UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => The kidnapping and shooting/murder of Anni Dewani while on her honeymoon in South Africa. Trial of Shrien Dewani was held in Cape Town, SA. => Topic started by: Passer-by on September 02, 2015, 01:00:13 AM
-
The objective facts show he sold gold at a dodgy jewellers hours before the murder whilst he was in the company of Tongo for 45 minutes, in addition to the holiday money he took with him and the cash he had already withdrawn from an ATM on his bank card.
The objective facts are that no-one knows how much money he got from that illegal transaction nor how he disposed of it.
31
-
What do you say about both parties to the alleged "agreement" forgetting about the most crucial component - the money?
-
The objective facts show he sold gold at a dodgy jewellers hours before the murder whilst he was in the company of Tongo for 45 minutes, in addition to the holiday money he took with him and the cash he had already withdrawn from an ATM on his bank card.
The objective facts are that no-one knows how much money he got from that illegal transaction nor how he disposed of it.
Let's all take a moment to behold Passer-by's example of "objective facts". Dewani said it was GBP. The shop owner said it was $US. The shop worker said it was gold. Three different stories and this poster chooses one and labels it "objective fact".
The icing on the cake is the fact that this same poster cannot explain why it would even benefit Dewani to lie about what currency he changed. It's a dead end line of inquiry that does not get us any closer to truth.
-
Let's all take a moment to behold Passer-by's example of "objective facts". Dewani said it was GBP. The shop owner said it was $US. The shop worker said it was gold. Three different stories and this poster chooses one and labels it "objective fact".
The icing on the cake is the fact that this same poster cannot explain why it would even benefit Dewani to lie about what currency he changed. It's a dead end line of inquiry that does not get us any closer to truth.
I've dealt with the illegal money transaction in the other thread, and I explained that it was not recorded by the shop and no receipt was issued, so it isn't just a 'missing statement oh whoops my filing is crap' it is actually illegal.
I also pointed out the amount the shop owner said he 'changed' was different to the amount Dewani said he changed, So already facts aren't adding up.
And then I explained that the normal thing to do would be to go into the bank next door and either change it there or draw money out from the UK at an ATM - and this was also normal for Dewani himself as he had already done this several times.
I pointed out the business owner had a motive to lie about it being a currency exchange because it is a less serious offence not to record currency exchanges than it is to smuggle gold, but she didn't know that Dewani had said 'sterling' when she said dollars, and then had to stick to that point, vehemently contradicting Dewani when she appeared in court.
And finally I pointed out that the only person with no reason to lie was Thelma, the assistant who actually carried the gold to the trader in the back of that shop and brought the money back: that's all her job is, in my experience we can trust her when in her police statement she said gold and it is typical of her white South African boss to pull rank.
As the purpose of the shop is ostensibly to buy and sell second hand precious metals - not even just jewelry - and as I can (irritatingly for you) give you the benefit of my experience of having been in it and can say it is quite unlike any respectable jewellers I've visited in South Africa - its window is barred, the shop is dirty and dingy, they turn customers away at the locked, barred door and they refuse to sell items in their window - we can draw the logical conclusion that he did indeed sell gold not trade currency.
And the only reason for doing that is to have 'secret' money that has no audit trail with either the taxman or the police. In Dewani's case we can draw our own conclusions as to why a millionaire who drew out £800 in local currency from an ATM also needs secret cash whilst in the company of a man later implicated in the murder of his wife.
And I've explained this before and repeatedly you don't address it.
-
I have addressed your non-evidence regarding the jewellery shop about five times in the other thread. It is not my fault that you choose to ignore the explanations in favour of repeating your non-evidence over and over.
-
I have addressed your non-evidence regarding the jewellery shop about five times in the other thread. It is not my fault that you choose to ignore the explanations in favour of repeating your non-evidence over and over.
There is no explanation as to what Dewani was doing organising secret extra money* in addition to his cashpoint withdrawals*, and no-one, let alone you, has ever provided evidence of what he spent it on*. Let's face it, you can't: you don't even know how much it was because it is unrecorded.*
________________________________
* facts.
-
There is no explanation as to what Dewani was doing organising secret extra money* in addition to his cashpoint withdrawals*, and no-one, let alone you, has ever provided evidence of what he spent it on*. Let's face it, you can't: you don't even know how much it was because it is unrecorded.*
________________________________
* facts.
He converted a bundle of foreign currency to Rand and withdrew further Rand from a cash machine. Neither of those are abnormal or special occurrences for a traveller. As for what he spent it on; how is that relevant?
-
He converted a bundle of foreign currency to Rand and withdrew further Rand from a cash machine. Neither of those are abnormal or special occurrences for a traveller. As for what he spent it on; how is that relevant?
It is a fact that the transaction was not recorded and it is a fact he went out of his way to go to a place where cash can be obtained without an audit trail: just focus on the fact that Dewani obtained an unspecified amount of money without an audit trail whilst in the company of someone implicated in his wife's murder on the day of the murder itself
-
It is a fact that the transaction was not recorded and it is a fact he went out of his way to go to a place where cash can be obtained without an audit trail: just focus on the fact that Dewani obtained an unspecified amount of money without an audit trail whilst in the company of someone implicated in his wife's murder on the day of the murder itself
Let me help you stay on track Dewanifacts - you said in a post to Mercury that there was no monetary agreement between Dewani and Tongo, I've proved he had secret cash in addition to normal transactions and you don't know what he did with it.
-
Superb. What does your mind say about both parties to the alleged "agreement" forgetting about the most crucial component - the money?
Jigging your memory again - the most crucial component - the money: I have answered that for you.
-
It is common cause fact that Tongo did not check if the money was in the glove box and that Dewani did not have the "agreed" R15000 with him in the car. Those facts are not in dispute.
What money Dewani withdrew, spent, saved, gambled, donated or invested is irrelevant to this discussion.
Your oddball label of "secret cash" has already been debunked. There was nothing secret about it.
-
It is common cause fact that Tongo did not check if the money was in the glove box and that Dewani did not have the "agreed" R15000 with him in the car. Those facts are not in dispute.
What money Dewani withdrew, spent, saved, gambled, donated or invested is irrelevant to this discussion.
Your oddball label of "secret cash" has already been debunked. There was nothing secret about it.
Ok, I can go 'on loop' as well.
1). Dewani conducted normal cash transactions at ATMs and a Bureau de Change. But he also conducted the illegal trade at the jewellers - that is an absolute fact.
2). Dewani was with Tongo for 45 minutes whilst he did the illegal trade - that is absolute fact.
3). Dewani was secretive about the illegal trade: he suggested his wife phone her family whilst he went out and then he conducted his business not at the banks right next to him, where he did normal monetary transactions, but in a seedier part of town a few minutes drive away. He then forgot to mention it to Police and his brother tried to obtain the damning CCTV footage showing him departing and returning with Tongo - absolute fact.
4). Dewani's movements and his money were investigated after the murder, to see whether he had taken money with him to pay a killer: banks have to cooperate with criminal investigations and will have provided detailed transactions of all his legitimate non-cash money transactions, credit card payments and cash withdrawals, all detailing precise times, dates and locations of what he was doing. Whilst they were doing this, just as Dewani 'forgot' to mention the cash he had in the car whilst secretly texting Tongo about giving him cash (even whilst his wife was sitting next to him on her way to her murder) Dewani also forgot to mention this illegal cash transaction at the jewellers which gave him extra cash without an audit trail, so in fact he did have the means to pay a hitman. We only found out about it because the investigators looked at his movements on CCTV: that's secretive - fact.
5). There is NO RECORD of what Dewani traded in the jewellers nor how much cash he took away. I located the information and reports from court that there were 3 versions of what happened, not you: you are completely biased in giving weight to Dewani's version that he changed folded sterling notes. Dewani clearly behaved secretively over this transaction and possibly has good reason to lie about it, as it would give him the funds to pay a hitman. You have provided no evidence at all to suggest Thelma was a dishonest person nor a motive for her to say it was gold that Dewani traded not cash. Thelma is a completely independent witness with no interest in the matter at all: there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve her - fact.
To say this transaction was even normal, let alone above board is not even delusional, it is a lie. Likewise to say there was nothing secretive about it - that's just laughable!
-
Ok, I can go 'on loop' as well.
1). Dewani conducted normal cash transactions at ATMs and a Bureau de Change. But he also conducted the illegal trade at the jewellers - that is an absolute fact.
2). Dewani was with Tongo for 45 minutes whilst he did the illegal trade - that is absolute fact.
3). Dewani was secretive about the illegal trade: he suggested his wife phone her family whilst he went out and then he conducted his business not at the banks right next to him, where he did normal monetary transactions, but in a seedier part of town a few minutes drive away. He then forgot to mention it to Police and his brother tried to obtain the damning CCTV footage showing him departing and returning with Tongo - absolute fact.
4). Dewani's movements and his money were investigated after the murder, to see whether he had taken money with him to pay a killer: banks have to cooperate with criminal investigations and will have provided detailed transactions of all his legitimate non-cash money transactions, credit card payments and cash withdrawals, all detailing precise times, dates and locations of what he was doing. Whilst they were doing this, just as Dewani 'forgot' to mention the cash he had in the car whilst secretly texting Tongo about giving him cash (even whilst his wife was sitting next to him on her way to her murder) Dewani also forgot to mention this illegal cash transaction at the jewellers which gave him extra cash without an audit trail, so in fact he did have the means to pay a hitman. We only found out about it because the investigators looked at his movements on CCTV: that's secretive - fact.
5). There is NO RECORD of what Dewani traded in the jewellers nor how much cash he took away. I located the information and reports from court that there were 3 versions of what happened, not you: you are completely biased in giving weight to Dewani's version that he changed folded sterling notes. Dewani clearly behaved secretively over this transaction and possibly has good reason to lie about it, as it would give him the funds to pay a hitman. You have provided no evidence at all to suggest Thelma was a dishonest person nor a motive for her to say it was gold that Dewani traded not cash. Thelma is a completely independent witness with no interest in the matter at all: there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve her - fact.
To say this transaction was even normal, let alone above board is not even delusional, it is a lie. Likewise to say there was nothing secretive about it - that's just laughable!
The only thing that this silly line of reasoning proves is that the jewellery store carried out an illegal transaction. Be that on them. Dewani's involvement can be explained in a few words; he asked Tongo to take him somewhere to get a good exchange rate, and Tongo took him to that jewellery store.
To suggest that it was "secretive" is classic conspiracy theorist logic. That money change trip could never be a secret. Aside from the shop owner, Thelma and Tongo, there were also other people in the shop, one of whom was a female whose phone number Tongo charmed out of her on the spot!
-
there were 3 versions of what happened, not you: you are completely biased in giving weight to Dewani's version that he changed folded sterling notes. Dewani clearly behaved secretively over this transaction and possibly has good reason to lie about it, as it would give him the funds to pay a hitman.
I don't give any weight to Dewani's version. I merely point out that there are indeed three different versions of events - two of them coming from employees of a shop that is engaging in illegal trade.
You still have not attempted to explain why Dewani would lie about what currency he was changing. That logic would only make sense if Dewani was trying to deny changing money at all, but that clearly was not the case.
Can you explain it?
-
I don't give any weight to Dewani's version. I merely point out that there are indeed three different versions of events - two of them coming from employees of a shop that is engaging in illegal trade.
You still have not attempted to explain why Dewani would lie about what currency he was changing. That logic would only make sense if Dewani was trying to deny changing money at all, but that clearly was not the case.
Can you explain it?
I have explained it repeatedly: I have repeatedly told you that shop trades gold - that's why it is called a 'jewellers' not a 'bureau de change' or a 'bank' - The First National Bank was literally 4 metres away. And I have also clearly explained that there is no audit trail for the cash: his bank accounts were audited to see whether he could have paid for a hitman. So of course, if you're going to pay a hitman, you would want cash that is untraceable and has not been audited. And you can fly into South Africa from India wearing a nice gold watch and take it to certain 'jewellers' and they will give you cash - and they don't write it down in their audited accounts, and you don't write it down in yours. Well era in the CBD used to be well known for it: I recall The Lonely Planet Guide when I first went down actually advised against buying jewellery in them because so many were passing off fenced goods.
-
The posts in this thread have been taken from another topic.
Members are reminded to stay within the thread theme and to avoid making personal comments. TY
-
First off; the title of this thread is grossly biased and misleading - it implies that Dewani committed a crime by exchanging money.
This whole line of argument is a trip down a rabbit hole. The shop owner was the one who performed an illegal transaction. If Dewani had committed a crime, then he would have been charged and found guilty of that crime as there was clear evidence of him engaging in the transaction.
Dewani's explanation is that he asked Tongo to take him somewhere that he could get a good exchange rate for his foreign currency and Tongo took him to this jewellery shop. There is nothing unusual or suspicious about this explanation. It makes valid sense and is what many tourists do every day, regardless of whether they have also drawn cash from a machine. Tourists assume that locals can advise them where to get a good rate. Unluckily for the Dewanis they got their advice from a crooked gentleman who had gained their trust and was willing to abuse it.
If anyone did anything illegal it was the three Capetonian locals; the jewellery store owner Maria Bravetti, the shop employee, Thelma or even Tongo - all of whom would have been aware that the transaction was illegal. Dewani was the foreigner who was taken there by his local trusted tour guide.
The three people involved gave three different versions of events.
Dewani said he changed GBP
Owner Bravetti said he changed $US
Shop assistant Thelma gave a police statement saying that Bravetti gave her some gold at the back of the shop and asked her to take it to another trader to exchange for Rand. It is not at all clear whether that gold was alleged to have come from Dewani, or whether Bravetti simply needed to swap some gold to get enough Rand to be able to complete the transaction with Dewani. Thelma was not called as a witness in the trial. Any poster in this thread who tries to insinuate that Dewani swapped a gold watch for cash is wildly speculating with no substantiation.
If anyone had an incentive to lie about this transaction, it was the shop owner and the shop assistant who were both carrying out an illegal trade that they both knew was illegal.
Dewani had no reason to lie about what currency he exchanged. How would it benefit him to claim in court that he changed GBP if he actually changed $US? It could only serve to increase suspicion and work against him.
Anyone who tries to label this money changing transaction as clandestine or the cash as "secret money" is simply trying to spin the same silly story as Tongo in a transparent and unsubstantiated attempt to make Dewani look suspicious. The transaction could never have been a secret considering there were other customers in the store, not to mention Bravetti and Thelma. One need look no further than the Dewani trial to see that Bravetti was called as a a witness, so if Dewani had in fact done anything illegal, then Bravetti's testimony would have seen him convicted of that crime.
So what happened to the R10000? That remains one of the unknowns. Dewani claimed that it was in Anni's handbag that was stolen during the robbery. Mngeni claimed that Qwabe took it. I seem to recall that Qwabe claimed that he and Mngeni split it, although Qwabe gave different stories in the Mngeni and Dewani trials.
It should further be remembered that this money exchange trip was one of the areas of testimony where Tongo was caught red handed fabricating evidence designed to incriminate Dewani. Paragraph 23.1.54 from the Dewani judgement reads:
23.1.54 Both in his plea explanation and in his affidavit, he (Tongo) stated that the accused had asked him if he knew of a place where he could exchange dollars for rands and where he did not have to produce his passport. This money was according to Mr. Tongo earmarked to pay the killers. In cross-examination it transpired that the accused never indicated that he did not want to produce his passport. His passport was, in fact, never mentioned. Mr. Tongo stated that that was just something that he (Mr. Tongo) thought. Mr. Tongo attributes the allegation in his affidavit in which he claimed that the accused did not want to produce his passport to a “mistake”. This is a serious mistake – because if in fact the accused deliberately wanted to act in a manner to hide the fact that he changed the money to pay the killers – it would certainly call for an explanation from the accused. It is a further indication of how Mr. Tongo was prepared to lie in a way which creates an atmosphere of suspicion regarding the accused.
-
This piece of 'evidence' is a total non starter.
More interesting is the conversation between the staff at the hotel reception, where a helicopter trip is discussed.
Any thoughts DF?
-
First off; the title of this thread is grossly biased and misleading - it implies that Dewani committed a crime by exchanging money.
I don't agree, it was an illegal currency exchange which was punishable as a crime under South African Law. I thought you were promoting facts?
Furthermore, ignorance is no excuse under the Law!
Dewani's excuse (if true) is irrelevant in any event, his involvement was at his own instigation. He was caught out...end off!
-
Can you provide some type of substantiation or point to a source that backs your claim that the money exchange was illegal under South African law?
I see no mention of it in the Dewani judgement and am struggling to find mention of it anywhere else.
-
This piece of 'evidence' is a total non starter.
More interesting is the conversation between the staff at the hotel reception, where a helicopter trip is discussed.
Any thoughts DF?
It's an interesting issue. My dewanifacts partners and I are at odds. We can't reach consensus! Whilst I believe that the helicopter conversation (shown in the Panorama documentary) appears to lend credibility to Dewani's story, it also undermines the evidence that the helicopter trip was simply a ruse used by Tongo to deceive Dewani into carrying a large sum of cash. If the trip was purely in Tongo's mind, then why would anyone be discussing it in the hotel? It is a puzzle and an unknown.
-
Can you provide some type of substantiation or point to a source that backs your claim that the money exchange was illegal under South African law?
I see no mention of it in the Dewani judgement and am struggling to find mention of it anywhere else.
Other “powerful pieces of evidence”, Mr Mopp went on, were that Mr Dewani failed to mention when questioned by his late wife’s family that he had the taxi driver take him to a black market money-changer, nor that he had been planning a surprise helicopter trip over the city for Anni, an explanation he would later give for the large amounts of money he had on him and the secret assignations with Tongo.
My understanding of 'black market money-changer' is illegal under the counter. Do you have a different interpretation?
-
Foreign exchange
All major credit cards can be used in South Africa, with American Express and Diners Club enjoying less universal acceptance than MasterCard and Visa. If you have a so-called "chip card", you will be required to enter a pin code. Pin-based debit cards are often accepted too. Remember to notify your bank in advance that you will be travelling.
To exchange cheques for cash at foreign exchange dealers, you must present a valid passport.
Thomas Cook and American Express travellers' cheques can be cashed at all banks, bureaux de change and at some hotels.
Remember that all money transactions that involve foreign exchange must be done by authorised dealers (see lists of dealers below). In terms of exchange control regulations, it is illegal to buy or sell foreign currency to anyone except an authorised dealer.
http://www.southafrica.info/travel/advice/currency.htm#.VejCq-9RHIU
-
Thanks Anna. That clarifies the legal position. It also underscores the fact that this law is peculiar to South Africa and not one that a tourist would likely be familiar with. As someone who has visited South Africa I can candidly admit that I had no knowledge of this law and if I had been presented with an opportunity to obtain an attractive exchange rate on travel money while I was there, I would likely have seized the opportunity being none the wiser that I was engaging in an illegal trade.
-
Other “powerful pieces of evidence”, Mr Mopp went on, were that Mr Dewani failed to mention when questioned by his late wife’s family that he had the taxi driver take him to a black market money-changer, nor that he had been planning a surprise helicopter trip over the city for Anni, an explanation he would later give for the large amounts of money he had on him and the secret assignations with Tongo.
My understanding of 'black market money-changer' is illegal under the counter. Do you have a different interpretation?
John: this is not evidence. In fact it is not even a submission made in court! It is a quote from a journalist (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11277691/Shrien-Dewani-to-learn-whether-trial-for-murder-of-Anni-to-be-thrown-out.html) and is actually quite a good example of how badly this case was reported and how biased and sensationalised the media coverage was. The term "black market money changer" was never mentioned in court - not even by the prosecution. You can verify this by referencing the prosecution's response to the S174 dismissal application - http://www.scribd.com/doc/248147307/Final-Heads-of-Argument
-
Furthermore, ignorance is no excuse under the Law!
Dewani's excuse (if true) is irrelevant in any event, his involvement was at his own instigation. He was caught out...end off!
Ignorance is not an excuse at law, however in most circumstances courts will not convict someone for minor offences if a reasonable case can be made to suggest that they believed they were acting lawfully. That is precisely what occurred in this instance otherwise he would have been charged and convicted of illegally exchanging currency.
Your last sentence is extremely misleading and propagates a falsehood. There was no credible evidence to suggest that Dewani instigated or asked to be taken to a black market money exchange. In fact the evidence adduced in court, proved the opposite; Tongo was caught lying about this issue, as explained in paragraph 23.1.54 that I quoted a few posts previous to this one.
-
John: this is not evidence. In fact it is not even a submission made in court! It is a quote from a journalist (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11277691/Shrien-Dewani-to-learn-whether-trial-for-murder-of-Anni-to-be-thrown-out.html) and is actually quite a good example of how badly this case was reported and how biased and sensationalised the media coverage was. The term "black market money changer" was never mentioned in court - not even by the prosecution. You can verify this by referencing the prosecution's response to the S174 dismissal application - http://www.scribd.com/doc/248147307/Final-Heads-of-Argument
You are confusing facts with evidence and this is not a Court. We are entitled to consider any anomaly or ommission in the search for the truth. Prosecutor Mr Mopp raised the question of Dewani's failure to relate certain events to both his brother and his in-laws when he ommitted to tell them about the illegal money exchange when accompanied by Tongo.
Dewani lied about his private meetings with Tongo, denying that the two men had spoken again after the driver had dropped them off at the hotel during their Cape Town leg of their honeymoon. CCTV footage revealed that Dewani spent more than ten minutes chatting to Tongo after he and his bride of two weeks had checked in – something he omitted to tell his family, even when he was specifically asked. The state's argument quoted from a meeting that was secretly recorded by a cousin of the dead engineer who had become suspicious of Dewani's behaviour in the aftermath of his wife's death. The recording is evidence before the court and prosecutors quoted Dewani blatantly misleading his own brother, Preyen.
PREYEN: So this guy, you haven't spoken to him [Tongo] again that night [after being dropped off on Friday 12 November]
SHRIEN: No uh, uh, Zola we'd uh, he left us, when he dropped us at six and that was it. Yeah!'
He also omitted to tell the meeting - which had been called to smooth tensions over between the families of Dewani and his dead bride - that he had seen Tongo on the following afternoon, when the driver took him to a black market money changer – allegedly to get the cash to pay for the 'hit' on his wife.
Instead, Dewani claimed that he had not seen Tongo until he picked the newlyweds up to take them out later that evening for their last fateful dinner - which, if true, would not have given the men sufficiently opportunity to plot a murder.
