Evidence against Motata

Interesting - would that mean if a digital camera was used to trap speedsters that a printout of the data should be inadmissable because it is not in its original format? No such luckj I am sure :)

Okay - the recordings aren't about whether he was drunk or not. They are about the abuse. This turkey is up on a whole bunch of charges. Drunk driving, crimen injuria, racism, damage to property, negligent driving. The drunk driving is big yes because he has no insurance cover if guilty. But the other stuff speaks right to his ability to act as a judge.

As I understand it the chap who recorded the incident copied the stuff from his phone to another device. The defence is trying to argue that the evidence could have been tampered with and if they get that right they could then go after the integrity of the person who made the recording and try and discredit his verbal testimony too.

Of course this is dumb. The tapes are going to be heard and if deemed inadmissable the judge will ignore them. Then the defence will try and attack the witness. If the defence tries to cast doubt upon the integrity of the witness the prosecutor should then request a trial within a trial to determine whether the witness perjured himself which could lead to a reintroduction of the tapes as evidence and the defence will now have to prove that the tapes were tampered with.

Or the defence could ignore trying to discredit the witness and try claiming that the allegations of crimen injuria etc were based on a recollection of events and may not have been as bad. Emotional time. Late at night. Angry that wall was damaged etc etc. Again, the prosecutor should have his witness request to refer to his notes taken at the time - which are now the electronic recordings. So the defence will again have to try to stop the witness from referencing the tapes. From the prosecution side, they are not being entered as evidence save for a reference.
 
Those tapes ( if they are the ones the newspapers put up at the time ) are screamingly funny! "Anybody who insults me... I say f**k YOOOOOO!"

LOL
:D:D
 
grayston said:
It's afro-pessimists like you who are the reason why this continent is in such a rotten state...
Click to expand...

hahahahahh!!!!

Not really... It's people like Motata and his ANC cronies who think(know) they are above the law(what law?).

I'm guessing you are an "Afro-Optimist", that wool over your eyes must be damn thick to block eveything out... Got some rose-tinted glasses on under there too? :D :rolleyes: :D
 
lion_fish said:
hahahahahh!!!!
I'm guessing you are an "Afro-Optimist", that wool over your eyes must be damn thick to block eveything out... Got some rose-tinted glasses on under there too? :D :rolleyes: :D
Click to expand...

Hm. I'm not sure which would be more fun: alerting you to the fact that you have completely misunderstood a joke, or mercilessly baiting you until you start crying with frustration.
 
grayston said:
Hm. I'm not sure which would be more fun: alerting you to the fact that you have completely misunderstood a joke, or mercilessly baiting you until you start crying with frustration.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Firstly, your joke sucked. Need a bit more practice methinks...;)

Secondly, "bait me til i cry" ...hmmm...yeah...anyway...:rolleyes:

Your last name insnt Motata is it? :eek::cool:;)
 
lion_fish said:
LOL.

Firstly, your joke sucked. Need a bit more practice methinks...;)

Secondly, "bait me til i cry" ...hmmm...yeah...anyway...:rolleyes:

Your last name insnt Motata is it? :eek::cool:;)
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as the joke was on you and you fell for it hook line and sinker, I'm not surprised you thought it sucked.

But don't worry. It is actually quite useful to have people like you around. You serve to warn us about how counter-productive poor-quality criticism can be.

Oh, and my last name is not Motata. Don't fall into that trap: it's like saying the enemy of your enemy is your friend. That's ANC thinking!
 
sox63 said:
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2216527,00.html

IIRC they had done blood alcohol test at the scene or afterwards? If so why do they need these recordings.

And I heard somewhere that any evidence that is in electronic form should be in its original format for it to be admisable in court.
Click to expand...

There are normally 2 charges leveled against an individual in a case like this.
One being 'driving while over the legal limit of X' and the other being 'Drunken driving'.
Although both charges are serious,the second one is more severe.

Having 2 glasses of wine might put you over the legal limit although you will not be completely blotto.
I suspect the recordings are extremely important to the states case too prove that the 'honorable judge' was infact completely out of his skull and not just slightly over the limit and thus he can face the full might of the law.
Not sure what the penalties are but they are severe!

There is also a time limit (I think 2 hours) that must not be exceeded from the time of arrest to the time that blood is sampled from the individual.
In the case of Motata it has been reported that this time limit was indeed exceeded, but then the 'honorable judge' was also resisting arrest to the point that one of the officers was on his knees next to the car begging the guy to exit his vehicle.

Had the 'honorable judge' been a mere mortal he would've been unceremoniously dragged from the vehicle, thrown in the back of a police van and promptly whisked away for blood tests.
As with other comrades though (Mcbride, Yengeni, some other ANC official involved in an accident in JHB that couldnt walk) another set of rules clearly seems to apply;)
 
Sneeky said:
I suspect the recordings are extremely important to the states case too prove that the 'honorable judge' was infact completely out of his skull and not just slightly over the limit and thus he can face the full might of the law.
Click to expand...


LOL! Judging from the tapes he was waaaaaay more blotto than "completely out of his skull"!
:D:D
 
Hehe, that is what any rational person would conclude after listening to the tapes which is why they tried so hard to keep them out of court.

The legal limit is 0.05 now I think.
You can be caught with a blood alcohol level of 0.2 (4 times over) and the state can only charge you with 'driving over the legal limit', not 'drunken driving'.
It is up to the state to pursue the case then for 'drunken driving' should the accused plead not guilty to that charge from the outset. (i.e. pleads guilty to driving over the legal limit, but not guilty to being drunk while driving).
This would involve witnesses, perhaps a district surgeon report or a sobriety test carried out at the scene.
 
Sneeky said:
Hehe, that is what any rational person would conclude after listening to the tapes which is why they tried so hard to keep them out of court.
Click to expand...

"Don't fall over! Woah careful! Don't fall over! You can't even stand straight!"

:D
 
Now I will rightly admit to not having followed every detail of this case but what is being referenced that gives the imprtession that the judge is protected?
 
milomak said:
Now I will rightly admit to not having followed every detail of this case but what is being referenced that gives the imprtession that the judge is protected?
Click to expand...
Not sure if I understand but he is not being protected, he is after all before the court.
Evidence has been compromised though due to how the arrest was handled because of who he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X