Friday, March 31, 2006

I believe Louise Nicholas

The jury has found Brad Shipton, Clint Rickards, and Bob Schollum not guilty of raping Louise Nicholas.

[deleted]

Obviously some members of the jury believed Louise Nicholas, or else the deliberations wouldn't have taken this long. I pay tribute to them, and wish they could have had the evidence that would have convinced the rest.

114 comments:

  1. Fucking arseholes.

    All my love and solidarity to Louise right now, I can't even begin to imagine how devastated she must be feeling...

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is devastating, isn't it? I couldn't believe my ears when I heard the announcement on the radio.

    (Hi, by the way, I'm Sofiya, another NZ feminist blogger.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Sofiya, I'll link to you!

    I don't think, that beyond reasonable doubt, they are not guilty of rape.

    Who would actually take men to court and go through all that trouble for a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually sofiya i can't find your blogger address, what is it? Clicking on your profile wasn't working.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5:42 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous5:47 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hasn't it occurred to you, Anonymous, that there are much easier, pleasanter ways of getting attention than making a rape accusation? Do you have any idea what a woman pressing rape charges has to go through? Not to mention getting dragged through the mud by the mainstream media, and disrespected by people like you? If all she wanted was attention, she could run for mayor. Jesus H.

    I wish I could do something for Louise Nicholas too. Does anyone know if it's possible convey a message of support to her somehow?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:43 pm

    So just because she has said she was raped then ergo it is so??

    Reasonable doubt was proved and although these guys may well be pricks due process has been followed and they have been found not guilty.

    Rickards career is in tatters and the personal reputation of the three of them is likewise - and they were found not guilty - so they have already had a non judicial sentence passed on them. Given that they have been judged not guilty by their peers (including seven women) is that not enough?

    Merv Williams

    ReplyDelete
  10. It would appear that you are correct...
    aren't you on some pretty dodgy legal grounds?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Get rid of this post from your blog and from indymedia and put it up annonymously or you'll end up in court yourself. You can guarantee that ex-cops will be pretty litigous, and with the nature of the net it's very easy to do these things annonymously.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous8:39 pm

    Too late Maps.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous9:35 pm

    "NOT GUILTY" said the foreman. I don't understand why are you suggesting Rickards & co be treated differently from any other defendants ? Rules of admissibilty (ie evidence of similar fact, criminal history etc) are tried and tested elements of our world class justice system. There is a fine line between sleeze (guilty) and rape (not guilty). The good men & woman of that jury found Louise to be a liar. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'The good men & woman of that jury found Louise to be a liar'

    Yeah, and Michael Jackson is innocent too. Take a hint.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I really can't believe anyone would put themselves through this and not have been raped. She _is_ very brave for what she's done. Thanks for following this case, and providing coverage that doesn't make me want to throw up. In the current environment I reckon that that is quite a bit of support.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I find one of the most disturbing things about this whole affair is the fact that the NZ media consistently presented the men accused in a sympathetic light and encouraged a public bias toward them...

    I don't know what was behind that.

    It's also pretty disgusting how many trolls there are here- post under your usernames, cowards!

    ReplyDelete
  18. pamziewamize said: "I don't think, that beyond reasonable doubt, they are not guilty of rape."

    That's an awfully high standard to establish innocence: there are probably less than a hundred men in the country who are innocent beyond reasonable doubt of rape.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous12:14 am

    I'm with Graeme.

    The standard is not "Innocent beyond reasonable doubt". You have to prove GUILT beyond reasonable doubt. The statement above is just downright scary. I'd hate to have to prove my innocence of rape, I don't think It'd be logically possible. The fact that I have never raped anybody would be rather irrelevant to that.

    Oh, and as for anonymity... I can't be fucked signing up for new accounts everywhere on the net. But given that about half the "not anonymous" people here are using nicknames of some description I'm entirely comfortable with my anonymous nature, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The good men & woman of that jury found Louise to be a liar. It's that simple."

    I'm going to write a longer post about the issue, but this simply isn't true. Every single member of the jury could have believed her and still not have found the case proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous7:41 am

    If you hold the processes of the court in contempt Maia, you are going to get everything that comes at you when this blog becomes noted for breaching supression orders.

    What's wrong with you anyway? Since when did you become a better arbiter of justice than a jury, or is it simply that all women accused of rape must be telling the truth? C'mon, do the right thing and follow the law.

    ReplyDelete
  22. sappho10:09 am

    Anon: the standard _is_ "beyond all reasonable doubt". I don't know where exactly you're drawing a distinction, but it doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous12:04 pm

    sappho, if that was addressed to my particular brand of anonymous (the prior one) then I do have to question what you appear to be saying - the standard is that the verdict must be beyond reasonable doubt regardless of whether it is guilty or not guilty? Sounds a bit funny to me. It would seem impossible to return a verdict in the majority of cases in that situation.

    The standard is a measurement of guilt, not innocence.

    Rapists are not required to prove themselves innocent beyond rea. Victims are, unfortunately, required to prove them guilty. And while that understandably is an extremely traumatic experience it is a required part of any system of justice. In an ideal world no woman ever would make false accusations of rape against a man, and you could take any accusation as cast-iron evidence. But then, in an ideal world no man would ever rape a woman. We're not in an ideal world. Men do rape women, and women do make false accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous12:58 pm

    Well said, but good luck trying to get her to see a rational point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous2:22 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. tommygun3:27 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous4:13 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  28. hi Maia,

    I'm no lawyer, but if what you have said is true and if there are future trials coming up, mightn’t you want to be very careful about breaching the suppression order? I would imagine that doing this, not only runs the risk of you being held in contempt, but that it also might lead to the future trials being declared mistrials. I might be wrong (like I said I’m no lawyer) but you might want to look into this some more. It's one thing to point out a patent injustice (which you have done admirably) but it's something else if it leads to the injustice being perpetuated.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Should we be campaigning against supression?
    should victims be allowed supession orders? how about accused?
    Maybe the public has a "right to know" regardless of that person's job or any concequences.
    Maybe we should trust the jury to be able to consider relevant information and ignore irrelevant information even when that information is highly emotive and prone to evoke prejudice.

    Should we just say supression should be lifted if it is relevant in another person's trial? or a similar case to one of their future trials?
    and more generally - should previous convictions be held against individuals?
    Or does the law just not hold for a person when they honestly think it is immoral?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous5:08 pm

    These three men have described their last 2 years as hell. Well I say to them you make your bed and lie in it. If them cannot keep their cock in their pants and want to have sex with lots of different partners then they have to bear the consequences of their actions. If they had keep their cocks in their pants then they would have never have had to go through the court system. If you are promiscious in our life it will always effect you later in your life.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous5:28 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous6:02 pm

    Guts? She's fucking stupid more like. She's breaking the law.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous6:05 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous6:08 pm

    Alison - were you in the court? Did you hear the evidence? How are you so sure that they are guilty in this case? Was the jury blind in your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous6:08 pm

    My heart goes out to Louise. It is a well known fact of course that the best defense available to a rapist and the lawyers who defend them is that the sex was consensual (same old, same old).
    Tighe

    ReplyDelete
  36. sappho6:55 pm

    I think my comment was in response to another comment that is no longer there; I was copying the phrasing "beyond all reasonable doubt" from it. It was saying (roughly) "the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond ALL reasonable doubt". Which is... well, it looked like a contradiction to me. Since the comment's been deleted, I can't tell you exactly what it said (perhaps Maia can still see the deleted ones? I don't actually know, if she can she could copy in the appropriate part).

    It is a standard of guilt, and it's a high one: that there must be no doubt that a reasonable person could harbour that the accused is, in fact, guilty of the crime(s) concerned. That's appropriate, since we want to have the absolute minimum risk that an innocent person is convicted.

    That said, though, there is a concept in Scottish law that relates to what you outlined (which wasn't what I was saying, but we'll proceed with it anyway): a "Not Proven" verdict, to be returned when the jury isn't satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, in addition to "Guilty" and "Not Guilty". It allows the case to be brought again later on with stronger evidence. Perhaps it would be good to introduce here too. I don't think so, myself, but it might be nice if it had been here all along.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous9:39 pm

    Elanor said

    "I find one of the most disturbing things about this whole affair is the fact that the NZ media consistently presented the men accused in a sympathetic light and encouraged a public bias toward them...

    I don't know what was behind that."

    Nice of you to group all NZ's media into a homogenous group. The media were constrained in what they could report by a series of extensive and explicit suppresion orders. Large parts of the Crown's case were suppresed. To report them would have meant a contempt charge, and a likely mis-trial. This would have placed the complanaint in the awful position of having to testify again in any subsequent retrial. This may be why it seemed as if media reports were unbalanced.

    And on a final note, it was the media (specifically Philip Kitchen of TVNZ) who first shined a public light on this case, and ultimately resulted in the three men appaearing before the Court.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I note that my previous comment has been deleted. I am not sure why this is the case. There was nothing defamatory or personal in it. It strikes me as cowardly that you would do such a thing when other more antagonistic comments on this thread remain.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous11:05 pm

    It all comes down to blind arrogance. You just can't argue with people like this. Whatever they say, they are right. If you disagree, she will delete your post.

    It will come and bite her in the bum very shortly unless she takes steps to moderate her posts on this blog so that she is not breaking the law.

    But she is convinced that she knows better and insists on stirring up a witch-hunt against these men who's wives and children, I'm sure, would prefer to move on in life.

    The words libel, slander, and defamation spring to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous8:51 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  42. > If you are promiscuous in our life it will always affect you later in your life.

    I expect the feminists aren’t so happy to be in the same bed as people with this view.

    Still on this issue here maybe good defenders of Louise Nicholas want to get into bed with the sensible sentencing trust with the idea of giving more legal power to victims and strip defendants of their defences.

    > A "Not Proven" verdict, to be returned when the jury isn't satisfied beyond reasonable doubt

    The problem with this is I might accuse you of raping me - it is highly likely we would get a not proven result (because of the nature of rape) unless you could really prove you were somewhere else at the time etc. There is a danger that there will be no "not guilty" just "guilty" and "not proven".
    Anyway there is the problem that not proven would be seen by the public as similar to guilty. We are trying to sort of "cheat" and make you not guilty on a social level as well as a legal one. We don't want you beaten up as you walk down the street just because I said you did something.

    ReplyDelete
  43. sappho11:10 am

    In Scotland, it doesn't tend to work that way - they've built up the system around it - but if it were introduced here I think that's exactly how it would go, yes. "Not Proven" is for the "we think he's guilty but we're not sure" situations, and sometimes as a way for a jury to declare itself hung.

    You see fairly often in the coverage of American trials that the jury returns "not guilty" and is then off to the talk show circuit to say they thought he was guilty but not beyond reasonable doubt. Having a "not proven" verdict doesn't introduce that problem by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous3:22 pm

    once again maia likes to delete perfectly reasonable posts concerning the issue of false rape claims. No-ones suggesting LN lied - but many on here seem to suggest that a complainant is automatically telling the truth.
    if you had been accused of a crime that you didnt commit, perhaps youd think a bit differently.
    its a shame you are so intolerant of other peoples viewpoints. you have to expect othe people to come on here and express opinions when you publish them to the world. if you dont like it, then why the hell are you blogging.

    ReplyDelete
  45. English journalist Johann Hari has a good column on how, in England, rape is becoming an unpunished crime.

    http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=840

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous9:47 pm

    You had better be careful of defamation by innuendo Maia. Maybe too late for that too.

    Then again, carefulness is not one of your strengths.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous10:20 pm

    Maia.
    How long should we give you to censor your blog before we notify the police?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous12:39 pm

    It's too late to censor and/or remove comments - various web archives (e.g. Google) will already have recorded the past state.

    Although this is non-NZ based site, Maia lives in NZ and is likely to be persued - the judge specifically mentioned web sites and B/Boards as sources or possible supression violation.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous12:42 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "once again maia likes to delete perfectly reasonable posts concerning the issue of false rape claims."

    It's up to her to decide what is reasonable in her space which this is. I'd rather see the facts of this discussion fleshed out than have to dig through some of the worthless detritus I've seen here before they've been removed.

    Good on you Maia for sticking to your policy.

    ReplyDelete
  51. John, you propertarian capitalist pig you.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The suppressing of evidence in this situation is wrong.
    We all need to know what is going on now at the very least! in order to show compassion and understanding of rape victims we need to know what is going on. To restate the obviose rape is not sex, men get raped too.
    Can anyone imagine a man enduring the judicial process that Louise just went throe.

    ReplyDelete
  53. ummm genius, I don't see Maia oppressing anyone here. In fact removing those posts is arguably removing oppressive reactionary nonsense from this discussion - they have plenty of other places to be including the majority of the mainstream media. Freedom of expression without moderation ends up just replicating the injustices of the world. This is her space, and her rules - and you are under no coercion to participate. Unlike those propertarian capitalist pigs you are so clearly worked up about - who operate entirely through coercion.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous10:03 pm

    I,m tired of the judges and the police hiding behind the rules,take em out and hang them they are as guilty as sin.They have admitted to lying and cheating on their families why would they not lie to us shit they are supposed to be examples of decency.Hang the judge too cause he's just as bad.
    bob

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. George Darroch11:04 pm

    Congratulations for having guts and courage, and you do whatever the hell you feel is right - I'm still in shock reading when i hear about things like this...

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous12:15 am

    An example of hypocrisy and double standards from Maia?

    Objects to suppression in the case, but wilfully suppresses others in this forum.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous8:15 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous8:55 am

    lets hope they (Rickards,Shollum,Shipton)all end up in a dark alley one night,and get confronted by a few GOOD MEN with baseball bats.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Lets leave aside the issue of guilt or not. These men are scum. They used the power and influence, given to them by the police, to take advantage of this woman. The issue now is what are we going to do to protect other woman that might be in the same circumstances. We need the police to find and get rid of gutter dwelling scum like these men from their ranks.

    ReplyDelete
  62. There seems to be a general opinion here that woman will not go through court to make up rape charges, However, looking at the example of Debra Wood (search this page http://www.menz.org.nz/Casualties/2000%20newsletters/Aug-Sept00.htm ), whom i happen to know personally, this does happen. (she spent 2 years in prison for perjury)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous9:43 am

    Dont you worry Louise,we know you were telling the truth.
    Shipton/Shcollum/Rickards = stupid is - stupid does - and they will come un stuck - maybe they will meet some friends of ours one day.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Christchurch Woman9:58 am

    I whole-heartedly support Louise Nicholas and was on the edge of my seat while the jury was out. I feel so let down with the verdict, and frankly, unsafe. Those cops haven't and will never change. Right to the end the three cops were trying to use everything they could to intimidate and emphasise their power. From Clint Rickard's attempt at wearing his uniform in court to even getting their enablers to do a karakia for them when the jurors went out. I will never believe that what they did with Louise Nicholas wasn't rape.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Penny Lane10:36 am

    Very interesting to read that the "wives" of these guys are the most stupid & gullible woman on the planet.Maybe it could be the reality that these woman are also victims of these men and could very well be too afraid to say or do anything that may result in future retribution.
    So I guess they are also "prisoners"
    and being "the wives" Im betting that they know a hell of a lot.
    Then again I could have it all wrong and they are just plain fucking stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  66. These two know what they done which is why their legal reps chose the path of evidence suppression. This trial was all about having powerful QC's who have the skill to petition the court to narrow the scope of the evidence presented. The same thing happened at the Keith Abbot trial for executing Stephen Wallace, where his legal reps were able to shut down 60% of the evidence from ever seeing the light of day. It is almost impossible to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt when this much evidence cannot be presented.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous11:36 am

    You people are so boring! Get a life.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous12:05 pm

    Maia, I salute you.

    If you run into any trouble with this, e mail me at extreme@atheist.co.nz as I will arrange to have your comments posted in 100 other websites. The cops and fascists will NOT win this one.
    n.b. Kiwi bloke here, but I have been disgusted by this from the start as I am a Rotorua lad myself and always had this one figured out.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous12:15 pm

    I bet Kerre Woodham feels like a right idiot now after defending these filth only 2 days ago.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous12:29 pm

    I think a few of you are missing the point here. It's not wether these guys are guilty or not, it's wether it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and it can't. I have no doubt they are as guilty as sin, but without physical evidence, with witnesses who can't agree and previous complaints Louise had made against other officers that were thrown out, there was never going to be a conviction. On the other hand, if the jury was allowed to know about the Mount Maunganui case (hence the reason that neither Shipton nor Schollumn were called to the stand) there is no doubt that establishing guilt would have a lot easier to prove. The fact of the matter is that trying people for historical crimes is extremely difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous12:37 pm

    Now that the reputations of these three men (plus the two pricks who were named in the Mt Maunganui case) have been destroyed, maybe they will all leave the country and start new lives somewhere else....one can hope, certainly don't need them here

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous12:54 pm

    I am really really upset at some of the comments on this site. This includes both sides of the debate.

    Leaving aside the question of innocence or guilt in this trial, I know that sometimes women can be our own worst enemies. My brother was falsely accused of raping a woman. I know this for a fact. I believe that rape is a serious criminal offence but women who falsely accuse others of rape make it even harder for those women who are raped. My brother was innocent and could prove it thank God!

    Without passing judgment on this case at all, how can we know for sure whether someone has or has not been raped? Do we take the women's word for it? Do we check into their past? This is a serious and open-ended question that is meant to generate healthy debate.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous12:56 pm

    some mate rickard having sex with the 16yr old daughter in an awning..who could believe anything from someone who would betray like that..these men are scum..that is why voices are rising..nz is too small for information supression the courts should figure that..the greater the indignation the higher the motivation to discuss and protest and then theres just plain common sense that only the real dirt needs hiding

    ReplyDelete
  74. dandylion1:05 pm

    The question we should all ask is how do people with this kind of morality get to be such prominent members of society. Shipton was a Tauranga city counciller for christ's sake, Rickards..hell if it wasn't for this he could be in charge of the entire police force. Suppression order or not, guilty or innocent, none of that should matter; they are animals and should be treated as such.

    ReplyDelete
  75. chuck2:18 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous2:53 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  77. charles3:05 pm

    the judge(as well being as being deluded about the internet)has missed the point

    justice must not only be done but seen to be done

    on that basis Loiuse Wallace(bbecause she ended up being on trial along with the accuse-everyone has a judgement on her as well as the men)never got a fair trial

    speaking as an experienced(ex)lawyer

    ReplyDelete
  78. Charles3:07 pm

    meant louise nicholas of course

    ReplyDelete
  79. balaclava3:28 pm

    I watched the news last night and saw my friends on it handing out leaflets. I had no idea of the content until I read this forum.

    All I can say is WELL DONE. This is about JUSTICE. How the fuck can justice be done if the jury does not get the WHOLE fucking story!

    HUGE respect for all those involved in handing out those leaflets yesterday. The truth MUST be told.

    ReplyDelete
  80. balaclava3:31 pm

    Ive just read all the comments.

    Ask yourself this -

    If they jury HAD KNOWN ALL THE FACTS, would the result have been different?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous3:32 pm

    Dandylion wonders how such people can become such prominent members of society - it certainly raises questions - Chrishchurch Deputy Mayor Fahey said no-one wd believe the women he had raped and abused - fortunately he said it to a TV3 hidden camera, so was convicted! and Graham Capill, Police Prosecutor and thundering Christian leader, must have beilieved himself immune from discovery as he carried out child-rape and abuse. Like the 3 in the Rickard trial, seeking power is an aspect of their bullying personalities, and is consistent with their desire to oppress other people.
    I wouldn't call any of these men animals though - animals would never do anything like this -men who carry out these crimes are disgusting, twisted males who abuse power and seek gratification through the torture and debasement of others in a variety of ways, including sexual crimes.
    Alice

    ReplyDelete
  82. charles3:54 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  83. barry4:13 pm

    The whole situation is a bit of a sham in my opinion; no one except the jurors can tell us what the thought process was, but I wonder how much the judges directions to them influenced two different juries to come to two different decisions in cases that are remarkably similar?

    ReplyDelete
  84. charles4:14 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  85. charles4:53 pm

    what sort of site is this where eberything is censored

    no better than the court

    another raper or women

    ReplyDelete
  86. Charles5:00 pm

    I agree Charles; I am 100% on the side of Louise Nicholas, but I will always struggle to defend someone who doesn't want to hear both sides of the story

    ReplyDelete
  87. chuck9:12 pm

    The stupidity of Maia and her supporters is unbelievable. If some or all of the quitted Police Officers are meant to stand trial their lawyer will have a very strong argument that there is no way they could get a fair trial. After any trials that were likely to take place were over the suppression orders would probably been lifted.

    If these guys are guilty they will have these feminazis to thank.

    Incidentally, I use my real name unlike many on this blog.

    You can remove my post you feminazi. What does it prove? That you are as thick as Louse Nicholas. I have saved this blog to my hard disk. I will be happy to supply it to the Police or defence attorneys. I have already contacted them both.

    You are going to feel real clever if charges get dropped. Typical feminazi you will not accept responsibility.

    Chuck Bird

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anonymous9:21 pm

    Trolls: This is Maia's site... if u don't like it.... sod off.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  89. chuck9:35 pm

    Mike, If you not not like hearing from me tell Maia to stop breaking the law.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I Am The Walrus9:42 pm

    chuck said...

    The stupidity of Maia and her supporters is unbelievable. If some or all of the quitted Police Officers are meant to stand trial their lawyer will have a very strong argument that there is no way they could get a fair trial. After any trials that were likely to take place were over the suppression orders would probably been lifted.

    If these guys are guilty they will have these feminazis to thank.

    Incidentally, I use my real name unlike many on this blog.

    You can remove my post you feminazi. What does it prove? That you are as thick as Louse Nicholas. I have saved this blog to my hard disk. I will be happy to supply it to the Police or defence attorneys. I have already contacted them both.

    You are going to feel real clever if charges get dropped. Typical feminazi you will not accept responsibility.

    Chuck Bird




    Hey Chuck
    Too Fucking Late
    Its all over the internet
    90% of Kiwi's are not stupid
    and know that these arseholes are Guilty.
    Its the other 10% of dickheads such as yourself who are living on another fucking planet.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anonymous9:52 pm

    Mike.

    You're a wanker.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anonymous9:52 pm

    Charles.

    Bollocks you're a lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anonymous9:53 pm

    I suggest that no matter what the circumstances, suppression order or not, the jury would not have come to any other decision.

    When you've got an ex-flatmate who is giving contrary evidence about behaviour, it's very hard to make a conviction on what's presented.

    With respect to some of the accusations that some people are making concerning rape and rape charges, rape trials and how difficult it is for women to find justice, consider the aspect of burden of proof.

    Burden of proof is a very vital aspect of the legal system. But when it comes to rape trials, burden of proof seems to fly out the window and an accusation for some people (and i would include those women handing out the leaflets) should be sufficent for conviction.

    This is absurd thinking.

    I'm not suggesting the system as it works presently is perfect but an accusation being accepted and conviction following an accusation is an absurdity and it's clear that the women in wellington are following that particular line of thought:

    "Any woman who claims she has been raped should be believed totally from the beginning and that should be the end of it."

    This is nonsense.

    And i don't know anyone but the most rabid feminist or rabid anti-male female would accept that.

    In the flyer that was handed out, it was blatantly obvious that the women involved have no idea of why the suppression order was handed out.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anonymous12:07 am

    Its a witchunt! Its not about Louise N For those who choose to break the supression orders, its about themselves.

    You guys cant get over the power and control feminist bullshit.You poor victims!

    I dont like policemen and I equally dislike internet mobs. This whole fiasco is nothing more than a witch hunt.

    Shame on you sisters, shame.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Imagine12:46 am

    Anonymous said...

    Its a witchunt! Its not about Louise N For those who choose to break the supression orders, its about themselves.

    You guys cant get over the power and control feminist bullshit.You poor victims!

    I dont like policemen and I equally dislike internet mobs. This whole fiasco is nothing more than a witch hunt.

    Shame on you sisters, shame.


    Obviously wrtten by a male and probably a policeman.

    C'mon,this just so much crap.
    There is a bigger picture here and has nothing to do with any one person or persons,this affects all kiwi citizens,whom are strong advocates of transparency and accountability when it comes in the way of trust in the professional police officer/s that are supposed to be protecting us.
    I can bet you dollars to donuts that
    there will be members of the constabulary that will be very pissed with these people,because it always ends up the same:Officers in the feild taking shit from members of the public because of others actions.

    Hopefully people (on both sides of the fence) will be tolerant through these very trying and difficult days for EVERYONES sake.

    ReplyDelete
  96. charles8:21 am

    annonymous..I said ex lawyer..practised for twenty years...left because its about the money and ego not about helping people..the greed and self interest is unbelievable

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anonymous8:57 am

    anyway so what if she was having some sex with them that was consensual...doesnt mean thay can take a police baton too her..thats power abuse they got off on

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anonymous6:26 pm

    This blog is censured.... It looks like a North Korean style blog...

    ReplyDelete
  99. " This blog is censured.... It looks like a North Korean style blog..."

    What sort of idiot are you anonymous? Making sensible decisions about what you want in your space is well...just sensible.

    You are free to make comments elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure Maia hasn't been bowling around to mysognist or just-garden-variety idiots' houses and whisking them off to dentention camps - which would allow for some justification of your silly statement.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Brad Shitcan9:59 pm

    No doubt you wouldn't have sex with her because she wouldn't let you rape her would she anonymous?

    You better start worrying anonymous rapist as the day when they bring back the rope for serial rapists and rape apologists is coming whether the justice system likes it or not. The public wants it.

    I'm not no feminist, or woman either anonymous rapist. How about you come out of your anonymoty and back yourself up in the real world pussy?

    ReplyDelete
  101. George Darroch10:03 pm

    Hi Maia, since it is your blog you should do what ever you want... but nasty evil people shouldn't be able to claim anonymity.

    I think that a woman (not all victims are women of course, but far too many) should have her claims taken as the truth unless there is strong evidence to the contrary - because the current system puts the victim on trial as much as the rapist, and shifts the burden of proof. I really think that a few false convictions would be worth putting a lot more rapists behind bars and telling men that they can't make these actions without facing consequences...

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous10:49 pm

    Well this blog just proves the fact that all men are disgusting, revolting, abhorrent creatures.
    The day is coming when the world will no longer need men. Technology will soon mean that men will become redundant. And good riddance. No more violence, no more wars, no more crime, because men are the root of all evil on this planet.
    Cute at birth but such a shame they have to grow into monsters. And the thought of seeing a man naked is absolutely repulsive.
    Louise we love you - have faith. MANkind has served you an injustice but they will pay.

    ReplyDelete
  103. No anonnymous, it proves you are one hell of a screwed up person. All the men I know are in support of Louise and what she has gone through. We all think the men involved are scum and should be punushed.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous2:11 am

    I think part of LN's problem was the trial was in Auckland rather than Wellington like the Mt Maunganui case. A different judge. What did this one find to drone on about for 3 hours in his summing up for the jury, anyway?
    It also looks like the Mt Maunganui 2 lost their appeal in Wgtn in February.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous8:56 am

    Hi Maia

    I'm shocked at the intolerance some posters are showing here. George Darroch thinks it's OK to lock up innocent people if a greater cause is served - the thinking of an authoritarian. Anonymous of 10.49 expresses hatred and contempt for all men (cute babies excepted). No better than the hatred and contempt rapists show towards women - except they act on their vile drives, and are rightly prosecuted for that.

    It's an imperfect world but one of the mitigations is a justice system, free speech and concern for individual rights. These help create the conditions for solidarity to flourish. Things could always be better than our current society, but they could be much worse too. Where does this hatred and intolerance come from?

    Yours in hope.

    Philip

    ReplyDelete
  106. Awww Philip...that's just Lovely.
    Really really lovely.
    Lovely.
    Lovey dovey Jubbly Wubbly

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous11:56 am

    I believe Louise, too.
    The police culture of the 80's (and who knows how many decades previously) was rampantly corrupt. It's just as corrupt, if not more so, today. If every victim of sexual assault at the hands of the police in the 70's/80's came forward and let the world know, I think we would be astonished to learn exactly how many people have been hurt by the people we put in power to protect us; the same people who use that power to terrorise us.
    Anonymous at 10.49 seems a bit extreme. You just need to cook some eggs, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Vibrant3:58 pm

    Gosh this case sure has brought a lot of emotions and gender issues to the surface. All that aside relevant legislation is based on innocence until proven guilty for the accused (especially previous criminal history) and victims had no rights. If you are a victim of a sexual matter you can be sure that all kinds of accusations and innuendos will be put before the court about you and your background whether they are true or not. Nothing even close to that can be said about the accused in case it influences the outcome of the case. Now I have no idea what these so called feminazis are aiming at. However I suspect they are trying to identify the unfairness of the current process. I don't necessarily support the way they are doing it but I do admire their guts . Far too many woman do not report rape and quite frankly I don't blame. The Victims Rights Act 2002 is clearly outlines victims rights unfortunately it is largely ignored. If I was Louise I would seek legal advice about comments about her made by the media and on the net with a view to legal redress.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Vibrant4:09 pm

    part of LN's problem was the trial was in Auckland rather than Wellington like the Mt Maunganui case. A different judge. What did this one find to drone on about for 3 hours in his summing up for the jury, anyway

    LOL
    Anonymous are you for real ? The Judge had 300 pages of evidence to sum up and are bound by the same legislation regardless of where they sit in NZ.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Anonymous8:57 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  111. suzzannee11112:42 pm

    Eva Rickard the Maori Activist must be feeling a bit dissappointed in her son . Hopefuuly she is not behind the comments " This was all a conspiracy to keep a Maori out of the top job in the Police" How weak.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Anonymous10:59 pm

    I affirm the comment that joeblogg made about other men.

    I am a man and every other man I know (including mates who are cops and ex-cops) are disgusted at what has happened and are supportive of Louis Nicholas.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anonymous9:17 am

    A couple of random comments on... comments:

    "Eva Rickard the Maori Activist must be feeling a bit dissappointed in her son . Hopefuuly she is not behind the comments " This was all a conspiracy to keep a Maori out of the top job in the Police" How weak. "

    I've never heard any connection made between the defendant and Eva Rickard - the media probably would've beat this up if true. Anyway the late Eva Rickard died in 1997 and is unlikely to be making email comments. Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai ra.

    and... "That's an awfully high standard to establish innocence: there are probably less than a hundred men in the country who are innocent beyond reasonable doubt of rape. "

    What a ridiculous statement. Do you actually believe it Graeme? Thta kind of rubbish makes anything pertinent you may say completely ignorable. I thought feminism had got a bit more mature than the "all men are rapists" position...

    A few stupid comments allow people to dismiss a whole movement.

    ReplyDelete