|
Post by adongo23456 on Oct 6, 2011 16:30:15 GMT 3
hehehehehehee. So typical of Kenyans nothing ever happens without a hidden hand behind the scenes. This mentality has been so deeply ingrained in some minds, it may take centuries to be wiped out of some folk's mind.
No fellas the three judges at the Hague do not place calls to the White House before writting their rulings. This trial will not be decided at the White House or Orange House and there are no witch doctors brewing anything behind the bushes to influence the decision.
It reminds me growing in the villages and someone would die then when we go to the funeral folks would ask what did he die from and I would hastily say the man died from malaria. Then they would be like oh yeah we know he died from malaria but who actually killed him. I would tell them malaria comes from mosquitoes and they would laugh at my stupidity and tell me someone must have sent the mosquito and the malaria. That is exactly the mentality I see when I hear otherwise normal people insist that there is no way the judges make any decision on the case without Obama telling them what to do.
|
|
|
Post by destiny on Oct 6, 2011 17:02:27 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Oct 6, 2011 17:33:18 GMT 3
Point of correction - there is nothing like statements for ''the sole consumption of judges'' Whatever the OTP discloses to the judges is exactly what the defence also sees.So if the OTP gives summary statements to the defence, that is what the judges also see. You must be kidding! At this stage, Judges are privy to some redacted & other information not disclosed to the defense (for reasons of witness protection). Defense sometimes just deduces some of the OTP witnesses by inference and other clues. Besides, you are missing the context of that statement about "sole consumption of Judges". When the Prosecutor declared in her closing statement that she had "other" corroborating witnesses besides the 12 being outlined by defense, she was alluding that Judges knew some of these "others" and portions of their statements redacted to the public (& defense). So, yes, there's some information known by Judges which isn't disclosed to defense yet. Until these cases are confirmed, the OTP can't expose identities of all witnesses. I must be kidding? For real? Are you hearing what you are suggesting? That a prosecutor can take you to court, bring a witness statement to the presiding judge saying the witness saw you murdering X at place Y..... but you, the accused cannot see that evidence & challenge it? What kind of criminal justice system is this? Why not just go for detention without trial? And if in any circumstances the judges were to see such info, then surely such info would not be taken into account when deciding the case. About OTP saying they had other corroborating evidence - it counts for nil if it was not disclosed to the defence. Case in point - the nigerian prosecutor tried to question Thuita Mwangi about the article he wrote and defence asked for the EVD number (ie the evidence identification number) of the article. Since she had none, the judges told the prosecutor to stop that line of questioning. So OTP can bring all the witnesses and corroborating evidence they want....but if it wasnt disclosed to the defence by the deadlines set by the Chamber (Aug 19), then such evidence will not be accepted
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Oct 6, 2011 17:44:00 GMT 3
Judges have no leeway on when to release the judgements.
It MUST be within 60 days after final submissions.
Meaning Case 1 must be delivered by Dec 24.
. Anya aptly relayed the wish of victims that both cases be decided simultaneously. You do not know when Judges will dispense with these matters, so suggesting they would summarily dismiss Anya's request is just your guess. Time will definitely tell. I wouldn't purport to rule out Judges quick handling of admissibility and jurisdiction matters which they've repeatedly analysed even quite recently. If you pay attention you will notice a sequence on the deadlines. They issued for written submissions on Jurisdiction and admissibility filings - for the OTP and victims rep (Anya), a deadline of 14th October, 2011 , while the defense teams were given a deadline of 28th October, 2011. My hitch is that a decision on jurisdiction and admissibility will be ready by 21st November, 2011 which happens to be the next deadline for final written observations on case 2.
