I think you are stretching things a bit far by stating that the evidence proves that no agreement existed between Tongo and Dewani. Truth is the evidence cannot prove this one way nor another.
Can I remind you that Dewani was acquitted because of a lack of evidence and not because he was proven innocent.
To say this, you clearly do not understand the facts of this case nor the judgement made in the trial of Shrien Dewani.
It was not
simply a case of the evidence being lacking or falling just short of a legal standard. Dewani was exonerated because there was no credible evidence whatsoever linking him to the crime
which left the judge no option but to halt a trial that had been 4 years in the making and had garnered the world's attention. A court would not take such action lightly....
The evidence proved unequivocally that there was no agreement between Dewani and Tongo. On top of that Tongo's story was so highly improbable and was filled with so many lies that it was blatantly clear that it had been made up to try to incriminate his victim - Shrien Dewani.
The bolded portion below (operational stage) amounts to indisputable proof that no agreement existed between Tongo and Dewani. Perhaps you would like to have a go at reconciling the unlikehoods contained within Tongo's story? If you cannot reconcile each and every one of them with reality, then the "murder for hire" story cannot be believed to be true and whatever one may think about Dewani, his adultering, his lying about his sexuality and any other distasteful actions, one cannot possibly believe that he arranged the killing of his wife.
On a certain poster's own admission, she has no actual evidence that Dewani was involved. Her entire argument is based on the unlikelihood of Dewani's story.
This poster's argument can be succinctly summarised as being geared toward showing:
- how unlikely it was that the Dewanis would be interested in doing a city sightseeing tour when there was so much to see and do right near their hotel
- how unlikely it was that the Dewanis would trust their taxi driver and allow him to drive them into a township twice in an evening
- how unlikely it was that Dewani would change money at the jewellery store
- how unlikely it was that Dewani would arrange a helicopter ride through the taxi driver and not the many handy tourism services near their hotel
- how unlikely it was that Dewani would be released unhurt and without a scratch on him
- how unlikely it was that Dewani did not realise that he had been hoodwinked by the taxi driver and still pitied him and paid him money he felt he owed
In light of Dewani's gay duplicitous double life, certain posters contend that this story is too unlikely to be true.
Their contentions aren't necessarily outrageous or without reason. There are undoubtedly elements that seem highly unlikely. They simply do not constitute evidence and they are particularly problematic when you consider the unlikelihood of the alternative scenario and the indisputable fact that one of these two unlikely scenarios did in fact take place because otherwise Anni would still be alive.
Here is the alternative scenario and a few of the highly unlikely events contained within. If one believes the hitman story to be true, then one believes that each and every one of these highly unlikely occurences took place.
The judge didn't buy it. Do you?
- a man decides to kill his wife of 2 weeks on honeymoon
- this man asks the first taxi driver he meets to organise this murder
- this taxi driver says he cannot help because he is not a criminal, but immediately says that he knows a man who can. Monde Mbolombo
- the taxi driver calls Mbolombo who also says that he is not a criminal and cannot help but conveniently knows a couple of people who can and he immediately calls them and arranges the murder
- these 4 men agree to commit this heinous crime for a 1/4 or 1/5 share of R15000 each, despite 2 of them being fully employed and their share of the proceeds being equivalent to a few days salary.
- the taxi driver is willing to risk his car which is his livelihood all for this paltry return
- the taxi driver makes no effort to ensure that the money is in the glovebox as "agreed" before the first pass through Gugulethu
- the man does not even have the "agreed" R15000 on his person so he is attempting to short change the two unknown dangerous gunmen who will be carrying out his murder operation whilst he is in the taxi with them.
The aftermath stage:
- the man who is clearly aware of cctv cameras everywhere, borrows a policemans phone to invite the taxi driver back to a hotel to receive the balance of the murder payment
- 3 of the 4 conspirators at first admit that it was a robbery gone wrong and describe the man as an innocent victim, corroborating the story told by the man
- suddenly like dominoes, all 3 conspirators change their story to implicate the man - in exchange for generous lenient sentences.
The court process stage:
- Whilst telling this "truthful" story in court, the conspirators contradict each other on each and every material detail relating to the crime and are caught fabricating evidence to incriminate the man, despite their plea deals being contingent upon telling the truth.