An expert witness testified about similarities between how a man accused of a double murder stood and walked compared to video recordings of the shooter.

Barry Francis, a consultant podiatric surgeon and a forensic gait analyst, told the Supreme Court that he had examined footage of Syhon Akinstall recorded while he was in custody, along with CCTV footage of the fatal shooting at the Robin Hood, which he is charged with committing.

Mr Francis told the court that the gunman seen in the footage walked with his left foot turned out, while his right foot remained facing forward.

He also said that the gunman had a narrow base of gait, meaning that he walked with his legs close together, and had a medium stride length and that he stood with a lowered left shoulder.

Mr Francis said he also examined footage of Mr Akinstall in custody and similarly observed him walking with his legs close together, his left foot turned out, a medium stride length and a lowered left shoulder.

However, on cross-examination, he accepted that gait analysis is subjective and not an exact science, stating that fingerprint and DNA analysis, while not always flawless, are more accurate.

“I have always been aware that it’s my job to set out the features as I see them,” Mr Francis said. “It is for the court to determine the weight of the evidence that I give.”

Syhon Akinstall, 22, has denied the murders of Ayinde Eve and Micah Davis, as well as the attempted murders of Troy Eve Burgess and Derrick Golding, a police sergeant.

He has also denied four counts of the use of a firearm to commit an indictable offence, namely the murders and alleged attempted murders.

The offences were said to have happened on October 26, 2021, at the Robin Hood Pub and Restaurant in Pembroke.

As the trial continued yesterday, Mr Francis told the court that he had been asked to review CCTV footage of the shooting and compare the gunman, whom he referred to as Man X, to CCTV footage of Mr Akinstall.

“What we are looking for is what we might perceive as differences from the norm. However, that is an interpretation,” he said.

Mr Francis said that in the first of two video clips of the double murder, the gunman can be seen entering the restaurant and walking towards the camera before turning near the bar and opening fire.

He said Man X walked with his legs close together and that his left foot turned outwards and his left shoulder lower than his right.

Mr Francis added that he could not gauge the height of the gunman because of the camera angle, but the gunman appeared to be right-handed as he held the gun with his right hand, bracing it with his left.

He told the court that he later reviewed footage of Mr Akinstall in custody.

Mr Francis said it appeared that the defendant also walked with his legs close together, a lower left shoulder and his left foot pointed outwards.

He noted a portion of footage in which Mr Akinstall poured a glass of water from a pitcher with his right hand, suggesting that he was right-handed.

Under cross-examination by Charles Richardson, counsel for Mr Akinstall, Mr Francis accepted that the field was still developing and efforts to make it more quantifiable were continuing.

He agreed that efforts needed to be taken to avoid cognitive bias when conducting an analysis, stating that while he was told who the suspect was in the custody footage, he looked at others in the recordings as well.

“I looked to the other individuals within the prison area and none of them had the same features I identified in the Man X footage,” he said.

“I looked at the other individuals in the Robin Hood footage and none of them had the same features in the footage of Man X.”

While Mr Richardson suggested that the gunman was moving in a “couching trot”, Mr Francis maintained that he was walking, although his stride lengthened as he approached the bar.

“I would agree this is a long step. I mentioned it,” he said. “It’s my belief and the belief of my peer reviewer that this was a fast walk.”

The trial continues.

• 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