🔴 Anthony Natif notes from Court: Defense rejoinder in Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and Others

SPECIAL REPORT | ANTHONY NATIF | As recorded within the case Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and adapted from @TonyNatif on X. Here’s the 4th of a series on the case earlier than February twenty sixth, when Justice Kania is anticipated to rule on whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case.

****

Here is the protection’s rejoinder to the prosecution’s submissions in acknowledge on the 4th ingredient of abolish.

The quiz either aspect gaze to acknowledge to is, “Did Mrs Katanga make a selection part within the commission of the crime?”

Unsurprisingly, the prosecution says, ABSOLUTELY

The protection says, “No es posible. Get out of here alongside with your phantom DNA and GSR results born out of non-existent swabs, discredited expert witnesses and misrepresentation of consultants’ testimony” (words; mine)

Just warning: that you may want to are looking out for to brush up in your forensic science recordsdata because it gets reasonably technical.

On this level, the prosecution conceded correct on the gap bell that on account of the “weird and irregular” nature of this case, having came about on the aid of closed doors – within the couple’s master suite – and with simplest one particular person surviving, they had been sure to count on circumstantial proof, which they called “the finest proof”.

Out came the “doctrine of final considered” and alleged “habits of the accused particular person” after the death of her husband, spun to infer guilt on A1’s share.

The prosecution then argued that whereas they’re cognizant of the truth that “accused persons endure no responsibility to illustrate their innocence”, “the precise topic can be that a spouse who has lost her husband can be drawn to offering a plausible clarification on the earliest opportunity as to the clarification for her husband’s death ”.

They then went into DNA and gunshot residue proof, and it is here that plenty of the inviting knives had been drawn between the protection and prosecution.

1: DNA Evidence

The protection lambasted the prosecution’s make a selection on DNA proof as shared by the director of forensic services and products within the Ugandan police, Andrew Kizimula Mubiru, who changed into once PW8.

They stated the DNA limb of the prosecution’s case collapses because it “will not be anchored in proof but in conjecture” and it stands in stark distinction to their in finding peek’ testimony.

This changed into once loyal the gap salvo.

Nice looking Justice Comfort Kania to seek at net page 715 of the court docket file, they stated that “PW8 changed into once sure and emphatic regarding the boundaries of his science. He testified that his document changed into once simplest a “source-stage” document. It answers one quiz: Whose DNA changed into once detected?”

They puzzled how the prosecution stretched the interpretation of the DNA proof to talk as to the guilt of their client when the expert himself stated sooner than court docket that his document and prognosis would per chance likely also attain no such insist.

To them, it regarded admire the advise stretched the proof to fit the crime, they usually didn’t hesitate in announcing as grand. They pointed to the truth that the DPP charged their client with abolish and claimed to in finding DNA proof, which proof, in accordance with prosecution witnesses, changed into once simplest processed about 6 months after the indictment. At one level accurate thru the imperfect-examination of PW8, protection lawyer Karuhanga accused the advise of “running within the prophetic realm” and “running the forensics lab admire a kitchen for cooking results”.

Succor to the submissions, the protection wrote: “PW8 expressly disclaimed any skill to reveal how that DNA changed into once deposited, when it changed into once deposited, by whom it changed into once deposited within the sense of main or secondary switch” (pages 714 and 724 of the court docket file)

Fancy marauding sharks sensing blood within the water, the protection went on the offensive: Mr Mubiru “instructed this court docket that he cannot distinguish between affirm contact and indirect switch. He cannot exclude DNA deposited thru talking, coughing, screaming, blood droplets, bodily fight or contact prolonged sooner than the incident” (pg: 717-719 of the file). “When asked at the moment whether A1 fired the firearm, he declined to acknowledge to, bringing up that this form of conclusion required an offense stage overview which he failed to attain” (pg 783)

The prosecution raised the topic of critical and minor DNA contributors, arguing that a critical contributor most likely handled the weapon. It’s to this that protection turns.

Ahead of we proceed, you are going to be wondering what “critical” and “minor” DNA contribution technique.

It merely technique that once a sample is analyzed, they peep whose DNA is dominant and whose is less. It’s that easy. The interpretation, despite the truth that, isn’t.

The prosecution submitted that Mrs Katanga’s DNA changed into once predominant on the magazine and trigger home; Mr Katanga’s changed into once predominant on the barrel of the killer gun. Per them, “this naturally raises a high possibility that a particular person with the most prevalent DNA on the merchandise is the particular individual that former it”.

The protection changed into once having none of that, and it appears neither changed into once the prosecution’s in finding expert peek.

