I still believe Louise Nicholas

A relative of Louise Nicholas left this comment. I replied with this

I would take these posts down if there was any chance it could make things worse for Louise Nicholas, or anyone else who was trying to get justice.

I now believe there is a possibility that this might be the case, so I have taken the comments down.

It’s not a decision I made easily, and I don’t regret publishing it. I remain incredibly angry about this trial, and the result.

I should be able to collect my thoughts more coherently soon.

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

45 Responses to I still believe Louise Nicholas

  1. Pingback: feminist blogs

  2. Pingback: Liberal Blogosphere

  3. 3
    anon says:

    It’s all very well to take it down, but don’t you realise google has a cache – it’s there forever, the damage is already done.

  4. 4
    Simian says:

    Corruption reigns in Aotearoa -N.Z, a chosen few control the media, judiciary and the police.

    It is unfortunate that the similar fact evidence wasn’t able to be tendered in Court, it may-would have influenced the outcome.

    Many of us are- were suspicious of the identities of the ‘Tauranga Pack.’

    If true, this is absolutely disgusting!


  5. 5
    Maia says:

    I’m aware of that anon – I can’t remove it from Feminist Blogs either.

  6. 6
    Susan Peters says:

    I would like to see the leaflets in question being made available on this blog if someone has one. It would be in the interest of all women [deleted]. Even through Louise’s’ past could be draged up and made to look bad. What would the jury have thought if they knew the two thugs has already pack rapped a young year in that same era. How unjust is this for the victom. We ill help them pay the fine.

  7. 7
    Ampersand says:

    It’s all very well to take it down, but don’t you realise google has a cache – it’s there forever, the damage is already done.

    Google’s cache will eventually refresh itself with the more recent version of the post. Feminist Blogs will eventually have only the first couple of paragraphs of each post – they only do the full post for the first day or two.

    So although it’s not possible to completely undo it, by removing it from “Alas” the result is to make the material less available than it otherwise would have been.

  8. 8
    Ginger says:

    I think it’s too bad that free dissemination of information is causing a problem, because lack of information is such an issue in so many criminal cases. Have there been any statements made by the Louise Nicholas jury, now that they know that two of the defendants already had convictions from a separate, similar assault?

  9. 9
    ross francis says:

    Some on here think that the accuser should have the same rights as the accuser. Why? The accused has more to lose – at least 10 years in prison. But what does someone who makes false allegations of rape get? If they plead guilty, they get diversion. See the difference: 10 years in prison vs diversion? If women falsely alleging rape were also imprisoned for 10 years, I might agree that the accused and accuser should be treated in the same way.

    BTW, nobody has said anything about the earlier trial – are the convictions from that trial safe? They are currently being appealed. What if the convictions are overturned? Would that put a different slant on people’s opinions?

  10. 10
    ross francis says:

    Some on here think that the accuser should have the same rights as the ACCUSED.

  11. 11
    Jill says:

    Where can you find a copy or text of the brochure that was given out yesterday?

  12. 12
    Thomas Ware says:

    I’ve taken a closer (of the sort only those such as I, with my ahhh… unique sources of information, can) at this – I believe Ms. Nicholas. Just because a cop wears a pony-tail, doesn’t necessarily make it human. Conversely, just ’cause a guy’s got a pony-tail, doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have an affinity for justice. Or the means of its pursuit.

    It’s time to put the pigs in jail.

  13. 13
    ross francis says:

    Why would you want to see it? It wasn’t admissable in court and will remain so. Interestingly the brochure doesn’t mention anything about Louise’s past which the jury might have found useful. Strange that.

  14. 14
    Jena says:

    Everyone believes young boys who can recall sexual assaults by Priests 20 years ago.
    But a woman’s evidence that she was sexually assaulted by 3 policemen at age 18 is somehow not believable?
    What an indictment on our society!

  15. 15
    ross francis says:


    Everyone doesn’t believe young boys who allege sexual assaults by priests. Some of us like to make up our minds based on the evidence. Or do you think evidence and trials are a waste of time, that we should go back to the good old days when witches were burnt at the stake?

  16. 16
    Hero says:

    I have just read this on another site: (its a tad disturbing)

    “peterellis.org.nz is extremely concerned that as the trial of the three defendants start, that a miscarriage of justice may potentially occur – in a similar way to the concerns that we have previously expressed about the conviction of the defendants in the historic Mount Maunganui pack rape case.

    We await the proceedings of the trial, and hope that any possible conviction will be based on real evidence and not emotion and prejudice, as appeared to occur in the Mt Maunganui case. We hope that due regard is given to the credibility of the chief complainant, Louise Nicholas, who has self-confessed to previously making a false accusation of rape (although that would be no excuse for her to be a victim of that same crime)

    If the evidence suggests that the defendants are not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they should be set free, and Clint Rickards welcomed back as one of New Zealand’s top policemen.”

    That’s it in a nutshell isn’t it? He and the other defendants were considered top policemen – good guys upholding the law – clearly they werent in fact I think that they were probably the most loathesome of humanity who took extreme advantage over a naive girl at the very least. For the record I believe Louise Nicholas, however it came down to he said she said – not good when the he is a “top cop” and “above” reproach.

    It is a sad indightment on our society that these men have essentially got away with it and it may happen again if their appeal is let through. We as a society have a lot to answer for if we allow it to happen.

    It only takes one good man or woman to look the other way for evil to prosper.

  17. 17
    notXtian says:

    Imagine for a moment a teenage girl whose life has suddenly and terrifyngly spun out of control. The people who her family had taught her to look to for protection are now using her as a sex toy. Even worse, after she moves away to try and get some control back in her life, they pursue her.

    Perhaps she can at least get them to show some compassion for her, to take an interest in her as something other than a hole to insert bits of themself or other objects in, if she tells them a story about the humiliation she has been suffering.

    However rather than name the real perpetrators, themselves, she points the finger at the people she has heard them tell her they regard as being even more despicable than herself.

    So she tells them that she has been raped by a gang of Maori boys. Guess what? It seems they don’t really care.

    Even worse it hasn’t even put them off continuing their debasement of her. What choice does she then have but proceed with the charges?

    Charges against the mythical maoris in the hope that someone, anyone will notice her and start treating her like an human rather than a thing again.

    Ross Francis before you even begin to attribute any motive whatsoever to a highly unsophisticated teenaged country girl lost in a nightmare that she didn’t seek but somehow feels responsible for, make sure that you know what you are talking about.

    Someday you may find yourself in the power of others who consider you a non person. I wonder if all of your actions would then be so clearly able to be judged by an outsider in possesion of few facts other than some selective and highly edited third hand ‘information’ that you were reluctantly allowed to access by an establishment eager to sweep the whole messy business under the carpet.

    I hope that the proprietors of this blog are correct and that some justice is obtained for anyone who has been caught up in this ugly little insight into the way power can corrupt the weak-willed, but I suspect that the die has been cast.

    It has been decided that ‘the boys have learned their lesson’, ‘it will never happen again’ so ‘we shouldn’t rock the boat’ and cause the ‘sheeple’ to lose faith in authority figures.

    I am cynical enough to believe all perpetrators will eventually walk away from this disgraceful example of ‘the good old boys’ at their worst.

  18. 18
    Elizabeth says:

    Ross Francis

    I have really tried to bite my tongue with you over the last couple of days – but you have overstepped the line now. So apologies to anyone who happens to know this blogger….but here goes….

    I am not sure what your axe is with Louise Nicholas. But your ridiculous, snide comments about her past are beginning to get really tiresome! You weren’t by chance a choir boy when younger were you????

    Do me a favour. Got a spend an afternoon with Louise and then come back and post your findings on this blog. I would be interested to hear your comments after meeting her.

    She probably has bigger balls than you could ever wish to grow.

    Again apologies to everyone for lowering the tone. But, as previously published – Lousie Nicholas is family – not just someone to gossip about!!!

  19. 19
    Queasy says:

    All scrapping aside, this whole issue of suppressed information really bites me in the ass. You know, in the States, when information (no matter how secret) is leaked, everybody publishes it in every possible place. And I always thought that we here in New Zealand were less restricted than America. Of course, you know that this is exactly like the way the Chinese government censors the subjects its own citizens can talk about.

