If after Mngeni was arrested on the 16th , TQM then got together and fabricated a "Dewani frame up story" on the 16th and 17th before Qwabe got arrested on the 18th who implicated Dewani - I would believe that the idea to frame emanated from Mbolombo. M seems to be the most able minded out of the lot, IF it was a frame up , he had the most to gain from this frame up and still has gained the most having not spent a shred of time in jail, I think Tongo his friend would have gone along with the frame story it to protect his friend. Q
I haven't seen the evidence saying that Mngeni and Qwabe were tortured , but it's my understanding that it's only Qwabe who implicated D on the 18th (why didn't they both incriminate D i?)
It was Tongo who corroborated Qwabes claim on the day he was arrested that It was a "hit" .
I don't see why the police would have tortured Mngeni and Qwabe to frame Dewani - they said they were suspicious of d him because of other reasons very soon , but the fact is Mngeni did not implicate Dewani only Qwabe , then Tongo , then Mbolombo.
I think the police had enough evidence to convict Mngeni, Qwabe , Tongo , Mbolo based on phone calls and wouldn't have conspired to frame the victim purely to save SA tourism and side with criminals caught red handed via the call and text records.
I still find it hard to believe that D did not suspect that T was involved and apparently made no mention of the 10k to the police in his first statements considering he got robbed 5 mins after his text to Tongo about the money and that was an obvious motive for robbery (the 10k money in brown envelope) - it seems to fit that he was covering for Tongo at this point by not supplying this information to the police. However this point is negated by Dan Newlings description of D actually being a very gullible & guileless person.
Dewani hot footing out of SA after his wife was killed and no one charged is still odd to me. The cctv between him and Tongo and him pointing to the camera is still odd unexplainable - but still none of it is proof of his guilt.
I know it's been a while since Mr Maths April fools day posts above but there is actually some substantive news to report in that the anti-Traverso rhetoric has been formally and unequivocally kicked into touch.
Although entirely expected on my part, I realise that this will be a great disappointment to those still clinging to the notion that the trial judge, either by misconduct or bias, in some way adversely affected the outcome.
Here's the relevant articles and a choice snippet from each:-
A judicial Conduct Committee lambasted two bodies which lodged separate complaints against Western Cape Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso over her conduct in the trial of British businessman Shrien Dewani, describing the allegations levelled against her as “frivolous” and lacking in substance.
The JCC said Traverso’s treatment of Mopp was merely “robust engagement”.
I'm glad this issue has been well and truly put to bed. Blaming the judge was always a last desperate stand from those with an agenda, and a distraction from what was otherwise a thorough and well-reasoned judgement.
Once we abandon any notion of wrongdoing all we are left with is a resounding endorsement of the emphatic and unequivocal finding from the trial judge that there is, and never was, a case to answer.
And the emphasis really is on the word "he". It appears, based on the comment below, that Lucky was basically moonlighting with this complaint. It was never even sanctioned by the HETN body.
""There is nothing to suggest that he was authorised by HETN to lodge this complaint and that he has personal knowledge of what transpired during the court proceedings,” the JCC said.
Can this guy plumb the depths of credibility any further?
And the emphasis really is on the word "he". It appears, based on the comment below, that Lucky was basically moonlighting with this complaint. It was never even sanctioned by the HETN body.
Can this guy plumb the depths of credibility any further?
A lone wolf! Makes a little more sense. Justice4anni were named as the other complainant and so the response is directed to them also. I'm sure they'll be keeping tabs on Lucky's appeal!
Here we go. Common sense reporting (from someone other than Dan Newling) is slowly starting to seep out. Whilst it was clear to some, that the Judge was in the best position to assess the merits of the State case, most of the guilters in this thread preferred the esteemed Judgement of Leanne Jansen and other journalists turned trial live- tweeters. This article illustrates the perils of relying on such reporting, when forming one's conclusions about a case. Of course, in reality, most guilters formed their conclusions totally independently of the testimony and evidence put before the Court, so it didn't really matter what the journalists tweeted, but I digress...
A complaint over the handling of Dewani trial shows the limits of following court cases on social media, says Carmel Rickard.
Don’t be deceived: Given the constraints of enforced brevity, covering a court case via Twitter can be extremely difficult and stressful.
Among other problems, you risk reducing the hearing to a series of sound bites. And, even if you get the quotes down accurately, having just 140 characters to play with means you probably won’t have space left to explain the context.
Of course some cases are easier to tweet than others. Some reporters manage brilliantly despite the difficulties. And some are lucky enough that they don’t have to write a longer piece afterwards.
It’s impossible to tweet or post to Facebook at the same time as taking notes.
And if you aren’t taking notes of what is going on, or at least listening intently in case something happens that you should be noting, then you could miss the quote of the day, or a development that should be reported.
Every tweet represents time and attention away from capturing information you will need when you get back to the computer and must start writing an accurate, detailed report of what happened.
Against that background, I was amazed when I read a decision published last week by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Its judicial conduct committee had investigated complaints lodged with the JSC, alleging improper behaviour by Judge Jeanette Traverso, deputy judge president of the Western Cape.
The complaints, brought by two different organisations, dealt with the judge’s handling of the criminal trial of Shrien Dewani, accused of organising the murder of his new bride, Anni, while they were on honeymoon in Cape Town.
At the end of the State’s case, Dewani was acquitted – he never gave evidence, or had to subject his version of what happened to cross-examination. Aggrieved by the course of the trial, two organisations complained that Traverso was “blatantly biased” and otherwise guilty of various misconduct in the way she handled the case.
One organisation was called Justice4Anni; the other is the Higher Education Transformation Network.
The judicial conduct committee, consisting of North West Judge President Monica Leeuw and Free State Judge President Mahube Molemela, found there were no grounds at all for the complaint from either organisation. In fact the insultingly worded complaint about Judge Traverso lodged by the Higher Education Transformation Network’s Lucky Thekiso was racially motivated, completely unwarranted and infringed the judge’s rights to dignity and respect, the two judges president concluded.
In principle, judges and their decisions may well be the legitimate subjects of analysis and criticism. But if you are going to risk a public challenge, you have to get your facts correct: that’s only fair and you’ll look very stupid if your facts are wrong.
In this case the “facts” on which the organisations relied, at least for their allegations of misconduct in the running of the trial, came largely from Twitter, Facebook, news sites and “briefings from individuals who were in attendance at the court hearings”. Eish! How is it that people seriously believe you can get everything you need to know about a case, and whether it was handled fairly, from tweets, Facebook, newscasts and people hanging out in the court?
You’d have thought that the extensive broadcasting of the Oscar Pistorius trial would have illustrated just how complex trials can be and that experts are often needed to interpret what happens in court for people who aren’t well versed in legal procedure.
Yet when the two organisations brought their complaints, they don’t seem to have done their basic homework, or even asked for legal advice about their take on what happened in court.
In the Dewani case, the State was represented by experienced counsel, as was Dewani himself, while Judge Traverso sat with two assessors to hear the matter.
The significance of this? If the presiding judge had indeed behaved in a way that was improper, any one of these role players could have complained.
Quite the opposite, however. All of them wrote to the JSC saying that there had been nothing untoward about the judge’s handling of the trial. You could say that the complaints represent ordinary people, outraged by a terrible crime, exercising their democratic right to free speech.
You could also see the complaints as ill-advised and worse, in that they infringed the rights of the judge concerned by baseless claims of misconduct.
Was that exercise good for the judiciary?
Was it even good for democracy to slag off a judge, with no basis in fact?
Here we go. Common sense reporting (from someone other than Dan Newling) is slowly starting to seep out. Whilst it was clear to some, that the Judge was in the best position to assess the merits of the State case, most of the guilters in this thread preferred the esteemed Judgement of Leanne Jansen and other journalists turned trial live- tweeters. This article illustrates the perils of relying on such reporting, when forming one's conclusions about a case. Of course, in reality, most guilters formed their conclusions totally independently of the testimony and evidence put before the Court, so it didn't really matter what the journalists tweeted, but I digress...
I like reading the comments section on these types of articles...there's still a full spectrum of respondents, some acknowledging that the judge correctly rumbled the lying SA criminals trying to implicate Dewani, some still thinking that he got away with murder because the prosecution messed up an otherwise solid case, and a fair few he's guilty, I just know he is types...
Todays runner up :-
'The ZANC-run SAPS stuffed the entire case up and turned it into a South Africa pride issue.
I dunno which is worse: Shrien dunnit and got off or he was innocent and hasn't been afforded the chance to clear his name in court.'
And winner :-
'As a complete legal noob, it sounded to me like Dewani was guilty of being an asshole, but innocent of murdering his wife.'
Yep its unfair to take out frustrations on the judge. She made the best and only decision based on the facts presented to her. We all would have liked to see Shrien go down but if that happened based on opinion and speculation then that would have been a travesty of justice. Judges can only judge based on facts presented at that point in time. This does not bring any solace to Annie's family and really is a very unfortunate and sad situation.
Seems like this dude couldn't help conveying the sentiment that our friend Butternut has so consistently espoused ("All Capetonians know he did it"), although this guy seems to balance it out by at least admitting that there was no actual evidence to support the claim, and that the wish to see Dewani convicted, was despite this minor deficiency!
It seems that many of the ‘justice4anni’ hardliners would have been quite happy with a guilty verdict based solely on Shrien Dewanis manifest personality traits.
After all, if Dewani hadn’t misrepresented himself then the marriage wouldn’t have taken place and Anni, unequivocally, would still be alive today. In itself, all the justification needed to warrant consigning Dewani to a life behind bars.
That appears to represent ‘justice’ for Anni and her family in the eyes of many; hence, bizarre statements like “We all would have liked to see Shrien go down...”.
The facts of the case seemed to be completely incidental;
You've nailed it. That is precisely the situation.
Note that it also explains why the j4a mob couldn't give two hoots about the fact that Mbolombo still walks the streets a free man. He's totally irrelevant to their quest for "justice", despite playing a key role in the death of Anni Dewani.
It seems that many of the ‘justice4anni’ hardliners would have been quite happy with a guilty verdict based solely on Shrien Dewanis manifest personality traits.
After all, if Dewani hadn’t misrepresented himself then the marriage wouldn’t have taken place and Anni, unequivocally, would still be alive today. In itself, all the justification needed to warrant consigning Dewani to a life behind bars.
That appears to represent ‘justice’ for Anni and her family in the eyes of many; hence, bizarre statements like “We all would have liked to see Shrien go down...”.
The facts of the case seemed to be completely incidental;
..........a very insular view of ‘justice’ IMO.
That's a nice summary, Bri. Agree there are bizarre/insular statements in comments. Sometimes I wonder about people.
From the first day I've said that Judge Traverso had and has no option but to acquit. The case for the prosecuting authority and SAPS was simply horrendous, badly prepared, ill-witnessed. But that doesn't speak for the innocence of Dewani. It speaks badly of the South African judicial system. That's all.
Please lets not play with words. You can't "see" that Dewani ordered a hit. You have a hunch that Dewani ordered a hit. And you've been unable, in 376 pages of this thread, to substantiate and provide a coherent explanation for your hunch. And you've been unable to explain why the evidence that makes you so sure, wouldn't get anywhere near a Court of Law.
The Judgement in this case went faaaaar beyond finding Dewani "not guilty", and casting doubt on the NPA's and SAPS' morality and ethics.
The Judgement said that this entire "hitman" story was a load of made up pollywaffle, told by 3 lying scoundrels, believed by an idiotic Paul Hendrickse who failed to find substantial evidence to corroborate it, and furthered by corrupt Bheki Cele and his crony Rodney "plea bargains R Us" De Knock, who bet the farm on it.
There was never any substance to the hitman story. It was made up to incriminate Dewani. Go read the Judgement again. It says that several times.
Hope all's good with you and the fam in Cape Town!
Some googling reveals that there have already been some stupid Dewani comparisons drawn by ill-informed journalists. The evidence against this guy looks pretty strong (including a nicely executed SAPS sting!). I'm calling "guilty" at this stage, but will be interested to see how it all plays out in Court.
From the first day I've said that Judge Traverso had and has no option but to acquit. .
No you haven't. You and hopeless case said along that you thought he'd be acquitted, but you illogically attributed this to the fact that Dewani had good representation, and that the State's case lacked evidence. Curiously, you never could explain how, despite this lack of evidence, you personally "just know" that Dewani was involved.
Interestingly, there is a record in this thread of you getting very irate during Traverso's live Judgement broadcast and criticising her. You weren't at all happy with her spelling out in no uncertain terms, her conclusion that the hit story was nothing but a made up fairtytale, concocted to incriminate an innocent man.
The case for the prosecuting authority and SAPS was simply horrendous, badly prepared, ill-witnessed. But that doesn't speak for the innocence of Dewani. It speaks badly of the South African judicial system. That's all.
It's poor governance. Dewani was lucky.
Rubbish. The Judicial system was the saving grace and its what has kept SA's reputation afloat. The SAPS and the NPA are what let SA down. They allowed themselves to be manipulated by criminals, and to quote Cele's own terminology, allowed themselves to look like monkeys in front of the rest of the world.
From the first day I've said that Judge Traverso had and has no option but to acquit. The case for the prosecuting authority and SAPS was simply horrendous, badly prepared, ill-witnessed. But that doesn't speak for the innocence of Dewani. It speaks badly of the South African judicial system. That's all.
It's poor governance. Dewani was lucky.
Hi Agent B - I can understand you distancing yourself from justice4anni but then you go and draw comparison between Dewani and Panayiotou!!??
There is a journalists word, together with CCTV evidence showing that Dewani was tricked into bringing out R10k for a bogus helicopter ride. I can't really see any similarity between this, and Mr Panayiotou allegedly stumping up R30,000 after the event as part of a police sting, can you?
And you say that locals knew (in past tense), that Chris ordered his wife Jayde's murder, as if the word on the street cleverly pre-empted the police investigation and was later proven correct? Although an initial perusal of the prima facie case against Panayiotou seems compelling, it's not yet been fully investigated, tried and proven and so knowing anything at this stage is entirely erroneous. If evidence does indeed prove him guilty, then so be it, but there's no extra marks for calling it prematurely on the basis of a few incomplete reports.
What if the evidence against him is later adjudged to be entirely based on lies specifically manufactured to incriminate? You face falling into exactly the same trap as with Dewani and liable for another huge serving of egg on the face!! Why risk it? Just wait for the facts to be either proven or, as with Anni's killers, exposed as lies. The conclusion should come at the end, not the beginning.
I'm not going to dismantle every point, elbraddo. And hi Jeeeezzz, appreciate your post and insights but am not going to get into analysis of the Panayiotou case here.
You and hopeless case said along that you thought he'd be acquitted, but you illogically attributed this to the fact that Dewani had good representation, and that the State's case lacked evidence. Curiously, you never could explain how, despite this lack of evidence, you personally "just know" that Dewani was involved.
Dewani did have good representation. Superb representation. But hopeless case and I never mentioned his legal team when we said there wasn't enough of a built, established case against him.
Okay, I'll dip into the Panayiotou case quickly. The plea bargaining thing is an issue in South African justice. My concern in Port Elizabeth is that this bouncer was motivated by the plea deal to do what he did. How are deals presented to detainees? And so on. And yet, useful incriminating information can only be obtained by harnessing self-interest, self-preservation.
The Dewani case became unhinged on plea bargains and immunity.
In response to "Curiously, you never could explain how, despite this lack of evidence, you personally "just know" that Dewani was involved", I will say that I wasted multiple hours on this very forum explaining how I personally "just know", if you'd like to denigrate my opinions like that.
None of it is empirically valid, and it's unrelated to the legal process that ensued, but please have some respect for the time I took to explain my opinion.
Some things I shared with you:
I know that booking a table at 96 Winery Road out in Stellenbosch/Somerset West, when you are spending a few days at the Cape Grace hotel in the heart of the V&A Waterfront, makes no sense at all unless you have some late-night wife-killing business just off the N2. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to book a table in the winelands and argue with 5*star hotel staff who try to guide you to a more sensible dinner choice.
I know that flip-flopping between explaining, strenuously, that your wife and then the taxi driver chose an inexplicable detour off the freeway, although never taking responsibility as the husband of the murdered wife, speaks of a man making and changing his excuses. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to say one thing to one newspaper and another thing to the police.
Anyway I've said, and as you can see with coverage of the PE case many people in Cape Town say, that Shrien Dewani got away with murder. I like the fact that ordinary people are defending him online. It mitigates against barbarism, witch-hunts, vigilantism and so on.
I am one of thousands that will continue to believe Dewani guilty. I also believe him to be a victim of an intolerant diaspora culture that drove a weak personality and poor character to crime.
And you say that locals knew (in past tense), that Chris ordered his wife Jayde's murder, as if the word on the street cleverly pre-empted the police investigation and was later proven correct? Although an initial perusal of the prima facie case against Panayiotou seems compelling, it's not yet been fully investigated, tried and proven and so knowing anything at this stage is entirely erroneous. If evidence does indeed prove him guilty, then so be it, but there's no extra marks for calling it prematurely on the basis of a few incomplete reports.
What if the evidence against him is later adjudged to be entirely based on lies specifically manufactured to incriminate? You face falling into exactly the same trap as with Dewani and liable for another huge serving of egg on the face!! Why risk it? Just wait for the facts to be either proven or, as with Anni's killers, exposed as lies. The conclusion should come at the end, not the beginning.
My 2c.
Its normal for people to express an opinion or a view on an alleged perp's guilt, particularly in cases like these where the salacious details are published by the media.
I understand why the public's imagination was captured by the Dewani case, and also by this new Chris/Jayde case. They strike a chord.
Rational people, however, remain open-minded and cognisant of the fact that the media never has access to the full set of facts. Rational people show respect for the legal process. Rational people absorb the evidence that comes to light, and fully incorporate that evidence into their assessment of the facts. Rational people don't simply dismiss/ignore all the evidence that is inconvenient to their own theory on the case, whilst obsessing on the few snippets that they feel are most pertinent.
We don't know what will happen in the Chris/Jayde case. It seems cut and dried now, but so did the Dewani case when the original envelope footage emerged 4 years ago.
we said there wasn't enough of a built, established case against him.
Not only was there zero case against him, but the entire "hit" theory that underpinned the case against him was blown out of the water.
One of the obsessively repeated misconceptions that the "guilters" have about this case was that the State somehow messed up the case against Dewani, or that there was "simply not enough evidence".
The reality is that there was a boatload of evidence. Enough to keep a Court occupied every day for a few months as the trial played out.
The problem for the guilters, is that the evidence put forward by the State, turned out to be worthless in terms of proving their case against Dewani. It wasn't however totally worthless; it proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the 3 liars made up their "hit" story to incriminate an innocent man. We saw evidence of the 3 liars fabricating phone calls and texts that never existed. We saw evidence that Tongo was happy to drive to Gugs without any money sitting in the glovebox (an integral part of the plan according to him), we saw evidence that Dewani didn't even have the "agreed" R15k on him at the time of the hijacking. We saw evidence of Tongo, Qwabe, and Mbolombo contradicting themselves and each other on each and every material aspect of the case. We saw evidence of TQM covering up for a 5th conspirator. We saw evidence that the wrong man was pinned for doing the actual shooting.
Make no mistake; this case had an abundance of evidence. And Dewani was proven to be thoroughly innocent of any role in Anni's murder.
Don't take my word for it. Read the Judgement. Its all spelled out. There's no ambiguity there.
In response to "Curiously, you never could explain how, despite this lack of evidence, you personally "just know" that Dewani was involved", I will say that I wasted multiple hours on this very forum explaining how I personally "just know", if you'd like to denigrate my opinions like that.
None of it is empirically valid, and it's unrelated to the legal process that ensued, but please have some respect for the time I took to explain my opinion.
Some things I shared with you:
I know that booking a table at 96 Winery Road out in Stellenbosch/Somerset West, when you are spending a few days at the Cape Grace hotel in the heart of the V&A Waterfront, makes no sense at all unless you have some late-night wife-killing business just off the N2. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to book a table in the winelands and argue with 5*star hotel staff who try to guide you to a more sensible dinner choice.
I know that flip-flopping between explaining, strenuously, that your wife and then the taxi driver chose an inexplicable detour off the freeway, although never taking responsibility as the husband of the murdered wife, speaks of a man making and changing his excuses. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to say one thing to one newspaper and another thing to the police.
bit in bold.
There's a reason why none of it is empirically valid. And the reason is that both of those points can be very validly explained by non sinister means. Ie. there are plausible and reasonable explanations other the one you have always focused on; Dewani being involved in his wife's murder. And in fact many of these non sinister explanations have been expounded upon numerous times in this thread. Not going to do it again now.
However that's only part of the story when it comes to your assessment of the case, agent butternut. Even if we assumed that the two points above were compelling, you've been unable to ever explain away the indisputable evidence that proved that the hit story was made up to incriminate Dewani, and serve the purposes of the 3 criminals, SAPS and the NPA. You can't explain the fabricated texts and calls. You can't explain Dewani not even having the correct money on him to pay for the hit. You can't explain why Tongo would make the first pass through Gugs when he knew there was no money in the glovebox (an integral part of the plan according to Tongo). You can't explain the primer residue fiasco and the fact that Mngeni was wrongly fingered as the shooter. You can't explain why Mngeni's initial account partially corroborated Dewani's. Moreover you cannot even come close to explaining why TQM would tell even a single lie in Court, if they were "coming clean" and telling the full truth as they claimed.
You've steadfastly refused to get into the nitty gritty on those points. Why? Because you realise that they totally undermine your own theory on the case. Its inconvenient and frustrating for you, therefore you find it easier to say "I refuse to engage".
I do respect you taking the time and effort to express your opinion, but unfortunately I cannot respect the opinions themselves when they are so poorly evidenced, and when you choose to ignore so many facets of the case, simply because you cannot explain how they fit with your own theory.
Notwithstanding the fact that this logic has been dispelled numerous times, I've noticed that you've included a really odd red herring on this particular occasion.....
I know that booking a table at 96 Winery Road out in Stellenbosch/Somerset West, when you are spending a few days at the Cape Grace hotel in the heart of the V&A Waterfront, makes no sense at all unless you have some late-night wife-killing business just off the N2. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to book a table in the winelands and argue with 5*star hotel staff who try to guide you to a more sensible dinner choice.
Of course its not illegal to book dinner in the Winelands. Your implication here is that only "illegal" actions can be considered as evidence in a Trial. That's a thoroughly disingenuous assertion, and a monumental stretch....even for you, my dear!
The only consideration for a Court (or any person assessing this snippet of evidence) is whether booking dinner at this restaurant, in conjunction with a chauffered tour of the city at night, is something that a tourist might do. If an objective, reasonable person concludes that this is something that a tourist might want to do (or agree to do if it is suggested by a tour guide), then this particular item of "evidence" cannot assist either a Court or a reasonable person in determining Dewani's guilt. It is totally irrelevant, as there is a perfectly plausible non-sinister explanation for it.
I know that flip-flopping between explaining, strenuously, that your wife and then the taxi driver chose an inexplicable detour off the freeway, although never taking responsibility as the husband of the murdered wife, speaks of a man making and changing his excuses. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to say one thing to one newspaper and another thing to the police.
Again, a disingenuous interpretation of events. If an alleged criminal says one thing to a newspaper and another to the police, then any reasonable Court in the world will hold them to account, should they have a case to answer.
However, a Court will also know full well that victims of violent, traumatic crime often give disjointed, divergent accounts of the events that occurred. This is the nature of the beast.
Dewani gave 4 accounts that were by and large the same, save for a couple of tiny details that the "guilter" brigade latched onto, and have hung their hats on for 4 years. Not only has this approach led you guys and girls to lose all credibility, but it also looks highly hypocritical because in the very next breath, you lot will make apologies for Tongo, Mbolombo and Qwabe and insist that their "inconsistencies" and lies weren't really a big deal.
Seriously: take a step back and try to look at your argument from an objective person's perspective. It makes no sense.
I'm not going to dismantle every point, elbraddo. And hi Jeeeezzz, appreciate your post and insights but am not going to get into analysis of the Panayiotou case here.
I'll only tackle this:
Dewani did have good representation. Superb representation. But hopeless case and I never mentioned his legal team when we said there wasn't enough of a built, established case against him.
Okay, I'll dip into the Panayiotou case quickly. The plea bargaining thing is an issue in South African justice. My concern in Port Elizabeth is that this bouncer was motivated by the plea deal to do what he did. How are deals presented to detainees? And so on. And yet, useful incriminating information can only be obtained by harnessing self-interest, self-preservation.
The Dewani case became unhinged on plea bargains and immunity.
In response to "Curiously, you never could explain how, despite this lack of evidence, you personally "just know" that Dewani was involved", I will say that I wasted multiple hours on this very forum explaining how I personally "just know", if you'd like to denigrate my opinions like that.
None of it is empirically valid, and it's unrelated to the legal process that ensued, but please have some respect for the time I took to explain my opinion.
Some things I shared with you:
I know that booking a table at 96 Winery Road out in Stellenbosch/Somerset West, when you are spending a few days at the Cape Grace hotel in the heart of the V&A Waterfront, makes no sense at all unless you have some late-night wife-killing business just off the N2. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to book a table in the winelands and argue with 5*star hotel staff who try to guide you to a more sensible dinner choice.
I know that flip-flopping between explaining, strenuously, that your wife and then the taxi driver chose an inexplicable detour off the freeway, although never taking responsibility as the husband of the murdered wife, speaks of a man making and changing his excuses. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to say one thing to one newspaper and another thing to the police.
Anyway I've said, and as you can see with coverage of the PE case many people in Cape Town say, that Shrien Dewani got away with murder. I like the fact that ordinary people are defending him online. It mitigates against barbarism, witch-hunts, vigilantism and so on.
I am one of thousands that will continue to believe Dewani guilty. I also believe him to be a victim of an intolerant diaspora culture that drove a weak personality and poor character to crime.
It just seems plain odd to stick steadfastly to an initial belief when everything that's happened subsequently has proven it incorrect.
At one point there appeared to be a solid case against Shrien Dewani, SAPS said they had a good case, and NPA were convinced they had solid plea deals in place in exchange for truthful accounts in court. So far so good.
BUT
Then that solid looking case was completely dismantled. The trial judge took a few hours to painstakingly explain the reasons why Shrien Dewani simply hadn't done the things he was accused of and listed specific details of how the conspirators colluded against him.
We could hark back to the very first chronological material discrepancy... Tongo adamant that during very first meeting whilst sat in his taxi that Dewani said he would pay R15K to have his wife killed. That alleged offer is the basis of the whole case against him. Later on however, Qwabe is quite adamant under cross examination that when Mbolombo called him he had Mngeni sat next to him who named his price for the job at R15K! This alone should be causing an immediate re-think of ones position. It's not an example of the bungling witnesses not keeping an otherwise solid story straight. It's a crystal clear indication that a narrative was being manufactured to incriminate the accused from the very outset. How can it be brushed aside?
Even if you flip the judicial position on it's head and start from a presumption of guilt, this, in isolation, is a game-changer. It didn't require particularly clever counsel to elicit this information, just the most obvious of questions repeated to two of the witnesses independently...”how was the alleged price agreed?” Instant result, material contradiction number 1. Judge points out that it undermines the case, she's corrupt!?
There's 9 or 10 material contradictions of this magnitude. A strange choice of restaurant and/or some post-traumatic confusion as to whether your wife independently suggested, or was coerced, into requesting to see the real Africa pale into insignificance in comparison to just one of them.
It didn't require particularly clever counsel to elicit this information, just the most obvious of questions repeated to two of the witnesses independently...”how was the alleged price agreed?”
Exactly. There was nothing particularly brilliant about Van Zyl. Any public defender working pro bono would be expected to ask the questions Van Zyl asked Tongo, Qwabe and Mbolombo.
To be frank, if any defence lawyer wasn't able to expose the lies of those 3 morons, they should think about finding a new career.
Comments
Let's see what they come back with
Some strange stuff on here still .
Everyone is entitled to their view I guess..
I still hold to the following:
If after Mngeni was arrested on the 16th , TQM then got together and fabricated a "Dewani frame up story" on the 16th and 17th before Qwabe got arrested on the 18th who implicated Dewani - I would believe that the idea to frame emanated from Mbolombo. M seems to be the most able minded out of the lot, IF it was a frame up , he had the most to gain from this frame up and still has gained the most having not spent a shred of time in jail, I think Tongo his friend would have gone along with the frame story it to protect his friend. Q
I haven't seen the evidence saying that Mngeni and Qwabe were tortured , but it's my understanding that it's only Qwabe who implicated D on the 18th (why didn't they both incriminate D i?)
It was Tongo who corroborated Qwabes claim on the day he was arrested that It was a "hit" .
I don't see why the police would have tortured Mngeni and Qwabe to frame Dewani - they said they were suspicious of d him because of other reasons very soon , but the fact is Mngeni did not implicate Dewani only Qwabe , then Tongo , then Mbolombo.
I think the police had enough evidence to convict Mngeni, Qwabe , Tongo , Mbolo based on phone calls and wouldn't have conspired to frame the victim purely to save SA tourism and side with criminals caught red handed via the call and text records.
I still find it hard to believe that D did not suspect that T was involved and apparently made no mention of the 10k to the police in his first statements considering he got robbed 5 mins after his text to Tongo about the money and that was an obvious motive for robbery (the 10k money in brown envelope) - it seems to fit that he was covering for Tongo at this point by not supplying this information to the police. However this point is negated by Dan Newlings description of D actually being a very gullible & guileless person.
Dewani hot footing out of SA after his wife was killed and no one charged is still odd to me. The cctv between him and Tongo and him pointing to the camera is still odd unexplainable - but still none of it is proof of his guilt.
Still to read DN book
Although entirely expected on my part, I realise that this will be a great disappointment to those still clinging to the notion that the trial judge, either by misconduct or bias, in some way adversely affected the outcome.
Here's the relevant articles and a choice snippet from each:-
Dewani Judge complaints 'frivolous'
A judicial Conduct Committee lambasted two bodies which lodged separate complaints against Western Cape Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso over her conduct in the trial of British businessman Shrien Dewani, describing the allegations levelled against her as “frivolous” and lacking in substance.
Dewani Judge cleared of bias
The JCC said Traverso’s treatment of Mopp was merely “robust engagement”.
I'm glad this issue has been well and truly put to bed. Blaming the judge was always a last desperate stand from those with an agenda, and a distraction from what was otherwise a thorough and well-reasoned judgement.
Once we abandon any notion of wrongdoing all we are left with is a resounding endorsement of the emphatic and unequivocal finding from the trial judge that there is, and never was, a case to answer.
Amen
And the emphasis really is on the word "he". It appears, based on the comment below, that Lucky was basically moonlighting with this complaint. It was never even sanctioned by the HETN body.
Can this guy plumb the depths of credibility any further?
A lone wolf! Makes a little more sense. Justice4anni were named as the other complainant and so the response is directed to them also. I'm sure they'll be keeping tabs on Lucky's appeal!
Don’t slag off judge without facts
I like reading the comments section on these types of articles...there's still a full spectrum of respondents, some acknowledging that the judge correctly rumbled the lying SA criminals trying to implicate Dewani, some still thinking that he got away with murder because the prosecution messed up an otherwise solid case, and a fair few he's guilty, I just know he is types...
Todays runner up :-
'The ZANC-run SAPS stuffed the entire case up and turned it into a South Africa pride issue.
I dunno which is worse: Shrien dunnit and got off or he was innocent and hasn't been afforded the chance to clear his name in court.'
And winner :-
'As a complete legal noob, it sounded to me like Dewani was guilty of being an asshole, but innocent of murdering his wife.'
Seems like this dude couldn't help conveying the sentiment that our friend Butternut has so consistently espoused ("All Capetonians know he did it"), although this guy seems to balance it out by at least admitting that there was no actual evidence to support the claim, and that the wish to see Dewani convicted, was despite this minor deficiency!
After all, if Dewani hadn’t misrepresented himself then the marriage wouldn’t have taken place and Anni, unequivocally, would still be alive today. In itself, all the justification needed to warrant consigning Dewani to a life behind bars.
That appears to represent ‘justice’ for Anni and her family in the eyes of many; hence, bizarre statements like “We all would have liked to see Shrien go down...”.
The facts of the case seemed to be completely incidental;
..........a very insular view of ‘justice’ IMO.
You've nailed it. That is precisely the situation.
Note that it also explains why the j4a mob couldn't give two hoots about the fact that Mbolombo still walks the streets a free man. He's totally irrelevant to their quest for "justice", despite playing a key role in the death of Anni Dewani.
That's a nice summary, Bri. Agree there are bizarre/insular statements in comments. Sometimes I wonder about people.
Personally I have no horse in this race, or in the tourism business, yet can still see that Dewani ordered the hit. Same as locals knew that Chris ordered his wife Jayde's murder in Port Elizabeth, and now see what?
From the first day I've said that Judge Traverso had and has no option but to acquit. The case for the prosecuting authority and SAPS was simply horrendous, badly prepared, ill-witnessed. But that doesn't speak for the innocence of Dewani. It speaks badly of the South African judicial system. That's all.
It's poor governance. Dewani was lucky.
Please lets not play with words. You can't "see" that Dewani ordered a hit. You have a hunch that Dewani ordered a hit. And you've been unable, in 376 pages of this thread, to substantiate and provide a coherent explanation for your hunch. And you've been unable to explain why the evidence that makes you so sure, wouldn't get anywhere near a Court of Law.
The Judgement in this case went faaaaar beyond finding Dewani "not guilty", and casting doubt on the NPA's and SAPS' morality and ethics.
The Judgement said that this entire "hitman" story was a load of made up pollywaffle, told by 3 lying scoundrels, believed by an idiotic Paul Hendrickse who failed to find substantial evidence to corroborate it, and furthered by corrupt Bheki Cele and his crony Rodney "plea bargains R Us" De Knock, who bet the farm on it.
There was never any substance to the hitman story. It was made up to incriminate Dewani. Go read the Judgement again. It says that several times.
Hope all's good with you and the fam in Cape Town!
Wow. Interesting!
Some googling reveals that there have already been some stupid Dewani comparisons drawn by ill-informed journalists. The evidence against this guy looks pretty strong (including a nicely executed SAPS sting!). I'm calling "guilty" at this stage, but will be interested to see how it all plays out in Court.
What do you mean by "now see what"?
No you haven't. You and hopeless case said along that you thought he'd be acquitted, but you illogically attributed this to the fact that Dewani had good representation, and that the State's case lacked evidence. Curiously, you never could explain how, despite this lack of evidence, you personally "just know" that Dewani was involved.
Interestingly, there is a record in this thread of you getting very irate during Traverso's live Judgement broadcast and criticising her. You weren't at all happy with her spelling out in no uncertain terms, her conclusion that the hit story was nothing but a made up fairtytale, concocted to incriminate an innocent man.
Rubbish. The Judicial system was the saving grace and its what has kept SA's reputation afloat. The SAPS and the NPA are what let SA down. They allowed themselves to be manipulated by criminals, and to quote Cele's own terminology, allowed themselves to look like monkeys in front of the rest of the world.
Hi Agent B - I can understand you distancing yourself from justice4anni but then you go and draw comparison between Dewani and Panayiotou!!??
There is a journalists word, together with CCTV evidence showing that Dewani was tricked into bringing out R10k for a bogus helicopter ride. I can't really see any similarity between this, and Mr Panayiotou allegedly stumping up R30,000 after the event as part of a police sting, can you?
And you say that locals knew (in past tense), that Chris ordered his wife Jayde's murder, as if the word on the street cleverly pre-empted the police investigation and was later proven correct? Although an initial perusal of the prima facie case against Panayiotou seems compelling, it's not yet been fully investigated, tried and proven and so knowing anything at this stage is entirely erroneous. If evidence does indeed prove him guilty, then so be it, but there's no extra marks for calling it prematurely on the basis of a few incomplete reports.
What if the evidence against him is later adjudged to be entirely based on lies specifically manufactured to incriminate? You face falling into exactly the same trap as with Dewani and liable for another huge serving of egg on the face!! Why risk it? Just wait for the facts to be either proven or, as with Anni's killers, exposed as lies. The conclusion should come at the end, not the beginning.
I'll only tackle this:
Dewani did have good representation. Superb representation. But hopeless case and I never mentioned his legal team when we said there wasn't enough of a built, established case against him.
Okay, I'll dip into the Panayiotou case quickly. The plea bargaining thing is an issue in South African justice. My concern in Port Elizabeth is that this bouncer was motivated by the plea deal to do what he did. How are deals presented to detainees? And so on. And yet, useful incriminating information can only be obtained by harnessing self-interest, self-preservation.
The Dewani case became unhinged on plea bargains and immunity.
In response to "Curiously, you never could explain how, despite this lack of evidence, you personally "just know" that Dewani was involved", I will say that I wasted multiple hours on this very forum explaining how I personally "just know", if you'd like to denigrate my opinions like that.
None of it is empirically valid, and it's unrelated to the legal process that ensued, but please have some respect for the time I took to explain my opinion.
Some things I shared with you:
I know that booking a table at 96 Winery Road out in Stellenbosch/Somerset West, when you are spending a few days at the Cape Grace hotel in the heart of the V&A Waterfront, makes no sense at all unless you have some late-night wife-killing business just off the N2. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to book a table in the winelands and argue with 5*star hotel staff who try to guide you to a more sensible dinner choice.
I know that flip-flopping between explaining, strenuously, that your wife and then the taxi driver chose an inexplicable detour off the freeway, although never taking responsibility as the husband of the murdered wife, speaks of a man making and changing his excuses. In a court however, this proves nothing, it's not illegal to say one thing to one newspaper and another thing to the police.
Anyway I've said, and as you can see with coverage of the PE case many people in Cape Town say, that Shrien Dewani got away with murder. I like the fact that ordinary people are defending him online. It mitigates against barbarism, witch-hunts, vigilantism and so on.
I am one of thousands that will continue to believe Dewani guilty. I also believe him to be a victim of an intolerant diaspora culture that drove a weak personality and poor character to crime.
My 2c.
Its normal for people to express an opinion or a view on an alleged perp's guilt, particularly in cases like these where the salacious details are published by the media.
I understand why the public's imagination was captured by the Dewani case, and also by this new Chris/Jayde case. They strike a chord.
Rational people, however, remain open-minded and cognisant of the fact that the media never has access to the full set of facts. Rational people show respect for the legal process. Rational people absorb the evidence that comes to light, and fully incorporate that evidence into their assessment of the facts. Rational people don't simply dismiss/ignore all the evidence that is inconvenient to their own theory on the case, whilst obsessing on the few snippets that they feel are most pertinent.
We don't know what will happen in the Chris/Jayde case. It seems cut and dried now, but so did the Dewani case when the original envelope footage emerged 4 years ago.
Not only was there zero case against him, but the entire "hit" theory that underpinned the case against him was blown out of the water.
One of the obsessively repeated misconceptions that the "guilters" have about this case was that the State somehow messed up the case against Dewani, or that there was "simply not enough evidence".
The reality is that there was a boatload of evidence. Enough to keep a Court occupied every day for a few months as the trial played out.
The problem for the guilters, is that the evidence put forward by the State, turned out to be worthless in terms of proving their case against Dewani. It wasn't however totally worthless; it proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the 3 liars made up their "hit" story to incriminate an innocent man. We saw evidence of the 3 liars fabricating phone calls and texts that never existed. We saw evidence that Tongo was happy to drive to Gugs without any money sitting in the glovebox (an integral part of the plan according to him), we saw evidence that Dewani didn't even have the "agreed" R15k on him at the time of the hijacking. We saw evidence of Tongo, Qwabe, and Mbolombo contradicting themselves and each other on each and every material aspect of the case. We saw evidence of TQM covering up for a 5th conspirator. We saw evidence that the wrong man was pinned for doing the actual shooting.
Make no mistake; this case had an abundance of evidence. And Dewani was proven to be thoroughly innocent of any role in Anni's murder.
Don't take my word for it. Read the Judgement. Its all spelled out. There's no ambiguity there.
bit in bold.
There's a reason why none of it is empirically valid. And the reason is that both of those points can be very validly explained by non sinister means. Ie. there are plausible and reasonable explanations other the one you have always focused on; Dewani being involved in his wife's murder. And in fact many of these non sinister explanations have been expounded upon numerous times in this thread. Not going to do it again now.
However that's only part of the story when it comes to your assessment of the case, agent butternut. Even if we assumed that the two points above were compelling, you've been unable to ever explain away the indisputable evidence that proved that the hit story was made up to incriminate Dewani, and serve the purposes of the 3 criminals, SAPS and the NPA. You can't explain the fabricated texts and calls. You can't explain Dewani not even having the correct money on him to pay for the hit. You can't explain why Tongo would make the first pass through Gugs when he knew there was no money in the glovebox (an integral part of the plan according to Tongo). You can't explain the primer residue fiasco and the fact that Mngeni was wrongly fingered as the shooter. You can't explain why Mngeni's initial account partially corroborated Dewani's. Moreover you cannot even come close to explaining why TQM would tell even a single lie in Court, if they were "coming clean" and telling the full truth as they claimed.
You've steadfastly refused to get into the nitty gritty on those points. Why? Because you realise that they totally undermine your own theory on the case. Its inconvenient and frustrating for you, therefore you find it easier to say "I refuse to engage".
I do respect you taking the time and effort to express your opinion, but unfortunately I cannot respect the opinions themselves when they are so poorly evidenced, and when you choose to ignore so many facets of the case, simply because you cannot explain how they fit with your own theory.
Of course its not illegal to book dinner in the Winelands. Your implication here is that only "illegal" actions can be considered as evidence in a Trial. That's a thoroughly disingenuous assertion, and a monumental stretch....even for you, my dear!
The only consideration for a Court (or any person assessing this snippet of evidence) is whether booking dinner at this restaurant, in conjunction with a chauffered tour of the city at night, is something that a tourist might do. If an objective, reasonable person concludes that this is something that a tourist might want to do (or agree to do if it is suggested by a tour guide), then this particular item of "evidence" cannot assist either a Court or a reasonable person in determining Dewani's guilt. It is totally irrelevant, as there is a perfectly plausible non-sinister explanation for it.
Again, a disingenuous interpretation of events. If an alleged criminal says one thing to a newspaper and another to the police, then any reasonable Court in the world will hold them to account, should they have a case to answer.
However, a Court will also know full well that victims of violent, traumatic crime often give disjointed, divergent accounts of the events that occurred. This is the nature of the beast.
Dewani gave 4 accounts that were by and large the same, save for a couple of tiny details that the "guilter" brigade latched onto, and have hung their hats on for 4 years. Not only has this approach led you guys and girls to lose all credibility, but it also looks highly hypocritical because in the very next breath, you lot will make apologies for Tongo, Mbolombo and Qwabe and insist that their "inconsistencies" and lies weren't really a big deal.
Seriously: take a step back and try to look at your argument from an objective person's perspective. It makes no sense.
It just seems plain odd to stick steadfastly to an initial belief when everything that's happened subsequently has proven it incorrect.
At one point there appeared to be a solid case against Shrien Dewani, SAPS said they had a good case, and NPA were convinced they had solid plea deals in place in exchange for truthful accounts in court. So far so good.
BUT
Then that solid looking case was completely dismantled. The trial judge took a few hours to painstakingly explain the reasons why Shrien Dewani simply hadn't done the things he was accused of and listed specific details of how the conspirators colluded against him.
We could hark back to the very first chronological material discrepancy... Tongo adamant that during very first meeting whilst sat in his taxi that Dewani said he would pay R15K to have his wife killed. That alleged offer is the basis of the whole case against him. Later on however, Qwabe is quite adamant under cross examination that when Mbolombo called him he had Mngeni sat next to him who named his price for the job at R15K! This alone should be causing an immediate re-think of ones position. It's not an example of the bungling witnesses not keeping an otherwise solid story straight. It's a crystal clear indication that a narrative was being manufactured to incriminate the accused from the very outset. How can it be brushed aside?
Even if you flip the judicial position on it's head and start from a presumption of guilt, this, in isolation, is a game-changer. It didn't require particularly clever counsel to elicit this information, just the most obvious of questions repeated to two of the witnesses independently...”how was the alleged price agreed?” Instant result, material contradiction number 1. Judge points out that it undermines the case, she's corrupt!?
There's 9 or 10 material contradictions of this magnitude. A strange choice of restaurant and/or some post-traumatic confusion as to whether your wife independently suggested, or was coerced, into requesting to see the real Africa pale into insignificance in comparison to just one of them.
Exactly. There was nothing particularly brilliant about Van Zyl. Any public defender working pro bono would be expected to ask the questions Van Zyl asked Tongo, Qwabe and Mbolombo.
To be frank, if any defence lawyer wasn't able to expose the lies of those 3 morons, they should think about finding a new career.