|
Post by kamalet on Feb 27, 2013 22:09:55 GMT 3
Do not worry he will be out on a 5 million shilling bond tomorrow and if needed in August...I am certain he will be there! One problem I have had with the EACC is that they lose a lot more cases than than they win especially those of the big shots.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 27, 2013 22:14:46 GMT 3
Do not worry he will be out on a 5 million shilling bond tomorrow and if needed in August...I am certain he will be there! One problem I have had with the EACC is that they lose a lot more cases than than they win especially those of the big shots. I'm sure he will be out; remand is for small fish. And I too have my doubts about the EACC. (What ever happened to motor-mouth Lumumba?) As far as I know, this guy was trotted out, and is due to be trotted out again, as a key witness, on the basis his connections to NSAC. Witness credibility is always an issue, and it won't help the Defence to have a key witness on trial, for major corruption, in Kenya. The inevitable question at the ICC: how much is he eating for the testimony here? Lies, theft, corruption ...on a large scale ... these are things that might put a small dent in the testimony of a key witness. Mr. Mwangi is seriously damaged goods as of now. The elections are almost upon us, so we might not the inevitable spin for a few days, but it's coming.
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Feb 27, 2013 23:48:45 GMT 3
With muthaura's case going back to PTC, then who would uhuru be charged of co-perpetration with? with who would he have a common purpose with when muthaura is not under trial? Let us suppose that Muthaura is completely let go, which, of course won't happen. The answer to your question is to be found in the other ICC cases in which just one person is on trial. First, is not necessary that the other people involved in the "common plan" also be in the dock . In this particular case, for example, Maina Njenga is featured quite prominently in the "common plan". Second, keep in mind that in one other case where two people were jointly charged, the court decided to separate the case into two and re-characterize the charges. So it would unwise to make any assumptions about how the court might handle this one. Third, the fact that the charges are not confirmed against a person does not mean that all allegations about them then disappear. So, for example, if you look at the Updated Documents Containing Charges, you will find that Ali and Kosgey are still very much in the thick of things. The gourd+11 beans+ancient leopard skin have confirmed that neither Uhuru nor Muthaura is walking away. With that I leave you to it. Ohsageohsage, Maina Njenga featured prominently in PEV & yet is currently a bossom buddy of his victims' leader? Isn't that a bit reminiscent of how WSR is now a bossom buddy of his victims' leader & indeed appears poised to be a veep in the next government? Are you beginning to see how political re-alignments, Kenyan style, are making a mockery of all the ICC cases? Kenyans are running rings around the mzungu court ;D ;D ;D ;D If it doesn't fit....
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 28, 2013 2:38:19 GMT 3
Ohsageohsage, Maina Njenga featured prominently in PEV & yet is currently a bossom buddy of his victims' leader? Isn't that a bit reminiscent of how WSR is now a bossom buddy of his victims' leader & indeed appears poised to be a veep in the next government? Are you beginning to see how political re-alignments, Kenyan style, are making a mockery of all the ICC cases? Kenyans are running rings around the mzungu court ;D ;D ;D ;D If it doesn't fit.... Yes, of course. Kenyans are the cleverest people in the world. Anyway ... since this is about Witness 4, I will point out a few things: * There have been, and there still are, extensive investigations regarding this fellow. His case has actually been very complicated ever since the OTP got involved with him and has involved lies, betrayal, and threats by his (former) associates and friends. * The ICC appears to have had enough of lying/bribed/.. witnesses and seemed determined to set an example. [Look at other cases] Before July, the OTP will, in another case be charging one of its own (former) witnesses. * Witness 4 can, and most likely will, cut a deal to tell all and so avoid time in a 12-by-12. His choices are limited and very stark: to the left, get screwed this way; to the right get screwed that way; but the final choice is yours! We may learn a great deal from this fellow. We might even learn how money and power really work in Kenya. * The current OTP investigation will, when it is made public, drag in quite a few "unexpected" people in Kenya. Relying in the gourd (and secondary implements), I predict that before the end of the year, a few people in the Kenyan appear-to-do-good-but-eat community (as opposed to the just-do-good lot) will find themselves in very hot soup. A couple of things seem certain about all this: (a) some people will face criminal charges over all this, and, I will risk my hard-earned on at least two ending in a 12-by-12; (b) from around the end of this year on, the ICC will be shipping back some of their former witnesses. * It may turn out that the clever people (with all their money) are not so clever after all. This limitation on cleverness/power/money will be a useful lesson to some Kenyans. By the time the dust settles---and I wouldn't be surprised if the court too sees it that way---the Kenyan cases will, in many ways, and for both Prosecution and Defence, be an exemplary lesson on how to do or not to do things. Earlier today, I referred someone to an old Chinese poem on the dangers of being too clever. His response was that, thanks to his father, he has all the cleverness and wisdom he will ever need in this life. Me myself, I see the point on the Chinese poem: even if you are really clever, there probably is out there some person who is a bit cleverer. So don't be too clever. That's what the poem says. I got carried away there. Where was I? Ah, yes ... "Kenyans are running rings around the mzungu". Yes, of course.
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Feb 28, 2013 10:51:20 GMT 3
It might help to go back to basics. I have noticed that:
1. Many Jukwaaists and journalists do not read the detailed submissions by the various parties involved in the Kenyan situation at the Hague.
2. Too often submissions are confused with decisions and decisions with submissions. When the OTP or one of the defence teams make a submission to the chamber, it does not mean that the judges have agreed or conversely declined. Journalists are particularly guilty of reporting submissions (or what some call prayers) as if they were decisions.
3. Often people look at the strategies of the teams short sightedly. Oftentimes a trial is a long game. Some steps taken now are for now but the significant steps taken now are in preparation for the the endgame. In particular, Mrs. Bensouda seems rather adept at long range planning. In this she seems smarter than Ocampo. Let me offer an example: she spoke of re-characterising the charges last year. At that point it was not clear to me but now it is. She had already decided that Muthaura, for instance would face a different approach and Witness 4 would be out. If Muthaura goes back to PTC, then new evidence can be easily brought into play. Defence teams are grappling with up to 30 new witnesses, documentary and other evidence that is suddenly in play. Bensouda is also acutely aware of the potential effects of the elections next week. Electing the indictees will mean non cooperation and call for a different approach.
4. Finally, any evidence of bribery traceable back to any indictee or their associates will be disastrous. Remember the conditions set at the summonses and recently reiterated by the trial chamber hold. Arrest warrants could be issued and evidence of witness intimidation or bribery could be considered as evidence of culpability.
5. Finally it is sad that Muthaura is starting to show his face at Gema meetings again. He should continue to lie low. His case is far from over. The optics of him at a Njuri Ncheke meeting crowining Uhuru as their tribal king is bad optics. In these cases you just never know what will be used for what.
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Feb 28, 2013 18:48:47 GMT 3
It might help to go back to basics. I have noticed that: 1. Many Jukwaaists and journalists do not read the detailed submissions by the various parties involved in the Kenyan situation at the Hague. 2. Too often submissions are confused with decisions and decisions with submissions. When the OTP or one of the defence teams make a submission to the chamber, it does not mean that the judges have agreed or conversely declined. Journalists are particularly guilty of reporting submissions (or what some call prayers) as if they were decisions. 3. Often people look at the strategies of the teams short sightedly. Oftentimes a trial is a long game. Some steps taken now are for now but the significant steps taken now are in preparation for the the endgame. In particular, Mrs. Bensouda seems rather adept at long range planning. In this she seems smarter than Ocampo. Let me offer an example: she spoke of re-characterising the charges last year. At that point it was not clear to me but now it is. She had already decided that Muthaura, for instance would face a different approach and Witness 4 would be out. If Muthaura goes back to PTC, then new evidence can be easily brought into play. Defence teams are grappling with up to 30 new witnesses, documentary and other evidence that is suddenly in play. Bensouda is also acutely aware of the potential effects of the elections next week. Electing the indictees will mean non cooperation and call for a different approach. 4. Finally, any evidence of bribery traceable back to any indictee or their associates will be disastrous. Remember the conditions set at the summonses and recently reiterated by the trial chamber hold. Arrest warrants could be issued and evidence of witness intimidation or bribery could be considered as evidence of culpability. 5. Finally it is sad that Muthaura is starting to show his face at Gema meetings again. He should continue to lie low. His case is far from over. The optics of him at a Njuri Ncheke meeting crowining Uhuru as their tribal king is bad optics. In these cases you just never know what will be used for what. Roughrider, I actually agreed with you until you said two things. 1) "Electing the indictees will mean non cooperation and call for a different approach." That's an assumption, or at best your opinion. Some are willing to cross that bridge & see what happens. Changing "will" to "may" would've been closer to the truth.... 2) " Finally it is sad that Muthaura is starting to show his face at Gema meetings again. He should continue to lie low. His case is far from over. The optics of him at a Njuri Ncheke meeting crowining Uhuru as their tribal king is bad optics. In these cases you just never know what will be used for what." Bad optics, eh? So was it good optics for Jakom to be crowned by Mungiki's Maina Njenga?
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 28, 2013 19:04:09 GMT 3
It might help to go back to basics. I have noticed that: 1. Many Jukwaaists and journalists do not read the detailed submissions by the various parties involved in the Kenyan situation at the Hague. 2. Too often submissions are confused with decisions and decisions with submissions. When the OTP or one of the defence teams make a submission to the chamber, it does not mean that the judges have agreed or conversely declined. Journalists are particularly guilty of reporting submissions (or what some call prayers) as if they were decisions. 3. Often people look at the strategies of the teams short sightedly. Oftentimes a trial is a long game. Some steps taken now are for now but the significant steps taken now are in preparation for the the endgame. In particular, Mrs. Bensouda seems rather adept at long range planning. In this she seems smarter than Ocampo. Let me offer an example: she spoke of re-characterising the charges last year. At that point it was not clear to me but now it is. She had already decided that Muthaura, for instance would face a different approach and Witness 4 would be out. If Muthaura goes back to PTC, then new evidence can be easily brought into play. Defence teams are grappling with up to 30 new witnesses, documentary and other evidence that is suddenly in play. Bensouda is also acutely aware of the potential effects of the elections next week. Electing the indictees will mean non cooperation and call for a different approach. 4. Finally, any evidence of bribery traceable back to any indictee or their associates will be disastrous. Remember the conditions set at the summonses and recently reiterated by the trial chamber hold. Arrest warrants could be issued and evidence of witness intimidation or bribery could be considered as evidence of culpability. 5. Finally it is sad that Muthaura is starting to show his face at Gema meetings again. He should continue to lie low. His case is far from over. The optics of him at a Njuri Ncheke meeting crowining Uhuru as their tribal king is bad optics. In these cases you just never know what will be used for what. Roughrider, I actually agreed with you until you said two things. 1) "Electing the indictees will mean non cooperation and call for a different approach." That's an assumption, or at best your opinion. Some are willing to cross that bridge & see what happens. Changing "will" to "may" would've been closer to the truth.... 2) " Finally it is sad that Muthaura is starting to show his face at Gema meetings again. He should continue to lie low. His case is far from over. The optics of him at a Njuri Ncheke meeting crowining Uhuru as their tribal king is bad optics. In these cases you just never know what will be used for what." Bad optics, eh? So was it good optics for Jakom to be crowned by Mungiki's Maina Njenga? ......or Sang hosting Cord luminaries ?
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Feb 28, 2013 19:10:02 GMT 3
Roughrider, I actually agreed with you until you said two things. 1) "Electing the indictees will mean non cooperation and call for a different approach." That's an assumption, or at best your opinion. Some are willing to cross that bridge & see what happens. Changing "will" to "may" would've been closer to the truth.... 2) " Finally it is sad that Muthaura is starting to show his face at Gema meetings again. He should continue to lie low. His case is far from over. The optics of him at a Njuri Ncheke meeting crowining Uhuru as their tribal king is bad optics. In these cases you just never know what will be used for what." Bad optics, eh? So was it good optics for Jakom to be crowned by Mungiki's Maina Njenga? ......or Sang hosting Cord luminaries ? b6k; 1) You are right. change that to 'may'. There is always a chance that by some miracle they will cooperate. 2). On the optics... I think they are bad for Muthaura because he has a case at the ICC. How do the folks at ICC interpret this? On the other hand, I am not aware that Raila and Njenga Maina are facing any charges at the ICC. 3) Kamale - Did sang attend a public rally or tribal coronation? I haven't seen the news. All I know is that he hosted them at his house. I will check.
