Posts by ross f
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
> you've repeatedly implied that numerous people gave false statements to police....
The prime witnesses (ie, the accusers) in the last two trials both ADMITTED they'd lied about key details when cross-examined. What part of that statement don't you understand?
>...perjured themselves under oath, and are flat out liars for reasons you can't explain.
Would you show me where I've said that? I assume you can substantiate that comment.
-
> Honestly Ross, I as I've said in the other thread, I'm calling you a troll.
What a surprise. You can't debate the issues, so you get personal.
You might like to reflect on the fact that none of the 36 jurors who, unlike you, heard the evidence over three trials supports your version of events. Why is that? Why is it that not one juror apparently believed that a baton was used? Obviously they're wrong and you're right.
> There were witnesses able to state authoritatively that none of the defendants had ever used a police baton as part of a sexual act?
I see...so witnesses now have to prove a negative. Enough said.
-
> 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?
-
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?
-
> 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.
-
> The statements were sworn evidence given in court by three different policemen, plus a woman who said she had participated in such an act...
What you're doing is accepting the sworn statements of some witnesses and not others. Clearly, the jury didn't agree with you about the credibility of this sworn evidence. And on your other thread, I've demonstrated that one of these so-called credible witnesses had previously claimed that the baton referred to by Louise at al couldn't have been used. Did this witness change his story? If so, why?
-
> I can see how a serious researcher would get unhappy with policy being made like that.
Which is why there's been so much opposition to the meningococcal B vaccine roll-out, which has cost taxpayers more than $200 million. And there's no evidence that it has saved any lives. Of course, the Heath Ministry promised it would save dozens of lives even though it admitted there was no efficacy data on the vaccine.
-
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.
-
> 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.
-
Russell wrote: Check the Weekend Herald. A few other cops seemed to think it happened more than once.
Hmmm, unlike you, I don't believe everything I read in the Herald. Or should we do away with our systme of justice and have the accused's guilt judged by a poll of Herald readers? It sure would save a lot of time and money.