Website that analyses the Anni Dewani murder in detail

[Carbon Copy]

Hi Carbon Copy.  I have absolutely no idea whether Dewani is guilty or not.  Other than having seen the BBC documentary, I know b....r all about this case.  I intend to read Passer bys website when I get a spare moment.

I find it quite extraordinary that the doctors wife flew out, all the way to South Africa, to offer comfort to someone she didn't even know.

Passer-by has a website, or dewanifacts?  I've only just clocked the website reference in the thread title, which explains the otherwise random numbering on previous pages.

Yes, I remember the BBC documentary, if it's the Panorama one that you mean.  It stuck out like a beacon as there was no-one else officially questioning the state's case up until that point. 

Good luck catching up on the case - the Dr Pox murder business is just one of many anomalies to get your head around. 

[mercury]

Hi mercury

You may be surprised to hear that two of the three dewanifacts partners were of the strong belief that Dewani was guilty for the best part of four years. I am one of those. Having open free thinking minds was exactly what led us to conclude that we had been misled and mistaken with our original evaluation and upon seeing the evidence it became clear that only one side of the narrative had been pushed by the media. That side was not driven by facts, but by speculation, assumption and Dewani's odd personality traits and behaviour.

We unapologetically have an agenda; the truth. A natural byproduct of that agenda will be true justice for Anni, for when the truth is exposed and widely known then the pressure will build on the SA authorities to prosecute Mbolombo and impose the appropriate 25+ sentences on Qwabe and Tongo. The only leniency for them should result from them giving up the fifth conspirator's identity and testifying against that person at trial should it be required to convict.

So long as people erroneously believe in Dewani's guilt, the real perpetrators continue to evade justice through immunity and lenient sentences and the uneducated public sit idly by due to their ignorant unsubstantiated belief that Dewani is the one who escaped justice.

Her loving husband seems to be doing nothng in this regard so if I deem him a toerag Im very entitled to

[Carbon Copy]

The Raghavjees were family friends of the Dewanis. Given the fact that Dr Raghavjee 's wife had been through a similar tragedy, is it really that unbelievable that she would travel to support friends who found themselves in a situation with which she could empathise and sympathise?

It is obviously quite a coincidence that two families who know each other, both had to deal with shooting tragedies. There were no other similarities between the crimes. From what I remember, Raghavjee's murder remains unsolved but bore all the hallmarks of a genuine execution. A single shot to the head.
 
Carbon Copy your comments on Tongo's "admission" are interesting. I'm not so sure about your timings and suggestion that the admission didn't originate from Tongo himself. Will need to do a bit of research. It would add a further layer of intrigue if what you say does in fact add up. 

You appear to be well versed in the case. Would be interested to hear your comments and any suggestions regarding our site's content. We want it to be as accurate as possible.

Re Raghavjee I can see why people drew similarities...South Africa, dead spouse, carjacking, unknown motive, single bullet etc….but agree there appears to be no doubt it was execution style killing with no sign of robbery (or staged robbery) and so in that regard no real comparison. 

The point i'm trying to make re timing is that SAPS investigation into Dewani's alleged involvement re Dr Pox seems to have been triggered by Heather Raghavjee's presence in Cape Town.  It always seemed extraordinarily fishy that references to Dewani allegedly bragging about having arranged “something like this before” then started to appear in statements by Mbolombo.   Has all the hallmarks of SA Police trying a little too hard to build the case against Dewani and using the puppet Mbolombo to achieve it.

Nice website btw.  Not had the chance to read through all of it but certainly some interesting stuff on there.  Don't know if I have the heart to go over the entire case once more but i'll let you know if anything jumps out.  Blog entry re Mngeni trial is interesting – don't think I ever paid that too much attention other than to note that it must have been a bit of a shambles Mngeni being convicted of the actual shooting, rather than Qwabe, in view of what came to light at Dewani trial.  Qwabe thought he had been real smart wearing his yellow washing up gloves, not realising that the forensic evidence would still be on the glove that he tossed into the drain.  Police had the glove but Mngeni still convicted of the actual shooting...hmmmm.

