WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2007-02-20 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
‘The truth must come out’
Lenore Oliver
February 17 2007 at 04:04PM
A modern-day tale of David and Goliath is playing itself out in the Baby Jordan trial in the Cape High Court.
On one hand is the beautiful, educated Dina Rodrigues, who, just like the mighty Goliath, is fully girded with the money to pay for a top-notch legal team.
On the other is an unsophisticated, poorly educated 18-year-old youth who, despite the odds, is willing to put his liberty on the line to pierce the seemingly impenetrable armour of his opponent.
While both are charged with the murder of six-month-old Jordan Norton at her Lansdowne home in June 2005 – and effectively have the same objective of beating the murder rap – they are now pitted against each other.
‘Scandalous, scurrilous’ allegations
And the crowds are flocking to Keerom Street in their scores to see the epic fight in the Cape High Court building’s Courtroom Two.
Although the youth, 16 at the time of the killing, has now turned 18 and usually could be named, Judge Basheer Waglay made a temporary ruling that his identity be withheld.
Without a hint of nervousness, the youth leaned on his elbows in the witness box this week and fingered Rodrigues as the mastermind behind the gruesome killing.
He then claimed her lawyers had offered him money to keep silent, which could have dire consequences for their reputations as well as for Rodrigues’s case.
Despite being in the witness box for a gruelling two-and-a-half days, the youth remained unruffled and defiantly withstood the glares of Rodrigues and his three other co-accused.
His former lawyer, Charles Simon, he said, told him if he kept the details of what happened on the day of Baby Jordan’s murder a secret, he would be paid R20 000 – money which Simon said would be procured by Rodrigues’s “attorneys”.
Another piece of advice he got from Simon and Rodrigues’s lawyers, he said, was that if he testified, he would mess up his chances of a successful appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Asked by Paul Eia (for Rodrigues) if he feared for his life by testifying, the youth was adamant that his motive for coming out with the “truth”, is because he’s always wanted to do so and that he had been coerced into keeping silent by his co-accused.
Talk of his life being in danger did not faze him at all, he said, and he even asked correctional supervision officers why he had to don a bulletproof vest each morning.
On top of that, he said, he wanted Jordan’s mother, Natasha Norton, to know the circumstances surrounding her daughter’s murder.
The youth’s revelations prompted Rodrigues’s lawyers to reconsider their case and they requested a postponement for consultation with a view to possibly taking the stand to defend themselves against the allegations.
John van der Berg, also for Rodrigues, was eager to point out to Judge Waglay that the issue was not about the defence team’s reputation, but rather the effect the allegations had had on their client’s case.
He labelled the allegations “scandalous, scurrilous and unnecessary”.
Fascination with the 14-month trial seems undiminished. This week saw another packed courtroom with even the court’s maintenance staff popping in to see the action.
When news of the alleged bribe offer travelled through the court’s corridors, lawyers from other cases filled the benches to hear the testimony firsthand.
As usual, the Norton and Rodrigues families sat at opposite ends of the courtroom, both looking frustrated by yet another postponement.
The trial resumes on Wednesday, when Rodrigues’s lawyers will indicate whether they will take the stand over the alleged bribe.
Judge Waglay will also rule on whether the 18-year-old’s identity can be revealed.
This article was originally published on page 10 of Saturday Argus on February 17, 2007
Source: Saturday Argus on February 17, 2007
[Posted by: ]