Top-125 DJ@ SG Walther Cape Town 21 Dec 2014 & UK Top 40

Dj@ SG Walther
* Cape Town *	Songs ranked firstly into Chart Playlist & then
Top 125	alphabetically by Artist within each playlist.
21 December 2014
TOP-10		Rating
Caution To the Wind	Becky Hill	100
Break the Rules	Charli XCX	100
Ghost (Switch Remix Radio Edit)	Ella Henderson	100
Imagination (feat. Katy Menditta)	Gorgon City	100
Time	Jungle	100
Crumbler	Jungle	100
Way We Are Extended Mix	Kove / Melissa Steel	100
It Was Always You	Maroon 5	100
Wicked Games (feat. Anna Naklab)	Parra for Cuva	100
Prayer in C (Robin Schulz Remix)	Robin Schulz & LILLYWOOD	100
No Good in Goodbye	The Script	100
Flares	The Script	100
Runaway	sElf	100
Happy Little Pill	Troye Sivan	100
Faded	ZHU	100
TOP-25
The Rain	Biffy Clyro	100
Higher Ground (feat. Charli Taft)	Blonde	100
If U Got It (Radio Edit)	Chris Malinchak	100
Jealous (I Ain't With It)	Chromeo	100
Always In My Head	Coldplay	100
Ink	Coldplay	100
A Sky Full of Stars	Coldplay	100
Lift Off (feat. Pharrell)	Conor Maynard	100
Okay	Holy Ghost!	100
Benediction	Hot Natured	100
Hideaway	Kiesza	100
Waves (Robin Schulz Radio Edit)	Mr. Probz	100
I Lived	OneRepublic	100
Blank Space	Taylor Swift	100
TOP-40
Need You Right Now (ft. Mike Tompkins)	Bethany Mota	80
Johnny & Mary (Remastered)	Bryan Ferry & Todd Terje	60
Rather Be (feat. Jess Glynne)	Clean Bandit	100
Midnight	Coldplay	100
Another's Arms	Coldplay	80
Paper Trails	DARKSIDE	100
Cool Kids	Echosmith	100
My Silver Lining	First Aid Kit	80
Pumped Up Kicks	Foster the People	60
Here For You (feat. Laura Welsh)	Gorgon City	80
Solo Dancing	Indiana	100
Busy Earnin'	Jungle	100
Brand New Day Radio Mix	Kodaline	100
ARTPOP	Lady Gaga	80
Animals	Maroon 5	80
Teenage Dirtbag	Mighty Little	100
Always (HK Miami 2014 Edit) [feat. Alana] [Route 94 Mix (Edit)]	MK	100
You’re Not Alone (feat. Britt Nicole)	Owl City	80
Cold (feat. Fryars)	Rae Morris	100
Me and My Broken Heart	Rixton	80
The Energy Never Dies	The Script	100
Under the Pressure	The War on Drugs	80
Chocolate	The 1975	100
TOP-80
minipops 67 [120.2] [source field mix]	Aphex Twin	80
Reflektor	Arcade Fire	80
Things We Lost In the Fire	Bastille	100
Of The Night	Bastille	100
What I Might Do (Radio Edit)	Ben Pearce	100
Treasure	Bruno Mars	80
Toxic (X Factor Performance)	Chloe Jasmine
So Good To Me Original Mix	Chris Malinchak	100
Dust Clears	Clean Bandit	100
Can't Say No	Conor Maynard	100
She Wolf (Falling to Pieces) [feat. Sia]	David Guetta	80
Latch (feat. Sam Smith)	Disclosure	100
Back to Love (feat. Jay Sean)	DJ Pauly D	100
Hold On, We're Going Home (feat. Majid Jordan)	Drake	100
One	Ed Sheeran	100
Bloodstream	Ed Sheeran	80
Nature Trips	Eyedress	80
Invisible	FM Attack	100
History (feat. Will Young)	Groove Armada	80
Permission To Love	Hayden James	80
Self Machine (Elly Jackson Remix)	I Blame Coco	100
Right Here	Jess Glynne	80
Tough Love	Jessie Ware	80
My Love	jj	100
Drops	Jungle	80
Son of a Gun	Jungle	80
The Big Bang	Katy Tiz	80
Fall For You (ft. April)	Kings of Tomorrow	100
Cool	Le Youth	80
Hungry Like The Wolf	Lionel Cohen
Team	Lorde	60
Maps	Maroon 5	80
Love Never Felt So Good	Michael Jackson	80
Slave to the Rhythm	Michael Jackson	80
Us	Movement	80
Destination	Nickel Creek	80
Counting Stars	OneRepublic	100
Miss Jackson (feat. LOLO)	Panic! At the Disco	100
Trying to Be Cool	Phoenix	100
My Love	Route 94 / Jess Glynne	100
Paranoia, Ghosts & Other Sounds	Safia	80
Veil	Samantha James	80
Six Degrees Of Separation	The Script	80
Good Morning, Sunshine	Shortstraw	100
24 Hours	Sky Ferreira	80
Look Right Through (MK Vocal Mix)	Storm Queen & MK	80
No Odda	Tafari	80
Every Breaking Wave	U2	80
My Head Is a Jungle (Radio Edit)	Wankelmut & Emma Louise	100
Glow In the Dark	The Wanted	100
Red Eyes	The War on Drugs	80
TOP-125
Leave Me Alone	Alexander Rybak	80
I’ll Show You	Alexander Rybak & Paula Seling	100
This Is What It Feels Like (feat. Trevor Guthrie)	Armin van Buuren	80
One Day (Vandaag) [Radio Edit]	Bakermat	60
Pompeii	Bastille	80
Torn Apart (Bastille VS. GRADES)	Bastille & Grades
Dangerous (feat. Joywave)	Big Data	80
Bottoms Up	Brantley Gilbert	60
True Love	Coldplay	80
Animal	Conor Maynard	100
Turn Around (feat. Ne-Yo)	Conor Maynard	80
I Got U (feat. Jax Jones)	Duke Dumont	100
Need U (100%) Original Mix	Duke Dumont feat. A*M*E	100
Kemosabe	Everything Everything	80
One More Day (Stay with Me) (Extended Mix)	Example	80
Call	Francesco Yates	60
Friend Crush	Friends	100
Budapest	George Ezra	60
Go All Night (feat. Jennifer Hudson)	Gorgon City	80
Wings	HAERTS	60
Curse Curse	James	80
The Answer	Josh Kumra	100
All Bad	Justin Bieber	100
Flatline	Justin Bieber	60
Roller Coaster	Justin Bieber	80
Jubel	Klingande	80
Brokenhearted No Rap Version	Lawson	80
Pretty Girls	Little Dragon	80
Let Your Hair Down	MAGIC!
Rude	MAGIC!	80
Sunlight (feat. Years and Years) [Radio Edit]	The Magician	80
Take Yours, I'll Take Mine	Matthew Mole	60
You and I (Deadmau5 Remix)	Medina	80
All About That Bass	Meghan Trainor	60
La La La	Naughty Boy / Sam Smith	100
Chains	Nick Jonas	80
Am I Wrong	Nico & Vinz	80
If I Lose Myself	OneRepublic	100
Back and Forth	Operator Please	80
Hoyle Road	Pedestrian	80
Happy (from "Despicable Me 2")	Pharrell Williams	80
Kingfisher	PHOX	60
Please Forgive Me	The Pierces	80
Chain My Name	POLIÇA	80
Boom Boom (Heartbeat) [feat. Rachel K Colier] [Sami Wentz Remix]	Ray Foxx	60
Diamonds	Rihanna	80
Blurred Lines (feat. T.I. & Pharrell)	Robin Thicke	60
Sordid Affair	Röyksopp
I Had This Thing	Röyksopp
Money On My Mind	Sam Smith	80
Man on a Wire	The Script
Aviation High	Semi Precious Weapons	80
Ishq Da Rogh	SK-1	80
Don't You Worry Child (Radio Edit) [feat. John Martin]	Swedish House Mafia	100
Welcome To New York	Taylor Swift
Trouble's Lament	Tori Amos	60
Reminder	Travis	80
The Troubles	U2	80
Wild Heart	The Vamps	80
Bullit	Watermät	60
UK TOP 40 14 Dec 2014 new 1 Mark Ronson Uptown Funk (feat. Bruno Mars) 2 down 1 1 25 Ed Sheeran Thinking Out Loud 3 up 9 12 4 Band Aid 30 Do They Know It's Christmas? (2014) 4 down 1 3 3 Take That These Days 5 new 1 Oliver Heldens Last All Night (Koala) (feat. KStewart) 6 down 2 4 7 Taylor Swift Blank Space 7 up 12 19 5 One Direction Night Changes 8 down 3 5 4 Olly Murs Wrapped Up (feat. Travie McCoy) 9 up 1 10 6 Calvin Harris Outside (feat. Ellie Goulding) 10 down 4 6 4 Clean Bandit & Jess Glynne Real Love 11 up 7 18 80 The Pogues A Fairytale Of New York (feat. Kirsty MacColl) 12 down 4 8 9 One Direction Steal My Girl 13 down 2 11 15 Meghan Trainor All About That Bass 14 down 1 13 8 Sam Smith Like I Can 15 down 6 9 4 David Guetta Dangerous (feat. Sam Martin) 16 up 1 17 83 Mariah Carey All I Want For Christmas Is You 17 new 1 Bring Me the Horizon Drown 18 down 11 7 2 Blonde I Loved You (feat. Melissa Steel) 19 down 4 15 3 Labrinth Jealous 20 down 4 16 5 Ella Henderson Yours 21 new 1 Fifth Harmony Bo$$ 22 up 5 27 20 Hozier Take Me To Church 23 up 6 29 33 George Ezra Budapest 24 up 2 26 53 Idina Menzel Let It Go 25 up 3 28 30 Sam Smith Stay With Me 26 down 4 22 22 Sam Smith I'm Not The Only One 27 down 3 24 23 George Ezra Blame It On Me 28 down 8 20 4 Wretch 32 6 Words 29 up 3 32 17 Taylor Swift Shake It Off 30 down 5 25 12 Jessie J, Ariana Grande & Nicki Minaj Bang Bang 31 down 8 23 6 Tom Odell Real Love 32 down 2 30 25 Ed Sheeran Don't 33 down 2 31 14 Calvin Harris Blame (feat. John Newman) 34 down 32 2 2 Union J You Got It All 35 up 17 52 44 Wizzard I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday 36 up 3 39 44 Wham! Last Christmas 37 up 6 43 27 Ella Henderson Ghost 38 down 17 21 24 Sia Chandelier 39 up 5 44 28 Ed Sheeran Sing 40 down 6 34 48 John Legend All Of Me

#MH370 & #AF447 Experts confirm writers views....

MH370 & AF447 Experts confirm views first expressed on this blog.


Like the Captain of MH370, I fly jet airliners on a flight simulation programme on my computer at home. My core fields of interest as an aviation analyst are commercial aviation in general and in commercial airline disasters in particular. 


But I chose law instead of flying as a career so I am not a pilot. I am compelled to compensate for my lack of actual flying hours using logical analysis and by discerning relevant from irrelevant facts. In addition, I made a point of reading up on my areas of interest over the years.


Twice this year, however, early opinions I expressed on this blog have been later validated by other experts.


You will recall that within thirty six or so hours after the disappearance of flight MH370, I concluded that unlawful cockpit interference, was the likely cause of the aircraft's disappearance. By that I meant either one or more of the pilots was responsible, or a pilot, together with a hijacker accomplice, was involved. I do allow for one or more hijackers acting alone, but this is the least likely possibility.


I repeated and confirmed this view each time new data came to light. This despite a point when several airline captains with experience on 777's started leaning towards other theories. Zombie theory, technical failures, explosive decompression etc.


Later, the opinions started to shift again towards one or more of the pilots. A 777 Captain who also flew fighters in the RAF has, earlier this month, given his views in support of why one or more of the pilots may be involved.  He has also discounted a variety of other theories.
See the link: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/flight-mh370/57641/mh370-details-of-who-was-on-missing-plane-are-being-withheld-says  You will recall that I suggested that cockpit incursion by a hijacker and/or crew was the most likely cause of the disappearance of the airliner in a blog I published here about 36 hours or so after the aircraft disappeared. Of course, when I referred to cockpit incursion and the possibility of crew involvement, this included a suicidal or rogue pilot gaining unlawful control of the cockpit.

My reasons for concluding this were and are based upon the following:

• The fact that the transponder was switched off causing the aircraft to disappear from ATC secondary radar.

•  The fact that the aircraft reporting system was switched off.

• The fact that the aircraft signed off from Malaysian ATC and did not thereafter make contact with Vietnamese ATC. If anyone wanted to take control of an aircraft without attracting prompt attention, then the handover between area controllers is the ideal time to do so. It gave the aircraft time to divert and to do so unnoticed. Malaysian ATC assumed that the Aircraft was under the Control of Vietnamese ATC and Vietnamese ATC must have assumed that the scheduled airliner was either late or had been delayed at Kuala Lampur for some reason.

• The fact that the aircraft immediately changed course after the hand-off from Malaysian ATC.

• The fact that the change of course was not accompanied by any communication with ATC, which is normal practice for a diversion. Although such failure to communicate with ATC immediately could be explained by an emergency which required AVIATION & NAVIATION prior to COMMUNICATION, the fact that such failure to communicate persisted indefinitely was highly suspicious to me. There are various ways for the pilots to communicate an emergency, including using the transponder to enter a transponder code for radio failure or a hijack situation.

• Ultimately however, it was the combination of all the above factors in one event which lead me to my conclusion.  The 777 is a very reliable aircraft with backup systems in case certain essential systems fail. I could not, and still cannot conceive of a technical emergency which was so catastrophic that it was capable on the one hand of disabling all the above systems, yet on the other hand it nonetheless permitted the aircraft to stay aloft for five or so more hours.

For all these reasons, I concluded then already that an unlawful act by one or more of the pilots and or/someone else must have caused the aircraft to turn off course. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mh370-i-have-flown-these-jets-heres-what-probably-didnt-happen/story-fni0cx12-1227138294356



AF 447
I did a piece earlier this year in which I was highly critical of an French aviation body's (the BEA) attempt to whitewash what I considered to be clear criminal negligence not only on the part of the pilots, but also on the part of those in charge of Air France Training at the time.


