Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

[Rolfe]

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.

Is there one killer piece of evidence in this case that convinces you the straightforward explanation is true? Like the stomach contents in the Knox case? That was what did it for me in that one. If Meredith died shortly after nine, you had to produce a theory of the crime that accounted for that, and there was no way Knox could have been involved at that time.

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.

Don't start me on victims' families who are convinced the police case is true. Perhaps you never met Bunntamas, who was eventually banned for threatening legal action against JREF? I suppose grief-stricken relatives will naturally cling to the police for comfort and security, and have a need to believe they are doing their job right, but come on, years later, losing a loved one doesn't mean you have all your critical thinking faculties extracted.

I'm actually quite impressed by the South African system's willingness to acquit in a high-profile trial if the evidence doesn't stack up. The sort of witch-hunt we saw in this case has a habit of turning into an unstoppable bandwagon for guilt. Do you think it's a feature of the judicial bench trial? (Not that I'm a fan of judicial bench trials.)

The DM article is rather inaccurate ....

Uh, yeah....

 

[anglolawyer]

Is there one killer piece of evidence in this case that convinces you the straightforward explanation is true? Like the stomach contents in the Knox case? That was what did it for me in that one. If Meredith died shortly after nine, you had to produce a theory of the crime that accounted for that, and there was no way Knox could have been involved at that time.

Yes, there is. The jewellery she was dripping with, worth many times more than the cash supposedly negotiated for the hit, but apparently not considered worthy of mention by any of the conspirators (in a country in which tourists are specifically advised not to go around weighed down with the stuff). Their version of the contract could not possibly be true because no reasonable gang of
township muggers would have failed to consider it. It's like the officious bystander test in contract law.

And - the fact that, as portrayed, the whole thing was a complete fiasco for the taxi driver, Tongo, who was stiffed four grand out of his paltry fee and had his taxi (his livelihood) turned into a crime scene.

Don't start me on victims' families who are convinced the police case is true. Perhaps you never met Bunntamas, who was eventually banned for threatening legal action against JREF? I suppose grief-stricken relatives will naturally cling to the police for comfort and security, and have a need to believe they are doing their job right, but come on, years later, losing a loved one doesn't mean you have all your critical thinking faculties extracted.

I'm actually quite impressed by the South African system's willingness to acquit in a high-profile trial if the evidence doesn't stack up. The sort of witch-hunt we saw in this case has a habit of turning into an unstoppable bandwagon for guilt. Do you think it's a feature of the judicial bench trial? (Not that I'm a fan of judicial bench trials.)

Insufficient data. AFAIK the score is 2-2 (Pistorius and Dewani on one side and Megrahi and Kish on the other) so the jury's out (gotta be the pun of the year )

 

[Octavo]

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.

Just a minor correction here. Pistorius definitely killed Reeva - that was never actually in question. The case was actually around the motivation behind the shooting. Did he honestly believe it was an intruder or did he knowingly shoot Reeva. I don't think we can ever resolve what really happened to Reeva. Oscar certainly isn't going to admit it if he did.

As for Dewani, again I don't know what really happened, but I will definitely agree that the case presented by the state, certainly didn't stack up very well.

Is there one killer piece of evidence in this case that convinces you the straightforward explanation is true? Like the stomach contents in the Knox case? That was what did it for me in that one. If Meredith died shortly after nine, you had to produce a theory of the crime that accounted for that, and there was no way Knox could have been involved at that time.

I'm actually quite impressed by the South African system's willingness to acquit in a high-profile trial if the evidence doesn't stack up. The sort of witch-hunt we saw in this case has a habit of turning into an unstoppable bandwagon for guilt. Do you think it's a feature of the judicial bench trial? (Not that I'm a fan of judicial bench trials.)

I know your question wasn't directed at me, but for me, the entire case against Dewani turned out to be pretty circumstantial and based on testimony from people with a motive to lie. Which is not to say I believe he's innocent, there's just not enough evidence to say.

