Clint Richards Along With 2 Ex Cops Back In Court On Monday To Face Sexual Charges
E. Scrooge
through the trial towards the verdict.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/3965799a10.html
E. Scrooge
peterwn
to decide the facts. The judge will be very careful to get it right in
accordance with what the Court of Appeal has decided on previous
occasions - this covers matters such as whether the accused must be
acquitted just because the accused believed he had consent, or whether
it must be a reasonably hels belief, and matters of a similar nature.
These old sex related cases have a very high failure rate in court
because it frequently comes down to the victim's word v the accused's
word, and the poor jury has to try and decide who is telling the
truth. It may well be that some of these cases should not even come
to court since the evidence is potentially flimsy, so the temptation
is there for the Police and Crown Law to take them to court because
that is hat 'public opinion' expects.
UK has the same sort of problem, with public concern being expressed
at the high failure rate of such cases.
TarlaStar
day in court.
george
How many other cases has this paragon got waiting in the wings ?
If my count is correct this is the third case bought against him.
Its getting to be more than coincidence
E. Scrooge
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:1171740125.9...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
We'll never know if there were any teenagers who didn't make an official
complaint after being taken advantage of by the same 3 cops at the time.
And just what chance would a teenager have against the word of 3 cops, which
is why such cases against them are only going to court now.
The history of Louis Nichols was used against her in court but the known
history of the cops against other teenagers couldn't be used thanks to the
Judge who guided the case towards the direction that he wanted it to go.
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
"peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1171702663.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
We have different court Judges in NZ - weak arse with no interest in real
Justice what so ever.
Richards and the 2 ex cops have already been to court late last year over
sexual crimes towards another teenager that happened some years ago, about
the same time as the victim in this latest case against them.
The previous history of the victim was used against her, that and the fact
the teenager didn't go court at the time as if her word wasn't going to
stand up just as well as the word of 3 cops at the time. Hardly surprising
it takes the victims some years to get the courage to take the police on in
court in a tough up hill battle.
The Judge wouldn't let the known sexual history of the cops be used against
them in that trial, when knowing full well they were going to face a similar
trial with a completely different victim laying the complaint.
A teenager going against the word of 3 cops wouldn't be an easy thing to do
at the time while trying to deal with being sexually attacked by them as
well.
E. Scrooge
Tilly
E. Scrooge
"Tilly" <Til...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:er7rqb$aqm$1...@aioe.org...
> E. Scrooge wrote:
>> The Judge will be of course in full control guiding the Jury all the
>> way through the trial towards the verdict.
>>
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/3965799a10.html
>>
>> E. Scrooge
>
> Don't you mean Clint Rickards?
An obvious mistake that even you noticed. The link makes it quite clear
also.
E. Scrooge
peterwn
This cannot be told to the jury.
peterwn
> "peterwn" <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
That is not the judge's choice. It is most likely if the judge had
allowed such 'sexual history' evidence or that the accused was facing
a future trial on a similar matter to be known to the jury, this would
be overturned on appeal meaning an acquittal or new trial.
It is the job of the prosecution to prove serious charges 'beyond
reasonable doubt', the defence merely needs to cast a shadow of doubt
on the prosecution evidence presented. Hence where the case turns
primarily on the victim's evidence (usually as to whether she gave
consent), the victim's background is highly relevant.
> A teenager going against the word of 3 cops wouldn't be an easy thing to do
> at the time while trying to deal with being sexually attacked by them as
> well.
>
Agreed, the teenager unfortunately has a problem, especially when it
happened years before and no DNA samples were taken.
By the way, there was an interesting article in Otago Uni's recent
alumni magazine (information contributed by Simon Moore, Crown
Prosecutor in Auckland) concerning evidence and an accused's right to
silence. He made the point that the accused could remain silent until
he or she had access to all the prosecution's evidence, then give
evidence that very neatly fitted in with the prosecution's evidence.
Peter Metcalfe
gbl...@hnpl.net says...
> How many other cases has this paragon got waiting in the wings ?
> If my count is correct this is the third case bought against him.
> Its getting to be more than coincidence
Your count is wrong. This is only the second case brought against
him.
--Peter Metcalfe
E. Scrooge
They better get some tribe from up the Amazon to be on the Jury then, since
most of the country will know something about the Louis Nicholas trial that
wasn't that long ago.
E. Scrooge
BrentC
The Crown law office should kick these cases to touch and pay out the
supposed victims the 6+ million they have already wasted trying to get
Rikard.
*********************
BrentC
E. Scrooge
"BrentC" <bre...@WhoWantsTo.Know> wrote in message
news:3cnht2l0j5up4ellq...@4ax.com...
They didn't deny having sex with a teenager in the Nicholas trial. That
alone is bad enough for 3 responsble police officers all having sex with the
same teenager/s.
Not good examples for future police officers going round having casual sex
with teenagers.
E. Scrooge
Geopelia
"E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
news:1171844995.857381@ftpsrv1...
end. I wonder how many more kids will now come forward.
Maybe their next teenage victim will give them AIDS. They won't wriggle out
of that!
Harvey Wilson
>
> - Show quoted text -
But we have to remember that these are historical cases and all those
years ago these officers were barely out of their teens themselves.
I don't like cases where nearly three decades later these women decide
to lay charges, and I dislike even more the political overtones that
pervade these resurrected complaints, something is not quite right
here.
It smells of a stir up by the political feminazis in the same manner
that they got rid of Doone
E. Scrooge
"Harvey Wilson" <wilson...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171856069.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Bullshit.
Anyone joining the police back then would be old enough to know better. If
the cops did it then the cops and their victims will always have to live
with it.
It took a while to charge the bastard Graham Cayhill of sexually abusing
kids years ago as well.
Perhaps you think Cayhill should've got away with it after all those years?
E. Scrooge
Harvey Wilson
> "Harvey Wilson" <wilsonhar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Im not commenting as to their guilt or otherwise, and unlike you I am
not automaticaly pre judge them, every one is entitled to a fair
trial.
What I am saying that when the public sees men probably in their
fifties dragged into court on sex charges, and then the media trumpets
on about 16yr old girls, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the
alleged victim would now be in her mid forties, not a supposed 16yr
old church going vestal virgin that some here imagine.
E. Scrooge
The victims have aged as well and will be in court. Doesn't change the fact
that they were teenagers when sexually abused by the 3 cops.
Could you stand up for yourself just as well as you can now when you were a
young lad with very little knowledge?
Word of a boy against 3 cops would sure go far alright.
About as far as the nearest door.
E. Scrooge
Harvey Wilson
Frankly I think the young men as they were at the time of the alleged
offense, were stupid in the extreme, but having said that distasteful
as it may be, gang bangs did happen, and willing town bikes did exist.
Every town had one or two, and many unfussy young men availed
themselves of services willingly given.
Should the police hierarchy at the behest of Government, start hunting
down these now reformed maidens and bully them into laying complaints
against every young man who lifted a leg over them, as appears to be
the case in question, then one feels that our courts would be full to
overflowing.
Were senior police to interview all women, and ask if they had ever
indulged in sexual activity while young, that now in maturity they
regretted, and if so would they please lay a complaint, then once
again the courts would overflow.
Sorry Scrooge, but I find this to be a politically inspired vendetta,
instigated by Labours men hating feminnazis, who have forced police to
rush around, desperately trying to elicit complaints from Rotorua
women, when there had been none forthcoming.
It is my belief that when police are instructed to go among the public
and beg complaints real or imagined, then the voters need look long
and hard at the level of political involvement and undue pressure.
whoisthis
"E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:
> They didn't deny having sex with a teenager in the Nicholas trial. That
> alone is bad enough for 3 responsble police officers all having sex with the
> same teenager/s.
> Not good examples for future police officers going round having casual sex
> with teenagers.
>
> E. Scrooge
Why ?
Because cops aren't allowed sex ?
Teenagers aren't allowed sex ?