The BEA's view was that other air crews, faced with a similar situation would probably also have made the same errors the crew of AF447 made.


I argued on this blog that the above view was entirely wrong. And I gave my reasons.


Join our Face Book Page: Air Crash Lounge: Why do they call it a Terminal Building? And other aviation mysteries - Air crash pundits, aviation enthusiasts, pilots, flight simulator pilots welcome!


http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2015/01/httpswwwfacebookcomgroupsaircrashlounge.html


Several months later, an independent panel of five aviation experts came out with the same view. They all found that the pilots acted negligently.


See the links below: http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/04/mh370-24-april-2014-update.html


http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-malaysian-777-cockpit.html


http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/05/air-france-447-bea-whitewash-af447.html


SG WALTHER December 2014   
see also: Sydney Siege article link: Simple causes, simpler solution!
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/12/sydneysiege-perthsiege-simple-causes.html    & EUTHANASIA article link            http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/12/euthanasia-case-for-it-and-proposed.html

#SydneySiege #PerthSiege Simple causes. SIMPLER SOLUTION to #siege #Sydney Seige

Western Democracies are to blame for the Sydney Siege, mass shootings and most other terrorist acts including the Boston attack.




IF you agree with this article, you are not powerless...Please retweet it and post it wherever you can...It's time to embarrass the news networks....


The Media's coverage of #NYPD shootings in New York are also relevant to this article.


The perpetrator of the Sydney Siege, like most terrorists, had two aims.

• ONE: Publicity
• TWO: Having a demand met (In the Sydney siege, the perpetrator apparently wished to speak to the Australian Prime Minister.)

Achieving either aim qualifies as success. Mostly, terrorists just aim for and settle for the first.


Most Western governments have learnt that agreeing to the demands of hostage takers or terrorists will only encourage more hostage taking or terrorism. Accordingly, most of them have a policy of not negotiating with hostage takers or terrorists.


See my link to the reasons why hostage takers demands ought never to be met.
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/02/ban-ransoms-to-hostage-takers.html


The truth is that the terrorists and hostage takers mostly know when they are dealing with a government which won't meet their demands. They know that they will eventually face an armed attempt to free the hostages which is likely to end in their deaths. But still they continue. Why?


Publicity. It's the big prize. You can't have terror if you can't terrorize.


PUBLICITY for TERRORISTS - OUR GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
Publicity for terrorists is not automatic however. It's a gift we in the West seem content to give to the terrorists and school shooters etc. This is despite the fact that publicity is a gift which keeps on giving. The more publicity we grant to terrorists, the more terrorism it encourages and creates.


The solution
The solution is simple. We need a strategy to deny those who commit these acts the oxygen of publicity. Without oxygen, their acts become pointless and their cause will slowly die. How do we do this?


Media self-regulation?
I have on this blog, written an article appealing to the media to review the way they cover school shootings. It is almost impossible to deny their role in most of these copy cat events. See my blog on this aspect. I doubt that the initiative to solve the problem by self-regulation will come from the ranks of the news media.


http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-medias-role-in-mass-killings-school.html


The Media KNOW they are co-conspirators
The media, especially the international television news networks, feed off this type of coverage, and worse, they do so knowing full-well that by giving these monsters coverage, they are not only playing into the hands of those whose deeds they cover now, but they are encouraging the next perpetrators to boot.


Look at CNN's detailed coverage of the recent #NYPD killer. Why was his name mentioned or any attention given to him at all. We don't need to know who he is or why he did it. The publicity we give this man encourages the next one. There is no shortage of disturbed or desperate people with a cause or gripe, and who would love to go out in a blaze of CNN glory!


I find the glorification of all killers and terrorists by the media to be a shocking disgrace. Yet, we permit these "reporters" to swan about and cover everything but the real cause....the MEDIA itself!


Why do they do it?
Some of us can't tear ourselves away from this type of coverage. We've become addicted to reality television. Presumably, if one network decided not to turn up at the Sydney Siege to cover it live, they fear they will lose viewers to the other networks who will turn up.


LEGAL PROHIBITION
I believe the Western Leaders need to meet to agree upon a law to be promoted and promulgated in their respective countries.


The Law would have some or all of the following provisions for the states involved:

1. No live or recorded pictures, or images of any terrorist event, siege, school shooting, or hostage situation (prohibited events)  or their aftermath may be taken by any news media within the borders of the state. Doing so would amount to a criminal offence with heavy jail terms.
2. Broadcasting of any live or recorded images of any such events from any media organisation located or broadcasting within the state would also be a criminal offence, irrespective of whether the coverage emanated from a local country or from another country.
3. Permitted would be a simple announcement such as: "We have a report that an unidentified armed man has taken ten hostages in a café in downtown Sydney. The police are at the scene and have cordoned off the area. We will update this report every thirty minutes, or less if there are any developments."
4. Publishing the identity of the perpetrator (s) their backgrounds or any details regarding their demands or their causes would be illegal. Thus the background history's of school shooters, their web pages, their videos diaries, notes etc. would all be illegal material, prohibited from broadcast.
5. The authorities would be permitted to reveal any of the above information only if it was in the public interest or a matter of public safety to do so. E.g. for public assistance in capturing co-conspirators, or, for public assistance in a man-hunt etc., the names of the those sought could be released and published.
6. After these events have been resolved or have ended, the police news conference may not name the perpetrator nor can they mention the cause, unless it is in the public interest to do mention either or both. Eg. if someone took hostages to draw attention of authorities to the failure of a town council to deal with polluted water etc., the police could mention the reason for the hostage taking but not necessarily the name of the taker.
7. Nothing in these rules would prohibit the media from publishing any prohibited information necessary to expose or  reasonably intended to expose any police or state cover-up or any other illegal act by the state.
8. Rules as to how information relating to these incidents, could be released into the public domain in the fullness of time without mentioning the names of the perpetrators or their causes, e.g. in an annual  published law enforcement report or review would also be necessary. This would allow for academics to study the critical information relating to these events, and to allow for investigative journalists to pour through the information to see whether the lack of media coverage allowed for mistakes by authorities to be covered up etc.

Law would have to protect, not violate rights
Whether the rules I have just come up with are fit for purpose or not can be debated. Perhaps better rules could be suggested by others. I welcome any constructive suggestions below.


The aim of the law I propose must be to deny the perpetrators of such events as much publicity as possible without preventing the fact of what has happened from being reported at all. Also, the law must not prevent investigative reporting into how the authorities are dealing, or failing to deal with these events. Nor must it prevent the information arising from these events which could be necessary for the study of these events by academics or anyone else. The studying of trends etc. by specialists often yields information necessary to understand and to further prevent such atrocities.


The law would have to strike a balance between the public's right to be informed, the media's right to free speech, and the need to deny terrorists, school shooters, etc. the publicity they crave and which if given, only encourages the next event.


NOT SO DIFFICULT, SURELY?




I realise that the wording of a law designed to achieve the above aims might be a challenge, but surely it can't be that difficult.


Consider the network coverage of the Sydney Siege. Most of the time, the reporters have nothing sensible to say, and they simply repeat themselves over and over again, interspersing these with comments which are often inane.


These events are too similar to qualify as breaking news...Surely?


These events all follow a similar pattern. Hours of inane speculation, few facts, very little information. News conferences where very little is said. And finally, after the event is over, a more detailed news conference. What such TV reports lack in content they make up for with Sensation.


Let's take the way bomb blasts from Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere are reported. Often news events are interrupted, a "BREAKING NEWS" label is displayed, and we are provided with images of the aftermath. Crowds of people, ambulances, blood stains, wailing, and rubble. The pictures of one blast's aftermath exactly the same as the previous one.


Why show it then. Can't be news surely? Surely Bomb blasts from that part of the world are routine, not news?


Or do we need to show the aftermath because we know the terrorists responsible (save for the suicide bomber of course) are sitting at home rubbing their hands in glee, waiting to see their handiwork on international display.


Why can't we just replace such coverage with a two minute announcement at the end of the news ...delivered in a bored tone? "And there's been another bomb blast in Karachi, Pakistan today. We'll update this report with the number injured or killed in later report." No pictures.


Would we be poorer without sensational rolling media coverage?


If we did not have to view this sort of coverage, would any of us be the poorer? I mean, really worse off?  No we would not. A short news report read by a reporter would serve our right to know equally as well, and it would do so without adding to the hysteria and sensation, and thus without serving the purposes of the perpetrator.


For example, if there were no television coverage, and no media were permitted to print pictures of the victims being forced to hold their hands for two hours at a time against the windows of the café during the Sydney Seige, the odds are that they would not have been required to do so. It was done for effect!


When one of the television reporters mentioned how he could see a woman with her hands up in tears, my anger was not directed at the hostage taker. It was at the reporter, his network and the other networks who were showing the pictures.


Did we need to know the motive for the #NYPD shootings? More to the point, did we need to know anything about the shooter. No. There is no doubt in my mind that if the shooter was simply referred to as a shooter or gunman, (disturbed gunman if applicable) and if the motive was not broadcast, everyone would be safer. I realise the present motive touches a sore point amongst certain communities, but if we agree that these shootings are an aberration, not a solution, then we must treat these shootings as such.


Ultimately, the shooters, whether they are terrorists, school shooters, a lone disturbed person with a cause, they all have the same wish, PUBLICITY. Ultimately, it matters not whether the perpetrator does it for Allah, for his revenge on the part of his community, or because he wishes to punish people for all the wrongs done, his motive is irrelevant and death follows all the same.


Don't announce the motive. Don't give the guy a rousing #CNN blow by blow documentary or send-off which grants him his 15 MINUTES OF CELEBRITY...    I can almost promise you, if you stop the coverage of these things, the violence will decrease considerably. Continue the coverage as we do now...and I guarantee you, that like the school shootings the texas shootings etc etc...the COPYCAT killers will pop up for their moment in the sun.


Quite how we go about denying these monsters the oxygen of publicity can be a matter of debate. My suggestions may or may not be part of an ultimate solution.


see exactly the same views and similar suggestions I discovered after writing my article....


What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them
Rampage shooters crave the spotlight, and we should do everything possible to deprive them of it.          

By

Ari N. Schulman

Nov. 8, 2013 7:32 p.m. ET

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052


& a similar article by 
 ANSEL HERZ 
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/does-media-coverage-of-school-shootings-lead-to-more-school-shootings/Content?oid=20329038


What is not up for debate is that until the news networks, especially the television news, change the way they provide publicity to hostage takers, terrorists and school shooters and the like, these events will continue.


On the other hand, if the coverage were to be limited to the bare minimum, as I suggest, that it would frustrate the terrorists no end. There would be no point to a lone wolf attack if he knew in advance his sacrifice would be meaningless because of the lack of coverage for his cause and because he knew in advance his demands, if any, would not be met.


http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/JMME2.htm - this article contains research proving the links of which I speak....


http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/news-orgs-should-deny-mass-killers-the-attention-they-crave/


http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephgrenny/2012/12/13/the-media-is-an-accomplice-in-public-shootings-a-call-for-a-stephen-king-law/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimann-schultz/open-letter-to-media_b_5396659.html  
CLASS ACTION
There is of course one other way to make the media pay for their role in the crimes. Wait for the right case. Do a class action and take them down for millions in damages.


As a lawyer, I believe the relative delictual links would be easy to prove. What's more, I can just imagine how easily a jury will accept the common sense link if the right copy-cat case is picked. Forseeability...Causation would be very easy to prove.


Nor could the media hide behind press freedom or the freedom of expression as a Justification ground. Because they would not be able to convince any court that they could not fulfil their function equally as well without naming the killer, quoting from his web site, or doing a full expose on his life.


For example, the second texas shooting. Remember how the reporters fell over each other, all in apparently blissful ignorance of the blood dripping from their hands, as the mentioned in sensational style that this was the second such event. .....   They asked all manner of INANE questions, but the most important one was NEVER asked.


Where did texas soldier number two get the idea to do what he did from? We all know the answer to that.










SO, DON'T BLAME THE TERRORISTS, BLAME THE MEDIA,, and BLAME OUR LEADERS! The change can only come from them!
Siegfried Walther 2014




See also: MH 370 & AF 447. You heard it here first, and correctly!


Now a Free eBook you can download at iBooks, Smashwords, Kobo.....


https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/526079




http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/12/mh370-af447-experts-confirm-views-first.html 
PS..no Perth Siege that I know of exists...yet...no thanks to the media. But we all know their coverage has whetted the appetite of some lone wolf or organisation for more........







https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/517863

#Zumas' enjoy Constitutional immunity

#National Prosecuting Authority
Constitutional provision protecting a #Zuma.


There is nothing to prevent an inquest involving anyone named Zuma. But when it comes to criminal prosecutions, the position in law becomes highly complicated. 


The NPA are revisiting their decision not to prosecute a case of alleged culpable homicide. No doubt they considered their first decision to be legally sound. But the outcome of an inquest has required their decision to be revisited.


I wonder whether the NPA were aware of the Constitutional provision making it illegal to prosecute anyone named Zuma. It's the same provision granting anyone named Zuma exemption from answering questions in Parliament or answering to Parliament.


One of this provision's less well known sub-clauses is that it automatically designates any swimming pool owned by a Zuma as a fire-pool and a national key point, thus automatically qualifying it for the State subsidy of essential security installations at key points.

No doubt we will shortly hear a long overdue apology from the Public Protector, whose Nkandla report inexplicably failed to take the full ambit of this provision into account before she rushed to render her controversial, and unfortunate report.


So too, must the EFF and Julius Malema apologize. Since a Zuma cannot be compelled to answer questions in Parliament or to Parliament at all, it follows logically that a Zuma can't be compelled to explain to Parliament whether he did or did not know about alleged erroneous expenditure operating to his benefit. Clearly this gives rise to legal presumption that a Zuma can never be held to have been aware of any such misdirection of State expenses.


This is borne out by the last sub-clause, which specifically provides that it would be manifestly unfair in the above circumstances if a Zuma was compelled to pay back the money and thus such repayment is prohibited.


