PHOTO: The late Charloe Musu whose killer remains unknown
A NEWS ANALYSIS By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia—Now that the Supreme Court has acquitted former Chief Justice Gloria Musu Scott and her three family members sentenced to life imprisonment, questions are being raised concerning DNA sample collected from the home of Cllr. Scott.
After the Liberian government’s Pathologist, Dr. Benedict D. Kolee earlier misled court and jury while testifying during the trial as state witness that the DNA sample collected in the home of the former Chief Justice were all females samples without any male sample, he then came out and said, that there was a male DNA sample found in the left finger nail of victim Charloe Musu. That he believed didn’t contribute to the commission of the crime when he was called as a rebuttal witness to rebut the DNA report of Dr. Mathias Okeye. Dr. Kolee Challenges Second Autopsy Report By Nigerian Pathologist-Says He’s “Usually Twisting Facts To Free Suspects” – News Public Trust
Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court on August 28,2024 said, predicated upon the forgoing testimony of Dr. Matthias I. Okeye which invalidated the DNA analysis by the state pathologist, Dr. Benedict B. Kolee, the state thought it prudent to recall Dr. Benedict B. Kolee to refute and disprove Dr. Matthias I. Okeye testimony that the DNA samples collected from the house of the appellants(Defendants) and on the deceased corpse were only females and not a male DNA.
Strangely, upon taking the witness stand as a recalled witness, Dr. Benedict B Kolee acknowledged that there was the presence of a male DNA sample in the house and on the deceased left finger nails clipping as indicated in Dr. Matthias I. Okeye DNA analysis, but stated that the male DNA samples were not important since the neighbors -mostly males- had already entered the house and came in contact with the deceased, plus the fact that those that were assisting in the autopsy were mostly males.
“An excerpt of Dr. Benedict B. Kolee’s testimony on this point reads as follow: “…In the case of deceased Charloe Musu, she came in contact with so many people who touched her, backed her, and in that process many parts of her body including her extremities (left hand, right hand, left foot, right foot) came in contact with those people potentially leading to the exchange of DNA or the placement of their DNA on parts of her body.”
The government Pathologist continued: “Additionally, a first autopsy was performed by me (Dr. Kolee) during which I had a lot of male attendants and one female attendant, at the end of that autopsy the body was repackaged and all of those attendants came in close contact with the deceased.”
“The sample in question that is said to have had a minor contribution from a male donor is allegedly on the right hand of Charloe, is by all account a contamination “if indeed he [Dr. Matthias I. Okeye] is right, given that Charloe left hand would have touch the skin of that male person that put her on his back while running to the car with the goal to save her life…”
“This Court find this response by the State’s pathologist most shocking! Hence we state, that the prior position of Dr. Benedict B. Kolee to cast aside the presence of a male DNA in his autopsy report “and then subsequently concede deceased corpse and in the house but that same was insignificant, raises the question as to whose DNA was on the deceased corpse?
Why didn’t he proceed
Why did Dr. Kolee not proceed to take the DNA of those he mentioned to repudiate what the appellants had alleged about a male intruder? Kolee’ s male assistant came in contact with the deceased’s body?
Why wasn’t the male (Which the neighbors’ or strangers’ DNA) was found on the deceased? Which one of Dr. Kolee’s assistants came in contact with the deceased’s body? Why wasn’t the male assistants wearing medical scrubs and gloves during the autopsy in applying the above legal principles to Dr. Benedict B. Kolee’s DNA analysis, it is easy to see that Dr. Kolee analysis raises more questions and doubt.
But most importantly, this raiseed eyebrows about suppressing such key evidence of the presence of a male DNA under the fingertips of the deceased. It is illegal and tantamount to withholding of evidence from the appellants/defendants by the State, a legal detriment and travesty of justice, Chief Justice Yuoh narrated in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that overturned the lower court’s guilty verdict and conviction of Cllr. Scott and her three family members.
“This court having carefully reviewed all the state’ and the appellants’ oral and documentary evidence, especially the testimonies of the private security guards, the testimony of former Police Inspector Patrick T. Sudue, and the testimony of Col. Nathaniel Sieh Hodge, we are unable to ignore the State’s allegations that it is possible that the murderer may be among the appellants since no one saw an intruder entering or leaving the house on the night of February 22, 2023; however it should also be quickly noted that thịs Court cannot rule out the logical inference that that a professional criminal [who is perhaps very knowledgeable about the house and the community may have scaled over the fence, entered the house, and stabbed Charloe Musu to death on the night of February 22,2023, since it was established that prior intrusion into the home of the appellants were reported to the police.
The indictment specifically alleged that a knife was used by the appellants to stab Charloe Musu to death, the State however did produce the said murder weapon (knife) that was used to stab the late Charloe Musu, thus a flaw in providing the criminal agency or the direct link between the crime and the appellants.
It is a fact that although the state accused the four appellants for conspiring to murder Charloe Musu, the state however, did not demonstrate the individual role/action each of the appellants played in murdering Charloe Musu or how they are individually connected to the murder of the late Charloe Musu.
Chief Justice Yuoh said, without this connection, the state has left us wondering who among the four appellants (defendants) who held the knife and stabbed Charloe Musu nine (9) different times that resulted to her death; was it all of them; one person; or of two persons?
What was the exact role of each of the appellants in the murder of Charloe Musu? or are we to believe that all four appellants jointly held the knife, and in unison stabbed the deceased?
Prosecution, proof of a few facts or a multitude of facts all consistent with the supposition Chief Justice Yuoh wondered.
“The Supreme Court has held that where circumstantial evidence is relied upon in a criminal prosecution, proof of a few facts or a multitude of facts all consistent with the supposition of guilt is not sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilt”.Samuel Otto v. Republic of Liberia, 17 LLR 186, 191 (1966) In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that in homicide cases, when proof of the corpus delicti rests upon circumstances, and not upon direct proof, it must be established by the most convincing, satisfactory, and unequivocal proof compatible with the nature of the case, excluding all uncertainty or doubt; that the death of the deceased must be imputed [connected] to a defendant’s act and that absence of this, obviously there is a doubt which as a matter of law must operate in favor of the defendants. Nimely et al., v Republic 21LLR 348,357 (1972); Williams & Williams v Republic, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term A.D. 2014.
“This Court says that consistent with the principles of law cited herein above, the State in gathering its circumstantial evidence and building its case against the appellants should have clearly established the criminal agency of the appellants by individually connecting each of the appellants to the commission of the crime of murder in terms of their role; and then exclude every inference of reasonable doubt as to their involvement in the commission of the crime,” Chief Justice Yuoh added.
“This position of the Supreme Court adopted herein is strongly supported by our manifold Opinions which states that in order to convict a criminal defendant, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused with such legal certainty as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence” that material facts essential to constitute the crime charged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise the accused will be entitled to discharge the Supreme Court head explained. John B. Dyson v. Republic of Liberia, I LLR 481, 483 (1906); Madam Elizabeth Davis v. Republic of Liberia, 40 LLR 659, 675-676 (2001).
In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that when circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon, the facts and circumstances must form a complete chain and point directly to the guilt of the accused and that every fact essential to the conclusion must be distinctly and independently proven by competent evidence. Padmore v. Republic 3 LLR 418 (1933); Otto. Republic 17 LLR (1966).
Further, although the State’s entire case was built on circumstantial evidence regarding the killing of the late Charloe Musu by means of a knife, there is no evidence in the records establishing the criminal agency or the link between each of the appellants to the crime.
As generalized theory began to crumble under the weight of the appellants’ oral and a result of this weak link in the chain of the State circumstantial evidence, the State’s documentary evidence which created more reasonable doubts in the State’s case.
“It is the law in vogue that in all criminal cases the defendant shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and in cases of a reasonable doubt where his guilt is not satisfactory shown,” he is entitled to an acquittal. Article 21(h) of the Constitution, Criminal Procedure Law, Rev Code 2:2.1, John B. Dyson v. Republic of Liberia, 1 LLR 483(1906); madam Elizabeth Davis v. Republic of Liberia, 40 LLR 659,675-676(2001).