Dr Dalgleish Joseph, the final witness in the Cyon Collier murder trial, yesterday sought to challenge the findings of the autopsy performed on Chandrapaul Persaud.
Collier, known as ‘Picture Boy’, is charged with murdering Persaud, 34, called ‘Kero Man,’ on September 30, 2006. Persaud was shot by one of three gunmen who launched an attack on him outside his Non Pareil, East Coast Demerara home, moments after he drove his vehicle into the yard.
When the trial resumed before Justice Winston Patterson, Joseph was called to the stand by defence counsel Lyndon Amsterdam, who made an application to have the witness deemed an expert in general medicine as a surgeon. Joseph told the court that during his career, he has specifically dealt with over 500 persons who suffered from gunshot injuries and after training, was enabled to identify injuries, including penetrating injuries, which can be caused by bullets, knives, cutlasses, daggers and so on.
The doctor was asked by Amsterdam if there is a link between a person’s survival and the time of arrival at the hospital to which he responded in the affirmative. He said death is never caused by multiple gunshot wounds alone because gunshot wounds are classified as lethal and non-lethal. He explained that lethal gunshot injuries are usually damaging to vital structures and organs within the body.
Joseph was further asked if he has had patients who suffered trauma and died and also if he has treated such patients who survived, to which he again responded in the affirmative. Amsterdam asked if he had ever dealt with persons who sustained multiple gunshots and lived. Joseph said yes.
When asked if multiple gunshot injuries are a likely cause of death, the doctor disagreed. He went on to state that in some cases, death is caused by exsanguination, a fatal gunshot injury to a vital organ and is likely a complication associated with that injury.
Explaining the likely results of a gunshot wound by an AK-47, the alleged murder weapon, Joseph stated that injuries from bullet wounds are not only dependent on the distance between the shooter and the target but also on the size of the weapon, weight of the bullet and the force of velocity. An assault rifle, he added, is considered a high velocity weapon and injuries associated with such a rifle from a distance of 6 ft-8 ft to the target will cause trauma of penetration which goes through the skin, tissues, muscles and possibly bones if the bone is in the trajectory of the bullet. If the bone is not in the trajectory, there will be an entrance wound and an exit wound, Joseph indicated.
The witness further told the court that if the bullet makes direct frontal contact with the bone, it may become fractured while the possibility exists that the bullet will then move in another direction.
When asked of the possibility of the bullet remaining in the arm, he said the likely possibility is that the target was moving but for an assault rifle which produces a high velocity projectile at a distance of 6 ft, it will hardly likely be found in the tissue.
Under cross-examination by State Prosecutor Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, Joseph admitted that the movements he described for the bullet to become lodged are consistent with the target running away from the shooter.
“Dr Joseph, you said that the AK-47 is a high velocity weapon. Please tell us what is the velocity of the weapon,” Gildharie-Mursalin inquired. The witness said he did not know.
The state prosecutor went on to ask the doctor how many persons he has seen in his 20-odd years of medicine with gunshot wounds caused by AK-47 weapons. He said one patient in 2007, who had told him that it was an AK47 that was used to shoot him but he did not see the bullet since it had already passed out the body.
Asked again if he would have only seen one patient who was supposedly shot with an AK47, Joseph said no, not one, adding that he could not say how many, but the patient in 2007 was his last.
He further stated that the most common gunshot wounds he has seen during his practice were caused by .22, .32, .38 and 9 mm bullets.
“Since you are testifying about an AK4-7, what type of ammunition does it use?” Gildharie-Mursalin asked the witness who said he did not know. She further asked Joseph if he ever studied ballistics. He responded in the negative.
“So, as you stand there, you cannot pronounce on any ballistics because that is not your field,” state prosecutor inquired and was told “Yes, I can do so because I have experience with gunshot injuries”.
When asked if he was a ballistics expert, Joseph said no.
“In fact, all you are talking is based on mere speculation,” Gildharie-Mursalin stated but the witness refused to answer. Justice Patterson instructed him that he is required to answer the question because the state prosecutor was not attacking him but merely doing her job by representing the state.
The prosecutor then stood up and indicated that the witness has been put up by the defence as an “expert witness” and that such a witness has to be mutual and respond to both sides in an objective manner.
The witness then said that he has already stated what he knows.
The state prosecutor asked Joseph if he was trained as a forensic pathologist as well to which he responded in the negative. She then told the court that in order for the witness to be in a position to challenge the findings of a pathologist on a post-mortem report, he would have had to see the body and also do his own examination. Joseph said “not necessarily,” explaining that any surgeon can challenge the findings of a pathologist and the pathologist’s findings are not necessarily accepted by the medical council.
“They must be correlated to the clinical antecedents of the patient,” Joseph stated.
“What if the person does not have any antecedents? What if the person was shot and ended up on the pathologist’s table?” Gildharie-Mursalin further asked. The witness again refused to answer the question.
Joseph was asked if the bullet passes through the arms, hits the bone, enters the body, punctures the lungs and aorta and then lodges in the left arm, what would he say is the cause of death since he had earlier on that multiple gunshot injuries can not be considered a cause of death. “I did not do the post-mortem examination,” he responded.
“But you are making pronouncement on ballistics and pathology so please answer the question,” the state prosecutor again asked.
He then answered that the cause of death would be exsanguinations, which will cause bleeding in the chest because the aorta is a vital organ and bleeding will lead to culinary respiratory collapse.
Gildharie-Mursalin then asked what would have been the primary cause of exsanguinations to which Joseph responded “gunshot in-juries”—the initial report made by Pathologist Dr Nehaul Singh.
When the matter continues today, the defence is scheduled to address the jury.
