Website that analyses the Anni Dewani murder in detail

[Passer-by]

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.

Nowhere have I said Dewani covered for Tongo.  I express myself very clearly and in bold I gave you a direct quote which I copied and pasted from that article.  Here it is again for you so you can't keep ignoring it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12229112

Unequivocally he said "it was Anni who wanted to go to the Township" - that is clear as crystal, they were in the Township at Anni's behest.  Behest, idea, want, need, desire - it doesn't matter what word you use he is very clearly saying that it took place because of Anni.  He also clearly told the reporter they went twice. That article also clearly quotes Dewani in speech marks saying it was an "impulsive" decision to go to the Township.

Restaurant = booked, Township = impulsive.

But we know now it was far from impulsive.  And we also know that it is motorway all the way back to the waterfront and at that time of night, by the airport, there would have been a lot of traffic keeping it moving because all the European flights are over-nighters and leave in the evening.

[dewanifacts]

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.

The question was "why would they lie?". Your answers make no sense.

Their plea bargain was contingent on them telling the truth. They were caught in lies. That draws a line through each of your numbered points above .

[Passer-by]

The question was "why would they lie?". Your answers make no sense.

Their plea bargain was contingent on them telling the truth. They were caught in lies. That draws a line through each of your numbered points above .

I extensively covered why they lied previously but you ignored it. The bottom line is its human nature to get yourself off the hook by lying.  That doesn't mean they didn't also tell the truth.  I've said previously and you ignored it, that you can't pick and choose which bits of their statements you use any more than the prosecution can.  That is why I have consistently told you it makes little difference what they said.

What throws suspicion on Dewani is not the other 3:  it's what Dewani said and did himself.

[dewanifacts]

I extensively covered why they lied previously but you ignored it. The bottom line is its human nature to get yourself off the hook by lying. 

That's precisely the point. They were already off the hook. They had their attractive plea deals (and in the case of Mbolombo, total immunity). Lying could only worsen their situation. All they needed to do when testifying at Dewani and Mngeni trials was tell the truth.

Unless..............their plea deals were based on a false story. If that was the case then they were in a rather sticky predicament. They had no choice but to continue with that false story and lie to make it seem believable. Which inevitably led to them being caught red handed in those lies. 

[Passer-by]

That's precisely the point. They were already off the hook. They had their attractive plea deals (and in the case of Mbolombo, total immunity). All they needed to do when testifying at Dewani and Mngeni trials was tell the truth.

Unless..............their plea deals were based on a false story. If that was the case then they were in a rather sticky predicament. They had no choice but to continue with that false story and lie to make it seem believable. Which inevitably led to them being caught red handed in those lies.

Or unless it was true.  I already told you the whole darn lot lie inessantly anyhow and within 3 minutes get knotted up in their lies.  It is quite staggering trying to follow the logic of someone who missed out on any education that involves reasoning right the way as far back as never even having played with a shape-sorter.  The ability to plan is a skill conspicuous by its absence.

As a consequence their testimony has to be discounted - all of it:  the judge said so as you keep pointing out.  all of it.. But you won't talk about anything else.

Dewani is damned by his own words and actions - that's why his family engaged Max Clifford a week later.

[dewanifacts]

I already told you the whole darn lot lie inessantly anyhow

As a consequence their testimony has to be discounted - all of it:  the judge said so as you keep pointing out.  all of it.. But you won't talk about anything else.

As someone who has followed the case for a few years, and witnessed some very backward mind sets I can honestly say that this is the first and only time I have heard this particularly obtuse argument made and you have reiterated it a few times now so you must genuinely believe it. You are in effect saying that because the testimony of the criminals is filled with lies and fabrications, it must all be discounted - even the parts of their testimony that unwittingly show that Dewani could not have played a role in the crime.

I don't think that I really need to say any more on this. Your logic speaks for itself.

