Friday, May 26, 2006

Well...

From The Herald:

The three men acquitted of the rape of Louise Nicholas face another trial this year in relation to alleged sexual offending against another woman.

Assistant Police Commissioner Clinton John Tukotahi Rickards and former police officers Bradley Keith Shipton and Robert Francis Schollum are alleged to have committed the crimes during the 1980s.
I've known about this for a while. I'm immensely relieved that the charges are still going ahead.

I'll have more to say tomorrow, but right now I just want to say that that I believe Louise Nicholas, and every other woman who says she was raped by these men. I believe that Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Clint Rickards are rapists. I believe they systematically abused their power while they were in the police force, and I don't think they're alone.

I also want to pay tribute to the woman who brought this complaint. Louise Nicholas was put on trial in court, and in the media. I am awed by the strength of someone who saw what Lousie Nicholas went through, and was still prepared to keep fighting. I hope she gets justice.

19 comments:

  1. I'm bowled over with admiration for this woman. I was so dismayed after the last trial that women who'd been raped would see what Louise Nicholas went through and decide not to report it. But let's hope there's some justice this time around.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My support and regards to the woman who is going ahead with this action. Hopefully this time justice will be served. Unfortunately I'm not crossing my fingers though.

    I think that the media has done a really really shit job inregards to all this mess, but I think the Dominion Post who originally opened this can of worms and was in court to get this info released is doing atleast doing something right as I think they more than anyone know the full picture.

    There have been quite a few other media articles released recently inrelation to the historic claims.

    The website below has many an article which may be of interest to anyone who doesn't know how much of sham this whole affair is.

    http://www.bentcops.org/nzpolice/charges-pending


    "Trial for former policeman on sex charges

    24.04.06

    A former police officer extradited from Australia on historic rape and sexual abuse charges was today sent for trial in the High Court.

    The man, whose name is suppressed, faces allegations from two girls, then aged between 12 and 16, comprising four counts of indecent assault and one of rape, all in Rotorua in 1980.

    In the High Court at Wellington today, Justice Ronald Young remanded the man for trial from June 26 with pre-trial matters to be considered before then.

    Bail was today continued, but Justice Young was to make a decision on its conditions later this week.

    The man had over two decades of service in the New Zealand police. "



    "Dewar committed to stand trial

    12/04/2006 14:04:03

    A former head of the Rotorua CIB has been committed to stand trial at the Hamilton District Court.

    John Dewar’s depositions hearing has concluded today.

    The hearing began in December last year, before being adjourned to the beginning of this week.

    A blanket suppression order prevents reporting the nature of the case or the charges against the former Detective Inspector.

    Dewar has been remanded on bail to appear in court on May 25."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hope justice is served as well. I hope that the courts give a fair trial (as they should) and that if guilt is found that the maximum punishment is given. However, if these men are acquitted of charges again, by a jury of their peers, I hope you will admit that you had made judgements based solely on heresay rather than the facts as presented in the case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's "hearsay" seans.

    It's been pointed out already on other blogs, and probably on this one too - the fact that someone is acquitted of a charge means only that the prosecution couldn't present sufficient evidence to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt". What it does not mean is that the accused has been proved innocent. Our personal opinion is not subject to the rules of evidence a jury has to operate under. The rest of us are free to know a rapist when we see one, and to feel regret/anger/disbelief/you-name-it that a rape victim's voluntary sex life can be fair game for a defence lawyer in such a case.

    Here's a question for you, seans (and for Stevethepirate too, come to that): is it rape for a policeman to abuse his position of authority and force/intimidate a young woman into group sex with him and his mates? I'll give you a hint - the answer is "Yes."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, psycho milt, how you "know" a rapist when you see one? Is that like "knowing" drug dealer when you see one?

    Is that similar to the police seeing a black man in a predominantly white neighborhood, and pulling them over because they "know" he is up to something?

    Maybe you should be a policeman. You could stop other policeman from abusing their power, and clean up crime in the streets with all the knowledge you possess.

    Might I remind you that lots of fake rapes get reported all the time for a variety of reasons. A prostitute gets stiffed and has to tell her pimp something, or a woman gets caught cheating on her husband and has to come up with some way of explaining it. These women ruin people's lives, and never suffer any consequences for it. Where's your righteous indignation for the falsely accused?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sure fmragtops, we have to accept the possibility that Louise Nicholas has spent decades pursuing the case and suffered the most intense public scrutiny and humiliation imaginable, in order to save herself the embarrassment of admitting she had sex with some cops. Er, hang on, no we don't! Because the idea is just plain stupid!

    Plainly this bears repeating, so here it is again: is it rape for a policeman to abuse his position of authority and force/intimidate a young woman into group sex with him and his mates? I'll give you a hint - the answer is "Yes."

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, it's not clearly yes. When it comes to crimes, crimes have titles, and definitions. Is it malfeasance in office, yes. Is it abuse of the public trust, yes. Is it criminal, yes. But to meet the definition of rape, you have to provide more information for your scenario. Was it a quid pro quo? Was she made an offer to avoid arrest? Was there any resistance on her part? Was any force used to overcome any resistance. While your defining crimes, we could become more specific. Was it simple rape, forcible rape, or aggraveted rape? Was a weapon used? Was a drug administered? I could go on, but this argument, and your question is both futile, and irrelevant to my point.

    Fact of the matter is, if they are guilty of rap, I would shoot them in the head myself. If they are not, and this is a false accusation, I'd shoot the complainant in the head myself.

    Yes, there are women who would put up with all that to cover up a lie. There are also women that would float the accusation, bring to it the beginning stages of a trial, drop the charges, and then sue in civil court to get a hefty settlement before any judgement is reached.

    There are also women that would push all this up over a personal vindetta. She got a speeding ticket. She found out she wasn't the only woman the policemen in question was bangin'.

    In law enforcement, there is a saying: "The badge'll get ya p***y, but the p***y'll get your badge."

    I know a cop personally that had his life ruined because he was a slut, and had a false rape claim made against him. The case was so weak that the DA couldn't get a Grand Jury to indict him. Now that's weak. Especially considering he brought the case to them 3 times. Granted, it's partially his fault because he couldn't keep it in his pants, but he still lost his job, was legally persecuted, and got no refunds on his legal fees.

    So, it's not completely outside the realm of possibility for this to be a load of crap. It's not even far fetched that this could be a load of crap.

    Now, I'll ask you again, how do you "know a rapist when you see one?" Why do you not even care, or consider the possibility that the complainant could be lying? Did you get a speeding ticket or something?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve the pirate I'm pretty sure I've asked you not to post here. If I haven't then please don't.

    For everyone else I'll remind you that I will delete your comments if they contain suppressed information, if they disbelieve or insult rape survivors, or if they annoy me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sure, fmragtops, it's not clearly yes - if you're the kind of person who thinks fucking someone else against their will isn't necessarily rape. But that's such a fucked-in-the-head position that I don't feel any great requirement to argue against it.

    I draw your attention to a point I made earlier: a jury must consider whether a case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to meet the legal definition of rape, but our personal opinion is subject to no such rules. How do I know a rapist when I see one? In this case, I know three rapists when I see them because they have basically admitted the facts of the case, and the various weaseling-out attempts on the part of their defence lawyers may have got them past that "beyond reasonable doubt" post for the jury, but not for my personal opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're not following the discussion Milt. It's not about whether having sex with someone against their will is rape. Like I said, that's a stupid question, but I am tired of coming up with stupid answers to give on the subject.

    The question is was it against her will. Why don't you care that she may be full of crap, and ruining innocent people's lives? Hey, what if I arrested you, and used for my Probable Cause, "Hey, I know a dope smoking hippy when I see one."

    And again, I have no problem punishing the guilty. I'm just an equal opportunity punisher. If these dudes did what they are accused of, in my opinion they shoud be executed. If not, the complainant should be executed. I thought lefties were all about fairness.

    Maia, I'm glad you don't put up with crap from Steve The Pirate. He's a hate-filled Neo-Con that likes to suppress people's free speach. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've clogged Maia's thread up enough. If fmragtops wants to fail to understand the difference between a jury trial and a personal opinion further, I've posted on this subject over at Sir Humphreys.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't get it. Why is it that when the topic of rape comes up, there are always a bunch of men on hand to give women helpful advice about what they should do about it? Why can't they even *say* the word "rape" without bringing up some dickhead hearsay anecdote their neighbour's aunt's friend's nephew's granny's son's colleague's cat's vet told them about some woman who made up a false rape accusation? Gack.

    (PS, I should mention, I don't include Psycho Milt in the group of men who annoy me. Milt - thanks for getting it about rape and about the Rickards-Schollum-Shipton trial. Really.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. fmragtops how much do you know about these allegations??

    It's no wonder so very few rapes get reported when there are people such as yourself out there fmragtops. Perhaps you should take your own advice and become a cop, I think you would be well suited given that most of them believe a woman is lying when she lays a rape complaint.

    Look at the information surrounding these cases, trials, allegations, and cover ups, up before making some comment as you really know nothing about them.

    These cases are no ordinary rape cases, so before you go spouting off anything I suggest you look shit up as you have no familiarity at all with what is going on or what has happened given you do not live in NZ.

    Answer me this fmragtops, why in the world would any cops cover up allegations (from many different people) against fellow cops and their mates if the cops were innocent?

