South Africa - Martin, 55, Theresa, 54, Rudi van Breda, 22, murdered, 26 Jan 2015 #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
JudgeJudi said:
He wants to hear what his witnesses will say, and then, according to Botha, he will decide whether he testifies. Desai said the court may draw an adverse inference from this and that defendants should testify first.
Click to expand...

I thought Judge Desai wasn't going to allow that? I must have missed something.
 
Henri van Breda has elected not to testify at this stage

Not testifying in your own defence is not necessarily a blow to your case.

In the State v Johanna Changisa (2011), Judge Phatshoane ruled (in part):

"A failure to testify will not remedy a deficiency in the State case such as the absence of apparently credible implication of the accused."

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-team-defence-argument-20171009
 
We can see where this is going already. She's going to suggest Otto and the analysts didn't follow SOPs.
 
bbm
JudgeJudi said:
Henri van Breda has elected not to testify at this stage

Not testifying in your own defence is not necessarily a blow to your case.

In the State v Johanna Changisa (2011), Judge Phatshoane ruled (in part):

"A failure to testify will not remedy a deficiency in the State case such as the absence of apparently credible implication of the accused."

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-team-defence-argument-20171009
Click to expand...

BIB - Good grief, I've read that about five times and I'm still :waitasec:
 
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

Olckers: I receive 1956 documents from the state

Olckers: it was apparent that certain Standard operating procedures (SOPs) were not followed for analysis of various samples

Olckers: consequence of not following SOPs means it would invalidate results

Olckers: in my view SOPs must be followed to validate the data and ensure processes are fit for use

Olckers: if nonconformance is found it must be register e and investigated
 
Morning all.

I'm expecting to hear a lot about foreign alliles or whatever they're called. I'm sure I've spelt that incorrectly. Yawn yawn. She has the truth of the matter against her. Catch you all later!
 
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

Olckers: corrective action must be taken immediately if there is non-compliance to procedures

Olckers: any analysts stating that "optimal results indicates you don't have to follow SOP's" is a contravention

Olckers: for e.g. Blood alcohol toxicology needs to be tested within a certain time, cannot ignore procedures
 
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

Adv Combrink: if you get a result, does it mean it's accepted?

Olckers: gives e.g. of 1+1, we both have answers, but based on scientific principles only one person is right

Olckers: we received 151 samples, contrary to State DNA expert Col. Otto's testimony that there were 216
 
Fluffykins said:
I thought Judge Desai wasn't going to allow that? I must have missed something.
Click to expand...

Desai said HvB had not shown good cause why he should testify last and dismissed the application.

Could someone please advise if I've misunderstood something along the way. I thought Botha still left it open as to whether or not HvB would testify in spite of Desai's ruling.
 
I don't want to sound hysterical but could this whole trial be dismissed/thrown?
 
JudgeJudi said:
Desai said HvB had not shown good cause why he should testify last and dismissed the application.

Could someone please advise if I've misunderstood something along the way. I thought Botha still left it open as to whether or not HvB would testify in spite of Desai's ruling.
Click to expand...
It seems Botha said HvB may decide to testify last anyway! How can this be when he asked to do this and was denied? I'm baffled!
 
JudgeJudi said:
Desai said HvB had not shown good cause why he should testify last and dismissed the application.

Could someone please advise if I've misunderstood something along the way. I thought Botha still left it open as to whether or not HvB would testify in spite of Desai's ruling.
Click to expand...

If I'm understanding Tortoise's post correctly, if HvB does testify, he will have to use his first statement.
 
Dr Olckers says in forensic science, operating outside standard operating procedures would invalidate the results.

Dr Olckers testifies that during the analysing of the samples, she found lab did not always follow SOPs

In science, there is a difference between an answer and a valid scientific answer, Dr Olckers says.

Olckers says she received data of 151 samples. Lt Col Otto testified 216 were processed and tested.

Less than one nanogram of DNA sample used in some of the testing. Must be between 1 and 2.5 ng. Olckers says.

[url]http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-team-defence-argument-20171009[/URL]
 
RSBM - Tortoise transcription

In the result the court finds the accused has not shown good cause why he should be allowed to call the expert witnesses before testifying himself. The application as such in terms of S.151 (b) (i) is dismissed.

P Botha: As the court pleases my lord. But as I have indicated in the course of my argument and your lordship will no doubt recall, my client has now placed on record to the effect he'd made a decision that at this stage he does not intend to testify, and we will attend on 9th with your lordship's leave to call the witnesses that we intend to call.
 
Court is back

[video=youtube;dclKkRI4cM4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dclKkRI4cM4[/video]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 201 more.
Total: 2,202 (members: 202, guests: 2,000)

Online statistics

Members online
202
Guests online
2,000
Total visitors
2,202
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,877
Messages
18,115,065
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top