Government Pathologist testifies in Stewartville trial

Jan 29, 2012 News

---

 

 

Thirty-four-year-old Vishnu Santie was shot seven times about his body and died as a result of those multiple gunshot injuries, according to Government Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Nehaul Singh, when he testified before Justice Franklin Holder and a mixed jury, on Thursday.
On trial for Santie’s murder are Peter Ray Kassim called ‘Donkey’ and Satnanand Sahadeo called “Boyso.” They allegedly murdered Santie on June 29, 2005, during a failed robbery attempt at his home at Lot 57 Stewartville Pasture, West Coast Demerara.
When the trial resumed on Thursday, State Prosecutor Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, who is appearing in association with Renita Singh, made an application for the evidence of the Pathologist to be interposed in the continued cross-examination of witness, David Boucher.
Sahadeo’s attorney, George Thomas, who is cross-examining Boucher, had no objections and Justice Holder acceded to the request. The other accused, Kassim, is represented by attorney-at-law, Hukumchand.
Deemed an expert in the field of Forensic Pathology by the Trial Judge, following an application by the Prosecutor, Dr. Singh explained his findings as contained in the post mortem report which was already admitted into evidence through Police Officer, Norris Harry, who had witnessed the autopsy on July 1, 2005.
Dr. Singh explained that one of the gunshots entered Santie’s chest just below his right nipple, downwards and into the right pulmonary artery and into the fifth rib next to the spine, lodging under the skin on the back. It was removed and given to Corporal Harry. Another bullet was also removed from the knee and given to the police officer.
According to the Pathologist, Santie sustained two gunshot wounds to the upper body and five below the navel. He said these wounds were from front to back and back to front and no soot or gunpowder residue was seen. He, however, explained that the distance from which the shooter(s) were standing would determine whether these are evident.
He opined that from the gunshot injuries sustained, Santie could not have lived for more than 15 minutes.
Under cross-examination, Dr. Singh was asked by Hukumchand whether the person who had the gun had to be taller than the victim since the bullets seemed to be downwards and across. Dr. Singh said ‘not necessarily,’ explaining that Santie could have been crouching and that would explain the injuries to the chest which were at a 90 degree angle. He also accepted that the gunman could have been taller for the injuries to the chest.
But for the lower body injuries, Dr. Singh said the gunman did not have to be taller as a gun can be pointed downwards. He was asked whether he knew how Santie came by his injuries and he said no.
When re-examined by the Prosecutor, Dr. Singh was asked whether the downward trajectory of the bullets were consistent with the shooter(s) being on a stairway with Santie and Dr. Singh said yes, explaining that the shooter could have been one step higher than Santie based on the angle of the chest injuries.
When cross-examined by Thomas, Dr. Singh said when he removed the two bullets from Santie’s body, he placed them either in an empty film container or an envelope, taped same and wrote the post mortem number, the date and signed same and handed it over to Corporal Harry. At that stage, Thomas applied for the taped envelope/ container to be produced by the Prosecution. But Gildharie-Mursalin submitted that the preservation of the chain of custody of those bullets, which were already admitted into evidence, the court having been satisfied with the nexus evidence, had been preserved through Corporal Harry.
The defence application was refused by the Trial Judge.
Following Dr. Singh’s evidence, Thomas continued his cross-examination of Boucher who had testified that about a week after Santie’s death, Sahadeo had taken a gun to his home and asked him to clean it.
He said the gun had water dripping from it and when he asked Sahadeo how it was in that condition, Sahadeo had told him that was the gun he used to shoot Frank Santie’s son and following that, he had to throw it in a drain and it got rusty.
He said he asked Sahadeo what happened at Santie’s home and Sahadeo told him that he and others had waited in the yard for Vishnu to come home, “to stick him up” and take him upstairs when his mother opened the door, to rob the family.
He claimed Sahadeo said that Vishnu Santie recognized them and put his hand to his waist as though he was drawing a gun and he (Sahadeo) does not take chances with his life so he and others shot Vishnu.
Boucher testified that he told Sahadeo, whom he described as his co-worker and drinking partner, that he (Sahadeo) “born and grow up in Stewartville” and if he knew people were going to rob the Santies, he should have protected the family and even if Vishnu had recognized him, he should have walked away instead of shooting him.
He said Sahadeo asked him for $1500 to buy bullets but he told Sahadeo he did not have the money but that he could get it from his neighbour, Shelly. Sahadeo asked him if he could trust Shelly and Boucher said he told him yes.
Boucher said he called over Shelly to hear the conversation between him and Sahadeo since he knew a day would come when “this story” would be revealed and Shelly would be able to substantiate what he had to say as no one would believe him.
Shelly has already testified in relation to the conversation with Sahadeo at Boucher’s home.
Boucher told the court that Sahadeo took the gun for him to clean because of his (Boucher’s) history of involvement in criminal activity.
Under cross-examination, Boucher denied that some time after the shooting at the Santies home, he had asked Frank Santie for $5000 to buy bullets. He, however, admitted that Frank Santie did visit his home following the shooting.
The trial continues on Monday.

---

---