The Student Room Group

Shrien Dewani cleared of Honeymoon Murder: Justice served?

Found not guilty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30375335
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Ggmu!
Ggmu!
Not a surprise.

I think he's sick, he should be rotting in a South African prison.

Posted from TSR Mobile
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30375335

I always thought he had killed her ... but it seems that he didn't ...

I watched the panorama documentary, and it just seemed he did by how shifty he was and how he had talked to the taxi man in private prior to Anni's death.
"Lack of evidence" they say ... typical - just like the Pistorius trial.
Original post by Ggmu!
Not a surprise.

I think he's sick, he should be rotting in a South African prison.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Don't you think that's exceptionally inhumane?

The case became extremely convoluted and and unclear, so I'm not surprised it was thrown out. Many will call this South African corruption, but I think the judge did the right thing. When the evidence is lacking and the prosecution is clutching at straws, there's no way a conviction can be justified.
Reply 5
Avatar for Ggmu!
Ggmu!
Original post by Reluire
Don't you think that's exceptionally inhumane?

The case became extremely convoluted and and unclear, so I'm not surprised it was thrown out. Many will call this South African corruption, but I think the judge did the right thing. When the evidence is lacking and the prosecution is clutching at straws, there's no way a conviction can be justified.


In the context of fairness, law & order etc I agree with you. Upholding the sanctity of courts matters most.

However we all know he was responsible and he won't be made to pay for his crime.

Posted from TSR Mobile
i don't understand why TSR are suddenly experts on this case and are second guessing the legal profession's decision.
Original post by Ggmu!
In the context of fairness, law & order etc I agree with you. Upholding the sanctity of courts matters most.

However we all know he was responsible and he won't be made to pay for his crime.

Posted from TSR Mobile


But do we know that? If we did, surely he would have been prosecuted. This really isn't a miscarriage of justice as far as the trial is concerned; the prosecution failed to prevent sufficient evidence and his involvement in the crime has not been established.
Reply 8
Avatar for Ggmu!
Ggmu!
Original post by Reluire
But do we know that? If we did, surely he would have been prosecuted. This really isn't a miscarriage of justice as far as the trial is concerned; the prosecution failed to prevent sufficient evidence and his involvement in the crime has not been established.


As I said, in the context of the courts, law & order it is fair enough and makes sense.

But in reality, we all know he was guilty. Just like we all know what OJ did.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Incredible isn't it, that every time there is a high profile case like this, TSR reacts as if they know somebody is guilty without having seen any evidence what so ever. We saw it with Amanda Knox, Oscar P and now this.

It doesn't add up to me. You just married, he goes to South Africa and arranges the murder? Why would you do that? And he didn't arrange it before hand, he did it when he got there. Did he say to the taxi driver "and by the way, do you know anyone who can arrange this", AND, the taxi driver did! It doesn't add up for me, feel terribly sorry for the girls family, but it sounds as if there is just not enough evidence.
Original post by Eboracum
Incredible isn't it, that every time there is a high profile case like this, TSR reacts as if they know somebody is guilty without having seen any evidence what so ever. We saw it with Amanda Knox, Oscar P and now this.

It doesn't add up to me. You just married, he goes to South Africa and arranges the murder? Why would you do that? And he didn't arrange it before hand, he did it when he got there. Did he say to the taxi driver "and by the way, do you know anyone who can arrange this", AND, the taxi driver did! It doesn't add up for me, feel terribly sorry for the girls family, but it sounds as if there is just not enough evidence.



The fact that he asked the taxi man to take the couple through a very dangerous and volatile township at night ... the fact that Dewani gave a package (containing money?) to the taxi man after the murder ... possibly how Dewani was all happy after the murder ...

Not having enough evidence =/= innocent. He's being released because there is no evidence ... In my book it doesn't make him guilty or innocent.
Original post by the bear
i don't understand why TSR are suddenly experts on this case and are second guessing the legal profession's decision.


This
Original post by Radicalathiest
This



Except most of us aren't second guessing ... we're giving out opinion.
Original post by Monsieur Gamma
Except most of us aren't second guessing ... we're giving out opinion.


'But in reality, we all know he was guilty.'

'However we all know he was responsible and he won't be made to pay for his crime.'

'"Lack of evidence" they say ... typical - just like the Pistorius trial.'

'I always thought he had killed her ... but it seems that he didn't ...'

Problem is making a decision on the LACK of facts
Original post by Radicalathiest


'"Lack of evidence" they say ... typical - just like the Pistorius trial.'

'I always thought he had killed her ... but it seems that he didn't ...'

Problem is making a decision on the LACK of facts


Take the first two quotes out please ... because they aren't mine.

There was a "lack of evidence" ... that's why the judge "cleared" Dewani - fact.

"I always thought he had killed her" signifies OPINION!
Original post by Monsieur Gamma
Take the first two quotes out please ... because they aren't mine.

There was a "lack of evidence" ... that's why the judge "cleared" Dewani - fact.

"I always thought he had killed her" signifies OPINION!


You used the term 'most of us' hence the quotes from multiple posters

Yes that's right the prosecution made a claim that they were unable to prove this is how the law works

SO the truth is they could not prove he is guilty

what you 'think' is irrelevant and I stand by my initial 'this'
I personally think that he was guilty. I know that there was not enough evidence to prosecute him and the judge was just upholding dewanis right to a fair trial. But for some reason it doesn't feel right that he can just walk away free! I know, and the family of the bride knows, that he is not letting on to something. All this stuff about the taxi driver and stuff doesn't sound vey innocent to me. When I saw the pictures of Annis parents crying after the verdict and saying that justice has not been done for their daughte... I just wish the court realise what a mistake they made!
I didn't think he was guilty.

There were pieces of evidence that were missing and were inconsistent with Key Prosecution witnesses

Judge Traverso

Their testimony was “so riddled with contradictions, mistakes, lies and inconsistencies that I can all but ignore them”.

She said the testimony of Zola Tongo, the driver of the taxi in which Anni was killed, was “conflicted in virtually every material respect and in places made no sense”.

The Witnesses were the key in this trial. There was no forensic evidence connecting Dewani to the murder. No phone or text was ever captured in the hotel or elsewhere with Dewani organising a murder.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Monsieur Gamma
The fact that he asked the taxi man to take the couple through a very dangerous and volatile township at night ... the fact that Dewani gave a package (containing money?) to the taxi man after the murder ... possibly how Dewani was all happy after the murder ...

Not having enough evidence =/= innocent. He's being released because there is no evidence ... In my book it doesn't make him guilty or innocent.


Dewani gave him £100 pound.

That money was in line with normal amounts that would be expected for the Taxi Driver to receive after 2 days work.

Dewani gave the money because he thought the man had been hijacked and did not get payment for the previous work.
.
By the way, according to the Taxi Driver, he expected much more and yet he did not ask for any more.
(edited 9 years ago)
The opinions most people post here are obviously going to be based on interpretations of newspaper, or even worse, tabloid articles, which themselves are interpretations of the actual case. Unless you've looked thoroughly at the evidence, you aren't entitled to an opinion on whether the verdict was justified.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you