![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I believe the David Bain case is a New Zealand Police model case with video that has been given to recruits at the Royal New Zealand Police College in Porirua in the 1990's giving their perspective of the evidence and why they believe David Bain is guilty. The media has not picked up on this, but now that the Privy council has quashed his conviction and ordered a retrial it makes you wonder how the evidence was presented to recruits. -- Zven 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about this. If the optometrist had changed his mind and decided they were David's and his statement read out in court was they they were David's then what's the problem? Is it supposed to say changed to say they were David's mother's? Nil Einne 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The articles appears to have serious copyvio problems. The prosecution and alternative theory sections are copyvio from crime.co.nz, specifically here and here. The copyright policy for crime.co.nz is here and it's clearly not GFDL or all right's released. Someone needs to go through and look for any other copyvios and remove them all. I left the 2 in in case it's useful in looking for more copyvios. Cheers Nil Einne 06:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed three sections which were substantially copies of pages from crime.co.nz. This leaves the article relatively neutral, but lacking in information about why the case was controversial and eventually overturned. Someone, please add a new section explaining the two theories about the murder, with an explanation of the key points of evidence the two sides argue over. Of course, the article needs to be presented in a neutral fashion, and it needs to be references point by point. The Privy Council ruling is an excellent source. Please cite paragraph numbers rather than just refer to the whole document or using page numbers which may differ according to the software used to load the .RTF file. References from crime.co.nz or news media are fine too.- gadfium 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have a reference telling the type of .22 rifle used by the killer? I once read it was a Ruger 10/22, but I am unable to confirm this. The Ruger 10/22 has a standard detachable 10-round magazine with unconventional external dimensions. See http://www.prestostore.com/cgi-bin/pro08.pl?ref=armedamerica@comcast.net&ct=65380&pd=291544 Petlif 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The gun is a .22 Winchester semi automatic with a home made silencer attached by means of a screw on steel hose clip. The weapon can be seen here with Police Armourer Robert Ngamoki. 10 and 5 round ammo magazines were found at the scene. http://www.nzpaimages.co.nz/preview.php?image_id=63257
More verification of this here... http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/51865/blood-spatter-raises-question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.48.157 ( talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm failing to see why he was convicted for the murder? Perhaps there can be another section outlining the evidence that the courts based his conviction on? Mathmo Talk 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The Prosecution in the case used a rope and its strands as an analogy for their case. It would make sense to use this analogy and these strands as the layout for presentation of the evidence that the courts based his conviction on. For example one of these strands making up the rope of evidence was the gurgling of Laniet that David said he overheard as she lay dying. Another strand was that David admitted wearing his mothers spectacles that weekend which were found broken by the police, one lens was in Stephens room, and the broken frame and the other lens were in the accused's room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.48.157 ( talk) 10:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but this article seems to have been infected by the New Zealand Medias ambition to sway the public to believe that David Bain is innocent, This article needs to provide the initial evidence and why he was convicted as well as the defences evidence, not just why the Privy Council quashed David Bain's murder convictions. There needs to be some editing done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.199.208.54 ( talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The article IS slanted.
The Privy Council recommended Bain stay in jail till the retrial.
The overwhelming EVIDENCE points to David Bains guilt, the defence is going to rely on hearsay and he WILL be convicted again. There is not one shred of EVIDENCE that Robin had anything to do with the killings, no blood, no fingerprints, no bruises, no fibres, nothing.
I think complete removal may be good advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushbutton auto ( talk • contribs)
The privy council ruled on a matter of what the judge didn't do rather than what he did. The PC also ordered Bain to stay in custody which surely is a guide to what they indicated would be the likely outcome of a retrial. The pity is all their recommendations were not implemented. Bain on Bail sent the wrong message to the community. Farmer56 ( talk) 05:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I thought I was in breach. I mean complete removal because of the rules, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I see someone added the FACT that the Privy Council recommended he stay in jail, only to add some flotsam about a cheering crowd, what codswallop, the media circus and a few fanatics. This is exactly what I refer to as slanted. And I see someone is saying you can't allow an EVIDENCE addition because of contempt, what a joke. Seriously this article is in violation of the neutral point of view. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So you forgot (for 2 years) about the Privy Council recommending he stay in jail till the retrial or didn't think that relevant to a balanced article ? TUI .... If the indepth Privy Council findings are giving undue weight because the EVIDENCE FACTS can't be posted to give balance then the findings should be elimanated. As previously stated there is not ONE piece of evidence that anyone other than David BAIN committed these murders, NOT ONE. I will be very interested to see this article when he is a AGAIN convicted. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that media reports suggest that the people of Dunedin are more firmly convince that David Bain in guilty, than those further north. This may or may not be significant, but should it be alluded to? JohnC ( talk) 03:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
So what if the sourced material is biased or factually incorrect, can the editor still continually use these as sources ?
A split tag had been placed on the "Privy Council findings" section. There is a need for a split but into something a little more meaningful. " David Bain" and David Bain murder trials or Bain family murders would be my suggestion. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This article necessarily grew like Topsy and therefore needs a good edit, something that will prune its size and eliminate irrelevancies. We need to create something that in five years time or whatever will be a faithful encyclopedic report of the Bain saga. I have just rewritten the intro, to hopefully something like how it will look to Wiki visitors in the distant future. I'm willing to help knock this article into shape, but not if there are people who insist on including info that may (or may not) have been somehow important to the trials but which is not relevant to an encyclopedia article. We are not supposed to be some sort of court transcript/record. Anyone want to help? Comments? Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
David Bain is innocent according to the definition given in our not guilty article. Either that article needs rewriting, or we remove the following contradicting information from the David Bain article - " A verdict of not guilty does not mean that the accused person is innocent .....". Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Some media outlets have published stories about the nature of some of the evidence suppressed from the retrial, which seem to have since been pulled off their websites. I won't go into details of the evidence here, since there may be legal issues surrounding it - here's one report of legal action over recent media coverage. A Google search for "Bain suppressed evidence" currently gives you the gist, and partial copies of the news stories have been posted to various blogs and forums. How should we handle this aspect of the case? I'm tempted to leave it out of the article for now, due to possible legal issues and the current lack of reliable sources. -- Avenue ( talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to include some of the evidence accepted by the jury that lead to his conviction. Including...
If he is found guilty again, I think it right to change the article to say that he DID commit the murders. If he is found not guilty, leaving it as is is best. 125.238.255.239 ( talk) 07:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should include a section that basically says yes, David Bain is found not guilty by the jury, but this verdict is controversial among a not insignificant segment of the population. For example, John Roughan [2], Michael Laws [3], and Martin Van Benyen [4] are three of the typical examples of current opinions in this country insisting it was David Bain who had committed the crimes. I'm not sure if this borders on defamation since Bain is not guilty legally speaking, but I think we should write something that says the verdict is not universally accepted. -- JNZ ( talk) 08:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the message on the computer was, i'm sorry that it had to be you, not, sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay. Has there been any dispute over exactly what was typed up on the computer on the day of the killings because I read that and thought, no, I know different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 01:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I heard a famous radio personality Michael Laws quote that during the debate over who committed the killings (that went over the course of a few days), between Laws and Bains faithful supporter Joe Karam, in the winter of 2010, on RadioLive. I don't know whether those shows have been archived anywhere on the Internet but especially the RadioLive website. So yes and no, I think my source is reliable, but no because it was on the radio. -- 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 03:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The recent removal of content is excessive. Most of it appears to be well sourced coverage. It appears that sources such as scoop.co.nz have been discuounted when some, such as this one are authoritative. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Garbage, selective pieces of news, not the whole facts. Offender has already been in trouble for his re-editing and now takes the cake with his fawning over Karam. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 05:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
What about including a photo of Bain...? Offender9000 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If this article is going to be subject to continual rewrites without facts based on one persons bias, then the offender should be stopped ! Pushbutton auto ( talk) 09:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This whole page needs a rewrite, this bio is not encyclopedic or factual, its a weird love letter. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
After starting to read and edit this article it has become clear that there are some major issues with POV's being pushed here. The language used in some sections is loaded - it isn't written in an encyclopaedic manner.
We also need to firm up - is this page just about David Bain - or is it about the Bain family murders? As this alters the content/focus of the article quite substantially. Clarke43 ( talk) 21:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I read this page from the point of view of someone who's totally unknowledgeable about the topic. I'm from the UK and had never heard about the case until today. It reads as a good referenced description. Any page can be improved but it reads fine to me. Just my point of view. It would be a shame to totally re-write or delete content. Liassic ( talk) 10:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
A large amount of content was deleted in this series of edits. There is now only a small amount about the first trial and a tiny amount about the second trial. Nurg ( talk) 05:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct, Offender is attempting to rewrite history. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Offender (the name says it all) has had his account banned for operating multiple accounts. Serendipity33 ( talk) 22:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
"At his trial the prosecution claimed that David killed his entire family after completing his early morning paper round."
This statement us not consistent with the reference cited. I cannot anything in the cited paragraph even remotely meaning that. Please demonstrate if you can. There are a number of other sentences in the article which bear no resemblance to the cited source. ( Serendipity33 ( talk) 12:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
Its good to agree on something. There are a number of ways this page can be improved where the wording is loose. Adjectives, buts etc. ( Serendipity33 ( talk) 07:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC))
I have added in a bit more information on the retrial. Dean Cottle evaded being subpoenaed and then arrested for failing to appear. I have cited as best i can (Otago Daily Times newspaper) but as the quote about his memory failing him was from the pretrial rulings, which I don't think are public, I can't add a (link-able)citation for that. Will a paragraph number and date do? NZgreygoose ( talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Update; as Turtletop had now taken complete charge of the article and is repeatedly removing material he claims is not cited correctly, so that he can push his 'David is innocent' POV, I am proposing that I add images (that I have made myself) of the relevant material from the Pretrial Rulings, as this material is not online already as far as I can tell. From the Wikipedia commons, the material can then be cited. NZgreygoose ( talk)
An editor has repeatedly inserted the phrase 'whose lawyers allege' or some variant of it into the first sentence of the Lead. He has even re-inserted it after being asked to 'take it to the Talk page' by
User:Gadfium. I am seeking consensus on whether the phrase is appropriate and whether it should remain in the Lead.
Should the phrase remain? Please answer 'Retain' or 'Remove' with your reason(s) if you wish.
Akld guy (
talk)
03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, I have now found the talk page. Lets discuss whether on not David Bain was "wrongfully " convicted. There was a case in the USA [which I will link to shortly ] where a soldier was convicted of murdering a woman and her two children and sentenced to death, then two years later he was acquitted. Then a few years later he was convicted again of the same murder and once again sentenced to death. My question is " Was that soldier wrongfully convicted at his first trial? " Mr Maggoo Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Timothy Hennis. Was he wrongfully convicted ar his first trial? Timothy Hennis
A not guilty verdict does not mean the person who has been found not guilty is in fact innocent as some people believe. Take the remarkable story of Timothy Hennis, for example. Timothy Hennis, a 27 year old soldier based at Fort Bragg was convicted in 1986 of murdering of Kathryn Eastburn and two of her daughters,aged three and five, in nearby Fayetteville in 1985 and sentenced to death. However his lawyers appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court and the judges ruled that the graphic police photos had wrongly influenced the jury to render a guilty verdict and ordered a retrial. At his retrial in 1989 his lawyers attacked many of the prosecutions most damaging accusations one by one. [Ring any bells?] The end result was that Hennis was acquitted. As a free man Hennis re-enlisted in the Army and served a dignified career,eventually retiring in 2004 with the rank of Master Sergeant. He raised two children and and became the scoutmaster of his son's troop. However the prosecution continued to pursue the case. In 2006 vaginal swabs from a rape kit taken from Kathryn Eastburn's body yielded new evidence. DNA testing was an imperfect science in the 1980's and the semen found in Mrs Eastburn's body wasn't pursued as evidence at the first trial. In 2006 it was was found that the DNA from that rape kit was consistent with Hennis's DNA. The sample was 1.2 quadrillion times more likely to be from Hennis than from any other white person in North Carolina. Due to the Constitutional prohibition on double-jeopardy North Carolina could not try Hennis again. But the Army could. A team of military attorneys evaluated the case and the Army decided to pursue it. Hennis was recalled to active duty two years after his retirement and promptly arrested on three counts of murder. The prosecutions case hinged on the DNA result. The jury composed of men and women in uniform rendered a guilty verdict and Hennis was sentenced to death for the second time. He is now in solitary confinement on death row at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison in Kansas awaiting appeal. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This editor appears to be adding material supporting a particular POV. In the process he has also breached WP:COPYVIO by taking large chunks of material directly from source. Turtletop ( talk) 02:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree it that it is a fact that he was convicted and acquitted. It is also a fact that the Privy Council declared his conviction was a substantial miscarriage of justice. In other words: a mistake was made. He was wrongly convicted. That is also a fact. Turtletop ( talk) 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In regard to paraphrasing from the original trial transcripts, two points. The first is that 99% of the material you added is the case for the prosecution. Since you didn't add anything about the defence case, you appear to be pushing a POV. Your wish to remove the word 'wrongly' adds to that perception. The second point is that since it has subsequently been proved that the prosecution got it wrong, the material you added is presumably incorrect and, anyway, is no longer relevant. It may have been relevant 20 years ago, but not now and Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to relitigate it.
Basically, the only thing that is particularly relevant from the original trial is the fact that there was a miscarriage of justice - and perhaps some explanation as to how and why that happened. Turtletop ( talk) 02:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The phrase 'wrongly convicted' has everything to do with his innocence. There was a miscarriage of justice and Bain was subsequently found to be innocent. This is not a matter of opinion. It is what happened. As a result the phrase 'wrongful conviction' is used by the Government on the Beehive website and by the media to describe his original conviction. Please see citations now provided on the main page. Turtletop ( talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the word 'wrongly' as it was added back in by Turtletop. The first verdict has become controversial only after the fact, just as the second verdict is also controversial. Therefore I suggest historical fact be adhered to. Bain was convicted in 1995. Fact. The article reflects that that verdict was overturned many years later, so I dispute that there is any need to have 'wrongly' in the first part. It is non neutral POV in my opinion. NZgreygoose ( talk) 02:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The word "wrongly" is for wont of a better word used wrongly. It inclusion is simply incorrect and rather than replace it, the word should simply be removed.
Irrespective of personal beliefs as to the guilt of Bain Senior or Junior, David Bain was convicted.
The fact that it was overturned does not make the original verdict wrong. It just means that the PC wanted the trial to start again from scratch. Farmer56 ( talk) 05:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop should not be permitted to continue putting "wrongfully convicted" into this article. It is not his blog ... and his writing is not neutral. The fact remains, David Bain WAS convicted in Dunedin, by a jury of his peers. New Zealand Police are professionally trained to find criminals, and they remain convinced of his guilt. There is some misunderstanding in the mind of Turtletop. An "Application for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment" is simply an application. If the government believes he actually had been wrongfully convicted, there would be no need to ask a judge for an opinion. Similarly, an "application to become a police officer" does not mean you are a police officer, or ever will be. Turtletop has been removing items which could be valuable to someone studying the case. It is not up to Turtletop to select what can and cannot be viewed by someone seeking information on this case, as everything should be made available - just like a regular encyclopedia. Garglesaver ( talk) 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I note that Turtletop has removed a reference to the amount of legal aid paid to Joe Karam which was linked to an article by Jock Anderson. His reason was because he considers Anderson to be a gossip columnist. Surely just because Turtletop believes that Anderson is a gossip columnist does not entitle him to remove that reference. The legal Services Agency provided me with all the legal aid costs relating to David Bain together with a breakdown of the legal aid paid to Joe Karam. Does anyone have any objection to me referring to those costs, even though I can't actually link to the letters and emails I received? The way I see it is that if it is good enough to be able for someone to refer to the $7600 paid to Robert Fisher's girlfiend, then I should be able to refer to the amount of legal aid that was paid to Joe Karam seeing as it was over forty times the amount Fisher's girlfriend received. Legal aid. Figures supplied by the Legal Services Agency. David Bain claimed $3,333,495 in legal aid relating to his first trial, Court of Appeal hearings, Privy Council appeal and retrial. This was and is the most expensive legal aid bill in New Zealand's history. It was made up as follows. Original trial and appeals High Court $149,180 Court of Appeal $ 101,208 Privy Council $455,737
Retrial and Appeals High Court $2,338,810 Court of Appeal $97,118 Privy Council $113,847 Supreme Court $77,595
Joe Karam received $424800 for his work as an investigator, made up of $307664 in fees and $117136 in expenses. He claimed 379 hours at $75 an hour for work related to the Privy Council appeal . He claimed 749 hours at $75 an hour for work related to the retrial. He claimed an additional 2348 hours at $95 an hour for work related to the retrial. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Mr Maggoo ( talk) 00:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
greygoose It would appear the final figure was $424480, although the figure I was given was $424800. The figure showing on the David Bain page $330000 does not relate to the "years of work on the case " but just the retrial . When the legal aid paid to Karam for his work done preparing for his submission to the Privy Council is added the figure is $424480 according to Legal Aid Commissioner Nigel Fyfe. I have edited to show the correct figure although as I have already said, the figure I was given was slightly higher, and that was given to me by the Legal Services Agency. So either I was given the incorrect figure or Nigel Fyfe is wrong. I might point out that the figure of $424480 is the same figure that is entered on Joe Karam's Wikipedia page. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus on the use of the word "wrongfully"as in wrongfully convicted ? I say that word should not be there , Turtledove says it should be and cites a number of links, none of which appear to give a definitive answer. So what I need to know is how many apart from Turtledove support leaving in that word and how many apart from myself support removing it?
Mr Maggoo (
talk)
04:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. But I do have a source and greygoose had already quoted a source but turtledove deleted it because he said her source was an opinion piece. The figure is sourced to on the Joe Karam Wikipedia page as well. Karam was paid $424,480 by Legal Services for his legal work in support of David Bain. Commissioner Nigel Fyfe approved the payment describing Karam's "unique circumstances" and said his legal assistance to Bain's defence was "exceptional" and the "equivalent to a non-qualified legal executive..."[12 Whats more the $330000 that turtledove has entered was not for Karam's years of service , it only related to the retrial ,when he was paid $75 for the first 749 hours and $95 for the remaining 2348 hours a total of 3097 hours which is about a year and a half. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. This is what turtledove has entered on the David Bain page. including over $330,000 to Joe Karam for his years of work on the case.[73 He is fudging. Look at the source. Karam was not paid $330000 for his "years of work on the case " He was paid $330000 as an investigator on work related to the retrial. I would like to know why turtledove is being allowed to get away with this sort of thing. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. Here is the link to that amount $424480 . greygoose had linked to that item on the David Bain page but turtledove removed it on the basis that it was an opinion piece. What gives him the right to do that without a consensus? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11325588 Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop. You say that from a legal perspective David Bain was wrongly convicted. Could you please give me examples of what lawyers are saying this, apart from David Bain's lawyers. You say opinion polls opinion polls show that the majority of New Zealanders accept that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. Could you please link me to a poll where New Zealanders were asked whether or not they believed David Bain was wrongfully convicted.
You are implying that the government chucked out Binnie's report because his conclusion did not suit them. That is only your opinion. The fact is Binnie's report was full of errors some of which I will link to later. It was peer reviewed and found wanting. I agree that whatever conclusion Hon Ian Callinan comes to the not guilty verdict at Bain's retrial will still stand unless of course David Bain decides to confess or else some new evidence is found that proves he was the perpetrator which is about as unlikely as Robin Bain being proved to be the perpetrator. But the possibility exists. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Excerpt from Justice Binnie's report. Binnie report [para 429] “David's evidence is that the sharpness of his vision began to deteriorate at about 30cm[about a foot] but that he could see well enough without glasses to play sports and participate in orienteering which requires the ability to identify markers at considerable distances. There was a video playing at home on the Sunday evening June 19, but he sat close to the television set.
David Bain told Justice Binnie that he didn't need his glasses on the Sunday night prior to watch that video on the Sunday evening because he sat close to the television set. Had Justice Binnie bothered to interview Michael Guest , David Bain's lawyer at the first trial, he would have learnt that Bain had told his lawyer and co-Counsel that he had been wearing the glasses that were found in his room to watch that video. And of course there is plenty of evidence that points to David Bain having worn those glasses that weekend. First of all they were found in his room. Then at trial he said he wore his mother's glasses [and it was a pair of his mother's glasses that was found in his room] when his were unavailable. His glasses were unavailable because he had broken them the previous Thursday when leaning his singing teachers house. Again at trial he said he only wore those glasses for watching TV or going to lectures. He said he was watching a video on the Sunday evening.
The aunt that David Bain was staying with immediately after the killings testified that he had told her [with her daughter present ] that he had been wearing a pair of his mother's glasses that weekend, they weren't perfect he told her, but they got him by. It would appear there can be absolutely no doubt that David Bain had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room. The question he needs to be asked is how the frame of those glasses came to be found damaged in his room on the Monday morning after the killings and how it was that one lens from those same glasses was later found in his brother Stephen's room. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. Ok, I will try to find a better reference, maybe I will contact Fife and see if he can assist. But as I have already pointed out at least twice turtledove is fudging re the amount paid Karam. This is what I have copied from the David Bain page. "including over $330,000 to Joe Karam for his years of work on the case". Joe Karam was paid over $330000 for his work relating to the retrial, not for his years of work on the case. Would you agree to me editing out the words "for his years of work on the case " and entering "for his work relating to the retrial"? Mr Maggoo ( talk) 01:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. Thanks for that. Yes, that is the amount that Karam was paid for his work relating to the retrial Most of it he received for work carried out from work carried out before the retrial started [ I wasn't able to get the actual date that he started because legal aid in his case was paid in blocks of around $20000 a time] He was also paid for work done during the retrial but not for the time that he was actually at the retrial.
Re wrongfully. If you would like to read my post again you will see I did not say Turtledove was unable to give links.
What I said was that Turtledove cited a number of links, none of which appeared to give a definitive answer. Sure the word wrongfully was in all those links but I don't believe the Ministry of Justice or any Minister of Justice has said that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. David Bain's lawyers are claiming he was but just because they are claiming that doesn't make it so. I take you have no objection to removing that word from the info box so long as I leave it in the first sentence. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop
I notice that on another editors talk page you have linked a website that contains defamatory material. In fact the actual article you have linked to is probably defamatory in itself. Nostalgia had stated that the book The Bain Killings Whodunnit? has defamatory material in it but doesn't say what that defamatory material is probably because there isn't any.
Mr Maggoo (
talk) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Moriori
Don't I have to obtain a consensus before I do that ?
Mr Maggoo (
talk)
01:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop.
Carrying on from where I left off re that Nostalgia blog you linked to.
Nostalgia also says that book has been banned. That is not correct. The facts of the matter are as follows
Two bookshops were selling that book. Bookshop A were told by a David Bain supporter that the book had referred to a defamatory website, namely Counterspin. They then withdrew the book and asked the author to have it legally vetted and once that was done, they would start selling it again. The author decided that the cost of having it vetted would be too great, given the number of copies that were printed, so Bookshop A returned the unsold books and paid the author for the sold books . As it happens at the time that book was published all the defamatory material had been removed from Counterspin and that website is still up and running today.
Re bookshop B .Message to follow.
I have started a new section to try and resolve concerns about the term wrongfully convicted - and added it back into the first sentence. From a legal perspective the word 'wrongfully' means there was a miscarriage of justice - as determined by the Privy Council. It is the term used by the Minister of Justice Amy Adams in a memorandum she wrote for Cabinet about the case. See : DAVID BAIN'S APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT.
It is the wording used by former Ministier of Justice, Judith Collins, on the Ministry of Justice website here: "Minister Collins has released the respective reports of Justice Binnie and Robert Fisher QC, on David Bain's application for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment."
Prior to Bain's acquittal, in 2006 High Court judge Sir Thomas Thorp used the term 'wrongful convictions' for cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice. See Up to 20 wrongly in jail says judge
It is the wording used by the media to describe the case.
NZ Herald: David Bain wrongful conviction report ongoing
TVNZ: David Bain compensation: The story so far
TV3: David Bain compensation case resumes
Even bloggers like WhaleOil use the term. See his coverage here: David Bain compensation report a long time coming
In other words, the term wrongfully convicted is both in official and common usage for miscarriage of justice cases. It makes no difference whether wiki editors think the Privy Council or the second jury got it right or not. Legally, a miscarriage of justice occurred and Bain has been found not guilty. In the eyes of the law, he was wrongfully convicted. These are the current facts. They may change in the future. But as matters currently stand, David Bain was wrongfully convicted. The first sentence on this page needs to reflect this as it sets the tone for the rest of the article - which should be in the Category:People wrongfully convicted of murder
( Turtletop) 02:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Turtletop ( talk) 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There have been a large number of contentious edits beginning in December 2015 and continuing as I write in January 2016. For those who are wondering why, apparently there was a discussion on a Facebook page by those who have strong opinions and/or have written books on the topic of the Bain murders. When it was mentioned on the Facebook page that there were inaccuracies in Wikipedia's David Bain article, the disputes spilled over into the article. Four usernames have been involved. Akld guy ( talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Just having a re-read of the article as it now stands and some sections are really poor, and very non-neutral POV. Family background is one, and section on Judith Collin's dealing with Binnie report is another. e.g. The family backgound section has a lot from Dean Cottle. He says he was her friend, and that she told him she was a prostitute. According to Police view (and other evidence)Dean Cottle was her pimp, not her friend. He owned the phone she used to advertise as a prostitute, and this is how he entered the picture in the first place. Evidence given at the retrial supports this, and not that they were friends. Yet he is being used to pad out this section, as if he can be relied on to be telling the truth. "A teacher revealed".? The teacher was revealing nothing more than that Laniet was prone to telling stories that could not be verified, and yet it is put into the article as if she really did have a baby and was raped. Neither is true, as far as anyone can establish to this day. The Bains actually were quite an interesting family with many accomplishments among them, and this is not reflected in the section; it is written to push the point of view that Robin was a depressed failure and other myths. If anyone wants a full overview of their entire family lives up to the deaths (from many more reliable sources that the ones given here) then 'The Mask Of Sanity' is the book to read. This section reflects no more than the defense party line, as it stands. Ditto the Collins section. It is well known how the defense feel about Collins, but she had support in her strong stance from many quarters. Of course this is not 'allowed' to be included in a pro-Bain spin piece is it? Again the section reflects the usual party line from the defense. NZgreygoose ( talk) 05:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I have now made a number of edits trying to make it both more accurate and less POV. First Trial; the lounge was not downstairs. There were two paragraphs in this section which actually pertained to the 2007 Privy Council decision, so I have removed them. I have cited the Dean Cottle ruling number 8, (its'in McNeish book) and added in that this evidence was suppressed, as its later un-suppression by media outlets is part of the story. I hope to get that part in once I can research it. The other edits were small, and related to POV words/phrases used. NZgreygoose ( talk) 14:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Garglesaver has deleted the word 'Wrongly' before the word convicted - three times in the last few hours. He has now deleted other material he disagrees with despite it being backed up by reliable citations. This is edit warring and disruptive behaviour. Turtletop ( talk) 07:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Do not let yourself be bullied by Turtletop. Turtletop inserted the word wrongly without obtaining a consensus. That is disruptive behaviour. The source he has cited does not support the use of that word. David Bain is claiming he was wrongly convicted. And I am not the only comenter that has made that same point.
