PDA

View Full Version : Shrien Dewani. Will he walk?


Capetonian
24th Nov 2014, 15:15
I have always felt that he was innocent. It seems that the state is failing miserably to prove its case against him.

Whether this is because he is innocent, or because the police investigation and prosecution has been a total stuff-up (as per Pistorius) I don't know, but it is looking quite likely that he will walk out of court tomorrow a free man.

ExXB
24th Nov 2014, 15:51
In our democracies the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the crime.

If they cannot do so, then the accused should be released. Not necessarily declared 'not guilty' but not proven.

Would you want it any other way ?

Andy_S
24th Nov 2014, 15:54
Funnily enough, I always thought he was guilty as charged.

On the face of it, it was a mugging that went wrong, but then I heard that a) his family business was in financial difficulty, and b) she had a plump life insurance. Add onto that the fact that she was allegedly in a distressed state on the flight to South Africa and apparently wanted to be seated away from him and something smelt bad about the whole affair.

Of course, none of the above proves guilt.

Capetonian
24th Nov 2014, 15:56
South Africa is not a democracy, whatever those who are responsible for the fall of the previous regime many wish to promote, it is less of a democracy now than it was before 1994.

Switzerland, where you are fortunate to live, and South Africa are probably about as far apart in terms of democracy as it is possible to be on this planet.

The state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the crime.Of course I agree with you.

Solid Rust Twotter
24th Nov 2014, 16:06
Cops cocked it up and contaminated the evidence, I reckon.

Effluent Man
24th Nov 2014, 16:13
Andy S, Yes I did the same reckoning as you.Circumstantial evidence,but quite a lot of it.A good argument against capital punishment though because if he was for the drop I would play safe and acquit.

bcgallacher
24th Nov 2014, 17:12
Up to now there really does not seem to be any credible evidence against him.His sexual preferences may be a little odd but that does not make him a murderer.

Sir George Cayley
24th Nov 2014, 17:35
I might have missed it, but has there ever been an explanation of events from the defence?

SGC

SpringHeeledJack
24th Nov 2014, 18:33
Up to now there really does not seem to be any credible evidence against him.His sexual preferences may be a little odd but that does not make him a murderer.

Unless I've been dreaming (very possible :) ), so far I've seen in the press photos/video of him meeting with the taxi driver and passing over an envelope the day before her murder, acting in a strange/fake way on hotel video after being told of her gruesome demise, there's evidence that he was surfing websites both before and directly after the crime looking for carnal satisfaction and on and on and the two perps (one dead, both imprisoned) had given their story of how he had hired them to carry out the dastardly deed. I've always felt that he had her murdered so that he could fulfil
the familial obligations of marrying and then be left alone as a grieving husband to carry on with his forbidden sexuality in peace. I found his whole mental breakdown to be a superb act. There, do I get my 50p ? :hmm: Opinions are like **********, so who knows. I do feel very sad for both the victim and her family, she seemed to be a decent person.


SHJ

Capetonian
24th Nov 2014, 18:43
I've seen in the press photos/video of him meeting with the taxi driver and passing over an envelope the day before her murder, And that proves what exactly?

acting in a strange/fake way on hotel video after being told of her gruesome demise, Shock, grief?

there's evidence that he was surfing websites both before and directly after the crime looking for carnal satisfaction That doesn't make him a murderer. Plenty of married men (and women) do the same leading double lives with people of the opposite or same sex.
'Evidence' in the South African context is unreliable to say the least.

and on and on and the two perps (one dead, both imprisoned) had given their story of how he had hired them to carry out the dastardly deed.They may well have been bribed to give false evidence.

I've always felt that he had her murdered so that he could fulfil the familial obligations of marryingThat's your view and you're entitled to it, but it is only an opinion and not based on any knowledge or evidence.

My opinion, no more valid than yours, is that a man of his intellectual and financial resources would not have indulged in such an incredibly high risk and stupid scheme to get rid of his wife, when there would have been plenty of other safer and less suspicious ways of doing it.

SpringHeeledJack
24th Nov 2014, 20:56
Good defence mr capetonian, I realise my views/feelings are based on that which has been released in the media, but within that which has been released my feeling is that he's as guilty as hell. I realise that sexuality, race, nationality, age, gender et al have no correlation to committing such crimes, but for me it's his demeanour throughout the case thus far that speaks volumes. Hopefully the correct persons have and will be convicted and punished, but whatever happens the lovely lady won't be returning to her family ever again.


SHJ

G-CPTN
24th Nov 2014, 23:29
Hasn't Shrien Dewani been accused of being involved with the demise of someone before the current case?

I cannot find the reference now . . .

superq7
25th Nov 2014, 00:00
Just a thought if he was innocent why did he play crafty dafty for the best part of four years ?

Bronx
25th Nov 2014, 00:33
Just a thought if he was innocent why did he play crafty dafty for the best part of four years ?

Perhaps because he did not have absolute confidence in the South Africa criminal justice system?

Rightly or wrongly, he would not be alone if he had such concerns.

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 04:41
That, of course, makes the, probably correct, assumption that he was not experienced in committing the crime of which he is charged.All the more reason why he would seek the assistance of someone competent and experienced, and not an unqualified, unknown taxi driver.

There was mention that he was involved in the disappearance of someone in the E Cape in the past, I don't think it was ever anything more than the muttering of a journalist and it went very quiet.

Trossie
25th Nov 2014, 09:32
In keeping with recent high-profile SA court cases, this one seems to be very much the victim of biased public opinion and no interest in any facts.

The way that the SA prosecutors were so confident of their case, I was expecting some hard and well investigated evidence. (Funny old thing, I was expecting similar in the Pistorius case.)

The only case that I have seen is implications by convicted criminals given as 'evidence'. One of those criminals had his sentence reduced because he had given this 'evidence'. Another witness was given immunity from prosecution for his involvement because of the 'evidence' that he gave. This might have added up to something if some more substantial evidence was available. Failing that substantial evidence this just looks like two crooks trying to wriggle their way out of too much trouble for something that they have done by pointing a finger at someone else and saying "it's his fault".

So, stepping back and looking at this on the case that has been presented: someone arrived in a new country, he approached a compete stranger and asked him to arrange a murder. (Somehow with no concern that that complete stranger might go straight to the police and report this?)

However, lets look at some other aspects. There are many, many hijackings in SA, many involving murders. A very high-profile hi-jacking happened involving a couple on their honeymoon in the Cape. This was an embarrassment to the SA government as it wasn't going to be good for tourism. The taxi-driver's lawyer told him that he could get a reduced sentence if he could give evidence to implicate someone else. The taxi-driver then said "He told me to do it". The authorities in SA then breathed a sigh of relief as the finger could be pointed outside SA for this crime and pulled out all the stops to bring the case to court (all the 'administrative' stops, but carelessly forgetting that little matter of 'evidence').

(The state is trying to implicate a conspiracy in this case, so it is quite reasonable to question them being involved in a conspiracy as well, especially seeing their poor evidence implying that conspiracy.)

