Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Okoth Obado Case
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/8/2013 Posts: 4,068 Location: At Large.
|
murchr wrote:kaka2za wrote:Stranger things have happened.
We live in a country where Dr Jason Ndaka Kaviti, the former Chief Government Pathologist, claimed that Robert Ouko shot himself in the head,broke his own leg with a blunt object then set himself on fire.
That was then, 1990. In 2018, the Govt pathologist Johansen Oduor. Quote:Dr Oduor said the post-mortem had revealed that Ms Otieno was stabbed eight times, with one stab entering the body from the back and piercing through the abdomen, killing the seven month foetus.
The results also revealed bruises on Ms Otieno’s body suggesting that she had struggled with her killers.
Dr Oduor also said there was a possibility that she was raped before being brutally murdered, explaining the presence of used condoms at the scene of her murder in Kodera forest, Migori County. 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. That crossed my mind at some point but it seems abit odd that the suggestion is coming out one week after the murder.That to me is an after thought. Meanwhile Obado should have no peace.His house and worldly pocessions need to be ashes by now. Love is beautiful and so are those who share it.With Love, Marriage is an amazing event in ones life time, the foundation of joy, happiness and success.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/7/2012 Posts: 11,908
|
Bigchick wrote:murchr wrote:kaka2za wrote:Stranger things have happened.
We live in a country where Dr Jason Ndaka Kaviti, the former Chief Government Pathologist, claimed that Robert Ouko shot himself in the head,broke his own leg with a blunt object then set himself on fire.
That was then, 1990. In 2018, the Govt pathologist Johansen Oduor. Quote:Dr Oduor said the post-mortem had revealed that Ms Otieno was stabbed eight times, with one stab entering the body from the back and piercing through the abdomen, killing the seven month foetus.
The results also revealed bruises on Ms Otieno’s body suggesting that she had struggled with her killers.
Dr Oduor also said there was a possibility that she was raped before being brutally murdered, explaining the presence of used condoms at the scene of her murder in Kodera forest, Migori County. 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. That crossed my mind at some point but it seems abit odd that the suggestion is coming out one week after the murder.That to me is an after thought. Meanwhile Obado should have no peace.His house and worldly possessions need to be ashes by now. Unfortunately this wont happen, cant happen. He has employed thugs on his side you really believe in him. He has a crazy following in Migori through small cheap hand outs and buying youth hard stuff. Sad but the reality. He is a thug unto himself. In reality ODM didnt/doesnt like him but he beat them through thuggery and violence. Sad scenario down there but, then that is what the people elected.In the county, he is a lord unto himself. if you remember, ODM Migori Governorship nomination contest had the craziest violence and brutality with gory pictures during nominations (in Kenya). In the business world, everyone is paid in two coins - cash and experience. Take the experience first; the cash will come later - H Geneen
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Bigchick wrote:murchr wrote:kaka2za wrote:Stranger things have happened.
We live in a country where Dr Jason Ndaka Kaviti, the former Chief Government Pathologist, claimed that Robert Ouko shot himself in the head,broke his own leg with a blunt object then set himself on fire.
That was then, 1990. In 2018, the Govt pathologist Johansen Oduor. Quote:Dr Oduor said the post-mortem had revealed that Ms Otieno was stabbed eight times, with one stab entering the body from the back and piercing through the abdomen, killing the seven month foetus.
The results also revealed bruises on Ms Otieno’s body suggesting that she had struggled with her killers.
