Zuma+Rape+Trial+reports,+Days+6+to+9,+Friends+of+JZ

Zuma Rape Trial Day 9
=State expected to close its case when rape trial resumes in a week=

Friends of Jacob Zuma, Johannesburg,** **16/3/2006 12:00:00 AM
The rape trial of ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma has been postponed for a week after the State’s 11th witness completed his testimony on Thursday. Superintendent Peter Linda, the investigating officer on the matter, may be the last witness the State calls before it rests its case.

However, prosecutor Charin de Beer did not officially close the state’s case when she requested that Judge Willem van der Merwe adjourn the case until next Thursday, March 23. It is believed the state wants time to assess its case before deciding whether to call other witnesses or handing up any other evidence. The state had over 30 people on its witness list including Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils and KwaZulu-Natal Finance MEC Zweli Mkhize, but only called 11 including the complainant and her mother.

De Beer handed in the rest of the witnesses’ written statements to the court and these people will now be available to the Defence if they want to call them to testify.

Once the state closes its case, Zuma’s legal team is expected to contest the admissibility of some of the State’s evidence including the testimony of Police Commissioner Norman Taioe who presided over the rape investigation. Taioe’s evidence was called into further question on Thursday following contradictions between his and Linda’s evidence.

It is also expected that the Defence will apply for the case to be dismissed by invoking Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act. They could argue that the case be thrown out on the basis that the State failed to present a convincing case against Zuma and therefore it is not necessary for the Defence to answer to the allegations.

The ninth day of the rape trial began with the state calling a virology specialist, Professor Desmond James Martin to the stand to testify about the chances of HIV infection from unprotected sex. The complainant has claimed she was raped by Zuma without a condom but Zuma has claimed that they had consensual sex.

Martin told the court that the male risk of contracting HIV from unprotected sex was 0.03% or three in every 10 000 people. The risk of contracting HIV could increase to 0.1% or one in 1 000 people if the HIV-affected person has a high viral load and a low CD4 count. The CD4 count is a measure of the clinical symptoms of Aids.

Martin said unprotected sex could lead to sexually transmitted infections which increase CD4 cell loss. The window period for testing whether a person is positive is from 14 days to six weeks. Developing full blown Aids could take between seven to 10 years.

If a person is already infected with HIV, they still face the risk of super-reinfection which increases the progression of the disease, said Martin. He said trauma, micro-abrasions, lack of lubrication, genital ulceration and the lack of circumcision increases the risk of HIV infection.

A doctor who had examined the complainant after the alleged rape told the court earlier this week that she had tear of less than 5mm on her “fourchette posterior” of her vagina. The woman has claimed that she is HIV positive but no evidence of this was produced in the court

During cross-examination, Zuma’s counsel Kemp J Kemp asked whether the degree of lubrication was a factor in HIV infection. Martin agreed that the amount of lubrication during sexual intercourse could impact on the infection rate.

The state then called Superintendent Linda of the police Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences Unit to the stand. He said he was present at the police station when the complainant laid the charge against Zuma and was later assigned as the investigating officer to the case by police management in Pretoria.

He explained how his superiors at the police’s Pretoria headquarters arranged for him and Taioe to meet Zuma at his traditional home at Nkandla. He said they were asked to wait in one of the traditional huts at the homestead and Zuma came in to greet them. He told them he was busy in a meeting and would see them afterwards. Linda said Zuma’s attorney Michael Hulley then came in and said they were still in consultation regarding Zuma’s corruption trial in Durban. After some time, Zuma and Hulley came back and handed them a written statement.

Taioe took the statement and warned Zuma about his rights and the reason for their visit Linda said. After receiving the statement, they told Zuma they would like to inspect his home in Forest Town, Johannesburg and take photographs inside. Because Zuma was to appear in court in connection with the corruption trial later that week, it was decided that they would meet him the next Monday at the house in Johannesburg.

When they went to the house, Taioe told Hulley that they were on a “follow-up” visit. Linda said Taioe asked Zuma to show them the “alleged crime scene”. He says Zuma and Hulley led them to a room on the ground floor of the double storey house. People were asleep and the bedroom and they waited outside while the guests were woken up and got dressed. Linda says Taioe then said in a “cool voice”, “Is this where it happened”. Linda said he was not sure at whom this was directed, or whether it was a question or comment but that Zuma responded “Yes”. He says Hulley standing next to them at the time.

Photographs were taken of the room and he then asked to be shown the study and later Zuma’s bedroom. When they went in Zuma’s room, Linda says Taioe again asked in “his cool voice” “What happened here”. Zuma said “nothing happened here”, said Linda. After pictures were taken of the various rooms, they asked Zuma for blood and hair samples. Linda says he drove to the medical laboratory at Hillbrow and picked up a Dr Nkobi, the head district surgeon, and a Sr Phindi whom he brought back to Zuma’s house.

Linda says he accompanied the doctor, Zuma and Hulley to the study where Nkobi took blood, and pubic and head hair samples. He took the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Pretoria later that afternoon. He explained that after the complainant had laid the charge, he had taken the medical samples from the woman as well as her kanga to the laboratory for testing.

Under cross-examination, Kemp asked whether Taioe was Linda’s superior and entitled to give him instructions. Linda said this was so. Kemp asked whether he was aware that Taioe had given evidence over the two preceding days. Linda said he was not present inside the court at the time so he didn’t know what Taioe had said. Kemp asked whether Linda had read any newspapers over the past two days. He claimed that he does not read newspapers because he does not have the time to do so.

Kemp asked if he was aware of the publicity around the case and as the investigating officer, did he not want to see what the media was saying. Linda said people reported as they wished and he was not concerned about media reports. He said he was a unit commander and too busy to read the papers.

Kemp asked why it was that there was a contradiction between Linda and Taioe’s evidence about the sequence of events during their meeting at Nkandla. Taioe said Hulley was the first person to meet them on their arrival while Linda said Zuma was the first person they saw. Linda insisted his version was correct and Kemp suggested that one of them had given the court incorrect evidence.

A heated exchange ensued between Kemp and Linda about whether the policemen had followed the correct procedures when they took a statement from Zuma. Kemp also argued, as he did with Taioe, that the policemen failed to properly inform Zuma about his rights. Kemp asked why Linda did not fill out the date, place and time the alleged offence was committed on the relevant police forms as is required by regulations. Linda said he was not compelled to do so. Kemp pointed out that there was a clear indication on the form that these procedures had to be followed.

An agitated Linda said he would only have filled in the information if it was “important”. He said because Zuma and Hulley had given them a statement, it meant they knew why they were there. Kemp asked since there was conversation regarding the date the alleged rape happened, “did it not strike you that the information was of some importance?” Linda said they had merely highlighted the date but he did not think it was important to note the details on the forms.

Kemp asked whether Taioe had been the person in charge during the visit to Zuma’s Johannesburg house. Linda said he was the “senior person”. Kemp asked why it was that Linda and Taioe had different versions of where the commissioner informed Hulley that they were making a follow-up visit. He asked whether Taioe should not be believed because he said they were outside the house when they spoke to Hulley while Linda said they were in the lounge. Linda said he would stick to his version. Kemp repeatedly argued that the policemen had not followed correct procedures to inform Zuma about his rights.

Kemp asked whether the policemen had informed Zuma where complainant said the crime scene was. “In my mind, I knew it happened in the guest room. It was not necessary to explain. I was told at some stage that it happened in the guest room,” said Linda. Kemp asked how he knew that the room they were taken to was the guest room. Linda said it was because people were asleep inside. He said the complainant had also told them the room was on the ground floor.

Kemp asked why Linda had asked to see the study. He replied that it was because the complainant had explained that something had happened in the study. “There is not a single reference to the study in the complainant’s statement,” Kemp said. Linda said he asked the police photographer to take pictures of the study. Kemp asked if that was the case, why there were no pictures of the study in the evidence file. “It depends what it means to take photographs of the study,” Linda said. He said there were pictures of the study door in the file.

Kemp said Linda’s version of events was not borne out in the photographer’s notes as she had not mentioned the study in the key in the file. Kemp repeatedly asked Linda about the exchanges he and Taioe had with Zuma while in the house. Linda insisted that Taioe only said the things he had already told the court, and that he had not mentioned anything else while they were there. Kemp said that Taioe had claimed during his evidence that he had asked about the sheets on the bed and that he had been told they were changed since the incident.

Linda said he would not have mentioned anything about the sheets because the complainant had laid the complaint two days after the incident and he assumed the sheets would have been changed.

Kemp asked whether Linda was aware of the report in the Sunday newspaper when the complainant said she was not raped. Linda said he had heard about such talk and that he had been called by several journalists enquiring about the case. Kemp asked whether he had not been interested what the complainant had said to the newspapers. Linda said he was surprised how the complainant was able to communicate with journalists while in witness protection.

Before ending his cross-examination Kemp told Linda that Zuma’s version was that he had not been asked to point out the alleged crime scene, that he had never said the guest room was where the incident happened and that he did not say that nothing happened in his bedroom.

Kemp then informed the judge that during his cross-examination of the complainant, he had asked her about a man called Goeieman who had allegedly been expelled from the seminary after she accused him of raping her. Kemp said he had later learnt that the person involved was in fact called “Matsoko” and that he had given the name to De Beer and asked her to find out from the complainant if the man had raped her.

De Beer told the judge that the complainant said Matsoko did not rape her and that she did not know such a person. Van der Merwe said it was therefore not necessary to recall the witness to question her about Matsoko. He said this did not preclude the Defence from recalling her for any other purpose. Both legal teams agreed.

De Beer then told the judge she would enter into evidence certain documentation including the statistics Kemp had asked the psychologist Merle Friedman about. These statistics reflected how many women tended to “freeze” rather than protest or fight while they were being raped. She also entered into evidence itemised billing and ownership records of the cellular phone numbers they had investigated. Documentation was also handed up from the DNA tests conducted on samples from Zuma and the complainant.

All other statements from witnesses who had not been called to testify were handed up and these witnesses now become available to the Defence team. Part of Zuma’s bail conditions was that he was not to make contact with any state witness directly or indirectly before they were called to testify.

The judge said as per agreement of the two legal teams in his chambers earlier in the day, the matter would be adjourned until March 23. He said the legal teams could fax him any paperwork in the meantime but that he preferred that “everything happens in open court”.

“I expect that all of us will be working in the coming days,” Van der Merwe said.


 * Above from: http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=85**

Zuma Rape Trial Day 8
=Police evidence in rape case could become inadmissable=

Friends of Jacob Zuma, Johannesburg,** **15/3/2006 12:00:00 AM
The defence team in the Jacob Zuma rape trial may ask the Johannesburg High court to declare “inadmissible” the evidence of a top policeman investigating the case after it was shown that the investigators either lied to the court or left vital information out of their statements.

After an intense exchange between Gauteng Head of Detective Services Commissioner Norman Taioe and Zuma’s lawyer Kemp J Kemp during cross examination, the defence indicated to Judge Willem van der Merwe that they may challenge the admissibility of Taioe’s evidence.

If the defence succeeds with this application, it would prove a huge blow to the state’s case as it would mean the investigation into the rape charge was compromised and undermined.

The court also heard evidence from attorney Yusuf Ismail Dockrat who told how he was asked by KwaZulu-Natal Finance MEC Zweli Mkhize and a Zuma aide Ranjeni Munusamy to consult with the complainant in the matter.

Dockrat said he met with the complainant and her mother to discuss the rape charge, and at this meeting the mother raised with him the possibility of withdrawing the charge. However, the complainant was determined to go ahead. Asked during cross-examination whether either Mkhize or Munusamy asked him to do anything “improper”, Dockrat replied “No”.

The court earlier saw an elaborate slide presentation of telephone records of all the main players in the case, including Zuma, the complainant and her mother, Mkhize, Munusamy, Dockrat and two women whom the complainant had earlier referred to as aunts.

The slides show frantic telephone traffic between all the players after the alleged rape incident on November 2. It also shows that the complainant sent Zuma 54 SMSs between September and November 2.

The eighth day of the high-profile case began with Kemp continuing his cross-examination of Taioe. Kemp asked whether Taioe was aware that the state’s decision to prosecute would be based on the contents of the police docket, and that everything had to be done “by the book”. He said he was.

Kemp again questioned why police investigators did not go immediately to Zuma’s house to gather evidence from the alleged crime scene when the matter was reported on Friday, November 4 or over the weekend that followed. Taioe said they had finished interviewing the complainant late on the Friday and that they had heard from members of Zuma’s VIP Protection Unit that the ANC Deputy president had other engagements over the weekend. Kemp argued that this was not a good enough excuse as even if Zuma had been busy with meetings, he would have had to go home to sleep at night.

Kemp asked whether Taioe did not consider the bed sheets as “essential” to the case. The commissioner said he was only able to access the house and Zuma the following Tuesday. Kemp suggested that the police could have obtained a warrant to search the house.

Kemp asked Taioe why he told Zuma’s attorney Michael Hulley that the police visit to Zuma’s Johannesburg home was a follow-up” to their visit to Nkandla. Kemp said the police came to the house for a different purpose – to take pictures of the alleged crime scene and to obtain DNA samples from Zuma. Correct procedure would have been to warn Zuma of his rights again but the police failed to do this.

Kemp again grilled Taioe about why he did not record information about the alleged crime scene on the required police forms. Taioe claims that he asked Zuma “where did it happen” and Zuma pointed out the guest bedroom. He also claims that when he asked Zuma what happened in his bedroom, Zuma said nothing happened there. The defence is fiercely contesting this evidence as Zuma’s official statement states that the intercourse happened in Zuma’s room and not in the guest bedroom as the woman has claimed. Kemp has also accused Taioe of trying to trap Zuma with his questions.

Kemp asked Taioe if he considered himself above police procedure. Taioe said the reason he didn’t abide by normal police procedure was because Zuma and his lawyers were so co-operative during the investigation. “Why did you ask the accused to point out the crime scene,” asked Kemp. “Because we didn’t know where to start,” replied Taioe. “How can he show you where it didn’t happen? How must he do that because his statement said he was not guilty? Why didn’t you ask him where the guest room was where the complainant slept” Kemp asked. “Because I wanted to put it the way I want,” snapped Taioe.

Kemp asked Taioe why he didn’t ask where the intercourse happened to make it clear what he was asking Zuma. Kemp also asked why in his statement made on November 21, Taioe didn’t mention anything he now claims Zuma said in the house. “It slipped my mind,” said Taioe. “I put it to it’s because it’s a lie.” “I don’t agree,” said Taioe.

Kemp said after 32 years experience as a police officer, Taioe should have been aware of correct police procedure.

Kemp asked whether Taioe was aware the pro-Zuma and anti-Zuma camps in the country. Taioe said he was aware. “Which camp are you in,” asked Kemp. “I’m not involved in politics.”

Kemp persisted with the question to which Taioe answered: “I am pro-Zuma if I may answer it. Are you satisfied?” Kemp then asked him if he had laid a trap for Zuma to which Taioe replied: “I didn't”.

Kemp asked if Taioe was fed up when he heard a radio report that the complainant was withdrawing the charge. Taioe said he was upset. “But as someone who is pro-Zuma, you should have been happy,” said Kemp.

He asked how Taioe was able to track the complainant down when she was meeting with the lawyer, Dockrat. Taioe said her minder told him, explaining that the woman had been under police protection at the time. Kemp asked how Taioe felt when he saw a Sunday newspaper report where the complainant denied that she had been raped and that she had laid a rape charge. Taioe claims not to have seen the report.

Kemp asked whether Taioe was aware that it was “very important for the anti-Zuma camp for the case to proceed”. Taioe said he did not know who was in the anti-Zuma camp. Kemp asked if knew Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils. Taioe said he did but was not aware which camp he was in. He said he obtained a statement from Kasrils because the complainant mentioned she had spoken to him before laying the charge. Kemp asked whether Taioe was aware that Kimi Msibi, the complainant’s friend worked for Kasrils and had a “long conversation” with the complainant before the decision was made to lay the charge. He said he was aware.

Taioe denied Kemp’s contention that the reason he obtained a statement from Kasrils was to forestall any suggestion of political involvement in the case.

The judge then asked Taioe a few questions. He asked hypothetically if any complainant alleges rape and a suspect denies it, what would happen if the complainant decides to withdraw. Taioe said the complainant could not decide to withdraw as there was a standing order that the state could proceed with the case. The judge asked what would happen if a complainant says she told a lie. Taioe said the person would be charged.

Van der Merwe then asked Taioe if he had seen an admission of guilt in Zuma’s initial statement. Taioe said he interrogated what Zuma meant when he said he and the complainant “shared each other’s company privately”. “But there was no clear indication that rape was admitted,” said Taioe. Van der Merwe said this meant that the notion of a “crime scene” would then not follow from the statement.

Kemp asked Taioe about certain cellphone numbers he mentioned in his evidence. Taioe said he was asked by the prosecution to investigate who the numbers belonged to. Kemp asked whether Ranjeni Munusamy’s number was one of those he was asked to investigate. Taioe said it was and that Munusamy had refused to meet with him because she said she was Zuma’s PA. Kemp said it was not true that Munusamy was employed as a “PA”.

Kemp asked Taioe how much the complainant gets paid while they are in protective custody. “I’m not so sure she gets a salary,” said Taioe. Kemp asked whether the woman received S&T for overseas travel. Taioe said the woman did not receive a travel allowance to go on an overseas trip.

Kemp’s final question was whether Zuma’s blood samples had been sent for any other tests other than DNA testing. Taioe said to his knowledge, there were no other tests.

During re-examination, the prosecutor Charin de Beer asked Taioe when was the first time he heard that the intercourse happened in the main bedroom. Taioe said it was only in court that he heard this.

The state then called Jan le Roux, a private information technology consultant to the stand. Le Roux was commissioned by the state to analyse telephone records of various people involved in the case and compiled an extensive presentation of 31 slides which were shown to the court.

The slides reflected calls and SMSs between the players between September and the end of December last year. Before the alleged rape, there were 54 SMSs from the complainant to Zuma. The phone analyses shows that after the incident, there was a flurry of exchanges between Zuma, Mkhize, Munusamy, Dockrat, the complainant and her mother.

Dockrat was then called as the final witness for the day. He said he received a call from an attorney colleague who told him that there was a rape case he was referring to him. That afternoon, he received a call from a woman who did not identify herself but who said she was calling about the rape matter. He assumed the woman was the complainant and arranged to meet her later.

A woman arrived at his office later and introduced herself as Ranjeni Munusamy. She said she was involved in the Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust.

Dockrat said Munusamy told him there was some uncertainty about the alleged rape and asked that he consult with the complainant to ascertain what was going on. She told him the complainant would contact him between 7 and 8pm that night. Dockrat said he agreed to do this and Munusamy left shortly thereafter.

“What did Ranjeni Munusamy want from you,” asked De Beer. “She said she was concerned about the allegations and was hopeful they would amount to naught,” said Dockrat. He said the calls Munusamy made to him thereafter was to discuss practical things such as informing him when the complainant would call. He said he sent an SMS to Munusamy after 11pm that night to report that he had still not been contacted by anyone.

The complainant’s mother called him later that night and they arranged to meet the next morning. Munusamy and Mkhize both called him just after 7am the next morning to ask about the arrangements for the meeting.

Dockrat said he met the complainant and her mother in the presence of her friend Kimi Msibi and Msibi’s boyfriend. He told the group that he had been referred by a friend of the family who thought the complainant needed legal advice and hoped the matter would be “ultimately settled”.

De Beer asked who had arranged to pay him. He said he did not recall what exactly was said but that his understanding was that Mkhzie would pay him for the consultation. When he met the complainant they discussed issues around the rape issue including the process, media aspects and difficulties she would experience on a personal, legal and social level.

He said the issue of withdrawing the charge was raised by the complainant’s mother who indicated she was concerned about the matter and wanted it resolved in one way or the other. The mother appeared “extremely fatigued and distraught” while the complainant appeared “upset and tense”. Dockrat said he explained to them that while they had a right to withdraw the charge, the complainant was ‘in a sense, only a witness” and the state could proceed with the prosecution.

He said after meeting for three to four hours, the complainant went to the bathroom and returned with Taioe. Taioe was “visibly unsettled” and wanted to know who Dockrat was and what he was doing there. Taioe told Dockrat the complainant was “under his care”. The group left with Taioe about 30 to 45 minutes thereafter.

Dockrat said he earlier told to the complainant and her mother that he had been asked by Mkhize to see them and that he would only proceed with the consultation if they were “absolutely comfortable”. They told him that they were. At the end of the meeting, he indicated that he would say nothing to Mkhize other than that the complainant was making her decision.

Thereafter he received more than three calls from Munusamy to his landline. She wanted to know what was happening. Mkhize also called him to enquire what had transpired. Over the next few days, Munusamy called him on a number of occasions to find out whether there had been any developments. He answered that there were none and then contacted the attorney who had made the referral to him. He asked the man to explain to Munusamy and Mkhize that it was incorrect for him to have contact with them after he had consulted the complainant.

During cross examination, Kemp asked Dockrat about the forms he had made the complainant and her mother sign. Dockrat said the forms were to indicate that the complainant and her mother were his clients. Kemp asked whether this meant he owed his professional responsibility to them and that he would give them the best legal advice irrespective of who was paying the bill.

Dockrat agreed that his “primary responsibility” was to his clients.

“Did either Mkhize or Munusamy suggest that you should act improperly?” asked Kemp. “No,” Dockrat answered.

The case was adjourned until Thursday morning when the state will call its next witness.
 * Above from: http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=84**

Zuma Rape Trial Day 7
=Police bungle in rape investigation=

Friends of Jacob Zuma, Johannesburg, 14/3/2006 12:00:00 AM
Police statements essential to the rape case against ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma are not a correct reflection of what actually transpired while the case was being investigated, the Johannesburg High Court has heard.

