AN attempt by defence lawyer Tom Tavares-Finson to discourage the testimony of a handwriting expert in the case now being heard in the Supreme Court against well known attorney Sean Kinghorn, his secretary Ruth Ann Kelly Spencer, and farmer Linton Campbell, who are charged with conspiracy to defraud the estate of a dead St Mary returning resident, yesterday made no headway.

Tavares-Finson, raising the matter just ahead of a scheduled break by the court, pointed out that since the prosecution had earlier this week taken steps to amend the original indictment which had charged the three with forgery and conspiracy, such a testimony would only now serve to prejudice the jury which is hearing the matter.

“The indictment was aborted because counsel has said none of these three were involved in forgery. What is the probative value of [a handwriting expert] beyond prejudicing the jury? None of the three are charged with forgery. The three persons were charged with conspiracy to defraud, not forgery,” Tavares-Finson, who represents Kinghorn, said.

However, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Adley Duncan, who is leading the evidence for the prosecution, in responding, said: “The prosecution maintains that the evidence of (the handwriting expert) is of probative value.” He further noted that the prosecution was not obligated to take counsel from the defence as to what witnesses to call.

Tavares-Finson, however, persisted.

“If it is (that the expert) is coming to speak to forgery, no sample or specimen were taken from any of the three individuals. The question is whether or not the tribunal determines that such evidence has probative value. The court can say this is of no probative value. If you do find that it does, does the prejudicial effect outweigh the probative value?” he asked.

Yesterday, Supreme Court Judge Justice Lorna Shelly-Williams, in quashing the matter, said “The charge before the court is in fact conspiracy, the point being raised is a matter for the no-case submission. The evidence of (the handwriting expert) speaks to a signature on one particular document in question. I am not going to exclude any evidence at this time.” She said the attorney could raise the issue again at the point when the no-case submission is made.

The expert, who had been expected to testify yesterday, should face the court this morning instead when the matter resumes. The prosecution, at the onset, had indicated that it intended to call two handwriting experts, one local and another from overseas.

Duncan told the seven-member jury on Wednesday that the Crown intended to show, through evidence, that Kinghorn, his secretary Kelly Spencer, and Campbell “acted together to defraud the estate of a dead person”.

The allegations are that the three, who have all pleaded not guilty, illegally created the will for the St Mary woman in 2008.

Following the completion of the jury selection Wednesday, Duncan told the panel that “evidence will be called upon by the prosecution to show that the signature on the will was fake”.

“It wasn’t made by the person they said it was for. The prosecution is basically calling witnesses to establish that these three persons acted together to defraud the estate of the dead person,” he indicated.

The prosecution’s first witness, a grand-niece of the deceased, told the court that she had enjoyed a good relationship with her and had actually lived in a house owned by her for 15 years before moving into her own home after that dwelling was sold.

“We visited with each other on several occasions, whenever she needed to shop. We went to the beach together, we had family picnics, I saw her as one of the strong women of the family; nurturing and independent. I looked up to her,” she said.

The witness, however, noted that her job as a probation officer, as well as the demands of her own family and a divorce in 2007, had resulted in her being unable to visit her grand-aunt more often.

She said, in January 2012, two months after her grand-aunt passed, upon learning that she had been ailing physically, she made a decision to take her to a specialist to get a second opinion but was prevented from doing so “as the individual who was asked to arrange the funds was not in agreement”.

That individual, she said, was Lincoln Campbell, whom she had only met once before in May 2009, the night before the funeral of her grandaunt’s husband.

She said on March 13, 2012 she was told that her grand-aunt had died and that, despite her best efforts and that of family members, Campbell made arrangements for the deceased to be buried “nine days after her death” without their consent.

According to the witness, who said she did not attend the funeral because she was “not permitted to”, she had seen a copy of the programme which she told the court incorrectly bore a photo of the sister of the deceased, instead of the deceased.

She said “a week or so” after the funeral, Campbell “produced two documents” and something was said “concerning authority”.

She told the court that upon visiting Campbell’s residence to find out more about the ‘authority’, “he asked why are we following him up; the lady dead already and him bury her”.

Under questioning from Campbell’s attorney, Oswest Senior Smith, who suggested to the witness that she had been caught up with her own affairs and had “abandoned” her grand-aunt, the witness said “I didn’t”.

“You got divorced, you found yourself with less personal time to visit…you were a mother, you also had a child who was demanding your special attention, would you agree that you were under tremendous pressure?” the attorney pressed.

“There are some persons who work better under strain, I do very well at it,” the witness retorted. She further disputed the attorney’s assertion that Campbell was involved in caring for her aunt and was one of her drivers telling the court that, as far as she knew, Campbell was just a brother of a previous helper employed to her grand-aunt.

Senior Smith pressed the witness as to whether she had become “upset” upon learning that her grand-aunt had passed and had not named her or other relatives in her will and had made Campbell the benefactor.

He further questioned the witness as to whether her grand-aunt selling the house in which she lived without giving her “a cent” had anything to do with her visiting her less.

“I needed no money from it, I lived there between 1993 and 2008…I had my own home,” the witness replied.

“Yes, you had your own, but she sold this and she didn’t give you a cent; she made a will concerning her home in Boscobel but she didn’t give it to you either,” Senior Smith prodded.

“I don’t need two houses, sir,” the witness replied.