Whatever the result of this case is, SA comes off very badly:

a) He's guilty: SA is a very dangerous place where a murder can be arranged at short notice through a complete stranger and at very little (in British money terms) cost;

b) He's not guilty: SA is a very dangerous place for wealthy tourists who will easily be the targets of violent crime and there is a serious risk that the SA legal system will then brutally abuse a survivor of that crime.

This case shows up the very, very biased attitudes in almost all aspects of the modern SA, from the general public 'up' to the SA National Police commissioner's racist comment "A monkey came all the way from London...". It also confirms the very poor standards of SA police criminal and forensics investigation. And it highlights the very, very, very high levels of violent crime. Whatever the outcome, SA comes out very badly.

dfdasein
25th Nov 2014, 11:55
Spot on Trossie! This case tells us a huge deal about the South African tragedy (shades of the "Dreyfus Affair" in late 19th C France). Even the redoubtable white woman politician Helen Zille was quick to condemn Dewani for thinking he could come and... er... get away with murder in the country. Almost every South African I have spoken to about the case was convinced of Dewani's guilt. The alternative is their problem, for a long time to come.

maliyahsdad2
25th Nov 2014, 12:33
Unless I've been dreaming (very possible :) ), so far I've seen in the press photos/video of him meeting with the taxi driver and passing over an envelope the day before her murder, .......SHJ

It was the meeting of the taxi driver after the murder to give him a "tip" that was even weirder! For me I am leaning towards the guy is Guilty.

Blacksheep
25th Nov 2014, 12:43
I might have missed it, but has there ever been an explanation of events from the defence?The defence postulates a bodged kidnapping and ransome attempt. With husband dumped and wife taken away, it does in fact look just like that.

Then it all goes wrong: wife is killed by accident in a struggle and perpetrators flee, leaving jewellry on the body that is worth much more than the supposed murder fee. Indeed, the taxi driver earned much more in a month than that supposed murder fee as well.

I think he's innocent.

Trossie
25th Nov 2014, 13:57
"It was the meeting of the taxi driver after the murder to give him a "tip" that was even weirder!"

Really? Remember that they had both been, on face value, victims of a violent crime themselves. A wealthier customer in such circumstances giving a 'condolences' tip to a taxi driver in such circumstances shouldn't necessarily look 'weird'. Surely that is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened elsewhere and not seen as a sign of guilt? The only thing that we do know as a fact from the findings of another court is that the taxi driver was lying at the time.

The thing that I feel uncomfortable with is the idea that someone can wriggle out of his deserved punishment for involvement in such a violent crime by pointing a finger elsewhere, without that 'finger pointing' being fully corroborated. And I also feel uncomfortable about the poor levels of criminal investigation that can lead to someone being extradited.

What any of us 'think' or 'lean towards' is irrelevant: if someone is guilty it needs to be proven, not subject to the knee-jerk bias that has been blatantly evident at so many levels in South Africa.

anotherthing
25th Nov 2014, 14:30
A good argument against capital punishment though because if he was for the drop I would play safe and acquit.What a silly thing to say and shows a lack of understanding of a democratic judicial system.

You either think he is guilty or not, based on the evidence. The sentence should have nothing at all to do with the thought process.

bcgallacher
25th Nov 2014, 17:15
Another thing - the fact is that verdicts are influenced by whether there is a death penalty or not. After abolition of the death penalty in the UK I am sure that I have seen figures that showed an increased conviction rate for what were capital offences.

Octopussy2
25th Nov 2014, 17:25
anotherthing - logically speaking, you are of course correct. From a practical perspective, however, juries are human (unlike us lawyers :E) and are liable to be influenced by the outcome of their verdict.

airship
25th Nov 2014, 17:33
Maybe Oscar could lend him his blades... :p

B Fraser
25th Nov 2014, 17:48
The chap is clearly off his rocker. Who in their right mind would feel like surfing one handed websites within a day of being carjacked and your mate, never mind your bride, being shot in the throat ?

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 17:56
There is no proof that he did so.

Also, until you've been in that situation, it's very hard to say how someone might react. To me, it seems a highly improbable and frankly repellent way to behave, but I've been around for long enough to no longer be shocked at human depravity.

Even if he were surfing one-handed websites (I like the expression!) that doesn't materially add credence to the argument that he killed his wife.

B Fraser
25th Nov 2014, 21:37
It's in the court documents according to the Daily Telegraph. I can't post a link at the moment.

Having been in a few aviation or driving scrapes where the grim reaper was possibly stroking his chin wondering whether to tap me on the shoulder, bashing the bishop was not an immediate priority. The thought of my bride on a slab would have certainly spoiled a "menage a une".

Capetonian
26th Nov 2014, 07:07
Here are the links to the latest DT articles.

The fact that 'evidence' may appear in court papers is not proof. Having had experience of the South African police system I can assure you that the presence or absence of 'evidence' is not reliable. It is often based on 'expert' witnesses, who are no more expert than the man in the street. They are also often corrupt or downright incompetent and unqualified. I think you have to have observed the system first hand to appreciate this.

Even if he had been surfing porn sites of whatever nature, before or after his wife's decease, reprehensible as that may be, it does not prove, or even contribute to proof, of his guilt.

I was in Cape Town when the 'event' took place, and coincidentally, that same afternoon I'd been in Strand and Somerset West, where they'd spent the early evening. The first I heard of it was on the Sunday afternoon when I bought a local newspaper prior to boarding a flight to Europe, and I remember from the moment of reading that first report thinking how many inconsistencies there were in the reporting.

As it unfolded, I became more and more convinced of his innocence. If he is not found guilty, I am not going to jump on my soapbox and say 'I told you he was innocent and here's the proof' ........ I don't have that much faith in the system, but it will mean that they didn't find enough evidence that he was guilty, not the same thing. That said, my money is 'he didn't dunnit!'



Anni Dewani's family appeal to husband Shrien: 'Tell us what really happened' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11253546/Anni-Dewanis-family-appeal-to-husband-Shrien-Tell-us-what-really-happened.html)

Demand for early end to 'highly improbable' case against Dewani - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11253631/Demand-for-early-end-to-highly-improbable-case-against-Dewani.html)

Shrien Dewani: the conflicting evidence - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11249853/Shrien-Dewani-the-conflicting-evidence.html)

Shrien Dewani trial: timeline of key events - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11143034/Shrien-Dewani-trial-timeline-of-key-events.html)

Shrien Dewani: judge considers if case should be dismissed - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11249638/Shrien-Dewani-judge-considers-if-case-should-be-dismissed.html)

Trossie
26th Nov 2014, 08:19
Seeing the biased comments from so many on here, there must be a lot of Saffers or ex-Saffers posting. Capetonian has summed a lot of this up perfectly in his most recent post (he has obviously seen enough of the world that he does not have Saffer blinkers on!).

Some time ago I was talking to a Saffer about the Bristol murder and the landlord who had been falsely accused by some in the media. The Saffer response was that he looked suspicious because he 'was weird'. My answer was that he was entitled to be weird if he wanted to be, that does not make him a murderer (and it was subsequently proven that he wasn't the murderer). Exactly the same applies to this case. Just because someone seems to be weird does not imply any sort of guilt in a case.

Guilt needs to be proven. Facts are needed for proof. 'Proof' that comes from a convicted criminal trying to reduce his punishment by pointing fingers is a very, very, very shaky 'fact'.

In two high-profile cases now, the South African police have come off extremely badly in their ability to conduct an investigation and provide 'evidence' (the police photographer not having the correct date and time in his cameras in the Pistorius case is just a start, the list goes on and on and on and on from there!!) and the South African prosecuting authorities come off badly in not being able to present coherent cases to the court. This raises the very serious question about anyone being extradited to South Africa potentially to face abuse by those two incompetent institutions there. I hope that the UK Foreign Office and Home Office are taking careful notes to ensure the protection of UK citizens from this potential abuse in the future.

Thank goodness there is no jury system in SA. Evidence would not be required in court, it would just be "he/she is not 'normal' so they are guilty"!

As I've said, whatever the outcome of this case, SA comes off very, very badly.

Solid Rust Twotter
26th Nov 2014, 08:22
Quite so. As posted previously, best practice procedures are not followed so it would be extremely difficult to come up with any uncontaminated evidence to prove either claim. It will always remain a mystery.

Capetonian
26th Nov 2014, 08:25
Trossie : Thank you for restoring some balance to the discussion.

As I've said, whatever the outcome of this case, SA comes off very, very badly.Sad but true. Ditto in the Pistorius case, one which got a surprising (to me) amount of coverage in the UK.

Trossie
26th Nov 2014, 09:03
(Pistorius had a huge amount of coverage here during the Olympics, particularly because the Paralympics was so big here and he was in both. It followed then that his case would attract a lot of interest. That didn't do SA any favours...)

dfdasein
26th Nov 2014, 10:41
I am amazed that it has taken so long for this case to get an airing on PPRuNe. As I suggested earlier, the ramifications are profound, and not only for South Africa.

londonblue
26th Nov 2014, 12:57
Funnily enough, I always thought he was guilty as charged.

On the face of it, it was a mugging that went wrong, but then I heard that a) his family business was in financial difficulty, and b) she had a plump life insurance. Add onto that the fact that she was allegedly in a distressed state on the flight to South Africa and apparently wanted to be seated away from him and something smelt bad about the whole affair.

Of course, none of the above proves guilt.

I too thought/assumed he was guilty until I watched Panorama. It made a very strong case for his innocence.

Obviously it can be argued that the BBC were one sided, but it is worth remembering that in its time Rough Justice secured the release of 18 people in 13 different cases.

(The whole programme seems to be available on youtube should anyone want to watch.)

Effluent Man
26th Nov 2014, 15:31
My reluctance to convict with a capital penalty is based on this: In virtually every case a good defence lawyer could put some element of doubt into your mind."Beyond reasonable doubt" could mean 99% certain.

I wouldnt want to convict with the death penalty if it was 99.9%.I would need complete certainty not just beyond reasonable doubt.I suppose live video of the offence would suffice.

Mac the Knife
26th Nov 2014, 15:54
I think Dewani is as guilty as hell.

"Circumstantial evidence is occasionally very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk, to quote Thoreau's example." Arthur Conan Doyle: The Adventure Of The Noble Bachelor

So much ducking and diving, the convenient PTSD, the S&M background etc., etc.

He's probably love it in Pollsmoor but he'll probably get off - slimy little freak.

Jeez, I'd have taken her off his hands for 20c....

Pukemaking :yuk:

Mac

dazdaz1
26th Nov 2014, 16:17
Hindu Marriage act.

Section 5. A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely-

neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage
at the time of the marriage, neither party-

is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity or epilepsy.





Someone posted about his wife's large insurance policy. Read 1 2 3 of the above. He might be taking this in to account of his defence, mitigating his claim to his late wife's insurance claim.

Effluent Man
26th Nov 2014, 16:40
Mac, Altrhough like you I think him guilty his sexual preferences really have no bearing on the case.There is no sexual motive or any element of sex involved. I think such tittillation is a red herring.

dfdasein
26th Nov 2014, 17:13
I think Dewani is as guilty as hell.


A South African once said those exact words to me, and I wondered about the gratuitous vehemence of the statement. Then it dawned on me that he had been in a road accident for which he was culpable, and his wife had been instantly killed.

SpringHeeledJack
26th Nov 2014, 19:18
Whilst surfing for sex just before and after his wife's death is unusual behaviour, the fact that he was looking for further homosexual fetish sex does have a bearing, in that the marriage (from his side) was a sham to appease his family and other considerations. His hidden real sexuality is forbidden and frowned upon in his culture and I believe (Sherlock Holmes style) that this gave him a strong motive to arrange his wife's demise after the fabulously expensive wedding. With her tragically dead, no one would pressure him to marry again for a good while/ever again and he was free to continue being true to his sexuality. The shame of being found out to be gay, for him, was so great that he took extreme measures to pacify the family and play the game.

The SA legal/police system seems to have been less than watertight by all accounts in the past, so I can understand any scepticism towards justice being done, especially when the tourist image of SA is under the spotlight.



SHJ

Trossie
26th Nov 2014, 19:32
I think Dewani is as guilty as hell.That is EXACTLY the Saffer attitude that I was mentioning earlier.

(Maybe that is why the evidence is not collected and handled in SA with the same diligence and care as it is in more advanced countries: evidence doesn't matter, opinion is all that counts.)

As far as tourism and SA's image goes, if a foreigner can be found to be guilty, more the better as they can say 'See, not us'. They fail to realise what it does then say about the country: you can easily arrange a murder there at a very low cost, therefore it is a very dangerous place to visit. And if you are a visitor and you have any tangle with the law (genuine or 'trumped up'), forget about evidence and things like that, if they don't like you (and if you're a foreigner that is more likely) then you've had it, you are automatically guilty regardless of facts.

As I've said more than once, whatever the outcome of this case, SA comes off very, very badly.

Effluent Man
26th Nov 2014, 19:59
Yes a good point SHJ.It would indeed provide a motive.

Trossie
8th Dec 2014, 10:54
Well, the law has spoken. BBC News - Dewani murder case thrown out (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30375335)

ExXB
8th Dec 2014, 11:04
I wouldn't have said he was Not Guilty, just that his guilt hadn't been proven.

Is there double jeopardy protections under SA law?

G-CPTN
8th Dec 2014, 11:08
So, the witnesses were self-confessed liars whose testimony was riddled with contradictions and highly debatable. :eek:

Now there is talk of an appeal, claiming that the judge was biased.

Trossie
8th Dec 2014, 11:11
Bloody hell!! What do you mean 'just that his guilt hadn't been proven'??!!

He was the victim of a violent crime and only ended up in court because a proven lying bunch of toads tried to reduce the punishment that they would get for their involvement.

He has now been the victim of this farcical case brought on the flimsiest of grounds.

In addition to that he has been the victim of every prejudiced git trying to have a go at him!!

Solution? Never visit South Africa. It is just too dangerous.

Andy_S
8th Dec 2014, 11:47
He was the victim of a violent crime.....

Or so he claims.........

In addition to that he has been the victim of every prejudiced git trying to have a go at him!!

Could you please explain that remark? I really, really hope you're not suggesting that people are prejudiced against him due to his ethnicity or sexual orientation.

My gut feel is that he is guilty. However, that was never more than a gut feel based on circumstantial evidence. Objectively, the case against him was very weak and would never have stood up in, say, a British court. In that respect, throwing the case out was the correct decision.

ex_matelot
8th Dec 2014, 11:52
I've always had the opinion a large part of this was South Africa trying to repair its reputation as being a violent country unsafe for tourists.

Mac the Knife
8th Dec 2014, 13:43
Dewani was NOT acquitted - the case was dismissed.

Dewani's precipitous flight, delaying tactics of faking PTSD, fighting extradition for all sorts of spurious reasons and thus delaying the trial until one of his co-accused was dead and everyone so confused that they couldn't remember what lies they'd told and when, has been successful.

"The prosecution had alleged the men carried out the killing for Mr Dewani for 15,000 rand (about 830). The judge said Tongo and accomplices Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Xolile Mngeni were "intelligent men" and dismissed the prosecution claim that they would have carried out a contract killing for Mr Dewani for "a few thousand rand"."

Well, I live here and I betcha it wouldn't take me 48hrs to find someone to take a tourist out for R2000, especially if they could keep anything they found. Here people break into cars to look for loose change under the seats and kill for a papsak of cheap wine.

Dewani's story is so nonsensical and improbable that I have very little doubt that he instigated this killing - only the fact that he was a moron who chose the first dom skollie that he met, with equally dom chommies, prevented him from getting clean away with it.

Think Shrien's "Asiansubguy" trawling of gay websites and S&M frolics with the "German Master" irrelevant?

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." Henry David Thoreau - November 11, 1854.

Mac

:mad:

G-CPTN
8th Dec 2014, 13:49
So it looks like a reconciliation is out of the question? :rolleyes:

bcgallacher
8th Dec 2014, 14:10
I think the lady judge should receive some praise for her statement before her judgement - she condensed weeks of trial statements and brought clarity to her decision.Even if you had not followed the trial you would have understood why she came to her verdict. I do not know whether the man was involved in the death of his wife - there was absolutely no convincing or verifiable evidence produced at the trial and I would not have convicted a cat on what was produced.No doubt in my mind that the correct judgement was made. The victims parents are aggrieved - the people who killed their daughter have been punished they really cannot expect much more than that. The fact that the marriage should not really have taken place due to the bridegrooms sexual proclavities does not warrant a murder conviction.

Ancient Observer
8th Dec 2014, 14:18
I wonder if Mrs Milliband would like to take her hubby, Marx Milliband, on hols to S. Africa??

So if I take Mrs Ancient on hols to S Africa, it would be assumed that I will take out a contract on her??

ExXB
8th Dec 2014, 15:11
I suspect the S.A. government will find it increasingly difficult to extradite others in the future, regardless of the strength of their cases. This one has certainly tainted their 'professionalism'.

Seeing as prison sentences were reduced in return for testimony, I wonder if those deals will be rescinded ...

chuks
8th Dec 2014, 17:23
So, Doctor Mac, do you foresee a near-miraculous recovery from PTSD in the case of Mr Dewani, now that he's been acquitted and all?

I remember a British businessman who was healed of galloping senility in this way. Totally gaga one day, right as rain the next ... a miracle!

Sallyann1234
8th Dec 2014, 17:39
I suspect the S.A. government will find it increasingly difficult to extradite others in the future, regardless of the strength of their cases.Why do you say that?
He was extradited quite properly, following all the rules, to answer a charge of murder.
On the basis of the prosecution's evidence, the judge decided there was no possibility of a satisfactory guilty verdict, and found him not guilty.
He is free to return home.
Whatever anyone might believe or say about SA justice, he seems to have been treated very fairly, and this case should not influence any similar one in the future.

Mac the Knife
8th Dec 2014, 18:22
"So, Doctor Mac, do you foresee a near-miraculous recovery from PTSD in the case of Mr Dewani, now that he's been acquitted and all?"

Yes indeed, though he would be wise to exercise a little discretion for a while before plunging back into the gay BDSM underworld that is his particular proclivity.

What a pity that a lovely, intelligent (if somewhat nave) lass like Anni should have become betrothed to such an unsuitable person. A little discrete research by her family (normal in arranged or semi-arranged marriages) must surely have revealed his inappropriacy.

I'd have readily taken her off his hands....:)

Mac

[I have still little doubt about his involvement in her death]

:yuk:

chuks
8th Dec 2014, 20:33
It's easy to see the difficulty in prosecuting this fellow, though. Only one witness, and the use of the thumbscrews on the suspect no longer allowed.

Well, one of these days someone might forget to loosen the collar on his gimp suit, when we could call that "justice."

radeng
8th Dec 2014, 21:53
Natheless, I would suggest that he would be more than wise to avoid returning to South Africa in the foreseeable future.....

bcgallacher
9th Dec 2014, 04:15
Chuks - you obviously have evidence that that was not disclosed to the court that would prove the guilt of the accused husband. I and many others would be grateful if you would inform us as to what it is. You use the word justice but do not seem to know the meaning of the word.

John Hill
9th Dec 2014, 05:16
Clux is a bit busy right now...
http://wildsvillegallery.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/TW1135-Snake-Charmer-Huck1-437x296.jpg

Trossie
9th Dec 2014, 08:40
[I have still little doubt about his involvement in her death]That statement implies that:

1. The South African police are incompetent as they cannot provide reliable evidence for a case;
2. The South African prosecutors are incompetent because they cannot present a case that stands a chance;
3. The South African judiciary are incompetent because they cannot provide a judgement that the public wants;
4. Cape Town is one of the most dangerous places in the world because a foreigner can arrive there and successfully arrange a murder through a total stranger at very short notice and for a very low amount of money.
5. People interested in their own safety should avoid Cape Town at all costs.

However, the facts are:

1. A court has found him not guilty;
2. That court's findings showed the South African police and the prosecutors to be incompetent in bringing that case to court;
3. The court's finding were thorough and reasoned, as a total contrast to the prejudiced 'kangaroo court' sentiments that have been displayed by the South African public, politicians and State officials, with the court throwing the case out when no reliable evidence was provided by the State.
4. All the witnesses in the case were proven by the court to be liars who were trying to reduce their sentences for their crime.
5. Cape Town is a very dangerous place.

Implications from this case are:

!. South Africa at least has an independent judiciary that protects individuals from the incompetence of the South African police, the incompetence of the South African prosecuting authorities, the prejudices of the South African public and the corrupt political influence that there is on organs of state such as the police and prosecutors;
2. South Africans are always ready to point the finger somewhere else, such as in this case these convicted criminals wanting to reduce their sentences by pointing the finger at someone else and the South African public and politicians wanting to point the finger at a foreigner;
3. Foreigners should think very carefully about visiting South Africa because this case has shown that you run the risk of being killed or having your life ruined by the people of South Africa.

South Africans are so ready to claim to be 'proud' of South Africa. Well, other than having a rational and independent judiciary, this case leaves South Africans with very little to be proud of.

I've always had the opinion a large part of this was South Africa trying to repair its reputation as being a violent country unsafe for tourists.Probably the most accurate post that there has been here...

Statements likeDewani was NOT acquitted - the case was dismissed.show the lack of knowledge of the facts by so many posting here. The words of the judge were "not guilty". Fact. That is an aquittal. (But then, prejudice never needs facts...)

MagnusP
9th Dec 2014, 08:52
Chuks, that would be Ernest Saunders who was given early release because of his "Alzheimers" then made a miraculous recovery. I've scoured the pages of the British Medical Journal in search of an explanation, but to no avail. :p

Happy Birthday, BTW. :ok:

anotherthing
9th Dec 2014, 09:54
listening to the radio yesterday I heard one of the arguments the prosecution was putting forward to prove his guilt is that he got out of the taxi and left his wife in it when confronted by the assailants...

I might be simple, and it may have been a rash decision on his part, but are those actions not consistent with someone who might be trying to draw attention away from his wife?

Capetonian
9th Dec 2014, 10:16
The crucial point to me was the judge's view that it was impossible to tell where the truth ended and the lies began, and that there was an absence of reliable evidence.

I am not defending the ZA legal system, in many ways it stinks, but I think that this is, again, probably a correct verdict. I do understand that the family of the deceased are disappointed and shocked.

If there is any blame to be apportioned, it is to the negligence and crass stupidity of whoever made the decision to drive into a very violent and dangerous township on what might be the most dangerous night of the week.

Stupidity is, regrettably, not a crime. Were it so, the world's prisons would be full to overflowing and most of us would have criminal records.

radeng
9th Dec 2014, 11:28
Trossie said

>!. South Africa at least has an independent judiciary that protects individuals from the incompetence of the South African police, the incompetence of the South African prosecuting authorities, the prejudices of the South African public and the corrupt political influence that there is on organs of state such as the police and prosecutors;<

Long may it continue, because it is probably the only state in Africa where one can say that......

Trossie
9th Dec 2014, 11:41
"...it is probably the only state in Africa where one can say that......"
And Botswana?

chuks
9th Dec 2014, 13:25
Mr Gallacher ... how many others, besides you, await my pronuciamento? I just want to know how large an assembly I am addressing here ....

Anyway, I wrote that the sad demise of this shifty cove, in a gimp suit, would be something that we might call "justice," not necessarily justice per se.

I am as one with the medical man when it comes to finding a trout in the milk; this fellow looks distinctly fishy!

When you arrive in South Africa, should you choose to do a mini-bus tour of a slum after dark? It's probably dangerous enough in the daylight.

When you want to book a helicopter tour, you hand over an envelope full of cash to your driver? Golly, the last time I hired an aircraft, I paid with American Express. But that could just be me.

I have no fixed notion about whether this fellow is guilty as sin or innocent as a lamb. He was tried and acquitted, same as O.J. Simpson was. What comes next ... I'm happy to wait and see, me and my medical friend, the one who seems to know a lot more about the milieu in which this foul killing took place.

You must be equally happy, feeling that an innocent man has found justice. Do not let anything I post disturb your happy thoughts on this matter, lead you to wonder if you might have, so to speak, bet on the wrong horse.

G-CPTN
9th Dec 2014, 13:31
Wasn't there an incident earlier in SD's life when someone was 'offed' and his involvement, though suspected, was never proven?

Solid Rust Twotter
9th Dec 2014, 19:21
... South Africa at least has an independent judiciary that protects individuals from the incompetence of the South African police...


Such optimism. Were that the case I'm sure one JZ and a number of others in high office would be shitting themselves.


TBQH I have little faith in any of the organs of state.

Trossie
9th Dec 2014, 23:36
The reason why "... one JZ and a number of others in high office [are not] shitting themselves" is because they are able to exert political influence on those organs (police and NPA) that cold put "... one JZ and a number of others in high office..." in front of that independent judiciary.

(I see from here that several people still don't quite understand what 'not guilty' means.)

Solid Rust Twotter
10th Dec 2014, 04:47
Well, they've been loading the judiciary with right thinking supporters of the ruling party who rely on govt (read the politicised mess currently running the show) for their salaries and perks, so I'd say there might be some wishful thinking on that score.

Capetonian
10th Dec 2014, 07:41
He is believed to have flown into the UK on an Emirates flight which landed shortly before 6.30amI'm glad to see that this time the taxpayer, I believe this was funded by the South African government, has only had to fork out for what was almost certainly the cheapest option, whereas he was flown from BRS to CPT on a privately chartered business jet.

bcgallacher
10th Dec 2014, 09:42
Chuks - one of the factors that convinces you of his guilt is the kind of suit he wore? Are you taking the piss or are you serious? Perhaps that is why he was found not guilty by the judge - she did not take his suit into consideration. If you want to dispute the verdict use rational argument not idiotic references to the kind of suit he wore.

Sallyann1234
10th Dec 2014, 10:08
BBC now saying that a judge has allowed an appeal by the prosecution.

Trossie
10th Dec 2014, 10:13
Sally, I think you're mixing cases.

(There are a rather high number of high profile murder cases there though, so I can see why you've got mixed up!!)

There would never be a hope is hell of any appeal on this utterly flimsy case.

G-CPTN
10th Dec 2014, 10:29
BBC News - Oscar Pistorius case: Judge Masipa allows appeal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30408424)

Sallyann1234
10th Dec 2014, 10:34
Sorry folks, I half heard a radio report and as that was the case in the news...

tony draper
10th Dec 2014, 10:38
It's just a branch of showbiz now anyway,like famine flood war or natural disaster.

Capetonian
10th Dec 2014, 11:07
I'm glad to see that this time the taxpayer, I believe this was funded by the South African government, has only had to fork out for what was almost certainly the cheapest option, whereas he was flown from BRS to CPT on a privately chartered business jet. To my great disappointment, I've just heard that he flew first class on EK. What a disgrace, unless he paid for it himself which I think is unlikely in the extreme.

Trossie
10th Dec 2014, 11:36
After being dragged across there to face that disgrace of a shambolic 'prosecution case', it would only be fair for the SA taxpayer to have funded a first-class ticket! Surely there's a lot more that he can still claim...?

