Mon | Dec 23, 2024

Another forensic expert testifies in multimillion-dollar fraud trial

Published:Friday | September 27, 2019 | 12:32 AMTamara Bailey/Gleaner Writer

Mandeville, Manchester

When a second forensic examiner took the stand on Wednesday in the Manchester Municipal Corporation multimillion-dollar fraud trial, he gave a detailed account of an operation that took place at the home of accused former secretary manager and director of finance David Harris.

The witness, who was, at the time of the investigation, attached to the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency, was part of the team that conducted a raid on the then parish council and the home of Harris.

He said that his role was to identify electronic devices on the premises, which resulted in the seizure of a Samsung cell phone and a laptop.

Additionally, he said that the devices seized were listed on an attribution form and presented to Harris for signing.

The witness said that after further analysis of the cell phone, messages between Harris and accused former Deputy Superintendent of Roads and Works Sanja Elliott were retrieved.

As the prosecution sought to establish the witness as an expert, attorney-at-law Danielle Archer, who represents Harris, indicated that expertise should be considered on the basis of academics and experience.

SIM IDENTIFICATION

The witness had earlier revealed that for the period 2014 to 2017, he submitted documents for approximately 20 cases. He also said that for the period 2014 to 2018, he worked on 35 cases and examined more than 1,000 devices.

In his testimony, the forensic specialist said that he identified the phone by using the IMEI (international mobile equipment identity) number. However, questions were raised when the expert said that the SIM card, an item that is also normally identified by specific number, could be identified by a photo that was taken during the investigation.

The witness explained that the SIM card was not a standard nano SIM and that it had been cut from its original size, which resulted in the loss of the unique number.