Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

**terbang** · 7th April 2006, 19:44

Originally Posted by Roadrash

The verdict is in, let go of the rumours and let the peolple get on with their lives, We have courts to judge people, they had all facts and they came to the conclusions. Rumors help no one

Try telling that to Arthur allan Thomas..

**oldrider** · 7th April 2006, 20:19

Originally Posted by terbang

Try telling that to Arthur allan Thomas..

Yeah, you are right, that is one of the things that keep on playing on my subconscious.

I have little faith in our justice system and it's not something I feel good about.

Ill at ease. John.

**Patrick** · 7th April 2006, 21:05

Originally Posted by terbang

Try telling that to Arthur allan Thomas..

Yep, the bullet was planted, but a lawyer I know also said he is as guilty as sin...but who really knows.

Which was the problem in this Nicholas trial. The facts the jury heard, the arguments etc all came down to "She said they did it against her will. They said she was willing..."

The truth is somewhere in between. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Not likely, but who really knows...

**Lou Girardin** · 8th April 2006, 08:58

Originally Posted by Patrick

Yep, the bullet was planted, but a lawyer I know also said he is as guilty as sin...but who really knows.

..

You guys will never get over this one will you? Thomas was freed. A cop, or cops, were found to have planted evidence. End of story.

It now seems that an email campaign is spreading the pamphlet's story throughout the country.
It looks like we will have transparency in court dealings whether they like it or not. True people power, thanks to the web.

**SixPackBack** · 8th April 2006, 09:03

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

You guys will never get over this one will you? Thomas was freed. A cop, or cops, were found to have planted evidence. End of story.

It now seems that an email campaign is spreading the pamphlet's story throughout the country.
It looks like we will have transparency in court dealings whether they like it or not. True people power, thanks to the web.

Sure would like to see that E-mail...link anyone?

**Patrick** · 8th April 2006, 09:04

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

You guys will never get over this one will you? Thomas was freed. A cop, or cops, were found to have planted evidence. End of story.

It now seems that an email campaign is spreading the pamphlet's story throughout the country.
It looks like we will have transparency in court dealings whether they like it or not. True people power, thanks to the web.

Duhh......thats what I said? "Yep, the bullet was planted..."

Got over it years ago.

As for the pamphlet, it would be hard for any of the pending matters to get off the ground because they won't receive a fair trial, they are guilty before one will even start. They now need to prove their innocence, which is not how it ever has been. It has been up to the prosecution to prove their guilt, but not now, it would seem. And this pamplet will now help these other victims how????? Looks like it just screwed up their chances of a trial getting off the ground.

**Lou Girardin** · 8th April 2006, 09:38

Originally Posted by Patrick

Looks like it just screwed up their chances of a trial getting off the ground.

It seems that the States credit their juries with a lot more sense than here. They rarely use suppression orders to the degree we do, what they do is an voi dire examination of jurers during selection. To assess the influence publicity may have had on their attitudes to the defendant.
But then, this wouldn't allow the legal fraternity to protect their mates, celebrities, cops etc. So we'll never see it.

**terbang** · 8th April 2006, 11:02

Originally Posted by Indoo

When you imply that im part of an immoral corrupt organisation who harbours and supports rapists then like hell I'm gonna take offence.

The assistant police commisioner stands in full uniform in the court along with other ex policemen accused of rape and admits that they gangbanged a teenage girl and used a police baton to sexually stimulate her. Rape is not proved but the country is enraged by this immoral behaviour that happened 20 years ago. It has been fairly common knowledge in the organization that he and his buddies had behaved in a manner inappropriate to their positions. During that 20 year period Rickard, under a cone of silence and remaining un-challenged rises through the ranks to a distinguished position in our community. The evidence of a cone of silence indicates that there has been a rotten culture within the organization during that 20 year period that has, for what ever reason, turned a myopic eye to this behaviour. In the same way that it could be implied that I am capable of driving a jet airliner into Mount erebus, the actions of the police leadership has now smeared every member of the police force with a taint of suspicion therefore implying that they could do the same. So don't shoot at me as it is your own kind that has allready implicated you and attacking me will not make the problem go away.
That is the Bitter pill that those that have behaved appropriatly have to swallow when the organisation leadership gets it wrong. Unless you have a badge on your lapel that tells us that you havn't been to Murapara or Rotorua or we know you personally then all we are going to see is a policeman in uniform just like Rickards. Most thinking people in society know that there is a very high chance that any policeman before them is straight but unfortunatly, due to the actions of your ex boss, all policemen are now under suspicion in some small way because of the revelations (official or unofficial) of this case. If your leadership behaved that way and got off scot free then (you go figure)..? Just like when they hear me on the PA they may think of the Mt erebus incident 25years earlier and its "orchestrated lytany of lies" and hope that I wasn't part of that culture that led to NZ's worst air disaster. Sacking rickard will only partially placate the public but will not remove the culture that allowed him to manouvre. The responsibility is now on all policemen in NZ to go to their superiors and get the message across that the actions of a minority has disgusted you and must never again be allowed to go unchecked for so long and to publicly remove the culture that allowed it.. In other words become your brothers keepers and some serious house keeping is now required for your organization.

**spudchucka** · 8th April 2006, 11:08

Originally Posted by Goblin

But the allegations were never proven because they were 'covered up'....'swept under the rug'.

There may still be enquiries into those matters so I aint commenting.

Either way the Nicholas allegations have remained unproven and an employer couldn't discriminate based on unproven allegations.

**Blairos** · 8th April 2006, 11:08

After reading this thread, i think need to go out for a Ride...

**spudchucka** · 8th April 2006, 11:13

Originally Posted by The_Dover

but the police FORCE in this case was in the wrong.

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

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

**spudchucka** · 8th April 2006, 11:22

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Come on now Spud, organisations like the Police live by the 'face fits' principle.
Rickards had some powerful patronage down the years.

There probably is some truth in that but he wouldn't have got as far as he did without the qualifications to back it up. He has several degrees, an MBA (or similar) from some aussie university included and he obviously has vast policing experience. Some say he had been hand picked to be the first maori police commisioner but he wouldn't ever have gotten there if he hadn't done the work and didn't have the required qualifications.

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

**Goblin** · 8th April 2006, 11:26

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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

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

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

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

**spudchucka** · 8th April 2006, 11:32

Originally Posted by Ixion

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

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

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