Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Is it really necessary to state her caste so prominently?

It has no bearing on her notability and is irrelevant to the murder. Caste (like race, ethnicity and religion elsewhere) is the basis of a long history of discrimination and human rights violations in Indian society. Drawing unecessary attention to a person's caste is per se discriminatory and in terms of WP rules it is WP:UNDUE. Roger (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As it is a major part in Indian culture with castes I dont see an issue with it. We can not censor something that is a big part of Indian culture just because someone thinks the caste system is a human rights violation.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on "Investigation" Section

Four of the seven paragraphs in this section are direct reports of statements by Shrien Dewani's family, or his paid representatives. A fifth paragraph reports statements by the extraordinarily biased Panorama presentation of 29th March 2012. The credits of that program acknowledge "additional research" by Dan Newling, a reporter closely associated with the Dewani family's hired PR rep Max Clifford. Of the remaining two paragraphs, one refers vaguely to concerns raised by the Hindocha family, and the other just briefly mentions the entire police investigation and arrest of four accused conspirators.

NPOV? As it stands, the article gives undue weight to Shrien Dewani - as if the entire investigation were about him. Of course, as the alleged mastermind, it may be fair enough to give him extra attention but if that's the case, perhaps it should be stated? Within the actual material about Shrien Dewani, everything is sourced from the Dewani family or their hired Max Clifford propaganda machine.The news reports referenced in this section are not reported in a way which fairly represents the entirety of their content. Much of the material is simply ignored. In particular, of the widely reported inconsistencies in Shrien Dewani's own accounts of what happened, only the "adjusted timeline" and "who suggested visiting the township" are mentioned (Cherry picking?). For example, no mention at all of whether he was (pushed/pulled?) from a (moving/stationary?) car through the back (window/door?); no mention of CCTV evidence; no mention of mobile phone records...

As I understand the "Due Weight" policy, this section in particular, can definitely be improved with respect to above: (Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.) afd (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Sexual Assault Allegations

Ref Page History My revisions of 24 March at 0835 and 0904 were reversed by Trident13 at 1913 hours. I am once again removing the material under Wikipedia policy WP:BLP -

"Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I gave brief reasons for the removal of material at time of initial edits. I believe the removal of the material can also be justified under "Reliable Sources" policy, although at this stage I am still reading through policy material. In the interim, above quotation from WP:RS makes it clear that the material should be removed immediately. afd (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Further to above comments: The section does not even report accurately what the referenced newspaper article stated. I have removed twice giving reasons for the edits. My actions have been reversed twice without any attempt to engage with the comments I have provided, and also making unfair and unsubstantiated claims of "vandalism". As I have further considered the material in question, I would like to make following points: (1) The Telegraph report cited allegations by an anonymous witness who states she was standing 5 metres away from the crime scene. (2) The Telegraph report cited unidentified "Experts hired by her husband Shrien Dewani" (3) One of the reporters common to both the Panorama report and Telegraph article, Dan Newling, can be shown to have close connections with Dewani's hired publicist Max Clifford

I believe points (1), (2) and (3) above are sufficient grounds to call into question the reliability of the cited material from Panorama and the Daily Telegraph.

The above should be evaluated in the context of WP:BLP. Firstly, it concerns the reputation of the murder victim. She and her family are entitled to protections under WP:BLP as "recently deceased" (ie still actively reported in ongoing reports concerning the case). The testimony and post-mortem of the official forensic investigator, as made public during the trial of Xolile Mngeni, makes clear that no evidence of sexual assault could be found. Airing such allegations without good reason and in the absence of convincing evidence will likely cause further distress to the murder victim's family.

Secondly, the convicted criminals are also entitled to some consideration under Biography of Living Persons policy. It is the job of police to investigate the crime scene, and charge people with crimes as found appropriate. Mngeni, Qwabe, and Tongo were all charged with murder, kidnapping, robbery, and obstructing the course of justice, NOT rape or attempted sexual assault. If such allegations are made, they should be based on reliable information, not assertions by anonymous parties whose credentials are not established.

I believe above justifies immediate removal of the material, until it has been properly discussed. However, my attempts to remove the material under WP:BLP have now been reverted twice by Trident13. I believe Trident13's actions violate both WP:BLP and WP:EDITWARRING. {{help}} afd (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You just don't like the allegations. I understand BLP applies to her, but only to unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. This is contentious, but it is well sourced. You discuss before a controversial removal, not after you've been accused of that. Either discredit every source here, or stop removing it. If you believe the actions violate policy, WP:ANI is thataway. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, gwickwire. You are right, I don't like the allegations, but my actions are not based on that. I note WP:BLP goes further than specifying just "unsourced" material. The following entire quote from the BLP page is relevant:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

The sources quoted are not "reliable" under WP:RELY for reasons given in my earlier comment above, so at the very least there is a case for modifying the way the material is presented, and also giving due weight to sources which differ. Note the source is contradicting sworn testimony in court of the pathologist who conducted the autopsy and also viewed the scene up close, not 5 metres away. In the interim, the approriate action is immediate removal pending outcome of proper discussion, as the above quote from BLP policy makes clear.

Here is a relevant passage from WP:RELY:

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability.

Note the specification of a "reliable, published source" above. I took action of immediate removal in good faith, for reasons which are detailed in my earlier comments above. Perhaps there is an issue as to whether a passage based on an "unreliable" source, should be included under "poorly sourced" material. I would think an "unreliable" source is a "poor" source.

Please note also, that the Wikipedia entry as it stands, does not even report the cited newspaper article accurately. afd (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Panorma section unbalanced

The Panorama section is unbalanced, it reports without mentioning the numerous RS rebuttals and complaints made against the series.--Inayity (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Text messages

The article states that the SA authorities claim that there were text messages between Tongo and Shrien Dewani relating to the murder. If true, this would seem like a "smoking gun", and the strongest evidence against Shrien. Have these been confirmed? Why were they not mentioned at the extradition hearing? Or were they? Grover cleveland (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The recent Panorama programme reported that all the prosecutors have is the telephone records of when calls were made and texts were sent, rather than the actual messages in the case of the latter. Crucially, the prosecutors claim that certain calls and texts were made at specific times, yet there is no trace of them in the telephone records. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Evidence is not Evidence of Lack. Panorama's claim to have possession of the complete police records is not substantiated. Lack of a record in the leaked material available to Panorama proves nothing about whether such a record is held by SA authorities.afd (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Grover cleveland

(1) The hearing in the UK is an extradition hearing. The telephone records are not relevant to the extradition case, so there was no evidence offered in relation to those records.

(2) The "Panorama" program is suspect. Some of the claims made by the program have been debunked here - http://panoramabusted.wordpress.com. Regarding specific claims made by Panorama about the text messages: Firstly, in the BBC program Inside Out West (2011), Alistair McKee reported: "...the Dewani's insist, they [the texts] can be explained, should the case ever come to trial." Secondly, in the Daily Mail of 6th Nov 2011, Dan Newling reported: "Those close to Dewani, however, claim that the money – it is not clear how much – was not a down payment on a murder. Rather it was cash paid up front for the days Tongo had agreed to work as the couple’s chauffeur. The reason for the text-messaging secrecy, they argue, is that the money included payment for a special surprise gift for Anni".

Both of these references originated from Dewani family sources and suggested the text messages do exist, yet Panorama in 2013 tries to cast doubt on their existence, based on an apparently pirated copy of the police "docket". Panorama claim that the "docket" is complete, but provide no evidence in support.

The Dewani family have paid media consultants to influence coverage in the mainstream media, and that has resulted in some anomalies in usually reliable sources. For example the sexual assault allegations, promoted by Max Clifford associate Dan Newling, which I flagged as unreliable a year ago (see discussion above), have now quietly disappeared from mainstream coverage.

afd (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Slum Tourism

The reference to slum tourism in the opening paragraph is inappropriate. The sole source for this allegation was Anni Hindocha's murder-accused husband. Wikipedia should not be promoting the view of the husband where there is an alternative view, widely reported in reputable media, and currently the subject of criminal proceedings, that Anni Hindocha was taken to the township by conspirators for the purpose of having her killed.afd (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the legal standard in South Africa is guilty until proven innocent. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't, but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not rumours and original research. The wording was very misleading, it sounded like they were on an organised tour of the township (they were not) so I removed it. HelenOnline 10:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Article name and surname

According to IOL/SAPA: "After a request from her family, we will now refer to the victim as Anni Hindocha. Anni was a Hindocha at the time of her death because she and Shrien Dewani only had a traditional Hindu marriage ceremony, not a civil union." I have never been very comfortable with calling her Anni Dewani for the same reason. Should we change our article in line with the family's wishes? Dewani was not her legal surname. HelenOnline 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you ask for opinions about a name change when you ha e already done one prematurely?. We do not change article names without a consensus discussion first. Especially not when Anni is mentioned as Anni Dewani in all reports that I have read. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

BabbaQ is correct please avoid making these moves unilaterally, you ask and then you still went ahead without agreement. WP:NORUSH--Inayity (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved it a while after I asked as nobody answered and I thought nobody was interested. This isn't a very active page. Can you please answer my question now, bearing in mind the sources I added to the article next to her name which BabbaQ inexplicably removed. HelenOnline 05:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reid, Sue (8 December 2010). "Bride murdered on South African 'honeymoon' was not officially married". Daily Mail. London. Archived from the original on 10 October 2014. 'According to the authorities (in Britain and Sweden), Anni was still Miss Hindocha when she died.' {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Raubenheimer, Graeme (1 April 2014). "'Anni was never a Dewani'". EWN. Archived from the original on 10 October 2014. Retrieved 10 October 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Watson, Amanda (9 October 2014). "'She is Anni Hindocha, not Dewani'". The Citizen. Archived from the original on 10 October 2014. Retrieved 10 October 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

You made the comment at 17:23, 10 October and made the move at 20:16, 10 October‎ that is not a long time. And if the article is very active of not is not a really good argument to rush things either. But anyway, first of all assume good faith, the sources were removed in the process of me reverting your Hindocha edits in the article. And as there are no consensus for a name change yet they were justifiably removed. Anyways, she is referred to by all media as Anni Dewani. Those sources are not an overall indication of the way she is referred to. Even her own mother and father referred to her as Anni Dewani in an Sky News interview recently. When I make a Google search on Anni Hindocha I still get up mostly articles referring to her as Anni Dewani. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

But more consensus definitely needed, so what do you say Inayity.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

2,820,000 results (0.31 seconds) Dewani vs 90,900 results (0.39 seconds) Hindocha, Dewani better. And we can put a note in the lead to cover this issue regarding her legal name. --Inayity (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Inayity would you like to try that?

Sorry for rushing and questioning the removal of sources, I have been doing penance all day. HelenOnline 14:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not 100% sure how to do the [note] but seen a few examples of it before. And it can act as a caveat. --Inayity (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti and others, if this article is about an event, and not a person, WP:PERSON should be removed. However, even if WP:PERSON would be removed, this article won't appear as an event yet. 115ash^→(☏) 10:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Motive?

I hadn't followed this story from the beginning but keep hearing about it so I carefully read the full article now. I am still puzzled as to the supposed motive for the alleged contract killing. It seems an odd thing to do to have your gorgeous bride-to-be made to disappear. What theories have been proposed? EdX20 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably (In my opinion) the most likely motive is the fact that Shrien is bisexual and was not really interested in marrying Anni. But because both come from Indian families they were more or less forced into marrying each other.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO the fact that the couple wasn't legally married, yet (they had a Hindu ceremony at the time of Annie's Dewani's death and the civil marriage was planned for 2011) could provide an overlooked but strong motive. If Annie found out about her husband's (or, legally,her groom's) sexual preferences and activities during their honeymoon, she might've been inclined not to follow through with the civil ceremony, thus possibly exposing him. Even if it was an arranged marriage, would her family really have forced her to go through with the civil ceremony under those circumstances? It has been brought up rightfully that Shrien Dewani's sexual orientation doesn't provide an adequate motive for murder since a marriage might even provide a good smokescreen if he didn't want to come out of the closet. But the fact that they weren't legally married, yet, weakens this argument considerably. Threats of exposure can be a very strong motive for murder. I'm not saying that Shrien Dewani really hired some contract killer in order to get rid of his wife. I'm only pointing out that a motive might've been lurking in the nooks and crannies of the marriage's legal status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enibas59 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The above comment was added two days after the judge threw the case out. Clearly speculation of a "motive" where one is not actually needed is beyond redundant. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Three South African perpetrators still enjoy the plea bargain.

In 1969, removal of the jury system in South Africa made it easier for judges to imprison indigenous peoples who rebelled against apartheid. That system remains as the Nationalists left it, with minor, optional 'compensations' for the lack of jury (the existing government might likewise enjoy the ease with which undesirables can be detained?) The attempt to imprison Shrien Dewani (see also bit. ly/MugTaxi) shows that any person can still be made suspect in a capricious legal playground where juries are never seen. William Da Grass (paid by Shrien's rival in-laws) knows the system well and he could ensnare Shrien with just a few illogical statements from the gangsters (How could they bear witness to what transpired between Shrien and Tongo, when they never saw Shrien before the hijack?) The plea bargain that resulted in Shrien's detention for four years had no validation from any credible witness.

Qwabe and Tongo continue to enjoy the benefits they received in the plea bargain, and Mbolombo remains free. It could be argued that William da Grass foresaw that these benefits would not be cancelled later, when the case would be thrown out. He had a financial incentive to pursue Dewani, and the three perpetrators could only gain by cooperating with him. Could it be that four years of misery, expense and media hype were solely attributable to da Grass' exploitation of the South African legal system for financial gain? (Gerrytlloyd (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)bit ly/MugTaxi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrytlloyd (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

image

hi I uploaded an non free image of her so we can identify her [[1]] is the image if someone can add it to the page that be great thanks. Redsky89 (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic. Good idea. Hope someone adds it to the page. I would, if I knew how.Lane99 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Murder heading

• • HAVE ENACTED THIS EDIT AS IT IS UNCONTROVERSIAL AND BASED SOLEY ON FACT **

***notes to other editors: I have added information to this section. Rewritten version below. I have removed references to “the real Africa” and Shrien Dewani’s explanation of events from this section. Including such references is confusing because they are purely Dewani’s version of events and have never been tested and thus should not be stated as common cause facts which is what this section of the page should consist of.  I would suggest that if someone wishes for Dewani’s version of events to be detailed, then they should create a new section “Shrien Dewani’s version of events” and use that to detail “the real Africa”, how he says he exited the vehicle and other components that are not proven but were considered by some to be relevant to the case ***

After landing at Cape Town International Airport on 7 November 2010, the couple took an internal flight, and stayed for four nights at the Kruger National Park.[20] On 12 November, the couple returned to Cape Town International Airport, where they met and engaged taxi driver Zola Tongo to drive them to the five-star Cape Grace hotel.[24]

On 13th November, having retained Tongo as a tour guide the couple were driven through the city in Tongo’s VW Sharan into Gugulethu to drive past a reknowned BBQ restaurant (Mzolis) and on to dinner at Surfside restaurant in Strand. After dining at the restaurant in Strand, Tongo drove the couple back into Gugulethu. Shortly after turning off the main road the vehicle was hijacked by two armed men. After driving a short distance, Tongo was ejected from the taxi. [21][25] After driving for a further 20 minutes or so and after having been robbed of his money, wallet, designer watch and mobile phone, Shrien Dewani was also ejected from the vehicle. [26]

Shrien Dewani encountered a person on the street, who assisted him in calling the police.

At 07:50 on the morning of 14 November, Anni Dewani was found dead inside the back of the VW Sharan in Lingelethu West.[27] She had suffered a single gunshot wound to her neck inflicted by a copy of a TT pistol in 9mm calibre.[28] Police later confirmed that Anni's Giorgio Armani wristwatch, a white-gold and diamond bracelet, her handbag and her BlackBerry mobile phone were missing and assumed stolen.[29][30]

The estimated value of all items stolen during the armed robbery was R90,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Dewanifacts (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Extradition and Trial section

The final sentence in this section is the only reference on the entire page to the findings of the trial of Shrien Dewani and it does not adequately explain the findings and conclusions reached by the Court. Considering the significance of this trial to the entire case, it warrants the particulars of the Court's findings to be outlined.

Suggestion is to delete:

“Monday 8 December 2014, Shrien Dewani was acquitted. Judge Traverso ruled that the prosecution evidence was "far below the threshold" of what a reasonable court could convict on, and the evidence of the prosecution's main witness was "riddled with contradictions"”

Replace with:

Monday 24th November 2014. Subsequent to the closure of the prosecution case, counsel for Shrien Dewani argued for the case to be dismissed under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing a lack of any credible evidence linking his client to the crime.

Monday 8 December 2014. The application for dismissal under Section 174 was granted by the Honourable Judge Traverso and Shrien Dewani was acquitted and exonerated of all involvement. In her Judgement, Judge Traverso ruled that there was no credible evidence linking Shrien Dewani to the crime and explained her ruling by saying that “Mr. Tongo, who was the only witness who could link the accused to this conspiracy, gave evidence to the court which is so improbable and contains so many mistakes, lies and inconsistencies that one simply cannot know where the lies end and the truth begins. I accept that at this stage of the proceedings the credibility of a witness plays a limited role. But, in my view, the evidence of these witnesses is so replete with fundamental contradictions on the key components of the State case that I can all but ignore it. In making this finding, I take into account that all three witnesses, Mr. Tongo, Mr. Mbolombo and Mr. Qwabe are intelligent people, and therefore more than capable of attempting to twist their version to implicate the accused”

Dewanifacts (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Those wondering how Dewani could have been acquitted can get insight in the above quote. The judge admits that she all but ignored the evidence against him. So it's a perversion of an already perverted ruling (itself riddled with contradictions) to characterize it as exonerating Dewani or having claimed there was no credible evidence against him. The judge ruled the evidence fell below the standard for conviction, as the article now says.Lane99 (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• • EDIT REQUEST. I have now suggested a separate heading for Shrien Dewani Trial (further down this talk page) so the suggestions above are redundant. I do not want to delete it because Lane99 has left a comment. Lane99, perhaps replicate your comment on the new Shrien Dewani Trial section and then I can delete this section so that we do not have duplication. Thanks. ** Dewanifacts (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Lane99's comment. It speaks for itself and is what one would expect from a rabidly pro-guilt campaigner. The judgement was accepted by the NPA who could have appealed it if they thought it warranted appeal. To suggest that the judge's ruling is perverted shows ignorance of the process. I'm sure Wikipedia aims to reflect the conclusions of a senior judge, and not one person's abberant view of her findings. The standard of evidence required for the trial to continue was not a high one. There merely had to exist some credible evidence and the trial would have continued. No such evidence existed which is why the charges were dismissed. The law is all explained in the Dewani judgement for anyone who needs to refresh their knowledge of it and how it is applied. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Plea Bargains

• • HAVE ENACTED THIS EDIT AS IT IS UNCONTROVERSIAL AND BASED SOLEY ON FACT ** Dewanifacts (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Zola Tongo were offered reduced sentences in exchange for guilty pleas and testimony against Shrien Dewani. These plea deals were granted in accordance with Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Monde Mbolombo was granted full immunity from prosecution, in exchange for his testimony against Shrien Dewani. This plea deal was granted in accordance with Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Conviction and sentencing of Zola Tongo

• • HAVE ENACTED THIS EDIT AS IT IS UNCONTROVERSIAL AND BASED SOLEY ON FACT ** Dewanifacts (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

On 7 December 2010 Zola Tongo appeared in the Western Cape High Court and in accordance with his plea deal under Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act, pleaded guilty to the armed robbery, kidnapping and murder of Anni Dewani, crimes that he alleged were at the behest of Shrien Dewani.

According to the terms of his Section 105A agreement, Tongo was sentenced to 18 years in prison, contingent on him testifying truthfully against Shrien Dewani in any future legal proceedings.

Tongo is currently serving his 18 year sentence in Malmesbury prison,[47] and will be eligible for release in 2019. Tongo was expected to give evidence in the trials of Mngeni and Qwabe in 2011 and 2012. Qwabe avoided trial by pleading guilty under the terms of a Section 105A plea deal and Tongo was not called as a witness at Mngeni’s trial in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Zola Tongo's version of events

• • HAVE CREATED A NEW SECTION FOR TONGO'S VERSION OF EVENTS ** Dewanifacts (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

At the hearing, Zola Tongo alleged that Anni Dewani was "murdered at the instance of her husband," after Shrien Dewani had offered him £1,300 (15,000 rand) to have his wife killed. Max Clifford in a press release to British media, on behalf of Shrien and the Dewani family, stated that the claims made by Tongo have "absolutely no substance".[12]

Outlining both the terms of Tongo's plea bargain and the state's case, state prosecutor Rodney de Kock advised Judge President John Hlophe that: "The alleged hijacking was in fact not a hijacking, but part of a plan of subterfuge which Shrien Dewani, the husband of the deceased, and the accused had designed to conceal the true facts, to wit: that the deceased was murdered at the instance of her husband."[45] De Kock confirmed that Tongo, who had been pre-booked by Shrien's personal assistant,[46] had driven the couple from Cape Town International Airport to the Cape Grace hotel on Friday, 12 November. After their arrival, Tongo alleged that he and Shrien had a conversation in the hotel lobby:[45]

“ After we arrived at the hotel, Shrien Dewani approached me alone and asked me if I knew anyone that could 'have a client of his taken off the scene'. After some discussion with him, I understood that he wanted someone, a woman, killed. He said he was willing to pay an amount of R15,000. Shrien Dewani said he had US dollars and could pay in US dollars. After contacting a friend, we agreed that Shrien Dewani and I would be ejected from the vehicle and that the female occupant had to be killed. ”

The following day, the couple had relaxed by the hotel poolside, after which Shrien had suggested that the couple call their respective families. Tongo alleged in his written statement that while Anni called her family in Sweden, he had met with Shrien to complete arrangements for the kidnapping and murder that evening, and that Tongo had driven Shrien to a Bureau de Change to exchange US dollars into rand.[46] That evening, Tongo then explained in his written statement that he had picked up the couple from the hotel and driven them via some of the city's main sights to the meeting point with his friends. But as his friends were not at the agreed kidnap location, Tongo drove the couple onwards to a Sushi restaurant in Somerset West,[46] where he alleged that Shrien reminded him via text message that the killing had to take place that evening. After the couple finished their meal and had walked on the local beach, Tongo drove the couple back towards the kidnap meeting point.

During this journey, Tongo claimed he sent Shrien a text message reminding him about the money, receiving a reply that it was "in an envelope in a pouch behind the passenger seat". After they returned to the meeting point, Mngeni and Qwabe were now in place, and hijacked the taxi.[45] For his part in the plot, Tongo alleges that he was to be paid R5,000 (£459) by Shrien, but told prosecutors that Shrien paid him only R1,000 (£92).[46]

Max Clifford, on behalf of Shrien and the Dewani family, again repeated that the claims of Tongo were "absolutely, 100 per cent ludicrous and deeply offensive".[45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Conviction and sentencing of Mziwamadoda Qwabe

• • HAVE ENACTED THIS EDIT AS IT IS UNCONTROVERSIAL AND BASED SOLEY ON FACT ** Dewanifacts (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• • EDIT REQUEST - creation of new heading for this trial. It incorporates the current text that currently displays under a joint heading "Trial of Xolile Mngeni and Mzwamadoda Qwabe" which is factually inaccurate as they were separate hearings and Qwabe's was not a trial since he pleaded guilty. ** Dewanifacts (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In pre-trial hearings on 18 February 2011, at Wynberg Magistrates Court, the lawyer for Mziwamadoda Qwabe laid out the case for court's inability to give his client a fair trial.

Thabo Nogemane said: "I am instructed that some unknown police officer assaulted him by means of a big torch. He was hit all over his body. He said the statement was a suggestion put to him by the police. They already had the allegations so they told him: 'Just sign here.' I wouldn't refer to it as a confession, just a statement." Mngeni's lawyer, Vusi Tshabalala, stated that his client had been suffocated with a plastic bag before signing a statement admitting his involvement in the killing, further suggesting police resorted to "irregular methods" because of the pressure they were under to solve the high-profile case.[48]

The trial was delayed, and on 13 June 2011, it was announced that Mngeni had undergone brain surgery to remove a tumour.[49]

Under the terms of the Section 105A plea bargain granted to him, Qwabe pleaded guilty to murder in August 2012 and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.[3] He will be eligible for release in 2027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Dewanifacts (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Trial of Xolile Mngeni

• • HAVE ENACTED THIS EDIT AS IT IS UNCONTROVERSIAL AND BASED SOLEY ON FACT ** Dewanifacts (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• • EDIT REQUEST - creation of new heading for this trial. It incorporates the current text that currently displays under a joint heading "Trial of Xolile Mngeni and Mzwamadoda Qwabe" which is factually inaccurate as they were separate hearings and Qwabe's was not a trial since he pleaded guilty. ** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite having admitted to his role in the robbery and kidnapping of Anni Dewani in a videotaped confession, Mngeni pleaded “not guilty” at the start of his 2012 trial, claiming that he had an alibi and was not at the scene of the crime.

Mngeni’s lawyers argued that his initial confession should be ruled inadmissible as evidence because it was allegedly extracted using torture. Justice Robert Henney ruled against Mngeni and said that the confession was admissible.

Before testifying in the Mngeni trial, key witness Monde Mbolombo read out a prepared statement confessing to lying in his two previous affidavits and promised to tell the truth when testifying. 2 years later in the trial of Shrien Dewani, he admitted lying whilst testifying in the Mngeni trial.

On 19th November 2012, Mngeni was convicted of murder and was ruled to have been the person who shot Anni Dewani. He was sentenced to life in jail.[4] In July 2014, it was confirmed that a medical parole application had been made for Mngeni who was terminally ill with a brain tumour.[5][6] He was denied parole,[7] and died in jail on 18 October 2014.[8][50][51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

The Trial of Shrien Dewani

• • HAVE ENACTED THIS EDIT AS IT IS UNCONTROVERSIAL AND BASED SOLEY ON FACT ** Dewanifacts (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• • EDIT REQUEST - new section to be separated out from the current text which is bundled in with Extradition. Shrien Dewani's trial was significant and requires its own heading"

On 6 October 2014. Shrien Dewani's trial began. He was charged with five counts: conspiracy to commit kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, murder, kidnapping, and defeating the ends of justice. He pleaded not guilty to all five charges. In his opening statement he answered to allegations that questioned his sexuality, suggesting he has had physical relationships with male prostitutes. He confirmed these reports and acknowledged being bisexual, but maintains that he was "deeply in love with Anni".[83] The state could not call Mngeni as a witness as he died in jail on 18 October 2014.[50]

During the trial, under cross examination, Zola Tongo, Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Monde Mbolombo contradicted their previous statements and each other on most of the key elements of the “murder for hire” story. Tongo and Mbolombo were found to have fabricated calls and text messages that did not exist, refused to identify a fifth conspirator referred to in taped recordings, and Qwabe refused to explain to the court why Anni was driven into a residential area.

Monday 24th November 2014. Subsequent to the closure of the prosecution case, counsel for Shrien Dewani argued for the case to be dismissed under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing a lack of any credible evidence linking his client to the crime.

Monday 8th December 2014. The application for dismissal under Section 174 was granted by the Honourable Judge Traverso and Shrien Dewani was acquitted and exonerated of all involvement. In her Judgement, Judge Traverso ruled that there was no credible evidence linking Shrien Dewani to the crime and explained her ruling by saying that “Mr. Tongo, who was the only witness who could link the accused to this conspiracy, gave evidence to the court which is so improbable and contains so many mistakes, lies and inconsistencies that one simply cannot know where the lies end and the truth begins. I accept that at this stage of the proceedings the credibility of a witness plays a limited role. But, in my view, the evidence of these witnesses is so replete with fundamental contradictions on the key components of the State case that I can all but ignore it. In making this finding, I take into account that all three witnesses, Mr. Tongo, Mr. Mbolombo and Mr. Qwabe are intelligent people, and therefore more than capable of attempting to twist their version to implicate the accused”

The Court ruled that Xolile Mngeni could not have been the person who shot Anni.

The Court ruled that some of the key conclusions reached in the 2012 Mngeni trial were erroneous, based on flawed forensics and the admitted lies of Monde Mbolombo.

The Court ruled that Monde Mbolombo had again commited perjury and would not be granted indemnity from prosecution. Judge Traverso noted that “Before Mr. Mbolombo proceeded with his evidence, he delivered a pre-prepared speech which, from the record, appears to be virtually identical to a similarly emotive speech which he gave the court in the Mngeni trial, before blatantly lying about material aspects. Dewanifacts (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Article structure and coherency

I have made a good faith attempt to introduce some structure to this article. Each section was a mish mash of facts, quotes and statements that had little coherency. I've attempted to structure the Article in such a way that it makes sense to someone who does not know about the case and have created appropriate headings to incorporate all the information that was previously on the page. I have tried to retain all the pre-existing content, and have made very few deletions aside from a couple of factual inaccuracies.

Within the major heading "Investigation", I have created sub headings for the key players' (Tongo and Dewani) versions of events to be chronicled. I would invite afd,Lane99 et al to flesh out the sections on Shrien Dewani's version of events, and also the section "main inconsistencies in Shrien Dewani's version of events".

"Tongo's version of events" is still a bit of a mess, as it is basically a dump of the pre-existing content that was under the old heading "Trial of Zola Tongo" (I think that was the old name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

COI tag

What is the process for arguing for removal of an erroneous COI tag? I imagine that this tag has been added because my username "Dewanifacts" implies that I am somehow connected to the case or the families involved.

I can catagorically state that is not the case. I have no link whatsoever to the Dewani or Hindocha families, nor anyone who knows or represents the Dewanis or Hindocha families. I represent an independant website dedicated to finding and uncovering the truth about what happened to Anni Dewani. We have no agenda other than seeking the truth and achieving true justice for Anni Dewani. This agenda is clearly stated on our website - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/our-agenda/. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That agenda is your COI, the tag stays. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Sounds sensible enough. Does COI carry negative or positive connotations in the Wikipedia environment? Dewanifacts (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The term ""COI" is normally considered negative (and sometimes very negative) in the Wikipedia context. It usually refers to an employee or agent of a company involved in self-promotion. In your case, the more usual term is that you are a Single Purpose Account, someone who is editing Wikipedia only to advance a specific cause. See the policy on that. On the one hand, it means that we (the other editors) are required to treat you with respect (as we are any other editor). On the other hand, it means that the neutrality of your edits is questioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Robert. Much appreciated. I guess there are varying perspectives on the COI issue. If I was wanting to read an article on brain surgery, I'd be inclined to give more weight to an article with major contributors who were close to the subject of brain surgery and were keen to share their knowledge with others. For the record, I'm not trying to advance a cause. I'm simply wanting to ensure that the facts of this case are not misrepresented. I understand why I fit the SPA definition though. I'm ok with it and I have nothing to hide. I will try to bear in mind your guidance re: neutrality of edits and as is my MO anyway, will only make contributions that are factual and supported by clear indisputed evidence or court findings so neutrality should be a central component anyhow. Best. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me make a distinction between expertise and involvement. If I wanted to read a detailed article about brain surgery, I would want to read an article that had been at least partly written by a brain surgeon, probably with the assistance of technical writers. If I wanted to read an introduction to brain surgery in Wikipedia, I would still want the article to have been written at least partly by brain surgeons. (When an article is on a subject having such a high degree of expertise required, and has not been written by an expert, it can be tagged as needing assistance from an expert. Alternatively, if it has been written by an expert, and cannot be understood by non-physicians, it may be tagged as too technical.) However, if I wanted a comparison of the quality of the brain surgery done at various hospitals, a surgeon (or hospital administrator, or publicist) who is affiliated with one of those hospitals has a conflict of interest. Expertise is welcome (especially if it is written at a level that can be read by non-experts). Specific involvement is not welcome in Wikipedia. Does that clarify? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP

By the way, Shrien Devani is a living person, and all references to him in this article are subject to the policy on biographies of living persons. In particular, any suggestion or implication that his legal status is anything other than that he was tried for and acquitted of his wife's murder is contrary to the policy on biographies of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Other defendants except Mngeni are also living persons and are subject to the BLP policy, and statements about them must also be factually correct. (If they have pleaded guilty or been found guilty, that should be stated.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Grossly misleading text in lead

The first paragraph currently includes the claim:

Dewani née Hindocha was the victim of a premeditated murder for hire that was staged to appear as a random carjacking.

The cited reference is the judgement against Mngeni from late 2012. Obviously the prosecutions against Mngeni, Qwabe, and Tongo were on the basis that it was a case of "murder for hire," purportedly commission by Shrien Dewani, and brokered through Mbolombe. As we all know, however, Dewani himself was ultimately cleared of involvement, so it is not logical to have a clear claim in the lead that it was a "murder for hire." If Dewani was not involved, then who did the hiring? Or is it in any way acceptable to maintain that it was a "murder for hire" with the implication that Shrien Dewani, despite walking free from court, is still guilty? That would clearly be libelous and a serious BLP violation. I attempted to amend the text to a more neutral form, but this was inevitably reverted twice by pro-guilt advocate Lane99. I feel in all good conscience, however, that this is too biased and misleading a claim to include so prominently in the lead, so I am now reinstating the amended text again. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Concur and agree 100% with Nick. As per the heading I created further up this Talk page "Misleading and deceptive opening paragraph". The "murder for hire" theory was comprehensively dismantled by the Court's judgement in the Dewani matter. For the benefit of our American friends who may not be aware of the case, this was simply a robbery/kidnapping that turned into murder. As with many such crimes, there are still unknowns and mystery surrounding some of the events however the "murder for hire" theory was proven to be nothing but a load of lies told by 3 of the 4 known conspirators to the crime. A story they told because they were given lenient sentences (and in the case of Mbolombo, full immunity from prosecution) in exchange for testimony against the alleged instigator - Shrien Dewani. You do not need to take my word or Nick's word for it. It is all spelled out logically in clear layman's English in the transparent Judgement document. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not going well. Nick Cooper's "good conscience" has led him, as I understand them, to flout multiple Wikipedia rules. For example the rule against reversing edits three or more times within a few hours span, the rule against personal attacks, and the rule that good faith should be inputed to those you with whom you have a difference of opinion.

Meanwhile, it is a fact, proven in court, that Anni's murder was a premeditated murder for hire staged to look like a random carjacking. This fact is central to the "Murder of Anni Dewani" and therefore should be displayed prominently on this page. It is also a fact that the claim that the Dewani judgement ruled the murder was not a murder for hire are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lane99 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 August 2015‎

Sadly, you are mistaken. The three revert rule prohibits three reverts by the same editor. My first amendment of the text does not count, and one of the three other edits I made to the page was purely addressing the sloppy formatting of the detail of Shrien Dewani's trial in the lead. In fact, the only person in danger of breaching 3RR is you. That you are an outspoken pro-guilt advocate in numerous fora is a fact, not a "personal attack."

The SA prosecutors proceeded against Mngeni, Qwabe, and Tongo on a basis of a supposed "murder for hire." With Shrien Dewani walking free from court, who exactly do you think was doing the "hiring" if - self-evidently - not him? You seem to have great difficulty in accepting that "facts" at one point in time cease to be such in light of subsequent events or emerging new evidence, whether that's the difference between the two Panorama programmes, or this particular detail. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not permit me to answer this question here. However, considering all the evidence and circumstances, there is only one reasonable conclusion to draw. At any rate, the real issue here is your facile understanding of the topic. For you appear to be labouring under the misapprehension the Dewani judgment ruled that Anni's killing was not a murder for hire. This is incorrect. Its only ruling was there was insufficient evidence presented in court to convict Dewani of being complicit with the other co-conspirators who murdered Anni.Lane99 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, any rational person would be forced to conclude that the plea-bargained admissions of Tongo and Qwabe, and Mbolombo's get-out-of-jail-free-card testimony, were false, but were used to convict Mngeni. Come Shrien Dewani's trial and a robust defence, the whole pack of cards fell to pieces. That Tongo conspired with Mbolombo to arrange a carjacking/robbery that subsequently went horrible wrong is the only scenario that makes sense.

As to your preposterous claim that the Dewani judgement supports the "murder for hire" theory, feel free to quote the part of the text that does so. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The preposterous claim is being made by you. And, logic apparently not being your strong suit, let's see if I can help: It is a fact that the Dewani judgement did not rule Anni's murder was not a murder for hire. However this does not mean it ruled that the murder was a murder for hire. Your botched understanding of what I wrote in my previous comment is a logical fallacy known as "false equivalence". Dewani's defenders and partisans tend to rely heavily on logical fallacies such as this.Lane99 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either Nick, myself nor any other editor would consider themselves a supporter/partisan/defender of Dewani. We posit the truth based on evidence, common sense and the findings of transparent courts. Curiously, the Dewani Judgement did not explicitly rule out the possibility that aliens from Mars murdered Anni. Would it be falsely equivalent of me to suggest that despite this ruling, we can be reasonably confident that Aliens from Mars did not in fact murder Anni? Dewanifacts (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Lane99, it seems that you are very keen to push the line that the Dewani judge did not rule out a "murder for hire" as a proxy inference that it supports that theory, which of course you have openly admitted you maintain belief in. Your abuse is also noted. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I concur 100% with Nick's comments. They shine a bright light on the strategy being employed by pro-guilt editors. Such editors know that unlike other social media canvases, Wikipedia does not allow them to explicitly state "we think Shrien Dewani got away with murder" so they are attempting to mischievously plant false information masquerading as fact so that readers draw false inferences. And this specific issue is one of the ones that is regularly used to anchor their flawed argument; a recent Twitter update from the most prominent pro-guilt group stated "South Africa court has ruled that Anni Hindocha was killed by a paid assassin. And who paid him? #ShrienDewani did. So why is Dewani free?". Wikipedia needs to steer well clear of being an endorsement and a cited source for such groups. Dewanifacts (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if this represents a repitition - just posted comment above which might have been more relevant to this topic heading/discussion. Fully agree with both Nick Cooper and dewanifacts above. The opening paragraph should not be the place to push a certain narrative which has since been tested and rejected elsewhere. That is far from neutral and highly misleading. It implies that Shrien Dewani was responsible for his wife's murder. Readers would then have to scroll right down to the bottom sections to discover that he was is fact completely exonerated of any wrongdoing and did not have a case to answer on those charges. Why try and shoe-horn in an erroneous finding of the court in S V Mngeni into the opening paragraph summary and state it like it is a fact? I think the motivations to do so speak for themselves. To avoid confusion the finding of the court in S v Mngeni should simply be noted in the Trial of Xolile Mngeni section which would also be the correct place to reference the Mngeni judgement currently at footnote [1]. In the same way that the conclusions of the court in S v Dewani should be in the Trial of Shrien Dewani section. Surely that would be a neutral way of presenting the very different findings of the courts in the respective trials. The Mngeni judgement alone is not an accurate, or current, determination of the fate of Anni Dewani and Wikipedia shouldn't be representing it as such. Can we reach consensus to implement the above suggestion as being a neutral representation of the situation? --St.Barbra (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the murder was premeditated is no longer in the lede. It does say that the state case was formulated as one of premeditated murder. Are you asking to have that statement taken out also, or something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a claim. It's a fact, proven in court. In fact, it's a fact affirmed by multiple courts. It is also true that the claim on this talk page that the Dewani judgment ruled Anni's murder was not a contract killing is patently false. If you are interested, I can provide concise, specific, and clear proof of my statements. Which, I note, would be more than any Shrien Dewani partisan has provided for the statements they've made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lane99 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Lane99 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, given that Shrien Dewani was not convicted of the "hiring," who do you think did it? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, considering all the circumstances and evidence, inference to the best explanation points to only one person. However according to Robert McClenon- whom I consider a reliable source- I am not allowed to name them.Lane99 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I cannot quite understand why User: Lane99 does not simply provide the proof that he speaks of rather than just offering to do so? Same with the Panorama bias claims. Instead of an editor repeatedly telling everyone that they are ready to put forward an argument, why not avoid the preamble and simply put said argument/proof forward in its entirety and then let it be discussed? Dewanifacts (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User: Lane99You may want to take a look at the BLP heading that User:Robert McClenon added to the bottom of this page. It may save you some time and bother. Wikipedia isn't the place to be forwarding an agenda that attempts to infer guilt upon an innocent person. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Except that Dewani being found not guilty demolishes the "murder for hire" fiction, leaving only a sloppy carjacking gone wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lane99, Wikipedia rules against BLP violations and libel are not "a gag on free speech." You resorting to nudge-nudge-wink-winkery is no defence. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that everyone wants the lead paragraph to read neutrally - as should be the case. My view is that the lead paragraph reads neutrally if the final sentence is removed...and naturally flows into the actual charges that were levied and accepted by the various individuals as currently described in the following paragraph. I can't see the justification for adding the phrase that "South Africa prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that she had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking" with reference to the S V Mngeni judgemtent at footnote [1]. It doesn't add anything and only causes confusion by referring to one of the judgements only. There is no specific charge that relates to "murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking" - that is simply a turn of phrase that one editor in particular wants to include in the opening paragraph for their own ends. The actual charges were, for example, "kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, murder and obstruction of the administration of justice" as is already explained in a neutral format. I am not looking to remove any information from the article entirely, but simply recategorise it in the relevant sections. Reference to Mngeni judgement should intuitively be found under the heading "Trial of Xolile Mngeni" and reference to Shrien Dewani judgement should be found in "Trial of Shrien Dewani" section. I believe that implementation of the above suggestion would retain all of the key information in the body of the article but would remove the controversial nature of the lead paragraph. --St.Barbra (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The "South Africa prosecutors formulated..." line was my amendment attempting to temper the original - and clearly misleading claim that it was as "murder for hire." The Mngeni judgement was the reference for the latter, which probably should have been removed. I think that the police/prosecutors decided upon and stuck to the idea that it was an arrange murder is important enough to mention, since the prosecutions of Tongo, Qwabe, and Mngeni proceeded on that basis, as did their efforts to extradite Shrien Dewani. It was only at the latter's trial that all the holes in the theory were brought to the fore. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Agree that your addition rectifies the previously misleading statement. Suggest maybe removing footnote [1] as S V Mngeni judg::ment is not referred to in any way and was probably only inserted to support the previous meaning of the sentence prior to amendment. --St.Barbra (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

user:Lane99 has for the 4th time re-added the grossly misleading and deceptive paragraph back into the lead, citing as fact the disproven claim that Anni was killed in a "murder for hire" plot. Is there some type of recourse to stop an agenda-driven editor from continuing to make contentious non factual edits? user:Robert McClenon can you advise? Dewanifacts (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

First, my own opinion is that all discussion of the "murder for hire" theory should be taken out of the lede as providing undue weight to a discredited theory. I will propose an RFC to that effect. As to how to deal with agenda-oriented editing, or other concerns, I have more to say, but, right now, read the dispute resolution policy (and don't try anything that we have already tried). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Misleading and deceptive opening paragraph

The page's opening paragraph's final sentence erroneously states as fact that "Dewani née Hindocha was the victim of a premeditated murder for hire that was staged to appear as a random carjacking" using reference to the trial of hijacker Xolile Mngeni as evidence for this claim at footnote [1].

This sentence needs to be deleted.

Reasoning:

This current text is highly misleading, as neither the “murder for hire” allegation or the “staged” carjacking allegation have ever been proven.

The killing of Anni Dewani has been the subject of two trials. The source referenced (2012 Mngeni judgement) pertains to only one of those trials - the trial of Xolile Mngeni. In that trial the “murder for hire” allegation was not tested but rather accepted as a given by that court due to the earlier plea deals that had been struck with the other conspirators to the crime. When the “murder for hire” story was finally tested in respect of Shrien Dewani at his 2014 trial, it was rejected in it's entirety by the court. The court found that there was not any credible evidence to support the “murder for hire” story with the result being Shrien Dewani's exoneration of any involvement without even being required to mount a defence to the charges. This was specifically and comprehensively explained by the judge when granting the section 174 dismissal of the case. In addition, all 3 key witnesses were found to have perjured themselves whilst testifying at the Shrien Dewani trial, and also in the trial of Xolile Mngeni.

In essence, the finding of the court in the Mngeni trial was incompatible with the finding of the court at the subsequent trial of Shrien Dewani. It is therefore inappropriate to make a statement of fact pertaining to the death of Anni Dewani based on the finding of one court, whilst ignoring the findings of the second court, particularly where the second court overruled many of the findings of the previous judgement, and importantly found no credible evidence whatsoever of a “murder for hire” agreement. This is particularly important when the result of such conclusions is to inappropriately cast doubts over the reputation of a person who has been exonerated of all involvement.

In my view, any reference to the court's finding in the Mngeni trial should be contextualised as such, or removed entirely.

I suspect that this erroneous text was added by a malicious and vindictive group who seek to use Wikipedia as a tool to carry out a vendetta against Shrien Dewani because they were unhappy with his acquittal. They seek to cast aspersions upon Shrien Dewani in any way they can with continued insistence that he is guilty of the murder of Anni Dewani, despite him being completely exonerated of all involvement. Dewanifacts (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There is virtually no truth in what is written above. I will not dignify the histrionic allegations it makes in detail. Suffice it to say it is indeed a proven fact that Anni Hindocha's killing was a murder for hire staged to look like a random carjacking. And multiple courts have found so. And no court has ever found that her death was not a murder for hire.Lane99 (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything said above is substantiated in the Dewani Trial judgement. For further background information on the controversial and error ridden trial of Xolile Mngeni, I suggest reading this article which provides the full context regarding how the "murder for hire" story was erroneously used as the basis for conviction, despite Mngeni's videotaped confession to a robbery gone wrong. Dewanifacts (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Lane99. You have re-added this false line to the Article. Until the matter is resolved here on the Talk page, it is best that the factually incorrect line is removed from the Article. The issue of whether this crime was a "murder for hire" was the central issue to the Shrien Dewani trial. The Court found no credible evidence whatsoever linking Dewani to the crime and the charges were dismissed. It is grossly misleading to be stating as fact, a theory that was comprehensively dismantled by the Western Cape High Court. It is obvious that pro-guilt fringe groups have added this erroneous fact to the Wikipedia article in a transparent and obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as a tool to "back" their campaigns to slander the name of a man who has been cleared by a court of law. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective understanding. It is fact. I am not going to re-edit the line and get into an edit war. What is the process for resolution? Dewanifacts (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason that the final sentence in the opening paragraph is currently controversial is that it states the murder for hire plot as being factual, rather than being a finding of the court in S v Mngeni. Much of the confusion could be removed by adding The court found in S v Mngeni... as a prefix in order to contextualise the remark. The comment would then need to be balanced with reference to the later Dewani judgement which rejected the alleged murder for hire plot. However, such a discussion would seem a little out of place in the opening summary paragraph. Personal view is that any reference to the Mngeni judgement should be made in the Trial of Xolile Mngeni section, and reference to Shrien Dewani judgement should be made in the Trial of Shrien Dewani section, rather than the opening paragraph. It makes little sense to refer to the Mngeni judgement in isolation, as being the current factual determination of Anni Dewani's death, when that court incorrectly found Mngeni guilty of the actual murder, and the finding was made on the basis of testimony of those that admitted to perjuring themselves. In the interests of neutrality I'm sure both lane99 and dewanifacts would agree to moving the final sentence of the first paragraph into the Trial of Xolile Mngeni section where the comment could be introduced as being the finding of the court in that matter. --St.Barbra (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree. And StBarbar's comment is full of misinformation. Including, but not limited to, the false claim that the Dewani judgement rejected the murder for hire plot. It did not.Lane99 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what I refer to as the "magic words" argument. The judgment in S. v. Dewani didn't use "magic words" to state "the finding of murder for hire in S. v. Mngeni is annulled". It merely found that the evidence for murder for hire consisted of lies. It didn't use magic words, but it should be clear what it found. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The court's findings were very clear. If I may be so bold as to state the obvious; the reason why the "magic words" argument is getting so much airtime on here is not because it has any merit or substantiation. Quite simply, its all the pro-guilt lobby have left, due to the unequivocal Judgement exonerating Dewani and dismantling the hitman fiction. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with St.Barbra's final sentence and suggested resolution. What about you, Lane99? Dewanifacts (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The page is biased

The page is veering towards being a Shrien Dewani PR page. Someone keeps deleting changes which make it more balanced. In particular, I've attempted to highlight the fact a South African court has ruled that the killing of Anni Hindocha was a premeditated murder for hire. I understand why Shrien Dewani's supporters want to cover this up, but facts are facts, and this one is critical to an understanding of the murder of Anni and, as such, should be noted in this article.

In addition, the extremely biased BBC programs should not receive their own headings and be discussed in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lane99 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No matter what your personal opinion is, we do not remove sourced information just simply because you disagree with it or think it is "biased". We should remain neutral. And from what I can see you seems to be removing information that is not biased towards Shrien but the opposit. But however I think you edit on Panorama being Busted is just another evidence that you are POV pushing. You need to realise the difference between an opinion and facts on an Wikipedia page.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Panorama programs are not unbiased. They are not reporting facts. They have an agenda and are full of conjecture and skewed opinions. It was produced in collaboration with sources linked to Dewani and with the help of a PR consultants hired by Shrien Dewani. It has no business being prominently placed on a page of Anni Hindocha's murder that purported to be unbiased. "Panorama Busted" is the name of the source which critiques the shortcomings and axe-grinding of the Panorama progams on Anni's murder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lane99 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are various mechanisms by which UK broadcast programmes can be challenged for bias or misrepresenation. As far as I know the Panorama programmes in question have not been so challenged. This does not, of course, change the overarchingly pertinent fact that Dewani was cleared of involvement in the killing. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dewani was not cleared of involvement in the murder. The court ruled it did not have adequate information to determine whether he was involved. Which is beside the point, since the question at issue is whether the Panorama program was biased. Which it is. It is also obsolete, as it includes insinuations and allegations that have been debunked at Shrien Dewani's trial. This program is a biased and non-credible source of information on Anni Hindocha's murder. It's listing should be removed from this page. BabbaQ (whoever that is) has refused to do this. So I am now in the process of learning how to such disagreements can be mediated within Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lane99 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Lane99 one way to "solve this" is remaining friendly, and less dramatic... just a tip. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

BabbaQ, thanks for the tip. You might consider taking it yourself. Meanwhile, I see now that the problems with the Panorama program have been long ago reported here. I agree with those above who've said the Panorama programs are suspect. And yet this unreliable source, apparently at your insistence, continues to be given prominent display. I don't think it should be and am now looking into Wikipedia's third party dispute resolution system to have this rectified.Lane99 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have filed on the dispute resolution noticeboard. As I understand it, I'm supposed to notify others involved in the dispute. I'm not fully sure how, but it is with that intention I have written this comment. The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Murder_of_Anni_Dewani. I listed "BabbaQ" as a party involved in the dispute, there may be others.Lane99 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree, this page is biased, as if written by lawyers of the murderers. The case is completed and this is a biased page.Aero Slicer 14:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Far from being proven biased and non credible, the Panorama program was proven with time and with evidence that came out in court, to be an objectively solid work of investigative journalism.Dewanifacts (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The court ruled that there was no credible evidence whatsoever of Dewani's involvement and he was exonerated. BabbaQ, the judgement is very transparent and explains the judge's reasoning including her findings that Tongo, Mbolombo and Qwabe were all caught red handed fabricating evidence to incriminate Mr Dewani. This is all spelled out in the judgement document - http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html Dewanifacts (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No court has ever found that Anni's was a premeditated murder. The plea deals struck with Mbolombo, Tongo and Qwabe were made without assessing the veracity of the hitman story; a story that was proven during the trial of Shrien Dewani to be fabricated in exchange for excessively lenient sentences. Those plea bargains placed huge pressure on the SA legal system including the unfortunate circumstance that the story was used as the basis for another conviction in a trial frought with controversy and anomalies; the 2012 trial of Xolile Mgneni. The article below analyses that trial in detail and highlights the many problem with the claim made above, namely the claim that a court "found" the murder to be premeditated - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/the-trial-of-xolile-mngeni-a-cesspit-of-controversy/ Dewanifacts (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This Article page was indeed biased and still contains some bias, however the bias leans toward the opposite direction of the one implied in this section of the talk page. Prior to a few weeks ago, this Article contravened BLP guidelines by falsely implying that the thoroughly discredited "murder for hire" theory was supported by evidence. This is plainly misleading and false. In addition this article made no mention of the perjury and lies told by the three criminals (Tongo, Mbolombo and Qwabe) whilst testifying under oath, and provided no detail about the section 105a and section 204 plea deals that resulted in generous sentence reductions for the real perpetrators of this armed robbery/kidnapping that turned into a murder. The article failed to include any mention of the reasoning given by the judge in the Dewani trial and failed to mention the very pertinent facts regarding that judge describing all 3 criminals as self confessed liars and withdrawing Mbolombo's indemnity from prosecution. The article also failed to mention the fact that key conclusions of the 2012 Mngeni trial were overturned by the court in the 2014 Dewani trial. These conclusions were central to the entire case; Forensics showed that Mngeni has been incorrectly convicted of being the triggerman, Mbolombo was found (and admitted) to lying while testifying in the Mngeni matter, and the court explicitly commented that those lies had nothing to do with covering Mbolombo's own involvement and were designed to falsely incriminate Mr Dewani. Importantly, prior to a few weeks ago, the article also imparted a "half truth" with regard to why the case against Mr Dewani was halted. The article stated that the evidence was not of a sufficient standard to secure a conviction. Of course this is true, but it implies that the evidence simply failed to reach the high "beyond reasonable doubt" benchmark that is used to determine guilt in the verdict phase of a criminal trial. In the Dewani matter, the case was dismissed before the defence was even required to mount a response to the state case, and at that stage of the trial, the standard of evidence required is very low. There need only exist "some" credible evidence and a judge will allow a trial to continue. In this case, the court found that no credible evidence existed and therefore the case was halted and all charges were dismissed. The wiki article should (and currently does) reflect this as it is the true and complete explanation for why Mr Dewani was exonerated. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection

I would suggest that page protection on this Article continue indefinitely, until something is done about editors who have indicated that they cannot and will not respect the editing procedure (making suggestions on the Talk page first and only editing article once consensus is reached or no opposition received).

Lane99 has made it clear on this Article Talk page and on his own personal Talk page that when the current protection period expires, he intends to flout Wikipedia policy, BLP guidelines and protocol, and edit the Article in line with his own self confessed agenda; which is to state as fact that this crime was a "murder for hire" and thus infer guilt on an exonerated person (Shrien Dewani). This editor has already re-added this false information 5 times in the last few weeks.

I am not sure why this editor cannot simply add his proposed amendments to this Talk page, let them be discussed, and then add them to the Article if/when consensus is reached. That would appear to be the most sensible approach and also one in line with Wikipedia policies. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy at this point

I don't think that extending the page protection beyond 12 September is the right answer. This article has already been page-protected twice due to edit-warring. If you read the page protection policy, it states that persistent disruptive editing by one editor is generally dealt with by blocking. In this case, we have a special sanction regime, ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions for violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. User:Lane99 has already been cautioned of the existence of ArbCom discretionary sanctions for biographies of living persons. On the one hand, I don't see statements that he plans to flout Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and protocol. On the other hand, I do see a pattern of trying to insert the discredited "murder for hire" theory, based on false evidence by convicted persons, over and over again. Extending page protection further isn't Wikipedia policy. Taking action against disruptive editing is. Usually action against disruptive editing is taken at WP:ANI, but in this case it will probably be more efficient to take it to requests for arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is true that we have a potentially confusing situation in that one of the editors is a single-purpose account, but the single-purpose account is editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy because the SPA's agenda appears to be to set the facts straight. Most SPAs are POV-pushers; but just being an SPA doesn't make one a POV-pusher, and not being an SPA doesn't mean that one has a license to violate BLP policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, in response to your comment that you don't see statements that he plans to flout Wikipedia policy, guidelines and protocal. It is right there on Lane99's Talk page, in response to your own rather patient explanation. I will quote Lane99's words directly: ".....once it is unlocked my intention is to edit it to reflect neutral, reliably sources facts. Ostensibly that is Wikipedia's mandate. We'll see". The comment is dated September 4th.

To my mind there is no interpretation other than that Lane99 intends to re-add erroneous information for the sixth time without discussing it on the Talk page. Its clear by now that Lane99's definition of "neutral reliably sourced facts" is a markedly different to the standard definition. That is kind of beside the point anyway because all that is being asked of him is that he post his "neutral reliably sourced facts" on the Talk page for discussion and if they are genuinely neutral, reliably sourced and factual in nature, consensus will be easy to gain and he can then make the edits on the Article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I would ask that, even in this situation, one should continue to assume good faith about the future editing of a locked article. I am aware that he has his own concept of neutrality, as do you and as do I and as does every Wikipedia editor. Like you, I ask him to discuss on the talk page before editing the article. I do agree that any continuing to push the "murder-for-hire" theory (and it is a theory, not a proven fact, and any statement that it is a proven fact is, at best, willful ignorance rather than a lie) on the article page when the article comes off protection will be disruptive and tendentious. Disruptive and tendentious editing of articles that contain BLP content is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to rig Wikipedia and vote libelous content onto this Article

In the interest of good faith I have sat on some information for a while, hoping that it would not be necessary to highlight it. In all good conscience I cannot withhold it as Wikipedia is clearly being targeted by people who seek to abuse it and treat it as a tool to further a witchhunt agenda against an exonerated man.

The prominent pro guilt fringe group known as "Justice 4 Anni" has, over the last month, been advertising for people to "vote" their factually incorrect version of events onto the Wikipedia Article. They initially targeted their own followers on the "Shrien Dewani: getting away with murder?" Facebook page and the "Justice 4 Anni" Twitter page. On September 8th they began advertising randomly in the comments section of news articles asking people to comment on this Talk page to vote their "murder for hire" theory onto the Article page.

Evidence of this behaviour is catagorised in date order at this link - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/wikipedia-rigging-attempt-dossier-justice4anni/

Clearly this behaviour is in stark defiance of the guideline that "Wikipedia is not a democracy" wherein the "truth" cannot and should not be "voted" in by a poll.

In fairness I would point out that whilst his views are closely aligned, Lane99 is (to the best of my knowledge) a separate entity from "Justice 4 Anni". I say this because I would not want to see Lane99 falsely accused of being responsible for the aforementioned behaviour.

It should be noted as an aside that the low follower numbers of "Justice 4 Anni" (only 24 likes on Facebook and not many more than that on Twitter) provides a good indication of just how marginal this group's views are, which should serve to increase the caution with which their outlandish claims are treated.

Regarding the claims that we (Dewanifacts) are "defacto PR publicists for Shrien Dewani", we deny this in the strongest possible terms. We are no more a PR initiative than "Justice 4 Anni" is one. In fact we are quite similar to "Justice 4 Anni" in that we are a group of justice minded individuals who took an interest in this case. The key difference between us and "Justice 4 Anni" is that we are grounded in facts and evidence, as opposed to conjecture, emotion, speculation and the lies told by three armed robbers turned murderers.

I would address afd and other "Justice 4 Anni" representatives directly and invite them to please submit all their comments and arguments directly onto this Talk page for discussion. There is no need to do it sneakily by advertising for random people to push the barrow for you. If your arguments have factual merit and do not ignore reality then I am sure that we will all reach consensus on this Talk page and then the Article page will reflect that consensus.Dewanifacts (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OK Dewanifacts, I think it is time to calm down a bit. There is no need for you to be argumentative. And frankly it only worsen the situation. I have to say that if any more of this bickering between you and other users continues, and especially if it impacts the article and the editing there. You all risk being blocked. I am just giving you a friendly warning whatyou are heading towards. You need to clam down and stop being "Wikipedia police". :) --BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Push for Coronial Inquest (Proposed new section to be added to bottom of Article)

Subsequent to Shrien Dewani's exoneration in December 2014, the family of Anni Dewani have pushed for a UK coroner's court to reopen the inquest into Anni's death and to compel Shrien Dewani to publicly answer questions regarding his sexuality, his decision to marry, his decision to honeymoon in South Africa, and regarding why he exited the vehicle at gunpoint instead of staying to protect his wife.

On 9th September 2015, at Brent Coroner's Court in North London, Coroner Andrew Walker indicated that he did not see that a full inquest was appropriate given that a criminal trial had been conducted in South Africa. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume that no opposition in 5 days means we have consensus on this information being added to the Article? Dewanifacts (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Panorama Disagreement section

This section is misleading, and at odds with the very source referenced at footnote [42] to which it relates. As such I cannot understand why is has been approved? Both the paragraph and the source should be deleted, or if the source is to be used as being relevant to the Panorama Documentary, then an accurate description of the article’s contents should be included.

Reasoning:

The paragraph infers that the supporting article includes 'accusations have been made it was intended to unfairly skew both public opinion and the court process in Shrien Dewani's favour'. However, no such quote or assertion exists in the article. The current Wikipedia text appears to be a summary of the situation which is entirely subjective, and wholly inaccurate. Furthermore it is stated as fact that the 'Hindocha family was not given the opportunity to participate in the program' whereas the article referenced to support this claim is at direct odds with this claim. The article clearly explains comments from a BBC Spokesperson who said:

“We understand that the programme may be difficult viewing for Anni’s family and have approached it sensitively, including contacting her uncle, as the representative of the family, in advance, to let him know that it would air. We received replies from Mr Hindocha which did not raise these objections.”

And specifically that:-

He added: “Should the Hindocha family wish to issue a statement then we would reflect their position in the programme.”

If the article at footnote [42] is to be used with reference to the Panorama programme then a better description would be to say "objections were raised by the Hindocha family. These were considered and responded to by the BBC. The Hindocha family were invited to issue a statement to reflect their position in the programme, but declined that invitation."

Such explanation would be a true reflection of the article, as opposed to the heavily loaded and inaccurate description currently published.

Dewanifacts (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume since no opposition has been voiced to the above, that we have consensus on this issue and the edits can be made to the Article in line with what is proposed above? Dewanifacts (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)