kamu terima daripada DSP Yahya?
A: DSP Yahya mengarahkan supaya barang-barang DSAI tidak disentuh atau dialih dari tempat asal.

Q: Rujuk entri 4171, pukul 11.40 pagi, siapa yang datang ke lokap?
A: Pasukan forensic yang diketuai oleh Supt Amidon.

Q: Ketika itu, masa mereka baru tiba, pintu lokap berkunci?
A: Ya, Konstabel Adnan yang bukakan.

Q: Sila rujuk entri 4172. Sapa yang tulis?
A: Saya.

Q: Menurut entri ini, jam berapa Supt Amidon dan pasukannya keluar lokap?
A: 12.35 tengahari.

Q: Selepas pasukan forensic keluar, kamu ada buat pemeriksaan lokap? Ada kamu melihat ke dalam sel lokap?
A: Ada.

Q: Ada kamu perhatikan apa-apa dalam lokap tersebut?
A: YA, saya pohon rujuk pocket book. Saya tak ingat.

Q: Dari mula kamu bertugas pada 17/7, pukul 7 pagi itu, sehingga pasukan forensic diketuai Supt Amidon datang mengambil barang2 kes dari lokap, selain DSAI, ada tak tahanan lain menggunakan sel lokap itu?
A: Tiada.

Q: Rujuk entri 4173, m/s 156, sapa yang tulis?
A: Saya.

Q: Menurut entri ini, kamu selesai bertugas jam berapa?
A: 1.08 tengahari.

Q: Sepanjang kamu bertugas pada 17hb tersebut, sehingga pasukan forensic datang, ada atau tidak kamu masuk dalam lokap?
A: Tiada.

Q: Konst Adnan?
A Tiada.

NH: Itu sahaja soalan saya YA.
KS: Tiada soalan untuk cross.
YA: Saksi dilepaskan.

NH: Pohon panggil SP21.
SP21 – Konstabel Adnan Basir bin Safriel.
Bertugas di Kem komanden IPPK KL, umur 27 tahun.

Q: Kamu pernah bertugas sebagai pengawal lokap D9, IPK KL sejak bila?
A: 1.4.2004.

Q: Di lokap D9, ada sediakan perharian lokap?
A: Ada.

Q: Mohon saksi rujuk P83. Rujuk entri 4162 m/s 153. Siapa tulis entri ini?
A: Saya.

Q: Apa yang ditulis?
A: Timbalan Pegawai Turus D9, DSP Yahya sampai ke lokap D9 dan menanyakan sarapan pagi kepada DSAI.

Q: Semasa beliau buat lawatan, ada atau tidak dia masuk dalam sel lokap?
A: Tiada.

Q: Rujuk entri 4168 ms 154. Siapa buat catatan ini?
A: Kamu.

Q: Apa arahan yang diberikan?
A: DSP Yahya mengarahkan saya supaya ambil dua tuala kepunyaan DSAI dalam sel lokap, dan lipat dalam keadaan kemas serahkan kepada DSP Yahya.

Q: Ada kamu ambil dua helai tuala seperti yang diarahkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Semasa kamu mengambil 2 tuala, ada atau tidak kamu menyentuh barang-barang lain?
A: Tiada.

Q: Barang ini diserahkan kepada siapa?
A: Kepada Timbalan Pegawai Turus D9, DSP Yahya.

Q: Sepanjang kamu bertugas pada 17/7/2008, 7.26 pagi sehingga kamu selesai tugas pada hari tersebut, pukul berapa kamu selesai tugas?
A: Pukul 1 petang bersama Korporal Jasni.

Q: Ada atau tidak kamu pada bila-bila masa masuk ke dalam sel lokap selain mengambil sel tuala?
A: Tiada.

NH: Itu sahaja soalan untuk saksi ini.
KS: Tiada cross.

NH: YA, pada peringkat ini, kami ingin memanggil semula SP15, Supt Amidon untuk rujuk balik barang kes dan mungkin jika peguambela membuat bantahan, kita akan membuat penghujahan.

SP15 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Q: Mohon saksi dirujuk ID57, ID58, ID59, 1D 61 serta kandungannya. Cuba lihat envelope-envelope dan kandungan, adakah ini envelope yang kamu sealkan, dan kandungan yang kamu perolehi di sel D9 IPK KL.
A: Ya.

Q: Kami ingin tanda sebagai P berserta kandungannya juga iaitu ID57A, ID58A, ID59A, 1D 61A.

KS: YA, we want to object. These exhibits and the rest recovered from the cell is inadmissible. And for that purpose, we want a trial within a trial. We are alleging that unfair methods were used by the police in securing these exhibits. And the court has discretion to exclude admission of such evidence YA, on the basis upon which we alleging that this evidence ought to be excluded. For that purpose, there must be a trial within a trial. We will submit on the necessity of that permohonan. If your Lordship rules that this evidence is inadmissible, then it ought to be excluded []. In the event a trial within a trial is ordered, DSAI will be giving evidence in the trial within a trial. We will submit on that.
YA: Yes, of course Mr. Karpal still belum habis lagi buat submission lah, we will continue tomorrow. For the time being, DY?
MY: YA, if I can understand correctly, in most circumstances, especially with regard to confession of the witness, the moment the statement is about to be tendered, then counsel can object on the ground of the involuntariness, then we will know. There are three: inducement, threat or promise that we have to address. Here we talked about unfairness method.

YA: Now, what I see is they asking the court’s discretion to exclude evidence which is prima facie is admissible, but they want to exclude it on the ground of unfairness.
MY: I think that there are 2 aspects. Firstly), whether or not we need to have a trial within a trial. 2) Whether or not after we have conducted a trial within a trial, and if it is proven that unfairness method had been employed, whether or not the court can used its discretion exclude it. The question is, I don’t know what is the unfairness method that I have to address.
YA: They have to show lah. Because they are asking the court’s discretion, so they have to prove.
KS: The onus is on us. My learned friend knows about that.

MY: Now this is my problem YA. First, the case of [], Federal Court’s decision 1980; you alleged, I prove, prosecution will prove, then we have rebuttal evidence, but still the prosecution must start first to show the irregularities of this exhibits. So until and unless I know what they are complaining, I wouldn’t be able to address even if we need the trial within a trial. Let alone the evidence that we have after this. I mean, this is the kind of issues that we will address tomorrow YA.
YA: Tomorrow we will listen to the submission. And next we will see whether a trial within a trial is needed or not.

KS: So, we need the notes for the purpose of tomorrow’s submission. The notes this morning and afternoon.
YA: No, it is very difficult for us to transcribe within time actually. We can give you the CD so you can tengok CD.

[3.48 p.m] : Court adjourn.
Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 28 Februari 2011 March 2, 2011
Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
Tags: Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II
add a comment

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

Pihak-pihak:-
PP : Semua hadir
PB : KS, SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy (Ram Karpal, Marissa Fernando, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB : Zamri Idrus (for Complainant)
AI hadir

[9.04 a.m.]

MH: Kes untuk sambung bicara untuk SP8.

SP8 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

MH: YA, saya mempunyai lagi satu soalan untuk saksi sebelum SN sambung untuk pemeriksaan balas.

Sambung pemeriksaan utama SP8 oleh MH

Q: Dalam pemeriksaan utama semasa hari Khamis, Puan menyebut nama tempat kejadian tersebut sebagai Kondo Desa Seri Damansara. Adakah Puan tahu nama sebenar tempat tersebut?
A: Nama sebenarnya ialah Kondominium Desa Damansara.

Q: Ada Puan pergi ke tempat tersebut?
A: Tiada.

Q: Sila lihat eksibit P, P70, P71, P72, P73, P74 dan P75. Di muka surat depan eksibit-eksibit ini puan tulis sebagai Kondominium Desa Seri Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih.
A: Minta maaf YA, sebenarnya Kondominium Desa Damansara.

MH: Itu sahaja soalan pihak pendakwa, YA.

Pemeriksaan balas oleh SN.

Q: Puan telah menyatakan bahawa DSP Jude telah berjumpa dengan puan. Bila?
A: Pada 03.07.2008.

Q: Semasa hari Khamis lepas, Puan ada menunjukkan klip-klip video di kedua-dua skrin, benar?
A: Benar.

Q: Apa yang terkandung di dalam klip-klip tersebut?
A: Hard disk satu menunjukkan kereta keluar masuk ke kawasan Kondominum Desa Damansara. Hard disk dua menunjukkan pergerakan individu-individu yang dikenal pasti oleh DSP Jude pada tarikh 26.06.2008.

Q: Adakah rakaman ini merupakan rakaman tanpa henti rakaman keselamatan di kondo berkenaan seperti di kondo-kondo lain?
A: Saya tidak pasti.

Q: Dari mana puan mula tengok rakaman, bermula waktu bila?
A: Rakaman tempat kejadian untuk 26.06.2008, dalam tempoh 24 jam.

[9.10 a.m.] Stand down.

[9.18 a.m.]

Q: Maksud saya tadi, adakah rakaman yang Puan tunjuk pada hari itu merupakan rakaman tanpa berhenti kamera keselamatan harian kondo?
A: Ya.

Q: Seperti yang terdapat di kondo2 lain?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah ianya rakaman langsung semua yang terjadi di pondok pengawal kondo dan di dalam lif?
A: Ya.

Q: Untuk semua orang yang keluar masuk ke kondo dan termasuk pelawat dan penduduk-penduduk kondo?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah rakaman ini 24 jam, sehari untuk 26.06.2008?
A: Ya.

Q: Maksudnya ini bukan rakaman rahsia khas yang ditujukan kepada sesiapa?
A: Saya tak faham soalan.

Q: Rakaman ini bukan ditujukan khas terhadap sesiapa, tetapi general, umum?
A: Ya.

Q: Mengikut kebiasaaan adakah dalam forensik, bahawa bukti di tempat kejadian tidak boleh diubah?
A: Ianya tidak boleh dipadamkan.

Q: Dan mesti dibiarkan, tidak diusik oleh sesiapa?
A: Ya.

Q: Dan lebih baik orang yg mengendalikannya menangani sampel dan bukti mestilah orang forensik yang terlatih?
A: Ya.

Q: Jika tidak, apa risikonya?
A: Risikonya adalah mungkin ada pengubahsuaian, atau dipadam dalam rakaman tersebut

Q: Dan intergritinya bukti pun mungkin akan tercemar?
A: Ya, kemungkinan.

Q: Tadi Puan ada nyatakan DSP Jude ada datang berjumpa dengan Puan pada 03.07.2008. Apa yang dibawa oleh DSP Jude?
A: 2 sampul surat yang mengandungi hard disk.

Q: Sampul surat itu ada seal atau tidak?
A: Disealkan.

Q: Puan nampak seal tersebut?
A: Ya.

Q: Ada ambil gambar?
A: Ada.

Q: Apakah arahan DSP Jude kepada Puan pada hari itu berkaitan kedua-dua hard disk tersebut?
A: DSP Jude ada buat beberapa permintaan. YA, saya mohon untuk merujuk kepada ID saya.

SN: I have no objection.

A: Pemeriksaan yang dikehendaki oleh DSP Jude adalah:
1. Gambar sebuah kereta jenis MG Rover warna hitam WMK 6, dan kereta jenis Fiat Ulyse WPK 5925 yang tiba di pintu Kondominum Desa Damansara pada 26.06.2008 jam antara 12.00 tgh hari hingga 4.00 ptg dan juga pengenalan individu-individu dan kenderan selanjutnya pada hari tersebut;
2. Mengesan individu-individu dan kenderaan-kenderaan yang berkaitan kes ini pada penghujung April dan awal Mei 2008.
3. Menjalankan analisa ke atas imej-imej yang berkaitan dan seterusnya membuat cetakan ke atas imej-imej yang berkaitan dan video file bagi segmen-segmen yang berkaitan.

Q: Permintaan ini dibuat secara lisan atau bertulis?
A: Secara bertulis.

Q: Surat atau borang?
A: Dalam borang.

Q: Ada DSP Jude beritahu mengapa beliau meminta maklumat rakaman dari hujung April sehingga awal Mei?
A: Tidak.

Q: Semasa tayangan gambar P67C dan P68C, adakah Jude ada bersama-sama Puan?
A: Ya.

Q: Dari mula sehingga habis pemeriksaan rakaman?
A: Rakaman imej yang DSP Jude perlukan sahaja.

Q: Adakah DSP Jude tunjukkan apa yang diperlukan?
A: Ya.

Q: Dan DSP Jude sendiri yang mengenal pasti?
A: Ya.

Q: Bukan Puan sendiri yang memastikannya?
A: Benar.

Q: Berapa buah kenderaan dan individu yang DSP Jude telah menumpukan perhatian beliau?
A: 7 buah kenderaan dan 7 individu.

Q: Adakah DSP Jude terangkan siapa mereka atau identify siapa mereka?
A: Tidak.

Q: Ada Puan tanya bagaimana DSP Jude mengetahui mengenai identiti 7 orang tersebut?
A: Saya tidak tahu dari mana beliau tahu identiti tersebut.

Q: Adakah Puan tahu P67C dan P68C telah ditayangkan sebelum itu?
A: Tak faham.

Q: DSP Jude bawa sampul. Jikalau DSP Jude tidak melihat rakaman ini bagaimana beliau boleh tahu?
A: DSP Jude datang semula ke makmal forensik pada 05.07.2008.

Q: Tetapi semasa 03.07.2008, beliau meminta untuk mengenal pasti 7 individu tersebut.
A: Semasa rakaman dimainkan, DSP Jude telah mengenal pasti kenderaan dan individu tersebut.

Q: Adakah DSP Jude ada menyuruh untuk memetik rakaman di dalam P67C dan P68C?
A: Ada.

Q: Adakah di dalam bentuk ini (cd)?
A: Ya.

Q: Berapa keping?
A: Saya tak ingat.

Q: Tak simpan rekod? Mungkin dalam ID?
A: Saya tak catit dalam ID.

Q: Tapi ingatlah?
A: Saya ada buat.

Q: Bilakah klip-klip ini dibuat untuk rakaman asal? Pada 03.07.2008?
A: Bukan. Saya tak ingat tarikh tetapi saya ada buat atas permintaan DSP Jude untuk diserahkan kepada peguambela.

Q: Peguambela? Siapa peguambela?
A: Kumpulan peguam yang mengendalikan kes ini. Tetapi DSP Jude ada memohon untuk membuat rakaman video file ini untuk diserahkan satu salinan.

Q: Pasukan peguambela, tahu siapa mereka?
A: Saya tidak tahu, tapi saya serahkan kepada peguambela.

Q: DSP Jude ada membantu bersama-sama dengan Puan semasa rakaman ini dimainkan pada kali pertama?
A: Ya. Pada 05.07.2008.

Q: Semasa memainkan rakaman, adakah mainkan hard disk asal atau klon?
A: Yang klon.

Q: Ini pendapat profesional, ye? Kalau kita klon daripada original, semua yang ada dalam original akan masuk kepada klon tanpa ada apa-apa perubahan?
A: Betul.

Q: Berapa kamera yang terdapat dalam rakaman ini?
A: Hard disk 1 ada 5 kamera.

Q: Puan telah kenal pasti ia?
A: Ya, saya dapati terdapat 5 kamera pada hard disk 1 iaitu kamera 1, 3 dan 4…

Q: Itu dari yang mana satu? Hard disk asal atau hard disk klon?
A: Kedua-dua sekali.

SN: That is P67C and P68C, YA.

A: Kamera 1,3 dan 4 di hard disk 1 merakam pergerakan kereta masuk ke dalam kawasan kondominum. Kamera 2 dan 5 merakam pergerakan kenderaan keluar dari kawasan kondominium. Hard disk 2 untuk pada tarikh 26.06.2008, ada 2 kamera yang merakam pergerakan masuk individu yang diperlukan iaitu kamera 7 dan 8.

Q: Kita pergi kepada lif. Berapa pintu lif ada di sana?
A: Ada dua pintu.

Q: Kamera no berapa di kiri dan 8?
A: Kiri 7, kanan 8.

Q: Puan ada pergi ke sana?
A: Hanya pergi semasa lawatan YA Hakim ke tempat kejadian.

Q: Sebelum itu tidak pergi?
A: Tidak.

Q: Perlu atau tidak sebagai ahli forensik pergi selepas tengok tayangan pada 2008?
A: Ya.

Q: Perlu, kan? Sebab kalau kita pergi, at least selepas tengok rakaman kita faham lah, kan? Untuk mengetahui keadaan tempat kejadian?
A: Tidak. Bukan kebiasaan saya untuk ke tempat kejadian untuk tujuan analisa rakaman

Q: Amalan baik untuk pergi tengok dan confirm, kan?
A: Saya rasa tidak perlu pergi.

Q: Daripada memainkan hard disk 2 ini, Puan boleh tahu kedudukan kamera-kamera ini?
A: Saya hanya mengetahui dari rakaman imej sahaja.

Q: Bentuk sistem CCTV dan hard disk macam mana? Sila jelaskan.
A: Sistem CCTV ini saya tak dapat jelaskan kerana saya bukanlah orang yang expert untuk rakaman cctv berkenaan.

Q: Jadi bila nampak masa pada klip itu dan masa tempat lain, tak tanya ke mengenai bentuk sistem yang ada?
A: Masa yang ada dalam rakaman tersebut adalah computer generated oleh itu tidak boleh diubah. Walaupun ada perbezaan ianya tidak boleh diubah.

Q: Sekiranya terdapat masa dan tarikh di dalam gambar seperti di P5, ianya tidak boleh diubah?
A: Ya.

Q: Alat mana yang menentukan masa dan tarikh?
A: Ada alat lain.

Q: Apakah alat itu?
A: Saya tidak dapat jelaskan kerana saya bukanlah orang yang expert untuk CCTV ini. Saya hanaya menerima hard disk sahaja.

Q: Tetapi Puan katakan tadi masa dan tarikh tidak boleh diubah. Bagaimana boleh terjadi? Kami tidak faham.
A: Itu menunjukkan ada alat lain disambung kepada CCTV berkenaan untuk membuat setting pada tarikh dan masa pada hard disk tersebut.

Q: Di dalam perkara ini Puan tidak tahu?
A: Saya tidak tahu.

Q: Mungkin boleh pergi dan check sendiri, kan?
A: Saya rasa tidak perlu kerana saya analisa rakaman yang telah dirakam dan bukan sebeleum atau perlu mengubah rakaman tersebut.

Q: Tetapi tadi ada katakan masa dan tarikh tidak boleh diubah. Bercanggah di sini.
A: Sebab apa yang terdapat dalam hard disk tersebut adalah computer generated dan tidak boleh diubah lagi.

SN: We haven’t mark this yet, YA. But I’m showing it to her first.

Q: Yang ini (7 dvd) merupakan saringan untuk rakaman tersebut?
A: Ya.

SN merujuk 8 keping dvd klip2 rakaman cctv.

YA: Apa tu?
SN: These are the DVD clips…
YA: How many are there?
SN: There are 7, YA handed over under S.51A.

YA: (kepada saksi) Ini yang you buat haritu?
SP8: Ya, YA.

SN: It is in DVD form, 7 of them and 1 extra to explain []. So lapan, YA.
YA: So, what do you want to do with that?
SN: They should have admitted then it would be easier for me to…
YA: That mean they don’t tender it. Now you have it. What do you want to do with it?
SN: []

MY: Because we can’t give them the hard disk, so we give the video clip with regards to those parts relevant for our purpose.
SN: We can mark it as our exhibit.
MY: If it is played. Now…
SN: It is given by you all…
MY: Because you ask. I mean…
YA: Dia yang buat semua ni. Kalau dia orang nak mark it as exhibit, it’s their exhibit and not yours.
SN: Yeah.
MY: As far as this recording is concern, it has to be played. She has to confirm this is the video clip.[]
SN: This is something that is going to be used in court. Obviously we have to look at it..
YA: They don’t want to tender but you want to tender as your exhibit. What’s wronhg with that? Any problem?
MY: The video clip cannot be tender unless it is played.
SN: She made it.
MY: She said she made the video clip. At this point of time, what is the video clip? Unless you are saying that those portion we showed are different from the one that you have.
SN: YA, I don’t understand. This is given by them, marked by them and I have analyse it and they are saying…
YA: The issue if I understand it correctly is we have to play it first before it can be tendered.
MY: That’s the law. This is the law. But I just want to ask you, at this point of time why do you want to play it? Unless you say that it is different from…
SN: I might.
MY: []
SN: []. First, this is your exhibits. If you want to play it, we play. Why are you objecting?
MY: This is not objection. []. The law says you have to play before you admit it. That’s all.
SN: I’m fine with it, YA. I think we should play this.
MY: Yeah, but it must serve a purpose. []
YA: Can we proceed to some other aspect first before we go and play this one?
SN: Boleh, YA.
YA: This one maybe ID at this stage. I don’t know.
SN: I think..
YA: Nevermind, if you can go on with some other aspect you go on.
SN: Then we’ll come back to this?
YA: Yes, later on.

Q: Ada tak dalam sistem CCTV di sini, kalau ada hard disk, benarkah kalau saya katakan di sini, kamera dan masa tersebut akan direkodkan dalam hard disk?
A: Ya.

Q: Tiada alat lain di antara kamera dan hard disk?
A: Ada alat lain.

Q: Apa nama alt itu?
A: Lain CCTV, lain cara penggunaan dan setting. Untuk CCTV ini yang menggunakan hard disk, ada satu lagi untuk setting masa dan tarikh untuk dirakamkan dalam hard disk tersebut.

Q: Adakah namanya DDR?
A: Tidak. DDR adalah berbeza.

Q: Apa alat yang mungkin digunakan?
A: Saya tidak pasti sebab saya bukanlah orang yang mengendalikan CCTV tersebut.

Q: Puan adalah profesional, forensik. Takkan ini pun tak tahu pulak?

MY: YA, we will be calling Cyber Security and the person handling that CCTV. This witness..
SN: This is basic.
MY: From the very beginning, her role is only to locate and analyse the image. Itu sahaja. The rest is another person. Don’t waste the time.
SN: []. I don’t know in what order they are bringing. I’ve to go with what I have. Because I have a problem. From day 1 I told MY…
YA: Now you know you have the chance to query them later on.
SN: I have then to reserve cross from time to time, YA.
YA: Okay, proceed. But bear in mind they are calling the relevant witness.

Q: Saya merujuk Puan kepada P5. Puan katakan semua masa-masa di control oleh hard disk.
A: Masa-masa ini telah tercatit dan tidak boleh diubah.

Q: Dan semua camera dalam sistem tersebut patut mempunyai masa yang sama kebiasaannya?
A: Kalau dalam hard disk yang sama, masanya adalah sama. Tetapi jika hard disk berlainan, setting mungkin ada perbezaan.

Q: Bagaimana tersebut?
A: Sebab satu hard disk dalamnya ada rakaman oleh satu komputer yang merakam imej tersebut. Satu lagi hard disk berada dalam komputer yang lain. Jadi, sudah tentu masanya ikut masa yang telah di set oleh pengendali CCTV tersebut.

Q: Kalau begitu, tak perlu hard disk yang berlainan jika ada perantaraan? Tadi kata apa yang ditunjuk di kamera akan di tunjuk di hard disk. Benar atau tidak?
A: Ya, betul.

Q: P5A, ini dari kamera mana?
A: Kamera 3.

Q: No kereta?
A: Kalau kita tengok dalam ini tak nampak, tapi WPK 5925.

Q: Warna merah?
A: Ya.

Q: Apakan masa yang dicatit semasa kereta masuk?
A: 14:47:13.

Q: 14:47:13 pada 26.06.2008?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya rujuk puan ke eksibit P5D. Apakah masa dan tarikh pada gambar tersebut?
A: 06.26.2008 dan 14:42:03.

Q: Tadi 2.47 p.m. di gate?
A: Ya.

Q: Selepas itu kereta itu masuk, pergi ke parking kemungkinanlah. Selepas itu, orang itu keluar dan pergi ke lif.
A: Betul.

Q: Mungkin 5 minit ke, 10 minit ke. Tetapi masa akan berjalan?
A: Ya.

Q: Jika begitu, mengapa masuk di gate adalah 2:47 p.m. tetapi masuk ke dalam lif ialah 2:42 p.m. Bagaimana boleh berlaku?
A: Seperti yang saya sebut tadi tarikh dalam rakaman ini tidak boleh diubah atau dipindah kerana ia merupakan computer generated. Bermakna orang yang set komputer ini yang boleh jawab soalan ini. Saya cuma dapat hard disk sahaja.

Q: Saya tanya sahaja sebab Puan telah menganalisa. Mungkin adalah pertanyaan soalan,kan “eh, kalau kita datang ke gate jam 12.00 dan kita datang ke lif 12.10…”

YA: I think she already answered that she doesn’t know.
SN: I’m just question on the logical, YA.
MY: Takpe.

Q: Tapi bila pergi ke lif 11.45 pulak. Patutnya 12.10 atau 12.00 lebih la kan?
A: Ya.

Q: Ini menunjukkan kamera pada lif dan kamera lain tak sama?
A: Ya.

Q: Gambar di sini, eksibit yang sama P5, muka surat 11 ditandakan P5K. Lihat di gambar atas untuk masa dan tarikh. Dan masa dan tarikh dibawah berbeza. Seperti ada super imposed. Boleh puan terangkan bagaimana berlaku?
A: Kedua-dua gambar adalah yang sama, tetapi gambar di bawah adalah selepas dianalisa. Tarikh dan masa ialah 06.26.2008 dan 16:12:05.

Q: Cara apa yang digunakan untuk mendapatkan gambar yang lebih terang seperti ini?
A: Itu adalah perisian video investigator yang digunakan untuk analisis.

Q: Adakah semua kamera disambung kepada alat yang disambung kepada hard disk?
A: Ya.

Q: Server terletak di mana?
A: Saya tidak tahu.

SN: YA, the witness do not know very much except what she did so I think I’ll reserve this for the next witness with YA [] to recall.
YA: If necessary.
SN: Yes. But I think we have to make a decision because we intend to mark and admit this DVDs as our exhibit. We will have to cross-examine her on this because she is the one made this clips. And I think they want it to be played..
MY: YA, can I proposed that this DVDs be played during lunch hour for this witness to confirm the content of it and after that we can mark it.
SN: I have no objection.
YA: I agree. Save time. So proceed with the re-examination?

Re-examination by MH.

Q: Puan telah dirujuk kepada P67C dan P68C semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh peguambela iaitu hard disk asal. Semasa Puan lakukan pemeriksaan adakah Puan gunakan hard disk asal atau hard disk klon?
A: Yang klon, YA

MH: Itu sahaja soalan pihak pendakwa.
YA: Saksi boleh keluar tetapi jangan balik dulu. Peguam ada soalan lagi.

MH: Saksi seterusnya ialah Supt. Fadzil. Saksi ke tandas, YA.
[10.01 a.m.] Stand down.

[10.08 a.m.]
SP9 – ACP Fadzil bin Ahmat.
SP9 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Malaysia.
G 12677, 43 tahun, Ketua Bahagian Pentadbiran di Makmal Forensik Polis Diraja Malaysia.

Pemeriksaan Utama SP9 oleh MH

Q: Di mana kamu bertugas pada 30.06.2008?
A: Pada tarikh tersebut, saya bertugas di Makmal Forensik Polis Diraja Malaysia sebagai Ketua Seksyen Audio Video.

Q: Apakah tanggungjawab kamu sebagai Ketua Seksyen Audio Video?
A: Sebagai Ketua Seksyen Audio Video, tanggungjawab adalah untuk menyelia penugasan juruanalsisa-juruanalisa yang di bawah penyeliaan saya di Seksyen Audio Video. Kedua, untuk menyelia penugasan pegawai-pegawai Audio Video yang bertugas di tempat kejadian.

Q: Boleh beritahu kelulusan sebagai ketua seksyen?
A: Kelulusan terakhir saya ialah Sarjana Perhubungan Antarabangsa dan DIplomasi daripada UKM.

Q: Dari aspek sebagai Ketua Seksyen Audio Video ada apa-apa kelulusan khas?
A: Saya ada mengikuti kursus-kursus khas di dalam dan luar negara untuk penganalisaan audio dan video.

Q: Boleh bagitahu pengalaman dalam aspek audio video?
A: Saya bermula dari 2007 apabila ditukarkan ke Seksyen Audio Video di mana saya menyelia kes-kes untuk dianalisa di Seksyen Audio video. Saya juga pergi ke tempat kejadian untuk melakukan penyeliaan ke atas rampasan-rampasan yang perlu dibuat ke atas eksibit-eksibit atau keterangan yang berkaitan audio video.

Q: Kita kembali kepada 30.06.2008. Boleh beritahu apa yang berlaku?
A: Pada tarikh tersebut, lebih kurang 1.00 ptg, saya telah dihubungi oleh DSP Jude, pegawai penyiasat IPD Brieckfields.

Q: Jika ditunjukkan DSP Jude, boleh cam?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah ini orangnya?
A: Ya.

DSP Jude dicamkan.

Q: Kamu beritahu telah dihubungi DSP Jude. Boleh beritahu apa tujuan DSP jude menghubungi kamu?
A: Pada ketika itu DSP Jude meminta bantuan untuk membuat siasatan di tempat kejadian di sebuah kondominium di Damansara.

Q: Ada diberitahu bantuan siasatan kes apa?
A: Bantuan siasatan bersabit kes DSAI dan dia memerlukan saya membuat siasatan ke atas rakaman CCTV.

Q: Apa tindakan kamu seterusnya?
A: Selepas menerrima panggilan, saya bersama seorang pegawai saya dan pemandu telah pergi ke Kondominum Desa Damansara dan apabila sampai di sana saya telah berjumpa dengan DSP Jude.

Q: Pada pukul berapa tiba disana?
A: Saya minta merujuk kepada ID saya.

YA: No problem ye?
SN: No objection.
YA: Teruskan.

Q: Pukul berapa kamu sampai di situ?
A: Saya telah sampai di Kondominum Desa Damansara pada 2.00 ptg dan di sana saya telah berjumpa DSP Jude dan DSP Jude telah memberi taklimat kepada saya tentang keperluan siasatan.

Q: Apa tindakan kamu di situ?
A: Seterusnya saya telah melawat ke kawasan kondo di mana terdapat 2 pusat CCTV, yang pertama di pejabat pengurusan kondo dan yang kedua di guard house. Semasa lawatan tersebut, saya telah di bawa oleh DSP Jude dan seorang pegawai pengurusan kondo berkenaan iaitu En. Mohd Aris b. Haji Ahmad.

Q: En. Mohd Aris ini kamu boleh cam jika ditunjukkan?
A: Boleh.

Q: Adakah ini orangnya?
A: Ya.

En. Mohd Aris b. Haji Ahmad dicamkan.

Q: Boleh ceritakan serba sedikit tentang sistem kawalan litar tertutup di tempat tersebut?
A: Saya telah diberi taklimat oleh En. Aris berkenaan sistem CCTV yang terdapat di Kondominum Desa Damansara. Ada dua sistem di sana. Sistem pertama terletak di pejabat pengurusan kondominum dan sistem kedua terletak di guard house. Dalam taklimat yang diberikan oleh DSP Jude, beliau memerlukan beberapa tarikh di mana gambar-gambar dari CCTV perlu diambil. Oleh kerana perkara tersebut memerlukan masa yang panjang saya telah meminta En. Aris memperkenalkan saya siapa ;pengurus sistem atau siapa yang menjaga sistem tersebut. Menurut En. Aris, sistem tersebut dijaga oleh En.Tan Tong Yean daripada salah sebuah syarikat yang membekalkan CCTV ke kondominium.
Q: En. Tan Tong Yean ini kamu boleh camkan sekiranya saya tunjukkan?
A: Boleh.

Q: Adakah ini orangnya?
A: Ya.

En. Tan Tong Yean dicamkan.

Q: Kita pegi ke sistem CCTV di guard house. Boleh ceritakan mengenai kedudukan kameranya, CPUnya?
A: Di guard houase terdapat satu sistem CCTV dimana mengandungi 5 kamera yang mengambil gambar kereta masuk dan mengambil gambar kereta keluar.

Q: Ada catat kamera mana yang ambil gambar kereta masuk dan kamera mana yang ambil gambar kereta keluar?
A: Kamera 4, 3,dan 1 mengambil gambar kereta masuk. Kamera 2 dan 5 mengambil gambar kereta keluar dari kawasan kondominium.

Q: Bagaimana kedudukan CPU tersebut?
A: CPU berada di dalam guard house dan dikawal oleh sistem CPU yang berjalan menggunakan operating system Windows XP.

Q: Apakah imej-imej yang diambil oleh kamera-kamera tersebut?
A: Imej-imej yang diambil adalah kesemua kereta yang masuk ke dalam kondo dan imej-imej yang keluar dari kawasan kondo .

Q: Bagaimana kedudukan kamera, hala ke mana?
A: Kamera di pintu masuk ada 3. Ada kamera menghala ke hadapan kereta, ada kereta yang menghala ke pemandu kereta, dan ada kamera yang menghala ke belakang kereta.

Q: Adakah ACP tahu kamera mana yang menghala ke kereta, kamera mana yang menghala ke pemandu?
A: Itu saya tak dapat ingat.

Q: Bagaimana dengan kedudukan kamera yang mengambil gambar kenderaan keluar dari kawasan kondo?
A: Di kedudukan keluar sama juga, ada kamera yang menghala ke bahagian pemandu dan ada kamera yang menghala ke bahagian belakang kereta.

Q: Sekarang kita pergi yang di pejabat pengurusan. Boleh cerita serba sedikit mengenainya?
A: Di pejabat pengurusan terdapat satu CPU yang mengawal CCTV. Saya dapati ada 2 buah kamera yang diperlukan oleh pegawai penyiasat iaitu kamera 1 dan kamera 8 yang terdapat di bahagian lif untuk naik ke kondominium. Kamera 1 merakamkan gambar di passenger lif dan kamera 8 merakam gambar di cargo lif.

Q: Cargo lif dan passenger lif ini dimana kedudukannya?
A: Berada di dalam bangunan kondominiim.

Q: Sebelah menyebelah ataupun berlainan tempat?
A: Lif tersebut berada sebelah menyebelah.

Q: Bagaimanakah cara bagi seseorang untuk masuk ke kondominium tersebut?
A: Saya difahamkan oleh En. Mohd Aris, untuk masuk ke kawasan kondominium mereka memerlukan access card dan untuk masuk ke kawasan lif juga memerlukan access card.

Q: Dan sekiranya seseorang tidak mempunyai access card boleh access?
A: Saya tak pasti, cuma diberitahu masuk menggunakan access card.

Q: Bagi kedudukan kamera di cargo lif dan di passenger lif, di mana CPU nya terletak?
A: CPU bagi kedua-dua kamera terletak di pejabat pengurusan kondominium.

Q: ACP ada sebut sebentar tadi bahawa kamera CCTV di lif ialah kamera 1 dan kamera 8.
A: Ya. Mengikut catatan saya.

Q: Bukan 7?
A: Saya tak pasti. Mengikut di sini berlaku … (semak ID). Mengikut catatan saya kamera 8.

Q: Dan dimana kedudukan CPU untuk keduadua kamera ini?
A: Di pejabat pengurusan kondominium.

Q: Ada pergi ke situ?
A: Ada, saya ada melawat ke pejabat pengurusan kondominium untuk melihat kedudukan CPU tersebut.

Q: Apa tindakan seterusnya?
A: Setelah melihat sistem tersebut, saya telah menasihatkan pegawai penyiasat untuk merampas kedua2 hard disk tersebut kerana kita tidak boleh membuat preview di situ kerana melibatkan masa yang amat panjang. Atas dasar tersebut saya telah membuat keputusan untuk membuat proses cloning ke atas kedua-dua hard disk tersebut supaya kami boleh merampas the original hard disk tersebut.

Q: Untuk tujuan tersebut, bantuan siapa yang dipohon?
A: Untuk melaksanakan tugas tersebut saya telah menghubungi En. Asmawi bagi mendapatkan bantuan dari Cyber Security untuk menjalan cloning ke atas dua hard disk iaitu hard disk di pejabat pengurusan kondominium dan hard disk di guard house.

Q: Siapa yg datang dari Cyber Security?
A: 1. Zamri Adil b. Alib
2. Mohd Izzuan Effenddy Yusof
3. Mohd Shahrizuan Omar

Q: Boleh camkan mereka jika ditunjukkan?
A: Boleh.

Q: Adakah ini 2 daripada 3 orang tersebut?
A: Ya.

Mohd Zabri Adil b. Talib dan Mohd Shahrizuan b. Omar dicamkan.

Q: Ada beri apa-apa taklimat kepada mereka?
A: Saya ada memberi taklimat kepada Cyber Security meminta bantuan mereka menjalankan cloning ke atas dua hard disk. Hard disk pertama di pejabat pengurusan kondominum saya telah minta bantuan En. Zabri dan untuk hard disk di guard house saya telah meminta bantuan En. Shahrizuan untuk membuat proses cloning tersebut.

Q: Selepas itu apa yang berlaku?
A: Sebelum itu saya telah berbincang dengan pegawai penyiasat bahawa kedua-dua pegawai dari Cyber Security akan menjalankan proses cloning. Tujuan proses cloning ini adalah supaya hard disk yang diklon dapat diserahkan kepada pihak kondominium supaya mereka boleh beroperasi secara biasa dan dalam masa yang sama pegawai penyiasat dapat merampas kedua-dua hard disk tersebut.
Proses cloning pertama di pejabat pengurusan bermula pada 7.05 p.m. dan selesai pada 10.32 p.m. Proses cloning di guard house pada 7.48 p.m selesai pada 9.04 p.m. Selepas selesai proses cloning dibuat, pegawai penyiasat telah menjalankan rampasan ke atas kedua-dua hard disk yang original.

Q: Adakah kamu menyelia proses cloning ini?
A: Sepanjang cloning di jalankan saya berada di tempat kejadian on and off. Kadang-kadang saya berada di pejabat pengurusan dan jkadang-kadang saya melihat proses di guard house.

Q: Hard disk asal dirampas oleh DSP Jude?
A: Hard disk asal telah dirampas oleh pegawai penyiasat. Hard disk asal yang dirampas di guard house pada 7.48 p.m. ialah jenis Seagate Baracuda 7200.8, [] ST3200826A, siri no. 5NB2WM5C kapasiti 200G. Hard disk kedua di pejabat pengurusan, hard disk Western Digital model W-D5000AAKS, siri no. WCAPW0788419, kapasiti 500 G. Kedua-dua hard disk ini telah dirampas oleh DSP Jude dari pegawai pengurusan kondominium, En. Mohd Aris.

Q: Boleh cam hard disk asal jika ditunjukkan?
A: Ya. Saya ada catitkan no sirinya.

MH: Saya mohon saksi lihat kepada hard disk asal, P67C dan P68C.

Q: Kedua-dua hard disk ini nombor sirinya sama semasa rampasan?
A: Ya.

P67C dan P68C dicamkan.

Q: Original hard disk dirampas selepas atau sebelum proses cloning?
A: Hard disk asal dirampas apabila proses cloning selesai.

Q: Bilakah proses cloning selesai bagi kedua-dua hard disk?
A: Masa kedua-dua proses cloning selesai berbeza kerana proses cloning dijalankan di dua tempat yang berbeza. Proses cloning hard disk di guard house selesai pada 9.04, dan proses cloning di pejabat pengurusan kondominium selesai pada 10.32 p.m.

Q: ACP ada sebut bahawa kamera dalam lif ialah kamera 1 dan kamera 8 tetapi apabila video dimainkan, ianya menunjukan kamera 7 dan kamera 8.
A: Saya tidak melihat gambar-gambar secara teknikal di dalam rakaman tersebut, maklumat ini diperolehi daripada pegawai pengurusan kondominium. Saya cuma memastikan hard disk tersebut dapat dirampas oleh pegawai penyiasat.

Q: Apabila proses klon dilakukan, ada apa-apa kesan terhadap hard disk asal?
A: Apa yang saya faham ialah apabila proses klon ini dijalankan, ia akan mebuat satu salinan hard disk sama seperti mana salinan asal. Tujuan kami membuat cloning adalah supaya pihak kondominium dapat beroperasi seperti biasa. Kita tak nak bila kita ambil hard disk, mereka tak boleh operate sebab dalam hard disk tersebut mengandungi software dan juga operating system bagi CCTV.

Q: Boleh jelaskan apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan “operasi dalam keadaan biasa”?
A: Sekiranya pihak polis pada ketika itu terus mengambil hard disk tersebut, maka sistem CCTV di kondominium tidak akan dapat pihak kondominium tidak dapat berjalan seperti biasa disebabkan hard disk telah diambil. Jadi, untuk membolehkan mereka beroperasi seperti biasa, kita membuat satu cloning dan apabila selesai proses cloning, kita serah hard disk yang klon kepada pihak pengurusan dan mengambil hard disk asal.

Q: Ada apa-apa kesan pada hard disk asal selepas cloning?
A: Tidak.

Q: Jadi, apa yang ada dalam hard disk asal adalah sama, tidak ada perubahan apa-apa data ke atasnya?
A: Tidak.

MH: Itu sahaja soalan pihak pendakwa.

Pemeriksaan balas SP9 oleh SN.

Q: ACP telah merujuk kepada ID ACP dan telah nyatakan bahawa ACP telah mencatit kamera pada lif adalah kamera 1 dan 8. Boleh saya lihat bahagian itu sahaja pada ID tersebut?
A: Ya.

SN merujuk kepada ID ACP Fadzil berkenaan nombor kamera CCTV.

SN: YA, itu sahaja soalan saya.

Pemeriksaan semula oleh MH.

Q: Apabila ACP ke tempat kejadian dan tengok CPU di pejabat pengurusa,…

SN: Objection, YA. I think I only ask one question.
YA: Ya. Tapi tak tahu related ke tak. []
MH: Yes. Just to introduce.

Q: ACP diberitahu oleh pihak pengurusan bahawa ianya adalah kamera 1 dan 8. Apabila ACP pergi ke tempat kejadian dan lihat kamera tersebut, apakah yang terdapat pada skrin di pejabat pengurusan?
A: Saya tidak melihat skrin. Saya cuma menasihat apa yang dibuat.

Q: Dengan kata lain, ACP tak tengok skrin tersebut?
A: Saya tengok, tapi saya tak pasti nombor pada skrin.

Q: Bagaimana ACP tahu seperti mana yang dicatitkan bahawa ianya adalah kamera 1 dan kamera 8?
A: Saya dapat tahu daripada pengurus kondo, iaitu En. Mohd Aris.

Q: ACP sendiri tidak periksa untuk pastikan nombor kamera?
A: Tidak.

MH: Itu sahaja soalan saya.
YA: Can we release him?
SN: Yes.

MH: Saksi seterusnya SP10, Mohd Zabri Adil bin Talib, 32 tahun, bekerja sebagai Ketua Jabatan Forensik Digital di Cyber Security.

SP10 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Q: Pada 30 Jun 2008, adakah Encik bertugas di tempat yang sama?
A: Ya.

Q: Sebagai apa ketika itu?
A: Pengurus Operasi Jabatan Forensik Digital.

Q: Sejak bila bertugas di Cyber Security?
A: Semenjak May 2005, bermula sebagai juruanalisa Forensik Digital.

Q: Sekarang jadi Ketua Jabatan Forensik sejak bila?
A: Berkuatkuasa sejak dari 1 Jan 2011.

Q: Ketika itu semasa bertugas sebagai Pengurus Operasi, boleh beritahu apakah bidang tugas?
A: Memastikan segala perjalanan operasi, member servis forensic digital kepada agensi penguatkuasaan di Malaysia, berjalan lancar.
Di samping itu juga, saya bertanggungjawab memberi latihan forensic digital kepada pegawai penguatkuasa, Pegawai Pendakwa dan juga Hakim, juga memberi keterangan di Mahkamah sekiranya diperlukan.

