— Supreme Court says in Charloe Musu Murder Case
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in the former Chief Justice Gloria Musu-Scott case has raised concerns about the credibility of government pathologist, Dr. Benedict B. Kolee of the John F. Kennedy Medical Center.
The court identified discrepancies in Dr. Kolee’s testimony during the trial, which led to an incorrect life sentence for Cllr. Musu-Scott and her family members.
Dr. Kolee, the Supreme Court said, misled Judge Roosevelt Willie and the jury of Criminal Court ‘A’ while testifying during the trial as a state witness that the DNA samples collected in the home of former Chief Justice (the crime scene and the victim) were all female samples without any male sample.
Subsequently, Dr. Kolee changed his testimony to acknowledge the presence of male DNA on the victim’s left fingernail, contrary to his earlier statements. He made the latter revelation when he was called as a rebuttal witness to rebut the DNA report of Dr. Mathias Okeye, a US-based Nigerian pathologist.
Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court on August 28, emphasized that the discrepancies in Dr. Kolee’s analysis were a crucial factor in the reversal of the case verdict.
The court questioned Dr. Kolee’s handling of key evidence, particularly the male DNA found on the victim’s fingertips, and highlighted concerns about the legitimacy of Dr. Kolee’s analysis and the potential withholding of crucial evidence.
The Chief Justice said, “predicated upon the testimony of Dr. Okeye, which invalidated the DNA analysis by the state pathologist, Dr. Kolee, the state thought it prudent to recall the Liberian pathologist to refute and disprove his colleague, Dr. 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, Justice Yuoh said, “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 fingernails clipping as indicated in Dr. Matthias I. Okeye’s 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 follows: “… In the case of the deceased Charloe Musu, she came in contact with many people who touched and backed her. 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 Chief Justice read.
“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,” Kolee is quoted to have said.
“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 contamination if indeed he [Dr. Matthias I. Okeye] is right, given that Charloe’s left hand would have touched the skin of that male person that put her on his back while running to the car to save her life,” she said.
“This Court finds 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?” the chief justice wondered.
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. She asked.
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 weren’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’s analysis raises more questions and doubts.
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
The court’s thorough examination of Dr. Kolee’s testimony and the implications of his actions regarding the DNA analysis have raised significant legal and ethical concerns.
This further exacerbates concerns about the complex issues surrounding Charloe Musu’s death investigation and whether Dr. Kolee should bear full responsibility for the flawed system.
Chief Justice Yuoh stressed the importance of transparency and accountability in forensic investigations and the legal consequences of withholding evidence in criminal cases.
The court has prompted discussions within the legal community regarding establishing an advisory committee to enhance the selection and oversight of pathologists conducting autopsies in criminal cases. The advisory committee, which they believe should be set up through the chief coroner’s office, would develop a process to select and delist individuals on a roster of pathologists in the country.
The question, however, remains whether Dr. Kolee must not be made the scapegoat for a deeply flawed system that investigated Charloe’s death.
Source: Liberian Observer
