Murder of Vivekanand Nandalall
AT the continuation of the Vivekanand Nandalall murder case before Justice Dawn Gregory and the Jury at the Demerara Assizes yesterday, Detective Assistant Supt of Police Kingston, told the jury that the skeleton which was discovered in Guyana and thought to be the remains of the murdered man, was confirmed by DNA in Canada. But defence counsel Mrs. Clarissa Riehl, who noted that none of the local officers had taken the bones to Canada and nobody from the agency that tested the remains was present at the trial, suggested to the witness that the present DNA evidence was mere hearsay.
Kingston replied stating that he had documents, resulting in defence counsel pointing out to the officer that the documents were also hearsay.
Leading Prosecutor, Mrs. Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, in association with Miss Sandiford for the State, declared her intention to strive to make the DNA results admissible.
On the resumption yesterday, Kingston testified that during the month of March 2004, he was stationed at Vigilance Police Station as a Detective Sgt attached to the CID as the Sgt.
According to him, on the 12th March, 2004, he received information about a human skeleton.
As a result of the information received, he visited the scene at a canefield aback of Bachelor’s Adventure Squatting Area.
There he observed what appeared to be a human skeleton in a burnt-out canefield.   He examined the skeleton and he observed what appeared to be a gun-shot hole on the left side of the skull.
Witness then caused his men to remove the skeleton to await examination.
On the 19th of March, 2004, witness was present at the Georgetown Mortuary awaiting to witness the examination of the said skeleton.
The examination was conducted by Dr. Nehaul Singh who related his findings to witness. During the examination Dr. Singh extricated a warhead from the skull of the skeleton and handed it over to him.
Kingston told how the samples of bones and other parts of the skeleton were lodged with the laboratory, before they were forwarded to Canada for DNA examination.    
It was at this stage that the witness expressed the view that the DNA was a success and had to be told that the evidence therefrom was hearsay.
The hearing continues today.