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 15:01
Mr Gallacher, I guess I need to break this one to you gently, since you do not seem quite clued in to one of the more bizarre corners of human sexual behavior. Bear with me here, since some of this may come as a shock to you:

Mr Dewani is on the record as participating in the BDSM (Bondage & Discipline, Sadism & Masochism) scene. That's where that strapping German bloke clad in leather comes in: he's a professional Sadist, and Mr Dewani was his customer, a Masochist.

Masochistic participants in BDSM sometimes dress in a "gimp suit" or "bondage suit," before having (how shall I put this?), umm, very naughty things done to them! That would be in private, though, not in open court. Well, I don't think so, anyway!

Sometimes masochists, among others, either practice or submit to asphyxiation, and sometimes that goes a bit too far, resulting in the demise of the masochist.

What I was envisioning is Mr Dewani dressed in the sort of suit that people with his peculiar sexual orientation sometimes wear, a "gimp suit," suffering the sort of untimely demise that such people sometimes suffer, when I could call that "justice."

Why that should be, well, it seems that this lovely young woman, his late wife, agreed to marry him not knowing anything about what his true sexual orientation is, when that seems to me and a few others to have led directly to her demise.

I once lost a sister after she had married someone who was not as he seemed to be, so that I might not be treating Mr Dewani with the same degree of compassion as yourself. On the other hand, I seem to be a bit less naive than yourself, so that I might know more about Mr Dewani than you do, even if I am reduced to guessing.

Capetonian
10th Dec 2014, 15:04
chuks : as reprehensible as his behaviour and sexual habits may be, that does not make him any more likely to have plotted the demise of his wife in the manner of which he is accused.

Evanelpus
10th Dec 2014, 15:54
It's amazing what a not guilty verdict does for a person. When he left SA, he wasn't the shuffling, vacant individual that we've seen since his extradition.

It's a miracle!:rolleyes:

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 16:44
If this fellow was as straight as straight could be, a ragingly butch, 110% heterosexual, then we would not be having this conversation. It is the proven fact of his sexual orientation, one that was unknown to his unfortunate wife before she married him, that makes him such an object of suspicion.

It does make him more likely to have had her killed, definitely! If I get off on BDSM, what business do I have luring some woman into marrying me by hiding that fact? Something very dodgy seems to have gone on there with that marriage.

On the other hand, his sexuality proves nothing, no. The idea that one can step off a flight to South Africa and hire some killers, just like that, seemed to be the weakest part of the case against the man, but we really did not get to learn much about that. All that cash, on the other hand? What was that about, really? That's not how one hires a helicopter.

The State did not have enough evidence to convict him, unless, perhaps, they had been able to put him on the stand and get him to say something about his role in the death of his wife, something the judge held to be improper to allow to go ahead.

That did not happen, so that he's now a free man, acquitted of the charge of murder. If he's still under some suspicion, well, I think he can live with that.

Seriously, this would have to play out as it did with O.J. Simpson, who got away with whatever it was he did, but then got nailed years later for something completely different, so that now he's behind bars, where many think he belongs, when we call that "justice."

If Dewani ends up in a fatal encounter with a gimp suit, do not expect many tears to be shed over that. That's about it, really. Give it a month and he will be forgotten, but he might show up in the news one more time.

Espada III
10th Dec 2014, 17:24
A few people will be 'celebrating' the demise of Scot Young BBC News - Scottish property tycoon dies after London flat fall (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-30411384) who appeared to have hidden many millions from his snotty wife. Did he deserve this end? Who knows but no-one thought he told the truth about the money.

Capetonian
10th Dec 2014, 17:52
All that cash, on the other hand? What was that about, really? That's not how one hires a helicopter.All what cash? Do you have evidence that 'all that cash' changed hands? Do you know what was in the envelope? If so, do you know what it was for?

(As a matter of interest, I shall be handing over an envelope next week to someone in Cape Town with slightly more cash than the amount Dewani supposedly paid to have his wife bumped off. I hope that doesn't make me a marked man!)

You are demonstrating why the case collapsed. There was no plausible evidence against Dewani.

I happen to be believe that he is innocent of the charges against him, but even if I were convinced of his guilt, I would not be able to point to anything to substantiate that belief. The judge thought the same. That's why he's at home in Bristol today.

If anything, he deserves a Darwin award, nothing more.

SpringHeeledJack
10th Dec 2014, 18:12
I happen to be believe that he is innocent of the charges against him, but even if I were convinced of his guilt, I would not be able to point to anything to substantiate that belief. The judge thought the same. That's why he's at home in Bristol today.

Mr cape, would you be so good as to say why you think he's completely innocent ?


SHJ

bcgallacher
10th Dec 2014, 18:32
Chuks - you seem to have more than a passing knowledge of the BDSM scene - is there something you have not told us? As others apart from myself have posted the mans sexual proclavities have little relevance to the murder. You state that you have more knowledge of the case than myself through guesswork -would you convict an accused on guesswork? The fact is there was no verifiable evidence to convict the man,that is the way the justice system in most countries works.Your infinite knowledge of the case has not produced a single piece of solid evidence - guesses and suppositions are not evidence.

Capetonian
10th Dec 2014, 18:39
Mr cape, would you be so good as to say why you think he's completely innocent ?If you read my previous postings on this you'll find the reasons there.

I'm on dinner duty (home made mushroom soup, goulash, and cheese cake in case anyone wonders or cares) and for the next couple of hours that takes priority over the Dewani case.

I'll happily come back to this later tonight or tomorrow afternoon.

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 19:30
You really made my day when you seemed to think that a "gimp suit" was something one might wear in court. Google that term to see one is, or you could even go to Youtube and put in "Bring out the gimp," from the movie Pulp Fiction.

If someone doesn't know what a gimp suit is, well, that sort of restores my faith in humanity! Good on you. It's just that, given that level of ignorance about BDSM and all, I think I can guess a bit better than you can about what sort of person Mr Dewani is.

It's not that I think I am a better person for knowing these things; you are, unless you are playing me for a fool by only pretending that you think Dewani should show up in court in his "gimp suit."

There's a lot I haven't told you, Mr Gallacher: stuff I have no intention of telling you. My personal sex life is fairly normal, I think, boring even, but .... Lordy, Lordy, what some of my fellows have got up to!

We had the Scottish Dwarf. He was sued by his steward for rape or something, when that certainly cut the boredom while it lasted.

We had a Greenie who had to walk back from an assignation wearing only his shreddies after his boyfriend turned on him out there in the bushes behind the Sheraton.

We had a pilot who used to take on schoolgirls three at a time in the Slave Quarters. He was even considered a degenerate in Nigerian terms, which is going some.

There was the Swede who was banned from going downtown after losing so many workdays with the clap. I went over to the Guest House to play backgammon, when he wanted me to take him on a run ashore instead. As if!

One evening I was discussing feminism with a helicopter pilot, when he did not seem to notice all the whores scampering past the dining area of Auntie's Kitchen. He was much more high-minded than I was, I think you could say.

So, you see, when it comes to reading about the tricks Mr Dewani has got up to, I feel as if I know him, if only just a little bit more than someone who doesn't know what a gimp suit is. I'm just guessing, yes, but using some background knowledge to guess with.

Trossie
10th Dec 2014, 19:35
... would you be so good as to say why you think he's completely innocent ?Maybe because that was the court's finding? And if you take the effort to look at any of the judge's nearly three hours of deliberations, she absolutely trashed the prosecution case. (One simple question by the judge: why should someone who had never had any criminal involvement and earned R30,000 to R40,000 per month agree at very short notice to set up a murder for only R5,000?) No, this case revolved entirely about of a bunch of crooks trying to get reduced sentences for their involvement by pointing the finger at Dewani and the SA political establishment being delighted that they could also point the finger at a foreigner to avoid their appalling record on crime prevention getting too much coverage. Well, it backfired on both the crooks and the SA establishment. But it has traumatised someone who was a visitor to SA. Avoid the place!

Regarding the recovery from the 'shuffling walk' to the 'spritely walk', how the hell would any of you react after you'd been thrown into that position? That huge relief would have worked wonders to anyone!

Wasn't there an incident earlier in SD's life when someone was 'offed' and his involvement, though suspected, was never proven?That one went as far as that he knew someone in SA who had been murdered. I know quite few people who have known someone who was murdered in SA (that's how bad the place is!) and that doesn't make any of them murder suspects.

But hey! You'll never convince someone who is prejudiced and doesn't want to believe court findings!!

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 19:58
There's probably a better chance that this fellow is completely innocent than that he's definitely guilty, but neither one is way out there at each end of a scale that stretches from one to ten.

We didn't waste a hell of a lot of time worrying about O.J. Simpson when he was in that phase of earnestly seeking the killers of his wife ... on various golf courses. One day, though, there he was again, back in the news, but this time with not such a happy ending for him but for us, his fans.

Trossie
10th Dec 2014, 22:34
Some people just can't get away from their prejudices!

Stop trying to compare this with OJ Simpson and trying to 'fit the facts'.

Rather compare it with Christopher Jefferies, he was considered to be guilty because he was 'wierd'. Well he wasn't guilty. That fits a lot closer as it also had lots of people taking the "he's weird so he must be guilty" prejudice. Fortunately the SA court had a judge that works on facts not on prejudices.

There is no 'scale of one to ten', it is binary: one to zero, guilty or not guilty. Full stop.

bcgallacher
10th Dec 2014, 23:13
Chuks - Did any of these gentlemen kill their wives? As far as the gimp suit is concerned - perhaps I have led a sheltered existence or perhaps I really have had no inclination - unlike yourself - to investigate the technical terms of the BDSM fraternity - I get my jollies in a more orthodox manner. Are you sure you are not hiding something from us?

Tankertrashnav
10th Dec 2014, 23:26
Rather compare it with Christopher Jefferies, he was considered to be guilty because he was 'wierd'.

I take it you've been watching the dramatisation of the case on ITV this evening. If I may be permitted a bit of thread drift, if this is anything like true to the facts it would appear that the police's handling of the case in the early days of the enquiry was breathtakingly incompetent. There are similarities to the Diwani case. An individual who presents a generally unsympathetic persona is picked as a likely culprit because of that fact - Dewani a bi-sexual practitioner of BDSM, Jefferies a somewhat camp user of hairspray! In both cases it was a matter of "we've got a likely suspect, lets try and fit the facts to him".

One thing, would a murder suspect really be interviewed solely by two detective constables (and not very bright ones at that)? At what stage do more experienced officers get involved?

superq7
10th Dec 2014, 23:29
Hmmm play's crafty dafty for the best part of four years now he's apparently normal what a suprise ! what goes around comes around.

G-CPTN
10th Dec 2014, 23:42
Dewani a bi-sexual practitioner of BDSM
I don't think that those aspects were known when he became a suspect.

Jeffries, OTOH was living in the same property (albeit a different 'apartment') therefore had to become a suspect.
Agreed that Mr Plod went out of the way to fit him up - especially as he had appeared 'strange' (though subsequently normal).

The SA police would, naturally, suspect the husband, especially when incriminated by the others involved in the incident.
That those other 'witnesses' were self-confessed liars that couldn't agree on their evidence from one interview to the next meant that the case was 'unsound'.

Trossie
11th Dec 2014, 07:48
The SA police would, naturally, suspect the husband, especially when incriminated by the others involved in the incident.
That those other 'witnesses' were self-confessed liars that couldn't agree on their evidence from one interview to the next meant that the case was 'unsound'.That is the entire basis of the 'case' against Dewani: lies by those who were actually involved.

When the taxi driver was first arrested for his clear involvement in setting up the hijacking there was not a word about this accusation. After he'd had a word with his lawyer who told him that he could get a reduced sentence if he could implicate someone else, then he suddenly comes out with his 'finger point' at Dewani. And that was the entire basis of the 'case' against Dewani. From then on, 'Jefferies style', the SA police and public built up a 'case' against him based entirely on 'he is weird so it must be him'. You can add to that that SA's massive xenophobic public opinion was delighted to point a finger at a foreigner, their racist public opinion (oh yes, they are very racist!) was delighted to point a finger at an Indian and their socialist politicians' opinion was delighted to point a finger at someone who was wealthy. In SA he ticked all the lynch-mob's boxes for 'guilty'. And why? All because of a totally unsubstantiated lie by a crooked taxi driver who, on his lawyer's advice, was trying to get the sentence for his terrible crime reduced.

I am very sure that if I had been involved in a violent crime like that I could feel somewhat depressed (as I have seen it happen to others); if a mendacious finger was then pointed at me very publicly for this crime in a way that could wreck my life even further, I could easily end up severely depressed and suffer from PTSD. To be found not guilty would be such a relief that I could see that I could also very easily recover very quickly. I would like to know who, amongst all those high-and-mighty pontificaters here, could honestly say that they would perform differently.

ExXB
11th Dec 2014, 08:08
Trossie,

I'm curious about how these reduced sentences were put into effect. Was it the decision of a court to impose a reduced sentence, the decision of a prosecutor to seek a reduced sentence, an after the fact decision of the powers that be to do so, or ???

I'm also curious if such decisions can be rescinded. It certainly isn't a good precident to reward liars.

chuks
11th Dec 2014, 08:53
Of course there are things I am not telling you! That said, the idea of getting into BDSM ... not for me, I think, but thanks for asking. I had enough trouble with my German mother-in-law; I don't need any German Masters in my life!

I tend to look things up when I don't know what they mean. Here, did you really think that a "gimp suit" is just another article of menswear, something a defendant might wear in court? I'm sorry, but that gave me a good laugh.

On the other hand, your innocence probably shows you to be a genuine pillar of rectitude. Me, pillar of salt, more like!

