Posts by ross f
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Joanne wrote: because I'm curious as to what exactly the numerical value you'd put on justice - in the judicial sense.
Well, I must admit that I'm using the Peter Ellis case as a guide. Remember the debate swirling in 1999 after the Court of Appeal said that a commission of inquiry was the best forum to debate the issues relating to that case? A ministerial inquiry followed at a cost of less than $150,000 and the then Minister of Justice, the honourable Phil Goff, said the government had gone "the extra mile".
So if $150,000 is going the extra mile, then what is $5 million, the projected cost of the commission of inqury into policy conduct? However, at least one media commentator has recommended having another inquiry into these alleged rapes. I agree that cost should not be a factor when it comes to justice, but the budget for prosecuting crimes is not limitless, which might explain why the police choose not to prosecute some alleged crimes. it is simply not in the public interest to do so.
Did Louise Nicholas's peers find her credibility wanting, or rather the actual evidence just not enough, you ask? What's the difference? Nicholas's evidence was at the heart of the case. The jury clearly didn't accept her evidence, which was unsurprising given her credibility problems.
-
TracyMac wrote: Screwing someone with a police baton is bloody edgy enough..
I totally agree. Can you provide us with some evidence that someone has been violated with a baton. Take your time. Thanks.
-
Russell, you wrote: his daughter looks roughly the age of the complainants in two of the court cases. How would he feel if three burly, adult policemen picked her up and, without his knowledge, persuaded her to have dirty group sex with them? Perhaps he could think about that.
Maybe you could think about the fact that Rickards is now 46 and when he had sex with Louise Nicholas, who was then 18, he was 23 or 24. So why are you comparing oranges with apples?
But glad to see you finally confirm that consensual group sex is "dirty". Or could it be you protest too much?
-
Span wrote: I had the impression that a large majority of those who turn up for jury duty are women.
I think the majority of jurors in the Louise Nicholas case were women. Isn't it significant that Nicholas was judged by her peers who found her testimony/credibility to be wanting?
-
Russell, you wrote: But as in the Louise Nicholas case, what was not contested by the defence was damning enough.
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.
The latest "victim" initally claimed that she had had a six month relationship with Clint Rickards, but under cross-examination she admitted that this claim was false. It is not known what, if any, other falsehoods she admitted to under oath.
I suspect that the jury's decision to acquit the accused was relatively easy. There was no external corroborating evidence.
What I would like to know is what inducements, if any, were provided to the accusers and witnesses acting on their behalf. For example, Sharon Shipton's cousin came from Australia to contradict the memories of SS...a long way to come just to confirm what we all know....that if our memories of recent events may not be reliable, then our memories of events more than 20 years old are downright dangerous. So what prompoted SS' s cousin to come here? I would've told the cops to take a hike.
And what prompted the latest "victim" to come forward? Maybe she was offered money and/or goodies by the police. I'm sure that an investigative journalist will let us all know in due course.
Michael Laws is right - the police knew they were pushing it up hill. But they had to be seen to be doing the right thing in some quarters, so they decided to prosecute. What's $5 million between friends?