Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[spudchucka]

Just go back to the beggining of the thread there was a comment made "that just because they have been found guilty of this in the past doesnt mean that they are guilty this time" is a double standard when the normal everyday Scumbag gets a visit every time there is a crime that "fits their modus operandi " like I say I am happy that this happens but this pratice should aslo be Extended to the less normal scumbag the sort of scumbag that devalues the credibility of our police force

Past similar offending might make them a person of interest or a suspect in an enquiry, it certainly does not, on its own, make them guilty of the current offence under investigation.

[spudchucka]

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

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

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

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

[Goblin]

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

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

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

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

[Pixie]

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

[SixPackBack]

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

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

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

[Patrick]

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

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

Split this to two things.

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

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

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

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

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

[spudchucka]

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

You have a sorry and pathetic outlook on life.

[Patrick]

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

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

[spudchucka]

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

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

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

[Patrick]

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

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

Maybe is not beyond reasonable doubt.

[terbang]

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

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

[Patrick]

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

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

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

[terbang]

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

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

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

[Lou Girardin]

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

BTW It appears Ellis may be safer than Rickards.

[Patrick]

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

BTW It appears Ellis may be safer than Rickards.

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