Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

Suffolk Skeptic said:
Good grief, the people declaring his innocence keep banging on about how the figure of 15 k rand cannot be accounted for. So, it's a ridiculously low figure for organising a hit and it cannot be accounted for AND it was chosen as a figure by Tongo/the police to frame Dewani, yet is also apparently not the going rate and cannot be accounted for.
Click to expand...
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. It's known that Dewani had a certain amount of foreign currency in cash, and that he used Tongo's jeweller friend to exchange it into rands at a more advantageous rate. It is the police case that has had to retro-fit such a relatively small amount of money into being the supposed "contract" fee. With no other unaccounted for money, it's all they have to work with, however improbable it seems.
 
Last edited:
Rogue Trooper said:
Murder is much more common in SA 31.8 per 100,000 compared to the UK 1.2. Life is much cheaper there.
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly are of the disparity of in homicide rates, but the reality is that they aren't evenly spread across either country. If they were, nobody would be even considering tourism in South Africa (or a number of other countries, for that matter). Life is "cheap" to some people in many countries, but that doesn't translate across the entire population. Tongo clearly had a stead legitimate job, which he supplemented with other related work that may or may not have been illegal. That doesn't automatically make him ripe to be a casually willing accomplice to murder, and certainly not for so little money.
 
Last edited:
This is something that might be incriminating against Shrien. It's a still from the BBC Panorama prog. showing Mbolombo on the phone the night of the murder to, probably, Qwabe. Who is 'the person that wants this' if not Shrien? I don't think it can be Tongo because by this time Tongo and Qwabe had already met. Funny.


 
It could be (thinks) that Mbolombo was just refraining from saying Tongo's name because he was aware of the security camera and recording equipment but that does rather call into question what the heck he was doing making this call in the first place.

OTOH if it was just a robbery that was planned, what could go wrong? It was never going to get back to him anyway as the police were not going to knock themselves out over two foolish tourists driving into the township at night bedecked with expensive jewellery.
 
anglolawyer said:
I hope you aren't associating me with all of those. I'll own up to the highlighted part. I think the more recent BBC Panorama prog. (the one made after the police 'docket' was leaked) pointed to the fact that R10000 was unaccounted for. Shrien was supposed to have paid R14000 on the night (short-changing the hi-jackers by R1000) but there is no explanation of what happened to all of it. Qwabe and Mngeni spent the R4000 they got on T-shirts etc (how dreadfully sad) but don't seem to have returned or spent the other R10000. Funny. That can be lumped with R5000 supposed to have been agreed to be paid to each of Tongo and Mbolombo but of which there is no evidence either.

This is why I fancy the cops have played a part in fabricating this story, by consciously or unwittingly leading their pliant and desperate suspects along the path to a crazy and improbable story. It is just about stupid enough to have been thought up by a cop. I continue to be amazed that nobody here seems bothered by these obvious, gaping holes in the conspiracy theory. Why are people here getting excited about the R1000 in the carrier bag but not asking about the missing payments or what the deal was with the jewellery. Somebody please explain.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all excited by the carrier bag. If Dewani is innocent, it seems perfectly reasonable to go into a separate room to pay Tongo. Why would he introduce him to Anni's family?

As to the money in general. Yes it has not been found or explained, although I'm not sure you can expect an explanation from the criminals if they didn't want it taken back. We know that Dewani had 4k taken from him in the robbery. Qwabe says that there was 10k in the envelope which Tongo told him about on the night. Perhaps Dewani thought the total price was 15k and that is why he gave Tongo a flat 1k in the plastic bag. None of these people are criminal masterminds and even on the Dewani is innocent theory the whole thing was a bit of a cock up. They found Mgneni first because of his fingerprints left on the car.

The amounts stolen in goods were estimated at 90k, which included a watch and a bracelet. If the deal was for Tongo to get the jewellery because he had a mate in a shop, he surely would have had some knowledge of what jewellery there was, but the most expensive items were left behind. That makes no sense. Further, if Tongo was supposed to get the jewellery, why did Mgneni try to sell Anni's watch the next day?
 
Information Analyst said:
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. It's known that Dewani had a certain amount of foreign currency in cash, and that he used Tongo's jeweller friend to exchange it into rands at a more advantageous rate. It is the police case that has had to retro-fit such a relatively small amount of money into being the supposed "contract" fee. With no other unaccounted for money, it's all they have to work with, however improbable it seems.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the police case is based on what Tongo and Qwabe told them or that the police were instrumental in bringing in Dewani by suggesting to the defendants that they implicate him?
 
I have a question about the marriage. In the documentary, they state they dated for 18 months, of which the last 5 they were engaged. It also states the wedding was a 3-day event for 150,000k. Does anyone know if this was an arranged marriage? It also strikes me as difficult to be able to plan a 150,000k wedding in 5 months.

Mostly I am just curious, although an arranged marriage may be slightly more incriminating to the husband, as they are not usually a result of passion.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
I have a question about the marriage. In the documentary, they state they dated for 18 months, of which the last 5 they were engaged. It also states the wedding was a 3-day event for 150,000k. Does anyone know if this was an arranged marriage? It also strikes me as difficult to be able to plan a 150,000k wedding in 5 months.

Mostly I am just curious, although an arranged marriage may be slightly more incriminating to the husband, as they are not usually a result of passion.
Click to expand...

They were introduced by relatives but it wasn't arranged insofar as both sides say it was the decision of the individual. There's a quote from her father in the following article.

Mail article

They apparently never had sex, even after they were married.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
Do you think that the police case is based on what Tongo and Qwabe told them or that the police were instrumental in bringing in Dewani by suggesting to the defendants that they implicate him?
Click to expand...
I think the simple reality of the case was that Tongo set up the robbery via Mbolombo, but when it all went pear-shaped both of them were facing being an accessories to the (unpremeditated) murder, anyway. With the way the foreign media reporting was, it made political sense for the police to shift the blame to Dewani (i.e. make it a "foreign"-initiated offence, rather than tourist-scaring random violence), and obviously Tongo would have jumped at any chance to reduce the sentence he was already facing, while Mbolombo got off scot free.
 
Information Analyst said:
I think the simple reality of the case was that Tongo set up the robbery via Mbolombo, but when it all went pear-shaped both of them were facing being an accessories to the (unpremeditated) murder, anyway. With the way the foreign media reporting was, it made political sense for the police to shift the blame to Dewani (i.e. make it a "foreign"-initiated offence, rather than tourist-scaring random violence), and obviously Tongo would have jumped at any chance to reduce the sentence he was already facing, while Mbolombo got off scot free.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And poor old Mngeni got thrown to the curb too, although the fact he is terminally ill might have reduced his interest in a deal anyway.
 
Information Analyst said:
I think the simple reality of the case was that Tongo set up the robbery via Mbolombo, but when it all went pear-shaped both of them were facing being an accessories to the (unpremeditated) murder, anyway. With the way the foreign media reporting was, it made political sense for the police to shift the blame to Dewani (i.e. make it a "foreign"-initiated offence, rather than tourist-scaring random violence), and obviously Tongo would have jumped at any chance to reduce the sentence he was already facing, while Mbolombo got off scot free.
Click to expand...

Well, you say the simple reality, but it would be far from simple. Does this mean that the idea to bring in Dewani was police driven? And therefore the amount supposedly arrange for the hit was suggested by the police to all the defendants and they went along with it?
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
...They apparently never had sex, even after they were married.
Click to expand...

It's been reported that on his wedding night Shrewd Dewani slept on the sofa and left his wife alone to cry herself to sleep in bed.

So far all the people who have come forward to say they have had sex with Dewani are men.
.
.
 
anglolawyer said:
Of course not, but he is terminally ill and claimed to have been beaten up. Also, if it was an accident, he might only be guilty of robbery.
Click to expand...

How does accidentally shooting someone whilst you are kidnapping and robbing them with a gun held to their face equate to an accident? Such that he would only face a charge of robbery?

A natural consequence of holding a gun to someone with your finger on the trigger is that you might discharge that weapon and kill them. I hardly think you'd get off on the basis of there being an unexpected speed bump.

