Pre-empting Anwar's wayang of DNA specimen sample

At the Anwar’s Sodomy II trial at the Jalan Duta court today, the head of of the Paternity DNA Unit, Forensic Division, Malaysian Chemistry Department Nor Aidora takes the stand. She has dealt with 100,000 samples and involved with biological DNA analysis and proof.

Sample swab from Saiful’s arse have been established by DNA specialist Dr Seah Lay Hong as belonging to a dominant Mr Y.

In court are five items – a piece of hair, a white toothbrush, a piece of Good Morning branded wash towel, another piece of hair, and a plastic mineral water bottle.

Anwar had defiantly refused to voluntarily give his blood, any intimate sample for latest DNA profiling when he was detained for questioning. Those items are likely the method they extracted non-intimate sample as specimen sample of Anwar’s DNA profile.

The task of determining Mr Y as Anwar Ibrahim falls on Nor Aidora.

Anwar’s lawyer will find technicality to dispute her finding. Karpal Singh is expected to accuse the method to obtain Anwar’s sample are illegal. Anwar’s propaganda machine will call conspiracy.

Is it so? What is the law on this?

This posting is to pre-empt Anwar's propaganda and antics.

Anwar’s Trial

The main witness, Saiful Bahri has testified and Anwar’s team of illustrious lawyers made no attempt to dispute Saiful’s testimony. In fact, Saiful’s testimony damaged Anwar’s public image with such graphic description of the sodomy incidence and snide remarks.

Subsequently, the three doctors that attended to Saiful took the stand and was cross examined. No big dent as Anwar’s lawyer couldn’t dispute the professional procedures and opinion of the doctors.

Hope the rakyat realised that there is examination done by Pusrawi doctors and no such doctors report that was being bandied around by PKR the polictical party of liars.

The doctor report and statutory declaration published on Malaysia Today by Raja Petra and his band lying bloggers including someone claiming to be a Professor are fake and they have no credibility as bloggers.

The DNA part of the prosecution proof had some hick-up because of the aggressive questioning by defense lawyers of Dr Seah Lay Hong seem shattered her a bit.

At the end, it is just Malaysiakini doing spinning and defense lawyers were merely playing exterior issues. It remain undisputed that dominant sperm belonging to Mr Y, which is allegedly Anwar’s, is left unquestioned.

DNA Act 2009

Let’s assume Anwar’s DNA profile were secured from his fingerprints and hair extracted from those items. Those items are not voluntary given specimen. Is it legal?

The DNA Act 2009 define sample as intimate or non-intimate samples defined below:

“non-intimate sample” means—

(a) a sample of hair other than the pubic hair;

(b) a sample taken from a nail or from under a nail;

(c) a swab taken from any part of a person’s body other than a part from which a swab taken would be an intimate sample; or

(d) saliva;

“intimate sample” means—

(a) a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue or fluid taken from a person’s body, urine or pubic hair; or

(b) a swab taken from any part of a person’s genitals (including pubic hair) or from a person’s body orifice other than the mouth.

Taking samples

The DNA Act with regard to taking samples are grouped into intimate and non intimate samples.

Taking of intimate sample 12. (1) The procedures for the taking of an intimate sample of any person under this Act shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section and as prescribed. (2) An intimate sample of—

(a) a person reasonably suspected of having committed an offence;

(b) a detainee; or

(c) a drug dependant, may be taken for forensic DNA analysis only if—

(A) an authorized officer authorizes it to be taken; and

(B) an appropriate consent in the prescribed form is given by the person from whom an intimate sample is to be taken.

(3) Subject to an appropriate consent being given under subparagraph (2)(B), an authorized officer shall only give his authorization under subparagraph (2)(A) if—

(a) he has reasonable grounds for—

(i) suspecting that the person from whom the intimate sample is to be taken has committed an offence; and

(ii) believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove the commission of the offence by that person;

(b) an arrest has been effected on or a detention order has been made against a detainee; or

(c) an order or a decision has been made pursuant to the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 against a drug dependant.

(4) An authorized officer—

(a) shall give his authorization under subsection (3) in writing; or

(b) where it is impracticable to comply with paragraph (a), may give such authorization orally, in which case he must confirm it in writing as soon as may be possible.

(5) A person from whom an intimate sample is taken shall be entitled to the information derived from the analysis of the sample taken from him. (6) An intimate sample shall only be taken by a government medical officer.

Since Anwar refused and police couldn’t be forceful on Anwar for fear of the political fallout and his wayang, they resort to take hairs or fingerprints via non-intimate sampleans.

The law on this reads below:

Taking of non-intimate sample

13. ` (1) The procedures for the taking of a non-intimate sample of any person under this Act shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section and as prescribed.

(2) A non-intimate sample of—

(a) a person reasonably suspected of having committed an offence;

(b) a detainee; or

(c) a drug dependant, may be taken only if an authorized officer authorizes it to be taken.

(3) An authorized officer shall only give his authorization under subsection (2) if—

(a) he has reasonable grounds for—

(i) suspecting that the person from whom the non-intimate sample is to be taken has committed an offence; and

(ii) believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove the commission of the offence by that person;

(b) an arrest has been effected on or a detention order has been made against a detainee; or

(c) an order or a decision has been made pursuant to the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 against a drug dependant.

(4) An authorized officer—

(a) shall give his authorization under subsection (2) in writing; or

(b) where it is impracticable to comply with paragraph (a), may give such authorization orally, in which case he must confirm it in writing as soon as possible.

(5) The person from whom a non-intimate sample is taken shall be entitled to the information derived from the analysis of the sample taken from him.

(6) A non-intimate sample shall only be taken by—

(a) a government medical officer; or

(b) a police officer or a chemist.

(7) If a person from whom a non-intimate sample is to be taken under this Act refuses to give the sample or refuses to allow the sample to be taken from him without good cause or the sample cannot be obtained despite all reasonable efforts taken, that person may be taken before a magistrate and the magistrate may, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the sample tends to confirm or disprove the commission of an offence by that person, order that person to provide his nonintimate sample.

If Anwar was more cautious as to not leave any hair or fingerprints behind, there is still the court order.

Before the Act

Off course, Anwar will question the use of DNA Act and claimed it was passed in Parliament to discriminate against him.

According to the blog, The Unspinners, Anwar refused to give his blood as an intimate sample in the sodomy case I. But he made one mistake to dramatise the Arsenic poisoning and AIDS injection to kill him.

Tan Sri Musa Hassan approached him and his wife and insisted he must cooperate or he will be forced because under a contagious disease act, it is required and compulsory to give blood sample.

Under the law then, there is provision for illegally obtained samples meant for non voluntary sample like non intimate sample. Karpal protested in court and Musa explained to the acceptance of the judge.

Enough wayang Anwar.

If you are innocent, why do you not cooperate to give samples? No conspiracy excuse ... we’ve enough of that from you.

Admit it that Anwar fear was because he was guilty.

And all those fear of conspiracies indicate Anwar's fear of himself. He had been the master conspirator behind many conspiracies!