The jury has found Brad Shipton, Clint Rickards, and Bob Schollum not guilty of raping Louise Nicholas.
[deleted]
Obviously some members of the jury believed Louise Nicholas, or else the deliberations wouldn’t have taken this long. I pay tribute to them, and wish they could have had the evidence that would have convinced the jury.
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
March 31st, 2006 at 12:08 am
As these men like a pack of wild dogs, I think “pack rape” (language used in the article) is a far more fitting description of this crime than gang rape.
This comment was written by Qusan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2006 at 12:41 am
I expected this. I really did. But my shoulders still slumped when I read it.
This comment was written by Woman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2006 at 1:37 am
God, I literally just saw this on the late night news update. Seriously, fuck the prosecution rate for rape. It is just insane that this many rapes are being committed and that they’re so hard to prosecute.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2006 at 10:50 am
Poor Louise Nicholas, my heart goes out to her. We do not live in a just world if the victim’s name can be dragged through the mud during a criminal case, while the assailants’ past criminal histories can’t be touched because they might be “inflammatory”. The system failed, again.
This comment was written by Ginger.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2006 at 6:55 pm
[deleted]
This comment was written by RowanCrisp.Report this comment to the moderators
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 am
Thanks Maria for publishing this.
I truely admire people with the courage to speak out against repression and injustice. The bloggers will help give truth new life.
Louise deserves compensation for the crap she has been through.
(Big compensation) Why, because the justice system deliberately stopped any justice for her. She has stood bravely before us all and has been smeared by many, with false information from the Justice system. The withholding of information has litterally led to the victim being accused of a crime she didn’t commit and getting no justice.
Thank Goodness this information has come out so Louise can get some support which she so badly deserves instead of the smug “women are liars” crap we have been hearing so mush of lately.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Thanks Maia. As a relation of Louise Nicholas it is heartening to see that there are observant, intelligent people out there who have realised exactly what is going on!!! Good on you for being so open about it. [deleted]
This comment was written by Elizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Its illegal to publish this info in New Zealand or probably even from NZ, because the info about Schollum and Shipton being convicted of rape in a previous and very very similiar case last year has been suppressed. So read it here cos no one in NZ can publish it without risking jail
This comment was written by Mr G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:12 am
[delete]
This comment was written by Don Ruawai.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
[deleted]
This comment was written by ROB.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:08 pm
[deleted]
This comment was written by Sandra Bowe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I know a policeman who worked with these guys 20 years ago when the alleged offences happened and he believes they are as guilty as sin. They were well known for this sort of thing back then apparently…
This comment was written by Craig.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
[deleted]
This comment was written by Andrea.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:53 pm
[deleted]
This comment was written by Tracey Morrison.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:09 pm
[deleted]
This comment was written by mary.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:12 pm
[deleted]
This comment was written by jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I have known Louise for all of my life. This whole case saddens me - for Louise, for her amazing husband Ross, her beautiful daughters, her parents, and her family. It also saddens me for other rape victims. Unfortunately making this ’surpressed’ information more public than it is, would not really help Louise’s case at all. It has made me sick over the last few years to hear people comment on how ‘hard’ Louise looks and even “she looks like the type of girl who would ask for it!’. Even now I hear people saying things like ‘bet she wishes she hadn’t taken on the big boys’, ‘those poor wives of those men - having to go through the shame of the accusations’. Can anyone even begin to imagine what Louise has gone through. She knew she was in for a terrible time when it went public - she was not going to gain personally from any of this. She did it for justice and for her sanity!! I wanted to be sick when I heard Brad Shipton’s wife declare on national tv how relieved they were ‘that the truth had finally come out!’. The truth hasn’t even begun to come out. When is the justice system going to see that there is no justice in how they run cases like this. [deleted]
This comment was written by Elizabeth.I just hope that the bravery of these Wellington women does not backfire and hurt Louise some how.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Elizabeth it’d be really good if you could e-mail me (capitalismbad@gmail.com) I would take these posts down if there was any chance it could make things worse for Louise Nicholas, or anyone else who was trying to get justice.
Please give her all our love and support.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I have just recieved this blog. As I haven’t been following the case it has been a shock to hear what you have all written. Its time to get over this idea that rape in any form by any body is OK. Its time for the men of Aotearoa to ask themselves how degraded as humans beings they wish to become, because in my mind it is not the woman that is degraded. The mind of men that can stoop to acts of violence in this way are seriously compromised. They are sad contemptuous beings. No rape is wanted. No rape is ‘asked for’. No violenec is acceptable, to women, to children, to other men. “Wake up and grow up” is what I feel to say to any man that believes that its ok… before the human race destroys itself through self denigrating violent behaviour.
This comment was written by Jay Ray.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:10 pm
In essence I agree with Mary that this information needs to be made public - and I certainly honour you Maia, for offering to remove these postings. BUT WHY SHOULD WE HIDE THE TRUTH???? If these blogs educate a few more people about the integrity and strength of Louise, then I am sure it is well worth it. The strength of that woman is just awe inspiring. It shames me to admit here, that I could not have done what she has done. The old saying ‘What goes around - comes around’ does little to give me faith that these bastards will be punished. Brad Shipton goes to church each Sunday and so people believe that he is a wrongly-accused man who has finally been cleared. So much weight was put on the fact that there was confusion and mistakes made in Louise’s testimony - it was 20 years ago!!! Clint Rickards is not much better than the other two in my opinion either. Their lives will return to normality over a short period of time. They will forever be known as the wrongly accused ex-policemen who were found NOT GUILTY. Louise will be known as the women who lied about being raped. I don’t believe those men are not guilty any more than I believed it years ago. I believe that the jury did not have enough evidence to prove their guilt. [deleted] Can you believe that the wives and brothers and parents of the other two bastards know all of this - and still stand by them and declare their innocence!!!!
This comment was written by Elizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:16 pm
What an amazing role model Lousie is for all women out there that live with the ongoing trauma of past sexual abuse. They are many of us that that can clearly see the subtle signs written all over Louise that signal to us the tragedy she has lived with since her experiences with these three weak men, that have no life skills for expressing their maculinity other than such a primal form of violence. In our current civilization this is not acceptable! Retrial!. Go Lousie, stay strong…
This comment was written by Ongoing Grief.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:29 pm
I’m a 57 yo male and I must admit I leaned towards the ‘what the hell is she on’ side also. Reading these facts certainly changes my opinion. They should be made public. As others have said - I pity the jurors when they find out. It is a deception.
This comment was written by Roger.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I followed the Louise Nicholas Case closely and upon hearing of the outcome, it occurred to me that we have a somewhat limited range of options for jurors.
Firstly, a guilty finding makes the statement that the court has found that the charge has been proven and did occur. Conversely, a not guilty finding makes the statement that the charge has not been proven, but more importantly, did not occur.
If I had been a juror for this case, and a third option of unproven or not proven was available, I would have leapt at this option and clung to it.
As things currently stand, the three men have been completely cleared of the charges and are able to echo the findings of the court for the purposes of reinstatement, compensation, etc, ie. the courts outcome was that the charges did not happen.
A pound to a penny that in reality this is not the true message that many of the jurors would have wanted to convey, however, the limited choices backed them into a corner and they delivered the only result that they could have.
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:51 pm
[deleted]
I have particular grievance toward the accused supporters and their idiotic rhetoric regarding these whole proceedings as “public attempts to avoid a Maori Police Commissioner”. Are they serious??? This accusation seems eerily similar to Donna Awatere Huata’s supporters’ accusations that “they were only prosecuted because they were Maori” and that it was “discrimination against Maoris”. “Prima-facie” case means “sufficient in law to establish a case or fact”; therefore there must be reasonable evidence for a prosecution to proceed. In short, if these men had a case brought against them without sufficient evidence, it would not make it to court!!!
The fact that two of the accused have convictions for rape, that they are currently serving at “Our Majesty’s Hotel” and that this information was suppressed is totally and utterly unbelievable and shocking, to say the least. That this information was not allowed to be submitted, for concern of influencing a pending prosecution is abhorrent to me. By the innate qualities as human beings, we are always judged by our previous behaviour, and whether we like it or not, is relevant to whether we continue that behaviour pattern in the future. Crime statistics reflect this; if you have committed one crime, the likelihood of repeat offending increases exponentially with each offence that is committed.
What has this world come to?? I am disgusted and ashamed to live in a country where our judicial system allows this travesty of justice to occur, and therefore totally support the demonstrations that took place in Wellington, well done, keep it up!!! Now all we need is the NZ media to have the courage to do the same.
This comment was written by Rachel.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
After the debacle in the Waikato late last year, it was possible to tell that there had been a huge windshift in the way the govt/establishment/elite had decided to pursue the issue of rape by authority. Another time it would be useful to debate what consent means when there is a huge power imbalance like, policeperson/citizen, church leader/ parishoner, teacher/student, social worker/client, doctor/patient, or adult/child.
The last example is the only one where mainstream society is beginning to understand that ‘yes’ always means ‘no’. That the powerlessness of the junior in the relationships means that they can never give informed consent.
In the meantime even sticking to the dubious concept of arguing these cases on the basis of whether the rapee said yes or no to the rapist; there have been some really bad, evil almost, liberties taken by other power figures to distort the outcomes of the police rape proceedings.
The most blatant of these was a few days before the Waikato police rape trial last year when the local police commander made a press release alleging that only 7% of rape complaints made in his district were fair dinkum. The other 93% were jealous and/or neurotic women trying to ‘get back’ at some Lothario.
Parallels to the Arthur Alan Thomas situation are beginning to appear. Our ‘betters’ have decided that it isn’t in our interests to lose faith in the forces of law and order.
In that case the police produced an ‘expert’ from England no less, at the royal commission who insinuated (completely falsely as was proven later) that Thomas may well be guilty but there just wasn’t enough evidence to convict so we shouldn’t worry too much about a couple of ‘over-zealous’ coppers ‘over-egging’ the pudding.
Nowadays NZers are as little more culturally secure so rather than use a foreign fixer-upper to sort out the mess, they dragged out a veteran ’smoother-over of troubled waters’.
A senior public servant who has got both conservative and leftist governments out of pickles. (see fire brigade insurance company scam cover-up) Even better the ‘fixer’ was a woman so all claims of sexism or whatever could be dismissed.
Just as naifs believe that Maori people being prejudiced against Maori people can’t be ‘racist’, they imagine that a woman can’t discriminate against other women.
Enter Margaret Bazley. A woman who rose to dizzying heights in the NZ establishment at a time when it was believed that territory was strictly a male balliwick.
Thing is though Ms Bazley’s achievements are many but they date from a time when in order for a woman to succeed, she had to be more like a bloke than any bloke ever was.
What we see here is the result of Ms Bazley not recognising that the world has moved on.
I’m sure she justifies what she has done by telling herself she prevented the destruction of NZ society by helping ‘lift police morale’ along with preventing a loss of faith of ‘the best police force in the world’.
She hasn’t, and it is now up to NZers to show Bazley and co that they will not tolerate this sort of pandering to the extortion police and security services inflict on governments when they feel their ’special status’ is threatened.
Otherwise Shipton and Schollum’s appeals against the Bay of Plenty rape convictions will be upheld in the High Court. I guarantee it. The only way to prevent this is for New Zealanders to publicly vent their dissatisfaction. Lots and lots, for as long as it takes.
Us blokes have to stand up here too.
Do not leave it to the women, otherwise the media (elements of which have obviously been suborned into the cover-up; and no, I’m not a paranoid conspiracy theorist, just someone who has been around the levers of power too long) will write them off as ‘feminazis’ or some other less subtle pejorative.
C’mon let’s get to it so that these patronising powers that be realise that our society will no longer tolerate this type of corrupt compromise.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:22 pm
I agree with almost everything that’s been said.
This comment was written by Anna.But it might be worth considering that there are reasons (unrelated to the perpetrators) why supression orders would be in place. Perhaps check out a media law guide and you’ll see why publishing these names might actually be doing more harm than good.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
That’s how it usually happens. These are hardly ever isolated incidents, but often fit patterns. Often, for every officer that commits them, there are others who keep silent either to protect their “brother” as part of the code of silence or to avoid retaliation(which include harassment, ostracism, or behavior that might put them in danger on the job). Departments often punish their whistleblowers more than they do the officers who commit the crimes.
Here, there was one officer who was held accountable after 12 years of raping at least a dozen women onduty. He went to trial on some of the charges and received a hung jury, and eventually plead out on some of the cases and received 34 years in state prison. But this is the rare exception. There are two other cases which passed the preliminary stage process and are set for trial, involving onduty sexual assaults. But these are probably a handful of the cases that actually happen. Victims know that if they come forward especially if they have criminal records they will be viewed as liars ruining the reputations of “good” cops.
For them to be charged at all is fairly extraordinary. That rarely happens in the states. Usually, the cases which receive rape and/or sexual assault charges involve women who are neither prostitutes nor drug addicts(the majority of victims in the U.S. are probably in one or both of these groups, because their criminal histories and professions made their assailants more confident that they’ll never be believed by authorities).
That stinks about the prior rapes not being allowed in evidence, because it indicates that there’s a pattern there. But, it appears that it’s likely that pattern of behavior may have been in affect for quite some time and only came to light recently.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:41 pm
[delete]
What makes me sick is my partner is a law school and Clint Richards has been attending law school at Auckland Uni.
Another well known fact in the police community is if you are ever accused of rape, you say it was consental as its real hard to prove she said NO.
Is there anyone out there who thinks he is a good man?
The facts we know of Clint
He was married with two kids when he was gang banging a 17 year old.
He watched his mates gang bang a 17 year old.
He went their just for sex.
He was a policeman.
He tried to bring the “I’m a Maori” into court for sympathy
He wore his uniform into court when he knew he wasnt allowed to.
Who intimating who is my question.
I am guessing that the Police will find he has done some fraud expenses claims and give him the sack, thats what usually happens.
Lets hope that Kama can sort out this injustice.
This comment was written by Rose.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Crikey (alternative expletive preferred but…) there’s no winning that one. And after what she’s been through you’re unlikely to go for the dolly bird look now are you? Elizabeth, please know that women across NZ are horrified by the decision and support Louise, her family, and her supporters.
The legal system in NZ truly stinks for some of the decisions made recently. Not so much for the actual Jury findings but for the name suppression, evidence suppression and “process” which makes it so hard for the Jury to even make a decision.
If people accused of crimes don’t want their names dragged through the system then they shouldn’t do anything which might put them in a position of being accused in the first place. And if being named means your next court appearance on a different charge may be biased, then tough!
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I have had mixed feelings about this case, the power of a rape acusasion must not be underestimated. I would have perfered that this case be tried seperately, Rickards alone, Shipton alone and Schollum alone. I feel for Rickards as he was the only one to take the stand and had the most to lose,personally and professionally out of all the people invovled in this case.
[delete]
Why was this case brought to the fore now? This case could have been procecuted years ago. I don’t beleive Louise Nicholas was waiting till her father died becasue she was afraid that he would react badly, i believe that she had moved on, 20 years is a lifetime for many of us. I wonder why she choose to wait till Rickards was assistant commisioner of police, rather than just a district commander or a simple officer? Perhaps it made better viewing, or she is simply vendictive, i make no assumptions in regards to her motives, only I question, why now? 20 years to hold on to a rape crime, with evidence that is basicly he said she said would never have pushed a guilty verdict beyod reasonable doubt, you don’t have to be a lawyer to work that one out. Rape is not just a crime, but in some cases a weapon, and in this case, i reserve my pity for the real victims, the familys and the loved ones whos names faces and reputations who have been dragged through the mud and may never trust each other again. I don’t care what angle you choose to take, but a rape case of this magnitude, with verbal evidence 20 years old, destroyed the trust that these families have, is vidication of this really worth it? At the end of the day a not guilty verdict based on hearsay and conjecture could never win. It only served to open a nasty scab…that ironicly now destroys more than just one womens credibilty and right to say no, but also the lives of her children, grandchilden, and this ghost will no doubt follow her to the grave. I leave you with my ever present question…why wait 20 years to prosecute this case?
This comment was written by James Rotorua.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:55 pm
You morons, a court appointed jury has dismissed the 20 counts of rape against Louise, the case is over. Now stop breaking the law by talking about suppressed details on an overseas website. Bring on statute of limitation and bear in mind the number of men falsely accused of rape. Deciding 20 yrs later that an incident no longer bodes in one’s mind as moral and calling “rape” is lame.
This comment was written by James.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
This case has rocked all of us deeply. Everywhere I go, there is an ever increasing ground swell of support wanting everyone to know the truth. A mere jury (devoid of information) is a very small part of the large picture. They aren’t the only ones who ‘judge’. Their result isn’t gospel. We are all the judges. The judgement isn’t over. It’s only just beginning. (Now we have the info) Everybody will soon know what pack rapists these bastards are.
This comment was written by Susan.I think everyone reading this should ‘copy’ the web address of this thread and email it to 10 people (or everyone in their adress book) and ask them to do the same. Then EVERYBODY gets to read these threads. EVERYBODY needs to know this. They can’t hide behind secrecy any longer. And hopefully EVERYBODY will know they are pack rapists when the next rape trial comes to court. Send it around now. If our system lets us (and Louise) down we need to provide justice.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Another example of the system protecting the police. Disgusting.
This comment was written by James.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Personally I believe that the police force in general are little better than a legal gang of thugs, but these men HAD to have their guilt proven in this case, and it simply was not done.
Any other cases against these men cannot be allowed to have any bearing on this one, thats the way our law works and there are very good reasons for this.
What about Louises flatmate at the time, was she also raped when she consented to group sex with these men? What about her statement that Louise participated willingly? Should the jury ignore this? Was she lying? why?
Too many unanswered questions. In this case I believe the jury couldn’t find beyond reasonable doubt.
This comment was written by Gun Of Sod.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
All power to you for publishing the details on these guys. I’m sorry to say I am related to a similar character (in-law) who has been tracked and caught by his own CIB (detectives) hanging around men’s public toilets lookin for action, not to mention all the women he’s abused and impregnated, the sex-parties, the ritual humiliation of his wife, his fave hobby of listening for hours to his powerful radio/phone-call receiver (so he can listen to other people’s business and then catch/bribe them) and he has never been caught/charged with anything. His silly wife has always stood by him and will not hear a word against him - this is the bit that really disturbs me - why do their wives/partners stand by them? Like that kiddy-feeler politician, who used to be the police prosecutor and went to jail last year - Graham Capill - his wife stands by him too. I just don’t get it.
This comment was written by painter.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I think Louise is an incredibly brave woman to have gone through this whole thing and I echo the sentiments of most of you who have added to this blog. It makes me ill to think that Clint Rickards - in particular (because at this point I am not aware of him facing any other charges) will now be able to seek reinstatement and all the benefits that go with his position etc etc.
However I wonder if Louise’s remedies for the injustices done to her at the time and since have been completely snuffed out by this verdict. Does anyone know whether she has the ability to make a civil claim against Rickards - a civil prosecution claiming exemplary/punitive damages for the abuse suffered? Does the “not guilty” of rape/sexual violation verdict in this criminal trial - (where the requirement is to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”) bar a potential claim in the civil jurisdiction (where the test is proof “on the balance of probabilities”)? Or does the fact that she is probably eligible for ACC to cover the cost of her counselling/therapy etc block that option altogether?
This comment was written by Katie.I recall that the woman who was raped by the policeman in Kaitaia years ago and who aired her story just after Louise Nicholas went public with hers did attempt something along those lines when the criminal justice system failed her - but not sure of the outcome. Interested in someone’s opinion and clarification on Louise’s options.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Having been raped myself by two men who I later found out had an ongoing bet about the young virgins in the group of friends we belonged to, I sympathise with Louise and applaud the writers above for trying to show the truth about the policemen above. There is a strange bond that forms between men like these and that includes convincing themselves that it isn’t rape. I’m sure they believe at least superficially that Louise wasn’t always reluctant but they’re very presence would have made it very difficult for her to stop what was happening. I ask you - what else was she to do. Rape isn’t always about being caught in a park at the dead of night. Far more often it happens with people you know who have power over you. Thank you for clarifying to me why I had such a grave suspicion about this verdict. It also confirms to me why I was never able to report what happened to me….. sometimes it seems easier to suffer in silence when the odds are stacked against you.
This comment was written by Annoushka.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:30 pm
[delete]
This comment was written by brian_smaller.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
wot if she was lying….? I am amazed with all the sceptics out there, that we always jump to the side of the supposed victim…without really looking at the EVIDENCE…maybe we should in this case try to see both sides before we end up getting to emotional over it and start lynching people because we “feel” that its right. If shes lying, or not 100% truthful then shes doing a dis service to all those women who have genuinly been raped and ahd the courage to stand up to it now. Why wait 20 years?
This comment was written by James Rotorua.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
James of Rotorua
She didn’t wait 20 years.
This comment was written by Elizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Does Louise have any prior convictions? If so, shouldn’t the jury have been told what they are? And why didn’t the women putting out flyers of the accused also put out flyers about the accuser? It simply makes those women appear totally biased, even though I have sympathy for what they’ve done.
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:42 pm
“If I had been a juror for this case, and a third option of unproven or not proven was available, I would have leapt at this option and clung to it”.
I tend to agree with you Paul, but this could still have meant an acquittal for the accused. The jury could have come back hung, which would probably have meant a new trial.
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
[deleted]
This comment was written by Sam.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:11 pm
I’m just wondering if anyone knows what the testimony was about on the two days that were on media blackout?
If the witnesses were to do with the previous rape conviction, wouldn’t that mean that their testimony was media surpressed, but the jury still heard it? or was it about something else entirely? If so, there’s alot more still to be heard about this case..
This comment was written by lilly.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Thanks Maia for revealing this information…the criminal justice system is patriarchal and unfair. It does not serve the interests of women. I find it terrifying that this can happen here in Aotearoa. Shame.
This comment was written by Emily.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Sorry Ross, I didn’t explain myself fully enough.
I would see such a new “three option system” as meaning that a “not proven” outcome would mean the same trial result as not guilty. ie. defendants walk free (or back to clink as with 2 in this case), however, it would purely prevent the defendants strutting off with a clean slate when it is most probably far from glistening.
PS. Looks like the STATE has shit on the site. Note the deletions at the top of the thread.
Just as well I copied and emailed it out to droves earlier in the day. Teeee Heeee!!!!!
Please note everyone. Web postings are one thing but they can be contolled by the thought Nazi’s.
Get the stuff into email also. It just like trying to grab soft jelly, spills out everywhere and spreads just like the calicivirus with the wee bunnies!
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Not proven sounds like not guilty. As I’ve said before, in cases like this where there is a lack of supporting evidence, I don’t think the case should be brought to trial. How can 12 lay people decide who is telling the truth? Now if there had been a baton with Louise’s DNA presented as evidence, the jury may well have been convinced she was telling the truth. Alas, it seems the baton was never found or was a figment of Louise’s imagination.
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Can anyone tell me where we can go to read the details of the suppressed evidence ?
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 pm
It seems the few that have convinced themselves of the innocence of these rapists have done so by A/ ignoring all of the ‘coincidences’ that a resulted in the weakest case possible being put forward by the prosecution and B/ are not aware of the considerable effort that has been put into ensuring the public don’t have any idea of much of the convincing prosecution evidence that was presented.
I trust people are aware that some prosecution witnesses not only had every detail of their evidence supressed but in addition all details of their identities and occupations. Hmmm I wonder what occupation that could be?
Do you think that much of the public would be so sanguine about the result if they knew that other policemen had provided first hand prosecution evidence? That is in addition to the fact that two of the defendants had been convicted of a similar rape or rapes last year?
The other big issue is that although the jury at Schollum and Shipton’s trial weren’t permitted to know that a jury of their peers had found them guilty of rape previously, when their retrial for those offences occurs the jury will be repeatedly reminded that ‘these poor fellas’ have been unjustly accused of another rape which they were aquitted of.
These guys are gonna walk for the whole lot! If I thought there was the slightest chance the prosecution at the Schollum/Shipton retrial were going to present the best possible case I would be arguing against the publication of these names lest that prejudice the prosecutions chances.
That’s not going to happen. The Court of Appeal has found in favour of this pair of unashamed psychopaths on rather flimsy grounds; so until the public realise they have been sold the dummy these lowlifes are going to stay completely clear of the consequences of their assaults.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:36 pm
If anybody wants the text that has been deleted in the top posting of this thread, please contact me at snowy@paradise.net.nz and I will supply!
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 pm
For all the ranting and raving about the supression of “evidence” (which a prior convicion undisputedly is not) try reading this (its from a Left Wing blog to boot):
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,3046.sm#post3046
esp the last paragraphs:
“Everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent. And if we started allowing evidence of previous bad acts to be introduced in every trial, then this right would be diminished. Maybe a defendant has turned their life around. Maybe they haven’t, but just didn’t do this particular burglary, whatever.
The fear is that if a jury hears that a defendant has a long rap sheet, and maybe dozens of previous burglary convictions they’re not going to get a fair trial this time.
Their past record might mean the jury aren’t deciding the question of guilt or innocence of the charge they’re hearing, but whether they’re a nice person.”
Ensuring that the right for a person to a fair trial where their innocence is presumed and guilt needs to be proved is much much more important than the Louise Nicholas case ever will be.
Had the suppressed information been made available then yes you may have the got the conviction that you all so badly wanted - but at a cost much much greater to New Zealand Justice than we could be fairly expected to pay - a loss of trust in the Judicial system.
The Judicial system didn’t prevent a conviction here - it was the lack of evidence put forward to trial by the prosecution - and previous convictions of one crime are not proof of guilt of another.
This comment was written by Hobbo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:44 pm
I am rapt to see as many outraged people as me. When the verdicts were not guilty I went into shock. Actions like the wearing of ones police uniform and the saying of karakias were loud and clear power trip behaviours. Anyone want to wear “I believe Louise Nicholas” buttons? What a fantastic silent protest that would be. Let’s do it.
This comment was written by Female Artist.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 12:25 am
I would like to commend Louise Nicholas for having the bravery to see it through.
I think the three “little” pigs are guilty, I feel they are disgusting people.
Policemen frequently having group sex with a 17 year old girl - get real people. These three little pigs are not good people, they were not good policemen.
Clint Rickards testimony should be enough to keep him out of the job forever.
They got away with “it” - that is all that really mattered to them.
My experience of the Legal System is that he who lies best wins.
This comment was written by DexterX.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 1:04 am
I believe Louise Nicholas
Nearly two years ago I sat through a rape trial in support of a (then 17 year-old) survivor. I was allowed to sit beside the witness box, I couldn’t speak or hold her hand. I watched again the pain as she told what happened (and as she was attacked by the defendants lawyer) just as she had told me the night it happened.
Sam Grubie (of Island Bay, Wellington) got off, even though he has done it before several times. That couldn’t be raised in court. The court staff knew that he had previously been charged. One of them came to us after the trial and said how well my friend had done and that at least she had tried. She said they knew this person would be back in court again.
The crown prosecutor wouldn’t allow me to give evidence. I was the first adult this girl told after the event. The police knew that my evidence was crucial to the conviction. The Crown prosecutor refused to use my evidence.
Why did the Crown Prosecutor not try harder to get a conviction?
I too am a survivor of rape. I didn’t go to the police. I knew what they were like.
A year before I was raped I worked at a local Police Station during my university holidays, about 20 years ago. Although never physically mishandled I had to put up with whistles, comments and having the surviellence camera trained on me whilst I walked around the yard or washed cars.
Was the culture of the Police supportive of the behaviour these ‘men’ were accused of? Damn right it was!
Louise I believe you.
This comment was written by Gaia-artist.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Tis a shame that it was law not justice carried out in the court. What happenned to” patris patriae” The state is the father and protector of all. Here we have sworn police officers( in the name of the queen and government )admitting to sex with a person of teenage years. It does not matter whether she was promiscuous or not, they should have been protecting her not encouraging fornication, adultery and lying. Are they just as willing to further corrupt youth today ? Will they be let loose in our communities to lower the standards rather than raising and upholding good behaviour ?
This comment was written by bob.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Hobbo, but why is stuff supressed after the trial is over?
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 1:44 am
[deleted]
This comment was written by doughamilton.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 3:16 am
There has been a lot of focus lately on supposed false rape allegations. There is a growing belief that there are quite a few. I believe they are rare or non existant for these reasons. To begin with even though women in general are not perfect and can lie also in situations. Women do not do crime, not very much anyway. Women like Louise who have probably never done crime I think are most unlikely to bring these sort of allegations. Women know that they are likely to be humiliated far more than their rapist. Basically they are not stupid.
This comment was written by Sally.Women are often to scared to even speak the truth of their lives or to even call talkback radio. The predominance of callers on talkback are men.
So why would there be a glut of women brave enough to go around falsely accusing men of rape, opening themselves up to accusations and abuse. Doesn’t fit with their lives frankly. I think sometimes in cases where a stranger attack rape has happened the police get the wrong man, so yes some men do go to prison for rape unjustly. But these are not false allegations by women, they are bungled cases by the police and perhaps mistaken identification which is becomming much less due to DNA testing
Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 3:29 am
Perhaps this case will make other juries think twice about a not guilty verdict in light of the suppressed evidence. Twenty charges, if one went guilty then the previous convictions are before the sentencing judge. Needless to say they’d appeal anyway if a guilty verdict came forward. Interesting how there seems to be no success in convicting the police but so easy to convict innocent parties. eg Arthur Allen Thomas and I’d add Peter Ellis. Sure the appeals were turned down but there was something very unsettling about that case too.
This comment was written by Fred.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 3:40 am
I’m interested in the time published for the postings. It appears this site is run from the mid west USA in which case why cant the suppressed evidence in the Louise Nicholas case be put on here?
This comment was written by Fred.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 3:59 am
Seven women.
This comment was written by Considered.Five men.
Not guilty on all 20 counts.
The jury heard the evidence, not you lot here on this site that “feel” the truth.
Don’t get me wrong I think these three policemen sound like scum, and Rickards should be sacked anyway. BUT, why did her flatmate say they all had consensual sex? Why did Nicholas maintain a friendship with one of the accused? Why did she dance with one of the accused at her brother’s wedding in ‘93, then accuse him of rape in ‘94? Why did she give conflicting accounts in her evidence? Why did she wait so long?
An 18 year old woman thinks a lot differently to a 38 year old woman. It sounds to me like she is embarrassed about her sexual past (her flatmate has admitted she was embarrassed about hers), and over that time has probably convinced herself and changed that memory to satisfy her own changed morality.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 4:01 am
We have been following the Rickards/Schollum/Shipton trial with no particular prejudice, and have been trying to find the content of the pamphlet handed out in Wellington.
As a recent juror, my wife confirms that:
-The verdict must be based on the evidence deemed permissible by the Court.
-A guilty verdict - beyond reasonable doubt - means the offence is deemed to have been committed (whether it was - or not!)
-A not guilty verdict means that the jury did not find the evidence supported a guilty verdict, so the defendant is deemed not to have committed the crime (whether they did - or not!)
-A jury can take quite a long time to work through a dozen charges. It doesn’t necessarily mean jurors were prevailed upon to change their position.
Thus has it been for some centuries, and unlikely to change.
In the search I found an intriguing article at: http://www.peterellis.org.nz/FalseAllegations/2004-0304_ThePress_Judge.htm
It reads, in part:
The Press March 4, 2004
Judge lambasted detective
Fresh revelations about the background of Louise Nicholas’s pack- rape allegations show she admitted making up a rape complaint against a group of Maori youths.
Details about Nicholas’ claims were aired in three trials held in Rotorua during 1993 and 1994, although they were covered by suppression orders lifted only yesterday after an application by the Dominion Post newspaper.
Under cross-examination in the third trial, Nicholas admitted telling a teacher that she had been raped by a group of Maori youths out riding their horses.
“I don’t know why I had said that. Obviously I did but I have never been raped by any Maori on horseback.”
This is a serious allegation, acknowledged as made, but quite dismissively withdrawn on cross-examination under oath. Why was it made?
I now have an (alleged!) copy of the pamphlet. The writer claims to be “fairly sure” of the prime statement made, based on a match of people’s ages.
This comment was written by Ray Vickers.I still have only a small amount of information on this matter, but I can see one reason why the jury did not convict - or was the testimony from the former trial ruled inadmissable?
Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 4:18 am
Maia, if you want further inforamation about another case that is similar to this, I would be happy to talk to you. If you don’t have my email from this message, please send mean address I can contact you on. I will keep an eye out on this site for a message from you
This comment was written by Phaedra.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 4:28 am
Understand the need to suppress information about prior convictions to ensure a fair trial process - but hey - surely not in perpetuity - The trial is over - let’s have the information out there
This comment was written by Lulu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 5:42 am
I have never posted before, but having read all of the above, have several questions.
This comment was written by The Old Duck.Several years ago a lady was inteviewed on National Radio, Saturday morning I believe. Her story was very similar to Louise’s, and the inteview was compellingly believable. The only reason she went public ‘late’ was because a Police Officer had admitted that he had fudged the inquiry to protect other Policemen. This fudging had extended to the subsequent inquiry. Was this interview with Louise?
Does anyone have a transcript of the interview?
Would anyone know where to get such a transcript?
Thanks for your time.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 6:02 am
Whilst I understand the reasons for suppressing information on previous convictions as explained (extremely well) by Hobbo above, I would very much like an explanation of why this information can remain “suppressed” after a case is over.
For information to be suppressed indefinitely on the say-so of some judge is illogical. It means that a judge has the power/authority to decide what the public can and cannot be told. Obviously he must have that authority within the court system to ensure a fair trial, but after the trail has run its course, his role is over; surely all the information should be in the public domain. Otherwise, it’s just a hidden form of censorship that cannot be in the public interest.
This comment was written by Carol.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:11 am
You do realize that no matter what she chose to do, or not do, in no way affects whether a woman gets raped or not, right? Louise could have done all this, felt all that, and still be raped. Men, especially men in positions of official power, rape because they want to, not because the girl/woman in question has put out some kind of secret, male understood only, phermonal signal that she wants to get raped.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Carol, given Rickard’s complaint to the media after the verdict that he is still being persecuted because the police are investigating more charges against him, it seems the boys’ troubles with the law aren’t over yet.
This comment was written by S Garrick.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Wow, there’s suddenly an influx of Kiwis at Alas!
Q Grrl, thanks for addressing that comment and I’ll respond to it too (comment 61, “Considered”)
Considered I’ve seen your same reaction frequently from people reacting to this case and I can only assume that you have very little exposure to/experience with rape and are probably male. Based on your own life experience you are trying to “shrink” Nicholas’s motives and conclude that the sex was likely consensual but that she has since grown ashamed of it and thus has pressed charges to try and assuage her humiliation. Well, to me (from my experience as a woman and as someone who has done a lot of research on rape), that sounds like utter tripe.
Do some reading on rape and educate yourself on it. False rape allegations are very rare. 18 year olds having sex with 3 policemen (and their baton) does not exactly scream “ability to freely consent.” As Q Grrl mentioned, there is nothing about any of Nicholas’ actions since the rapes that nullifies or changes the fact that she was raped. There are cases where women have been deemed to be lying about their rapes because they are not “emotional” enough. Others have been deemed to be lying when they are too emotional. Women can’t win and it is not their actions that need to be analysed as, hey, they didn’t commit any crime. Yes, a person is innocent till proven guilty but it is their actions we need to examine. In rape cases, in a way distinct from any other crime, the victim is put on trial.
So, to take on your interpretation of events, here is how it seems like it could have happened to me. This is as valid a reading as yours but is seen through the lens of a young woman who has been sexually harrassed by many men (including cops in Wellington) and has a different perspective on why Nicholas may have acted the way she did. Note: neither of these readings is right, and that is why I make the point that it is not Nicholas who is on trial here; it is the actions of Rickards, Schollum and Shipton that are relevant, not speculation.
I could see that a young woman in Nicholas’ position would say no to sex with 3 cops and their baton. I could then see that they would go ahead and rape her anyway. This becomes a pattern; they show up at her house expecting sex. What is she going to do about it? Go to the cops for help? At some point it becomes “public” knowledge (her flatmate finds out, etc.) In some cases, all one can do is “make the best” of a horrible situation and I could well believe that someone in Nicholas’ position would try and put on a happy face about the situation and try to present herself as being in control of it. Heck, if I were being raped by police and knew I couldn’t get any help from authorities, and then my flatmate found out about it, I could see myself telling acquaintances that it was all my idea and that I was pulling the strings, because you know what? Victims who are trapped do not want to necessarily admit to it, especially if they are ashamed and frightened. It is then possible that by the time of the “dancing at the wedding” or whatever, that Nicholas was just trying to present the best face to the world that she could muster. It strikes me that there’s actually a parallel here with the numerous people who are saying “god, what is wrong with these cops’ wives - why are they staying with and supporting these bits of scum?” In both cases we’re looking at the women’s behaviour (not the men’s, notice) and decreeing that they are not acting in the way they supposedly should. That’s not going to get us anywhere because what we’re seeing could well be (and probably are) survival tactics. Abused women often try and put a happy face on things and stick it out, because they are trapped and they know it.
I would add that a scenario such as the one that I’ve painted above could well mean that the cops themselves do not believe they were raping her. That is hardly uncommon; plenty of rapists think that “she wanted it”. In particular, if Nicholas continued to object to sex but the “good ole boys” just kept coming back and demanding it of her, there’s every likelihood that they never listened to or considered the fact that they were raping her.
Anyway, that got extremely long but I had to get it out. This analysis of the victim’s behaviour (which keeps finding it wanting) is driving me nuts. None of us were there so none of this speculation matters. You can analyse Nicholas’ actions all you want but it isn’t relevant to whether or not these cops forced her to have sex. What matters to me is that these piece of $hit cops have been raping (apparently) multiple women in my country and they’ve been using their positions to do it. Even the people who don’t believe that the sex was rape can surely agree that these men used their positions to coerce sex and that that is abhorent in and of itself.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 9:59 am
God, forgive some of the sentence structure/grammar in my previous comment. I’m still up and it’s 5am; that’s my excuse and I’m sticking with it.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
It is a long established tenant of law that previous convictions are not admissible as evidence. If we are going to convict people on the basis of previous convictions, why bother having a trial at all?
This comment was written by John Caldwell.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Victory. One goal of Louise’s was to tell the world that these guys are rapists. Done. [delete]. So rest assured Louise we all know them now as rapists. And she had won before she started the trial, by exposing their names & faces if another goal was to humiliate them in the way they humiliated her. Now they might be sorry they did what they did. Well done Louise. You’re very brave.
Noone will ever speak about Shipton & Schollum again without calling them rapists. Scum.
[deleted] But he’s a dirtbag since by his own admission at aged 27 and in a marriage with kids used his power to have group sex with a tiny teenager. What a great role model he is. No wonder he’s so peeved he didn’t quite get right to the top. We really want our Police force to be led by men like him with such integrity and values.
We can argue the legalities of what’s gone on for ever here. But the reality is that Louise didn’t ‘lose’. She is a huge winner in that [deleted]. Without her and the other complainants he would be continuing his thuggery, bullying and inappropriate sex. Bravo Louise.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
“Do you think that much of the public would be so sanguine about the result if they knew that other policemen had provided first hand prosecution evidence?”
First hand evidence? Really? So they witnessed Louise being raped? No, they did not. Whatever evidence these witnesses gave clearly didn’t convince the jury. Infact the jury was unanimous that the accused be acquitted.
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Sorry to distract from Louise, but why is there ‘deleted’ written all over the place. Who is making the decision to delete words/sentences from mail? Whole entries in fact, and why? Is someone using naughtywords? Are the policitally correct police after us? Can anyone tell me?
This comment was written by Sandy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Helen wrote: False rape allegations are very rare. 18 year olds having sex with 3 policemen (and their baton) does not exactly scream “ability to freely consent.”
Hmmmm. Where was the baton? Nowhere to be seen apparently. So the baton allegation may be false, but if it’ s repeated enough, then maybe it will become truth? I don’t think so.
False rape allegations are all too common.
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
The Nelson Mail
December 31 2005
A 17-year-old Christchurch woman who was embarrassed about a drunken sexual encounter with two men in a Nelson park has been charged with making a false statement to police, after claiming she was raped.
Six detectives were assigned to the case after the young woman told police she had been gagged and raped by two men at Centennial Park in Tahunanui early on Thursday morning.
She claimed she was attacked by the men, who were aged between 15 and 25, after she went to relieve herself in a bush. She had earlier seen them riding “double” on a mountainbike.
She admitted she had been drinking.
Detective Senior Sergeant Wayne McCoy of Nelson CIB said the young woman had been charged with making a false statement, after police investigations into her complaint.
“Inquiries made with neighbours revealed the victim had not told us the whole truth about the incident,” he said.
“Further inquiries revealed she had actually met these guys earlier on in the evening.”
Mr McCoy said the woman had been at a campground with the men earlier that night, and alcohol was a significant factor in her actions.
“She was embarrassed about the whole thing afterwards. Her friends found out and she had nowhere to go, basically.
“ She was in a hard place because her friends wanted to make a complaint to police, and she went along with it.”
The woman was interviewed again yesterday after extensive police inquiries, including forensic testing, and information from the public.
“She admitted she made a false statement to us,” Mr McCoy said.
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Is there anywhere that the suppressed evidance is still available? Or can someone email it to me.
This comment was written by matt.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Hmm Ross Francis certainly has an axe to grind. I wonder why? Perhaps he is connected to the beat-up about false rape allegations put out just before the unsuccessful Waikato police rape prosecution.
“Do you think that much of the public would be so sanguine about the result if they knew that other policemen had provided first hand prosecution evidence?”….”First hand evidence? Really?”
Get used to it. Once information of a public event like evidence given at public trial is supressed it normally takes on a life of it’s own, whereby all sorts of rumour and innuendo replace reality.
The public of NZ have every right to know what evidence was presented by anyone much less state employees at a trial. The chief reason being so that we can be certain that the second part of your claim which was that the jury was convinced of the innocence of the defendants is also correct.
This aquittal was no accident.
