Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[spudchucka]

but the police FORCE in this case was in the wrong.
The police FORCE in this case investigated an alleged offence, (which cost millions) and prosecuted the alleged offenders. The defendants were found not guilty by the jury and were acquitted by the court.

Whats wrong? Other than the fact that you don't agree with the outcome?

[spudchucka]

Come on now Spud, organisations like the Police live by the 'face fits' principle.
Rickards had some powerful patronage down the years.
There probably is some truth in that but he wouldn't have got as far as he did without the qualifications to back it up. He has several degrees, an MBA (or similar) from some aussie university included and he obviously has vast policing experience. Some say he had been hand picked to be the first maori police commisioner but he wouldn't ever have gotten there if he hadn't done the work and didn't have the required qualifications.

I think your views of police are stuck in the past somewhat. Certainly in the past cops were tapped on the shoulder and told to consider joining CIB or AOS becasue the current squad members thought they would be right for the job. These days its a very competetive environment applying for jobs internally. There is a strick process that has to be folllowed, no more taps on the shoulder because your face fits.

[Goblin]

The police FORCE in this case investigated an alleged offence, (which cost millions) and prosecuted the alleged offenders. The defendants were found not guilty by the jury and were acquitted by the court.

Whats wrong? Other than the fact that you don't agree with the outcome?
The defendants were found not guilty because evidence was suppressed. Police investigating police will always have the same outcome.

Intresting that you should mention the "cost" in dollar terms...what about the "cost" to the victim here...you cant put a price on innocence robbed!

[spudchucka]

Hm. Debateable in this case. Certainly an employer may not allow unproven allegations to prejudice employment.

But - an employer certainly may make general reputation standing and esteem of collegues part of the criteriaa for considering promtion.

I don't know much about him other than what's been in the media but from what I've been able to gather he was a pretty effective police officer (putting aside the allegations against him). People who make it through to the higher police ranks aren't always spoken well of by the troops for various reasons; he must have been pleasing somebody with his performance though or he'd have never got as far as he did.

[spudchucka]

I suppose you write out parking tickets just as easily as you spread red rep once an officious twat always an officious twat eh Indoo.
And Indoo is the only member thats EVER red rep'd somebody. Please, who gives a shit?

[spudchucka]

Just go back to the beggining of the thread there was a comment made "that just because they have been found guilty of this in the past doesnt mean that they are guilty this time" is a double standard when the normal everyday Scumbag gets a visit every time there is a crime that "fits their modus operandi " like I say I am happy that this happens but this pratice should aslo be Extended to the less normal scumbag the sort of scumbag that devalues the credibility of our police force
Past similar offending might make them a person of interest or a suspect in an enquiry, it certainly does not, on its own, make them guilty of the current offence under investigation.

[spudchucka]

The defendants were found not guilty because evidence was suppressed. Police investigating police will always have the same outcome.

Intresting that you should mention the "cost" in dollar terms...what about the "cost" to the victim here...you cant put a price on innocence robbed!
Firstly I'm not trying to downgrade Nicholas's experience I'm sure its been a terrible ordeal and I also think that the behaviour of the defendant's was deplorable.

Secondly did you sit through the entire trial and are you certain that the only reason they were found not guilty is because particular evidence was not allowed to be heard in the trial?

[Goblin]

Firstly I'm not trying to downgrade Nicholas's experience I'm sure its been a terrible ordeal and I also think that the behaviour of the defendant's was deplorable.

Secondly did you sit through the entire trial and are you certain that the only reason they were found not guilty is because particular evidence was not allowed to be heard in the trial?

I think we all agree the defendant's behaviour was deplorable.

No I didn't sit through the trial but I am absolutely sure that had the suppressed evidence been heard, then there would/might have been a different outcome.

[Pixie]

I'd just like to comment on the support these three scum recieved from their families at the time of the trial.Having admitted their behaviour in the past they are still accepted as good blokes.
Just like murdering gang members are accepted

[SixPackBack]

Firstly I'm not trying to downgrade Nicholas's experience I'm sure its been a terrible ordeal and I also think that the behaviour of the defendant's was deplorable.

Secondly did you sit through the entire trial and are you certain that the only reason they were found not guilty is because particular evidence was not allowed to be heard in the trial?

Did you sit through the trial Spud, is there something other than what we have heard that casts doubt on the validity of her claims.
The reason I ask is the evidence concerning the 'baton' evidence seemed very compelling.

[Patrick]

, all policemen are now under suspicion in some small way because of the revelations (official or unofficial) of this case.

The responsibility is now on all policemen in NZ to go to their superiors and get the message across that the actions of a minority has disgusted you and must never again be allowed to go unchecked for so long and to publicly remove the culture that allowed it.. In other words become your brothers keepers and some serious house keeping is now required for your organization.

Split this to two things.

1. That is the small minded problem of a minority. Nearly everyone knows it is the actions of a few cops, not of the 7000 other frontliners, but "your" assumption is that all cops are under suspicion? Why is that?...

The tourist that was murdered here recently, wasn't her killer a labourer?

"All labourers are tourist rapists and killers, so be suspicious about all of them..."

Similar of what is being spouted here, but still as ridiculous...:bash:

2. Already happening. This whole thing came about from a big internal shakeup and re-investigation costing much $$$$$$. It is still going on, there is a Commission of Inquiry still going, by my count, for the last two to three years? Is it thorough? You betcha, no stone unturned, more resourses poured into this than most homicide enquiries, as mentioned earlier by Spud. Watch the headlines, me thinks there is more to come...

[spudchucka]

I'd just like to comment on the support these three scum recieved from their families at the time of the trial.Having admitted their behaviour in the past they are still accepted as good blokes.
Just like murdering gang members are accepted
You have a sorry and pathetic outlook on life.

[Patrick]

And how did Rickards make it ALL the way to Assistant Comissioner?

Very intelligent man...4 exams to Sergeant, 5 to Senior Sergeant, 6 to Inspector, another 6 to Superintendant, more to Asst Commissioner...these exams include University Papers at early stages (Sgt and Snr Sgt) but lead to full Degrees from then on.

[spudchucka]

Did you sit through the trial Spud, is there something other than what we have heard that casts doubt on the validity of her claims.
The reason I ask is the evidence concerning the 'baton' evidence seemed very compelling.
No I didn't and I'm not being drawn into discussing details.

However, I do know that getting a conviction for rape is at times very difficult. Elsewhere in this thread I described the experience a mate of mine had with a rapist he caught in the act but was acquited because the victim was intoxicated at the time. Any 18 or 20 year old complaint without physical evidence is going to come down to one parties word against the others. The jury has to decide which party is more believable.

[Patrick]

True Spud, but the decision has to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Did the rape occur? Maybe. Was it consent? Maybe. Has it affected the victim? Absolutely. But back to the first two points... Maybe.

Maybe is not beyond reasonable doubt.

[terbang]

but "your" assumption is that all cops are under suspicion?
Why is that?...


So in the post light of this case, where rickard was one of their leaders (top dog and bloody good guy and all), I would be wrong to be even a little suspicious before entrusting my 13 year old daughter in the company of the first policeman that walks through the door..?

[Patrick]

So in the post light of this case, where rickard was one of their leaders (top dog and bloody good guy and all), I would be wrong to be even a little suspicious before entrusting my 13 year old daughter in the company of the first policeman that walks through the door..?

Who would you leave her with? You would be wrong to leave her with anyone you didn't know...

A Politician? Mr Capill... Hmmmm
A kindy teacher? Mr Ellis?
A priest? Say no more...

[terbang]

Who would you leave her with? You would be wrong to leave her with anyone you didn't know...

A Politician? Mr Capill... Hmmmm
A kindy teacher? Mr Ellis?
A priest? Say no more...

Exactly my point all along..Bling that man..

[Lou Girardin]

I don't know if we need worry about all cops being rapists. It's greater worry how they close ranks when one is caught out. Hopefully this is changing, but recent events make me doubt it.

BTW It appears Ellis may be safer than Rickards.

[Patrick]

I don't know if we need worry about all cops being rapists. It's greater worry how they close ranks when one is caught out. Hopefully this is changing, but recent events make me doubt it.

BTW It appears Ellis may be safer than Rickards.

Closing ranks? Ppfffttt... One in my class went down in the 80s. You should see the vigour they put in now when investigating one of thier own, let alone back in the 80s...

[ChookThief]

I don't know if we need worry about all cops being rapists. It's greater worry how they close ranks when one is caught out. Hopefully this is changing, but recent events make me doubt it.

BTW It appears Ellis may be safer than Rickards.

Why not blame the jury? It was the jury that found the Not Guilty verdict, I think you'll find that if you ask any Police Officer they are under more scrutiny than the general public. Lost me with the closing ranks they were put on trial and found not guilty by a Jury, or have the Police got to the jury too?

[SixPackBack]

No I didn't and I'm not being drawn into discussing details.

However, I do know that getting a conviction for rape is at times very difficult. Elsewhere in this thread I described the experience a mate of mine had with a rapist he caught in the act but was acquited because the victim was intoxicated at the time. Any 18 or 20 year old complaint without physical evidence is going to come down to one parties word against the others. The jury has to decide which party is more believable.

How does a Cop contain himself in situations such as this, the temptation to beet the living shit out of rapists must be ever present.
As must the temptation to 'stack' the odd's against the criminal before they get to court.

[Goblin]

Why not blame the jury? It was the jury that found the Not Guilty verdict, I think you'll find that if you ask any Police Officer they are under more scrutiny than the general public. Lost me with the closing ranks they were put on trial and found not guilty by a Jury, or have the Police got to the jury too?
Yes! The police lawyers got to the jury by suppressing evidence!!

[Goblin]

Very intelligent man...

Intelligent enough to abuse his authority and use the system to get away with horrific sexual violation over a long a long period.

[Teflon]

Shit like this doesn't surprise me.. i know of a few currupt piglets on the payroll including a detective. What really makes me laugh is a tinny house next door to the pig station. You can't tell me these fuckers don't know about it. Only time it was raided, was from the MOB.

[Hitcher]

Remind me again, please, as to why this thread has become yet another "bash the Police" thread?

[Patrick]

Intelligent enough to abuse his authority and use the system to get away with horrific sexual violation over a long a long period.

20 years ago when he was young, dumb, and full o come... You saying he has done it regularly since?

[Patrick]

Remind me again, please, as to why this thread has become yet another "bash the Police" thread?

Most do, it seems....:zzzz: :scratch: :bash:

[Jantar]

Yes! The police lawyers got to the jury by suppressing evidence!!

That is quite an acusation to make. Are you saying that there some additional evidence relating to the allegations that was deliberately suppressed by the police? If this is the case then what was this evidence, and how come you know about but the defence lawyers didn't?

Or is it that there are some additional known facts that relate to another case and another time that legally can't be introduced?

[Scouse]

That is quite an acusation to make. Are you saying that there some additional evidence relating to the allegations that was deliberately suppressed by the police? If this is the case then what was this evidence, and how come you know about but the defence lawyers didn't?

Or is it that there are some additional known facts that relate to another case and another time that legally can't be introduced?Your just playing with semantics

[Jantar]

Your just playing with semantics

No, I'm not just playing with semantics at all.

It is the legal seperation of evidence and supposition that is an importanat point of law. Many people may believe that evidence relating to the case has been supressed, but what has been suppressed is evidence that doesn't relate to this case at all. It is only supposition that facts relating to another case may have been evidence in this one.

[Goblin]

That is quite an acusation to make. Are you saying that there some additional evidence relating to the allegations that was deliberately suppressed by the police? If this is the case then what was this evidence, and how come you know about but the defence lawyers didn't?

Or is it that there are some additional known facts that relate to another case and another time that legally can't be introduced?

I'm not going add any more to this discussion as I dont want to jepardise any possible future court cases on this issue.

I am not bashing all cops. I would like to bash some lawyers but that would wouldn't work either.

[spudchucka]

True Spud, but the decision has to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Did the rape occur? Maybe. Was it consent? Maybe. Has it affected the victim? Absolutely. But back to the first two points... Maybe.

Maybe is not beyond reasonable doubt.
This whole thread is a big maybe.

[spudchucka]

I don't know if we need worry about all cops being rapists. It's greater worry how they close ranks when one is caught out. Hopefully this is changing, but recent events make me doubt it.

BTW It appears Ellis may be safer than Rickards.
Why has this case caused you to believe that police close ranks when one of their own is accused? The cops have gone all out to get this guy. Many of the detectives who worked on the case would undoubtedly have know the accused personally to some degree. Sure the investigation all those years ago looks like it may have been as you describe but this one has been utterly professional.

[spudchucka]

How does a Cop contain himself in situations such as this, the temptation to beet the living shit out of rapists must be ever present.
As must the temptation to 'stack' the odd's against the criminal before they get to court.
The temptation is for most overshadowed by the drive to see the matter through to the ultimate conclusion, the creep going to jail. If you drop your standards you risk losing the case and facing criminal sanctions yourself. Why bother? The low lifes aren't worth the small amount of satisfaction you would get from beating the crap out of them.

"Stack the odd's against the criminal before they get to court"

It doesn't happen any where near often enough but when you do have sufficient evidence that you know they are screwed to the wall before they get to court it is infinately more satisfying than smacking any bad guy in the head.

[spudchucka]

Yes! The police lawyers got to the jury by suppressing evidence!!
The judge suppresses the evidence, not the crown.

Defence lawyers also ask for evidence to be supressed to protect their clients right to a fair trial for any other matters still to come before the courts.

[spudchucka]

Remind me again, please, as to why this thread has become yet another "bash the Police" thread?
Because of the brainless minority.

They can't help but seize any opportunity.

[Goblin]

That is quite an acusation to make.

Not an accusation...more an observation.

[Goblin]

The judge suppresses the evidence, not the crown.

Defence lawyers also ask for evidence to be supressed to protect their clients right to a fair trial for any other matters still to come before the courts.
That's kind of what I meant. This whole trial didn't seem fair at all.

[Patrick]

But it is fair to all...how many crims have previous convictions/pending court cases but they cant be mentioned to a jury who is dealing with the facts of the case before them ONLY...

[Goblin]

I don't know....I'm not a cop or a lawyer and havn't had much to do with the "system" but this case does reek of injustice to me. It's only my opinion. I dont hate cops. Just a few of them.

[terbang]

Sure the investigation all those years ago looks like it may have been as you describe but this one has been utterly professional.
Yes but still 20 years too late..!
Get the point..?

[scumdog]

Yes but still 20 years too late..!
Get the point..?

If it had only been a year after the event and the result the same would you be any happier??

If the defendants had been repeat burglars and rapists and not been police would it have made a difference to your opinion?


If the defendants had not been police and had no previous 'reputation' or criminal record would that too have made a difference??

As Spudchucka says, there is a shitloads of maybes in this thread.

[Winston001]

Arthur Allan Thomas was freed. A cop, or cops, were found to have planted evidence. End of story.


Ah, not quite Lou. That is the populist belief but it isn't supported by the facts. There never has been any proof of any nature that the shell casings (not bullets) were planted.

Thomas was pardoned because his conviction was regarded as unsafe. The fact remains that Jeanette and Harvey Crewe are dead. Thomas may very well have murdered them.

[terbang]

If it had only been a year after the event and the result the same would you be any happier??

The point being is why did it sit on the shelf for 20 years.? An administrative error..? Or a deliberate cover up by a (then) unhealthy organisation..? Or what. So what do you cops think..
There sure are a lot of maybes but there are also a lot of sidestepped questions.. This aint cop bashing (so don't try to hide behind that) its just asking questions...

[Winston001]

This thread wanders into alleged police corruption. It is worth remembering that NZ is about the least corrupt country in the world. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

[scumdog]

And another point to be aware of: a lot of cops now being charged with offences that 10 -20 or so years ago they would have (and often did) got away with.

The Police is quite a lot harder on its own now than it was in the past.

Doesn't make the past offending right but just pointing out something that some may not be aware of.

[Winston001]

Difficult as it might be to believe, when organisations investigate their own members (and they are convinced there is substance to the allegation), they are more cut-throat than you or I.

They turn on their own because the bad guy is seen as a traitor. He has betrayed the other people in the organisation. So when the police investigate their own members, it is vigorous and unrelenting.

But first a threshold of belief needs to be breached because every cop faces complaints at some stage. So not every complaint is believed and I imagine Louise Nicholas was up against it in the early days.

Snap Scumdog. :D Beat me to it.

[Winston001]

As to Rickards career? You've seen the guy on TV. He is tough, intelligent and convincing. He can't have done much wrong that anyone above him knew about as he moved up the ranks.

Some bastards are very clever and rise to the top.

[Pixie]

Why has this case caused you to believe that police close ranks when one of their own is accused? The cops have gone all out to get this guy. .
All out-
apart from waiting for twenty years to do something about it when finally the complaint could be ignored no longer.

[Pixie]

Ah, not quite Lou. That is the populist belief but it isn't supported by the facts. There never has been any proof of any nature that the shell casings (not bullets) were planted.


Except that the casing that was "found" in the flowerbed was a nice shiney brass one.
They were too stupid to even try to weather the casing

[scumdog]

All out-
apart from waiting for twenty years to do something about it when finally the complaint could be ignored no longer.

See my last post.

IF the Police were 'closing ranks etc then the case would NEVER have come to light, don't go the 'could be ignored no longer' route, it could have been so easily buried forever.

But it wasn't and now people are quick to slag-off the investigation instead of saying "about time, good on them for finally sorting it"

The court outcome is possibly not the ideal one but thats juries for you.

[scumdog]

Except that the casing that was "found" in the flowerbed was a nice shiney brass one.
They were too stupid to even try to weather the casing

And so too apparently was everybody else that saw the case....

[Pixie]

And so too apparently was everybody else that saw the case....
Never trust a jury to have any brains

[MSTRS]

Why has this case caused you to believe that police close ranks when one of their own is accused? The cops have gone all out to get this guy. Many of the detectives who worked on the case would undoubtedly have know the accused personally to some degree. Sure the investigation all those years ago looks like it may have been as you describe but this one has been utterly professional.
The public have long memories and their high expectations of the Police have been sadly battered over the years. Regardless of the jury's interpretation of the evidence they were presented with, if they had come up with "Guilty" then the public (us) would have been of the opinion that these cops were bastards (we still think that) but at least there can be no question that the 'Boy's Club' was somehow protecting them (which is what we have now).
Kinda the old "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get ya"

[scumdog]

The public have long memories and their high expectations of the Police have been sadly battered over the years. Regardless of the jury's interpretation of the evidence they were presented with, if they had come up with "Guilty" then the public (us) would have been of the opinion that these cops were bastards (we still think that) but at least there can be no question that the 'Boy's Club' was somehow protecting them (which is what we have now).
Kinda the old "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get ya"

Kinda no-win situation - if they kept it under wraps and somebody found out the cops would be arseholes, if cops expose it themselves (like this one) they're still arseholes 'cos it happened.

What would have made a happy outcome for some of you? (apart from the obvious that Lousie never had to undergo what she did).
A change of justice rules so the cops can be convicted in a situation where everybody else would be acquited??:gob:

C'mon people, you moan about a (alleged) double standard for Police when it suits you..now it seems like some of you expect one in your favour against the cops????.:wait:

[MSTRS]

Kinda no-win situation - if they kept it under wraps and somebody found out the cops would be arseholes, if cops expose it themselves (like this one) they're still arseholes 'cos it happened.
No-win alright. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The length of this thread would suggest that there is no 'right' answer to this. The only thing that occurs to me is that those three (etc) should have lived up to the standards expected of them as cops AND KEPT IT IN THEIR PANTS. That fact that they didn't should be enough to see the one left given a dishonourable discharge (assuming the other two have already)

[Scouse]

See my last post.

IF the Police were 'closing ranks etc then the case would NEVER have come to light, don't go the 'could be ignored no longer' route, it could have been so easily buried forever.

But it wasn't and now people are quick to slag-off the investigation instead of saying "about time, good on them for finally sorting it"

The court outcome is possibly not the ideal one but thats juries for you. Oh I thought that it was the Media that brought the case to light witch in turn put presure on the Police to bring the case to court

[yungatart]

...., if cops expose it themselves (like this one) they're still arseholes 'cos it happened.

.
Thought that Louise Nicholas did the exposing via the media??

[The Stranger]

The defendants were found not guilty because evidence was suppressed. Police investigating police will always have the same outcome.


I don't agree with the supression in this case, but I have to agree with Spud here. The police did investigate and did prosecute the alleged perpetrators.

I would venture to say the only reason that there was a trial at all is because the accused were policemen and the allegations of police cover up would have been huge.

So I think it fair to say that the police did do their job and did it properly. You can't blame the police for the supression of evidence nor for the not guilty verdicts. I would doubt sincerely if the police force, either individuals or as a whole had anything to do with that.

[The Stranger]

Remind me again, please, as to why this thread has become yet another "bash the Police" thread?

No hitcher it is not a bash the police thread.
There is the odd bash the police post but the posts are for the most part quite lucid.

The issue here is more that the vast majority think it wrong that prior convictions may not have been revealed.

The police are just as vocal in their defence of that position.

[Patrick]

No hitcher it is not a bash the police thread.
There is the odd bash the police post but the posts are for the most part quite lucid.

The issue here is more that the vast majority think it wrong that prior convictions may not have been revealed.

The police are just as vocal in their defence of that position.

No, we are just pointing out that that is the law of the land, for all, be it cops, paedophiles, burglars or car thieves...

The pamphets are going against what is equal for all, wether you are a Policeman on trial or a repetitve paedophile. It suggests that there be different laws for Policemen.

But no one is right, no one is wrong... and the thread goes on...

[Dafe]

This case is just dragging. Remove the Suppressions and lets be done!

Does anybody remember two years ago, when all the evidence went missing after a break-in at the Police Complaints Authority in Wellington.
That was probably the evidence that would have screwed the high ranking officers good and proper.
Unfortunately, this case had to be trialled after the loss of much vital evidence.
The only files the PCA hold are based on complaints against Police members.
Therefore, some officer didn't want the truth being unveiled!

[Patrick]

This case is just dragging. Remove the Suppressions and lets be done!

Does anybody remember two years ago, when all the evidence went missing after a break-in at the Police Complaints Authority in Wellington.
That was probably the evidence that would have screwed the high ranking officers good and proper.
Unfortunately, this case had to be trialled after the loss of much vital evidence.
The only files the PCA hold are based on complaints against Police members.
Therefore, some officer didn't want the truth being unveiled!

Removing them for the cops means removing them for everyone... will never happen.

Nice story about the PCA breakin... did you read that somewhere? What evidence would that be, since it was one word against the other...

[Dafe]

Removing them for the cops means removing them for everyone... will never happen.

Nice story about the PCA breakin... did you read that somewhere? What evidence would that be, since it was one word against the other...

http://www.peterellis.org.nz/people/ClintRickards/2004-0321_DominionPost_FileMissing.htm

Bizarre, this is suggesting that in 2002, files went missing.

I know for a fact that about 2004, the whole file and only that file, was stolen during a break-in to the PCA.

[Jantar]

In another thread, http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=27535 I asked if anyone could provide an alibi for a particular time 18 years ago. A pity that someone has decided to move it to PD as the whole point of the thread was to show how unfair it is to make accusations of events that have happened 18 years ago. The human memory just isn't that good. That is one of the reasons why the three cops in the Nicholas rape trial had to be aquitted. When it comes down to purely one person's word against another's then memory alone is a poor witness after so many years.

Of the 23 people who replied before it was moved to PD, only 3 have been able to an alibi that is verifiable. Those who were babies, or not even born obviously couldn't have been guilty of a crime like rape, but as far as proving their actual whereabouts at the time, even they can't do it.

Most have said things like "I was probably..." or "I think I may have been..." then given accounts that aren't checkable. The ones who have made positive statements like "I was in hospital.." obviously have a good reason to remember where they were, and I made it easier by choosing an easter weekend.

I assume that this whole thread will also now be moved to PD.

[The Stranger]

No, we are just pointing out that that is the law of the land, for all, be it cops, paedophiles, burglars or car thieves...

The pamphets are going against what is equal for all, ...

Why say "No"?
You are vocal in defence of this position.

I did not say it isn't the law.
I have not said, nor implied that the law of the land has been broken in this case.

Yet again however your apparent support for this unpopular law puts police against the rest in the forum.

[Patrick]

Why say "No"?
You are vocal in defence of this position.

I did not say it isn't the law.
I have not said, nor implied that the law of the land has been broken in this case.

Yet again however your apparent support for this unpopular law puts police against the rest in the forum.

It is not support of it, I was pointing out that it simply IS the law. Many are unpopular. Speed for one... 70kmph on a learners for another... there are too many to list, but KB sure points them out often enough.

I was not saying YOU said any of the above...

The point I was trying to make is that there is inherent danger of believing someone is GUILTY of an offence ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY HAVE A PREVIOUS CONVICTION. That has to be a dangerous road to follow for many reasons, most of which are obvious?

[spudchucka]

That's kind of what I meant. This whole trial didn't seem fair at all.
There are people on both sides claiming the same thing.

[spudchucka]

Yes but still 20 years too late..!
Get the point..?
Do you blame the current group of investigators for that?

[spudchucka]

All out-
apart from waiting for twenty years to do something about it when finally the complaint could be ignored no longer.
The earlier investigation stinks somewhat of unprofessionalism. However it was investigated and filed until it hit the media again in 2004. The current group of investigators in all likelyhood had no knowledge of the allegations prior to the news breaking. Certainly upper management must have known about the allegations but it seems unlikely that they would have sat around dreaming up schemes to protect Clint considering that they have gone for him with all guns blazing.

[spudchucka]

Never trust a jury to have any brains
Been on a few have ya?

[spudchucka]

The public have long memories and their high expectations of the Police have been sadly battered over the years. Regardless of the jury's interpretation of the evidence they were presented with, if they had come up with "Guilty" then the public (us) would have been of the opinion that these cops were bastards (we still think that) but at least there can be no question that the 'Boy's Club' was somehow protecting them (which is what we have now).
Kinda the old "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get ya"
It just doesn't wash I'm afraid. You can't look at the police effort put into this prosecution on one hand and say they are closing ranks and protecting each other on the other hand.

Somebody said earlier that the case was thrown out because the police suppresed evidence, presumably they mean evidence that would have otherwise led to their conviction. Why would they do that after they have invested a huge amount of money and man hours into prosecuting these guys only to shoot themselves in the foot by suppressing critical evidence?

It simply doesn't make sense and the closing ranks arguement is lame in this instance.

[SixPackBack]

It just doesn't wash I'm afraid. You can't look at the police effort put into this prosecution on one hand and say they are closing ranks and protecting each other on the other hand.

Somebody said earlier that the case was thrown out because the police suppresed evidence, presumably they mean evidence that would have otherwise led to their conviction. Why would they do that after they have invested a huge amount of money and man hours into prosecuting these guys only to shoot themselves in the foot by suppressing critical evidence?

It simply doesn't make sense and the closing ranks arguement is lame in this instance.

The public perception is forever stained..arguments are semantics.
The only thing anyone will remember is a Cop getting off charges that looked to the public like a guilty case. A Cop kept on the pay roll for two years and an inability to present incriminating evidence whatever the excuse....collectively the public think these guys are scum and not worthy of a policeman's uniform never mind being in the upper echelon.
The police failed as did the courts.

[Dafe]

It just doesn't wash I'm afraid. You can't look at the police effort put into this prosecution on one hand and say they are closing ranks and protecting each other on the other hand.

Somebody said earlier that the case was thrown out because the police suppresed evidence, presumably they mean evidence that would have otherwise led to their conviction. Why would they do that after they have invested a huge amount of money and man hours into prosecuting these guys only to shoot themselves in the foot by suppressing critical evidence?

It simply doesn't make sense and the closing ranks arguement is lame in this instance.

The suppression order is not one of evidence. But one of detail to the public.

So you don't think the police are protecting each other? Perhaps not. But do you not think there is corruption taking place at the highest level of the NZ Police force?

What about the files that went "missing" in 2002?
How about the entire case file that was "stolen" from the Police Complaints Authority in 2004?
Now who, other than the officers involved, would benefit from the files being stolen? Who other than a high ranking officer, would know the PCA layout well enough to have removed files from the fileroom and the relevant investigators offices, which happens to be spanned across various floors of a large (12-14 story) commercial building? Somebody who knew the CCTV layout and immediately disabled the cameras upon their arrival to the floors.

[The Stranger]

It is not support of it, I was pointing out that it simply IS the law. Many are unpopular. Speed for one... 70kmph on a learners for another... there are too many to list, but KB sure points them out often enough.

I was not saying YOU said any of the above...

The point I was trying to make is that there is inherent danger of believing someone is GUILTY of an offence ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY HAVE A PREVIOUS CONVICTION. That has to be a dangerous road to follow for many reasons, most of which are obvious?

Well ok, I really don't know what to take from your reply.
Because the last paragraph looks to me like you support the position.

So for the sake of clarification, may I please request a straight answer. Do you, in this case (the rape case which is the subject of this thread) believe that evidence of prior conviction relating to rape (if any) should have been presented to the jury?

[scumdog]

Well ok, I really don't know what to take from your reply.
Because the last paragraph looks to me like you support the position.

So for the sake of clarification, may I please request a straight answer. Do you, in this case (the rape case which is the subject of this thread) believe that evidence of prior conviction relating to rape (if any) should have been presented to the jury?


Ok, say I reckon yes produce the prior convictions to the jury -would you be happy with ALL jury trials having prior conviction released to the jury too?

Or only rape cases?

Or only if Police are the defendants in a rape case?

Or only in certain cases? and which ones?

If you go down the road of baring all to juries you are treading the dangerous ground of 'red-neck law' - i.e. "he done it once afore so he MUSTA done it this time" - which in effect takes away the 'innocent to PROVEN guilty' idea.

Imagine you were a defendant, you were guilty in the past of a crime you are now charged with but innocent of - and the past conviction was revealed to the jury - and they convicted you on that basis, how would you feel?

Do you think the law would be better served this way?

[Lou Girardin]

Why has this case caused you to believe that police close ranks when one of their own is accused? The cops have gone all out to get this guy. Many of the detectives who worked on the case would undoubtedly have know the accused personally to some degree. Sure the investigation all those years ago looks like it may have been as you describe but this one has been utterly professional.

It clearly happened when Dewar handled her original complaint. A lot of people posting on this issue either don't know the history of the matter or it's easier for them to focus on the trial alone.

[Lou Girardin]

Ah, not quite Lou. That is the populist belief but it isn't supported by the facts. There never has been any proof of any nature that the shell casings (not bullets) were planted.



The Royal Commision was convinced. The evidence was as sound as that used to convict Scott Watson ie. circumstantial.

[Lou Girardin]

See my last post.

IF the Police were 'closing ranks etc then the case would NEVER have come to light, don't go the 'could be ignored no longer' route, it could have been so easily buried forever.



It came about because one of those despised journalists dug into the historic case and started a new shit storm about it.
They have a use after all.

[spudchucka]

The public perception is forever stained..arguments are semantics.
The only thing anyone will remember is a Cop getting off charges that looked to the public like a guilty case. A Cop kept on the pay roll for two years and an inability to present incriminating evidence whatever the excuse....collectively the public think these guys are scum and not worthy of a policeman's uniform never mind being in the upper echelon.
The police failed as did the courts.
Thats your opinion. I've spoken to plenty of people with a totally contrary opinion so your assumption is quite flawed I'm afraid. The vocal minority can often sound like a crescendo of public dissaproval, (try listening to talk back radio), but in reality its little more than a wee fart at the dinner table. Most semi inteligent life forms cabable of reasoned thought without prejudice see it for what it was, a case with very little evidence that was always going to be judged on whose evidence was most believable.

[spudchucka]

The suppression order is not one of evidence. But one of detail to the public.Yes, that is as I understand it but there are some suggesting that the case was lost because critical evidence was suppressed. I don't believe that was the case.


So you don't think the police are protecting each other? Perhaps not. But do you not think there is corruption taking place at the highest level of the NZ Police force?No & no.


What about the files that went "missing" in 2002?I don't know anything about that. I've had files go missing though and I've found the occasional missing file too.


How about the entire case file that was "stolen" from the Police Complaints Authority in 2004?
Now who, other than the officers involved, would benefit from the files being stolen? Who other than a high ranking officer, would know the PCA layout well enough to have removed files from the fileroom and the relevant investigators offices, which happens to be spanned across various floors of a large (12-14 story) commercial building? Somebody who knew the CCTV layout and immediately disabled the cameras upon their arrival to the floors.Again thats news to me and I'm afraid I don't believe everything I read on the interweb.

[spudchucka]

It clearly happened when Dewar handled her original complaint. A lot of people posting on this issue either don't know the history of the matter or it's easier for them to focus on the trial alone.
The original investigation does look dodgy but I don't believe you can fault the current investigators for their efforts. Are we all to die on the same sword as Dewar? Can you not accept that given the current situation that things might have changed just a fraction since that original investigation?

[MSTRS]

It just doesn't wash I'm afraid. You can't look at the police effort put into this prosecution on one hand and say they are closing ranks and protecting each other on the other hand.

Somebody said earlier that the case was thrown out because the police suppresed evidence, presumably they mean evidence that would have otherwise led to their conviction. Why would they do that after they have invested a huge amount of money and man hours into prosecuting these guys only to shoot themselves in the foot by suppressing critical evidence?

It simply doesn't make sense and the closing ranks arguement is lame in this instance.
You (deliberately?) misunderstand....I do not say that ranks were closed, only that the perception in the public eye is that it could be so. The investigation/trial could also just be so much window dressing to give the impression of absolute impartiality. The spending of a few million dollars in this fashion to raise public opinion of the police would be well spent were the above true. Interestingly enough, the 'voices' are kinda silent on this one.

[The_Dover]

Most semi inteligent life forms cabable of reasoned thought without prejudice see it for what it was, a case with very little evidence that was always going to be judged on whose evidence was most believable.

I think what you really mean is that most intelligent people were not prepared to pass judgement, or thought they were guilty, yet knew that due to ambiguity, time and fading memories that these guys would walk free anyway and feel that it was a waste of public resources. Nothing more than a token trial to prove that justice would still deal with these men? Guilty or not.

[spudchucka]

You (deliberately?) misunderstand....I do not say that ranks were closed, only that the perception in the public eye is that it could be so. The investigation/trial could also just be so much window dressing to give the impression of absolute impartiality. The spending of a few million dollars in this fashion to raise public opinion of the police would be well spent were the above true. Interestingly enough, the 'voices' are kinda silent on this one.
Like most of this thread there is a hell of a lot of ifs and maybes with a dolop of cynicism thrown in for good measure.

What voices?

[Clockwork]

Appalled as I was to learn of the suppressed evidence, I'm now persuaded by the argument that the details needed to be suppressed for a "fair" trial. i.e. a trial consistent with principles applied for all defendants.

What concerns me now is how long would/should this information remain suppressed?

[spudchucka]

I think what you really mean is that most intelligent people were not prepared to pass judgement, or thought they were guilty, yet knew that due to ambiguity, time and fading memories that these guys would walk free anyway and feel that it was a waste of public resources. Nothing more than a token trial to prove that justice would still deal with these men? Guilty or not.
There may be some truth in what you say but it certainly wasn't a token trial aimed at winning public approval. If it was some would say it was a poorly conceived plan since the vocal pig haters are now using it to their benefit.

Its a hard thing to accept as a cop when you know someone is guilty but you simply can't present enough compelling evidence to convict in court. They have to play by the rules though and if there isn't the evidence then the bad guys go free.

[The Stranger]

Ok, say I reckon yes produce the prior convictions to the jury -would you be happy with ALL jury trials having prior conviction released to the jury too?

Or only rape cases?

Or only if Police are the defendants in a rape case?

Or only in certain cases? and which ones?

If you go down the road of baring all to juries you are treading the dangerous ground of 'red-neck law' - i.e. "he done it once afore so he MUSTA done it this time" - which in effect takes away the 'innocent to PROVEN guilty' idea.

Imagine you were a defendant, you were guilty in the past of a crime you are now charged with but innocent of - and the past conviction was revealed to the jury - and they convicted you on that basis, how would you feel?

Do you think the law would be better served this way?

Let me state clearly for a start. The fact that these guys are/were cops to me is not relevant to the issue of releasing information on prior convictions. Perhaps there is a moral issue, but morals is not a place for me to go.

Just interested scummy, do you agree in this case because of this case or you think there should be a wider scope?

So to your questions.

I don't see it as necessary or desirous to release information on prior convictions in all cases.

In short yes, in all rape cases and some others. As stated in a previous post, I feel it goes to capacity and propensity to commit the crime. I really don't think I could rape, I really don't think I could murder. Some have no such qualms. How does a jury distinguish?

No not because they are Police.

Sure if I was the defendant in a crime and had priors I would want it supressed, whether I committed this one or not. But do I deserve to have it supressed? Maybe I should have thought that my past would haunt me and not committed the first bloody one.

[spudchucka]

What concerns me now is how long would/should this information remain suppressed?
Probably for as long as it takes to finalise all matters relating to these men and any other matters still under investigation.

[MSTRS]

What voices?
Damn, don't tell me you don't hear them too?:devil2:

[spudchucka]

Damn, don't tell me you don't hear them too?:devil2:
There's medication that can help.

[Clockwork]

Probably for as long as it takes to finalise all matters relating to these men and any other matters still under investigation.

As things stand is this supression order indefinate? Do they normally expire?

[spudchucka]

As things stand is this supression order indefinate? Do they normally expire?
I don't actually know anything about the details of this suppression order, the contents or the time frame for which it applies. I don't want to know either, its none of my business.

The judge can make a suppression order permanent or can place a time limit on it. Example would be the Lana Cocroft one that has recently expired.

[Clockwork]

Gotta feel for LN. She put her credibility on the line and was left high and dry by the system. The supressed info could at least restore that.

[spudchucka]

Every alleged rape victim that takes the complaint through to court goes through that horrible experience. She may get some satisfaction eventually, we'll all have to watch this space.

[MSTRS]

There's medication that can help.
You're a cop. I believe you. Can I try some of yours??:dodge:

[spudchucka]

You're a cop. I believe you. Can I try some of yours??:dodge:
It makes you feel like this.......:spudwow: .

[Patrick]

Well ok, I really don't know what to take from your reply.
Because the last paragraph looks to me like you support the position.

So for the sake of clarification, may I please request a straight answer. Do you, in this case (the rape case which is the subject of this thread) believe that evidence of prior conviction relating to rape (if any) should have been presented to the jury?

That is what the problem is. It doesn't matter what I think. I wasn't on the jury. I wasn't a defence lawyer or prosecutor. I have heard stories only and read the gospel according to KB.

The evidence of a prior conviction does not have anything to do with the current case. That is the position. That is how it is. That is what I am pointing out. Dunno if I can point it out any straighter...

The call was and continues to be the Police suppressed the information. That is WRONG.

[Patrick]

You (deliberately?) misunderstand....I do not say that ranks were closed, only that the perception in the public eye is that it could be so. The investigation/trial could also just be so much window dressing to give the impression of absolute impartiality. The spending of a few million dollars in this fashion to raise public opinion of the police would be well spent were the above true. Interestingly enough, the 'voices' are kinda silent on this one.

"Could" have closed ranks...how about couldn't/didn't...
"Could" the investigation be window dressing...what about Couldn't/wasn't...

Sounds like maybes again... conspiricies again... many maybes...little facts...

[Patrick]

In short yes, in all rape cases and some others. As stated in a previous post, I feel it goes to capacity and propensity to commit the crime. I really don't think I could rape, I really don't think I could murder. Some have no such qualms. How does a jury distinguish?

No not because they are Police.

Sure if I was the defendant in a crime and had priors I would want it supressed, whether I committed this one or not. But do I deserve to have it supressed? Maybe I should have thought that my past would haunt me and not committed the first bloody one.

Fair call, but... what if one of the three had no convictions and one or two did. It "may" have been a group orgy / it "may" have been rape. That is what has to be decided.

The prior is admitted and all three are convicted ONLY because of the prior of one. "If" it was an orgy/consentual, is it then fair they all go down for rape only because one had a prior?

[Hitcher]

As things stand is this supression order indefinate? Do they normally expire?
This depends on the nature of the supression order. Some (such as those to protect the identity of victims and their families) will be permanent.

[MSTRS]

"Could" have closed ranks...how about couldn't/didn't...
"Could" the investigation be window dressing...what about Couldn't/wasn't...

Sounds like maybes again... conspiricies again... many maybes...little facts...
That's the point that some of us are making.....we can't be 100% sure that all is above board in this instance because of past indiscretions on the part of the police. Still - it is the best we have, and we have to have some trust, don't we? With a healthy dollop of cynicism.

[terbang]

But didn't LN's nightmare with the police start when she was living in Murapara at age 13..?

[Paul in NZ]

The call was and continues to be the Police suppressed the information. That is WRONG.

Are you sure it's the Police that suppress this kind of info? I think it's the Judge isn't it? Not sure but someone here will know?

I've tried to read up as much as I can on this and my opinion is that while the outcome has not been 100% satisfactory to everyone, it is at least an outcome that has some integrety. LEGALLY the outcome was always going to go that way unless there was a highly creditable witness, OR some solid evidence on the prosecutions side. LN may have lost the legal battle (in the court) but she definately won the more public moral one!

So..

This has neatly solved a problem for the NZ Police and now made it highly unlikely that a certain person will make it to the top job!

However, like a good thriller, the sub plots and side issues are probably as interesting as the main event!

My opinion on the history of this is.

At the time of the initial complaint, I would think that certain people in the Police in the area were of a like mind, ie it's a big boofy boys club! Perhaps the original investigation was tainted by this and LN was probably not viewed as a serious complainent. Undoubtably this was wrong but not necessarily corrupt! (Corruption would assume that a certain person was protected for $$?) My feeling is that she was terribly unlucky and had she been dealt with by another person then she may have had a different result. At that time, the world was a different place and there was a lot of 'boys club' mentality in the Police, some unscrupulous people took that too far!

Time moved on and due to patronage, a bit of luck and some ability someone did OK! All of a sudden you have a LOT to loose and you need to revisit the past and make sure the objective evidence disappears. Again, this would not really be corruption, just one or 2 bad eggs in a pretty large organisation.

Time moved on some more and eventually, it gets to the stage where the mass of circumstance can no longer be ignored because someone is about to step into the big job and due diligence is carried out! Everyone knows he's dodgy, everyones pretty sure he did it or at least, made some very poor choices and the media for one are just waiting for the announcement before they ask the big question.

Before it all goes terribly bad he is taken out in the only way they can.

In summary, I belive LN was abused by these men BUT she was daft enough to put herself into the situation. She has my sympathy but there was more she could have done earlier.

The 3 accused? Nothing but contempt!

The Police? Eventually they came good BUT they need to learn from this (we all do). Pyschopaths are VERY convincing and often get into positions of great power. The Police, Social workers, Prison Guards etc needs to be very careful! They come into contact with vunerable people all the time, there is a very fine line between having a relationship or taking advantage!

[scumdog]

Just interested scummy, do you agree in this case because of this case or you think there should be a wider scope?


I don't see it as necessary or desirous to release information on prior convictions in all cases.

In short yes, in all rape cases and some others. As stated in a previous post, I feel it goes to capacity and propensity to commit the crime. I really don't think I could rape, I really don't think I could murder. Some have no such qualms. How does a jury distinguish?

Sure if I was the defendant in a crime and had priors I would want it supressed, whether I committed this one or not. But do I deserve to have it supressed? Maybe I should have thought that my past would haunt me and not committed the first bloody one.

In answer to your question: I do not believe ANY prior convictions should be release to the jury - they are judging the case on front of them on the evidence relating directly to THAT crime.

IF priors WERE to be released how (and who) decides whacases get what rpiors released?
Only similar types of offence?
Only going back 5 or 10 or 20 years?
And what if three defendants/one with priors?

I think the releasing of priors is threatening two perceptions of law" innocent until proven guilty" and :better 99 go free than 1 be wrongfully convicted.

As far as your last statement, is it a troll? Do you think your ONE prior conviction (if you had one) should haunt you for the rest of your life?
When your 18 and young/dumb/full of cum you do 'stuff' without thinking about tomorrow, - let alone 'will this bite me in the arse 20 years down the track"

[Patrick]

[QUOTE=Paul in NZ]Are you sure it's the Police that suppress this kind of info? I think it's the Judge isn't it? Not sure but someone here will know?

You've read me wrong... Defence would agrue for suppression, judge would grant it coz it is completely prejudicial. Prosecutors (Police) would want it...

[Lou Girardin]

Corruption doesn't necessarily involve bribes. It could be a reluctance to prosecute members of the ruling party, it could be a senior Police Officer using his rank to avoid a prosecution. it could also be the allocation of resources to suit a Govt's financial needs, rather than the victims of crime.
Money doesn't have to change hands.

BTW Scummy, aren't there times when previous convictions may be revealed during a trial? Such as when a defendant introduces his character as a factor.

[scumdog]

.

BTW Scummy, aren't there times when previous convictions may be revealed during a trial? Such as when a defendant introduces his character as a factor.

True, but I got the impression from some that they wanted the introducing of 'prior's was to be de riguer in all cases.

And in the case you mentioned it is to refute a claim of impecable character when the guy is actually a low-life arse-hole. (shows him to be untruthful for a start).

[spudchucka]

BTW Scummy, aren't there times when previous convictions may be revealed during a trial? Such as when a defendant introduces his character as a factor.
If a defendant gives evidence as to their own good conduct then the prosecution can give rebuttal evidence, which could include evidence of prior offending.

There are a few exceptions to the rule, for example, evidence of prior offending can be given in cases involving the receiving of stolen goods. I haven't looked into this for years but as I recall you can produce the defendants history of the same type of offending going back five years.

[The Stranger]

I do not say that ranks were closed, only that the perception in the public eye is that it could be so. The investigation/trial could also just be so much window dressing to give the impression of absolute impartiality. The spending of a few million dollars in this fashion to raise public opinion of the police would be well spent were the above true. Interestingly enough, the 'voices' are kinda silent on this one.

Well what exactly did you want to see to make it all transparent enough for you?

The police investigated it.
They bought it to trial. Mostly from then on is it not out of their hands?

[Winston001]

I can't believe the issue of the prior convictions is still being argued. Don't you guys read? :doh: It was explained ages ago.

Just for clarity - every trial is a fresh case and most of the time, prior convictions won't be admissable. However they are where a defendant makes himself out to be a saint, or he has used the same method for the same previous offense. In other words he has shown a propensity and habit for this particular offence. One previous conviction in different circumstances will certainly not be enough.

The judge has to balance the probative (truth) value against the prejudice to the accused. There are thousands of words written on this complex subject but here is a summary:


(a) “It is undoubtedly not competent for the prosecution to adduce evidence tending to show that the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment, for the purpose of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his criminal conduct or character to have committed the offence for which he is being tried”.

(b) “On the other hand, the mere fact that the evidence adduced tends to show the commission of other crimes does not render it inadmissible if it be relevant to an issue before the jury, and it may be so relevant if it bears upon the question whether the acts alleged to constitute the crime charged in the indictment were designed or accidental, or to rebut a defence which would otherwise be open to the accused.”: Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57, 65 per Lord Herschell LC

[MSTRS]

Well what exactly did you want to see to make it all transparent enough for you? The police investigated it. They bought it to trial. Mostly from then on is it not out of their hands?
I hope you meant 'brought' ??
And we are not so naive as to believe that once a trial is underway, no influence can be brought to bear on the proceedings.
The jury made their decision based on evidence heard. Fine. Not everyone believes that this was a 'just' result. Blame other cases for the public's cynicism. Not everyone believes that Peter Ellis was guilty, or Scott Watson, for instance. Or indeed that A A Thomas was innocent for that matter. Do you really think that we would harbour these suspicions if the police were never ever anything but absolutely squeaky-clean??

