Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The short answer

Apparently Clint Rickards lawyer* asked the jury what Clint Rickards motive in raping this young woman could be.

Possibly because he's an abusive misogynist rapist, who got off on being able to abuse his power without consequence and who thinks he's entitled to women's bodies as a matter of course.

* It astonishes me the things the character claims his lawyer can make about Clint Rickards, all things considered - I thought they were regulations about that sort of thing.


  1. I gleaned a great deal about his "character" the day he walked into the courtroom during the previous trial wearing his uniform. How many times has he used that uniform to intimidate and railroad people? At least his employers, in stating that he wasn't actually entitled to wear it, pointed out his arrogance and idiocy to the entire country.

    And now he invokes a sporting hero as an alibi and character witness. I hope the jury sees through these pathetic attempts to divert their attention from the substance of the claims and paint him as an upstanding citizen. If you whitewash over shit, you can still smell the shit.

  2. Anonymous1:46 pm

    A friend of mine emailed me this: "It sickens me that John Haigh has sold himself to the depths of defending such people. His father defended progressive causes for decades without recompense - but always had at the front of his mind the justice of the case. He would turn in his grave if he saw what his son is doing."

  3. Anonymous1:28 pm

    7 million dollars for these cases = taxpayers money
    How many cases where heard from 1983 to 2004 with 3 men employed in the Police force, that sent criminals to jail = all retrials of cases if these men where proven guilty of the crime while employed with the police = millions of more taxpayers money to pardon all the cases proved guilty under these employees = Louise would never have got justice on her side.