This is not the first time that we have had drastic and conflicting differences in the findings of pathologists’ works in T&T. Are these becoming pathological now? The recent findings of pathologists on the drowned Brian Smith are quite disturbing. Which one do we believe?
One pathologist said that the victim died by drowning. The other said that the victim was probably murdered before, severely beaten, suffered blunt force trauma, skull was damaged, probably strangled, etc.
Just look at these very significant differences between the two findings. It is not a small matter that can be overlooked. Was one examination more thorough than the other? If so, why?
Now, the Defence Force is calling for a third one. Are there not international standards to follow? Which report will the police, courts and if applicable, a jury comprised of “ordinary men and women” eventually believe?
What the Brian Smith’s incident has again called for is for another high level investigation to be done into the operations of the forensic science centre. And, for serious action to be taken where required. We are totally fed up with issues of credibility and competence of our forensic scientists being raised.
We are now left wondering aloud if collusion took place between the defence force and one pathologist or between family members of the victim and another pathologist? How will we know? If yes, what disciplinary action will be taken against the colluding parties?
This critical criminal justice debacle should not be swept under the proverbial carpet. The death of Brian Smith should at least assist in getting a fairer system of justice. This should now cause us to challenge the findings of all of their other works. It must stand up to scrutiny.
I am sure that people will be now be further scared if they have matters being dealt with by the forensic science centre. Will they get justice? Can they be successfully framed by someone?
I will certainly like to hear the minister of national security, attorney general, chief justice, law association, criminal bar association, civil society and human rights groups on this issue! They can’t be silent on such a fundamental issue. The acting Prime Minister’s words are welcomed but we need public actions. Tell us what you as leader will do to ensure there is no cover up.
Many may not know that the forensic science centre does work in other areas such as identification of arms, ammunitions, counterfeit money, drugs, etc. Did or can collusion take place here as well? What are the implications for evidence tendered in court by the police? Can they be trusted? What about convictions that were given based on past forensic evidence? Can there be appeals and retrials?
Are there innocent people in prison based on the past findings of the forensic science centre? Are there criminals walking free because the forensic scientist failed to identify them? To the authorities that be, give us the confidence that we need in our independent institutions.
Deepak Dhanny