Comments on: Not lazy, just callous and disrespectful of the Constitution

By: Leigh

Leigh — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:24:22 +0000

Mdu, as you will know, courts concern themselves with whether requisites are established – this is true of criminal charges, civil suits and defences in either criminal or civil matters. Thus, whereas a court will be interested in whether testimony divulges contradictions, its consideration of those contradictions does not end there. One further inquiry is: how does the revelation of the contradiction bear upon the establishment of the element of the case or defence which is at issue?

So in one case, a contradiction may completely undermine a witness’s testimony. And if that testimony was crucial to the demonstration of one or more of the necessary allegations, well then that side would be in rather a grave spot of bother. But in another case, the contradiction may do little violence to (a) the witness’s credibility and (b) the probative value of the testimony.

In a nutshell, much turns on the nature of the contradiction and on the particular circumstances which obtain.

By: Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:10:00 +0000

Mr Mousie: When I described the Magistrate as “minority,” I meant “minority.” In the sense that Mr Malema did, viz, not “African.”

None of us need be surprised that minorities of this ilk are likewise devoted to discrediting African judges who are superb scholars, have spent their lives fighting racism, assisted mightily in the struggle, and may enjoy a nice cuppa now and then.

By: Mdu

Mdu — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:50:47 +0000

But it did with Dr Death’s case,why not in other instances?

By: Leigh

Leigh — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:25:43 +0000

Mdu, thank you for being honest. What I aimed at establishing by addressing my question to you is that the incidence of some contradictions does not necessarily fatally undermine an evidentiary basis.

By: Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:22:07 +0000

Back to Huntley and Canada …

Is anyone else doubting this guy’s integrity? Ok, Sirjay (I think it was) writes that the Canadian refugee tribunals investigate cases very carefully, but is it really plausible that Mr Huntley was attacked seven times? I live down the road from Mowbray and haven’t been attacked once. Once or twice, I could believe, but seven!

What I find really puzzling is that he claims that the SA government was unable to offer him any protection from such racial persecution and yet he failed to report one of the alleged incidents to the police. Do I smell a big fat hairy rat? No, I think this guy isn’t being entirely honest. The reason he was attacked so often (and failed to report it to the police) is that he was trying to sell drugs to Pagad members.

By: Anonymouse

Anonymouse — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:12:08 +0000

Mikhail – and the (‘minority’ sic) magistrate was not white! The lawyers for the state and defence (at least for the defence when the case started – but Motata fired a few of his lawyers along the way) were white.

Chris – the Tea’s brand was Jack Daniels – ring a bell?

Out of court now – have to prepare to go home – check in later.

By: Leigh

Leigh — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:57:54 +0000

Anonymouse, it is comforting that the magistrate in question, Nair, had the courage to rule against a judge.

I did not follow the case very closely so I would greatly appreciate your input here. Mdu, maintains that the State’s conduct of the trial was lacking in some respects – apparently some of the evidence which it sought to adduce was contradictory. I do not know whether that is true.

Mdu maintains also that Motata J should have been acquitted – presumably because of the way in which the State’s evidentiary foundation was flawed.

I would like to ask some questions of you in the hope that your answers would benefit both Mdu and me.

1. Was the theory for which the State argued in its closing statement supported by the facts which it was able to establish?

2.If so, do you think that its theory makes logical?

3.Do you think the State was able to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Sorry if this takes up a bit too much of your time. My purpose for asking for your input here is that you have, as far as I am aware, substantial trial experience and you could offer valuable insights.

By: Mdu

Mdu — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:54:39 +0000

Leigh, to be honest, I do not know what the closing argument was, but all the same what counts to me is the evidence presented before court than a prosecutor or defence attorney trying to explain contradictions away.

By: Leigh

Leigh — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:26:23 +0000

Mdu, I know you do not speak of the closing argument in your post. I merely asked you for your opinion thereon – which I felt fairly justified in requesting given that you know the case well enough to comment on the State’s conduct of the trail. You are of course aware that you do not have to answer (but I would be interested to read any answer which you might present).

By: Mdu

Mdu — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:21:20 +0000

Leigh, I do not think of the closing argument at all, I talk of the contradfictory evidence with accusations by state witnesses of being told what to say occurred against their will and against what actually occurred at the scene of the accident.

By the by, Dr Death Basson was acquitted precisely for such incongruencies by more than 50 state winesses!