Discussion in 'Trials' started by bessie, Oct 10, 2017.
Please continue here.
Thanks a bunch Bessie. 4.15am!!!! Go to bed and fix the heading in 8 hours or so. That last thread was enormous. The heading can wait.
We're back. Court adjourned until October 16th
Thank you everyone for the updates on the previous threads, I think I'm giving up on this one now - for the time being at least :tyou:
Lost for words! 16th? OISA! Thanks, JJ, for updates.
Botha is really taking the p**s with this trial. He has got the cheek to say they are losing money, yet he keeps wanting to adjourn. I really hope after all this Henri gets found guilty.
I'm really grateful for all the tweets too. Thankyou everyone. I will see you all on the 16th.
This is beyond belief. OISA! Many thanks for the updates.
Just listened to the short recording of this morning's proceedings. Desai came down hard on Botha.
I've replayed this part several times but I can't get the words he said at this point, see if anyone else can pick it up (I've marked the video to start at the relevant place) - "if there is a cost factor I am quite prepared to adjourn these proceedings and appoint ? counsel ?. That can't be a factor that determines the future progress of this matter."
So Dr O says that most of the DNA samples are invalid for 3 reasons - 1. they used or relied on sample sizes less than 1 nanogram 2. there was no break in sequence between testing samples from the same case 3. the hemastix weren't recorded properly (either photographed or expiry dates, not sure).
Apologies if spellings are off!
I can only think he is saying ProBono counsel followed by something else, but it doesn't sound like that.
Could it be pro deo counsel?
Yes! I had typed into google prodea and it didn't bring up anything. That is definitely it. Cheers IB
So now we know without a doubt what will happen if Botha & co withdraw from the case.
Interesting similar matter involving J Desai -
[FONT=&]He said the case had been expected to continue for nine months, and one would have expected Khan, who was a member of an experienced firm of attorneys, to have secured sufficient financial cover for that period.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The fact that he did not was unacceptable, and led to the conclusion that Von Lieress departure was a tactical withdrawal.
Whether it be pro bono or pro Deo, the outcome for the client is the same – the lawyer will provide his services for free, or in some cases at a reduced rate. The only difference between the two is the reason for doing so. Pro Deo means that the lawyer will do it as a duty he owes to God rather than the fact that it's mandated by a law or law society.
Clearly Judge Desai is a religious man as this term is not commonly used. Equally, it is clear, IMO, that Botha worships at the money altar.
Thank you JJ for tweets.
IB, I've carried over your post #1434 from the last thread
"I am sure HVB would be given Legal Aid if his Counsel drops out. I was thinking more that HvB would likely obfuscate in order to prolong his bail by not accepting the lawyers he was being offered but maybe he has to accept whoever is prepared to do the work. Is he allowed any choice in the matter and can he drop them if he is not satisfied with the standard of the defence they provide?"
If his counsel drop out, everything is out of Henri's hands. The Legal Aid Board will appoint one or more counsel to act for him, and he has no say whatsoever in who is chosen to represent him.
Should he decide he doesnt like the person/s chosen, he cant just fire them. He would need to have a very good reason, e.g. incompetence, and the judge will decide if the reason is sufficient. This is not a decision that is taken lightly.
IMO if Botha or Combrink withdrew at this late stage due to lack of funds, with only 2 expert witnesses left to testify, in my eyes it would be proof they are morally bankrupt.
Thanks JJ. I tend to think if HvB's lawyers withdraw now it is because they no longer wish to be associated with losing the case. It can only have a few days left to run (as long as B doesn't drag it out any longer). After all, it is B and C who have caused this case to have dragged on for so long (I thought Desai made it clear yesterday that he puts the blame at their feet). One would think somebody's conscience ought to come to bear on the matter.
Hi IB. All I can say is that over the course of my entire working career, I've never heard of a barrister withdrawing from a case when it becomes apparent they will lose. They all lose cases on a regular basis, obviously. When they do and they think the verdict was wrong, they appeal. That's the way it is.
Separate names with a comma.