Dr Oduor also said there was a possibility that she was raped before being brutally murdered, explaining the presence of used condoms at the scene of her murder in Kodera forest, Migori County. 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. That crossed my mind at some point but it seems abit odd that the suggestion is coming out one week after the murder.That to me is an after thought. Meanwhile Obado should have no peace.His house and worldly pocessions need to be ashes by now. Possessions and the desire for them might have been the genesis of all this. I wonder if you're not among the perpetrators in this respect... Anyway, rumor has it that the man still has no peace despite his possessions. Eti he might be mumbling to himself because the lady was on madawa... But it should be possible to burn some of his things. Though you may need a savvy PA.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/22/2010 Posts: 11,522 Location: Nairobi
|
mkenyan wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:2012 wrote:maka wrote:obiero wrote:hardwood wrote:PA now says he was also kidnapped with Sharon and the chonolist and that he also managed to escape. Damn. Its now his word against the journalist. And I do not believe the journalist for one minute.. A lie detector would be helpful here Watching the preliminary arguments...Oyamo might also go scot free... They took DNA samples from Ayamo without Court orders and in the abscense of his counsel...Well his DNA does not match anything on the scene...  What madness? So, who ordered or gave them permission to take his DNA? You leave your DNA everywhere, on cups you use, that hair that falls off etc. Police can collect this even before requesting for a sample officially. This is a lame excuse That is self incrimination you cannot be forced. Whatever you are talking about will be unprocedural and wont be used in the trial... I did not say forced anywhere. And why should we believe what this lawyer and his clients are telling us? When you sip coffee you leave your saliva on that cup....that can be used to analyze your DNA (si ni mate tu wanataka) I believe a smart detective can do this for their internal investigation so that they can determine if it is necessary to officially source for a formal test. 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.... 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. That's why I said assuming the charge is one under sexual offences The presumed portion under Section 26 must be read with an accused's rights under Article 50 You CANNOT compel/force an accused to give a DNA sample. It goes against the very basic principle of non self incrimination under Article 50 (2)(a),(j) and particularly (l) which states in no uncertain terms that an Accused has the right - 'to refuse to give self-incriminating evidence'. We must be careful to avoid discussion of "creating a narrative". An accused's right is as inalienable as those of a victim and must be read side by side. possunt quia posse videntur
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/23/2009 Posts: 13,503 Location: nairobi
|
maka wrote:mkenyan wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:2012 wrote:maka wrote:obiero wrote:hardwood wrote:PA now says he was also kidnapped with Sharon and the chonolist and that he also managed to escape. Damn. Its now his word against the journalist. And I do not believe the journalist for one minute.. A lie detector would be helpful here Watching the preliminary arguments...Oyamo might also go scot free... They took DNA samples from Ayamo without Court orders and in the abscense of his counsel...Well his DNA does not match anything on the scene... What madness? So, who ordered or gave them permission to take his DNA? You leave your DNA everywhere, on cups you use, that hair that falls off etc. Police can collect this even before requesting for a sample officially. This is a lame excuse That is self incrimination you cannot be forced. Whatever you are talking about will be unprocedural and wont be used in the trial... I did not say forced anywhere. And why should we believe what this lawyer and his clients are telling us? When you sip coffee you leave your saliva on that cup....that can be used to analyze your DNA (si ni mate tu wanataka) I believe a smart detective can do this for their internal investigation so that they can determine if it is necessary to officially source for a formal test. 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.... 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. That's why I said assuming the charge is one under sexual offences The presumed portion under Section 26 must be read with an accused's rights under Article 50 You CANNOT compel/force an accused to give a DNA sample. It goes against the very basic principle of non self incrimination under Article 50 (2)(a),(j) and particularly (l) which states in no uncertain terms that an Accused has the right - 'to refuse to give self-incriminating evidence'. We must be careful to avoid discussion of "creating a narrative". An accused's right is as inalienable as those of a victim and must be read side by side. @maka you have since become a lawyer? :)
HF 30,000 ABP 3.49; KQ 414,100 ABP 7.92; MTN 23,800 ABP 6.45
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/22/2010 Posts: 11,522 Location: Nairobi
|
obiero wrote:maka wrote:mkenyan wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:2012 wrote:maka wrote:obiero wrote:hardwood wrote:PA now says he was also kidnapped with Sharon and the chonolist and that he also managed to escape. Damn. Its now his word against the journalist. And I do not believe the journalist for one minute.. A lie detector would be helpful here Watching the preliminary arguments...Oyamo might also go scot free... They took DNA samples from Ayamo without Court orders and in the abscense of his counsel...Well his DNA does not match anything on the scene... What madness? So, who ordered or gave them permission to take his DNA? You leave your DNA everywhere, on cups you use, that hair that falls off etc. Police can collect this even before requesting for a sample officially. This is a lame excuse That is self incrimination you cannot be forced. Whatever you are talking about will be unprocedural and wont be used in the trial... I did not say forced anywhere. And why should we believe what this lawyer and his clients are telling us? When you sip coffee you leave your saliva on that cup....that can be used to analyze your DNA (si ni mate tu wanataka) I believe a smart detective can do this for their internal investigation so that they can determine if it is necessary to officially source for a formal test. 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.... 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. That's why I said assuming the charge is one under sexual offences The presumed portion under Section 26 must be read with an accused's rights under Article 50 You CANNOT compel/force an accused to give a DNA sample. It goes against the very basic principle of non self incrimination under Article 50 (2)(a),(j) and particularly (l) which states in no uncertain terms that an Accused has the right - 'to refuse to give self-incriminating evidence'. We must be careful to avoid discussion of "creating a narrative". An accused's right is as inalienable as those of a victim and must be read side by side. @maka you have since become a lawyer? :) Savant.... 😂😂 possunt quia posse videntur
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/28/2015 Posts: 9,562 Location: Rodi Kopany, Homa Bay
|
The mbuta has been arrested.... https://www.the-star.co....sharons-murder_c1816889
Quote:Migori governor Okoth Obado is being grilled by Nyanza regional DCI officers over the murder of university student Sharon Otieno.
