In 1986 Louise Nicholas was raped by three policeman. She has tried to get justice since, and had been unable to. Finally, almost 20 years later, those were charged.
The trial is currently taking place in Auckland. Most details of the case have been suppressed, so I can’t really talk about it (but you can bet I’ll have something to say when the verdict comes out).
I just wanted to commend her strength and courage.
This post was also published at my blog
Pingback: A Stranger in Paradise
Pingback: feminist blogs
Comment deleted
After some careful consideration I’ve had to delete that comment. I don’t want to, and it’s certainly not information I want to hide. But having made a decision not to talk about certain aspects of this case for the sake of the defendant, I’m going to have to stop them being discussed on the blog (this will make no sense to people who didn’t read it, but I’ll probably be able to explain in the next month or so).
We have all been given the message by the male Judiciary that woman are second class citizens & they will have their reputations shredded if they try to get justice against any man in a high position.
I am closer to 70 than 50 & I think Louise Nicholas is the bravest woman In this era.
I also think that this was a message to Helen Clark to let her know that the men really run the show. The poor Jury didn’t have a chance after the Judge’s direction.
I am shocked that Louise Nicholas lost her case; I can’t believe people would think that a woman would make something like that up.
It’s a sorry day for NZ; it goes to show this country really is still an old boys club.
Disgusting.
There have been so many instances where police here have managed to subvert law to suit their own ends and they ALWAYS get away with it. What a mess. The suppressed events surrounding the Nicholas case makes me feel physically sick. The judge ought to be challenged somehow…?
as i sit back and take in the verdict,i can but say,im not surprised they were found not guilty(on the evidence provided…..But whether i think justice was served is a diffrent matter
I believe Louise Nicholas and would like to know how to find out what the suppressed evidence listed on the Wellington flyers is.
I too would like to know what is in the Wellington Flyers. My sympathies lie with Louises Nicholas
Yvonne Amos
Please remember it is very hard to beat the coppers at there game …whether you are male or female ,no matter what the case may be.. they are corupt in certain areas…
Unfortunately for Louise it looks as though the testimony of her former flatmate severely damaged her case. I don’t think you blame a sexist jury for this verdict
I too would like to know what is mentioned in the flyers.
michelle2002nz@hotmail.com
[quote]I am shocked that Louise Nicholas lost her case; I can’t believe people would think that a woman would make something like that up.
It’s a sorry day for NZ; it goes to show this country really is still an old boys club.
Disgusting. [/quote]
I think this outcome is fairly and unfortunately, very typical.
I think juries are very reluctant to convict LE officers for any crimes. They rarely get arrested, let alone charged with crimes and if they do, it’s usually watered down to a misdemeanor charge. Even on the rare instances they do get convicted, the judge finds some reason to toss it out and they often wind up millionaires to boot.
I’m not sure it matters much which country you are in. Some are better than others, but there’s this tenet that officers don’t lie even about bad things and that they have to be given the benefit of the doubt b/c of the hazards of their job.
Most agencies have officers who either engage in rape or coerce women into sex or “persuade” them to do it to avoid an arrest. Most agencies are not too interested in supervising their officers carefully, let alone finding their problem officers, so it can be many years if ever, before they are caught. Even then, it’s not likely they’ll be held accountable.
Several smaller U.S. LE agencies have even hired sex offenders as officers b/c they can not properly screen their officers including background checking or they have to tap into a pool of poorer candidates because the larger agencies pay better.
If anyone is victimized by a police officer, they have my strongest sympathy. Unfortunately, that’s often the most they will receive anywhere, because obtaining justice usually isn’t in the cards.
Has anyone thought that individuals within the media may be as disgusted as us and are giving the defendants and their families rope to hang themselves?
And maybe the wives of the defendants are not yet in a place where it’s ‘safe’ for them to admit what they must now know.
“I am shocked that Louise Nicholas lost her case; I can’t believe people would think that a woman would make something like that up”.