If with limited evidence, Terfusser and Trendafilova granted jurisdiction at ICC, I don't see any likely change. Kaul will likely rule as he did on this matter. On admissibility, no matter how many trips the AG and DPP make to the Hague, Kenya has proved it is still both unable and unwilling to prosecute the same suspects for the same charges (if not for sanitizing them), thus expect same outcome. Their new faces at the Hague IS NOT equal to judicial reforms. If Jurisdiction and admissibility challenges are dismissed (as I expect), Judges will have a 60-day limit from November 21st, 2011, to rule on case II. The 60-day limit for case I starts on October 24th. I absolutely see no reason preventing these multi-tasking Judges from reaching a decision earlier than the 60 days. Anya was precisely prompting them to push hard and issue both decisions (case I & II) by December 24th. You and me can only wait to see what they do. One - I know when the judges will deliver their judgements! It will be within 60 days of final submissions by the defence! All I was putting across though is that the final submissions in the first case are almost here. Case I final submissions are due Oct 24 while Case II final submissions are due Nov 21. For the Judges to deliver both decisions at the same time will require they decide on case II within a month. It is of course possible - but given the matters at hand, I think it is improbable. Just my opinion though.
|
|
|
Post by affirmed on Oct 6, 2011 17:49:00 GMT 3
[quote author=[/quote]
I must be kidding? For real?
Are you hearing what you are suggesting?
That a prosecutor can take you to court, bring a witness statement to the presiding judge saying the witness saw you murdering X at place Y.....
but you, the accused cannot see that evidence & challenge it?
What kind of criminal justice system is this?
Why not just go for detention without trial? [/quote]
They are suspects not "the accused"!
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Oct 6, 2011 18:02:44 GMT 3
You must be kidding! At this stage, Judges are privy to some redacted & other information not disclosed to the defense (for reasons of witness protection). Defense sometimes just deduces some of the OTP witnesses by inference and other clues. Besides, you are missing the context of that statement about "sole consumption of Judges". When the Prosecutor declared in her closing statement that she had "other" corroborating witnesses besides the 12 being outlined by defense, she was alluding that Judges knew some of these "others" and portions of their statements redacted to the public (& defense). So, yes, there's some information known by Judges which isn't disclosed to defense yet. Until these cases are confirmed, the OTP can't expose identities of all witnesses. I must be kidding? For real? Are you hearing what you are suggesting? That a prosecutor can take you to court, bring a witness statement to the presiding judge saying the witness saw you murdering X at place Y..... but you, the accused cannot see that evidence & challenge it? What kind of criminal justice system is this? Why not just go for detention without trial? And if in any circumstances the judges were to see such info, then surely such info would not be taken into account when deciding the case. About OTP saying they had other corroborating evidence - it counts for nil if it was not disclosed to the defence. Case in point - the nigerian prosecutor tried to question Thuita Mwangi about the article he wrote and defence asked for the EVD number (ie the evidence identification number) of the article. Since she had none, the judges told the prosecutor to stop that line of questioning. So OTP can bring all the witnesses and corroborating evidence they want....but if it wasnt disclosed to the defence by the deadlines set by the Chamber (Aug 19), then such evidence will not be accepted tactician,I know people want to rehash and re-rehash their positions over and over again and some even call it new details. I said my piece about that process already. But there is a lot of information the judges and defense lawyers have which we do not have. It includes private sessions which we do not know what happened and it includes others. Let me give you one example. The defense lawyers and their choir wherever they may be have singing about Ocampo's witnesses as nothing but Mungiki defectors, they have beem called criminals and people interested only in money. That is the narrative some gullible people have swallowed and continue to peddle. Yesterday the OTP revealed something about the OTP witnesses that we did not know about but which of course the judges knew about. OTP revealed the partial identity of the witnesses as follows. This is what Ms Adesola Adeboyejo said from the Standard. "She went ahead to reveal the nature of the witnesses, who include Mungiki members, a former commissioner of the Waki Commission, and an insider in Government who had given the structure of the Government’s organs, including the police and security committees.
Others were a witness who gave an insight into the killings of suspected Mungiki members by members of Kwe Kwe squad, a specialist in sexual and gender violence who handled some victims of violence and a member of the taskforce on police reforms."
