Sunday, December 26, 2010

Don't forget Dewani.............

The Dewani case takes yet more twists and turns back towards my original standpoint that without an apparent motive it was rash to jump to conclusions that this was a hit arranged by the husband.

The Dewani brief seems to be constructing a sound case to deny the extradition application, although why this should be displayed in the meeja before the court gets to hear it is extraordinary. Perhaps the case should be called R vs. Max Clifford to be heard in the Court of Meeja Speculation. It is now said anent the second murder in King William’s Town that in fact it is provable that Dewani had never been to SA before his honeymoon. Now a German of the homosexual persuasion pops up and says that he had had 3 sodomy sessions with D in London and Birmingham when D can conclusively show that he was never in either place at all material times. Nothing to do with brown envelopes, of course.

In addition, ‘General’ Wotsit, the chief of the SAPS, has made some extraordinarily prejudicial comments about the case, including describing D as a monkey who had come to SA to murder his wife. The family of the driver now convicted of murder says that he was paid R1000, not in unadjacent to £100 – for a hit! Not unreasonably, they say that this was for driving and that the video showing D handing over the money was his fare.

The latest reports on the forensic evidence show that she was shot through the hand and the bullet then severed the carotid artery. There was finger-bruising on her thighs which were consistent with a rape attempt, so together this suggests to me that she grabbed the muzzle of the gun during attempted rape and the crime was not a hit but rape gone wrong.

The defence is now saying what I said at the beginning; this may about restoring the image of the SA tourist industry, and the chances of a fair trial are considerably diminished if this is even remotely true.

However, D will probably not escape extradition because SA is one of those few countries that does not have to submit a prima facie case.

No comments: