ATTORNEY-AT-LAW Peter Champagnie, King’s Counsel (KC), on Thursday pressed retired government pathologist Dr Dinesh Rao to explain to the jury why he created two different post-mortem reports for accountant Keith Clarke who was shot dead on May 27, 2010.

However, Dr Rao, a former chief forensic pathologist in the Legal Medicine Unit, Ministry of National Security, insisted that he did not create two reports but that the one referred to as the second report entailed corrections which gave the accurate size and location of a specific bullet wound found on Clarke’s body.

Clarke was shot more than 21 times, including in his back.

On trial for murder in relation to the shooting death are three soldiers, lance corporals Greg Tingling and Odel Buckley as well as Private Arnold Henry.

Champagnie asked Dr Rao if he agreed with him when he said that in relation to the post-mortem he had his signature affixed to two different reports.

“It is not true, Sir. It was a corrected report, Sir. That’s a typographical error, Sir, and it is not scientific in nature,” Dr Rao responded.

Champagnie then asked, “You received a document before and you received another document just now. Would you agree with me that in relation to one of the documents, at injury number nine, it has gunshot wound of entrance present over the left lower back at 212 centimetres?”

“That is an obvious error, Sir. It is an obvious typographical error that cannot be ignored,” Dr Rao responded.

Champagnie, however, continued to press the pathologist who was giving evidence from a remote location via a secure video link.

“Would you agree with me, Dr Rao, that there is another report that you presented and prepared. It is a separate document, which you signed to again, with the said injury number nine which is saying gunshot wound of entrance present over left lower back situated at 121 centimetres?”

Dr Rao insisted that, “It is a corrected report, Sir. Not another report.”

Champagnie, in a quick follow-up, asked, “Did you have any crossing out to correct anything?”

Dr Rao, not backing down from his original position, responded, “It always happens, Sir. As I explained, the reports sometimes are prepared by the clerical staff. I do always read before I sign them, but where the errors exist we correct them. Despite our reading, Sir, that oversightedness does cause errors. I read and subsequently correct it, Sir, and I am endorsing it now, Sir.”

Clarke was killed in the master bedroom of his house at 18 Kirkland Close in Red Hills, St Andrew, by members of the Jamaica Defence Force during a police-military operation. The security forces maintain that the operation was geared at capturing then fugitive Christopher “Dudus” Coke, who was wanted by law enforcement authorities in the United States on drugs and weapons charges.

It has been alleged that Coke, along with around seven of his heavily armed henchmen who were said to have been camping out in the basement at Clarke’s house, challenged the military and the police in a fierce gun battle before escaping in a heavily forested area at the back of the house.

The police and soldiers forced entry into Clarke’s house where he was with wife and teenage daughter. At the time, Clarke was said to have been climbing down from atop a closet with his back turned when he was shot dead.

Defence attorneys have argued in court that Clarke pointed his licensed firearm in the direction of the soldiers and quite possibly fired at them.

On Thursday, Champagnie probed to find out if Clarke’s left hand had any injuries. Dr Rao said no. However, he said that Clarke’s right forearm had three injuries which appeared to be gunshot-related.

In response to questions from Champagnie, Dr Rao agreed that the injuries could have been because the right arm was extended towards the shooters. Dr Rao also said that there was an injury to the palm of Clarke’s right hand.

Champagnie asked Dr Rao if he knew what was meant by exaggeration. That question came because Dr Rao had said while he was in Jamaica he conducted between 6,000 and 7,000 post-mortems.

Dr Rao said that he had no reason to exaggerate anything.

Champagnie also asked Dr Rao how many times he had appeared in court to give evidence during his tenure as government pathologist, but the doctor explained that he could not recall definitively.

He explained, however, that every time he was called to give evidence in court it was for the prosecution, because defence attorneys have never called upon him to be their witness in any case.

The trial is scheduled to continue on Monday when a witness from the Independent Commission of Investigations will take the stand.