The lawyer dismissed the defence mounted by the three and accused their lawyers of conducting "selective and haphazard" evaluation of the prosecution evidence, thereby making misrepresentations of the same" Now if you look at that list you will be hard pressed to crudely classify them as just a bunch of criminals and career witnesses looking for money. So while the defense is busy using whatever information they have about 3 witnesses the judges do have the profile of all the witnesses excluding their names and adresses etc. In the whole case nobody has challenged the evidence of 9 of the witnesses which OTP says actually corroborates some of the disputed testimonies of the three. It would appear to me that the judges will look at the totality of witness testimony which will NOT be confined to the simplistic caricature being peddled by the defense lawyers. I do not think the judges can base their judgment on secret evidence given secretly to them but there is a lot more they have access to than we do and that is not limited to evidence provided in the camera sessions.
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Oct 6, 2011 18:15:07 GMT 3
Anya aptly relayed the wish of victims that both cases be decided simultaneously. You do not know when Judges will dispense with these matters, so suggesting they would summarily dismiss Anya's request is just your guess. Time will definitely tell. I wouldn't purport to rule out Judges quick handling of admissibility and jurisdiction matters which they've repeatedly analysed even quite recently. If you pay attention you will notice a sequence on the deadlines. They issued for written submissions on Jurisdiction and admissibility filings - for the OTP and victims rep (Anya), a deadline of 14th October, 2011 , while the defense teams were given a deadline of 28th October, 2011. My hitch is that a decision on jurisdiction and admissibility will be ready by 21st November, 2011 which happens to be the next deadline for final written observations on case 2.
If with limited evidence, Terfusser and Trendafilova granted jurisdiction at ICC, I don't see any likely change. Kaul will likely rule as he did on this matter. On admissibility, no matter how many trips the AG and DPP make to the Hague, Kenya has proved it is still both unable and unwilling to prosecute the same suspects for the same charges (if not for sanitizing them), thus expect same outcome. Their new faces at the Hague IS NOT equal to judicial reforms. If Jurisdiction and admissibility challenges are dismissed (as I expect), Judges will have a 60-day limit from November 21st, 2011, to rule on case II. The 60-day limit for case I starts on October 24th. I absolutely see no reason preventing these multi-tasking Judges from reaching a decision earlier than the 60 days. Anya was precisely prompting them to push hard and issue both decisions (case I & II) by December 24th. You and me can only wait to see what they do. The jurisdiction verdicts are coming in first so that if the chamber rules lack of jurisdiction, then the other matters all fall away. However this has nothing to do with the timelines provided for filling 'other' written submissions against which the 60 day clock runs. If the chamber was to have an early return to judgement, it would most likely be to dismiss the case than confirm it. I would expect that the swiftness of the judgement will be on the basis of the dissenting opinion of Judge Terfusser in the Abu Guardia case where he said that there was never any need for too much detail in the judgement once the chamber establised there was no need to confirm the case. That is correct kamalet. Also, I would like to point out that it is not GoK that is making submissions regarding admissibility & jurisdiction. It is the suspects themselves as allowed by the statutes & they have already done so (of the 6, only Muthaura did not make a jurisdiction challenge) As job correctly points out, Judge hans kaul dissented from the majority on two occassions....when granting OTP permission to start investigations and when issuing summons. In both instances, the chamber relied largely upon the submissions of the OTP regarding jurisdiction and the chambers own counsel. In this instance, the suspects get to weigh in. Indeed if you get to check the submissions made regarding jurisdiction, you will see that four suspects (Ruto, Sang, Kosgey & Uhuru) have challenged the human values test that the majority decided to use in their decision as to whether to proceed or not. Specifically, the four suspects have challenged the majority decision since it seeks to enlarge the jurisdiction of the court whereas the statute is very clear in Article 22 that: The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.The defence for Uhuru has gone further to lecture the court, which IMO is condescending, that the court is a criminal court and not an International Court for Human Rights. This may just bite them in the ass. In contrast, Ali has challenged jurisdiction by using the very same human values test that the majority used in their prior decisions. He has further argued a dereliction of duty by the prosecutor contrary to article 54 saying: Simply put, Article 54(1) means that the Prosecution “must not abandon (exculpatory evidence) merely because it does not assist in establishing the guilt of the suspectThe plain language of Article 54(1) confirms that the Prosecution is not merely required to disclose exculpatory evidence it encounters (an obligation already enshrined in Article 67)—it must, at the outset, investigate such evidence as well....since Ocampo does not even have one witness statement saying Ali gave orders to police to aid mungiki I'm bringing out these details to show that the chamber will have to revisit its decision on jurisdiction. It is also worth noting that the majority decision to affirm jurisdiction in both March 2010...and the follow up in December has already come under criticism in legal circles. See an example here: www.uni-koeln.de/jur-fak/kress/KeniaFinale.pdfHowever the judges decide, the chamber has to flesh out its jurisdiction argument and set it out clearly....for this is a precedent setting case. I personally think that the chamber will not go back on jurisdiction - if only for the reason that having come so far, it would be self-indicting on the majority & the need to save face. Either way, expect a rather long discussion on jurisdiction. This will be a case that will be quoted for a long time to come
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 6, 2011 18:18:24 GMT 3
LET US LEARN TO BE BROTHERS and COUNTRYMEN.