    To cap this all off, anybody who mentions the subject is in contempt of court, and therefore a violator of the law. But what happens when the Courts are deserved of contempt? They’re not above it, after all. This one sure gets mine.

  20. 20
    Mandy says:

    I have a few questions.
    1. Why are so many comments being removed “by blog administrator” on this and many other blogs where this case is being discussed? Surely bloggers are not afraid of being charged with contempt? Who is going to police this for heaven’s sake? I thought the internet was supposed to be the last bastion of free speech?? I am finding it disconcerting to find this censorship going on.
    2. How is Louise Nicholas doing, does anyone know? I am assuming she is getting a ton of moral support from many quarters, despite the disappointing verdict.

    3. Did Louise herself know of this “suppressed information” regarding two of the defendants during the trial?

    4. Did the jury know? If they had heard whispers they’d have to disqualify themselves, wouldn’t they?

    5. What is the “further information” that the plainclothed police told to the women with the pamphlets on monday at the station?

    I can’t understand why ppl are running scared of talking – surely if hundreds or more are talking/sharing info they can’t all be charged with contempt?? Now the men have had their day in court and been acquitted why are ppl still scared to discuss the details?? Come on people! I think the defence lawyers threats to have ppl prosecuted for contempt are all just so much bluff and bluster.

  21. 21
    Polemic says:

    Interesting… I umm.. didn’t find the ‘alas’ post that was deleted using good ‘ol Google Cache page. Nope, not at all. Bad idea to look at Google cache page for this site.

    Yeah.. that does change things.

  22. 22
    Maia says:

    Mendy to answer some of your questions

    1. I am removing comments that I think may hurt Louise Nicholas or other rape survivors hurting justice. I can’t explain why I think these comments would have this effect, because doing so might also have this effect.

    2. I’ve no idea, but you can fax information c/o the Crown Prosecutor Brett Stanaway 03 366 7474.

    3. I imagine she would

    4. I’m pretty sure they didn’t

    5. See 1

  23. 23
    ross francis says:

    ” I am removing comments that I think may hurt Louise Nicholas or other rape survivors hurting justice”.

    Don’t you mean “alleged” rape survivors? What about women who falsely allege they have been raped? Are they survivors, too, or are those false accused the real survivors?

  24. 24
    Maia says:

    No I don’t mean alleged rape survivors.

  25. 25
    Steve says:

    It appears that some contributors here have a penchant for idealistic naïveté. Like most countries we have a legal system, not a justice system, so there is no guarantee that trial outcomes will ever be correct. If we could develop a true justice system it would be a world first.

    Look to the legal “profession” for the root of the problem, by their own rules if a lawyer knows that their client is guilty they are still bound to use anything they can to “win” the case and get the best possible outcome for their guilty client. Justice? – NO.

    Did the jurors in the Louise Nicholas case receive all the relevant information required to make a fully informed finding, I think not.

  26. 26
    Hero says:

    I think the main problem I have with this whole business is that Ross Francis is assuming that this a fair and level playing field – when clearly it wasnt. Louise Nicholas was villified in the worst possible way by people who should have known better. She has stood up and has said this has happened to me and it was wrong, it shouldnt have happened and I want the people who did this to be held accountable for their actions.

    As far as Im concerned Louise Nicholas has been screwed over by our fair and unbiased judicial system. They were allowed to bring her past into the court room, yet as we all know now the defendents pasts were effectively hidden from the watchful eyes of the jury. There has been no justice done this week.

    The arrogance of these men astounds me. Turning up to court in full police dress uniform – he knew he wasnt allowed to do it and he did anyway – he knew that he could get away with it. God help us if these “men” are allowed to remain in positions of power.

  27. 27
    J.B. says:

    Perhaps we the saying should be adapted: “Guilty until proven innocent… or we’ve completely annihilated the credibility of the victim.”

    I’m unable to claim what the outcome ‘should’ have been as I feel that I haven’t the level of information that requires. However, it concerns me that instead of disproving the rape charge the defence focused their case on attacking the credibility of this woman. What kind of an idiot would bring this much attention on ones self “for attention” as I have heard the defence claim if it were “all lies”?

