GOVERNMENT forensic analyst Sharon Bryson testified in the Vybz Kartel murder trial yesterday that blood, believed to be that of a male, was found at the entertainer’s house.
However, she testified that DNA analysis of the blood did not match that of the uncle of the man the prosecution believed to have been murdered.
KARTEL… on trial for murder
Bryson gave the evidence during her examination-in-chief that blood, believed to be that of victim Clive ‘Lizard’ Williams, was taken from the Havendale, St Andrew, house and that a swab was done of Williams’ uncle for DNA.
“The DNA did not match that of the uncle,” Bryson told the court. Asked by lead prosecutor Jeremy Taylor what could account for the failure to match DNA, Bryson said Williams’ uncle may be from his mother’s side of the family.
Under cross-examination by defence attorney Tom Tavares- Finson, who appears with Chris Tavares-Finson for Kartel, Bryson said she was unable to say that the blood taken from the house was that of Williams.
“If it was said that the blood of Clive Williams was found at the house at Swallowfield Avenue, that would not have come from you?”
“No, sir,” said Bryson.
“If the police say blood of Williams was found at Vybz Kartel’s house, that wouldn’t have come from you?”
“No, sir,” was her response.
Under cross-examination by another defence attorney, Michael Lorne, who, along with Susan Dodd, appears for Shawn ‘Shawn Storm’ Campbell, Bryson said the police had brought the uncle to her for a sample to be taken for DNA analysis.
She said other samples that were taken from the house were tested, but no match to Williams was found.
Vybz Kartel (real name Adidja Palmer), Campbell, Kahira Jones, Andre St John, and Shane Williams are on trial for the murder of Clive Williams on August 16, 2011.
A body has not been found but the prosecution believes that Williams was beaten to death over the disappearance of two guns.
Yesterday, Corporal Shawn Howard of the police’s Communication Forensic and Cybercrime Unit testified to getting a number of cellular phones, a notebook computer, a USB flash drive, and laptop on October 3, 2011, which he logged in the register.
Cross-examined by Lorne, he said that he was aware that in some instances the law required that a warrant be obtained before a confiscated cellphone could be searched. He, however, said that he didn’t obtain a warrant to do so.
Howard also said that he didn’t ascertain if a warrant was obtained for the confiscation of the items in the first place.
In response to questions posed by attorney Pierre Rogers (Jones’ attorney), Howard said that no civilian worked at the Cybercrime Unit at the time he got the items, and that only police officers conduct analysis of exhibits.
“There are no civilians to check the police finding?” Rogers asked.
“No, sir,” Howard said.
Crossed by Tavares-Finson, Howard said there was no way of telling the ownership of the phones if the investigator didn’t put the names of the owners on them