anglolawyer
Banned
It fits better with the theory that this was a robbery gone wrong than a pre-planned murder. No doubt that's why Zyl brought it out in cross examination.
Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder
- Thread starter anglolawyer
- Start date
Beware the subcontractee of your subcontractee
No it doesn't. It no less fits a hastily conceived rush job conducted by Keystone Killers looking forward to earning the pathetic sum which can be the price of an beautiful woman's life in South Africa.
So your argument has no merit unless you can show that there was detailed prior planning of exactly how the robbery portion only of the crime was to be carried out.
Granted, there was some prior planning of one aspect of the robbery. They would confiscate Shrien Dewani's cell phone before they let him out of the car. So that much planning they did do. Don't see how that helps Dewani, though. As it seems they did plan, in advance, that they were going to free Dewani and spirit away his terrified wife.
.
.
No it doesn't. It no less fits a hastily conceived rush job conducted by Keystone Killers looking forward to earning the pathetic sum which can be the price of an beautiful woman's life in South Africa.
So your argument has no merit unless you can show that there was detailed prior planning of exactly how the robbery portion only of the crime was to be carried out.
Granted, there was some prior planning of one aspect of the robbery. They would confiscate Shrien Dewani's cell phone before they let him out of the car. So that much planning they did do. Don't see how that helps Dewani, though. As it seems they did plan, in advance, that they were going to free Dewani and spirit away his terrified wife.
.
.
anglolawyer
Banned
The plan was not hastily conceived. It was preceded by an arranged meeting and discussion. You would have it that nobody thought through even the most basic thing, not how much they would get nor how they would get it - you must think they all just forgot all about the jewellery which refuses to fit itself into the plan.
Another new (to me anyway) detail from yesterday is Qwabe's claim that they told Shrien to call the police. Hmm. Does that sound right? In all the confusion and haste, with Dewani being forced out of the window, they remembered that detail (but forgot to count the money)? Tongo had been dumped 20 minutes earlier. Surely, the police must already have been alerted. Equally, what else was he going to do? Just shrug and walk home?
What did Tongo do after they dropped him off? Did he report the crime straight away? I am not sure I have seen anything about that. There must be some limit to how dumb these guys are allowed to be.
anglolawyer
Banned
The proceedings so far have settled another question. In his first challenge to the magistrate's extradition order one of his arguments was that SA was guilty of abusing the extradition process. It was said the South African authorities had threatened to expose some personal info if he did not abandon his resistance. Now we know what that was. The abuse of process argument was rejected anyway and not revived.
Wonder when the cops found out about Gaydar etc? That plus the fact Shrien was spared by the hijackers probably explains how they made 2+2 = 5. Or 4 as we shall discover.
Wonder when the cops found out about Gaydar etc? That plus the fact Shrien was spared by the hijackers probably explains how they made 2+2 = 5. Or 4 as we shall discover.
So no smoking gun yet?
The internet interaction looks bad.
So do "cartwheels"
Sorry ddt and Lionking, i'll try to restrain myself.
Thanks. Seriously.
Actually lionking, I am a beginner here. I imagined that discourse would veer towards the learned, with a nod to the natural predilection for humour, I have repeatedly seen judges involved in presiding over the most heinous crimes make jokes.
Regrettably, when real people are wrongly taken down, my appetite for a humourous take is attenuated, but don't let me be a kill joy
anglolawyer
Banned
From the Daily Mail:
This is from Qwabe's evidence, supposedly. Daily Mail readers being too stupid to handle more than one currency in their tiny brains, this must be taken to be a figure converted from Rand. As they are using an exchange rate of R15,000 to £1,300 as at the date of the offence, the Rand equivalent of Qwabe's figure is £9,923.07. £10,000 as near as makes no difference. This is what I thought I understood yesterday although the reporting was a bit garbled, perhaps because the reporter and the paper are, like some here, fixated on the gay sex when they should be looking more closely at the numbers.
Now, we were told before, I think, maybe in Qwabe's trial, that they got R10,000 from the pouch and R4,000 from Dewani's wallet, leaving them R1,000 short which Tongo dutifully collected at the hotel in the carrier bag. But yesterday, Qwabe gave evidence about wanting the other R5,000 so he seems to have lost track of things somewhat.
They are all agreed about the fee - R15,000 - but don't seem able to settle on what was paid. Seems funny that. Perhaps Qwabe is lying
. He has already admitted to lying on oath before. Again, for some here, no problem when set against Gaydar etc Hopefully the court will be more enlightened.
This is from Qwabe's evidence, supposedly. Daily Mail readers being too stupid to handle more than one currency in their tiny brains, this must be taken to be a figure converted from Rand. As they are using an exchange rate of R15,000 to £1,300 as at the date of the offence, the Rand equivalent of Qwabe's figure is £9,923.07. £10,000 as near as makes no difference. This is what I thought I understood yesterday although the reporting was a bit garbled, perhaps because the reporter and the paper are, like some here, fixated on the gay sex when they should be looking more closely at the numbers.
Now, we were told before, I think, maybe in Qwabe's trial, that they got R10,000 from the pouch and R4,000 from Dewani's wallet, leaving them R1,000 short which Tongo dutifully collected at the hotel in the carrier bag. But yesterday, Qwabe gave evidence about wanting the other R5,000 so he seems to have lost track of things somewhat.
They are all agreed about the fee - R15,000 - but don't seem able to settle on what was paid. Seems funny that. Perhaps Qwabe is lying
. He has already admitted to lying on oath before. Again, for some here, no problem when set against Gaydar etc Hopefully the court will be more enlightened.Suffolk Skeptic
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2014
- Messages
- 165
Cheap shot. Implying that those who believe in his guilt are less intelligent and enlightened than those who don't does your argument no favours.From the Daily Mail:
They are all agreed about the fee - R15,000 - but don't seem able to settle on what was paid. Seems funny that. Perhaps Qwabe is lying
I can't explain how the killers are unable to give unimpeachable evidence about the money other than that they are morons and life is extremely cheap in South Africa.
Explaining the problems in Dewani's story about why he needed to change 3 lots of money within 24 hours at 3 different locations, why he didn't hand the money over to the carjackers, why he didn't tell the police about the money when he was reporting what had been stolen, why he thought he needed to take 10k out at night to pay for a helicopter ride which he wasn't taking are also worthy of attention. Perhaps he's a lying moron too?
anglolawyer
Banned
From Qwabe's evidence in Mngeni's trial as reported here:
You seem to have trouble framing questions that don't presume guilt. There is no evidence of the presence of this R10,00 in the car aside from that of the robbers who we know are liars with much to gain by lying. Where are you getting your facts from? Or am I supposed to equate conjecture with fact? Please source your claim that Dewani never intended to take a helicopter ride. If this is merely something you happen to believe then it would be helpful if you made that clear.paragraph 41 said:
We already have to accept that the jewellery was of no consequence to the plotters and that they did not agree where, when or how Anni would be killed and now it seems Qwabe can't even remember whether he was R1,000 or R5,000 short.
It is frankly ridiculous to wave that kind of thing away. The story should hang together enough even making allowance for the incompetence of the players. They have no trouble remembering the price for the job. All are totally solid on that - 15 grand. It's almost as though someone has stressed the need to at least stick to that.
Do you believe (as I assume you must) they drove off without bothering to check the money? They had twenty minutes, allegedly, after dropping off Tongo. Why wouldn't one of them check for the cash to see it was actually there? And how could Shrien bank on them not checking when deciding to short-change them? You guys just aren't thinking it through.
Suffolk Skeptic
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2014
- Messages
- 165
The presence of 10,000 rand in the car is contained in Dewani's plea explanation. He now says it was in Anni's handbag. He says it was taken as a deposit to give to Tongo for the helicopter ride.
My point about the helicopter ride was that even with the best will in the world he can't have expected to take it that night!
My point about the helicopter ride was that even with the best will in the world he can't have expected to take it that night!
anglolawyer
Banned
That is interesting. I didn't know. Do you have a link to the document? I am surprised no one (aside from you) is majoring on that as it could be a big point.
ETA the intention might have been to give Tongo the money that evening, not to take the ride. However, this admission strikes me as damaging to him because the helicopter ride, I thought, was meant to be a surprise so the last place the money should have been was in her handbag.
Last edited:
Suffolk Skeptic
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2014
- Messages
- 165
plea document
He says he couldn't fit it in his pocket as he had 4,000 rand in there and another 1,000 rand for the taxi driver. He says he gave it to Anni to out in her handbag.
Van Zyl put it to Qwabe in questioning today that Dewani said the money was in the bag, not the pouch. I didn't say that he intended to take the ride that evening, he says it was as a deposit. My point was that why did he take it out with him at all?
