7. THE MURDERER IS THE GOOD GUY

Mngeni pleaded not guilty and denied being at the scene, but was convicted with overwhelming evidence. He was jailed for 25 years for Anni’s murder.

Panorama put Mngeni on a pedestal because they claim he was the only gang member not to have entered into a plea bargain with the prosecution, effectively portraying him as a good guy.

They used various camera techniques to portray Mngeni in a more positive light, by showing bright pictures of him smiling,  showing sympathy-gathering photos of him on crutches struggling into court.  Contrast this with portrayals of other gang members Tongo, Qwabe and Mbolombo who are represented by actors and presented in stereotypical accents with monotonic voices in dark background sets and frequently labelled as “liars” by the presenter Jeremy Vine.

Mngeni is one of the men convicted of carjacking, robbing and killing Anni. He was found to have pulled the trigger. He has been jailed for life.

Mngeni initially co-operated with police, fully confessing his involvement in the fake carjacking, robbery and murder and voluntarily doing a ‘pointing out’ of the crime scenes (which was recorded on video).

But as his trial date approached, Mngeni suddenly decided to change his plea to ‘not guilty’. He had claimed he had been beaten by police previously to make a confession.

Dewani’s PR agent Max Clifford made a huge song and dance about these alleged claims of torture. He was shouting them from the rooftops at every opportunity he got  (well at least Clifford was before he was arrested and charged for sexual offences against youngsters, and now awaits trial denying the charges).

But there was no medical or witness evidence to support Mngeni’s claims of torture. A report produced after a full independent investigation rejected his claims. All of his confession was matched up to forensic records, multiple witness statements and phone records.

Mngeni continued to plead not guilty and a trial was set. Mngeni’s private lawyer was initially cagey about revealing how his legal fees were being funded. But when pressed by the media, he claimed that a ‘human rights guy’ from Kenya, allegedly called Mr Edmondo, had volunteered to fund Mngeni’s defence.

Is it believable that a man accused of murdering a tourist in South Africa would have his defence funded by some mystery unknown person in Kenya? There is no public record of any ‘Mr Edmondo’ ever having funded any defendant in South Africa before, let alone a murder suspect who has previous criminal convictions, and who denied being at the scene but his palm and fingerprints were all over the carjacked vehicle and multiple witnesses corroborated his movements that night to coincide with the murder.

Mngeni’s lawyer Dayimani is quoted: “Some human rights guys are paying my fees. It is all on the level.” (Mail & Guardian, 24 Aug 2012)

At trial, Mngeni now denied everything and this forced the prosecution to prove every point of evidence in their case. Who would possibility want to know the full details of the prosecution’s case and who would this information benefit? The other three accused men  had all confessed already –  except Shrien Dewani.

The prosecution suspected that Mngeni’s defence was being run for an ulterior motive, not connected to Mngeni’s interests, of forcing the prosecution to disclose evidence which might be used in a trial of Shrien Dewani.

The following unusual aspects are noteworthy, yet Panorama decided not to refer to any of them:

• Mngeni’s lawyer asked for court transcripts, purportedly to facilitate Mngeni’s understanding of the trial.
• The prosecution at one point directly challenged a line of questioning by the defence, accusing Mngeni’s lawyer of ‘fishing’ for evidence unrelated to Mngeni’s case.
• Dayimani attempted to ask Anni’s father Vinod Hindocha on the witness stand if he had approved of Anni’s marriage to Shrien Dewani. What relevance did this possibly to have to Mngeni’s defence? The objection was initially overruled, but then upheld at the very next question, the judge ordering that the witness Mr Hindocha be discharged immediately with no further questions.
• The prosecution case against Mngeni was overwhelming with over 25 witnesses including phone experts, forensic experts, doctors and others, plus phone records helping to convict him and highlighting the futility of his many denials and lies. This led many commentators to question how it could possibly be in Mngeni’s interests to deny all the evidence, and thus incur the wrath of the court and remove any possibility of getting a lesser sentence for co-operation.
• Shrien Dewani and his family did absolutely nothing to support the prosecution in convicting Mngeni, the man who pulled the trigger that killed Anni; the wife who Shrien Dewani claims he loved and whose loss has caused him PTSD and depression.
• When Mngeni was convicted, the Dewani family did not make any public statement (as they routinely have done in this case otherwise) to appreciate the conviction. Yet this was the man who had apparently caused Shrien Dewani to become “a widower at the age of 30” and was responsible for Shrien’s ‘Depression and PTSD’ for all these years. But there was a deafening silence from them.

Who really funded murderer Mngeni’s defence lawyer and who benefited from the prosecution material that was disclosed as a result?

It was predicted by some commentators during Mngeni’s trial, that the fact of Mngeni’s ‘Not Guilty’ plea, no matter how ridiculous and ill-founded, would later be used to bolster Shrien Dewani’s defence claims. With the Panorama program of 2013 using that same material, that prediction has been proven.

Panorama extensively quoted Mngeni’s statements but failed to point out that his original confession, as recorded on video, was corroborated by the forensic evidence and by the statements of multiple other witnesses and it was accepted by the Western Cape High Court.  Mngeni is not appealing his 25 year conviction.

Panorama conveniently ignores the Western Cape High Court’s judgment, published following an open trial with fully detailed reasons – that Mngeni’s version of events “is rejected as false. It is not reasonably possibly true.”

This finding by the Western Cape High Court did not worry Panorama, who quite happily use the proven liar’s statements selectively as some kind of ‘evidence’ in support of Shrien Dewani’s defence claims.

Panorama claims that Mngeni’s statements match Shrien Dewani’s statements so suggested the two of them must be truth tellers, and the others (who had implicated Dewani in the plot) had lied in order to get lesser sentences or immunity.

This supposed congruence between Mngeni’s and Shrien’s statements is proven to be a totally false confabulation, only achieved by outright misrepresentation of the evidence. (See ‘MY ENEMY’S ENEMY IS MY WIFE’S MURDERER’ for fuller details.)

For example,  Shrien Dewani said he was physically forced out of the window of a moving car due to child locks being on, landing on his shoulder and forehead. This is recorded on tape by Nick Parker of The Sun. But Mngeni says Dewani was told to leave the car and go to the nearby houses. He is also reported to have told a prison warden Dewani got out of the car door and walked away.

“Walked out using the car door” or was “forced through the window of a moving car” onto the floor? Those are two totally different stories.  This clear difference between Dewani’s statement and Mngeni’s statement proves that one of them is a liar.

But Jeremy Vine on Panorama portrayed Mngeni and murder suspect Dewani as saying the same things, and failed to report the very significant discrepancies between them.

8. MY ENEMY’S ENEMY IS MY WIFE’S MURDERER

Mngeni was jailed for 25 years for pulling the trigger that killed Anni.

Mngeni is the man convicted of pulling the trigger that killed Anni.

It is hardly surprising that Panorama could find statements where Mngeni and Dewani agree; after all, they were in the car together. But both of them have given several different versions of the same events.

Jeremy Vine chose to focus just on the agreements, and conveniently excluded all the discrepancies between what Shrien Dewani has said and what Mngeni has said.

In three separate places, Vine uncritically accepts Mngeni’s recorded confession to police as “evidence” that the SA police, prosecutor, and courts are wrong, and that the selected statements of Shrien Dewani which they choose to play, constitute a credible alternative version of events. It takes only minimal research to expose how flimsy and inconsequential these arguments are.

Panorama’s reliance on the testimony of Mngeni is made all the more laughable in light of the trial findings (Clauses 117 to 128), that Mngeni was proven beyond reasonable doubt (by “an avalanche of evidence“) to have lied to the court: “For these reasons, and others as borne out by the evidence, the version of the accused is rejected as false. It is not reasonably possibly true.“ (Clause 128)

Jeremy Vine chose not to make any reference to the Western Cape High Court’s findings.

• At 37:27 we are told: “Shrien says he handed over all the South African cash he had on him – 4,000 Rand – roughly 350 Pounds.”

This is hardly an earth-shaking revelation. In fact, it is such a minor piece of information that listing it as “evidence” in support of Shrien seems a little desperate. Are the Panorama team so hard up for corroborating evidence, that they will grasp at such straws? Apparently, the answer is ‘Yes’.

• Vine goes on to solemnly inform us that “The filmed confession of one of the gunmen, Xolile Mngeni, supports this, his account filmed before Shrien Dewani became a suspect”.

And to prove this to their UK audience, Panorama play footage of Mngeni talking in Xhosa to the police, with a helpful onscreen translation. But even this supposed minor agreement of fact is not well-founded. In his initial statement to police, Shrien is on record saying he handed over 5 – 6 thousand Rand. This is perhaps not a major discrepancy, but it is stretching the truth to say Mngeni’s confession supports Shrien’s statement.

• At 38:30 Shrien is heard saying “The driver then said “We just want the car, we are not going to hurt you. We are going to let you go but let you go separately”.

Although this revelation is not contested by Qwabe, or anyone else, and like the first example, is hardly seismic in its implications, Vine sees fit to tell us that: “Again, Mngeni, the only one to reject a plea bargain, confirms Shrien Dewani’s account.”  Then to make sure we understand, Panorama once again play us police video of Mngeni talking in Xhosa. And once again, Panorama supply a helpful English translation on the screen proving, according to Jeremy at 38:52, that “Shrien and Mngeni had no contact before or after, yet their accounts tally“. Ordinarily, of course, the issue of accurate translation would not be a cause for concern, but in this program, Vine and his pals have shown us that they can’t be trusted to report plain simple facts without embroidery.

• At 39:00 Vine moves on to the subject of Shrien Dewani’s exit from the taxi, assuring us “Again, his account mirrors Mngeni’s.”

Dewani’s statement to police. At the numbered paragraph 21, Dewani said: “The one male pulled me out of the car. I tried to pull Anni with me but the other male held her arm. The car then sped off.

Vine completely ignores the issue of which of Shrien Dewani’s accounts to compare to Mngeni: his recorded interview with The Sun newspaper; or his signed statement to police? In his statement to police, Dewani said he was pulled from the taxi, in the recorded interview, he said he was pushed.

Vine chooses to compare The Sun interview, and in support of his assertion, we are shown more footage of Mngeni’s Xhosa testimony, translated on-screen as “Qwabe insulted the white guy, and said ‘Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out!’ “, and we are told, this supports Shrien’s account of being thrown out of the taxi.

But what Mngeni can actually be heard to say is “Tss tss tss tss”. The meaning is unmistakeable, as it is used universally when shooing pets and small children away, and certainly does not match Shrien Dewani’s version of his exit from the vehicle as played at 39:41,  “...they prised us apart, they held a gun to my head and said either you leave or we’ll shoot you.”

The discrepancy is even more stark, if we compare the full version of what Shrien says to The Sun, as played in the Dispatches documentary at 29:55.

“They became increasingly aggressive and pushed me out of the car …um at gun point. I was holding on to her ..ah hanging on to her and they prised us apart and they had a gun, they held a gun to my head and said either you leave or we’ll shoot you… and then they forced me out of the car. They ..um they tried to open the back door ..um but it wouldn’t open presumably because the child lock was still on ..um…. and ..er so they opened the window and he eventually just forced me out of the window ..um because I was resisting ..um and holding onto Anni and they pushed me out of the window”.

Audio from The Sun interview – as aired by ITV4 –  DISPATCHES: Murder on Honeymoon

?? “Tss- Tss- Tss- Tss-” ??

Does Shrien’s account really “mirror” Mngeni’s, as Vine tells us?

“My enemy’s enemy is my friend” is a useful adage sometimes, but it takes some pretty desperate stooping to adopt it if the same person murdered your wife.

10. CHEAP SHOTS AND STUPID QUESTIONS

WHAT DOES A MURDERER LOOK LIKE, JEREMY?

In some places, Panorama presenter Jeremy Vine appears to be asking stupid questions, and taking cheap shots at the South African prosecutors, but could there be method in that apparent madness?

STUPID QUESTIONS

• 11:00 Vine: “If Anni was the target, why didn’t Shrien simply identify her immediately, especially if he wanted her dead the next night?”

Of course! And he could have saved a lot more time and trouble by simply enquiring after hitman services at the Cape Grace Reception. Why didn’t he?

• 15:02 Vine: “Does this look like a man who’s just arranged a murder?”

Vine’s idea seems to be, that people who arrange murders are immediately identifiable on CCTV (though perhaps not to all the people around them) because they are supposed to “look like” murder arrangers? Of course, the “question” is not supposed to be answered, because it is not really a question – there is no sensible answer. It is actually a rhetorical question, asking not for an answer, but a gut response. Because there is no sensible answer, the viewer is led to respond with a provisional “NO” to the purported question. That is Vine’s purpose in posing the question. He wants us to respond “No, he doesn’t look like a murderer”, and that’s how most of us do in fact respond. So this is actually a very clever and calculated stupid question. But it is also a not very ethical stupid question.

• 18:53 Vine: “So what did Shrien Dewani and Tongo talk about? The couple’s tour itinerary? Or Anni’s murder?”

They were probably talking about the money, Jeremy. Or the murder.

• 39:25 Vine: “Why ask the gunmen to let them go together, if he wanted Anni dead?”

Well, let me see. What sensible response can we give to this question? Let’s hazard a guess, and say he was covering his backside. If anything went “wrong” and she somehow survived, then she wouldn’t be calling the police and her parents, and telling them he’d been part of the plot? Dewani had to pretend, in front of Anni, that this was indeed a “carjacking”.

• 25:47 Vine: “Is this really the first time Mbolombo has asked why Tongo needs a hitman?”

Well why wouldn’t it be? After all, it was less than 24 hours from when Tongo first asked Mbolombo to help, and all Mbolombo had done was put him in touch with a third person, Qwabe. This is another of those questions where we, the audience, are supposed to respond “No, I guess it’s not the first time Mbolombo asked Tongo why he needs a hitman”. And then I guess we are supposed to think. “Gee, Mbolombo must be a liar”. But unlike the one about “looking like a murderer”, this really is a stupid, stupid question. It doesn’t prove anything, and certainly doesn’t prove that Mbolombo lied, although that is so obviously Jeremy Vine’s aim.

• 41:13 Vine: “So he’d no idea Anni was Shrien’s wife, even though he’d picked them up from the airport and driven them around for hours?”

In his by now obvious quest to defend Dewani, Jeremy really scores an own goal with this one. After spending hours looking at CCTV to “discover” Shrien’s cuddles for the cameras, Jeremy here lets slip that the reality revealed in Anni’s despairing text messages is here confirmed by the driver. Even after hours of driving “the couple” around, Shrien’s behaviour towards Anni had not suggested to Tongo that she was his wife. Says it all, really !

CHEAP SHOTS

• 57:23 JV: “…where there are no juries”

Vine uses this phrase knowing that it will resonate with his UK audience – “no juries” equating to “no fair trial”. It is a cheap shot, because Vine does not acknowledge the widely held view, that Shrien will have a better chance of acquittal in a trial by judge alone.

Only last week in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron was reprimanded by a judge when he made comments in the  Nigella Lawson case, which the Judge had to ask the jury to discard. Juries can be easily influenced by media and political comments. Juries do not need to provide a reason for their verdict.

Whereas a professional judge has to detail his reasoning in full, quoting the law and citing case law; he has to explain his assessment of all the evidence, and he has to publish his findings in a judgement.

• 17:16 The prosecution’s case, is that in just two calls, one lasting 79 seconds and one lasting 41, the taxi driver Tongo had hired Anni’s killers.
• 13:34 According to their testimony, in less than two and a half minutes, first time killers Tongo and Mbolombo agree to organize Anni’s execution.
• 03:33 The case against Shrien: He lands in Cape town with Anni, and in little more than one hour, arranges his wife’s murder with a taxi driver.

Vine may imagine that such simplistic descriptions make a telling point against the prosecution. In reality, they just reinforce the newly realised image of BBC Panorama as a peddlar of cheap, trashy, sensationalist populism, content to dismiss arguments out of hand, and unable or unwilling to get to the truth by serious consideration, and proper investigation, beyond surface appearances.

11. BOGUS ARGUMENTS AND FAULTY LOGIC

LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF LACK.

Imagine, that you came home to find your home in disarray, and several valuable items missing; you would probably conclude that you had been burgled. You might then call the police, who would naturally retrieve their CCTV footage and hand it to Professor Fraser and his side-kick, Jeremy Vine, for analysis. Alas, finding no burglar on the tape, Jeremy and the Professor would inform the police that you weren’t burgled, and therefore you’re a LIAR.

This imaginary scenario is not as silly as it seems, because Jeremy Vine and Professor Fraser can be seen to have applied similar reasoning in assessing the truth of Mbolombo’s and Tongo’s statements…

MBOLOMBO THE LIAR

Vine says at 26:13 “Yet the phone records in the police files reveal Shrien Dewani made no such call to Tongo. So Mbolombo is lying.”

This is not logical at all. It could be that the phone records are not complete. It could be that Shrien Dewani called from a different phone. It could also be that a phone call was received from someone else, and Mbolombo could have been mistaken about the identity of the caller.
Vine is not entitled to jump to his conclusion that Mbolombo was not truthful.

THE PHANTOM PHONE CALL

22:15 Tongo: “Dewani called me at about 11:30 am. He asked me to pick him up at the hotel.”
22:23 Vine: “But phone records in the police docket show there was no call.”
22:30 Fraser: “We know that this is simply not true.”
22:33 So it worries you that something – even one thing that Tongo says is untrue – that starts to worry you.
22:41 Fraser: A single thing that was inconsequential, even a number of things that were inconsequential wouldn’t worry me, but there are really quite a few things here which are plainly untrue.
22:58 Vine: Half an hour after the phantom phone call, Tongo arrived at the Cape Grace to pick up Shrien.

As presented here by Panorama, it seems Professor James Fraser has made the same simple error of logic as Jeremy Vine. The fact that a call is not included in a list cannot prove that the call wasn’t made. Could a man of Professor Fraser’s standing make such an elementary mistake, or is this another example of Panorama editing in an expert’s comment where it suits them? What evidence do we the audience have, that Professor Fraser’s comments relate to Tongo at all? Fraser does not identify Tongo as the subject of his comments, and the accompanying video footage is CCTV of Shrien and Anni at the Cape Grace. The only mention of Tongo comes from Jeremy Vine, in a black-background interview question which could easily have been recorded and edited in separately.

In this case, not only is it possible that the phone records were incomplete, but there is compelling evidence that there was in fact communication: Tongo came to the Cape Grace and picked up Shrien Dewani half an hour later. So how, without  telepathy, could Tongo have known to come and pick up Shrien? And why would he lie about the trivial detail of a phone call in any case?

THE RINGS OF TRUTH

Vine asks at 42min 54sec:

“If this was murder made to look like robbery, why not take the rings?“

You may ask “What’s wrong with that question?” as at first glance it appears to be a valid question. But it is in fact a deception based on a logical fallacy, which can lead the unwary to the opposite of truth. The act of “taking the rings” is a kind of robbery. It is not a kind of murder. The logical connection can only exist between “robbery” and “taking the rings”. There is no reasonable connection with “murder”. So the logically correct question should have been:

“If this was robbery, why not take the rings?“

We examine this in more detail in the separate section: “THE RINGS OF TRUTH”

DID MBOLOMBO REALLY HAVE A GREATER ROLE?

The programme claimed that Mbolombo had testified to only introducing Tongo to Qwabe and that he had no further involvement in Anni’s murder.

They then over-sensationally attempted to portray Mbolombo as a liar by showing CCTV footage of him handling further calls from Tongo and claimed this proved he had a much greater role than SA Authorities had said.

Where did Panorama get details of the Cape Town court hearings from?None other than Dewani supporting journalist Dan Newling.

Every other journalist who sat through the same Mngeni trial reported clearly the extent of Mbolombo’s full involvement – he admitted to handling calls throughout the evening:

http://www.thenewage.co.za/59241-1011-53-Witness_spills_the_beans

12. SLURS & SLANDER

There are numerous instances where Panorama engages in outright abuse, slurs and slanders on South Africa and its institutions, despite the Panorama experts having not been at the court hearings, not met or interviewed the police officers, not met or interviewed the prosecutors, not inspected the actual carjacked vehicle, not inspected the actual gun nor spoken to any of the witnesses, nor met or interviewed the many experts who testified  at the trials, nor met or interviewed witnesses such as Mbolombo or Qwabe.

• 03:58  Jerem Vine:
  “In fact South African police and prosecutors seem to have made up their minds already.”

“Already”, says Mr Vine, suggesting that police and prosecutors have rushed to judgement. Vine’s call to pass judgement on the police doesn’t sound quite so convincing when it is noted that a whole three years have passed. Three years of mental torture for Anni’s bereaved relatives, hoping and waiting for Shrien Dewani to provide a coherent and consistent account of what really happened to Anni.

Besides, it is hardly surprising that the police and prosecutors believe he had something to do with the events that fateful night. They are doing their job. They are pursuing the extradition of Shrien Dewani because they  have witness statements  implicating him in the murder of his wife. It would be quite shocking if the police were to charge people whom they thought were innocent bystanders.

What is not in question, however, is that when Shrien Dewani does finally face court in South Africa, he will face a fair trial, where he will have every opportunity to dispute the case against him. The judge in that trial, will be duty-bound to record every detail of his reasoning which leads to the verdict, whatever it is.

That is why many people wonder, if he is innocent, why does Shrien Dewani not attend that court voluntarily?