Sophie, some women “do” make up allegations of rape. That is the scary thing. Go to http://www.peterellis.org.nz and look under “false allegations”. There is a long list of apparently false claims of rape.
Here’s what I’m talking about, and the woman receives just five months in prison. Pathetic.
NZ Herald
August 13 2005
A Waikato woman has been jailed for making false complaints that she was raped by a policeman and sexually assaulted by his colleague.
Sally Marie Inglis, 44, was sentenced to five months jail at the Tauranga District Court yesterday after being found guilty of two charges of making a false complaint to police.
Judge Robert Spear said the offending was “at the very highest end of the scale” and a prison sentence was required.
“You need to spend some time in prison to contemplate why you are back there.”
Judge Spear said the sentence, two-and-a-half months’ imprisonment for each charge, was influenced by the woman’s continued insistence that the claims were true despite clear evidence to the contrary and by the devastating effect they had had on the victims.
On April 14 last year, the woman told police she was sexually assaulted by a female non-sworn police employee when arrested on December 9, 2003, and that she was raped several times by the arresting officer two months later.
The female victim, spoken to after the sentence, said it had been the most traumatic experience of her life, and while prison was appropriate, it would not “give us back what she has taken from us”.
Prosecutor Simon Moore said the case was made more serious by the cynical timing of the complaint – three days after Rotorua woman Louise Nicholas made allegations of historic rape by police officers.
When Inglis was convicted in June after a four-day defended hearing, Judge Spear complimented police on the way the woman’s allegations had been treated but said “it became increasingly obvious” the claims were untrue.
He said police had been able to track the constable’s movements on each day the woman alleged the attacks happened and in one case he was hundreds of kilometres away at his parents’ house.
Inglis was ordered to undergo assessment and treatment for psychological issues and alcohol abuse and denied leave to seek home detention
There is so much emotion surrounding this issue, and rightly so since this “trial” is obviously only the tip of the iceberg, that the comments seem to become more and more insanely polarised. Sure, there could be the odd nutter who has falsely accused an innocent man of rape, but then there could be other things involved there. And it is like saying, so and so got a speeding ticket when they weren’t even driving! It’s that plausible yet not likely to happen very much at all. The scariest thing is that proposing a statute of limitations, any statute, means that the victim can continue to be subtly and invisibly harassed and intimidated for the lenght of that period. Crimes of rape and abuse should not have a statute of limitations for this reason, because once one has been traumatised and victimised one is not able to speak or act in a detatched manner. This is why complainants do not come forward for a long period of time in some instances. The rapists of this world begin their crime with a general campaign of character assisination, possibly sometime before actually committing the physical rape. As the legends of the master rapist, Ghengis Khan, attest, the rapist is not actually fully sexually functional, in other words, he does not have at any stage, a fully erect penis at the time of the rape, he may do in between rapes possibly, which would point to the fact that rape is a crime of loathsome theft. Theft of the victim’s power, peace of mind, enjoyment of life, beauty, strength and wellbeing. The rapist is a monster, and he will begin and end his disgusting trail of evil misery with a pathetic cry of “Oh, but she didn’t stop me!” and, “How could she say such things about me, I am sooo hurt..!” (sob, sob, whinge etc) and he will also try, “But she’s such a slut! Look at the state of her house/clothes/hair/car/bathroom or whatever….” and the physical act becomes almost incidental to the whole stealing and invading and inveigling saga with which he will embellish his cunning and vile raison d’etre. Throw in a rophynol or two and he’s in rapist’s heaven. These are the reasons I would say “NO” to a statute of limitations on complaints of sexual abuse. I also believe that we need the right to sue for grevious bodily harm because this system of “sensitive claims” seems to lead down one path and one path only….remember the officially advertised target of 1 in 5 “mental health” cases…where do you think they will be coming from? It’s not that hard to guess. The guy who raped me is actually paid by a district health board to advise on “mental health” so he gets his money for nothing and his kicks for free…probably doing a pilot project…..