The panorama programme also seemed to feel sorry for him, and treated him as the only credible and truthful member of the gang because some of his confession tied in with Dewani's account. But of course, this confession must be ignored mustn't it? Because it was apparently obtained after police abuse. So if we ignore it, we just need to concentrate on his defence in the trial, which was that he wasn't even there. Which considering the overwhelming evidence against him was a strange defence to run, and hardly paints him as the honest truthful one.
 
Last edited:
Suffolk Skeptic said:
How does accidentally shooting someone whilst you are kidnapping and robbing them with a gun held to their face equate to an accident? Such that he would only face a charge of robbery?

A natural consequence of holding a gun to someone with your finger on the trigger is that you might discharge that weapon and kill them. I hardly think you'd get off on the basis of there being an unexpected speed bump.

The panorama programme also seemed to feel sorry for him, and treated him as the only credible and truthful member of the gang because some of his confession tied in with Dewani's account. But of course, this confession must be ignored mustn't it? Because it was apparently obtained after police abuse. So if we ignore it, we just need to concentrate on his defence in the trial, which was that he wasn't even there. Which considering the overwhelming evidence against him was a strange defence to run, and hardly paints him as the honest truthful one.
Click to expand...

Let's not get too side-tracked, shall we? You must have a detected a note of irony in my 'poor Mngeni' remark. As it happens I do feel sorry for them all. Except Mbolombo. They did a terrible thing and will pay a high price for it, but at the end of it all they are human and pitiable.

Mngeni and Qwabe each claim the other fired the fatal shot. If it were Qwabe, by accident (the gun went off as he forced himself on her) then Mngeni is 'only' guilty of robbery. As I find Mngeni's account more credible than Qwabe's this is what I think may well have happened. Of course, I could easily be wrong.
 
anglolawyer said:
Let's not get too side-tracked, shall we? You must have a detected a note of irony in my 'poor Mngeni' remark. As it happens I do feel sorry for them all. Except Mbolombo. They did a terrible thing and will pay a high price for it, but at the end of it all they are human and pitiable.

Mngeni and Qwabe each claim the other fired the fatal shot. If it were Qwabe, by accident (the gun went off as he forced himself on her) then Mngeni is 'only' guilty of robbery. As I find Mngeni's account more credible than Qwabe's this is what I think may well have happened. Of course, I could easily be wrong.
Click to expand...

But Mngeni says he wasn't there! He says the confession was beaten out of him, and you have already proclaimed your distrust in all things SA law related.

How can you be even taking account of the statement? Surely if you believe he was beaten or abused then you must disregard it? Anyway, his account as out forward at the trial is that he wasn't there.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
But Mngeni says he wasn't there! He says the confession was beaten out of him, and you have already proclaimed your distrust in all things SA law related.

How can you be even taking account of the statement? Surely if you believe he was beaten or abused then you must disregard it? Anyway, his account as out forward at the trial is that he wasn't there.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that's Mngeni's case at all. Where did you get it from that he says he was not there? His account matches Shrien's in some respects. I have to remind myself of the details, all of which are in his trial papers which are available somewhere. I'll look them up. It could well be that I'm going senile.
 
anglolawyer said:
No, I don't think that's Mngeni's case at all. Where did you get it from that he says he was not there? His account matches Shrien's in some respects. I have to remind myself of the details, all of which are in his trial papers which are available somewhere. I'll look them up. It could well be that I'm going senile.
Click to expand...

I had a late night and an early morning so I will probably compete with you for brain toffeeness. The transcript of the judgment is here

transcript
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
Well, you say the simple reality, but it would be far from simple. Does this mean that the idea to bring in Dewani was police driven?
Click to expand...
Yes, due to political pressure. There's nothing like dead tourists to put other tourists off, and so blaming Dewani for having instigated the whole thing (i.e. to make it not random local violence) was only a marginally less nutty version of blaming the Sharm-el-Sheikh shark attacks on Israel.
And therefore the amount supposedly arrange for the hit was suggested by the police to all the defendants and they went along with it?
Click to expand...
For there to have been a hit, there should have been some evidence - even circumstantial - that money changed hands, and they had was the (relatively small) cash that they could show Dewani actually had, so they had to retro-fit that into their scenario.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom