Dewani: Three strikes to freedom
Prosecutors pushed to show motive
HREE inadmissibility rulings in three weeks affecting the testimony of three witnesses have effectively crippled prosecutors’ attempts to show the Wester n Cape High Court what, in their view, motivated Shrien Dewani to orchestrate his wife’s murder.
And, while motive is not essential to prove someone committed a criminal offence, in the Bristol businessman’s case, it is a crucial part of the State’s allegation that Dewani was not committed to his wife Anni Hindocha.
The first of the State’s unholy trinity came on October 14 – five days into the trial – when Scotland Yard detective Mark Roberts was called.
Roberts was the Metropolitan Police official who analysed the hard drive of Dewani’s Dell laptop.
He told the court that he found e-mail activity between Dewani and an unidentified man.
However, just as Roberts was about to testify about the contents, the defence objected, saying the details were irrelevant and would be prejudicial to Dewani if allowed.
Dewani’s advocate, Francois van Zyl SC, said Dewani did not dispute that he was conflicted about marrying Anni and that he had disclosed in his plea that he was bisexual and had sexual interaction with men.
Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso ruled the evidence inadmissible.
The following week, Anni’s cousin Sneha Hindocha testified that there were problems in the relationship and that the couple agreed to pretend to be happy at their wedding.
However, as soon as she started to divulge details of what Anni had told her, Van Zyl objected on the basis that the evidence constituted hearsay.
This evidence, according to
Tthe State, would show the court Dewani had a motive to have Anni killed. But again Judge Traverso would not allow it. Then, this week, gay escort Leopold Leisser testified he had sexual interactions with Dewani three times, the last in April 2010 – just a month before Anni and Dewani were engaged.
However, according to the evidence, he and Dewani remained in contact until December 2010 – after Anni’s murder.
He was about to testify when the defence objected – again on the basis the evidence was not relevant.
State advocate Adrian Mopp said the evidence was intended to show Dewani was gay – not bisexual. In addition, Leisser was to tell the court Dewani had made disclosures on his feelings about getting married to Anni.
Judge Traverso pointed out that Dewani did not dispute that he was conflicted about the marriage and that he had had sexual interactions with men.
“Must I ignore all the other evidence that has been led in this court? That he had relationships with other women, that he was previously engaged and broke off the engagement? We know he had a relationship with the deceased.”
The ruling was the third in the triple jinx that befell the State, affecting the evidence of three important witnesses flown to South Africa to testify.
Also this week, the the evidence of the State’s key witness, taxi driver Zola Tongo, began to fall apart.
Tongo, who claims Dewani approached him to find a hitman, is the only State witness whose evidence directly implicated Dewani. However, from Wednesday, it became evident that several aspects of his testimony differed from what he had told police and the court when he pleaded guilty.