I like to think the judiciary in SA is fairly sensible and tends to ignore the media spin for the most part. Of course, not all judges are the same, but I'm glad we managed to get through two fairly high-profile trials without too much scorn heaped upon our justice system.

 

[lonepinealex]

Is there one killer piece of evidence in this case that convinces you the straightforward explanation is true?

For me it's the nature of the killing, which looks like an accidental shooting during a struggle (the forensic evidence of which was not made clear during the trials of the killers), and complete lack of a coherent testimony from the perpetrators that explains this.

 

[Samson]

Just a minor correction here. Pistorius definitely killed Reeva - that was never actually in question. The case was actually around the motivation behind the shooting. Did he honestly believe it was an intruder or did he knowingly shoot Reeva. I don't think we can ever resolve what really happened to Reeva. Oscar certainly isn't going to admit it if he did.

As for Dewani, again I don't know what really happened, but I will definitely agree that the case presented by the state, certainly didn't stack up very well.



I know your question wasn't directed at me, but for me, the entire case against Dewani turned out to be pretty circumstantial and based on testimony from people with a motive to lie. Which is not to say I believe he's innocent, there's just not enough evidence to say.

I like to think the judiciary in SA is fairly sensible and tends to ignore the media spin for the most part. Of course, not all judges are the same, but I'm glad we managed to get through two fairly high-profile trials without too much scorn heaped upon our justice system.

The account of the innocent accused is a particularly fascinating and undeveloped study IMO

 

[catsmate]

Since you both followed it closely, is the concensus innocent, or not proven guilty?

Innocent.

 

[Rolfe]

Just a minor correction here. Pistorius definitely killed Reeva - that was never actually in question. The case was actually around the motivation behind the shooting. Did he honestly believe it was an intruder or did he knowingly shoot Reeva. I don't think we can ever resolve what really happened to Reeva. Oscar certainly isn't going to admit it if he did.

That's what I meant. I think he knew it was Reeva in there. I think he completely lost it and fired on her. However, I don't think we can ever know for sure as Oscar certainly isn't going to admit it. As the evidence wasn't clear beyond reasonable doubt, it was correct that he was acquitted.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's what I meant. I think he knew it was Reeva in there. I think he completely lost it and fired on her. However, I don't think we can ever know for sure as Oscar certainly isn't going to admit it. As the evidence wasn't clear beyond reasonable doubt, it was correct that he was acquitted.

Outrageous derail! But I'm joining in. I ended up thinking his story was not less improbable than the prosecution theory. There was plenty of favourable background: living in gated community in lawless SA, guy on a hair trigger having once attacked his washing machine (thinking it was an intruder) etc. Accidents with guns in which member of household is mistaken for intruder are not uncommon and what was his motive for wantonly destroying his own life? What was so bad that she he had to die in a hail of bullets? Like Dewani, the cops could find nothing to disturb the benefit of the doubt. Not as clear as Dewani at all but a case in which I moved from complete incredulity to puzzled chin scratching as the evidence emerged.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, there is. The jewellery she was dripping with, worth many times more than the cash supposedly negotiated for the hit, but apparently not considered worthy of mention by any of the conspirators (in a country in which tourists are specifically advised not to go around weighed down with the stuff). Their version of the contract could not possibly be true because no reasonable gang of
township muggers would have failed to consider it. It's like the officious bystander test in contract law.

And - the fact that, as portrayed, the whole thing was a complete fiasco for the taxi driver, Tongo, who was stiffed four grand out of his paltry fee and had his taxi (his livelihood) turned into a crime scene.

Thanks. Informative.

Now you have to explain the officious bystander test in contract law.

Insufficient data. AFAIK the score is 2-2 (Pistorius and Dewani on one side and Megrahi and Kish on the other) so the jury's out (gotta be the pun of the year )

I didn't realise the Kish case was a judicial bench. Wasn't that in Canada? Is that usual for Canada? I was also thinking that the Italian system is more of a judicial bench. Don't kid me these "lay jurors" are going to go against the line the judges are taking.

