Katanga trial: Defence pathologist admits gaps in critical analysis

Dr Sylvester Onzivua being cross-examined.PHOTO | ABUBAKER LUBOWA

The credibility and scope of the defence forensic analysis in the murder trial of businessman Henry Katanga came under renewed scrutiny after a defence witness admitted he never examined the injuries sustained by key murder suspect Molly Katanga and could not determine the position in which the deceased died.

Appearing for a fourth round of cross-examination at the High Court before Justice Rosette Comfort Kania, the retired forensic pathologist, Dr Sylvester Onzivua, faced sustained questioning from Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya over what he described as critical gaps in the expert’s analysis of the circumstances surrounding Katanga’s death.

The prosecution sought to distinguish between establishing the cause of death and investigating the circumstances under which a death occurs.

“In death investigations, the position of the body is itself evidence,” Muwaganya told court, adding that the location of a firearm, blood patterns and the overall appearance of the scene are all critical elements in reconstructing how a person died.

Dr Onzivua agreed, saying: “The entire appearance of the scene of crime is a critical piece of evidence in a death investigation.”

The witness also accepted that determining the circumstances of death falls within the responsibilities of a forensic pathologist.

“Is it also in your professional calling to investigate the circumstances of death?” Mr Muwaganya asked.

The exchange later shifted to Molly Katanga’s injuries, which the defence has previously relied on to support its theory of events.

Under questioning, Dr Onzivua acknowledged that although forensic pathologists are trained to analyse wounds and determine whether they are superficial, self-inflicted or caused by another person, he had never been instructed to assess Molly Katanga’s injuries.

“You were never instructed to do anything in relation to her own wounds, correct?” Mr Muwaganya asked.

Dr Onzivua replied that he had received no instructions concerning Molly Katanga’s wounds and had focused on interpreting injuries described in the postmortem report.

The prosecution then pressed him on whether his expertise extends beyond examining deceased persons.

“You confirm as a pathologist your expertise is not restricted to wounds of dead bodies but also wounds of the person involved in crime,” Mr Muwaganya said.

The prosecution argued that despite possessing the expertise to analyse injuries on living persons, the witness had not independently assessed the wounds of the key accused pers