The Anni Dewani Murder Case

marine1 said:
well everyone believing in the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Who does not believe in the rule of law? The "usual suspects"?

Who, marine, are the "usual suspects"? You use that phrase very often but no one has any idea to which group(s) of people you are referring.

It is an easy out for your paranoia, but - more interestingly, it is intellectually dishonest not to name those you claim do not hold the same opinions as you - or who are actively "against" what you seem to believe.
 
marine1 said:
I am not arguing with anything you have said. I do however have the opinion he is guilty.
I also wonder if the experts here who believe he is innocent have ever been cross examined before in court by a top advocate? I asked it numerous times and the usual suspects ignored it.
As seen with BR in the OP trial, they can get you to even doubt your name.

They should never have let him leave in the first place but it happened.
What were they to do ? Ignore the state witnesses and let him go?
Click to expand...

You know that there is only one version of the truth irrespective of what he said, she said, or what was really said. And no matter who cross examines you, providing you are telling the truth that is what will come out. If you are lying (and I am applying a very broad meaning to that) it will come out.

This is why testimony given under torture is also discounted, and why plea bargaining has flaws. The incentive is to avoid pain or to gain a reduction in sentence.

On a personal note, I have been cross-examined. More than once. I wouldn't say that any of the lawyers were 'top' but the cases involved murder, home invasion, hijacking and theft. How that will help whatever point you are trying to make is beyond me, and I really wouldn't know how the experiences of the 'usual suspects' has any bearing on their abilities to hold an argument.
 
Last edited:
marine1 said:
Well I never claimed to want revenge so dont know where you thought I did.
I want and demand justice as everyone should, well everyone believing in the rule of law.
Click to expand...

If you read my posts you will note that I never said what you wanted, I said it 'appears' that you want .... There is this thing know as Johari's window. How we see ourselves is not the same as how others see us.
 
marine1 said:
Thats retarded.......how can I want revenge when I have no link whatsoever to anyone involved in this case? :confused:
I dont want justice.....I demand it
Click to expand...

Well, the shooter is in Jail (dead actually)
The proven collaborators are in jail
Isn't that the justice you demand?
 
Albereth said:
You know that there is only one version of the truth irrespective of what he said, she said, or what was really said. And no matter who cross examines you, providing you are telling the truth that's is what will come out. If you are lying (and I am applying a very broad meaning to that) it will come out.

This is why testimony given under torture is also discounted, and why plea bargaining has flaws. The incentive is to avoid pain or to gain a reduction in sentence.

On a personal note, I have been cross-examined. More than once. I wouldn't say that any of the lawyers were 'top' but the cases involved murder, home invasion, hijacking and theft. How that will help whatever point you are trying to make is beyond me, and I really wouldn't know how the experiences of the 'usual suspects' has any bearing on their abilities to hold an argument.
Click to expand...

When you have a top advocate or attorney they can distort your version of the truth very easily and especially is English or Afrikaans isnt your first language. Seen it before many times in court and also the time frame. People forget..........
I heard Anni's sister on the TV yesterday and she says Shrien changed his story 3 times and yet nobody has anything to say on that? Or is that a lie from her? She was interviewed and said that verbatim
 
marine1 said:
You think thats fair that if he did it and got off, thats justice? Justice for the rich and justice for the poor. Hardly seems fair
Click to expand...

I understand your frustration, and very much feel the same way. It isn't fair at all. But at the same time, it is the responsibility of the state to be able to offer up a reasonable case, and they couldn't as it's extremely difficult to prove collusion.
 
marine1 said:
When you have a top advocate or attorney they can distort your version of the truth very easily and especially is English or Afrikaans isnt your first language. Seen it before many times in court and also the time frame. People forget..........
I heard Anni's sister on the TV yesterday and she says Shrien changed his story 3 times and yet nobody has anything to say on that? Or is that a lie from her? She was interviewed and said that verbatim
Click to expand...

