Aresholes con a jury, part two

[Scouse]

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

[98tls]

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

[scumdog]

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

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

[James Deuce]

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

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

[Kickaha]

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

so what evidence do you have to prove different?

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

[Pwalo]

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

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


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

[terbang]

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

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

[ManDownUnder]

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


so what evidence do you have to prove different?

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

Ummm.. yeah - what Kickaha said.

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

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

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

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

[terbang]

or were you just saying what kinda came to mind?


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

[Karma]

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

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

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

[terbang]

It's a bit difficult to try and prosecute someone 20 years after the fact. Now if she'd gone to the cops even a week or two later, they'd have locked them up for sure.
Agree with you there but 20 years ago these were 16-18 year old girls and they were the local cops and they understandably were scared to talk.

[ManDownUnder]

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

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

[Scouse]

"Con a jury" right?
Just like everybody else found not guilty by a jury 'conned' them too???I can see it now Scumdog down on one knee in front of rickards "Please mister rickareds can you make me a inspector I always new you wernt guilty of rape, can I kiss your arse while i am down here Clint"




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



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


so what evidence do you have to prove different?

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


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

[James Deuce]

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

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

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

The prosecution failed to raise enough evidence to convict.

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

[Finn]

Thankfully we live in a modern Western country.

Hahahahahahaha :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Karma]

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

True enough, but all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men (or women) to do nothing.

I think perhaps these days there's also less shame (if that's the word) perhaps in being raped, in the past it seemed that there were people who believed the victim to be at least partly to blame, as if they were advertising it. Today I think there's more of an understanding that shit happens, and women are more likely to seek help and report this kind of thing.

[ManDownUnder]

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


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

yes

Social worker

All in all a less than convincing post. I prefer hard facts that will change the jury's mind.

Speculation or unsubstantiated claims of being able to prove the verdict was wrong... well... they don't quite make it really.

Try to avoid name calling too - it's not helping your cause.

I'm big enough to say I don't know all the facts - are you?

[frogfeaturesFZR]

I think the point being made, albeit indirectly, is that where theres smoke etc.... more to come I suspect.

[Scouse]

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

It's a bit difficult to try and prosecute someone 20 years after the fact. Now if she'd gone to the cops even a week or two later, they'd have locked them up for sure.Fuck you've ether been disinterested or got a short memory, Louise Nicholas did go to the cops at the time but it was investgated by one of the workmates of these three, consequently the investigation turned into a damage control exersie for the boys.

[Guitana]

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


Fuck mate that's a bit harsh Scumdogs right they appeared in front of a jury and the jury could'nt convict them!!!
Which goes to show if you don't convince the jury of guilt you won't win the case! Twenty years had passed under the bridge and in that time all evidence became tainted and distorted if those girls really wanted to convict them it should've happened years ago!! I know they were scared and intimidated but you or I will never know the real truth only the people that were there will know what really went down!!
I don't think Rickards will go back to policing as the government will not allow it!He will receive a golden handshake and fade into the background!!!
Don't be bitching on the police they have enough shit to deal with let alone the backlash from this case!!!

[terbang]

The prosecution failed to raise enough evidence to convict.


Or it was supressed. Hence the title of this thread. I wonder if their good character as policemen (Rickard tried to wear his uniform on one occasion) was also witheld evidence because it may have affected the Jury's decicion.



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

No not at all, I believe the law should prove guilt. You armchair lawyers can spin as much eloquence as you like if makes you feel clever. I am just a regular guy who knows some of the family members of these people and have good knowledge of the devastation it has caused their lives. It wasn't a myth and I just think it's unfair. They suffer and Rickard is police commisioner. Remember people like Louise Nicholas didn't take lightly the decision to bare their sorded past to the whole world (police batons and all) when they accused these cops. They lost 20 years ago and are now publicly called liars by a guy who has been charged twice (thats two separate occasions) for rape.

[Scouse]

Twenty years had passed under the bridge and in that time all evidence became tainted and distorted if those girls really wanted to convict them it should've happened years ago!! I know they were scared and intimidated but you or I will never know the real truth only the people that were there will know what really went down!!Read my post directly above your's

[Toaster]

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


Exactly right Jim2.

[Mr Merde]

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

Not a place for me either, but just check out the UK where you no longer have the right to silence when arrested. They state in when arresting you that anything you do not say at the time may be inadmissable and damage your defence.

This was bought in by the Labour Party.

What party do we have in POWER here in NZ and who do they model their ideals upon?

[scumdog]

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

I would never say such a thing - for a start it looks like it was written by an inarticulate chimp that never attended an English class at school. (when they bothered to go).

My comment on the jury was to raise the thought that why should the jury be 'conned' in this case - yet everybody seems to think the jury were never 'conned' and 'got it right in just about any other case?????.

But maybe I was too obtuse.

[terbang]

I prefer hard facts that will change the jury's mind.


You mean facts, hard cold facts, that two of them were already in jail for Rape..?

[James Deuce]

Or it was supressed. Hence the title of this thread. I wonder if their good character as policemen (Rickard tried to wear his uniform on one occasion) was also witheld evidence because it may have affected the Jury's decicion.




No not at all, I believe the law should prove guilt. You armchair lawyers can spin as much eloquence as you like if makes you feel clever. I am just a regular guy who knows some of the family members of these people and have good knowledge of the devastation it has caused their lives. It wasn't a myth and I just think it's unfair. They suffer and Rickard is police commisioner. Remember people like Louise Nicholas didn't take lightly the decision to bare their sorded past to the whole world (police batons and all) when they accused these cops. They lost 20 years ago and are now publicly called liars by a guy who has been charged twice (thats two separate occasions) for rape.

I'm not trying to be clever, and you obviously don't have an unbiased opinion.

Neither do I.

But unbiased fact is what matters in court. If the Prosecution can't raise enough evidence to convict then it doesn't happen.

The one jury I sat on left me with a very sour taste for how it has to work sometimes, but in my case someone got off who shouldn't have on a point of procedure because the prosecution didn't school the witness about what can and can't be discussed in the stand.

The case got chucked out because the case against the defendant was prejudiced by the complainant.

[James Deuce]

You mean facts, hard cold facts, that two of them were already in jail for Rape..?

Yes, but not for the rape of the complainant in this case. Each charge has to be proved. It isn't hard to understand and I'm not trying to be clever.

[scumdog]

Not a place for me either, but just check out the UK where you no longer have the right to silence when arrested. They state in when arresting you that anything you do not say at the time may be inadmissable and damage your defence.

This was bought in by the Labour Party.

What party do we have in POWER here in NZ and who do they model their ideals upon?


I agree with the UK 'Caution'

So many crims we grab cannot explain their actions when first grabbed - but have really amazing explanations and memory recall a few hours later when they have had time to string together a (to them) plausible and innocent reason for their actions.

They can't remember why they did something 5 minutes after they did it - but 5 hours later have a crystal-clear exact memory of why they did it and an innocent explanation?

Yeah right!

[ManDownUnder]

You mean facts, hard cold facts, that two of them were already in jail for Rape..?

No I mean facts relevant to this case... he did this, she did that, this happened because - that kind of thing. Actual details related to the case, or demonstrations of causality.

"He did this in the past and is therefore more likely to have..." is nice, but doesn't really qualify as the basis of incarceration. Or, in Rickard's case, "His friends did this in the past so he's more likely to have..."

As a kid did you ever nick anything? Never broke any laws? Should we put you on a suspect list anytime something gets stolen within a 50km radius of your house? No... but more importantly.. why not?

[vifferman]

Yes, but not for the rape of the complainant in this case. Each charge has to be proved. It isn't hard to understand and I'm not trying to be clever.
It's a tricky one that.
I can unnerstan' why the judge suppressed information about previous convictions (each case has to be tried independently, it would've influenced the jury, it's all to do with whether the prosecution "proved beyong reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty as charged", blah blah), but it also would've cast a completely different light on the trial from the point of view that the circumstances, modus operandi etc in each case were very similar, despite no collusion on the parts of the various complainants.
I mean, it's fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain that these guys were almost certainly guilty of the whole lot, and I bet the jury are kicking themselves they didn't find them guilty, and are pissed off that they didn't know what other naughtiness had been going on.

Shame there's such a yawning gulf between justice and the current legal system.

[s8306]

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

It would be interesting to hear what Aurther Alan Thomas would have to say about that quote.

[Ixion]

Or it was supressed. Hence the title of this thread. I wonder if their good character as policemen (Rickard tried to wear his uniform on one occasion) was also witheld evidence because it may have affected the Jury's decicion.


There's still an awful lot of other suppressed stuff. Like that two other people (details supressed) have been charged with crimes (details suppressed). Under circumstances suppressed. And the decisions of the courts have been suppressed. Who was it said "justice must not only be done but openly and manifestly be seen to be done". Didn't live in NZ I gues.

Someone's been doing a pretty thorough job of sweeping stuff under the carpet. I guess they gave up on these three and threw them to the wolves in the hope of protecting the others.I wonder who "someone" is. And what their payback is.

The defense would not have raised Mr Ricard's character as a policeman , because if the defense put up a defense of good character, evidence of previous convictions can be given in rebuttal. (ie the prosecution can't tell you that the defendant has been convicted of previous crimes *unless* he claims to be of good character)

[scumdog]

It would be interesting to hear what Aurther Alan Thomas would have to say about that quote.

I think that case caused a swing towards requiring a higher level of proof for a conviction. (i.e. prior to A.A.T. case Rickard and co. may well have been convicted)

[terbang]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?

[Pwalo]

Social worker[/QUOTE]

You absolute wanker. You can't go around calling people social workers. I've tried very hard to be a cantakorous old bastard!

[MSTRS]

... could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. ....?

Juries convict (or not). Sentences are handed down by judges, who will look at patterns in determining length of sentence etc

[James Deuce]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?

No that is taken into account in sentencing by the Judge.

It is not relevant for the Jury. All the jury have to do is decide: Guilty or Not Guilty. They can make comments to the Judge about sentencing and the Judge may or may not take those comments into account.

[MSTRS]

Now if she'd gone to the cops even a week or two later,...

She did, as has been pointed out. Police at that time basically said "They are cops, and as such, are fine upstanding pillars of society, who could not possibly do such a thing. Now go away, lying Louise".
It wasn't until she went to the (today's) media that anything was done...

[terbang]

Well its obvious I don't know a lot about how the law works. But I still believe, and have good reason to, that the law served the wrong people in these two cases.

[scumdog]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?

And conversely if the defendant has no prior history of an offence then he can't have done it this time?

Sorry, with the exception of receiving and one or two other offences all defendants are in the dock tried as first time offenders - no previous offence can be brought up in Court UNTIL the Judge is considering what sentence to dish out.
Oversimplification but I'm sure you see what I mean.

[Indiana_Jones]

I donno if they did it or not? fuck the jury didn't.

It's one person's word againt another's, and if that was how cases were decided I think alot of people would be in prison.

-Indy

[ManDownUnder]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?

The concern of moving back into kumeu would be one of "I wonder if they're going to do it again".

While paraphrasing my previous point, I repeat the sentiment... "I wonder if..." is not grounds for incarceration. I can see the extent of influence that fear would have, and suggest that level of influence could have unduly swayed the jury.

Someone being convincted (or set free) as the result of an unfair trial a good reason to supress it in my books.

[terbang]

And conversely if the defendant has no prior history of an offence then he can't have done it this time?

Well exactly and I guess in this case this is what has happenned. With no 'Known' prior history to the jury.


Oversimplification but I'm sure you see what I mean.

I understand that bit now thanks.

[Damon]

This thread is fucked, the Jury said they didn't do it, get on with your life, the bitch lied,

I shoplifted once and afterwards felt pretty bad about it and havn't done it since, if someone accuses me of it again does it make me guilty of every accusation that gets thrown my way?

who's to say they didn't bust her for something when she was younger and she's held a grudge ever since and now has had the chance to exact her revenge? all a woman has to do now days is cry wolf and a mans life is ruined, have you ever had a psycho girlfriend? thay can cause alot of shit just because they can.

12 people who know these guys have been accused of this before looked at all of the evidence and decided they didn't do it, maybe just mabe they didn't, but you want to hang them because they may have done in the past, I'm really glad your not part of the justice system

[Indiana_Jones]

This thread is fucked, the Jury said they didn't do it, get on with your life, the bitch lied,

I shoplifted once and afterwards felt pretty bad about it and havn't done it since, if someone accuses me of it again does it make me guilty of every accusation that gets thrown my way?

who's to say they didn't bust her for something when she was younger and she's held a grudge ever since and now has had the chance to exact her revenge? all a woman has to do now days is cry wolf and a mans life is ruined, have you ever had a psycho girlfriend? thay can cause alot of shit just because they can.

12 people who know these guys have been accused of this before looked at all of the evidence and decided they didn't do it, maybe just mabe they didn't, but you want to hang them because they may have done in the past, I'm really glad your not part of the justice system

I agree, bling awarded.

-Indy

[terbang]

Yeah right and if we all stood around blindly believing 12 people then the likes of Arthur Alan Thomas would still be in jail or have spent a lot longer than he did.

[Damon]

Yeah right and if we all stood around blindly believing 12 people then the likes of Arthur Alan Thomas would still be in jail or have spent a lot longer than he did.

and if we all stood around beliving what 1 person said based simply on someones past then we would all be in trouble

[James Deuce]

Yeah right and if we all stood around blindly believing 12 people then the likes of Arthur Alan Thomas would still be in jail or have spent a lot longer than he did.

AAT was convicted because of evidence introduced by the Detective prosecuting the case, some of which he made or up or the links between exhibits A & B were so tenuous as to be of no use.

The jury wrongly convicted him because the Prosecution made up a case against him.

A small number of wrongful convictions compared to the vast majority correct cases doesn't mean that the whole system doesn;t work.

AAT needs to be thankful that his case didn't happen 13 years earlier. It's pointless pardoning someone who has been executed for a wrongful murder conviction.

[Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)]

Having served on several juries, you are instructed that your verdict "must be beyond reasonable doubt" based on the evidence put before you. We all knew in one case the guy was guilty but there was doubt with the some of the evidence put before us. One member of the jury just stuck to his "he's fkn guilty" and wouldn't budge from that so we had a hung jury.

Woman that are raped don't get justice in this country - and this case just deters woman even more from coming forward. The emotional trauma of the rape itself is bad enough - but a court case as well - the latter is the most horrifying and traumatic thing I have ever experienced - and something I will never ever go thru again. I have experienced murders, deaths, divorce - nothing matched the court experience.

[terbang]

A small number of wrongful convictions compared to the vast majority correct cases doesn't mean that the whole system doesn;t work.



True, but should we chastise and redicule those that 'prod' or question to test it's worth. Too many people in all walks of life blindly follow the law and would follow it to oblivion. I've done all sorts of psyche tests in my career and one thing that often pops up is that I am a little anti authority. Obviously not too bad as I was chosen to command Royal flights. However that side of me will allways see me question any situation. And I question this one based on some personal acquaintances..

[James Deuce]

And I question this one based on some personal acquaintances..

If you had proof you should have come forward before the trial ended.

Btw, I'm not trying to pick on you. Once upon a time we regarded ourselves as citizens and made it our business understand how our country worked, and contributed what we could, when we could.

Now we have rights. Rights are quickly becoming a byword for "excusable ignorance".

[Winston001]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result.

A very fair question and at the heart of the public outcry.

Firstly, every person has the right to be tried only on the facts of whatever they are charged with. Previous accusations and convictions are not evidence that the new charge must be true.

Secondly, there is an exception which is rarely available, but it can happen. "Similar fact evidence" can be admitted of previous convictions where the similarity of past offending is very high. So a rapist who always binds his victim's hands with red rope, bites a particular area, and uses a specific method will be confronted with previous rape convictions - but only if the specific methods exist in the present charge. Tough luck if he used blue rope for a change...............

The example of pedophilia is a good one because it is one of the categories of crime where offenders tend to have specific patterns and thus previous convictions can be brought out in court. Nevertheless it is still a rare procedure.

[MisterD]

I wonder if their good character as policemen (Rickard tried to wear his uniform on one occasion) was also witheld evidence because it may have affected the Jury's decicion.


Their good character as policeman is something that the defence could choose to bring up - but obviously wouldn't because that would give the prosecution the chance to ask for previous conviction evidence to be introduced to refute that.

[terbang]

Oh and just to refresh a few memory's, Louise Nicholas did compain all those years ago and it became a whitewash because she was a kid and they were cops. The NZ police took a lot from this woman then and when they finally tried to do the right thing (good for them) memories had faded and stories and alibis were well practiced by those who had been trained in investigation. Two ex cops and the assistant police commisioner.

[Guitana]

It would be interesting to hear what Aurther Alan Thomas would have to say about that quote.

That's not fair he was stitched up by some clever people!!!

[Lissa]

This thread is fucked, the Jury said they didn't do it, get on with your life, the bitch lied,

I shoplifted once and afterwards felt pretty bad about it and havn't done it since, if someone accuses me of it again does it make me guilty of every accusation that gets thrown my way?

who's to say they didn't bust her for something when she was younger and she's held a grudge ever since and now has had the chance to exact her revenge? all a woman has to do now days is cry wolf and a mans life is ruined, have you ever had a psycho girlfriend? thay can cause alot of shit just because they can.

12 people who know these guys have been accused of this before looked at all of the evidence and decided they didn't do it, maybe just mabe they didn't, but you want to hang them because they may have done in the past, I'm really glad your not part of the justice system
Wait on.... How much guts does it take to come forward and say that a "policeman" raped you? You arent going to accuse someone of rape just because you have a grudge, let alone someone so powerful.... dont you think that her life has been ruined by all this? Do you think it was easy for her to reveal that part of her life. If she was raped dont you think her life was ruined and scarred from that very moment? I take exception to you saying that all a women has to do is Cry Wolf and a mans life is ruined... crap. Yes it has happened before... and those women are usually found out... and charged with whatever.

I just hope this isnt going to stop alot of rape victims from coming forward.... to have to go to trial and look your rapist in the eye... the very person who took away your dignity and your rights. Couldnt think of anything worse... and have the media and the rest of New Zealand judging you because of it.

[Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)]

Ditto Lissa Thx - put very well. With respect - men will never understand what rape does to a woman.

[Ixion]

..? I take exception to you saying that all a women has to do is Cry Wolf and a mans life is ruined... crap. Yes it has happened before... and those women are usually found out... and charged with whatever.
...

I don't think those complainants are ever charged with anything. Certainly nothing much, at most a "wasting police time".

The other scenario is when a woman gets "carried away" and later regrets what has happened. Or, when she starts out willing, and then things go beyond what she anticipated. Which is probably what happened in these cases.

BTW, men get raped too. Or does that not count?

[SlashWylde]

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

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

The prosecution failed to raise enough evidence to convict.

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

That place is called the United States of America.

[SlashWylde]

Ditto Lissa Thx - put very well. With respect - men will never understand what rape does to a woman.

With all due respect, I think the many thousands of men who are rape victims would strongly disagree with that statement.

Society has to get over the notion that rape is a crime that only happens to women. Men are statistically more often the victims of violence than women are, with sexual violence being a component of that.

[Toaster]

Wait on.... How much guts does it take to come forward and say that a "policeman" raped you?

I agree, I am sure there are a lot of women and possibly men who have been sexually assaulted by someone at some point and have not been able to come forward for all the hurt, embarrasment and anguish it could bring them.

Damn those jerks for bringing yet more shame on the police. :gob: :angry: :sick: :nono:

[Lissa]

I don't think those complainants are ever charged with anything. Certainly nothing much, at most a "wasting police time".Well then if it ruins the person they accused life... then they should be charged with more.


... Or, when she starts out willing, and then things go beyond what she anticipated. Which is probably what happened in these cases.Hmm think you are talking about when a women maybe starts out willing then for whatever reason, guilt, not ready, feels uncomfortable, etc etc she says NO but the guy doesnt listen, and goes on to have sex with her against her will. Kinda sounds like rape.


BTW, men get raped too. Or does that not count?Of course it counts!!!... Rape isnt gender based. Its just that the majority of people who are raped are Women.... and thats world wide.... esp the Third World countries. Like the 'Indian?" women who was gang raped as a punishment for what her brother had done to someone else. Women who are stoned to death because they let themselves be raped. Could go on and on.. but I wont.

[Guitana]

With all due respect, I think the many thousands of men who are rape victims would strongly disagree with that statement.

Society has to get over the notion that rape is a crime that only happens to women. Men are statistically more often the victims of violence than women are, with sexual violence being a component of that.

Yeah it's called prison BUMSEX or Dirt track riding no offense to the offroader boys!!!
Even worse for a man to take it in the Butty!!!!

[placidfemme]

This is an endless argument. Guilty vs. Innocent. It all boils down to your own personal beliefs and your view of the justice system.

I could go on and state my opinion and view, and in this thread and with this topic and judging by the responses so far, it would be pointless.

Karma will come back and bite them in the asses if they are guilty.

[Lissa]

With all due respect, I think the many thousands of men who are rape victims would strongly disagree with that statement.

Society has to get over the notion that rape is a crime that only happens to women. Men are statistically more often the victims of violence than women are, with sexual violence being a component of that.

You are right.. esp those boys who are preyed on by Paedophiles.... they grow up, usually without having told anyone... it wreaks their lives... makes me :angry: If anyone touched any of my children I swear I would ... grrrrr!

[Bykmad]

This is a matter where we (the general public) will never know everything about it. The prosecution was woeful in its attempt to present its case. The complainant could not even identify Rickards from photo's taken around the time or that he was on crutches.The identification of Shipton and Schollum was also very poorly handled. Just one instance of a very poorly handled investigation and Prosecution.
The Jury made a decision on the facts as presented by the Crown Prosecutor (on behalf of the NZ Police) and the Defence Counsels for the defendants.
Its over!!!!!!!! Let it Rest in Peace.

[Damon]

Wait on.... How much guts does it take to come forward and say that a "policeman" raped you? You arent going to accuse someone of rape just because you have a grudge, let alone someone so powerful.... dont you think that her life has been ruined by all this? Do you think it was easy for her to reveal that part of her life. If she was raped dont you think her life was ruined and scarred from that very moment? I take exception to you saying that all a women has to do is Cry Wolf and a mans life is ruined... crap. Yes it has happened before... and those women are usually found out... and charged with whatever.

I just hope this isnt going to stop alot of rape victims from coming forward.... to have to go to trial and look your rapist in the eye... the very person who took away your dignity and your rights. Couldnt think of anything worse... and have the media and the rest of New Zealand judging you because of it.

I'm sorry if i didn't explain myself clearly enough, all i was simply saying is that things are not always how we see them, just because someone said they did it doesn't make their accusation and your limited knowledge of the facts the truth, it certainly wasn't an attack on rape victims.

As for "all a women has to do is Cry Wolf and a mans life is ruined" how can you say it's "crap" and then follow it up with "Yes it has happened before", just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean another person wouldn't, there are some really nasty people out there and their not just men

[Lissa]

As for "all a women has to do is Cry Wolf and a mans life is ruined" how can you say it's "crap" and then follow it up with "Yes it has happened before", just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean another person wouldn't, there are some really nasty people out there and their not just menI meant Crap... as in not to make generalisations that Rape Victims are lying (crying wolf), and that a court is the place to decide whether they are telling the truth or not. Who is on trial... the victim or the rapist? Not getting at you at all.

[marty]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?


couple of valid points here, but the reality is:

having a history of theft does not necessarily mean you are subsequently guilty of such, however, if you stand up and say 'i am not a thief' your history will be allowed to haunt you.

likewise if you have a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, and say 'oh this was a one off mistake' again, your history will bite.

schollum and shipton never gave evidence (as is their right) as they knew that their history would come up. rickards did give evidence, as he knew that as long as he stayed away from his associations with the other 2, that his criminal history was clean.

if i remember right, rickards tried to get his case heard separately from the other 2, as he didn't want to be tarred with their brush.

[Damon]

I meant Crap... as in not to make generalisations that Rape Victims are lying (crying wolf), and that a court is the place to decide whether they are telling the truth or not. Who is on trial... the victim or the rapist? Not getting at you at all.

Again i'm not attacking rape victims at all, what i'm saying is in this country an accusation can have damaging consequences, in the satement "all a women has to do is Cry Wolf and a mans life is ruined" there is no mention of rape, assult, touching my kids, peeping through windows, packing groceries incorrectly, farting in elevators, simply accusation can have damaging consequences

[marty]

Of course it counts!!!... Rape isnt gender based.


isn't it?

check the crimes act out.

[Damon]

isn't it?

check the crimes act out.

is it?! legaly i mean? i can't be bothered sifting though the act so let us know what it says

[Damon]

from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes

[128Sexual violation defined


(1)Sexual violation is the act of a person who—


(a)rapes another person; or


(b)has unlawful sexual connection with another person.


(2)Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of person B's genitalia by person A's penis,—


(a)without person B's consent to the connection; and


(b)without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.


(3)Person A has unlawful sexual connection with person B if person A has sexual connection with person B—


(a)without person B's consent to the connection; and


(b)without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.


(4)One person may be convicted of the sexual violation of another person at a time when they were married to each other.]

[Hitcher]

For all of you bleeding hearts out there in La La Land, would you prefer living in a society where cops get sacked or jailed every time anybody makes a complaint against them?

Or for any man who is unfortunate to have a rape charge taken against them to be automatically jailed? ("society" actually holds them guilty anyway, whether they are or not, exactly as is happening with the (former) police officers in this latest case, so who is really the "victim" of "rape"?)

What if Louise Nicholas and the other complainants against the "gentlemen" in question were actually making things up in order to progress an "agenda"? Who should decide who is innocent and who is guilty?

It's all very well being outraged, but consider the evidence put forward, as the juries were required to do in all of these cases, rather than leaping to speculative conclusions.

We're talking about running a system of justice, not TXT voting for Dancing with the Stars.

[marty]

(2)Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of person B's genitalia by person A's penis,—


(a)without person B's consent to the connection; and


(b)without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.





so there you go.

[Hitcher]

So if person B takes it up the bottom, it's not "rape"?

[ManDownUnder]

For all of you bleeding hearts out there in La La Land, would you prefer living in a society where cops get sacked or jailed every time anybody makes a complaint against them?

Or for any man who is unfortunate to have a rape charge taken against them to be automatically jailed? ("society" actually holds them guilty anyway, whether they are or not, exactly as is happening with the (former) police officers in this latest case, so who is really the "victim" of "rape"?)


Hell no, and bling duly sent (despite the shite I'm giving you in another thread..).

It's a no win situation and the stakes are high. Someone's going to lose face and justice needs to be done. Severe amounts of justice needs to be done...

[terbang]

For all of you bleeding hearts out there in La La Land, would you prefer living in a society where cops get sacked or jailed every time anybody makes a complaint against them?

Or for any man who is unfortunate to have a rape charge taken against them to be automatically jailed? ("society" actually holds them guilty anyway, whether they are or not, exactly as is happening with the (former) police officers in this latest case, so who is really the "victim" of "rape"?)

What if Louise Nicholas and the other complainants against the "gentlemen" in question were actually making things up in order to progress an "agenda"? Who should decide who is innocent and who is guilty?

It's all very well being outraged, but consider the evidence put forward, as the juries were required to do in all of these cases, rather than leaping to speculative conclusions.

We're talking about running a system of justice, not TXT voting for Dancing with the Stars.


Though I suspect you would be singing a different tune if you or your family had been on the receiving end of Rickard and Co..!

[ManDownUnder]

Though I suspect you would be singing a different tune if you or your family had been on the receiving end of Rickard and Co..!

Quite possibly (if I may take that as a statement directed at me) which would - and rightly should - take me out of contention for jury service in that case... assuming their guilt of course.

[Damon]

We're talking about running a system of justice, not TXT voting for Dancing with the Stars.

Bling! Well put

[terbang]

Independant thought a distant memory huh..? These guys arn't clean and you know it. There is more to come for them too.

[Patrick]

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

Chinese whispers perhaps... where were they for the court case????

[ManDownUnder]

Though I suspect you would be singing a different tune if you or your family had been on the receiving end of Rickard and Co..!


Independant thought a distant memory huh..?

According to you - yes.

And I agree...

[Patrick]

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


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



Point 1... Trolling, I see....

Point 2... Rickards does not have any convictions... the other two do, and by association with the other two, he is automatically guilty?

[terbang]

so there you go. Thanks Marty.
Now I see where the problem is, there has to be a penis involved..? How wrong could we have been here because the law doesn't mention anything about a police baton, only a penis..! Why would any avid follower of the law raise even an eyebrow over penetration by a police baton.. Cos its the law innit..?

[ManDownUnder]

Point 2... Rickards does not have any convictions... the other two do, and by association with the other two, he is automatically guilty?

:niceone:

Awww no fair - the KB firing squad's all loaded up and awaits orders. Don't bring common sense into it right at the last minute...

[Patrick]

It would be interesting to hear what Aurther Alan Thomas would have to say about that quote.

"Thanks for the $1 million???"

