Aresholes con a jury, part two

**Scouse** · 1st March 2007, 23:00

Yep Scholum and Shipton who incidentaly are already serving an 8 year stretch for rape along with that thug that wanted to be the Commisioner of police all got off scot free from their latest trial for rape Just goes to prove theres no justice

**98tls** · 1st March 2007, 23:03

Bet theres more to come though.........cant believe they only raped three women with there time on the job..............

**scumdog** · 2nd March 2007, 00:15

Originally Posted by zrxer

Yep Scholum and Shipton who incidentaly are already serving an 8 year stretch for rape along with that thug that wanted to be the Commisioner of police all got off scot free from their latest trial for rape Just goes to prove theres no justice

"Con a jury" right?
Just like everybody else found not guilty by a jury 'conned' them too???

**James Deuce** · 2nd March 2007, 05:32

You guys seem to forget that even if someone has done a crime, if the prosecution fails to provide enough evidence to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that those who have been charged are guilty of the crimes they are charged with, then the jury can't just decide that that person is guilty.

That type of behaviour can result in jail terms for the jury.

**Kickaha** · 2nd March 2007, 05:32

Originally Posted by zrxer

Yep Scholum and Shipton who incidentaly are already serving an 8 year stretch for rape along with that thug that wanted to be the Commisioner of police all got off scot free from their latest trial for rape Just goes to prove theres no justice

so what evidence do you have to prove different?

obviously you're privy to something that those who were actually on the jury and saw all the evidence weren't?.

**Pwalo** · 2nd March 2007, 07:24

Originally Posted by Jim2

You guys seem to forget that even if someone has done a crime, if the prosecution fails to provide enough evidence to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that those who have been charged are guilty of the crimes they are charged with, then the jury can't just decide that that person is guilty.

That type of behaviour can result in jail terms for the jury.

Exactly right Jim. Thankfully we live in a modern Western country that requires proof of guilt before throwing you in to jail or whatever.

**terbang** · 2nd March 2007, 07:47

Originally Posted by Pwalo

Exactly right Jim. Thankfully we live in a modern Western country that requires proof of guilt before throwing you in to jail or whatever.

Hmm yeah thats right but we also live in a society that knows damn well that these guys acted like a pack of thugs and dogs preying on young girls and one got off because of the way the law works. We as a society will very soon have a known, though not convicted, rapist as our police commisioner. And we all blindly say 'well thats the law, who are we to question it'. A great message to all the other thugs and rapists out there and I bet Rickards lawyer and investigator will be getting plenty of work in the future.

**ManDownUnder** · 2nd March 2007, 07:55

Originally Posted by terbang

Hmm yeah thats right but we also live in a society that knows damn well that these guys acted like a pack of thugs and dogs preying on young girls and one got off because of the way the law works. We as a society will very soon have a known, though not convicted, rapist as our police commisioner. And we all blindly say 'well thats the law, who are we to question it'. A great message to all the other thugs and rapists out there and I bet Rickards lawyer and investigator will be getting plenty of work in the future.

Originally Posted by Kickaha

so what evidence do you have to prove different?

obviously you're privy to something that those who were actually on the jury and saw all the evidence weren't?.

Ummm.. yeah - what Kickaha said.

I don't know damned well anything. I do know I wasn't presented with enough information to make a worthwhile determination on the matter, and as such I am in no position categorically state things are one way or the other.

Consequently I'm not going to hypothesise on the guilt or innocence of those involved, I'm sure as hell not going to state that determination as a fact, and going public with it as a generalisation is a little beyond what I'm able to do too.

I'm personally impressed anyone can do it, and look forward to complete disclosure of all the facts to back your claim.

... or were you just saying what kinda came to mind?

**terbang** · 2nd March 2007, 07:58

Originally Posted by MDU

or were you just saying what kinda came to mind?

No I do know some people in Murapara, where this thing first reared its ugly head..!

**Karma** · 2nd March 2007, 08:00

I don't know anything about it, and personally don't care.

As hard as it may have been at the time for these women, I can't help but think this highlights the need for the first victim to come forward at the time, thus preventing any future victims.

It's a bit difficult to try and prosecute someone 20 years after the fact. Now if she'd gone to the cops even a week or two later, they'd have locked them up for sure.

**terbang** · 2nd March 2007, 08:05

Originally Posted by Weasel

It's a bit difficult to try and prosecute someone 20 years after the fact. Now if she'd gone to the cops even a week or two later, they'd have locked them up for sure.

Agree with you there but 20 years ago these were 16-18 year old girls and they were the local cops and they understandably were scared to talk.

**ManDownUnder** · 2nd March 2007, 08:07

Originally Posted by terbang

No I do know some people in Murapara, where this thing first reared its ugly head..!

Jesus - go tell the jury - that's the kind of evidence that'll get the bastard hanged

**Scouse** · 2nd March 2007, 08:10

Originally Posted by scumdog

"Con a jury" right?
Just like everybody else found not guilty by a jury 'conned' them too???

I can see it now Scumdog down on one knee in front of rickards "Please mister rickareds can you make me a inspector I always new you wernt guilty of rape, can I kiss your arse while i am down here Clint"

Originally Posted by Jim2

You guys seem to forget that even if someone has done a crime, if the prosecution fails to provide enough evidence to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that those who have been charged are guilty of the crimes they are charged with, then the jury can't just decide that that person is guilty.

That type of behaviour can result in jail terms for the jury.

The unfortunate thing here Jim is that not everything was supprest so the case beame prejudiced in the other direction for example evidence to prove that they are arsehole thugs with a history of rape in there past is supprest but not the fact that the are or were Police officers which can lead a jury to think ok so if they are police they could not have done anything so hienous cos they are the good guys after all

Originally Posted by Kickaha

so what evidence do you have to prove different?

obviously you're privy to something that those who were actually on the jury and saw all the evidence weren't?.

yes

Originally Posted by Pwalo

Exactly right Jim. Thankfully we live in a modern Western country that requires proof of guilt before throwing you in to jail or whatever.

Social worker

**James Deuce** · 2nd March 2007, 08:10

Originally Posted by terbang

Hmm yeah thats right but we also live in a society that knows damn well that these guys acted like a pack of thugs and dogs preying on young girls and one got off because of the way the law works. We as a society will very soon have a known, though not convicted, rapist as our police commisioner. And we all blindly say A great message to all the other thugs and rapists out there and I bet Rickards lawyer and investigator will be getting plenty of work in the future.

If you want a Police state then form a Political party (register it for $500) and then campaign on that basis.

This isn't a case of 'well thats the law, who are we to question it'.

The prosecution failed to raise enough evidence to convict.

Sounds to me that you'd prefer a society where Habeas Corpus is rescinded. Not a place where I'd want to live.