Long summary necessary - judge
2006-05-08 15:53
Johannesburg - Judge Willem van der Merwe concluded his summary of evidence in Jacob Zuma's rape trial by lunchtime on Monday, saying there was good reason for this having to be so lengthy.
Selective media reporting on the case in Johannesburg High Court made the long summation necessary, he said.
Van der Merwe said he had to highlight certain material facts in the evidence presented to the court.
He began his judgment on Monday by saying he would not allow himself to be influenced or distracted by anything or anybody.
He dealt extensively with the testimony given by the complainant and by Zuma. He touched on the other evidence given, saying most of it was common cause.
On the testimony of forensic psychologist Dr Louise Olivier for the defence, Van der Merwe said she was critical of the testimony given by the State's trauma expert.
Olivier questioned Merle Friedman's statement that the alleged victim could have frozen from shock during the incident.
Sessions at a psychiatric hospital
Olivier said it was obvious Friedman did not have all the information about the complainant's history.
She did not know the complainant had attended sessions at a psychiatric hospital.
Friedman also was not fully aware of all the rape accusations the complainant previously had made against men.
Olivier questioned Friedman's diagnosis that the complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.
She said a comprehensive battery of psychometric tests was not done. She was highly critical of Friedman's lack of investigation.
Olivier said the fainting attacks the alleged victim claimed she had had were highly significant and should have been thoroughly investigated, preferably by a neurologist.
Olivier also made the difference between a clinical psychologist and a forensic psychologist clear.
She said there were several reasons why the woman could have accused someone of rape, even if it was not rape.
Could have a disorder or hallucinations
First, it could be she genuinely believed that she had been raped, whether it was rape or not.
It could be due to a serious personality or emotional disorder, or it could be that she had hallucinations.
Due to previous negative experiences, she could regard all sexual advances as negative and threatening.
Because of a negative childhood and experiences at that time, she could believe that rape occurred or it could be due to a hidden agenda and wanting revenge.
- SAPA