The homicide team that was dispatched to Migori and Homa Bay has so far recorded statements from seven people, including Sharon's parents and friends. They have all implicated Obado.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/28/2015 Posts: 9,562 Location: Rodi Kopany, Homa Bay
|
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/26/2012 Posts: 15,980
|
maka wrote:mkenyan wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:2012 wrote:maka wrote:obiero wrote:hardwood wrote:PA now says he was also kidnapped with Sharon and the chonolist and that he also managed to escape. Damn. Its now his word against the journalist. And I do not believe the journalist for one minute.. A lie detector would be helpful here Watching the preliminary arguments...Oyamo might also go scot free... They took DNA samples from Ayamo without Court orders and in the abscense of his counsel...Well his DNA does not match anything on the scene... What madness? So, who ordered or gave them permission to take his DNA? You leave your DNA everywhere, on cups you use, that hair that falls off etc. Police can collect this even before requesting for a sample officially. This is a lame excuse That is self incrimination you cannot be forced. Whatever you are talking about will be unprocedural and wont be used in the trial... I did not say forced anywhere. And why should we believe what this lawyer and his clients are telling us? When you sip coffee you leave your saliva on that cup....that can be used to analyze your DNA (si ni mate tu wanataka) I believe a smart detective can do this for their internal investigation so that they can determine if it is necessary to officially source for a formal test. 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.... 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. That's why I said assuming the charge is one under sexual offences The presumed portion under Section 26 must be read with an accused's rights under Article 50 You CANNOT compel/force an accused to give a DNA sample. It goes against the very basic principle of non self incrimination under Article 50 (2)(a),(j) and particularly (l) which states in no uncertain terms that an Accused has the right - 'to refuse to give self-incriminating evidence'. We must be careful to avoid discussion of "creating a narrative". An accused's right is as inalienable as those of a victim and must be read side by side. And we are telling you, you do not need to compel anyone to give you a DNA sample. It can very easily be obtained. All the cops can do is give this man a bottle of water to drink from and make sure they collect the bottle....or give him a brush to comp his hair and collect the follicle. In DNA - it doesn't mean that if you are testing semen you have to compare it to semen. No your hair is unique to you and the genome sequence is too. Maybe that's what you lawyers* may not be aware of but am sure a savvy cop does know this. "There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/28/2015 Posts: 9,562 Location: Rodi Kopany, Homa Bay
|
Quote:Governor Okoth Obado: I am not afraid, police are looking for the murderers not the impregnater
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/26/2012 Posts: 15,980
|
hardwood wrote:Quote:Governor Okoth Obado: I am not afraid, police are looking for the murderers not the impregnater  "There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/7/2012 Posts: 11,908
|
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/2/2009 Posts: 26,328 Location: Masada
|
Did he actually say that? Wah Portfolio: Sold
You know you've made it when you get a parking space for your yatcht.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 5/27/2016 Posts: 274 Location: Pub
|
this guy Cliff Ombeta Known as one of the best criminal lawyer, the only guy who would defend Satan, if he would appear today. All this high profile murder/Drugs/.. 1 The Akasha Brothers 2. Garissa Governor, murder of CEC 3. Pastor Nganga accident 4. Artur Margaryan... 5. Willie Kimani 6. Tujus Wife.... the list goes on and on Now that he is representing the Obado, could be behind PA's change of script (delivered by the KDf guy) in to a victim. Justice may take long to be served in this case. Hope Sharon's case does not end up as a statistic in Ombeta's list of murder wins I work so I can afford the amount of alcohol required to continue going to work
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 8/16/2011 Posts: 2,297
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 4/1/2009 Posts: 1,883
|
Ryko wrote:this guy Cliff Ombeta
Known as one of the best criminal lawyer, the only guy who would defend Satan, if he would appear today.
