Wednesday, April 05, 2006

It is illegal to view this post

We Believe Louise Nicholas - Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton are convicted rapists

It is against the law for us to allow NZ readers to view this image of the now infamous Louise Nicholas leaflet (hosted on an American server), so if you live in NZ please don't look at it!

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

They spelt "Schollum" wrong!

gungadin said...

testing the law are we?

Could be interesting!

llew said...

Your hit rate through the roof? There are people all over the world clamouring to see this leaflet.

What irritates me is that I seem to be the last person in the country to know this - everyone I have mentioned it to in the last 2 days has said "Oh, I knew that months ago...".

Anonymous said...

Bugger - should not have read it then...

Anonymous said...

"Another woman had been raped with a police baton by these men"
They left out the word "repeatedly".
The judge said they treated her like a piece of meat.

Anonymous said...

Er it doesn't matter where your server is. If you are in New Zealand and you publish it and someone in New Zealand reads it, then you are guilty.

Anonymous said...

It's against the law?!

Well, the title of the post is "It is illegal to view this post" so maybe you're on to something!

richface said...

just to clarify...

not illegal to read this post, only illegal to publish it. breach of the court order occurs upon reproduction or transmission of the information.

Anonymous said...

I'm in NZ and reading this too. I really don't care about the farcical suppression order. Sue me. This information ought to be in the public domain

Anonymous said...

..thanks for the legalese...

...damn right... put the bloggers away....

just let power-tripping baton-weilding rapists roam the land; as with so many organisations it's simpler to promote the dodgy...hoping they will be able to prevent further dodgy's getting away with their tricks....these behaviours are endemic in NZ polis....only need to see R/Robinson averting your gaze and ruefully looking at the ground once or twice to know ''the team'' are outta control....where to now for C/Rickards?..at what point will the 'intimidation' stop....

i've never even heard bFm

Anonymous said...

Mr Rickards should abandon any hope of getting his job back, or any job in the NZ Police for that matter - but having escaped conviction at least he can live and work in other countries.

As for the other two, first parole application ain't looking good!

Anonymous said...

Mr Rickards should abandon any hope of getting his job back, or any job in the NZ Police for that matter - but having escaped conviction at least he can live and work in other countries.

As for the other two, first parole application ain't looking good!

Friday, April 07, 2006 11:43:33 PM

Robin Scott said...

Thanks for making this information available - I've been trying to get it for days (and don't worry, I live outside NZ)!
Best wishes.

Anonymous said...

I'm in Aotearoa, and I fully support your decision and your stand ... in fact this is one of my favourite quotes ""Laws are only words – words written on paper, words that change on society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic status, is a fool."
-John J. Miller

Anonymous said...

It's not illegal to see or view the suppressed information. It's only illegal to inform others about it. So you don't need to scare the other viewers away :)

Anonymous said...

It is normal procedure to supress previous convictions from evidence in NZ courts. Previous convictions are never admissable evidence. This is so that the verdict in the current case doesn't effect future appeals agains the verdict in the current case or the historical case. A not guilty verdict in this case COULD effect the guilty verdict in the historical case had this information been admissable as evidence . Also it is worse for an innocent person to be jailed than for a guilty person to walk free. The case here is not about moral behaviour but about consent v non consent.There was no evidence of rape in this case except for the say so of the accuser. Whether the accuser is lying or not is irrelevant. One person say so is never enough evidence if there is conflicting evidence.

Anonymous said...

I thought I was the last person in the world to know this suppressed evidence.. the trial is over, why should any suppression continue.. now the jury will be not sleeping..
BUT to my mind, even if LN had sex with these guys, or a thousand other guys in group sex, that doesnt make it okay for anyone to rape her....even prostitutes can be raped..
This is just a case of huge domination, bullying to me.. Clint Rickards, Schollum and whowever... I hope you never ever get a job in NZ again... who would let you around anyone.. child, young woman.. once a rapist, always a rapist.. your worst deed will always be the standard on which you are judged. Talk about double standards...... the studs v. the sluts..
Rickards has a police record, which will follow him everywhere, whether he was convicted or not.
He will always be guilty of letting his fellow police officers down.
Louise, I am behind you five hundred percent.
60 yr old kiwi female.

Anonymous said...

I wondered why Schollum and Shipton wouldn't dare enter the witness box.....now i know...thank you

:0) said...

This is so sad; her defence team let her down? The police defence team were very clever? Made her look like the scarlet woman and maybe influenced the jury decision? Then again, the jury probably didn’t have enough evidence to convict in this case – the incidents are over 20 years old. How any rape accusation can ever be held up is beyond me? When a case is only based on the people in the cases word, who do you believe? You are pushing shite uphill to prove it either way, so ‘innocent until proven guilty’ will mean the rapist always has the upper hand i.e. odds on, on walking free. Ok so they have torrid past, does it really mean they did it this time? You can’t convict someone on what they did before. You are only trying them on the case they are being tried for. It sucks, they probably did it, but why she ever thought she could get a conviction against them after 20 years or at all - is beyond me. I suspect she just did this to assassinate their characters in public in which case she has probably won on that count. But if these guys ever come up in court again soon (which I think is the case for one of them?) she may have shot the future case in the foot, the defence team for the rapist now have a case for an unfair trial as the pamphlet has outed them about their past so any jury could now be deemed prejudice? Do woman need to take the law into their own hands to get a fair result instead of using the courts? What a sad sad society we live in. These men have mothers, wives, and sisters? It’s about time women step up to positively influence male attitudes and society, rather than being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff i.e. going to court against rapists/violence etc. after the event.
:0(

Anonymous said...

The comments above indeed reflect the state of affairs, and the failures inherent in so many systems.

