Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[Hitcher]

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

And just as well too. I have been keeping a watchful moderator's eye on this thread and have luckily only had to delete one post so far.

[Skyryder]

If you are going up to the base to bat, you must always remember that there is every possibilty that you may be struck our. Nichols was struck out. The 12 umpires decided to belive the men instead of her. That's the name of the game and if you can not lose don't play. Harsh as this may be that's the reality of the game that was played. For my part I believed her. If I ever saw a bully Ricards is that. The body language was obvious.

Skyryder

[MikeL]

To sum up:

1. In a trial previous behaviour is admissible evidence to challenge credibility of a witness but not of a defendant.
2. On the basis of the evidence the verdicts were correct.
3. Nevertheless the police were right to lay the charges.
4. The "truth" is not ascertainable and it is pointless to continue to speculate about "guilt" or otherwise.
5. The concept of "law" is not the same as that of "justice".
6. A legal judgement is of quite a different nature from a moral judgement.
7. There are no winners in this case.
8. Mud will stick.
9. Not all policemen are pigs (or rapists).
10. The actions of the women at Wellington railway station were deplorable.

Have I forgotten anything?

[Madness]

Have I forgotten anything?

There is always time for lubricant, especially where a baton is to be used.

[Ixion]

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

And nor they have. Which highlights the pernicious nature of suppression orders. Whilst they may sometimes be used for legitimate reasons (to ensure a fair trial etc), there is reason to suspect that all too often they are in reality gagging orders, used to protect the wealthy, and those with friends in high places.

We can only suspect of course, because often, not only is the identity of all parties suppressed, all evidence suppressed, the fact that there is a trial at all is suppressed, and even the existence of the suppression order itself is suppressed. Mr Berryman of the NBR was the one who blew the whistle on that practice some years ago , and got into much trouble for it. Few questioned whether such a practice was not itself incompatable with justice. I think it was Lord Denning (one of the few judges I would respect - another would be Mr Justice Avory - 'Hanging Horace') who said "Justice must not only be done but openly and manifestly be seen to be done".

There are much more subtle ways of corruption than used banknotes in a brown paper bag.

How often does it happen? We cannot know. By definition, it is suppressed! And editors with the balls of Mr Berryman are few and far between. But corruption always flourishes in the dark, so we may reliably presume that it is far more common than we think.

NZ desparately needs a truely free press. The present groveling toadying arse licking sycophants are not worthy of that name

Even more desparately, we need a half way decent judiciary. I wish that some of the rancour that is visited here upon the police were to be directed to the judges.

They deserve the slagging far more. And, if they were honest and forthright, a lot of the more dodgy police practices (not used by any KB members I am sure) would be stopped. It only needs a judge to ask "But, constable, how exactly was 160 kph dangerous under these specific cirucmstances" and instantly we have a much more sensible speed regime. Never will though, NZ is abysmally served by our judicary.

EDIT. The judges fail us , and the police, in the other direction too, when some vile villain is handed a token slap with a wet bus ticket. Thus ratifying the scumbag's belief that crime pays, making all of our lives less safe , and causing the police (who have gone to much trouble and perhaps personal risk to catch scumbag in the first place) to ask, why do we bother.

[Timber020]

Would I be breaking any rules by saying that alot of his colleagues refer to him as "the rapist" and that at social gatherings men are quick to take there partners home and guys generally make sure no women are left unaccompanied if a certain high ranking officer is about?

Hes been a bad guy for a long time.

[kickingzebra]

To be honest, I just think it is so damn sad when we view all authority figures with such malcontent. Does that mean they aren't worthy of our trust? I don't know, but how nice would it be to be able to trust and respect the motives of any and all authority figures?! Humanity can suck sometimes

[MisterD]

But should that be up to the Police solely to decide?

Currently it's the police that have the role of deciding when to prosecute (hey we went through all this on the quad bike affair). I have to say though, I was somewhat surprised that we don't have an equivalent of the UK's Crown Prosecution Service....

[Krusti]

I don't really care about the outcome of the trial....what does concern me is that we have some people enforcing laws and holding themselves up as good upstanding citizens who pop round to a young girls place with some work buddies and have group sex with her behind their partners backs.

I am dumb but even I know that if I was to put myself in that situation then there is a very good chance that it will come back to bite me...

When you are a Police officer you know that there is a higher level of conduct/ moral accountabillty required.

Just a dumb, direspectfull, stupid thing to do....

[Hitcher]

NZ desparately needs a truely free press. The present groveling toadying arse licking sycophants are not worthy of that name.

