Done for the day, part-way through Zola Tongo's testimony. I think he's doing remarkably well so far and comes across as credible.
At this rate the defence should struggle to rattle him under cross-examination, since he doesn't have lies and omissions to cover up, or changing stories to explain.
Well, he has to explain how he didn't recognise Anni when she emerged that evening as not the business partner Dewani talked about but the wife he had met the day before.
He will have to explain why he just went off with the money. I think he said he looked for Dewani when he realised he had been short changed, but hasn't CCTV evidence disproved that?
He said in evidence, just before the adjournment, that after they missed the hijackers the first time round, Dewani sent him a text asking him what was going on? I can't believe they have that text as Dewani has not explained it (as another helicopter communication) in his plea statement. Which could be crucial.
Did he give evidence at the Qwabe trial? I think there were some things from either that or the original statement to the police that didn't stack up regarding telephone calls.
I'm not massively happy that Tongo gave the evidence he did about selling his services and getting them to trust him, because that really does assist the defence in saying Dewani let Tongo be their guide for their trip. But I guess it was honest.
Out of interest why is there no text transcript? Is this not possible?
I think Tongo needs to clarify how he knew it was Anni to be killed when Shrien gave him the impression it was another woman. Tongo said it was only after she was killed that he realised Anni was his wife, but he just said Shrien pointed out Anni as his wife when they first met.
I'm pretty sure she said it was dollars. But the admissions document says pounds. The admissions document (different from his plea explanation). Should represent agreed facts between the parties. So I don't know what they're going to do about that one.
I think Tongo needs to clarify how he knew it was Anni to be killed when Shrien gave him the impression it was another woman. Tongo said it was only after she was killed that he realised Anni was his wife, but he just said Shrien pointed out Anni as his wife when they first met.
It's pretty weird how Tongo says (according to reports) "the gentleman came out with a lady. A beautiful one". Did he not recognize this lady as the same person he met just the day before, who Dewani introduced as his wife?
Done for the day, part-way through Zola Tongo's testimony. I think he's doing remarkably well so far and comes across as credible.
At this rate the defence should struggle to rattle him under cross-examination, since he doesn't have lies and omissions to cover up, or changing stories to explain.
I'm not sure how you can tell that just from the reports! It's a bit frustrating not being able to watch/listen to the trial, it makes it much more difficult to get a sense of how a witness is coming across. It's only when the reporter occasionally gives an opinion on something, e.g. that Mopp "stammered" or the judge was "angry", that you really get a sense of which way things are going.
Tongo's testimony seems rather lacking in detail to me, but we'll see - obviously the true test will come when he's cross-examined.
Pretty similar as Tongo's recollection. No mention of her leaving the shop and coming back in the plea statement. Who do you believe?
I believe Tongo and the shopkeeper. Thanks for the link btw.
I don't think it is crucial, as I often take dollars away with me to the Far East or Africa, as I always think it is a preferred currency, and think I will sometimes get a better deal. Dewani could have said that, and then said he decided to change the dollars as he saw during his walkabout that dollars wasn't going to be the advantage he thought it might be and wanted to get rid of it rather than pounds.
It does beg the question of, why lie? My view is that in over thinking it, he has decided that he prefers to deny the dollars, as it might look as though he had changed money into dollars specifically to order a hit.
It's pretty weird how Tongo says (according to reports) "the gentleman came out with a lady. A beautiful one". Did he not recognize this lady as the same person he met just the day before, who Dewani introduced as his wife?
Cross-examination is going to be interesting...
Yes it is bizarre that he doesn't recognise her.
Reading the tweets about his testimony I'm beginning to think that he might not have thought it was so strange for someone asking him about the 'job' because seems to me that he didn't see himself as an accomplice to it. The way he describes his role in it all as just the go between being promised money for just getting people in touch. He says he was scared, also tried to get someone else to do the pick up that night.
Also strange that when he talks about the amount he says price was agreed in Rand with Dewani but he is the one who then mentions dollars to mbolombo.
There's little little details on his statement that don't make sense
Cross exam will be very interesting.
I'm not sure how you can tell that just from the reports! It's a bit frustrating not being able to watch/listen to the trial, it makes it much more difficult to get a sense of how a witness is coming across. It's only when the reporter occasionally gives an opinion on something, e.g. that Mopp "stammered" or the judge was "angry", that you really get a sense of which way things are going.
Tongo's testimony seems rather lacking in detail to me, but we'll see - obviously the true test will come when he's cross-examined.
The lack of detail is good for the defence. This motley crew of killers didn't seem to plan anything. How the spoils would be divided. How Tongo would collect his money. Most importantly, how Anni would be killed. The idea that Tongo was prepared to let a foreigner be killed in his private car, which would obviously have the effect of limiting his income for the time it was in the police's custody, is the biggest stumbling block I have with this case.
Been an interesting day. Based on the scientific evidence, I think it's clear that Qwabe is lying and most likely he was the shooter. However this is probably because he's saving his own back. Doesn't disprove it was a hit.
Also it strengthens the defences case that the investigation was carried out under prejudice.
Out of interest, if this was indeed a robbery gone wrong as the defence claims, what's stopping Tongo attesting to this? What has he got to lose?
The lack of detail is good for the defence. This motley crew of killers didn't seem to plan anything. How the spoils would be divided. How Tongo would collect his money. Most importantly, how Anni would be killed. The idea that Tongo was prepared to let a foreigner be killed in his private car, which would obviously have the effect of limiting his income for the time it was in the police's custody, is the biggest stumbling block I have with this case.
This is why I am finding it hard to believe it was a cold blooded hit. Whilst I don't think Dewani is telling the whole truth, ( I do think he is lying about how good their relationship was at that time) I have yet to be convinced 100% , still plausible that it was a robbery gone wrong.
I think the worst case scenario is that he ordered her hit. The best (if you can call it that) is that it was a robbery gone wrong, but Shrien is glad he is rid of Anni as he's got what he's wanted. I think the truth lies on or between those two.
I do wonder though if actually this trial will mean he end sup unhappy whatever the verdict. If he is found innocent and is a gay man, he'll be expected to marry a woman again and he's back to square one.
I think the worst case scenario is that he ordered her hit. The best (if you can call it that) is that it was a robbery gone wrong, but Shrien is glad he is rid of Anni as he's got what he's wanted. I think the truth lies on or between those two.
I do wonder though if actually this trial will mean he end sup unhappy whatever the verdict. If he is found innocent and is a gay man, he'll be expected to marry a woman again and he's back to square one.
I'm not sure if he will be expected to - to be honest.
I can see that the judge might be irritated, but she's sort of saying that the prosecution should prove his involvement before she will entertain the idea of motive. Which is not a correct legal stance. The prosecution, were they to have led the evidence chronologically, would have been introducing motive first in any event.
But the prosecution should have done Tongo, Qwabe and Mbolombo first really.
I don't think this prosecution stands a hope in hell actually. The judge has made some way out rulings about his sexuality. I almost expect her to chuck the case out before even hearing from the defence on the basis that the best the defence can do is the word of a convicted killer.
And therein lies the crux of this entire case in my very humble opinion.
Some observers have mooted that Zola Tongo is basically a decent, honest citizen who was exploited and corrupted by the big bad (and wealthy) Dewani into a pre-meditated murder plot that ultimately cost Tongo his liberty...... and Anni Dewani, her life.
In addition it has been argued that Tongo could have easily engineered himself a lower sentence than 18 years but, to show his good nature and remorse, he ‘fessed-up’ to the entire murder plot and effectively incriminated himself further and was eventually given an 18-year sentence!............none of that sounds likely to have happened in my opinion.
I’ve always believed that Tongo was probably quite amenable to casual criminality but I think even he would have stopped well short of murder.
I imagine he was completely dumbfounded when he learned that Anni had been shot-dead.........that was never part of the ‘robbery’ plan; (I use the word ‘plan’ in its loosest sense here!).
The possible implications of Annis demise would have been immediately and startlingly clear to Tongo.
Tongo was convicted of murder for his part in Annis death; he was either formally sentenced, or advised, that he would go prison for 25 years; at some point (I’m not sure when) Tongo was offered a plea-bargain deal to implicate Dewani in return for a 7-year reduction in his sentence. He duly obliged.
I’m not in the anti-Dewani camp, and I am most certainly not in pro-Dewani camp either.
I obviously have my opinion at this point in the proceedings but I want to see the truth revealed and justice take its course.
If Dewani is found guilty he needs to go to jail for a very long time. If found not-guilty by the court he walks away a free man.
There are still questions to be asked/answered.
I realise that my post may be ‘raking over old coals’ but I don’t believe that a retrospective view will do any harm.
P.S. I am happy to stand corrected on any of my observations above..............and probably will be ! ;-)
Maybe they didn't intend to kill her in the car, but the gun went off by accident?
I think that the killer may just have been a bit hot-headed to have done that. And didn't he suffer a brain tumour? That alone can cause erratic behaviour.
Maybe they didn't intend to kill her in the car, but the gun went off by accident?
Possibly but if Dewani wasn't involved in any way, shape or form, why was his camp (no pun intended) at pains to stress they thought there was a rape attempt before Anni was shot? Why did it matter the circumstances leading to her being killed?
random theory: SD is gay and is repulsed by female intimacy. so the plan by SD was to have Anni raped with the hope of putting her off sex completely? thereby he could maintain the image of a 'straight' married family, and carry on living his secret closet life.
Yes, the judge hasn't dismissed Leisser outright, he's just had to stand down for now.
I can see what she's getting at (I think). The prosecution is going sort of chronologically in revealing the case against him. She first wants solid Cape Town evidence that Dewani was involved in the conspiracy before she allows motive evidence, especially seeing that in this case there is an element of sensationalism/lasciviousness to the motive evidence.
I don't understand, however, how Traverso can say that Dewani's bisexuality is common cause. It was in his plea explanation, that's all. If all the rubbish in his plea explanation is accepted as common cause then the trial will collapse. But I don't think that's going to happen.
The only excuse I can make for her is that she doesn't understand the fundamental difference between homosexuality and bisexuality. I hope somebody enlightens her.
I think the purpose of Leisser being there was so the state could establish the motive that SD wanted 'a way out' of marriage.
But the mistake the state made was trying to include all the sordid details which SD and Leisser got up to. Maybe they did this on purpose in the hope of making SD look more of a bad guy? But the judge, quite rightly, wasn't having any of it.
I believe the state also agreed that his sexuality is common cause and not a motive for murder which is why is the judge ruled it out.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it but one thing I found interesting today was that Leisser said he doesn't allow clients to stay overnight but made an exception for SD. Perhaps SD was a bit more than just a client? Maybe they were both a little fond of each other? I mean SD did confide in him about his personal life. And when SD said to Leisser that he wanted 'a way out' maybe he meant it in the context of how a man tells his mistress he needs to find a way to leave his wife just to appease her but doesn't mean a word of it? Maybe SD gave Leisser the impression that there might be a chance for a long term relationship between the two, but then went off and got married Anni. Scourned by SD, Leisser then agreed to testify against him.
random theory: SD is gay and is repulsed by female intimacy. so the plan by SD was to have Anni raped with the hope of putting her off sex completely? thereby he could maintain the image of a 'straight' married family, and carry on living his secret closet life.
sorry, just thinking out loud!
Someone else came up with that theory earlier in the thread .
The thing is , I think we all know that when a woman (or man) has been raped there is no way of judging their 'recovery time '. Some can move on to a fulfilled sexual life reasonably quickly , while others can take a long long time to sort their head and body reactions out . SD is an educated man and must know this. I doubt he'd dare depend on such a scenario as rape giving him the out he clearly wanted as regards consummating the marriage . Nor could he divorce her in the aftermath of a rape, for fear of being labeled heartless , so he was always gonna be 'stuck' with her unless he did something drastic .
Re the German master flings .
I cannot fathom how SD can claim to be bi, yet no women have come forward to admit to a sexual relationship with him . Surely if he was prepared to fork out £400 a pop for fun with men then at some point , if he was genuinely bi, he'd use lady prostitutes for relief too .
This bi claim has so many holes in it (NO pun intended).
I think the purpose of Leisser being there was so the state could establish the motive that SD wanted 'a way out' of marriage.
But the mistake the state made was trying to include all the sordid details which SD and Leisser got up to. Maybe they did this on purpose in the hope of making SD look more of a bad guy? But the judge, quite rightly, wasn't having any of it.
I believe the state also agreed that his sexuality is common cause and not a motive for murder which is why is the judge ruled it out.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it but one thing I found interesting today was that Leisser said he doesn't allow clients to stay overnight but made an exception for SD. Perhaps SD was a bit more than just a client? Maybe they were both a little fond of each other? I mean SD did confide in him about his personal life. And when SD said to Leisser that he wanted 'a way out' maybe he meant it in the context of how a man tells his mistress he needs to find a way to leave his wife just to appease her but doesn't mean a word of it? Maybe SD gave Leisser the impression that there might be a chance for a long term relationship between the two, but then went off and got married Anni. Scourned by SD, Leisser then agreed to testify against him.
Yes - probably reading too much into it!
BIB, good theory .
Personally I don't understand why the judge couldn't say she would allow Leisser to give evidence ONLY on conversations relevant to SD's thoughts on his forth coming wedding. The sex could have been off limits to questions . Seems harsh to dismiss evidence that is backed up with phone evidence that they were intimate enough to share thoughts about their lives outside the bedroom (or bathroom ) .
Someone else came up with that theory earlier in the thread .
The thing is , I think we all know that when a woman (or man) has been raped there is no way of judging their 'recovery time '. Some can move on to a fulfilled sexual life reasonably quickly , while others can take a long long time to sort their head and body reactions out . SD is an educated man and must know this. I doubt he'd dare depend on such a scenario as rape giving him the out he clearly wanted as regards consummating the marriage . Nor could he divorce her in the aftermath of a rape, for fear of being labeled heartless , so he was always gonna be 'stuck' with her unless he did something drastic .
Re the German master flings .
I cannot fathom how SD can claim to be bi, yet no women have come forward to admit to a sexual relationship with him . Surely if he was prepared to fork out £400 a pop for fun with men then at some point , if he was genuinely bi, he'd use lady prostitutes for relief too .
This bi claim has so many holes in it (NO pun intended).
I agree, I think SD is gay. His supposed erectile dysfunction is probably because he's just not into women. It might have been useful for the state to ask Leisser if SD suffered erectile issues with him, but don't think the judge will allow this line of questioning.
But how does SD being gay as opposed to Bi have relevance to a motive for murder?
Comments
He will have to explain why he just went off with the money. I think he said he looked for Dewani when he realised he had been short changed, but hasn't CCTV evidence disproved that?
He said in evidence, just before the adjournment, that after they missed the hijackers the first time round, Dewani sent him a text asking him what was going on? I can't believe they have that text as Dewani has not explained it (as another helicopter communication) in his plea statement. Which could be crucial.
Did he give evidence at the Qwabe trial? I think there were some things from either that or the original statement to the police that didn't stack up regarding telephone calls.
I'm not massively happy that Tongo gave the evidence he did about selling his services and getting them to trust him, because that really does assist the defence in saying Dewani let Tongo be their guide for their trip. But I guess it was honest.
I think Tongo needs to clarify how he knew it was Anni to be killed when Shrien gave him the impression it was another woman. Tongo said it was only after she was killed that he realised Anni was his wife, but he just said Shrien pointed out Anni as his wife when they first met.
I just found an article about her statement
http://citizen.co.za/257708/dewani-trial-currency-exchange-store-owner-testifies/
Pretty similar as Tongo's recollection. No mention of her leaving the shop and coming back in the plea statement. Who do you believe?
It's pretty weird how Tongo says (according to reports) "the gentleman came out with a lady. A beautiful one". Did he not recognize this lady as the same person he met just the day before, who Dewani introduced as his wife?
Cross-examination is going to be interesting...
I'm not sure how you can tell that just from the reports! It's a bit frustrating not being able to watch/listen to the trial, it makes it much more difficult to get a sense of how a witness is coming across. It's only when the reporter occasionally gives an opinion on something, e.g. that Mopp "stammered" or the judge was "angry", that you really get a sense of which way things are going.
Tongo's testimony seems rather lacking in detail to me, but we'll see - obviously the true test will come when he's cross-examined.
I believe Tongo and the shopkeeper. Thanks for the link btw.
I don't think it is crucial, as I often take dollars away with me to the Far East or Africa, as I always think it is a preferred currency, and think I will sometimes get a better deal. Dewani could have said that, and then said he decided to change the dollars as he saw during his walkabout that dollars wasn't going to be the advantage he thought it might be and wanted to get rid of it rather than pounds.
It does beg the question of, why lie? My view is that in over thinking it, he has decided that he prefers to deny the dollars, as it might look as though he had changed money into dollars specifically to order a hit.
Yes it is bizarre that he doesn't recognise her.
Reading the tweets about his testimony I'm beginning to think that he might not have thought it was so strange for someone asking him about the 'job' because seems to me that he didn't see himself as an accomplice to it. The way he describes his role in it all as just the go between being promised money for just getting people in touch. He says he was scared, also tried to get someone else to do the pick up that night.
Also strange that when he talks about the amount he says price was agreed in Rand with Dewani but he is the one who then mentions dollars to mbolombo.
There's little little details on his statement that don't make sense
Cross exam will be very interesting.
The lack of detail is good for the defence. This motley crew of killers didn't seem to plan anything. How the spoils would be divided. How Tongo would collect his money. Most importantly, how Anni would be killed. The idea that Tongo was prepared to let a foreigner be killed in his private car, which would obviously have the effect of limiting his income for the time it was in the police's custody, is the biggest stumbling block I have with this case.
Also it strengthens the defences case that the investigation was carried out under prejudice.
Out of interest, if this was indeed a robbery gone wrong as the defence claims, what's stopping Tongo attesting to this? What has he got to lose?
This is why I am finding it hard to believe it was a cold blooded hit. Whilst I don't think Dewani is telling the whole truth, ( I do think he is lying about how good their relationship was at that time) I have yet to be convinced 100% , still plausible that it was a robbery gone wrong.
I do wonder though if actually this trial will mean he end sup unhappy whatever the verdict. If he is found innocent and is a gay man, he'll be expected to marry a woman again and he's back to square one.
I'm not sure if he will be expected to - to be honest.
No:D
I think the revelations about his sex life means that his family won't be touting him out to potential females.
And therein lies the crux of this entire case in my very humble opinion.
Some observers have mooted that Zola Tongo is basically a decent, honest citizen who was exploited and corrupted by the big bad (and wealthy) Dewani into a pre-meditated murder plot that ultimately cost Tongo his liberty...... and Anni Dewani, her life.
In addition it has been argued that Tongo could have easily engineered himself a lower sentence than 18 years but, to show his good nature and remorse, he ‘fessed-up’ to the entire murder plot and effectively incriminated himself further and was eventually given an 18-year sentence!............none of that sounds likely to have happened in my opinion.
I’ve always believed that Tongo was probably quite amenable to casual criminality but I think even he would have stopped well short of murder.
I imagine he was completely dumbfounded when he learned that Anni had been shot-dead.........that was never part of the ‘robbery’ plan; (I use the word ‘plan’ in its loosest sense here!).
The possible implications of Annis demise would have been immediately and startlingly clear to Tongo.
Tongo was convicted of murder for his part in Annis death; he was either formally sentenced, or advised, that he would go prison for 25 years; at some point (I’m not sure when) Tongo was offered a plea-bargain deal to implicate Dewani in return for a 7-year reduction in his sentence. He duly obliged.
I’m not in the anti-Dewani camp, and I am most certainly not in pro-Dewani camp either.
I obviously have my opinion at this point in the proceedings but I want to see the truth revealed and justice take its course.
If Dewani is found guilty he needs to go to jail for a very long time. If found not-guilty by the court he walks away a free man.
There are still questions to be asked/answered.
I realise that my post may be ‘raking over old coals’ but I don’t believe that a retrospective view will do any harm.
P.S. I am happy to stand corrected on any of my observations above..............and probably will be ! ;-)
Me neither.
I think that the killer may just have been a bit hot-headed to have done that. And didn't he suffer a brain tumour? That alone can cause erratic behaviour.
Possibly but if Dewani wasn't involved in any way, shape or form, why was his camp (no pun intended) at pains to stress they thought there was a rape attempt before Anni was shot? Why did it matter the circumstances leading to her being killed?
sorry, just thinking out loud!
But the mistake the state made was trying to include all the sordid details which SD and Leisser got up to. Maybe they did this on purpose in the hope of making SD look more of a bad guy? But the judge, quite rightly, wasn't having any of it.
I believe the state also agreed that his sexuality is common cause and not a motive for murder which is why is the judge ruled it out.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it but one thing I found interesting today was that Leisser said he doesn't allow clients to stay overnight but made an exception for SD. Perhaps SD was a bit more than just a client? Maybe they were both a little fond of each other? I mean SD did confide in him about his personal life. And when SD said to Leisser that he wanted 'a way out' maybe he meant it in the context of how a man tells his mistress he needs to find a way to leave his wife just to appease her but doesn't mean a word of it? Maybe SD gave Leisser the impression that there might be a chance for a long term relationship between the two, but then went off and got married Anni. Scourned by SD, Leisser then agreed to testify against him.
Yes - probably reading too much into it!
Someone else came up with that theory earlier in the thread .
The thing is , I think we all know that when a woman (or man) has been raped there is no way of judging their 'recovery time '. Some can move on to a fulfilled sexual life reasonably quickly , while others can take a long long time to sort their head and body reactions out . SD is an educated man and must know this. I doubt he'd dare depend on such a scenario as rape giving him the out he clearly wanted as regards consummating the marriage . Nor could he divorce her in the aftermath of a rape, for fear of being labeled heartless , so he was always gonna be 'stuck' with her unless he did something drastic .
Re the German master flings .
I cannot fathom how SD can claim to be bi, yet no women have come forward to admit to a sexual relationship with him . Surely if he was prepared to fork out £400 a pop for fun with men then at some point , if he was genuinely bi, he'd use lady prostitutes for relief too .
This bi claim has so many holes in it (NO pun intended).
Personally I don't understand why the judge couldn't say she would allow Leisser to give evidence ONLY on conversations relevant to SD's thoughts on his forth coming wedding. The sex could have been off limits to questions . Seems harsh to dismiss evidence that is backed up with phone evidence that they were intimate enough to share thoughts about their lives outside the bedroom (or bathroom ) .
But how does SD being gay as opposed to Bi have relevance to a motive for murder?