Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

**Maha** · 5th April 2006, 17:11

Rickards wont go any higher on the police ladder, and like i said in an earlier post that one of the accused had the rep of a ' fucken shocker ' in Rotorua, his name rhymes with Glad Shrimptown.

**Lou Girardin** · 5th April 2006, 17:23

I think I've just changed my mind about these rapist scum. Shame the jury couldn't hear about their past history.

**Indoo** · 5th April 2006, 17:27

Pfft cmon Lou we all know it was a vast conspiracy to stop Rickards becoming the first Maori commisioner.

**Ixion** · 5th April 2006, 17:30

I do not know if the one who got the job (Howard Broad) is such am improvement. In my dealing with him I found him to be a first class wally, though I would think he is honest enough. Just thick. And not very helpful.

I doubt he will be much of a friend to biking or the motorist in general, though he has accepted the need to improve the public perception of the force.

Serving cop members may have a different experience of him of course - mine was as a member of the public seeking greater police presence on the streets.

**Indoo** · 5th April 2006, 17:40

I haven't heard anything bad about him. And I think more importantly hes unlikely to have any skeletons coming outa the closet.

Just be thankful it was actually a cop who got the post. The way things are moving at the moment it won't suprise me if we have a 'ceo' next time.

**Patrick** · 5th April 2006, 20:14

Originally Posted by Winston001

And it needs to be said that imprisoning people doesn't seem to alter the crime rate.

It sure as hell alters their crime rate...

**spudchucka** · 6th April 2006, 06:21

Originally Posted by Ixion

Serving cop members may have a different experience of him of course - mine was as a member of the public seeking greater police presence on the streets.

I haven't met the guy so I'll reserve judgement. Met Rob a couple of times, he's a decent bloke actually and I think he did a pretty good job considering the mess he acquired from Doone. Broad has inherited a much tidier organisation so hopefully he can make some worthwhile advances.

**spudchucka** · 6th April 2006, 06:24

Originally Posted by Patrick

It sure as hell alters their crime rate...

Strangley enough our local burglary rate has hit rock bottom since one or two of our local losers have found their way into prison.

Prison may not have a great effect on re-offending rates but it sure as hell stops the arseholes from stealing your dvd or playstation while they are behind bars.

**spudchucka** · 6th April 2006, 06:27

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I think I've just changed my mind about these rapist scum. Shame the jury couldn't hear about their sexual history.

You've changed your tune. You're usually the champion of due process and a fair justice system.

**Lou Girardin** · 6th April 2006, 08:23

Originally Posted by Indoo

I haven't heard anything bad about him. And I think more importantly hes unlikely to have any skeletons coming outa the closet.
.

It's a sad day when that's the main criteria for the top cop.

**Lou Girardin** · 6th April 2006, 08:24

Originally Posted by spudchucka

You've changed your tune. You're usually the champion of due process and a fair justice system.

The jury was allowed to hear about hers.

**Hitcher** · 6th April 2006, 09:00

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

The jury was allowed to hear about hers.

Probably with good reason. Such as it would have prejudiced them to a point where the defendants could not have had a "fair" trial. Despite the outcome, the case that the jury was asked to consider was a weak one -- no evidence, few witnesses that would support the plaintiff's claims, etc.

**spudchucka** · 6th April 2006, 09:12

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

The jury was allowed to hear about hers.

She wasn't on trial, facing a lengthy jail term if found guilty.

As explained elsewhere in this thread, an accuser's credibility needs to be tested when the only evidence is their word against that of the accused (especially when the alleged offending happened nearly two decades ago). If the accuser's credibility is shown to be poor then do you believe all, part or none of their story?

What happened to beyond reasonable doubt? What happened to juries being the sole and ultimate judge of truth and justice (Gavin Vanner thread)?

**Winston001** · 6th April 2006, 09:32

Just to introduce another question - now that Ricards and co have been acquitted, should the taxpayer refund their legal costs? After all, they have won and it's completely unfair that they should have to pay to defend themselves.

I recall this debate on an earlier (Vanner?) thread. I think Lou was pro costs being paid to successful defendants, but my apologies if I'm wrong.

**MisterD** · 6th April 2006, 11:06

Originally Posted by Winston001

Just to introduce another question - now that Ricards and co have been acquitted, should the taxpayer refund their legal costs? After all, they have won and it's completely unfair that they should have to pay to defend themselves.

I recall this debate on an earlier (Vanner?) thread. I think Lou was pro costs being paid to successful defendants, but my apologies if I'm wrong.

Yep, done to death (so to speak) on the "For Cops only" thread.