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 August 30, 2015, 01:48:22 AM
-
Inquest resumed
Shrien Dewani now set to face public questions for the first time over wife Anni's death in South Africa as UK inquest finally resumes
The husband of honeymoon murder victim Anni Dewani is expected to be publicly questioned for the first time when her inquest resumes next month.
Shrien Dewani, 35, was last year cleared of Anni's murder, but to the dismay of her family did not have to testify in court. Her father Vinod Hindocha is hopeful that coroner Andrew Walker will now call the businessman as a witness.
'There are so many unanswered questions that need to be put to [Dewani],' Mr Hindocha told The Mail on Sunday. 'This will be our last chance to find out what really happened. It's our last shot at justice.'
Mr Walker is due to decide on the scope of the inquest at a hearing on September 9.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215639/Shrien-Dewani-set-face-questions-public-Anni-murder-Inquest-death-woman-killed-South-African-honeymoon-resumes-month.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215639/Shrien-Dewani-set-face-questions-public-Anni-murder-Inquest-death-woman-killed-South-African-honeymoon-resumes-month.html)
45
-
Uh-oh!!... time to switch into PTSD and severe depression mode again. 8(8-))
-
Well, since it appears that he can't be forced to answer questions, and the convicted parties won't be appearing, this seems a bit pointless.
We all know that she was murdered, but I don't think it is the place of an inquest to decide if an acquitted person is actually guilty.
I do feel sorry for her family, but I don't think he was guilty, on balance of what I read about the trial.
-
He's tarred with the same scheming deceitful brush as Bamber and Pistorius!... in my not so humble opinion.
I am doubtful about Bamber's guilt and that of Pistorious, but Dewani was acquitted. And since when was it a good idea to offer a defendant a deal in return for implicating another defendant?
South Africa is a lawless place these days, if it was ever anything else. Just different regimes. Frying Pan and Fire come to mind.
But an Inquest in Britain? For what purpose? Annie Dewani's parents are understandably upset. But this crime happened in South Africa. It is over. Pursuing it can only cause them more grief.
-
Because she lived in North London, and a North London Coroner has to conduct an inquiry into how she died. An Inquest doesn't 'blame' anyone, it determines cause of death. The Coroner can summon witnesses but they can refuse to give evidence if it might implicate them. This makes it a lot harder for Dewani to refuse to give evidence, as the only eye-witness to the crime, yet also maintain his innocence. In South Africa he claimed he wouldn't get a fair trial and refused to give evidence because there was no case to answer (because the prosecution made such a hash of the job and because the judge controversially ruled some of the evidence she was willing to hear as inadmissible).
I'm sure he is able to relate the same story without incriminating himself as he wont get a rough cross examination. I bet the Daily Fail body language experts will be out in force though!
-
Uh-oh!!... time to switch into PTSD and severe depression mode again. 8(8-))
I don't think symptoms of PTSD and severe depression are the type of things that you can switch on and off at will.
-
Well, since it appears that he can't be forced to answer questions, and the convicted parties won't be appearing, this seems a bit pointless.
We all know that she was murdered, but I don't think it is the place of an inquest to decide if an acquitted person is actually guilty.
I do feel sorry for her family, but I don't think he was guilty, on balance of what I read about the trial.
It does seem a bit pointless since the cause of death has already been determined as being a gunshot wound through the neck and the only other persons present were Xolile Mngeni and Mziwamadoda Qwabe. Mngeni died of brain cancer and Qwabe resides in a South African jail after having perjured himself at both trials he has testified at.
I also feel sorry for the family not least because they must be receiving some pretty questionable legal advice if they're pinning their hopes on the coroner somehow ruling anything different than the SA court.
-
It does seem a bit pointless since the cause of death has already been determined as being a gunshot wound through the neck and the only other persons present were Xolile Mngeni and Mziwamadoda Qwabe. Mngeni died of brain cancer and Qwabe resides in a South African jail after having perjured himself at both trials he has testified at.
I also feel sorry for the family not least because they must be receiving some pretty questionable legal advice if they're pinning their hopes on the coroner somehow ruling anything different than the SA court.
It has nothing to do with her family: it's an administrative process carried out by the British Government.
-
This makes it a lot harder for Dewani to refuse to give evidence, as the only eye-witness to the crime, yet also maintain his innocence.
The statement above is wrong on so many levels.
Shrien Dewani was a victim of the crime not a witness. Even if one does not accept that Shrien Dewani was a victim, it is common cause fact that he was not present when Anni died, so he cannot possibly provide any answers as to the circumstances surrounding Qwabe shooting her.
The inquest promises to be of some interest, particularly if Shrien chooses to answer questions regarding why he didn't mention the helicopter or the money in his police statement, although I fear that those topics will be well beyond the scope of a coronial inquest and that such questions probably won't even be allowed to be asked let alone answered.
I predict that all we will see is Shrien Dewani repeat what he has already told the family and explained in his plea statement with regard to why they visited Gugulethu and how he exited the vehicle. These seem to be the two issues that concern the Hindocha family. The problem for them is that Shrien's explanation is entirely plausible and not contradicted by the objective evidence so the inquest will have no option but to accept it.
-
The statement above is wrong on so many levels.
Shrien Dewani was a victim of the crime not a witness. Even if one does not accept that Shrien Dewani was a victim, it is common cause fact that he was not present when Anni died, so he cannot possibly provide any answers as to the circumstances surrounding Qwabe shooting her.
The inquest promises to be of some interest, particularly if Shrien chooses to answer questions regarding why he didn't mention the helicopter or the money in his police statement, although I fear that those topics will be well beyond the scope of a coronial inquest and that such questions probably won't even be allowed to be asked let alone answered.
I predict that all we will see is Shrien Dewani repeat what he has already told the family and explained in his plea statement with regard to why they visited Gugulethu and how he exited the vehicle. These seem to be the two issues that concern the Hindocha family. The problem for them is that Shrien's explanation is entirely plausible and not contradicted by the objective evidence so the inquest will have no option but to accept it.
SD may not have "witnessed the actual shooting" but he certainly was a witness as far as most things go...he was there at the time though not at the specific time of death...if his testimony was not important it wouldn't be asked for surely
-
The statement above is wrong on so many levels.
Shrien Dewani was a victim of the crime not a witness. Even if one does not accept that Shrien Dewani was a victim, it is common cause fact that he was not present when Anni died, so he cannot possibly provide any answers as to the circumstances surrounding Qwabe shooting her.
What gibberish: he was in a car for 40 minutes driving around with the 2 murderes/hijackers in clear line of sight, he was ejected from the car by them, immediately before they killed his wife: he is patently an eye-witness in this crime. Methinks you doth protest too much!
Remember you were saying how unfair it was that he didn't get to take the witness stand? Well this will be his big chance.
-
I predict that all we will see is Shrien Dewani repeat what he has already told the family and explained in his plea statement with regard to why they visited Gugulethu and how he exited the vehicle.
Er no: I 'predicted' that 2 days ago, above - you are merely agreeing with me.
-
..if his testimony was not important it wouldn't be asked for surely
Correct. That is why his testimony wasn't needed or required in his own trial. His testimony has taken on some importance due to a fabricated story designed to implicate him. Were it not for that fanciful tale, Dewani would be thought of as simply another victim and it would never have occurred to the Hindocha family to look to him to provide the answers that they quite understandably crave.
-
Correct. That is why his testimony wasn't needed or required in his own trial. His testimony has taken on some importance due to fabricated story designed to implicate him. We're it not for that fanciful tale, Dewani would be thought of as simply another victim and it would never have occurred to the Hindocha family to look to him to provide the answers that they quite understandably crave.
NOT correct. The prosecution did not form a viable case so his lawyer advised him it would be against his interests to give evidence in case he incriminated himself. This decision reinforced the expressed opinion from the start that he wouldn't get a fair trial. Dewani's whole defence was to leave it to the prosecution to prove his guilt, which his lawyer realised it would fail to do. It is incorrect to say his evidence was not important that's why he didn't have to give evidence: not giving evidence was a device used by his lawyer. In some circumstances that can be a very risky thing to do - I once read of a man whose lawyer thought it was so clear his client was innocent he offered no defence - and the man was hanged.