And may I add that you don't seem to be able to make up your mind on the use of that word.
How about a bit of consistency here, or is that too much to ask? Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Just testing. Is this the correct procedure that I should be using in order for you to understand that I am replying to you. I would have thought that by entering Auckland guy before I started my message it would have been obvious who it was addressed to but apparently not. I mean I am in my eighties but even I would have understood who that message was for. My apologies about saying it was you who Turtletop was bullying, apparently it was somebody else. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 22:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. I have got the hang of the tildes bit, didn't realise that I shouldn't have started a new line, I guess that is why my name comes up twice sometimes. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 00:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Inconsistent monitoring There has been considerable discussion over the use of the word wrongfully over the past few days. There would have been no need for this if the monitoring had been consistent . When I removed that word I was given a warning. "Your edits are in conflict with those of several others, and you are not contributing to the discussion at Talk:David Bain. You are Edit warring and your editing is becoming disruptive. If you continue in this matter, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not edit the article again without gaining a consensus on the talk page.-gadfium 03:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)"
Garglesaver has been blocked for a week for removing that word. I have been told I need to get a consensus to remove that word , garglesaver has been blocked for a week for removing that word and yet Turtletop never got a consensus to insert that word in the first place. A monitor needs to be consistent, otherwise he/she opens himself/herself up to claims of biased monitoring. The discussion re the word wrongfully would probably never have occurred in the first place if monitors had been consistent because I very much doubt that Turtletop would have obtained a consensus to include it. I personally do not believe that everyone needs to get a consensus to edit so long as they are able to cite a valid source and providing that source backs up their edit. Turtletop has entered a source as regards the word wrongfully but that source only relates to David Bain claiming he was wrongfully convicted so in that particular instance that source is irrelevant. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 00:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is another example of Turtledove citing an irrelevant reference. He is trying to mislead readers of the David Bain Wikipedia page into believing that David Bain had no motive for killing his family. From his citing. "The question of motive was well canvassed before the jury and it was explained that the prosecution has a duty to prove intent in a criminal case,but not motive. Mr Karam still thinks there was an obligation on the prosecution to show a convincing reason for the killings before David should have been charged or convicted. In his closing address to the jury, Mr Wright, the Crown Solicitor, said "...you've heard evidence from the Crown indicating that the accused is a disturbed young man. In the weeks prior to 20th of June his behaviour was bizarre. It is not my job to speculate on this. The accused's reasons, his motivation, are irreleval1t.,,373 In his summing up, Justice Williamson said that the Crown had told the jury "... that these events were so bizarre and abnormal that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of any logical or reasonable explanation"" In fact in his closing address at the first trial the Prosecutor did suggest a motive and I quote. There is something of a grudge against the father. He was an obstacle. Again and again, like an obsession. Building the house was necessary to keep them together , otherwise the dream of the sanctuary would collapse. This is his story. Otherwise mum might go off and live in a home ownership unit with Stephen, dad would be at Taieri Beach with Laniet , Arawa might go flatting. If you think about it,it is unreal. Because what he wanted was to inherit. [User talk:Mr Maggoo|talk]]) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors should be aware that Turtletop has linked to the double killer Brian McDonald's Nostalgia website which contains defamatory material i.e. McDonald has referred to male members of the Justice for Robin Bain group by name and called them pedophiles, he has referred to one female member of the same group by name and called her the town bike, he has referred to three other female members of the group by name and called them the three witches. And one could say the page that is actually on display is defamatory in itself as he is saying that the book The Bain Killings Whodunnit? https://petesnewhangout.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/the-bain-killings-book-review/ is defamatory when the author has never received any complaints about defamation and he also says that book was banned from bookshops when in actual fact one bookshop withdrew it from sale because it had not been legally vetted and the other bookshop that was selling that book withdrew it from sale because the manager felt she should remove it on receipt of an email from a David Bain supporter to the effect that the writer had breached a name suppression order. Once she received advice from the writer's lawyer that no name suppression order had been breached and that the email was sent out of malice the book was put back on the shelves for sale again. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-castle/wikipedia-deepak-chopra-o_b_8449394.html Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
[New section created for the question asked by Mr Maggoo]
Akld guy (
talk)
02:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is something else I would like to discuss. I had entered a paragraph on DB Wikipedia re the email Michael Guest sent to Judith Collins. It was removed no doubt because I didn't enter a reference. The only place that I can find that article on the internet is on the Counterspin website. Would it be in order for me to use that website as a reference? I believe that email to be of the utmost importance because in it Michael Guest says that Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings. That email was obtained via an Official Information request, though not by me.
Mr Maggoo (
talk)
01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Mr Maggoo ( talk) 05:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
His self-published book was pulled from the two bookstores in New Zealand that agreed to stock it after receiving advice that it was a highly defamatory work that would never have been published other than by a self publisher.End quote.
Bookshop B stopped selling that book because they had received an email from a David Bain supporter using the name Grant Hargreaves telling them that the author had breached a name suppression order. The author retained a lawyer to look into the matter and he was able to confirm that there was no name suppression breach. Bookshop B was advised and they put that book back on the shelves again. Then the author's lawyer sent an email letter to Grant Hargreaves to ask him for an explanation but by that time Hargreaves had disabled that email address. Then the author contacted a private investigator in an effort to track down the elusive Grant Hargreaves. He was able to confirm there was no such person and also he was able to find out the name and address of the sender of that email. That person has been sent a letter from the author's lawyer asking him to reimburse the author for any costs and inconvenience caused to the author. To date there has been no response. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Re editing. I see that page has basically been closed down so I won't try to do what you are suggesting at this time. In the meantime I will contact Cameron Slater and link to your comment and see what he has to say about the matter. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. I see that books can be cited as a link. In that case can I cite The Bain Killings Whodunnit ? as a source. That Michael Guest email is in that book. The problem with that NZ Herald article is that there is quite a bit of extraneous material on it whereas in Sharp's book it is all on the one page. Also there are excerpts from the retrial in that book which I could cite, rather than use the retrial transcript. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 01:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
And you would be wrong. I am not trolling this page. I have told you I have a copy of the retrial transcript. Do you require me to link you to that transcript to prove to you that it is reliable. The only problem with me doing that is that many other people are going to see the complete transcript which is something I would rather not happen. Of course I could link you to the transcript and then remove that link after you have had a chance to have a quick look at it so you can see for yourself that it is really the retrial transcript , all 3000 odd pages of it. Might be 4000 odd, can't remember off the top of my head. Alternatively I could copy and paste the first page. I resent your insinuation that I am trolling this page, when I am only trying to get a satisfactory answer. So far as I am concerned the retrial transcript is a reliable source, in fact there could not be a more reliable source. So that's two apologies you owe me but I won't hold my breath waiting for either of them. Good night to you. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 08:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
[Moved this section down the page so that it appears in chronological order, that is, under "Wrongfully convicted".] Akld guy ( talk) 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop's claim that he edited the section on Cottle (see Second Trial) on a pretext about citations, is spurious. I have checked all the citations numerous times, and the links are still live and accurate. The only one that is not a website link is the material from the Pretrial Rulings. In that one instance I have given a full reference, being document title, date, paragraph number. I have added the paragraph back in and am happy to argue for the significance of the failure of Cottle to testify at the second trial here if need be. I suggest that Turtletop click the citations - there are 5 in that one small section - and actually read the articles. NZgreygoose ( talk) 11:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC).
Greygoose: I have deleted your edit in which you called me a liar. Calling me a liar is a personal attack. Please read WP:No personal attacks where it says: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Turtletop ( talk) 09:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In New Zealand, guilt is not decided by the police. It is decided by the courts. Catch up with reality. This is the 21st century and Bain has been found not guilty by the courts. Last century, when David was first convicted, the police (and the first jury) got it wrong. Turtletop ( talk) 09:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have merged Dean Cottle's statements together. They were previously split, with his statement that Laniet was about to reveal her father's alleged incest being immediately followed by details of Robin's alleged depression. There seemed to be no justification for the split, except that it seemed designed to create the impression that the depression was the result of the threatened revelation. It is WP:NPOV to attempt to make that link. If Robin Bain was depressed, there could have been causes other than allegations about to be made by his daughter. Akld guy ( talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I will start editing again shortly. In the 1995 trial section it is stated that the prosecution were unable to supply a motive as to why David Bain murdered his family. In fact the prosecutor did suggest a motive in his summing up and I can cite the book Mask of Sanity . I do not have to get a consensus when I cite a reliable source but I thought I would just let other editors know what I am intending to do so that they can comment should they wish to.
@ Turtletop:It would be helpful if you would stop editing and discuss on the Talk page. You appear to be making edits that are WP:NPOV. Akld guy ( talk) 21:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
At this stage I only intend to cite one more reference, this is to counter accusations of incest. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 00:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I believe the David Bain case is a New Zealand Police model case with video that has been given to recruits at the Royal New Zealand Police College in Porirua in the 1990's giving their perspective of the evidence and why they believe David Bain is guilty. The media has not picked up on this, but now that the Privy council has quashed his conviction and ordered a retrial it makes you wonder how the evidence was presented to recruits. -- Zven 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about this. If the optometrist had changed his mind and decided they were David's and his statement read out in court was they they were David's then what's the problem? Is it supposed to say changed to say they were David's mother's? Nil Einne 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The articles appears to have serious copyvio problems. The prosecution and alternative theory sections are copyvio from crime.co.nz, specifically here and here. The copyright policy for crime.co.nz is here and it's clearly not GFDL or all right's released. Someone needs to go through and look for any other copyvios and remove them all. I left the 2 in in case it's useful in looking for more copyvios. Cheers Nil Einne 06:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed three sections which were substantially copies of pages from crime.co.nz. This leaves the article relatively neutral, but lacking in information about why the case was controversial and eventually overturned. Someone, please add a new section explaining the two theories about the murder, with an explanation of the key points of evidence the two sides argue over. Of course, the article needs to be presented in a neutral fashion, and it needs to be references point by point. The Privy Council ruling is an excellent source. Please cite paragraph numbers rather than just refer to the whole document or using page numbers which may differ according to the software used to load the .RTF file. References from crime.co.nz or news media are fine too.- gadfium 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have a reference telling the type of .22 rifle used by the killer? I once read it was a Ruger 10/22, but I am unable to confirm this. The Ruger 10/22 has a standard detachable 10-round magazine with unconventional external dimensions. See http://www.prestostore.com/cgi-bin/pro08.pl?ref=armedamerica@comcast.net&ct=65380&pd=291544 Petlif 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The gun is a .22 Winchester semi automatic with a home made silencer attached by means of a screw on steel hose clip. The weapon can be seen here with Police Armourer Robert Ngamoki. 10 and 5 round ammo magazines were found at the scene. http://www.nzpaimages.co.nz/preview.php?image_id=63257
More verification of this here... http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/51865/blood-spatter-raises-question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.48.157 ( talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm failing to see why he was convicted for the murder? Perhaps there can be another section outlining the evidence that the courts based his conviction on? Mathmo Talk 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The Prosecution in the case used a rope and its strands as an analogy for their case. It would make sense to use this analogy and these strands as the layout for presentation of the evidence that the courts based his conviction on. For example one of these strands making up the rope of evidence was the gurgling of Laniet that David said he overheard as she lay dying. Another strand was that David admitted wearing his mothers spectacles that weekend which were found broken by the police, one lens was in Stephens room, and the broken frame and the other lens were in the accused's room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.48.157 ( talk) 10:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but this article seems to have been infected by the New Zealand Medias ambition to sway the public to believe that David Bain is innocent, This article needs to provide the initial evidence and why he was convicted as well as the defences evidence, not just why the Privy Council quashed David Bain's murder convictions. There needs to be some editing done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.199.208.54 ( talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The article IS slanted.
The Privy Council recommended Bain stay in jail till the retrial.
The overwhelming EVIDENCE points to David Bains guilt, the defence is going to rely on hearsay and he WILL be convicted again. There is not one shred of EVIDENCE that Robin had anything to do with the killings, no blood, no fingerprints, no bruises, no fibres, nothing.
I think complete removal may be good advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushbutton auto ( talk • contribs)
The privy council ruled on a matter of what the judge didn't do rather than what he did. The PC also ordered Bain to stay in custody which surely is a guide to what they indicated would be the likely outcome of a retrial. The pity is all their recommendations were not implemented. Bain on Bail sent the wrong message to the community. Farmer56 ( talk) 05:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I thought I was in breach. I mean complete removal because of the rules, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I see someone added the FACT that the Privy Council recommended he stay in jail, only to add some flotsam about a cheering crowd, what codswallop, the media circus and a few fanatics. This is exactly what I refer to as slanted. And I see someone is saying you can't allow an EVIDENCE addition because of contempt, what a joke. Seriously this article is in violation of the neutral point of view. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So you forgot (for 2 years) about the Privy Council recommending he stay in jail till the retrial or didn't think that relevant to a balanced article ? TUI .... If the indepth Privy Council findings are giving undue weight because the EVIDENCE FACTS can't be posted to give balance then the findings should be elimanated. As previously stated there is not ONE piece of evidence that anyone other than David BAIN committed these murders, NOT ONE. I will be very interested to see this article when he is a AGAIN convicted. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that media reports suggest that the people of Dunedin are more firmly convince that David Bain in guilty, than those further north. This may or may not be significant, but should it be alluded to? JohnC ( talk) 03:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
So what if the sourced material is biased or factually incorrect, can the editor still continually use these as sources ?
A split tag had been placed on the "Privy Council findings" section. There is a need for a split but into something a little more meaningful. " David Bain" and David Bain murder trials or Bain family murders would be my suggestion. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This article necessarily grew like Topsy and therefore needs a good edit, something that will prune its size and eliminate irrelevancies. We need to create something that in five years time or whatever will be a faithful encyclopedic report of the Bain saga. I have just rewritten the intro, to hopefully something like how it will look to Wiki visitors in the distant future. I'm willing to help knock this article into shape, but not if there are people who insist on including info that may (or may not) have been somehow important to the trials but which is not relevant to an encyclopedia article. We are not supposed to be some sort of court transcript/record. Anyone want to help? Comments? Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
David Bain is innocent according to the definition given in our not guilty article. Either that article needs rewriting, or we remove the following contradicting information from the David Bain article - " A verdict of not guilty does not mean that the accused person is innocent .....". Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Some media outlets have published stories about the nature of some of the evidence suppressed from the retrial, which seem to have since been pulled off their websites. I won't go into details of the evidence here, since there may be legal issues surrounding it - here's one report of legal action over recent media coverage. A Google search for "Bain suppressed evidence" currently gives you the gist, and partial copies of the news stories have been posted to various blogs and forums. How should we handle this aspect of the case? I'm tempted to leave it out of the article for now, due to possible legal issues and the current lack of reliable sources. -- Avenue ( talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to include some of the evidence accepted by the jury that lead to his conviction. Including...
If he is found guilty again, I think it right to change the article to say that he DID commit the murders. If he is found not guilty, leaving it as is is best. 125.238.255.239 ( talk) 07:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should include a section that basically says yes, David Bain is found not guilty by the jury, but this verdict is controversial among a not insignificant segment of the population. For example, John Roughan [2], Michael Laws [3], and Martin Van Benyen [4] are three of the typical examples of current opinions in this country insisting it was David Bain who had committed the crimes. I'm not sure if this borders on defamation since Bain is not guilty legally speaking, but I think we should write something that says the verdict is not universally accepted. -- JNZ ( talk) 08:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the message on the computer was, i'm sorry that it had to be you, not, sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay. Has there been any dispute over exactly what was typed up on the computer on the day of the killings because I read that and thought, no, I know different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 01:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I heard a famous radio personality Michael Laws quote that during the debate over who committed the killings (that went over the course of a few days), between Laws and Bains faithful supporter Joe Karam, in the winter of 2010, on RadioLive. I don't know whether those shows have been archived anywhere on the Internet but especially the RadioLive website. So yes and no, I think my source is reliable, but no because it was on the radio. -- 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 03:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The recent removal of content is excessive. Most of it appears to be well sourced coverage. It appears that sources such as scoop.co.nz have been discuounted when some, such as this one are authoritative. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Garbage, selective pieces of news, not the whole facts. Offender has already been in trouble for his re-editing and now takes the cake with his fawning over Karam. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 05:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
What about including a photo of Bain...? Offender9000 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If this article is going to be subject to continual rewrites without facts based on one persons bias, then the offender should be stopped ! Pushbutton auto ( talk) 09:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This whole page needs a rewrite, this bio is not encyclopedic or factual, its a weird love letter. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
After starting to read and edit this article it has become clear that there are some major issues with POV's being pushed here. The language used in some sections is loaded - it isn't written in an encyclopaedic manner.
We also need to firm up - is this page just about David Bain - or is it about the Bain family murders? As this alters the content/focus of the article quite substantially. Clarke43 ( talk) 21:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I read this page from the point of view of someone who's totally unknowledgeable about the topic. I'm from the UK and had never heard about the case until today. It reads as a good referenced description. Any page can be improved but it reads fine to me. Just my point of view. It would be a shame to totally re-write or delete content. Liassic ( talk) 10:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
A large amount of content was deleted in this series of edits. There is now only a small amount about the first trial and a tiny amount about the second trial. Nurg ( talk) 05:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct, Offender is attempting to rewrite history. Pushbutton auto ( talk) 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Offender (the name says it all) has had his account banned for operating multiple accounts. Serendipity33 ( talk) 22:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
"At his trial the prosecution claimed that David killed his entire family after completing his early morning paper round."
