Hard News: Bad men
187 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
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?
-
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?
-
-
No alright. I'd say the police would've tried every trick in the book to not bring the case to court, but in the end they failed.
Oh goodness, seems that is what they did, and that's why Dewar is now going to trial.
-
good attempt at obfuscation all the same ross
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000D0D73-FC83-15E7-891583027AF1010E
-
"anything's possible. But bribery? No, I used "inducement" and I'm sure the police would use the same word."
Ah, you're not saying it, merely insinuating it.
-
> 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.
-
> 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?
-
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.
Ross? You there Ross?
-
People can genuinely believe that they have been sexually abused without it being so.
Oh?
-
Please yourself. You insinuate a claim - that the witness lied because the police gave her something - and then you back away from it.
Anything's possible, including monkeys flying out my butt on their way to give you a conspiracy vaccination, but I don't have to waste my valuable thinking time considering each one. Especially, I don't have to give a shit about hypotheticals which you aren't willing to state clearly or adduce evidence for. If you want to cast doubt, cool - kindly provide some reason to doubt.
-
> 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?
-
> 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?
-
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.
-
Have these allegations been tested in Court, Russell? If not, why not?
Read the story, Ross, for god's sake. All three statements were given as evidence in court, along with another one from a female participant in Shipton's sex games. I don't think there's any doubt it happened.
So perhaps you could now humbly back out on your mocking comment in the other thread:
I totally agree. Can you provide us with some evidence that someone has been violated with a baton. Take your time. Thanks.
Well?
-
You conveniently forgot to mention the damning evidence presented by the defence about the accusers. In the Nicholas case, the accuser had made numerous allegations of rape against many men. None of her allegations have been substantiated. Of course, one of her allegations was that she had been raped by a group of Maori men riding horses and wearing ski masks. She subsequently admitted that this claim was false.
I'd be curious to hear from someone with legal qualifications (if there are any reading this), as to whether it's a contradiction that the jury wasn't allowed to hear about the convictions for similar activities of two of the accused, yet they were able to hear attacks on the complainant's past history of complaints.
To me if the defendant should be judged solely on their actions in relation to this particular charge, shouldn't witnesses/complainants be similarly treated? (Or, vice-versa, both sets of histories should be brought into play?)
-
> All three statements were given as evidence in court.
Since a baton was a feature of the case, I would've expected that the offending baton would have been produced as an exhibit. Was it? Presumably such evidence is important?
> I don't think there's any doubt it happened.
There's one little problem with your comment. You weren't on the jury and didn't see and hear all the evidence it heard. If the prime witness was disbelieved, as it appears she was, any reference to batons or any other props by other witnesses would seem irrelevant.
-
Apparently John Reynolds was one prosecution witness in the Louise Nicholas case. I cannot say whether he was given any inducement to tesify but I do wonder whether he told the Court the same story that he told police investigating the case.
Sunday Star Times
February 13 2005Meanwhile, the Star-Times has obtained a statement by former police officer John Reynolds, now a Tauranga businessman, about a missing baton that has been linked to the alleged rape.
Last February former policewoman Carolyn Butcher said she was told in the mid-1980s her missing baton had been used for sex - possibly a threesome.
Reynolds has since told police investigating Nicholas' claims that the baton was left at his place after a police party and he returned it to Butcher later, "joking" it was used sexually. "If she (the former policewoman) believes that the baton that I returned to her was used in the matter involving Brad, Bob and Clint then she is mistaken," Reynolds said.
-
Since a baton was a feature of the case, I would've expected that the offending baton would have been produced as an exhibit. Was it? Presumably such evidence is important?
I'd assume you were joking, but I rather fear you aren't.
There's one little problem with your comment. You weren't on the jury and didn't see and hear all the evidence it heard. If the prime witness was disbelieved, as it appears she was, any reference to batons or any other props by other witnesses would seem irrelevant.
No Ross, you mockingly declared there was no evidence that anyone had been penetrated with a baton, when in fact four people gave sworn evidence in court to precisely that effect. You were flat-out wrong.
-
Isn't it significant that Nicholas was judged by her peers who found her testimony/credibility to be wanting?
Actually, ross, she wasn't on trial.
-
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?
I read this exactly the other way, ross, and I'm sure many other people do too. This is one instance where the jury may have returned the Scottish verdict, 'Not proven" if they had been able to.
-
> No Ross, you mockingly declared there was no evidence that anyone had been penetrated with a baton, when in fact four people gave sworn evidence in court to precisely that effect. You were flat-out wrong.
Sorry, Russell, I thought you would be aware that I was referring to external corroborating evidence. Clearly pyhsical or external corroboration is not important to you. And you have (deliberately?) ignored the fact that Mr Reynolds does not seem to be a very reliable witness.
-
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.
So you did. All I want is for you to state clearly the conclusion you draw from that. If you're NOT saying the witness perjured herself for reward, then what am I supposed to be concerned about?
-
Deborah wrote: Actually, ross, she [ Louise N] wasn't on trial.
That's absolutely correct. Which is why - despite her credibility problems - she is free, but if the accused had been convicted on the basis of her testimony, they could now be serving up to 14 years in prison. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?
-
> If you're NOT saying the witness perjured herself for reward, then what am I supposed to be concerned about?
You've got nothing to be concerned about, but I would like to know - even if you don't - if any of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the accuser were given any payment (in cash or in kind) for helping police with their inquiry. That should be public knowledge, right?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.