Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

what's wrong with PR?

Information Analyst said:
So the basic idea is that Dewani must be guilty because he hired a publicist and PR is a Bad Thing™....
Click to expand...
The notion that innocent people don't occasionally need PR is somewhat less foolhardy than the notion that innocent people don't need lawyers, but it is still dangerous nonsense. Lindy Chamberlain should have sought out such services. The Duke lacrosse players did. The families of the accused players appeared on the CBS program 60 minutes in early 2007, and I got the sense that they were coached (listen for how they discuss the accuser as well as to who does most of the talking). When a case becomes of national interest, it would be foolhardy not to seek out media guidance.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
The notion that innocent people don't occasionally need PR is somewhat less foolhardy than the notion that innocent people don't need lawyers, but it is still dangerous nonsense. Lindy Chamberlain should have sought out such services. The Duke lacrosse players did. The families of the accused players appeared on the CBS program 60 minutes in early 2007, and I got the sense that they were coached (listen to who does most of the talking). When a case becomes of national interest, it would be foolhardy not to seek out media guidance.
Click to expand...

You may have a point. But it cannot be good PR to peddle outright lies.
 
Just say "no comment;" good versus bad ways of dealing with the media

anglolawyer said:
You may have a point. But it cannot be good PR to peddle outright lies.
Click to expand...
Obviously, I agree with this, and I should have worded my initial comment more carefully. I should have said it was foolhardy to infer a defendant's guilt on the basis of his or her hiring a PR firm. I appreciate the general wisdom of a defendant's just saying "no comment." However, a high-publicity case sometimes calls for the usual playbook to get tossed out the window. And not knowing the case as well as I should, I am not sure what Lindy Chamberlain should have done.

When the Duke lacrosse parents appeared on 60 Minutes, they said that the false accuser had been victimized by the prosecutor, not that she was a lying witch, and the wives did most of the talking. It is for these reasons that I suspect that there was some coaching going on, which I hasten to add, I do not disparage. Here is what reporter Sharon Swanson said about one of the three families: "No doubt the Finnertys have been somewhat prepped for dealing with reporters. Any good defense attorney would see to that. Was their house cleaner, more picked up than you might expect from a large family on a regular basis? Probably. Were the Finnertys on their best behavior? Most definitely. Yet, during my social work days, I have sat in interviews with couples who extolled their virtues as parents at great length while their toddler played behind them, unconsciously pretending to toke a joint. It’s tough to hide who you are for eight hours. If any clues as to the hidden natures of this family were there, I did not pick up on them. What I did observe, however, was a close family that sees themselves under siege by an enemy that has chosen to attack them for reasons they don’t fully understand."

With respect to Mr. Dewani, he should not have denied having sex with men, especially if he suspected it might come out eventually. "No comment" would have served him much better. However, people lie all the time (especially to protect themselves in the short run), and that should get factored in when judging the credibility of a defendant.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Obviously, I agree with this. I appreciate the general wisdom of a defendant's just saying "no comment." However, a high-publicity case sometimes calls for the usual playbook to get tossed out the window. And not knowing the case as well as I should, I am not sure what Lindy Chamberlain should have done.

When the DL parents appeared on 60 Minutes, they said that the false accuser had been victimized by the prosecutor, not that she was a lying witch, and the wives did most of the talking. It is for these reasons that I suspect that there was some coaching going on, which I hasten to add, I do not disparage. Here is what reporter Sharon Swanson said about one of the three DL families: "No doubt the Finnertys have been somewhat prepped for dealing with reporters. Any good defense attorney would see to that. Was their house cleaner, more picked up than you might expect from a large family on a regular basis? Probably. Were the Finnertys on their best behavior? Most definitely. Yet, during my social work days, I have sat in interviews with couples who extolled their virtues as parents at great length while their toddler played behind them, unconsciously pretending to toke a joint. It’s tough to hide who you are for eight hours. If any clues as to the hidden natures of this family were there, I did not pick up on them. What I did observe, however, was a close family that sees themselves under siege by an enemy that has chosen to attack them for reasons they don’t fully understand."

With respect to Mr. Dewani, he should not have denied having sex with men, especially if he suspected it might come out eventually. "No comment" would have served him much better. However, people lie all the time (especially to protect themselves in the short run), and that should get factored in when judging the credibility of a defendant.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, although, if we get there, it will be interesting to see whether these denials are put to him in cross examination (or in chief - to draw their teeth). It's just another thing he doesn't need. It's quite possible Clifford relied not on Dewani himself but on some well-meaning but misguided relative or friend, since Dewani was not capable of handling his own affairs for a considerable period.
 
anglolawyer said:
Defence heads of argument in support of strike out application are here.
Click to expand...
Prosecution heads of argument here.

Adjourned till 8 December for the judge's decision.

Any predictions? I'm going to say she'll dismiss the case. Apart from anything else, I doubt she'd have taken such a long delay if she weren't.
 
katy_did said:
Prosecution heads of argument here.

Adjourned till 8 December for the judge's decision.

Any predictions? I'm going to say she'll dismiss the case. Apart from anything else, I doubt she'd have taken such a long delay if she weren't.
Click to expand...

I think it would stand an excellent chance of being dismissed in an English (or Welsh) crown court. I am not sure about SA where s.174 applications are said to be very common and mostly unsuccessful. Bet yeah, WTH, I'll go along with you. They have nothing on him except innuendo and the blatant lies and inconsistencies of Tongo et al. No one should go down for murder based on such a lousy case.
 
anglolawyer said:
I think it would stand an excellent chance of being dismissed in an English (or Welsh) crown court. I am not sure about SA where s.174 applications are said to be very common and mostly unsuccessful. Bet yeah, WTH, I'll go along with you. They have nothing on him except innuendo and the blatant lies and inconsistencies of Tongo et al. No one should go down for murder based on such a lousy case.
Click to expand...

Apparently this was the closing exchange between the judge and prosecutor (from Aislinn Lang on Twitter):

Judge: "Do you agree with me that the state's case rests on the evidence of a single witness, as regards the conspiracy?"
Mopp: "Tongo is the only person who communicated with the accused."
Judge: He was an unsatisfactory witness, even on your account.
Mopp: Not sufficiently for the court to reject his evidence.
Judge: Is there any corroboration? There isn’t.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, in SA law 'accomplice evidence' has to be corroborated for it to be accepted. So even if Tongo's evidence actually were reliable, it would need some corroboration if used to convict Dewani - and the judge has already reached the conclusion his evidence is "unsatisfactory".

Oh, and yesterday she told the defence lawyer he didn't need to bother attacking Mbolombo's evidence.

Hard to see how she can do anything other than dismiss the case...
 
katy_did said:
Apparently this was the closing exchange between the judge and prosecutor (from Aislinn Lang on Twitter):



As I understand it, in SA law 'accomplice evidence' has to be corroborated for it to be accepted. So even if Tongo's evidence actually were reliable, it would need some corroboration if used to convict Dewani - and the judge has already reached the conclusion his evidence is "unsatisfactory".

Oh, and yesterday she told the defence lawyer he didn't need to bother attacking Mbolombo's evidence.

Hard to see how she can do anything other than dismiss the case...
Click to expand...

Wow! Didn't know any of that.

But then, what weight could you (or a judge in a high profile case) place on someone who starts his evidence by admitting he lied in a previous trial? This was always the problem with this case, the sheer lack of credibility of the principal witnesses. The goons Hawks had to find something more and they failed to do it.

If she throws it out then she will reinforce the impression already gained in the Pistorius case that the SA judiciary are a class act. I know there are certain technical questions in that case but the judge seems to have properly applied the criminal standard of proof to her own thinking unlike so many cases we have seen where, instead, some pet theory has been allowed to 'organise' the evidence into a pretty pattern that equals guilt.
 
anglolawyer said:
Wow! Didn't know any of that.

But then, what weight could you (or a judge in a high profile case) place on someone who starts his evidence by admitting he lied in a previous trial? This was always the problem with this case, the sheer lack of credibility of the principal witnesses. The goons Hawks had to find something more and they failed to do it.

If she throws it out then she will reinforce the impression already gained in the Pistorius case that the SA judiciary are a class act. I know there are certain technical questions in that case but the judge seems to have properly applied the criminal standard of proof to her own thinking unlike so many cases we have seen where, instead, some pet theory has been allowed to 'organise' the evidence into a pretty pattern that equals guilt.
Click to expand...