I agree there should not be a statute of limitations on alleged rape cases but there should be supporting evidence if a case is to go to trial. In cases of he-said-she-said, where there is no supporting evidence, the accused should get the benefit of reasonable doubt. Otherwise falsely accused men will wind up in prison.
And it isn’t the “odd nutter” who makes false allegations.
NZ Herald
September 29 2005
Hornby police have wasted hundreds of hours on a string of false sex complaints.
Officers at the Hornby station in south-west Christchurch say there has been a spate of false sexual allegations in recent months, including claims of abduction and sexual attacks.
In one recent incident, more than 20 police took part in an operation costing $15,650 after a Darfield woman falsely complained she had been abducted.
The woman was sentenced to 150 hours’ community work.
Last year, 290 people nationwide were charged with making a false complaint, wasting almost 3000 hours of police time and costing more than $230,000.
The information the judge ordered suppressed is here
http://feministblogs.org/author/maia/
I have read the other files in regard to another issue which has bearing on Louse Nicholas’ case. All I can say is that it was horriffic what this woman was put through. If Louise did not have the stigma of a “Good Time Girl” I believe she would have been vindicated and the three found Guilty!!
I am shocked that the evidence was supressed and is an insult to women throughout New Zealand. This requires marches for women’s rights like we did in the 70″s on rape and violence against women. I am a verteran starter for this action if others want to join in. When is this important evidence going to be made public? This is a message to the insulting message the judiciary is sending to women.
Why has no one posted the leaflet content yet ?
I herd that if it were a civel case she would have won. Perhaps thats why the police advise woman not to make civel comlaints because they might win and that would make them look usless..
.
She was never going to win; no physical evidence, witnesses who couldn’t agree over things that happened 20 years ago and a case that basically came down to her word against theirs. Historical cases are extremely hard to prosecute as they inevitably call into question peoples memories. As guilty as they may be, proving it would be impossible…
I have read the blog on these guys on other sites and completly believe what has been said so where is the justice here. So now that we all know what these men have done why is this information not now being made public? How will the police prove that the women in Wellinton have broken the supression order without revealing this information. We should be protecting women who speak out not prosecuting them. We all now know so why not cease this speculation and make it public. If anyone invoked the Official Information Act for this information they would get it in 21 days as it is public information.
I think you will find Doris that the reason the suppression order hasn’t been lifted is because the Mount Maunganui case has been appealed (in feb). The Judge has reserved his decision on that one so maybe those orders will be lifted once he releases his decision. Of course if the men involved lose that appeal and decide to appeal again (and you know they would) then the order is likely to still remain in place. There is also a chance that further charges are going to be laid…have to wait and see.. I am a firm beleiver in the media and there is no way they would let something like this go, so the info will all come out in due course.
Somebody post the surpressed evidence already!!!
Blogspot.com is an american hosted site and it is completely legal to post that stuff on here.
Having read the info about the suppressed evidence, I am sickened. As a man, I find the situation traumatising – I have a 10 year old daughter, a wife (for 17 years) & many female relatives & friends. I was aware of such cses in India in the 70s & 80’s – when some police men were convicted. There was another recent case in India where a 16 year old school girl was raped by a local politician with the help of a female calss teacher & the local police hushed it up!
Enough to start a women’s revolution I would say.
Back in the 1980’s I worked on a battered women’s helpline and met many women who had been propositioned by police on duty and they were victims so that is how the police got addresses. They turned up to these women’s addresses and put pressue on for sex and they went in two’s. Also I have had women who have had pressure put on them to have sex when they have been up on minor charges to let them off.
I myself was involved in a custody issue and was physically threatened by a lone policeman who turned up at my property to get my son for access visits. he said I am not going to get away with this and was raising his arm to hit me when my present husband turned up thank goodness. i had a high public profile at that time but I would never put myself in the position of being with police on my own.
I say with Louise that if these women are had up on contempt charges I would be prepared to start a public march for women.
What is in the flyers is already public so why are we being kept in the dark. How will they stop the gossip machine from woman to woman. Certainly would not dob in anyone myself and neither would my friends. They potentially could have half the female population up on contempt charges . I dare the police to do this.
