Aresholes con a jury, part two

**Scouse** · 5th March 2007, 08:58

What has been really sticking out like dogs balls to me is that usualy in all cases where police are involved Greg OConner from the Police association apperes on the tele with suportive statments for the cop on trial, but right from the get go with this and the previous trial the police association has said nothing until today on the breakfast program Greg OConner was on and was in a very carful way distancing the Police force from rickards

**Damon** · 5th March 2007, 09:05

well, according to the radio this morning the Rape charges laid by Louise Nicholas were only one of seven time she has accused people of rape over the last few years, interesting how only the accused persons past matters.

and the latest person was told by the police she had to lay a complaint?! i'm not to sure if i belive this one, i'd like to think the police only charge people when they have evidence and facts

**Patrick** · 5th March 2007, 09:13

The gun seems very poised of late, particularly at CR in this thread...

No doubt, there is a serious problem...,

But how extreme is it in HIS case?

The latest one "thought" his name was Clint, and he had a tattoo of some sort somewhere. She could not pick him out in a 20 year old photo, of how he looked at the time of this event, or show where this event took place. I would have thought that something as shattering as this, one would have vivid memories.....

In short, that was the extent of her evidence against him. Guilty as sin? The jury didn't think so either...

Now................. The other two are convicted rapists, (good job).

If the jury was to know of the past history of those two, what chance then did CR ever have of being found guilty on "evidence" instead of "just because those two did it before?"

Should a man be found guilty only because the other two people he is charged with have done this sort of thing before?

May be 2 guilty men walked free, may be it was three... but what if an innocent man was sent to jail for a rape he did not do, only because of a prior conviction of the two others?

Its a hell of a balancing act.....

**Patrick** · 5th March 2007, 09:16

Originally Posted by Damon

well, according to the radio this morning the Rape charges laid by Louise Nicholas were only one of seven time she has accused people of rape over the last few years, interesting how only the accused persons past matters.

and the latest person was told by the police she had to lay a complaint?! i'm not to sure if i belive this one, i'd like to think the police only charge people when they have evidence and facts

Interesting about LN, that one? Any more info?

**Damon** · 5th March 2007, 10:47

Originally Posted by Patrick

Interesting about LN, that one? Any more info?

Yeah i though that put a different light on things, as fer "that one", i ment the latest trial but i don't know the womens name, but "apparently" according to the radio, the police were quite determined to get it to trial and were quite pushy about it

**Goblin** · 5th March 2007, 11:11

Originally Posted by Patrick

Should a man be found guilty only because the other two people he is charged with have done this sort of thing before?

Its a hell of a balancing act.....

No, he should be found guilty on evidence that he DID do it but all the most important evidence was suppressed.(covered up by police!)

Originally Posted by Damon

well, according to the radio this morning the Rape charges laid by Louise Nicholas were only one of seven time she has accused people of rape over the last few years, interesting how only the accused persons past matters.

So she was repeatedly raped over several years by the same bunch of thugs and became an "easy target" as these fuckin bastards were supposed to be friends of the family. What's a 14 year old girl to do? She never had a chance! Meanwhile the filthy pigs get away with it saying it was consensual and covering up for one another. It's fuckin disgusting!!!
edit, and still no word on all the missing files when she did make the first complaint many years ago.

**Damon** · 5th March 2007, 11:28

Originally Posted by Goblin

No, he should be found guilty on evidence that he DID do it but all the most important evidence was suppressed.(covered up by police!)
So she was repeatedly raped over several years by the same bunch of thugs and became an "easy target" as these fuckin bastards were supposed to be friends of the family. What's a 14 year old girl to do? She never had a chance! Meanwhile the filthy pigs get away with it saying it was consensual and covering up for one another. It's fuckin disgusting!!!
edit, and still no word on all the missing files when she did make the first complaint many years ago.

What the hell?! no, she has laid 7 different charges against 7 different people or groups of people! all the radio would say was most ended up being lies, there for she has a history of spinning shit,

I can't belive how ready some people are to belive everything someone else says just because their a "victom"

**Goblin** · 5th March 2007, 11:37

Originally Posted by Damon

What the hell?! no, she has laid 7 different charges against 7 different people or groups of people! all the radio would say was most ended up being lies, there for she has a history of spinning shit,

I can't belive how ready some people are to belive everything someone else says just because their a "victom"

Hell I cant believe how some people take radio journalists (all media for that matter!) word as gospel!

**Goblin** · 5th March 2007, 12:20

And she's not a victim! She's a SURVIVOR!!!

**Damon** · 5th March 2007, 12:23

well hows this from the paper:

"The family of jailed former cop Brad Shipton has accused Louise Nicholas of orchestrating a "revenge-at-all-costs" vendetta to punish the men, who testified against her in her first rape complaint against police.

Shipton, suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former Rotorua police officer Bob Schollum were defence witnesses in the 1994 trial of a policeman charged with raping Nicholas as a teenager in Murupara. After three trials - the first two were aborted - he was acquitted.

The trio attacked Nicholas' credibility by testifying she had had group sex with them in 1985 and 1986, allegations which later formed the basis of her high-profile rape complaint."

"Nicholas did not make a formal rape complaint against the trio in the early 1990s but says she did speak to a police officer who refused to take it further."

"Meanwhile, the Shipton family remains convinced Nicholas wanted payback and was prepared to go to any lengths to get it. Brad Shipton's brother Greg, a former police officer of 16 years, says she was humiliated after her original rape complaint was thrown out. When allegations resurfaced in 2004, she "made a meal out of it" to hurt the men whose testimony had damaged her 1994 case."

Seems to me she didn't get the result from the first one and moved on to her next victoms

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/sto...1983027AF1010E

**Scouse** · 5th March 2007, 12:55

Originally Posted by Damon

well hows this from the paper:

"The family of jailed former cop Brad Shipton has accused Louise Nicholas of orchestrating a "revenge-at-all-costs" vendetta to punish the men, who testified against her in her first rape complaint against police.

Shipton, suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former Rotorua police officer Bob Schollum were defence witnesses in the 1994 trial of a policeman charged with raping Nicholas as a teenager in Murupara. After three trials - the first two were aborted - he was acquitted.

The trio attacked Nicholas' credibility by testifying she had had group sex with them in 1985 and 1986, allegations which later formed the basis of her high-profile rape complaint."

"Nicholas did not make a formal rape complaint against the trio in the early 1990s but says she did speak to a police officer who refused to take it further."

"Meanwhile, the Shipton family remains convinced Nicholas wanted payback and was prepared to go to any lengths to get it. Brad Shipton's brother Greg, a former police officer of 16 years, says she was humiliated after her original rape complaint was thrown out. When allegations resurfaced in 2004, she "made a meal out of it" to hurt the men whose testimony had damaged her 1994 case."

Seems to me she didn't get the result from the first one and moved on to her next victoms

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/sto...1983027AF1010E

I dont give a flying fuck rickards is still scum whatever way you try to paint it

**Goblin** · 5th March 2007, 13:02

Originally Posted by Damon

well hows this from the paper

And you believe everything the harold publishes?

**MisterD** · 5th March 2007, 13:15

Originally Posted by Goblin

And you believe everything the harold publishes?

Don't see how that article can be faulted, it's all attributed to named sources, not vague "sources close to..." or "friends of...".

The Harold has been a key cheerleader for the "Ignore the verdict, just look how scarey this bloke with tattoos and no hair is..." viewpoint through this whole episode.

**Damon** · 5th March 2007, 14:05

Originally Posted by Goblin

And you believe everything the harold publishes?

no i prefer to make up my own mind rather than follow lynch mobs who want to kill based on a couple of shady accusations,

so two of these guys have been convicted of rape before, because Clint Ricards doesn't look your ldea of a nice flower picking community member and he used to hang out with the other two he's automaticaly guilty? or is this just another one of Louise Nicholas' lies, just like the 6 other ones shes made?