• 55:15 Vine: “Just two weeks after Tongo’s arrest, the South African High Court rubber stamped it all. Shrien was now officially a suspect.”

Vine presents no evidence in support of this insinuation, that the assessment of Tongo’s plea bargain was “rubber stamped” without proper investigation of corroborating evidence. In fact, this is an extraordinarily biased statement for a program which purports to be investigating.

• 47:27 Vine: “But are the South Africans right to say the forensics prove Mngeni was Anni’s killer? Was the gunman in the front passenger seat?”
• 47:47 Vine: “So could the driver Qwabe, given a plea bargain by the state, have been the gunman?”

In an outrageous slur on the SA courts, Vine insinuates that Mngeni’s conviction might not have been soundly based, yet makes not a single reference in his entire program to the judgement record of the court, where the reasons for the verdict are explained in detail. That judgement record shows that the court did not rely on the forensic evidence alone to establish Mngeni’s guilt, nor was the forensic evidence presented as such proof.

• 56:24 Vine: “But why apparently so little interest in establishing whether the taxi driver and the hotel receptionist were telling the truth? Could fears for South African tourism have played a part?”

Indeed, Mr Vine should answer that question himself. Vine has shown no interest at all in, as he says, establishing the truth by a fair and open process of investigation. To the contrary, as shown by the many examples in this dossier, he has time and time again hidden or failed to mention facts which support the prosecution; he has misrepresented the facts of the case, using altered video and sound records; suggested wrong conclusions using fallacious logical arguments.

• 01:17 Vine: “Panorama’s obtained the police files and given them to leading forensic experts to review. Their findings are damning.”

What “findings”? Are they published and open to review anywhere? It seems that the “findings” which Vine refers to are not separate from his own highly questionable report. They are in fact his own “findings”. There is no transparency in exactly what evidence was provided to the experts for comment, and no transparency in the process of selecting which comments would be included in the program, nor is there any serious attempt, as pointed out separately in the “QUESTIONS OF BALANCE” section, to assess the relative importance of the issues.

13. MISREPRESENTING THE PROSECUTION CASE

The concept of inventing a fake argument, to then defeat it.

A pattern repeated several times in Panorama, Jeremy Vine makes a false statement which misrepresents the South African prosecution’s case. He then proceeds to argue against the fictitious case, to “prove” it wrong.  A technique referred to as the Straw Man Argument, or Aunt Sally in the UK.

The trouble is, of course, that what Vine argues against is not what SA Authorities actually allege.

THE FORENSICS

Vine has misrepresented the prosecution case, suggesting there was a large difference between the conclusions of the SA authorities and the Panorama experts, when in fact they are in substantial agreement. In the three quoted examples below, the phrases in bold text are misleading, and do not accurately reflect the prosecution case, which was presented in sworn evidence at the trial of Xolile Mngeni, and easily accessible in media reports and court transcripts.

• 43:55 Vine: “The South Africans claim the forensic evidence proves Anni was cowering against the back seat, and Mngeni took aim from the front passenger seat. So they claim, he deliberately shot her, with the gun barrel five to ten centimetres from her body, which means her death was not an accident.”
• 47:27 Vine: But are the South Africans right to say the forensics prove Mngeni was Anni’s killer? Was the gunman in the front passenger seat?
• 45:10 Vine: “If Anni was leaning forwards, can the South Africans be sure that the gun was held at a distance from her”.

Vine makes no reference to media reports and trial records, in which it is clear that the forensic evidence was never presented as “proof” in the way he suggests. To the contrary, pathologist Verster testified:

1. That Anni had cowered in a defensive pose (she did not say “against the back seat”), and
2. That the muzzle of the gun was likely five to ten cm away at the time.

Judge Robert Henney specifically asked Verster if she could tell where the shooter had been sitting in the car by looking at the wounds. “Unfortunately not. A person can be in a number of positions and holding the gun in numerous ways” she replied (Mail and Guardian, 10 Oct 2012).

The ballistics expert, Warrant Officer Pieter Engelbrecht, also did not say that the forensic evidence  was “proof” of where the gunman sat. He testified that the shot was probably fired from the front passenger seat (Mail and Guardian, 17 Oct 2012).

The SA forensic experts did not say the gun was “held at a distance”. As quoted by the Mail and Guardian above, Verster estimated that the gun was five to ten cm away. Panorama’s hired expert Mark Mastaglio (45:20) is in substantial agreement, saying “potentially less than 5 cm”.

HIGHLIGHTING THE TRIVIA

Panorama have also misrepresented the prosecution case in another, more subtle way. The issue is balance: What is important, what is not? What parts of the whole body of evidence merit our attention, and what can we safely ignore? What is convincing evidence, and what isn’t?

To suggest that a minor piece of evidence is somehow “crucial” or “key” to the prosecution case is actually to misrepresent it. Panorama have done this in several places. For example:

• At 0729, Vine asserts “The volatile state of the relationship forms a key part of the prosecution”. How or why this is “key” is not explained.

It is a noticeable feature of Jeremy Vine’s approach, that he does concentrate on “appearances” rather than solid facts. Nowhere is this more obvious than in his 2012 program (also titled ‘The Honeymoon Murder’), in which he spends inordinate amounts of time speculating about the ‘state of the relationship’ , based on nothing more than CCTV footage captured in a public place. In the current 2013 program, he claims that: “During a Panorama investigation into Anni’s killing broadcast last year, I discovered significant cracks in the South African version of events.” (Vine: 04:24). He does not deign to explain, how CCTV showing how people have presented themselves in a public setting, could somehow disprove police evidence in the form of phone calls, SMS messages, financial records, forensic evidence, and the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses. Vine’s characterisation of his own perceptions as “key” evidence is not surprising, but that is a feature of Vine’s journalism, not the prosecution case.

• At 4602 Mastaglio is shown saying “I think this is a major flaw in the investigation”.

The context of his comment is not made clear. Was Mastaglio commenting on the prosecution case as a whole, or the technical detail of a forensic report? Mastaglio is a technical expert. He is highly skilled in determining factual detail related to the discharge of firearms, and Panorama have asked him to comment on those aspects. Although Panorama do not make it clear, it seems likely that Mastaglio’s comment refers specifically to the forensic examinations carried out, rather than the entire prosecution case.

• At 5348 Vine tells us “…the CCTV contradicts crucial evidence in [Tongo’s] sworn statement”.

The alleged “crucial evidence” is a listing in telephone records, of a 54 second call from Dewani to Tongo, made the day before Dewani flew back to England. How this could be “crucial evidence” is not explained. There is no evidence proffered as to the subject of that call, and no suggestion about how it might relate to the murder which happened four days earlier, nor any other detail of evidence.

It is apparent that “crucial” and “key” are descriptions which Jeremy Vine has used to describe even the most minor, inconsequential issues. This is a feature of Vine’s journalism, not the prosecution case.

Irrespective of whether the alleged flaws can be proven or not, in misrepresenting trivial and minor matters as being of “key”, or “crucial”, or “major” importance, Vine has shown that he is not the impartial and reasonable arbiter he pretends to be.

Further aspects of these questions are  addressed in the following section “QUESTIONS OF BALANCE“

14. QUESTIONS OF BALANCE

In a court of law, the metaphor of the judge ‘weighing the evidence’ is common, because it is apt.

A judge must decide not only what facts are established by the evidence, but also how relevant those facts are. In his self-appointed roles as Defence, and Prosecution, and Judge, Vine displays an inability (or perhaps even a calculated unwillingness), to distinguish between what is important, and what is not.

For example:

• At 07:29, Vine asserts “The volatile state of the relationship forms a key part of the prosecution”. How or why this is “key” is not explained.
• At 46:02 Mastaglio is shown saying “I think this is a major flaw in the investigation”. The context of his comment is not clear, but a knowledgeable observer might conclude that he was focussing on technical detail of the forensic report, not the overall investigation.
• At 53:48 Vine tells us “…the CCTV contradicts crucial evidence in [Tongo’s] sworn statement”. The alleged “crucial evidence” is a 54 second call from Dewani to Tongo made the day before Dewani flew back to England. How this could be “crucial” is not explained.

Forensic Red Herrings

The question of whether Anni was leaning back or sitting forward, whether or not she was struggling, in a defensive position, or taking evasive action at the moment she was shot, proves nothing about the motivation of the gunman, but this is apparently lost on Vine and his expert panel. What Jeremy Vine fails to mention, is that none of the forensic detail he and his team so relentlessly criticise,  is central to the prosecution case. From 41:25, Jeremy and his experts spend nearly 10 minutes trying to cast doubt on these obscure details, which have already been dealt with by the courts during the trial of Xolile Mngeni, and which are at best peripheral to the major outstanding question of Shrien Dewani’s involvement.

Every issue, no matter how minor, is presented as if the whole case depended on it. Every potential flaw in the evidence, even the most minor discrepancy or lack of detail, is subjected to intense scrutiny, dissected, analysed, and criticised. The issues thus magnified out of all proportion to their true significance, are held up to view as alleged “proof” that “the South Africans” have not acted with due diligence.

 

Predictably, the exercise produces very little useful information. We learn from Paul Shepherd (47:53): “Anni’s looking towards the driver side of the car. Is she looking actually out of the door?  Is she looking actually out of the door? I don’t know. But she’s looking that way at the time she’s shot.” Although Mark Mastaglio points to flaws in the investigation, he actually barely differs from the official evidence presented at court in Mngeni’s trial: that the forensic evidence does not establish beyond doubt the location of the gunman, and the gun was fired from close range. Mastaglio says “potentially less than 5 centimetres” whilst in Verster’s opinion the gun was 5 to 10 centimetres away, hardly a major disagreement. Likewise, although Mastaglio’s colleague Angela Shaw criticises the forensic examination for its “limited approach”, she does not say that the information actually presented at Mngeni’s trial was incorrect.

We should also ask whether the experience of UK-based experts is necessarily applicable to South Africa.

Dr Richard Shepherd says at 46:37: “If it was a deliberate shot, I’d have expected the shot in the head, maybe over the heart, not one that struck the neck. It’s an unusual place for an assassination. So on that basis alone, and it’s a very weak bit of evidence, I would veer towards an accidental discharge rather than a deliberate shooting”.

But at least one local disagrees with Dr Shepherd. A South African reader commented to the Daily Mail: “…Reasonable research will show that for instance the murdering scum of SA like to look into the eyes of the people they slay.” (Hugh Robinson , South Africa, 14/5/2011 06:57”  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386877/Dewanis-bride-victim-sex-attack.html)

Angela Shaw – 48:35 Vine: “One of the UK’s leading experts on gunshot residue, Angela Shaw, found no evidence the hijacker’s hands or clothes were tested. But it’s the lack of sampling in the taxi that concerns her most.”  It’s not even on Panorama’s radar apparently, that Qwabe wore yellow kitchen gloves?

Angela Shaw would have the police collect and analyze samples from every interior surface of the car, in order to determine exactly which seats were occupied when the gun was fired. This approach may be reasonable in the UK, where the firearm-related death rate is 0.04 per 100,000, but South Africa’s death rate is 17 per 100,000. Consider this: for each single case facing UK police, South African police are investigating 425. South African policemen probably have far more practical experience of assessing gun-related crime than the UK experts, for all their academic qualifications.

15. TECHNIQUES OF PERSUASION

BRITAIN VERSUS SOUTH AFRICA

In the Panorama program of 2012, there were 3 references to “South Africans”.

Only one of those references (at 54:41) linked directly to the case against Shrien Dewani. But Panorama in 2013 contains no fewer that 45 statements containing the words “South Africa” or “South African”. It is quite clearly a deliberate strategy to create an “us and them” (UK vs South Africa) mindset in the targeted (UK) audience. Jeremy Vine links the case against Shrien Dewani to “the South Africans”, rather than “the police” or “the prosecution”. At the same time, he suggests the defence is linked to Britain, and Britishness.

EXAMPLES

• At 01:41 and 11:46, Professor James Fraser alleges “This is not an investigation that would meet the standards in this country.”
• 09:36 an audio clip of Shrien talking to The Sun was doctored to include the phrase “He spoke good English…“, thus emphasising Shrien’s ‘Britishness’ (see “IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE EVIDENCE, YOU CAN CHANGE IT, RIGHT?” below).
• 06:17 “It’s up to a judge to find Shrien Dewani guilty or innocent, but do the South Africans have credible evidence he was behind Anni’s killing?”
• 44:36 Vine: “Home Office pathologist Dr Shepherd takes a very different view to the South Africans.”
• 48:07 Vine: “Did the South Africans miss opportunities to put the identity of Anni’s killer beyond doubt?”

THE “COUPLE”

• Throughout the programme there are many visual images presented showing Anni with Shrien as an idealised “couple”, undermining the real situation as revealed by Anni’s messages to her friends.
• At 07:46 “But the couple flew to South Africa as planned, spending four days at the luxury Chitwa Chitwa safari lodge.” The implication here, that the flight to South Africa was “as planned” by “the couple”, is false. Anni actually had so little forewarning of their destination that she had not even packed appropriate clothing.
• 17:33 JV “As the plot formed around them…“, essentially asserting without evidence, that ‘the couple’ were both innocent victims of a plot by others.

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS… SUGGESTIVE VISUALS

The transcripts of the Panorama program do not provide ‘the full picture’ (so to speak). In any video production, the meaning of spoken words can be enhanced, transmuted, hidden, or even belied by the accompanying visuals, and Panorama is no exception. There are several aspects of the Panorama production where these issues are starkly apparent:

Backdrops

The actors playing Mbolombo, Tongo and Qwabe are shown in a dark and dingy jailhouse setting with a background of locks and barred windows. All three actors recite their words in peculiarly exaggerated accents.

• Qwabe: 14:23, 16:30, 17:07, 28:35, 35:05, 38:11, 38:25, 42:04, 49:58
• Tongo: 14:38, 19:00, 22:15, 23:05, 24:35, 24:59, 25:20, 31:03, 32:02, 33:37, 35:11, 35:45, 37:06, 41:02, 52:45, 53:19, 53:42
• Mbolombo: 14:51, 25:38, 25:55, 30:02, 30:18, 33:01

Leopold Leisser, the German Master, is presented against a similarly darkened setting, reminiscent of a dungeon. The actor recites the quotation with a menacing, slightly depraved style, using a stereotypical German accent. (21:05)

The image presented of Mngeni is very different. We see him in a well-lit room chatting to police; we see snapshots of Mngeni with a friendly smile on his face; we see Mngeni struggling with his walking frame in the court rooms at his trial

• Mngeni confessions video: 37:35, 37:45, 39:13, 38:42, 39:31, 41:40, 42:20, 50:20
• Mngeni other footage: 16:42(still), 16:55(court), 46:58(court), 50:11(still)

The British forensic experts James Fraser, Mark Mastaglio, Paul Shepherd, and Angela Shaw are shown against a plain black backdrop, their faces well-lit. There are purely artistic reasons why such a stylistic convention might be used. But the convention is open to abuse, as it removes context which locates the interview in time and place. In the absence of such context, it is easy to post-edit in footage of questions which are different to the actual questions asked at interview.

Close examination of video and audio footage suggests that in at least one of the interviews, such post-editing has been carried out. (See HOW TO QUESTION THE ANSWER)

Even without going to the extent of ex-post-facto alterations, the use of the plain background allows such footage to be dropped in as a comment in the middle of other footage, devoid of the original context, without incurring continuity problems in the narrative. There are other places where Panorama can be suspected to have done this, for example:

• the barrage of expert opinion statements we see near the beginning (01:28,01:34,01:41)
• James Fraser’s comments at 22:30 “We know that this is simply not true“, and 22:41 “A single thing that was inconsequential, even a number of things that were inconsequential wouldn’t worry me, but there are really quite a few things here which are plainly untrue.“

What evidence to we the audience have, that Professor Fraser’s comments relate to Tongo at all? In these comments, Fraser does not identify Tongo as the subject of his comments, and the accompanying video footage is CCTV of Shrien and Anni at the Cape Grace. Vine is the only person who mentions Tongo in a suggestive interview question which could have easily been edited in later, taking advantage of the black backgrounding:

• 22:33 Vine: “So it worries you that something – even one thing that Tongo says is untrue – that starts to worry you.”

Fraser’s comments may have been about Tongo, as suggested by Vine, but given the numerous deliberate misrepresentations we see elsewhere in this programme, can we have confidence?

16. HOW TO QUESTION THE ANSWER

Retro-fitting a different question to an answer given at interview, is a technique which ranks near the bottom in any measure of journalistic integrity and it is disappointing to see evidence that Panorama could have done this.

At 45:50 firearms expert Mark Mastaglio says in reply to a suggestion from Jeremy Vine:

“Yes. I think that’s a fair statement….”.

Mastaglio was apparently agreeing with Vine’s proposition, starting at 45 min 40 sec:

“If for- we take your analysis of the facts, it makes it look more likely that this gun went off in a struggle when it was right up against her. Is that right?”

We have good reason to suspect that the original question asked of Mastaglio has been altered by editing in additional phrases. Does Mastaglio really agree with Vine’s suggestion as broadcast? Or was he actually saying “yes” to a different question?

For example, could Vine have originally suggested: “…it makes it look unlikely that this gun went off when it was right up against her. Is that right?”

Simbonile Matokasi: An Illustration.

In 2012, Panorama broadcast footage of Simbonile Matokasi describing his impressions when he first saw Shrien Dewani.
In 2013, Panorama reused that footage, but they also cut a large chunk from the middle, presenting a somewhat altered version of what the witness actually said. Panorama disguised the cut by inserting a momentary view of Simbonile’s garage.

The Matokasi footage is instructive, because we can see the same techniques have been used to disguise edits in the Mastaglio interview. Observe carefully in the following clip of Vine asking the question, how video footage of Mastaglio has been edited in, to coincide with those two phrases: “more likely” and “in a struggle when“. Note also, the sound quality of those two phrases: the flow of Vine’s speech – the rhythm of those phrases – is not quite natural, and the second phrase has been badly edited so that the final “n” sound is missing from the word “when”.

Can we believe that these video edits just happened to coincide with two contentious audio phrases which suggest a struggle took place, and which contradict what Mastaglio says elsewhere? That is simply not credible. The alternative construction, is that Panorama have modified the original, retro-fitting those phrases into the middle of the statement. The disturbed speech rhythm and audio content suggest that audio has been added in two places, where Vine says “more likely” and “in a struggle when“. And discontinuities in the footage of Vine when he originally asked the question, have been disguised by inserting shots of Mastaglio, in exactly the same way as gaps in the footage of Simbonile Matokasi were covered.

So it seems that Panorama have doctored the video of their own expert, to promote suggestions that there was a “struggle”, and that the gun was “right up against her”.

Why would Panorama do that?

This is a suggestion which has been relentlessly pushed by Panorama’s biased programme researcher Dan Newling, in several of his newspaper articles, despite unequivocal findings by the official pathologist and other forensic investigators, that there was absolutely no evidence of a struggle. Newling has proven links to the Dewani’s hired media publicist, Max Clifford (See our article on Newling HERE). It is not hard to join the dots.

It is clear from his remarks elsewhere, that Mastaglio does not agree that the gun “went off in a struggle“, nor that it was “right up against her“. At 45:20 he says “The size and shape of that pattern of soot on the back of her hand, would indicate a very close range, potentially less than five centimetres“. Similarly, in evidence given at Mngeni’s trial, Jeanette Verster, the police pathologist, estimated the distance as “between five and ten centimetres“. Clearly, both experts are in substantial agreement, that the gun was fired at close range. So why does Vine attempt to suggest otherwise, contradicting both experts, by saying: “If Anni was leaning forwards, can the South Africans be sure that the gun was held at a distance from her“? (see 45:10)

So on the one hand, Jeremy Vine misleadingly suggests that the official pathologist  believed the gun was held “at a distance”, rather than “5 to 10 centimetres” as her report clearly states; and on the other hand, Panorama appear to have doctored the video of their own expert, to include a suggestion that there was a “struggle”, and that the gun was “right up against her”.

This is not the behaviour people expect from an impartial news organisation.

17. XRAY VISION

DOES VINE HAVE X-RAY VISION?

• 31:03 (Tongo): Dewani called me in a agitated state to find out where I was.
• 31:24 (Vine): This is CCTV of that call. Shrien Dewani is holding his phone to his left ear – Anni’s side. He shows no sign of agitation, and according to Tongo, he insists on Anni’s murder when she’s sat right beside him.
• (Scroll down to see video clip)

Jeremy Vine claims to be able to tell, from grainy CCTV footage of the back of Shrien’s head, partially obscured by the furniture and table lamp, that Shrien “shows no sign of agitation”.

Vine’s credibility here is absolute zero.

When a person speaks on the phone, they express agitation in their voice such as in the tone and choice of words. They don’t necessarily physically jump up and down, waving their hands around, cartoon style.

Does Vine really think Shrien Dewani would have visually behaved liked this in the bar of a 5 star hotel?

Vine is unable to show Dewani’s facial expression or lip movements of “that call”.   Vine does not have any audio recording of this call.  So how can he possibly claim there was “no sign of agitation”? Vine’s willingness to ‘read’ this CCTV footage as evidence of Shrien Dewani’s supposed emotional state, shows that he does not have the ‘neutral point of view’ required of a disinterested and impartial reporter.

Note: The “Cutting da Grass” content has been moved and can now be found [here].