    Heres a short story for you: There was a guy called Clinte, a guy called Bobby, and a guy called Braddy. In the early 1990s a woman, call her woman1, went to their mate Johnny to say these men had raped her. Johnny was a close mate of the men, so close he infact partook in group sex with some of the men with a female cop. Johnny even got a work reference from Clinte. Anyway Johnny investigates these claims and persuades the accuser not to do anything. A few years down the track a newspaper investigates these claims and many others from this same small area in the same time span involving the same people and their mates.

    Later on a well respected former cop, who is the host/ runner of a particular Police TV show on NZ TV, undertakes an investigation into rape claims by another women from the same area and the same era, call her woman2. He concludes her allegations were hushed up by a cop called Trevy, who was also the first man woman1 went to about rape allegations against police officers, and whom was close mates with Clinte, Bobby, and Braddy. Trevy was also supposedly have said on his death bed that he covered up for his mates and was sorry, a police job sheet made by Johnny has Trevy saying that he was prepared to lie in court to cover for his mates.

    The man that woman2 accussed of rape, was a few years ago found guilty of raping three young underage girls back in the 80s. This man just happened to be close mates with Clinte, Bobby, Braddy, and Trevvy. So close infact he is Bobbys cousin.

    The year is now 2005, and our old friend Johnny has just gone to depositions hearing. They said he will be committed for trial for charges of Perjury and Preventing the course of justice. Why would he be committed for that?

    Something that was missed out was woman1 also made an allegation against another cop. The crown and many others believe that Johnny was soley reasonable for this man getting let off. The cop was taken to court 3 times. In 2 of those times the judge declared mistrial as Johnny presented inadmissible evidence. On the third the judge ruled that the man had been through enough.

    It must be added that one of the men accussed by woman1 also went to trial before 2004 for another rape allegation made against him. Also it must be added that a woman claimed that when she was 16 she was raped by Bobby, Braddy had watched and apparently wanted to join in. The two men then warned her not to say anything or she and her family would get into trouble with the police.

    Ahead to 2005 where 4 men go to trial for the pack rape of a young women back in the late 80s. All are found guilty. 2 of the 4 get name suppression, I will not name them but anyone with any remote form of intelligence should be able to piece together who they are.

    Ahead to the article which someofthefacts posted:

    "Trial for former policeman on sex charges

    24.04.06

    A former police officer extradited from Australia on historic rape and sexual abuse charges was today sent for trial in the High Court.

    The man, whose name is suppressed, faces allegations from two girls, then aged between 12 and 16, comprising four counts of indecent assault and one of rape, all in Rotorua in 1980."

    And just a few days ago it comes out that Bobby, Braddy, and Clinte will all be going to court again for more rape allegations from another woman.

    - In all the trials so far the men have not denied involvement in sex but all say it was consensual.

    - A senior sergaents notebook recording some of the first written details of woman1's rape allegations has disappeared never to be seen again.

    - When Braddy learned of accusations against him, he asked his mate Johnny to take over the investigation from a female detective.

    - Johnnys diary -- the only record of an unusual formal police interview he had with Braddy -- was lost.

    - Braddy, Bobby, and Clinty were "evasive" when asked by police to name a fourth man whom Woman1 says was a witness to the alleged pack-rape.

    - Bobby worked as an officer at Murupara around the time staff ignored two rape complaints involving his cousin.

    - Woman2 was twice raped as a teenager in Murupara in the 1980s. Police failed to properly act on the complaints of the three girls whom Bobby's cousin was later convcited for raping. Warreny the police officer whom first new about the three girls complaints, and was the Murupara Stations boss was transferred from Murupara for disciplinary reasons following a police internal finding of dereliction of duty, but it is not known what this related to.

    - Johnny provided two media outlets with documents which he said showed he had done a good job investigating the allegations of woman1 and had been praised, including by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at the time, Sir John Jeffries.

    Media inquiries indicate they relate to the police handling of a case alleging other police officers had committed sexual indecencies on a woman living in Murupara between 1980 and 1983.

    - Johnny implied to the Herald another document - which says Johnny "carried out a full inquiry" - related to Woman1. This document deals with allegations made about police based at Murupara.

    The names of those accused were blanked out but Johnny told the Media they included Clinte, Braddy, and Bobby. Subsequent Media inquiries indicate this complaint was about three other police and that neither Clinte, Braddy nor Bobby were based at Murupara.

    The media contacted Johnny inregards to this but his line would always go dead.

    - Woman1 made allegations against four policemen stationed at Murupara in the early 80s, when she was aged between 13 and 15.The policemen denied it and without corroboration the matter was cleared as "not established".

    - When these allegations first came out Police were told to close ranks to media asking questions following historical rape allegations by Woman1. Staff were been told not to talk about the culture in the force in the past, and police national headquarters general manager of public affairs.

    Staff were sent a memo saying they should not respond to any media requests for information about what their working lives were like in past decades. Staff were told not to speak about any of the issues raised by Woman1's case, but particularly police culture.

    - Trevvy and Bobby were also mates with another cop who was investigated in Taneatua in the early 1980s over a sexual violation, but the charges were dropped.


    There is so much information available out there on this case fmragtops. But no doubt you will continue with your not all rape claims are real and will probably go onto the "this is a witch hunt" argument.

    The fact remains the police covered allegations up. Why would they do that when they are innocent?

    These are only allegations which have been made public there are no doubt many more. So please before giving us crap for judging these scum for who they are, read up on it or atleast from now on bugger off as your comments have nothing at all to do with these cases.

    I am a man by the way. So don't come up with the generic "you're a feminist nazi" come back. Perhaps you would like to see rape go unpunished but there are those who do not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Captain Blanket Suppression Order, Sofiya, and Milt. You are all still missing the point. I never said I don't believe the complainant, nor did say that rape should go unpunished. In fact what I said was if they are guilty I think they should be executed. All I said was if she was lying she should be executed. I never argued the facts of this case, I never offered any opinions on this case. The anecdotes that I told aren't about some distant friend of a friend. The cop, I know personally. His son and I were friends.

    You act like all rape allegations are true, and I am telling you they are not. Statistics vary depending on who conducted the survey, but many rape allegations are false. Most never make the news because the lies are found out very early on in the investigation, or the people involved aren't rich, famous, and powerful so the media doesn't care about them.

    The only point I am making is that if someone makes false rape allegations, they should be punished just as harshly as those convicted of rape. Why is equal protection under the law such a hard concept for you to grasp?

    You sound like a bunch of neo-cons.

    ReplyDelete
  15. fmragtops - your neocon comment makes absolutely no sense.

    The rest of your argument is appalling. Laying a false complaint is not the same crime as raping someone, so equal protection under the law is nonsense.

    I hope you don't have access to a gun. Please don't post on my blog anymore, I will delete future posts.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes false rape allegations should not go unpunished. Down here in NZ when there is proof that a false complaint and charges have been made the person will usually be charged and taken to court. But if you are suggesting that because someone is found not guilty then they are innocent and the complainant should then be charged, you should have a reality check. The odds are stacked in favour of rapists, not against them or the innocent men.

    You are wrong when you say "many" rape allegations are false. A very small minority of rape allegations are false.

    It astonishes me that these false allegations upset you more than the statistics on reported rapes and the court system.

    Taken from an article in "The Press" yestersday.

    "Times are good for rapists, as our investigation in todays Mainlander section shows. The odds of them ending up in jail for their sexual attacks on women are stacked heavily in their favour.

    If a rapist is unlucky enough for his victim to be one in 10 who comes forward and reports the crime to police, he still doesn't need to worry too much.

    From that small percentage, only an estimated one in five cases make it through the courts, and even then there is no guarantee that the guilty will be convicted."


    So if in one year 1000 women were raped, only 20 of those rapists would end up going to court.


    "When a woman complains she faces hours of questioning over every detail of the incident, and her own behaviour, during and after it. If police proceed with the complaint, make an arrest and the case enters the court system, the victim will have to face her attacker, she will have her personal behaviour scrutinised and made to look wanting. Her trustworthiness and credibility will be pitted against that of the man she accuses."

    "But it is not just the justice system where a rape complainant faces suspicion and resentment. Society in general, although accepting rape as a heinous crime, nevertheless often treats the complainant with suspicion. Every rape victim faces a degree of disbelief and sometimes resentment, as if she had done something to deserve what happened."


    1000s of rapes are going unreported because of the way the justice system and society makes out they have done something wrong. In the courts the defendant is presented as a reasonable normal guy while his victim can be character assassinated to be a slut or a whore who wanted it.

    Every rape is one rape too many. Those men who are getting away with the 1000s of rapes don't stop raping.

    So what worries you more fmragtops the fact that a small tiny minority of rape allegations are false, or the fact that 1000s of rapists are raping others and getting away with it scotch free.

    If this topic was about burglary or theft would you also post a comment in here about how "many so called burglarys are infact fake"??

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. Maia to fmragtops: "I hope you don't have access to a gun."

    fmragtops on Maia, over at Capitalism Great: "It appears to me that this woman needs a bullet in her head."

    Remarkably prescient, Maia. Another responsible gun owner demonstrates why gun control is just wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  19. What the fuck? jesus, on second thought I think I'm glad you've got thousands of miles between you and these creeps.

    ReplyDelete