Talk:Bain family murders/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Renaming again

Since David Bain was found not guilty, and the trial judge said David and Robin were the only suspects, that leaves Robin Bain as the likely killer - who according to the defence, then committed suicide. Since a suicide appears to be involved as well as four murders, the title Bain family murders is not entirely accurate. Nor is it neutral. By describing the family as murdered, this title casts the blame onto David - who is not guilty. A new name is required. Turtletop (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that is so. Four members of the family were clearly murdered, that would seem enough to make the expression "family murders" relevant, without necessarily casting any blame onto either David or Robin (as a title, it would surely be used if an unknown person had murdered them). I'm not sure that most ordinary wiki readers would read anything either way into the title. Melcous (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Turtletop. 'Murders' implies that Robin was murdered too, casting guilt on some unidentified person or David. Since there has never been a suggestion that an outsider was the killer, the term unfairly continues to cast suspicion on David, who is entitled to the presumption of innocence after the not guilty verdict. Akld guy (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In the previous section abut renaming, various editors suggested that the name of the article should be changed because Bain was notable for only one event (the murders). This is not a valid observation. David Bain has been the topic of media speculation for 20 years and he has become notable for a variety of reasons: the accusation that he murdered his entire family; numerous appeals including going to the Privy Council, the extraordinary support of Joe Karam who wrote four books about the case; the Privy Council decision that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice; the retrial at which he was found not guilty; the appointment of Judge Ian Binnie to review his claim for compensation; the involvement of three separate Ministers of Justice in the compensation claim; the controversy over Judith Collins refusal to accept Judge Binnie's conclusions; the unprecedented appointment of a second judge to review his compensation, etc.

David Bain's story is a long running saga involving an extraordinary miscarriage of justice, that 20 years later is still unresolved (because the Govt seems reluctant to pay him compensation). To describe all this as one event is incomprehensible. David Bain has been notable for events spanning 20 years and I propose we go back to the original title. Turtletop (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In my response above I assumed you wanted to change to 'Bain family killings' or similar. You had given no hint that you wanted to revert to 'David Bain'. Your justification for doing so, that he has been known for 20 years for a multitude of notable events is ludicrous, since all of them are based on one event that happened on 20 June 1994. I don't support reverting to 'David Bain' but do support changing to 'Bain family killings'. Akld guy (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have already suggested the title be renamed The Bain family killings. As for Turtletop's comment that Robin Bain is the most likely killer, that is a ludicrous suggestion. Take a piece of foolscap paper, draw a line down the middle, write up the evidence that points to David Bain as being the perpetrator on the left side of that line and the evidence that points to Robin Bain as being the perpetrator on the right side of that line, you will run out of room on the left side and have virtually a blank space on the right side.

Also, it is incorrect to say the government is reluctant to pay compensation. Justice Binnie made a number of obvious errors and incorrect assumptions in his report, as well as not following the guidelines as instructed, so that left cabinet with no alternative but to appoint another judge to review Bain's compensation claim. If Judge Callinan finds that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities I am sure he will be paid compensation for the 13 years he was in jail.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose going back to David Bain. The article in its current state is about the killings, trial, appeal and retrial. If it is decided that David Bain is notable in his own right (which he might be) then the redirect can be turned into an article, but it has to be a proper article, not a WP:Coatrack. Am neutral about using killings or murder. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Suppressed evidence

Melcous: your alterations to the suppressed evidence now seemingly make the content more neutral. However, this evidence was suppressed at the trial. Bain has been found not guilty - so I'm not sure that it is relevant or suitable in a BLP.Turtletop (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While that evidence was suppressed at the retrial the suppression was lifted immediately afterwards. It goes to show that David Bain was considering using his paper round as an alibi. Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Turtletop - I wasn't 100% sure at first either, so we can discuss it here, but in the end, a wikipedia article is based what reliable sources say and as this has apparently been reported in newspapers, and is, I think relevant, so I would lean towards including it, as long as it is done in a neutral way. Melcous (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And Mr Magoo, the purpose of including it is not what it "goes to show" - that is not how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not trying to show or prove anything about Bain or anyone else. I think maybe you could both consider taking a step back from this article for a while? It could also be worth looking at some of the core guidelines of what wikipedia is and isn't about - see neutrality, verifiability and no original research. As a non-expert reader on this topic, this article to me seems to be close to losing sight of the forest for the trees - while there are debates here over minute details, obvious things that an encyclopaedia article should cover (e.g. which court the trial took place in) were not even mentioned. Melcous (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In my view (and that of the judge) the source is not reliable and the content is a clear breach of BLP. One of the two men who made this claim (Buckley) took 17 years to come forward with his allegation. In that the court suppressed the claims by the other chap (Taylor), the judge clearly doubted its authenticity. This material is much more of a BLP concern than anything about Laniet and, in that Bain was found not guilty, is potentially defamatory. I have removed the material on this basis: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Turtletop (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Mark Buckley took 17 years to come forward is not relevant. There were a number of witnesses that testified at the retrial who did not testify at the trial. The judge wanted the jury to hear Buckley's testimony but was over-ruled.

I will reinstate that section, but will not refer to Taylor [ who did come forward in 1994,as it happens, and I have a copy of his statement in my files] because David Bain did not tell him of his proposed alibi. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the Suppressed Evidence section has been removed again for some unknown reason, I am reinstating it.Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Melcous, @Aircorn, @Akld guy, Can other editors please comment on the perceived relevance of this section. Mr Maggoo insists on reinstating it even though it has been removed half a dozen times. In my opinion it is potentially defamatory and at the very least is a breach of WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not the place to be making unfounded rape allegations.

Considering there are numerous other important pieces of evidence presented at multiple court hearings which are not included in this article for space reasons, I can see no reason to include testimony that was never presented at any trial. It is nothing more than a historical piece of trivia. Considering that the person who made the allegation took 14 years after the murders to come forward with it, this allegation is also of very dubious authenticity. Turtletop (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The goal here is to come to consensus - rather than going back and forth between one editor putting in his preferred version and another removing it. I have removed what Mr Maggoo put back for now, as that version is not neutral and possibly breaches WP:BLP. @Mr Maggoo:, you cannot have the article stating in wikipedia's voice "David Bain told friends" - for starters, none of the sources say that. If it is included, it needs to be made clear that those are the statements made by potential witnesses, that the judge decided their testimony was too prejudicial and suppressed it, and that the suppression order was later lifted. On the other hand, @Turtletop:, I don't think just deleting it and arguing it is defamatory is the way to go. It has been reported in reliable sources, it is now public knowledge (since the suppression order was lifted) and therefore it is not defamatory to include it, if it is done in a neutral way with the context explaining why it was suppressed. Personally I think it should be included but in a neutral way. I have attempted to do this, but you two have either deleted or gone back to your preferred versions, so I'm not sure what else I can do. For me, this one section of the article is a good example of how I feel about the whole thing - it is becoming a battleground between two single purpose editors who each have a particular perspective on this article and are not listening to other editors who are trying to help them understand things like neutrality. My preferred course of action would be for the two of you to both take a break from editing this article, maybe get some experience editing other articles on topics you are not so personally invested in to gain some experience on how wikipedia works. But it doesn't look like that is going to happen unless things get so bad that you are both topic banned, which may well be where this is headed if something doesn't change. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has actually said that important pieces of evidence have been left out for space reasons, but I do take your point. Evidence about the spectacle lens, the fingerprint on the gun, and the size (David's feet or Robin's?) of the bloody footprints on the carpet doesn't appear, and I think that's for the best lest we boggle the minds of readers with too much evidentiary detail. An alternative is this. Split the article up. Keep 'Bain family murders' solely for a presentation of the family background, investigation and evidence. Give only the barest details of the (first) trial, the appeal processes, the Privy Council judgement, retrial, Binnie report, etc, but with links to pages that present them in detail. That way, editors can expand eg. Binnie's report and Collins' response to their hearts' content without infringing on the main article. That would leave much more space in it for the investigation and evidence. Let's also not forget that the case hasn't ended. We have the Callinan report coming sometime, and who knows what after that? Therefore, splitting it up seems right to me. Now as to the Suppressed Evidence allegation, I'm all for presenting the reader with all the evidence, but I think it unbalances the article in its present state because we don't have evidence that tended to exonerate David Bain, such as the Mrs. Laney(?) timing evidence. My preference is that the Suppressed Evidence allegation not be included unless we split up the article as I described and thus have space to do a fairer job of presenting much more evidence than we currently present. Akld guy (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Minor edit to fix a couple of oops Akld guy (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• We need to get consensus to include this before we can add it in as WP:BLP has been invoked and is relevant. This has been presented in a reliable secondary source[1] so I think there is scope to mention something about it. To me it becomes more a question of WP:weight and presentation. I strongly disagree with giving it its own section and title. If it is to be included it should be added to a relevant section. It definitely needs to be attributed and brief, maybe a sentence or two. This version has no place in the article and was correctly removed and should not be re-inserted. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If WP:BLP is relevant then it is a breach of BLP to mention it, no matter what the source, and no matter how you phrase it. Just because it has been mentioned in the media does not mean it is not defamatory - only a court can decide that. And David Bain is not about to sue anyone to find out.

In regard to 'weight', when the Privy Council said there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice in this case, that decision was based on a review of nine different pieces of evidence. Only two of them are mentioned in this article - those referring to Robin Bain's (the father) state of mind and his possible motive for murder (the revelation of his incestuous relationship with his daughter). In the retrial that followed, there were six key points considered by the jury. Only one of them is discussed in this article - Robin Bain's possible motive.

