NOT GUILTY VERDICTS

Rickards, Shipton and Schollum have been acquitted.

In my opinion, knowing what I do of the case including evidence from former police colleagues who were prevented from testifying, these men are violent rapists, regardless of the jury.

In the meantime, here is the background feature we ran on the case last year . We can now tell you that Schollum and Shipton are currently serving eight year jail terms for rape.

Those who believe these men are innocent are asking us to believe that different women are engaged in a conspiracy to bring down these three men. Alternatively, the men are guilty.

Comments

[shocked]

I don't agree with you on much, but you're absolutely right on this. When I found out last year about the rape sentences the two men were serving, I seriously thought of putting some personal pressure on a couple of reporters I knew.

But then, we are a nation of laws.

One of the many shames of this verdict is that there will be an inevitable backlash against the complainant.

[ian]

I tried to post this comment on Farrar but his system spat it out...however..I'll say this much:

Many commenters labour under the misapprehension that a Not Guilty verdict automatically means innocent in the real world.
No, in legal terms a not guilty verdict simply means the evidence wasn't strong enough to get over the Beyond Reasonable DOubt barrier.

Judges do have the power to declare someone Innocent, but they very rarely do so unless they are convinced that not only has the legal burden been met, but that the charges are patently untrue.

A former police officer was prevented from testifying in the last two trials. He would have told the court that he went to the house used by the men where one of them began boasting about what they'd been doing to young girls, and showing him the baton, until the ringleader, who was in an adjacent room, overhead the conversation and in a loud and threatening voice told the talkative one to shut up.

You also need to take into account the police culture in Rotorua at the time, where cops like Evan Jordan used to arrest young women on spurious charges and then drop the charges in return for sex.

[Chuck Bird]

Ian, would you please tell us why the former police officer was prevented in testing in the last two trials?

[ian]

Because his testimony could not be specifically linked to a named complainant, it was being offered as "similar fact" evidence relevant to the M/O and the offenders' knowledge of what they were doing.

Lawyers for the men were successful in preventing the testimony being delivered in the Nicholas case, but there was an expectation it might appear in this one. I don't yet know why it did not.

[dad4justice]

Please those good dads who have daughters -please take good care of them . Its a sad day for New Zealand .

[John Boy]

I think the verdict was inevitable based on the evidence presented. The complainant may have courage but so long after the event it was suprising to me that the matter came to trial given the evidence was only he said - she said.

Rickard's reputation is technically intact as he has no convictions. What you think of him doesn't alter the record.

I do wonder how Rickard got to the level he did with this lurking in in his past though. I suspect the police now want him gone but on what grounds could they do that now? Was the trial an attempt to get a conviction and be rid of him that way?

Maybe the police really as corrupt as a conspiracy theorist like me thinks they are. I guess they just follow the example of their bosses in Parliament.

[Lesly]

Ian, I too tried to leave a comment on DPF's blog, [where misogyny is alive and well, by the way as you will have noticed]....

It just astounds me that the case should have been allowed to come to court at all. Given the paucity of corroborative evidence there could only ever have been one outcome.

And I am wondering how much in legal aid Schollum and Shipton are going to cost the country this time? - it was reported in the media as being in the region of $260,000 for their defense in the Louise Nicholas case.

But the most important, and by far the saddest, thing is that it will have done nothing to encourage more victims of rape or sexual assault to come forward in the future.

All in all a pointless, and even destructive, exercise on so many fronts. What sad times we live in.

[andrei]

There have always been predators out their Dads4justice. This verdict will not alter that fact one way or the other.

And predators is what these men where.

And it is shameful that their behaviour, whether legal or not was not dealt with appropriately by the police at the time.

Whether technically they could be found guilty of rape under the standard "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is another matter entirely.

However when social conservatives, such as myself, call for high standards of moral behaviour from public officials, we get the raspberry "what consenting adults do in their own time is none of our business".

Only last year there was the incident where a policewoman was moonlighting as a prostitute which common sense would dictate was incompatible with her primary employment.

Yet she kept her job, although told to drop the other.

And there were many who thought that it was none of the business of the police force what she was doing in her own time.

You reap what you sow.

[Philip]

It's hard to argue with what you write. In the end even the behaviour they happily admit (sex with teenage girls, group sex, adultary) does not encourage you to tell your kids to look upto and respect Policemen (like when I was a Kid).

[Mainstream]

As a learned judge once said, when a member of the public interrupted his court to plead for justice...

"This is a court of law, not a court of justice!"

[Oswald Bastable]

Another case for where the 'Not Proven Guilty' verdict could be used...

[Rumpole]

A number of interesting points arise out of this case, first Shiptons wifes evidence was probably destroyed by her relatives testimony. Shiptons wife is a team leader at the Ministry of Justice!! Did police management encourage the prosecution knowing the difficulty of proving a case on little more than two different views of an event to discredit Rickards for political reasons especially given the Police's unwillingness to prosecute Labour Politicians despite credible evidence.Was the decision to prosecute made by or influenced by an officer who was party to the decision not to prosecute Lbaour politicians?

[Pic]

Can you explain why Shipton and Schollum's prison sentences were not allowed to be mentioned in court or in the press during their latest trial?
Their sentences were presumably well reported at the time they were convicted; surely they are a matter of public record?

[Psycho Milt]

Pic: name suppression remained in force even after their conviction for the Mt Maunganui case, due to the other pending cases (Louise Nicholas and the latest one).