Poser over sperm survival: 36 or 65 hours?

An Australian forensic expert agrees that sperm cells can be discovered inside a person’s body up to 65 hours.

KUALA LUMPUR: An Australian forensic expert agrees today that sperm cells can be discovered inside a person’s body up to 65 hours after sexual intercourse when testifying in the Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial.

Dr David Lawrence Noel Wells concurred with lead prosecutor Solicitor-General II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden when the latter pointed to a United Kingdom study published in the “Forensic Science International” journal in 1982.

This contradicted Well’s testimony yesterday which stated that sperm could only survive up to 36 hours.

However, Wells, the head of forensic medicine at the Victoria Institute of Medicine, quickly cautioned that he, as well as most of those experts in his field, would put “reservations” on that finding as it was the only published case for over 30 years.

“This particular 1982 paper is often quoted and it is quite depressing that in 30 years there’s only one case. I would like to hear of one other case. The question is, how much weight should we put on this? Should we base all of our forensic findings on a single untested case?” asked Wells.

Mohd Yusof also referred to an article in “Clinical Forensic Medicine” by WDS Mclay. The paper said research showed sperm may be identified and rectal swabs taken up to three days after anal intercourse even when defecation has occurred.

The article also suggested that samples could be obtained even if an individual has showered. However, Wells stuck to his previous stand.

“From my experience, to get an extraction after more than 20 to 36 hours is very rare. I have never heard of such a case. The single case was in 1982. The question is how much weight do you put on that case,” said the expert in the field of sexual assault cases.

Wells: It is exceedingly rare to get any results beyond 20 to 36 hours.
Mohd Yusof: Then why do you think doctors suggest that swabs can be taken from the anus after three days up to 65 hours? This sample can even be taken when the victim has showered.
Wells: The article you are quoting from also refers to the single 1982 case.
Mohd Yusof: But can you say it’s not possible.
Wells: No I can’t say.

Doctor stumped

Wells added that “in medicine, you sometimes have to be realistic. Why don’t we collect toxicological samples from patients who consumed something two to three months ago? There’s a reason for it”.

“I would not base a scientific premise on a single case; with some confidence I can say (in Anwar’s case) that already we have a sample that is not dried and not frozen and kept at room temperature; the possibility is very small that you can extract a foreign DNA,” said Wells.

Wells added that there have been numerous attempts to test for sperm specimens 36 hours later, with “zero” results.

Mohd Yusof also stumped the doctor when he asked whether sperm could be planted without the original sample from a person.

Mohd Yusof: If sperm contaminated the exhibit, the person who contaminated the sample must have possessed the sperm of the person?
Wells: (Long pause). This is unusual. I would ask the DNA expert though it is possible the DNA is different from that of the sperm.
Mohd Yusof: But if someone has planted the sperm sample, that person must have had on him that sperm?
Wells: Yes

Not odd not to have injury

Earlier, Wells said the majority of sexual assault victims would not show signs of injury to their genitalia.

He agreed that “less than half” of all complaints of sexual assault have injuries to the genital/anal areas.

He was replying when cross-examined by Mohd Yusof.
“So, it is not odd if there is no injury on Saiful,” said Mohd Yusof, to which Wells concurred.

Wells agreed with excerpts from a medical journal read out by Mohd Yusof that the vast majority of injuries to the genitalia or anus are caused by penetration of a blunt instrument, penis, finger or inanimate object and that a number of reasons could explain the absence of signs (of injuries).
The reasons could include using lubricant, consensual act, the amount of force employed and delay in reporting, which would also allow the injuries to fade, said Wells.
However, during re-examination by Anwar’s defence counsel Sankara Nair, Wells agreed that there is an increased likelihood of injuries with the increased use of force by the alleged sexual attacker.
Sankara said: “Saiful (complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan) had said that he felt a lot of pain. He claimed it was ‘laju and rakus’ (fast and rough), it could have caused tears.”
On Monday, Anwar denied the charge of sodomy against him, saying that he never had any sexual relations with Saiful. Giving unsworn evidence from the accused dock, he called Saiful’s allegation a “blatant and vicious lie” and a “vile and despicable attempt at character assassination”.
On May 16, High Court judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah ordered Anwar to enter his defence after ruling that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the latter.
He ruled that Saiful was a “credible” and “truthful” witness whose testimony was corroborated by the evidence of expert witnesses, including doctors and chemists.
The trial resumes tomorrow. Another Australian DNA specialist Dr Brian McDonald is expected to take the stand.