Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

**Streetwise** · 3rd April 2006, 09:07

OK ill take the hint, Fnal word on the matter,

POICE DONT GO THROUGHT THE SYSTEM THEY CREATE A SYSTEM THAT SUITS.

**terbang** · 3rd April 2006, 09:31

But are we not voters..? Do we have rights as well..? These bloody assholes have been behaving like a bunch of hoods for years and then get away with it under the very justice system that we as joe bloggs kiwi is supposed to believe in and abide by and then we are not allowed to ask questions or express our views....?

**Paul in NZ** · 3rd April 2006, 09:32

Originally Posted by Streetwise

OK ill take the hint, Fnal word on the matter,

POICE DONT GO THROUGHT THE SYSTEM THEY CREATE A SYSTEM THAT SUITS.

I don't think thats quite fair.

However, the Police do have a lot more experience and knowledge OF the system and how to give evidence etc in court. Plus they have had a lot of time to prepare and that was always going to make this a little unfair.

Paul N

**terbang** · 3rd April 2006, 09:45

An interesting comment from our prison officers was that 7 of the jury were women and that women tend to be much tougher on other women over rape trials.
The question I ask is what did Nicholas have to gain from accusing these guys.. Nothing at all but infamy..! So why.? Or is it just possible that she may be telling the truth..

**Hitcher** · 3rd April 2006, 09:54

Originally Posted by terbang

But are we not voters..? Do we have rights as well..? These bloody assholes have been behaving like a bunch of hoods for years and then get away with it under the very justice system that we as joe bloggs kiwi is supposed to believe in and abide by and then we are not allowed to ask questions or express our views....?

Of course you have rights to express your views. But getting back to the first post in this thread, there are Court-imposed suppression orders in place in relation to the identities of some people involved in the trial. You are OK discussing any matters regarding this case as long as you don't repeat comment or speculation about protected individuals and their circumstances.

**Lou Girardin** · 3rd April 2006, 09:57

On the face of it, I don't see how the jury could have convicted them. There was just too much doubt. Having said that, those three cops are the lowest form of scum. Consensual sex or not, they are supposed to be pillars of society, not gangbanging animals like gang members.
If Rickards isn't shunted into some nothing job for the rest of his career there's something very wrong.
And then again, if Nicholas was telling the truth, she must be in the depths of despair that more cops have got away with what they did to her.

**u4ea** · 3rd April 2006, 09:58

.

The question I ask is what did Nicholas have to gain from accusing these guys.. Nothing at all but infamy..! So why.? Or is it just possible that she may be telling the truth..

its hard to know wot Nicholas was thinking.i wonder if she woke up one day and felt guilty for having it off with her wormates knowing they were married.she doesnt get my sympathy.am a surviver myself and she isnt behaving like a victim.male cops are just men in uniforms,they still have animal instincts like everyone else.

**Grahameeboy** · 3rd April 2006, 10:00

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

On the face of it, I don't see how the jury could have convicted them. There was just too much doubt. Having said that, those three cops are the lowest form of scum. They are supposed to be pillars of society, not gangbanging animals like gang members.
If Rickards isn't shunted into some nothing job for the rest of his career there's something very wrong.
And then again, if Nicholas was telling the truth, she must be in the depths of despair that more cops have got away with what they did to her.

Lou.......you are starting to see the light........God bless

I agree.....those guys were still out of order..........some serious bad morals.............no one is perfect but this kinda stuff is just toilet.

**terbang** · 3rd April 2006, 10:11

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

If Rickards isn't shunted into some nothing job for the rest of his career there's something very wrong.

In the eyes of the law a jury has said that Rickards has done nothing wrong so why should he stand down from the assistant police commisioners job. ?
Yup very wrong indeed..!

**Patrick** · 3rd April 2006, 10:12

Some wise person once said something along the lines of..."It is better that a guilty man walks free than an innocent man goes to jail..."

That is why we have the system we have. Guilty men do walk free because of a multitude of rules and procedures that must be followed, to protect the innocent.

Other rapes, convicted of or not, had nothing to do with this case, which is why it would not be presented. If it had been, the probability that the jury might think, "he did it before, he must be guilty of this one too then" is exactly why it is not permitted. Guilt of past deeds does not mean automatic guilt of any further deeds.

Once a guilty verdict has been reached, judges often let the jury know of the past convictions, but only then. (Can help appease those who might have ummed and arghed for a while during deliberations...).

**Streetwise** · 3rd April 2006, 10:13

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

I don't think thats quite fair.

However, the Police do have a lot more experience and knowledge OF the system and how to give evidence etc in court. Plus they have had a lot of time to prepare and that was always going to make this a little unfair.

Paul N

Have you been to court and watched the copper lie, I have, Seen them press charges on friends of mine for bike accidents that where not there fault, They cheappen the system something terrable,

**Patrick** · 3rd April 2006, 10:13

Originally Posted by terbang

In the eyes of the law a jury has said that Rickards has done nothing wrong so why should he stand down from the assistant police commisioners job. ?
Yup very wrong indeed..!

Yep...but if you fling enough shit, some will stick, somewhere, somehow...

**u4ea** · 3rd April 2006, 10:22

Originally Posted by Patrick

Yep...but if you fling enough shit, some will stick, somewhere, somehow...

and they are called pigs for a reason................

**Jantar** · 3rd April 2006, 10:26

The question in this trial was whether the three men had raped an 18 yr old woman some 20 odd years ago. It wasn't about whether policemen should have higher moprals than the rest of society, or whether other rapes or even other consensual group sex may have taken place.

On the basis of the evidence reported in the media, I would have felt that a guilty verdict would not have been possible. That doesn't mean that it didn't take place, nor that it did happen. Just that to try and prove guilt or otherwise after such a long time period without any physical evidence such as DNA, or even a complaint at the time would be a mis-carriage of justice.

As Hitcher has already said. "Let it go."

**Grahameeboy** · 3rd April 2006, 10:33

Originally Posted by Jantar

The question in this trial was whether the three men had raped an 18 yr old woman some 20 odd years ago. It wasn't about whether policemen should have higher moprals than the rest of society, or whether other rapes or even other consensual group sex may have taken place.

On the basis of the evidence reported in the media, I would have felt that a guilty verdict would not have been possible. That doesn't mean that it didn't take place, nor that it did happen. Just that to try and prove guilt or otherwise after such a long time period without any physical evidence such as DNA, or even a complaint at the time would be a mis-carriage of justice.

As Hitcher has already said. "Let it go."

Agreed...................................