Just think for one moment about what you have just said. You're saying that a "truly free" press should be able to publish anything it likes about anybody? What about checking for factual accuracy? What about defamation? What about protecting the rights of the innocent -- such as the victims and the families in child abuse cases? What about Harmeet Sooden's employment history being "suppressed" (voluntarily) while he was being held hostage? You're saying that we should dispense with our Court and justice system and let trials be held through the media?

I think you should think carefully about the roles of citizens who wish to live in a "truly free" society and the support mechanisms they need to achieve this state.

[kickingzebra]

Yet if the media is unable to hold government to account, who is? Relying on word of mouth and public feeling is too surreal, and completely partial. The cost of that has been bloody revolts the world over, they typically aren't that good for the economy.
Media are well set up with rules and guidelines to follow, but if nobody digs to see what the truth is, then society would be as much as saying go ahead with your corruption. What we don't know can't hurt us.
Ixion is right, mainstream media are doing a woefully inadequate job of being an impartial standpoint. They are simply acting out the role of left of centre political puppets. That does no one any favours.

[Ixion]

Just think for one moment about what you have just said. You're saying that a "truly free" press should be able to publish anything it likes about anybody? What about checking for factual accuracy? What about defamation? What about protecting the rights of the innocent -- such as the victims and the families in child abuse cases? What about Harmeet Sooden's employment history being "suppressed" (voluntarily) while he was being held hostage? You're saying that we should dispense with our Court and justice system and let trials be held through the media?

I think you should think carefully about the roles of citizens who wish to live in a "truly free" society and the support mechanisms they need to achieve this state.

You confuse freedom and irresponsibility. Freedom always carries a concomitant duty. In the case of the press, duties (inter alia) of truthfulness ; of decency; of care, public and private. And of merit, for mere titillation hath no freedom.

A free press thus bears upon its shoulders a correspondingly grave responsibility - and should be held accountable for it. The press likes on occasion to claim the title of the "fourth estate". But, so being, it must conduct itself with the sobriety and attention to public and private good that should be (but, alas, so seldom is) the nature of the other three estates.

And, it should be held accountable , before the law , for the performance of that duty.

A nation blessed with a truly free press would have no scandelsheets. For what good purpose , private or public, can they claim? Lacking the justifcation of either public or private good, they should be condemned and extinguished.

But any matter that that is of merit or which touches uopon the common weal, should be brought forward for public examination and debate. Evil always seeks the darkness- the most certain guarantee of freedom and liberty in any state is to ensure that no matter of civic comity is allowed to pass without such approbation or censure as it may merit.

Such invigilation is not incompatible with a respect for individual privacy or the (equally important) needs of justice.

Few I think could claim that the news media of our country meet such a standard

This is true liberty, when free-born men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free,
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise;
Who neither can, nor will, may hold his peace:
What can be juster in a state than this?

[Goblin]

Even more desparately, we need a half way decent judiciary. I wish that some of the rancour that is visited here upon the police were to be directed to the judges.

They deserve the slagging far more. And, if they were honest and forthright, a lot of the more dodgy police practices (not used by any KB members I am sure) would be stopped. It only needs a judge to ask "But, constable, how exactly was 160 kph dangerous under these specific cirucmstances" and instantly we have a much more sensible speed regime. Never will though, NZ is abysmally served by our judicary.

EDIT. The judges fail us , and the police, in the other direction too, when some vile villain is handed a token slap with a wet bus ticket. Thus ratifying the scumbag's belief that crime pays, making all of our lives less safe , and causing the police (who have gone to much trouble and perhaps personal risk to catch scumbag in the first place) to ask, why do we bother.

This opens a whole new can of worms. Not that I've had much to do with Judges but it seems to me that alot of the old, long time judges are too well paid and so far removed from reality they have no idea what grief they cause the Police and the public with their feeble attempts at sentencing. The slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket is all too common for hardened crimimals and sex offenders. When minor cannibis charges are given harsher sentences than child molestation it idicates to me that the judge is partial to kiddy fiddling himself. And who judges the Judges?? They get caught breaking the law and it gets swept under the carpet.

[The Stranger:Me]

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.

I disagree. Many of these things show a pattern.

For example kiddy fiddling - either you are bent that way or not. Personally I find the thought repulsive, as does I am sure the vast majority of the pupulation, however some obviously find it acceptable. It is this acceptability which the past can establish.

Rape is the same bag baby. Personally I find it deplorable, because I feel it is the ultimate demonstration of the strong persecuting the week in a most vulgar manner. However again some find that acceptable I feel it would be preferable for a jury to know if X considers it acceptable.

Sure it does not mean X is automatically guilty in this case, but it does mean X is capable of being guilty.

[slimjim]

yea man , reckon only reason that it got shifted cause the folks in rotovegas would have found them guilty:spudgrr: