Heroin highway jury: Defence questions validity of court experts’ testimony

The defense appearing for Herman McKay, 34, who stands accused of spreading half a kilo of heroin in the street in 2007, has challenged the validity of the testimony given by court experts, who seemed to have difficulty recalling details of the case.

A number of experts were called as witnesses to present their findings from the inquiry, but appeared to have difficulty recalling some of details of the case, which took place more than ten years ago.

This was further compounded by the fact that certain details were not taken note of during the inquiry in 2007.

The jury heard court expert Martin Bajada, who was tasked with analysing three mobile phones related to the case. When asked by the defense for the name of the person who gave the phones in the first place, he said it was Inspector Pierre Grech who passed them on to him.

Before giving his answer, Bajada looked at the envelope in which the devices were being held.

To this, the defense questioned where Bajada was getting the information from – remarking that there was no such indication on the envelope. It added that that the witness was falsely indicating to the jury that the information had been documented on the envelope.

Bajada denied giving any such indication, with the defense requesting that the jury be shown the envelope in question.

“I want the jurors to look at the envelope and see what Bajada could possibly have read from it,” it said, insisting that Bajada was not answering their questions and was ‘beating around the bush’.

The expert said that he was not given an admission form for the devices, and admitted that he should have noted down the name of the Inspector who handed them to him, but insisted that he remembers clearly that it was Inspector Grech.

The judge clarified that although a submission form was absent, his statements are valid. “The lack of form is a bureaucratic issue. The telephones was given by an Inspector and that is a fact.”

Similarly, forensic expert Mario Mifsud who was tasked with analysing the suspected drug, said that he “doesn’t remember” whether he was informed that the substance was picked up from the ground.

He subsequently referred to documentation, which confirmed this.

After being challenged by the defence, Mifsud also admitted that his report did not include raw data, despite the fact that his conclusions are based on this data.

The defense also pointed out that the report was created in 2009 – two years after the incident. Mifsud could not recall the date when the analysis happened either, as this was not indicated in his report.

The jury continues.

Lawyers Elaine Mercieca and Justine Cilia from the office of the Attorney General are leading the prosecution.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri are defence counsel.