Jacob Zuma and the ANCYL Conspiracy

Dominic White

 
Random Entry: Xplanet
< Adjective Absurdity: The Complete, Unquestionable and Total failure of Dodgy Statistics | Automated Malware Classification >

Jacob Zuma and the ANCYL Conspiracy

Recently the ANC Youth League claimed that the fact that Jacob Zuma was found not guilty proves that the rape allegation was a set up whose purpose was to discredit Zuma and his political aspirations.

This has a very dangerous presupposition that I have seen trotted out in far too many articles and quotations on the matter.


I was first put onto the idea I will eventually describe when a caller to a SAfm talk radio show tried to point out that 'not guilty' is not the same as 'innocent'. The presenter had trouble understanding her point and fobbed her off. However, I believe this is a critical point that needs to be made.

In a trial you are proved "guilty" or "not guilty". This phrasing is not arbitrary; it is the reason for the burden of proof to be on the prosecution. If the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty then the crime has been proved to have happened. However, if the prosecution fails, then it has not been proved that the crime did not happen, just that they couldn't prove it did happen.

To clarify this further, if a defendant were to be proved innocent, then the defence would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was innocent, instead of the prosecution having to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

Which brings me back to the ANCYL's claim: it presupposes that Zuma has been proved innocent. For if the verdict proved that this was a malicious allegation and the complainant was in fact bribed or put up to this, then the crime could not have happened, and hence the assumption that Zuma was innocent. This was not proved however, Zuma was proved not guilty, he could have raped her and the bumbling of evidence by the police or a slew of other possibilities could have led to the verdict.

Given that the judge allowed his several hour long judgement to be broadcast on TV to educate us masses, and deliberately spent a large potion of that clarifying the burden of proof concept, the ANCYL's reasoning is provably false. This means the ANCYL has made a baseless accusation which amounts to both slander and libel.

Which begs the question, which side harbours the conspiracy?

Thursday, May 18. 2006
Posted by Dominic White in Politics
Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Last modified on 2006-05-24 17:04
 

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 Callie (Reply)
Posted on Friday, May 19. 2006
What u say about "not guity", not being the same as "innocent", is true. However, given the reasons Willem vd Merve offered in his judgement for finding that tWhat u say about "not guilty", not being the same as "innocent", is true. However, given the reasons Willem vd Merwe offered in his judgement for finding that the prosecution had not dispensed their burden of proof, he may as well have said the "Kwezi" was lying. 1.) He said it was unlikely that Zuma would risk raping women with his daughter and a policemen near by. 2.) He allowed the complainants’ sexual history to be brought into evidence, which showed that her previous allegations of rape were considered. (Without, I may add, giving her an opportunity to respond to HER accusers.) 3.) The judge refused to consider prosecutions psychologist’s report on the complainant, which said that she had symptoms consistent with a rape victim. 4.) The judge’s statement that other women making rape allegations “would be treated differently because they are different,” implies that this women wasn’t a victim at all. The Judge in the way he expressed his judgement, did not only find Zuma “not guilty”, but tacitly found “Kwezi” guilty! This is a huge problem with the courts. “kwezi” was not given the opportunity under the law to respond to the defence witnesses who accused her of being a serial rape accuser, nor should she have to defend herself… Under the law, I don’t believe that Judge vd Merwe could have made a finding any other way. This is a problem with the law and the way the system unfortunately works. he poscecution had not dispenced their burden of proof, he may as well have said the "Kwezi" was lying. 1.) He said it was unlikely that Zuma would risk raping a women with his daughter adn a policement near by. 2.)He allowed the complainents sexual history to be brought into evidence, which showed that her previous allegations of rape were considered. (without, i may add, giving her an opportunity to respond to HER accusers.) 3.)The judge found that the pocecutions phycologist's report
 
#1.1 Dominic White wrote (Link) (Reply)
Posted on Friday, May 19. 2006
Um...good point, I think, are you drunk?
 
#2 Charmaine (Reply)
Posted on Monday, May 22. 2006
Yes Callie-have you been at a debating event?:)
 
#3 verashni wrote (Link) (Reply)
Posted on Wednesday, May 24. 2006
Shocking allegations. Are you trying to discredit her position as vice-president with these rumours? Just because she is not drunk doesn't mean she is sober. Inferences are a dangerous thing...
 

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA