Clint Rickards

[Murray]

The evidence did not point to the contrary...it merely didn't point hard enough to the facts as presented by the prosecution. That, coupled with the 'company' Rickards kept, and I know what went on at the house R occupied in Taradale at the time of the more recent trials, all paints the picture of a most unsavoury bastard who has skirted round paying for his particularly nasty conduct.

Totally agree and don't forget what went on at the house at Rotorua. What chance did she have against 3 big cops in uniform (and she wasn't the only one) when she was still at school. Talk about intimidation!!!!!.

And the justice department says he had an exemplerary record. Should have seen the Henry interview on the TV, boy did he make them squirm!!!!.

[Goblin]

And if my son got falsly accused of raping some slapper I wouldn't want you on the jury.

Read post #34 again.
If your son is hanging around with "slappers" he'd probably get what he deserves.

[Goblin]

It would be a bigger joke if it sent people to prison without evidence solely because your co-accused had previously been convicted of a similar offence, even though there was no suggestion that the accused had been involved in that previous offending.

The guy is a scumbag, no question in my mind and cops that turn defence lawyers have a special type of stink to them. He'll probably be in partnership with that creep Comeskey before you know it.

Sorry buddy. In this case the jury did define the reality. He was accused, tried, found not guilty. There's the reality.


No evidence in the previous posters comments to indicate that they were at the scene of the alleged rape.


And therein lies the rub. Can you really suggest there was no malice in Goblin's comments? Are you also suggesting Goblin was a witness to the events in question? Without these two pieces of the puzzle your argument is specious.


Maybe, but I'd hate to live in that world. Face it - the jury system isn't perfect but its better than summary justice. Would you prefer the Judge Dredd scenario? Or Chinese or Arab Justice? If you take the emotion away from this you're left with the facts, and the justice system tells us that the jury has to convict on the facts. Anything else is heresay. Continuing to promote hearsay without any evidence to the contrary in a manner which could prejudice a person's future ability to provide for themselves clearly fits under the definition of libel.

Here is my problem. There was never a fair trail in the first place. So much evidence was suppressed and dewar has been convicted for his part in covering it up. As Pritch said, we have a court system, not a justice system. Its all a game to them. Keeps their money-go-round spinning.

FYI Riffer, No I was not at the scene of any rape but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that what went on was wrong. Police using their position of authority to intimidate young women into sexual acts they did not want to be involved in. If people enjoy group sex then thats fine with me, it's when there's voilence and intimidation involved then my blood boils! Just because he made it to Ass Police Commisioner doesn't make him a good person. He always was a bully and always will be. I think psycopath sums him up nicely.

[JimO]

He always was a bully and always will be. I think psycopath sums him up nicely.

and yet he was found not guilty and now has been accepted by the law society, perhaps you should be venting your spleen at them

[Goblin]

and yet he was found not guilty and now has been accepted by the law society, perhaps you should be venting your spleen at them

I have!!!!!

[alanzs]

So that whacked chick you and a mate boned 30 years ago while fucked up now says it was rape, what can you do? The statute of limitations has its place and for a reason.

[MSTRS:Me]

So that whacked chick you and a mate boned 30 years ago while fucked up now says it was rape, what can you do? The statute of limitations has its place and for a reason.

Correct. But not in this particular case.

[Murray]

So that whacked chick you and a mate boned 30 years ago while fucked up now says it was rape, what can you do? The statute of limitations has its place and for a reason.

And what if she was 13,14, or 15 at the time. Does that make no difference????????

[alanzs]

And what if she was 13,14, or 15 at the time. Does that make no difference????????

What if you were 13, 14, 15 at the time? Does that make no difference?

[Jiminy]

I find some of the comments on this thread really scary.

I strongly believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. There was not enough evidence to prove the man guilty, therefore I must consider him as innocent, no matter what my opinion is.

If the trial wasn't fair, then that's what needs to be questioned for now. If you can prove it, then, and only then, can you question again the man's innocence.

I'm sure the legal system does make mistakes some times, but I'd rather have a few mistakes from that system rather than rely on public opinion for justice. Did the court get it wrong this time? I don't know and it's not mine to say.

Read post #34 again.
If your son is hanging around with "slappers" he'd probably get what he deserves.

Now that's even more scary. You can't condemn someone based on who he is hanging out with. Otherwise I would start asking my friends their police records.

[Goblin]

I find some of the comments on this thread really scary.

I strongly believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. There was not enough evidence to prove the man guilty, therefore I must consider him as innocent, no matter what my opinion is.

:slap:

If the trial wasn't fair, then that's what needs to be questioned for now. If you can prove it, then, and only then, can you question again the man's innocence..

See the trail wasn't fair! Dewar made well sure of that! That has been proven in court but you still think rikards is innocent?

I'm sure the legal system does make mistakes some times, but I'd rather have a few mistakes from that system rather than rely on public opinion for justice. Did the court get it wrong this time? I don't know and it's not mine to say.

Public opinion is what our court system is based on. 12 jurors heard only what the cops wanted them to hear and came the the conclusion that there was reasonable doubt. C'mon! Do you really believe rikards is a nice, genuine, decent bloke that deserves to hold another position of responsibility?!?!

Now that's even more scary. You can't condemn someone based on who he is hanging out with. Otherwise I would start asking my friends their police records.

Sleep with dogs n you'll get fleas.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Because he was aquitted does NOT mean he's innocent!

In fact, what it means is exactly that. Or do you think that a presumption of "innocent till proven guilty" doesn't apply to people with some occupations, or some skin colours, or for some alleged offences? If so, please continue, your proposed radical reformation of our criminal justice system has my full attention.

[HenryDorsetCase]

:Public opinion is what our court system is based on. 12 jurors heard only what the cops wanted them to hear and came the the conclusion that there was reasonable doubt. C'mon! Do you really believe rikards is a nice, genuine, decent bloke that deserves to hold another position of responsibility?!?!

You are either very naive or very stupid. Or both.

Lets break it down:

Rickards was accused of a criminal offence (IIRC in fact, more than one). He was tried and the jury found that the offence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of that, and the presumption of innocence he has done nothing wrong.

as to your assertion as to what the "cops wanted the jury to hear"..... You're right. And given their resources and the best efforts of the Crown they still couldnt establish that what was alleged had occurred.

Faced with that, and the legislative framework which governs lawyers, and fitness to practice, the question is not "How could Rickards be given a certificate" but "How could he NOT"?

And as for whether or not he is a "good guy". I have an opinion about that, but its completely irrelevant in this context.

[Goblin]

In fact, what it means is exactly that. Or do you think that a presumption of "innocent till proven guilty" doesn't apply to people with some occupations, or some skin colours, or for some alleged offences? If so, please continue, your proposed radical reformation of our criminal justice system has my full attention.

Great! Another rikards supporter.

What is it that makes you guys think it's ok for cops to gang rape young women?

[jrandom]

... cops to gang rape young women?

Are you intentionally trolling?

Have you seriously missed the meaning of all the comments in this thread about evidence?

There was no evidence that Rickards did anything of the sort. That is why he was not convicted.

What you're saying here has as much substance as me claiming that you held a gun to my head and took my wallet at the last trackday. I could even write a book about how harrowing the experience was, y'know. Maybe I should?