Q: Cyber Security ini adalah satu agensi kerajaan ataupun swasta?
A: Agensi kerajaan di bawah Kementerian Sains Teknologi dan Inovasi.

Q: Fungsi Cyber Security?
A: Menjadi pusat rujukan apa-apa berkaitan dengan keselamatan cyber.

Q: Matlamat?
A: Untuk menjadi pusat rujukan di mana kita dapat memberikan khidmat kepakaran dalam perkara-perkara berkaitan dengan keselamatan computer termasuklah servis forensic digital.

Q: Apakah kelayakan Encik?
A: Ijazah Sarjana Muda dalam bidang Sains Komputer, pengkhususan dalam system komputer daripada Universiti Teknologi Malaysia pada 2001. Saya juga memiliki pertauliahan professional iaitu GCFA, GX Forensic Certified Analyst dan juga EMCE iaitu Endcase Certified Examiner.

Q: Sijil pentauliahan GCFA, apakah peranannya, kepentigannya?
A: Seperti lesen memandu antarabangsa sepertinya dianalogi dalam bidang forensic, yang mana, pengetahuannya adalah lebih meluas, manakala ENCE lebih focus pada produk Endcase (peralatan utama yang digunakan dalam pemeriksaan forensic digital).

Q: Pengalaman Encik dalam siasatan forensic digital?
A: Saya terlibat dalam hampir kesemua kes yang dilaporkan ke Jabatan kami, di mana pihak cyber security memberi bantuan kepada kesemua Agensi Penguatkuasaan di Malaysia, dan saya juga pernah memberi keterangan di mahkamah seperti di kes profil tinggi Altantuya dan juga kes siasatan pita Linggam.

Q: Pengalaman dalam perkara CCTV?
A: Saya pernah memberi keterangan di Mahkamah Sesyen Pulau Pinang melibatkan perkara CCTV, di mana kes tersebut melibatkan VCD haram di mana bungkusan tersebut ada gambar saspek sedang menguruskan VCD haram.

Q: Keterangan di Mahkamah berapa kali dan adakah dia diterima?
A: Sebanyak 11 kali, dan saya percaya keterangan saya diterima oleh Mahkamah.

Q: Pada 30 Jun 2008, bolehkan Encik beritahu apa yang berlaku pada hari tersebut?
A: Pada hari tersebut, Ketua Jabatan saya, Encik Aswami telah memberikan arahan pada jam lebih kurang 3.30 petang, untuk memberikan bantuan kepada pihak Makmal Forensik Cheras dan saya ditemani oleh dua staff daripada jabatan saya iaitu Encik Mohd Sharizuan dan Encik Mohd Izuan Effendi tiba di tempat kejadian dalam pukul 4.30 petang.

Q: Encik Sharizuan boleh dicamkan?
A: Boleh.

Q: Encik Izuan, adakah dia ada datang ke Mahkamah?
A: Tidak, beliau ada tugas di Perak.

Q: Adakah ini Encik Mohd Shahrizuan?
A: Ya.

SP10 mengecam Mohd Shahrizuan.

Q: Apa berlaku di tempat tersebut ketika sampai?
A: Ketika sampai, saya berjumpa dengan Tuan Fadzil dan beliau telah memberikan taklimat asas berkenaan dengan bantuan yang diperlukan oleh pihak Makmal Forensik Cheras.

Q: Apakah bantuan yang diperlukan?
A: Bantuan yang diperlukan adalah melakukan proses evidence preservation terhadap dua system CCTV yang berada di lokasi kejadian di mana beliau telah menekankan bahawa proses klon harus dijalankan ke atas kedua-dua system CCTV tersebut.

Q: Apakah CCTV yang dimaksudkan ACP Fadzil?
A: Yang pertama adalah CCTV yang memantau kenderaan keluar masuk ke dalam dan keluar daripada kondominium tersebut, iaitu CCTV di Pondok Pengawal dan CCTV yang kedua adalah CCTV yang memantau kegiatan keluar masuk manusia di lif dipercayai di kondo tersebut.

Q: Jelaskan apa maksud proses pengklonan?
A: Proses copy bit to bit, ia berbeza daripada copy secara biasa, di mana jika kita copy secara biasa, data-data aktif je yang kita ambil. Manakala dalam proses cloning, dia akan menyalin data aktif dan data tak aktif iaitu data yang telah di delete. Apabila proses pengklonan berlaku, 100% data dalam harddisk asal akan disalin ke dalam harddisk kedua. Itulah dia proses klon.

Q: Bila berlaku pengklonan ini, adakah terdapat kesan pada harddisk asal?
A: Tidak. Harddisk asal tidak akan terjejas, kerana kami menggunakan peralatan forensic yang telah diiktiraf dan tidak akan menambah atau mengurangkan apa-apa data daripada forensic yang asal.

Q: Apakah peralatan yang digunakan?
A: Hard disk imager, jenama Voom, model hardcopy dua.

Q: Adakah ini peralatan yang biasa digunakan?
A: Ya, bukan di Cyber Security sahaja, malah di seluruh dunia, oleh para pengamal forensic digital.

Q: Adakah ia menggunakan penggunaan biasa di Cyber Security?
A: Ya ia adalah peralatan yang biasa digunakan.

Q: Boleh ceritakan apa yang berlaku berkenaan dengan proses pengklonan?
A: Setelah menerima arahan daripada Tuan Fadzil, saya mengarahkan pegawai saya, EncikSharizuan untuk melakukan proses evidence preservation di pondok pengawal, di mana saya akan preserve evidence di management office.

Q: Boleh beritahu apakah tindakan yang diambil untuk evidence preservation?
A: Evidence preservation ini mengikut system standard operating kami, sekiranya system computer tersebut sedang aktif ataupun on, pertama sekali kita akan mengambil data-data seperti masa, time offset iaitu perbezaan masa computer tersebut dengan masa sebenar, dan juga network connection seperti IP address, prosess-prosess yang sedang berjalan, servis yang sedang berjalan dan juga data-data berkaitan dengan memori. Di mana sekiranya system computer tersebut dipadamkan, data-data tersebut tidak boleh didapatkan semula.

Q: Encik ada sebut telah mengurus harddisk di pejabat pengurusan. Boleh beritahu apa tindakan Encik untuk preserve keterangan di sini?
A: Setelah saya ambil data daripada computer tersebut, saya telah mengesahkan lokasi kamera yang terlibat daripada CCTV tersebut, kemudian saya telah membuat proses screen shot berkenaan dengan data-data berkaitan dan setelah dapat kebenaran dari IO, saya kemudian telah mematikan system tersebut, saya keluarkan harddisk dari system komputer tersebut, dan proses pengklonan telah dilakukan di dalam pejabat pengurusan, dengan harddisk dihubungkan dengan peralatan harddisk imager tadi, di mana harddisk imager tersebut juga dihubungkan dengan harddisk klon.

Q: Encik telah ambil data-data di computer. Boleh jelaskan?
A: Data yang diambil ialah time offset, iaitu saya pastikan bahawa masa system computer tersebut sama atau tidak dengan standard time Malaysia.

Q: Untuk tujuan tersebut, apakah yang Encik lakukan?
A: YA, Saya mohon rujuk kepada fail saya. Pada masa tersebut, untuk maklumat pejabat pengurusan, saya telah mendapati, masa yang direkod oleh system computer tersebut adalah17.59.15. Dalam proses ini saya akan cek notebook di mana notebook ini masa dia telah saya synchorise kan dengan Malaysian Standard Time, di mana masa sebenar pada ketika itu ialah 18.18.15, di mana saya telah dapati bahawa system computer tersebut, masanya lewat 19 minit. Jadi untuk analisa atau memeriksa apa-apa data dari computer tersebut, masa harus ditambah 19 minit untuk mendapatkan masa sebenar apa-apa kejadian yang berlaku di system computer tersebut.

Q: Masa standard time ini diperolehi oleh computer Encik, bagaimana masa itu ditentukan?
A: Jam di notebook saya telah diselarikan dengan masa Malaysia melalui laman web SIRIM Jabatan Metereologi. Di mana jam yang digunakan di situ, ialah jam atomic yang sangat tepat, yang mana kita dapat selarikan masa di computer kita.

Q: Ianya bukan masa yang Encik set kan sendiri, tetapi masa dari website SIRIM?
A: Ya, bukan, bila kita click button synchronise, dia automatically reset masa di notebook tersebut mengikut masa di server SIRIM.

Q: Cuba lihat gambar P5C. Masa yang dicatit itu adalah masa pada apa, yang dicetak pada harddisk klon? Apa masa yang dicatatkan?
A: 14.42.03.

Q: Dan Encik kata tadi untuk jadi masa standard, kena tambah lagi 19 minit ya?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh jelaskan berpandukan gambar ini?
A: Gambar ini diperolehi daripada gambar computer system CCTV tersebut, jadi sekiranya kita ingin lakukan pemeriksaan bagi fail ini, setiap tarikh ataupun time stand yang dicetak oleh system computer tersebut perlulah ditambah dengan 19 minit lagi. Dalam kata lain, kejadian sebenar ketika rakaman ini dilakukan adalah pada jam 15.10.13, di mana kita perlu tambah 19 minit lagi.

Q: Dalam kata lain, masa di CCTV tersebut adalah lewat compare to Malaysian Standard Time?
A: Yes. Lewat 19 minit.

Q: Jadi untuk CCTV di pejabat pengurusan, setiap masa mesti ditambah 19 minit?
A: Ya, setiap apa fail yang dilakukan di system computer tersebut, perlulah ditambah dengan 19 minit lagi.

Q: Bagi masa yang terdapat pada bilik pengurusan itu, siapa yang tentukan masa?
A: Pada pendapat saya, ia adalah oleh orang yang pertama sekali install computer tersebut, iaitu Windows. Masa first time kita install, ia akan minta kita set tarikh dan masa. Dan sekiranya ia tidak pernah diubah semula atau disynchroniseken kan balik, ia akan kekal sebegitu sehinggalah bateri di motherboard tersebut habis.

Q: Apa yang berlaku pada harddisk yang diklonkan?
A: Telah dimasukkan semula ke dalam system CCTV tersebut untuk memastikan system CCTV tersebut berfungsi seperti sedia kala dan harddisk asal telah diserahkan kepada Tuan Fadzil.

Q: Boleh camkan harddisk ini?
A: Boleh.

Q: Ada catit serial number hard disk asal ini?
A: Berjenama Western digital, serial number WCADWO788419. Kapasiti 500GB.

Q: Cuba lihat P67C. Adakah ini harddisk yang sama?
A: Ya.

Q: Berkenaan dengan CCTV di guardhouse, siapa yang membuat pemeriksaan?
A: Saya telah mengarahkan Encik Shahrizuan Omar untuk memberi bantuan penuh kepada Tuan Fadzil dalam usaha untuk preserve exhibits di sana.

Q: So, dia yang melakukan pemeriksaan semua?
A: Yes, dan ia telah dikembalikan kepada saya apabila telah selesai.

MH: YA, itu sahaja soalan pihak pendakwa.

Cross examination SP10.

Q: Ada 19 minit perbezaan di antara komputer dengan system computer?
A: Sistem computer CCTV tersebut, dengan system masa yang telah diselarikan.

Q: Encik telah pergi ke tempat kejadian ya, adakah kamera ini, dihubung direct kepada hard disk ini?
A: Ya.

Q: Ada CPU di sana?
A: Ada.

Q: Di lift dan juga di guardhouse?
A: Ya.

Q: Apa Operating System yang digunakan?
A: Windows XP. Kedua-duanya gunakan windows XP YA.

Q: Ada apa-apa specific software?
A: Untuk CCTV system? Dipercayai jenama dia di pejabat pengurusan ialah GV800, dan GV600 di pondok pengawal.

Q: Dipercayai je lah, tak boleh disahkan?
A: Emmm. Ya, saya percaya.

Q: Ada tak apa-apa tindakan untuk menentukan kalau system ini beroperasi dengan sempurna?
A: Tiada.

Q: Masa yang sedia ada, yang Encik nampak, ada perbezaan di antara berapa kamera dengan berapa kamera? Berapa kamera yang sama, dan berapa kamera yang tak sama? Within the kamera system in the condo.
A: Secara automatic perisian CCTV tersebut akan mengambil masa di system computer tersebut sebagai rujukan utama.

Q: Tapi yang sedia ada itu, dan menunjukkan ada perbezaan lah, antara kamera 1, 5, dan 7, dan 8?
A: Sepatutnya tiada perbezaan.

Q: So, maksudnya encik telah mendapati semua computer tidak synchronise satu sama lain.
A: Saya tidak setuju, sebab apabila software perisian CCTV tersebut telah diinstall, tidak kira berapa kamera yang berapa yang dihubungkan..(tak sempat bagi jawapan)

Q: Tapi kamera-kamera itu sepatutnya sama masa, tidak boleh berlainan, setting mesti betul ya.
A: Yes.

Q: Di sini, ada yang menunjukkan 19 minutes awal, dan camera di guardhouse guna masa yang lain pulak. Mana yang betul?
A: Dua-dua tak betul.

SN: Tiada soalan lagi, YA.

Re-examination SP10.

Q: Masa yang dirakam pada CPU itu, adakah itu masa kamera atau masa CPU?
A: Masa CPU.

Q: Ada atau tidak masa pada kamera?
A: Kamera tidak membekalkan apa-apa data mengenai masa. Kamera cuma merakam sahaja.

Q: Kenapa masa pada bilik pengurusan dan di guardhouse berlainan?
A: Pada pendapat saya, system computer tersebut diinstall oleh dua individu yang berbeza.

Q: Komputer yang sama?
A: Komputer yang berbeza.

Q: Sebab itu masa yang dirakam berlainan?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya pohon kebenaran YA untuk tanya satu soalan yang baru. Iaitu nombor kamera pada lift itu. Subject to cross.
SN: No objection.

Q: Ada tengok nombor kamera yang dirakam pada lif? CCTV di bilik pengurusan.
Q: Ada Encik tengok pada skrin tentang number di lift?
A: Ada tapi saya tidak bawak rekod dia ah.

MH: Itu sahaja soalan saya YA. Pohon saksi dilepaskan.

YA: Saksi boleh turun ya

[11.24 a.m] Stand down

[12.07 p.m] Kes dipanggil semula.

MH: Dengan izin, saya pohon panggil saksi seterusnya, SP11, Mohd Sharizuan Omar, (juruanalisa di Cyber Security Malaysia, berumur 28 tahun)

SP11 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

EIC SP11.

Q: Pada 30. Jun 2008, adakah encik bertugas di Cyber Security?
A: Ya.

Q: Sebagai apa?
A: Juruanalisa.

Q: Sejak bila bertugas di situ?
A: Januari 2008.

Q: Sebagai juruanalisa, apakah bidang tugas?
A: Bidang tugas sebagai jurualisa ialah membuat analisa forensic dan memberi latihan dalam video forensic atau computer forensic.

Q: Untuk menjadi juruanalisa, apa kelayakan yang diperlukan?
A: Saya berkelayakan Sarjana Muda dari USM dan saya telah mendapat pelbagai latihan forensic, video forensic dan audio forensic di dalam negara dan luar negara.

Q: Sarjana Muda dalam bahagian apa?
A: Sains Komputer.

Q: Adakah Encik ada menjalankan apa-apa analisa dalam video dan audio forensic sebagai juruanalisa? Apakah analisa yang telah dilakukan oleh Encik?
A: Sebagai juruanalisa, kebiasaannya saya akan melakukan penambahbaikan kepada imej-imej forensic ataupun audio fail, dan saya boleh juga melakukan extraction daripada CCTV system.

Q: Boleh Encik beritahu apa penganalisaan yang telah dilakukan oleh Encik? Sepanjang bertugas sebagai juruanalisa?
A: Sepanjang saya bekerja di Cyber Security, saya banyak melakukan video forensik melibatkan CCTV, kes audio yang melibatkan pengecaman suara, kes-kes komputer forensik.

Q: CCTV ini, boleh beritahu apa penganalisaan yang telah dilakukan.
A: CCTV adalah system computer, oleh itu pemeriksaan terhadap CCTV adalah sama seperti pemeriksaan yang dilakukan untuk computer forensic. So, bagi CCTV kita akan melakukan proses cloning semasa melakukan pemeriksaan terhadap CCTV.

Q: Pada 30.6.2008, bertugas? Apa berlaku pada hari tersebut?
A: Saya telah mendapat arahan daripada Ketua Jabatan saya iaitu Encik Aswami, iaitu saya bersama-sama dengan Encik Mohd Zabri dan Izuan Efendi untuk pergi ke sebuah kondo di Damansara untuk membantu pihak polis dalam siasatan ini.
Q: Encik ada pergi ke kondo tersebut?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh beritahu apa yang berlaku di situ.
A: Saya tiba di tempat kejadian pada jam 4.30 petang dan setibanya di sana, kami iaitu saya, Encik Mohd Zabri dan Izuan Effendi telah diberi keterangan oleh Tuan Fadzil mengenai kes pada hari tersebut. Dan saya telah diberi arahan oleh Encik Mohd Zabri untuk membantu Tuan Fadzil untuk membuat pengklonan CCTV di guard house.

Q: Adakah Encik melakukan pengklonan tersebut?
A: Ya, di guardhouse pada pukul 7.48, dan selesai pada pukul 9.04 malam.

Q: Ada tak Encik ambil apa-apa tindakan untuk preserve keterangan?
A: Saya telah mencatatkan time offset di CCTV guardhouse.

Q: Apa tindakan yang dilakukan berkenaan dengan time offset ini?
A: Time offset dicatatkan dengan dibandingkan masa CCTV di guardhouse dengan masa laptop yang saya bawa dari CS. Laptop tersebut telah disynchronise kan masa dengan masa yang disedia oleh SIRIM. Kemudian saya mencatat masa CCTV dan banding dengan masa laptop tersebut.

Q: Apa yang Encik dapati?
A: YA, saya mohon untuk memohon merujuk pada rujukan saya.
Masa CCTV di guardhouse iaitu pada 07.28.00, kemudiaan masa laptop ialah 07.37.15. Hasil daripada pemeriksaan ini, didapati masa di CCTV system lewat 9 minit 19 saat.

Q: Dan Encik kata telah merujuk kepada masa pada laptop? Apa yang dilakukan pada masa pada laptop ini?
A: Masa di laptop telah di synchronise sebelum tiba di tempat kejadian, dengan pada masa pada laman web jabatan meteorology yang disediakan oleh SIRIM.

Q: Boleh Encik beritahu apa yang dilakukan untuk synchronise masa itu?
A: Saya telah membuka setting pada jam laptop tersebut, dan kemudian connect pada internet, dan synchrosice kepada laman web http//: mst.sirim.my, di mana masa laptop saya synchronise kepada laman web yang disediakan oleh SIRIM itu.

Q: Masa yang Encik beritahu ini, masa pada laptop atau masa yang ditunjuk pada website SIRIM itu?
A: Selepas di synchrosnise, masa di laptop akan menyamai masa ditetapkan SIRIM.

Q: Encik tadi kata masa pada CCTV itu lewat 9 minit 15 saat. Cuba lihat pada gambar P5A, boleh Encik beritahu tentang masa yang dicetak pada gambar ini?
A: 14.47.13.

Q: Jadi, masa CCTV ini lewat. Jadi macam mana kita mahu buat kiriman masa sebenar?
A: Dengan menambah 9 minit 15 saat [] gambar A.

Q: Jadi kalau ikut perkiraan Encik, masa yang sebenarnya?
A: 14.56.28

Q: Dengan kata lain, untuk setiap masa yang ditunjukkan oleh CCTV mesti ditambah 9 minit?
A: Ya benar.

Q: Dan daripada masa yang ditunjukkan oleh SIRIM diperolehi?
A: Masa itu ditentukan oleh Jabatan Metereologi menggunakan jam atomic.

Q: Adakah ia Malaysian Standard Time?
A: Ya.

Q: Selain mendapatkan masa dan tarikh pada rakaman tersebut, apa tindakan lain untuk preservation keterangan tersebut? Ada ambil nombor siri pada harddisk ini?
A: Setelah selesai proses pengklonan, saya telah mencatat maklumat harddisk original CCTV sistem di guard house.

Q: Sistem CCTV di guardhouse ini, apa peralatan yang ada?
A: CPU CCTV system di guard house, menggunakan Microsoft XP, CCTV system yagn digunakan GV600, kemudian jumlah kamera yang digunakan saya tidak pasti tetapi mengikut catatan saya, bagi pintu masuk, kamera yang terlibat iaitu kamera 1, 4 dan 3. Pintu keluar, melibatkan kamera 2 dan 5. CPU berada di dalam guard house.

Q: Semasa Encik melihat system CCTV tersebut, adalah dia beroperasi ketika itu?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah rakaman yang dibuat oleh CCTV tersebut berjalan dengan baik?
A: Ya.

Q: Selepas proses pengklonan, apa tindakan Encik? First, evidence preservation. Selepas tu pengklonan. Boleh beritahu apa tindakan yang dilakukan semasa proses pengklonan?
A: Sebelum proses pengklonan, saya telah mengambil masa offset kemudian saya telah shut down kan CPU tersebut dan mengeluarkan harddisk original, kemudian dengan menggunakan forensic tool iaitu Voom hardcopy 2 iaitu yang melakukan proses pengklonan hard disk original kepada hard disk baru. Tujuannya adalah untuk menggantikan hard disk original kepada harddisk baru tersebut yang mana harddisk baru tersebut akan digantikan ke dalam CCTV system guard house. Harddisk original, saya beri kepada Tuan Fadzli.

Q: Adakah terdapat kesan pada harddisk original apabila dilakukan pengklonan?
A: Tidak ada.

Q: Segala data akan dipreserve?
A: Ya dan tiada sebarang kejadian akan terjadi sebab kami guna forensic tool

Q: Ada catit harddisk asal?
A: Ya, saya ada catat butiran, iaitu model, serial number dan saiz kapasiti tersebut.

Q: Boleh beritahu apa model dan juga nombor siri?
A: SEAGATE BARRACUDA model ST320086A, saiz 200GB, serial number 5ND2W105C.

Q: Sekiranya saya tunjuk harddisk ini, boleh camkan?
A: Ya, boleh sebab saya catit serial number ini.

Q: Cuba lihat P68C. Adakah ini harddisk tersebut?
A: Ya.

Q: Tadi Encik kata Encik pergi ke tempat kejadian, apa nama tempat dia?
A: Kondominium Desa Damansara.

Q: Harddisk asal telah serah kepada Tuan Fadzil?
A: Ya.

Q: Dia yang camkan Encik tadi, semasa dia beri keterangan?
A: Ya.

Q: Yang klon tu apa jadi?
A: Hard disk klon tersebut saya telah beri kepada CCTV sistem di guardhouse.

Q: Apabila masuk dalam system, adakah system itu beroperasi semula?
A: Selepas dipasang semula oleh saya dan CCTV tersebut beroperasi seperti sediakala.

MH: Itu saja soalan pihak pendakwa, YA.

Cross examination SP11.

SN: Encik ada beritahu keterangan tadi, ada menerima kursus di dalam dan luar negara, dan berkelulusan dalam computer sains. Berapa lama pengalaman Encik dalam bidang forensik ini?
A: Sehingga sekarang? Sejak bekerja di Cyber Security, pada Januari 2008.

Q: Encik telah beritahu tadi, berapa kali ada beri keterangan di mahkamah?
A: Saya telah dipanggil ke Mahkamah beberapa kali, tetapi untuk memberi keterangan, sebanyak 1 kali, pada awal tahun 2011.

Q: Tadi Encik kata CPU di guardhouse beroperasi dengan sempurna. Adakah encik mengambil gambar screenshot CPU di guardhouse?
A: Tidak.

Q: Ada tak ambil screenshot masa di laptop yang diambil oleh jam atomic itu, dengan masa di computer CPU guardhouse untuk bandingan?
A: tidak.

Re examination SP11.

MH: Saya tiada soalan YA. Pohon saksi dilepaskan.
YA: Ok, saksi boleh balik.
MH: Saya ada lagi 2 saksi, YA.
YA: Kita sambung petang lah, 2.30. So in the meantime, lunch hour you all tak boleh pergi mana lah, or you come back at 2.30, yang tu sekejap je kan? Kalau you all dah tengok and menda tu sama, buat apa lagi? That will be the copy of hard disk je. Never mind. So, must I present atau tidak, untuk tengok menda tu?

SN: No, they can cross later.
YA: So you orang tengok ya.

[12.35]: Stand down.

[2.49 pm] Kes disambung semula.

SN: We checked what was played in the screen and what is with us is different.
YA: The way to put it is to ask the person who made the copies why it is different and cross-examined her. Ask her why is it different? If she says it is different from the one showed in court then we can have it marked.

SN: We have a different timing and there is one set different as played by the court
MY: What happened we supplied the still photos. Then they asked for the DVD. I have not seen the clip as either.
SN: The problem is that we have something different timing from them.

YA: Can we recall the witness later on and play it and let her see and let her confirm
SN: We have no problem with that because it is a matter of interpretation. There are two interpretations. We have a different timing and they have a different one.
YA: We call the witness later and resolve that later. In the meantime, we call other witness first.
YA: Tapi tadi DPP and counsel dah tengok tadi?
MY: It can’t be played.

SN: There are so many parts Yang Arif. We took at random. We saw some difference and we wanted to print it out but we could not.
YA: So we have to reserve one day yang… because we have to see and have it played in court. Otherwise susah. In the meantime, call the next witness.

Examination-in-chief by Tuan Hanafiah
SP12- Mohd Aris bin Hj Ahmad

Pekerjaan:Pengurus Residen di Seaville Resident di Jalan Kelang Lama
Alamat:sama dengan IC

YA: Jalan Selasih Sari 5, Presinct 3, Bandar Baru Sg Buaya Rawang?
A: ya
Umur: 46 tahun

Q: Boleh beritahu pada 30 Jun 2008 di mana kamu bertugas?
A: Di kondo servis desa damansara

Q: Di mana terletaknya kondo desa damansara ini
A: Jalan setia kasih, Bukit Damansara

Q: Ketika itu apakah jawatan yang kamu pegang?
A: Ketika itu saya bertugas sebagai pengurus residen untuk kondominium Desa Damansara.

Q: Sebagai pengurus residen Desa Damansara, apakah tugas kamu?
A: Tugas saya meliputi penyelengaraan, maintenance, kebersihan, keselamatan dan menyelia segala aduan-aduan dari penduduk atau residen kondo Desa Damansara.

Q: Dan maintenance ini adakah termasuk cctv
A: Ya, cctv

Q: Keselamatan di kondo apakah jenis keselamatan yang disediakan di kondominium tersebut
A: Dari aspek keselamatan, kami mempunyai cctv, ada access kad dan ada pengawal-pengawal yang bertugas.

Q: Dan bagi seseorang untuk masuk ke kawasan kondo bagaimana dia boleh masuk?
A: Prosidur seseorang residen dan tetamu ada dua cara. Satu tuan rumah akan bagi tau kami dia expect tetamunya. Keduanya, tetamu datang dan kami akan intercom tuan rumah dan jika tuan rumah benarkan kami benarkan.

Q: Kamu sebut intercom tuan rumah bagi tetamu yang datang secara tanpa temujanji, boleh beritahu di mana tetamu tersebut akan mendaftar dirinya?
A: Di pondok pengawal di pintu masuk

Q: Itu untuk yang berjalan kaki atau kenderaan?
A: Sama ada berjalan kaki atau menaiki kenderaan.

Q: Untuk kedua-dua jenis?
A: Ya.

Q: Intercom terletak di mana?
A: Intercom terdapat di guard post.

Q: Adakah setiap rumah ada alat intercom sendiri?
A: Ya.

Q: Dan bagi mereka yang mendiami kondo macammana cara masuk.
A: Mereka ada access card. Mereka ada dua access card. Satu untuk lif dan satu untuk kenderaan.

Q: Bagaimana kegunaan access card di guardhouse?
A: Tuan rumah kalau nak masuk ke rumah dia akan touch di tempat yang nak masuk/in. dan satu lagi bila dia dah parking kereta dia akan touch access card di pintu masuk kawasan lif lobby.

Q: Di mana dia akan sentuh access card itu?
A: Sebelum masuk lif lobby. Di pintu sebelum masuk lif lobby.

Q: Dan bagi seseorang yang tidak punya kad, bagaimana dia hendak access ke lif lobby ini?
A: Setelah dapat kebenaran dari tuan rumah, guard akan bantu mereka untuk intercom tuan rumah di lif lobby tersebut.

Q: Adakah sesiapa dapat masuk ke lif lobby tersebut tanpa access kad atau tanpa bantuan pegawal?
A: Tanpa bantuan pengawal tidak boleh.

Q: Tentang cctv di pondok pengawal, boleh kamu ceritakan bagaimana operationnya?
A: operasi cctv kami meliputi di guard house wajah mereka di rakam melalui kamera di sana.

Q: Boleh bagi tau kedudukan kamera di guard house ini?
A: Bila residen touch kamera akan capture gambar wajah. Bila mereka masuk, kamera akan capture gambar plate kereta.

Q: Nanti dulu. Masuk dulu, bagaimana?
A: Dia touch card, kemudian dia masuk.

Q: kemudian?
A: Kamera akan merakam plate kereta bila masuk.

Q: Kalau tak ada access card bagaimana?
A: Jika tidak ada access card serupa juga. Wajah dan plate kereta akan dirakam.

Q: Gambar dirakam bagaimana? Pemandu sahaja atau seluruhnya?
A: Hala pemandu sahaja.

Q: Kalau keluar bagaimana?
A: Serupa fungsinya.

Q: Gambar dicapture disimpan di mana?
A: Di computer di guard house.

Q: Tentang access card untuk vehicle, berapa dikeluarkan kepada penghuni?
A: Setiap penghuni satu access card untuk card park. Setiap penghuni ada satu car park sahaja.

Q: Door access?
A: Dua.

Q: Terhad?
A: Tidak. Sometimes, residence mahu kad tambahan mereka akan apply dan beli kad tambahan.

Q: Selain dari cctv di guardhouse di mana ada lagi?
A: Di pintu-pintu kecemasan dan dalam lif.

Q: Bagi blok 11 ada berapa cctv?
A: Saya tidak pasti.

Q: Di mana terletaknya?
A: Dalam lif.

Q: Ada berapa lif di blok 11?
A: Ada dua.
YA: Tolong cakap kuat sedikit ya.

Q: Dan kamu tahu siapa pembekal system cctv bagi kondominium Desa Damansara.
A: Golden Perfect Power

Q: Siapa yang kamu boleh kenal pasti?
A: Saya biasa berurusan dengan Philip Tan.

Q: Boleh kamu camkan, jika ditunjukkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah ini orangnya?
A: ya.

Philip Tan dicamkan.

Q: Adakah kamu tahu bila CCTV dibekalkan di condo ini?
A: Tidak tahu.

Q: Penyelenggaran CCTV siapa yang lakukan?
A: Golden Perfect juga.

Q: Adakah terdapat rekod penyelengaraan?
A: Tidak .

Q: Dan sepanjang masa kamu bertugas di situ ada apa-apa masalah cctv
A: Terdapat masalah tetapi tidak selalu.

Q: Major ke minor?
A: Just minor sahaja.

Q: Pada 30 June 2008 ada masalah dgn system CCTV ini?
A: Tidak ada.

Q: Dalam kata lain ianya beroperasi dengan baik?
A: Ya.

Q: Pada tarikh 30.6.2008 adakah kamu bekerja?
A: Ya, saya bekerja.

Q: Boleh beritahu dari pukul berapa bekerja?
A: Saya masuk 8.30 pagi dan habis 5.30petang.

Q: Dan pada tarikh tersebut adakah pegawai polis yang datang berjumpa dengan kamu?
A: Ya.

Q: Siapa?
A: Tuan Jude.

Q: Jika ditunjukkan adakah kamu boleh camkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah ini Supt Jude?
A: Ya.

Supt Jude dicamkan.

Q: Adakah kamu tahu apakah tujuan DSP Jude datang?
A: Dia datang hendak membuat pemeriksaan lanjut tentang system cctv kami.

Q: Boleh beritahu pukul berapa dia datang?
A: Waktu saya tak berapa pasti.

Q: Pagi/petang?
A: Dalam pagi.

Q: Sselepas atau sebelum makan tengahhari?
A: Sebelum.

Q: Adakah dia datang seorang?
A: Dia datang dengan pegawainya.

Q: Adakah dia Supt Fadzil yang camkan kamu pagi tadi?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh beritahu apa yang berlaku bila kamu berjumpa dengan DSP Jude?
A: Saya membawa Jude untuk lihat operasi cctv kami di management office dan di guard house.

Q: Terangkan system cctv di lif blok 11?
A: Dua kamera dalam setiap satu lif. Ada dua lif.

Q: Dan cpu di mana?
A: Di pejabat pengurusan .

Q: Berapa cpu di pejabat pengurusan?
A: Ada satu cpu antara lif.

Q: Ada supt fazil minta hubungi sesiapa?
A: Dia minta saya hubungi Mr Tan.

Q: Ada Mr Tan datang ke situ?
A: ya.

A: Setelah Mr Tan datang dia tunjukkan sepenuhnya tentang penyelenggaraan operasi cctv di kondo itu.Ya, saya bersama-sama mereka sepanjang masa taklimat.

Q: Ada kamu tengok screen berkenaan lif di blok tersebut
A: ya.

Q; Ada tunjuk nombor kamera di lif itu?
A: Saya tidak pasti. Saya tidak pasti kamera mana di lif itu.

Q: Apa yang berlaku?
A: Selepas itu pihak polis buat siasatan lanjut berkenaan cctv tersebut.

Q: Ada mereka ambil apa2?
A: Dan mereka ada ambil hard disk dalam cpu. Untuk guardhouse dan management dan saya hadir.

Q: Ada pihak polis meminta kamu menandatangani apa2?
A: Pihak polis ada minta saya tandatangani borang pengambilan harddisk tersebut.

Q: Untuk kedua-dua bilik pengawal dan di bilik pengurusan?
A: Ya.

Q: kamu boleh camkan borang tersebut?
A: Insyallah boleh.

Q: Rujuk senarai pemeriksaan, cuba lihat adakah ini dokumen tersebut yang ditandatangan oleh kamu?
A: Ya.

Q: Tarikh bila?
A: 30.6.2008.

Q: Siapa pegawai polis yang membuat pemeriksaan tersebut mengikut borang ini?
A: Tuan Jude?

Q: Dan kamu tandatangan sebagai penerima?
A: ya.

Q: Dan butiran barang yang diambil adakah sama?
A: Insyallah boleh.

Q: Kamu boleh camkan hard disk ini?
A: Ya.

Q: Lihat P68C, sila lihat dan compare number sama tak?
A: Ya.

P68C dicamkan.

Q: Mohon dikemukakan senarai pemeriksaan dan ditandakan sebagai P76.
P76-senarai pemeriksaan di kondo antara SP12 Mohd Aris dan Supt Jude.

Q: Kamu ada tandatangan satu lagi senarai pemeriksaan untuk hard disk yang dirampas di pejabat pengurusan?
A: Ya.

Q: Jika ditunjukkan boleh cam?
A: ya.

Q: Adakah ini senarai pemeriksaan yang ditandatangani oleh kamu?
A: Ya.

Q: Siapa dia pegawai polis di borang ini?
A: Tuan jude.

Q: Mohon ditunjukkan P67C
Q: Betul nombor hard disk tersebut?
A; ya.

P67C dicamkan dan ingin kemukakan senarai pemeriksaan
Senarai pemeriksaan di kondo di management P77.

Q; Kamu tandatangan di senarai pemeriksaan dan begitu juga ASP Jude sebagai pegawai pemeriksa
A: ya.

Q: Kamu sebut untuk access kepada lif kalau penghuni ada access card sendiri, untuk bukan penghuni apa perlu dilakukan?
A: Dia akan tekan nombor unit tersebut sebab di pintu ada panel untuk nombor. Nombor untuk alamat setiap unit. Selepas dapat kebenaran di guard house dan mereka akan pergi ke lif.

Q: Guard akan bawa mereka.
A; Guard akan bawa mereka tapi kalau mereka sudah biasa mereka akan pergi sendiri. Di sana mereka akan tekan nombor unit di panel nombor di lif. Untuk confirmation lagi.

Q: Jadi ada dua situasi lah. Satu kalau mereka sudah biasa mereka boleh tekan sendiri di lif tersebut tanpa diiringi oleh pegawal
A: ya.

Q; Dan yang tak biasa akan diiringi oleh pengawal?
A: Ya.

Q; Dan orang luar akan tekan punat?
A: Tuan rumah akan dengar dan dia akan release satu butang dan pintu akan buka dan boleh masuk.

Q: Siapa yang akan tekan release button itu?
A: Tuan rumah.

Q: Pihak polis ada ambil hard disk asal dari CPU di guardhouse dan di pejabat pengurusan. Apa berlaku pada hard disk tersebut. Ada diganti ?
A: Pihak polis buat clon di guardhouse dan di pejabat pengurusan.

Q: Dan mereka masukkan dalam CPU itu?
A: Ya.

Q: Selepas itu ada masalah dengan sistem CCTV di kondo tersebut
A: Tidak.

Cross-examination by SN Nair.

Q: Jika tetamu telefon tuan rumah, kalau tuan rumah ada, dia turun ke level 2, dia ada card access sendiri tak payah pelawat tunggu dan tekan butang.
A: Ya.

Q: Itu satu cara
A: ya.

Q: Kamu kata tidak ada rekod servis penyelenggaraan?
A: Ya.

Q: Macam mana boleh confirm tidak ada apa-apa masalah. Kamu kata computer berjalan lancar. Macam mana boleh confirm?
A: Sebab setiap pagi kami akan membuat pemeriksaan setiap CCTV dan buat catatan.

Q: Macam mana boleh ingat?
A: Tidak boleh ingat.

Q: Kamu pasti atau lebih kurang?
A: ya.

Q: Kamu tak pasti bukan?
A: Ya.

Q: Bila seseorang pelawat datang satu lagi cara dia akan pergi tempat access card dan tekan butang. Satu lagi cara dia tunggu kejap dan ada penghuni keluar dari lif lobi. Semasa itu, pelawat yang tunggu tadi pun boleh masuk juga?
A: Ya.

Re examination

Q: Kamu beritahu tidak ada rekod servis dan penyelenggaraan tapi ada pemeriksaan. Apakah pemeriksaan yang dibuat?
A: Kami lihat CCTV berfungsi itu saja.

Q: Pada 26.6.2008 ada buat pemeriksaan seperti itu juga?
A: Ada.

Q: Jadi pada 26 ada apa-apa masalah?
A: tidak ada.

SP13- Tan Tong Yean
Umur:41 tahun
Pekerjaan: self employed

Examination-in-chief by Tuan Hanafiah
Q: What was your occupation in 2007?
A: Businessman.

Q: And what’s the company?
A: Golden Perfect Power.
A: One of the shareholder. Director.

Q: The nature business?
A: To supply and install security product.

Q: Did your company supply any cctv in desa damansara condominium?
A: Yes.

Q; Do you remember the address?
A: jalan setia kasih bukit damansara.

Q: Do you remember when your company install the CCTV?
A: August 2007.

Q: The whole condo?
A: Yes.

Q: And what’s the component part of the cctv installed?
A: Basically the cctv consists of camera, cpu, monitor the mouse and the board.

Q: What was the operation system?
A: Windows XP.

Q: The software for the CCTV?
A: []

Q;
A; It’s a different software.

Q; How many cctv system you installed?
A: 5 system.

Q; Do you recall how many cameras?
A: Phase 1, 40 camera. Phase 2[] and guard house 5 camera.

Q: Where is phase one?
A: The low rise building.

Q: How many CCTV in block 11?
A: 5. 2 cameras in the elevator and 2 emergency stair cases and one in penthouse.
Q: Any numbers to identify the cameras?
A: [] 7 and 8 at the lifts.

Q: Do you remember which cameras 7 or 8 installed at which lifts?
Q: Which other part of Block 11 cameras installed?
A: Emergency stairs and penthouse.

Q: These CCTV are they synchronize with regards to date and time?
A: They have their own CPUs.

Q: Is there any special features of the camera?
A: It is motion detect. Record when there is a movement within angle. If there is no movement no recording.

Q; How about the focusing angle?
A: 85 degrees of movement will be captured.

Q: Where will the images be stored?
A: As long as it is captured and stored inside the CPU hard disk.

Q: Will the time be displayed in the system?
A: Yes.

Q: What will capture the time in the system?
A: Time is extract from the operating system and set by the seller of the operating system of the computer.
Q: Did you set the time?
A: No.

Q: Did you synchronize the time between one cpu and another?
A: No.

Q: You said the images captured by the cameras in the hard disk. can you elaborate on this?
A: When there is the movement the system will generate one folder for that camera. And then there will be sub folders categorize by date and inside the sub folder there will be number of cameras which will have the time.

Q: Each subholder will have the number of each cameras or more than one?
A: Each subholder is for each number of the dates.

Q: In regards to cctv at the guardhouse can you tell the system and the position of the camera?
A: there are 5 cameras. Camera no.1 to catch plate number of cars going in the Desa Damansara condo. Number2 to catch imej car going out. Camera 3 visitor coming into Desa Damansara condo and camera 4 is for the residence face and number 5 those coming out from the desa damansara condo and can catch the face.

Q: In regards to this, they have the cpu at the guardhouse?
A: yes.

Q; So all images captured at the guardhouse will be installed at the CPU at the guardhouse?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you carry the maintenance of the cctv?
A: Earlier than that it was on ad hoc basis. Only when there is trouble shooting.

Q: How regular?
A: No time frame. When there is break down.

Q: Normally what was the cause of the break down?
A: Break down normally caused by lightning strike.

Q; On 30.6.2008 you went to that place?
A: Yes.

Q: On whose request?
A: During the time Mr Aris called me.

Q; Did you go there?
A: Yes.

Q: Were there any police officers?
A; Yes but I cannot recall.

Q: Do you recall DSP Jude?
A; Yes, I know him.
Q; Can you identify him?
A; Yes.

Q: Is this DSP Juse?
A: Yes.

Supt Jude dicamkan.

Q: Did you observe what the police did?
A: They did cloning process of the hard disc one in maintenance office and one in guard house. After the cloning process they gave the cloning hard disc to me. After the cloning process I monitor whether the hard disc and the system were working.

Q: Was there any problem?
A: No problem.

Q: Then what happened?
A: The police took away the hard disc.

Q: Can you identify the hard disc?
A: I can only identify the brand but serial numbers I can’t.

Q: Can you tell us what was the brand?
A: The one in management is Western Digital and in the guardhouse is SEAGATE.

Q: Can you have a look at the two hard disc, whether they are of the same brand?
A: Yes.

Q: When you went there on 30.6.2008 did you see the CCTV system at the management and guardhouse?
A: When I went there it was still in running condition. Then when police removed it temporarily stalled. Before that it was in order.

Q: You said the original hard disc removed from the CPU. Did you know who removed the original hard disc.
A: I cannot recall.

Cross-examination by SN Nair.

Q: You said it was a motion sensor camera?
A: It was a motion camera system.

Q: Time and date run, they don’t stop?
A: Yes.

Q: Only the camera stops but the time and date run?
A: It’s round the clock running.

Q: Do you have regular service contract?
A; No regular basis maintenance.

Q: On the 26 June can you be sure there was no minor break down?
A: Normally if there was a breakdown I will be called on that day.

Q: But you did not have the record, then how can you be so sure. You come to the court of law you must tell the truth. So how can you be so sure?
A: I am very sure but I have no record.

