Website that analyses the Anni Dewani murder in detail

[mercury]

I would think that in the hands of qualified professionals, they're all useful tools in determining whether someone is telling the truth, although I'd suggest that they are often subjective and non-conclusive.

So, no layman can ever just "suss" ? and be right?

[John]

Thanks for the reminder, John. I had forgotten Vinod's comment about her worried tone. You are correct. Anni was upset, but she didn't elaborate any further than saying "I've got so much to tell you".  To guess as to what that may have been, or to try to link that call to her murder is an exercise in speculation.  Speculation tends to take us further from the truth, not closer. We deal in facts.

Why does your site claim twice in the first few paragraphs that Shrien was exonerated when what in actual fact occurred was that the judge was forced to abandon the trial after the prosecution failed to produce evidence of sufficient quality which could sustain a guilty verdict?

The court returned a 'not guilty' verdict in terms of the law then prevailing, that is a technical verdict.  It is not an exoneration of any sort since an exoneration requires evidence to be produced to support it.  The only reason Shrien Dewani walked out of that court a free man was because there was insufficient evidence to convict him and not because he was proven innocent.

[dewanifacts]

So, no layman can ever just "suss" ? and be right?

No I wouldn't say that. Intuition can often be correct.

[mercury]

No I wouldn't say that. Intuition can often be correct.

Thank you, this is true.

There is a chap in America who is an expert on this but he never discusses ongoing cases. I might just contact him for his opinion now the case is "over"

[dewanifacts]

what in actual fact occurred was that the judge was forced to abandon the trial after the prosecution failed to produce evidence of sufficient quality which could sustain a guilty verdict?

That isn't what occured, John. To suggest that the evidence simply fell short of the requirement for a guilty verdict, is inaccurate. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar. On that point we agree. However that is not the standard that the judge uses at the close of the prosecution case when an application for dismissal is being considered. At that stage, the bar is much lower. There simply needs to be some credible evidence for the trial to continue.

None existed. There was not a shred of credible evidence linking Dewani to the crime. And there was a stockpile of evidence proving the criminals made up the hitman story to incriminate Dewani, so they could gain leverage and negotiate reduced sentences. Read the judgement. Its all spelled out there.

Here's a dictionary definition of "exonerate". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exonerate
 

[mercury]

why hasnt dewani made a documentary telling his side of the story? most victims of heinous crimes do something like that

[dewanifacts]

Would love to know! Wish he would. I'd pay to see that. 

[John]

That isn't what occured, John. To suggest that the evidence simply fell short of the requirement for a guilty verdict, is inaccurate. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar. On that point we agree. However that is not the standard that the judge uses at the close of the prosecution case when an application for dismissal is being considered. At that stage, the bar is much lower. There simply needs to be some credible evidence for the trial to continue.

None existed. There was not a shred of evidence linking Dewani to the crime. And there was a stockpile of evidence proving the criminals made up the hitman story to incriminate Dewani, so they could gain leverage and negotiate reduced sentences. Read the judgement. Its all spelled out there.

Here's a dictionary definition of "exonerate". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exonerate

It has been a while since I read the judgement but what is clear is that Tongo's story was convoluted and ultimately highly confused.  There were several areas however which in theory could have tied the alleged conspiracy together and which involved the making of several phone calls.  In the event however, records failed to confirm most of these calls and texts which Tongo claimed Dewani made.

According to Tongo, the Dewanis arrived on the Friday and by that same night a plan had been put into place to kill someone the following night.  I find that rather difficult to believe unless Dewani and Tongo were not strangers but in fact had some prior dealings, there is no evidence to suggest this was the case.

There are limited scenarios in this case.  Did the hijacking occur without Tongos knowledge ie was he an innocent participant?  The answer here is in his plea bargain.  No innocent person will seek a plea bargain which would see them sentenced to 18 years in prison.

So we are left with two possibilities, either Tongo was telling the truth and agreed to set up a hit for a personal fee of 5,000 Rand or about  £250 ( R15,000 or £750 going to the two killers) or Tongo was telling a load of porkies and it was he himself who set it all up as a hijacking/robbery.

[dewanifacts]

  It is not an exoneration of any sort since an exoneration requires evidence to be produced to support it.

Which country do you live in? In all English speaking countries there is something called the presumption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. It's a cornerstone of the legal system. No accused person ever needs to provide evidence to support their exoneration or in any way "prove" their innocence.  Maybe that happens in Syria or Places like that, but in our legal system that's not how it works.

[John]

Which country do you live in? In all English speaking countries there is something called the presumption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. It's a cornerstone of the legal system. No accused person ever needs to provide evidence to support their exoneration or in any way "prove" their innocence.  Maybe that happens in Syria or Places like that, but in our legal system that's not how it works.

This is a forum, we are not governed by the Law of England, South Africa or anywhere else for that matter.   We look at the evidence from all sides and we come to a conclusion on that basis.

Maybe we could look at individual elements of this case now that you have got my interest.  How about Tongo, see my post #83 above?

[dewanifacts]

Considering the irrefutable evidence that Tongo and his friends made up the hitman story to incriminate Dewani, then yes, you can safely accept that he is innocent.

It does sound like you could benefit from a refresher in the facts of this case and since you seem sceptical of our credibility, here's the Judgement:

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html

The really interesting part starts at paragraph 23.1.45

[mercury]

Would love to know! Wish he would. I'd pay to see that. 

Panorama would do for me

[mercury]

DF

i have two questions for you

-
a) are you part of a pr agency?
b) do you believe Dewani to be innocent?

[dewanifacts]

DF

i have two questions for you

-
a) are you part of a pr agency?
b) do you believe Dewani to be innocent?

 No link to a PR agency, no link to the case, and no link to the Dewanis or any friend, family or associate of the Dewanis. I can assure you of that. This is an interest project. Nothing more.

All 3 of us initially believed Dewani to be guilty. When we saw the evidence at trial, we realised he'd been framed.

To us this case is no longer about Shrien Dewani. He had nothing to do with the crime. The answers lie with Qwabe, Tongo, Mbolombo and whoever the fifth conspirator was.

[mercury]

No link to a PR agency, no link to the case, and no link to the Dewanis or any friend, family or associate of the Dewanis. I can assure you of that. This is an interest project. Nothing more.

All 3 of us initially believed Dewani to be guilty. When we saw the evidence at trial, we realised he'd been framed.

To us this case is no longer about Shrien Dewani. He had nothing to do with the crime. The answers lie with Qwabe, Tongo, Mbolombo and whoever the fifth conspirator was.

So you were totally convinced of his innocence and took up the mantle, laudible, but I wish you luck IF your beliefs are true
It must be a high mountain to climb to achieve the opposite of what alot of people think, ie, well you know
They say there is no smoke without fire, sometimes theres too much smoke, sometimes there is none, this case is NOT of the latter IMO