Home > Forum, Guestbook & Blog

Go Back   The Den of Discourse > Dave's Blog

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 5th April 2006, 09:25 PM   #1
Dave
Your friendly local necromancer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Te Awamutu, New Zealand
Posts: 100
New Zealand Louise Nicholas Case

For those who don't know: Louise Nicholas accused some cops of historical rape but lost the court case. Unless all the court reporters forgot to tell us something, there wasn't really a case at all except her word that it happened.

The verdict has created outrage amongst feminists, some of whom hit the streets of Wellington handing out pamphlets which included suppressed evidence they felt should have been presented.

Here's my armchair observations:

In this country we have a principle of "innocent until proven guilty". There is no definition of "proof" which says someone's word is sufficient to prove anything. You simply can't convict someone based on someone else's word.

I've seen some blogs asking "Why would she make it up?". Having worked in the field of psychology I find it hard to believe people could be so naive. I'll just say this.... people make up stuff like this every day. I myself was falsely accused of rape while working as a nurse. It happens.

The information contained in the pamphlets is illegal to make public but it's not hard to find. I've seen the pamphlet and I have to say it does colour one's opinion of the whole case - it is very damaging to the defendants (it regards their previous record). But here's the rub - the information is not actually relevant to this case. At first glance it does seem very relevant but if you think about it from a logical point of view it isn't. The process of arriving at a logical conclusion is very specific, and from a logical standpoint this information is entirely irrelevant to the Louise Nicholas case.

If this evidence had been allowed, it would undoubtedly have influenced the jury's deliberation. Whether or not the case would have had a different outcome I don't know, but people are only human (and most have no idea about logic) so I would be very concerned about the impact it would have had. I think it was the right decision to suppress this information.

But just when you thought it was simple....
- The police spent two years pursuing this case, suggesting that they thought it had some merit. It's hard to imagine them putting that much effort into a case based only on someone's word.
- The jury spent 27 hours deliberating, which seems strange given the non-existence of any reported evidence.

But in the end it all comes down to "innocent until proven guilty". No proof, no conviction. End of story.
Dave is offline  
Old 10th April 2006, 02:02 PM   #2
Dave
Your friendly local necromancer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Te Awamutu, New Zealand
Posts: 100
Since I posted the entry above, an unprecedented email campaign has been launched to spread the information contained in the pamphlet. According to one poll, 30% of New Zealanders believe they know what the information is and this will continue to rise quickly. I think it's fair to say that anyone who cares to know what the information is will be able to find it.

This raises several questions:

(1) If more than half of all New Zealanders are prepared to get involved in this campaign of civil disobedience (which is what it amounts to) then maybe they are saying they don't agree with the current law. For better or worse we live in a democracy, and if most people feel that a particular law is an ass then perhaps the Government should take note.

(2) I'm not sure why the information in this case is still suppressed. I stand by my assertion that it was the right thing to do during the trial, but I don't see why it's necessary any more.

(3) By continuing to suppress this information, the courts are handing control of the information to people who are not accountable. For example, I've already seen copies of the original pamphlet which have been altered or embellished. How are people to know which facts are real? What's to stop people making up new information and spreading it via email?

I think it's time to lift the suppression order and give control of the information flow back to accountable news media. They may be far from perfect but at least they are accountable and the public can have some measure of confidence in the information they provide.
Dave is offline  
Old 15th May 2006, 05:00 PM   #3
BigD
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Twaddle

"But here's the rub - the information is not actually relevant to this case. At first glance it does seem very relevant but if you think about it from a logical point of view it isn't"

I have nevert heard so much twaddle in my life. Do you understand 'patterns of behaviour' ? Do you know what logic is ?

Here is a pattern:

2,4,6,8 ... guess the next number

Whether they are guilty or innocent is another question but dont say it is not 'logical' to look at previous patterns of behaviour.
 
Old 16th May 2006, 11:53 AM   #4
Dave
Your friendly local necromancer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Te Awamutu, New Zealand
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigD
Do you understand 'patterns of behaviour' ?
Yes. As a registered psychiatric nurse I spent a lot of time dealing in patterns of behaviour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigD
Do you know what logic is ?
Yes. I studied logic at university. Unfortunately I never finished my logic papers but I have kept a keen interest in logic and critical thinking.

There are some logical conclusions which can be made based on patterns of behaviour, but I'm afraid there is no logical process which would allow a jury to use the first of these cases as reliable, relevant evidence in the second.

One of the pitfalls of our judicial system (or more accurately, the way we tend to judge people) is that we are swayed by facts which are not directly relevant, especially in cases which are highly emotive. Court cases need to be won and lost on evidence, not patterns. We could learn so much from CSI .

BTW, I would like to clarify something: I do not know whether these people are innocent or guilty, but we have a system known as "innocent until proven guilty". Until you can prove that someone is guilty you can't convict them.
Dave is offline  
Old 1st March 2007, 02:15 PM   #5
bogmailer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
New Zealand rape fantasy

I am appalled the justice system tolerates and supports so many of these flaky "crimes against women" trials, just to appear PC to the media. Most of these so called put-upon-women enjoy no standing in the community and so are quite willing to use the establishment to cynically tarnish other peoples reputation. I think most people in the street, still in command of a working brain, will see their actions as either revenge or benefit motivated and fortunately jury's still reflect the public view. My feeling is, legal action should be taken against these litigants for their vexatious actions.
 
Old 2nd March 2007, 09:12 AM   #6
Quixote
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
New Zealand Justice Dumb as well as Blind!

Well, we ALL know who to BELIEVE now! In most criminal cases before a Judge, the defendant's PRIOR offending IS detailed and does EFFECT the Judges verdict. It also undoubtedly affects the Police case?
Jury's SHOULD know. "Justice lied is justice denied?"
The fault is a FLAWED judicial system. Watch the Politicians make a change?
 
Old 9th August 2007, 07:28 PM   #7
Genni
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question sick of attention seeking woman.

On Daves side here. Big waste of tax paying money time that a he says she says scenario can justify investigation and time. Louise Nichols is an embarassment to women in a world where we are capable of making our own decisions, drinking, playing, and having fun. Poor little us - at the mercy of mean men - we should be able to drink and then not have to be accountable??. The real feminists can't be bothered with her likes.
 
Old 18th September 2007, 02:56 PM   #8
Fadil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Action NOW

This topic ( the abuse of good men (Fathers) under the current draconian laws).
I am mainly interested in Action rather then blogging and talking...although I believe it's good to to talk, but action is more effective policy in bringing this issue to light...
Due to the importance of this issue and the pain that this issue is causing for good people we should take certain steps to get organized , create some sort of lobby , reach out to all Kiwis regardless of their gender, Protest with large numbers of protesters. this issue would at some point or another would have an impact of NZ families, thats why we should be strong, united, and our main goal would be the wellfare of the children, I am sure that we can think of some way to minimize the level of pain and hardship to parties concerned.
Dave, I need to get intouch , I would like to meet with you guys, to talk discuss and see if could come up with some sort of plan or any thing to get things moving ...and moving fast....Please Help.
I have no abuse , or familly violence, I gave her everything anf left for oversease to get break....came backto NZ..found protection order ...and I can not c my kids...I've contacted a lawyer ..she said it would take months befor I can have access to my kids...tell me what to do....
 
Old 5th October 2007, 08:53 PM   #9
eyes wide open
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Louise Nicholas is an ispiration

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genni View Post
On Daves side here. Big waste of tax paying money time that a he says she says scenario can justify investigation and time. Louise Nichols is an embarassment to women in a world where we are capable of making our own decisions, drinking, playing, and having fun. Poor little us - at the mercy of mean men - we should be able to drink and then not have to be accountable??. The real feminists can't be bothered with her likes.

Louise Nicholas continues to be an inspiration for genuine rape victims. Her courage inspires me. I have been raped by someone in a powerful position and am not brave enough to go to court and be mistreated like Louise Nicholas was. If you had really studied her life and not some biased media reports you would no without a shadow of a doubt she is a genuine victim. Thnks Louise.
 
Old 20th October 2007, 08:34 PM   #10
Daisy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In total agreement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyes wide open View Post
Louise Nicholas continues to be an inspiration for genuine rape victims. Her courage inspires me. I have been raped by someone in a powerful position and am not brave enough to go to court and be mistreated like Louise Nicholas was. If you had really studied her life and not some biased media reports you would no without a shadow of a doubt she is a genuine victim. Thnks Louise.
Well said. There are many many abuse victims out there that are extremely grateful for Louise's courageousness. She sets an example of morality and decency, considering the abuse, manipulation and control that she has endured by so-called police officers. If you choose to show your ignorance and immaturity by supporting Shipton, Schollum, Rickards, Clayton, Dewar etc and slandering Louise, then you are no better than her abusers.
 
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +13. The time now is 05:38 AM.