Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Uh, they didn't decide that it wasn't used. They decided that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt. So they might ALL believe that the baton was used, but were only 70% sure. Or they might ALL believe it wasn't used. You can't tell.
Actually, they decided in the Nicholas case that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict of rape. They *and* the most recent jury may well have believed that Shipton et al were in the habit of using police batons for sexual penetration (and in the most recent trial, there was plenty of evidence tendered to that effect), but in itself that's not a criminal offence (and nor should it be). It might, OTOH, represent a significant disciplinary breach.
-
What you're doing is accepting the sworn statements of some witnesses and not others.
Pardon? 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 clearly missed that part.
Honestly Ross, I as I've said in the other thread, I'm calling you a troll. You mocked another commenter for saying something for which four people have given sworn evidence in court, and when the evidence was pointed out to you, you began making silly excuses. Stop, or go away.
-
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.
Ross, I feel that I am in danger of wasting my time with a persistent troll.
You demanded "some evidence that someone has been violated with a baton" and when just such evidence was pointed out to you, you did not gracefully accept you were wrong, but began moving the goalposts in a quite preposterous fashion.
If you can't honestly admit you were wrong, perhaps you could do the decent thing and give up and go away.
-
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.
-
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.
I've explained this in the 'Bad men' thread, but here we go again. The statements were sworn evidence given in court by three different policemen, plus a woman who said she had participated in such an act.
Perhaps now you could admit that this comment was wholly misinformed:
I totally agree. Can you provide us with some evidence that someone has been violated with a baton. Take your time. Thanks.
Well?
-
No it would've been 86, Russell (you'll note I was vague about the date). David, I and Sheryl Morris shared the place (I lived there until 1991) and I didn't return to NZ until Sept 85...and it was Regatta day...so 26 Jan 86 I think.
Yep. That'll be it then.
I do remember having to coax Scruff down from the roof at some stage....
Now that would've frightened the neighbours ...
-
Speaking of current affairs programmes, here's a list of some recent complaints the Broadcasting Standards Authority has upheld either in full or in part against TVNZ's flagship Sunday programme:
There's the CYFS one, in which the programme's conduct in framing its story was simply outrageous:
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-058.htm
The Family Court one, in which the BSA agreed that a child had been "unnecessarily identified and exploited" in the programme, which made "highly offensive disclosure of private facts" about the child in its sympathetic story about fathers with a grievance against the court:
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-090.htm
And ...
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-013.htm
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2004/2004-129.htm
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2004/2004-129.htm
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2004/2004-038_39.htmWhat on earth is going on there?
-
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?
-
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?
-
It was only when the DJ (on a pre-arranged cue) started playing the strains of a Conga that the penny dropped. You had to be there....
Much as I am allergic to theme parties, that's bloody brilliant.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 … 2279 Older→ First