Coroner disputes suicide ruling in Shemar Weekes’ case

THE forensic pathologist’s conclusion that the Shemar Weekes case was a suicide was brought under heavy scrutiny and criticism in the Coroner’s Court on Monday.

 

Coroner Manila Renee, during a three hour summation, said she had never seen such a conclusion drawn by a forensic pathologist who is only required to state his findings.

 

The coroner, while stressing that for there to be a suicide there must be an intention to die, said this could only be determined after the investigations into the matter are completed.

 

Renee clarified that there are a number of ways in which a person can become asphyxiated. 

 

“The fallacy of the forensic pathologist’s opinion that the manner was suicidal was evident in the case where a noose is placed around the head of a deep sleeper before realisation of that action by the victim. Then there is the case of a person who is tricked into putting a noose around their head or perhaps during some sexual game. 

 

“The fact that there is noose over somebody’s head and they die from asphyxia does not need to be suicide. To be suicide you must have intended to kill yourself. So suicide requires intention.”

 

‘Strange’ finding

The coroner said another example is where a child places a noose around his head in circumstances where an intervention is expected. She said this cannot be ruled a suicide because there is no 

intention to die. 

 

“If there is no intention to die how can it be suicide? Especially if not alone, and has a reasonable expectation to be saved. So this suicide finding... that is a strange thing for me... I have never seen it. 

This is like a forensic pathologist writing ‘accident’. 

 

“Because ‘accident’ and ‘negligence’ and ‘murder’, you do not see those things. Things that require intention you don’t see those things, you just state your findings,” she exhorted.

 

She stressed that the law regarding expert witnesses such as the forensic pathologist is that while their opinions are considered worthy of respect in the final analysis, their evidence cannot operate to oust the decision making process, relegating the final arbiter of the case.

 

“So when these matters go before the jury... yes they pay respect to what they [expert witnesses] say...they are supposed to come here and assist you, but the final analysis is for you to make the 

decision, not the pathologist, especially one who does not know a serious scar... It is for the jury.”

 

She reminded the small gathering in the Coroner’s Court that the object of the inquest is to determine not only how the deceased came by his death, but also the state of mind.

 

“The forensic pathologist cannot therefore encroach on the jurisdiction of the Court ... he is not seized of any knowledge regarding the intention of the deceased or the circumstances regarding his head in the noose. Because you put your head in a noose that does not mean you intend to die,”she reiterated. 

(JH)