No they can't. The truth is inviolate. But to talk about what happens is that the state has a view of what happened and will try to fit testimony to this version. And it seems a whole heap worse when the case is based on speculation.

The passage of time may have some impact but not materially, or there are a bunch of old Nazis that were unfairly booked, as an example.

A sister says a story changed 3 times. With respect, so what? She was not a witness. And as far as I can tell, way over here on the sidelines, there has only been one story. But what really matters is the story that the judge believes and in this case her view was that the state's story was rubbish.
 
MartyMarts said:
I haven't been following this thread or the actual case really but I have questions - who wants to answer them :D

...in the meantime I'll trawl the interwebs for a little perspective on what happened.
Click to expand...

I didn't find all the answers I seek :D ...but I'm a little more informed now.
 
Packer said:
Actually no. This is a prime example of Machiavellian justice.
Consider:

1. He has been ‘outed’ before the world and has exhibited some strange sex habits.
2. He was the male heir to the family fortune. He can forget about that.
3. In the ‘Who’s who’ of the Indian hierarchy the family has taken a massive hit. They won’t be impressed with him. With his actions he has destroyed decades of family manoeuvring for financial power.
4. The family present a united front to the world but within the family he must be suspected as a deviant psychopath.
5. His love life will take a hit. Marriages of ‘convenience’ are definitely out.
6. He will always be looking over his shoulder, suspecting that the victims’ family has placed a bounty on his head.
7. He will die a bitter, afraid old man, universally shunned.

The victims family need do nothing except gracefully accept the verdict. They have gained status (in India) commensurate with the perp family’s loss. They hold the moral high ground. They have the sympathy of the world.

It also shows the world our inept SAPS in SA. This can only be a good thing.

IMO a backhand form of justice was served. Imagine his life from now on. I wonder if the judge is a student of Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.
Click to expand...

This may be a true example of justice served. Analyse the likely outcomes if found guilty. I am 95% sure that if he went to prison, he wouldn’t suffer the horrors of the SA prison service because he wouldn’t be placed in the general population. The UK and the world is watching, he does not qualify as an ordinary prisoner (too high profile).This is not counting the wealth his family could bring to bear to make his life comfortable. The prison service would break their neck to demonstrate to the world how ‘civilized’ they were. He would be pampered on a similar scale to Sheik and Selebi. There would be little difference between his prison life and his normal life. With all-male companionship, his sex life may improve (so even the lack of conjugal visits won’t affect him). Computers, cellphones, small luxuries, etc. and an eminently bribe able warder system.

This doesn’t seem like justice to me.
 
The prosecution has been feeding us, for 4 years, that they have a 'water tight' case,

It could be that he was 'innocent until proven guilty'. Then he was found not guilty.

So perhaps he was a innocent victim of a car hi jacking for ransom.
And his life has unfairly been turned upside down.

Yesterday on radio 702, a taxi driver phoned in and said people in the taxi industry were feeding info on clients to criminals, with the intention of robbing international passengers.


Nobody can know for sure what happened that day. But the court of law ruled on the flimsy evidence.


Which is it that people want, Justice or Vengeance.

Justice has been served.
 
Last edited:
silver6933 said:
The prosecution has been feeding us, for 4 years, that they have a 'water tight' case,

It could be that he was 'innocent until proven guilty'. Then he was found not guilty.

So perhaps he was a innocent victim of a car hi jacking for ransom.

Yesterday on radio 702, a taxi driver phoned in and said people in the taxi industry were feeding info on clients to criminals, with the intention of robbing international passengers.

And his life has unfairly been turned upside down.

Nobody can know for sure what happened that day. But the court of law ruled on the flimsy evidence.
Click to expand...

That same NPA also told us it has prima facie evidence of corruption....
 
