Errors in post-mortem report were typos, insists pathologist

Former chief forensic pathologist Dr Dinesh Rao has acknowledged that the post-mortem report was amended in the probe into the slaying of accountant Keith Clarke but insists that the changes were typographical, not scientific.

Three Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) soldiers, Lance Corporals Greg Tingling, Odel Buckley and Private Arnold Henry, are on trial for the 63-year-old accountant’s May 27, 2010, killing.

The trial is currently under way in the Home Circuit Court in Kingston.

Rao, who appeared remotely from India, was continuing his evidence in chief, and during cross-examination by defence attorney Peter Champagnie, King’s Counsel, conceded that later, an error was corrected.

“Are you still standing by your testimony that you only prepared one post-mortem report?” Champagnie asked.

“Correct, sir,” Rao responded.

“In March of this year, do you recall in court me asking you questions in cross-examination? Do you recall me asking you this question: ‘But Dr Rao, didn’t you give a report itemising less than 25 ballistics injuries yet in another have 25?’ Do you recall that question?” Champagnie asked, reading from the transcript.

“Yes, sir. Yes, sir ... . (However) My answer was typographically wrong,” Rao said.

“No. I am suggesting to you with the greatest of respect that when you say that, you are not speaking the truth, Dr Rao,” Champagnie said.

Rao, however, fired back, saying, “Wrong, sir.”

The prosecution objected to the submission made by Champagnie that the witness was lying.

“Based on what is there and the answer given to counsel Mr Peter Champagnie, there is no agreement in relation to that there was more than one report that was prepared,” said Crown Counsel Latoya Bernard.

Bernard is joined by Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Jeremy Taylor and Dwayne Green on the prosecution benches.

Rao, in recent testimony, supported the account given by relatives of Clarke that he was shot and killed while climbing down from his closet with his back towardssecurity forces personnel who had entered his Kirkland Close home in Red Hills, St Andrew.

The forensic expert also said that Clarke was shot at least 10 times in the back.

In the same testimony, he alluded to conducting more than 6,000 post-mortems during his stay in Jamaica, and yesterday, Champagnie sarcastically asked him if he knew what it meant to exaggerate something.

“Absolutely, sir,” Rao said.

Following a short break, the document containing the post-mortem report was sent to Rao electronically.

After a few hiccups, he was able to download and peruse it.

Champagnie was adamant that he would not let up on the discrepancy spotted in the report.

“Do you agree with me that in relation to one of the documents, at injury number 9, it has ‘gunshot wound of entrance present over the left lower back situated at 212 centimetres’?” Champagnie asked.

“Sir, that’s an obvious error, sir. It’s an obvious typographical error which cannot be ignored because it’s unscientific,” Rao said.

“Thank you for the explanation, but I wasn’t asking for that yet,” Champagnie said.

“Do you agree with me that there is another report that you presented and you prepared, separate document, signed to, again with the same injury number 9 saying ‘gunshot wound of entrance present over the left lower back situated at 121 centimetres?’” asked the defence attorney.

“It’s a corrected report, sir, not another report, sir,” Rao said.

Champagnie asked the pathologist if he had the words ‘corrected report’ written on the documents to which Rao said that that had not been asked of him.

Rao told the court that the reports are typed by clerical staff.

Champagnie sought to find out if Rao had read the reports before he signed as his signature was on both.

“We always do read, sir, but errors aren’t always existing sir, and we always correct it, sir,” Rao said.

“I’m asking about you, not we,” Champagnie said.

Rao said that despite him reading over the report, there can be oversight and there is correction.

“All typographical errors, not scientific, sir … . Yes, sir. It was a typographical error post-mortem report concerning Mr Keith Clarke,” Rao pushed back.

The seven-member jury pool, earlier in the day, heard submissions from the Crown counsel while Rao was giving evidence in chief.

Rao reiterated that Clarke was shot coming down from the top of the closet, with his back turned towards the shooter and that it was possible, based on forearm injuries, that his arms were outstretched.

The prosecution noted that the post mortem report was dated June 10, 2010.

“You had prepared any other post-mortem reports?” Bernard asked.

“Absolutely not. Only one single post -mortem report has been issued for one post -mortem examination. However, additional injuries, in case it has been left out because of typographical issues, the same will be added and issued,” Rao said, adding that it was like “an amended report”.

The trial continues on Monday, with more witnesses to give their testimony.

andre.williams@gleanerjm.com