willin2learn wrote:Lolest! wrote:The prosecution was trying to show that Otieno is unreliable. I think they achieved it. However he did not in any way implicate Ali or the police or mungiki
Think about this way. Most of the Waki Report and KNHRC reports are based on accounts of such witnesses. Now, if some of the witnesses proves unreliable, not sure of what they are saying or couched how reliable is the waki report? Consider also that Prosecution is also heavily relying on those 2 reports.
To the learned friends on wazua. If a witness gives 2 differents accounts of the same event, which one is dismissed?
IMO Otieno's accounts might just be what the judges needs to ask LMO to go do proper investigations.
I was thinking the opposite. Mr. Otieno was still a defence witness at Wakis commission for the same Ali and Monari was still the defence lawyer.
Now on both occasions, the defence witness has been proved to be unreliable. Him and him alone. That does not in anyway prove the Waki Commission and its Report unreliable.
After Mr. Oti has been shown clear as day to be that terribly consistently unreliable, that his testimony (for the same person with the same lawyer) differ depending on the occasion and location, his defence really has no defence.
Monari should have noted the failure of the Mr. Oti experiment at Waki where Ali was accused. Repeating the same experiment again will still give the same results. Ali will still be accused again for the second time with Mr. Oti as his witness just like in the good old days.
On the flip side, it isnt true that this disaster of Mr. Oti is RAO fault? Please dont be harsh on me.