I have saved this opportunity to speak briefly about the mindless menace of violence and ethnic hatered in our country which again stains our land and every one of our lives. It is not the concern of any one Tribe, Race, Class or Religion; the victims of this menace are black and white, rich and poor, Christians and Muslims, pagans and Hindus, famous and unknown, young and old. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one, No matter where he lives, which political party he belongs to, which faith he profess or what he does can be certain who next will suffer from some senseless act of blood shed. And yet it goes On and On and On in this land of ours. Why? What has hatered ever accomplished? What has it ever created? Whenever any Kenyan’s life is taken by another Kenyan unnecessarily, whenever it is done in the name of the law or in defiance of the law, by one man or by a gang, in cold blood or in passion in an attack of violence or in response to violence, whenever we tear at the fabric of lives which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, whenever we do this, then the whole Nation is degraded. Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claim to civilization alike. Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force, Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of other human beings, but this much is clear; Violence breads Violence, Repression breeds Retaliation, And only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our souls. For when you teach a man to hate and to fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his race, tribe, color, belief or the policies that he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threatens your freedom or your job or your home or your family or your tribe or your religion, then you also learn to confront others, not as fellow citizens, but as enemies to be met not with corporations but with conquest, to be subjugated and to be mastered. We learn, at the least, to look at our brothers as Aliens, Alien man with whom we share a city But not a community, men bound to us in common dwelling But not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. Our lives on this planet are too short, the work to be done is too great, to let this spirit flourish any longer in this land of ours. Of course we can not banish it with a programme nor with a resolution But we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moments of life. That they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning whatever fulfillment and satisfaction that they can. Surely, this bond of common fate, Surely, this bond of common goals can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at the last, to look around at those of us, of our fellow men and surely, we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and become in our hearts, BROTHERS and COUNTRYMEN once again.
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Oct 6, 2011 18:18:49 GMT 3
I must be kidding? For real? Are you hearing what you are suggesting? That a prosecutor can take you to court, bring a witness statement to the presiding judge saying the witness saw you murdering X at place Y..... but you, the accused cannot see that evidence & challenge it? What kind of criminal justice system is this? Why not just go for detention without trial? And if in any circumstances the judges were to see such info, then surely such info would not be taken into account when deciding the case. About OTP saying they had other corroborating evidence - it counts for nil if it was not disclosed to the defence. Case in point - the nigerian prosecutor tried to question Thuita Mwangi about the article he wrote and defence asked for the EVD number (ie the evidence identification number) of the article. Since she had none, the judges told the prosecutor to stop that line of questioning. So OTP can bring all the witnesses and corroborating evidence they want....but if it wasnt disclosed to the defence by the deadlines set by the Chamber (Aug 19), then such evidence will not be accepted tactician,I know people want to rehash and re-rehash their positions over and over again and some even call it new details. I said my piece about that process already. But there is a lot of information the judges and defense lawyers have which we do not have. It includes private sessions which we do not know what happened and it includes others. Let me give you one example. The defense lawyers and their choir wherever they may be have singing about Ocampo's witnesses as nothing but Mungiki defectors, they have beem called criminals and people interested only in money. That is the narrative some gullible people have swallowed and continue to peddle. Yesterday the OTP revealed something about the OTP witnesses that we did not know about but which of course the judges knew about. OTP revealed the partial identity of the witnesses as follows. This is what Ms Adesola Adeboyejo said from the Standard. "She went ahead to reveal the nature of the witnesses, who include Mungiki members, a former commissioner of the Waki Commission, and an insider in Government who had given the structure of the Government’s organs, including the police and security committees.