Go figure. The ANC were right all along! Spare a thought for Helen Zille. All that effort to get those tapes...and now this...


I conclude by mentioning that my application to change my surname to Siegfried Zuma will be filed at the High Court on Monday.

 SG WALTHER 2014

#Alex Crawford, #Skynews & English Gutter Journalism. Cost?

ENGLISH GUTTER JOURNALISM -
I love the English. Their sense of humour, their mentality and many other things or institutions which are English. This includes the royal family, Sky News, English pop bands, following English politics, especially PMQ's, English soccer, and English Comedies. (Yes Minister, Fawlty, Black Adder etc)


Despite the above, there is, I am afraid, a certain pleasure some of the English appear to take in putting down other people, and often other countries. English reporters & tv journalists often relish reporting about failings in other societies and they do so with a smugness and with a gratuitous malice which is often absent in reports by journalists from other countries.


This is especially so if the comparative situation back in England favours England. Perhaps they do so because it seems to make their viewers at home feel better about themselves and their own lives.


Shortly prior to the FIFA World Cup tournaments in South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014, the BBC, Sky and other English networks in particular seemed intent on outdoing each other in their reports on all manor of local problems, e.g. crime, drugs, poverty, etc. They competed too in trying to justify this as actual investigative journalism, and a minority of it might indeed have been so, but the timing tends to give them away.


It comes across as smug and superior.  Also as a bloody minded unwillingness to allow someone else, or some other country to enjoy their moment to shine without digging for some mud to throw at them. As a foreigner, I would take it personally, except of course, that I know the English a little better than that.


The English media don't only go for foreigners who shine, but for anyone who dares to shine, including their own.


Princess Diana is the most glaring example of this unpleasant, somewhat nasty, and largely English trait. They love to build one of their own up, and having done so, their media can't wait to catch them doing something wrong, so that they can tear them down equally as quickly. The poor +Susan Boyle is another. The English Media rushed to sing her praises when she first tried out for that talent show and surprised everyone with her talent, but seemingly couldn't wait to pull her down at every turn. She eventually sought medical help to deal with this if I recall.


Perhaps its inherently English to resent those who are successful or those whose turn it is to shine. Whatever the cause is, the English media appear to feed off the English public's need for such journalism. Either the English media need to change or the English public need to demand a change.


This is not to suggest that gutter reporting, or the need to build up and to destroy celebrities etc. is a uniquely English trait. The things I complain of can be found anywhere. Around the world, many people seem to find a perverse pleasure in watching so-called media Idols fall. Perhaps it makes ordinary folks feel better about what they may regard as their more mundane lives.


Few would deny, however, that of the World's media, the English are considered the worst. i.e. the cruellest. If I am right in this, then it follows, surely, that English media are in turn a reflection of the majority, or at least, a significant minority, of English media readers or watchers. 


A successful American Actor, businessman or comedian (can't recall which) was once asked on an English programme to describe what he viewed as the major difference between the English and Americans. I can't recall who it was, but I dare say that I believe the question was asked against the backdrop (at that time) of Americans being more successful in the applicable field than the English.


The answer the guy gave floored me. He immediately said that whilst the two nations were very similar in many ways (distant "English" speaking cousins after all) there was one distinct difference which he felt was telling.


If there's a cup which is filled to the middle, he said, most Americans will say its half-full whilst most English will say its half-empty.


And he felt that frame of mind had significant results.


The English fear failing since they feel they may be mocked when they fail, whilst Americans view a failure as an opportunity to learn a lesson and they believe those around them think similarly.


Why I wrote this article
I wrote this article in response to a report on Sky News by Alex Crawford following the Dewani Acquittal. See a link to the details in my Dewani Blog here:


http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/12/dewanitrial-to-after-blasts-case.html

In short, Alex attempts to create the impression that hit men are easy to find and to hire in South Africa. She does so in an attempt to prove her own misrepresentation of what the Judge said to be right. But the effect of her gutter journalism was to create an impression that South Africa is a place where hiring hit men is not uncommon.


The true facts are that she deliberately sought out people who seemed to be gangsters, and the crimes these people were recounting are crimes against fellow gangsters, mostly from opposite gangs. This type of criminal and the gang violence they are involved in has nothing whatsoever to do with the Dirwani case. 


This is not to deny that many South Africans are very poor and some are desperate enough to kill or even to agree to a hit for what, in the eyes of her English viewers, would be shockingly little.


The point is that whilst our crime rate is high, and whilst South Africa is violent, reports of anyone poor being paid by affluent locals or foreigners to do a hit on someone (outside of gang related violence which occurs largely in areas affluent people avoid) are highly uncommon.


Here is what the Judge actually said..word for word.....


Here is what the Judge actually said:

23.1.103.1 The accused met Mr. Tongo at the airport when he was looking for a taxi to take him and his wife to the Cape Grace Hotel. Mr. Tongo was a shuttle operator, he was neatly dressed and his car was in a good condition. It was never suggested that the meeting between the accused and Mr. Tongo was pre-arranged. In other words, the accused simply approached Mr. Tongo because he was the first taxi driver he came across as he walked out of the airport.
23.1.103.2 On their way to the Cape Grace Hotel Mr. Tongo attempted to sell his services as a guide to the accused and his wife, offering to show them around Cape Town. There could have been no indication to the accused that Mr. Tongo was anything other than a law abiding shuttle operator and a guide. Can this court, without some credible corroboration, for one moment accept that the accused, after he had been in Mr. Tongo's company for approximately 30 minutes, would without more approach him with a request that he find somebody to kill his "business partner".
23.1.103.3 It is even more improbable that Mr. Tongo, who says he has never been involved in any criminal activity, would virtually immediately agree to contact his friend Mr. Mbolombo to obtain the services of a hitman. Even if one accepts that he was offered R5 000,00 at this stage, it must be kept in mind that Mr. Tongo testified that in a good month he earned between R30 000,00 and R40 000,00 per month. Again the question arises: would such a person risk his vehicle, his income, his future and his freedom for a mere R5 000,00? It is equally strange that Mr. Tongo immediately approaches Mr. Mbolombo, who is a hotel receptionist, who on his own evidence, has the wherewithal to contact people telephonically because he works as a receptionist in a hotel. It is even stranger that Mr. Mbolombo, without any promise of financial gain, almost immediately agrees to assist by phoning Mr. Qwabe.


Despite this, the mean spirited, inaccurate report is happily broadcast to millions, and the impression it creates that South Africa is known for its hits by hit men and it implies or reinforces the myth that South Africa is not a safe place for foreigners to visit.


The facts are that most tourists who come to South Africa, and who take sensible precautions about where to go and not to go and who follow travel advice, will not have any problems and at worst a few may encounter some petty theft from a hotel room or the like. Exceptionally, serious crimes on foreigners do occur in South Africa, but often an analysis of the reasons for this show a departure from common sense precautions or travel advice.


Why do the English media love to dramatise  or exaggerate the situation here when it might cause many tourists to go elsewhere and cost South Africa, including our poor, dearly in the process?


