.png)
By Racquel Porter
A crime scene forensic investigator testified on Wednesday that determining whether items recovered during an autopsy could help identify a perpetrator is the responsibility of the pathologist.
The investigator processed the post-mortem examination of a decomposing body linked to one of the counts in the trial of Tesha Miller and his 24 co-accused.
The crime scene forensic investigator said a detective sergeant contacted her about 8:15 on the morning of June 6, 2020.
After logging the information, she proceeded to Archer's Funeral Home, where she processed the medium-built, decomposing body, bearing tattoos, including one on the left arm with the names 'Rachel' and 'Lloyd', and two hearts.
She said the face of the body was distorted.
Earlier, the witness had testified that a piece of cloth was tied around the neck.
She said the mouth was wide open, with the cloth tied inside.
The witness said a cloth was also tied to the left arm, right ankle and wrist.
During cross-examination, attorney Paul Gentles, who represents Michael Wildman and Jerome Spike, asked if she was curious whether the perpetrator's DNA was on the cloth.
The witness, who had been an investigator for nine years at the time, said she was not curious.
Pressing further, Mr. Gentles asked if it had dawned on her that the perpetrator's DNA might have been on the piece of cloth tied around the mouth of the deceased.
She said yes, after Mr. Gentles asked, "Yes or no, ma'am?"
However, the witness said she was not curious about the cloth tied around the wrist.
Mr. Gentles then asked if, as a senior detective, she became curious that the DNA of possible perpetrators may have been on the cloth tied around the deceased's ankle.
The witness said she was not, given the state of decomposition.
Mr. Gentles asked if it was her responsibility to determine whether items that may have had potential value in identifying perpetrators should be collected, packaged, labelled and sealed.
The crime scene investigator said no; that was the job of the pathologist.
Mr. Gentles asked further if, as a crime scene forensic investigator, one of her primary objectives was to identify perpetrators of criminal offences through science.
The witness said yes.
Mr. Gentles asked if she could have instructed someone at the post-mortem to retrieve the item.
The prosecution objected on the basis this was speculation, stating that she could have done many things.
Asked if she knew where the items were and whether she knew any reason why they were not collected and secured, the witness said no, explaining that the doctor did not give them to her and that he was responsible for the evidence and exhibits.
Meanwhile, the witness agreed with attorney Tamika Harris, who represents Rolando Spence, that the only way to be sure there was no DNA on those items was for a scientist to perform testing.
Attorney Abina Morris, who represents Sharn Gilzene and Nashawn Guest, disputed the witness's testimony that a relative had identified the body as Lloyd Moodie.
The witness said she could not recall, after six years, whether it was a male or female relative who had identified the body, or the relative's name.
Earlier, the witness testified that she gave a statement on January 25, 2026, after being asked to reproduce her previous statement, which she had originally given in June 2020.
She said she benefitted from resorting to the use of her notebook, in which she had recorded her notes while at the post-mortem.
comments powered by Disqus
All feeds