Others were a witness who gave an insight into the killings of suspected Mungiki members by members of Kwe Kwe squad, a specialist in sexual and gender violence who handled some victims of violence and a member of the taskforce on police reforms."
The lawyer dismissed the defence mounted by the three and accused their lawyers of conducting "selective and haphazard" evaluation of the prosecution evidence, thereby making misrepresentations of the same" Now if you look at that list you will be hard pressed to crudely classify them as just a bunch of criminals and career witnesses looking for money. So while the defense is busy using whatever information they have about 3 witnesses the judges do have the profile of all the witnesses excluding their names and adresses etc. In the whole case nobody has challenged the evidence of 9 of the witnesses which OTP says actually corroborates some of the disputed testimonies of the three. It would appear to me that the judges will look at the totality of witness testimony which will NOT be confined to the simplistic caricature being peddled by the defense lawyers. I do not think the judges can base their judgment on secret evidence given secretly to them but there is a lot more they have access to than we do and that is not limited to evidence provided in the camera sessions. Agreed. All I was asserting is that the chamber cannot use evidence in making its decision from the OTP which has not been disclosed to the defence. How such evidence is disclosed (private session etc) is beside the point. Disclosure is a must
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Oct 6, 2011 18:21:00 GMT 3
I must be kidding? For real?
Are you hearing what you are suggesting?
That a prosecutor can take you to court, bring a witness statement to the presiding judge saying the witness saw you murdering X at place Y.....
but you, the accused cannot see that evidence & challenge it?
What kind of criminal justice system is this?
Why not just go for detention without trial?[/quote] They are suspects not "the accused"! [/quote] same difference!
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 6, 2011 20:22:01 GMT 3
hehehehehehee. So typical of Kenyans nothing ever happens without a hidden hand behind the scenes. This mentality has been so deeply ingrained in some minds, it may take centuries to be wiped out of some folk's mind. No fellas the three judges at the Hague do not place calls to the White House before writting their rulings. This trial will not be decided at the White House or Orange House and there are no witch doctors brewing anything behind the bushes to influence the decision. Adongo, how is Kenyans propensity to see hidden hands behind the scenes any different from your wishful thinking that Ocampo's cross examination of UK that was a disaster, was part of some "genius" strategy to elicite information from the suspect? Come on man. Its obvious you're desperately clutching at straws trying to put a brave face (spin) to the one sided battle. Below find the opening paragraphs of an article that proves Ocampo is a serial underwhelmer. He shocked the gallery on day one of the Lubanga case. It mirrors the ill-prepared questioning of UK that shocked everyone. Instead of unnecessarily raising peoples hopes that all will end well with convictions, you need to be mentally prepared to be monumentally disappointed by the the ICC OTP: 'The first day of the first trial at the court which has promised justice for Africans was always going to be a very big deal. Not surprisingly then expectations were high when International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo stood to make his opening statement on 26 January. After all the prosecutor of the world's first permanent war crimes court had almost three years to prepare his case against Congo’s Thomas Lubanga. But devoid of fire and passion, the prosecutor hardly seemed worth the wait. Watching from the gallery it looked like any other Monday morning for Moreno-Ocampo. One observer whispered that he came across as a student who hadn’t prepared properly for his final exam, like someone who had stepped in at the last minute. His remarks conveyed none of the history being made in Courtroom One, nor of the momentous nature of this occasion and the trial itself. His first sentence, “The prosecution will present evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas Lubanga Dyilo committed crimes under the Rome Statute.” He seemed to be texting on his mobile phone when Lubanga’s lawyer Catherine Mabille said “not guilty” on behalf of her client and didn’t return for the second day for her opening presentation and response to the charges. She wasn’t impressed and said so.' www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch-Archive/Detail/?lng=en&id=96198
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 6, 2011 20:24:08 GMT 3
