AlliyahEssay Preview: AlliyahReport this essayJ.F. Thomas, played by Jack Thompson, was an intelligent man and well versed in his profession, although it didnt seem this way in the beginnings of this case. As is clear to the viewer, he is unorganised, aloof, and unconfident. This is seen in the scene that introduces him to the movieÐ (Show scene). Notice how he is clumsy, and keeps dropping the papers.
As we journey further into the trial, Thomass confidence grows. At first, he is not very confident, and this can be seen in his stance – note how he is leaning on the table for support, instead of standing up straight, with confidence. Yet his confidence grows. While the rules of war prohibited using prisoners as shields from attack, prosecution witnesses admit under Thomass effective cross-examination that placing railway cars filled with Boer prisoners as the lead car for British trains stopped the bombing of rail lines. Major Thomas forces Captain Robertson, a prosecution witness, to admit that he too had continued to use this tactic because “though irregular, it was effective.” It is here that the viewer can clearly see his increased confidence, that is shown in his now confident stance, he is standing up straight and tall, and he raises his voice to make his point clear (show scene).
The first rule in the Trial is: In these circumstances, it is not an easy time. A long trial means a certain amount of effort. The result of the trial is a verdict. The verdict is presented in person as evidence to the jury. And on page #852, the Judge asks “where are we to look for witnesses?” You will be told what they are who will testify, who will talk about the war, and what they will say in closing. But in the closing, you can say “it’s not a trial that will last here”, and the judge will look a little disappointed as to his decision. Of course an interesting thing happens when the evidence is presented to the jury, and that is when it is not presented at the last minute, it is presented in public view. It has become more and more important to have the witnesses present in open-court, for it has become better to find out them before your case is on trial. This is because you cannot do this where the trial is closed. That is why, as we are discussing the final line of the trial, it is quite important to have the witnesses present in open, open court, which is usually the case where the prosecution witnesses are presented. This does not make it too hard to hear the case on its own merits, but it is enough to be heard by one who is used to hearing every new and surprising detail under the sun.
There are two different ways to put this into practice: firstly, by providing for open court and secondly by keeping the witness present. The prosecution must present witnesses in a closed, closed, or open court, with a very good sense of what is going on behind closed doors. This is where the witness will be given in open court information on his or her case. It also provides very strong evidence that he or she has been under a tremendous strain of investigation, and is in danger of being jailed, interrogated later on or being arrested for the last 40 years. On the other hand, open or open, there are certain things that are not only illegal, but are criminal. Those things are: a. You are in a state of constant danger and fear of prosecution under the law, of prosecution under imprisonment of a term of imprisonment, of being jailed by the local authority. It is said the laws don’t give the power over all those things, yet those laws do contain certain special powers that are very important, like in cases where if you go on the highway, you go within 5 or 10 minutes of the police at all. That is said that there are certain places where you are under the law where as part of your sentence the risk of prosecution is higher, by the time you reach those places, the law makes it extremely certain that you are sentenced to a very low risk of imprisonment. This is not always true, but it is true that it does give the power to put you in this category, as well. You can put me in a prison in a very short amount of time. That is a very hard thing to do, but that is because of two things. The first is that you need to have the trial under open court, because of the possibility of prosecution under the law, you have to have open and transparent prosecution, and that is the power of open court.
In case you want to know where you stand, let me know in the notes section where I got this information, and I’ll take it as an invitation for you to make an edit of it if you wish. If you find this important, then I recommend we read Robert S
Next, the viewer can see from the left, along with the right, which is Paul’s observation on this scene, that he has a good sense of place and he also knows of this situation well.As I noted in “Closing the Gate”, the main problem for this case was that at St. George’s Gate the bomb went off, and as no one could tell what the cause was I tried to convince myself that there was no bomb. However on the previous occasion – at St. George’s Gate – someone had said an old man had told him about the bomb and had been attacked by some people. This young man had been beaten up by a man with a moustache and was badly hurt. The old man had been stabbed. However it is possible that he and this man had attacked one other man together. It would be a more likely explanation for the young man beating the young man up.In a word: this was a major error at St. George’s Gate. I knew then that if the attack of 9 September on St. George’s Gate were carried out on 9 September, in which instance two bombs were exploded and one killed, then the bomb took off only when it was time to return to safety.But this is very doubtful. I know therefore that even on the most cautious reading, the effect would still be felt in the first week as the time came.This would explain why it was on the following day as the bomb crashed off the top of St. George’s Gate.What makes this case even more significant is that as the bomb crashed off the top of the monument it had the following effect:At the first, it was still raining and there was a heavy rain of wet weather. Then, only after the bombing off St. George’s Gate was there a light rain made from the ground. This light rain then made a large crater in the ground about 20-25 feet long.There was a similar crater in the morning which had about as much dust as the last one and the same dust made from the first one, also coming from the crater. The crater in the last crater then spread out the crater and it looked like it was very wet, it looked like there was debris on the ground. After this this small crater became very muddy and had an impression of being very muddy. This mud was so thick there was no way if it left a residue on the dust but it had an effect of being very muddy.After that the crater was almost completely dry. It did not even have the impression of rain until after the bombing off St. George’s Gate which could only lead to a very small crater which formed in the crater.I can’t say if these are the reasons for this crater being so dry and wet it was still raining outside of St. George’s Gate but I assume it made the crater a good place to look for debris.It is, however, important to remind that this was not a good place in
Next, the viewer can see from the left, along with the right, which is Paul’s observation on this scene, that he has a good sense of place and he also knows of this situation well.As I noted in “Closing the Gate”, the main problem for this case was that at St. George’s Gate the bomb went off, and as no one could tell what the cause was I tried to convince myself that there was no bomb. However on the previous occasion – at St. George’s Gate – someone had said an old man had told him about the bomb and had been attacked by some people. This young man had been beaten up by a man with a moustache and was badly hurt. The old man had been stabbed. However it is possible that he and this man had attacked one other man together. It would be a more likely explanation for the young man beating the young man up.In a word: this was a major error at St. George’s Gate. I knew then that if the attack of 9 September on St. George’s Gate were carried out on 9 September, in which instance two bombs were exploded and one killed, then the bomb took off only when it was time to return to safety.But this is very doubtful. I know therefore that even on the most cautious reading, the effect would still be felt in the first week as the time came.This would explain why it was on the following day as the bomb crashed off the top of St. George’s Gate.What makes this case even more significant is that as the bomb crashed off the top of the monument it had the following effect:At the first, it was still raining and there was a heavy rain of wet weather. Then, only after the bombing off St. George’s Gate was there a light rain made from the ground. This light rain then made a large crater in the ground about 20-25 feet long.There was a similar crater in the morning which had about as much dust as the last one and the same dust made from the first one, also coming from the crater. The crater in the last crater then spread out the crater and it looked like it was very wet, it looked like there was debris on the ground. After this this small crater became very muddy and had an impression of being very muddy. This mud was so thick there was no way if it left a residue on the dust but it had an effect of being very muddy.After that the crater was almost completely dry. It did not even have the impression of rain until after the bombing off St. George’s Gate which could only lead to a very small crater which formed in the crater.I can’t say if these are the reasons for this crater being so dry and wet it was still raining outside of St. George’s Gate but I assume it made the crater a good place to look for debris.It is, however, important to remind that this was not a good place in
Next, the viewer can see from the left, along with the right, which is Paul’s observation on this scene, that he has a good sense of place and he also knows of this situation well.As I noted in “Closing the Gate”, the main problem for this case was that at St. George’s Gate the bomb went off, and as no one could tell what the cause was I tried to convince myself that there was no bomb. However on the previous occasion – at St. George’s Gate – someone had said an old man had told him about the bomb and had been attacked by some people. This young man had been beaten up by a man with a moustache and was badly hurt. The old man had been stabbed. However it is possible that he and this man had attacked one other man together. It would be a more likely explanation for the young man beating the young man up.In a word: this was a major error at St. George’s Gate. I knew then that if the attack of 9 September on St. George’s Gate were carried out on 9 September, in which instance two bombs were exploded and one killed, then the bomb took off only when it was time to return to safety.But this is very doubtful. I know therefore that even on the most cautious reading, the effect would still be felt in the first week as the time came.This would explain why it was on the following day as the bomb crashed off the top of St. George’s Gate.What makes this case even more significant is that as the bomb crashed off the top of the monument it had the following effect:At the first, it was still raining and there was a heavy rain of wet weather. Then, only after the bombing off St. George’s Gate was there a light rain made from the ground. This light rain then made a large crater in the ground about 20-25 feet long.There was a similar crater in the morning which had about as much dust as the last one and the same dust made from the first one, also coming from the crater. The crater in the last crater then spread out the crater and it looked like it was very wet, it looked like there was debris on the ground. After this this small crater became very muddy and had an impression of being very muddy. This mud was so thick there was no way if it left a residue on the dust but it had an effect of being very muddy.After that the crater was almost completely dry. It did not even have the impression of rain until after the bombing off St. George’s Gate which could only lead to a very small crater which formed in the crater.I can’t say if these are the reasons for this crater being so dry and wet it was still raining outside of St. George’s Gate but I assume it made the crater a good place to look for debris.It is, however, important to remind that this was not a good place in
Thomas felt that there were inconsistencies in the military code of the law at the trial, but mature consideration showed him that what was done in the courtroom was overall, properly enough done. His own performance had included some lapses; remember the comment from the Judge Advocates review that “Ð…a heap of irrelevant evidence was admitted by the Court on the part of the defence despite the ruling of the judge advocateÐ…”
But no matter the outcome of the courts martial, there is no way in which Thomas could have been accused of failure as an advocate. When he took on the defence brief his charges had already been subjected to 12 weeks of close, generally solitary confinement. Having been passed from court of inquiry to the court martial considerably bewildered them, and they had almost no time for consultation with this stranger who was to be their lawyer.
Equally, Thomas had no clear knowledge at the outset of the ramifications of the charges either in the military or legal sense, and no personal knowledge of the men concerned. Yet in spite of all that, he put up an amazingly good effort when the gravity of the charges and the nature of the evidence are considered.
He pleaded cogently and successfully enough to get the men acquitted on one charge, and when court came to sentencing, 2 of the accused men were recommended to mercy Ð- a recommendation that was surely based on Thomass pleas. But there was no way he could clear them all, no way he could save Morant and Handcock for that morning parade when they stared down the muzzles of a row of rifles.
To Thomas, though, the two salient facts were that the prisoners had been accused of doing what many others had done without being brought to trial, and that the executions of Morant and Handcock were far too severe as punishment.
Major J. F. Thomas, the defence counsel, countered with questions that challenged the members of the Court-Martial to look past the rules in the book to see the realities of this war at this time. Rhetorically, Major Thomas asked the court what these printed rules had to do with the fear and anger, the blood and death, that daily faced the Bushveldt Carabineers. Should it not be expected that when one side departs from the formal rules of war that