Saturday, March 11, 2006

Louise Nicholas

In 1986 Louise Nicholas was raped by three policeman. She has tried to get justice since, and had been unable to. Finally, almost 20 years later, those were charged.

The trial is currently taking place in Auckland. Most details of the case have been suppressed, so I can't really talk about it (but you can bet I'll have something to say when the verdict comes out).

I just wanted to commend her strength and courage.

This post was also published at Alas

105 comments:

  1. Anonymous1:47 pm

    Yes - they are gone for good. In this country innocence via due process is never as it seems

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:01 pm

    Lousie Nicholas didnt lose her case, she just didnt win.
    Her case failed for lack of evidence, and 20 years later how could she have enough evidence?
    I commend her bravery for going ahead and exposing those men as the pigs they are..
    Hopefully their lives are ruined as they have destroyed hers.
    As for Louise making the whole story up.... that is a truly pathetic suggestion.
    Most invented rape allegations are quickly demolished by the police and never get to court.Rape cases fail on lack of evidence as the rapist makes sure there are no witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous6:51 pm

    I can't believe that those 3 men have been found not guilty. Louise Nicholas, a young 18 year old, wouldn't have stood a chance against the power and status of those big men. It would have been grossly intimidating for any woman. Why would she go to such lengths after 20 years unless she needed to seek justice to end her inner turmoil.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:25 pm

    I cannot believe that anyone can be so uninformed or ignorant to think that Louise Nicholas "made this up".My goodness,get a life!I have actually met another victim of those 3 policemen who was also subjected to "consensual sex" yeah right. She was 17 & caught with a small amount of 'weed' on her & it was "suggested" that if she didn't do the "right thing" that she may all of a sudden have been discovered to have a far greater amount & end up with a jail sentence.They made a practice of this & this is not hearsay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous6:12 pm

    Curiouser and curiouser.
    As has been said,no one without a skerrick(or a smidgen or two even)of evidence,would have maintained this stance(the damage and stress to oneself,family,and wider circle)for 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous7:02 pm

    I hope those scum get prostate cancer and die horrible painful deaths.
    My thoughts go out to Louise and all her family.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous8:00 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:22 pm

    anonymous I have also heard that two of these guys have previous sex charges against them. There is no justice for women who have been raped

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:07 pm

    So those guys have been through three years hell. What about the nearly 20 years hell Louise has been through? I believe her - those guys are sleasebags.
    I really think she had gutz and I am sure those guys should have been found guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9:08 pm

    Wish I knew what those flyers said.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:23 pm

    I can't belive that in New Zealand we still think that cops can't do this. Two of the cops in this case are serving time for the pack rape of a woman in the Bay of Plenty. If Clint Rickards goes back to work for the Police are any of us safe?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous11:52 pm

    so... does anyone know just what those flyers said? I also heard, from a very reliable source, that Shipton and Schollum are currently serving time for another rape.

    Once again, everyone knows, but official sources and media are unable to reveal it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous1:13 am

    That earlier comment regarding cannabis-related blackmail is obviously of concern if it is true and more particularly if the same allegation or a similar one was part of the prosecution's case against Rickards, Schollum and Shipton. Was it?

    Further, if Schollum and Shipton are actually doing time for (a 1989?) rape then that surely goes to the question of their character. Why does information like that, if correct, need to be suppressed after the jury has reached its verdict?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous7:24 am

    If that is true, that they are serving time, then obviously the justice system works.
    Perhaps she knew about it and thought she was also a victim.
    Too much vaugue-ness in her testimony, as no body ever heard her object or say no,and aproximate dates which is vital to a guilty rape verdict.
    I feel for her as she has gone to great lengths to open up her personal life to the media and courts. but maybe not a clear cut case.It is a real hard one and i hope she is doing ok.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous7:48 am

    As I understand it at least one of the accused is most definitely in prison for rape at this time. He also has quite a reputation around town for trying to lure young women into the bar he owned - a friend knows him and his rep. and has had to warn her staff about him and not to take his offer of free drinks up under any circumstances.
    I fully support Louise Nicholas and think that like a lot of females her age (18 at the time) that she may have naively got herself into a situation that escalated out of her control.
    None of us were there - so we will never know the truth. Just note that rape cases notoriously don't do well in a court setting and one that is happening 20 years after the fact is even less likely to do well. More power to her for having got this far!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous8:18 am

    you all have to realise that this Nicholas case was to get Rickards, and it wasnt water tight, two of the four (the non-police two) guys inside for the other rape arent rapists, just victims of an overall vendetta to get Rickards and the other two, habitual gang bangers. Rickards wasnt involved in the first rape so he had to come along with the alleged Nicholas one. The guys I feel sorry for are the two others (whom I know) as they arent rapists, they are family men. And hey, 20 years ago is too long ago, and you agrieved women out there should come out within a certain time frame or accept the fact that you wont have a water tight case.

    ReplyDelete
  17. funky grandma8:30 am

    When I hear the words "Justice has been served" I know what has happened is the total opposite, and Clint Rickards smirk on the front page of the Herald said it all - "I've got away with it." As for Bob Schollum's comment that his faith in God had been restored, what century does he live in? Grrrrrr.

