"Look, if you had one shot, one opportunity. To seize everything you ever wanted. One moment. Would you capture it or just let it slip?" – Eminem in the song Lose yourself.
From the bail ruling where he was cited as the "male equivalent of a slay queen" or "woman eater", to sensational media coverage, lengthy judgments (on conviction and sentence) delivered with poise and grandeur complete with sound bites.
Everyone has sought to milk the publicity the Jowie case has engendered dry. Lawyers. politicians. Pathologists. Social media influencers. Name it.
Post-conviction and sentencing, comedians (or is it comediennes?) have fallen over themselves scavenging for a bite of what is left from the carcass.
No one has been spared in the rush to get their 15 minutes of fame. Not even the accused person himself, who has calculatingly timed the release of his “hit songs” to coincide with the judgments he impugns. If I had the opportunity, I would probably have sunk my teeth into the juicy story. But time and chance were not on my side.
But as the dust settles, could justice have been sacrificed at the altar of playing to the public gallery? The jury is out there.
In my analysis of the hudgments, the conviction is rock solid. The first accused person having been squarely placed at the scene as the last seen with the deceased, coupled with the blood-stained khaki shorts, was rightly convicted.
My reservations though lie with the death sentence. While the chances of actual execution are nil, I respectfully find the legal, factual and philosophical underpinnings of the sentence to be somewhat shaky.
By way of example, reliance was extensively placed on media reports surrounding femicide—among them the heinous Airbnb murder. Yet the same benefit was not extended to the accused person when he sought refuge in social media reports connoting magnanimity by the victim's family (the dad to be specific, when he extended forgiveness to him).
Again, if a qualitative assessment of the heinousness of murders were to be undertaken, Dr Johansen Oduor would agree with me that the instant one (grave as it is) would not make it to the top 1,000 list.
Even in civil matters, less damages (towards pain and suffering) are usually awarded for instantaneous death. Perhaps a slow death preceded by torture of the victim would be more chilling, I would think.
If justice is supposed to be 'blind', so to speak, yet alive to the goings-on in society, where should the line be drawn?
Granted, the first accused/convict might have been the author of his own misfortune in squandering his golden chance of mitigation to belatedly plead innocence. In hindsight, defence counsel should have advised their client that the train had long left the station and more could be gained by showing remorse (even if manufactured) rather than commiserating with the deceased family like a third-party bystander.
All said and done, the convict (in my humble view) has a good chance of appeal on sentencing alone and is best advised to take it.
For whatever little comfort it can accord, the lodging of the notice of appeal automatically stays the execution of the death sentence by dint of the Court of Appeal rules (Rule 5(1), at least academically speaking.
So best of luck to the christened woman-eater in his appeal. And on to the next big story.
Advocate/Partner-Muthoga & Omari Advocates
