Posts by ross f
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Joanna, you seem sceptical that people (not solely but mostly women) can actually believe they've been sexually abused when they haven't been. The scientific and legal communities have known this fact for quite a while.
-
> You insinuate a claim - that the witness lied because the police gave her something - and then you back away from it.
I didn't insinuate she lied at all. In fact, I said that she testified that she couldn't remember about events more than 20 years ago. However, if the police hadn't contacted her, would she have testified - of course not!
I provided you with a link showing that police pay informants, and police have been known to help out prison informants by way of giving them goodies and reducing whatever charge they may be facing. How is that backing away?
-
> So just to reiterate: two named policemen reported Shipton telling them he'd used a baton to sexually penetrate women, and another one says he actually took part in such an activity, with Shipton and Schollum.
Have these allegations been tested in Court, Russell? If not, why not?
-
> Ah, you're not saying it, merely insinuating it.
Please! If you think the police would never resort to offering inducements, why don't you just say so?
-
> good attempt at obfuscation all the same ross.
I'm not sure of the relevance of that link, Riddley. I would note that the link does not mention the PCA inquiry into the Nicholas case in 1995. The 1995 inquiry had nothing to do with Dewar - he wasn't involved with it - yet no charges resulted against police as a result of that inquiry.
-
-
Stephen J asked: "Are you saying that the police bribed a witness? That's what I think you're saying".
I'm saying that if the police can provide jail-house informants with cell-phones and also somehow reduce the charges that such informants may face, anything's possible. But bribery? No, I used "inducement" and I'm sure the police would use the same word. And I merely raised the possibility of such behaviour. As I said, an investigative journalist would need to look at this issue because I doubt the mainstream media would be interested.
The prosecution case was extremely weak in both the Nicholas case and the last case. I would think police would have tried every trick in the book to obtain testimony and to ensure that witnesses would testify on the accusers' behalf. No?
-
From the media: "Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway accused Mrs Shipton of calling her cousin in Australia and asking her to lie about the holiday".
An allegation that you, Russell, have accepted as fact. You might recall that the cousin couldn't remember how long the holiday was. However, despite not being able to remember the length of the holiday, it was considered necessary to bring the cousin out here. Do you no think it possible, even reasonable, that she was well-reimbursed for her time here? And if she was well-reimbursed, would the jury have been privy to the extent of that reimbursement?
-
> On the other hand, there was better evidence in Mt Maunganui case, including a guilty plea (to abduction) by one of the offenders.
Now, who's got some nerve? The guy you're referring to was originally found guilty of sexual violation, but that conviction was overturned. How did you miss not mentioning that, Russell?
-
Stephen Judd wrote: And what's up with the scare quotes? You would think the complainant was on trial here.
The complainant made allegations that she couldn't substantiate.
> If ross' standard is that only a criminal conviction is meaningful, then let him wait for perjury and false complaint convictions before attacking Nicholas.
Really, do you think Nicholas is going to be charged with perjury? Anyway, such a question misses the point. People can genuinely believe that they have been sexually abused without it being so.
No, I don't believe only a criminal conviction is meaningful. But I suspect that in the last two cases of alleged rape, the jury may have declared innocence if they were able to. Isn't that a weakness in our system?
> If I were asked to provide evidence that shattered an accused rapist's alibi I'd travel as far as necessary.
But the cousin from Australia didn't do that. She simply had a different recollection of events. And we don't know what inducements, if any, helped her to remember those events. It's amazing what some cash will do to jog one's memory.