Not guilty (Police sex case verdict, 1 March)

[unhingedlizard]

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425824/1008117

All found not guilty.

[Lias]

Ratshit.

I reckon they are guilty as.

[SPman]

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425824/1008117

All found not guilty.

...on this charge...........

They're still f**king thugs , though!

[Guitana]

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425824/1008117

All found not guilty.

I'm not surprised the police are the most honest people in NZ!!!
Good on ya boy's I'm goin out for a gang bang tonight to celebrate!!!

[Hitcher]

I'm surprised that Messrs Schollum and Shipton have not been interviewed for comment after either of their past two trials...

The verdict itself came as no surprise to me: the plaintiff's version of events had some significant deficiencies that counsel for the defendents exploited fully.

[Deano]

Should Shipton's wife face charges of contempt perhaps ?

[kiwifruit]

the police are the most honest people in NZ!!!

YEAH RIGHT!
:sick:

[MSTRS]

A pox on slimey lawyers (when defending anyone, but me, who are guilty as sin)

[bistard]

Well,I am stunned,they were as guilty as hell,but its clearly not what you know is it!!

[MikeL]

I reckon they are guilty as.

And they quite possibly are. But that's not the point. Twelve of their peers, presumably not complete idiots, listened, presumably attentively, to all of the evidence, and then came up with a carefully considered verdict. The judicial system in this country only allows two possibilities. A "not guilty" verdict simply means that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Considering the difficulties that the alleged victim's evidence presented the verdict is hardly a surprise.

[magicfairy]

Although I don't doubt they are guilty of all sorts of nastiness, I would be very concerned about the safety of a conviction when it is just one persons word against another without any corroborating facts.

It would be very scary indeed if someone could be accused of a crime and sent to jail, in the absence of any other evidence. That is how innocent people can end up behind bars.

I think the judge made this point very clear in summing up.

Whether they have been found guilty or not, the whole country have now heard the evidence and have an idea what they were up to. Don't imagine it has done their careers much good either.

Justice may not have been done, but the legal system is working as I would want it to.

Now Ill sit back and wait for the torrent of abuse that usually seems to follow when someone makes a comment based on facts, not emotions.

[riffer]

Beyond all reasonable doubt, fellas.

Don't forget that. :nono:

There was doubt.

Lawyers did their job. Whether you like the verdict or not. That's how the judicial system works. I bet if it were you up there you'd want reasonable doubt to apply.

[MisterD]

Why was the case even brought in the first place? It's 20+ years ago, and was always going to be her word against theirs - a waste of time and money from the get go.

[MSTRS]

Don't imagine it has done their careers much good either.

Justice may not have been done, but the legal system is working as I would want it to.



Shipton and Schollum are long out of the Force, already. Shipton owned a caryard in Napier (which is now defunct). All three were and are bad boys. We all know it and so did everyone in that courtroom. Proving it though...well, didn't happen.

[The Stranger]

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425824/1008117

All found not guilty.

And rightly so.
Those fine upstanding pillars of the community have been so unfairly treated of late. Why does everyone seem to gang up on the poor buggers?

I don't bloody know.

[Swoop]

I wonder how many "crimes" there are left in NZ. You do not seem to serve any jailtime for rape/murder/burglary/etc.

Breaking Heilen's shop window get's you charged with sedition though.
The prosecutor might have had better luck getting these "three upstanding members of the community" convicted with a charge of "whistling on a Tuesday" perhaps?


I believe the lawyers won.:whistle:
Ominous on the day that legal aid has been extended to a greater portion of the public...

[kiwifruit]

I wonder how many "crimes" there are left in NZ. You do not seem to serve any jailtime for rape/murder/burglary/etc.


Try doing a smidgen over 100km/h (111km/h) on a quiet country road with no traffic, unlimited viability, good road conditions, on Christmas eve.
That, is a real crime.

[scumdog]

Try doing a smidgen over 100km/h (111km/h) on a quiet country road with no traffic, unlimited viability, good road conditions, on Christmas eve.
That, is a real crime.


Pedant alert:

Glad you think so, it's an 'offence'




I tried offering a $100 for a battery (only a 'smidgen' under the $111 price).

But the seller wouldn't buy it.

[Paul in NZ]

Why was the case even brought in the first place? It's 20+ years ago, and was always going to be her word against theirs - a waste of time and money from the get go.

Not so - it may have stopped a moraly bankrupt person from getting his hands on the top job...

[kiwifruit]

Pedant alert:

Glad you think so, it's an 'offence'




I tried offering a $100 for a battery (only a 'smidgen' under the $111 price).

But the seller wouldn't buy it.

heh heh :bleh:

still, not getting the discount on the battery wouldn't have cost you your job?

[Edbear]

But the seller wouldn't buy it.


Doncha jus love the English language?

Personally I think Magicfairy makes a valid point regardless how we may feel about the accused.

[terbang]

Aargh sheesh the law eh..! One lawyer was smarter than another and won. Three crooks get away with an absolute abuse of their positions and power, twice. Not a good message.

[doc]

And they quite possibly are. But that's not the point. Twelve of their peers, presumably not complete idiots, listened, presumably attentively, to all of the evidence, and then came up with a carefully considered verdict. The judicial system in this country only allows two possibilities. A "not guilty" verdict simply means that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Considering the difficulties that the alleged victim's evidence presented the verdict is hardly a surprise.
So they are guilty still, just the evidence isn't up to scratch. Maybe next victim once she remembers will get the evidence correct. Third time lucky and all. and if you are still teaching english had better not pick on my grammar too

[Guitana]

heh heh :bleh:

still, not getting the discount on the battery wouldn't have cost you your job?

Should've offered the cop a smidgen under a hundred bucks to let you off nudge nudge wink wink!!!!:shit: :shit: :shit:

[terbang]

I'm surprised that Messrs Schollum and Shipton have not been interviewed for comment after either of their past two trials...




Yeah well they would have to go to jail to do that.

[Crisis management]

A real pity that justice wasn't done. I have to give credit to those two women that have stood up against these guys, it took a lot of courage to challenge them.

Where's the Sensible Sentencing trust when you need them.....

[scumdog]

So they are guilty still, just the evidence isn't up to scratch. Maybe next victim once she remembers will get the evidence correct. Third time lucky and all. and if you are still teaching english had better not pick on my grammar too

Why should I pick on your grammar?
Picking on old ladies is not my style, 'specially a KBers grammar.:dodge:

[scumdog]

So they are guilty still,

No, if they were guilty they would have been sentenced.

Maybe in some peoples eyes the ARE guilty - but those 'some people' were not the jury.

[scumdog]

I wonder how many "crimes" there are left in NZ. You do not seem to serve any jailtime for rape/murder/burglary/etc...

Yesterday a guy down here got 21 months inside for hitting another guy on the head with a bourbon bottle, only hit him once, no real lasting damage.


(And the 'victim' had it coming from a long time ago - he's an arsehole who took a knife to a fight and stabbed somebody - and that's just some of his resume')

[Pwalo]

Come on guys, get a grip. They were found not guilty because there was insufficient EVIDENCE to prove their guilt conclusively.

Personally I'm glad that our justice system requires proof of guilt rather than of innocence.

(I'm not too sure about the necessity of implicating yourself if you have a photo taken whilst your vehicle is over the posted speed limit though).

[Hitcher]

I wonder how many "crimes" there are left in NZ. You do not seem to serve any jailtime for rape/murder/burglary/etc.

Nor should you if you haven't been convicted of an offence.

[Finn]

I never thought they were guilty and as men, you should all be relieved at this verdict. A woman scorned in this country is a dangerous thing, especially with so many ugly, man hating bitches in Government.

[jrandom]

Ah, well. All's well that ends well.

Hopefully this will dissuade any more rancid old tarts from having a go at respectable middle-aged gentlemen.

I wonder if Rickards enjoyed his holiday?

[jrandom]

... as men, you should all be relieved at this verdict.

I find myself agreeing with Finn. Of course, there wasn't much chance of any other outcome, but it's always good to see that there's a modicum of sanity left in the world.

[Edit: So... any 16-year-olds here who fancy a quick trip round the back of a lake?

No, not you, Indy.]

[Hitcher]

I wonder if Rickards enjoyed his holiday?

Now that is the $64,000 question. Will the Commissioner now reinstate Asst Comm Rickard to full duties?

[judecatmad]

I personally think it was a complete witch hunt and should never have gone to trial. The comment made by the second complainant that she 'wanted to get the guilty verdict that Louise Nicholls didn't get' really switched me off to the whole debacle.

If the crimes committed were so devastating and as awful as they have been reported to be, why were they not reported at the time?

And as has been pointed out, there must be no doubt in order for a guilty verdict to be arrived at. And for the community to stand and judge after a not guilty has been given....well, the witch hunt continues.

Maybe I place too much faith in the Police and the justice system, being a Policeman's daughter, but there we go.

Too many men have had their lives shattered by women who decide that what they quite willingly did is now not what they should have been doing at all, and cry rape. It's not on. Rape is forced and unconsensual - not when you've changed your mind after the event. Whether that's what happened here or not, I don't know. I wasn't there. Neither were the accused by the sounds of it.....

[Guitana]

Now that is the $64,000 question. Will the Commissioner now reinstate Asst Comm Rickard to full duties?

Three words Golden Hand Shake!!!!!!!!

[ManDownUnder]

Three words Golden Hand Shake!!!!!!!!

Hopefully just before an election - that'd go down like a cup of cold sick...

[Finn]

Three words Golden Hand Shake!!!!!!!!

For everybody's sake, I sure hope Dover doesn't read your post.

[Lias]

When I said they were guilty as, apparently I was fucking pyschic! Turns out that the louise nichols case and this one werent the first.. They were already serving time for yet another rape.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10426475

Police sex trial: What the jury never knew

Two of the men today acquitted in today's police sex case are serving prison terms for the rape of a woman at Mt Maunganui 18 years ago.

Former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum had their names suppressed during their July 2005 trials for the January 1989 abduction and rape of the 20-year-old woman.

Their convictions for the attack could not earlier be reported in case the information jeopardised the pair's right to a fair trial in the case that concluded today.

The suppression orders were lifted just minutes after they, with Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards, were found not guilty today of kidnap and indecent assault charges. Mr Rickards was not involved in the 1989 case.

The victim said four men lured her into a hut on the pretext of having a lunch date with one of the men. Once there she was bound, raped, forced to perform oral sex and brutally violated.

The men maintained it was consensual sex.

They were jailed for terms of between five-and-a-half and eight-and-a-half years.

Shipton and Schollum were also convicted of unlawful sexual connection and one was found guilty of a second rape. Both were acquitted of sexual violation with an object.

Businessman Peter Mana McNamara and fireman Warren Hales were also convicted of the rape but in April last year the Court of Appeal overturned Hales' conviction and ordered a retrial.

In November, Hales pleaded guilty to the woman's abduction and was sentenced to 18 months' prison and ordered to pay $10,000 in emotional harm reparation.

[Ixion]

I thought that was general knowledge? It was certainly well publicised on the net at the time of the trial

[Steam]

Yes, that story from Lias is what the women were handing out at the Wellington train station, and in Christchurch.

[Steam]

Oh, I did't realise they are already in jail! Good.
"Shipton and Schollum will continue to serve prison terms of 8-½ and eight years respectively for rape, abduction and sexual violation."

[Guitana]

For everybody's sake, I sure hope Dover doesn't read your post.

Yeah I can only imagine what golden hand shake means in Dover speak!!!

[Lias]

Mmm it wasnt general knowledge but it was leaked somehow.

I do remember the flyer (I had a scanned copy of it somewhere), but I'm pretty sure it didnt spell out that they were already in jail, guilty and sentenced. I just thought they were remanded in custody facing "other sex charges", so until this story came out I just assumed this current case was the "other sex charges".

[Hitcher]

I thought that was general knowledge? It was certainly well publicised on the net at the time of the trial

It was amongst a bunch of stuff that had been suppressed by the Court. Hence my concerns (wearing my Mods hat) as to what was discussed on this site. It's all out in the open now, thank goodness.

[RantyDave]

The comment made by the second complainant that she 'wanted to get the guilty verdict that Louise Nicholls didn't get' really switched me off to the whole debacle.
Exactly. She said that, it became obvious that she was pulling a "vigilante" historic rape, and from that point on everyone just had to play it by the book to ensure there wasn't a retrial. Doesn't matter what you think of these three (almost certainly) huge arseholes, in cases such as rape you're going to have to prove it ... and for good reason too.

Dave

[MSTRS]

I was amongst a bunch of stuff that had been suppressed by the Court. ....

Really? Can't keep a good man down (for long) eh?

[Hitcher]

Employment Issues to Be Addressed Now Criminal Case Concluded
New Zealand Police National News Release
12:47pm 1 March 2007
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release.html?id=2888

--

Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope, said that following the acquittal of Clint Rickards in the Auckland High Court today Police would now move to address employment issues.

"The last three years have been a difficult time for everyone concerned - for the complainant, the defendant and his family and the police inquiry team.

"The allegations made were very serious and had to be placed before the Court in order for justice to be done."

Mr Pope said the case had naturally been of concern to all police staff.

"Now that the criminal case has gone through the full process we move into the employment issues phase. This will take some time to complete though we will move as quickly as possible. Mr Rickards will remain on suspension during this process".

"I do not wish to prejudice that process by providing further public commentary at this point. A bit more patience will be required before we can put all these issues behind us," said Mr Pope.

[terbang]

I thought that was general knowledge? It was certainly well publicised on the net at the time of the trial

Well yes but that was the supressed evidence (or whatever) on the last case. Every time I (then) even eluded to it on this forum the posts were snipped by a mod (thats the rules). Those two arseholes, Shipton and Schollum, were allready in jail for rape when the Louise Nicholas case happened. Believe what yer like on the recent verdicts and the purity of the law on these two cases but we all know that these guys abused their powers as policemen and have raped (thats why they are in jail).
You could easily make a Tui ad out of this one..

[SPman]

That was the case a while back, I heard they are appealing. .
Have you see the photos - they wouldn't appeal to Dover or Finn after a week on the turps!

[MisterD]

Well yes but that was the supressed evidence (or whatever) on the last case. Every time I (then) even eluded to it on this forum the posts were snipped by a mod (thats the rules). Those two arseholes, Shipton and Schollum, were allready in jail for rape when the Louise Nicholas case happened. Believe what yer like on the recent verdicts and the purity of the law on these two cases but we all know that these guys abused their powers as policemen and have raped (thats why they are in jail).
You could easily make a Tui ad out of this one..

I'm starting to give more credence to the (Maori) conspiracy theorists that reckon the last two trials were an attempted political hatchet-job on Rickards by the "sisterhood". There was bugger all evidence against him on this one, and Shipton and Schollum were there to try for a guilty by association result...

[terbang]

But I think it is unwise of you to to think that because someone has been found guilty on an incident and then charged in a similar incident to assume they are guilty because of that previous conviction

There are definate patterns to some peoples behaviour (speeders and drunk drivers for a start) Rapists are just that, rapists and yet we give them the benefit of the doubt and the jury doesn't get to know who they are really looking at. this is not an assumprion of guilt, just a better view of what they are dealing with as an impeccable previous record should also impact on a case.

[elle-f]

There will be more allegations against these thugs I am sure.

[Horney1]

I don't normally go pro-police (especially in any reference to driving!) & I knew at least one real arrogant & powerhungry egotistical a/holes that joined up but in this case I want to say that I grew up in the same area as Clinton and he wasn't one of those types. I found it hard to imagine that he would do the crime he was accused of. I didn't know him well but he never really seemed to be the sort of person that would do ANYTHING bad (& that was before there were any political gains to be had). He always seemed to be a really good guy (if not a little quiet, serious & stern looking) and a community orientated leader (his judo days should attest to that). I guess we never really know people even if we are close to them but even though I haven't followed the trial closely from here in Aus and I haven't seen him since around the early seventies an accusation like this just didn't add up in my mind. The others? Well, my guess is as good as yours.

So, yes I also wonder if there was some sort of an ambush going on. I'm not pro or anti Maori but I am pro good people and Clinton just seemed to be one way back when...

[MisterD]

Good post Horney1. It's always good to have some real first-person experience rather than what seems to be based on hearsay and the (deliberately?) dodgy looking photos in the Harold.

The more I hear about the way the police encouraged this woman to make a report the more uneasy I feel, if more allegations are made against CR I'd say it's odds-on there's a Wellington-centred drive to bring him down.

[vixter]

fuckin makes me sick they are all guilty as hell arse holes

[Crasherfromwayback]

There will be more allegations against these thugs I am sure.

Unfortunately I seriously doubt it. Two women have stood up in front of a judge and a jury and laid bare all of the sordid details of just what happened to them. It can hardly have been easy. Rickards and his cronies have got away with this and the Nicholls case, and I don't think anyone else will now want to go through the harrowing process for this type of result.

The best thing is this.....the world goes round in a full circle, and not always clockwise.

[98tls]

I personally think it was a complete witch hunt and should never have gone to trial. The comment made by the second complainant that she 'wanted to get the guilty verdict that Louise Nicholls didn't get' really switched me off to the whole debacle.

If the crimes committed were so devastating and as awful as they have been reported to be, why were they not reported at the time?

And as has been pointed out, there must be no doubt in order for a guilty verdict to be arrived at. And for the community to stand and judge after a not guilty has been given....well, the witch hunt continues.

Maybe I place too much faith in the Police and the justice system, being a Policeman's daughter, but there we go.

Too many men have had their lives shattered by women who decide that what they quite willingly did is now not what they should have been doing at all, and cry rape. It's not on. Rape is forced and unconsensual - not when you've changed your mind after the event. Whether that's what happened here or not, I don't know. I wasn't there. Neither were the accused by the sounds of it..... I wasnt/dont know either and i am not a women but if i was and a group of cops did to me what she is saying they did to her i am not sure i would want to go tell the world about it......as for faith in the police and justice system we all know its been wrong many times before........theres good cops and bad cops.......just like theres good mechanics/butchers etc etc.........and bad ones.........FWIW i have a few cops in my family.......i spoke to one an uncle.......now retired..was a detective sergeant...who new those guys years ago........his comment was they were bad apples right from the get go....his answer to wether he thought rickards was guilty.......he simply said well you only have to look were his mates are and for what reason they are there for the answer to that.........he also said that he would put money on more of this guys past deeds catching up with him sooner rather than later......personally i hope so.

[Indoo]

I think people will hopefully make their own opinions given the past history of the trio as to the proclaimed 'innocence' of Rickards and co. Being found not guilty does not always equate to innocence, it just means what it does in this case that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[98tls]

After just watching the news and seeing rickards wife doing the tearful woe is me shit outside the court..........what a crock of shit.........lets not forget the bitch went to the trouble of trying to coach her own family about what to say in court...........

[terbang]

I think people will hopefully make their own opinions given the past history of the trio as to the proclaimed 'innocence' of Rickards and co. Being found not guilty does not always equate to innocence, it just means what it does in this case that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

That is it. And now I see Rickard on TV crowing about going back to his old job and bla bla bla about those that investigated him. Jeez if he does then we will have a known (not convicted) rapist running our police force.. :dodge: Pffft what a joke...

[SixPackBack]

Rickard has just butt fucked himself......slagging the investigative team off and claiming to be good friends with Schollum and co. in spite of the fact they are serving 8 years for treating a young lady "like a piece of meat" [and self confessed to the crime]

Rickard your guilty of the Louise case the whole country knows it.:angry:

[s8306]

I don't normally go pro-police (especially in any reference to driving!) & I knew at least one real arrogant & powerhungry egotistical a/holes that joined up but in this case I want to say that I grew up in the same area as Clinton and he wasn't one of those types. I found it hard to imagine that he would do the crime he was accused of. I didn't know him well but he never really seemed to be the sort of person that would do ANYTHING bad (& that was before there were any political gains to be had). He always seemed to be a really good guy (if not a little quiet, serious & stern looking) and a community orientated leader (his judo days should attest to that). I guess we never really know people even if we are close to them but even though I haven't followed the trial closely from here in Aus and I haven't seen him since around the early seventies an accusation like this just didn't add up in my mind. The others? Well, my guess is as good as yours.

So, yes I also wonder if there was some sort of an ambush going on. I'm not pro or anti Maori but I am pro good people and Clinton just seemed to be one way back when...

I seem to remember people saying similar things like that about OJ Simpson,but we all know the prick did it.

[spudchucka]

When I said they were guilty as, apparently I was fucking pyschic! Turns out that the louise nichols case and this one werent the first.. They were already serving time for yet another rape.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10426475

Police sex trial: What the jury never knew


Do you really think that the jury was so stupid that they never noticed Rickards was coming and going via the front door but the others made their entry & exit via the back door?

Do you also think that none of the Jury had any idea as to their incarceration after the shambles that followed the Nicholas verdict?

I've got no time for any of these men but the reality is that the whole affair is a joke!

[spudchucka]

After just watching the news and seeing rickards wife doing the tearful woe is me shit outside the court..........what a crock of shit.........lets not forget the bitch went to the trouble of trying to coach her own family about what to say in court...........

That was allegedly Mrs Shipton, not Mrs Rickards.

[98tls]

That was allegedly Mrs Shipton, not Mrs Rickards. Whoops.........cheers i thought it was Rickards mrs.

[SixPackBack]

Obviously the site Police intend to stick by Rickards side regardless.

Have the balls to admit it fellas, the Louise case smelt real bad.:mad:

[spudchucka]

Obviously the site Police intend to stick by Rickards side regardless.

Have the balls to admit it fellas, the Louise case smelt real bad.:mad:

Go back three or four posts, I just said I have no time for any of them. Apparently in your world that means sticking by him regardless??

Bottom line on CR for me, I don't trust him, I don't want him in the police, I don't believe he is totally innocent but I don't believe that the complainant's can be 100% believed either.

I never thought that either case had sufficient compelling evidence to convict them. I suspect that the whole thing has been about who they are, not what they are alleged to have done.

[98tls]

Obviously the site Police intend to stick by Rickards side regardless.

Have the balls to admit it fellas, the Louise case smelt real bad.:mad: Mate he did say he wanted nothing to do with any of them.........am interested in his opinion just like anyone elses.......as far as im concerned i really dont give a rats what anyone does for a living.....on here we are all just motorcyclists..........

[avgas]

reality is that the whole affair is a joke!
And all the pacific islanders are laughing

[Maha]

I did Jury service once (as lot of you probably have also) and it was a class 'B' drug case, when the accused was brought in, and i made eye contact with him i thought, Guilty! He was caught with a large amount of cash, a set of scales, snaplock bags and drugs, the first jury retirement, a show of hands was ordered, and it was about 7/5 in favour of Guilty. As the trial went on there was quite a bit of doubt thrown into my mind, and others, because of the way things are said and how the Judge guides you. We were there to convict or acquit on possession for supply, he had already been convicted on possession, no question, they had photos and evidence. To cut a long story short, we found him Not Guilty of Supply and were happy the drugs were for his own use, had he offered drugs to someone at the house he was at, at the time of arrest, then would be deemed as Supply (judge's words) but they couldn't prove that...Amazing how the law works....and lawyers!

[SixPackBack]

Apologies gents..my bad. Indeed you do appear neutral Spud.

[98tls]

I did Jury service once (as lot of you probably have also) and it was a class 'B' drug case, when the accused was brought in, and i made eye contact with him i thought, Guilty! He was caught with a large amount of cash, a set of scales, snaplock bags and drugs, the first jury retirement, a show of hands was ordered, and it was about 7/5 in favour of Guilty. As the trial went on there was quite a bit of doubt thrown into my mind, and others, because of the way things are said and how the Judge guides you. We were there to convict or acquit on possession for supply, he had already been convicted on possession, no question, they had photos and evidence. To cut a long story short, we found him Not Guilty of Supply and were happy the drugs were for his own use, had he offered drugs to someone at the house he was at, at the time of arrest, then would be deemed as Supply (judge's words) but they couldn't prove that...Amazing how the law works....and lawyers! Agreed mate........a bit off topic but man the coppers must get pissed off with the justice system and how it works.......or doesnt.

[Maha]

Agreed mate........a bit off topic but man the coppers must get pissed off with the justice system and how it works.......or doesnt.


My feelings on todays verdict?........the crown didn't do their homework, and unless you were there and heard every bit of evidence, or at the scene 20 whatever years ago, then one can only make judgement on gut feeling, and thats not how the law works, dont get me wrong im with most others in that, they got probably got it wrong but its a done deal now...

[98tls]

My feelings on todays verdict?........the crown didn't do their homework, and unless you were there and heard every bit of evidence, or at the scene 20 whatever years ago, then one can only make judgement on gut feeling, and thats not how the law works, dont get me wrong im with most others in that, they got probably got it wrong but its a done deal now... yea i guess...........but as i posted up back a bit a bloke...and a bloody good one at that and by all accounts a bloody good copper......that knew these guys reckons Mr rickards worrys are only just beginning.....

[Steam]

... reckons Mr rickards worrys are only just beginning.....

Howja mean? Like, they will get no respect and be universally despised wherever he goes?

[98tls]

Yea that to..............

[TONO]

After just watching the news and seeing rickards wife doing the tearful woe is me shit outside the court..........what a crock of shit.........lets not forget the bitch went to the trouble of trying to coach her own family about what to say in court...........

It was Shipton's wife, get it right.

[98tls]

It was Shipton's wife, get it right. yea yea..........try reading all the posts........your a bit behind the times............

[Patrick]

Obviously the site Police intend to stick by Rickards side regardless.

Have the balls to admit it fellas, the Louise case smelt real bad.:mad:

The Louise case smelt REAL bad... This one didn't though... I intend to stick by him? Pffttt... His career is stuffed, the other two are locked up already...

[scumdog]

Obviously the site Police intend to stick by Rickards side regardless.

Have the balls to admit it fellas, the Louise case smelt real bad.:mad:

"OBVIOUSLY"?, "obviously"?
Where did you get the 'obviously'?
Gotta be a troll, right? to see if any 'site Police' support Rickards?

Well don't hang by the ball-bag waiting for a supporter to post, it might be a long and painful wait.
:yes:

[SixPackBack]

"OBVIOUSLY"?, "obviously"?
Where did you get the 'obviously'?
Gotta be a troll, right? to see if any 'site Police' support Rickards?

Well don't hang by the ball-bag waiting for a supporter to post, it might be a long and painful wait.
:yes:


Much like myself scumdog it looks like you have not read all the posts. Look here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=958492&postcount=80

[scumdog]

Much like myself scumdog it looks like you have not read all the posts. Look here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=958492&postcount=80


Oh, I had read that post alright - but again like you I couldn't resist putting the slipper in and doing a bit of trolling of my own!!:dodge:

[Guitana]

Well I don't know about you guys but I can't remember what I did last month let alone 20 years ago, with enough accuracy to convict someone of a crime!
If these women had come forward ten years ago it may have been a different story! If Rickards had been involved I don't think he will get off completely the ramifications of this case will unravel his career and no doubt have caused irrepairable damage to his reputation as a trusted member of the community! These people were judged by a Jury of their peers and found not guilty end of story that's the justice system you don't like it move to Iraq

[Paul in NZ]

Hold on guys....

We will all make our minds up on this case no doubt... I also have no doubt in my mind (and i believe Clint R feels the same way based on his comments) that the NZ Police never believed that a guilty verdict would be returned in this case. Possibly an 80/20 chance in the previous one.

So why bring the case at all? It cost an obscene amount of money and at some time, someone must have asked if it was worth it?

No matter the outcome, this has effectively stopped Clint R's bid for the top job in the NZ Police. Is that important? Well someone was willing to spend a lot of our money to make sure that didn't happen. Nothing to do with him being Maori either.

I don't believe that it was a political decision - I'd like to believe it was a moral one. My own limited experience is that our Police force went through a morally rocky period a few years back. In fact the whole country did before the big sharemarket crash and I have been at events with off duty officers where things were said and done that I know the good guys were very uncomfortable with. Personally - I think this is the best possble outcome for everyone except the complainents who were to some degree sacrificed for the greater good. They were no worse than the corporate excesses of the time but it was behaviour the Police should not have been tolerating in their ranks.

Under the circumstances of these events, rape is a VERY difficult crime to prove. Something like 5% of the reported rapes result in a conviction. With such a long delay and no objective 'evidence' it was always going to be a my word against his deal... Hard place to win from and for a very good reason.

The law is not always just but in this case the law has extracted as much justice as it can. Well done NZ Police.

[s8306]

Well I don't know about you guys but I can't remember what I did last month let alone 20 years ago, with enough accuracy to convict someone of a crime!
If these women had come forward ten years ago it may have been a different story! If Rickards had been involved I don't think he will get off completely the ramifications of this case will unravel his career and no doubt have caused irrepairable damage to his reputation as a trusted member of the community! These people were judged by a Jury of their peers and found not guilty end of story that's the justice system you don't like it move to Iraq

At least in Iraq you could shoot these three cunts and have a better than average chance of getting away with it.

[Guitana]

At least in Iraq you could shoot these three cunts and have a better than average chance of getting away with it.

Point taken Abdul Abbu Akhbar!!!

[Sniper]

The way all the righteous C$#ts on here put it. They are fucked whether they be guilty or not. You think they will ever be allowed to forget about it and carry on with their lives.........


At least in Iraq you could shoot these three cunts and have a better than average chance of getting away with it.
Sweet Jesus you are touching on a rather itchy subject.... Good luck

[Scouse]

That is it. And now I see Rickard on TV crowing about going back to his old job and bla bla bla about those that investigated him. Jeez if he does then we will have a known (not convicted) rapist running our police force.. :dodge: Pffft what a joke... i think the main reason rickards wants his old job back is so that he can make life a misery for those that dared to investigate and charge him

[MSTRS]

And that will be one of the reasons he will not be re-instated

[terbang]

This all reminds me of one of those ads you hear on the radio. "got a drunk driving, lost yer licence, too many demerit points.. Call me XXXX and I'll get ya back on the road."
Lawyers can obviously do anything.

[Guitana]

This all reminds me of one of those ads you hear on the radio. "got a drunk driving, lost yer licence, too many demerit points.. Call me XXXX and I'll get ya back on the road."
Lawyers can obviously do anything.

I saw one pull a rabbit out of his arse in the courtroom once!!!! Didnt help me win my case but entertained everyone for a few minutes!!!

[Toaster]

A pox on slimey lawyers (when defending anyone, but me, who are guilty as sin)

Preach it brother. I don't know how they manage to sleep in their $3000 beds at night.

[Toaster]

Point taken Abdul Abbu Akhbar!!!

And they don't give a rats arse about road death-tolls and speeding either. But I guess they have bigger problems!

[Toaster]

I duno man try speeding through an american checkpoint :ar15: compared to the light :spanking: you get here..

Good point, I'm sure I'd get beaten outta my wits for failing to indicate or some other equally deserving infringement.

I've never actually been ticketed.:innocent: :innocent: :innocent:

[Guitana]

Good point, I'm sure I'd get beaten outta my wits for failing to indicate or some other equally deserving infringement.

I've never actually been ticketed.:innocent: :innocent: :innocent:

Give it time Toaster!!! Give it time!!!

[Verity]

A fresh allegation surfaced tonight against one of the three men acquitted in an historic sex case at the High Court in Auckland yesterday.
A Bay of Plenty woman alleged on Tv One's Close Up programme that former policeman Brad Shipton forced her to perform oral sex one night in July, 1995. Donna Johnson also alleged that when she complained to police she was shown the door.

In 1996 she went to the Papamoa police and spoke to a constable.
"I told the officer that Brad Shipton had sexually violated me and was intimidating me," she said.
"Unfortunately a call came in. He asked me to have a seat in the waiting room."
She said another officer appeared in station foyer.
"He looked me in the eye, told me I was wasting their time, that I was making some pretty serious allegations and who's going to believe you? He indicated, there's the door, use it."

Meanwhile, former Police Association president Rob Moodie said tonight Mr Rickards' return to work depended on what proceedings, if any, the police commissioner planned to take against him.
The police need to make their position clear in view of the enormous amount of public interest in the case.
However, going back would be difficult after he (Mr Rickards) admitted that he had consensual group sex with Ms Nicholas, Mr Moodie, a lawyer, told Radio New Zealand.
"There will be those police officers who say `he's been tried, he's been acquitted, that's the end of it'.
"But there will also be – and there will be a considerable number of them – police officers who will not forgive him for what happened, whether he is acquitted or whatever.
"The difficulty for him. . .is in the Nicholas case the allegations were of group sex by mature males with a very young girl, and my understanding is the defence was one of consent.
"Now, most people would regard that as lewd behaviour. Certainly, police officers would regard it as entirely unacceptable behaviour in a police officer – particularly in a mature one," he said.

[White trash]

The man's a "cunt". Not a word that should be used lightly, unfortunately, it best describes all those that have defended him and his actions.

I don't give a fuck if he was acquitted or not, he's a cunt.

[Crasherfromwayback]

The man's a "cunt". Not a word that should be used lightly, unfortunately, it best describes all those that have defended him and his actions.

I don't give a fuck if he was acquitted or not, he's a cunt.

He's more like an ankle mate.

Lower.
Not nearly as attractive.
Nowhere near as edible.
And if it's anything like mine.....useless!

Did you catch the clip of him leaving the courtroom?

The bile that he spat..... "She's nothing but a filthy liar!"

I would've though that a 'man' that was hoping to be back in his 'job' would've said something more like...."I'm glad that the jury reached this decision, it's been a tough time for all involved. I'm sorry for the woman involved, I think it must simply be a case of mistaken idenity"

Actually mate....you're right. He's simply a CUNT.

I hope Bealzibub himself singles him out for a dry arse raping upon his arrival in hell.

[imdying]

At least he's an innocent cunt ;)

[SixPackBack]

At least he's an innocent cunt ;)

We can rest easy then, Clint can have his job back and everyone will be happy?

[The_Dover]

We can rest easy then, Clint can have his job back and everyone will be happy?

If Clint get's his job back then I'm off to join the pigs.

I love a good gang bang

[scumdog]

If Clint get's his job back then I'm off to join the pigs.
I love a good gang bang

You might find your arse will get a tad sore after 3,5000+ pigs have been through you......

[Crasherfromwayback]

At least he's an innocent cunt ;)

Of course he is. And I'm better at racing bikes than Valentino Rossi.

[mikey]

You are right, In normal circumstances charges would not have been made as it is one Complainant's word against the Defendant with no witnesses either independant or known to either the defendant or complainant.


bull shit.
say i come steal your tv and ride off on your bike after raping your wife, brewing up crack in your kitchen and then burning your house down, and any other crime i commit where its only one persons evidence agasint anothers, would charges be laid?
THINK SO!
TYPICAL EH. COPS STICKING UP FOR COPS.
YOUR STICKING UP FOR A RAPIST? YOU SICK MAN

[spudchucka]

We can rest easy then, Clint can have his job back and everyone will be happy?

They will be looking very hard for reasons to not allow him back.

It seems that the plot will continue to thicken and there will be plenty of ammo for the brass to use against him. Still, they won't be able to sack him so the likely outcome will be the big $$$$ golden handshake.

[terbang]

Funny how threads can vary on virtually the same subject. Over on another thread about this I am getting hammered for even suggesting that Rickard may be a bit dodgey. 'Jury found him innocent, so he must be so go away because your view is different to mine' seems to be the order there and yet here the tone is different and people are starting to question Mr Rickards background.

[Ixion]

Or appoint him head of the Special Task Force to tackle Paper Clip Theft nationally (Operation Clippy.) Awful lot of those things get stolen. Or send him on a fact finding mission to study multi cultural policing determinants. In Afganistan. Very multicultural, them.

[spudchucka]

bull shit.
say i come steal your TV and ride off on your bike after raping your wife, brewing up crack in your kitchen and then burning your house down, and any other crime I commit where its only one persons evidence against another's, would charges be laid?

For you to be implicated in that situation there would have to be a witness or some compelling physical or forensic evidence, so I'm assuming that in your imaginary world you didn't burn the house down with the missus still in there and she lived to tell the tale.

Consequently, if she was a good complainant and didn't wait 20 + years to come forward and tell her tale then there would be a bloody good chance that there would be some rather compelling evidence left behind within dear old Mrs Dynamytus, (your smelly spoof or slimy skin scrapings from under her finger nails etc).

Either way, you aren't going to be charged in such circumstances without a reasonable level of evidence against you. It would be too easy if we could just charge you whenever we felt like it, "Got any suspects for this one boys"? , "No"?, "Fuck it, lets just charge young Mikey again"!

[spudchucka]

Or appoint him head of the Special Task Force to tackle Paper Clip Theft nationally (Operation Clippy.) Awful lot of those things get stolen. Or send him on a fact finding mission to study multi cultural policing determinants. In Afganistan. Very multicultural, them.

They would have to pay him shit loads of allowances if they sent him to Afganistan, not a good idea.

[Ixion]

They would have to pay him shit loads of allowances if they sent him to Afganistan, not a good idea.

But only for a short time, if the mission brief was well thought out :whistle:

[Manxman]

Three words Golden Hand Shake!!!!!!!!
...on health grounds...my mortgage is on it.

[Ixion]

"Fuck it, lets just charge young Mikey again"!

And the problem with this is ... ?

[spudchucka]

And the problem with this is ... ?

You'd better ask Mikey!

[Ixion]

I'm sure Mikey would be deeply honoured to be appointed National Scapegoat. And just think of the clearance rates!

[candor]

Women who support husband rapists with lies and perjury are lower than the rapists. I guarantee you that the BS manufactured by the defense in that latest trial will have hurt the victim more than the bottle or whatever it was.

Its disgusting how the media keeps repeating Rickards so called 'admission' that he had consensual sex with Nicholls as if it is fact. They have no conscience - how do they think that feels to the victim who failed to ge justice - they should shut up instead of repeating defense council lies. That is called revictimisation.

It is illogical and quantum conclusion jumping to say that because the latest victim had said she gave it all she had for Louise Nicholas's sake that she must be some kind of vigilante and therefore lying about her own experience.

Why can her resolve to fight for justice not be strengthened by knowing that someone else was harmed to an even greater extent than she was. And it is a LOT of stress and pressure being on the stand so I 'get her' re giving it heaps - tha just means doing your best in a literal bloodsport (tho it may all look calm as).

Unless you were there you don't know what happened - I don't mean in the courtroom as a juror either - they know SHIT and have a cheek to even pretend they do and sit in judgment.

Women have about 1% chance of winning any trial where it is mans word versus womans word. As there is a proven bias for people to believe men more.

Anyone who uses the court system to pursue a rapist unless they have a blue chip eyewitness like say the Pope or carry a vcr 25/7 to leave running in case they get raped is wasting her time. Its best just to get a gun and shoot the miscreant.

I joke not - been there and done that. When I was a little Uni student a gang member kidnapped me etc etc (I was lucky to escape with my life) and the trial which was full of BS took 3 days.

People need to understand that trials and the contet are theatre nothing more. Witnesses ie victims are not permitted to tell the full story (censored maximally).

Naturally the psycho freak got 'acquitted' which does not mean they are innocent. Turned out Police sabotaged their own (my) case due to the freak turning narc during an undercover drug operation called "operation 12".

Here is the kinds of things that happen when cops turn dirty.

Policeman McKay as prosecution witness "yes I recieved a ph call from the complainant - initially I did not believe her!!!!!!"

What - are you a moron cop or on the rapists side here or what not believing a normal average uni student who you don't know from a bar of soap. Turs outthis was nothing to do with belief or disbelief but a conniving and successful move to undermine.

WTF!!!!!!! Later when I spoke to the jury (I visited most of them to tape their evidence of what happened as the trial judge would not release the notes for nearly 10 years - to obstruct my bringing a perjury charge privately as the notes were required evidence), some said this dirty cop statement had killed it for them.
They said they felt he must know something bad about me to have said that!

Said by the Police Dr (prolly at the crooked cops request "the (rapist) asked for anti VD drugs" - untrue it was me!

Yes Dr Vause is a very unethical man and I hope he rots in hell.

Said by the judge "I would ask the jury to disregard this defendents gang membership and to conside him as if he was a rotary club member".

2 or 3 years later the freak offeded again but not in the same crooked Police district - so he managed to finally get convicted.

Should rape 2(that I know of but probably rape 200 considering how few people report it) have REALLY happened.

No - but you have Policeman Colin MCKay (the sabotaging witness) and the dead bastard Judge Heron and 12 completely misinformed jurors to blame for the fact that gang member was still on the loose.

My reward for testifying was the cops telling me that it is not good to take on such a big bad criminal gang and I might be best to quit uni and immigrate to Australia.

Unless you have experienced a rape trial you can not know how the lies told in a sick justice system that has NO interest in getting to truth or Justice can burn themselves into your mind forever.

I guarantee you that if I'd got my offender that got away in a marae setting or a restorative justice type setting the truth would have come out.

The Westminster system sux and I refuse to go on juries because I know it is wrong toparticipate and does more harm than good. I cite religious grounds though really its health reasons. I feel sick if I go near courtrooms or see those pompous control freaks in wigs.

People interested in sex crimes often have a strong view that you should do one of 2 things if victimised. Most I know will adviise women to stay well away from the Court system as Justice is not available most occasions.

Others believe the court systen should be persevered with. I think they are fools. I would never even advise use of Police and Justice systems where a sex crime is concerned.

I only wish those who did the courtroom damage made a better job of it and razed that Guantanamo type place to the ground.

Ellie is right. These 3 piggies won't change their spots. I only wonder if future victims will be in intrafamilial since cunning deviates will take care not to mess with someone who just could blow the whistle.

Dynamy Tuss - you said this whole thing will give people more reason to criticise Police. Actually re the latest case I'll give all kudos to thosre involved for doing their best. If Rickards says they went to unusual lengths to nail him who am I to disbelieve that.

Good on them - it would not have been easy to go to great lengths considering police loyalty to each other and all that. Sounds to me like they may have bugged stupid Mrs Rickards phone and caught her out coaching the cousin.

Women are the most dangerous witnesses to have supporting a rapist as everyone thinks women wouldn't defend rapists. People forget that women can be catty and uncaring to other women too.

Remember that sex offenders are very manipulative - Mrs Rickards has prolly learnt to live in denial and bury her head in the sand for years. It would have bee an easy leap of gullibility once so 'conditioned' to believe whatever her husband told her. n easy next step to.... compromise your own integrity.

[The_Dover]

You might find your arse will get a tad sore after 3,5000+ pigs have been through you......

just grit your teeth scummy. I hear old sphincters are a lot looser than us young fellas.


Or appoint him head of the Special Task Force to tackle Paper Clip Theft nationally (Operation Clippy.) Awful lot of those things get stolen. Or send him on a fact finding mission to study multi cultural policing determinants. In Afganistan. Very multicultural, them.

I got told by one of my workers that we had run out of paper clips. Ther were fucking thousands on the floor. Useless cunts.


Women who support husband rapists with lies and perjury are lower than the rapists. I guarantee you that the BS manufactured by the defense in that latest trial will have hurt the victim more than the bottle or whatever it was.

Its disgusting how the media keeps repeating Rickards so called 'admission' that he had consensual sex with Nicholls as if it is fact. They have no conscience - how do they think that feels to the victim who failed to ge justice - they should shut up instead of repeating defense council lies. That is called revictimisation.

It is illogical and quantum conclusion jumping to say that because the latest victim had said she gave it all she had for Louise Nicholas's sake that she must be some kind of vigilante and therefore lying about her own experience.

Why can her resolve to fight for justice not be strengthened by knowing that someone else was harmed to an even greater extent than she was.

Unless you were there you don't know what happened - I don't mean in the courtroom as a juror either - they know SHIT and have a cheek to even pretend they do and sit in judgment.

Women have about 1% chance of winning any trial where it is mans word versus womans word. As there is a proven bias for people to believe men more.

Anyone who uses the court system to pursue a rapist unless they have a blue chip eyewitness like say the Pope or carry a vcr 25/7 to leave running in case they get raped is wasting her time. Its best just to get a gun and shoot the miscreant.

I joke not - been there and done that. When I was a little Uni student a gang member kidnapped me etc etc (I was lucky to escape with my life) and the trial which was full of BS took 3 days.

People need to understand that trials and the contet are theatre nothing more. Witnesses ie victims are not permitted to tell the full story (censored maximally).

Naturally the psycho freak got 'acquitted' which does not mean they are innocent. Turned out Police sabotaged their own (my) case due to the freak turning narc during an undercover drug operation called "operation 12".

Here is the kinds of things that happen when cops turn dirty.

Policeman McKay as prosecution witness "yes I recieved a ph call from the complainant - initially I did not believe her!!!!!!"

What - are you a moron cop or on the rapists side here or what not believing a normal average uni student who you don't know from a bar of soap. Turs outthis was nothing to do with belief or disbelief but a conniving and successful move to undermine.

WTF!!!!!!! Later when I spoke to the jury (I visited most of them to tape their evidence of what happened as the trial judge would not release the notes for nearly 10 years) some said this cop statement had killed it for them.
They said they felt he must know something bad about me to have said that!

Said by the Police Dr (prolly at the crooked cops request "the (rapist) asked for anti VD drugs" - untrue it was me!

Yes Dr Vause is a very unethical man and I hope he rots in hell.

Said by the judge "I would ask the jury to disregard this defendents gang membership and to conside him as if he was a rotary club member".

2 or 3 years later the freak offeded again but not in the same crooked Police district - so he managed to finally get convicted.

Should rape 2(that I know of but probably rape 200 considering how few people report it) have REALLY happened.

No - but you have Policeman Colin MCKay (the sabotaging witness) and the dead bastard Judge Heron and 12 completely misinformed jurors to blame for the fact that gang member was still on the loose.

My reward for testifying was the cops telling me that it is not good to take on such a big bad criminal gang and I might be best to quit uni and immigrate to Australia.

Unless you have experienced a rape trial you can not know how the lies told in a sick justice system that has NO interest in getting to truth or Justice can burn themselves into your mind forever.

I guarantee you that if I'd got my offender that got away in a marae setting or a restorative justice type setting the truth would have come out.

The Westminster system sux and I refuse to go on juries because I know it is wrong toparticipate and does more harm than good. I cite religious grounds though really its health reasons. I feel sick if I go near courtrooms or see those pompous control freaks in wigs.

People interested in sex crimes often have a strong view that you should do one of 2 things if victimised. Most I know will adviise women to stay well away from the Court system as Justice is not available most occasions.

Others believe the court systen should be persevered with. I think they are fools. I would never even advise use of Police and Justice systems where a sex crime is concerned.

I only wish those who did the courtroom damage made a better job of it and razed that Guantanamo type place to the ground.

Ellie is right. These 3 piggies won't change their spots. I only wonder if future victims will be in intrafamilial since cunning deviates will take care not to mess with someone who just could blow the whistle.

Dynamy Tuss - you said this whole thing will give people more reason to criticise Police. Actually re the latest case I'll give all kudos to thosre involved for doing their best. If Rickards says they went to unusual lengths to nail him who am I to disbelieve that.

Good on them - it would not have been easy to go to great lengths considering police loyalty to each other and all that. Sounds to me like they may have bugged stupid Mrs Rickards phone and caught her out coaching the cousin.

Women are the most dangerous witnesses to have supporting a rapist as everyone thinks women wouldn't defend rapists. People forget that women can be catty and uncaring to other women too.

Remember that sex offenders are very manipulative - Mrs Rickards has prolly learnt to live in denial and bury her head in the sand for years. It would have bee an easy leap of gullibility once so 'conditioned' to believe whatever her husband told her. n easy next step to.... compromise your own integrity.

shouldn't you be in the kitchen?

[Deano]

Regardless of the verdict, when enough shit is flung, some of it will stick, and stick it has.

[candor]

Cook your own eggs Dover!

[spudchucka]

Women who support .............etc.

Agree with quite a lot of your comments.

On the flip side however people have no idea how many false rape complaints are made, (the stats aren't out there but speak to any detective about this and you would be shocked).

As a man rape is about the worst thing you can be accused of, (next to kiddie fiddling). Complaints need to be seriously scrutinised for accuracy and the main problem with historic complaints is that accuracy fades over time. The lack of any corroborating physical or forensic evidence means that the trial will always be a credibility test, and, if there is any doubt, the jury must acquit.

[Grahameeboy]

Like everything, things will bite us in the bum for our wrongs.
It is not for us to judge and by the sounds of it these guys, if guilty, have not got away scott free.
Apart from one recent post it has all been about these guys and not the female.........okay odd that she took 20 years but maybe the Nicolas case brought things up and whilst her reasons may not have been the best, I am sure she would not have ddone this light heartedly.
Either way if the rape happened then she needs help to deal with it and if it did not she needs help....

[marty]

I don't normally go pro-police (especially in any reference to driving!) & I knew at least one real arrogant & powerhungry egotistical a/holes that joined up but in this case I want to say that I grew up in the same area as Clinton and he wasn't one of those types. I found it hard to imagine that he would do the crime he was accused of. I didn't know him well but he never really seemed to be the sort of person that would do ANYTHING bad (& that was before there were any political gains to be had). He always seemed to be a really good guy (if not a little quiet, serious & stern looking) and a community orientated leader (his judo days should attest to that). I guess we never really know people even if we are close to them but even though I haven't followed the trial closely from here in Aus and I haven't seen him since around the early seventies an accusation like this just didn't add up in my mind. The others? Well, my guess is as good as yours.

So, yes I also wonder if there was some sort of an ambush going on. I'm not pro or anti Maori but I am pro good people and Clinton just seemed to be one way back when...

i worked for clint. he always come across as a bully, who only has time for people that can move his agenda forward. his wife tania started at hamilton as a constable, within a year she was a sergeant (in a job created for he) , within another a senior sergeant (in a job created for her) then they moved to wellington where she soon became an inspector.

every contact i had with clint left me with less than nice things to say about him. he had little or no respect (except for fear) from the guys on the ground floor

[terbang]

Agree with quite a lot of your comments.

The lack of any corroborating physical or forensic evidence means that the trial will always be a credibility test, and, if there is any doubt, the jury must acquit.

Exactly and here we have a high ranking police officer's word against Joe bloggs (regular person) teenager who says she has been raped. Any potential smudge (in jail for previous rape) on Scholum and Shipton, whilst they also took the advantage of credibility for being ex coppers, was suppressed. An outcome that we should all hang our heads in shame over...

[Goblin]

Women who support husband rapists with lies and perjury are lower than the rapists. I guarantee you that the BS manufactured by the defense in that latest trial will have hurt the victim more than the bottle or whatever it was.

Its disgusting how the media keeps repeating Rickards so called 'admission' that he had consensual sex with Nicholls as if it is fact. They have no conscience - how do they think that feels to the victim who failed to ge justice - they should shut up instead of repeating defense council lies. That is called revictimisation.

It is illogical and quantum conclusion jumping to say that because the latest victim had said she gave it all she had for Louise Nicholas's sake that she must be some kind of vigilante and therefore lying about her own experience.

Why can her resolve to fight for justice not be strengthened by knowing that someone else was harmed to an even greater extent than she was. And it is a LOT of stress and pressure being on the stand so I 'get her' re giving it heaps - tha just means doing your best in a literal bloodsport (tho it may all look calm as).

Unless you were there you don't know what happened - I don't mean in the courtroom as a juror either - they know SHIT and have a cheek to even pretend they do and sit in judgment.

Women have about 1% chance of winning any trial where it is mans word versus womans word. As there is a proven bias for people to believe men more.

Anyone who uses the court system to pursue a rapist unless they have a blue chip eyewitness like say the Pope or carry a vcr 25/7 to leave running in case they get raped is wasting her time. Its best just to get a gun and shoot the miscreant.

I joke not - been there and done that. When I was a little Uni student a gang member kidnapped me etc etc (I was lucky to escape with my life) and the trial which was full of BS took 3 days.

People need to understand that trials and the contet are theatre nothing more. Witnesses ie victims are not permitted to tell the full story (censored maximally).

Naturally the psycho freak got 'acquitted' which does not mean they are innocent. Turned out Police sabotaged their own (my) case due to the freak turning narc during an undercover drug operation called "operation 12".

Here is the kinds of things that happen when cops turn dirty.

Policeman McKay as prosecution witness "yes I recieved a ph call from the complainant - initially I did not believe her!!!!!!"

What - are you a moron cop or on the rapists side here or what not believing a normal average uni student who you don't know from a bar of soap. Turs outthis was nothing to do with belief or disbelief but a conniving and successful move to undermine.

WTF!!!!!!! Later when I spoke to the jury (I visited most of them to tape their evidence of what happened as the trial judge would not release the notes for nearly 10 years - to obstruct my bringing a perjury charge privately as the notes were required evidence), some said this dirty cop statement had killed it for them.
They said they felt he must know something bad about me to have said that!

Said by the Police Dr (prolly at the crooked cops request "the (rapist) asked for anti VD drugs" - untrue it was me!

Yes Dr Vause is a very unethical man and I hope he rots in hell.

Said by the judge "I would ask the jury to disregard this defendents gang membership and to conside him as if he was a rotary club member".

2 or 3 years later the freak offeded again but not in the same crooked Police district - so he managed to finally get convicted.

Should rape 2(that I know of but probably rape 200 considering how few people report it) have REALLY happened.

No - but you have Policeman Colin MCKay (the sabotaging witness) and the dead bastard Judge Heron and 12 completely misinformed jurors to blame for the fact that gang member was still on the loose.

My reward for testifying was the cops telling me that it is not good to take on such a big bad criminal gang and I might be best to quit uni and immigrate to Australia.

Unless you have experienced a rape trial you can not know how the lies told in a sick justice system that has NO interest in getting to truth or Justice can burn themselves into your mind forever.

I guarantee you that if I'd got my offender that got away in a marae setting or a restorative justice type setting the truth would have come out.

The Westminster system sux and I refuse to go on juries because I know it is wrong toparticipate and does more harm than good. I cite religious grounds though really its health reasons. I feel sick if I go near courtrooms or see those pompous control freaks in wigs.

People interested in sex crimes often have a strong view that you should do one of 2 things if victimised. Most I know will adviise women to stay well away from the Court system as Justice is not available most occasions.

Others believe the court systen should be persevered with. I think they are fools. I would never even advise use of Police and Justice systems where a sex crime is concerned.

I only wish those who did the courtroom damage made a better job of it and razed that Guantanamo type place to the ground.

Ellie is right. These 3 piggies won't change their spots. I only wonder if future victims will be in intrafamilial since cunning deviates will take care not to mess with someone who just could blow the whistle.

Dynamy Tuss - you said this whole thing will give people more reason to criticise Police. Actually re the latest case I'll give all kudos to thosre involved for doing their best. If Rickards says they went to unusual lengths to nail him who am I to disbelieve that.

Good on them - it would not have been easy to go to great lengths considering police loyalty to each other and all that. Sounds to me like they may have bugged stupid Mrs Rickards phone and caught her out coaching the cousin.

Women are the most dangerous witnesses to have supporting a rapist as everyone thinks women wouldn't defend rapists. People forget that women can be catty and uncaring to other women too.

Remember that sex offenders are very manipulative - Mrs Rickards has prolly learnt to live in denial and bury her head in the sand for years. It would have bee an easy leap of gullibility once so 'conditioned' to believe whatever her husband told her. n easy next step to.... compromise your own integrity.
You've hit the nail on the head candor!!! Your post is so accurate it's scary!

[SixPackBack]

A direct quote from this mornings herald.

Police chiefs knew since 1994 of the Louise Nicholas allegations and his defence that it was consensual group sex, but promoted him four times.
The Weekend Herald has also revealed that Mr Rickards had sex with a woman on the bonnet of a police car in 1983 and this was one of the "employment issues" top officers at police national headquarters were referring to when they refused to reinstate him after his acquittal last week.

What sort of organisation promotes individuals that at the very least have scruples most of us would unacceptable in this job description. Looks like the Police force is still one very sick puppy.

[Goblin]

What sort of organisation promotes individuals that at the very least have scruples most of us would unacceptable in this job description. Looks like the Police force is still one very sick puppy.And what sort of message does this send to new recruits and younger police?

[unhingedlizard]

Seems Auckland mayor Dick "Whats in the cupboard" Hubbard has come out saying he strongly apposes Rikards in the Auckland commander position. Wether or not he was found guilty, it seems not guilty doesnt mean innocent in most peoples eyes, including mine I might add.

[marty]

so Candor - you bring up some personal experiences that have not gone your way. what do you suggest would work in the place of the westminster system? something that the whole population, regardless of their culture, can rely on?

[Quartermile]

:mad:Man I have already had a bitch about this shit on the hori te whenua thread, all I can say is im fucking sick of the NZ justice system!!!!!!:angry2:

:mellow::D

[Patrick]

stupid Mrs Rickards phone and caught her out coaching the cousin.


Rickards? or one of the others...?

[Patrick]

As "Damon" has pointed out in the "other" thread on this topic, on the radio this morning it has been revealed that Louise NICHOLAS has made 7 rape allegations recently, including the one involving CR and Co... If, (and a HUGE IF), this is true, does it change anything at all?

Revictimised? Maybe... but 7 times????? Ummm.....:dodge:

[unhingedlizard]

:mad:Man I have already had a bitch about this shit on the hori te whenua thread, all I can say is im fucking sick of the NZ justice system!!!!!!:angry2:

:mellow::D


So a system wherby as long as at least two people accuse you would see you in jail would be better?

[scumdog]

just grit your teeth scummy. I hear old sphincters are a lot looser than us young fellas.

No second prizes sunshine!

BTW Thanks for the offer but your old sphincter holds no interest to me, loose or not. (So I'll save gritting my teeth for something worthwhile thank you very much.)

[Quartermile]

So a system wherby as long as at least two people accuse you would see you in jail would be better?

No but the NZ justice sytem as a whole including our piss poor sentancing to our luxury jails, its all very week and pathetic:nono:

[unhingedlizard]

No but the NZ justice sytem as a whole including our piss poor sentancing to our luxury jails, its all very week and pathetic:nono:

That is true. 25to life, out in 5 for good behaviour??!!

How can you have good behaviour in prison? When I was young good behaviour was not swearing, eating your greens and, most inportantly, not going to jail.

[terbang]

Revictimised? Maybe... but 7 times????? Ummm.....:dodge:

Scholum and Shipton have been accused three times as well, by three different people and convicted on one of them.. Rickards has been accused at least twice..Ummmmm. So LN is not the only one accusing eh and yet the same old three keep popping up acused of rape..Hmmmm. Nah no way they would be involved, it's those accusing girls who are at fault of course. They consented, as young as 14, to having adult males, police males sticking batons into them and taking turns on them but of course it was consensual so its OK, innit? But why those three that always seem to get accused and not any other copper..?

[unhingedlizard]

Not wanting to argue here but maybe some of these girls have come forward making storys up because they beleive a miscarrage of justice has happened in the LN case. After all, people see John of god and such. Doesnt seem to take much to make people fervourantly believe in something these days.
Not my view but worth thinking about.

[Patrick]

Scholum and Shipton have been accused three times as well, by three different people and convicted on one of them.. Rickards has been accused at least twice..Ummmmm. So LN is not the only one accusing eh and yet the same old three keep popping up acused of rape..Hmmmm. Nah no way they would be involved, it's those accusing girls who are at fault of course. They consented, as young as 14, to having adult males, police males sticking batons into them and taking turns on them but of course it was consensual so its OK, innit? But why those three that always seem to get accused and not any other copper..?

Don't know if they all know each other?
Don't know if it was because they gave defence evidence about a group sexathon with LN at another cops trial wheree she got upset about it all?

Do know of a girl here who was having a good time with 5 sailor boys, giving one a blowjob... when another took a photo of the action, she got shitty and made rape allegations when they wouldn't delete the photo... the photo actually saved thier arses as it showed she was having a good time, smiling etc......

Don't know if all three keep on coming up because the girls have changed their attitudes and now think what they got up to earlier might be seen as immoral?

Don't know if they were raped at all...

Do know that CR shouldn't keep his job, but it will cost a huge amount (better than a Lotto win) to move him on.

[Guitana]

You will probably find they all share the same shrink!!!!!

[denill]

At least he's an innocent cunt ;)

They were not found to be 'Innocent"!

They were found to be 'Not Guilty' - (beyond reasonable doubt.)

[MisterD]

They were not found to be 'Innocent"!

They were found to be 'Not Guilty' - (beyond reasonable doubt.)

The law says you are innocent until proven guilty therefore:

Not Guilty = Innocent.

[Guitana]

They were not found to be 'Innocent"!

They were found to be 'Not Guilty' - (beyond reasonable doubt.)

Same fucken thing!!!!

[denill]

Same fucken thing!!!!

Because the prosecution did not prove to the jury that they were guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' - does not mean that they didn't 'do it' !!

Think about it !!

[Guitana]

Because the prosecution did not prove to the jury that they were guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' - does not mean that they didn't 'do it' !!

Think about it !!

So prove otherwise ya can't can ya!! I have thought about it I've been watching the goings on since the beginning! The way the media had a feild day at the expense of the NZ Police.
Fuck if I was a cop and a TV execs house was being burgaled I'd take my time getting there!!
Every fuckers carrying on like all police are rapists and thugs and not to be trusted, that's fucken gratitude when you're on the beat getting abused spat at and assaulted for doing your job!!!!

[denill]

So prove otherwise ya can't can ya!!

Of course I can't. That is the point. I do not know if 'they' are guilty or innocent. I wasn't there and as in all cases of this nature - guilt or innocence is practically impossible to prove.

The jury foreman said "Not (proven) guilty your honor".

He did not say "They are innocent your honor" and THERE IS a difference!

You don't KNOW that they are innocent!

[scumdog]

Of course I can't. That is the point. I do not know if 'they' are guilty or innocent. I wasn't there and as in all cases of this nature - guilt or innocence is practically impossible to prove.

The jury foreman said "Not (proven) guilty your honor".

He did not say "They are innocent your honor" and THERE IS a difference!

You don't KNOW that they are innocent!

And you don't KNOW they are guilty.

The jury foreman did NOT say "Not proven guilty", stop stirring.

I bet you'ld love it if YOU were accused of anything that you were actually innocent of and after the trial people said "Ooooh, recons he never did it but the jury said it was just he wasn't proved guilty"

[denill]

And you don't KNOW they are guilty.

The jury foreman did NOT say "Not proven guilty", stop stirring.

I bet you'ld love it if YOU were accused of anything that you were actually innocent of and after the trial people said "Ooooh, recons he never did it but the jury said it was just he wasn't proved guilty"

How about reading what I wrote ?? Before launching in defense.


So prove otherwise ya can't can ya!!


Of course I can't. That is the point. I do not know if 'they' are guilty or innocent. I wasn't there and as in all cases of this nature - guilt or innocence is practically impossible to prove.

[denill]

The jury foreman did NOT say "Not proven guilty", stop stirring.

You are being obtuse.
The jury foreman said "Not (proven) guilty your honor". "proven" is in italics (and brackets!) and surely most took it as the (always) unspoken inference in the Foreman's statement.

[scumdog]

You are being obtuse. "proven" is in italics (and brackets!) and surely most took it as the (always) unspoken inference in the Foreman's statement.

You can't speak for 'most' - only yourself (who also seems to have slanted view) UNLESS others have delegated you as spokesman for them.

Every time a foreman of the jury says "Not Guilty" he is not implying 'Not Proven Guilty', yet you seem to want to portray he IS.

[MisterD]

Because the prosecution did not prove to the jury that they were guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' - does not mean that they didn't 'do it' !!

Think about it !!

No, but the law says that becuase they were not proven to have done it we must assume that they are innocent That is one of the foundation pillars of our society - comprende?

[marty]

You are being obtuse. "proven" is in italics (and brackets!) and surely most took it as the (always) unspoken inference in the Foreman's statement.

like the unspoken inference that the sex was consensual?

have you ever been to court? do you have any idea how much meaning is applied to words spoken in there? 'not guilty' means that the case has not been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 'guilty' means 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt'. nothing more, nothing less. if you want to be found 'innocent' go to scotland.

[avgas]

Dont forget folks, lawyers were the winners at the end of the day.
It only cost a few million to get to the end.

[avgas]

Not Guilty = Innocent.

LOL - does that make us all innocent :) i like that concept....makes me feel less dirty

[MisterD]

LOL - does that make us all innocent :) i like that concept....makes me feel less dirty

Well unless you're not telling us something and are logging on from Paremoremo...

[denill]

like the unspoken inference that the sex was consensual?

have you ever been to court? do you have any idea how much meaning is applied to words spoken in there? 'not guilty' means that the case has not been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 'guilty' means 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt'. nothing more, nothing less. if you want to be found 'innocent' go to scotland.


It's looking like I'm a bit of a voice in the wilderness here as I have had no support - but the consensus of responses to me has been that the 'Not Guilty' verdict has convinced my opponents that 'they' are to be regarded as innocent.
I will insist on maintaining that is an unacceptable and naive attitude.

Instead of just coming back with rebuttals that avoid the issue - get real. and consider the alternatives.

There have been numerous cases in history when 'they got away with it'.

I have written before - I'm buggered if I know if they are innocent or guilty.

[Grahameeboy]

It's looking like I'm a bit of a voice in the wilderness here as I have had no support - but the consensus of responses to me has been that the 'Not Guilty' verdict has convinced my opponents that 'they' are to be regarded as innocent.
I will insist on maintaining that is an unacceptable and naive attitude.

Instead of just coming back with rebuttals that avoid the issue - get real. and consider the alternatives.

There have been numerous cases in history when 'they got away with it'.

I have written before - I'm buggered if I know if they are innocent or guilty.

I see what you are saying but why are we debating when the case has been heard and verdict given..............taking Dented's personal experience, I think it is wrong to make judgement

[candor]

We are debating for the same reason Arthur Allan Thomas case was debated or the Peter Ellis case. Because the legal system has serious glitches which need debating if anything is ever to improve.

Verdicts do noyt define reality and they do not close the bok howebe much tidyy endings are preferred. Appeals, and debate and protests are all in order often enough. Or we'd be stuck with still burning witches which is how primitive todays rape trials will hopefully be seen in a hundred years.

[Grahameeboy]

Whoops..no idea who these geezers are and I see both sides but this has really turned into a Police bash again and I guess we have to move on.......like I said Dented's personal experience is a case in point and the problem with rape cases is that even when the verdict is 'Not Guilty' the aquitted still has to deal with those who judge.....just feel that we3 should leave be and if there is an injustice it will come to bite them in the bum one day.

[Guitana]

It's looking like I'm a bit of a voice in the wilderness here as I have had no support - but the consensus of responses to me has been that the 'Not Guilty' verdict has convinced my opponents that 'they' are to be regarded as innocent.
I will insist on maintaining that is an unacceptable and naive attitude.

Instead of just coming back with rebuttals that avoid the issue - get real. and consider the alternatives.

There have been numerous cases in history when 'they got away with it'.

I have written before - I'm buggered if I know if they are innocent or guilty.

No one ever gets away with it in the end. They pay one way or another!!!!

[Guitana]

We are debating for the same reason Arthur Allan Thomas case was debated or the Peter Ellis case. Because the legal system has serious glitches which need debating if anything is ever to improve.

Verdicts do noyt define reality and they do not close the bok howebe much tidyy endings are preferred. Appeals, and debate and protests are all in order often enough. Or we'd be stuck with still burning witches which is how primitive todays rape trials will hopefully be seen in a hundred years.

Nothing wrong with a good old witch burning mate!!!

[Patrick]

It is really quite simple folks...

EVERYONE, including CR and his merry gang of sexual fiends, are innocent until proven guilty, they were NOT proven guilty, so innocent remains...

[Squeak the Rat]

Yep. Whatever system we have, there will be cases where the jury gets it wrong. So what's more important to society, that we lock up every single crim, or that we keep innocent people out of jail? Unfortunately you cannot have both.

It is sickening that not enough rape cases result in a conviction. But I believe in order to protect the innocent that there really is only one solution to that, report it immediately. That provides physical evidence, and removes a lot of doubt that it's a regret or vendeta issue.

Due in part to these cases, I believe that it's unlikely any one will be turned away from a cop shop in the future when trying to report a rape.

[MisterD]

There have been numerous cases in history when 'they got away with it'.


As there have of cases where innocent people were locked up for a long time.

Utopia does not exist.

[spudchucka]

Due in part to these cases, I believe that it's unlikely any one will be turned away from a cop shop in the future when trying to report a rape.

No complainant would ever be turned away without being investigated first. If the investigation proved the complaint to be false then the likelihood is that the complainant would find themselves facing charges.

[Patrick]

You are found guilty even after appeals (BAIN, THOMAS, The Civic Creche sexo and others) they are "supposedly" not guilty... You are found not guilty (CR and others) they are guilty...

By that reasoning, does that mean the other two, being found guilty of rape once already, are actually not guilty?

I am so confused.....

[SixPackBack]

I am so confused.....

So am I Patrick. Hard to work out where the truth ends and the bullshit starts.

What I am not confused about is the expected morale code and behaviour of the Police. N.Z expects the Police force to collectivley act in an admirable and trustworthy manner at all times, not prey on children.

N.Z is nervous right now.

[scumdog]

So am I Patrick. Hard to work out where the truth ends and the bullshit starts.

What I am not confused about is the expected morale code and behaviour of the Police. N.Z expects the Police force to collectivley act in an admirable and trustworthy manner at all times, not prey on children.

N.Z is nervous right now.

The'Police' are just a reflection of the present populace matey...does'nt say much for the present populace eh?

[spudchucka]

No one ever gets away with it in the end. They pay one way or another!!!!

Karma, just ask Earl.

[Lou Girardin]

No complainant would ever be turned away without being investigated first. If the investigation proved the complaint to be false then the likelihood is that the complainant would find themselves facing charges.

Nicholas was (In effect). Dewar is now facing charges relating to his actions in this.

[Lou Girardin]

The'Police' are just a reflection of the present populace matey...does'nt say much for the present populace eh?

The Police are supposed to be better. They're meant to be far better than the lowest common denominator.
Otherwise they're just another gang.

[SixPackBack]

The'Police' are just a reflection of the present populace matey...does'nt say much for the present populace eh?

That is an unacceptable and weak excuse. Are you saying the Police force has a large amount of undesirables within it ?

[spudchucka]

That is an unacceptable and weak excuse. Are you saying the Police force has a large amount of undesirables within it ?

No. What he's saying is that a nations police force is a reflection of it's society. Therefore if you have a sick society your police force will reflect this. Furthermore, I think that Scummy is simply pointing out that those who are pointing the finger and labelling the police as sick may also need to have a deep reflective look at themselves.

[spudchucka]

Nicholas was (In effect). Dewar is now facing charges relating to his actions in this.

I'm talking about today, not the 80's.

[imdying]

All those bitches burning effigies of policeman, spraypainting the courthouses etc... they need some tear gas real soon. What the hell are they doing out of the kitchen anyway? I can understand them getting antsy if policeman were raping women, but shouldn't there be instead a march on parliament by the police, burning the effigy of some dirty hoe telling lies?

[Lissa]

I think this is stupid. I dont think this is anything to do with the 'police' and the police shouldnt be blamed for this case. There are alot of people in the police force who do a bloody good job.

I think its the fact that a couple of people who were in authority abused it. Yea I think police should have standards of conduct, and I really dont think Group Sex was a 'normal' thing to do in the 80s like Rickards is trying to tell us.

The other thing I can't understand is why would you think that a woman is a dirty hoe because she was involved in Group Sex. Do you think that Group sex with many men is even pleasurable to a women. Why would they risk being humiliated in court, getting a not guilty verdict and called above all things.. a dirty hoe... for revenge? If it was me.... I really dont think I would be strong enough or have enough courage to even go to the police. What are they getting out of it? They arent getting any money, they arent getting fame... but they obviously think it is the right thing to do for them and what they have been through.

[Guitana]

The other thing I can't understand is why would you think that a woman is a dirty hoe because she was involved in Group Sex. Do you think that Group sex with many men is even pleasurable to a women.


Yeah any chick who's up to get spit roasted is O.K in my books!!! As for dirty Ho's they make the world go round!!!!
Not too keen on group sex with heaps of guys it would be a bit awkward if somebody slipped and poked you in the shitter, you'd have to beat his head in to prove you were'nt a poofter and that might put a damper on things!!!

[imdying]

The other thing I can't understand is why would you think that a woman is a dirty hoe because she was involved in Group Sex.Shit, sorry if I hit too close to home :dodge:

[Squeak the Rat]

One of the protestors. I wonder if she believes rickards is guilty because of the way he looks and acts.....

[imdying]

Is it just me or is she looking past the female officers and sizing up the bloke? Man hater? Woulda been good to see a few of them going down on tazers :yes:

[Guitana]

One of the protestors. I wonder if she believes rickards is guilty because of the way he looks and acts.....

Yes they do look a little feral dont they!!!!

[SixPackBack]

No. What he's saying is that a nations police force is a reflection of it's society. Therefore if you have a sick society your police force will reflect this. Furthermore, I think that Scummy is simply pointing out that those who are pointing the finger and labelling the police as sick may also need to have a deep reflective look at themselves.

The general public has no idea if the police force is sick or an admirable bunch of people doing a shitty job. Perhaps the Police onsite could give us an insight Spud.

[spudchucka]

The general public has no idea if the police force is sick or an admirable bunch of people doing a shitty job. Perhaps the Police onsite could give us an insight Spud.



The police are also members of the general public.

I'm biased and accept that people will consider my opinions in that way but the truth is that out of the thousands of cops I have met there would only be a handful that I would consider to be unworthy of the job.

[SixPackBack]

The police are also members of the general public.

I'm biased and accept that people will consider my opinions in that way but the truth is that out of the thousands of cops I have met there would only be a handful that I would consider to be unworthy of the job.

I strongly suspected that would be the case Spud and accept your assertions.

How does management handle the bad ones?

[Patrick]

I strongly suspected that would be the case Spud and accept your assertions.

How does management handle the bad ones?

Like any other employer has to these days... with kid gloves because you can't just give em the boot any more, you have to give warnings, then written ones, then performance plans to recitfy the shortcomings... it goes on and on... or else, if you haven't dotted the I's and crossed the T's and followed porceures to the letter, it is an unfair dismissal and one is liable for time in the employment court. Pffftttttttt.....

[changing_man]

I feel I have to contribute to this thread with the following youtube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkYDxW30vS4

[ManDownUnder]

One of the protestors. I wonder if she believes rickards is guilty because of the way he looks and acts.....

She went to the same charm school as Helen - same smile - look!

[spudchucka]

I strongly suspected that would be the case Spud and accept your assertions.

How does management handle the bad ones?

Like Patrick said.

[Patrick]

One of the protestors. I wonder if she believes rickards is guilty because of the way he looks and acts.....

Poor girls in that front line...

Good move by the bosses to have an all female front line, and look at the crap they had to put up with... as if they were the rapists who got off. Certainly took some of the edge (violent liklihood) off thier protest. Some of those chick cops looked like they weren't even born when these LN matters occurred.

Imagine if there were ANY males in the front line. How worse would it have been then? Particularly for the male who had nothing whatsoever to do with any of what the protests were about?

[SixPackBack]

Poor girls in that front line...

Good move by the bosses to have an all female front line, and look at the crap they had to put up with... as if they were the rapists who got off. Certainly took some of the edge (violent liklihood) off thier protest. Some of those chick cops looked like they weren't even born when these LN matters occurred.

Imagine if there were ANY males in the front line. How worse would it have been then? Particularly for the male who had nothing whatsoever to do with any of what the protests were about?

Persactly Patrick....pointless shooting the messenger.

[scumdog]

The general public has no idea if the police force is sick or an admirable bunch of people doing a shitty job. Perhaps the Police onsite could give us an insight Spud.



As I have said before, I have yet to meet a cop who is doing/has done anything dodgy. (except for the bastards that duck-shovel jobs my way - now THAT is dodgy!).

And no, I don't have a very low standard!! (before somebody asks)

[MD]

As despicable as the alleged behaviour of Ricards and Co is, I still can't accept that someone can come forward after 20 years and expect someone else to be locked up based on their word!
Shit if someone reports that they saw me speeding in 1981 should that be enough for me to lose my licence today? If they do, then I will state that they did something wrong the same day, so lock them up as well.
The innocent victim now is the Police force. I bet Ricards will be real welcome back at work now.
Actually I do recall I did speed one day in 1981. Sorry.

[Patrick]

As despicable as the alleged behaviour of Ricards and Co is, I still can't accept that someone can come forward after 20 years and expect someone else to be locked up based on their word!
Shit if someone reports that they saw me speeding in 1981 should that be enough for me to lose my licence today? If they do, then I will state that they did something wrong the same day, so lock them up as well.
The innocent victim now is the Police force. I bet Ricards will be real welcome back at work now.
Actually I do recall I did speed one day in 1981. Sorry.

No quotas then... doesn't "count."

[Lissa]

As despicable as the alleged behaviour of Ricards and Co is, I still can't accept that someone can come forward after 20 years and expect someone else to be locked up based on their word!
Shit if someone reports that they saw me speeding in 1981 should that be enough for me to lose my licence today? If they do, then I will state that they did something wrong the same day, so lock them up as well.
The innocent victim now is the Police force. I bet Ricards will be real welcome back at work now.
Actually I do recall I did speed one day in 1981. Sorry.

I can see your point MD.. but theres a big difference between speeding and someone forcing you to have sexual intercourse against your will... usually violently.

But I agree the innocent victim is the Police Force.

[SixPackBack]

someone forcing you to have sexual intercourse against your will

No shit Sherlock!!>...my missus would want lockin' up every freakin' night.
I'm a machine.:Punk:

[Dafe]

Rickards has been told to turn up to work on Monday, or don't come back!

Sounds like his superiors ain't too much in favour of him.

[Guitana]

As despicable as the alleged behaviour of Ricards and Co is, I still can't accept that someone can come forward after 20 years and expect someone else to be locked up based on their word!
Shit if someone reports that they saw me speeding in 1981 should that be enough for me to lose my licence today? If they do, then I will state that they did something wrong the same day, so lock them up as well.
The innocent victim now is the Police force. I bet Ricards will be real welcome back at work now.
Actually I do recall I did speed one day in 1981. Sorry.

All depends if you were speeding with their dick in your arse!!!:shutup:

[Lou Girardin]

I think this is stupid. I dont think this is anything to do with the 'police' and the police shouldnt be blamed for this case.

Read the entire saga, not just this thread, then say it has nothing to do with the Police.

[Lou Girardin]

Poor girls in that front line...

Good move by the bosses to have an all female front line, and look at the crap they had to put up with...

An absolutely cynical manipulation that all of NZ has seen through.
Wrong on many levels, but typical of your half-witted bosses.

[spudchucka]

Read the entire saga, not just this thread, then say it has nothing to do with the Police.

The Police or people who are or were members of the police?

Its all to do with people, their actions and or inactions. The organisation they work(ed) for has nothing to do with causing them to behave in a particular way, it comes down to the personal choices made by an individual.

[paulj]

Although I don't doubt they are guilty of all sorts of nastiness, I would be very concerned about the safety of a conviction when it is just one persons word against another without any corroborating facts.

<snip>

Justice may not have been done, but the legal system is working as I would want it to.


Admirable sentiments - BUT - the legal system is not working as I would want it to - what I want to know is;

Who are the pious, self righteous, dopey bastards (they will be men by the way) who decided to go with the complainant and try to build a case? The Crown Prosecutor I presume? Did these people not weigh up the evidence? Did they not weigh up the costs?

It seems that one word from a woman "rape?" and the whole legal system swings into action - millions of our dollars are spent, the defendants pay their own way, are rooted out of their job and black listed for life regardless of the verdict. The complainant gets free unlimited legal aid, ongoing sympathetic TV coverage (during the trial too), if possible with a few tears to make us red-blooded men rise up in protective rage!

From what I understand of these things, provided the complaint has been made "in good faith" there is no provision to sue for damages! How convenient and utterly sexist.

And to cap it off, after the verdict, the complainant and various 'others' keep on at them them in public - I thought this was called "contempt of court" and was a jailing offence? Easily proven - been on TVNZ night after night in glorious colour - but our men in blue are utterly gutless when reverse prosecuting (with some justification).

Go read "A City Possessed" - the Chch Civic Creche Case if you want a clearer picture of our legal system and our police - an awesome and scary book. And then if you want to really get paranoid, read up on the Salem Witch Hunts - the parallels are clear and are happening today.

Don't get me wrong, if a case can be made, cut their balls off - otherwise, shut the fuck up - especially after 20 years.

[spudchucka]

An absolutely cynical manipulation that all of NZ has seen through.
Wrong on many levels, but typical of your half-witted bosses.

Yep, it would have been much better if they had formed the line with 6'6", 120kg, shaven headed cops with tattooed arms.

At least then there would have been an event worthy of headline news.

As it was the only thing that made it interesting was the whacko making a spectacle of herself by choosing that particular moment to want to make a complaint of sexual abuse.

[Clockwork]

By the time this/these cases had become public knowledge the Police had no choice but to prosecute.... imagine the shit storm if they'd said "insufficient evidence to secure a conviction". As I've said before though, the prosecution team also had knowledge of all the complaints, the juries were denied that info.

I beleive that the definition of what constitues "rape" has moved significantly over the past 20-30 years. While I strongly disapprove of what these uniformed Police Officers did with a teenage girl, I suspect that none of these guys considered what they were doing was rape.

[imdying]

An absolutely cynical manipulation that all of NZ has seen through.
Wrong on many levels, but typical of your half-witted bosses.
I'm not convinced that the alternate (male coppers, women striking them, women getting arrested, potential riot) would have been a better solution. Might be wrong on many levels, but it was right on just as many levels.

[scumdog]

An absolutely cynical manipulation that all of NZ has seen through.
Wrong on many levels, but typical of your half-witted bosses.

Get back under your bridge, troll.

[imdying]

Get back under your bridge, troll.
Troll or not, it's a mostly fair comment... I can't see what a better alternative would have been? Maybe locking up a bunch of overly dramatic women when things turned nasty? Sure they might not have turned nasty, but the pictures/video I saw didn't look like a bunch of rational people having a quiet protest. I feel that whoever organised that police line really had very few options, and probably did the protestors a favour.

[Beemer]

I personally think it was a complete witch hunt and should never have gone to trial. The comment made by the second complainant that she 'wanted to get the guilty verdict that Louise Nicholls didn't get' really switched me off to the whole debacle... Too many men have had their lives shattered by women who decide that what they quite willingly did is now not what they should have been doing at all, and cry rape. It's not on. Rape is forced and unconsensual - not when you've changed your mind after the event. Whether that's what happened here or not, I don't know. I wasn't there. Neither were the accused by the sounds of it.....

I must confess I did wonder about the authenticity of the complaint after hearing that comment. I don't think any of the three men qualify as being lily-white, but if they had all been builders or something other than police officers, I doubt the outcry over the incidents (whether they are true or not) would have been as loud.

A guy I went to school with - and who I always thought was a decent guy - was accused of rape by the teenage friend of his daughter. He was convicted and spent about two years in jail, all the while fighting to clear his name and protesting his innocence. Suddenly the girl tells someone that he never raped her, she was just pissed off at him because of something he did that she didn't like and cried rape to get back at him. THAT kind of behaviour is unforgiveable and he and his family will never regain the years he was in prison.

I think it must be incredibly hard for a genuine rape victim to come forward and make a complaint and any false or vindictive claims (ie, ones where they had consensual sex but then the woman says she was raped) make it even harder for rapists to be convicted. And I must confess, there is no way I would wait 20 years to speak out if I were in her shoes. Without physical evidence to back it up, it often makes it almost impossible for a man to prove he didn't rape someone.

I agree with Clockwork too - when we think of rape nowadays, it's a violent crime, usually carried out by a stranger. Back in the 1980s there was a different social climate and women may have been coerced into having sex even if they didn't really want to. Today, those same woman may feel strongly enough about it to lay a complaint of rape. And although I am still dumbfounded over the lawyer's statement that everyone has been involved in group sex (I'm still waiting to find someone who admits it!), the truth probably lies somewhere between rape and consensual sex.

I don't like Rickards though, and I doubt he would get much respect if he were to continue with his career.

[SixPackBack]

And although I am still dumbfounded over the lawyer's statement that everyone has been involved in group sex (I'm still waiting to find someone who admits it!)

* Sticks his hand up*:yes: ...........dissapointing episode in so many ways, apart from the umbrella that was kinda funny:shutup:

[Lou Girardin]

I must confess I did wonder about the authenticity of the complaint after hearing that comment.

You mean apart from the fact that she did not raise the matter at all until approached by the Police?
It was the Police who found her ph. number in Shiptons notebook.
Doesn't sound like an attention seeker to me.

[Lou Girardin]

Yep, it would have been much better if they had formed the line with 6'6", 120kg, shaven headed cops with tattooed arms.

No. Just the usual mix of staff on duty.
Will we now see gay cops at the Hero parade?
Asian cops at the Chinese New Year celebrations?
The bind moggles.

[Scouse]

No. Just the usual mix of staff on duty.
Will we now see gay cops at the Hero parade?
Asian cops at the Chinese New Year celebrations?
The bind moggles.And maybee a mob of rickards lookalikes raiding bondage/dicipline parlours

[spudchucka]

Will we now see gay cops at the Hero parade?


You're the Dorklander mate, we don't have that sort thing down here so next time you're there just proposition a couple of them and let us know what their response is.

BTW: http://www.police.govt.nz/district/wellington/

He's one of your old mates, maybe you should give him a call and tune him up on the way he should be doing things.

[candor]

Admirable sentiments - BUT - the legal system is not working as I would want it to - what I want to know is;

Who are the pious, self righteous, dopey bastards (they will be men by the way) who decided to go with the complainant and try to build a case? The Crown Prosecutor I presume? Did these people not weigh up the evidence? Did they not weigh up the costs?

It seems that one word from a woman "rape?" and the whole legal system swings into action - millions of our dollars are spentDon't get me wrong, if a case can be made, cut their balls off - otherwise, shut the fuck up - especially after 20 years.

Paul J and others who keep raising the "20 years till she complained" theory - this did not happen. It was all explained in a Press report today.

The latest comnplainant (bless her brave heart) was phoned up by Police and asked to make a complaint just lately. As they had found her ph number with something nasty written next to it in Schollum or shiptons notebook. The book also noted her as "a woman who could pop up out of the past" or something paranoid like that.

So THE POLICE PHONED HER AND ASKED WHAT HAD HAPPENED... COS THEY HAD A NOTEBOOK OWNED BY A CONVICTED RAPIST FROM THE 1980S THAT MENTIONED HER.

Apparently Police pushed her to bring the charge and rape crisis say they or Government had a political reason why.

It was because if charges had been bought by someone that case or incident could not then also be examined by the Police corruption inquiry. That ruling was passed apparently about a week after the charges were laid on the latest case.

So effectively the embarrassing case which everyone knew was doomed to fail was kept out of the inquiry - as were all of the worst cases. Making a whitewash about Police culture - complicity, people looking the other way etc easier to do a whitewash on.

The contents of that inquiry which received 600 complaints also are specially barred from ever being subject to Official Info Act requests.

So women were forced (after the biggest cases emerged) to seek either Justice in the Courts or via the inquiry. A choice to just resolve their own case (perhaps) in the legal system OR to attempt thru the inquiry to highlight institutional issues and aid institutional change in the Police.

Doesn't seem fair does it to have to make such a choice?

[candor]

Forgot to mention for the Patricks sakes. No the mob was not that ugly. Of the 3 or 400 there were only about 3 being aggro and a couple masked as they intended making noise by banging on lampposts etc and spraypainting the High Court door. All pretty mellow apart from about 5 hairy minutes outside the cop shop when the crowd did get a little excited and riled by speeches then the publicity seekers attempt to get in the cops faces.

Most were just ordinary everyday women. About 10 blokes there - definately a minority. There were grannys, office workers, civil servants, the lesbian sistahood, a few Maori men and women, students (I was talking to some who were law students and rape survivors), and riff raff - all in all a good cross section.

The femme blue line did good. They definitely looked rattled and the fact they did show upset / sympathy or human kinda expressions on their faces which was not aggro along with good restraint I think absolutely did humanise the Police to the angry few who were pushing them a couple of times.

You definitely had to feel sorry for them as females in a way taking the wrath of other females who were most prolly rape victims against their institution. I think it was a smart move on the part of Police and not just a publicity stunt at all.

Most people marched for one of 3 reasons - anti rape generally as it was "womens day", anti rickards and or object to the justice systems way of dealing with stuff. It really was not anti police from what I saw or heard - when they burnt the effigy it was not just any police - it was made clear it was CR.

[Patrick]

An absolutely cynical manipulation that all of NZ has seen through.
Wrong on many levels, but typical of your half-witted bosses.

I expected something resembling an intelligent response...

If it was a line of blokes, the headlines would still be on the front pages.... think about it.

[Patrick]

Go read "A City Possessed" - the Chch Civic Creche Case if you want a clearer picture of our legal system and our police

No thanks... know enough about the actual facts, not the ramblings of a wannabe author looking to make a quick buck... like Joe KARAM.

[candor]

I thought it interesting that when I attended a family day at Rolleston prison back around 2000 that the guards put Peter Ellis in charge of childs entertainment. He did lolly scrambles and other good stuff. It seemed like 100% of the guards and the ?100 odd visitors that day felt he was the right man for the job. Lets face it - if he was guilty so were those women too.

I believe NOT. On the Bain case - undecided, evidence too confusing.

[paulj]

The latest comnplainant (bless her brave heart) was phoned up by Police and asked to make a complaint just lately. As they had found her ph number with something nasty written next to it in Schollum or shiptons notebook. The book also noted her as "a woman who could pop up out of the past" or something paranoid like that.

So THE POLICE PHONED HER AND ASKED WHAT HAD HAPPENED... COS THEY HAD A NOTEBOOK OWNED BY A CONVICTED RAPIST FROM THE 1980S THAT MENTIONED HER.



Thanks for that - I stand corrected - there has always been a political smell to this.

[paulj]

I thought it interesting that when I attended a family day at Rolleston prison back around 2000 that the guards put Peter Ellis in charge of childs entertainment. He did lolly scrambles and other good stuff. It seemed like 100% of the guards and the ?100 odd visitors that day felt he was the right man for the job. Lets face it - if he was guilty so were those women too.


Yes - and throughout the Ellis' trial, the word went back to the prison that he was not guilty - as such he was left alone rather than being bashed to a pulp by fellow inmates - the usual for child fiddlers.

[Patrick]

Lets face it - if he was guilty so were those women too.

They might have been... if the kids mothers hadn't stuffed up the investigation and coached thier kids on what to say...

[Patrick]

Yes - and throughout the Ellis' trial, the word went back to the prison that he was not guilty - as such he was left alone rather than being bashed to a pulp by fellow inmates - the usual for child fiddlers.

Wrong ... He was segregated... as are all kiddie fiddlers... they live with other kiddie fiddlers so they don't get the bash any more.

[scumdog]

Wrong ... He was segregated... as are all kiddie fiddlers... they live with other kiddie fiddlers so they don't get the bash any more.

Amazing how much 'better' they think they are and superior to kiddie fiddlers the other prisoners think they are....


When in reality they're likely to be worse if observed in a dispassionate manner.