tactician,I know people want to rehash and re-rehash their positions over and over again and some even call it new details. I said my piece about that process already. But there is a lot of information the judges and defense lawyers have which we do not have. It includes private sessions which we do not know what happened and it includes others. Let me give you one example. The defense lawyers and their choir wherever they may be have singing about Ocampo's witnesses as nothing but Mungiki defectors, they have beem called criminals and people interested only in money. That is the narrative some gullible people have swallowed and continue to peddle. Yesterday the OTP revealed something about the OTP witnesses that we did not know about but which of course the judges knew about. OTP revealed the partial identity of the witnesses as follows. This is what Ms Adesola Adeboyejo said from the Standard. "She went ahead to reveal the nature of the witnesses, who include Mungiki members, a former commissioner of the Waki Commission, and an insider in Government who had given the structure of the Government’s organs, including the police and security committees.
Others were a witness who gave an insight into the killings of suspected Mungiki members by members of Kwe Kwe squad, a specialist in sexual and gender violence who handled some victims of violence and a member of the taskforce on police reforms."
The lawyer dismissed the defence mounted by the three and accused their lawyers of conducting "selective and haphazard" evaluation of the prosecution evidence, thereby making misrepresentations of the same" Now if you look at that list you will be hard pressed to crudely classify them as just a bunch of criminals and career witnesses looking for money. So while the defense is busy using whatever information they have about 3 witnesses the judges do have the profile of all the witnesses excluding their names and adresses etc. In the whole case nobody has challenged the evidence of 9 of the witnesses which OTP says actually corroborates some of the disputed testimonies of the three. It would appear to me that the judges will look at the totality of witness testimony which will NOT be confined to the simplistic caricature being peddled by the defense lawyers. I do not think the judges can base their judgment on secret evidence given secretly to them but there is a lot more they have access to than we do and that is not limited to evidence provided in the camera sessions. Agreed. All I was asserting is that the chamber cannot use evidence in making its decision from the OTP which has not been disclosed to the defence. How such evidence is disclosed (private session etc) is beside the point. Disclosure is a must While I agree that OTP has an obligation to disclose the evidence they have to the defence, it is totaly wrong to argue that OTP must disclose all their evidence to the defence. In her ruling on disclosure of evidence, the single judge stated that OTP could retain or redact some of their evidence if disclusure of such evidence could put the witnesses life in danger. That explain the reason why the defence teams were complaining that some evidence were heavily redacted. The primary objective of disclosure was meet by the OTP and the judges have the same in details. It did occur to me that the defence spend their time in discrediting PW4, PW11and PW12. My question is, what about the other 9 witnesses who corraborated the statements of the three witnesses they are discrediting? How then do they handle the statement of their own witness, Mr. Nguyai, who seems to collaborate the statements of the OTP witnesses? Are they going to discredit Mr. Nguyai as being a criminal and incredible? Your gues is as good as mine, they (defence) rather asume he never even travelled to the Netherlands in the 1st place. Either way their are doomed. Same thing applies to Mr. Ali's witnesses who worked so hard to out-do themselves. If the defence in case 11 used the Kosgey's strategy in their defence, they would be smiling all the way to the airport tonight. While I agree that OTP has an obligation to disclose the evidence they have to the defence, it is totaly wrong to argue that OTP must disclose all their evidence to the defence. In her ruling on disclosure of evidence, the single judge stated that OTP could retain or redact some of their evidence if disclusure of such evidence could put the witnesses life in danger. That explain the reason why the defence teams were complaining that some evidence were heavily redacted. The primary objective of disclosure was meet by the OTP and the judges have the same in details. It did occur to me that the defence spend their time in discrediting PW4, PW11and PW12. My question is, what about the other 9 witnesses who corraborated the statements of the three witnesses they are discrediting? How then do they handle the statement of their own witness, Mr. Nguyai, who seems to collaborate the statements of the OTP witnesses? Are they going to discredit Mr. Nguyai as being a criminal and incredible? Your gues is as good as mine, they (defence) rather asume he never even travelled to the Netherlands in the 1st place. Either way their are doomed. Same thing applies to Mr. Ali's witnesses who worked so hard to out-do themselves. If the defence in case 11 used the Kosgey's strategy in their defence, they would be smiling all the way to the airport tonight.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Oct 6, 2011 20:37:39 GMT 3
6bk,
I usually try to avoid childish rantings since they tend to add very little ugali on my table. If you seriously believe that it is Obama who will determine the results of the Kenyan ICC case, I cannot help you as laughable as that whole nensense is. I told you those villagers would threaten you bodily harm if you told them it is foolish to insist that it is not malaria but some hidden hand that killed someone. I would not want to have a similar pissing contest with you about a similar misguided rubbish. But hey, this a free world. And yeah, Obama will call and give clear instructions on who is guilty. Now we are on the same page. hehehehehehe. The madness of ths world.
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Oct 6, 2011 20:42:59 GMT 3
Agreed. All I was asserting is that the chamber cannot use evidence in making its decision from the OTP which has not been disclosed to the defence. How such evidence is disclosed (private session etc) is beside the point. Disclosure is a must While I agree that OTP has an obligation to disclose the evidence they have to the defence, it is totaly wrong to argue that OTP must disclose all their evidence to the defence. In her ruling on disclosure of evidence, the single judge stated that OTP could retain or redact some of their evidence if disclusure of such evidence could put the witnesses life in danger. That explain the reason why the defence teams were complaining that some evidence were heavily redacted. The primary objective of disclosure was meet by the OTP and the judges have the same in details. It did occur to me that the defence spend their time in discrediting PW4, PW11and PW12. My question is, what about the other 9 witnesses who corraborated the statements of the three witnesses they are discrediting? How then do they handle the statement of their own witness, Mr. Nguyai, who seems to collaborate the statements of the OTP witnesses? Are they going to discredit Mr. Nguyai as being a criminal and incredible? Your gues is as good as mine, they (defence) rather asume he never even travelled to the Netherlands in the 1st place. Either way their are doomed. Same thing applies to Mr. Ali's witnesses who worked so hard to out-do themselves. If the defence in case 11 used the Kosgey's strategy in their defence, they would be smiling all the way to the airport tonight. While I agree that OTP has an obligation to disclose the evidence they have to the defence, it is totaly wrong to argue that OTP must disclose all their evidence to the defence. In her ruling on disclosure of evidence, the single judge stated that OTP could retain or redact some of their evidence if disclusure of such evidence could put the witnesses life in danger. That explain the reason why the defence teams were complaining that some evidence were heavily redacted. The primary objective of disclosure was meet by the OTP and the judges have the same in details. It did occur to me that the defence spend their time in discrediting PW4, PW11and PW12. My question is, what about the other 9 witnesses who corraborated the statements of the three witnesses they are discrediting? How then do they handle the statement of their own witness, Mr. Nguyai, who seems to collaborate the statements of the OTP witnesses? Are they going to discredit Mr. Nguyai as being a criminal and incredible? Your gues is as good as mine, they (defence) rather asume he never even travelled to the Netherlands in the 1st place. Either way their are doomed. Same thing applies to Mr. Ali's witnesses who worked so hard to out-do themselves. If the defence in case 11 used the Kosgey's strategy in their defence, they would be smiling all the way to the airport tonight. Of course the OTP can and does redact info from witness statements. Once it is redacted, then not even the judges can see or use the redacted bit to make a decision. Remember the suspects are innocent at this stage - how then do you propose to protect witnesses and at the same time prejudice innocent suspects so as to jail them?
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Oct 6, 2011 23:24:37 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Oct 6, 2011 23:42:50 GMT 3
|
|