Have to 100% agree with the bit in bold. I don't get any sense at all that either judge is under pressure to 'close ranks' or to bow to public/political opinion, or that they're influenced by anything other than their own thinking on the case. Just look at the fact years and who knows much money has been spent extraditing Dewani, yet the judge may very well throw the case it out without even hearing from the defence. There doesn't seem to be any pressure on her to somehow justify the process up to this point or to defend the police. As you say, very different to many other cases we've seen!
 
A bit more from Aislinn Lang in court:

Judge: Mr Mopp, I don’t want to interrupt you but how many mistakes did Tongo make?

Mopp: We have to concede he made a lot.

Judge: A LOT.

Mopp: Some are not that material - he’s accused of tailoring his evidence to fit with CCTV but he makes some assertions contrary to it..

Judge asks how she can overlook Tongo's many mistakes, like alleging Dewani wanted to go to a dodgy money exchange to avoid showing passport

Mopp says Tongo admitted he assumed Dewani wanted to avoid showing passport without him actually saying it.

Judge says that's not good enough

Judge: "Is there any evidence how the money was going to get from Mr Dewani to Qwabe and Mngeni?"

Mopp: They agreed R15,000 was going to be left in (car) glove compart. But no indication as to who was responsible for putting it there. As I said, we're not dealing with the A-team of contract killers here. There was no detailed discussion of "how we're going to do it." They were thinking about getting the job done to get the money. It's as simple as that.

Traverso: "It's not as simple as that. You're relying on conspiracy, no? Do you think the accused would go along with loose arrangements?"

Mopp: "One doesn't know what the accused was thinking. He meets Tongo & Tongo becomes the agent. The accused was here for a short period of time – one doesn’t know what pressure he was under to ensure this thing happens."

Judge: "So you're asking me to believe that even though Dewani was a co-conspirator, he himself is robbed of R4,000?"

Mopp squeaks: “In for a penny in for a pound! If you engage with criminals, you don’t know what’s going to happen!”

The Dewani case disintegrating before our eyes. The judge waving her arms exasperatedly, prosecutor Mopp squeaking indignantly in defence.
Click to expand...
 
anglolawyer said:
:D well, that's going well, isn't it? I have seen my own cases shredded by annoying judges in similar fashion. It's looking bleak for the hawks.
Click to expand...

:D I just wish it was televised...

Alex Crawford @AlexCrawfordSky · 3h 3 hours ago
Watching the Judge tackle the State's Adrian Mopp is a bit like watching a tiger toss a mouse around

Alex Crawford @AlexCrawfordSky · 3h 3 hours ago
Occasionally, just ever so occasionally, the Judge asks a Q of the State which doesnt indicate she'd quite like to throttle him
Click to expand...
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
They will put on a dog and pony show that looks convincingly like a fair trial. Evidence (or lack thereof) will seem to matter greatly, right up to the inevitable guilty verdict, at which point it will not matter at all.

You have my firm prediction, on record.

If I'm wrong... remember this post and never let me forget it for a second. You will be doing me a service, because I hate being right about these things and I wish devoutly that I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

This is probably too early but you asked to be reminded and I just happened upon your post from a few months back.
 
It's not too early. Given that I think you must be right about not giving reasons if she rejects the application (as Henney did in the Mngeni voir dire, he left the reasons to the final judgment) waiting until 8 December says to me that she is preparing a reasoned judgment. She seems to have made it pretty clear her view from day 1.

I think the case was scheduled to end on 8 December anyway, so it all fits in.

Sigh, she might be right, although I did think there was enough to continue if not convict. What's the point of continuing? He wouldn't give evidence anyway now I wouldn't think, especially given her remarks about the evidence of Tongo, so it would be a fruitless exercise.

He definitely did it though :)
 
katy_did said:
:D I just wish it was televised...
Click to expand...

Poor old Mopp. He has been a bit hopeless though hasn't he!

A judge cut me down today when I was reading out some of the evidence. "I can read it myself". I know how Mopp feels. Although of course I didn't have 500 tweeters sitting behind me reporting my embarrassing indignant octave jumps to the entire world.
 
If Dewani is acquitted, will the pattern where the family of the victim is outraged and writes books in pursuit of their elusive dream, the incarceration till eternity of the accused be followed?

Meredith Kercher.
Reeva Steenkamp *
Anni Dewani

* Outlier in the series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom