Talk:David Bain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
David Bain is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in New Zealand may be able to help! |
Contents |
[edit] Model of .22 rifle
Anyone have a reference telling the type of .22 rifle used by the killer? I once read it was a Ruger 10/22, but I am unable to confirm this. The Ruger 10/22 has a standard detachable 10-round magazine with unconventional external dimensions. See http://www.prestostore.com/cgi-bin/pro08.pl?ref=armedamerica@comcast.net&ct=65380&pd=291544 Petlif 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence for?
I'm failing to see why he was convicted for the murder? Perhaps there can be another section outlining the evidence that the courts based his conviction on? Mathmo Talk 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- this scoop outline gives a good summary of events and Privy Council decision --Zven 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- That link gives the full text of the Privy Council ruling, nothing more or less. They do provide a good review of the case, although it's not exactly brief. I think our article would benefit from adding the main reasons given for the Privy Council finding. -- Avenue 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Police instructional video in David Bain case
I believe the David Bain case is a New Zealand Police model case with video that has been given to recruits at the Royal New Zealand Police College in Porirua in the 1990's giving their perspective of the evidence and why they believe David Bain is guilty. The media has not picked up on this, but now that the Privy council has quashed his conviction and ordered a retrial it makes you wonder how the evidence was presented to recruits. --Zven 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is interesting. The case would probably be good material for a very different training video now. -- Avenue 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio problems
The articles appears to have serious copyvio problems. The prosecution and alternative theory sections are copyvio from crime.co.nz, specifically here and here. The copyright policy for crime.co.nz is here and it's clearly not GFDL or all right's released. Someone needs to go through and look for any other copyvios and remove them all. I left the 2 in in case it's useful in looking for more copyvios. Cheers Nil Einne 06:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed three sections which were substantially copies of pages from crime.co.nz. This leaves the article relatively neutral, but lacking in information about why the case was controversial and eventually overturned. Someone, please add a new section explaining the two theories about the murder, with an explanation of the key points of evidence the two sides argue over. Of course, the article needs to be presented in a neutral fashion, and it needs to be references point by point. The Privy Council ruling is an excellent source. Please cite paragraph numbers rather than just refer to the whole document or using page numbers which may differ according to the software used to load the .RTF file. References from crime.co.nz or news media are fine too.-gadfium 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've summarised the two sides, but haven't touched on the evidence yet. -- Avenue 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very good work.-gadfium 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a fair bit on the evidence, following the Privy Council report fairly closely. They have naturally focussed on the aspects that support their conclusion of a miscarriage of justice, so the current version might seem a bit one-sided. It probably needs further expansion based on other sources such as the books or earlier appeals, but I need to take a break from it for now. -- Avenue 11:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Any such further expansion could now be construed as contempt of court. From the Solicitor-General's press release: "I wish to make it very clear that it is not appropriate for there to be further public debate about [t]he evidence or any other public comment that is calculated or likely in influence a future jury. [...] Those who attempt to usurp or otherwise influence the trial process risk facing a charge of contempt of Court." -- Avenue 06:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Glasses
- The jury heard a statement from an optometrist that glasses found in David's room were David's, conflicting with David's testimony that they were his mother's. David was then cross-examined about this in a way that raised doubt over his credibility. The optometrist had in fact changed his mind shortly before testifying, and believed his statement had been changed to say they were David's, but this had not happened. The jury asked a question about this issue after retiring, and were reminded of the conflicting testimony by the judge. The Privy Council concluded that while the ownership of the glasses was not a vital matter in itself, the conflicting evidence may have detracted from David's credibility in the eyes of the jury.
I'm a bit confused about this. If the optometrist had changed his mind and decided they were David's and his statement read out in court was they they were David's then what's the problem? Is it supposed to say changed to say they were David's mother's? Nil Einne 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, it is supposed to say changed to say they were David's mother's. Sorry! I'll fix it now. -- Avenue 07:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
