Rant: Shrien Dewani Murder Trial

A detailed breakdown of the Dewani case here:

The underlying homophobia in the late bride’s family statements (also from the SA prosecutors & general reporting) is kind of sickening.

As though sleeping with men or being bisexual equates guilt by default.

No other proof needed. (And if you read the evidence presented by the prosecution, it was about as tenuous as that)

“While Shrien can return to his home in Bristol as a free man, Anni’s family are now considering bringing a civil claim against him. Anni’s father, Vinod Hindocha, has asked a lawyer in London to pursue legal action against Shrien for the costs of the couple’s £200,000 wedding and for the loss of his daughter.

“Which father in the world, including me, would allow their daughter to marry a person who sleeps with men?” asked Hindocha. “Now we have the truth and that he has literally deceived the whole family.”

‘Allow’ ?

Sure, why would she have any say in it as a adult and a free human.

Secondly if the father was foolish enough to burn his money on some tasteless shaadi theatre production to prove some tragic point to the Singh’s next door, he only has himself to blame.

£200,000 wedding and now he wants to recoup his losses as a punishment for the man being ‘bi-sexual’? Underlining that marriage, after all, is a business.

 

I think Mr. H. deceived mostly himself.

So keen to fire her off to her future owner in style.

I mean, what would people say if she was unmarried or if he had spent less money on a smaller wedding?

A detailed breakdown of the case here: A interesting read.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Rant: Shrien Dewani Murder Trial

  1. Not a day goes by when I dont read something that deeply disturbs/disappoints me and makes me lose a little more faith in people. Sometimes I feel like apologising (not sure to whom), on behalf of the fucked up race that we are.

    • well actually the judge was good in this case. very fair. dismissed the ‘gay’ issue straight away and closed the case for lack of evidence. so thats good! just obviously dead bride’s parents are disappointed. i’m assuming his being gay makes them blame him now. if he isnt guilty this is pretty horrific all around.

  2. –I just read about this off-site a few hours ago. I haven’t read your linked piece or any other True Crime-type coverage, but just going on the summation I read:

    It looks suspiciously like a hit. If the (NIce White Lady) judge wouldn’t admit testimony as to the defendant’s gay bdsm fetishes, that sounds like PC run amok. And if the judge wouldn’t admit that testimony, then the prosecution didn’t even get to put its “homophobic” word in, so essentially you should be gloating over this liberal triumph over the forces of “bigotry”.

    As to the bride, well, NO, of course she wasn’t an “adult”, not as you, a liberated gay woman living in London, would understand it. I don’t mean to piss on Indian society– if anything, I’ve always thought arranged marriages sounded a bit sexy, and I’m coming to believe parents should have a veto over their children’s marital choices anyway– but unless she was ready to flee to Maiorca and wait tables, do you think she had all that many options? I mean, if she was raised to expect an arranged marriage, etc etc., then realistically, she probably wasn’t going to balk at the marriage she was arranged into. Even if she suspected her betrothed were gay. “Father knows best”. Maybe she was a very sheltered, naïve person; maybe not. But regardless, if her husband commissioned her murder (with whatever other tortures that involved), she didn’t get a good deal. Just because her parents threw a vulgar wedding party doesn’t really count one way or the other. Recouping the expense when their daughter is dead (whether he killed her or not) may be very distasteful, but that’s not the main issue.

    With all of India’s well known, ahem, “rape culture” problems, and with this guy already used to a very free-wheeling, promiscuous gay bdsm lifestyle, I don’t find the suspicions of a commissioned murder improbable. He’s talking on camera to these strangers before the attack?

    And why the devil honeymoon in South Africa anyway? Only the most benighted of do-gooder multiculturalists can deny the place is sinking into apocalyptic misery, and not because the Boers are raping black babies. Homocidal sexual violence against women is an infamous predilection of the “native” population, and no amount of “Wow. Just. Wow”. changes the overwhelming evidence for that fact.

    Anyway, I don’t care how beautiful a thing one thinks man-on-man anal is; when it’s your son-in-law you have a right to get pissed. Not that the mass of society thinks it’s beautiful anyway; one finds, again and again, that Nice White Liberals who preen themselves on “marriage equality” really do not care to think of the particulars of gay sex. But never mind: they ordered a hetero groom, they got a homo (and, by whatever circumstance, a murdered daughter). Why shouldn’t they flip out?

    –Anyhoo: I think we need the testimony from “the Master” or whatever the hell he calls himself. Amoral playboys who want to be rid of their inconvenient wives are enough of a commonplace that you should not rule out the groom’s masterminding the whole thing so he can get back in the sex swing. And yes–yes– I’m amusing myself by going deep before I even read your informative link (which I won’t till tomorrow, anyway). But for god’s sake, don’t be fool enough to think the Misogynist Homo is a figment of granny’s imagination. You may be butch, Janine, but you’ll never, ever experience firsthand the crazy of the weenie. For good and for ill, we men are >capable< like women can never know. And women– overbearing mommas possibly excepted–do NOT occupy first place in gay men's thoughts.

    I'm reminded ot the case of two high school boys who starred in their school production of "Rope". Then one boy's whole family was slaughtered in their home, bludgeoned to death with baseball bats. The two boys fled to Canada, where the Mounties eventually stinged them into a confession. Real-life teenaged Leopold & Loeb (interracial too, btw): the white ringleader convinced the other, Asian, guy to join in killing his whole family so they could live off the inherited money. To think: the Asian dude beat to death, or allowed to be beaten to death, his kid sister, as well as his parents, so he could shack up with his Nietzschean gay heartthrob and– such was their delusion– write a screenplay about the whole thing in which they were innocents wrongly framed. And they were naked when they did the killing too

    –And you call your entry a "rant", Janine? Pitiful. I've just written, like, five times as long a comment, and my mind is on peanut butter. You need coffee.

    • well i dont think you’ve read the case link dear, for all your republican ramblings. you might have your suspicions but ‘he likes boys’ still doesnt equate guilt, also daddy might be annoyed son-in-law prefers men but no one put a gun to his head to throw a 200,000 party. none of these things are related. Shrien MAY have done it but so far there is zero reason to bring a case forward and more than enough reason to assume (based on what has been written evidence wise) that it was a robbery gone wrong.

        • Darling, I TOLD you I haven’t read it yet! lolz

          I’ll get around to it, but meanwhile– yes, of course the fact that the groom was gay is relevant to the case! Jesus God, Janine, it’s MOTIVE. If someone stands to inherit a fortune from someone’s decease, and then that person suddenly dies violently, do you refuse to consider how someone might profit from the death just because it would be ‘unseemly’ to cast aspersions? NO.

          This guy was a promiscuous homosexual, who presumably went along with this arranged marriage because of his own pecuniary motives (really Janine: why are you harping on the bride’s family’s greed and not his?).

          If a straight playboy got hitched to an ugly girl, then suddenly she’s murdered on the honeymoon by men the groom has been seen talking to on security camera, that would, and should, be investigated.

          The accused here is a gay playboy. Orientation aside, there should be no presumption on his behalf that he’s a really great person who would never hurt anybody. HE MARRIED FOR MONEY. He had a hedonistic lifestyle on the side, which his bride presumably might interfere with. He’s a sleazeball, and these kind of sleazeball motivations should be open to investigation.

          The judge threw out “gay” because “gay” is sacred in the contemporary West. If he was seeing dominatrixes, it would be a different story.

          • NB: I’m not under the impression he was actually going to inherit from the bride– I was comparing, in the opening paragraph, hypothetical heirs with aged parents, that sort of thing.

            But I’m assuming his own parents shanghaied him into this arrangement, with the promise of some payback. Or did they cut him off, so he had to go along with this? We’ll see.

Deranged comments preferred

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s