Hard News: Evil
130 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
But surely Graeme the finding that Dewar obstructed the course of justice was relevant to the other trials, particularly in regard to the evidence given to discredit Nicholas about the Murupara case?
No. If the prosecution wants to discredit the discrediting of Nicholas they should have pointed to evidence that she was raped, not that someone obstructed it.
-
Ron
You tripped over a big issues there.
Over Louise her flatmate & Debbie all had group sex with married cops.
This shows a pattern of abuse of at least power over young women. One wasn't believed so the other two won't bring it up and try to live through it, & Debbie didn't make it. -
ron,
Graeme,
I take your point about why the Dewar trial wasn't the first held. Your comments are similar to those of Auckland Uni Law Lecturer Peter Sankoff, who back in March explained that Shipton and Schollum had not been protected by the law - as some had suggested.
He explained that: "The law already allows prior convictions of the sort at issue in this case to be admitted when it makes sense to do so.So why wasn’t the evidence admitted? Simple. If Schollum and Shipton were the only two offenders on trial, this evidence would have come in. But they weren’t. The third member of the defence, Rickards, had not been convicted in the earlier trial. The Court of Appeal decided that admitting this evidence would prejudice him - not Schollum and Shipton, as the newspapers have suggested. The worry is that Rickards would be tainted by association - not an unreasonable fear. Those prior guilty verdicts are powerful evidence, and Rickards - with no prior convictions - had reason to worry about “guilt by association” if he was sitting in the dock with two guys with rape priors".
Of course, this begs the question: Why weren't Schollum and Shipton tried on their own?
-
Of course, this begs the question: Why weren't Schollum and Shipton tried on their own?
Ok - I'd like to hear the answer to that one.
-
ron wrote:
By the same logic,
You're comparing moonlighting in a legal enterprise with being charged with a violent offence. There's no same logic. That's like equating being a shopkeeper with being an accused thief.
-
Clint Rickards not only should not be one of our most senior policemen, he should not be in the force at all.
Agreed but it's now a matter of employment law. He's still got rights in that area, which is why he's still a cop although suspended. It will be interesting to see just how the police try and manoeuvre him out and if Dewar's conviction makes that any easier.
-
Of course, this begs the question: Why weren't Schollum and Shipton tried on their own?
Ok - I'd like to hear the answer to that one.
Generally the rationale is something like - Convenience. The trial lasted how long? It's all the same evidence - do we need to tie up the courts for another similarly lengthy trial? Do we want to put Louise through giving evidence for a second/third/fourth time? etc. It's group offending you charge and try the group.
I'm also not sure Sankhoff is right. The use to which prior convictions can be put is very limited; and the usual instance - discrediting an alternative explanation/showing the bad character of the defendant - doesn't apply where they don't give evidence.
-
weeellll, what i was doing ron was demonstrating that the blokey, "he just wasn't thinking right" argument is a bit more complex than you're making out.
as michael f says, we're talking about guys in positions of power taking advantage of young women. in nichols' case a teenager.
"not great judgement" isn't a defence for the kinds of behaviour we're hearing snippets of.
strip away all the he said she said bullshit surrounding this woeful moment in new zealand history, and you've still got a bunch of disgraceful behaviour exhibited by persons who are supposed to uphold some kind of standards.
-
This sordid part of Police History is by no means finished. Something else never satisfactorily explained is that during the Mt. Maunganui trial in Wellington someone within the NZ Police presumably paid for the beach hut to be trasnsported down to Wellingtyon and displayed on the footpath outside the court house. This was contrary to the Judges decision that it could not be displayed. Who organised this and who in the department sanctioned the transportation to Wellington. This was carried out with the intention of influencing the jury and was castigated by trial judge. But of course no follow up by media.
-
ron,
It's all the same evidence
No, I don't think it was the same evidence. Rickards didn't have a previous conviction. He wasn't involved with the Mt Maunganui case. He apparently had his leg in plaster at the time he was alleged to have committed rape (in the last case) whereas the two other accused admitted they'd had sex with the accuser.
Do we want to put Louise through giving evidence for a second/third/fourth time
We're talking about one extra trial. And if Shipton's and Schollum's prior convictions had been admitted, presumably that would have increased the likelihood of conviction - I doubt that Louise would have been opposed to that.
-
Something else never satisfactorily explained is that during the Mt. Maunganui trial in Wellington someone within the NZ Police presumably paid for the beach hut to be trasnsported down to Wellingtyon and displayed on the footpath outside the court house.
You're not mistaking this for the crazy lawyer John Burrett conspiracy to kidnap trial are you? Where the police brought the bunker to court before the judge had decided whether showing it to the jury was too prejudicial...
-
Kindly forgive the "emotional woman" in this debate, but I really do not see why Dewar's obstruction was not relevant to the other trials.
How many times did we hear that Nicholas had made rape allegations against another policeman and he was acquitted? How many times was this held up as evidence that Nicholas could not be telling the truth? More than I can remember. And that case was the Murupara case, where we now know Dewar played a pivotal role in bringing about that "acquittal".
You can all calmly and dispassionately debate the legal technicialities, but I find it hard to stomach. I would welcome some comments from other XXers on this thread, whether they agree with me or not!
-
How many times was this held up as evidence that Nicholas could not be telling the truth?
I thought it was the fact she once made up a story about a bunch of guys on horses raping her?
But actually, I can understand why she might have made that up - she wanted the police to know she'd been raped, but felt she couldn't name the people who did it. Because they were (allegedly) policemen too.
-
Span - wasn't Dewar's pivotal role in the Murupara case securing a mis-trial, rather than an acquittal?
There's also a difference between how many times we heard, and how many times the jury heard, and the extent to which they were told they could use that evidence.
-
I am observing from the sidelines of this thread, to be honest I don't feel like getting in amongst it when the standard of discussion is arguments like,
A policewoman was recently censured because she was moonlighting as a prostitute. Again, not great judgment but the woman was apparently allowed to remain in the force. By the same logic, the guy who was yesterday acquitted of strangling a prostitute should also be allowed to remain in the force.
I doubt that many women want to come onto a public forum using their full name and interact with people with this kind of "logic" god forbid we might get emotional.
-
ron,
I doubt that many women want to come onto a public forum using their full name and interact with people with this kind of "logic" god forbid we might get emotional
Yes, KM, being a prostitute demands a slap on the wrist but sleeping with one is unforgivable.
-
You miss the point again Ron - it's not about the police cadet & the prostitute. Obfuscation & non sequiturs again.
Also, the obvious is to point out to you that in that case, is that it wasn't about sleeping with the prostitute. Red herring - you're quite good at them.
-
I'm rather gobsmacked that there are still 'errors in judgement' people around. Yes, when I was 24 I was completely power-mad and ethically bankrupt too. Because 24... that's not *adulthood* or anything, is it?
I'm with Span. This is... really dodgy.
-
I am with Mr/Ms BJones on this one.
You're comparing moonlighting in a legal enterprise with being charged with a violent offence. There's no same logic. That's like equating being a shopkeeper with being an accused thief.
and also gotta agree,
Obfuscation & non sequiturs again.
So why I am letting the big boys speak for me........
because I think this is a case of feeding the troll.
Why don't you use your name?
-
Not to be trollish, but the the cop cadet guy got aquitted. Sure there were some dodgy looking circumstances, but he's no longer an accused rapist, he's an aquitted rapist & therefore not guilty in the eyes of the law.
So ron, in his own sweet way is right - being a prostitute (a perfectly legal profession theses days) compared with purchasing the services of a prostitute (likewise, legal).
Of course there's nothing stoppping that guy applying to the police academy again. Doubt he will though. -
Yeah that's true Jeremy, I just didn't feel the need to acknowledge those bits Ron might have inadvertently got right.
Besides, that case is irrelevant to the topic at hand & the allusion Ron was making didn't really fit.
And that is between the cadet & the police now.
-
Sigh, I do appreciate the distinction between accused and acquitted and how it applies in that example. But there are still a whole lot of dodgy arguments/non sequiturs/obfuscation going down that I cant be bothered dispassionately picking apart. I am only commenting at all because Span asked so nicely ; )
You don't strike me as a troll. -
Exactly - they found the guy when he applied for the Police Academy, nothing was swept under the carpet, he was charged, had his day in court and was aquitted.
Unlike the whole Dewar, Schollum, et al situation, which would make you wonder how they could walk in some of those cops shops with all that shit under the carpets. -
Exactly Andrew, the allusion doesn't fit.
-
Fanks, Kowhai. I stopped trolling back when I was 24, and noticed it looked like bad judgment ;-)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.