When A Liar, By His Own Admission, Says Believe Me

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

• Tweet

How is one even to believe the name he presents as his?

[RV Pundit]

OTP can only explain what they expect us to believe.

[Omollo]

I reached the stage where he displays a diary written in Dutch to "prove" that he was coached. He has a problem.

[George Lamming]

Termie: To rephrase your comment "When A Lier, By His Own Admission,...", What you are saying is that these liars have no business being ICC witnesses...correct? I think you captured it accurately. 

[Omollo]

Not so fast George:

1. When did he start lying?
2. Is he lying now or was he lying then?
3. What was he motive for lying then?
4. What is his motive for lying now?

Those issues need to be addressed. Note that after this performance, you can hit him with an iron on his head and unless there are other witnesses, his word would be useless in any court on earth. He has admitted lying.

[George Lamming]

Omollo: Those are the kind of question you discuss outside the docket. For now, this is a witness who has the ability to collapse a case if he has not already done that. The questions you are asking belong to investigation as opposed to prosecution. Bensudo if a smart prosecutor should distance herself from such a witness...that is not a witness. But your questions a valid. Perhaps you should consider a question on what his motive would be to tell the truth about his lies...may be he suddenly found the light.

[Omollo]

Omollo: Those are the kind of question you discuss outside the docket. For now, this is a witness who has the ability to collapse a case if he has not already done that. The questions you are asking belong to investigation as opposed to prosecution. Bensudo if a smart prosecutor should distance herself from such a witness...that is not a witness. But your questions a valid. Perhaps you should consider a question on what his motive would be to tell the truth about his lies...may be he suddenly found the light.

On the contrary, that was the basis upon which recanting witnesses were compelled to testify. They basically came so the court can determine when they started lying. According to the OTP, they testified truthfully before they were corrupted and changed their stories. She has evidence of the corrupt witnesses trying to convince other witnesses to jump ship with promises of huge sums of money.

Now as you can see, the witness displays sketches of Ruto's house and then claims he was coached. There are some facts he may have come up with which he will find impossible to recant. If there is audio and video of the meetings (which I suspect there is) his new story may come apart.

The OTP simply wants to reach a point where the earlier statements are introduced in the evidence and form part of the body of evidence. By having witnesses declared hostile, the OTP then is free to cross examine them more aggressively and hopefully have them trip. For example the first witness was too eager to recant everything, he "recanted" what he had not said! That was a bullseye for the OTP that went unnoticed. It is such eagerness and excessive zealotry that will bring them down. All the OTP needs is to demonstrate that a particular witness is NOW lying for the earlier claims to be taken seriously. It would help if a motive is established - like money or promises of cash. That is where Walter Barasa and the evidence against him becomes crucial.

I am no longer convinced that TNA is interested in Ruto getting off. Why else is the OTP not so bothered about telephone and bak records of Ruto?

[RV Pundit]

Omollo, remove your blinkers and you'll realize OTP have just made a huge mess of themselves;

[machoman]

l was watching Ocampo on BCCs Hardtalk yesterday night and was quite disappointed. He was happy to point out  that we didnt kill each other after the last elections because of the fear of ICC. With only two convictions he is now writing a book.

[Omollo]

Omollo, remove your blinkers and you'll realize OTP have just made a huge mess of themselves;

Well, if it is a mess, then a bloody good one for the accused. I just don't agree that it is that automatic. If the OTP was simply lining up lying witnesses without any other reasonable explanation as to the motive for the lies, I would probably agree. The best option for the defense is to also show that the witnesses always had money as the objective. The defense cannot agree that the Ruto side bought them off, but it can continue to push the allowances issue.

That is however difficult. The ICC as an international organization that in principle gets witnesses from rich and poor countries alike has rates that would make a witness comfortable whether from a rich or poor country. So while it might look like a lot of money, the devil lies in the details.

[RV Pundit]

There is nothing corroborating OTP version of stories. If these witness were initial telling the truth; that would something else;

The fact that Ruto and Sang have not stopped these witnesses..assumign they were bought..they would have gone to court Baraza style..or disappeared..but they are confidently telling the world..OTP bought their lies hook, line and sinker.

Ruto defence...are putting the last nail on the coffin..by showing evidence that their initial statement were pure lies.

This is disaster for OTP. Why would someone take the trouble of bribing them out of protection in Europe..only to have them testified on the strength of Subopena in kenya....when they can just pull Githu Muingai..and say the witness have disappeared and cannot be traced.
 

Well, if it is a mess, then a bloody good one for the accused. I just don't agree that it is that automatic. If the OTP was simply lining up lying witnesses without any other reasonable explanation as to the motive for the lies, I would probably agree. The best option for the defense is to also show that the witnesses always had money as the objective. The defense cannot agree that the Ruto side bought them off, but it can continue to push the allowances issue.

That is however difficult. The ICC as an international organization that in principle gets witnesses from rich and poor countries alike has rates that would make a witness comfortable whether from a rich or poor country. So while it might look like a lot of money, the devil lies in the details.

[Omollo]

There is nothing corroborating OTP version of stories. If these witness were initial telling the truth; that would something else;

The fact that Ruto and Sang have not stopped these witnesses..assumign they were bought..they would have gone to court Baraza style..or disappeared..but they are confidently telling the world..OTP bought their lies hook, line and sinker.

Ruto defence...are putting the last nail on the coffin..by showing evidence that their initial statement were pure lies.

This is disaster for OTP. Why would someone take the trouble of bribing them out of protection in Europe..only to have them testified on the strength of Subopena....when they can just pull Githu Muingai..and say the witness have disappeared and cannot be traced

1. Ruto and Sang opposed the act of asking these witnesses to testify (I am surprised you say that when we have debated the matter before);
2. My position is that if the Ruto / Sang defense could have used the local courts to scuttle the testifying, they would have. They weighed the options, at best saw that it could be a simple delaying tactic (Barasa style) and opted to go full blast. Remember Khan made a huge about face when he opposed the testifying of the witnesses he had been continually and ceaselessly (some would add cynically) begging to cross examine. I think going the extra mile to the local courts would amount to something else.

[RV Pundit]

1) They are opposed to their testifying on LAW issues; It gone to appeal chambers because it a novel issues.

2) If OTP contention is that Ruto took all the trouble to bribe them, get them out of protection in Europe and have them come to kenya...obviously illegal activies..why would they stop now..when these guys are in kenya and they can pull lots of illegal acts to ensure they do not testify ala Uhuru.

Why would a DPORK allow those guys to testify under his watch here in Nairobi unless he was confident.

3) At worse they would have used the kenya courts to delay the case for yrs....as those witnesses drag the case through high court all the way to supreme court.

They have done any of that. I have been reading summary of the court proceedings and this is disaster for OTP.

1. Ruto and Sang opposed the act of asking these witnesses to testify (I am surprised you say that when we have debated the matter before);
2. My position is that if the Ruto / Sang defense could have used the local courts to scuttle the testifying, they would have. They weighed the options, at best saw that it could be a simple delaying tactic (Barasa style) and opted to go full blast. Remember Khan made a huge about face when he opposed the testifying of the witnesses he had been continually and ceaselessly (some would add cynically) begging to cross examine. I think going the extra mile to the local courts would amount to something else.