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.
How in hades can an assertion such as this be substantiated?
“No one doubts that these men slept with Nicholas, just as only the most cro-magnon like throwback believes that they are not cretins – but what they did (which was to not rape Louise Nicholas), although rephrensible and in extremly poor judgement, was not illegal.”
All the trial verdict ‘shows’ was that there wasn’t enough evidence presented at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these thugs raped a teenaged girl. It certainly doesn’t prove they didn’t rape her. In fact it doesn’t really even show that much.
It really only tells us that Louise couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she said ‘No”.
There may come a time when the onus of proof in these cases is more justly balanced ie that the suspected rapist has to prove that the rapee said “yes”.
Imagine the hoots of despair from the ‘cocksman culture’ then! but when you think about it it isn’t possible to call the proof of ‘yes’ requirement less just than the proof of ‘no’.
How about making it something really simple like….um…”If anyone, particularly a group of people is in an unquestionable situation of power over another person, then sexual intercourse between those people will always be regarded as rape unless the person with less power swears it ain’t so.
Sounds pretty fair to me. When you do have a measure of power over another being, indulging in intercourse must be an abuse of that power by definition.
If it means that those of us within a community that do have greater ‘pull’ than others have to be far more careful in how they behave, to ensure that they are worthy of their status, can that be such a bad thing?
So… will dictaphone recordings be acceptable, or will we need witnessed, signed consent? Further, will blood alcohol samples be required to show that the lady (hereafter known as the consentee) is not rendered incapable by alcohol of making an informed decision?
I would’ve hated to have been on the jury for this one. At the end of the day, the jury made a decision based on the allowable evidence presented to them.
Why isn’t a prior conviction for the same offense allowable evidence?
Show me your scientific, empirical evidence that me stealing a car when I was 18 shows that I will steal a car when I’m 30.
You can do this with DNA. You can say “The suspect’s DNA is 10,000,000 times more likely to match the DNA found at the crime scene than anyone else in NZ.”
They have scientific method behind that statement.
You don’t have the science, you have a braying lynch mob.
Let me step you back through the years.
“She’s a witch! She’s all old and haggard, and looks like a witch! See that wart? That’s where her demonic familiar suckles! Burn her!”
That is _precisely_ the attitude shown here, taken to it’s ugly logical conclusion.
We don’t need evidence beyond reasonable doubt, we’ve got our *opinions*.
Thanks Helen, just wanted to know – this is such a bloody mess, eveyone accusing eveyone, justice as we know it going down the drain.
[deleted] They didnt exactly steal car radios or deal in stolen goods – these (men?) have been accused of gang raping a 17 year old – [deleted] – so many men are thinking 17/schemenventeen? – she didnt tell us how old she was, she was asking for it, she was wearing provicative clothing and the worst Brithish one ‘she was gagging for it’ – what is happening here?
Justice demands that previous convictions are not admissable as evidence to protect the accused, in case the poor bastards’ past are in any way misinterpreted!
We have since heard (from much correspondence above) that Louise Nicholas’ past has been raked up with great delight by the Prosecution, and every nuance possible piled upon it. THIS IS FAIR? Dammit, the girl has come forward many years later, at great cost to herself and her family, because she needs to be free of this nightmare. Why else would she do it? Are you all blind? To have your life dragged before the country would have been a small price to pay for recognitnion of what had happened, if it had been recognised. It wasnt.
If the previous allegations are true, THIS CONSTITUTES A SECOND RAPE OF THE POOR GIRL.
I would like to add that, as a young girl growing up (many many years ago, in an (unamed to protect the innocent) African country – the Police had it all, any girl, any time – they were so bloody macho (and I am not talking indigenous girls here – I pity them!) THE POLICE WERE THE PITS – all brothers together. Nothing has changed.
I am very sorry that this is still going on today. It was ever thus.
Hey, for a late comer trying to find out the truth, can someone repost the deleted bits that say what was suppressed? And just keep posting!
I don’t think past arrests should be admited, but I do think that past convictions should be under certain circumstances. Often, prosecutors use “prior bad acts” to prove MO or that several cases are connected, as with serial murderers or serial rapists.
And all the verdict in this case “proves” is that 12 people didn’t find enough evidence to convict. It says nothing to the quality of the evidence or the gult or innocence of the accused. Given that there were several suppression orders in effect… there isn’t enough information at this point to be certain what actually happened. (Admittedly I live in another country and I’ve seen less of the facts surrounding the case than others here).
It has been my personal experience that police just like paramedics, doctors, or even lawyers are mostly good people with some seriously bad apples in the bunch. I agree that institutionalized codes of silence are a bad thing, but I have no idea how to go about changing the prevailing attitudes.
It has been my personal experience that police just like paramedics, doctors, or even lawyers are mostly good people with some seriously bad apples in the bunch.
To be honest, Mendy, I’ve actually always wondered whether certain occupations don’t attract more “bad apples” than others. If a person is already attracted to the idea of having power over people or, as another example, to having access to young children, it seems logical to me that they would head for careers that enabled that for them. It seems likely that pedophiles, for example, would tend towards careers like teaching/the priesthood etc. so that they had access to potential prey. I feel similary about the police.
Before anyone starts crying out that I’m “calling all men rapists,” so to speak, this isn’t to say that plenty of police aren’t just regular folk but my personal experiences with the cops have always involved them inappropropriately hitting on me or threatening me. Maybe I’ve just been unlucky, but I somehow doubt that given other people’s stories I’ve heard. At the church I attended as a child they’ve had 3 priests in my lifetime. The first was thrown in jail for pedophilia. That’s all anecdotal, of course, but psychologically it makes sense to me that predators of any kind are going to be more prevalent in fields where they can do the most harm.
I like the idea of accused rapists having to prove she said “yes” instead of the victim having to prove she said “no”. Is there any good way to implement this in the courtroom?
Helen, I’m inclined to agree with you. It’s been my experience that certain personality types are attracted to certain professions (police, military, prison guards). I think there’s also something to be said for the aggressive, misogynist, hyper-masculine group culture that seems to be a part of these professions, which can be seen from the number of major incidents of violence when women have entered these historically all-male institutions.
This is just too precious to let go without repeating:
I’m lauging my ass off. $10 to the first person who can actually tell me what this means.
[I’ll buy Ross a clue: you can’t have an allegation if there is no report. Or let me phrase it this way: no reported crime = no allegation of crime. Or let’s see if *this* is any clearer: ***if*** a woman wished to make a false allegation, the last thing she would do is under report it. I mean, like, for real.]
I’m still laughing.
That’s some funny shit, Ross.
Q Grrl, there simply aren’t enough “WTF?!” faces in the world to respond to that comment, I agree ;-) You’ve got to wonder at the thought process. Think of all the crimes that aren’t occurring and are going unreported as we speak!
Oh, and thanks for the comment, dorktastic. I figured I can’t have been the only one to wonder about this particular distribution of certain types into certain professions.
I think Ross’s comment actually gives us quite valuabe insight into the way that the minds of rape deniers/apologists work.
Q, in part it does make me laugh, but another part of it is scary because you just know this is something that people with that mindset will repeat to each other and have it accepted without analysis.
Young woman..Young macho men in Powerful positions..confessed sexual act…LAW not justice….
There is rarely a case heard where justice is satisfied . The majority of law was written by men in power to suit their own position and political leaning. Although written to continue their political position rather than produce justice most law is not really bad just biased. The rules under which the cases are heard are formulated by men in power ( in the back rooms of the Lodge the court or the bar does not alter the participants) . The self confessed adulterers in this suit, being part of the process ,will naturally have an advantageous position, the prosecution is faced with the daunting task of pushing wet noodles uphill with a bent fork and the courage of the complainant is to be greatly admired. At the end of the day She still has her memory of the tragedy to live with, a victory in court would not erase that and no amount of discussion can change that. I had the perception that this site was to give her encouragement and support and have no objection to other views being deleted. There are other forums for dissenting debate by those of vast bias and limited experience and wit.
Let this be a place of consolation for all the women (and men?) of the world in similar situations
Maybe we’d be better off without the cops; let society sort of take care of it’s self….yeah that’ll work.
Better go get some firelighters, someone let me know when the burning begins
Go bob.
Let’s loudly proclaim that the 12 men and women who did their best to reach an honest verdict were wrong, and that we’re right, because, hey, we heard *all* the evidence that they heard right? It was all in the NZ Herald, after all!
People are questioning our entire legal system because they disagree with the decision made. Why can we not disagree with this?
I do believe that it is likely allegations of sexual crimes involving LE officers are underreported, because I’ve met some women who said that they were forced to have sex with officers to avoid arrest. I told them to go to federal representatives with the DOJ who were town at the time, but they were too embarrassed, and/or scared to do so. I do not believe that the LE agencies can handle these types of allegations appropriately involving their own employees, similiar to problems they have with handling allegations of domestic violence, which is very common in LE.
That’s not to say there aren’t false allegations made, but I think they are probably in the minority, as is true with rape in general.
I too am wondering how it can be that false allegations are underreported. If Ross could elaborate on this supposition of his, I would appreciate it.
I have family including women who live in N.Z. I really am concerned that they are safe there, given that some of the attitudes about rape in that country unfortunately mirror similar ones in the U.S.
Pigs are pigs. Officers are people. Like any group they have good examples of what human beings are as well as bad ones. After all the references by police officers of minorities being nonhuman or animals, I have no desire to emulate them, but that is my personal choice. It’s different for everyone.
106.
Under-reporting of false allegations is fairly uncomplicated but I can understand why you might have difficulty with the concept. How many false allegations are reported are to the media? 10%, 20%? How many are recorded for official statistical purposes?
104.
“I like the idea of accused rapists having to prove she said “yes” instead of the victim having to prove she said “no”. Is there any good way to implement this in the courtroom?”
Yes, this method was tried hundreds of years ago. It resulted in mostly women (otherwise known as witches) being burnt at the stake.
Most false allegations of rape are handled by way of the offender receiving diversion. Are these cases included in official statistics? Why do offenders only receive diversion?
Elizabeth writes: “They will forever be known as the wrongly accused ex-policemen who were found NOT GUILTY. Louise will be known as the women who lied about being raped.”
I think not, Elizabeth, maybe a few days ago that would be the case, but I suspect the nation pretty much changed its mind overnight. Water-cooler chatter is rife, taxi drivers can’t shut up about it. Those guys are ruined.
Carol writes: “I would very much like an explanation of why this information can remain “suppressed” after a case is over.”
Heh… think about it… there is a logical reason, which may not bode well for them… Keith Ng explains the possibilities here http://publicaddress.net/default,3053.sm#post3053
My god it’s a sad state of affairs when the only rationale these defenders of corrupt authorities can put up is the usual weak as piss ‘strawman’ argument, long discredited on blogs.
That is someone puts up a discussion point such as: “some people in positions of authority are too weak-willed to handle the responsibility of their position”.
A moron then replies with “Maybe we’d be better off without the cops; let society sort of take care of it’s self….yeah that’ll work.”
See what I’m saying? Look back through the blog, no-one for a moment suggested that the police should be abolished. What was mooted was that undesirables are being allowed into positions of authority in our community and we need to do better in picking who it is we delegate power to.
But rather than debate an eminently sensible point of view such as that, probably because it would require the vast leap of faith from “some men are rapists’ and ‘most police in NZ are men” to “ergo some police are rapists” which doesn’t suit Snowball’s weird worldview; he /she/it puts words into other’s mouth, words which haven’t been uttered and are unsupportable. All in order to try and reject a sensible point of view.
Even worse is the latest effort from the other apologist. When discussing what is the best way to handle these situations in future I mooted that perhaps if the boot were on the other foot, rather than the victim having to prove that the perp was told “No! Stop!” perhaps things would change if the perp had to prove the victim said “Yes! Go!”. A point which I am more than prepared to debate sensibly as I suspect are others, hence the query from another poster, if it would really be possible to implement that regime.
Unfortunately before any real discussion occurs, another apologist/denier of rape replies “Yes, this method was tried hundreds of years ago. It resulted in mostly women (otherwise known as witches) being burnt at the stake.”
Where on earth did that come from? This is the first I have heard that medieval witches were in fact rape victims, who got burned, because in those days, women had more say in their fate than nowadays.
This put the onus was on men to prove they (the women) had assented to intercourse. When they couldn’t do this, they accused the woman they had raped of being a witch!
I would be very interested to see the links to any primary sources for this.
I did a quick google for “witches rape” and apart from an apologist for rape in a blog on the Duke saga, This Link is the only reference I could find. It is a discussion of the “burning times” and about halfway down the page says:
In other words witches weren’t rape victims initially but the could become that after they had been accused of rape. Once any power they may have had was taken from them.
But lets not be letting a few facts get in the way of a piss weak hypothesis eh!
Louise if you read this i hope you get your happy ending. I”m sure you will find your justice in another form, wether it is writing a book or helping other people who have been threw the same thing as you. I think you are a strong woman and i admire you for standing up for your self.
Kia Kaha
Kia Manuanui
Do you people want our system to be guilty until proven innocent? Thats what im taking from most of your comments. And your all using language which is way beyond what is needed!! Rape Deniers, why would call anybody who commented against your point of veiw that?…no one denies that rape happens, its cruel and nasty, inhuman… but stop reacting without thinking and accusing some one of being something their not…clearly some of you people are guilty until innocent types!Losers
Hey, I just read this morning about a woman who recently moved back to Kaitaia to reside, after having been pretty much ostracised by the community back in the 80’s after she ‘cried rape’, alleging that one of the local constables handcuffed and raped her.
She had been living ‘anonymously’ in Otago until recently. When she heard of the Nicholas case on the radio, she thought they were talking about what had happened to HER!!!
Clearly, the police cover-up system is either alive and active, or there is more than one woman lying about the police for the sheer joy it brings them to be dragged through the courts.
Hey, what the…?
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/people/ClintRickards/2004-0206_Stuff_AllegedPoliceRapeVictim.htm
Okay, so it’s old news by 2 years.
But what’s changed?
I wish all victims of sexual assaults at the hands of the police could find the strength within themselves and those around them to come forth and make a long-overdue stand against those whom we give the power to protect us, but who instead use that power to terrorise us.
Nobody can hurt you now; not anymore.
If anybody wants the text that has been deleted in the top posting of this thread, please contact me at snowy@paradise.net.nz and I will supply!
I will also send a jpeg attachment of the flier which was being handed out by the ladies in Wellington and other centres.
Excuse me for barging in on this discussion, but I have been following the courtcase on the news, and I am worried.
I only caught on to the fact that some of the evidence was supressed to late to read it on the web. I know from experience how suppression of evidence can completely derail a courtcase and leave the victim of a crime exposed to accusations and again be victimised, this time by the people on the street. In this particular case I worry not only for Louise and what her brave stance will do to her and her family, but also what will happen if the three men guilty of raping her (of this I am convinced) will do when they feel save again. If what I have read between the lines is true, than these men will rape again. I may take some time but inevitably, these kinds of psychopaths will need to bully and degrade other women. Their psyche dictates it. So what has society (represented by the judge) gained by not acknowleging this apparent pattern of behaviour?
The very real possibility that another women will suffer the same degradation and debasement that Louise and apparently another women have already suffered. Only when men in general wil realise that men who rape are sick individuals, and that rape is not just an unfortunate byproduct of the gender war, will they realise that by protecting serial rapists they expose their own wifes and daughters to rape and violence. Psychopaths who rape, will rape again and again, and again.
Listening to the news today I heard a report of a different case that occurred last year and the supression of evidence has only just ‘lapsed’ now and become available to the public. Do all suppressions have the same time scale? Does anyone know when the supression in this case will lapse? Paul, I am looking forward to reading the contents of that pamphlet.
Does anyone know if Louise is actually reading all this? I hope it is not too distressing for her if she is, she is a very brave woman.
Evelien, I get what you’re saying but think it’s very counter-productive to call rapists “psychopaths” and separate them out as monsters or animals.
Rapists are everyday men who have a sense of entitlement to women’s bodies and do not respect them as fellow human beings. They are normal guys who are raised in our culture; we produce them. A man’s masculinity in our society is proven when they penetrate a woman’s body and sex itself is degraded into something that a man does to a woman (language such as “I hit that,” “I scored,” “I banged her” etc.) It’s hardly surprising, then, that sex couched in these terms and with these kinds of stakes attached results in large numbers of cases where a man puts his own “out of control” desires ahead of a woman’s right to bodily integrity.
Yes, rape is a disgusting crime but the men who commit it are fathers, brothers, husbands etc. They are part of a system that we have created and encourage. This is not to excuse their behaviour; far from it. However, separating them out from the pack and making them into monsters ignores the horrendous statistics of how many women are raped or assaulted in their lifetime. Either we’ve got a few deranged “monsters” out there doing an awful lot of raping, or there are a lot of ordinary men who are being ignored when we talk about this mythical monster rapist.
Here we go again! Another strawman argument.
I would be interested to see this guilty until proven innocent link. As far as I can see no one has accused anybody who hasn’t been convicted of rape of being a rapist.
On the other hand the people who were labeled ‘rape deniers’ at one point tried to claim the reverse, which is that some people convicted in a court of law of rape weren’t rapists, something that I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with, however there has yet to be a shred of evidence offered to support that claim so I prefer to go with a jury’s decision until proof of a wrong conviction is shown.
The other charming little pieces of information offered by those labeled ‘rape deniers’ has been a welter of scurrilous and unreferenced accusations against rape complainants along with a plethora of newspaper articles which have been published in the last 12 months or so, and which were usually sourced to “a NZ police spokesperson”, telling us there has been a marked increase in the numbers of false rape complaints.
One of the alleged rape deniers published a list of those stories t’other day and the really interesting thing about them was that some appeared without much in the way of a reason for ‘the police spokesperson’ to be talking about this matter at that time, which was serendipitously, just before some rape trial which involved a prominent person or member/former member of the police.
As I pointed out before the most blatant of these releases was made by the Waikato Police District right before the unsuccessful prosecution of a policeman from the Waikato district.
Now this is where the whole thing gets really weird.
This is not the case referred to by ross francis here. That case concerned an arrested woman who alleged she had been raped in 2003 by her arresting officer. She made the complaint shortly after the Louise Nicholas story first broke and despite the fact the accused policeman had a solid alibi the complaint against him was progressed a considerable way before being dropped and the plaintiff was charged with making a false complaint.
This went to trial in June 2005 not long before a very senior officer at the Waikato police district went up on an historic rape charge alleged to have been committed on a woman subordinate in 1984.
Between the successful prosecution of the woman for making a false complaint in June and the unsuccessful prosecution of the ‘senior officer’ in August, someone at Waikato District made a press release alleging that only 7% of rape allegations /complaints panned out. That most allegations were made by jealous, desperate or unloved women.
Now Hamilton isn’t a huge metropolis (100,000 pop) and I believe it unlikely that a story such as this could be pushed aside and ignored by every jury member who read it.
You are perfectly entitled to consider this whole spiel some weird paranoid conspiracy theory but I should point out that this move to give publicity to alleged ‘false rape complaints’ is a reversal of previous NZ police policy.
It harkens back to the bad old days when according to Christchurch barrister and former policeman Tony Grieg:
“When I started with the police in the 1970s they had an appalling approach towards rape investigations. Unless the complaint was of the stranger/break in/abduction type, (very rare), then a lot of pressure could be applied to complainants to withdraw their complaints. Things changed radically in a short space of time and in my experience the police are usually very sympathetic towards complainants… they try very hard to get it right.”
So up until the point of these historic rape complaints against them the police had not talked too much about ‘false complaints’ much less prosecuted anyone for making one for the simple reason that they understood how few actual rapes resulted in a complaint much less a conviction.
In fact ironically enough the Waikato District was where the much publicised Nick Wills false complaint was made and allegedly improperly handled by police in 1996. It should be noted that in the Wills case despite massive publicity the person who made the false complaint had continued name suppression and was given diversion instead of a conviction.
Now I raise that issue with some temerity because it is a difficult issue to even mention without rousing a storm of controversy. The thing is though I’m not surprised by this swing of the pendulum back against the credibility of those who make rape complaints. All it really shows is how poorly society in general understands rape and it’s consequences, so that policy is determined by the ‘current worldwide trends in law enforcement policy’, rather than some carefully developed strategy for dealing with a complex societal issue.
Or is it? It would be even worse if this swing of the pendulum didn’t have the justification of being the current trend but was a knee jerk reaction to the numbers of rape complaints being made against police, particularly senior police.
At least ‘current policing trends’ usually come about as the result of research undertaken by some law enforcement policy wonk somewhere around the world.
If this one has come about just for police self protection, that truly sucks.
Of course a change against accepting the word of any rape complainant until it is shown to be incorrect, would be even worse if the motive was establishment self protection.
There was a noticeable change about the way the government and some elements of the media referred to the historic police rape complaints about the time that the Iraena Asher debacle unfolded, maybe a little later when a constable who bullied a teenage mother into police station sex was sent to prison for four and a half years.
The stuff above is horrifying enough, it may be that the establishment cried “Too much” then decided to lower the boom judging by these excerpts from the same article:
I hope I’m not the only bloke who finds those comments appalling.
The last couple of paras don’t bode well for the public’s faith in an unprejudiced investigation into further complaints against police either:
If there has been an earnest attempt by some ‘leaders of NZ institutions’ to ease off the pedal on investigating police abuse of power on women; apart from the obvious injustice caused by this, there is a further, in it’s own way more disturbing, corollary to this deliberate attempt to bend the truth to suit the ‘leaders’ ends.
That is it implies that our leaders believe NZers are too stupid to understand that this stuff happens, that a dozen police caught at rape doesn’t mean all police are rapists. That the public understands that rather than bending the facts the police would be better served restoring any public confidence which may have been lost by doing their job better.
They need to catch more crooks, not play with figures to make it look like there are less crimes being committed.
In fact the only types that I can remember claiming that all police had lost the trust of the community were either the media trying to attract people’s attention in order to sell people something they didn’t need, using money people don’t have. Or politicians also trying to attract people’s attention in order to get them to vote, so that politician would have a chance to be the misleader, rather than the politician currently accused of lying.
Sad isn’t it.
Absolutely nothing to do with justice, pavlova and the kiwi way and everything to do with lame little tosspots wanting to be just like a ‘real politician, like the ones on ‘West Wing’ or ‘Commander in Chief’ .
Lord save us from these ninnies.
Finally to those of you prurient types who have read all the way thru this in the hope they would find out what was supressed; “too slow, too slow”. Apologies to others interested in the subject who laboured through my verbosity but people coming in here have been battered silly by unproven ‘facts’ and prejudice from the deniers.
It felt time to remind all of us how short our memories can be.
I have a question for those of you who are so obsessed with all those “false allegations of rape”: why are you apparently more concerned about a large-scale phenomenon that in theory *could* exist (when in the real world, there’s no evidence to say that it does…in fact, all of those involved in law enforcement, judicial system, etc. are very clear that this phenomenon is RARE) than you are with the real-life, extensively reported and analysed phenomenon of shockingly low conviction rates for rape? Which, btw, everyone involved in the process acknowledges?
In the overwhelming majority of reporting that is done on the subject, no one involved in the process expresses doubts about the number of rapes that occur. Therefore, there are men out there who are guilty of them, and they are going unpunished in massive numbers. Yet all your energies are spent agonising over mythical women of whom we have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, who only really exist in the realm of your personal theories, rather than the reality of rapists who are, demonstrably, getting off scott-free.
Again, I don’t care if this is a freaking ad hom, but what the hell is wrong with you??
Hi Helen,
Thank you for your reaction to my letter.
You are absolutely right of course. There are a lot of ignorant peer-pressured “normal” men who commit rape.
I have recently moved to New Zealand from Holland with my New Zealand husband of 20 years and I must confess to being shocked by the backward and ignorant attitude of a great part of the male population towards women and gay people, and by the macho culture amongst men in general. (In Holland it is pretty normal for gays to get married as you perhaps know)
It has not changed that much from the NZ my husband had left behind, he told me. It was a reason for him to leave at the time.
It is a very destructive, angry force that is detrimental not only to women and gays but also to the men themselves.
But I am equally schocked by how a lot of women over here are also set on perpetuating the “gender war” myth.
By judging women who break the mold for example.
I am sure that a lot of women will judge Louise harshly for daring to speak out.
I agree, there are a lot of men out there who, because of their ingorance and pressured by the blokish culture around them, will harm and sexually abuse women or think that hitting women is oké, and they should of course be punished for that.
It is also something that can be changed by educating and coercing men into changing their opinions and behaviour.
The goverments of Holland and England did big ad campaigns teaching the general populus that when a woman says no she most probably means it and even if she doesn’t it’s better to take it on face value, in an attempt to prevent such crimes trough ignorance.
You can also change it by educating women that its oké to say no, but also that she is entitled to say yes if she feels like having sex, and by allowing women to own their own sexuallity. (I have a hard time coping with the anglo-saxon female primness, and the way a lot of especially Pakeha women seem to deny their own sexuality, I must confess)
But this particular group of men is of a different level of malignancy.
I call these men psychopaths because they knew what they were doing. They organised themselves and talked about what they were going to do. They knew that what they were doing was wrong and they never the less did it, not once but over twenty times to Louise, and it appears to others as well. Conspiring to (repeatedly) kidnap and rape is not something your avarage and dare I say it “accidental” rapist does.
That kind of premaditated evil belongs in a different category. Whether we like it or not, there are different gradiations of rape and by not acknowleging that, we show ourselves to be as ignorant as the judge, who felt apparently that every rapist belongs in the accidental, ignorant category, and that maybe women are asking for it. By not recognising the fact that the men in the dock were not your average Joe Blog ingnorami, the judge showed that he too was an ignorant bloke and like a lot of men in this country he could do with some education and enlightment. He has allowed three sick and evil men to hide amongst the stupid and the ingorant. Three predators got away with a horrible crime and they will do it again someday.
If we can acknowledge that there is a difference than maybe the “blokes” can acknowledge it too, and rather than protect criminals like this they will recognise that men like this do not belong in the “oh, they’re only blokes having a bit of fun category”.
Maybe than they can act maturely and stop the bullying and the macho shit amongst themselves and allow themselves to grow up and than we would see some real change among the men in this country.
Found some history lessons here:
http://grannyscompendium.blogspot.com/
#129
“I have a question for those of you who are so obsessed with all those “false allegations of rape”: why are you apparently more concerned about a large-scale phenomenon that in theory *could* exist (when in the real world, there’s no evidence to say that it does…in fact, all of those involved in law enforcement, judicial system, etc. are very clear that this phenomenon is RARE) than you are with the real-life, extensively reported and analysed phenomenon of shockingly low conviction rates for rape? ”
I don’t think anyone has said that false allegations of rape are a large-scale phenomenon. The fact is they happen and happen all too often. And the offenders typically either don’t get charged or are given diversion. There’s no need to get defensive about that. I don’t understand how investigating false rape claims is helping to resolve the problem of under-reporting of rape. Indeed resources that could be used for the investigation of rapes are being diverted and wasted.
I used to date a policeman who was in the same cadet intake as Rickards. At their dances there was always a girl called Faith who at some stage of the evening would disappear with 3 cadets and have sex with them in the carpark. never more than 3 cos she wasn’t a slut!!!! there will always be willing women and men willing to take the opportunity. Was Louise one of these women or did she just pay the price for the willingness of others who thought it ok to have group sex? I don’t know if Rickards was one of the men involved with this other girl and I don’t know what to think about Louise’s case but I do know that as long as we have some women who are willing to be police ‘groupies’ then there will be an expectation that other women want it too
Over the years I have had many run ins with top ranked police due to them not investigating an incident when I was silenced and bullied at CIB in February 1979 due to lies told about me by an ex cop boyfriend who I dated when I was 16. I have been back again and again. Are people aware that in May 2002 Mr C. Rickards replied on behalf of Mr R. Robininson regarding complaints about police officers? I could not speak out earlier as I did not want to jeopardise Louise’s case. I have thought about her everyday since her ordeal was made public.
When I heard about Loiuse I was not surprised in the least about why she had to go public. I was not surprised about the verdict either as I know how powerful and strong the police are (blue code of silence, unable to be objective, do not deal with the facts).
I have decided to give the new Police Commissioner one oppertunity to finally get my case right which is a police commissioner’s file.
I think Louise deserves a gold medal for exposing the harm police officers in denial are causing woman who want justice. It is about time that the good police officers sort out the scum bags who are causing disrepute to their profession.
Regards Teresa
Oh I splelt Robinson wrong!
Evelien, while Holland might has a more open attutide towards gays than NZ, the New Zealand culture and attitude towards homosexuals has opened up and become a much friendlier place for homosexuals than most countries. As a stat the hero parade in auckland when it was last held, only 10% of the people at the parade were homosexuals, the other 90% were hetrosexuals. I actually consider that you and your husbands views of NZ are prolly a bit prejudices by your experinces in Holland and you arent’ seeing the country that a lot of homosexuals now do see, and how much progress this country has made.
It’s really amazing how much people in this blog can turn around and judge someone.
Here’s the facts, two sides presented evidence, and no matter how much you may think you know the facts, you don’t honestly know which side is lieing and which is telling the truth. You have to have faith that a those who are selected to judge the case, the facts can determine the evidence. The public might think that knowing the facts gives them the right to judge the case and judge those on the jury, but you don’t.
One person made the comment about does a person advertise for group sex, then makes the arguement that she didn’t want it. Can you honestly 100% say that? Not really, because you really don’t know the answer. BTW, I am guessing the person who wrote that has never had group sex.
And you say that because the Jury took so long that is evidence that some people on the jury thought they were guilty? Rubbish. All it means is that hte jury took that time to come to their conclusion, that they, as we know from them going back to talk with teh judge, went over all the evidence that was put before them. Some of you really need to stop coming to conclusions that eixist soly in your heads.
Imagine, if you all could put this much effort into the crimes that are happening today, child abuse, child prostitution. Instead of a case where a jury of your peers determined that the evidence that was presented did not hold the evidence to convict these people of a crime.
There is a thing in New Zealand that we hold dare, it is called innocent until proven guilty. There was no evidence to prove these people guilty, instead some of you have decided that the whole legal system the jury, the police, the judge all are wrong and you are right.
oh btw Evelien you say that men that rape are sick, I agree, but why do you single men out? Why do you not say that woman who rape are sick?
Ya know what is also sick? People laying false rape claims. And we know for a fact that Louise Nicholas has a history of laying false rape claims, don’t we? Or do you people just like to forget the maori youths she falsing claimed raped her?
Wow, so many posts and words deleted in this thread, one can only assume that the person that owns the blog does not believe in freedom of speech especially when it goes against her stand.
I support Louise Nicholas but not the man bashing starting to show on this site. We are not all neanderthals Evelien, I have never hit a woman though I have been hit by women myself ( Is that OK ??). But thats another story that needs adressing elsewhere. I live and work in a community that is not at all “macho” and my sons would not even know the meaning of the word. Please dont compare us all to the likes of Shipton, Rickards and Schollum. Those scum are not men, they are animals.
Just to take a slight sidestep from previous comments (I may return to reply to them later) but the news was just on and I am feeling an extreme sense of pride that New Zealand women are keeping this as the lead news story (it’s been a week now, yes?). For non-Kiwis, today’s focus was on the fact that the suppressed info. is being spread by an email targetting women and encouraging them to send it on to other women they know. It’s so widespread now that they may have problems prosecuting anyone.
They mentioned at the end of the item that this is the first time in NZ history that there has been such widespread disobedience of a suppression order. While I don’t necessarily celebrate that (in the context of the law, I mean), as a feminist I am feeling extremely proud of my country right now. Given how often women’s rights are shat on, it’s a really nice change to feel that way. I hope this is leading to some great discussions around the country about rape, and that perhaps it will lead to some 60 Minutes-type news items.
I’ve heard so much interest about the (original) leaflet which was handed out in Wellington. I’ve tried to find the website that is distributing this suppressed information but have had no success. Could you please send me the suppressed info or the website to obtain the suppressed info. thanks
Sherrill, you haven’t left any contact info. Earlier in the thread someone named Paul said he is willing to distribute the info. you’re after. Email him at snowy@paradise.net.nz
I must admit I sought out this blog because I too wanted to know what this suppressed evidence was. I’ve more or less figured it out i think, but as I read I became more amazed at the innocence of some of our citizens. How many people have been on a jury in New Zealand? I had a horrifying experience of being on a jury in a very disturbing case passing judgement on a male charged with indecent assault on a child. It was horrifying. Most of the jury had made up their minds by the time they entered the jury room. Their verdicts were in no way based soley on the evidence.( there was no material evidence of course. )I believe to this day that they were based on emotion and preconceived ideas. Nothing in the evidence convinced me that the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. An I thought that was what I was there for. But I caved in because it became too unpleasant to withstand the pressure and ostracism of the other jurors. I will never ever again make myself available for jury service. I have wondered since the verdict of this trial whether the same happened this time, the only difference being that this time the guilty people walked away. Ray Vickers and his wife having a touching but misplaced faith in the jury system. It will remain flawed until NZ gets rid of unanimous verdicts and also the idea of a verdict of “not proven”,is permitted. i.e. after exhaustive consideration of the evidence we cannot come to a majority decision, the accused may be guilty but you haven’t provided enough evidence that they are. This was the case in my own experience and I always believed it was clearly the case with Arthur Thomas.
I believe that Helen’s comment of the 4th April pretty fairly summarises how girls get themselves in a situation like this. Another thing that amazes me is the defence lawyers argument that of course she wasn’t raped because, in effect, she wasn’t more or less destroyed by the assaults on her by these men., and she didn’t get rid of the dress she was wearing on one of the occasions.
I t must be much more convincing to consider that nobody would endure what she has endured to make a false claim of rape. When were all these false claims made by all these women anyway? I have heard of very few.
But I am totally convinced that in New Zealand alone there are thousands and thousands of women who have been raped and would not dream of laying a complaint because of their shame and self blame. Sane women do not lay false complaints.
Helenl, I see you have instructed Sherril to email Paul re the information on the pamphlet. I came so close to giving my email address and then stopped – I dont know why – I dont know who Paul is – is this sad? Why am I giving my email address to a stranger who knows I am interested in illegal information? Am I sad? Is it ok to give my details to this stranger? Sorry Paul, dont know you. Has anyone else done this, do you all know the contents of the pamphlet by now? Somehow giving my email address seems to make me vulneralble. Maybe I am getting too old for this. Anyway, nobody had come forth with an answer to the length of time before a suppression ordrer lapses. Does anyone know?
Sandy, I understand your concerns and I can’t personally vouch for Paul – I mentioned him because I doubted that Sherrill had read the whole thread. Perhaps you could set up a temporary email address with one of the free companies just for the purpose of retrieving the info. That way you could get the info. without compromising your safety and it wouldn’t take long. Just go to yahoo.com or something.
Evelien, that was a really interesting post. I actually agree, in this case, that calling these guys sociopaths or some such is probably appropriate. My reaction to the language is mostly because you frequently see rapists described in inhumane terms (as demonstrated, for example, by Simon in comment 137) and it’s damaging to the social understanding of rape. It’s a really great way to perpetuate the notion of a stranger rapist (typically the black man in the alley type) which makes people very comfortable with saying that rapists should be thrown in jail/castrated and so forth while ignoring the fact that the majority of rapists are people’s family members and friends. I realise you weren’t intending to do this but I’ve been frequenting this feminist website for a long time now, and plenty of people use this language when discussing rape.
I love the idea of the Dutch ad campaign (and yes, I’m aware of the more progressive social policies of some European countries) and think something that similar would be very important for New Zealand. I actually have a slight hope that this whole Rickards rape trial might result in some open discussion of rape and consent. In terms of social laws/culture NZ tends to lag a bit behind the most forward-thinking European countries but ahead of places like Australia and the U.S. I hope that as we move more towards that European model that things like women’s rights/childcare/rape will be addressed in public policy.
I agree we have a very macho-type culture here. The typical “Kiwi bloke” ideal is not a great one, particularly when it comes to interactions between men and women. However, I also must say that I really think it depends on what part of the country you’re living in (as to how anti-gay, macho the men are in general). I’m part of the gay community in Wellington and although there are homophobic assholes here, Wellington is very gay-friendly compared to many places in the world. Of course, that’s not really saying much since most places set a pretty low bar in terms of acceptance of gay people! Anyway, thanks for the reply and I agree with what you’ve said.
Worth having a think about is the David Dougherty. This man was convicted of rape and lost his appeal. He spent 3 years in prison before DNA proved his innocence.
Had any other women accused him of historical rape whilst he was inside, do you think he would have had a fair trial with his convictions being revealed to a Jury???
Justice is a funny old thing except when you depend on it for your life!!!
I hate to be a party pooper but leaving traceable data such as email addresses with complete strangers in order to share information that may be suppressed isn’t exactly sharpest knife in the drawer stuff.
There are many ways of protecting yourself from the worst of the things that could develop if you’re ‘trading partner’ isn’t what he/ she seems.
But before any of that people need to have a really good think here about whether they fully understand all the implications of this information being demonstrated to have gotten out in the community.
If for example there was a likelihood of further legal action, particularly against people who are the subject of suppresion orders, and then it become provable that this information had circulated around the community, the courts may decide that it would be impossible for a defendant to get a fair trial. So charges are dropped. I’m sure most people don’t want that.
The threshold here isn’t very high. If 8% of the population are suspected of knowing something, a defense lawyer could argue that at 8% it is impossible to randomly select a jury without someone on the jury knowing this information and tainting everyone else.
notXtian, I agree to an extent and haven’t actually sought the info. myself for the reasons of justice you’ve mentioned. I know enough but haven’t seen the actual fliers etc. However, I don’t think your last two paragraphs are terribly relevant anymore. The amount of attention this case has garnered and the figures they’ve given on the news (about the numbers of people circulating the emails) suggests that the numbers are already way to high to worry overly about how the “suppressed” details will affect any future case. In other words, I agree with your basic point, but think it’s already way too late.
The pamphlet is here: http://threepointturn.blogspot.com/2006/04/it-is-illegal-to-view-this-post.html
Anything else you need to know is here: (read all the posts) http://grannyscompendium.blogspot.com/
You can think about David Dougherty if you like, Bryan. It’s an undoubted injustice and is one of those cases where eyewitness testimony sent an innocent man to jail. That’s always a problem with eyewitness testimony; it isn’t always reliable, especially in the case of an 11 year old, traumatised girl. I would remind you that she was, in fact, raped, and then the police built a case against him that resulted in a conviction. It’s hardly the same thing as a woman making a false complaint. Those rare cases where an innocent person is sent to jail are often cases where the crime itself is in no doubt but the wrong person is caught up in the crime and charged.
Anyway like I said, you can think about the one in a million case of David Dougherty, Bryan. Me, I’m going to think about the slightly weightier problem of the thousands of men walking around right now who have raped women and gotten away with it. Time better spent, methinks.
Isn’t it amazing how so many men (and, yes, it is nearly always men who do this) focus on that one innocent man and ignore the screeds of others who create the environment in which that innocent man is convicted?
#145
The David Dougherty case is interesting for another reason. Even when DNA evidence proved he hadn’t raped, he was allowed to remain in prison for another two years. The Crown also allowed another trial to take place knowing that Dougherty waas innocent. Finally, even when Dougherty was exonerated, Doug Graham said that Dougherty had to prove his innocence and wouldn’t give him any compensation.
#150
“Isn’t it amazing how so many men (and, yes, it is nearly always men who do this) focus on that one innocent man and ignore the screeds of others who create the environment in which that innocent man is convicted?”
Oh, if only it were one innocent man. A retired Chief Judge, Sir Thomas Thorp, earlier this year said that there were at least 20 people in prison show shouldn’t be, because they’ve been wrongly convicted. I wonder how many of these are women.
Wow, really James, 20?! 20 whole people who the police and the justice system have screwed over?! I’m shocked and stunned.
I don’t want to talk about those 20 who are irrelevant in a discussion about the massive numbers of women who are raped in our society and the men who rape them and are not prosecuted. Stop trying to change the discussion topic.
Ooooo …. fighting talk!
Helen, you and I have the same agenda. Getting guilty rapists convicted. Sometimes I would even like to have the perps. castrated . The area we differ is the burden of proof required to achieve this. The same goes for men who are bullies and use their physical strength to intimidate or abuse the other party, be they male or female. I guess we will argue till the cows come home over ways for determining proof.
Recently I had a male friend have a false sexual allegation brought against him and observed the destruction it brought to himself and his family. The girl eventually dropped the charge but the damage was done. Up until this happened I had always assumed the male at fault.
You see, I was brought up to honour females and to never make advances on them without there being a clear indication that they wished to have you proceed. I also thought that all men were the same as myself in that the experience of sex was all about the woman wanting to have you. Rape therefore was and is an alien experience for me. As we all know, there are scum males out there who destroy lives.
I looked carefully at the woman who laid this false complaint and realised there were also scum women out there. These women don’t display their decrepid humanity in the same way as men but they are still scum and destroy lives as well.
We need to be very careful who we show our support for, lest we in ignorance shoot ourselves in the foot.
I would like to say a big “on ya mates” to all the woman who have done what they have done to make the public aware of facts. You gals showed a courage and strength which has been long forgotten in this country. I am damn proud that there are still kiwis out there who will stand up when one of ours is not getting a fair go. If anyone does get fined I like many others will have no regrets or worries about helping to pay it off. It would be nothing compared to my worries about paying my tax’s when Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton got so much money for defense lawyers.
I noticed that Anna posted a blog which has links to some of the media articles. Good on ya’s and I hope more start up. The more of these that are set up, the more the public will know. Another blog has been similarly setup which will be trying to archive all the relevant media articles on the historic rape claims and allegations in NZ against the Police and their cover ups.
At the moment it is a mess, but will soon be presenting some of the important facts and information on front page of the information found within these articles. One such example is Bob Schollums cousin being a rapist and his police mates doing a cover up of it back in the 80’s. All the information is public and not suppressed, as it was made public by the media. Thus any information you see you can legally inform others about etc.
The blog is http://historicrapeclaims.blogspot.com
The articles are being put up in chronological order so click on the archives of a certain month and it shall have the articles from then. But like I have said it is messy at this stage and is not completed. But a full summary will be made in due time.
Excuse me Bryan, but aren’t you missing the point that these honourable aforesaid ‘perps’ have been accused – and convicted – of this very same act on a previous occasion? And how the hell could you ‘look carefully at this woman’? Perleeeeeez. Enough said.
Bryan, I’ve been a part of enough rape-related threads online to have seen many many men who say the same things you do. It happens in every single thread and is beyond monotonous. Your intentions may be good but we can hardly be said to be “on the same side.” Everything you say is about protecting the vague possibility that a man might be falsely convicted of rape. I say that you are talking about a tiny percentage (as with any other comparable crime the rate of false allegations is small, and rape is different because it’s under-reported to begin with) and that that percentage is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Unlike any other crime, men seem to think it is relevant to talk about this tiny percentage first, circumventing discussion of men who are raping and the women who are being raped. When you talk about robbery, do you try and talk first and foremost about the same tiny percentage who rip off insurance companies or do you talk about ways to lock up your house, protect your goods and prevent the robbery in the first place? It is only rape that engenders this particular response in men and that is very telling. (By the way, I’ve never mentioned the burden of proof thing, so you’re directing that at the wrong person.)
Frankly, your friend’s case is a statistical rarity and you may have heard the expression “the plural of anecdote is not data.” I’m not concerned with the rarities, I’m concerned with the massive social problem of rape. You say you want to get guilty rapists in jail? The stuff you’re saying is the exact incorrect social rhetoric about rape that prevents men getting jailed and stops women from coming forward.
I’m pretty much done with trying to explain this. Maybe you should consider hanging around Alas beyond this thread or checking out other feminist blogs and try and get some new ideas about rape. Pandagon.net is great, as are many others.
notXtian wrote:
“How in hades can an assertion such as this be substantiated?
“No one doubts that these men slept with Nicholas, just as only the most cro-magnon like throwback believes that they are not cretins – but what they did (which was to not rape Louise Nicholas), although rephrensible and in extremly poor judgement, was not illegal.””
Because after a 3 week $14m trial the three men were found to have not broken any law by a jury of 12 peers (including 7 women)
Hence they have done nothing illegal – pretty self evident I would think
#152
“I don’t want to talk about those 20 who are irrelevant in a discussion about the massive numbers of women who are raped in our society and the men who rape them and are not prosecuted. Stop trying to change the discussion topic”.
Of course they are irrelevant to you. Would you feel the same way if you were wrongly convicted? The topic is actually the Louise Nicholas case. You seem to think that the accused should have been convicted based solely on the word of the accuser. How many men would be falsely convicted and imprisoned if this was the standard of proof required to obtain a conviction? And sending innocent men to prison helps rape victims – how?
#158
“Because after a 3 week $14m trial the three men were found to have not broken any law by a jury of 12 peers (including 7 women)”.
The case didn’t cost that much. The commission of inquiry into police behaviour is estimated to cost that much. But I agree with you to the extent that this has been an expensive exercise. Was it necessary? The prosecutor must have realised there were holes in the case and that a guilty verdict was going to be diffcult. And even if a guilty verdict had been achieved, the obvious question would then have been: is it safe? Appeals would have probably followed and none of us would have been any the wiser as to what really happened.
Thanks for a great blog, and discusison. I guess the thing is now also about whether a suppression order means anything. My observation is that this is not about suppression orders in general, but more specifically about this one in particular. I don’t see people protesting in the streets about other cases.
But it is a question of what should be withheld from a jury. Obviously it is not fair to find someone guilty on anything simply because they did something similar before. But surely a jury deserves to have a balanced view of the background of the defendant. The defendant and their counsel claim they are good people not capable of such a crime. If we withhold details of former relevant crimes from the jury, is that not saying we don’t trust the jury to do the right thing with it. So we give them half the story, and expect them to come up with good decisions.
Helen, your reply reeks of anger due to your perception that “rape” by males is consistantly being performed on females without the perps. being convicted.
Can I ask you if you believe in our justice system precept, ” better a guilty person go free than an innocent one found guilty & lose their freedom”?
The answer to this will determine whether I consider you to be interested in justice or revenge, generated through blind rage.
Did you serve on the Peter Ellis jury at all Helen??
Hey Brian,
What’s wrong with as bit of revenge? When the justice system seems so stacked against women in the cases of rape, and when it fails women so regularly, surely all that’s left is to take the law into their own hands. As has happened here, in an awesome display of standing up to the whole system. Handing out suppressed information in the street, that probably took a bit of revenge and rage. Gutsy move. I’d suggest unprecedented in this country? A wee bit of a people’s revolt, or more accrately a women’s revolt.
Us males Brian might say there are principles involved, and we have to look at the big picture. And we might point to some male casualties of false complaints etc. Or maybe we should just recognise that there is something more personal to this, something we don’t understand or appreciate that well. Maybe this is about revenge and rage, and maybe it is about time.
Helen, your reply reeks of anger due to your perception that “rape” by males is consistantly being performed on females without the perps. being convicted.
Well, Bryan, that would be because “rape” (love the quote marks – gives your true feelings away) is being consistently “performed” by men on women, and they are getting away with it. Look at some statistics and do some reading. Go on, I dare you.
Can I ask you if you believe in our justice system precept, “ better a guilty person go free than an innocent one found guilty & lose their freedom”?
I do in the most general sense, yes, but the problem lies in the fact that rape is woefully under-prosecuted. When a crime is being committed by this many people and they are getting away with it, clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I personally think we need a public education programme on rape and some dispelling of the myth that women lie about it, but that’s just me.
The answer to this will determine whether I consider you to be interested in justice or revenge, generated through blind rage.
Good lord, you’re like an exact replica of every troll I’ve seen on feminist websites. What is it about a woman’s rage, Bryan, that bothers you so much. I am a woman who has been raised in a culture where women are the ones whose behaviour is curtailed in order to prevent rape, as opposed to the behaviour of those who perpetrate the crime. My sisters are being raped and aren’t getting justice. That’s a very worthy reason for anger, especially in the case of ignorance like yours.
Did you serve on the Peter Ellis jury at all Helen??
Wow. Just wow. You don’t get it at all. Go on, throw every single high-profile false imprisonment at me. It might take you a minute to name them all. If I had all the names of men who’d raped and read them to you? We’d be here all night.
Damn, sorry about the italics y’all.
[Fixed! –Amp]
It’s amazing that someone who has so much to say about the law knows so little about how it works.
Hobbo writes“Because after a 3 week $14m trial the three men were found to have not broken any law by a jury of 12 peers (including 7 women)
Hence they have done nothing illegal – pretty self evident I would think “
This in the same thread as his fellow -travellers have been repeating “Better let 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent get convicted”
In others words the jury’s verdict does not establish that these scum bags didn’t do it, all it ‘proves’ is that the prosecution didn’t succeed in proving that they raped beyond a reasonable doubt.
I personally think that’s a crazy result. How can three adult males, policemen to boot, have gang sex with a teenage girl and it not be rape?
Oh I se;e some people believe that Ms Nicholas may not have said “no”.
Or if not that, that she couldn’t prove that she said no.
What difference does that make? If you are trying to say that any rational seventeen year old girl would want to be fucked by 3 coppers and a baton, if she had a real choice in the matter, you’re the type of nutter that your ilk are always insinuating that Ms Nicholas is.
Look at it like this men, if Ms Nicholas had wanted this to happen to her, if she had wanted to have all her power ripped off her in the most degrading way possible, all that would mean, would be that she had some sort of borderline personality disorder. If that were the case, which I don’t believe for one minute it was, but let’s just pretend here. If that were the case then what does that make these ‘policemen’, these protectors of the community, guardians of the weak and defenceless?
It makes them even worse rapists, ones that take advantage of the sick, and confused spirits that other normal people, who aren’t charged with protecting others would still feel obliged to do no harm to.
See this is where this whole ‘she asked for it’ scenario falls down. If a young girl did ask for it, then she wasn’t making a rational decision and as friends of the family these ‘men’ (they may have a dick but I wouldn’t consider weak pricks like that to be men, myself), should have looked after her, and helped her. They should not have taken advantage of her problems.
Now I don’t believe that Ms Nicholas was sick , or neurotic, or whatever.
I think she was just a young girl caught up in the maelstrom of these guys confusion.
The policemen were trying to work the lust they all felt for each other on a surrogate. Banal but all too common behaviour from blokes who spend too much time in each others company.
This stuff is weird weird shit and it surfaces across the range of male exclusive groups.
From army recruits playing soggy biscuit (don’t ask, you don’t want to know), to bike gangs ‘blocking’ a woman, to 70’s rock bands ‘laying the pipe’ for a ‘groupie’ .
In the first case the biscuit is just as incidental to the gathering as the women are in the other two. All the real intercourse, social, verbal, eye contact, even body language is going on between the men.
The woman may not know it, but chances are she can feel it, that she is actually incidental to the whole event.
If she is considered by the men within the group it wil only be as a ‘prop’ for these milksops to deny their secret fear of females by ‘exerting their power’ over her. To show their friends that ‘they aren’t scared of women’. See!
No I’m not trying to say these blokes are gay. I’d reckon gay blokes wouldn’t need a ‘prop’, they’d just jump each other.
These ‘policemen’ don’t know what they are. Of course deep down they undoubtedly know how weak they are, which is why they have been trying most of their lives to find a way of getting power over others.
A policeman’s badge, a gang of them ‘showing a woman what’s what’.
Not not all policemen are weak chickenshits trying to exert control over a world they are to scared to deal with on their own terms. However as someone pointed out about 157 posts back, some gutless wonders are drawn into jobs that carry authority, simply because the jobs do bestow power, even better respect.
That way they don’t have to do anything to exert influence or earn the respect of others. All they have to do is pull on the uniform and the actions of those who went before and who weren’t puny brained cowards bestow power and respect upon them.
I believe Louise Nicholas. How can any Court Suppress the accused sexual history and yet spread the complainents . I would love to see the suppressed evidence….Who has the E mail???????
Simple question for notxtian:
Were they found to have broken any law?
If not then they have not done anything illegal.
#164
“the problem lies in the fact that rape is woefully under-prosecuted”.
I would have thought the problem lies in the fact that rape is under-reported. If there is a lack of supporting evidence, then there is every likelihood that the accused will be acquitted, or wrongly convicted, which might explain your perception that rape is under-prosecuted.
Hobbo I realise that I’m pushing shit uphill trying to use logic on a concrete and pedantic thinker, but once again a not guilty verdict does not prove that anyone hasn’t broken the law.
All it ‘proves’ is that it wasn’t possible to demonstrate that someone had broken the law.
This is not some small semantic difference. It is the major reason why we live in a society where for example a group of rich criminals can blatantly steal millions of dollars of money intended for charity to ‘pay’ for advertising hoardings that no one can see, for a service that isn’t elective. ie people have to use it when they need it, it is purely driven by circumstances not effected by advertising at all.
Meanwhile people who break the law out of ‘need’ rather than ‘greed’ are nearly always successfully prosecuted if caught.
There is nothing suprising or unusual about this and I imagine that most people who have visited this weblog whether they be supporters of Ms Nicholas or not tacitly support this system because, deep down they know that if they try and take on the greedy and ruthless assholes who treat others as sheep to be sheared, they may lose. That alternative would be worse than putting up with these leeches on the asshole of humanity.
As for justice; well, we get the feeling that justice is being delivered by imprisoning the poor and the sick at a rate second only to the USA.
eg the bloke who copped 5 years after he vented his anger at a truck driver who had endangered the lives of his family.
Occasionally we imprison a seeming member of the ‘elite’, but usually only as a rare sop to the sheeple.
I’ve got the email. I’ll just work out how to post it…
Deleted
Please don’t break suppression orders here – I’m sorry it’s a suck situation.
notXtian: Yes. I couldn’t believe it when I read Hobbo’s statement that if someone wasn’t found to have done anything illegal, therefore it is obvious they did nothing illegal. Nice to live in a fantasy world, yes? ;-)
[deleted for breaking suppression orders]
173. What a shame they’re not in Paremoremo or Mt Eden.
So I am an illogical pedantic concrete thinker living in a fantasy world who knows so little about the law that any opionion I have is patently wrong?
Just because I disagree with you I fail to see any reason to stoop to personal insults.
In your view is it better to not have to prove that a crime was committed to secure a guilty verdict? If so where are the checks and balances in your system?
I never said that just because that a person may not have anything illegal in one instance that they have NEVER done anything illegal. In the Nicholas case although 2 of the accused may have been found guilty of ANOTHER crime in ANOTHER case the three were found not guilty of any crime in THIS case – therfore they have done nothing illegal in THIS instance.
Hobbo, not certain how it works in New Zealand, but in the US, a not guilty verdict is not a verdict of innocence. Many crimes go either unprosecuted or in a case such as this not prosecuted to the extent that was necessary for a guilty verdict due to technicalities. A good example of this is failure of reading miranda rights or a faulty warrant; these alone are enough to get a case thrown out of court, and double jeopardy could very well save someone who committed a heinous crime.
At any rate, I think it’s fair to say you are mispoken on this subject, in that it isn’t that they haven’t acted illegally, but instead that the case is muddled down in technicalities.
you people are all full of it. They got off because the procecution actually can’t prove she said no. To have it any other way would be to presume guilt instead of innocence. Open your minds PEOPLE. Imagine a system like that…suspicion of guilt is a powerful weapon, and for you idiots that seem to think jail and a conviction is the worst that can happen to these men, think again. These men will be forever branded as “rapists” regardless of the verdict. Only instead of being in jail when the case is still fresh, they will be roaming the streets, trying to deal with the fact that everybody thinks / believes that dispite the verdict they are guilty. No one will trust Schollum or Shipton EVER again, no friends, no mates nothing…and that is a life no one wants to live. Rickards is another kettle of fish. I dunno whats going on with him, he was an officer still, and he got involved with the wrong girl – or not, but I find it hard to believe that a man who has long term career aspirations in the police, especially the police would really be dumb enough to rape someone. Thats just me, i dunno that peice of the puzzle doesnt quite fit for me…has he had prior issues in this matter? But most of you REACTIONIST look at yourself…are you hating the verdict or JUST LOOKING FOR A CHANCE TO BASH THE POLICE!!! AND MEN HATE RAPE TOO!!! STOP TALKING ABOUT US LIKE WE GET OFF ON IT WE DONT. PULL YOUR HEAD IN.
Some people have questioned why Louise waited so long to lay a complaint of rape.
I myself can speak from experience that there are many personal reasons why I will probably never lay a complaint against the two men whom over 20yrs ago sexually abused me.
One of these men also raped my older sister whom also has not reported it,
this man also happens to be of high stature in his community, a “good” church going man with a lovley family.
Sadly of the women I know that have been sexually abused in their lifetimes, none have reported these crimes.
Why dont I you ask?
Well, just look at what Louise and her family are going through!
Even though I know that i could have saved others from the pain inflicted by these men,
fear of the pain that my family would have to endure means I will never tell.
Is there any male out there who has never in their life used their power, position,marital status,violence or group intimidation to influence the decision of a weaker/younger/any person for personal gain or satisfaction ? So far in 60 odd years I haven”t met one yet.(sadly I have looked in the mirror also)
I still believe Louise.
I find comments like Bob’s truly terrifying (although I guess it’s good that he’s being honest). I so want men to say “no I haven’t”, or at least “I used to and I choose not to anymore”.
I really don’t understand why, I don’t understand what you get from having sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you.
Actually hobbo I didn’t intend an ad hominem attack when I expressed frustration at having to explain something that can almost be counterinuitive eg not guilty not being the opposite of guilty, innocent, to a literal person any more than commenting on someone’s left handedness or green eyes would be an insult.
I’m sorry if you took it that way.
From a powerless position we are taught to be “men” . Boys don’t cry . By the time we are 4 or 5 years old the pattern is set. When we truly see what we have become most spend the rest of their life trying not to repeat the past and some try to make amends. (Not that you can return a persons trust or dignity or chastity which you have stolen) Others deny the fact and so we have old cases bought to courts under impossible or improbable odds. From observation it is not so much a sexual pleasure rather a power or position arising from inner insecurity. The weak personality tries to assert itself through the denigration of others. I have heard many men describe this in various terms but always the result is the same.Others suffer. Many do come to terms with themselves and try to change but usually only after they have been subjected to a personal “rock bottom’ of a emotional, spiritual or financial nature. Some get there through spiritual or religious experience. The unseeing /unfeeling migrate to positions of power.
I still believe Louise .
Is there any male out there who has never in their life used their power, position,marital status,violence or group intimidation to influence the decision of a weaker/younger/any person for personal gain or satisfaction ?
Although it is possible that I did when I was a child, I certainly can’t remember a single example of ever doing this. So, unless somebody can remind me of a time that I did so, I would have to say that, no, I have never used my power, position, marital status, violence or group intimidation to influence the decision of a weaker/younger/any person for personal gain or satisfaction.
Men aren’t the only ones to use power…Aunty Helen Im sure uses status in order to swing things round to her way of thinking, im sure other powerful women do to. Power is addictive, if it wasn’t why would so many people seek it. Those who have stopped are secure enough in there own levels of power, but i reckon that deep down inside, power is something that is hard for everybody to turn down.
[deleted for breaking the suppression order] This is where the censorship/suppression order could lead to further injustice. I know that to assume makes an ass out of you and me (ass-u-me) but it is going to happen, humans are involved. This leads me back to the system being loaded in favour of the alleged perpetrators and the victim being further victimised.
I still believe Louise.
Initially I came here to see about the pamphlet which supposedly contains the surpressed evidence the jury was not allowed to see.
But I’m not dissapointed it was not here as living in new zealand and following the tauranga gang rape trial and then this one its not to hard to connect the dots and be fairly sure of what was in the pamphlet.
This trial mainly came about because of the publicity generated when this story broke in a two major new zealand newspapers.
Initially part of the focus was on how Nicholes complaint of rape by the police to the police was never properly acted on. A former senior police officer is presently facing trial on this http://www.smilecity.co.nz/benefits.asp?go=forum&tp=104544&ca=6 ( the depositions have resulted in him having to stand trial ) .
When the publicity about the rotorua police officers sexual abuses became common knowledge other people came foward with similar storys or corroberating evidence. Now this was published in two major respected newspapers and with our lible laws I’m sure they were quite carefull with what they published.
Two seperate things from the newspaper storys that I can remember are in one instance a police woman or former police woman said one of the accused told/bragged about a batton being used for sex. A batton was also claimed to have been used on the victim in the tauranga gang rape trial ( with some of the same defendants as this trial ). So I would say to ross although there is no smoking gun dna batton it seems rather a big coincidence that three totally seperate people should all bring up a batton being used for sex. All three have the same imaginings ??
The other thing is when the news storys broke another woman came foward to say that she attended the rotorua police station as a teenage college student on work experience and she experience group sex at the hands of these sick coppers, she also claimed they threatened her with what they could do to her family if she complained or tryed to get them in trouble. To the best of my knowledge the woman who told this to the reporter is not going to put herself through a rape trial, that is to say she has laid no charges.
Part of this stuff I’ve posted is to show that Louise did NOT wait 20 years to lay a complaint.
There is ample evidence outside of the trial to show that these guys had a fixation on ‘batton sex’.
And as in the example of the abused girl college student MOST rapes never get reported let alone make it to trial.
Also Louises revelations sparked a govt commision of inquiry into police sexual conduct and through the grape vine I have heard it was overwhelmed and recieved hundreds of storys and complaints.
We keep being told in nz how lucky we are to have such a good clean police force. My opininion and one shared by a growing number of New Zealanders is we have quite a rotten culture in the police and it seems to be worst at the top ……………….
p.s at this website here you can read a lot of the history of the case , most of its copy and paste jobs from new zealand news sites.
http://www.bentcops.org/nzpolice/charges-pending/
The site was constructed by a new zealander who along with his family suffered some terrible actions and lack of action from the nz police.
I am concerned that some of you are still puting in posts that Louise did not complain for 20 years. Today in Rotorua, a Policeman faces 4 charges. His name and all details of the case, including the charges, have been suppressed. Now the speculation bit…. I am almost prepared to bet that the charges relate to Louise and the handling of her original complaint, many years ago. It is my view that the investigation will go on, and there may be quite a few more involved. In order that future juries can be selected, I believe it is important not to jepodise future trials by breaking the suppression orders. Leave it to Nick Perry.
They say the same thing about many LE agencies in the States. Unfortunately, most of the time they are wrong.
I was reading about a small agency in South Carolina that hired a male officer who was a registered sex offender. Since so many of the larger agencies were depleting the candidate pool and also hiring officers away from smaller agencies, the smaller ones had to scape the bottom of the barrel. Still to hire a sex offender? You’ve got enough trouble with some “bad apples” to not go looking for ones who are already in legal trouble before they are hired.
Maybe I’m in the minority but my first few personal contacts with the police wiped away any “clean force” thoughts I had when I was young. I was jaded about the police by the time I was about 17, and this from a middle class white girl who’s never been in trouble.
NOT ABOVE THE LAW
We Support Louise Nicholas MARCH
Sunday 30 April, 2.00 pm
Assemble Queen Elizabeth Square, Auckland (near Britomart)
March up Queen St to Aotea Square
Hear speakers from Rape Crisis, Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation and others
Bring your friends, banners and placards
Can we call the march ‘We believe Louise Nicholas’ rather than support? One can ‘support’ all sorts of people and at all levels. But we BELIEVE her. That’s cut & dried. She is telling the truth & we all know it. We need everybody out saying they believe Louise.
Great about the march. I’m sure there are many of us who have felt so agrieved by the verdict and the way in which Louise has been treated but did/do not know what or how to do anything about it. I admire her courage and hope she knows that she has made a poerful statement for women and there are many of us who are very proud and grateful. As for the scum bags who’s families feel so “vindicated” by the outcome of this trial…. not able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt is vastly different from being ‘innocent’ and far from having gotten away with this I feel confident this will revisit and continue to haunt them all for the rest of their lives. They know what they did back then, they know what they have done now and at sometime, even if it is as they are on their death beds this will return to haunt them ( as well it should). Perhaps as their daughters/grand daughters become the age that Louise was when they brutalised her or some other trigger they will remember… Little solace really but no one can escape their pasts for ever.
I wish Louise well and may she and her family and friends be blessed with peace following such a traumatic time.
It seems to be the season for letting rapists walk. Todays NZ Herald
Notxtian writes of a case from the appeal court. At http://www.stuff.co.nz -National news – Court News there is reported detail on the argument put forward by defence and prosecution. makes the premise that law prevails not justice stronger in my opinion.( one day I’ll learn how to put the fancy bits in red into the text )
I still believe Louise
Yes the March can be called We Believe Louise Nicholas – by all means.
Really bad news about conviction being overturned.