your conviction is only based in certain facts, some unknown facts and probably bent in the first place, seeing as you were not there
What a strange characterisation of our argument. We place stock in the findings of the one person who heard the evidence first hand. The judge. A well reputed senior judge whose ruling in this case has been backed by her peers globally.
Whilst the evidence wasn't enough to provide the Hindocha family with the answers they required about what really did happen to their Anni, it was more than sufficient to show what
didn't happen. That's why it was chucked out of court. You have asked for a sole reason why he didnt do it. Here's your answer.
The hitman story simply does not tally up when you analyse the evidence. The evidence showed that there was never any agreement between Tongo and Dewani. Read my reply #295 on page 20 of this thread. I have posted the same points a few times for your benefit and you haven't acknowledged or attempted to address.
Passer-by's comments may be interesting to those who haven't heard them before but they really aren't particularly intelligent, groundbreaking or helpful in discerning the truth in this case. They are basically just tired re-rendering of the same old arguments that were thrashed by the British tabloid media and repeated on discussion forums and social media for four years.
On Passerby-s own admission, she has no actual evidence that Dewani was involved. Her entire argument is based on the
unlikelihood of Dewani's story.
Dewanifacts has spent so long on here arguing with me - drawing out more and more information about the unlikelihood of Dewani's story
Her overly verbose wordy posts 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, Passer-by contends that this story is too unlikely to be true.
Her 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's 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 short changing 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.
