Aresholes con a jury, part two

[vifferman]

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.

It's a tricky one that.
I can unnerstan' why the judge suppressed information about previous convictions (each case has to be tried independently, it would've influenced the jury, it's all to do with whether the prosecution "proved beyong reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty as charged", blah blah), but it also would've cast a completely different light on the trial from the point of view that the circumstances, modus operandi etc in each case were very similar, despite no collusion on the parts of the various complainants.
I mean, it's fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain that these guys were almost certainly guilty of the whole lot, and I bet the jury are kicking themselves they didn't find them guilty, and are pissed off that they didn't know what other naughtiness had been going on.

Shame there's such a yawning gulf between justice and the current legal system.

[s8306]

Exactly right Jim. Thankfully we live in a modern Western country that requires proof of guilt before throwing you in to jail or whatever.

It would be interesting to hear what Aurther Alan Thomas would have to say about that quote.

[Ixion]

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.

There's still an awful lot of other suppressed stuff. Like that two other people (details supressed) have been charged with crimes (details suppressed). Under circumstances suppressed. And the decisions of the courts have been suppressed. Who was it said "justice must not only be done but openly and manifestly be seen to be done". Didn't live in NZ I gues.

Someone's been doing a pretty thorough job of sweeping stuff under the carpet. I guess they gave up on these three and threw them to the wolves in the hope of protecting the others.I wonder who "someone" is. And what their payback is.

The defense would not have raised Mr Ricard's character as a policeman , because if the defense put up a defense of good character, evidence of previous convictions can be given in rebuttal. (ie the prosecution can't tell you that the defendant has been convicted of previous crimes *unless* he claims to be of good character)

[scumdog]

It would be interesting to hear what Aurther Alan Thomas would have to say about that quote.

I think that case caused a swing towards requiring a higher level of proof for a conviction. (i.e. prior to A.A.T. case Rickard and co. may well have been convicted)

[terbang]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?

[Pwalo]

Social worker[/QUOTE]

You absolute wanker. You can't go around calling people social workers. I've tried very hard to be a cantakorous old bastard!

[MSTRS:Me]

... could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. ....?

Juries convict (or not). Sentences are handed down by judges, who will look at patterns in determining length of sentence etc

[James Deuce]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?

No that is taken into account in sentencing by the Judge.

It is not relevant for the Jury. All the jury have to do is decide: Guilty or Not Guilty. They can make comments to the Judge about sentencing and the Judge may or may not take those comments into account.

[MSTRS:Me]

Now if she'd gone to the cops even a week or two later,...

She did, as has been pointed out. Police at that time basically said "They are cops, and as such, are fine upstanding pillars of society, who could not possibly do such a thing. Now go away, lying Louise".
It wasn't until she went to the (today's) media that anything was done...

[terbang]

Well its obvious I don't know a lot about how the law works. But I still believe, and have good reason to, that the law served the wrong people in these two cases.

[scumdog]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?

And conversely if the defendant has no prior history of an offence then he can't have done it this time?

Sorry, with the exception of receiving and one or two other offences all defendants are in the dock tried as first time offenders - no previous offence can be brought up in Court UNTIL the Judge is considering what sentence to dish out.
Oversimplification but I'm sure you see what I mean.

[Indiana_Jones]

I donno if they did it or not? fuck the jury didn't.

It's one person's word againt another's, and if that was how cases were decided I think alot of people would be in prison.

-Indy

[ManDownUnder]

If I was accused of theft and had a history of it wouldn't that be relavent..? It shows a pattern of behaviour.
So a person who has a lifetime pattern of paedophilia, perhaps in and out of jail throughout his life, could face a jury and say "oh no it was a one off accidental mistake' and get a lighter sentence as a result. Back in society within 2 years living in Kumeu perhaps..?

The concern of moving back into kumeu would be one of "I wonder if they're going to do it again".

While paraphrasing my previous point, I repeat the sentiment... "I wonder if..." is not grounds for incarceration. I can see the extent of influence that fear would have, and suggest that level of influence could have unduly swayed the jury.

Someone being convincted (or set free) as the result of an unfair trial a good reason to supress it in my books.

[terbang]

And conversely if the defendant has no prior history of an offence then he can't have done it this time?

Well exactly and I guess in this case this is what has happenned. With no 'Known' prior history to the jury.

Oversimplification but I'm sure you see what I mean.

I understand that bit now thanks.

[Damon]

This thread is fucked, the Jury said they didn't do it, get on with your life, the bitch lied,

I shoplifted once and afterwards felt pretty bad about it and havn't done it since, if someone accuses me of it again does it make me guilty of every accusation that gets thrown my way?

who's to say they didn't bust her for something when she was younger and she's held a grudge ever since and now has had the chance to exact her revenge? all a woman has to do now days is cry wolf and a mans life is ruined, have you ever had a psycho girlfriend? thay can cause alot of shit just because they can.

12 people who know these guys have been accused of this before looked at all of the evidence and decided they didn't do it, maybe just mabe they didn't, but you want to hang them because they may have done in the past, I'm really glad your not part of the justice system