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.
#193 “Can we call the march ‘We believe Louise Nicholas’ rather than support? One can ‘support’ all sorts of people and at all levels. But we BELIEVE her. That’s cut & dried. She is telling the truth & we all know it. We need everybody out saying they believe Louise”.
How do you know she is telling the truth? Did she tell the truth when she said that 5 Maoris on horseback raped her? Are you saying that Louise’s flatmate lied when she said that there was a good atmosphere when the three accused were at their house?
#197
“Really bad news about conviction being overturned”.
Right, so if a guy is wrongly convicted or rape, he should go to prison anyway?
But the good news is that the other three have had their rape convictions confirmed.
“Right, so if a guy is wrongly convicted or rape, he should go to prison anyway?”
If posters meant that they would have said that. They don’t need others putting words in their mouth.
It may be more useful to ponder whether or not some people may know a little more about this case than the nanny state wants, lest many become angry.
As has been stated several times previously in this thread, justice isn’t done if it isn’t seen to be done. That cannot occur while so many details of recent rape prosecutions are concealed from public scrutiny.
This an archaic and patronising way of governing people by trying to keep them ignorant. Politicians, community leaders and the organisations developed to enforce their will; such as the police and the bureaucracy, are forever asking people to trust them to do the right thing with the authority that the people have vested in them.
Yet time and time again we see that trust not reciprocated. We are usually told that this is for our own good, that elements in the community can’t be trusted with this information lest it prejudice them against making a fair decision.
Well firstly no one can make a fair decision without all the facts at hand and secondly when we do find out what when down, usually much later, it frequently transpires that the organisation wasn’t trying to protect us, it was trying to protect itself.
The legions of historic police rape complaints is a classic example. One of the main reasons that the clock was turned back, so these complaints suddenly got treated the same way that rape complaints where ‘consent’ was disputed were treated twenty years ago, was that ‘frontline police’ were getting antsy.
In other words they claimed that these revelations had robbed them of the authority to do their job. That when they turned up at ‘criminal hang-outs’ they were being hassled about “whether they had raped anyone interesting lately”.
While there is no doubt that is probably correct, there is also no doubt that this would have passed with time especially if these cases had been dealt with in an open and straightforward way.
The legacy of the Louise Nicholas rapes will be exactly the opposite of the excuse offered for this secrecy. The shabby treatment of Ms Nicholas and the lame prosecution of those who raped her will further undermine the authority of the police amongst at least 50% of the population and hopefully a great deal more for whom this whole case stinks to high heaven.
Police may not get such a ‘ragging’ from those who they contemptuously consider to be the ‘criminal classes’ but the confidence of most NZ women, and a good proportion of NZ men in the administration of justice in NZ has been severely undermined. Still a few people in very senior positions within the police were protected from any ‘blowback’ that might have occured had the truth come out and since that was the most likely intent of this sordid and sleazy cover-up they will escape with their outrageous pensions or ‘perfs’.
Thanks notXtian for your posts. Very enlightening & thought provoking. You are giving us the ‘big picture’ instead of bothering nit picking details with the likes of the James’. ‘How do we know she’s not lying?’. These are details we can argue about all day. The ‘story’ here is our Police Force and how it protects us.(or only protects itself). The more ‘covering up’ the less respect we have for them and even James would have to admit they are doing really really badly on this one, with tons more to come out on this, all bad for them.
I note in your first post James you are from Rotorua and ‘feel’ for Rickard. A mate of yours perhaps? Or just a like spirit? You respect guys, who by their own admission have repeated sex with tiny teenagers, with his mates all joining in, one of them 33 years old, when he has a wife & kids, while he is on duty and being paid by the tax payer? And with his best buddy (who he gives job references to years later) being the one that first investigates Louise’s immediate claim, (no not 20 years later) but who subsequently loses his ‘notes. (But says ‘he believes’ Louise’s version of the events but can’t prosecute his mates because they said they didn’t do it.) Don’t feel sorry for your hero Rickard, he’s a very lucky man. You’re the only one who thinks it was one hell of a coincidence that several women have come forward and without knowing each other given a completely identical desscription of the same events taking place by, what do you know, the same men. Big coincidence don’t you think? Yeah right. We believe Louise.
#201
“The shabby treatment of Ms Nicholas and the lame prosecution of those who raped her will further undermine the authority of the police amongst at least 50% of the population and hopefully a great deal more for whom this whole case stinks to high heaven”.
I can only assume you were at the trial for its entirety for you to be able to make that comment. I suggest it wasn’t the prosecution that was lame but the evidence. Or are you suggesting that men should be convicted of rape when there is little or no evidence?
#202
“‘How do we know she’s not lying?’. These are details we can argue about all day”.
But this question is exactly what the jury probably DID argue about. And 12 of them (including 7 women) apparently had doubts about Louise’s version of events. Why do you presume to know more about the case than they jury, who sat through the entire case?
“You’re the only one who thinks it was one hell of a coincidence that several women have come forward and without knowing each other given a completely identical desscription of the same events taking place by, what do you know, the same men”.
So these women have come forward and made rape complaints? Apparently not. Did they testify at Louise’s trial? Apparently not. Who are these anonymous women? A link would be useful.
BTW, I do not live in Rotorua and have never done so and have absolutely no association with the accused.
Nice shirt James. You suit blue.
And you’ve moved from Rotorua from where you sent your first post here days ago? Well if you’ve moved up to Auckland why don’t you pop in and ask Schollum & Shipton about another such woman that has come forward & descibed an identical attack to one Louise describes. They’re residing at Boston Rd these days. No hurry, they’ll be there a while.
James sounds like just another police apologist who thinks it would all be better if nothing bad was said about the police and we should all leave those poor fella’s alone.
Read my post about the ‘batton’ james, it was a feature in the tauranga gang rape trial but thats all inadmissable right??, btw wasn’t the tauranga gang rape trial caused by the publicity over Nicholes rape case??.
And a police woman told the dompost reporter about your hero’s bragging about a ‘sex batton’, was she a wittness in the trial?, who knows.
And then of course Louise told how a batton was used on her.
So theres three seperate people bringing up the same thing in relation to these three pigs sex lives, but no doubt you ‘wont get it’.
James is also stupid enough to try to pretend to us all that he knows what the jurors were thinking and that the case was decided on whether the jury thought lousise was lieing or not.
Try and understand this james you rapist supporting moron the jurys job is to see if the EVIDENCE can PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that a crime took place.
You can quite easily belive someone is guilty but not convict them because the evidence is not strong enough to remove the ” reasonable doubt” that all defendants are entitled to.
We DO know more about the lifes of rickards and his co accused than the jury got to. Your the only clown who only see’s their side of the story.
I’ve got a good idea. Let’s completely ignore all of James’ ill-informed illogical posts since he has such a naive narrowminded view of things and is not contributing anything or learning anything from these discussions. I am really appreciative of all the info I have learnt and the pyschological slants posters have offered on rape etc. Not being a victim myself or having any dealings with the law this has been incredibly interesting and I love opening it to read the posts and learn more. To even respond to James is a waste of our efforts when we can be, instead, sharing knowledge, and insights of consequence. James who?
Last week’s Listener says that “there remains enormous inconsistency in the granting of suppression orders” . . . “that NZ has the most stringent name suppression law in the common law world.” . . .”not just name suppression but fact suppression, issue suppression and sometimes even case suppression. If we believe all this suppression is necessary in the interests of justice, we are in the ludicrous position of saying that in the US – where first-amendment freedoms forbid such bans – there can be no fair trials. . . .”we have a system “that treats the public like idiots”. To ring-fence the minds of 12 jurors, we suppress the rights to information of four million New Zealanders.” . . . “If rape complainants do not have enough confidence in the system to come forward, their access to justice is denied. Perpetrators will come to believe that they can act with impunity.” (Listener Editorial, April 15 2006)
Anna highlights one of the two major abuses of process that occurred during the lame prosecution of policemen and ex-policemen for rape.
Name suppression or worse suppression of evidence cannot lead to a process that the community can have confidence in but it was another weird call made by the prosecution which ensured that suppression would be an issue.
The suppression orders only became necessary because of the odd way that these cases were prosecuted.
Prosecutors frequently deal with complex criminal cases with a range of defendants, complainants and locations, that have a common thread running through them, especially where that thread is things like association or membership of a particular organisation, or common accused for a range of the offences and where there is a common modus operandi.
They deal with these obstacles by combining all the diverse elements into a charge which can then be dealt with by prosecuting all accused in a single large trial.
It is called conspiracy to commit the offence and although some may argue that it can lead to people being convicted due to ‘guilt by association, the crown hasn’t displayed the reticence in using conspiracy prosecutions against gangs etc that are being prosecuted for a range of similar offences across victims, time and place, that it has here.
The advantage for the prosecution of a lump conspiracy charge is that evidence can be introduced without having to worry about the effect that evidence may have on tainting juries for similar later prosecutions.
All the accused and all the evidence is presented at one time, in front of one jury. Of course this obviates the need for suppression orders and the public then has the opportunity to hear all of the evidence against all of the accused in one hit.
If the police rapes had been prosecuted in this fashion we wouldn’t have had the whole thing drawn out like a festering boil, with lashings of gossip and innuendo surrounding each separate trial.
Those people that have kept their ears to the ground or who have taken the time and energy to view the evidence presented by the prosecution at a number of these trials which are subject to a suppression order could easily come to the conclusion that there were sufficient commonalities between the evidence to support the charge of deliberate conspiracy by some members of a particular police district to commit rape on powerless young women.
One can only wonder why the decision was made to prosecute all these cases individually thereby making a successful prosecution a lot more difficult while also breeding enough speculation and drama amongst the community to assist the defense.
People should not feel ashamed or embarrassed that they are interested in what went down here. Sure some people’s interest has been prurient, but the vast majority of people who have been desperately attempting to find out what went down have done so because they are unsure if justice has been done.
Yet under NZ law this natural interest in the welfare of the community one lives in has been perverted by those out to win their point of view at any cost. If there are any further proceedings on the police rapes expect to hear the defense to try and make this concern about the welfare of our society and the people who are employed to assist in facilitating an open and healthy society as a some sort of nasty and perverse, ‘peeking through the blinds’ inquisitiveness.
Since one doesn’t have to be a clairvoyant to expect that the community would be concerned about the continuation of suppression orders after a case has been completed, we must also be troubled by the decision not to proceed with a conspiracy to commit sexual assaults prosecution against all of these low-lifes, in one fell swoop.
John,
Could it be that there are at least two people in NZ with the same name. BTW, I’m not a cop and never have been. Any more assumptions you’d like to make?
You can find them in any city, anywhere. Pity is, they do the profession and those who work in it more harm than good in the long run.
Thanks for the threads on this case. They have been very informative, in many ways.
I feel that James’ views have been stated here, and frankly views like his are well known to anyone who has been following this controversy. So I don’t see any free speech issue in if he posts here or not; he has free speech either way, and his views are well aired either way.
My question is, do folks using this thread want me to continue letting him post here, under the theory that we want an open debate, or should I cut him off, under the theory that this is more a forum for feminist chatting than for feminist vs non-feminist debate?
I can see it either way, so I’ll go with whatever the feminists on this thread say they’d prefer.
As someone who probably doesn’t fit comfotably into any mold or established P.O.V. I realise that a feminist publication such as this is under no compulsion to post my opinions much less take heed of them but that said I’m going to give my opinion anyhow.
That is if someone can follow the reasonable guides of discourse ie avoid shooting the messenger, attacking the person not the idea and ensure that the arguments brought to this discussion add something new to the debate, rather than rehash ideas, opinions or prejudices that have already been expressed, then it is smart to let them continue, whatever that opinion may be.
We can all see the inherent problems in limiting discussion on a subject that is essentially about freedom of speech. Remembering of course that freedom of speech dosn’t imply freedom to lie or mislead.
So if it were ‘up for a vote’ which it isn’t I would say let James continue as long as he does bring fresh ideas/facts.
That said James would be wise to make sure that he has absorbed all that has been already discussed. For example his recent attack on Ms Nicholas has been made previously by a poster with very similar point of view to that of James.
Since the subject was adequately dealt with previously, James’s attempt to re-slander Ms Nicholas was uneccessary and vindictive so I can also understand others dis-satisfaction with the tenor of his posts.
Sorry if this sounds too much like the limpid meanderings of some centre of left ‘liberal democrat’ but if James were able to find something to say that wasn’t a boring repetition of the ‘same old same old’ or an ad-feminem attack, then what he said would help this thread.
It would do that by exploring the emotions which led to the peversion of justice in the investigation and prosecution of NZ Police rape criminality in the 1980’s.
So provided the poster “James” does bring worthwhile (ie stimulating facts and opinions, rather than cliches) posts to this forum from now on and it were my decision, I would let him .
Point taken notXtian, but I really think if James had a skeerup of anything clever to use against Louise who he’s been so keen to slander and be vindictive against he would have said it by now, so I’m voting he shouldn’t post any longer here, on account that his insults are upsetting. But since you approve posts anyway Ampersand, I’m happy if at least you delete any derogitory & repetitive comments & only leave in any that do add insight & new ideas to the post? You’re doing a great job here Ampersand, we really appreciate it. As has been said before, its shameful that we are all kept in the dark here so we need your thread to give us light so we can somehow fathom out (without breaking suppression orders of course) what went down. What a jigsaw puzzle, not yet finished. And thanks for your spin notXtian on another way this could have been trialled. 209. Very interesting. I’m finding a lot of my loose disconnected thoughts on all this once aired by others , who have experience with this, and have given it a lot of thought and their postings are giving me clarity. Thanks all!!! Keep it coming.
#215
“For example his recent attack on Ms Nicholas has been made previously by a poster with very similar point of view to that of James”.
It might pay to state where I have allegedly attacked Ms Nicholas. I have not. I suggest sticking to the facts.
We have repeatedly heard that Mc Nicholas’ sexual past was dragged through the mud. The fact is that it was not. A complainant’s sexual history is not permitted to be brought up in court. However, if you have evidence that contradicts this, please feel free to enlighten me.
#216
“I really think if James had a skeerup of anything clever to use against Louise who he’s been so keen to slander and be vindictive against he would have said it by now, so I’m voting he shouldn’t post any longer here, on account that his insults are upsetting”.
What insults? What slander? I have merely suggested, which I’m entitled to do, that the accused were acquitted because there was a lack of evidence. I suggest you read Philip Morgan’s article, which is very informative on the issues that I have raised.
“It might pay to state where I have allegedly attacked Ms Nicholas. I have not. I suggest sticking to the facts.”
James I realise that you are desperate for someone to pck up on the aspersions you have cast on Ms Nicholas’s character and repeat them, this lame effort on your part to have someone ‘snowball’ these allegations reveals two things about the probable intent of your posts. Firstly when a young girl is subjected to gross physical abuse, that it occured has never been in question, whether she consented to it or not was the issue at trial, the victim’s actions are more relevant than the perpetrators.
Anyway it seems in the world according to James when a girl has been subject to this degree of abuse by men, one nearly twice her age, who had been entrusted by the community with the role of protecting that community from this sort of aggression, that her actions should be held up to the minutist scrutiny in a piss weak attempt to exculpate her attackers.
The second subtextual implication one can derive from James’s posts is that he is desperate to be ‘banned’ from this site so that he can then claim some sort of ‘persecution’ or censorship has occurred and conceal his inability to make a strong case for his point of view.
If this is not the case James why don’t you quit with the attacks levelled at Ms Nicholas which have already been made and bring fresh insights to this thread. If you cannot do so I strongly suggest you stay quiet.
As for this discussion about James and his fellow travellers view of the world, I have no intention of continuing it any further. As satisfying as this sort of debate may be for an egocentric, this thread is about the peversion of justice observed during the police rape culture investigation and prosecution not about some poster.
#217.
That you ignore my questions suggests that you’re aware that I have not attacked or slandered Louise Nicholas, which is understandable since I have no reason to.
You demand “fresh insights” from me. I thought I had provided some. To repeat: Louise’s sexual past was not dragged through the mud, as many have claimed. The law prohibits a complaintant’s sexual history from being used against her. Moreover 12 jurors unanimously acquitted the accused, presumably because of a lack of evidence. Some people have called for a not-proven verdict (although the accused would still have been acquitted if that were the case). Personally, I would like to see a not-credible verdict. If innocent people are found not guilty, they may be regarded by some as being guilty. A not-credible verdict would exonerate the defendant. I am not suggesting that Ms Nicholas is not credible.
As for fresh insights, may I be so bold and ask you for some? Under what circumstances, for example, should alleged rapists be found not guilty? How would you determine if an alleged rapist was probably innocent? These are questions which, in the real world, cannot be ignored.
yes poor fella does think this is all about him. Tragic.
So back to business. Can anyone tell me why the 5 witnessess were not allowed to give evidence, and what was their tie up & what they might have said?
“Can anyone tell me why the 5 witnessess were not allowed to give evidence, and what was their tie up & what they might have said?”
Well, 5 witnesses were allowed to give evidence but it was suppressed. They were prosecution witnesses, so their evidence should’ve assisted the prosecution case.
Reading the latest issue of Investigate magazine has been very enlightening. I find it incredible that the flatmate (that certain anti Louise posters harp on about endlessly) did not even appear at the trial. She was in Australia and only provided a written statement. She was never cross examined because if she had the jury would easily have seen through her. The cop who went over and interviewed her said she was not a credible witness. He was never called to the witness stand either !! I fail to understand how a trial can be conducted in this way.
Investigate Magazine: http://investigatemagazine.com/
I too am getting rather tired of James (obviously a cop or ex cop or mate of the accused).
A book that may be of interest – written by an Auckland Uni lecturer is “Just Sex? – the cultural scaffolding of rape” by Nicola Gavey. Talking about society’s acceptance of rape that creates a climate where cases such as Louise’s can happen etc.
Anna,
I am not a cop, ex-cop, or a mate of the accused, and have never lived in Rotorua. I hope that clears that matter up.
“I find it incredible that the flatmate (that certain anti Louise posters harp on about endlessly) did not even appear at the trial. She was in Australia and only provided a written statement. She was never cross examined because if she had the jury would easily have seen through her”.
The flatmate didn’t have to appear. What was she going to be able to add to her written statement? If she was simply going to repeat what she had written, then it would’ve been a wasted trip. The fact is that the flatmate was interviewed on more than one occasion about the allegations. I am interested in your comment that the jury would’ve been able to see through her comments. Obviously you have information about her that you didn’t tender to the court. That’s ironic considering that you claim evidence wasn’t provided to the court that should’ve been.
“The cop who went over and interviewed her said she was not a credible witness. He was never called to the witness stand either !! I fail to understand how a trial can be conducted in this way”.
Where is a link to this cop and his alleged comments? How do you know the cop wasn’t called as a witness? There were 5 prosecution witnesses whose identity has not been revealed. Do you know the identities of the 5?
And another thing (the only other thing??) anti-Louise poster(s) harp on endlessly about is that she previously laid a false rape claim. What a nothing peice of bulshit. She merely made a ‘comment’ to a teacher about being raped by 4 maori. Well she was raped. A minor detail that she called the rapists ‘maori’ instead of Policemen. She wouldn’t have been believed if she’s said our Police would do that, in a group, to a tiny school girl. I’ve been a secondary school teacher and kids cry out for help all the time when they’re in pain. It’s what we all do when we can’t handle what’s happening to us. To take such a nothing teeny itsy piece of the story after Louise was interviewed for months on end and hold it up as a huge reason she must have given consent to these Policemen is certainly critical, slanderous or just plain stupid.
These Police can do no wrong types will grasp at anything in defence of their beloved Force susan, always have and always will, and facts, however damning, will not deter them.
“Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, face the facts.” Ruth Gordon
“She merely made a ‘comment’ to a teacher about being raped by 4 maori. Well she was raped. A minor detail that she called the rapists ‘maori’ instead of Policemen”.
Well, yes, I can see that it could be minor detail. Another minor detail was that the 5 (not 4) Maori wore ski masks and rode horses. Did the policement also ride horses and wear ski masks? They might be minor details to you but then you are not making allegations of rape.
“To take such a nothing teeny itsy piece of the story after Louise was interviewed for months on end and hold it up as a huge reason she must have given consent to these Policemen is certainly critical, slanderous or just plain stupid”.
I don’t hold it up as reason she must have given consent. That is for a court to decide, and since Louise was alleging rape, I assumed that she had evidence that she was raped. What was that evidence?
For all those getting tired of James relentless defense of those filthy pigs you can read more about the big picture here http://big-news.blogspot.com/2006/04/rotorua-police-sex-and-rape-culture.html
James has already seen it and although he “abhors rape” all he could comment on it was”interesting read “. He then dismissed it as having no “evidence”.
This leads me to conclude by james very narrow defination of “evidense” ( someone has to say it in court and be on the winning side) that he must indeed be conncected in some way with either the police force or legal proffesion.
Either way most of here know what those power abusing creeps are and your starting to smell an awfull lot like them james.
p.s james I find it incredible how you harp on about the flatmate.
I’ve been in numerous flats and most of the time I could have been a bank robber/serial murderer/rape victim etc etc etc and what would my flatmates have known?.
And you are talking about the same flatmate who used to HIDE when schollem or shipton or whichever power abusing cop rapist it was came around?.
As usuall I expect you to express no knowledge of this.
But you do the searching this time I brought the link with the evidence ( or non-evidence according to you) about the batton …………. remeber the batton ?.
Please Don’t Feed The Trolls
James, you ignorant fool.
People go to prison for rape not because they have or havent done it, but a jury has said that based on the evidence they are to have considered to have raped beyond all reasonable doubt.
Do you think the situation where a person who did not commit rape, but went to prison because the jury considered the above test is a better or worse situation compared to a rapist who got off free befause the jury considred that he did not rape based on the “beyond reasonable doubt” principle derived on the evidence.
PS James. Evidence and proof are different. You dont appear to understand that.
James, you’ve had a more-than-fair chance to make your case here, and your posts will remain up so that future readers can consider your points.
But I believe you’ve now begun to dominate discussion here to the exclusion of any other kinds of discussion. For that reason, I’ve decided not to let you post on “Alas” anymore. Please respect this by not attempting to post anymore. Thanks.
Thank you Ampersand. It is better not to feed the trolls (especially when they look like the one in the photo).
Thank you Ampersand. Good call. Can anyone tell me when Dewey appears next? Should be an interesting trial, with a lot more evidence to show he preverted the course of justice. I see from previous poster’s links that at least one woman has come forward and said she participated in group sex with Dewey & Shipton & Rickard so that will lay a foundation for his character. Plus because he used to take Louise to dinner before dropping her off for counselling, the counsellor wrote to the Police concerned that he wasn’t acting professionally & appropriately. And one of the bodies investigating his handling of the ‘investigation’ suggested if he had not perverted the course of justice to protect his mates there would have been a guilty verdict years & years ago. There seems to be a lot of imformation on his part in all of this. Are we allowed to share information or is there some suppression orders?
Dewar committed to stand trial
12/04/2006 14:04:03
A former head of the Rotorua CIB has been committed to stand trial at the Hamilton District Court.
John Dewar’s depositions hearing has concluded today.
The hearing began in December last year, before being adjourned to the beginning of this week.
A blanket suppression order prevents reporting the nature of the case or the charges against the former Detective Inspector.
Dewar has been remanded on bail to appear in court on May 25.
More about Dewar at http://www.bentcops.org/nzpolice/charges-pending/
the case in which they were convicted was only brought to light AFTER Louise’s case was brought into the headlines, now that they have won against Louise, they will contest the guilty verdict by appeal, and it is quite likely it will be over turned.
brian
They all appealed their convictions and one of them, a fireman, was granted a new trial, the two convicted bent cops will remain in prison. Good job too.
Thanks march organisors. I enjoyed reading the banners. Every bit of news publicity bring home, that covering up Police rape is something the public is not going to accept.
A positive report from the news media in N.Z. after the march this afternoon in Auckland. (xtramsn.co.nz)
I still believe Louise
And three separate news threads on http://www.nzcity.co.nz. At one stage it was the lead story.
A big thank you to all those who attended the March.
Good coverage on TV 3 Sunday evening and great photo in today’s (1 May) Dominion Post – showing all the banners and placards.
Onwards and upwards !
Helen (March organiser)
I believe Louise too, because just like in other arenas dominated by men, misogyny exists in law enforcement.
I posted this, in response to some misogynist comments I received:
I saw this posted comment on my blog one morning by a regular visitor, “B. Fife”. He has made comments indicating that he is a Riverside Police Department officer in the past. This latest comment, well second to latest, is no different. Well, except the fact that he dropped the LE title from his moniker this time around.
Anonymous said…
Dear Mary,
I have seen you on your daily strolls around the east side, about five times or so the last couple of weeks. Each time I see you, you are wearing the same purple sweatshirt and blue jeans. Then I think to myself, I wonder if she wears the same pair of skid marked granny panties everyday….. Then following that thought, I throw up a little bit in my mouth.
Instead of spending so much time trying to find negative things about cops, why don’t you try taking a shower and changing your clothes at least once a day!
B. Fife
Friday, April 28, 2006 6:25:30 PM
One of the scariest things about this comment, is that “B. Fife” is absolutely correct. I have been walking through the Eastside more than a few times in the past several weeks. I have been wearing blue jeans, albeit not the same pair, and on several occasions, I have been wearing not a purple sweatshirt, but a sweater. It is purple knit, buttoned-down and one of my favorites. Well, at least it used to be. Now, it’s just another reminder that I am hated by officers in the Riverside Police Department, both as an individual and as a woman as well. It’s just a reminder that at least one of them is watching my movements. No civilian who knew me would so interested in letting me know this and I highly doubt any civilian in the Eastside would be writing comments in defense of Riverside Police Department officers who have made such negative comments about their neighborhood here. They may defend good, hard-working officers but not those of this ilk.
Oh, and I shower once daily, twice after reading comments like this one.
I wondered at first as I always do, who he might be, civilian or law enforcement officer until I realized that here was a person who knew my name, my face, the fact that I had a blog, the blog’s address and had a strong animosity towards me that has led him to post under this moniker since March 2 and probably under other nicknames even before that.
Needless to say, I will probably change my route of travel back to what it had been after I received those postings from “Kevin R.P.D.” last October. A route that is frequented only rarely by Riverside Police Department officers. Why should I walk through a neighborhood and every time I see a squad car driving by wonder if it is “B. Fife” stripping me inside his head, again? That is a violation that no man can ever understand, let alone feel, but it is an intimate experience for most women, something we swap our experiences with, through stories about facing sexism in contemporary society.
It is an unfortunate reality for any woman, simply for being a woman that she will be harassed by a man simply because she is female. If she is being harassed for being an individual hated by a man, that man will use sexist behavior and imagery to express it, because she is a woman. If she is a woman of color, he will likely use racist behavior and imagery too.
In this case, it is apparently being done by public servants who were hired to protect and serve women(and men) not denigrate them. It is being done by a man who is too cowardly to even sign his own name to his words. Not even to spare other employees in the department a bit of extra scrutiny that one woman has to do in order to feel comfortable in her surroundings because of what one man has done, because this man has no face. However, not only does the internet give him the perfect hiding place, so does law enforcement through its shield laws and its blue code. Every harasser has an audience and from comments made by both “Asti” and “B. Fife”, it’s clear that there is probably an audience quietly watching their antics. Few people are not aware of the blue brotherhood.
I passed along the comment made by B. Fife to other women, and one word came back to me, over and over. Misogyny. How could someone put so much hate and misogyny, into so few words? In this case, the explanation could fill a book. A simpler explanation is that men engage in this behavior, because they can.
We, as women live in a society where men make the rules that both genders follow and one of the unwritten rules is that women are to be subjected to denigration by the male gender’s less emotionally secure individuals on the basis of our gender. That hatred can be expressed through street harassment. It can be expressed through violent crimes, including rape and sexual assault. There is also plenty of ground left over for men who hate women to operate, in between the two extremes.
Misogyny, literally, is the hatred of women or hostility towards them. Whether it is all women, a few women or one woman. From the time we are girls, we have to learn how to cope in a world where often we can not walk down a street without someone yelling something derogatory to us from a car, or trying to pinch or touch us on the street. We may innately realize that men may mentally undress us as we walk past them, but we do not wish to be reminded of that. We do not wish to be reminded that we are not human beings at all, but objects. Unless we are women of color, then apparently we are nonhuman in other ways, a designation based on race
Several women believed that the comment was meant to frighten me as much as it was meant to denigrate me, because this person wanted to make clear to me that he was paying attention to my movements at least through “his” area of town. Where I was going, what I was wearing, is his way of saying, I’m watching you. After all the probability that my travels through the Eastside would have brought me into contact with one police officer this many times, does not suggest they were random encounters. Experts say that men engage in this type of behavior to exert power over women, to control them and I can feel that keenly from those words.
Only about 3% of all the officers hired recently by the police department were female and if “B. Fife’s” behavior is in any way indicative of the current working environment, it will have to fight to keep them. Men who engage in this type of behavior tend to target any women who does not fit their narrow definition of what a woman should do, and it is clear to the “B.Fife”s of the world, that women only serve one purpose. Policing the streets is not on that very short list.