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Feb 28, 2013 19:34:29 GMT 3
Roughrider, I actually agreed with you until you said two things. 1) "Electing the indictees will mean non cooperation and call for a different approach." That's an assumption, or at best your opinion. Some are willing to cross that bridge & see what happens. Changing "will" to "may" would've been closer to the truth.... 2) " Finally it is sad that Muthaura is starting to show his face at Gema meetings again. He should continue to lie low. His case is far from over. The optics of him at a Njuri Ncheke meeting crowining Uhuru as their tribal king is bad optics. In these cases you just never know what will be used for what." Bad optics, eh? So was it good optics for Jakom to be crowned by Mungiki's Maina Njenga? ......or Sang hosting Cord luminaries ? Was that in the meeting where deputy president Kajudas was demoted to minutes taker? ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Feb 28, 2013 19:40:54 GMT 3
......or Sang hosting Cord luminaries ? b6k; 1) You are right. change that to 'may'. There is always a chance that by some miracle they will cooperate. 2). On the optics... I think they are bad for Muthaura because he has a case at the ICC. How do the folks at ICC interpret this? On the other hand, I am not aware that Raila and Njenga Maina are facing any charges at the ICC. 3) Kamale - Did sang attend a public rally or tribal coronation? I haven't seen the news. All I know is that he hosted them at his house. I will check. Roughrider, I suppose that Francis Muthaura remains an elder within the Njuri Ncheke ICC court case notwithstanding. You seem to infer that any time the elders meet they are hatching yet another evil scheme to unleash tribal warfare, yet to use your ICC argument, the Njuri Ncheke are not on trial at The Hague either. I would hope that even the ICC would have moles within such meetings who could provide an overview of what the meeting was all about, if they have a need to do so. Coronations on the other hand can be tricky affairs....
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Feb 28, 2013 19:57:11 GMT 3
Roughrider, I suppose that Francis Muthaura remains an elder within the Njuri Ncheke ICC court case notwithstanding. You seem to infer that any time the elders meet they are hatching yet another evil scheme to unleash tribal warfare, yet to use your ICC argument, the Njuri Ncheke are not on trial at The Hague either. I would hope that even the ICC would have moles within such meetings who could provide an overview of what the meeting was all about, if they have a need to do so. Coronations on the other hand can be tricky affairs.... I think you have misunderstood me. I know they were doing an Uhuru coronation in Meru. I know that is probably not evil. The Njuri Ncheke are not at the ICC but they are a tribal arm of the GEMA. All I am saying is that the optics for an ICC indictee are bad when they are charged with animating and arming thugs to attack non supportive tribes. Muthaura was supposed to be an apolitical civil servant. This picture reinforces the OTP contention that he wasn't. I am also suggesting that the fact that Hussein Ali and Kosgey were silent and absent from public life until they were let free suggests that it is probably a golden rule. Of course their lawyers did an excellent job. But they helped by staying out of the fray. Muthaura was doing well, until his face showed up at at tribal meeting in Meru with co-accused, Uhuru. Perhaps he thinks his case is over because of OTP-4 - a mistake in my book. He should make sure his pacemaker is working well.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 28, 2013 20:09:13 GMT 3
Muthaura also probably believes that Uhuru and Ruto will win so he can join them when the pull a Bashir stunt.
Another thing that is increasingly becoming apparent is that they have already broken their bail conditions, which state that they are to have no contact, direct or indirect, with either witnesses or victims. The ``witness'' aspect is already under investigation. As for the victims, has Uhuru or Ruto had any contact with any of them? Are there, for example, photographs showing that?
Let us keep in mind that the ICC does issue sealed arrest-warrants that the perps usually find out about only when they are already in chains.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 28, 2013 22:15:27 GMT 3
Ohsageohsage, Maina Njenga featured prominently in PEV & yet is currently a bossom buddy of his victims' leader? Isn't that a bit reminiscent of how WSR is now a bossom buddy of his victims' leader & indeed appears poised to be a veep in the next government? Are you beginning to see how political re-alignments, Kenyan style, are making a mockery of all the ICC cases? Kenyans are running rings around the mzungu court ;D ;D ;D ;D If it doesn't fit.... Yes, of course. Kenyans are the cleverest people in the world. Anyway ... since this is about Witness 4, I will point out a few things: * There have been, and there still are, extensive investigations regarding this fellow. His case has actually been very complicated ever since the OTP got involved with him and has involved lies, betrayal, and threats by his (former) associates and friends. * The ICC appears to have had enough of lying/bribed/.. witnesses and seemed determined to set an example. [Look at other cases] Before July, the OTP will, in another case be charging one of its own (former) witnesses. * Witness 4 can, and most likely will, cut a deal to tell all and so avoid time in a 12-by-12. His choices are limited and very stark: to the left, get screwed this way; to the right get screwed that way; but the final choice is yours! We may learn a great deal from this fellow. We might even learn how money and power really work in Kenya. * The current OTP investigation will, when it is made public, drag in quite a few "unexpected" people in Kenya. Relying in the gourd (and secondary implements), I predict that before the end of the year, a few people in the Kenyan appear-to-do-good-but-eat community (as opposed to the just-do-good lot) will find themselves in very hot soup. A couple of things seem certain about all this: (a) some people will face criminal charges over all this, and, I will risk my hard-earned on at least two ending in a 12-by-12; (b) from around the end of this year on, the ICC will be shipping back some of their former witnesses. * It may turn out that the clever people (with all their money) are not so clever after all. This limitation on cleverness/power/money will be a useful lesson to some Kenyans. By the time the dust settles---and I wouldn't be surprised if the court too sees it that way---the Kenyan cases will, in many ways, and for both Prosecution and Defence, be an exemplary lesson on how to do or not to do things. Earlier today, I referred someone to an old Chinese poem on the dangers of being too clever. His response was that, thanks to his father, he has all the cleverness and wisdom he will ever need in this life. Me myself, I see the point on the Chinese poem: even if you are really clever, there probably is out there some person who is a bit cleverer. So don't be too clever. That's what the poem says. I got carried away there. Where was I? Ah, yes ... "Kenyans are running rings around the mzungu". Yes, of course. Whilst OTP might foolishly use evidence from W4 I hilly doubt he is off any value to the prosecution. Secondly W4 need not cut a deal with OTP to avoid the 12x12 you allude to. He had not perjured himself as he has not told the court anything. The reliance by the OTP on his evidence in the PTC is not sufficient to get him jailed. As for witnesses being returned home to be tried, I hope this includes the new one the OTP wants to use on the basis that he confessed to having shot 2 people. I sometimes think you push the bar a little too far!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 28, 2013 23:20:25 GMT 3
I just report what I get from the gourd. Let's wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Feb 28, 2013 23:48:34 GMT 3
Whilst OTP might foolishly use evidence from W4 I hilly doubt he is off any value to the prosecution. Secondly W4 need not cut a deal with OTP to avoid the 12x12 you allude to. He had not perjured himself as he has not told the court anything. The reliance by the OTP on his evidence in the PTC is not sufficient to get him jailed. As for witnesses being returned home to be tried, I hope this includes the new one the OTP wants to use on the basis that he confessed to having shot 2 people. I sometimes think you push the bar a little too far! Kamale, Witness 4 of no value to the prosecution?? While he may no longer serve as prosecution witness against the two accused in case 2, he may be used against those who bribed him to change his earlier testimony. Remember that 2009 video released by self-styled ICC expert Matsanga, showing an uncomfortable and unhappy man, somewhere in New Jersey, being interviewed on camera while retracting his earlier statement? In her latest submission Bensouda has made it clear that he was coerced or bribed into making that video statement. And OTP probably knows the individual or individuals who approached Witness 4 and who forced or bribed him to change his earlier statement. At the time the video first surfaced (Feb/March 2012) the OTP said that they would investigate who was trying to tamper with potential witnesses and that they would request appropriate measures, including arrests. W4 may be of very good use to Bensouda if she decides to charge those who compelled him to change his original testimony. And I assume it will not be too difficult to link the suspected perpetrators to their principals. And might these be the accused in case 2? So you see, witness 4 probably still is very useful. Bensouda has complained a lot about witness tampering, a serious crime. I would not be surprised if we will see charges brought in the near future. Furaha
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 1, 2013 9:20:27 GMT 3
I cannot believe you guys!!!
W4 is dumped for being "a liar and unreliable" by the OTP and he is still useful to the OTP? Just walk back and find out why he is dumped again......' being unreliable'!
The issue of W4 being coerced and bribed is a claim by OTP which she cannot substantiate otherwise she would have taken action against the said persons a long time ago!!
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 1, 2013 10:31:42 GMT 3
I cannot believe you guys!!! W4 is dumped for being "a liar and unreliable" by the OTP and he is still useful to the OTP? Just walk back and find out why he is dumped again......' being unreliable'! The issue of W4 being coerced and bribed is a claim by OTP which she cannot substantiate otherwise she would have taken action against the said persons a long time ago!! Kamale, it is a matter of reading the many submissions on the ICC's website. Granted, it takes time but it does provide insight. Here is what Bensouda wrote: The Prosecution will not call Witness 4 at trial because information that emerged since confirmation that could substantially undermine his credibility at trial. First, in a post-confirmation interview conducted in May 2012, he stated that he had lied in his earlier statements regarding the 26 November 2007 State House meeting and the 17 November 2007 Yaya Centre meeting.19 Second, Witness 4 revealed in the May 2012 interview that he had been offered, and accepted, money from individuals holding themselves out as representatives of the Accused to withdraw his testimony regarding the PEV and provided emails and bank records that confirmed the bribery scheme. In light of these cumulative revelations, the Prosecution considers that it is not useful to call him as a witness.www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557330.pdfalthough the prosecutor does not find it useful to call W4 as a witness in case 2, she also states that there is evidence of bribery. and mind you, this is not only based on what W4 has claimed, it is backed up by emails and bank records. that is pretty solid, isn't it? And perhaps you remember that in the video recording of a person who many have assumed is W4 there was a lady, an American notary public, who took him through a set of rehearsed questions? That lady stated her name and where she was from. She knows who the invisible other or others in the room were. And one would think that it is highly probable that these were the people who engaged in bribing on behalf of their principals. Conclusion: if prosecutor Bensouda decides to go after those who tampered with her witness, she does not have to rely on W4 alone. There is corroborating evidence. I regret I cannot give you a link to the video recording that was put on line by Matsanga and company. It seems to have been removed. Probably by order of the court. Witness tampering is a serious crime.... I will add one major caveat here. The identity of W4 has not been disclosed by the prosecution. I have assumed that he is the person in the video mentioned above. In the media that same assumption has been made. If W4 is an entirely different person, then I stand corrected. It is up to everyone to draw their own conclusions. Furaha
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 1, 2013 11:06:31 GMT 3
Furaha
First Fatty Bensweetheart concedes that the guy is unreliable as he admitted he had previuosly lied. Then he claims he was bribed - and yes even the evidence and money trail is there!! - but does not claim what he was to deliver. Now consider this, if he had been bribed as claimed what was he bribed to do? Recant what he already recanted at the post-confirmation interviews?
I agree that witness tampering is an offence, but this one is a difficult one as he is not exactly a reliable one and that perhaps explains the difficulty the prosecutor has in pursuing the matter. I know that the Prosecutor did follow up on a Kenyan in Scandinavia who had been accused of tampering (exposing)with witnesses in the Ruto case and this led to nothing after the prosecutor got in touch with the kenyan. (read this in nipate.com).
As far as I can see, W4 is of no value to the prosecutor and can only be used by the defence to show how the Kiais and Omars of this world procured witnesses!
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Mar 1, 2013 11:25:12 GMT 3
Furaha First Fatty Bensweetheart concedes that the guy is unreliable as he admitted he had previuosly lied. Then he claims he was bribed - and yes even the evidence and money trail is there!! - but does not claim what he was to deliver. Now consider this, if he had been bribed as claimed what was he bribed to do? Recant what he already recanted at the post-confirmation interviews? I agree that witness tampering is an offence, but this one is a difficult one as he is not exactly a reliable one and that perhaps explains the difficulty the prosecutor has in pursuing the matter. I know that the Prosecutor did follow up on a Kenyan in Scandinavia who had been accused of tampering (exposing)with witnesses in the Ruto case and this led to nothing after the prosecutor got in touch with the kenyan. (read this in nipate.com). As far as I can see, W4 is of no value to the prosecutor and can only be used by the defence to show how the Kiais and Omars of this world procured witnesses! Kamale, I believe you have misunderstood the whole thing. The witness is unreliable and will not be used any more because he was bribed and recanted his testimony. It does not mean he was wrong the first time. It simply means he is not a good witness. In fact his confession to having been bribed suggests that short of a deal with Madam prosecutor he may be jailed. But the fact that the witness has been dropped does not affect Mr. Kenyattas case because the confirmation of charges against Mr. Kenyatta relied upon other evidence including those of Witness 11 and 12. And my reading of this whole case suggests that there is lots of evidence we still haven't seen. It is all prosecutorial strategy and timing. Inexplicably, this seems very difficult for people like you to comprehend. The submission Furaha has quoted here lists several meetings, transfers of funds and securing Maina Njenga's support etc that do not require witness 4's testimony. Mr. Kenyatta's lawyers have also argued that witness 11 and 12 are unreliable and sought bribes in exchange for testimony. But these are not their witnesses to withdraw. Even if that was true, it is an issue for the trial. As of now they remain prosecution witnesses. Finally, I think that the matter of witness 4 bribery is very grave. Contacting, intimidating, coercing, bribing or otherwise interfering with witnesses is against the conditions set for the indictees. It is also, as far as I am concerned, an admission of guilt. Whatever the case, Uhuru is in this for the long haul. Witness this: DAY 1: My case is collapsing like Muthaura. DAY 2: Letter from lawyer protesting he did not bribe witnesses. Uhuru might be helped with a little more deliberation and thoughtfulness before running his mouth at public rallies. However, there is some silver lining: Laurent Gbagbo seems like pretty jovial company. He is said to be an interesting fellow - and like Uhuru, well loved by his tribesmen from southern Ivory Coast. He has just made his début at the ICC, declaring himself a champion of democracy without any hint of sarcasm. He will be great company. BTW: your insistence on slurring the prosecutor suggests that your aim is not to analyse or understand the intricacies of this case but to cheapen the whole thing with petty partisan vendetta.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 1, 2013 16:16:38 GMT 3
Furaha First Fatty Bensweetheart concedes that the guy is unreliable as he admitted he had previuosly lied. Then he claims he was bribed - and yes even the evidence and money trail is there!! - but does not claim what he was to deliver. Now consider this, if he had been bribed as claimed what was he bribed to do? Recant what he already recanted at the post-confirmation interviews? You seem to be assuming that he was bribed after he had recanted. Has it occurred to you that the time of admission is not the same as the time of the bribery? And how do you know that he has not told the OTP what he was expected to deliver? Have you read the entire transcripts of his interviews? The prosecutor is the one best-placed to decide on that one.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 1, 2013 16:34:20 GMT 3
Furaha First Fatty Bensweetheart concedes that the guy is unreliable as he admitted he had previuosly lied. Then he claims he was bribed - and yes even the evidence and money trail is there!! - but does not claim what he was to deliver. Now consider this, if he had been bribed as claimed what was he bribed to do? Recant what he already recanted at the post-confirmation interviews? You seem to be assuming that he was bribed after he had recanted. Has it occurred to you that the time of admission is not the same as the time of the bribery? And how do you know that he has not told the OTP what he was expected to deliver? Have you read the entire transcripts of his interviews? The prosecutor is the one best-placed to decide on that one. Otishotish So let us then assume that he was bribed before he recanted his story. Just how does it then add up that he admits to lying on his presence at Nairobi Club - are you suggesting that this admission is the result of the bribery? That is not what we have from OTP. She is very clear that the admission to lying came during the post confirmation interviews! She then claims that W4 admitted to being bribed and provided a trail of emails and money - but profoundly does not tell us what the bribe was to do! I can only speculate the reason was to stop him from testifying than to lie! Asking me to speculate is diverting from the issue at hand - the beneficial interest that W4 brings to the OTP.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 1, 2013 16:39:45 GMT 3
Furaha First Fatty Bensweetheart concedes that the guy is unreliable as he admitted he had previuosly lied. Then he claims he was bribed - and yes even the evidence and money trail is there!! - but does not claim what he was to deliver. Now consider this, if he had been bribed as claimed what was he bribed to do? Recant what he already recanted at the post-confirmation interviews? I agree that witness tampering is an offence, but this one is a difficult one as he is not exactly a reliable one and that perhaps explains the difficulty the prosecutor has in pursuing the matter. I know that the Prosecutor did follow up on a Kenyan in Scandinavia who had been accused of tampering (exposing)with witnesses in the Ruto case and this led to nothing after the prosecutor got in touch with the kenyan. (read this in nipate.com). As far as I can see, W4 is of no value to the prosecutor and can only be used by the defence to show how the Kiais and Omars of this world procured witnesses! Kamale, I believe you have misunderstood the whole thing. The witness is unreliable and will not be used any more because he was bribed and recanted his testimony. It does not mean he was wrong the first time. It simply means he is not a good witness. In fact his confession to having been bribed suggests that short of a deal with Madam prosecutor he may be jailed. But the fact that the witness has been dropped does not affect Mr. Kenyattas case because the confirmation of charges against Mr. Kenyatta relied upon other evidence including those of Witness 11 and 12. And my reading of this whole case suggests that there is lots of evidence we still haven't seen. It is all prosecutorial strategy and timing. Inexplicably, this seems very difficult for people like you to comprehend. The submission Furaha has quoted here lists several meetings, transfers of funds and securing Maina Njenga's support etc that do not require witness 4's testimony. Mr. Kenyatta's lawyers have also argued that witness 11 and 12 are unreliable and sought bribes in exchange for testimony. But these are not their witnesses to withdraw. Even if that was true, it is an issue for the trial. As of now they remain prosecution witnesses. Finally, I think that the matter of witness 4 bribery is very grave. Contacting, intimidating, coercing, bribing or otherwise interfering with witnesses is against the conditions set for the indictees. It is also, as far as I am concerned, an admission of guilt. Whatever the case, Uhuru is in this for the long haul. Witness this: DAY 1: My case is collapsing like Muthaura. DAY 2: Letter from lawyer protesting he did not bribe witnesses. Uhuru might be helped with a little more deliberation and thoughtfulness before running his mouth at public rallies. However, there is some silver lining: Laurent Gbagbo seems like pretty jovial company. He is said to be an interesting fellow - and like Uhuru, well loved by his tribesmen from southern Ivory Coast. He has just made his début at the ICC, declaring himself a champion of democracy without any hint of sarcasm. He will be great company. BTW: your insistence on slurring the prosecutor suggests that your aim is not to analyse or understand the intricacies of this case but to cheapen the whole thing with petty partisan vendetta. RR Sorry but yours is more of an ODM moment rather than relevant debate. How about go back and read what Otishotish has written on this case thus far and the point at which we differ?
