CLPEX Chat Board

Not sure if it is going anywhere and we know that newspapers mostly turn facts into warped sensation but it seems this could get interesting...early days yet...

I am not at all familiar with this case. I did a little looking online and yes it sounds like a media circus. THe CCTV evidence sounds the most compelling and convincing. Is there fingerprint evidence in this case? It seems unnecessary if there is footage of Shrien handing Tongo an envelope of cash though.

Can you share some elements/facts with us? (without getting into politics, controversy, theories, etc.)?

g.

I do not follow most forms of mass media, one of the flaws in my character. My wife seems to take it on IV and she showed me the article on news24...

You can read what I know here:

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/ ... 20120822-2

I shall rather invoke my right to silence...

And then there is also this:

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/ ... n-20120821

Would someone be able to post the text of this news report. I am unable to access this by link.

Cape Town - Doubt was cast on Wednesday on the police system used to match the palm prints found on the car in which Anni Dewani died, to those of her alleged killer Xolile Mngeni.

Matthews Dayimani, for Mngeni, told the Western Cape High Court it was possible the system could be hacked into, and fingerprints played around with, to give false matches.

He asked the State's third witness on the stand, fingerprint expert Warrant Officer Johan Hannekom, if the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) had any safeguards.

"No, My Lord, I am not an IT expert... I was only trained to scan scene prints onto AFIS. I don't know if there can be a manipulation of prints," Hannekom replied.

The witness, who worked at the criminal records centre, had previously testified that Mngeni was linked to the crime scene through his left palm print.

Dewani was killed in an apparent hijacking while on honeymoon in Cape Town with her husband Shrien, on 13 November 2010.

Mngeni has pleaded not guilty to charges of kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, murder, and the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

The fingerprint expert said on Tuesday he entered prints lifted off the hijacked car into AFIS and 10 possible criminal profiles were brought up.

A print on the system, taken in 2005, was "a hit" as nine similarities were found. Only seven were needed to confirm a match.

No doubt in his mind

He said that, at the time, he had no doubt in his mind the prints found on the scene belonged to Mngeni.

Dayimani suggested that a skilled person could hack into the system and alter the characteristics of a print to match any other print.

Judge Robert Henney interrupted to ask the witness if he would stick by his finding if AFIS was taken out of the picture.

Hannekom replied: "[Yes]. I would do a manual comparison, My Lord."

He said a manual comparison was done in all cases, and was verified by two other experts. The automated system made the job easier, but was not strictly necessary.

The defence lawyer was adamant the prints did not match his client's.

"I've shown the picture to my client and my instructions are that he never had an injury to his left hand in the manner you depicted."

Hannekom said he was not a medical expert, but believed it was possible that ridges on the palm could grow back after an injury.

"There [are] enough ridge characteristics which are similar on the whole palm [to verify this finding]," the expert said.

The trial continues on Thursday.


- SAPA

Cape Town - Anni Dewani murder accused Xolile Mngeni's palm print was found on the vehicle in which the honeymoon bride was killed, the Western Cape High Court heard on Tuesday.

Warrant Officer Johan Hanekom, a fingerprint expert, said there was no doubt in his mind the left palm print he lifted from the silver Volkswagen Sharan matched that of the accused.

Hanekom was the third witness to take the stand. He said he examined the vehicle at an official car impoundment lot on 14 November 2010.

Anni Dewani was shot in an apparent hijacking while on honeymoon with her husband Shrien in Cape Town, on 13 November 2010.

Mngeni was allegedly the man who pulled the trigger. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, murder, and the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

Hanekom said he lifted two palm prints from the driver's side of the car, one from the front fender, the other from the bonnet. The palms were pointed towards the back of the vehicle.

A copy of Mngeni's prints was given to him by Captain Paul Hendrikse on August 13 this year. A fresh set of prints was taken from Mngeni in court on Tuesday morning.

The prints were run through the automated fingerprint identification system, which brought up possible matches. Hanekom analysed them and spotted nine similarities while looking at one specific print. Only seven were needed to confirm a match. Two other experts verified the similarities.

Vendetta

A photo album of evidence collected at the murder scene was handed to Judge Robert Henney and each exhibit was entered into the record.

Earlier in the day, a second witness gave further details of the night he dropped off Mngeni and convicted killer Mziwamadoda Qwabe in Gugulethu. The witness could not be named as per a court order.

He said he had been drinking with a friend before he arrived at the Khayelitsha tavern Sop's Place at about 21:30 on 13 November 2010. At the tavern, he drank about 375ml of whisky.

Qwabe, who has been jailed for 25 years for his part in the murder, asked him for a lift. He told the court even though he could drive, walk, and see, he thought it better not to do so.

On Monday, he said Qwabe drove while he sat in the front seat. His male friend sat in the back seat with two women and Mngeni.

Matthews Dayimani, Mngeni's lawyer, asked the witness on Tuesday why his testimony mentioned six people, when his statement to police only made mention of five.

"I remember saying we were six," the witness said.

Dayimani asked if his memory was poor because he had been drinking that night. The witness chuckled and said he was adamant there were six people.

Dayimani said he would put it to the court that the witness was lying about Mngeni being in the car because he was enemies with him and his brother Luwando.

The lawyer said the witness and Mngeni were apparently involved in a tussle between 1999 and 2000, in which the accused hit him on the back of the head with a bottle.

"You are falsely implicating the accused because of the problems you had before," Dayimani said.

The witness said it was Luwando who hit him. He had no vendetta against Mngeni.

The lawyer said he intended proving that Mngeni was never in the car and had never spoken to the witness the night Dewani was killed.

The trial continues on Wednesday.


- SAPA

Defense says
"told the Western Cape High Court it was possible the system (AFIS) could be hacked into, and fingerprints played around with, to give false matches."



So they have prints from the scene, the defendant was printed in court and the prints were compared and "matched" by the examiner

How does "hacking" into an AFIS system have any relevance?

All the defense attorney has to do is create "reasonable doubt" in the mind of somebody who doesn't understand the process.

In the US, if the defense attorney can confuse even one juror, he can block a conviction. How do South African courts work?

Hello All

Thankfully we do not have a jury system in our courts anymore. We have a rather uncomplicated adversarial system where the State Prosecutor (US DA) presents the case and the defense does their thing.

The Presiding Officer (Magistrate or Judge in the High Courts) has more of an observatory role in deciding the matter although the Court (Presiding Officer) can obviously also ask questions or even call witness.

As for the "hacking" into AFIS I think this is probably creating doubt in the process and very likely some bad reporting...

So, instead of confusing one juror, all the attorney needs to do is confuse one judge. Sounds pretty uncomplicated all right!

Same end result, isn't it? Thank goodness our magistrates and judges are not confused easily!

But seriously, in our S.A. court system we have accepted 7 points to establish identity beyond reasonable doubt for nearly 6 decades based on very antiquated authority. We thankfully also have a very conservative legal system and so no-one is convicted without proper due diligence and sound expert evidence having been presented.

This, of course, does not mean that mistakes do not happen as is all too evident with the Lotz / van der Vyfer tragedy but let us not go there. To employ a good old cliche, the chain is as strong as it's weakest link...

Many years ago when we had the old mainframe AFIS system I managed to alter the printer setup (in the days when we printed out the candidate list) I did this to print the whole list on one sheet of paper instead of to two or three. However I forgot to return it to the normal setting and when the next identification image was printed out we emptied the paper tray printing the binary code of the two side by side images; it was a string of continuous numbers, hundreds of A4 pages long.

My point is who would know which of these numbers would need to be altered to force the computer to match the wrong person, I have some computer knowledge and a fingerprint expert and I can say that it would be totally out of the question to think that anyone would know how to hack the computer and be able to achieve what is being suggested. This court case only highlights why you should never mention the AFIS system in court and if you do be prepared to answer some curly questions sooner or later. You searched the print and found a match full stop! Who care if you used the Battley, the Henry, the 5 finger or the AFIS system to search for it.

By now most defence lawyers know how we search our fingerprints it is irrelevant to the matter before the court and the judge is not interested on how you searched it, he already knows how, so by mentioning it in your evidence in chief you are opening a can of worms for yourself in that the defence has something to jump in on. The comment 'Judge Robert Henney interrupted to ask the witness if he would stick by his finding if AFIS was taken out of the picture." clearly says he is not interested in AFIS only the ident. As Randy Stone from that old radio program Night Beat use to say "stick to the facts ma'm, only the facts."

To me the adversarial system used in many countries around the world makes sound sense no CSI factor involved. Lets face it to get a jury of your peers equates to a jury of gang members in most cases. I wouldn't mind having the adversarial system here.

An oft repeated cynicism regarding US juries is the question, "Would you want the evidence weighed and your fate decided by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty?"

Antonrolland

This, of course, does not mean that mistakes do not happen as is all too evident with the Lotz / van der Vyfer tragedy but let us not go there.

The Fred Van Der Vyver case was not a mistake made by S/A Experts, It was a deliberate attempt to tamper with evidence and frame an Innocent man.

The print found did not come from a flat surface (DVD) as suggested by the S/A Experts but came from a rounded surface such as a glass.

To me this is a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.

If I was defending Dewani I would be highlighting this case to its maximum till I was blue in the face.

It is not so much the AFIS could be hacked into that worries the likes of myself, but the fact experts in S/A can provide false evidence and they are rarely challenged, until the Fred Van Der Vyver case that is.

I would also be highlighting the findings of the Scottish Judicial Enquiry chaired by Sir Anthony Campbell: http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... /3127.html

I would not trust a S/A Fingerprint Expert as far as I could throw him.