Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

pagetheoracle said:
I'm not saying it makes him guilty, I'm asking what connection led him to go there? Family? Business links? I wouldn't think of it as romantic and it has even more gun deaths and other murders than America, which rarely gets mentioned on TV. This is a perfectly innocent question and your reply shows something fishy in that you haven't given any facts to back up your response, just an emotional reaction.
Click to expand...

It has safaris (they went on one, I think) sunshine, things to see. I know plenty of people who have visited SA on holiday. I am not sure what you classify as 'romantic' but staying in expensive hotels in far away exotic places (which are mostly perfectly safe so long as you obey some basic rules - which they did not) seems OK to me. You seemed to imply there was something not quite right about them going to SA. If you want to bump someone off you should take them to India where, so I have been told, it is dirt cheap and it would have been pretty easy to contrive a reason for an Indian couple to honeymoon somewhere in the sub-continent. There is a story that he or they chose SA because it has the same initials their forenames, which sound but cheesy to me but in keeping with what I know of this type of person.

Most of the facts you are looking for are right here on the thread so, at the risk of being labelled 'emotional' again, I encourage you to read back. It's only 20 pages or so and the case is now officially over so there doesn't seem a lot of point in re-hashing the old stuff with an indolent newbie.
 
I'm not getting this South Africa = weird honeymoon thing at all. As anglo says, it's a major tourist destination. I know several people who've been there - for the safaris, the beaches, the swank hotels and the poverty tourism.

pagetheoracle, do you expect everyone to have a family or business connection to every place they go on holiday??

Your comments about S&M and predispositions to psychopathy are ridiculous.
 
pagetheoracle said:
I'm not saying it makes him guilty, I'm asking what connection led him to go there? Family? Business links? I wouldn't think of it as romantic and it has even more gun deaths and other murders than America, which rarely gets mentioned on TV. This is a perfectly innocent question and your reply shows something fishy in that you haven't given any facts to back up your response, just an emotional reaction.
Click to expand...
At the risk of repeating myself: South Africa is not Somalia. It has a thriving luxury tourist industry, and - believe it or not - slum-tourism is a subset that clearly exists within it.

No I haven't been with him for the last two years, have you? If he's into S&M that would imply he doesn't feel much but is trying to force some kind of feelings into his life, if only physically?
Click to expand...
You really don't know much about S&M, do you?

Does that make him guilty? No but it does make him seem an unsympathetic character and possibly psychopathic in his attitudes to life.
Click to expand...
Only to someone who shares your apparent ignorance of S&M.
 
pagetheoracle said:
There was a Glasgow case this year, where a father it seems had set his house on fire in order to get the family rehoused and it all went wrong, killing some of the children but obviously not him or his wife. In this case I think he was truly sorry things had gone wrong, not that he was trying to cover up his guilt. I don't remember Ian Huntley crying. I do remember him calling upon the public for help on TV though.
Click to expand...

So, clearly not "numerous," then.
 
pagetheoracle said:
I'm not saying it makes him guilty, I'm asking what connection led him to go there? Family? Business links? I wouldn't think of it as romantic and it has even more gun deaths and other murders than America, which rarely gets mentioned on TV. This is a perfectly innocent question and your reply shows something fishy in that you haven't given any facts to back up your response, just an emotional reaction.
Click to expand...
South Africa has a major tourist industry, with ~10 million visitors per year.

pagetheoracle said:
No I haven't been with him for the last two years, have you? If he's into S&M that would imply he doesn't feel much but is trying to force some kind of feelings into his life, if only physically? Does that make him guilty? No but it does make him seem an unsympathetic character and possibly psychopathic in his attitudes to life.
Click to expand...
Utter crap. Before posting your uninformed and nonsensical pop psychological opinions I suggest you do some actual study. As I pointed out in this very thread, BDSM practitioners typically enjoy better than average mental health.
 
anglolawyer said:
snip

Most of the facts you are looking for are right here on the thread so, at the risk of being labelled 'emotional' again, I encourage you to read back. It's only 20 pages or so and the case is now officially over so there doesn't seem a lot of point in re-hashing the old stuff with an indolent newbie.
Click to expand...


Wise words Sir, wise words.
 
anglolawyer said:
It has safaris (they went on one, I think) sunshine, things to see. I know plenty of people who have visited SA on holiday. I am not sure what you classify as 'romantic' but staying in expensive hotels in far away exotic places (which are mostly perfectly safe so long as you obey some basic rules - which they did not) seems OK to me. You seemed to imply there was something not quite right about them going to SA. If you want to bump someone off you should take them to India where, so I have been told, it is dirt cheap and it would have been pretty easy to contrive a reason for an Indian couple to honeymoon somewhere in the sub-continent. There is a story that he or they chose SA because it has the same initials their forenames, which sound but cheesy to me but in keeping with what I know of this type of person.

Most of the facts you are looking for are right here on the thread so, at the risk of being labelled 'emotional' again, I encourage you to read back. It's only 20 pages or so and the case is now officially over so there doesn't seem a lot of point in re-hashing the old stuff with an indolent newbie.
Click to expand...

Thanks for supplying that information, that does make it sound more reasonable. No, I was not implying there was something wrong with South Africa, just that its murder rate would have put me off going there unless I had good reason to. Thanks for the indolent newbie quote! No, rehashing the case doesn't seem to have much point unless her siblings try to get a retrial. Are you really a lawyer or is this just a name you chose as you liked it?
 
pagetheoracle said:
Thanks for supplying that information, that does make it sound more reasonable. No, I was not implying there was something wrong with South Africa, just that its murder rate would have put me off going there unless I had good reason to. Thanks for the indolent newbie quote! No, rehashing the case doesn't seem to have much point unless her siblings try to get a retrial. Are you really a lawyer or is this just a name you chose as you liked it?
Click to expand...

I am really a lawyer, yes.

It is possible there will be some civil suit since both families seem to be talking themselves into it. If they are well-advised, we shall hear nothing more, but deep and troubled waters lie ahead for the Hindocha family if they do not curb their pronouncements.

I am sorry I was brusque.
 
It seems an inquest into the death of Anni Dewani is to resume in London, per the Daily Mail. The article suggests Shrien will be required to give evidence. I don't know the rules. I assume he is compellable but enjoys privilege against self-incrimination.

The article also says a bunch of SA lawyers have filed a complaint against Judge Traverso alleging bias.
 
anglolawyer said:
It seems an inquest into the death of Anni Dewani is to resume in London, per the Daily Mail. The article suggests Shrien will be required to give evidence. I don't know the rules. I assume he is compellable but enjoys privilege against self-incrimination.

The article also says a bunch of SA lawyers have filed a complaint against Judge Traverso alleging bias.
Click to expand...

lonepinealex said:
Yay, new life in my favourite thread! I wonder if Mbolombo will be asked to testify?
Click to expand...
Since you both followed it closely, is the concensus innocent, or not proven guilty?
 
I don't know for sure he didn't do it, but I'm fairly convinced the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the standard it has to reach.
 
Innocent. The prosecution theory is crazy and sustained only by the evidence of self-confessed liars who can't tell the same story twice.
 
I expect I would agree with you if I'd been following the case as closely as you have. There seemed to be a lot of inconsistencies in the story we were being fed, and the case against Dewani shifted in an uncomfortable sort of way.

Dewani, probably didn't do it. Pistorius, probably did do it. But they get treated the same way by the system, indeed the same way the person with the unbreakable alibi gets treated. It's interesting to split the hairs though.
 
Rolfe said:
I expect I would agree with you if I'd been following the case as closely as you have. There seemed to be a lot of inconsistencies in the story we were being fed, and the case against Dewani shifted in an uncomfortable sort of way.

Dewani, probably didn't do it. Pistorius, probably did do it. But they get treated the same way by the system, indeed the same way the person with the unbreakable alibi gets treated. It's interesting to split the hairs though.
Click to expand...

It's not a difficult case. In fact, it's similar to the Knox business: an extremely simple and straightforward explanation of what happened is displaced by a convoluted and highly unlikely one and the evidence is then crow-barred to fit by fair means or foul.

ETA one of the similarities is a vengeful victim's family that has bought into the police theory hook, line and sinker. In the Daily Mail article above they are reported as saying Anni did not receive a fair trial because he was not forced to give evidence. Hmm, that doesn't suggest any great awareness of who exactly was on trial or what a fair trial looks like.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
It's not a difficult case. In fact, it's similar to the Knox business: an extremely simple and straightforward explanation of what happened is displaced by a convoluted and highly unlikely one and the evidence is then crow-barred to fit by fair means or foul.

ETA one of the similarities is a vengeful victim's family that has bought into the police theory hook, line and sinker. In the Daily Mail article above they are reported as saying Anni did not receive a fair trial because he was not forced to give evidence. Hmm, that doesn't suggest any great awareness of who exactly was on trial or what a fair trial looks like.
Click to expand...

The DM article is rather inaccurate in its summation of the trial (e.g. it says Mbolombo was granted immunity for testifying, when in fact the judge rescinded his immunity for lying), so who knows what the real situation is behind this group of lawyers' formal complaint. I looked up the HETN and they're actually a lobbying organisation, so there's bound to be some agenda there.

I'm still amazed that the Hindochas seem to have nothing to say about the whole Mbolombo business - here's a man who indisputably was involved in Anni's death, which the police must have known, who got off scott free. And they have no complaint about that? Crazy.
 
lonepinealex said:
The DM article is rather inaccurate in its summation of the trial (e.g. it says Mbolombo was granted immunity for testifying, when in fact the judge rescinded his immunity for lying), so who knows what the real situation is behind this group of lawyers' formal complaint. I looked up the HETN and they're actually a lobbying organisation, so there's bound to be some agenda there.

I'm still amazed that the Hindochas seem to have nothing to say about the whole Mbolombo business - here's a man who indisputably was involved in Anni's death, which the police must have known, who got off scott free. And they have no complaint about that? Crazy.
Click to expand...

I guess they are too focused on Shrien to care.

I must say it does seem a bit odd that Mbolombo should lose his immunity. Immunity is immunity, right? Even odder is that he got such a sweet deal in the first place. How does that work in SA, exactly? Why was he singled out for hyper-special treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom