-Justice Ja’neh tells Supreme Court
By Jerromie S. Walters
The audience in the chamber of the Supreme Court became trailed on Tuesday, July 16, 2024, with many, including lawyers and law students in a state of shock, when former Associate Justice, Kabinah Ja’neh informed the Justices that the government’s pathologist, Dr. Bennedict Kulee threw away the DNA evidence that could have acquitted Cllr. Gloria Musu Scott and three family members of the murder.
Opening the argument, Justice Ja’neh said the Liberian (government) pathologist who is a clinical psychologist and not a forensic pathologist, decided by himself, to destroy the DNA analysis which should have scientifically pointed out who the murderer of Charloe Musu is.
”Dr. Benedict Kolee, who is the government pathologist, admitted that he discovered male DNA chromosome but he said it was very small which he thinks didn’t contribute to the commission of the crimes.”
Justice Ja’neh wondered where Dr. Kulee got the authority to discard key evidence and for what reason he chose to do so if not for the fact that the DNA analysis did not link Cllr. Scott and family members to the commission of the crime.
The jury of Criminal Court ‘A’, last year, brought down a guilty verdict against Justice Scott and three others for the murder of Charloe Musu.
Based on the jury’s verdict, Judge Roosevelt Willie sentenced the defendants to life imprisonment but, they (the defendants) appealed against the verdict to the highest court.
During the July 16, 2024 arguments, government lawyers, Cllrs. Bobby Livingstone and Swaliho Sesay told the justices that the state case was based on circumstantial evidence.
“Our case theory was based on circumstantial evidence since the defendants failed to point out who did the killing”, Livingstone averred.
Circumstantial evidence, by definition, is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists.
Apparently, not being convinced by the state lawyers’ argument, the justices began a strong line of questioning which saw state prosecutors struggle to make a convincing argument to justify the charge of murder for which the defendants were brought down guilty.
Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh asked Cllr. Livingstone whether all of the defendants took the knife or the murder weapon at the same time to stab Charloe Musu to death.
For her part, Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie asked the government lawyers to explain whether the defendants used separate knives to stab Charloe Musu or whether they took turns to stab her from one person to another, passing the knife or murder weapon around.
But, Cllr. Livingstone remained on his argument that the state relied on circumstantial evidence because the defendants connived and conspired to commit the murder.
“It was by circumstantial evidence that we indicted all of the defendants,” Cllr. Livingstone replied to the justices concerned about who actually stabbed Charloe Musu to death.
The four justices then intensified their tough line of questioning to the government lawyers, stating that the prosecution’s case was based on presumption and assumption and not on prime facie evidence.
The justices repeatedly questioned Cllrs. Livingstone and Sesay state clearly whether the government pathologist, Dr. Benedict Kolee’s DNA analysis links any of the defendants to the crimes of murder, criminal conspiracy, and making false statements to law enforcement officers, as they were charged.
Justice Yamie Gbeisay asked what makes the investigators and prosecutors believe that all of the defendants committed the crime including old lady Rebecca Youdeh Winser.
For his part, Justice Yussif Kaba asked why the police charge sheet or the state’s indictment did not point out each role played by the defendants.
According to Justice Kaba, the government lawyers rushed to prosecute the case without doing an in-depth investigation or going beyond the police reports.
He maintained that the state went to court on “presumption and assumption”, and not on the basis of sufficient evidence.
“I’m confused and I’m still waiting to hear what evidence you use to prosecute those people?” Justice Kaba emphasized.
On the government’s argument of circumstantial evidence, Justice Kaba said the prosecutors needed to, for example, investigate whether there had been any quarrels among the family members before the incident, that could have justified or warranted them or any of them to kill another family member.
Cllr. Livingstone and his team of prosecutors could not directly answer the concerns raised by the justices, which indicates more grounds that Justice Scott and her co-defendants’ life imprisonment could be reversed.
Former Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh, responding to the question of whether the state established a prima facie case against the defendants to warrant the entry of a judgment of conviction against them, maintained that the state lawyers did not present one single eye witness to the perpetration of the crime of murder.
According to Ja’neh, the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as shown by the conflicting forensic and circumstantial evidence adduced during the trial.
The Supreme Court has reserved a ruling in the matter, as legal pundits suggest that the ruling which they believe would be a reversal of the guilty verdict, would be made in a matter of weeks.
