Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[Jantar]

In another thread, http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=27535 I asked if anyone could provide an alibi for a particular time 18 years ago. A pity that someone has decided to move it to PD as the whole point of the thread was to show how unfair it is to make accusations of events that have happened 18 years ago. The human memory just isn't that good. That is one of the reasons why the three cops in the Nicholas rape trial had to be aquitted. When it comes down to purely one person's word against another's then memory alone is a poor witness after so many years.

Of the 23 people who replied before it was moved to PD, only 3 have been able to an alibi that is verifiable. Those who were babies, or not even born obviously couldn't have been guilty of a crime like rape, but as far as proving their actual whereabouts at the time, even they can't do it.

Most have said things like "I was probably..." or "I think I may have been..." then given accounts that aren't checkable. The ones who have made positive statements like "I was in hospital.." obviously have a good reason to remember where they were, and I made it easier by choosing an easter weekend.

I assume that this whole thread will also now be moved to PD.

[The Stranger:Me]

No, we are just pointing out that that is the law of the land, for all, be it cops, paedophiles, burglars or car thieves...

The pamphets are going against what is equal for all, ...

Why say "No"?
You are vocal in defence of this position.

I did not say it isn't the law.
I have not said, nor implied that the law of the land has been broken in this case.

Yet again however your apparent support for this unpopular law puts police against the rest in the forum.

[Patrick]

Why say "No"?
You are vocal in defence of this position.

I did not say it isn't the law.
I have not said, nor implied that the law of the land has been broken in this case.

Yet again however your apparent support for this unpopular law puts police against the rest in the forum.

It is not support of it, I was pointing out that it simply IS the law. Many are unpopular. Speed for one... 70kmph on a learners for another... there are too many to list, but KB sure points them out often enough.

I was not saying YOU said any of the above...

The point I was trying to make is that there is inherent danger of believing someone is GUILTY of an offence ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY HAVE A PREVIOUS CONVICTION. That has to be a dangerous road to follow for many reasons, most of which are obvious?

[spudchucka]

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

There are people on both sides claiming the same thing.

[spudchucka]

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

Do you blame the current group of investigators for that?

[spudchucka]

All out-
apart from waiting for twenty years to do something about it when finally the complaint could be ignored no longer.

The earlier investigation stinks somewhat of unprofessionalism. However it was investigated and filed until it hit the media again in 2004. The current group of investigators in all likelyhood had no knowledge of the allegations prior to the news breaking. Certainly upper management must have known about the allegations but it seems unlikely that they would have sat around dreaming up schemes to protect Clint considering that they have gone for him with all guns blazing.

[spudchucka]

Never trust a jury to have any brains

Been on a few have ya?

[spudchucka]

The public have long memories and their high expectations of the Police have been sadly battered over the years. Regardless of the jury's interpretation of the evidence they were presented with, if they had come up with "Guilty" then the public (us) would have been of the opinion that these cops were bastards (we still think that) but at least there can be no question that the 'Boy's Club' was somehow protecting them (which is what we have now).
Kinda the old "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get ya"

It just doesn't wash I'm afraid. You can't look at the police effort put into this prosecution on one hand and say they are closing ranks and protecting each other on the other hand.

Somebody said earlier that the case was thrown out because the police suppresed evidence, presumably they mean evidence that would have otherwise led to their conviction. Why would they do that after they have invested a huge amount of money and man hours into prosecuting these guys only to shoot themselves in the foot by suppressing critical evidence?

It simply doesn't make sense and the closing ranks arguement is lame in this instance.

[SixPackBack]

It just doesn't wash I'm afraid. You can't look at the police effort put into this prosecution on one hand and say they are closing ranks and protecting each other on the other hand.

Somebody said earlier that the case was thrown out because the police suppresed evidence, presumably they mean evidence that would have otherwise led to their conviction. Why would they do that after they have invested a huge amount of money and man hours into prosecuting these guys only to shoot themselves in the foot by suppressing critical evidence?

It simply doesn't make sense and the closing ranks arguement is lame in this instance.

The public perception is forever stained..arguments are semantics.
The only thing anyone will remember is a Cop getting off charges that looked to the public like a guilty case. A Cop kept on the pay roll for two years and an inability to present incriminating evidence whatever the excuse....collectively the public think these guys are scum and not worthy of a policeman's uniform never mind being in the upper echelon.
The police failed as did the courts.

[Dafe]

It just doesn't wash I'm afraid. You can't look at the police effort put into this prosecution on one hand and say they are closing ranks and protecting each other on the other hand.

Somebody said earlier that the case was thrown out because the police suppresed evidence, presumably they mean evidence that would have otherwise led to their conviction. Why would they do that after they have invested a huge amount of money and man hours into prosecuting these guys only to shoot themselves in the foot by suppressing critical evidence?

It simply doesn't make sense and the closing ranks arguement is lame in this instance.

The suppression order is not one of evidence. But one of detail to the public.

So you don't think the police are protecting each other? Perhaps not. But do you not think there is corruption taking place at the highest level of the NZ Police force?

What about the files that went "missing" in 2002?
How about the entire case file that was "stolen" from the Police Complaints Authority in 2004?
Now who, other than the officers involved, would benefit from the files being stolen? Who other than a high ranking officer, would know the PCA layout well enough to have removed files from the fileroom and the relevant investigators offices, which happens to be spanned across various floors of a large (12-14 story) commercial building? Somebody who knew the CCTV layout and immediately disabled the cameras upon their arrival to the floors.

[The Stranger:Me]

It is not support of it, I was pointing out that it simply IS the law. Many are unpopular. Speed for one... 70kmph on a learners for another... there are too many to list, but KB sure points them out often enough.

I was not saying YOU said any of the above...

The point I was trying to make is that there is inherent danger of believing someone is GUILTY of an offence ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY HAVE A PREVIOUS CONVICTION. That has to be a dangerous road to follow for many reasons, most of which are obvious?

Well ok, I really don't know what to take from your reply.
Because the last paragraph looks to me like you support the position.

So for the sake of clarification, may I please request a straight answer. Do you, in this case (the rape case which is the subject of this thread) believe that evidence of prior conviction relating to rape (if any) should have been presented to the jury?

[scumdog]

Well ok, I really don't know what to take from your reply.
Because the last paragraph looks to me like you support the position.

So for the sake of clarification, may I please request a straight answer. Do you, in this case (the rape case which is the subject of this thread) believe that evidence of prior conviction relating to rape (if any) should have been presented to the jury?

Ok, say I reckon yes produce the prior convictions to the jury -would you be happy with ALL jury trials having prior conviction released to the jury too?

Or only rape cases?

Or only if Police are the defendants in a rape case?

Or only in certain cases? and which ones?

If you go down the road of baring all to juries you are treading the dangerous ground of 'red-neck law' - i.e. "he done it once afore so he MUSTA done it this time" - which in effect takes away the 'innocent to PROVEN guilty' idea.

Imagine you were a defendant, you were guilty in the past of a crime you are now charged with but innocent of - and the past conviction was revealed to the jury - and they convicted you on that basis, how would you feel?

Do you think the law would be better served this way?

[Lou Girardin]

Why has this case caused you to believe that police close ranks when one of their own is accused? The cops have gone all out to get this guy. Many of the detectives who worked on the case would undoubtedly have know the accused personally to some degree. Sure the investigation all those years ago looks like it may have been as you describe but this one has been utterly professional.

It clearly happened when Dewar handled her original complaint. A lot of people posting on this issue either don't know the history of the matter or it's easier for them to focus on the trial alone.

[Lou Girardin]

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.

The Royal Commision was convinced. The evidence was as sound as that used to convict Scott Watson ie. circumstantial.

[Lou Girardin]

See my last post.

IF the Police were 'closing ranks etc then the case would NEVER have come to light, don't go the 'could be ignored no longer' route, it could have been so easily buried forever.

It came about because one of those despised journalists dug into the historic case and started a new shit storm about it.
They have a use after all.