BALLISTICS expert Matthew Noedel said on Monday that he couldn’t say definitively why some of the findings from his analysis of bullets and the rifles, said to have been used by three Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) soldiers charged with murder in relation to the 2010 shooting death of accountant Keith Clarke, differed from the findings of a government scientist.

Neodel, who was contracted by the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom) to investigate the matter, also said, during his testimony in the Home Circuit Court trial of the three soldiers, that he wasn’t sure why the government ballistics expert later changed his own findings to reflect what he had presented.

The three soldiers on trial are Lance Corporals Greg Tingling and Odel Buckley as well as Private Arnold Henry.

Clarke was shot more than 20 times, including in the back, during a police/military operation at his house in Kirkland Heights, St Andrew, on May 27, 2010.

The security forces went to the premises in search of then fugitive Christopher “Dudus” Coke, who was wanted in the United States on drugs and weapons charges. Coke was believed to have been hiding out in the basement of Clarke’s house, along with around seven of his heavily armed henchmen.

“I disagree with the findings of the ballistics certificate. Based on my microscopic examination of five cartridge casings, only three matches gun O. The other two have a different microscopic signature than evidence gun O. The microscopic signature of the other two exhibits match gun S and not gun O,” Noedel said during examination-in-chief that was being conducted by prosecutor Latoya Bernard.

Bernard asked Noedel to explain what could have caused the difference in results.

According to Noedel: “My conclusion is based completely on the microscopic tool marks present on those exhibits. I cannot say why he did not recognise those differences.”

During cross-examination, attorney-at-law Valerie Neita-Robertson, King’s Counsel, quizzed the witness on why a peer review was not conducted after he made his findings.

“You know about peer review? This is where the findings of an expert are reviewed by other experts and that is a safeguard. Did you sit down with our expert in Jamaica to compare notes?” Neita-Robertson asked Noedel.

Noedel responded saying, “No, I did not. I do not recall requesting a meeting with him about this event.”

Neita-Robertson, however, continued pressing to find out why a peer review was not done.

According to Noedel: “Indecom has only one forensic examiner which is myself. I have no peer available on the island of Jamaica. If my findings are in question, the defence could find an expert to challenge my work. The exhibits should still exist.”

The trial continues today when the witness will face further cross-examination.