Giving evidence yesterday for the first time in her trial for manslaughter, Sharina Anne Tuzo described how she saw a bruise and scab on the face of five-month-old Saed Young.

Tuzo, who denies the manslaughter of Saed, said she believed the bruise on the child's cheek and a scab at his left eyelid were the result of his falling from his stroller.

Tuzo, 20, said she noticed the marks on the child's face on August 22, 1997, four days before Saed was rushed to King Edward VII Memorial Hospital in a coma.

The baby had a broken collar bone, bite marks to his face and foot, and several bruises and scars. He died three days later, on August 29, from multiple skull fractures.

The Supreme Court earlier heard evidence from forensic pathologist Valeria Roa that Saed had human bite marks on both sides of his face and on the left foot which were inflicted during the ten days Tuzo and her boyfriend Jermaine Pearman were looking after the child in Bob's Valley Lane, Sandys Parish.

Tuzo, her sister Tamesha and their mother, who were also living in the house at the time, all gave impressions of their teeth which did not connect them to the marks on Saed.

Pearman, 27, who has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Saed, refused to give an impression.

Tuzo told the Supreme Court that she collected Saed from his mother Roshea Young, who was staying at the Teen Haven hostel on Berkeley Road, Pembroke, on August 16, 1997.

Tuzo, who was Saed's godmother, said she was excited when Ms Young became pregnant with the baby. She said Saed was in a "joyful'' mood when she collected him.

Tuzo thought baby suffered injuries `falling from stroller' By Wednesday August 21, the baby was starting to sleep a little more which she thought might be due to him teething.

That evening, the child fell off the sofa onto some pillows, but she did not notice any injuries.

The following evening, she said she heard Saed crying and went to the bedroom.

The stroller was turned over and Pearman, 27, had the baby in his hands.

Tuzo, of Bob's Valley Lane, said she repeatedly asked Pearman what had happened and he kept saying he did not know.

"I took Saed from Jermaine and when I took him, he stopped crying,'' she said.

When asked by her lawyer Philip Perinchief if she noticed any marks, she replied: "I didn't see any marks, but after the next day, I noticed a bruise on his right cheek. I just thought it happened when the stroller fell over.'' When Mr. Perinchief asked about a scab on the baby's left eyelid, she said: "I think it was the same day I noticed the mark on his right cheek. I thought it all happened from the stroller.'' At the beginning of the trial last week, Senior Crown counsel Brian Calhoun said the Crown would not contest a defence assertion that Tuzo had not inflicted the injuries on the child.

But he said Tuzo was charged with manslaughter because through her alleged gross negligence she failed to protect the child from abuse or secure medical attention for his injuries.

Earlier yesterday, Dr. Roa, the medical examiner of Dade County, Miami, Florida, rejected a suggestion from Mr. Perinchief that the fatal injuries inflicted to the back and right side of the child's head could have occurred if the baby fell then hit his head against a door jam.

Dr. Roa said there would be a mark on the side of the head, but there was none in this case.

Ms Young collected Saed from Tuzo and Pearman around 6 p.m. on August 26 and rushed him to hospital shortly afterwards when she discovered he was in a coma.

Dr. Roa said the skull fracture would have happened around four hours before Saed was taken to hospital.

She said the child had two separate fractures on the right and back of his head as well as a hairline fracture on his left skull which was probably inflicted days earlier.

Dr. Roa said a suggestion from Mr. Perinchief that the multiple fractures could be caused by the child falling from an adult's arms and then pressure forcing the collar bone to fracture was "highly unlikely''.

She insisted there had to be more than one fall for Saed to have sustained the fatal injuries to the back and side of the skull.

Dr. Roa accepted that the bruises could become more pronounced, but retorted: "However, these are not bruises (on the face). The skin in some areas has been rubbed off by the bite marks.'' She also accepted that to the untrained eye, the marks could appear as injuries, but not obvious bite marks.

When asked by Mr. Perinchief if the marks appeared as injuries, rather than obvious abuse, whether it would be necessary to rush the child to hospital, Dr. Roa said: "Maybe not.'' But she added: "One has to look at how wide this child had the injuries. You wonder how a five-month-old child has these injuries.

"If I was a lay person, I would want to find out why a child had an injury on the face. As a lay person, I would seek medical attention, especially if I see the skin off and it is bleeding, I would want it checked out.'' Dr. Roa agreed with Mr. Perinchief that the fatal injuries to the head would not have been visible.

Mr. Perinchief said: "We really don't know how these head injuries occurred.'' Dr. Roa replied: "I know its not an accident.'' Under re-examination from Mr. Calhoun, she agreed that she would expect someone to get medical attention for the visible injuries.

She agreed that the symptoms of the fatal head injury -- crying, the child going quiet, not eating or drinking, then going into a coma -- would be obvious within an hour of the blow being struck.

Tuzo will continue giving evidence to the jury and Chief Justice Austin Ward today.

COURTS CTS