And perhaps Butternut can enlighten us on what's to see in a township after dark. I imagine it's just rather dark. Do they have good street lighting?
Not even traffic lighting, thank you for asking. No traffic lights in Gugs, only stop signs.
Mzoli's, which is amazing by the way, for a meaty African township Sunday lunch, closes at sunset.
Here is the thing that's not been discussed. It doesn't matter who said what to who about the townships and dancing and the real Africa. The driver had his foot on the accelerator and hand on the steering wheel.
A driver can take you anywhere.
So that Dewani immediately started blabbing about "Anni wanted to see the real Africa... dancing etc" shows me that he's guilty. Yet what he said is technically not a crime.
Dewani is hands down guilty and I reckon there's going to be some drama to come... His last resort is to act too ill to be able to carry on, can already see it coming.
Too true about the Crawley comment, did make me laugh, why would a privately educated silver-spoon twobob fu*ckwit eat in Prezzo's in Crawley and not in the Grand De Vere in Mayfair.
That CCTV footage on BBC doesn't even need sound, Pistorious couldn't even wriggle out of that innocent.
I mean seriously, if my had just been kidnapped and murdered, would you really, no matter how kind and considerate you were, buy cards, sit there and write them out... This geezer is absolute crackers... Write his taxi driver a card, never heard something so ridiculous.
Dewani is on a slippery slope from here on out I reckon
well I just looked at Dewani's plea statement again.
He says after the restaurant they got in the car and discussed with Tongo what to do next. They "did not really have a plan". Tongo suggested things to do and Anni responded. He recalls some discussion about what Africa is really like. Then he and Anni were looking at photos on their camera whilst the discussion was continuing about what there was to do in regards to nightlife. Then he received a text from Tongo about the money, and replied. Then they turned off the motorway and the hijack happened.
As regards his family arriving in CT -
he says he spoke to his family several times on the phone during the early hours of the Sunday morning of the hijacking. At some point he spoke to his brother Preyen (after being in the terrace area with Tongo) on the phone and Preyen asked him to go to his room and wait. a doctor arrived and sat with him. Someone came and told him there was a call for him in the communications room. Preyen told him that Anni had been shot. The doctor gave him tablets in his room.
later that day he went to a Hindu temple and spoke to a priest. The police came back to the hotel that evening with some paperwork and Anni's ring. His and Anni's fathers arrived later that evening.
So, I'm not sure who these family were that were crowding around him. I did hear that the wife of the man (family friend or relative?) who had also been killed in a car hijacking travelled to be with him.
Having watched that cctv footage of Dewani and Tongo on the terrace, I just know now 100% that Dewani is guilty. there is NOTHING in his demeanor or body language that indicates a man worried that they will find his wife safely. no pacing about, no worried expression, fretting, hands holding head, ONLY relaxed, smiling, thinking about the cleaner hearing him, thinking about cameras in the room, a definite connection established in body language between him and Tongo, an air of relief about him.
He said on the Panorama documentary words to the effect that they told him he screamed when he was given the news. The way he described it as if he wasn't there, and as if people of the world need to know that, stinks of a lie.
He never mentioned to police that he was carrying a large sum of money in the car to pay for a trip. Didn't want the police to think that Tongo knew about the money and had a reason to set up a robbery.
He is guilty.
Playing devils-advocate, I think that video clip could be interpreted in many ways and guilt or innocence is probably in the eye of the beholder.
Who is to say what a ‘normal’ reaction to an incredibly traumatic event would actually be.
According to Dewani he was unsure of the full (tragic) events at that point in time...... or of Tongos involvement................or maybe he was fully aware???
If he was wary of the CCTV why did he carry on his conversation with Tongo;..... if he was being so furtive how was he sure that his audio conversation would not be recorded as well as the images.
As for shooing-out the cleaner????......who would want a member of the hotel staff to be privy to details of that nature, irrespective of whether Dewani is guilty or innocent.
Playing devils-advocate, I think that video clip could be interpreted in many ways and guilt or innocence is probably in the eye of the beholder.
Who is to say what a ‘normal’ reaction to an incredibly traumatic event would actually be.
According to Dewani he was unsure of the full (tragic) events at that point in time...... or of Tongos involvement................or maybe he was fully aware???
If he was wary of the CCTV why did he carry on his conversation with Tongo;..... if he was being so furtive how was he sure that his audio conversation would not be recorded as well as the images.
As for shooing-out the cleaner????......who would want a member of the hotel staff to be privy to details of that nature, irrespective of whether Dewani is guilty or innocent.
everyone makes their own interpretations of other people's body language. mine is that he is not showing stress or worry in that footage.
I would say that being relaxed and furtive is not one of the normal reactions to an incredibly traumatic event where a person has nothing to be furtive about.
but I will accept that others won't agree with me, and some will say that behaviour can't be interpreted. for me it is instinctual to read behaviour, and included in that is a measure of allowance for unusual or ambivalent behaviour.
seen as a whole it doesn't accord with what had happened to him and him not knowing what had happened or was happening to someone he loved enough to want to marry and spend his life with. I'm not even expecting tears, but we've all seen people worried out of their minds, I'm sure.
Not even traffic lighting, thank you for asking. No traffic lights in Gugs, only stop signs.
Mzoli's, which is amazing by the way, for a meaty African township Sunday lunch, closes at sunset.
Here is the thing that's not been discussed. It doesn't matter who said what to who about the townships and dancing and the real Africa. The driver had his foot on the accelerator and hand on the steering wheel.
A driver can take you anywhere.
So that Dewani immediately started blabbing about "Anni wanted to see the real Africa... dancing etc" shows me that he's guilty. Yet what he said is technically not a crime.
reminds me of when I was a passenger in a taxi at night, travelling from Agra to Delhi, many years ago. Many of the settlements we passed through had no electricity and all I could see was the illumination ahead from our own headlights on the road, and dark shapes showing where there were structures or places of inhabitation.
Having watched that cctv footage of Dewani and Tongo on the terrace, I just know now 100% that Dewani is guilty. there is NOTHING in his demeanor or body language that indicates a man worried that they will find his wife safely. no pacing about, no worried expression, fretting, hands holding head, ONLY relaxed, smiling, thinking about the cleaner hearing him, thinking about cameras in the room, a definite connection established in body language between him and Tongo, an air of relief about him.
He said on the Panorama documentary words to the effect that they told him he screamed when he was given the news. The way he described it as if he wasn't there, and as if people of the world need to know that, stinks of a lie.
He never mentioned to police that he was carrying a large sum of money in the car to pay for a trip. Didn't want the police to think that Tongo knew about the money and had a reason to set up a robbery.
He is guilty.
Conviction isn't possible on gut instinct or body language. Which is a good thing, else innocent people would be imprisoned for skew looks.
I agree Dewani is guilty of asking Tongo to arrange the hijacking and Anni's killing.
I truly hope the prosecution team produces more, legally, to jail this guy. Not to deter him, since he won't ever do this again, but to truly punish him. And then I hope the UK goes after his brother.
I've not posted for a few days but I have been reading all comments.
Wow... This case has taken a lot of twists and turns. I had no idea this Bernard Mitchell thing was going to come up!
I personally believe SD is guilty because of his behaviour before and after the murder, and I do believe Tongos account. but frustratingly as agent butternut said, you can't convict someone on behaviour.
This Bernard Mitchell, can anyone confirm if him helping with the case with this revelation would his sentence be reduced? I'm trying to work out if he could be making it up for a prison reduction. Apologies if what I've asked is a silly question.
Setting aside the lurid stories from escorts, the alleged problems in the relationship, going purely on the evidence: there is no hard evidence to indicate that Dewani is guilty.
Although I don't think it's very likely that a man would arrive in SA and ask a taxi driver to murder his wife, it's not impossible. However, there is no real evidence to suggest that's what occurred, beyond the word of a man who got his sentence reduced for implicating Dewani.
Setting aside the lurid stories from escorts, the alleged problems in the relationship, going purely on the evidence: there is no hard evidence to indicate that Dewani is guilty.
Although I don't think it's very likely that a man would arrive in SA and ask a taxi driver to murder his wife, it's not impossible. However, there is no real evidence to suggest that's what occurred, beyond the word of a man who got his sentence reduced for implicating Dewani.
And here's the thing. Is evidence only DNA, CCTV, basically scientific/electronic evidence? Or is sworn testimony also evidence?
And if testimony is evidence, whose testimony counts, or counts more, or counts most?
Does having people on the stand even matter? If not, take Tongo down right now. If so, listen to the man and regard the context of his word.
This case hinges on a deal that Dewani made with Tongo, one that is largely, although not completely, unrecorded.
Yup, I agree that while there's plenty here to suggest SD's involvement in the murder there won't be enough evidence to convict.
His defence will have an answer for everything because he's had 4 years to get his story straight and I don't have much faith in the prosecution to really tear holes in the glaring inconsistencies like the helicopter story and the reason why he took the out of town trip on that night.
That CCTV footage showed Anni when they first arrived at the Cape Grace and was shown to their room.
she was wearing jeans and trainers and her hair was quite disheveled, as you would expect after a flight. nothing like the pristine sleek Anni dressed up to go out on the Saturday night, with heels, dress and styled hair. I can quite see Tongo not recognising her from the day before.
Exactly Claire . As we surmised earlier in the thread , she was totally dressed down for travel and comfort and that look is WAY different to blinged and ringed for a dinner booked at a reputable eatery (the winery).
It is no wonder tongo was confused on that count , totally understandable .
sorry. I meant in terms of a struggle - if she was being manhandled, rather than against the gun. I know that there was a bruise on her ankle.
Only that ankle bruise that I've heard of . The defense , if I remember correctly , tried to use that one bruise to claim it was a sex attack . In reality the bruise could have been from bumping against a chair in the hotel or eatery and the defense are straw clutching . Throw as much as you can into the scenario and see what sticks best .
It was not a sex attack, it was a conspiracy instigated by a man keen to continue his life on Gaydar etc without a nosy wife getting in the way or expecting any kind of sexual satisfaction from him .In my opinion .
Yes it IS an extreme solution, which in my opinion is why he chose somewhere where it might actual pass muster as just another tourist hazard coming to pass .
Face it, he was desperate, and desperate people really DO do ridiculous things .
I'm shocked at how quickly his family were on the scene . It's almost as if they were prepared for drama of some kind to befall the couple. But of course that couldn't possibly be so .
Lurking on this forum for a while and wanted to add my two bits to the discussion.
Englebrecht said that Mngeni could not have been the shooter. All the evidence presented in court (gun residue on glove_ seems to corroborate the story that Qwabe shot Anni and that it happened when the back door was opened.
So this means that Qwabe was lying and has motive to do so. He gains by saying that Mngeni did it and that Shrien was the mastermind, i.e. he was just a poor sap.
Mngeni never implicated SD and Qwabe is lying so now its just Tongo and Mblombo (sp?) vs. SD. and this Bernard character that Tongo allegedly confessed to.
One jarring note is the claim that SD broached the subject of murder 40 mins of meeting Tongo. This seems weak and I was wondering why Tongo would say this - if he is in fact lying why not say SD asked me this later in the night = that would be a bit more believable.
Of course, the reason is because there is CCTV evidence of Tongo going directly to Mbolombo after dropping off the Dewanis. So Tongo has to say that SD asked the question then otherwise there is no way to implicate SD.
Im also puzzled as to why there was such an elaborate charade of a robbery if everyone in the taxi barring Anni knew it was a hit. Why not just kill her and take the money then and there and eject the other two to maintain the fiction of a robbery to the police? Why this convoluted ruse of a robbery and making plans for the money to be picked up later? That's another question - murder not only on tap but on credit?
If SD was masterminding the crime, why would he send incriminating texts and making phone calls to Tongo on his blackberry. He would surely know that this could be tracked - the fact that he tried to get his folks to trace his blackberry shows that he was aware of that. All he had to do was ask Tongo to organize a prepaid phone that could be discarded.
Tongo's motive in implicating SD is clear - if not he would have got life because if SD was not the mastermind, Tongo was and while Anni's murder was probably not premeditated he would still be culpable under SA law for life. The plea bargain means that he will be out in 5 years time.
Tongo's testimony regarding key details of the hit i.e. payment and how Anni would be kiiled are very weak and unconvincing.
Of course, SD's behaviour is very strange and odd but there have been many instances where after a murder people who were perfectly innocent acted strange i.e. did not fit into our notions of what grief looks like.
I do hope SD testifies as I would like to see what his cross examination will reveal. He might well be guilty but so far there is little evidence of it.
Lurking on this forum for a while and wanted to add my two bits to the discussion.
Englebrecht said that Mngeni could not have been the shooter. All the evidence presented in court (gun residue on glove_ seems to corroborate the story that Qwabe shot Anni and that it happened when the back door was opened.
So this means that Qwabe was lying and has motive to do so. He gains by saying that Mngeni did it and that Shrien was the mastermind, i.e. he was just a poor sap.
Mngeni never implicated SD and Qwabe is lying so now its just Tongo and Mblombo (sp?) vs. SD. and this Bernard character that Tongo allegedly confessed to.
One jarring note is the claim that SD broached the subject of murder 40 mins of meeting Tongo. This seems weak and I was wondering why Tongo would say this - if he is in fact lying why not say SD asked me this later in the night = that would be a bit more believable.
Of course, the reason is because there is CCTV evidence of Tongo going directly to Mbolombo after dropping off the Dewanis. So Tongo has to say that SD asked the question then otherwise there is no way to implicate SD.
Im also puzzled as to why there was such an elaborate charade of a robbery if everyone in the taxi barring Anni knew it was a hit. Why not just kill her and take the money then and there and eject the other two to maintain the fiction of a robbery to the police? Why this convoluted ruse of a robbery and making plans for the money to be picked up later? That's another question - murder not only on tap but on credit?
If SD was masterminding the crime, why would he send incriminating texts and making phone calls to Tongo on his blackberry. He would surely know that this could be tracked - the fact that he tried to get his folks to trace his blackberry shows that he was aware of that. All he had to do was ask Tongo to organize a prepaid phone that could be discarded.
Tongo's motive in implicating SD is clear - if not he would have got life because if SD was not the mastermind, Tongo was and while Anni's murder was probably not premeditated he would still be culpable under SA law for life. The plea bargain means that he will be out in 5 years time.
Tongo's testimony regarding key details of the hit i.e. payment and how Anni would be kiiled are very weak and unconvincing.
Of course, SD's behaviour is very strange and odd but there have been many instances where after a murder people who were perfectly innocent acted strange i.e. did not fit into our notions of what grief looks like.
I do hope SD testifies as I would like to see what his cross examination will reveal. He might well be guilty but so far there is little evidence of it.
Sorry for the long post!
Welcome .
Regarding the BIB . I disagree totally I'm afraid .
The money thing can be explained by Shrien trying to be cagey regarding what he handed over and what/where he changed monies, AND the others being a disorganised and distrustful group more used to basic street crime than planning a smooth hit of any kind .They were all in it for the money and none wanted short changed for their part .
The same with regards to the method . I think the change in plan
different eatery, everyone late for their appointed hit
threw them all (SD/tongo and the hit squad) off balance and nothing went according to what they thought would be a simple hit .
Englebrecht said that Mngeni could not have been the shooter. All the evidence presented in court (gun residue on glove_ seems to corroborate the story that Qwabe shot Anni and that it happened when the back door was opened.
Did Engelbrecht really exclude Mngeni as the shooter? I am not so sure.
Ok, Qwabe might have been the shooter. Was there really evidence produced that indicated that Anni was shot through an open backdoor? I can't remember that. But it's possible that i have missed that.
So this means that Qwabe was lying and has motive to do so. He gains by saying that Mngeni did it and that Shrien was the mastermind, i.e. he was just a poor sap.
Ok, possibly true. But not necessarily. Would be good to know, when Qwabe and Tongo said what to the police.
Mngeni never implicated SD and Qwabe is lying so now its just Tongo and Mblombo (sp?) vs. SD. and this Bernard character that Tongo allegedly confessed to.
Mngeni never implicated anyone. He pleaded not guilty to anything.
The reliability of Qwabe's testimony depends for me on when he said what to the police. Furthermore we have to wait for Mbolombo and SD under cross examination and if the Bernard character is testifying at all.
One jarring note is the claim that SD broached the subject of murder 40 mins of meeting Tongo. This seems weak and I was wondering why Tongo would say this - if he is in fact lying why not say SD asked me this later in the night = that would be a bit more believable.
Of course, the reason is because there is CCTV evidence of Tongo going directly to Mbolombo after dropping off the Dewanis. So Tongo has to say that SD asked the question then otherwise there is no way to implicate SD.
Turn it the other way around. Why would Tongo decide within 40 minutes, that the Dewani's should be hijacked, robbed, killed … whatever? He had no criminal record and obviously didn't know Qwabe and Mngeni.
Im also puzzled as to why there was such an elaborate charade of a robbery if everyone in the taxi barring Anni knew it was a hit. Why not just kill her and take the money then and there and eject the other two to maintain the fiction of a robbery to the police? Why this convoluted ruse of a robbery and making plans for the money to be picked up later? That's another question - murder not only on tap but on credit?
Maybe SD didn't want to see, how Anni was killed? As a taxi driver Tongo was used to be being paid after the job was done. And the scenario would have been SD's.
If Tongo was the mastermind, then why stayed SD alive? Why so poor planning? Why didn't SD have any clue of what was really going on?
If SD was masterminding the crime, why would he send incriminating texts and making phone calls to Tongo on his blackberry. He would surely know that this could be tracked - the fact that he tried to get his folks to trace his blackberry shows that he was aware of that. All he had to do was ask Tongo to organize a prepaid phone that could be discarded.
There is no evidence from SD's blackberry. It's gone. And Tongo's phone should have been gone either. Messages from a prepaid phone could have been linked to SD as well, and then there would have been a whole lot more to explain from SD.
Tongo's motive in implicating SD is clear - if not he would have got life because if SD was not the mastermind, Tongo was and while Anni's murder was probably not premeditated he would still be culpable under SA law for life. The plea bargain means that he will be out in 5 years time.
That's true.
But it could also be the truth. Could Tongo really make up a story like that? Fooling the police and prosecutor all the time? Or are they even involved in framing SD? I don't think so.
SD's motive of implicating Tongo is also clear - he will walk instead going to jail for life.
Of course, SD's behaviour is very strange and odd but there have been many instances where after a murder people who were perfectly innocent acted strange i.e. did not fit into our notions of what grief looks like.
That's true. One can't predict guilt in looking at how someone is grieving.
But SD's whole story doesn't make sense. Is that enough to convict? We'll see.
I do hope SD testifies as I would like to see what his cross examination will reveal. He might well be guilty but so far there is little evidence of it.
He will testify.
IMO the evidence so far isn't so little. When Mbolombo will have testified, there will be 3 persons directly involved in the crime saying that SD was the mastermind. IMO that's a lot.
And their story has inconsistencies, but still basically makes sense and fits the facts.
If Dewani is being framed, then IMO it's only possible if the police is involved. And that is beyond my imagination.
I've not posted for a few days but I have been reading all comments.
Wow... This case has taken a lot of twists and turns. I had no idea this Bernard Mitchell thing was going to come up!
I personally believe SD is guilty because of his behaviour before and after the murder, and I do believe Tongos account. but frustratingly as agent butternut said, you can't convict someone on behaviour.
This Bernard Mitchell, can anyone confirm if him helping with the case with this revelation would his sentence be reduced? I'm trying to work out if he could be making it up for a prison reduction. Apologies if what I've asked is a silly question.
No. He can only get a reduction by making a deal with the State.
He is doing this for one of the following reasons
1. It is the truth
2. The defence is secretly paying him or his family
3. He is a bit bored and fancies some notoriety and a day out in court.
Of course, if in the unlikely event he was believed, and was a good boy inside, it could go towards his parole. But no direct reduction in his sentence.
The defence mentioned Bernard Mitchell days ago. Even I thought it meant an upcoming prison confession. What has the prosecution done in that time? They should have done something while Tongo was still giving evidence.
For instance, they should have interviewed him themselves and got a statement. Then they could have seen how to help Tongo's evidence. It seems to me that the story about kidnap and ransome is ridiculous. Just who was going to issue the ransome demand? And how?
Can anyone tell me the significance, if any, of the child locks being engaged on the rear doors? It came up during Tongo's evidence.
Is it just to do with who got in and out of the car when and where, which seems to be disputed, and whether doors were opened from the inside or outside?
Comments
Not even traffic lighting, thank you for asking. No traffic lights in Gugs, only stop signs.
Mzoli's, which is amazing by the way, for a meaty African township Sunday lunch, closes at sunset.
Here is the thing that's not been discussed. It doesn't matter who said what to who about the townships and dancing and the real Africa. The driver had his foot on the accelerator and hand on the steering wheel.
A driver can take you anywhere.
So that Dewani immediately started blabbing about "Anni wanted to see the real Africa... dancing etc" shows me that he's guilty. Yet what he said is technically not a crime.
Too true about the Crawley comment, did make me laugh, why would a privately educated silver-spoon twobob fu*ckwit eat in Prezzo's in Crawley and not in the Grand De Vere in Mayfair.
That CCTV footage on BBC doesn't even need sound, Pistorious couldn't even wriggle out of that innocent.
I mean seriously, if my had just been kidnapped and murdered, would you really, no matter how kind and considerate you were, buy cards, sit there and write them out... This geezer is absolute crackers... Write his taxi driver a card, never heard something so ridiculous.
Dewani is on a slippery slope from here on out I reckon
Playing devils-advocate, I think that video clip could be interpreted in many ways and guilt or innocence is probably in the eye of the beholder.
Who is to say what a ‘normal’ reaction to an incredibly traumatic event would actually be.
According to Dewani he was unsure of the full (tragic) events at that point in time...... or of Tongos involvement................or maybe he was fully aware???
If he was wary of the CCTV why did he carry on his conversation with Tongo;..... if he was being so furtive how was he sure that his audio conversation would not be recorded as well as the images.
As for shooing-out the cleaner????......who would want a member of the hotel staff to be privy to details of that nature, irrespective of whether Dewani is guilty or innocent.
everyone makes their own interpretations of other people's body language. mine is that he is not showing stress or worry in that footage.
I would say that being relaxed and furtive is not one of the normal reactions to an incredibly traumatic event where a person has nothing to be furtive about.
but I will accept that others won't agree with me, and some will say that behaviour can't be interpreted. for me it is instinctual to read behaviour, and included in that is a measure of allowance for unusual or ambivalent behaviour.
seen as a whole it doesn't accord with what had happened to him and him not knowing what had happened or was happening to someone he loved enough to want to marry and spend his life with. I'm not even expecting tears, but we've all seen people worried out of their minds, I'm sure.
reminds me of when I was a passenger in a taxi at night, travelling from Agra to Delhi, many years ago. Many of the settlements we passed through had no electricity and all I could see was the illumination ahead from our own headlights on the road, and dark shapes showing where there were structures or places of inhabitation.
Conviction isn't possible on gut instinct or body language. Which is a good thing, else innocent people would be imprisoned for skew looks.
I agree Dewani is guilty of asking Tongo to arrange the hijacking and Anni's killing.
I truly hope the prosecution team produces more, legally, to jail this guy. Not to deter him, since he won't ever do this again, but to truly punish him. And then I hope the UK goes after his brother.
I've not posted for a few days but I have been reading all comments.
Wow... This case has taken a lot of twists and turns. I had no idea this Bernard Mitchell thing was going to come up!
I personally believe SD is guilty because of his behaviour before and after the murder, and I do believe Tongos account. but frustratingly as agent butternut said, you can't convict someone on behaviour.
This Bernard Mitchell, can anyone confirm if him helping with the case with this revelation would his sentence be reduced? I'm trying to work out if he could be making it up for a prison reduction. Apologies if what I've asked is a silly question.
Although I don't think it's very likely that a man would arrive in SA and ask a taxi driver to murder his wife, it's not impossible. However, there is no real evidence to suggest that's what occurred, beyond the word of a man who got his sentence reduced for implicating Dewani.
The bullet went through Anni's hand first. It's the ultimate defensive wound :-(
sorry. I meant in terms of a struggle - if she was being manhandled, rather than against the gun. I know that there was a bruise on her ankle.
And here's the thing. Is evidence only DNA, CCTV, basically scientific/electronic evidence? Or is sworn testimony also evidence?
And if testimony is evidence, whose testimony counts, or counts more, or counts most?
Does having people on the stand even matter? If not, take Tongo down right now. If so, listen to the man and regard the context of his word.
This case hinges on a deal that Dewani made with Tongo, one that is largely, although not completely, unrecorded.
His defence will have an answer for everything because he's had 4 years to get his story straight and I don't have much faith in the prosecution to really tear holes in the glaring inconsistencies like the helicopter story and the reason why he took the out of town trip on that night.
why else bring in a convicted murderer to talk about a conversation that can't be proved? I'll be surprised if Judge Traverso allows it tbh.
It is no wonder tongo was confused on that count , totally understandable .
It was not a sex attack, it was a conspiracy instigated by a man keen to continue his life on Gaydar etc without a nosy wife getting in the way or expecting any kind of sexual satisfaction from him .In my opinion .
Yes it IS an extreme solution, which in my opinion is why he chose somewhere where it might actual pass muster as just another tourist hazard coming to pass .
Face it, he was desperate, and desperate people really DO do ridiculous things .
I'm shocked at how quickly his family were on the scene . It's almost as if they were prepared for drama of some kind to befall the couple. But of course that couldn't possibly be so .
Englebrecht said that Mngeni could not have been the shooter. All the evidence presented in court (gun residue on glove_ seems to corroborate the story that Qwabe shot Anni and that it happened when the back door was opened.
So this means that Qwabe was lying and has motive to do so. He gains by saying that Mngeni did it and that Shrien was the mastermind, i.e. he was just a poor sap.
Mngeni never implicated SD and Qwabe is lying so now its just Tongo and Mblombo (sp?) vs. SD. and this Bernard character that Tongo allegedly confessed to.
One jarring note is the claim that SD broached the subject of murder 40 mins of meeting Tongo. This seems weak and I was wondering why Tongo would say this - if he is in fact lying why not say SD asked me this later in the night = that would be a bit more believable.
Of course, the reason is because there is CCTV evidence of Tongo going directly to Mbolombo after dropping off the Dewanis. So Tongo has to say that SD asked the question then otherwise there is no way to implicate SD.
Im also puzzled as to why there was such an elaborate charade of a robbery if everyone in the taxi barring Anni knew it was a hit. Why not just kill her and take the money then and there and eject the other two to maintain the fiction of a robbery to the police? Why this convoluted ruse of a robbery and making plans for the money to be picked up later? That's another question - murder not only on tap but on credit?
If SD was masterminding the crime, why would he send incriminating texts and making phone calls to Tongo on his blackberry. He would surely know that this could be tracked - the fact that he tried to get his folks to trace his blackberry shows that he was aware of that. All he had to do was ask Tongo to organize a prepaid phone that could be discarded.
Tongo's motive in implicating SD is clear - if not he would have got life because if SD was not the mastermind, Tongo was and while Anni's murder was probably not premeditated he would still be culpable under SA law for life. The plea bargain means that he will be out in 5 years time.
Tongo's testimony regarding key details of the hit i.e. payment and how Anni would be kiiled are very weak and unconvincing.
Of course, SD's behaviour is very strange and odd but there have been many instances where after a murder people who were perfectly innocent acted strange i.e. did not fit into our notions of what grief looks like.
I do hope SD testifies as I would like to see what his cross examination will reveal. He might well be guilty but so far there is little evidence of it.
Sorry for the long post!
Regarding the BIB . I disagree totally I'm afraid .
The money thing can be explained by Shrien trying to be cagey regarding what he handed over and what/where he changed monies, AND the others being a disorganised and distrustful group more used to basic street crime than planning a smooth hit of any kind .They were all in it for the money and none wanted short changed for their part .
The same with regards to the method . I think the change in plan
different eatery, everyone late for their appointed hit
threw them all (SD/tongo and the hit squad) off balance and nothing went according to what they thought would be a simple hit .
Did Engelbrecht really exclude Mngeni as the shooter? I am not so sure.
Ok, Qwabe might have been the shooter. Was there really evidence produced that indicated that Anni was shot through an open backdoor? I can't remember that. But it's possible that i have missed that.
Ok, possibly true. But not necessarily. Would be good to know, when Qwabe and Tongo said what to the police.
Mngeni never implicated anyone. He pleaded not guilty to anything.
The reliability of Qwabe's testimony depends for me on when he said what to the police. Furthermore we have to wait for Mbolombo and SD under cross examination and if the Bernard character is testifying at all.
Turn it the other way around. Why would Tongo decide within 40 minutes, that the Dewani's should be hijacked, robbed, killed … whatever? He had no criminal record and obviously didn't know Qwabe and Mngeni.
Maybe SD didn't want to see, how Anni was killed? As a taxi driver Tongo was used to be being paid after the job was done. And the scenario would have been SD's.
If Tongo was the mastermind, then why stayed SD alive? Why so poor planning? Why didn't SD have any clue of what was really going on?
There is no evidence from SD's blackberry. It's gone. And Tongo's phone should have been gone either. Messages from a prepaid phone could have been linked to SD as well, and then there would have been a whole lot more to explain from SD.
That's true.
But it could also be the truth. Could Tongo really make up a story like that? Fooling the police and prosecutor all the time? Or are they even involved in framing SD? I don't think so.
SD's motive of implicating Tongo is also clear - he will walk instead going to jail for life.
Weak in certain parts is true, but unconvincing is your opinion. The question is, if it is reliable enough to convict someone for planning a murder.
That's true. One can't predict guilt in looking at how someone is grieving.
But SD's whole story doesn't make sense. Is that enough to convict? We'll see.
He will testify.
IMO the evidence so far isn't so little. When Mbolombo will have testified, there will be 3 persons directly involved in the crime saying that SD was the mastermind. IMO that's a lot.
And their story has inconsistencies, but still basically makes sense and fits the facts.
If Dewani is being framed, then IMO it's only possible if the police is involved. And that is beyond my imagination.
Sorry for my long answer ;-)
Nice moniker, Moknicker. I've sometimes wondered whether people naming their children Monica realise what they are doing.
No. He can only get a reduction by making a deal with the State.
He is doing this for one of the following reasons
1. It is the truth
2. The defence is secretly paying him or his family
3. He is a bit bored and fancies some notoriety and a day out in court.
Of course, if in the unlikely event he was believed, and was a good boy inside, it could go towards his parole. But no direct reduction in his sentence.
The defence mentioned Bernard Mitchell days ago. Even I thought it meant an upcoming prison confession. What has the prosecution done in that time? They should have done something while Tongo was still giving evidence.
For instance, they should have interviewed him themselves and got a statement. Then they could have seen how to help Tongo's evidence. It seems to me that the story about kidnap and ransome is ridiculous. Just who was going to issue the ransome demand? And how?
Is it just to do with who got in and out of the car when and where, which seems to be disputed, and whether doors were opened from the inside or outside?
Or am I missing something more fundamental?