Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

Octavo said:
The Hindocha's have claimed that had Anni known of Shrien's proclivities she would never have married him. Doesn't that seem to indicate that the gay/bi thing may well be a valid exploration of possible motive?
Click to expand...

That would just be hearsay and/or wishful thinking. Lots of people believe they "know" what their realtives/friends would think about something, but it doesn't make it true.
 
anglolawyer said:
My position is slightly right of centre on motive. It should be considered an item of circumstantial evidence, like a fingerprint or a recently contracted insurance policy or a lie. It's normally the case that, considered in isolation, such things aren't evidence of guilt. I think there is a 19th century (English) case to this effect (re: motive as CE).

However, I do agree with your characterisation of the popular view of the case.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I don't see a motive of this sort in the same way I might see an insurance policy. Some connecting lines are darker than others.

In any case, Dewani's lawyers stipulated that he had been living a secret gay life. The prosecutor had no need to introduce witnesses to establish that. Rather, he sought to dwell on the details, which are distasteful, but prove nothing with regard to a murder conspiracy. The sole aim was to inflame the howling mob and ramp up pressure for a conviction. The judge saw it coming and stopped it, and is now hated by this very mob. Brave judge. I'm surprised.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I see your point, but I don't see a motive of this sort in the same way I might see an insurance policy. Some connecting lines are darker than others.

In any case, Dewani's lawyers stipulated that he had been living a secret gay life. The prosecutor had no need to introduce witnesses to establish that. Rather, he sought to dwell on the details, which are distasteful, but prove nothing with regard to a murder conspiracy. The sole aim was to inflame the howling mob and ramp up pressure for a conviction. The judge saw it coming and stopped it, and is now hated by this very mob. Brave judge. I'm surprised.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a guy called Hellmann.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
Family meeting

Here is the transcript of the family meeting secretly recorded by Anni's cousin.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. It is difficult to make sense of some of it, as it is hard to tell who is speaking. One thing that stands out is Dewani continuously repeats that he and Anni were arguing. Also, he seems to want to know what the others know. I just do not see how you can read this and think he is innocent. I understand it is not an official interview, but if he said the things in this transcript, there is no way he is innocent.

Oh, and not one mention of any helicopter rental.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
This is interesting. It is difficult to make sense of some of it, as it is hard to tell who is speaking. One thing that stands out is Dewani continuously repeats that he and Anni were arguing. Also, he seems to want to know what the others know. I just do not see how you can read this and think he is innocent. I understand it is not an official interview, but if he said the things in this transcript, there is no way he is innocent.

Oh, and not one mention of any helicopter rental.
Click to expand...

What does he say that you think is incriminating?
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
This is interesting. It is difficult to make sense of some of it, as it is hard to tell who is speaking. One thing that stands out is Dewani continuously repeats that he and Anni were arguing. Also, he seems to want to know what the others know. I just do not see how you can read this and think he is innocent. I understand it is not an official interview, but if he said the things in this transcript, there is no way he is innocent.

Oh, and not one mention of any helicopter rental.
Click to expand...
I read it a few days ago, admittedly having already decided that it was an impossible scenario for him to be involved. As I read it I ticked off mentally that it was completely exculpatory. I must read it again.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
What does he say that you think is incriminating?
Click to expand...


Yeah I don't understand this either - there's nothing in it that we haven't already heard. I can't see anything incriminating at all. Seems to be some kind of Rorshach-type thing where anyone can read anything into it. Like the rest of this case.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
This is interesting. It is difficult to make sense of some of it, as it is hard to tell who is speaking. One thing that stands out is Dewani continuously repeats that he and Anni were arguing. Also, he seems to want to know what the others know. I just do not see how you can read this and think he is innocent. I understand it is not an official interview, but if he said the things in this transcript, there is no way he is innocent.

Oh, and not one mention of any helicopter rental.
Click to expand...
He has accepted in the agreed list of facts that the transcript is accurate.

The confusion about who is speaking really comes at the end, it's quite clear in the first half.

I agree with you. His direct replies to being asked about whether he spoke to Tongo that night or the next day and when Tongo would have first known about their plans for the Saturday night, are not merely omissions or replies based in "shame", no matter what the "this is a possible explanation" mob assert.

I actually don't understand how his numerous replies and omissions are waved away so readily.
 
Dan Newling article

This article genuinely goes to innocence. Dan Newling says that the day after the murder, Dewani told him about the helicopter ride.

If true then I guess Dewani must be innocent. Although I'm struggling to accept the truth of it given his other articles over the years,
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
Dan Newling article

This article genuinely goes to innocence. Dan Newling says that the day after the murder, Dewani told him about the helicopter ride.

If true then I guess Dewani must be innocent. Although I'm struggling to accept the truth of it given his other articles over the years,
Click to expand...

That's an interesting article. What does he mean about strange behaviour?

I wish I could join in the discussion about the transcript but when I tried to read it I was told to download something first, which I attempted to do but without noticeable result so I gave up. It's quite an interesting feature of this document that it appears to buttress the diametrically opposite beliefs of both sides :D
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
He has accepted in the agreed list of facts that the transcript is accurate.

The confusion about who is speaking really comes at the end, it's quite clear in the first half.

I agree with you. His direct replies to being asked about whether he spoke to Tongo that night or the next day and when Tongo would have first known about their plans for the Saturday night, are not merely omissions or replies based in "shame", no matter what the "this is a possible explanation" mob assert.

I actually don't understand how his numerous replies and omissions are waved away so readily.
Click to expand...

What does he say that is incriminating, and how is it incriminating, i.e., how does it show deception and/or consciousness of guilt?
 
Live broadcast

Someone on another site has provided a link to live proceedings.

There was an agreement at the start of the trial that the judgment would be televised.

Which is an even bigger indicator than the clear indication already given by the length of time she has taken to prepare this decision, that he will be formally acquitted in about 30 minutes time!

Enjoy
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
Live broadcast

Someone on another site has provided a link to live proceedings.

There was an agreement at the start of the trial that the judgment would be televised.

Which is an even bigger indicator than the clear indication already given by the length of time she has taken to prepare this decision, that he will be formally acquitted in about 30 minutes time!

Enjoy
Click to expand...
I got 10 seconds and it stopped. Damn
 
The judge has asked Dewani to stand. Can't be that much longer. I'm looking forward to the post acquittal analysis now.

The judge is going through the evidence in great detail and pointing out lots of inconsistencies. She describes most of them as lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom