On the legal issue namely, that Judas Iscariot committed suicide on himself, it is submitted with respect that other than mere expression of the opinion on the part of some theologians with respect to the conflicting accounts of judas death found in the bible, there appears to be nothing whatsoever upon which this allegation rests.
According to the gospel of Matthew, 'Judas threw the money into the temple and left. THEN HE WENT AWAY AND HUNGED HIMSELF. The chief priests picked up the coins and said "it is against the law to put this in the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potters field as a burial ground for foreigners' (Matt 27:5-7)
Conversely, Luke states on the Acts of the Apostles that 'with the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; THERE HE FELL HEADLONG, HIS BODY BURST OPEN AND ALL HIS INTESTINES SPILLED OUT. Everyone in Jerusalem heard this. So they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, field of blood.' (Acts 1:18 and19)
The question that begs for answers in this instance is that which of these two biblical accounts represents the true facts of Judas' death? In other words,
*Did Judas hang himself or he fell headlong and died?
*Did Judas throw thirty pieces of silver into the temple or use it to buy a field?
*Why was the purported place of death designated fild of blood? Was it because it was purchased with 'blood money' or because this was were Judas fell and his bowel gushed out?
In an attempt to reconcile these apparently irreconcilable conflicts, some scholars urged that there was never a contradiction surrounding Judas' death. Rather, they are two different view points of the same event and thus if the two accounts are read together, it would make more sense. It is thus their reasoning that the combined effect of the scriptural provisions is that Judas hung himself and the corpse later fell and burst open due to the activities of bacteria inside his body. Others opined that after Judas hanged himself, the rope broke and he fell unto rocks that disemboweled him postmortem.
With repect to the 30 pieces of silver, Matthew reprted that priests of the temple bought a field with Judas' money, and so some suggests that by extension, Judas acquired a field. That is, Judas bought the field indirectly. Nothing however was said with regard tothe designation of the accused purported place of death as 'field of blood.'
With profound humility and respect, all the foregoing submissions represent without more, the opinion of their owners and they are accordingly entitled to them. However whichever account one chooses to argue for, the law is trite that he who alleges the existence or non existence of certain facts must adduce concrete evidence in proof of same. And the standard of roof required by the law in such instances (especially criminal matters) is proof beyond reasonable doubts. Explaining the attitude of the law in this regard, Uthman Mohammed JSC in State V. Musa (1997) 5SCNJ.126 observed that ' a cardinal principle of law is that the commission of a crime by a party must be PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBTS. The burden of prooving that any person is guilty of a crime rests on the prosecution. This is the law laid down in Section 137 of the Evidence Act. The burden never shifts and if on the whole of the evidenc the court is still left in a state of doubt, the prosecution would have failed to discharge the onus of proof which the law lays down upon it and the PRISONER IS ENTITLED TO ANQUITAL.' With respect to the conflicting circumstantial evidence, the supreme court in the recent case of Ogidi V. State (2005) 1SCNJ. 67 explained the law thus 'WHEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS CAPABLE OF TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE AGAINST AND THE OTHER IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED, THEN IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.' In this instant case, the circumstantial evidence respecting Judas' death is capable of two possible interpretations; one against the accused (See Matt 27:5) and the other in his favor (see Acts 1:18). Thus whether Judas' actually caused his own death by committing suicide as reported by Matthew or died from a fall as maintained by Luke in Acts of thwe Apostles, is yet to be satisfactorily proved beyond reasonable doubt. On this ground, it is submitted that if suicide were to be a crime at law, judgement is likely to be entered in favor of Judas.

the moral of the whole story be say him DIE. i heard he even wrote his own book, before dying. wonder why its not part of the books in the bible..