Talk:Bain family murders/Archive 5

Motivation for murder
Chocmilk03 removed Binnie's observation that the police never came up with a motive for David to kill his family because he thinks this was Binnie's opinion. If you start removing 'opinions', that would include the opinions of the prosecutor, the opinions of the judge, the jury and everyone else involved. Pretty much everthing about the case is someone's opinion - that's why it was so controversial.

Although in this case, the police never came up with a motive. That's a fact - not an opinion. And the lack of motive for David is an important part of the story. Straining (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Straining: With respect, I disagree with some of the recent edits you have made. Firstly:
 * "Judge Binnie later noted that the police never came up with a plausible motive for David to kill his entire family, although the prosecution suggested he was 'triggered' by a minor and long-running argument with his father about use of a chainsaw."
 * The Binnie report is controversial because the government did not accept it and commissioned the Callinan report. The government and David Bain settled the dispute over whether compensation was owing with the agreed "ex gratia" payment. The statement above appears to present Binnie's conclusions as fact when they were contradicted by Callinan. If we look at the source you have provided for the above statement, it quotes from both Binnie and Callinan, and Callinan says:
 * Therefore, a neutral rewording of the above statement might say something like this:
 * "Judge Binnie was of the view that the police never came up with a plausible motive for David to kill his entire family, while Judge Callinan referred to David's admissions of hatred for his father who he saw as dominating the household and recent arguments with his father, as well as to evidence of 'abnormality of behaviour' on David's part."
 * But I don't think we should use that wording. I think it would be confusing for any reader of the article, considering that they won't have got to the explanation of Binnie's and Callinan's reports yet and won't understand the context (for instance, they might think Binnie and Callinan had some judicial role in the Bain proceedings, which is not correct). Therefore, I would suggest that content about Binnie's and Callinan's views be moved to the sections of the page dealing with their reports and that the section on the trial stick to the facts of what happened at the trial without introducing commentary at this stage.
 * Another addition says:
 * "As a result, the jury remained unaware that Robin Bain was depressed or that he had a possible motive to get rid of his family and commit suicide."
 * This in my view is drawing inferences from the source material and is an example of WP:SYNTH. The existing paragraph already says that a witness who was expected to testify about Robin's incestuous relationship with his daughter had not shown up to court when called. The reader may if they wish draw the inference that the jury was therefore not informed of Robin's possible motive, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to lead them to that conclusion.
 * On the other hand, I have no issues with your amendment to state "The defence introduced documented evidence about Robin Bain's state of mind and argued that he committed the murders". This is factual.
 * You have also added in information about Judith Collins resigning "after months of controversy about her ethics". I think this wording is problematic. It seems to imply that Collins' judgment in relation to the Bain case is impugned by her involvement in unrelated controversies. I find it difficult to understand how her involvement in these controversies could possibly be relevant, to be honest, particularly given that her successor Amy Adams continued in the same vein. The reference places WP:UNDUE weight on the reasons for Collins' resignation. We can mention that she resigned (that's clearly relevant because of Amy Adams' role in later discussions) but I don't think the "why" is relevant.
 * Finally, I remain of the view that the following wording is inappropriate for the section on Callinan's report:
 * "By way of contrast, Judge Binnie interviewed David over an entire day when conducting his inquiry and described him as a 'credible witness'."
 * While it's fine to say that Callinan didn't read Binnie's report (in fact that would be usual practice in these circumstances) or interview Bain, this wording isn't neutral as it suggests that Binnie's approach was better. I think the article should reflect that Binnie interviewed Bain and described him as a credible witness (in the section about Binnie's report) and that Callinan didn't, without drawing readers to a particular conclusion.
 * I would be keen to hear the views of yourself and others on the above. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would further note a couple of issues with the following paragraph:
 * "Judith Collins, the new Justice Minister, disagreed with Binnie's conclusions and sought feedback on his report from the police, the Solicitor-General and former High Court judge Robert Fisher without consulting Cabinet, and before releasing it to David's legal team . Fisher claimed that Binnie had made significant errors of principle, so Collins decided another report into Bain's compensation claim would have to be commissioned."
 * The first underlined wording again suggests there is something wrong with Collins' approach and is not supported anywhere in the linked source.
 * I would have no issue with the use of "claimed", except that it contrasts with the way Binnie is always said to have "concluded" or "noted" or "described" things. It seems to imply that Fisher's judgment is somehow not as credible. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you brought your concerns to the Talk page instead of engaging in an edit war - which is what so many editors tend to do. That's a very mature approach. Lets see what other editors have to say about the points you have made. Straining (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Straining: no worries, I think it's more practical to discuss here, rather than through reverts. :) I will have a look at your comments below when I have chance (might be over the next few days). The important thing is to focus on what reliable secondary sources say, not on what we personally think may or may not be the case, and to ensure the article adheres to WP:NPOV (e.g. avoiding stating opinions as fact, avoiding editorialising) and other policies. I think at the moment the article contains a few words to watch which is important to address.
 * On a separate note, I just noted you've marked a few of your recent edits as minor; you may not be aware that "minor edit" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and that the box should only be ticked for things like typo corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors and reversion of obvious vandalism. Expanding an article lead or adding additional content would never be a minor edit. There's more info here: Help:Minor edit. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, I just noted you've marked a few of your recent edits as minor; you may not be aware that "minor edit" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and that the box should only be ticked for things like typo corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors and reversion of obvious vandalism. Expanding an article lead or adding additional content would never be a minor edit. There's more info here: Help:Minor edit. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)