[2011] 7 MLJ A B C D E F G H I Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 865 specimens had been sourced: ‘On comparison, I found the findings as follows: (1) The DNA profile developed from the blood stains on sarong marked ‘E11’ and brassiere marked ‘E14’ and the seminal stains from mat marked ‘E1’, seminal stains from sarong marked ‘E11’, and seminal stains from panties marked ‘E13’ to match with each other, and with that developed from blood specimen marked ‘E24’ which was labeled ‘Muhamad Rasid’, thus indicating the DNA identified originated from the same source. The probability of a randomly selected unrelated individual having a matching DNA profile is 1 in 110 quintillion, as calculated based on the Malaysian Malay Population Database kept in my department. I also found that the partial DNA profile, developed from E15(e) (one of the plastic tubes containing swab-stick) to be consistent which having come from the same source as blood specimen marked ‘E24’ (Muhamad Rasid’s). Secondly, the DNA profiles developed from hairs in envelopes marked ‘E2A’ and ‘E8’, blood stains on mat ‘E1’, towels ‘E2’ and ‘E3’, swabs ‘E6’(A), pillow and pillow case ‘E9’, and T-shirt ‘E12’ to match with each other and with that developed from blood specimen marked ‘E16’, which was labelled ‘Siti Zawiah bte sudin’, thus indicating that the DNA identified originated from the same source. The probability of a randomly selected unrelated individual having a matching DNA profile is 1 in 760 quintillion, as calculated based on the Malaysia Malay population database kept in my department. Thirdly, the DNA profile developed from the non-sperm cell fraction of the seminal stains on mat marked ‘E1’, sarong ‘E11’, and panties ‘E13’ to be mixed DNA profile originating from at least on female and one male source. The sources represented by blood stain specimen marked ‘E16’ and labelled ‘Siti Zawiah bte Sudin’ and blood specimen marked ‘E24’ which was labelled ‘Muhammad Rasid’ were consistent with being the female and male contributors to the said mixed DNA profile. Fourthly, the DNA profile developed from the blood stains on sarong marked ‘E10’, raffia string marked ‘E5’, swab from sheath marked ‘E4’, swabs marked ‘E6B’, E15(c) and E15(g) to be mixed DNA profile to have originated from at least 1 female and one male source. The sources represented by blood stains specimen marked ‘E16’ and blood specimen marked ‘E24’ were consistent with being the female and male contributor respectively, through the mixed profile. Further, I found that partial DNA profile developed from the blood stains on electric iron marked ‘E6’ to be mixed profile consistently with having come from the sources represented from the blood specimens marked ‘E16’ and blood specimen marked ‘E24’. Fifthly, no foreign DNA profiles were developed from swabs marked E15(a), (b), (d), (f ), (h) and (i); as well as from nail clipping marked ‘E20’ and ‘E21’ which only gave a female DNA profile concordant with blood specimen ‘E16’ — ‘Siti Zawiah bte Sudin.’