I haven't had a chance to listen to any testimony from today yet, but from Twitter, does it sound like Roux was laying more ground work today for an appeal?
He said that they won't call Dr. Fine because he had a heart attack and there were many more witnesses that were not called because they feared the media scrutiny. However, WhoopWhoop did say that these witnesses could have been subpoenaed.
Thoughts?
My thoughts are along the lines of the refrain, "you can lead a horse to water etc..."
It obviously depends on what the witness you want to subpoena is supposed to have been witness to, but dealing with possible ear witnesses like Frank Chiziweni, if they stick to guns claiming they were in a deep sleep and didn't hear anything until awakening just prior to the Standers arriving, which iirc is by which time when Frank had appeared, IMHO there is absolutely zilch you can do to prove otherwise.
I mean, not even the threat of criminal charges would persuade since although perjury, collusion, conspiracy and obstructing the course of justice are all criminal offences, the reasonable doubt would be on the alleged witnesses side so that as long as they stuck to their story it would be impossible to convict them of anything since it is a fact some people sleep very deeply and, like me, can have someone hoovering beside them and still not wake up, which is one helluva reasonable doubt for any judge or jury to miss out.
IMO, subpoenaing a witness can only work if there is other evidence to support that they know something they are not telling. Like for example someone saying Frank confided in them that he heard everything. But proving someone heard or saw something without any other evidence to support is impossible and trying to can only result in a hiding to nothing and a waste of court time.
In respect of laying grounds for an appeal, IDK but I really don't think so. In any case according to a couple of SA lawyers today, Dadic among them, unless found innocent on all accounts, (hardly likely), an appeal is already a given and there will be no shortage of grounds to adduce. This is normal practice in judge based system (Amanda Fox a case in point) since the Judge's reasoning is all spelt out and since judge's are human it is not rare to find something worth appealing about. For example Masipa's decision on Dr Kotze is it appears a unique situation with no precedent in SA. IDK in SA, but in some countries precedents have to be confirmed by at least 2 appeal courts before they can be accepted as law for similar situations. That could be a ground imo and if the system is how I believe it may be and her decision is to become a formal precedent or case law for psycho panels from now on appealing it at least once would be a necessary step in that process.
(just my thoughts and not facts unless otherwise stated)
