The Confessional Statement of the Appellant Exhibit C and C(1) were tendered by the prosecution without objection. The only objection raised by the Appellant was to the effect that the Investigating Police Officer was not the one who obtained the Confessional Statements. Confession of an accused person to the commission of a crime plays a major part in the determination of his guilt and a court of law is entitled to convict on the confession if it comes to the conclusion that the confession is voluntary. This is because the confession itself puts an end to the rough and speculative edges of criminal responsibility In terms of mens rea and actus reus. Okeke Vs. State (2003) 15 NWLR (pt. 842) 25 SC The Appellant made Exhibit C and C(1) and in Exhibit D confirmed Exhibit C and C (1) in front of his mother and a Senior Police Officer. If not at that point his mother was there he would have denied Exhibits C & C(1). The Appellant did not rather he confirmed Exhibits C & C(1). lt would be taken that Exhibits C and C(1) were voluntarily made by the Appellant. See Akpan vs. State (1992) 6 NWLR pt. 248 page 439, Silas Ilkpo Vs. The State (1996) 1 NILR page 59, Alarape Vs. the State (2001) 14 WRN Page 1. The Appellant did not object to his statements being tendered in evidence and as such it would be taken that these statements were voluntarily obtained. Had the Appellant objected to them being tendered, the trial court is under an obligation to conduct a trial within trial to ascertain the voluntariness of the statements obtained from the Appellant. Where an accused retracts his statement during the tendering of such statement, a trial within trial is conducted see Olayinka vs. State (2007) 9 NWLR pt. 1040 Page 561. In this trial, the Appellant did not retract his confessional statements. He only attempted to retract his confessional statements during his examination in chief at which time the opportunity for, a trial within trial had been lost. Having lost the opportunity to retract his confessional statement, it therefore stands: It is trite law that mere retraction of a voluntary confessional statement by an accused person does not render such statement inadmissible or worthless and untrue in considering his guilt. Silas Ikpo Vs. The State (1996) 1 NILR 59 SC, Ihebeka vs. State (2000) 4 SC (pt.1) 203. Idowu Vs. State (2000) 7 SC (Pt.II) 50.