Such 'falsehoods' could not be explained away, since the court had yet to hear any reason for Dewani's varying explanations, prosecuting authorities claimed.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848459/EXCLUSIVE-Tell-truth-Shrien-want-hear-words-Anni-Dewani-s-family-begs-husband-stand-bids-murder-charge-thrown-out.html
-
Ignorance is not an excuse at law, however in most circumstances courts will not convict someone for minor offences if a reasonable case can be made to suggest that they believed they were acting lawfully. That is precisely what occurred in this instance otherwise he would have been charged and convicted of illegally exchanging currency.
Your last sentence is extremely misleading and propagates a falsehood. There was no credible evidence to suggest that Dewani instigated or asked to be taken to a black market money exchange. In fact the evidence adduced in court, proved the opposite; Tongo was caught lying about this issue, as explained in paragraph 23.1.54 that I quoted a few posts previous to this one.
I don't accept that for a moment. Dewani was exposed as a consummate liar so he was in very good company with Tongo and his chums.
-
Dewani lied to his wife about his sexuality, lied to the world to prevent his embarrassing double life becoming global knowledge and he pretended to be a travel agent to get discounts.
Not even in the same ballpark as a group of thugs who robbed, kidnapped and murdered a tourist and then tried to incriminate the dead woman's husband with a pack of lies in court.
To even suggest that they are comparable, shows your bias.
-
You are confusing facts with evidence and this is not a Court. We are entitled to consider any anomaly or ommission in the search for the truth.
Fair call. I'd also like to know why Dewani omitted to mention the trip to the money changer from his story to the families. I have said all along that there are some unknowns. However that doesn't mean that everything is unknown. The evidence was more than enough to make certain things clear.
For example, we know from the rest of the evidence that no agreement existed between Dewani and Tongo to have Anni murdered, so the explanation for Dewani's statement omissions must lie elsewhere. Perhaps Dewani felt ashamed and embarrassed that he had been suckered by a gang of thugs and his naivety had cost his wife her life. There could be any number of reasons and they would all be interesting to hear!
-
Fair call. I'd also like to know why Dewani omitted to mention the trip to the money changer from his story to the families. I have said all along that there are some unknowns. However that doesn't mean that everything is unknown. The evidence was more than enough to make certain things clear.
For example, we know from the rest of the evidence that no agreement existed between Dewani and Tongo to have Anni murdered, so the explanation for Dewani's statement omissions must lie elsewhere. Perhaps Dewani felt ashamed and embarrassed that he had been suckered by a gang of thugs and his naivety had cost his wife her life. There could be any number of reasons and they would all be interesting to hear!
The question you must ask yourself is why did Dewani omit this information and lie to his brother and to the Hindochas?
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.
Now I must go as more pressing news is coming in from eastern Europe.
-
Every person on earth has told lies. Including you and I. Does that put us in the same category as Tongo , Qwabe and Mbolombo?
-
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?
Planning stage:
- 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
Operational stage:
- 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.
-
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 simply 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 (improbablilities) of Tongo's story with reality based on the improbabilities within? If you cannot reconcile it 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.
Hmm. You're very wordy, aren't you? I've just finished reading Vinod Hindocha's book.
You would have to be seven shades of stupid to believe a single word that fell from Dewani's
dodgy, gay, manipulative loser's mouth.
-
Hmm. You're very wordy, aren't you? I've just finished reading Vinod Hindocha's book.
You would have to be seven shades of stupid to believe a single word that fell from Dewani's
dodgy, gay, manipulative loser's mouth.
I'm gay. I use rentboys. My family won't accept that.
So. I find a lovely young girl, .......
then get rid of her.
So that I can be a grieving widower.
And never have to marry again.
And when it all goes quiet......
Bum another young boy to infinity.
And pretend to be depressed.
Ugh.
-
One does not need to believe a word that comes out of Dewani's mouth, for the hitman story did not come from his mouth. The only evidence of Dewani's involvement came from the mouths of the 3 criminals who committed the crime and they were all proven to be lying and fabricating evidence to incriminate Dewani.
You would have to be seven shades of stupid to believe that the "murder for hire" story is true when you consider the gross improbabilities within....outlined in my previous post.