Talk:Bain family murders/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Relevance of Laniet's alleged pregnancy

I have cut and pasted the following to start discussion under a new heading. Turtletop (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Why have some of my edits quoting reliable sources been either removed or changed?

For example I cited a witness who said David Bain agreed with her that the idea that Laniet had had a baby was "bloody ridiculous" . The item is still there but the words have been changed. I intend to change them back unless someone can tell me why they were changed in the first place. Also a link to Mask of Sanity where it was stated that hospital records showed that Laniet had never had a baby has been removed. On what grounds? Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I also would like Turtletop to explain why he has deleted statements that the pathologist Dempster stated (or testified, I don't know which) that there was no evidence of stretch marks on Laniet's body, and that hospital records showed no evidence of an admission for an 11 or 12 year old Laniet for obstetrics in Papua New Guinea. These statements appear to have been removed in order to cast Robin Bain in the very worst possible light, when it is more likely that Laniet was given to fantasies. Disclaimer: I do not own and have not read McNeish's book, which was the reference for the removed statements, so cannot vouch for whether the book supports the statements. I just want to know why seemingly valid statements were WP:NPOV? removed. Akld guy (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have that book in front of me and can vouch that those statements appear on page 236. I have edited them back in . Also, I note that Turtletop has re-entered a statement where the Counterspin website is cited. My question is am I also able to use Counterspin as being a reliable source? Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Might I also point out that in the Robert Fisher section Turtledove has written that Binnie's report was supported by some academics but rejected by others, but the link he has cited only relates to one academic. Yesterday I cited two academics that agreed with Robert Fisher to counter the one academic that didn't. Those two citings have been removed and replaced with one. I suppose I can live with that but I intend to change the word some to one. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@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)

Turtletop removed the following with the comment, "This is excessive detail and unnecessary in an article about David Bain. If you wish to include it, please discuss on the Talk page first":

The pathologist Dr Dempster said he did not see stretch marks on the skin of Laniet to indicate a previous pregnancy and postmortem and police evidence in Dunedin and hospital and medical records in PNG combine to exclude the likelihood of any full term pregnancy or abortion by Laniet aged 11 or 12.

That information about Laniet's alleged pregnancy is highly germane to the question of whether she was pregnant or not, or was given to fantasies. If she was given to fantasies, one of them might have been that her father was in an illicit relationship with her. Turtletop has no right whatsoever to demand that Mr Maggoo discuss this on the Talk page first, because the reference seems good, and there is no justification for removing it other than an attempt by Turtletop to maintain the discreditation of Robin Bain by insinuating that he was the father of an alleged Laniet baby, for which NO EVIDENCE whatsoever exists. Akld guy (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have re-instated the obstetrics evidence that Laniet had almost certainly never given birth. It is now up to @Turtletop: to show why that evidence should be removed, or alternatively, that Laniet did give birth. Akld guy (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Virtually all of the edits I made yesterday cited reliable sources . I have been given permission to do that without discussing it on this talk page. Turtletop is either removing some of those sources or changing the wording I have entered. I have not been changing his wording. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Attributing ulterior motives to my editing is a breach of WP:AGF (assume good faith). I removed the disputed material because it is misleading, contradictory and fundamentally irrelevant.

It is confusing because Laniet gave many different versions of the pregnancy/babystory to different people, including that she had an abortion. The point is that she gave so many different versions of the story that none of that part of her 'testimony' is reliable. And that's all it is - 'testimony' - it's not evidence. If any of it is included, then all versions should be included. Only giving one version leads to a lack of balance. But in my view it doesn't assist the reader to know every detail of every version she gave. Why? because it is irrelevant.

It makes no difference to David Bain's situation whether Laniet got pregnant, had a baby or she didn't. Whether or not Laniet was pregnant was so irrelevant to the case that the Privy Council did not even consider the issue. It doesn't alter the multiple claims she made that her father raped her in PNG and was continuing to commit incest with her in Dunedin. It doesn't affect the claim by Cottle that she was going to spill the beans to her family the weekend before she died. And it doesn't mitigate against the multiple other sources that subsequently said Robin Bain was depressed and losing the plot. However, Cottle's statement, the testimony about incest, and Robin's state of mind from multiple sources was considered highly relevant by the Privy Council because it suggested a possible motive for Robin Bain to kill everyone - and then commit suicide. Turtletop (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting one person was left alive. He deserved to stay for some unknown reason. Why did David Bain deserve to stay when Robin Bain carried a photo of Arawa round with him that he showed to everyone at the drop of a hat. If anyone deserved to stay so far as Robin Bain was concerned it would have been Arawa. Of course Robin Bain could have cleared all this speculation up [in the unlikely event that he was the perpetrator ]by leaving a handwritten note. That would have absolved the one who deserved to stay.

Furthermore there were witnesses who testified that Robin wasn't depressed. And there weren't multiple sources saying Robin was losing the plot. His assistant teacher certainly did not think he was losing the plot. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It makes no difference who testified to what - unless the Privy Council or the second jury considered it relevant.Turtletop (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't know what the second jury considered was relevant. One juror said that she felt the Crown were not able to prove their case. She also said that did not mean that the jury believed that Robin Bain was guilty. So far as we know the jury may not have believed any of those stories that Laniet told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maggoo (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Why has Tutledove removed my latest comment? I was citing Radio New Zealand. It further tends to discredit Laniet's incest claims. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Laniet told so many people so many stories about pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion, that she must have been a flake. And if she was a flake on that score, she may have been a flake on her father's alleged illicit relationship with her. That is why Turtletop does not want the evidence of NEVER PREGNANT by the pathologist and hospital records, because it PROVES she was a flake and therefore tends to discredit the incest claim. The pathologist and hospital reports should be in the article. There is no reason to keep them out except censorship. Akld guy (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That is extremely flawed logic and highly judgmental. Clearly, you don't know much about the impact of rape, sexual abuse or incest on the victims. This generally has a profound and disturbing impact on the mind - and would make anyone flaky. Laniet would have been extremely confused, guilty and ashamed of the fact that she was in a sexual relationship with her father, even though it wasn't her fault.

She had no reason to make the entire story up and it is not unreasonable to assume that where there is smoke, there is probably some fire. But given her guilt and feelings of shame, she would be very hesitant when talking about it to implicate her father. This may be why she made up stories about the black baby. The fact that her story about the baby changed does not discredit the incest claim one iota. In fact it tends to support the claim.

On top of that, the quote provided by Mr Maggoo does not say the pathologist said she was NEVER PREGNANT. It says "The pathologist Dr Dempster said he did not see stretch marks on the skin of Laniet to indicate a previous pregnancy". If she had an abortion, of course there would not be any stretchmarks. The quote goes on to say that medical records "combine to exclude the likelihood of any full term pregnancy or abortion by Laniet aged 11 or 12." Two points about that. First, she claimed to have been raped at the age of 15 so the medical examiner may have looked at the wrong records. Second, "exclude the likelihood" is not a categorical statement that she was "never pregnant". It is simply an opinion that it is unlikely.

However, I come back to the real point which is that the Privy Council did not consider her alleged pregnancy to be relevant. But they certainly considered her multiple claims about incest to be so. The Privy Council did not decide that Laniet was so "flaky" that all of her alleged testimony should be ignored, and it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to second guess the Privy Council or the jury on these issues. Turtletop (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

All of the justification that you have just given for removing the pathologist report and hospital records is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Readers of the DB article should be given the opportunity to see all of the circumstances surrounding the alleged pregnancy or pregnancies. You are attempting to censor important medical information that casts doubt on the credibility of Laniet, and thus, the credibility of her claim that her father was committing incest with her. Why are you doing this? The answer must only be to cast Robin Bain in the worst possible light in order to bolster the claim that he was the perpetrator. You are displaying clear signs of WP:NPOV on this matter. I have no opinion on whether DB or RB or some other person was the perpetrator. I simply don't know and am insisting that for balance, this medical information should be in the article for the benefit of readers, who can make up their own minds. Akld guy (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

First, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to assess the credibility of Laniet's claims - the Privy Council and the jury have already done that.

Second, your comments continue to assume a lack of good faith in my editing. Please follow the rules.

Third the David Bain case is filled with conflicting evidence and opinion about virtually every single aspect. If you wish to include everybody's opinion about every aspect of the case, we would be writing a book - not a Wikipedia page. Whether she was pregnant or not is a minor detail that had no bearing on the outcome - which was that there was a miscarriage of justice and then David Bain was found not guilty. I suggest you take your own advice and stop flogging a dead horse. Turtletop (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Furthermore, there has never been a witness who stepped forward and stated that they had seen Laniet with a baby, not one witness who said they KNEW Laniet had had a baby, not one witness who said they KNEW that Laniet had had an abortion, not one witness who said they KNEW that Laniet had given away a baby for adoption. To all intents and purposes, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was ever any pregnancy or baby. You are attempting to censor out of the article medical information that supports that, in order to bolster the view that Robin Bain got her pregnant. Akld guy (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out we don't know what the jury thought about Laniet's stories of her having a baby. They quite possibly thought there was no truth to them. Also, Laniet always said she had those babies in PNG, so there would have been no need to look at any New Zealand records. I am going to put that item back in re the medical records excluding the likelihood of any pregnancy and I am also going to cite that Radio New Zealand interview with Michael Guest. I have been told that as long as I can quote a reliable source then I can edit without consensus. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have summarised the claims that Laniet was not pregnant into one sentence. There is no need for so much speculation by anyone other than medical experts.Turtletop (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Turtletop: I agree that the statements by David Bain to a witness that Laniet's alleged pregnancy/childbirth had no credibility should have been removed and would have asked for debate on it myself this morning. I think it is questionable to include a denial on this point by the accused himself. Akld guy (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

But I was advised that I did not need consensus because I was citing a reliable source. If it is questionable to include that witnesses testimony [who was a missionary friend of the Bain's in PNG] then it must also be questionable to include the testimony of local prostitutes. And I note my citing of Michael Guest's radio interview where he said he didn't believe that Laniet was telling the truth has been removed. So I see no reason why I cannot reinstate both of those citings or alternatively remove that link to a prostitutes testimony. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You were misadvised. Anything contentious requires consensus. Often there will be two reliable sourcers that disagree on the same point. Consensus between editors is almost always required. Otherwise editors get into edit wars and battle with each other over what should be in the article - or hadn't you noticed?Turtletop (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I still advise you to get a consensus on the David Bain talk page before making controversial edits to the article, but since you have been using the talk page for the last week I think you should have the same right as other editors to edit the article, bearing in mind that edit warring by anyone is not acceptable.-gadfium 05:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well it all depends what you mean by contentious. I do not consider either of those citings are contentious. I could just as easily say you citing that link to her father raping her is contentious. I know what I will do. I will remove that citing because I consider it to be contentious and we can discuss it on here. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because something is true, and there is a reliable source, does not automatically mean it should be included in the article. It also has to be relevant. If one editor thinks it's relevant and another editor doesn't, that makes it contentious. Turtletop (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop, you have a damned cheek saying that Mr Maggoo needs consensus when you have just this morning removed the pathologist Dempster report and hospital records again under the comment 'condensed'. You once again censored the article and didn't seek any consensus. Diff is here Akld guy (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about that report and it gives the lie to Laniet ever having had a baby.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have further condensed that article by removing that citing re Laniet being raped by her father. I could have offset that by citing to testimony that Laniet had said she was raped by a family friend in PNG, but decided against going down that road. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I see TT has expanded that article by reinstating that reference to Laniet being raped by her father so I will further expand it by reinstating those two articles that I cited that he removed yesterday. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have decided to only reinstate one of those citings that Turtletop removed. I don't think I need to confirm that Laniet never had a baby. the pathologists report is confirmation enough. But I believe that the fact that David Bain didn't believe any incest was taking place is relevant so that is the article I have reinstated. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I see someone has deleted the citing as referred to above so I am reinstating it. I believe it is important that anyone reading the main article be made aware that David Bain did not believe any incest was place.Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop editing without consensus.

I note that turtletop has edited out that Karam has written three books and a 37 page booklet and replaced it with four books. A 37 page booklet is not a book. A booklet is a small thin usually paper covered book according to the New Zealand Oxford dictionary which exactly describes the booklet Innocent written by Joe Karam. I see Turtletop has removed the link to the Counterspin website. Who gave him permission to do that ? While it is correct to say that at one point of time there was defamatory material on that website the fact is all that material has been removed and that website is still operating which wouldn't be the case if there was still some defamatory material on it.http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/forum/page-3613 Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether a book with 37 pages is a booklet or a book is irrelevant. What is relevant on wikipedia is whether you can provide a reliable source to a description of it as a book or a booklet. I have provided a reliable source (the National Library) which describes it as a book. If you can provide a reliable source (not Counterspin) that describes it as a booklet, then the description becomes contentious. Since there would then be separate sources describing it both as a book and as a booklet, at that point (if anyone really cared) consensus would be required among editors as to which to call it (on wikipedia). Until you understand and accept this absolutely basic rule about editing on wikipedia (providing a reliable source), nothing you add to the David Bain page (or any other page) is likely to remain on the page. Turtletop (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot link to the New Zealand Oxford dictionary. However, I have emailed the National Library suggesting they change their description to booklet as per the New Zealand Oxford dictionary. If they agree to do that then I will change that page back to read 37 page booklet again. You won't be able to change it back because you will not be able to provide that source. If you had waited for me to reply to you you would have had no need to ask gadfium to take some action. I see you reckon I need to seek consensus when you don't bother to seek consensus yourself.

Editing by Mr Maggoo

Hi Gadfium, I think you told Mr Maggoo to seek consensus before editing the David Bain page. I changed his contribution about a 37 page booklet to 'four books'. I wrote this on the Talk page in response to a query from Mr Maggoo: "Whether a book with 37 pages is a booklet or a book is irrelevant. What is relevant on wikipedia is whether you can provide a reliable source to a description of it as a book or a booklet. I have provided a reliable source (the National Library) which describes it as a book. If you can provide a reliable source (not Counterspin) that describes it as a booklet, then the description becomes contentious. Since there would then be separate sources describing it both as a book and as a booklet, at that point (if anyone really cared) consensus would be required among editors as to which to call it (on wikipedia). Until you understand and accept this absolutely basic rule about editing on wikipedia (providing a reliable source), nothing you add to the David Bain page (or any other page) is likely to remain on the page." Turtletop (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) He has changed it back to a 37 page booklet without providing a source. He doesn't seem to understand the most basic wiki editing rules as a result of which his editing is very disruptive. Anything you can do? Turtletop (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  There is a simple solution. Say Karam wrote 4 books, the shortest

of which is 37 pages.Serendipity33 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In regard to the removal of Counterspin, even if defamatory material has been removed, the site is not a neutral one. It has a very strong POV. Its stated aim is "to exonerate Robin Bain" and "to prevent compensation being paid out to David Bain". Permission is not required to remove material which is in breach of WP:NPOV where it says: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." You need to read up on the wikipedia rules before doing any further editing. Turtletop (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You maintain the Counterspin is not neutral because it's aim is to exonerate Robin Bain. I would suggest that Karam's book Trial by Ambush is not neutral because it's aim is to exonerate David Bain. Going by your own reasoning,I would be entitled to remove the link to Trial by Ambush because it is not a neutral book. You should have seeked consensus before removing that link to Counterspin.

And I note you still have not removed that link to the double killer Brian McDonald's blog. That blog not only has defamatory material on it but also it is most definitely not neutral. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference between your book and Joe Karam's is that Karam is such an authority on the case, he has become notable (see WP:Notability) and has his own wikipedia page. Your only claim to fame is your association with Counterspin, two members of which were sued by Karam for defamation. Sorry but that does not make you or Counterspin notable. Quite the opposite. It suggests that you are associated with a point of view that is far from neutral, let alone being an authority. Turtletop (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Black baby

Somewhere along the line, the colour of Laniet's claimed baby got omitted. I have this morning changed "baby" to "black baby", since that is what the reference says. She apparently claimed to others that the baby was white, or didn't specify its colour, but here we can assume that since she said, "black baby" she meant an entirely black baby. Akld guy (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Were I allowed to quote from the retrial transcript I would have been able to link to the transcript of one witness who said Laniet had told her she had had a white baby after being raped by a family friend in Papua New Guinea and to the transcript of another witness who testified that Laniet claimed to have had a black-skinned baby after being raped in PNG. The problem with citing a newspaper report is that they are not always 100% accurate, yet we are allowed to cite them as a reliable source and yet we are not allowed to cite from the retrial transcript which is a 100% accurate reliable source. I have copied and pasted the first page of the retrial transcript but no doubt I will still be told it is not a reliable source. And then there is this link, which I probably shouldn't cite because Turtletop will probably cite it on the main page in an attempt to further denigrate Robin Bain. The point is that Laniet has told so many stories no-one should take anything she has said re incest, being raped and having babies as being the truth. In fact the pathologist her examined her body after her death said postmortem evidence in Dunedin and medical and hospital records in PNG combine to exclude the likelihood of any fullterm pregnancy or abortion by Laniet aged 11 or 12. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/55881/robin-father-baby-witness Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, a baby can't be white and entirely black. Can't be both, can it? Akld guy (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

She reported having both a black and a white baby so better to include both. The link provided so helpfully by Mr Maggoo says she claims the baby was the result of being raped by her father which seems the most likely explanation - in which case it could not be black. Turtletop (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So despite the fact that postmortem evidence and hospital records show that Laniet had never had a baby, Turtletop still believes she had one. This despite the fact that David Bain himself has said that Laniet did not have a baby.http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/54314/margaret-had-problems-court-hears?page=0%2C1 Perhaps Turtletop believes that David Bain was lying when he said that. Of course he could be right because David Bain has told a lot of lies. But the fact is that Laniet didn't have a baby in PNG and she didn't have a baby in New Zealand. And I see he still has not removed that link to the double killer Brian McDonald's defamatory website.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no beliefs whatsoever about whether Laniet had a baby. I simply quoted what the witness said in the ODT article you supplied. Turtletop (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You should cite the text containing the link that you object to. You are not conducting a one-on-one feud with Turtletop here and trying to persuade him to remove it, you are conducting this in front of editors who may be obliged to remove the link. Post the text, with link, that you object to so we can see whether it should be removed. Akld guy (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of this page. Nostalgia NZ Blog. I refuse to link to a defamatory website. I have a vague suspicion that Turtletop may be Nostalgia, but that's only a suspicion. Surely he wouldn't link to his own defamatory website. Also, might I add, that if that website is linked to on say , Kiwiblog or the Trade Me message board it is removed immediately a monitor is advised that it has been cited. Of course it is virtually never cited as a reference on public message boards now because everyone is aware that it will be removed forthwith. On top of which that website is not known to many people anyway, so few would know where to find it. But a defamatory website is still a defamatory website, even if hardly anyone ever looks at it. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And while I am at it, I note there are two other links sited at the bottom of this page. What are they doing there? I see on one of them Turtletop has referred to garglesaver as a sockpuppet when it has been proved to him that he is not. As I have said before , editors have got to watch this bloke, he knows how to play the system.Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You are referring to a link posted on this page, not the David Bain article. No wonder I couldn't find it. This page is now very large and I refuse to spend my time scrolling through it to find the source. Please post which section it's in. Akld guy (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I see now that the link was actually cited by NZgreygoose, not Turtletop. Akld guy (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

: That link may have been cited by greygoose, I was not aware of that. I told you the link was at the bottom of this page, do you not understand what bottom of this page means? Just under this message, got it? Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation was unfairly made against Turtletop, and you persisted in demanding that he/she remove it. It now turns out that the link was posted by NZgreygoose, one of your supporters, if I may call him/her that. [The following sentence was improperly inserted into my post by Mr Maggoo to make it appear that I posted it.]Akld guy (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC) And don't pretend that you don't know whether greygoose is a he or a she, you know very well what gender she is. Akld guy (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to the link at the bottom of this page? I do not believe that anyone but Turtledove would have linked to that. And she is not one of my supporters, so that is another apology you owe me.

Anyway, regardless of who linked to it it should be removed forthwith as this is an example of what is on it, and if that is not defamatory I will eat my hat.

[Potentially libellous quote allegedly from the Nostalgia-NZ site and inserted by Mr Maggoo has been removed by User:Akld guy] Akld guy (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Posted by Nostalgia-NZ at 9:43 PM 4 comments: Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The posting of a link to a site that may be contentious or POV is not a problem. It is a problem if text is quoted from such a site. As per the statement at the top of this page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Note that the word used is 'material'. That does not mean the link to the site. Akld guy (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well I was going to remove that material myself once you had read it. But the point I am trying to make is anyone who reads this page can read what is on that blog and that is why it needs to be removed. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Counterspin website was removed by Turtletop because it was an biased source . That Nostalgia website is more biased than the Counterspin website and it has defamatory material on it as well, so why has it not been removed? Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I now call for Mr Maggoo to be blocked for inserting text into a post by me on this page, that is, modifying a post by me without signing. The diff is here. The user is being disruptive. Akld guy (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith. Mr Maggoo is clearly not well versed in Wiki syntax or custom, and was clumsy in adding a reply to you. In this situation separating out their reply would be appropriate.

Mr Maggoo, your comment was unnecessarily aggressive in tone. Please be civil.-gadfium 05:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

To answer the accusation that I know the gender of NZgreygoose, I do not know it for sure. A day or two into January, I received an email from NZgreygoose via the Wikipedia email server. We discussed aspects of the article, with me assuming she was male, and then Mr Maggoo himself let slip on this page that she was female. I queried her on that and she said she was. We then chatted for several days about lifestyles, interests, families, travel, and so on. Abruptly, in the middle of a conversation about my cat's appetite, she quit chatting with no explanation. I queried her two or three times, wondering whether she was OK or merely had a PC malfunction, but after no response for several days, have made no further contact. We have never met or spoken on the phone, so I do not know her gender, if in fact she is female. For all I know, 'she' could be Maggoo himself. It is despicable of Mr Maggoo to make this a personal matter, forcing me to defend myself and bringing NZgreygoose into this. Akld guy (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And my reason for referring to NZgg as him/her was to avoid revealing her gender. It seemed the gentlemanly thing to do, but Mr Maggoo saw it as some kind of deception. Akld guy (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And a question that readers might have is: "How is it that Mr Maggoo was so certain that I knew that NZgreygoose was female?" Akld guy (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I have transferred the following comments from the Relevance of Laniet's alleged pregnancy section to this new section. Turtletop (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the Police Complaints Authority report has been removed from the main page [it was cited under external links].

That is an extremely informative link and I would suggest it be reinstated. Anyone like to comment? Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the link to Michael Sharp's book The Bain Killings Whodunnit? has been deleted from the further reading section.

Can anyone explain why that was done? It is an informative book including a chapter on Binnie's report noting some of the errors and incorrect assumptions that Binnie made and also a chapter on Binnie's interview with David Bain where David Bain lied about not wearing the all important glasses.Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The two links that you mention were removed by Turtletop here. I suggest that you re-instate them. He allowed the Karam books, which are just as WP:NPOV as the Bain Killings Whodunnit, to remain, which shows just how NPOV his view is. Akld guy (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I did not look close enough. The PCA report is being cited from the Counterspin site, which is not a reliable source. You will have to find a better source for that one. But the Whodunnit can go back in, in my opinion. POV sites may be cited for further reference/additional reading, in my opinion, but not as references for statements made in the main body of the text. Akld guy (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Edited for clarity. Akld guy (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, I have just cited one further reference, that's my lot for now. The page looks reasonably balanced. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The pathologist report and hospital record information is link to a page in the James McNeish book. It lacks a valid page number or has some page related problem. Please fix the cite. Also a helpful hint. When you indent on this page with colons, don't follow with a space, because that ruins the indent. Just follow the colon(s) immediately with your text. Akld guy (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, have fixed. Re the PCA Report.Can it it be cited in the Further reading section? Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On checking my last indent it still doesn't appear to have come up the way it should have even though I didn't leave a space. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Just testing. This time I entered the same number of colons as I did on the previous indent.Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It can be cited anywhere, but not from the Counterspin site or any other NPOV source. Are you sure it doesn't appear on the NZ Police website? Akld guy (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't find it anywhere else. I put my book back in the further reading section but Moriori removed it because apparently I am not allowed to cite my own book in that section. I know I can't cite it in the body of the article. I didn't cite it originally so I wasn't aware I couldn't. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been in there since at least as far back as April 1st 2015, when it was added here. Akld guy (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And what makes that laughable is that it was added by an IP, with no possible way to determine whether that was you or not. Akld guy (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Laughable huh! I noted that a book which is anti the subject of this BLP was linked to by an editor who wrote and self published that book. That is an absolute no no. Sure I know now that it had previously been in the article, and removed as NPOV, but I didn't know then. I see it was also added by a SPA IP who has made only one edit to Wikipedia. Why am I not surprised? SPAs have had quite an input into this hatchet article. Moriori (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2016

As I have already pointed out I wasn't aware I couldn't cite my book, but the point is I wouldn't have had to cite it if Turtletop had not removed it in the first place, something he had no right to do. But I see it has been cited again, so no problems. I didn't even know it had been cited until a couple of weeks ago. Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I may ask the IPCA and/or Ministry of Justice if they would be prepared to host the David Bain PCA Report so that it can be cited. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The book was not cited from. It was included in a list of books that can be read if the reader chooses to go there. That's an entirely different thing Moriori. Akld guy (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:COI. You will see where it says the word "interest" in COI refers "to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit." Maggoo has a stake in the book he linked to. He wrote it, published it, and sells or sold it in bookshops. He would benefit from any further sales. Moriori (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Moriori: I was out all afternoon today from 1:30 and didn't get home 'till 8:30 pm. I have only now at 9:15 pm or so read your post, which is now moot because I had re-instated 'The Bain Killings Whodunnit' to the 'Further reading' list before I left home. I have not read Whodunnit, nor do I derive any financial interest from it. It could contain the most blatant lies about the DB case for all I know, but that doesn't matter. What matters here is that it is a work that is on topic. Readers can choose to seek the book in libraries or elsewhere. All that is being offered is the name of the book for the reader to follow up if he/she chooses. Akld guy (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy:You really need to start over and read back through this thread, because you are belabouring an irrelevant point. I reverted Maggoo's linking to his book and said in the edit summary "remove editor's linking to book written and published by him". It was a blatant COI edit and that's why I reverted. You are still addressing a different point, saying the work is on topic. That is irrelevant because I have not said it is not on topic, and never gave that as a reason for reverting. You are not acknowledging that I reverted because of COI, but not because of content in the book. Moriori (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Moriori: What this comes down to is an interpretation of the word 'edit'. I have interpreted it to mean editing of the main body of the text, where an edit by a person with a COI might sway the opinion of a reader. But that does not apply in this case, where the name of a book has been added to a list with no comment whatsoever. Nobody's opinion can be swayed by the mere addition of a name. If the book is on topic, it is relevant no matter what its POV is or whether it is impartial. I see nothing wrong with an author adding the name of his own book to the 'Further reading' list, because somebody will add it sooner or later. The only type of person likely to object is one who has an objection to the content of the book. Have you done an investigation to determine whether one of the other authors has added his or her book to the list? Are you the author of a book on the topic? If so, now is the time for you to declare COI, so that we can see that your book sales are competing with those of the book you're objecting to. Akld guy (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy:You seriously need to rethink your last few posts above, and read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have been told why I made a COI revert, but refuse to accept it. You make the extraordinary statement that "I see nothing wrong with an author adding the name of his own book to the 'Further reading' list, because somebody will add it sooner or later. ". You may not see anything wrong, but Wikipedia does. Seems you need to be advised again what the letter I stands for in COI. It stands for the word “interest” which COI refers to as ‘’”something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit.”’’ Once again, Maggoo has a stake in the book he linked to. He wrote it, he published it, and sells or sold it in bookshops. He would benefit from any further sales.

The last four sentences of your post are insulting. I thought better of you. Moriori (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In my view Moriori's reasons for reverting the link are totally valid. As he says, COI refers "to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit." Maggoo has a stake in the book he linked to. He wrote it, published it, and sells or sold it in bookshops. He would benefit from any further sales. On the topic of self published sources under WP:Verifiability it says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Turtletop (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The above posts by Moriori and Turtletop are moot, because I, myself, added the name of the book recently. Moriori, you have not denied that you are an author on the topic of DB. That looks suspicious. If you have a COI because you are an author, please declare it now. You do not need to identify yourself. Just answer "yes/no, I have a COI". Akld guy (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You continue with offensive insult. The Wikipedia article you have edited the most is David Bain with 58 edits and 100 to its talk page. I have made 4 edits to David Bain and 14 to the talk page. You = 158. Me = 18. I have edited more than 7,000 unique Wikipedia articles so I guess to you that suggests obvious COI."Moriori (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My total edit count is 1,308. I have never been a prolific editor, just chipping away here and there. But the David Bain case has consumed a lot of my time recently. Hardly surprising that more than 10% are edits to DB or the DB Talk page. I state here that I have no COI whatsoever. I have read none of the books on the case, except for the first couple of chapters of Karam's latest book (forget the name) at the library a few days ago. You have still not answered the question. Yes/No, do you have a COI? Akld guy (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh goody, your total edit count is 1308. When you get 10 times that you will still not have reached my current total, but come back them and let us know if you are still a troll. If you genuinely can't discern that a person does not have a COI from their edits which have not the slightest whiff of COI about them, then you are in worse shape than I thought. You could justify your inferences that I have COI by pointing out the COI edits that I have made if you are so sure. Funny thing that! You can't, because there are none. You used the word "moot" above. Me too. Moriori (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Question.Are we supposed to be discussing contentious issues on here or are we not? I have been citing a radio interview where David Bain's lawyer said that David Bain himself had said he couldn't believe that [incest] was going on and Turtletop or someone else keeps deleting it. Now it appears that this is being discussed on Turtletops talk page but not on here. What is going on? I have mentioned a couple of times that I was going to reinstate that article, no-one is disputing that.[User:Mr Maggoo|Mr Maggoo]] (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I am talking to myself. Does anyone have any objection to me reinstating that article. I do not think it is trivial because the whole gist of the defence is that Robin Bain murdered four members of his family because he didn't want any stories of incest coming out. He must have forgotten the the only one who deserved to stay might "spill the beans" but it would appear the only one that deserved to stay didn't know there were any beans to spill. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I object to you reinstating it. Akldguy has left a message on my Talk page indicating he objects as well - and has given a valid reason. Please leave it alone. Turtletop (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just looking at the Second trial section [which probably should be headed Retrial]. Anyone reading that would believe that only Dean Cottle was mentioned. He didn't even turn up to testify. I propose removing any reference to Dean Cottle in that section. We already have Dean Cottle mentioned elsewhere. Looks like overkill to me. Does anyone want to debate this? Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to debate it. I want you to leave it as it is. Despite the fact that he didn't turn up, Cottle's testimony is a key piece of the 'evidence' in Bain being found not guilty. if there is other relevant evidence available about the retrial, you can add that. If you delete Cottle's testimony, there will be nothing left at all. Turtletop (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Turtletop. I have a copy of that Wikipedia page as it was back in 2010 and it much more informative than what is there now. I agree that without Cottle's testimony there is nothing left and that is because there must have been a whole lot of deleting done between then and now. What I intend to do is rewrite the Retrial section. I may have some difficulty citing sources because when I copied that page/pages I did not copy the references. However I am sure they can be found. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have taken Gadfium's advice on the ANI page. I feel a bit too personally involved right now and am concerned at the level of involvement that I have either taken on or has been demanded of me. As per Gadfium, I welcome input from other editors. Akld guy (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, please understand that we are not writing a book. In the Retrial section, it's not necessary to state that the Crown and defence made their opening statements. It looks as though you are planning to build on that with a lengthy description of the retrial. I want you to consider carefully whether such detail is justified. Akld guy (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo. You know perfectly well that if you add material, you have to find (and add) the sources. Your editing is highly disruptive. Turtletop (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, I am simply copying what was on David Bain Wikipedia back in 2010 . I happened to take a copy then for my files. Since then that article has, in many sections , been edited so much that there is hardly anything left. Are there any limits as to how long a Wikipedia page can be ? I mean when I copied that page back in 2010 it came to seven foolscap pages. As for citing sources, well they were all cited back in 2010. Does Wikipdia keep records? Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now found a link to the page I was quoting. I guess it has to be a reliable link as it is a Wikipedia source. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.thefullwiki.org/David_Bain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maggoo (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop, your editing is becoming highly disruptive. Please stop deleting what I have written where I have cited a reliable source. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop, we are supposed to discuss edits on this talk page not on somebody else's talk page. I had no idea Wikipedia was not a reliable source. I mean I would have thought that if everything that is cited on Wikipedia has to come from a reliable source then Wikipedia must itself be a reliable source but apparently not. All I was trying to do was tidy up the trial section, it's a bit higgledy-piggledy , specially at the start. I have no problems with anything that is written there.Mr Maggoo (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Uncontentious changes

There didn't seem to be any obvious place to put requests for uncontentious changes, so I've made one here.

There's a reference to "Taieri Beach Primary School, a two-teacher school" in the Family background section - this should be "Taieri Beach School, a two-teacher primary school". See https://taieribeachschool.edublogs.org/about/ for evidence. Could someone with write access to the page please fix that? Sceptically (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: In the reference, which is actually the Privy Council judgement, it's called "Taieri Mouth Primary School". The judgement places the name in the context of 1994 when the murders occurred, and it may have been changed, perhaps more than once, since then. Akld guy (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The judgement is incorrect, then. It was "Taieri Beach School" since at least as far back as 1867. (see http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=ODT18670601.2.21.2, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=ODT19081107.2.88.4, and https://aceproject.org/main/samples/po/pox_l001.pdf) Sceptically (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was that in 1867 and in 1908 and on 25 September 1996 when the polling places list was gazetted. However, it does look as though you are correct, since you have apparently gone to some trouble and not come up with the other name. What do we do, people? The reference cited says 'Mouth'. Do we throw out that reference or change the name back to 'Beach' and hope nobody notices? Akld guy (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering, Taieri Mouth is a real place. Akld guy (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually that third one was from 1993 - it describes the polling places for the 1996 election. And just in case anyone is interested in the difference between Taieri Beach and Taieri Mouth, according to google maps the difference is 4.2Km (https://www.google.co.nz/maps/dir/Taieri+Mouth/Taieri+Beach/). Sceptically (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the Electoral Act under which polling places must be gazetted is dated 1993, but scroll to the bottom. Minister of Justice Doug Graham signed the notice on 25 September 1996, indicating that the names are [probably] current at that date. The election was held on 12 October 1996. Akld guy (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. For more directly relevant sources, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10568184 and http://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/show/3972 both list the school name correctly, and describe Robin as being the principal there. Sceptically (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Those links are to 2009 and 2010 news reports respectively. The point is, what was the name of the school in 1994, which is the context that the Privy Council placed it in? Almost certainly it was never named 'Taieri Mouth' since your searches seem to have not thrown up that name at all. So what do we do? I'm tempted to suggest 'Taieri Mouth (sic) School' or 'Taieri Mouth (sic) Primary School' to draw attention to the fact that we acknowledge that a mistake appears to have been made by the Privy Council. Akld guy (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why obsess over the known-to-be-incorrect Privy Council Judgment? The sentence in question (and for that matter, the paragraph) is not about the ruling, so the obvious thing to do is to correct the name and use a reference that isn't mistaken about it. Sceptically (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, most people would probably regard the Privy Council as more authoritative than newspaper reports, especially since probably only one of the latter will be cited. Sooner or later, someone will notice the discrepancy and we'll be doing this all over again. Akld guy (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Article fully protected

I've full-protected this article for the next few days, due to edit warring on all sides. Please use {{editprotected}} on this talkpage after reaching consensus for an edit that needs to be made. Once the protection is over, please discuss changes here before reverting, or edit warring. SQL^{Query me!} 23:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia as a source

I have been given to understand that I can't cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. Is this debatable? I mean I would have thought Wikipedia was a reliable source, but apparently not.Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it. For help identifying what is, and is not a reliable source, I would direct you to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources SQL^{Query me!} 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You can also ask a broader audience at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if you need uninvolved advice. SQL^{Query me!} 23:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I believe I am now well aware what a reliable source is, but I was just asking the question re Wikipedia because I printed out the David Bain article in 2010 and the retrial section was much better then than it is now. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there any merit in citing Dean Cottle's statement?

Dean Cottle was supposed to testify at the first trial. He arrived just after the Crown's closing speech had ended. Justice Williamson listened to what he had to say and then concluded that his evidence would not be reliable or safe. He said he did not believe him. Dean Cottle did not testify at the retrial either, in fact a warrant was issued for his arrest. Justice Panckhurst read his statement to the jury. But because Cottle was not in attendance he could not be cross-examined. I am sure the prosecutor would have liked to ask him why he referred to Laniet as a friend when a fellow prostitute had testified that Laniet had told her Cottle was blackmailing her for weekly sex and making her do horrible and graphic things, so horrible that she had to get wasted on marijuana before she would go and see him.Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing Michael Guest's radio interview.

I have made numerous attempts to cite Michael Guest's Radio New Zealand interview, but it keeps getting deleted. The reason why I have been citing it is twofold. First of all Michael Guest says he does not believe that Laniet is telling the truth [about the incest allegations] and second David Bain himself said he couldn't believe that was going on. So in effect that article casts further doubt on Laniet's incest allegations. I feel it is a valid citing. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested revision

I would suggest that we play around with this until everyone is happy with the final draft. Then we can make a decision as to whether to go ahead and revise the main page.

First section. Leave as is, apart from deleting the words second trial and replacing them with the word retrial. 
Family background. David Bain was born in Dunedin, the first child of Margaret and Robin Bain. Soon after he was born the family moved to Papua New Guinea where his father worked as a missionary teacher. They returned to their home at 65 Every Street, Dunedin in 1988 .
David , who had been home schooled in Papua New Guinea, enrolled as a student at Bayfield High School. After passing his University Entrance exam he enrolled at Otago University. After a year he dropped out and went on the unemployment benefit for a period before returning to University in 1994. 
Death of his family members . Delete this section. 
First trial. This section needs a major revision in my opinion. I will come back to it later. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The competing cases at trial. [Taken from the Privy Council Report].

The Crown case was that at about 5 am on the morning of Monday 20 June 1994 David got up and dressed. He took from his wardrobe his .22 Winchester semi-automatic rifle and unlocked the trigger lock with a spare key he kept in a jar on his desk. He usually used a key tied on a string round his neck , but he had taken this off on Sunday 19 June when he took part in a polar plunge and had left it in the pocket of an anorak in Robin's van. He took ammunition from the wardrobe. He then shot and killed, in an unknown order, his mother, his two sisters and his brother. There was a violent struggle with Stephen, who was part strangled as well as shot, and during that struggle a lens of the glasses which David was wearing fell out in Stephen's room. These killings, particularly those of Laniet and Stephen, were very sanguinary, and as a result David's person and clothing became stained with blood. He therefore washed and changed his clothing , leaving marks in the laundry room and put his blood-stained clothing in the washing machine, which he started. Then, as was his normal practice, he set off at about 5.45 am to deliver newspapers. He did this rather more quickly than usual , returning home at about 6.42 am. He then went upstairs to the lounge and switched on the computer at 6.44 am, either then or later typing in the message sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay. David knew that it was his father's practice, some time before or after 7 am , to come in from the caravan and go into the lounge to pray. So he waited with the loaded rifle in the alcove off the lounge and, when his father entered the room and knelt to pray, shot him at very close range in the head. He then arranged the scene to make it look like suicide, and after a pause, rang the emergency services to report the killings , pretending to be in a state of great distress.

David's account was that he got up at the usual time, put on his running shoes and shorts, took his yellow newspaper bag and set on his newspaper round with his dog [ it was actually Arawa's dog, his dog had been put down the previous year for repeatedly biting posties]  at about 5.45 am. He ran much of the route, as he usually did,and he took an interest in how long he took. He arrived home at about 6.43 am , entered by the front door, noticed that his mother's light was on and went to his own room There he took off his paper bag and hung it up. He took off his shoes, took off his walkman, and put it on the bed. [ I believe the point that he did not turn his light on should have been made]. He then went downstairs and into the bathroom. There he washed his hands to get off the black newsprint, sorted out some coloured clothes and jerseys[including a red sweatshirt he had worn on the paper run for the past week] [I don't recall David Bain ever saying how long he had been wearing that sweatshirt] and started the machine. He then went upstairs to his room , put on the light and noticed bullets and the trigger lock on the floor. He went into his mother's room and found her dead. He visited the other rooms, heard Laniet gurgling, and found his father dead in the lounge. He was devastated and rang the emergency services in a state of acute distress. 
His case inevitably involved the proposition that Robin, having killed the other family members , had switched on the computer, typed in the message and committed suicide. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Chronological order

I have finished putting Cottle's and the prostitute's claims in chronological order, where they seem appropriate. These things had undue impact when they first appeared in the 'Family background' section, and they set the tone for motive before the topic of the murders had even been introduced. Akld guy (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request

1)The paragraph "Suppressed evidence" is currently not neutral and possibly violates WP:BLP, as well as providing no introduction to give relevance or context to the information. (as well as more minor issue of incorrect capitalisation in the heading). Could an administrator either delete it, or restore it to the more neutral version - see this diff [[1]]? Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Melcous,when I went to the David Bain article this morning the suppressed evidence heading had been deleted so I reinstated it. I have no problem with your wording, except that, as I pointed out earlier , Gareth Taylor , whose 1994 statement I have on file, never mentioned that David Bain was going to use his paper round as an alibi. In fact , in the article I cited it actually says that. Bain only mentioned the paper round alibi to Mark Buckley. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is so much evidence in this case that there is no room to include in the article. Putting in testimony that was never even presented to the jury because the judge considered it unreliable and prejudicial makes even less sense. Because it is prejudicial it is also a clear breach of BLP. Please remove. Turtletop (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The judge did not consider that testimony to be unreliable and prejudicial. He wanted it left in, but the defence argued that it should be suppressed and they won that argument.Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's absolute nonsense. On these kind of issues, the judge decides who wins. He listens to both sides on the point and then makes his decision. Turtletop (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576815 The judge originally ruled that the jury could hear the evidence of Mark Buckley. When Justice Binnie asked David Bain about it Bain said that Buckley was lying because he wanted to get back at him because he [Bain ] had seen Buckley having a sexual encounter with a goat. http://www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic-library/David-Bain-reports/justice-binnie Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Still more nonsense. No wonder the judge excluded it.Turtletop (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

When you say more nonsense could you be a little more explicit please. What nonsense are you referring to? Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop , could I ask that you refrain from using the word nonsense. I mean I could reply more nonsense to some of your comments, but I try to keep a civil tongue in my head. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, I see that you have provided a reference for that quote of Bain's. The reference is not specific (it points to a list of chapters). Please specify a chapter and verse. Akld guy (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Verse? Bain wasn't singing to Binnie. Appendices F through J, tab G page 92. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I get as far as 'Appendices F-J' but the pdf won't download. Nor will the ones in the A-E. Anyone else have success? Akld guy (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see it OK, would you like me to copy and paste that page? It comes up at the bottom of the screen, is that any help? Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Must have been too many readers accessing it before. It's opening now. Akld guy (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

2) Please re-add material removed by this diff. It is key to the whole case and one of the main pieces of evidence the jury used you conclude Bain was not guilty. Without it, there is no information about the retrial in this section except the verdict. Turtletop (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you know what evidence the jury used to conclude Bain was not guilty? It should have been pretty obvious that anything that Laniet had said could not be taken at face value. Black babies, white babies, abortions, raped by her father, raped by a family friend. If the jury could not work out that she was not telling the truth then their comprehensive skills would have been so poor they should not have been on the jury in the first place. Also, they might have not believed what Dean Cottle said either. I mean what sort of person would blackmail his friend into having sex with him? Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Because Cottle's 'testimony' was also a key factor in the Privy Council decision to declare a miscarriage of justice - leading to the retrial. Its in all the relevant sources.Turtletop (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It was one of nine key factors. So if we were to put that in we would have to put the other eight factors in. I would probably agree that could go in the Privy Council paragraph along with the other eight points. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just had a look at DB Wikipedia circa 2010 and I see all those 9 points were listed under a paragraph headed Privy Council findings. I would suggest that might be the way to go. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Leave it out. The article is too long already. Turtletop (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2016

Just a grammar correction in the Retrial 2009 section. The sentence "He said that the jury did have any doubts they must acquit." is missing the word "if" and a comma, and should read "He said that if the jury did have any doubts, they must acquit." UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what juries are supposed to do and the judges comments add absolutely nothing to our understanding of the case. This sentence should be removed. Turtletop (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it's superfluous. Akld guy (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The reason why the jury asked that question was probably because weren't sure what decision to come to so they asked the judge to clarify the term "reasonable doubt". If they had been absolutely sure Bain was guilty or not guilty they would not have asked that question.Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Eteethan(talk) 12:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Name of school

The name of the school where Robin Bain became headmaster has been challenged on several occasions in the past, and it will continue to be challenged if we don't make clear that the Privy Council probably made a mistake in calling it 'Taieri Mouth Primary School'. Online references show that it has apparently been named 'Taieri Beach School' since at least as far back as 1867. Very good evidence supporting the latter name was presented in the section 'Uncontentious changes' earlier on this page. If anyone can provide evidence that there were two schools with the two names, please go ahead. Otherwise, if anyone can suggest a better way than (sic) to show that the Privy Council's name is doubtful, please go ahead. Akld guy (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what was wrong with changing it to "a primary school at Taieri Mouth"". I don't see why it is important enough to mention the exact name of the school, and if it is disputed that is even more reason to keep it reasonable vague. We shouldn't use (sic) unless it is a part of a direct quote. AIRcorn (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Even the word 'Primary' is in doubt. And it is a direct quote since I put quotation marks around the entire name. The problem is going to be that if we call it by the name it has apparently had since 1867, someone will come along and say, "That's not right, the Privy Council report says 'Taieri Mouth Primary School." If we don't name it at all, someone will think he's being helpful by adding the name, and then we'll be doing this all over again. My preference is to declare with the 'sic' and quote marks that the PC [probably] got it wrong. Akld guy (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not that I believe this is of any great importance James McNeish, in his book Mask of Sanity, refers to that school as Taieri Beach School and that is good enough for me. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sic has to be part of the quote, otherwise we are essentially conducting original research. If there are conflicting sources and they are all reliable and the information is important then we usually present and attribute both sides (this source says this while this one says that). Another option is to use a note. I was involved in a dispute at Demi Moore where sources were divided on her birth name and it was decided to present the conflicting information as a note (see N 1 by her bolded name at the start of the lead). Personally I would prefer to leave the name out of it, if someone puts it in we can revert and point to this discussion easily enough. AIRcorn (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have put the correct name of the school in and cited Mask of Sanity. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't really solve the issues with the conflicting sources though. AIRcorn (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/TaieriBeachSchool150thJubileeMr Maggoo (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. There's a discrepancy no matter which way one looks at it, and sooner or later someone will 'correct' it. Akld guy (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, please change it to a note. I and possibly others would like to see how it looks. Akld guy (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy about what? Surely not the name of the school? Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake. Akld guy (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy about what? Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.school.nz/school/taieri-beach-schoolMr Maggoo (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't do anything on the article for a few days so will give an example below using just the sources that have been presented in the article. Feel free to alter the wording and sourcing to make it better. AIRcorn (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the Privy Council got it wrong. I have cited the Schools New Zealand website which clearly shows the school as being Taieri Beach School. Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.bing.com/mapspreview?&ty=18&q=Taieri%20Beach%20School%20Clutha%20District%20otago&ss=ypid.YN8138x3051118892481489281&ppois=-46.0715408325195_170.196105957031_Taieri%20Beach%20School_YN8138x3051118892481489281~&cp=-46.071541~170.196106&v=2&sV=1Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but we have to follow the sources here, not our own WP:Original research. Editing wikipedia is different than writing a book. AIRcorn (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To me this is a no-brainer. The correct name is Taieri Beach School, has been for 150 years. Why anyone would think the Law Lords of the Privy Council are a better reference than the New Zealand Education Board I have no idea. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sources are fine in establishing that the school exists. What you need though is a source that links Robin with this school. So far only McNeish has been provided that has done that. I am fine having Taieri Beach School mentioned prominently in the article, the note will be small and at the bottom just above the references. All it does is explain the discrepancy. AIRcorn (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How about this source? http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/52623/robin-bain-had-arranged-substituteMr Maggoo (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic but it says "...at the Taeri Beach school where he worked...". That just means a school at Taeri Beach (school is not capitilised and it has "the" in front of it). Compare to the Privy council source which says "...the principal of Taieri Mouth Primary School...", which is unambiguously saying the name of the school (rightly or wrongly). AIRcorn (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, that looks like a very good solution indeed. I suggest a small rewording: "The Privy Council recorded the school as Taieri Mouth Primary School, but McNeish has Taieri Beach School, its current name." Akld guy (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And this way of doing it doesn't point the finger at the PC for being wrong, because it leaves open to the reader the possibility that the PC was correct about its name in 1994, with a name change since. Akld guy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the McNeish source, but if it suggests that the school might have been renamed then something along those lines is fine. AIRcorn (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There has been no suggestion that Taieri Beach School has been renamed. Let me do some more research. There should be a list of primary schools somewhere. I will contact the Ministry of Education to see if they can assist. The Privy Council has made a mistake,simple as that. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There has been no evidence of a name change and I didn't imply that there had been, only that readers might draw that conclusion.Akld guy (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have linked to the NZ Education Board website. To find all the schools in New Zealand you need to click on the X box Schools Directory. School # 2369 is Taieri Beach School. The name has not changed. The Privy Council got it wrong.

http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/data-services/directories/list-of-nz-schoolsMr Maggoo (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a Taieri Mouth Holiday Camp. Perhaps one of the law lords came to New Zealand and camped there for a few days, and thought the school would be called The Taieri Mouth Primary School in keeping with the camp. http://www.zenbu.co.nz/entry/1147252-taieri-mouth-holiday-park-holiday-campMr Maggoo (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Privy Council, writing their judgement in 2007 and referring to the school as it was on 20 June 1994 (the day of the murders), said 'Taieri Mouth Primary School'. Nobody has yet shown that the PC was wrong, but it certainly seems that way since there appears to be no historical evidence for that name - ever. Absence of evidence is not proof of non-existence. The best approach seems to be that suggested by Aircorn; that is, by way of a reference which gives both versions so that the discrepancy is acknowledged and nobody will feel inclined to 'correct' the name. Akld guy (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Added it in. AIRcorn (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Now that I have seen how it has been done I don't have any problems with that. I could do the same with the ownership of the dog, which is in Mask of Sanity, but even that is incorrect because Michael Bain admitted that he got that wrong, and I doubt if I could find a reference for that. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Three years after his return, Robin became the principal of Taieri Beach School,

Notes

References

Family Background

Is there any need to go into so much depth in the family background. This is an article on David Bain, so it should be focused on him. There is in particular a lot of information about Laniet that if not violating WP:BLP, goes extremely close to. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There is too much information about Laniet specially when you take into account that even David Bain didn't believe that [incest] was going on. And of course the pathologists report confirmed that Laniet never had a baby. Laniet was making excuses as to why she had become a prostitute. Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Aircorn, but again Mr Maggoo I think you are missing the point. It is completely irrelevant what David Bain thought and so that should never be "taken into account". The question is whether the information violates wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, which is the point Aircorn is raising and is the reason it is worth looking into. Melcous (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had a go at WP:BRD and removed repeated details and details about Laniet that seem to violate WP:BLP, while still retaining the gist of what is relevant. Feel free to discuss here if you disagree or have better suggestions! Melcous (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflicted, but merged my edits with yours. I was probably a little more bold. I think the third paragraph should completely go. Reads like a tabloid. AIRcorn (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

At the least it doesn't really belong in Family Background as it is based on evidence presented at the trial and is conflicting. It would fit better in a other section in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite get all this talk about BLP. Where does the BLP problem for the info on Laniet come from? Mostly it doesn't seem that it affects David Bain in a way to raise BLP concerns. A small amount may affect police (failure to investigate). Even the affect on witnesses seems very limited. Mostly it seems to affect Laniet and Robin, but they're long past the time when BLP may still apply to them. This doesn't mean we don't have to be careful ensuring proper sourcing, due weight etc (particularly since this is an article on David Bain a LP), but it does mean BLP us mostly the wrong policy to apply to most of the info on Laniet. Perhaps one of the problem areas here is that this article is a BLP, but because the notability comes from one event a crime, there's a lot of extraneous info and limited biographical info. Perhaps the move proposal would be for the best, but if not and even if it is but we also end up with an article on David Bain; we're always going to the tricky balance we have on such cases. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I did qualify it a bit with extremely close". She is his sister after all and it is (currently) "his" article. But you are right BLP does not apply directly to Laniet and WP:Undue is probably a better policy to follow at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I also had concerns about the way BLP was being used selectively to remove the pathologist and hospital records that cast doubt on Laniet's claims of incest/pregnancy/black baby, but allowed the very same incest/pregnancy/black baby hearsay insinuations to remain. Cottle never even testified and thus never faced cross-examination, yet the pathologist and hospital records were admitted into evidence! That evidence was removed from the article in the last 24 hours. Akld guy (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Could I suggest Family background read something like this.

David was born in Dunedin, New Zealand , the first child of Margaret and Robin Bain. Soon after he was born the family moved to Papua New Guinea , where Robin worked as a missionary teacher. They returned to New Zealand in 1988. Once back , they returned to their home at 65 Every Street, Dunedin. It took David a year to settle back into school, but he joined the school choir and in the seventh form he passed the University Entrance exam . He then went to University , but dropped out after one year and went on the unemployment benefit for a period until returning to University in 1994. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My preference is that the third paragraph should be removed from the 'Family background' section. It consists of Cottle's allegations that Laniet had told him about incest, that she was going to tell the family it was going on, the prostitute's allegations of incest in PNG and Laniet's entering the sex industry because of it. None of that material should be presented before the details about the deaths, because it sets the scene as though it were factual, when it actually is not. There is a place for the material, but it shouldn't be raised until we're into trial territory, which is when it first came to light. Akld guy (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My preference as well, so it appears we have consensus on that. I will delete that paragraph.

In my opinion the fourth paragraph should also be removed. Binnie got it wrong and I could probably find an source that confirms that, but the fact is the police had no say in the house being burnt down. They had completed the scene investigation and the Trustees decided,after consulting David Bain , to have the Fire Brigade burn the house down, the main reason being that it was costing them a considerable amount of money to hire security guards to protect the property from souvenir hunters. If those guards had not been employed the house would have probably been reduced to a shell anyway.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I see now that the above relates to the Family Background section and not the Death of the Family section. Does that mean I need to set up a new paragraph on here re Death of the Family? Cottle had nothing to do with the deaths and nor did the Dunedin Fire Brigade. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Rename

This article in its current form is not about David Bain it is about the trial of David Bain. As such we should perhaps think about renaming it. For examples of similar articles see Lundy murders or Sharpe family murders. AIRcorn (talk)

Good question. I think Bain would be someone who is notable for one event only (as far as I know?), so WP:1E is relevant, which on my reading seems to suggest perhaps two separate articles (as with Lindy Chamberlain for example) as it is both a significant event and a person who played a large role in it. Melcous (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. My concern is that the only biographical information pre-murders, apart from date and place of birth, is a sentence about studying at Otago. If we split the article in its current state then we will be repeating a lot of information. AIRcorn (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain is notable for this event only. He had no prominence prior to the murders in 1994. Akld guy (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This one 'event' has been going on for 20 years. In that his compensation claim is still pending, the 'event' continues. He is only notable because of the murders, wrongful conviction and the sequelae. So it could be renamed. Turtletop (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that it couldn't and didn't state a preference. My comment was actually neutral. Akld guy (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Are there any objections to changing the title of this from David Bain to Bain family murders? AIRcorn (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave the name as is mainly because I feel most people who are interested in the case would look for David Bain.

Another point. Since David Bain has been acquitted and Robin Bain has never been charged then probably , if the name is going to be changed it should be changed to The Bain Family killings. But basically I object to changing the name at this stage. I would like to do some more research. Mr Maggoo (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support this rename more than any of the others. They were murdered from everything I can tell - so it would make the most sense. The article on David Bain can be redirected, until he is notable for an article on his own. Thoughts? SQL^{Query me!} 00:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The article title defines the focus of the article. If it is on David Bain then the focus must be on him, which makes a lot of the information on Laniet and Robin extraneous or off target. If it is on the case as a whole then this information fits in much better. Searching for David Bain will still take you to this article as a WP:redirect (see R v Bain for an example of how this works). Have no issue with using killings in the title instead of murders. Take your time to do your research, there is no rush. AIRcorn (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in two minds on this. I notice that Scott Watson has his own page. I would be quite happy to see all the extraneous information removed. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Having had another look at Bain's Wikipedia page circa 2010 [when David Bain was 37] I believe the page should revert back to the focus being on David Bain. Certainly the family could be mentioned, but only briefly. I believe the opening paragraph could probably remain as is, except that the words second trial should be deleted and replaced with the word retrial .There could be a problem citing some sources due to the five year difference. Would it be OK for me to write it up on here, then editors could take a look at it and see what they think?Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, no replies to my suggestion. The problem with changing the title is that there will always be arguments about what should be in the article and what shouldn't be. For example Turtletop will want to bring Dean Cottle's statement in [and more than once] and then I will want to counter that by referring to Laniet's stories about being raped by a family friend and having his baby, raped by her father and having his baby, raped and having a black baby, the report saying she had never been pregnant,Michael Guest's radio interview where he said he didn't believe what Laniet said and that David didn't believe that [incest] was happening,etc., etc , so we end up having an article that is more about Laniet Bain than it is about David Bain. I believe what we should do is leave the title as is and rewrite parts of it leaving out all the extraneous information, such as Dean Cottle's statement and Laniet's stories. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The murders, trial, retrial and associated events are notable in their own right (they have non-trivial coverage in multiple sources). They are prbably more notable than David Bain himself. I see only two options, we keep this article title and split off another one for the murders which includes most of the information about Laniet, Robin and the details of the trials. Or we move this to the murder article and redirect David Bain to that. Bain could always be created later. With the way this discussion is going I will probably go through the more official channels of a requested move soon. AIRcorn (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Well I would not be opposed to the first option you suggest, but we are going to have to have a consensus as to what we put on the David Bain page and what we put on the one relating to the murders. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to a rename to 'Bain family murders' (sic as to capitalisation or lack thereof), with a redirect from 'David Bain'. Mr Maggoo, there need be no 'David Bain' page. A redirect handles that. Akld guy (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that renaming something like "Bain family murders" and redirecting David Bain to that seems like the best option at the moment. Melcous (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's the way to go. No David Bain page, although there is a Scott Watson page. So we will argue about what should be on the Bain family killings page instead of the David Bain page. I prefer killings because we don't know whether there were five murders or four murders and a suicide. Perhaps we should delete everything on the David Bain page and start again from scratch, getting a consensus before editing the page.Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No , on second thoughts, change name but rewrite where necessary. I have made a start at rewriting the trial section and will enter that once the lock is off providing no-one objects. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the lock is off so I guess I can start editing again. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I propose the removal of the Death of Family members section. Any objections? Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That is important to whatever this article is names. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

But their deaths are referred to in the First Trial Section. Why do we need the duplication? However, if you insist then do you have any objection to me deleting those references to Cottle and the Fire Brigade burning down the house which have absolutely no relevance in that section? Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I intend to re-edit the First Trial section which at the moment is pretty messy. I have set out my intended revision under Revision below. Any objections?

The topic here is 'Rename'. Mr Maggoo, you should not be raising multiple issues about the trial section, removal of the 'Deaths of family members' section, and removal of the burning down of the house, which was highly relevant as Binnie found that vital evidence such as bloodstains on the carpets that would have been used in appeals and retrials was destroyed without notification to Bain's defence team. Please stop raising those issues. The topic is 'Rename'. Akld guy ([[User talk:Akld guy|talk) 21:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• WP:Consensus seems clear enough that I went through with the move. Revert if you disagree and I will start a new more formal request move. This thread is too long and off topic to continue the discussion here. AIRcorn (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So what do I do? I see there is a Family Background section on here so I will raise that issue there where I note that Auckland guy agrees with my suggestion at least so far as the third paragraph is concerned, so we seem to have consensus on that. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the article hasn't been renamed yet, but we have Mr Maggoo discussing changes that he wants made as though the renaming was a fait accompli. It's not. It hasn't happened yet, and what's more, his suggested changes are inappropriate in this section, which is "Rename'. Discuss the renaming, and if it goes ahead, we'll discuss changes. Akld guy (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, what do you mean by your suggestion to remove the third paragraph from the 'Family background' section. I removed that paragraph yesterday and placed its contents in chronological positions elsewhere. Are you looking at the same page as us, or some cached or stored version? Akld guy (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you were referring to Family Background whereas I was referring to The Deaths of the family section.

Why do we have to wait for the renaming to be approved before discussing changes? I mean Suppressed Evidence was edited yesterday. The fact is that Dean Cottle had nothing to do with the deaths of Robin , Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen and nor did the Dunedin Fire Brigade so why are you insisting they need to be in that section? Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OOPS MY MISTAKE. I see that Aircorn renamed the article about 35 minutes ago without making any announcement here. Please ignore my above two comments. Akld guy (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In my defence [2]. This talk page is pretty busy so not surprised it was missed AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, I was busy editing the Ian Callinan page all through the time you made the change. I think Mr Maggoo missed it too. Akld guy (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, the article has been renamed, no complaints from me except that I still believe the word killings should have been used because murders sort of means that all those who died were murdered which in turns means that David Bain was the perpetrator.

But getting back to what I proposed earlier. Dean Cottle had nothing to do with the deaths of the family so why on earth is he mentioned in that section? The Dunedin Fire Brigade had nothing to do with the deaths of the family so what justification can there be for referring to them in that section? Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Dean Cottle and Fire Brigade stuff is in there because it fits chronologically. I think you're going to have a hard battle to create new sections for those two one-line statements. How can they go anywhere else and still be chronologically appropriate? Akld guy (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Then change the name of that section . Those stuff has nothing to do with the deaths of the family. On top of that the reference to Dean Cottle is elsewhere, is it not. And as for the burning down of the house, why is it important to mention that anyway. The facts are, and no doubt I could find a source, is that the police had nothing to do with the burning down of the house. The trustees were paying about $1000 a day to employ security guards to stop half of Dunedin trying to get mementos so they asked the police if they could have it burned down and the police told them they had completed the scene examination so they could do what they liked, The trustees visited David and he agreed with having the house burnt down. Unless you can come up with a better reason for keeping those two sentences in that section I will delete them. Stop prevaricating. You can open new statements if you like. Then we can discuss whether they need to be there. Mr Maggoo (talk)

Are you really reading other people's posts? I told you above that the burning of the house was important because it prematurely destroyed evidence such as bloody foot marks on the carpets that might have been used in appeals or retrials. The defence was understandably not happy that the burning took place without them being notified. Now, nobody has expanded on that aspect of destruction of evidence, and it should stay in in case someone feels motivated to do so. The burning of the house is not an irrelevant event, and is one item of Binnie's contention that the police made 'egregious' errors [of judgement]. Akld guy (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I am expanding on it. And as for Binnie, there is a police report on the number of errors he made, I can probably source that, and that was one of them. For the third time, the police had nothing to do with the burning down of the house. And I repeat again, if the house had not been burned down you can be sure that all that carpet would have been removed by souvenir hunters.

But for the moment let me suggest a compromise. Open a new section re the burning of the house. I will expand on that in the section relating to Binnie. It has nothing to do with the deaths of the family. I trust you can understand that. I will remove the Cottle reference. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Having had another read of that article I see Paul Holmes is saying that Karam said the Police had colluded with the family in the burning down of the house. That is not correct. There was no collusion. The Police simply said ,when asked by the trustees , that they had completed their scene examination. Whatever the trustees decided to do was up to them. I could cite the PCA report but it isn't on-line apart from Counterspin, which isn't a reliable source. No wonder I get frustrated. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So you're throwing out Original Research with your "That is not correct. There was no collusion." If the cited reference says there was collusion, then it stays in. Akld guy (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting me. This is not the first time you have done that. I am not throwing out that reference. I am simply saying that Paul Holmes is quoting Karam. I am asking you to put that in a separate paragraph. This from the PCA Report.

Destruction of house. In his book [David & Goliath] Mr Karam says no stronger signal of the Police and Bain family view of David's guilt could have been conveyed to the community when the house was deliberately burned down.

Once the scene examination was completed the Police had no further requirement or responsibility for the house . What happened to the premises was then an issue for the Executors administering the estate. They apparently believed that elimination of the house would help erase the horrid memories associated with it and would effectively end morbid and ghoulish interest shown in it. It was their decision to burn it down and not a Police initiative. 
Now if I could cite the PCA Report as a reference I would but as I have already pointed out to you more than once I can't because it isn't online apart from Counterspin.  So effectively we end up with what Karam told Paul Holmes with is not correct. What's more Karam has read the PCA report so he would know the true facts. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now found a source which has the correct information so I will enter that and also set up a separate paragraph as the burning of the house has nothing to do with the deaths of the family. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrial

The retrial section has been edited again and Dean Cottle's statement is back in . We already have Cottle's statement in the family section. If one looks at the retrial section now one would think that the only thing worth mentioning was Cottle's statement. Cottle did not even testify at the retrial. I will remove that statement and will try to flesh out that section without actually citing any testimony because if I cited the testimony of a prosecution witness then I would be obliged to include testimony from a defence witness. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This may be an opportune moment to discuss how to flesh out the retrial section. The first trial section doesn't look to bad, but the retrial section looks pretty bare.

I don't believe we should cite any testimony but there must be something we can do . In the trial section we have the case for the Crown and the case for the defence. Perhaps we could do the same for the retrial. What about excerpts from the closing statements and Justice Panckhurst's summing up? We could discuss what we would like put in on here first so as to try and get a consensus. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just had a look at DB Wikipedia circa 2010 and I notice that under the heading Retrial all that is entered is basically the decision to conduct a retrial.

Then there is a heading Opening statements, Testimony , which is only two sentences , both relating to what Laniet told her teacher, and then Verdict which happens to mention those two questions the jury asked the judge, "What are the rules of reasonable doubt?" and "Can you please clarify your statement 'It must be David to the exclusion of Robin'?". The judge replied, in part, that they must be sure the accused was guilty after careful consideration of all the evidence , and that the Crown case had excluded Robin as the killer. He said that reasonable doubt was an honest and reasonable uncertainty about guilt. I suggest we have a think about going back to what was on the David Bain Wikipedia page back in 2010, but leave out testimony altogether. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I intend to add to this section. The first third of is all about Cottle, who did not even turn up for the retrial. I will post excerpts from the Crown's closing address. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for Mr Maggoo to be blocked

I am going to remove material under the heading Black baby and paste it here.Turtletop (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I now call for Mr Maggoo to be blocked for inserting text into a post by me on this page, that is, modifying a post by me without signing. The diff is here. The user is being disruptive. Akld guy (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith. Mr Maggoo is clearly not well versed in Wiki syntax or custom, and was clumsy in adding a reply to you. In this situation separating out their reply would be appropriate.

Mr Maggoo, your comment was unnecessarily aggressive in tone. Please be civil.-gadfium 05:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I support Akld guy's request that Mr Maggoo should be blocked. He is trolling the page and commenting on just about every new edit. His attitude is arrogant and uncompromising and he questions the integrity of Akld guy and myself. He refuses to follow basic editing rules and in fact appears so convinced he is right about every small point, he seems to think the rules do not apply to him; he demands for an apology every time someone disagrees with him. His aggressive tone is apparent throughout most of his 'commentary' on the Talk page not just the one example quoted by Akld guy. At one point, he wrote that Akld guy should 'stop being a girl'. I removed the comment because it was a personal attack. Turtletop I do not support removal of Mr magoo. His knowledge of the case is vast, factual and unemotional. I feel it is incorrect to have the word wrongfully included in the article.Farmer56 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)(talk) 10:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Moriori also thinks Mr Maggoo is being disruptive. The folllowing is a copy and paste from a comment he made elsewhere on this page. "At Talk:David Bain#Wrongfully convicted above, User:Turtledove gave several examples of links which you say he is unable to give. Either you are not reading what others say or you are deliberately ignoring them. Either way, you are being disruptive." Moriori (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Pasted here by Turtletop (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"I suggest you take this to WP:AN/I. You will need to notify everyone you mention on that page.-gadfium 18:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, My reply to above. First gadfium. Yes , I accept that comment was unnecessarily aggressive and will endeavour to keep all my comments civil in future as most of them are.

Re Auckland guy not knowing greygoose's gender, I accept that he couldn't known for certain as he has only exchanged emails with her. Yes, I agree I should not have posted that personal stuff which I removed almost immediately. I am disappointed to find that link to Nostalgia's blog is still there and I still find it hard to believe that greygoose cited that website. I take it no-one will mind if I link to a review of my book in the references section. I have been given permission to edit the main page without obtaining a consensus providing I cite a reliable source such as a newspaper article, book [providing it is not my own book] etc., etc. Moriori commented that I was ignoring what others say re the word wrongful. I have copied and pasted what I actually said.

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)

And I would point out that it is only Turtledove and Moriori who are saying that word should be left in. A nunber of other editors are calling for it to be removed. I would like to propose a compromise . Just remove the word from the info box and leave it in the first sentence. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was NZgreygoose who posted the site you object to. Look at the References, which is now above this section. Do you see reference 2, NostalgiaNZ Blog? Click on the little blue up arrow (^). That will take you to where she posted it. Akld guy (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but where does it say who actually posted that link? Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Magoo. You need to get over your obsession with the phrase “wrongful conviction”. The words “wrongful conviction” (or similar) are used countless times throughout Wikipedia. Examples, the phrase appears 11 times in our List of miscarriage of justice cases article, and 14 times in our Miscarriage of justice article. Wikipedia uses everyday language to communicate with readers. Wikipedia is not giving its opinion re guilt or innocence, but is quoting (with references) sources which used the phrase. That’s how Wikipedia works. You have been attempting to put a legal spin on it, and you are advised to stop. Ordinarily I would have put this on your talk page, but it is in context and relevant here. I agree Turtletop should take your contributions to WP:AN/I.Moriori (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Using the word obsession is provocative. I am not a lawyer so I am not putting a legal spin on anything. Another provocative remark. We are not talking about miscarriage of justice, we are talking about the use of the word wrongfully. And you would be aware other editors are disputing the use of that word , it is not only me. In fact greygoose deleted it and garglesaver was banned for a week for deleting it. Turtletop can take my contributions to whoever he likes. I know he would like to get rid of me by fair means or foul. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, I don't WP:AGF where I can't, and after seeing your edits I conclude you are a troll and unwilling to comprehend what anyone else here says. You are obsessive IMHO. If you wish you can take me to WP:ANI where my actions/edits can be examined, but so will yours and you would be advised to read WP:BOOMERANG before you do. Moriori (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You say you have concluded that I am a troll, whatever that is. That is only your opinion. I have no problem understanding what others are saying. For example a couple of other editors are saying the word wrongfully should be removed and you and Turtledove are saying it shouldn't be. Do you understand what I am saying? Btw, I have no intention of taking anyone anywhere, not my style.I can fight my own battles. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. After you click on the little blue up arrow, the place where NZgreygoose posted the link will appear at the top of your browser. Akld guy (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not familiar with the word browser but I see where that was posted. Greygoose has apparently resigned so she can't remove it, so I will email her and ask her to give me permission to remove it. Turtletop did link to that defamatory website on your talk page but it was greygoose who cited it on this page. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, stop using the word 'wrongly' when the word in the DB article is 'wrongfully' and has been so for many days. It is what you are objecting to. This page is a history of changes for those who might come later to see how things developed. Your attempt to muddy the waters by using 'wrongly' is not appreciated. Akld guy (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, used the word wrongly in error, wasn't trying to muddy the waters , you will see I have used the word wrongfully in earlier comments. I will edit to correct. I think what put me off track was when Moriori used the words wrongful conviction.

Btw, what did you think of my suggestion to appease both parties by allowing the word wrongfully to remain in the first sentence but to be removed from the box? Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead horses move no faster when you beat them. Move on. Akld guy (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC

I see you were of a different mind last month. And you used the word wrongly as well. I do hope you weren't trying to muddy the waters.

:Bain was NOT found innocent. A flawed process in the original trial resulted in a guilty verdict. The appeal process acknowledged that a flawed process took place, and the second trial found that there was sufficient doubt and dellivered a verdict of not guilty. Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent. Bain may have committed the murders but is free simply because a guilty verdict was unsafe due to reasonable doubt. The use of 'wrongly convicted', although appearing in official sources as you state, tends to mislead some, such as Serendipity, into believing that the accused was innocent. I think that 'improperly convicted' conveys the sense of 'flawed trial' better than 'wrongly convicted', but if consensus is to change it back to the latter I won't object. Akld guy (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Mr Maggoo (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

NO! At the time I wrote that, it was 'wrongly', which it had been all through 2015, as far as I can remember. It was only when you and the others from the POV Facebook page descended on the scene from the first week or two of December that arguments broke out about it and it eventually ended up as 'wrongfully'. Akld guy (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

And here is the diff where Serendipity33 deleted 'wrongly' on 8 December for I think the very first time. Akld guy (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo, I believe you owe me an apology for your assertion, proved false, that I used the wrong word. Apologise please.Akld guy (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The word wrongly has been used a number of times this year by a number of editors. You have not inferred that any of them have used that word in an attempt to muddy the waters . So if you are prepared to apologise to me for making that inference [and I might add there are a couple of other inferences you have made about me that you should have apologised for ] then I will apologise to you. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

First two sections

What if we start with some of the more (relatively) uncontroversial sections and try to get some consensus for tidying the article up? (It is currently a mess). The goal is to reach consensus here on the talk page first, and then edit the sections as agree. So I have two questions to start off.

• 1. The first heading after the lead is "Family background" however it is currently written with a focus on David. Now that the title has changed, this seems inappropriate to me. It should be re-worded to be an overview of the whole family before anything happened. What do other editors think?
• 2. The next paragraph has the heading "Death of his family members" - with him obviously being David. However, again, with the renaming of the article, this is inappropriate. It needs a more neutral title. If we can find one that allows us to merge the next section - currently "Burning down of the house" - that would be great as that is not really deserving of a section of its own. This might be more controversial, but I think the statement "having taken all the evidence they wanted" is not quite neutral. Is it in the source cited? If not, I think it should be left out, and the paragraph simply be clear statements of the agreed facts - i.e. date of event, 111 call, what police found, date of house being burned down by whom and at whose request. Do other editors think there is anything else that needs to go in that paragraph? Melcous (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• 1. No support from me. The focus goes onto David early in the Lead, for obvious reasons. What better way is there to set the date for the move to PNG than David's age at the time? What you are suggesting would open a Pandora's box for all of the Laniet incest stuff to go back in there. We've done that and moved on. Let sleeping dogs lie.
• 2. Good point. The section should be retitled "Deaths of Bain family members". Note the plural in 'Deaths' by the way. Akld guy (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no real problem with the first paragraph. A couple of days ago I said I would split the second paragraph into two paragraphs , no-one objected so that is what I did. The burning of the house has nothing to do with the deaths of the family. I hope everyone is happy with the result. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I object. You didn't wait long enough.Turtletop (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Melcous. That enables us to include info about Laniet which is very relevant.Turtletop (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See what I mean, Melcous? Akld guy (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean Akld guy? Let us all in on the joke. Turtletop (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Akld guy's point is the one he made above under "1" - if we start talking about editing the section on family background as I suggested, he thought that might open the "Pandora's box" of disputes previously had about what to include about Laniet and the incest claims, which you have now suggested we do. My proposal is that the "Family Background" section should be just that - background on the family. So it doesn't need ANY allegations that came out in the trials, just the basic agreed facts - names of the family (starting with the parents rather than David as that is a much more neutral way to talk about any family), ages, where they lived (PNG, NZ) and the living arrangements at the time of the events. So basically what is there now, but I'm suggesting it could be re-worded to make it more appropriate to the title of both the page name and the paragraph heading. I don't think there should be anything controversial about that, but I could be wrong as I am quickly finding that there seems to be a way of making any tiny detail about this article controversial! Cheers, Melcous (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, following WP:BRD, I've had a go at tweaking this section to make it truly family background. Feel free to dispute my changes and we can keep talking about it here if you have problems with it. Thanks Melcous (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, except that once again we are preloading the reader with a possible motive with the "Robin Bain had been deeply depressed....." It's very much a 'looking backwards after the deaths' statement. That statement belongs in the trial or retrial sections, not upfront. David Bain's own demeanour was described prejudiciously in the legal process too. Why no mention of that? Akld guy (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. (I didn't add that, it was already there), but I will take it out and thus the whole section is a neutral introduction and statements like that can be included under the sections of trials when the testimony was presented. Melcous (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Akld guy (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Until recently, the 'Family background' section said "David Bain was born 27 March 1972 in Dunedin, New Zealand to Margaret Arawa and Robin Irving Bain." No problem with that, but now it says "Robin Irving Bain and Margaret Arawa were married..." I believe that Margaret's maiden name was not Arawa but Cullen. If no objection, I'll add 'Cullen'. It's noticeable that the headstone (photo) gives her name as Cullen. Akld guy (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the Death's of family section has been edited again without consensus and the source has been changed to one that is based on what Karam told Paul Holmes which as I have pointed out is incorrect. I will leave it as is but change the citing to a reliable source, Mask of Sanity. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No objection from me to changing the reference. The current_one is an opinion piece by Paul Holmes and is definitely POV. Akld guy (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Have done. I was going to suggest deleting David Bain's photo but I see that has already been done.

Please note my latest comment under Suppressed evidence. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done Melcous, the background section is a great improvement. The deaths section is good too, but could probably do with some more details. The burning of the house doesn't really fit in with the deaths, is there a better section for that? AIRcorn (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, more than once, the burning of the house has nothing to do with the deaths. I did set up a new paragraph for that but it was deleted. I can't see any problem with just having a paragraph headed The burning down of the house, even though there might only be one sentence under that heading. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hullo, anybody there? How about I set up a new heading The burning down of the house and cite Mask of Sanity with a bit more detail than is there now? Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please wait more than a few hours to give people a chance to respond. As I said above, I think this section could be renamed and could be more generally about all that happened in those couple of weeks - i.e. deaths, 111 call, description (now that the family background is a bit fixed, we could remove things like :the father" and "his wife" as they are redundant), arrest of David, burning down of house - before the article moves on to the trials. To have a whole section just for the burning of the house seems excessive to me, and the heading becomes repetitive of what the section contains, rather than an overview title of that section of the article. Melcous (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, well other people have edited/deleted without even getting consensus. At least I am asking the question. Personally I don't think we need to even mention the burning of the house. But if others feel it does need to be mentioned then I would agree with you re renaming the section. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course we are never going to get everything correct. For example the PC Report states the Laniet returned home for the weekend but two witnesses testified at the retrial that Laniet said she was only returning to the family home on the Sunday night because David had called a family meeting that he insisted she attend and would drag her there "kicking and screaming" if he had to. Of course the Privy Council were not aware of that in 2007. Laniet was apparently staying at her flat on the Friday and Saturday nights. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

First trial 1995

Mr Maggoo made an edit to this section a few days ago in which he removed bold, italicised subheadings that I had earlier put in to differentiate the Crown's case, the defence case, and David's testimony. The headings were 'Crown's case', 'Defence case', 'David's testimony'. The removal of those headings means that there is now a large block of text with the Crown's case given prominence at the start. MM also removed all instances where the Crown 'alleged' or 'said', and their case is now spoken in Wikipedia's voice as facts. MM did not do the same to David's testimony. There, everything is 'he said', 'he said'. The edit was in my view POV, MM didn't as far as I can recall seek consensus for it, and if no objection I would like to re-instate my subheadings. Akld guy (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I just reinstated what was there in 2010. But by all means re-instate your subheadings, which weren't there in 2010. The Crown case comes first as it does at any trial. As for the word alleged, if that word goes in then it goes in everywhere, i.e the Crown alleged, the defence alleged, so I would suggest better to leave it out. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh OK, you used the 2010 version. That explains it. Sorry for implying you deleted them intentionally. Yes, the Crown case should come first, and even I pointed that out in an earlier post elsewhere on this page. The problem as I saw it was, that because the trial is no longer broken up with subheadings, the Crown's case assumes more significance than the Defence's and David's testimony, merely because it comes first. I'll re-instate the subheadings. Akld guy (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Subheadings certainly an improvement. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just changed the formatting of those subheadings - for anyone editing in future, if you can please use the == format (2 each side for heading, 3 for next subheading, 4 if a further sub-sub-heading is needed etc), that way wikipedia automatically puts the headings into the table of contents and create a new "edit" tab which makes it easier for everyone to navigate and edit going forward. Thanks Melcous (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that information.

A post by Mr Maggoo transferred to new section 'The lead' (below) Akld guy (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Privy Council material

I am aware this has nothing to do with the suppressed evidence but yesterday I noticed that two of the nine points that the Privy Council wanted a jury to hear had been entered in the Privy Council section. I entered a four more points and was going to enter the remaining points today, but I see those four points I entered have been deleted so I have deleted the two points that remain. Either we list all the points or we don't list any. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Maggoo. If you are aware that this has nothing to do with suppressed evidence, please do not put it under that heading. Start a new section. Your editing is extremely disruptive and sooner or later an editor will block you from editing. Turtletop (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

So list them. You posted the above at 20:05 and then at 20:07 deleted the two points. Do not delete after allowing 2 minutes for discussion please. I reverted your deletion at 20:11. Akld guy (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your four points were deleted by Melcous with edit summary: Reverted 2 edits by Mr Maggoo: These edits are not fully in prose (see WP:PROSE), not properly cited (you cannot just put one link to the transcript at the end of 4-5 paragraphs), and not written in a neutral (see WP:NPOV), enecylopedic way. Th.. Akld guy (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Say again? I copied directly from the Privy Council report which I cited as a reference. Are you saying the Privy Council is not neutral? Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You made two edits to get those points in. The diffs (showing both edits) is here. You may have quoted the PC but it's obvious you did so without preamble, and therefore POV. Akld guy (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like nitpicking to me. So I was supposed to have entered something like "The other seven points listed by the Privy Council are as follows". Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What you are supposed to do, @Mr Maggoo:, is discuss your proposed edits here on the talk page and get consensus from other editors BEFORE you re-add them. Please read WP:BRD, particularly the section on "Discuss". It is obvious to everyone that this is a highly contentious and controversial article, so you need to work with other editors here to reach some sort of compromise or agreement rather than just editing it to make it your own preferred version. And there is no time pressure - if someone does not reply to you in a few hours, or even a couple of days, that is not a good enough reason for you to go back and add in what others have deleted for being controversial or breaching wikipedia policies. We are working to build an encyclopaedia here, you need to be patient and allow the time needed for other editors to contribute. Melcous (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you are trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. Turtletop has made a number of controversial edits without getting a consensus. I mentioned this to gadfium and asked if I could edit without a consensus so long as I cited a reliable source and he said basically I could but that I should try to get a consensus. So what we have in effect , is a number of edits by Turtletop that should never have been made, although I do notice that Turtletop has himself made the point that we shouldn't have to get a consensus for everything, and I agree with him about that. But if it's good for the goose then it should be good for the gander.

Now I can't see anything contentious about citing the Privy Council, and anyway someone else has already cited the Privy Council. I also intend to cite part of the Crown's closing address. There should be nothing contentious about that. If someone else wants to cite Michael Reed's closing address then I wouldn't have a problem with that. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You missed Melcous' point. The Talk page is not a page where you state what you intend to do. You could state what you would like to do - and then ask other editors to comment. That's how you build consensus. Turtletop (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What I would like to do is revert back to what was written in the Privy Council section in 2010.

It was headed Privy Council findings and then the nine findings were listed individually. Then there was a bit more about the PC ruling that the Court of Appeal had exceeded it's role re certain points. I could carry on doing what I am doing now, but that section was much better in 2010 than it is now, so I thought it would be better to rewrite it rather than add bits to it. Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Time

It would appear Wikipedia's time clock is out of sync. Or is there some other reason why comments I am making now are dated 26 Jan instead of 27 Jan? Mr Maggoo (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's time clock runs on UTC which is based on London standard time. You obviously have UTC set in your preferences, so you are seeing UTC time stamps. New Zealand standard time is normally 12 hours ahead of UTC, and we are presently on Daylight Saving Time which puts us 13 hours ahead. Don't worry about it, or...you can set your preferences to local time if you wish. That usually creates problems in other areas, such as when you refer to a post by someone and quote the time of the post. If he is using UTC, the times won't match. Better to leave it at UTC so we're all at the same time. Akld guy (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead

Created new section on behalf of Mr Maggoo. Akld guy (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to go back to the heading of the article, if I may. I don't want to harp on this, and if the consensus is to leave as is I will accept that. But I do believe that the word "murders" in the heading is not technically correct. It would have been correct up until David Bain was acquitted but now it is not. Justice Binnie referred to "the killings" in his report. The third section [now headed The Deaths, just so you know which section I am referring to ] was headed "The killings" back in 2010 . Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

By heading are you referring to the article title? AIRcorn (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. In my opinion the title should read The Bain family killings , not the Bain family murders. Justice Binnie referred to them as killings and I have seen them referred to as killings elsewhere. Up until David Bain was acquitted there were 5 murders, but now the possibility exists there were four murders and a suicide. Mr Maggoo (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I used Murders as that seemed to have the most agreement in the #Rename section. However I have no problem with killings personally and can see some benefits from that title. If you want I can put in a requested move for you (or you could do it yourself if you want). I wont feel comfortable just moving it as a few commentators specifically said murders in the above section. You might want to have a look at WP:Title#Deciding on an article title before commenting. A lot of editors will want to see evidence of what name is used most in reliable sources before deciding (google search of killings vs murders). AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No objection from me to 'killings'. It's neutral. Akld guy (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I said I believe that killings is the correct word to use. So as long as everyone is happy with that then perhaps a requested move could be put in on my behalf. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/33962/bain-killings-to-be-subject-of-playMr Maggoo (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Few things on my plate at the moment. Will do so tomorrow sometime if no one beats me to it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)