The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

KOFHE Goodman’s lawyer objected yesterday to the judge’s “interruption” and “interference” with the defence’s cross-examination of a pathologist for accepting DNA results to identify an unknown body as that of Marco Archer.

Geoffrey Farquharson, on a number of occasions at yesterday’s proceedings, strongly suggested to Justice Bernard Turner that it was highly improper for the court to interrupt the defence from putting its case and questions to the witness.

Justice Turner attempted to interrupt, but Mr Farquharson continued speaking to support his claims of “interference” during his cross-examination of pathologist, Dr Caryn Sands.

The accused listened from the prisoner’s dock.

Pathologist’s Findings

Goodman, 38, of Yorkshire Drive, faces a murder charge, which he denies. It is claimed that between September 23 and 28, 2011, he caused the death of Marco Archer, 11. Young Archer, who disappeared from Brougham Street, was found dead days later.

Goodman is represented by Mr Farquharson.

Garvin Gaskin, deputy director of public prosecutions, Neil Braithwaite and Darell Taylor are prosecuting the case, which began on April 19.

Dr Sands testified on Monday that asphyxia could not be “definitively” ruled out as the cause of death for an 11-year-old boy who suffered blunt force trauma to the head.

The Princess Margaret Hospital pathologist said the child, whose naked decomposed body was covered in maggots, had a plastic bag over his head. She noted that although it would not show up on an autopsy, asphyxia “could not be definitively ruled out” as the cause of death.

In cross-examination, Mr Farquharson asked the witness if she had received a report from Fairfax Identity Laboratories concerning the identification of the body based on samples used.

Dr Sands said she received a report through the police forensic laboratory on October 20, 2011, the day she signed a death certificate.

The lawyer asked her how she, almost a month before a report was produced, could attribute a name to the body she was examining, as the DNA evidence was not made known to her until October.

Dr Sands said the report was based on notes made to her and the report came in with a name.

On Tuesday, Mr Farquharson asked the pathologist why she did not request DNA from Marco Archer for comparison with a liver sample she took from the body of an unknown male child.

He suggested to Dr Caryn Sands that the best way to identify an unknown body is to compare it with the known DNA of the person whose body it is supposed to be.

The physician agreed that this was so, but that it was not her duty to collect the reference sample, adding that she retrieved a sample from the deceased and handed it over.

The lawyer suggested to the physician that she could have asked the investigator ASP Bernard Bonaby for the sample.

The physician was questioned as to how she had access to the forensic report that appeared to be an internal communication between senior officers on the Royal Bahamas Police Force, including ASP Bonaby.

‘Interference’ Claims

Mr Farquharson yesterday resumed his questioning of Dr Sands and put to the witness that no fractures to the skull of the unknown body were found and documented other than what Dr Sands was telling the court.

Dr Sands agreed.

Mr Farquharson suggested to the witness that her findings that the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head was incorrect. The pathologist disagreed, noting that there was evidence of injuries to support the conclusion of blunt force trauma.

Mr Farquharson then tried to question the witness about her level of knowledge of DNA that would enable her to find the results from Fairfax Identity Laboratory acceptable.

However, Justice Turner did not allow the question. He queried its relevance and appropriateness.

This prompted Mr Farquharson to “ask the court if it could hold its questioning of the defence” so that the defence could put its case to the witness. He claimed that it was improper for the court do be doing this.

Mr Farquharson insisted that the court was interferring, and had done so on Tuesday, July 9, when the defence asked Dr Caryn Sands a question that involved statistics and DNA, and the court interrupted and ruled that the pathologist was not an expert in either fields.

Mr Gaskin, the case’s lead prosecutor, objected and questioned why Mr Farquharson “is being given an audience to insult you, m’lord.”

Mr Farquharson continued to accuse the court of “bias” and improper conduct.

Justice Turner, who chastised the lawyer for his “disrespectful” conduct in front of the jury, told Mr Farquharson that the court was not interrupting the defence, but seeking to question whether the lawyer was putting relevant and permissible questions to the witness.

The judge then asked Mr Farquharson if he was admitting to “deliberately misstating a question” to get a particular answer.

The lawyer said that the defence had the right to put to the witness what it wanted. He accused the judge of stepping into the shoes of the witness and suggested he was presently doing so.

“You are not a statistician, but you were able to say that my suggestion to the witness was incorrect,” the lawyer said.

“You are interfering with the defence!” Mr Farquharson exclaimed.

“You will not put a question to the witness that is irrelevant or improper,” the judge ordered, adding that the court had a duty to ensure this.

Neil Braithwaite, the assisting prosecutor, objected altogether to Mr Farquharson’s line of questioning on the basis that Dr Sands was not a DNA expert and that DNA evidence had already been given.

Mr Farquharson retorted that his particular line of question “has been ruined, first by the court and now by the prosecution.”

Mr Gaskin replied that Mr Farquharson’s submissions were “deja vu.” “You’re wrong!” Mr Farquharson shot back.

Justice Turner, seeking to put an end to the dispute, told Mr Farquharson to resume his cross-examination if he had any questions left.

The cross-examination lasted for another hour during which time Dr Sands admitted that while neither the child’s mother nor the police identified the body as that of Marco Archer, the results from the lab concerning a DNA comparison was acceptable for her to draw the conclusion that she did.