[The Stranger]

I hope you meant 'brought' ??
And we are not so naive as to believe that once a trial is underway, no influence can be brought to bear on the proceedings.
The jury made their decision based on evidence heard. Fine. Not everyone believes that this was a 'just' result. Blame other cases for the public's cynicism. Not everyone believes that Peter Ellis was guilty, or Scott Watson, for instance. Or indeed that A A Thomas was innocent for that matter. Do you really think that we would harbour these suspicions if the police were never ever anything but absolutely squeaky-clean??

Ok, but you did not address my first question.

What exactly did you want to see to make it all transparent enough for you?

[MSTRS]

Ok, but you did not address my first question.

What exactly did you want to see to make it all transparent enough for you?
Unfair question really.
Without being a fly on the wall overhearing and seeing what went on in the original events, initial complaints, subsequent suspected cover-up, 18years-later complaint, media newsrooms, court, chambers, lawyers' offices, police interview rooms, police bar, LN's bedroom, etc etc...I can see no way that this case could ever be 'transparent' enough.

[spudchucka]

Poke, poke poke..........









Is it dead?

[Hitcher]

Just resting...

[Lou Girardin]

Starting to smell.

[Winston001]

Beautiful plumage.

[Hitcher]

Shut that bloody bouzouki player up!

[Winston001]

Oh, heaven forbid. I am one who delights in all manifestations of the Terpsichorean muse.

No matter. Well, stout yeoman, four ounces of Caerphilly, if you please.

[u4ea]

Oh, heaven forbid. I am one who delights in all manifestations of the Terpsichorean muse.

No matter. Well, stout yeoman, four ounces of Caerphilly, if you please.
you waaaaaaaa???sounds like your going to hell,having halucinaytions,drinking and smoking pot.....................................well probly not much else to do down there aye.....................................

[Ixion]

Pay them no heed, they're from Yorkshire.

What a senseless waste of human life.

(The latter actually seems rather appropriate to this thread , as it was before being hijacked by deranged cheese-sellers)

[u4ea]

yea well they cant help it.....................poor souls....................:slap:

[kickingzebra]

thread hijack?!? That sounds like a crime!! I sense a police CHASE, no wait, PURSUIT coming on... with wierd little two wheeled devices that do 60.... WoOoohooo!!

[Hitcher]

Why is it the world never remembered the name of Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfernschplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dangle-dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz-ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer-spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein-nürnburger-bratwurstle-gerspurten-mit-tzwei-macheluber-hundsfut-gumberaber-shoenendanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm?"

[Ixion]

Of *Ulm*? Are you sure it was *Ulm* ?

I thought it was of Saxe-Coburg-Neuleiningen-Saarfeld.

But that may have been his cousin, the name is a common one after all.

[Macktheknife]

Yea i heard the same thing, How can it be the rapists being trialed for rape dont have there past brought up. I know the trials where not to far apart but if they had been found guilty that should have been told in the court room,. We do have a weird justice system dont we....
The reason this information is not brought up is so that it doesnt prejudice the jury, ie: well he did it before so that means he probably did it this time too, instead of relying on the evidence presented in THIS case.
However, I do see the point in disclosing some previous offences in certain cases like murder, child molestation, etc.
75c should fix those ones.

[MSTRS]

75c should fix those ones.
the old '9mm haemorage'? (sp)

[Winston001]

Of *Ulm*? Are you sure it was *Ulm* ?

I thought it was of Saxe-Coburg-Neuleiningen-Saarfeld.

But that may have been his cousin, the name is a common one after all.

I am not a racialist, but, und this is a big but, we in the National Bocialist Party believe das Überleben muss gestammen sein mit der schneaky Armstrong-Jones. Historische Taunton ist Volkermeinig von Meinhead. :headbang: :headbang:

[terbang]

Ulm..? Tidak..! Orang gila tingal di Selandia Baru..!

[scumdog]

Ulm..? Tidak..! Orang gila tingal di Selandia Baru..!

The thread is turning busot.

Time it was finished scarang ini.

[Ixion]

Well, come along. we haven't all day. Do you want to buy some cheese or not?

[hXc]

Two choc ices please...

[Ixion]

Well, we don't actually have those, as such. Health regulations, you see.

[kickingzebra]

The Ice without the choc perchance good sir? shoe shine with that?

[Ixion]

Sorry, ice only before 12 , Sir. Shoe shine, down the road.

[kickingzebra]

Aha, the old bitumix on my shoe trick... I see where this is going!

[Ixion]

Mr Spudchucka, you have a lot to answer for. 'Twas your incautious "poke poke poke" that started all this. See what mischief indiscriminate poking can casue.

[kickingzebra]

Indeed, A man could lose a finger over all this sensibility!!

[MSTRS]

See what mischief indiscriminate poking can casue.
and here we arrive back at the original reason for this thread...

[Ixion]

I wondered if anyone would get that :rofl:

[kickingzebra]

Or a baton...

[Winston001]

Two choc ices please...

Haven't got any choc ices mate, just got this bleedin ALBATROSS.

ALBATROSS.

ALBATROSS.

GANNET RIPPLE.

STORMY PETREL ON A STICK.

ALBATROSS

[scumdog]

Haven't got any choc ices mate, just got this bleedin ALBATROSS.

ALBATROSS.

ALBATROSS.

GANNET RIPPLE.

STORMY PETREL ON A STICK.

ALBATROSS

Ah! another M.P. aficianado!!!:cool:

[Winston001]

This isn't really a cheese shop is it?!!

Too silly, too silly, lets get on with the next one.

My theory by A. Elk. Brackets Miss, brackets.
This theory goes as follows and begins now.
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.

[Ixion]

They're actually parentheses you know.

[kickingzebra]

Theyre coming to take thee away, hee hee, theyre coming to take thee away!!

[spudchucka]

See what mischief indiscriminate poking can casue.
Indeed, poking has many unforseen consequences. Just ask the men this thread was about at the start.

[spudchucka]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3679855a10,00.html

What was suppressed and why?

What is the chance of this complainants case being heard fully and fairly?
Where the hell are they going to find an impartial jury?
Will this complainant have any hope of justice or is the outcome allready a foregone conclusion?

Thankfully the details of this complaint haven't been the subject of the media hype that the Nicholas case suffred from.

[scumdog]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3679855a10,00.html

What was suppressed and why?

What is the chance of this complainants case being heard fully and fairly?
Where the hell are they going to find an impartial jury?
Will this complainant have any hope of justice or is the outcome allready a foregone conclusion?

Thankfully the details of this complaint haven't been the subject of the media hype that the Nicholas case suffred from.

Never mind Spud, when the slack-jawed run-of-the-mill low-life appears on front of the jury they will feel all warm and comfortable if they find out their past is know to the jury - just like it was with Rickard and co, - they'll know they'll still get a fair trial..

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander etc ,we're all equal eh??