This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tristanb (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 9 September 2012 (→Large deletion of content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:49, 9 September 2012 by Tristanb (talk | contribs) (→Large deletion of content)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | New Zealand B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
Model of .22 rifle
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)
Evidence for?
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 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- this scoop outline gives a good summary of events and Privy Council decision --Zven 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- That link gives the full text of the Privy Council ruling, nothing more or less. They do provide a good review of the case, although it's not exactly brief. I think our article would benefit from adding the main reasons given for the Privy Council finding. -- Avenue 02:56, 11 May 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)
Police instructional video in David Bain case
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)
- Yes, that is interesting. The case would probably be good material for a very different training video now. -- Avenue 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio problems
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)
- I've summarised the two sides, but haven't touched on the evidence yet. -- Avenue 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very good work.-gadfium 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a fair bit on the evidence, following the Privy Council report fairly closely. They have naturally focussed on the aspects that support their conclusion of a miscarriage of justice, so the current version might seem a bit one-sided. It probably needs further expansion based on other sources such as the books or earlier appeals, but I need to take a break from it for now. -- Avenue 11:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Any such further expansion could now be construed as contempt of court. From the Solicitor-General's press release: "I wish to make it very clear that it is not appropriate for there to be further public debate about he evidence or any other public comment that is calculated or likely in influence a future jury. Those who attempt to usurp or otherwise influence the trial process risk facing a charge of contempt of Court." -- Avenue 06:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Glasses
- The jury heard a statement from an optometrist that glasses found in David's room were David's, conflicting with David's testimony that they were his mother's. David was then cross-examined about this in a way that raised doubt over his credibility. The optometrist had in fact changed his mind shortly before testifying, and believed his statement had been changed to say they were David's, but this had not happened. The jury asked a question about this issue after retiring, and were reminded of the conflicting testimony by the judge. The Privy Council concluded that while the ownership of the glasses was not a vital matter in itself, the conflicting evidence may have detracted from David's credibility in the eyes of the jury.
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)
- You're right, it is supposed to say changed to say they were David's mother's. Sorry! I'll fix it now. -- Avenue 07:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
BIAS
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)
- Yes, I agree the article is incomplete. But the Solicitor-General banned further discussion before we could expand it (see above). I think our choice now is between leaving it essentially as is, or cutting it back substantially (e.g. removing the Evidence section and almost all of the Criminal trial section) so as to not say anything about the details of the case. But IANAL, so I'm not even sure if the latter approach is safe. -- Avenue (talk) 09:43, 9 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)
- Don't be so quick to assume malice. Much of the article was written during the "media circus", when information about the Privy Council ruling was more easily available than details of the original trial. Their decision was also probably more interesting to most readers at the time. But I agree that our detailed coverage of the Privy Council findings could now be seen as giving undue weight to evidence that throws doubt on Bain's convictions. After the retrial was announced, we couldn't add any details of the evidence suggesting his guilt without risking being in contempt of court. Hopefully we will be allowed to do so soon.
- In the meantime, another option might be to split the Privy Council case and findings out into a separate article (although even this might be risky). Would you be in favour of that? I'll tag the section to invite others to comment too. -- Avenue (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the guidelines about altering your own comments. You probably meant well in deleting your comment about other editors' motives, but this sort of thing can make the discussion much harder for others to follow. (Here's a diff showing Pushbutton's original comment, for anyone who needs it.)
- What are your reasons for advocating complete removal? Do you mean removal of just the Privy Council findings, or the criminal trial descriptions too? -- Avenue (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I thought I was in breach. I mean complete removal because of the rules, see Misplaced Pages: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)
- Well, it is a fact that there was a cheering crowd at Bain's Bail hearing. Additionally, other facts could be verified to qualify the statements you claim are biased: i.e. that the crowd numbered x no. of people, that the crowd contained a large number of members of the media, etc. If you're concerned about bias, please suggest how we can improve the article. Just wiping it doesn't help anyone. --Lholden (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- As I said before, the amount of detail we provide about the Privy Council findings could be seen as giving them undue weight. So I'm interested to hear what people think about how we could address this, given that the best solution (expanding other parts to match) would violate the Solicitor-General's order. (Contempt of court is not something to take lightly.)
- But I'm not aware of anything in the article that isn't verifiable. I'm sure there are still many omissions, such as the Privy Council wanting him to remain in custody — thanks for mentioning that. The part about a cheering crowd was not just added — it's been there for over a year. You can see this by clicking the history tab at the top of the article. -- Avenue (talk) 07:49, 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)
- It's a relatively minor point, I think, but worth including. I didn't notice it when I first went through their findings (which was before he was bailed). Their wording wasn't entirely clear about how long Bain should remain in custody — until the retrial took place, or until it was decided whether there would be one. Perhaps our text should reflect this ambiguity more closely, although he was released earlier than they said under either interpretation.
- I don't see anything in our article that would be inappropriate to keep (alongside more balancing information) if he was again convicted. We'd still want to cover the controversy, appeals, etc.
- I believe we're currently not allowed to discuss specific items of evidence in a public forum like this, so I'm not going to respond to your assertions about the evidence until we can legally discuss that level of detail. I'm not convinced they're that relevant to our editorial decisions anyway. -- Avenue (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Does anyone know how long the original jury deliberated for?
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)
- Probably not significant or worth covering here, but please link here to such reports so we can assess them.-06:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
After the Trial
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)
- There are months before we have to worry about that, although I think phrasing it as "found guilty" or "convicted" would be more acceptable than pretending we know what actually happened. -- Avenue (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Avenue, you definately cannot say that as the court findings are not necessarily correct in every trial. By that logic if he was found not guilty in the retrial we would be able to say the he didn't do it. In general the decision made by a jury is only as good as the evidence available, if the evidence is poor, then there is a higher chance the jury could make an error in judgement. In this case there is now only one person alive who does actually know the truth and that is David Bain, unfortunately forensic evidence was destroyed in both the house fire, and by police before the first appeal which may have been able to conclusively determine the killer in this case. --Zven (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Add evidence from original trial
It would be good to include some of the evidence accepted by the jury that lead to his conviction. Including...
- David Bain left a bloody palm print on the washing machine
- David Bain had scratches marks and bruises on his body
- Wool fibres, matching those of David Bain's jumper, were found under the fingernails of his murdered brother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.105.13 (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It could be useful to cover the evidence presented in the original trial in more depth, in due course - i.e. after the retrial is finished. But I believe we currently can't do this without violating the Solicitor General's order not to discuss it publicly (see above). I think we are allowed to report on the evidence presented at the retrial, so if any of those points are presented in that forum, I believe we are free to add them. (But I am not a lawyer.) I haven't kept close track lately, but I'm sure the scratch marks and bruises have been mentioned at the retrial. -- Avenue (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Solicitor General's order does not apply to an American website. 123.255.21.42 (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's probably a moot point now, but I think it would have been unwise for editors within New Zealand's jurisdiction to have ignored the order. -- Avenue (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given every fact cited by the original editor came out in court to no avail, that may be true, but Misplaced Pages has fought challenges from the German government before. And they actually took real action against the organisation, which the New Zealand government will never do, and no Misplaced Pages.co.nz exists for defenders of information about criminals to abuse. I just wish people didn't raise these imaginary threats. 123.255.21.42 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- When I said it was probably now a moot point, I was referring to the timing, not the content. The retrial is over, and there seems to be no real prospect of another one, so the Solicitor-General's warning about influencing the jury shouldn't apply anymore. I'd agree that Misplaced Pages would probably have been undamaged by any reasonable edits to this article, but individual editors could have been more vulnerable. Anyway, this all seems to be hypothetical now. -- Avenue (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree entirely with Avenue even if it's a largely moot point now. 123.255.21.42 appears to be a NZ IP address possibly one in Christchurch or elsewhere in Canterbury (although from my experience IP geolocations are often not that reliable). Editors often seem to forget that they have liability for anything they do on wikipedia so it's important we remind editors that they do bear a risk. Also please remember for future cases that unless the information is in reliable secondary sources, it generally should not be added to wikipedia. In particular, adding information from primary sources (trial documents for example) is highly discourage in BLPs. If this information was reported at the time of the first trial and the sources are still available, then that would probably be sufficient but information not reported would not be Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Split
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)
- I oppose a split. The article is not so long that such is necessary, and any split would be an artificial division of a natural topic.-gadfium 06:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I also oppose a split. The tag reflected a disagreement about whether that section gave those findings undue weight, given that there were legal reasons the article couldn't be expanded greatly at the time. Now that no longer applies, and we should just get on with expanding it. I will remove the tag if no one objects. -- Avenue (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, points taken on board. I have removed the split tag. One comment though: splitting is not just about article length - it is also about getting the balance right. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Rewrite -- no need for split
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)
- I'm sure there are plenty of improvements to be made. The retrial arguments would probably read better if we contrast both sides of each important issue, rather than running through the full list of prosecution and defence positions in turn. Perhaps we should consider alternatives the chronological structure currently in place, too. But I don't see many irrelevancies at present. Can you please indicate what parts of the article you feel aren't relevant?
- I do think there is some repetition, and some of this can be avoided. For instance, a good summary of the main retrial arguments and evidence could replace the opening statements and also let us cut back the summary of the Privy Council findings substantially. But I think a fair amount of detail will still be necessary. Our article should try to answer natural questions such as: why was he found not guilty in 2009? why was he found guilty in 1995? why did the whole process take so long? and what went wrong?
- I also think the lead section is currently too short and bland. (I'm not meaning to criticise your changes; this was true of the previous version as well.) Once it addresses the above questions, I think the rest of the article can go into some detail without being too burdensome. -- Avenue (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The NZHerald published an article today addressing the first of these questions, which is nearly twice as long as our whole article. It goes into more detail than we'd probably want to, but I think it helps put the size issue into perspective. -- Avenue (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I specified encyclopedic report. O J Simpson's article has four of five paragraphs dealing with his murder trial and subsequent civil trial, two of the most widely pubicised trials in history. Count the pars in the Bain article about the trials involving a guy largely unheard of outside NZ. Couple of dozen. Overkill personified. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- O.J. Simpson is known for a few things besides the murder trials,
whichso the trials take up only 2 of the 15 (sub)sections in his article. A better comparison would be with O. J. Simpson murder case, which is over twice the size of this article. Remember that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Avenue (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- O.J. Simpson is known for a few things besides the murder trials,
- I specified encyclopedic report. O J Simpson's article has four of five paragraphs dealing with his murder trial and subsequent civil trial, two of the most widely pubicised trials in history. Count the pars in the Bain article about the trials involving a guy largely unheard of outside NZ. Couple of dozen. Overkill personified. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Either, or
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)
- I assume you're referring to the definition given in the first sentence of the acquittal/not guilty article, which says "... an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned ...". IANAL, but I think that could use rewriting - see e.g. Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent, by the Massachusetts Bar Association. Even as it stands, I believe it doesn't really contradict the quote you give from the David Bain article. There is a difference between saying someone is innocent and that their innocence has been formally certified. The caveat "as far as the criminal law is concerned" also seems relevant given that we discuss eligibility for compensation (which follows different rules) in the next section. -- Avenue (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Suppression of stories about suppressed evidence?
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)
- I have reverted the addition of an unsourced section on this (see diff), as I think we should reach a consensus here first. -- Avenue (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Supreme Court has lifted their suppression order, and I've added details of that evidence to the David_Bain#Appeals_and_court_applications section. The full text of their decision is available here. -- Avenue (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Court of Appeal has lifted theirs, too - see e.g. Bain alibi allegations revealed. The court's summing up is available here. -- Avenue (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Opinion on Bain's innocence?
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 , Michael Laws , and Martin Van Benyen 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 agree. It needs to be written carefully, to avoid defamation and follow our BLP policy, but now there are multiple post-trial commentaries expressing doubts, we should cover this too. (I think we shouldn't rely too heavily on Laws as a source here, since he is as much a politician as a journalist, but the other two pieces are more sober. See McLeod's recent piece too.) I'll add something in the next couple of days if no one objects or beats me to it. -- Avenue (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nevard (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- How much weight should be given to peoples opinions on blogs who may or may not be privy to statements and evidence presented in all the trials? Really the issue is about the fact that the evidence cannot conclusively determine the truth, which is what makes the findings from all the court cases controversial. You could just as easily focus on the original police investigation and destruction of evidence, for example, burning down the house, or evidence destroyed by police before the first appeal. --Zven (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's an opinion column by a media expert published at the site, if you cared to read past the title. I'm not interested in discussions of how you 'could' be willfully ignorant of the facts. Nevard (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Message on computer
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)
- do you have a reliable source that says this? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:05, 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)
- I'm pretty sure the article is correct - from memory the exact quote is in the first case. --LJ Holden 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Large deletion of content
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)
- In an article about a living person, it seems to me the minutiae of the trials is not particularly relevant. It is the outcome of the trials and the public response to those outcomes which makes an article about David Bain interesting - rather than a re-litigation of the details which are all disputed anyway. Offender9000 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Offender9000 has made a number of changes to NZ crime related articles. He seems to be strongly slanted in favour of the criminals. The changes he has made need to be looked at closely. Tristanb (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)