At 42min 54sec of the Panorama programme, presenter Jeremy Vine says:
“Two of Anni’s rings were recovered. One beneath her body, and her £25,000 engagement ring hidden in the rear seat. If this was murder made to look like robbery, why not take the rings? If it was simply an execution, wouldn’t the hitmen have stayed to check Anni was dead?”
Vine’s argument is fallacious. It is beguiling, but utterly wrong.
According to Vine’s suggestion, we are supposed to believe that “they didn’t take the rings” so it was not “murder made to look like robbery”.
But it is a false argument. The act of “taking the rings” is a kind of robbery. It is not a kind of murder. The logical connection exists only between “robbery” and “taking the rings“. There is no reasonable connection with “murder“.
So Vine’s question should have been: “If this was robbery, why not take the rings“, and our natural, logical conclusion would be “They did not take the rings, so this was not robbery“.
Vine has resorted to using false logic in an attempt to deny the key point made by the prosecution, and vindicated by the judgment in Mngeni’s trial, that it wasn’t a murder made to look like a robbery; it was a contract killing. But Vine’s logic is proven wrong, and any conclusion based on that logic will be likewise proven wrong.
The fact that the couple had their mobile phones and watches stolen, in any event, proves a robbery also occurred. These were recovered and exhibited at Mngeni’s trial.
Vine’s second question is just silly. He asks why the killers didn’t hang around. Er, well, they wouldn’t have hung around the crime scene, waiting for police or witnesses to arrive after their gun made a loud bang and an innocent woman with a gunshot in her neck was bleeding away lying lifelessly on the back seat!
They would have scarpered, and surprise surprise, that’s what they did, as stated by Qwabe in his sworn statement, and also as confirmed by the witness whom Jeremy Vine claimed to have interviewed in 2012. Jeremy Vine sure does have a short memory!
Qwabe and Mngeni were not experienced professional hitmen who would have executed their victim, confirmed death and then fled without trace. They were amateur backstreet criminals, hurriedly hired for peanuts, who had to borrow a gun, hitch a lift to the carjacking spot, missed the appointed time first time around, bungled the fatal gunshot and one left fingerprints all over the car while the other wore yellow rubber washing up gloves. In the panic, they forgot about the money and rushed back to the car to grab the envelope, then they flaunted their ill-gotten money by openly drinking with friends in a shebeen. So no Jeremy, these amateurs did not think to check if Anni was dead. Their stupidity is why they were caught.
But there is a further problem concerning the rings, which Panorama does not acknowledge: Shrien Dewani’s own account doesn’t match.
In his signed statement to police he said he gave Anni’s wedding rings to the gunmen (reported in the Daily Mail, 8th May 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384708/Shrien-Dewani-I-identify-wifes-killers.html):
‘The one male pointed the gun at me and said that I must make her shut up or he will shoot one of us. Anni gave me her wedding rings valued at £25,000. I gave the rings to the male.’
But nine days later, Dewani was telling The Sun a different story.
In a tape recorded interview, Dewani said:
“Anni whispered to me in Gujarati so they couldn’t understand that she had hidden her wedding and engagement ring. All I could think about was saving our lives”.
As reported, the rings were found by police in the car. They were not handed to the carjackers as Shrien Dewani has said. He lied. As we have now come to expect, Jeremy Vine did not refer to murder-accused Shrien Dewani’s discrepancies at all.
Jeremy Vine failed to tell viewers about the major discrepancies between Shrien Dewani’s police statement and his 2 media interviews.