Loggi first mentioned the saga of the drunk judge who smashed into his neighbours wall and then began screaming racial obscenities while being recorded?
Don't those eyes look glazed over?
I reckon Motata's potato is cooked. This initial trial is about the admissibility of the recordings (five of them) and this latest ploy by the defence is stretching it a bit far.
It is going to be enjoyable watching a white-hating, racist, affirmative action appointee squirming when the proper trial starts.
- - - - -
The man who recorded Judge Nkola Motata's alleged rantings has been described as unreliable and a liar who had an axe to grind with the judge.
According to Judge Motata's defence counsel, advocate Danie Dorfling, Richard Baird, whose garden wall the judge crashed into and who also made the recordings, refused to settle amicably with the judge on the morning of the accident.
But a few hours later he supplied the Sunday Times with the "scoop" and pictures of the crash scene and laid a charge with the police only a day-and-a-half later.
Dorfling made the statement during the state and defence's closing arguments at the trial-within-a-trial at the Johannesburg magistrate's court on Monday. The recordings, whose admissibility and authenticity are in question, are at the centre of the arguments.
Dorfling said the five video clips Baird took early that morning must be declared inadmissible because the state had failed to provide evidence of an admissible nature and that submitting the recordings as evidence would breach Judge Motata's right to a fair trial.
The prosecutor, advocate Zaais van Zyl, had earlier stated it was seldom in a drunk driving case that the court heard the alleged speech of a drunk driver and that the recordings were "an opportunity not to be missed".
He also said the recordings were objective evidence. Van Zyl added that eyewitnesses, whose accuracy had not been challenged, were made to listen to the recordings and that none of the experts called by the defence had testified that the clips had been tampered with.
Van Zyl said Baird, the former IT manager for a JSE-listed company, who is now a fish farmer, had a strong background in securing computer information. Dorfling, however, attacked Baird, saying he was a liar, unreliable, untruthful and that his evidence was ridden with inaccuracies.
He said it was also clear that in the process of making the recording, Baird made a selection of what to record and what not to. "He wants to convince the court that he did not tamper with the recording, that he did not have the skill.
But the recording can easily be manipulated and he had software that enabled him to change the contents. It is easy to change, he clearly has skills," Dorfling said. "Mr Baird quite clearly had an axe to grind with the accused. He cannot be said to be an ideal.
"If the two police officers who testified are to be believed, then the recordings could not have happened at the time that Baird said they did. The officers were very specific at how they checked their time," Dorfling said. The case continues.