ALL of the evidence excluded from this article was hotly contested in court but there simply isn't room to include it in this article. The tiny piece of testimony we are discussing was suppressed. Its reliability was so doubtful it never even got to court. In regard to its relevance or weight therefore, to include it would give it a weight and authenticity it does not deserve. WP:UNDUE says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Forgot to sign - added later.Turtletop (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the right amount of weight means no weight. It is WP:Verifiable information so it could be used.. Anyway, WP:BLPCRIME applies here and from my reading it says we must seriously consider not including this material. AIRcorn (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the (unsigned) post above, and it's more or less what I said in my previous post. I think the only way to present the evidence fairly is to split up the article so that the trial/appeals/retrial/Binnie/Callinan appear on a different page, or even on individual pages of their own depending on the extent to which editors expand them. That would give us far more space to present the seven 'different pieces of evidence' and the five 'key points' that the above editor says there currently isn't space for. Akld guy (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all I did not enter David Bain "told friends". I typed "told a friend." There is no doubt that evidence is important because it tells us that David Bain had been considering using his paper round as an alibi which of course it was what the Crown said he did a few years later. There is also suppressed evidence where [violation of BLP removed by AIRcorn (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)]. That should go in as well. It was a major talking point after the trial. TV1 interviewed Mark Buckley, Kirsten Koch and Gareth Taylor , and I can cite that interview, but of course there are plenty of newspaper reports referring to it. In my opinion it would be a travesty if it was left out. It should follow the retrial section which is where it was. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Words removed [....] thus by User:Akld guy. Akld guy (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It was still pretty obvious what the sentence said so I removed it further. AIRcorn (talk)

David Bain's lawyers did not want that suppressed evidence released but they were over-ruled. http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/transcripts/supreme-court-transcripts-2009/SC-13-2009-David-Cullen-Bain-v-The-Queen-11-June.0.pdfMr Maggoo (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, that allegation of threatening with a rifle is a serious allegation to make even on a Talk page. I want to see a reference for that please, otherwise I will delete it. Please understand that my asking for a reference does not necessarily indicate that I don't believe you. It's simply that I must ask for the ref. Akld guy (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo you need to start reading, and if possible trying to understand Wikipedia's policies. Your opinion needs to be based on which wiki policy applies to this situation. You have repeated your opinion (and your editing) over and over again but you have not quoted a single wikipedia policy that supports your position.

There is a clear consensus that this material breaches WP:BLP. Have you read that link? Aircorn says WP:BLPCRIME applies. Have you read that link? WP:UNDUE also aplies. Have you read that link? As Akld guy pointed out what you are doing is called flogging a dead horse. Did you read that link? Until you can support your 'opinion' based on wiki policies, nothing you say will be taken seriously by other editors. Turtletop (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop, stop trying to tell me what Wikipedia's rules are when you ignore them yourself. The fact is that you don't want that suppressed evidence on the main page because it points to David Bain previously considering using his paper run as an alibi. And David Bain's lawyers tried hard to stop the release of that suppressed evidence as well for the very same reason.Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a consensus among four different editors that it breaches wiki rules. Turtletop (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the video of that TVNZ documentary re the suppressed evidence. Now can anyone tell me how I can be be breaching any rules by citing that documentary. Auckland guy, I see the word used was intimidating, not threatening. http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/videoMr Maggoo (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, you quoted it on this page as 'threatening', and now you're correcting me for misquoting??? What a cheek. Akld guy (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Auckland guy, do I have to spell everything out to you in words of one syllable? I was simply saying that the word used [by the witness, not you ] was intimidating and not threatening [the word I had used] . I apologise for not making that clearer, though I did think you would understand what I was saying without me having to go into more detail. Obviously I was wrong.

Now is anyone able to explain to me why I can not cite that documentary? And please don't refer me to some page of gobbledygook.

Just explain to me in layman's terms why I would be breaching the rules by citing that documentary. Thank you. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, without making clear that you had misquoted by using 'threatening', you tried to make it appear that I had used the wrong word. And now you have compounded that by making it appear I didn't understand you. None of your recent edits or posts on this page have been constructive to the DB article. Akld guy (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There you go again, accusing me of something I did not do. I admit that I probably should have made it clearer, but I certainly was not trying to make it appear that you had used the wrong word, and I take offence at you making that accusation and would ask that you apologise. What's more, I was not trying to make it appear you didn't understand me, you obviously didn't understand me. And as for none of my edits being constructive, that is just your opinion. I could say the same thing about you, but I won't. Now, for the third time, can anyone explain to me in plain terms why I would be breaching the rules if I cited that documentary.Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I very much doubt that anyone will explain anything to you until you read the relevant wikipedia policies. You could start with this one - WP:RESPECT. Here's another helpful one: WP:Golden Rule. Turtletop (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at one too (WP:civility). Can everyone just concentrate on the edits and leave the other stuff out of it. This talk page is a mess as it is. AIRcorn (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to concentrate on editing. For the fourth time is there any reason why I can't set up a paragraph relating to the suppressed evidence? It is very important that anyone reading the main article are aware that David Bain had been considering using his paper run as an alibi. And that he had been intimidating his family with his rifle. Bain's lawyers tried to keep that evidence suppressed but the Chief Justice over-ruled them . I am able to cite a reliable website, I would probably cite newspaper articles. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Re suppressed evidence. There has been plenty of discussion, no-one has been able to give me a good reason why I cannot reinstate the paragraph, so I will do so in the not too distant future. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you insert this again you will be edit warring - please read the consequences of that. Wikipedia works by consensus, which means it actually doesn't matter if you think there is a good reason, you need to get other editors to agree before you can put this back in. And you have been given good reasons - for starters, you are putting it in in a way that makes it sound like this is an agreed, uncontroversial fact, when it is very clear that it is a witness statement that was highly controversial (hence the suppression order). If you do not understand the difference between wikipedia saying "David Bain told..." and "X said that David Bain said..." you should not be editing wikipedia. As I have stated numerous times, I would be open to a neutral version of this being included, however other editors have disagreed, and noted some wikipedia policies that say we should be very careful about including that kind of information. So the consensus at the moment it to leave it out, which I am happy to agree with. Melcous (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Too late, I have already inserted in. Had you replied a couple of days ago then I would have left it out. I guess you will just remove it again. I can easily change that to a witness said that David Bain told him and a witness said that Arawa told her.

I don't agree that the consensus is to leave it out. I am quite happy for you to change the wording as you see fit. So that is two of us that agree it can be in. Turtletop doesn't want it in for obvious reasons. That's two for and one against. On top of that I have been told that I don't need to get a consensus where I am citing a reliable source but that I should try to. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, I have changed the wording, and as you and I agree it can be in [and in fact you did insert it yourself a few days ago though you said that two friends mentioned the alibi when in fact there was only one] I see no reason why it cannot be left as is.Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No! I have not agreed it should be in, I have in fact stated clearly above that the consensus is to leave it out (even though I was originally ok with one version of it). You have not understood my point about neutrality either, you have not changed the wording to make it neutral, you have not provided any context. But that is not the point - consensus means you would need to get agreement from other editors here on the talk page for the wording BEFORE you re-add it, even if you have to wait a few days for that to happen. If you put it in again, I will have to report you for edit warring and you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Turtletop, User: Aircorn and User:Akld guy have all said they think it should be left out. I am agreeing with them. That is a clear consensus. You are the only one wanting it in. You have also not at all been happy for me to "change the wording as I see fit" as every time I did so, you reverted to your own version. Just drop it. Melcous (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) My preference is that it be KEPT OUT AT THIS STAGE. Much more significant and trustworthy evidence is not even in the article at all, so it would present an unbalanced version of the evidence. Akld guy (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Melcous, please do not accuse me of doing something I didn't do. I did not remove your version or even edit your version. I simply pointed out [see below] that your version was incorrect. Two days ago I noticed your version had been deleted, but I didn't delete it .

All I did was reinstate my own version. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems incredible to me that the Chief Justice of New Zealand agreed that the suppressed evidence could be reported on by the media and yet Auckland guy is suggesting it is not trustworthy. I have no problem with anyone citing that article re anything else that is on it. If there is any evidence that is untrustworthy it is that statement by Dean Cottle yet no-one on here except me seems to have any problem with it being cited. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I note that Wikipedia David Bain circa 2010 did include those statements made by Buckley and Koch, which begs the question "If it was OK to include them then why is it not OK to include them now?" Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mr Maggoo. If it was OK to include them 2010 why is it not relevant to include them now? DirkDirkin (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No reply I see, why am I not surprised. I will ask that question again and will keep asking it until someone decides to reply.

If it was OK to include the suppressed evidence back in 2010 why is it not OK to include it now? I mean that suppressed evidence could have been there for years with no-one complaining about it but all of a sudden it becomes a contentious issue. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, please stop making comments like "No reply" and "why am I not surprised." Lots of wiki editors are busy people who are not always able to reply quickly, and you have added many comments and questions all over this talk page which doesn't always make it easy to follow. Again, assume good faith. The short answer to your question is that wikipedia is an ongoing project, seeking to constantly improve. Just because things were one way before is not a good reason to keep them that way, or make them that way again. For example, people have added articles to wikipedia and it has taken years for people to notice that they were complete hoaxes and then delete them. So the question is not how it was before, but how do we best apply the guidelines right now and reach a consensus. Melcous (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Sometimes replies are made pdq which made me think that the reason why no-one had replied to to my question was because it had been placed in the too hard basket. The problem I have is that I don't believe anything has changed re the suppressed evidence . It was released to the media immediately after the retrial, caused a furore at the time, and in my opinion should definitely be part of the article. It isn't a hoax and deleting it does not improve the article. I made the point when I was replying to a comment by you [and others] re the opening paragraphs at the bottom of this page that I had made a comment in the suppressed evidence section so as to alert you to the fact it was there.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Suppressed Evidence exists as Fact and should be allowed on this Wiki and is relevent.. This is not a court room and it is vital to the understanding of the POV of both Prosecution and Defence in the case and what was missing that might have made a difference. If people are interested give them the full story that was not allowed in the court room for pathetic reasons - it should be included..Nathan735

Personally I always find the release of previously suppressed evidence from a trial to be of significant interest, it provides insight into the initial sparring that would have gone on in the trial, it also generates useful debate about whether the judge was correct to suppress the evidence, and interesting speculation on whether the outcome of the trial would have been the same had the suppression order not been made. It is a fact that there was suppressed evidence, the material is not trivial in my view, there doesn't seem to be any doubt as to what that evidence was, so on that basis in my view it should be included. Peterno500 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC) My view has always been that the suppressed evidence was a mistake by the judge. If the jurors had heard that commentary a different verdict could have prevailed. I believe that as most followers of the case know of the suppressed evidence that it serves no purpose to omit it. Farmer56 (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I also believe previously suppressed evidence is essential for an accurate record of the case. It includes: a similar alibi plan by David to commit a serious crime; a segment from David's 111 call which many hear as "I shot the Prick" be edited out of the recording the jury heard; evidence from an experienced Victim Support worker that David was not behaving as a victim would; evidence David was intimidating his family with the rifle later used to kill them; David stood to gain hundreds of thousands of dollars inheritance from the killings of the family. Also, a juror failed to disclose a previous serious dishonesty conviction, which should have disqualified her. All this is relevant to understanding the case. DiscoStuart (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mr Maggoo. His points and links are totally relevant DirkDirkin (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Influx of single purpose accounts - please stop

Whats up with the new new accounts that only make edits to this article? I haven't noticed anything much in the news recently[2] so it is very suspicious. If someone is making multiple accounts or canvassing for outside support, please stop. They are likely to be ignored and will ultimately weaken your position as editors here dislike this type of disruption and take it very seriously. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Allrighthen (talk · contribs) DiscoStuart (talk · contribs) Farmer56 (talk · contribs) Peterno500 (talk · contribs) Nathan735 (talk · contribs) AIRcorn (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does look quite suspicious that among the editors discussing the issue of the suppressed evidence here there was a consensus that the suppressed evidence should not be included, with only one editor disagreeing, and then suddenly in the next few days no less than 5 brand new editors have joined the discussion to agree with that editor. Given that other editors have also cited various wikipedia policies as to why the information should not be included and these have not been addressed by any of the new editors, I can't see any weight for re-opening the discussion at this point, and in fact the sheer number of new editors would make me tend towards dismissing this as someone possibly trying to canvas or votestack. Melcous (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all there was hardly a consensus that the suppressed evidence should not be included. Originally Melcous was for including it and actually did include it ,albeit incorrectly. and then changed his/her mind. Auckland guy was non-committal but didn't want it included at this time. Turtledove and Aircorn were against including it and I was for including it.

Aircorn, you have pinged five commenters, are all those commenters new to Wikipedia? I mean I can remember Farmer 56 having commented before. In fact Turtledove accused me of being him , plus three other commenters before Auckland guy did some research and found his accusations were baseless. I would suggest that perhaps none of the commenters you have pinged are new to Wikipedia. Auckland guy did make the point that people could be on holiday, perhaps those people are now back and that is the reason they are commenting. Could I make the point again, if the Chief Justice agreed that the media could report on that suppressed evidence, then surely it should be able to be included in an article on the Bain killings. Where in WP BLP Crime does it state that suppressed evidence should not be referred to? As a matter of interest does WP have a section headed If all else fails then to reach a consensus use common sense? Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course I myself am what you would call a single purpose account. I only joined Wikipedia last month and the reason I did so was because I was made aware that the article on David Bain was not neutral. Having written a book on the Bain killings I believed I might be able to assist in some way. The last time I looked at that article was in 2010 and it was neutral then. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Just looking at those editors that Aircorn has taken it on himself/herself to ping [not assuming good faith] I can't find where Allrighthen has made a comment in the suppressed evidence section. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Mate I have been here over five years so I know dodgy tactics when I see them. Click on the contribs tab next to each editor and you will see that the vast majority of their edits are to this article and they have only recently joined. There is nothing bad faith about about pinging, in fact it is the right thing to do when discussing other editors. What is bad faith would be me saying that I think you are recruiting other editors to support you at this article. If you are please stop it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have looked at those editors contributions as suggested.

Allrighten commenced 29 Jan, 2 contributions, neither relating to suppressed evidence. Discostuart commenced 27 Jan 2 contributions both re suppressed evidence. Farmer56 commenced 29 Nov a number of contributions. Peterno 500 commenced 25 Jan 8 contributions, only 1 re suppressed evidence. Nathan735 commenced 12 Jan 2 contributions , 1 re suppressed evidence. I don't really see any pattern here. I would suggest all these editors are genuine in that they believe the suppressed evidence should be in that article. And I ask again, where in WP BLP Crime does it state that suppressed evidence that has since been released to the public cannot be cited?

We see what we want to see. "...editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." AIRcorn (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem I have with that is that a conviction may have been secured if that evidence had not been suppressed. Had the Chief Justice not agreed that the suppressed evidence be released then obviously very few people would have known about that alibi and there would have been no discussion about including it on Wikipedia. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Nobody is suggesting, or ever suggested, that David Bain committed a crime. The suppressed evidence (which was eventually released into the public domain) was that David had told school friends that he could use his paper run as an alibi for committing a serious offence. Nobody has ever suggested that he committed any such offence. All we would be reporting is the witnesses' allegations that he had said such a thing. Entirely different from what you're basing your objection on. Akld guy (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrial section

There is far too much emphasis on Dean Cottle in that section. He didn't even testify at the trial, so couldn't be cross-examined. I suggest that we put in extracts of the final addresses of the Crown and defence and perhaps even an extract from the judge's summing up, and delete any reference to Dean Cottle. I mean if we are going to leave Cottle's statement in then that leaves the door open for a whole lot of more important testimony to be put in, and where will it all end? We will end up with a page on the retrial alone. Besides, whoever put that stuff about Cottle in probably never obtained a consensus to do so in the first place. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I note the Retrial section in David Bain Wikepdia circa 2010 starts off with a paragraph announcing the retrial followed by paragraphs headed Appeals and Court applications, followed by Opening statements . The only testimony is that made by the teacher at Laniet's school. Then there is a heading Verdict. I would suggest that what was there then is better than what is there now. I would leave out testimony altogether. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You have me (and probably everyone reading this) at a disadvantage, since we do not have the 2010 version you have. Rather than making comparisons with historical pages, it would be better to concentrate on making constructive updates to the current page. If that means more evidence that fills the article, we may be able to deal with that by splitting off some of the legal material onto another page or pages. For example, we could stop the article at the point where the Privy Council judgement was handed down, and put the retrial, Binnie/Collins, Amy Adams/Fisher, and Callinan when it arrives, on another page. Akld guy (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, but does that mean I am going to have to type everything up on here and then get a consensus before I enter the details on the main page? So far as the retrial is concerned I believe it should start with excerpts from the opening statements of both the Crown and the defence, then maybe something "The retrial lasted three months, with 130 witnesses being called by the Crown and 54 by the defence. The last evidence was presented on 27 May 2009."

Then perhaps excerpts from the closing statements from the prosecutor and defence lawyer Michael Reed, then maybe excerpts from the judge's summing up , then the verdict. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, everyone has had time to reply. Is it OK for me to start rewriting the retrial section? I have had second thoughts about entering excepts from the opening statements, I believe excerpts from the closing statements should be enough. Better to leave out testimony altogether, but if others don't agree then I will type in some more testimony seeing as a precedence has been set. Also , Justice Panckhurst just read Cottle's statement out, so it wasn't according to him, it was according to Cottle. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Retrial 2009 section currently contains no evidence but Cottle's statements being read out, plus several unnamed witnesses who lent credence to Cottle. I'm not opposed to more going in, but the article is already very long. We don't have the luxury of being able to write a book here. How much stuff do you intend to insert? How many witnesses? You say you want to insert opening statements. Will that simply be a rehash of what appears earlier? Akld guy (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, not a rehash. If we remove Cottle's statement and that other testimony, then I thought maybe enter excerpts from the closing statements which will cover the main points. So we leave the opening sentence as is, then maybe a sentence re the length of the retrial and number of witnesses called, then excerpts from the closing statements, then leave the rest as is. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification whatsoever for the removal of the reading of Cottle's 1994 statement and 1995 affidavit, and the other testimony that tended to support it. It formed an important part of the jury's not guilty decision. Akld guy (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't know why the jury came to a not guilty decision. According to one juror it was because the Crown had not proved that David Bain was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. She also said that Robin Bain wasn't on trial. So it is quite possible the jury did not believe those stories Laniet told about being raped by her father, raped by a family friend , etc.,etc. But if you insist on leaving Cottle's statement in then obviously some more testimony must be allowed in, otherwise that section is biased in favour of David Bain.Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest reference to this article be entered on the main page. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10848471Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I explicitly said above that 'I'm not opposed to more going in' and have said elsewhere that 'significant and much more trustworthy evidence' does not even appear at all. So I'm not opposed to more evidence going in. You just shouldn't be editing out material that belongs in the article in order to fit it in. Akld guy (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

One concern I have is that we run the risk of overwhelming the reader with evidence, but we can perhaps break the article up by creating a 'Retrial 2009' page and linking to it. Akld guy (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I just add a reminder to editors here - most of you seem to know a lot about this case and its details, and you likely have particular views about it, but the goal of this article is to be neutral and to provide information that is understandable to the widest possible audience. So it might be worth trying to step back and think about how someone who doesn't know anything about the case would read the article. I personally think there is currently way too much detailed information in it and that too much of it appears as if it is trying to prove "whodunnit" (whichever way) rather than providing a neutral overview, which really detracts from its readability. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion that article is reasonably neutral up to the Retrial section and then it becomes non-neutral because at least one third of that section is taken up by Dean Cottle's statement and testimony from prostitutes which may have had no bearing on the jury's decision. A person who didn't know anything about the case would think that Cottle's statement was the main reason David Bain was found not guilty. As the one jury member who has spoken out has said, Robin Bain wasn't on trial. The way I see it we can do one of two things. Keep all testimony out and just enter excerpts from the closing statements or put more testimony in. I would not be opposed to breaking the article up and dedicating a page to the retrial. Then we could have the most important evidence in, together with excerpts from the closing statements and the judge's summing up, and then maybe the suppressed evidence [ which I see now has a majority in favour of it being in the article] and that jurors comment.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, so where are we at with this. At the moment the retrial section is not neutral. Do we delete it altogether and create a Retrial 2009 page as suggested by Auckland guy or do we leave out all the evidence which will result in a considerable reduction in content, which may, of course, be desirable, given the length of the article. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

At present we have the following sections that contain large amounts of testimony: First trial 1995, Privy Council 2007, Retrial 2009. There is also Judge Binnie's report 2012, which also contains evidence but could be expanded. I think we are overwhelming the reader with historical testimony, when the emphasis has shifted to the legal maneouverings of recent years. I would suggest that we create pages for the First trial 1995, the Privy Council 2007, the Retrial 2009, and perhaps Judge Binnie's report 2012. Readers who are interested in those historical events can click the link and go there for a detailed analysis. Remember, we have Callinan's report coming, which will likely contain another detailed analysis of evidence and there will be extensive comment by all parties concerned, which will add to the size of the article. A breakup is the only way to deal with this. Akld guy (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

On a re-read, I think it's better to leave the First trial 1995 section as it is. It sums up the Crown and Defence cases quite well. But perhaps the Privy Council 2007 section should be transferred to a new article. Akld guy (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So what have we decided re the retrial section? Leave the testimony that is already there in and add to it? I would be inclined to put it in in chronological order and only the main points and I could more or less use the closing statements as a reference. I would need to enter both the case for the Crown and the case for the defence. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, here is what I intend to do providing there are no objections. I will go through the transcript day by day and list the most important evidence , then find a link to it, then edit the retrial section with testimony from witnesses for both the Crown and the defence. I will just add a bit at a time, see how it looks. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Object. I've said several times that we're already overwhelming the reader with evidence and that we're not writing a book. We need enough evidence to show why the Privy Council, retrial, and Justice Binnie reached the conclusions they did, and I think we've reached that point. Too much intricate detail will not be appreciated by the reader, who can refer to the many references listed if he/she wants to go to that level of analysis. Akld guy (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you go back to the opening sentence in this section you will see where I have said there is too much emphasis on Dean Cottle in the retrial section. His statement was only a minor part of the case and as I have said before he did not appear so could not be cross-examined. So to make the retrial section neutral we either need to remove any reference to him [ and testimony from those prostitutes] or we insert more important evidence. Anyone reading the retrial section at the moment would think the only matter of any importance was Dean Cottle's statement when in fact it is quite possible it had no bearing on the jury's decision whatsoever. Another point,[which I have made before] I wonder if whoever inserted that statement ever got consensus to do so in the first place. As I see it the easiest solution is to basically delete what is in that section apart from the first paragraph and the verdict. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As that juror who was interviewed said, Robin Bain wasn't on trial. She said the reason why the jury found David Bain not guilty was because they felt the Crown had not proved he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And probably the main reason/s why the jury came to that conclusion was because all the evidence that pointed to David Bain as being the perpetrator was disputed, right from the broken glasses in his room, the lens from those glasses in Stephen's room, Stephen's blood on his clothes , the bruises on his head, his premonition that something terrible was going to happen,the fact he waited 20 minutes before he phoned the emergency services, etc.,etc. Now I feel anyone reading the article should be made aware of that, but if that causes a problem because it makes the article too long, then I won't argue with that, but what we can't have is an unbalanced and non neutral retrial section. So either we put more evidence in or we take out the evidence that is already there,specially as it may have had no bearing whatsoever on the Jury's decision. Simple as. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, so what is more acceptable. for me to add more evidence or for me to delete the evidence that is already there? As it stands the retrial section is neither balanced nor neutral and needs to be changed. Personally my preference would be to add more evidence as I believe that would give the reader a better insight as to why Bain was found not guilty. As it stands at the moment a reader would be under the impression that Dean Cottle's statement had something to do with the jury's decision when in fact that statement probably had no bearing on the jury's verdict.Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say delete the evidence. What the section should be is a summary from reliable sources, so for example what did newspapers at time report in their summaries, rather than an inclusion of all the details from primary sources. these are linked to and interested people can read them, but an encyclopaedia article should summarise the relevant facts as told by the sources - where and when was the retrial, what was the basic gist of what happened, what was the result. I have been having a go at doing something like that for the Privy Council section and will post my proposed version here on the talk page shortly so you can see what I mean. Melcous (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's delete the evidence. Certainly saves me a lot of time.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new article for Privy Council section

I propose to create a new article called 'David Bain Privy Council judgement'. The intention is to shift almost all of the material in the current 'Privy Council 2007' section into it with a link from there to the new article. That should remove some of the testimony out of the current article, which in my view overwhelms the reader with testimony. I'd like suggestions on whether this is a good move or not, whether the name is appropriate or not, or your choice of a different name. Akld guy (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with that , except that all the points made by the Privy Council should be removed and not just some of them. The reason I posted all those other seven points in the first place was because the only points that had been posted previously related to Robin Bain which meant the article was not neutral. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes the intention is to retain everything currently there, so relax. This way, you (or somebody else) could even expand on it without infringing on the main article. Akld guy (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally I can't see why a separate article is a good idea, and I haven't been able to find any examples on wikipedia of separate articles for different judgments about the same case (that doesn't mean there are not any, just not any I could easily find). It suggests to me that what is being proposed here is way too much detail for an encyclopaedia. But I'm no expert on this. What I would suggest is getting some advice from experience editors in this area, most likely through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, before creating any more articles on this topic. Melcous (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose What this article needs is a good trimming, not splitting. AIRcorn (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am easy either way. I think the article is OK down to and including the first trial. The Privy Council could be shortened by leaving the nine points that led to the retrial out altogether. The retrial could be shortened slightly by leaving out statements/testimony. Editors will be aware that I have a copy of the article circa 2010 and it ran to almost 7 foolscap pages without any reference to Binnie's report, etc., so the article was longer then than it is now. It was about the same length up to the end of the trial section as it is now. The retrial section included the opening statements from the prosecution and defence, but virtually no testimony. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that Aircorn is calling for a 'trimming'. I thought that before he arrived on the scene we had been through a process and decided that more evidence needed to be introduced. For a while back then, the only evidence in the article was the Cottle revelations which were cited as though they were the only justification for the Privy Council's finding that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Actually, virtually ALL of the evidence that convicted David Bain was shown to be in doubt. Mr Maggoo has done sterling work in bringing into the article that doubtful evidence. Yes, the article is large, but few cases run to three appeals, a Privy Council hearing, a ministerial appointment of a judge to review the case for compensation, a ministerial rejection of that review, a second appointment of a judge to again review the case for compensation. This case is an exceedingly important one in New Zealand's judicial history.

If Aircorn is unhappy about the present state of the article, perhaps he might like to explain which parts need trimming. Akld guy (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia article, not retelling every detail of the trials. This article has entire paragraphs copyied from the privy council judgement.[3] That is wrong on a few levels, one of the biggest to me is it is a primary source and by not using a secondary source basically original research. It is also very poorly written (i.e The council continued..., Laniet's gurgling noise). This section alone violates some pretty important wikipedia policies. AIRcorn (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A primary source such as the Privy Council judgement is perfectly acceptable so long as no attempt is made to interpret what it says, which would be original research. Here, there appears to have been no attempt to interpret and the PC judgement has been quoted verbatim. No problem. So I'm still at a loss to see what could be trimmed. For size comparison, the article is currently 60.6 Kb, whereas Leo Frank which consists of a similar case of alleged injustice, is 108.5 Kb. Akld guy (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You are choosing the parts of the judgement to use so there is a very real risk of cherry picking and assigning the incorrect WP:weight to details. (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Leo Frank is literally a WP:good article and a good example to follow for writing and sourcing. Look at its sources and you will see they are all WP:secondary. There are no verbatim copies of trial transcripts. Also "various plays, films, and books have been written on or about the [Leo Frank] case over the years". They are not comparable in terms of information available and historical significance. AIRcorn (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested new Privy Council section

I think the article is currently too long and too detailed - the goal is not to repeat the evidence presented, sources are linked to which people can read if they are interested. An encyclopaedia article should summarise what the sources say. So, here is my suggestion for the Privy Council section, taking what is currently there and summarising it. (Rather than WP:BRD, I thought it prudent to get feedback here first, I can guess some editors won't be happy, but you never know - perhaps the best way to resolve some of the controversies of what different editors want to include is to include not much of the contentious stuff at all?? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melcous (talk • contribs)

You have my support as you are basically saying what I am thinking (and was trying to get at above). In my short time watching this article it is apparent that we have two sides (the David did it and the Robin did it). What is happening is that each side is adding material to support their point of view and the article is suffering badly for it. As editors we should not care who did it, we just summarise what reliable sources say in an easy to follow and hopefully logical way. AIRcorn (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am on record in several places on this page (some of it archived) as saying that I have no idea who the perpetrator might have been and am not pointing the finger at either Robin or David. I have been concerned that Turtletop was edit-warring to get as much of Laniet's anti-Robin allegations in as he could by repeating them in several sections. He even edit-warred two or three days ago by reintroducing it to the 'Family background' section against consensus and after a period where that section was stable for a week. Because there is so much of those Laniet allegations throughout the article, all other evidence that implicated David (in the first trial) and later was found to be doubtful (Privy Council, retrial) and led to his acquittal, was not in or was pushed out for space reasons. I take offence, Aircorn, at your very simple analysis that I'm one of those taking a 'side'. I'm not, I can however see that the over-emphasis on that material lop-sided the article. Don't make a dispute over balance of content into a David-did-it versus Robin-did-it thing. You are not helping by stirring up trouble among us. Akld guy (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the Privy Council section being changed as per the quotation below. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Privy Council 2007

In March 2007, Bain's legal team, including Karam, travelled to London to lay out nine arguments before the Privy Council as to why his convictions should be quashed. Two of the nine points concerned Robin Bain's mental state and possible motive. The other seven concerned questions about particular pieces of evidence including the time the computer was switched-on and the time of David's return home, the ownership of a pair of glasses found at the scene, the size of bloody sock prints, bloody fingerprints on the rifle and whether David heard Laniet make a gurgling noise. The Privy Council found that many of these facts were highly contentious and the jury could well have been influenced by them.

The Privy Council concluded that: "In the opinion of the board, the fresh evidence adduced in relation to the nine points ... taken together, compels the conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred in this case." The Privy Council quashed Bain's convictions and ordered a retrial, but noted that he should remain in custody in the mean time.

Recent edits

I note that the Family Deaths section has been edited with incorrect information. The police had nothing to do with the burning down of the house and that while the page of Mask of Sanity that has been cited does refer to a statement published in the ODT , if that statement did say what McNeish says it did, then that statement was incorrect. The police handed the house back to the trustees on 30 June 1994 and it was then up to the trustees what they did with the house. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have re-edited citing a different source. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Support for Joe Karam

I note that an opinion piece by Paul Holmes has been cited as a reference in this section. Some of the comments made by Holmes are incorrect, for example he says that Karam was appalled at the way the police, the family and the Fire Service arranged to burn the house down when the fact is the police were not involved. I would suggest that sentence or at least part of it be deleted. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that the reader does not need to know that Joe Karam has sued anyone. They can read about that on his Wikipedia page.

In fact I wonder if there is any need for that section. Karam is mentioned in the lead, fair enough, and again in the cost to the taxpayer. Again fair enough. But why does the reader need to be aware about the support for Joe Karam.

Another point. If we are going to insist that the reader knows who Karam sued, then we should also let the reader know who sued him.

He was sued by three detectives. He settled with one of those detectives out of court. He offered to settle out of court with the other two detectives but they both considered the amount he offered was not enough so they sued him for defamation. He was found not guilty because the jury accepted his defence of honest belief. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Family background

I edited the family background section a couple of times yesterday but both my edits have been deleted. Before I edit for the third time let me explain my reason for the edit. At the time of the Privy Council Report, which is the source that was cited, it was believed, going by what David Bain had said, that Laniet was home for the weekend prior to the killings, and that is how it was reported by the Privy Council. However, at the retrial, two witnesses who met up with Laniet on the Sunday afternoon prior, said that Laniet had told them that she was going to a family meeting that night that David had called. She said she didn't want to go but that David had insisted she attend. She spoke to another witness later when she was returning to her flat after work and he said she she told him she was going to a family meeting that night. So the facts appear to be, going by what Laniet told those witnesses that Laniet was not at home all that weekend, but only on the Sunday evening. One further point. An aunt of David's testified that she asked David why Laniet was home because she thought she was living at the schoolhouse at Taieri Beach and he replied that he had gone to the Museum Cafe where she worked and asked her to come home. The reason I edited that section was because those testimonies supersede the Privy Council Report . Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're driving at but we're currently citing only the Privy Council judgement as a reference. To accommodate you, we would have to also cite the testimony of those witnesses from the retrial. Two references that don't quite agree might unnecessarily complicate things for a reader who is only at the introductory stage in this 'Family background' section. Might be better to keep it simple, as it is at present. If I'm not mistaken, nothing developed out of the 'David insisted I be there' situation anyway. What significance did it have? Akld guy (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It is of the utmost significance. If David Bain had not insisted Laniet go to that family meeting she said he had called for the Sunday evening she would not have been home and therefore would not have been murdered. The Bain team even tried to get that testimony suppressed at the retrial, and they would not have done that if it wasn't significant. I only want to edit in the testimony of one witness. Perhaps one way round having two conflicting citings is to have the PC as a citing for part of that section[after the words High School] and then cite that witnesses testimony for the part that refers to Laniet.

One member of the Bain team tried to get my book banned for quoting the transcript re that witness, he emailed a bookshop and messaged Trade Me saying I had breached a name suppression order which was a blatant lie and I am still waiting for that supporter to reply to a letter my lawyer sent him regarding compensating me for that malicious email and message. What is the point of leaving only the Privy Council judgement as a reference when, so far as Laniet is concerned, it turns out to be incorrect, not that the Law Lords knew that at the time?Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This would probably be a better source to cite than the one I previously cited because it refers to two witnesses saying much the same thing. Note that they say that Laniet said she did not want to go to that meeting .http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2350772/Laniet-scared-of-BainMr Maggoo (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You are going about this all wrong. You have formed your opinion on the events and are looking for sources that support your opinion. What you should be doing is looking for sources and then summarising them here. If a reliable source has conflicting statements we can't chose the one that suits our point of view and ignore the rest. AIRcorn (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. It is not my opinion , it is what those witnesses testified to under oath. The fact is that prior to the retrial it was thought that Laniet was home that weekend because David had said in his evidence-in-chief that everyone was home on the Saturday. From that statement the Privy Council has assumed Laniet was home that weekend. Even David Bain didn't say that. Another witness did say that he had heard Laniet asking her mother on the phone if it was alright if she came home for tea on the Sunday. And of course Dean Cottle, who never appeared in court, so couldn't be cross-examined, said that Laniet had told him she was going home that weekend, but even if she did tell him that it doesn't mean she was going to be home all weekend. Perhaps the Privy Council has assumed that is what she meant.

Then new evidence was presented at the retrial that Laniet was only reason Laniet was home on the Sunday night was because David had insisted she attend a family meeting that he had called for that evening. As it stands at the moment a reader looking at the article would be under the false impression that Laniet was home that weekend. She wasn't. The reliable sources you are referring to are David Bain and maybe Dean Cottle. Bain is hardly a reliable source seeing as anyone who might have been able to contradict him is no longer alive. Cottle is hardly a reliable source seeing as the judge at the first trial said he didn't believe him. It appears you would prefer to take the word of David Bain and Dean Cottle over the word of those witnesses who testified. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

To summarize. What I am suggesting is that we leave the Privy Council as a source up to and including the words High School. Then I edit along the lines as I already had, say " Laniet was home on the Sunday evening because David had called a family meeting that he insisted she attend" and then cite a reference. There are a number to choose from . I wasn't going to put in the bit about him saying he would drag her there "kicking and screaming" if he had to. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I applaud you for trying to get the record straight. In your knowledge of the case, has David at any time said whether or not he insisted that Laniet be there, and has he said what was the reason for her being there that night after such a long time away and her apparent reluctance to attend. I think it's drawing a long bow to conclude that he insisted she be there because he intended killing the entire family overnight, when there could have been a multitude of other reasons. Do we know for example whether the Sunday was the birthday of one of them and all members were expected to be there for a party? Did the Sunday night have some other significance, perhaps religious? (the murders took place right at the winter solstice). If there is no significance to the weekend/Sunday night distinction, then I think we ought to not make a big deal of it. There are four questions in this post. Akld guy (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. First of all I am not suggesting that David Bain asked Laniet to go to that family meeting because he intended to kill her later. After all what was to stop her going home after that meeting? We will never know why she decided to stay the night but from all I have read it appears that while she may have gone home from time to time after she started living at her flat she had never stayed overnight before. When Bain was asked by Binnie about those witnesses who came forward and said he was the instigator of bringing Laniet home he replied, in part, " I can only assume that at the time my intention towards Laniet would be 'Look, it would be good to have you home ' and encourage her to come home.

No-one was having a birthday. There was no significance about that particular Sunday.

All I am trying to do is set the record straight. Those witnesses testified that Laniet was going home on the Sunday evening to a family meeting that David insisted she attend. At the moment we have the Privy Council version which is based on assumptions. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, there was no significance, so there's no need to draw attention to it. This Wikipedia article can't be all things to all people by including trivial detail, even though that detail would set the record straight. Akld guy (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that even when the Privy Council is in error in that they presumed that Laniet was home that weekend when new evidence proves that she was only home on the Sunday evening then you would rather that error be left there than corrected. So you would rather the reader of that article be misinformed as to the facts. And as for that detail being of a trivial nature, well obviously Justice Binnie did not think it was trivial otherwise he would not have questioned David Bain about it. You are going to have to come up with better reasons than that for withholding that information from the reader. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We are never going to be able to do full justice to this case in an article that probably should not run more than 100KB. To give some idea of the problem, a normal page in a book contains about 2.5KB. That means we are effectively limited to writing a book of about 40 pages. We could easily write a book ten times that size. And no, I haven't read your book and have no idea how many pages it has. Some things just have to be omitted, and in this instance there has been no suggestion that the 'weekend' versus 'Sunday night' discrepancy had any significance. Therefore it's trivial, unless we draw attention to it and make it into some bigger issue. Are you trying to discredit the Privy Council judgement as part of some agenda? Akld guy (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be losing the plot. What has my book got to do with whether the David Bain article should have the correct information in it or not? Entering the correct details in this instance would only mean adding a few more words. As I have already pointed out, it is only your opinion that the Sunday night discrepancy is trivial . Justice Binnie did not think it was trivial. It made the headlines the day those witnesses testified. And I don't understand why you are asking me if I am trying to discredit the Privy Council. The Privy Council did make an error when naming the school that Robin Bain was headmaster of. In this instance it was not so much an error as a incorrect assumption. I have no doubt that had those witnesses testified at the first trial then the Privy Council would have said that Laniet was home on the Sunday night 19 June and not the weekend 18/19 June.

If reducing the size of the article is a problem then I would suggest removing all the evidence from the Third Court of Appeal hearing section and also reducing the size of the Support for Joe Karam section. I mean what has the fact that Karam is a serial litigator got to do with the Bain family killings? That information can be found on the Joe Karam Wikipedia page, there is no need for the duplication. Mind you, he hasn't sued Cameron Slater. http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/01/not-one-cent-amy-not-one-cent/ And the reader does not need to know how much Robert Fisher's girlfriend was paid. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Restart indent Justice Binnie cleared up the discrepancy, that is all. He made nothing of it, because it amounted to nothing. Whether Laniet was there on the Saturday or didn't arrive till the Sunday ultimately had no bearing on the case. I cannot see why you want to draw attention to a triviality when we need to keep space reserved for Callinan's report which will come sometime, and perhaps any litigation that might follow it. You did say above that if Laniet had not been home overnight, she would not have been murdered. I fail to see what the significance of that is. Akld guy (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest the reason why Binnie asked Bain if he was the instigator in bringing Laniet home was because he wanted to know why Laniet was home that particular night. A bit of a co-incidence, don't you think , that Laniet was murdered on the very night that David Bain had insisted she be at home. We don't know why she ended up staying the night, David Bain could have suggested she stay the night seeing as she was home. I would also point out that David Bain never mentioned a family meeting, so it would appear that was a ruse to get Laniet to come home that evening. Laniet was not there on the Saturday night because she was seen coming walking to work from the direction of her flat on the Sunday. She would not have walked to work from 65 Every Street. She was also seen walking back to her flat after work. David Bain did not tell Binnie that Laniet was at home on the Saturday.

The significance in Laniet being home on the Sunday evening is that she was murdered in her bed the next morning. If she hadn't been home she would not have been murdered and the only reason she was home is because David Bain had insisted she attend a family meeting he said he had called. As a compromise could I suggest that rather than say, I mention David Bain as being the reason she was home, I just edit along the lines "Laniet had come home on the evening of 19 June to attend a family meeting". That makes it sort of neutral. So far as freeing up space is concerned, see my suggestion re the Support for Joe Karam section above. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have also tried to free up a bit of space by deleting evidence from the Third Court of Appeal section but someone keeps editing it back in. I started by editing in more evidence so as to provide balance but someone kept deleting that. Either we have no evidence or we have evidence relating to both the Crown and the defence. Same as with the retrial section where we agreed to delete all the evidence.

I also deleted part of an edit I made in the Robert Fisher section because I noticed later that it was duplicated in the Cost to taxpayer section.

Someone has reinserted that delete so I have deleted it again for the same reason as I deleted it in the first place.Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the Third Court of Appeal section to provide balance. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I see my edit has been deleted again so I have deleted the other evidence to provide balance.

I see that duplication re Key saying that David Bain would have to virtually prove his father did it to get compensation that I deleted has been reinstated. I have decided to leave as is, although why any editor thinks it is necessary for the reader to read the same thing twice is anybody's guess. Looks like a bit of stupidity to me.

As three witnesses testified that Laniet had told them she was going home on the Sunday evening to attend a family meeting, I have taken a commonsense approach and edited that in rather than have the reader be misinformed with incorrect information. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the Third Court of Appeal section is not neutral again so to remedy that I will edit it again. Otherwise all good, though I still wonder about the need for so much info in the Support for Joe Karam section. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I was the person who reinserted the Prime Minister's remarks that the Bain team would have to prove...etc. I did not realise at the time that the remarks were duplicated elsewhere in the article. This situation would have been avoided if you had stated in the edit summary why you deleted it (because of duplication), and I'm glad to see that you have now taken my advice and are adding edit summaries. Akld guy (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Release of Callinan report

On the basis of this morning's news that Justice Minister Amy Adams has received Judge Callinan's report, I have created a new section in the article, 'Justice Callinan's report 2016', and brought the Lead up to date. Some might question the placement of the new section. I thought it was appropriate until someone brings the 'Cost to taxpayer' section up to date by adding in the cost of Callinan's report. Akld guy (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lede

I have added the info about David being out on his paper run when the killings occurred. Without that statement it makes little sense to say he was wrongfully convicted. The reference to the paper run provides necessary context for what follows. Turtletop (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is covered by what follows elsewhere in the article and it is inappropriate to place it in the most conspicuous place simply because of your strongly held views. Akld guy (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with strongly held views. He was found not guilty. It simply makes no sense to say he was wrongly convicted in the lede without giving some context for that statement. If he was out on his paper run - which is a key plank of the defence case on which he was found not guilty - then it follows that he was wrongly convicted. Without that statement (or some version of it), the reader of the lede cannot make sense of the statement that he was wrongly convicted. Many people will not read the rest of the article so it has to be in the lede. Turtletop (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It has everything to do with your strongly held views. Nobody knows whether David was out on his paper run or not. He may have been, or he may have lied convincingly about it. That strong statement does not belong in the Lede, but I will leave it to others to decide. Akld guy (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have re-added this sentence to the lede. "The miscarriage of justice finding and the not guilty verdict provided credence to the long-standing argument put forward by the defence that David's father, Robin Bain, was not murdered, but committed suicide after killing the other family members." It is a key point that rounds off what the lede needs to convey to the casual reader who may not read the whole article. Turtletop (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I will leave both those edits as they are for now. This has become a feud, but I note that Melcous recently removed the text of that second one, so by re-inserting it you have now gone against consensus (Melcous and myself). Akld guy (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Akld guy that these should not be in the lead. And @Turtletop: me being Australian is really not a reason to dismiss my views on this - the question of the lead is about briefly and fairly summarising the content of the article as a whole, not about knowing the case in minute detail. In my view, the problem with including specific details in the lead is then that other editors want other specific details or we get into arguments about which specific details about important. The lead is meant to be a broad summary focusing on the basic facts, which in my opinion do not include what David was doing at the time of the murders. Furthermore, the reference you are using for the statement "The miscarriage of justice finding and the not guilty verdict provided credence to the long-standing argument..." actually says nothing at all about the miscarriage of justice finding or the not-guilty verdict. This makes it a case of WP:OR - you are using the source to "reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Melcous (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop is making assumptions . This creates a feud. I agree that his last edit should not be in the lead, and that if it were in the lead I would have to balance the lead by further editing it. He would then remove my edit and I would then remove his edit . Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the lede/lead again I am wondering why there is any need to duplicate the words "substantial miscarriage of justice".

Could I suggest the first paragraph to be edited as follows."life in prison with a minimum non parole period of 16 years." Then just follow on with the second paragraph . Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is some unnecessary repetition in the first two paragraphs. I do think, however, that the words miscarriage of justice probably need to the in the opening paragraph. My suggestion would be to merge the first two paragraphs by taking the final sentence of the current 2nd paragraph ("The retrial ended...") and moving it to the end of the first, then following that with the first two sentences of the 2nd paragraph about Karam and ending there (i.e. deleting the 3rd and 4th sentences of the 2nd paragraph). Melcous (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Melcous: That's a little hard to follow. Do you mean this:

Bain family murders refers to the deaths of Robin and Margaret Bain and three of their four children - Arawa, Laniet and Stephen - in Dunedin, New Zealand on 20 June 1994. The oldest child, David Cullen Bain aged 22, was charged with their murders. In May 1995 he was wrongfully convicted on five counts of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison and served almost 13 years before the Privy Council declared there had been a 'substantial miscarriage of justice'. He was released on bail in May 2007, pending retrial. The retrial ended with Bain's acquittal on all charges in June 2009.

Soon after Bain was convicted in 1995, his case was taken up by businessman and former All Black footballer Joe Karam, who had been convinced that Bain was innocent. Karam helped Bain navigate a long appeal process through the New Zealand court system and has written four books about the case.

Speculation about the case continued long after Bain was acquitted...

Akld guy (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, yes content wise that was my suggestion. (I was thinking the first two paragraphs as one, but it might be more appropriate to have Karam's involvement as a separate paragraph - I don't mind either way). Melcous (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems odd to place Karam's involvement after the legal process is all completed and David's acquittal. I would prefer to see the Karam paragraph moved up to its chronological position in the first paragraph, like this:

Bain family murders refers to the deaths of Robin and Margaret Bain and three of their four children - Arawa, Laniet and Stephen - in Dunedin, New Zealand on 20 June 1994. The oldest child, David Cullen Bain aged 22, was charged with their murders. In May 1995 he was wrongfully convicted on five counts of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison and served almost 13 years.

Soon after the conviction, his case was taken up by businessman and former All Black footballer Joe Karam, who had been convinced that Bain was innocent. Karam helped Bain navigate a long appeal process through the New Zealand court system and has written four books about the case.

In 2007, the Privy Council declared there had been a 'substantial miscarriage of justice'. Bain was released on bail in May 2007, pending retrial. The retrial ended with Bain's acquittal on all charges in June 2009.

But then, I'm sure Turtletop will object (if he hasn't already) that the "miscarriage of justice" ruling has been pushed down to a position of less prominence. Akld guy (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

An alternative is to leave out the Karam paragraph entirely. Does it really belong in the Lead anyway? Akld guy (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the information about David Bain should be separated like that - chronology isn't necessarily the most important factor in a lead section. As for the short paragraph on Karam, it is a separate section in the article and from the Joe Karam article it seems to be a reasonably major source of his notability so I'd lean towards keeping it in, but that's just my opinion. Melcous (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I think I prefer the Akld guy version except that I would change the first paragraph to read "The oldest child David Bain,aged 22, was arrested four days later and charged with their murders. In May 1995 he was wrongfully convicted on five counts of murder and sentenced to life in prison with a minimum non parole period of 16 years".Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course even the second paragraph is not strictly correct because Joe Karam is on record as saying he didn't believe David Bain was innocent. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=140725Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So how about we leave we leave out the Karam paragraph as suggested and also leave out "and served almost 13 years. I don't like the use of the word "wrongfully" either because at that point of time Bain wasn't wrongfully convicted. He only became "wrongfully" convicted when he was acquitted in 2009. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thorp report

I recently set up a section re Sir Justice Thorp's report as it was another appeal on behalf of David Bain but I see someone has deleted it. I intend to re-insert that report unless some can give me a good reason for not doing so.Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not the person who deleted it, but my opinion is that there was good reason for doing so. It lacked context and consisted of a kind of gobbledegook or excessive use of legal language that made it almost impossible to understand what its point was. In my opinion, it added nothing worthwhile. The diff is here Akld guy (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree with you. The point was that David Bain wanted a Royal Prerogative of Mercy and that is why Thorpe was asked to write a report. And one thing it did add was that Bain & Co were well aware back in 2000 that his lawyer , relieved of client confidentiality , had pointed out that David Bain had told him he was wearing the glasses in evidence on the evening prior to the killings.

Now of course David Bain's supporters don't want that mentioned because those glasses are the most important piece of evidence pointing to David Bain as being the perpetrator.

It was another appeal made by David Bain and rightly belongs where I had inserted it, so I intend to re-insert it unless someone can give me a valid reason not to do so. Because you can't understand the point is not a valid reason. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not a David Bain supporter so don't insinuate that I am. I'm uninvolved and back neither side on the question of David's or Robin's guilt. The diff that I quoted is badly written. It lacked context, used legal jargon, and was not helpful to the reader who knows nothing about the significance of the ownership of the glasses. Akld guy (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Akld guy on this point. Turtletop (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Auck. guy. I am not insinuating that you are a David Bain supporter so please don't accuse me of insinuating that you are. It is quite obvious to me that you are neutral and do not back either side.

Getting back to the Thorp report. Those glasses are of considerable significance and I could expand on that. I was trying to keep that section reasonably concise. I will rewrite that section on here so that suggestions can be made as to how it can be improved before it is reinserted. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good strategy - submit it here for consensus. And please, you have been told several times that when you start a new paragraph here, you should use the same indent (same number of colons) that you used for the previous paragraph. I've fixed that for you. Also, you have been told that, in articles, references follow hard on the heels (no space) after the character where you're inserting the ref. This applies even at the end of a sentence where there's a full stop. Please stop adding a space. Akld guy (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OK,here is a draft. Probably too long, but I did want to get the point across that David Bain had told his lawyer he had been wearing those all important glasses the day before the murders.

One of the grounds for the petition related to the broken glasses that were found in David Bain's room and a lens from those glasses that was found in Stephen Bain's room. At trial David Bain said the glasses were not his but his mothers and that he had sometimes worn them when his were not available. He said his own glasses had been damaged and taken to the optician the previous Friday. He declared that he had not worn the glasses identified by him as his mother's that weekend or at least a year previous. Justice Thorp said that while he did not disagree with the conclusions raised by the petitioner they did not adequately recognise the significance of David Bain's lawyer Michael Guest's advice that he had been told by his client that he had been wearing the glasses the day before the murders. Justice Thorp stated that in his view Mr Guest not only answered the complaints raised re the glasses but also provided a stronger case against the petitioner than was available at trial. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I like that as far as the "Justice Thorp" sentence. What are "the conclusions raised by the petitioner"? Who is the petitioner; David Bain himself or the Bain defence team? What are "the complaints raised re the glasses"? Don't answer by way of explanation, but submit below this a revised text ("Justice Thorp" onwards) that addresses the issues I've raised. Akld guy (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, revision as requested.

Justice Thorp stated that he did not disagree with the conclusions raised by David Bain, namely that , relying on evidence of police photographs, the lens could not have been found where the police said it had been found , that Mr Guest had not called witnesses that could have testified that David Bain had not been seen wearing the glasses on the preceding two days, and that the jury were left uncertain as to whether the glasses were his mother's or his, even though both the prosecution and defence knew they were his mothers.

However these conclusions did not adequately recognise the significance of his lawyers advice that he had been told by David Bain that he had been wearing the glasses the day before the murders. Justice Thorp stated that in his view Mr Guest not only answered the complaints raised but also provided a stronger case against David Bain than was available at trial.

Can I now go ahead and re-insert the paragraph re the Thorp report using the revised wording? Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of POV

I added the sentence about the 'only two suspects' to the following para in the lede.

Bain family murders refers to the deaths of Robin and Margaret Bain and three of their four children - Arawa, Laniet and Stephen - in Dunedin, New Zealand on 20 June 1994. The only suspects were David Bain, the oldest son and only survivor, or Robin Bain who shot and killed everyone in the family except David and then committed suicide.[1] [2] Four days after the killings, David Cullen Bain aged 22, was charged with their murders. In May 1995 he was convicted on five counts of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Akldguy and Melcous have deleted the second sentence claiming it "introduces POV". The deleted sentence is referenced to comments by the sentencing judge and by judge Ian Binnie, two authoritative sources - both of whom acknowledge that there were only ever two possible suspects in this case. The whole of New Zealand knows there were only two possible suspects in this case. That's what the controversy, which went on for 15 years, was all about. Some thought David was the killer; some thought it was the father. Since the deleted sentence refers to both possibilities, and doesn't favour one side over the other, what is the POV you claim to see? Surely you are not objecting to the judges' conclusion that there were two possible suspects...? That's quoted from reliable sources. Thefundermentals (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been a lot of back and forth on this talk page about the lead section (see above and the archives) and so I think there is a real danger in introducing anything controversial that it will open a can of worms, as people with different views on this article want to respond to perceived perceptions and emphasis being given to particular aspects. I'd also remind you that lead sections are not supposed to need references as they are meant to be a summary of the article itself, with reference opinions/perspectives etc in the body. So I was happy with the previous lead paragraph because it simply states the facts with no interpretation of them, which is what your edits are introducing, and needed no references. I much prefer it to stay as previously agreed. Melcous (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1) What is controversial about the statement that there are two possible suspects in this case? That's what the whole article is about.

2) Where does it say in WP that WP cannot cover controversial material?

3) The fact that you preferred the previous lead does not mean that what I added expresses a lack of neutrality or a POV. You have not answered the question: what is the POV you claim to see? Where is the lack of neutrality? If you cannot show a lack of neutrality in the sentence, you should not delete it claiming it is POV. Maybe you could delete it for another reason - but not because you preferred the previous version. That's your own POV. You can only delete based on WP rules. Which rule justifies the deletion?

4) If you don't think the statement needs references, then delete those but leave the content. I agree with you that it doesn't need references because the whole country knows there were only two possible suspects. However the fact that I provided authoritative references pretty much proves it is not POV. Thefundermentals (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Your edit stated as fact that Robin Bain committed all four murders. Here, for the benefit of other editors, is a message I have left on your Talk page: :Re: Bain family murders. Your edit to the Lead stated as fact that Robin Bain murdered four members of his family and committed suicide. You are not going to be allowed to state that as fact. Furthermore, you synthesized from that that David Bain is innocent. There is no basis for assuming he is innocent.

Here is a possible scenario: Robin Bain murdered the four members of the family and intended to murder David when he arrived home, but David got the upper hand and murdered him, then rearranged the scene and wrote the message on the computer to make it look like Robin had done it all and committed suicide. You are not entitled to assume that David is innocent simply on the basis of a flawed judicial process in which there was a miscarriage of justice. David Bain claimed he arrived home at 6:42 am. He then put his clothes in the washing machine and turned it on. Let's allow 10 minutes for that. So what was he doing from 6:52 am to 7:09 am when he rang 111? That's 17 minutes that are unaccounted for. Akld guy (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read the sentence you deleted once again. It does not state as a fact that Robin Bain committed all four murders. It says: "The only suspects were David Bain, the oldest son and only survivor, or Robin Bain, the father, who shot and killed everyone in the family except David and then committed suicide." Did you not see the word or; it means there are two possibilities and either one of them could have done it. If there are two possibilities, then no one knows what the true facts are.

So I ask again: What is the POV you claim to see in this sentence? Thefundermentals (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is English your first language? Your wording says that the suspects were David Bain OR Robin Bain, the father, but you then added "who shot and killed everyone in the family except David and then committed suicide." You have stated that as fact. You did not say, "may have shot and killed everyone in the family. So you're pushing the POV that it was Robin alone who was the perpetrator. You haven't even addressed the question that I posed above as to whether both Robin and David were murderers.

1) The prosecution case was that David shot them. The defence case was that Robin Bain shot everyone except David and then committed suicide. I have simply presented these two options which in essence, is a summary of the entire case.

2) Perhaps you are not familiar with the rules of English grammer, but when a phrase is preceeded by the word or everything that follows is a possibility - not a fact.

3) How can you be so confused by one sentence - one that presents two possibilities and doesn't claim either of them is true - that you think I have an obsession with exonerating David? That is an extraordinary leap of imagination, one that appears to come from your own POV. Your imagination (your POV) has made you claim I "synthesized that David Bain is innocent". The sentence makes no mention of anyone's guilt or innocence. Thefundermentals (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's yet another scenario: David arrives home and finds that his father has committed suicide in the lounge. Taking advantage of the situation, he murders the remaining family members who are all asleep, but Stephen wakes and David sustains injuries while fighting with him. David then places the rifle back in the vicinity of his father and types the message on the computer to place the blame on him. I make no apology for raising these issues in order to counter your obsession with exonerating David simply because of a flawed judicial process. Akld guy (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thefundermentals: I have just reinstated part of my earlier post that you deleted. DO NOT DELETE OTHER EDITORS' POSTS Akld guy (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AND ATTRIBUTE MOTIVES TO OTHER EDITORS THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE. Thefundermentals (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy has a history of this kind of behaviour. See COI suspicions on his Talk page where he accused Moriori, an editor of over 10 years experience with tens of thousands of edits over diverse topics, of having a COI. Aircorn noted that "This is starting to look like a pattern" on your part. Turtletop (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that I was correct in accusing Thefundermentals of deleting part of my post. Here is the diff. I reinstated what was deleted, and Thefundermentals denied having deleted it. Did he lie? I don't know, but I think you owe me an apology Turtletop. Akld guy (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again your imagination is running away with you. I have not denied anything - just used logic and English grammer rules to make my case. You have been unable to do so because your own POV is clouding your judgement. I think its time you backed off editing this page as you are clearly unable to be objective. Thefundermentals (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been objective. There are other possibilities besides the "Robin did it and David was innocent" and the "David did it and Robin was innocent" scenarios. I have listed two of the alternative scenarios above. It pays to keep an open mind. A finding that there was a miscarriage of justice does not necessarily imply that David was innocent. Akld guy (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No you are not being objective.

1) Only two possibilities have ever been put forward in this case. One is that David did it. The other is that his father did it. Other scenarios are your own POV and excluded from this article as WP:OR.

2) The sentence you have repeatedly deleted does not imply that David was innocent. Nor does it mention that there was a miscarriage of justice. The fact you seem to think it does shows how distorted (ie POV) your thinking is. As Aircorn noted: "This is starting to look like a pattern" on your part." Thefundermentals (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not that my removal of your sentence indicates a POV. The problem is that your insertion of it stating that Robin Bain must have committed all murders and committed suicide forms the POV. The POV is yours. I am merely reverting to a balanced article where the facts are stated. It is not a POV to keep the reader's mind open to other possibilities, two scenarios of which I have posted above, but have not attempted to introduce into the article. I have been forced to post those possible scenarios in order to try to open your eyes to them. Justice Callinan's report stated that David Bain's innocence had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. I suggest that you step back and slowly read the two scenarios that I posted. Just because I raised doubts over them does not mean that I believe David is guilty. He may well be innocent. Akld guy (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You wrote: "It is not a POV to keep the reader's mind open to other possibilities." Then you shouldn't have continued deleting the two possibilities I posted - one that David was the killer, the other that it was Robin. You have repeatedly, and incorrectly, claimed this was POV. Thefundermentals (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last stable version of the opening paragraph as per WP:BRD, which suggests that the previously agreed version should stay until there is consensus for the proposed changes (which have now been reverted by two different editors). Certainly ideas like what neighbours were speculating about on the day of the murder does not belong in the opening paragraph of the whole article, which is supposed to be a summary of the article, for starters as this information is not included later in the article, but I would also argue because it introduces perspectives that are controversial and can be debated, which should be presented in a balanced way later in the article if at all, not in the opening sentences. Melcous (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:BRD

I have reverted to the last stable version of the opening paragraph as per WP:BRD, which suggests that the previously agreed version should stay until there is consensus for the proposed changes (which have now been reverted by two different editors). Certainly ideas like what neighbours were speculating about on the day of the murder does not belong in the opening paragraph of the whole article, which is supposed to be a summary of the article, for starters as this information is not included later in the article, but I would also argue because it introduces perspectives that are controversial and can be debated, which should be presented in a balanced way later in the article if at all, not in the opening sentences. Melcous (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have copied Melcous' comment above to a new section. Having failed to make the case that the content was POV, she has now come up with another justification - which also doesn't hold water.

In regard to your reference to the 'last stable version', there is no stable version. WP:OWN says "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." In other words, you are misusing WP:BRD which says "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." What BRD in NOT says: "BRD is never a reason for reverting."... BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas."

Keep discussing here until consensus is achieved rather than edit warring. Turtletop (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This was exactly my point about WP:BRD: A user (The fundermentals) made a change (i.e. was bold), this was reverted twice by two other editors (myself and Akldguy), and so the onus was then on the fundermentals to discuss it here and gain consensus rather than simply re-reverting. Writing paragraphs about why my edit summaries were wrong is not discussion. I would like to see clear explanations of why this should be included in the lead, with responses from other editors - that is my understanding of what discussion and consensus is. As for WP:OWN, you are entitled to your opinion, but I would stand by my editing record on this article that I have attempted to remain neutral in editing this article and focus on policies, as well as trying to avoid some of the previous issues where this article was the focus of edit-warring between those wanting to include information that seems to exculpate Bain and those wanting to include information that seems to incriminate him (and this leading to a confusing and bloated article with all kinds of random facts included at various points as a result) Melcous (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now added the speculation by police and neighbours that it may have been a murder/suicide to the 'Deaths' section. There is further reference to the murder/suicide theory presented under the Defence case in the first trial. So Melcous' concern that the material is in the intro but not in the main body of the article is now addressed.Turtletop (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Apart from making two very minor edits to the article, I have no objection to Turtletop's latest version. Akld guy (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

My concerns with the current opening paragraph are (and I admit some of this is partly based on my concern mentioned above that if it appears "unbalanced" editors from the other perspective will want to add even more information and make it much longer than necessary):

* It includes details about the allegations against Robin Bain (shot and killed everyone then committed suicide) but none about the allegations against David Bain - my preference would be for no details about either in the lead as they are unpacked later in the article, but other editors may have reasons for including both

* The statement that Bain was wrongfully convicted is no longer in the opening paragraph, which from memory some editors were concerned about, and on balance I would argue should probably be there to make clear to the casual reader that this article concerns a case where someone was convicted then this was later overturned (see WP:MOSBEGIN). I think it is important to keep in mind that while many of the editors of this article might be very familiar with the case, many readers will know nothing and the lead in particular should be accessible for them (see WP:AUDIENCE)

* While there is no guideline forbidding references in the lead, a better article will not need them (see WP:LEADCREATE), whereas there is now a number. It would be great if we could have a discussion here to reach consensus on an opening paragraph that doesn't need them (as my understanding is happened a few months ago). Alternatively, the lead could use section references (i.e. be referenced to the relevant sections within the article itself).

* Very minor issue, but there are also some issues with the formatting of the references in the lead, which I am happy to fix but will wait until there is consensus on whether/what is in there. Also one of the links is to a youtube clip which may or may not be the best reference, and may or may not be a copyright violation (I have no idea either way just raising the issue, see WP:YOUTUBE). Melcous (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Balance

@Melcous wrote: My concerns with the current opening paragraph are (and I admit some of this is partly based on my concern mentioned above that if it appears "unbalanced" editors from the other perspective will want to add even more information and make it much longer than necessary): It includes details about the allegations against Robin Bain (shot and killed everyone then committed suicide) but none about the allegations against David Bain - my preference would be for no details about either in the lead as they are unpacked later in the article, but other editors may have reasons for including both.

This article used to be named 'David Bain' and the intro was all about him. At that time there was no reference in the intro to the possibility that Robin Bain did the killings.

The article is no longer about David Bain - it is about the 'Bain family killings'. By adding that Robin was also a suspect, the intro is now a great deal more on topic and balanced than it was before. The allegations against David are well known and perfectly clear from this information which is still in the opening para: "David Bain aged 22, was charged with five counts of murder. In May 1995 he was convicted on all five and sentenced to life in prison." Thefundermentals (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Melcous also says her preference would be that there are no details about (the allegations against) David or Robin in the intro. But she wants to include the point that David was wrongly convicted. It doesn't make sense to the reader to say he was wrongly convicted without saying what he was accused of first. But if you only say what David was accused of and don't mention Robin, the intro is no longer balanced. Thefundermentals (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is still grossly unbalanced. It is still 95% about David Bain, but now has a passing reference to Robin Bain. I agree with Melcous that there is a lot more unpacking to do - especially around Robin Bain's potential involvement. Turtletop (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

it is sickening to read any suggestion a murder victim may have been responsible, not only for his own death, but also for the death of the family he loved (while saving the one person who hated him) . that is vilifying the victim, even after death. "suicide" was excluded at an early stage by new zealand police, and that view has never wavered. robin would not have faced charges had he lived. the "suicide" fantasy was also excluded by australian police working for the defence. Melcous was right to exclude it. it is misleading to a first time reader and contributes nothing but defamation of the dead. it certainly does not belong anywhere near the top of this article. DiscoStuart (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Family Section

Melcous deleted details about Laniet from the Family section because she claimed there was a previous consensus to do so.

1) If there was a consensus, it was achieved when the article was still titled David Bain. It is now about the Bain family murders. This opens the door to new information and so the 'consensus' no longer applies.

2) One of the reasons given (by Melcous) for removing information about Laniet was that it breached WP:BLP. However, two other editors disagreed with her.

Nil Einne said: : "It seems to affect Laniet and Robin, but they're long past the time when BLP may still apply to them." AIRcorn said: "you are right BLP does not apply directly to Laniet."

So it is quite clear that there is no consensus on this point.

3) Akld guy argues for removing the third paragraph because it consists of Cottle's allegations about Laniet including Laniet's entering the sex industry. He says: "it's set the scene as though it were factual, when actually it is not."

a) Akld Guy is not in a position to know whether it is factual or not. The only person who agreed with Akld Guy was Mr Maggoo - so there was no consensus on that either.

b) The sentence I wish to add, reads as follows: "According to the police, Laniet was 'working as a prostitute and that fact was no secret to those living with her although her family might not have known. She advertised in the Otago Daily Times using the name 'Page'. Her clients contacted her on a cellphone lent to her by Dean Cottle'."

The point is, pretty much everything to do with David and Robin Bain is speculation. Apart from the outcome of each trial and court hearing, there are very few details of the case that are agreed on. In effect, the only 'facts' in this case are what people said - some of which may or may not be true. But if they said it, and have a source to prove it, it's a fact that they said it. The sentence above which I wish to include comes from the police. Although the police can be wrong, this is what they said in the report that the quote comes from. It is therefore as close to a statement of fact as it is possible to get in this article.

If we delete everything that is an allegation, we will have to delete the entire case for the prosecution because in the long run, none of that was sustainable either. Thefundermentals (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In the end, my understanding was that the consensus was to make the Family Background section as neutral as possible, keeping it about the agreed facts of what was known about the family before the murders. So then, if details are to be included about Laniet working as a prostitute etc, I would be far more open to a discussion of this being raised under the trial sections, and put in the context of this being information that came out after the fact and formed part of the prosecution/defence case, or views on motives etc. Because, as you say, all of these are allegations and statements, which to my mind belong under the headings of what was alleged or stated by people in response to the events that occurred, rather than forming the background. Melcous (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of neutrality anywhere in the archive section about the Family background.

Besides removing the material about her work as a prostitute does not make the section neutral. It makes it inaccurate and misleading because it makes the Bain's appear like a happy family when clearly they were not. Removing it does not provide neutrality. It introduces bias and POV as the deleted material is relevant to the dynamics in the family and to Robin Bain's state of mind. Turtletop (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The sentence I wish to add, reads as follows: "According to the police, Laniet was 'working as a prostitute and that fact was no secret to those living with her although her family might not have known. She advertised in the Otago Daily Times using the name 'Page'. Her clients contacted her on a cellphone lent to her by Dean Cottle'." I oppose the addition of those three sentences, because I fail to see the relevance. You claim she was working as a prostitute using a borrowed cellphone. So what? Akld guy (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

So what? So what? Laniet was working as a prostitute and the defence case was that this began after her father sexually molested her in PNG; that she was about to splill the beans on him and suddenly he kills her (and everyone else except David). This is the crux of the entire defence case and you ask so what? If you cannot see the relevance of that, then you are clearly not able to edit from a neutral perspective as you have a biased POV.

Besides I did not claim she was working as a prostitute. The police did. And since they have evidence she advertised her services in the paper, it is not just a claim. As far as the police are concerned, it is a fact. You are attempting to suppress relevant evidence about the family background because of your POV. Turtletop (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Turtletop: Would you kindly explain what you mean by "I did not claim she was working as a prostitute." The "working as a prostitute" paragraph was posted above by Thefundermentals. Are you saying that you and Thefundermentals are one and the same? Are you saying that you're operating a sock account? Akld guy (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I just happen to agree with what Thefundermentals is saying. Turtletop (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You are now the subject of a sockpuppet investigation (alleged sockpuppet Thefundermentals) here. Akld guy (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And, it turns out he/she was lying. They are absolutely one and the same. SQL^{Query me!} 08:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Well spotted @Akld guy:. Given the sock puppetry, I was wondering about just reverting the changes made by The fundermentals/Turtletop and those made by others of us in response over the last two weeks. Apart from the page protection which would still need to be attached, the last version before that seems to be from 5.21 on April 16 - see this diff to compare that version to the current version. Does anyone have any objection to restoring the article to that point? Melcous (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. April 16 is a very long time ago and there has been some good work done since, particularly in the Lead. Actually, some of it has been done by Turtletop. Rather than a revert, it may be better to work through the two versions and incorporate the best of both. I'm thinking that we don't want to destroy the good stuff that came after April 16. What do you think? Akld guy (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: fair point about the lead in particular. The trial sections and stuff on motives on the other hand I think is quite messy and was much better before. I see @Mr Maggoo: has been editing that today - it would be good to discuss that here first if possible first. In terms of the lead, I hadn't noticed that the whole second paragraph (re Joe Karam etc) has been added since then so agree that is a good addition. The opening paragraph, however, I think was better before, when it provided a summary of the whole thing (including the wrongful conviction in particular) rather than just an intro paragraph chronologically if that makes sense. The opening paragraph before the sock-puppetry was the paragraph below. My suggestion would be to go back to that, and possibly even add a brief sentence at the end saying something like "The issue of compensation for David Bain has been the subject of a number of government reports and community speculation." What do you think??

"Bain family murders refers to the deaths of Robin and Margaret Bain and three of their four children - Arawa, Laniet and Stephen - in Dunedin, New Zealand on 20 June 1994. The oldest child, David Cullen Bain aged 22, was charged with their murders. In May 1995 he was wrongfully convicted on five counts of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison and served almost 13 years before a succession of appeals ended with the Privy Council declaring that there had been a 'substantial miscarriage of justice'. He was released on bail in May 2007 and a retrial ended with his acquittal on all charges in June 2009." Melcous (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Moved Melcous' signature to include the above quote. Akld guy (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Melcous: I have just now asked Mr Maggoo on his Talk page to stop editing and discuss here. He has made a controversial change by deleting the part in the Lead about Joe Karam's belief in David Bain's innocence. I thought I better stop him before he goes further. BTW, please sign your post above. Akld guy (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mr Maggoo: Let's please not slide back into edit warring here. If you're going to make a controversial change - please discuss it here - you've been bold, you've been reverted, it's time to discuss. This article in particular being a BLP is sensitive. SQL^{Query me!} 03:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Akld guy/ Melcous. Just looked in and saw your messages. Re Karam saying he always believed Bain was innocent. I did make the point on this page a few weeks ago that this was not strictly correct, as you will see by reading the article below. That is why I made that edit. Regards.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=140725 Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth in my opinion the lede/lead looks pretty well balanced as it stands at this point in time. Once Callinan's report is released the last sentence will need to be edited.Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)