Q: You are very sure but you don’t have the record?
A: Yes.

Q: You have a good memory is that what you are saying?
A: Yes.

Q; After two years?
A: Yes.

Q: Fantastic!

Re examination

Q: Before 30 June 2008, did anyone from the management called you for report?
A: No.

Q: Between 26.6.2208 to 30.6.2208?
A: No.

YA: Can we release him?
SN: Yes.

Saksi dilepaskan.

MY: Selepas CCTVkami akan ke collection of exhibits.
YA: New area?
MY: Yes. bolehkah kita mulakan esok?
YA: The question is whether we go to the new area because we got some other witnesses yang kita perlu selesaikan. Ada yang cross tak habis lagi kan? Whether we finish with all that dulu then we start with the new area?
MY: Kita mulakan the new area. Sebab selepas itu saya ada Dr Razwin dan chief of staff of DSAI and then the IO and then habis
YA: About the collection of the exhibits there will be any objection? That will be long and submission.
KS: There will be.
MY: Question is when the objection can be raised.
YA: I don’t know. Kalau ada saksi-saksi yang cepat tu kita habiskan dulu dan yang lama-lama tu kita buat at later stage. Anyhow, it’s up to you to present your case. You decide who you want to call first.
MY: In regards to the collections of the exhibits, the evidence will not be long. The objection…
YA: The objection lah will be long
MY: My concern is at which point of time that there is basis for the objection to be taken up.
YA: Ok. We continue tomorrow.

[3.46 pm]: Adjourn.
Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 25 Februari 2011 March 2, 2011
Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
Tags: Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II
add a comment

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

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

[8.55 a.m]
MY: Kes untuk pemeriksaan balas SP6, Pn. Aidora.

SP6 reaffirm in English.

Cross-examination by RK.

Q: Aidora, you are a graduate of University of Auckland?
A: Yes. In 2008 for my Masters.

Q: In your CV, under court testimony, para 4. You mentioned the courts in which you have given evidence ranging from the Syariah to the High Court. How many times have you given evidence in court?
A: More than 15 times.

Q: When was the first time you gives evidence in court?
A: In 2000.

Q: So, for the last 10 years, you’ve been to court for 15 times?
A: More than 15 times.

Q: What was the purpose of you attending court on those 15 occasions?
A: To give evidence pertaining to my report and to assist the court.

Q: On DNA profiling, I assume?
A: Yes, on DNA profiling.

Q: You have given evidence pertaining to paternity cases in the past?
A: Yes, I have.

Q: How many times?
A: Not a lot. Maybe around 3-4 times.

Q: Before this case, when was the last time you gave evidence in court?
A: I think the last one is on 31st Jan.

Q: In Malacca?
A: I’m not sure whether in Malacca or in Shah Alam, I can’t remember.

Q: And that was in relation to standard DNA profiling?
A: Yes, in relation to murder case.

Q: The samples tested for that case is standard DNA samples? There was a mixture involved in that case?
A: Yes, there was a mixture.

Q: You have been attached to Jabatan Kimia Malaysia in PJ since 1998?
A: Yes.

Q: What machines are used in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia for DNA profiling now?
A: At the moment now we are using the Identifilier kit which is one at locus for [] which is anmelogenin, 15 STR locus produced by Applied Bio-systems.

Q: Have you heard of Promega?
A: Yes, I have.

Q: What is it?
A: It is also another company, manufacturer.

Q: Is it a competitor of applied Bio-systems?
A: Yes, you can say that.

Q: That’s the kit. What about the machines? What machines were used in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: In Jabatan Kimia Malaysia we are using Genetic Analyser 3130XL which is the latest model from the 3100XL. It is more or less the same thing. It is also manufactured by the Applied Bio-systems.

Q: How long the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia has been using the 3130 XL machine?
A: Since beginning of 2007.

Q: So, you agree that the 3130 instrument were used in this case?
A: Yes.

Q: You have given us your CV. You agree that the significant experience relating to your job is stated in your CV?
A: Yes.

Q: Page 2 of your CV. Paragraph 6 – the training and courses attended. Ranging from analysis of drugs to crime scene processing investigation.
A: Yes.

Q: The purpose of this courses you attended were to gain better understanding and knowledge of your practice, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: You have Forensic Serology Course, Social Research Methodology and Statistical Analysis. These courses relate to statistical analysis, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: They stressed the importance of statistics in DNA profiling?
A: Not number 13. It’s in no 9 – Statistic Population Genetics and DNA View Software for Caseworks and Population Analysis Course.

Q: That was course was attended on 16-20 December. That’s a 5 days course?.
A: Yes.

Q: Take us to the statistical courses that you undergone.
A: Item 9,17 and 24 under Training and Courses Attended in CV.

Q: Do you agree that you were sent to this courses was to appreciate the statistics when it comes to DNA profiling?
A: Yes.

Q: It is important isn’t it to accompany your findings with statistical data?
A: Yes.

Q: That is crucial to your findings? One of the crucial factors before you reached your findings?
A: The statistic was done to give [] to the evidence.

Q: It’s support your findings, isn’t it?
A: It is not part of the finding. The match is the finding.

Q: The question is this, the statistical courses you attended, they are significant in your field of work, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: And your field of work is DNA profiling?
A: Yes.

Q: There is a purpose for coming out with statistical data, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: And that purpose is to corloborate your findings, am I right? Or support your findings.
A: To give [] to the evidence.

Q: In other words, that statistical data that you do will benefit your state of mind before you reach to a conclusion?
A: I don’t understand. Can you please rephrase the question?

Q: You do statistical data?
A: Yes.

Q: Would it be correct to say that you do it for each DNA profiling that you do? For each case?
A: Yes, when there is a match.

Q: So, you do statistical data for each case you handled?
A: No. For each case where there is a match.

Q: And you claimed there is a match in this case?
A: Yes.

Q: So, you would have done the statistical data in this case?
A: Yes, I have.

Q: And those data will be in your case file?
A: Yes.

Q: Which you are in possession of it?
A: Yes.

Q: The instrument 3130XL, is it responsible for produce statistical data?
A: No.

Q: Which machines are used to produced the statistical data?
A: A computer.

Q: Only a computer?
A: Any computer that have the DNA view software.

Q: So, it is the DNA View software that is responsible for generating statistical data?
A: The DNA View software is used to calculate the statistical data, but to generate it I need a computer and printer to generate it.

Q: I’m talking about the statistical calculation. The DNA software is responsible for it, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: In your CV, para 6 again. Did you at any time attend any course relating to the use of 3130 XL instrument?
A: It is the 3100XL Genetic Analyser by ABI.

Q: No, 3130XL instrument. Did you attend the course?
A: No. Can I explain?
RK: You can explain later.

Q: In your CV, you stated that you attended course for item 16-18.
A: Yes.

Q: For the large part of 2005-2007, you were not in the country, in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: No, I’m not.

Q: In your report, ID62 at page 2 “on other comparison of the above DNA profiles with the DNA profile reported by Dr. Seah Lay Hong bearing laboratory number (PJ) FOR 6334-08/0 and (PJ) FOR 6334/08-2…”. So, you are

aware of Dr. Seah Lay Hong’s report in this case aren’t you?
A: Only her report.

Q: Were you aware of the content of her report when you prepare ID62?
A: I have it with me.

Q: No. I mean, you must have it with you, otherwise you wouldn’t reported it in your own report. Or were you aware of this content when you prepare your report?
A: No.

YA: Not today. They were asking about then. Were you?
Q: You prepare this report, isn’t it?
A: Yes. And I compare it with Dr. Seah’s report.

Q: So, you must have been aware of the content of her report at least?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you agree that your report is prepared to be read together with Dr. Seah’s report? Is that one of the purposes of your report?
A: Yes.

Q: It has to be read with Dr. Seah’s report. It can’t be read in isolation, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Dr. Seah is in the same building at Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: On the fourth floor.

Q: Where were your office?
A: On the fourth floor. We were in the same lab.

Q: You both work closely with each other?
A: Not really.

Q: Both are on the floor?
A: Yes.

Q: How far is your office from Dr. Seah’s?
A: From myself to the lady wearing blue scarf (points to the lady).

Q: Very close?
A: Yes.

Q: So, you are in contact with her everyday? Most days?
A: We see each other, yes.

Q: In this case you knew that Dr. Seah is involved in this case when you came on board, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: When you get this case, you knew that Dr. Seah had prepare a report and is involved in this case?
A: Yes, I know. I have that knowledge.

Q: In what way was she involved to your knowledge at that time?
A: At that time in my knowledge I only knew she is involved in this case and that’s it.

Q: When did you received the items that is to be analysed in this case?
A: I received it from DSP Jude Blacious on 17.07.2008.

Q: What are your working hours?
A: From 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Q: Do you remember what day is 17.07.2008 was?
A: I don’t remember.

Q: It was on Thursday, I put it to you.
A: Okay.

Q: It was a Thursday, it was a normal working day, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So, you clock out at 5.00 p.m.?
A: No. On 17.07.2008 I did not.

Q: Other days you would have isn’t it?
A: Other days, generally I clock out around 6.00 p.m.

Q: The exhibits in this case were brought to you after your normal working hours, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: What is so urgent about it?
A: I was informed by my Director General, that I have to handle this case.

Q: You were informed by your Director General?
A: Yes.

Q: Who was your director General?
A: Mr. N. Hitayajivan.

Q: When did he asked to you to handle this case?
A: Around after lunch. He informed me that Dr.Seah has gone for her training overseas, she is not around and he says that I have to handle this case and I have to wait for the police to come.

Q: Who was the Head of Forensic DNA Profiling?
A: At that particular time, it was Mr.Primulapathyjaya is the Director of Forensic and Mr. Lim Kong Boon is the Head of Section.

Q: That Forensic Department is it specific for DNA profiling?
A: No. The Forensic DNA Section is.

Q: You told us you have given evidence in court before.
A: Yes.

Q: So, you have received samples before in the past?
A: Yes.

Q: And you were given instruction to carry out necessary test on the samples?
A: No…

Q: Someone will tell you to handle the case and you carry out the necessary test, isn’t it?
A: Yes, to do DNA analysis.

Q: So, someone will tell you or instruct you to do that, isn’t it?
A: I’ve been instructed by my boss to received cases but how I do my DNA analysis…
A: Yes.

Q: I’m not question your DNA analysis. Not yet. At this juncture, your boss will tell you to carry out the test, isn’t it?
A: He will instruct me to receive the case.

Q: Which means subsequently you will carry out the test, isn’t it?
A: The test will be determined by what the police want. The are my client.

Q: You carry out the test?
A: Yes.

Q: You received the case upon instruction by your case?
A: Yes, I received the case upon instruction of my boss.

Q: Having received the samples, you would take the samples and do what you need to do, isn’t it?
A: Yes, as per what the police want. As per the POL 31.

Q: Your boss will be the Head of the DNA Section?
A: Yes.

Q: You would normally received instruction from Lim Kong Boon?
A: Normally, yes.

Q: All these cases – murder cases, drug case, Mr. Lim Kong Boon will bring you [] and said “Look, please receive this case and do the necessary”. Isn’t it?
A: In normal case, the police will come in normal hours.

Q: But they will go to Lim Kong Boon first and then Lim Kong Boon will pass it to you?
A: Yes.

Q: That is the purpose of this department, isn’t it? To receive such cases.
A: Yes.
Q: Am I right this is the only department in Selangor for DNA analysis?
A: Yes.

Q: And KL as well?
A: In 2008 we only have two DNA labs, one in Kuching and one in PJ.

Q: So, it applies to Peninsular, isn’t it? The cases in the Peninsular will be handled by the PJ office?
A: Yes.

Q: The first case you received, that was in 2000?
A: That was the first time I testify in court in Kuching.

Q: Is that case has anything to do with DNA profiling?
A: Yes.

Q: So, did you go to court and give evidence on DNA profiling in 2000?
A: Yes.

Q: You received samples in that case?
A: Yes.

Q: The first case you received back then, who was the head of the DNA Section at that time?
A: Mr. N. Hitayajivan.

Q: He is the DG now, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Back then Mr. Hitayajivan was what Lim Kong Boon was in 2008?
A: Yes.

Q: The second case you received?
A: I can’t remember.

Q: In 1999-2000, Mr. N.Hitayajivan is your head of DNA. After that who took over his position?
A: Mr. Primulapathyjaya.

Q: I take it Mr. Primulapathyjaya was promoted as Head of Forensic Department and Mr. Lim Kong Boon took his position?
A: Yes.

Q: So, it is norm isn’t it for you to received samples and insytructions on what to do with the samples.
A: To received case.

Q: And instructions, he will tell you.

MY: No. I mean she has been answering that and you keep repeating trying to say she received instructions. She received the case.
RK: Are you trying to ask question on my behalf?
MY: You are putting it in her mouth. She has answered.
RK: This is cross, YA.
MY: It doesn’t matter. Under S.143 doesn’t say that you can do that. You can read the Evidence Act 1950 if you want to.
RK: My lord, is my learned friend interrupting with my cross?
MY: I am interrupting because you are putting it into her mouth. []
RK: I’m not. What am I putting?
MY: That she received instructions but she said she received a case.
RK: []
MY: You’ve been asking for that question several times.
RK: Are you going to interrupt me?
MY: Yes, because the law doesn’t allow it.
RK: YA, if my learned friend interrupt me, it is very difficult for me to cross.

YA: Proceed for the time being. But, please don’t repeat. If she has given answer, don’t ask again.
RK: She’s been giving me answer on 2007, 2008. I’m going back in 1999, 2000. If my learned friend cares to listen []
MY: []
YA: Proceed.
RK: There are reasons why I ask this question. My learned friend might think he understands.
MY: Of course I understand.
RK: Please don’t interrupt me. You see he has interrupt me now I have to think again. Wasting of court’s time.
YA: Proceed.

Q: You received samples. You received instructions, don’t you?
A: No, I don’t.

Q: You were told to take DNA test, isn’t it?
A: …

Q: When you received a case, would your boss just give it to you?
A: Yes, he would.

Q: What is it for?
A: For me to receive the cases.

Q: And do what?
A: Do as what the POL 31 says.

Q: Do you receive any instructions from your boss?
A: No, I don’t.

Q: So, you don’t received instruction from your boss?
A: I received instruction from my boss to receive the case.

Q: You received samples?
A: Yes.

Q: Your boss gives it to you?
A: No. Samples were given to me by the police.

Q: How was your boss involved?
A: My boss does not involved. He just give me POL 31 to take that case.

Q: So, your boss give you the POL 31?
A: Yes.

Q: Having given you the POL 31, does he has any involvement after that?
A: No.

Q: So, it’s a norm isn’t it for you to receive the POL 31 form initially from your boss who is the Head of DNA Section?
A: YA, I don’t understand the meaning of the word initially.

Q: Right at the beginning of the case, you will receive samples, right?
A: The police will come with the POL 31.

Q: No. You must answer.
A: I don’t understand the question.

Q: You received samples in cases?
A: Yes, I do.

Q: When do you receive them?
A: When I see the police and they pass me the samples.

Q: That would be the beginning of the process and after that which you will do the test, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: The Head of DNA Section, in this case Lim Kong Boon, he will call you in telling you that a case has been assigned to you, isn’t it?
A: No. When there is a police who come with a case, the POL 31 will be passed to the Section Head of the DNA Laboratory, in this case at that particular time was Mr. Lim Kong Boon. Normal procedures, if he is not around,

the next senior chemist will have a look at it and then passed it to the person that is fit to receive the case. So, the passing of POL 31 can either by himself or he can just ask his personal assistant to give it for him and he can also

ask any person to give the document to the person who is supposed to received the case.

Q: So in normal cases, the head of DNA section, like Lim Kong Boon will first received the case, right?
A: Yes

Q: He will be the first one the police will come to and give the case?
A: No. Not the police come him. The police come to the counter. He cannot see our Section Head.

Q: Lim Kong Boon, the head of the DNA section received the case first? Before you are involved, Lim Kong Boon was is involved, isn’t it?
A: He did not received the case. You did not understand. When the police come, he reached the counter. He’ll give the POL 31, then he’ll look at the POL 31 to decide who is fit to receive the case. After that either he himself

or he will get somebody to give on his behalf to the person who he sees fit to receive the case.

Q: So, the police will come to the counter first?
A: Yes.

Q: Normal counter?
A: Yes.

Q: How many counters are there in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: Only one.

Q: The police will come to the counter and tell that this is a forensic case.
A: It’s a DNA case.

Q: The head of the department will come out and meet them?
A: No.

Q: Not necessarily?
A: No, not necessarily.

Q: If he is there he will come?
A: Usually he is not there. He does not go out and take it from the police. The counter is out of the lab. Usually we will have people who work at the counter to pass the POL 31 form to the Section Head, in this case Mr. Lim

Kong Boon,

Q: So, the police will pass it to the people at the counter and the people will gives it to Lim Kong Boon and later Lim Kong Boon decides what to do?
A: Yes, he will assign it to the chemist who he thinks is fit.

Q: Does the DG sits at the counter?
A: No.

Q: He is not normally involved in this counter business?
A: No.

Q: Where is the DG office?
A: In the main building.

Q: So, he will not [] at the counter
A: No. He is not.

Q: Normally DG doesn’t come to the counter and receive cases?
A: No.

Q: And at this time, N.Hkitayajivan is the DG?
A: Yes.

Q: He received the case, isn’t it?
A: No, he did not received the case. I received the case.

Q: But before that, you told us that Hitayajkian was informed by the police about this case, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: That’s he went to the counter, isn’t it?
A: No.

Q: It would be absurd for him to go to the counter, isn’t it?
A: YA, I told the learned counsel just now that my boss around after lunch told me to receive the case by phone.

RK: Aidora, I’m asking you a question. I’m not interested in your explanations. You must understand that. I’m only interested to the answers of my question. If you are unable to answer it due to whatever reason tell me and I

will repeat it as best as I can. Do you understand that?
SP6: Yes, I hope so.

Q: These samples in this particular case, you were informed by the DG himself?
A: Not the samples, the case.

Q: The case was related to you by the DG himself, right?
A: Yes, I was instructed to receive the case.

Q: He called you by phone, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you go and meet him after that?
A: No.

Q: What do he ask you to do over the phone?
A: He said that he had a discussion with Mr. Phathy and Mr. Lim and they think this is a big case because it is a high profile case.

Q: This is a high profile case, so the DG was involved?
A: No, the DG is not involved.

Q: DG normally does not involve with the counter?
A: No, he did not.

Q: In normal cases, the Head of DNA Section, Mr Lim Kong Boon or any other person in his position who will assign cases, right?
A: Yes.

Q: So, in this case it is unusual for the DG to call you, isn’t it?
A: No.

Q: So, if it’s a high profile case, the DG will call you?
A: Yes.

Q: Which means the DG would initially received the case?
A: No, he did not.

Q: Would he have spoken to the police initially?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Must have, isn’t it?

MY: She wouldn’t be able to say that.
RK: I mean in her experience.
MY: It is hearsay. []
YA: But she said she doesn’t know.
RK: I’m asking in her experience.

Q: When Lim Kong Boon received the case….
A: He did not received the case.

Q: When Lim Kong Boon is involved in the case….
A: He is not involved in the case.

Q: Then what did he do?
A: He just gives POL 31 to any of the chemist.

Q: So, when does the POL 31 comes from? The sky?
A: The POL 31 was given by the counter staff to him.

Q: From where the POL 31 comes from a the counter?
A: From the police.

Q: So, normally it is the police who starts the ball running, isn’t it? They will come to Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, go to the counter and gives POL 31, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So, the police is the one who initiates the matters.
A: Yes.

Q: So, in this case, in your experience, you have told us how the police starts investigation or initiate matters and they will come to the counter. So, before they come to the counter, nobody knows about this case. Right? It

is completely alien to Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: Not necessarily.

Q: Normally?
A: Depends on the cases. If the police calls and say they are sending. I wouldn’t say not normal. We’ve got cases where the police called before hand and says they that are coming.

Q: So, the police comes, generally they will go to the counter, hand over the POL 31, right?
A: Yes.

Q: The counter staff will receive the POL 31.
A: Yes.

Q: Having received the POL 31, the counter staff will normally give it to Lim Kong Boon or whoever in his position, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Because he is the particular Head of DNA department.
A: Section.

Q: All this normal things you can tell us confidently about all the steps, right?
A: I wouldn’t say confidently.

Q: But generally this is the steps, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Based on your experience, the DG won’t be at the counter?
A: No.

Q: He has his own office?
A: Yes.

Q: And his job scope concerns the entire Jabatan Kimia Malaysia not only the Forensic department. He has lots of work, isn’t it?
A: I supposed so.

YA: Kalau tau bagitau, kalau tak tau takpe.
SP6: YA, I’ve never been a DG before. I supposed it’s a big scope. That’s why I answer I supposed.

Q: But, it is reasonable that the DG won’t be at the counter?
A: Yes.

RK: YA, I’ve really to ask this question. The witness is not answering it. So, I’ve to ask again.

Q: DG calls you and said this is a high profile case?
A: Yes.

Q: And he is assigning it to you?
A: Has made a discussion with the Head of Forensic Divison, Mr. Primularpathy Jaya and the Head of DNA Section, Mr. Lim Kong Boon and they feel that I’m the next fit person to receive the case..

Q: From what you have told us, someone must have passed the POL 31 form to the DG, isn’t it?
A: No. It was just a case, not the POL 31. He just called me.

Q: When he called you, you have knowledge of this case, isn’t it?
A: Just a case coming which is this case, that’s it. I don’t know what samples, who is gonna come, I don’t know what time it is coming, I just have to wait for the case.

Q: Where is Hitayanjivan now?
A: He’s retired.

Q: []
A: []

Q: Go back to your CV. Would you agree that the courses that you attended were are designed to train you in particular field of such courses? This is to give better understanding of those field?
A: Yes.

Q: Having trained in such field you’ll be in better position to deal with matters pertaining this field, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: You have conducted certain courses as well.
A: Yes.

Q: Those courses that you have attended would have been as a result of your training, isn’t it? The training will gives you the knowledge and enable you to conduct the courses as a result, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: For example, Forensic DNA: Police Personnel. You conducted a course on that?
A: Yes.

Q: You would have been trained before conducting this course?
A: Yes.

Q: Under paragraph 6 – training that you attended, is there any course that you attended pertaining to police personnel?
A: Item 10 – Advanced Forensic DNA Training and Expert Witnesses Training course.

Q: Expert witness will mean what?
A: It means they put me on a stand in a mock up like in a moot court and they ask me questions.

Q: These course that you have attended, are very important to the knowledge that you have today?
A: Yes.

Q: You said you conducted a hair examination course. Where did you gained that knowledge from?
A: In the hair examination course, it’s conducted by me by the Department of Chemistry.

Q: Did you gain the knowledge?
A: No. Because it wasn’t me conducting it when it comes to the teaching. In this particular course, I conducted the training in terms of I handle it in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. However the people who teaches is two person

form the Australian Federal Police.

Q: Do you have any knowledge on hair examination?
A: I have a bit but not very thorough.

Q: Do you have knowledge on the hair examination to be an authority in the field?
A: []

Q: But you have stated that in your CV under courses conducted. You wanted us to believe that you have conducted such training, isn’t it?
A: I conducted the training but it was not me who gave lectures on it.

Q: []
A: []

Q: You are not involved in the actual lecturing of the hair examination?
A: No, I’m not.

Q: Conducting will mean also lecturing, isn’t it?
A: Yes, but it wasn’t me who did the lecture.

Q: So, you don’t know much about hair examination do you?
A: I know a bit based on my training.

Q: You don’t know much about it?
A: Yes, I don’t know much about it.

Q: It shouldn’t be in your CV, don’t you think?
A: That’s why it is in “Course Concducted”.

Q: You shouldn’t put it in there because you are not really involved, don’t you?
A: I’m not the one who is lecturing. I’m only conducting it.

Q: You are not dispensing your knowledge in that course but setting it up.
A: Yes. I’ve stated I conduct the case but did not lecture.

Q: You conducted hair examination courses, but not giving lecture?
A: Yes.

MY: …
YA: Teruskan.

Q: Apart from this hair examination course, what is USM practicum stated there?
A: I teach the USM student.

Q: What did you teach them?
A: Forensic DNA Profiling.

Q: When was that?
A: 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Q: So, those were the three times you went to USM?
A: No, they come over and I teach them at the Chemist Departmen Malaysia.t.

Q: The third last one, [] last year in 2010. How are you involved in this conference?
A: This conference is a co-joint between Department of Chemistry and the Forensic Science Society of Malaysia. I basically handle the conference from A-Z, making sure everything is all right.

Q: Did you give a lecture?
A: No. I give a poster presentation.

Q: Again, you are involved in setting it up?
A: Yes.

Q: What about 4th item, International Symposium on Forensic Science and Environmental Health. What is that symposium?
A: It consist of the whole of Chemist Department of Malaysia.

Q: What is the purpose of the symposium?
A: The purpose of the symposium is to gather knowledge. It is international, which means that people from overseas comes and give lectures. We will open it up to the public for people who are interested. It’s just like a

normal symposium.

Q: How are you involved with the symposium?
A: Again, I handled the symposium from A-Z, making sure everything is in order.

Q: Have you ever published any papers in a referee journal before?
A: No.

Q: Page 6 of your CV under para 11 – proficiency testing participation. Are these test taken out for the purpose of quality assurance?
A: Yes.

Q: Each of them will have a lab number?
A: Yes.

Q: What is CTS?
A: Collaborative testing services.

Q: That was on 01.11.2010?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the lab number for that?
A: (PJ) FOR 1134/10-0.

Q: That the sample code for number 16?
A: No. That’s my laboratory number.

Q: What is the code in your lab for number 16?
A: I don’t understand the question.

Q: Your lab participated in this program?
A: Yes.

Q: So, each lab will be distinguished from each other, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: They will have a code, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So, your lab will have a code.
A: Yes.

Q: What is that code?
A: I don’t know. I have to look at my file.

Q: Will you be able to tell us later of the code?
A: Yes, if that is what you want.

Q: Where was Dr. Seah when you conducted your analysis in this case?
A: If I’m not mistaken she already left for US.

Q: You told us when you received the samples, certain steps were taken after that. Right?
A: Yes.

Q: How many samples did you received in this case?
A: 4.

Q: What was the first step you did when you received all of this four samples?
A: When the police comes, I took the POL 31. I had a look at the samples. The first thing I ensure is the POL 31 tallies with the samples that has been sent. And I’ll look at the envelope to see the seals and the seals are still

intact. After that I registered the samples from DSP Jude Blacious. It will automatically generate the PJ laboratory number (PJ) FOR 6334-2. It also generate the green sticker with the laboratory number which I then placed on each

of the envelopes. Then I come out with a receipt and when everything is done, all envelopes are put in a plastic packet, heat seal, signed, and then put in the chest freezer for storage.

Q: When you received the samples, you would have meet Jude?
A: Yes, I would.

Q: Where did you meet him?
A: At the counter.

Q: Was he with everyone else?
A: I cannot recall.

Q: Having done previous examination in cases like this, I’m sure you are aware what degradation means.
A: Yes.

Q: Degradation means deterioration of DNA?
A: Yes.

Q: In such a case the quality of that DNA will not be as good, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Having that in mind do you agree that degradation is an important aspect in DNA samples in any DNA examination?
A: If there is degradation.

Q: Would you agree that the age of the samples received, degradation will carry on over time, isn’t it? So, it’s related to time. The longer the time, the higher the chance of degradation. Would that be right?
A: Yes.

Q: So, the age of the samples that you received would be important. You should know how old the samples are.
A: I don’t know the age of the samples. I wouldn’t know from the analysis how old is the samples.

Q: But you would have to be alert of the degradation, isn’t it before you start your analysis?
A: Not really.

Q: So, you are not interested in the age of the samples?
A: No. As long as DNA profile is there, then it’s okay. Because degradation will happen as per your biological fluid leaves your body. However, as long as the DNA analysis gives result, it means even if degradation occurs the

DNA profile is able to get it.

Q: Was there evidence of degradation in your examination of the samples in this case?
A: Definitely degradation will have occurred, but the results will still be obtainable and fine therefore even if degradation occur it will not be enough to degrade the whole of the DNA which exist there.

Q: But there is an element of degradation.
A: I did not check on degradation.

Q: Was there degradation in this case?
A: No. I’m able to get perfect profiles.

Q: So, in the light of that, there is no degradation?
A: Degradation does occur.

Q: Then say there was degradation.
A: I’m able to get full profile.

Q: Was there degradation or not?
A: I’m able to get DNA profile.

Q: Was there degradation or not?
A: YA, I cannot answer that question.

RK: Then say you can’t answer that question. Don’t tell us what we didn’t ask you.
SP6: Can you please not shout?
RK: If you answer the question, I won’t.
SP6: YA, can the counsel please not shout? Please do not shout. I’m here to assist the court.
RK: Ask her to answer the question, YA.
MY: She answered I did not test for degradation. That is enough. []
RK: She’s going on to say that there is some degradation.
MY: Generally, degradation will coccurs. []
RK: I’m not talking about generally. I’m talking about this case. With regard to the four samples.
MY: YA, with regard to this case, if my learned friend listen carefully, she said she did not test for degradation.
YA: But she went on to explain. I mean in all cases there will be degradation.
MY: Of course. If you read all the textbook, it says everything will degrade.
RK: So, answer the question!

Q: Was there degradation or not?
A: I did not test for degradation.

YA: Move on.

Q: Did you observe degradation regardless you didn’t test it?
A: YA, I cannot answer that question.

Q: Why can’t you?
A: YA, I cannot answer that question.

Q: Why can’t you answer?
A: YA, I need to explain. He doesn’t allow me to explain.

Q: Explain then.
A: Degradation will always occur as your biological fluid leaves your body. Degradation will always occur in any biological samples. But when you do DNA analysis you are able to get a good perfect profiles. Therefore however

degradation occurs, it is not enough to affect the quality of the DNA profile.

Q: Do you agree there was degradation in this case?
A: Yes, there was.

Q: You know there is degradation because you observe it?
A: No.

Q: What is a reference sample?
A: Yes. It is samples taken from a known person.

Q: Is it significant?
A: Yes, they are.

Q: Why is it significant?
A: For DNA scientist to know the origin of the DNA profile that is found.

Q: In this case, did you have the benefit of a reference sample?
A: No, I did not.

Q: In lieu with examination and analysis of this case, you said there was statistical data.
A: Yes.

Q: Statistical data which gives weight to your findings?
A: Yes.

Q: Those statistical data, do you do any validation for samples?
A: I don’t understand.

Q: Do you what is validation?
A: Yes. Basically when you have procedures and protocols you’ve got to validate it [] your laboratory to ensure that the protocols that you used are validated.

Q: That is important for DNA analysis?
A: Yes.

Q: There will be validations in your lab?
A: Yes.

Q: Please tell what validations have your lab sone?
A: Department of Chemistry has done validation in my lab per se on DNA extraction, all the procedures in DNA extraction, []. Basically all procedures in DNA lab has been validated.

Q: The lab relies on that validation, is that right?
A: Yes.

Q: Those validation would be in the lab?
A: Yes.

Q: It is in your case notes?
A: No. In the cabinet in the lab.

Q: Before any examination is conducted, you have to regards those validation? That will have in your mind, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Validations done for drop-out levels? Heterozygote? Homozygous? Threshold reporting level? Stutters?
A: Yes.

Q: So, those records in your department will able to tell us what are the stutter guidelines, the drop-out guidelines.
A: Yes.

Q: How many RFU are used in this guideline? Is it the standard amount?
A: You are talking about the threshold level for detection?

Q: Yes.
A: 50 RFU.

Q: What about for drop-outs?
A: Less than 50 RFU.

Q: Stutters?
A: Depends on each loci itself. The range should be 15-20% but the again it depends on each loci.

Q: Can u give us the exact figure for stutters guideline for each loci?
A: No.

Q: But there are exact figures?
A: Not exact figures, but a range of figures.

Q: So, your guess will be 15-20%?
A: Not my guess. It is a guess with a based. It is not a random guess.

Q: That’s the standard in your lab?
A: Yes.

Q: What about peak high balance? Are there guidelines for this as well?
A: Peak height balance for hetrozygousity?

Q: No. Just general guidelines for peak high balance.
A: Yes, there is a standard.

Q: In percentage term?
A: Yes.

Q: What are they?
A: 60%.

Q: What do you mean by 60%?
A: When you talk about peak high balance, you are talking about heterozygousity. That means there are 2 peaks. The difference between the two peaks should either or be less than 40%. The balance of the peak should be

60%.

Q: It would be found in the standard guidelines at your office?
A: Yes.

Q: What are these guidelines based on?
A: These guidelines are based on validation that is done in the lab.

Q: Over a period of time?
A: When we talk about validation, when we start off, we have to validate the procedures and all the routines before we can do any DNA analysis. So, these things will be done prior to the DNA analysis.

Q: From previous, this guidelines have been in existance.
A: Yes.

Q: Does it changes?
A: As we upgrade the instruments, we validate it again and again.

Q: Were the equipments changed in your lab?
A: After this case? No.

Q: So, it applies to all the examples we spoken about?
A: Yes.

Q: Does the instrument comes with guidelines?
A: It come with a manual.

Q: Manual contains guidelines from the manufacturer?
A: Yes.

Q: Suggested guidelines?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the manufacturer in this case again? Applied Bio-systems?
A: Yes.

Q: Are they still in operation in this country?
A: No. But they are still in operation. They have an office in Singapore.

Q: And you are not directly involved in the managing of the software, aren’t you?
A: No.

Q: You have no involvement in the managing of the software? You have training in the management of the software, don’t you?
A: Yes, I do.

Q: What is the training?
A: How to use the software

Q: How to repair it?
A: No.

Q: How about how to detect if the machine is not working properly?
A: Yes, I’m able to detect the irregularity.

Q: Then what do you do if there are irregularities?
A: Call the engineer.

Q: So, you personally won’t be able to fix it? You have to call the engineer?
A: Yes.
Q: So, that’s what you learn in the course? Call the engineer?
A: Yes.

Q: So, do you agree that you have no direct involvement in managing this software apart from using it?
A: Yes.

Q: You told us about your stutter guidelines, each locus will have a stutter guideline. Is that correct?
A: Yes.

Q: PCR system that you used, how many loci are there?
A: 16 loci. 15 loci for STR with anmelogenin.

Q: That 15 loci would have same stutter guideline. Is that right?
A: No, they have ranges as well.

Q: So, in order for us to believe you, you can confirm us to what you are telling about guideline that is in the record in your office, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: In this case you told us there was statistical data.
A: Yes.

Q: Who actually does this statistical calculation?
A: Myself, for my case.

Q: Including this one?
A: Yes, for cases that I received.

RK: YA, I’ve got few document I want to refer to. I photocopy them this morning. Some pages are missing and I’ve asked them to rephotocopy. Can I just have a few minutes? 10 minutes?
NB: No problem.
YA: Mula balik 10.45 a.m.
[10.25 a.m.] stand down

[10.53 a.m]
Q: You received 4 samples, after analysis, you found DNA on these samples?
A: The DNA profile was found from the swab of toothbrush, D1, towel, D2 and bottle D3.

Q: So apart from the hair, you found DNA on these samples?
A: Yes.

Q: All the samples would have their own amount of DNA respectively?
A: Yes.

Q: And you stated in EIC that you analyzed 10 samples in this case?
A: Let me count again. 14 samples.

Q: Can you list down the sample? You said that you designated number for each of it, isn’t it?
A: There’s a marking on those exhibits. D, D2(a), blank from the hair, D1(a), D1(b), D2(b), D2(c), D2(d), D2(e), D3(a), D3(b), blank for trace, negative control and positive control.

Q: You told us that each and every sample would have their own and specific amount of DNA?
A: Yes.

Q: And those amounts are measured in what?
A: Concentration – MG/uL (microliter)

Q: So the amounts of DNA found in the sample would be important in your analysis?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the importance?
A: To ensure that we are able to get DNA profile from them.

Q: So that’s the first step?
A: Quantification is the second step.

Q: So you determine the amount of [] and you record it, don’t you?
A: Yes I do.

Q: This amount, recorded where?
A: Worksheet.

Q: That’s amount of information, in your worksheet is in your possession?
A: Yes.

Q: Therefore, this quantitation is part of your analysis and your report is produced, ID62?
A: Yes.

Q: It is based on those quantitation?
A: Based on the result of the DNA profile.

Q: But based on the quantitation earlier isn’t it?
A: The quantitation is for us to know how much is the concentration of the DNA prior to amplification.

Q: So, that information is necessary for the preparation of the report, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: I put it to you that the information is a part of the report?
A: No.

Q: Out of this 14, you got DNA from how many sample?
A: 10.

Q: Which were those?
A: Hair found on towel – D2 (a), swab of toothbrush handle – D1(a), swab of the brush – D1(b), towel area – D2(b), towel area – D2 (c), towel area – D2(d), towel area – D2(e), swab of mouth area of the bottle – D3 (a), swab of

body area of the bottle– D3 (b ). And of course the positive control would have DNA as well.

Q: So, that is the exact figure of all these? In nanogram? Mg/uL?
A: Yes.

Q: That information the Mg/uL, would have varying in determining the swab sample isn’t it? In single profile, mix profile, trace profile.
A: No, it is just the concentration of the DNA, extracted out.

Q: That’s the second part of the process, the extraction process. Is that right?
A: No. Second part is the quantitation.

Q: Collection process as well, which you are not involves in, is also a recognized step in analysis?
A: Yes.

Q: So at that stage when the sample is collected..
A: I’m not involved.

Q: Yes I know you are not involved, but in that stage, there’s a safeguard?
A: Yes.

Q: In your other cases given before court, evidence in those cases in relation to what kind of what profile?
A: I don’t understand.

Q: You do DNA profiling on that cases, right?
A: I do DNA analysis.

Q: So, you would come out with report and all that in those cases as well?
A: Yes.

Q: Those cases were they involve trace sample?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you name those cases, which involve trace sample?
A: Murder cases, evaluate cases…

Q: No, can you tell us what case, when did you attend court?
A: 2010 December, in KL court – drug case.

Q: In that case, what was the exhibit in which the DNA was found?
A: I can’t remember.

Q: But you know?
A: Yes I know, but I can’t remember.

Q: Apart from that case, did you give evidence in other cases relating to trace sample?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it involve trace sample?
A: Yes.

Q: When, where?
A: January, Shah Alam court, for murder case.

Q: The case file, which include the information of the quantity of DNA, this would have been recorded in the document?
A: Yes.

Q: What’s the document called?
A: Worksheet.

Q: How many pages of this worksheet?
A: 2.

Q: Did you, hand over your report to the police?
A: After the analysis? Give it to the police?

Q: Yes, together with the exhibits?
A: Yes.

Q: You give it to whom in particular?
A: DSP Jude Blascious Perreira on 22nd of July 2008, 2.15 p.m.

Q: What do you call trace sample?
A: Is a sample that is traced through contact.

Q: In terms of threshold, how did you define that?
A: I don’t understand.

Q: You got various samples, aren’t you? Trace sample is one of them. What type of sample are they?
A: Blood stain, semen stain.

Q: What is the difference between trace sample and semen stain?
A: Semen stains are stains that contain spermatozoa. Trace samples are contact, trace DNA are contact DNA, basically DNA taken through contact.

Q: If you are taking trace sample, is the threshold is the same?
A: Depending on how much DNA is there. If there is a lot of contact, therefore the threshold will be the same..{tak sempat habiskan}.

Q: If there is a lot of DNA, you follow the same threshold as standard profile?
A: I don’t understand the question.

Q: You extracted DNA from profile, any profile. It is your job isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Having done that, you follow certain guidelines of for certain threshold?
A: Yes.

Q: So, in a case of trace profile, those threshold can be the same ?
A: It can be the same.

Q: It is the same, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So those threshold that you told earlier, can be found in your lab..I mean those guidelines.
A: Yes.

Q: For example, for stutter, you follow the same guidelines?
A: The stutter…your question again??

Q: For example, for stutter, there is a guideline in your lab. So, that would apply isn’t it, for trace profile as well?
A: Yes. It will apply.

Q: In a typical profile, how did you expect to see normal profile?
A: Define normal profile?

Q: In a normal mixture, in a semen profile, what sort of peaks would you expect to see?
A: The alleles depend on person, it does not depend on how much DNA is there.

Q: How many alleles that you expect to see in a mix profile, at least?
A: I can’t answer that question.

Q: Mix profile, must at least have 2 people, right?
A: At least two people, yes.

Q: So at least how many peaks would you see?
A: It has to look at the whole DNA profile to say that it is a mixture.

Q: So, having assume that it is mixture, how many profile would you see in locus? Sorry, how many peaks would you see at this locus?
A: Ranging from 1-4.

Q: Would you agree that in a trace, that commonly we will see the allelic imbalance?
A: Commonly yes.

Q: We will also see random peaks?
A: Yes.

Q: We will also commonly see drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: Drop in?
A: Yes.

Q: So all this common features you will expect to see in a trace profile isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: When you consider trace profile, your mind will be directed to all this things?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to the electropherogram (EPG). I take you to page 6. D2 (b). This is one of the examples from the towel?
A: This is one of the portions from the towel.

Q: Did you agree that this is a partial profile?
A: Yes.

Q: It has stochastic effect? Random effect, random peaks?
A: They are not random peaks.

Q: What did you understand by random peaks?
A: Peaks that are not supposed to be there.

Q: What do you mean by that?
A: This is the partial profile. Is there anything different or put or taken out from here? No. This is only a partial profile.

Q: So there are no random peaks here?
A: No.

Q: Is this of scale data?
A: No, it is not.

Q: It is on scale isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Is that means that everything is above threshold here?
A: Not everything is above threshold that’s why it is a partial profile.

Q: Now, the stutter percentage, do they vary significantly in a partial profile?
A: The partial profile is a very low level of DNA profile. No, you don’t see stutters.

Q: So this page 6 indicates low level of DNA?
A: Yes. It is a partial profile.

Q: So you consider this as a trace profile?
A: No, this is partial profile.

Q: I take you to page 7, D2 (c). This is another portion of the towel?
A: Yes.

Q: This is the partial profile?
A: Yes.

Q: Why?
A: You can see that not all peaks are being called because some of them lies below the threshold level of 50 RFU.

Q: What about stutters? Are they here?
A: No.

Q: So what do you call this?
A: A partial profile.

Q: Page 8, D2(d). Is there any peak here?
A: Yes.

Q: For all loci?
A: Yes.

Q: Stutter?
A: No.

Q: What do you call this, a partial profile?
A: No, it is a full profile.

Q: Because all the peaks are there?
A: Yes.

Q: But is it a trace profile?
A: It can be.

Q: Is it or is it not?
A: If you are referring to this page 8, it is from trace DNA.

Q: Having regard to this chart, page 6, 7, 8. You told us that the first two is partial profile, and the page 8 is full profile? Page 8 is a trace DNA?
A: This is the profile that I’ve taken from a trace DNA.

Q: Give us the definition of trace DNA then?
A: Trace DNA is DNA that resulted through contact.

Q: In terms of guidelines and thresholds..
A: Ya, you are referring to trace profile.

Q: Ok, so give me the definition of a trace profile now?
A: Trace profile is very low, even lower than threshold level. That needs to be put in different technique to enhance it. This is not a trace profile.

Q: Would it be correct to say that trace profile isn’t as reliable as normal profile, as you require different technique to enhance it?
A: Yes.

Q: So in order to get proper interpretation, you have to enhance it, isn’t it?
A: For trace profile, yes.

Q: Page 8 is a trace profile?
A: No, it is full profile.

Q: Page 9, D2 (e). it is another portion of the towel?
A: Yes.

Q: So you got 15 loci. Is this trace DNA?
A: Yes. This is the full profile that I’ve taken from a trace DNA.

Q: Is this a trace profile?
A: No, full profile.

Q: Look at this graphs, before you make any further comment, did you see a mix profile here?
A: No.

Q: Look at the first locus, what is the allele there?
A: 15.

Q: Is that indicate 1 contributor?
A: Yes.

Q: No, second locus.
A: 2.

Q: What’s the allele number?
A: 29 and 30.

Q: Does it indicate 1 contributor?
A: Yes.

Q: For the 3rd locus?
A: 12.

Q: Does it indicate 1 male contributor?
A: 1 contributor, looking at the locus.

Q: 4th locus?
A: 13.

Q: Indicate 1 contributor as well?
A: Yes.

Q: 5TH locus?
A: 15, 18 and 19.

Q: Indicates one contributor?
A: Yes. Because the 18 is the stutter peak of the 19.

Q: Look at it, on the face of it, 15, 18 and 19 – there are 3 peaks, right?
A: Yes.

Q: If there is more that 2 alleles. So what does it means?
A: If there is more than 2 alleles, if the alleles are of the same height, and the alleles are not smaller than other allele, therefore it is a mixture profile.

Q: Hold on, Aidora. I repeat the question, if there are more than two alleles, how many contributors are there?
A: More than 1 contributor, at least 2 contributors.

Q: So if we look at locus D3S1358, we have 3 alleles there?
A: Yes.

Q: 3 alleles here, means 3 peaks lah?
A: Yes.

Q: So at least, 2 contributors here, isn’t it?
A: No.

Q: Now can you look at the 6TH profile, how many alleles are there?
A: 1. – the allele is 9.

Q: What about the next one?
A: 8 and 11.

Q: 2 locus after that?
A: 10, 13, and 18, 23.

Q: On the next two rows, on the face of it, it has either one or two profile, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So, Out of these 15 loci, locus number 5: D3S3158, is different from other loci isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: The other loci gave us either one or two peaks. It shows that.
A: Yes.

Q: Now, you told us that this is DNA sample from trace profile?
A: No, this is DNA profile taken from DNA trace sample.

Q: Now, in a situation where you have trace, you told that it is not as reliable as normal profile?
A: I’ve never said that.

Q: But you need to take further steps isn’t it?
A: If you are talking about DNA below the threshold level, yes, but the profile is referring to all above threshold level.

Q: What the level of threshold?
A: 50 RFU.

Q: For all kind of sample?
A: Yes.

Q: 50 RFU is the standard level?
A: Yes.

Q: So it applies to a non standard sample ;trace sample as well?
A: Trace sample is not non standard sample. Standard sample is consist of blood…(tak s empat jawab)

Q: But it also use 50 threshold as well isn’t it?
A: For all samples, regardless it is a trace of semen or not.

Q: As far as threshold is concern, we don’t discriminate between trace and other sample?
A: No.

Q: But they are actually quite different aren’t they? Trace sample and normal sample.
A: Why are they different?

Q: They are different in a sense that one has more DNA than the other isn’t it?
A: Not necessarily so. Trace DNA is DNA that you take from contact. Whether it is a lot or is more is depending on the contact and the significant of the contact. It would not be fair to say that if the profile is low, it is from

trace, No. It could be also from semen, it could be also from blood stain. It is wrong to say that.

Q: You would used 50 RFU for the normal samples, right?
A: Yes.

Q: So there is no difference in your treatment as to trace sample and normal samples, as far as thresholds are concerned?
A: No.

Q: And the features in a trace and in a normal sample are quite different isn’t it?
A: Sometimes, depending on the….(tak sempat jawab)

Q: Can I suggest that in a normal sample, there could be the presence of unbalanced peak?
A: In all samples, regardless normal or not. Trace sample is not a non-normal sample, so any sample depending on how much DNA that you have give you difference.

Q: Now, you got your threshold level and guidelines and so on. We’ve gone through all that already.
A: Yes.

Q: We got guidelines for homozygotes and so on?
A: Yes.

Q: For stutters, your guideline is what?
A: Around 15 to 20%.

Q: So in a case, where you see a stutter that means you don’t [] a reported peak?
A: Yes.

Q: So when you don’t regarded [] a reportable peak, you doesn’t obtain a STR result?
A: Yes.

Q: If it is a reportable peaks, it would have an impact on your report isn’t it?
A: I don’t understand.

Q: Ok, I rephrase it. You have a stutter that you consider that it ought not to be reported.
A: Yes, I don’t have to report the stutter peak.

Q: Now, if it is not a stutter, you will have to report it, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: And it would be appeared in your STR result?
A: Yes.

Q: If you have a profile of an individual/ contributor in one of the locus, taking about alleles if you observed it, if there are 3 alleles in one locus, you have got more than one person, one contributor, if it is not a stutter, you

report all those three alleles?
A: Yes.

Q: So if you report 3 alleles, it would mean that in this particular profile there are more than 2 people are involved?
A: I disagree.

Q: So if you reported 3 alleles, you will not say that it is more than 2 contributors?
A: No.

Q: You wouldn’t?
A: No.

Q: So, if you reported say an 18 allele together with the other 2 alleles, that would mean that there is at least two people isn’t it?
A: No. I disagree.

Q: So if a 15, 19, 18 appears in your STR result, you will still say that it is one person?
A: Yes.

Q: Even if you reported it?
A: Yes.

Q: What’ the point of reporting a third allele?
A: If they are of the same peaks, and they are of balanced allele, that person might have 3 [] allele.

Q: So if you have contributor of 15, 19 allele, and you also find allele 18. And you report 15, 18, 19, would it come from one person?
A: YA, I have to ask this question. You are not talking about this, you are talking at random by one locus?

Q: Yes.
A: Ok, if looking at one locus only if I have blood specimen of 15 and 19, and on the crime scene I found 15, 18 and 19, yes I will consider that there is another contributor. One locus only I’m look in. I’m not look in the whole

profile yet.

Q: Look at page 9, D2 (e). Locus D3S1358, you got 15, 18 and 19 right?
A: Yes.

Q: Is that belongs to the same contributor? 15 and 19?
A: As per all the other, yes.

Q: Is 18 shared by the 15 and 19?
A: It is the stutter of 19.

Q: Could it be 18,18?
A: No, 18 is a stutter for the peak. YA, I can’t answer the question.

Q: You can’t answer the question, or you don’t want to answer the question?
A: I can’t answer the question.

Q: If you have more than 2 peaks, at least we have more than 2 contributors?
A: Yes.

Q: If you have more than 2 peaks, and you reported more than two, that would indicate that there is two contributors at least?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, at page 9, you have 3 peaks. Had you reported the 18, that would indicate another party isn’t it?
A: No, only one person there.

Q: You told us earlier that your guidelines apply across the board. There is no discrimination in a normal sample and a trace sample?
A: Trace sample is not non normal sample. It is normal to get trace DNA.

Q: So, you will use the same stutter guidelines?
A: Yes.

Q: And the stutter guidelines for JKM is from 15-20%?
A: Yes.

Q: Can’t tell us exactly?
A: There is no exact figure. That’s a range.

Q: If a peak below 15%, you consider it as a stutter?
A: Yes.

Q: I put it to you that according to the standard of Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, peaks which are less than 15% are considered a stutter?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you give the percentage of 18 allele at page 9?
A: Can I have the calculator. It is 25%.

Q: 18 of 19?
A: Yes.

Q: In other words, the 18 peaks is the quarter number of the 19 peaks?
A: Yes.

Q: 18 is 25% of 19, I put it to you the 25% of 18 peak, doesn’t come within the Jabatan Kimia’s stutter guideline?
A: Yes, I agree.

Q: So the 18 allele is not considered as a stutter, according to the guideline. Do you agree?
A: It is not within the guidelines.

Q: So it is not considered as a stutter according to your Jabatan Kimia guidelines?
A: If you have to follow the guidelines, It does not.

Q: This 18 peak according to your Jabatan Kimia guideline, based on the guidelines, it is not considered a stutter?
A: Yes.
Q: If it is not considered a stutter, you would reported it don’t you?
A: I considered it as stutter.

Q: No, if you are not considered it as a stutter, it is reported isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: If it is reportable, it should have appear in your result isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: You have chosen not to report an 18 allele here.
A: Yes.

Q: Despite it is not a stutter according to your Jabatan Kimia’s guidelines?
A: Yes.

Q: That lab guidelines apply to all profile isn’t it? It does not discriminate?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, if 18 allele is reported, you would have 3 alleles at that particular locus?
A: Yes.

Q: I put it to you, if you have 3 alleles at that particular locus, DS31358, that you would have a mixture of DNA?
A: I disagree.

Q: I put it to you further, that if you reported the 18 allele apart from the 15 and 19 allele, that would indicate that there is presence of at least 2 people which you detected?
A: I disagree.

Q: If you look at page 9 again, from this graph, is there any other evidence of peaks below threshold?
A: Yes, they are.

Q: What was that indicate?
A: They are noise level, that’s why they are below the threshold level.

Q: Look at the first locus D8S1179, it has 15 allele.
A: Yes.

Q: And there is next peak?
A: Yes.

Q: And it also applies to the next locus, D21S11, there’s 2 peaks next to 30 allele isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: THO1, also we see another peak?
A: Yes.

Q: In fact the peaks are in all of the loci isn’t it?
A: … (tak jawab)

Q: Ok, all the loci indicate peaks isn’t it? You said before the sub level of threshold?
A: ..for [negativable] peak there.

Q: For all the loci?
A: No.

Q: Can you tell us which loci that do not have sub level of threshold peaks?
A: TPOX, the amelogenin. That’s all.

Q: What are the recommendations of your lab when you recognized sub threshold peak.
A: Ought to report them.

Q: So did you report it? So you do absolutely nothing about it?
A: No.

Q: You told us earlier, that it is in the statistical calculation? That is the statistical calculation that you did in this case?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it in your possession?
A: Yes.

Q: You have it in your case file?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, those statistical calculations are based on guideline? Are there any guidelines that involved in statistical calculation?
A: I don’t understand the question.

Q: Do you follow any protocol or any recommendation, any guideline when you make those statistical calculations?
A: What we calculate is just based on frequency involved.

Q: Does your lab have any guidelines with relation to this frequency? How did you calculate it, how you interpret it?
A: Basically when you have the DNA profile, you calculate the match probability all to give the vantage of the evidence. So, one, you can read the match probability that means you calculate it as per se. The next one you can

calculate using the NRC (National Research Council) guidelines for which is incorporate data [] factor. At the end of it, you can see [], just for calculation, if any relationship involve.

Q: This guideline for this calculation, apply to all statistical calculation, in DNA profile. We call it guidelines lah, for ease of reference here.
A: Yes, for the next calculation.

Q: Those guidelines will apply to all of the samples?
A: Yes.

Q: It is standard?
A: It is not guidelines.

Q: You just name that. I call them guideline, ok.
A: Ok.

Q: So those guidelines do not discriminate between different samples?
Q: Yes

Q: In single sample, mix sample, trace sample?
A: If between mixtures we don’t use the one that I’m using. It will be different calculation altogether.

Q: A single profile?
A: Yes.

Q: So this guidelines will apply across the board isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: And that is your internal policy of Jabatan Kimia, for those guidelines?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you know what low copy number is?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you know what low template number is?
A: Yes.

Q: Are they different?
A: It is more or less the same, depends on how you call them. Certain labs said that it is the same, certain lab said it is not the same.

Q: It is indicate sample of low levels of DNA?
A: Yes.

Q: So for both of them, that is what it is isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it easy to analyze compared to single normal profile?
A: No.

Q: It is harder isn’t it?
A: It is different.

Q: You have optimum amount of DNA, in a single profile right. It makes the job easier, compared to low amount of DNA?
A: We don’t do low copy number. Low copy number is when you increase the cycle, which is not happening here.

Q: But you have to take further steps in increasing it?
A: Yes.

Q: Those steps will include extra cycles?
A: Yes.

Q: In normal cycle of PCR is 28 right?
A: Yes.

Q: So in a low copy number of situation, how many cycles are there?
A: Depending on the lab. Some lab using 30-34. Some lab push to 36. But I don’t know which lab goes to 38 and above.

Q: In a trace sample, there is a situation where there is low level of DNA as well?
A: Trace sample may contain low level of DNA.

Q: In your lab, in terms of nanograms per micro liter, that’s the measurement right?
A: For concentration.

Q: For your lab, what defines trace sample?
A: We don’t define trace sample. Trace sample is trace contact DNA.

Q: So the concentration of the DNA might be low, isn’t it?
A: It does not mean that the concentration of trace sample must be low. It is not. It can be low, but not only for trace.

Q: The question is, it can be low?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, are they also measured in terms of peak height?
A: No.

Q: Now, for the trace samples, what is considered trace sample? Below threshold number isn’t it? That’s what you told earlier.
A: No. It is not trace sample. Trace sample we got from contact DNA. Trace profile, yes.

Q: So for trace profile, in terms of nanogram per microliter, you came out with the figure for each particular samples?
A: Yes.

Q: So in this case, you analyzed 14 samples?
A: Yes.

Q: Out of which, 10 samples you got DNA?
A: Yes.

Q: So, for those 10, you can enlighten us what the number of concentration was?
A: Yes, I can.

Q: And that information would be important in terms of your analysis isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, in a trace sample, you received exhibits, certain items. And these items will be analyzed later consider them to be trace. Is that right?
A: Can you repeat the question please?

Q: Your items that you received, you considered them to be traced.
A: Ok.

Q: You received from police, and then you say that it is trace.
A: I did not base on the police. The police only tell me what they need me to do, what analysis that I should do.

Q: So Jude will come to you, and he said please do trace profile for me, isn’t he?
A: No.

Q: Because he wouldn’t know that?
A: Yes.

Q: So he would come and say please do DNA profiling?
A: Yes.

Q: So you will have to make the decision, not the police isn’t it?
A: Yes. I will have to make the decision.

Q: So you will get information from the police, about the samples?
A: Are you talking about this case, or generally?

Q: In this case.
A: In this case, I was only been told that I have to do DNA profiling.

Q: So in generally you will get information?
A: Ok, if it is a murder case, and you had been given a knife. And we found a blood stain on the tip of the knife. The police do not tell us, but we still had to do trace on the handle. Do you understand? Or if on a weapon, let

say the police said that the weapon is used, and then the police did not have to tell me that I have to carry out the trace, but I have to carry out on my own.

Q: So, back to your analogy. You’ve been given knife, there’s a blood on it, and the police give no information?
A: I found that there is blood stain there; if the police don’t have to tell me, I still have to do trace profile. But some police will say, please trace on the knife. But in this particular case, I only had been told to do DNA profiling.

Q: In that process, In the light of that, bearing that it mind that this was a trace sample to you, you would have been aware, or be very alert to the possibility of drop in isn’t it?
A: …

Q: Now, drop in is a common feature in trace sample?
A: No.

Q: Drop out?
A: No.

Q: I’m talking about trace. Not a low copy number. Now, you will be alert to drop in isn’t it?
A: No, you are talking about trace profile. It is not for a trace sample. It is different.

Q: Now, would drop in be expected?
A: In trace profile, yes. Not in trace DNA.

Q: Would drop out be expected?
A: In trace profile, yes.

Q: Everything I’m talking now is trace profile, not trace sample.
A: Yes.

Q: What else would you expect to see?
A: Peak imbalance.

MY: YA, at this juncture, I wish to ask a question. I did not see the relevancy of asking this question unless it has been established that she is using trace profile. Since the counsel always say that trace profile, trace DNA,

trace sample all over again. While the witness said that they are different. This is wasting our time.
RK: This question is relevant to in what she tested, trace sample.
YA: She’s not saying that it is a trace profile. She’s saying trace sample. But your question asked about trace profile. That’s why they are complaining.
RK: No, at this moment.
MY: Because throughout, she maintains that there is a difference between trace profile and trace DNA. Here, she’s talking about trace DNA, and at no time she agrees to counsel’s suggestion that this locus is trace profile. I

know that these questions give some latitude, but there must be some limit to it.
RK: Look at page 9..
YA: So you stop on that ok. Don’t repeat it again.
RK: No, I might use it again. There might be some overlapping on that issue again.
YA: But not the major part lah.
RK: No.
YA: Ok, for the time being, I’m going to allow, because he said that it will not form a major part. How long will be your cross after this?
RK: I think I will take about maybe hour and a half.
YA: So, we will come back in the afternoon. At 3 p.m.

[12.05] Mahkamad ditangguhkan.

[3.04 p.m.]
Q: Look at page 9 of the EPG. Look at the profile. You are of the view that this is the single profile with no other contributor. Is that correct?
A: Yes.

Q: Your lab uses the identify kit?
A: Yes.

Q: Is that come with the manual?
A: Yes.

Q: Have you read the manual?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I take you to the manual?
A: Yes.

RK: YA, we have used it earlier, only this is another copy of it with the cover.
YA: Which one do you used?
RK: I used the new one.
YA: Same manual is it? So can use either one.
RK: Yes, only to one page I’m referring to.

Q: Page 4-39: This talk about mixture studies isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So this is the guideline, on detecting mixture sample?
A: This is the user manual, yes.

Q: It is the manufacturers guidelines isn’t it?
A: It is a manual.

Q: Guidelines of ABI?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to the first para 8.1.1.2: Mixture studies. On the 3rd line. It states that it recommends each laboratories assign minimum peak height threshold based on validation experiment perform in each lab to avoid [] when

stochastic effect are likely to interfere with accurate interpretation of mixtures. Now, what they are saying is each lab would have come out with their own peak height threshold isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Your lab is 50 RFU. Can I take you to further down of that page under the topic detection of mixture samples. (read). So they set out 3 criteria in determining mixture sample, isn’t it? (read)
A: Yes.

Q: So did you agree that this 3 are standard guidelines of ABI in detecting mixture samples?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I take you to page 9 again of your graphs. You told us earlier that the peak height balance threshold for ratio for heterozygotes in your lab is 60%. Would it be correct to say anything more than 60% would be

considered as a balance peak height? Anything below than 60% will be considered as peak height imbalance?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I take you to locus D3S..before that in this graphs of 15 loci, 16 including the gender, from this can you tell us if there is any peak there which shows imbalance?
A: There is.

Q: What locus?
A: D13S317.

Q: What’s the percentage?
A: Can I borrow calculator? 55%.

Q: Any other locus with peak height imbalance?
A: D16S539.

Q: Calculate the percentage?
A: 51%.

Q: Any other locus?
A: FGA. The percentage is 52%.

Q: Any other loci, apart from those three?
A: No.

Q: Those 3 were the only have peak height imbalance?
A: Yes.

Q: Look at DS31358. Peaks there are 15 and 19. Are they imbalance?
A: No.

Q: You told us that your lab stutter guideline is between 15-20%?
A: Yes.

Q: Is there a presence of a peak at page 9..look at page 9, of any peak here, where there is any presence of stutter that is significantly greater in percentage than your laboratory stutter guidelines?
A: Yes.

Q: Which one is that?
A: D3S1358.

Q: Is that the 18 allele that you are talking about?
A: Yes.

Q: It is 25% right?
A: Yes.

Q: So that is significantly greater than your lab standard guidelines?
A: Yes.

Q: Look at entire profile again in Page 9. Two of the criteria in the manual that I’ve just referred to you for detection of mix samples, are present in this profile at page 9?
A: Yes.

Q: These two criteria, is evidence of four independent loci. Correct?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, going by this manual, and the criteria that I’ve just read out to you, that it seems to be an evidence of a mix specimens in this profile isn’t it?
A: (tak sempat jawab).

Q: Going by this manual?
A: Yes.

Q: Going by this manual which is a standard manual for kit that you used?
A: Yes.

Q: We can conclude that this is the mix sample?
A: No, we cannot conclude.

Q: I put it to you that the evidence at Page 9 provides 4 indications of a mix samples, do you agree?
A: Based on the manual? Yes.

Q: I put it to you further that the 18 allele at DS31358 is significantly larger in percentage to your lab guidelines?
A: Yes.

Q: I put it to you that at page 9, is a sample of a mix profile?
A: I disagree.

Q: So you’ve got 4 independent loci here which the manual here tell us that it indicates a mix sample, and you choose not to follow the criteria of the manual? Did you follow the criteria of the manual?
A: We have our own..(tak sempat habiskan)

Q: You choose not to follow the criteria; as a result, you completely ignored 4 independent loci in mix sample?
A: I cannot answer that question.

Q: Have you considered them? The criteria in the manual?
A: No.

Q: You ignored them, haven’t you?
A: It is not totally ignored. I’ve done validation before.

Q: Validations would say that it is a mixture.
A: I disagree.

Q: So, standard guidelines you refused to follow, and you come to your conclusion that this is the single profile. You gave us an example just now of a knife, in your evidence earlier this morning. If you were given a bloody

knife, knife with blood on it on the blade, and you were asked to carry out DNA analysis on it, on the item, particularly on the handle, that would also be trace isn’t it?
A: Yes. Trace sample.

Q: Similar to what we have here? In this case.
A: Contact DNA.

Q: If you have a situation like that where you were asked to carry out the analysis from the handle, now assuming if that handle give you a profile which is exactly the same with what we have on Page 9. Now, and you are

given information by way of reference sample that the major single profile in that sample is of the victim. So you know what the victim’s profile is. So from that information, you know that the major peak is of the profile at page 9 and

it is of the victim. And that is the scenario before you now. What will you do as the result?
A: The same.

Q: What? You’ve been asked to do a DNA analysis. Your job is to come out with a profile.
A: Yes.

Q: You’ve been told by whoever it is that the reference sample is of the victim’s profile is. Now, but you been asked to focus your attention on the assailant, not the victim. So you have information that the victim’s profile is as

per the reference sample which it happens to be a major peak in a profile. So would that mean that the victim is the major contributor to that profile?
A: It is a single profile.

Q: So, what would your conclusion be? What would you do as the result?
A: The same. I will report it as the single profile.

Q: I put it to you that at allele 18 of page 9, it ought to be reported because it fulfills the validated your lab guidelines?
A: No.

Q: Do you agree with my suggestion that you ought to report page 9 as a mix profile?
A: No, I disagree.

Q: I put it to you that the validated guidelines in your lab would, if the consideration of those validated guidelines being applied to this profile, you will come out with mixed profile?
A: I disagree.

Q: I put it to you further that the mixture if you follow the guidelines, would at least point to other person’s DNA which has contaminated the profile at page 9?
A: I disagree.

Q: Now, you told us that your report is to be read together with Dr. Seah’s report. Can I refer to P25? Can I take you to there is an item B9 as stated at page 2 of the report. Further down in the report, at page 4, roman vii)

{read}, now can I take you to STR result accompanied this report?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I take you to electropherogram with relation to B9 of Dr Seah’s report, page 18, P52. This is the profile with relation to B9 in Dr. Seah’s report. Can I take you to the locus of D3S1358. How many alleles you see there?
A: 5.

Q: Can you tell us what the percentage of 18 alleles is?
A: 28.4%.

Q: Does that fulfill your guidelines to be qualified as a stutter?
A: No.

Q: So it wouldn’t be consider as a stutter?
A: From standard guidelines? No.
Q: This 18 allele, we go back to your report in the summary, I take you to iii) to that particular locus under sperm extract for swab B9. 18 is not being reported there, again?
A: Yes.

Q: So you got an 18 allele, in your sample, D2 (e) yes. The towel you got an 18 allele.
A: Yes.

Q: In the swab of lower rectal of the complainant, also found an 18 allele.
A: Yes.

Q: So two 18 alleles are found in 2 separate items?
A: Yes.

Q: These 2 separate items, have been analyzes by you and Dr. Seah respectively?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you consider it unusual in a case like this, that you will have a coincidence of two same alleles appeared in different sample?
A: No.

Q: So, the complainant does he has an 18 allele? Or you wouldn’t know don’t you?
A: No, I don’t know.

Q: Male Y does he has 18 allele B3?
A: No.

Q: I put it to you that the presence of 18 allele indicates a party other than Male Y in your finding?
A: I disagree.

Q: I put it to you, that you couldn’t exclude the possibility of the presence of another person be that 18 allele had contaminated in your sample, particularly in D2 (e)?
A: I disagree.

Q: Does any of your staff in Jabatan Kimia has 18 allele?
A: I wouldn’t know. I wouldn’t be able to tell you off hand.

Q: Have you taken the step of excluding the possible contamination by your staff when testing D2 (e)?
A: No.

Q: Did you agree that contamination can arise in trace sample analysis?
A: It is arises in any sample.

Q: It is something which can happen isn’t it? Something that is not unusual?
A: Yes.

Q: It is possible?
A: Yes.

Q: Trace sample can be contaminated?
A: Yes. Any sample can be contaminated.

Q: Do you have the samples all the profile of your doctors and staff?
A: Yes, we do.

Q: So you would be able to carry out an exclusion exercise if you want to?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you have the profile of the police as the reference sample, the police who handled this case, especially those who involved in the investigation of this case. For example, DSP Jude. He came into contact with all the

samples, right? I suggest to you that Jude can come into contact with B9 also, which is low rectal swab?

Q: He is the one who passed the item to you, isn’t it?
A: He passed the envelopes to me.

Q: He is also part of the police investigation team in this case, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you have any profile of Jude or any police officer as a reference sample? Easily if you wanted, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: The purpose of having a reference sample is so that you know whose profile it is, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So you can test or you can exclude any involvement or any contamination of any samples, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: So, do you have the profile of Jude or any police officer involves in this police investigation to exclude them as possible contaminators of the items that you analysed?
A: No.
Q: I put it to you, you didn’t exclude the possibility of a police officer involved in this case or even Jude who might have an allele 18 at locus D3S1358 from contaminating the items that you analyse. Do you agree?
A: I agree.

RK: YA, I’ve no further question. Much obliged.
YA: Your re-examination panjang ke?
NB: Pendek saja.
YA: Boleh habis sebelum 4.30 p.m.?
NB: Ya, boleh.

Re-examination of SP6 by NB.

Q: Puan Aidora. I will first take you to allele 18. That allele 18 was referred to you that was found at your electro-phoreogram graph, page 9 of electro-phoreogram graph. You can confirm that you consider this allele 18 as

stutters?
A: Yes, this is a stutter peak.

Q: You also testified during cross-examination the percentage was higher than the threshold.
A: Yes.

Q: It was put to you that you should have reported because it’s higher.
A: Yes.

Q: Despite the percentage which is higher, why did you not report this?
A: When you are looking at a DNA report, you can’t look at one locus per se. You’ve got to look at the whole profile. Furthermore, you can see that this is a stutter peak and there is no mixed DNA profile here. It is only at

one locus which is 5% higher than the actual 20%. So, it is not significant. Even if is higher for example if the peak height of 18 is 300++, it will be [] allelic leather. It will still be reported as one person’s DNA. It is not a mixed profile

or contaminated by another person.

Q: Was there an occurrence of contamination on this specimes and on this profile at page 9 of your ID59?
A: No, there is no element of contamination at all, nor by my staff nor by anybody else. It’s a single profile reported.

Q: As to the other profile, have you taken into consideration of the occurrence of degradation on all the samples?
A: It is a traced samples and this is the profiles. And you can see that the profiles are consistence. Having degraded samples means sometimes you get partial profiles and in my case there are full profiles generated. And if

the question arises why []. If you look at the profile side by side you can see it is from the same person. Therefore it is our guideline is of all the samples, it is of one towel therefore it is reported only one person and the best profile

and the strongest profile gets reported out which means the profile “D2(b)” and “D2(c)” since both of them are strong profiles.

Q: Did you also take into consideration the occurrence of contamination on all the samples that you have received?
A: There is no contamination that occurs as all the profiles were all right. All the quality assurance are in place. The reagent blank stays blank. If this 18 peaks is a contamination or contaminated by the people in my lab, why

aren’t the others contaminated as well? And even the trace for the blank is blank. Even my negative control is blank. If there is contamination, then you could see all the allele 18 in all of the loci D3S1358 across all of the traced

samples that I analyse. But only one which has the18 which means it is a stutter, authenticate stutter.

Q: ID59 h9 of your electro-phoreogram graph is a sample, swabs that you have taken from the samples. Do you find this allele 18 in other swabs on the towel?
A: One portion of the towel. No.

Q: Where would it be reflected?
A: It will be reflected in page 8,7 and 6 of the electro-phoreogram graph

Q: The last question about whether you took any reference samples from DSP Jude and for that matter all the police personnel who is involve in the investigation of this case. My question is, do you have any reasons to do

this, to take the reference samples and to exclude the possibility?
A: No, I have no reason to do so.

Q: Why?
A: Like I’ve stressed from the beginning, if you look at all the profiles side by side, you would know it is of one person and there is no contamination at all from another person. You cannot look and say there is contamination

in the profile based only on one loci. That is not how you interpret DNA profiles. Interpretation of DNA profiles need a lot of care and caution. It is not fair to look at one and conclude on the whole profile. That is very wrong. You have

to look at the whole profile and then you conclude your findings. []

Q: So, it must be based on the whole profile?
A: Yes, on the whole profile and others as well. Especially when you have more than one swabs of the same thing.

Q: Would this explanation also be the same as to why you disagree the suggestion of the counsel that there could be some other contributor because of the presence of allele 18 here?
A: Yes, the explanation would be the same.

Q: Can you please confirm again as regard to profile of ID59A, page 9 is it a mixed profile or a single profile?
A: It is a single profile.

Q: You were referred to the manual just now and you were asked why you did not follow this manual despite the fact that there is a presence of a greater allele [] and you said you did not follow this manual supplied by the

manufacturer of the Identifilar kit. Why is that?
A: Not only this particular case. If there is another case with the same DNA profile, it will be reported as a single profirle and I will not follow the guidelines given because the guidelines are given as a guidelines. We have our

own standard validated protocol and this would be review again. Like I’ve said, there was four portion of the towel. And when ,u look at it side by side you will know it is of a single profile and it is all very clear so that does not apply

here.

Q: You don’t have no reference sample in your analysis?
A: No, I don’t have.

Q: But you are really confident to say that you are certain that this is a single profile and disagree that this is a mixed profile. Please explain why do you disagree that this is a mixed profile?
A: We go to page 9 again. Look at locus D8S1179 up to the FGA, you can only see there is only one or two and even at D3S1358 the peak 18 is only 25% higher. It is not even 50% or 70% higher and that is the only

particular locus that has that. When you look at the rest of that, I can confidently says that this is of a single profile, one person.

Q: Since you were asked about stutter, can you please inform the court what could have caused stutters.
A: Stutter is due to the slippage during the PCR process. It is always one repeat unit lower than the actual peak.

Q: Can you confirm that you only find the incident only at page 9 of the profile?
A: Yes, only at page 9, only at locus D8S1138.

Q: What is stochastic effect?
A: Stochastic effects is the peak imbalanced between two peaks.

Q: In this case, did you find this stochastic effect that could have happened?
A: Yes, it happened in page 9. It has three loci that has the stochastic effect.

Q: In fact you have calculated the percentage as well, right?
A: Yes, I have.

Q: Does it effect your conclusion?
A: No, it does not.

Q: Regarding the Genetic Analyser machine, the 3130XL which you said is the latest model which was used back in 2007. Were there any difference between this latest model with the previous model, 3100XL?
A: It is the same machine. It’s just that it’s being upgraded to 3130XL. For example, you have a Mitsubishi car and you change your engine from Mitsubishi to a Honda, it’s still a Mitsubishi car but with a Honda engine. So,

it’s the same machine. The machine does not change. The body is still the same. It’s just it’s being upgraded as 3130XL.

Q: With this new model, are you familiar with handling of this machine in your analysis and examination ?
A: Yes, the handling of the machine does not change, it does not differ.

Q: We come to your statistical data which you said the calculation will be done by a DNA view software to calculate the match. Can you confirm again that calculation will only be done if there is a match?
A: Yes.

Q: Regarding the DNA view software. To calculate the match, can you do it manually without the help of the software?
A: Yes. It can be done manually.

Q: How would you do that?
A: The software only helps ytou to get the calculation done faster. The calculation is based on the frequencies where you do database. This calculation can be done using the calculator and the formula. It’s just a

mathematical calculation that can be done manually.

Q: Regarding with the handling of POL 31. You were questioned in your cross-examination just now about the Head of your Section, Mr. Lim Kong Boon. My question is this, were you handed over the POL 31 by Mr. Lim

Kong Boon in this case?
A: No

Q: From where did you get the POL 31 at that point of time?
A: From DSP Jude Blacious.

Q: You also testified just now that you don’t know about hair examination. And in this case you are profiling on hair sample. What do you mean by you don’t know much about this hair examination?
A: The learned counsel pointed to me on the hair examination course which I conducted, but not lectured. Lectures were given by Australian Federal Police personnel. That particular hair examination course was based on the morphology of the hair. The hair examination was under a microscope. It has nothing to di with DNA analysis.

Q: If you were to conduct DNA analysis on hair, what will be the position?
A: I’m competent to do DNA analysis on hair.

Q: You also said that you did not do any degradation test. Is there a necessity for you to conduct any degradation test in this analysis of yours?
A: No, there is no reason to do for a degradation test since the profiles were all single profiles which I can get perfect DNA profiles, so there is a necessity to do so.

Q: You testified you have no direct involvement in the managing of the software, but you said you’ll be able to detect any irregularity apart from after that that you will call the engineer. Please tell the court how would you be able to detect any irregularity?
A: When we use the Genetic Analyser together with the software, you have to do certain maintenance procedure before you run the samples. There will be indication to see if the machine is working fine and in its ordinary course of business. And also that is not being used only once every months for this particular case. Practically, we are using the Gentic Analyzer every day. We have our quality assurance which is the positive control and the negative control which also helps us to see whether the profile are correct or not. []. If there is something wrong with the instrumentation, the positive control will gives you a difference profile altogether which shows there is something wrong with the Genetic Analyser. In this case, the positive control profile were perfect as to what the manufacturer kit’s profile so therefore there is nothing wrong with the instrument and the instrument is running in its ordinary course of business.

Q: About quantification, you were asked whether you record this quantification based on the DNA profile an you said you don’t . The question is there a practice or a standard procedure that the analyst in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia has got to put in their report the quantification that they have done on a DNA profile?
A: No.

Q: Please explain to the court what is the different between traced sample, traced DNA and traced profile?
A: Traced DNA are DNA taken through contact, which means that when I touch something and I swabbed it, that would be traced DNA. Traced profiles are the profile that are below threshold level which are elevated or enhanced to different method. In my analysis, I did not do any enhancement or treat this profiles to traced DNA profile. They were traced DNA samples, contact DNA, subjected to normal procedures. No traced profile here.

Q: Why there is non necessity for any enhancement here?
A: 1. The concentration of the DNA was good that I can get 1-2 nanograms for my amplification steps to get the profile out;
2. All the peak height are above threshold;
3. They are all single good profile, you need not to enhance it.
4. Jabatan Kimia Malaysia does not do enhancement of profiles. It is our protocol that If you don’t get it then that’s it. You don’t do enhancement of DNA profiles.

Q: About the concentration, the nanogram per micro litre. How much concentration did you used in this analysis?
A: 1-2 nanograms. Standard.

NB: YA, itu sahaja soalan semula saya untuk saksi ini dan jika tiada apa-apa soalan daripada Mahkamah, saya memohon agar saksi ini dilepaskan.
MY: I’ve just mentioned to my learned friend before he started just now. We intend to tender this report as P. The question is this, can we just convert it to P if the ruling in our favour.
YA: If the ruling is in your favour, then we will convert it into P without calling this witness. Continue Monday.
[4.02 p.m.] Adjourned.
Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 24 Februari 2011 February 28, 2011
Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
Tags: Malaysian Story, Sodomy II
comments closed

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

Pihak-pihak:-
PP : Semua hadir
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

[9.10 a.m]

MY: Kes untuk sambung bicara. Pendakwaan akan memanggil saksi kami yang ke-tujuh, SP7, Alan Tiang.

SN: YA, Mr. Karpal will be late, but we can start first. No problem.

SP7 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q: Mr Tiang, you informed the court that you are the Service and Project Manager. Where are you attached to now?
A: ATP Science and Technology Sdn Bhd.

Q: Since when that you join this company?
A: Since 2005 until now.

Q: What is your duty and function as Service and Project Manager in this particular company?
A: Basically, more like a total lab solution, that we provide service to the instruments and also for lab design and stuff like that for laboratories.

Q: What kind of services that you do?
A: Preventive maintenance.

Q: Can you please elaborate more?
A: To ensure that the instruments will in it’s working order and is functioning at its best.

Q: In 2008, what are the agencies that you provided for your service?
A: There are a few, one of them are Chemistry Department of Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.

Q: Again, what are the services provided by you to Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: The preventive maintenance to Genetic Analyzer, Sequence Detection System and Thermocyclers.

Q: What kind of services that you do on Genetic Analyzer Machine, Sequence Detection System and Thermocyclers to ensure that it’s functioning at its best?
A: The service is based on the guidelines set by the manufacturer to ensure that every component of the instruments is functioning as it is.

Q: In relation to Jabatan Kimia Malaysia in 2008, how many times that you provide this service?
A: One time. Once a year.

Q: In 2008, was this maintenance service done at Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: Yes.

Q: In relation to Genetic Analyzer, Sequence Detection System and Thermocyclers.
A: Yes.

Q: What did you find as to the condition of this machine and appliances in 2008?
A: They are in working order.

Q: In 2008, in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, in which particular month did you provide the service?
A: May 2008.

Q: Were the Genetic Analyzer Machine, Sequence Detection System and Thermocyclers were in good working order when you provided the service to Jabatan Kimia Malaysia in 2008?
A: Yes

Q: Were all of this machines and appliances working in its ordinary working order, and course of business?
A: Yes.

Q: What did you do after you had provided the service? Is there any protocol that you have to adhere to after you had provided the service or maintenace?
A: After the service and maintenance, we provide -sort of the report, and then we discuss with the customer, they confirmed and check, and will signed it as well.

Q: In 2008, with relation to Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, were there any complaint that you received by the analyst, relating to Genetic Analyzer Machine, Sequence Detection System or Thermocyclers?
A: No.

NB: Itu sahaja soalan saya kepada saksi, YA.

SN: May I start the cross examination?

Q: Mr. Alan, what sort of training do you have in this sort of inspection and validation?
A: I was with Applied Bio System since 1996-2005 and I undergone the training by the manufacturer of the instruments.

Q: Are you working directly with ABI or are you a contractor in ABI?
A: I was working directly with ABI, in the direct office of ABI in Malaysia.

Q: At that time or now?
A: At that time.

Q: What was your position there?
A: Service engineer.

Q: Could you list up your qualifications please?
A: Electrical Electronic and Computer System Engineering.

Q: Where did you qualify from?
A: I did my exam in the city of [] in London and for the computer system engineer in [], Wales.

Q: When was that?
A: 1992 and 1994.

Q: And your specific qualification is in what line?
A: Basically, when I joined Applied Bio System, it is for instrumentation training.

Q: Where did you do the training?
A: It depends on where the manufacturers do their training, sometimes in the US, and then they have it in Singapore, Taiwan.

Q: How long the training lasts?
A: Basically, 2-3 weeks per instrument.

Q: Per instrument?
A: Yes.

Q: []
A: [] sent for the training.

Q: So you go for your training every year or every what?
A: When there is new instrument that will be sold in Malaysia, then we are sent for the training.

Q: In 2008, were you still with ABI?
A: No.

Q: In 2008 when you said that you check this machine, you were not with ABI?
A: No.

Q: You then what?
A: I’m in ATP Science Technology.

Q: And who is this ATP Science Technology?
A: Basically it is just a license company in Malaysia.

Q: Yes, but when you inspected those machines in 2008, you are not with ABI anymore?
A: No, I’m with ABI in Malaysia since its operation in 2005.

Q: In what way are you competent in authorizing to inspect those machines?
A: Based on experience and knowledge.

Q: And you were not with ABI anymore, but you inspected those machines.
A: Yes.

Q: Can I say that your training with ABI then had seized?
A: Yes.

Q: Is you on your own now?
A: Yes.

Q: So do you have the contract directly with Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: Not a contract, they asked for quotation and I provide the quotation, and if I received the PO, I got the job,

Q: Ad hoc basis, it could have be anybody?
A: Yes.

Q: What area of services that you used in conducting the machine? Is it the computer science, or the hardware science?
A: The hardware.

Q: So that’s mean you must have the qualification for the hardware, what was your degree?
A: General degree, electrical and electronic.

Q: Is it a bachelor or a master?
A: I’m a diploma holder.

Q: What is your qualification again?
A: Diploma in Electric and Electrical Engineering, London, in 1992, and Diploma in Computer Science Engineering.

Q: So, you basically dealing with hardware?
A: Yes.

Q: Basically you got some training from ABI?
A: Yes.

Q: So you used your training in 2005 and before, to do your tests?
A: Yes.

Q: That means, you are not updated with the latest?
A: Yes.

Q: You said you have service the machines. You mention three types. Can you give me the models of those machines?
A: ABI 3130 XL for Genetic Analyzer, Sequence Detection System 7000 and the thermocyclers 9700, 9600.

Q: 7000, what it is all about?
A: Sequence Detection System?

Q: Is it the real time PCR?
A: Yes.

Q: How old the machine be at the time you did the maintenance and services?
A: I can’t remember.

Q: Did you keep service record?
A: Maybe the date of the service is done. Most of the record, I give it back to the customer.

Q: You don’t keep the service record?
A: Yes, just a record.

Q: Because you did it ad-hoc?
A: Yes.

Q: Some other person did it previously?
A: I did it until 2008

Q: Why specifically until 2008?
A: After that I did not receive any purchase order from Chemist Department of Malaysia.

Q: Ok, but if you did it, surely you will keep the record, or you just come and off you go, isn’t it?
A: No, I give them the report.

Q: Oh, you give them the report, but you didn’t keep a standard record as a regular service provider?
A: No.

Q: Were you being called once in a while if there is a problem?
A: Yes.

Q: In 2008, how many times were you called?
A: After the service, I can’t remember.

Q: Any number? Called once, twice to look at the machines?
A: I can’t remember.

Q: So you can’t remember. Say for the previous years, how many times were you called for these machines, in terms of breakdown and complaints?
A: No, I can’t remember.

Q: But in 2007 also you do the service?
A: Yes.

Q: But were you the only person or there were other person as well?
A: Basically for ABI, I am the pioneer and the only engineer at that time until 2005.

Q: In 2007? Were JKM also call other people to do the repair and services?
A: That I would not know.

Q: So you are the regular service contractor in that sense?
A: Yes.

Q: This is when you are with ABI, do you require or certification like ISO or something? Because I believe that ABI is an ISO company. So then do you believe that there are requirements for you to be trained in certain manners of ISO? Were you trained or follow standard by ISO?
A: I just follow the manufacturing guidelines.

Q: The guidelines given by ABI?
A: Yes.

Q: If it doesn’t follow the guidelines of ABI, I mean there is some modifications required, would you do it?
A: No.

Q: Why?
Q: Let say that sometimes you don’t need to follow the guidelines 100%. Sometimes, you have to set up some modifications that are running, did you do such things like that?
A: No.

Q: So you follow the guidelines, and did you keep the record that you have followed the guidelines?
A: The report is there, but not with me.

Q: Do you have a copy?
A: No.

Q: Would you normally to keep one?
A: I have the guidelines but not the report copy.

Q: You don’t, but how did you bill them?
A: Based on the report I gave to them.

Q: So you don’t keep records?
A: No.

Q: No, you should have certain record and report, then you have to bill them, then you will give them, don’t you?
A: After the job is done, the customer will sign whatever order and also sign the report, and I give the invoice together, and the delivery order.

Q: In 2008, you said you’ve done the service, how would you confirm to it?
A: You can look at the report which is with the Chemist Department.

Q: Everything is with them?
A: Yes.

Q: YA, That would be all for this witness.

RE-EXAMINATION.

NB: You informed the court that you were with the Applied Bio System prior to 2005. And in 2005, you left to ATP Science and Technology Sdn. Bhd.?
A: I didn’t leave. ABI closed down then I join ATP.

Q: But were you still providing service to JKM in 2008?
A: Yes.

Q: This ABI 3031XL, the Genetic Analyzer Machine. Do you have any knowledge since when were you familiar with the machine?
A: I can’t remember the date of training.

Q: No, I mean, the model of the machine itself.
A: Since they launched it at the factory.

Q: When was that?
A: I can’t remember. That was so many years ago.

Q: 2005, 2006, can you remember? Or before that?
A: Yes, I think before that.

Q: Are you familiar with this model?
A: Yes.

Q: And you have the necessary technique in handling this particular model of the machine?
A: Yes.

Q: In JKM, how long have you been provided services to JKM until 2008?
A: Since I was with the ABI. In 1996.

Q: Also the Sequence Detection System, Model of 7000, are you familiar with this model?
A: Yes.

Q: How long have you been familiar with this model?
A: Also quite sometimes.

Q: 2005? 2003? before that?
A: I can’t remember. I think before that. Long time ago.

Q: What about the thermocycler 9700, 9600?
A: Yes.

Q: Since when?
A: Since they launched it. I can’t remember the year.

Q: You said that you are trained in handling and maintaining the machine 3130XL. Are you also trained in handling and maintaining the Sequence Detection System and the thermocyclers machine?
A: Yes.

NB: YA, Itu sahaja soalan kami. Dan jika tiada soalan dari Mahkamah, kami mohon untuk lepaskan saksi.

SN: Subject to recall, YA.

YA: So, we can release him.

MY: We have another witness. This is the police. But the exhibits are still not here, I think there is miscommunication, because they told that they were not informed, yesterday.

YA: Any other witnesses?

MY: From today onwards, the witness of CCTV. They are on the way, YA.

YA: I think, we will stand down for a while.

[9.36 a.m] Mahkamah ditangguhkan.

[10.44] Kes dipanggil semula.

MH: YA, kami mohon untuk memanggil saksi kami seterusnya, SP8, iaitu ASP Fauziah binti Che Mat.

SP8 mengangkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Q: Dengan izin YA. Puan, boleh beritahu apakah pekerjaan Puan?
A: Saya bertugas sebagai Juru Analisa, Audio Video Foto di Makmal Forensik PDRM Cheras.

Q: Sejak bila Puan bertugas di sana?
A: Saya bertugas di sana sejak Disember 2005.

Q: Sebelum bertugas di situ, di mana Puan bertugas?
A: Cawangan Foto, Bahagian Bantuan Teknik, Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah, Bukit Aman.

Q: Adakah Puan mempunyai apa-apa kelayakan akademik?
A: Saya mempunyai kelulusan Diploma in Photography dari UiTM pada 1987.

Q: Sebagai Pegawai Juru Analisa Audio Video Foto, adakah Puan ada menghadiri kursus ataupun latihan?
A: Ada.

Q: Boleh Puan beritahu?
A: YA, saya mohon refer pada sijil-sijil kursus sebab banyak.
Pada April – June 2001, saya menghadiri kursus Asas Forensik di Makmal Forensik PDRM Cheras yang dikendailkan oleh Victoria Forensic Science Centre, Melbourne Australia. Pada 14-18 Disember 2005, saya menghadiri bengkel Multimedia Digital Image di Intan Bukit Kiara. Pada 30 Mei – 4 Jun 2007, saya menghadiri kursus Video Investigators and Radioactive di Guangzhao China. Pada 10-14 Dis 2007, saya menghadiri kursus Multimedia Forensic Investigation di UTM Jalan Semarak. Pada 22 Januari 2010, saya menghadiri kursus XRY Basic User Trading. Pada 3 Dis, saya menghadiri kursus selama 2 minggu di Siaga Informative Subang Jaya kursus End Case satu dan dua. Pada 13-14 Dis 2010, saya menghadiri kursus Impress. Dan Video Investigator n Radioactive di Makmal Forensic pada Disember 2010. Itu sahaja.

Q: Sebagai Juru Analisa di Makmal Forensik, apakah perkara yang dianalisa?
A: Tugas saya untuk menganalisa rakaman imej dari sumber-sumber seperti CD, DVD, hard disk, pendrive, handphone dan lain-lain alat penyimpanan imej.

Q: Berapa jumlah analisa yang telah Puan lakukan selama bertugas di situ?
A: Lebih kurang 900 kes.

Q: Adakah ia melibatkan keterangan di Mahkamah?
A: Tidak semua, hanya sebahagian.

Q: Dengan kata lain, Puan ada bagi keterangan di Mahkamah sebelum ini?
A: Ya, pernah.

Q: Dalam aspek apa keterangan Puan?
A: Penganalisaan imej seperti mana yang diminta Pegawai Penyiasat.

Q: Ada yang melibatkan keterangan CCTV?
A: Ya.

Q: Pada pengetahuan Puan, keterangan Puan diterima oleh Mahkamah?
A: Ya, ianya diterima.

Q: Pada 3 Julai 2008, adakah Puan bertugas?
A: Ya, di tempat yang sama.

Q: Ada DSP Jude datang berjumpa dengan Puan?
A: Ada.

Q: Pada pukul berapa?
A: Waktu pagi, lebih kurang 10.00 pagi

Q: Kalau saya panggil DSP Jude Blascious, adakah Puan boleh camkan?
A: Boleh.

Q: Saya pohon panggil DSP Jude Blacious. Adakah ini DSP Jude?
A: Ya, saya cam.

DSP Jude dicamkan oleh SP8.

Q: Di mana Puan telah berjumpa dengan DSP Jude?
A: Di Unit Laizon, Makmal Forensik, Cheras.

Q: Apakah tujuan beliau untuk berjumpa dengan Puan?
A: Untuk menyerahkan barang kes untuk dianalisa.

Q: Ada beliau serahkan apa-apa barang kes?
A: Ada.

Q: Apa yang beliau serahkan pada hari tersebut?
A: 2 sampul surat Urusan Seri Paduka Baginda, bermeteri PDRM 330 bertanda HD 1 dan HD 2.

Q: Puan kata Puan telah terima sampul surat surat Urusan bertanda HD 1 dan HD 2.
Boleh saya tau apa yang Puan lakukan terhadap sampul surat tersebut setelah diterima daripada DSP Jude?
A: Saya telah menerima sampul surat tersebut.

Q: Dalam sampul surat bertanda HD1 tersebut, apa yang Puan dapati?
A: Saya dapati ada satu unit harddisk bertanda HD 1.
Yang Arif, saya mohon refer ID saya.
Di dalam sampul surat bertanda HD1, terdapat satu unit harddisk jenama SEAGATE bertanda HD1, serie number 5ND2WM5C, model ST3200826A, kapasiti 200GB.

Q: Ini yang tertulis pada HD? Atau ini pada sampul surat HD1?
A: Dalam sampul surat HD1. Eh, yang saya baca tadi adalah yang tercatit pada hard disk tersebut.

Q: Pada permukaan sampul surat tersebut, ada terdapat catitan lain?
A: Tulisan tangan HD 1 Travers Rpt 4350/08 IP No. 3681/08, Sek 377B KK. DSP Jude Blacious. Hard Disk Jenama SEAGATE S/NO 5ND2WM5C, model ST3200826A, kapasiti 200GB.

Q: Ada buat perbandingan antara apa yang tertulis pada sampul surat dengan apa yang tercetak pada harddisk? Adakah butirannya sama?
A: Ya, saya dapati butirannya sama.

Q: Pada harddisk tersebut, ada tulis HD1 jugak?
A: Ada.

Q: Adakah terdapat apa-apa initial atau tandatangan pada harddisk tersebut?
A: Saya ingin merujuk kepada gambar barang kes yang diambil selepas saya menerima barang-barang kes tersebut.

MH: Minta kebenaran, Yang Arif.

YA: Tanya dia sama ada dia ada ambil gambar apa semua la dulu, then baru beri dia refer.

Q: Ada puan ambil gambar untuk harddisk ini?
A: Ada.

Q: Adakah Puan ingat bilakah Puan mengambil gambar ini?
A: Setelah selesai pendaftaran di Unit Laizon. Saya mengambil gambar di Makmal.

Q: Puan ada membawa gambar ini hari ini?
A: Ada.

MH: Saya pohon kepada Mahkamah untuk saksi dirujuk kepada gambar ini.

SN: No objection.

A: Pada HD 1, terdapat satu tandatangan dan tarikh 30/6, tahun tak berapa jelas.

SN: YA, can we have a look at the gambar after she finishes?
(Peguambela merujuk kepada gambar).

Q: Tadi Puan ada sebut, sampul surat tersebut ada meteri. Boleh Puan beritahu apa meteri tersebut?
A: Meteri itu cop yang telah dilekatkan di bahagian belakang sampul surat, berwarna merah.

Q: Meteri tersebut, apa nombor dia?
A: 330 PDRM.

Q: Puan juga ada sebut terima satu sampul surat bertanda HD2. Boleh Puan beritahu apa yang tertulis pada sampul surat ini?
A: HD2, Travers report 4530/08, IP No. 3641/08, Sek 377B KK. DSP Jude Blacious, Hard Disk Jenama Western Digital. S/NO WCAPW0788419. Model W-D5000AACS.

KS: At this stage My Lord, are these documents being referred for the purpose of tendering exhibits? Because we have not being supplied before under Sec51A.

MY: YA, she just asked to refer to ID. I think the law is very clear. ID is not part of the exhibits. Only when she refers to it, then we will show it to you.

YA: Yes, proceed. But subject to defence being available to…Maksud dia now la, she had only referred, kan?

KS: You should be given earlier YA, if it’s meant to be used during the trial.

MY: Some witnesses, we only know what they will refer until they start giving evidence. For this witness, we don’t know what will she refers.

SN: YA, the point is, this exhibits are taken, sealed and delivered. Even the chemist, it will fall in the same category, all fall in Sec51A.

MY: This one is ID. We will look at the photographs which were being given to you.

YA: Stand down for a while.

[11.10] Mahkamah ditangguhkan.

[11.15]: Masuk chamber.
[11.24]: keluar dari chamber.

[11.27]: Kes di panggil semula

KS: We apply that all reference relating to the photographs by this witness, be expunge.
MY: Yes, YA.I agree.
YA: Permohonan dibenarkan.

Q: Puan kata ada terima sampul surat bertanda HD 2. Ada apa-apa tertulis pada sampul surat ini?
A: Pada sampul surat kedua, Tulisan tangan HD2, Travers Rpt 4350/08, IP No: 3641/08, SEK 377B KK, DSP Jude Blascious, Hard Disk Jenama Western Digital S/no: WCAPW0788419, Model WD50000AAKS Kapasiti 500GB.

Q: Adakah sampul surat ini bermeteri?
A: Ya.

Q: Meteri yang sama juga seperti HD1?
A: Ya, PDRM 330.

Q: Dan ada Puan buka sampul surat tersebut dan mengeluarkan kandungannya?
A: Ada.

Q: Dan ada buat perbandingan butiran pada HD2 dan sampul surat tersebut?
A: Ada.

Q: Apa yang Puan dapati?
A: Butiran adalah yang sama.

Q: Puan ada mengeluarkan resit sebagai akuan penerimaan barang kes tersebut?
A: Ada.

Q: Puan ada tandatangan pada resit ini?
A: Yes.

Q: Siapa tandatangan sebagai pegawai penyerah?
A: Pegawai penyerah DSP Jude, pegawai penerima saya.

Q: Kalau saya tunjuk resit ini, boleh Puan cam?
A: Boleh.

Q: Saya merujuk saksi kepada borang MF02.
A: Ini adalah borang yang saya keluarkan setelah saya menerima eksibit untuk diperiksa dan dianalisa oleh saya.

Q: Tandatangan Puan ada di mana?
A: Ada.

Q: DSP Jude?
A: Ada juga di borang ini.

Q: Saya ingin kemukakan barang kes ini YA.
YA: P64.

SURAT AKUAN PENERIMAAN EKSIBIT BERTANDA MF02 DITANDA SEBAGAI P94.

Q: Kembali semula kepada sampul surat bertanda HD1, Puan ada buka sampul surat ini?
A: Ada.

Q: Apa yang Puan dapati dalam ini?
A: Satu unit harddisk.

Q: Ada buat perbandingan apa yang ditulis di sampul surat dan pada harddisk tersebut?
A: Ada.

Q: Adakah ia sama?
A: Ya.

Q: Setelah terima kedua-dua barang kes ini sampul surat dan juga kandungannya, boleh Puan ceritakan apa tindakan Puan selepas itu?
A: Bawa ke makmal untuk pemeriksaan selanjutnya.

Q: Boleh Puan beritahu apa pemeriksaan yang Puan lakukan ke atas barang kes tersebut?
A: Saya ambil gambar untuk pengecaman. Kemudian saya melakukan proses klon.

Q: Boleh Puan terangkan apakah yang Puan maksudkan kepada proses klon ini?
A: Proses klon merupakan satu proses di mana harddisk barang kes tersebut dipindahkan kepada harddisk yang belum digunakan lagi, bertujuan untuk pemindahan data, yang mana proses klon ini akan menghasilkan satu hard disk yang sama dengan hard disk asal.

Q: Boleh Puan beritahu apa tujuan Puan buat proses ini?
A: Ini adalah untuk keselamatan data, supaya tidak ada pengubahsuaian pada harddisk asal, atau hilang data sewaktu proses analisa dijalankan. Juga untuk melindungi harddhisk asal daripada virus,atau rosak data disebabkan panas, terjatuh atau terkena cecair dan juga bagi mengekalkan keaslian hard disk tersebut.

Q: Apa yang terjadi Puan nak preserve data dalam hard disk asal?
A: Ya.

Q: Apa yang terjadi untuk harddisk asal ini?
A: Selepas saya membuat klon, saya simpan di dalam peti berkunci dalam pejabat saya.

Q: Simpan dalam apa-apa sampul surat?
A: Simpan semula ke dalam sampul surat yang diserahkan semasa penyerahan eksibit.

Q: Untuk proses pengklonan ini, adakah terdapat apa-apa peralatan digunakan?
A: Saya menggunakan Hard Disk Cloner untuk memindahkan data tersebut. Dia ada beberapa jenama, saya gunakan untuk HD1: image master solo 3 Forensic, Intelligent Computer Solution. Ini adalah jenama untuk Hard disk Cloner tersebut.

Q: Peralatan satu lagi?
A: Untuk HD2, saya gunakan jenama Boom 2 – ia juga merupakan jenama untuk Hard Disk Cloner.

Q: Apabila Puan lakukan proses pengklonan ini, adakah apa-apa gangguan kepada data dalam hard disk asal?
A: Tidak ada.

Q: Puan kata Puan telah menggunakan peralatan solo dan juga image master solo 3 dan juga Boom 2 untuk pemindahan data dari harddisk asal kepada hard disk klon. Dari mana Puan dapatkan Hard Disk Clone ini?
A: Dari store Seksyen Audio Video.

Q: Apa yang Puan gunakan untuk hard disk clone ini?
A: Digunakan dalam proses analisa, mencari rakaman yang dikehendaki oleh Pegawai Penyiasat, DSP Jude.

Q: Hard disk clone ini, ada Puan bawa ke Mahkamah pada hari ini? Sekiranya saya tunjuk, boleh Puan camkan?
A: Ada. Boleh.

Q: Saya ingin tunjukkan saksi hard disk clone bertanda HD1.
A: Saya cam ini lah harddisk yang telah saya buat klon.

Q: Ada Puan buat apa-apa tanda?
A: Ada, HD1.

Q: Dan Puan tandakan HD1, boleh Puan terangkan apa maksud dia?
A: HD1 adalah refer kepada yang asal. Klon HD merujuk kepada harddisk yang saya klon.

Q: Yang mana?
A: HD1.
MH: Saya ingin kemukakan hard disk klon ini sebagai P65.

HARD DISK KLON UNTUK HARD DISK BERTANDA “HD1” DIKEMUKAKAN SEBAGAI P65”.

SN: May I have a look at the clone.

Q: Puan juga ada buat klon untuk harddisk satu lagi?
A: Ya.

Q: Ada Puan bawa harddisk tersebut?
A: Ada.

Q: Cuba lihat ini, adakah ini hard disk klon bagi hard disk 2?
A: Ye, saya cam.

Q: Adakah Puan ada buat apa-apa tanda pada harddsik klon ini?
A: Saya ada buat penandaan pada klon. Klon HD2.

MH: YA, saya ingin kemukakan klon kepada harddisk bertanda HD2 sebagai barang kes pihak pendakwa. Pohon ditanda sebagai P.

M: P66.

HARD DISK KLON UNTUK HARD DISK BERTANDA “HD2” DIKEMUKAKAN SEBAGAI P66.

Q: Puan kata Puan telah simpan harddisk asal dalam besi cabinet. Boleh terangkan apa berlaku pada harddisk asal?
A: Harddisk asal ini saya simpan dalam besi cabinet saya, sebab saya telah mempunyai harddisk yang saya klon untuk analisa barang kes.

Q: Apa berlaku selepas itu?
A: Selepas saya analisa, saya buat perbandingan…

Q: Maksud saya, pada harddisk asal.
A: Selepas melakukan klon, mula-mula saya lihat harddisk asal. Saya tengok data dalam harddisk asal, kemudian tengok yang klon. Saya dapati kedua-duanya adalah sama.

Q: Selepas selesai, apa berlaku kepada harddisk asal tersebut?
A: Saya simpan dalam peti cabinet berkunci dalam bilik saya.

Q: Ada ia diserah kepada sesiapa?
A: Tidak.

Q: Selepas selesai melakukan proses analisa itu, ada diserah kepada sesiapa?
A: Saya menyimpannya sendiri dalam peti berkunci.

YA: Tak, hari ini. Ada tak you ambil? That is what you wanna know, right? (kepada MH).
MH: Yes, what happen to hard disk asal selepas habis selesai proses. Hari ni serah kepada sesiapa?
A: Tidak ada.

Q: Kepada DSP Jude?
A: Selepas selesai dianalisa, selepas penyediaan gambar semua, baru saya serahkan semula pada DSP Jude.

Q: Bila serahkan semula pada DSP Jude?
A: Pada 24/9/2008 jam 14.36.

Q: Sebelum serah, apa yang Puan lakukan pada hard disk asal ini?
A: Simpan dalam peti berkunci.

Q: Ada Puan bungkus dalam apa-apa?
A: Saya ada buat pembungkusan semula dan masukkan ke dalam sampul surat yang saya sediakan, yang mana di hadapannya tertulis Rpt No dan nombor makmal.

Q: Apakah sampul surat yang Puan gunakan?
A: Sampul surat Urusan Seri Paduka Baginda.

Q: Ada seal kan dengan apa-apa?
A: Saya seal kan dengan tape berlambang forensic.

Q: Ada bawa ke Mahkamah pada hari ini?
A: Ada.

Q: Cuba lihat barang kes ini.
A: Ini adalah barang yang saya sediakan sebelum saya serahkan kepada DSP Jude.

Q: Lable pada sampul surat itu siapa yang buat?
A: Saya yang sediakan?

Q: Apakah jenama harddisk yang ada dalam sampul surat ini?
A: Western Digital.

Q: Adakah seal pada sampul surat tersebut masih ada?
A: Ya, dan masih elok lagi.

Q: Bagaimana dengan sampul surat asal yang diterima dari DSP Jude?
A: Saya terima dari DSP Jude, saya masukkan juga ke dalam sampul surat ini.

Q: Termasuk dengan harddisk asal?
A: Termasuk dengan harddisk asal.

MH: Saya pohon dirujuk kepada saksi ini dan mohon dibuka sampul surat ini.

Q: Adakah sampul surat yang diterima dari DSP Jude dalam sampul surat ini?
A: (merujuk kepada sampul surat lain di dalam sampul surat besar) – ini adalah sampul surat yang saya terima semasa proses pendaftaran daripada DSP Jude.

Q: Bagaimana dengan harddisk?
A: Hard disk saya masukkan ke dalam sampul surat tersebut.

Q: Boleh Puan terangkan kepada plastic yang membungkus harddisk tersebut?
A: Disedia daripada makmal.

Q: Boleh Puan semak butiran pada hard disk dan sampul surat, adakah ianya sama?
A: Butiran yang terdapat pada hard disk dan sampul surat adalah sama.

Q: Berkenaan dengan apa?
A: No. siri, model dan jenama.

Q: Pada harddisk tersebut, ada tanda lain?
A: Tanda HD2, satu tandatangan, tarikh 30/6/08.

Q: Adakah sama keadaannya semasa Puan terima daripada DSP Jude?
A: Sama.

Q: Bagaimana dengan meterinya, PDRM?
A: Satu materi telah pecah sedikit, dan satu lagi masih boleh dibaca.

MH: Saya mohon untuk ditandakan dan dikemukakan yang berikut sebagai eksibit:
Sampul surat Makmal Forensic ditanda sebagai P67
Sampul surat yang diterima daripada DSP Jude – P67A
Plastik yang membungkus Hard disk tersebut – P67B
Harddisk HD2 – P67C.

Q: Puan juga ada menyebut tentang HD1. Puan ada membungkus satu sampul surat untuk HD1? Adakah ini sampul surat yang digunakan untuk membungkus?
A: Ya, ini sampul surat yang saya gunakan untuk harddisk jenama SEAGATE.

Q: Bagaimana dengan meteri nya?
A: Seal dengan tape berlambang forensik.

Q: Label pada sampul surat ini siapa yang buat?
A: Saya.

Q: Adakah seal masih ada dan masih elok?
A: Ya.

Q: Dan boleh Puan buka barang kes ini?
Boleh Puan beritahu Mahkamah apa yang ada?
A: Ini adalah sampul surat asal yang saya terima masa pendaftaran eksibit daripada DSP Jude.

Q: Meteri pada sampul itu?
A: Masih ada dan masih boleh dibaca.

Q: Apa kandungan dalam sampul surat ini?
A: Satu unit hard disk jenama SEAGATE.

Q: Apakah butiran sama dengan sampul surat?
A: Sama dengan apa yang ada pada sampul surat yang diserahkan pada saya []

Q: Ada terdapat plastik untuk membungkus?
A: Ada.

Q: Siapa yang bekalkan plastic?
A: Makmal forensic.

MH: Saya pohon untuk kemukakan dan tanda sebagai eksibit:

Sampul surat Makmal Forensic ditanda sebagai P68
Sampul surat yang diterima daripada DSP Jude – P68A
Plastik yang membungkus Hard disk tersebut – P68B
Harddisk HD2 – P68C
Q: Puan kata telah serah sampul surat bertanda P67 dan P68 pada DSP Jude pada 24/9/08. Ada Puan buat satu surat penyerahan barang kes?
A: Ada.

Q: Ada Puan tandatangan pada surat akuan ini?
A: Ada.

Q: Sebagai?
A: Sebagai penyerah. Dan DSP Jude tandatangan sebagai penerima.

Q: Cuba lihat surat akuan ini.
A: Ini adalah borang yang saya serahkan pada DSP Jude pada 24/9/08 jan 14.36.

Q: Merujuk pada surat akuan ini, pada butiran pada para 1, boleh Puan terangkan apa maksud dia?
A: Keadaan terima merujuk kepada keadaan sampul surat yang diserahkan bertarikh 3/7/2008.

Q: Meteri bertanda 330?
A: Ya.

Q: Bagaimana dengan keadaan terima pada para 2?
A: Adalah sama semasa saya terima pada tarikh penyerahan bertarikh 3 Julai 2008.

Q: YA, saya ingin tanda dan kemukakan sebagai P69.

Surat akuan penyerahan eksibit MF03 ditanda sebagai P69.

Q: Puan telah katakana bahawa Puan telah melakukan proses analisa ke atas harddisk klon? Ada sesiapa membantu Puan semasa melakukan proses tersebut?
A: Insp. Fazura binti Mazelan, salah seorang pegawai di Seksyen Audio Video, yang membantu saya dalam penyediaan alat.

Q: Boleh beritahu apakah peralatan yang digunakan semasa proses?
A: Peralatannya ialah proses klon saya guna Master Solo 2 3 Forensik dan Boom 2, dan proses menganalisa imej, saya gunakan peralatan computer yang terdapat di Seksyen Audio Video dan beberapa pengisian untuk analisa imej.

Q: Adakah peralatan ini yang terdapat di Makmal Forensik?
A: Ya.

Q: Bagi tujuan pengesanan imej pada kedua-dua harddisk, ada sesiapa membantu?
A: Masa analisa, saya sorang sahaja.

Q: Untuk mengenalpasti, ada sesiapa membantu Puan?
A: Pada peringkat permulaannya, adalah DSP Jude sendiri.

Q: Ada DSP Jude beritahu apa yang hendak dicari?
A: Dalam permohonan nya, meminta saya untuk mencari gambar sebuah kereta jenis MG Rover warna hitam plat number WMK 6 dan kereta jenis Fiat [] plat number WPK5925 yang tiba di pintu utama Kondominium Sri Damansara pada 26/6/08 jam antara 12 tengahari hingga 4 petang. Dan juga pengenalan individu-individu dan kenderaan selanjutnya pada hari tersebut.
Yang kedua, mengesan individu-individu dan kenderaan-kenderaan yang berkaitan kes ini pada hujung April dan awal Mei 2008.
Yang ketiga, menjalankan analisa ke atas imej-imej yang berkaitan dan membuat cetakan dan hard disk ke atas imej-imej yang berkaitan dan video fail bagi sequen-sequen yang berkaitan.

Q: Itu tujuan analisa yang Puan perlu lakukan seperti yang diberitahu oleh DSP Jude?
A: Ya.

Q: Bila Puan mulakan untuk melakukan pemeriksaan analisis ini?
A: Saya telah mulakan preview rakaman ini pada 4/7/2008.

Q: Adakah DSP Jude membantu Puan dalam mengenal pasti imej-imej tertentu?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh beritahu semula peralatan yang digunakan untuk melakukan proses penganalisaan?
A: Adalah computer, yang mana Hard disk di sambungkan ke dalam komputer dan skrin untuk melihat paparan imej yang terdapat dalam harddisk tersebut.

MH: YA, untuk soalan seterusnya, saya memerlukan peralatan didirikan untuk mainan balik rakaman tersebut.
YA: Berapa lama untuk set up?
MH: Saya diberitahu oleh mereka dalam tempoh 30 minit.
YA: Maybe they can set up during lunch time.
SN: Can we start at 2.30?
YA: Encik Hanafiah?
MH: Tiada bantahan.

YA: We start at 2.30.

[12.11 a.m] – Mahkamah ditangguhkan.

[2.43 a.m] Kes dipanggil semula.

Q: Proses pengklonan ini pemindahan data daripada harddisk asal kepada harddisk klon. Boleh Puan terangkan apa yang Puan maksudkan kepada pemindahan data?
A: Apa yang terdapat dalam data harddisk original dipindahkan ke dalam hard disk yang baru. Data ini bermaksud rakaman imej, tarikh, masa, program. Apa yang ada dalam hard disk asal, ada dalam hard disk klon.

Q: Adakah proses pengklonan ini meninggalkan kesan ke atas data dalam harddisk asal?
A: Tidak.

YA: MH, you cakap tu boleh dekat sedikit dengan mic?
SN: They say they cannot hear, YA. So maybe my learned friend can talk louder.

Q: Puan ada buat perbandingan pada harddisk asal dengan yang klon?
A: Ada, saya dapati tarikh 26/6/2008 terdapat dalam kedua-dua harddisk, iaitu harddisk asal dan harddisk yang telah diklon.

Q: Untuk tujuan pemeriksaan, hard disk mana satu yang Puan gunakan?
A: Pemeriksaan analisa adalah ke atas harddisk yang diklon.

Q: Puan juga ada memberitahu mahkamah yang Puan telah dibantu oleh DSP Jude untuk melakukan pemeriksaan.
A: Saya dibantu dari segi pengecaman imej.

Q: Apakah bantuan yang diberi oleh beliau?
A: Mengenai tarikh dan masa, kehadiran kenderaan pada hard disk satu, dan tarikh dan masa kehadiran individu-individu yang perlu dicari oleh pegawai penyiasat.

Q: Adakah tarikh tertentu yang diberi oleh DSP Jude?
A: Ada.

Q: Apakah tarikh itu?
A: 26/6/2008.

Q: Puan kata Puan telah melakukan pemeriksaan melalui hard disk klon. Harddisk asal Puan simpan?
A: Betul.

Q: Puan kata makmal ada beri plastic untuk membungkus harddisk asal?
A: Betul.

Q: Boleh Puan beritahu apakah kepentingan plastic ini?
A: Ia adalah plastic magnetic, ia akan memelihara hard disk tersebut daripada tercemar.

Q: Dan semenjak disimpan dalam plastic tersebut, adakah harddisk pernah digunakan semula?
A: Hard disk original selepas klon, saya buka dan saya simpan dan tidak digunakan lagi sehingga hari ini.

Q: Sekiranya dibuka, ada apa-apa perubahan pada hard disk?
A: Sekiranya kita buka, tarikh modified date tu akan berubah kepada hari yang kita buka.

Q: Tarikh iaitu tarikh yang kita buka?
A: Ya.

Q: Harddisk asal ini boleh kita mainkan semula di Mahkamah? Apa peralatan yang akan digunakan?
A: Ya. Melalui komputer yang tersedia atas meja ini, dan harddisk tersebut perlu dimainkan.

Q: Berapa lama proses ini akan mengambil masa?
A: Bergantung kepada berapa banyak rakaman imej yang perlu ditayangkan.

MH: YA, saya pohon kebenaran mahkamah untuk harddisk original dimainkan ke dalam alat pemain supaya kita dapat dapat memperolehi imej-imej yang relevan untuk kes ini. Dan saya difahamkan, proses ini memerlukan masa lebih kurang 30 minit, kerana ia diperlukan untuk proses pemanasan, sebab ianya sudah lama tidak digunakan dan kita tak mahu apa-apa gangguan ke atas kandungan harddisk asal ini sekiranya ia dipaksa.
YA: First time nak masuk?
MH: Yes, YA.
YA: Since hari tu la.
MH: I was told it is about 30 minutes. Sebab kalau kita lakukan masa lunch hour tadi ianya akan modify masa dimainkan.
YA: Kita boleh stand down. Defence must be present here to look at how it is. Never mind, I can wait, you can wait. Masukkan 30 minit dan kita boleh tunggu. If we stand down, the council should be here.
[2.53 p.m]: Stand down.

[3.27 pm] Kes dipanggil semula

SN: Can DSAI come here to watch because he can’t see from there.
YA: Maybe 2nd row, boleh nampak tak?
DSAI: Ok.

Q: Puan telah pasang harddisk asal pada peralatan yang diperlukan?
A: Ya, dibantu pleh pegawai dan anggota Seksyen..

Q: Boleh Puan terangkan kepada YA, skrin ini menunjukkan gambar apa?
A: Di dalam LCD belakang saya ini, adalah rakaman daripada hard disk 1.

YA: Itu kita katakan A, (LCD belakang witness), dan yang belah kanan (YA), skrin B.

Q: DSP Jude telah memberi maklumat mengenai imej-imej yang hendak dicari.
A: Pengenalan individu dan juga imej-imej yang dikehendaki oleh DSP Jude.

Q: Pengenalan apa yang dikehendaki oleh DSP Jude?
A: Berdasarkan tarikh dan masa rakaman tersebut.

Q: Ada dia minta nombor kenderaan?
A: Ada

Q: Apakah keputusan pada pemeriksaan pada rakaman?
A: Saya mendapati dalam preview rakaman tersebut senarai kenderaan yang DSP Jude berikan kepada saya terdapat dalam rakaman tersebut, dalam “HD 1”.(di skrin A).

Q: Apa yang dilihat?
A: Pada 26/6/2008, kereta WND 1173, masuk melalui rakaman kamera 3, “HD 1”. Masa 11.47.18.

Q: Boleh Puan tunjukkan imej tersebut? Adakah ini imej pada 26/6/2008?
A: Ya, pada 11.47.18.

Q: Dan adakah imej ini ditimbulkan?
A: Ya, ini dari kamera 1. Kamera satu 11.47.24.

Q: 11.47.18?
A: Kamera 3. Walaupun masa dia berbeza sedikit, tapi ini lah dia gambar yang saya capture.

Q: Nombor kereta?
A: Tak Nampak.

Q: Gambar kemudiannya?
A: Masa yang tertera pada rakaman, 11.47.18.

Q: Kemudian, ada timbul gambar kenderaan?
A: Ada, dirakam dalam kamera 1. Masa 11.47.24. No. plat WND 1173
A: 11.47.24. Ini adalah imej yang dirakam oleh kamera 1. Nombor kenderaan WND1173

Q: Adakah ini imej nya?
A: Melalui pintu masuk kondominium tersebut.

Q: Kemudian, apa yang DSP Jude suruh buat?
A: Lihat pada rakaman di “HD2”, kamera 8, tarikh: 26/6/2008, masa 11.48.42.

Q: Boleh tunjukkan?
A: Ini adalah imej yang dimaklumkan oleh DSP Jude, berkaitan dengan nombor kereta yang terdapat dalam rakaman hard disk 1.

Q: Rakaman ini boleh Puan ditentukan di tingkat mana?
A: Dirakam di dalam lif P2, berdasarkan nombor yang tertera dalam lif tersebut.

Q: Ke mana imej ini kemudian?
A: Bergerak ke atas, lif akan bergerak ke atas, ke tingkat ..

Q: Boleh kita mainkan imej tersebut?
A: (Imej pada HD2 Skrin B dimainkan). Boleh.

Q: Adakah ini imej yang dilihat oleh Puan semasa pemeriksaan?
A: Ya.

Q: Pukul berapa orang tersebut meninggalkan lif?
A: Saya capture imej dalam lif sehingga 11.49.13.

Q: Puan kata dia berhenti di Tingkat 5.
A: Ya.

Q: Bagaimana Puan tahu?
A: Terdapat number tingkat di dalam lif tersebut, tingkat 5.

Q: Selepas itu, adakah orang ini masuk semula ke dalam lif?
A: Pada 14.22.10, orang tersebut masuk ke dalam lif

Q: Boleh mainkan semula?
A: Kamera 7, masa 14.22.10

Q: Mainkan imej tersebut. Tingkat berapa ni, dia masuk?
A: Tak Nampak.

SN: Is this the harddisk, or the chip from the camera?
MH: This is the original Hard disk.

Q: 14.22.10, aras berapa ya?
A: Dari tingkat 5, turun ke tingkat ..takde tercatit YA.

Q: Ok, kita mainkan semula. You tengok tingkat dan masa sekali.
A: Dia keluar ke P2.

Q: Masa melakukan pemeriksaan tersebut?
A: 14.22.42.

SN: YA, if I may, if she’s reading from a time chart, I don’t be able to follow.

Q: Tak, kita tengok masa pemeriksaan itu, masa dia.
A: 14.22.42.

Q: Apa yang berlaku selepas itu?
A: Individu ini masuk semula ke dalam lif.

Q: Tunjukkan. Masa?
A: 14.23.24.

Q: Tingkat berapa?
A: P1.

Q: Selepas itu?
A: Masuk balik kedalam lif.

MY: YA, if I may suggest to this witness, she was asked to look at particular individual and car, maybe she can read it from her examination, the car, and this man, camera berapa, and dia keluar kamera berapa.

YA: How to conduct the examination, it is up to you. I cannot tell you how to do it.

MY: Ya, sebab kalau tak, akan ambil masa.

Q: Apa berlaku kemudian?
A: Dia masuk masuk balik dalam lift tersebut. Kemudian dia turun semula ke P2. Masa: 14.23.21.

HD 1: gambar kenderaan keluar dari kawasan kondominium tersebut, WND1173. Melalui Kamera 3: masa 14.34.28. Melalui Kamera 1: masa 14. 34.32. Melalui Kamera 2: masa: 14.36.13. Melalui Kamera 5: masa: 14.36.13.

Q: Itu saja bagi kenderaan WND1173.
A: Ya.

Q: Apa lagi pemeriksaan yang diminta?
A: Kereta BHA5476 melepasi masuk ke kawasan kondominium Melalui kamera 3: masa 12.15.11, HD 1. Melalui Kamera 1: masa 12.15.16.

Q: Seterusnya?
A: HD 2: Rakaman di lift, kamera 8, masa: 12.09.58, di tingkat P1. Seterusnya, dalam lif juga, beliau turun ke tingkat 5. Keluar lif, masa 12.10.31. Seterusnya, individu ini masuk balik pada jam 14.30, dirakam melalui kamera 7.

(rakaman dimainkan) Ini adalah individu sebentar tadi masuk semula ke dalam lif pada jam 14.30, di tingkat 5. Seterusnya dia turun pada 14.30.50, dia keluar ke P2. Kemudian gambar kenderaan BHA5476, keluar dari kawasan kondominium Melalui kamera 5: masa 14.43.04.

Q: Itu sahaja untuk kenderaan BHA 5476. Seterusnya, apakah pemeriksaan yang dilakukan?
A: Kenderaan WMK 6 masuk ke dalam kawasan kondominium, melalui HD1, Melalui kamera 4, masa 12.19.58.

Q: Kamera 5, ke Kamera 4?
A: Kamera 4.

Q: Seterusnya?
A: Kamera 1, masa 12.20.07. Seterusnya gambar di lift, kamera 7. Masa: 12.12.38. Individu ini keluar menuju ke Tingkat 5 dari P1.

Q: Selepas itu?
A: Ini gambar individu keluar daripada lift masa 12.13.11 di tingkat 5. Seterusnya, individu ini masuk semula ke dalam lif pada 17.14.10 di rakam melalui kamera 7. Tingkat 5. Dia bersama seorang lagi individu. Beliau keluar daripada lif pada 17.14.54, tingkat P1.Kemudian kenderaan WMK 6 keluar daripada kawasan kondominium; Melalui kamera 2, masa: 17.30.23. Melalui kamera 5, masa: 17.30.20.

Q: Itu sahaja. Seterusnya pemeriksaan terhadapa kenderaan?
A: Seterusnya kenderaan WNK6238 masuk ke kawasan kondominium. HD1, Melalui kamera 3, masa: 12.20.25. Melalui kamera 1, masa: 12.20.33. Melalui Kamera 2, masa 12.23.13. Melalui kamera 5, masa: 12.23.18.
Seterusnya gambar di lif, kamera 8, masa: 12.16.45. Ini adalah individual yang dikenal pasti oleh DSP Jude berkenaan dengan WNK6238. Ini di tingkat 1. Beliau menuju ke tingkat 5. Ini adalah individu yang keluar daripada lif jam 12.17.13 ke tingkat 5. Kemudian, dia masuk semula, masa: 12.39.23 di kamera 8. Ini adalah individu tadi yang masuk semula dari tingkat 5, menuju ke bawah, masa: 12.43.44.

Q: Tingkat berapa tu?
A: Tingkat 5.

Q: Apa berlaku selepas itu?
A: Kenderaan WNK6238 keluar daripada kawasan, Melalui kamera 3, masa: 12.50.59. Maaf, dia masuk ke dalam kawasan kondominium pada jam 12.50.59. Kemudian, berbalik semula kepada gambar di lif, masuk bersama individu lain,kamera 8 masa: 14.24.54. Kedua-dua keluar dari lif. Masa: 14.25.36 di tingkat P1 dari tingkat 5. Gambar kenderaan keluar dirakam; Melalui kamera 2, masa 14.37.17. Melalui kamera 5: masa: 14.37.19.

Q: Seterusnya, kenderaan DAE 5 masuk ke kondominium.
A: Kamera 3: Masa 12.25.41 Kamera 1: Masa 12.25.45. Seterusnya gambar di lif, masa 12.19.35 dirakam oleh kamera 8. Dari tingkat P1. Seterusnya individu ini menuju ke tingkat 5 masa: 12.20.07. Seterusnya individu ini masuk semula ke dalam lif, masa: 14.42.47. melalui kamera 8. Masa sebenarnya ialah 14.42.56, tingkat 5. Seterusnya, dia turun ke bawah, masa 14.43.47. Individu ini telah keluar dari lif jam 14.43.51 Seterusnya gambar kenderaan DAE 5 keluar; Melalui kamera 2: masa 14.56.31. Melalui kamera 5 masa 14.56.33. Itu sahaja berkenaan dengan DAE 5.

Seterusnya pemeriksaan untuk WMK5251. Masuk ke dalam kawasan kondominium Melalui Kamera 3; masa 12.41.09. Melalui Kamera 1: masa 12.41.13.

Rakaman di lif, kamera 8, masa 12.33.46. Dari tingkat P1 menuju ke tingkat 5. Turun ke tingkat bawah. Individu ini keluar dari lif pada jam 12.34.19 pada P1. Seterusnya, masuk semula ke dalam lif, masa 14.24.54 di tingkat 5, bersama seorang lagi individu turun ke tingkat bawah. Keluar dari lif, masa 14.25.36, dari P1.

WMK 5251 Keluar dari kawasan kondominium Melalui kamera 2: masa 14.37.31 Melalui kamera 5: masa 14.37.36.

Q: Seterusnya?

A: Seterusnya imej kenderaan WPK5925 masuk ke kawasan kondominium Melalui kamera 3, masa: 14.47.13 Melalui Kamera 1: masa: 14.47.44. Seterusnya gambar di lif, kamera 8, 14.42.03. Dari tingkat P2. Dia keluar dari lif ke tingkat 5 pada jam 14.42.56. Seterusnya dia kembali semula pada jam 16.11.38, melalui kamera 7. Ini adalah individu masuk semula ke dalam lif, masa: 161138, dari tingkat 5. Keluar lif, kamera 2, masa 16.12.32. Seterusnya, WPK 5925 keluar dari kawasan kondominium Melalui kamera 5: masa 16.35.05. Melalui kamera 2: masa 16.35.03.
Itu sahaja kenderaan yang dikenal pasti oleh DSP Jude masuk ke kawasan kondominium pada 26.6.2008

Q: Merujuk kepada rakaman bagi imej WPK5925 dan juga kenderaan DAE 5, ada tak kedekatan masa bagi kedua-dua imej? Imej untuk individu untuk WPK5925, naik lif dan keluar lif aras 5, dan individu untuk DAE 5? Ada tak?
A: Masa individu DAE 5 masuk ke dalam lif dari tingkat 5 pada jam 14.42.56 dan individu yang menaIki kenderaan WKP5925 keluar daripada lif pada 14.42.47 di aras 5.

Q: Boleh Puan tunjukkan imej ini?
A: (Saksi tunjukkan rakaman)

Q: Puan telah tunjukkan imej-imej daripada hard disk asal. Adakah imej-imej tersebut sama dengan hard disk klon?
A: Sama.

Q: Puan ada cetak gambar daripada imej-imej ini.
A: Ada.

Q: Cuba Puan lihat ID 5A-O, apakah ini?
A: Ini adalah cetakan gambar yang saya sediakan. Gambar yang menunjukkan individu yang dicari oleh DSP Jude dan juga kenderaan untuk masa yang diberitahu oleh DSP Jude.

Q: Puan gunakan peralatan apa untuk cetakan gambar ini?
A: Saya gunakan computer di Seksyen Audio Video di Makmal Forencic PDRM Cheras.

Q: Adakah peralatan ini biasa digunakan di Makmal-makmal?
A: Ya. Biasa.

Q: Dicetak dalam penggunaan biasa?
A: Ya.

Q: Pada gambar ini, cuba lihat gambar yang pertama, boleh Puan terangkan serba sedikit tentang gambar ini? Kenapa gunakan gambar yang sama?
A: Yang pertama, gambar asal dari rakaman. Yang kedua, saya guna perisian Video Investigator di mana bertujuan untuk meningkatkan mutu imej supaya lebih jelas.

Q: Adakah peralatan yang sama juga digunakan untuk imej yang lain?
A: Ya.

Q: Kecuali bagi gambar kenderaan WPK 5925, di muka surat 2 dan di page 12, Puan tidak gunakan peralatan ini?
A: Betul.

Q: Pohon gambar ini dikemukakan sebagai P5A-O, YA.

Gambar cetakan bagi kenderaan WPK 5925 di tanda sebagai P5A-O.

Q: Ada Puan buat imej cetakan yang lain, iaitu untuk WMK5251?
A: Ada.

Q: Rujuk saksi. Adakah ini cetakan yang Puan buat?
A: Ini adalah cetakan yang saya buat.

Q: Dan ini untuk gambar apa?
A: Gambar individu yang dikenal pasti oleh DSP Jude di lif sahaja.

Q: Puan cetak melalui computer yang sama.

Q: Saya ingin kemukakan gambar WMK5251. 6 muka surat, dan setiap satu muka surat adalah gambar yang sama (gambar asal dan bawahnya, adalah gambar yang dianalisa). Saya pohon dikemukakan sebagai P70A-F.

Gambar cetakan bagi kenderaan WMK5251 di tanda sebagai P70A-F.

Q: Adakah Puan buat cetakan bagi kenderaan WME 6?
A: Ya.

Q: Menggunakan peralatan yang sama juga?
A: Ya.

Q: Rujuk saksi. Adakah ini gambar yang dicetak Puan?
A: Ya. Ini adalah gambar-gambar yang telah saya cetak.

Q: Berapa keping gambar yang Puan buat analisa?
A: 20 keping imej dan 11 muka surat.

A: Muka surat 10 dan muka surat 2 hanya satu imej tiap satu muka surat.

MH: Saya ingin kemukakan gambar WMK 6 sebagai P71A-T.

Gambar cetakan gambar kenderaan WMK 6 di tanda sebagai P71A-T.
Q: Untuk DAE 5?
A: Ada.

Q: Guna computer yang sama?
A: Ya.

Q: Rujuk saksi. Adakah ini gambar tersebut?
A: Ya.

Q: Berapa keping dan m/s?
A: Ada 8 muka surat.

Q: Saya ingin kemukakan dan tanda sebagai P72A-H.

YA: I think it is better to go by photograph. Sebab nanti cross kita tak tau refer gambar mana satu kalau dalam same page tu. So we go by photographs. Takpelah nanti kita tengok balik yang lain dan betulkan.

Gambar cetakan untuk kenderaan DAE 5 di tanda sebagai P72A-P.
Q: Ada Puan buat cetakan imej untuk kenderaan WMK6238?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah Puan menggunakan computer yang sama?
A: Ya.

Q: Rujuk saksi. Adakah ini gambarnya?
A: Ya. 11 m/s, 22 keping gambar.

MH: Saya ingin kemukakan P73A-V.
Gambar cetakan untuk kenderaan WNK 6238 di tanda sebagai P73A-V.

Q: Adakah Puan buat cetakan untuk kenderaan BHA 5436?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah ini gambar tersebut?
A: Ya.

Q: Gunakan computer yang sama?
A: Ya.

Q: Berapa keping gambar?
A: 14 keping gambar, 7 m/s.

MH: Saya ingin kemukakan sebagai P74A-M.

Gambar cetakan untuk kenderaan BHA 5476 di tanda sebagai P74A-M

Q: Adakah Puan juga membuat cetakan gambar untuk kenderaan WND 1173?
A: Ya. Ini adalah gambar yang saya cetak, menggunakan computer yang sama.

Q: Berapa keping gambar?
A: 9 m/s, 8 keping gambar.

MH: Saya pohon tanda dan kemuka sebagai P75A-I.

Gambar cetakan untuk kenderaan WND 1173 di tanda sebagai P75A-1
MH: Itu sahaja soalan pihak pendakwa.

YA: So, we are supposed to hear the cross for SP6 tomorrow. Now we have to witnesses for you to cross.

SN: We can start with the chemist first.

YA: Tomorrow for chemist, this witness you can cross probably on Monday.

[5.00p.m] Mahkamah ditangguhkan.
Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 23 Februari 2011 February 28, 2011
Posted by malaysianstory in 1Malaysia.
add a comment

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.
Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 22 Februari 2011 February 28, 2011
Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
add a comment

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

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

[8.44 a.m.]

MH: Hari ini ditetapkan untuk sambung pemeriksaan balas SP5. MY akan datang lewat sedikit.

SP5 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

SN: YA, RK will take after I finished because he is supposed to start but he couldn’t come. He will probably need 10 minutes untuk sambung. After that KS will continue.

Q: Dr. Seah, you have informed the court that you are 20 years in your field.
A: Since 1991, I’ve been in the Department of Chemistry.

Q: What was your position in 1991?
A: As scientific officer.

Q: You said you did your PhD in Adelaide.
A: Yes. In the University of South Australia.

Q: Is that a full time course?
A: Yes.

Q: As a scientist, do you agree that there is a need for total and exemplary integrity, honesty, unbiasedness. Do you agree with that?
A: Yes, totally.

Q: And to act professionally and should not act without favour or fear.
A: Totally.

Q: Irrespective the person and their station in life?
A: I agree.

Q: From your CV that we noticed, can we say that you are a competent person?
A: Yes, I am.

Q: Should we say very competent?
A: I have more than enough experience in forensic case work.

Q: So, no place for tardiness that you take what you do as per your job.
A: Absolutely.

Q: And that you’ll be diligent as well?
A: Yes.

Q: And it is prerequisite and paramount to be diligent in your area of work?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you agree that whatever you find or whatever assumption you made or whatever finding you made affects the life of an accused or his freedom?
A: Yes, this is forensic science.

Q: There is an impact?
A: Yes.

Q: So, there is a heavy duty on you to be accurate, meticulous and everything I mentioned to you just now?
A: Yes.

Q: You told that your Jabatan Kimia Malaysia lab is accredited to ASCLD. Is that correct?
A: Yes.

Q: ASCLD is just one of the body recognized by the international bodies. Is that correct?
A: Yes.

Q: ISO. Do you know what is ISO? International Standard Organisation. What does it do?
A: It sets the quality standards.

Q: Is it a government body or what? Is it an authority? Why is it be of authority?
A: It sets the quality standards for calibration and testing laboratories.

Q: Would you agree by say that ISO is a non-government organisation and it sets standards that will become law either through treaties or national

standards making it more powerful than other non-government organization. Do you agree with that?
A: Yes.

Q: As such, if you have set standards accredited by ASCLD and you are also by meeting ISO standards. What standards does lab comes under the ISO standards?
A: ISO 17025.

Q: There are also other labs like the New Zealand AINZ labs, European labs that is accredited to ISO similarly to ASCLD. Do you agree there is another one called Australian National Assosiation for Testing, NATA for short?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the purpose of having accreditation?
A: Purpose of accreditation is to set standard for the lab for testing and calibration laboratories. That standard is to ensure that proceduresare carried out correctly. It ensures that testing method are reliable and to ensure that the personnel and the physical facilities are of internationally acceptable standards. And also the results that are generated by printed laboratory are also accpetable by international standard and are reliable.

Q: And do they have to give inspection report?
A: Yes.

Q: How often do they come to lab?
A: ASCLD lab requires inspection every 5 years and annual audit.

Q: When was the last time your lab was inspected and audited?
A: It was inspected on 2005 and audited annually.

Q: What does the audit entails?
A: The audit entails the operating functions of the laboratory and normally it is carried out by neighbouring accredited lab.

Q: Your lab has not been inspected since 2005?
A: Yes.

Q: I’ve got this ASCLD which is used by FBI. Basically it has list of things very generally as to what to look for in lab accreditation. Under definition amplification. Amplification controls consist of amplification re-agents without additional of DNA sample. The control is used to detect DNA contamination of amplification re-agents.
A: Yes.

Q: Calibration being one more.
A: Yes.

Q: Proficiency test.
A: Yes.

Q: Polymerase Chain Reaction(PCR) and what it is all about, the replication cycles and all that.
A: Yes.

Q: Review and evaluation of documentation. Check for consistency, accuracy and completeness.
A: Yes.

Q: Also, there is a review. Technical review is an evaluation of reports, notes, data and other document to ensure that the proper basis for scientific conclusion. The review is conducted by second qualified individual.
A: Yes.

Q: Is that also practised in your lab?
A: For every report that is being produced by the laboratory.

Q: And you have a record of it?
A: Yes.

Q: Similarly, item 3. Quality assurance programme, where the lab shall established and maintained the documented quality system that is appropriate to the testing activities.
A: Yes.

Q: The quality manual shall address the minimum goals and objectives.
A: Yes.

Q: Organization and management. Personnel qualifications and training, facilities, evidence control, validation, analytical procedures, calibration, maintenance, proficiency, reports, reviews, safety and all that.
A: Yes.

Q: Do you have this in placed in your lab?
A: Yes, we have.

Q: And you can produce it if we ask for it?
A: Yes.

Q: In evidence control. The lab shall have and follow procedures documented evidence control system to ensure the integrity of the physical evidence. The system shall ensure that the evidence is marked for identification. Chain of custody for all evidence is maintained.
A: Yes.

Q: The lab follows documented procedures that minimise loss, contamination and all deleterious change of evidence that lab has secure area for evidence storage. You have that right?
A: Yes.

Q: And reports. The lab shall have and follow written procedures for taking and maintaining case notes to support the conclusions drawn in lab reports. Right?
A: Yes.

Q: The report according shall maintain in a case record, all the document written by examiners related to case analysis.
A: Yes.

Q: The case according to the written guideline include case identifial. What is a case identifial?
A: It is the case number.

Q: Description of evidence examined?
A: Yes.

Q: Description of methodology?
A: Yes.

Q: Locus?
A: Yes.

Q: Results and conclusions?
A: Yes.

Q: An interpretative statement either quantitative or qualitative.
A: Yes.

Q: Date issued?
A: Yes.

Q: Description of evidence?
A: Yes.

Q: Signature and title?
A: Yes.

Q: Or equivalent identification of the person accepting responsibilities for the content of the report.
A: Yes.

SN: And of course audit thereafter. I won’t go into that one.

Q: Do you have quality assurance for testing of semen samples?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it a separate document or is ot part of your guideline? Or how is it in your lab?
A: It is part of our guideline.

Q: Is it specific?
A: It is specific on the test method.

Q: Genrally it is specific guideline or general guideline?
A: General guideline.

Q: Who provide the samples for semen samples?
A: It is collected from the local hospital from the sperm bank at the local hospital.

Q: How do you conduct your proficiency assurance program?
A: We subscribed to a body called CTS, Collaborative Testing Services.

Q: They will provide you semen samples as well as the test?
A: Yes for proficiency. It include all kinds of biological stains.

Q: When did you last do a semen sample?
A: Last November. November 2010.

Q: Who provide you the samples?
A: The CTS.

Q: Did you have records of it?
A: Yes

Q: And you completed successfully?
A: Yes. And the proficiency test results are directed to ASCLD lab. The proficiency test result from the analyst in accredited laboratories are directly fed back to ASCLD and ASCLD have all the records of proficiency test performance.

Q: And you are able to provide a copy?
A: I wouldn’t because that is being held by ASCLD. But if any participant failed the proficiency test or does not achieved satisfactory level in proficiency testing will be queried by ASCLD lab.

Q: What I’m made to understand is that the CTS would publish the proficiency test even on the website. So you have a record of it, don’t you?
A: Yes, the consensus results.

Q: But it is there and it can be obtained?
A: Yes, it can be obtained.

Q: I have here National Association of Testing Authorities Australia []. They also follow the same ISO standards. Do you agree?
A: Yes, but I’m not familiar with the NATA system.

Q: Have you ever consider that although your lab are accredited to ISO, but if the police who is working with you don’t have the similar standard, wouldn’t it affect your quality?
A: I wouldn’t know what standards the police have.

Q: Logically. I assume they do not have an ISO standard. Logically it will affect your work, right?
A: They might have some standards.

Q: Have you not asked?
A: No.

Q: Why not? You are supposed to do quality assurance.
A: No. Because we crime scene investigation is not part of our activity.

Q: I’m talking about the crime scene investigators’s competency. Their standards can affect you. That’s why such lab have such controls. And these are part of your requirement. Do you agree that competency is material to you?
A: Yes.

Q: Sampling procedures. Procedures for sampling must ensure evidence sampling is maintained. Agreed?
A: Yes.

Q: Handling of test and calibration items. Policies and procedures for retention and disposal of exhibits or samples after the completion of examination and testing must be documented.
A: Yes.

Q: Labs must have procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence or samples under its control.
A: Yes.

Q: All samples or evidence must be sealed and identified by person sealing the evidence.
A: Yes.

Q: A chain of custody record. Signature, date, time, description of evidence, sample must be maintained which provides a comprehensive history of each evidence transferred over which the lab has control. Agree?
A: Yes.

Q: All evidence must be sealed. On that part I just want to add one more. If tape is used to sealed containers, it must be initialled or otherwise identified.
A: Yes.

Q: Seals on the packages must be initialled or other identification across the seals.
A: Yes.

Q: It is understood that labs received numerous sources making it difficult to ensure that all evidence submitted is properly sealed. Packaged evidence received by labs which does not bear the identification of the person sealing the evidence, containers is not considered to be properly sealed. . Procedures for receiver that is expected procedures for receipt of evidence is expected therefore to ensure whatrever possible items are stored properly and sealed.
A: Yes.

Q: Is it part of your protocol to also formulate a list or a guideline to people who collect samples like the police, any authorities or anybody bringing samples to you for testing?
A: Yes, we do.

Q: What did you mentioned in the guideline to the police like in a case like this?
A: We’ve issued guidelines on the police on how to collect, how to preserved, how to document.

Q: And you can produced the protocol if I asked you?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you always strictly stick to those guidelines?
A: We stick to those guidelines. Those guideline is for them to rely on.

Q: If they do not follow the guidelines you issued, what will you do?
A: We will advice them and usually we will not accept exhibits that failed our accepted guideline.

Q: Will you put a notation?
A: We give a memo to them.

Q: Will you then asked them to bring back the exhibits? Or you totally reject them?
A: We reject them and we will note on the basis of the rejection.

Q: So, every samples that comes to you would have passed the guideline?
A: Yes.

Q: It is strict, isn’t it? Or are you suggesting you are making discretionary changes if you like?
A: No. Those are only guidelines.

Q: They are important aren’t they?
A: Yes, they are important.

Q: So, it is not a light matter? It is a general guideline, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: You also mentioned in your evidence that there are feedbacks from whoever that used your services. Did you record the down?
A: Yes. We have a file on the documented feedback.

Q: Do you have that system in place?
A: Yes.

Q: You are able to tell me on how it is rated?
A: Yes.

Q: But in your testimony you said that “Well, I’m not so sure what they think of me, but I think they accepted my evidence”.
A: No. That’s the court testimony.

Q: It’s also part of it, isn’t it?
A: No.

Q: Why? Is court’s testimony part of your quality assurance?
A: Yes. But that monitoring is not done in every case. It is an ASCLD standard for court’s monitoring.

Q: Where is the standard? It is given in the quality assurance. It is not a specific guideline.
A: But the court’s testimony is recommended for once a year.

Q: When you received samples from the police in this instance, by virtue of your protocol it’s quite strict. It’s very strict. When you received samples from the police, what will you do?
A: When the exhibits are submitted, we will examine the packages. We have to ensure the packages are in good condition and not torn.

Q: You examined the packages personally?
A: Yes.

Q: In this case, you would have done it?
A: Yes.

Q: What do you look for?
A: We look at the packaging whether it is in good order. We look for the seals, whether the seals were intact. We also look whether the exhibits have markings. And look at the request form from the submitting officer and what the request are for.

Q: Is that all? Give me more than this.
A: We will check for the police report number, whether the number correspond with the request form. Then we will have to check whether the numberings and markings are in order and that is done at the time when the exhibits are received. On the contents, that can only be conducted in the space of the laboratory.

Q: I’m talking about when you received them.
A: We will then register the case, issued a laboratory number which is the unique identifying number. And that unique identifying number would have to be on each and every the packages of the exhibits we received. And we will then acknowledge them with an official receipt which was documented at that time, the date, the number of exhibits, that we received, submitting officer, the name of the investigator, their id, and of course that has to be signed by the receiving officer and that sign is to be on every page of the receipt. That receipt is a duplicate, one of it is given to the submitting officer, and the other will be kept in the case note records for this particular case.

Q: Let’s go to general tagging requirements. All evidence including firearms should be submitted in tempered seal container or package. Do you agree with that?
A: Yes.

Q: Manufactured evidence storage bags must have such sealing capability initials placed on the sealing. All other plastic bag used for packaging must be heat seal and initial over the seal. Plastic bag not specially manufactured for evidence storage will not be accepted if sealed with evidence tape that the seal can be compromised. This is again ASCLD requirement.
A: Yes.

Q: Tempered evidence seal. Please explained what is tempered evidence seal. What is the meaning of tempered evidence. Tempered evidence seal must be initialised.
A: That means the evidence is tempered by sort of another party.

Q: This requirement is absolute?
A: Yes.

Q: It has to be absolute?
A: Yes.

Q: Why is it to be absolute?
A: To ensure the chain of evidence is preserved.

Q: What about the integrity of the sample?
A: That also.

Q: That would mean at the source?
A: Yes.

Q: If you find any unsatisfactory reason, you ought to reject the sample, right?
A: Yes.

Q: When you said earlier that you would record all these information down, the police identification, the date and time, is there a pro forma used in your lab?
A: A form.

Q: A form or a pro forma?
A: It’s done on the LIM system. Laboratory information management system.

Q: How does it work?
A: The electronic registration.

Q: You keyed-in or you write it down somewhere?
A: It’s keyed-in into the LIM system.

Q: It is done at the office?
A: Yes.

Q: At the reception?
A: Yes. And the LIM system is also linked to the laboratory.

Q: So you will be dealing with the investigator, with all these items and you put everything down?
A: Yes.

Q: What will you usually take into data on the samples itself, each samples?
A: The type of exhibits whether it is envelopes or packages or a box or a tube.

Q: Will you be able to produce this pro forma, the one that you received for this case?
A: It’s in the electronic form.

Q: Surely it can be printed out.
A: Yes.

Q: Can you print the pro forma that you received for this case?
A: That pro forma cannot be printed into hard copies. It is in the electronic form.

Q: Why cannot be printed? Even the PDF can be printed out.
A: Probably can be printed out by the LIMS administrator.

Q: Who is this LIMS administrator?
A: We have a LIMS administrator in our division.

Q: Can it be printed out?
A: I can give the printed copy but I don’t have the authorization to print out the form.

Q: You keyed-in it and you want to print it out for your file. Can’t you do that?
A: The hard copy that is printed out is the main details. It is in different format.

Q: But it can be printed out

Q: So, you know for a fact of getting it done.
A: Yes.

Q: Can you produce it?
A: Yes.

Q: It is very standard, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: What would you have put in? Envelope number? Seal?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you record down the origin of the source? Like if Dr. Siew has given the samples, will you not illustrate it?
A: That is in the case notes. Not in the LIMS system. Not in the pro forma. The pro forma will only….

Q: Would that not be in your pro forma?
A: No.

Q: But wouldn’t the date and so on is important to you?
A: The first registration is on the LIMS system. That would indicated the type of exhibits, the id number…

Q: Name of Dr.Siew is mentioned there, right?
A: That would be in the next stage in the laboratory. The content of that package or envelope will be documented in the case notes, case worksheet.

Q: Date when it is taken, it is shown in the exhibit, right?
A: Yes.

Q: You’ve got to documented it, right?
A: Yes.

Q: What ever noted in the pro forma would be in the case note, right?
A: No. It is in our system, the LIMS system.

Q: Are you suggesting that you just noted down you received swab B, B1 B2 and so on?
A: No.

Q: There will be details, right?
A: Yes, but not in the LIMS system. Whatever is in the LIMS system will be in our record.

Q: Do you have a pro forma for your lab?
A: Yes.

Q: You got pro forma for registration and also for the laboratory?
A: Yes.

Q: What do you record down at the point of accepting the samples?
A: The identification number of the submitting officer, the description of the exhibits whether it is the envelopes, packages, tubes, or plastic receptacle. The condition of the seal. After that there will be the sample registration that being the case registration. After that there will be sample registration which will be carried out by the receiving officer on the content of the exhibits. The LIMS system will only record the content but without the details description. The next stage would be the generating it in the pro forma that is the samples worksheet. That will be used and kept in the case record. This sample worksheet will document the details of the content. It will have the date received, the label and so on. That pro forma also include sketches, photographs where it is required, the presumptive testing or the confirmatory testing which is carried out and the results.

Q: Is it a practice to photograph the samples that you received?
A: Not at the time of receiving it. In the laboratory, it is either photographed or documented.

Q: Is it not a good practice to also photograph as additional measure to avoid allegation as you received it?
A: Not necessarily so. There are also other alternatives.

Q: Is that good practice?
A: That might not be practical.

Q: Why not? Isn’t it good for you?
A: That’s the reception stage. They are also alternative.

Q: Is it not good practice?
A: It might be, but not practical.

Q: Is it not good practice?
A: It could be.

Q: You will record all the details of the exhibits that you recieved?
A: Yes.

Q: I take it you would have done it in this case when the case come to you and you would check it meticulously?
A: Yes.

Q: And if there is any mistake, there will be correction, the name of the person correcting it, date and time?
A: Yes.

SN: YA, I need to refer to sample B4, B5, and B6.
YA: []
SN: Sample B5 is exhibit P6F. Another one is B4 which is P6E

Q: You would have recorded the information on the envelope, right?
A: Yes.

Q: It talks about swab from peri anal region and so on.
A: Yes.

Q: Can you confirm on what date did you received the sample of B, B1-B11?
A: At 30.6.2008 at 7.55 p.m.

Q: Who handed them over to you?
A: DSP Jude Blacious.

Q: Did you opened it?
A: No.

Q: But the seal was intact?
A: Yes.

Q: I refer to samples B4, for P6(E). Can you see the writing HKL there? And the name of the complainant?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you record all these down when y?
A: Yes.

Q: In proper format?
A: Yes.

Q: If you look further down, can you see the []. Did you see Dr. razali there? And some description?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you read the date on that container?
A: 26.06.2008.

Q: And you receive this sample on 30.06.2008?
A: Yes.

SN: I’ll show you another one which is B5 which is marked as P6F.
YA: You are referring to the white label here and written in blue ink?
SN: Yes.

Q: I’m going to show P6F which is B5. Can you see the date there? Please read it.
A: 26/6/08.

Q: Are you sure it is 6. Is it 6 or is it something else?
A: Could be a 6.

Q: Could be 6 and could also be 8, agree?
A: Could be.

Q: You would’ve recorded this in your record, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Wouldn’t it be odd that it is 26/6/08 instead of 28.06.2008?
A: …

Q: I’m going to show P6G which is B6. Can you see the date there?
A: 28/6/08.

SN: YA, just to inform, all the other is written 28/6/08.

Q: You compared all the three receptacles, are the handwriting the same? Do they look alike?
A: Yes, they appear alike.

Q: How many “B” samples that you received from DSP Jude Blacious?
A: 12 samples.

Q: Which date?
A: 30.06.2008.

Q: Only 12 on that date?
A: Yes.

Q: Only on that date? And not later or earlier?
A: No.

Q: Did it not occur to you that the taking of the swabs is on the 28.06.2008 but when you record it down, the date on the receptacle is 26/6/08? Did it

not strike you that something is not right?
A: Normally we will not act on this.

Q: Why not. Was it not odd for you? Surely it is taken on the 28th? Do you know it was taken on the 28th although you received it on 30.06.2008?
A: I have very limited information.

Q: At that time, did you know. Are you aware that the samples was taken on the 28th?
A: It was noted down in the request form.

Q: Did it not strike you that something is odd here?
A: Yes.

Q: And what would be your duty by way of protocol when you see this descripency?
A: We can’t reject…

Q: What should be your duty according to your guideline?
A: We are not bound to…

Q: What is your duty? You are bound by international standard?
A: We are not bound to reject the exhibits.

Q: Why not?
A: …

NB: She has answered the question YA. She answered “We are not bound by it”.
SN: Mrs. Prosecutor, please sit. This is my time to question! You will have your time.
NB: She has answered the question.
SN: You should not intervene when I’m questioning!

Q: So, what is your duty?
A: We are not bound to reject the exhibits.

SN: You are not answering the question!
NB: She has answered the question.
SN: You are not the witness here. Why are you answering for her? Prosecutor, please remain where you are. It is recorded.

Q: You would have record the date as it appeared on that?
A: Yes.

Q: So, there are two different dates recorded with regard to the samples?
A: Yes.

Q: I’m putting to you, by international standards you ought to have them rejected on the spot. Do you agree?
A: I disagree.

Q: If you have two samples that are already out of line, don’t you think you should also look at other sample with suspicion? Part of your protocol?

High integrity! You have just said it. Isn’t that integrity.
A: That is not integrity.

Q: If you see there is something not right, you should suspect on the other, right? At least a little?
A: No. We will…[] benefit of the doubt.

Q: The other day you said you won’t speculate and you speculated. Now you said benefit of the doubt of a sample that could actually put somebody in trouble. []
A: No. If it is for benefit of the doubt that it could have been wrongly written.

Q: Then you should note it down. Did you note it down? You did not note it down until in the court. Isn’t it?
A: Because we didn’t…

Q: You only know right?
A: Those label…

Q: You did not raise it until now, right? I raised it. Yes or no?
A: No.

Q: You did not note it down.
A: That is noted in the case notes.

Q: In this case why don’t you raised this earlier? I put it to you that you only know it now.
YA: Do you agree with the suggestion that you only it now?
A: That was noted down, but..

YA: So, you don’t agree to the suggestion?
SP5: Yes.

SN: Dr. Seah, come on. Straight question, straight answer.
MY: YA, the witness has answered.
SN: She has not answered.
YA: She said no.
MY: She give an answer that the counsel don’t like.
SN: []
MY: So what? You submit it later. 30 questions, but one answer.
SN: Your witness is the most evasive witness ever.
YA: Both of you, stop quarrelling!
SN: []
MY: As far the literature is concerned, counsel should not make running commentaries.[]
SN: I’m asking the witness. But you are not objecting.
MY: I’m not objecting. You are quarrelling with the witness. She already gave her answer but you didn’t accept it.
SN: I decide whether she answers or not.
MY: The court decides whether she answers or not.

Q: I put it to you that you did not know until now.
A: That was noted down at the time of examination.

YA: That means dia tak setuju la.
SN: And then cakap la tak setuju.
YA: You can take it as dia tak setuju.
SN: Okay, I take it dia tak setuju. She should say that.

Q: You said you noted it down, did you inform the prosecutor about it?
A: No.

Q: Is it important for you to inform them?
A: No.

Q: It is a serious matter, right?
A: No. Because the labelling was not done to me.

Q: That’s not the matter. But you saw it. You said you saw it and noted it. So, you had the have opportunity during the examination-in-chief to inform the court?
A: I was not asked on that.

Q: Did you not inform the prosecutor?
A: I was not asked of it during examination-in-chief.

Q: I put it to you that you are lying. You never recorded it. You had the opportunity but you didn’t do it.
A: I disagree.

Q: From that date, 26th, what do you understand by the date? That the samples was taken on 26th rather than 28th? What has the assumption be?
A: I can’t assume.

Q: Logically that would be the date, right? The date should be 28th.
A: There is nothing written indicating it was the date taken.

Q: Logically that shouldn’t be the date right? All the others are the 28th.
A: It is what is written there. But there is nothing indicating it was the date taken.

Q: You are not being honest on this at all. I put it to you that you are not honest.
A: I would like to take YA to look at it. There is nothing along there written that it was the date taken.

SN: You can explain it in your examination. So, enough.

Q: []
A: I wouldn’t know.

MY:…
SN: I’m moving on.

Q: Did you know that all the swab were taken on the 28.06.2008?
A: That was as noted in the request form.

Q: So you would’ve known from here that in ID 24 when was the sample is taken?
A: Yes.

Q: And yet 26 is the benefit of a doubt?
A: …

Q: You said to the court that it is vital, prerequisite and the integrity of the samples are paramount.
A: Yes.

Q: To ensure that what ought to be done by the person who collects them?
A: The collection has to be documented of what is properly collected, it should be stored in a proper containers, and properly sealed..

Q: It is a special seal, right? It cannot be a normal seal because we are talking about tempered proof seal.
A: Yes.

Q: If the seal is not properly tampered prove, normally you have to reject it?
A: Yes.

Q: What will you do if you found that the seal may not be tempered proof? Normally you have to queries or reject?
A: Yes.

Q: Is HKL Forensic is administratively controlled by Jabatan Kimia Malaysia?
A: No.

Q: You are an independent unit totally?
A: Yes.

Q: You would have issued guidelines to them on the collection of samples?
A: Yes.

Q: You informed the court that you received 12 envelopes from DSP Jude on 30.06.2008?
A: Yes.

Q: And all the 12 envelopes are sealed with …is that what you received?
A: Yes.

Q: And what does the seals show? The HKL seal?
A: No. Not on the envelope. On the envelope is the Polis Diraja Malaysia 330 seal.

Q: What type of seal is this?
A: Wax seal.

Q: What colour?
A: Red.

Q: Is it a standard prcatice by the police to have red wax seal?
A: Sometimes. Forensic Polis Diraja Malaysia has their own seal.

Q: What is the benefit of using this red wax seal?
A: To ensure it is tempered proof.

Q: Would you consider that the seal as 100%?
A: Yes. If it is broken, it will be rejected.

Q: This plastic receptacles, is it not used for urine collection too at the hospitals?
A: There are other containers too.

Q: But it is also used, right?
A: Maybe, because I don’t deal with toxicology [].

Q: When you opened the package you also the samples like this?
A: Yes.

Q: It is with white label with Dr.Siew’s name and the date?
A: Yes.

Q: What else can you describe of the outside of the plastic receptacles?
A: There’s a security label.

Q: In this case security label from HKL. Was it exactly done like this? Was it pasted like this?
A: Yes.

Q: What is this yellowish? Is it a paper tape?
A: Yes. A masking tape .

Q: A paper based tape,right?
A: Yes.

Q: []. What is it made of?
A: Paper.

Q: And there is some adhesive here.
A: Yes.

Q: If it is to be peeled out [], can it be peeled off? Is it peelable?
A: If it is done carefully.

Q: There’s signatures there? Where is the signature?
A: There are various. One is at the top.

Q: Whose signature?
A: I don’t know.

Q: And there is another one at the side?
A: Yes.

Q: If someone put their signature at the side, what does it mean?
A: Probably to identify individuals involves in the collection of samples.

Q: Why would you sign at the mouth of the bottle and not on the cap?
A: Because at the point of opening, that will be the point where it breaks.

Q: How did you open this? Did you used a knife to cut or a blade to cut or you just twist it?
A: We twist it and cut the masking tape.

Q: If you cut, the bottom part will show.
A: Yes.

Q: Would you consider this to be tempered proof?
A: Yes.

Q: Absolutely?
A: Yes.

Q: Even better than the red wax seal by Polis Diraja Malaysia?
A: It is just as good.

Q: As good as the Polis Diraja Malaysia seal?
A: Yes.

Q: But you have just said just now that it is peelable.
A: It is peelable, but it cannot be placed back.

Q: Let me show you what I have here. A similar receptacle like you have with a paper based tape and I must say strong glueable tape. Adhesive strong tape. I take a tape and placed it here. That seal, would you agree is 2 ½ years?
A: Yes.

Q: When it is taken and seal by Dr. Siew on 28th, if it is 28th, and DSP Jude give it to you on 30th, you broke it on the same day I supposed? 2 or 3 days later?
A: Yes.

Q: And you see how I can peel it off easily? So, a skillful person can take out the seal very slowly, you can take it out. Do you agree?
A: Yes for the tape that you used.

Q: Next, I would suggest to you that a better seal to be double and to be of tempered proofing. A red wax seal would be better. Agree?
A: Red seal will be tempered proof.

Q: If you put something like that additionally, it would be 100% tempered proof?
A: Yes. It would enhance the tempering

Q: And this would meet your standard of ISO, right?
A: It is not my sample. There is a tempered proof seal on this envelope.

Q: Is it good practice?
A: Yes. It could be.

Q: If this was done, there will be no queries, right?
A: Yes, it will enhance.

Q: I suggest to you if it is done by HKL and it could be done, they ought to be done, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Never mind if HKL didn’t do it, but to enhance security, the police could have been there and they have the seals, [] it will be that kind of seals, right?
A: Yes.

Q: When you received the samples, were you shown a white plastic bag from HKL, P27?
A: No.

Q: Have this be done by the police or HKL then, it would be tempered proof?
A: Yes.

Q: Therefore, it would also be good practice?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you agree if the exhibits taken are short of tempered proof, it would raised the issue of integrity of the samples, right?
A: Yes.

Q: And you agree that it is important to preserve the integrity of the samples you received?
A: Yes.

Q: When you opened the bottles, were the swabs moist or dry?
A: I can’t remember.

Q: Did you record it down?
A: No.

Q: Were they stained or were they clear?
A: Some of it had stain on it?

Q: Which one is stained?
A: The one that was stained are B7, B8 and B9.

Q: Stained badly or what?
A: Visible stain.

Q: Was there smell?
A: The examination was carried out in fume chamber, so we can’t smell it.

SN: That would conclude my thorough cross-examinantion. But RK has some questions.
YA: I thought you dah habis kelmarin.
RK: Yes. But there are some further question. It will not take long.

Cross-exam by RK.

Q: You mentioned drop-in yesterday. Drop-in of certain allele. That there is a possibility which may arise in your examination. Would it be correct to say that drop-in is a situation where you observe an unknown or a foreign allele that is unaccountable and unexplained at certain locus. Is that right?
A: Yes.

Q: So you might have for example at B9 that you have an 18 allele which you told us yesterday could be drop-in.
A: Yes

A: Was B9 reamp?
A: Yes.

Q: If you notice drop-in allele in the locus for the first time, you can’t possibly conclude that it is drop-in at that point in time, right?
A: Yes.

Q: The reason is that because you have to carry out further test to confirm whether it is a drop-in.
A: Yes.

Q: So, what you have before you in B9 is the subsequent test, the reamplification test.
A: Yes.

Q: The purpose of that reamplification is to exclude the possibility it being a proper allele, is that right?
A: No. The purpose of the reamp for B9…

Q: As far as the drop-in allele is concern. There are other purposes, no doubt. I’m talking about the drop-in. I’m focusing allele 18 now, by way of an example. One of the purpose to carry out reamp in B9 is to exclude the possibility of 18 allele from being a proper real allele, right?
A: Could be one of the sides. That’s not the main reason.

Q: But it was one of the main reason.
A: That’s not the main reason.

Q: It is one of the reason. One of the reason, but not the main one.
A: That’s not the main reason.

Q: Here, when did you first observe the drop-in?
A: The first time I look at the locus, 18 allele is below the reporting threshold.

Q: But you observe the drop-in, right?
A: There’s a peak, but it is below the reporting threshold.

Q: What allele did you observe?
A: 18 allele.

Q: Having observe the 18 allele, what do you conclude at that stage?
A: I don’t conclude yet at that stage.

Q: What do you have in mind at that stage?
A: I have an open mind at that stage.

Q: So what did you do?
A: I reamp, but not for that reason.

Q: Did you reamp all the profile that you had?
A: No, only certain profiles.

Q: So, you have to make selective decision on which profile to reamp?
A: Yes.

Q: Having made the decision, you proceeded with reamp?
A: Yes.

Q: You reamp B9?
A: Yes.

Q: Having reamp B9, did you still observe 18 allele?
A: Allele 18 is now above the threshold.

Q: So even after reamp you saw 18?
A: Yes.

Q: So, before reamp and after reamp, you also allele 18?
A: Before reamp, it is below the reporting threshold.

Q: Never mind. I’m asking about 18 allele. You are telling us that it could be possibly drop-in. You can’t tell us for certain it is drop-in.
A: Yes.

Q: If you can’t exclude a drop-in, it would mean there is another person’s profile in it, right?
A: Yes.

Q: You saw the profile for the first time, you notice 18 allele. I take it you don’t have the pre-reamp result here.
A: No.

Q: But it does exist, right? You have it in your possession but you can’t refer to it today.
A: Yes.

Q: You would require the pre-reamp result to tell us what percentage and the peak height of 18 allele, right?
A: Yes.

Q: That’s why you can’t be certain that it is a drop-in.
A: No. It’s concluded as drop-in.

Q: What is the purpose of doing a reamp as far as drop-in is concern? To exclude the possibility of drop-in?
A: To exclude the possibility of drop-in.

Q: If you do a reamp, you do it for many reasons. But as far the drop-in is concern, you want to exclude the possibility of it being there?
A: That’s not the main purpose.

Q: You’ve got an 18 allele in B9 at D3S1358. You have notice that for the first time and you want to exclude it. The implication of a drop-in is far reaching.
A: Yes.

Q: Did you exclude allele 18 in reamp?
A: …

Q: []
A: []

Q: Then, why were you concern with drop-in?
A: ….

Q: Were you not concern with drop-in on your pre-reamp result? Did it not bring some alarms there?
A: It’s a small peak.

Q: So, you didn’t bother about it? You didn’t concerned yourself which the 18 allele would be or would not be drop-in? Wasn’t not an issue to you?
A: It wasn’t an issue. It is not concluded during the pre-reamp.

Q: Pre reamp, you said was not an issue. You just saw 18 allele there and you tell us that it is far reaching implication. And now you are telling us that although it is far reaching implication, it wasn’t an issue at the pre-reamp observation?
A: …

Q: It wasn’t an issue during pre-reamp?
A: Yes. It was below the reporting threshold.

Q: Was it became greater after reamp?
A: Yes.

Q: So, it become greater after reamp?
A: Yes.

Q: That means it became more significant after the re amp? First, it was small during pre reamp. It’s something to be worried of even it is small, isn’t

it? You can’t just discard it, can you? Can you just discard the 18 in pre-reamp?
A: No. It has to be explained.

Q: Of course it has to be accounted for and explained. Hence one of the reason you reamp. I apart from re-amp isn’t it? You have explained it. How else would you explain it apart from reamp it?
A: ….

Q: Can it be excluded in pre reamp?
A: It should be explained.

Q: How else would you explained it apart from reamp?
A: …

MY: What is the question?
RK; You don’t understand it.
YA: Setuju tak dengan apa yang counsel cakap?

Q: You’ve got an 18 allele. You can’t just leave the 18 allele at pre reamp stage alone?
A: At pre amp, 18 allele is below the threshold.

Q: Having observe the 18 allele in pre-reamps, you ought not to disregard it, isn’t it?
A: I’ve said it earlier, at pre-reamp stage 18 is below the reporting threshold.

Q: Could you disregard it?
A: It can be disregarded as it is below the reporting threshold.

Q: Did you conclude that?
A: I did not conclude it during pre-reamp.

Q: Can it be disregard at pre reamp?
A: I’ve not interpreted the peak yet at that stage.

Q: So, what did you make of the 18 allele there?
A: It was below the reporting threshold so I have not interpreted yet.

Q: So you went a step further in order to interpret?
A: Yes.

Q: That step is reamp?
A: Yes. But that’s not the main purpose.

Q: So, you carried out with the re-amp.
A: Yes.

Q: After reamp, you still observe 18 allele?
A: Yes.

Q: And this 18 allele was bigger than the pre reamp?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the value?
A: I can’t give the value.

Q: In order to conclude the 18 allele is a drop in, the size of the 18 after reamp should be smaller.
A: …

Q: What is the size of 18 allele after reamp?
A: 56.

Q: That passed your T-value, right?
A: Yes.

Q: You have the reamp result here and you saw 18 allele and you consider it to be drop-in?
A: Yes.

Q: But, in order to do that you need the benefit of your result, isn’t it?
A: Could be.

Q: I’m putting to you that the drop-in after reamp, the drop-in should be smaller than the drop-in before the reamp. Or it should not even be there. That’s the reason we call it drop-in.
A: I disagree.

Q: When we talked about degradation of DNA, you said that it also means detroitation of DNA. Do you agree with that? Degradation can also mean detroitation of DNA, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Because that some DNA of certain swab was taken was in the anus for 56 hours and so on and thus it means there would be degradation, right?
A: You suggested it, not me.

Q: There’s a possibility of it?
A: It could be a possibility.

Q: But you told us it is not your concern.
A: Yes.

Q: From the graphs, when the peaks declined as it moves to the right, that could be possible evidence of degradation, isn’t it?
A: That could not be concluded just be simply concluded like that.

Q: But it might at least that there being of possibility of degradation.
A: Degradation wouldn’t be descending order. Degradation would probably indicate the smaller amplicons showing signals and absence of allele in larger amplicons.

Q: Can I refer you to a manual. This is the extract from the manual of identifying kit, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: And the identifying kit is the one that you used in your lab, right?
A: Yes.

Q: These guidelines listed here is applicable to what is being used, right?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to the second page. Second last paragraph on degraded DNA. You’ve got the status here as the average size of degraded DNA approaches the size of target sequence, the amount of PCR product generated is reduced. This is due to the reduce number of intact template necessary for identification.
A: Yes.

Q: That is some sort of description of degradation, right?
A: Yes.

Q: Look at the next page. Second paragraph, third line. As DNA became increasingly degraded, the loci became undetectable according to size. Preferential amplification was not observed, the loci failed to [] reamplify in order to decreasing size as the extent of degradation progress. Example sets out is CSF1PO, D2S1138 and so on. This illustrates the point that in the case of degradation, the loci become undetectable according to size.
A: Yes.

Q: And preferential amplification was not observed.
A: Yes.

Q: And as a result of that, the loci failed to [] amplify in order of the decreasing size as the extent of the degradation progress.
A: Yes.

Q: That means the loci failed to amplify?
A: Yes.

Q: That means as degradation increase, the loci fails to amplify?
A: Yes.

Q: In other words, the loci goes down.
A: Not the loci. []

Q: But the peaks at the loci goes down.
A: Not the peaks go down. The peaks will totally not be seen.

Q: Then, what does “the loci failed to amplify in the order of increasing size as the extent of the degradation” means?
A: As the DNA become increasingly degraded, the loci became undetecteable.

Q: Undetectable means the peaks become smaller smaller and smaller
A: It means no peaks.

Q: Before no peaks, what happened? Logically what happened in between?
A: In between, there could be partial peaks.

Q: The peaks will decreased, isn’t it?
A: Yes, but not in decreasing order.

Q: But the peak will decrease in order to disappear, isn’t it?
A: This is not on continuos scale.

Q: I’m talking about peaks declining.
A: The peaks will not be detected and the loci…

Q: Look at the graph. The last 3 lines in the paragraph. It says: A similar result at each time point was obtained was whether the DNA sample was amplified for each locus alone []. And this example of how it would look, how a degraded DNA will look as it progress.
A: Yes.

Q: Look at it. The peaks declined. This is before you.
A: Yes.

Q: This is the standard kit used. And the kit shows us that the peaks declined in degradation process.
A: Yes, I agree.

Q: In our profiling of this case, you have peaks that are declining isn’t it? In B10, are the peaks on the left side higher than the right side?
A: Not significantly.

Q: But they are, aren’t they?
A: No. If you look at the green line. The second row, the peaks show declining in the trend that is [] how is it significant locus.

Q: The last peak, is it smaller from the other two?
A: No.

Q: It’s half the size.
A: We are looking at the second row, D2S1138. The size of the peak is 4403 and 4181. Compared that to D3S1358.

Q: How about TH01?
A: Compared to TH01, this is not in declining order.

Q: TH01 is twice the size of D2S1338.
A: This is the characteristic of the loci which is in the green…it has special characteristic.

Q: There are possible dgreadtion because of the declining peaks. I’m putting it to you.
A: I disagree.

RK: YA, I’ve no further question.
SN: KS has some question.
KS: Just a few question.
YA: Don’t repeat the same question.

Cross-examination by KS

Q: Wouldn’t it be right there are multiple DNA profile found in the anus of Saiful?
A: Yes. It’s a mixture.

Q: Wouldn’t that mean that Saiful is a passive homosexual?

YA: KS…
SP5: I disagree.
MY: She is a forensic scientist, not a doctor.

Q: There are multiple DNA, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Therefore the conclusion will be that he is a homosexual, a passive one.
A: I wouldn’t be ab;e to conclude on that.

YA: I’m not going to allow this question. She is scientist. She can’t tell who is homosexual and who is not.
KS: Based on multiple DNA found.
YA: So what?
KS: That he is a homosexual. A passive one.

YA: Do you concede that?
A: I wouldn’t be able answer that.

KS: She’s a scientist, she can answer it.
A: I’m unable to answer because I’m not a medical examiner.

Q: But you agree there is multiple DNA profile?
A: Yes.

YA: That one she agrees.

Q: Multiple DNA profile means what?
A: There is more than one contributor.

Q: Which means he is a passive homosexual. Otherwise…
A: That I don’t confirm.

Q: Otherwise those profiles wouldn’t be in his anus.
A: I wouldn’t know. I can’t make the conclusion.

Q: I’m putting to you that is the logical conclusion. That is based on what you said that there was multiple DNA profile in Saiful’s anus. I’m putting to you that he is a passive homosexual.
A: I can’t agree neither can I agree.

Q: I refer to D28, the pro forma by HKL. I’m referring to page 3. Before the examination of the three doctors at HKL, Dr.Khairul, Dr.Razali, Dr. Siew and including Dr Razuin who fill in the form. At page 5, details of the act. There were rectal attempted. That mean attempt sodomy?

MY: YA, this witness is neither the author of that pro forma nor the parties to it as the case of Dr. Siew, Dr. Khairul and Dr. Razali. I don’t think that the witness should be asked or cross on the pro forma.

I’ve the case of Chua Beow Huat v PP [1970] 2 MLJ 29. It talks about rule of [] justice. You cross a person who is in the position to explained. Now as far as this honourable court is concerned, the position of Dr. Seah is just like your Lordship, Mr. Karpal, Datuk Param, Hanafiah. []. But we are not the person

who can explain why it is so and all that. []

If I may read and I’ll make it available to the court and my learned friend. [] where the court, Sharma J refer to Brown v Dunn which is reproduced in the case of AEG Carapiet v AY Derderianwhere it says that [read].

What it says is basically when you cross a witness, who is in a position to answer or explain or who had a share on that particular thing. As far as the pro forma is concerned, there are four person, Dr. Razuin who we will call later on, Dr. Khairul who was not examined, Dr. Siew who was examined on some part and Dr. Razali was never cross-examined. Not this witness. We will be wasting in time. Because her position is like Sarjan Ahmad here. He look at it and he can read. And then we ask for his opinion which is not relevant. So I’m objecting to any question being put to this witness with regard to the pro forma. It’s not the law. The law is much contrary to that.

KS: The case that my learned friend referred had been updated in []. But it is not the position here. []
YA: What’s the purpose? What’s the relevance here? Because she is not the maker nor the one who assist in it. She is not in possession of the document

until now. Whatever question on this asked on this witness at this time is relevant. But I’ll hear your submission further.
KS: I should. Don’t shoot me down when I’m only at the initial stage. []. The principle in that case is completely irrelevant. How did it apply.
YA: They are objecting to the question of this witness on the pro forma.
KS: I’m not asking the question, I’m directing the attention of this witness to the document which is the exhibit before this court.
YA: They said you cannot do that.
KS: It’s a document. []. I can’t see how it can’t be done. []
YA: []
KS: My point is this. It is a document. It is an exhibits. And reference was made to Saiful. []. If it is attempted sodomy, I can then follow that done. I don’t need to put hypothetical here. If it is attempted sodomy, how can there be DNA in Saiful’s anus. []
YA: That’s the question you want to ask?
KS: Yes.[].
YA: And this is the only question you want to ask with regard to the pro forma.
MY: I stand to be corrected. The 3 doctors never said there is attempted sodomy.
YA: []
MY: Then there is no need to refer to the pro forma.
YA: []
MY: If we are to refer to the pro forma, we should also look at all the pages that is filled. []. Still I don’t think that question should be asked to

Dr. Seah as she is a chemist, not a forensic doctor. She just look at the sample and do profiling.
YA: That’s all? Start at 11.30 a.m.
[11.08] stand down

[11.40 a.m.]
YA: Counsel have said that the only question that he want to ask or suggest is if it was attempted sodomy there could not be DNA in the anus. I find this question could be asked without reference being made to the pro forma sheet. And the answer may or may not be within the knowledge of the witness. Therefore I allow this question to proceed.

Cross-examination by KS

Q: If it is attempted sodomy, would it be right that it would not be possible to find DNA in the anus?
A Might not be possible.

Q: Impossible at all?
A: Impossible DNA to be inside the anus.

KS: YA, I have no other question.
YA: Now is re-examination. Boleh proceed sekarang?
NB: Yes, YA.

Re-examination of SP5 by NB.

Q: I’ll ask about the last question asked to you. Attempted sodomy. If there is attempted sodomy DNA will not be found in the anus and you said it’s impossible to find. What do you understand with attempted sodomy?
A: Sexual assault probably without penetration.

Q: On Friday, you were asked about the installation of the Gene Mapper software. And you told the court the person who installed this software is the trained engineer from the Applied Bio-system.
A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether maintenance was done on the software?
A: There is maintenance done on the whole Genetic Analyzer which is both the software as well as the hardware.

Q: Who does these maintenance?
A: Trained engineers approved by Applied Bio-system.

Q: How often is maintenance carried out? Do you know?
A: The regular checks, calibrations and clean ups are carried out by the staff, by the analyst that runs the machine. In addition, there is also periodical maintenance check which was carried out by ABI engineers. This periodical check is to ensure the performance of the machine remains reliable, but not when the machine break down. It is a preventive maintenance.

Q: You disagree when you are said to have no involvement in the operating of the software. Please tell the court why you disagree on this?
A: I disagree on that because I’m trained in the operation of the software[]. But we have a work process in the DNA section where the analyst work as a team and a group of analyst have certain task and that goes on the rotation basis.

Q: In your experience or rather in your involvement of operating the software and conducting the examination and analysis on DNA, would you yourself know if there is any problem accruing with the Genetic Analyser machine?
A: Yes, I would.

Q: And how would you know?
A: The calibration checks that are carried out before each run being special calibration would failed if the machine is not performing correctly. If the condition during the run are not according to the required performance checks, then the run will be aborted. In addition to that, the Gene Mapper software would do a regularity checks before it is being used to size of the DNA fragment. And that regularity checks will check separation profiles of the leathers and also of the internal controls. If that checks fails, the fragment will not be sized and it will be indicated on the software that sizing of the fragment failed.
We have our controls and those controls have to be performed according to what is expected. We also have an external control, it is called the NS (National Standard) control which is by the NS authority in the US. For all the laboratories, there must be an external control and standard eventhough we have our control in our place and that is once annually. That is the primary standard and there is run on the system annually.
In addition, there is an added quality measures that we have taken which ASCLD has [] on that. We have also has created the secondary standards of that primary standards. And That secondary standards are used to check the runs result whenever the lot of the Typing Kit Identifier is purchased. And that additional stapes were recommended by ASCLD. Despite we confirming to the primary standard we have added for this extra quality assurance steps that are taken by the laboratory,

Q: That is as regard to your knowledge of the working of the software.
A: Yes.

Q: But at one point of time when you were asked again on this matter, you agreed that you have no personal knowledge on how the software works. You did not agree that you here not involved of the operation but you said you have no personal knowledge how the software works. Can you please explain?
A: That question was on the programming of that software, the language the software used and when problems happened how do you rectify it. That of course I have no knowledge. That needed a trained IT specialist by Applied Bio-syetem to rectify. And that question meant to ask me whether I know the integrate working of the software, but it is not on the operation of how to use the software.

Q: You were asked of whether your department has any engineer charged of handling of the software. You said they are not engineers, but trained analyst instead. Please tell the court as to he role of these analyst as well as the engineers in relation to the software and the genetic Analyser Machine.
A: The analysts are part of the DNA personnel. They are trained by the ABI trainers in the running, maintenance and operation of the machine. They are regular with machines. In addition, the member of that group specializes in the running, maintenance and the operation of the machine received additional training []. They are proficient and competent in the running, handling of the machine and the regular troubleshooting. Whereas the engineers, it is for schedule maintenance. Even though that machine does not break down, we want to minimize that possibility of the machine breaking down at any point. It’s a regular periodic thing that the engineers come in to check. It’s the sole purpose of maintenance, so that the machine keeps running in order for a long time.

Q: In your experience in Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, have u ever come accross any incident of any problems accruing on the software or the machine for that

matter?
A: There were few isolated incident. In that event, work was stopped and the Applied Bio-sytems’ engineers come to rectify the problem where they check k the hardware and the software. When that was rectify and they run control checks that it was alright, the work will only resume only after that.

Q: You were questioned on the running of the computer. You were said that you believe that the computer is running in its ordinary course of business and that the software is running properly. You answered that in fact the software is running properly and it was not just on your believe.Again, how do you

know that the computer and the software are running properly and functioning in its ordinary course of business?
A: As I’ve said, the way to measured that is to check on our non-controls which is used on each and every analytical run that is run on the machine and also our external standard that which we have used, the primary standards, the secondary standards each time when a new kit is opened. Those controls have not failed in all the runs that we have used in our case analysis.

Q: And, it was suggested to you again on this topic before you started the analysis, that you did not questions the regularities of the software or that you did not exercise this questions at all, that you did not question the regularities of teh machine at the time you started conducting your analysis. And you disagreed to this. Please explain why do you disagree?
A: Again, I disagreed because controls were in and in addition to that the proficiency testing that we are engaging as part of our quality assurance programme is done on a regular basis. There are about 15 analyst in the DNA lab and each analyst perform 2 proficiency test a year. Regularly the whole testing system is subjected to the proficiency test. Because the proficiency test does not only the proficiency of the analyst, it test the competency and proficiency of the testing system which mean also the Genetic Analyser. And to date our proficiency test result has not failed.

Q: And in this particular case, in the examination and analysis that u have done, everything, the machines, the software were running properly, functioning properly in its ordinary course of business?
A: Yes. They were all functioning properly.

Q: Next, you agreed that the appendix attached in your report, P25, you agree that it is part of the machine. What do you mean by that?
A: It was meant whether the data that was inside the appendix are from the electro-phoreogram that was generated from the machine.

Q: You confirmed again in cross-examination that only from swab B5, P6F you discovered 3 DNA contributors. One of it being concordant with the blood donor of specimens B10, P6K . There’s a male Y as well as an unknown contributor. Will you be able to confirm again that the DNA obtained from this 3 contributors from swab B5 only were non-sperm extract?
A: The third contributor which is other than male Y and the donor of blood sample B10 would probably be a non-sperm contributor. That can be deduced by examining the DNA profile of the other swabs that were taken from that region which is B7, B8 and B9. And B7, B8 and B9 had not indicated the presence of any other male contributor other than male Y and the donor of specimens B10.

Q: B5 as stated in your STR result are only non-sperm extract?
A: Yes.

Q: You said in evidence your cross examination you came to the conclusion of who is the contributor of the DNA from the entire DNA profile. Your conclusion is not just based on single single loci but on the entire profile. What is the entire profile?
A: Assessment, evaluation of a DNA profile cannot be made singly, it cannot be made on a single locus. It has to be made from the entire profile in order to condition on who the contributors are.

Q: Can you confirm that this is based on the 15 loci plus the amelogenin?
A: Yes.

Q: Will you be able to come to a conclusion based on less than 15 loci of the STR?
A: The minimum number of loci that are actually recommended by the forensic community to make an association is minimum on 6 loci. But in this case, the conclusion were based on much more than 6 loci.

Q: On the term of “not excluded”, you said that you would only use this term if the DNA only matches a small number of loci because you cannot conclusively said that it is a contributor. When you used the word concordant, what would that mean?
A: The word “excluded” as I have explained means that I can’t exclude it nor I can’t include it conclusively. Concordant would be more confirmatory statement, it mean that the conclusion can be made conclusively.
Q: Conclusively of a high certainty?
A: Yes.

Q: You were asked in cross-examination that in order for you to jump to the conclusion, you have to carry out further test. And you answered it come from the assessment. And that you said no further test was done as this DNA test is the ultimate result. Can you elaborate further on this?
A: The paper that was submitted to me is a 2006 paper. This are only guideline and this does not make a standard.

Q: At this stage, at the earlier part of the cross-examination, you said you did not to carry out further test because this DNA result is the ultimate result. Please elaborate why you did not do any further test?
A: That is because the DNA profile that was obtained had no noise which usually indicates that there will be no contamination which will be rampant and which could be interpreted clearly. And for the non-sperm and sperm fraction, the interpretation can also be done clearly. That’s because the differential extraction in fact are able for the analyst to make clearer interpretation. The DNA profile that is in the sperm extract and the non-sperm extract has to be interpreted together, simultaneously. In fact one of the approaches that was allocated by the [] scientist in this field recently was to use the approach of subtraction where the known contributor can be subtracted from mixed profile in order to deduce who the other contributor are. In this case, all the profile was very clean, very clear and I was able to do deduction and the conclusion without difficulty.

Q: And you decided that no further test need to be done or required?
A: Yes

Q: The statistical evaluation or the statistical report, how does this statistic come about?
A: That is carried out if we have found a match between a crime stain profile and a reference specimen. We want to make a match that this profile comes from this origin. In that case, statistical evaluation will be carried out statistically. But when no reference specimens are submitted and in the event of unknown individuals, that exercise will not be carried out because we have individual to make an assessment. And that link can only be made and statistical exercise can be made when a reference specimen is provided. We want to evaluate, assess and give [] on what is the probability that this particular individual could be the contributor to the profile or to the mixture.

Q: Is that why you did statistical evaluation for only A3 because there is a known contributor?
A: Yes.

Q: This statistical evaluation or the data, have you gone any proficiency test or auditing for that matter?
A: Yes. That is part of the quality assurance. The auditing will involve examining the statistical package or software that is used for estimation and that has already been audited.

Q: You were asked about several combinations of the allele. You were asked about the possibility combination of certain allele. In particular, at locus D8S1179. The possibility of more than one contributor, in fact 10 contributors were suggested to you. You answered that the possibility would come in the form of a permutation. Please explain what is do you mean by this permutation?
A: The hypothetical situation that was posted to me where we have several allele and you could carry out a permutation exercise on the combination that could work out. That is mathematical exercise. That is not interpretation. Interpretation requires more than that. When the interpretation was carried out, some of the combinations become not feasible; mathematically there could be ten permutations for four allele profile. But, some of this combination is impossible when further loci are being examined. And those examinations can eliminate other combinations which are not feasible.

Q: And in this particular analysis, did you find any possibilities of any permutations based on your assessment?
A: No. That mathematically permutations are not the approach to the interpretation.

Q: You also answered that if one were to based on one locus, example D8S1179,you answered that it is not for certain that allele 12, 13 is the contributor just based on one loci. What if it is based on the 15 loci and anmelogenin loci?
A: That would strongly strengthen the hypothesis of a particular person at this genotype is the contributor of the profile.

Q: From the assessment of the 16 loci, would a scientist like you conclude that this allele 12,13 at locus D8S1179 belongs to only one person?
A: Yes. That is also enhance, added on by information that Saiful is the known contributor of this swab.

Q: We go to the relative peak height method. You said in your cross-examination that another method was the relative peak height method that need to arrive at your conclusion. Please explain this method and how do you derive your conclusion based on this method?
A: Looking at the relative peak height will also help you and enable to assist you in relating the other [] combination which are possible

mathematically but which are not feasible as profile of a potential contributor.

Q: You testified that no other method was employed once you have a known sample, in this case B10, P6K. Is this a standard procedure that once have known contributor, you will not proceed to other test? Is there a necessity in that matter to proceed with further steps?
A: No, there’s no necessity for that.

Q: Why?
A: Because if he is a known contributor and his DNA profile is determine, that is his DNA that was found.

Q: You were unable to complete your answer when the learned counsel asked you could have gone one step further with the statistical evaluation and you managed to answer not at this stage. Can you explain why at that particular stage, you need not do the statistical evaluation?
A: That question I think is in relation to DNA profile swab B5. B5 is a profile from three contributors – donor of bloodstain contributors of B10, a male Y, and one other male contributor. In fact, of the 3 contributors, only one is known, that is the donor of B10. And the other 2 are still unknown. Therefore there is no necessity for statistical evaluation.

Q: Could you also confirm the reason could also be possibly because you don’t have the known sample, the reference sample for that matter?
A: Yes. When the reference samples are provided, statistical evaluation can be carried out.

Q: About the software, can you confirm again the software is part of your process of examination and analysis?
A: Yes.

Q: What is the significance of the certificate that you have in running of the software?
A: Signifies that that particular individual is competent in using the software.

Q: Would you be able to conduct your examination, evaluation, assessment and analysis if you are not familiar with the machines?
A: No, not if not familiar with the software.

Q: You were asked about DNA view software which is responsible for statistical evaluation. That statistical evaluation, the calculation of match probabilities that you have in your machine you agree that it form part of your report as well. What do you mean by this?
A: Because it was used to estimate the probability of a match between semen found on trousers A3 and the donor of the bloodstains B10.

Q: Regarding B5, peri anal swab. Allele 12,13 you said is concordant to the contributor by the donor of bloodstain specimens of B10. You were asked about other possibilities and you said that we cannot view it per se that this is the DNA profile for a swab taken from the known person. But you said in this case you have a known contributor. You said this stain of taken on the surface from an item not from an individuals, your agreement will varies. Please elaborate further what do you mean by this?
A: Swab B5 was taken from an individual, therefore we have a known contributor here, Saiful. But if this particular DNA profile was derived from a surface of an item, then I cannot assume any known contributors.[]

Q: B5 again. It was suggested that there could be 8 other possible contributors. And you answered there are, but it was not reflected here. Please explain, why is not reflected in your summary of the STR result?
A: If in the event there are 8 contributors kin the profile of B5, this certainly will not be the profile picture. 8 contributors have the potential of maximum of 16 alleles. In my experience working with mixtures and crime stains, the profile coming more than 3 contributors will not be reflected. There could be loci which has higher discrepancies, like D8S1179. If there are 8 contributors, the number of allele should be multiple and this is not reflected in this profile. In this particular profile, I have not seen any particular locus which has multiple peaks which is more than 4.

Q: You were again referred to locus D2S1338. You said that this locus is larger than the other loci.
A: Yes. This is a large amplicons.

Q: And you said there could be an allele drop-out.
A: Yes. It has a high potential of a drop-out.

Q: Allele 24?
A: Yes

Q: Please explain, how do you determine this occurrence of this allele drop-out?
A: The method that was suggested that allele drop-out has to tested further. It is applicable when happened on a crime stain where you want to make a link with the accused. But that is not the case that happened where there is a known contributor here, which is swab B5. It’s happening at a locus which has a high potential of a drop-out. In this case, the known contributor who is the source of blood stain B10 is the minor contributor in this profile. Minor contributor’s allele drop-out is the characteristic of the larger amplicon loci.

Q: Is this the reason or one of the reasons why you did not analyse further as to the samples to determine this allele drop-out?
A: Yes. That together with the information that he is a known contributor to this particular swab.

Q: It was put to you that the evidence from the locus D8 does not tell for certain that a contributor with allele 12, 13 and 15,16 contributed to it. And you disagree to this. Please tell the court why do you disagree?
A: Again, this is assessment at only one single locus.

Q: Which you can confirm that no conclusion could be derived based on one single locus.
A: Yes.

Q: You agreed that there are possibilities at D8 that other combinations of contributor reflected at locus D8 may not be excluded. Why do you say this?
A: It is assessment based on only one single locus, not the whole profile.

Q: About the RFU, you testified it was based on Jabatan Kimia Malaysia validation studies. What do you mean by validation studies?
A: Experiments. Test carried out usually by the user of the system that establishes the best procedures to adopt after the assessment of the result from

the validation studies.

Q: From the validation studies, it was recommended that 50 RFU will be the reporting threshold. Why is that 50 RFU recommended as reporting threshold.?
A: Below the RFU, the detection limit is too close to detection limit. On known profiles when they was diluted them down, we could still reliably called correctly the profiles of the known contributors even at 50 RFU.

Q: You did mention about 50 RFU for a single source profile. What about mixed profile?
A: An assessment of a single profile and mixed profile is different. A single profile can usually be assessed clearly. Single source profiles would normally have more than two alleles at a locus. In the single source profile, the stutters can be called reliably. But in the event of mixed stain, the stutters have to be interpreted with caution because the stutters sometimes could have adopted the same size as the minor alleles. And also, it can create masking of the potential contributors.

Q: You said that the manufacturer recommended that laboratories do their own validation studies. Has Jabatan Kimia Malaysia conducted their own validation studies on stutters?
A: Yes, we have. But the stutters are guidelines basically and they are on standard normal profiles which is applicable to single source DNA profile.

Q: And the minimum threshold for stutters? Do you have it?
A: No. The stutters are created from parent allele. [] what would be the size of the parent allele.

NB: YA, can we have a break now?
YA: Panjang lagi ke?
NB: Sangat panjang.
YA: Counsel?
RK: []
YA: Continue at 2.30 p.m.
[12.31 p.m.] Stand down.

[2.30.p.m.]

Kes dipanggil semula.

Q: Dr. Seah, can we continue. I believe we stop at the validation studies on the threshold. You’ve explained about the 50 RFU of homozygote state. And you said that you will apply the RFU of homozygote state, but with careful consideration and you stated that you will be more concern with the loci with lower amplicon, and you will be less conservative with the larger amplicon. Can you please explain further in relation to this particular case by giving example on the samples? Just give one example on how did you consider this?

NB: Saya ingin merujuk saksi kepada P52.
A: We look at B5 (f), page 6, the first locus, D8S1179, that is the locus with the small amplicon and if we look at the heterozygote [], 12, 13 that is the genotypes of B10.

Q: Which one, can you give example to the loci with lower amplicon, and one with the larger amplicon where you said you must be more conservative with the smaller amplicon, and less conservative with the larger amplicon?
A: With B5, if you look across from left to right D8S1179 is a locus with small amplicon and the other locus of the extreme right which is CSF1PO will be the locus with the larger amplicon compared to DS81179. So if you look at peak height of 12, 13 that is the genotype of B10, their reading 117 and 70 that have the heterozygotes peak and if you look at the peak height of CSF1PO, the genotype of B10 is 12, page 20, it’s homozygote peak, and the peak height is only 7. Relatively the 12, 13, actually, the homozygote is 2 alleles, having the same repeat unit. Essentially, 12 is actually 2 alleles, homozygotes are having same allele for the both paternal and maternal, but that only read 67. This is at page 6, but if you look at the 12, 13, the 2 alleles had been added up to a much higher RFU. So, this is what I meant by small amplicon you have to be more conservative with the low RFU, because it is more sensitive, and with the larger amplicon, then you can be less conservative.
Q: So with this approach, the conservative and less conservative approach, can we safely say that the allele of 12 and 13 belongs to Saiful, when considering from the whole profile, and you can do away with any dropout here?
A: Yes.

SN: YA, my expert ask for the question to be repeated.

Q: With this approach, can you safely say that 12 and 13 belongs to Saiful?
A: Yes, when the whole profile is considered.

Q: And based on the totality of the whole, profile, can you disregard the drop out?
A: For, D8S1179? Yes.

Q: You informed the court that you have the written guidelines for the RFU?
A: Yes.

Q: And is this guideline is in accordance with the international standard?
A: Again, the recommendation by the international community is to do your own validation and based on their validation studies and they could vary from whatever standard that had been set by Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, which could be lower, and which could be higher.

Q: But that is in accordance with the international standard?
A: International standard has not lay down or fix value on the best reporting threshold. They will recommend that you carry out your validation studies and you set your guidelines on the reporting threshold.

Q: You’ve explained about the courses on the allele’s drop out. Can you please now explain to the court, what are the main courses for the allele’s drop out?
A: Main courses for the allele’s drop out usually occurs with the low level of DNA and it is usually evidence at loci with larger amplicon and also when in a mixture, minor alleles are also, there’s also likely to be allele’s drop out at the loci with the larger amplicon.

Q: And in this case, you have detected drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: Where you have detected drop out?
A: At locus D2S1338, page 6.

Q: Anywhere else?
A: At FGA, page 7.

Q: At page 6 at D2S1338, can you please inform the court the alleles?
A: Allele 24 and D18S51, which is allele 16, locus at the extreme right. And at page 7, which is allele 25 at FGA.

Q: This allele, 24, 16 and 25 at these 3 locus, you considered them as drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: Is this based on just the 3 locus, or based on the entire thing of the loci?
A: These are 3 loci in which allele’s drop out are observed, and based on the consideration of Saiful being a known contributor of B5, and the permission of the reference specimen from Saiful which is B10, those allele’s drop out were observed.
Q: Despite this drop out, did you successfully obtain the DNA profile or the allele of Saiful, Male Y in your analysis?
A: The assessment of this profile, B5, we can still conclusively inferred that Saiful was the contributor of the DNA in B5 despite the 3 allele drop out. And Male Y who was the major contributor in this mixture profile, and also there is other allele which is not contributed by Male Y or Saiful, and that infers that there is another contributor who is unknown.

Q: So you can still safely conclude despite this drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: It was put to you in cross examination, that because you have the reference sample that is B10, your mind was influenced by it, because you are relying on it. Dr. Seah, you was disagree to this?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you please explain why you disagrre.?
A: I disagree that there would be a bias approach and that was suggested for specimen which was taken from a known contributor, B5, B6, B7 and B8. In fact of all these samples and swabs which was taken from the body of Saiful, and therefore there is no dispute as him being a known contributor for all these swabs.

Q: In the International arena, would the seal exercise be conducted in determining the drop out i.e that there must be a reference sample to determine them?
A: In a case of known contributor, you can conclude that there is allele drop out. The further exercise would be suggested if it is a crime stain that is attributed to that, we want to count for the allele drop out for the accused. In this case, we need to do an extra exercise, which [] of more analysis.

Q: Does this apply as well in other field or rather in the international arena?
A: There could be other models, but this is one of the models, or approach which has been audited and it is constant to be a logical approach.

Q: You were asked about the 2006 publication, you were shown of the publication, of the International Society of the Forensic Genetic. You were asked about whether you have adopted the procedures in determining the dropout. You’ve also mentioned that Jabatan Kimia Malaysia has its own procedure. You have been shown the procedures and guidelines from the article in determining the drop out. In this analysis, in this case, is it a necessity for you to adopt the procedures outline in the publication?
A: No, in fact at the first place, this is 2006 publication and the lead author, P. Gill. It was probably the best model at that time, in 2006 and further to that, there were another paper by the same author in Forensic Science International and there were other model which was proposed one in 2008, and one in 2010. And inside in 2010’s paper, he has proposed a newer model and he has proposed that the old model to be change.

Q: The recommendation itself changes?
A: Which could mean that some of the procedures adopted here, they had probably a [] approach of the interpretation of mixtures.

Q: Did you follow the procedure like for i.e if you were referred to page 96, “the recommendation on the treatment of dropout”, recommendation 7 and recommendation 8. Is it a necessity for you to follow this recommendation in this particular analysis of this case?
A: Not particularly in the analysis of this case to explain the drop out that happens at the 3 loci. As I mentioned earlier, this would probably be feasible if the allelic drop out would occur on the possible contributor who is also associated of being a penetrator. But the allelic drop out had happen on the contributor who is the known contributor of that stain.

Q: So this recommendation, apart from it changed [2006 publication], in science, did you consider that 2006 publication as the latest recommendation, as the latest guidelines for that matter?
A: I wouldn’t consider that, science is a dynamic field. What is today may not be the best approach tomorrow.

Q: You informed the court that this International Society of Forensic Genetics give recommendations in all aspects, of DNA profiling. Are these recommendations followed and adopted by Jabatan Kimia Malaysia in every case?
A: Not in every case. They are just guidelines, they are not standard. And in all this interpretation of mixtures, laboratories based on their validation and experience, from the experience of the examiner, they might have modification of the approach which might not be endorsed by ISFG or bigger scientific group, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they do not make it as standard.

Q: Would it be correct to say that these recommendations are the recommendation to be introduced or to be applied or practice based on case to case basis?
A: They are broad guidelines, and case by case, you cannot rigidly apply it to each and every case.

Q: Would you say that this recommendation, are they equivalent to standard?
A: They are not equivalent to standard.

Q: What are the procedures for recommendation to be adopted as standard?
A: It is difficult in approaches like interpretation because when that guideline is made into standard he’s like making that [] and it can impede the progress of methodology later on.

Q: We go on with this article. You mentioned about the low copy template of DNA profile. Jabatan Kimia Malaysia does not do the analysis of low copy template. Did you say that?
A: Yes, but they have made a differentiation. We don’t do LCN (low copy number) of DNA profiling where extreme methods were used to increase the sensitivity of PCR for very low level of DNA. But the other term which is used to differentiate between the low copy number is low copy template during the DNA profiling, which is DNA profiling using the same methodology, using the same PCR cycles but they are on low level of DNA which call low copy template DNA, and on this sort of profile, you can observe some common characteristics as seen in low copy number. That could be allelic drop out, that could be drop in, that could be stutters, that could be the statistic effect. This was what happen to B5 for the allelic drop out, and then Saiful is the minor contributor, and you can refer to 2006 paper which is on page 96 on low copy number, on the 2nd para (read). So this is recognized phenomenon with the minor allele.

Q: A recognized phenomenon you said, the drop out of the major minor mixture for the minor allele. You confirmed that in B5, the minor contributor would be Saiful.
A: Yes, it would be the donor of the specimen of blood stain, B10.

Q: It was mentioned here about stochastic effect. Apart from stutter, apart from drop out, we have stochastic effect.
A: It is actually summing up all the effects that can be observe with low level of DNA, which is the enhance stutter. That is why I’ve said in mixture of the crime stain we have peaks that are low, it is hard to employ the stutter range value which we have obtained from validation studies for standard normal DNA profile into a mixed stain that’s on the peak which is very low peak where the components is actually equivalent to low copy template of DNA of a profile.

Q: According to this recommendation from this article, that I were to read the last two lines of the recommendation 9 page 96(read). And this recommendation is adopted by you, even in this analysis.
A: Yes.

Q: In this case, does this low copy number of DNA occur?
A: This is again, I’m explaining it because of the low levels of DNA that are presence…

RK: YA, we don’t wish to interrupt, but this is Re-examination. Certain questions that are asked, requires yes-no answer, but the witness keeps on goes to the other things, and explaining other thing .
YA: Yes, this is Re-examination. The witness has to answer whatever popped out during the cross.

RK: But if the witness is allows to go on, without being questioned, YA it was certainly worst than being []. She’s not answering the question, she goes on and on.
YA: What’s wrong with that?

RK: Because she’s not answering the question!

MY: YA, if you observed that this witness does not answer directly, she gave explanation first, then only she answered. The question asked by my learned friend, from Mr. Nair and Mr. Ram Karpal and also my colleague, Puan Noorin. She won’t directly answer but whatever happens in that, all those questions that my colleague asked, and the answers given are all with regards to explaining, clarifying or elaborating all the answers that she’s given during the cross.
YA: Proceed.

Q: Perhaps can you please answer first, and later explain? Did you discover any low copy number of DNA in this analysis?
A: Yes, in B5 where Saiful is the minor contributor and the alleles that belong to him had demonstrated characteristics which of that low level of DNA, him being a minor contributor.

Q: That is with regard to B5 only. Any other specimens which you have discovered low level copy?
A: Not particularly, but there’s another profile which I explained drop in. That is B7 (m) because it has occured as single allele and it has not observe in any other loci, which is the characteristics of drop-in.

Q: In other words, you confirmed that the recommendation of low copy number of DNA was followed by you?
A: We have carried out the analysis. We have understand the characteristics of low copy number of DNA profile.

Q: Are the recommendations followed?
A: Yes.

Q: You have informed to the court that you did not adopt T-value i.e the threshold value, when drop out is considered to be occurred.
A: Yes.

Q: Also the threshold value in which the peak low is not considered. You informed the court that the T-value is of no significant in this case?
A: Yes we adopted the threshold of 50 RFU that was equated to t-value. And it was pointed out at page 7 which is the theoretical approach where they determine the threshold, and the peak height of the peak area, to signify the [] limit that the allele’s drop out has been observed in heterozygote. There’s a mathematical expressions here provided that the probability of drop out approaches to zero. That does not mean if your peak height area is above, then you can’t approach this. This is all mathematical approach.

Q: So, you would say that further consideration is drop out, from this article it is a mathematical approach?
A: Yes, which appears simplistic mathematically, but in real practical, it is maybe harder to come out with this.

Q: Why did you say that the t-value is of no significance?
A: Because as I said, it is theoretical you know, the recommendation here.

Q: Move on. We have another software or machine. The earlier was the Genetic Analyzer Machine, and the software is the Bio-Applied System. Next, come the DNA view software. You informed the court that this software is regularly updated as well?
A: Yes.

Q: Are you aware of problems that coming up from this software?
A: I’m not aware of any problems arising from this software.

Q: Would you know when problem arising from this software?
A: I would know.

Q: And in this analysis, were there any problems accrued?
A: There was no problem accruing.

Q: Are you trained as well in handling this particular software?
A: Yes.

Q: And the software is in the good working order when you used it?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the software operating in the ordinary course on the day when you used it to conduct the analysis of this case?
A: Yes, it was.

Q: Back to stutter peaks. You informed the court regarding to stutter peak which is opposite real peak, it is artifact created during the PCR techniques. You cannot apply a single guideline to the lab, and that it must be established individually.
A: yes.

Q: You said that it will be variation as well, from one lab to another. Like Singapore. Because you said that their ranges might fluctuate. Why can’t there be a single guideline, and why there can be a variation also?
A: The DNA profile generally is generated, from a typing system which could include the right time of PCR to the analysis inside the Genetic Analyzer and there could be variation between the laboratories, although they may adopt the same model, and therefore it is best recommended that each laboratories do their own stutter range, because it might be variation between the range that can generated from the same models, but it may be viewed elsewhere.

Q: Is this the reason why you cannot find the range for the stutter peaks because of that fluctuation?
A: Because of the fluctuation and also because the stutter range remains a stutter range. It is the expected range where stutter is expected to be of that value. But it is not a rigid range, you could also have stutter above that range or below that range. It is all depends on the DNA profile, and the labels on DNA profile; it is a mixture or it is a single DNA profile.

Q: On the stutter peak, you were referred by the counsel the other day to first page of P52; Locus D8S1179. You informed the court that there was a stutter peak there, at the allele 12.
A: Yes.

Q: Next to it is the high peak. The peak of allele 12 is 1654, and next 1627. You testified that you accepted the threshold of the system. And you said that this stutter peak can be read of. Why?
A: They can be call from the software the peak height of the stutter. You could have it read you know, the peak height of that stutter. ‘Can be read of’ meaning that you could read the exact type of the stutter from the software which is the Gene Mapper, and here although the exact peak height of the stutter is not there, because it is belong to the stutter range and therefore it is not considered.

Q: It was suggested to you that your lab has not confirmed to the manufacturer’s guidelines. You said that we don’t use stutter range from any sources, except that carry out in our system.
A: It is recommended that each laboratory carry out its own stutter range.

Q: Again, validation studies are required.
A: Yes.

Q: About the overloading, the amount of template used is higher than the optimum amount. You referred the court to page 20 of P52 of locus D19, allele 13, and the peak 8315.
A: Yes.

Q: Does this pull up affect your reading?
A: It does not affect my reading. Where the pull up occurs, it is there in the electropherogram. The software is a very intelligent software. It would indicate when the pull up detected in the other colors and unless that pull up occurs in a reagent where an allele presence, it might cause abnormally peak structure but that does not mean that allele cannot be call reliably.

Q: About the peak height balance, you also informed the court in this particular balance, the manufacturer also recommends that the lab carries their own validation.
A: Yes.

Q: Do you know why the manufacturer cannot fix the ratio or the percentage of this peak height balance for lab to follow?
A: That is because of the variation, even though the same model or machine may be used, but in different setting, in different environment, there could be variation in that. And this is to allow the variation to be minimized, when you create your own stutter range, you recommend the best heterozygote balance to be used in the interpretation.

Q: You were also asked about the degree of the variation in the mixture ratio between loci, and the variation can’t be too large from each loci. And you said that there is no need of a guideline as it depends on that variation.
A: Yes, it was pointed out, in fact in the 2006 paper that the proportions of the various contributors are approximately preserve throughout the mixture of each locus. From our observations and experiments on the identifier which is on the simplex loci, the proportions are approximately preserved, probably at not all the loci, but probably at smaller amplicon, and probably when this statement is made, it was based on their studies on the smaller number of loci which approximately preserved. But we are not observed that in validation studies using their []. And of course if we were used single plex meaning using locus by locus 60 times, it will not being approximately preserved. I think the ratio would be quite constant if you do a single locus, but this is multiplex, quite big number of loci which is 60 loci. And we are not observing the proportion, and therefore we are not recommended that the ratio be fixed on the proportion of each contributor in the mixture.

Q: So, no ratio?
A: No ratio. We would recognize major minor but we would not recommend that the ratio is fixed.

Q: So, I think that would be all as regards to cross examination on Friday. Now, we go to the questions of cross examinations in Monday, to the question of having 3 contributors in the sample B5. It was said by the counsel that it was unlikely for someone to share the same alleles. But it is possible for them to share some of the alleles. Can you please explain to the court with regards to uniqueness of a profile?
A: Sharing the alleles among the contributors? Yes, it could. And it might not be reflected in ratio of the various alleles, because there is phenomenon known as masking, and I think they had explain what masking is in this paper, on the page 95, where the contributor share commons alleles.

Q: So in this B5, do the contributors share some of the alleles? If yes, can you show us?
A: Yes, they do. At the second locus, D21S11, page 6 on the electropherogram. They are three alleles there, 29, 30, 22. Saiful is 22. Male Y is 29, 30. And that the third contributor would have common alleles. But you can’t predict the genotype of the third contributor here because there’s masking.

Q: So here is the occurrence of masking?
A: Yes.

Q: Why did you disagree to the suggestion of the counsel that none of the loci in this analysis shows clear evidence of more than two people?
A: Because as I explained earlier I think during the examination in chief, there were alleles at the number of loci, where it cannot be attributed to Saiful and to Male Y. That makes me to infer the presence of third contributor.

Q: And this is again based on 16 loci?
A: Based on the 16 loci of specimens B5. But as I said there is some loci where they could share the common alleles because of masking.

Q: 3 alleles drop out, 20, 24 and 16. Would it be correct to say again you testified that you cannot single out the locus? Everything must be based on 16-loci profile.
A: Yes, on the entire profile.

Q: You were referred to D2S1338 again. There’s an allele drop out here?
A: Yes.

Q: You confirmed that allele 24 is a drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: Taken into account the allele which is unaccounted for, at these 3 loci, if you were to consider them based on the totality of the STR, can you still say that it is a drop out?
A: Yes, you can safely say that there is allele drop out and we can safely conclude that Saiful is the contributor of this profile based on the remaining loci, where all his alleles are detected.

Q: Would you not being taken into account in determining the identification of the contributor, or are they ignored, or not considered?
A: They are recognized as allelic drop out but they are not considered into the statistical evaluation.

Q: So, you have taken into account this allelic drop out in your analysis?
A: That had been taken into account but in this analysis of B5, that the statistical estimation is not carried out which is our guidelines which involves contributor that are unknown.

Q: You disagree to the suggestion made by counsel that your conclusion to drop out that because this allele is furthest to the right? And therefore that was why you concluded that there was drop out, and you disagree? Why is that so?
A: Because even though the loci on the extreme right, they also have potential of allelic drop out but that does not necessarily mean that allelic drop out are least expected from those region. It also could happen at loci which are with small amplicons.

Q: Furthest to the right or left, that wouldn’t be the basis of conclusion of the drop out?
A: Yes. The dynamic of PCR is complex especially in mixtures, because besides of the normal amplifications that goes on, that means there are multiple alleles which are target for amplifications, and there would be phenomenon like different ratio amplifications, that certain loci and alleles are preferred, and those alleles which are amplified, which are targeted for amplification during the early round are usually preferentially amplified.

Q: You were asked about the implication of drop out in unknown samples found in crime scene such as B5. Did you know where swab B5 are taken from?
A: Yes. It was the peri anal region. And that was not considered as crime scene. It is considered as region of the body where it was taken.

Q: If the sample was not taken at the crime scene, would the implication of dropout be important?
A: The implication of drop out would be important if the association made is penetrator, and also you carry out LCN (low copy number of DNA profiling). If the samples come from a known contributor, you would have to explain the drop out and it would enhance the understanding that it is from a known contributor and explanation would not be an assumption.

Q: Would it be correct to say that in 16-loci STR, allele is not present as opposed to drop out, that person can be excluded?
A: That also must be observed from the entire profile. That allele might not be observed in some of the profile. If the assessment result in you being able to [] at the sufficient number of loci and the statistical evaluation of likelihood ratio is sufficiently high, then there is a likelihood that he is the potential contributor of DNA profile.

Q: Likewise, again in the entirety of the loci, if allele is present, but on some locus, the allele is drop out, that person cannot be excluded?
A: Yes when the entire profile is being assessed as to whether particular individual become the contributor, if his profile has been observed at a small number of loci, and if the statistical evaluation provides a very low likelihood ratio, then the certainty of course is much lower that he could be potential contributor. But if the number of loci which the allele is not found increases, and his allele is only observed in small number of loci and rampantly, then we were to exclude him as the contributor.

Q: On stutter peak again, when you were asked to calculate, when will you report and not report the stutter?
A: The stutter range that we established as a guideline from standard and normal DNA profile. And that can be applied very clearly in standard single source normal DNA profile. One of the example is A6 (B) (m), the assessment clearly indicate that this is from single individual. The stutter range could be applied on this. When the same stutter range being applied on the mixture, then it comes more complex, because sometimes the minor allele can assume that this is the same size of the stutter and sometimes in a very low template DNA, the stutter in fact can be enhance, and which may be above the stutter range that established. So therefore, it is to guide us in single source DNA profile and in the mixture, the recommendation among the scientist is to regard the stutter range as the guideline, and in mixture, there are many examples in which the minor alleles in the size of this stutter. And also there are many examples where the stutter range is well above, that is the stutter range which is established from the validation studies.

Q: So, it had put to you, had you record the stutter accurately, you will find the presence of another party, apart from Male Y at swab A6 (b). You disagreed. Why?
A: A6 (b) is clearly a single source DNA profile, meaning come from a single individual. The greater stutter arithmetical calculation for 12 for instance, for CSF1P0, was higher than that calculated for the mixed stain; therefore if we were to apply rigidly, then we would also assume that other allele is also a stutter. Again, this was considering the profile as single basic, not based on the entirety.

Q: Based on the entire profile again, you can confirm that there is no other party, or contributor apart from Male Y.
A: Yes. And if I were to consider what was proposed to me that CSF1PO 12, 13 is the heterozygotes pair, that would be gross erroneous you know.

