Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

**spudchucka** · 9th April 2006, 06:39

Originally Posted by Goblin

Yes! The police lawyers got to the jury by suppressing evidence!!

The judge suppresses the evidence, not the crown.

Defence lawyers also ask for evidence to be supressed to protect their clients right to a fair trial for any other matters still to come before the courts.

**spudchucka** · 9th April 2006, 06:41

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Remind me again, please, as to why this thread has become yet another "bash the Police" thread?

Because of the brainless minority.

They can't help but seize any opportunity.

**Goblin** · 9th April 2006, 09:01

Originally Posted by Jantar

That is quite an acusation to make.

Not an accusation...more an observation.

**Goblin** · 9th April 2006, 09:03

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The judge suppresses the evidence, not the crown.

Defence lawyers also ask for evidence to be supressed to protect their clients right to a fair trial for any other matters still to come before the courts.

That's kind of what I meant. This whole trial didn't seem fair at all.

**Patrick** · 9th April 2006, 09:21

But it is fair to all...how many crims have previous convictions/pending court cases but they cant be mentioned to a jury who is dealing with the facts of the case before them ONLY...

**Goblin** · 9th April 2006, 10:08

I don't know....I'm not a cop or a lawyer and havn't had much to do with the "system" but this case does reek of injustice to me. It's only my opinion. I dont hate cops. Just a few of them.

**terbang** · 9th April 2006, 10:32

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Sure the investigation all those years ago looks like it may have been as you describe but this one has been utterly professional.

Yes but still 20 years too late..!
Get the point..?

**scumdog** · 9th April 2006, 11:26

Originally Posted by terbang

Yes but still 20 years too late..!
Get the point..?

If it had only been a year after the event and the result the same would you be any happier??

If the defendants had been repeat burglars and rapists and not been police would it have made a difference to your opinion?

If the defendants had not been police and had no previous 'reputation' or criminal record would that too have made a difference??

As Spudchucka says, there is a shitloads of maybes in this thread.

**Winston001** · 9th April 2006, 11:52

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Arthur Allan Thomas was freed. A cop, or cops, were found to have planted evidence. End of story.

Ah, not quite Lou. That is the populist belief but it isn't supported by the facts. There never has been any proof of any nature that the shell casings (not bullets) were planted.

Thomas was pardoned because his conviction was regarded as unsafe. The fact remains that Jeanette and Harvey Crewe are dead. Thomas may very well have murdered them.

**terbang** · 9th April 2006, 11:53

Originally Posted by scumdog

If it had only been a year after the event and the result the same would you be any happier??

The point being is why did it sit on the shelf for 20 years.? An administrative error..? Or a deliberate cover up by a (then) unhealthy organisation..? Or what. So what do you cops think..
There sure are a lot of maybes but there are also a lot of sidestepped questions.. This aint cop bashing (so don't try to hide behind that) its just asking questions...

**Winston001** · 9th April 2006, 11:55

This thread wanders into alleged police corruption. It is worth remembering that NZ is about the least corrupt country in the world. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

**scumdog** · 9th April 2006, 12:01

And another point to be aware of: a lot of cops now being charged with offences that 10 -20 or so years ago they would have (and often did) got away with.

The Police is quite a lot harder on its own now than it was in the past.

Doesn't make the past offending right but just pointing out something that some may not be aware of.

**Winston001** · 9th April 2006, 12:04

Difficult as it might be to believe, when organisations investigate their own members (and they are convinced there is substance to the allegation), they are more cut-throat than you or I.

They turn on their own because the bad guy is seen as a traitor. He has betrayed the other people in the organisation. So when the police investigate their own members, it is vigorous and unrelenting.

But first a threshold of belief needs to be breached because every cop faces complaints at some stage. So not every complaint is believed and I imagine Louise Nicholas was up against it in the early days.

Snap Scumdog.

Beat me to it.

**Winston001** · 9th April 2006, 12:08

As to Rickards career? You've seen the guy on TV. He is tough, intelligent and convincing. He can't have done much wrong that anyone above him knew about as he moved up the ranks.

Some bastards are very clever and rise to the top.