An expert traffic witness yesterday cast doubt on whether it was the accused Curtis Richardson's vehicle that was involved in a fatal collision.

Philip Lewis, a traffic collision consultant, told the Supreme Court that in his opinion “there was no contact between the vehicle and the deceased” and also pointed to autopsy evidence that victim Marco Warren had no lower-leg injuries, which would have been expected in such an incident.

Mr Lewis gave evidence for 2½ hours from the witness box at the trial of Mr Richardson, who has denied causing the death of footballer Marco Warren by driving without due care and attention.

The incident is alleged to have taken place in the early hours of May 14, 2023 near the intersection of North Shore Road and Trinity Church Road in Hamilton Parish.

Victoria Greening, representing Mr Richardson, a former Progressive Labour Party senator, asked Mr Lewis about reviewing a statement from witness Ms Renee Wallace, adding: “This seems to suggest that another vehicle was in the area around the same time.”

Mr Lewis, a retired Bermuda Police Service inspector, replied: “Ms Wallace indicated … she saw a light coloured car going west and believed it to be a Mazda and said it was travelling quite fast.”

He added that Ms Wallace said that Mr Warren was “very unsteady on his feet and dangerously walking from left to right”.

Mr Lewis went on to say that Ms Wallace was the only witness to see the “ghost vehicle” and was asked by Puisne Judge Alan Richards to explain the term.

He said that the mystery Mazda was labelled a “ghost” because no other person saw it in the area or was picked up on closed-circuit television recordings.

Mr Lewis, under questioning from Ms Greening, made reference to the autopsy report and how it was “missing” mention of tyre mark(s) or imprints on the body.

He also stated: “I am of the opinion that Mr Warren more than likely was caught twice, based on the injuries of the autopsy report. There was another significant injury on the right leg on the rear towards his buttock. It doesn’t fit with the pattern of one incident or one collision.”

Mr Lewis also pointed out during his evidence that Mr Warren had no lower leg injuries and said normally there would be broken bones such as an ankle or possibly a shin and calf, but that there was nothing below the knee.

He stated: “In every collision I have attended, there are always those type of injuries and there were none, indicating, in my opinion that he could not have been standing when he was struck.”

Ms Greening pressed him about the right buttock injuries and Mr Lewis replied: “As I said earlier, if he was standing at the time then he would have injuries to his lower extremities.

“There was none. The evidence suggests both strikes came when he was lying [down] … none came from when he was standing.”

Ms Greening asked why the victim’s dark clothing was relevant to the incident and Mr Lewis answered: “With the darkness it would have made it almost impossible for him to be seen in that area at that time … unless you have very, very bright lights on.”

She then addressed Mr Lewis regarding how he reviewed all the evidence in this case, carried out his own investigations and made observations while examining statements and asked about his findings about Mr Richardson’s vehicle and why they were “nothing remarkable.”

He said: “Because it indicated there was no contact between his vehicle and the deceased.”

Ms Greening asked what he would have seen afterwards if there was contact.

Mr Lewis replied: “First and foremost if he was struck and standing, there would be dents or bumps on the vehicle and the lower end of the bonnet, the grill. Even though a human body is quite soft, any time it strikes a bonnet those would have been visible.”

Prosecutor Carrington Mahoney clashed with Mr Lewis during cross examination in the afternoon when the witness took the stand for another session lasting more than two hours.

He questioned Mr Lewis’s theories about injuries and asked him if he’d ever heard of a “side swipe” accident.

And when Mr Lewis insisted that Mr Warren “must have been struck by another vehicle” the prosecutor demanded: “How do you know?”

He replied: “Because it doesn’t marry up with the type of injuries.”

The pair argued over whether there were two vehicles involved in the death of Mr Warren and also who the last person was to see the victim alive before the prosecutor accused him of speculating.

Mr Lewis insisted tersely: “I am not speculating, it is opinion based on evidence.”

Mr Mahoney accused the witness of “just making up a story as we go along here”.

He added: “You are making up events, it isn’t analysis”

Mr Lewis angrily replied: “No, no, no, no, no.”

The trial continues before Mr Justice Richards.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case