The Anni Dewani Murder Case

I'm starting to think that the justice system is going to tip in favour of criminals just because of the deceit of the SAPS and NPA. If I was the defence team I'd be looking at the testimony given by plods in previous cases and the very first question in cross examination would be about whether they had omitted evidence in previous cases, follow up with 'How do we know you aren't omitting evidence now?'

Yes, they are supposed to respond to questions asked by the NPA/prosecutor and we have all seen that they're not really interested in justice, only themselves.
 
When you have monkeys running the NPA and SAPS and all the educated experts have left or been kicked out due to AA then this is the result.
You literally can get away with murder now in this country.
We have a pathetic SAPS, forensics dept., detectives are a joke, NPA couldnt secure a murder conviction if it was given to them on a plate.
 
When you have monkeys running the NPA and SAPS and all the educated experts have left or been kicked out due to AA then this is the result.
You literally can get away with murder now in this country.
We have a pathetic SAPS, forensics dept., detectives are a joke, NPA couldnt secure a murder conviction if it was given to them on a plate.

That's a bit harsh. I think that they try to distract the public with their made up stories. Remember that these are the clowns that said they can't prosecute Zumatello. However, where there really has been a murder and where the cops have done their jobs, you do get convictions.
 
You know the NPA has claimed a 90% conviction rate.

Sorry I cannot find a direct link on the website.

http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npa.gov.za%2FUploadedFiles%2FAssessing%2520the%2520National%2520Prosecuting%2520Authority%5B1%5D.pptx&ei=emNkVKDnHdKS7AbazoH4DQ&usg=AFQjCNFeW7TR29GvEOXZkMnTddkXyyypFg&bvm=bv.79189006,d.ZGU

But as a rebuttal to the great 'conviction rate'

Quote from Africheck

Many are held in custody for months or years only to have their cases withdrawn
Data from a 2008 study showed about half of people in custody at the time their case was concluded, had their case end in withdrawal
Crimes remain unaddressed
Sentenced admissions to prison have halved
More than half of people in prison not sentenced have been held for more than 90 days
 
Last edited:
Something is bugging me about this case.

I know she had a gunshot wound to the neck. But did it exit via the neck, what was the point of entry?

How long did she take to die? Was it instantaneous?

How many times was she shot?
 
Last edited:
You know the NPA has claimed a 90% conviction rate.

Sorry I cannot find a direct link on the website.

http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npa.gov.za%2FUploadedFiles%2FAssessing%2520the%2520National%2520Prosecuting%2520Authority%5B1%5D.pptx&ei=emNkVKDnHdKS7AbazoH4DQ&usg=AFQjCNFeW7TR29GvEOXZkMnTddkXyyypFg&bvm=bv.79189006,d.ZGU

But as a rebuttal to the great 'conviction rate'

Quote from Africheck

Many are held in custody for months or years only to have their cases withdrawn
Data from a 2008 study showed about half of people in custody at the time their case was concluded, had their case end in withdrawal
Crimes remain unaddressed
Sentenced admissions to prison have halved
More than half of people in prison not sentenced have been held for more than 90 days

Stats!

Conviction rate of cases they take to court is not the same of cases presented by SAPS.
 
FORENSIC EXPERT TESTIFIES IN DEWANI TRIAL

The presence of gunshot particles on a person does not mean they fired a shot, a police forensic analyst told the Western Cape High Court on Friday during the murder trial of Shrien Dewani.

"Primer residue [analysis] cannot determine whether or not someone has discharged a firearm. It merely identifies the presence of primer residue," Colonel Thandiwe Mlabateki told the court.

"The result should not be looked at in isolation. Circumstances in which the shot was fired must therefore be taken into consideration," he said.

Mlabateki was the 16th state witness to testify during the British businessman's trial for the murder of his wife Anni on November 13, 2010.

One of the gloves used in the shooting was recovered in Khayelitsha on November 19, 2010.

The area of the glove between the thumb and index finger tested positive for primer residue.

Prosecutor Adrian Mopp said it was common cause that a number of primer residue samples were collected from the vehicle.

Mlabateki, with 19 years' experience in chemistry and 13 in primer residue analysis, testified that when a shot was fired, primer residue particles were ejected through the openings of a firearm.

These were commonly deposited onto the hands of the shooter and on anything within a two-metre radius.

She said if a shot was fired within a vehicle, residue could be found within all exposed areas of the interior.

Environmental factors, such as wind and rain, and the texture of surfaces might influence the particles.

Particles would lie loose on surfaces and could be removed by rubbing or washing the hands.

The testing laboratory therefore set a maximum time lapse of two-and-a-half hours after a shooting to test a live person for residue.

In the present matter, the expert determined from looking at a photo of the glove that it was preserved because it was turned inside out and thus suitable for testing.

Mlabateki concluded that a positive result indicated one of three things: the person fired a firearm; the person was within a two-metre radius of a shooting; or there was secondary transfer through handling a firearm, spent cartridge or gun holster.

The State previously called ballistics expert Warrant Officer Pieter Engelbrecht to testify on a number of issues including primer residue.

During his testimony, he said he could not testify on primer residue because he was not an expert in that field.

Earlier this week, Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso lambasted the State for running around to find witnesses and wrap up parts of the investigation four years after the incident.

Mopp conceded at the time that the State had thought to obtain the results of the primer residue test only after the defence asked for it.

Dewani has pleaded not guilty to charges including kidnapping, murder and defeating the ends of justice.

He claims the couple was hijacked while taxi driver Zola Tongo was driving them through Gugulethu in his minibus on Saturday, November 13.

He was released unharmed, but Anni was driven away. She was found shot dead in the abandoned minibus in Khayelitsha the next morning.

The State alleges that he conspired with others to stage the hijacking in return for R15,000.

Dewani maintains that Tongo was to have helped him organise a surprise helicopter trip for Anni for R15,000.

Tongo is serving an 18-year jail term and Qwabe, a 25-year jail term.

Xolile Mngeni was serving life in jail for firing the shot that killed Anni, but died in prison from a brain tumour on October 18.


Source : Sapa /je/cls/jje
Date : 14 Nov 2014 12:35
 
ANALYST REFUSES TO BUDGE ON PRIMER RESIDUE

A police forensic analyst testifying in Shrien Dewani's trial on Friday refused to concede that a person with gunshot particles on their hands probably fired a shot.

Colonel Thandiwe Mlabateki, the State's 16th witness, testified in her evidence in chief that when a shot was fired, primer residue particles were ejected through the openings of a firearm.

She said a positive primer residue result indicated that the person had fired a firearm, was within a two-metre radius of a shooting, or that there had been secondary transfer through the handling of a firearm, spent cartridge or gun holster.

In the present case, a portion of the yellow kitchen glove used in the shooting of Dewani's wife Anni had tested positive for primer residue.

The glove was worn by convicted killer Mziwamadoda Qwabe. Convicted gunman Xolile Mngeni was not wearing gloves and his hands were not tested for residue.

In cross-examination, Dewani's lawyer Pieter Botha asked if she knew that Qwabe had testified that he did not touch the firearm before or after the shooting. She replied that she did not.

"Would you agree with me that possible transference is therefore excluded?" he asked.

She conceded that this was correct.

Botha did not mention that Qwabe had testified about picking up the bullet casing in the vehicle after the shooting.

He said the police tested for primer residue between a person's thumb and index finger because that was closest to a firearm. One could reasonably conclude that a positive result indicated the person probably fired the shot.

Mlabateki disagreed.

Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso intervened and said one had to think of the probabilities, keeping in mind that "nobody knows exactly what happened".

"The conclusion is to say that that person was in the vicinity where that firearm was discharged. You cannot be bold to say that person fired a firearm," Mlabateki said.

Botha said he simply did not understand then why she taught forensic analysts to first test for primer residue in the web of the hand and not on another body part.

Mbaleteki, who has 19 years' experience in chemistry and 13 in primer residue analysis, deposed an affidavit on the primer residue on January 4, 2011.

Dewani is on trial for allegedly plotting with taxi driver Zola Tongo and others to kill his wife Anni while they were on honeymoon in Cape Town in November 2010.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges including kidnapping, murder and defeating the ends of justice.

He claims the couple was hijacked while Tongo was driving them through Gugulethu in his minibus on Saturday, November 13. He was released unharmed, but Anni was driven away. She was found shot dead in the abandoned minibus in Khayelitsha the next morning.

The State alleges he conspired with others to stage the hijacking in return for R15,000.

Dewani maintains that Tongo was to have helped him organise a surprise helicopter trip for Anni for R15,000.

Tongo is serving an 18-year jail term and Qwabe, a 25-year jail term.

Mngeni was serving life in jail for firing the shot that killed Anni, but died in prison from a brain tumour on October 18.

The trial was postponed until Monday, when the State is expected to call its next witness.


Source : Sapa /je/cls/jje
Date : 14 Nov 2014 13:31
 
ANALYST REFUSES TO BUDGE ON PRIMER RESIDUE

A police forensic analyst testifying in Shrien Dewani's trial on Friday refused to concede that a person with gunshot particles on their hands probably fired a shot.

Colonel Thandiwe Mlabateki, the State's 16th witness, testified in her evidence in chief that when a shot was fired, primer residue particles were ejected through the openings of a firearm.

She said a positive primer residue result indicated that the person had fired a firearm, was within a two-metre radius of a shooting, or that there had been secondary transfer through the handling of a firearm, spent cartridge or gun holster.

In the present case, a portion of the yellow kitchen glove used in the shooting of Dewani's wife Anni had tested positive for primer residue.

The glove was worn by convicted killer Mziwamadoda Qwabe. Convicted gunman Xolile Mngeni was not wearing gloves and his hands were not tested for residue.

In cross-examination, Dewani's lawyer Pieter Botha asked if she knew that Qwabe had testified that he did not touch the firearm before or after the shooting. She replied that she did not.

"Would you agree with me that possible transference is therefore excluded?" he asked.

She conceded that this was correct.

Botha did not mention that Qwabe had testified about picking up the bullet casing in the vehicle after the shooting.

He said the police tested for primer residue between a person's thumb and index finger because that was closest to a firearm. One could reasonably conclude that a positive result indicated the person probably fired the shot.

Mlabateki disagreed.

Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso intervened and said one had to think of the probabilities, keeping in mind that "nobody knows exactly what happened".

"The conclusion is to say that that person was in the vicinity where that firearm was discharged. You cannot be bold to say that person fired a firearm," Mlabateki said.

Botha said he simply did not understand then why she taught forensic analysts to first test for primer residue in the web of the hand and not on another body part.

Mbaleteki, who has 19 years' experience in chemistry and 13 in primer residue analysis, deposed an affidavit on the primer residue on January 4, 2011.

Dewani is on trial for allegedly plotting with taxi driver Zola Tongo and others to kill his wife Anni while they were on honeymoon in Cape Town in November 2010.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges including kidnapping, murder and defeating the ends of justice.

He claims the couple was hijacked while Tongo was driving them through Gugulethu in his minibus on Saturday, November 13. He was released unharmed, but Anni was driven away. She was found shot dead in the abandoned minibus in Khayelitsha the next morning.

The State alleges he conspired with others to stage the hijacking in return for R15,000.

Dewani maintains that Tongo was to have helped him organise a surprise helicopter trip for Anni for R15,000.

Tongo is serving an 18-year jail term and Qwabe, a 25-year jail term.

Mngeni was serving life in jail for firing the shot that killed Anni, but died in prison from a brain tumour on October 18.

The trial was postponed until Monday, when the State is expected to call its next witness.


Source : Sapa /je/cls/jje
Date : 14 Nov 2014 13:31

OMW - She shot herself?
 
WTF are you on about?

My view is that the person who fired the shot would have a relatively significant amount of gunpowder residue on them. This plod is trying to say that all that can be concluded is that the person was within 2m of the fired gun.

Assuming that taxis don't allow more the 2 m separation it stands to reason that Anni also had gunpowder residue on her. If it makes no difference as to how much, and where it is, well, she could just as easily have shot herself.
 
My view is that the person who fired the shot would have a relatively significant amount of gunpowder residue on them. This plod is trying to say that all that can be concluded is that the person was within 2m of the fired gun.

Assuming that taxis don't allow more the 2 m separation it stands to reason that Anni also had gunpowder residue on her. If it makes no difference as to how much, and where it is, well, she could just as easily have shot herself.

If gunpowder residue is the only information you have, and if such residue is found on her, then yes, theoretically she could have shot herself but obviously in this context we know this is not the case. Do you have any evidence to support your theory that only the person who fired the shot would have a relatively significant amount of gunpowder residue on them? Residue can be passed around incredibly easily so it's not really good evidence of anything other than that a shot was fired in close proximity to where it's found. Whoever fired the shot could have touched the other guy passing on the residue, they could have shook hands or high fived each other. For example.
 
My view is that the person who fired the shot would have a relatively significant amount of gunpowder residue on them.

You and many others agree with you. She was protecting the states case, I am sure defense will have its own witnesses
 
The FBI has a standard for gun primer residue testing.

They only look for the one particle that is created during the firing of the bullet(a fusion of 3 elements). single Lead particles etc are ignored as it can be transferred from other lead sources.

If you have 1 or 2 particles on your hands, you are not automatically a suspected shooter. You need a minimum of three particles before you can conclude that he might have fired the gun.

secondary transfer will not transfer as much particles to another person hands as can be found on the shooter. The shooter will have the most. secondary transfer also passes smaller particles

the primer is the small metal disc at the back of the bullet.

The propellant is the powder(found in the shell casings cavity) that explodes and the gases force the bullet down the chamber. This is not gathered as evidence.

Now look at the position of the primer in a semi auto pistol. Most of the particles will be thrown backwards toward the shooter. He will have the most amount on his hands.
 
Last edited:
If gunpowder residue is the only information you have, and if such residue is found on her, then yes, theoretically she could have shot herself but obviously in this context we know this is not the case. Do you have any evidence to support your theory that only the person who fired the shot would have a relatively significant amount of gunpowder residue on them? Residue can be passed around incredibly easily so it's not really good evidence of anything other than that a shot was fired in close proximity to where it's found. Whoever fired the shot could have touched the other guy passing on the residue, they could have shook hands or high fived each other. For example.

The plods own evidence supports my theory.

And no, residue isn't passed around as easily as you seem to think.
 
The plods own evidence supports my theory.

And no, residue isn't passed around as easily as you seem to think.

According to this:
A positive result for GSR from SEM-EDX analysis can mean many things. Mainly it indicates that the person sampled was either in the vicinity of a gun when it was fired, handled a gun after it was fired, or touched something that was around the gun when it was fired. (For example: When a person goes to the aid of a victim of a gunshot wound, some GSR particles can transfer from the victim.)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunshot_residue

Whenever a population of primer GSR particles have been detected on an individual’s hands or clothing, there are three possible explanations as to how they arrived there: 1) the individual discharged a firearm, 2) the individual was in close proximity to someone who discharged a firearm, or 3) the individual came into contact with someone or some surface that contained primer residue. It cannot be said with absolute certainty which of these three scenarios occurred; any one is possible. However, given certain particulars of an incident, a GSR expert is permitted to give his or her opinion as to whether or not he or she believes that one of the possibilities is more likely to have occurred. It is also permissible for an expert to render what he or she would “expect” the results to be. For example, a GSR expert testifying in court might be asked, “Would you expect to find hundreds of gunshot residue particles on someone if they shook hands with another person who had recently discharged a firearm?” In this instance, it is reasonable for an expert to say “It’s possible, but not likely.” There may exist a situation in which hundreds of particles relocate from one person’s hand to a second person’s hand through physical contact between the two, but this would be considered a larger than usual amount of secondary transfer. Every incident is different and must be interpreted and dissected based on all of the influencing circumstances.
http://app.forensicmag.com/articles/2012/09/science-behind-gsr-separating-fact-fiction
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X