Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

[catsmate]

The investigating officer confirmed yesterday what everyone but Dewani Dupes had long since figured out for themselves: that Tongo would have immediately become the prime suspect if Dewani had reported that he had been robbed that evening of a large sum of money he had brought to pay for a service he had solicited Tongo to procure for him.

Dewani did not want the police to know about this money and he lied about its existence for years. Quite understandable if it was money earmarked to pay for a murder. Not quite as understandable if it had actually been for a "romantic helicopter trip".

<SNIP>

What this obsession you have with Dewani's sexual habits? Do they intrigue you?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to remove quote of moderated content.

 

[lonepinealex]

Wait, Dewani is gay??

 

[anglolawyer]

The investigating officer confirmed yesterday what everyone but Dewani Dupes had long since figured out for themselves: that Tongo would have immediately become the prime suspect if Dewani had reported that he had been robbed that evening of a large sum of money he had brought to pay for a service he had solicited Tongo to procure for him.

Dewani did not want the police to know about this money and he lied about its existence for years. Quite understandable if it was money earmarked to pay for a murder. Not quite as understandable if it had actually been for a "romantic helicopter trip".

<SNIP>

This is a good point. Let's see what Dewani says when he gives evidence. Of course, if the cops had accepted his invitation to be questioned then they, and maybe we too, would already know the answer.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to remove quote of moderated content.

 

[anglolawyer]

Wait, Dewani is gay??

Very much so. He admits he is a bisexual user of male prostitutes and there is some suggestion of him surfing gay porn sites both before and after the murder.

 

[lonepinealex]

Very much so. He admits he is a bisexual user of male prostitutes and there is some suggestion of him surfing gay porn sites both before and after the murder.

Yeah I know, I'm just teasing.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yeah I know, I'm just teasing.

Oh, sorry.

 

[lonepinealex]

Disappointed that the trial's been adjourned til Friday. Got nothing to read at work now.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Disappointed that the trial's been adjourned til Friday. Got nothing to read at work now.

Google "serial podcast" - it will keep you involved in murder. Just like Dewani, he claims he didn't do it. Just like this case, there is thin evidence. It's the newest, hottest thing out there. Apparently hundreds of thousands are following it.

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

It's not necessarily a conspiracy if a cop floats a theory they think might be possible, and the villain runs with it as a way to minimise their own guilt. For it to be a conspiracy, both/all parties would need to know it wasn't true.

Yeah well, if the cops have to float that theory to 4 different villains it's a bit difficult denying a conspiracy. The villains all know it's wrong and common sense dictates that if the second villain also needs a suggestive nudge the cops are going to know it as well.

 

[lonepinealex]

Google "serial podcast" - it will keep you involved in murder. Just like Dewani, he claims he didn't do it. Just like this case, there is thin evidence. It's the newest, hottest thing out there. Apparently hundreds of thousands are following it.

Ha yes, someone sent me the link to this the other day, haven't had time to listen to it yet. Sounds interesting.

 

[Kaosium]

Yeah well, if the cops have to float that theory to 4 different villains it's a bit difficult denying a conspiracy. The villains all know it's wrong and common sense dictates that if the second villain also needs a suggestive nudge the cops are going to know it as well.

Not necessarily, have you ever read this article? As you can imagine, a technique that gets innocent people to confess is damned good at getting guilty people to confess, which is why it and variations thereof are employed. It's a rather long article but near the bottom you'll see how information can be fed to the subject inadvertently. Just by the nature of the questions sometimes they can guess as to what is expected of them, and it's natural for people--including trained police--to forget the 'misses'(wrong answers) and only count the 'hits' (right answers) which incidentally how people like Sylvia Brown and John Edward convince some people they're psychic. Ever play twenty questions?

Getting someone caught dead to rights to cast blame elsewhere must be amongst the easiest 'confessions' to procure. That's why the corroboration step is so crucial and it doesn't strike me as though they did a very good job of that.

 

[Information Analyst]

Yeah well, if the cops have to float that theory to 4 different villains it's a bit difficult denying a conspiracy. The villains all know it's wrong and common sense dictates that if the second villain also needs a suggestive nudge the cops are going to know it as well.

I thought this particular one only applies to Tongo and Mbolombo?

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

I thought this particular one only applies to Tongo and Mbolombo?

Qwabe was the first to implicate Dewani

 

[katy_did]

Defence asking for the case to be dismissed:

Leigh-Anne Jansen @LA_JANSEN
#DewaniTrial A Sec. 174 application has apparently been submitted for the discharge of this trial

They may as well - even it fails (probably) it'll reinforce the idea the prosecution case is weak.

 

[anglolawyer]

Defence asking for the case to be dismissed:

They may as well - even it fails (probably) it'll reinforce the idea the prosecution case is weak.

