Talk:Bain family murders

Did David hate his father?

Chocmilk03: You seem to be suggesting that David had a motive to kill his entire family because Callinan thought David hated his father. There is no evidence for this. This story says "David took exception to a particular comment by [Callinan] about Bain "hating" his father, Robin, whom the defence blamed for the five deaths. "This is extremely hurtful. I did not hate my father, ever, then or now," according to an affidavit signed by Bain. "I had said, that in the context of having just been told by the police that if I didn't do it, then it must have been my father who killed everyone. I was reacting to that information, and I meant that I hated him 'if he had done this'."

This was one of the reasons David was so pissed off with Callinan for not talking to him when conducting his investigation. Clearly Callinan should have interviewed him to test his credibility and find out the context of David's comments made in the heat of the moment.

And even if David did hate his father, that does not provide a motive for killing his entire family.

Also it is not just Binnie who understood that David didn't have a motive. In summing up after the trial was over, Justice Neil Williamson told the jury that the Crown had said "... that these events were so bizarre and abnormal that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of any logical or reasonable explanation". I.E the Crown admitted they could not see any motive for what they perceived as bizarre behaviour (assuming David was responsible). Straining (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Straining: Re your comment, "And even if David did hate his father, that does not provide a motive for killing his entire family", I might agree with you on that, on a personal level. I also note David was acquitted at the second trial, which in some respects speaks for itself. However, it's important to distinguish our personal views from what reliable secondary sources say; the article should be limited to that.

The article also needs to be balanced. The article can say that the defence said there was no motive, what the prosecution said, that Justice Williamson said X in his summing up. Those are statements of fact. If the article refers to Binnie's report and his interpretation of the court case, it should also refer to Callinan's report. And I just don't think that the trial section is the appropriate place to start referencing Binnie's and Callinan's reports in that way. It's confusing for a reader who isn't familiar with the case, because they don't know the context of the preparation of those reports.

As an alternative to removing the paragraph entirely, I'm wondering if context could be added, like:

In Ian Binnie's later review of the court case commissioned by the New Zealand government, Binnie was of the view that the police never came up with a plausible motive for David to kill his entire family. A subsequent report by Ian Callinan referred to David's admissions of hatred for his father who he saw as dominating the household and recent arguments with his father, as well as to evidence of "abnormality of behaviour" on David's part.

What do you think of that wording?

I see you've added the Privy Council judgment as a source for "As a result, the jury remained unaware that Robin Bain was depressed or that he had a possible motive to get rid of his family and commit suicide." My understanding (learnt the hard way!) is that legal decisions are actually primary sources. Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says to use these with care and that primary sources may only be used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact". Are you able to find a secondary source that could support this statement?

Alternatively, I think another option that would be OK is to say, is "The Privy Council later said that this meant that the jury remained unaware that he had a possible motive for the crime". It is factual that the Privy Council said this. I also note that the Privy Council does not seem say that it was a result of Cottle's evidence that the jury was unaware Robin may have been depressed, so we can't say that (unless I've missed it in the decision, in which case can you please provide a paragraph reference?)

If you disagree with either of the suggestions above, perhaps you could provide your alternative suggested wording here. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Binnie in the Trial section and replaced with info from the Privy Council. Does that satisfy your concerns? I think the alternative wording you suggested makes a simple fact way too complicated. Straining (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The reference to Binnie still appears to be in there; can you check that you've made the amendments you meant to make?

The approach to the Laniet situation looks a lot better to me, thanks. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I propose replacing the Binnie sentence with the following. The Crown prosecutor Bill Wright, was unable to suggest a motive for David to kill his family. Summing up, he told the jury "it is beyond comprehension. We can't undertand it. Your job is to work out wo did it, not to worry about why it happened. We will probably never know why..."

This a quote from Karam's book Trial by Ambush. I know you think he is not independent but he is quoting from an affidavit tendered to the Court of Appeal by Bill Wright, the prosecutor at the first trial. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straining (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that wording is quite right. Remember there's no need to prove motive in a criminal case, and there's no secondary source saying that the prosecution was "unable" to prove motive. All we can say is that they didn't put one forward.

Neither of these sources really suit, either. The affidavit is a primary source and Karam clearly isn't independent (it's not just what I think); do you have any basis for suggesting that he is?