It was a carefully planned outcome by a cynical bunch of morally dysfunctional community leaders, desperate to try and regain some sort of ethical justification for their enforcement arm which had lost it’s moral highground after too many examples of the sexist and racist behaviour that is an accepted part of police culture became public knowledge.
There is no depth to which this corrupt bunch of hypocrites will not sink. Today police union boss O’Connor attempted distract public attention from this foul tale of moral decadence by pointing out a practise which probably doesn’t exist or if it does occurs in such small numbers as to be negligible.
That is that some women followers of Islam in NZ may be wearing burquas while they drive. That’s the best this apologist for his members’ corruption can talk about at a time when NZ citizens are expressing concern about the serious character defects his members have been displaying?
If as I suspect, Ross Francis is connected with the police service he would be well advised to put his own house in order before trying to instruct others on the best way forward.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Oh, for god’s sake, Ross. Take a look at some statistics and tell me then that false rape complaints are all too common. False complaints for rape are made in the same percentages as false allegations of other major crimes. That doesn’t even take into account that rape is massively under-reported in the first place.
The fact that the media chooses to highlight the few cases of false complaints is an injustice that only serves to stir up the cultural myth that women lie about rape. What about the fact that, say, in the U.S. there are many more black children being abducted than white, and yet it’s the pretty, white, middle/upper-class adolescents that end up plastered all over the news. If you’re looking to the media to provide info. about the reality of crime, you’re looking to the wrong place. The media make a big deal about anything they deem “newsworthy”, not about the garden variety things like rape that are happening to women every day across the world.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Sandy, Maia has made another post that I imagine explains the deletions, which were made after the initial posts were left untouched for a day or so. There is concern that talking about the suppressed evidence may make it harder for people trying to get justice in this case. Therefore, I imagine the deletions are the moderator removing this information where it is talked about in comments.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Maia has removed the posts for no other reason than it is her blog and her posts that have been receiving a great deal of interest from the media and law enforcement; some will say she is chicken, others smart, while she herself says it is in Louise Nicholas’s interests. I would point out that if she was that concerned about Louise Nicholas’s interests in the first place she would not have made any postings without making sure she wasn’t damaging anyone’s credibility in the first place.
I am absolutely 100% in favour of Louise Nicholas and her supporters and 100% against those tring to serve their own interests and use this case as a platform to rail against the police, the justice system, men and anyone else who doesn’t agree with their warped views of society. In this country we have a legal system that isn’t perfect, but rather not perfect than non existant
This comment was written by Snowball.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Did Louise advertise - “I am available for group sex with xnumber of men at $x per session”? She didn’t? Then she did not consent.
Once these three men turned up at her flat intent on making her a plaything for the afternoon, then there was no way out for a young woman who was little more than a school girl (nor would there be for any other woman).
Her behaviour and background are irrelevant; words like “tart” and “asking for it” (which I have seen on blogs) belong to the 1950s and have no place in a debate this century.
The whole point is that we do not expect any mature, stable, male adults to go out in groups looking for young women to use for their entertainment. It is outrageous, therefore, that the very men who have the responsibility of protecting their community should do so and appear to think that it is OK.
Not only that, but by not supporting Louise, the Justice system thinks it is OK too; by definition, so does New Zealand.
Well it is not OK; fundamental changes are long overdue - in the training of police recruits in the reponsible use of power and authority; to the attitudes of the whole hierachy, (from Judges down) towards women and children who are not protected by the system but abused by its procedures; and Police accountability. Police should be held accountable for their behaviour, not protected by their colleagues and by strategies such as name suppression. We pay them, we have a right to know what they are up to.
As for those who support these three men (and others of their ilk) ask yourself one question:-
‘Would I trust these people with my daughters or sisters?”
This comment was written by Carol.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
78.
I have absolutely no connection to the police, only to the truth.
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Snowball:
Do you really not think it’s possible for a person of good will to make an honest mistake, and then try to correct it?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Helen, I know that rape is under-reported. I suspect that false allegations of rape are under-reported too. The fact is that if a woman falsely alleges rape and is convicted, she will probably get diversion. What does a man get if he’s falsely convicted of rape? About 10 years.
Carol, Louise was 18 and Rickards was 24. Hmmmm. I recently read where former top jockey Lance O’Sullivan started dating his now wife when she was 16 and he was 27. Is he a rapist too?
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
I do think people of good will can make honest mistakes; however somehow who invites public opinion to be made on their blog and then goes about deleting every post they don’t agree with is not coming from a place of credibilty or integrity. I invite you to read through some of her earlier comments before she went mysteriously quiet.
This comment was written by Snowball.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
I don’t beleive she has deleted every comment she disagrees with. For one thing, I probably do more approving and disapproving of posts than she does, so you’re wrong to blame her. For another, just skimming the threads there are obviously posts present she doesn’t agree with.
In my experience, people who concentrate on “you’re a bad person” arguments, rather than discussing issues - such as what you’ve said about Maia in your last two posts - are rarely intelligent or interesting to debate with. Since you hate this blog so much, perhaps you should improve both our days and go away.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
I don’t recall saying I hated this blog Ampersand; I merely expressed an opinion, much like you are doing. I didn’t tell you to go away did I? Aren’t you doing exactly the thing you dislike so much?
Anyway, I think the point was lost about twenty posts ago…
This comment was written by Snowball.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Helen, I know that rape is under-reported. I suspect that false allegations of rape are under-reported too.
Are you kidding me? We are talking about STATISTICS on false allegations of rape, which would include situations that go on to diversion. We aren’t talking about the numbers published in the media. By their very nature a false allegation has to be reported, so how it can be under-reported is beyond me. False allegations are clearly going to be over-represented in the number of rapes overall since someone has to come forward and make the false allegation in order for it to be counted as such.
You clearly have an axe to grind but don’t mistake your incorrect perceptions about rape as anything akin to fact. A tiny percentage of rapes are reported. A tiny percentage of those rapes make it to court and a further minute percentage of those cases result in convictions. It is very difficult for a man to be falsely convicted of rape. Most cases where that happens it is not that the woman wasn’t raped but that the wrong person was convicted. There’s a certain unreliability of eyewitness testimony that is a problem in all crimes, not just rape.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Uh, Snowball, you might like to know that this is Ampersand’s blog.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Hi Ross
This comment was written by Carol.I assume you are being mischevious.
I hope so - if you equate what happened to Louise as in any way a variation of “dating” that would be a real worry!
Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
…I didn’t say I hated the blog and again if Ampersand doesn’t want to hear people’s opinions then why invite comment? Telling people to go away because you don’t like what they say is not likely to win many arguments and seems counter productive to this issue
This comment was written by Snowball.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Snowball, I’m fine with hearing other people’s opinions about issues, although there are other moderation questions to consider (I’m soon going to be making a big change to moderation policies here).
I’m not open to hearing your arguments for why any blogger here is a bad person, or how your amazing mental powers allow you to determine that any “Alas” bloggers are acting in bad faith, don’t actually care about the things they claim to care about, etc.. Those aren’t legitimate subjects of political debate, as you should know. If you want to discuss those questions, you’ll have to do so elsewhere.
And those are the only arguments of yours I’ve objected to, or responded to at all.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
my my how this blog has turned in to a moral crusade against the police. If you are serious about your convictions then STAND UP and be counted in the real world. Please, run for government, and put your beliefs out there. Try and effect change from the inside of the govenrment, please don’t spend your whole life making cracks, strong arm comments about what makes you angry and sick, all within the safety of the net. If you mean what you say, stand up in public and change it. The victims are everybody in this case, Louise, the families and even us. Thanks to this event we know are now even more untrusting of the system put in place to protect us. I still trust the police, what choice do I have? Who is going to help me if I have suffered a crime? If you don’t like the police and want to call them pigs or wot not….don’t dial 111 next time you’ve been robbed.It maybe there job, but at the end of the day they are the only ones who will help you, and don’t forget that they choose to be police to serve you the people, they don’t deserve to be called pigs any more than Maoris deserve to be called black!!! Stand by your convictions that you have so loudly voiced in here, to not do so would make you another loud mouth, hiding behind your “rights”. Police are people and as such have flaws and rights like we all do rights to a fair and unbiased trail, and also the right to be human, Im not perfect, but my some fo the comments you people have posted it would appear some of you think you are. SHAME ON YOU. Not all pigs are in the police, some are lawyers, bums, builders and surprise even politicians and web bloggers.
This comment was written by On the level.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Will the information in the pamphlets ever be made public leganlly?
I want to know what was in them that is so damaging?
This comment was written by esmerelda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Perhaps with so many different opinions from so many people, we can see why the jury took so long to find a common ‘verdict’!
Let’s no forget that there is a person buried under all this conflict - and if you have read my past threads, you know that I will never be convinced of her lack of innocence! While I respect everyone’s opinion - (and with a subject that has so many agendas, hurts, regrets, and guilts attached things are likely to get heated at times) it would be great if we could come up with some constructive ideas to stop this happening again.
This comment was written by Elizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
“Not only that, but by not supporting Louise, the Justice system thinks it is OK too; by definition, so does New Zealand.”
Hardly - No one doubts that these men slept with Nicholas, just as only the most cro-magnon like throwback believes that they are not cretins - but what they did (which was to not rape Louise Nicholas), although rephrensible and in extremly poor judgement, was not illegal.
In your view what should we do?
Remove the presumption of innoence and replace it was a presumption of guilt?
Ever thought that even if this were the case the result would not have differed? The falling down of the prosecution case was not due the suppresion of non-revalent information specific to this case but due to a lack of evidence presented. As soon as the flatmate took the stand and basically said that both she and Nicholas were up for it then the case was headed one way.
Were a guilty verdict returned based upon the prior history of an accused then the conviction is clearly unsafe and would be a clear mistrial. Trying someone for a crime based on what has occured in the past is very very dangerous and track that we can not and should not go down.
Maia herself wrote: “…just because people have consensual sex with one woman, doesn’t mean they’re not raping another woman.”
Surely the flip side must also hold true - just because a person may have raped one woman it does not necessairly hold that he has raped another.
Due process has been followed and justice served - a bitter pill to some maybe but better than the lynch mob frontier justice alternative.
This comment was written by Hobbo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 1:03 am
How in hades can an assertion such as this be substantiated?
“No one doubts that these men slept with Nicholas, just as only the most cro-magnon like throwback believes that they are not cretins - but what they did (which was to not rape Louise Nicholas), although rephrensible and in extremly poor judgement, was not illegal.”
All the trial verdict ’shows’ was that there wasn’t enough evidence presented at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these thugs raped a teenaged girl. It certainly doesn’t prove they didn’t rape her. In fact it doesn’t really even show that much.
It really only tells us that Louise couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she said ‘No”.
There may come a time when the onus of proof in these cases is more justly balanced ie that the suspected rapist has to prove that the rapee said “yes”.
Imagine the hoots of despair from the ‘cocksman culture’ then! but when you think about it it isn’t possible to call the proof of ‘yes’ requirement less just than the proof of ‘no’.
How about making it something really simple like….um…”If anyone, particularly a group of people is in an unquestionable situation of power over another person, then sexual intercourse between those people will always be regarded as rape unless the person with less power swears it ain’t so.
Sounds pretty fair to me. When you do have a measure of power over another being, indulging in intercourse must be an abuse of that power by definition.
If it means that those of us within a community that do have greater ‘pull’ than others have to be far more careful in how they behave, to ensure that they are worthy of their status, can that be such a bad thing?
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 2:48 am
So… will dictaphone recordings be acceptable, or will we need witnessed, signed consent? Further, will blood alcohol samples be required to show that the lady (hereafter known as the consentee) is not rendered incapable by alcohol of making an informed decision?
I would’ve hated to have been on the jury for this one. At the end of the day, the jury made a decision based on the allowable evidence presented to them.
Why isn’t a prior conviction for the same offense allowable evidence?
Show me your scientific, empirical evidence that me stealing a car when I was 18 shows that I will steal a car when I’m 30.
You can do this with DNA. You can say “The suspect’s DNA is 10,000,000 times more likely to match the DNA found at the crime scene than anyone else in NZ.”
They have scientific method behind that statement.
You don’t have the science, you have a braying lynch mob.
Let me step you back through the years.
“She’s a witch! She’s all old and haggard, and looks like a witch! See that wart? That’s where her demonic familiar suckles! Burn her!”
That is _precisely_ the attitude shown here, taken to it’s ugly logical conclusion.
We don’t need evidence beyond reasonable doubt, we’ve got our *opinions*.
This comment was written by Cynos.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 3:25 am
Thanks Helen, just wanted to know - this is such a bloody mess, eveyone accusing eveyone, justice as we know it going down the drain.
[deleted] They didnt exactly steal car radios or deal in stolen goods - these (men?) have been accused of gang raping a 17 year old - [deleted] - so many men are thinking 17/schemenventeen? - she didnt tell us how old she was, she was asking for it, she was wearing provicative clothing and the worst Brithish one ’she was gagging for it’ - what is happening here?
Justice demands that previous convictions are not admissable as evidence to protect the accused, in case the poor bastards’ past are in any way misinterpreted!
We have since heard (from much correspondence above) that Louise Nicholas’ past has been raked up with great delight by the Prosecution, and every nuance possible piled upon it. THIS IS FAIR? Dammit, the girl has come forward many years later, at great cost to herself and her family, because she needs to be free of this nightmare. Why else would she do it? Are you all blind? To have your life dragged before the country would have been a small price to pay for recognitnion of what had happened, if it had been recognised. It wasnt.
If the previous allegations are true, THIS CONSTITUTES A SECOND RAPE OF THE POOR GIRL.
I would like to add that, as a young girl growing up (many many years ago, in an (unamed to protect the innocent) African country - the Police had it all, any girl, any time - they were so bloody macho (and I am not talking indigenous girls here - I pity them!) THE POLICE WERE THE PITS - all brothers together. Nothing has changed.
I am very sorry that this is still going on today. It was ever thus.
This comment was written by Sandy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Hey, for a late comer trying to find out the truth, can someone repost the deleted bits that say what was suppressed? And just keep posting!
This comment was written by Alika.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 5:07 am
I don’t think past arrests should be admited, but I do think that past convictions should be under certain circumstances. Often, prosecutors use “prior bad acts” to prove MO or that several cases are connected, as with serial murderers or serial rapists.
And all the verdict in this case “proves” is that 12 people didn’t find enough evidence to convict. It says nothing to the quality of the evidence or the gult or innocence of the accused. Given that there were several suppression orders in effect… there isn’t enough information at this point to be certain what actually happened. (Admittedly I live in another country and I’ve seen less of the facts surrounding the case than others here).
It has been my personal experience that police just like paramedics, doctors, or even lawyers are mostly good people with some seriously bad apples in the bunch. I agree that institutionalized codes of silence are a bad thing, but I have no idea how to go about changing the prevailing attitudes.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 5:31 am
It has been my personal experience that police just like paramedics, doctors, or even lawyers are mostly good people with some seriously bad apples in the bunch.
To be honest, Mendy, I’ve actually always wondered whether certain occupations don’t attract more “bad apples” than others. If a person is already attracted to the idea of having power over people or, as another example, to having access to young children, it seems logical to me that they would head for careers that enabled that for them. It seems likely that pedophiles, for example, would tend towards careers like teaching/the priesthood etc. so that they had access to potential prey. I feel similary about the police.
Before anyone starts crying out that I’m “calling all men rapists,” so to speak, this isn’t to say that plenty of police aren’t just regular folk but my personal experiences with the cops have always involved them inappropropriately hitting on me or threatening me. Maybe I’ve just been unlucky, but I somehow doubt that given other people’s stories I’ve heard. At the church I attended as a child they’ve had 3 priests in my lifetime. The first was thrown in jail for pedophilia. That’s all anecdotal, of course, but psychologically it makes sense to me that predators of any kind are going to be more prevalent in fields where they can do the most harm.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 5:50 am
I like the idea of accused rapists having to prove she said “yes” instead of the victim having to prove she said “no”. Is there any good way to implement this in the courtroom?
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Helen, I’m inclined to agree with you. It’s been my experience that certain personality types are attracted to certain professions (police, military, prison guards). I think there’s also something to be said for the aggressive, misogynist, hyper-masculine group culture that seems to be a part of these professions, which can be seen from the number of major incidents of violence when women have entered these historically all-male institutions.
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 7:56 am
This is just too precious to let go without repeating:
I’m lauging my ass off. $10 to the first person who can actually tell me what this means.
[I'll buy Ross a clue: you can't have an allegation if there is no report. Or let me phrase it this way: no reported crime = no allegation of crime. Or let's see if *this* is any clearer: ***if*** a woman wished to make a false allegation, the last thing she would do is under report it. I mean, like, for real.]
I’m still laughing.
That’s some funny shit, Ross.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Q Grrl, there simply aren’t enough “WTF?!” faces in the world to respond to that comment, I agree ;-) You’ve got to wonder at the thought process. Think of all the crimes that aren’t occurring and are going unreported as we speak!
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Oh, and thanks for the comment, dorktastic. I figured I can’t have been the only one to wonder about this particular distribution of certain types into certain professions.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I think Ross’s comment actually gives us quite valuabe insight into the way that the minds of rape deniers/apologists work.
Q, in part it does make me laugh, but another part of it is scary because you just know this is something that people with that mindset will repeat to each other and have it accepted without analysis.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Young woman..Young macho men in Powerful positions..confessed sexual act…LAW not justice….
This comment was written by bob.There is rarely a case heard where justice is satisfied . The majority of law was written by men in power to suit their own position and political leaning. Although written to continue their political position rather than produce justice most law is not really bad just biased. The rules under which the cases are heard are formulated by men in power ( in the back rooms of the Lodge the court or the bar does not alter the participants) . The self confessed adulterers in this suit, being part of the process ,will naturally have an advantageous position, the prosecution is faced with the daunting task of pushing wet noodles uphill with a bent fork and the courage of the complainant is to be greatly admired. At the end of the day She still has her memory of the tragedy to live with, a victory in court would not erase that and no amount of discussion can change that. I had the perception that this site was to give her encouragement and support and have no objection to other views being deleted. There are other forums for dissenting debate by those of vast bias and limited experience and wit.
Let this be a place of consolation for all the women (and men?) of the world in similar situations
Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Maybe we’d be better off without the cops; let society sort of take care of it’s self….yeah that’ll work.
Better go get some firelighters, someone let me know when the burning begins
This comment was written by Snowball.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Go bob.
Let’s loudly proclaim that the 12 men and women who did their best to reach an honest verdict were wrong, and that we’re right, because, hey, we heard *all* the evidence that they heard right? It was all in the NZ Herald, after all!
People are questioning our entire legal system because they disagree with the decision made. Why can we not disagree with this?
This comment was written by Cynos.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
I do believe that it is likely allegations of sexual crimes involving LE officers are underreported, because I’ve met some women who said that they were forced to have sex with officers to avoid arrest. I told them to go to federal representatives with the DOJ who were town at the time, but they were too embarrassed, and/or scared to do so. I do not believe that the LE agencies can handle these types of allegations appropriately involving their own employees, similiar to problems they have with handling allegations of domestic violence, which is very common in LE.
That’s not to say there aren’t false allegations made, but I think they are probably in the minority, as is true with rape in general.
I too am wondering how it can be that false allegations are underreported. If Ross could elaborate on this supposition of his, I would appreciate it.
I have family including women who live in N.Z. I really am concerned that they are safe there, given that some of the attitudes about rape in that country unfortunately mirror similar ones in the U.S.
Pigs are pigs. Officers are people. Like any group they have good examples of what human beings are as well as bad ones. After all the references by police officers of minorities being nonhuman or animals, I have no desire to emulate them, but that is my personal choice. It’s different for everyone.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
106.
Under-reporting of false allegations is fairly uncomplicated but I can understand why you might have difficulty with the concept. How many false allegations are reported are to the media? 10%, 20%? How many are recorded for official statistical purposes?
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
104.
“I like the idea of accused rapists having to prove she said “yes” instead of the victim having to prove she said “no”. Is there any good way to implement this in the courtroom?”
Yes, this method was tried hundreds of years ago. It resulted in mostly women (otherwise known as witches) being burnt at the stake.
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Most false allegations of rape are handled by way of the offender receiving diversion. Are these cases included in official statistics? Why do offenders only receive diversion?
This comment was written by ross francis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Elizabeth writes: “They will forever be known as the wrongly accused ex-policemen who were found NOT GUILTY. Louise will be known as the women who lied about being raped.”
I think not, Elizabeth, maybe a few days ago that would be the case, but I suspect the nation pretty much changed its mind overnight. Water-cooler chatter is rife, taxi drivers can’t shut up about it. Those guys are ruined.
Carol writes: “I would very much like an explanation of why this information can remain “suppressed” after a case is over.”
Heh… think about it… there is a logical reason, which may not bode well for them… Keith Ng explains the possibilities here http://publicaddress.net/default,3053.sm#post3053
This comment was written by llew.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
My god it’s a sad state of affairs when the only rationale these defenders of corrupt authorities can put up is the usual weak as piss ’strawman’ argument, long discredited on blogs.
That is someone puts up a discussion point such as: “some people in positions of authority are too weak-willed to handle the responsibility of their position”.
A moron then replies with “Maybe we’d be better off without the cops; let society sort of take care of it’s self….yeah that’ll work.”
See what I’m saying? Look back through the blog, no-one for a moment suggested that the police should be abolished. What was mooted was that undesirables are being allowed into positions of authority in our community and we need to do better in picking who it is we delegate power to.
But rather than debate an eminently sensible point of view such as that, probably because it would require the vast leap of faith from “some men are rapists’ and ‘most police in NZ are men” to “ergo some police are rapists” which doesn’t suit Snowball’s weird worldview; he /she/it puts words into other’s mouth, words which haven’t been uttered and are unsupportable. All in order to try and reject a sensible point of view.
Even worse is the latest effort from the other apologist. When discussing what is the best way to handle these situations in future I mooted that perhaps if the boot were on the other foot, rather than the victim having to prove that the perp was told “No! Stop!” perhaps things would change if the perp had to prove the victim said “Yes! Go!”. A point which I am more than prepared to debate sensibly as I suspect are others, hence the query from another poster, if it would really be possible to implement that regime.
Unfortunately before any real discussion occurs, another apologist/denier of rape replies “Yes, this method was tried hundreds of years ago. It resulted in mostly women (otherwise known as witches) being burnt at the stake.”
Where on earth did that come from? This is the first I have heard that medieval witches were in fact rape victims, who got burned, because in those days, women had more say in their fate than nowadays.
This put the onus was on men to prove they (the women) had assented to intercourse. When they couldn’t do this, they accused the woman they had raped of being a witch!
I would be very interested to see the links to any primary sources for this.
I did a quick google for “witches rape” and apart from an apologist for rape in a blog on the Duke saga, This Link is the only reference I could find. It is a discussion of the “burning times” and about halfway down the page says:
In other words witches weren’t rape victims initially but the could become that after they had been accused of rape. Once any power they may have had was taken from them.
But lets not be letting a few facts get in the way of a piss weak hypothesis eh!
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Louise if you read this i hope you get your happy ending. I”m sure you will find your justice in another form, wether it is writing a book or helping other people who have been threw the same thing as you. I think you are a strong woman and i admire you for standing up for your self.
Kia Kaha
This comment was written by Leah.Kia Manuanui
Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Do you people want our system to be guilty until proven innocent? Thats what im taking from most of your comments. And your all using language which is way beyond what is needed!! Rape Deniers, why would call anybody who commented against your point of veiw that?…no one denies that rape happens, its cruel and nasty, inhuman… but stop reacting without thinking and accusing some one of being something their not…clearly some of you people are guilty until innocent types!Losers
This comment was written by On the level.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Hey, I just read this morning about a woman who recently moved back to Kaitaia to reside, after having been pretty much ostracised by the community back in the 80’s after she ‘cried rape’, alleging that one of the local constables handcuffed and raped her.
This comment was written by John Murphy.She had been living ‘anonymously’ in Otago until recently. When she heard of the Nicholas case on the radio, she thought they were talking about what had happened to HER!!!
Clearly, the police cover-up system is either alive and active, or there is more than one woman lying about the police for the sheer joy it brings them to be dragged through the courts.
Hey, what the…?
Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/people/ClintRickards/2004-0206_Stuff_AllegedPoliceRapeVictim.htm
This comment was written by John Murphy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Okay, so it’s old news by 2 years.
This comment was written by John Murphy.But what’s changed?
I wish all victims of sexual assaults at the hands of the police could find the strength within themselves and those around them to come forth and make a long-overdue stand against those whom we give the power to protect us, but who instead use that power to terrorise us.
Nobody can hurt you now; not anymore.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
If anybody wants the text that has been deleted in the top posting of this thread, please contact me at snowy@paradise.net.nz and I will supply!
I will also send a jpeg attachment of the flier which was being handed out by the ladies in Wellington and other centres.
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Excuse me for barging in on this discussion, but I have been following the courtcase on the news, and I am worried.
This comment was written by Evelien.I only caught on to the fact that some of the evidence was supressed to late to read it on the web. I know from experience how suppression of evidence can completely derail a courtcase and leave the victim of a crime exposed to accusations and again be victimised, this time by the people on the street. In this particular case I worry not only for Louise and what her brave stance will do to her and her family, but also what will happen if the three men guilty of raping her (of this I am convinced) will do when they feel save again. If what I have read between the lines is true, than these men will rape again. I may take some time but inevitably, these kinds of psychopaths will need to bully and degrade other women. Their psyche dictates it. So what has society (represented by the judge) gained by not acknowleging this apparent pattern of behaviour?
The very real possibility that another women will suffer the same degradation and debasement that Louise and apparently another women have already suffered. Only when men in general wil realise that men who rape are sick individuals, and that rape is not just an unfortunate byproduct of the gender war, will they realise that by protecting serial rapists they expose their own wifes and daughters to rape and violence. Psychopaths who rape, will rape again and again, and again.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Listening to the news today I heard a report of a different case that occurred last year and the supression of evidence has only just ‘lapsed’ now and become available to the public. Do all suppressions have the same time scale? Does anyone know when the supression in this case will lapse? Paul, I am looking forward to reading the contents of that pamphlet.
Does anyone know if Louise is actually reading all this? I hope it is not too distressing for her if she is, she is a very brave woman.
This comment was written by Sandy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 1:55 am
Evelien, I get what you’re saying but think it’s very counter-productive to call rapists “psychopaths” and separate them out as monsters or animals.
Rapists are everyday men who have a sense of entitlement to women’s bodies and do not respect them as fellow human beings. They are normal guys who are raised in our culture; we produce them. A man’s masculinity in our society is proven when they penetrate a woman’s body and sex itself is degraded into something that a man does to a woman (language such as “I hit that,” “I scored,” “I banged her” etc.) It’s hardly surprising, then, that sex couched in these terms and with these kinds of stakes attached results in large numbers of cases where a man puts his own “out of control” desires ahead of a woman’s right to bodily integrity.
Yes, rape is a disgusting crime but the men who commit it are fathers, brothers, husbands etc. They are part of a system that we have created and encourage. This is not to excuse their behaviour; far from it. However, separating them out from the pack and making them into monsters ignores the horrendous statistics of how many women are raped or assaulted in their lifetime. Either we’ve got a few deranged “monsters” out there doing an awful lot of raping, or there are a lot of ordinary men who are being ignored when we talk about this mythical monster rapist.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Here we go again! Another strawman argument.
I would be interested to see this guilty until proven innocent link. As far as I can see no one has accused anybody who hasn’t been convicted of rape of being a rapist.
On the other hand the people who were labeled ‘rape deniers’ at one point tried to claim the reverse, which is that some people convicted in a court of law of rape weren’t rapists, something that I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with, however there has yet to be a shred of evidence offered to support that claim so I prefer to go with a jury’s decision until proof of a wrong conviction is shown.
The other charming little pieces of information offered by those labeled ‘rape deniers’ has been a welter of scurrilous and unreferenced accusations against rape complainants along with a plethora of newspaper articles which have been published in the last 12 months or so, and which were usually sourced to “a NZ police spokesperson”, telling us there has been a marked increase in the numbers of false rape complaints.
One of the alleged rape deniers published a list of those stories t’other day and the really interesting thing about them was that some appeared without much in the way of a reason for ‘the police spokesperson’ to be talking about this matter at that time, which was serendipitously, just before some rape trial which involved a prominent person or member/former member of the police.
As I pointed out before the most blatant of these releases was made by the Waikato Police District right before the unsuccessful prosecution of a policeman from the Waikato district.
Now this is where the whole thing gets really weird.
This is not the case referred to by ross francis here. That case concerned an arrested woman who alleged she had been raped in 2003 by her arresting officer. She made the complaint shortly after the Louise Nicholas story first broke and despite the fact the accused policeman had a solid alibi the complaint against him was progressed a considerable way before being dropped and the plaintiff was charged with making a false complaint.
This went to trial in June 2005 not long before a very senior officer at the Waikato police district went up on an historic rape charge alleged to have been committed on a woman subordinate in 1984.
Between the successful prosecution of the woman for making a false complaint in June and the unsuccessful prosecution of the ’senior officer’ in August, someone at Waikato District made a press release alleging that only 7% of rape allegations /complaints panned out. That most allegations were made by jealous, desperate or unloved women.
Now Hamilton isn’t a huge metropolis (100,000 pop) and I believe it unlikely that a story such as this could be pushed aside and ignored by every jury member who read it.
You are perfectly entitled to consider this whole spiel some weird paranoid conspiracy theory but I should point out that this move to give publicity to alleged ‘false rape complaints’ is a reversal of previous NZ police policy.
It harkens back to the bad old days when according to Christchurch barrister and former policeman Tony Grieg:
“When I started with the police in the 1970s they had an appalling approach towards rape investigations. Unless the complaint was of the stranger/break in/abduction type, (very rare), then a lot of pressure could be applied to complainants to withdraw their complaints. Things changed radically in a short space of time and in my experience the police are usually very sympathetic towards complainants… they try very hard to get it right.”
So up until the point of these historic rape complaints against them the police had not talked too much about ‘false complaints’ much less prosecuted anyone for making one for the simple reason that they understood how few actual rapes resulted in a complaint much less a conviction.
In fact ironically enough the Waikato District was where the much publicised Nick Wills false complaint was made and allegedly improperly handled by police in 1996. It should be noted that in the Wills case despite massive publicity the person who made the false complaint had continued name suppression and was given diversion instead of a conviction.
Now I raise that issue with some temerity because it is a difficult issue to even mention without rousing a storm of controversy. The thing is though I’m not surprised by this swing of the pendulum back against the credibility of those who make rape complaints. All it really shows is how poorly society in general understands rape and it’s consequences, so that policy is determined by the ‘current worldwide trends in law enforcement policy’, rather than some carefully developed strategy for dealing with a complex societal issue.
Or is it? It would be even worse if this swing of the pendulum didn’t have the justification of being the current trend but was a knee jerk reaction to the numbers of rape complaints being made against police, particularly senior police.
At least ‘current policing trends’ usually come about as the result of research undertaken by some law enforcement policy wonk somewhere around the world.
If this one has come about just for police self protection, that truly sucks.
Of course a change against accepting the word of any rape complainant until it is shown to be incorrect, would be even worse if the motive was establishment self protection.
There was a noticeable change about the way the government and some elements of the media referred to the historic police rape complaints about the time that the Iraena Asher debacle unfolded, maybe a little later when a constable who bullied a teenage mother into police station sex was sent to prison for four and a half years.
The stuff above is horrifying enough, it may be that the establishment cried “Too much” then decided to lower the boom judging by these excerpts from the same article:
I hope I’m not the only bloke who finds those comments appalling.
The last couple of paras don’t bode well for the public’s faith in an unprejudiced investigation into further complaints against police either:
If there has been an earnest attempt by some ‘leaders of NZ institutions’ to ease off the pedal on investigating police abuse of power on women; apart from the obvious injustice caused by this, there is a further, in it’s own way more disturbing, corollary to this deliberate attempt to bend the truth to suit the ‘leaders’ ends.
That is it implies that our leaders believe NZers are too stupid to understand that this stuff happens, that a dozen police caught at rape doesn’t mean all police are rapists. That the public understands that rather than bending the facts the police would be better served restoring any public confidence which may have been lost by doing their job better.
They need to catch more crooks, not play with figures to make it look like there are less crimes being committed.
In fact the only types that I can remember claiming that all police had lost the trust of the community were either the media trying to attract people’s attention in order to sell people something they didn’t need, using money people don’t have. Or politicians also trying to attract people’s attention in order to get them to vote, so that politician would have a chance to be the misleader, rather than the politician currently accused of lying.
Sad isn’t it.
Absolutely nothing to do with justice, pavlova and the kiwi way and everything to do with lame little tosspots wanting to be just like a ‘real politician, like the ones on ‘West Wing’ or ‘Commander in Chief’ .
Lord save us from these ninnies.
Finally to those of you prurient types who have read all the way thru this in the hope they would find out what was supressed; “too slow, too slow”. Apologies to others interested in the subject who laboured through my verbosity but people coming in here have been battered silly by unproven ‘facts’ and prejudice from the deniers.
It felt time to remind all of us how short our memories can be.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 3:11 am
I have a question for those of you who are so obsessed with all those “false allegations of rape”: why are you apparently more concerned about a large-scale phenomenon that in theory *could* exist (when in the real world, there’s no evidence to say that it does…in fact, all of those involved in law enforcement, judicial system, etc. are very clear that this phenomenon is RARE) than you are with the real-life, extensively reported and analysed phenomenon of shockingly low conviction rates for rape? Which, btw, everyone involved in the process acknowledges?
In the overwhelming majority of reporting that is done on the subject, no one involved in the process expresses doubts about the number of rapes that occur. Therefore, there are men out there who are guilty of them, and they are going unpunished in massive numbers. Yet all your energies are spent agonising over mythical women of whom we have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, who only really exist in the realm of your personal theories, rather than the reality of rapists who are, demonstrably, getting off scott-free.
Again, I don’t care if this is a freaking ad hom, but what the hell is wrong with you??
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Hi Helen,
Thank you for your reaction to my letter.
You are absolutely right of course. There are a lot of ignorant peer-pressured “normal” men who commit rape.
I have recently moved to New Zealand from Holland with my New Zealand husband of 20 years and I must confess to being shocked by the backward and ignorant attitude of a great part of the male population towards women and gay people, and by the macho culture amongst men in general. (In Holland it is pretty normal for gays to get married as you perhaps know)
It has not changed that much from the NZ my husband had left behind, he told me. It was a reason for him to leave at the time.
It is a very destructive, angry force that is detrimental not only to women and gays but also to the men themselves.
But I am equally schocked by how a lot of women over here are also set on perpetuating the “gender war” myth.
By judging women who break the mold for example.
I am sure that a lot of women will judge Louise harshly for daring to speak out.
I agree, there are a lot of men out there who, because of their ingorance and pressured by the blokish culture around them, will harm and sexually abuse women or think that hitting women is oké, and they should of course be punished for that.
It is also something that can be changed by educating and coercing men into changing their opinions and behaviour.
The goverments of Holland and England did big ad campaigns teaching the general populus that when a woman says no she most probably means it and even if she doesn’t it’s better to take it on face value, in an attempt to prevent such crimes trough ignorance.
You can also change it by educating women that its oké to say no, but also that she is entitled to say yes if she feels like having sex, and by allowing women to own their own sexuallity. (I have a hard time coping with the anglo-saxon female primness, and the way a lot of especially Pakeha women seem to deny their own sexuality, I must confess)
But this particular group of men is of a different level of malignancy.
I call these men psychopaths because they knew what they were doing. They organised themselves and talked about what they were going to do. They knew that what they were doing was wrong and they never the less did it, not once but over twenty times to Louise, and it appears to others as well. Conspiring to (repeatedly) kidnap and rape is not something your avarage and dare I say it “accidental” rapist does.
That kind of premaditated evil belongs in a different category. Whether we like it or not, there are different gradiations of rape and by not acknowleging that, we show ourselves to be as ignorant as the judge, who felt apparently that every rapist belongs in the accidental, ignorant category, and that maybe women are asking for it. By not recognising the fact that the men in the dock were not your average Joe Blog ingnorami, the judge showed that he too was an ignorant bloke and like a lot of men in this country he could do with some education and enlightment. He has allowed three sick and evil men to hide amongst the stupid and the ingorant. Three predators got away with a horrible crime and they will do it again someday.
If we can acknowledge that there is a difference than maybe the “blokes” can acknowledge it too, and rather than protect criminals like this they will recognise that men like this do not belong in the “oh, they’re only blokes having a bit of fun category”.
This comment was written by Evelien.Maybe than they can act maturely and stop the bullying and the macho shit amongst themselves and allow themselves to grow up and than we would see some real change among the men in this country.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Found some history lessons here:
This comment was written by Anna.http://grannyscompendium.blogspot.com/
Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
#129
“I have a question for those of you who are so obsessed with all those “false allegations of rape”: why are you apparently more concerned about a large-scale phenomenon that in theory *could* exist (when in the real world, there’s no evidence to say that it does…in fact, all of those involved in law enforcement, judicial system, etc. are very clear that this phenomenon is RARE) than you are with the real-life, extensively reported and analysed phenomenon of shockingly low conviction rates for rape? ”
I don’t think anyone has said that false allegations of rape are a large-scale phenomenon. The fact is they happen and happen all too often. And the offenders typically either don’t get charged or are given diversion. There’s no need to get defensive about that. I don’t understand how investigating false rape claims is helping to resolve the problem of under-reporting of rape. Indeed resources that could be used for the investigation of rapes are being diverted and wasted.
This comment was written by James.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
I used to date a policeman who was in the same cadet intake as Rickards. At their dances there was always a girl called Faith who at some stage of the evening would disappear with 3 cadets and have sex with them in the carpark. never more than 3 cos she wasn’t a slut!!!! there will always be willing women and men willing to take the opportunity. Was Louise one of these women or did she just pay the price for the willingness of others who thought it ok to have group sex? I don’t know if Rickards was one of the men involved with this other girl and I don’t know what to think about Louise’s case but I do know that as long as we have some women who are willing to be police ‘groupies’ then there will be an expectation that other women want it too
This comment was written by Chrissy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Over the years I have had many run ins with top ranked police due to them not investigating an incident when I was silenced and bullied at CIB in February 1979 due to lies told about me by an ex cop boyfriend who I dated when I was 16. I have been back again and again. Are people aware that in May 2002 Mr C. Rickards replied on behalf of Mr R. Robininson regarding complaints about police officers? I could not speak out earlier as I did not want to jeopardise Louise’s case. I have thought about her everyday since her ordeal was made public.
When I heard about Loiuse I was not surprised in the least about why she had to go public. I was not surprised about the verdict either as I know how powerful and strong the police are (blue code of silence, unable to be objective, do not deal with the facts).
I have decided to give the new Police Commissioner one oppertunity to finally get my case right which is a police commissioner’s file.
I think Louise deserves a gold medal for exposing the harm police officers in denial are causing woman who want justice. It is about time that the good police officers sort out the scum bags who are causing disrepute to their profession.
Regards Teresa
This comment was written by Teresa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Oh I splelt Robinson wrong!
This comment was written by Teresa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Evelien, while Holland might has a more open attutide towards gays than NZ, the New Zealand culture and attitude towards homosexuals has opened up and become a much friendlier place for homosexuals than most countries. As a stat the hero parade in auckland when it was last held, only 10% of the people at the parade were homosexuals, the other 90% were hetrosexuals. I actually consider that you and your husbands views of NZ are prolly a bit prejudices by your experinces in Holland and you arent’ seeing the country that a lot of homosexuals now do see, and how much progress this country has made.
It’s really amazing how much people in this blog can turn around and judge someone.
Here’s the facts, two sides presented evidence, and no matter how much you may think you know the facts, you don’t honestly know which side is lieing and which is telling the truth. You have to have faith that a those who are selected to judge the case, the facts can determine the evidence. The public might think that knowing the facts gives them the right to judge the case and judge those on the jury, but you don’t.
One person made the comment about does a person advertise for group sex, then makes the arguement that she didn’t want it. Can you honestly 100% say that? Not really, because you really don’t know the answer. BTW, I am guessing the person who wrote that has never had group sex.
And you say that because the Jury took so long that is evidence that some people on the jury thought they were guilty? Rubbish. All it means is that hte jury took that time to come to their conclusion, that they, as we know from them going back to talk with teh judge, went over all the evidence that was put before them. Some of you really need to stop coming to conclusions that eixist soly in your heads.
Imagine, if you all could put this much effort into the crimes that are happening today, child abuse, child prostitution. Instead of a case where a jury of your peers determined that the evidence that was presented did not hold the evidence to convict these people of a crime.
There is a thing in New Zealand that we hold dare, it is called innocent until proven guilty. There was no evidence to prove these people guilty, instead some of you have decided that the whole legal system the jury, the police, the judge all are wrong and you are right.
oh btw Evelien you say that men that rape are sick, I agree, but why do you single men out? Why do you not say that woman who rape are sick?
Ya know what is also sick? People laying false rape claims. And we know for a fact that Louise Nicholas has a history of laying false rape claims, don’t we? Or do you people just like to forget the maori youths she falsing claimed raped her?
Wow, so many posts and words deleted in this thread, one can only assume that the person that owns the blog does not believe in freedom of speech especially when it goes against her stand.
This comment was written by Dreamer.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
I support Louise Nicholas but not the man bashing starting to show on this site. We are not all neanderthals Evelien, I have never hit a woman though I have been hit by women myself ( Is that OK ??). But thats another story that needs adressing elsewhere. I live and work in a community that is not at all “macho” and my sons would not even know the meaning of the word. Please dont compare us all to the likes of Shipton, Rickards and Schollum. Those scum are not men, they are animals.
This comment was written by Simon.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Just to take a slight sidestep from previous comments (I may return to reply to them later) but the news was just on and I am feeling an extreme sense of pride that New Zealand women are keeping this as the lead news story (it’s been a week now, yes?). For non-Kiwis, today’s focus was on the fact that the suppressed info. is being spread by an email targetting women and encouraging them to send it on to other women they know. It’s so widespread now that they may have problems prosecuting anyone.
They mentioned at the end of the item that this is the first time in NZ history that there has been such widespread disobedience of a suppression order. While I don’t necessarily celebrate that (in the context of the law, I mean), as a feminist I am feeling extremely proud of my country right now. Given how often women’s rights are shat on, it’s a really nice change to feel that way. I hope this is leading to some great discussions around the country about rape, and that perhaps it will lead to some 60 Minutes-type news items.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 12:02 am
I’ve heard so much interest about the (original) leaflet which was handed out in Wellington. I’ve tried to find the website that is distributing this suppressed information but have had no success. Could you please send me the suppressed info or the website to obtain the suppressed info. thanks
This comment was written by Sherrill Baylis.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 3:03 am
Sherrill, you haven’t left any contact info. Earlier in the thread someone named Paul said he is willing to distribute the info. you’re after. Email him at snowy@paradise.net.nz
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 3:55 am
I must admit I sought out this blog because I too wanted to know what this suppressed evidence was. I’ve more or less figured it out i think, but as I read I became more amazed at the innocence of some of our citizens. How many people have been on a jury in New Zealand? I had a horrifying experience of being on a jury in a very disturbing case passing judgement on a male charged with indecent assault on a child. It was horrifying. Most of the jury had made up their minds by the time they entered the jury room. Their verdicts were in no way based soley on the evidence.( there was no material evidence of course. )I believe to this day that they were based on emotion and preconceived ideas. Nothing in the evidence convinced me that the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. An I thought that was what I was there for. But I caved in because it became too unpleasant to withstand the pressure and ostracism of the other jurors. I will never ever again make myself available for jury service. I have wondered since the verdict of this trial whether the same happened this time, the only difference being that this time the guilty people walked away. Ray Vickers and his wife having a touching but misplaced faith in the jury system. It will remain flawed until NZ gets rid of unanimous verdicts and also the idea of a verdict of “not proven”,is permitted. i.e. after exhaustive consideration of the evidence we cannot come to a majority decision, the accused may be guilty but you haven’t provided enough evidence that they are. This was the case in my own experience and I always believed it was clearly the case with Arthur Thomas.
I believe that Helen’s comment of the 4th April pretty fairly summarises how girls get themselves in a situation like this. Another thing that amazes me is the defence lawyers argument that of course she wasn’t raped because, in effect, she wasn’t more or less destroyed by the assaults on her by these men., and she didn’t get rid of the dress she was wearing on one of the occasions.
I t must be much more convincing to consider that nobody would endure what she has endured to make a false claim of rape. When were all these false claims made by all these women anyway? I have heard of very few.
But I am totally convinced that in New Zealand alone there are thousands and thousands of women who have been raped and would not dream of laying a complaint because of their shame and self blame. Sane women do not lay false complaints.
This comment was written by Nofem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Helenl, I see you have instructed Sherril to email Paul re the information on the pamphlet. I came so close to giving my email address and then stopped - I dont know why - I dont know who Paul is - is this sad? Why am I giving my email address to a stranger who knows I am interested in illegal information? Am I sad? Is it ok to give my details to this stranger? Sorry Paul, dont know you. Has anyone else done this, do you all know the contents of the pamphlet by now? Somehow giving my email address seems to make me vulneralble. Maybe I am getting too old for this. Anyway, nobody had come forth with an answer to the length of time before a suppression ordrer lapses. Does anyone know?
This comment was written by Sandy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 6:00 am
Sandy, I understand your concerns and I can’t personally vouch for Paul - I mentioned him because I doubted that Sherrill had read the whole thread. Perhaps you could set up a temporary email address with one of the free companies just for the purpose of retrieving the info. That way you could get the info. without compromising your safety and it wouldn’t take long. Just go to yahoo.com or something.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 6:15 am
Evelien, that was a really interesting post. I actually agree, in this case, that calling these guys sociopaths or some such is probably appropriate. My reaction to the language is mostly because you frequently see rapists described in inhumane terms (as demonstrated, for example, by Simon in comment 137) and it’s damaging to the social understanding of rape. It’s a really great way to perpetuate the notion of a stranger rapist (typically the black man in the alley type) which makes people very comfortable with saying that rapists should be thrown in jail/castrated and so forth while ignoring the fact that the majority of rapists are people’s family members and friends. I realise you weren’t intending to do this but I’ve been frequenting this feminist website for a long time now, and plenty of people use this language when discussing rape.
I love the idea of the Dutch ad campaign (and yes, I’m aware of the more progressive social policies of some European countries) and think something that similar would be very important for New Zealand. I actually have a slight hope that this whole Rickards rape trial might result in some open discussion of rape and consent. In terms of social laws/culture NZ tends to lag a bit behind the most forward-thinking European countries but ahead of places like Australia and the U.S. I hope that as we move more towards that European model that things like women’s rights/childcare/rape will be addressed in public policy.
I agree we have a very macho-type culture here. The typical “Kiwi bloke” ideal is not a great one, particularly when it comes to interactions between men and women. However, I also must say that I really think it depends on what part of the country you’re living in (as to how anti-gay, macho the men are in general). I’m part of the gay community in Wellington and although there are homophobic assholes here, Wellington is very gay-friendly compared to many places in the world. Of course, that’s not really saying much since most places set a pretty low bar in terms of acceptance of gay people! Anyway, thanks for the reply and I agree with what you’ve said.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 6:26 am
Worth having a think about is the David Dougherty. This man was convicted of rape and lost his appeal. He spent 3 years in prison before DNA proved his innocence.
Had any other women accused him of historical rape whilst he was inside, do you think he would have had a fair trial with his convictions being revealed to a Jury???
Justice is a funny old thing except when you depend on it for your life!!!
This comment was written by Bryan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 7:17 am
I hate to be a party pooper but leaving traceable data such as email addresses with complete strangers in order to share information that may be suppressed isn’t exactly sharpest knife in the drawer stuff.
There are many ways of protecting yourself from the worst of the things that could develop if you’re ‘trading partner’ isn’t what he/ she seems.
But before any of that people need to have a really good think here about whether they fully understand all the implications of this information being demonstrated to have gotten out in the community.
If for example there was a likelihood of further legal action, particularly against people who are the subject of suppresion orders, and then it become provable that this information had circulated around the community, the courts may decide that it would be impossible for a defendant to get a fair trial. So charges are dropped. I’m sure most people don’t want that.
The threshold here isn’t very high. If 8% of the population are suspected of knowing something, a defense lawyer could argue that at 8% it is impossible to randomly select a jury without someone on the jury knowing this information and tainting everyone else.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 8:05 am
notXtian, I agree to an extent and haven’t actually sought the info. myself for the reasons of justice you’ve mentioned. I know enough but haven’t seen the actual fliers etc. However, I don’t think your last two paragraphs are terribly relevant anymore. The amount of attention this case has garnered and the figures they’ve given on the news (about the numbers of people circulating the emails) suggests that the numbers are already way to high to worry overly about how the “suppressed” details will affect any future case. In other words, I agree with your basic point, but think it’s already way too late.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 10:07 am
The pamphlet is here: http://threepointturn.blogspot.com/2006/04/it-is-illegal-to-view-this-post.html
This comment was written by Anna.Anything else you need to know is here: (read all the posts) http://grannyscompendium.blogspot.com/
Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 10:50 am
You can think about David Dougherty if you like, Bryan. It’s an undoubted injustice and is one of those cases where eyewitness testimony sent an innocent man to jail. That’s always a problem with eyewitness testimony; it isn’t always reliable, especially in the case of an 11 year old, traumatised girl. I would remind you that she was, in fact, raped, and then the police built a case against him that resulted in a conviction. It’s hardly the same thing as a woman making a false complaint. Those rare cases where an innocent person is sent to jail are often cases where the crime itself is in no doubt but the wrong person is caught up in the crime and charged.
Anyway like I said, you can think about the one in a million case of David Dougherty, Bryan. Me, I’m going to think about the slightly weightier problem of the thousands of men walking around right now who have raped women and gotten away with it. Time better spent, methinks.
Isn’t it amazing how so many men (and, yes, it is nearly always men who do this) focus on that one innocent man and ignore the screeds of others who create the environment in which that innocent man is convicted?
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
#145
This comment was written by James.The David Dougherty case is interesting for another reason. Even when DNA evidence proved he hadn’t raped, he was allowed to remain in prison for another two years. The Crown also allowed another trial to take place knowing that Dougherty waas innocent. Finally, even when Dougherty was exonerated, Doug Graham said that Dougherty had to prove his innocence and wouldn’t give him any compensation.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
#150
“Isn’t it amazing how so many men (and, yes, it is nearly always men who do this) focus on that one innocent man and ignore the screeds of others who create the environment in which that innocent man is convicted?”
Oh, if only it were one innocent man. A retired Chief Judge, Sir Thomas Thorp, earlier this year said that there were at least 20 people in prison show shouldn’t be, because they’ve been wrongly convicted. I wonder how many of these are women.
This comment was written by James.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Wow, really James, 20?! 20 whole people who the police and the justice system have screwed over?! I’m shocked and stunned.
I don’t want to talk about those 20 who are irrelevant in a discussion about the massive numbers of women who are raped in our society and the men who rape them and are not prosecuted. Stop trying to change the discussion topic.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Ooooo …. fighting talk!
This comment was written by Sandy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Helen, you and I have the same agenda. Getting guilty rapists convicted. Sometimes I would even like to have the perps. castrated . The area we differ is the burden of proof required to achieve this. The same goes for men who are bullies and use their physical strength to intimidate or abuse the other party, be they male or female. I guess we will argue till the cows come home over ways for determining proof.
Recently I had a male friend have a false sexual allegation brought against him and observed the destruction it brought to himself and his family. The girl eventually dropped the charge but the damage was done. Up until this happened I had always assumed the male at fault.
You see, I was brought up to honour females and to never make advances on them without there being a clear indication that they wished to have you proceed. I also thought that all men were the same as myself in that the experience of sex was all about the woman wanting to have you. Rape therefore was and is an alien experience for me. As we all know, there are scum males out there who destroy lives.
I looked carefully at the woman who laid this false complaint and realised there were also scum women out there. These women don’t display their decrepid humanity in the same way as men but they are still scum and destroy lives as well.
We need to be very careful who we show our support for, lest we in ignorance shoot ourselves in the foot.
This comment was written by Bryan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2006 at 3:30 am
I would like to say a big “on ya mates” to all the woman who have done what they have done to make the public aware of facts. You gals showed a courage and strength which has been long forgotten in this country. I am damn proud that there are still kiwis out there who will stand up when one of ours is not getting a fair go. If anyone does get fined I like many others will have no regrets or worries about helping to pay it off. It would be nothing compared to my worries about paying my tax’s when Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton got so much money for defense lawyers.
I noticed that Anna posted a blog which has links to some of the media articles. Good on ya’s and I hope more start up. The more of these that are set up, the more the public will know. Another blog has been similarly setup which will be trying to archive all the relevant media articles on the historic rape claims and allegations in NZ against the Police and their cover ups.
At the moment it is a mess, but will soon be presenting some of the important facts and information on front page of the information found within these articles. One such example is Bob Schollums cousin being a rapist and his police mates doing a cover up of it back in the 80’s. All the information is public and not suppressed, as it was made public by the media. Thus any information you see you can legally inform others about etc.
The blog is http://historicrapeclaims.blogspot.com
The articles are being put up in chronological order so click on the archives of a certain month and it shall have the articles from then. But like I have said it is messy at this stage and is not completed. But a full summary will be made in due time.
This comment was written by Someofthefacts.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2006 at 3:47 am
Excuse me Bryan, but aren’t you missing the point that these honourable aforesaid ‘perps’ have been accused - and convicted - of this very same act on a previous occasion? And how the hell could you ‘look carefully at this woman’? Perleeeeeez. Enough said.
This comment was written by Sandy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Bryan, I’ve been a part of enough rape-related threads online to have seen many many men who say the same things you do. It happens in every single thread and is beyond monotonous. Your intentions may be good but we can hardly be said to be “on the same side.” Everything you say is about protecting the vague possibility that a man might be falsely convicted of rape. I say that you are talking about a tiny percentage (as with any other comparable crime the rate of false allegations is small, and rape is different because it’s under-reported to begin with) and that that percentage is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Unlike any other crime, men seem to think it is relevant to talk about this tiny percentage first, circumventing discussion of men who are raping and the women who are being raped. When you talk about robbery, do you try and talk first and foremost about the same tiny percentage who rip off insurance companies or do you talk about ways to lock up your house, protect your goods and prevent the robbery in the first place? It is only rape that engenders this particular response in men and that is very telling. (By the way, I’ve never mentioned the burden of proof thing, so you’re directing that at the wrong person.)
Frankly, your friend’s case is a statistical rarity and you may have heard the expression “the plural of anecdote is not data.” I’m not concerned with the rarities, I’m concerned with the massive social problem of rape. You say you want to get guilty rapists in jail? The stuff you’re saying is the exact incorrect social rhetoric about rape that prevents men getting jailed and stops women from coming forward.
I’m pretty much done with trying to explain this. Maybe you should consider hanging around Alas beyond this thread or checking out other feminist blogs and try and get some new ideas about rape. Pandagon.net is great, as are many others.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2006 at 8:16 am
notXtian wrote:
“How in hades can an assertion such as this be substantiated?
“No one doubts that these men slept with Nicholas, just as only the most cro-magnon like throwback believes that they are not cretins - but what they did (which was to not rape Louise Nicholas), although rephrensible and in extremly poor judgement, was not illegal.””
Because after a 3 week $14m trial the three men were found to have not broken any law by a jury of 12 peers (including 7 women)
Hence they have done nothing illegal - pretty self evident I would think
This comment was written by Hobbo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
#152
“I don’t want to talk about those 20 who are irrelevant in a discussion about the massive numbers of women who are raped in our society and the men who rape them and are not prosecuted. Stop trying to change the discussion topic”.
Of course they are irrelevant to you. Would you feel the same way if you were wrongly convicted? The topic is actually the Louise Nicholas case. You seem to think that the accused should have been convicted based solely on the word of the accuser. How many men would be falsely convicted and imprisoned if this was the standard of proof required to obtain a conviction? And sending innocent men to prison helps rape victims - how?
This comment was written by James.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
#158
“Because after a 3 week $14m trial the three men were found to have not broken any law by a jury of 12 peers (including 7 women)”.
The case didn’t cost that much. The commission of inquiry into police behaviour is estimated to cost that much. But I agree with you to the extent that this has been an expensive exercise. Was it necessary? The prosecutor must have realised there were holes in the case and that a guilty verdict was going to be diffcult. And even if a guilty verdict had been achieved, the obvious question would then have been: is it safe? Appeals would have probably followed and none of us would have been any the wiser as to what really happened.
This comment was written by James.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Thanks for a great blog, and discusison. I guess the thing is now also about whether a suppression order means anything. My observation is that this is not about suppression orders in general, but more specifically about this one in particular. I don’t see people protesting in the streets about other cases.
But it is a question of what should be withheld from a jury. Obviously it is not fair to find someone guilty on anything simply because they did something similar before. But surely a jury deserves to have a balanced view of the background of the defendant. The defendant and their counsel claim they are good people not capable of such a crime. If we withhold details of former relevant crimes from the jury, is that not saying we don’t trust the jury to do the right thing with it. So we give them half the story, and expect them to come up with good decisions.
This comment was written by Ross.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Helen, your reply reeks of anger due to your perception that “rape” by males is consistantly being performed on females without the perps. being convicted.
Can I ask you if you believe in our justice system precept, ” better a guilty person go free than an innocent one found guilty & lose their freedom”?
The answer to this will determine whether I consider you to be interested in justice or revenge, generated through blind rage.
Did you serve on the Peter Ellis jury at all Helen??
This comment was written by Bryan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Hey Brian,
This comment was written by Ross.What’s wrong with as bit of revenge? When the justice system seems so stacked against women in the cases of rape, and when it fails women so regularly, surely all that’s left is to take the law into their own hands. As has happened here, in an awesome display of standing up to the whole system. Handing out suppressed information in the street, that probably took a bit of revenge and rage. Gutsy move. I’d suggest unprecedented in this country? A wee bit of a people’s revolt, or more accrately a women’s revolt.
Us males Brian might say there are principles involved, and we have to look at the big picture. And we might point to some male casualties of false complaints etc. Or maybe we should just recognise that there is something more personal to this, something we don’t understand or appreciate that well. Maybe this is about revenge and rage, and maybe it is about time.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 4:22 am
Helen, your reply reeks of anger due to your perception that “rape” by males is consistantly being performed on females without the perps. being convicted.
Well, Bryan, that would be because “rape” (love the quote marks - gives your true feelings away) is being consistently “performed” by men on women, and they are getting away with it. Look at some statistics and do some reading. Go on, I dare you.
Can I ask you if you believe in our justice system precept, “ better a guilty person go free than an innocent one found guilty & lose their freedom”?
I do in the most general sense, yes, but the problem lies in the fact that rape is woefully under-prosecuted. When a crime is being committed by this many people and they are getting away with it, clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I personally think we need a public education programme on rape and some dispelling of the myth that women lie about it, but that’s just me.
The answer to this will determine whether I consider you to be interested in justice or revenge, generated through blind rage.
Good lord, you’re like an exact replica of every troll I’ve seen on feminist websites. What is it about a woman’s rage, Bryan, that bothers you so much. I am a woman who has been raised in a culture where women are the ones whose behaviour is curtailed in order to prevent rape, as opposed to the behaviour of those who perpetrate the crime. My sisters are being raped and aren’t getting justice. That’s a very worthy reason for anger, especially in the case of ignorance like yours.
Did you serve on the Peter Ellis jury at all Helen??
Wow. Just wow. You don’t get it at all. Go on, throw every single high-profile false imprisonment at me. It might take you a minute to name them all. If I had all the names of men who’d raped and read them to you? We’d be here all night.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 5:20 am
Damn, sorry about the italics y’all.
[Fixed! --Amp]
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 6:38 am
It’s amazing that someone who has so much to say about the law knows so little about how it works.
Hobbo writes“Because after a 3 week $14m trial the three men were found to have not broken any law by a jury of 12 peers (including 7 women)
Hence they have done nothing illegal - pretty self evident I would think “
This in the same thread as his fellow -travellers have been repeating “Better let 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent get convicted”
In others words the jury’s verdict does not establish that these scum bags didn’t do it, all it ‘proves’ is that the prosecution didn’t succeed in proving that they raped beyond a reasonable doubt.
I personally think that’s a crazy result. How can three adult males, policemen to boot, have gang sex with a teenage girl and it not be rape?
Oh I se;e some people believe that Ms Nicholas may not have said “no”.
Or if not that, that she couldn’t prove that she said no.
What difference does that make? If you are trying to say that any rational seventeen year old girl would want to be fucked by 3 coppers and a baton, if she had a real choice in the matter, you’re the type of nutter that your ilk are always insinuating that Ms Nicholas is.
Look at it like this men, if Ms Nicholas had wanted this to happen to her, if she had wanted to have all her power ripped off her in the most degrading way possible, all that would mean, would be that she had some sort of borderline personality disorder. If that were the case, which I don’t believe for one minute it was, but let’s just pretend here. If that were the case then what does that make these ‘policemen’, these protectors of the community, guardians of the weak and defenceless?
It makes them even worse rapists, ones that take advantage of the sick, and confused spirits that other normal people, who aren’t charged with protecting others would still feel obliged to do no harm to.
See this is where this whole ’she asked for it’ scenario falls down. If a young girl did ask for it, then she wasn’t making a rational decision and as friends of the family these ‘men’ (they may have a dick but I wouldn’t consider weak pricks like that to be men, myself), should have looked after her, and helped her. They should not have taken advantage of her problems.
Now I don’t believe that Ms Nicholas was sick , or neurotic, or whatever.
I think she was just a young girl caught up in the maelstrom of these guys confusion.
The policemen were trying to work the lust they all felt for each other on a surrogate. Banal but all too common behaviour from blokes who spend too much time in each others company.
This stuff is weird weird shit and it surfaces across the range of male exclusive groups.
From army recruits playing soggy biscuit (don’t ask, you don’t want to know), to bike gangs ‘blocking’ a woman, to 70’s rock bands ‘laying the pipe’ for a ‘groupie’ .
In the first case the biscuit is just as incidental to the gathering as the women are in the other two. All the real intercourse, social, verbal, eye contact, even body language is going on between the men.
The woman may not know it, but chances are she can feel it, that she is actually incidental to the whole event.
If she is considered by the men within the group it wil only be as a ‘prop’ for these milksops to deny their secret fear of females by ‘exerting their power’ over her. To show their friends that ‘they aren’t scared of women’. See!
No I’m not trying to say these blokes are gay. I’d reckon gay blokes wouldn’t need a ‘prop’, they’d just jump each other.
These ‘policemen’ don’t know what they are. Of course deep down they undoubtedly know how weak they are, which is why they have been trying most of their lives to find a way of getting power over others.
A policeman’s badge, a gang of them ’showing a woman what’s what’.
Not not all policemen are weak chickenshits trying to exert control over a world they are to scared to deal with on their own terms. However as someone pointed out about 157 posts back, some gutless wonders are drawn into jobs that carry authority, simply because the jobs do bestow power, even better respect.
That way they don’t have to do anything to exert influence or earn the respect of others. All they have to do is pull on the uniform and the actions of those who went before and who weren’t puny brained cowards bestow power and respect upon them.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I believe Louise Nicholas. How can any Court Suppress the accused sexual history and yet spread the complainents . I would love to see the suppressed evidence….Who has the E mail???????
This comment was written by Kevin allan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Simple question for notxtian:
Were they found to have broken any law?
If not then they have not done anything illegal.
This comment was written by Hobbo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
#164
“the problem lies in the fact that rape is woefully under-prosecuted”.
I would have thought the problem lies in the fact that rape is under-reported. If there is a lack of supporting evidence, then there is every likelihood that the accused will be acquitted, or wrongly convicted, which might explain your perception that rape is under-prosecuted.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Hobbo I realise that I’m pushing shit uphill trying to use logic on a concrete and pedantic thinker, but once again a not guilty verdict does not prove that anyone hasn’t broken the law.
All it ‘proves’ is that it wasn’t possible to demonstrate that someone had broken the law.
This is not some small semantic difference. It is the major reason why we live in a society where for example a group of rich criminals can blatantly steal millions of dollars of money intended for charity to ‘pay’ for advertising hoardings that no one can see, for a service that isn’t elective. ie people have to use it when they need it, it is purely driven by circumstances not effected by advertising at all.
Meanwhile people who break the law out of ‘need’ rather than ‘greed’ are nearly always successfully prosecuted if caught.
There is nothing suprising or unusual about this and I imagine that most people who have visited this weblog whether they be supporters of Ms Nicholas or not tacitly support this system because, deep down they know that if they try and take on the greedy and ruthless assholes who treat others as sheep to be sheared, they may lose. That alternative would be worse than putting up with these leeches on the asshole of humanity.
As for justice; well, we get the feeling that justice is being delivered by imprisoning the poor and the sick at a rate second only to the USA.
eg the bloke who copped 5 years after he vented his anger at a truck driver who had endangered the lives of his family.
Occasionally we imprison a seeming member of the ‘elite’, but usually only as a rare sop to the sheeple.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I’ve got the email. I’ll just work out how to post it…
This comment was written by Deb.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Deleted
Please don’t break suppression orders here - I’m sorry it’s a suck situation.
This comment was written by Deb.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
notXtian: Yes. I couldn’t believe it when I read Hobbo’s statement that if someone wasn’t found to have done anything illegal, therefore it is obvious they did nothing illegal. Nice to live in a fantasy world, yes? ;-)
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2006 at 2:40 am
[deleted for breaking suppression orders]
This comment was written by Don Murray.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2006 at 11:58 am
173. What a shame they’re not in Paremoremo or Mt Eden.
This comment was written by Anna.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
So I am an illogical pedantic concrete thinker living in a fantasy world who knows so little about the law that any opionion I have is patently wrong?
Just because I disagree with you I fail to see any reason to stoop to personal insults.
In your view is it better to not have to prove that a crime was committed to secure a guilty verdict? If so where are the checks and balances in your system?
I never said that just because that a person may not have anything illegal in one instance that they have NEVER done anything illegal. In the Nicholas case although 2 of the accused may have been found guilty of ANOTHER crime in ANOTHER case the three were found not guilty of any crime in THIS case - therfore they have done nothing illegal in THIS instance.
This comment was written by Hobbo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Hobbo, not certain how it works in New Zealand, but in the US, a not guilty verdict is not a verdict of innocence. Many crimes go either unprosecuted or in a case such as this not prosecuted to the extent that was necessary for a guilty verdict due to technicalities. A good example of this is failure of reading miranda rights or a faulty warrant; these alone are enough to get a case thrown out of court, and double jeopardy could very well save someone who committed a heinous crime.
At any rate, I think it’s fair to say you are mispoken on this subject, in that it isn’t that they haven’t acted illegally, but instead that the case is muddled down in technicalities.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
you people are all full of it. They got off because the procecution actually can’t prove she said no. To have it any other way would be to presume guilt instead of innocence. Open your minds PEOPLE. Imagine a system like that…suspicion of guilt is a powerful weapon, and for you idiots that seem to think jail and a conviction is the worst that can happen to these men, think again. These men will be forever branded as “rapists” regardless of the verdict. Only instead of being in jail when the case is still fresh, they will be roaming the streets, trying to deal with the fact that everybody thinks / believes that dispite the verdict they are guilty. No one will trust Schollum or Shipton EVER again, no friends, no mates nothing…and that is a life no one wants to live. Rickards is another kettle of fish. I dunno whats going on with him, he was an officer still, and he got involved with the wrong girl - or not, but I find it hard to believe that a man who has long term career aspirations in the police, especially the police would really be dumb enough to rape someone. Thats just me, i dunno that peice of the puzzle doesnt quite fit for me…has he had prior issues in this matter? But most of you REACTIONIST look at yourself…are you hating the verdict or JUST LOOKING FOR A CHANCE TO BASH THE POLICE!!! AND MEN HATE RAPE TOO!!! STOP TALKING ABOUT US LIKE WE GET OFF ON IT WE DONT. PULL YOUR HEAD IN.
This comment was written by On the level.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Some people have questioned why Louise waited so long to lay a complaint of rape.
I myself can speak from experience that there are many personal reasons why I will probably never lay a complaint against the two men whom over 20yrs ago sexually abused me.
One of these men also raped my older sister whom also has not reported it,
this man also happens to be of high stature in his community, a “good” church going man with a lovley family.
Sadly of the women I know that have been sexually abused in their lifetimes, none have reported these crimes.
Why dont I you ask?
Well, just look at what Louise and her family are going through!
This comment was written by just my opinion.Even though I know that i could have saved others from the pain inflicted by these men,
fear of the pain that my family would have to endure means I will never tell.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Is there any male out there who has never in their life used their power, position,marital status,violence or group intimidation to influence the decision of a weaker/younger/any person for personal gain or satisfaction ? So far in 60 odd years I haven”t met one yet.(sadly I have looked in the mirror also)
This comment was written by Bob.I still believe Louise.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2006 at 1:44 am
I find comments like Bob’s truly terrifying (although I guess it’s good that he’s being honest). I so want men to say “no I haven’t”, or at least “I used to and I choose not to anymore”.
I really don’t understand why, I don’t understand what you get from having sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Actually hobbo I didn’t intend an ad hominem attack when I expressed frustration at having to explain something that can almost be counterinuitive eg not guilty not being the opposite of guilty, innocent, to a literal person any more than commenting on someone’s left handedness or green eyes would be an insult.
I’m sorry if you took it that way.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2006 at 2:32 am
From a powerless position we are taught to be “men” . Boys don’t cry . By the time we are 4 or 5 years old the pattern is set. When we truly see what we have become most spend the rest of their life trying not to repeat the past and some try to make amends. (Not that you can return a persons trust or dignity or chastity which you have stolen) Others deny the fact and so we have old cases bought to courts under impossible or improbable odds. From observation it is not so much a sexual pleasure rather a power or position arising from inner insecurity. The weak personality tries to assert itself through the denigration of others. I have heard many men describe this in various terms but always the result is the same.Others suffer. Many do come to terms with themselves and try to change but usually only after they have been subjected to a personal “rock bottom’ of a emotional, spiritual or financial nature. Some get there through spiritual or religious experience. The unseeing /unfeeling migrate to positions of power.
This comment was written by Bob.I still believe Louise .
Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2006 at 7:07 am
Is there any male out there who has never in their life used their power, position,marital status,violence or group intimidation to influence the decision of a weaker/younger/any person for personal gain or satisfaction ?
Although it is possible that I did when I was a child, I certainly can’t remember a single example of ever doing this. So, unless somebody can remind me of a time that I did so, I would have to say that, no, I have never used my power, position, marital status, violence or group intimidation to influence the decision of a weaker/younger/any person for personal gain or satisfaction.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
to an eighteen year-old woman who doesn’t have breast cancer. can you tell what i watched last night? and now that the silly stuff is out of the way i’d like to say one more thing: i still believe her. just like i believe her, and her, and her, andher. and i will continue to believe her until she denies her original claim. since the news broke of the lack of DNA evidence, a lot of people are gleefully claiming it proves she’s a liar. i disagree and am reminded once more of the plaque on my dad’s
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
The Pamphlet Collection of links to related media articles, Blog posts etcMega Blog - Alas (Great discussions - one post has nearly 200 comments) The Blog that started it all Good collection of articles about the Mt Maunganui case Cops given legal aid as cost of case runs into millions [IMG Keep on Blogging!]
This comment was written by Living Sustainably.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Men aren’t the only ones to use power…Aunty Helen Im sure uses status in order to swing things round to her way of thinking, im sure other powerful women do to. Power is addictive, if it wasn’t why would so many people seek it. Those who have stopped are secure enough in there own levels of power, but i reckon that deep down inside, power is something that is hard for everybody to turn down.
This comment was written by On the level.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2006 at 12:45 am
[deleted for breaking the suppression order] This is where the censorship/suppression order could lead to further injustice. I know that to assume makes an ass out of you and me (ass-u-me) but it is going to happen, humans are involved. This leads me back to the system being loaded in favour of the alleged perpetrators and the victim being further victimised.
This comment was written by Bob.I still believe Louise.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Initially I came here to see about the pamphlet which supposedly contains the surpressed evidence the jury was not allowed to see.
But I’m not dissapointed it was not here as living in new zealand and following the tauranga gang rape trial and then this one its not to hard to connect the dots and be fairly sure of what was in the pamphlet.
This trial mainly came about because of the publicity generated when this story broke in a two major new zealand newspapers.
Initially part of the focus was on how Nicholes complaint of rape by the police to the police was never properly acted on. A former senior police officer is presently facing trial on this http://www.smilecity.co.nz/benefits.asp?go=forum&tp=104544&ca=6 ( the depositions have resulted in him having to stand trial ) .
When the publicity about the rotorua police officers sexual abuses became common knowledge other people came foward with similar storys or corroberating evidence. Now this was published in two major respected newspapers and with our lible laws I’m sure they were quite carefull with what they published.
Two seperate things from the newspaper storys that I can remember are in one instance a police woman or former police woman said one of the accused told/bragged about a batton being used for sex. A batton was also claimed to have been used on the victim in the tauranga gang rape trial ( with some of the same defendants as this trial ). So I would say to ross although there is no smoking gun dna batton it seems rather a big coincidence that three totally seperate people should all bring up a batton being used for sex. All three have the same imaginings ??
The other thing is when the news storys broke another woman came foward to say that she attended the rotorua police station as a teenage college student on work experience and she experience group sex at the hands of these sick coppers, she also claimed they threatened her with what they could do to her family if she complained or tryed to get them in trouble. To the best of my knowledge the woman who told this to the reporter is not going to put herself through a rape trial, that is to say she has laid no charges.
Part of this stuff I’ve posted is to show that Louise did NOT wait 20 years to lay a complaint.
There is ample evidence outside of the trial to show that these guys had a fixation on ‘batton sex’.
And as in the example of the abused girl college student MOST rapes never get reported let alone make it to trial.
Also Louises revelations sparked a govt commision of inquiry into police sexual conduct and through the grape vine I have heard it was overwhelmed and recieved hundreds of storys and complaints.
We keep being told in nz how lucky we are to have such a good clean police force. My opininion and one shared by a growing number of New Zealanders is we have quite a rotten culture in the police and it seems to be worst at the top ……………….
This comment was written by nznative.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2006 at 4:24 am
p.s at this website here you can read a lot of the history of the case , most of its copy and paste jobs from new zealand news sites.
http://www.bentcops.org/nzpolice/charges-pending/
The site was constructed by a new zealander who along with his family suffered some terrible actions and lack of action from the nz police.
This comment was written by nznative.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2006 at 6:07 am
I am concerned that some of you are still puting in posts that Louise did not complain for 20 years. Today in Rotorua, a Policeman faces 4 charges. His name and all details of the case, including the charges, have been suppressed. Now the speculation bit…. I am almost prepared to bet that the charges relate to Louise and the handling of her original complaint, many years ago. It is my view that the investigation will go on, and there may be quite a few more involved. In order that future juries can be selected, I believe it is important not to jepodise future trials by breaking the suppression orders. Leave it to Nick Perry.
This comment was written by The Old Duck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
t have breast cancer. can you tell what i watched last night? and now that the silly stuff is out of the way i’d like to say one more thing: i still believe her. just like i believe her, and her, and her, andher. and i will continue to believe her until she denies her original claim. since the news broke of the lack of DNA evidence, a lot of people are gleefully claiming it proves she’s a liar. i disagree and am reminded once more of the plaque on my dad
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
They say the same thing about many LE agencies in the States. Unfortunately, most of the time they are wrong.
I was reading about a small agency in South Carolina that hired a male officer who was a registered sex offender. Since so many of the larger agencies were depleting the candidate pool and also hiring officers away from smaller agencies, the smaller ones had to scape the bottom of the barrel. Still to hire a sex offender? You’ve got enough trouble with some “bad apples” to not go looking for ones who are already in legal trouble before they are hired.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Maybe I’m in the minority but my first few personal contacts with the police wiped away any “clean force” thoughts I had when I was young. I was jaded about the police by the time I was about 17, and this from a middle class white girl who’s never been in trouble.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
NOT ABOVE THE LAW
This comment was written by Anna.We Support Louise Nicholas MARCH
Sunday 30 April, 2.00 pm
Assemble Queen Elizabeth Square, Auckland (near Britomart)
March up Queen St to Aotea Square
Hear speakers from Rape Crisis, Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation and others
Bring your friends, banners and placards
Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2006 at 1:48 am
Can we call the march ‘We believe Louise Nicholas’ rather than support? One can ’support’ all sorts of people and at all levels. But we BELIEVE her. That’s cut & dried. She is telling the truth & we all know it. We need everybody out saying they believe Louise.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Great about the march. I’m sure there are many of us who have felt so agrieved by the verdict and the way in which Louise has been treated but did/do not know what or how to do anything about it. I admire her courage and hope she knows that she has made a poerful statement for women and there are many of us who are very proud and grateful. As for the scum bags who’s families feel so “vindicated” by the outcome of this trial…. not able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt is vastly different from being ‘innocent’ and far from having gotten away with this I feel confident this will revisit and continue to haunt them all for the rest of their lives. They know what they did back then, they know what they have done now and at sometime, even if it is as they are on their death beds this will return to haunt them ( as well it should). Perhaps as their daughters/grand daughters become the age that Louise was when they brutalised her or some other trigger they will remember… Little solace really but no one can escape their pasts for ever.
This comment was written by Lisa.I wish Louise well and may she and her family and friends be blessed with peace following such a traumatic time.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2006 at 5:24 am
It seems to be the season for letting rapists walk. Todays NZ Herald
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Notxtian writes of a case from the appeal court. At http://www.stuff.co.nz -National news - Court News there is reported detail on the argument put forward by defence and prosecution. makes the premise that law prevails not justice stronger in my opinion.( one day I’ll learn how to put the fancy bits in red into the text )
This comment was written by Bob.I still believe Louise
Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Yes the March can be called We Believe Louise Nicholas - by all means.
This comment was written by Anna.Really bad news about conviction being overturned.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
#193 “Can we call the march ‘We believe Louise Nicholas’ rather than support? One can ’support’ all sorts of people and at all levels. But we BELIEVE her. That’s cut & dried. She is telling the truth & we all know it. We need everybody out saying they believe Louise”.
How do you know she is telling the truth? Did she tell the truth when she said that 5 Maoris on horseback raped her? Are you saying that Louise’s flatmate lied when she said that there was a good atmosphere when the three accused were at their house?
This comment was written by James.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
#197
“Really bad news about conviction being overturned”.
Right, so if a guy is wrongly convicted or rape, he should go to prison anyway?
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
But the good news is that the other three have had their rape convictions confirmed.
This comment was written by jack.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
“Right, so if a guy is wrongly convicted or rape, he should go to prison anyway?”
If posters meant that they would have said that. They don’t need others putting words in their mouth.
It may be more useful to ponder whether or not some people may know a little more about this case than the nanny state wants, lest many become angry.
As has been stated several times previously in this thread, justice isn’t done if it isn’t seen to be done. That cannot occur while so many details of recent rape prosecutions are concealed from public scrutiny.
This an archaic and patronising way of governing people by trying to keep them ignorant. Politicians, community leaders and the organisations developed to enforce their will; such as the police and the bureaucracy, are forever asking people to trust them to do the right thing with the authority that the people have vested in them.
Yet time and time again we see that trust not reciprocated. We are usually told that this is for our own good, that elements in the community can’t be trusted with this information lest it prejudice them against making a fair decision.
Well firstly no one can make a fair decision without all the facts at hand and secondly when we do find out what when down, usually much later, it frequently transpires that the organisation wasn’t trying to protect us, it was trying to protect itself.
The legions of historic police rape complaints is a classic example. One of the main reasons that the clock was turned back, so these complaints suddenly got treated the same way that rape complaints where ‘consent’ was disputed were treated twenty years ago, was that ‘frontline police’ were getting antsy.
In other words they claimed that these revelations had robbed them of the authority to do their job. That when they turned up at ‘criminal hang-outs’ they were being hassled about “whether they had raped anyone interesting lately”.
While there is no doubt that is probably correct, there is also no doubt that this would have passed with time especially if these cases had been dealt with in an open and straightforward way.
The legacy of the Louise Nicholas rapes will be exactly the opposite of the excuse offered for this secrecy. The shabby treatment of Ms Nicholas and the lame prosecution of those who raped her will further undermine the authority of the police amongst at least 50% of the population and hopefully a great deal more for whom this whole case stinks to high heaven.
Police may not get such a ‘ragging’ from those who they contemptuously consider to be the ‘criminal classes’ but the confidence of most NZ women, and a good proportion of NZ men in the administration of justice in NZ has been severely undermined. Still a few people in very senior positions within the police were protected from any ‘blowback’ that might have occured had the truth come out and since that was the most likely intent of this sordid and sleazy cover-up they will escape with their outrageous pensions or ‘perfs’.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Thanks notXtian for your posts. Very enlightening & thought provoking. You are giving us the ‘big picture’ instead of bothering nit picking details with the likes of the James’. ‘How do we know she’s not lying?’. These are details we can argue about all day. The ’story’ here is our Police Force and how it protects us.(or only protects itself). The more ‘covering up’ the less respect we have for them and even James would have to admit they are doing really really badly on this one, with tons more to come out on this, all bad for them.
I note in your first post James you are from Rotorua and ‘feel’ for Rickard. A mate of yours perhaps? Or just a like spirit? You respect guys, who by their own admission have repeated sex with tiny teenagers, with his mates all joining in, one of them 33 years old, when he has a wife & kids, while he is on duty and being paid by the tax payer? And with his best buddy (who he gives job references to years later) being the one that first investigates Louise’s immediate claim, (no not 20 years later) but who subsequently loses his ‘notes. (But says ‘he believes’ Louise’s version of the events but can’t prosecute his mates because they said they didn’t do it.) Don’t feel sorry for your hero Rickard, he’s a very lucky man. You’re the only one who thinks it was one hell of a coincidence that several women have come forward and without knowing each other given a completely identical desscription of the same events taking place by, what do you know, the same men. Big coincidence don’t you think? Yeah right. We believe Louise.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
#201
“The shabby treatment of Ms Nicholas and the lame prosecution of those who raped her will further undermine the authority of the police amongst at least 50% of the population and hopefully a great deal more for whom this whole case stinks to high heaven”.
I can only assume you were at the trial for its entirety for you to be able to make that comment. I suggest it wasn’t the prosecution that was lame but the evidence. Or are you suggesting that men should be convicted of rape when there is little or no evidence?
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
#202
“‘How do we know she’s not lying?’. These are details we can argue about all day”.
But this question is exactly what the jury probably DID argue about. And 12 of them (including 7 women) apparently had doubts about Louise’s version of events. Why do you presume to know more about the case than they jury, who sat through the entire case?
“You’re the only one who thinks it was one hell of a coincidence that several women have come forward and without knowing each other given a completely identical desscription of the same events taking place by, what do you know, the same men”.
So these women have come forward and made rape complaints? Apparently not. Did they testify at Louise’s trial? Apparently not. Who are these anonymous women? A link would be useful.
BTW, I do not live in Rotorua and have never done so and have absolutely no association with the accused.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Nice shirt James. You suit blue.
And you’ve moved from Rotorua from where you sent your first post here days ago? Well if you’ve moved up to Auckland why don’t you pop in and ask Schollum & Shipton about another such woman that has come forward & descibed an identical attack to one Louise describes. They’re residing at Boston Rd these days. No hurry, they’ll be there a while.
This comment was written by John.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 12:12 am
James sounds like just another police apologist who thinks it would all be better if nothing bad was said about the police and we should all leave those poor fella’s alone.
Read my post about the ‘batton’ james, it was a feature in the tauranga gang rape trial but thats all inadmissable right??, btw wasn’t the tauranga gang rape trial caused by the publicity over Nicholes rape case??.
And a police woman told the dompost reporter about your hero’s bragging about a ’sex batton’, was she a wittness in the trial?, who knows.
And then of course Louise told how a batton was used on her.
So theres three seperate people bringing up the same thing in relation to these three pigs sex lives, but no doubt you ‘wont get it’.
James is also stupid enough to try to pretend to us all that he knows what the jurors were thinking and that the case was decided on whether the jury thought lousise was lieing or not.
Try and understand this james you rapist supporting moron the jurys job is to see if the EVIDENCE can PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that a crime took place.
You can quite easily belive someone is guilty but not convict them because the evidence is not strong enough to remove the ” reasonable doubt” that all defendants are entitled to.
We DO know more about the lifes of rickards and his co accused than the jury got to. Your the only clown who only see’s their side of the story.
This comment was written by nznative.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 1:50 am
I’ve got a good idea. Let’s completely ignore all of James’ ill-informed illogical posts since he has such a naive narrowminded view of things and is not contributing anything or learning anything from these discussions. I am really appreciative of all the info I have learnt and the pyschological slants posters have offered on rape etc. Not being a victim myself or having any dealings with the law this has been incredibly interesting and I love opening it to read the posts and learn more. To even respond to James is a waste of our efforts when we can be, instead, sharing knowledge, and insights of consequence. James who?
This comment was written by susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Last week’s Listener says that “there remains enormous inconsistency in the granting of suppression orders” . . . “that NZ has the most stringent name suppression law in the common law world.” . . .”not just name suppression but fact suppression, issue suppression and sometimes even case suppression. If we believe all this suppression is necessary in the interests of justice, we are in the ludicrous position of saying that in the US - where first-amendment freedoms forbid such bans - there can be no fair trials. . . .”we have a system “that treats the public like idiots”. To ring-fence the minds of 12 jurors, we suppress the rights to information of four million New Zealanders.” . . . “If rape complainants do not have enough confidence in the system to come forward, their access to justice is denied. Perpetrators will come to believe that they can act with impunity.” (Listener Editorial, April 15 2006)
This comment was written by Anna.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Anna highlights one of the two major abuses of process that occurred during the lame prosecution of policemen and ex-policemen for rape.
Name suppression or worse suppression of evidence cannot lead to a process that the community can have confidence in but it was another weird call made by the prosecution which ensured that suppression would be an issue.
The suppression orders only became necessary because of the odd way that these cases were prosecuted.
Prosecutors frequently deal with complex criminal cases with a range of defendants, complainants and locations, that have a common thread running through them, especially where that thread is things like association or membership of a particular organisation, or common accused for a range of the offences and where there is a common modus operandi.
They deal with these obstacles by combining all the diverse elements into a charge which can then be dealt with by prosecuting all accused in a single large trial.
It is called conspiracy to commit the offence and although some may argue that it can lead to people being convicted due to ‘guilt by association, the crown hasn’t displayed the reticence in using conspiracy prosecutions against gangs etc that are being prosecuted for a range of similar offences across victims, time and place, that it has here.
The advantage for the prosecution of a lump conspiracy charge is that evidence can be introduced without having to worry about the effect that evidence may have on tainting juries for similar later prosecutions.
All the accused and all the evidence is presented at one time, in front of one jury. Of course this obviates the need for suppression orders and the public then has the opportunity to hear all of the evidence against all of the accused in one hit.
If the police rapes had been prosecuted in this fashion we wouldn’t have had the whole thing drawn out like a festering boil, with lashings of gossip and innuendo surrounding each separate trial.
Those people that have kept their ears to the ground or who have taken the time and energy to view the evidence presented by the prosecution at a number of these trials which are subject to a suppression order could easily come to the conclusion that there were sufficient commonalities between the evidence to support the charge of deliberate conspiracy by some members of a particular police district to commit rape on powerless young women.
One can only wonder why the decision was made to prosecute all these cases individually thereby making a successful prosecution a lot more difficult while also breeding enough speculation and drama amongst the community to assist the defense.
People should not feel ashamed or embarrassed that they are interested in what went down here. Sure some people’s interest has been prurient, but the vast majority of people who have been desperately attempting to find out what went down have done so because they are unsure if justice has been done.
Yet under NZ law this natural interest in the welfare of the community one lives in has been perverted by those out to win their point of view at any cost. If there are any further proceedings on the police rapes expect to hear the defense to try and make this concern about the welfare of our society and the people who are employed to assist in facilitating an open and healthy society as a some sort of nasty and perverse, ‘peeking through the blinds’ inquisitiveness.
Since one doesn’t have to be a clairvoyant to expect that the community would be concerned about the continuation of suppression orders after a case has been completed, we must also be troubled by the decision not to proceed with a conspiracy to commit sexual assaults prosecution against all of these low-lifes, in one fell swoop.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
John,
Could it be that there are at least two people in NZ with the same name. BTW, I’m not a cop and never have been. Any more assumptions you’d like to make?
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
You can find them in any city, anywhere. Pity is, they do the profession and those who work in it more harm than good in the long run.
Thanks for the threads on this case. They have been very informative, in many ways.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
I feel that James’ views have been stated here, and frankly views like his are well known to anyone who has been following this controversy. So I don’t see any free speech issue in if he posts here or not; he has free speech either way, and his views are well aired either way.
My question is, do folks using this thread want me to continue letting him post here, under the theory that we want an open debate, or should I cut him off, under the theory that this is more a forum for feminist chatting than for feminist vs non-feminist debate?
I can see it either way, so I’ll go with whatever the feminists on this thread say they’d prefer.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
As someone who probably doesn’t fit comfotably into any mold or established P.O.V. I realise that a feminist publication such as this is under no compulsion to post my opinions much less take heed of them but that said I’m going to give my opinion anyhow.
That is if someone can follow the reasonable guides of discourse ie avoid shooting the messenger, attacking the person not the idea and ensure that the arguments brought to this discussion add something new to the debate, rather than rehash ideas, opinions or prejudices that have already been expressed, then it is smart to let them continue, whatever that opinion may be.
We can all see the inherent problems in limiting discussion on a subject that is essentially about freedom of speech. Remembering of course that freedom of speech dosn’t imply freedom to lie or mislead.
So if it were ‘up for a vote’ which it isn’t I would say let James continue as long as he does bring fresh ideas/facts.
That said James would be wise to make sure that he has absorbed all that has been already discussed. For example his recent attack on Ms Nicholas has been made previously by a poster with very similar point of view to that of James.
Since the subject was adequately dealt with previously, James’s attempt to re-slander Ms Nicholas was uneccessary and vindictive so I can also understand others dis-satisfaction with the tenor of his posts.
Sorry if this sounds too much like the limpid meanderings of some centre of left ‘liberal democrat’ but if James were able to find something to say that wasn’t a boring repetition of the ’same old same old’ or an ad-feminem attack, then what he said would help this thread.
It would do that by exploring the emotions which led to the peversion of justice in the investigation and prosecution of NZ Police rape criminality in the 1980’s.
So provided the poster “James” does bring worthwhile (ie stimulating facts and opinions, rather than cliches) posts to this forum from now on and it were my decision, I would let him .
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Point taken notXtian, but I really think if James had a skeerup of anything clever to use against Louise who he’s been so keen to slander and be vindictive against he would have said it by now, so I’m voting he shouldn’t post any longer here, on account that his insults are upsetting. But since you approve posts anyway Ampersand, I’m happy if at least you delete any derogitory & repetitive comments & only leave in any that do add insight & new ideas to the post? You’re doing a great job here Ampersand, we really appreciate it. As has been said before, its shameful that we are all kept in the dark here so we need your thread to give us light so we can somehow fathom out (without breaking suppression orders of course) what went down. What a jigsaw puzzle, not yet finished. And thanks for your spin notXtian on another way this could have been trialled. 209. Very interesting. I’m finding a lot of my loose disconnected thoughts on all this once aired by others , who have experience with this, and have given it a lot of thought and their postings are giving me clarity. Thanks all!!! Keep it coming.
This comment was written by susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
#215
“For example his recent attack on Ms Nicholas has been made previously by a poster with very similar point of view to that of James”.
It might pay to state where I have allegedly attacked Ms Nicholas. I have not. I suggest sticking to the facts.
We have repeatedly heard that Mc Nicholas’ sexual past was dragged through the mud. The fact is that it was not. A complainant’s sexual history is not permitted to be brought up in court. However, if you have evidence that contradicts this, please feel free to enlighten me.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
#216
“I really think if James had a skeerup of anything clever to use against Louise who he’s been so keen to slander and be vindictive against he would have said it by now, so I’m voting he shouldn’t post any longer here, on account that his insults are upsetting”.
What insults? What slander? I have merely suggested, which I’m entitled to do, that the accused were acquitted because there was a lack of evidence. I suggest you read Philip Morgan’s article, which is very informative on the issues that I have raised.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
“It might pay to state where I have allegedly attacked Ms Nicholas. I have not. I suggest sticking to the facts.”
James I realise that you are desperate for someone to pck up on the aspersions you have cast on Ms Nicholas’s character and repeat them, this lame effort on your part to have someone ’snowball’ these allegations reveals two things about the probable intent of your posts. Firstly when a young girl is subjected to gross physical abuse, that it occured has never been in question, whether she consented to it or not was the issue at trial, the victim’s actions are more relevant than the perpetrators.
Anyway it seems in the world according to James when a girl has been subject to this degree of abuse by men, one nearly twice her age, who had been entrusted by the community with the role of protecting that community from this sort of aggression, that her actions should be held up to the minutist scrutiny in a piss weak attempt to exculpate her attackers.
The second subtextual implication one can derive from James’s posts is that he is desperate to be ‘banned’ from this site so that he can then claim some sort of ‘persecution’ or censorship has occurred and conceal his inability to make a strong case for his point of view.
If this is not the case James why don’t you quit with the attacks levelled at Ms Nicholas which have already been made and bring fresh insights to this thread. If you cannot do so I strongly suggest you stay quiet.
As for this discussion about James and his fellow travellers view of the world, I have no intention of continuing it any further. As satisfying as this sort of debate may be for an egocentric, this thread is about the peversion of justice observed during the police rape culture investigation and prosecution not about some poster.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
#217.
That you ignore my questions suggests that you’re aware that I have not attacked or slandered Louise Nicholas, which is understandable since I have no reason to.
You demand “fresh insights” from me. I thought I had provided some. To repeat: Louise’s sexual past was not dragged through the mud, as many have claimed. The law prohibits a complaintant’s sexual history from being used against her. Moreover 12 jurors unanimously acquitted the accused, presumably because of a lack of evidence. Some people have called for a not-proven verdict (although the accused would still have been acquitted if that were the case). Personally, I would like to see a not-credible verdict. If innocent people are found not guilty, they may be regarded by some as being guilty. A not-credible verdict would exonerate the defendant. I am not suggesting that Ms Nicholas is not credible.
As for fresh insights, may I be so bold and ask you for some? Under what circumstances, for example, should alleged rapists be found not guilty? How would you determine if an alleged rapist was probably innocent? These are questions which, in the real world, cannot be ignored.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
yes poor fella does think this is all about him. Tragic.
So back to business. Can anyone tell me why the 5 witnessess were not allowed to give evidence, and what was their tie up & what they might have said?
This comment was written by susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
“Can anyone tell me why the 5 witnessess were not allowed to give evidence, and what was their tie up & what they might have said?”
Well, 5 witnesses were allowed to give evidence but it was suppressed. They were prosecution witnesses, so their evidence should’ve assisted the prosecution case.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Reading the latest issue of Investigate magazine has been very enlightening. I find it incredible that the flatmate (that certain anti Louise posters harp on about endlessly) did not even appear at the trial. She was in Australia and only provided a written statement. She was never cross examined because if she had the jury would easily have seen through her. The cop who went over and interviewed her said she was not a credible witness. He was never called to the witness stand either !! I fail to understand how a trial can be conducted in this way.
This comment was written by Anna.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Investigate Magazine: http://investigatemagazine.com/
I too am getting rather tired of James (obviously a cop or ex cop or mate of the accused).
A book that may be of interest - written by an Auckland Uni lecturer is “Just Sex? - the cultural scaffolding of rape” by Nicola Gavey. Talking about society’s acceptance of rape that creates a climate where cases such as Louise’s can happen etc.
This comment was written by Anna.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Anna,
I am not a cop, ex-cop, or a mate of the accused, and have never lived in Rotorua. I hope that clears that matter up.
“I find it incredible that the flatmate (that certain anti Louise posters harp on about endlessly) did not even appear at the trial. She was in Australia and only provided a written statement. She was never cross examined because if she had the jury would easily have seen through her”.
The flatmate didn’t have to appear. What was she going to be able to add to her written statement? If she was simply going to repeat what she had written, then it would’ve been a wasted trip. The fact is that the flatmate was interviewed on more than one occasion about the allegations. I am interested in your comment that the jury would’ve been able to see through her comments. Obviously you have information about her that you didn’t tender to the court. That’s ironic considering that you claim evidence wasn’t provided to the court that should’ve been.
“The cop who went over and interviewed her said she was not a credible witness. He was never called to the witness stand either !! I fail to understand how a trial can be conducted in this way”.
Where is a link to this cop and his alleged comments? How do you know the cop wasn’t called as a witness? There were 5 prosecution witnesses whose identity has not been revealed. Do you know the identities of the 5?
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
And another thing (the only other thing??) anti-Louise poster(s) harp on endlessly about is that she previously laid a false rape claim. What a nothing peice of bulshit. She merely made a ‘comment’ to a teacher about being raped by 4 maori. Well she was raped. A minor detail that she called the rapists ‘maori’ instead of Policemen. She wouldn’t have been believed if she’s said our Police would do that, in a group, to a tiny school girl. I’ve been a secondary school teacher and kids cry out for help all the time when they’re in pain. It’s what we all do when we can’t handle what’s happening to us. To take such a nothing teeny itsy piece of the story after Louise was interviewed for months on end and hold it up as a huge reason she must have given consent to these Policemen is certainly critical, slanderous or just plain stupid.
This comment was written by susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
These Police can do no wrong types will grasp at anything in defence of their beloved Force susan, always have and always will, and facts, however damning, will not deter them.
“Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, face the facts.” Ruth Gordon
This comment was written by jack.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
“She merely made a ‘comment’ to a teacher about being raped by 4 maori. Well she was raped. A minor detail that she called the rapists ‘maori’ instead of Policemen”.
Well, yes, I can see that it could be minor detail. Another minor detail was that the 5 (not 4) Maori wore ski masks and rode horses. Did the policement also ride horses and wear ski masks? They might be minor details to you but then you are not making allegations of rape.
“To take such a nothing teeny itsy piece of the story after Louise was interviewed for months on end and hold it up as a huge reason she must have given consent to these Policemen is certainly critical, slanderous or just plain stupid”.
I don’t hold it up as reason she must have given consent. That is for a court to decide, and since Louise was alleging rape, I assumed that she had evidence that she was raped. What was that evidence?
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2006 at 8:44 pm
For all those getting tired of James relentless defense of those filthy pigs you can read more about the big picture here http://big-news.blogspot.com/2006/04/rotorua-police-sex-and-rape-culture.html
James has already seen it and although he “abhors rape” all he could comment on it was”interesting read “. He then dismissed it as having no “evidence”.
This leads me to conclude by james very narrow defination of “evidense” ( someone has to say it in court and be on the winning side) that he must indeed be conncected in some way with either the police force or legal proffesion.
Either way most of here know what those power abusing creeps are and your starting to smell an awfull lot like them james.
This comment was written by nznative.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2006 at 8:53 pm
p.s james I find it incredible how you harp on about the flatmate.
I’ve been in numerous flats and most of the time I could have been a bank robber/serial murderer/rape victim etc etc etc and what would my flatmates have known?.
And you are talking about the same flatmate who used to HIDE when schollem or shipton or whichever power abusing cop rapist it was came around?.
As usuall I expect you to express no knowledge of this.
But you do the searching this time I brought the link with the evidence ( or non-evidence according to you) about the batton …………. remeber the batton ?.
This comment was written by nznative.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:09 am
Please Don’t Feed The Trolls
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:27 am
James, you ignorant fool.
People go to prison for rape not because they have or havent done it, but a jury has said that based on the evidence they are to have considered to have raped beyond all reasonable doubt.
Do you think the situation where a person who did not commit rape, but went to prison because the jury considered the above test is a better or worse situation compared to a rapist who got off free befause the jury considred that he did not rape based on the “beyond reasonable doubt” principle derived on the evidence.
This comment was written by dave.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:29 am
PS James. Evidence and proof are different. You dont appear to understand that.
This comment was written by dave.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2006 at 9:09 am
James, you’ve had a more-than-fair chance to make your case here, and your posts will remain up so that future readers can consider your points.
But I believe you’ve now begun to dominate discussion here to the exclusion of any other kinds of discussion. For that reason, I’ve decided not to let you post on “Alas” anymore. Please respect this by not attempting to post anymore. Thanks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2006 at 10:30 am
Thank you Ampersand. It is better not to feed the trolls (especially when they look like the one in the photo).
This comment was written by Anna.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Thank you Ampersand. Good call. Can anyone tell me when Dewey appears next? Should be an interesting trial, with a lot more evidence to show he preverted the course of justice. I see from previous poster’s links that at least one woman has come forward and said she participated in group sex with Dewey & Shipton & Rickard so that will lay a foundation for his character. Plus because he used to take Louise to dinner before dropping her off for counselling, the counsellor wrote to the Police concerned that he wasn’t acting professionally & appropriately. And one of the bodies investigating his handling of the ‘investigation’ suggested if he had not perverted the course of justice to protect his mates there would have been a guilty verdict years & years ago. There seems to be a lot of imformation on his part in all of this. Are we allowed to share information or is there some suppression orders?
This comment was written by susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Dewar committed to stand trial
12/04/2006 14:04:03
A former head of the Rotorua CIB has been committed to stand trial at the Hamilton District Court.
John Dewar’s depositions hearing has concluded today.
The hearing began in December last year, before being adjourned to the beginning of this week.
A blanket suppression order prevents reporting the nature of the case or the charges against the former Detective Inspector.
Dewar has been remanded on bail to appear in court on May 25.
More about Dewar at http://www.bentcops.org/nzpolice/charges-pending/
This comment was written by jack.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
the case in which they were convicted was only brought to light AFTER Louise’s case was brought into the headlines, now that they have won against Louise, they will contest the guilty verdict by appeal, and it is quite likely it will be over turned.
This comment was written by brian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
brian
They all appealed their convictions and one of them, a fireman, was granted a new trial, the two convicted bent cops will remain in prison. Good job too.
This comment was written by jack.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Thanks march organisors. I enjoyed reading the banners. Every bit of news publicity bring home, that covering up Police rape is something the public is not going to accept.
This comment was written by susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2006 at 2:46 am
A positive report from the news media in N.Z. after the march this afternoon in Auckland. (xtramsn.co.nz)
This comment was written by Bob.I still believe Louise
Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
And three separate news threads on http://www.nzcity.co.nz. At one stage it was the lead story.
This comment was written by susan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2006 at 1:43 am
A big thank you to all those who attended the March.
This comment was written by Helen.Good coverage on TV 3 Sunday evening and great photo in today’s (1 May) Dominion Post - showing all the banners and placards.
Onwards and upwards !
Helen (March organiser)
Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2006 at 9:18 am
I believe Louise too, because just like in other arenas dominated by men, misogyny exists in law enforcement.
I posted this, in response to some misogynist comments I received:
I saw this posted comment on my blog one morning by a regular visitor, “B. Fife”. He has made comments indicating that he is a Riverside Police Department officer in the past. This latest comment, well second to latest, is no different. Well, except the fact that he dropped the LE title from his moniker this time around.
Anonymous said…
Dear Mary,
I have seen you on your daily strolls around the east side, about five times or so the last couple of weeks. Each time I see you, you are wearing the same purple sweatshirt and blue jeans. Then I think to myself, I wonder if she wears the same pair of skid marked granny panties everyday….. Then following that thought, I throw up a little bit in my mouth.
Instead of spending so much time trying to find negative things about cops, why don’t you try taking a shower and changing your clothes at least once a day!
B. Fife
Friday, April 28, 2006 6:25:30 PM
One of the scariest things about this comment, is that “B. Fife” is absolutely correct. I have been walking through the Eastside more than a few times in the past several weeks. I have been wearing blue jeans, albeit not the same pair, and on several occasions, I have been wearing not a purple sweatshirt, but a sweater. It is purple knit, buttoned-down and one of my favorites. Well, at least it used to be. Now, it’s just another reminder that I am hated by officers in the Riverside Police Department, both as an individual and as a woman as well. It’s just a reminder that at least one of them is watching my movements. No civilian who knew me would so interested in letting me know this and I highly doubt any civilian in the Eastside would be writing comments in defense of Riverside Police Department officers who have made such negative comments about their neighborhood here. They may defend good, hard-working officers but not those of this ilk.
Oh, and I shower once daily, twice after reading comments like this one.
I wondered at first as I always do, who he might be, civilian or law enforcement officer until I realized that here was a person who knew my name, my face, the fact that I had a blog, the blog’s address and had a strong animosity towards me that has led him to post under this moniker since March 2 and probably under other nicknames even before that.