[Damon]

Thanks Marty.
Now I see where the problem is, there has to be a penis involved..? How wrong could we have been here because the law doesn't mention anything about a police baton, only a penis..! Why would any avid follower of the law raise even an eyebrow over penetration by a police baton.. Cos its the law innit..?

dude, calm down, that post was about the definition of rape being male-female, not male-male or female-male

[Hitcher]

Independant thought a distant memory huh..? These guys arn't clean and you know it. There is more to come for them too.

We know two of them are serving time for rape, so therefore can't be "clean". We know that Clint Rickard has not been convicted which, in the eyes of the law at least, means he is not "dirty".

As for there being more to come? I don't know what you think you know, but given that the Judge yesterday lifted all of the Court suppression orders, and given Clint Rickard's reaction, I reckon it would be a fair bet that there is nothing more "to come".

[Patrick]

Thanks Marty.
Now I see where the problem is, there has to be a penis involved..? How wrong could we have been here because the law doesn't mention anything about a police baton, only a penis..! Why would any avid follower of the law raise even an eyebrow over penetration by a police baton.. Cos its the law innit..?

Sexual Violation is also defined and covers batons, bottles, baseball bats, fingers... whatever you use...

[Guitana]

Sexual Violation is also defined and covers batons, bottles, baseball bats, fingers... whatever you use...

What about FZR1000's??????

[terbang]

Dude I'm calm. Its like crashing a plane, you can bury your head into the law books as much as you like to find out who is wrong or right (DC 10 on Mt Erebus springs to mind). Whatever the finding the damage is still done. In the case of Erebus there was a smoking hole in the ground that no law book can hide, though part of the evidence was described as 'An orchestrated litany of lies'. The families of the victims just had to live with that and those at fault retired on big bonuses. like in this case where young women not connected to each other believe, enough to bare all to the world, that they were sexually violated and eventually spoke up. Also in this case they and their families have had to live with it for 20 years. Whilst the law cannot undo that it can prevent those that did it from doing it again. This has been done in the cases of Schollum and Shipton, but what about Rickard..? Or do you truly believe that he had nothing to do with them in any of their sorded past..?

[Hitcher]

Or do you truly believe that he had nothing to do with them in any of their sorded past..?

Not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Case closed. Get over it.

[terbang]

Not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Case closed. Get over it.

Still didn't answer my question though. What do you believe..?

[ManDownUnder]

Hey terbang - this is obviously a personal issue for you, and that I respect.

You're on a hiding to nothing if you keep pushing this though. I can claim the defence "I don't know - because I'm not privy to all the facts" and I can claim the same of you.

Not belittling the subject - and you'll have to trust me, I have very good reason not to... let it slide if you can. We're going to end up enemies over the interpretation of the law soon.

Not worth it

[Dafe]

I've always found that a persons face really does reflect their nature.

But fark me, if Rickards hasn't gotten the most viscious looking face I've ever seen.
Rickards face is just as I would have imagined Graeme Burtons face to be.
He's one nasty looking mutha fuggar!

But then again, Nicky is all full of shit.
So whose to say this woman Louise Nicholls isn't.

All i know is, I'm glad he's in Auckland.

[ManDownUnder]

I've always found that a persons face really does reflect their nature.

ummm... you just found the perfect excuse to get off Jury Service.

"Your Honour - I've found that a persons face..."

While you're at it - go lock this guy up - he looks pretty damned sus. Obviously a bad bastard....

[Macktheknife]

With all due respect, I think the many thousands of men who are rape victims would strongly disagree with that statement.

Society has to get over the notion that rape is a crime that only happens to women. Men are statistically more often the victims of violence than women are, with sexual violence being a component of that.

Thank you for pointing that out, I was about to do the same but possibly not as nicely.
At the end of the day, anyone who goes to trial can only be convicted on the available evidence, if there is evidence that is not directly related to the particular case it cannot normally be used. If the Jury convicts someone based on a previous conviction then there is no hope for anyone to try and change their lives, granted there are not that many who do but it is vital to allow for it.
You may have a different opinion of the result of the trial but opinions are like armpits, everyone has at least one and they often stink.
I believe that the passions of people have obscured their ability to be unbiased and consider the evidence as it is.

[Macktheknife]

Still didn't answer my question though. What do you believe..?

I think you are missing the point here mate....
What anyone believes is not important, the only thing that counts is the proof or evidence that the events occurred in the specified manner by the specified people.
You may feel this is unfair, that is your right, but please allow others their opinions and rights too.

[Hitcher]

I've always thought it to be a bit sad that some men feel compelled to inflict themselves with a chemo haircut. Explicit views of cranial imperfections, old footie scars and shaving knicks don't do it for me, but then again, I guess I'm not the "target market". Ladies, what are your thoughts about guys with "knob heads"?

I suppose if one was an Olympic swimmer or competitive buttered-head thruster, a closely-shaved head could have advantages...

[Scouse]

Point 1... Trolling, I see....Gee your observant if your not carfull you will make detective

[JimO]

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

i agree with scummy if they were found guilty the jury was right but because they are not guilty the jury is wrong

[kave]

I think you are missing the point here mate....
What anyone believes is not important, the only thing that counts is the proof or evidence that the events occurred in the specified manner by the specified people.
You may feel this is unfair, that is your right, but please allow others their opinions and rights too.

The role of the state is to be seen carrying out justice, failure to do so can lead to vigilantie justice and gangsterism, in other words belief can be more important than fact. Whether an defendant is actually guilty or not is unimportant compared with the outcome if the general populace starts to believe that the justice system is toothless and the only way to acheive a reasonable outcome is too take matters into their own hands.

Just playing devils advocate here as I am unsure of my own view on this matter at the moment.

[Lissa]

I've always thought it to be a bit sad that some men feel compelled to inflict themselves with a chemo haircut. Explicit views of cranial imperfections, old footie scars and shaving knicks don't do it for me, but then again, I guess I'm not the "target market". Ladies, what are your thoughts about guys with "knob heads"?

I suppose if one was an Olympic swimmer or competitive buttered-head thruster, a closely-shaved head could have advantages...Well to be honest... if a guy is losing his hair, its much better to shave it all off then have a comb over :sick:

[Scouse]

We're going to end up enemies over the interpretation of the law soon.

Not worth itI very much doubt that Bruce would be shaking in his boots

[ManDownUnder]

I very much doubt that Bruce would be shaking in his boots

Good - it wasn't a threat at all - just an observation. I'm just saying there seems to be a point we've reached where the best thing to do is agree our opinions differ.

No?

[Macktheknife]

The role of the state is to be seen carrying out justice, failure to do so can lead to vigilantie justice and gangsterism, in other words belief can be more important than fact. Whether an defendant is actually guilty or not is unimportant compared with the outcome if the general populace starts to believe that the justice system is toothless and the only way to acheive a reasonable outcome is too take matters into their own hands.

Just playing devils advocate here as I am unsure of my own view on this matter at the moment.

WHAT!!!!!
You cannot be serious, if you were the defendant I think you would change your tune pretty damn quick!
So far we have 'lets convict him anyway because he is a bad bugger'
Then, 'lets convict him because he hangs around with bad buggers.'
Then we get 'lets convict him because it will prevent Joe public taking the law into their own hands.'
Who needs evidence if the standards are like this???
And for the record many people already believe the system is toothless, and yet we do not have gangs of Vigilantes in the streets.

[terbang]

I have not name called or attacked anyone I have just continued with my point of view. Yet I have been name called (by a Mod) and mildly threatened for having an opnion that doesn't fit with the majority (and the crown). And you say
but please allow others their opinions and rights too.
Get real..

[ManDownUnder]

...and mildly threatened for having an opnion that doesn't fit with the majority (and the crown).

If that's my post you're referring to there is no threat in sight. Agreeing to disagree about things is the outcome I'm after.

Anyway - off for the weekend.

[MisterD]

like in this case where young women not connected to each other believe, enough to bare all to the world, that they were sexually violated and eventually spoke up.

Believed, but was unable to identify CR from photos of the time, the best she could you was that she thought it was someone called Clint who had a tattoo. You want to convict on that?

[Scouse]

Believed, but was unable to identify CR from photos of the time, the best she could you was that she thought it was someone called Clint who had a tattoo. You want to convict on that?I think he should be fried on that

[Bykmad]

Christ almighty. Get over it people. The Jury heard the evidence, (In BOTH cases against Rickards) and both Jury's acquited him. Thats called Trial by your peers, which is what the Justice system is based on.
Blame the Jury's, or blame the Prosecution, but all in all, its over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not many of you would know Rickards, so dont Judge the man simply on what you see on TV.

[Ixion]

As for there being more to come? I don't know what you think you know, but given that the Judge yesterday lifted all of the Court suppression orders, and given Clint Rickard's reaction, I reckon it would be a fair bet that there is nothing more "to come".

Not so. There are more that were not lifted.

from today's Harold


We still can't refer to * * * * * * * * or name Mr * * * * * * *
Although one of the suppression orders in the police sex trials has been lifted, others remain in place.
They were made at three different levels of the court system - the District Court, High Court and the Court of Appeal.

[terbang]

Well I've had my say and I hope its loud and clear.. I'll just take my bleeding heart off to la la land before I meet the wrath of becoming an enemy of MDU. Sheesh so much for a debate/discussion having two sides around here...:sunny:

[Grahameeboy]

Well I've had my say and I hope its loud and clear.. I'll just take my bleeding heart off to la la land before I meet the wrath of becoming an enemy of MDU. Sheesh so much for a debate/discussion having two sides around here...:sunny:

:spanking: :grouphug:

[Hitcher]

Yet I have been name called (by a Mod)

Really? Who? Infract that bastard, I say.

[imdying]

That bitch has receieved no more than she deserves... she can't make up lies about events that supposedly happened 20 years ago.... how are they supposed to defend against that? Hope she ends up in the bottom of the harbour for what she has done to those poor guys.

[Macktheknife]

Get real..

Actually that comment was not directed specifically at you mate, you have been reasoned in your argument and I respect that. :sunny:
I thought the 8 pages represented a reasonable 2 sided discussion actually, with a couple of notable exceptions.

[Dafe]

ummm... you just found the perfect excuse to get off Jury Service.

"Your Honour - I've found that a persons face..."

While you're at it - go lock this guy up - he looks pretty damned sus. Obviously a bad bastard....

You got it bigtime wrong. John Mitchells has intelligent eyes, there is no visciousness in his eyes. :rofl:

It might sound stupid to you, But maybe you are incapable of analysing people in that respect. I've been in enough prisons to have seen the resemblance.

Also, Innocent until proven guilty my friend. Just because someone may be capable of committing a crime doesn't mean you should lock them up. They may not have done that crime.

Do I really need to give explanations that pre-schoolers would already understand???:doh:

Can I still have the "Get out of Jury Service free" card?

[ManDownUnder]

It might sound stupid to you, But maybe you are incapable of analysing people in that respect. I've been in enough prisons to have seen the resemblance.

Actually no, not silly at all - facial expressions are a key part of body language, and the eyes are a key part of facial expressions. My point is though is may be of interest it's certainly no link between a person (who might be the worst of the worst bad bastards), and a criminal event.


Also, Innocent until proven guilty my friend. Just because someone may be capable of committing a crime doesn't mean you should lock them up. They may not have done that crime.
Bingo... complete agreement



Can I still have the "Get out of Jury Service free" card? Sure - just mention your ability to determine guilt based on facial features.

I'd also refer to the science of phrenology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology) if you get the chance. That'll go down like a turd in a punchbowl too.

===

Of interest - headlines in today's paper - more charges/allegations being made against Rickards and co...

[Ixion]

Of interest - headlines in today's paper - more charges/allegations being made against Rickards and co...

Well, that appears to be an allegation that he screwed a woman across the bonnet of a car. No suggestion that she was unwilling. So I'm not sure what the issue is with that, most guys would have done it (and most chicks I guess). It's all getting a bit silly now.

Next thing someone's going to come forward with an allegation that he pulled himself off when he was a 15 year old boy.

[Patrick]

What about FZR1000's??????

Yep...and the farmers tractor...

[Patrick]

Gee your observant if your not carfull you will make detective

Shit... I've been called many things, but that just ruins me...!!!! Have to have a sickie week or 17 now...:sick:

[Patrick]

The lifted all the supression orders relating to the Defendant in this case.

The whole thing was a shambles, i dont blame the austin enquiry team as this kind of investigation could only be initiated by the powers that be.

It was... excellent, good and dedicated cops did their damn best over this, but were always on a hiding to nothing over a 20 year old event without any physical evidence.

CR making any slight or up front noises about going after them? Comments like that show he is unsuitable for the job he wants back.

[candor]

Not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Case closed. Get over it.

BS "get over it". Society including you and your family has an interest in Justice being done in serious cases.

The system does not enable that to happen in these kinds of cases.
The system is wrong (which is why we have this outcry) - it is an adversarial publicly reported one which provides no window of opportunity for the truth to be admitted or come out.

Guilty parties are encouraged and supported to adopt an extreme stance of 'not guilty' to save face. In High Court trials and before them there is no opportunity for offenders to come clean and make amends and many disincentives. It's a psychopathy (or dishonesty) encouraging system.

Offender OR victim must be vilified (or at least portrayed as not credible by tapping in to typical bogeymen theories like 'she felt disrespected so changed her story') where credibility is at stake. And it all comes down to whether the defense lawyer or the prosecution one is able to weave the most entertaining and captivating story using odd disparate facts and inventing others or rather interpretations of what those known facts might mean.

With murder the next most serious thing at least you have a body.

No rape that occurred with a victim and an offender or offenders or offenders and their mates present only (and no video footage) cam ever be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ever.

Any convictions in cases where it is a victims word against offender or offenders or offenders and their buddies happen by sheer luck.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" in any such conviction is always going to be subjective - a matter of the juries opinion about whether some-one lied.

Unless they were present at the crime scene no jury member can sanely claim to know 100% whether a complainant or offender or anyone else at the crime scene used as a witness is lying.

Your 'case closed /get over it" attitude will change fast if Rickards gets your dauughter in an alley next week, if your taxes are used to fund a trial that can not succeed because it is 'her word against his' and if she suicides 5 years later due to being spat at and crucified by anyone that knows Rickards and the media for having had the cheek to go 'attention seeking' by laying a complainrt when everyone knows she was not a virgin in the first place.

I mean how could they possibly convict Rickards for his alleyway escapade - what middleaged self confesssed 'tom cat' wouldn't say yes to a bit of naughty with your pretty daughter after all.

T'would be a terrible world if jo average suddenly could not have hot alley sex because some crazy women might cry rapr - right!?

What we should be asking is can this system be fixed. I honestly don't believe so. Attempting a rape case where it is word against word the odds are always going to be stacked against the victim. Unless she is dead and the semen happens to be from a stranger. If from someone vaguely known (like the stalker postman) the charge will likely just be manslaughter not rape and murder.

The lesson that must come from this is that a more inquisitorial less adversial ie victim and rapist/his supporters get to speak directly not via lawyers, and less media reported trial system is needed for victims to have half a chance of the truth of such cases coming out.

I do not think Mrs Rickards could have lied so easily if questioned about her cousin coaching by the actual victim - personal responsibility is evaded when people have defense lawyers as shields.

Until such time as a better system is evolved (not one thats a couple of hundred years out of date including judicial fashion sense) I hope women have learnt from the latest stuffed up trials that they might as well play russian roulette as lay a rape charge.

I sincerely hope differenty to other women on this thread that women now boycott the system. Willingly partaking in something set up to be fairly hopeless (if justice i sought) just in order to expose dangerous people, with the certain prospect of retraumatisation is a FOOLS game.

The current situation is virtal anarchy. Most deviate men are well aware the courts will not hold them accountable unless they are insanely stupid.

Kind of like those English guys who videotaped the torture of that retarded girl. Had they not done that and had she gone to Police the current system would have crucified her as a liar or somene who enjoyed sado masochism and the boys would have illicited public sympathy and been seen as heros who just had innocent fun which has now been all twisted around by a retard. Such is the sexism in our society.

As in Arabia (is it) so in NZ. The word of one man in practise cancels out the word of 3 women. Sexism is not just a male problem - women are the worst often at holding fellow women as less credible than men.

Your words "case closed - get on with it" really sound like this whole case and issue cause you discomfort. I don't know if that's true or not.

Yes the case is finished, that is reality. But we sghould not just pretend all is well with it. As Vifferman said there are matters "of similar fact" re other related offenses that should create a high degreee of discomfort about the verdict.

Why is it more concerning to people when a guilty person is convicted and does a couple of years under our light Justice system than when someone likely guilty of a heinous crime slips thru the holes in a very flawed system?

The consequences of a rapist getting off are far worse than those of a non murderer in this country getting wrongly convicted.

In case one - recidivism of a serious crime is more likely to affect all of us.
In case 2 - one guy and his family lose a few years of freedom.

Both situations are terrible but I'd say situation 1 is worse. Both for the victim and for society in general.

I do know what I'm talking about Hitcher. My rapist got off on the bogus consent defense. It was upsetting to say the least. He raped again a couple years later ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT IN JAIL and ended in a high security unit as it was very violent - even more that time.

The chances of injustice being done to victims is high when the consent defense is used. Even strangers to the victim will successfully use it as juries seem to think a lot of womenc (particularly of breeding age) have male type sex drives and will screw anything with a penis.

Well defense lawyers are good at creating such a world view which if it enables reasonable doubt in one idiot out of 12's minds is a winner.

I hope that gives you some insight. The only way I'd ever bring another rape charge is if I was over 70 then I'd be confident my gender would not factor against people believing me.

What the system has taught me is that rape is not in practise unlawful. The law offers no disincentive and no protection and no resolution unless there are exceptional circumstances - like being a greypower granny.

I therefore decided that I would do everything in my power to do my civil duty and kill the next person to try and rape me (tho hopefully I'm a bit old at near 40 to be a prime target now). It wouldn't be easy as men are stronger than women but I would certainly try.

I believe that is reasonable force as the rapist might be trying to infect you with hepatitis C or HIV for all you know. I did not enjoy the 6 month wait to be tested for these things last time. Won't happen again.

[Hitcher]

If, if, if, if, if. I'm not going to speculate about hypothetical situations, nor should you. Get over it (the Rickard case that is).

[candor]

I don't get it. In most of your posts you show a reasonable concern with social justice. Why not speculate - it's only human and exactly what trial lawyers do re the nature of reality whichh they invent as they go along. I'm over the Rickards case anyway - it's finished as I said and it never had a chance either any more than any other typical rape case. Just can't really understand why women are led to believe such cases have a hope in hell however valid. Seems like a waste of taxpayers money. If the results are usually a waste of time why keep laying cases to get the same shit, different day.

[Goblin]

If, if, if, if, if. I'm not going to speculate about hypothetical situations, nor should you. Get over it (the Rickard case that is).Do you really think people should just "get over it"? rickards has behaved the same way since he was in high school and he will never change! He is a danger to society and should be locked up! Because of the debacle that is our justice system, he is still a free man...free to rape again! And you say get over it???? Shame on you hitcher!

[Goblin]

Just can't really understand why women are led to believe such cases have a hope in hell however valid. Seems like a waste of taxpayers money. If the results are usually a waste of time why keep laying cases to get the same shit, different day.
Easy. To line the pockets of the defence lawyers!

[RT527]

... and charged with whatever..

Thats Bullshit...they often don't get charged with anything.

[RT527]

Next thing someone's going to come forward with an allegation that he pulled himself off when he was a 15 year old boy.

Fark thats a good one.....sad thing is ...He prolly DID

[Macktheknife]

Just can't really understand why women are led to believe such cases have a hope in hell however valid. Seems like a waste of taxpayers money. If the results are usually a waste of time why keep laying cases to get the same shit, different day.

Maybe because there are quite a few cases where the offender is convicted?
Candor, I realise this case has stirred some stuff for you and I can only offer my sympathy and best understanding.
I may not agree with the verdict completely, nor with some of the views here expressed but the the case must be proven beyond doubt with evidence, it was not.

"The consequences of a rapist getting off are far worse than those of a non murderer in this country getting wrongly convicted. "
This comment is unbelievably arrogant and morally reprehensible. An innocent man goes to prison for 17-20 years and is branded a murderer for life, destroying not only his life but also his family's and friends and children, losing his property and liberty, forever. (hard to travel anywhere as a murderer)Almost certain to end a marriage if one already exists. Damn near impossible to get a job, partner, loan, credit card or car loan after a conviction like this, and the ultimate insult is that he is innocent of the crime.
But you say this is worse than a rapist 'getting off' a charge.
Not even the least bit reasonable or rational.

[terbang]

Your 'case closed /get over it"


That type of statement was levelled at those who choose to take a different opinion to him and, heaven forbid, post it on this forum that he seems to believe that he has some sort of paternal right or ownership over. In other words the allmighty Hitcher, though relatively speaking a johnny come lately to motorcycles, has spoken and all at varience to his view must now shut up. There were others that used statements like 'this thread is fucked' when he read something that he didn't agree with, though he put up a reasonable point of view. Another chose to intimidate by threatening to become an enemy. A very balanced debate indeed.
Candor, you know, like I know and they do too (though won't admit it) what these three shit heads have been and are like. The famous words of "an orchestrated lytany of lies" will certainly hold some water when referring to the defence case. This is because all three of them are trained and qualified investigators, have had years of being on the other side and are no strangers to the way a criminal case unfolds. I don't know all the details of the trial but after two or three SEPARATE accusations of rape being leveled at them, my suspicions are piqued. The slipperiest kind of criminal to catch has to be a crooked cop let alone three of them.
Candor, your frankness and honesty about your own case is appreciated as it shows a balance from a victims side to those 'detached generals' here, with EQ of cornered ferrets, that rape is a reality and that the law doesn't deal with it well and that often the victims end up with double jeopardy for speaking out.

[Clockwork]

I consider myself something of a civil libertarian, I support the system that says proir convictions are normally inadmissable in a trial, I have deep reservatins about the number of "sex" convitions that seem to be secured years after the alledged event took place, when often such cases seem to come down to nother more than "He said, She said". But something about this case left me questioning those values.

One the whole I still feel that prior convictions should not normally be brought before a jury but I can't help wondering if these cases would have had a different outcome if they had been tried together as was the original intent of the prosecution.

[Scouse]

What has been really sticking out like dogs balls to me is that usualy in all cases where police are involved Greg OConner from the Police association apperes on the tele with suportive statments for the cop on trial, but right from the get go with this and the previous trial the police association has said nothing until today on the breakfast program Greg OConner was on and was in a very carful way distancing the Police force from rickards

[Damon]

well, according to the radio this morning the Rape charges laid by Louise Nicholas were only one of seven time she has accused people of rape over the last few years, interesting how only the accused persons past matters.

and the latest person was told by the police she had to lay a complaint?! i'm not to sure if i belive this one, i'd like to think the police only charge people when they have evidence and facts

[Patrick]

The gun seems very poised of late, particularly at CR in this thread...

No doubt, there is a serious problem..., :shutup:

But how extreme is it in HIS case?

The latest one "thought" his name was Clint, and he had a tattoo of some sort somewhere. She could not pick him out in a 20 year old photo, of how he looked at the time of this event, or show where this event took place. I would have thought that something as shattering as this, one would have vivid memories.....

In short, that was the extent of her evidence against him. Guilty as sin? The jury didn't think so either...

Now................. The other two are convicted rapists, (good job).

If the jury was to know of the past history of those two, what chance then did CR ever have of being found guilty on "evidence" instead of "just because those two did it before?"

Should a man be found guilty only because the other two people he is charged with have done this sort of thing before?

May be 2 guilty men walked free, may be it was three... but what if an innocent man was sent to jail for a rape he did not do, only because of a prior conviction of the two others?

Its a hell of a balancing act.....

[Patrick]

well, according to the radio this morning the Rape charges laid by Louise Nicholas were only one of seven time she has accused people of rape over the last few years, interesting how only the accused persons past matters.

and the latest person was told by the police she had to lay a complaint?! i'm not to sure if i belive this one, i'd like to think the police only charge people when they have evidence and facts

Interesting about LN, that one? Any more info?

[Damon]

Interesting about LN, that one? Any more info?

Yeah i though that put a different light on things, as fer "that one", i ment the latest trial but i don't know the womens name, but "apparently" according to the radio, the police were quite determined to get it to trial and were quite pushy about it

[Goblin]

Should a man be found guilty only because the other two people he is charged with have done this sort of thing before?

Its a hell of a balancing act.....
No, he should be found guilty on evidence that he DID do it but all the most important evidence was suppressed.(covered up by police!)

well, according to the radio this morning the Rape charges laid by Louise Nicholas were only one of seven time she has accused people of rape over the last few years, interesting how only the accused persons past matters.
So she was repeatedly raped over several years by the same bunch of thugs and became an "easy target" as these fuckin bastards were supposed to be friends of the family. What's a 14 year old girl to do? She never had a chance! Meanwhile the filthy pigs get away with it saying it was consensual and covering up for one another. It's fuckin disgusting!!!
edit, and still no word on all the missing files when she did make the first complaint many years ago.

[Damon]

No, he should be found guilty on evidence that he DID do it but all the most important evidence was suppressed.(covered up by police!)
So she was repeatedly raped over several years by the same bunch of thugs and became an "easy target" as these fuckin bastards were supposed to be friends of the family. What's a 14 year old girl to do? She never had a chance! Meanwhile the filthy pigs get away with it saying it was consensual and covering up for one another. It's fuckin disgusting!!!
edit, and still no word on all the missing files when she did make the first complaint many years ago.

What the hell?! no, she has laid 7 different charges against 7 different people or groups of people! all the radio would say was most ended up being lies, there for she has a history of spinning shit,

I can't belive how ready some people are to belive everything someone else says just because their a "victom"

[Goblin]

What the hell?! no, she has laid 7 different charges against 7 different people or groups of people! all the radio would say was most ended up being lies, there for she has a history of spinning shit,

I can't belive how ready some people are to belive everything someone else says just because their a "victom"
Hell I cant believe how some people take radio journalists (all media for that matter!) word as gospel!

[Goblin]

And she's not a victim! She's a SURVIVOR!!!

[Damon]

well hows this from the paper:

"The family of jailed former cop Brad Shipton has accused Louise Nicholas of orchestrating a "revenge-at-all-costs" vendetta to punish the men, who testified against her in her first rape complaint against police.

Shipton, suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former Rotorua police officer Bob Schollum were defence witnesses in the 1994 trial of a policeman charged with raping Nicholas as a teenager in Murupara. After three trials - the first two were aborted - he was acquitted.

The trio attacked Nicholas' credibility by testifying she had had group sex with them in 1985 and 1986, allegations which later formed the basis of her high-profile rape complaint."

"Nicholas did not make a formal rape complaint against the trio in the early 1990s but says she did speak to a police officer who refused to take it further."

"Meanwhile, the Shipton family remains convinced Nicholas wanted payback and was prepared to go to any lengths to get it. Brad Shipton's brother Greg, a former police officer of 16 years, says she was humiliated after her original rape complaint was thrown out. When allegations resurfaced in 2004, she "made a meal out of it" to hurt the men whose testimony had damaged her 1994 case."

Seems to me she didn't get the result from the first one and moved on to her next victoms

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0002D1DD-60D9-15E9-8F1983027AF1010E

[Scouse]

well hows this from the paper:

"The family of jailed former cop Brad Shipton has accused Louise Nicholas of orchestrating a "revenge-at-all-costs" vendetta to punish the men, who testified against her in her first rape complaint against police.

Shipton, suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former Rotorua police officer Bob Schollum were defence witnesses in the 1994 trial of a policeman charged with raping Nicholas as a teenager in Murupara. After three trials - the first two were aborted - he was acquitted.

The trio attacked Nicholas' credibility by testifying she had had group sex with them in 1985 and 1986, allegations which later formed the basis of her high-profile rape complaint."

"Nicholas did not make a formal rape complaint against the trio in the early 1990s but says she did speak to a police officer who refused to take it further."

"Meanwhile, the Shipton family remains convinced Nicholas wanted payback and was prepared to go to any lengths to get it. Brad Shipton's brother Greg, a former police officer of 16 years, says she was humiliated after her original rape complaint was thrown out. When allegations resurfaced in 2004, she "made a meal out of it" to hurt the men whose testimony had damaged her 1994 case."

Seems to me she didn't get the result from the first one and moved on to her next victoms

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0002D1DD-60D9-15E9-8F1983027AF1010EI dont give a flying fuck rickards is still scum whatever way you try to paint it

[Goblin]

well hows this from the paperAnd you believe everything the harold publishes?

[MisterD]

And you believe everything the harold publishes?

Don't see how that article can be faulted, it's all attributed to named sources, not vague "sources close to..." or "friends of...".

The Harold has been a key cheerleader for the "Ignore the verdict, just look how scarey this bloke with tattoos and no hair is..." viewpoint through this whole episode.

[Damon]

And you believe everything the harold publishes?

no i prefer to make up my own mind rather than follow lynch mobs who want to kill based on a couple of shady accusations,

so two of these guys have been convicted of rape before, because Clint Ricards doesn't look your ldea of a nice flower picking community member and he used to hang out with the other two he's automaticaly guilty? or is this just another one of Louise Nicholas' lies, just like the 6 other ones shes made?

[scumdog]

And you believe everything the harold publishes?

And YOUR reliable source of information is????:wait:

[terbang]

Oh so now LN is a serial accuser of rapists, does it for a hobby eh. So was this supprerssed as well? Time will reveal reality there. I know that Rickard has faced at least two accusations of rape and the other two have faced at least three. LN was the 'accuser' on one of those cases where all three of them stood accused together and all three of them have been accused together on the most recent case too. So there are more serial rape accusers out there or Louise Nicholas did all of the accusing under different names? Is that also suppressed evidence.? Is serial rape accusing catching on..? Strange how it seems to be the same three guys though, that keep on getting accused eh..!

[scumdog]

KB mantra:
"You are accused? = you are guilty":yes:

[Scouse]

Like I said before the Police Association isnt exactly coming out in support of rickards if there is the sightest doubt of rickards guilt within the Police Association they would be speaking up for him by now shurely

[candor]

Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo Damon Allow me to comment on this repulsive twisting article

The family of jailed former cop Brad Shipton has accused Louise Nicholas of orchestrating a "revenge-at-all-costs" vendetta to punish the men, who testified against her in her first rape complaint against police.

WELL THEY WOULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING UNORIGINAL LIKE THAT AS A DYSFUNCTIONAL ENMESHED ABUSIVE FAMILY WOULDN'T THEY

Shipton, suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former Rotorua police officer Bob Schollum were defence witnesses in the 1994 trial of a policeman charged with raping Nicholas as a teenager in Murupara. After three trials - the first two were aborted - he was acquitted.

The trio attacked Nicholas' credibility by testifying she had had group sex with them in 1985 and 1986, allegations which later formed the basis of her high-profile rape complaint.

THIS DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THEY WERE NOT ALSO OFFENDERS AGAINST NICHOLAS BUT THAT JUST WEREN'T CHARGED AT THAT TIME. NATURALLY AS BOTH GUILTY OFFENDERS WITH SKELLYS IN THEIR CLOSETS AND AS DEFENSE WTNESSES FOR A MATE THEY'D HAVE AN OVER RIDING PERSONAL INTEREST IN BESMIRCHING NICHOLAS (FOR 2 REASONS)AT THE FORMER TRIAL

The three were last week found not guilty of kidnapping and sexually violating another Rotorua teenager in the 1980s, almost a year after they were also acquitted of the Nicholas charges.

YES, WHEN SUPPRESSED SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE RE BATONS MAKES IT OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN THAT AT LEAST 2 OF THE ACCUSED TO GET OFF WERE GUILTY

Rickards, who has been stood down for three years, says his life and career is in tatters following the cases. "Yes, my career has been destroyed. Yes, my life has been destroyed... It's the impact on my family that's been the major issue for me."

YES IT IS THE MAJOR ISSUE BECAUSE HIS FAMILY ARE NOW GIVING HIM GRIEF AS HE HAS BEEN REVEALED AS NOT SPOTLESS (WHETHER THEY BELIEVE HE RAPED OR WAS JUST A 'TOMCAT')WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE SELF ABSORBED PREFER. WIFEY IS NOW QUESTIONING HER LIFE WITH A STRANGER AND HER SENSE OF SELF IS THREATENED DUE TO THIS SO HE IS COPPING FURY AND NOT IN CONTROL FOR ONCE.

GUILTY OR NOT HIS CAREER SHOULD BE DESTROYED FOR PUBLICLY SUPPORTING RAPISTS. IF HE WAS ANYONE BUT A POLICE OFFICER, DR OR LAWYER OR OTHER SUCH LEADER WHOSE ACTIVITIES AND ETHICS THE PUBLIC NEED CONFIDENCE IN HE WOULD BE FINE TO SUPPORT CONVICTED RAPISTS. BUT NOT AS A TOP COP

- THAT SHOWS SUPREME ARROGANCE TO EVEN IMAGINE THAT THE WOMEN OF NZ COULD LIVE WITH A COMMISSIONER THAT PUBLICLY EXPRESSES LOYALTY TO RAPISTS AND IN SO DOING TRIES TO BRING THEIR GUILT IN TO QUESTION.

THIS SUPPORT AND HIS MISJUDGMENT SHOWN BY EXPRESSING IT IS THE MAIN FACTOR MAKING ME THINK RC IS GUILTY OF THE LATEST OFFENSE. HIS ASSOCIATION WITH SCHOLLUM ETC IS JUST CIRCUMSTANTIAL BUT THIS PUBLIC STATEMENT HAS HELPED PUT THE LAST JIGSAW PIECE IN PLACE.

I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY THAT IF RC IS BY SOME SMALL CHANCE NOT GUILTY HE IS (PER HIS BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS) IN THE SMALL SUBCLASS OF THE POPULATION THAT IS LIKELY TO BE RAPISTS. Yet another clue of his membership in the disordered club is that human predatory packs do defend the only humans to really 'know' them.

AS A TRAINED PSYCHIATRIC NURSE THAT HAS WORKED IN FORENSICS WITH SERIOUS OFFENDERS THIS STATEMENT BY RICKARDS AND THE MISJUDGEMENT OF SAYING IT PUBLICLY IS WHAT HAS MOVED ME FROM BELIEVING HE IS ON BALANCE POSSIBLY GUILTY TO BELIEVING HE IS SURELY GUILTY.

ONLY A PERSON WITH STRONG NARCISSIST TRAITS WOULD MAKE THIS KIND OF STATEMENT AND STILL THINK THEY MIGHT BE OF THE RIGHT CHARACTER TO KEEP A POWERFUL JOB AFTER MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT.

MOST RAPISTS AND VIOLENT OFFENDERS HAVE NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITIES. MUCH OBSERVED BEHAVIOUR OF RICKARDS IS NARCISSISTIC. (Per post of a kb cop RC was a general bully, unethical re promotions and only interested in people who could help him in his career - all suggestive of a narcissist type character)
ONLY 1-3% OF THE POPULATION ARE STRONGLY NARCISSISTIC.

I AM NOT A DR, BUT I HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE WITH THIS AND WOULD WAGER THAT IF RICKARDS UNDERWENT A CLOSE PERIOD OF OBSERVATION IN A FORENSIC PSYCH WARD FOR SEVERAL WEEKS HE WOULD BE DIAGNOSED AS NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. IT IS LIKE A HIGH FUNCTIONING SOCIOPATH (ANTI SOCIALLY DISORDERED TYPE).

WHICH IS TO SAY IT (SORRY 'HE') IS A CONSCIENCELESS THUG THAT IS GOOD AT FAKING NORMALITY DUE TO A REASONABLE IQ.

Meanwhile, the Shipton family remains convinced Nicholas wanted payback and was prepared to go to any lengths to get it. Brad Shipton's brother Greg, a former police officer of 16 years, says she was humiliated after her original rape complaint was thrown out. When allegations resurfaced in 2004, she "made a meal out of it" to hurt the men whose testimony had damaged her 1994 case.

SPECULATION WITH A MOTIVE TO PRESERVE FAMILY IMAGE ABOVE, ALL PERFECTLY WELL DISCREDITED BELOW AND BY THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER VICTIMS WITH SIMILAR EXPERIENCES - DOH! FORGOT TO THROW DIRT AT THE OTHER VICTIM VIA THE HERALD DID WE MR SCHOLLUM BROTHER (ALSO ?COP) - HOW INEFFICIENT OF YOU

Nicholas rejected the allegation, saying that while she was angry that Rickards, Schollum and Shipton had appeared for the defence, it had not been the motivation for her later rape complaint. Nicholas did not make a formal rape complaint against the trio in the early 1990s but says she did speak to a police officer who refused to take it further.

nOTE THAT MATERIAL UNDERLINED ABOVE IS TAKEN SO SERIOUSLY THAT ANOTHER COP IS TO SOON BE TRIED FOR INVOLVEMENT IN A COVER UP

Tauranga woman Donna Johnson has also claimed that 10 years ago Shipton forced her to perform oral sex on him. She claimed police never acted on her complaint.

Greg Shipton told the Herald on Sunday that the family was aware of that complaint but it was not credible. "There's nothing in this. It's just more of the same."

MORE OF THE SAME WHAT ASSHOLE SHIPTON - YOUR BROTHER IS A CONVICTED RAPIST DUE TO A CREDIBLE COMPLAINT , SO ITS MORE OF HE SAME WHAT EXACTLY

The family also wanted to dispel perceptions of Shipton as a serial adulterer. In the 1980s there was a different sense of morals and values, and group sex was far more accepted than it was today, he said.

YES THEY SHOULD DISPEL THE SERIAL ADULTERER PERCEPTION. SERIAL RAPIST IS MORE ACCURATE - IDIOTS

WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO ADMIT. I HAVE A RELLY THAT IS A RAPIST AND THO I LOVE MY RELLY WHO WAS ONCE IN A GANG LIKE THE POLICE I KNOW HE DID IT JUST AS HE DOES. LEARN SOME UNCONDITIONAL LOVE YOU SCHOLLUM ASSHOLES AND STOP THE COMPULSIVE LIES - YOU ARE ONLY BEING LOYAL TO AND CONTINUING A DISEASE IN YOUR FAMILY.

Asked why Shipton's wife Sharon had chosen to stand by him despite the numerous affairs, he said he was unsure but offered one theory.

"It's a lot easier to forgive things that happened 23 years ago. It's a lot easier than coming home and finding your bloke in the sack with someone else.

"He has put everything to her... They are at peace with each other.

BULLSHIT THEY ARE - SHE WILL BE DEEPLY DISTURBED BUT DEFENSE MECHANISMS WILL PUT IT OU OF HER MIND SOON AS POSS

"The real victim is his 12-year-old daughter. She is the one growing up without a father... She heard all this stuff about what an animal her father is, but she knows better. Brad is finding it tough in prison, but he'll get through it."

NO THEREAL VICTIM IS THE RAPE VICTIM. GET A F'N GRIP YOU INDECENT MORON - ACCEPT THE VERDICT, ITS NOT LIKE RAPE CONVICTIONS ARE EASY WON. MEDIA IS IRRESPONSIBLE EVEN REPORTING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. HEY WHY NOT GO TALK TO THE FAMILY OF EVERY OTHER RAPIST INSIDE - A GOOD DEAL WILL CLAIM THE RAPIST IS INNOCENT AS RAPISTS GENERALLY PRACTISE THE 'DENY DENY DENY TILL YOU DIE' POLICY

Greg Shipton claimed the biggest mistake his brother made was not taking the Mt Maunganui rape complaint "seriously enough". The allegations, he claimed, were so far-fetched, he never thought they would be proven. "But he got nailed, and it was so wrong. Those men didn't get a fair trial. The jury - I'm convinced they knew of the connection to the Nicholas case. You know, Brad was a good cop. Sure, he was bolshy and cocky, and he's not denying he was unfaithful to his wife. But he's no monster."

MOST RAPISTS ARE NOT MONSTERS YOU IGNORANT PRAT (only on occasion when the veneer of civilisation is dropped). THEY ARE INADEQUATE POWER MAD IMMATURE MEN WITH POOR BOUNDARIES, WHO LIKE EXCITEMENT AND TO FEEL THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BREAK THE LAW AND ENJOY THE ADRENALIN OF GETTING AWAY WITH IT AND SHOULD THEY GET CAUGHT ALSO ENJOY THE CHALLENGE OF CONNING PEOPLE THEY ARE ABOVE REPROACH. IT MAKES THEM FEEL REAL CLEVER AND OMNIPOTENT WHEN THEY SUCEED AND MANAGE TO MANIPULATE FAMILY AND THE MEDIA TO BECOME THEIR CHAMPIONS.

[marty]

i find it quite amazing that 3 guys have spent the better part of 20 years in and out of court, on one side or the other, in relation to serious sexual assault matters! there are 7500-odd other cops with service from zilch to 40 years, that have NEVER been a defendant in court, nor have they been called to give evidence for the defence.

[terbang]

KB mantra:
"You are accused? = you are guilty":yes:

No No not by my view at all, but the same two guys (shipton and Schollum) being accused at least three times by at least three separate people does get one wondering a bit doesn't it?

[scumdog]

i find it quite amazing that 3 guys have spent the better part of 20 years in and out of court, on one side or the other, in relation to serious sexual assault matters! there are 7500-odd other cops with service from zilch to 40 years, that have NEVER been a defendant in court, nor have they been called to give evidence for the defence.

But you can't get a vicarious thrill out of slagging-off the 7,500 cops you've mentioned Marty.........

2nd KB mantra:

7,500 guys = 3 guys in behaviour and attitude.

[The_Dover]

One day an 85-year-old man is taking a stroll around his hometown, which he has lived in for his whole life. As he sees the landmarks, homes, and streets from his youth, he starts reminiscing....

"I remember helping build that bridge when I was 25. I worked hard on that. But people won't call you 'the bridge builder' if you do that here. No, no, they don't!"

"I remember building that house over there when I was 30. But people won't call you 'the house builder' if you do that. No, no they don't!"

"I remember building that tavern that I still lounge at when I was 35. If you do that people won't call you 'the tavern builder' either. They sure won't!"

"But if you fuck one goat......."

[candor]

And YOUR reliable source of information is????:wait:

Don't know if this covers Goblin. She seems to know people involved so have an inside track.

But Scumdog I might just add that victims have good pervertdar, in the same way cops have good crookdar and teen boys have good chickdar (watch their heads swivel downtown at midnight)- Okay. These qualifications and skills are often highly accurate.

[marty]

Candor, I can see your point, but i fail to see how now SHOUTING about it is helping your cause. as a trained nurse you should know all about operating in spheres of concern and influence. by all means, be concerned, have concerns about whether justice was done, be concerned for the victim, be concerned for future victims. don't though (and i know i'm telling you what you already know) spend SO much time in your sphere of concern that you become obsessed by it. move more into your sphere of influence. influence yourself to move past your 1980's experience. if that's not possible, influence others to make a difference. don't just shout and complain about what may have been - people soon get tired of that behaviour - influence others who may have been affected by these (or other) mysoginists to make complaints. calling all cops pigs because of the actions of a few is hardly influencing people to go to the cops to make a complaint is it? there are plenty of good cops ot there who take complaints of this nature very seriously - obviously they took these (nicholls et.al) complaints seriousy, or the charges would never have seen the light of day. once it's in the court arena, crown prosecutors (not the police) and the court system have the ball, and it is effectively out of the cop's hands.

question: how do you suggest people are tried for thier crimes, if the westminster system is 'not' working?

[Paul in NZ]

Unless you were there on the night - no one will really know what happened BUT. If we accept that at that time several serving and sworn Police Officers had group sex with a very young woman and supplied her with drink, at the very least, their behaviour was immoral and badly advised.

Stop retrying the case - its done - it serves no purpose. These people are all guilty of some seriously stuffed up goings on and shocking moral judgement and frankly, they should ALL be deeply ashamed of themselves as should the people that ignored it, covered up for them etc.

No good came from this episode - and none will

[Goblin]

no i prefer to make up my own mind rather than follow lynch mobs who want to kill based on a couple of shady accusations,

or is this just another one of Louise Nicholas' lies, just like the 6 other ones shes made?Well you go make up your narrow little mind then! There is no way LN has made up any of these allegations, why would she? You really believe she's just making this all up to get attention? Revenge? Seems Terbang is right....serial accusers of rape are becoming widespread....and all WILL be revealed with time!


And YOUR reliable source of information is????:wait:Hey I have lived here all my life and I know more than I'd like to....especially how Rotorua cops operate! There has always been a "boys club" mentality here. I'm not cop bashing as I know there are good cops out there but we seem to have bred the worst of them here.


Don't see how that article can be faulted, it's all attributed to named sources, not vague "sources close to..." or "friends of...".

The Harold has been a key cheerleader for the "Ignore the verdict, just look how scarey this bloke with tattoos and no hair is..." viewpoint through this whole episode.rickards is everything candor has said! He's as NARCISSISTIC as a person can be! He's always been that way and will never change!! Just look at his attitude to keeping his job!

[The_Dover]

had group sex with a very young woman and supplied her with drink, at the very least, their behaviour was immoral and badly advised.

i dunno Paul, it kinda sounds like fun if it was all consensual.

[MisterD]

rickards is everything candor has said! He's as NARCISSISTIC as a person can be! He's always been that way and will never change!! Just look at his attitude to keeping his job!

I think you're seeing what you want to see there Goblin. I'm not going to be a cheerleader for CR, but I think the way the media (the Harold chief amongst them) has exhibited a complete lack of balance is reprehensible.
Pick a good thugish photo of CR, photo of LN looking wistfully off-camera in subduded lighting...etc etc.

I reckon you'll find those kind of character traits in anyone agressive and driven enough to be shooting for those top jobs - Police Commissioner or Prime Minister -just look at the way Clarke reacts when backed onto the ropes (for example over the "Investigate" allegations about her husband), or the way Commodore Bananarama reacts to NZ telling him what to do.

I repeat, I'm not cheerleading for CR, just looking to see some objectivity. The only people to have had all the fact properly presented are two juries, both of whom found CR Not Guilty.

[candor]

Wasn't shouting sorry - just trying to differentiate the article from my comments. Where hjave I said all cops are pigs!!! I recall saying only 3 little piggys which is a mild term I think for those idiots.

I'm not obsessed with it. I would not spend a minute on it as I'm far too busy but when I see an opportunity to 'raise consciousness' of issues around rape trials I do feel I better jump in.

I think if I were obsessed I might just have started a thread right. No - just responding to what others are throwing out here mostly.

I don't know the answers. All I do know is that for rape cases the current system is utterly unsuitable and does more harm than good. My least fave pollie has even admitted that evidence laws need looking at.

More harm than good - Why ? - because victims are left with huge grievances when justice can't be done and rapists are actually given encouragement - their limelight / notoriety or sympathy they get etc is thoroughly ego boosting in many cases (if they are sociopaths) - many benefits flow the way of true rapists that get off which issomething the general public does not understand.

You have to understand their mentality - for narcisssists all publicity is good publicity and they can use it to advantage. Take the death row guys who have no trouble getting hot dates / married etc. Many never had it so good as fame is relished.

A lot of money musyt be wasted on rape trials that often produce dud results as for most its just spin the bottle type verdicts.

An inquisitorial type system is used elsewhere and I think some less formal kind of trial where victims and evidence are not suppressed and where offenders can be confronted more. A system in which offeders are not given a mill bucks of defense lawyer aid to cook up a sophisticated cunning fantasy might help us get more honest results more often.

Maybe they'd be more likely to confess if jail was ruled out and they just got anklets and home detention or whatever it takes to stop re-offending. Preveting recidivism should really be goal and I guess the public "shaming" and jail are big disincentives to confesion.

Maybe if society got less hysterical ad judgmental on rape an honesty encouraging safety focused system could be put in place.

I mean a lot of child molesterors never get tried or jailed (to save kids grief of trial) but they are still dealt with in ways to keep society safe eg courses - not to see the victims unsupervised etc.

[Patrick]

Candor... if it is any help, things have changed over the last 20 plus years and these complaints in the late 80s and into the 90s in particular were poorly handled, at that time. The effort since then in reinvestigating them has been massive.

I have NEVER seen a victim not believed instantly, EVER...

Some, more than I would like to see, have turned out to be bullshit, but at the time, they were treated as very real and full investigations were commenced no matter what. Why these ones in Rotorua and the environs nearby weren't, is still to be seen.

Here, we had three rape complaints (and a kiddie fiddling) in the weekend just gone and all three are being investigated... some of those have already been found to be false.... it happens, but to believe victims are never believed is just wrong.

Heaven forbid, if it does happen, there is nothing to be afraid of from the Police these days at least... advise Police as soon as possible so vital evidence is not lost... that evidence corroborates what is being said by the victims, making it no longer one word against the other.

The "consent" call is always going to be a difficult hurdle, but the sooner the complaint is made, the more likely a result for the victim is going to be achieved.

[Goblin]

- obviously they took these (nicholls et.al) complaints seriousy, or the charges would never have seen the light of day. once it's in the court arena, crown prosecutors (not the police) and the court system have the ball, and it is effectively out of the cop's hands.
They only took these complaints seriously AFTER the media got involved. All other attempts were laughed at! After all it is Law defending Law....she never had a shit show and now I see dickheads accusing her of lying! AARRRGGGHHH!!!!

[Goblin]

I think you're seeing what you want to see there Goblin. I'm not going to be a cheerleader for CR, but I think the way the media (the Harold chief amongst them) has exhibited a complete lack of balance is reprehensible.
Pick a good thugish photo of CR, photo of LN looking wistfully off-camera in subduded lighting...etc etc.

I repeat, I'm not cheerleading for CR, just looking to see some objectivity. The only people to have had all the fact properly presented are two juries, both of whom found CR Not Guilty. You are cheerleading for rickards in everyway possible. Those juries did NOT get ALL the facts, what they got was a washed down version that would make the accused look good and the accuser the criminal. Im seeing what I KNOW!!!

[Goblin]

.

I have NEVER seen a victim not believed instantly, EVER...


The "consent" call is always going to be a difficult hurdle, but the sooner the complaint is made, the more likely a result for the victim is going to be achieved.
You've obviously never worked in Rotorua then.

How can a 14 year old give CONSENT??

[scumdog]

You are cheerleading for rickards in everyway possible. Those juries did NOT get ALL the facts, what they got was a washed down version that would make the accused look good and the accuser the criminal. Im seeing what I KNOW!!!

Just like they don't get "all the facts" in all other cases.

[Goblin]

Just like they don't get "all the facts" in all other cases.Exactly scummy! It all boils down to the highest paid lawyer!

[scumdog]

Don't know if this covers Goblin. She seems to know people involved so have an inside track.

But Scumdog I might just add that victims have good pervertdar, in the same way cops have good crookdar and teen boys have good chickdar (watch their heads swivel downtown at midnight)- Okay. These qualifications and skills are often highly accurate.

But still doesn't explain how some on this thread 'know' stuff - like actually, really KNOW it.

[candor]

Maybe they were there or had similar events. Any one else ready to step up pls phone the 0800RICKARDRAPE line and an independent body made up of Police Rickards pissed off will fully investigate your complaint.

The website set up for discussion of these issues and all other matters of Police, judicial or other hidden corruption is to be found at www.schollumboys.org

Lawyers who belong to paedophile rings or invest in class A drug distribution and Drs who trade sex for drugs may be referred to by initial only, due to repressive defamation laws. Thankyou.

[Damon]

Well you go make up your narrow little mind then! There is no way LN has made up any of these allegations, why would she? You really believe she's just making this all up to get attention? Revenge? Seems Terbang is right....serial accusers of rape are becoming widespread....and all WILL be revealed with time!

Thats quite funny, i haven't made up my "narrow little mind" at all, i think they fully "could" have done it, however a jury found them not guilty, and i've simply been trying to provide a different point of view to the witch hunt who refuse to beleave anything else other than what they have been spoon fed (see "narrow little minds")

I fail to see how being open to the chance that these guys may not have actually commited the crime they were "accused" of as being narrow minded, i belive they have done it in the past and could have done it in this case, but i also belive that LN's history of laying 7 different rape charges against different people a little suspicious,

But if you choose to discount one persons history as evidence and concentrate on anothers as damning evidence then thats your "view"

[Damon]

Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo Damon Allow me to comment on this repulsive twisting article



Wow, all i have to do is present a differnt point of view and provide a news article from the national paper, that i didn't even write and i'm the "most low gutter press heap of shit yet"

Name calling really shows how rationaly your thinking about this, so i'm going to leave you alone, good luck in life, you'll need it

[spudchucka]

Like I said before the Police Association isnt exactly coming out in support of rickards if there is the sightest doubt of rickards guilt within the Police Association they would be speaking up for him by now shurely

Not really, what he was accused of has nothing to do with a situation where he was in lawful execution of his duties, its a matter of his extra-curricular activities coming back to bite him.

Also, the association has not been funding his defence in any way and it is probably just too much of a political hot potato for them to be overly vocal about it.

[ManDownUnder]

due to repressive defamation laws.

and to negate the possibility of someone feeling hard done by (for what ever other reason) launching a "me too" attack on them without actually being responsible for the results of their words.

If they have nothing to lose, why wold they not do it? Just as some in here are quite heated about what is actually hearsay. No doubt the info at hand is from a trusted source, but it is still heresay and we all know how Chinese whispers work.

My primary concern is that justice is done. Look at my signature block for God's sake. Justice cannot be done if we hang draw and quarter everyone we suspect of a crime. they must be tried and found guilty before anything punative can be invoked.

If that doesn't happen, the person charged cops it for a whole bunch of stuff they weren't found guilty of, and possibly didn't do. There's also the not so insignificant possibility the wrong person was bailed up, and the real crim is still out there.

Not so good really...

The justice system is not perfect. But it's the best we have and rather than winge about the details we can only specualte on in the CR case... why not find the faults in the system and attack those who are in a position to do something about them

[idleidolidyll]

Here's a perspective from a jurors POV:

Not long ago I served on a jury where a middle aged man was accused of molesting a girl aged 11 or 12 (not rape but 'touching').

The evidence came down to his word against hers. Even though there were 2 other adults and several other children present in the house when the offence(s) were alledgedly committed, no eye witnesses were offered.

The prosecution wanted the jury to prosecute based on emotion (the teary statements of the girl) and the defence wanted to defend based on evidence (or lack thereof).

In the end, the judge, when instructing the jury, told us that in NZ, people must be PROVEN guilty and do NOT need to prove their innocence. He also instructed us that we must be sure that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Given that the evidence was all her word against his, reasonable doubt DID exist and since no prior conviction was given as a perspective on the defendants personality, we had no option but to throw out the case because of lack of evidence. Every juror agreed that we did NOT know that the man was guilty or innocent but we DID know that there was not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

(posted on a similar thread)

[Goblin]

Thats quite funny, i haven't made up my "narrow little mind" at all, i think they fully "could" have done it, however a jury found them not guilty, and i've simply been trying to provide a different point of view to the witch hunt who refuse to beleave anything else other than what they have been spoon fed (see "narrow little minds")

I fail to see how being open to the chance that these guys may not have actually commited the crime they were "accused" of as being narrow minded, i belive they have done it in the past and could have done it in this case, but i also belive that LN's history of laying 7 different rape charges against different people a little suspicious,

But if you choose to discount one persons history as evidence and concentrate on anothers as damning evidence then thats your "view"
Yeah sorry 'bout that...got a little hot under the collar.
The jury only found them not guilty because so much of the evidence was suppressed. Since LN is not the only one to bring charges about, how does that make her suspicious? She was raped, used and abused by certian police from her early teens and has been fighting this for more years than the average joe public know. She and the other women coming foward are NOT lying. A group of former Rotorua cops used, abused their position of authority to comit some heinous crimes against young women. FACT! It's common knowlege that our justice system is pretty fucked up and these cops have used this system to their advantage. Believe me, there will be more women who will come foward with similar allegations as they didn't stop at three! Some victims of these mongrels are now mature enough to be able to come foward and tell their stories. I can only hope any future cases get the right result.

Candor was not calling you "the low gutter press heap of shit" I think she was refering to the harold article....which is!

[Damon]

Yeah sorry 'bout that...got a little hot under the collar.
The jury only found them not guilty because so much of the evidence was suppressed. Since LN is not the only one to bring charges about, how does that make her suspicious? She was raped, used and abused by certian police from her early teens and has been fighting this for more years than the average joe public know. She and the other women coming foward are NOT lying. A group of former Rotorua cops used, abused their position of authority to comit some heinous crimes against young women. FACT! It's common knowlege that our justice system is pretty fucked up and these cops have used this system to their advantage. Believe me, there will be more women who will come foward with similar allegations as they didn't stop at three! Some victims of these mongrels are now mature enough to be able to come foward and tell their stories. I can only hope any future cases get the right result.

Candor was not calling you "the low gutter press heap of shit" I think she was refering to the harold article....which is!

The thing if find suspicious is the first time these 4 people (LN and the Boys) came into the spotlight is when they testified against her when she accused another policeman in 1994, there has been no mention at that time that "hey these guys raped me too, this is a cover up" or they wern't all on trial, LN was in the emotional state to be able to take one cop to court why not all? and then there's the wait after that trial, she spoke to one policeman who looked into her new claims and dismissed them, and it wasn't untill 2001-2002? that it came up again and was acted on, i cant claim to know what she was thinking at the time but if i was raped by cops and then waited 8 or 9 years to complain and get it to court i would be taking them all to court not waiting a further 12 years to try again, but i'm not her, it just doesn't make sense to me.

There's also all the other accusations she has made, either she's had the most fucked up life ever and been attacked by atleast 7 different people/groups, or there are some non-truths in there somewhere which puts a shadow over them all.

as for Candor. "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo Damon", seems pretty direct, i don't want to take it any further before i'm in court for being the great evil behind mass media.

[Goblin]

The thing if find suspicious is the first time these 4 people (LN and the Boys) came into the spotlight is when they testified against her when she accused another policeman in 1994, there has been no mention at that time that "hey these guys raped me too, this is a cover up" or they wern't all on trial, LN was in the emotional state to be able to take one cop to court why not all? and then there's the wait after that trial, she spoke to one policeman who looked into her new claims and dismissed them, and it wasn't untill 2001-2002? that it came up again and was acted on, i cant claim to know what she was thinking at the time but if i was raped by cops and then waited 8 or 9 years to complain and get it to court i would be taking them all to court not waiting a further 12 years to try again, but i'm not her, it just doesn't make sense to me.When you've been raped by police, you have to go by the fucked up system. It's not her fault it's taken all these years to come about. That's the way the justice system works. May seem suspicious to you but that's how it goes eh.

[Ixion]

,,

as for Candor. "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo Damon", seems pretty direct.

Perhaps the problem lies in a missing comma ? "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo , Damon" has a quite different implication .

[Damon]

When you've been raped by police, you have to go by the fucked up system. It's not her fault it's taken all these years to come about. That's the way the justice system works. May seem suspicious to you but that's how it goes eh.

i accept there are delays which can explain for a maybe 2 or 3 years ,but only one "dismissed" complaint through out the 90's is not an error by the justice system

[Damon]

Perhaps the problem lies in a missing comma ? "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo , Damon" has a quite different implication .

it does, but like i said i'm quite happy to put it aside, it's not like i'm emotionaly scared by it and looking for comfort,

[MisterD]

You are cheerleading for rickards in everyway possible. Those juries did NOT get ALL the facts, what they got was a washed down version that would make the accused look good and the accuser the criminal. Im seeing what I KNOW!!!

What you know? You don't know anything for sure unless, of course you were there.

The stuff the jury didn't get to know (officially) is the past history of the defendents and the accusers, none of which is strictly relevant to the case. Both legal teams obviously took the decision that raising the history of the "opposition" was too big a risk as it would allow their own client's past to be brought out.

Good to see Uncle Helen putting the boot into someone when they're down - again.

[SPman]

I like this POV - makes sense to me
"You can’t throw him out of the Police Force because he had group sex, that is a ridiculous reason to sack someone, it would be akin to throwing someone out because they had gay sex, or B&D sex or sex that the Auckland Mayor doesn’t like – we can’t have a situation where Dick Hubbard is deciding the sexual norms of the city – the fact Clint had group sex doesn’t bring the Police into disrepute - we are focusing on the WRONG THING, and in our hurry to hang, let’s make sure we hang for the right reason.
And that reason is consent, what consensual adults get up to is their business, certainly not ours – the real issue here is about consent, and I mean consent in it’s truest form. Did Louise Nicholas, a slight younger woman consent to sex with three powerful Police Officers? Even if the Court found Rickards, Schollum and Shipton innocent of raping Louise, the issue of true consent still hasn’t been answered. The power dynamics at play between a young woman who had a history of being sexually victimized and three men who came to her house with all the power that their uniforms convey in 1980s Rotorua doesn’t suggest in any way consent in its truest sense,..." - Martin Bradbury

[candor]

as for Candor. "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo Damon", seems pretty direct, i don't want to take it any further before i'm in court for being the great evil behind mass media.


This meant if you want me to break it down or rephrase what I was saying.

"lets look at the most significant pieces of twisted misinformation from a dishonourable low brow newspaper rubbish article yet (ie yet written about this case)b at least in my opinion, Damon.

It was addressed to you as you produced the article here which in my opinion was carefully and irresponsibly stitched together to present a sensational and damaging viewof the complainant. It was not a balanced article and was a very trashy one that had no consideration for the victims feelings in any of these rape cases (proved or not) involving these men. No reputable paper such as the Dom post or the Press would have published such a scandal mongering infotainment piece.

May be it was not the best grammar as I was writing fast and it should have read "Hey Damon ... blah blah blah. It was the article I was rubbishing not you so there was no need to take offense.

[candor]

Forget sacking him because he had consensual sex (thats just a PC defense lawyer lie). He didn't d that at all according to the victim - it was non consensual. So sack him for misconduct of rape. He was acquitted which does not mean innocent. He can still be sacked for rape surely if the Employer has evidence before it that was unavailable to the court - like the suppressed evidence etc. A criminal burden of proof is surely not required to sack someone. What does employment law say.

I'm sure thieves get sacked without the cases ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

[candor]

I don't know the answers. All I do know is that for rape cases the current system is utterly unsuitable and does more harm than good. My least fave pollie has even admitted that evidence laws need looking at.

A lot of money musyt be wasted on rape trials that often produce dud results as for most its just spin the bottle type verdicts.

An inquisitorial type system is used elsewhere and I think some less formal kind of trial where victims and evidence are not suppressed and where offenders can be confronted more. A system in which offeders are not given a mill bucks of defense lawyer aid to cook up a sophisticated cunning fantasy might help us get more honest results more often.

Maybe they'd be more likely to confess if jail was ruled out and they just got anklets and home detention or whatever it takes to stop re-offending. Preventing recidivism should really be goal and I guess the public "shaming" and jail are big disincentives to confesion.

Maybe if society got less hysterical ad judgmental on rape an honesty encouraging safety focused system could be put in place.

I mean a lot of child molesterors never get tried or jailed (to save kids grief of trial) but they are still dealt with in ways to keep society safe eg courses - not to see the victims unsupervised etc.

Yes I'm afraid I quoted me. Anyway a stuff article today said others have the same idea as what I reckon. A March in Auckland Thursday and a rally in Wellington same night are in support of booting Clint and bringing in a new restorative flavour system of less adversarial and more "inquisitorial" bent.

I stick to my guns that rapes should not be tried in the Westminster system. It is not a matter of we have to make do cos its the best we've got. It is too useless to take that attitude.

Someone said I should not think things are still like the 80's and I should not discourage future victims from laying complaints. The Justice system is like the 80s in all its essential inadequacies for dealing with these cases. And I would not in good conscience advise any women to bring a rape case to Court in the present system.

Someone who'd been there done that re a "date rape' warned me before I took the stand but I naively believed the system was Ok. Of all the people who put their 5 cents in I most appreciate her for telling me the truth - even if I didn't listen. Victim people must not keep on participating in this charade of a justice system - it only further legitimises it.

Strike - rape victims strike I say. Report it so you enter Police stats and at the same time say you will refuse to testify. 100% uncleared cases will result in a review if nothing else does.

If as many murderers or thieves got off on consent defenses there would be a public outcry. Why should (generally) women just be good sports and pu up with a BS system that does not work often enough to justify its own existence.

[Ixion]

I think you might wish to research just how an inquisitorial justice system (as used, for instance, in France) actually works. It is not what you appear to think.

The rules of evidence are as strict under such a system as they are under ours (I'm not sure why you call it a "Westminster" system, a phrase usullay reserved for a system of government). It is very improbable that the "suppressed" evidence would have been admissable there either.

Nor is hearsay generally any more admissable than in our system

Bear in mind also, that the accuser is subject to the "inquisition" also, not just the defendant.

Since in the cases presently bruited, I imagine that the defendant would be more skilled at deflecting questioning than the accuser, it is likely that an inquisitorial type trial would actually be in the defendants favour.



...
If as many murderers or thieves got off on consent defenses there would be a public outcry.
..


Well, that may be because women very often do consent to having sex. Quite happy to do so in fact. Whereas very few people consent to being robbed or murdered. So a consent defence for the latter charges would be rather unlikely.

[avgas]

While i think that he may be innocent, i think he needs to buck up his ideas and say sorry for wasting our time and money.
Instead he just acts like a thug - blaming the cops who were forced to work against him etc.
Person like that shouldn't lead any organization. Thats a bloody crook attitude.

[Guitana]

While i think that he may be innocent, i think he needs to buck up his ideas and say sorry for wasting our time and money.
Instead he just acts like a thug - blaming the cops who were forced to work against him etc.
Person like that shouldn't lead any organization. Thats a bloody crook attitude.

To be quite honest I think if I were on trial for rape and a verdcit of not guilty was returned for the second time I would be a little fucked off!!
The cost of both trials both financially and psychologically especially for his kids has been huge!!
If the police were going to spend in excess of 15 million to try and prosecute these guys they should've had an airtight case!!
The fact that the defense lawyers poked so many holes in the prosecutions evidence is a joke!!! The real proof in the pudding will be when he countersues her for dragging him through this shit!!
He may be guilty I don't know, only the people directly involved in the case will truly know what happened!
But he has been judged by a jury and found to be not guilty!! End of story!!!

[candor]

And there you have laid bare the crux of the problem Ixion.

Is it the woman being charged with having sex or the man being charged with rape? From what you say the big or biggest question is whether the woman might be a sexual being. Most of these types of trials focus on proving sex ie something normal, occurred.

It is a dirty defense given it (consent) usually or almost always has no basis in reality, but is a defense readily entertained and embraced by half the population due to their personal latent fears of ever being accused and their resultant ability to sympathise with someone who they can imagine may just have just been 'getting some'.

Having sex and rape are very different things. Why should a woman on the stand be subjected to such cruel alegations from a lawyer as 'you didn't really say no like that (screamed) did you - it was whispered... seductively, wasn't it?" That sort of comment is in very bsad taste and lawyers like that have a special place reserved in hell.

While the majority of women may at some time be happy to have sex the majority of rape victims certainly did not 'have sex' (active / participatory) versus were raped (passive and quite a different thing). Yet time and again this absurdity of the consent defense is aggressively pushed forward.

This is where men get sex and violence confused. Most rapists do not believe they were engaging in sex - they'd not bother if that was the case.

Its only when it gets to Court they'd describe their actions and the victims as sexual. No other serious type of VIOLENT offense eg aggravated robbery has defense lawyers who will put 1000% in to removing blame on to the victim.

It is ridiculous. The whole focus of the trial goes on victim credibility over an issue (sexual relations) that anyone could be "guilty" of engaging in. Most cases it is her word against his if the rapist is true to type and also a liar (few are honest types), under such situations no conviction can ever be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

This defense draws heavily upon and often depends upon tapping in to a reasonable level of misogyny in the jury eg the perception women are unstable and emotional and will say all sorts of crazy things versus the stereotype of guys being straight shooters - which will see a fast NG verdict. Less sexist juries will be slower to return the only verdict possible in such cases. Why bother.

A lawyer friend of mine says that criminal lawyers are train to "objectify" the victim (in the juries mind) ie to make them a "thing" no-one could care about or believe or relate to (idea is to make them seem flawed or different to or less than miss average), and to "humanise" the rapist (create identification and sympathy).

Does this not show a premeditated game plan to repeat the original offense of "dehumanising".

Ummm, not sure where I got the Westminster from - oops. I don't know much abou this inquisitorial system Rape crisis is proposing but I think they mean something different to whats done overseas as they're throwing restorative justice in to the debate too. Maybe they envisage a mutant of the 2? Anything would be better than what we have anyway - think I'm done :rockon: .

[xwhatsit]

Haven't read the thread, really, apart from the last page, however I thought I'd just write this; I've just finished serving on a jury in a rape case involving a child. I now have a lot of sympathy for the jury in the police case, which I didn't have before. `Beyond reasonable doubt' is a bastard of a thing, really.

Just because the jury think's they are guilty doesn't mean you can find them guilty. But that's probably already been gone over.

[spudchucka]

A criminal burden of proof is surely not required to sack someone.

It is when you are going to label the employee a rapist and sack them based on unproven allegations.

Either way its going to cost the police big bucks to be rid of him, either in the form of a golden handshake or when CR sues them in the emplyoment court.

[spudchucka]

I stick to my guns that rapes should not be tried in the Westminster system.

Remember that if you ever find yourself the subject of a false complaint.

[Lou Girardin]

Remember that if you ever find yourself the subject of a false complaint.

Perhaps Spud, that in this age of miniscule attention spans and an increasingly stupid population, the inquisitorial system is more suitable. It's said that it is prone to abuse and corruption, but we don't have either in NZ.
Right?

[Grahameeboy]

Perhaps Spud, that in this age of miniscule attention spans and an increasingly stupid population, the inquisitorial system is more suitable. It's said that it is prone to abuse and corruption, but we don't have either in NZ.
Right?

Mmmm...sorry what did you say.

The way I see it life aint perfect gentlemen. I agree there may have been an injustice, however, the justice system has to follow evidence not hearts and one day Lou you may be thankful for the justice system and Dented's post is just one example.

[James Deuce]

There's a copy of John Grisham's book, "A Time To Kill", sitting on the top step of the Police HQ in Wellington.

There are posters going up all over town, false Police Recruiting ones suggesting that if you join the Police you get to rape someone as a perk.

Don't be surprised if the next time you smart mouth a cop, you get the book thrown at you. 3 guys do not comprise an entire Police force.

You dicks.

[Grahameeboy]

There's a copy of John Grisham's book, "A Time To Kill", sitting on the top step of the Police HQ in Wellington.

There are posters going up all over town, false Police Recruiting ones suggesting that if you join the Police you get to rape someone as a perk.

Don't be surprised if the next time you smart mouth a cop, you get the book thrown at you. 3 guys do not comprise an entire Police force.

You dicks.


Agree to the last bit Jimbo..........

[denill]

I think that case caused a swing towards requiring a higher level of proof for a conviction. (i.e. prior to A.A.T. case Rickard and co. may well have been convicted)

Good point. Every court case provides a degree of precedent for all following cases. And as you wrote - there has been a tendency to err on the 'not guilty' side since the Thomas cover up.

That may have had an effect on the latest unsavory case.

I am old enough to say that the events that were perpetrated (and the events that were said to be perpetrated) were far more likely to have occurred 20 or more years ago than they would in the current culture of the Police force.

In the old school they 'looked after their mates'.

Shit one cop in Taranaki recently zapped his colleague with a drink driving offence when he turned out to a road accident after having a couple!

[Macktheknife]

I am old enough to say that the events that were perpetrated (and the events that were said to be perpetrated) were far more likely to have occurred 20 or more years ago than they would in the current culture of the Police force.

In the old school they 'looked after their mates'.

Shit one cop in Taranaki recently zapped his colleague with a drink driving offence when he turned out to a road accident after having a couple!

Yes but he defended it and got off I believe, he was the only cop for some distance and provided urgently needed assistance for the injured.
I still reckon it was a shitty thing to do to charge the guy too, but it does indicate the way the culture has changed.

[ManDownUnder]

Yes but he defended it and got off I believe, he was the only cop for some distance and provided urgently needed assistance for the injured.
I still reckon it was a shitty thing to do to charge the guy too, but it does indicate the way the culture has changed.

Actually the judge parised him for knowlingly putting his neck on the block to come to the defence of another... maybe those "spreading the hate" need reminding of that wee act of geroism... and a few others that are no doubt unreported.

Blaming the police force for the actions of a few (and I'll say 2 here, rather than 3)... is fucken naieve at BEST.

[James Deuce]

No one's going to bite are they?

"A Time to Kill" is about a man who kills the people who rape his child.

[ManDownUnder]

No one's going to bite are they?



"A Time to Kill" is about a man who kills the people who rape his child.


No I'm not going to bite - the person putting the book there is beneath contempt.

[ManDownUnder]

I'm sure thieves get sacked without the cases ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

No - only if they agree to being sacked - arguably an admission of guilt. Should they maintain their claim of innocence and disagree with their dismissal they can take it to court - where the evidence gets assessed, and a decision get's handed down accordingly.

[Steam]

Not fair on the good cops though. But interesting anyway.55703

[spudchucka]

Perhaps Spud, that in this age of miniscule attention spans and an increasingly stupid population, the inquisitorial system is more suitable. It's said that it is prone to abuse and corruption, but we don't have either in NZ.
Right?

Where have you been lately? Have had another all expenses paid trip to the homeland again?

Wherever there are people with authority and power there will be abuse and corruption. Little old NZ is, as far as I'm concerned, is relatively well off in this regard.

The inquisitorial system just sounds too French for my liking.

[Grahameeboy]

Where have you been lately? Have had another all expenses paid trip to the homeland again?

Wherever there are people with authority and power there will be abuse and corruption. Little old NZ is, as far as I'm concerned, is relatively well off in this regard.
The inquisitorial system just sounds too French for my liking.

I am pretty certain that, statisticaly NZ is the 2nd least corrupt Country in the world with Denmark being 1st...........

I think Lou's problem is that he is not sure which is is homeland.......he just needs time eh?

[James Deuce]

Not fair on the good cops though. But interesting anyway.55703

It's not interesting, it's libelous and I hope the NZ Police find who did and charge them with libel.

[Grahameeboy]

Where have you been lately? Have had another all expenses paid trip to the homeland again?

Wherever there are people with authority and power there will be abuse and corruption. Little old NZ is, as far as I'm concerned, is relatively well off in this regard.
The inquisitorial system just sounds too French for my liking.

I am pretty certain that, statisticaly NZ is the 2nd least corrupt Country in the world with Denmark being 1st...........

I think Lou's problem is that he is not sure which is his homeland.......he just needs time eh?

[spudchucka]

There's a copy of John Grisham's book, "A Time To Kill", sitting on the top step of the Police HQ in Wellington.

There are posters going up all over town, false Police Recruiting ones suggesting that if you join the Police you get to rape someone as a perk.

Don't be surprised if the next time you smart mouth a cop, you get the book thrown at you. 3 guys do not comprise an entire Police force.

You dicks.


What these people either can't or won't face up to is that the majority of todays serving cops were either small children or weren't even born in 1983, when these alleged incidents occurred.

The number of current cops who were serving at that time would probably only number in the hundreds.

Its just an opportunity for the great unwashed to put the boot in.

[marty]

Yes but he defended it and got off I believe, he was the only cop for some distance and provided urgently needed assistance for the injured.
.

i think he pleaded guilty and was discharged without conviction. he still had to run the police kangaroo court gauntlett though.

[Patrick]

You've obviously never worked in Rotorua then.

How can a 14 year old give CONSENT??

Must have missed something... what 14 year old? LN was 18, thislatest was the same age... 14 is statutory rape...

[Patrick]

You are cheerleading for rickards in everyway possible. Those juries did NOT get ALL the facts, what they got was a washed down version that would make the accused look good and the accuser the criminal. Im seeing what I KNOW!!!

ALL the facts being the convictions of the other two? Isn't that what this was all about? CR is absolutely guilty of rape only because the other two are serving time for it?

[Patrick]

...LN's history of laying 7 different rape charges against different people a little suspicious,

But if you choose to discount one persons history as evidence and concentrate on anothers as damning evidence then thats your "view"

Funny how this bit of her history was never mentioned and was suppressed... just like the history of the other two was suppressed...

How unfair?????

[ManDownUnder]

Not fair on the good cops though. But interesting anyway.


Step one - nail them for inappropriate use of the Police logo...

[Guitana]

Funny how this bit of her history was never mentioned and was suppressed... just like the history of the other two was suppressed...

How unfair?????

Yeah sounds to me like she was a cop groupie and liked a bit of legal action and when they told her she was a skank she went feral and started laying rape allegations!!!
The skank that cried wolf!!!!!
Very fishy!!!!!

[Patrick]

Yes but he defended it

No... pleaded guilty, the court dealt with it as they saw fit...

[Patrick]

Yeah sounds to me like she was a cop groupie and liked a bit of legal action and when they told her she was a skank she went feral and started laying rape allegations!!!
The skank that cried wolf!!!!!
Very fishy!!!!!

Cop groupies actually do occur....

[Guitana]

Cop groupies actually do occur....

No Doubt!!!

INDYS also a sucker for a man in uniform!!!

[Scouse]

Cop groupies actually do occur....Oh yea got some Skeletan's lying around have we...?

[Patrick]

Oh yea got some Skeletan's lying around have we...?

Not this fella...... but certainly could have had a lot of fun.... but who knows, 20 years later, that could come back to bite you perhaps???????

[spudchucka]

Must have missed something... what 14 year old? LN was 18, thislatest was the same age... 14 is statutory rape...

There was another LN allegation against a Murapara cop, I believe she was about that age at the time of that one. I understand that none of the current accused were alleged to be involved in that complaint.

[denill]

Must have missed something... what 14 year old? LN was 18, this latest was the same age... 14 is statutory rape...


Worth thinking about the situation if you guys have daughters and how you would feel if your 18yr old kid got involved in a romp, (particularly a non-consensual romp) with any older dude like Rickards - who I think has admitted to consensual sex with the 18yr old.?

And that is not an anti police comment - just an anti Rickards :ar15: :ar15:

[Guitana]

To the sad fuck who just red repped me grow some balls and sign it next time ya coward then I can share the love!!!!!

[Guitana]

Worth thinking about the situation if you guys have daughters and how you would feel if your 18yr old kid got involved in a romp, (particularly a non-consensual romp) with any older dude like Rickards - who I think has admitted to consensual sex with the 18yr old.?

And that is not an anti police comment - just an anti Rickards :ar15: :ar15:

Well at least it was with an honest cop and not a gang member!!!!

[Goblin]

To the sad fuck who just red repped me grow some balls and sign it next time ya coward then I can share the love!!!!!
Oh I have balls enough to admit red repping you! I presumed from your post count that you be able to see who reps you but obviously you're a mouthy little fuck with a whole lot to say in a short space of time! Louise is not a skank, she was raped repeatedy and you know nothing other than what the media have reported so keep your skank comments to yourself loser!

[denill]

Well at least it was with an honest cop and not a gang member!!!!

Got any daughters Guitana??

[Scouse]

The inquisitorial system just sounds too French for my liking.Dont you mean Spanish "no one expects the Spanish Inquistion"

[Squeak the Rat]

I am pretty certain that, statisticaly NZ is the 2nd least corrupt Country in the world with Denmark being 1st...........


That's because Helen bribed the statisticians.

[scumdog]

Worth thinking about the situation if you guys have daughters and how you would feel if your 18yr old kid got involved in a romp, (particularly a non-consensual romp) with any older dude like Rickards - who I think has admitted to consensual sex with the 18yr old.?

And that is not an anti police comment - just an anti Rickards :ar15: :ar15:


At the time she was 18 the 'offenders' were 8-10 years older than her, not what the media have protrayed so far when they gloss over that fact and hint that Rickards & Co. were LOT older.

BTW NOT that I'm sticking up for Rickards &Co., just pointing out a fact that a lot of people seem happy to ignore because it suits their agenda...

[Squeak the Rat]

One of the biggest problem with these cases were that they weren't dealt with immediately. It doesn't help for the women involved here (if you assume the cops were guilty), but I'd be surprised from now if any one gets turned away when they try to make a complaint at a cop shop. And if you do you simply go to 3 news.

[MisterD]

Worth thinking about the situation if you guys have daughters and how you would feel if your 18yr old kid got involved in a romp, (particularly a non-consensual romp) with any older dude like Rickards - who I think has admitted to consensual sex with the 18yr old.?

And that is not an anti police comment - just an anti Rickards :ar15: :ar15:

1) 18yr olds are not "kids" they are legally adults
2) CR was 24 at the time - not exactly an "older dude"

[Guitana]

Oh I have balls enough to admit red repping you! I presumed from your post count that you be able to see who reps you but obviously you're a mouthy little fuck with a whole lot to say in a short space of time! Louise is not a skank, she was raped repeatedy and you know nothing other than what the media have reported so keep your skank comments to yourself loser!

NO need to get all FERAL SHERYL obviously you were there!!!
Enlighten us then you Filthy mouthed she devil tell us what really happened!!!
Got any further evidence to support the claims that were proven by a jury to be insufficient to convict them?? No I thought not!!
You all just go on and fucken on all men are bastards blah fucken blah you're full of shit the guy was found not guilty let it go!!!
Shut up and cook me some eggs!!!

[SPman]

.... just pointing out a fact that a lot of people seem happy to ignore because it suits their agenda...

Don't we all????

[denill]

At the time she was 18 the 'offenders' were 8-10 years older than her, not what the media have protrayed so far when they gloss over that fact and hint that Rickards & Co. were LOT older.

BTW NOT that I'm sticking up for Rickards &Co., just pointing out a fact that a lot of people seem happy to ignore because it suits their agenda...

<a href=http://www.stuff.co.nz/centralnorthisland/3979416a10.html>READ HERE:</A> that Clint Rickards is age 46, Brad Shipton, 48 and Bob Schollum, 54.

The 'alleged' offences happened between November 1983 and August 1984.

So (someone will tell me if I can't count) in 1983 Rickards was 22, Shipton 24 and Schollum 30.

[ManDownUnder]

you're a mouthy little fuck with a whole lot to say in a short space of time...loser!


Enlighten us then you Filthy mouthed she devil

Could this be why the judge suppressed some of the evidence? Because it's probative value was outweighed by it propensity to influence the outcome?

It's an emotional issue - that's a good thing. Ripping each other's throats out - not so good.

[ManDownUnder]

Don't we all????

Possibly although I try not to - I try to see what's in front of me, and learn where appropriate.

[scumdog]

<a href=http://www.stuff.co.nz/centralnorthisland/3979416a10.html>READ HERE:</A> that Clint Rickards is age 46, Brad Shipton, 48 and Bob Schollum, 54.

The 'alleged' offences happened between November 1983 and August 1984.

So (someone will tell me if I can't count) in 1983 Rickards was 22, Shipton 24 and Schollum 30.

The point I'm trying to make is that the media (and many others)are prone to quoting "the accused men aged between 46 and 54 are accused of XXXXX the victim who was 18 at the time" which puts a certain slant on things,
i.e.: the nuff-nuff slack-jawed mouth-breathing improvident lack-wit types think "Gollleee, them dirty old men done XXXX that lil' bitty gal"

Which I guess sell more papers (and supplies loo paper for the above).

[Guitana]

Could this be why the judge suppressed some of the evidence? Because it's probative value was outweighed by it propensity to influence the outcome?

It's an emotional issue - that's a good thing. Ripping each other's throats out - not so good.

Yeah she is a nasty little thing red repped me twice and sent messages containing potty mouthed comments!!!
Must be that time of the month!!!!
Don't take it too seriously Goblin we all love you

[Patrick]

So many know so much about all of the cases these 3 have faced... did they give any evidence and help out these victims? If not, why not???????

Or are chinese whispers doing their worst, like, "I know a girl whose neighbours dog killed a cat that belonged to the boy in the next town who is the 5th cousin of an old lady who knows a friend of a friend who once sat next to a man who used to go out with blah blah blah... who was told by one of those poor girls....."

Or is KB just doing what it does best....:dodge:

[ManDownUnder]

So many know so much about all of the cases these 3 have faced... did they give any evidence and help out these victims? If not, why not???????

Or are chinese whispers doing their worst, like, "I know a girl whose neighbours dog killed a cat that belonged to the boy in the next town who is the 5th cousin of an old lady who knows a friend of a friend who once sat next to a man who used to go out with blah blah blah... who was told by one of those poor girls....."

Or is KB just doing what it does best....:dodge:

All of the above - it's a hot topic.

1 or two are close to the case... or close to the issue (me included).

Chinese whispers combined with a selection of headlines and stories designed to sell advertising space

KB doing it's thing.

[Squeak the Rat]

KB doing it's thing.

Bullpuky, this talk isn't consigned to KB. The whole of the country has been engaged in talk that mirrors this thread*.

*speculation based on observations, both personally and from the all-mighty media.

[Patrick]

Bullpuky, this talk isn't consigned to KB. The whole of the country has been engaged in talk that mirrors this thread*.

*speculation based on observations, both personally and from the all-mighty media.

The masses of the uninformed?

[Scouse]

The masses of the uninformed?you mean the masses of the ununiformed

[Squeak the Rat]

you mean the masses of the ununiformed

Or the meanies of the uniformed.

bahahaha

[Goblin]

Got any further evidence to support the claims that were proven by a jury to be insufficient to convict them?? No I thought not!!
You all just go on and fucken on all men are bastards blah fucken blah you're full of shit the guy was found not guilty let it go!!!
FYI I was NOT there! The case IS over and I, nor Louise and her family and friends(or the other women they preyed upon) will EVER get over it because it is a HUGE INJUSTICE!

I have NEVER hated men and it's not about hating men. It IS about these particular scumbags that aren't even worthy of being called men! You sound as though you support them! I now know where you stand on the subject!:nono:

[Joni]

Yeah she is a nasty little thing red repped me twice and sent messages containing potty mouthed comments!!!
Just a quick FYI, only one of the three red reps you have received was from her, so obviously others dont agree with you too....

So, lets play nice here people.

:Playnice:

[avgas]

To be quite honest I think if I were on trial for rape and a verdcit of not guilty was returned for the second time I would be a little fucked off!!
The cost of both trials both financially and psychologically especially for his kids has been huge!!
If the police were going to spend in excess of 15 million to try and prosecute these guys they should've had an airtight case!!
The fact that the defense lawyers poked so many holes in the prosecutions evidence is a joke!!! The real proof in the pudding will be when he countersues her for dragging him through this shit!!
He may be guilty I don't know, only the people directly involved in the case will truly know what happened!
But he has been judged by a jury and found to be not guilty!! End of story!!!
Fact of the matter is if he came clean the first time with the family rather than bullshit, then he wouldn't be in the boat. I dont know if it was or wasnt rape - but he lied to his own family, not the prosecution....he cheated on his wife and his family. All rape aside, if he wasnt man enough to admit his own actions then he is not trust worthy enough to run a police force.