The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

KOFHE Goodman’s attorney yesterday suggested to a crime scene investigator that she was trying to “flam” the jury with her claims about the handling of items collected from the scene where a body, believed to be of a male, was found in bushes behind an apartment.

Constable Denrea Johnson, under cross-examination by attorney Geoffrey Farquharson, told a jury that the collected items found behind a Yorkshire Street apartment were wet and needed to be dried before being submitting for forensic analysis.

The officer said on September 28, 2011, she went to put the proper protocols in place before air drying the items in the Royal Bahamas Police Force’s forensic lab and submitting them days later.

However, Mr Farquharson suggested this was a “complete, utter, total and dangerous lie” and that she was trying to “flam” the jury.

Constable Johnson disagreed with his suggestion as Goodman sat in the prisoner’s dock listening to her testimony.

Goodman, 37, of Yorkshire Drive, faces a murder charge which he denies. It is claimed that between September 23 and 28 of 2011, he intentionally and unlawfully caused the death of Marco Archer, who disappeared from Brougham Street and was found dead days later.

Constable Johnson said she had to submit a cover letter with the items she collected, a bag which contained what appeared to be a black Bob Marley t-shirt, khaki pants, blue and yellow slippers and a pair of blue and yellow boxers, in order for them to be admitted for testing.

Mr Farquharson asked if she had access to the lab and she answered that she was “buzzed” in by an officer stationed there.

The attorney then asked her if the officer “give you a receipt saying he collected a grey Bob Marley t-shirt”.

“We can’t classify one item. All items were on the receipt,” the officer said.

“Up to the time he gave you the receipt, he never opened the bag?” the attorney asked.

“No. He never opened any of the bags,” Johnson said.

Mr Farquharson asked her why the items collected were submitted a week later.

“The evidence I collected was very damp,” the constable said.

“A whole week?” Farquharson asked. She said no and was asked where she dried the items.

“At the lab,” she said.

“It took three days to dry the items?” the attorney asked. The officer said the lab was closed on the weekend.

“How did you get in the lab?” the attorney asked.

“The same way I got in before,” said Constable Johnson.

“So you were wandering in the lab?” said Farquharson.

“That’s your suggestion,” said Johnson.

“What time on Wednesday did you go to the lab?” said Mr Farquharson.

“After five to six o’clock, I’m not sure of the time,” said Johnson.

The attorney asked her who allowed her in and she said: “Inspector Thompson.”

“Really? After 5 o’clock in the evening?” the attorney asked.

“He works in the lab. I needed to use the dryer and he allowed me to use it,” the officer said.

Mr Farquharson asked her to describe the room in which the dryer was located. Constable Johnson said that: “At that point in time, I just wanted to dry the clothes properly.”

He asked her if she should’ve handed them over to persons with more experience in the lab to do so and she responded that they were her exhibits in her care.

Mr Farquharson said everything she told the court so far was a “complete, utter, total and dangerous lie”.

Constable Johnson disagreed. She said she brought gloves from outside the lab in a sealed box but was wasn’t wearing a protective suit when she went into the area.

Johnson said the shoes she had on in the lab, she had worn all day on September 28.

“Do you appreciate by your doing that, you would’ve contaminated this lab?” Mr Farquharson asked.

“No sir,” she said.

“How can you be 100 percent certain that by doing what you did, trace evidence was not transferred?” the attorney asked.

The constable said she was not alerted by any forensic examiners about her hair or fibre being picked up and added that when she was on the crime scene, she had worn the appropriate protective gear when moving about the scene.

“I cannot speak to any trace evidence,” she added.

After asking the officer to

look at photographs of the collected items, Mr Farquharson put it to the officer that there was no sign in the image that they were wet.

He said: “I put it to you that you have come to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas to lie on oath to a jury. You came here to ‘flam’ this jury.”

“That is not the case,” Constable Johnson said.

The trial resumes today.