Robbored Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 So.. his sexuality has been thrown out as evidence that the prosecution can use. I just don't get how the SA legal system works. How can his sexuality be inadmissible when that is very likely what provoked (allegedly) the idea of a hijacking and murder of his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 I just don't get how the SA legal system works. How can his sexuality be inadmissible when that is very likely what provoked (allegedly) the idea of a hijacking and murder of his wife. You only have to look at the farce of Pistorious' trial to sum up the SA legal system. I know ours has its flaws but..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 I just don't get how the SA legal system works. How can his sexuality be inadmissible when that is very likely what provoked (allegedly) the idea of a hijacking and murder of his wife. His sexuality would probably not be admissible as evidence here. It's circumstantial at best and while it potentially gives him motive, you'd essentially be arguing that "he killed her because he's gay" (presuming his sexuality is submitted as direct evidence of his culpability), which aside from being morally abject, is legal nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 His sexuality would probably not be admissible as evidence here. It's circumstantial at best and while it potentially gives him motive, you'd essentially be arguing that "he killed her because he's gay" (presuming his sexuality is submitted as direct evidence of his culpability), which aside from being morally abject, is legal nonsense Is his sexuality circumstantial when he has admitted using male prostitutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 I think the point is, Dewani has admitted being bisexual, so the court needn't hear a lot of evidence the prosecution had assembled to show he had set worth men. I think they can still say it was part of his motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Is his sexuality circumstantial when he has admitted using male prostitutes? Er.... Yes? How does him using male prostitutes indicate that he would have engaged in a half-baked plot to have his wife killed? His sexuality may give him motive, but he isn't disputing the fact that he has paid for sex with men. That on its own may contribute to establishing motive, but is not in any way evidence of guilt in itself. To be honest, if the prosecutions case rests on pointing out that he liked to hire male prostitutes, I'm not sure it'll stand up to legal scrutiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Does the fact he was browsing male pick up websites 2 days AFTER his wife's death not suggest he was hardly upset about her being dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Does the fact he was browsing male pick up websites 2 days AFTER his wife's death not suggest he was hardly upset about her being dead? Yep, but again; it is nothing more than circumstantial evidence of his involvement in her death. It should be pointed out that if he was browsing female pick up websites the inference would be exactly the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Completely agree. It's more about would he have been that devastated about his wife being murdered, if he was browsing any type of site to pick up a sexual partner 2 days after she had died. That doesn't sound like someone upset to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Completely agree. It's more about would he have been that devastated about his wife being murdered, if he was browsing any type of site to pick up a sexual partner 2 days after she had died. That doesn't sound like someone upset to me. Exactly, so his sexuality becomes irrelevant and hence why it isn't being discussed by the courts (which I don't think was your argument at all, just linking all the discussion together!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northsomersetred Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Does the fact he was browsing male pick up websites 2 days AFTER his wife's death not suggest he was hardly upset about her being dead? This i think was the crux of the prosecution argument is that he is gay not bi, it was a sham marriage, she sussed that he wasn't interested in her and wanted out, this would've brought great shame on his family which he desperately wanted to avoid so desperate he plotted to have her killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted October 16, 2014 Admin Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 This i think was the crux of the prosecution argument is that he is gay not bi, it was a sham marriage, she sussed that he wasn't interested in her and wanted out, this would've brought great shame on his family which he desperately wanted to avoid so desperate he plotted to have her killed. Not followed it that closely, but how does browsing those websites prove he is gay or bi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Not followed it that closely, but how does browsing those websites prove he is gay or bi? That's possibly the reason citing it as evidence he was bi/gay was thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 This i think was the crux of the prosecution argument is that he is gay not bi, it was a sham marriage, she sussed that he wasn't interested in her and wanted out, this would've brought great shame on his family which he desperately wanted to avoid so desperate he plotted to have her killed. That's my take as well. I That said I have very little faith in the SA legal system after the Pistorious sham verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Pistorious sham verdict. I see the judge got the court to applaud her birthday today. She really does love the stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northsomersetred Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Not followed it that closely, but how does browsing those websites prove he is gay or bi? He's admitted to being bi, the prosecution have/had male prostitutes and someone who works in the Houses of Parliament to testify they'd had sex with him etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northsomersetred Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I see the judge got the court to applaud her birthday today. She really does love the stage. The reports that I have read say that it wasnt provoked by her but by the prosecution team. Where did you read or hear that she got the court to applaud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 The reports that I have read say that it wasnt provoked by her but by the prosecution team. Where did you read or hear that she got the court to applaud? Oh on Twitter, so maybe it wasn't the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Another twist... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29676084 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Another twist...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29676084 Had he given evidence yet? Or have the family had him bumped off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Had he given evidence yet? Or have the family had him bumped off? Report says he wasn't going to be called as a witness anyway due to his state of health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Taunton Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 My 50 pence worth...she was hot! What a waste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Another twist...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29676084 Hmmmmmm........the plot thickens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Report says he wasn't going to be called as a witness anyway due to his state of health. Yes but now even if they wanted to, if new information came out, they can't. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 So then.. is he going to walk today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 Yup. TFR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 I swear these judges get paid by the hour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 The evidence against him is totally shambolic, she's pulling it to pieces. Can't see anything but it being thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.