By Yassah J. Wright
. . . we did not conduct forensic and scientific fingers print investigation on the clorax bottle, and the match-box collected to establish the defendants’ finger print,”
–Rafael Wilson
Government first witness, Rafael Wilson, while being cross-examined on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, denied conducting forensic and scientific fingers print investigation on the clora bottle, and the matches-box collected to establish the defendants’ finger print.
Rafael is a criminal investigator with the Liberia National Police (LNP).
A forensic investigation is the scientific and methodical process of collecting, preserving, and analyzing physical or digital evidence from a crime scene or incident to uncover facts, establish events, and identify individuals, ultimately providing objective findings for legal proceedings.
It uses specialized scientific methods (like DNA, fingerprints, digital analysis) and expertise (accounting, pathology) to objectively determine what happened, helping to prove guilt or innocence in criminal and civil cases.
But in his response to the defense question regarding forensic fingers print to establish the defendants’ fingers print on the container, to also establish their commission of the crime, Rafael said, when they conducted their investigation, they were informed by the forensic technicians that it was impossible to conduct forensic fingers print investigation, because the object was a rubber container.
On the question of whether he conducted forensic fingers print investigation to establish, and or link the defendants to the crime from the items retrieved from the crime scene?
Rafael said the clora bottle has raw surface, and as such, “we could not conduct finger print.” Furthermore, he said, the technician forensic investigator “told us that it was impossible to conduct forensic fingers print, or to establish fingers print. So, we did not conduct a forensic finger print investigation.”
Based on the answer provided, the defense then wondered as to what legal grounds did the government or investigation link the defendants to the crimes since their fingers’ prints were not done to link them to the crime.
They argued that for the fact that they hold the substance, their fingers’ print will remain on the material, something, the lawyer said, mandates that investigators when visiting a crimes scene, should hold any, and every materials on the crimes scene with a glove, and taken to the lab for scientific research, and a finger print verification to link any defendant.
Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, presiding at Criminal Court ‘A’ overruled the question, on grounds that the witness testified that there is documentary, and oral evidence and testimony that prompted them to charge the defendants.
Prior to the cross-examination of the witness, prosecution presented police charge sheet, and investigation report to be testified to, and admitted into evidence.
But defense rejected the request on grounds that the evidence presented are strange, “because they were never introduced, and presented during the discovery of evidence.” Defense claimed that was a “violation of the law.”
However, the judge denied the request.
Meanwhile, the defense team, on the record made a submission, and prayed the court to provide printed copies, and made a reliable copy to them for review in order to properly prepared them to cross-examine the witness.
The hearing continues
Comments are closed.