Yes, legally she's absolutely right. She isn't allowed to let the trial continue purely on the grounds that Dewani might incriminate himself, because this would be a violation of his right to be presumed innocent - it would be like charging someone with a crime based on the possibility they might incriminate themselves when testifying, even though there isn't enough evidence for them to stand trial otherwise.
But that happens all the time in trials! It's simply that the defence didn't allow it to get that far by putting in the application for dismissal.
Judge recognises the "Anni wanted to see the township" attempt by Dewani to shift locus of decision could implicate him but implies that this is in effect Dewani incriminating himself and is not allowed.
I don't understand how she could say that Dewani being a poor witness and being inconsistent wouldn't help the state case, when that is exactly why she dismissed the prosecutions case because Tongo was a poor witness!
The logic here baffles me, you can't apply one rule for and not the other.
Yes, legally she's absolutely right. She isn't allowed to let the trial continue purely on the grounds that Dewani might incriminate himself, because this would be a violation of his right to be presumed innocent - it would be like charging someone with a crime based on the possibility they might incriminate themselves when testifying, even though there isn't enough evidence for them to stand trial otherwise.
Highly controversial. So many questions that will remain unanswered . What a shame for the Hindotchas . Perhaps a civil case will be brought where the standard required is not so high.
Not a key point but wtf is the rationale for making someone stand through all that. In such a stressful situation (even if you are expecting to walk). I'd have passed out long since.
But that happens all the time in trials! It's simply that the defence didn't allow it to get that far by putting in the application for dismissal.
It usually happens when the prosecution case is strong enough to convict the defendant in the first place, thus forcing him or her to testify. If it isn't then the defendant probably wouldn't testify at all.
Legally she has no choice. She isn't allowed to say "the evidence isn't strong enough to convict, but Dewani might incriminate himself so I'm going to let the trial continue". As I said before, it would be like saying "there isn't enough evidence to take the defendant to trial, but we'll do it anyway just in case he or she says something incriminating when testifying".
Highly controversial. So many questions that will remain unanswered . What a shame for the Hindotchas . Perhaps a civil case will be brought where the standard required is not so high.
As I understand it the civil case they are considering is for deception re the marriage. I wonder what the potential is for taking a civil case for the murder in another country to where the murder happened.
I haven't looked into UK law, but I highly doubt someone would be charged with a crime on the grounds that they might say something to incriminate themselves during the trial. That's the basic principle she's applying here.
I would not want any of my loved ones sent to prison on such terrible evidence. There are undoubtedly many unanswered questions but on what has been presented then this was the correct decision. Sadly for the Hindotchas.
As I understand it the civil case they are considering is for deception re the marriage. I wonder what the potential is for taking a civil case for the murder in another country to where the murder happened.
Comments
Case Dismissed Dewani Not Guilty.
Poor Hindocha's.
But that happens all the time in trials! It's simply that the defence didn't allow it to get that far by putting in the application for dismissal.
"I realise there's strong public opinion that the accused should be placed in the box. I've heard the plight of the Hindochas"
Traverso: "There is no evidence on which a reasonable court can convict the accused"
Traverso: "The evidence of the accused cannot strengthen the State's case."
Traverso: "Application granted. The accused is found not guilty"
Dewani family in tears. Group hug. State and Defence teams shake hands
Screams from the public gallery "they paid them" and "Mr. Mopp you must appeal"
:o:o
This could go on.
The logic here baffles me, you can't apply one rule for and not the other.
So, does the same happen over here in trials?
i can't help thinking that with a stronger prosecution, this would have gone to him on on stand.
I understand legally the reason for dismissal, but I do think the logic she used to get there is shaky at best.
It usually happens when the prosecution case is strong enough to convict the defendant in the first place, thus forcing him or her to testify. If it isn't then the defendant probably wouldn't testify at all.
Legally she has no choice. She isn't allowed to say "the evidence isn't strong enough to convict, but Dewani might incriminate himself so I'm going to let the trial continue". As I said before, it would be like saying "there isn't enough evidence to take the defendant to trial, but we'll do it anyway just in case he or she says something incriminating when testifying".
As I understand it the civil case they are considering is for deception re the marriage. I wonder what the potential is for taking a civil case for the murder in another country to where the murder happened.
I haven't looked into UK law, but I highly doubt someone would be charged with a crime on the grounds that they might say something to incriminate themselves during the trial. That's the basic principle she's applying here.
What's her name for Sky news dragging at Anni's sister arm in the car for a comment.
Jesus wept. :o
No idea. Perhaps then can pursue it in the UK ?