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 1, 2013 16:58:27 GMT 3
She is very clear that the admission to lying came during the post confirmation interviews! She then claims that W4 admitted to being bribed and provided a trail of emails and money - but profoundly does not tell us what the bribe was to do! I'm sure the transcripts of the interviews contain a great deal that she has not told us. My point, again: the timing of the admission is not necessarily the same as the timing of the event. We also don't know what led him to make the admission. On this "issue at hand", as I have stated, the prosecutor knows best, and, I imagine, will act accordingly, regardless of opinions on Jukwaa.
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Mar 1, 2013 17:32:41 GMT 3
Kamale, I believe you have misunderstood the whole thing. The witness is unreliable and will not be used any more because he was bribed and recanted his testimony. It does not mean he was wrong the first time. It simply means he is not a good witness. In fact his confession to having been bribed suggests that short of a deal with Madam prosecutor he may be jailed. But the fact that the witness has been dropped does not affect Mr. Kenyattas case because the confirmation of charges against Mr. Kenyatta relied upon other evidence including those of Witness 11 and 12. And my reading of this whole case suggests that there is lots of evidence we still haven't seen. It is all prosecutorial strategy and timing. Inexplicably, this seems very difficult for people like you to comprehend. The submission Furaha has quoted here lists several meetings, transfers of funds and securing Maina Njenga's support etc that do not require witness 4's testimony. Mr. Kenyatta's lawyers have also argued that witness 11 and 12 are unreliable and sought bribes in exchange for testimony. But these are not their witnesses to withdraw. Even if that was true, it is an issue for the trial. As of now they remain prosecution witnesses. Finally, I think that the matter of witness 4 bribery is very grave. Contacting, intimidating, coercing, bribing or otherwise interfering with witnesses is against the conditions set for the indictees. It is also, as far as I am concerned, an admission of guilt. Whatever the case, Uhuru is in this for the long haul. Witness this: DAY 1: My case is collapsing like Muthaura. DAY 2: Letter from lawyer protesting he did not bribe witnesses. Uhuru might be helped with a little more deliberation and thoughtfulness before running his mouth at public rallies. However, there is some silver lining: Laurent Gbagbo seems like pretty jovial company. He is said to be an interesting fellow - and like Uhuru, well loved by his tribesmen from southern Ivory Coast. He has just made his début at the ICC, declaring himself a champion of democracy without any hint of sarcasm. He will be great company. BTW: your insistence on slurring the prosecutor suggests that your aim is not to analyse or understand the intricacies of this case but to cheapen the whole thing with petty partisan vendetta. RR Sorry but yours is more of an ODM moment rather than relevant debate. How about go back and read what Otishotish has written on this case thus far and the point at which we differ? Well yeah. I have read everything. In fact I have been reading your views all along and those of Otishotish since he was a Jukwaaist. The one constant is that you have been consistently wrong and he has been 90 percent right. Ultimately your views reflect your PNU - TNA bias just as you read mine as ODM moments.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 1, 2013 17:49:18 GMT 3
I'm sure the transcripts of the interviews contain a great deal that she has not told us. My point, again: the timing of the admission is not necessarily the same as the timing of the event. We also don't know what led him to make the admission. On this "issue at hand", as I have stated, the prosecutor knows best, and, I imagine, will act accordingly, regardless of opinions on Jukwaa. "...I am sure the transcripts contain a great deal she has not told us".....for such certainty, I can only subscribe to the gourd and the beans otherwise until you read, you surely must struggle as much as I am :-)
|
|