Talk:Bain family murders/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Judge Callinan's report.

I feel that the paragraph re Judge Callinan's report should be "fleshed out" to some degree, similar to what has been done re Justice Binnie's report. Providing no-one is in disagreement I will post my suggested additions/alterations on here so that other interested parties can discuss them.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, This is how I feel that section should read. First I would delete the first paragraph altogether. Start with the second paragraph. Then the next paragraph would read something like this.

In his report Judge Callinan wrote that none of David Bain's contentions with respect to the glasses address the absence of any satisfactory explanation of the presence of the distorted frame with one lens in it that was found in his room. He also found that the noticeable bruising on the side of David Bain's head was quite unexplained and that David had injuries consistent with a fight. David's fingerprints on the rifle looked to have been made by fingers covered in blood and Judge Callinan said was unable to accept Bain supporter Joe Karam's submission that the fingerprints were not in blood nor was he persuaded that blood was rabbit or possum blood. Callinan also said that it was an incontestable fact that David Bain's clothing had the blood of one or more of his siblings on it. He also made the point that in both tone and substance Bain's evidence at the 1995 trial differed from the various statements he made to police officers. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/82734851/callinan-report-highlights-issues-in-david-bains-innocence-appeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maggoo (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr Maggoo: I would like to point out that your proposed edit did not come to my attention until just now, 2 days after you posted it, because it was auto signed by Sinebot within 2 minutes. The auto signing came to my attention in my watchlist, but I dismissed it as a signing of an old post. It is possible that others such as Melcous also missed it for the same reason. You apparently took the two days of no comments to mean that nobody was opposed to your proposed edit. That is not so, I simply was not aware and didn't comment. Now, I am totally opposed to the edit you proposed and which you just made, which is why I reverted you. Akld guy (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you are opposed to it. I consider that first paragraph to be completely irrelevant and can see no reason why you feel the details I entered are not relevant. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If what I have inserted is not relevant then neither is this relevant in the Binnie report section, so you will not mind if I delete it.

After a year long investigation, Binnie concluded, in a 180-page report,[18] that Dunedin's police had made "egregious errors" and that there were "numerous instances" of investigative ineptitude that led directly to the wrongful conviction. In particular, he described the failure of the Crown to preserve evidence in the murder investigation, by burning down the house, as one of the "extraordinary circumstances" that the Cabinet should take into account.[47] Another was the failure of the police to test Robin’s hands and clothing for residue of firearms discharge.[18]:157 Police also failed to investigate information that Laniet had accused her father of incest and planned to expose him to the rest of the family and failed to follow up on evidence of Robin Bain’s mental instability despite the Detectives Manual specifically instructing police to pursue the issue of motive. They also misled the first jury on where the lens of David's spectacles was found and knowingly gave the jury the wrong time for the switching on of the family computer. Altogether, Binnie identified 12 different mistakes or failings by the police.[48]

Binnie decided the evidence established that "the miscarriage of justice was the direct result of a police investigation characterised by carelessness and lack of due diligence"[49] and wrote: "in what is essentially a circumstantial case, it is noteworthy that the Police chose to exclude the one suspect (Robin) who was alleged to have a plausible if challenged motive, and pursue for 15 years the other suspect (David) for whom they had found no motive whatsoever."[18]:173 He concluded that "on the balance of probabilities" Bain was innocent of the murders in 1994 and should be paid compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.[4]Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to your "fleshing out" of Callinan's report. What I objected to was the removal of longstanding content that explained the sequence of events in the delivery of the report. Jumping straight to the formal announcement in August 2016 without explanation of the delay from when Callinan was appointed in early 2015 is not appropriate. Akld guy (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Well, in my opinion all that longstanding comment became irrelevant once the report was released. However I won't argue the toss as to whether or not it should be left as is. I take it it is now OK for me to add that paragraph relating to some of Callinan's conclusions.

One further point. I did add to the comment re that givealiitle campaign that Binnie had donated $250. I sort of thought that was relevant but I see my addition has been removed. Reason? Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you should wait for other comment, perhaps from @Melcous: before adding that paragraph. The $250 donation was removed by me and the reason given in the edit summary: "Not in reference cited, nor does it appear on donation page."

A little Tutorial in case you're not aware of how to see edit summaries: go to the article. Click 'View history' at top of article. Scroll down to the relevant entry.

Please properly indent your paragraphs here by typing the same number of colons for each new paragraph that you start. I've done that for you in your previous paragraphs and I'm tired of doing it, especially since I've told you how to do it before. Look at how I've indented these 3 paragraphs with 5 colons each time. Akld guy (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in your pedantics. So long as the words are spelt correctly and the grammer is basically correct, that's all you need to concern yourself with. As you have already said that you are not opposed to my "fleshing out" of Callinan's report I fail to see why there is any need to wait for another opinion. At this point that page is not balanced.

Re Binnie's donation. I will insert again and link to donation page, though I would have preferred not to have to do that. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually , I am a little surprised that anything that Roger Brooking has done is even referred to on that page , given his history with Wikipedia. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/07/correct_wikipedia_editing.htmlMr Maggoo (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have once again removed the assertion that Ian Binnie made a $250 donation. This is relevant only if the Ian Binnie was the honourable judge, and there is nothing in the reference to suggest that he was. The donation site accepts donations from people using pseudonyms. Akld guy (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It so happens I emailed givealittle re that donation and they replied that it was legit, that is that is was made by the Canadian Judge and not some impersonator. However I am not going to argue the toss, not all that important , leave it out if that's what you want.

However I do intend to reinsert that piece I have written re Callinan's report unless you can give me a good reason why I should not. I have no wish to be a Wikipedia editor but if Wikipedia editors are not conversant enough with the subject matter , in this case the Bain murders, or more correctly the Bain killings, and more specifically Callinan's report , then I feel obliged to act for the sake of balance. I will wait until tomorrow so as to give you plenty of time to reply. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Melcous: has not expressed opinion so far, and maybe she will not. I have no objection to "fleshing out" Callinan's report.

Be assured that I'm familiar with the case and have a copy of Callinan's report on my hard drive. I am not, and have never been, connected in any way with any participant in the case, or with any politician. Akld guy (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Well, I will give Melcous another day to reply, she may wish to change the wording slightly. I also have a copy of Callinan's report as well as a copy of his replies to concerns raised by Bain's legal team re his draft report. I am not connected with any participant in the case although I do belong to a group , some of whom believe David Bain is definitely guilty in the same way that Karam believes he is definitely innocent. I myself believe that David Bain is almost certainly guilty but that the possibility exists that his father could have committed suicide , just the same as the possibility exists that if I took a ticket in Lotto tomorrow I would win the big prize. I do not personally know any politician, though I have written to three different Ministers of Justice re the Bain case. I intend to make one or two further edits but I will discuss them on here first, unless they are very minor, like changing a word. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are a couple of changes I thought could be made.

Justice Callinan presented a draft report to New Zealand's Justice Minister, Amy Adams, in September 2015.[66][67] On 26 January 2016, Callinan's final report was delivered to Adams,[7] but she did not reveal to media that she had received it. On 18 February 2016, the New Zealand Herald was the first to report that Callinan's report had been delivered to Adams, and that his conclusion, apparently leaked to the Herald, was that David Bain did not meet the threshold of 'innocent beyond reasonable doubt'. After "leaked to the Herald" I would insert [ a leak that was later proved to be erroneous]. Also,I wonder if the words "but she did not reveal to the media that she had received it " have any value. Looks to me as if Wikipedia editors [or at least one editor] are trying to make out that Adams was being sneaky. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is an addition I would suggest be edited into the "Response from Judith Collins" section to add balance.

Collins said that Binnie went far beyond his mandate and that Robert Fischer QC had identified an "extensive" list of errors. http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/justice-binnies-report-markedly-generous-to-bain-2012121314Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't commented because I haven't had time to look at all the sources being cited in detail and I am not someone who follows the Bain case. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as wikipedia is meant to be neutral and only include what has already been reported in reliable sources rather than being edited to push some agenda or other. My concern is with keeping this article as what it is meant to be - a general introduction to and overview of the whole topic, written primarily for people who know nothing about it. And to keep it well-formatted (which is important not "pedantics" - for example, the continued addition of bare links for sources is really unhelpful and it would be great if you could learn to cite sources fully as explained at WP:CS). Here are my initial comments in response to the above discussion:

• The donation should definitely be left out - there is no reliable source about it and as far as I can see no way of obtaining one (emailing the site yourself is original research and not allowed)
• With Callinan's report, fleshing it out is fine to some degree, but it needs to be done in a way that summarises what the sources say neutrally. I also think the detail in your proposed paragraph is excessive (i.e. rehashing specific issues in the case). The point of including this information at this point in the article is not to re-litigate the case or show who is right or wrong, but to summarise the fact that the report has been released, the overall conclusions the report reached, and any notable responses to the report as reported by the secondary sources. So I think there is still work to be done on the paragraph you are proposing before it can be included.
• I agree that there is a problem with the statement that Adams "did not reveal to the media that she had received" the report. It needs a source that actually says that, which there doesn't seem to be. Even if there was, why is this information important enough to be included? Now that the report has been made public, it doesn't really matter who said what about it on what day in the context of an encyclopaedia article about the whole case (NOT a day by day accounting of how everything unfolded)
• The quote from the article about Collins' responses seems fair enough, however I think that whole section could be trimmed down a lot, again it reads as a step by step accounting of how things occurred, which might be appropriate on a website devoted to this case, but in a general encyclopaedia I would suggest a summary from the current perspective would be much more appropriate.
• Oh and regarding the other commenter below, as gadfium says, a blog poll is simply not reliable.
• Cheers, Melcous (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Melcous. So are you saying that when I flesh out the Callinan report section I should cite the actual report and not van Beynen's article? That would mean I would have to use Callinan's words and not what might be an interpretation of them. I wouldn't have a problem with that. Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, just to be clear, Callinan's report is the primary source. What you are looking for on wikipedia is reliable, secondary sources that you can cite. So for example from the source mentioned above, I'd think something like "Callinan's report raised doubts about Bain's account of events, finding that the evidence provided by his defence failed to reach the threshold of proving he was innocent on the balance of probabilities." would be one way of summarising the key point of that article. Melcous (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that what you have written summarises the key point and I have no problem with that except for the fact that the section relating to Binnie's report does not cover just the key point. There is what I would call a lot of "waffle" in that section.

So for balance I would suggest that either much of the "waffle" in the Binnie report section is deleted so that just the key points are referred to [maybe just delete everything but the last paragraph] or else I be allowed to more or less add what I have already suggested. I have made some deletions in the Callinan report section to remove some of the "waffle". Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That removal is good, creating more space for "fleshing out" Callinan's report, over which I have some serious concerns too. Akld guy (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from the Binnie report section:
After a year long investigation, Binnie concluded, in a 180-page report,[17] that Dunedin's police had made "egregious errors" and that there were "numerous instances" of investigative ineptitude that led directly to the wrongful conviction. In particular, he described the failure of the Crown to preserve evidence in the murder investigation, by burning down the house, as one of the "extraordinary circumstances" that the Cabinet should take into account. First of all , all the evidence the police needed was removed from the house , and second , it was not the police that burnt down the house. Once the police had concluded the scene examination and removed all the evidence they needed, such as bloody door jambs , etc., the house was handed back to the trustees and it was their decision, in consultation with David Bain , to burn the house down. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the misinformation re the burning down of the house is on the Wikipedia page relating to Joe Karam.

However I have no intention in editing that page, editing one page is enough for me.

According to media commentator Paul Holmes, Karam was appalled at the way the family, the Police and the Fire Service arranged to burn the Bain house down.[10]

The problem with misinformation is that once it is reported by media hacks who have no real knowledge of events it spreads like wildfire. The only place I can find that gives the correct version of events is the 1997 Police Complaints Authority Report on the Bain case and unfortunately that report cannot be cited as it was never downloaded on to the internet. I have referred to it in my book, but I am not allowed to cite my book as a reference. Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A Eureka moment. I have found a reference to the Trustees authorising the burning down of the house in Robert Fischer's report.

8.7. Justice Binnie's statement, at paragraph [57]. that the Police "authorised" the burning down of 65 Every Street - it appears that the decision to burn the house was made by the Bain family which Mr Bain apparently consented to.Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. If no-one has any objections I will delete all but the last paragraph in the Binnie Report section as per my earlier suggestion. I mean readers don't need to be told how good a singer David Bain thought he was [ Many of those that heard him sing reckon he was no better than average ] nor does anyone need to know he had a couple of teeth knocked out when he was in jail. And the second paragraph is citing media reports that are not correct.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I object. The reader will make up his/her mind as to whether that was relevant or not. It is longstanding content that no other person has objected to. You need to show much better reasons for deletion than WP:DONTLIKE. You originally came here with the stated intention of "fleshing out" the Callinan report, apparently desiring to balance it with the content of the Binnie report. I have no objection to your doing so. What I do object to is that you now appear to be about to diminish the effect of Binnie's report, presumably before intensifying the impact of the Callinan Report. You are once again displaying a disturbing lack of balance, possibly indicating that you are closely involved with the authorities which caused Bain to be incarcerated. Akld guy (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I seem to be going round in circles. My stated intention was to flesh out the Callinan's report section , more or less in the same way as the Binnie report section has been fleshed out, but Melcous was not happy about that. The way I see it either I go ahead and do what I originally suggested and leave the Binnie report section as is, or I do what Melcous has suggested, in which case some of the Binnie report section would need to be deleted so as to provide balance to the article. Wikipedia should not be seen to be lending more weight to Binnie's report than Callinan's report. So it's either or. My preference would be to flesh out Callinan's report as per my original suggestion and leave it at that and that is what I now intend to do. Should anyone delete part of my edit then I will be left with no alternative but to delete part of the Binnie report section for balance. I object to the suggestion that I am closely involved with the authorities that caused Bain to be incarcerated. Up until the retrial I had not followed the case apart from reading one book on the subject. I was gobsmacked by the retrial verdict and that is when I decided to become involved.

Reading the two reports and trying not to be biased I would say that Callinan was able to get to the nub of the matter by concentrating on the evidence whereas Binnie concentrated on perceived errors in the police investigation. Binnie's report was full of errors and incorrect assumptions. And some of those errors and incorrect assumptions have been repeated on Wikipedia, I might add. By rights they should be edited out, but , oh no, no-one is allowed to do that. I have found very few errors in Callinan's report, although, to be fair, he was given the opportunity to correct any errors he made in his draft report before presenting his final report.Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere above does Melcous suggest that some of the Binnie report section should be deleted. She did suggest that Ms Collins' response to Binnie's report "could be trimmed down a lot", but that is in an entirely different section. I suggest you do your "fleshing out" of Callinan. Then it can be debated (hopefully by others too) whether the balance is right and whether the Binnie section needs re-evaluating. I encourage others to come on board and involve themselves. Akld guy (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason I suggested Binnie's report should be trimmed down was because Melcous said she thought the detail in my proposed paragraph was excessive as per this excerpt[I also think the detail in your proposed paragraph is excessive} I was just making the point that if my detail was excessive then so was the detail in the Binnie report section excessive. Now we have got that sorted I will go ahead and do what I first suggested I would do and flesh out the Callinan report section.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Censorship is alive and well at wikipedia. outdated and unreliable left-wing media poll results by uninformed respondents is shown - while a recent poll from whaleoil, after the Callinan report, to provide balance, which shows 86% of informed respondents now believe david is guilty, is quickly removed. censorship belongs in tyranny's - not the free world. DiscoStuart (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Media polls are conducted by professional polling companies and are generally considered reliable. Polls on blogs are not.-gadfium 21:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

gadfium. Couldn't agree more. But I doubt you will see another poll on Bain's compensation conducted by a professional polling company for the following reasons. One, the fact that Bain accepted that ex gratia payment means the matter is now closed and two, I believe that were there to be another poll it would show that the majority would vote against Bain receiving compensation. If one reads blogs such as Kiwiblog and message boards such as the Trade Me message boards it appears the worm has turned. More people are becoming informed about the subject and are now able to see through all the smoke and mirrors put up by Bain's defence team.Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your speculations on what might be are not suitable for the article, or appropriate on the talk page.-gadfium 06:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

And stop using this Talk page as a soapbox. Akld guy (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I resent being accused of using this talk page as a soapbox. Polls such as the ones relating to whether or not Bain should receive compensation are only called for by the media to create publicity. So that while the Poll section on the main page of the article is correct as it stands it no longer reflects the true position because no professional poll has been requested recently. As an example. Mike Hosking has for some time virtually demanded that Bain be paid compensation. The last time he did that was in February this year and he asked for readers to vote. When the votes were counted the result was 60/40 against Bain receiving compensation. Since then we have not heard a peep out of Hosking re Bain's compensation. Nor will there be any more professional polls on the subject.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I had fleshed out the Callinan report section as agreed and now I see someone has deleted that without discussing it on this page. I have reinserted that edit. Very few editors appear to looking at this talk page now so I see no sense in waiting for others to discuss the issue. I intend to add "The former judge was not nearly so scathing of the Police investigation as Justice Binnie was. He said that tests, if available , might just as likely to be inculpatory of Bain as exculpatory . Callinan said he found the incest evidence unreliable and described Laniet as a fabulist". If anyone objects to that addition please let me know their reason. The article I am citing appeared in at least two major newspapers.

In his report Judge Callinan wrote that none of David Bain's contentions with respect to the glasses address the absence of any satisfactory explanation of the presence of the distorted frame with one lens in it that was found in his room. He also found that the noticeable bruising on the side of David Bain's head was quite unexplained and that David had injuries consistent with a fight. David's fingerprints on the rifle looked to have been made by fingers covered in blood and Judge Callinan said was unable to accept Bain supporter Joe Karam's submission that the fingerprints were not in blood nor was he persuaded that blood was rabbit or possum blood. Callinan also said that it was an incontestable fact that David Bain's clothing had the blood of one or more of his siblings on it. He also made the point that in both tone and substance Bain's evidence at the 1995 trial differed from the various statements he made to police officers. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with what you added and readded, except that the bruising on David Bain's head was explained, but not to Callinan's satisfaction. It's disingenuous to say that it was "quite unexplained", so I've made clear that Callinan was not satisfied with the explanation. Akld guy (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr Maggoo: I find it very difficult to follow your posts and timestamps above, but if when you say "someone has deleted that without discussing it on this page" you are referring to my edit here I gave my reasons for deleting in the edit summary. As you have been referred to before, WP:BRD puts the onus on you as the person who wants to add something to the article to discuss and get consensus, not on the person deleting to discuss it here first. As far as I can follow, you said here that you would "flesh it out" but only added your proposed text here after you had inserted it in the article (and I had deleted it, and you restored it). As I said in the edit summary, I strongly think that kind of content is unnecessary detail at this point in the article, and ends up attempting to 're-litigate' the case. This is compounded as has now happened when another editor thinks the wording is not quite right and adds a qualification as @Akld guy: has done, and the likelihood is that we will be back where we were a few months ago with people editing and re-editing to make sure the details are not being 'spun' in a way they disagree with. People who are as interested in this case as you guys are can follow the links in the references and read more if they want to. A wikipedia article is supposed to be for the average reader with no special knowledge of the topic, and thus doesn't require this level of detail. To restate what I said in my edit summary, in my opinion, the section on the report should focus on the fact that it has been handed down, its overall conclusion, and any notable responses to it, rather than re-hash the details of the case. Melcous (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by Melcous' comments. I have no doubt that your "average reader with no special knowledge of the topic" would be interested in the salient points of Callinan's report and how he came to a conclusion that was diametrically different to that of Binnie. If the just-added "fleshing out" is removed, we are left with an analysis of Binnie's decision, but nothing telling readers why Callinan reached the conclusion that he did. Either we remove most of Binnie and the just-added fleshing out and leave the reader to search for analysis elsewhere, or we proceed to get the fleshing out to an acceptable standard.

On the possibility of heavily editing Binnie: I'm well aware that the Binnie section appeals on an emotive level and there are those who don't like it on that basis. However, those emotive details, such as the alleged assault on Bain in prison, the alleged torture with lights on, and the alleged loss of a singing career, tell us that Binnie, after reaching a decision that Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities, judged that he deserved compensation on the basis that he had been "the victim of exceptional circumstances", thus meeting the requirement of the law. Therefore, I'm opposed to watering down Binnie by heavily editing it. Disclaimer: I believe I have never contributed content to that section, apart from possible grammar/typo corrections.

On "re-litigate": Our pursuit towards an acceptable article should not be set aside because tensions between editors are likely to resurface. Editors should step aside if that becomes a problem. Or did I misinterpret what Melcous meant? Akld guy (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I accept that Callinan was probably being disingenuous when he used the words "quite unexplained" because the defence did actually put forward an explanation. Callinan didn't accept that explanation because he said Bain did not complain at that time about his head hitting anything and that he had complained previous to that incident that he had a headache. All I will do now is add what I said I would add. So far as the Binnie report section is concerned, it was never my original intention to edit it, but I felt that if my "fleshing out" of the Callinan report section was not going to be allowed then some of the Binnie report section should be deleted so as to balance the article. Providing that page is left as it stands at this point of time I would consider the article to be reasonably well balanced and that no further editing is necessary. . reMr Maggoo (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Joe Karam

The intro reads: Bain's case was taken up by businessman and former All Black, Joe Karam. After his name I added "who believed that David was innocent." I am amazed that these words has been removed by three different editors. Karam fought for 13 years to prove David was innocent. He wrote four books about it.

• The first was called David & Goliath: the Bain family murders. It was reviewed on Crime.co.nz where the reviewer wrote: "There is no doubt that Karam believes in David Bain's innocence."
• The second was called Bain and Beyond. A reviewer wrote: "Joe Karam goes out of his way to try and prove David's innocence"
• The third was called: 'Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain. The title makes it clear that Karam thinks David was innocent.
• The fourth was called Trial by Ambush. A reviewer wrote: "The conclusion of Karam's book supports a compensation claim, considering that David Bain was and is innocent..."

