Wednesday, February 28, 2007



An ugly picture

The jury is out in the latest police rape trial. But regardless of what their verdict ultimately is, it has painted an ugly picture of our (former) police. Shipton, who has admitted having a sexual relationship with the victim, comes across as downright predatory, using the power of his uniform to get into bed with a girl 8 years his junior. Meanwhile, Schollum's his actions in having his wife lie for him raises questions about when else he has suborned perjury. Neither makes them guilty of rape (that really does seem to be a matter of whose word the jury believes - something which historically hasn't gone well for rape victims), but I am very glad that they are no longer in the police.

13 comments:

"I am very glad that they are no longer in the police"

I guess the police had to reluctantly dispense with their services - their current place of residence doesn't allow them out very much - as will no doubt be made clear shortly.

Posted by Anonymous : 2/28/2007 03:11:00 PM

"that really does seem to be a matter of whose word the jury believes "

be careful, are you proposing a standard other than innocent until proven guilty?

Otherwise the defense should almost always win a "he says she says" as opposed to equal chances to believe the defence or the procecution.

GNZ

Posted by Anonymous : 2/28/2007 06:56:00 PM

BTW i think the guys are guilty (but whether theyare guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the information available to the court may be another question.
GNZ

Posted by Anonymous : 2/28/2007 06:57:00 PM

Genius: be careful, are you proposing a standard other than innocent until proven guilty?

No, just noting that ultimately, the case will turn on questions of credibility and who the jury believes.

And I agree, after all this time, they may not be able to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 2/28/2007 09:02:00 PM

Schollum's actions in having his wife lie for him raises questions about when else he has suborned perjury.

Unless I missed something, aren't you talking about Brad and Sharon Shipton? Either way, I think it's a very good idea not convict anyone of perjury, or suborning perjury, in a trial by blog.

Posted by Craig Ranapia : 2/28/2007 10:55:00 PM

Craig is right - it was Sharon Shipton whose evidence appears to have been contradicted by her cousin's evidence.

Ummm... I know a lot of people know some of the information that has been suppressed, but hinting at it on someone else's blog may not be fiar to the blog owner.

Posted by Deborah : 2/28/2007 11:05:00 PM

Although in Clint Rickards case it is his word against hers (since he testified and has denied the charges), in the other cases it isn't really.

Neither Brad Shipton or Bob Schollum gave any testimony - so they can't have formally denied the event happened. They must just be arguing that the defendents testimony doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Posted by Maia : 3/01/2007 12:15:00 AM

Don't think there's enough evidence against Rickards.

Fairly certain he'll PERF after the trial, tho'.

Posted by Insolent Prick : 3/01/2007 11:11:00 AM

Craig & Deborah: whoops - corrected.

I think Mrs Shipton's actions speak for themselves. Whether the police decide to prosecute her for it is up to them.

Maia: People are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lies with the crown. The accused don't have to say a thing - it is the crown that has to make its case, and prove it to beyond a reasonable doubt. What the jury will be assessing is whether the victim's testimony and surrounding evidence is sufficient to convict.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/01/2007 11:57:00 AM

Shipton's lies have been made public. That says it all. Guilty.

Posted by Anonymous : 3/01/2007 12:46:00 PM

Not guilty.

The fact that Shipton and Schollum are convicted rapists currently serving time for -another- separate pack rape can now be shouted out loud.

That poor jury.

Posted by james cairney : 3/01/2007 12:54:00 PM

And here's the link.

The fact that the suppression orders have been lifted suggests there aren't any more pending trials. it also means I can point out to anon that Schollum and Shipton left the police long ago, rather than being forced out because they are in jail.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/01/2007 01:20:00 PM

As Peter Creswell has pointed out, there is no guarantee Assistant Commissioner Rickards' 'employment issues' (currently being 'addressed' by the Police) won't see him reinstated.

To put it crudely: Being a sleazy prick whose attitude towards women can be most politely described as 'predatory' isn't necessarily a crime. He wasn't convicted of indecent assault and kidnapping, and deserves to treated accordingly by the NZPF.

But you've got ask whether what did come out during the trial is the picture of a man who is fit to be, effectively, one promotion away from being this country's top cop?

I don't think so, and just hope the Police are getting their legal ducks in a row to sack him. It would take care, and real political courage, but it would send a message that the uniform comes with enormous public respect - and it can never be taken for granted by anyone from the Commissioner down the rawest recruit.

Posted by Craig Ranapia : 3/01/2007 01:41:00 PM