A former deputy State pathologist has claimed an inquiry by the Medical Council into complaints about his work in two murder cases over a decade ago is “malicious” and “racially motivated” while branding some of his former colleagues as “professional scums.”
Dr Khalid Jaber, who served as deputy State pathologist between 2009 and 2013 when he resigned in controversial circumstances, is the subject of three allegations of professional misconduct and poor professional performance.
They concern the postmortem findings and related evidence that the Saudi-born pathologist gave to two cases before the Central Criminal Court – one of which collapsed and the other where a murder conviction was quashed both due to the pathologist’s testimony.
An inquiry before the Medical Council’s fitness to practise committee opened on Wednesday in the absence of Dr Jaber with its chairperson, Mary O’Sullivan, noting that the pathologist had “deliberately and voluntarily” absented himself from the process.
The inquiry arises from a complaint filed against Dr Jaber in August 2015 by the then deputy State pathologist, Michael Curtis, who expressed concern about his former colleague’s “unreasonable and, at times, bizarre behaviour.”.
In the written complaint, Dr Curtis remarked: “We harbour grave concerns regarding his professional competence.”
The inquiry heard that such concerns were also reported to the then chief State Pathologist, Marie Cassidy, the DPP and the Department of Justice.
Dr Curtis pointed out that Dr Jaber had readily admitted that he would not comply with peer review procedures in the Office of the State Pathologist.
Counsel for the Medical Council, Ronan Kennedy SC, told the inquiry that Dr Jaber had stood over his postmortem findings and related evidence in court in correspondence nine years ago.
It also emerged that in 2015 he branded Dr Cassidy and Dr Curtis as “professional scums” for “ignorantly interfering” in the justice system by writing a “most unusual and illogical letter” to the DPP over concerns about his work in order “to frighten the judge who presided over the case.”
He also labelled his former colleagues in the same letter as “unqualified”, “dysfunctional,” “corrupt” and “professionally bankrupt.”
The inquiry heard that Dr Jaber (66), who is now based in the Middle East, has had little engagement with the Medical Council since 2018.
However, Mr Kennedy said Dr Jaber’s original response to the complaint against him could only be described as “wide-ranging and vitriolic attacks” on the Medical Council, his former colleagues and the judiciary, including judges involved in the cases which are the subject of the inquiry.
Mr Kennedy said Dr Jaber resolutely maintained he had done no wrong whatsoever and would be seeking “appropriately large and well-deserved financial compensation for the professional and personal damage and hurt caused to him by the Irish government.”
He remarked that Dr Jaber’s observations, while “inflammatory and offensive,” were “not remotely relevant” to the allegations against him.
Mr Kennedy suggested they were an attempt by the pathologist to deflect from his own professional responsibilities.
He claimed Dr Jaber also made criticisms of the professional conduct of Dr Cassidy and Dr Curtis to the Medical Council in 2015.
In the correspondence, Dr Jaber said it was unacceptable that his two former colleagues were unqualified to practise forensic pathology.
He claimed “these ignorant pathologists” did not know the difference between the mechanism and manner of death and the underlying cause of death.
Dr Jaber expressed regret that he did not have the chance to return to court “to expose a false assertion by these two dysfunctional pathologists.”
He claimed they had “fabricated confusion in the most critical last stage of the trial with a cheap show of professional piracy.”
It was also revealed that the pathologist claimed he had no need to communicate with the Medical Council about its inquiry, and he branded the regulatory body as “inept,” “despicable” and “retarded.”
Dr Jaber, who sought a refund of his subscription fees from the Medical Council, claimed its handling of the inquiry was “pathetic” and “lacking any element of professionalism.”
The pathologist is accused of giving evidence in the trial of Michael Furlong for the murder of his friend, Patrick Connors (37) in Enniscorthy, Co Wexford in April 2011 that blunt force trauma which caused fractures of the deceased’s jaw had contributed to his death when there was no pathological evidence to justify such an opinion.
The inquiry heard that it would be claimed that Dr Jaber was aware of a report by a consultant neuropathologist which contradicted his own opinion.
It is also alleged that in the same case the pathologist refused to accept the possibility that hypothermia might have been a contributory factor in the death of Mr Connors.
The trial of Mr Furlong collapsed in 2013 following the dramatic intervention of Dr Cassidy when she notified the DPP of her concerns about Dr Jaber’s evidence and the fact that his postmortem report in the case had not been peer-reviewed.
The High Court subsequently prohibited the holding of a retrial.
Separately, it is alleged that there was no pathological evidence to justify Dr Jaber’s finding in a postmortem report that the death of Francis Greene (48) at Steamboat Quay in Limerick in November 2009 was due to asphyxia and related evidence he subsequently provided in court.
Kevin Coughlan, of Avondale Drive, Greystones, Limerick, had his conviction for the murder of Mr Greene quashed by the Court of Appeal in June 2015.
However, he was subsequently convicted of Mr Greene’s manslaughter at a retrial and sentenced to eight years in prison.
Gardaí believed the victim had been forced into the River Shannon and died by drowning but Dr Jaber’s evidence suggested he had been strangled before he ended up in the water.
The pathologist is also accused of failing to demonstrate he appreciated the fundamental difference between bite marks and tooth indentations and incorrectly equating hanging with strangulation in his evidence.
The fitness-to-practise committee was told that an expert witness – pathologist William Lawler – will give evidence that there were serious failings by Dr Jaber in both cases which he believes constitute professional misconduct and poor professional performance.
Mr Kennedy said Dr Lawler believes the former deputy State pathologist made major definitive pathological findings with important legal implications without any supporting evidence.
Counsel said the expert witness concluded Dr Jaber had refused to accept the unequivocal opinions of other consultants who had assisted with postmortems in order to support his own conclusions which had compounded his “inadvertent misleading” of the court in both cases.
The inquiry resumes on Thursday and is expected to conclude before the end of the week.
