LYNS TRIAL - US footwear examiner explains findings

Published: Wednesday | November 4, 2009


Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

The shoe impression found at the house of Manchester couple Richard and Julia Lyn was made by the right foot of a shoe which was allegedly taken from the foot of the accused, Lennox Swaby, when he was taken into custody.

United States forensic scientist Dwayne Hilderbrand, who is a certified footwear examiner, made the disclosure yesterday when he gave evidence at the trial in the Home Circuit Court.

Swaby, 28, farmer and taxi driver of Hopeton district, Manchester, and 26-year-old garbage truck driver, Calvin Powell, have been on trial in the Home Circuit Court since October 5 for the double murder.

The couple were strangled during a robbery at their home at 14 Battersea Avenue, Mandeville, between December 9 and 10, 2006.

Similarities found

Hilderbrand said that in July 2007 he was in the United States when he received by email digital images of the crime scene prints of a shoe and the right foot of a shoe. He said he conducted analysis of the tread design, physical shape, the wear pattern and condition of the shoe and came to the conclusion that the impressions at the crime scene were made from that shoe.

Hilderbrand used a power point presentation to demonstrate to the jury the similarities he found on the exhibits.

He was shown the pair of shoes that were allegedly seized from Swaby when he was taken into custody on December 16, 2006, and he said the shoe impression at the crime scene was made by that right shoe.

Defence lawyer Dr Randolph Williams, who is representing Swaby, had objected to conclusions being drawn from the shoe print impressions but Senior Puisne Judge Marva McIntosh overruled the objection.

Detective Inspector George Williams had testified on Monday that on December 16, 2006, when Swaby was taken into custody, he told Swaby that shoe impressions were found at the murder scene and asked him for the pair of shoes he had on.

barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com

 
 
 
The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. To respond to The Gleaner please use the feedback form.