The Prosecution of Dewani in South Africa

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

gbb

Squire
Location
Peterborough
You are wrong. (My faveourite opening sentence)

But in this case you really are: I think he's innocent because the Law does.

What a happy world I live in.
Wrong !!!! :thumbsup:
Do you realise the irony of what youve just said :thumbsup: your sentence perfectly echoes my sentiments above...'i THINK he's innocent because the law does'
The law thinks hes innocent.. you could think that means they cant prove any guilt. It thinks...it doesnt know. But the lack of anything concrete against him leaves them (rightly), no choice.
Glad you agree with me ^_^
 

Vapin' Joe

Formerly known as Smokin Joe
Seemed to me he played the mad card in a bid to avoid extradition.


A fair proportion of people suffer from mental illness at some point, and if you are that way disposed then facing a murder rap would be enough to tip you over the edge.
 

spen666

Legendary Member
Ah yes, apologies to the op.

You said it's laughable but you didn't say why?
Its such a biased and incorrect article.

Its written to suit an agenda and that is not the truth. It masquerades as a serious analysis of the case, but is nothing of the sort

Its laughable how gullible folk are to take it at face value
 
Its such a biased and incorrect article.

Its written to suit an agenda and that is not the truth. It masquerades as a serious analysis of the case, but is nothing of the sort

Its laughable how gullible folk are to take it at face value
You've still failed to say why. The piece basically said that it was a failed kidnap/ransom gone wrong. The case against Dewani has been thrown out because there is no case, no bias there, that's fact, so the verdict tends to support what's written.
 

spen666

Legendary Member
Its such a biased and incorrect article.

Its written to suit an agenda and that is not the truth
You've still failed to say why. The piece basically said that it was a failed kidnap/ransom gone wrong. The case against Dewani has been thrown out because there is no case, no bias there, that's fact, so the verdict tends to support what's written.
You believe what you want, that is your choice.

I have explained why I said its laughable, if you don't agree, then that is your right.

you believe what you want to believe
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
You believe what you want, that is your choice.

I have explained why I said its laughable, if you don't agree, then that is your right.

you believe what you want to believe

Well at the risk of being picky, you've asserted it's laughable, but not explained why, but merely referred to your own post stating it's laughable.
 

spen666

Legendary Member
Well at the risk of being picky, you've asserted it's laughable, but not explained why, but merely referred to your own post stating it's laughable.
may I refer you to post #38?


However, if you want to believe the article is unbiased and a fair summary of the facts, that is your right. I dont have to justify my views, neither do you yours.
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
may I refer you to post #38?


However, if you want to believe the article is unbiased and a fair summary of the facts, that is your right. I dont have to justify my views, neither do you yours.

I've no idea if the article is biased or whatever, other than it being written by a journalist hence dubious per se, so there's no need to be huffy.
may I refer you to post #38?


However, if you want to believe the article is unbiased and a fair summary of the facts, that is your right. I dont have to justify my views, neither do you yours.

I was genuinely interested in what you thought was wrong with it, especially given I recall you may have some legal experience, but merely asserting it's biased, or wrong, isn't really contributing, nor is referring to an earlier post which just says it's poor. Fair enough if you can't be bothered explaining, but if that's so, why bother posting in the first place, and then accusing the rest of us of being gullible and what not.
 
I have explained why I said its laughable
You said
Its such a biased and incorrect article.

Its written to suit an agenda and that is not the truth. It masquerades as a serious analysis of the case, but is nothing of the sort

Its laughable how gullible folk are to take it at face value

Which reads like an assertion not an explanation

and i said

Quite a good summary here

I never said I believed it.

Like Profpointy, I was genuinely interested in why you thought it wasn't.
 

spen666

Legendary Member
You believe what you want to.

I have stated why I think it is a laughable article.

If you don't like me answer, then tough. You have your view I have mine.

The article as I stated is clearly in my view written by someone who has an agenda
 

Tin Pot

Guru
Wrong !!!! :thumbsup:
Do you realise the irony of what youve just said :thumbsup: your sentence perfectly echoes my sentiments above...'i THINK he's innocent because the law does'
The law thinks hes innocent.. you could think that means they cant prove any guilt. It thinks...it doesnt know. But the lack of anything concrete against him leaves them (rightly), no choice.
Glad you agree with me ^_^
Wow, what a post.

So basically you and I have a method of determining right and wrong* called Law. Judges and Courts decide what is right and wrong based on the Law you and I request through a system called "Democracy".


Thusly the Judge doesn't read the Faily Mail or Twatter and says the guy is innocent.

I believe the Judge.

I don't believe Twatter.


*What is socially right or wrong, not morally.
 

The Jogger

Legendary Member
Location
Spain
I have my own view but given the quality of the evidence and witnesses, I don't think they could have done anything else......................
 
  • Like
Reactions: gbb
Top Bottom