[Passer-by]

Carbon Copy if you look a few pages back on this thread I posted an interview Dewani gave to a well respect BBC reporter 3 days after the murder.  He was angry and wanted the reporter to correct some 'mistakes', particularly because he had said it was a mistake to go to Gugulethu at night.  Dewani vehemently CLARIFIED that it was

1) a spontaneous decision to go to the township

2) Anni's idea

So it is impossible anyone can have premeditated her murder, isn't it? 

It has to have been spontaneous on the spot and all the bizarre behaviour of giving the taxi driver money for a helicopter trip that was only 5 minutes walk from his hotel and accepts credit cards over the phone is just unfortunate.

Dewani never appeared in court so can't be cross-examined on why he changed his mind and in court papers said it was the taxi driver's idea to go to the township.

[Passer-by]

PS I read Dewanifacts entire blog so can spare you the hassle of trying to find out anything about the BBC interview on there - it isn't mentioned at all.

[Passer-by]

Off out for the afternoon so had better clarify as I won't be here to discuss the matter.

When Dewani did his interview with the BBC reporter 3 days after the murder all that was known by anyone was that the Dewanis had been going for dinner at Strand and spontaneously stopped off in the Township 'to see the real Africa' and by great misfortune been hijacked.  The husband and driver had survived but the pretty wife had been driven off and killed by the murderous hijackers who had then melted back into the population of millions of black people who live anonymously on Cape Flats.

Unfortunately a short while afterwards the SAPS, to their credit, had picked up the murderers out of that huge anonymous mass of people - probably by looking at who the taxi driver had called.  Suddenly it was clear there was collaboration between them and the hijacking was premeditated.

At that point Dewani switched to it being the Taxi Driver's idea to visit the Township, especially when it transpired they had visited it both on the way to Strand and also on the way back.  Strand was re-written as a spontaneous decision. If you look at Anni's sparkly cocktail dress you can see she was dressed for dinner at Strand.

[dewanifacts]

Carbon Copy if you look a few pages back on this thread I posted an interview Dewani gave to a well respect BBC reporter 3 days after the murder.  He was angry and wanted the reporter to correct some 'mistakes', particularly because he had said it was a mistake to go to Gugulethu at night.  Dewani vehemently CLARIFIED that it was

1) a spontaneous decision to go to the township

2) Anni's idea

So it is impossible anyone can have premeditated her murder, isn't it? 

It has to have been spontaneous on the spot and all the bizarre behaviour of giving the taxi driver money for a helicopter trip that was only 5 minutes walk from his hotel and accepts credit cards over the phone is just unfortunate.

Dewani never appeared in court so can't be cross-examined on why he changed his mind and in court papers said it was the taxi driver's idea to go to the township.

The Dewanis dinner reservation was not for Strand. It was for 96 Winery Road in Somerset West. The downmarket surfside restaurant at Strand was a last minute change of dinner plan decision by the Dewanis.

You have now stated for a fifth time that it was bizarre that Dewani gave the taxi driver money for the helicopter, despite myself and other posters correcting you every time.  Dewani did not give the helicopter money to the taxi driver. Even the taxi driver (Tongo) doesn't make this claim, yet you continue to say it as though it is a fact. People like you are precisely the reason why we built our site; you perpetuate misinformation with reckless disregard.

Turning to Jonah Fisher's BBC article  - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12229112

Nowhere does it quote Dewani as saying that the trip to Gugulethu "was Anni's idea". It merely says that Anni wanted to see the real Africa. Dewani later expanded on this and explained that Tongo had made some suggestions as to what they might want to see and that Anni had liked the township idea as she wanted to see "the real Africa".

As for your suggestion that the spontaneous decision meant that it would not have been possible for Tongo to coordinate with the hijackers, this is yet another of your disingenuous claims bereft of logic. Tongo was in constant phone and text contact with Mbolombo, who was coordinating with the hijackers. The only reason the eventual hijacking ended up occuring was due to Tongo's continuous use of texts to liase and confirm with Mbolombo that the Dewanis had agreed to his suggestion to go see Gugulethu a second time (the first trip to Mzolis was a 5 minute drive by and a u turn). Mbolombo then made sure the hijackers were in position for the second pass through Gugulethu, which was when the hijacking took place.

[dewanifacts]

Her loving husband seems to be doing nothng in this regard so if I deem him a toerag Im very entitled to

An A-grade toerag. 

[dewanifacts]

"But it has been proven your facts are not facts in the true sense of the word"

Thank you for your comments on our site, mercury. Your feedback has led us to publish a new page on our site that clearly states our Agenda.

With regard to your comment quoted above. Whilst our site is named "Dewani Facts", the core content is actually a catagorisation of common claims made with regard to this case. By definition, the claims catagorised as "false" or "baseless" are not facts. Indeed they are the opposite.

We are open to any suggestions you may want to make as to how we could better catagorise or present the claims, however we need substantiation. We cannot give credence to speculative assertions, simply because Dewani is a "toerag". 

Even if you wish to disregard 98% of the content on our site and give Tongo the benefit of the doubt when it comes to all his lies and deceptive fabrications while testifying, there are a couple of individual points that are so strong and irrefutable that on their own they demonstrate that the hitman story as told by Tongo does not make sense and cannot reasonably possibly be believed to be true. Might I turn your attention to the two points pasted below? To our minds they show unequivocally that there was no agreement between Tongo and Dewani to effect this crime. Both of the items below can be found on the "True" page of our site. Before Passer-by interjects and makes the inevitable absurd claim that we are "speculating", I will make you aware that the facts mentioned in the two points below are not in dispute. They were agreed by the prosecutors as well as the defence teams.

Considering the information below, does the "murder my wife for R15000" story make any sense to you?

TRUE (33)

On the night of the fatal robbery, Zola Tongo made two “passes” through Gugulethu, with the Dewanis travelling in his taxi. The hijacking was supposed to occur on the first pass, however it didn’t eventuate because Qwabe and Mngeni failed to get a ride to the agreed location by the agreed time. After stopping for dinner, the hijacking was re-scheduled and took place later in the evening during the second pass through Gugulethu. Tongo admitted, under oath, that he made no attempt to ascertain whether the money was in the car prior to the first pass through Gugulethu, and since the Dewanis sat in the back of the taxi, Tongo knew with 100% certainty that the money could not be in the cubbyhole. This point is of great importance, given Zola Tongo’s claim that an integral part of the plan was for Dewani to leave an “agreed” R15,000 in the car’s cubbyhole (glovebox) for the hijackers. So despite knowing that the key element of his own version, the price of the hit, was not in place he was content to drive to the hijacking spot anyway. This is solid proof that there was no “agreed” sum, and that this was in fact a robbery/kidnapping operation of which Shrien Dewani had absolutely no knowledge. Paragraphs 23.1.71 and 23.1.78 of the Judgement detail this crucial point, and highlight Tongo’s deception.
 
True (35)

Shrien Dewani did not even have the allegedly “agreed” R15,000 with him when the car was hijacked. In other words, the “hitman” story alleged that not only did Dewani arrange for the murder of his wife, but he then attempted to short-change the two unknown, armed, dangerous gunmen who were carrying out his wishes, all whilst he was still in the taxi with them, completely at their mercy. His alleged masterplan would also see him ejected from the taxi, alone and with no phone or money, lost in the middle of a township at night.

 

[Passer-by]

Thank you for your comments on our site, mercury. Your feedback has led us to publish a new page on our site that clearly states our Agenda.

With regard to your comment quoted above. Whilst our site is named "Dewani Facts", the core content is actually a catagorisation of common claims made with regard to this case. By definition, the claims catagorised as "false" or "baseless" are not facts. Indeed they are the opposite.

We are open to any suggestions you may want to make as to how we could better catagorise or present the claims, however we need substantiation. We cannot give credence to speculative assertions, simply because Dewani is a "toerag". 

Even if you wish to disregard 98% of the content on our site and give Tongo the benefit of the doubt when it comes to all his lies and deceptive fabrications while testifying, there are a couple of individual points that are so strong and irrefutable that on their own they demonstrate that the hitman story as told by Tongo does not make sense and cannot reasonably possibly be believed to be true. Might I turn your attention to the two points pasted below? To our minds they show unequivocally that there was no agreement between Tongo and Dewani to effect this crime. Both of the items below can be found on the "True" page of our site. Before Passer-by interjects and makes the inevitable absurd claim that we are "speculating", I will make you aware that the facts mentioned in the two points below are not in dispute. They were agreed by the prosecutors as well as the defence teams.