In our system it's a bit risky because it mean firing off your closing submissions, letting the prosecution hear them, and then having them fail. Not the end of the world with a jury as the jury doesn't hear the submissions or decide whether to throw out the case. But in SA the judge and her assessors are also the fact finders so there is probably more risk. If that is right then it suggest the defence think they have a pretty strong application.

It could also be, of course, that they are worried about putting Dewani in the witness box. For the sake of his reputation, it might be better if he were to be cross examined because if the case is chucked out now there will always be those who say he only got off because the prosecution witnesses were not up to scratch rather than that he was actually innocent.

 

[Information Analyst]

Qwabe was the first to implicate Dewani

I was talking about the idea that Dewani had supposedly organised a hit in SA previously.

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

In our system it's a bit risky because it mean firing off your closing submissions, letting the prosecution hear them, and then having them fail. Not the end of the world with a jury as the jury doesn't hear the submissions or decide whether to throw out the case. But in SA the judge and her assessors are also the fact finders so there is probably more risk. If that is right then it suggest the defence think they have a pretty strong application.

It could also be, of course, that they are worried about putting Dewani in the witness box. For the sake of his reputation, it might be better if he were to be cross examined because if the case is chucked out now there will always be those who say he only got off because the prosecution witnesses were not up to scratch rather than that he was actually innocent.

Well, assuming that the defence can't bring in all of Van Zyl's assertions during the prosecution case about what Dewani will say, the risk of putting your case out there isn't so high, because the arguments will all be about how rubbish the prosecution witnesses are rather than the perfectly reasonable explanation my client has made Your Honour.

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

I was talking about the idea that Dewani had supposedly organised a hit in SA previously.

I wasn't.

 

[katy_did]

In our system it's a bit risky because it mean firing off your closing submissions, letting the prosecution hear them, and then having them fail. Not the end of the world with a jury as the jury doesn't hear the submissions or decide whether to throw out the case. But in SA the judge and her assessors are also the fact finders so there is probably more risk. If that is right then it suggest the defence think they have a pretty strong application.

It could also be, of course, that they are worried about putting Dewani in the witness box. For the sake of his reputation, it might be better if he were to be cross examined because if the case is chucked out now there will always be those who say he only got off because the prosecution witnesses were not up to scratch rather than that he was actually innocent.

Interesting. Given that the prosecution have to make a submission in response to the defence points as well, though, wouldn't it also force them to reveal their counter-arguments?

I can't see that they'd ask for the case to be dismissed purely to avoid Dewani testifying. Either the case is weak enough to be dismissed, in which case that would be reason enough to make the submission, or else it isn't, and so it wouldn't prevent Dewani testifying anyway. I could see them doing it just to reinforce the weakness of the prosecution case, though, even if they didn't think there was much chance of it being successful.

I don't know about it being better for Dewani's reputation for him to be cross-examined - if the case is thrown out now, I think the lasting impression will be that the case was so weak the defence didn't even need to turn up. However I do think that Anni's family may feel as you say, that he got off because of weak prosecution witnesses rather than because he's actually innocent.

It's funny, at one point the defence lawyer said his client "will testify, if necessary..." about something - I thought that might mean they were considering not putting him on the stand, but maybe they were already anticipating the case might be thrown out...

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, assuming that the defence can't bring in all of Van Zyl's assertions during the prosecution case about what Dewani will say, the risk of putting your case out there isn't so high, because the arguments will all be about how rubbish the prosecution witnesses are rather than the perfectly reasonable explanation my client has made Your Honour.

Interesting. Given that the prosecution have to make a submission in response to the defence points as well, though, wouldn't it also force them to reveal their counter-arguments?

I can't see that they'd ask for the case to be dismissed purely to avoid Dewani testifying. Either the case is weak enough to be dismissed, in which case that would be reason enough to make the submission, or else it isn't, and so it wouldn't prevent Dewani testifying anyway. I could see them doing it just to reinforce the weakness of the prosecution case, though, even if they didn't think there was much chance of it being successful.

I don't know about it being better for Dewani's reputation for him to be cross-examined - if the case is thrown out now, I think the lasting impression will be that the case was so weak the defence didn't even need to turn up. However I do think that Anni's family may feel as you say, that he got off because of weak prosecution witnesses rather than because he's actually innocent.

It's funny, at one point the defence lawyer said his client "will testify, if necessary..." about something - I thought that might mean they were considering not putting him on the stand, but maybe they were already anticipating the case might be thrown out...

All good points. One thing I am pretty sure of is they would not be applying if they didn't think it was worth a shot. And as there has been no smoking gun (no incriminating texts for example) but only a catalogue of lies, inconsistencies and conjecture, the case must be thrown out I should have thought. No reasonable jury could convict on the basis of this obvious garbage.