We knew, we've known for a long time that there's a lot of evidence the jury wasn't given when they were asked to decide whether it was proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton, raped Louise Nicholas.
But it wasn't just other, similar, offences that the jury couldn't know about. The jury only got bits of Louise Nicholas's flatmate's testimony (the flatemate wouldn't come back from Australia). From Phil Kitchin:
When a witness refuses to come to court it is rare for their evidence to be used. But in a hearing before the trial of Mr Rickards, Shipton and Schollum defence lawyers argued that the jury should hear the flatmate's statements because they were crucial to the defence.So not only was her statement read without the possibility of cross-examination, the defence got to choose which parts of her statement.
The Crown argued that if the statements were allowed, they should be read in their entirety. The defence won.
The judge did not allow part of the flatmate's last statement to police.
In it she said she didn't want the policemen coming around for sex but she felt she couldn't say no.
I'm glad the media is reporting this now, but I remember the headlines 18 months ago, about the flatmate's evidence, and how closely you had to read the articles to realise that the flatmate hadn't given evidence. If the media knew that part of the statement was omitted, then their reporting was even more flawed.
There is much, much more, in today's papers - I'll try and have some more tomorrow.