[Stanley10]

Originally Posted by Pablo Your question is absurd. It presupposes I have some privileged access to the judge's mind. Like so much that you post here, it is designed merely to deceive. However, it is safe to assume that the judge did not have access to knowledge of Zuma's, and the victim's, subsequent history.

You are the one who refuses to accept the judgement, I can see no reason for this, and you have not provided one. Perhaps, until you can demonstrate where the judge got it wrong, and you have it right, that we accept the judgement and move on.

[Daxk]

Actually guys, If I may?
This is Puerile and developed into who can pee highest.

Hypothetical,SA's way of choosing who will lead SA is down to a name on a Ballot paper as opposed to a party.

Pabs is highly unlikely to vote for the Jacob .
The question is wether Stan or Jugs will?

[Stanley10]

Originally Posted by Daxk Hypothetical,SA's way of choosing who will lead SA is down to a name on a Ballot paper as opposed to a party. Pabs is highly unlikely to vote for the Jacob . The question is wether Stan or Jugs will?

Definitely not, whilst he was acquittted of the rape charge, he certainly demonstrated poor judgement and lack of morals during and after the incident. The corruption charges around the arms deal still need to be resolved (not likely to happen before the next election if ever). The way he got the leadership position, and some of his backers, are somewhat distasteful. Overall it says a lot about the ANC that they chose this man as their leader (scary thought is that he may turn out better than Mbeki).

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Daxk Actually guys, If I may? This is Puerile and developed into who can pee highest. Hypothetical,SA's way of choosing who will lead SA is down to a name on a Ballot paper as opposed to a party. Pabs is highly unlikely to vote for the Jacob . The question is wether Stan or Jugs will?

No Daxk. The question is serious. It is a question of what kind of evidence should (and does) a rational person admit into his judgement when determining who is an appropriate person to be head of state.

My contention is that the bar to what constitutes admissible evidence is necessarily more restrictive in a court case, especially in criminal cases. This is enshrined in the usual requirement that guilt must be proven, rather than innocence proven.

But I contend that it is not reasonable, or appropriate, to apply such restrictions outside the courtroom. Nor, in practice, is this how people live their lives, or form their judgements. To suggest that the matter is closed just because Zuma was acquitted is to make a mockery of human society by reducing it to the status of a court room.

You can see the wider implications of this increasingly common confusion all around you, especially in Europe and the USA, where so called experts constantly try to persuade the rest of us that this or that certificate or diploma or other imprimatur should require us to suspend our normal faculties of human judgement.

[Daxk]

Pablo,everyone is then on the same page.
I think any rational logical person knows that Non-consensual S*x took place,
and that Shaiks Trial proved that Zuma is Guilty at the very least of not declaring Parliamentary Priviledge iro gifts recieved.
Which is also a dismissable offence

Personally,I think the prosecution failed in both instances, a weak case that Kemp kemp drove a truck through and not prosecuting Zuma with Shaik.

I also think that Nicholson let the moment go to his head and went too far in his comments.

[Stanley10]

Originally Posted by Pablo No Daxk. The question is serious. It is a question of what kind of evidence should (and does) a rational person admit into his judgement when determining who is an appropriate person to be head of state.

you've moved the goalposts Pabs, the question was is he or isn't he a rapist?

Originally Posted by Pablo My contention is that the bar to what constitutes admissible evidence is necessarily more restrictive in a court case, especially in criminal cases. This is enshrined in the usual requirement that guilt must be proven, rather than innocence proven.

More restrictive than what? A kangaroo court? Trial by media?
What evidence was barred in this case?

Originally Posted by Pablo But I contend that it is not reasonable, or appropriate, to apply such restrictions outside the courtroom. Nor, in practice, is this how people live their lives, or form their judgements.

So again Pabs I ask you, what do you know that the judge didn't? (4th time, still waiting for an answer)

Originally Posted by Pablo But I contend that it is not reasonable, or appropriate, to apply such restrictions outside the courtroom. Nor, in practice, is this how people live their lives, or form their judgements. To suggest that the matter is closed just because Zuma was acquitted is to make a mockery of human society by reducing it to the status of a court room.

So why bother with courts Pabs? Perhaps we should form lynch mobs, then we'll have justice a la Pabs.

[Stanley10]

Originally Posted by Daxk Pablo,everyone is then on the same page. I think any rational logical person knows that Non-consensual S*x took place, and that Shaiks Trial proved that Zuma is Guilty at the very least of not declaring Parliamentary Priviledge iro gifts recieved. Which is also a dismissable offence Personally,I think the prosecution failed in both instances, a weak case that Kemp kemp drove a truck through and not prosecuting Zuma with Shaik. I also think that Nicholson let the moment go to his head and went too far in his comments.

Judge Van der Merwe found it was consensual, is he irrational or illogical?
Shaiks trial proved nothing about Zuma (unfortunately).

[Daxk]

Judge Van der Merwe found it was consensual, is he irrational or illogical?
Shaiks trial proved nothing about Zuma (unfortunately).

If Memory serves(and I'm not going to read through the whole trial again)
When Zuma was asked by Prosecution wether she had said no, his reply was that she may have but that it was the way of a Zulu man to ignore such things at that time. Kindly allow me some licence in the words but the inference was clear. wether she said no had no meaning to Zuma.

The Ruling Judge in summation found that the Financial relationship between Zuma and Shaik was corrupt.
The NPA had decided to trial separately.
I repeat the prosecution of both cases left much to be desired.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Stanley10 you've moved the goalposts Pabs, the question was is he or isn't he a rapist? More restrictive than what? A kangaroo court? Trial by media? What evidence was barred in this case? So again Pabs I ask you, what do you know that the judge didn't? (4th time, still waiting for an answer) So why bother with courts Pabs? Perhaps we should form lynch mobs, then we'll have justice a la Pabs.

As I suspected, you just don't get it. It's like trying to teach a monkey Latin.

[Tegwyn]

Originally Posted by Stanley10 you've moved the goalposts Pabs, the question was is he or isn't he a rapist?

For the record Stan, when a woman is made to have sex against her will, it is then called rape, even if she submitted. Still was not something she wanted but must have felt pressured to do. First world standards you know.

[Stanley10]

Originally Posted by Daxk If Memory serves(and I'm not going to read through the whole trial again) When Zuma was asked by Prosecution wether she had said no, his reply was that she may have but that it was the way of a Zulu man to ignore such things at that time. Kindly allow me some licence in the words but the inference was clear. wether she said no had no meaning to Zuma.

I think I have already provided Zuma's statement, in which he claerly states she did not say no, and that if she had he would have stopped (easy for him to say I know). I took the trouble to read through the judgement again, and found the following:

From the complainant's testimony
"During the intercourse the complainant did not tell the accused to stop. The reason being that she could not talk, she could not move and she could not do anything"

"The complainant further conceded that the fact that she had not said anything to the accused during the intercourse to convey her refusal to him, would be an issue in the matter."

"In cross-examination the complainant was asked the following question: "You gave no indication during this process to your rapist that you are objecting to what is going on. Is that right?" The answer is: "That is correct yes." "

And from the defendant's testimony:

"He said that he hesitated a bit which caused the complainant to say that he could not leave her in that situation"

And finally the judges statement:

" it appears to be very odd that from the time the complainant assisted in rolling onto her back and having her clothes removed, she did not utter a single “no” "

I trust that this is sufficient evidence that she did not say no, not that that necessarily means that it was consensual. However, I have also already shown where the judge found that it was consensual.

[Stanley10]

Originally Posted by Daxk The Ruling Judge in summation found that the Financial relationship between Zuma and Shaik was corrupt. The NPA had decided to trial separately. I repeat the prosecution of both cases left much to be desired.

Yes, but Zuma has yet to give a defence. If this case was so easy, it would have been done and dusted years ago.

[Stanley10]

Originally Posted by Pablo As I suspected, you just don't get it. It's like trying to teach a monkey Latin.

Yet again Pabs, more insults and no answer, Getting boring.

[Stanley10]

Originally Posted by Tegwyn For the record Stan, when a woman is made to have sex against her will, it is then called rape, even if she submitted. Still was not something she wanted but must have felt pressured to do. First world standards you know.

First world standards ? Yet justice a la Pabs is acceptable?

[Daxk]

Originally Posted by Stanley10 Yes, but Zuma has yet to give a defence. If this case was so easy, it would have been done and dusted years ago.

Then why does Zuma not go to Court, it would be so much better to have his name cleared?