|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2012 20:49:18 GMT
I agree that "reasonable doubt" is the most important and I therefore would have been obliged to acquit O.J. Simpson during his trial. I am consistently amazed by the number of people who say they believe in the justice systems of our various countries who are nevertheless willing to convict in certain cases for "overwhelming suspicion" rather than "proof of guilt."
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Aug 12, 2012 14:40:17 GMT
What you say, K, struck me with an unfortunate case of a 12 y.o. murdered here in the UK.
You may have heard about Tia Sharp.
As soon as the press was told that "a body was found at the grand-mother's house", there were cries of "Let's get the grand-mother's boyfriend".
Now I don't know enough of the case to judge exactly what happened. However, people's immediate reaction made me sad. Whether the accused is proven guilty or acquitted... the wider public has decided who the culprit was and not many will give him the benefit of the doubt, even if he gets cleared of the murder afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Aug 12, 2012 18:34:16 GMT
it makes the world seem easier to understand, when there is always someone to blame who fits a certain image of "bad person" - makes it easy to explain why bad things happen... even in cases of accidents (or probably accidents), especially if the victim is a child, people start shouting that there must have been a pervert or bad person somewhere, right away... (saying that mainly because i recently read an article about this case of a boy dying by digging a big hole in the sand near the beach and it crashing, at least that is what the police said at the point of the article - and in the comments on the article a lot of people right away assumed someone must have pushed him in or buried him).
|
|
|
Post by htmb on Aug 12, 2012 20:41:27 GMT
I'm often reminded of when I lived in Atlanta many years ago and a young woman (and the car she had been driving) went missing one dark night. The authorities and her family searched for her and came up with many theories of what happened and who may have caused her harm. Years later, during a drought, the mystery was solved when her car, along with her remains, were found at the bottom of a river. Apparently, she missed a curve on a country road. Her car plunged into the water and sunk to the bottom before anyone noticed.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 22, 2012 6:40:04 GMT
A little update on the murder of Anni Dewani.
On Tuesday 20th Nov., our local newspaper The Witness had posters around town with a headline "Anni's dad 'So happy' at third conviction"
A column on the front page further read: "A father's joy knew no bounds yesterday when he heard that yet another person had been convicted of the murder of his daughter, Anni Dewani. Yesterday afternoon, Vinod Hindocha was still unaware that Xolile Mngeni (25) had been convicted in the Western Cape High Court of the murder of Anni Dewani in November 2010. Sister newspaper 'Die Burger' phoned him in Sweden for his comments. When he heard about Mngeni's conviction, the joy in his voice could clearly be heard thousands of miles away. "I am so happy. No one would understand my joy" he said.
The court rejected Mngeni's alibi as lies. The court also found that he was the one who shot Anni.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2012 14:58:11 GMT
Thanks for the update, tod. I sometimes ponder on what became of this case. I hope he gets punished to the max for taking her life.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Sept 19, 2013 6:38:37 GMT
The BBC's Panorama this evening www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bgr6qPanorama has quite a good reputation in the UK for meticulous investigative journalism....but at the end of the day it is still a tv show.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Sept 19, 2013 8:30:40 GMT
Thanks for posting this Cheery. I hope we get to see it here at some stage. The last newspaper report I read was that Shirien Dewani was going to be coming to South Africa to stand trial. We must not forget that the actual murder was committed by the men now in prison - they have admitted to killing her and revealed all the circumstances leading up to this. Footage of money being suspiciously handed over to them by Dewani has been viewed by the world. I think there is a lot that has not been said by the men in jail, that might come out in a trial.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Mar 3, 2014 15:37:58 GMT
Now that we have another famous man on trial, and the courtroom justice in South Africa being seen by the entire world - maybe they will now get the guts to send Annie Dewani's plotter to stand trial?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 17:48:08 GMT
On the other hand, it might be the best time to sweep the whole thing under the carpet while everybody is looking at something else.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Mar 4, 2014 17:04:20 GMT
NO WAY Ho Zay! Headlines today screamed "Dewani One Step Closer to S.A" His extradition is eminent - He has another option to stall it but with Oscar Pistorious on trial and the courtroom open to the whole world....he cant delay his trial any longer. I reckon it wont be a patch on what is happening now....maybe make the third page of the newspaper. Don't forget - the actual murderers are inside for life with nothing to loose.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Oct 17, 2014 10:14:35 GMT
As we all know now, Shirien Dewani is in court. Also sitting in the High Court in Pretoria with mostly head bowed is Oscar Pistorius. I have been following the arguments in mitigation of sentence the whole week. This means that his sentence must fit the crime of manslaughter with gross neglegence, not that most of society believe he actually killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent to do her gross bodily harm or even kill her.
When I look at these two men I see a common factor. They are both selfish, snivelling, scared as hell, and completely wallowing is self pity.
I genuinely believe that Oscar is a hothead with very little self control. Dewani on the otherhand is a person who became so anxious as to protect himself from family finding out his true sordid life, that he plotted very carefully to take the one person who could expose him, out of the picture. I believe, and I hope this is revealed, that he killed his uncle to stop him from doing the same thing. A cold calculating killer.
Does this make Oscar any less of a murderer because he did not spend days plotting to shoot Reeva? Apparantly so.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 14:20:04 GMT
It seems that in just about any country in the world, being rich and having the best legal defence that money can buy works absolute wonders in the courtroom and changes reality as we thought we knew it.
|
|
|
Post by mossie on Oct 17, 2014 15:09:22 GMT
Berlusconi and Bernie Ecclestone come to mind
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 28, 2014 14:09:45 GMT
Dewani has made the news again this week.
Headline: Dewani's behaviour in question.
The Western High Court was asked yesterday to consider the "conspiratorial" behaviour of Shrien Dewani during an application to discharge him of killing his wife. The prosecutor argued that Dewani's plea explanation had not been tested and could therefore not be admitted as evidence. Rather, the court should look at the way in which Dewani allegedly attempted to 'cover his tracks' after the death of his wife Anni in November 2010.
He referred to a restaurant booking that Dewani made the night she was killed, for a place between Stellenbosch and Somerset West in Cape Town. Prosecutor Adrian Mopp said the booking would provide a plausible explanation for why he was so far from central Cape Town. Deputy Judge President Traverso said " That is a big quantum leap to make", Mr.Mopp.
Mopp was adamant that the booking provided both Dewani and his shuttle taxi driver Zola Tongo with a plausible explanation. He added that Dewani had told the police it was his wife's idea to see a township like Gugulethu by night so that the focus would be taken off Tongo. Tongo testified that he set up a fake hijacking of the couple in Gugulethu after Dewani approached him with a request for a hitman. "...we are being asked to believe that it was completely fortuitous that two people (the hitmen) were waiting in Gugulethu and, lo and behold, that the deceased wants to go into the township" Mopp said. Added to this, Mopp said it was strange the Dewani never told his family about certain contact with Tongo that weekend. Dewani's behaviour around Tongo at his hotel after the killing also seemed conspiratorial because he looked up at the surveillance cameras and asked a cleaner to leave so that they could talk. Dewani claims that during the hijacking he was released unharmed and Anni was driven away. She was found dead in the abandoned vehicle in Khayelitsha the next morning. The State alleges he conspired with others to stage the hijacking for which he paid R15,000. Dewani maintains that Tongo helped him organise a surprise helicopter flight for Anni, hence the payment of the money.
Tongo is serving an 18yr jail term and Qwabe a 25yr term. Mngeni was serving life for firing the shot that killed Anni, but he died in prison from a brain tumor on October 18th. The fourth man Monde Mbolombe was granted immunity from prosecution on two charges during Mngeni's trial but was warned he faced possible prosecution on various charges if he did not testify truthfully during Dewani's trial.
My comments are this: That is not the style hijackers operate. When you are hijacked they shoot you immediately or if you are lucky, drive a certain distance and dump you miles from anywhere before making off with your vehicle. So why would they abandon it? Why let one person go freely to identify them and shoot a harmless woman. No, no, no. I don't believe for one minute it was a genuine hijacking.
|
|
|
Post by deyana on Dec 8, 2014 14:14:38 GMT
So the Dewani case has been thrown out of court. He is now a free man. I can hardly believe it. LINK TO STORYTod, what do you make of this? Personally I think he got away with murder. Literally. I've lost all faith in the legal system.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 15:03:46 GMT
It reminds me a bit of the O.J. Simpson case in California and the incredible dilemma of "innocent until proven guilty" and even worse, the fact that if there is even a 1% doubt, it is unfair to convict someone. Yes, and it means that plenty of people get away with murder, but an even greater number of completely innocent people are convicted of things that they did not do, just because many judges and juries give in to the desire to convict someone. I really cannot think of any way to ever fix the problem, but at least 20 people sentenced to death in the United States have had their convictions overturned in the last 10 years when long overdue DNA tests were finally made.
Of course each case is unique, but it does not escape anybody's notice that it is only the rich who get let off the hook in this kind of case. If this had involved only people from the townships, the case probably would have been signed, sealed and delivered in about a month with much less of an investigation.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Dec 8, 2014 17:16:37 GMT
Tradgically yes he is out. And most likely out of the country right now because I'm sure he's afraid those inside can organise a 'hit' against him.
It is a very bitter pill to swallow. But it's not the first time a scoundrel has escaped the hangman's noose....for the time being anyway. I feel incredibly sorry for Anni's parents and family. They must be bitterly disappointed. One thing for sure - it cannot be said South African courts did not give him a fair trial. The one thing he was so terrified to face.
|
|
|
Post by deyana on Dec 8, 2014 19:58:41 GMT
After seeing two recent cases in South Africa, where the men have been let off (either completely free or with just a slap on the wrist) for murdering their partners, I am wondering if the South African courts/judges are not being bribed?
If not, does the defendant been wealthy influence the jury or judge? I think so. Yes, the rich get let off where the average Joe would go down.
And it took four years to get him to trial? Amazing.
I'm very disappointed and frankly, shocked, that he got away with this. The trial should not have been stopped half way through, I'm sure that Anni's family would have wanted to see what he had to say about the day she was killed. Now we will never know.
Good points there, Kerouac and all so true.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Dec 8, 2014 20:45:38 GMT
The point of the Dewani case was that the prosecution case was flawed by tainted and unreliable evidence, to put it mildly. What is granting immunity to an admitted perpetrator if not bribery in itself? My blog | My photos | My video clips"too literate to be spam"
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Dec 11, 2014 7:29:19 GMT
Patricklondon - true words. Our police force have absolute arseholes in some divisions and these individuals haven't a clue OR they could care less, about conducting an investigation PROPERLY. There is also a huge problem with tribalism....everyone with the same surname is purported to be related and call each other brother or sister. So, to me this leads to failure in the system. I see the same thing at my mother's nursing home where junior staff ignore instructions from the matron because 'we are all in together....this frosty weather'.
The day before yesterday the newspaper placards screamed "Anni's family want answers". Yesterday I saw something on the posters about the prosecutor Nel. Have no idea what it's about- relating to the case of Reeva Steenkamp.
I would almost lay my head on a block and say there is no bribery in the judicial system regarding judges. Definitely not in our High Courts. The judges are so bound by strict laws that if there is a fluff-up in the investigation the perpetrator may get off on a technicality, as is the Dewani case.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Dec 11, 2014 14:34:43 GMT
A letter to the editor in our local news paper today reads: "WHAT ARE OUR COURTS GOOD FOR? So another criminal suspect gets off even lighter than the previous one in South Africa. Yes, the separately accused had huge faults in their testimonies, but Shrien Dewani should have taken the stand as without his testimony is it enough to acquit him on the convicts' weaknesses?
What was their motive for killing Anni Dewani and letting Shrien go without robbing him of his possessions? If the complete dismissal of the other accused's efficiencies and testimonies is enough to get one acquitted, then how are we ever going to get convictions on the ongoing R63 billion corruption allegations and find the culprits for Nkandla?
Are all our courts good for is to "out" publicly wealthy foreign bisexual tourists?
If the Hindochas can launch a civil case against Shrien, maybe that will be the only form of truth and justice that is left for them."
For those who have not heard of Nkandla - it is the new residence that Jacob Zuma has built in the middle of nowhere and is already falling apart. He has robbed the South African coffers of public money to build this ridiculous palace with cattle and chicken housing better than that of millions of South Africans who voted for him in the belief he was their savior.
The other twerp up north has done the same thing in Zimbabwe but not a patch on Nkandla.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Dec 11, 2014 18:34:08 GMT
I think the problem is expecting, as people so often do, courts and criminal trials to provide the definitive explanation of what happened or in a civil case, who's the better person, whereas all they can or should do is judge on the evidence they have. I'm assuming that South Africa, like the UK, does not require a defendant to prove their innocence, but rather the prosecution to prove their guilt. If the police and prosecution haven't done the investigation properly, a trial is too late to put it right and cannot be set up to do so anyway. My blog | My photos | My video clips"too literate to be spam"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 20:14:29 GMT
France has always been a sort of fence sitter about the problem. While I believe that the official texts of law lean towards having to prove your innocence, in actual practice it is like in most other civilised countries where one is innocent until proven guilty. The last really controversial case dates all the way back to the Omar Raddad case in 1991. He was the gardener of a rich woman who was found murdered inside her house, and on the door in front of her was written "Omar killed me" in her blood. The first big problem was that there was a huge grammatical mistake in that extremely short sentence, which no one who knew that woman thought that she could ever have made, even if she was dying. Even though Omar had a pretty good alibi (but not ironclad), he had been seen working at unusual hours on the property, which he said was to make up for some lost time, and it also became apparent that he was annoyed with his employer, because he had requested a salary advance of 2500 francs, and she had only given him 1500 francs.
Anyway, when the trial finally took place, a few other things came out such as a gambling problem, but basically there was absolutely nothing in the case that proved his guilt. All of France was certain that he was going to be acquitted, even though he was defended by one of the most hated lawyers in France -- Jacques Vergès, the sort of person who also defended Nazi war criminals like Klaus Barbie, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the terrorist Carlos or Cheyenne Brando. It was therefore stunning when Omar Raddad was convicted and sentenced to 18 years of prison.
He received a presidential pardon in 1996 (highly unlikely if he was guilty) at the request of the King of Morocco. He is still fighting to have his innocence recognised by the courts, but for the moment he is still just a pardoned criminal.
|
|