A 2014 thriller from the courts

[upepo]

The main character is a woman named Janet Karamana Gituma, who was accused of plotting the murder of her husband, possibly to benefit from the husband's Kshs 45 million death insurance cover. In the video snippet below, she explains the events that transpired on the material day.



A more detailed coverage of the events can be had from the judgement in the PDF file below. You can only comment after reading through the file. However, a few categories with be exempted from this rule. These include those suffering from attention deficit disorders, those who have smoked cannabis at some point in the last 40 years, and those suffering from age-related cognitive impairment.

 

[Giggz]

Wueh, that was a real thriller, but circumstancial evidence ni kama abuse of power. No wonder conviction rate ziko juu.

 

[upepo]

Wueh, that was a real thriller, but circumstancial evidence ni kama abuse of power. No wonder conviction rate ziko juu.

I think it is imprudent to rely wholly on circumstantial evidence when investigators have the means to unearth direct evidence. For instance, I do not think all that planning could have taken place without some form of phone communication, evidence of which could be proof of some form of contact between the accused parties. For instance, that thug who made a call in the middle of the burglary; How difficult would it be to isolate the caller from all the calls that were made from the area at that particular hour? It would not be too difficult.
Another lesson worth noting is the need to be careful of the things you say when caught up in a crime situation. Careless guesses can land you in jail needlessly. If you are not sure when you did some action, it would be imprudent to make casual guesses.