Blair. Yes someone has already posted the supressed info on a blog site and I down loaded it.
“Certainly would not dob in anyone myself and neither would my friends. They potentially could have half the female population up on contempt charges”.
You mean only half the female population are intelligent enough to not believe everything they read?
Ross, I believe you have had a fair chance to make your perspective on this issue known.
However, I also feel that your posts represent an extremely belligerent style of anti-feminism that doesn’t foster the kind of comments section I’d like to read.
For that reason, please don’t post on “Alas” any more. Thank you.
THERE IS A GOD!!! Thanks Ampersand.
“How will they stop the gossip machine from woman to woman. ”
They’ll have to lock up every MALE taxi driver in New Zealand :)
As for what was in the leaflets, that was quite a revelation (obvious in hindsight though, if you’ve been paying attention to these matters over the last couple of years…, but there’s a lot more scuttlebut going around which if true, means it may not be over yet.
Read snowball’s comments above & join the dots.
Or (I can’t resist) google the blog called Threepointturn…
BTW: for the record, I always suspected Nicholas was truthful, now I’m certain of it.
Oh, and one other thing, I firmly believe the NZ police are gunning for these guys (reasons are debatable perhaps), or the matter would have been swept under the carpet. Their time has come.
Nicholas decision not to take name suppression ensured a victory for her of sorts (or at least a defeat of sorts for the defendants) & for that I can’t help admire her. I hope that that victory is not too pyrrhic though.
I have read all the comments above. I spent 3 weeks attending the trial out of interest of a criminal trial and to learn the processes.
It is interesting how everyone have opinions with out hearing/viewing ALL the evidence. The public who did hear it all certainly must be ashamed of the public judgement. The jury had a very difficult job and after knowing all the evidence made an educated and impartial judgement. There was in fact a lot of actual evidence and it was not just “he said she said”. It is time to stop being emotional and irresponsible. The crown put across a very strong case but it would result in the defense putting across a more factual and stronger case than the crown had. I am sure that in the jurys mind that the evidence proved the main rape/batton allegation DID NOT happen. Mrs Nicholas own evidence helped to prove this.
The leaflet drop is emotional reaction. Those who are dropping them are now not able to tell us why they have had to change the content. I suspect the leaflet drop will leave egg on some faces in the future because there will undoubtedly be a need for the suppression orders. They may be in place to protect other woman and perhaps even children. caution should prevail.
I certainly will never judge a case again through what I read or the gossip I hear.
My aroha to all the families (including Mrs Nicholases family) who have had to suffer from the cruel public scrutiny and grueling court case.
If any woman is ever raped she can still trust our system I am SURE!
Regardless of whether it was rape or not, it was behaviour unbecoming of a senior police officer. I would suggest he be removed from duty and put out to pasture. NO woman going to mssrs Rickards would be particular comfortable that her allegation would be taken seriously, rather that her allegation would be treated with some skepticism from the get go.
I disagree with in part with Suzy (see post above), I think you have tried to present a nuanced case for the verdict being correct, however there is a slight prosecutional bias in your reply. I too was in the court for most of the trial, pretty much all…law school assignment pffff….I agree that her testimony wasnt as strong as it should have been, but she isnt an actress, shes probably nervous as hell having been (allegedly) raped. But this is always the case and jurors have to judge that. I think her flatmate undermined her, I think also some of the jury members were not the sharpest tools in the box either. I dont think enough phsychiartric evidence was presented either by the prosecution as there are cases where a rape victim turns into a supposedly ‘willing’ recipient of continuos rape for a period of time after the incident. It might have been that she was raped, and then consented and submitted to her ‘new’ life as the sexual partner of these men. This may go explain the flatmates testimony of Ms Nicholas’ behaviour. This is pure conjecture from me ofcourse!
I was suprised that the jury came to this verdict, if anything, it should have been hung. I do believe its a sad day for justice. However I also think, in the court of public opinion, guilty is the verdict here. Much love and solidarity to Louise and her family.
I too believe Loiuse Nicholas and I do not agree with the trial verdict. I think it is important to point out that this matter is not about men vs women. It is about good people vs bad people. Just because I am a man does not mean I am less angry or upset at the treatment of Loiuse. It is also of interest that the jury consisted of a large amount of women yet this did not help Loiuse. It has been proven that female jurors are more likely to judge the complainant based on their own morals and reasoning.
It is also cold hard fact that many women and men use allegations of sexual abuse to try and further their causes in child custody cases. There is also the mentally ill to consider and those who lay complaints to cover some other behavior such as an affair or a pregnancy. These liars exist and when they do lie they offend against any real complainant and society at large not to mention the target who is falsely accused.
For 35 years the messages have been delivered in absolutes. All men are rapists and women would never lie about such matters are two of the more common ones. Militant Feminism has used the plight of sexual assault victims to further their own political whims for a long time now. Not only does every sexual abuse victim I know feel used by political extremists but abuse cases are soaring while conviction rates are plummeting. A mob drives a pedophile out of an area (and his family) and calls that a victory for justice and in the meantime people like Loiuse are left high and dry in the court process. What a brave new world we live in.
New Zealand is a country where REDNECKS rule.
Some judges protect their suppliers (Police) and ignore blatant facts presented and the jury is cohersed into believing the Policy, who are simply lying under oath ALL THE TIME!
Prime example is the ABBOTT shooting of Wallace in Waitara where no blood sample of Abbot was taken although he had celebrated for hours in the Police Club, where he had no alcoholic drink at all!!!! What a fucking lie!
And now this rape case – we have to pull the mask off these bastards.
[deleted]
I was so sad when I heard the verdict that saw those 3 large men go free .
My heart goes out to Louise Nicholas when I think of her as a young 18 year old . I too have a 18 year old daughter and I am sickened to think that if it had been her at the vulnerable young age , she probably would have behaved in the same manner as Louise did , not fight back but resign to the fact of it happening considering the largeness of three big giants of men . I am sure if those 3 men with 18 year old daughters had that happen to their daughters , they would be wanting justice as well . It sickens me to think that one is a councillor , and the other a top policeman and we have them to help the community . What a joke . As for Tania , Rickards partner who is wanting to get on with their family life of rugby etc with their children .. what about Louise .. If that was my partner , I would want to boot his bum so hard he wouldnt be able to sit down for a long time . Get a march started for womans rights .. I am sure a lot of the country would be supportive .. lets do it for Louise .. I’ll be a sure candidate.
Absolutely shocking that these big men could do that to a young 18 year old and get away with it .
Even Shipleys brother saying that it was a ploy to not have Rickards as Commissioner of Police . YUKK I would puke now if I saw him in that position . I personally could not see him being honored to that position after his shocking behaviour to a young 18 year old even if he did get acquitted , it does not take away the fact that he still had sex with 2 other guys . Shows how much he respects women .. Who brought him up .. Where did he learn such distasteful disregard for women .
Well I think the prosecution in this case should allow the other trials to be heard then appeal this case and bring the new information that was not heard by the jurors or that they were directed to ignore to this appeal.
Hi
Can anybody helpful email me this suppressed information?
I am outside of New Zealand.
Please do not email me from a New Zealand-based email address.
My email is:
bobby.fraser (at) mailnull.com
Sisters, how many of you also have the feeling as I do of climbing a long scree slope, you know the one, two steps forward and five back. Hegemonic patriarchy still rules with the help of their agencies OK.
Louise, you are so brave and I admire your courage and your grit. Thank you for being the catalyst for the renewed feminist call for justice re rape victims.My husband I believe you. Kia kaha.
Thank you to the brave women who have refused to keep silent.
I’ve already read the suppressed info and am speechless with anger.
Louise had nothing to gain by making that complaint – she is one very brave lady. To tell what had happened must have been extremely stressful. That in itself is a good reason to believe her.
This case has realy upset me, one of the creeps that got to me when I was about 12, I found out his brother in law was a top cop. I dont no the cops name or how to find out.
