Dewani Trial

[chipdawg]

You don't have to go along with every court's verdict, Dave. SA has as bad a record of judicial mistrials as the US and as out there, it seems you can buy your way to freedom in its system.

I think he's guilty and got away with it too. I'd tell him to his face, should I ever meet him. Let's see him give evidence in a UK civil court facing an "in the balance of probabilities" verdict.

Not just to you Robbo, but to everyone who believes he's guilty, I'm interested to know what evidence it is that convinces you of his guilt? I'm not entirely convinced of his innocence, but I've yet to read anything that makes me think "oh yeah, he definitely did it"

[Monkeh]

Not just to you Robbo, but to everyone who believes he's guilty, I'm interested to know what evidence it is that convinces you of his guilt? I'm not entirely convinced of his innocence, but I've yet to read anything that makes me think "oh yeah, he definitely did it"

simple chip like chris jefferies who was def guilty in the eyes of all before being proven innocent, he's face trailed and been sentance by media, that has warped the view of many,

 

There is absoultely not evidance he is guility, all the evidance pointed to this, it would of never got to court in this country

[Red-Robbo]

Not just to you Robbo, but to everyone who believes he's guilty, I'm interested to know what evidence it is that convinces you of his guilt? I'm not entirely convinced of his innocence, but I've yet to read anything that makes me think "oh yeah, he definitely did it"

OK, given that we have the motive, and in texts to "the German master" at the start of the honeymoon he told him he "had to think up a way to get out of the marriage ".

Then let's look at his statements to the police: he at first said he had only met the taxi driver once. then when cctv was produced showing an at least 10 minute chat the day before, he suddenly remembered he had spoken to him on two occasions before the drive; he said Anni - dresses up to the nines - insisted they took a late night drive through the Ghetto, something they would have read the hotel warned all guests not to do, again the story changed, it later became the taxi driver's idea and they just went along with it - but why get a late-night mystery tour from a stranger? Next up, the cash. He mentioned nothing about this "balloon trip" when interviewed by the police and the first time it was mentioned was when the court case started, after he'd had 4 years to think up an explanation. Also the cash to the taxi guy. Would you pay a bloke who drove you somewhere you were hijacked and had your missus shot? And send him a thank-you note?? If that was me, I'd wonder if the driver was in on it, not give him a little present. Finally, he was supposedly dragged from the car at speed via the window and rolled away to safety, yet he had no cuts and bruises. And why would the gunmen let him live? They'd have known he could identify them, put the police onto the driver, and get them caught. If they were so cold-blooded murdering Anni, why let a witness live. Especially one who got away with money on him.

Earlier in this thread Tomarse asked why go to South Africa to murder Anni? Well, it may not have been planned in advance, but Shrien knew full well that the game of pretending to be a straight, religious son was up as soon as they got back to the UK and his wife talked. Anni had found out. She told her cousin on an email she cried every day and wanted a divorce. A multi-million pound inheritance could be anticipated to be slipping away. Shrien was not thick. He knew SA is a violent place and death is cheap down there. He may have even read the case of Dana Rodrigues, a white South.African who had a hit carried out on a love rival after simply approaching some black men she didn't know at a taxi rank.The cost was about the same as Shrien's cash withdrawal.

Look too at Shrien's behaviour after the murder. Cruising gay contact sites within hours, smiling (and more gay cruising) at her funeral. Hardly the usual demeanour of someone who is "traumatised ".

No one thing, as is often the case, conclusively proves he did it, but taken together, along with the testimony of the surviving gunman and the driver (and hotel receptionist) you get a pretty overwhelming case IMO.

The trial judge was wrong to stop the case before Dewani had been made to face cross- examination IMO. Had he done so his lies and inconsistent story might have unravelled. If the black Africans were unconvincing witnesses then I think he'd have made a wholly unbelievable one. There just is no rational explanation for some of his story.

[chipdawg]

OK, given that we have the motive, and in texts to "the German master" at the start of the honeymoon he told him he "had to think up a way to get out of the marriage ".

Then let's look at his statements to the police: he at first said he had only met the taxi driver once. then when cctv was produced showing an at least 10 minute chat the day before, he suddenly remembered he had spoken to him on two occasions before the drive; he said Anni - dresses up to the nines - insisted they took a late night drive through the Ghetto, something they would have read the hotel warned all guests not to do, again the story changed, it later became the taxi driver's idea and they just went along with it - but why get a late-night mystery tour from a stranger? Next up, the cash. He mentioned nothing about this "balloon trip" when interviewed by the police and the first time it was mentioned was when the court case started, after he'd had 4 years to think up an explanation. Also the cash to the taxi guy. Would you pay a bloke who drove you somewhere you were hijacked and had your missus shot? And send him a thank-you note?? If that was me, I'd wonder if the driver was in on it, not give him a little present. Finally, he was supposedly dragged from the car at speed via the window and rolled away to safety, yet he had no cuts and bruises. And why would the gunmen let him live? They'd have known he could identify them, put the police onto the driver, and get them caught. If they were so cold-blooded murdering Anni, why let a witness live. Especially one who got away with money on him.

Earlier in this thread Tomarse asked why go to South Africa to murder Anni? Well, it may not have been planned in advance, but Shrien knew full well that the game of pretending to be a straight, religious son was up as soon as they got back to the UK and his wife talked. Anni had found out. She told her cousin on an email she cried every day and wanted a divorce. A multi-million pound inheritance could be anticipated to be slipping away. Shrien was not thick. He knew SA is a violent place and death is cheap down there. He may have even read the case of Dana Rodrigues, a white South.African who had a hit carried out on a love rival after simply approaching some black men she didn't know at a taxi rank.The cost was about the same as Shrien's cash withdrawal.

Look too at Shrien's behaviour after the murder. Cruising gay contact sites within hours, smiling (and more gay cruising) at her funeral. Hardly the usual demeanour of someone who is "traumatised ".

No one thing, as is often the case, conclusively proves he did it, but taken together, along with the testimony of the surviving gunman and the driver (and hotel receptionist) you get a pretty overwhelming case IMO.

The trial judge was wrong to stop the case before Dewani had been made to face cross- examination IMO. Had he done so his lies and inconsistent story might have unravelled. If the black Africans were unconvincing witnesses then I think he'd have made a wholly unbelievable one. There just is no rational explanation for some of his story.

As you say yourself, none of it proves he did it. Many of the points you raise are not even facts, it's speculation derived from supposition. As I said, I'm not exactly convinced he's innocent, but nothing I've seen provides convincing evidence that he did do it and the case being thrown out is not surprising. Is Shrien Dewani a complete arsehole? Almost certainly. Is he a murderer? Possibly. But 'possibly' should never ever be enough to send someone to prison for the rest of their lives

[Monkeh]

OK, given that we have the motive, and in texts to "the German master" at the start of the honeymoon he told him he "had to think up a way to get out of the marriage ".

Then let's look at his statements to the police: he at first said he had only met the taxi driver once. then when cctv was produced showing an at least 10 minute chat the day before, he suddenly remembered he had spoken to him on two occasions before the drive; he said Anni - dresses up to the nines - insisted they took a late night drive through the Ghetto, something they would have read the hotel warned all guests not to do, again the story changed, it later became the taxi driver's idea and they just went along with it - but why get a late-night mystery tour from a stranger? Next up, the cash. He mentioned nothing about this "balloon trip" when interviewed by the police and the first time it was mentioned was when the court case started, after he'd had 4 years to think up an explanation. Also the cash to the taxi guy. Would you pay a bloke who drove you somewhere you were hijacked and had your missus shot? And send him a thank-you note?? If that was me, I'd wonder if the driver was in on it, not give him a little present. Finally, he was supposedly dragged from the car at speed via the window and rolled away to safety, yet he had no cuts and bruises. And why would the gunmen let him live? They'd have known he could identify them, put the police onto the driver, and get them caught. If they were so cold-blooded murdering Anni, why let a witness live. Especially one who got away with money on him.

Earlier in this thread Tomarse asked why go to South Africa to murder Anni? Well, it may not have been planned in advance, but Shrien knew full well that the game of pretending to be a straight, religious son was up as soon as they got back to the UK and his wife talked. Anni had found out. She told her cousin on an email she cried every day and wanted a divorce. A multi-million pound inheritance could be anticipated to be slipping away. Shrien was not thick. He knew SA is a violent place and death is cheap down there. He may have even read the case of Dana Rodrigues, a white South.African who had a hit carried out on a love rival after simply approaching some black men she didn't know at a taxi rank.The cost was about the same as Shrien's cash withdrawal.

Look too at Shrien's behaviour after the murder. Cruising gay contact sites within hours, smiling (and more gay cruising) at her funeral. Hardly the usual demeanour of someone who is "traumatised ".

No one thing, as is often the case, conclusively proves he did it, but taken together, along with the testimony of the surviving gunman and the driver (and hotel receptionist) you get a pretty overwhelming case IMO.

The trial judge was wrong to stop the case before Dewani had been made to face cross- examination IMO. Had he done so his lies and inconsistent story might have unravelled. If the black Africans were unconvincing witnesses then I think he'd have made a wholly unbelievable one. There just is no rational explanation for some of his story.

there is a word for all that, its circumstantial,

 

the 3 main witnesses were proved to be liers only doing it for reduced sentances, playing around isn't grounds to convict some one of murder, there are many people today doing that while married,

[Calculus]

there is a word for all that, its circumstantial,

 

the 3 main witnesses were proved to be liers only doing it for reduced sentances, playing around isn't grounds to convict some one of murder, there are many people today doing that while married,

Exactly. From what I've seen there seems no way that a guilty verdict could be reached 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The idea that criminal convictions should be be based on a 'balance of probability' has never been picked up in the UK or SA, thank goodness - being only used in civil cases. The other aspect that needs some thought is that many seem to think that the trial should have continued so that Dewani be questioned in the witness box. Another dangerous idea IMO - if you are accused of anything as defendant you're quite within your rights to plead not guilty, not testify and ask the prosecution to make their case. If they can't you walk.

All this being said I would put good money on Anni's family bringing a private case somehow - if I were them I'd want answers to a lot of questions. We've not heard the last of this by a long chalk.

[Monkeh]

Exactly. From what I've seen there seems no way that a guilty verdict could be reached 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The idea that criminal convictions should be be based on a 'balance of probability' has never been picked up in the UK or SA, thank goodness - being only used in civil cases. The other aspect that needs some thought is that many seem to think that the trial should have continued so that Dewani be questioned in the witness box. Another dangerous idea IMO - if you are accused of anything as defendant you're quite within your rights to plead not guilty, not testify and ask the prosecution to make their case. If they can't you walk.

All this being said I would put good money on Anni's family bringing a private case somehow - if I were them I'd want answers to a lot of questions. We've not heard the last of this by a long chalk.

Entering the marrage under false pretents, thats about it,

Was it an arranged marrage?

[Aizoon]

I won't quote Red-Robbo in full, but you have to remember that the defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence - the prosecution has to prove his guilt. Given that they failed to do so, there's no need for the defendant to take the stand.

[Gazred]

I won't quote Red-Robbo in full, but you have to remember that the defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence - the prosecution has to prove his guilt. Given that they failed to do so, there's no need for the defendant to take the stand.

 

Plenty of Perry Masons on here but i think you summed that up nicely Aizoon.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

OK, given that we have the motive, and in texts to "the German master" at the start of the honeymoon he told him he "had to think up a way to get out of the marriage ".

Then let's look at his statements to the police: he at first said he had only met the taxi driver once. then when cctv was produced showing an at least 10 minute chat the day before, he suddenly remembered he had spoken to him on two occasions before the drive; he said Anni - dresses up to the nines - insisted they took a late night drive through the Ghetto, something they would have read the hotel warned all guests not to do, again the story changed, it later became the taxi driver's idea and they just went along with it - but why get a late-night mystery tour from a stranger? Next up, the cash. He mentioned nothing about this "balloon trip" when interviewed by the police and the first time it was mentioned was when the court case started, after he'd had 4 years to think up an explanation. Also the cash to the taxi guy. Would you pay a bloke who drove you somewhere you were hijacked and had your missus shot? And send him a thank-you note?? If that was me, I'd wonder if the driver was in on it, not give him a little present. Finally, he was supposedly dragged from the car at speed via the window and rolled away to safety, yet he had no cuts and bruises. And why would the gunmen let him live? They'd have known he could identify them, put the police onto the driver, and get them caught. If they were so cold-blooded murdering Anni, why let a witness live. Especially one who got away with money on him.

Earlier in this thread Tomarse asked why go to South Africa to murder Anni? Well, it may not have been planned in advance, but Shrien knew full well that the game of pretending to be a straight, religious son was up as soon as they got back to the UK and his wife talked. Anni had found out. She told her cousin on an email she cried every day and wanted a divorce. A multi-million pound inheritance could be anticipated to be slipping away. Shrien was not thick. He knew SA is a violent place and death is cheap down there. He may have even read the case of Dana Rodrigues, a white South.African who had a hit carried out on a love rival after simply approaching some black men she didn't know at a taxi rank.The cost was about the same as Shrien's cash withdrawal.

Look too at Shrien's behaviour after the murder. Cruising gay contact sites within hours, smiling (and more gay cruising) at her funeral. Hardly the usual demeanour of someone who is "traumatised ".

No one thing, as is often the case, conclusively proves he did it, but taken together, along with the testimony of the surviving gunman and the driver (and hotel receptionist) you get a pretty overwhelming case IMO.

The trial judge was wrong to stop the case before Dewani had been made to face cross- examination IMO. Had he done so his lies and inconsistent story might have unravelled. If the black Africans were unconvincing witnesses then I think he'd have made a wholly unbelievable one. There just is no rational explanation for some of his story.

 

I don't know whether he's guilty or not, I haven't really followed the case at all but what I do know is after watching a lot of the blade runner trial and snippets of this one, the South African legal system is a complete and utter pantomime in fact i've seen more convincing pantomimes in my life, it's a wonder that anybody is found guilty of anything given the way things are conducted.

 

The other thing that I know is that the verdicts in both cases have not gone down well with South Africans in general, many white South Africans especially are exasperated by the way these 2 high profile cases have played out and the world wide perception of their justice system.

[Monkeh]

I don't know whether he's guilty or not, I haven't really followed the case at all but what I do know is after watching a lot of the blade runner trial and snippets of this one, the South African legal system is a complete and utter pantomime in fact i've seen more convincing pantomimes in my life, it's a wonder that anybody is found guilty of anything given the way things are conducted.

 

The other thing that I know is that the verdicts in both cases have not gone down well with South Africans in general, many white South Africans especially are exasperated by the way these 2 high profile cases have played out and the world wide perception of their justice system.

I think the anger in SA is aimed at the police who in both cases have proved to be unreliable bias and in both cases caught lying,

The blade runner would of be convicted on man slaughter in this country and the bristol lad wouldn't of even got to court

[Barrs Court Red]

The CIA could have got a confession.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I think the anger in SA is aimed at the police who in both cases have proved to be unreliable bias and in both cases caught lying,

The blade runner would of be convicted on man slaughter in this country and the bristol lad wouldn't of even got to court

 

Yes the Police would appear worse than useless but the it's the over blown pantomime of the court that is coming in for greatest criticism. One comment passed on to me was "it's almost like South Africa has used the OJ Simpson trial as it's blueprint for it's justice system, with Hollywood theatrics where the Judge, Prosecutor and Defence Lawyers deem themselves to be the stars and ham it up for the cameras at every opportunity and where the defendant faints, vomits and cries as the script desires and the process just rambles on like a Quentin Tarantino script, you know with no chronological order".

 

To be honest the only thing missing with in the Pistorious trial was his defence lawyer saying 'look the false legs don't even fit my client'.

[Red-Robbo]

[RedM]

What a huge burden on his mind the case must have been, he must have been under awful stress, post traumatic wasnt it that kept him away from the trial for so long? He looked so ill on tv pictures that he could barely pull his jacket on.

Well the 'you are free to go' verdict did more in 24 hours than years of mental health care ever did, he looked a new man striding through the airport dragging his case behind him, head held up and confident. Wow the National Health could save millions and cure lots of people...give that Judge a job in a hospital.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

What a huge burden on his mind the case must have been, he must have been under awful stress, post traumatic wasnt it that kept him away from the trial for so long? He looked so ill on tv pictures that he could barely pull his jacket on.

Well the 'you are free to go' verdict did more in 24 hours than years of mental health care ever did, he looked a new man striding through the airport dragging his case behind him, head held up and confident. Wow the National Health could save millions and cure lots of people...give that Judge a job in a hospital.

 

Yep almost as good as the Guinness fraud bloke Saunders released from prison because he had alzheimer's and is the only person EVER to have recovered fully from it, it's a miracle.

[Dollymarie]

It's a christmas miracle indeed!

[dezgimed]

It's a christmas miracle indeed!

 

He is innocent. Judge said so. You believe in the justice system don't you?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

He is innocent. Judge said so. You believe in the justice system don't you?

 

Not in the South African justice system thank god.

[Dollymarie]

He is innocent. Judge said so. You believe in the justice system don't you?

Yaaaaaaawn.

[dezgimed]

Yaaaaaaawn.

 

Hypocrite is the word you're after. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Hypocrite is the word you're after. 

 

Have you got a date with him?

[Dollymarie]

Hypocrite is the word you're after.

Nah, more like troll.

[dezgimed]

Nah, more like troll.

 

Not at all.

 

If you can't present a proper argument then you've lost here I'm afraid. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Another great day for our Liberal law makers.

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/serious-risk-children-paedophile-jeffrey-8256049

[dezgimed]

Have you got a date with him?

 

No interest in this case, more Dolly's hypocrisy. 

[Dollymarie]

Not at all.

If you can't present a proper argument then you've lost here I'm afraid.

The judge didn't say he was innocent, just that the evidence was crap and couldn't be used.

The only persons who've lost here are Anni's family. Now off you pop.

[dezgimed]

The judge didn't say he was innocent, just that the evidence was crap and couldn't be used.

The only persons who've lost here are Anni's family. Now off you pop.

 

Sorry doesn't that mean there is no evidence then...?

[Red-Robbo]

Sorry doesn't that mean there is no evidence then...?

 

 

There's a vast amount of evidence against him. I can't be bothered to list it all, but read any British newspaper published yesterday. The Mail has probably the best summary.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2860818/How-Dewani-changed-story-Honeymoon-murder-suspect-never-told-laws-met-taxi-driver-hand-cash.html

 

The judge herself said there were lots of questions to be answered. She did not declare Dewani innocent, she stopped the trial because of the shambolic way the police and prosecution had presented their case. Dewani has never faced cross-examination over his alibis.

 

I disagree with Monkeh's assertion that in the UK, this case would not have come to court. In the UK, the case would have been better constructed. A judge here cannot completely strike out proceedings like that anyway, the prosecution would appeal.

[PHILINFRANCE]

OK, given that we have the motive, and in texts to "the German master" at the start of the honeymoon he told him he "had to think up a way to get out of the marriage ".

Then let's look at his statements to the police: he at first said he had only met the taxi driver once. then when cctv was produced showing an at least 10 minute chat the day before, he suddenly remembered he had spoken to him on two occasions before the drive; he said Anni - dresses up to the nines - insisted they took a late night drive through the Ghetto, something they would have read the hotel warned all guests not to do, again the story changed, it later became the taxi driver's idea and they just went along with it - but why get a late-night mystery tour from a stranger? Next up, the cash. He mentioned nothing about this "balloon trip" when interviewed by the police and the first time it was mentioned was when the court case started, after he'd had 4 years to think up an explanation. Also the cash to the taxi guy. Would you pay a bloke who drove you somewhere you were hijacked and had your missus shot? And send him a thank-you note?? If that was me, I'd wonder if the driver was in on it, not give him a little present. Finally, he was supposedly dragged from the car at speed via the window and rolled away to safety, yet he had no cuts and bruises. And why would the gunmen let him live? They'd have known he could identify them, put the police onto the driver, and get them caught. If they were so cold-blooded murdering Anni, why let a witness live. Especially one who got away with money on him.

Earlier in this thread Tomarse asked why go to South Africa to murder Anni? Well, it may not have been planned in advance, but Shrien knew full well that the game of pretending to be a straight, religious son was up as soon as they got back to the UK and his wife talked. Anni had found out. She told her cousin on an email she cried every day and wanted a divorce. A multi-million pound inheritance could be anticipated to be slipping away. Shrien was not thick. He knew SA is a violent place and death is cheap down there. He may have even read the case of Dana Rodrigues, a white South.African who had a hit carried out on a love rival after simply approaching some black men she didn't know at a taxi rank.The cost was about the same as Shrien's cash withdrawal.

Look too at Shrien's behaviour after the murder. Cruising gay contact sites within hours, smiling (and more gay cruising) at her funeral. Hardly the usual demeanour of someone who is "traumatised ".

No one thing, as is often the case, conclusively proves he did it, but taken together, along with the testimony of the surviving gunman and the driver (and hotel receptionist) you get a pretty overwhelming case IMO.

The trial judge was wrong to stop the case before Dewani had been made to face cross- examination IMO. Had he done so his lies and inconsistent story might have unravelled. If the black Africans were unconvincing witnesses then I think he'd have made a wholly unbelievable one. There just is no rational explanation for some of his story.

 

Unless I am mistaken, SD was under no obligation to testify.