This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bain family murders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Chocmilk03: You seem to be suggesting that David had a motive to kill his entire family because Callinan thought David hated his father. There is no evidence for this. This story says "David took exception to a particular comment by [Callinan] about Bain "hating" his father, Robin, whom the defence blamed for the five deaths. "This is extremely hurtful. I did not hate my father, ever, then or now," according to an affidavit signed by Bain. "I had said, that in the context of having just been told by the police that if I didn't do it, then it must have been my father who killed everyone. I was reacting to that information, and I meant that I hated him 'if he had done this'."
This was one of the reasons David was so pissed off with Callinan for not talking to him when conducting his investigation. Clearly Callinan should have interviewed him to test his credibility and find out the context of David's comments made in the heat of the moment.
And even if David did hate his father, that does not provide a motive for killing his entire family.
Also it is not just Binnie who understood that David didn't have a motive. In summing up after the trial was over, Justice Neil Williamson told the jury that the Crown had said "... that these events were so bizarre and abnormal that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of any logical or reasonable explanation". I.E the Crown admitted they could not see any motive for what they perceived as bizarre behaviour (assuming David was responsible). [1] Straining ( talk) 23:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
In Ian Binnie's later review of the court case commissioned by the New Zealand government, Binnie was of the view that the police never came up with a plausible motive for David to kill his entire family. A subsequent report by Ian Callinan referred to David's admissions of hatred for his father who he saw as dominating the household and recent arguments with his father, as well as to evidence of "abnormality of behaviour" on David's part.
Chocmilk, you wrote: "The affidavit is a primary source and Karam clearly isn't independent (it's not just what I think); do you have any basis for suggesting that he is?"
I have a number of points to make about that:
In saying all that, I think what you have done in your recent edit is pretty good. But I would like a bit more from the prosecutor where he told the jury "it is beyond comprehension. We can't undertand it. Your job is to work out who did it, not to worry about why it happened. We will probably never know why."
The Crown prosecutor told the jury during his summing up, "It is beyond comprehension. We can't understand it. Your job is to work out who did it, not to worry about why it happened. We will probably never know why."
References
Chocmilk03: You claim that Binnie's report was controversial. It wasn't. What was controversial was the way Judith Collins handled it. Please read this. It describes Collin's remarkable lack of transparency and the devious manner in which she secretly consulted the Police, the Solictor General and then Robert Fisher about Binnie's report while refusing to provide a copy to David's team. She even leaked information about the report to the media but said she couldn't give it to David's team (even though she gave it to the Police, the Solicitor General and Robert Fisher) because it was privileged. Karam described her behaviour as "a calculated move to discredit the Binnie report before it had seen the light of day."
The statement that she resigned "after months of controversy about her ethics" is factually accurate and referenced. Her ethics are seriously dodgy as demonstrated by her behaviour over Binnie's report, as well as Oravida and other suspect matters she was involved in. Straining ( talk) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see the new material on Reactions regarding compensation in the main article to see what others think about Judith Collins' unethical behaviour in this matter. Straining ( talk) 02:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Chocmilk. I have deleted the sentence: He noted that Binnie had come to the opposite conclusion in August 2012, "but his reasoning was regarded as faulty", and said he did not doubt that "similar charges will be levelled at Callinan." For the following reason. It is not clear from the wording of this sentence whether it is Callinan's or van Beynen's opinion that Binnie's reasoning was faulty. Either way, the sentence definitively states that Binnie's reasoning was faulty. As you have correctly pointed out, wiki cannot state that someone's reasoning is faulty - only that this is someone's opinion.
I have added this sentence from van Beynen's opinion that: "If he can't show he probably didn't do it, he probably did it". This is the direct opposite of the legal principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty, which shows how dubious van Beynen's opinion is. I am inclined to point that out. What do you think? Straining ( talk) 03:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bain family murders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Chocmilk03: You seem to be suggesting that David had a motive to kill his entire family because Callinan thought David hated his father. There is no evidence for this. This story says "David took exception to a particular comment by [Callinan] about Bain "hating" his father, Robin, whom the defence blamed for the five deaths. "This is extremely hurtful. I did not hate my father, ever, then or now," according to an affidavit signed by Bain. "I had said, that in the context of having just been told by the police that if I didn't do it, then it must have been my father who killed everyone. I was reacting to that information, and I meant that I hated him 'if he had done this'."
This was one of the reasons David was so pissed off with Callinan for not talking to him when conducting his investigation. Clearly Callinan should have interviewed him to test his credibility and find out the context of David's comments made in the heat of the moment.
And even if David did hate his father, that does not provide a motive for killing his entire family.
Also it is not just Binnie who understood that David didn't have a motive. In summing up after the trial was over, Justice Neil Williamson told the jury that the Crown had said "... that these events were so bizarre and abnormal that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of any logical or reasonable explanation". I.E the Crown admitted they could not see any motive for what they perceived as bizarre behaviour (assuming David was responsible). [1] Straining ( talk) 23:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
In Ian Binnie's later review of the court case commissioned by the New Zealand government, Binnie was of the view that the police never came up with a plausible motive for David to kill his entire family. A subsequent report by Ian Callinan referred to David's admissions of hatred for his father who he saw as dominating the household and recent arguments with his father, as well as to evidence of "abnormality of behaviour" on David's part.
Chocmilk, you wrote: "The affidavit is a primary source and Karam clearly isn't independent (it's not just what I think); do you have any basis for suggesting that he is?"
I have a number of points to make about that:
In saying all that, I think what you have done in your recent edit is pretty good. But I would like a bit more from the prosecutor where he told the jury "it is beyond comprehension. We can't undertand it. Your job is to work out who did it, not to worry about why it happened. We will probably never know why."
The Crown prosecutor told the jury during his summing up, "It is beyond comprehension. We can't understand it. Your job is to work out who did it, not to worry about why it happened. We will probably never know why."
References
Chocmilk03: You claim that Binnie's report was controversial. It wasn't. What was controversial was the way Judith Collins handled it. Please read this. It describes Collin's remarkable lack of transparency and the devious manner in which she secretly consulted the Police, the Solictor General and then Robert Fisher about Binnie's report while refusing to provide a copy to David's team. She even leaked information about the report to the media but said she couldn't give it to David's team (even though she gave it to the Police, the Solicitor General and Robert Fisher) because it was privileged. Karam described her behaviour as "a calculated move to discredit the Binnie report before it had seen the light of day."
The statement that she resigned "after months of controversy about her ethics" is factually accurate and referenced. Her ethics are seriously dodgy as demonstrated by her behaviour over Binnie's report, as well as Oravida and other suspect matters she was involved in. Straining ( talk) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see the new material on Reactions regarding compensation in the main article to see what others think about Judith Collins' unethical behaviour in this matter. Straining ( talk) 02:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Chocmilk. I have deleted the sentence: He noted that Binnie had come to the opposite conclusion in August 2012, "but his reasoning was regarded as faulty", and said he did not doubt that "similar charges will be levelled at Callinan." For the following reason. It is not clear from the wording of this sentence whether it is Callinan's or van Beynen's opinion that Binnie's reasoning was faulty. Either way, the sentence definitively states that Binnie's reasoning was faulty. As you have correctly pointed out, wiki cannot state that someone's reasoning is faulty - only that this is someone's opinion.
I have added this sentence from van Beynen's opinion that: "If he can't show he probably didn't do it, he probably did it". This is the direct opposite of the legal principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty, which shows how dubious van Beynen's opinion is. I am inclined to point that out. What do you think? Straining ( talk) 03:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)