The point I am making is that this type of Gutter Journalism is not worthy of a respectable journalist like Alex Crawford nor is it worthy of a channel like Sky News. I believe that if Alex looks back on her article and that interview with the gangsters against the passage of the judgement in question, she will admit that this was not her finest hour. At least, I would hope so.


English superiority
Alex's Sky news report, and similar reports misconstruing, focusing upon or exaggerating the violence in South Africa might play well to an English audience who may feel the need to feel superior about how much safer they are in England. Yet this might not be altogether true, and even if it is true, it might easily change. 


For example, we don't have soldiers being brutally attacked and killed for no reason in our streets. We don't have Jihadi plots, like the recent one foiled in England, to behead an innocent member of the public in public in England.


We don't have to be vigilant of a 7/7 type attack on South African public transport. We don't have one of our citizens on television murdering and beheading foreigners in Syria/Iraq. And most importantly, we don't face the threat of the return of hundreds of trained British born Isis Jihadi's now ready to take their attack to the English Infidels.


Yes, UK intelligence will try to prevent the return of these people but several million illegal foreigners now living in the UK are proof that this might not be possible.


I hope such mass attacks on English soil will never occur, but if they do, David Cameron or the next British PM will be on TV trying to say that Britain is Open for Business and for Tourism. England will need some friends and it will require foreign media to report in a balanced, non-hysterical manner on the security situation in the UK.


You will need to have foreigners saying, yes, there is a small risk, but we're still going to Britain because we believe its safe, and because if we don't, and if we change our plans, the terrorists win and that's bad for everyone.


How the English media, and their readers and viewers, revel in or refuse to revel in the challenges facing other countries may one day come back to bite England at a time when the English may find that they have need of some friends.


Siegfried Walther 2014

#Dewanitrial: Nothing to mop up after Judge #Traverso A-Bomb blasts State' case.

#Dewanitrial:  Nothing to mop up after Judge #Traverso A-Bomb blasts State' case.


I notice that the Mail & Guardian called the Judgment a "shock judgment". The Family of the Deceased say that Dewani ought to have been made to testify and thus justice failed.  These views are not correct.


I also refer to the article which appeared in the UK's Independent two days ago.  


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/shrien-dewani-acquitted-six-reasons-the-case-was-dismissed-9910478.html


Western Cape High Court Cape Town


Two days ago, on 10 December 2014 the Honourable Judge Traverso DJP delivered her judgement on the Defences' application in terms of Section 174  of the Criminal Procedure Act.


Simply put, at the end of the State case, the defence are entitled to apply i.t.o. Sec 174 for the dismissal of a weak state case. This provision saves costs and prevents everyone from wasting their time continuing with a criminal trial where the State's case has, to all intents and purposes, collapsed.


In essence the test is whether the State has adduced sufficient evidence upon which a Court might, but not necessarily would, reasonably convict.


If that threshold is not met, the Accused is entitled to acquittal.


COMMENTS:


In my professional view, Judge Traverso's Judgement was as correct as it was fit for all the purposes it was required to serve.


The learned Judge's judgment summarised each and every problem the state faced.


The State's case was replete with lies and contradictions from people who not only admitted to previously lying under oath, but were also the very criminals who admitted to, or were convicted of the death of the deceased i.e. they were not pillars of society.


During the cross examination of each State witness, the lies only multiplied.


The State's case against Dirwani, conspiracy to murder, was flimsy and relied upon the testimony of one alleged accomplice witness. Not only was that witnesses' version shown up by further lies under cross examination , but his version contradicted the evidence of the actual co-conspirators on various material aspects.


Furthermore, the learned Judge found that the State's version in any event suffered from certain inherent improbabilities.


Her Judgement was a veritable intercontinental nuclear ballistic missile and when it exploded, it demolished the State's case in its entirety, leaving nothing standing, and nothing to mop up.


Under these circumstances, there was no case for Dewani to meet and the Judge correctly dismissed the case.

SHOCK DECISION


The suggestion that the Honourable Judge's decision was in any way surprising or shocking is manifestly incorrect and it reveals how uniformed  some of the public, many of the media, and even some so-called legal experts were.


At the time the 174 application was being argued, I realised that the State's case had problems, but I did not appreciate the seriousness or the extent thereof, as I had not had the time to follow many media reports about the case. Some of articles I did chance upon were not particularly informative.  


From what little I did know at the time, however, I suspected that the State's case was in severe difficulty and I concluded that a 174 Application would be made, and that it was likely to succeed.


Acquittal became more likely due to length of postponement after argument.
When, after argument, the Judge postponed the matter for over a week, I realised that this, of itself, was a strong pointer towards a 174 acquittal.


If the Judge had been of the view that the State's case, although problematic, was sufficient to pass the 174 threshold, then she would have known this prior to the 174 application. A Judgement explaining why the application fell to be dismissed could easily have been cobbled together (mentioning three of four grounds) within hours of argument, if not, immediately after argument.


An Acquittal in this case would always have to be more detailed.  
The fact that the Judge postponed the matter suggested that she was strongly leaning in favour of a section 174 acquittal. If I'm correct, there are two main reasons why the learned Judge required time to prepare her judgment.



The Judge would have been mindful of the high media profile of this case both locally and internationally. In addition, many members of the public had misguidedly concluded that Dewani was probably guilty and that he needed to explain himself.


The learned Judge clearly appreciated that, notwithstanding that the facts of this case cried out for a Section 174 acquittal, the public and the media needed to be informed, chapter and verse, about what the problems in the State case were. This arguably required a methodical more detailed judgment than she might ordinarily have given.


The fact that the Judgment was clearly intended to be understood by various local and international audiences, and not just lawyers, is not a case of the Court bowing to public opinion. Instead, it shows how our Courts are willing to embrace the added interest by the public and others in our system of justice, and that the Court considers it to be its duty to ensure that the reasoning behind its judgments are clear to all and understood by all. This is to be applauded.


The second reason why the Judge would have required a week and a half would no doubt be to allow for the possibility, however remote, that whilst actually drafting a judgment favouring acquittal, the learned Judge might experience difficulties in the flow of the judgment. This would be cause to revisit her decision again and possibly, even change it. Having a preconceived notion of what one intends to rule is one thing, drafting it might well reveal flaws of logic which could change the picture entirely. This would accord with in the best traditions of our Judges.


And it explains the advantages of the South African criminal justice system which demands the production of a written, reasoned, judgment.


Towards the end of her judgment, the learned Judge dealt with the public's concerns and those of the family.


The Judge indicated that she understood that the acquittal would be unpopular amongst certain sections of the public. (Not that there were any rational reasons for such concern, mind you.) However, she pointed out that our Courts are Courts of Law.  In this respect she pointed out that no civilised Court can be influenced by public opinion in delivering a just judgment.


The Judge was quite correct. You can have mob-rule or justice. The fact is, justice cannot be delivered by having a head count of people who, for the most part, have no idea what the evidence in the case is all about, and have no concept about how to deal with contradictory evidence. 


(see my article on this blog about why protestors should not be allowed near Courts!)  
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-protestors-have-no-place-near-courts.html




DEWANI LYING UNDER OATH WAS UNLIKELY TO RESCUE STATE'S CASE IN ANY EVENT


The Judge also pointed out that even if Dewani had been forced to mount a defence, and even if he had lied in his evidence, the Court would still be left with the abundant lies of several self-confessed perjurers on the States' side, and also that of a lying accused.


Juries might convict in such a case, but no decent Judge applying the Beyond reasonable doubt test could convict the Accused in such an event (see other articles on this blog explaining why I regard jury trials as bordering on the barbaric)
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/10/does-oscartrial-show-southafrica-must.html


The concerns of the family
The learned judge recognised that the family had an interest in hearing the accused's version.


But ultimately, the Judge pointed out that she was obliged to apply the law and that she would not put the accused on his defence (in response to a shambolic state case) simply to satisfy the family's desire for the truth.


Having acknowledged and then properly dismissed the family's and the public's concerns as factors she could properly consider, the learned Judge concluded by arriving at her conclusion in accordance with the law, and did so without fear or favour.


The comprehensive Judgement is a masterpiece. The analysis of the problems in the State's case was intended to show the public and the media, both local and international, that the State's case was in tatters and I dare say it largely succeeded, if one has regard to most media reports. See the Independent's summary (link above).


Another victory for SA HIGH COURT JUSTICE


The judgement represents another victory for Justice in the South African High Courts.  As I have argued elsewhere on this blog, our Judges, unlike Juries, deliver carefully considered rational Judgements. Juries only say guilty or not-guilty. (This seems both primitive and highly unsatisfactory..)
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/10/does-oscartrial-show-southafrica-must.html




Nobody who has considered the Court's judgement could possibly fail to understand why the Court ruled as it did, and no rational person could afterwards argue that the Judge was not correct in ruling as she did.  


At least, anyone overseas who has witnessed our High Courts in action, and who has considered the detailed Judgments delivered, ought to realise that visitors to this country are likely to receive a fair trial here in our High Courts if they happen to find themselves accused of a crime.


I now turn to respond to media and public comments:


+Sky News   Alex Crawford's inane comments


At the outset, I should point out that I normally enjoy Alex Crawford's reports and I must also confess to being a regular Sky news viewer. Thus, it gives me no pleasure to say what I do hereunder, and trust it will be received as constructive criticism.


"Judge wont' want to buck the trend in this high profile case."


On the morning of,  and prior to the Verdict, +Alex Crawford @AlexCrawfordSky
correctly mentioned that in SA Courts, over ninety per cent of 174 applications are refused. Amazingly, however, she went on to say that she could not imagine that the Judge in such a high profile case would "buck the trend".


This showed a remarkable lack of understanding on her part of the proper functioning of any Court. Judges ought to apply the law without fear or favour. The fact that this case was a high profile one is without relevance.


Furthermore, it suggests that her legal advisors' had no knowledge of Judge Traverso as a person. Judge Traverso is known to be a no-nonsense Judge who will not allow any "perceptions of popularity" to influence how she carries out her judicial duties. 


"174 Acquittal would suggest case should never have been brought."
The second remarkable statement from Alex was that if the 174 application was granted, it would mean that the State ought never to have brought the case in the first place. That is only one of many conclusions one could draw from a 174 acquittal. Equally, a 174 acquittal will be granted where the State's case initially appears to be strong, but where it disintegrates piece by piece under cross examination.


It is not for me to say this case should never have been brought. Despite the risks of accomplice evidence, and the reasonable possibility that accomplice evidence could collapse during the trial due to past lies told being exposed etc., the State can't be blamed for chancing their arm if they believe that enough of the Accomplice's evidence will nonetheless survive cross examination intact to force the Accused into the witness box.


This case failed mainly because, under the pressure of cross-examination, further versions were advanced and the explanations for these inconsistent versions became increasingly incoherent and implausible. That happens when people are lying. That is a good thing.


Had the trial not occurred, these lies, and the improbabilities of the State's case, to which I shall return below, may never have come to light. The fact is we can now conclude that this collapse occurred mainly because there may indeed be no truth at all in the accusations against Dewani.


"SA Police and prosecuting authorities reputations damaged further."
To be fair, Alex Crawford did manage to point out one obvious fact on which everyone is agreed. Like in the Oscar Trial, the South African Police and to a lesser extent, some decision makers amongst the SA prosecuting authorities have been shown to be seriously wanting.


We all agree on that and I hope that the Statements by Senior officials that an investigation into these failings will be launched so that lessons can be learned and can be put into practice. As things stand, the South African Police Service, in particular, have emerged from these trials looking quite incompetent at times, and certainly below par when judged by international standards.


It's easy to hire a killer in SA
The Judge found the Taxi driver's evidence - that within half an hour of Dewani's landing / arrival in Cape Town, Dewani, (having just met that driver) felt comfortable enough to raise the issue of whether that Driver could arrange for a hit on someone to be highly improbable.


Whilst that version is of course possible, I agree with the Court that it is highly improbable. I am not going to explain the obvious in detail.


But if Dewani seriously wanted to arrange to kill his wife, he would surely have wanted to make sure that the person he was going to approach could be trusted and would also be likely to co-operate. After all, the last thing he would need was for the Driver to say no. That would have ended his plans, if he were intelligent. Why?


Driver would be able to tell the police of that request at once, or if his wife were to subsequently die in a later plot, he could tell the police of Dewani's approach any time in the future.  I could go on and on as to the other common sense reasons why this version is highly improbable, but you can work them out for yourself, if you stop to put yourself in Dewani's shoes and to plan the event yourself.


Alex misquoted the Judgement, saying that the Judge was wrong in her alleged view that one couldn't find a hired killer so quickly in South Africa, she then engaged in gutter journalism. She went out with her crew to "Ganglands", interviewed, some masked criminals who may or may not have been playing up to the cameras for effect, and who said they would easily kill someone for R15 000 or so, and had in fact, done so. Alex suggested that she found these killers easily, and thus attempted to pour contempt on the Court's finding.


First of all, I don't imagine, for one minute, that it took Alex half an hour to find and interview these criminals. If she did, it was because she made enquiries at the Courts from people attending at criminal trials. People who had criminal connections. Most South Africans I know wouldn't know where to start finding such people.


There are indeed many poor people in South Africa, and some are or may be willing to kill for a shockingly low reward, but the suggestion that these people are all over the place and easily found, or that they are just waiting to be found, is overstated. Its gutter journalism of the worst sort. What makes it worse is that prior to the insert, she deliberately misquoted the judge. The judge did not say that it was not easy to find a hired killer in South Africa in a reasonably short time. She did say that it was unlikely that a foreigner who wanted to hire one, would rush to ask the first available person they encountered within an hour of their arrival in the country. The Judge was of course, quite right.


