dodgy rickards and co....

How disgraceful that this obvious sex offender has been found not guilty - well i could sit here and rant all friggin day about those
ba******ds but i wont. And to top it off, did anyone see how arrogant and defiant he was when he came out of court - what a dick [}][}][}]

I doubt he will get his job back after those comments. As for the jury not knowing those other two were in jail for rape, a relative with inside info told me months ago they were, so if I knew a lot of other people must have. But, isn't it ou law that previous crimes of the accused are not allowed to be bought up in court??? Doesn't seem to apply for an accuser though.

Same applies in the UK too. Its so you only consider the evidence relevant to the case. I did jury service years back and one case we found our afterwards about this guys string of crimes. We had already found him guilty so for those who felt really bad about him going to prison didn't feel quite so bad once they heard that.
As for the above case, seems to me that there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.

I'm with MM re not enough evidence to convict. They are looking at charges against Mrs Shipton for perjury after her cousin testified against her evidence.

As far as the jury knowing...I heard from someone else months back about the two being convicted, but I also know from those who I spoke to that it wasn't common knowledge as such, except, it would seem, amongst those in the media and the legal profession etc. There were no statements as such on the internet, only hints, mainly because I think of the prosecutions for contempt of court for those who made the info public straight after the last trial...

I got emailed (about 32nd hand) a copy of the phamplet Louise Nicholl's supporters handed out. I thought that it must have gotten fairly widely distributed but obviously at least 12 people didn't know!

Under current law they're not allowed to take it into account. It works both ways and prevents complainants previous sexual histories being taken into account as well (so the defence in rape trials can't try to portray them as being promiscuous, etc...) but if the jury was allowed to know these guys had been acquitted of a similar charge (therefore implying they had been wrongly accused), I don't see why they weren't allowed to know they had been convicted also to balance things up...

As an aside, I really wish that they would stop talking about these cases as if the women are the ones who have made the decision to take the defendants to court under their own steam. They haven't. The police take the cases, the complainants are only witnesses. The police will only put the case in front of a court if they feel there is enough evidence to convict. Unfortunately in this case there wasn't.

Sorry Kath but get off your bloody high horse!! How can you say hes an obvious sex offender when all you know its whats been in the media? It surprises me when people think they can make an accurate decision on topics such as this when at the end of the day they dont know diddly squat about the situation. Its a pretty arrogant way of thinking!

There is only a handfull of people in NZ which can make the call, and they are the people which have been in court throughout the whole case, and been presented every single piece of evidense and been able to thouroughly examine and consider everything.

I thought his wife lying would have convicted him anyway.

And how do you know it wasnt the cousin who lied?

quote:Originally posted by FencerMan

And how do you know it wasnt the cousin who lied?

Why would she????? Like you said, we didn't hear all the evidence. There must be enough evidence that the wife did the lying as she is going to be done for perjury.

haha fencerman....

I am certainly not coming off my high horse - i quite like it from up here :D:D

The guy has had several previous allegations on him, and he has just be damn bloody lucky to get off scot free......I wouldnt trust the bugger as far as i could throw him - and his wifes a lying bugger too.......from what benefit would the cousin have from lying???? Tell me that[?][?] Absolutley none whatsoever.

And yes, i will still call him a sex offender because that is what he is- and if he wasnt, why hasnt he got his old job back asap huh??? Cos he is guilty as - or should i say hes innocent as just like O.J - maybe the shared the same lawyer?????? [xx(][xx(]

Fencerman I dont normally get into these discussions but do you really """" know diddly squat about the situation""""
There are times when it pays to shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!

......And sorry fencerman, the jury was not presented every single bit of information as your quote - they werent told of the other two being in jail now, were they???

quote:Originally posted by Toni - Northland

quote:Originally posted by FencerMan

And how do you know it wasnt the cousin who lied?

Why would she????? Like you said, we didn't hear all the evidence. There must be enough evidence that the wife did the lying as she is going to be done for perjury.

I think Shaun's still off looking for an answer to this poser.

It came out this afternoon that the Jury did know that the two of them were currently serving sentences for rape - and still aquitted them!

As for his old job, it seems that he will have it back! How can you really be so sure he's guilty just because he was accused of it? If we were to work off that we may as well say trevor (TITPLR) is also guilty for assaulting his neighbour - oh but hang on he was found innocent, just the same as Rickards and the other two.

quote:from what benefit would the cousin have from lying???? Tell me that Absolutley none whatsoever.

Who says she has to have a reason? There are alot of wacky people who do things which to a sane and rational person seem peculier - once again take TITPLR's situation..... Although im not saying that she did make it up either, i wasnt there so there is no way i can make that call, same as everyone else in NZ other than the 15 or so people that spent the last week in that court room.