OMEN
05-02-2006, 12:11 AM
http://www.sabcnews.com/article/images/0,1059,32270,00.gif
Johannesburg - It's D-Day for former deputy president Jacob Zuma on Tuesday when his defence team submits its closing arguments in his rape trial.
This is when his counsel, Kemp J Kemp SC, presents his final arguments and rebuts what he can of the State's final arguments which ended last week.
Once Kemp has finished his closing arguments, Judge Willem van der Merwe probably will need only a few days before delivering a ruling.
Kemp started his closing arguments on Friday. He focused mainly on the sexual history of Zuma's accuser, Khwezi - as she has been dubbed by women's-rights groups.
He maintained that she was an habitual liar who regularly made "false" accusations of rape, and that she did so this time either to discredit Zuma, or because she had a sexual disorder.
Many questions still unanswered
Kemp, however, has not yet answered the following questions, on which the State's argument is mostly based:
# was Zuma really HIV-negative? The State argued that Zuma might be HIV-positive, otherwise he would not have dared have sex without a condom with an HIV-positive woman;
# the defence was also in possession of Zuma's most-recent test results, which apparently proved that he was negative, but these results were never handed in to the court as evidence;
# the State maintained that this proved that Zuma was actually positive. It would have been a further crime if Zuma actually had been positive but had not told Khwezi of his status before having sex with her, as this could have endangered her own health, the State argued;
# why didn't Michael Hulley, Zuma's attorney, testify?
He was at Zuma's side throughout the police's initial and subsequent visits.
Hulley would have been able to shed more light on whether the police had asked Zuma to point out certain things, or whether his rights had been read to him.
Zuma has maintained that police failed to follow the correct procedures, yet Hulley was never called to testify. The State maintained this was because he would not have supported Zuma's version; and
# was baby oil used during their night of passion? According to Zuma's version, he had massaged Khwezi with baby oil before having sex with her.
The State said last week there were no visible signs of baby oil on Khwezi's kanga, which was an indication that Zuma had lied about what had happened that evening.
Judge Van der Merwe agreed that it would have been a "messy affair" if Zuma had used baby oil.
http://www.news24.com/Images/Source_Images/beeld_small.jpg
Johannesburg - It's D-Day for former deputy president Jacob Zuma on Tuesday when his defence team submits its closing arguments in his rape trial.
This is when his counsel, Kemp J Kemp SC, presents his final arguments and rebuts what he can of the State's final arguments which ended last week.
Once Kemp has finished his closing arguments, Judge Willem van der Merwe probably will need only a few days before delivering a ruling.
Kemp started his closing arguments on Friday. He focused mainly on the sexual history of Zuma's accuser, Khwezi - as she has been dubbed by women's-rights groups.
He maintained that she was an habitual liar who regularly made "false" accusations of rape, and that she did so this time either to discredit Zuma, or because she had a sexual disorder.
Many questions still unanswered
Kemp, however, has not yet answered the following questions, on which the State's argument is mostly based:
# was Zuma really HIV-negative? The State argued that Zuma might be HIV-positive, otherwise he would not have dared have sex without a condom with an HIV-positive woman;
# the defence was also in possession of Zuma's most-recent test results, which apparently proved that he was negative, but these results were never handed in to the court as evidence;
# the State maintained that this proved that Zuma was actually positive. It would have been a further crime if Zuma actually had been positive but had not told Khwezi of his status before having sex with her, as this could have endangered her own health, the State argued;
# why didn't Michael Hulley, Zuma's attorney, testify?
He was at Zuma's side throughout the police's initial and subsequent visits.
Hulley would have been able to shed more light on whether the police had asked Zuma to point out certain things, or whether his rights had been read to him.
Zuma has maintained that police failed to follow the correct procedures, yet Hulley was never called to testify. The State maintained this was because he would not have supported Zuma's version; and
# was baby oil used during their night of passion? According to Zuma's version, he had massaged Khwezi with baby oil before having sex with her.
The State said last week there were no visible signs of baby oil on Khwezi's kanga, which was an indication that Zuma had lied about what had happened that evening.
Judge Van der Merwe agreed that it would have been a "messy affair" if Zuma had used baby oil.
http://www.news24.com/Images/Source_Images/beeld_small.jpg