I'll write about something else soon; I'll think about something else soon

This photo was taken at a police college open day yesterday. The action lead the news about the case on both channels. I was so happy that that message got out there. I’ve talked to people on the protest; there were lots of older women who said that they agreed with the banner, that they believed Louise Nicholas too.

I actually think it’s clear that some members of the jury believed her too. The jury was out for 26 hours over three days, they obviously disagreed about something. I wonder how those jury members who believed her, who wanted to convict, will feel when they discover what they weren’t allowed to know.


Comments on this post are for feminist, pro-feminist and feminist-friendly commenters only.

Also posted on My blog

This entry posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues, Whatever. Bookmark the permalink. 

10 Responses to I'll write about something else soon; I'll think about something else soon

  1. Pingback: feminist blogs

  2. 2
    Barbara says:

    FWIW, In the U.S. the evidence of prior criminal conviction could have come into evidence under a number of different scenarios. If the men had testified a prior conviction could be introduced to impeach their general credibility. Prior bad acts can come into evidence to show motive, opportunity or, most important, pattern or method — in other words, if their actions in the current case showed a pattern consistent with prior actions, then the conviction and testimony regarding method and means could have been introduced.

  3. 3
    pdf23ds says:

    “if their actions in the current case showed a pattern consistent with prior actions”

    Isn’t that what Maia is asking here:

    “But it wasn’t relevant that other women had been raped by these police officers in exactly the same way?”

    Would that meet the standards of evidence you’re talking about?

  4. 4
    Maia says:

    Presumably the standards of evidence are different in New Zealand than they are in America.

    I do know that the reason they didn’t take the stand was so they couldn’t be cross examined about their convictions.

  5. 5
    DirkDirkin says:

    Hmmmmm, so isn’t about time that all previous similar convictions (the charge you are on) is divulged to a jury?

  6. 6
    Andrew from NZ says:

    To think these sick sexual predators spent years hiding behind a badge, were convicted of a similar group of charges, possibly have more similar charges pending, and the fact the judge wouldn’t allow these facts to be brought up in this case, makes me so ashamed of the so-called NZ justice system. This is an absolute travesty of justice and I honestly cant see how any women can have faith in the NZ Police.

  7. 7
    steve says:

    It’s a shame that there were just too many inconsistent pieces of testimony for the prosecution. Without those, it could very well have gone the other way. The flatmate, her brother…even her own previous statements…all ended up being the difference. I have to say, I didn’t expect any other verdict.

  8. 8
    Mendy says:

    The big thing is that unless the men had been arrested and charged with the other rapes prior to this court case, then that information couldn’t be admitted into evidence.

    And if they didn’t take the stand, then that evidence couldn’t be used as character impeachment. I’m not entirely sure what the requirements are to bring “prior bad acts” into evidence as proof of MO or pattern.

    Of course, this is only in the US and I don’t know anything about the legal system in NZ or Australia.

  9. 9
    Tony says:

    I was under the impression that any convictions could not be suppressed as this info is in the public record ………. tell me more!

  10. 10
    Carol says:

    If dogs attacked people like this they would be put down.
    Who needs scum like this in our society?
    They are not worth the cost of a micro chip.