    I commend the actions of the 400 women who are distributing pamphlets containing the suppressed evidence, which I understand to be proven facts, and I wish them all the best. What sort of society do we live in for god's sake. Go girls - all power to you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous8:40 am

    I have just read the comment saying that women should come forward within a certain space of time or leave it. Firstly, Louise Nicholas DID complain 13 years ago (or something like that). She has been trying to get some justice for a VERY LONG TIME. Some credence must be given to Ms Nicholas' assertions because she has been fighting for many, many years. No-one goes through that for nothing.

    Secondly, sometimes it takes until a person is in the right 'space' to be able to face this sort of intrusion into their lives. And it is an intrusion. Your name will be blackened, any past sexual liasions will be commented on, your motives questioned, having to relive each and every intimate detail of the assaults etc etc etc. It is not a picnic going through a rape trial.

    Whether or not the two guys you know are guilty or not, I won't comment on but rapists are sometimes perceived as being pillars of the community. People you would never suspect of being a rapist. You just never know.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous9:39 am

    At sometime during the trial involving Louise Nicholas , Rickards was in the street talking to a news reporter and his comment was 'I never knew a woman could be so vindictive for so long'. If it was as they were saying 'that it was fun for all!!! what reason would Louise have to be vindictive?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous9:56 am

    Good point...I wondered about that myself...to be vindictive you have to have a reason...shot himself in the foot I think!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous9:59 am

    Hold your head up Louise, you were brave enough to fight for all of us women out here, who have been raped and kept it to ourselves because we knew that to bring it forward and to court, would be to be raped all over again.
    As a young girl, I was raped several times, the first time I was a 14yr old virgin, pack raped by two young men (and no, they weren't Maori) who's mentality made it a hunting game trophy, the second by a very "respectable" boss (not Maori either) who said that if I didn't have sex with him, I would lose my job. I did for several months, became very nervous and he sacked me anyway.Another attempt by yet another "pillar of society" (very religious supposedly and definitely not Maori) was foisted off by me chasing him with an axe. Nowadays, the law would say that I should not take this approach but where is the law when you need them? (On the highway, giving tickets?)and are they to be trusted anyway.
    For years I kept my secrets, became an alcoholic and an addict but then I went thru Hanmer Springs for treatment. There we addressed amonst other things the rapes perpetrated on me. The only thing I had done to bring these things on myself was to be a lost young girl trying to live my life as best as I could. I did not dress provocatively or act promiscuously. In fact, I was fairly introverted and kept myself away from people.
    These predators (and that's what they are) know how to choose their prey and they know exactly when to strike. Until the legal law marries itself into a wider psychological knowledge,it is bound to stay the ass it still obviously is. Contempt for it....I have little else but.

    ReplyDelete
  22. funky grandma10:07 am

    Hear during a "smoko" gossip session (all men) at a trucking firm: "Those guys are as guilty as hell, they're scumbags and pity help Louise Nicholas." The language was a little more salty than that, but you get my drift?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous11:56 am

    If the flyer says two of the accused are/have served time for rape and that is true then the women of New Zealand should make a stand and make those facts known to the whole community and kick up as much fuss as possible and make life hell for those guys (who I believe are as guilty as hell and have got away with it). And why was that suppressed when it reflects on the type of person they are?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous12:15 pm

    You cant have your cake and eat it. In the family court woman make the wildest claims, never have to prove it and men are left in the cold as to their kids. guess how the men feel

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous12:35 pm

    Of course the case wasn't water-tight!! How the heck do you get water-tight evidence against the police?
    I admire Louise Nicholas for pursuing this and getting it to court. She is one heck of a brave woman and I hope that she and her family can find some peace and move forward from this without negative, petty-minded people dragging this up over and over again.
    This whole thing is a really sad commentary on the state of the society we live in, where a woman is brutalised like this and can't get justice. When she finally does get it into the legal system, too much time has gone by and so the ability to have water-tight evidence is gone.
    Someone commented on the family court system - obviously you or someone you know has been on the receiving end of that. I for one, am sorry that you went through that, but again its the system that society has put in place - sometimes it works, but more often than not it doesn't appear to work properly.
    There is no simple answer to any of this, but if you have been wronged, then you need to seek redress wherever it is available.

    ReplyDelete
  26. frunky grandma12:46 pm

    Rickard's two co-accused are both serving time for a previous rape - that's true.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous1:01 pm

    I left a comment yesterday in support of Louise Nicholas. When will it be published on this site?
    lynkw@value.net.nz

    ReplyDelete
  28. frunky grandma1:20 pm

    If a trial is held in front of a jury, that is to say the jury are to find whether defendants are guilty or not guilty, and they (the jury) don't hear all the evidence because it is suppressed, what was the purpose of the evidence being presented in the first place? Where is the justice in that? But then this case is not about justice, in my opinion, it is about keeping the little woman in her place.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous1:42 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  30. funky grandma2:08 pm

    So, was this suppressed evidence heard by the jury or does the suppression refer to the general public? Whatever - I still think the jury got it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have always....sort of....believed Louise as I wondered why would a woman go through all of this if she hadn't been raped. After reading these blogs, it is obvious she has had a great crime committed against her, not just by the Police at the time, but by our justice system. I wonder what this country is coming too when Police can keep on getting away with many and varied crimes.
    Good on you Louise. Most women are very proud of you for standing firm. Keep going girl !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous5:11 pm

    This blog is clearly in breach of the suppression orders, you guys should be very careful, the judge has specifically advised that online comments are in breach and the police would have as much right to investigate this page as they do the leaflets.

    Even if what is said here is 100% accurate.

    As for believing everything you read here Mnemosyne, think again, this site is no more reliable than a court of law, and you are clearly prepared to disregard that forum.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous5:34 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous5:43 pm

    So what the suppression order really means is that you are the poor person who is last wronged by someone, then you can get a fair deal when you go up before the court system. If you happen to be a bit further back down the line, then due to suppression orders meaning that not all the info is able to be presented, then you can't possibly get a fair trial.
    That gives me so much faith in the justice system - NOT!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous6:19 pm

    I'm concerned. I am Male. I believe the jury was intimidated from day one when one of the accused wore his Uniform to the trial. It suggested to the jury, "I can't be guilty, I am a senior policeman". Being a senior Policeman, he should have known the rules, that whilst on suspension, you are not allowed to wear your uniform. He may have got censured but he had already made his point on the jury. I think the Jury buckled.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous6:32 pm

    Back in the 50s and 60s women rarely laid a complaint of rape for the simple reason their morality, virginity, and anything else the prosecution could dredge up would be used against them,while the `boys' were just sowing their wild oats. Hey whats changed.Any `good guys' in the Police force in New Zealand are soon culled out and usually leave but certainly will never get to the top unless they go with the culture. The Louise Nicholas case highlights the corruption as far as I am concernedand everyone should be afraid`VERY AFRAID'

    ReplyDelete
  37. rainbow warrior6:34 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous6:45 pm

    Was someone(or more than one)on the jury bought? They were out for a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous6:49 pm

    Thanks to all who were brave enough to put the truth about these men into this public arena. I know of another woman who was raped by a policeman, it too was turned over in court. I think Louise might have said yes, just once, but that was enough to get her trapped in a very scary & sinister life where she no longer had choices. My heart goes out to her and I hope the scumbags fry in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous7:16 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous7:22 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous7:48 pm

    I saw this quote at the beginning of a music track the other day.

    "IN A TIME OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH CAN BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT"

    Need I say more!!!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous7:58 pm

    This is the first time ever, I have felt strongly enough to write a comment on the internet. I am a grandma that has taught her children and grandchildren to respect the law and the police. While Mr Rickards stays at the head of the Police organisation and with the current justice system, regarding suppression of evidence, I am now rethinking my values and my perception of the law and the Police. Sad, but true.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous8:21 pm

    The guy that was DIC'D has a real point. If its relevant for his DIC history then why not for rape or any other conviction????

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous8:24 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous8:43 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous8:47 pm

    The difference with the DIC fellow was that he did not have complete suppression at the first trial.
    In this case it was not lifted and could not be admitted at the second trial.There was no legal choice.
    When the system organises a conspiracy it should be carefull with these outcomes. Otherwise they would have achieved a guilty verdict.
    Prosecution has botched up big time.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous8:58 pm

    If one looks back to how the court system treated the Jews in Germany during the Second World War. You quickly realize that within a just society without the justice and legal system being above reproach, a democracy will quickly be overrun by injustice and anarchy. Perhaps, those of us who truly care and support the meaning of truth are seeing the saddest of injustices, one that if the government does not understand and overturn will lead us into the unknown.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous8:59 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous9:55 pm

    When the verdict came in, one of the investigators in the case against these men was truly flabergasted - he could not believe it - his words were "They are as guilty as hell".
    I can assure you that Rickard's career is well & truly over, he will certainly not be welcomed back - he is a huge embarassment & no one will want to have anything to do with him. He will be gone.

    ReplyDelete
  51. annalee12:19 am

    Hi All

    I've never posted on a blog site before, so please forgive my inexperience!

    I just wanted to say I believe Louise Nicholas too and I am pretty upset with how events have turned out.

    Similarly, to some of you, I've now heard information, which might have been beneficial to the case.

    To me, there has been a lack of fairness in this case. The jury did not get to hear all evidence, as relevant material was suppressed. Two of the defendants did not take the stand. Of course this is their right, but in the same instance, Louise Nicholas was called a "liar" etc by the defendants' lawyers. It was open season on Louise and her lawyer did not get the chance to challenge two of the defendants.

    In this fashion, I believe Louise Nicholas was at a serious disadvantage.

    I applaud her courage and although the verdict did not go her way, I know a lot of people, who support her.

    This case has seriously damaged the credibility of the Police. Whilst I believe there are good Police Officers, I'd like to see the Police do an internal clear out of people, who aren't fit to hold positions of responsibility.

    Kia kaha Louise.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous6:25 am

    Okay let's say Rickards was not guilty of rape, that he was only taking part in consentual gang banging. Excuse me, but am I the only one who has a problem with a senior police officer behaving like this? Is this behaviour that we as a society find acceptable of a would-be police commissioner? Give me a break.

    Oh, and I have not read all the previous posts, but I understand that the reason certain information remains suppressed is that there could be another trial coming up, same defendants, different complainant.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous7:04 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous8:07 am

    I feel so sorry for Louise and wish her all the best for the future. I hope she can gather strength from all those who believe her. I am a 52 year old husband and father, and I hope she can believe that not all men are bastards. But very clearly at least three are. All the very best, Louise

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous8:39 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous9:22 am

    Whilst it is obvious that Louise Nicholas has been seriously wronged by 3 men, it is important to note that their behaviour does not reflect the majority of the New Zeland Police. With about 7500 sworn officers it is wrong to tar the other 7497 with the same brush.

    ReplyDelete
  57. rainbow warrior9:40 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rainbow warrior I remove posts that break the suppression orders, because I've heard that breaking the suppression order may harm Louise Nicholas or other women trying to get justice.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think too many people have been caught up in the morality issue. This case was heard in a court of law. Neither judge nor jury are expected to reach verdicts based on morality. Do I think they were probably guilty? Yes. Should they have been found guilty? No. The same was said after the Michael Jackson trial. Many of the jurors said that they believed he could well have been guilty, but based on the evidence presented to them they were compelled to return a 'not guilty' verdict.
    I also think too many people are making an issue of Louise Nicholas' age at the time. 18 is young, but not that young, and wasnt one of the accused also only 22 at the time?
    Louise Nicholas would have been better off now as a mature woman to have reflected on her 18th year as a time when she most probably made some very bad judgement calls. Where she mistakenly interpreted the attention of these men as something is wasnt. Unfortunately many young women with low self esteem fall into this trap.
    Was she raped or was she taken advantage of? Criminally there is a difference.
    All claims of rape should be taken on their own merit. The idea that a women who claims rape should always be believed is of course ridiculous. Many men have also had their lives ruined due to false allegations.
    Justice should be blind not only to race and stature, but also to gender. The Louise Nicholas case shouldn't be reudced to an 'us and them' mentality. Being the mother of a daughter and a son, I would not like to see either of my children a victim of either rape or false allegation.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous12:47 pm

    Rickards wants to hold a position of authority – which in effect means people, will need to respect his mana and prestige.

    Even if it was consensual, I have no respect for a man who at 25 years of age is having group sex with a 17 yr old girl. It’s just plan sick. Pervert!

    ReplyDelete
  61. percytolpis1:33 pm

    Loise was very brave and has to be commended for her dogged determination to get justice.
    It was not a surprise to have 'not guilty' verdicts delivered given the time delay and 3 to 1 lawyer presentations.
    The police have to clean up their act and kick any officer out who grooms or intimidates the vulnerable for their own gratification.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous1:36 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous1:40 pm

    I agree that the three men should have got off - 20 years or even 13 years is far too long to bring forward a charge. I wonder if these charges would have progressed as far as court if they had not involved policemen?

    I think there should be a 12 months time limit to come forward for charges like this - the exception being when incest/children are involved.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I am amazed to read the comments posted by some (probably men) who have demonstrated how little they know about sexual abuse and its consequences, for some women a lifetime is insufficient time to accomodate what has happened to them, let alone do something about it. As the partner of a rape victim I am ashamed at times of the attitude many men portray, grow up and take some collective responsibility, women are our equals and should be treated as such. The justice system needs to be overhauled so that juries are made aware of the past criminal histories of those charged, past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous3:44 pm

    Grief has no timeframe and sometimes the best way to deal with something is for it to be repressed until the person is able to cope.

    We recently found out that my mum was raped when she was in her teens - she is in her early 60's now. She didn't hide it from us - an incident recently bought that information to the surface. She had repressed the information for all that time as a coping mechanism and for anyone to think that a year is sufficient to deal with something as violent and traumatic as a rape really needs to get off whatever planet they are living on!!!!!

    To the men who think that - I feel very sorry indeed for your partners. Your words speak of an arrogance and ignorance that there is no place for in the society we live in. You are putting yourselves in the place of judge and jury on other people and the way they live their lives. Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I have to disagree with Arlie that someone charged with a crime should have their past criminal history made available to a jury. This would encourage verdicts based on presumption. Each case should be judged on its own merit based on the evidence at hand.
    A Statute of Limitation is probably something we should consider as a society. In some states in the US for example there is a SOL for minor crimes of two years. For violent crimes including rape etc it is a lot longer, but there is still a limit. One reason for statutes of limitations is fairness; that is, over time memories fade, evidence is lost or never found, and people prefer to get on with their lives without legal intrusions from the past. Clearly it is equally hard to
    prove or disprove allegations after extrememly long periods of time.
    These ideas should be debated and discussed in this country. But sadly after some of the nonsensical comments I've hear following this case ie, "all women who raise allegations down the track are liars" " all men are potential rapists" I fear we will be unable to move forward with the maturity of a country ready to debate these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  67. With reference to a couple of the previous entries:

    1) A statute of limitations in itself has its limitations, imagine applying this logic to the issue of war crimes, I'm sure people from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre would have something pertinent to say. If trials are to be transparent then criminal histories are significant to the process because they help to establish the character of those charged with an offence. Obviously the passage of time is a factor, this is recognised with the advent of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, however, serious crimes such as rape cannot be expunged and therefore they should be able to be disclosed in a criminal trial process.

    2) Some women do recover from the effects of sexual crimes, some do not, it has been been conservatively estimated that at least 70% of persons suffering with a serious mental illness are survivors of sexual crimes (and that includes both male and female).
    I admire people who are able to deal with traumatic events and get on with their lives but I also feel compassion for those who through no fault of their own have been subjected to abuse that often can at best be described as evil and who as a result suffer the consequences.

    The perpetrators of such crimes should always remain culpable and subject to trial. Perhaps we could learn a little from the continental inquisitorial model rather than sticking with the flawed adverserial model we have in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous9:15 pm

    Well said Arlie!

    Trauma affects people in ways as unique as the people themselves are and they should never feel compelled to move through the process at a preconceived rate.

    Healing happens when it is time for healing to happen - if at all. It can happen that the person just finds a way to compartmentalise what has happened to them so that they can appear to function fully.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous9:35 pm

    How many of you, like myself, were led to believe by the way it was reported in the media, that Louise's flatmate gave evidence?
    SHE DID NOT! The flatmate is living in Australia & refused to come back for the trial. The so-called comments she made were produced by the defence, and were not what she told the investigators.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous8:29 am

    The statements from the flatmate were NOT produced by the defence - they were produced by the prosecution.
    Read the below article which gives a far more balanced view than a lot given here. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3624444a12855,00.html
    The article is called Crimes and misdemeanours - the Louise Nicholas rape case. It appeared in the Sunday Star Times.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous1:26 pm

    Have faith everyone, Clint Rickards and his type always get whats coming to them. Believe in Karma. He may not get prison... but would you employ him, socialise with him etc... his name is now mud in NZ.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous2:12 pm

    Hmmm. I have to support the justice system in this case. Coming from a family where rape has been cried a few times by various people, I know for sure that some of these calls are either vindictive or attention seeking exercises, or otherwise sit on the boundary of semi-consensual and inebriated sexual encounters.
    In this case there is a lot of grey area, for both parties. Noone but the court room really knows what was heard, and noone but the accusers and the accused really know what happened.
    As such, I can only really trust the justice system. Taking a biased view on either side where there is so much uncertainty in defining the circumstances and intentions, is a game for fools.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous8:05 pm

    I was just wondering.....the courts said the evidence was suppressed in order to give the accused men a fair trial.......where was Louise Nicholas' fair trial?????

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous8:27 pm

    Please, folks, be measured in your thoughts and comments. I have been convicted of a sexual offence and served time for it when, indeed, i was truly innocent. So I know how easily it can happen. It was a case of mistaken identy and police corruption in Sydney. I lost my wallet, it found its way to a career criminal who added my identity to his list of aliases. Ten or so months later when the police thought they had caught him but actually had me in an innocent set of circumstances, they manufactered "evidence" and encouraged the other party to exaggerate in onder to put a well-known bastard away where he deserved to be.

    Later, when they discovered by fingerprints that they were mistaken, it was too late and they had to continue lying to conceal their earlier lies. Even today, after all these years, i believe the "victim" still does not know that I was not the notorious guy they told her I was.

    Later, at the Wood Royal Commission into Police Corruption, the arresting officer admitted to a lifetime of lies and corruption and to having committed perjury in my specific case. It did me no good.

    Ever since, because of that conviction, I have been hounded and persecuted by other police simply because that is the way they do things. If you were convicted of something, you must be guilty and, if you were guilty once, you must also be guilty of every other situation that arrives on a police officer's desk afterwards.

    I tell you this because, if those two former cops are/were serving time for rape, that does not make them guilty of the Nicholas claims. That is probably the reason for the suppression order, if that was what it's all about.

    Louise Nicholas did not make a claim of "classical rape" where there was clear denial of consent, struggling and so on. Even if she was 100% accurate, the worst that was alleged was acquiescence.

    I don't, of course, approve of rape. And I don't approve of sexual activity in a climate of acquiescence. But be honest. It's not like murder or other violent assault. If she did not want sex with those people she should have said so and I believe any reasonable person would agree with that. Not saying "no" is no vindication of what the men did if, indeed, it happened the way she said and I would still call them bastards for abusing their authority. But I would also tell Louise Nicholas she failed in her duty to herself. She should have said a clear "no" or, alternatively, she should have made an official complaint later that day.

    Also, please don't carry on with the attitude I see in here that it is too difficult in cases like these to secure a conviction. The fact is, in cases like these it is way too damned difficult to gain an _acquittal_ even if you are innocent. Juries do tend to prefer the evidence of a woman in cases like this and maybe, from a societal and statistical point of view, that's as it should be. It's certainly what the women's groups ask for. But it does lead to injustices, as men's groups also point out.

    If things happened exactly the way Louise Nicholas said, I feel sorry for her but I also feel she did not do the right thing.

    If things happened exactly as the accused say, I still think they are bastards.

    But, in either case, I think an acquittal for rape was the correct outcome.

    grh

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous8:29 pm

    ...and I still think Arthur Allan Thomas was guilty as hell.

    grh

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous9:36 pm

    I was discussing the case with two ladies I know who I haven't seen for some time, we used to be nightclubbing in the early 1980's. It was a fun time, the curious thing was that we socialised in the same places we were not doing so together yet we all had tales to tell of bad behaviour of policemen and detectives who thought they were above the law!
    Apparently there was a "house" in Onehunga where police and taxi drivers took their girls or victims. Some of these guys are now senior policemen or even lawyers. Drugs and intimidation was involved.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous9:03 am

    I feel very sorry for the jury members who obviously worked very hard and were not in full possession of all the facts. They must have felt devastated when they came out after the verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous9:39 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous11:11 am

    I have read alot, but not all, of what is on this site. Some of what has been posted is valid but alot is ill informed.

    I'm a cop so some of yiu will immediately disregard the rest of what I say but here it is for what it's worth.

    I like alot of other cops don't want Rickards back as asst commissioner. If the sex was consensual then at the very least his integrity as a married man is in question. However since he was found not guilty he can argue to have his job again.

    As for some of the other stuff on the site:
    Anyone who says that the Police go esay when investigating their own has never been the subject of a complaint from a mmeber of the public. The administration puts us through hell even for the most trivial complaint and even when they come from criminals.

    It should also be known that in allegations of rape, the law says that there is no need for corroboration to gain a conviction. Alot of men have been arrested on allegations of rape on the unsubstantiated word of one complainant. When the matter gets to court there are huge restrictions on what can be asked of the complainant about their previous sexual activity. The court can be cleared to make things easier on the victim and I agree with that. The world is not the same as it was in the 1970s.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anonymous11:38 am

    I know a cop who worked on the Athur Allan Thomas case, and there was suppressed evidence that would have lead to an unarguable conviction. Though becuase of certain legal restrictions, this information was not released. When his case was appealed, key information that had lead to his roginal conviction had been disposed of. The guy was as guilty as sin.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous5:32 pm

    I think it is a shame that we tend to judge one another by someone else's actions :- not all cops are bad, not all men are rapists, not all women will cry rape after a sexual encounter etc etc.

    My grandfather and uncle were both in the police force and you couldn't have asked for more honourable men and I tend to believe that the majority of the police are like that. They have one hell of a job to do, that most of us can't even begin to imagine. But like every other job in the world, the workforce comes from our society and so is a reflection of that society.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous7:03 pm

    A lawyer friend told me he had a hour or two spare during the Rickards/Schollum/Shipton case, so decided to sit in on the case - he was gobsmacked when he looked at the jury - according to him, it looked like a Maori jury - apparently John Haigh did his job very very well - years of experience have taught him how to select the jury you want for the outcome you want - all other potential jurors were challenged, with three defendants and three defence team, no doubt each defence team had the full number of challenges available, which would be triple the normal number. As a result the wearing of the Asst Commissioner uniform by Rickards was a very calculated gesture intended to intimidate his own kind (the jury) with his potential power, no doubt the same kind of psychological intimidation he inflicted on Louise all those years ago. So lets just hope Rickards paid his own lawyer's bills, and not the Legal Aid service.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous7:58 pm

    It's been very interesting reading the different opinions. Well, I used to be in the police and one of the reasons I got out was the total injustice of the justice system. The victim has bugger-all rights whereas the offender has way more. I vividly remember a case where the offender's lawyer came to me right before the trial and said the offender admits to it and can they have diversion for a guilty plea. I had had to drag all the witnesses to court at huge trauma and expense so said no. Then the lawyer proceeds to call all the witnesses liars when he knew damn well they weren't! Call me idealistic but where is the justice in that!!!
    It makes me almost as angry to read some of the ignorant comments by some people who dump on Louise Nicholas for sticking up for herself. You are all just as bad as unethical defence lawyers and cops who wear their uniforms off duty just to intimidate young girls. I tell you, when I was 18 if 3 big cops in uniform barged into my house there is no way I could have stuck up for myself then! These ignorant people need to put themselves in Louise's shoes back then. Not everyone is strong enough to do "what's right" and "say no", for God's sake. I sure as hell wouldn't have been.
    Would you tell your daughter, sister etc that you just should have said no?? Then again I suppose I am still being idealistic, and have to realise that there will always be those people out there who simply have no idea.
    As for the guy who got falsely convicted for rape, I truly feel for you and what a terrible thing you had to go through, but how can you POSSIBLY relate that to this??

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous10:17 pm

    Well said,of course no 18 yr old or 40 yr old for that matter wld argue with 3 cops!!I can only think that they were not convicted of rape because she was never heard to scream etc or be seen with injuries etc etc and you ask any female what she wld have done in the same circumstances? & I am guessing they too wld have lain back and surrendered- too fearful of what injury may occur!And for the person who sid there should be a time limit for accusations, well I only hope that you have no female relatives. As one of them be it your daughter grand daughter, niece or whoever may come to you one day and say "so and so" raped me seven years ago what should I do??Never ever throw stones unless you have no friends or family, because life has many strange "surprises".And I hope that the jailed thugs from the Mount Maunganui trial are really enjoying their jail time.Now that wasn't breaking any suppression laws was it!

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous1:44 am

    Well I think it was rape; rape by reason of intimidation. A pity the prosecution were unable to convince the jury within this very in-exact justice system of ours. But even if it wasn’t, I think the most unsavory aspect of this whole event was that 3 men who had sworn to uphold the law admitted that they got involved with repeated episodes of group sex with a young girl who may or may not have been promiscuous.

    One would have hoped that people recruited for this law enforcement job would be able to exercise good judgment. If the girl had some pre-existing sexual trauma the first of the 3 instead of offering help or assisting the girl to seek help, saw her as an easy lay and something for him to vent his animal lust upon. As if that wasn’t bad enough, he invites another two to join him in his filthy games.

    The mind boggles how a man with such low morals gets promotion to such a high position in the Force.

    Equally boggling is how the man after admitting such despicable behaviour STILL thinks he should be able to be a member of our LAW ENFORCEMENT! It illustrates to me that his level of judgment has not improved after all these years.

    He and others like him make it very hard for the honest cops to do a very difficult job. And he still thinks he should be a leader in the organization? Any one who allows him to keep his job should also have their judgment questioned.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Anonymous8:42 am

    You give men a bad name with that attitude!!

    So women should wear virtually victorian-style clothing where everything is hidden so that you don't think we are teasing you!

    Grow up and think with something other than your one-eyed snake!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous9:00 am

    Us women need to take more responsibility for our flirting. Holy Cow Batman we have a moron!!!
    I really hope that person said that just to get a reaction because its pretty scary to think that there are men out there that think like that. Look out all you girls that dare to flutter your eyelashes, you will be labelled and put in a box and therefore deserve whatever happens to you. This is how this kind of rape happens, the man actually thinks (using his lower brain) that if she was flirting then she wants it. They way some men think is scary.
    The man that wrote that last comment needs to check the facts before he dismisses Louise. It has been repeatedly reported that she tried to get justice years ago and is not just 'crying rape 20 years later' or did you miss that?
    Why don't you read a bit about how women feel when they are raped, short of being murdered, it's the most awful and traumatic thing that can happen to a woman. Emotional shutdown is almost guaranteed and a delayed reaction is so common, yet you are slamming them for dealing with it the best way they can. I would be very interested to see if you would immediately go yelling at the top of your lungs that three men just sodomised you...

    ReplyDelete
  88. The three monkeys are alive and well and living in New Zealand!


    1. See no evil

    2. Hear no evil

    3. Speak no evil

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous2:40 pm

    I find it very hard to believe that Louise could not have said no at the very least on the subsequent occasions. She did not need to let them into her house. There would have been any number of agencies she could have approached for help at the time - it was not the dark ages nor were police intimidating.

    It was also the days of the pill and prior to diseases such as Aids. There were girls who slept around and usually everyone knew who they were - the ones I recall from my town are now mothers and living respectable lives - I wonder if they have somehow managed to convince themselves that they were not really willing partners or have different recollections to the actual truth of that time in their lives. There were many girls (and no doubt there are today) who mistook sex for love.

    I am about the same age as Louise and at the age of 18 was not overly confident - I also know that if the same had happened to me I would have done something about it at the time - as Louise should have done.

    She left it far too long to expect justice - if indeed there was a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous3:15 pm

    I'm around the same age as Louise too and was quite naive. Things are so different now, but back then there wasn't the same self-confidence generated in women that there is today, access to social services, rape crisis etc were not discussed like it is now.

    There is a tendency to judge actions from 1985-86 on the values we have today in 2006 - there is a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anonymous10:10 am

    "Please, folks, be measured in your thoughts and comments. I have been convicted of a sexual offence and served time for it when, indeed, i was truly innocent."

    I truely have sympathy for you. This does happen in stranger rape cases. Recently we have heard of men in prison for years for rapes they did not commit with DNA testing proving their innocence. However I have never heard of one of these cases of prolonged incarceration been due to a vindictive accusation by a woman. Its usually an anonamous attack rape where the woman is uncertain of the rapists identity. The police then investigate and do make mistakes. However with DNA testing this sort of injustice is becoming less prevalent.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anonymous10:21 pm

    These guys are cynical liars who understand the system and know exactly where all the holes in it are.

    They knew who to pick on...
    - Someone young
    - Vunerable
    - Possibly a bit silly or not very aware of herself (like many of our teenagers)

    Did they also know about Louise's previous false report? Because they would have known exactly what that did to her credibility as a witness.

    They knew what they were doing, how difficult it would be to prove, and that she was vunerable and would not make a good complainant. They picked on her because they could.

    And to those who say she did not say "no". Remember her testimony "No. No way, you are not putting that filthy thing inside me" if nothing else was said, this constitues a fairly clear "no" I would have thought.

    Her reputation was dragged through the mud. Every silly thing she has ever said or done has been rehashed. Yet the perpertrators, with serious, relevant and proven accusations made against them, were fully protected by the law.

    And for those who don't know, she did not just wake up after 20 years and decide she was raped. She has been seeking justice for years, and it has only not come to court till now.

    These particular men, not all men, are grotesque and a menance to the public.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anonymous10:33 pm

    After reading through this discussion I have almost changed my stance on this... maybe she is telling the truth? I'm alsost convinced but can somebody please explain her previous rape allegations. Is it true that she has accused 14 people of raping her? I heard it was one relative, 6 masked men, 4 previous policemen, now these three. Is this true? If so, can somebody explain?

    ReplyDelete
  94. I don't know the full details. But the truth is that many women in this society are raped more than once, in fact many women in this society are packed rape more than once.

    When a woman is raped and can't process or blame the men actually raped her it isn't inconsistent for them to say that other people raped her(which is where the Maori ski mask discussion would have come from). People who've just been raped aren't always together. My understanding is that the Maori ski mask discussion was, and would be a totally normal approach to being raped by police officers at age 13. People won't help you if you say you were raped by police officers, they will help you if you say you're raped by Maori men in ski masks.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous9:53 pm

    Fascinating thread.

    I want to see Rickards convicted. It's about time.
    The previous acquittals (two, now) and the FACT that the other two are currently in custody (public record! Search!) for so damn similar crimes (the bottle, the baton) directs one to return a 'guilty' verdict. Why oh why is the jury prevented from seeing the similarity?

    I was convicted of a similar crime (it's not important whether I did it ir not, that's not the point) but the pigs charged me with many MANY additional offences that were NOT supported by the evidence and did NOT happen. I held my ground over the time and absolutely REFUSED to answer the unsubstantiated charges in court. Indeed, refused to answer ANY charges in court until the charge sheet accurately reflected my actual offenses. Then I pleaded guilty to the valid charges and was convicted, a month later sentenced and immediately released. I guess I might have a case for 'wrongful imprisonment' but I won't persue it. The food was good. (Too good, probably!)

    There are too many corrupt pigs.

    Oh, and when it finally got to court (after I had spent 14/15 months inside) the pig lied through his teeth and I told the absolute truth. Guess who the judge believed???

    The continued reluctance of the PIGS to release disclosure (of 'evidence' against me) ("Oh, the investigating officer is on holiday at the moment", for six months!) led to me being held in custody for LONGER than my final (deserved) term was!

    They're all (well no, only a portion of them) complete wankers and society would be better off without them. (the wankers, that is; keep the good ones. But how do you separate the two groups??)

    Topically, now, is of course the Prison Officers. I dealt with a large number of them, mainly in Rimutaka. With few exceptions, the females were honest, reliable and reasonable. The islanders, also. It's the Kiwi, Pakeha bastards that are the worst. There are some that are good, but MOST of those Kiwi, Pakeha Bastards REFUSE to adhere to their LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES!!

    OK, you're in prison, you've stuffed up, you get poor treatment. But you've STILL got RIGHTS. And bastards that CHOOSE to deny those RIGHTS to inmates ought to spend a little time inside themselves.

    Far too many of them play their "little hitler" games. They're power hungry mongrels, many of them have been KICKED OUT of the police force, and get a job in the prison service instead.

    They have psychiatric assessment on incoming clients, WHY NOT on prospective staff as well???

    Flippin' shocking.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anonymous10:28 pm

    How can I get legal representation to pursue similar matters of being raped by Police and other so called high standing members of society. Police refuse to investigate and have threatened me several times each time I try to pursue matters.Police Complaints Authority have sided with the Police lies and Lawyers say I need at least $30,000 to try to take private action. I have more then enough evidence as well as a knowledge from staff from a support centre saying in their past as a community worker they have talked with others making the same allegations and then witnessed the closing of ranks and it all disappears and things are not discussed again until someone else comes forward. How can I get representation with this to bring mongrels to justice?.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anonymous5:02 pm

    That's a tricky one as it seems like the only option left to you is to launch a private prosecution, which I would imagine you can't afford to do. I certainly couldn't!
    Do your lawyers think you have a case? If so, maybe you could approach the media about it, someone like Campbel live or 60 minutes or even Fair Go.
    Also, are you claims recent or historical and are they against more than one police officer?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anonymous5:20 pm

    Yes it is historical and involves serving officers. Some are former officers now lawyers.Some have also been arrested in the last few years for similar offenses..eg Graham Capill(former Police prosecutor)and politician. As of yet the media are reluctant to touch it even though there is more then enough evidence to evict, as well as there being others who can verify the allegations. Its a very corrupt system we live by.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Anonymous10:33 am

    Wow. That really does suck and yes, the system is still corrupt. Good luck with your case.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous4:40 pm

    The ones I am wanting to bring to justice are the infamous "pedophille ring" of Christchurch. Many of the evidence suggested in the Peter Ellis trial is very true.Some of the actual places named are factual.By no means am I saying Peter Ellis is innocent but I do know that there was a great effort from alot involved to cover up(by various means) alot of the evidence. P.E was almost like the scape goat of something bigger in the city that involves many who hide in government institutions,whom appear to be high standing citizens of the community and in the helping profession.eg Counsellors,Doctors,the boys in blue...the list goes on.And they get away with it because they are the law makers, enforcers,Judges, rich businessmen,the so called pillars of society...what a joke! Unlike some may claim S.R.A is very much here in Christchurch and has been for a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anonymous8:19 pm

    What is S.R.A???

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous9:11 pm

    I know of a lady from Christchurch who swears she can identify alot of people involved in Satanic Ritual Abuse. That some are government officials and like mentioned earlier Police officers. Her mother was found dead not long after she tried to bring it to light and she was falsely placed in a mental institution although she was a well woman. I saw first hand just how the "system" gather and operate to shut people up by using any means necessary. She has been forced into silence because authorities have threatened to take her children from her labeling her as a unfit, mentally unstable mum...if shes chooses to try and make waves she risks loosing them. Where is the real justice?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anonymous9:16 pm

    R u 4 real? this sounds far fetched 2 me.
    These are scary allegations.
    R u 4 real?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous10:42 pm

    "A city posessed"by Lynley Hood is a very interesting read.
    Allows one to see just how manipulated the whole fiasco was.
    Sadly you really can not trust anybody.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous10:04 am

    Far out - that's really freaky stuff!

    ReplyDelete