Q: You were referred to sample B9 in your summary P25. Again, here with the cross reference to page 18 of P52, you did not report allele 18 here. Can you please explain why you did not report allele 18?
A: At B9(m) when this whole entire profile being assessed, this is the condition of 2 contributors. Therefore, the presence of the 5th allele which is the smallest at D3S158 which is very small allele of 50 RFU, if you were to fit that into the stutter range, it is a very high RFU you know, and therefore it is not fit into the stutter range and because from the consideration of the entire profile doesn’t found any other single allele that does not belong two, that cannot be explained by the 2 contributors, and since it is a [] and occurring at D3S1358, which is the locus with the small amplicon, then it was inferred then to be drop in.

Q: Can you confirm whether allele come from Saiful or Male Y?
A: It does not come out from them.
Q: But it is suggested to you, that it could be another contributor.
A: Yes.

Q: Despite the possibility, if you were to go locus by locus which was referred to you if there was an allele drop out, which was cited to you that locus D2S1138, D18S51 and FGA when we talked about allele 15 again found on specimen. If you were go locus by locus, there will always a possibility more than 1 or 2 persons?
A: Yes, if we go locus by locus, mathematically you can combine and proposed a large number of contributors. But that is not the way, because if we have the large numbers of contributors, these are very special loci that are being used in DNA profiling for human identification, and most of these loci have large power of discrimination and particularly from one of these loci would be D8S1179. And if you were proposed more than 3 contributors, the study that we are conducted, because this one is without high PD, you would see multiple of alleles coming from more than 3 contributors. That usually provides the indication that it would be more than 3 contributors. It would be highly unlikely that it is coming from 3 alleles, 4 alleles.

Q: Again, on the scenario put by the counsel in the cross examination, despite the possibility of 10, or 5 persons at each locus, would you be able to confirm that the fact remains that there are 2 contributors at sample B9 which are Saiful, as well as Male Y?
A: Yes, even if I give the benefit of the doubt that 18 could be the potential contributor and even though that his alleles might not be observed in the all remaining loci, but it still remains that the 2 contributors which are condition to this profile remains.

Q: Saiful, as well as Male Y?
A: Yes but there is no indication of any of the other loci that there could be possible third contributor.

Q: At B9 again, would you be able to confirm again that source of Male Y is sperm extract?
A: Yes.
Q: Which is more dominant?
A: If you look at B9 (f), that of non-sperm extract and B9(m) is the sperm extract. They could be equal contributors here, but the approach that being used, that could be applied to DNA profile from semen stain, and where differential extraction is carried out, has allow the subtraction of the non-sperm DNA profile from the sperm extract, to further conclude the donor of the sperm extract . For B9 (m) the contributor will be Male Y. Even though the presence of Saiful is on B9 (m), but his DNA only present in non-sperm extract would support that his allele in the sperm extract which was on the remaining cells, which were (as my learned friend suggested, he used the word carried over, he was carried over into the sperm extract, even though we don’t used the term here) because B9(f) has a very high level of DNA and the standard extraction for standard DNA differential extraction would not be able to digest all the non- sperm cells, which is in B9, resulting in some of the non sperm extract being seen in sperm extract.

Q: So again, listening to all of your explanation, would you be able to confirm, on swab B9 which contributor is more dominant?
A: The source of the sperm extract here would be Male Y, logically, by looking at B9 (f) and B9 (m). I wouldn’t use the word of more dominant here, I would use the term that B9 (f) the presence of Saiful which was carried over from the non-sperm extract, which means that the real donor of the semens of B9 is Male Y.

Q: It was said by the counsel about what you have reported in P25 is different from information that you have received; the envelope, and in particular P43: the hair which in your report, you said it was pubic hair. Can you confirm that what you stated in your report was pubic hair, was it after, or before you conduct the examination and analysis?
A: It is after I conduct the examination and analysis, and it stated to in my report, what I acknowledged the things I received, that is in para 1, para 2 and para 3.

Q: So, nothing is mentioned here about pubic hair?
A: Nothing.

Q: But if you were to go further, in your P25?
A: If I go further, that I have examined and analyze the exhibits that were submitted and I found..

Q: That’s explain why in your report you said that in envelope A there were strands of pubic hair.
A: Yes.

Q: After your analysis and examination done?
A: Yes.

Q: What was the document to confirm the things that you received when DSP Jude came to you to handover the exhibits?
A: There was a receipt that was issued to him, P51.

Q: Can the witness be referred to P51. Just to confirm this is the receipt you gave to Jude.
A: Yes.

Q: Is there mention about pubic hair there?
A: No.

Q: You said that could be possibility that unknown male contributor from sample B5 could happen from contamination?
A: Yes.

Q: In what form the contamination could be that could have contributed to unknown male sample in sample B5?
A: The contamination could have occurred, the swab was taken from perianal region, which is region around the anus and that was exposed to the exterior,

and that region could have come into contact with surfaces, that could results in the presence of the unknown DNA in B5.

Q: Could it be possibly come from the lab?
A: No, in fact, one of the measures that was taken, to have the DNA profile of all personnel working in the laboratories in database, whenever there is presence of unknown DNA profile is obtained, the very first exercise is to eliminate that DNA which derived from people or personnel in the laboratory. And the reagent blank too was not indicate that it was come from any reagent during the analysis.

Q: So you can confirm that apart from B5, Male Y DNA also found in sample B7(P38), B8(P39), B9(P40) as well as A6B – P40.
A: That’s correct.

Q: You did mention to court yesterday that it was not necessary to exclude degraded sperm, in the process of extraction, to separate the sperm and non- sperm. Why is it not necessary to exclude any degradation of the sperm?
A: What I take to mean of degraded sperm cells, it could mean the structure of the sperm head, [] but that does not mean so. DNA could still be intact despite the head suffered degradation. That’s the reason why it has not carried out.

Q: So, as far as you concerned, in the process of the samples where you did the separation between the sperm and non sperm, the finding of the DNA of the sperm and non-sperm of the contributors were intact.
A: Yes. The DNAs were readable.

Q: If a seminal stain of say 2, 3 years of age seminal stain. Is it still possible for you to obtain DNA profile?
A: Yes, if the DNA is well preserved.

Q: And what about seminal fluid.
A: If that seminal fluid had been frozen. It is the liquid stain.

Q: If ejaculation happens inside that anus, what would you call that?
A: That would be a semen.

Q: The sperm isolation record to show how much sperm observed, this record, [], what about the sperm isolation record?
A: There is no formal of exercise for the sperm isolation record. It is a check of the other test which is the PSA and the sperm cells was observed on microscope slide and there usually a counter check by another personnel, that the particular cells is in fact a sperm cells.

Q: How significant is this sperm isolation record in the analysis for this case?
A: It is a simple term for establishment of presence of sperm cells in that particular sample but the exact counting of the sperm cells are not crucial.

Q: So in this case, is it important in your analysis to really record or know the numbers of the cells that you observed?
A: Yes, the exact number of the cells in fact observed can be recorded, but the real exact number which actually present, in that particular fraction, it cannot be counted basically mere on microscope plasma. It is actually 700 layers of cells [] and the light microscope allows only two dimensional observation. You will not be able to observe layers which are on top of those layers. There could be sperm cells which was beneath the top layer, which was not be able to counted just by using a mere microscope light observation.
Q: So, not withstanding how many sperms, the number of sperm, could you be able that whatever your finding, they are sperms?
A: Yes, they are sperm cells.

Q: We go to reaction volume for the PCR. And you said that total volume of PCR measured in micro meter. Did you mention that?
A: In 20 microliter.

Q: Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, using 20 microliter.
A: Yes.

Q: Can you confirm that you recorded this in your case notes?
A: The volume of the reaction volume is based on our validation study too. And this is the extended volume at the PCR that was carried out at the samples.

Q: How important is this volume, as the parameter of your assessment?
A: Which parameter?

Q: How important it is, as regard to DNA profiling?
A: We have demonstrated in our validation study that the 20 micro liter volume which used is reliable and it has not caused the DNA profile quality to be compromised. They have used that on known DNA sample, and it still can be read clearly and fully.

Q: The fact that it has not being compromised, is reflected from the reading of the DNA that you have obtained from the 16-loci?
A: Yes.
Q: You told the court that you had re-amp, sample B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, A3 and A6. You said that this is due to inhibitions. What kind of inhibitions?
A: In any biological sample, inhibitors could be derive from components in that biological sample that there would be protein presence in biological sample, from fabric, that could be dyes, from red blood sample, that could be []. And this had been demonstrated to post as inhibitors to the PCR process and despite putting in the optimum amount of DNA into the PCR for such sample, it has been observed that sometimes a complete DNA profile has not obtained, in which case the recommended collective step is either to clean up the DNA extract [] or if there is sufficient level of DNA, a dilution technique can be used. Because the dilution technique is used to lower the DNA template, it is also can be used in lowering the threshold of inhibitors. Now a complete DNA profile is obtained.

Q: Is the inhibitions is the main reason for you to conduct the re-amp of this sample?
A: Yes, the assessment of the first profile had indicated that there are inhibitions, and therefore this collective step was taken.

Q: Is there anything significant to know the result of pre reamp?
A: The pre reamp being the incomplete DNA profile would probably not have the complete data, complete allelic information and the assessment is best perform at the most successful DNA profile, meaning the profile of re amplification which is the most complete and successful DNA data.

Q: So, re amplification is the more reliable data?
A: Yes, in this case.

Q: You were told by the counsel on the incidents of 26th of June 2008 that was the situation after 46 hours of ejaculation took place and remaining in the anus. You said the quality of the specimens was expected to be deteriorate. You said that contamination could have taken place. You said that contamination is hard to be recognized. You also said that the decline on one of the peak is one of the indications that there is degradation. Even if the degradation occurred on the sample, taken from the inner part of the body, the high rectal and the low rectal of Saiful, can you confirmed that this affected the reading of general typing of your analysis?
A: No. The DNA profile was clear. It was readable. The degradation has no effect on the DNA profile that was obtained from this sample.

Q: So you can confirmed that you can still obtain the allele reading from the 16 loci of those sample?
A: Degradation only become a problem if DNA profile is [] and it is not readable.

Q: This morning, my learned friend has shown you an article entitled stability, or it’s a manual about degraded DNA. There was this chart on 2nd page of this manual. Could you be able to confirm that this graph is an example of degraded DNA.
A: Yes.

Q: You were asked to compare the electropherogram of B10, the blood sample of Saiful. This is at P52 page 20. It was put to you that this electropherogram of B10 is an example of degradation.
A: That would be erroneous interpretation of DNA profile. This is an exemplary high quality DNA profile.

Q: So this B10 of this electropherogram is a high quality DNA profile.
A: Yes.

Q: So, there cannot be degradation.
A: No degradation in this profile. To interpret DNA profile as degraded DNA profile, is grossly erroneous.

Q: Despite of the alleles on the left or on the right that you’ve been referred to it, you cannot say that this is the sample of degraded DNA profile?
A: No, the declining phenomenon that was seen was made based not withstanding on the characteristics on each of the loci in each of the panel in this DNA profiling. And particularly in the second panel it was pointed out that 201 heterozygote [], the level is much higher; this was the characteristic of the loci in this panel. And where it was clearly demonstrated in the validation studies, it was also pointed out to by other laboratories system that in fact in this panel, the most difficult locus is actually the sample locus D13S317 this is the locus that is most sensitive and most prone to not being amplified in the presence of the inhibitors. And yet in this particular DNA profile, the genotypes of allele D13S317 was strong, clearly readable and unambiguous.

Q: You mentioned about the misconception of the term ‘carry over’.
A: Not a misconception. It is probably a term which is not used to ..(tak sempat jawab), because it is also could mean carried over, it also means a process which occurs you know during [] where one sample is carried over to one sample and also during PCR, during the set up of the amplification, where the previous sample was carried over to a sample. But that carry over was being used probably in a context that the non sperm fraction that could be very high level of non sperm fraction, resulting in part of non sperm fraction not being extracted out during the time for the extraction of non sperm extract resulting in the remaining non sperm cells being detected in the sperm extract. What happen during differential extraction, YA, it is a two process. The first process was design by recognizing the chemistry of the sperm cells and non sperm cells. So during the first step, the non sperm cells, the environment would favor the extraction of the digestion or the breakdown of non sperm cells and this will be collected. The remaining fraction would then be subjected to harsher treatment that will be unable the sperm head ofrobust structure to be digested or to be extracted. But in the event of non sperm cells, that is very high level of the epithelial of the non sperm cells. The first process was not completely extract out the non sperm cells resulting in some of the non sperm cells [] presence in the sperm fraction. And that will be collected in the sperm fraction, and the DNA type will be seen on the sperm extract.

Q: So, you cannot call this a carry over?
A: We have not used this term because we reserve it during phenomenon that could have done during patting, where there is carry over from previous [] when the best practices is not carried out.

Q: This is about the possibility that whether seminal fluid can actually leak at the back of the trousers or underwear. You’ve said that there is a possibility of that to happen. As far as the underwear is concern, do you remember which part of the underwear that had been detected the seminal stain?
A: First part of the underwear.

Q: Which part? There are two spots. Front part in which particular part?
A: In the central region.

Q: If the question was asked to you, about the possibility of the seminal fluid can leak to trousers and underwear, you said there is a possibility, could it be possible also for the seminal fluid to leak at the middle or front of the trousers, or that underwear?

RK: She said she couldn’t be speculative yesterday. I think I remembered she said that she don’t want to agree or disagree. I think, we can’t have this, to be fair.

NB: Because the questions were actually asked ..

RK: I am very clear on this…

YA: OK, let me hear from her first. What is your answer to his objection?

NB: Yesterday, she was asked many times. First, she was asked again and again and she answered that there is a possibility but at the end of it, she said ‘I don’t want to answer’. But she did at one stage say that there is a possibility.

RK: The point is this. You can check the record that we were accused for asking speculative question yesterday. Now, in re-examination she was asked the speculative question. Why she was being allowed to do it in prosecution case, not in the defence stage?
YA: Because during cross you asked specific question, and she was answering to that first. So because of that, they have the right to clarify.

RK: She said I don’t want to answer when I asked her agree or disagree. That was on our record. In any event, my learned friend asking about that speculative question…
YA: In clarification to clarify your speculative question.

RK: But she didn’t answer.

YA: So now the issue here whether she answer or not. If she had answered, then they have the right. But if she doesn’t answer, they have no right to ask. According to them, she keeps on said ‘ada possibility’.
RK: But she said I don’t want to answer.
NB: Never mind.
RK: You go on to the next question.

NB: Yes. You disagree to this question yesterday when it was suggested to you that profile B8, can be interpreted to mean that Saiful’s semens is found in his own anus. Can you please explain to the court, why did you disagree to this?
A: Looking at the electropherogram on the non-sperm extract and sperm extract, where we could see in the sperm extract, that Male Y is a minor contributor, and the dominant contributor is Saiful. In differential extraction, if the levels of non sperm cells are high, then the entire non sperm cells will not be collected in non sperm extract. There will be proportion to it, which will be collected in the sperm extract. And that is the reasons why Saiful’s DNA was seen on his own sperm extract. It does not mean that he is the donor of the semen which is detected in swab B8.

Q: Now, you disagreed as well that it was suggested to you that the sperm fraction indicates other party apart from Saiful and Male Y, at the lower rectum B9. Why?
A: In B9, there was the presence of allele 18 at D3S1258 and that is the drop in. Third person was not being observed at all the remaining 14 STR loci. Being the small peak, the most logical reason is, it is the drop in.

NB: That was all my re-examination covering Friday and yesterday’s cross YA. May I be given time to cover the cross today at tomorrow. It could just be in one hour.
YA: I think it’s the time to stop. Continue tomorrow.
[4.27 p.m] Adjourned
Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 21 Februari 2011 February 24, 2011
Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Sodomy II.
Tags: DNA, Malaysian Story, Multiple Donors?, Sodomy II
add a comment

******* The Full English Version (In Blue) After “+++++++++++”

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

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

[9.01 a.m.]
MY: Kes ditetapkan untuk ambung pemeriksaan balas SP5, Dr. Seah Lay Hong.

RK: YA, Dr. Seah, you told us how did you determine the number of contributors in certain fixtures. Do you have any guidelines for this purpose?
A: Yes. By determine the total number of alleles at each locus.

Q: Having determined the number of allele for each locus, how did you proceed to the number of contributors?
A: Taking into consideration the number ratio, the presence of any known contributors.

Q: This case you have one known contributor, the complainant; Saiful Bukhari. You obtained it from the blood sample, in which you called it the reference sample, isn’t it, as B10?
A: Known contributor is because that sample is taken from a known individual.

Q: The sample for this case would be B10, is that right?
A: B10 is the particular sample where the mixture appears.

Q: Saiful’s sample is B10.
A: That’s correct.

Q: There is only known contributor, as far as you concern?
A: Yes.

Q: If you have more than two alleles, two peaks, there must be a mixture?
A: Yes.

Q: If there is more than four alleles, four peaks, there must be at least two people?
A: That’s correct.

Q: So the number is absolute, at least two?. But the maximum number is not absolute?
A: Yes.

Q: If you have 3 contributors in the mixture, would you agree that they are quite unlikely to share the alleles?
A: No. They could share.

Q: So, it is not going to form more than 4 alleles?
A: Yes. It is possible.

Q: Can I refer you to P25, particularly on page ii) of the Appendix 1, on the 3rd column? Swab B5. You claimed that this swab has 3 contributors. Can you reasonably expect that it is more than 4 alleles as the result of that

conclusion of yours?
A: Could.

Q: Can you show me any loci in your analysis with more than 4 alleles, more than 2 contributors?
A: The matching number of B5 was 4.

Q: Any sample?
A: The maximum number is 4, for swab B5.

Q: Have you found more than 4 alleles? There must be more than 2 people?
A: Yes.

Q: If you have more than 4 alleles, you must have at least 2 people?
A: Yes.

Q: Look at the 15 loci, this is the standard PCR, number of loci isn’t it?
A: No, it depends on PCR system which is adopted by each laboratory.

Q: No, for this case?
A: Yes, this is the loci that we examined.

Q: Do you agree that none of your loci shows certain clear evidence of more than two people?
A: I disagree.

Q: Can you show us any loci with clear evidence of more than 2 people?
A: You have to look at the electropherogram. This is just the alleles which is extracted from the interpretation which required from the actual electropherogram.

Q: Can you tell from this or not (from the STR result) whether there is clear evidence of more than 2 contributors?
A: No.

Q: From this, can you or not from the STR result?
A: There could be more than two.

Q: Can you show us the first one?
A: For instance, from the first locus, 12, 13, 14, 15. That is the understanding from 4 alleles that there could be more than 2 individuals.

Q: Is there any evidence that point absolutely to more than 2 contributors, in other words, more than 4 alleles?
A: Yes but that does not indicate you know, less or more than 2 individuals.

Q: I take you to the electropherogram to page 11 which is B5. Sorry, page 6 of the graphs. What is B5?
A: Peri anal swab. Just one perianal swab.

Q: Can you tell us in laymen term, where is perianal area?
A: Peri means around, region around the anus.

Q: Around Saiful’s anus? You have been given this information isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to non sperm extract of B5. Before we go into it, can you tell us whether you saw sperm in this sample swab?
A: Yes.

Q: How did you identify sperm as the positive result from the STR result as well as from the microscopic slide that you observed?
A: Yes, from this two tests, I found sperm.

Q: D2S1338. You told us that the complainant is the contributor. What are the complainant’s alleles?
A: 20 and 24.

Q: Were it right to say if you were to observe 20 and 24 alleles, you will know for sure that the complainant is not excluded in the contributor?
A: The Complainant is the donor of the sample.

Q: The question is if we want to see 20, 24 in that particular locus, you can confidently tell us that Saiful is known donor there?
A: He is already a known donor.

Q: I’m talking about this particular locus, if that particular peaks were there, he has not been excluded isn’t it?
A: But this is not the question, he is already a known contributor here.

MY and RK & SN quarrel.
RK: Purpose of she’s here is to answer the question. She is the scientist.

Q: If there is 20, 24, you can confidently tell us that Saiful is not excluded?
A: It is belong to Saiful.

Q: It is not excluded?
A: Yes, but it is in wrong context la.

YA: Never mind, you can explain later in RE.

Q: Without making a further finding, just by looking at this locus, there not being 24 there, can you confidently tell us that Saiful is not excluded?
A: Yes.

Q: By looking at just two peaks, you can only see 20, you can confidently?
A: We cannot see that only.

Q: I’m asking specific question.
A: A specific question must be comprehensive.

Q: Just by looking at this D2S, you can’t see 24 there right?. Now you only see 20. Can you tell us confidently that Saiful is not excluded?
A: He is still included.

Q: When I see 20 I can still say Saiful is there. Before you without go into drop out?
A: This is not the way DNA profile is examined! There is allele drop out of 24.

Q: From 20 alone, can you see Saiful is there?
A: I can see he is not excluded here.

Q: I take you to locus D18S51. What is Saiful’s allele for this locus?
A: 15 and 16.

Q: Is there a 16 there?
A: It’s not indicated there.

Q: Generally, if Saiful is 15, 16, only you can see 15, he is not excluded?
A: He is not excluded again.

Q: I take you to the next page. This is the continuation.
A: Yes

Q: Can I take you to page 7. What is Saiful’s alleles?
A: 25.

Q: Is there 25 there?
A: No

Q: From all these loci, D2S, D18, and FGA, in your finding/conclusion, Saiful is there, he somewhere isn’t it, despite his alleles not there on the face of your report?
A: Yes.

Q: You’ve assumed that there is drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: That’s your assumption isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: All this assumption, did you carry out any further statistical evaluation before came to that assumption?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it necessary to do it?
A: No if he is a known contributor.

Q: But you did it here?
A: Yes. Because it is vital to do so.

Q: We called that statistical evaluation, right? So, would it be correct to say that certain calculation done in statistical evaluation? What is in the statistical evaluation?
A: It’s evaluating the possible donors in this particular profile, whether particular individual is excluded or not.

Q: So it is important for the identification of the contributor in your analysis isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: It is vital to do further step even though you said you didn’t need to?
A: Yes.
Q: It is important, isn’t it?
A: This is for the known contributor. Yes.

Q: Would you agree that the statistical evaluation form parts of your report here.
A: Not for B5.

Q: It is all there, in summary form. You have summarized that from various sources. So the statistical evaluation forms the part of your report.
A: Yes.

Q: You are in possession of that?
A: Not now.

Q: It is a separate document isn’t it? How many pages of locus D2S, D18, FGA?
A: It is not done like that.

Q: You have a statistical evaluation. It has one page?
A: More than 1 page.

Q: How many pages are there?
A: 3 pages, but not for B5, just for A3(a) and A3(b).

Q: You have statistical evaluation right? How many pages for the entire statistical evaluation?
A: 3 pages.

Q: And for B5, how many pages?
A: It is only done electronically.

Q: No statistical evaluation for B5?
A: It is more necessary to put it in formal form of this.

Q: You don’t have or not be able to enlighten us on the statistical evaluation of B5?
A: No, this one doesn’t require us to put in the statistical evaluation in formal form for B5.

Q: Can I take you to the next locus, for those three loci just now; you ignored allele 24, 16 and 25 respectively, isn’t it? Because you consider that they had drop out.
A: Not ignored, that was the interpretation.

Q: Which means you have don’t take it into account?
A: It has to be taken into account, even it is not there.

Q: But it is not taken into account in that particular locus?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I take you to page 6, locus CSF1PO. First column on the right. Again, what is the complainant allele’s number?
A: For B5?

Q: What is the Saiful’s allele number?
A: 12

Q: Does that drop out?
A: No.

Q: No 12 at the CS1PO, is the furthest to the right?
A: Yes it is the largest amplicon.

Q: You told us 12 does not drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: On your evidence given on Friday, you told that you look at the totality of the loci to come to your conclusion. There are 3 examples of loci just now, which show that your conclusion in court today are not supported isn’t

it?
A: No. That’s not right.

Q: Not supported by the statistical evaluation isn’t it?
A: ..(tak jawab)

MY: Since Friday, until now, she had repeated as far as B5 is concerned, no statistical evaluation. It is only confine to A3 and here every time counsel is putting words on these 3 loci, they are referring to B5. And she repeats it

3, 4 times.
YA: They are cross examining; therefore they can put words into her mouth. So let her answer. Objection overruled. So Mr. Ram, please not repeat.

RK: I’m not repeating YA. This is necessary to know.

Q: If we look at the alleles, based on these 3 loci, for reason best put to you?
A: It is not being considered.

Q: Because the drop out occurs furthest of the right most of the time?
A: At the larger amplicons, and if I may add, he is the minor contributor in this loci.

Q: And dropout number FGA locus is not furthest to the right?
A: For this particular lane, it is the largest amplicon.

Q: Is that furthest to the right? The 25 allele?
A: Yes.

Q: What about CSF1PO, is also to the right?
A: Yes.

Q: Compare that to D18, number 16 alleles, the CSF1PO is further to the right compare to D18 isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: Your conclusion as to drop out, you have not done the statistical evaluation for B5. Your conclusion of the drop out because it is furthest to the right?
A: I disagree.

Q: Drop out is the situation where alleles that are supposed to be found are not found?
A: Yes

Q: Do you agree that the implication of the drop out of samples found in crime scene for example occurring in B5 is very major implication?
A: Yes.

Q: It is important to get it right? We must get this drop out things right.
A: Absolutely.

Q: We are exposed to mistakes isn’t it? It is the human error.
A: Yes.

Q: We assumed that a person’s allele has drop out, can there still be a contributor?
A: Yes.

Q: But if the allele is not presence to start of it, can we assume that the person had been excluded as the contributor?
A: Not just based on one locus. That conclusion is not based on one locus.

Q: How many exclusions that you required, before you excludes somebody?
A: I think the recommendation is manual of 6 loci is sufficient for an association.

Q: What do you mean by association?
A: Association means that he could be a contributor of that stain. A minimum of 6 loci in which the particular individual is included.

Q: You want to exclude a person, you got a situation that you called drop out?
A: Yes.

Q: When you said about drop out, although his alleles are not there, he is still there. Another situation is, the alleles are not there, but it is not a drop out. In that situation, he can be reasonably expected to be excluded.
A: No for mixture (tak sempat jawab)..

Q: Do you agree or not, we got 2 situations. In the former situation, you can still say that the person is contributing, although his allele is not there. Next, the allele is not there, but it is not drop, he is completely not there?

Can you say that he is not excluded?
A: That should be based on the totality.

Q: So, you would not exclude?
A: I would consider the remaining loci before I come to the conclusion.

Q: That is important isn’t it, because that would indicate the presence of the contributor isn’t it? That’s the entire purpose of your analysis.
A: Yes.

Q: So you have to go through the exclusion?
A: Yes.

Q: You want us to know that Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C was there?
A: Yes, that’s correct.

Q: The methods in DNA profiling that there are certain things you must do to exclude Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, you have a situation when there’s not a dropout. Say Mr. C is 10, 11. 11 is not there. Can you exclude Mr. C?
A: 10, 11 is not there?

RK: I wonder if my learned friend to ask the witness to answer the question. I have been accused of repeating. The reason why I repeat it because she was the one who refused to answer it.
YA: To the witness: if soalan ‘I put it to you’, just answer agree or not, okay.

Q: I go back to the example again. Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C. Mr. C allele’s is 10, 11. 11 is not there, and you conclude that 11 is not drop out. Can you possibly exclude Mr. C in that situation? Yes or no?
A: Not excluded.

YA: She’s already answered.

Q: I’m asking you very simply. 11 is not there, and you concluded that it is not drop out. Excluded or not?
A: He’s known to be 10, 11? If I conclude is 11 is not drop out, so he is excluded.

Q: That’s all I want. I’m sure you don’t want to be here all day, right?

Q: You told us on Friday that you are a member of the International Society of Forensic Genetic? How long have you been the member of it?
A: Since 1999.

Q: Still a member today?
A: Yes

Q: So you get the monthly journal or periodically journal?
A: Yes.

Q: When you are talking about dropout. Over times, this particular society..but before that, can we talk about this organization. It is a credited body?
A: It is established to promote the understanding of DNA profiling and so on, particularly.

Q: Well respected organization?
A: Yes.

Q: The views that come out in the publications are well respected are they?
A: They provide good guidelines for laboratory.

Q: And you subscribe to those guidelines? And respect it?
A: We do.

Q: Did you agree that the same society over the past few years, make recommendation in relation with the treatment of the drop out. They tell you to how to treat the drop out, how to conclude the drop out, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: It is not a simple thing. Since it is quite complex, and technical?
A: Yes.

Q: When we talk about the T-value, your laboratory doesn’t use it? You didn’t used in this case?
A: Yes we do have. We used it as only a guidelines. I do use it in calling of the alleles in this particular case.

Q: Is there any record of yours which show that you used T-value?
A: No, we don’t call alleles. We do practice T-value as []

Q: May I refer the witness to an article. This is published by the same International Forensic of Genetic, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: The title is Recommendation on the Interpretation of Mixtures. This is relevant to our case. More than one samples in this case.
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to page 97. Under B1. Or before B1, page 95. Under number 7, drop out. It laid down the treatment of drop out, use certain recommendation and so on. I take you to page 96; second on the left column which is

recommendation 7. [read], then the prosecution analysis is not supported.
A: Yes.

Q: Under recommendation 8, [read], then a biostatistical interpretation should be done, isn’t it?
A: It is not saying there.

Q: No, it is telling you a recommendation, that a drop out is not as simple as you think. That you have to consider high peaks and so on. It goes on and on, and it gives you further consideration, on 97. For drop out, it is not a

simple thing. Apart from the recommendation given earlier, they give you further consideration. [read]. And they give you figure 6. Your lab’s T-values is [] applies to both hetero and homozygotes?
A: Yes.

Q: YA, I will be referring to this article later as we go along to other parts of it. I wonder can we marked it as exhibits at this stage, as the defence exhibits?
MY: I have no problem.
YA: I think we should mark it as IDD, because she was not the author of it.
RK: YA, you can take judicial notice, YA when a situation like this occure.
YA: Whether it is marked as ID or D it is not matter. Later on, I will take judicial notice if I want.
RK: No, if it is marked as ID, then YA can’t. That’s the difference. We are not seeking to prove on the fact. It is only to assist the court. I can submit on that.
YA: Judicial notice we don’t have to mark. If you are just referring, no problem with being tender or not. But since the PP not object, mark as IDD.
MY: YA, It is only reference, it is not an exhibit.
YA: Council, move on.

Q: In relation to the T-value drop out threshold, is there a standard guideline for all samples?
A: Yes.

Q: You also told us previously, that you used DNA view software. Can you just briefly to us, what was the software is for?
A: This statistical package is a software which to allow the statistical analysis of a DNA profile and the modules which are available for DNA view [] calculating [] compared [] for mixture, for match probability of the mixed

stain, for probability of the exclusion carried out test or [] also in the newer edition which was updated allow even for the mass disaster purposes.

Q: It comes with a calculation?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you use it for statistical evaluation for mixture in this case?
A: Not for this case. Because as I said, the mixture are from known individual.

Q: But the purpose of DNA view software is to view the statistical evaluation isn’t it? And you didn’t do that?
A: No, it was used where a crime stain indicates presence of an individual and there’s a reference sample provided to calculate the likelihood of that person here. But in this particular case, it is not being used because the

finding of the mixture is found for the known individual.

Q: So, that’s the reason you did not use this software to evaluate?
A: Yes, that is the reason the statistical evaluation was not carried out.

Q: So, you got the statistical evaluation for A3 (a) and (b)?
A: Yes because that is the reference source to make association between the crime stain profile and the known contributor.

Q: It is necessary to link the donor to the crime sample?
A: Yes.

Q: Everything must be done correctly. Everything must be perfect.
A: Yes.

Q: But it is subject to interpretation, isn’t it?
A: The statistical evaluation?

Q: Your report, the statistical evaluation isn’t it? That would apply to statistical evaluation as well?
A: Yes.

RK: Can we take 5 minutes break? I need to go through this document. 10 minutes at the most.
YA: We start back at 10.20 a.m

[10.08 a.m] Mahkamah ditangguhkan.

[10.28] Kes dipanggil semula.
RK: Before we continue, we required Notes of evidence urgently.
YA: We can give the CD to you. You can transcribe it on your own.

Q: At page 97 that we have gone through just now [read]. Provided that there is symbols represent the first peak? Ok, for every individual there is 2 alleles, right either homozygote or heterozygote?
A: Yes. Homozygotes means there is one peak.

Q: So for example, Saiful’s peak at 12 and 13 so there is a pair there, right? Now, continue with the article that say provided at the symbol, do you know what it is?
A: It is a sign, used to designate.

Q: Does it represent the first peak? For example 12, 13. It means number 12 isn’t it? The peak that doesn’t drop out, is what the symbol means isn’t it? So the first peak, lah? The left peak. I ask generally first.
A: Here, it is not necessarily. Out of the pair, it doesn’t mean any particular one.

Q: One is drop out, and 1 will remain. These symbols represent the remaining peak?
A: Yes.

Q: Provided that the remaining peak, the RFU is more than the T-value?. The sign triangle is means larger than/more than. If that happens, if the remaining peak is more than t value, then the probability of drop out which is

represented in PR(T) is closed to zero. Is practically nil.
A: Yes.

Q: It is quite scientific, but if the height of the remaining peak is more than T-value, then the next peak drop out is close to zero. That’s what it’s telling us?
A: Yes.

Q: Refer to B5 again, page ii) non sperm extract. Locus D2S1338. You’ve told us that Saiful’s alleles produced by that particular locus is 20, 24.
A: Yes.

Q: 20 is there isn’t it? What is the height of the third peak??
A: 65 RFU.

Q: So height of the first remaining peak in the particular locus is 65. Your threshold in your lab, is 50. So this particular allele, exceeds your T value isn’t it, 15 more.?
A: Yes

Q: Go back to what we just read in the article. is it more than T value, the chances of the next peak is practically nil?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I interpret that it is unlikely that drop out would occur that the remaining peak, exceeds the T-value, according to this article?
A: I disagree.

Q: According to this article that you subscribed? You are the member of it? Would you agree that drop out occurring to the next, is practically nil?
A: This is what this article says.

Q: In this case, involving this accused, did you follow these international guidelines?
A: No. But this guidelines had changed…

Q: I take you to the next locus D18S51. You told us that Saiful’s allele is 15, 16. 15 is there, 16 has dropped out. Can we call that, 15 is the remaining peak? What’s the height of the remaining peak?
A: 81.

Q: Again, it is exceeds the T-value. T-value is 50, so 31 more. It is higher than the first one. Again, according to this guideline, we stand guided, and we can conclude from it that the next peak which you claim to drop out is

very unlikely to drop out. Your findings are inconsistent with international guideline?
A: I disagree. It is consistent because this guidelines is 5 years old already.

Q: You got the guideline in front of you. Very clear. I’m asking you a very simple question. For locus D18S51, your method of coming to that conclusion is inconsistent with international guidelines?
A: Yes. In this particular case.

Q: Had you followed this international guideline, you would not have come to the conclusion that number 24 and 16 dropped out, won’t you?
A: I will still come to this conclusion. Because the probability approaches 0, it is not 0.

Q: It is very unlikely right?
A: It is unlikely, but there is still a likelihood

Q: Practically said no, but you still say that it is drop out?
A: Unlikely means there is still a likelihood but the likelihood is more.

Q: What is likely and what is not likely?
A: That’s not this sentence means.

Q: This paper told us that your finding here, what we see here in this two loci, that it is extremely unlikely that the dropout wouldn’t occur, yet you tell us that there is drop out. Tell us what do you consider as unlikely? If it

approaches 0, it is extremely unlikely?
A: I totally disagree.

Q: I’m suggesting to you that your report is biased.
A: I totally disagree.

Q: You have been highly influenced by the information that you received, and you are not a partial witness to this. Agree or not?
A: I totally disagree.

Q: I put it to you that you failed to follow international guidelines.
A: This is not the one and the only guideline.

Q: You did not follow this.
A: This is the recommendation.

YA: You agree or not? Just answer.

Q: You are not new to be a witness. You know how things work. Agree or not that you did not follow international guidelines?
A: I agree.

Q: You told us on Friday that you able to enlighten us on your lab stutter guidelines. Before that, can we just remind ourselves, page 6. Can you just pointed out one stutter? Anywhere?
A: Yes on D16S539.

Q: Where is the stutter?
A: Before 30. The small one.

Q: The stutter is not reported?
A: Yes.

Q: What are your guidelines? How would you list the stutter guidelines?
A: There is a range for stutter percentage.

Q: Calculated in percentage wise? It is relative to what?
A: Yes. To the parent allele.

Q: What are the percentages?
A: We complete that range from the sample. And we have a range on each particular locus. It lies usually within the range of 10-20 percent. But I can’t tell you for certain. I don’t have it before me now.

Q: I take you to page 12 of your graphs, B7. It is a high rectal sample, this is found up Saiful’s anus, deep inside Saiful’s anus?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, can I take you to D7S820, and at the same time take out page ii) of your report, because you read it together. What is Saiful’s allele here?
A: 11.

Q: I take you locus CSF1PO as well, which is the next one. What is Saiful’s allele there?
A: 12

Q: You told us just now, you measured stutter by way of percentage. Right?
A: Yes.

Q: Now in this case, which one is the principle P?
A: 12

Q: For CSFIPO?
A: 13.

Q: You look at the lowest one, compare it to the highest one, you came out with the percentage?
A: Yes.

Q: Now for DS7820, would it be correct it is about 11.4% of that?
A: It is about that.

Q: Do you have a calculator? I need you to be exact.
Q: So can we just calculate the allele for []

A: 11.3

Q: For CSF1PO, is allele 12, 12.4% of 13?
A: 14%.

Q: You reported both of these alleles, isn’t it? In other words, you don’t consider them as stutter, otherwise you wouldn’t report them?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to page 35. A6 is grey underwear, marking (a) and marking (b). (b) is the lower marking?
A: Lowest spot.

Q: Locus CSF1PO, can you tell us, Saiful’s allele here?
A: 12, that’s the smallest peak.

Q: What is the percentage of 12 out of 13?
A: 14.4.

Q: That is not a stutter?
A: That would be a stutter.

Q: 14.4% here is greater than allele 12, in locus DS820?
A: 14.4?

Q: You calculated it just now it is 14%. For B7 you have reported allele 12 which is smaller than allele 12 in A6 (b) which is higher. A stutter is a small peak isn’t it? The higher the peak, then it is reported. Here you have

reported a smaller peak, and you have not reported a higher peak because you consider it as a stutter, isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: I take you to A6 (b). Before that, I take you to your report, page i) of the STR report. Talking about A6 (b) now, 4th column, under sperm extract. For locus CSF1P0, it is appear only 14 there. 12 was not reported.
A: Yes.

Q: I take you again to A6(b) just look at the entire graphs from 4 columns there. According to this graphs, a quite glance would indicate the presence of Male Y. Would you agree that, if 12 is reported, it would change the

complexion of this graphs completely?
A: 12 cannot be reported.

Q: But if it were to be reported, it would change the complexion of this graphs slightly?
A: Yes.

Q: It would be different because, there could be another party is involved now, isn’t it? Your conclusion will be different.
A: Can you read out what conclusion?

Q: That there is presence of Male Y will be different. The reason it would be different is because 12 is there?
A: Yes.

Q: And now, it would different is significant way, because 12 will tell the presence of another party’s semens found on the underwear.
A: Yes.

Q: 14.4% you didn’t report, but 14% you report? Can you calculate 12, 14 again? My calculation is a bit different from yours. CSFIPO of the B7 sperm extract, page 12 on the last locus on the right?
A: For B7. CSF1PO?

Q: Just now I asked you to calculate, 14%?
A: it is 12.3%.

Q: Peak 12, is only 12.3%, yet you reported it. The short peak, the more likely it is a stutter.
A: Yes.

Q: You found it to be reported. 14% is much higher, logically it ought to be reported as well?
A: 12.3% is that of the mixed stain.

Q: I’ve given you 2 loci here.
A: It is a mixed stain.

Q: Small peak?
A: Small peak of a mixed stain.

Q: It is a crime scene sample here. B7 and A6 (b), both found in the place where it is allegedly occurs?
A: Not a crime scene sample. It is a known sample.

Q: It is a known sample. So you got two unknown samples here. You don’t know anything about it, you were given by the police, and say please analyze this. So you go and do your analysis. How many days you take to

analyze?
A: 5 days.

Q So you come out with the result? And you found the small peak.
A: In the mixed stain, yes.

Q: You reported it? And you think it is a stutter.
A: Yes.

Q: 14.4% is greater than 12.3%, but it is still a stutter to you?
A: Correct.

Q: Before that, I put it you that if you report properly or accurately which you are required to, you have found the presence of another party apart from Male Y at A6(b)?
A: I disagree.

Q: Would you agree that in the light of this discussion, the stutter guideline is very important?
A: Yes it is.

Q: Do you have with you today?
A: No.

Q: Can I take you to B9, sperm extract. Page 18 and 19 of the graphs; locus D3S1358. How many alleles are there?
A: 4 alleles.

Q: This is reported at page iii)?
A: Yes.

Q: At page 18, on the same locus, there are more than 4 alleles right? There are 18 as well right? You didn’t report the 18?
A: Yes.

Q: Had you reported the 18, would it be different of your finding?
A: Yes.

Q: It could be the presence of another party. Or it is possibly be.
A: It could be.

Q: Can you calculate again for me, the 18 allele, relative to 19. How much in percentage terms?
A: 28.

Q: 28.4?
A: Yes.

Q: You agree that neither Male Y or Saiful has 18 alleles?
A: Yes.

Q: When there is 5 alleles, it would been, it must have been at least 3 contributors, it could be Male Y, Saiful and somebody else isn’t I, unknown person?
A: Yes.

Q: B9 is swab from where?
A: Lower rectum.

Q: From Saiful’s anus?
A: Yes.

Q: There would be another person’s found in the Saiful’s anus. All this unknown people. So, would you agree that the implication of there been an 18 allele is significant, and 28.4% is a high peak?
A: Yes, but not when it is 56 RFU.

Q: Just now you reported 12.3. This one is double, right, more than twice. The greater the height, the greater the chances it will get reported. So, you report something that is so small. Now you have 28.4% but you don’t want

to report that. You report the small allele, but you don’t want to report that.
A: This is the condition by me. The condition by the DNA result.

Q: 28.4% is a high peak, isn’t it?
A: Not if it is from the 197 peaks.

Q: You yourself told us that you guided by the stutter guidelines. Your own evidence, you said that all lab units have stutter guidelines.
A: Yes.

YA: (KEPADA PUBLIC GALLERY): So pada yang duduk dalam gallery tu, pada yang ikut prosiding, jangan bising. I don’t want to hear the gallery to bising. Sorry to disturbed you counsel.

Q: In the light of your evidence, which I just repeated to you, I’m asking you very simple question. 28.4 is a very high peak?
A: Yes, as a percentage.

Q: What you are guided by. Isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: You just choose not to report that high peak.
A: It is not a high peak.

Q: But you’ve said that!
A: As a percentage, yes.

Q: Have you reported that, your result will be different? There would be another party inside the anus isn’t it?
A: No. This is 56.

Q: There is DNA who we don’t know here. Forget your totality. This is a very simple question. You were not answering my question, not because I want to repeat my question. For 18 allele, nobody has it. Not Male Y, not

Saiful. So, if there is presence of 18, it came from someone else that we don’t know. Am I right?
A: Could be.

Q: Could it be come from Saiful? Come from male Y?
A: No.

Q: Then why did you say it could be from another person? It must be from another person!
A: It could be drop in.

Q: Would you agree, that had you reported the 18, which is the high percentage, twice the height things that you reported earlier..
A: Twice the percentage.

Q: Okay, Had you reported that, there could be a conclusion that there is another unknown person?
A: No.