Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[MSTRS:Me]

Have to agree there and we would be naive to think that police wouldnt know how fuck with evidence/jurys to suit their own purpose. Thats an important point here starting with finer issues such as Rickard fronting to court on the first day in his full police regalia. The truth never stood a chance in this case.

Correct on all points.

[Hitcher]

The truth never stood a chance in this case.

I don't want to go all post-modernist, but "truth" is rarely objective in the manner you suggest.

What was on trial was Louise Nicholas' "truth" against the "truth" of two former and one serving (albeit suspended) Police officers. Clearly the jury found sufficient doubt in Ms Nicholas' "truth" to warrant 20 not-guilty verdicts.

[Paul in NZ]

Yes, They admitted the events. What they didn't admit to was rape.

The trial was on whether or not the events were consensual, not whether they happened. The flatmates evidence raised reasonable doubts on whether it was consensual group sex or rape. Personally I feel that they possibly were guilty, but on the evidence presented in the media there is no way a jury could convict them "Beyond reasonable doubt".

My feeling, without seeing the suppressed evidence, is that this was not rape of the 'classical' sort.

My feeling is that these men took advantage of a stupid young person for their own personal gratification and gain. While thats not technically a crime, it is however still wrong. (If it was a crime half the booze, tobacco, fashion, auto and music industry would go broke tomorrow) However, it was a line call! Good on the Police for bringing it to trial but based on the evidence presented in the public forum, the verdict was probably the correct one.

The difference is, Assistant Commissioner is a powerful public position! The Police have know about this difficulty for quite some time and regardless of anything else, this gentleman seems only to regret being caught out and embarrased. I'm sorry, there is a great shame in this! If he can't see this, he should definately NOT be in this position!

[terbang]

Because an elected government, of the time and country, made it perfectly legal to gas 6 million Jews certainly didn't mean that it was the right thing to do.
The law should reflect the tempo or mood of the society thus it should be no crime in questioning its methods and it should at least be available to the scrutiny of those living within it.

[mangell6]

this gentleman seems only to regret being caught out and embarrased.

The first day the the serving officer arrived at court indicated his attitude, which on the media face of it has not changed in all that time.

20 years ago societies attitudes towards the Police force was very different than it is today.

This case had to be brought to the courts so that "justice" could be seen to be done. Was there a "Prima Facie" case, if so one individual was of enough importance not to bring the charges to court, oops sorry wrong thread.

Hopefully his attitudes and the way he lead his life back in the 80's has changed, along with the people he used to associate with.

The prosecution didn't have a hope from day one, three respectable policemen, and where did that batton go?

Mike

[Phurrball]

I don't want to go all post-modernist, but "truth" is rarely objective in the manner you suggest.

What was on trial was Louise Nicholas' "truth" against the "truth" of two former and one serving (albeit suspended) Police officers. Clearly the jury found sufficient doubt in Ms Nicholas' "truth" to warrant 20 not-guilty verdicts.

Yep, 'truth' with a very high burden of proof (Rhyming unintended.).

'Not guilty' means unproven at an evidential level of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It does not mean innocent.

[Lou Girardin]

Louise Nicholas did not "wait 20 years to complain". She went to the Police not long after the incident and was deterred from proceeding by Rickards boss.

I'm also amazed that some people in this thread think that the Police needn't have a higher standard of behaviour than the general population.
It may be unfashionable, but if one has state granted power over other citizens they should be as close to squeaky clean as humanly possible. Maybe then we wouldn't have recent cases of Police Officers committing rape, assault on females, drug dealing, drink driving etc.

[TONO]

To be fair, the events occurred 20 years ago. The cops involved were relative newcomers to the force and were not in their 30/40's at that time. However, the fact that they did not deny the sex shows a sick culture existed well before the allegations of that term in South Auck more recently. Sure, they are men under the uniform, but that does not excuse their behaviour. I'm with those on here that reckon Rickards & co should not be allowed to retain their job on the grounds of immoral behaviour.

I would have to agree & there was this type of culture around in Rotorua in those days.
You only had to live here & associate with some of them to know that.
These guys were far from angels & macho to fuck
Its all gone now though.....just poor management to contend with, from what I hear now.

[Ixion]

Yep, 'truth' with a very high burden of proof (Rhyming unintended.).

'Not guilty' means unproven at an evidential level of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It does not mean innocent.

In this case it probably means the classic "She deserved it, not guilty, but don't do it again"

[Paul in NZ]

I'm also amazed that some people in this thread think that the Police needn't have a higher standard of behaviour than the general population.
It may be unfashionable, but if one has state granted power over other citizens they should be as close to squeaky clean as humanly possible. Maybe then we wouldn't have recent cases of Police Officers committing rape, assault on females, drug dealing, drink driving etc.

I agree with you Lou....

Paul N

[spudchucka]

That is an interesting question, especially considering that it sounded from the TV news reports that the defence team were using the accuser's past and track record against her...doesn't seem particularly even handed that.

She isn't the one going to jail if convicted and there have been many of these types of complaints made in absolute malice. It is right to question the accussers integrity and credibility. However it isn't right or fair to judge an accussed person based on past action that are unrelated to the current matter they are accussed of, even if those past actions are of a similar nature.

[spudchucka]

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..!

If he were to take up his former position it would be a PR nightmare for the police. Also, where is the good faith between the employer and the employee now that the employer has tried to put the employee behind bars? How could a positive working environment exist between them?

The police will have to go through the normal resolution process, they will both have goals they want to achieve but I'd pick that Rickards is in for a huge golden handshake and early retirement to some tropical paradise.

[spudchucka]

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

Pride
Integrity
Guts

Don't judge me by the actions of Mr Rickards.

[Blairos]

However it isn't right or fair to judge an accussed person based on past action that are unrelated to the current matter they are accussed of, even if those past actions are of a similar nature.

And why is that??

Say someone is serving time for a similar offence, and they are out on day leave from the klink (or whatever), commit the exact same thing again, only to go to court and have it suppressed?
What sort of joke is the law if you are unable to indentify a dangerous pattern of offences, are powerless to show this "evidence of historic offending" and put the said scumbag off the streets for a few years?
Sheesh!

[spudchucka]

Or she could have felt intimidated, degraded and humiliated by her experience and the maturity of 20 years finally gave her the courage to speak up..
Or is that not allowed by the law..

It is allowed, although some are now calling for that to change.

The problem with sexual offences reported many years after the fact is that there is no physical evidence at all.

It comes down to who is the most convincing, credible witness. There only needs to be reasonable doubt and the jury has to acquit.

Look at what the jury has to consider, how do they tell if one or both parties are telling the truth? How do they tell how much is gospel, how much is fiction and how much is exageration? Getting a conviction on a historic sex offence like this can be extremely difficult.