CROSS FOR DOCTOR

1. Good afternoon Mr. witness.

2. Do you usually appear to testify for the Counsel of the accused in her previous cases? How
many times?
3. How did you become a witness in this case? (If he received subpoena, ask if before
subpoena where you not approached or requested to come today and testify in this case
by the accused? (link him to the relationship of the victim)

Your honour before I proceed, allow me to introduce to this honourable court the
credentials of the witness presented as expert witness by the defence. Your honour we
just received this record from the hospital itself where the witness work at present
showing the records of the witness that the witness is not a Ph.D. or doctorate holder
in forensic pathology. He does not have any publish research paper works in forensic
pathology and does not engage in teaching profession in any universities and colleges
in any part of the country.

4. You are in practice for 19 years?

5. What do you mean by incised wound? (An incised wound is a wound or cut caused by a clean,
sharp object, such as a razor, knife, or broken piece of glass. Incised wounds are wounds that are usually
longer than they are deep. They are caused by a sharp item cutting or slashing into the skin, making a
long laceration or cut. Often times these wounds are not very deep, usually only damaging the skin.
However, occasionally these types of wounds can be very deep, cutting into muscle tissue, tendons, or
major blood vessels. Damage to major blood vessels can cause life-threatening bleeding.
6. In your affidavit (referring to question # 12) you mentioned when you were asked to
described the wounds of the accused, you said- quote “ He had a single deep laceration
in his left forearm and a medium laceration on his right forearm and two incised wounds
in the palmar surface of his right hand. Is it correct?
But based in your answer in question # 14 when you were asked to explain in layman’s
term the injuries of the accused you said, quote- “ the accused wounds in his left and
right forearms and on the palmar region may have been caused by an attack using a
bladed weapon. However such bladed weapon may not have been so sharp since the
wound did not result in an incised wound but a lacerated one. Is it correct?

You said there were two incised wounds in the palmar surface of his right but you said
also that the weapon may not have been so sharp since it did not result in an incised
wound but only a lacerated one.

How do you reconcile these inconsistent statement of yours Mr. witness?

(I would like to impress the mind of this honourable court the inconsistency of the
statement of the expert witness- when he said that the wounds of the accused were not
incised when in fact those wounds were incised your honour. In fact your honour in
sentence number two in question number 12 he said- quote “ I had to stitch the deep
laceration in his left forearm and two incised wounds in his right palm. It is very
inconsistent your honour when he was asked to describe in layman’s term the injuries of
the accused which he said that (on question 14) the bladed weapon may not have been
so sharp since the wound did not result in an incised wound your honour.

A laceration is a wound that is produced by the tearing of soft body tissue. This type of wound is often irregular and jagged.
A laceration wound is often contaminated with bacteria and debris from whatever object caused the cut.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS YOUR HONOUR.