Forum menu
Well the evidence against him came mainly from those already convicted / implicated. Quite difficult to get a conviction that way. Very very tough though on them.
I see his claimed mental illness / condition meaning he couldn't stand trial seems to have cured itself.
The family intend to sue him for failing to disclose that fact he was bi-sexual as they would not have agreed to the wedding and hence wouldn't have spent the £200,000 they did.
Not sure we should be throwing stones inside our glass house when it comes to the judicial system.
I understand her family have been looking at a civil option for just this scenario.
Obviously, there is the possibility that he was innocent all along. Until proven guilty, and all that.
That's what judges are for. Some you agree with some you don't.
the same could happen here. If a case is to be heard the Judge has to decide if theres enough evidences being presented for a jury to base an informed decision on. Deciding not to have a trial isn't declaring anyone innocent or guilty its deciding that a trail can't be successfully conducted with what the prosecution are bringing to the table.
The family intend to sue him for failing to disclose that fact he was bi-sexual as they would not have agreed to the wedding and hence wouldn't have spent the £200,000 they did
WTF?
Part of the reasoning is that someone already convicted for the murder told someone in prison that he concocted the story of the husband paying for the murder to cover up for the fact it was a robbery that had gone wrong. Neither of the two people in prison had anything to gain from sharing this information so it does seem to be significant in that it explains away many of the other factors of the case.
It was such an extreme scenario that it would have required some pretty compelling evidence in order to get a conviction over the line. Having said that, the conviction of the three guys was done in a remarkably (excessively?) short period, and I would wonder about the quality of justice they received.
The statement that the court didn't find him innocent missed the point of the court's decision, I think - that there was insufficient evidence from the prosecution that any court could have accepted.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/08/shrien-dewani-trial-what-went-wrong
Utter farce, this makes me glad I live in the UK!
What makes it even madder is that the family are now going to try and sue Shrien in the UK for being gay and not telling them before he married their daughter.
The entire trial seems to have hinged on....he's gay.... so he killed her to get out of the relationship....the police and prosecutors seem to have forced the evidence to fit that narrative, in one of the worst cases of conformation bias I've ever read about.
Part of the reasoning is that someone already convicted for the murder told someone in prison that he concocted the story of the husband paying for the murder to cover up for the fact it was a robbery that had gone wrong. Neither of the two people in prison had anything to gain from sharing this information so it does seem to be significant in that it explains away many of the other factors of the case.
A plea bargain in return for testimony is perfect motivation for concocting a story, I can't even believe this kind of evidence is admissible.
The statement that the court didn't find him innocent missed the point of the court's decision, I think - that there was insufficient evidence from the prosecution that any court could have accepted.
Innocent until proven guilty.
You never know,
He might actually be innocent.
Disappointed that it keeps being reported that he has been cleared - as I understand it he hasn't been cleared, the case has been thrown out for lack of evidence?
Again, which means that he's innocent right? As no one has managed to get a strong enough case against him to prove that he's guilty. They never will as well, as the case was an utter farce. Does that mean he's going to stay guilty for the rest of his life then?
Technically he is innocent, as he hasn't been found guilty.
My point is he hasn't been cleared of the charges - ie found not guilty. They have dropped the case. He hasn't been cleared. The technical outcome is the same, but it's lazy journalism to say he has been cleared.
The impression the thread gives is that the OP doesn't think justice has been done. I suppose whether you agree or not depends on whether or not you think there needs to be some compelling evidence to declare someone guilty, or whether circumstance is enough.
Justice isn't necessarily the same outcome as the one the victim's family would want to see.
Why on earth people want to go to S.Africa for honeymoon I don't know, it's like saying let's go to Honduras for a picnic near the "plantation" or sightseeing "historical township" in Syria now.
It would be far safer to go to North Korea for holiday ...
🙄
edit: both are very sad cases but that is their rules in their land.
How can he not have been cleared when there wasn't even enough evidence for the prosecution to proceed. I put that as even better than being found not guilty the judge decided it wasn't even worthy of a prosecution and her summing up of the case was pretty damning against the evidence presented and those involved. Feel awful for the deceased family but the whole bi - sexual blame issue just comes across as wrong to me 🙁
Edit from the Guardian; "The Cape Town judge Jeanette Traverso declared Dewani to be not guilty of charges that he coordinated Anni Dewani’s 2010 murder "
OK, I misunderstood what the judge had said. Apologies.
Chewkc I spent some of my honeymoon in El Salvador in 2013 and was recently in southern Africa, including Zimbabwe. These places are OK if you watch points but should you want to meet some desperate and dangerous people, you don't have to go very far out of your way.
Technically he is innocent, as he hasn't been found guilty.My point is he hasn't been cleared of the charges - ie found not guilty. They have dropped the case. He hasn't been cleared. The technical outcome is the same, but it's lazy journalism to say he has been cleared.
Wth does "technically" mean?
He was not cleared of the charges - the evidence supportin the changes was so weak that a decision didn't have to be made about whether he was guilty or not.
Trial by Media
Frankly?
None of our business how another country runs its justice system. Sympathies to her family but they have had justice, it just wasn't what they wanted.
practically nothing we discuss on these boards is "our business".
The biggest issue with 'South African Justice' is its lack of accessibility to those who don't have vast sums of money. Not unlike 'British Justice', but way more skewed towards those who have the funds required to turn it inside out and get the result that they want. I'm not convinced that Dewani is guilty, but I am convinced that the case against him was nowhere near good enough.