Forensic Analyst: DNA not conclusive

Although semen and spermatozoa were found on pieces of clothing belonging to slain Sion Hill resident, 12-year-old Lokeisha Nanton, the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) profile of Patrick Lovelace, the man accused of killing her, could not be ascertained. {{more}}

Jamaican Government Forensic Analyst, Sheron Brydson, revealed this on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, at the High Court in Kingstown. She stated that the exhibits collected included a skirt, a blouse and a pair of panties, but she could not pick up any readings of DNA. In her evidence, Brydson told the court that she was able to collect a DNA profile from Lovelace on December 3, 2002, but all of the exhibits tested had been depleted due to the length of time before the exhibits were tested and exposure to air.

The case, which started on Tuesday, heard evidence coming from over 13 prosecution witnesses, including Lokeisha’s mother, Franceta Nanton, and Consultant Surgical Pathologist, Dr Ronald Child.

Nanton told the court that on July 1, 2002, her daughter came to her shop to get a drink of water, shortly after steel pan practice at Sion Hill. She said that Lokeisha always came to the shop before heading home, since it was close to where the pan yard was located.

The bereaved mother added that she left the shop at about 11pm and when she arrived home, she did not meet Lokeisha there. “I wasn’t worried because I thought she was still at pan practice because I know sometimes she stays late,” Nanton pointed out. Nanton said she went to bed, even though her daughter had not returned as yet. It was the next morning she learned of her daughter’s horrific demise.

A post mortem examination conducted on Lokeisha’s body by Dr Child indicated that the 12-year-old died as a result of strangulation.

This is the second time Lovelace is being tried for Lokeisha’s murder. In 2005, he was found guilty by the High Court, however a re-trial was ordered by the Appeal Court in 2006.

Representing the crown’s case, Director of Public Prosecutions, Colin Williams requested an adjournment in the matter and indicated that six more persons, including key witness, Romona Caruth, will be called to give evidence in the matter.

Lovelace’s Lawyer, Bayliss Frederick, however objected to Williams’ request for an adjournment citing that if the prosecution felt that they could not go on with the case, the jury should be discharged and have the matter done with.

Presiding Judge, Frederick Bruce-Lyle overruled Frederick’s objection and granted the adjournment. The case is still ongoing at the High Court. (KW)