Bob Black has suggested for the Scottish situation that the problem was putting professional judges in a position they'd never been in before - deciding on guilt or innocence. I think the idea is that you can co-opt a bunch of amateurs, and if you have 15 people all putting their minds to it, common sense will generally win. But judges aren't trained to make innocent/guilty decisions, and they know way too much about the law, and common sense goes out the window in favour of sophistry.

Have you read the written judgement though? It's a complete shocker. A masterclass in circular reasoning towards the desired conclusion.

I was speculating that in SA, if the judge's normal role is to determine guilt or innocence, and they are trained in it and understand what pitfalls to avoid, it may work better. But then we have sheriff courts and JPs too, so it's only the really serious stuff that usually relies on a jury.

 

[Rolfe]

Outrageous derail! But I'm joining in. I ended up thinking his story was not less improbable than the prosecution theory. There was plenty of favourable background: living in gated community in lawless SA, guy on a hair trigger having once attacked his washing machine (thinking it was an intruder) etc. Accidents with guns in which member of household is mistaken for intruder are not uncommon and what was his motive for wantonly destroying his own life? What was so bad that she he had to die in a hail of bullets? Like Dewani, the cops could find nothing to disturb the benefit of the doubt. Not as clear as Dewani at all but a case in which I moved from complete incredulity to puzzled chin scratching as the evidence emerged.

Perhaps I was rather biased by talking to someone who was living in SA at the time, who remarked that he and the rest of the SA population all thought he was guilty as hell!

If so, that clearly didn't weigh with the judge, kudos to her.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks. Informative.

Now you have to explain the officious bystander test in contract law.

You and I make a contract. We overlook a specific term and later fall out. I contend the term should be implied into the contract, you say not. One of several tests is the officious bystander test. The court imagines what we would have said to an officious bystander had he been present and brought up the unspecified term. If we would both have turned to him and said, 'oh please, that's obvious and goes without saying' then the term is implied.

didn't realise the Kish case was a judicial bench. Wasn't that in Canada? Is that usual for Canada? I was also thinking that the Italian system is more of a judicial bench. Don't kid me these "lay jurors" are going to go against the line the judges are taking.

Bob Black has suggested for the Scottish situation that the problem was putting professional judges in a position they'd never been in before - deciding on guilt or innocence. I think the idea is that you can co-opt a bunch of amateurs, and if you have 15 people all putting their minds to it, common sense will generally win. But judges aren't trained to make innocent/guilty decisions, and they know way too much about the law, and common sense goes out the window in favour of sophistry.

Have you read the written judgement though? It's a complete shocker. A masterclass in circular reasoning towards the desired conclusion.

I was speculating that in SA, if the judge's normal role is to determine guilt or innocence, and they are trained in it and understand what pitfalls to avoid, it may work better. But then we have sheriff courts and JPs too, so it's only the really serious stuff that usually relies on a jury.

Yes, Kish was judge alone, an option available in Ontario upon application to the court. She applied, fearful of a jury tainted by unfavourable reporting, and the crown successfully opposed before, on the same day, performing a mysterious volte face and agreeing.

In her case, the judge set about 'solving' the crime rather than determining whether the crown crossed the line. She could seriously have done with one or or other of our SA judges.

I don't have a fixed view. Good judges are good. Bad judges are bad. As you say, judges sit alone in GB in lesser cases and in major ones in NI. Once they latch onto something the bad ones can be worse, I suspect, than the average lay person in not having the necessary humility and self doubt to say 'hang on' to themselves.

 

[anglolawyer]

Perhaps I was rather biased by talking to someone who was living in SA at the time, who remarked that he and the rest of the SA population all thought he was guilty as hell!

If so, that clearly didn't weigh with the judge, kudos to her.

I don't think you are biased. Plenty remained of that view on the thread itself.

 

[Rolfe]

I think he did it (that is killed Reeva knowing who he was shooting at). I don't think he should have been convicted because I think there is still room for reasonable doubt.

I don't think Shrien did it, and in that case the balance of probabilities goes the other way. Nevertheless both are treated the same way in law. That was kind of what was saying.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think he did it (that is killed Reeva knowing who he was shooting at). I don't think he should have been convicted because I think there is still room for reasonable doubt.

I don't think Shrien did it, and in that case the balance of probabilities goes the other way. Nevertheless both are treated the same way in law. That was kind of what was saying.

Maybe we should all have that 'not proven' thing of yours so we can leave court but with a stain on our character.

 

[Rolfe]

Don't go there. Seriously bad idea.

Not proven was originally just the semantically correct acquittal verdict. Nobody is making any judgement on whether you are innocent or not, nor were they required to. The case against you has not been proven, end of. The two judgements were proven and not proven.

Then some idiot jury, having observed the shining self-evident innocence of one accused, insisted on acquitting using the term not guilty. This introduced the triple standard, which as you say is pretty much saying, you may now leave the court but with a stain on your character. Pernicious.

They need to ditch the not guilty verdict and go back to proven and not proven.

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't go there. Seriously bad idea.

Not proven was originally just the semantically correct acquittal verdict. Nobody is making any judgement on whether you are innocent or not, nor were they required to. The case against you has not been proven, end of. The two judgements were proven and not proven.

Then some idiot jury, having observed the shining self-evident innocence of one accused, insisted on acquitting using the term not guilty. This introduced the triple standard, which as you say is pretty much saying, you may now leave the court but with a stain on your character. Pernicious.

They need to ditch the not guilty verdict and go back to proven and not proven.

Or go the other way and have a spectrum of verdicts from:

Not guilty
Not proven
Fishy but not quite
You are bloody lucky mate
Proven
Guilty
Bang to rights guv'nor
Are you having a laugh?
String him up (er, it was only a parking offence milord)

 

[LondonJohn]

Or go the other way and have a spectrum of verdicts from:

Not guilty
Not proven
Fishy but not quite
You are bloody lucky mate
Proven
Guilty
Bang to rights guv'nor
Are you having a laugh?
String him up (er, it was only a parking offence milord)

The Dewani case, especially compared with the Pistorius case and the Knox/Sollecito case, provides a very good illustration of how law and ethics ought to work (and sometimes doesn't work....) in a modern liberal democracy. All three should probably result in "not guilty" verdicts, but for different reasons: in Pistorius' case, he might well have known it was Steenkamp behind the door and had shot intending to kill, but it's impossible to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt; in Dewani's case, it's possible (in my view), though unlikely given the circumstances, that he was involved in his wife's murder, and there's certainly nowhere near enough evidence to convict; in the Knox/Sollecito case, there's not only no credible, reliable evidence that they were involved in the Kercher murder, but in fact there's evidence of their innocence and of the total individual guilt of another person.

But when it boils down to it, the way in which someone is found not guilty is (and should be) irrelevant and moot. In law and ethics, if the state accuses a person of a crime, it (the state) must prove that the person committed the crime beyond all reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of an impartial tribunal (a court). If the state cannot accomplish this - whether that's because the person is factually innocent, or because there's simply insufficient evidence of his/her guilt - then the person must be acquitted and considered innocent.

As Rolfe pointed out, the Scottish system made sense when a verdict could only be either "proven" or "not proven" - so long as everyone understood that "not proven" equated to "not guilty", which in turn equated to "innocent". Anything else is redolent of a fascist totalitarian state. It's encouraging that South Africa - despite many clear systemic institutional problems/failings since the post-Apartheid era - appears to have effectively shrugged off the remnants of a police state within its criminal justice system. Italy, on the other hand..........

 

[katy_did]

Outrageous derail! But I'm joining in. I ended up thinking his story was not less improbable than the prosecution theory. There was plenty of favourable background: living in gated community in lawless SA, guy on a hair trigger having once attacked his washing machine (thinking it was an intruder) etc. Accidents with guns in which member of household is mistaken for intruder are not uncommon and what was his motive for wantonly destroying his own life? What was so bad that she he had to die in a hail of bullets? Like Dewani, the cops could find nothing to disturb the benefit of the doubt. Not as clear as Dewani at all but a case in which I moved from complete incredulity to puzzled chin scratching as the evidence emerged.

I had pretty much the opposite experience with the two cases. By the end of Pistorius' trial, the strongest evidence against him was incredulity at the fact he didn't notice Reeva was in the bed, and once you assume he's a hotheaded idiot that doesn't seem especially difficult to believe - no more unlikely than that he would snap and shoot her deliberately anyway. Aside from that incredulity there's simply no evidence he knew he was shooting at her. The timeline presented by the defence makes that very clear.

In Dewani's case, I started off thinking he might well be guilty but unsure that there'd be enough evidence to convict. As the trial went on, though, it became obvious Tongo in particular was lying to try to incriminate Dewani. The question is why he'd need to do that if Dewani is guilty anyway. I'm still not entirely convinced Dewani had nothing to do with it, but I'm sure that Tongo and his mates lied their heads off and that they're hiding something. That murkiness about what happened means that for me it's hard to say unequivocally that Dewani's innocent, but certainly absolutely the right decision to dismiss the case.

 

[Octavo]

Perhaps I was rather biased by talking to someone who was living in SA at the time, who remarked that he and the rest of the SA population all thought he was guilty as hell!

If so, that clearly didn't weigh with the judge, kudos to her.

The media over here were firmly in the tank for the prosecution on both trials, so that's not unusual.

I think he did it (that is killed Reeva knowing who he was shooting at). I don't think he should have been convicted because I think there is still room for reasonable doubt.

I don't think Shrien did it, and in that case the balance of probabilities goes the other way. Nevertheless both are treated the same way in law. That was kind of what was saying.

I had pretty much the opposite experience with the two cases. By the end of Pistorius' trial, the strongest evidence against him was incredulity at the fact he didn't notice Reeva was in the bed, and once you assume he's a hotheaded idiot that doesn't seem especially difficult to believe - no more unlikely than that he would snap and shoot her deliberately anyway. Aside from that incredulity there's simply no evidence he knew he was shooting at her. The timeline presented by the defence makes that very clear.

In Dewani's case, I started off thinking he might well be guilty but unsure that there'd be enough evidence to convict. As the trial went on, though, it became obvious Tongo in particular was lying to try to incriminate Dewani. The question is why he'd need to do that if Dewani is guilty anyway. I'm still not entirely convinced Dewani had nothing to do with it, but I'm sure that Tongo and his mates lied their heads off and that they're hiding something. That murkiness about what happened means that for me it's hard to say unequivocally that Dewani's innocent, but certainly absolutely the right decision to dismiss the case.

With OP I was pretty sure he honestly believed there was an intruder. I still think that's probably true. Many in the media cynically viewed his puking and crying during the trial as pure theatrics. I think he really was devastated by the fact that'd he'd killed Reeva.

With Dewani, as soon as I heard his promises to return to SA should there be a trial, I became convinced of his guilt. The media helped cement that view. Now after the trial, I'm glad he was rightfully acquitted, but I still harbour doubts about his innocence in the matter. He's either a very dumb tourist or he was involved. He doesn't look that dumb to me.

Or go the other way and have a spectrum of verdicts from:

Not guilty
Not proven
Fishy but not quite
You are bloody lucky mate
Proven
Guilty
Bang to rights guv'nor
Are you having a laugh?
String him up (er, it was only a parking offence milord)

LOL - I think that would be awesome. Especially for the legal profession. Imagine the years of arguments you could bill for, quibbling over the exact difference between "Fishy" and "Lucky"

 

[Rolfe]

That's the thing, isn't it. We can think this, or that, in a personal capacity, about either of these cases. And it's a free world and we're entitled to our opinions. But in either case we have to acknowledge that these are just opinions and they may well be wrong. There's plenty of reasonable doubt.

So, irrespective of which way we tend to lean on factual guilt, we also have to acknowledge that acquittal was the right verdict in both cases. I think the public in general could do with a bit of education in this. I've seen a bit too much Daily Mail witch-hunting against verdicts which were obviously correct even if one retains reasonable suspicions against the accused.