Packer said:
Actually no. This is a prime example of Machiavellian justice.
Consider:

1. He has been ‘outed’ before the world and has exhibited some strange sex habits.
2. He was the male heir to the family fortune. He can forget about that.
3. In the ‘Who’s who’ of the Indian hierarchy the family has taken a massive hit. They won’t be impressed with him. With his actions he has destroyed decades of family manoeuvring for financial power.
4. The family present a united front to the world but within the family he must be suspected as a deviant psychopath.
5. His love life will take a hit. Marriages of ‘convenience’ are definitely out.
6. He will always be looking over his shoulder, suspecting that the victims’ family has placed a bounty on his head.
7. He will die a bitter, afraid old man, universally shunned.

The victims family need do nothing except gracefully accept the verdict. They have gained status (in India) commensurate with the perp family’s loss. They hold the moral high ground. They have the sympathy of the world.

It also shows the world our inept SAPS in SA. This can only be a good thing.

IMO a backhand form of justice was served. Imagine his life from now on. I wonder if the judge is a student of Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.
Click to expand...

Packer said:
This may be a true example of justice served. Analyse the likely outcomes if found guilty. I am 95% sure that if he went to prison, he wouldn’t suffer the horrors of the SA prison service because he wouldn’t be placed in the general population. The UK and the world is watching, he does not qualify as an ordinary prisoner (too high profile).This is not counting the wealth his family could bring to bear to make his life comfortable. The prison service would break their neck to demonstrate to the world how ‘civilized’ they were. He would be pampered on a similar scale to Sheik and Selebi. There would be little difference between his prison life and his normal life. With all-male companionship, his sex life may improve (so even the lack of conjugal visits won’t affect him). Computers, cellphones, small luxuries, etc. and an eminently bribe able warder system.

This doesn’t seem like justice to me.
Click to expand...

Consider:

His prison sentence will, at base, be commensurate with prison conditions in a 1st world country. That means study and library privileges, a gymnasium, freedom from intimidation and other PC elements. Then, on top of that, there is the wealth factor of his family. Eating hampers from Fortnum & Mason, TV, computers, cell phones etc. (anything that can be got by bribes – basically everything). Top line medical & dental aid, freedom from any societal responsibility, etc.etc. bla, bla.

And this is justice? I think he will be more severely punished by being ‘free’.
 
marine1 said:
What? Both go free? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Roll your eyes all you want. You said that there is a justice for the rich and a justice for the poor. I only asked if it should not be a justice for the guilty and a justice for the innocent?

In the threads concerning OP and SD you have asserted that they're guilty, not because you have proof but because it is your opinion. Fine, you are entitled to an opinion. And further, there isn't much that anyone could do to persuade you otherwise. Proving innocence is way, way more difficult that proving guilt and this has a lot to do with presumption of innocence in court. As a lay person you are under no obligation to have that presumption (well, until someone hits you with defamation or contempt of court).

You are perpetuating a myth when you claim there are different justices. There aren't - there are different lawyers at the different price points, true - but only one set of justice. There aren't two sets of police. There aren't two NPAs.

Anyway, back to the point. Assume for a moment that SD is completely and utterly innocent. Has he had any justice whatsoever? His wife was murdered and he got blamed for it? In fact, he got framed for it in collusion between the cops and the actual killers wanting a lesser sentence.
 
marine1 said:
The fact that this story(Tongo) was just too bizarre to not be true.
Click to expand...

In logic or thinking or debating there is a concept called Argument from Incredulity.

This is a logical fallacy where basically just because one cannot imagine or understand something isn't proof of anything at all.

This is marine1s' justification for his belief that Shrien is guilty.

Basically the story is so far fetched it must be true. <yeah this what it boils down to>
 
silver6933 said:
In logic or thinking or debating there is a concept called Argument from Incredulity.

This is a logical fallacy where basically just because one cannot imagine or understand something isn't proof of anything at all.

This is marine1s' justification for his belief that Shrien is guilty.

Basically the story is so far fetched it must be true. <yeah this what it boils down to>
Click to expand...

A colleague was relating a story from the UK where a fairly senior politician had called a policeman a f...... pleb. The plod took offence and it ended up in court. Politician said he never said that. Plod said he did. Etc etc.

Basically the judge found in favour of the policeman but said that the policeman was too stupid to have made it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X