All this high profile murder/Drugs/..
1 The Akasha Brothers
2. Garissa Governor, murder of CEC
3. Pastor Nganga accident
4. Artur Margaryan...
5. Willie Kimani
6. Tujus Wife....
the list goes on and on
Now that he is representing the Obado, could be behind PA's change of script (delivered by the KDf guy) in to a victim. Justice may take long to be served in this case. Hope Sharon's case does not end up as a statistic in Ombeta's list of murder wins which are these ombeta's murder wins?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 4/1/2009 Posts: 1,883
|
maka wrote:mkenyan wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:maka wrote:murchr wrote:2012 wrote:maka wrote:obiero wrote:hardwood wrote:PA now says he was also kidnapped with Sharon and the chonolist and that he also managed to escape. Damn. Its now his word against the journalist. And I do not believe the journalist for one minute.. A lie detector would be helpful here Watching the preliminary arguments...Oyamo might also go scot free... They took DNA samples from Ayamo without Court orders and in the abscense of his counsel...Well his DNA does not match anything on the scene... What madness? So, who ordered or gave them permission to take his DNA? You leave your DNA everywhere, on cups you use, that hair that falls off etc. Police can collect this even before requesting for a sample officially. This is a lame excuse That is self incrimination you cannot be forced. Whatever you are talking about will be unprocedural and wont be used in the trial... I did not say forced anywhere. And why should we believe what this lawyer and his clients are telling us? When you sip coffee you leave your saliva on that cup....that can be used to analyze your DNA (si ni mate tu wanataka) I believe a smart detective can do this for their internal investigation so that they can determine if it is necessary to officially source for a formal test. 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.... 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. That's why I said assuming the charge is one under sexual offences The presumed portion under Section 26 must be read with an accused's rights under Article 50 You CANNOT compel/force an accused to give a DNA sample. It goes against the very basic principle of non self incrimination under Article 50 (2)(a),(j) and particularly (l) which states in no uncertain terms that an Accused has the right - 'to refuse to give self-incriminating evidence'. We must be careful to avoid discussion of "creating a narrative". An accused's right is as inalienable as those of a victim and must be read side by side. kizungu nyingi za catwalk and you still miss the point.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/18/2011 Posts: 12,069 Location: Kianjokoma
|
Did I hear Citizen reporter Hassan Mugambi say Obado told detectives Oyamo was his PA in his first term but no longer holds the position? Interesting stuff
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/5/2010 Posts: 2,459
|
Ryko wrote:this guy Cliff Ombeta
Known as one of the best criminal lawyer, the only guy who would defend Satan, if he would appear today.
All this high profile murder/Drugs/..
1 The Akasha Brothers
2. Garissa Governor, murder of CEC
3. Pastor Nganga accident
4. Artur Margaryan...
5. Willie Kimani
6. Tujus Wife....
the list goes on and on
Now that he is representing the Obado, could be behind PA's change of script (delivered by the KDf guy) in to a victim. Justice may take long to be served in this case. Hope Sharon's case does not end up as a statistic in Ombeta's list of murder wins We are a constitutional democracy where even the worst criminals must be granted a fair trial in a court of law. Take the Willie kimani case, our DCI had to get assistance from FBI to build a water-tight case. They even extracted DNA from a cigarette filter collected at the murder scene. This is the way to build capacity for our investigative and prosecution agencies. And cliff ombeta is helping the country do that albeit inadvertently.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/26/2012 Posts: 15,980
|
Obado introduces his family "There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Okoth Obado Case
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|