The Judge has a very high value view of the law. Why would any accused person in a murder case give a confession without legal counsel? With no benefit offered or agreed upon it simply makes no sense.
Why did the defense object on showing the video recording from mrs cronge the magistrate in voslorus where ntanzi make confession, is obvious the defense knows very well that their clients did confess freely and voluntary, we want to see that recording before blaming the state and the judge
Ntanzi commited a crime and there is always a first time and it was his first arrest just all the people they also had a first time..Ntanzi must learn from mistakes when he goes to jail ..what about Senzo don't you think the judge is not a father to late Senzo too?? Don't be selfish think about Senzo mother please
@@katlego..js9nobut on the confession statement said he was out side Marlos he's the one who shoot Senzo .Who is Mapindi bcos he was also part of intruders but the witness never mention them.The firearm sold to someone in hostel but state said they took firearm to balastic .It just unfortunately Judge will believe Zungu version.The statement said the first suspect was not present.The statement said they robbed them phones and money ,but the witness said that they didn't took anything,state said they collect the evidence from there phones and the is no phone that was robbed .The statement said Senzo killed on Sunday.The witness that where In the house said he was shoot on Saturday.What a contradiction
There so many loop holes in this case. Cleaning of the scene, no calling of police,DNA negative, Ntanzis version confirmed by AVL.Really. Anyway Kelly will tell the truth and the 1-5 will be freed
Like I said, Judge Ratha never mentioned any Mitigating nor aggravating factors that led to his Ruling 🚮🚮🚮 So The accused will distance themselves from the so called confessions, so I don't think it will affect the accused since it's on Record that they never took any part in those confessions
@@MxolisiMaduna-o9m I can see you're the same as Judge, You never supported/Mitigate your ruling or part where you think I'm lost. So I understand Utterances
@@thetad1242 Read to understand, you need your Third eye to get my point, since your third eye Chakra is not yet active, let me break it down for you The state will refer the accused to the confession statement during cross examination. The Accused will just reply by saying "I don't know what you're talking about", REMEMBER EVEN THE JUDGE SAID "THE ACCUSED SAID THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE CONTENT IN THE CONFESSION STATEMENT, THEY ONLY SIGNED TO SAVE THEIR LIVES" Do You get it now?
The Judge has a very high value view of the law. Why would any accused person in a murder case give a confession without legal counsel? With no benefit offered or agreed upon it simply makes no sense.
Why did the defense object on showing the video recording from mrs cronge the magistrate in voslorus where ntanzi make confession, is obvious the defense knows very well that their clients did confess freely and voluntary, we want to see that recording before blaming the state and the judge
It was a audio recording and it was objected because the law was not followed in recording that audio
The Judge gave a lazy ruling. No explanation for his ruling basically saying without actually saying it both accused were talking bull.
Ntate Ratha think for Ntanzi who didn't been arrested in his life hle have a mercy like father because you know the truth deep down your heart
Ntanzi commited a crime and there is always a first time and it was his first arrest just all the people they also had a first time..Ntanzi must learn from mistakes when he goes to jail ..what about Senzo don't you think the judge is not a father to late Senzo too?? Don't be selfish think about Senzo mother please
Ntanzi was one of the intruders,2 eyewitnesses pointed him out and he also confessed that he was one of the intruders.
@@katlego..js9nobut on the confession statement said he was out side Marlos he's the one who shoot Senzo .Who is Mapindi bcos he was also part of intruders but the witness never mention them.The firearm sold to someone in hostel but state said they took firearm to balastic .It just unfortunately Judge will believe Zungu version.The statement said the first suspect was not present.The statement said they robbed them phones and money ,but the witness said that they didn't took anything,state said they collect the evidence from there phones and the is no phone that was robbed .The statement said Senzo killed on Sunday.The witness that where In the house said he was shoot on Saturday.What a contradiction
Kwathathwa abanye abanttu bayokwenza izintantimende amacamera ayengekho yini ngesikhathi bevuma amanga
There so many loop holes in this case. Cleaning of the scene, no calling of police,DNA negative, Ntanzis version confirmed by AVL.Really. Anyway Kelly will tell the truth and the 1-5 will be freed
Ngempela mfowethu
Thank ❤
Amanga akukho muntulana ovume icala,ogoninda yonke into bayazikhandela,kuqanjelwa izingane zabantu amanga,nalenja ewubaloyi esho ngobuni,ngathi ungayinquma ikhanda uligxumeke esigxotsheni
What the stupid state they .cant see that kininda and others cooked this pot .cos those accused persons don't know those makhimbi and others
🤞
Let adv Mngomezulu apply for that 317
Uyazizwa uthini vele
Like I said, Judge Ratha never mentioned any Mitigating nor aggravating factors that led to his Ruling 🚮🚮🚮
So The accused will distance themselves from the so called confessions, so I don't think it will affect the accused since it's on Record that they never took any part in those confessions
You are very lost in this case
@@MxolisiMaduna-o9m I can see you're the same as Judge, You never supported/Mitigate your ruling or part where you think I'm lost. So I understand Utterances
@@gattuso4607ehhake! You really are lost. Completely. Oh ye of Lil knowledge.
@@thetad1242 Read to understand, you need your Third eye to get my point, since your third eye Chakra is not yet active, let me break it down for you
The state will refer the accused to the confession statement during cross examination. The Accused will just reply by saying "I don't know what you're talking about", REMEMBER EVEN THE JUDGE SAID "THE ACCUSED SAID THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE CONTENT IN THE CONFESSION STATEMENT, THEY ONLY SIGNED TO SAVE THEIR LIVES"
Do You get it now?
That’s not how it works