I cant help but be leaft wondering if it’s is one of them thats this creeps brother inlaw and maybe thats why I have had no justice perhaps a police cover up from the inside. I was told when trying to make a comlaint to go away WE are not interested in anything that happend to you when you were a kid. I had to phone the beehive to get the police to listen .Which they did only because I phoned the beehive. They, the police took my statment and then lost my statment . I could write a lot more its to distresing for me. I have no faith in the system Its a money goround neither the cops nor the law nor govment give a toss about victims of violent crime they are ony seen to doing something if the victim dies.
Can some one mail me the supressed evidence daniellemaree15@hotmail.com thanks.
I too believe Louise Nicholas, especially as a rape survivor myself. I did not get physically raped by the police, but they mentally and emotionally raped me when I went to them for help to charge the man who raped me. I totally applaud the strength and bravery that Louise Nicholas showed in daring to take the police on in this matter. I would also like to point out that just because they were found ‘not guilty’ does not in any way mean they did not commit the crime, but more that they were smart enough to get away with it by proving reasonable doubt. I see that the police accused in this case used exactly the same tactic to get off, that the police told me when I was raped that my attacker would use. “Say they asked for it and you will be let off”. I can only hope that no other rape survivors will be put off seeking justice.
Yes it states that Schollum & Shipton were convicted of the rape of a young women in Tauranga last year and are serving prison sentances at this moment. Only Rickards was on bail!
The information you wish, quite legally, to read is available on an American server at:
http://threepointturn.blogspot.com/2006/04/it-is-illegal-to-view-this-post.html#comments
There has clearly been a serious miscarriage of justice. All credit to Louise Nicholas. Thank God for the Internet. The judge was quite wrong to suppress this evidence, as it was obviously relevant due to the specific similarities between the two cases, which is the most telling point.
Best wishes, Robin Scott (UK resident so legally allowed to tell you this)
I wish Louise to know that i and all friends are thankful for her heroic effort with the current Justice system. I am fully appreciative of her dilema, “either I speak out or go crazy”. This magnificent effort will ensure your sanity and help you heal and recover soundly from the trauma inflicted Louise. Your family and decendants will be proud of you for generations to come. Keep up the good work,
Warmest Regards,
Winsome from Cromwell.
We would love to know the suppressed evidence, re. the Louise Nicholas case.
thanks
Carmen
Louise – if you ever get to read this, know that I and just about everyone I know thinks of you as one of the strongest, most impressive woman of our times. We believe you!
These men have no right whatsoever to ever again be in any public role or office. They are despots who clearly used their position and power in a way which should (still) have terminal consequences for them.
The suppression of information of the convictions of two of the accused is but a temporary matter. When this comes out, I hope that the Crown will appeal the decision from your case and find a jury who has the intelligence, discernment and reasoning to understand what took place – AND can find a judge who understands the real issues which underlay this case.
This is the saddest day for NZ – once again our police force has been brought down by the admitted actions of one of their most senior and once again, a woman is belittled and disbelieved when she has been through the ultimate degradation.
I am hopeful that this bebacle will create a groundswell of public opinion with women and men all over the country demanding that true justice is served.
The Crown MUST appeal this decision!
I don’t believe the Crown gives two flying hoots about the decision as the trials are really show trials after the media came out with the allegations and information on cover ups 2 years ago. If the media had not’ve done it then the Police and Crown would’ve happily gone on with life and Clint Rickards would’ve gone on to be Police Commissioner.
I don’t believe they can appeal the decision either as you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. Once you are found not guilty that is it.
#56
Why should the decision be appealed? And why would the outcome be any different if it was appealed? The evidence of the flatmate, and the fact that Nicholas lied when making a prior allegation of rape – against 5 men – obviously made a guilty verdict unlikely.
Would seem that our law is at times /has been well above the law
Interesting, I dont know much about the real story of Louise’s very sad plight but I do know that it reminds me of one of my families experiences that Id like to share if I may…? I think it relates to her story
My mother was a wonderful attractive young woman who was assaulted by a guy who broke in to the house and beat her badly in Tauranga in the early seventies. This man was never identified.
My mother always maintained that the senior Tauranga Police investigating her assault at the time concluded at the end of their inquiries and finally stated at her front door that the bad injuries that she had sustained on the backs of her arms, face and body were not in fact the signs of a lone young woman desparately trying to defend herself from an unknown assailant as she lay in bed as she had reported, but that they were in fact evidence of deliberate self harm “designed to attract the attention (meaning amorous attention) of the NZ Police”.
She always maintained that she was advised of this at the end of their inquiries by three policemen at her front door all looking her up and down in her words “like she was some slut who would actually want their attention”. I was very young at the time but I still remember how hurt and helpless and alone she was, for years I think.
Although I did not witness this treatment, I have absolutely no doubt that what she said was true and I think that this does perhaps give some insight into the mentality prevalent in the BOP Police, certainly at that point in time. While there’s no known direct link because I dont know the officers involved (?), my mothers experience would certainly seem to correspond with what Louise and all her supporters have been suggesting of course.
If anyone knows how things like this can be recorded or investigated or shared I would love some help or advice. My mother has passed on now but I dont want this violation to just evaporate the way they would like it to and Louises case has really been a catalyst in wanting to tackle these pricks.
I also think that until women demand better treatment with these issues through organised collective (violent?) action nothing will change. I am sure that good men will help but women must unify and demand much better treatment.
Good things must come of this.
can someone tell me why evidence of Louise prior sexual history was allowed to be heard? it would fall under the same umbrella as the evidence thus far suppressed by my reasoning.
leagleagle – that’s one of the many questions I have about this case too. I’ve had several different lawyers say that the only way the defence would have been able to bring it up is if the prosecution had mentioned it first. But I’ve no idea if that was true, or how it happened.
Either way it’s blatantly unfair that her past was examined and the men’s weren’t.
#59
“can someone tell me why evidence of Louise prior sexual history was allowed to be heard?”
What evidence was that? That she had sex with three men? Well, given that three men were accused of raping her, don’t you think it would have been illogical not to refer to her sexual experiences with these men?
In regards to Louise Nicholas sexual histury,It seems to me that apart from police men who have raped her,the only other man she has had sex with is the boyfriend she was going with at the time of the rapes,the father of her childen and the man she is still marreyed to today.That speeks volumes. Cloudwaller! Become a successfull rapist,join the police!!
I have read the suppressed information and I am disgusted that it was not able to be presented at the trial. I also agree with those of you that have pointed out that irrespective of whether or not it was technically rape (and I think that it was) the behaviour of these men towards a young and vulnerable woman was disgraceful. I hope that this information will be released eventually and when it does I have no doubt there will be an enormous outcry. So Kia Kaha, Kia manawanui Louise. There are millions of people in this country that believe you.
Two points I would like to respond to.
1. Women on the jury did not believe Louise.
It is a sad fact that often the first to damn a women for their perceptions of their behaviour are other women. I’m no pscyhologist so don’t ask me why, but all though this trial, some of the most polarised discussions that I had on it were with women who absolutely blaggardded Louise, even though most of them were not following the detail of the trial.
2. The comment that the Police have these guys in their sights and will not give up on them.
I have been a long time supporter of the NZ Police but I am afraid that on a number of bases my perception of them has been gradually but inexorably moving through 180 degrees. I now regard my previous view of them as that of naive ignorance.
I am absolutely convinced that we are only beginning to understand the extent of Police corruption in NZ. This has been an extremely uncomfortable realisation for me but the feeling of insecurity that I have had is I am sure nothing compared to what women like Lousie have had to live through and with.
I would like to think that the Police prosecution had Louise’s best interests at heart but I am not convinced of it and I am no longer the person that would give them the benefit of the doubt.
Well one has pleaded guilty to abduction and is being freed after 18 Months in prison on another charge the other two’s names are supressed on rapes charges which are pending??!!