Prime
DNA traces of Katanga, widow and daughter found on pistol
A forensic scientist, Mr Andrew Kizimula Mubiru, hands over the exhibits after testifying before court on August 27, 2024. PHOTO/ABUBAKER LUBOWA
What you need to know:
- A forensic scientist, Mr Andrew Kizimula Mubiru, on Wednesday detailed his findings in a forensic report that he carried out to establish the killers of businessman Henry Katanga, with his findings indicating that there were DNA traces of the widow, Molly Katanga, her late husband Henry and one of their daughters, Patricia Kakwanza on the suspected killer pistol.
At 10am presiding High Court Judge Isaac Muwata walks into the courtroom.
Prosecutor Samali Wakooli: All the five accused are in court and we are ready to proceed with our witness.
Wakooli hands the witness, Andrew Kizimula Mubiru, a forensic scientist a copy of the report.
Wakooli: Last time we adjourned, you were going to take us through the interpretation of the results.
Witness: Next is specimen 682Y23/ S019, which was derived from exhibit marked 4, swabbing from the trigger, and trigger house of the pistol. The DNA profile from this is a mixed DND profile of at least three donor contributors, so a hypothesis was advanced in the analysis. The first was that the deceased Henry Katanga, the suspects Molly Katanga and Patricia Kakwanza, are donor contributors.
The second one which is the alternate of the first is that the deceased Henry Katanga and two untested individuals from the Uganda population, who are unrelated to the suspects, Molly Katanga and Patricia Kakwanza are donor contributors.
My lord, the analysis shows that it’s a billion times more likely to observe this mixed DNA profile if the major contributor is Molly Katanga and the minor contributors are the deceased and Patricia Kakwanza as opposed to the deceased Henry and two other untested, unrelated individuals from the Ugandan population.
I can infer that the suspect Molly Katanga and Patricia Kakwanza being a minor donor cannot be excluded from the DNA of specimen 682Y23/ S019, derived from exhibit marked 4, swabbing on the trigger and trigger house.
Next my lord under H, this is a specimen 682Y23/ S020, is derived from exhibit marked 4, this is a swabbing from the pistol, the entire barrel surface. This was also a mixed DNA profile of at least two donor contributors.
We advanced two sets of hypotheses. The first one being the deceased Henry and suspect Molly Katanga are the donor contributors. The second one being the alternate of the first is Henry Katanga and one untested individual from the Ugandan population who is unrelated to the suspect Molly Katanga are donor contributors.
From the analysis my lord, it’s a billion times more likely to observe this mixed DNA profile if the major contributor is the deceased Henry Katanga and the minor contributor Molly Katanga as opposed to the deceased Henry Katanga and another untested unrelated individual from the Ugandan population.
Therefore, my lord, I can infer that the suspect, Molly Katanga, being a minor donor, cannot be excluded as a donor contributor to the DNA on specimen 682Y23/ 020 from exhibit marked 4, the swabbing from the pistol.
My lord, under J, the specimen, 682Y23/ S021, is derived from exhibit D-3, this was a cutting from gunshot residues obtained during postmortem. My lord, the mixed DNA profile is derived from at least two donor contributors.
Two sets of hypotheses were advanced, the first being the deceased Henry Katanga and suspect Molly Katanga and the suspect Molly Katanga, are the major donor contributors. The second is the alternative to the first, which is that the deceased Henry Katanga and one individual from the Ugandan population who is not related to the suspect Molly Katanga are donor contributors. The analysis shows that it’s a billion times more likely that this DNA profile if the major contributor is the deceased Henry Katanga and the minor contributor is Molly Katanga as opposed to the deceased Henry Katanga and one other untested and one other untested, unrelated individual from the Ugandan population.
Therefore, my lord, I can infer that the suspect being a minor contributor cannot be excluded as a donor contributor to the DNA specimen 682Y23/S021, derived from exhibit D-3, that is cutting from the swab from the gun shot residues obtained during postmortem.
Next is specimen K, 682Y23/ S022, derived from exhibit marked 5-1,that is a swabbing from a projectile recovered from the bed of the deceased.
My lord, it’s a mixed DNA of at least two donor profiles. Two sets of hypotheses were advanced, the first set is that the deceased, Henry Katanga and suspect Molly Katanga are the major contributors. The second is that the deceased Henry Katanga and one another untested individual from the Ugandan population, who is unrelated to Henry Katanga are the major contributors. The result of this examination reveals that it is a billion times more likely to observe this mixed DNA profile if the major contributor is Molly Katanga and the minor contributor is the deceased, Henry Katanga as opposed to the deceased Henry Katanga and one another untested individual from the Ugandan population.
Therefore, my lord, I can infer that the suspect Molly Katanga being the major contributor cannot be excluded as a donor contributor to the DNA on specimen 682Y23/ S022, derived swabbing from the projectile recovered from the bed of the deceased.
Next my lord, under L, this is a specimen 682Y23/ S023, this was a derived exhibit marked S-7, and this was a swabbing from the recovered from the bed sheet.
So it’s a partial mixed DNA profile of at least two donor contributors. In order to examine this profile, two sets of hypotheses were advanced. First being the deceased Henry Katanga and suspect Molly Katanga are the donor contributors.
The second which is the alternative of the first is that two untested individuals from the Ugandan population who are not related to the deceased and the suspect, Molly Katanga are the donor contributors.
My lord from this analysis, it’s a billion times unlikely to observe this partial mixed DNA profile if two untested individuals from the Uganda population who are unrelated to the deceased Henry Katanga and suspect Molly Katanga, are donor contributors are as opposed to the deceased Henry Katanga and suspect Molly Katanga being donor contributors.
Therefore, I can infer that the deceased Henry Katanga and suspect Molly Katanga are excluded as donor contributors to DNA on specimen 682Y23/S023, derived from exhibit marked 7, from the swabbing from cartridge casing recovered from the bedroom.
My lord, under M, we have specimen 682Y23/ S01, derived from exhibit 24-3, this is a swabbing from the 106 centimeters stick recovered from the eastern corner, and it’s a partial mixed DNA profile that was recovered from this specimen of at least two donor contributors.
We advanced two sets of hypotheses. The first being the deceased being Henry Katanga and suspect Molly Katanga are donor contributors and the second being an alternative is being the deceased Katanga and one untested individual from the Ugandan population who is not related to deceased and suspect Molly Katanga are the donor contributors.
My lord, the analysis shows that it is 1,000 times more likely if the major contributor is Molly Katanga and the minor contributor is Henry Katanga as opposed to the deceased Henry Katanga and one untested unrelated individual from the Uganda population. Therefore, my lord, I can infer that that suspect Molly Katanga being a major contributor cannot be excluded as a donor contributor to the DNA of specimen 682Y23S031, derived from exhibit marked 24-3, that is the swabbing from the 6 centimeter wooden walking stick.
Wakooli: Did you sign this report?
Witness: Yes my lord, I signed the report.
Wakoooli: In what capacity
Witness: The examiner, supervisor, and reviewer.
