Talk:Killing of Bich Pan

Blatant contradictions about parental restrictions

In Pan's second police interview she admitted that for years she pretended to attend university and to be living with a friend/cousin (who also believed she was a student); Pan was actually residing with her boyfriend who dealt marijuana. She was not in education. She next pretended to have graduated, and forged paperwork to convince her parents who believed this was what they had been funding for several years. Patently her parents had no knowledge of her lifestyle except when she visited them on weekends: plainly she had whatever social life she chose for years.

Her return to the parental residence coincided with the loss of "education" funding provided by her parents, as they believed she had now graduated. Once the degree-diploma deception was exposed she continued to claim that she had attended and passed two college years; only after murdering her mother did she finally admit to her father, then to police, that she had lied about this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.170.60 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Father's and mother's Chinese names

Most sources I've seen state his Chinese name as "潘漢輝"

One Epoch Times one instead stated he was "潘輝翰" and the mother "哈碧" for some reason, but all the others I've seen use 潘漢輝. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Sing Tao articles (here) and here) consistently use 潘漢輝 for Huei Hann Pan and 梁碧霞 for Bic Ha Pan (Seems like she had the family name Liang in Chinese, as in China and with ethnic Chinese outside of China, people don't usually change family names when they marry)

Jennifer Pan herself doesn't seem to have a Chinese name, as the sources I've seen just transliterated her name. Her boyfriend at the time *did* have one.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Who was there?

Even though Karen K. Ho's article stated that Carty, Crawford, and Mylvaganam definitively were the ones who entered the Pan house, some Toronto Star articles stated that the Crown only accused Mylvaganam of being one of the three hitmen, and that it never stated the identities of the other two hitmen.

According to testimony delivered in the court, both Wong and Crawford were at work at the time.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• According to Grimaldi ISBN 1459735250, 9781459735255 , p. 90 Lenford Crawford did sign into work with a thumb scanner and was there until midnight, so he could not have been at the crime scene. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Grimaldi ISBN 1459735269, 9781459735262 92 states: "Although there is plenty of talk about the potential to charge others [...] at least one man in the house that night, possibly the triggerman, remains unidentified in this case."

In other words the Crown (prosecutors) decided to file no more charges, even though they considered doing so, and at least one of the three men that attacked the Pan household was not identified. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Photo on p. 19 of Grimaldi

I may upload an image of Jennifer Pan to accompany the article. Page 19 of Grimaldi states that this photo was taken during the first police interview. ISBN 1459735250, 9781459735255 - p. 19 WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Computer programs

I noticed an earlier version of the article stated as if it was a truth that computer programs were used to catch Jennifer Pan. I bet it was based on statements made by interrogator William "Bill" Goetz.

That was a deliberate lie to get her to confess. From Grimaldi Google Books PT 58: "During the speech that follows, Goetz uses the trickery[...]"We have computer programs," he says. "We feed everything[...]"[...]" - On [PT59 he talks about the satellites, which is another lie.

As I've stated elsewhere, police in Canada can legally lie to interrogation subjects about certain things (though not about legal matters - they can't threaten to increase their sentence or cut a deal with them). The computer program and satellites are both lies. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible bias in-text

The text seems fairly biased throughout the article, mentioning pretty much irrelevant facts which line up with common stereotpying, such as Pan's "university" boyfriend being a low-grade dope dealer. I understand this is an article about a murderer but it is not exactly relevant that she dated an uneducated drug dealer. This really isn't the only example of strange bias, the whole thing seems to be written in such a way that the emotional abuse that Pan was subject to from her parents seems to be ignored and minimised and other unrelated factors, such as the dope dealing kid I just mentioned, are shown - presumably in the writers' bias. I feel something could be done to improve the article to get it in line with a more nutral, unbiased point of view. You know, WP:NPOV. Acolossus | Talk | Contributions 15:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

EDIT by somebody else: it also includes many unnecessary details relating to the races of the various people involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.38.138 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Will now remove all irrelevant references to race. Acolossus | Talk | Contributions 13:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Acolossus: @109.155.38.138: Wikipedia:V says: "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." Therefore if the reliable sources - published books, newspaper articles, academic journal articles, etc. - highlight an aspect, the Wikipedia article should as well. First:
    • 1. The drug dealer background of Daniel Wong is a highly crucial element of this story: that's how he knew the co-conspirators who killed Bich and injured Han. (see article from Toronto Star)
      • Relevant quote: "Seven years until Wong — Pan says he was the one who put her in touch with “Homeboy,” a man he knew through his marijuana dealing —" and "Not Wong, not Lenford Crawford (the Crown says he’s “Homeboy”), not David Mylvaganam, and not Eric Carty." - From the Toronto Star: "Wong allegedly connected Pan with Lenford Crawford, another middleman who helped plan and pass information between Wong and Eric Carty." - various sources discuss "Homeboy" as being a key figure in the case as he was the middleman between Pan and the killers. And Toronto Star again: "[...]using her on-and-off boyfriend Daniel Wong’s drug-dealing contacts to carry out the hit for the sum of $10,000." - BTW Daniel Wong is absolutely not an "unrelated factor"! He's a convicted co-conspirator who got a life sentence for this!
      • The Toronto Star says here: "The Pan parents, especially dad, were virulently opposed to drug-dealing Wong as a boyfriend for their only daughter" - I'm not sure if Hann Pan stated that he knew Wong was dealing drugs, but Pan's parents perceived him as a "bad seed" and that was why they cut her off from him. (seen in page 121)
      • Grimaldi himself also had extensive coverage of Wong's drug dealing and relationships with Crawford and Carty (Grimaldi described Crawford and Wong as "close friends"), pages 83-84, and page 35 noted that he did have a criminal record related to drugs. page 39 states that police had stopped him with drugs in his car.
    • 2. Races of others. The Washington Post (here), South China Morning Post (here), Toronto Life (here), and various other sources, as well as the published book A Daughter's Deadly Deception: The Jennifer Pan Story refer to Pan's ethnic background, and this element is a recurring theme of the case.
      • In regards to Daniel Wong's ethnic background, as seen in page 65 of the book Jennifer herself stated that her parents did not like Daniel Wong's mixed ancestry: Quote: "Once they found out, they didn't like the fact that he was of mixed race" (for WP:BLP reasons it cannot be stated as a fact as, to my knowledge, Hann Pan himself didn't say this, and Jennifer Pan does not have the greatest track record for telling the truth... That may be why I omitted that detail from the article)
      • In regards to the ethnic backgrounds of the other convicted co-conspirators, Mylvaganam, Carty, and Crawford, I fail to see how this is biased. I can see editors discuss whether to include the racial details of those three, but including them does not show bias. As Jeremy Grimaldi referred to the differences between Rexdale and Markham in a chapter of his book (See PT65, and racial demographics are discussed in PT66) about the case, talking about the socioeconomic differences, and also because this topic inherently deals with ethnic origins and race, the racial backgrounds of the others is relevant in their individual stories. Page 81 of Grimaldi's book states that Lenford Crawford was born in Jamaica (born in 1982, moved to Canada in 1994) and goes into detail about his upbringing, so in regards to his biography, his ethnic origins are important. p. 83 mentions Mylvaganam's background but Grimaldi doesn't elaborate much on it.
    • 3. As Hann Pan is the victim of attempted murder, you will need to be extremely careful with his biographical details: I am aware Karen K. Ho discussed alleged severe tiger parenting, but I would not state it as fact. Meanwhile the Ontario courts ("the Crown") convicted Jennifer Pan, Daniel Wong, Lenford Crawford, and Daniel Mylvaganam, so the Crown's accusations against them can be taken as fact. Eric Carty also pleaded guilty, and he is now deceased. Because of those factors it's easier to include biographical details of the perpetrators. As per WP:BLP we need to be cautious about writing about the living, but especially so about the living victim, Hann.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional article

I found: https://www.pressreader.com/australia/thats-life-australia/20180517/283197263969305 from That's Life Australia WhisperToMe (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Extreme Feminism

I love how you mentioned that her mother's name (Bich) is pronounced "Bick", so that people don't pronounce it as "bitch". And that's ironic, since the reason behind the murder is that the mom really was a b...

