MKWASI wrote:Bigchick wrote:He has read signs.......
Does not want to go down in history books as one who presided over a case that had no legs, head or tail.
This case is where if I was an ICCAF judge I would avoid it like plague.
Why would one want to spoil the CV of a reputable judge??
It reminds me the infamous wazuan quote 'Ataenda ama ataenda'
remember yule judge mwingine alisema nini?
Quote:Apart from referring to serious but general difficulties it encoimtered
during its pre-confirmation investigation, the Prosecution offers no cogent and sufficiently specific justification for why so many witnesses in this case were only interviewed for the first time post-confirmation.
Quote:there can be no excuse for the Prosecution's negligent attitude towards verifying the trustworthiness of its evidence. In particular, the incidents relating to Witness 4 are clearly indicative of a negligent attitude towards verifying the reliability of central evidence in the Prosecution's case. This negligent attitude is particularly apparent in relation to Witness 4's evidence because, as the Prosecution concedes, 'the Office as a whole was on notice, prior to the confirmation hearing, of the inconsistencies in the account Witness 4 gave during his [second] screening'. The Prosecution offered a number of explanations for overlooking the problems with Witness 4's evidence.^ However, what all these explanations reveal is that there are grave problems in the Prosecution's system of evidence review, as well as a serious lack of proper oversight by senior Prosecution staff. Clearly, thorough and comprehensive due diligence with regard to the reliability of the available evidence is an ongoing obligation of the Prosecution
All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!