The protection wrote, “PW8 additional testified that critical and minor contributors need to not be puzzled with handling, recency or bellow. He outlined that DNA prevalence relies on particular person shedding characteristics. Some of us are high shedders, others shed puny or no. One particular person would per chance likely also deposit a single cell, yet one more tens of millions with none relationship to duration of handling, final contact or firing of a weapon. In different words, ‘critical contributor’ does not imply ‘particular person’, ‘handler’ or ‘shooter’ (net page 783 of the court docket file)”.

They called the prosecution’s submission on that level “wholly negative and execrable”, treating “the presence of DNA as proof of loading, coming and firing the firearm”. They reminded Justice Kania that the expert expressly stated that this “which technique cannot scientifically be assigned”. They stated the advise wasn’t interpreting proof but changed into once as an different rising “proof by submissions”.

Packing a defiant punch, the defence submitted the next: “Counsel will not be entitled to infer what an authority has stated cannot be inferred, and Counsel cannot provide by argument what science has withheld in proof ”.

They called the prosecution’s submission “harmful and absurd” and invited the court docket to set aside it to a logical take a look at.

They wrote: Going by this argument, A1 loaded the magazine (she’s the main); handed the gun to the deceased, who cocked it (he’s the main on the barrel); and then the deceased handed it aid to A1, sat comfortably on his bed, and by no technique raised his hand or reveal. A1 came within just a few centimeters of his head and pulled the trigger. And she stopped bleeding when she reached the bedsheets (her blood changed into once stumbled on allover the room however the bed where a tiring Mr Katanga changed into once stumbled on, gun beside him*). The submission is obviously absurd.”

With the foregoing, the protection called the advise’s DNA proof “irrelevant to the central topic sooner than the court docket”.

They went additional to quiz the authenticity of this proof, especially given the truth that “there changed into once no swab of the protection lever, no swab of the grip, and no swab of the trigger. As a replace, the trigger changed into once mixed with the trigger home in a single swab with out scientific justification. Decided surfaces had been collapsed into one sample, whereas serious contact facets had been uncared for. That technique destroys any possibility of meaningful interpretation even at source stage ”.

The protection then instructed Justice Kania that none of the serious swabs had been offered in court docket, with the Decide being reminded that she’s being invited to partake in a “trust me bro” trial, relying on proof of Andrew Mubiru who has a historical past of “producing results with out samples”.

They reminded her that within the Kato Kajubi case, the Court of Allure held that this particular peek “produced results with out having samples”.

They additional called into quiz the credibility of the prognosis and pushed aid on the prosecution’s claim that Mubiru did the prognosis. They stated that system logs showed that Lillian Mutesi and never PW8 did the DNA prognosis.

In actual fact, they wrote: “PW8 admitted on net page 1172 of the file that ASP Lillian Mutesi analyzed the magazine, the barrel and the trigger and trigger home”. The prosecution, in their submissions stated he “merely former her credentials”. The protection threw the legislation at them, announcing this contradicts S.93 & 94 of the proof act.

Per the protection, the act of getting ASP Lillian Mutesi on the prognosis system logs and Mr Andrew Mubiru claiming to in finding carried out the prognosis additional offends share 8 (4) (c) of the Electronic Transactions Act.

They then went ahead to ask that the prosecution handle close a fight (my words—to borrow from smartly-liked parlance).

They wrote, “In any match, either the DNA document relied upon by the prosecution is counterfeit or the testimony of PW8 is counterfeit. In either case, a court docket successfully directing its mind cannot count on that proof.”

They dawdle ahead to accuse the prosecution of misrepresenting the outcomes themselves, telling Justice Kania that: “as with the trigger, the magazine contained DNA from yet one more unidentified particular person that changed into once not reported. Peek pages 1127 to 1133 where PW8 changed into once shown accurate thru imperfect-examination that the magazine had a mighty quantity of DNA of an unknown particular individual that he had not printed in his document.”

As they took leave of this DNA topic, the protection instructed the Lady Justice that “when all speculation is stripped away, the DNA proof simplest presentations this: DNA deposited by unknown technique, at unknown times, by unknown persons, on inadequately swabbed presentations, just a few of which had been by no technique produced, documented or traced, and interpreted in affirm contradiction of the prosecution’s in finding expert. It doesn’t demonstrate bellow of the firearm. It doesn’t demonstrate firing. It doesn’t exclude suicide.”

After which they raise it home with, “My Lord, that will not be a case of former DNA proof. It is a case where the prosecution has substituted assumption for proof and myth for science. Here’s the make of case which (Bhatt v. Republic) refers to as obviously discredited that no practical tribunal can count on.”

The post 🔴 Anthony Natif notes from Court: Defense rejoinder in Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and Others regarded first on The Unbiased Uganda:.