The Police Sex Case
Throwing my own 10 cents worth into the debate about the two cops previous convictions not coming up until after these most recent verdicts.
I don't know. This was a case of a woman alleging that these three men, Rickards, Schollum and Shipton had done things to her, and while I agree that a pattern of behaviour may have been seen, this particular womans claims regarding Rickards being there seemed to flaw the case. Simply put, evidence showed he wasn't there and had a cast on. I think though, if she had just gone after the other two, there might have been a different story.
I wasn't particularly impressed with Rickards' comments after the verdicts were read. Yes, his personal and professional life has been pretty much torn to shreads in this investigation and he has to some degree a right to be upset, but I personally think he has pretty much lost his momentum in the police force. I think the only way out for the police to maintain some reputable level of integrity is to get him out of the force. Buy out his contract.
I think when it comes to previous convictions, in this particular case, for the two munchkins (Schollum and Shipton) who were convicted of the rape at the Mount, also had the Louise Nicolas case charges pending, then this most recent one came up. How to ensure that jurors are not unnecessarily prejudiced? Surpress the information. I think though that if a defensive tactic is going to be the sexual history of the victim, then previous convictions, even recent ones, should come up, but it becomes up to the judge to instruct the jury.
What I find most confusing is the timing. Louise Nicolas, the most recent claiment, and the victim in the Mount case were all talking about things that happened in the 1980's. The early to mid 1980's. So why has it taken 20 years to come to trial. I wonder if that had any bearing on the jury's decision. It would have one on mine.
Is it time for a statue of limitations? 20 years is a long time for things to be left the way they were, then suddenly, they come out like they have.
I don't know. This was a case of a woman alleging that these three men, Rickards, Schollum and Shipton had done things to her, and while I agree that a pattern of behaviour may have been seen, this particular womans claims regarding Rickards being there seemed to flaw the case. Simply put, evidence showed he wasn't there and had a cast on. I think though, if she had just gone after the other two, there might have been a different story.
I wasn't particularly impressed with Rickards' comments after the verdicts were read. Yes, his personal and professional life has been pretty much torn to shreads in this investigation and he has to some degree a right to be upset, but I personally think he has pretty much lost his momentum in the police force. I think the only way out for the police to maintain some reputable level of integrity is to get him out of the force. Buy out his contract.
I think when it comes to previous convictions, in this particular case, for the two munchkins (Schollum and Shipton) who were convicted of the rape at the Mount, also had the Louise Nicolas case charges pending, then this most recent one came up. How to ensure that jurors are not unnecessarily prejudiced? Surpress the information. I think though that if a defensive tactic is going to be the sexual history of the victim, then previous convictions, even recent ones, should come up, but it becomes up to the judge to instruct the jury.
What I find most confusing is the timing. Louise Nicolas, the most recent claiment, and the victim in the Mount case were all talking about things that happened in the 1980's. The early to mid 1980's. So why has it taken 20 years to come to trial. I wonder if that had any bearing on the jury's decision. It would have one on mine.
Is it time for a statue of limitations? 20 years is a long time for things to be left the way they were, then suddenly, they come out like they have.
posted by Wiremu Bayliss at
7:16 am
0 Comments