Under cross examination by Zuma’s defence counsel Kemp J Kemp, the head of Gauteng’s detective services Commissioner Norman Taioe said he “omitted” vital information relating to where the alleged rape occurred from his statement.

He claimed during his testimony on Tuesday that when he visited Zuma’s residence in Forest Town, Johannesburg on November 15 last year, Zuma pointed out a guest bedroom on the ground floor of the house as the alleged “crime scene”. But there was no mention of this in his written statement before the court.

Zuma says in his official affidavit that he and the complainant had intercourse in his bedroom on the first floor of the house.

But a dispute has now arisen as to whether Zuma had failed to mention in his first statement to police that he and the woman did have consensual sex that night or whether the line that read “we shared each other’s company privately” was a euphemism for admitting they was intercourse.

Kemp directed fierce questioning at Taioe as to whether the police had a plan to “trap” Zuma with their questions about the alleged crime scene. He asked why the police didn’t take evidence from the alleged crime scene – such as the sheets from the beds - within 48 hours of the complaint being laid instead of only arriving at the house two weeks later.

Earlier in the day, the complainant’s closest friend Kimi Msibi, an employee in the Ministry of Intelligence Services, testified that the morning after the incident, the woman told her: “I just hate that man (Zuma). I don’t want to see him again”.

Under cross examination, Kemp asked Msibi whether her boss, the Minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils was in the pro or anti-Zuma camps and whether this influenced her friend’s decision to seek his “advice” before reporting the incident to the police. Msibi told the court that she would “rather not answer the question”.

Tuesday’s proceedings began with Kemp’s short cross-examination of the doctor from Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital, Mutapa Likibi, who examined the complainant on the night after the incident. He asked whether the doctor had prescribed and painkillers to the woman. Likibi said he woman did not complain of any pain.

Kemp then questioned Likibi about the susceptibility of men and women to HIV. The doctor said the chances of men getting HIV from sexual intercourse was much less than woman and that the chances would increased if there was a slight tear or nick on the penis to allow entry of he virus.

The state then called its next witness Nosipho Pinky Mgudlwa, 46, an accounting lecturer at UNISA. She said she met the complainant in August 2005 when they stayed together for two months. Mgudlwa said she sent the complainant an SMS asking for an Indian outfit on the morning after the alleged rape, and when the woman called her back at about 11:45am, she noticed she was not her “giggling self”. “I asked if she was alright. She said ‘Yes Ma’. I said ‘No you are not’. She seemed more subdued. She said ‘Ma I was raped’,” Mgudlwa said. She was crying at the time. When asked by whom and where, the woman told her it was “Malume”, and that it happened at his house the night before. She did not mention any name but Mgudlwa says she knew the woman was referring to Zuma. She said the complainant viewed Zuma in a “respectful manner” and “looked up to him”.

Kemp asked Mgudlwa whether it was true that the complainant called her “Ma”, short for “mother” after only meeting her two months before the incident. She said this was true. He closed his cross-examination.

The state then called 30-year-old Msibi to the stand. She said she knew the complainant from exile and that they had a very close relationship, speaking to each other on the phone up to five times a day. She said she also knew Zuma from exile and that they had been in and out of contact on her return to South Africa. The complainant saw Zuma as a father, she said.

Msibi said on November 2 the complainant phoned her to tell her about the child who had been bitten by a snake in Swaziland. She discouraged the woman from traveling to Swaziland, and although she hadn’t yet bought a ticket, she was determined to go, said Msibi. She sent Msibi an SMS some time later in the evening saying she was going to “Malume” and that he had also discouraged her from going to Swaziland.

She then received the SMS at 2:30am the next morning in which the complainant told her she couldn’t sleep because she was a it disturbed. She said “Malume was looking at me sexually. There must be something in my drawers. The mothers must not be told”, said Msibi.

She said she interpreted this to mean that there was “negative sexual energy which came to her again”. She didn’t speak to her again and waited till the next morning. The complainant was “very dismissive” and “abrupt” on the phone the next morning. She didn’t want to talk about what happened but said: “I hate that man. I don’t want to see him again”. Msibi says this was “very abnormal” as the complainant would never speak that way about Zuma.

The complainant called her back between 11am and 12pm and said “He penetrated me”, Msibi said. She asked the woman if she had seen a doctor and the woman told her someone at work would be taking her to see one. She saw the complainant that night when she slept over at Msibi’s place.

“She was in an emotional state, extremely unsettled, clingy, restless, she just wanted to talk and didn’t want to sleep,” said Msibi.

Two weeks after the incident, Msibi says the complainant and her mother came to see her as she was concerned about the Afrikaans daily newspaper, Beeld, publishing a picture of her face. They then went to meet with the lawyer, Yusuf, who had been organized for her and her mother to see. They met with the lawyer at a restaurant near Bruma Lake for quite a few hours. The lawyer wanted to know about the whole rape incident. “He mentioned a couple of times that she should drop the charges and that he would help her drop the charges,” said Msibi.

Msibi says she left before the meeting finished and heard the complainant telling the lawyer she would think about the matter but was not dropping the charges.

She described how there was different culture between relationships in exile and traditional Zulu culture inside the country. In exile there was a camaraderie which transferred to a “family” relationship when people returned to South Africa. Relationships were much more open in the exile family and taboo subjects could be discussed. For example, Msibi said, she would not be able to encourage her blood aunt to get a boyfriend abut she could tell the complainant mother to get a younger man.

