Imagine you’re a sixteen year-old girl. You’ve grown up in a small town where jobs aren’t getting any easier to find. Your boyfriend is a cop, which has its advantages. One night you’re at a friend’s house and have some drinks – you’d probably be able to get into bars, but alcohol is much cheaper from an off-licence. Some of your boyfriend’s cop friends show up, but they don’t object to underage drinking any more than he does.
Readers from New Zealand probably know where this is going.
25 years ago Bob Schollum, Brad Shipton and Clint Rickards dragged a 16 year old girl to a bedroom while she was struggling and screaming. They handcuffed her and indecently assaulted her.
What would you do? Where would you go? Who could help you?
Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton are standing trial for the crimes they committed agains this woman. They are rapists, who used the power their uniform gave them to abuse an unknown number of women.
I just hope that the prosecution has more to offer by way of corroborative evidence than was managed at a similar trial. And, like many other people, I have no desire to see yet another woman ‘rubbished’ by the media. Sadly, if the “case against” is not strong enough then this is certainly what is going to happen. What chance for one small female voice against brothers in arms?
Why do I worry about a possible scenario where a second ‘not guilty’ verdict for one of the players might be the prize, with the trial a means to this end? Surely too much mud has touched these particular gentlemen ever to be washed off? I for one will never be convinced otherwise.
in response to Lesly Finn well yeah and, perhaps if the cases had of been allowed to see the light of day many years ago when they first made to the police complaints authorities, instead of having to repeatedly request to have their complaints taken to court and be seen… then more evidence might have been available.
As it is, time is on the police officers side ( as well as them having the court systems in place in NZ to overlyprotect them) … these cases has highlighted a need for MUCH change in our system . The courts and police complaints authority are at fault here. They have failed to deliver justice to too many women. Fortunately the police do now have a code of conduct that should prevent them from gang raping women on their lunch break and calling it “consensual”.
Reply to Jo.
Well, you obviously misunderstood what i was saying … because I am well aware of, and agree with, the points you are making.
Unfortunately, if present case reporting is to be believed, this victim did not go to the police at the time (very understandably) … instead it is said that, 20 odd years later, the police came to her after finding her details in one of the accused’s notebooks. My point was that, unless the prosecution can produce harder evidence than in the last case, then this one will end the same way. And if they haven’t any corroborative evidence then one would have to ask why is this prosecution going ahead?
Believe me, I am as appalled and angered by rape, sexual harassment and the abuse of power as you are. There are different ways and means for us all to express what we think. But, like you and Maia, I choose to put my name to what I am saying, unlike many of the hideous male comments one can find on the subject of rape and the Nicholas case … you will not find many ‘real names’ there. Reading them made me despair for the rights of women in these supposedly ‘enlightened’ times.
The greatest protection these men have isn’t just time, it’s their profession and that’s probably true to a great extent in any country. In fact, part of the reason they probably have time on their side is because the victim felt afraid to come forward to say she was raped by police officers.
Unless she’s a nun or an officer testifies on her behalf, there can be nothing but the same. Massive reform in the courts and in the law enforcement agencies is needed to change that, both in New Zealand and in the United States.
Well the case went pretty much the same as the previous one. They got off. The only positive about that is all the supression orders have been lifted so now the general public are allowed to know that the serial rapists had 3 seperate complaints against them made by three seperate women (women now, they were children at the the time of the assaults) from three seperate towns . Two of these policemen were convicted of the first complaint laid against them and sre serving 8+ year sentences for rape and abduction. None of the complainants knew each other or any of the circumstances of the others’ rapes, yet all three reported very similar assaults.
They were taken away by force after refusing to ‘play along’ with these assholes twisted homo-erotic fantasies. What else can you call a situation where three males insist on group sex with one female?
One is left with the feeling that the attackers imagine an ideal world where the woman who they abuse, denigrate and despise isn’t present. Their anger is aimed at her for having to be present, lest others think the men are ‘pooftahs’.
Gay men, don’t be offended by this as these blokes aren’t gay, they deny their desire to have sex with other blokes by jointly attacking a girl in such a way they can pretend that the object of their desire is female.
The fact that in every instance they used a foreign object (their police baton, a whiskey bottle) on the girl shows that they weren’t sexually aroused by the female or wanted sexual gratification from her, but as they jerked off they were aroused by each other.
The circumstances of the attacks were so much alike it is impossible to comprehend why each case was tried seperately.
That is the issue that the public need demand satisfaction on. Why the drawn out business of three seperate trials when one trial would have got a better result and cost a helluva lot less.
As for Rickards who wasn’t involved in the rape the other two were convicted of, I’m in two minds as to whether he should be allowed to pick up his old job as deputy police commissioner.
I’m in no doubt that his situation is untenable and that most right thinking Kiwis would be horrified if he went back to his gig, but I am concerned that Rickards may be angling to grab a big payout.
I’m coming round to the point of view that they should re-instate him at his old level but in an admin rather than a supervisory role and wait till he stuffs up as he inevitably will since most of his colleagues regard him as a flea who has brought them into disrepute. Then chuck him out without a brass razoo.
Sorry, no dice. I’m a gay man and I found what you wrote to be very offensive. So now we’re to assume that all men who participate in gang rapes are actually gay, or bi, or confused, or whatever, and to exorcise their homoerotic demons they gang rape a girl? Disgusting. I’m sorry, you’re not going to get a pass from me for your meaningless armchair psychologizing, even if it makes for an entertaining read or an interesting basis for a fictional novel or movie plot.
And in re your point about them not being sexually aroused by the female and not seeking gratification from her, but each other instead–uhm, correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t the feminist mantra for decades been that rape is a crime of violence and power and domination, not sex, and that rapists are out to hurt and dominate women and girls, not get their rocks off? Right? So then if the rapists had used their penises on the victims, then your position is that they’d have been doing so to derive gratification from the females because they found them sexually arousing? Doesn’t that brazenly contradict the feminist position on rape? Is that what you really think or were you merely confused when you posted? Or are we now tossing out the feminist view of rape that has been drilled into our heads for the last 30-40 years?
Oh, and to make it even worse, you wrote:
First of all, it wasn’t group sex, it was rape. I encourage you to learn the difference. Secondly, does this mean that you think that all men who wish to have group sex with women, even in a consensual context, are gay? Or secretly gay? Or fighting their homoerotic feelings? Or whatever the hell you think? Sheesh…I think I need some aspirin now.