Every alleged rape victim that takes the complaint through to court goes through that horrible experience. She may get some satisfaction eventually, we'll all have to watch this space.
Salted Pork
Every alleged rape victim that takes the complaint through to court goes through that horrible experience. She may get some satisfaction eventually, we'll all have to watch this space.
The instructions are simple...
You're a cop. I believe you. Can I try some of yours??Originally Posted by spudchucka
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Salted Pork
It makes you feel like this.......:spudwow: .You're a cop. I believe you. Can I try some of yours??
Tornado Alley
That is what the problem is. It doesn't matter what I think. I wasn't on the jury. I wasn't a defence lawyer or prosecutor. I have heard stories only and read the gospel according to KB.
The evidence of a prior conviction does not have anything to do with the current case. That is the position. That is how it is. That is what I am pointing out. Dunno if I can point it out any straighter...
The call was and continues to be the Police suppressed the information. That is WRONG.
Tornado Alley
"Could" have closed ranks...how about couldn't/didn't...
"Could" the investigation be window dressing...what about Couldn't/wasn't...
Sounds like maybes again... conspiricies again... many maybes...little facts...
Tornado Alley
Fair call, but... what if one of the three had no convictions and one or two did. It "may" have been a group orgy / it "may" have been rape. That is what has to be decided.
The prior is admitted and all three are convicted ONLY because of the prior of one. "If" it was an orgy/consentual, is it then fair they all go down for rape only because one had a prior?
Deus ex ukulele
This depends on the nature of the supression order. Some (such as those to protect the identity of victims and their families) will be permanent.
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
The instructions are simple...
That's the point that some of us are making.....we can't be 100% sure that all is above board in this instance because of past indiscretions on the part of the police. Still - it is the best we have, and we have to have some trust, don't we? With a healthy dollop of cynicism.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Wherever you go, there you are
But didn't LN's nightmare with the police start when she was living in Murapara at age 13..?
If you love it, let it go. If it comes back to you, you've just high-sided!
مافي مشكلة
Forum whore
Are you sure it's the Police that suppress this kind of info? I think it's the Judge isn't it? Not sure but someone here will know?
I've tried to read up as much as I can on this and my opinion is that while the outcome has not been 100% satisfactory to everyone, it is at least an outcome that has some integrety. LEGALLY the outcome was always going to go that way unless there was a highly creditable witness, OR some solid evidence on the prosecutions side. LN may have lost the legal battle (in the court) but she definately won the more public moral one!
So..
This has neatly solved a problem for the NZ Police and now made it highly unlikely that a certain person will make it to the top job!
However, like a good thriller, the sub plots and side issues are probably as interesting as the main event!
My opinion on the history of this is.
At the time of the initial complaint, I would think that certain people in the Police in the area were of a like mind, ie it's a big boofy boys club! Perhaps the original investigation was tainted by this and LN was probably not viewed as a serious complainent. Undoubtably this was wrong but not necessarily corrupt! (Corruption would assume that a certain person was protected for $$?) My feeling is that she was terribly unlucky and had she been dealt with by another person then she may have had a different result. At that time, the world was a different place and there was a lot of 'boys club' mentality in the Police, some unscrupulous people took that too far!
Time moved on and due to patronage, a bit of luck and some ability someone did OK! All of a sudden you have a LOT to loose and you need to revisit the past and make sure the objective evidence disappears. Again, this would not really be corruption, just one or 2 bad eggs in a pretty large organisation.
Time moved on some more and eventually, it gets to the stage where the mass of circumstance can no longer be ignored because someone is about to step into the big job and due diligence is carried out! Everyone knows he's dodgy, everyones pretty sure he did it or at least, made some very poor choices and the media for one are just waiting for the announcement before they ask the big question.
Before it all goes terribly bad he is taken out in the only way they can.
In summary, I belive LN was abused by these men BUT she was daft enough to put herself into the situation. She has my sympathy but there was more she could have done earlier.
The 3 accused? Nothing but contempt!
The Police? Eventually they came good BUT they need to learn from this (we all do). Pyschopaths are VERY convincing and often get into positions of great power. The Police, Social workers, Prison Guards etc needs to be very careful! They come into contact with vunerable people all the time, there is a very fine line between having a relationship or taking advantage!
Loud and Uncouth
In answer to your question: I do not believe ANY prior convictions should be release to the jury - they are judging the case on front of them on the evidence relating directly to THAT crime.
IF priors WERE to be released how (and who) decides whacases get what rpiors released?
Only similar types of offence?
Only going back 5 or 10 or 20 years?
And what if three defendants/one with priors?
I think the releasing of priors is threatening two perceptions of law" innocent until proven guilty" and :better 99 go free than 1 be wrongfully convicted.
As far as your last statement, is it a troll? Do you think your ONE prior conviction (if you had one) should haunt you for the rest of your life?
When your 18 and young/dumb/full of cum you do 'stuff' without thinking about tomorrow, - let alone 'will this bite me in the arse 20 years down the track"
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Tornado Alley
[QUOTE=Paul in NZ]Are you sure it's the Police that suppress this kind of info? I think it's the Judge isn't it? Not sure but someone here will know?
You've read me wrong... Defence would agrue for suppression, judge would grant it coz it is completely prejudicial. Prosecutors (Police) would want it...
Immature and proud of it.
Corruption doesn't necessarily involve bribes. It could be a reluctance to prosecute members of the ruling party, it could be a senior Police Officer using his rank to avoid a prosecution. it could also be the allocation of resources to suit a Govt's financial needs, rather than the victims of crime.
Money doesn't have to change hands.
BTW Scummy, aren't there times when previous convictions may be revealed during a trial? Such as when a defendant introduces his character as a factor.
Speed doesn't kill people.
Stupidity kills people.
Loud and Uncouth
True, but I got the impression from some that they wanted the introducing of 'prior's was to be de riguer in all cases.
And in the case you mentioned it is to refute a claim of impecable character when the guy is actually a low-life arse-hole. (shows him to be untruthful for a start).
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Salted Pork
If a defendant gives evidence as to their own good conduct then the prosecution can give rebuttal evidence, which could include evidence of prior offending.
There are a few exceptions to the rule, for example, evidence of prior offending can be given in cases involving the receiving of stolen goods. I haven't looked into this for years but as I recall you can produce the defendants history of the same type of offending going back five years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks