Crime is a reality, says Zuma

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
His case was not thrown out of court... it was struck from the role.

There is a difference. It was struck 'cos the prosecution didnt have their ducks in a row...... and I think the NPA wanted this to happen 'cos the Shaik case was still in progress.
If you remember, Shaik was trying to get out of Jail, and some of the documents that show Shaik wasnt a big fish were inadmissable at the time..... hence Shaik was fighting to get these documents Recognised by the courts ..... *BUT* back at the ranch, these documents implicate Zuma and Shaik fighting to get out of jail, has now made these documents Admissible as evidence against Zuma.

My 2c rambling
Shaik case is over, which means they can go ahead and re-charge Zuma.
No wait, they still cannot use the seized documents they have to return to Zuma and his Lawyers.
They are still filing applications to have Thetard's diary released from Mauritius.
I don't see the NPA being able to finalise the indictement this side of the century.
So Zuma might as well start lobying for presidency
 

RichardP

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
1,742
Shaik case is over, which means they can go ahead and re-charge Zuma.
No wait, they still cannot use the seized documents they have to return to Zuma and his Lawyers.
They are still filing applications to have Thetard's diary released from Mauritius.
I don't see the NPA being able to finalise the indictement this side of the century.
So Zuma might as well start lobying for presidency
Oh yes they can... :-] you fail to realise that the NPA doesnt have a time restriction when to Re-charge Zuma.... they can do it in 5 years time if they want.



If (Zuma==Presisident_ZA) {
destroy(INFRASTRUCTURE);
realloc(POCKET,TAX_CASH);
destroy(MEDIA);

while (realloc(POCKET,TAX_CASH)) {
printf("HAHA! suffer little baskets\r\n");
}
if (CAUGHT)
{
printf("Its apartheids fault\r\n");
}
return NOTHING;
}
 
Last edited:

VernD

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,265
The judge found that consensual sex took place. (And because the judge said so, it's necessarily true) He did not give the accused the benefit of a doubt (The accused gets the benefit of doubt anyway i.e the presumption of innocence). That's why I said you were wrong right from the begining becasue I assumed you'd have been too redfaced to even read the judgment and I therefore assumed correctly that you did not read it.

(I had indeed read the judment and my post was a response to it) and, in part, a response to your earlier posts, which I did not agree with.

I'm sorry VernD I don't see any techncalities here. All I see is a woman who was found through cross examination to have lied and fooled all of us. I wish someone would falsely accuse you of rape and maybe you can also get off on technicalities? I wonder if you do ask every woman before you bonk them if they could kindly sign the consent form. Otherwise you are just as vulnerable to false rape allegations.
Lastly, despite you wishing me such an ill, I do not harbour similar feelings towards you as I don't even know you.
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Oh yes they can... :-] you fail to realise that the NPA doesnt have a time restriction when to Re-charge Zuma.... they can do it in 5 years time if they want.


He might disband them before they can get the chance to re-charge him.:D

So far they have failed to nail him even though they claim to have prima facie eveidence. I think after they were bouyed by their victory in the Shaik case they hurriedly charged Zuma without due consideration of evidence at hand.
They might have under estimated the difficulty of proving that the corruptor did corrupt the corruptee.
But we shall wait and see. They'd better charge him now. He seems to be on a roll, scoring points left right and centre.
As for him visiting victims of crime and addressing concerns of afrikaaners, i think he knows what would get him back into the good books of most people. I just hope he is sincere in all of this.
 

RichardP

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
1,742
Oh yes they can... :-] you fail to realise that the NPA doesnt have a time restriction when to Re-charge Zuma.... they can do it in 5 years time if they want.


He might disband them before they can get the chance to re-charge him.:D

So far they have failed to nail him even though they claim to have prima facie eveidence. I think after they were bouyed by their victory in the Shaik case they hurriedly charged Zuma without due consideration of evidence at hand.
They might have under estimated the difficulty of proving that the corruptor did corrupt the corruptee.
But we shall wait and see. They'd better charge him now. He seems to be on a roll, scoring points left right and centre.
As for him visiting victims of crime and addressing concerns of afrikaaners, i think he knows what would get him back into the good books of most people. I just hope he is sincere in all of this.
Unfortunately, the SA President is not immune to SA LAW. even he is not above the legal system - thats one of the reasons why all politicians are scared of the Scorpions.

But for disbanding, if the NPA is abolished, then whats next :D It just proves that he is trying to hide something

Do you know what "Prima Facie" means? ....Its Latin for "on its first appearance" .. may I ask why its being used :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Lastly, despite you wishing me such an ill, I do not harbour similar feelings towards you as I don't even know you.
At least now you acknowledge that such ills do happen in this life.

Originally Posted by Bageloo
The judge found that consensual sex took place. (And because the judge said so, it's necessarily true) He did not give the accused the benefit of a doubt (The accused gets the benefit of doubt anyway i.e the presumption of innocence).
In as far as this legal matter is concerned, yes it is true. The judgment by VD Merwe was arrived at after due consideration of the evidence presented from both sides. Unless you have more evidence not already presented that is to the contrary then you have no reason to question the judge's ruling. Your opinion is based on nothing but gut feel and it is fuelled by your strong desire to have seen Jacob Zuma go to jail either way guilty or not
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Unfortunately, the SA President is not immune to SA LAW. even he is not above the legal system - thats one of the reasons why all politicians are scared of the Scorpions.

But for disbanding, if the NPA is abolished, then whats next :D It just proves that he is trying to hide something

Do you know what "Prima Facie" means? ....Its Latin for "on its first appearance" .. may I ask why its being used :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
I know what prima facie eveidence mean. In a way you might be agreeing with me in that it might have appeared that way but digging deeper has yielded nothing tangible to reinforce the "first appearance" hence the raids and seizures
 

VernD

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,265
Oh yes they can... :-] you fail to realise that the NPA doesnt have a time restriction when to Re-charge Zuma.... they can do it in 5 years time if they want.



If (Zuma==Presisident_ZA) {
destroy(INFRASTRUCTURE);
realloc(POCKET,TAX_CASH);
destroy(MEDIA);

while (realloc(POCKET,TAX_CASH)) {
printf("HAHA! suffer little baskets\r\n");
}
if (CAUGHT)
{
printf("Its apartheids fault\r\n");
}
return NOTHING;
}
Loved this :cool:
 

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
Crime is a reality, says Zuma

and he should know (dismissed for corruption)

10/10
 
Top