By Precious D. Freeman
For 14 months Charloe Musu’s corpse has been deposited at the St. Moses Funeral Parlor as the former Chief Justice Gloria Musu Scott and her relatives were on trial for her murder.
In a personal reflection, Scott mourned her niece, Charloe, describing her as a confident and trusted family member.
Scott expressed profound sorrow over Charlie’s death, which she described as a “nightmare.”
Following their release through a judgment from the Supreme Court just recently, Cllr. Scott and her relatives who had not ceased to praise God for His miraculous vindication said her major concern now is to bury her daughter, Charloe.
Charloe was awaiting graduation at the Stars Technical College, and had lived with Cllr Scott from a tender age but met her untimely demise which later got politicized witnessing the incarceration of her relatives who were all present in the home on that fateful night but Cllr. Scott still hopeful that God will avenge and she is sure because while in prison, she and her other co-defendants/convicts (relatives) had prayed three prayer points and God having answered two, is faithful to answer the last.
In between narrating her ordeal she was keen on the US$150,000 allegedly allocated by former President George Weah’s government to the prosecution in her case; calling it the highest amount ever spent on a case in Liberia’s history.
On 50-50talkshow on Monday, Scott highlighted that the amount surpassed even what was allocated during significantly historical cases, such as the 2007 prosecution of interim President Charles Guide Bryant, who faced embezzlement charges involving over US$1 million.
Scott claimed that the funds used for her case were unprecedented saying, “What is about me, that such money was given to prosecution?”
Scott alleged that the substantial allocation was part of a government strategy she believes was orchestrated to target her unfairly.
She questioned the necessity of such a large sum for covering transportation, feeding, and lodging of witnesses and lawyers, especially since the trial remained within the capital and did not require additional travel.
The former Chief Justice also claimed that the allocation led to internal disputes within the prosecution team, with reports of improper fund distribution and some members denying receipt of any funds; bragging that she was opportune to have over 30 volunteer lawyers who laid down everything including their character to ensure that she was not wrongly adjudged.
Scott expressed deep frustration with the trial’s outcome at the lower court judging from how the pathologist report was handled as well as the attitude of the jury and towards the prosecution’s invasion of the jurors’ premises.
She described her reaction to the final judgment as one of disbelief, criticizing the judge for not fully considering the testimonies and evidence presented.
Scott noted that the judge’s reference to Liberia’s commitment against capital punishment was a significant factor in the verdict.
Scott criticized the broader justice system, describing it as flawed and causing suffering for many.
She urged her fellow defendants to remain hopeful and to trust in God despite their challenging circumstances.
Her recent comments have renewed scrutiny on Liberia’s judicial processes and the handling of high-profile cases.
Meanwhile, in her narrative, the government’s pathologist, Benedict D. Kolee, earlier misled the court and jury while testifying during the trial as state witness that the DNA sample collected in the home of Cllr. Scott were all females samples without any male sample, he then testified that there was a male DNA sample found in the left finger nail of victim Charloe; something, he believed that doesn’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.
Speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court on August 28, 2024, Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh said predicated upon the forgoing testimony of Dr. Okeye which invalidated the DNA analysis by the state pathologist, Dr Kolee, the state thought it prudent to recall Dr. Kolee to refute and disprove Dr. Okeye’s 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. 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. 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. Kolee’s testimony on this point read, “…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.”
“Additionally, a first autopsy was performed by me 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,” Dr. Kolee narrated.
“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 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 of the neighbors’ or strangers DNA was found on the deceased? Which 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, the act by Dr. Kolee in suppressing such key evidence of the presence of a male DNA under the fingertips of the deceased 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.
“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 this 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 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, to death, the State however did produced the said murder weapon (knife) that was used to stab the late Charloe, 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 or how they are individually connected to the murder of the late Charloe.
Chief Justice Yuoh said, without this connection, the state has left them to wonder who among the four appellants (defendants) held the knife and stabbed Charloe nine 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).
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 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).
