Aresholes con a jury, part two

[ManDownUnder]

It might sound stupid to you, But maybe you are incapable of analysing people in that respect. I've been in enough prisons to have seen the resemblance.

Actually no, not silly at all - facial expressions are a key part of body language, and the eyes are a key part of facial expressions. My point is though is may be of interest it's certainly no link between a person (who might be the worst of the worst bad bastards), and a criminal event.

Also, Innocent until proven guilty my friend. Just because someone may be capable of committing a crime doesn't mean you should lock them up. They may not have done that crime.

Bingo... complete agreement

Can I still have the "Get out of Jury Service free" card?

Sure - just mention your ability to determine guilt based on facial features.

I'd also refer to the science of phrenology if you get the chance. That'll go down like a turd in a punchbowl too.

===

Of interest - headlines in today's paper - more charges/allegations being made against Rickards and co...

[Ixion]

Of interest - headlines in today's paper - more charges/allegations being made against Rickards and co...

Well, that appears to be an allegation that he screwed a woman across the bonnet of a car. No suggestion that she was unwilling. So I'm not sure what the issue is with that, most guys would have done it (and most chicks I guess). It's all getting a bit silly now.

Next thing someone's going to come forward with an allegation that he pulled himself off when he was a 15 year old boy.

[Patrick]

What about FZR1000's??????

Yep...and the farmers tractor...

[Patrick]

Gee your observant if your not carfull you will make detective

Shit... I've been called many things, but that just ruins me...!!!! Have to have a sickie week or 17 now...

[Patrick]

The lifted all the supression orders relating to the Defendant in this case.

The whole thing was a shambles, i dont blame the austin enquiry team as this kind of investigation could only be initiated by the powers that be.

It was... excellent, good and dedicated cops did their damn best over this, but were always on a hiding to nothing over a 20 year old event without any physical evidence.

CR making any slight or up front noises about going after them? Comments like that show he is unsuitable for the job he wants back.

[candor]

Not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Case closed. Get over it.

BS "get over it". Society including you and your family has an interest in Justice being done in serious cases.

The system does not enable that to happen in these kinds of cases.
The system is wrong (which is why we have this outcry) - it is an adversarial publicly reported one which provides no window of opportunity for the truth to be admitted or come out.

Guilty parties are encouraged and supported to adopt an extreme stance of 'not guilty' to save face. In High Court trials and before them there is no opportunity for offenders to come clean and make amends and many disincentives. It's a psychopathy (or dishonesty) encouraging system.

Offender OR victim must be vilified (or at least portrayed as not credible by tapping in to typical bogeymen theories like 'she felt disrespected so changed her story') where credibility is at stake. And it all comes down to whether the defense lawyer or the prosecution one is able to weave the most entertaining and captivating story using odd disparate facts and inventing others or rather interpretations of what those known facts might mean.

With murder the next most serious thing at least you have a body.

No rape that occurred with a victim and an offender or offenders or offenders and their mates present only (and no video footage) cam ever be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ever.

Any convictions in cases where it is a victims word against offender or offenders or offenders and their buddies happen by sheer luck.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" in any such conviction is always going to be subjective - a matter of the juries opinion about whether some-one lied.

Unless they were present at the crime scene no jury member can sanely claim to know 100% whether a complainant or offender or anyone else at the crime scene used as a witness is lying.

Your 'case closed /get over it" attitude will change fast if Rickards gets your dauughter in an alley next week, if your taxes are used to fund a trial that can not succeed because it is 'her word against his' and if she suicides 5 years later due to being spat at and crucified by anyone that knows Rickards and the media for having had the cheek to go 'attention seeking' by laying a complainrt when everyone knows she was not a virgin in the first place.

I mean how could they possibly convict Rickards for his alleyway escapade - what middleaged self confesssed 'tom cat' wouldn't say yes to a bit of naughty with your pretty daughter after all.

T'would be a terrible world if jo average suddenly could not have hot alley sex because some crazy women might cry rapr - right!?

What we should be asking is can this system be fixed. I honestly don't believe so. Attempting a rape case where it is word against word the odds are always going to be stacked against the victim. Unless she is dead and the semen happens to be from a stranger. If from someone vaguely known (like the stalker postman) the charge will likely just be manslaughter not rape and murder.

The lesson that must come from this is that a more inquisitorial less adversial ie victim and rapist/his supporters get to speak directly not via lawyers, and less media reported trial system is needed for victims to have half a chance of the truth of such cases coming out.

I do not think Mrs Rickards could have lied so easily if questioned about her cousin coaching by the actual victim - personal responsibility is evaded when people have defense lawyers as shields.

Until such time as a better system is evolved (not one thats a couple of hundred years out of date including judicial fashion sense) I hope women have learnt from the latest stuffed up trials that they might as well play russian roulette as lay a rape charge.

I sincerely hope differenty to other women on this thread that women now boycott the system. Willingly partaking in something set up to be fairly hopeless (if justice i sought) just in order to expose dangerous people, with the certain prospect of retraumatisation is a FOOLS game.

The current situation is virtal anarchy. Most deviate men are well aware the courts will not hold them accountable unless they are insanely stupid.

Kind of like those English guys who videotaped the torture of that retarded girl. Had they not done that and had she gone to Police the current system would have crucified her as a liar or somene who enjoyed sado masochism and the boys would have illicited public sympathy and been seen as heros who just had innocent fun which has now been all twisted around by a retard. Such is the sexism in our society.

As in Arabia (is it) so in NZ. The word of one man in practise cancels out the word of 3 women. Sexism is not just a male problem - women are the worst often at holding fellow women as less credible than men.

Your words "case closed - get on with it" really sound like this whole case and issue cause you discomfort. I don't know if that's true or not.

Yes the case is finished, that is reality. But we sghould not just pretend all is well with it. As Vifferman said there are matters "of similar fact" re other related offenses that should create a high degreee of discomfort about the verdict.

Why is it more concerning to people when a guilty person is convicted and does a couple of years under our light Justice system than when someone likely guilty of a heinous crime slips thru the holes in a very flawed system?

The consequences of a rapist getting off are far worse than those of a non murderer in this country getting wrongly convicted.

In case one - recidivism of a serious crime is more likely to affect all of us.
In case 2 - one guy and his family lose a few years of freedom.

Both situations are terrible but I'd say situation 1 is worse. Both for the victim and for society in general.

I do know what I'm talking about Hitcher. My rapist got off on the bogus consent defense. It was upsetting to say the least. He raped again a couple years later ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT IN JAIL and ended in a high security unit as it was very violent - even more that time.

The chances of injustice being done to victims is high when the consent defense is used. Even strangers to the victim will successfully use it as juries seem to think a lot of womenc (particularly of breeding age) have male type sex drives and will screw anything with a penis.

Well defense lawyers are good at creating such a world view which if it enables reasonable doubt in one idiot out of 12's minds is a winner.

I hope that gives you some insight. The only way I'd ever bring another rape charge is if I was over 70 then I'd be confident my gender would not factor against people believing me.

What the system has taught me is that rape is not in practise unlawful. The law offers no disincentive and no protection and no resolution unless there are exceptional circumstances - like being a greypower granny.

I therefore decided that I would do everything in my power to do my civil duty and kill the next person to try and rape me (tho hopefully I'm a bit old at near 40 to be a prime target now). It wouldn't be easy as men are stronger than women but I would certainly try.

I believe that is reasonable force as the rapist might be trying to infect you with hepatitis C or HIV for all you know. I did not enjoy the 6 month wait to be tested for these things last time. Won't happen again.

[Hitcher]

If, if, if, if, if. I'm not going to speculate about hypothetical situations, nor should you. Get over it (the Rickard case that is).

[candor]

I don't get it. In most of your posts you show a reasonable concern with social justice. Why not speculate - it's only human and exactly what trial lawyers do re the nature of reality whichh they invent as they go along. I'm over the Rickards case anyway - it's finished as I said and it never had a chance either any more than any other typical rape case. Just can't really understand why women are led to believe such cases have a hope in hell however valid. Seems like a waste of taxpayers money. If the results are usually a waste of time why keep laying cases to get the same shit, different day.

[Goblin]

If, if, if, if, if. I'm not going to speculate about hypothetical situations, nor should you. Get over it (the Rickard case that is).

Do you really think people should just "get over it"? rickards has behaved the same way since he was in high school and he will never change! He is a danger to society and should be locked up! Because of the debacle that is our justice system, he is still a free man...free to rape again! And you say get over it???? Shame on you hitcher!

[Goblin]

Just can't really understand why women are led to believe such cases have a hope in hell however valid. Seems like a waste of taxpayers money. If the results are usually a waste of time why keep laying cases to get the same shit, different day.

Easy. To line the pockets of the defence lawyers!

[RT527]

... and charged with whatever..

Thats Bullshit...they often don't get charged with anything.

[RT527]

Next thing someone's going to come forward with an allegation that he pulled himself off when he was a 15 year old boy.

Fark thats a good one.....sad thing is ...He prolly DID

[Macktheknife]

Just can't really understand why women are led to believe such cases have a hope in hell however valid. Seems like a waste of taxpayers money. If the results are usually a waste of time why keep laying cases to get the same shit, different day.

Maybe because there are quite a few cases where the offender is convicted?
Candor, I realise this case has stirred some stuff for you and I can only offer my sympathy and best understanding.
I may not agree with the verdict completely, nor with some of the views here expressed but the the case must be proven beyond doubt with evidence, it was not.

"The consequences of a rapist getting off are far worse than those of a non murderer in this country getting wrongly convicted. "

This comment is unbelievably arrogant and morally reprehensible. An innocent man goes to prison for 17-20 years and is branded a murderer for life, destroying not only his life but also his family's and friends and children, losing his property and liberty, forever. (hard to travel anywhere as a murderer)Almost certain to end a marriage if one already exists. Damn near impossible to get a job, partner, loan, credit card or car loan after a conviction like this, and the ultimate insult is that he is innocent of the crime.
But you say this is worse than a rapist 'getting off' a charge.
Not even the least bit reasonable or rational.

[terbang]

Your 'case closed /get over it"

That type of statement was levelled at those who choose to take a different opinion to him and, heaven forbid, post it on this forum that he seems to believe that he has some sort of paternal right or ownership over. In other words the allmighty Hitcher, though relatively speaking a johnny come lately to motorcycles, has spoken and all at varience to his view must now shut up. There were others that used statements like 'this thread is fucked' when he read something that he didn't agree with, though he put up a reasonable point of view. Another chose to intimidate by threatening to become an enemy. A very balanced debate indeed.
Candor, you know, like I know and they do too (though won't admit it) what these three shit heads have been and are like. The famous words of "an orchestrated lytany of lies" will certainly hold some water when referring to the defence case. This is because all three of them are trained and qualified investigators, have had years of being on the other side and are no strangers to the way a criminal case unfolds. I don't know all the details of the trial but after two or three SEPARATE accusations of rape being leveled at them, my suspicions are piqued. The slipperiest kind of criminal to catch has to be a crooked cop let alone three of them.
Candor, your frankness and honesty about your own case is appreciated as it shows a balance from a victims side to those 'detached generals' here, with EQ of cornered ferrets, that rape is a reality and that the law doesn't deal with it well and that often the victims end up with double jeopardy for speaking out.

[Clockwork]

I consider myself something of a civil libertarian, I support the system that says proir convictions are normally inadmissable in a trial, I have deep reservatins about the number of "sex" convitions that seem to be secured years after the alledged event took place, when often such cases seem to come down to nother more than "He said, She said". But something about this case left me questioning those values.

One the whole I still feel that prior convictions should not normally be brought before a jury but I can't help wondering if these cases would have had a different outcome if they had been tried together as was the original intent of the prosecution.