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.
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Living Sustainably
Pingback: feminist blogs
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.
I expected this. I really did. But my shoulders still slumped when I read it.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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]
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
[delete]
[deleted]
[deleted]
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…
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
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]
I just hope that the bravery of these Wellington women does not backfire and hurt Louise some how.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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…
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.
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.
[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.
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.
I agree with almost everything that’s been said.
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.
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.
[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.
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!
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?
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 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.
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.
Another example of the system protecting the police. Disgusting.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
[delete]
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?
James of Rotorua
She didn’t wait 20 years.
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.
“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.
[deleted]
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..
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.
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!
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.
Can anyone tell me where we can go to read the details of the suppressed evidence ?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
Hobbo, but why is stuff supressed after the trial is over?
[deleted]
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.
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
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.
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?
Seven women.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
I have never posted before, but having read all of the above, have several questions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
Is there anywhere that the suppressed evidance is still available? Or can someone email it to me.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?”
78.
I have absolutely no connection to the police, only to the truth.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
Uh, Snowball, you might like to know that this is Ampersand’s blog.
Hi Ross
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!
…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
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.
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.
Will the information in the pamphlets ever be made public leganlly?
I want to know what was in them that is so damaging?
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.
“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.