David was interviewed by TV3 (screened) on Sunday 4 March 2012, 7.30pm, TV3. A reviewer wrote: "Controversy continues as Joe Karam and David Bain seek to prove his innocence."

In this article in the NZ Herald, Karam's inner voice defines the man, the author interviewed Karam and wrote: "The same doggedness, the same sceptical attitude towards authority, characterise the fight, which he says is far from over, to prove the innocence of convicted murderer David Bain."

The fact that Karam thought David was innocent is so well documented, it should not need to be discussed on this page. The deleted words should be reinstated. Histrange (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You do not know what Karam believes. He might have believed, and might still believe, that Bain is guilty but deserved to be found innocent because a miscarriage of justice occurred. In a case where you believe a miscarriage of justice has occurred, you can only press for a not guilty verdict. You cannot argue your case while saying "I want him to be found innocent because a miscarriage of justice occurred, but I believe he's guilty." That would be a crazy tactic. So defence attorneys always have to proceed with their public face proclaiming "This person is innocent", even when they know that is not the case. If you can find a quote of Karam saying that he believes DB is innocent, maybe we can re-insert it. Akld guy (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have done much better than find a quote. I found a whole book Karam wrote called Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain. Histrange (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a book title uses the word innocent does not mean the author believes the person to be innocent. As I said above, the defence has one option and one option only: claim innocence in order to establish that a miscarriage of justice occurred, despite what members of the defence might actually believe. Akld guy (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You said I "do not know what Karam believes." Neither do you. You asked me to provide a quote. I did. I provided four books by Karam including one where he says Bain is innocent in the title. The fact that the book, including the title, was written by Karam and uses the word 'innocent' clearly means that Karam believes David to be innocent. To argue otherwise is churlish.

It is not the role of editors on Wikipedia to take what people have said and place their own interpretation on it - which is what you are doing. Wikipedia simply reports what people have done and said (using reliable sources). Joe Karam has clearly said that David is innocent and I have provided an extremely reliable source - his own book. This is what you asked me to do and that's what I have done. I think you need to let this go. Histrange (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not in any way said that Karam believes, or believed, that DB was guilty. I have illustrated how defence attorneys are obliged to present a not guilty or innocent stance because that is the only option available to them. Nobody knows what Karam believed when he took up the case, which is the point where you want to add the words "who believed that David was innocent." If you can find a quote from that time period (circa 1996, when Karam first got involved) saying that he believed Bain innocent, those words can be added. Now, a person can change their mind in 20 years. What Karam believed then, may not be what he believed in 2001 or 2007 or today. The onus is on you to find a reference from circa 1996 saying what Karam believed. Not from 2007, not from 2009, not from yesterday. Akld guy (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Your argument about defence attorneys is irrelevant. Joe Karam is not an attorney. Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain was published in 2001. What difference does it make when he came to believe it? But if you are going to be so picky we can change the words to "who came to believe that David was innocent." Would that satisfy you? Histrange (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Joe Karam is by far the most prolific speaker on behalf of the Bain defence team, and it's nit-picking to claim that my illustration of an attorney's stance does not apply to him because he wasn't an attorney. Your suggestion means that the Lead would read "Bain's case was taken up by businessman and former All Black, Joe Karam, who came to believe that David was innocent." You are going to need a compelling quote from Karam himself at some time that that is what he believed. Quoting from the titles of books is not good enough, for the reasons I have already stated, and is in fact WP:SYNTHESIS (drawing a conclusion based on your opinion of what may be implied by the titles). Akld guy (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this discussion by @Histrange: I would say that these words do not belong in the lead. At the end of the day, they are a statement about someone's opinion/beliefs/state of mind, which we can't assume or extrapolate, regardless of how likely it is due to their actions that they hold this view. Therefore if this statement was to be included at all, it would need a reliable source actually stating that that view was held by that person at that time. And therefore, even there was such a source, and then consensus to include that statement, I'd still suggest it would belong in the body of the article, rather than in the lead. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The title of the book is Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain. The word 'innocent' in the title comes straight from the horse's mouth - ie Karam's. If you quote someone else claiming what Karam said, such a source would clearly be less reliable than what Karam said himself. Therefore there is no assumption or extrapolation involved in quoting Karam's own book title. Histrange (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quote from someone who reviewed Joe Karam's first book, David and Goliath: The Bain Family Murders published in 1997: "A good book for anyone interested in the David Bain case. Though I didn't agree in the slightest with Karam's conclusions that it is certain that Bain is innocent." Histrange (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's another source who thinks David Bain is Guilty. He says: "Lets go to the heart of Joe Karam's assertion that Bain is innocent". What more do you need? Histrange (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Since no one disagreed with my last points, it appears you now accept that Karam's books are a reliable source on what Karam thinks or believes (which seems totally obvious). I will give it another few days before restoring the wording that has been in dispute into the article, but "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". See WP:Silence. Histrange (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you restore the wording, you will be going against consensus and will be edit warring. You have been given the valid reason that nobody knows what Karam believed or now believes. Even though book titles and reviewers' comments seem to indicate that he held a particular view, nobody knows whether he believed DB was innocent, or whether he sought to right a miscarriage of justice and on that basis alone was obliged to press for a not guilty verdict. You have already been told that, and your quoting of WP:Silence is misguided, since we are not obliged to argue with you on the same points over and over again. Akld guy (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You have not given a valid reason. Everyone knows what Karam believes - and I have provided numerous sources proving what he believes. You have been told that over and over again but for some reason, you seem to be unable to accept it. You seem to have a problem following the wikipedia rules about reliable sources - which makes you the one who is edit warring. Histrange (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As User: Akld guy has said, this is not a case of WP:Silence. You have asked for opinions, we have given them, and thus there is consensus not to include the additional wording. We understand your reasons, we just do not think they are valid. Continuing to repeat them with additional sources (which, by the way, as a blog and a review both fail WP:UGC) does not change that. Please leave it be. Melcous (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither of you has been able to make a case explaining why you think Karam's books are not a reliable source on what Karam thinks or believes. And of course you can't because there can be no better source for what Karam believes than his own books. I have posted this issue on the dispute resolution board.Histrange (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think multiple reasons have been given for not including this content in the lead, but just to recap:

#1 I don't believe it is necessary; the fact he took up the case can speak for itself (particularly in light of the history of editing on this article, which you may not be aware of, where one editor has added a comment that then leads to another editor adding a qualifying comment to give 'balance' to the 'other side' and this has led to even more edit warring).

#2 If it was to be included, I don't think it belongs in the lead, but you have not proposed an alternative.

#3 The way you want to word this is stating that Karam believed at the time he took up the case that Bain was innocent. This is an opinion and so you would need a reliable source that actually says that, and so far you have not provided one. The title of his book is a conclusion looking back on the whole thing, not a statement of his particular belief at that particular time. (It could also be argued that a book title is just a title, but that's a different topic). The other two sources you have included above are a blog post and a review on goodreads, both of which are WP:UGC and therefore do not meet WP:RS. (And even if they did, the review again states that the is a conclusion Karam reached, not when he reached it; and the blogpost is talking about Karam's assertion in the book, not any belief he held before getting involved in the case)

By the way, you are required to notify people on their talk pages that you have opened a WP:DRN discussion. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

1) So why are you edit warring with me if you are concerned about such behaviour? You are contributing to the very problem you say you want to prevent.

2) Where the words you have deleted should go is not under discussion. That was a side issue raised by you. But if you think 'who believed that David was innocent' should go in the body (rather than the lead), that shows you find the words acceptable. Why don't you just add them in the body instead of complaining that Karam's book is not an accurate reflection of his beliefs?

3) I did not say "believed at the time he took up the case". Once again that's your spin on it. I offered a compromise wording of "came to believe" but you both rejected that as well.

4) If the title of the book is a 'conclusion' as you call it, then Karam's conclusion is clearly that David is Innocent!: (and there were) seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain.'

5) Karam's own books are primary sources - "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". ie written by Joe Karam. The other sources are secondary sources. They "contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." They are written by people who have read and reviewed Karam's books. They endorse the point that Karam believes Bain to be innocent. They also demonstrate what everyone in New Zealand knows: that Joe Karam fought for 15 years to have David's conviction overturned because he 'came to believe David was innocent'. Histrange (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Karam may have believed Bain to be innocent. On the other hand, he may have fought for 15 years to overturn what he perceived as a miscarriage of justice, which it was, and which was a separate issue to his belief about Bain's guilt or innocence. Can you not get it through your head that fighting to right a judicial wrong does not imply a belief one way or the other? Every single defence attorney has been in cases where they defend their client by claiming Not Guilty, even though they know the accused is guilty. I don't think you're stupid, and by continuing with this nonsense are starting to look like a troll. The fact that Karam appears to have never made a definitive statement about his belief in Bain's innocence should tell you something. Akld guy (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

His books are very definitive statements. Perhaps you should read one. Histrange (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have. Akld guy (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail

Much of this article is poorly written. It contains excessive and unnecessary detail, a lot of which appears to be the result of compromises made between competing sets of editors. I intend to simplify certain sections and try to make it more coherent. Histrange (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You have shown in your first few edits that you are biased in favour of one participant in the judicial process and are not able to edit impartially. The article is the result of longstanding consensus. Please seek consensus on this Talk page for any edits you want to make, which I am certain will be contentious. Akld guy (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you are one of those editors that resorts to personal attacks when you are unable to defend your edits based on wikipedia rules. You are also one of those people that jumps to conclusions about other editors intentions and you fail to assume good faith by other editors. Looking back on the history of this article, I see you have already been told off for such behaviour. You need to learn to use wiki rules to justify your edits instead of your personal criticisms about other editors. Histrange (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just reverted 3 edits by User:Histrange. The first reversion restored Justice Callinan's findings that were adverse to the defence of David Bain in that they consisted of incriminating evidence. The second consisted of what David Bain told Justice Binnie about how he had been allegedly beaten in prison, the turning on of prison lights which "became a form of torture", and the loss of a potential singing career. Far from being excessive detail, according to Histrange, these were factors that Justice Binnie took into account as "extraordinary circumstances" required by the law in order to grant compensation. My third reversion consisted of restoring criticisms of Binnie's report by Justice Fisher, including factual mistakes made by Binnie. Overall, Histrange's edits were not impartial and represented a WP:POV view designed to present one party to the case in the best possible light. Akld guy (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Akldguy is incapable of objective editing. He sees bias in every single edit done by anyone other than him. Callinan's report is simply his opinion that David has not proved (to Callinan's satisfaction) that he is innocent. His report does not contain facts or incriminating evidence. If we included every reason or point that Callinan found unconvincing, in order to provide balance, we would need to include every point that Binnie made which convinced him that David was probably innocent. There is simply no room for such unnecessary detail. These reports only need to contain the writers conclusion with a brief explanation of the main reason for their finding. Histrange (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Akldguy is also wrong about the material I removed from Binnie's report about what happened to David in prison. That material did not come from Binnie's report and had nothing to do Binnie's decision about extraordinary circumstances. That is why I removed it. It was irrelevant to Binnie's decision and so should never have been in this section in the first place. Histrange (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

None of what has just been deleted by Histrange was written by me. Virtually all of it was written months ago by User:Mr Maggoo and was the result of consensus among him, User:Melcous, me, and User:Turtletop (who was later found guilty of operating multiple sock accounts including User:Thefundermentals). It would be quite wrong to accuse me of trying to protect my own edits. All I have sought to do is maintain the longstanding status quo achieved through consensus. Akld guy (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a grand total of three editors agreed to include massive amounts of unnecessary detail is not a vote of confidence in the quality of this article. Maybe you should have asked for other opinions when quibbling over minor details. Histrange (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you consider yourself to be the sole arbiter of what is "unnecessary detail" when three other editors already decided it was not unnecessary. That's the definition of going against consensus. Akld guy (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:Consensus. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Histrange (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the lede. Deleted the word "not" as in not released as that word would give the reader that the report was deliberately held back. Also added the words ex gratia . Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reinstated the motive put forward by the Crown at the first trial. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Histrange has removed what he/she considers is unnecessary detail as regards the Callinan report section so I have removed what I consider to be unnecessary detail in the Binnie report section. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I object to the recent extensive page alterations by Histrange, without any consent whatsoever. I regard it as page vandalism, and is becoming increasingly difficult to correct. It is a clear case of propaganda with a definite, misguided, POV. Anyone behaving similarly, supporting the true victims, the five murdered souls, would have been banned long ago. 118.92.251.205 (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Revenge editing

Mr Maggoo wrote: "Histrange has removed what he/she considers is unnecessary detail as regards the Callinan report section so I have removed what I consider to be unnecessary detail in the Binnie report section. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)" There is no wikipedia rule which justifies this kind of editing which is based is based solely on revenge. All such edits will be reverted. Histrange (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It was not based on revenge. It was based on the concept of balance. If Binnie's findings which were favourable to Bain must be included (according to you), then Callinan's findings which were incriminatory of him must also be included. You however, attempted to remove Callinan's findings on the basis that they were "unnecessary detail", which was an inadequate justification for removing that content and shows that you are not impartial in your editing of the article. Akld guy (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. Callinan's findings are still there. Only the unnecessary detail was removed. Histrange (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Histrange wrote "this kind of editing which is based on revenge". Not so, Histrange. All I did was remove what I considered to be unnecessary detail. You opened the door and I went through it. I see that the Callinan report section is back to where it was before you removed what you considered to be unnecessary detail so I would have no objection to you reverting the Binnie report section back to where it was before I removed what I considered to be unnecessary detail. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"You opened the door and I went through it" - that is the definition of tit for tat revenge. Histrange (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Histrange, you probably are not aware that a few weeks ago I was arguing that there was too much unnecessary detail in the Binnie Report section. You won't find those comments on here now because every so often a bot comes along and removes all the older comments, so I have been told. At the time other editors did not accept my arguments so as I was unable to get a consensus I took no action and left the Binnie Report as is. Then you came along and by removing what you considered to be unnecessary detail in the Callinan Report section , you opened the door for me to do what I wanted to do some weeks ago . If you were able to remove what you considered to be unnecessary detail from the Callinan Report section without consensus then it followed that I could remove what I considered to be unnecessary detail from the Binnie Report section without consensus which is exactly what I did. Nothing to do with tit for tat revenge. Comprende? Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Coroners inquests

I suggest this section be removed. It's basically fluff and adds nothing of significance to the article. See WP:Relevance "Mentioning things that are irrelevant to an article's topic can unnecessarily bloat an article, making it difficult for a reader to remain focused." Histrange (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Calling it "fluff" is a bit harsh. You're right that it doesn't really add much of significance, but there is no point in removing it, because otherwise a future editor would "discover" that the coroner had originally accepted that "the court had established the cause of the deaths" and then get tangled up with how that "conflicts with the later retrial" etc. etc. Currently it says what it needs to pretty well, and with good references.Snori (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You say it doesn't add much of significance but there is no point in removing it. That's totally contradictory. And if it doesn't add anything it shouldn't be there. It also doesn't fit with your description of yourself on your User page: "You'll see that I'm ruthless on waffle, and willing to Be Bold when I think it's required." Histrange (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't waffle or fluff. While it doesn't add much, it is a minor, relevant, point and removing it risks incensing someone who later feels that the article is trying to cover this up. Especially in a case like this, all the issues and points of view need some airing. It's true that this makes the article longer than is perhaps desirable - but there's a lot of other things I'd trim from here before this one.Snori (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no wiki rule which says that editing decisions should be based on looking into the future and speculating that a potential reader might be incensed by a minor piece of information which isn't even mentioned. Editing is supposed to be based on current relevance. So rather than being ruthless, you are being extremely cautious. That aside - what are the other things you would like to trim? I suggest you start a new heading. Histrange (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Distinction between Cottle's statement and affidavit

I just reverted an edit by User:Histrange which attempted to condense Cottle's affidavit (made AFTER the trial) into his statement (made long before the trial) or his questioning by the judge. (He did not testify before the jury). Unfortunately, in my edit summary, I used the word 'statement' but meant 'affidavit'. The important thing is the need to distinguish between the two, therefore the affidavit should not be merged into the statement or Cottle's appearance before the judge. Akld guy (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrial 2009

In the retrial 2009 section, the following sentences could be deleted. They have nothing to do with the outcome of the trial and are irrelevant fluff.

"Each verdict of not guilty for the five murders was greeted with cheers and applause by some of those in court... Some commentators questioned the behaviour of jurors who hugged Bain and attended a "victory party" after the verdict. Dr Chris Gallavin, a senior law lecturer at Canterbury University, said, "While this is unusual behaviour, the whole case is an unusual case." Histrange (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that comment on the reaction of those in the court is pretty standard, and there is no suggestion that it was a majority. The actions of the jury members was unusual and noteworthy, regardless of your opinion of it, or the case. Snori (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Histrange on this one. I wasn't in court but it wouldn't surprise me if some of those that were expressed their dissatisfaction with the verdict. I have always felt those sentences were irrelevant. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Structure needs changing

A message was left on my talk page about this article and after talking to Melcous I have decided to look back here. The crux of the message was about the addition and removal of "who believed that David was innocent" from the lead. For what its worth I agree that it should not be included in the lead. However, there are still many issues with this article, the main one being that it is not written encyclopedically. This should be a dispassionate account of the major facts so a reader who has never heard of Bain can come away with a reasonable understanding of the case. Instead we go into far too much detail and rely far too much on primary sources. I am thinking major changes to the structure of the article are needed to get rid of the tit for tat style of editing it currently resembles and some major trimming is needed. AIRcorn (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So lets start by removing the third para in the section about Callinan's report. It mostly introduces new 'evidence' that is not even mentioned in the trial section of this article. If it was not worth mentioning under the trial section (where evidence is discussed), it certainly does not belong in the section on Callinan's report. Basically all this section needs to say is that in Callinan's opinion, David has been unable to prove his innocence. Histrange (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with any structural changes being made providing the article remains neutral. When I first looked at the article some months ago it was obvious to me it wasn't neutral and I consider myself to be well informed on the subject having written a book about the Bain killings.

I have just made a minor edit in the lede. I thought it would be better to say that Bain was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years, rather than just say Bain was sentenced to life imprisonment. Also the original reference that was linked to was just a general article relating to life imprisonment terms world wide. I do not consider myself to be a Wikipedia editor as such and this is the only article I have edited. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The section on Coroner's Inquests could be deleted. It adds nothing of significance to the article. Histrange (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm opposed to removing Callinan's findings. Yes, that evidence was not mentioned in the trial section due to space considerations (we can't present all the evidence), but the reader is entitled to know why Callinan reached his decision. I don't like the idea of removing it because it's damaging to David Bain's case. It's disingenuous to suggest that it be removed in order to reduce clutter. I also think that Binnie's findings about the effects on Bain during imprisonment should be restored - they were deleted in a revert by DiscoStuart. Akld guy (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The reader has no idea why Callinan reached his decision. The current material (which needs to be removed) just says Callinan was not convinced by any of David's explanations. It doesn't say why he wasn't convinced and so adds nothing that helps the reader in any way. Histrange (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's what the references are for. We can't spell out everything; we give the salient points and the references. Akld guy (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You have acknowledged two things. First - that Callinan's report contains new evidential material that is not mentioned in the section it should (possibly) be in (the Trial section). This means the article does not flow in a logical or chronological sequence. Second - that this new material cannot be understood without looking up the references. This proves Aircorn's point that the structure needs changing.

Actually, if you look up the references you will see that Callinan never explains why he is not convinced. The references do not help. This paragraph therefore does nothing except confuse the reader and should be removed. Histrange (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• To start with the whole compensation heading and all its sub headings are too long and detailed. It is probably a case of recent news coverage. If all this is notable then it can be turned into its own article. I am going to work on a trimmed down version in my sandbox as experience has taught me making incremental changes here is a slow and laborious progress. I will then bring it back here for editors to comment on and we can take it to WP:rfc if that is necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thinking more maybe the whole trial should be split off to Trial of David Bain as that is what is dominating the article at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I did make the point a few months ago that strictly speaking even the heading is not correct. Up until David Bain was acquitted the heading would have been correct. But once he was acquitted then that means that there might not have been five murders. In my opinion the heading should read The Bain family killings.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave it at 'murders'. Up to four, and possibly five, of the victims were not suicides. They were murder victims, so 'murders' (plural) is appropriate. Akld guy (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I still reckon the word killings is the correct word to use, but please yourself. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/13959/dunedin-coroner-may-examine-bain-killingsMr Maggoo (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just made a minor change in the family background section. Robin Bain was not sleeping in his van or the school house. The reference cited [The Privy Council Report] makes it quite clear that he was initially sleeping in his van but more recently in the school house.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Motive

I note that in the motive section it reads Judge Binnie said ....."no plausible motive ever emerged". However Justice Callinan did suggest a motive. He wrote " It comes , in part, by way of an admission by David Bain himself of an expressed hatred of his father". Would anyone have any problem with me adding that to the motive section? I can cite Callinan's Report as a reference.Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

How about posting the reference here first so we can assess it. Akld guy (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is probably a better reference to cite because it compares Binnie's conclusion re motive with Callinan's conclusion re motive. http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11688124 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maggoo (talk • contribs) 04:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Tag undue weight to trials and compensation

@Aircorn. I don't understand why you have inserted this tag. This case is almost entirely about trials and compensation. The only other part of the story that is relevant and interesting is Joe Karam's involvement. Are you suggesting the section on Karam should be expanded? If not, what are you suggesting? Histrange (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:undue in this case refers to the relative length of different aspects of the article. The article is about the deaths as a whole and while the trial and compensation is important they take up too much space (and far too many headings) in the article. My suggestion is the opposite, that these sections be reduced. I have done a first draft in my userspace of this (see User:Aircorn/sandbox/Bain trials) and I was just waiting on some feedback before making an official proposal here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have had a look at your sandbox version. Although you have removed a number of headings and probably improved the flow, the content is still all about trials and compensation so I don't think the tag is appropriate. Your concern seems to be more about trying to keep it simple WP:KIS. Histrange (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The sandbox version is not the whole article, just the part concerning the trials, compensation etc. The lead, family background, deaths, life after and pop culture sections will remain. AIRcorn (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bold merge

