Rank: Veteran Joined: 9/21/2011 Posts: 2,032
|
Kratos wrote:limanika wrote:Kratos wrote:limanika wrote:kollabo wrote:limanika wrote:From where I sit, this could go either way.
While the defence seeks to prove Ruto & Sang were not directly responsible, the prosecution seeks to prove they were indirectly responsible! The case is Bensounda’s to lose if you ask me!!
I disagree with you on that one. If you have been listening to Khan he has set out to discredit ALL the prosecutions witnesses including the investigation itself. Lets wait and see. This case is tricky to defence since they do not know what ‘’hard’’evidence Bensouda will present. If they provide video of those hot ODM 07 rallies and Sang’s call-in Broadcasts, plus a few testimonies by witnesses, the theory of indirect responsibility (not direct) may not be far-fetched. I however wish our boys come back unscathed, and Bensounda asked to nail down those directly responsible instead. But we must wake up to the reality that it could go either way, due to the very low threshold of evidence required I thought the prosecution was required to give the defense the evidence? It is not a question whether defence have the prosecutors evidence or not. If evidence is in form of genuine video clip with incriminating verbal content, there is no way you can explain this away even with the best legal minds.. Boss, dont you understand your own statement? Even that one is correct. As a lawyer, you do not lay bare all the ammunition even before the case has started. Same case for the defence.
|