Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

Seems as though the Hindocha's either have given up hoping for a conviction or that they are making an unseemly attempt to influence the outcome, judging by the latest from the Daily Mail

'South Africa is not normal. These are black people': Shrien Dewani's brother launches extraordinary attack in secretly taped meeting with Anni's family amid fears her husband would be framed for murder
Preyen Dewani made inflammatory remarks days after Anni's death in 2010
He feared South African authorities would frame Dewani to protect tourism
Transcript of meeting exposes grieving family's mistrust of her husband
Dewani brothers battled to convince her parents of accused's innocence
Two-hour conversation was secretly recorded by Anni's cousin Sneha
Anni's brother begs court to force Dewani to explain how his wife died
Click to expand...

The last is redolent of a case which shall be nameless in which the grieving relatives purport to want only to know 'what really happened' while giving every impression of having formed a concluded view already.
 
It's in poor taste to run to the Daily Mail, but I couldn't blame the Hindochas for being resentful of Dewani, even if they believed him innocent. I feel sorry for Shrien for feeling that he had to hide his sexuality, but he would have made Anni miserable and the whole thing feels like some kind of Greek tragedy.
 
anglolawyer said:
Seems as though the Hindocha's either have given up hoping for a conviction or that they are making an unseemly attempt to influence the outcome, judging by the latest from the Daily Mail



The last is redolent of a case which shall be nameless in which the grieving relatives purport to want only to know 'what really happened' while giving every impression of having formed a concluded view already.
Click to expand...
Yeah there does seem to be a flavour that they've given up on actual evidence and the trial process.
 
lonepinealex said:
It's in poor taste to run to the Daily Mail, but I couldn't blame the Hindochas for being resentful of Dewani, even if they believed him innocent. I feel sorry for Shrien for feeling that he had to hide his sexuality, but he would have made Anni miserable and the whole thing feels like some kind of Greek tragedy.
Click to expand...

Even assuming he's acquitted, especially on the present submission of no case, this thing has a lot of life left in it. The mistake the Hindochas may be tempted to make is to blame her death on his suppression of his sexuality, which was clearly wrong but (if innocent) he has paid a heavy enough price already. I doubt her family will think so.
 
catsmate1 said:
Yeah there does seem to be a flavour that they've given up on actual evidence and the trial process.
Click to expand...
Her estate could sue him for damages for assault, like in the OJ case. We might see a re-run although I'm not sure whether an English court would not regard such a claim as an abuse of process.
 
anglolawyer said:
Even assuming he's acquitted, especially on the present submission of no case, this thing has a lot of life left in it. The mistake the Hindochas may be tempted to make is to blame her death on his suppression of his sexuality, which was clearly wrong but (if innocent) he has paid a heavy enough price already. I doubt her family will think so.
Click to expand...


Local media is playing up the recent petition to have the judge recuse herself.

Given what you've heard of the judge and her remarks, if the NPA decided they'd got a raw deal with this judge, what can they do legally and how likely would you think those courses of action might be?*

*Sorry for the unwieldy construction of that sentence. I can't seem to think very well this morning.
 
Octavo said:
Local media is playing up the recent petition to have the judge recuse herself.

Given what you've heard of the judge and her remarks, if the NPA decided they'd got a raw deal with this judge, what can they do legally and how likely would you think those courses of action might be?*

*Sorry for the unwieldy construction of that sentence. I can't seem to think very well this morning.
Click to expand...
I reviewed the sentence and concluded it was not unwieldy.
 
Octavo said:
Local media is playing up the recent petition to have the judge recuse herself.

Given what you've heard of the judge and her remarks, if the NPA decided they'd got a raw deal with this judge, what can they do legally and how likely would you think those courses of action might be?*

*Sorry for the unwieldy construction of that sentence. I can't seem to think very well this morning.
Click to expand...

It would be a huge red flag were anything to happen to disrupt this trial. Judicial independence is a crucial constitutional safeguard. If the system permits prosecution appeals, then appeal. If not, then the NPA must lick its wounds and up its game in the next case. There appears to be plenty of room for improvement.

The judge has not displayed bias anyway. This case was a predictable crock long before the trial started. As soon as I heard the details of the conspiracy as it emerged in the other cases I knew (and said) something was wrong and that the conspirators could not survive cross examination. As with Pistorius the prosecution needed something extra, beyond the evidence of the three co-operative perps, such as those texts we heard so much about but which fizzled out to nothing.

Necessary, but not sufficient, was a better and more ethical trial strategy. Trying to start off with Leisser was bad form IMO and indicative of a bad mindset. It suggested to me they wanted to bias the court the other way right from the start, leaving Tongo and Mbolombo until the end and hoping they had poisoned the well enough for no one to notice or care about the bare-faced lies and inconsistencies of these witnesses.

Fair minded pro-guilt types can continue to think he did it, maybe he did for all anyone knows, but they should acknowledge that no one should be convicted of murder on such a crock of lies and innuendo.
 
anglolawyer said:
It would be a huge red flag were anything to happen to disrupt this trial. Judicial independence is a crucial constitutional safeguard. If the system permits prosecution appeals, then appeal. If not, then the NPA must lick its wounds and up its game in the next case. There appears to be plenty of room for improvement.

The judge has not displayed bias anyway. This case was a predictable crock long before the trial started. As soon as I heard the details of the conspiracy as it emerged in the other cases I knew (and said) something was wrong and that the conspirators could not survive cross examination. As with Pistorius the prosecution needed something extra, beyond the evidence of the three co-operative perps, such as those texts we heard so much about but which fizzled out to nothing.

Necessary, but not sufficient, was a better and more ethical trial strategy. Trying to start off with Leisser was bad form IMO and indicative of a bad mindset. It suggested to me they wanted to bias the court the other way right from the start, leaving Tongo and Mbolombo until the end and hoping they had poisoned the well enough for no one to notice or care about the bare-faced lies and inconsistencies of these witnesses.

Fair minded pro-guilt types can continue to think he did it, maybe he did for all anyone knows, but they should acknowledge that no one should be convicted of murder on such a crock of lies and innuendo.
Click to expand...

Well, I've definitely slid from a pretty firm pro-guilt to a much more wishy-washy fence-sitting position honestly.

What do you make of the contention that the judge's dismissal of the gay/bi arguments without allowing them to be put forward by the prosecution amounts to bias?

The Hindocha's have claimed that had Anni known of Shrien's proclivities she would never have married him. Doesn't that seem to indicate that the gay/bi thing may well be a valid exploration of possible motive?
 
Octavo said:
Well, I've definitely slid from a pretty firm pro-guilt to a much more wishy-washy fence-sitting position honestly.

What do you make of the contention that the judge's dismissal of the gay/bi arguments without allowing them to be put forward by the prosecution amounts to bias?

The Hindocha's have claimed that had Anni known of Shrien's proclivities she would never have married him. Doesn't that seem to indicate that the gay/bi thing may well be a valid exploration of possible motive?
Click to expand...
Octavo, the gay/bi thing is retrofitting motive, while ignoring the extreme unlikelihood that a sophisticated man would employ people he knows nothing of, to murder a sophisticated woman. It is too ridiculous to contend. This is happening all the time, where it is suggested first time killers who have unlimited lifestyle options consort with unknowable people to almost certainly self destroy their lives.
By almost certainly, I mean clearance rate for murders is 67%, and for murders involving near relatives or people they are domestically close to, near 100%.
Charlie Wilkes might have a better handle on the statistics.
 
Octavo said:
Well, I've definitely slid from a pretty firm pro-guilt to a much more wishy-washy fence-sitting position honestly.

What do you make of the contention that the judge's dismissal of the gay/bi arguments without allowing them to be put forward by the prosecution amounts to bias?

The Hindocha's have claimed that had Anni known of Shrien's proclivities she would never have married him. Doesn't that seem to indicate that the gay/bi thing may well be a valid exploration of possible motive?
Click to expand...

It did seem odd but, as the judge said, his defence statement admitted he was bi and there is usually no need to prove admitted facts. There were some emails she ruled inadmissible. I am not sure what that was all about. I still don't see bias, though. If they needed all that to make their case, they didn't really have one.

Personally, I agree he had a motive but I want credible evidence of the conspiracy itself, either from the perps or from circumstances so compelling they admit no other reasonable explanation. His motive can't make up for the inability of the prosecution to cover those bases.
 
Octavo said:
Well, I've definitely slid from a pretty firm pro-guilt to a much more wishy-washy fence-sitting position honestly.

What do you make of the contention that the judge's dismissal of the gay/bi arguments without allowing them to be put forward by the prosecution amounts to bias?

The Hindocha's have claimed that had Anni known of Shrien's proclivities she would never have married him. Doesn't that seem to indicate that the gay/bi thing may well be a valid exploration of possible motive?
Click to expand...

The judge recognizes that a theoretical motive, even if solidly established, is not evidence of guilt. The only evidence in this case is the uncorroborated accusation of criminals.

The position of the mob, as reflected in the column you linked, seems to be as follows: "Dewani was secretly gay, he is a bad person, and he acts guilty. That should be enough to convict."

This judge, apparently, does not wish to pander to that kind of thinking, or allow the prosecutor to do so.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
The judge recognizes that a theoretical motive, even if solidly established, is not evidence of guilt. The only evidence in this case is the uncorroborated accusation of criminals.

The position of the mob, as reflected in the column you linked, seems to be as follows: "Dewani was secretly gay, he is a bad person, and he acts guilty. That should be enough to convict."

This judge, apparently, does not wish to pander to that kind of thinking, or allow the prosecutor to do so.
Click to expand...

My position is slightly right of centre on motive. It should be considered an item of circumstantial evidence, like a fingerprint or a recently contracted insurance policy or a lie. It's normally the case that, considered in isolation, such things aren't evidence of guilt. I think there is a 19th century (English) case to this effect (re: motive as CE).

However, I do agree with your characterisation of the popular view of the case.
 
The petition isn't going to do anything. It's only got 2,500 odd signatures but even with 250,000 signatures its a doomed and flawed exercise.

The organisation for the protection of our constitution which is trying to intervene has about 200 members and is obviously just a publicity motivated nutters group.

The Hindochas were right to disassociate themselves with the petition and any criticism of the judge, although they should have just kept quiet completely. I know they just ended up saying the same thing they have been saying for the last 4 years - tell us the truth - but doing it again at this stage is particularly unwise.

After Monday they can say what they like in my book. Let Dewani sue them. They can plead justification and we can all look forward to another trial:)
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
The petition isn't going to do anything. It's only got 2,500 odd signatures but even with 250,000 signatures its a doomed and flawed exercise.

The organisation for the protection of our constitution which is trying to intervene has about 200 members and is obviously just a publicity motivated nutters group.

The Hindochas were right to disassociate themselves with the petition and any criticism of the judge, although they should have just kept quiet completely. I know they just ended up saying the same thing they have been saying for the last 4 years - tell us the truth - but doing it again at this stage is particularly unwise.

After Monday they can say what they like in my book. Let Dewani sue them. They can plead justification and we can all look forward to another trial:)
Click to expand...

Yawn. The case has been beaten to death. What more do we need to know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom