Tuesday, April 04, 2006

I still believe Louise Nicholas

A relative of Louise Nicholas left this comment at Alas. I replied with this

I would take these posts down if there was any chance it could make things worse for Louise Nicholas, or anyone else who was trying to get justice.
I now believe there is a possibility that this might be the case, so I have taken the comments down.

It's not a decision I made easily, and I don't regret publishing it. I remain incredibly angry about this trial,and the result.

I should be able to collect my thoughts more coherently soon.


  1. In somes respects I'm glad that the internet has been able to slip past the courts' demands to keep certain information supressed. Unforutnately it does open up cases to become trial-by-media, which is exactly what is happening now that certain information has become available 'illegally'.

    This is, as far as I can tell, a valid argument for keeping infomration supressed. I'd love to know what went on during the deliberations of the jury, surely caertain 'facts' must have come up time and time again . .

  2. Anonymous5:27 pm

    John Anderson,

    Veiled threats? You’ve got to be joking! Merely a statement of fact - that we must respect the law.

    I’m just glad that the police are planning to prosecute the idiots who broke the suppression order.

  3. Anonymous5:41 pm

    “the jury's verdict is a travesty because the full facts were not in front of them”

    What a ridiculous statement!

    The jury were given all the relevant “facts” and made their decision accordingly.

  4. Anonymous5:46 pm

    I’m sure that many people will have reported the female bloggers who have broken the law relating to the court suppression of information.

    These women will be charged and convicted.

    Good thing too.

  5. Anonymous5:59 pm

    I believe Louise Nicholas as well & I really feel for her and her family and I believe that what she did was incredibly brave - all the attention aside that people say she was lapping up. I doubt anyone would want attention for what she alleged.

    3 police officers having group sex with an 18 year old has to be the definition of "predatory".

  6. Anonymous6:04 pm

    For all the ranting and raving about the supression of "evidence" (which a prior convicion undisputedly is not) try reading this (its from a Left Wing blog to boot):


    esp the last paragraphs:

    "Everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent. And if we started allowing evidence of previous bad acts to be introduced in every trial, then this right would be diminished. Maybe a defendant has turned their life around. Maybe they haven't, but just didn't do this particular burglary, whatever.

    The fear is that if a jury hears that a defendant has a long rap sheet, and maybe dozens of previous burglary convictions they're not going to get a fair trial this time.

    Their past record might mean the jury aren't deciding the question of guilt or innocence of the charge they're hearing, but whether they're a nice person."

    Ensuring that the right for a person to a fair trial where their innocence is presumed and guilt needs to be proved is much much more important than the Louise Nicholas case ever will be.

    Had the suppressed information been made available then yes you may have the got the conviction that you all so badly wanted - but at a cost much much greater to New Zealand Justice than we could be fairly expected to pay - a loss of trust in the Judicial system.

    The Judicial system didn't prevent a conviction here - it was the lack of evidence put forward to trial by the prosecution - and previous convictions of one crime are not proof of guilt of another.

  7. Anonymous7:07 pm

    No Maia, there is a world of difference in pointing out the drop in Charlies shares and what you did. You were blatantly contemptuous of the law. People who made posts about Charlies's share price were talking about a matter that was only peripherally connected to the Celebrity drug case.

    I'm glad you have a new found appreciation for the law. No one is above it, not even angry feminists.

  8. Anonymous7:18 pm

    Intrestingly Maia you rote on Alas

    "But as Jake Squid said, just because people have consensual sex with one woman, doesn’t mean they’re not raping another woman."

    Doesn't the inverse hold true therefore - just because two of the accused may have had a previous rape conviction with one woman doesn't mean that they raped this woman??

  9. Anonymous7:20 pm

    Yes, so delete the contemptous comments on your site as well

  10. Anonymous7:38 pm

    I feel the Judge in the other case may have stepped beyond his mandate in ordering name suppression. Below is my reason why....

    An order for a permanent suppression is difficult to get. It is used sparingly as there is a strong presumption by the court that it is in the public interest to make the names available.

    The courts will usually grant a permanent suppression order only if publishing your name would directly lead to identifying a complainant, such as in the case of incest or other forms of sexual abuse.

    The guidelines for when judges may exercise their discretion to order name suppression are set out in the CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

  11. Anonymous7:42 pm

    A deliberate act of breaking name suppression in New Zealand has never been tested in the courts.

  12. Anonymous7:52 pm

    Right or wrong, the information these women are disseminating is ALREADY in the public arena.

    Suppression order was moot when it was made.

  13. Anonymous9:36 pm

    People, stop being idiots! The Police are not saints and I speak from experience.

    If this case involved your daughter, would you be happy for this evidence being suppressed???

    I'm sorry that Maia felt the need to remove the facts that have been kept from us. That just goes to show how much the Police manipulate the system.

    I wish I had the gutse to speak out the way Louise Nicholas did, it's time these issues were addressed

  14. Anonymous9:38 pm

    LOL @ Maia.

    You didn't take the comments off your blog cos you thought it might affect LN negatively.

    You took them off cos you were shitting yourself about getting nicked!

  15. Anonymous9:39 pm

    I suggest that no matter what the circumstances, suppression order or not, the jury would not have come to any other decision.

    When you've got an ex-flatmate who is giving contrary evidence about behaviour, it's very hard to make a conviction on what's presented.

    With respect to some of the accusations that some people are making concerning rape and rape charges, rape trials and how difficult it is for women to find justice, consider the aspect of burden of proof.

    Burden of proof is a very vital aspect of the legal system. But when it comes to rape trials, burden of proof seems to fly out the window and an accusation for some people (and i would include those women handing out the leaflets) should be sufficent for conviction.

    This is absurd thinking.

    I'm not suggesting the system as it works presently is perfect but an accusation being accepted and conviction following an accusation is an absurdity and it's clear that the women in wellington are following that particular line of thought:

    "Any woman who claims she has been raped should be believed totally from the beginning and that should be the end of it."

    This is nonsense.

    And i don't know anyone but the most rabid feminist or rabid anti-male female would accept that.

    In the flyer that was handed out, it was blatantly obvious that the women involved have no idea of why the suppression order was handed out.

  16. Anonymous10:51 pm

    Why are u people not getting it??? If i felt safe I woud tell you what I know from personal experience but the Police scare me. I know first hand what they are capable off. They are not nice people so stop defending them. This is our only chance at getting some justice in this country, these poeple are wrong!!!!
    My life has been ruined by what they did to me but nobody cares about that.

    Start being realistic and deal with the real issues, Maia should not have to have removed the inforamation she had, it is information that we are entitled to know and how is it our problem that she had the gutse to share this. I realise that I could be traced for this email but after knowing the hurt and damage these people can cause, I don't care any longer. I just want the people to know the truth.

    At the end of the day the saying goes that you sould "know me before you judge me"

    If you still have an issue with what I have said then have the gutse to reply to my message and then I can have the chance to tell you what you clearly don't know!

  17. Many of us are- were suspicious of the identities of the ‘Tauranga Pack.’

    If true, this is absolutely disgusting!


  18. God, what is it with all the millions of anonymous comments on this site lately?

    Anyway, I think the courts can try to suppress the passing on of this information but they cannot supress the truth. The trial was a disgusting travesty of justice and all over the country people already know thanks to courageous bloggers like Maia.

  19. "Anonymous said...
    I’m sure that many people will have reported the female bloggers who have broken the law relating to the court suppression of information.

    These women will be charged and convicted.

    Good thing too.

    5:46 PM"

    Get bent, loser. Why don't you grow a vagina and identify yourself? You're just so damn SCARY threatening bloggers behind an anonymous troll tag.

  20. I think the "right to a fair trial" crowd are missing something. Louise's character and past deeds were all attacked during the trial in order to discredit her as a witness. But the violent crimes commited by two of the police - despite the facts pertaining to them having already been established by a court - were suppressed. How is that "fair"?

  21. Anonymous11:41 am

    What is the point in having a fair trial if everyone is just going to blast to jury for coming to their conclusion?

    No one here was at the trial, no one here knows exactly what evidence was/wasn't presented.

    As for supressed evidence, do you think a high court judge would suppress evidence just to please the police? The judge is there to ensure a fair trial and would NOT have suppressed evidence unless there was a damn good reason to do so. How dare some people here presume that they know better than a high court judge about what was right for that trial.

    The men were found innocent by a court of law in a fair trial.

    Lets face it, LNs story had a few holes in it, particularly the fact that her former flatmate contradicted most of her story (for no personal gain, because its true).

    Maia, if everyone was to blatently disrepect the courts then the right to privacy for good reasons would be gone. You have no respect for the courts who impose suppressions for very good reasons. Its not your call what the public should/should not know.

  22. Anonymous2:00 pm

    I surmise that the information given to the women protesting at Parliament by the police sent to check up on the leaflets was that there are further charges pending against some of the acquitted defendants in relation to incidents of alleged rape of other women. In which case what they would like to avoid is to prejudice that case with suppression of their names as defendants due to breach of the name suppression order in last years case. There may even be a risk that the case wont now go to trial. Louise Nicholas’ decision to forgo name suppression this time has flushed them out into the open, and even though she lost her case, any subsequent case against them with similar evidence would stand a much better chance of success due to the collateral damage to their credibility. Even if they get name suppression, given the publicity it would be hard to find jurors who weren’t aware of their role in the Nicholas case. I don’t know if she or her advisers foresaw this, but it has turned out to be a very clever strategy. At a very heavy personal cost to Louise Nicholas; still, La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid.

  23. Anonymous3:52 pm

    Sam Buchanan said...
    I think the "right to a fair trial" crowd are missing something. Louise's character and past deeds were all attacked during the trial in order to discredit her as a witness. But the violent crimes commited by two of the police - despite the facts pertaining to them having already been established by a court - were suppressed. How is that "fair"?

    My thoughts exactly - it's the fact that Louise Nicholas was on the stand having to account for her past deeds and present herself as a person of 'good character' that really offends me - if their previous behaviour was not allowed to be put before the court, then neither should any of hers. Enough of this double standard.

  24. I wish that anonymous person would make up their mind...

  25. Anonymous9:30 pm

    Take this earlier comment -

    I surmise that the information given to the women protesting at Parliament by the police sent to check up on the leaflets was that there are further charges pending against some of the acquitted defendants in relation to incidents of alleged rape of other women. In which case what they would like to avoid is to prejudice that case

    subsitute those cases for that case

    roll the word mistrial round on your tongue.

    Hope you know what you have helped do Maia and your supporters.

    I can't believe the stupidity of some people.

  26. Anonymous1:45 am

    Auckland University students debated and voted today to support the actions of the Wellington women.

    A student was also handing out hundreds of leaflets containing the suppressed information prior and during the debate.

  27. Anonymous10:01 am

    Maia, I think that you will find that the vast majority of men believe that rapists should be dealt with severely. Having said that they also believe that accused should be dealt with fairly like those accused of any other crime.

    I wonder if you or others on this blog remember the case of a woman who alleged that she was raped by a Police Officer at a Police station. This woman appeared at least once on a documentary like 20 Minutes or 20/20. This documentary was about 4 or 5 years ago so my memory is a bit hazy. At the time of the alleged offence she was a mature adult, I think in her 30’s. Forced was used. She complained almost immediately. She was fobbed off and the alleged offender was moved away. From what I recall there was a prima facie case that the offence occurred.

    I think you would do a lot more good pursuing this case where there is strong case that should be pursued than encourage people to break the law by posting suppressed evidence.

  28. Anonymous2:55 pm

    I think Maia has made a brave and honourable attempt to make people aware of things that alot of people feel should be made public knowledge. I am sure there are people out there that will jump right back and say that perhaps Maia has been 'not so clever' exposing herself, with all the ranting and ravings flying around the place.
    Well - I personally say ALL POWER TO YOU MAIA. You stand up for something you feel passionately about.
    And for the record, (and for the Ross Francis's in this world) - I am not a feminist and I have only joined the blogging fraternity because I feel so passionately about what is happening to Louise. But, it has been an honour to 'meet' so many other passionate, caring people out there.
    Here's hoping there will be some form of positive outcome - perhaps not in Louise's case - but maybe in the future.

  29. Anonymous6:35 pm

    "I should be able to collect my thoughts more coherently soon"

    LOL @ Maia.

    Yeah right! Not until AFTER you've broken the law several times. LOLOLOLOLOL

  30. Anonymous10:49 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  31. Anonymous10:52 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  32. Anonymous11:33 pm

    Onya, Maia. Don't let the drongoes get you down.

  33. Anonymous2:00 am

    I would like to see a psychiatric report on the man with the baton. There is always a ringleader.

  34. Anonymous9:41 am

    Do the idiot women who broke the suppression order in the Louise Nicholas case have any idea what they’ve done?

    Every day in the courts of New Zealand, suppression orders are granted in favour of women. Not just women accused of committing crimes either. Usually female victims of sexual crime are awarded name suppression in order that they are not identified when information disclosed in court about their sexual histories is made public through the media.

    If the women who broke the suppression order in the Louise Nicholas case are not charged, convicted and severely punished, what with happen in the future is that every time a man is convicted of a crime against a woman, his friends, family and supporters will happily identify the complainant via the internet.

    Maybe they should have thought a little bit more before they broke the law.

  35. Anonymous9:49 am

    What is it with all these people slagging off “anonymous” posters? Does giving yourself a blog handle really identify you? I don’t think so.

    How do we know “John Anderson” isn’t really Maria Smith? We don’t!

  36. Anonymous9:53 am

    Was the suppressed information in the Nicholas case posted by the operator of this site?

    If so, I think someone should report her to the police and insist she be charged.

    Actually, I’m sure somebody already has.

  37. Anonymous9:55 am

    The so called “threat” J.A. is referring to was someone noting that without respect for the law there would be total anarchy and if we had total anarchy the women who broke the suppression order would be in big trouble.

    Hardly worth getting worked up over.

  38. Anonymous12:02 pm

    She was not raped. A jury of our peers in a court of law said so. The information that was suppressed was done so for legitimate reasons that had no bearing on thier ability to wither determine or deny guilt. The full facts were in front of them.

  39. Anonymous1:55 pm

    If it's true that other trial/s are pending involving the Louise Nicholas defendents then why wasn't there some kind of group trial of these men?

    When a priest or scout-leader or whatever is accused of historic cases of paedophilia then usually all the charges are bundled into a single trial. Then, even if not all charges are proved, at least all the victims can feel that they've been heard, and one sentence can acknowledge all their suffering. There's strength and a sense of vindication in numbers.

  40. Anonymous2:37 pm

    The fact remains that if the women who broke the suppression order aren’t given summonses and convicted it will send a clear message to the rest of society that anyone can do what they have done and get away with it.

    That will mean that any woman given name suppression in a high profile rape case in the future will almost certainly have it plastered all over the internet within 24 hours.

    And we know who they’ll have to thank don’t we?

  41. Anonymous3:00 pm

    Max - there is a big difference between name supression of a 'victim' and supressed information which has direct bearing on a case.
    Louise chose to waive the name supression - she had nothing to gain personally from this - in fact she had everything to lose!

  42. Jason,
    Just because the defendants were acquitted doesn't mean Louise wasn't raped. "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent." It means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict; the onus of proving guilt is on the prosecution.

  43. Anonymous7:20 pm

    Why would a man require vasaline after three guys had previously had sex with her ???


  44. Anonymous10:31 pm

    Where can I get a copy of the email

  45. Anonymous1:52 pm

    i think they raped her. we are supposed to trust the police... but how can we?

  46. Anonymous4:08 pm

    Funny how a lot of people believe that the rule of law is absolute....try being members of my family in the 1930's in europe. The Corn Laws of Ireland in the 1800's. The laws in the Inquisition. Try being Black for 300 years in the USA. Try living somewhere where the law is against you....

    Not all laws are fair, sometimes laws have to be broken for justice to be served...

    Just because it is Law dosen't make it right.

  47. Anonymous6:16 am

    Prosecuting the people who breached the suppression ordeer just keeps this issue which has attracted a lot of media attention already before the media.

    TV 3 for example have read the public mood correctly, describing the breaches as "civil disobedience" (a bit like blacks refusing to stand for a white person on a bus in the US in the 50's) and reflected that there's a strong desire by people "to know the suppressed facts".

    Prosecuting for breaches makes matyrs of the people who breached, thus more people want to know "what's it all about" begging the usefulness of prosecuting them at all.

  48. Anonymous9:51 am

    Anonymous, why do you not use your name? It would be good for men to know what a man hating feminist you are and steer clear of you. It was feminists and homosexual politicians who pushed though the prostitution bill here in New Zealand which has resulted more underage prostitutes on the streets.

    You now consider men who use prostitutes in third world countries rapist. Maybe some prostitutes in New Zealand believe they are forced into the profession by economic circumstance. Maybe some work as prostitutes to supply a drug habit. Should their customers also be considered rapists?

    Regarding Thailand, it is already illegal internationally for foreign men to have sex with underage girls and boys. Incidentally the sexual abuse of boys does not seem of much concern of feminists. I think they would not want to offend their homosexual brothers by raising this issue.

    I certainly support these laws to prosecute men who go overseas to have sex with children. However, to say that a man who has sex with a adult prostitute from a third world country as a rapist is drawing a pretty long bow. I wonder if feminist like you and Maia have considered that by moving the goal posts on the definition of rape you are making things worse for genuine rape victims.

    Perhaps I am unfair labelling you as a man hating feminist. I would be happy to be proved wrong. Please tell us.

    What penalty should someone who makes a false claim of rape receive? I am not talking about the situation where a woman makes a complaint but the accessed gets found not guilty but a false complaint such as in the case of Nick Wills.

    Were you in favour of the Prostitution Reform Bill promoted by that deviant Tim Barnett and the Labour feminist MPs?

  49. Anonymous11:09 am

    No matter where they are in the world if a woman or man is forced to prostiute herself/himself to avoid homelessness, starvation etc, then yes that should be illegal. It may however be difficult for clients to acertain the knowlege they need to make that decision.
    The prostitution reform act did atleast decriminilise prostiution for women. Why should they be prosecuted and not their customers. I do agree this was not the best way to right the inequality. In my view prostitution should have been made illegal for married people or people in commited relationships.Infidelity destroys relationships and marriages but that is not the fault of the prostite but the client for using them. In some countries they do prosecute the client.
    As for false rape claims I think this is very rare. There are indeed men in jail for rapes they didn't commit but these are stranger rapes where the police have caught the wrong guy. With DNA testing that is becomming much less. The women in these cases did not know their rapists so may have made mis- identifications.
    Funny thing I never hear men harping on about other men or boys making false rape claims. Its only women who do this apparantly.

  50. Anonymous12:47 pm

    Chuck - you make me want to chuck!

    Yes they should be considered rapists!

    What the hell is wrong with you when you have to pay some 3rd world a prostitute to have sex with you?

    Why are there so many sick males who like women and men who are submissive - who they can physically exploit?

    I dont hate men - I just the ones that exploit others for their own sexual needs.

    Why does rape need to be defined as holding someone down. Rape can be coercive and manipulative too. Power is the name of the game and thats not always physical.

    I was in favour of that bill if it meant that women who were forced into prositution by the dominant patriarchal ideology that keeps women as slaves to male desire were to be not further kicked in the guts by being prosecuted while their clientel walk away free.

  51. Anonymous9:26 pm

    "When you've got an ex-flatmate who is giving contrary evidence about behaviour, it's very hard to make a conviction on what's presented."

    I was surprised to read on another blog that the X flatmate was not at the trial but is in Australia. The defense lawyer apparantly said she had said this to police but she claims its untrue.
    So even the rumour that the flatmate had said Louise consented is a complete distortion of the truth. She wasn't even in court. She gave no statements for the trial.
    Once you know this the whole thing sounds even more suspect and creepy.

  52. Anonymous10:38 am

    Anonymous, I actually agree with a lot of your sentiments but I think that law change has to be practical. I do not think it would be practical to screen clients to see if they are in a relationship.

    You say, “Infidelity destroys relationships and marriages”. I totally agree. I believe that the change to no fault and no responsibility divorce in the early 70s was one of many pieces of legislation that undermined marriage. I believe if people want no fault divorce or what ever you wish to call it they should opt for civil union. Those who are prepared to accept responsibility for their actions and believe that marriage vows are to be taken seriously should get married. If they break those vows they should be held to account.

    As for false rape claims I believe they are more common than one thinks. I mentioned the Nick Wills case. You might not remember it. A young University student was falsely accused of rape. His parents were divorced but worked together to clear him. The Police caved in to feminist pressure and did not even bother check his alibi. If he was not fortunate enough to have parents who were caring, trusting, educated and had money for a lawyer he likely would have been jailed for a number of years. This was not a stranger rape. In any case the complainant confessed to making a false complaint.

    Her penalty? A $150 fine. I am almost certain she got name suppression. I am sure that Rape Crisis defended the totally inadequate sentence. There was no doubt the woman was guilty of making a false complaint that could have easily resulted in an innocent young man being jailed for years.

    What penalty do you think this woman should have received? Should she have got name suppression?

    I do not know what percentage of complaints are false but the above was not an isolated case.

    I was on a jury of a rape trial. It was some years ago and was not high profile. Trial lasted three days. It took all of twenty minutes to reach a verdict. The judge concerned that we might give the wrong verdict gave us a very strong hint. He said, “the prosecution has asked why would this woman lie, I do not think I need to quote Shakespeare”.

    After the trial a number of jury members including some women went down the pub and had a drink with the falsely accused man and his lawyer. I was so concerned about this case going to court that I contacted the Police Prosecutor and asked why it did go to court. He said if a complainant stuck to her story there policy was to let a jury decide. This is even when there is not a prima facie case. I then asked why the police did not prosecute the woman for perjury. He did not dispute the fact that the complainant had lied under oath. He said that if that was done then genuine complainants would not come forward.

    You say, “Funny thing I never hear men harping on about other men or boys making false rape claims. Its only women who do this apparantly.”

    In regards men making false complaints you would have to ask a homosexual. In regards boys making false complaints I think that would be very low for reasons that should be obvious.

    I would really be interested what you and some of the militant feminist think is an appropriate jail sentence for a woman who perjures herself in a rape case.

  53. Anonymous11:15 am

    Women often withdraw rape complaints because the pressure of a trial becomes too much for them. They are then pressured by the defendants lawyers to say the claim was false or face prosecution for slander. Because the claim can destroy the reputation of the accused there is considerable pressure to on victims to retract claims.
    They often just want to get away.
    Rape victims have commited suicide because whole towns have called them liars when they have brought charges.
    In our communities people ususally side with men. When a womans husband cheats on her she often blames the woman.

    Even women blame women for what men have done. Women rarely speak of the abuse they have suffered. They havn't even got the courage to call talk back radio if they are not agreeing with the men.

    Women commit very little crime, yet we are the liars. Get Real.

    Im not saying women are any better than men but that they live in fear of ever really speaking the truth and men live in fear of them speaking the truth also.

    A woman might falsely accuse another woman of something but believe me they are not stupid enough to do that to a man.
    Im not saying that all men accused of rape should be locked up. It does require proof. However the false claim theory to me just doesn't ring true with the virtually silent lives many women live.

    When women were told they had to sit behind men a the Porowhi hardly a woman spoke even thought they were silently seething. Women are a afraid of even defending themselves or each other unless ofcourse they are agreeing with men.
    This doesn't mean they are better just that they are more afraid and less likely to commit crimes against the ruling Patriarchy.

  54. Anonymous11:44 am

    "You say you do not hate men. I find that hard to believe."

    You addressed this first to me then to Mary Anne.

    If I were Mary Anne I would'nt even bother to reply.

    This feminsts are man haters crap is very much like calling women sluts, bitches and whores. Its an attemp to slur a person so no one will give credence to what they are saying. Its an attempt to tarnish them and therfore marginalise them. An attempt to win without fairness.

    The things men say about and do to women every day are much worse. Women murdered every week by men. Is this not hate. Women raped by men every hour of every day in NZ is this not hate.
    Where is your balance or perspective. The numbers show the truth.

    It seems no matter how much men abuse women we have no right to be angry. We are evil and twisted in your eyes if we have any feelings at all.

    If a woman has been and seen abuse and no justice she has a right to feelings just as you are. She is human, she has a heart and mind which can be destroyed and often is.

    I do not see any point in further discussion with you and will not reply to any more of your posts.

    You live in the dark ages, go back to them but I will not come with you.

  55. Anonymous9:09 pm

    So Anonymous, if you're so wise, how do you explain the fact that Rob Moodie blatantly breached Court orders last year and wasn't prosecuted for contempt? Law for one alright

  56. Anonymous7:57 pm

    I was raped as a child by a pedophille ring in christchurch. There were doctors,lawyers, judges, teachers and police officers as well as politicians involved.Graeme Duncan of the Christchurch Police has been involved in the cover up along with other officials and persons in the community who hide behind the mask of...counsellors..priests.etc.The system is evil.True justice will only come when we are all judged.