Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

anglolawyer said:
I don't see Tongo standing up to cross examination and without him there is nothing. Still, maybe nothing will be enough. It's not as if there aren't precedents. But I am expecting acquittal in this case for this reason - that Tongo will be shown to be lying.
Click to expand...

Who will be able to prove Tongo lied, and how? It might be similar to Guede in that he feels compelled to stick to his story, lest he end up with even more jail time.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Who will be able to prove Tongo lied, and how? It might be similar to Guede in that he feels compelled to stick to his story, lest he end up with even more jail time.
Click to expand...

Piece of cake. His story is falsified firstly by the fact that telephone records don't match his claims and secondly by the impossibility of his overall story regarding the deal. Starting from the initial claim that Shrien asked him if he could have someone bumped off for R15000 all kinds of problems follow:

1 when exactly was it agreed that he and Mbolombo would get R5000 each?
2 when was that going to be paid?
3 why wasn't it paid?
4 what did Tongo do about it and what passed between him and Mbolombo about this?
5 what was the deal with the jewellery?
6 why was he willing to risk ruining his life for R5000?
7 how much money was exchanged at the jewellers?
8 what was the arrangement for retrieving his mobile phone?
9 how was he to get his taxi back given that it would be a crime scene?

etc
 
anglolawyer said:
Piece of cake. His story is falsified firstly by the fact that telephone records don't match his claims and secondly by the impossibility of his overall story regarding the deal. Starting from the initial claim that Shrien asked him if he could have someone bumped off for R15000 all kinds of problems follow:

1 when exactly was it agreed that he and Mbolombo would get R5000 each?
2 when was that going to be paid?
3 why wasn't it paid?
4 what did Tongo do about it and what passed between him and Mbolombo about this?
5 what was the deal with the jewellery?
6 why was he willing to risk ruining his life for R5000?
7 how much money was exchanged at the jewellers?
8 what was the arrangement for retrieving his mobile phone?
9 how was he to get his taxi back given that it would be a crime scene?

etc
Click to expand...

This guy is in the same position as Guede isn't he, currently in jail for a multiperp crime, in which another trial is to begin for another alleged perp. If he is able to be cross examined, this shows the wickedness of the Italian system in contrast.
 
Samson said:
This guy is in the same position as Guede isn't he, currently in jail for a multiperp crime, in which another trial is to begin for another alleged perp. If he is able to be cross examined, this shows the wickedness of the Italian system in contrast.
Click to expand...

I suppose it makes a difference that Tongo is an essential witness against Dewani whereas 'the case' (lol) against Knox and Sollecito doesn't actually depend on Guede (even though Nencini has elevated him to the rank of star witness).
 
anglolawyer said:
I suppose it makes a difference that Tongo is an essential witness against Dewani whereas 'the case' (lol) against Knox and Sollecito doesn't actually depend on Guede (even though Nencini has elevated him to the rank of star witness).
Click to expand...

Tongo: Dewani paid me to kill his wife.
The people: Lets cross examine him.

South African system: Good idea

Guede: Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith
The people: Lets cross examine him.

Italian system: No he has the right to eternal silence.

Seems like an analogy to me Anglo, though your distinction may be technically valid .
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Tongo: Dewani paid me to kill his wife.
The people: Lets cross examine him.

South African system: Good idea

Guede: Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith
The people: Lets cross examine him.

Italian system: No he has the right to eternal silence.

Seems like an analogy to me Anglo, though your distinction may be technically valid .
Click to expand...

I get your point but I don't think it quite holds because Guede has a right to silence. In a proper system (like ours :D) they would all have been tried together and Guede would only have been available for cross examination if he ventured into the witness box. Tongo is a compellable and essential witness without whom there is no case at all.

Hang on. Guede, despite not giving evidence, has nevertheless furnished information that has somehow morphed into 'procedural fact'. I think I see your point ...
 
anglolawyer said:
I get your point but I don't think it quite holds because Guede has a right to silence. In a proper system (like ours :D) they would all have been tried together and Guede would only have been available for cross examination if he ventured into the witness box. Tongo is a compellable and essential witness without whom there is no case at all.

Hang on. Guede, despite not giving evidence, has nevertheless furnished information that has somehow morphed into 'procedural fact'. I think I see your point ...
Click to expand...

