KOTA KINABALU: Blood stains found on several exhibits including papers tendered to the Chemist Department were found to be mainly Zara Qairina Mahathir’s, the Coroner’s Court here was told.
Chemist Nor Airdora Saedon, 52, told this to Coroner Amir Shah Amir Hassan when reading out her witness statement on Tuesday (Oct 7), as the inquest into Zara Qairina Mahathir’s death continued.
She said among the items with blood stains were papers and a glass bottle.
She later confirmed that while the DNA results came back as Zara’s, they had no way to conclusively prove that the items which her DNA were found on were undoubtedly hers.
She said this was because as chemists, their duties were to test for DNAs and other related analysis, but not to determine whether items belonged to the person whose DNAs were found on the said items.
These exhibits with suspected blood stains included those marked WK15(3)(a), “WK15(8)(a)”, “WK15(9)(a)”, WK33 to WK35.
It was found that WK15(3)(a) had the DNA traces of Zara and another individual while the rest belonged to Zara.
During further questioning, Airdora informed the court that they were unable to determine who the other possible individuals were because their only specimen received for comparison was Zara’s bone fragments.
During her testimony, she informed the court that she had conducted two tests: "DNA surih" (which means DNA fingerprinting or DNA profiling) and blood samples.
Both of these were different categories of specimens.
"DNA surih", she explained, could be obtained from sweat or saliva among other parts of the body, excluding blood and semen.
She said the traces could have been left intentionally or unintentionally, such as by touch, when talking, or from contact and transfer.
Airdora said using Zara’s bone as the guide or specimen of comparison to determine one’s DNA was conclusive in this case.
She received a total of 37 exhibits from investigating officer, Inspector Wong Yew Zhung on Aug 11.
Counsel Datuk Ram Singh who is representing the first accused in the Zara’s bully trial, asked the chemist how the blood drops could have been ‘caused’ or ended up on the paper, to which Airdora declined to answer.
“I apologise. I cannot answer this question," she said, explaining that she is a chemist and not a medical doctor.
She also declined to comment when Ram asked whether such blood stains could have occurred when a person uses a ‘barcode’ injury to drip the blood on the paper or any surface.
She was initially confused with what he meant by ‘barcode’.
“I cannot answer. It would be unprofessional of me if I answered," she said.
The inquest continues in camera on Wednesday (Oct 8) with the next child witness to be called to testify.
