Did he "get off scot free" or was the prosecution case so deficient that justice was served and an innocent man was set free?
Well, according to liberals he will be an "innocent“ man because a court failed to convict him. But a normal person will see it as it really is, he got away with it.
Well, according to liberals he will be an "innocent“ man because a court failed to convict him. But a normal person will see it as it really is, he got away with it.
The legal definition of "innocent".
From what I see the evidence against the man was dodgy as hell at best and whether someone is 'liberal' or 'conservative' is irrelevant frankly.
We've had a good look at the SA justice system this last couple of years, and it makes ours look outstanding, and it is compared to there, and many other places, despite it's faults.
We've had a good look at the SA justice system this last couple of years, and it makes ours look outstanding, and it is compared to there, and many other places, despite it's faults.
I agree.
South Africa has a lot to catch up with IMO. Hope they succeed.
I much prefer a jury system even though I'm sure we learnt a lot from these two cases. Some of it very interesting.
We've had a good look at the SA justice system this last couple of years, and it makes ours look outstanding, and it is compared to there, and many other places, despite it's faults.
Let me guess, you had him pegged as guilty all the way?
I much prefer a jury system even though I'm sure we learnt a lot from these two cases. Some of it very interesting.
Even in a jury system, after the prosecution case has been made, the defence can ask for the case to be thrown out as no reasonable jury could find the accused guilty based on the evidence presented. It's then up to the judge whether to allow the case to proceed. So, this part is not that different.
Even in a jury system, after the prosecution case has been made, the defence can ask for the case to be thrown out as no reasonable jury could find the accused guilty based on the evidence presented. It's then up to the judge whether to allow the case to proceed. So, this part is not that different.
Of course, I agree.
It's just the long winded SA trials due to the judge being in charge of everything.
So many people on remand in SA which I'm sure this kind of system adds to in the main.
Well, according to liberals he will be an "innocent“ man because a court failed to convict him. But a normal person will see it as it really is, he got away with it.
There was absolutely zero evidence against him, if you can't see that there's something wrong with you.
As far as I can see, the case against him was based on the premise that he approaced the first person he saw after getting off the plane and said "I want to hire you to murder my wife" and that person said "Oh, all right, then".
Now, somehow, to me that seems just the tiniest bit far-fetched.
Well, according to liberals he will be an "innocent“ man because a court failed to convict him. But a normal person will see it as it really is, he got away with it.
Well, I'm liberal AND normal.
He remains legally innocent, and for all we know, morally too.
I am not at all convinced that he "got away with it".
As far as I can see, the case against him was based on the premise that he approaced the first person he saw after getting off the plane and said "I want to hire you to murder my wife" and that person said "Oh, all right, then".
Now, somehow, to me that seems just the tiniest bit far-fetched.
Quite.
Not to mention that the person who said, "Oh, alright" followed it up with, "And let's use my car. My only source of income which will no doubt be impounded by the police for weeks on end".
As far as I can see, the case against him was based on the premise that he approaced the first person he saw after getting off the plane and said "I want to hire you to murder my wife" and that person said "Oh, all right, then".
Now, somehow, to me that seems just the tiniest bit far-fetched.
That is my big reason for questioning the accusation against him. The other suspects made no mention of his involvement initially, it was at subsequent interviews that they pointed the finger at him, and received reduced sentences as a result.
He is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution evidence isn't even of a level to take it to trial.
My heart goes out to Ani's family. And if he is indeed innocent, he has been put through hell. A tragic situation for all of them.
Well, according to liberals he will be an "innocent“ man because a court failed to convict him. But a normal person will see it as it really is, he got away with it.
I know you don't mean it but you always make me laugh. What with your 'liberals' and your 'normal' people.:o
It doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. For neither Dewani has justice been seen to be done.
Annie's family still have questions, they say, that he has failed to answer.
I don't know whether today's judgement is "not guilty" or "not enough evidence to proceed", which is not the same thing, and will put him under a permanent cloud all his life.
As far as I can see, the case against him was based on the premise that he approaced the first person he saw after getting off the plane and said "I want to hire you to murder my wife" and that person said "Oh, all right, then".
Now, somehow, to me that seems just the tiniest bit far-fetched.
Yes that is far-fetched. But that's not what happened in the Dewani case.
Well, according to liberals he will be an "innocent“ man because a court failed to convict him. But a normal person will see it as it really is, he got away with it.
"Normal" being anyone who, like you, had him down as "Guilty all the way"?
jojoeno
Posts: 1,842
Comments
Well, according to liberals he will be an "innocent“ man because a court failed to convict him. But a normal person will see it as it really is, he got away with it.
The legal definition of "innocent".
From what I see the evidence against the man was dodgy as hell at best and whether someone is 'liberal' or 'conservative' is irrelevant frankly.
I agree.
South Africa has a lot to catch up with IMO. Hope they succeed.
I much prefer a jury system even though I'm sure we learnt a lot from these two cases. Some of it very interesting.
Let me guess, you had him pegged as guilty all the way?
Of course, and the other one.
The system is so long winded, and impractical that it is a wonder they get everyone tried.
Even in a jury system, after the prosecution case has been made, the defence can ask for the case to be thrown out as no reasonable jury could find the accused guilty based on the evidence presented. It's then up to the judge whether to allow the case to proceed. So, this part is not that different.
Of course, I agree.
It's just the long winded SA trials due to the judge being in charge of everything.
So many people on remand in SA which I'm sure this kind of system adds to in the main.
It must be seriously bad then :eek:
I wish that's what this forum was.
There was absolutely zero evidence against him, if you can't see that there's something wrong with you.
Now, somehow, to me that seems just the tiniest bit far-fetched.
Well, I'm liberal AND normal.
He remains legally innocent, and for all we know, morally too.
I am not at all convinced that he "got away with it".
Quite.
Not to mention that the person who said, "Oh, alright" followed it up with, "And let's use my car. My only source of income which will no doubt be impounded by the police for weeks on end".
Nah.
That is my big reason for questioning the accusation against him. The other suspects made no mention of his involvement initially, it was at subsequent interviews that they pointed the finger at him, and received reduced sentences as a result.
He is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution evidence isn't even of a level to take it to trial.
My heart goes out to Ani's family. And if he is indeed innocent, he has been put through hell. A tragic situation for all of them.
I know you don't mean it but you always make me laugh. What with your 'liberals' and your 'normal' people.:o
Annie's family still have questions, they say, that he has failed to answer.
I don't know whether today's judgement is "not guilty" or "not enough evidence to proceed", which is not the same thing, and will put him under a permanent cloud all his life.
Of course there was evidence against him. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses was evidence against him.
Yes that is far-fetched. But that's not what happened in the Dewani case.
But according to the judge this is exactly what did happen.