That one purpose is sexual gratification, or at least to be graded on a scale that is based on this purpose. That was clearly delineated in “B. Fife’s” comment.
First, what “B. Fife” does to each woman he encounters during the day is to strip them naked inside his head. Doing this provides him with a tremendous sense of power over each and every one of them. If they are unlucky, he will tell him how he does this in great detail. If he keeps his actions to himself, he is doing them a small favor. After doing this, he provides his personal evaluation on each women. Since a woman’s worth to him is based on her sexual desirability, he assigns them grades on the pass/fail system.
A passing grade for “B. Fife” on his desirability scale would be an erection or perhaps, a smile of approval. A failing grade is a series of derogatory comments followed by a form of regurgitation response. Between the two, I am more than happy to be on the receiving end of an upchuck response.
His comments clearly stated that I was being graded on his scale of whether or not a woman is sexually desirable(and thus has a purpose in this world) and apparently I received a failing grade. Something for which I am very grateful. The “B. Fifes” of the world are not God’s gift to this woman or any woman with self-respect.
Humor aside, it is a way that men of “B. Fife’s” ilk grade each woman they encounter every day to exert power over them, as men. Law Enforcement allows them many opportunities to do this. After all, the police department itself has stated that its officers have hundreds of contacts with members of the public each year.
“B. Fife” continues on this same track in his next post, by offering suggestions for me to follow in order to receive a passing grade next time.
Anonymous said…
Poor Mary.
I suggest a shower, shave and change of underwear.
It is obvious to me and many others that Mary what you need is a good ” BANG “! (-:
Saturday, April 29, 2006 3:46:52 PM
This is a typical stock response by an emotionally immature man who has issues in terms of relating to women who exist for reasons not included on his “list”. By the time most women enter adulthood, they have heard the adage, “All you need is a good fuck to be able to do this_________ or not be like this________(insert words of choice in the blanks). That is exactly what “B. Fife” is stating here. It is a response meant to embarrass, humiliate and intimidate women who are not acting in ways men like “B. Fife” view as appropriate and men like him try to stop that behavior in its tracks with sexual comments when tactics like cajoling, ultimatums and threats do not work.
Attitudes like those expressed by “B. Fife” here are one of the problems women have had to tackle in to survive as police officers in departments rife with a culture that in most cases, does not want them there. They have invaded turf which had been considered the sole domain of men and have entered into a club where they are not welcome. If men like “B. Fife” are what they have to deal with in the RPD, then it is no wonder their retention rate is so poor. The problem may not be so much that they do not know what they are in for(as has been suggested) but that they know exactly what they are in for.
Attitudes like those expressed by “B. Fife” here present obstacles to women who want to report crimes against them to police officers. When I asked women if they felt like reporting crimes like rape or domestic violence to someone like “B. Fife”, all of them answered no, quite adamantly. Historically, women have been reluctant to report violent crimes like rape to police officers because of past and present sexist attitudes about women and rape voiced by law enforcement officers. Police agencies have worked hard to stem that tide and turn it in a more positive direction. Men like “B. Fife” do nothing but hinder those efforts, with their misogyny.
After all, who wants to report a crime of violence to someone who is a misogynist, even if most of the time that attitude is shut away in a closet? It is still in the room with him and the woman.
Finally, the thought of any woman having to turn to someone like “B. Fife” to report a violent crime that happened to her, because she was a woman is enough to make me want to throw up.
—————————————————————————
So it hardly is surprising to hear that cops are raping women. Few of them even get reported for their actions and even fewer tried and convicted.
Fuck you, B Fife !!!
Te hia nei, te kai te manawa oo teeraa pookokohua, hamuti, aia kai te panapana!!! Ruuruu te upoko nei ki te ripa ki te ripa.
Kia heke mai te toto i ngaa paapaaringa!!!
Tiikape te para ki te kuri.
POOKOKOHUA!!!
Translation:
“This desire,
is to eat the beating heart of that low life cursed one,
that human excrement,
shaking the head from side to side,
allowing the blood to descend down the cheeks,
throwing aside the leftovers/scraps to the dog.”
Hah! One of them called me a sexually repressed manhater. So typical. If you don’t like me, you hate all men.
That’s like if a guy walks up to a girl, grabs his crotch and says, “will you help me with this?” and she’s repulsed, that means she’s sexually repressed.
It’s scary how sexism and misogyny are entrenched in law enforcement, then people wonder why they have so much difficulty reporting violent crimes to them, as women. It explains in large part, why LE officers commit violent crimes against women themselves. The sad thing, that you can be in the States or in New Zealand and it’s all the same.
I left a message which does not seem to be there. I just want everyone to know that I was a victim at the hands of a police officer. Despite forensic and fingerprint evidence, my case was covered up because I took 30 minutes to report it. Never mind that I was not thinking straight and scared out of my mind. While it was initially treated seriously, at the end I was told that because I waited 30 minutes, someone else could be responsible, despite the fact that there was only evidence of the police officer involved.
It is time our laws are changed and victims are treated with some kind of respect. This is not a subject to be treated lightly and the victims have to live with it for the rest of their lives, while the cops carry on with their daily duties.
I was extremely proud to be a part of the march on Sunday and hope that in some way it might make a difference, or at least bring the issue to peoples attention.
It gets worse and worse. I fear for the relationship between men and women sometimes and the affects of the upcoming generations. So many of us are traumatised and pass tat trama on because society as a whole still doesnt support the need for trauma work or reeducation of the mass concepts of what does and does not constitue ‘damage’ to people. If you get up again and get on with life then your alright, despite whats hidden inside. And its that which dicates the way we bring up our children. I was sent this link today. http://www.dev-zone.org/cgi-bin/knowledge/jump.cgi?ID=10331
Its scary what humans have sunk too. Unfortunately it usually (although not always) men. I have some thoughts on my website if you want to have a look.www.spiritflight.co.nz/articles/social_comment
as another kiwi woman with a daughter who has also been devastated by the police actions and non-actions when it comes to desperate efforts to find help, protection and/or reporting crimes of violence with their own rogue officers
– the following High Court BOOK DESTRUCTION judgement deeply disturbs me –
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/0,2106,3671187a6479,00.html
This book was promoted in NZ public domain and media when it was launched etc
BREAKING NZ NEWS
Another victim…..
Revealed: Louise Nicholas accused face sex trial over new woman
5.00pm Thursday May 25, 2006
The three men acquitted of the rape of Louise Nicholas face another trial this year in relation to alleged sexual offending against another woman.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clinton John Tukotahi Rickards and former police officers Bradley Keith Shipton and Robert Francis Schollum are alleged to have committed the crimes during the 1980s.
The Herald won the right to tell the public about the second trial by going to the High Court.
In a reserved judgement, revealed this afternoon, Justice Tony Randerson allowed the paper to report limited details about the case.
The complainant, who has name suppression, is a different woman from Louise Nicholas. Mrs Nicholas’ allegations of rape were considered by a High Court jury in Auckland in March.
The jury in that case found the three men not guilty on a series of historic charges of sexual violation and indecent assault against Mrs Nicholas.
The acquittals set off a storm of protest, with one women’s group distributing court-suppressed information about the three accused.
Extensive suppression orders surrounding the Louise Nicholas case and the upcoming High Court case remain in force.
* Tomorrow’s New Zealand Herald will carry more details about the case.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10383514
Well hopefully now that the Herald has made it possible for this jury to connect the dots, they may be a little more prepared to accept the word of one complainant.
It’s hard to know what else to say since no-one wants to give these sleazebags any excuse to provide a judge with an ‘out’, but I must say that when this is all over it would be interesting to hear why the prosecution and the courts agreed to let this saga be prosecuted at separate trials.
I’ve never heard of any other defendant up on a mob of charges for the same offence be allowed to divide them up like this and put a fence enforced by nearly blanket suppression around each trial and complainant.
Imagine how much it would cost if the next person charged with serial burglary or bankrobbery insists on a separate jury trial for each robbery with total suppression on the trials lest his/her name become so familiar in the court pages it may prejudice a jury.
Forgot to mention – later this week is when there may be another Special Report issued perhaps?
Internal Affairs Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct
http://www.confidentialforum.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Commissions-of-Inquiry-Commission-of-Inquiry-into-Police-Conduct?OpenDocument
23/02/2006) The Commission of Inquiry`s Reporting Date has been extended until 31 May 2006. Link here to a copy of the New Zealand Gazette Notice of the Order in Council
I see the photos of the aquitted( and now re-accused)have now been published.
I believe Louse.
Be sure your sins will find you out I say! These scumbags will pay, somehow, sometime and somewhere! Let’s hope ‘the dots are indeed joined’ this time and these arrogant arses are made to account for their brutal actions of a time long ago, which has probably had significant consequences for their victims, and will probably continue to, for all of their lives. Because these men have gone on to lead ‘normal’ lives and are now “good family men” (according to their families) does not invalidate their criminal pasts nad they must be made accountable. Their acquital at the Nicholas trial, was viewed by most as an ‘un proven’ verdict as opposed to not guilty but still did not stop them spouting forth with their usual pomp and arrogance. Lets hope the police force that so badly let Louise Nicholas, and no doubt many others , down at the hands of these men, will redeem themselves at this next trial. I too hope the police case will be watertight and these men will have plenty (more) time to eat porridege and reflect!!
Saying it didn’t happen, does not wipe away what did actually happen. I wonder how these guys lay straight in their beds at night and what goes through their minds as they now see their daughters, grand daughters and neices at the age their victims were at the time of these atrocities. A not guilty verdict, from my point of view was a mere technicality. These guys will pay, undoubtedly. Maybe not until they are laying on their deathbeds, but they will have to confront their demons and the price will I suspect be significant…
I believe Louise!
The truth will out. I believe Louise. A lie told a thousand times is still a lie.
Sorry—Rushing is no excuse for bad spelling
I believe Louise
Acquitted Nicholas-case trio face new sex trial
Friday May 26, 2006
By Nicola Boyes
The three men acquitted of raping Louise Nicholas face another High Court trial in relation to alleged sexual offending against another woman.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are alleged to have committed the crimes during the 1980s.
The three were acquitted by a High Court jury in March of 20 charges, including the alleged rape, sexual violation and indecent assault of Mrs Nicholas when she was a Rotorua teenager.
The Herald supported the right to publish the fact that the three men are to face another trial before the High Court at Auckland.
The complainant, who has name suppression, is a different woman from Mrs Nicholas.
In a reserved judgment released yesterday, Justice Tony Randerson has allowed the media to publish the fact of another trial.
However, extensive suppression orders remain in force surrounding the upcoming case and the Nicholas trial.
All that can be said is that the case relates to allegations of sexual offending by all three men against another woman in the 1980s.
A trial date is yet to be set.
The editor of the Herald, Tim Murphy, said the judge’s ruling was a victory for the public’s right to know and to understand what went on in the courts. “The Court of Appeal has made it clear that matters before the courts ought to start from a position of openness.
“The public’s right to know what happens in court should only be curtailed when publicity would demonstrably prejudice the case.”
Mr Murphy said the “complex web of suppressions” had been more damaging to the interests of justice than it had been effective in preserving the rights of the accused.
Lifting the suppression on the fact of a further trial would help remove speculation on the case.
The acquittals in the Nicholas case set off a storm of protest, with women’s groups distributing information that the court had suppressed.
Discussion threads were started on websites and public marches and demonstrations were held.
Rickards, who has had a meteoric rise through police ranks, from undercover police officer to Auckland district commander, has been stood down from duties since he was charged last year.
He has been studying law at the University of Auckland.
After the verdicts in March it was said that discussions were to begin regarding Rickards’ future employment, with Deputy Commissioner Lyn Provost and Rickards’ lawyer, John Haigh, QC, holding talks.
Mr Haigh could not be reached last night.
Police spokesman Jon Neilson told the Herald that Rickards would remain stood down from duties.
“The court process takes precedent. Nothing changes,” Mr Neilson said.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10383627
FYI http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3681337a10,00.html
Women fail to report rapes
27 May 2006
By YVONNE MARTIN
The negative attitudes of police officers towards rape complaints and fears of a bruising court trial are putting women off reporting rape.
Police have recognised that women not using the criminal justice system is a major concern and are setting up a specialist squad to deal with rape cases in a bid to improve their image.
The initiative comes as the Commission of Inquiry into police conduct, investigating the handling of the Louise Nicholas case and other matters, is extended for the fourth time until September 30.
Prime Minister Helen Clark announced the inquiry in February 2004 and it was due to report next week.
A spokesman for Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker said the latest extension was granted to ensure the report was “robust” and complete.
A special report by The Weekend Press, published in today’s Mainlander, has found that women are avoiding and dropping out of the criminal justice system at phenomenally high rates.
Support groups estimate that only one in 10 rapes is notified, and only a fraction go to court.
Victoria University criminologist Dr Jan Jordan said the doubting attitudes of officers dealing with women reporting rape complaints were a factor in the high rates of attrition.
Jordan, who has done extensive research on rape and police practices, said a culture of disbelief runs through the force, tainting how it deals with complaints.
Officers trained as sexual-assault investigators have told her that they believe up to 80 per cent of rape complaints police receive are false.
“If the expectation is there that, chances are, a complaint is more likely to be false than true, that is going to be conveyed non-verbally, even if not verbally, to any complainant coming in,” said Jordan.
“Some of the police will say, `We are not going to say that to her’, but there are other ways that that scepticism gets conveyed ““ by their body language, the stance, the way in which they ask the questions and what they ask.”
Nicholas struggled to get her rape complaint from the 1980s actioned, but her case was more complex than most as the allegations were against police officers.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were acquitted in March of charges of raping her.
But a second woman has emerged with historic sexual-abuse allegations from the 1980s against the same men, and they will stand trial again.
The police’s new national co-ordinator of adult sexual assault and child abuse, Detective Senior Sergeant Neil Holden, did not dispute Jordan’s findings.
He agreed police had to be seen as more receptive and approachable to encourage women to report sexual assaults.
“We need to tidy it up to say we are really addressing the matter, we are wanting to make it a lot better, so bring more work to us,” he said.
“We need to make sure our processes are very clear, very transparent ““ there is no secrecy behind them.”
Holden also hoped the sexual-assaults investigation unit about to be launched in Auckland would set a new standard of professionalism. A sergeant and four detectives would work alongside community agencies.
Dr Kim McGregor, director of Rape Prevention Education (formerly Rape Crisis Auckland), said her group had pushed for years for a full-time, ring-fenced squad, similar to those investigating child abuse.
“I have worked in this field for 20 years. While there has been some changes made over that time, in practice not very much has changed for survivors of sexual violence,” she said.
Daniel Rae, one of two activists involved in last month’s Christchurch rally in support of Nicholas, has been questioned by police over the distribution of pamphlets containing suppressed information about the case.
Rae gave a statement and said police indicated they would be laying charges in relation to the alleged breach of suppression. He would fight any charges.
Before I say anything, let me say that what I am about to say applies only to certain of the people who have replied here. Most I have no beef with whatsoever, but sadly the replies to this really do include some of the worst twistings and misinterpretations of feminism (not all, but some.) People who think they should be allowed to break the law if they think they’re right, but want others who break the law to be punished. People who think the courts should convict people even when the evidence isn’t sufficient, but who would of course want a fair trial for themselves or their loved ones. People who think the end justifies the means as long as the end is a rape conviction. And so on.
Not everyone is saying this, and I am happy for that, but those of you who are saying “this should have been a conviction even if the evidence was shoddy, the witnesses were less than you’d hope for, and so on” should ask yourselves: if it was you on the stand, would that be acceptable? If it was your life in the balance, would “we’re sure she’s guilty, so hang her!” be good enough? Is the fact that the cops had an unfair advantage reason in and of itself to ignore due process? If so, would it be if YOU were accused of having an unfair advantage?
I’m all for better forensics, institutional reform of the police (a huge deal, and not just for rape cases,) and other things that will make a concrete difference without requiring that we take unreasonable risks of convicting innocent people by throwing out due process and so on. I think the era of unpunished rape is coming to a close in the first world for technological reasons, albeit too late and too slowly, and I’m very happy to see this coming along. I am not in favor of throwing away basic protections in our legal system just to get the result someone is looking for. Ever.
(An aside about that technology: in addition to the obvious DNA testing we all know about, we’re rapidly making progress towards a day when our mastery of our biology will allow us to eliminate STDs and control pregnancy more or less at will. This will obviate the condom, which won’t upset anyone I know. The particular upside for rape is, it means rapists WILL leave physical evidence even if they don’t want to. I have a feeling the rape rate will drop dramatically, and the conviction rate go up correspondingly.)
Nyk
“Truth never loses by argument. Instead of dealing in generalities and paraphrases a man should come forward with facts and details,and thus evince the desire to deal practically with the question. This is honesty -this is fearless integrity, which must put down falsehoods and misrepresentations, come from whatever source they may.” So wrote Epictus some 2000 years ago. Why the suppression orders? Why the hiding and subterfuge tactics of legal barrettry? Could the accused show some compassion or emotion instead of learned and trained legal responses? What do the women have to gain by making false accusations? I cannot see why the mere thought of honesty and openness sends the accused into such a frenzy of secrecy.
I still believe Louise !
I lived in Rotorua in the 1980’s and we had visitors (in blue uniforms) at our flat at all times of the night. I really feel that my only protection at that time (I was young, quiet and not confident at all),was the fact that I had a boyfriend who was definately NOT in a blue uniform,so the uniforms didn’t give meany grief. It was a long time ago and I can’t remember faces but I wouldn’tmind betting that Brad Shipton visted the flat where I lived.