[Passer-by]

As someone who has followed the case for a few years, and witnessed some very backward mind sets I can honestly say that this is the first and only time I have heard this particularly obtuse argument made and you have reiterated it a few times now so you must genuinely believe it. You are in effect saying that because the testimony of the criminals is filled with lies and fabrications, it must all be discounted - even the parts of their testimony that unwittingly show that Dewani could not have played a role in the crime.

I don't think that I really need to say any more on this. Your logic speaks for itself.

I have bad news for you:  South Africa has 14 different official languages.  I'm staggered you went there for a 2 week holiday (or did you? Which of the 3 of you am I dealing with now? it's positively schizophrenic) and failed to notice that it is choc full of different races.  There are Zulus, Xhosa, San, Ndebele, Pondo, Sutho - that's not even covering all the black ones - then there are Indian, Cape Coloured, Afrikaaner, Jewish, English (even the 'English' subdivide into English, Scots and Irish).

And as I said in my earlier post, which possibly you didn't bother to read because someone else was on shift at 'Dewanifacts' - they all lie:  every creed, every colour. 

[dewanifacts]

So all South Africans are incessant non repenting liars? Or only the poor ones?

 I take it that you consider yourself to be superior to all these creeds, colours and racial groups?

[Passer-by]

The Racism Card is in itself racist, it is so loaded with assumption.

You've shown your true colours.

[dewanifacts]

And labeling an entire country's population incessant liars?

[Passer-by]

Yes:  it's ingrained in their culture:  the whites under apartheid lied to themselves, the blacks lied to survive and the in-between races had to do both. 

I've pointed out unequivocally Dewani told a BBC reporter that it was a spontaneous decision by Anni to visit the Township so the murder cannot have been premeditated.  But it was premeditated - and when the perpetrators were pulled in and it became apparent it was premeditated Dewani had to switch to saying it was the Driver who instigated the fateful turn off the motorway.  There's no polite way round this:  Dewani dropped himself in it, that's why they hired Max Clifford to handle future press interviews and that's why he only gave one more fixed up with a journalist chosen by Clifford.

[dewanifacts]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12229112

Unequivocally he said "it was Anni who wanted to go to the Township" - that is clear as crystal, they were in the Township at Anni's behest.  Behest, idea, want, need, desire - it doesn't matter what word you use he is very clearly saying that it took place because of Anni. 

You seem quite transfixed by your own line or argument. So much so that you actually seem to believe that it makes sense. Perhaps an example is in order.

You and I go out on a date to a restaurant. The menu has two options. Burger or Fish. You choose the Burger.

Later on, I say to someone "Passer-by wanted the Burger".

Does this mean that Passer-by created the menu and came up with the idea that a Burger was one of her eating options?

Or does it simply mean that presented with two options, Passer-by opted for the Burger?

It is the same with Anni. The decision to see Gugulethu after dinner may have been Anni's decision. That does not mean that she came up with the idea. Since we were not in that vehicle we cannot know for sure who first suggested the idea of a township visit - Tongo or Anni. We cannot exclude either option. Dewani's comment to Jonah Fisher does not exclude either option. This is why your BBC article is essentially irrelevant. It is noise, not evidence. It does not bring us any closer to the truth.

[Passer-by]

You seem quite transfixed by your own line or argument. So much so that you actually seem to believe that it makes sense. Perhaps an example is in order.

You and I go out on a date to a restaurant. The menu has two options. Burger or Fish. You choose the Burger.

Later on, I say to someone "Passer-by wanted the Burger".

Does this mean that Passer-by created the menu and came up with the idea that a Burger was one of her eating options?

Or does it simply mean that presented with two options, Passer-by opted for the Burger?

It is the same with Anni. The decision to see Gugulethu after dinner may have been Anni's decision. That does not mean that she came up with the idea. Since we were not in that vehicle we cannot know for sure who first suggested the idea of a township visit - Tongo or Anni. We cannot exclude either option. Dewani's comment to Jonah Fisher does not exclude either option. This is why your BBC article is essentially irrelevant. It is noise, not evidence. It does not bring us any closer to the truth.

There's a destinct lack of spontaneity in your analogy (an analogy which if I had made you'd have ripped to bits as being not expressly myself clearly, or would have turned to a bunch of imaginary friends and said 'allow me to explain that for everyone else' before reinterpreting my words).

For the spontaneous element Dewani was adamant had been there the analogy has to be no-one is in a restaurant, they are in a car having already been to a restaurant and then later having driven around for a bit come past the same restaurant again and even though it is closed up for the night and deserted Anni suddenly shouts 'I want a burger' so they all go to the closed locked-up restaurant for her to have one.

Oh hang on a minute - that's not really an analogy is it, it's pretty much what actually happened if we take out your 'burger'.

Yet again, you bang on very sanctimoniously about only dealing with facts and then just like half your blog, you come out with loads of 'what ifs' to explain away anything awkward - no facts at all.

The fact remains Dewani was actively trying to manipulate the portrayal of his story in the media - first by his own choice angrily engaging with a respected BBC reporter to correct him specifically about it being Anni's spontaneous decision rather than premeditated, and then via the one and only interview he has ever given since jacked up with a journalist friend of publicist Max Clifford, in which he shifts his story.

As former Ambassador for Children In Need and current convicted paedophile Max Clifford once said to the Oxford Union:

"Every day, every week, every month,  a lot of lies that you see in the newspapers, in the magazines, on television, on the radio, are mine."


This makes an interesting read actually, especially the bit where Clifford explains that he would cover up a client being gay by leaking an 'affair' with a woman to the press - he did that for Dewani as well I believe.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1988837/quotes

[John]

You have deliberately tried to soften the fact that Dewani unequivocally changed his story by suggesting it was an unimportant detail -  you call it "slightly varying explanations" when in fact it is deeply significant.  If it was, as Dewani is recorded as saying, a spontaneous trip and Anni's idea to go to the Township, the Taxidriver could not have prearranged with the 2 murderers to hijack the car.  As I have provided you with clear evidence that he actually demanded a BBC reporter take this down 3 days after the event I think we can dismiss all your baseless speculation that the poor petal having trouble recalling the details.

I look forward to you, at the very least, moving this item to your 'credible' list.

The devil is always in the detail in every case we have looked at and you certainly have picked over this one Passer-by.   Something else, I don't quite understand is why they went through the township on the way to dinner if it had only been suggested during dinner. &%+((£

From my own experience of life changing events, I have found that memories tend to be enhanced by traumatic events rather than diminished.  Any thoughts?

[dewanifacts]

Clearly, Passer-by's interpretation could in theory indicate a deceitful Dewani. The problem is that there could also be a totally innocent explanation. For example, Anni agreeing to Tongo's suggestion to see some real African nightlife.

If Passer-by's point was bolstered by a wealth of other evidence showing Dewani to be guilty then it would be a valid point. Conversely if unsupported by any credible evidence (which is why the case was thrown out), then it can only be "deeply significant" to someone who is clutching wildly for something....anything....to feed their confirmation bias.

Some of you may be temporarily fooled by Passer-by's speculative mining for deceptive intent in Dewanis words but given the rest of the circumstances, the hitman story cannot be believed to be true. Both passes through Gugulethu were enacted by Tongo the friendly tour guide, the man in control of the car. The first time he offered to show them Mzolis, a place recommended by Jamie Oliver and they drove past and did a U-turn. That was when the hijack was first supposed to occur. Then after dinner, helpful Tongo again drove them into the township where his hijackers were waiting, quite possibly at Anni's unwilling, unknowing insistence.

Even if you disregard every other point on our site, the two points below make it clear that there was no agreement between Dewani and Tongo. Passer-by will say that they contain "speculation" but every detail was agreed by all parties; the judge, the defence, and the prosecution. None of the details below are in dispute.  Don't take my word for it. Rather see what a senior judge had to say.

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

Paragraphs below all make it very clear that there was no agreement between Tongo and Dewani.

23.1.71
23.1.78
23.1.79   
23.1.86
23.1.87

For further verification, the State and Defence Heads of Argument can also be found on our new "Useful links" page.

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.