Under cross examination, Msibi said she didn’t remember when exactly the complainant began seeing Zuma as her “father”, but it was sometime after she had re-established contact with him around 2001. She said she had never heard Zuma referring to the complainant as his daughter.

Kemp asked Msibi whether she would talk to an uncle about problems with a boyfriend. Although she could not think of any uncle she could discuss sexual issues with immediately, she recalled one such conversation with an uncle at a New Year’s Eve braai.

Kemp says Zuma’s view was that while there was a strong bond of loyalty between people in exile, and that people would assist each other of there were problems, it didn’t make them family. Msibi said the complainant did not relate to Zuma as a peer but as an uncle or father.

Kemp asked Msibi why, when telling the court about her interpretation of the complainant’s SMS about there being something in her drawers, she had initially used the word “invite” when she said the woman felt there was some way she “attracted” negative sexual energy. She said she didn’t “consciously abandon any word” and although she knew she would be asked the question, she didn’t practice her response. She said she thought about her answers before but the word “invite” did not feature in her thoughts.

Msibi was not able to explain why her statement taken on November 17 when the incident was fresher in her mind, stated that the SMS message read “mother is not to be told” while her evidence to the court was that “the mothers are not to be told”. “Did someone since tell you that it was mothers?” asked Kemp. She denied this saying she had not discussed it with anyone. She then said she had discussed her statement with her mother and her sister but did not analyze the content.

She said she could not remember the exact details about her conversation with complainant the morning. She understood what happened to have been an “unwelcome act”. Kemp asked whether the complainant had discussed with Msibi the difficulties she would have in trying to convince people there was no consent. Msibi said this was possible. Msibi says she had not told her she was concerned about the way she had been dressed when she wore the kanga with no underwear.

Kemp asked again about Msibi’s understanding about the purpose of the meeting with the lawyer. Msibi said the complainant’s mother was concerned about proceeding with the charges and wanted legal advice while the woman was troubled about her picture being published and wanted to know her rights in this regard. She admitted that the lawyer had told them that the state had the prerogative to continue with the case even if the complainant withdrew the charges.

Kemp asked whether Msibi and the complainant discussed the political fallout from the charge, considering Zuma is Deputy President of the ANC. She said she didn’t remember but did recall them talking about the media attention the complainant would get. She said she was aware of the “anti-Zuma thing going around”. “Which camp do you regard the Minister in you department to be in?” “I don’t know if I can answer that,” said Msibi.

She said she advised the complainant to speak to Kasrils because she had security concerns. She was aware that the woman spoke to Kasrils on Friday before laying the complaint with the police. Kemp asked whether Msibi had followed the news about what had happened to National Intelligence Agency director-general Billy Masetlha before the incident. She said she had but this not impact on their decision to discuss the matter with Kasrils. She said she had previously gone with the complainant to see Kasrils as he was raising money for the woman to study overseas. Asked why she had made no mention of Kasrils in her official statements before the court, Msibi said it was because she had not been asked about him.

The final witness of the day was Taioe. He said he and Superintendent Linda went to Zuma’s traditional home at Nkandla on November 10 to obtain a statement from him regarding the rape allegations. He said Zuma’s lawyer Michael Hulley was also present and the two gave them a statement that had already been prepared. In it Zuma said he “vehemently” denied the charge of rape, that he complainant had stayed over at his house in Pretoria and later Johannesburg several times, and that he became aware of her affection for him through SMSs and telephone conversations.

Zuma said in the statement that he and the complainant “shared each other’s company privately” that night.

An agreement was made with Hulley that they would visit the alleged crime scene at Epping Road, Johannesburg. They went to the house on November 15, accompanied by a police photographer and other police officers. They took pictures in the guest bedroom and then went upstairs to look at the study and main bedroom. Taioe said he wanted to see where the main bedroom was and the distance to the guest room. He said when he asked Zuma if anything happened in his bedroom, he replied that nothing had happened there.

A doctor Nkobi then arrived to take medical samples from Zuma for DNA testing. On the way from the house, Taioe said he heard a news report on Kaya FM radio that the complainant had issued a withdrawal statement. He phoned around to establish where she was and tracked her down to the shopping centre where she and her mother were meeting with the lawyer, Yusuf Dockrat. He said objected to the lawyer giving the complainant legal advice and read the notes Dockrat had taken. He suggested that the lawyer leave which Dockrat did.

Kemp asked Taioe during cross examination how, when he first met the complainant, he was able to confirm the data in the woman’s statement when he did not even read it before questioning her. Kemp asked whether he didn’t understand Zuma’s initial statement that he and the woman “shared each other’s company privately” to mean that they had consensual sex. Taioe said he did not.

He said he did not warm Zuma of his rights when he visited his Forest Town home because he felt the warning he had given Zuma when he visited Nkandla still persisted. He said when asked where the “crime scene” was, Zuma had pointed out the guest bedroom. Kemp asked whether the police had a plan to trap Zuma with the question. Taioe denied this.

Kemp asked how Karils’ name came to be on the complainant’s statement. Taioe said the woman mentioned it in his interview with her. The commissioner said he had recorded this in his notes from the interview. When asked by Kemp to bring the notes to court, the commissioner said he would if he could find them.

Kemp asked why Taioe made no mention in his statement that Zuma allegedly pointed out the crime scene and denied that anything had happened in his bedroom. “It could have just been an omission.” “So you thought you would just spring it in court today?” Kemp said. Taioe said he had not read his statement since he made it and the matter had slipped his mind. “Do important things normally slip your mind,” asked Kemp.