    What does this case say to someone who has been raped? Particularly if they may have been considered ‘promiscuous’ in the past? It is very easy to attack the credibility of any person, what happened to proving innocence?

  28. 28
    Z says:

    As an incest and rape survivor I really feel for Louise Nicholas. These men are obviously corrupt to the core. Their wives should keep their eyes open. My own mother was married to a paedophile who molested two of her children and she did not realise. These women cannot truly believe their husbands are above reproach. I am married, and I know for sure my husband would never do anything like this because we tell each other everything and his general behaviour is exemplary. Can these wives truly say that about their husbands? Do they deep-down suspect their husbands of keeping secrets? Something to think about.

    My husband believes the men should have been found guilty. I do not care how other people saw Louise Nicolas act around these men — all the incidents that ‘prove she was not raped’.

    Unfortunately most people do not understand the psychological implications of abuse. It is not always black & white. Often rapists etc will mess with a victim’s mind to make them doubt themselves or even make them feel responsible for the rape.

    And also for the record — I have been in ACC counselling for a few years – following a long time of being in the public mental health system. As far as I know you do NOT get a lot of money dolled out to you because you were sexually abused. You get financial assistance with COUNSELLING that is supposed to help you recover from being abused. In most cases you still have to pay a top-up out of your own pocket for the counselling. Where is the personal gain in that? Going to therapy sessions each week to try to learn to feel some kind of self-worth is not exactly enjoyable.

    Also – if there WERE to be some kind of ‘pay out’

    1: I would not take it, as it is insulting to me to put a ‘price’ on how my life has been altered. *True* justice is when the perpetrators pay for their actions by going to prison. I am personally not interested in anything else.

    2: Even if I DID take it, I likely would not gain anything because I am on an invalids benefit due to psychiatric problems caused by the abuse and I’m sure my benefit would prob. just be taken away if I recieved a lump sum payout. I am sure there are a lot of abuse survivors who are on benefits because of difficulties coping with life as a result of the abuse.

    So the theory that women make up lies about rape for financial gain is rubbish in my oppinion. I have known a young woman who made up lies about rape – but all you have do to is ask a few of the right questions and question inconsistencies and soon enough the truth will come out – one way or the other. This girl admitted to lying in the end.

    I question to motives of people who get so angry about Louise Nicholas going to court over this. Like I said, my husband believes the men were guilty – of extreme corruption at the least. I do too. I am so glad I am not married to a man who feels the need to attack women in any way.

    The test of a *real* man is a man who speaks out against the rape and abuse of women! The fact is society in NZ is rife with physical and sexual abuse especially against women and children. Anyone who denies that is either completely ignorant, or they have their own twisted reasons for denying the prevalence of abuse.

    To all the Survivors — stay strong. I wish Louise Nicholas all the best. Unfortunately being found ‘not guilty’ in court does not mean you are innocent.

  29. 29
    scully says:

    In responsed to ross francis, Some’s one past means nothing, rape is rape. You seem to think that if you come from a bad back ground that a women cant be raped. Do you also believe that if a child says and adult touched, them that it must be a lie as they are only a child.
    These men took advantage of their positon over Louise Nicholas and got away with it. A not guilty verdict does not mean that they are innoccent. They had a good legal team that’s all.

  30. 30
    Dee says:

    I have read the pamphlet issued by Louise’s supporters and can tell you that it was completely explosive. Personally I believed it and could not understand why that after a person has been convicted of a crime, sentenced and imprisoned, they can still have a suppression order on them. Why should a convicted criminal have such rights? Are they some how better than us all. It is in the interest of the public to be privy to this information. Any ordinary citizen has to have his or her past convictions noted in court proceedings. Why not now?
    The only way to have this decision overturned, would be to lift the suppression order on the 2 defendants in the other case.
    I don’t think the Government or the Judiciary will ever acknowledge any opposition to this decision unless that is done first.
    To Louise and her family, keep strong, don’t let them WIN it all.

