Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[spudchucka]

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.

Thats your opinion. I've spoken to plenty of people with a totally contrary opinion so your assumption is quite flawed I'm afraid. The vocal minority can often sound like a crescendo of public dissaproval, (try listening to talk back radio), but in reality its little more than a wee fart at the dinner table. Most semi inteligent life forms cabable of reasoned thought without prejudice see it for what it was, a case with very little evidence that was always going to be judged on whose evidence was most believable.

[spudchucka]

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

Yes, that is as I understand it but there are some suggesting that the case was lost because critical evidence was suppressed. I don't believe that was the case.

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?

No & no.

What about the files that went "missing" in 2002?

I don't know anything about that. I've had files go missing though and I've found the occasional missing file too.

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.

Again thats news to me and I'm afraid I don't believe everything I read on the interweb.

[spudchucka]

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.

The original investigation does look dodgy but I don't believe you can fault the current investigators for their efforts. Are we all to die on the same sword as Dewar? Can you not accept that given the current situation that things might have changed just a fraction since that original investigation?

[MSTRS:Me]

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.

You (deliberately?) misunderstand....I do not say that ranks were closed, only that the perception in the public eye is that it could be so. The investigation/trial could also just be so much window dressing to give the impression of absolute impartiality. The spending of a few million dollars in this fashion to raise public opinion of the police would be well spent were the above true. Interestingly enough, the 'voices' are kinda silent on this one.

[The_Dover]

Most semi inteligent life forms cabable of reasoned thought without prejudice see it for what it was, a case with very little evidence that was always going to be judged on whose evidence was most believable.

I think what you really mean is that most intelligent people were not prepared to pass judgement, or thought they were guilty, yet knew that due to ambiguity, time and fading memories that these guys would walk free anyway and feel that it was a waste of public resources. Nothing more than a token trial to prove that justice would still deal with these men? Guilty or not.

[spudchucka]

You (deliberately?) misunderstand....I do not say that ranks were closed, only that the perception in the public eye is that it could be so. The investigation/trial could also just be so much window dressing to give the impression of absolute impartiality. The spending of a few million dollars in this fashion to raise public opinion of the police would be well spent were the above true. Interestingly enough, the 'voices' are kinda silent on this one.

Like most of this thread there is a hell of a lot of ifs and maybes with a dolop of cynicism thrown in for good measure.

What voices?

[Clockwork]

Appalled as I was to learn of the suppressed evidence, I'm now persuaded by the argument that the details needed to be suppressed for a "fair" trial. i.e. a trial consistent with principles applied for all defendants.

What concerns me now is how long would/should this information remain suppressed?

[spudchucka]

I think what you really mean is that most intelligent people were not prepared to pass judgement, or thought they were guilty, yet knew that due to ambiguity, time and fading memories that these guys would walk free anyway and feel that it was a waste of public resources. Nothing more than a token trial to prove that justice would still deal with these men? Guilty or not.

There may be some truth in what you say but it certainly wasn't a token trial aimed at winning public approval. If it was some would say it was a poorly conceived plan since the vocal pig haters are now using it to their benefit.

Its a hard thing to accept as a cop when you know someone is guilty but you simply can't present enough compelling evidence to convict in court. They have to play by the rules though and if there isn't the evidence then the bad guys go free.

[The Stranger:Me]

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?

Let me state clearly for a start. The fact that these guys are/were cops to me is not relevant to the issue of releasing information on prior convictions. Perhaps there is a moral issue, but morals is not a place for me to go.

Just interested scummy, do you agree in this case because of this case or you think there should be a wider scope?

So to your questions.

I don't see it as necessary or desirous to release information on prior convictions in all cases.

In short yes, in all rape cases and some others. As stated in a previous post, I feel it goes to capacity and propensity to commit the crime. I really don't think I could rape, I really don't think I could murder. Some have no such qualms. How does a jury distinguish?

No not because they are Police.

Sure if I was the defendant in a crime and had priors I would want it supressed, whether I committed this one or not. But do I deserve to have it supressed? Maybe I should have thought that my past would haunt me and not committed the first bloody one.

[spudchucka]

What concerns me now is how long would/should this information remain suppressed?

Probably for as long as it takes to finalise all matters relating to these men and any other matters still under investigation.

[MSTRS:Me]

What voices?

Damn, don't tell me you don't hear them too?

[spudchucka]

Damn, don't tell me you don't hear them too?

There's medication that can help.

[Clockwork]

Probably for as long as it takes to finalise all matters relating to these men and any other matters still under investigation.

As things stand is this supression order indefinate? Do they normally expire?

[spudchucka]

As things stand is this supression order indefinate? Do they normally expire?

I don't actually know anything about the details of this suppression order, the contents or the time frame for which it applies. I don't want to know either, its none of my business.

The judge can make a suppression order permanent or can place a time limit on it. Example would be the Lana Cocroft one that has recently expired.

[Clockwork]

Gotta feel for LN. She put her credibility on the line and was left high and dry by the system. The supressed info could at least restore that.