Considering the information below, does the "murder my wife for R15000" story make any sense to you?

TRUE (33)

On the night of the fatal robbery, Zola Tongo made two “passes” through Gugulethu, with the Dewanis travelling in his taxi. The hijacking was supposed to occur on the first pass, however it didn’t eventuate because Qwabe and Mngeni failed to get a ride to the agreed location by the agreed time. After stopping for dinner, the hijacking was re-scheduled and took place later in the evening during the second pass through Gugulethu. Tongo admitted, under oath, that he made no attempt to ascertain whether the money was in the car prior to the first pass through Gugulethu, and since the Dewanis sat in the back of the taxi, Tongo knew with 100% certainty that the money could not be in the cubbyhole. This point is of great importance, given Zola Tongo’s claim that an integral part of the plan was for Dewani to leave an “agreed” R15,000 in the car’s cubbyhole (glovebox) for the hijackers. So despite knowing that the key element of his own version, the price of the hit, was not in place he was content to drive to the hijacking spot anyway. This is solid proof that there was no “agreed” sum, and that this was in fact a robbery/kidnapping operation of which Shrien Dewani had absolutely no knowledge. Paragraphs 23.1.71 and 23.1.78 of the Judgement detail this crucial point, and highlight Tongo’s deception.
 
True (35)

Shrien Dewani did not even have the allegedly “agreed” R15,000 with him when the car was hijacked. In other words, the “hitman” story alleged that not only did Dewani arrange for the murder of his wife, but he then attempted to short-change the two unknown, armed, dangerous gunmen who were carrying out his wishes, all whilst he was still in the taxi with them, completely at their mercy. His alleged masterplan would also see him ejected from the taxi, alone and with no phone or money, lost in the middle of a township at night.

Why would anyone give Tongo 'the benefit of the doubt':  no-one has ever doubted he was involved nor that he and the other pair have lied repeatedly.

You weren't in the taxi, so you have no idea what Dewani gave Tongo.

You also weren't in the Taxi when Dewani went to a dodgy jewellers to 'change some money' even though it was literally right next to a bank.  The only reason he would do that is not to exchange money but o trade something like a watch and get cash in return, so there would be no cash trail.  You have no idea how much money he got because the business owner was up to her neck in it and trying her best to cover up the illegality of her business.  So you have no idea what he exchanged at the jewellers, how much money he got for it or whether he gave any to someone else because you were not there and he chose to conduct his business in a manner that was underhand.

You literally have no idea what was exchange between them other than the word of people you keep pointing out are liars.

[dewanifacts]

Sorry but that post makes no discernible sense. What point are you attempting to make?

The problem with Tongo and the other pair is not merely that they lied repeatedly. It is that they have lied repeatedly with the clear intention of incriminating Mr Dewani. Literally every one of their lies were directly related to implicating Dewani in the crime.

Now why would they need to do that? I realise that you have previously tried to justify their lies by saying "well everyone in Africa lies even when they're telling the truth".

Sorry. That explanation doesn't cut it for us. We deal in facts and evidence. 

[Passer-by]

The Dewanis dinner reservation was not for Strand. It was for 96 Winery Road in Somerset West. The downmarket surfside restaurant at Strand was a last minute change of dinner plan decision by the Dewanis.

You have now stated for a fifth time that it was bizarre that Dewani gave the taxi driver money for the helicopter, despite myself and other posters correcting you every time.  Dewani did not give the helicopter money to the taxi driver. Even the taxi driver (Tongo) doesn't make this claim, yet you continue to say it as though it is a fact. People like you are precisely the reason why we built our site; you perpetuate misinformation with reckless disregard.

Turning to Jonah Fisher's BBC article  - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12229112

Nowhere does it quote Dewani as saying that the trip to Gugulethu "was Anni's idea". It merely says that Anni wanted to see the real Africa. Dewani later expanded on this and explained that Tongo had made some suggestions as to what they might want to see and that Anni had liked the township idea as she wanted to see "the real Africa".

As for your suggestion that the spontaneous decision meant that it would not have been possible for Tongo to coordinate with the hijackers, this is yet another of your disingenuous claims bereft of logic. Tongo was in constant phone and text contact with Mbolombo, who was coordinating with the hijackers. The only reason the eventual hijacking ended up occuring was due to Tongo's continuous use of texts to liase and confirm with Mbolombo that the Dewanis had agreed to his suggestion to go see Gugulethu a second time (the first trip to Mzolis was a 5 minute drive by and a u turn). Mbolombo then made sure the hijackers were in position for the second pass through Gugulethu, which was when the hijacking took place.

I'm surprised you overlooked this in the BBC article:

"Shrien Dewani then told me that it was Anni who wanted to go to the township"

Somerset West is effectively a suburb of Strand:  they run into each other.  For the purpose of the point I was making it is utterly immaterial which place she had dinner in - the point was she was not dressed for a late night visit to a Township. She was going to have dinner in a nice restaurant with a view:  that can in no ways be described as "the real Africa" that Dewani told the BBC reporter Anni had wanted to see.  There is nothing to indicate Anni would want to drive off the main road and round some unlit deserted streets of 2-room bungalows of poor people at 10.45pm, especially if she had already driven around them earlier.

It is a fact that when Dewani thought the anonymous 'African Man' killers had vanished into the night never to be seen again, he told a BBC reporter that

(a) It was spontaneous

and

(b) It was Anni's idea.


I have provided you with a link and the text to the full interview:  I cannot understand why you ignored it the first time and are now denying the respected news reporter was telling the truth - other posters on the thread said they believed the reporter. Nor can I understand why you think this is a minor point. 

If what he said was true, the hijacking could only have been opportunistic, there is no way Tongo could have pre-arranged it.  It can only have been a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time - which is, of course, what Dewani thought it would look like too.

As soon as the SAPS pulled in the actual hijackers his cover was blown:  he thought amongst millions of other 'African Men' they would never be found.  He immediately had to change the story slightly - a slight change in story but a huge change in significance - because if there was any evidence they had planned the attack it would contradict the story that it was Anni's idea and spontaneous.  So he said Tongo had suggested it

You simply choose to ignore this, even though it's pivotal in making him look complicit with the murder.  Everything else can be explained away, but not that.

As for your petty insults about my logic:  the hijackers could not have carried out the hijacking anywhere - hijackings occur at places where vehicles stop (for this reason most South Africans don't stop at traffic lights at night) so they could not have hijacked the Dewanis on the main highway from Strand to Cape Town - otherwise they would have.

The BBC reporter is quite clear:  this wasn't some bereft incoherent man, dazed and confused about details:  Dewani was an angry man correcting the 'facts'.

[dewanifacts]

Shrien never said it was Anni's idea. Not in that article. Not to any reporter. Not in his police statement.

Shrien saying "it was Anni who wanted to go to the township" is not the same as "it was Anni's idea".

As for your claim that we "choose to ignore it" , this issue is addressed and dealt with at item Baseless (25) on our site. You can type another 3000 words if you wish and you can insert as many falsehoods as you see fit but that won't make your argument any stronger.

[Passer-by]

Sorry but that post makes no discernible sense. What point are you attempting to make?

The problem with Tongo and the other pair is not merely that they lied repeatedly. It is that they have lied repeatedly with the clear intention of incriminating Mr Dewani. Literally every one of their lies were directly related to implicating Dewani in the crime.

Now why would they need to do that? I realise that you have previously tried to justify their lies by saying "well everyone in Africa lies even when they're telling the truth".

Sorry. That explanation doesn't cut it for us. We deal in facts and evidence.

Why would they do that?  3 possibilities:

1).  For a plea-bargain
2).  Because it's true
3).  For a plea-bargain AND because it's true.

You most definitely do not deal with facts and evidence:  I took the trouble of going through your entire blog and pointed out at least hold is speculation and/or subjective opinion.  I went through point by point and you completely ignored it.  It is this constant holier-than-thou inaccuracy that you are standard-bearers of the truth which is so irritating.  Loads of points on your site are pure speculation.

[dewanifacts]

Loads of points on your site are pure speculation.

Correct. And those points are catagorised as "baseless" or "false".