I have two updates that might be of interest-
Dewani motive – update
Anni Dewani’s ashes scattered yesterday
Our lunchtime news had as its main item a letter published in The Sun newspaper from supposed friends of Anni, I thought that I’d look it up, here it is…
Here’s the rest
Boadicea's Chariot 
Yes, supposed friends is probably about right.
“We would ask you and your family to leave this case to the police and the courts, rather than joining a battle with your PR agents.”
So why would they send this anonymously to the Sun, Soutie?
Are they not just as guilty in manipulating the media?
I honestly think that it should be settled, but with regard to due process.
I believe I read that the other contract killing of which he was accused, was a total fabrication.
Ara, I have no idea, I think what is important is that we don’t let the matter rest.
I’m not quite sure why you think that the KWT (Kingwillianstown) murder was a fabrication, it certainly happened!
Badly phrased, Soutie, I understand that Dewani was cleared of any involvement in the KWT murder.
I don’t think the matter should rest either but I’m not happy with this media manipulation by either side.
I also very much doubt that he will get a fair trial in South Africa.
Just my opinion.
3 points Ara
I’m offended that you don’t think that our justice system would deliver a fair verdict. You (I would assume) know nothing of life down here, I can assure you that vengeance is not part of our make up, we have dozens of high profile crimes here covered by our media, never have I thought that our right to freedom of expression and information influenced the outcome.
Unlike some other countries in the world we are allowed to comment and think as we want, it’s something that we fought for in our new (1994) constitution and something that I’ll defend dearly.
Thirdly allow me to wish both you and Bilby a happy and prosperous new year.
God bless
xxx
Thank you, Soutie. 🙂
It is not so much the justice system in South Africa, as the very real desire to protect your reputation. Very understandable but potential jurors cannot help but be influenced by the media coverage.
Frankly, I have said before and not just with regard to this case, that it should be considered sub judice. I realise that this is not the case these days, but I think it should be.
Again, only my opinion.
Ara we don’t have a jury system!
We have a judge and occasionally a couple of assessors , sometimes 3 judges (I would think only in high profile appeals) but no juries.
Our high court (and constitutional court) judges take their positions very very seriously, for you to base an opinion on such a misnomer baffles me!
Ah, well, my ignorance of your judicial system is all too apparent, as you rightly pointed out, Soutie.
I wrongly thought it may have been based on the English Legal System. 😦
Still don’t agree with trial by media/bloggers though, Soutie.
Hopefully I’ve put you mind at rest regards the ‘fairness’ of any possible trial.
I’m certainly not trying to ‘try’ him here on these pages but there is no doubt that an injustice has been done, I’d rather we all got to the bottom of it without bloggers / media or Clifford.
One thing that I do know is that we won’t let it rest, we want an outcome one way or another!
I think we are in agreement here, Soutie.
I must dash; I’m late as usual.
Enjoy the rest of your evening. 🙂
Good Morning Soutie – Happy New Year!
I don’t think anybody whose alleged crime is seized upon by the world media can get a ‘fair trial’ anywhere – there are probably 20 million Judges world-wide and at least half of those will be unsatisfied with the verdict however impartial the presiding Judge or Judges are.
I’ve just finished reading a book about a witch-hunt. It strikes me that Joe Blogg hasn’t changed much in the last thousand years or so – except that it’s the media that now fans the fires and the accused can hire a PR company to put a ‘spin’ on their claims of innocence.
Like Araminta, I feel that once someone is accused of a crime the details of the case should not be discussed until it comes to court and that the only role the media should play is to ensure that the due process of law is strictly adhered to.
My memories of Africa covered the mass expulsion of Asians from Uganda, and then in relatively quick succession a less murderous but nevertheless similarly forceful exodus of Asians from Kenya, in the early 1970s. Some of you may remember the news coverage: a colleague was press-ganged into being one of the four Europeans carrying Idi Amin down Kampala High Street on a jerry-rigged sedan chair, so my respect for African justice and treatment of minorities is somewhat jaundiced to put it mildly.
If I was an Asian, I am not sure I would be quite as confident of receiving a fair trial in any sub-Saharan African country, including South Africa, as you indicate is the case, Soutie. I hope you are right, and that Asians and Europeans live now in South Africa in peace and harmony with their black brothers in power – wishing you a Happy and Peaceful New Year.
Excuse me, your Honour, but on a point of order – it isn’t sub judice; that’s exactly the problem that Soutie is highlighting – it should be!
Hello Boa.
You have to remember that we have already had one trial and a conviction. During the weeks prior to the trial and conviction of the taxi driver there was much speculation but the ‘facts’ of the case were only officially revealed during the trial.
As is the case with all trials the ‘facts’ were reported and the claim that Dewani was involved made public, what could be done other than allow the press to report the proceedings?
Bearsy’s point about it not being sub judice is correct, it was up until the first trial but now it’s an impossibility.
I’d just like to add that neither I nor the authors of this letter have found anybody guilty, we simply want the extradition process to proceed
CWJ comparing modern day SA with Uganda and Kenya of the ’60’s and ’70’s leaves me speechless!
I did however watch Braveheart, have you managed to resolve your problems with the English? Is it safe to travel north of York if I bring my family over for a visit?
I’m sure you haven’t, but, I suspect that quite a few have.
I take your point about the facts being put before the public at the time of the first trial. Once the genie is out of the bottle there’s no going back.
Its safe, Soutie. Mel Gibson has gone back to America. 😉
On the question of trial by jury, or otherwise, I recall something Richard Dawkins, the man I love to hate, wrote on the subject. He claimed that if you had the choice you should choose to be tried by jury if you are guilty and by a judge if you are innocent. It makes sense to me. A trained and experienced professional is far more likely to reach the correct verdict than a bunch of laymen. Apart from anything else, the judge’s reputation is on the line. If he gets it wrong, his judgement is up for the rest of the profession to tear apart. Not so for the jury members who are likely to be driven by emotion as much as anything else. Britain and America have always been very proud of the jury system. I am not sure it is so fair and I would not be averse to its being done away with. Certainly the perverse custom in the US, whereby prosecutors and defence attorneys go to great lengths to select jury members that are likely to return a verdict in their favour, does little to earn respect for the judicial system there.
Having served on an Australian jury, I’m not so sure that I agree with you, Sipu. We took our job very seriously and we were confident that we had served justice – and, as it happens, the law. 😕
The OJ Simpson and Louise Woodward case spring to mind, 2 miscarries of justice if I’ve ever seen it but probably my only exposure to the jury system.
I did watch Runaway Jury a great movie which obviously full of Hollywood hype did show the workings and selection procedures, a great film if you haven’t seen it.
I have no doubt that both systems are fine, I do know that if I were selected (hypothetically ’cause it can’t happen) I too would would apply myself seriously and hopefully do a good job.
Nice comment from you Bearsy (pity we can’t recommend them ;)) I would have never doubted otherwise.
Bearsy, I am sure you did and I think most people would certainly aim to do the same. But you must admit that there are many potential jurors who lack your level of sophistication, education and, without wishing to appear obsequious, your intelligence, who, even with the best will in the world, would struggle to understand some of the more complex aspects of the case. As for any emotional influence in forming an opinion, I remain convinced that factors such as appearance, age, sex, race, ethnicity, religion and demeanour of the defendant as well the nature of the crime and the victim, if there is one, play a part, one way or the other. One may disapprove of prejudice of any form, but one must surely admit that is exists.
I most certainly do, Sipu; the trouble is that it exists in judges, too! 🙄
Aren’t all cases eventually tried by a judge or perhaps a panel of judges?
Well only the guilty verdicts.
If in the UK, Oz, US or anywhere else for that matter somebody is found guilty by a jury I imagine an appeal process is initiated.
Where then effectively have a review of the evidence presented at the trial and judges then either confirm or overturn the initial jury verdict.
Does that make the need for a jury pointless?
No, I don’t think so. In general appeals are on points of law, or procedure. One needs grounds to appeal, and those grounds must be established and approved first. Most cases cannot be appealed. A re-trial may be ordered, in which case there is, again, a jury. Such as happened with Lindy Chamberlain.
Where’s a lawyer when you need one?
Exactly what I was thinking when I was considering my comment 😉