Also, you mention that matricide is rare in Canada. I'm 2 minutes into reading the article and already your extreme feminism is showing. 178.138.33.213 (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I find the above criticisms without merit. It is not "extreme feminism" to tell English speakers how to pronounce an unfamiliar Vietnamese name. Nor is it "extreme feminism" to say matricide is rare in Canada (something that a prominent author on this case stated). Also there is no evidence that the mother had that character, as after all Jennifer Pan was known to lie constantly. (The Grimaldi pages on the police interrogation make that clear) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

@InEventOf: About this edit, I have no information on whether Pan ever had Vietnamese citizenship of any kind. I think the "Vietnamese Canadian" article refers to Canadians with Vietnamese ancestry and not necessarily ones with dual citizenship. (I believe Pan would be both Vietnamese Canadian and Chinese Canadian at the same time as Viet Hoa would be described in both articles) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Vietnamese name of Bich Ha?

I'm trying to see if Vietnamese sources refer to Bich Ha as "Luong Bich Ha" or "Phan Bich Ha". https://www.voatiengviet.com/a/tham-kich-con-cung-giet-cha-me-de/2883514.html does not specify a last name for Bich. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Article is mistitled and should be renamed

Pan is not herself notable outside the context of having had her mother killed in an attempt to kill both her parents. I see nothing here to suggest she has any independent notability. The event of the crime is what is notable. This article is not, and should not be, a biography of her.

So, per WP:NCDEATH, we should rename this article Killing of Bich Pan, I think? (Since the convictions have been overturned pending retrial, we should avoid using "murder" until such time, if any, as new convictions are obtained.

If no one has any thoughts about this, I will go ahead with the move in a couple of days. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, the title was okay as "Jennifer Pan", we are talking about a criminal, so this is actually a biography of a criminal.--LordEdurod97 (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Per policy, committing a single crime that is notable does not make the person who committed it notable if they are not notable for anything else independent of the crime. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case, if we follow this "logic" then (for example) both articles Thomas Matthew Crooks and Attempted assassination of Donald Trump must be merged since Crooks "who committed the attempt of murder is notable for the crime but not notable for anything else. The logic doesn't make sense at all. LordEdurod97 (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That was discussed at AfD (several times, actually). I agree with a separate article for him on the grounds that it's "highly significant" event, per WP:BIO1E, as noted by some of the !voters there. There's a difference, a world of difference, between someone attempting to shoot a former president and presidential candidate and someone getting her friends to kill her non-notable parents in a Toronto suburb. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Also think keeping the article at Jennifer Pan is fine and wish I had seen this at the time. The whole crime is what's notable, not just what happened to Bich Pan in particular, and the reasons why so many people are interested in this crime have much more to do with Jennifer Pan and her background than with Bich Pan in particular. WP:1E is a guideline for how to structure content (in general, it makes sense to have content on people known only for involvement with an event in an article about that event, instead of in a page about them) but this is the rare case where disregarding that guideline would improve the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If "the whole crime is what's notable", then that would seem to have more to do with the death of Bich Pan than anything about Jennifer Pan. If no one had died in this situation, I doubt it would have received anywhere close to the news coverage it did. – notwally (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Really? This is just speculation but I doubt the coverage would've changed much if he was only seriously injured instead of killed. The fact that someone died isn't really what people focus on here, it's the whole scheme and the factors that led to Jennifer planning it. The Netflix documentary isn't called What Happened to Bich Pan. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And what is the "it" here? The events that led to the killing of her mother (not her father ... he survived).

What Netflix calls or doesn't call its TV shows has no bearing on how we name articles ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Think you're not getting my point. The focus isn't on the victims, it's on Jennifer. That's why people care about the case. This isn't true of most notable crimes, at least not nearly to the same extent. Netflix was just an example of this. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that someone died is definitely a major factor in the coverage this case received. Domestic violence occurs every day, and rarely gets any coverage unless a death is involved. You can say that the "focus" is on whatever aspect you want, but what is most notable is still the case, not one of the perpetrators. No one in the general public would care about Jennifer Pan if they did not care about the case and her role in it, and that is the point I believe you are missing. – notwally (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not getting your point, it's not so much because you're not making one as that the point you are trying to make is irrelevant to policy. Many murders/killings etc. result in voluminous coverage of the perpetrators and their lives. That coverage itself does not make them notable. It can help when there's something else in their lives that might establish notability independently of the crime. But I defy you to find one thing about Jennifer Pan that she'd be notable for had she not been convicted of her mother's killing (I'm not using "murder" since those convictions have been reversed pending retrial).

And even though the third criterion on WP:NOTBLP1E probably isn't met here, I think for broader reasons than Wikipedia editorial policy we ought not to write articles about people whose names we know only because they killed one person or more at once or on a spree (Serial killers are a different matter; we have always had articles on them individually). I don't want to live in a world, or edit a Wikipedia, where people kill other people just so they'll have their own Wikipedia article. And you don't either. Defaulting to naming the article after the victim or victims, or its popular name (cf. Bathtub Girls murder, another article about a matricide committed by a young woman (well, OK, women) in the Toronto suburbs) accomplishes this very well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The information under the main photograph of Jennifer is wrong.

That photo is not from her arrest. That photo was taken immediately after the event. You can see the shirt she's wearing in the photo when you watch the initial interview that was conducted only a few hours after the murder/attempted murder. 2605:59C8:63BE:C810:216D:B73B:9792:5B24 (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

She was arrested during the third interrogation and it can be seen in the recording that she is wearing different clothes, so the description is indeed incorrect. I'll change it to "Jennifer Pan in 2010".

This is the full image and it appears to be taken in the in the room where the first two interrogations took place (compare the background with the room). Since her hair and clothes are the same, it must be the case that the photo was taken right before or right after the first interrogation. My guess is before, but I don't have a confirmation. Filipjack (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

One of the most biased True Crime articles on Wiki

This article assumes this is a case of tiger parenting gone wrong, and not simply a case of a sociopath trying to make money. There is an explicit bias in this entire article, starting with the first sentence: "... in response to their alleged severely abusive 'tiger parenting.'" No, Jennifer attempted to off her parents to inherit her half of the $1M their estate was worth. She had an opportunity to move in with her boyfriend and live in a house provided by his parents. If she wanted out of the tiger parenting lifestyle, she had the choice. Instead, she chose to try to keep living the comfortable life they provided, first by living under their restrictions, and then, when she had enough, without them, but with all their stuff (house, car, retirement money, life insurance). This entire article ignores the importance of this fact and makes numerous assumptions that further a narrative on the sensitive and controversial subject in the Asian diaspora of tiger parenting. This is nonsense. The case can be made that Jennifer is just a sociopath incapable of empathy, good at manipulation, and everything she does is in service to what she wants in life. This is particularly clear if you read Grimaldi's book.

Or, should we rewrite the article on Ted Bundy to talk about how it's his parents' fault?

--BananaManager (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The main motive for the attack was to break free from the control that her parents were imposing on her and to spend time with Daniel. The inheritance was an additional motive. Jennifer's behavior of being a liar and incapability of empathy all stems from the bad parenting Hann Pan and put on her and he's the reason why she deceived her family about her education. In other words, her controlling tiger parents have played a role in her behavior that eventually to her attacking them. Please do not disregard this as the murder would've been avoided if her parents chose a different style to guide her. The line pointed out does show bias but the article should not ignore the fact the parents were controlling and excluding that as a motive.

Tiger parenting is basically child abuse that doesn't give the child proper love and self-esteem and can be detrimental on their mental health and should be put a stop to in the Asian diaspora. 70.51.232.163 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Four years and five days ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)