De Jager hits out at camera man

[LazyLion]

A Cape Town man accused of killing two teenage girls hit out at a photographer ahead of his trial on Wednesday.

About 10 photographers surrounded Johannes Christiaan de Jager, 48, when he was led into the Western Cape High Court courtroom and sat in the dock reading the charge sheet.

When a photographer from Die Burger bridged the one-metre gap, De Jager lashed out at him, the back of his hand making contact with the camera.

Judge Chuma Cossie entered the court a few minutes later, around 11.30am, and warned the media to respect De Jager's rights.

"I request the members of the press not to harass the accused and to comply strictly with the conditions of the permission [to take photographs]."

She said she was aware of the public interest, but that De Jager's rights were more important.

He has been charged with the murders of two 18-year-olds -- Parow sex worker Hiltina Alexander and Mpumalanga resident Charmaine Mare.

The State alleges that De Jager picked up Alexander near Parow on May 18, 2008, raped her and killed her. Her body was found next to the N7 highway in Philadelphia, near Atlantis, the next day. A post mortem revealed she had been strangled.

According to the indictment, Mare holidayed in Cape Town in January, staying with a friend in Kraaifontein. Her friend's mother was dating De Jager.

On January 7, the friend, the mother, and De Jager's son went on a cruise, leaving Mare and De Jager alone in the house.

The State alleges De Jager made repeated sexual advances, which the teenage girl rejected.

The family returned home on January 11 and could not find Mare. De Jager registered a missing person case with the police.

Her burned body was found in a nearby field. Her hands and feet had been cut off. Her hands were later found in the garage of the home and her feet next to the N2 highway near Firgrove, in Somerset West.


Source : Sapa /je/jk/cls
Date : 13 Nov 2013 12:52

 

[LazyLion]

I agree that the photographer was out of line, but there you have it in black and white folks... the rights of criminals and murderers are more important than the right of ordinary citizens.

 

[Albereth]

I agree that the photographer was out of line, but there you have it in black and white folks... the rights of criminals and murderers are more important than the right of ordinary citizens.

He is accused, not convicted. And there is no reason for a cameraman to get that close.

You might not like de Jäger but keeping that distance is respect for the law.

 

[doubletrouble]

I agree that the photographer was out of line, but there you have it in black and white folks... the rights of criminals and murderers are more important than the right of ordinary citizens.

How is his rights more important than an ordinary citizen? You yourself said the photographer was out of line. Its not like they are now going to drop the murder case because this "criminals" rights were abused. Come on Gary, how old are you? Serious question :wtf:

 

[MKFrost]

I agree that the photographer was out of line, but there you have it in black and white folks... the rights of criminals and murderers are more important than the right of ordinary citizens.

Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how much we might hate that argument especially so when dealing with crimes of this nature.

I agree with your statement in general but I just cannot help but picture myself being arrested for something I did not do. In such a case I would expect the law to protect my rights as best it could until such time as I can prove my innocence.

 

[LazyLion]

Sorry, but he does not have the right to lash out.
You guys are condoning his unlawful behaviour.
He should have requested the judge or the bailiff to take action.
He does not have the right to physically attack someone. Nobody does.
The judge condemned the photographer but doesn't warn him about the physical lashing out?
That's just wrong.
Both he and the photographer were in the wrong, but only one of them gets censured.
That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Albereth]

Sorry, but he does not have the right to lash out.
You guys are condoning his unlawful behaviour.
He should have requested the judge or the bailiff to take action.
He does not have the right to physically attack someone. Nobody does.
The judge condemned the photographer but doesn't warn him about the physical lashing out?
That's just wrong.
Both he and the photographer were in the wrong, but only one of them gets censured.
That's what I'm talking about.

Never said he had the right to lash out. But it is understandable.
Judge told photographers to stay away, photographer is in contempt of court. Lucky not to be in the cells.
The photographer can go and lay a charge of assault. Judge will not lay charge of assault.
Where has the accused received preference?

 

[LazyLion]

Never said he had the right to lash out. But it is understandable.
Judge told photographers to stay away, photographer is in contempt of court. Lucky not to be in the cells.
The photographer can go and lay a charge of assault. Judge will not lay charge of assault.
Where has the accused received preference?

Seriously? Are you still struggling with this? Let me break it down for you thus.

1) Photographer steps out of line, goes too close.
2) Accused steps out of line, lashes out and connects with the photographer.
3) Judge only censures the photographer, not the accused even though they were both in the wrong.
4) Judge then makes a statement "De Jager's rights were more important"

 

[Albereth]

Seriously? Are you still struggling with this? Let me break it down for you thus.

1) Photographer steps out of line, goes too close.
2) Accused steps out of line, lashes out and connects with the photographer.
3) Judge only censures the photographer, not the accused even though they were both in the wrong.
4) Judge then makes a statement "De Jager's rights were more important"

I'll type this slowly for you.

1. Judge tells photographers there are rules regarding taking photographs.
2. Judge does not tell de Jäger he may not hit photographers.
3. Photographers is a dick and gets a klap.
4. Judge tells photographer he is a dick.
5. Photographers whines that public has a right to know.
6. Judge tells crying photographer that the accused rights to integrity etc etc are more important than publics' right to a photograph of nose hairs.
7. Judge does not tell photographer that de Jager's rights to integrity etc etc are more important than photographer's right not to get klapped for being a dick.
8. If photographer had an issue with the publics' right to nose hair pics then photographer could have argued 1m exclusion zone.
9. Photographer was a dick. Photographer got a dressing down. Judge is quite right.
10. Photographer broke judge's rule. De Jäger didn't. Judge can police judge's rule - police can police the 'assault'.

Perhaps more simply. Pull my dog's tail and he'll bite you. And I'll shout at you. I may even give the dog a biscuit although it would be dodge if the judge gave de Jäger one.

At no time have I condoned de Jager's actions. And if he is guilty of those heinous acts, then he should get all that is due to him.

 

[LazyLion]

I'll type this slowly for you.

1. Judge tells photographers there are rules regarding taking photographs.
2. Judge does not tell de Jäger he may not hit photographers.
3. Photographers is a dick and gets a klap.
4. Judge tells photographer he is a dick.
5. Photographers whines that public has a right to know.
6. Judge tells crying photographer that the accused rights to integrity etc etc are more important than publics' right to a photograph of nose hairs.
7. Judge does not tell photographer that de Jager's rights to integrity etc etc are more important than photographer's right not to get klapped for being a dick.
8. If photographer had an issue with the publics' right to nose hair pics then photographer could have argued 1m exclusion zone.
9. Photographer was a dick. Photographer got a dressing down. Judge is quite right.
10. Photographer broke judge's rule. De Jäger didn't. Judge can police judge's rule - police can police the 'assault'.

Perhaps more simply. Pull my dog's tail and he'll bite you. And I'll shout at you. I may even give the dog a biscuit although it would be dodge if the judge gave de Jäger one.

At no time have I condoned de Jager's actions. And if he is guilty of those heinous acts, then he should get all that is due to him.

So the judge overlooks the assault and says nothing about it.
That is my point exactly.
And that's all I am going to say about it.
My initial comment stands... accused's rights are more important than anybody else in South Africa.

 

[Albereth]

So the judge overlooks the assault and says nothing about it.
That is my point exactly.
And that's all I am going to say about it.
My initial comment stands... accused's rights are more important than anybody else in South Africa.

Where is the judge overlooking the assault? Has the judge told the photographer that he may not lay an assault charge? The judge is at best a witness. Judges don't convene a trial without all of the necessary paperwork. They can deal with the contempt of court without all of that but locking de Jäger in a cell actually defeats the purpose of why he is there - for murder charges.

Again the judge is right. De Jäger has a right to a speedy and fair trial which is more in the publics' interest that some numbskull photographer's feelings.

 

[Azbubu]

Self-defence.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

My initial comment stands... accused's rights are more important than anybody else in South Africa.

In a trial where that person is the accused and facing very serious charges? Uh yes, his rights trump one asshat photographer's rights to take a photo, and rightly so.

And looking at the way these vultures swarm about the accused, I tend to have more sympathy for him, in this regard.