Kemp asked why it was the commissioner’s business if the complainant and her mother wanted to see a lawyer. He said he had heard on the radio that she was planning to withdraw the charges and he objected to protect his case. He said his attitude was that they could only speak to a lawyer with his permission. “Well your attitude is not reflected in the constitution of this country,” Kemp said.

Kemp asked why the police did not go to Zuma’s house immediately on November 4 when the charge was laid. He said it was because nobody was at the house. “You couldn’t find him (Zuma) anywhere in South Africa”, Kemp asked. Taioe said he traced Zuma in Nkandla the next week. Kemp asked whether it was not crucial to secure evidence in the first 48 hours in a crucial crime investigation. Taioe said it was not possible to just go to Zuma’s house without permission. He eventually made arrangements with the head of the VIP Protection Unit, Commissioner Tshabalala to see Zuma at Nkandla the following Tuesday.

Kemp asked whether he told Zuma that he needed to inspect the Forest Town house as soon as possible and that he wanted the sheets. Taioe said he did not. Kemp asked whether he really expected the same sheets to be on the beds two weeks after the incident and Taioe said he didn’t.

Cross examination continues on Wednesday.


 * Above from: http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=83**

Zuma Rape Trial Day 6
=Rape complainant went shopping in Tanzania, says psychologist=

Friends of Jacob Zuma, Johannesburg,** **13/3/2006 12:00:00 AM
The 31-year-old woman who accused ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma of raping her confided to the clinical psychologist who was evaluating her for the case that she had travelled to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania to go shopping while she was in witness protection.

This admission by the psychologist Merle Friedman could throw further light on the whereabouts of the complainant over the Christmas period while she was in the state’s care. Zuma’s defence team has been pursuing a line of questioning of state witnesses to ascertain whether the complainant’s travel over the festive season is linked to a suspected political plot to discredit the ANC Deputy President. They have been trying to determine whether the woman visited Dubai in December and how she could have got there.

Friedman also told the court that the complainant was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which was brought on by a traumatic incident. She said that to “freeze” during a rape and to take a long time to report it is consistent with the behaviour of a rape survivor.

However, the fact that the complainant did not wash herself hours after the incident is very uncommon for rape victims, Friedman said. She said it was common knowledge that a rape victim usually washes themselves shortly after the incident.

Meanwhile, the doctor who examined the complainant the day after the alleged rape told the court that the woman had no bruising or physical injuries, and appeared “calm”. The only physical sign of sexual activity was a posterior fourchette tear of between 2 and 5mm which was evidence of “medical penetration.

This could be from either not having intercourse for a long time, a lack of preparation, or from an instrument or a nail. It could also be from force or from passion, Dr Mupata Likibi told the court.

Friedman, the state’s third witness in the rape trial, took the stand on Monday morning and explained that she had interviewed the complainant on two occasions in February. This was after being thoroughly briefed by the public prosecutor and reading two police statements. She was approached by the state to evaluate the reaction of the complainant during and after the alleged rape, and was called back to gauge the subsequent impact of the incident on the woman.

Friedman said the complainant was so distressed that she couldn’t use the word “rape”, hence she did not mention it in the SMS’s she sent subsequent to the incident. She said her behaviour during the incident indicated she was “overwhelmed and shocked” and because the “attack was completely unexpected”, her reaction was to “freeze and submit” rather than to fight or protest.

Friedman said there appeared to be some “resilience” and that could have been attributable to the fact that she was an HIV/Aids activist. “There were no signs of being depressed or abusing substances,” she said.

The complainant also told the psychologist she had vivid flashbacks and nightmares involving Zuma. She also told she would like to leave the country. She had an “extremely exaggerated startled response”. This the psychologist established by banging a glass on the table and the complainant almost “jumped out of the chair”. She said this indicated that the person remained on guard. However, her prognosis for the future was “very positive”.

When asked by prosecutor Charin de Beer why the complainant had not mentioned anything about the rape in her SMSs to her friends, Friedman said she had been in a trance-like state and there had been an element of “disassociation”. She said people who are subjected to multiple trauma sometimes think that there is something wrong about themselves hence her message which read: “It must be something in my drawers (panties)”.

She said the reason why there were inconsistencies in the complainant’s version of events is because “traumatic memory” was very different from normal memory. Friedman said the person could come out with “sense impressions” or selective memory such that she would be unable to connect events to create a story.

She said the reason why the complainant would talk about compensation was because she needed an “acknowledgement of a terrible thing that happened”.

Under cross examination, Kemp asked Friedman whether she had approached the case believing that the complainant was telling the truth. She said it was important not to come in with a strong bias. “Did you assume that she had been raped,” asked Kemp. “No. I concluded she was because she didn’t deviate from her statement,” said Freidman. “On what factual basis did you approach your opinion?” “I based it on the symptomology.” “What efforts did you make to establish what kind of person the complainant is,” asked Kemp”. “It was her tone, the words she used and the way she responded to my questions,” said Friedman.

Kemp asked whether the psychologist had examined the complainants past sexual abuse. She said this had not been part of her brief. She did not know that the woman had received previous psychological counseling and had not looked at any relevant records. While the complainant had told her some things, she did not know the woman whole past sexual history, Friedman said.

She said she had concluded that the complainant had difficulty concentrating due to the trauma she suffered. “In court did she strike you as if she couldn’t concentrate,” asked Kemp. “I think she did pretty well…I didn’t mean she couldn’t concentrate at all. I meant she had concentration problems,” said Friedman.