Whilst flawed, the legal system is the best 'worst' society has come up with so far(and it has/does grow 'organically' with the goal of improvement, however painfully slowly).

There are no winners in this instance, though my understanding is tha LN simply wanted the investigation process (of 20 years ago) examined, and from there the situation was 'hijacked' and 'amplified' to the point that it reached an essentially 'show trial'. Only about 15-20% of rape trials ever secure conviction (and be sure that only a minority of rapes are ever reported in the first instance, for this a nd many other reasons).

The admissability of such 'pertinent' evidence would seem to me to be crucial in determining motivations and behaviours in such difficult terrain, where 'character' assasinations of the complanaint were allowed, whilst incontestable 'evidence' was notn available to the court/jurors.
The process was akin to the alleged offense(as was the balance of power), with all 4 parties in what must have been 'hellish'/intense proximity.

What is disturbing are the flaws in this process and within the NZ Police 'culture'(up to and including Ministerial level) that appear to 'hush up' ANY misgivings, and that for such a PIVOTAL LEADERSHIP role, consideration was given to a character perhaps not suited (no matter how qualified) to this requirement.

It is my (somewhat jaded) wish that further advances can be made in improving the glaring holes in these procedures (to borrow from the QC for the defendant).

Whilst not a proponent of vigilante-ism, given the inablity of legal process to protect victims of ''personal violence'',and its seemingly endless growth and recurrence in NZ society SOMETHING PRACTICAL HAS TO HAPPEN.

Anonymous said...

reckon it's time to "hijack" some of the more prominent TUI (beer) billboards around the shaky isles and and some more high profile impetus to this snowball .... all you need is a plan and a spray(can)...

Anonymous said...

Good one !!

llew said...

Meanwhile...

reported in today's DomPost, one man, among 4 convisted of rape & sexual violation last year, in a case involving a young woman who alleges she expected to be meeting one man, but was assaulted by 4... out on bail pending an appeal.

They didn't mention his name, so chances are he has name suppression.

Coincidence of course.

Dave said...

Llew, they all have name suppression, but former Rotorua CIB cop John Dewar doesnt. He was before the court today, details of his case are suppressed, but Dewar, you'll remember, was investigating the Louise Nicholas case - after been reported as being involved in consensual group sex with another woman. The other cop involved in the session - Brad Shipton, was acquitted of the Louise Nicholas case.

Anonymous said...

Where is Cmmr Rickards lying low?
perhaps over the ditch with his handlers... Hope D.O'C touched base...ugly

Anonymous said...

March for Louise

NOT ABOVE THE LAW
We Support Louise Nicholas MARCH
Sunday 30 April, 2.00 pm
Assemble Queen Elizabeth Square, Auckland (near Britomart)
March up Queen St to Aotea Square
Hear speakers from Rape Crisis, Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation and others
Bring your friends, banners and placards

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the jury involved in the LN case have read the pamphlet? I bet they feel silly now!

Anonymous said...

Being a N.Z citizen but in the U.K. at the moment I find the Louise Nicholas case appaling, it was always obvious she was telling the truth why else would she go through the humliation of the case,but almost as obvious that the system would close ranks and let her down. The "secret" information on the accused makes the whole trial a sick joke and brings shame to New Zealand,going home soon so better stay an anonymous male.

Anonymous said...

Atthe march yesterday a number of people said that a source from within the police said another suppression order in the case that was not reported is that Rickards is facing other unrelated rape charges and this may have prejudiced both cases hence the suppression. The source said should the other case result in prosecution Rickards was unlikely to be reappointed to his position as assistant Commander.

Tom said...

Louise Nicholas; What does the jury say now?
Can juries be traced after the event? Wouldn't it be great to get their views of the farcical trial made made public now.

In the old days when 'male supremacy' was deeply entrenched in the culture it was ok to burn herbalists, rape anyone, and definately cool to beat your wife as long as the rule was no thicker than a man's thumb.
As humanists started gaining legal traction to circumvent these outrages, the oldboys and law mechanics who liked things just the way they were, started setting up special committees and mates complaint tribunals to protect their mates and the values they believed in.

I believe the judge in this case is a criminal equal to the rapists.
These collaborating criminals have got to be crushed with some in your face action.

BUT WHO WOULD BE PREPARED TO BREACH THE ORDER ON MASS, IN PUBLIC, AND GET ARRESTED FOR IT? AND MAKE HEAPS OF HELL IN THE COURTROOM?

THEY ALWAYS WIN WHEN WE DON'T DO THINGS IN NUMBERS AND SO OFTEN WHEN SOMEONE TAKES ON THE SYSTEM THEIR 'SUPPORTERS AND PEERS' ARE NOWHERE TO BE SEEN.

Anonymous said...

New Blog with good links to lots of info about the Louise Nicholas case and others : http://louisenicholaslinks.blogspot.com/

Justice said...

Pretty much an open and shut case I thought - Lousie Nicholas may not be lying but she is certainly not in touch with reality. The jury really had no option other than to throw it out. Previous convictions of accused people should not be known to a jury - otherwise people will get accused based on their record and not on their guilt. It is really scarey the hysteria this case has caused and that their are people who think justice wasn't done.

Anonymous said...

On a similar note(sic),

If in WELLINGTON,NZ, don't go to GP DR
TONY CRUTCHLEY for any reason at all. Stay away from that Molesworth Street 'practitioner'. 'nuff said.

Anonymous said...

I am disgusted with the way this case was handled. Wake up New Zealand police, investigate and convict your rapists in uniform!!!
I have lost my faith in my countries justice system.

Anonymous said...

just as it was fading from memory,they're charged again,guess its too late to make it a consecutive,maybe preventative

Amanda said...

Does anybody know how to view the actual leaflet?

Anonymous said...

http://what-ever.9f.com/ Poster copy and text