This statement us not consistent with the reference cited. I cannot anything in the cited paragraph even remotely meaning that. Please demonstrate if you can. There are a number of other sentences in the article which bear no resemblance to the cited source. ( Serendipity33 ( talk) 12:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
Its good to agree on something. There are a number of ways this page can be improved where the wording is loose. Adjectives, buts etc. ( Serendipity33 ( talk) 07:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC))
I have added in a bit more information on the retrial. Dean Cottle evaded being subpoenaed and then arrested for failing to appear. I have cited as best i can (Otago Daily Times newspaper) but as the quote about his memory failing him was from the pretrial rulings, which I don't think are public, I can't add a (link-able)citation for that. Will a paragraph number and date do? NZgreygoose ( talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Update; as Turtletop had now taken complete charge of the article and is repeatedly removing material he claims is not cited correctly, so that he can push his 'David is innocent' POV, I am proposing that I add images (that I have made myself) of the relevant material from the Pretrial Rulings, as this material is not online already as far as I can tell. From the Wikipedia commons, the material can then be cited. NZgreygoose ( talk)
An editor has repeatedly inserted the phrase 'whose lawyers allege' or some variant of it into the first sentence of the Lead. He has even re-inserted it after being asked to 'take it to the Talk page' by
User:Gadfium. I am seeking consensus on whether the phrase is appropriate and whether it should remain in the Lead.
Should the phrase remain? Please answer 'Retain' or 'Remove' with your reason(s) if you wish.
Akld guy (
talk)
03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, I have now found the talk page. Lets discuss whether on not David Bain was "wrongfully " convicted. There was a case in the USA [which I will link to shortly ] where a soldier was convicted of murdering a woman and her two children and sentenced to death, then two years later he was acquitted. Then a few years later he was convicted again of the same murder and once again sentenced to death. My question is " Was that soldier wrongfully convicted at his first trial? " Mr Maggoo Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Timothy Hennis. Was he wrongfully convicted ar his first trial? Timothy Hennis
A not guilty verdict does not mean the person who has been found not guilty is in fact innocent as some people believe. Take the remarkable story of Timothy Hennis, for example. Timothy Hennis, a 27 year old soldier based at Fort Bragg was convicted in 1986 of murdering of Kathryn Eastburn and two of her daughters,aged three and five, in nearby Fayetteville in 1985 and sentenced to death. However his lawyers appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court and the judges ruled that the graphic police photos had wrongly influenced the jury to render a guilty verdict and ordered a retrial. At his retrial in 1989 his lawyers attacked many of the prosecutions most damaging accusations one by one. [Ring any bells?] The end result was that Hennis was acquitted. As a free man Hennis re-enlisted in the Army and served a dignified career,eventually retiring in 2004 with the rank of Master Sergeant. He raised two children and and became the scoutmaster of his son's troop. However the prosecution continued to pursue the case. In 2006 vaginal swabs from a rape kit taken from Kathryn Eastburn's body yielded new evidence. DNA testing was an imperfect science in the 1980's and the semen found in Mrs Eastburn's body wasn't pursued as evidence at the first trial. In 2006 it was was found that the DNA from that rape kit was consistent with Hennis's DNA. The sample was 1.2 quadrillion times more likely to be from Hennis than from any other white person in North Carolina. Due to the Constitutional prohibition on double-jeopardy North Carolina could not try Hennis again. But the Army could. A team of military attorneys evaluated the case and the Army decided to pursue it. Hennis was recalled to active duty two years after his retirement and promptly arrested on three counts of murder. The prosecutions case hinged on the DNA result. The jury composed of men and women in uniform rendered a guilty verdict and Hennis was sentenced to death for the second time. He is now in solitary confinement on death row at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison in Kansas awaiting appeal. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This editor appears to be adding material supporting a particular POV. In the process he has also breached WP:COPYVIO by taking large chunks of material directly from source. Turtletop ( talk) 02:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree it that it is a fact that he was convicted and acquitted. It is also a fact that the Privy Council declared his conviction was a substantial miscarriage of justice. In other words: a mistake was made. He was wrongly convicted. That is also a fact. Turtletop ( talk) 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In regard to paraphrasing from the original trial transcripts, two points. The first is that 99% of the material you added is the case for the prosecution. Since you didn't add anything about the defence case, you appear to be pushing a POV. Your wish to remove the word 'wrongly' adds to that perception. The second point is that since it has subsequently been proved that the prosecution got it wrong, the material you added is presumably incorrect and, anyway, is no longer relevant. It may have been relevant 20 years ago, but not now and Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to relitigate it.
Basically, the only thing that is particularly relevant from the original trial is the fact that there was a miscarriage of justice - and perhaps some explanation as to how and why that happened. Turtletop ( talk) 02:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The phrase 'wrongly convicted' has everything to do with his innocence. There was a miscarriage of justice and Bain was subsequently found to be innocent. This is not a matter of opinion. It is what happened. As a result the phrase 'wrongful conviction' is used by the Government on the Beehive website and by the media to describe his original conviction. Please see citations now provided on the main page. Turtletop ( talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the word 'wrongly' as it was added back in by Turtletop. The first verdict has become controversial only after the fact, just as the second verdict is also controversial. Therefore I suggest historical fact be adhered to. Bain was convicted in 1995. Fact. The article reflects that that verdict was overturned many years later, so I dispute that there is any need to have 'wrongly' in the first part. It is non neutral POV in my opinion. NZgreygoose ( talk) 02:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The word "wrongly" is for wont of a better word used wrongly. It inclusion is simply incorrect and rather than replace it, the word should simply be removed.
Irrespective of personal beliefs as to the guilt of Bain Senior or Junior, David Bain was convicted.
The fact that it was overturned does not make the original verdict wrong. It just means that the PC wanted the trial to start again from scratch. Farmer56 ( talk) 05:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop should not be permitted to continue putting "wrongfully convicted" into this article. It is not his blog ... and his writing is not neutral. The fact remains, David Bain WAS convicted in Dunedin, by a jury of his peers. New Zealand Police are professionally trained to find criminals, and they remain convinced of his guilt. There is some misunderstanding in the mind of Turtletop. An "Application for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment" is simply an application. If the government believes he actually had been wrongfully convicted, there would be no need to ask a judge for an opinion. Similarly, an "application to become a police officer" does not mean you are a police officer, or ever will be. Turtletop has been removing items which could be valuable to someone studying the case. It is not up to Turtletop to select what can and cannot be viewed by someone seeking information on this case, as everything should be made available - just like a regular encyclopedia. Garglesaver ( talk) 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I note that Turtletop has removed a reference to the amount of legal aid paid to Joe Karam which was linked to an article by Jock Anderson. His reason was because he considers Anderson to be a gossip columnist. Surely just because Turtletop believes that Anderson is a gossip columnist does not entitle him to remove that reference. The legal Services Agency provided me with all the legal aid costs relating to David Bain together with a breakdown of the legal aid paid to Joe Karam. Does anyone have any objection to me referring to those costs, even though I can't actually link to the letters and emails I received? The way I see it is that if it is good enough to be able for someone to refer to the $7600 paid to Robert Fisher's girlfiend, then I should be able to refer to the amount of legal aid that was paid to Joe Karam seeing as it was over forty times the amount Fisher's girlfriend received. Legal aid. Figures supplied by the Legal Services Agency. David Bain claimed $3,333,495 in legal aid relating to his first trial, Court of Appeal hearings, Privy Council appeal and retrial. This was and is the most expensive legal aid bill in New Zealand's history. It was made up as follows. Original trial and appeals High Court $149,180 Court of Appeal $ 101,208 Privy Council $455,737
Retrial and Appeals High Court $2,338,810 Court of Appeal $97,118 Privy Council $113,847 Supreme Court $77,595
Joe Karam received $424800 for his work as an investigator, made up of $307664 in fees and $117136 in expenses. He claimed 379 hours at $75 an hour for work related to the Privy Council appeal . He claimed 749 hours at $75 an hour for work related to the retrial. He claimed an additional 2348 hours at $95 an hour for work related to the retrial. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Mr Maggoo ( talk) 00:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
greygoose It would appear the final figure was $424480, although the figure I was given was $424800. The figure showing on the David Bain page $330000 does not relate to the "years of work on the case " but just the retrial . When the legal aid paid to Karam for his work done preparing for his submission to the Privy Council is added the figure is $424480 according to Legal Aid Commissioner Nigel Fyfe. I have edited to show the correct figure although as I have already said, the figure I was given was slightly higher, and that was given to me by the Legal Services Agency. So either I was given the incorrect figure or Nigel Fyfe is wrong. I might point out that the figure of $424480 is the same figure that is entered on Joe Karam's Wikipedia page. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus on the use of the word "wrongfully"as in wrongfully convicted ? I say that word should not be there , Turtledove says it should be and cites a number of links, none of which appear to give a definitive answer. So what I need to know is how many apart from Turtledove support leaving in that word and how many apart from myself support removing it?
Mr Maggoo (
talk)
04:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. But I do have a source and greygoose had already quoted a source but turtledove deleted it because he said her source was an opinion piece. The figure is sourced to on the Joe Karam Wikipedia page as well. Karam was paid $424,480 by Legal Services for his legal work in support of David Bain. Commissioner Nigel Fyfe approved the payment describing Karam's "unique circumstances" and said his legal assistance to Bain's defence was "exceptional" and the "equivalent to a non-qualified legal executive..."[12 Whats more the $330000 that turtledove has entered was not for Karam's years of service , it only related to the retrial ,when he was paid $75 for the first 749 hours and $95 for the remaining 2348 hours a total of 3097 hours which is about a year and a half. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. This is what turtledove has entered on the David Bain page. including over $330,000 to Joe Karam for his years of work on the case.[73 He is fudging. Look at the source. Karam was not paid $330000 for his "years of work on the case " He was paid $330000 as an investigator on work related to the retrial. I would like to know why turtledove is being allowed to get away with this sort of thing. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. Here is the link to that amount $424480 . greygoose had linked to that item on the David Bain page but turtledove removed it on the basis that it was an opinion piece. What gives him the right to do that without a consensus? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11325588 Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop. You say that from a legal perspective David Bain was wrongly convicted. Could you please give me examples of what lawyers are saying this, apart from David Bain's lawyers. You say opinion polls opinion polls show that the majority of New Zealanders accept that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. Could you please link me to a poll where New Zealanders were asked whether or not they believed David Bain was wrongfully convicted.
You are implying that the government chucked out Binnie's report because his conclusion did not suit them. That is only your opinion. The fact is Binnie's report was full of errors some of which I will link to later. It was peer reviewed and found wanting. I agree that whatever conclusion Hon Ian Callinan comes to the not guilty verdict at Bain's retrial will still stand unless of course David Bain decides to confess or else some new evidence is found that proves he was the perpetrator which is about as unlikely as Robin Bain being proved to be the perpetrator. But the possibility exists. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Excerpt from Justice Binnie's report. Binnie report [para 429] “David's evidence is that the sharpness of his vision began to deteriorate at about 30cm[about a foot] but that he could see well enough without glasses to play sports and participate in orienteering which requires the ability to identify markers at considerable distances. There was a video playing at home on the Sunday evening June 19, but he sat close to the television set.
David Bain told Justice Binnie that he didn't need his glasses on the Sunday night prior to watch that video on the Sunday evening because he sat close to the television set. Had Justice Binnie bothered to interview Michael Guest , David Bain's lawyer at the first trial, he would have learnt that Bain had told his lawyer and co-Counsel that he had been wearing the glasses that were found in his room to watch that video. And of course there is plenty of evidence that points to David Bain having worn those glasses that weekend. First of all they were found in his room. Then at trial he said he wore his mother's glasses [and it was a pair of his mother's glasses that was found in his room] when his were unavailable. His glasses were unavailable because he had broken them the previous Thursday when leaning his singing teachers house. Again at trial he said he only wore those glasses for watching TV or going to lectures. He said he was watching a video on the Sunday evening.
The aunt that David Bain was staying with immediately after the killings testified that he had told her [with her daughter present ] that he had been wearing a pair of his mother's glasses that weekend, they weren't perfect he told her, but they got him by. It would appear there can be absolutely no doubt that David Bain had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room. The question he needs to be asked is how the frame of those glasses came to be found damaged in his room on the Monday morning after the killings and how it was that one lens from those same glasses was later found in his brother Stephen's room. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. Ok, I will try to find a better reference, maybe I will contact Fife and see if he can assist. But as I have already pointed out at least twice turtledove is fudging re the amount paid Karam. This is what I have copied from the David Bain page. "including over $330,000 to Joe Karam for his years of work on the case". Joe Karam was paid over $330000 for his work relating to the retrial, not for his years of work on the case. Would you agree to me editing out the words "for his years of work on the case " and entering "for his work relating to the retrial"? Mr Maggoo ( talk) 01:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. Thanks for that. Yes, that is the amount that Karam was paid for his work relating to the retrial Most of it he received for work carried out from work carried out before the retrial started [ I wasn't able to get the actual date that he started because legal aid in his case was paid in blocks of around $20000 a time] He was also paid for work done during the retrial but not for the time that he was actually at the retrial.
Re wrongfully. If you would like to read my post again you will see I did not say Turtledove was unable to give links.
What I said was that Turtledove cited a number of links, none of which appeared to give a definitive answer. Sure the word wrongfully was in all those links but I don't believe the Ministry of Justice or any Minister of Justice has said that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. David Bain's lawyers are claiming he was but just because they are claiming that doesn't make it so. I take you have no objection to removing that word from the info box so long as I leave it in the first sentence. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop
I notice that on another editors talk page you have linked a website that contains defamatory material. In fact the actual article you have linked to is probably defamatory in itself. Nostalgia had stated that the book The Bain Killings Whodunnit? has defamatory material in it but doesn't say what that defamatory material is probably because there isn't any.
Mr Maggoo (
talk) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Moriori
Don't I have to obtain a consensus before I do that ?
Mr Maggoo (
talk)
01:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop.
Carrying on from where I left off re that Nostalgia blog you linked to.
Nostalgia also says that book has been banned. That is not correct. The facts of the matter are as follows
Two bookshops were selling that book. Bookshop A were told by a David Bain supporter that the book had referred to a defamatory website, namely Counterspin. They then withdrew the book and asked the author to have it legally vetted and once that was done, they would start selling it again. The author decided that the cost of having it vetted would be too great, given the number of copies that were printed, so Bookshop A returned the unsold books and paid the author for the sold books . As it happens at the time that book was published all the defamatory material had been removed from Counterspin and that website is still up and running today.
Re bookshop B .Message to follow.
I have started a new section to try and resolve concerns about the term wrongfully convicted - and added it back into the first sentence. From a legal perspective the word 'wrongfully' means there was a miscarriage of justice - as determined by the Privy Council. It is the term used by the Minister of Justice Amy Adams in a memorandum she wrote for Cabinet about the case. See : DAVID BAIN'S APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT.
It is the wording used by former Ministier of Justice, Judith Collins, on the Ministry of Justice website here: "Minister Collins has released the respective reports of Justice Binnie and Robert Fisher QC, on David Bain's application for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment."
Prior to Bain's acquittal, in 2006 High Court judge Sir Thomas Thorp used the term 'wrongful convictions' for cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice. See Up to 20 wrongly in jail says judge
It is the wording used by the media to describe the case.
NZ Herald: David Bain wrongful conviction report ongoing
TVNZ: David Bain compensation: The story so far
TV3: David Bain compensation case resumes
Even bloggers like WhaleOil use the term. See his coverage here: David Bain compensation report a long time coming
In other words, the term wrongfully convicted is both in official and common usage for miscarriage of justice cases. It makes no difference whether wiki editors think the Privy Council or the second jury got it right or not. Legally, a miscarriage of justice occurred and Bain has been found not guilty. In the eyes of the law, he was wrongfully convicted. These are the current facts. They may change in the future. But as matters currently stand, David Bain was wrongfully convicted. The first sentence on this page needs to reflect this as it sets the tone for the rest of the article - which should be in the Category:People wrongfully convicted of murder
( Turtletop) 02:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Turtletop ( talk) 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There have been a large number of contentious edits beginning in December 2015 and continuing as I write in January 2016. For those who are wondering why, apparently there was a discussion on a Facebook page by those who have strong opinions and/or have written books on the topic of the Bain murders. When it was mentioned on the Facebook page that there were inaccuracies in Wikipedia's David Bain article, the disputes spilled over into the article. Four usernames have been involved. Akld guy ( talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Just having a re-read of the article as it now stands and some sections are really poor, and very non-neutral POV. Family background is one, and section on Judith Collin's dealing with Binnie report is another. e.g. The family backgound section has a lot from Dean Cottle. He says he was her friend, and that she told him she was a prostitute. According to Police view (and other evidence)Dean Cottle was her pimp, not her friend. He owned the phone she used to advertise as a prostitute, and this is how he entered the picture in the first place. Evidence given at the retrial supports this, and not that they were friends. Yet he is being used to pad out this section, as if he can be relied on to be telling the truth. "A teacher revealed".? The teacher was revealing nothing more than that Laniet was prone to telling stories that could not be verified, and yet it is put into the article as if she really did have a baby and was raped. Neither is true, as far as anyone can establish to this day. The Bains actually were quite an interesting family with many accomplishments among them, and this is not reflected in the section; it is written to push the point of view that Robin was a depressed failure and other myths. If anyone wants a full overview of their entire family lives up to the deaths (from many more reliable sources that the ones given here) then 'The Mask Of Sanity' is the book to read. This section reflects no more than the defense party line, as it stands. Ditto the Collins section. It is well known how the defense feel about Collins, but she had support in her strong stance from many quarters. Of course this is not 'allowed' to be included in a pro-Bain spin piece is it? Again the section reflects the usual party line from the defense. NZgreygoose ( talk) 05:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I have now made a number of edits trying to make it both more accurate and less POV. First Trial; the lounge was not downstairs. There were two paragraphs in this section which actually pertained to the 2007 Privy Council decision, so I have removed them. I have cited the Dean Cottle ruling number 8, (its'in McNeish book) and added in that this evidence was suppressed, as its later un-suppression by media outlets is part of the story. I hope to get that part in once I can research it. The other edits were small, and related to POV words/phrases used. NZgreygoose ( talk) 14:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Garglesaver has deleted the word 'Wrongly' before the word convicted - three times in the last few hours. He has now deleted other material he disagrees with despite it being backed up by reliable citations. This is edit warring and disruptive behaviour. Turtletop ( talk) 07:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Do not let yourself be bullied by Turtletop. Turtletop inserted the word wrongly without obtaining a consensus. That is disruptive behaviour. The source he has cited does not support the use of that word. David Bain is claiming he was wrongly convicted. And I am not the only comenter that has made that same point.
And may I add that you don't seem to be able to make up your mind on the use of that word.
How about a bit of consistency here, or is that too much to ask? Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Just testing. Is this the correct procedure that I should be using in order for you to understand that I am replying to you. I would have thought that by entering Auckland guy before I started my message it would have been obvious who it was addressed to but apparently not. I mean I am in my eighties but even I would have understood who that message was for. My apologies about saying it was you who Turtletop was bullying, apparently it was somebody else. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 22:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. I have got the hang of the tildes bit, didn't realise that I shouldn't have started a new line, I guess that is why my name comes up twice sometimes. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 00:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Inconsistent monitoring There has been considerable discussion over the use of the word wrongfully over the past few days. There would have been no need for this if the monitoring had been consistent . When I removed that word I was given a warning. "Your edits are in conflict with those of several others, and you are not contributing to the discussion at Talk:David Bain. You are Edit warring and your editing is becoming disruptive. If you continue in this matter, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not edit the article again without gaining a consensus on the talk page.-gadfium 03:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)"
Garglesaver has been blocked for a week for removing that word. I have been told I need to get a consensus to remove that word , garglesaver has been blocked for a week for removing that word and yet Turtletop never got a consensus to insert that word in the first place. A monitor needs to be consistent, otherwise he/she opens himself/herself up to claims of biased monitoring. The discussion re the word wrongfully would probably never have occurred in the first place if monitors had been consistent because I very much doubt that Turtletop would have obtained a consensus to include it. I personally do not believe that everyone needs to get a consensus to edit so long as they are able to cite a valid source and providing that source backs up their edit. Turtletop has entered a source as regards the word wrongfully but that source only relates to David Bain claiming he was wrongfully convicted so in that particular instance that source is irrelevant. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 00:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is another example of Turtledove citing an irrelevant reference. He is trying to mislead readers of the David Bain Wikipedia page into believing that David Bain had no motive for killing his family. From his citing. "The question of motive was well canvassed before the jury and it was explained that the prosecution has a duty to prove intent in a criminal case,but not motive. Mr Karam still thinks there was an obligation on the prosecution to show a convincing reason for the killings before David should have been charged or convicted. In his closing address to the jury, Mr Wright, the Crown Solicitor, said "...you've heard evidence from the Crown indicating that the accused is a disturbed young man. In the weeks prior to 20th of June his behaviour was bizarre. It is not my job to speculate on this. The accused's reasons, his motivation, are irreleval1t.,,373 In his summing up, Justice Williamson said that the Crown had told the jury "... that these events were so bizarre and abnormal that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of any logical or reasonable explanation"" In fact in his closing address at the first trial the Prosecutor did suggest a motive and I quote. There is something of a grudge against the father. He was an obstacle. Again and again, like an obsession. Building the house was necessary to keep them together , otherwise the dream of the sanctuary would collapse. This is his story. Otherwise mum might go off and live in a home ownership unit with Stephen, dad would be at Taieri Beach with Laniet , Arawa might go flatting. If you think about it,it is unreal. Because what he wanted was to inherit. [User talk:Mr Maggoo|talk]]) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors should be aware that Turtletop has linked to the double killer Brian McDonald's Nostalgia website which contains defamatory material i.e. McDonald has referred to male members of the Justice for Robin Bain group by name and called them pedophiles, he has referred to one female member of the same group by name and called her the town bike, he has referred to three other female members of the group by name and called them the three witches. And one could say the page that is actually on display is defamatory in itself as he is saying that the book The Bain Killings Whodunnit? https://petesnewhangout.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/the-bain-killings-book-review/ is defamatory when the author has never received any complaints about defamation and he also says that book was banned from bookshops when in actual fact one bookshop withdrew it from sale because it had not been legally vetted and the other bookshop that was selling that book withdrew it from sale because the manager felt she should remove it on receipt of an email from a David Bain supporter to the effect that the writer had breached a name suppression order. Once she received advice from the writer's lawyer that no name suppression order had been breached and that the email was sent out of malice the book was put back on the shelves for sale again. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-castle/wikipedia-deepak-chopra-o_b_8449394.html Mr Maggoo ( talk) 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
[New section created for the question asked by Mr Maggoo]
Akld guy (
talk)
02:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is something else I would like to discuss. I had entered a paragraph on DB Wikipedia re the email Michael Guest sent to Judith Collins. It was removed no doubt because I didn't enter a reference. The only place that I can find that article on the internet is on the Counterspin website. Would it be in order for me to use that website as a reference? I believe that email to be of the utmost importance because in it Michael Guest says that Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings. That email was obtained via an Official Information request, though not by me.
Mr Maggoo (
talk)
01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Mr Maggoo ( talk) 05:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
His self-published book was pulled from the two bookstores in New Zealand that agreed to stock it after receiving advice that it was a highly defamatory work that would never have been published other than by a self publisher.End quote.
Bookshop B stopped selling that book because they had received an email from a David Bain supporter using the name Grant Hargreaves telling them that the author had breached a name suppression order. The author retained a lawyer to look into the matter and he was able to confirm that there was no name suppression breach. Bookshop B was advised and they put that book back on the shelves again. Then the author's lawyer sent an email letter to Grant Hargreaves to ask him for an explanation but by that time Hargreaves had disabled that email address. Then the author contacted a private investigator in an effort to track down the elusive Grant Hargreaves. He was able to confirm there was no such person and also he was able to find out the name and address of the sender of that email. That person has been sent a letter from the author's lawyer asking him to reimburse the author for any costs and inconvenience caused to the author. To date there has been no response. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Re editing. I see that page has basically been closed down so I won't try to do what you are suggesting at this time. In the meantime I will contact Cameron Slater and link to your comment and see what he has to say about the matter. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 04:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Auckland guy. I see that books can be cited as a link. In that case can I cite The Bain Killings Whodunnit ? as a source. That Michael Guest email is in that book. The problem with that NZ Herald article is that there is quite a bit of extraneous material on it whereas in Sharp's book it is all on the one page. Also there are excerpts from the retrial in that book which I could cite, rather than use the retrial transcript. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 01:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
And you would be wrong. I am not trolling this page. I have told you I have a copy of the retrial transcript. Do you require me to link you to that transcript to prove to you that it is reliable. The only problem with me doing that is that many other people are going to see the complete transcript which is something I would rather not happen. Of course I could link you to the transcript and then remove that link after you have had a chance to have a quick look at it so you can see for yourself that it is really the retrial transcript , all 3000 odd pages of it. Might be 4000 odd, can't remember off the top of my head. Alternatively I could copy and paste the first page. I resent your insinuation that I am trolling this page, when I am only trying to get a satisfactory answer. So far as I am concerned the retrial transcript is a reliable source, in fact there could not be a more reliable source. So that's two apologies you owe me but I won't hold my breath waiting for either of them. Good night to you. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 08:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
[Moved this section down the page so that it appears in chronological order, that is, under "Wrongfully convicted".] Akld guy ( talk) 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Turtletop's claim that he edited the section on Cottle (see Second Trial) on a pretext about citations, is spurious. I have checked all the citations numerous times, and the links are still live and accurate. The only one that is not a website link is the material from the Pretrial Rulings. In that one instance I have given a full reference, being document title, date, paragraph number. I have added the paragraph back in and am happy to argue for the significance of the failure of Cottle to testify at the second trial here if need be. I suggest that Turtletop click the citations - there are 5 in that one small section - and actually read the articles. NZgreygoose ( talk) 11:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC).
Greygoose: I have deleted your edit in which you called me a liar. Calling me a liar is a personal attack. Please read WP:No personal attacks where it says: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Turtletop ( talk) 09:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In New Zealand, guilt is not decided by the police. It is decided by the courts. Catch up with reality. This is the 21st century and Bain has been found not guilty by the courts. Last century, when David was first convicted, the police (and the first jury) got it wrong. Turtletop ( talk) 09:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have merged Dean Cottle's statements together. They were previously split, with his statement that Laniet was about to reveal her father's alleged incest being immediately followed by details of Robin's alleged depression. There seemed to be no justification for the split, except that it seemed designed to create the impression that the depression was the result of the threatened revelation. It is WP:NPOV to attempt to make that link. If Robin Bain was depressed, there could have been causes other than allegations about to be made by his daughter. Akld guy ( talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I will start editing again shortly. In the 1995 trial section it is stated that the prosecution were unable to supply a motive as to why David Bain murdered his family. In fact the prosecutor did suggest a motive in his summing up and I can cite the book Mask of Sanity . I do not have to get a consensus when I cite a reliable source but I thought I would just let other editors know what I am intending to do so that they can comment should they wish to.
@ Turtletop:It would be helpful if you would stop editing and discuss on the Talk page. You appear to be making edits that are WP:NPOV. Akld guy ( talk) 21:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
At this stage I only intend to cite one more reference, this is to counter accusations of incest. Mr Maggoo ( talk) 00:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)