₦airaland Forum

Treash:
Did you know?

That the presumption is that, a person who was last seen with the deceased bears full responsibility for his death if it turns out that the person last seen with him is dead. It is the duty of the accused to explain otherwise, or else, the court will infer that the accused killed the deceased.

For example, if Mr Jone is found to be killed by unknown person, and it's discovered that Mr Smith was the person last seen with Mr Jone (before he was killed), the court may likely convict Mr Smith for murder. It's now the duty of Mr Smith to establish that there was parting of ways between him and Mr Jone and that Mr Jone was still alive and they were not seen together again until the person turn up dead.

Barr. Adeolu Ayo Aderinto.

KwaraRat:
Charge and bail useless lawyer

These are the kind of 3rd class lawyers that you are a fool to hire

It is not for the accused to prove his innonence alone but the prosecution must prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What of forensic pathology report to ascertain cause of death?

Treash:
I was persuaded to respond to your criticism, though not offended in any way. I would have argued further with you if you were a lawyer, but it's my duty to enlighten you. You may however choose to ignore it. Did you understand the meaning of "otherwise" in my post? Secondly, ask a lawyer the meaning and implication of circumstantial evidence. Cheers...