Here is what the Judge actually said:


23.1.103.1 The accused met Mr. Tongo at the airport when he was looking for a taxi to take him and his wife to the Cape Grace Hotel. Mr. Tongo was a shuttle operator, he was neatly dressed and his car was in a good condition. It was never suggested that the meeting between the accused and Mr. Tongo was pre-arranged. In other words, the accused simply approached Mr. Tongo because he was the first taxi driver he came across as he walked out of the airport.
23.1.103.2 On their way to the Cape Grace Hotel Mr. Tongo attempted to sell his services as a guide to the accused and his wife, offering to show them around Cape Town. There could have been no indication to the accused that Mr. Tongo was anything other than a law abiding shuttle operator and a guide. Can this court, without some credible corroboration, for one moment accept that the accused, after he had been in Mr. Tongo's company for approximately 30 minutes, would without more approach him with a request that he find somebody to kill his "business partner".
23.1.103.3 It is even more improbable that Mr. Tongo, who says he has never been involved in any criminal activity, would virtually immediately agree to contact his friend Mr. Mbolombo to obtain the services of a hitman. Even if one accepts that he was offered R5 000,00 at this stage, it must be kept in mind that Mr. Tongo testified that in a good month he earned between R30 000,00 and R40 000,00 per month. Again the question arises: would such a person risk his vehicle, his income, his future and his freedom for a mere R5 000,00? It is equally strange that Mr. Tongo immediately approaches Mr. Mbolombo, who is a hotel receptionist, who on his own evidence, has the wherewithal to contact people telephonically because he works as a receptionist in a hotel. It is even stranger that Mr. Mbolombo, without any promise of financial gain, almost immediately agrees to assist by phoning Mr. Qwabe.




Any person, who wants to arrange for a hit, would surely wish to get away with it, and also not wish to end up dead in the process themselves. This would require pre-planning prior to arriving in SA or it would require taking some time to survey the lay of the land upon arriving in SA. Only a fool would rush into hiring someone to do a hit. I deal further with this Alex Crawford aspect in a separate article. "English Gutter Journalism"






http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/12/alex-crawford-skynews-english-gutter.html


The Deceased's family's view that Justice was not served


The Deceased's family have announced their view that Justice was not served in that Dewani was not forced to testify at the trial.


I do sympathise with the family of the Deceased and I understand their need to have answers regarding what actually took place. Hence their wish to have had Dewani testify.


It should be said however, that insofar as this is a criticism of Judge Traverso's decision or her Ladyship's handling of the case, such criticism is unjustified, misplaced and highly unfortunate. The Court had a decision to make. In doing so, it had to apply the law in an even handed manner as far as both the State and the Accused was concerned.  This involves sparing an accused from having to defend himself in response to a chaotic case, or in a case which is one where, as the Judge put it, it became impossible to distinguish where the lies ended and the truth (what little of it there might have been) started.


The irony is that the South African authorities' decision to prosecute despite knowing the risks of using accomplice evidence, and despite the risks of failure of case during cross examination, has probably given the family the answer they seek, although it might not have been the one they wanted.


The public often love to believe that clever lawyers can use cross examination to confuse state witnesses, particularly less educated or intelligent state witnesses and thus muddy the truth.


The fact is however, that whether one is less intelligent or highly intelligent, if one is telling the truth, despite the rigours of cross-examination, and despite any contradictions on some points, a basic core version mostly remains....and remains unshaken.


Experienced Judges, most of whom are former practitioners, are alive to the tricks and techniques of defence counsel, and they also make certain allowances for less intelligent witnesses. This may even involve upholding an objection to an unfair question which is misleading. (i.e.. shielding that witness from being badgered etc.)


The Courts take the evidence of the witnesses, the witnesses demeanour, the corroboration if any by objective or forensic evidence or by other witnesses into account in a holistic fashion in assessing the credibility or weight to be attached to particular portions of a witnesses' evidence. That evidence is also considered against probabilities arsing from human experience.


The fact is that the Court concluded that the accomplices who gave evidence for the State were intelligent. Intelligent witnesses who are lying, however, fold under cross examination as easily as does anyone else. They often try to second guess where the cross examiner is going to their own detriment. Their heightened appreciation of the mounting contradictions, when they are caught out, often results in attempts to explain or to justify which, more often than not, results in further contradictions.


In this case, the only witness whose evidence was supposed to implicate Dewani in the alleged conspiracy, ended up with several contradictory versions. More often than not, this shows that his evidence was false. In particular he had a self-confessed role in the crime and he was a self-confessed liar. His version was also at odds with those of other accomplices in several material respects.


These factors increase the probability that the State's version that Dewani was involved was a fabricated one.


This likelihood finds support if one considers the inherent improbabilities mentioned by the learned Judge in her judgment. I have dealt with one such improbability already. Another is that a taxi driver, who said he earned around R20 000 + a month from his operation would agree to set up a murder for a paltry R5000.00 and that he would risk his car ( worth many times the amount he was to be paid) being destroyed or confiscated as evidence to boot.


The most likely truth is that this was a botched kidnapping for ransom attempt in which Dirwani was probably not involved.


When murder charges against those involved seemed likely, the willingness to implicate a mastermind in exchange for leniency could have proved too much.




The public's outrage


Almost from the outset, many members of the public regarded the unannounced but unproven allegations from the authorities or the media as fact.


Of course, Dewani's attempts to avoid extradition only served to reinforce the beliefs of those who considered him guilty. In addition his perceived delaying tactics also swelled the number of his accusers.


The problem is that the public often fail to recognise that the allegations which the State make against an accused often forms part of a theory the police or prosecutors have distilled from the known "facts" at the time. In high profile cases, the pressure to solve the case can lead to rushed conclusions or theories, and worse, to a failure to test such a theory by the elimination of other suspects or contrary theories.


In high profile cases, this can lead to the temptation by someone, often a superior of the actual investigators, to prematurely call a news conference to announce that they have a so-called watertight case. Needless to say, after such an announcement, if any contrary theory is raised by a subordinate, the pressure to prevent embarrassment to senior officers or officials often trumps any search for an alternate truth.


There are numerous local and international examples of police or prosecutors refusing to budge from their initial theories of a case, resulting in failed prosecutions, or worse, (particularly with jury trials) incorrect convictions which are only set aside years later or not at all.


There remains speculation whether Dewani's problems started when someone high up in the State felt that it would be less harmful to South Africa's image as a tourist destination if it turned out that the Deceased's death occurred at the instance of foreigner (the husband) instead of being a hijacking by locals only.


Of course, such a view, if it existed, was foolish because it suggests that South Africa is the place for tourists to come to if one wishes to arrange quick, cheap hits on one's spouse. This is equally if not more damaging to the country's image than a murder /  hijacking by locals.


However foolish or ill-thought out any such view may have been, if it was indeed held by someone senior enough, it may have caused or resulted in suggestions to the persons first arrested that if they identified the ringleader or master-mind, and gave evidence against him, it might assist in reduced sentences.  Who knows?




Whilst the public may have cause to be unhappy with aspects of the police's investigation of the case, they have no cause to quibble with the Judge's verdict or her handling of the case.


On this score, the accused's sexual history, once admitted by the Defence, was then correctly, in my view, excluded by the learned Judge. The basis of this exclusion is that such evidence was irrelevant and would have ultimately been inconclusive. The rules applicable to such evidence are fairly universal and an English or US Court may well have ruled similarly.


But, the point is, even if such "character" evidence were to have been admitted it would not have been conclusive, and certainly, would have made no difference to the 174 application's outcome. The admission of such evidence would not have rescued or resuscitated the State's so-called case.


So the same result would have occurred. Acquittal.


Siegfried Walther 10 December 2014