-As Prosecution witnesses gave contradictory testimonies.
By: G Bennie Bravo Johnson I
Prosecution witnesses who testified during the trial on Wednesday, September 13, 2023, all provided contradictorystatements during their testimonies on the stand.
As the witnesses testified, the contradictions from one person to another continued throughout their intimation on the stand.
Moses Wise of Badnesville, a private security officer of the Genesis security service who was assigned at Cllr. Scott’s residence when the accident occurred, provided that when the accident occurred, he went around the house but saw no break-in, an act that led him to go back to the palava-hot where he was till Cllr. Scott called him and handed him the keys through the bathroom window.
“I heard noise in the house, and as a security, I went around the fence but did not see any break-ins, so I went back to the palava-hot. Later, Cllr. Scott called me and gave me the keys through her bathroom window.”
His revelation to the court and juries contradicts prosecution first witness who revealed that when the accident occurred, he used cutlass to cut the iron bar at the window as a means of finding a place to enter the house.
Moses Wise added that upon entering the house, he saw an unidentified boy toting the victim on his back, out of the house along with Cllr. Scott who he said entered the car.
However, this statement contradicts the first witness who said to the court that upon their entry to the house, they met Cllr. Scott in a confused manner, while the victim was lying in a pool of blood and they took her to the car.
“When we opened the door, I saw Cllr. Scott and the others came out, but one boy was toting Charlotte on his back.”
When asked by the defense council as to whether he could identify the person who was toting the victim, he informed the court that he don’t know the person. “I don’t know the boy who was toting Charlotte.”
He also told the court that he does not know the driver that drove the car to the hospital but granted the permission to the driver because he was in a mechanic uniform.
“When they came out, I was a boy in a mechanic clothes who I told to drive my boss to the hospital.
I trusted him because he was in mechanic clothes.”
Eric Obumawu, another prosecution witness informed the court and juries that upon his entry in the house, he did not see anyone standing with cutlass. Arguably, this contradicts the first witness who informed the court that he used a cutlass to open the window.
Obumawu noted that when he entered the house, he saw blood stain and could sense the use of pepper spray in the house.
At the same time, Judge Roosevelt Willie, the criminal court “A” judge has ruled a motion in favor of prosecution, dislodging Cllr. Gloria Musu Scott from the defense council bar.
Accordingly, this denies the former chief justice the privilege to represent herself as a lawyer in the ongoing murder trial.
Judge Willie decision to rule in favor of the motion was triggered by prosecution who prayed the court to denied Cllr. Scott from representing herself as a lawyer in the case.
Prosecution argued that the Cllr. Scott is being tried for murder, a crime of capital offense and as a result, she cannot be representing herself as a lawyer.
Judge Willie provided that a lawyer can represent oneself in a case irrespective of the trial, but not when there is a legal team representing said lawyer.
“Once there is a team of lawyers representing you, you can sit in the gap and make contribution through your lawyers when the need arise. On this note, Cllr. Gloria Musu Scott is hereby disallowed to sit in the bar.” Judge Willie ruled.
When the ruling was handed down by judge willie, the defense council excepted to the judge ruling.
