Website that analyses the Anni Dewani murder in detail

[dewanifacts]

The evidence both for and against Dewani is largely circumstantial so I can 'spam' this thread

Item 6 on the "Baseless" page of our site addresses your incorrect statement that there was circumstantial evidence of Dewani's guilt. 

https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/baseless/

The case for Dewani's innocence is not at all circumstantial. It is based on hard irrefutable evidence that the criminals made up the hitman story to incriminate him. 

Read the judgement. The facts on our site are not made up. Most of them come straight from the judgement which is transparent, detailed and well reasoned by a senior South African judge. 

[Angelo222]

Item 6 on the "Baseless" page of our site addresses your incorrect statement that there was circumstantial evidence of Dewani's guilt. 

https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/baseless/

The case for Dewani's innocence is not at all circumstantial. It is based on hard irrefutable evidence that the criminals made up the hitman story to incriminate him. 

Read the judgement. The facts on our site are not made up. Most of them come straight from the judgement which is transparent, detailed and well reasoned by a senior South African judge.

The only person who had contact with Dewani was Zolo Tongo so any conviction relied upon his (Tongo) evidence being credible.  In the event his evidence was so bad that it was incoherent at times according to the judge.

I agree there are unanswered questions DF and point out that Dewani has had ample opportunity to tell the Hindocha family what happened yet he avoids doing so.

Is that the actions of a caring man, an honourable man or an innocent man?

[dewanifacts]

The only person who had contact with Dewani was Zolo Tongo so any conviction relied upon his (Tongo) evidence being credible.  In the event his evidence was so bad that it was incoherent at times according to the judge.

This is mostly correct but it begs some expansion.

Zola Tongo's evidence was not simply "bad" and incoherent. Everyone is human. Tongo was recalling incidents that took place four years prior. He made many errors and "mistakes" whilst testifying and they did make him appear unreliable as a witness, however those "mistakes" did not make him a liar, nor did they prove Dewani's innocence.

What proved Tongo to be a liar and Dewani innocent, were the significant fabrications and deceptive lies that he told, every one of which was designed to incriminate Dewani and deflect blame from himself. Those are the judge's observations not mine.

You can ditto what I've said above for Qwabe and Mbolombo who were both caught in similar instances of deception whilst testifying.

Once the hitman story is removed from the equation, Dewani is an innocent man, albeit an adulterous one who was living a bisexual double life that he hid from his wife.

I agree there are unanswered questions DF and point out that Dewani has had ample opportunity to tell the Hinfocha family what happened yet he avoids doing so.

Is that the actions of a caring man, an honourable man or an innocent man?

I concur that they may well be the actions of a man who is neither caring, nor honourable. There may also be other reasons for his silence that have nothing to do with those labels. None of us know whether he has or has not approached the Hindocha family to provide further explanation. Maybe he has written them an email or a letter and none of us know about it. Might I remind you that a week after the murder, he did in fact sit down with the entire family and tell them his side of the story and they secretly recorded the meeting and gave the tape to the police. Its possible that this incident may have made Dewani somewhat less willing to sit down and talk to them.

If I were in his position, I think I would want to get my side of the story out. As  I said in response to Mercury earlier in the thread, there could be numerous reasons why he stays silent. It may be that he thinks that whatever he says will be dismissed by those who believe in his guilt. People would say he's had five years to come up with whatever story he tells. If he reads forums such as this one, he would be well founded in such a belief. One only need look at the strong views held by so many people who have never taken the time to actually familiarise themselves with the judgement which is the single best repository of facts on this case.

One of the reasons we set up our DF site, was because it seemed apparent that many of those who followed the trial heard the verdict, spat their coffee out in disgust, never bothered to actually read the well reasoned judgement document, decided that Dewani had  gotten away with murder, and promptly forgot about achieving some justice for the unfortunate young lady who lost her life and who had been so tragically let down by the police and judicial system in South Africa.

The progress of this thread bears testament to this analysis. There appears to be somewhat of a shift toward understanding the facts of the case better and if we can take some responsibility for that, then it lends credibility to our site and our mission. For that we are grateful and we hope that with the fullness of time, we can build enough pressure on SA authorities that they are forced to prosecute Mbolombo and revisit the plea deals struck with Tongo and Qwabe who clearly breached the condition upon which those deals were struck. Truth.

 

[Angelo222]

Dewani is not prevented from speaking out yet he fails to do so.  One would have thought that a money-driven young executive like him would want to give an exclusive to some Sunday tabloid and make a few quid.

On the other hand he managed to wangle out of testifying at his trial so keeping stoosh would appear to be a policy of damage limitation.

[Angelo222]

I note the 4th man has never been identified, I believe someone referred to him or her as Mr Big.  No doubt the three involved in the conspiracy who have all done deals with the State will have been threatened to keep quiet about him/her.

My own view is that this character holds the key to this case so all the more shocking that the SAP don't appear to have found him or if they have aren't divulging it to the outside world.

[Passer-by]

Still wading through Dewanifacts' blog and will most definitely post specific remarks on specific points when I can get to a real keyboard.

In the meantime, I think this is very enlightening: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12229112

3 days after Anni was killed a BBC journalist was given an on-the-spot interview by Dewani.


Shrien and Anni Dewani

The first call I received about the Dewanis was the day after Anni had been killed. It was a Sunday and I was the correspondent on call in Johannesburg.  Initial reports were that a British woman had been murdered on honeymoon in Cape Town. It was potentially a very big story.

Then it emerged that Anni Dewani was a Swedish national and that her husband was British.  After a series of discussions with producers in London it was decided that the story was no longer of major interest to a UK audience. So that day the story went unreported on the BBC.  When the newspapers came out on Monday morning it was clear that a mistake had been made. Anni Dewani may have been Swedish but she was living in Bristol and the tragedy of this honeymoon murder had clearly struck an emotional chord.

We spent the day catching-up as we pieced together the couple's last movements on that fateful Saturday night.
One question already stood out. Why did they decide to drive through the township of Gugulethu late at night?

'Informed decision'

The next day I had a chance to find out for myself. I was despatched to Cape Town to follow up on a story.
I headed for the luxury Cape Grace Hotel where the honeymoon couple had stayed and where members of both Shrien and Anni Dewani's family had now gathered.

It was a scene that does the journalism profession no credit. With the grieving family seated in the restaurant area, reporters loitered anxiously in the lobby or nearby on the balcony.  All but one of them had been rebuffed in their attempts to speak to Shrien Dewani about what had happened three days before.

So it was with some trepidation that I placed my business card on the Dewani's table, introduced myself and prepared to leave.  To my surprise Shrien Dewani did want to talk to the BBC. It was clear he had been closely following coverage of the murder and was angry.  He told me that he wanted me to correct all the inaccuracies that existed on the BBC website about events the night Anni died. I pulled out my notebook and sat next to him.

First and foremost he was upset that I had in my TV report called their decision to take a night-time drive into Gugulethu a "big mistake".  Shrien Dewani said that it had been an "impulsive" decision but it had been an informed one.

Mr Dewani said he knew Africa well and that they had in fact driven through Gugulethu twice that night. Once on the way to a dinner in Somerset West and once fatefully on the way back.  Shrien Dewani then told me that it was Anni who wanted to go to the township a second time. He told me, as he had said to another journalist, that she wanted to see the "real Africa".

As you can see, I regard the bold italics bits as significant because (a) he told the press immediately after the event a different story to the one he later made in his Plea Statement to the Court where he alleged it was the Taxi Driver's idea not Anni's and (b) the whole description of him and what he says makes him sound very far from, as Dewanifacts keeps subjectively speculating, naive.

And I have no reason to disbelieve what I always found to be excellent news reporting by the BBC Worldwide Africa, which is based out of Joburg.

[dewanifacts]

The issue of Dewani's changing story regarding "the real Africa" is dealt with in item Baseless (25) - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/baseless/

Whatever one thinks of that discrepancy, it doesn't explain the deceptive lies told under oath by the criminals and those are really where your focus should rest, Passer-by. You have clearly devoted many hours and many words to scrutinising every aspect of Dewani's life. Some of that focus needs to be diverted to the criminals at some stage, I would suggest, if you are looking to assess things fairly.

If those lies under oath cannot be explained then its game over for the hitman theory.

[Angelo222]

The BBC's Johannesburg correspondent Jonah Fisher did a really good job in getting that interview for the record from Shrien Dewani before his story had time to morph into something else.

The driving through a squalid shantytown once was bad enough but twice within hours and a mere day after arriving?  It just doesn't make any sense, the main road back to the Cape Grace Hotel from Somerset West was the fastest safest arterial route yet they went off into the dark and Dewani said nothing??  So much for knowing Africa!

[John]

The BBC's Johannesburg correspondent Jonah Fisher did a really good job in getting that interview for the record from Shrien Dewani before his story had time to morph into something else.

The driving through a squalid shantytown once was bad enough but twice within hours and a mere day after arriving?  It just doesn't make any sense, the main road back to the Cape Grace Hotel from Somerset West was the fastest safest arterial route yet they went off into the dark and Dewani said nothing??  So much for knowing Africa!

I tend to agree, I spent quite a bit of time in Kenya and The Gambia on several occasions some years ago and would never have drempt of leaving the hotel complex at night to go to a shantytown unless I was accompanied by my personal runner whom I knew and trusted.  I am not familiar with South Africa but it cannot be that different surely?

[Passer-by]

The issue of Dewani's changing story regarding "the real Africa" is dealt with in item Baseless (25) - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/baseless/

Whatever one thinks of that discrepancy, it doesn't explain the deceptive lies told under oath by the criminals and those are really where your focus should rest, Passer-by. You have clearly devoted many hours and many words to scrutinising every aspect of Dewani's life. Some of that focus needs to be diverted to the criminals at some stage, I would suggest, if you are looking to assess things fairly.

If those lies under oath cannot be explained then its game over for the hitman theory.

Thanks:  I don't need to be told where my focus should rest, I prefer to stay open-minded and examine everything in the case, not just what you dictate.  As I have never doubted the 3 who were tried and found guilty were involved in Anni's murder I really don't need to be told to shift my focus off Dewani on to them - as I have previously stated that's what I believe your agenda is.

Let us examine what a 'fact' is.  If Mr A tells a court that xyz happened, it is a fact that Mr A told the court it had happened - a room full of credible witnesses heard it and recorded it.  It does not mean that xyz actually happened - only that Mr A said it did.  A lot of your 'facts' seem to be reiterating what someone who later contradicts themselves, or is proven a liar, said *on oath* (as though that lends it some kind of weight - it doesn't) in court. 

For Mr A's assertion in court to become a fact, it has to be corroborated:  someone has to find extra evidence that it is true.  Excellent evidence would be an irrefutable recording that the court can watch or listen to - CCTV footage, a recorded phone call, an email.  Also good is another independent witness who attests they saw xyz happen too.  An accomplice to the crime is not an independent witness:  an independent witness is someone like a waiter in a restaurant, with no connection to Mr A or xyz.

Next up in a court of law is circumstantial evidence:  this less evidence which is given to establish whether it is likely xyz happened.  Go and google it and you will find it is valid evidence.

You keep saying the 3 murderers saying xyz in court is a 'fact' when it is not.  And you keep trying to rubbish my circumstantial evidence which fairly strongly suggests Dewani is complicit.

[dewanifacts]

There is a big difference between background information and circumstantial evidence.

Many a strong criminal case has been built on circumstantial evidence alone. It is undoubtedly valid evidence.

None of your information about cape town tourism is evidence. It is just background information.  If it was evidence then you would have been called as a witness in Mngeni and Dewani trials. 

[Passer-by]

I note from the top of Traverso's judgement:

"If, at the close of the case for the prosecution at any trial, the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence referred to in the charge or any offence of which he may be convicted on the charge, it may return a verdict of not guilty.”

[7] It is well established that “no evidence” does not mean no evidence at all, but rather no evidence on which a reasonable court, acting carefully, might convict1.

[dewanifacts]

 A lot of your 'facts' seem to be reiterating what someone who later contradicts themselves, or is proven a liar, said *on oath* (as though that lends it some kind of weight - it doesn't) in court. 

I am surprised to hear that you have found such content on our site.  We are very keen to rectify any such errors so your help in pointing this out is much appreciated.

Could you please let us know exactly where we have stated something as factual with no basis other than the fact that it was said under oath.  Please provide both the text and the item numbers as other people have done when suggesting amendments.

Thanks

[Passer-by]

There is a big difference between background information and circumstantial evidence.

Many a strong criminal case has been built on circumstantial evidence alone. It is undoubtedly valid evidence.

None of your information about cape town tourism is evidence. It is just background information.  If it was evidence then you would have been called as a witness in Mngeni and Dewani trials.

Don't be ridiculous:  even Dewani wasn't. 

It was acknowledged to be a something of a farce.  I'm guessing you didn't sit in a South African courtroom on your holiday so haven't seen the massive disparity between the low-grade, low-paid humble-background black prosecution lawyers and the highly-paid top-of-society white defence lawyers who run rings round them.  Legal cases are not about who is right and who is wrong:  they are about who is smartest.

[dewanifacts]

Doesn't apply to this case. Dealt with in item Baseless (8) - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/baseless/

The NPA spared no expense on this trial. Wasted a fortune of SA taxpayers' money.