Aresholes con a jury, part two

[Goblin]

The thing if find suspicious is the first time these 4 people (LN and the Boys) came into the spotlight is when they testified against her when she accused another policeman in 1994, there has been no mention at that time that "hey these guys raped me too, this is a cover up" or they wern't all on trial, LN was in the emotional state to be able to take one cop to court why not all? and then there's the wait after that trial, she spoke to one policeman who looked into her new claims and dismissed them, and it wasn't untill 2001-2002? that it came up again and was acted on, i cant claim to know what she was thinking at the time but if i was raped by cops and then waited 8 or 9 years to complain and get it to court i would be taking them all to court not waiting a further 12 years to try again, but i'm not her, it just doesn't make sense to me.

When you've been raped by police, you have to go by the fucked up system. It's not her fault it's taken all these years to come about. That's the way the justice system works. May seem suspicious to you but that's how it goes eh.

[Ixion]

,,

as for Candor. "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo Damon", seems pretty direct.

Perhaps the problem lies in a missing comma ? "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo , Damon" has a quite different implication .

[Damon]

When you've been raped by police, you have to go by the fucked up system. It's not her fault it's taken all these years to come about. That's the way the justice system works. May seem suspicious to you but that's how it goes eh.

i accept there are delays which can explain for a maybe 2 or 3 years ,but only one "dismissed" complaint through out the 90's is not an error by the justice system

[Damon]

Perhaps the problem lies in a missing comma ? "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo , Damon" has a quite different implication .

it does, but like i said i'm quite happy to put it aside, it's not like i'm emotionaly scared by it and looking for comfort,

[MisterD]

You are cheerleading for rickards in everyway possible. Those juries did NOT get ALL the facts, what they got was a washed down version that would make the accused look good and the accuser the criminal. Im seeing what I KNOW!!!

What you know? You don't know anything for sure unless, of course you were there.

The stuff the jury didn't get to know (officially) is the past history of the defendents and the accusers, none of which is strictly relevant to the case. Both legal teams obviously took the decision that raising the history of the "opposition" was too big a risk as it would allow their own client's past to be brought out.

Good to see Uncle Helen putting the boot into someone when they're down - again.

[SPman]

I like this POV - makes sense to me
"You can’t throw him out of the Police Force because he had group sex, that is a ridiculous reason to sack someone, it would be akin to throwing someone out because they had gay sex, or B&D sex or sex that the Auckland Mayor doesn’t like – we can’t have a situation where Dick Hubbard is deciding the sexual norms of the city – the fact Clint had group sex doesn’t bring the Police into disrepute - we are focusing on the WRONG THING, and in our hurry to hang, let’s make sure we hang for the right reason.
And that reason is consent, what consensual adults get up to is their business, certainly not ours – the real issue here is about consent, and I mean consent in it’s truest form. Did Louise Nicholas, a slight younger woman consent to sex with three powerful Police Officers? Even if the Court found Rickards, Schollum and Shipton innocent of raping Louise, the issue of true consent still hasn’t been answered. The power dynamics at play between a young woman who had a history of being sexually victimized and three men who came to her house with all the power that their uniforms convey in 1980s Rotorua doesn’t suggest in any way consent in its truest sense,..." - Martin Bradbury

[candor]

as for Candor. "Salient points from the most low gutter press heap of shit yet imo Damon", seems pretty direct, i don't want to take it any further before i'm in court for being the great evil behind mass media.

This meant if you want me to break it down or rephrase what I was saying.

"lets look at the most significant pieces of twisted misinformation from a dishonourable low brow newspaper rubbish article yet (ie yet written about this case)b at least in my opinion, Damon.

It was addressed to you as you produced the article here which in my opinion was carefully and irresponsibly stitched together to present a sensational and damaging viewof the complainant. It was not a balanced article and was a very trashy one that had no consideration for the victims feelings in any of these rape cases (proved or not) involving these men. No reputable paper such as the Dom post or the Press would have published such a scandal mongering infotainment piece.

May be it was not the best grammar as I was writing fast and it should have read "Hey Damon ... blah blah blah. It was the article I was rubbishing not you so there was no need to take offense.

[candor]

Forget sacking him because he had consensual sex (thats just a PC defense lawyer lie). He didn't d that at all according to the victim - it was non consensual. So sack him for misconduct of rape. He was acquitted which does not mean innocent. He can still be sacked for rape surely if the Employer has evidence before it that was unavailable to the court - like the suppressed evidence etc. A criminal burden of proof is surely not required to sack someone. What does employment law say.

I'm sure thieves get sacked without the cases ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

[candor]

I don't know the answers. All I do know is that for rape cases the current system is utterly unsuitable and does more harm than good. My least fave pollie has even admitted that evidence laws need looking at.

A lot of money musyt be wasted on rape trials that often produce dud results as for most its just spin the bottle type verdicts.

An inquisitorial type system is used elsewhere and I think some less formal kind of trial where victims and evidence are not suppressed and where offenders can be confronted more. A system in which offeders are not given a mill bucks of defense lawyer aid to cook up a sophisticated cunning fantasy might help us get more honest results more often.

Maybe they'd be more likely to confess if jail was ruled out and they just got anklets and home detention or whatever it takes to stop re-offending. Preventing recidivism should really be goal and I guess the public "shaming" and jail are big disincentives to confesion.

Maybe if society got less hysterical ad judgmental on rape an honesty encouraging safety focused system could be put in place.

I mean a lot of child molesterors never get tried or jailed (to save kids grief of trial) but they are still dealt with in ways to keep society safe eg courses - not to see the victims unsupervised etc.

Yes I'm afraid I quoted me. Anyway a stuff article today said others have the same idea as what I reckon. A March in Auckland Thursday and a rally in Wellington same night are in support of booting Clint and bringing in a new restorative flavour system of less adversarial and more "inquisitorial" bent.

I stick to my guns that rapes should not be tried in the Westminster system. It is not a matter of we have to make do cos its the best we've got. It is too useless to take that attitude.

Someone said I should not think things are still like the 80's and I should not discourage future victims from laying complaints. The Justice system is like the 80s in all its essential inadequacies for dealing with these cases. And I would not in good conscience advise any women to bring a rape case to Court in the present system.

Someone who'd been there done that re a "date rape' warned me before I took the stand but I naively believed the system was Ok. Of all the people who put their 5 cents in I most appreciate her for telling me the truth - even if I didn't listen. Victim people must not keep on participating in this charade of a justice system - it only further legitimises it.

Strike - rape victims strike I say. Report it so you enter Police stats and at the same time say you will refuse to testify. 100% uncleared cases will result in a review if nothing else does.

If as many murderers or thieves got off on consent defenses there would be a public outcry. Why should (generally) women just be good sports and pu up with a BS system that does not work often enough to justify its own existence.

[Ixion]

I think you might wish to research just how an inquisitorial justice system (as used, for instance, in France) actually works. It is not what you appear to think.

The rules of evidence are as strict under such a system as they are under ours (I'm not sure why you call it a "Westminster" system, a phrase usullay reserved for a system of government). It is very improbable that the "suppressed" evidence would have been admissable there either.

Nor is hearsay generally any more admissable than in our system

Bear in mind also, that the accuser is subject to the "inquisition" also, not just the defendant.

Since in the cases presently bruited, I imagine that the defendant would be more skilled at deflecting questioning than the accuser, it is likely that an inquisitorial type trial would actually be in the defendants favour.

...
If as many murderers or thieves got off on consent defenses there would be a public outcry.
..

Well, that may be because women very often do consent to having sex. Quite happy to do so in fact. Whereas very few people consent to being robbed or murdered. So a consent defence for the latter charges would be rather unlikely.

[avgas]

While i think that he may be innocent, i think he needs to buck up his ideas and say sorry for wasting our time and money.
Instead he just acts like a thug - blaming the cops who were forced to work against him etc.
Person like that shouldn't lead any organization. Thats a bloody crook attitude.

[Guitana]

While i think that he may be innocent, i think he needs to buck up his ideas and say sorry for wasting our time and money.
Instead he just acts like a thug - blaming the cops who were forced to work against him etc.
Person like that shouldn't lead any organization. Thats a bloody crook attitude.

To be quite honest I think if I were on trial for rape and a verdcit of not guilty was returned for the second time I would be a little fucked off!!
The cost of both trials both financially and psychologically especially for his kids has been huge!!
If the police were going to spend in excess of 15 million to try and prosecute these guys they should've had an airtight case!!
The fact that the defense lawyers poked so many holes in the prosecutions evidence is a joke!!! The real proof in the pudding will be when he countersues her for dragging him through this shit!!
He may be guilty I don't know, only the people directly involved in the case will truly know what happened!
But he has been judged by a jury and found to be not guilty!! End of story!!!

[candor]

And there you have laid bare the crux of the problem Ixion.

Is it the woman being charged with having sex or the man being charged with rape? From what you say the big or biggest question is whether the woman might be a sexual being. Most of these types of trials focus on proving sex ie something normal, occurred.

It is a dirty defense given it (consent) usually or almost always has no basis in reality, but is a defense readily entertained and embraced by half the population due to their personal latent fears of ever being accused and their resultant ability to sympathise with someone who they can imagine may just have just been 'getting some'.

Having sex and rape are very different things. Why should a woman on the stand be subjected to such cruel alegations from a lawyer as 'you didn't really say no like that (screamed) did you - it was whispered... seductively, wasn't it?" That sort of comment is in very bsad taste and lawyers like that have a special place reserved in hell.

While the majority of women may at some time be happy to have sex the majority of rape victims certainly did not 'have sex' (active / participatory) versus were raped (passive and quite a different thing). Yet time and again this absurdity of the consent defense is aggressively pushed forward.

This is where men get sex and violence confused. Most rapists do not believe they were engaging in sex - they'd not bother if that was the case.

Its only when it gets to Court they'd describe their actions and the victims as sexual. No other serious type of VIOLENT offense eg aggravated robbery has defense lawyers who will put 1000% in to removing blame on to the victim.

It is ridiculous. The whole focus of the trial goes on victim credibility over an issue (sexual relations) that anyone could be "guilty" of engaging in. Most cases it is her word against his if the rapist is true to type and also a liar (few are honest types), under such situations no conviction can ever be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

This defense draws heavily upon and often depends upon tapping in to a reasonable level of misogyny in the jury eg the perception women are unstable and emotional and will say all sorts of crazy things versus the stereotype of guys being straight shooters - which will see a fast NG verdict. Less sexist juries will be slower to return the only verdict possible in such cases. Why bother.

A lawyer friend of mine says that criminal lawyers are train to "objectify" the victim (in the juries mind) ie to make them a "thing" no-one could care about or believe or relate to (idea is to make them seem flawed or different to or less than miss average), and to "humanise" the rapist (create identification and sympathy).

Does this not show a premeditated game plan to repeat the original offense of "dehumanising".

Ummm, not sure where I got the Westminster from - oops. I don't know much abou this inquisitorial system Rape crisis is proposing but I think they mean something different to whats done overseas as they're throwing restorative justice in to the debate too. Maybe they envisage a mutant of the 2? Anything would be better than what we have anyway - think I'm done .

[xwhatsit]

Haven't read the thread, really, apart from the last page, however I thought I'd just write this; I've just finished serving on a jury in a rape case involving a child. I now have a lot of sympathy for the jury in the police case, which I didn't have before. `Beyond reasonable doubt' is a bastard of a thing, really.

Just because the jury think's they are guilty doesn't mean you can find them guilty. But that's probably already been gone over.

[spudchucka]

A criminal burden of proof is surely not required to sack someone.

It is when you are going to label the employee a rapist and sack them based on unproven allegations.

Either way its going to cost the police big bucks to be rid of him, either in the form of a golden handshake or when CR sues them in the emplyoment court.