Needless to say, I will probably change my route of travel back to what it had been after I received those postings from “Kevin R.P.D.” last October. A route that is frequented only rarely by Riverside Police Department officers. Why should I walk through a neighborhood and every time I see a squad car driving by wonder if it is “B. Fife” stripping me inside his head, again? That is a violation that no man can ever understand, let alone feel, but it is an intimate experience for most women, something we swap our experiences with, through stories about facing sexism in contemporary society.
It is an unfortunate reality for any woman, simply for being a woman that she will be harassed by a man simply because she is female. If she is being harassed for being an individual hated by a man, that man will use sexist behavior and imagery to express it, because she is a woman. If she is a woman of color, he will likely use racist behavior and imagery too.
In this case, it is apparently being done by public servants who were hired to protect and serve women(and men) not denigrate them. It is being done by a man who is too cowardly to even sign his own name to his words. Not even to spare other employees in the department a bit of extra scrutiny that one woman has to do in order to feel comfortable in her surroundings because of what one man has done, because this man has no face. However, not only does the internet give him the perfect hiding place, so does law enforcement through its shield laws and its blue code. Every harasser has an audience and from comments made by both “Asti” and “B. Fife”, it’s clear that there is probably an audience quietly watching their antics. Few people are not aware of the blue brotherhood.
I passed along the comment made by B. Fife to other women, and one word came back to me, over and over. Misogyny. How could someone put so much hate and misogyny, into so few words? In this case, the explanation could fill a book. A simpler explanation is that men engage in this behavior, because they can.
We, as women live in a society where men make the rules that both genders follow and one of the unwritten rules is that women are to be subjected to denigration by the male gender’s less emotionally secure individuals on the basis of our gender. That hatred can be expressed through street harassment. It can be expressed through violent crimes, including rape and sexual assault. There is also plenty of ground left over for men who hate women to operate, in between the two extremes.
Misogyny, literally, is the hatred of women or hostility towards them. Whether it is all women, a few women or one woman. From the time we are girls, we have to learn how to cope in a world where often we can not walk down a street without someone yelling something derogatory to us from a car, or trying to pinch or touch us on the street. We may innately realize that men may mentally undress us as we walk past them, but we do not wish to be reminded of that. We do not wish to be reminded that we are not human beings at all, but objects. Unless we are women of color, then apparently we are nonhuman in other ways, a designation based on race
Several women believed that the comment was meant to frighten me as much as it was meant to denigrate me, because this person wanted to make clear to me that he was paying attention to my movements at least through “his” area of town. Where I was going, what I was wearing, is his way of saying, I’m watching you. After all the probability that my travels through the Eastside would have brought me into contact with one police officer this many times, does not suggest they were random encounters. Experts say that men engage in this type of behavior to exert power over women, to control them and I can feel that keenly from those words.
Only about 3% of all the officers hired recently by the police department were female and if “B. Fife’s” behavior is in any way indicative of the current working environment, it will have to fight to keep them. Men who engage in this type of behavior tend to target any women who does not fit their narrow definition of what a woman should do, and it is clear to the “B.Fife”s of the world, that women only serve one purpose. Policing the streets is not on that very short list.
That one purpose is sexual gratification, or at least to be graded on a scale that is based on this purpose. That was clearly delineated in “B. Fife’s” comment.
First, what “B. Fife” does to each woman he encounters during the day is to strip them naked inside his head. Doing this provides him with a tremendous sense of power over each and every one of them. If they are unlucky, he will tell him how he does this in great detail. If he keeps his actions to himself, he is doing them a small favor. After doing this, he provides his personal evaluation on each women. Since a woman’s worth to him is based on her sexual desirability, he assigns them grades on the pass/fail system.
A passing grade for “B. Fife” on his desirability scale would be an erection or perhaps, a smile of approval. A failing grade is a series of derogatory comments followed by a form of regurgitation response. Between the two, I am more than happy to be on the receiving end of an upchuck response.
His comments clearly stated that I was being graded on his scale of whether or not a woman is sexually desirable(and thus has a purpose in this world) and apparently I received a failing grade. Something for which I am very grateful. The “B. Fifes” of the world are not God’s gift to this woman or any woman with self-respect.
Humor aside, it is a way that men of “B. Fife’s” ilk grade each woman they encounter every day to exert power over them, as men. Law Enforcement allows them many opportunities to do this. After all, the police department itself has stated that its officers have hundreds of contacts with members of the public each year.
“B. Fife” continues on this same track in his next post, by offering suggestions for me to follow in order to receive a passing grade next time.
Anonymous said…
Poor Mary.
I suggest a shower, shave and change of underwear.
It is obvious to me and many others that Mary what you need is a good ” BANG “! (-:
Saturday, April 29, 2006 3:46:52 PM
This is a typical stock response by an emotionally immature man who has issues in terms of relating to women who exist for reasons not included on his “list”. By the time most women enter adulthood, they have heard the adage, “All you need is a good fuck to be able to do this_________ or not be like this________(insert words of choice in the blanks). That is exactly what “B. Fife” is stating here. It is a response meant to embarrass, humiliate and intimidate women who are not acting in ways men like “B. Fife” view as appropriate and men like him try to stop that behavior in its tracks with sexual comments when tactics like cajoling, ultimatums and threats do not work.
Attitudes like those expressed by “B. Fife” here are one of the problems women have had to tackle in to survive as police officers in departments rife with a culture that in most cases, does not want them there. They have invaded turf which had been considered the sole domain of men and have entered into a club where they are not welcome. If men like “B. Fife” are what they have to deal with in the RPD, then it is no wonder their retention rate is so poor. The problem may not be so much that they do not know what they are in for(as has been suggested) but that they know exactly what they are in for.
Attitudes like those expressed by “B. Fife” here present obstacles to women who want to report crimes against them to police officers. When I asked women if they felt like reporting crimes like rape or domestic violence to someone like “B. Fife”, all of them answered no, quite adamantly. Historically, women have been reluctant to report violent crimes like rape to police officers because of past and present sexist attitudes about women and rape voiced by law enforcement officers. Police agencies have worked hard to stem that tide and turn it in a more positive direction. Men like “B. Fife” do nothing but hinder those efforts, with their misogyny.
After all, who wants to report a crime of violence to someone who is a misogynist, even if most of the time that attitude is shut away in a closet? It is still in the room with him and the woman.
Finally, the thought of any woman having to turn to someone like “B. Fife” to report a violent crime that happened to her, because she was a woman is enough to make me want to throw up.
This comment was written by Radfem.—————————————————————————
So it hardly is surprising to hear that cops are raping women. Few of them even get reported for their actions and even fewer tried and convicted.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Fuck you, B Fife !!!
Te hia nei, te kai te manawa oo teeraa pookokohua, hamuti, aia kai te panapana!!! Ruuruu te upoko nei ki te ripa ki te ripa.
Kia heke mai te toto i ngaa paapaaringa!!!
Tiikape te para ki te kuri.
POOKOKOHUA!!!
Translation:
“This desire,
This comment was written by Deborah.is to eat the beating heart of that low life cursed one,
that human excrement,
shaking the head from side to side,
allowing the blood to descend down the cheeks,
throwing aside the leftovers/scraps to the dog.”
Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Hah! One of them called me a sexually repressed manhater. So typical. If you don’t like me, you hate all men.
That’s like if a guy walks up to a girl, grabs his crotch and says, “will you help me with this?” and she’s repulsed, that means she’s sexually repressed.
It’s scary how sexism and misogyny are entrenched in law enforcement, then people wonder why they have so much difficulty reporting violent crimes to them, as women. It explains in large part, why LE officers commit violent crimes against women themselves. The sad thing, that you can be in the States or in New Zealand and it’s all the same.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:39 am
I left a message which does not seem to be there. I just want everyone to know that I was a victim at the hands of a police officer. Despite forensic and fingerprint evidence, my case was covered up because I took 30 minutes to report it. Never mind that I was not thinking straight and scared out of my mind. While it was initially treated seriously, at the end I was told that because I waited 30 minutes, someone else could be responsible, despite the fact that there was only evidence of the police officer involved.
It is time our laws are changed and victims are treated with some kind of respect. This is not a subject to be treated lightly and the victims have to live with it for the rest of their lives, while the cops carry on with their daily duties.
I was extremely proud to be a part of the march on Sunday and hope that in some way it might make a difference, or at least bring the issue to peoples attention.
This comment was written by Phaedra.Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
It gets worse and worse. I fear for the relationship between men and women sometimes and the affects of the upcoming generations. So many of us are traumatised and pass tat trama on because society as a whole still doesnt support the need for trauma work or reeducation of the mass concepts of what does and does not constitue ‘damage’ to people. If you get up again and get on with life then your alright, despite whats hidden inside. And its that which dicates the way we bring up our children. I was sent this link today. http://www.dev-zone.org/cgi-bin/knowledge/jump.cgi?ID=10331
This comment was written by Jay Ray.Its scary what humans have sunk too. Unfortunately it usually (although not always) men. I have some thoughts on my website if you want to have a look.www.spiritflight.co.nz/articles/social_comment
Report this comment to the moderators
May 22nd, 2006 at 5:32 pm
as another kiwi woman with a daughter who has also been devastated by the police actions and non-actions when it comes to desperate efforts to find help, protection and/or reporting crimes of violence with their own rogue officers
- the following High Court BOOK DESTRUCTION judgement deeply disturbs me -
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/0,2106,3671187a6479,00.html
This book was promoted in NZ public domain and media when it was launched etc
This comment was written by anon.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
BREAKING NZ NEWS
Another victim…..
Revealed: Louise Nicholas accused face sex trial over new woman
5.00pm Thursday May 25, 2006
The three men acquitted of the rape of Louise Nicholas face another trial this year in relation to alleged sexual offending against another woman.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clinton John Tukotahi Rickards and former police officers Bradley Keith Shipton and Robert Francis Schollum are alleged to have committed the crimes during the 1980s.
The Herald won the right to tell the public about the second trial by going to the High Court.
In a reserved judgement, revealed this afternoon, Justice Tony Randerson allowed the paper to report limited details about the case.
The complainant, who has name suppression, is a different woman from Louise Nicholas. Mrs Nicholas’ allegations of rape were considered by a High Court jury in Auckland in March.
The jury in that case found the three men not guilty on a series of historic charges of sexual violation and indecent assault against Mrs Nicholas.
The acquittals set off a storm of protest, with one women’s group distributing court-suppressed information about the three accused.
Extensive suppression orders surrounding the Louise Nicholas case and the upcoming High Court case remain in force.
* Tomorrow’s New Zealand Herald will carry more details about the case.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10383514
This comment was written by anon.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2006 at 2:56 am
Well hopefully now that the Herald has made it possible for this jury to connect the dots, they may be a little more prepared to accept the word of one complainant.
It’s hard to know what else to say since no-one wants to give these sleazebags any excuse to provide a judge with an ‘out’, but I must say that when this is all over it would be interesting to hear why the prosecution and the courts agreed to let this saga be prosecuted at separate trials.
I’ve never heard of any other defendant up on a mob of charges for the same offence be allowed to divide them up like this and put a fence enforced by nearly blanket suppression around each trial and complainant.
Imagine how much it would cost if the next person charged with serial burglary or bankrobbery insists on a separate jury trial for each robbery with total suppression on the trials lest his/her name become so familiar in the court pages it may prejudice a jury.
This comment was written by notXtian.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2006 at 3:55 am
Forgot to mention - later this week is when there may be another Special Report issued perhaps?
Internal Affairs Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct
http://www.confidentialforum.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Commissions-of-Inquiry-Commission-of-Inquiry-into-Police-Conduct?OpenDocument
23/02/2006) The Commission of Inquiry`s Reporting Date has been extended until 31 May 2006. Link here to a copy of the New Zealand Gazette Notice of the Order in Council
This comment was written by anon.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2006 at 11:07 am
I see the photos of the aquitted( and now re-accused)have now been published.
This comment was written by Bob.I believe Louse.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Be sure your sins will find you out I say! These scumbags will pay, somehow, sometime and somewhere! Let’s hope ‘the dots are indeed joined’ this time and these arrogant arses are made to account for their brutal actions of a time long ago, which has probably had significant consequences for their victims, and will probably continue to, for all of their lives. Because these men have gone on to lead ‘normal’ lives and are now “good family men” (according to their families) does not invalidate their criminal pasts nad they must be made accountable. Their acquital at the Nicholas trial, was viewed by most as an ‘un proven’ verdict as opposed to not guilty but still did not stop them spouting forth with their usual pomp and arrogance. Lets hope the police force that so badly let Louise Nicholas, and no doubt many others , down at the hands of these men, will redeem themselves at this next trial. I too hope the police case will be watertight and these men will have plenty (more) time to eat porridege and reflect!!
This comment was written by Lisa.Saying it didn’t happen, does not wipe away what did actually happen. I wonder how these guys lay straight in their beds at night and what goes through their minds as they now see their daughters, grand daughters and neices at the age their victims were at the time of these atrocities. A not guilty verdict, from my point of view was a mere technicality. These guys will pay, undoubtedly. Maybe not until they are laying on their deathbeds, but they will have to confront their demons and the price will I suspect be significant…
I believe Louise!
Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
The truth will out. I believe Louise. A lie told a thousand times is still a lie.
This comment was written by Lexie.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Sorry—Rushing is no excuse for bad spelling
This comment was written by Bob.I believe Louise
Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Acquitted Nicholas-case trio face new sex trial
Friday May 26, 2006
By Nicola Boyes
The three men acquitted of raping Louise Nicholas face another High Court trial in relation to alleged sexual offending against another woman.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are alleged to have committed the crimes during the 1980s.
The three were acquitted by a High Court jury in March of 20 charges, including the alleged rape, sexual violation and indecent assault of Mrs Nicholas when she was a Rotorua teenager.
The Herald supported the right to publish the fact that the three men are to face another trial before the High Court at Auckland.
The complainant, who has name suppression, is a different woman from Mrs Nicholas.
In a reserved judgment released yesterday, Justice Tony Randerson has allowed the media to publish the fact of another trial.
However, extensive suppression orders remain in force surrounding the upcoming case and the Nicholas trial.
All that can be said is that the case relates to allegations of sexual offending by all three men against another woman in the 1980s.
A trial date is yet to be set.
The editor of the Herald, Tim Murphy, said the judge’s ruling was a victory for the public’s right to know and to understand what went on in the courts. “The Court of Appeal has made it clear that matters before the courts ought to start from a position of openness.
“The public’s right to know what happens in court should only be curtailed when publicity would demonstrably prejudice the case.”
Mr Murphy said the “complex web of suppressions” had been more damaging to the interests of justice than it had been effective in preserving the rights of the accused.
Lifting the suppression on the fact of a further trial would help remove speculation on the case.
The acquittals in the Nicholas case set off a storm of protest, with women’s groups distributing information that the court had suppressed.
Discussion threads were started on websites and public marches and demonstrations were held.
Rickards, who has had a meteoric rise through police ranks, from undercover police officer to Auckland district commander, has been stood down from duties since he was charged last year.
He has been studying law at the University of Auckland.
After the verdicts in March it was said that discussions were to begin regarding Rickards’ future employment, with Deputy Commissioner Lyn Provost and Rickards’ lawyer, John Haigh, QC, holding talks.
Mr Haigh could not be reached last night.
Police spokesman Jon Neilson told the Herald that Rickards would remain stood down from duties.
“The court process takes precedent. Nothing changes,” Mr Neilson said.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10383627
This comment was written by anon.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
FYI http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3681337a10,00.html
Women fail to report rapes
27 May 2006
By YVONNE MARTIN
The negative attitudes of police officers towards rape complaints and fears of a bruising court trial are putting women off reporting rape.
Police have recognised that women not using the criminal justice system is a major concern and are setting up a specialist squad to deal with rape cases in a bid to improve their image.
The initiative comes as the Commission of Inquiry into police conduct, investigating the handling of the Louise Nicholas case and other matters, is extended for the fourth time until September 30.
Prime Minister Helen Clark announced the inquiry in February 2004 and it was due to report next week.
A spokesman for Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker said the latest extension was granted to ensure the report was “robust” and complete.
A special report by The Weekend Press, published in today’s Mainlander, has found that women are avoiding and dropping out of the criminal justice system at phenomenally high rates.
Support groups estimate that only one in 10 rapes is notified, and only a fraction go to court.
Victoria University criminologist Dr Jan Jordan said the doubting attitudes of officers dealing with women reporting rape complaints were a factor in the high rates of attrition.
Jordan, who has done extensive research on rape and police practices, said a culture of disbelief runs through the force, tainting how it deals with complaints.
Officers trained as sexual-assault investigators have told her that they believe up to 80 per cent of rape complaints police receive are false.
“If the expectation is there that, chances are, a complaint is more likely to be false than true, that is going to be conveyed non-verbally, even if not verbally, to any complainant coming in,” said Jordan.
“Some of the police will say, `We are not going to say that to her’, but there are other ways that that scepticism gets conveyed ““ by their body language, the stance, the way in which they ask the questions and what they ask.”
Nicholas struggled to get her rape complaint from the 1980s actioned, but her case was more complex than most as the allegations were against police officers.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were acquitted in March of charges of raping her.
But a second woman has emerged with historic sexual-abuse allegations from the 1980s against the same men, and they will stand trial again.
The police’s new national co-ordinator of adult sexual assault and child abuse, Detective Senior Sergeant Neil Holden, did not dispute Jordan’s findings.
He agreed police had to be seen as more receptive and approachable to encourage women to report sexual assaults.
“We need to tidy it up to say we are really addressing the matter, we are wanting to make it a lot better, so bring more work to us,” he said.
“We need to make sure our processes are very clear, very transparent ““ there is no secrecy behind them.”
Holden also hoped the sexual-assaults investigation unit about to be launched in Auckland would set a new standard of professionalism. A sergeant and four detectives would work alongside community agencies.
Dr Kim McGregor, director of Rape Prevention Education (formerly Rape Crisis Auckland), said her group had pushed for years for a full-time, ring-fenced squad, similar to those investigating child abuse.
“I have worked in this field for 20 years. While there has been some changes made over that time, in practice not very much has changed for survivors of sexual violence,” she said.
Daniel Rae, one of two activists involved in last month’s Christchurch rally in support of Nicholas, has been questioned by police over the distribution of pamphlets containing suppressed information about the case.
Rae gave a statement and said police indicated they would be laying charges in relation to the alleged breach of suppression. He would fight any charges.
This comment was written by anon.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Before I say anything, let me say that what I am about to say applies only to certain of the people who have replied here. Most I have no beef with whatsoever, but sadly the replies to this really do include some of the worst twistings and misinterpretations of feminism (not all, but some.) People who think they should be allowed to break the law if they think they’re right, but want others who break the law to be punished. People who think the courts should convict people even when the evidence isn’t sufficient, but who would of course want a fair trial for themselves or their loved ones. People who think the end justifies the means as long as the end is a rape conviction. And so on.
Not everyone is saying this, and I am happy for that, but those of you who are saying “this should have been a conviction even if the evidence was shoddy, the witnesses were less than you’d hope for, and so on” should ask yourselves: if it was you on the stand, would that be acceptable? If it was your life in the balance, would “we’re sure she’s guilty, so hang her!” be good enough? Is the fact that the cops had an unfair advantage reason in and of itself to ignore due process? If so, would it be if YOU were accused of having an unfair advantage?
I’m all for better forensics, institutional reform of the police (a huge deal, and not just for rape cases,) and other things that will make a concrete difference without requiring that we take unreasonable risks of convicting innocent people by throwing out due process and so on. I think the era of unpunished rape is coming to a close in the first world for technological reasons, albeit too late and too slowly, and I’m very happy to see this coming along. I am not in favor of throwing away basic protections in our legal system just to get the result someone is looking for. Ever.
(An aside about that technology: in addition to the obvious DNA testing we all know about, we’re rapidly making progress towards a day when our mastery of our biology will allow us to eliminate STDs and control pregnancy more or less at will. This will obviate the condom, which won’t upset anyone I know. The particular upside for rape is, it means rapists WILL leave physical evidence even if they don’t want to. I have a feeling the rape rate will drop dramatically, and the conviction rate go up correspondingly.)
Nyk
This comment was written by Nyk.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
“Truth never loses by argument. Instead of dealing in generalities and paraphrases a man should come forward with facts and details,and thus evince the desire to deal practically with the question. This is honesty -this is fearless integrity, which must put down falsehoods and misrepresentations, come from whatever source they may.” So wrote Epictus some 2000 years ago. Why the suppression orders? Why the hiding and subterfuge tactics of legal barrettry? Could the accused show some compassion or emotion instead of learned and trained legal responses? What do the women have to gain by making false accusations? I cannot see why the mere thought of honesty and openness sends the accused into such a frenzy of secrecy.
This comment was written by Bob.I still believe Louise !
Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2006 at 12:27 am This comment was written by Donna.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 2:08 am
I lived in Rotorua in the 1980’s and we had visitors (in blue uniforms) at our flat at all times of the night. I really feel that my only protection at that time (I was young, quiet and not confident at all),was the fact that I had a boyfriend who was definately NOT in a blue uniform,so the uniforms didn’t give meany grief. It was a long time ago and I can’t remember faces but I wouldn’tmind betting that Brad Shipton visted the flat where I lived.
This comment was written by Cher.Report this comment to the moderators