Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Anni Dewani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714105945/http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/4ce2bb8044a11ac9a717b769be1f1b5a/Anni-Dewani-killer-applies-for-medical-parole-20140607 to http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/4ce2bb8044a11ac9a717b769be1f1b5a/Anni-Dewani-killer-applies-for-medical-parole-20140607

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a proven fact that Anni Hinchocha's killing was a contract killing. A fact which has been reported by hundreds of reliable sources worldwide.

It addition, multiple court rulings have declared- explicitly- that Hindocha's killing was a murder for hire. No court has ever ruled that the murder was not a contract killing. Yet the current Wikipedia article is engineered to cover up the proven fact- as reported by the South African judiciary and reported by virtually all of the large media outlets worldwide- that the murder was a contract killing. Any article entitled "Murder of Anni Dewani" that obfuscates that the murder was a premeditated murder plot is an article that is dishonest, misleading to Wikipedia's readers, and in violation of Wikipedia's professed editorial standards. Accordingly, the article should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:647F:DAE0:65A9:6D67:DB76:484B (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem rather to be overlooking the final court ruling, that acquitting Mr Dewani, which describes the evidence supplied by the attackers - the only people who asserted it was a contract killing - as completely unreliable, describing most of them as pathological liars. It, of course, overturned the verdict in an earlier trial.

It is also well cited here that the attackers' evidence was extracted under torture, and their testimony to the effect that there was a contract killing was in return for partial or complete amnesty for themselves. It cannot be seen as remotely reliable. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The court ruling you referenced, which you claim "overturned the verdict in an earlier trial", does not overturn the verdict of any earlier trial. In fact, all of those verdicts which you claim were overturned remain, to this day, in effect, and enforced. You yourself have been misled by the falsehoods in the current article. Thus providing further evidence that the article is biased and must be corrected. And I challenge you to provide specific proof that the convictions of Tongo, Mngeni, and Qwabe have been overturned by the courts.

If you are unable to provide such proof, assuming good faith, it will be incumbent upon you to agree that the article is misleading and must be corrected.2604:3D08:647F:DAE0:9C8:B241:3F2C:D07C (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

PinkBeast, as you're unable to provide proof to support your erroneous claim that the verdicts confirming Anni Hindocha's killing was a planned execution have been overturned, I will correct the article. A correction that, if one checks the archives, is supported by the vast majority of those who have contributed to this talk page2604:3D08:647F:C800:3903:AE2:1888:E664 (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this is the same sock puppet guy who was banned repeatedly for pushing this same theory. Goes by name of Lane99 and a hundred other aliases. Its all referenced in the archive [[1]] of this talk page. Scroll down to the section titled "Vandalism and disruption by sock/meat puppets: summary of situation". Seems to go back a long time. Years. Do people have nothing better to do than spread conspiracy crap to tarnish the name of an exonerated person? 155.254.115.69 (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast Bishonen This article is again being edited by people trying to push the discredited "murder for hire" angle by inserting information about the exonerated person's sexuality (which was all admitted at trial), to try to impute his guilt to readers of the Article. Perhaps it needs to be locked again.Dewanifacts (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Dewanifacts, thanks for the ping. I have written a note to the experienced editor who recently restored material in the lead, pointing out that Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources and inviting them to this talkpage. I don't see another semiprotection as needed right now — no IPs are editing the article disruptively. Please get in touch again if that should start. And, IPs at 2604:3D08:647F:C800::/64, the fact that the version you're pushing has been supported by a vast army of sockpuppets in the archives is neither here nor there. Bishonen | tålk 09:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC).

Biased Account

It is obvious that the account on this Wiki page is a very biased account of what happened. This was a contract killing (Redacted) SA’s criminal rate has nothing to do with this… and the holiday to this country was booked with the knowledge of SA’s crime status - which was used in the defence of the murderer.

May justice prevail for the Hindocha family, and more especially, Anni. 41.13.16.148 (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)