Talk:Death of Harry Dunn

Date of birth

There are very many media sources which describe Dunn as a "19-year-old" when he died. There are also Twitter posts such as this and this which confirm he was born in 2000. There's also the date at findagrave here which clearly says 22 March 2000. So it seems when Andrea Leadsom asked her question of Raab, on 22 March 2022, "on what would have been Dunn's 21st birthday", she was mistaken. 86.188.121.31 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC has consistently described Dunn as "19-year-old". Here's just the latest example. It's hard to believe they have been wrong for over three years. There are literally hundreds of instances on line. Here's a direct quote from his mother. Charlotte Charles: "He was 19 and doing nothing wrong." I think she ought to know. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Couple things...

"Fled is a very subjective term". By subjective I mean biased; you don't flee after 19 days unless you're a sloth or something. And it actually says something to imply immediate which was wrong. The 'flight' was 19 days later. That would put the departure at September 15, 2019 if the crash was on August 27. According to timebetweendates website at least. Here's the source: https://news.sky.com/story/case-of-harry-dunns-alleged-killer-anne-sacoolas-to-be-heard-this-week-at-london-court-12705800

@Martinevans123(talk) I had two pages open at the same time and got confused which article I was looking at. I'm not a regular editor so I don't really know the formatting.

I posted something similar in the Talk:Diplomatic_Immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity since they also had the dates wrong. They referred to these things happening in October when she was leaving in September. In order to get the citations correct I wasn't going to play with it. But the original source site is already dead. Stratfordbaby (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Statfordbaby. That's a very good spot on the date confusion, thanks. It's unfortunate (and perhaps a bit surprising) that we only have the Sky News source for the date of 15 September. At the time it was all happening, I remember that we had no sources for the exact date of her departure. I tend to agree with you that the word "fled" does usually suggest immediate action. But I think there maybe some discussion in the archives here. I just added the quote to show that the source uses that word (in fact, it uses it twice). Apologies for the rapid revert, but we'd need to add that Sky News page as a new source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think 'fled' is unnecessarily sensationalist language as often found in the news media, and that we shouldn't editorialise in that way. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to follow the sources, as I maintained at the archived discussion here, four and a half years ago. Perhaps we should ask User:NickCT again what he thinks. I had almost forgotten about that discussion, until you appeared. Maybe an RfC is the right way to go? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We should follow the sources for the facts, of course, but not necessarily for the spin they apply by their choice of loaded terminology.

Also, I see you pinged one of the contributors to a previous discussion on this. I'm not sure how that sits with WP:VOTESTACKING, which says: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion..., and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

By all means ping all the others. He was the one who opened that discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The other three discussants were User:Pawnkingthree, User:The Anome and User:Quisqualis. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The usage of "fled" and its variants is present in numerous reliable sources. Try a Google search for "Sacoolas fled" (not in quotes). On the other hand, so is "left"; try searching for "Sacoolas left" (again without quotes). Looking at the dictionary definition of fleeing, I get the emphasis seems to be more on leaving to avoid something, and less on leaving rapidly or promptly. — The Anome (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, many of the people crossing the English Channel in small boats may be fleeing persecution in their country of origin. But it may have taken them years to embark on their journeys and their progress may have been extremely slow. I don't see how it's "editorialising" to say they "are fleeing" or "have fled". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"Looking at the dictionary definition of fleeing, I get the emphasis seems to be more on leaving to avoid something, and less on leaving rapidly or promptly."

I think that's right.

But either meaning of "fled" is inappropriate here because it is inconsistent with a neutral stance. S C Cheese (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Judge Ellis wasn't quite so neutral, as very clearly reported by the BBC (see below). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto, Martinevans123, and Stratfordbaby: - Hi all, thanks for the conversation. So, my understanding is that if I leave a jurisdiction for the purpose of evading prosecution, then I am "fleeing" that place. I think we all agree Sacoolas left b/c she didn't want to face prosecuation, right? I appreciate there are multiple definitions for the word "fled", and that "fled" doesn't always mean "fled prosecution". Could I propose a reword to "Sacoolas fled prosecution, leaving the UK soon after the incident....."? Do we feel like that might clarify what "fled" actually means? NickCT (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a useful improvement to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) p.s. User:Pawnkingthree has told me they probably won't comment further here and User:Quisqualis has not been active since 25 May 2023.

Regardless of whether we use the word "fled", and I don't think we should use it for the reasons above, I don't think we know for sure why she left at that time either, so I oppose the addition of that reason too. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This BBC report says that the US judge, T. S. Ellis, told Sacoolas she "must face the music, at least in civil court"... "Judge Ellis chastised Sacoolas in a court teleconference last month: "'Accepting full responsibility doesn't mean you run away.'" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

re "I don't think we know for sure why she left" - Great point. And I guess we don't really know for sure why bank robbers run away from banks they've just robbed. They might not be trying to evade the police. They could just be out for exercise, right?

Regardless, I guess all that really matters is why the sources think she left, and there seems to be a reasonable amount of sourcing that suggests she was evading prosecution. Are there any sources that say she left for any other reason? NickCT (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That worrisome overdue library book, back in Northern Virginia? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

:-) I live right next to Northern Virginia (a.k.a. NoVa). The librarians there are no joke. NickCT (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@NickCT, the quote in the cite of the source supporting that sentence says: The court was told Ms Sacoolas fled the UK due to "issues of security" and had not returned because she feared she "would not have a fair trial" because of the "media attention". So perhaps that was the reason she left. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, she fled all the media attention that might have ruined her trial? That might be another useful supporting quote right there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, sorry, I don't understand what you meant by either of those sentences. Please clarify. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence was a question. She may have fled because she did not think an American would get a fair trial in the UK. The fact that the source uses the phrase "fled the UK" means it directly supports use of that word in the article. What I'm not sure I understand, is what was meant by "issues of security". What do you understand by that phrase? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, that the journalist who wrote that chose to use the loaded word 'fled' is not a valid reason for us to use it in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia editors are compelled to write in an impartial tone. "Left" adequately conveys the essence, but without the spin.

I cannot put words into her mouth by second-guessing what she meant by "issues of security", but it clearly doesn't mean to evade prosecution. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree it's "loaded". I think it's accurately descriptive. I see no spin. So you also don't know what "issues of security" means? Now that sounds like "spin". Or perhaps it means: "CIA agents and their spouses get to do as they please"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: - Ok. So on the one-hand we have several sources saying she fled prosecution. On the other, we have her story, which is that she left over unspecified "issues of security". Do you feel it would add balance if we included her explination? For instance, "Sacoolas was widley reported to have fled prosecution, leaving the UK soon after the incident..... Sacoolas said she had to leave the UK over "issues of security" and didn't return because she feared media attention would prevent her from receiving a fair trial."? NickCT (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@NickCT, could you please supply links to some of the stronger sources that asserted she fled prosecution, so that we can see their reasoning. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess ABC,NYT, Daily Beast, Reuters all say something like "She fled [emphasis added] after killing.....", but if you're trying to make the point that none of them seem to say specifically "fled prosecution", I guess fair point. I'm not 100% sure what you want here. You seem to suggest you don't like the word the sources use. Then, when we attempt to clarify the word the sources use, you seem to complain that the sources don't support that clarification. Honestly, I think it stretches the imagination a little to think that when all these sources said "fled", they weren't using it in the sense of "fleeing prosecution". Do you think the sources were trying to say that Sacoolas fled b/c of "issues of security"? NickCT (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(... assuming they knew what "issues of security" even means.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'd call staying out of jail an "issue of security" for me personally. Maybe that's the sense in which she meant it. ;-) Honestly though, these types of diplomatic shenanigans happen all the time. American diplomatics do stupid stuff in foreign countries and get away w/ it. Diplomats from foreign countries do stupid stuff here and also evade prosecution. We shouldn't be trying throw stones at people/countries engaged in these shenanigans. But we also shouldn't be trying to mask the shenanigans. NickCT (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@NickCT, I was commenting on your suggestion of inserting Sacoolas was widley reported to have fled prosecution, leaving the UK soon after the incident..... Sacoolas said she had to leave the UK over "issues of security" and didn't return because she feared media attention would prevent her from receiving a fair trial.

"Fled" was dealt with above, but keeps on being raised again. Here I am also disagreeing with putting that reason you gave for her leaving in Wiki's voice.

We should not read between the lines of sources and try to imagine "what they really meant". We should take the sources at face value and paraphrase them in an impartial tone. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Well generally I agree we shouldn't read between the lines. In this case though I think the inference is so obvious that I'm not sure we're doing much reading.

But anyways, just so I understand you; you're saying your OK with just saying "fled", but not "fled prosecution"? NickCT (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@NickCT, not quite... See earlier in this thread where I explain why I think "fled" should not be used. What does it give us that "left" does not? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, "left" seems like a euphimism. Like saying "The bank robber 'left' the scene of the crime"....... They didn't just "leave". They fled. Let me ask you a dumb question; I think you'll grant us that we have severally reasonably good sources that use "fled". Why do you thnk ABC and the NYT used "fled"? Why couldn't they just use "left"? NickCT (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@NickCT, "left" is the past tense of "leave". Did she leave the country? Clearly she did. "Fled" is the past tense of "flee". The definition of flee is to leave very quickly to escape from danger (note it is a specific type of "leave", so it is a loaded form of "leave"). Did she leave the country very quickly to escape from danger? Well, it took her 19 days to leave, so she was clearly in no hurry, and, as we see above, we don't actually know why she left. Also, with diplomatic immunity, you are immune from legal action, so don't need to leave the country to avoid that.

As for why media outlets used the word "fled", it's probably because their survival relies on them being able to attract readers, and their journalists are trained to use the editorial tactic of sensationalism to excite and entertain readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not "the definition of flee". That's just the one definition you choose to stand up as a very flimsy straw man. No-one is suggesting she was in any real "danger"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, that's the common meaning of the word as defined in dictionaries. What definition did you assume was meant? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That she fled from justice. You honestly think that all those instances in the press were used with the meaning of "flee from danger"? And you say "Also, with diplomatic immunity, you are immune from legal action, so don't need to leave the country to avoid that." She was immune? So how come she was successfully convicted for causing death by careless driving? (And someone forgot to tell the President of the United States, who tried to bribe the Dunn family to drop their case?) Martinevans123 (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, yes, that's the implication of the word - that she left very quickly to escape from the danger (or fear?) of being prosecuted.

And yes, she was immune, so had no motive to 'flee', indeed she said that she had no plans to leave. At the time of the incident, she, as a family member of a diplomat, was immune from prosecution. It was almost a year later that the UK and US governments agreed to amend their bilateral agreement with respect to family members, and then she lost the privilege. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about the "very quickly" implication. As I commented above, people may be unable to flee quickly for a variety of reasons. Thank you for clarifying the change in the bilateral agreement. I'm surprised that you have not suggested that Sacoolas may have simply been told that she ought to leave UK, to avoid any embarrassment for the CIA. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, Cambridge Dictionary (free online) gives "flee the country" as an example of use of the word "flee" - and defines it as to quickly go to another country in order to escape from something or someone. That is the common meaning of the word. So its use in this article clearly unjustified. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are essentially disagreeing with the multiple WP:RS sources, in favour of your own WP:OR with the aid of Cambridge Dictionary? Did you know that words can have multiple meanings, not just the most common one in every case? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, that's surely a slightly disingenuous summary of my concern that 'fled' isn't an appropriate word in that sentence. There is no OR involved in saying she left the country, because that is what we know she did.

Wikipedia insists on an impartial tone and avoidance of loaded words, and what I've tried to do here is support my argument that "fled the country" does not comply with Wiki policies and guidelines.

Sure 'fled' can have other meanings, but usually readers can understand which meaning is intended from the usage context. Here that is clearly not the case. That ambiguity might be acceptable if it suited our agenda for it to be understood in a pejorative way (as in news media perhaps), but why would we, in writing an encyclopaedic article, want to risk that possibility by using such an ambiguous word here when a clear and straightforward alternative is available? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no "agenda" here. I see no risk in using a word used by multiple WP:RS sources. Judge Ellis also thought Sacoolas had "run away". Happy to use the words flee/ fled. I agree with other editors that the alternative "left" is inadequate. But happy to see the 19 days made clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. we seem to have a consensus here. If you are still unhappy with that, then I guess you could propose an RfC.

@Martinevans123, so for clarity, can you say what you think the use of the word "fled" adds to the understanding of the topic that the word "left" omits? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That Sacoolas wanted to avoid the consequences of killing Dunn. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, the easiest way to say that would be to write in the article that she "wanted to avoid the consequences of killing Dunn". Why don't you just add that, or at least propose it? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's see what the others think. For me a single four-letter word does the job of that eight-word phrase. Just as it did for the multiple RS sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, you seem to be saying you want to imply something in the lead that is not supported in the article body. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Had you thought of some gardening? Or maybe a brief holiday? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll rephrase it then. Are you saying you want to imply something in the lead that is not supported in the article body? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You can't beat a quick vacation, can you? I hear Herndon, Virginia is very nice at this time of the year, if you want to "get away from it all". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I guess she was "in danger" of being prosecuted even 19 days after the event, right? Your "sensationalism" point might play a little better if we were citing the National Enquirer or New York Post. But this is NYT, right?

Anyways, I appreciate the point you're trying to make, b/c sensationalism can be a problem. That said, I'm not sure we're going to find concensus on this. If you like, I'd support writing an RfC to get more input. On slightly related note; I'm considering an RM to test the "Killing of...." versus "Death of..." question that seemed to trail off. I prefer the current title, but I think a strict interpretation of Wikipedia:KILLINGS would lead us to the alternative. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently not in any danger in those 19 days, as "diplomatic immunity" at that time, extended to the wives of CIA employees, possibly. Although that was only "asserted on her behalf by the US government". So she may not have known. It's hard to say. And it may not have been previously tested in a British court of law. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Was it confirmed he was CIA? I thought it was some other agency. And I think both she and US Govt recognized the whole "diplomatic immunity" claim was a tad shakey. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, the second sentence in the lead still says "she is married to CIA employee Jonathan Sacoolas," with four sources, so I think so. But yes, I'd say possibly somewhere between "a tad shakey" and "a convenient fabrication". We quote The Independent in the lead thus: "The suspect’s barrister John McGavin told the court she was “employed by an intelligence agency in the US” at the time of the fatal road crash – which was “especially a factor” in her departure from the UK.... When asked why Ms Sacoolas had fled the country, Mr McGavin told the court he could not explain “completely candidly”, adding: “I know the answer, but I cannot disclose it.” So if Mr McGavin could not tell us, not sure we are ever going to know the exact reason(s). But again... "fled the country". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And how would you paraphrase "for issues of security" in an impartial tone? And I don't think "fled" has been "dealt with". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: you don't paraphrase verbatim quotes; I dealt with it - I gave my views on why it ("fled") should not be used - above. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes ok, I see, you dealt with it. Do you suggest we use that, as a verbatim quote, even though none of us seems to know what it actually means? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, when the article was created here, on 9 October 2019, it contained the text "The accident became the subject of a diplomatic dispute when Anne fled the country shortly after the incident.." As far as I know, the words "fled" or "flee" have appeared ever since, until the removal three days ago? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

STATS19

The 'accident report' should be linked in somewhere.

https://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/reports/2019340S80221/

It includes some information not in the article. That it was dry, dark and unlit, and that the car was not left hand drive. Spiral Staircase (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)