I'll write about something else soon, I'll think about something else soon
This photo was taken at a police college open day yesterday. The action lead the news about the case on both channels. I was so happy that that message got out there. I've talked to people on the protest; there were lots of older women who said that they agreed with the banner, that they believed Louise Nicholas too.
I actually think it's clear that some members of the jury believed her too. The jury was out for 26 hours over three days, they obviously disagreed about something. I wonder how those jury members who believed her, who wanted to convict, will feel when they discover what they weren't allowed to know.
[deleted]
Also posted on Alas
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI underestimated your commitment to your beliefs Maia. And this post and the previous one have been a shocking wake-up as to just how invested you are in your prejudice.
ReplyDeleteMaybe sex should be more formalized in this society? Restriction of sex to adults who consent through a fool proof system may be the answer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your blog, there are 2 men and a woman in this house feeling that their gut feelings that Louise Nicholson is right have been confirmed. (AND they are not what you would call modern new agey type men either.)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick note Maia to let you know I am thinking of you. I was devastated when I heard the verdict - you are a brave woman and I love you lots. Arohanui e hoa, span
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnd after all that coverage in the press designed to destroy the reputation of Louise Nicholas...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat did the judge say in his suyming up?
ReplyDeleteSomething about supression orders, I think.Something about"The Internet wil lbe monitored.
I just hope the judge doesnt find your site.
Hope they rot in jail. They are animals. Thankfully many Kiwis will learn the truth via the web. We can only hope that Helen will not let Rickards back into the force and will cut him adrift
ReplyDelete""The Internet will be monitored."
ReplyDeleteExcuse me?? No judge has the right to supress anyone's opinions on this case, no matter what they might be.
I want to send my support to Louise Nicholas. I have been online for hours looking for her lawyer's name so I can send some money to help her costs, but although the defendents' QC is often named, I can't find a single reference or contact point. Can anyone help? I am a middle aged business woman and I am furious with the media coverage of this.
ReplyDeleteSuppression orders can only be inforced in NZ as Blogger.com is based in the USA. That Judge and who ever can go whistle in the wind.
ReplyDeleteThis is what makes the internet so great.
You can send messages to Louise Nicholson through Brent Stanaway (the Crown prosecutor) at his office in Christchurch. Details here http://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/pagepub/docs/whatwedo/contacts.asp
ReplyDeleteIt's sad really. Number one because the prevailing 'innocent until proven guilty' is succeptable to the length of time since the incident - after this much time it is hard to prove reasonable doubt - and now even more so that people who are not endangering anyone may end up before the court on contempt charges.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunate.
Go to this site and do the maths...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.peterellis.org.nz/people/ClintRickards
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/police/MtMaunganuiCase
This is all public domain not breaking any suppression orders.
Some lawyer chap was saying that the women handing out leaflets at Wgtn railway station yesterday were actually harming LN's case.
ReplyDeleteAny idea what he was on about? Was this just the standard "we must protect the system" stuff or is there something more specific going on?
I unfortunately worked for the police in a non sworn position for 14 years. I was continually subjected to sexual harrasement and was raped in my home by a Senior Sergeant.
ReplyDeleteI did complain (and lost my job) and all the evidence supported my statement but, cops being cops, they decided not to charge this person because I had waited 30 minutes before calling to make the complaint. Their explanation, despite fingerprint evidence etc, waiting 30 minutes meant someone else could have been the offender.
I'm glad I don't work for them anymore because in the time I was there I saw way to many cases of corruption but was unable to do anything about it.
I worked with Rickards and his wife Tania Eden for a short time and know first hand how intimidating he is. There is no doubt in my mind that those guys are guilty.
I admire Louise Nicholas for having the gutse to make a stand. I know for me I am still struggling to deal with the consequences of what I experienced
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteHi Capitalism Bad,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the support of a rape victim, Louise! I know it is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, maybe society will see the true impact of rape! Take care and thank you for stopping by the blog! All the best!
I found the news reporting at the end of this case obscene.
ReplyDeleteThese guys are being portrayed as good family men. I'm sorry, even if there was consent (and I don't believe there was), these men cannot be called 'innocent' by any standard. Three men having sex (baton or no baton) with a teenager is at best corrupt.
Complicit in all of this are the wives of these 'men' - they must know what happened; let's see how long they stick around now.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear from ex workers of the police department tell us about the culture of the police. We hear about it all the time. Now it has come back to bit them on the bum.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSome of you may be aware of the anomolies of NZ jurisprudence - the three men were found not-guilty: but NOT innocent of the charges...
ReplyDeleteHaving served under Mr. Rickards I have seen his stand over tactics, insatiation for power and control, and penchant to walk over others for personal gain. He has no credibility regarding his alleged actions with Louise Nicholas in my eyes...
Those in Rotorua at the time will be well aware of the culture of abuse, power, and control, metted out by the Police on a regular basis.
There are many other indicators that suggest at least some of the rape allegations were based on true events.
While perfect information would permit a perfect result - continued debate may facilitate a fairer system for victims and offenders.
"A non-feminist male"
(More interested in a just and fair society)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIs there anywhere online people can register their supoprt for Louise Nicholas?
ReplyDeleteI think you should be extremely careful with this. A Judge may not be able to regulate opinion but he or she most certainly does have the right to regulate published opinion, suppress information and there are comments on here which amount to defamation as well. Your contempt for the law will probably not fair well in your favour if the police attempt to prosecute you. You should seriously consider removing certain strains and comments on here.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Rickards, or are you happy to label him guilty by association?
ReplyDeleteIn what case would respect a supression order?
Can anyone say with 100% certainty that any of the people involved in this case would have accurate memories of what happened. There are way too many opinions based on memories that change over time and conflict with each other for there to be conviction.
"Time and memory are true artists; they remould reality nearer to the heart's desire."
John Dewey
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGo read what others are saying
ReplyDeleteI have just spent the weekend in rotorua with family. One of my stepfathers closes friends was a serving police officer with these guys and he has said outright that these men were known amounst fellow officers as bullies and strong rumor circulated about their methods of ensuring sex with young woman who were very easily intimidated by them. It was also mentioned that they were infact not welll respected amounst their peers for this exact reason and are very agressive men.
ReplyDeleteWhen the suppresion order lifts the people of New Zealand will indeed feel that we once again have been had! and many who have doubted the victim will feel very ashamed. I for one want to see the brother who is accusing the whole case as beening a waste of the Tax payers money eat his words... well I ve got news for him I think my money has been spent wisely and I would pay a hell of alot more to have seen justice served and I have a feeling so would many other tax paying New Zealanders who identify rape as a henious crime not something to make a mockery of. I will be looking into there previous rape crimes and so will many thinking New Zealanders. Karma and Justice will come very soon to these men.
I just want to say congrats on getting some of the truth out there. One of the brothers said we should be proud of these men. Not likely. Doesnt he realise that he is already eating porridge.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteIf these guys are guilty they will have these feminazis to thank.
Incidentally, I use my real name unlike many on this blog
Chuck Bird
[i]This post has been removed by the blog administrator[/i]
ReplyDelete[b]
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL[/b]
When all is said and done, they all have to live with the verdict. Judgement day will come, let's hope he pays.
ReplyDeleteThis is what really makes me sick: Cops given legal aid as cost of case runs into millions
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting link: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Commissions-of-Inquiry-Commission-of-Inquiry-appointed?OpenDocument
ReplyDeleteAround the time of the events of the trial, and maybe a bit earlier I was working for a Community Organisation in Murupara where there have been Press reports of Police rape. I had several people tell me about Police raids or visits to a well-known night club in Rotorua where thay would remove young girls with no or suspected false I.D. as being under age and lock them up in the Rotorua Police Cells. Some of these young girls were assaulted or raped by Police. Their parents were not advised of their detention. This was part of Police culture in Rotorua at the time. It would not have stood up in Court against Rickard and his buddies but as background to the events it gives credibility to the claims made against them in my mind and to me, based on that knowledge, the not guilty verdict was unjustified, and those uniformed predators of the time must be enjoying the sick joke.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is out. I read the blog at 1 pm, by 5pm the information was gone . BUT I KNOW, especially now that it has been deleted. Now I intend to tell as many people as possible. IS THIS A POLICE STATE.
ReplyDeleteThe 'suppressed evidence' is shocking. I know it's true because why else would it be censored by the 'blog administrator' Duhh!
ReplyDeleteget over it you thick muppets
ReplyDeleteEgotistical grandstanders. Stop and think for a minute that the great patriarchal conspiracy you have been flouting may have been intended to allow for further trials to take place.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't always a plot to oppress women you know.
Who wants to take on the biggest organised gang in New Zealand? That is inherently what Louise has done. She had way too much to lose and too little to gain for this to be a money ploy.
ReplyDeleteI haven't looked at the suppressed evidence, but she would have to be pretty ballsy to take on the NZ police over a made-up story.
As it was, I consider her pretty ballsy anyway.
They say don't judge a book by its cover, but with some people, you can just tell - I'm sure the number of years Rickards has been around the block, he would know this too.
I believe her.
Go see what others are saying
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhen its time to vote at the next election... think carefully about who to VOTE for....
ReplyDeleteYou no doubt know that there is an exception to the general principle that evidence of previous convictions can't be introduced as evidence of guilt in a subsequent case (a reasonable rule surely: the fact I am or was once a burglar doesn't mean I committed some particular burglary). the exception is when the facts of the previous offence are so strikingly similar to the current offence that it's hard to believe they were committed by different people: it's called the similar facts exception. Presumably the prosectution argued for the exception here. I wonder why it failed?
ReplyDeleteNOT ABOVE THE LAW
ReplyDeleteWe Support Louise Nicholas MARCH
Sunday 30 April, 2.00 pm
Assemble Queen Elizabeth Square, Auckland (near Britomart)
March up Queen St to Aotea Square
Hear speakers from Rape Crisis, Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation and others
Bring your friends, banners and placards