Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

**Lou Girardin** · 6th April 2006, 11:30

Originally Posted by spudchucka

She wasn't on trial, facing a lengthy jail term if found guilty.

As explained elsewhere in this thread, an accuser's credibility needs to be tested when the only evidence is their word against that of the accused (especially when the alleged offending happened nearly two decades ago). If the accuser's credibility is shown to be poor then do you believe all, part or none of their story?

Make no mistake, she was on trial. Just not in the legal sense, and she was found guilty of being a slut. As I've said before, try to imagine how she feels if what she's claimed is true. (and it seems likely)

**Lou Girardin** · 6th April 2006, 11:31

Originally Posted by Winston001

Just to introduce another question - now that Ricards and co have been acquitted, should the taxpayer refund their legal costs? After all, they have won and it's completely unfair that they should have to pay to defend themselves.

I recall this debate on an earlier (Vanner?) thread. I think Lou was pro costs being paid to successful defendants, but my apologies if I'm wrong.

I believe Schollum and Shipton had legal aid. I had wondered why, now it's obvious.

**Hitcher** · 6th April 2006, 11:44

A warning to all: Please note that there is a Court-imposed suppression order in place on certain elements of this case. Breaching this order puts at risk the "owner" of this site and contributors to it. You all should know the information to which I refer. I have already deleted two posts from this thread that overstepped the mark, and there are others that are dangerously close to this as well.

I recommend all who have posted to review and, if necessary, edit their earlier posts.

**Pixie** · 6th April 2006, 12:07

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Pride
Integrity
Guts

Don't judge me by the actions of Mr Rickards.

Or,depending on which cop it is....
Peurility
Ignorance
Gluttony (donuts)

**Motu** · 6th April 2006, 12:22

This is an historic case,in more ways than one...maybe they to have a look at some new proceedures.Sure you can't bring previous convictions into the case....but these are,if the ''rumours'' are true,subsequent convictions,the defendents went on to reoffend in the same manner.

I also think the powers to be need to look at public interest in this case - just about everyone you meet is going WTF?? They are there for us remember...

**Winston001** · 6th April 2006, 12:51

Now I'm confused. I understood certain "similar fact" evidence was given in Court, in front of the jury, but that it was suppressed from general publication. So if the jury heard it, then the public interest was served.

But that doesn't make sense here. So was this a case of the jury being sent out and a voir dire hearing of evidence for the judge to then decide whether the jury could hear it?

**Winston001** · 6th April 2006, 13:01

Just to expand a little, and I think its been pointed out before - just because a defendant has a criminal history doesn't mean they are guilty of the current charge. Each new charge is a fresh case, not to be tainted by previous convictions.

However there is an exception - similar fact evidence. Thus if an accused's modus operandi is to, say, use a baton during rape, and this is known from previous trials, then the Crown (police) can apply to call that evidence. It is up to the judge to decide whether that would be prejudicial balanced against the need for the court to know the accused had a particular way of behaving.

It is a complex area and if there is doubt the accused gets the benefit and the evidence is excluded.

**MSTRS:Me** · 6th April 2006, 13:21

Originally Posted by Motu

This is an historic case,in more ways than one...maybe they to have a look at some new proceedures.Sure you can't bring previous convictions into the case....but these are,if the ''rumours'' are true,subsequent convictions,the defendents went on to reoffend in the same manner.

This is true but neglects one fact....events referred to in all these cases happened some years ago, before any charges were laid. The lesson that was learned by......was that they could get away with it without being called to account. Bet they all know different now.

**Motu** · 6th April 2006, 13:49

And that's a small positive for Ms Nichols,she has sacrificed a lot to bring public awareness.

**shazzygirl** · 6th April 2006, 17:56

Well, look how much of the chatter it has created and she didn't win.
If those men had been found guilty there would not have been the public talk that there has been.
Good on you Louise, I commend your guts for taking it as far as you did, and I am proud that you stood for what you believed in.
Alas, I am of the same, and after 38 years of abuse am not strong enough to face my perpetrators, or stand up and point the finger, but by god the pain and the heartache still lives inside every day.
The bruises have long faded, but the heart and the mind will always be affected by what has been suffered. Its not forgettable and will never be forgiven.
To stand up and face the fear, and hold your head up high is the highest power that can be attained which is what I do to survive each day.
Well done Louise.

**terbang** · 6th April 2006, 20:25

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Probably with good reason. Such as it would have prejudiced them to a point where the defendants could not have had a "fair" trial. Despite the outcome, the case that the jury was asked to consider was a weak one -- no evidence, few witnesses that would support the plaintiff's claims, etc.

So it all boils down to her word against that of 3 coppers. Her background has had its fair share of public scrutiny and theirs is suppressed.
Doesn't sound fair to me.
We all know that Nicholas didn't stand a chance against the assistant police commisioner and all his rescourses.
A loud and clear message to current coppers about what they can get away with (if they want) and to young girls who wish to report a rape (if they now dare).

**Paul in NZ** · 6th April 2006, 20:50

Originally Posted by shazzygirl

Well, look how much of the chatter it has created and she didn't win.
If those men had been found guilty there would not have been the public talk that there has been.
Good on you Louise, I commend your guts for taking it as far as you did, and I am proud that you stood for what you believed in.
Alas, I am of the same, and after 38 years of abuse am not strong enough to face my perpetrators, or stand up and point the finger, but by god the pain and the heartache still lives inside every day.
The bruises have long faded, but the heart and the mind will always be affected by what has been suffered. Its not forgettable and will never be forgiven.
To stand up and face the fear, and hold your head up high is the highest power that can be attained which is what I do to survive each day.
Well done Louise.

I think you have made a pretty big step here!

Theres more support than you think out there!

Paul N

**spudchucka** · 6th April 2006, 21:12

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Make no mistake, she was on trial. Just not in the legal sense, and she was found guilty of being a slut. As I've said before, try to imagine how she feels if what she's claimed is true. (and it seems likely)

I'm not saying anything against her claims, I have no idea whether they are true or false. However I certainly accept that where there is smoke tehre must also be fire (that goes for both sides). I'm just a little surprised at your willingness to toss aside due process regardless what the case may be.

**spudchucka** · 6th April 2006, 21:14

Originally Posted by Pixie

Or,depending on which cop it is....
Peurility
Ignorance
Gluttony (donuts)

I'm amazed it took someone so long.

**Indoo** · 6th April 2006, 21:27

Originally Posted by terbang

So it all boils down to her word against that of 3 coppers. Her background has had its fair share of public scrutiny and theirs is suppressed.
Doesn't sound fair to me.
We all know that Nicholas didn't stand a chance against the assistant police commisioner and all his rescourses.
A loud and clear message to current coppers about what they can get away with (if they want) and to young girls who wish to report a rape (if they now dare).

Christ what a load of bollocks.

As one of these 'current coppers' I was disgusted by the trial, but I'm even more disgusted by your comments.