Aresholes con a jury, part two

[Karma]

Agree with you there but 20 years ago these were 16-18 year old girls and they were the local cops and they understandably were scared to talk.

True enough, but all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men (or women) to do nothing.

I think perhaps these days there's also less shame (if that's the word) perhaps in being raped, in the past it seemed that there were people who believed the victim to be at least partly to blame, as if they were advertising it. Today I think there's more of an understanding that shit happens, and women are more likely to seek help and report this kind of thing.

[ManDownUnder]

I can see it now Scumdog down on one knee in front of rickards "Please mister rickareds can you make me a inspector I always new you wernt guilty of rape, can I kiss your arse while i am down here Clint"


The unfortunate thing here Jim is that not everything was supprest so the case beame prejudiced in the other direction for example evidence to prove that they are arsehole thugs with a history of rape in there past is supprest but not the fact that the are or were Police officers which can lead a jury to think ok so if the are police they could not have done anything so hienous cos they ars the good guys after all

yes

Social worker

All in all a less than convincing post. I prefer hard facts that will change the jury's mind.

Speculation or unsubstantiated claims of being able to prove the verdict was wrong... well... they don't quite make it really.

Try to avoid name calling too - it's not helping your cause.

I'm big enough to say I don't know all the facts - are you?

[frogfeaturesFZR]

I think the point being made, albeit indirectly, is that where theres smoke etc.... more to come I suspect.

[Scouse]

As hard as it may have been at the time for these women, I can't help but think this highlights the need for the first victim to come forward at the time, thus preventing any future victims.

It's a bit difficult to try and prosecute someone 20 years after the fact. Now if she'd gone to the cops even a week or two later, they'd have locked them up for sure.

Fuck you've ether been disinterested or got a short memory, Louise Nicholas did go to the cops at the time but it was investgated by one of the workmates of these three, consequently the investigation turned into a damage control exersie for the boys.

[Guitana]

I can see it now Scumdog down on one knee in front of rickards "Please mister rickareds can you make me a inspector I always new you wernt guilty of rape, can I kiss your arse while i am down here Clint"

Fuck mate that's a bit harsh Scumdogs right they appeared in front of a jury and the jury could'nt convict them!!!
Which goes to show if you don't convince the jury of guilt you won't win the case! Twenty years had passed under the bridge and in that time all evidence became tainted and distorted if those girls really wanted to convict them it should've happened years ago!! I know they were scared and intimidated but you or I will never know the real truth only the people that were there will know what really went down!!
I don't think Rickards will go back to policing as the government will not allow it!He will receive a golden handshake and fade into the background!!!
Don't be bitching on the police they have enough shit to deal with let alone the backlash from this case!!!

[terbang]

The prosecution failed to raise enough evidence to convict.

Or it was supressed. Hence the title of this thread. I wonder if their good character as policemen (Rickard tried to wear his uniform on one occasion) was also witheld evidence because it may have affected the Jury's decicion.

Sounds to me that you'd prefer a society where Habeas Corpus is rescinded. Not a place where I'd want to live.

No not at all, I believe the law should prove guilt. You armchair lawyers can spin as much eloquence as you like if makes you feel clever. I am just a regular guy who knows some of the family members of these people and have good knowledge of the devastation it has caused their lives. It wasn't a myth and I just think it's unfair. They suffer and Rickard is police commisioner. Remember people like Louise Nicholas didn't take lightly the decision to bare their sorded past to the whole world (police batons and all) when they accused these cops. They lost 20 years ago and are now publicly called liars by a guy who has been charged twice (thats two separate occasions) for rape.

[Scouse]

Twenty years had passed under the bridge and in that time all evidence became tainted and distorted if those girls really wanted to convict them it should've happened years ago!! I know they were scared and intimidated but you or I will never know the real truth only the people that were there will know what really went down!!

Read my post directly above your's

[Toaster]

You guys seem to forget that even if someone has done a crime, if the prosecution fails to provide enough evidence to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that those who have been charged are guilty of the crimes they are charged with, then the jury can't just decide that that person is guilty.

Exactly right Jim2.

[Mr Merde]

If you want a Police state ......Sounds to me that you'd prefer a society where Habeas Corpus is rescinded. Not a place where I'd want to live.

Not a place for me either, but just check out the UK where you no longer have the right to silence when arrested. They state in when arresting you that anything you do not say at the time may be inadmissable and damage your defence.

This was bought in by the Labour Party.

What party do we have in POWER here in NZ and who do they model their ideals upon?

[scumdog]

I can see it now Scumdog down on one knee in front of rickards "Please mister rickareds can you make me a inspector I always new you wernt guilty of rape, can I kiss your arse while i am down here Clint"

I would never say such a thing - for a start it looks like it was written by an inarticulate chimp that never attended an English class at school. (when they bothered to go).

My comment on the jury was to raise the thought that why should the jury be 'conned' in this case - yet everybody seems to think the jury were never 'conned' and 'got it right in just about any other case?????.

But maybe I was too obtuse.

[terbang]

I prefer hard facts that will change the jury's mind.

You mean facts, hard cold facts, that two of them were already in jail for Rape..?

[James Deuce]

Or it was supressed. Hence the title of this thread. I wonder if their good character as policemen (Rickard tried to wear his uniform on one occasion) was also witheld evidence because it may have affected the Jury's decicion.




No not at all, I believe the law should prove guilt. You armchair lawyers can spin as much eloquence as you like if makes you feel clever. I am just a regular guy who knows some of the family members of these people and have good knowledge of the devastation it has caused their lives. It wasn't a myth and I just think it's unfair. They suffer and Rickard is police commisioner. Remember people like Louise Nicholas didn't take lightly the decision to bare their sorded past to the whole world (police batons and all) when they accused these cops. They lost 20 years ago and are now publicly called liars by a guy who has been charged twice (thats two separate occasions) for rape.

I'm not trying to be clever, and you obviously don't have an unbiased opinion.

Neither do I.

But unbiased fact is what matters in court. If the Prosecution can't raise enough evidence to convict then it doesn't happen.

The one jury I sat on left me with a very sour taste for how it has to work sometimes, but in my case someone got off who shouldn't have on a point of procedure because the prosecution didn't school the witness about what can and can't be discussed in the stand.

The case got chucked out because the case against the defendant was prejudiced by the complainant.

[James Deuce]

You mean facts, hard cold facts, that two of them were already in jail for Rape..?

Yes, but not for the rape of the complainant in this case. Each charge has to be proved. It isn't hard to understand and I'm not trying to be clever.

[scumdog]

Not a place for me either, but just check out the UK where you no longer have the right to silence when arrested. They state in when arresting you that anything you do not say at the time may be inadmissable and damage your defence.

This was bought in by the Labour Party.

What party do we have in POWER here in NZ and who do they model their ideals upon?

I agree with the UK 'Caution'

So many crims we grab cannot explain their actions when first grabbed - but have really amazing explanations and memory recall a few hours later when they have had time to string together a (to them) plausible and innocent reason for their actions.

They can't remember why they did something 5 minutes after they did it - but 5 hours later have a crystal-clear exact memory of why they did it and an innocent explanation?

Yeah right!

[ManDownUnder]

You mean facts, hard cold facts, that two of them were already in jail for Rape..?

No I mean facts relevant to this case... he did this, she did that, this happened because - that kind of thing. Actual details related to the case, or demonstrations of causality.

"He did this in the past and is therefore more likely to have..." is nice, but doesn't really qualify as the basis of incarceration. Or, in Rickard's case, "His friends did this in the past so he's more likely to have..."

As a kid did you ever nick anything? Never broke any laws? Should we put you on a suspect list anytime something gets stolen within a 50km radius of your house? No... but more importantly.. why not?