Shrien Dewani - Honeymoon murder

Suffolk Skeptic said:
The crime you allege is a police conspiracy.



As you have more faith in the system than the police



what is the motive for the police? Do you still think it is tourism? The police were so concerned that the world would stop taking holidays in South Africa because of the crime rate to the extent that they would prefer to look like a country where you could come an hire a local to take out your wife?

Did this conspiracy go up the chain of command? Did the police develop this motive by themselves? or did it go up further? How far? How many people were involved? If they had to suggest the idea to Tongo, wasn't that a silly thing to do given that the suspect they had implicated had already left the country?
Click to expand...

The police put two and two together and made five. They do it all the time.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
In that the motive? That they are idiots?

So is the conspiracy to cover up their idiocy?

Who do you think is in on the conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Why does there have to be a conspiracy (which I take to mean an agreement to do something bad)? Is there always a conspiracy when an innocent person is prosecuted? Two high profile acquittals in England this week were of the Tory MP on multiple sexual assault charges and the guy charged with murdering PC Keith Blakelock. On the first I had no opinion but on the second I thought the prosecution outrageous. In neither case do I see a conspiracy (in its proper sense as defined above). Why can't the cops have simply latched onto an idea and then pushed it so hard that three of the four locals fell in with it to give themselves a lifeline?

Of course, I do not exclude a conspiracy. The police in SA are riddled with corruption and have hundreds of serious criminals on their staff, some in senior positions.

Just as a personal footnote, it never ceases to amaze me how so many on this forum think they win an argument by trumpeting conspiracy! It's treated as a self-evident rebuttal of everything here. Very weird.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
In that the motive? That they are idiots?

So is the conspiracy to cover up their idiocy?

Who do you think is in on the conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Are you at all familiar with the saga of the continuing saga of the Hillsborough tragedy? Police incompetence, followed by cover-ups and more misconduct. Them there's Bloody Sunday, the Birmingham Six, the Guilford Four and Maguire family, Harry Stanley, the Bridgewater Four, Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson.........
How long did the UK government maintain that Timothy Evans murdered his daughter, even after Christie confessed? Then there's railroading of Derek Bentley.
 
catsmate1 said:
Are you at all familiar with the saga of the continuing saga of the Hillsborough tragedy? Police incompetence, followed by cover-ups and more misconduct. Them there's Bloody Sunday, the Birmingham Six, the Guilford Four and Maguire family, Harry Stanley, the Bridgewater Four, Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson.........
How long did the UK government maintain that Timothy Evans murdered his daughter, even after Christie confessed? Then there's railroading of Derek Bentley.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We can probably differentiate between "active" and "constructive" conspiracies. In the first, the police set out to pin the blame for a crime on a "known" criminal they've not been able to get any other while, while in the second an early fixation on the wrong suspect or suspects spins out of control, with contrary evidence being ignored, witnesses leant on, and more and more cover-ups of past errors.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Why does there have to be a conspiracy (which I take to mean an agreement to do something bad)? Is there always a conspiracy when an innocent person is prosecuted? Two high profile acquittals in England this week were of the Tory MP on multiple sexual assault charges and the guy charged with murdering PC Keith Blakelock. On the first I had no opinion but on the second I thought the prosecution outrageous. In neither case do I see a conspiracy (in its proper sense as defined above). Why can't the cops have simply latched onto an idea and then pushed it so hard that three of the four locals fell in with it to give themselves a lifeline?

Of course, I do not exclude a conspiracy. The police in SA are riddled with corruption and have hundreds of serious criminals on their staff, some in senior positions.

Just as a personal footnote, it never ceases to amaze me how so many on this forum think they win an argument by trumpeting conspiracy! It's treated as a self-evident rebuttal of everything here. Very weird.
Click to expand...
You said there was a conspiracy. I even quoted you in my post for your convenience.

I replied to your post when you said you were no longer disputing possible motive, but that you had always thought other reasons were stronger. So I trawled back and found that you alleged a police conspiracy. Ergo my post, as conspiracy is a crime in itself and therefore would ordinarily require a motive.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
What do you mean by this? Because there have been police conspiracies in Britain Shrien Dewani is innocent and the victim of one himself?

Can we extrapolate that to every person accused of any crime?
Click to expand...

You asked:

In that the motive? That they are idiots?

So is the conspiracy to cover up their idiocy?
Click to expand...

You seemed incredulous that police - any police - can be so idiotic, when in fact there are lots of example in lots of countries.
 
anglolawyer said:
Just as a personal footnote, it never ceases to amaze me how so many on this forum think they win an argument by trumpeting conspiracy! It's treated as a self-evident rebuttal of everything here. Very weird.
Click to expand...


That amazes me too. There has been some discussion about it, but mainly regarding whether or not something that was actually true or actually plausible could or should be described as a conspiracy theory.

It's not just this forum though. I see it in other places too. It's fair enough when it's used to describe a scenario that has already been fairly investigated and found to be nonsensical. But there is a tendency to argue along the lines of "I believe that what you are alleging may involve a conspiracy, therefore you are a conspiracy theorist, therefore you're wrong and probably nuts with it."

It would be nice if a sceptics discussion forum should avoid such lazy dismissals.

Rolfe.
 
Information Analyst said:
You asked:



You seemed incredulous that police - any police - can be so idiotic, when in fact there are lots of example in lots of countries.
Click to expand...
I didn't seem incredulous at anything. I wondered why you gave the examples you did.

Does that mean you think Dewani is the victim of a police conspiracy? If so, how?

Did the police create the plot to involve Dewani, or did the criminals, independently of any police coercion come up with Dewani's involvement and their incompetence just made them run with it even when it became apparent to all sorts of people, including members of forums worldwide, that he was innocent?
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
I didn't seem incredulous at anything. I wondered why you gave the examples you did.

Does that mean you think Dewani is the victim of a police conspiracy? If so, how?

Did the police create the plot to involve Dewani, or did the criminals, independently of any police coercion come up with Dewani's involvement and their incompetence just made them run with it even when it became apparent to all sorts of people, including members of forums worldwide, that he was innocent?
Click to expand...

I think the police - for whatever reason - decided that Dewani was involved, and then tried to retrofit whatever evidence they could to fit that theory, whilst ignoring anything that contradicted it.
 
lane99 said:
So you've finally figured out he had motive. And it only took three years. Well done. Perhaps you'll catch the rest in due time, as well.
,
,
Click to expand...

You may permit yourself a brief period of rejoicing. Let's see who has the last laugh, shall we? :D
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
You said there was a conspiracy. I even quoted you in my post for your convenience.
Click to expand...
So you did, so you did. Well, if I said there was a conspiracy then there must have been one. In fact, you now remind me why I said so. It's because of the R15,000 deal. Unless all participants were insane, this cannot have been the arrangement. The four black guys cannot have homed in on that story independently, just by chance, so they must have got it from the cops.

I replied to your post when you said you were no longer disputing possible motive, but that you had always thought other reasons were stronger. So I trawled back and found that you alleged a police conspiracy. Ergo my post, as conspiracy is a crime in itself and therefore would ordinarily require a motive.
Click to expand...
You are correct. But although I say there was a conspiracy it is also possible the cops conceived a scenario and drove everybody towards it. Or they went a certain way along one line of thinking but then started screwing around once their theory didn't add up. Signs of this are the rumour of a witness seeing Annie with her knickers down and legs in the air, which may have been suppressed, and leaks about texts that turn out not to be true. Calling Shrien a 'monkey' and threatening him with blackmail don't suggest an entirely professional approach either.

The fact is - I don't know. It is not possible to know yet. We have to see the trial. Then all might become clear.
 
Rolfe said:
That amazes me too. There has been some discussion about it, but mainly regarding whether or not something that was actually true or actually plausible could or should be described as a conspiracy theory.

It's not just this forum though. I see it in other places too. It's fair enough when it's used to describe a scenario that has already been fairly investigated and found to be nonsensical. But there is a tendency to argue along the lines of "I believe that what you are alleging may involve a conspiracy, therefore you are a conspiracy theorist, therefore you're wrong and probably nuts with it."

It would be nice if a sceptics discussion forum should avoid such lazy dismissals.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

This bothers me too. The reasoning is as follows:

The authorities say X is guilty and are bent on getting a conviction.

If you say X is innocent, that means you are alleging a conspiracy to frame X.

We all know conspiracies are woo, so therefore X is undoubtedly guilty.

It doesn't help that the facts of these cases often show something that really does resemble a conspiracy, with coordinated activity to suppress evidence, manufacture false evidence, mislead the public, etc.

This has been meticulously documented in any number of cases.

But, people have to take the time to inform themselves about the subject, and most do not want to do that.

It's easier to point a finger and deride the "conspiracy theorists."

It's also more comfortable to assume that the authorities know what they're doing, so we are all safe, and in good hands.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
It's also more comfortable to assume that the authorities know what they're doing, so we are all safe, and in good hands.
Click to expand...


I think on this site there is a strong tendency to side with the "official version" of events, in all respects. Statistically, it's the way to go. Armstrong really did walk on the moon. Bigfoot is a myth. Nobody can read minds. Sugar pills aren't medicine. LHW shot JFK all on his own. And so on.

So the lazier posters get into a rut. They just pile in on the side of the official version regardless, without actually looking at the evidence. I've seen posters in this thread do it. The trouble is, there are exceptions. Vaccines do occasionally cause adverse reactions. Iran-Contra happened. And miscarriages of justice happen all the time.

It's still true that most court convictions are sound. Most criminals aren't very bright and a lot of them end up bang to rights. But knowing that 90% or 95% of all convictions are sound doesn't let you pronounce that they all are. I've seen posters (again people who are around right now) say that the authorities usually get it right so they will believe the authorities this time too and not even bother to look at the evidence.

But of course it's exactly the 10% or 5% where the authorities have got it wrong which are going to be the ones to attract the attention of critics. You simply can't second-guess in either direction without looking at the evidence.

I also find that it's not a huge amount of use looking before the court case. That can certainly help familiarise one with the issues, but as sure as God made little green apples there will be stuff that will come out in court that will trash anybody's carefully-formulated theory.

This one is still very early and I don't know which way to jump, but I do know that pointing fingers and saying "that would have needed a conspiracy and conspiracies never happen so I win" is not a good look for a sceptic.

Rolfe.
 
The Director of Public Prosecutions, responding to criticism of the Crown Prosecution Service over some high profile failures, said the other day that out of 700,000 prosecutions each year they have a conviction rate of 86%. Hands up those who find that impressive. I think it's crap. Most cases, by a vast majority, are guilty pleas. I would like to know what the success rate is in the contested cases. I bet it's not much above 50%. It might be less, but I will try to find out. What it means, though, is the cops/prosecutors are wrong a lot of the time. Unless all those lost cases are attributable to conspiracy, we must infer that the reality is that charges are often launched on an inadequate basis. It is not necessary to posit a conspiracy to explain that even though, as Catsmate posted, we in the UK have plenty of raw material to sink our teeth into if we want to see conspiracy in action, including the massive, prolonged conspiracy of Hillsborough.
 
Here we go.

2012-13 97,000 crown court cases of which 72% were resolved by guilty pleas. Of the remaining 28% the CPS won less than a third. Somebody should be looking at these people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom