Talk:Kapenguria Six

Common membership
Kenyatta's political party and the Mau Mau had numerous members in common. As a result, Macharia's evidence is not very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.49.193 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The above argument is not very convincing. At many places it has been convincingly argued that Kenyatta had little to do with Mau Mau. Throup (page 12) even argued that if the governor (Baring) had understood that Kenyatta was a moderate and not one of the militants he would not have made the error of declaring the Emergency. Kenyatta and the five were convinced for managing Mau Mau and not for being a member of a political party (KAU). Kenyatta (and perhaps three of the other six as well) had no relationship with Mau Mau. But even if all of them would have been members of Mau Mau, then the prosecution would have to prove their guilt and they are not supposed to bribe witnesses, etc. Indeed the court case was a farce. I am not sure whether Macharia claimed that he had to drink human blood. At least Brown (page 261)is not mentioning this but speaks of animal blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome KL (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are several sources (including a biography of one of Kenyatta's close confidantes) that indicate strong confluence between the core of the Mau Mau planners and the Kenya African Union, even if there it is clear that Kenyatta himself did not participate, or influence the Mau Mau. I suggest you look up Walking in Kenyatta's Struggles by one Duncan Ndegwa. Its pure Gold in terms of clarifying the position of Mau Mau relative to the rest of Kenya Afriacn Union with regards to agitating about African grievances in the overall struggle for independence. Kimemia Maina (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid you are missing the point. As far as KAU and Mau Mau are concerned: indeed some were members of both and many not. However, that does not make KAU members guilty in a court. In a court you are found guilty when there exist evidence to prove your guilt.But the real issue as far as the Kapenguria Six is concerned is very different. The only evidence at the case was coming from Macharia at he was bribed by the government to testify. Without Macharia there would have been no conviction. I suggest you read Elkins, Edgerton, Kaggia, D.N. Pritt and above all M. Slater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome KL (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)