In Dewani's case the judge herself said many questions were left "unanswered".
-
NOT correct. The prosecution did not form a viable case so his lawyer advised him it would be against his interests to give evidence in case he incriminated himself. This decision reinforced the expressed opinion from the start that he wouldn't get a fair trial. Dewani's whole defence was to leave it to the prosecution to prove his guilt, which his lawyer realised it would fail to do. It is incorrect to say his evidence was not important that's why he didn't have to give evidence: not giving evidence was a device used by his lawyer. In some circumstances that can be a very risky thing to do - I once read of a man whose lawyer thought it was so clear his client was innocent he offered no defence - and the man was hanged.
More gross misinformation. Since you have stated this numerous times, I will correct you. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Dewani's lawyer advised him that he should not give evidence.
The trial was stopped before such a decision had to be made, in fact it was stopped before the defence even had to make a case. Had the trial continued, its possible Dewani would have testified. Neither you, nor I nor anyone else can claim to know with certainty what his lawyer may have advised.
-
More gross misinformation. Since you have stated this numerous times, I will correct you. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Dewani's lawyer advised him that he should not give evidence.
The trial was stopped before such a decision had to be made, in fact it was stopped before the defence even had to make a case. Had the trial continued, its possible Dewani would have testified. Neither you, nor I nor anyone else can claim to know with certainty what his lawyer may have advised.
Erroneous again.
The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/24/shrien-dewani-lawyer-blistering-attack-prosecution-case (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/24/shrien-dewani-lawyer-blistering-attack-prosecution-case)
"Francois van Zyl launched a blistering attack on the prosecution on Monday, saying the case against Dewani was so fundamentally flawed it should be thrown out of court.
He said prosecution’s case was so weak and implausible that the trial should cease immediately with no need for the Bristol businessman to mount a defence."
From paragraph 12 of Judge Traverso's summing up:
"Clearly a person ought not to be prosecuted in the absence of a minimum of evidence upon which he might be convicted, merely in the expectation that at some stage he might incriminate himself"
-
More gross misinformation. Since you have stated this numerous times, I will correct you. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Dewani's lawyer advised him that he should not give evidence.
The trial was stopped before such a decision had to be made, in fact it was stopped before the defence even had to make a case. Had the trial continued, its possible Dewani would have testified. Neither you, nor I nor anyone else can claim to know with certainty what his lawyer may have advised.
Sorry, could you remind me again how Dewani mourned the desperate loss of his lovely young wife? Was it looking at porn sites? Gay, bondage, porn sites?
-
Erroneous again.
From paragraph 12 of Judge Traverso's summing up:
"Clearly a person ought not to be prosecuted in the absence of a minimum of evidence upon which he might be convicted, merely in the expectation that at some stage he might incriminate himself"
That is the judge giving her (correct) interpretation of the law. I believe that Dewani's lawyer made a similar representation in the sect 174 application.
It is grossly misleading to characterise these statements as advice given by the lawyer to his client .
-
That is the judge giving her (correct) interpretation of the law. I believe that Dewani's lawyer made a similar representation in the sect 174 application.
It is grossly misleading to characterise these statements as advice given by the lawyer to his client .
And before Anni was even cold, he was on the internet looking at gay bondage sites.
So...what?
Massive deception.
-
Correct. That is why his testimony wasn't needed or required in his own trial. His testimony has taken on some importance due to a fabricated story designed to implicate him. Were it not for that fanciful tale, Dewani would be thought of as simply another victim and it would never have occurred to the Hindocha family to look to him to provide the answers that they quite understandably crave.
I have a problem, rightly or wrongly, in people involved in a crime not giving testimony...call it what you will...Surely their testimony is important...
-
And before Anni was even cold, he was on the internet looking at gay bondage sites.
So...what?
Massive deception.
many apologists say people deal with grief in different ways! Yeah bye Jesus do they!
the last thng I would want to do if my beloved was murdered was go and **** online three days later wtf!
-
many apologists say people deal with grief in different ways! Yeah bye Jesus do they!
the last thng I would want to do if my beloved was murdered was go and **** online three days later wtf!
So true.
And the pathetic pretence of mental illness and depression.
When he's paying rent-boys.
As you say, WTF?
-
So true.
And the pathetic pretence of mental illness and depression.
When he's paying rent-boys.
As you say, WTF?
Perhaps you 'could attempt to explain it to him one more time' . . . ?!
8)-)))
-
must admit not seen dewanifacts explanation
Of Dewani lurking on porn three days after...will await
-
Dewani surfed porn and gay dating sites for the same reason as many other people do. For comfort. For solace. For distraction. Or for any one of a myriad reasons. Whether some people wish to accept it or not people do deal with grief in vastly different ways ranging from near suicidal plunges into despair right through to an outer appearance of blank indifference and forcing oneself to "keep calm and carry on".
Dewani, by all accounts, showed a range of emotions and actions. Peolple like Passer-by and puglove focus on his internet searches yet that ignores the glaring evidence to suggest he was genuinely distraught at his wife's death.
Any law enforcement person will tell you that the one sure way to head down the wrong path in an investigation is to be led solely by the emotions of people involved. The person who cries loudest may be the perpetrator. The person who appears unmoved at the funeral may be the one who commits suicide ten days later, unable to cope with the grief.
If there was no other evidence in this case then I could understand people paying attention to Dewani's internet usage but considering the overwhelming evidence to show the "murder for hire" story was made up, focusing on this angle makes no sense at all.
-
I have a problem, rightly or wrongly, in people involved in a crime not giving testimony...call it what you will...Surely their testimony is important...
Quite.
-
I have a problem, rightly or wrongly, in people involved in a crime not giving testimony...call it what you will...Surely their testimony is important...
On this point I agree with you. It is maddening when someone escapes justice simply because they refused to testify and tell what they know. I too have read about such cases and it jars the senses to think of people getting away with heinous crimes by manipulating the legal procedure in their own favour.
What you don't seem to be able to accept is that this does not even remotely describe what happened in the Dewani trial. Even if Shrien Dewani wanted to, he could not have given evidence. The trial was halted before he or his lawyer even had to make such a decision. Why was it halted? Because it was clear that the hitman story was fabricated and there was never any "murder for hire" agreement. No fair court in the world would have let such a trial continue.
-
On this point I agree with you. It is maddening when someone escapes justice simply because they refused to testify and tell what they know. I too have read about such cases and it jars the senses to think of people getting away with heinous crimes by manipulating the legal procedure in their own favour.
What you don't seem to be able to accept is that this does not even remotely describe what happened in the Dewani trial. Even if Shrien Dewani wanted to, he could not have given evidence. The trial was halted before he or his lawyer even had to make such a decision. Why was it halted? Because it was clear that the hitman story was fabricated and there was never any "murder for hire" agreement. No fair court in the world would have let such a trial continue.
Yes, why was it halted? Oh yes: because his lawyer demand it be.
-
Well at least we've now come full loop and are back to the Inquest, which is what this thread is about: Dewani may have to take a witness stand. This opportunity was not denied him in South Africa - he actively sought to avoids the witness stand first in fighting his extradition and then by his lawyer demanding a halt to his trial. However the evidence sought by an inquest is different to that sought by a murder trial, and Dewani has had years to get his story straight, so I doubt it will prove anything either way.
-
Only a Judge can halt a Trial.
As I understand it he cannot be forced to answer questions at an Inquest.
-
Well at least we've now come full loop and are back to the Inquest, which is what this thread is about: Dewani may have to take a witness stand. This opportunity was not denied him in South Africa - he actively sought to avoids the witness stand first in fighting his extradition and then by his lawyer demanding a halt to his trial. However the evidence sought by an inquest is different to that sought by a murder trial, and Dewani has had years to get his story straight, so I doubt it will prove anything either way.
Passer by.
For your information,
(a) a lawyer cannot demand that a trial be ended.
(b) the judge quite properly stopped the trial because the prosecution had failed to make their case and their main witness was totally discredited
(c) there was therefore no need for Dewani to appear in the witness box - what would have been the point
(d) He cannot be forced to testify at an inquest, and the coroner cannot attribute guilt.
Perhaps you could put your views in a less excitable manner and without resorting to insulting other posters?
-
Passer by.
For your information,
(a) a lawyer cannot demand that a trial be ended.
(b) the judge quite properly stopped the trial because the prosecution had failed to make their case and their main witness was totally discredited
(c) there was therefore no need for Dewani to appear in the witness box - what would have been the point
(d) He cannot be forced to testify at an inquest, and the coroner cannot attribute guilt.
Perhaps you could put your views in a less excitable manner and without resorting to insulting other posters?
Thank you Jean-Pierre: all of those points apart from (a) I previously raised higher up this very thread. I previously provided a link to an article in the Guardian citing that Dewani's lawyer had called in court for the trial to be halted, which covers (a).
My posts throughout this thread are factual.
-
Dewani surfed porn and gay dating sites for the same reason as many other people do. For comfort. For solace. For distraction. Or for any one of a myriad reasons. Whether some people wish to accept it or not people do deal with grief in vastly different ways ranging from near suicidal plunges into despair right through to an outer appearance of blank indifference and forcing oneself to "keep calm and carry on".
Dewani, by all accounts, showed a range of emotions and actions. Peolple like Passer-by and puglove focus on his internet searches yet that ignores the glaring evidence to suggest he was genuinely distraught at his wife's death.
Any law enforcement person will tell you that the one sure way to head down the wrong path in an investigation is to be led solely by the emotions of people involved. The person who cries loudest may be the perpetrator. The person who appears unmoved at the funeral may be the one who commits suicide ten days later, unable to cope with the grief.
If there was no other evidence in this case then I could understand people paying attention to Dewani's internet usage but considering the overwhelming evidence to show the "murder for hire" story was made up, focusing on this angle makes no sense at all.
You are joking aren't you? Have you ever heard of anyone else dealing with their grief by surfing and presumably "partaking" on a sex website for comfort and solace? Straight after their new bride has been shot dead? Are you eating mushrooms perchance? Then again, you may be right and it is all part of the rich tapestry of life. "Scratches head" though.
PS No one is focussing on it, it's just another one of them..... things
-
On this point I agree with you. It is maddening when someone escapes justice simply because they refused to testify and tell what they know. I too have read about such cases and it jars the senses to think of people getting away with heinous crimes by manipulating the legal procedure in their own favour.
What you don't seem to be able to accept is that this does not even remotely describe what happened in the Dewani trial. Even if Shrien Dewani wanted to, he could not have given evidence. The trial was halted before he or his lawyer even had to make such a decision. Why was it halted? Because it was clear that the hitman story was fabricated and there was never any "murder for hire" agreement. No fair court in the world would have let such a trial continue.
I was referring to the inquest
-
Hi DF, you make a very persuasive case.
However, there are a couple of things that still trouble me. Dewani's failure to mention the 'helicopter money' and the link to Mrs Raghavjee and her murdered husband.
-
Hi Sika,
I agree. Dewani's failure to mention the helicopter ride and the stolen R10000 is puzzling. That is the question I would most like to hear Dewani answer. There are indeed unknowns in this case, as with most crimes, however one should not be fooled into thinking that the existence of some unknowns means that everything else is unknown. There was ample evidence to prove that the hitman story was made up by the lying criminals to frame Dewani and obtain lenient sentences. That part is not in doubt to any thinking person who looks at the evidence.
What this means is that although there are aspects of Dewani's story that are puzzling and would be nice to have explanations for, those aspects are not relevant to the question of whether or not Dewani commissioned the murder of his wife, for we already know that "murder for hire" story to be made up.
The Raghavjee link is coincidental and not relevant to the case. Of course I understand why people at first thought it may be relevant considering the "murder for hire" story was all the rage in the UK tabloids and every news outlet in South Africa, but this was addressed by myself and a few other posters in the other thread and it really should not cloud anyone's judgement. Again - one only need look at the ample evidence that the hitman story was fictional to realise that actually there was no link at all between the Dewani and Raghavjee cases, other than the fact that they both involved an automobile based murder. The speculation and sensationalising of the potential link certainly sold a lot of newspapers though!
-
Thanks DF. I'm going back now to re-read the Raghavjee part of the thread. If I recall correctly, it was your contention that one of the conspirators only made mention of Dewani arranging a similar murder, once learning of a possible link.
-
It's on page 18 of the other thread - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6517.msg263812#msg263812
-
Great. Thanks again.
-
I have never said it was strange for a traveller to change money. On the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out that the jewelry shop stands out as not normal precisely because Dewani got money out of a bank the normal way several times previously.
I have repeatedly posted from my personal experience of living across multiple countries and changing currency on a regular basis right where Dewani was actually staying - I provided members of this site with a map of where all the banks were in relation to Dewani's hotel and showed on it how he went out of his way to 'change money' somewhere else, and I showed a Streetview photograph of the large bank literally a couple of metres from the 'jewellers', and I have posted news reports stating Dewani's own lawyer's cross examination of the owner. I have run around on all the manipulative little missions you've sent me off on, whilst you have done nothing but try to smear me.
Let's throw it out open wide: how many other members of this website have gone on holiday and changed money at a seedy backstreet jewellers? Can anyone help me out here? Is this, as Dewanifacts says, 'normal'? Or do you all exchange your money at a Bureau de Change or bank - especially if they're more readily available?
Lets be clear: the transaction was illegal. And let's be clear: he did not tell the police investigating his wife's murder about it, so it was secret.
All the time Dewanifacts, you twist the truth.
-
This thread has now been edited, posts relating to the illegal money exchange have been moved here. (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6591.msg268687#msg268687)
Posters are reminded to remain within the topic theme and refrain from making personal comments.
-
http://news.sky.com/story/1549469/murdered-anni-dewani-no-full-inquest
Looks unlikely that any inquest will be held. One can infer from the coroner's decision that he/she does not see any point to it because the evidence adduced in Dewani's criminal trial was more than enough to prove that he had nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately it looks like the Hindocha family are still receiving poor legal advice. They still seem to think that Shrien Dewani should be forced to publicly answer questions about his sexual behaviour.
-
He is under no obligation to say anything.
I am left wondering what they DO want him to say? And what would satisfy them.
I have a feeling that nothing short of an admission of guilt by Shrien will give them closure.
In the circumstances, they would perhaps be better advised to focus their fury on the murderers of their daughter.
-
Unfortunately the poor Hindochas are asking all the wrong questions of all the wrong people and they are questions that can never lead them to the truth.
"Why did Shrien get out of the vehicle instead of staying with Anni?". He had a gun to his head.
"Why did Shrien marry Anni if he was gay?" He wanted to live a lie, like millions of other men who lead conflicted double lives.
"Why did Shrien take Anni to South Africa on honeymoon?" Same reason as many other honeymooners go to South Africa.
"Why did Shrien claim to be too ill to fly and now we've seen him in Kenya?" He was cleared of involvement in a murder. That would be a weight off any person's shoulders and help them to beat their mental illness.
They need to be directing their questions to the South African authorities.
Mbolombo walks the streets a free man and he clearly knows a lot more than the lie infused story that he told in the Mngeni and Dewani trials.
Tongo will be out of jail in 4 years time.
Qwabe will be out in 14 years time.
An unknown fifth conspirator enjoys life as a free man.
Those are the miscarriages of justice.
-
He is under no obligation to say anything.
I am left wondering what they DO want him to say? And what would satisfy them.
I have a feeling that nothing short of an admission of guilt by Shrien will give them closure.
In the circumstances, they would perhaps be better advised to focus their fury on the murderers of their daughter.
They want him to admit that he was responsible for the death of their daughter when he might well not have been. They will never accept anything else.
-
We all make decisions that with hindsight could have been better but it is fruitless to try to reverse engineer fate and second guess every decision that led to them honeymooning in Cape Town. Whether Anni or her parents might or might not have cottoned on to Shrien's double life at some stage prior to the wedding is irrelevant and unhelpful which is why I think the Hindochas are doing themselves a disservice with this line of thinking.
Difficult as it might be for the Hindochas and others to accept, Shrien's duplicity and adultery did not have anything to do with Anni's death.
The blame for this crime lies solely with the four known conspirators (one dead) and the one whose identity remains unknown.