EFF to Coligny residents: Protest until accused are jailed

RonSwanson

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,465
How come the lies did not come out during cross-questioning? Who was their defence attorney?
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
85,252
Agreed.

The eyewitness now needs to be charged though.

Meh, nothing will happen to those involved perpetrating this travesty, not the 'witness', those influencing him, the judge, police or any of those that burnt the town down...
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
92,538
Meh, nothing will happen to those involved perpetrating this travesty, not the 'witness', those influencing him, the judge, police or any of those that burnt the town down...

Yeah I know, which in and of itself is a travesty. No bloody consequences for their actions.
 

Mephisto_Helix

Resident Postwhore
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
28,614

100% sure the court said they have no prospect of success... Throw away the effing keys! Savage bunch must rot in jail.

I wonder if afriforum handles cases on behalf of all killers or just specific ones. Is there a statistics?

Those two deserve to rot in jail for killing. I hope other people have learnt their lessons too, don't try to act like the Police. Call the damn Police, they don't charge to come to your place.

aged well ......
 

RonSwanson

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,465
Story is only carried by Cape Talk and SAPeople. The fact that "mainstream news" does not even bother to report on it is further indictment of their bias. Looking at the mofos at News24, IOL, ENCA, SABC and EWN.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
85,252
Story is only carried by Cape Talk and SAPeople. The fact that "mainstream news" does not even bother to report on it is further indictment of their bias. Looking at the mofos at News24, IOL, ENCA, SABC and EWN.

Except for enca they all have the story but it requires a bit of browsing, does not suite their narrative any longer to make it the main feature like they did before...
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
85,252
This begs the question, will the eff continue protesting seeing as they are not in jail?


:unsure:
 

Mila

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
54,093
Same with the case where the guy shot a bushpig which turned out to be a poacher.
The guy spent loads of time in jail.
All the evidence pointed to him being innocent.
Long complicated story with a corrupt judge.
He was proven innocent.

also judged in the public, the judge just ignored all the facts and had him locked up.
 

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
20,308
Like my colleagues, I also am of the view that there are several disquieting features about this case. To commence with the police investigation of the matter: Some three days after the deceased had met his death, Brigadier Kgorane received a call from his Provincial Commissioner, as he put it, ‘to go and assist the investigators about the case of the young boy who … passed away on Friday because there was more violence in the area of Coligny’. When Kgorane got there, so he testified, there were schoolchildren as well as members of the community protesting at the police station. He was informed by community leaders ‘that suspects who were involved in the murder of this young boy are known and they were not arrested’. In addition, he continued, ‘they indicated that there was an eyewitness available in the matter… They were insisting that … the child was killed. The community members said they are not going to leave the police station … until they see justice being done’.


Thus, even before Kgorane had become involved in the matter, the community had already labelled what had befallen the young man a ‘murder’; were satisfied that there was a witness to the murder; had decried the inaction on the part of the police; were insisting that charges be preferred against the ‘suspects’; and, had embarked upon violent protest action, including the burning of houses and crops, to force the hand of the police.
 

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
20,308
These criticisms of Mr Pakisi’s evidence represent but the tip of the iceberg. Almost every facet of his evidence does not survive scrutiny. Nevertheless, Hendricks J was ‘satisfied that the evidence of Mr Pakisi is honest, truthful and reliable and must be accepted…’. Even a superficial perusal of Mr Pakisi’s evidence demonstrates that this finding cannot be supported. I have quoted in extenso from the record to show that Mr Pakisi simply cannot be taken at his word. I have also dwelt in far greater detail than is absolutely necessary on his evidence to demonstrate that, on many of the aspects to which I have alluded, there is no room for honest mistake and that his evidence cannot be true. This must mean that on the aspects mentioned, which are by no means exhaustive, his evidence has been deliberately fabricated. The fact that Mr Pakisi was guilty of deliberate falsehood required the high court to consider whether he could be safely relied upon.30 The high court did not embark upon that enquiry. Had it done so, it may well have concluded that it could not. Instead, the high court appears to have been far too receptive to the prosecution case. Consequently, it far too readily accepted the evidence of Mr Pakisi. It lost from sight that Mr Pakisi was a single witness. Had it approached his evidence with the appropriate measure of caution, it ought to have concluded that his evidence fell to be rejected.
 
Top