Government Pathologist Dr Nehaul Singh who performed a post-mortem examination on the body of murdered businessman Kumar Mohabir gave the cause of death as multiple stab wounds.
He confirmed this yesterday while testifying in the trial of Devon Thomas and Randy Isaac, who are accused of the Mashramani night murder of the businessman.
The men have denied murdering Mohabir at Vlissengen Road, Georgetown, on February 24, 2013. Mohabir, 25, of Enterprise, East Coast Demerara, died of multiple stab wounds following the attack, which occurred the night before. The two accused are on trial before Justice Navindra Singh and a 12-member jury at the High Court.
Responding to a question under cross-examination by Thomas’s attorney Latchmie Rahamat, Dr Singh said that while he could not say with any certainty, what specific object was used to inflict the wounds, he was sure it was a sharp instrument.
He said too that the body bore lacerations, which further indicated, that a sharp instrument caused the injuries.
Asked if it was possible for such injuries to have been sustained by the deceased falling onto an object, the doctor explained that while it was not impossible, the object would have to be a sharp one and firmly planted, with its sharp edge pointing upwards.
Meanwhile, responding to a question from the jury, Dr Singh clarified, that, in the light of the multiple injuries which he examined; it would be impossible for those injuries to have been sustained through a single fall onto a sharp, firmly planted object.
Asked by counsel if glass fragments were seen when he examined the body, the witness answered in the negative, stating that as per routine he looked for such and other fragments, but found none.
Deputy Superintendent of Police Steve Booker also testified at yesterday’s hearing.
He recalled conducting an identification (ID) parade at the Alberttown Police Station on February 25, 2013 where Isaac was placed among eight other men.
According to Booker, brother of the deceased Navindra Mohabir was invited to view the parade and within a minute he pointed out Isaac as one of the persons who had attacked him and his now dead brother.
Detective Corporal Winston Singh, who testified on Tuesday, recalled assisting with investigations after receiving reports of an alleged murder committed on Kumar and alleged attempted murder committed on Navindra.
Asked under cross-examination, by Isaac’s attorney Peter Hugh, how he came to know that his client was a suspect in the matter at the time he conducted the ID parade, Booker said he had received certain information from detectives.
Hugh quizzed Booker on whether it was true, that according to the police standing orders, persons placed on a parade with a suspect must be of similar height, age ethnicity and general appearance.
Booker said that this was true.
After viewing the form on which details relating to the parade had been recorded, counsel then further quizzed the witness about his client’s age.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police after viewing the same form for some time, however later indicated that he had not recorded Isaac’s age, and supplied to counsel the explanation, that, he had “averaged” his client’s age.
Hugh smiled in amusement at the Superinten-dent’s response.
With permission from the court, Hugh’s client was allowed to roll up his long-sleeved shirt to expose tattoos which were visible on his hands. Booker was then asked whether the other persons placed on the parade had tattoos as well.
He however responded that he could not recall, adding that he could not remember and did not take note whether at the time he conducted the parade, Isaac had tattoos on his hand.
Booker agreed with a suggestion from counsel that the tattoo work on his client’s hand, could have been disadvantageous to him, since it is a distinguishing mark that could have unfairly set him apart from the other persons on the parade, who did not have tattoos.
Hugh then drew Booker’s attention to a visible deformity which Isaac has to the left eye; asking him whether the other persons on the parade had such an eye.
After looking at the accused’s eye for a while however, the superintendent said he did not take note of this either, when he placed Isaac on the parade; adding that the other persons had no such eye.
The witness then again agreed with counsel that such attributes characteristic to his client, could have unfairly set him apart for selection.
Key prosecution witness, Navindra Mohabir, is the final of the nine state witnesses who is scheduled to testify when the trial continues this morning, following which the prosecution will close its case.
In her opening address after the empanelment of the jury on Monday, Prosecutor Stacy Goodings, who represents the state in association with attorney Diana Kaulesar, said that on Mashramani Day, Mohabir, who was with his family, was attacked by the two accused, along with other persons.
She added that Mohabir was taken to the hospital where he later died.