  31. 31
    Dave says:

    I have my doubts about the final outcome of this case. Did they rape her, i would not be surprised to find out they did. SOME police can be power mad and very arrogant. But in the end of the day the evidence was not there. Lots of guilty people get off, and some innocent people are found guilty. Until the system is changed, this is the way it will always be. I personally belive that all effort should go into find the guilty, and if a mistake is made in the arrest etc, that should not end the case. In the end of the day, once a crime is committed thats it. Forgetting to read rights etc does not change the fact that a crime was committed. The only winners in our present legal system are the Lawers….

  32. 32
    Mandy says:

    I have read the leaflet handed out and am absolutely gutted to the core that these pack of animals have been found not guilty because of name suppression of the previous case!! This trial was a complete travesty of justice and if the media can’t release this info then we need to! Does anyone know of a protest march coming up and if so can you please post on this site. We cannot let this injustice rest. If we do, then God help us!

  33. 33
    Malcolm Hall says:

    I too believe Louise. But here’s a thought: the only logical reason for maintaining the suppression order would be if there were MORE charges outstanding against these people, perhaps even more rape indictments.

    In which case the widespread publication of the suppressed info would make a “fair” trial impossible, the cases could never go to court, and they’d be completely off the hook.

    Talk about a lose-lose situation!

  34. 34
    Stellaz says:

    O dear! of course these 3 “men” should have been found guilty but the jury was advised not to look at the moral issues.Of course Louise Nicholas was telling the truth! for goodness sake these 3 cops preyed on numerous females back then at this is a fact as I personally know one of them.Picture u r a 17 yr old female found with a couple of marijuana joints and the policemen tell u “if u aren’t “nice” to me u could find ourseld with a jailable offence, i.e. dealing” these guys were insinuating to naive trusting young women that they were going to plant dope on them!!What wld you have done,my friend overherad them skiting and laughing about it on one of their “visits” to her flat.Why hasn’t she yelled rape, well after what has happened to Louise Nicholas I am guessing she & the numerous other women are glad they haven’t!!

  35. 35
    Doris says:

    Well Michael that is the only reason for maintaining supression on this case. But anyway even if everyone knows what difference would it make because there have been many other much publisized cases where convictions have still been made to stick so Whattttt!!!! What about the bragging at the police station to other officers that this was the baton used? I had a daughter who was sure that she was raped by a police officer and was too frightened to report this fact. So I can sympathise with Louise. And understand how she was intimidated by these very large police officers.

  36. 36
    David D says:

    I believe the NZ Police Force continues to be corrupt at many levels. There is little doubt in my mind that three evil men got away with a horrible set of crimes because they were policemen. I’m sure from my own experiences with the police force through some 57+ years of my life (and I have been a very law abiding citizen) that the culture is and always been very attractive to bullies and men of suspect moral standards.
    I believe Louise (who I’ve never met) when she said they moulded her like putty. I only hope the last of the trio can get put where the other two are.
    And incidently the police complaints authority is also a corrupt joke as far as I’m concerned from my dealings with it.

  37. 37
    Deb Beardsley says:

    Hi there
    I am angry and frustrated with the Louise Nicholas case and am disgusted with the police and the jusctice system in New Zealand. It is archaic and full of lies, cover ups and the’boys club’. I laid a complaint with the police 2 years ago after being violated and abused repeatedly by a close family friend who I grew up knowing as my uncle. He was best man at my parents wedding and they were lifelong friends. This man was a senior city councillor, chairman of a charity foundation and weel known in the business field. I have broken bones from this abuse not to mention horrific physical and emotional damage. I have been assessed as 25% permanently impaired by what this animal has done. An article appeared in the paper 2 years ago about this yet the police will not charge him with anything – he has not even had to face the police once and has done everything via his solicitor. He continues to hassle me with phone calls (despite my number being unlisted) yet the cops say it is probably just people trying to contact the local Chinese takeaway. Something has to be done in the way the police handle violation complaints and the law HAS to be changed. A victim has no way of defending herself when ‘consenual’ is slapped on the case. At the time of my abuse, I was suffering horribly from an eating disorder and was extremely vunlnerbale – not only did this creep take advantage of my parents friendship and our trust but also my illness and vulnerabilty. the cops slap mental illness all over my file as well. I have no chance or hope at all. Serious changes need to be made.
    I support you all with your fight for justice and just wish someone could have done the same thing for me!!
    Deb Beardsley
    NB: I have learnt that the police have ‘Aunties’ who they visit on a regular basis AND while on duty. I have addresses of these “Aunties” and know that it is widespread amongst the force. The whole thing reeks of abuse of power and disregard of human life!!!!!

