NOTGUILTY South Africa - Anni Dewani, 28, shot to death, Gugulethu, 13 Nov 2010 #5

[jay-jay]

I don't understand? 4 people were so stupid as to commit the crimes without SD for less than a few thousand rands?? My logic fails here.

~rsbm~

.. you're not the only one, FG .. it fails my logic, too!

Once again .. fair enough if the judge doesn't believe there is enough evidence to convict, but (like Masipa in the OP case) she voluntarily goes much further than that and offers her own personal opinion about the witnesses and what they would or would not have done, without having any actual evidence for that and there seems to be a lot of cherry picking (once again) taking bits of those unreliable witnesses testimonies as truth .. if you are going to chuck out the witnesses testimonies, then you have to chuck out the whole lot, not just take bits of it and present them as the truth but not other bits. It's not about what her 'beliefs' about those people are, it's about not having enough evidence .. and either there is enough evidence or there isn't enough evidence, and surely that is all they need to say? Anyway, at the end of the day, Dewani is only 'Not Guilty' because the case was thrown out, he wasn't found 'Not Guilty' at the end of a full trial, with all the evidence and witness testimonies (his being one of them) being presented, and he wasn't found 'Not Guilty' by a jury who had all the evidence and testimonies to hand. There ought to be another terminology for it, if a court case has not gone full term .. they shouldn't say 'Not Guilty' they should just say that he is no longer considered as 'the accused' because the trial has collapsed.

 

[jay-jay]

Man another case in South Africa like this. Is the police that incompetent or are judges really that stupid in SA?? Maybe SA doesn't understand circumstantial evidence??

BBM .. just seems like a whole different mindset over there, doesn't it.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I've always found this to be a very strange case. The one thing I've never understood is why either of them chose to go ahead with the marriage.

1) Both of them were young enough not to be "desperate" to get married. These days so many couples wait until they're in their 30s before taking the plunge.
2) Both were well educated and they tend to marry later. She was only 28.
3) Anni was a lovely looking young woman with a bubbly personality. I'm sure she wouldn't have had too much trouble finding a suitable young man ... or did she?
4) She wanted children but time was still on her side.
5) They appeared to have problems, serious problems, from the very beginning.
6) Anni had so many issues with him. Both of them were very forthright and opinionated so there would always have been arguments. Was she so immature that she believed they'd disappear? He seemed to be a control freak and often made her unhappy ... even on her wedding day.
7) He's gay and into bondage, masochism etc. Surely the very thought of intimate relations with any woman would have been repulsive. How could he ever have thought that marriage would work. After all, he'd already had one broken engagement due to his inability to engage in sex. Because of his low hormone levels he even had difficulties with men let alone women.
7) While I'm sure both sets of parents would have liked their children to marry (not necessarily to each other) educated, middle class Indians generally don't apply the same degree of pressure on their children to marry early as the lower classes.
8) If either set of parents did bring pressure to bear, they have a lot to live with.

 

[JudgeJudi]

BBM .. just seems like a whole different mindset over there, doesn't it.

From what I've read, many legal experts including some we're familiar with from the OP trial, have said from the outset that the State was going to have an uphill battle proving their case, some even saying that it should never have gone to trial in the first place. I just think it's tragic that yet another young woman with her whole life ahead of her had to die in these sort of circumstances, regardless of who did it or why.

I know there were many unanswered questions, and Traverso acknowledged this, but we have to remember that he never refused to testify - because it didn't get that far. Traverso even said that the State's case was so weak that even if he did testify and was a poor witness, the State still didn't have enough to win, and no-one can be forced to incriminate themselves. Remember, the State has to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and surely when everyone else lied over and over again, the judge wouldn't have been able to find him guilty.

Guilty or not, I think he's a disgusting, cold, calculating, insensitive human being and I hope he gets his just desserts one day.

 

[eimajjjj]

I've always found this to be a very strange case. The one thing I've never understood is why either of them chose to go ahead with the marriage.


7) He's gay and into bondage, masochism etc. Surely the very thought of intimate relations with any woman would have been repulsive. How could he ever have thought that marriage would work. After all, he'd already had one broken engagement due to his inability to engage in sex. Because of his low hormone levels he even had difficulties with men let alone women.

he's bisexual not gay. This means he is capable of having sex or LOVING both sexes, including Anni. Actually, more often than not, the times with men are purely sexual.

And where did you read he couldn't have sex with women or men?

Me too...what a sexually mixed up guy Dewani was and is!

Any woman who heard of this sort of this type of past behaviour, would not want to marry him. I predict that Anni had not heard of it but she would have soon realised, he was more than just kinky. Anni could have been a virgin and inexperienced as this is the way with many Hindu women so only believed in sex after marriage.

why does a man's colourful sexual history automatically rule them out for marriage with 'any' woman in the world. Is this the same the other way round then?

Im starting to realise that a large amount of this media bias and mob 'justice' is stemming from a more deep-rooted and unspoken homophobia.

 

[eimajjjj]

Guilty or not, I think he's a disgusting, cold, calculating, insensitive human being and I hope he gets his just desserts one day.

This represents all the irrationality for me. You wish suffering upon a man even if he is innocent and had nothing to do with the horrific murder of his wife. On top of the pain he's already felt.

 

[zwiebel]

he's bisexual not gay. This means he is capable of having sex or LOVING both sexes, including Anni. Actually, more often than not, the times with men are purely sexual.

And where did you read he couldn't have sex with women or men?


why does a man's colourful sexual history automatically rule them out for marriage with 'any' woman in the world. Is this the same the other way round then?

Im starting to realise that a large amount of this media bias and mob 'justice' is stemming from a more deep-rooted and unspoken homophobia.

The article says the male prostitute stated he wore gloves with Dewani 'to prevent infection'. Because the sexual practises he says they indulged in were high-risk. Diseases that can be sexually transmitted include HIV, amongst many others. Anni was not aware of Shrien's cheating on her, and so could not have been aware of any risks of infection he was exposing her to. Many women (and men) I suspect, would not want to marry a partner who did that to them. It's not homophobic to dislike a cheater, in my opinion, whatever the sex of the person they are cheating with.

 

[kevin_405]

There is a lot of guilty by association in this case. People have used all kinds of excuses including Dewanis sexuality, his and her ethnicity, peer/psychological pressure. But very frankly i dont think any of that can be used as evidence. Dewani is a confused individual, and his behavior is suspicious but that cannot be used as a evidence. Many people are using it as evidence and assigning guilt thats the sad part of the case.

People are also mixing this case with Oscar Pestorius case, which are totally different. In that case Oscar was the shooter and hence he had to convince the jury of his innocence.

Both cases have reached a outcome which is fair for the situation. It was hard to prove premeditated murder in case of Oscar and in Dewanis case it was really hard to show clear evidence of guilty in conspiracy.

This represents all the irrationality for me. You wish suffering upon a man even if he is innocent and had nothing to do with the horrific murder of his wife. On top of the pain he's already felt.

 

[zwiebel]

Justice4AnniHindocha ‏@Justice4Anni 1 hr1 hour ago

Our complaint of bias by Judge Traverso is to be considered by the Judicial Conduct Committee #dewani #dewanitrial

The tweet contains a photo of the letter. I'll try and post it.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://de.scribd.com/doc/249123437/DOSSIER-ON-JUDGE-TRAVERSO-S-CONDUCT

Verrry interesting!

 

[zwiebel]

http://de.scribd.com/doc/249123437/DOSSIER-ON-JUDGE-TRAVERSO-S-CONDUCT

Verrry interesting!

I just get 'not available'.

 

[eimajjjj]

The article says the male prostitute stated he wore gloves with Dewani 'to prevent infection'. Because the sexual practises he says they indulged in were high-risk. Diseases that can be sexually transmitted include HIV, amongst many others. Anni was not aware of Shrien's cheating on her, and so could not have been aware of any risks of infection he was exposing her to. Many women (and men) I suspect, would not want to marry a partner who did that to them. It's not homophobic to dislike a cheater, in my opinion, whatever the sex of the person they are cheating with.

Agreed. To link bisexuality though, with ability to murder, which has happened numerous times here and in the media, is.

 

[zwiebel]

The Local, Sweden has a 14-photo gallery of the case.

http://www.thelocal.se/galleries/news/in-pictures-swedish-honeymoon-killing-murder-trial-/1

Also an article.

http://www.thelocal.se/20141208/swedish-honeymoon-killer-acquitted

It's the first time I've seen any of the Locals get a breaking national news story up so soon.

 

[Estelle]

he's bisexual not gay. This means he is capable of having sex or LOVING both sexes, including Anni. Actually, more often than not, the times with men are purely sexual.

And where did you read he couldn't have sex with women or men?


why does a man's colourful sexual history automatically rule them out for marriage with 'any' woman in the world. Is this the same the other way round then?

Im starting to realise that a large amount of this media bias and mob 'justice' is stemming from a more deep-rooted and unspoken homophobia.

Personally I am not homophobic but I know who I am sexually and sex is very important to me. Before marriage, it is important to open up about your sexuality even if you do not have sex with each other beforehand. You ask questions of each other and expect honest answers. Such as, "Do you want children?" "How many?" "How do you like to have sex?" "Are you expecting a mutually exclusive relationship?" "Have you ever had same sex?" "Are you bisexual?" "Have you ever had sex before?" "How do you/would you like it?" If you have asked those questions before marriage, surely you would feel cheated if you found out otherwise by lack of performance or avoidance!