G-CPTN
11th Dec 2014, 16:01
BBC News - Shrien Dewani's Bristol driveway targeted with paint (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30428491)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2869811/Vandals-attack-Shrien-Dewani-s-family-home-just-day-return-South-Africa-following-honeymoon-murder-acquittal.html

chuks
11th Dec 2014, 23:24
When O.J. Simpson was acquitted after his trial, many people in the States felt that he had cheated justice. In fact, the case caused a split along racial lines, with most Whites thinking he had got away with murder, but most Blacks thinking that he could not possibly have done the crime. Later he was convicted of the killings in civil court and ordered to pay damages, but that was not a murder conviction. Much later Simpson was convicted of a completely unrelated crime so that he's now imprisoned, which provides some satisfaction to those of us who felt that he cheated justice in the first place; that he should have been imprisoned for murder.

The only real similarity, so far, between the Simpson case and this one, I think, is that same feeling on the part of some people that justice has somehow failed. If Mr Dewani also comes a cropper in future, then that may provide a similar satisfaction to those same people.

That's about it. Mr Dewani had his day in court, after years of avoiding that, and the judge's decision fell his way. Now he's going to fall off the front pages for some time, once people get bored with throwing paint on his driveway or whatever, and if some of us want to think that he may show up on the front pages again, is that not an idle thought?

Trossie
12th Dec 2014, 00:13
ExXB, Like many who have posted here you don't seem to have looked into any of the detail of this case, but instead post based on prejudice. Didn't you know that those already in jail for their involvement in this murder had reduced sentences because they were going to give evidence in favour of the State's case? And that one of the criminals involved in this case even had immunity from prosecution because he was going to give evidence in favour of the State's case? If you didn't then you know so little about this case that you shouldn't be commenting. The judge has trashed the State's case as being so incompetent that that immunity has now been waived and it would be nice to see that those more lenient sentences would be reviewed. Rely on some facts rather than prejudice before posting.

chuks, Well, your prejudice is blatantly clear. You also seem, from your posts, to have some involvement in a rather dodgy world that is clouding your judgement. Best keep that to yourself.

The only thing that can be said that is good about SA in this whole sad affair is that they have a judiciary that base their decision on evidence rather than on prejudice. Unlike many of the posters here.

I find it rather disturbing that Dewani has returned to Bristol to the sort of 'lynch-mob' behaviour that G-CPTN has reported in his posts. (G-CPTN, I do not link you with any of those sentiments! You are merely the messenger.) Sadly, Bristol was the place that was the centre of the 'lynch-mob' behaviour that so despicably victimised the innocent Christopher Jefferies. Now I would not for one minute be prejudiced against the good people of Bristol for that repulsive behaviour but it does focus somewhat on how the ill-informed and prejudiced can behave in an uncivilised way.

The clear facts of this case is that a woman (Anni) was murdered because of the rampant criminality in South Africa and that a man (Shrien) was brutalised by almost the whole of South Africa as well as an ill-informed and highly prejudiced vocal 'lynch-mob'.

Best advice is to avoid the place.

superq7
12th Dec 2014, 00:31
A bit of white paint you call that a lynch mob ? what utter tripe !

Trossie
12th Dec 2014, 07:59
'lynch-mob' behaviour was the term that I used, I did not say that it was a lynch-mob. I used this term to refer to irrational 'vigilante-style' victimisation of someone that is based on prejudice rather than evidence.

I also said that... I would not for one minute be prejudiced against the good people of Bristol for that repulsive behaviour...so it was clearly not aimed at you. I am sure that you would not like a 'bit of white paint' used in that way at the entrance to your home, so why should anyone else have to tolerate it?

This case has exposed the very, very high levels of criminal behaviour in South Africa, let us not have that influence behaviour in Bristol or anywhere else in Britain with stupid prejudiced behaviour like that.

chuks
12th Dec 2014, 08:48
It doesn't take blinding prejudice to see more grounds for thinking that Mr Dewani might well have had more involvement in the death of his wife than just agreeing to a minibus tour of a black slum, at night, in a country notorious for dangerous crime. That might do it right there, in fact.

Part of what I suspect comes from knowing a bit about the wonderful world of alternate sexualities, a world where you find such folks as Mr Dewani, by his own admission. Nowadays, though, we all, to a greater or lesser extent, share a bit of that world; Anni Dewani had to do that, perhaps without even knowing she was doing that. She was the one who was "victimised," not Mr Dewani! He was prosecuted.

Okay, you might not have known what a "gimp suit" is, or a "gimp" either, but now you, too, know about BDSM, even if you might wish you did not.

Ever heard of Conchita Wurst, winner of the Eurovision Song Contest? "She" was all over the news, so "Welcome to the club!"

I was recently in a photography class, when one of my classmates said that she needed "models with scars" for a project she wanted to do. I spoke up and said that I had plenty of those on my hands from having worked as a mechanic. Silence .... She wanted people who were into self-harm, "cutting," showing scars from self-inflicted wounds. That was something everyone but me already knew, so that I was just like someone who thinks a "gimp suit" is just another article of menswear. Nowadays, my friend, freaks are everywhere.

ExXB
12th Dec 2014, 10:05
Trossie,
Thanks for your reply but I think you have mis-understood me. You are correct that I don't have all the information available. But I was aware, as my question indicated, that reduced sentences had been granted.

What I wasn't aware, and couldn't find by searching, of how such reductions had been granted. I was also interested if these reductions could be rescinded. (In my view they should be, otherwise you would encourage other criminals to seek reductions in other cases simply by promising something they don't have to deliver). Hence my question to you.

I have no knowledge of the guilt, or not, of Mr. Dewani but I did post a comment early in this thread saying that it was up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was. I maintain this view, he wasn't proved guilty therefore he should not be convicted of the crime. (I did also comment earlier that I was surprised with the Judge's decision to declare him "Not Guilty" as no evidence to this had been presented to the court. This didn't mean I thought he was guilty, but thought there could be a third option. But I am not a law expert and accept that this is how it is done in your courts. This was simply curiosity trying to understand how these things are done elsewhere. I was also curious if he could be retried should additional, compelling, evidence be discovered.)

Thank you for the information on the immunity being waived. If you learn more about the sentence reductions I would be interested to learn more.

cockney steve
12th Dec 2014, 12:04
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, there's no going back for Mr. Diwani. His sexual proclivities have been well and truly "outed" sonatural justice prevails.
If he is innocent of any crime,he's permanently punished for marrying the unfirtunate girl by deception.
If he's guilty, he'll have plenty of time, ostracised and marginalised, to wonder if the pain is worth the gain and could he have thought things through a bit more thoroughly first.

Capetonian
1st Feb 2015, 16:10
Shrien Dewani ?could face questions from British coroner? over South Africa honeymoon death - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11382754/Shrien-Dewani-could-face-questions-from-British-coroner-over-South-Africa-honeymoon-death.html)

We may not have heard the end of this.