The woman was also unable to feel empathetic or compassionate, according to Friedman and was insistent that she wanted to leave the country. “Did you know that she wanted to leave the country for quite some time?” “I know she was in and out but I didn’t know this,” said Friedman.

Kemp argued that in order for the psychologist to conclude that “freezing” was a normal reaction to the alleged rape, the psychologist would had to have known “what kind of person she is”. Friedman said the “majority” of women would have the same reaction. “Where are the statistics that show the majority of women just freeze. Isn’t the normal reaction to call out for help,” asked Kemp. “I’m the trauma specialist. That is not my experience,” said Friedman.

Kemp then questioned Friedman on the complainant’s previous alleged rapes and the lessons she could have drawn from them. He said in the incident involving Godfrey, the complainant told the man to stop and he did. He argued that this showed she knew what to do to stop such an incident. In the incident involving Nester, her version of the story was that the presence of the priest in the room interrupted the boy from attacking her. The lesson from this incident was that summoning somebody could make the attack stop.

In the incident where she became pregnant after she was allegedly raped while have an “attack”, Kemp said she could have learnt that it was not a good reaction to be “motionless and non-responsive with no sign of resistance” as she would be at the mercy of a rapist. Freidman agreed but said the woman could have disassociated from and not remembered the incident.

Kemp asked why the woman could not remember the name of the man who allegedly impregnated her through rape. He said it was strange that the woman didn’t take a DNA sample from the aborted foetus to ascertain if the boarding school master was the rapst.

“At that stage, the only way to get a legal abortion was if a person had been raped. Was this not a deliberate use of no memory of an attack to explain how the unwarranted consequences of consensual sex could be terminated? Wasn’t that a very simple way out?” asked Kemp. Friedman said this was possible.

Kemp asked when Friedman thought the complainant emerged out of her daze. She said it was when she felt safe and was back in her office. He asked how it could be that the woman felt “trapped”. Friedman said it was because Zuma was a “big man”. “But he weighed only five kilograms more than her,” said Kemp. He said the complainant was by no means a “small woman” at 85kgs. Friedman a lot of rape was about power not weight.

“Did you ever find any woman raped within 10metres of a uniformed police officer?” “No I haven’t,” said Friedman. Kemp said the woman had also been aware that Zuma’s daughter was in the house.

Friedman said one of the reasons the complainant had not fought back was because of respect for Zuma – the combination of being so surprised at his nakedness and the “father-daughter” relationship. Kemp asked whether the conversation between Zuma and the complainant about her not having a boyfriend and her physical needs was a typical conversation someone would have with their father. She said it was. “How well acquainted are you with Zulu custom?” asked Kemp. “I am not qualified on Zulu customs,” she said. “Well shouldn’t you have been? Because I am told this is not an appropriate conversation,” said Kemp. Friedman said her findings were based on “Western values and standards”.

Kemp asked whether Friedman was a forensic psychologist or a therapist. He said a therapist started of by saying what their client was saying was correct while a forensic psychologist would try and establish the truth. Friedman said she was interested in the well-being of her client as well as academic development.

Kemp asked whether because of her previous experience and work, the complainant knew a bit about psychology when the incident took place. Friedman says this was not her view as the woman was “unsophisticated and naïve” and although she may have had therapy, this did not mean she had a knowledge of psychology.

Kemp asked about the complainant’s activities in the witness protection programme. Friedman said the woman told her she was not allowed to do much but went “shopping a lot”. Kemp asked whether the woman had told her that she went to Dar es Salaam. “No. Wait is that in Tanzania? Yes she did say she went there,” said Freidman. Kemp asked how it was possible for the complainant to travel abroad whn she didn’t have any money. Friedman said she didn’t know.

Kemp asked how Friedman would be able to tell if the woman was malingering. She said if she had been coached, the woman would know too much and her answers would be too obvious. He asked whether the woman would display the same symptoms if she had a perception that she had been raped when she hadn’t been. Friedman said it was unlikely that she would display the “whole gambit of symptoms”.

Kemp asked which country the statistics about most women freezing rather than reacting was derived from. Friedman says this was not from any particular country but was a universal response. Kemp asked whether there were no statistics available from South Africa and she said there was not.

Kemp closed cross examination and the state said it did not wish to re-examine Friedman.

The doctor from the Nthabiseng Clinic at Chris Hani Baragwanath hospital, Dr Likibi was the fourth state witness called to the stand. He said he qualified as a doctor in Kinshasa in the DRC, ad between 20-30 years experience and worked at the clinic for abused women after hours.

He said he examined the complainant at about 8pm on November 3, the day after the alleged rape. She came to the clinic with a friend. Normal procedure was not followed in this case, he said, because rape survivors are normally brought to the clinic by the police after reporting a complaint. The woman came to him unescorted as she had not reported the matter to the police at the time.

She told the doctor that she had been raped by an uncle when she went to sleep over at his house. The woman disclosed her HIV status. While going through her medical history, the woman told him she had been pregnant once had terminated the pregnancy at five weeks. The woman has previously told the court that her pregnancy was terminated at five months.

The doctor said the woman was not physically injured in any way and gave a detailed description of her genital organs. He said there was a fresh tear in her vagina, less than three days old which could have been caused by a lack of preparation before sex or from a medical instrument or fingernail.

It also could have been caused through forceful or “very passionate” sex.

Likibi said he found semen during the examination, but this was understandable as the sperm tries to “remain alive for about three days”. The woman was not sent for HIV counselling or given prophylactic treatment as she had stated she was already HIV-positive.

Kemp will cross-examine the doctor on Tuesday morning before the state calls its next witness.


 * Above from: http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/showarticle.asp?id=82**