I don't think the police need his permission to take his DNA, they already have probable cause as he was placed at the scene of crime by the journo.

This case is simple open and shut, if the cops cock it up, then they really are part of the cover up.

The crime scene starts from the point of Kidnap, and yes, I think the journo has a fairly plausible story, or rather its consistent and logical.

If the main suspect is not arrested then wananchi should carry out a citizens arrest to ensure that justice is done.

That is self incrimination you cannot be forced. Whatever you are talking about will be unprocedural and wont be used in the trial...

Now you are on the right path... Whatever they did before was wrong...


Assuming they were taking his DNA because of the charge relating to the alleged sexual offence/s (remember used condoms at scene)

*Section 36* of the  *Sexual Offences Act* provides;

“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 26 of this Act or any other law, where a person is charged with committing an offence under this Act, the court may direct that an appropriate sample or samples be taken from the accused person, at such place and subject to such conditions as the court may direct for the purpose of forensic and other scientific testing, including a DNA test, in order to gather evidence and to ascertain whether or not the accused person committed the offence

It is presupposed an order is required....

I did not dispute any of that. Just pointing out a fact.

You leave your DNA everywhere, in restaurants, on your bedding, in your bathroom etc. If the police want to test a narrative INTERNALLY they will collect samples from your cups, etc to test their theory before going to court. Once in court its up to the judge to agree or disagree, they also could establish that a certain narrative is not true and choose to either pursue or not pursue a course.

I do not believe Michael was the murderer, infact we are all working with assumptions because he has not been charged yet, but it is very possible he aided in Sharon's murder.

1. it says that the court may direct. nowhere else does it expressly prohibit the taking of dna sample without the order of the court;
2. the dna samples may not necessarily have been taken because of the sexual offense (remember she allegedly fought back -fingernails etc; and
3. like murchr has said above nothing would stop the polic from taking such samples and then later on asking for the court to give an order for samples to be taken which this time may be used in the trial.
this dna thing is merely the advocates playing to the gallery, trying to create a narrative and trying to shift public opinion. you can see the effect of the same even herein wazua.

The governor should be in custody. He may not be guilty but he is a key suspect if not tge key suspect who could interfere with investigations. Ochilo might be the biggest beneficiary but the governor is a key suspect who even claimed to know Sharon well. But I agree with you that this is already too politicized now after watching that Sonko clip.

That was then, 1990. In 2018, the Govt pathologist Johansen Oduor.



From the grapevine, it is said that Obado now wants to blame the wife....saying that she couldn't stand having a co-wife and so she organized and sent Obado's PA to carry arrange for her killing.