This is a careful analysis of the BBC Panorama programme that was broadcast on the UK’s BBC1 channel on 20th September 2013 with presenter Jeremy Vine, entitled “The Honeymoon Murder: Who Killed Anni?”
The analysis in this dossier shows how the Panorama programme makers used a catalogue of dirty tricks including misrepresentation of material facts, exclusion of relevant information, camera trickery and psychological skulduggery to try to fool the viewing public.
The original hour long BBC Panorama programme can be seen here:
The programme purported to have carried out an independent investigation into the murder of Anni Hindocha, who was brutally killed on honeymoon on 13 November 2010. Shrien Dewani, her husband, is wanted under an arrest warrant in South Africa. He is fighting extradition from the UK.
The Panorama production team say they commissioned various experts to review the case using a South African police docket which they had somehow obtained and which they claim is the police file on Shrien Dewani. This docket had been not been officially provided to them; the South African authorities in a letter refused to be drawn into an inappropriate “trial by media” which they deemed would be unfair to Dewani. Therefore the Panorama team obtained their docket through questionable means and that is subject to a separate investigation by the authorities in South Africa. It is debatable whether their docket is the entirity of the prosecution case against Shrien Dewani as his case has not even been listed for trial as yet.
However, rather than produce an objective, balanced, accurate and comprehensive programme as per the title, “Who Killed Anni?”, the BBC Panorama team will be shown in this “Panorama Busted” dossier to have instead mainly pursued a confined agenda of promoting the defence case of Shrien Dewani, abusing witnesses who have testified against him, attempting to besmirch South Africa and its institutions, and suppressing vital case information from unsuspecting viewers, i.e. BBC licence fee payers.
Had this programme been named “Shrien Dewani’s Defence against Murder Charges” and no claims had been made with regard to independent expert scrutiny, then the content would have passed. But to disguise a programme as an independent investigation, yet pursue the former agenda, amounts to blatant bias and gross misrepresentation.
0. MISREPRESENTING A UK JUDGE?
1. “NICE GUY” BECOMES A LIAR
2. THE HELICOPER THAT FLIES YOU OUT OF JAIL
3. 21 LOST SECONDS
4. FRIDAY IS SATURDAY
5. THE RINGS OF TRUTH?
6. FOLLOW THE MONEY
7. THE MURDERER IS THE GOOD GUY
8. MY ENEMY’S ENEMY IS MY WIFE’S MURDERER
9. SSSHHH !! DON’T TELL ANYONE !!
10. CHEAP SHOTS AND STUPID QUESTIONS
11. BOGUS ARGUMENTS AND FAULTY LOGIC
12. SLURS AND SLANDER
13. MISREPRESENTING THE PROSECUTION CASE
14. QUESTIONS OF BALANCE
15. TECHNIQUES OF PERSUASION
16. HOW TO QUESTION THE ANSWER
17. X-RAY VISION
18. IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE EVIDENCE, YOU CAN CHANGE IT, RIGHT?
19. DAN THE MAN
20. THE POLICE DOCKET
21. TRYING FOR A BABY
22. THE ROSE OF DEATH – coming soon!
23. THE SURFSIDE CCTV – A NEW TAKE
24. CUTTING DA GRASS
Dan Newling is a journalist who has openly declared his support for Shrien Dewani and written articles to promote his case (see section 19 – “Dan the Man”). Panorama relied on Newling for material yet failed to disclose his affiliations and previously stated opinions to viewers. They also failed to seek alternative credible opinions.
This appears to be solely in pursuit of an underhand agenda to support the defence case of murder suspect Shrien Dewani who is required to stand trial, but who has been fighting extradition for three years. Had they openly stated their agenda, it would have been a different matter.
There is a scattering of snippets in the programme which appear to show some of the prosecution evidence against Shrien Dewani, but these form only a small segment and various trickery is deployed to belittle them. The facts of the entire prosecution case against Dewani are not portrayed.
The findings of this dossier are truly shocking. The issues go beyond the sub-standard shoddy documentary which they tried to pass off as journalism undertaken in the public interest. The issues go much deeper.
The Panorama production team must now be investigated by the BBC and its supervisory bodies and, if found appropriate, the Metropolitan Police. The Culture Secretary is called upon to investigate why licence fee payers’ money appears to have been used to fund the PR campaign of a murder suspect.
Jeremy Vine, Andy Bell, Tom Giles, Dan Newling and others were part of this programme’s production and its widescale pre-broadcast promotion, with adverts appearing all week on BBC channels and constantly on the day of broadcast.
What was their real motive for producing the programme that seeks to mislead the public on the facts surrounding the murder of an innocent woman, where a case against the accused hasn’t come to trial yet?
Why was murdered Anni’s family denied involvement (despite numerous demands by them) in the programme making and excluded from the broadcast in a documentary that claimed to investigate the murder of their daughter?
Who was the police docket obtained from and how?
Who are the persons(s) who commissioned and funded this Panorama show?