Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[spudchucka]

Agreeing with you there on every point. It's unfair and so are any false allegations made, that's why I would say we need everything lined up to encourage women to report whilst there is still a good chance of firm physical evidence to back up the accusation.

I agree that we need to do everything we can to get women to report rapes as soon as they happen. It is a hell of an ordeal that they have to go through though and I understand their reluctance sometimes. However women need to realise that their chances of obtaining a conviction in a rape complaint is seriously lessened by delaying the reporting by nearly two decades.

If it comes down to one person's word versus another then I would hope the police would gently say to the complainant "Sorry, there's just not enough evidence to proceed".

It happens reasonably often but can you imagine the uproar that would have followed if the investigators had said this to Nicholas? Which is another reason that this particular prosecution was somewhat beyond the realms of normality.

[spudchucka]

This is the law but it certainly ain't justice.

I question whether it had anything to do with the law. I thought it was outright stupidity on the part of the jury.

[spudchucka]

Dosnt matter anymore anyway as the info has been released at wellington railway station this afternoon, Someone has handed out info on the officers and info on the case.

Just because somebody else has released the information doesn't mean that anybody else doing the same couldn't be done for doing the same thing. There is a court order supressing those details, all would be well advised to drop it.

[Streetwise]

yes this is true,

[spudchucka]

By their actions they may have reduced considerably the chance of a "clean jury" being found for subsequent cases.

Exactly. And how have they served the complainants in those matters, the victims they profess to care about?

[Patrick]

If it comes down to one person's word versus another then I would hope the police would gently say to the complainant "Sorry, there's just not enough evidence to proceed".

But should that be up to the Police solely to decide? As in this case, it was one persons word against three. That apparently was the call years ago (when the complaint was first laid, whenever that was???...) and it leapt up and bit them in the arse. Was that original decision sound? Who knows.... that is why there is a huge investigation continuing to historic rape complaints/police response/handling etc etc etc...

[Streetwise]

Just to clear the air it was not me who passed around the info on this case, BUT i do happen to agree with the people trying to bring it to light, These chaps should be held accountable if they are guilty of this, With the evidence from the other trial comming out it looks like the are.

[Patrick]

These chaps should be held accountable if they are guilty of this, With the evidence from the other trial comming out it looks like the are.

Exactly the problem...guilty already. What if they weren't guilty? One hell of a roundabout going on here...

[Paul in NZ]

I realise that he has tarnished the public opinion of all police and to a degree I accept that. However I have never raped anyone and I have never been into any kinky threesome type pervy nonsense either. So don't judge me as a person because of his poor behaviour as a police officer.

I doubt that we will think badly of you Spud. Those that hate the Police will always do so and those that don't won't! However, over all, the postive aspect of this case is that it was bought to trial! As I mentioned earlier, in a hell of a lot of the world the complainent might just disappear! Thank god we live here in NZ!

Kudos goes to those that decided to work on the case. Mr R must be a formidable target inside that organisation and their lot would not have been easy!

Overall. I think the Police have behaved properly as an organisation. They went ahead knowing that a guilty outcome was unlikely but that the 3 accused would still suffer some sort of punishment, even if it's just embarassment.

The rest is just speculation! To be fair, the complainent did herself no favours at the time but thats probably down to foolish youth. One would have hoped that an 18 year old girl in similar circumstances today would be helped instead of being taken advantage of! I have 3 daughters myself and the thought of this makes me angry! You don't take what you haven't earnt! Those men behaved disgracefully and i see little shame on their faces! Arrogance!

Sigh! There are no winners in this eh! A bad business all round!

[Hitcher]

Just to clear the air it was not me who passed around the info on this case, BUT i do happen to agree with the people trying to bring it to light, These chaps should be held accountable if they are guilty of this, With the evidence from the other trial comming out it looks like the are.

Utter twaddle. The hoary old presumption of smoke being evidence of combustion. This case was held before a clean jury. The actions of the naively self-righteous at Wellington railway station this morning may result in a situation where other complainants whose cases have yet to be heard may not get their day in Court. Where is the justice in that? Idiots.

[Lou Girardin]

Utter twaddle. The hoary old presumption of smoke being evidence of combustion. This case was held before a clean jury. The actions of the naively self-righteous at Wellington railway station this morning may result in a situation where other complainants whose cases have yet to be heard may not get their day in Court. Where is the justice in that? Idiots.

Too true. But the they're probably not that concerned about Nicholas or any other victims, they have their own agenda.

[Scouse]

There are more trials coming, which is one reason the suppression orders are in place. Please don't do or say anything that may subvert orders of the Court. Suppression orders placed to protect the identities of individuals are designed for exactly that purpose and not as narrow as encompassing only Court-related matters. The Judge in this case has issued a warning in relation to suppression orders. Let it go.

No one has mentioned any names here up to the stage of your post Hitcher

[onearmedbandit]

I don't recall any names being mentioned at all. I posted in about the 4th post regarding the Judges comments, it was just a warning to anyone who thought they might add some sensitive info to the fray. Someone commented about the chace of anything posted here being picked up by the media. Well they don't have to, chances are there could be someone who is a member here who has some involvement in the case, ie they may know someone involved. All it would take is the wrong info posted, someone reads it and alerts someone who is in a position to act on it, and Spankme as the owner of the site has some explaining to do. (Sorry, I don't know what the exact repurcussions would be.)


Not debating the merits of supressed evidence, just making people aware that you are not entirely safe with what you post here.

[Madness]

Anyone here see TV3 news tonight?? Item about this very topic. A group of women in Wellington handed out 1600 pamphlets in town today, containing information that supression orders relate to.....

The plot thickens (or is that sickens??)

[Hitcher]

Sigh. Read the thread...