Thursday, March 01, 2007

Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are rapists

What can I say that I haven't said before and Don's song doesn't say better?

There are two things that I choose to hold on to, from the series of cop rape trials. The first is that this it not OK. The legal system does not deliver justice for women, but more than that - this should never have happened in the first place. Many people knew that these cops were abusive, and no-one did anything about it, and these are not the only police who have used their power to rape and abuse. We must hold onto our outrage, because it is out of that outrage that the hope for a something better can be built.

What gives me real hope is the knowledge that I'm not alone. That all over New Zealand, in places I wouldn't necessarily expect, people are thinking what I'm thinking, and feeling what I'm feeling. If we can get just some of these people together, who knows what we could do.

I'm sure I'll have more tomorrow, but all that's left to say tonight is to pay heed to the dignity of the women who sought justice against Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum. And leave the last words to Louise Nicholas: "We did our best. We did our very best. The justice system has let us down again."

15 comments:

  1. First up on National Radio this morning was an interview about how hard it is to get rape convictions in NZ. I thought that said alot.


    The audio isn't on their website yet, but should show up on this link later in the morning:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What gives me real hope is the knowledge that I'm not alone. That all over New Zealand, in places I wouldn't necessarily expect, people are thinking what I'm thinking, and feeling what I'm feeling. If we can get just some of these people together, who knows what we could do."

    These are my thoughts exactly.

    I am a reporter on a regional newspaper (not the most liberal workplace) and there was anger and shock among every one - including the most conservative old bastards - at the verdict and what happened after wards.

    I thought even Sean Plunkett on morning report seemed unable to keep his outrage in check.

    This will not be the end of this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:32 pm

    Still too gutted to even think let alone hope that others will speak up. Not sure I can even try again soon either. Still no trust in the Police Conduct Inquiry yet:(

    I see just the reverse of more silence and violence happening every time I close my eyes here

    ReplyDelete
  4. maddy1:25 pm

    Hugs to you anonymous.

    I take it you are either one of the two that have been in the spotlight or some other police case we don't even know about.

    Hang in there. You have a lot of supporters out there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. what would you do Eugenie, can we have witch hunts back

    ReplyDelete
  6. I cried when I heard the news. This just sends the message loud and clear to New Zealand rapists that they can do whatever the fuck they want to women and get away with it.

    What I don't get is why the Mt. Maunganui case wasn't admissible evidence in this trial and in Louise Nicholas' trial. When defendants in trials for, say, armed robbery and grievous bodily harm are in the dock, evidence that they've committed these crimes before is seen as highly relevant to the outcome. Why the fuck do Schollum and Shipton get to have their previous conviction concealed? Is anyone really in any doubt (save the odd misogynist and rape apologist) that these guys are the scum of the earth? They're as guilty as sin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A jury of their peers have found them 'not guilty'. Therefore they are not guilty. Accept it and move on!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Look Maia, do you think it is ok for married cops to have casual and consensual sex with young women? Do you think it is OK for the same cops to have relationships with young women when they are married and cops. Furthermore if these same men are accused of rape or other sexual offenses, do you think they should have a fair trial? And if they do have a fair trial, is it fair that the decision of the courts should stand.

    If you say no to the last two, or yes to any of the first two,youre a fucking disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10:53 pm

    Dave,

    Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth.

    First and foremost its clear to me (and it would seem a good chunk of the rest of the country) that the sex in all three cases wasn't consensual.

    And in the Mt Maunganui case it has has been proven that Schollum and Shipton are rapists - despite the length of time that has elapsed since the event.

    The way these people have perpetrated their crimes is the same in all three cases.

    A fair trial in this case would have involved the jury knowing the details of the other cases, and their convictions.

    It's pretty simple really, I'm sorry you're having difficulty grasping this.

    John

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous10:54 pm

    Not guilty...yeah right!

    Mawm, yes you are right, they were found not guilty.

    But that DOES NOT mean they are innocent, and I wish people would stop saying they were declared innocent, because they bloody weren't.

    The 'not guilty' verdict just means the prosecution wasn't able to prove beyond reaonsonable doubt that they did it.

    That does not mean the three fat pigs didn't commit the crime.

    And as for your "accept it and move on" comment -

    If your mum or sister or daughter was pack raped and violated in the worse way possible, and the offenders were not punished, I doubt we would see you so accepting of the verdict and ready to move on.

    NZ has a BS legal system, not a justice system.

    There has been no justice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Word. Why does a particular sort of moron assume that a "not guilty" verdict actually means the defendant is innocent?

    The same sort of moron who's a rape apologist, I guess. They never sympathise with rape survivors. Only with rapists. Arseholes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sofia, if there is insufficient evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime, then they are not guilty. End of story.

    Rape is a particularly difficult crime to prosecute and I'm sure that many men have been jailed for having consensual sex with a woman who the later cries rape. It's unfair, just as men getting off rape convictions is. Until there is a better way to decide on guilt or lack of guilt, a jury system would seem to be fairest.

    Why has this woman not complained before? It is easier to get a conviction closer to the time the crime was committed. There seems to have been a huge amount of political interference and this does make me suspicious of the claimants reasons to come forward now - and they were not the Mt Maunganui and the Louise Nicholas cases that brought her forward - this all started before then.

    Accepting that a not guilty verdict was handed down does identify a person as a moron or a rape apologist, it just means that the person has accepted what the jury decided and that in our law this means the defendents were not guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mawm - no-one is denying that the verdict was not-guilty. It's just that that doesn't mean that

    If that's confusing think OJ. A not guilty verdict didn't prove that he didn't kill Nicole Simpson, just that it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    The same can be said of this case. Clint Rickards is a rapist, but the jury didn't accept that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt (I'm not convinced there were reasonable doubts, just misogynist doubts, but I don't blame the jury, I blame the defence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maia, why blame the defence? It is a business transaction - 'I pay you to defend me, so get me off' - just as OJ did. Fortunately, in NZ it is not only the rich who can afford a defence. Every person accused of a crime has the right to a defence lawyer and his job is to prevent his client from being found guilty.

    A not guilty verdict didn't prove that he didn't kill Nicole Simpson, just that it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    The defendant's does not need to prove his innocence under English law - period. In many third world dictatorships this is not the case and I can assure you that there are many innocent people in filthy gaols, and I'm fairly confident that you do not support this.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous10:24 pm

    Can we have more information on Brad Shipton's brother - he of the charming turn of phrase 'maggot lying bitch' re Louise? Why does he care so muchand hate so much. Do other people know he was best buddies with Constable Ogle of Kaitaia in 1988 and supported him too after he was accused of rape.

    ReplyDelete