As there are more heterosexuals in the world than bisexuals (assuming Dewani is bisexual), and a man asks you to marry him, you assume that he is heterosexual and would only want sex with you unless you are bisexual yourself. Maybe Anni if she was a virgin did not think of asking this question before marriage. But at least after marriage, she might have realised that there was another side to Dewani's sexuality. I am sure if she was asked before marriage, would you marry a man who was bisexual, she would have said, "no". Now we know his sexual background with men, IMO he probably deceived Anni by acting as a heterosexual to her before marriage. When a man is gay or bisexual, he is not going to change his preferences just because he is married. Anni seemed to have been a conservative girl who IMO would not have been open to this at all. That is why in a previous post, I said she was probably being sarcastic to her cousin about having sex five times in a day (when the reality was that they had probably not even had any sex but was ashamed to admit it) as they were on safari and out most of the day looking at animals. Usually, you would have to stay in bed all day to achieve that as it is definitely not the norm. If you have satisfying emotional sex because of love, you do not have to do it 5 times a day. My gut feeling is that Anni knew that there was something unusual about Dewani's sexuality and she told him so. But she was proud and did not want to admit it on a text message to anyone as she realised she had made a mistake in marrying him which she intended to do something about when she got home.

I had a similar experience in my marriage and suspected that he must have been gay and I married later too but there were other reasons.

Just my gut feeling......

 

[gracehatter]

Not sure if posted...I did not see this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/08/world/africa/south-africa-honeymoon-murder-trial/

 

[zwiebel]

I am thinking that it would be unwise to underestimate the pressure on both Anni and Shrien, after they became engaged and began arranging the wedding. I don't think it need have been cultural either. I've known several people who, in the midst of wedding preps, had doubts, but simply could not bring themselves to tell everyone they were calling it off, after all the work and money spent. And a couple of them had spent far, far less and were arranging much smaller events than Shrien and Anni.

 

[jay-jay]

he's bisexual not gay. This means he is capable of having sex or LOVING both sexes, including Anni. Actually, more often than not, the times with men are purely sexual.

And where did you read he couldn't have sex with women or men?


why does a man's colourful sexual history automatically rule them out for marriage with 'any' woman in the world. Is this the same the other way round then?

Im starting to realise that a large amount of this media bias and mob 'justice' is stemming from a more deep-rooted and unspoken homophobia.

BBM .. I think you are jumping to conclusions, and the vast majority on here are a bit more intelligent than that. Perhaps on social media there might be a few of those types flinging comments around but most of us here on WS are simply trying to work out what actually happened, that's all.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

he's bisexual not gay. This means he is capable of having sex or LOVING both sexes, including Anni. Actually, more often than not, the times with men are purely sexual.

And where did you read he couldn't have sex with women or men?


why does a man's colourful sexual history automatically rule them out for marriage with 'any' woman in the world. Is this the same the other way round then?

Im starting to realise that a large amount of this media bias and mob 'justice' is stemming from a more deep-rooted and unspoken homophobia.

HIS sexuality is allowed to be "colourful", but SHE has to be a virgin? That's a fine combination, always preferred from men with appropriate cultural background.

 

[jay-jay]

Agreed. To link bisexuality though, with ability to murder, which has happened numerous times here and in the media, is.

BBM .. has it? I have to admit to not having followed the whole thread but I'm pretty sure that that wouldn't have been what most people would've been suggesting. What they would've been trying to do is try and build up an overall picture of Diwani and his lifestyle and the events leading up to the murder of Anni. His sexuality may well been one of the pieces of the jigsaw .. not necessarily because he was/is bisexual but a number of issues surrounding that and various stigmas attached to his own cultural heritage, which, by the same token, you could also throw in an accusation of anyone mentioning that as being 'racist' .. it's not .. it's about building an overall picture of someone who has been accused of murder, and trying to work out whether, with all of these various different factors, there would've been enough of a motive for them to have killed their wife.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I am thinking that it would be unwise to underestimate the pressure on both Anni and Shrien, after they became engaged and began arranging the wedding. I don't think it need have been cultural either. I've known several people who, in the midst of wedding preps, had doubts, but simply could not bring themselves to tell everyone they were calling it off, after all the work and money spent. And a couple of them had spent far, far less and were arranging much smaller events than Shrien and Anni.

I remember his behavior, which had caused Anni to doubt, he would be the right husband. In addition then the prepared huge wedding and the many invited guests and the embarrassment to cancel this celebration. Poor Anni!