I guess I like reasonably close analogies to focus the mind.

Let's say on the one hand the fast track trial separated the conspirators, on the other, the temporary return home for Dewani. But the effect is the same, substantial similarities remain, in the two cases, and we are discussing justice. Accusers of any crime must be available for cross examination. For example can you imagine an accuser of murder or conspiracy to murder being immune to cross examination Under Any Circumstances, in England? I am a lay person in these matters, so open to unexpected answers.
Dewani will have a better crack at a correct verdict on this reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I guess I like reasonably close analogies to focus the mind.

Let's say on the one hand the fast track trial separated the conspirators, on the other, the temporary return home for Dewani. But the effect is the same, substantial similarities remain, in the two cases, and we are discussing justice. Accusers of any crime must be available for cross examination. For example can you imagine an accuser of murder or conspiracy to murder being immune to cross examination Under Any Circumstances, in England? I am a lay person in these matters, so open to unexpected answers.
Dewani will have a better crack at a correct verdict on this reasoning.
Click to expand...

Not for one second would evidence from another trial of the kind we are discussing be admitted in a criminal trial in England. In Guede's case we aren't even talking about live evidence actually sworn and heard in court, but material provided to investigating magistrates out of public sight. The equivalent would be if the confession beaten out of obtained from Tongo and the others were admissible against Dewani per se. No freaking way.
 
anglolawyer said:
Not for one second would evidence from another trial of the kind we are discussing be admitted in a criminal trial in England. In Guede's case we aren't even talking about live evidence actually sworn and heard in court, but material provided to investigating magistrates out of public sight. The equivalent would be if the confession beaten out of obtained from Tongo and the others were admissible against Dewani per se. No freaking way.
Click to expand...

Wait, my point is simpler.
Guede accused in writing, Amanda and Raffaele of murder.
Tongo accused Dewani, presumably verbally, of commissioning a murder.

Tongo will be cross examined, but Guede was not cross examined. and never will be by dint of obscure legal process.

This business of Guede's ideas influencing another trial is post the fact. He was deemed immune to cross examination by a quirk of the system when he was the only witness to a killing.

(I am digging a deeper hole, but I want to get away from the idea that the paramount objection is to allow uncontested evidence from one trial to be introduced to another).
 
Uh-oh

Daily Mail said:
Grinning broadly as he strolls through a high-security psychiatric hospital, these pictures appear to show that honeymoon murder suspect Shrien Dewani may soon stand trial.
Dressed in shorts, trainers and a sweatshirt and clutching a bottle of water, the 34-year old Briton appeared to share a joke with staff in the Valkenberg hospital in Cape Town.
He is believed to be flanked by a guard and a nurse who is helping to treat him for mental health problems, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Click to expand...

ETA it's possible that a major source of his anxiety has been lifted in that the conditions he is being held in are far better than he feared.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
For every photograph that newspapers will present with a "look at the expression on their face!" caption, the photographer will have taken many many more that were could not be so spun.
Click to expand...

Very true. At any rate, I'm happy to see that the comments on the article ran with a high proportion of "Depressed people do occasionally smile and laugh." Heck, they even make jokes.
 
Breaking News

From the Daily Mail

BREAKING NEWS: Shrien Dewani is fit to stand trial over his wife's honeymoon murder, South African court rules


…

Honeymoon murder accused Shrien Dewani has been found fit to stand trial, in a move his wife's sister hailed as 'a huge step in the right direction'.
A mental health panel in South Africa unanimously decided that the 34-year-old businessman is not mentally ill and should be tried in October for Anni Dewani's murder in Cape Town.
Her sister Ami Denborg said: 'It's a relief for all of us. We've been waiting quite a long time for this. I know this autumn is going to be tough for us but we still want the trial to start so that we can get the information we need, we can get to know what really happened.
'It feels like we're moving forward. It's still a long way to go but at least we're taking steps in the right direction, and this feels like a huge step in the right direction.'
Click to expand...
 
The trial has started.

Dewani has made an opening statement in which he admits that he is bisexual and has has encounters with the German master. Not surprising as the German Master is in South Africa to give evidence and apparently has pictures. Dewani is eliminating the shock value.

He seems to be saying the money was for the private helicopter trip we heard about in the BBC documentary.

I wish it was being televised, I'm having to keep up with it from journalist tweets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom