Sunday, April 02, 2006

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

59 comments:

  1. Anonymous1:27 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous4:37 pm

    Maybe sex should be more formalized in this society? Restriction of sex to adults who consent through a fool proof system may be the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey, anonymous, it's called stopping when she (or he) says no, or passes out. Simple, unequivocal, and the closest thing to foolproof you can get.

    There's no difficulty with the standard, even in this case. Just the level of evidence required to prove that one has failed the standard.

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. Woman in the house6:41 pm

    Thanks 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.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:03 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous7:16 pm

    Just 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

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous7:33 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. George Darroch10:59 pm

    And after all that coverage in the press designed to destroy the reputation of Louise Nicholas...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous11:10 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What did the judge say in his suyming up?

    Something about supression orders, I think.Something about"The Internet wil lbe monitored.

    I just hope the judge doesnt find your site.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous11:23 pm

    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
  15. ""The Internet will be monitored."

    Excuse me?? No judge has the right to supress anyone's opinions on this case, no matter what they might be.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous8:11 am

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous8:30 am

    Suppression 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.

    This is what makes the internet so great.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 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

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous8:53 am

    It'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.

    Unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous9:06 am

    Go to this site and do the maths...

    http://www.peterellis.org.nz/people/ClintRickards

    http://www.peterellis.org.nz/police/MtMaunganuiCase

    This is all public domain not breaking any suppression orders.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous9:18 am

    Some lawyer chap was saying that the women handing out leaflets at Wgtn railway station yesterday were actually harming LN's case.

    Any 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?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous9:25 am

    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.

    I 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

    ReplyDelete
  23. Christchurch Woman9:35 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
  24. Christchurch Woman9:38 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
  25. Hi Capitalism Bad,
    Thank 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!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I found the news reporting at the end of this case obscene.
    These 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.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous10:02 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous10:06 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous10:32 am

    Good 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.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous10:34 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mortay10:46 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous11:01 am

    Some of you may be aware of the anomolies of NZ jurisprudence - the three men were found not-guilty: but NOT innocent of the charges...

    Having 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)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Maia

    You've done/are doing the right thing. I'm disgusted by some of the comments I've read, both here and elsewhere.

    For what it's worth, I just wanted to let you know you have my unconditional support and solidarity.

    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous12:28 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous12:59 pm

    Is there anywhere online people can register their supoprt for Louise Nicholas?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous1:06 pm

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What about Rickards, or are you happy to label him guilty by association?

    In 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

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

    ReplyDelete
  39. angie6:06 pm

    I 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.

    When 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.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous6:30 pm

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  41. why have so many comments got" This post has been removed by the blog administrator."
    is this by request of the commentor or by the administrator censuring comments?

    ReplyDelete
  42. chuck8:53 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

    Chuck Bird

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous9:43 pm

    [i]This post has been removed by the blog administrator[/i]

    [b]

    BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!

    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL[/b]

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous10:08 pm

    When all is said and done, they all have to live with the verdict. Judgement day will come, let's hope he pays.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous8:57 am

    Another interesting link: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Commissions-of-Inquiry-Commission-of-Inquiry-appointed?OpenDocument

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous11:49 am

    Around 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.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous9:54 pm

    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous9:58 pm

    The 'suppressed evidence' is shocking. I know it's true because why else would it be censored by the 'blog administrator' Duhh!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous10:51 pm

    get over it you thick muppets

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous11:06 pm

    Egotistical 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.

    It isn't always a plot to oppress women you know.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Notonlyme5:47 pm

    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.

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous12:07 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous3:43 pm

    When its time to vote at the next election... think carefully about who to VOTE for....

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous2:59 pm

    You 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?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous4:52 pm

    NOT ABOVE THE LAW
    We 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

    ReplyDelete
  56. This is an excellent site, with important comments. Congratulations!

    ReplyDelete