I'll have a dig around and see if I can find any other secondary coverage of the trial that might give us a better basis. For example, if there was a news article about the case that quoted Wright saying this, I think we could cite that. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a dig on Proquest and found some useful articles. I've now expanded the section (I was going to write it all out here, but it was getting a bit tricky with the references). Happy to discuss here further if you take issue with any of the points. The Venter article is particularly useful and can support further expansion because it sets out what evidence was/wasn't presented at trial, then contrasts the Court of Appeal and Privy Council views. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Chocmilk, you wrote: "The affidavit is a primary source and Karam clearly isn't independent (it's not just what I think); do you have any basis for suggesting that he is?"

I have a number of points to make about that:

• Primary sources are legitimate if they are accurately quoted and do not contain someone else's interpretation. See WP:NOR.
• The info actually comes from a secondary source because it is a quote in Karam's book, citing a primary source.
• No one involved in this saga is independent. The prosecution are not independent, the defence are not independent, etc. There are also very few independent 'facts' that everyone agrees on (other than five dead bodies). That does not stop wiki from quoting what the various 'actors' in the case have said.
• Of all the sources available, Karam knows more about every detail of this case than anyone else. He wrote four books about it. His knowldge enabled him to overturn a guilty verdict and then obtain a not guilty verdict. He is already cited in the article - because he is one of the 'actors'. On what basis do you allow some of his contributions to be included but not others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straining (talk • contribs) 05:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In saying all that, I think what you have done in your recent edit is pretty good. But I would like a bit more from the prosecutor where he told the jury "it is beyond comprehension. We can't undertand it. Your job is to work out who did it, not to worry about why it happened. We will probably never know why."

I think it would be OK to quote Karam's book as the source for the quote on its own, as he's quoting directly from the affidavit and there seems no reason to doubt that he would do so accurately. I more had issue with the first sentence you'd suggested above which seemed to me to be suggesting that the Crown had failed in some way. I'd be OK I think to add something like the following to the article (citing Karam's book as the source):

The Crown prosecutor told the jury during his summing up, "It is beyond comprehension. We can't understand it. Your job is to work out who did it, not to worry about why it happened. We will probably never know why."

As I've said, I have no issue with referencing Karam's views as long as it's made clear that they are his views. If the sentence begins with "Karam said", it's most likely fine. For example, "Joe Karam said that David felt he had no choice but to accept the money" is absolutely fine. On the other hand, "David felt he had no choice but to accept the money" (with Karam cited as the source) would not be fine.

The placing in the article also matters. When we're outlining what happened at the first trial, we should stick to the facts rather than going into others' interpretation of the facts; e.g. I don't think it would be helpful to say something like, "Karam said the Crown were unable to put forward a motive", or "Journalist X said the defence case was garbage" or something like that. I can't exactly articulate a clear reason for that, but I think it's about presenting the facts fairly and neutrally before getting into commentary. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Was Binnie's report controversial

Chocmilk03: You claim that Binnie's report was controversial. It wasn't. What was controversial was the way Judith Collins handled it. Please read this. It describes Collin's remarkable lack of transparency and the devious manner in which she secretly consulted the Police, the Solictor General and then Robert Fisher about Binnie's report while refusing to provide a copy to David's team. She even leaked information about the report to the media but said she couldn't give it to David's team (even though she gave it to the Police, the Solicitor General and Robert Fisher) because it was privileged. Karam described her behaviour as "a calculated move to discredit the Binnie report before it had seen the light of day."

The statement that she resigned "after months of controversy about her ethics" is factually accurate and referenced. Her ethics are seriously dodgy as demonstrated by her behaviour over Binnie's report, as well as Oravida and other suspect matters she was involved in. Straining (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see the new material on Reactions regarding compensation in the main article to see what others think about Judith Collins' unethical behaviour in this matter. Straining (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Straining: With respect, Joe Karam is far from a neutral independent party on the subject of the Bain case. I don't say that as a criticism of him; I'd say the same of the prosecution lawyers if you'd sent me an article by them.

Something can be "factually accurate and referenced" but that doesn't mean it's suitable to include in Wikipedia. In this instance I am strongly of the view that "after months of controversy about her ethics" gives her resignation WP:UNDUE weight by implying it was directly related to the Bain case, when there is no evidence of any link. It should be deleted.

I'm okay however with adding relevant comments on the outcome of the case in a "Reactions" section. I have no issue with that, and that's the appropriate way to deal with this. Given that, do you agree that "after months of controversy about her ethics" can be deleted? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. you will note I am adding some additional reactions to the article, and that at least one is critical of the government's approach. I hope that demonstrates that I am not coming at this from any particular agenda or viewpoint, but am simply seeking to ensure that the article is worded neutrally and reflects a balanced view. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

P.P.S. Also, sorry, "controversial" wasn't quite the right word for what I was trying to say, and you're right that controversy describes what happened with Collins seeking the further report in the way that she did. What I think I was trying to say is that Binnie's report and Callinan's report have both been challenged by different parties. They don't have any legal force in the way that a court decision does, but were commissioned to inform the government's eventual decision on compensation. Wikipedia shouldn't decide whether one is more valuable than the other, but aim to present both report's conclusions in a fair and neutral way. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I respect your polite and very cooperative way of interacting. So with respect - you have added material from Martin van Beynan who is also "far from a neutral independent party on the subject of the Bain case". Of all the journalists who have covered this case, he has shown himself to be the most closed minded. However, he presents another perspective and theoretically adds some balance.

In regard to the statement "after months of controversy about her ethics", I disagree that it suggests anything other than what it says. However, I am open to other options. How about this: "after months of concern about other controversies she was involved in" - would that satisfy you? Straining (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Straining: Thank you, and likewise appreciate you engaging with me on this.

I totally agree van Beynan is not a neutral party. But you'll note I've not taken any issue with the article's frequent references to Karam's viewpoints. That is because it is appropriate to include his views as long as it's made clear that they are his views. What I have concerns about is presenting Karam's viewpoint as though is factual and not making it clear that it is his viewpoint.

For example, we can absolutely say that Karam criticised Collins' approach to the Binnie report; what we can't do is say that Judith Collins resigned after controversy about her ethics implying that the controversy is related to the Bain case when the only source that says that is Karam. Does that make sense?

"after months of concern about other controversies she was involved in" is better but then we come to the question: how is it relevant to the article? Chocmilk03 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO it is highly relevant. Because of her unethical behaviour, she messed up everything she was involved in at that time, including the way she handled the Binnie report. John Key forced her to resign. Exactly why is immaterial. She was out of control and Key felt the need to reign her in. Straining (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to a reliable independent secondary source that says this? That's the test for whether or not we can include it on the Wikipedia page. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Chocmilk: The RNZ article points out that she resigned "after months of controversy". I don't understand what your concern is about this. It is extremely well documented. This article on Newshub points to her involvement in numerous controversies besides David's compensation claim: her Oravida conflict of interest; the Dirty Politics scandal; and allegations that she tried to undermine the Director of the Serious Fraud Office.

Her resignation is relevant to David's compensation claim because she was a key player in the controversy. She was not only a key player - she caused the whole brouhaha. Her behaviour is clearly part of a pattern. All I want to keep in the article is that "she resigned after months of controversy." Straining (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you that her resignation is relevant and should be clearly stated in the article. But "she resigned after months of controversy" implies that her resignation was directly linked to the Bain situation, when it clearly wasn't. The Bain situation isn't mentioned at all in the Newshub article that you refer to. Do you have any articles which do link her resignation to the Bain situation? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Totally disagree that it implies her resignation was linked to the Bain situation. It says what it says and implies nothing more. You are reading something into it which it doesn't say. Wiki is responsible for what is in the article - not what is in the reader's mind or how they choose to interpret factual information. Straining (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As this is continuing to be a point of disagreement, I suggest we go with your previous suggested wording "after months of concern about other controversies she was involved in". It's a bit wordy and I remain of the view that it's unnecessary, but it largely addresses my concern about an apparent link.

I agree that the current wording doesn't explicitly say the resignation is linked, but in my reading it does imply it. Others may read it differently. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Van Beynen's opinion

Chocmilk. I have deleted the sentence: He noted that Binnie had come to the opposite conclusion in August 2012, "but his reasoning was regarded as faulty", and said he did not doubt that "similar charges will be levelled at Callinan." For the following reason. It is not clear from the wording of this sentence whether it is Callinan's or van Beynen's opinion that Binnie's reasoning was faulty. Either way, the sentence definitively states that Binnie's reasoning was faulty. As you have correctly pointed out, wiki cannot state that someone's reasoning is faulty - only that this is someone's opinion.

I have added this sentence from van Beynen's opinion that: "If he can't show he probably didn't do it, he probably did it". This is the direct opposite of the legal principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty, which shows how dubious van Beynen's opinion is. I am inclined to point that out. What do you think? Straining (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. I agree the original wording wasn't super clear on rereading it again, and was attempting only to reflect van Beynen's opinion. That quote is better. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)