Read the document. The helicopter takes central stage. Lots of communications between them throughout the evening regarding the helicopter and the money.
anglolawyer
Banned
Great, thanks. I will read and revert.
anglolawyer
Banned
There is something wrong between paragraphs 69 and 74. He says he was expecting to meet the helicopter pilot and he was pressing Tongo to fix that up. Tongo told him he had 'sorted it' (para. 70). We aren't told what this means. Had he merely arranged the meeting or gone further and actually arranged the ride? If the former, why does Dewani relate a discussion about what they were going to do next? Obviously, they should have been meeting the pilot next. It's not clear how this was to be effected without Anni knowing about it. OTOH if they were not going to meet the pilot that evening, as originally planned, then why was Tongo texting him (presumably as they drove towards the township) to ask whether he had the money?
Also, in para 69 he told Tongo not to worry about the money but then in para 74 Tongo asked about it again and this time got an affirmative answer, rather than the 'mind your own business' he got before.
So, it looks as though there may after all have been an incriminating exchange of texts since otherwise Dewani would not need to deal with them in his statement. The plot thickens.
ETA but that's it. He explains why the R10,000 was in her handbag reasonably enough although it is against my understanding that he had it with him at all. Still, he did and that fact is nailed.
Also, in para 69 he told Tongo not to worry about the money but then in para 74 Tongo asked about it again and this time got an affirmative answer, rather than the 'mind your own business' he got before.
So, it looks as though there may after all have been an incriminating exchange of texts since otherwise Dewani would not need to deal with them in his statement. The plot thickens.
ETA but that's it. He explains why the R10,000 was in her handbag reasonably enough although it is against my understanding that he had it with him at all. Still, he did and that fact is nailed.
Last edited:
Suffolk Skeptic
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2014
- Messages
- 165
Yes. If Dewani is innocent it must have been so frustrating for Tongo not to know whether Dewani had the money or not. Fortunately, he received confirmation at the last minute and was able to set the plan into action.
As to your point about him having the money with him, he explains earlier that he took it as Tongo had said he would be trying to meet the pilot that night and effect payment. Maybe he means Tongo was going to meet the pilot by himself.
As to your point about him having the money with him, he explains earlier that he took it as Tongo had said he would be trying to meet the pilot that night and effect payment. Maybe he means Tongo was going to meet the pilot by himself.
lonepinealex
Muse
I don't see a problem with his explanation of why he had the money. If Tongo was in fact setting him up, that would explain it - Tongo told him he'd need it for the helicopter pilot they were planning to meet that evening (right? or have I misunderstood when they were supposed to be meeting the pilot?). It would also explain Tongo's apparent pushiness in asking about it, and asking what time they were leaving the restaurant.
Why Anni was along for the ride when they went to meet the pilot is harder to explain. A guilty explanation is that it was a set up to murder her, an innocent one is that Tongo was setting them up and spun a yarn about the pilot insisting that the deal was struck, in cash, that evening. I'm open to either explanation but I do lean towards innocence.
I am confused about the R4,000 for paying for dinner though - am I right in thinking that was stolen in the car? Did he pay for his dinner at the restaurant or was there more money originally?
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
No, I get Dewani's case on why he had money on him. I had previously thought there never was R10,000 in the taxi. Now I know better. It certainly is a mystery what happened to it, though. But now he admits he had it and planned to negotiate a price with the pilot face to face. He was not going to pay the full R15,000 up front, but offer half as a deposit and let himself be pushed up to R10,000 if need be. There is no suggestion Tongo would be handling either the negotiations or the money.
Dewani's statement is full of references to him negotiating stuff. He seems a typical asian business man in this respect: all prices are negotiable. If guilty, can he really have carried this principle to the extreme of short-changing two guys with a gun on their own turf? This incredible level of trust is one of many problems with the state's case.
The R4000 was stolen, yes. I cant remember wgat he said about paying for dinner.
A glaring gap in his statement is the failure to mention paying Tongo or Mbolombo R5000 each. IOW he has not crafted a story to deal with that. That can only be because there is no evidence of either being paid. For me, that blows the whole case out of the water.
lonepinealex
Muse
In that plea statement he says the R4,000 was to pay for dinner, but the incident happened after dinner.
Suffolk Skeptic
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2014
- Messages
- 165
The plan for dinner changed on route, from fancy schmancy place to a quick snack wolfed down at breakneck speed. So it might have been cheap.