Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani/Archive 5

Sequence of events.
I am having some browser issues I hope to resolve shortly. A story line is almost always listed as a series of events unless using flash-backs. Not only is it not necessary to expound on a possibility or probability of a guilt or implication without merit, it is against Wikipedia policy to unjustly smear someone. Add to that the fact that I am sure the three co-defendants, that ended up with guilty charges, merit prominence in the lead as the principles, but also as the order of events unfold. This means that lead material should introduce content concerning those, with content on the husband placed in a paragraph below, which at this time would be the last paragraph. Otr500 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Otr500 I think I know what you mean. Does the rearranging of paragraphs below, help to resolve the issue? I have also added a few words for clarity. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Anni Ninna Dewani (née Hindocha; 12 March 1982 – 13 November 2010) was a Swedish woman of Indian origin who was murdered while on her honeymoon in South Africa after the taxi she and her husband were travelling in, was carjacked.

Arrests were made in the days following the crime, with hijackers Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Xolile Mngeni, and hotel receptionist Monde Mbolombo admitting to their involvement in a robbery/kidnapping that went fatally wrong. Facing life in prison, Qwabe and Mbolombo subsequently changed their stories to allege that the crime had instead been a premeditated "murder for hire" at the alleged behest of Anni's husband Shrien Dewani. Taxi driver Zola Tongo initially claimed to be an innocent victim of the hijacking but faced with the weight of evidence implicating him in the crime and in the wake of his fellow conspirators' allegations of a "murder for hire" plot, he too changed his story to allege that the husband was the instigator. . Attractive plea bargains were offered to the conspirators in exchange for future testimony in legal proceedings related to the crime. The allegation of the husband's involvement made global headlines, with his supporters emphatically denying the accusations saying that it was "ludicrous" to suggest that he had solicited a hit on his wife within hours of arriving in Cape Town, from the first taxi driver he met.

Zola Tongo pleaded guilty to murder in December 2010 and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Mziwamadoda Qwabe pleaded guilty to murder in August 2012 and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Xolile Mngeni was tried and convicted of murder in November 2012, and was sentenced to life in prison. Monde Mbolombo admitted involvement, but was offered immunity in exchange for testimony against the other conspirators alleged to have been involved in the crime.

South African prosecutors formulated charges against Anni's husband Shrien Dewani, based on the later discredited confessions of Tongo, Qwabe and Mbolombo, who were found to have committed perjury. Charges were brought on the basis that Anni had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire, that was staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband. Following a long legal battle, Shrien was extradited from the UK to South Africa to face trial. He was exonerated by a Western Cape High Court ruling in December 2014 that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against him, nor to support the allegation that the crime was a premeditated murder for hire.


 * Works for me. I do think we need a single sentence introducing Monde Mbolombo at the end of the second para.  (A) he's important, and (b) he's one of the "three of the crime's perpetrators" referred to in the third para.  Perhaps Monde Mbolombo admitted involvement, but was granted immunity in return for testifying against Mngeni.  Which, BTW, is just mad, but there you go.


 * On the subject of which, I don't know if we can refer to him as a "perpetrator" in the Lead. Perhaps change to based on the later discredited confessions of three of those arrested?  Bromley86 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Bromley86 I would agree with you that Mbolombo cannot be labeled a "criminal" since no prosecution and conviction took place. In my view, the term "perpetrator" being applied to him is fine. No-one disputes it. Mbolombo himself admits to being involved. However I think that this issue can be sidestepped altogether by rewording the section as I've done in the collapsed draft above - naming the 3 perpetrators. This solves the issue you've raised and also tidies another potential source of confusion - the 3 people convicted (Tongo, Qwabe, Mngeni) were not the same 3 people who were found to be perjurers (Tongo, Qwabe, Mbolombo) and the lede in its current form doesn't make this clear to the uninitiated. I believe that the rewording above solves this issue. What do you think? Dewanifacts (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Only (minor) issue is that Mbolombo wasn't, in the end, actually given immunity by Traverso for testifying against Dewani.  Best to avoid going into detail in the Lead, so just mention the immunity for the Mngeni trial.  We can go into the detail in the Body.  Bromley86 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In relation to the immunity, I would suggest changing the word "granted" to "offered" (as I have now done in the collapsed draft). I think that in the context of the entire drama, it is confusing and misleading to imply that Mbolombo's immunity was granted because of his help in prosecuting Mngeni. He was only offered that extraordinary immunity deal because the authorities were determined to prosecute the husband and were desperate for "evidence". Mngeni's trial was incidental to that overriding reason. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I'll have a look, but do you have a source (or, better, a number of sources) that makes it clear that he was offered the immunity primarily because of Shrien?  What we know from that enca.com ref (assuming that it's correct) is that, ultimately, he only received it for Mngeni.  We need something solid (i.e. rather than the usual casual reporting) to trump that, IMO.  This'd be a correct time to use primary sources, in the absence of detailed secondary.  Bromley86 (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In order to locate and check sources, I would need to dig when I have time. However I'm not convinced that its necessary. As you have admitted, the lede doesn't need detail. It can remain broad. Surely reverting to "offered immunity" resolves the issue?


 * Mbolombo, along with the other 3 conspirators were all offered immunity in exchange for future testimony in any criminal proceedings relating to the crime. Mngeni was the only one to refuse the immunity offer. The terminology is tricky due to the mess that has been created by the South African authorities. Pre the 2014 Dewani trial, it was understood by all that the immunity was offered to the conspirators on condition that they testified against Shrien Dewani. Mngeni wasn't even mentioned. Its only in the aftermath that South Africa's NPA tried to disingenuously explain the decision not to prosecute Mbolombo. They claimed that he had already earned his immunity in the 2012 Mngeni trial and that even if he was revealed as a serial perjurer in the 2014 Dewani trial that his immunity deal was untouchable. The reality is that Mbolombo didn't "receive" immunity for his 2012 Mngeni testimony. All that occured in 2012 was that the judge in the Mngeni trial chose to believe Mbolombo's story and didn't remove the immunity that he had already been granted. It was always the understanding that the immunity deal's continuation depended upon Mbolombo's continued cooperation with authorities until all criminal proceedings related to the crime were resolved. Clearly this meant that he would be required to testify when the husband was finally extradited and faced trial. As we now know, it was in this 2014 trial that Mbolombo's story unraveled and it transpired that not only had he perjured himself in the 2012 Mngeni trial, but had done so again in the 2014 Dewani trial - which led to the judge rescinding his immunity. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the Lead needs to accurately and succinctly described the current situation; the story of how we got there belongs in the Body. So, if he only received immunity for A, we don't need to mention any offers of immunity for B.  That said, when I'm a little less impaired and have time, I'll try to look at it.  For the record, I'm certain that you're correct; we just need to be able to reference it without dipping too far into WP:OR.  10:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point regarding lede representing current situation. It would seem that the simplest solution is to simply remove the names of those he was providing testimony against, so as to remove potential ambiguity. I have done that in the collapsed draft above. Your views? Dewanifacts (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With hindsight, an obviously sensible thing to do! Job done.  Bromley86 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Dewanifacts: I was going to reply below but glad you apparently figured out the answer. I will state that your comment "it would be best if you do what all other editors have been asked to do; propose and discuss changes on the talk page and add them to the article only once consensus has been gained.", threw me because #1)- I did not see such a request, or who requested it, #2)- contentions and editing requests could only be considered "requests" and should NEVER mean to restrict article contributions, as good faith edits resulting in improvements, especially if in line with policies and guidelines or in this case including possible sanctions. I have found no reason to believe that you have no intentions other than good but please remember that other editors must be allowed the same good faith, as provided by policy and guidelines, to even include WP:BRD. Sanctions are not meant to stop editors from improving an article and "suggestions to discuss" should really only be used concerning content where clear consensus has reflected a certain direction to prevent contention. To prevent you, or any other editors, from exhibiting an air of ownership (certainly not intended) someone should add sections to this page concerning previous discussions. This will prevent good faith (especially referenced) edits from being reverted simply because someone didn't "discuss" them first.
 * Concerning your proposed edits, they are an improvement. A fourth paragraph should be inserted (new 2nd paragraph) after the opening. This could provide information of the kidnapping, including some timeline content, and summary information introducing the alleged perpetrators. This would set the stage for the chronological order) of events that is covered in the article. This would be in line with Manual_of_Style/Lead_section that states, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.". The present proposal, by excluding this information, still tips the balance because there will be more content on the husbands possible involvement. In other words: We should be fair, while not trying to "prove" a point, that the husband was not guilty, by including more information on him and less on those that admitted guilt. I will look at some of the inline tags later. Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Otr500. I think it might have been Robert McClenon who suggested it last year.  Things have calmed down since then, but that's probably more to do with protection than because there's been a change of heart or loss of interest by those advocating a murder for hire position.
 * Regarding your suggested change. I had a look at the Lead in Murder of Meredith Kercher and, although the formatting isn't great, I see what you're trying to achieve.  Makes sense to me.  Regarding Shrien's involvement (or lack thereof), frankly it's that aspect that accounts for the murder reaching notability.  I also suspect that the desire to make clear that he's been exonerated is because of BLP concerns (Collect even argued that his name should be removed entirely, which would have been interesting).  Bromley86 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Otr500 and Bromley86. Good points made by both. I have used the same collapsed working draft above to add in a second paragraph along the lines of Otr500's suggestion that the lede was not yet able to stand alone and tell the concise story. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the suggested additional paragraph. I've also tidied a couple of other things that were cluttering the lede. Mngeni's "not guilty" plea isn't necessary in the lede. I have also shifted the protagonist's occupations (hotel receptionist et al) to the new second paragraph as it makes sense to state those occupations at first mention rather than the later mentions of their names. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * On the subject of discussing changes on talk page first, you are of course correct Otr500. Good faith should be assumed at all times. Apologies if my comments came across adversely. It is a shame that the talk page discussions are archived without any trace being left on the page. In an ideal wiki world, it would be preferable if the content was archived but the section headings remained for posterity. Between August and December 2015, there were roughly 15 separate lengthy and heated sections of the talk page discussing the lede paragraph and what content it should and should not include. Senior editors and administrators repeatedly asked that editors discuss changes to that lede on the talk page because it had proven so contentious. One rogue editor (and his army of sock puppets) was the main source of the disruption. He attempted on over 10 separate occasions to insert his own rhetoric into the lede without discussing it, and against the prevailing consensus Dewanifacts (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dewnifacts, I think it gives substance. See what collaboration, in the face of sanctions, can achieve? We can see what Bromley86 thinks or has to offer.
 * And yes, I too agree that initial notability, that became international over "just another tourist killed" (I do not mean that lightly as it was a horrible tragedy), was the possible involvement of the husband, and eventual fringe theories etc.. Those all became moot with the exoneration, less with the admitted lies and plea bargains, and even less when further prosecution was not sought against the husband. It would not be fair to the readers to attempt to squash the husband from the article and certainly the lead. I think I read where Dewnifacts argued for inclusion. However, as the events unfolded it should be presented in a way to minimize any possible drama of the husbands supposed involvement, especially after the turns of events twisted things back on the perpetrators. When I first read the references I was amazed that the co-conspirators were allowed to meet. That was a slap in the face of justice in and of itself, and I think the courts saw through this. Maybe some mention of this would be in order (the conspirators collaboration to add the husband in) as this happened only after they met right?
 * BLP issues should always be a concern just as facts should be included, that are supported by reliable sources, and then we start gaining a better article. Thank you both for input and ideas. I would rather not even make an edit to an article (as I don't have a certain edit count quota) if improvements can be achieved. Otr500 (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Otr500 The fact that the conspirators were allowed to meet, is already mentioned in the second paragraph of the [| arrest sequence section]. However I would point out that it gets very murky and the details of how many times they were permitted to meet have never become public knowledge so we really cannot go into any more detail and theorise about when/where the framing plot was hatched since we don't have any source material to reference. What is known is that in the early hours of Thursday 18th November 2010, after being allowed to meet with Mngeni and Mbolombo, Qwabe confessed to a robbery gone wrong (NB: they colluded but at this stage their collusion didn't extend to implicating Dewani or alleging "murder for hire"). At 17:21 on that same day Qwabe made a second confession where he changed his story to implicate Dewani. 17:21 was the turning point. Mbolombo and Tongo followed suit in quick succession. It is not known what exactly occurred to make Qwabe change his mind and make up a story at 17:21 on that day. That is the million dollar question. Did the police dangle a carrot and suggest that he would benefit from blaming the foreigner? Was he tortured? Was he promised a softer prison? Did he make it up of his own accord? Was he allowed to again meet with Mbolombo and/or Mngeni and did he and Mbolombo hatch the contract killing story at that stage? What involvement did the police have in the conspiracy to frame Dewani? The events of Thursday 18th November 2010 had significant implications for the course of the case and the evidence suggests that the South African authorities are none too keen for the truth to ever become known about what took place on that day. That is clearly why they chose not to prosecute Mbolombo. If the circumstances under which he and Qwabe changed their stories were to be put under scrutiny, Mbolombo would blow the lid right off the whole thing Dewanifacts (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will comment in more depth but so as there is no confusion:


 * I support the proposed edits you have suggested and I think Bromley86 agrees with. I do not want you or Bromley86 to think I am arguing against these, as it might be seen lacking such support, just looking at other areas. I would suggest implementing the edits that will correct what I see as an issue. Otr500 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agenda driven editing in relation to this article
There is a concerted and somewhat delusional campaign in progress on social media, led by banned sock puppeteer Lane99 aka @perugiamurderfi. This campaign is designed to deceive unknowing readers into believing that this article on the murder of Anni Dewani is a product of agenda driven editing.

For the record, it would be helpful if this talk page reflects the facts of the situation. The section of this page entitled "[| Vandalism and disruption by sock/meat puppets: summary of situation]" details Lane99's behaviour thoroughly and I don't intend to repeat that content here. What needs to be highlighted is the fact that this article has indeed been the target of agenda driven editors; back in July of 2015, Lane99/@perugiamurderfi and "pro guilt" activist ally "Justice4anni" decided that they were unhappy that the Wikipedia article on this crime was (in their view) slanted in favour of the exonerated husband. They wanted the article to paint the husband in such a way as to imply that he was actually guilty of the crime, despite the court halting his trial midway and acquitting him because no credible evidence linked him to the crime. Lane99/Perugiamurderfi is the primary agenda driven editor who has attempted to inject his agenda into the article. In a strange inverted reality type strategy, Lane99/@perugiamurderfi is trawling Twitter and engaging any journalist who has anything negative to say about Wikipedia and is attempting to co-opt them into his own misguided agenda - by (of all things!) accusing others of pursuing an agenda here on Wiki and repeating his baseless allegation that I am a PR agent. He has been challenged numerous times to provide proof of this allegation and he cannot do so, primarily because there isn't a grain of truth to it. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case.

I would caution anyone who views this talk page to familiarise themselves with the actual facts of the case and the relevant court documents before buying into the social media rantings of these agenda driven "pro guilt" activists. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Edited so that content above does not get auto-archived. This article remains a target for vandalism and is the subject of a social media campaign to have the contents amended to lend credit to the "murder for hire" story told by the criminals who murdered Anni. Screenshots here.Dewanifacts (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Article appears to be agenda-driven partisan advocacy. Contrary to Wikipedia's editorial standards
Wikipedia is misleading its readers- and one imagines recklessly inflicting emotional pain and suffering damages upon Anni Hindocha’s family in the bargain- by publishing an article which advocates that Anni’s murder was not a contract killing, despite it being a proven, legally documented fact that it was.

It is an established fact that Anni’s killing was a murder for hire. And by whitewashing this central fact from the article, Wikipedia is flouting virtually every editorial standard to which it claims to adhere. Including, but not limited to, standards of completeness, bias, neutrality, and consensus-based edits.

An honest, neutral, description of the murder- based on multiple unbiased and reliable sources- has already been proffered. And it should replace the partisan propaganda which Wikipedia is currently presenting to its unsuspecting readers. Advocate the 2nd (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Quack, quack. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is just the latest in a continuing futile attempt to vandalise this article and insert rhetoric. Usually by anonymous IP accounts or in this case the very first edit by a standard account. They appear to be getting increasingly desperate. The latest efforts comprise | a proposal to have the entire article deleted, and an attempt to inject their | falsehoods into the Wikipedia article on "Contract killing". When these attempts were thwarted by other editors, the lynch mob have again taken to social media to slander Wikipedia. All documented with screenshots at this link. Dewanifacts (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For all the article is fine, the talk page could do without you junking it up with endless repetition of the same screed - a screed which appears to have nothing to do with how to improve the article. Give it a rest. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is getting really boring now.... Nick Cooper (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All this bitching about "agenda-driven partisan advocacy" is "interesting" when one of the most heavily involved editors has chosen the username "Dewanifacts" - it practically ammounts to a declaration "I work for Shrien Dewani". A clear emphatic statement confirming or denying that supposition would be welcome. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Roger (Dodger67), I have addressed this on numerous occasions here on this talk page. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case and have continued to follow it. Had I chosen the name "Sparkles69", and made the same contributions, would we be having this discussion? I have adhered to every Wikipedia protocol, the edits I've made have all been thoroughly discussed on this talk page until consensus reached, and every bit of information is referenced to neutral 3rd party sources.


 * On numerous occasions the agenda pushing sock puppets have been challenged to substantiate the baseless claim that I am a "PR Agent" and no evidence has ever been forthcoming. Nothing new there. People associated with the "lynch Shrien Dewani" movement have been employing this strategy ever since the crime occurred in 2010, casting aspersions over the credibility of any individual, journalist or online discussion participant who dared to present exculpatory facts that showed Mr Dewani to be innocent and accusing those people of being on the Dewani payroll. Such claims have never been substantiated but that has not stopped the lynch mob from propagating said claims as though they are fact. I invite them, yet again, to provide evidence to back their claims. Best Regards. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Dewanifacts is essentially unique in my experience in Wikipedia, a single purpose account who actually is a positive contributor to Wikipedia. That is because they are editing as a single-purpose account in a peculiar area that has opposing single-purpose accounts whose mission is to perpetrate what they apparently think is truth (since I don't think that they are maliciously lying) but is falsehood.  The falsehood is the restatement, contrary to all truth and facts, that this was found to be a murder for hire.  (If it was, where is the search for the mystery arranger?  We know that Shrien Dewani was exonerated.)  I personally don't much care whether Dewanifacts is working for Shrien Dewani.  Even if so, the falsehood-pushers need to be opposed.  This is a strange situation in which a single-purpose account is constructive.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Constructive-ish. They could do with giving it a rest when no-one is actually trying to push the opposite POV - particularly, to refrain from "bumping" bits of the talk page. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Pinkbeast. I find that to be a strange comment given this very talk page section was created by the opposing POV pushers. I would think that so long as the article remains a target for vandalism (and there can be no doubt that this is the case - given the ongoing social media campaign), it makes sense to have the "vandalism target" sections on the talk page so that any uninitiated editor can, at a glance, understand what is going on. Is there any Wikipedia rule against updating currently relevant sections of the talk page to stop them from getting archived? Dewanifacts (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, you are correct, Advocate the 2nd. It's not surprising a publicist for the accused murderer would try to whitewash the facts of Anni Dewani's murder.  Though indeed it is quite a surprise that Wikipedia is not only allowing it, but appears to be going out of its way to actually encourage it.


 * The essay as it exists is shameless agenda based propaganda. And I agree with all those who say it should be replaced with the balanced and unbiased edit that has previously been suggested.207.102.59.253 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Lane99/"perugiamurderfi"/Al_Trainer/ahindocha/Factsnotlies/Noanon/Forbeshighland/Kesadilla22, this is getting mighty boring.
 * No surprise in the revelation that you vehemently agree with yourself. Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that a publicist for the exonerated husband even exists, let alone that such a person edits Wikipedia? If you have evidence, please come forth with it. Without substantiation your claims are nothing more than hot air and sour grapes from a pro guilt fringe operator. You are never going to get anywhere with your reasoning. Everyone accepts that the court in S v Mngeni believed that this crime was a "murder for hire". That finding occurred in 2012. It became worthless after it transpired that the "murder for hire" story was nothing but a barrow full of lies told by murderers turned perjurers who benefited from sentence reductions in return for implicating their foreign victim in their crime. That is where the "murder for hire" story ended. It was made up and regardless of whether you choose to accept this reality, you are going to need to accept the fact that your own beliefs do not have a place on Wikipedia. Call me a PR agent, an apologist, a shill, Dewani's gay lover or whatever else you like, but accept that your beliefs relating to this crime do not enjoy a consensus here and won't be published. All the best. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with AdvocateThe2nd. The slanted rhetoric in the present article is stunning. What in the world does Wikipedia stand to gain by misleading readers about the known facts of Anni Dewani's murder?  This article should be amended.97.107.179.62 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite incredible that the only "editors" who agree with Lane99's rhetoric are anonymous IP accounts and first time posters. Do you think wikipedians are dummies, Lane99? Its clear as day that you are the one pulling the strings on these sock puppet accounts. You aren't even good at covering your tracks. All the IP addresses are from Canada where you live. I'll give you one thing. You are nothing if not persistent and you raise a good point for once. What does Wikipedia stand to gain by misleading readers about a murder? Nothing. Which makes your social media campaign all the more laughable since you have repeatedly claimed that Wikipedia somehow stands to gain by slanting an article about a murder of a tourist and that Wikipedia is in cahoots with a mysterious PR agent whose existence you are yet to evidence. Thanks for the chuckles. Dewanifacts (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC

Advocate the 2nd : based on your name, I wonder if you have any legal background (Advocate being the designation in South Africa for what North Americans call lawyers)? If so, can you comment about whether Anni Hindocha's murder has been proven to be a contract killing? As a layman, it seems so. So it is troubling that this essay is telling readers that is was not a contract killing. More troubling still that this does not seem to be a random oversight, but a deliberate choice to cover up the facts of the murder.64.141.83.200 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Quacking concidence . Yet another Canada based anonymous IP address pushing banned editor Lane99's misguided barrow. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I know it's hard DF, but I'd let them get on with it and only intervene over actual edits to the article, or genuine non-sock questions. I'm not sure if Talk pages can be IP blocked, but I'd certainly support it for this one.  Bromley86 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism and disruption by sock/meat puppets: summary of situation
This article continues to be the intended target of vandalism.

In brief: there is a fringe group of people who believe that the exonerated husband was actually an instigator rather than a victim of the robbery/kidnapping during which Anni Dewani was killed. This fringe group would like the Wikipedia article on this crime to imply that the husband "got away with murder". They are furious that the article does not reflect this viewpoint and are vilifying Wikipedia on social media, claiming that the article is "biased" and rigged by a PR agent.

This faction is so small that it barely qualifies as a "fringe group". It is comprised of the all but defunct "justice4anni" collective who maintain two Facebook pages - the libelously titled "Shrien Dewani: getting away with murder", and the "Memory of Anni Hindocha aka Dewani".

The social media ranting is largely driven by incorrigible banned & blocked sock puppeteer Lane99 aka"perugiamurderfi"/Al_Trainer/ahindocha/Factsnotlies/Noanon/Forbeshighland/Kesadilla22, who continues to canvas social media for meat puppets, vilify Wikipedia, broadcast the fact that he has engaged Jimbo Wales and persists in begging random twitter users to take up his cause.] Even to that end he fails dismally. Those few netizens who may be sympathetic to this sock puppeteer's misguided beliefs, have not taken up his cause on Wikipedia because even they realise that the facts and court findings do not support the claims being made.

Most recently, this sock puppeteer has taken to appealing on Jimbo Wales' talk page for intervention, a sure sign of desperation.

This sock puppeteer has an axe to grind because he has not been allowed to insert his rhetoric into this article. He has also adopted a somewhat delusional strategy of stating that Wikipedia and its editors have "tacitly admitted" that the article is biased. He further goes on to claim that Wikipedia is refusing to publish the "truth" due to fear of legal repercussions. His line of argument here apparently refers to WP:BLP; he is furious that he is not being permitted to imply and ascribe guilt to a person who has been fully exonerated by a court of law. For the record it should be noted that aside from vociferous backing from his own army of sock puppets, this puppeteer's views have enjoyed no support here on Wikipedia. There has been no admission, tacit or otherwise, of any bias in the article aside from a bias toward reality rather than the distorted libelous slant that this sock puppeteer would prefer.

This sock puppeteer continues to make the wholly false, unsubstantiated claim that this article is written by a PR agent.

I am the person he falsely accuses of being a PR agent. I can assure everyone (as I have done on many occasions prior on this very talk page) that I am nothing of the sort. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case and have continued to follow it.

On numerous occasions this sock puppeteer has been challenged to substantiate this baseless claim and no evidence has ever been forthcoming. Nothing new here. People associated with the "lynch Shrien Dewani" movement have been employing this strategy ever since the crime occurred in 2010, casting aspersions over the credibility of any individual, journalist or online discussion participant who dared to present exculpatory facts that showed Mr Dewani to be innocent and accusing those people of being on the Dewani payroll. Such claims have never been substantiated but that has not stopped the lynch mob from propagating said claims as though they are fact. I invite this sock puppeteer, yet again, to provide evidence to back his claim.

This article has had input from many editors with diverse backgrounds and interests, many of them seasoned Wikipedia contributors. As a person with an interest in this case I participated in the discussion and drafted parts of the article. Every single sentence and section was subject to rigorous analysis and discussion on this very talk page and those discussions can be read by anyone who takes the time to do so. The sock puppeteer was invited to participate in the discussion on many occasions, however the only contribution he has ever been willing to make has been to insist over and over again that this crime should be referred to as a "murder for hire".

Despite the dramatic cries of "bias", in reality this sock puppeteer's sole bugbear concerns the first paragraph of the article, in which he would like Wikipedia to state that this crime was proven to be a contract killing. This claim is blatantly false and constitutes a gross violation of WP:BLP. The sock puppeteer's motivation for champing at this bit is rather obvious; he and his other "pro guilt" cronies wish to use Wikipedia as a trojan horse of sorts, so that they can point to it and say "even Wikipedia says that the crime was a contract killing - and the husband is the only person who logically could have ordered it", thereby implying that the exonerated husband was actually guilty of the crime.

In line with overwhelming consensus on this talk page, the false and misleading claim that this crime was "proven" to be a contract killing has no place here on Wikipedia. This sock puppeteer has specified the three court rulings upon which he bases his claim and on many occasions now it has been explained to him why those rulings carry no weight since they were all proven to be based on perjury by the people who committed the crime and murdered Anni Dewani.


 * In the cases of Tongo (the taxi driver) and Qwabe (the hijacker who shot Anni Dewani), no findings were made by the courts. No trials were held. No witnesses were heard. No evidence was presented. No verifying of the confessions took place. These court proceedings were merely plea hearings rubber stamping pre agreed sentences for guilty pleas. The convicts' confessions were accepted at face value. The confessions later turned out to be filled with lies. They carry little weight.


 * In the trial of Mngeni (second hijacker) the court accepted the evidence of co-conspirators Qwabe and Mbolombo (robbery coordinator) at face value and did make the finding that they participated in a contract killing. It later transpired during the 2014 S v Dewani trial that the testimony of Qwabe and Mbolombo had been perjured and filled with lies. Mbolombo even admitted to his perjury. Therefore it would be completely misleading if Wikipedia were to state the Mngeni court's findings as fact, although they are mentioned in the article's section on the trial of Mngeni.

In summary, what this sock puppeteer likes to term "proven facts" are actually nothing more than fabricated stories told by lying criminals. This position is avowed by the court in S v Dewani. Paragraph 23.1 of the court's judgement in S v Dewani explicitly states that the only crimes that had been proven to have been planned in advance were the crimes of kidnapping and robbery.

23.1 It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences"

Paragraph 23.1 is irreconcilable with this sock puppeteer's claim that this crime was "proven" to be a murder for hire. In actual fact, it shows the sock puppeteer's claim to be patently false.

It should be noted that this sock puppeteer has also embarked on a strategy of emotional blackmail, attempting to bully Wikipedia into making his desired amendments by drawing the murder victim's family into the discussion and claiming that they are being caused distress by the content of the article. This tactic is especially distasteful in light of the fact that this same sock puppeteer recently impersonated a member of the victim's family with his banned ahindocha account. There is no evidence of the murder victim's family being caused any distress by the contents of the Wikipedia article, and even if this were the case, it would not and should not influence the inclusion of neutral and reliably sourced consensus based content.

Its time to stop flogging the horse. I am sure I am not alone in asking this sock puppeteer to please desist from contributing in this way to Wikipedia and to rather go and write his own article and publish it somewhere else where he is free to write whatever he wants. All the best. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments about a "sock puppeteer. I will point out that asserting that you are some PR agent, without some proof, is not only against WP:ASSUME it is a personal attack. A reverse is true for allegations (repeated many times) of being a sock puppeteer. There are venues for dealing with these types of editors it there is substance to such allegations.
 * I have not looked at sources to see if any make some form of reputable claim but "if" there are references then it would not smear anyone's name for some mention in a possibly a controversy section but this would have to be treated with care.
 * If you are interested in article improvements then why not look at my comments on the tags to explore a resolution? Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Otr500, the sock puppeteer has been caught out and blocked many times. Its not a mere allegation. It is reality. This will be confirmed when you read the talk pages of Lane99/Al_Trainer/ahindocha/Factsnotlies/Noanon/Forbeshighland/Kesadilla22. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again and thanks for the info. I can understand your frustration and I see that the husband was exonerated. One of the references "Why Shrien Dewani can go free - Judge Jeanette Traverso" is numbered and can be used multiple times to address inline tags. The lead needs cleaning up as the second paragraph, "South African prosecutors formulated charges based..." begs a {who} tag. A new paragraph must not start out dropping a reader in the middle so it must reintroduce lead-in material. In this case there is no previous lead-in material so I will reword this. I am not going to delve too deep at this time but that may change. IF you see more sock puppetry then report it. As far as I know we do not need to ask for a sock puppet to stop but just get the person blocked/banned. As for the tags, my second attempt, input is obviously being sought so "IF" you find the time please feel free to comment under that section. Otr500 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up for the record. Lane99 (in his twitter guise @perugiamurderfi) and rabid pro guilt activist "justice4anni" both continue to trawl Twitter, slander Wikipedia and spread false unsubstantiated allegations claiming that Wikipedia is allowing a PR agenda to be pushed with regard to the subject of this article. Yet again, I would challenge lane99/perugiamurderfi to come forward with proof to back up these allegations, or to admit that no such proof exists. Dewanifacts (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Edited so that content above does not get auto-archived. This article remains a target for vandalism and is the subject of a social media campaign to have the contents amended to lend credit to the "murder for hire" story told by the criminals who murdered Anni. Screenshots here. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Continuing attempts to vandalise this article and insert rhetoric. Always by anonymous IP accounts. They appear to be getting increasingly desperate. The latest efforts comprise | a proposal to have the entire article deleted, and an attempt to inject their | falsehoods into the Wikipedia article on "Contract killing". When these attempts were thwarted by other editors, the lynch mob have again taken to social media to slander Wikipedia. All documented here Dewanifacts (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have had my attention drawn to a thread about this article on an anti-Wikipedia website - wikipediasucks - started by Lane99 and used by Lane99 to further slander Wikipedia and specific Wikipedia admins and to allegedly prepare for an imaginary lawsuit that he intended to file. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This talk page is to discuss improvements to this article. Please do not use it for other purposes. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pinkbeast, . It's not necessary to keep criticising a blocked user, or record what they do all round the internet. Referring to outside websites is only useful/relevant if you think something on them throws light on a new sock- or meatpuppet or other event here. The thread you link to obviously doesn't do that — it's 9 months old. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC).

Shrien Dewani Anchor
Shrien Dewani redirects here but has no section or anchor, where should it redirect to? Banak (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Murder_of_Anni_Dewani? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)