Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Evil

130 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Can I just bang my head on the studio desk for three minutes this week? I'm glad Dewar went down, but God... it's really been one of those weeks that tests your faith in humanity.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11622 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Craig, think you could pop down to Marton & get a few words from Lord Lucan?

    Since Nov 2006 • 2073 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Martin,

    And to think folk are complaining about current police recruiting standards ...

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 184 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    WTF? If that is Lord Lucan, thirty three years living in Marton is punishment enough,

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11622 posts Report Reply

  • ron,

    And I know one thing: Clint Rickards not only must not be our most senior policeman, he should not be in the force at all.

    Aren't you confusing Howard Broad with Rickards? And what about Rob Pope - who's been accused of perjury and falsifying affidavits in the pursuit of Scott Watson? Presumably you want him out of the foce, too.

    auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Oh hi Ross!

    You're mistaking accusation with conviction again.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/08/dewar_found_guilty.html#comment-327811

    Since Nov 2006 • 2073 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Hmm... still can't edit these comments? Didn't mean to link to the comment right at the end of that thread :)

    Since Nov 2006 • 2073 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Ron:

    Oh bugger off - if you really think Clint Rickards has shown the judgement and good character required to be reinstated as Assistant Police Commissioner and Auckland City Commander, I've got a few serving Police officers of my acquaintance who'd respectfully like to disagree with you. They're thoroughly sick of being smeared by association with these squalid jerks - and I'm more than a little sick of the ugly campaign of character assassination run against anyone who has the gall to even suggest that the Police are not beyond scrutiny, criticism and accountability.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11622 posts Report Reply

  • Nigel Caughey,

    Well put Craig,

    I actually think Broad should give Louise Nichols some form of public award or recognition, she has gone through a hell I doubt many could survive & I think it would go someway towards removing the link Craig talks about for Police to recognise publicly what she's gone through.

    Paihia • Since Nov 2006 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I actually think Broad should give Louise Nichols some form of public award or recognition, she has gone through a hell I doubt many could survive & I think it would go someway towards removing the link Craig talks about for Police to recognise publicly what she's gone through.

    I concur. I think the outcome of the rape cases will always be disputed, but ignoring that, clearly she got shafted by Dewar, and hopefully now that a conviction has been got in that case she gets an apology on that count at least.

    Aren't you confusing Howard Broad with Rickards?

    Russell was saying that he should never be our commissioner, not that he currently is:

    And I know one thing: Clint Rickards not only must not be our most senior policeman, he should not be in the force at all.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6145 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    It doesn't do the force any credit that Rickards is still part of it, much less a senior part.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8040 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Russell was saying that he should never be our commissioner, not that he currently is:

    That's what I meant, but for the sake of clarity I've amended the wording.

    I really think confirmation of what went in in the Murupara trials is the most damning thing to come out of Dewar's conviction. Much what happened subsequently flowed from that.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17983 posts Report Reply

  • Span .,

    I wonder at the sense in the ordering of these trials. Surely if Dewar had gone first we might have seen different outcomes in other cases?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 112 posts Report Reply

  • ron,

    if you really think Clint Rickards has shown the judgement and good character required to be reinstated as Assistant Police Commissioner and Auckland City Commander

    No, I don't think he showed great judgment at the time. But given that the guy was 23 or 24 at the time, I guess many of us can say the same thing, maybe even you, too, Craig! But I would hate to think that you would be hung, drawn and quoted based on something you said (or did) 20 years ago.

    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.

    auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    Just to play devil's advocate for a sec., I can't help thinking that Dewar, guilty or not, never had a chance. You know what people (ie jury members) are like; "Well, *someone* ought to pay for this mess".

    Secondly, isn't it the judges job to rule that inadmissable evidence is... well, inadmissable? Will he or she be censured?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    I don't think he showed great judgment at the time. But given that the guy was 23 or 24 at the time, I guess many of us can say the same thing,

    soooo.... you're defending the alleged rapes based on the guys age, and inability to think things thru?

    does this mean that you'd forgive a 23-24 year old who raped your own daughter? or son, for that matter.

    i ask because it follows from your reasoning.

    your statement also suggests that you acted in a similar way when you were that age. are you suggesting that schollum and shipton should get off because you've acted in such a way yourself?

    you might want to think that one over there ron.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2018 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    No, I don't think he showed great judgment at the time. But given that the guy was 23 or 24 at the time, I guess many of us can say the same thing, maybe even you, too, Craig! But I would hate to think that you would be hung, drawn and quoted based on something you said (or did) 20 years ago.

    He was part of a group of policeman who abused the trust placed in them, manipulated the system and preyed on the vulnerable over a period of years. And as the recording showed, one of that group, Dewar, clearly believed that the baton incident was not consensual. That it was, in other words, rape.

    Furthermore, Rickards' more recent utterances clearly demonstrate a disregard for justice. However much you might want to believe it ron, this isn't some youthful error of judgement.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17983 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Just to play devil's advocate for a sec., I can't help thinking that Dewar, guilty or not, never had a chance. You know what people (ie jury members) are like; "Well, *someone* ought to pay for this mess".

    I suspect you're right. And the jury's view in that respect was probably strengthened as they grasped the implications of what they were hearing.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17983 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    3410 - I think the inadmissible evidence was something that Dewar just said while giving evidence. Something so inadmissible that the jury couldn't just be instructed to ignore it, but there had to be a mistrial.

    Span:

    Surely if Dewar had gone first we might have seen different outcomes in other cases?

    And that's exactly why it wasn't first. It is completely irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of someone that there was some dishonesty in the process - especially by someone else.

    It doesn't matter why any first trial failed (i.e. ended in a mistrial) - the second one didn't have that evidence and wasn't tainted by that illegality. Evidence that someone tried to pervert the course of justice is evidence that someone tried to pervert the course of justice - it is not evidence that someone else was guilty of rape.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • ron,

    Secondly, isn't it the judges job to rule that inadmissable evidence is... well, inadmissable?

    I thought so, too. I also thought that if evidence was inadmissible the Judge would tell jurors to disregard it. Why was Dewar allowed to even testify at the second trial if his evidence had been compromised?

    auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    Graeme,
    Correct. Misunderstanding on my part (due to extreme overwork), so that point withdrawn, though:

    Why was Dewar allowed to even testify at the second trial if his evidence had been compromised [in the first]?

    seems like a valid point.

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • ron,

    soooo.... you're defending the alleged rapes based on the guys age, and inability to think things thru?

    Che, no, I'm not. I'm simply saying that it wasn't great judgement and, to quote our esteemed PM, it's not a hanging offence. Clearly, you disagree.

    does this mean that you'd forgive a 23-24 year old who raped your own daughter? or son, for that matter

    Well, I'd like to think I'm forgiving but that's another matter. You seem to be confusing at least three different issues. One is consensual group sex, one is alleged rape and the other is actual rape. Louise's then flatmate also engaged in group sex with Shipton et al. She has not suggested that she was raped. Debbie Gerbich also said that she had group sex with Shipton et al, but has not suggested that she was raped. This information may or may not relevant to the latest case.

    your statement also suggests that you acted in a similar way when you were that age

    Does it? I think you're straining credibility with such a "suggestion". Try to keep to the topic.

    auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • Span .,

    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?

    I just find it so frustrating that we seem unable to have a fair legal system in this country that can find powerful men guilty of rape. Yesterday's verdict makes me feel slightly better, but it's not enough.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 112 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Why was Dewar allowed to even testify at the second trial if his evidence had been compromised?

    I don't know the details of the case/s, but I would presume his evidence was important to the case.

    It's not that his evidence was contaminated, I believe he was bringing up other evidence when other oath, which wasn't allowed in the trail, and he knew it.

    They still needed him to give his original evidence, they just needed him to do it without bringing up whatever other things he was mentioning.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6145 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Why was Dewar allowed to even testify at the second trial if his evidence had been compromised [in the first]?

    seems like a valid point.

    It does. Unfortunately,

    1) As the officer in charge, I'd suggest that without his evidence you wouldn't have had much of a case. Probably wouldn't have even made it to the jury.

    2) You can't stop him testifying. The prosecution and defence can both call relevant witnesses, and while he will have been strongly warned to no to do what he did again, his evidence was clearly relevant (and the defence could have had a lot of the other evidence ruled inadmissible if he wouldn't front up).

    If the officer in charge does not give evidence in a case then probably no interview will be admissible, and no forensics either.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.