Verdict expected today

The prosecutor in a murder trial told the Criminal Court yesterday he interpreted a bite mark on Mario Pollacco's arm as an octogenarian's desperate bid to leave a mark which would eventually help reveal her killer's identity.

Prosecutor Mark Said said Rose Mary Schembri did not bite Pollacco for nothing. "I see the bite mark as a reflection of Schembri's last words through which she tried to tell us that Pollacco was the man who killed her."

Dr Said closed his arguments for the prosecution before Mr Justice Galea Debono in the trial of Pollacco, 38, of Msida, who is pleading not guilty to Schembri's wilful homicide at her house in Msida on June 3, 1998, and stealing more than Lm1,000 in cash and precious stones.

A verdict is expected later today after the judge concludes the summing-up he started yesterday evening. Both the prosecution and the defence closed their arguments yesterday.

Dr Said argued that a fingerprint on the scene of the crime would not have been as incriminating as the bite mark on Pollacco's arm.

"A fingerprint would have merely indicated his presence on the scene and we now know that Pollacco had often been to Schembri's house. But not only does the bite mark place Pollacco on the scene, it shows that he was involved in some kind of struggle and places him on the scene on the same day and at approximately the same time Schembri was killed," he said.

Dr Said called on jurors not to believe Pollacco's version of events just because it was "consistent and coherent throughout", in the words of the defence, because consistent and coherent were not synonymous with "true".

He also reminded them to evaluate Pollacco's version in the light of all the other evidence, and especially forensic evidence, because he was convinced that such an evaluation would lead them to a guilty verdict.

Dr Michael Sciriha, who forms part of the defence team with Dr John Attard Montalto and Dr Philip Galea Farrugia, then rose to rebut the prosecution's arguments.

Dr Sciriha criticised the report presented by forensic odontologist Hector Galea in which he concluded that the marks on Pollacco's arm were caused by Schembri's teeth.

He described the professor's report as confusing and inconsistent and his conclusions as "unsafe and unsatisfactory" and called on jurors to acquit his client because there was simply no evidence to convict. "The evidence had to be tailored to fit Pollacco," he claimed.

The trial continues.