I went ahead and boldly merged and trimmed the sections on the trial and compensation to improve the flow of the article, combat WP:Recentism, WP:Notnews, WP:undue and a host of other issues. I did it in one big hit as incremental changes here are laborious at best and inevitably lead to aspersions that you favour one side or another. I hope we can work from this version, but if this is not the case I will open a WP:RFC as this article is in desperate need of experienced previously uninvoled eyes. AIRcorn (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been greatly watered down. Information that no longer appears:

• The fact that the victims were killed in undetermined order (perhaps significant in that the first victim was the main target, the rest being eliminated to confuse investigation and eliminate potential witnesses)
• No mention of the computer message whatsoever
• No mention that the murder weapon belonged to David and that the key to its trigger lock was hidden in his room
• It's now "a trigger lock" instead of the trigger lock of David's rifle
• All of the allegations made by Cottle that are incriminatory of Robin Bain are retained, even though Cottle never testified before either of the two juries or any of the appeal courts, and was discredited by the (first trial) judge, but all of the physical evidence implicating David Bain, including his bloody fingerprints, his head injuries, and the blood on his clothing and socks is now eliminated
• The details of the $925,000 payment to Bain is now eliminated It was there but I missed it Akld guy (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• The public opinion polls are now undated, perhaps leading the reader to assume they are more recent than is actually the case Akld guy (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I also have concerns with it. This was too bold in my opinion and conducted without sufficient prior discussion. Histrange (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, in my opinion. I would agree with Akld guy that mention should probably be made that the rifle belonged to David and that the trigger lock was the trigger lock to that rifle. Perhaps all reference to Cottle should be deleted seeing as he never actually testified. While Karam's motives were questioned and he was frequently criticised I don't think the article cited actually spells that out.Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made a correction to the first trial section. The Crown did not suggest that David Bain shot his father when he emerged from the caravan . I have basically quoted as per the reference cited. [Privy Council report].Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Aircorn has done a good job overall and cut out a lot of unnecessary detail and would be happy to affirm his bold changes, nothing that further edits can be discussed here if necessary. Melcous (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• This was not meant to be the final version, just an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic. Things can be added and removed as agreed upon. If anyone thinks the other version is a better base to work off then they can revert and then we can try an WP:RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you Akld guy and Mr Maggoo for your specific points. I will address them:
  • Not sure of the relevance of the order myself, especially as it is undetermined. The key issue regarding order seemed to be the suggestion that Robin was shot later than the other victims.
  • I actually tossed up whether and how to include the computer message. Maybe a mention under deaths as its existence is not denied.
  • We can easily (and I think have) fixed the ownership of the trigger lock.
  • Regarding Cottle. I do think we give his paragraph too much weight, but as the appeals were based on his testimony it made it more confusing to completely remove it. I couldn't think of a way to reduce it at the time, but agree that this is something we should improve.
  • The troubled with the bloody fingerprints and other evidence was that it was spread throughout the article, much of it only really presented in the various report sections in the appeals and compensation. A brief, concise, well sourced and factual account could possibly be added somewhere in the first trial.
  • The latest poll is 2015, but if we want to add a date range that is probably not a silly idea, especially as it future proofs the article somewhat.
  • We have to be careful to follow WP:BLP when writing about some of the public concerns about Karams motivations. Mentioning it is probably alright but it needs to be kept in perspective, especially since he successful sued some of them
• I will try and fix some of these points now. AIRcorn (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The order in which the victims were shot should be stated, if it had been determined, since the first victim may have been the primary target with the others eliminated as witnesses. In this case, the order was not determined, and I'm glad to see that we now explicitly say so to put to rest any question the reader might have about it. Akld guy (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just made a couple of minor updates to the Bain's life after acquittal section. Just mentioned his employment status and the fact that he now has a child.Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Re Cottle. Now agree he should be mentioned. Have just made a minor addition. I think it is important to mention that Justice Williamson did not believe him.

Re the order in which victims were shot. No-one knows who was shot first, it was believed to be either Laniet or Margaret. Stephen was shot after his mother and Arawa was believed to be the last sibling shot. Robin Bain's body was warmer than the rest so it is accepted he died later. Most of the experts agree that the reason Laniet was shot three times was because the first shot to her cheek did not kill her. She may have been shot first and then again later.

Re Karam's motives. While it is correct to say his motives were questioned and that he was frequently criticised I can't see where it says that in the reference cited.Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Cottle's non-appearance at 2009 retrial

It has never been stated in the article, to my knowledge, that Cottle was to be called as a witness at the 2009 retrial, but evaded the summons and left New Zealand. ref. Perhaps we could mention that. Akld guy (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the Retrial Section looks OK as it stands. I don't feel that Cottle should be mentioned, even though his statement was read out.If we mention him, then what else should we mention? I believe one mention of Cottle is enough.Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The current wording (although not sure we need to mention the judge not believing him) seems to be give his participation in this case appropriate weight. AIRcorn (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate references

In the "First Trial" section, the following appears:

• In a formal statement, Dean Cottle told police that Laniet had confided in him that her father had been having an incestuous relationship with her and that she was planning to "blow the whistle" the weekend before she and her family were killed. Bain's sister Laniet was to tell of incest and Laniet to 'blow the whistle' on incestuous relationship.

Neither reference mentions Dean Cottle's statement to police. In fact they scarcely mention Cottle at all. We need at least one good reference for this. In addition to doing that, we could retain those references, stating that female associates of Laniet testified that she had said much the same as Cottle had alleged and in fact, backed up his statement. Akld guy (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In his statement to the police Cottle said that when Laniet told him she was going to tell her parents everything he presumed that she was going to talk about the incest which she had mentioned to him on a previous occasion [also in that statement]. It was not until the retrial that a witness who was a prostitute friend of Laniet's basically confirmed what Laniet had told Cottle. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10572497Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, but the fact remains that what we are saying about Cottle does not appear in the current references. Akld guy (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Those references relate to the retrial. I sort of wonder if Cottle should be even mentioned in the First Trial section. But if his statement is to be referred to then David & Goliath could be cited as a reference because his statement is quoted in full in that book.Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the two inappropriate references and cited a paragraph from the Privy Council report instead. Akld guy (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the last sentence in the first paragraph of the appeals section should be deleted as the reference cited does not mention that Karam's motives were questioned or that he was frequently criticised on social media.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

If I google The Bain family murders this is what comes up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_family_murders The Bain family murders refers to the deaths by gunshot of ... Joe Karam. In 2007, Bain's ... Karam's motives were questioned and he was frequently criticised ... Family background · The deaths · First trial 1995 · Support of Joe KaramMr Maggoo (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Motive suggested at first trial

Post by Mr Maggoo copied into this new section. Akld guy (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with the Cost to the taxpayer section being reduced. What I do have a problem with is the Motive section. The references cited are the Police Complaints Authority report and Justice Binnie's report. The PCA report is not available on the internet so someone must have downloaded it off the hard copy or the Counterspin website. My understanding is that you can't cite a source unless it is a reliable source. The PCA Report is on the Counterspin website but I was told I could not cite it as a reference as it is not a reliable source . I contacted the Police National Headquarters and they advised me that the 1997 PCA Report on the Bain inquiry was only ever produced in a typed format, and is not on the internet, so that would mean it can't be cited as a reference. The second reference cited is Justice Binnie's report. If it is OK to cite Binnie's report as a reference then it must be OK to cite Callinan's report as a reference and he does suggest a motive. Also, I note that the reference to the Crown Prosecutor's suggested motive at the first trial have been removed, for what reason I do not know. So unless anyone has any objection I will reinstate that suggested motive and at the same time remove that reference to the PCA Report as it is not the original source and therefore not reliable. Then I either leave the Binnie Report reference and add the Callinan Report as a reference, or delete the Binnie Report reference.Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the prosecution's suggestion that Bain wanted to inherit. Histrange had removed it during an edit war over it with DiscoStuart. Histrange's edit summary said "unreliable source" (McNeish IS a reliable reference) and "this was not part of the prosecution case" (in fact this motive was suggested by the prosecutor in his closing address to the jury). I'm not particularly keen on retaining the sentence, but if Histrange wants to delete it, he/she must come up with a better reason. Akld guy (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

McNeish is not a reliable source. His book is called Mask of Sanity which makes it fairly clear what his position is. He believes that David Bain is guilty and he is therefore not a neutral source. If you would not accept that Joe Karam's books were a reliable source on what Joe Karam believed about David's guilt or innocence, then you cannot accept McNeish's opinions on the case either. Histrange (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on this - you are conflating reliable source and neutral source here, and they are not the same thing. You have also still not really understood what the objection to your proposed addition about Karam's beliefs was, it wasn't that his books were unreliable sources, it was that you wanted to use them to infer that he had a particular state of mind at a particular time, which was not directly stated. Melcous (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right. McNeish's book is not a neutral source.

And the prosecution did not suggest that David wanted to inherit. This was a throwaway line in the prosecutors summing up. It was not part of the prosecution case during the trial. Histrange (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It would appear Histrange is a mind reader. The prosecutor at the first trial referred to the inheritance more than once, so I guess that would mean , according to Histrange, that the prosecutor had a number of throw away lines. I wasn't aware Karam's books were not a reliable source. My understanding is that all books on the Bain killings could be cited. I have been bold and removed all references to motive from the first trial section. Let's have a discussion on here as to what the majority feel about even mentioning motives. Callinan says David Bain had a motive. The prosecutor at the first trial said David Bain had a motive. The defence at the second trial said that Robin Bain had a motive. We are always going to have arguments about motive.Probably best motive is not mentioned. There does not have to be a motive for murder.Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, happy with that. I have made a minor edit. Justice Williamson was telling the jury what the Crown had said. And he was summarizing, because the Crown did not actually say that. What the prosecutor actually said was " But in this case , where a man picks up a rifle and deliberately kills five persons, it is beyond our comprehension". The only time Wright used the word bizarre was when he said " In the weeks prior to 20 June his behaviour was bizarre". Also, I have removed the PCA reference and replaced it by citing Mask of Sanity. I still believe the PCA Report should not be cited as a reference. It is not used as a reference under External Links and that is probably because it was only ever produced in manual form and could only be obtained by purchasing a copy. However, if it is able to be used as a reference then it should also be listed in the External Links section. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC

There were two references in the Retrial section that cited the Privy Council Report so I have deleted them as they do not relate to the retrial.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted the removal of the motives as it meant the appeals section where Cottle is mentioned, did not make sense. We either have to mention it in some way or remove all mention of it. However, I do support a re-edit of that section as it still seems WP:Undue. AIRcorn (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, but then we have a motive so far as Robin Bain is concerned, but no motive so far as David Bain is concerned , so to achieve some balance I have put the motive for David as suggested for the Crown prosecutor back in. I have also removed the reference cited relating to the PCA Report because that reference is not from a reliable source.Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Cost to taxpayer section

Aircorn has removed (once again) this section, reverting Histrange. I support the retention of the section as I feel it's information of interest to the reader and I can't see any justification for keeping it out. Akld guy (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it is not encyclopedic. This is just one example of the major problem with this article. Some one says defending Bain cost this much, so another editor adds that prosecuting him cost this much to balance it out and we end up with a whole section dedicated to a relatively irrelevant aspect. Every trial costs money, and every appeal costs money. There is nothing amazing or notable about it in this case. It is just being used as a weapon by editors trying to garner public sympathy to their point of view by specifying how much this side cost you, the New Zealander. The "interest to the reader" is a hollow sentiment given the state this article turned into and the fact we are infested with accounts that are not terribly interested in wikipedia besides this article. Find me another similar article that highlights the cost to the taxpayer and maybe I would be convinced, but at the moment I have trouble believing most editors have the interest of this project in mind who edit here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Saying something is 'encyclopedic' or 'unencyclopedic' are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic... is synonymous with "I want it deleted". You seem to be on a crusade to neutralise this article to the point of total boredom. The fact that this has been the most expensive case in NZ history is notable - and an amazing waste of taxpayers money. Histrange (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You invited me here remember, did you expect me to simply support you. You have a strong WP:pov, are very WP:tendentious, and suspiciously well versed in noticeboards and essays. AIRcorn (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I invited you here because you appear to be a very experienced editor. But you have to follow wiki rules like everyone else. You can't just delete stuff because it doesn't fit your POV. Histrange (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the Cost to the taxpayer section being reduced. What I do have a problem with is the Motive section. The references cited are the Police Complaints Authority report and Justice Binnie's report. The PCA report is not available on the internet so someone must have downloaded it off the hard copy or the Counterspin website. My understanding is that you can't cite a source unless it is a reliable source. The PCA Report is on the Counterspin website but I was told I could not cite it as a reference as it is not a reliable source . I contacted the Police National Headquarters and they advised me that the 1997 PCA Report on the Bain inquiry was only ever produced in a typed format, and is not on the internet, so that would mean it can't be cited as a reference. The second reference cited is Justice Binnie's report. If it is OK to cite Binnie's report as a reference then it must be OK to cite Callinan's report as a reference and he does suggest a motive. Also, I note that the reference to the Crown Prosecutor's suggested motive at the first trial have been removed, for what reason I do not know. So unless anyone has any objection I will reinstate that suggested motive and at the same time remove that reference to the PCA Report as it is not the original source and therefore not reliable. Then I either leave the Binnie Report reference and add the Callinan Report as a reference, or delete the Binnie Report reference.Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Maggoo wrote "OK, but then we have a motive so far as Robin Bain is concerned, but no motive so far as David Bain is concerned , so to achieve some balance I have put the motive for David as suggested for the Crown prosecutor back in." That's tit for tat editing. If there is evidence that one person had a motive, but no plausible evidence that the other person did, balance is not achieved by manufacturing a motive for the person who doesn't have one. What that creates is distortion. Its similar to media articles about global warming. 99% of scientists say its man made. If media feel the need to quote the 1% of fringe scientists who don't, that creates a distortion of reality - not balance. See WP:False balance

Maggoo has used James McNeish's book to try and justify inclusion David's motive. In my opinion, McNeish's book, The Mask of Sanity: The Bain Murders is not a reliable source. It was published in 1997 and based solely on information that was available at the time of the first trial. McNeish had no access to the new evidence which came to light about Robin Bain's possible motive. His book came out well before the Privy Council declared a miscarriage of justice had occurred and well before David was declared not guilty. That means all McNeish's conclusions are based on very limited and inaccurate information about David. Also the term 'mask of sanity' is a phrase used to describe psychopathy. No evidence was ever put forward suggesting David was a psychopath.

In the face of multiple sources agreeing that no plausible motive was ever presented for David to be the killer, if Mr Maggoo wants to claim the prosecutor made a case that David wanted to inherit, he needs to find primary sources such as the trial transcript or secondary sources such as newspaper articles at that time.

Joe Karam's books are also biased. But they are primary sources about about his involvement in the case. So his books may be cited as such. McNeish was not involved. He was just a journalist observing from the outside so he does not qualify as a primary source.Histrange (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that any book relating to the case can be cited as a reference. McNeish has written a chapter relating to the closing address by the Crown Prosecutor. It would be very difficult to find that closing address anywhere else over twenty years later, at least not on the internet. Were I able to find a newspaper with a reference to that closing address I wouldn't be able to use it anyway, because it wouldn't be on the internet, and therefor not a reliable source. Also, there were not "multiple sources" agreeing that no plausible motive for David Bain as being the killer. You can't count Justice Williamson, because he was only paraphrasing what the Crown prosecutor said. A witness at the first trial testified that David Bain had told her a couple of days after the killings that he was going to ask the Meders , who had invested a considerable amount of money on behalf of Margaret and Robin Bain , to pay that money back so that he could get on with his life and also so the debt would not accrue to the extent that they would not be financially capable of paying it back. So anyone who suggests that David Bain did not have a motive is just hiding their head, ostrich like , in the sand. Furthermore, whether David Bain is a psychopath or not is of no relevance. Most psychopath's do not murder anyone and many murderers are not psychopath's. So far as McNeish not having all the new evidence that came to light, while that is correct. there was just as much new evidence, if not more, that came out at the retrial that pointed to David Bain as being the perpetrator as there was that pointed to his father. For example, an aunt testified that David Bain had told her he had been wearing a pair of his mother's glasses that weekend while his were in being repaired. At trial Bain said he hadn't seen the glasses [his mother's] that were found in his room for over a year.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In actual fact one could say David Bain had a greater motive for killing his family than did his father. Certainly Laniet had told a few people that her father had been molesting her, but she had also told people she had had a white baby to her father, a white baby to a family friend, a black baby , etc.etc. As Justice Callinan wrote in his report Laniet was a fabulist. There was no evidence that her father had been molesting her, records showed that she had never given birth. And if Robin Bain was worried about that story re incest coming out, as has been suggested by some, why would he not have shot David as well? And why would Laniet have gone to live with her father if he had been molesting her? Just does not make sense.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia reliable source page. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks, Books published by respected publishing houses, Magazines, Journals, Mainstream newspapers. That means that Mask of Sanity is a reliable source as it was published by a respectable publishing house.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

About David Ling, publisher of Mask of Sanity. David Ling was a director of educational and general multinational publishing companies where he worked for nearly twenty years before establishing David Ling Publishing in 1992. An active member and former long-time councillor of the Publishers Association of New Zealand (PANZ), in 2011 he was awarded Honorary Life Membership for his services to the industry.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding that any book may be cited is wrong. WP: Reliable sources also says: "Older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light." WP:RSLAW says After a year (more or less), secondary sources tend to become less reliable or unreliable except as history. McNeish's book is a secondary source and way out date. Histrange (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

See also WP:BLP "Contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately." Histrange (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2016

I would like to make an edit in the Karam section, basically to make the point that in an interview with a reporter Joe Karam said he did not believe David Bain was innocent.Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c id=1&objectid=140725

File:Http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c id=1&objectid=140725

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=140725 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maggoo (talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Everyone knows that Karam thinks David Bain is innocent. He wrote four books about the case - one of them called Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain. What Karam says in the article is: "I didn't think David was innocent" - past tense, meaning he didn't know because he hadn't yet started investigating. Once he started investigating he came to believe David was innocent - and goes on to say: "When I believe in something I'm very persistent." The bulk of the article is about Karam's fight for justice for David because he believes David is innocent. Maggoo is trying to take the quote entirely out of context. Histrange (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This is cherry picking a quote from a source sixteen years old and taking it out of context. Also you have to say what exact text you want to insert and where when making an edit request here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

First re Karam saying he didn't believe David Bain was innocent. Well the fact is that he did say that in that interview. However with two "opposes" I won't argue the toss on that one, except to say Karam , even if he now realises David Bain is most likely the perpetrator is never going to admit to that.

Second , re motive. McNeish is quoting the Crown Prosecutors closing address. It does not matter how old the book is.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2016

I request that the following sentences (in bold) be removed from the article on the grounds that the source is out of date and been proved innacurate by subsequent developments. In his closing address the Crown prosecutor W J Wright said that David's motive was to inherit. He said David would have the inheritance, the money the parents had put aside for the new house.

James McNeish's book was published in 1997 shortly after the first trial. It is 19 years old. WP:Reliable sources says: "Older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light." Part of the new information is that the police agreed David did not have a motive. Judge Binnie said no plausible motive was ever presented. Also WP:RSLAW says After a year (more or less), secondary sources tend to become less reliable or unreliable except as history. McNeish's book is a secondary source and way out date. See also WP:V Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources including surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.

Then see WP:BLP "Contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately." Histrange (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It was part of the first trial and that is the section it is rightly cited. What Binnie has to say about motive is of no relevance because it does not relate to the first trial. Further to that Callinan has said that David Bain did have a motive to kill his father. The police did not agree David Bain did not have a motive.Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The following sentence (in bold) was part of the article and recently deleted by Mr Maggoo. Police agreed that a 'conventional motive' could not be found. The source was para 212 of the Police Complaints Authority report which says: We agree with Mr Wright in that it was a bizarre act of horrendous slaughter for which a 'conventional' motive could not be found. The arrest and prosecution were perfectly justified even though there was no clear motive for the killings..." This suggests Mr Wright, the Crown prosecutor, did not think there was a clear motive either, which casts considerable doubt on the authenticity of the claim in McNeish's book. In addition to deleting the sentence about the Crown prosecutor, I request that the sentence above (in bold) be restored to the article. Histrange (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The PCA Report was never on the internet. That means that some individual must have copied it on to a document, which in turn means that document is not a reliable source. Furthermore, that report is dated 1997. which is two years after the trial, so it has no relevance to what was said at the trial. McNeish is reputable author. The book Mask of Sanity was published by a reputable publishing company. In the appendix of that book is a chapter relating to the closing address by Crown Prosecutor W.J. Wright. In that address he says "Because what he wanted was to inherit." And then , a couple of sentences later he says " he'd have the inheritance, the money his parents had put aside for the new house". So obviously the Crown prosecutor did believe there was a clear motive. And of course as we are all aware many murders are committed with money being the motive.

And as I have already pointed out, [allegation referring to David Bain made by Mr Maggoo removed by User:Akld guy after Mr Maggoo was unable to cite an adequate reference Akld guy (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)]. Furthermore he owed $2000 to a motor cycle dealer in excess relating to a motor bike he had written off on a test ride six weeks before the killings. Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• I am starting to think we are better off leaving motive out of this all together. It is all conjecture and we are not doing our readers a service by presenting it like this. This is my failure in part as I could not think of a better way to include Cottle in the rewrite. I therefore propose removing the three paragraphs on motive in the first trial section, similar to what was done here,[1] and rewriting the start of the second paragraph under appeals.

The first application was made to the New Zealand Court of Appeal in 1995, principally on whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to admit the evidence of Dean Cottle. In a statement Cottle had told police that the weekend before the murders Laniet confided in him that she was planning to "blow the whistle" over an incestuous relationship her father had been having with her. Justice Williamson had found Cottle unreliable as a witness and ruled against admission of his testimony.

AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Request disabled as discussion is continuing; please reactivate when consensus emerges — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

When the police state: "We agree with Mr Wright in that it was a bizarre act of horrendous slaughter for which a 'conventional' motive could not be found. The arrest and prosecution were perfectly justified even though there was no clear motive for the killings..." That is not conjecture. It is a clear statement that the police could not find a motive - documented in a reliable primary source. As far as I can see, the wiki rules are very clear on this issue - so please don't go off in a tangent; make a choice between Mr Maggoo's editing and mine and settle this once and for all - otherwise this will just come back to haunt us another day. Histrange (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mr Maggoo: I'm unable to find any reference for Mr Maggoo's claim that David Bain intended to ask the Meders for repayment of a loan, if such a loan existed. The only online articles I can find supporting Mr Maggoo's claim that Bain owed $2,000 to a motorcycle dealer are blogs and the Counterspin website. The header at the top of this page says "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Those two claims are being used by Mr Maggoo to support his contention of a motive and he needs to provide reliable references for them, otherwise I will remove them from this Talk page. Akld guy (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy. This section is exclusively about a protected edit request. It appears you agree with the request to remove Mr Maggoo's edit discussed above. If so please clarify your position by adding the word Agree in bold. Histrange (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This (below) is a different conversation. It is not relevant to whether or not you agree with the protected edit request. Histrange (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Histrange: Histrange, you have completely misunderstood what I wrote. I am objecting to the statements that Mr Maggoo made on this Talk page, not to what might appear in the article. I asked Mr Maggoo to supply references for his two statements. Please do not mischaracterize what I said, thank you. Akld guy (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

First things first. A few days ago I suggested that we delete all references to motive in the first trial section, so therefore I am in complete agreement with Aircorn's suggestion proposal that the first three paragraphs relating to motive in the first trial section be removed.Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Histrange is saying that the police have stated 'We agree with Mr Wright in that it was a bizarre act of horrendous slaughter etc.,etc."but he is unable to cite a reliable source for that statement. While links to the PCA Report are available on the internet they are only secondary sources , such as Kent Parker's Counterspin website.

I asked the question a few months ago about being able to use the Counterspin website as a source for citing the PCA Report and Akld guy said I could not . Furthermore, Mr Wright did not say that in his closing address. The only time he mentioned the word bizarre was when he said "In the weeks prior to 20 June his behaviour was bizarre". Nor did he use the words "horrendous slaughter". He did say "This is a horrific case". He also said " there is a mass of evidence which proves the accused was responsible for these murders. The evidence proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt".Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mr Maggoo: Mr Maggoo, please promptly supply references for the statements that you made on this Talk page (in this section) about the alleged owing of a debt by the Meders and the alleged debt of $2,000 to a motorcycle dealer. You cannot make such statements, even on a Talk page, without references. If you do not provide adequate references by noon today, I will delete those statements, weakening your alleged motive for Bain wanting to raise money and therefore having a motive to inherit. You are not going to be allowed to throw out wild accusations like those to bolster an allegation. Akld guy (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Akld guy. I strenuously object to you accusing me of "throwing out wild accusations" and would ask you to apologise forthwith. First of all, so far as the Meders loan is concerned , that witnesses testimony is in both the trial and retrial transcripts which I have access to but you won't allow me to cite because they are both on the Counterspin website which you say is not a reliable source. So far as that $2000 owing on the motor bike is concerned I will cite a source.Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the Mask of Sanity reference. I do not own a copy, but accept your word that the $2,000 debt is now adequately cited. I consider the Counterspin website to be not a reliable source; other editors may disagree. Akld guy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request November 4

That all references to James McNeish's book, Mask of Sanity be removed as it is out of date and any conclusions have been superseded by subsequent events. Histrange (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In no way should references to Mask of Sanity be removed. This is a blatant attempt by Histrange to remove a book which is an excellent reference source for the first trial. Also, the conclusions reached in the first trial have not, in the main, been superseded by subsequent events. David Bain was found guilty in 1995. In 2016 Justice Callinan has stated that Bain is not innocent on the balance of probabilities.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. We don't disallow a work on the basis of a sweeping generalization. Akld guy (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree: No sweeping generalisations have been made. James McNeish's book was published in 1997 shortly after the first trial. It is 19 years old. WP:Reliable sources says: "Older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light." Also WP:RSLAW says After a year (more or less), secondary sources tend to become less reliable or unreliable except as history. McNeish's book is a secondary source and way out date. See also WP:V Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources including surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.

As you keep pointing out to Mr Maggoo, WP:BLP also applies: "Contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." The statement that Mr Maggoo has added about the prosecutors alleged closing statement is potentially libellous given that the police disagree with it and David has been found not guilty. Histrange (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Histrange says that Reliable sources says that older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light. However, so far as the Bain case is concerned very little new information has been brought to light. In his closing address Crown Prosecutor cited ten points of hard factual evidence. Six of those ten points are still valid today. Three points, the computer start time, the washing machine start up time and the droplets of blood on one of David Bain's socks are in dispute. One further point , re the bloodstain on a T-shirt is no longer valid in that it was never able to be proved what that stain was caused by.

So far as what W.J.Wright said in his closing address is concerned, I can only go by the only source I can find, which is Mask of Sanity. If Histrange can find another reliable source relating to that closing address where Wright uses the words the police say he has used then I would ask him to cite that source.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In an attempt to clear up this matter I have now contacted the National Police Headquarters and asked them if there is any way they can link Wright's closing address to the internet. Then we will have a second source which everyone can see, as opposed to Mask of Sanity, which can only be seen by those that have a copy of that book, such as myself.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The book is almost certainly available for perusal (and possibly even for booking out) at Auckland Public Library. While on this topic, I can state that two of the Karam books, "David and Goliath" and "Trial by Ambush" are definitely available there, as I perused them there myself last month. Go up to the top floor to the Reference room and ask at the desk. They are both listed in category 364.1523 K18. Akld guy (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I actually have copies of all those books . If anyone wants to read Mask of Sanity all they need to do is go to their local library and order a copy via the library exchange system . However, the way I see it is that the police [and Justice Williamson] are both saying that the Crown Prosecutor has said something that he did not actually say, at least not in his closing address as per Mask of Sanity. So has McNeish left something out?

Of course the easiest way to solve this problem is to do what I did a few days ago and remove all references to motive from the first trial section. Aircom reverted my delete, but now he/she is suggesting that it would probably be best to have all references to motive removed. Can we get a consensus on that?Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No we can't. Without information about possible motive the article is meaningless.Histrange (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Histrange, for your information the word consensus means general agreement, which means we don't all have to agree to get a consensus. At this point of time it would appear that of the four editors commenting on this page two are basically in agreement that references to motive in the trial section should be deleted [Aircom and myself] you disagree, and Akld guy hasn't said whether or not he agrees. If he were to agree that would mean we would have a consensus to remove motive from the first trial section. Aircom has suggested that perhaps motive could be mentioned elsewhere in the article which you would possibly find acceptable. Of course I don't believe motive needs to be mentioned at all .There are many motiveless murders. Why did Scott Watson murder Ben Smart and Olivia Hope? Why did John Barlow murder Gene and Eugene Thomas? Why did Wayne Tamihere murder those Swedish backpackers? Of course we know that Mark Lundy had a motive.Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No we don't all have to agree. But "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." So even if two editors agree, they cannot agree (or claim consensus) on something that breaches wiki rules. If you take out information about motive you breach this rule: Wikipedia:Relevance of content: "The bulk of Wikipedia's content consists of: a)Basic description – which explains what the subject is, what it does (or did), and what it is notable for. b) Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed." In other words, David's and Robin's possible motives, or lack thereof, need to be plainly apparent. Histrange (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In the first trial section I had entered the words He [Justice Williamson] said he did not believe him [Cottle]but for some unknown reason those words were deleted . Fact is it transpired that Williamson had every reason not to believe Cottle. In his statement Cottle said that he and Laniet "got to know each other and became friends"yet at the retrial [source retrial transcript] a witness testified that Laniet had told her that Dean Cottle had threatened to tell her parents about the prostitution and that she had to go and have sex with him once a week as a result. She said that Laniet had reported to her that Cottle was asking her to do horrible and graphic things. So on the one hand we have Cottle saying that he and Laniet were friends and on the other hand we have Laniet saying that Cottle was basically blackmailing her for sex. I would suggest that I be allowed to re-enter those words.Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/arrest-warrant-out-alleged-blackmailerMr Maggoo (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Now that Histrange has been blocked and the Bain family murders article has page protection could I suggest that page protection be kept in place for the time being. I believe that the article as it reads at the moment is reasonably well balanced and that it could be left basically as is. If no-one can edit it for the next week or two it could well be that after that time has elapsed no-one will feel the need to.Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor blocked

I have blocked User:Histrange as they are a sockpuppet of Offender9000 (talk · contribs). Any material remaining in this article added by Histrange should be treated with considerable scepticism given Offender9000's editing habits. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Also see here for what appears to be an involvement of blocked sock puppeteer User:Turtletop. Akld guy (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

From looking at Turtletop's contributions, it appears that they are also Offender9000. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Also see User:Chalkiewalkie and User:Neutralityadvocate, blocked in December 2016 and January 2017 respectively as suspected sock puppets of Offender9000 after making (deleted) posts here about the article. Akld guy (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think the comment at the start that 'there were only two suspects, David and Robin', should be removed because, in the context here it gives the strong impression that Robin did it. Editorial comment about the the role or otherwise of Robin should be placed further down in a section dealing specifically with that. We must stick rigidly to the facts. Where is the citation showing that the police only had two suspects? In light of the circumstances of this specific case I think comment it should be made that the case against David was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, meaning he is innocent, but it does not mean that Robin is guilty. As it currently reads the article does lean towards Robin's guilt. Before making any changes, opinion here would be welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added a reference for both Robin and David being suspected at the outset. Akld guy (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a small quibble Roger 8: "the case against David was not proven beyond reasonable doubt..." does not lead to "...meaning he is innocent". You'll note that the intro also says: "Callinan's report, in which he concluded that Bain was not innocent on the balance of probabilities". Snori (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Snori, Thank you, my sloppy mistake. I meant not guilty. Which actually adds more reason for making sure the finger of blame is not pointed in any way at Robin. Just to stress, I have no agenda here except to be as accurate as possible. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We can certainly say that Robin was suspected, because the reference that I added says that he was. That's not pointing the finger of blame. I don't know whether you're aware of this, but all of this was argued out from late in 2015 to the start of 2017. There were heated arguments over this issue and others, and consensus was reached after it was found that some contributors were sock puppets of an editor, Offender9000, who had a long history of sock puppeting. Akld guy (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your reference does not say (the police) regarded Robin as a suspect. It says that an unnamed person told the police either David or Robin did it. We do not know what the police were thinking or what line they were following at that early stage. Until we get a clear statement from the police we are only speculating. I am aware of the lengthy previous discussions. Much of that was about the sock puppets or was the usual armchair lawyer discussion/argument. My point is purely an editorial one. As it reads, this article has a clear pro-David slant. (In a way it is better I was not involved in the earlier debates because my opinion is with fresh eyes.) If we state, at the start that there were only two suspects, and then go on to say there had been a substantial miscarriage and David was found not guilty at hearing 2, then that alone implies that Robin did it. Yes, I know the callinan report is referred to later but it is later on, after the damage is done (ie the implication at the start that Robin had done it). I am just saying that the article needs to be re-arranged and have more tweaks to remove the good faith bias that it currently contains. This case must be handled very carefully because it is so easy to throw in the wrong word and change the meaning or intent (see my mistake above about innocent/not guilty.) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The cryptic message

Regarding the cryptic message: "sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay,“ did both the prosecution and the defense interpret it the same way, albeit with different authors with different reasons; i.e., that either Robin was informing his eldest son why he was spared (without spelling out why he was deserving of such mercy) or that David was indicating such by way of framing his father and explaining his lone survival? Or were there other conjectures from either side?

Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there are no other conjectures and certainly no other remotely realistic suspects, which is part of the unique interest. It was either one of the other, which is why supporters on either side have been so agitated, at different times during the long saga. That saga has now been resolved by the Courts. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cottle

Although the name is mentioned twice in the article there’s no explanation as to who he is or why he had any bearing on the case. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Murder?

ping: Ianmacm I realise this may be overly pedantic or I might be simply missing the point, but is it correct to describe this as a murder? Nobody has been found guilty and one person has been charged and aquitted. Theoretically, this could have been a mass suicide. There have been other cases where WP assumes a crime has occured without a conviction, or even that a person is guilty of a said crime without having been found guilty. Is the reasoning in those cases the same as here? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The word murder is used because the first trial led to a murder conviction which was overturned. It's something of a grey area, as the acquittal of David Bain at the 2009 retrial means that there is currently no legal definition of how the deaths occurred. Renaming the article would require a discussion, but Bain family killings is a possibility.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually the article deals more about "Legal proceedings against David Bain", that can be a proper title. Meridiana solare (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree this article has a lot more content related to David and his trials than the actual murders of his family, which is odd considering the title of this article is "Bain family murders". If this was an article about David specifically it would make slightly more sense, but it isn't, so it should reflect more information about the family background (e.g. Margaret's spiritual beliefs are not even mentioned here, a bit strange considering the major impact it had on the family). Article is fine but should have more info regarding the family as a whole as opposed to just David. --89.240.213.146 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the current title is appropriate. No one is disputing that murders took place; the defence case was that Robin was the murderer. The fact that no one has been found guilty of the charge of murder doesn't mean that murder didn't occur. See Lists of unsolved murders. And reputable sources tend to refer to the events as murder; see eg [2] [3] [4] (all on the first page if you Google "Bain family nz"). Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Chocmilk.

I think the others are concerned with the guidelines at WP:DEATHS. Personally I think that guideline needs reworking, but I also dislike the “Legal proceedings…” angle and would prefer “killings” if we decide we have to go that route. The article should be about the events and their aftermath, not solely the legal aftermath. — HTGS (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

While there is absolutely no doubt that at least 4 of the 5 were murder victims, the article having the word "murders" unintentionally implies that David is the killer, as the title implies that Robin was also murdered (thus implying David was the culprit). It could be called "Bain family killings" to avoid this, especially since David was acquitted of the murder charges. --89.240.213.146 (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Todays IP changes

89.240.213.146 has made many changes today that were later reverted. When a new anonymous IP editor appears and makes lots of changes , especially to an article about a topic as fraught with opinions as this one is, alarm bells start ringing. I suggest to the IP that you raise any concerns about the article here first before making further changes. At first glance you, IP, although your edits are in good faith and in part an improvement, you appear to be advocating for David's position. Can you please raise your concerns about this article here first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I can totally understand why you would think I'd advocating for David's position. However, this is not actually the case, I just felt like an article about such a high profile case such as this deserves a lot more information added to the article. I was not intending to make the article bias against David, but the reasons as to why he was arrested and viewed as a suspect should be added here. To avoid being seen as bias against David, I also added a section for Robin being a potential suspect too. --89.240.213.146 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David Bain.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Naming the suspects - there were two

This article is supposedly about the Bain Family murders. It is not meant to be entirely about David Bain, although his wrongful conviction is inevitably a big part of the story. He was eventually found not guilty. This leaves open the possibility that Robin Bain killed his wife and family and then committed suicide. Evidence was put to the Privy Council and then at David's second trial supporting that contention. In other words both Bains, Robin and David, are important individuals in this saga.

However, for the most part, this article constantly says 'Bain' did this or that and fails to identify that the Bain being referred to is David. This constant reference to him by his surname means the bulk of the article is about his alleged involvement in the killings. This has the potential to introduce confirmation bias into the article.

Since Robin Bain is always referred to in the article by his first or Christian name, I propose that David should also be referred to by his first name. Comments welcome. Straining (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP

WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

David Bain was victimized by the police, the judicial system and the Government which refused to give him compensation for 20 years. He changed his name to try and avoid further victimization. Wikipedia needs to respect his wish for privacy. Straining (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Besides, the information about his change of name has absolutely nothing to do with the murders - which is what this article is supposed to be about. It is therefore irrelevant. Straining (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Sources? What about victimising Robin Bain and his other family? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP only applies to Living Persons. Robin is dead. Straining (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Read more carefully. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP stands for Biography of Living Persons. Perhaps you should read more carefully. Straining (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is your evidence David was victimised? Being dead in NZ is no longer an issue - creche case. Owing to the nature of this case we need to be very careful not to point the finger at Robin whose wider family would, as is being, victimised. When you get editors squeezing into this article every juicy piece of media detail, and backing it with sources that are not particularly reliable, there will inevitably be a breach of rigid neutrality. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Being dead is not an issue for New Zealand. Being dead or alive is an issue for WP:BLP. Straining (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Before I started editing this page, there was no mention of the highly dysfunctional family backgound, the broken marriage, allegations and testimony from reliable sources about Robin committing incest with his daughter, or his poor mental health etc. The article was superficial and focussed almost entirely on David. Now it has both sides of the story and is therefore more balanced and neutral. Straining (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies on all articles, including those which are not biographies. In this case, the policy applies to David Bain, but not to the dead members of his family.

The paragraph beginning "Following his acquittal..." is not in my opinion a breach of BLP because it is not a significant breach of his privacy and there is some interest in how people react to being freed after a long period of imprisonment. I have not removed this paragraph but I would not restore it if someone else did so.

The information on his change of name, and earlier-removed information on his new family life does breach BLP and should be removed.-gadfium 19:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Using sources

@user:Straining and others. This post is not about wp:BLP. I looked at the section on Ian Callinan's report today and checked the sources. I thought the whole section, small though it is, sounded biased and incorrect. When I checked, the sources in key areas did not say what was written in the article. More concerning is that I am sure the errors were innocent and in good faith but coming from a pre-determined conclusion about what happened, something everyone does at times. Karum was not David's legal team (ie lawyers) - I don't think any legal team would ever tell a judge his decision was a 'train wreck' - there was no mention in the source of a plea-bargain around the $925k, in fact the source describes what happened - an offer - and why David accepted the offer. Why mention that the judge didn't talk to David unless we are giving legal opinion on the findings (about what the judge should have done). The source said David was unhappy with the findings, and at not being questioned by Callinan. Well, that is all we should report to be utterly neutral - that David was unhappy with it (Most people when they read a legal decision they don't like start blaming others.) Callinam was not instructed he was "not allowed to read Binnie's report", if you read s21. In any case, even if it did say that, mentioning it in isolation from the rest of Callinan's instructions is misleading. And there were some regular risky words, like 'However..." and 'officially...' which just try to make us think what follows is especially important. I can't help but wonder how much else in the article also doesn't quite reflect what the sources are saying. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Para 21 of Callinan's report specifically states that "I am not to consult or receive any information or submissions about the report made by the Hon. Mr Binnie..." The statement that Callinan was "instructed not to read Binnie's report" is an legitimate summary of that aspect of para 21.Straining (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Why mention that the judge didn't talk to David? Because that is a crucial ommission on Callinan's part. It is extraordinary that a judge would conduct an investigation into whether or not David did or did not commit the murders and not bother to talk to the accused. David is the only potential 'witness' and Callinan refused to even question him about what happened that day. No wonder Karam called his report a 'train wreck'. Straining (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That is entirely your opinion. So you know more about the law than a judge? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Callinan was not allowed to read Binnie's report - thats a fact, not an opinion. He did not interview David, even though David is the only living 'witness' - that's also a fact. Straining (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What is your opinion is the effect that 'fact' had on his impartial legal decision. If you cannot understand that then with respect you should not be editing here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Part of the trouble is that the report is a primary source, and I think that the current approach taken by the article borders on original research because (as Roger 8 Roger points out) it seems to be implying that there is something wrong with the approach taken by Callinan. The article should reflect the secondary sources, not draw conclusions from what is said in the report itself.

The article could certainly say however that David Bain was unhappy he wasn't interviewed for the report and that this was one of the grounds on which he criticised the outcome, as born out by this article. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no original research. I have added more info from the secondary source you linked to. Straining (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Kia ora, thanks for your response. I have to say I don't see the relevance of prior questions about the judge's legal advice (that didn't result in any action being taken against him nor prevent his appointment as a High Court judge) to this matter, from an encyclopedia point of view, nor could this be described as being "involved in a number of controversies in Australia"; it seems to be just a single matter). Otherwise we risk placing undue weight on a single RNZ article mentioning the judge's "colourful past". It's more relevant to say why the judge was appointed. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Callinan was appointed because Judith Collins refused to accept the conclusions made by Judge Binnie - not because of anything Amy Adams had to say about him. That was just Cabinet spin.

RNZ is not the only outlet to mention his colourful past. See also High Court Dilemma in which he was asked to disqualify himself over advice he provided in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case.

He also played a controversial role in the longest-running, and most expensive commercial proceeding in Queensland's legal history, White Industries v Flower & Hart in which he was accused of advising a client to make an unwarranted allegation of fraud when there was no factual basis for it. This case became the subject of an ABC Four Corners documentary. This controversy even gets a mention under his name on on Wikipedia. Straining (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid I don't see what relevance these events have to his review of the Bain case. Plenty of judges and other decision-makers are involved in controversies or disagreements over law from time to time, but it's hard to see the relevance to other matters when there's no disciplinary action against them and when they take place many years previously. Again, it's clear that these events were no barrier to his appointment as a judge.

Are there any other independent secondary sources sources that discuss his history in the context of the Bain report, aside from the single RNZ article? I've done a search, and the only sources I can find are from Bain supporters, but it's possible I am missing something. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)