KUALA LUMPUR — A former Pusrawi Hospital doctor told the High Court here that it was Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s own words that a plastic object was inserted into his anus and he was sodomised by a very prominent politician.
Dr Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid, who is the second defence witness, said this during cross-examination by Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohamed Yusof Zainal Abiden, and that he noted it on his clinical notes after being informed by the patient himself when he examined him at the hospital on June 28, 2008.
He disagreed with Mohamed Yusof’s suggestion that the information was recorded not on the day of the examination.
“Mohd Saiful informed me that he was sodomised after I conducted the physical examination. I was shocked and immediately noted it before advising him to lodge a police report and to seek medical treatment at a government hospital,” said the Yangoon University graduate.
When questioned further why he did not ask his patient what was the cause for the pain he was suffering or who was the person who had inserted the plastic object into the anus, Dr Osman agreed he did not raise both questions although they were crucial.
Dr Osman also told the court that he prepared his report on June 30 after being requested by a staff of the hospital known as “Azlan” and also prepared a statutory declaration (SD) at the request of a lawyer who acted for the hospital.
“I had been told to prepare my SD for the confidential file of the hospital, following a leak on my medical report related to Mohd Saiful while I was away in Myanmar,” added Dr Osman.
Anwar, 64, pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court on Aug 7, 2008, to committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature on Mohd Saiful, 26, at Kondominium Desa Damansara in Bukit Damansara, between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, the same year.
During examination-in-chief by Anwar’s co-counsel SN Nair, the senior medical officer who is currently attached to the National Heart Institute (IJN), said Mohd Saiful initially told him that he was suffering from constipation for a week and pain in his anus.
“I applied some lubricant and used protoscope to examine his anal region and everything was normal with no sign of injuries,” added Dr Osman.
Third defence witness Associate Professor Dr David Lawrence Noel Wells from Australia said in sexual assault cases history taking from a patient was crucial in assisting doctors in making the right medical examination.
“In this case the proforma form used in recording medical history and other information was not suitable and only the first five pages were filled up while the remaining five pages were left blank,” said the forensic expert.
Referring to the form, Dr Wells said the doctor who recorded the details just stated that the patient suffered pain and bleeding, but no further details were available.
“It is very essential for them to follow the standard methodology where they should ask the patient how long they had been suffering the pain or its actual location,” added Dr Wells.
When asked by Nair to provide his expert view on the clinical findings of three doctors of the Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL) dated July 13, 2008, he said in the absence of laboratory reports, they should not find such “conclusive” findings.
Forensic pathologist Dr Siew Sheue Feng, Emergency care Specialist Dr Khairul Nizam Hassan and general surgeon Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim had concluded that there was no conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration to the anus/rectum.
They also concluded that there were no significant wounds on the body of the patient.
When asked by Nair on his opinion of the Pusrawi report whether Dr Wells would read the report as “pain when passing motion or pain when attempting to pass motion”, Wells replied that he would read the report as when passing motion.
Dr Wells said the report meant that when the person was passing motion, he would feel the pain.
Asked to explain on the swab samples taken when Mohd Saiful first complained of a sexual assault, whether the right procedures were adopted, Dr Wells said that he had no qualms about the procedures.
He however stressed that storing of the swabs were crucial for DNA profilings.
He explained the proper way to store the swab after it was taken was that the specimen containers had to be air dried or frozen immediately, and sent to the laboratory as soon as possible.
Responding to Nair’s question whether it was acceptable that the swab arrived at the laboratory almost 43 hours after the swab was taken, Dr Wells said: “It certainly won’t be pretty”.
This was beacuse in a moist environment, bacteria would be able to damage any protein element in the DNA sample, he said.
Asked to summarise on the forensic procedure adopted in the case by Nair, Dr Wells said, he would not say that they were not competent for the job, but rather put it as “someone new to the task or inexperienced”.
The hearing before High Court Judge Datuk Mohamed Zabidin Mohd Diah continues tomorrow for the prosecution to cross-examine Dr Wells.