  38. 38
    James says:

    “I have read the leaflet handed out and am absolutely gutted to the core that these pack of animals have been found not guilty because of name suppression of the previous case!!”

    Ah, actually they were found not guilty, probably based on Nicholas’ flatmate’s evidence and based on the fact that Nicholas admitted lying about a previous allegation of rape.

  39. 39
    vivenne campbell says:

    I too believe Louise and I am sad, frustrated and angry that these pricks were not found guilty. There are so many aspects to the case that deserve discussion. It is so unfair that her past was made relevant when Shipton’s and Schollum’s highly relevant past was kept secret. It is an outrage. Shame on the lawyers involved too. Shame on the system.

    Quite apart from rape considerations the Police Dept has done to Louise Nicholas a lot of harm. What an outrage that we have paid cops to go round in their police cars in packs and in their uniforms to knock on silly young vulnerable girls’ doors with the purpose of looking for a bonk. And to pick them up in police cars and take them back to police houses for nookies and lookies and a spot of perversion to boot. This was a sustained pattern of behaviour, and they chose her because they knew she was silly weak and vulnerable and immature. Never mind about her size, it would be the same if she were huge. How bloody dare they. They make me want to have a right royal spew. And then further down the track their cronies in the force manipulate her and try to cover it up. Sickening. I say BOOT RICKARDS AND COMPENSATE NICHOLAS. The Police Dept must make a genuine apology, they must make a recognition of the situation as it was, quite apart from notions of rape, and part of that genuine recognition and apology is to pay up for the damage caused.

  40. 40
    bart says:

    I have 2 comments. To DAvid D, The Louise Nicholas incident was due to a small faction within the Police that does not exist today. I know a lot of current & ex cops who wanted to see Shipton & co found guilty.
    To Deb Beardsly, you have my sympathy regarding your childhood situation. However to say it has not been investigated due to corruption is wrong. The CAT (child abuse team) detectives have a massive workload & due to resourcing must prioritise. Cases involving young children currently at risk are investigated first and historic cases investigated when resources allow. I know of CAT detectives with 35 or more cases on their desk at present & they are working massive hours, getting stressed and leaving the job. I know of one Detective of 15 years experience who said for the first time in his career he cant sleep because he worries about kids that will keep getting abused if he is not at work. If you want to talk about corruption talk about a supposedly feminist led government that dictates that a large amount of Police funding must be spent on traffic policing while underresourced CAT Squads drown in their workload. Why? Because traffic policing generates revenue & abused kids are hidden victims that cost money to deal with.

  41. 41
    anon says:

    What about a civil case for compensation from the police for Louise!

  42. 42
    anon says:

    I am concerned please remove all comments made by me under my email address

  43. 43
    Greg says:

    James can you show me evidence which supports your allegation that Nicholas’ “admitted lying about a previous allegation of rape” ?

    The previous allegation went before court for three trials. The first two trials were declared mis-trials as the detective working on the case submitted inadmissible evidence. The detective was known as being very good at court. Judges believed and came out that he was doing it on purpose.

    I cannot name the detective but it is not hard to find out who he is. I suggest you try and find out and then find out what type of things he was doing with other cops, and who his mates were, and what other allegations he listened to yet failed to get a proper statement from the victim on.

    Inform yourself of some of the background facts of the police investigation before you start running your mouth off about people being “liers”.

  44. 44
    james says:


    Why did Louise lie when she said she was raped by 5 Maoris on horseback?

  45. 45
    Just Me says:

    The point should stay, that Louise, Judith and as of the commission of inquiry, 313 complaints of sexual assault were made against 222 Police Officers. The Police certainly have alot to answer for. It is sad that there are many good officers out there who probably now feel quite tainted by what others have done.
    It is also true, that there are women who make false allegations of rape against people. However, the ones who are honest need all the support they can get; and I know from the 80s myself, that the Police were not polite if you went to them about a rape.
    Kia Kaha to all those Women; and Men who have been through this; and have survived.