The Coroner’s inquest into the death of Nealson Oneal Mason who died in a police-involved shooting heard that his death was as a result of haemorrhagic shock from a gunshot in the chest.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
That was the determination of Dr Shubhakar Karra Paul on Monday as he gave evidence in the Coroner’s Court at the Henry Forde and David Simmons Legal and Judicial Complex.
The 43-year-old salesman of Bank Hall Cross Road, St Michael, died during the early hours of May 24, 2022 in Eagle Hall, St Michael.
Magistrate Graveney Bannister is the assigned Coroner and he heard that the bullet entry wound was over the right back of the chest and four centimetres lateral to the right shoulder blade on the outer side. Paul pointed out an area around the shoulder blade, which he agreed was the fatal wound.
Paul said that the deceased’s lung and heart had been lacerated and that had caused internal bleeding. There was then insufficient blood inside the body for it to function and that eventually led to Mason’s death.
Under cross-examination, the pathologist was asked whether death would have been instant under such circumstances. It could be “anywhere from a few seconds to a minute”, he replied.
When asked whether family members were allowed to see Mason’s body prior to the post mortem, the pathologist said under cross-examination that normally one family member is allowed to enter the morgue to see and identify the deceased before the examination is performed.
However, he could not recall whether Debra Alleyne had asked to see her brother’s body, so in Mason’s case no family member was present at the autopsy, although he spoke to Alleyne prior about identifying her brother’s body.
Family members are not present unless a specific request is made, Paul said.
Although he agreed with King’s Counsel Michael Lashley, who is representing the deceased man’s family interest along with Sade Harris, that it was important that a family member be present at any post-mortem, Paul said he did not allow it.
Asked “who was present”, the witness said crime scene officers were there taking photographs.
In response to a question about whether his conclusion might have been different had he conducted the post mortem closer to the date of the incident, rather than seven days later, Paul said, “No”. (SD)
