Dewani Case Dismissed

[toalisi]

The Judge has just announced she is dismissing the case.

[ummmm]

I'm not surprised.

[toalisi]

Yes. The prosecution case was a shambles.

[anneasquith]

on what grounds ?

[Jomlett]

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-12-08/judge-dismisses-murder-charge-against-shrien-dewani/

[Jomlett]

Judge Jeanette Traverso said there was "no evidence" which could reasonably seal a conviction.

[andy-hughes]

I am sure he will say that he is 'innocent', but dismissal does not mean he is not guilty - it means they don't think there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

In layman's terms - we think you did it, but we can't prove you did it.

[andy-hughes]

I cross-posted with all the previous posts - looks like we are in agreement.

[Jomlett]

Announcing her ruling, the judge said: "The accused is found not guilty of this charge."

[Peter Pedant]

no case to answer

even if it were all true - you would not be able to convict. Called non-suiting in the nineteenth century. In English Law it is summed up ( ha!) by the rules in R v Galbraith ( altho the sarth efrican system is Roman Dutch )

reviewed here
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/02/09/no-case-to-answer/

also on the CPS site somewhere in ( appeals A-C) but I cant find it

here it appears that the evidence is contradictory - so it cant all be true but never mind I dont suppose Shrien is complaining

Put on a modern legal footing by the late Mars Jones J I was surprised to read. in this country

Yet another extradition c+ck-up

[Peter Pedant]

// In layman's terms - we think you did it, but we can't prove you did it.//

well that is just too bad quite honestly.

we are getting a lot of this these days - esp over terrorist offences when they play the second trump - " there is evidence but it is so secret that we cant trust you with it. Just take it from us. "

blah blah blah crap in my opinion

[bazwillrun]

One lucky man......and he knows it !

[Ric.ror]

Well I thought he did it but I must be wrong - mind you I thought Oscar Pistorius was gulity too so it just goes to show what I know

Wasn't there video evidence of him meeting the taxi driver?

[Jomlett]

Yes, Ric..Shrien Dewani trial: CCTV video footage shows accused meeting convicted driver morning after killing... http://mirr.im/1s8NHMp

[youngmafbog]

No prsecution therefore he is innocent. But as usual there are those that think they know better than a SA judge.

[New Judge]

Meeting a taxi driver does not prove he killed anybody. Suspicious, yes, but conclusive, no.

In UK law "no case to answer" (which is what I believe has been decided here) means that after listening to the full prosecution case the judge (or Magistrates) have decided that if they heard nothing more they could not (not necessarily would not) convict the defendant. In short, the evidence presented is not sufficient to prove guilt and the defendant has no need to provide the court with his version of events.

I don't know enough of the detail in this case to pass an opinion but lots of people who commit crimes are not convicted. Whether or not they are "innocent" is purely semantics.

[chrissa1]

In my opinion, the case against him just didn't add up. Why suddenly find a complete stranger and ask them to murder your bride?

So many things could have gone wrong. It was bizarre.

[DTCwordfan]

His God will decide whether he lives - or his outlaws.

[DTCwordfan]

I agree, chrissa, more like the cab driver, hired for a week, sees immense wealth and the opportunity to frame him.

[mikey4444]

This has been a farce from the beginning.

[Ric.ror]

Why did he say he met with the taxi driver the day after?