UK Honeymoon Couple Attacked in S.A.

[DJRC]

Why the automatic assumption of his guilt?
I haven't followed the trial just cause the summing up on the news in the coffee shop. The judge seems to have basically said she can't see where the lies stops and the truth starts in every piece of evidence . And that's just from the prosecution. Erm to me that's pretty much a dead cert admission from the judge that she thinks the prosecution case is a load of buggery.

So why can others see different?

[Croutons]

Mermaid said:

I doubt Anni's family will give up....

I expect Dad is paying for the taxis to the airport right now

[Slaav]

DJRC said:

Why the automatic assumption of his guilt?
I haven't followed the trial just cause the summing up on the news in the coffee shop. The judge seems to have basically said she can't see where the lies stops and the truth starts in every piece of evidence . And that's just from the prosecution. Erm to me that's pretty much a dead cert admission from the judge that she thinks the prosecution case is a load of buggery.

So why can others see different?

My take on this is rather different. From teh bits I saw live this morning, the Judge wasn't saying it was all a pack of lies and he is innocent. She appeared to be saying (well this is how I interpreted it) that she felt it was impossible to determine where the lies stopped and teh truth began. She didnt say it was all lies.

As a result, any possible conviction would be fundamentally flawed. Likely to be over turned on appeal etc. Seemed quite simple to me but then I often get the wrong end of stuff

At the end of the day, the prosecution case was not sound enough for a robust conviction. That is my understanding of this - i.e. he was not proved guilty at a sufficient level to even warrant the defence having to defend him - IYSWIM?

[DJRC]

Isn't that exactly what I said?

[anonymous-user]

Why are the wife's family so sure the guy is guilty? The evidence is hardly OJ standard.

As for suing the bloke for being bisexual: Ha! Good luck with that.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 8th December 13:47

[burwoodman]

DJRC said:

Isn't that exactly what I said?

you wrote 'a load of buggery' intentional?

The outcome today was on the cards. Dewani can grin all he wants but he won't be welcome in his own community.

[arguti]

DJRC said:

Why the automatic assumption of his guilt?

I haven't followed the trial just cause the summing up on the news in the coffee shop. The judge seems to have basically said she can't see where the lies stops and the truth starts in every piece of evidence . And that's just from the prosecution. Erm to me that's pretty much a dead cert admission from the judge that she thinks the prosecution case is a load of buggery.

So why can others see different?

I think the basic issues simplistically are:

1) One of the main witnesses is now dead so can't be cross examined and

2) The majority of witnesses are indeed have criminal records and stood to gain from testifying against the defendant (reduced sentences;

3) Said testimony was contradictory and therefore the judge was unable to tell who was lying when.

Whilst a lot of the circumstantial evidence such as CCTV, etc. looks pretty damning, the Judge, who is incidentally known for zero tolerance for bull, has decided that there is no way the state can prove beyond reasonable doubt given the above.

[burwoodman]

arguti said:

DJRC said:

Why the automatic assumption of his guilt?

I haven't followed the trial just cause the summing up on the news in the coffee shop. The judge seems to have basically said she can't see where the lies stops and the truth starts in every piece of evidence . And that's just from the prosecution. Erm to me that's pretty much a dead cert admission from the judge that she thinks the prosecution case is a load of buggery.

So why can others see different?

I think the basic issues simplistically are:

1) One of the main witnesses is now dead so can't be cross examined and

2) The majority of witnesses are indeed have criminal records and stood to gain from testifying against the defendant (reduced sentences;

3) Said testimony was contradictory and therefore the judge was unable to tell who was lying when.

Whilst a lot of the circumstantial evidence such as CCTV, etc. looks pretty damning, the Judge, who is incidentally known for zero tolerance for bull, has decided that there is no way the state can prove beyond reasonable doubt given the above.

That is my opinion. I personally think he is guilty but proving it given the threshold is almost impossible.

[55palfers]

I wonder if his wife had a few bob and her family don't want hubby to inherit it?

[Welshbeef]

55palfers said:

I wonder if his wife had a few bob and her family don't want hubby to inherit it?

So would they go down the route of false pretences for marriage/conman effectively ?

[Mermaid]

55palfers said:

I wonder if his wife had a few bob and her family don't want hubby to inherit it?

Husband is the well off one.

[Welshbeef]

Mermaid said:

Husband is the well off one.

Just seems utter madness wanting to go and see an extremely dodgy bar in a shanty town at midnight.... WTF.

Surprised the Taxi man permitted the trip to happen.

[telecat]

Smacks of desperation. They got the killers bang to rights. Then the killers try and implicate somebody which means their sentence will be reduced. Seen it before and the investigation ties itself in knots trying to make it all fit. Not helped by the Family understandably wanting somebody to blame being told that the Police case is convincing when it isn't. When the "fit" falls apart the Investigation keeps tying itself in even worse knots and the family go around convinced they have been cheated!! Shades of the "Knox" case except at least the South African Judge had the sense to knock down this house of cards.

[JF87]

telecat said:

Smacks of desperation. They got the killers bang to rights. Then the killers try and implicate somebody which means their sentence will be reduced. Seen it before and the investigation ties itself in knots trying to make it all fit. Not helped by the Family understandably wanting somebody to blame being told that the Police case is convincing when it isn't. When the "fit" falls apart the Investigation keeps tying itself in even worse knots and the family go around convinced they have been cheated!! Shades of the "Knox" case except at least the South African Judge had the sense to knock down this house of cards.

I'm extrapolating from a healthy sample size of one, but is there common ground with these causes celebres? ie, if you think Knox is innocent (having been fitted up by desperate/dodgy foreign cops), are you also more likely to believe that Dewani (on the same basis) had nothing to do with his wife's death?

For my part I think they're both guilty as fk.

[Bill]

Well I'm amazed, I didn't think there was any way he'd get a fair trial.

[telecat]

JF87 said:

telecat said:

Smacks of desperation. They got the killers bang to rights. Then the killers try and implicate somebody which means their sentence will be reduced. Seen it before and the investigation ties itself in knots trying to make it all fit. Not helped by the Family understandably wanting somebody to blame being told that the Police case is convincing when it isn't. When the "fit" falls apart the Investigation keeps tying itself in even worse knots and the family go around convinced they have been cheated!! Shades of the "Knox" case except at least the South African Judge had the sense to knock down this house of cards.

I'm extrapolating from a healthy sample size of one, but is there common ground with these causes celebres? ie, if you think Knox is innocent (having been fitted up by desperate/dodgy foreign cops), are you also more likely to believe that Dewani (on the same basis) had nothing to do with his wife's death?

For my part I think they're both guilty as fk.

The evidence against Knox is flimsy and based on the real Killer trying to get a shorter sentence. So he tries to implicate Knox and her Boyfriend. The Forensics is badly screwed up by the local police and evidence "appears" afterwards that was not logged a the scene. The press them get involved and try to "demonise" the "new" suspects. In Dewani's case it's less clear cut but still seems to be heading in the same direction. In both cases the Police caught the Killers quickly but seem to want a "bigger fish" thinking that the people they have in custody are too dumb to think this up themselves. Ably assisted by the press who then dig up the worst of the people involved rather than looking at the records of those in custody. Dewani's behaviour after the event doesn't help his cause but the Prosecutions inept handling of the case hardly helped there's either.

[anonymous-user]

How can people here be so sure of any defendant's guilt without access to all evidence? I think that the presumption of innocence should be more than just a cipher. Usually I really can't tell if someone on trial is guilty or not just by reading media reports. Others seem ready to be very sure, but they have no more info than any of us.

[rohrl]

Any chance of her family bringing a civil case?

[JF87]

No dispute at all about the flimsiness of forensics and the diminished reliability of (inconsistent) statements provided by the "associate" killers caught bang to rights.

I suppose I'm just intrigued as to why the respective sets of police/prosecutors would have bothered pursuing Knox and Dewani so tenaciously, after they'd already put some bona-fide killers behind bars, and knowing full well that the pursuit of these well-heeled and pretty well-connected foreigners would drag them into a great long international ststorm of diplomacy, politics, extradition and so on. And to go through all that with pretty thin and questionable evidence and witness testimony, making any conviction a bit of a long shot.

You really would have to be extremely certain of their guilt to continue regardless.

[bobbylondonuk]

For me, the question is - can the family go on a civil proceeding in the UK courts?

it is not about the freedom of sexual preference etc....it is about - fraudulent heterosexual marriage knowingly entered into by witholding the guys sexual preference from the woman & family. Can they sue for costs and damage?