- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Cops and Rape


Can anyone tell Uncle Bomber why it is that only Ricakrds seems to be photographed coming in and out of the Court room? Why is it that Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are never photographed???????????

Why, oh why?

Why?

WHY?

Here’s a little tale about our brave boys in blue, again – what is it with Police and ritualistic rape involving the forced insertion of police batons or in this case, the novel use of a bottle. Feeling sick to your stomach yet NZ? Time to scrutinize our Police force yet? Oh and don’t you want to know how those Jury members who acquitted these guys for the Louise Nichols pack rape are feeling today?

Rickards denies kidnapping and indecent assault
Suspended police Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards is accused of standing over a handcuffed 16-year-old girl while she was sexually violated with a whisky bottle. The details were made public for the first time yesterday as Rickards and former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum went on trial in the High Court at Auckland after pleading not guilty to kidnapping and indecently assaulting the girl 23 years ago in Rotorua. The case - in which the complainant has name suppression - was discovered by detectives investigating the Louise Nicholas rape allegations on which the trio were acquitted by a jury last year. Crown prosecutor Mark Zarifeh told the court how the girl was in a consensual sexual relationship with Shipton when she was taken to a house in Rotorua where the men and two others she also thought to be police officers were drinking. Mr Zarifeh said she was handed a drink and the men implied they were going to have sex with her, which she refused. Shipton then said something like "she wasn't going to go willingly" and she was picked up and taken to a bedroom struggling and screaming. Shipton allegedly straddled the girl - who was about 1.52m in height and weighed around 50kg - and passed some handcuffs to either Rickards or Schollum, who were standing on either side. The other two men were also in the room with one of them pacing about. Mr Zarifeh said the girl was told "not to fight it" as her underwear was forcibly removed and an indecency was performed using what she thought was the whisky bottle they had been drinking from. Mr Zarifeh said the girl was in agony and screaming for it to stop when Schollum said, "She's had enough". The other men left the room while Schollum stayed behind and told her not to say anything as she lay curled up and crying.

29 Comments:

At 20/2/07 10:52 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why? Good question, perhaps the hotel they are staying in has a courtesy van that conveniently takes them in through the garage entrance at the rear of the courthouse? Funny looking hotel porter they got driving the van though, he looks like he might have done time. I hear the hotel in which they are staying gives new meaning to budget accommodation! I wonder what you have to do to get a room at such a fine establishment. I think in the case the co-accused, there VIP memberships where provided after a lifetime of ill-advised choices and actions.

 
At 20/2/07 11:28 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeeehaaa Clint! Goooo Brad! Bob is da maaaan!

I bet this site is the favorite one for the NZ police to keep up to date every freakin day!

 
At 20/2/07 12:16 pm, Blogger Nobody said...

Why is it that Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are never photographed???????????

I know!! Because pictures of them in handcuffs awaiting escort back to their cells might bias public opinion against them - especially if it were known what their convictions were for...

Oh wait, was I not meant to say that?

 
At 20/2/07 2:27 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

You idiots won't be quite so smug if they were to get acquitted again on the basis of prejudice in the public domain against them would you?

Did you wonder why after the Louise Nicholas trial their respective defence counsel made such a big deal about the 'rumours' going around about their clients.

Get a clue as to the rules of Evidence in this country and how they are applied before you jump up on your high horses.

 
At 20/2/07 2:34 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

For the record Bomber, why the need to scrutinize the NZ police? Most people (esp those from Rotorua) are aware that in Rotorua 20 years ago some pretty bad stuff was done by certain members of the police...however the reasons for this not coming to light until recently are several, most particularly that successive politically appointed commissioners ignored repeated warnings against promoting Rickards on the basis of certain allegations, continued to do so because they wanted to be seen to be 'promoting maori' and 'being responsible for the promotion of the first maori commissioner of police'.

Its drawing a long bow to imply that incidents alledgedly committed by these defendants as well as certain other members of the Rotorua police at that time are symptomatic of any overall police 'culture' existing today. One would hope you are more sensitive than to use the complaints of this woman and those of Louise Nicholas to pursue your seeming personal crusade against police in general.

 
At 20/2/07 2:59 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Grin - my crusade against cops TJ? TJ, I'll make you a deal, you get your cop mates not to pack rape women with batons and bottles, and I'll stop being critical of it okay?

 
At 20/2/07 3:31 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

You fail to address my point Bomber. Do you think actions by several individuals are symptymatic of widespread behavioural practice in the police?

 
At 20/2/07 3:34 pm, Anonymous Semisi Sidewinder said...

Funny Bomber never calls for scrutiny of 'Maaari' culture re all the rapes perpetrated by its individual members...

 
At 20/2/07 3:41 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Oh I miss your point do I TJ? 3 alleged pack rape cases two of which wet to trial already the first completly secret, the second finding the three innocent and NOW a third trial, all from the bad ole knuckle dragging 1980s, that all have some weird ritualistic element involving Police Officers and I should mind my ps and qs about being critical of the Police should I TJ? I'm terribly sorry if I've upset your sensibilities - how dare I criticise, I should learn my place! Will you let me know when I can comment on ritualistic police pack rape? Cheers

 
At 20/2/07 4:04 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

Ever consider why evidence is suppressed Bomber? Go read a book on the rules of Evidence and then you might be more qualified to comment. Hint go to the section entitled 'Prejudice'. Cheers.

 
At 20/2/07 4:12 pm, Blogger bomber said...

Ever consider why evidence is suppressed Bomber? Go read a book on the rules of Evidence and then you might be more qualified to comment. Hint go to the section entitled 'Prejudice'. Cheers.

Oh yes, the fall back legalistic defense – not really what you were aiming for TJ, you wanted me on ‘Crimes against Police’ a few posts back, but you’ll cut me a face saving deal and charge me with the lesser charge of hurting the process will you?

Well that process will be keeping Louise Nichols warm at night now won’t it TJ?

 
At 20/2/07 4:20 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

Actually Bomber my first post was in relation to the question of suppression and whether you would feel happy if the three defendants were acquitted in this case. For the record I think Rickards et al are guilty as hell, and I'm aware of other factors which aren't yet public knowledge, but I certainly don't think Louise Nicholas will sleep any easier at night were these guys to be acquitted due to "being unable to receive a fair trial" due to "prejudicial evidence" made available by you and others grandstanding.

 
At 20/2/07 4:26 pm, Blogger bomber said...

Funny Bomber never calls for scrutiny of 'Maaari' culture re all the rapes perpetrated by its individual members...

Ummmmm, Semisi could you explain how you equate choosing to be a police officer who (allegedly) indulges in ritualistic pack rape with police batons and bottles and choosing to be Maori – how does one ‘choose’ to be maori Semisi? When the sperm touches the egg – at what point is someone ‘choosing’ to be maori? Where as asking to create an independent police complaints authority to investigate Police Officers who choose to be Police Officers and who choose to be (allegedly) ritualistic pack rapers is somehow a double standard is it?

 
At 20/2/07 4:34 pm, Blogger bomber said...

Actually Bomber my first post was in relation to the question of suppression and whether you would feel happy if the three defendants were acquitted in this case. For the record I think Rickards et al are guilty as hell, and I'm aware of other factors which aren't yet public knowledge, but I certainly don't think Louise Nicholas will sleep any easier at night were these guys to be acquitted due to "being unable to receive a fair trial" due to "prejudicial evidence" made available by you and others grandstanding.

Wow man - I'm like having full on Deja Vu - I heard this exact same arguement used last time during Louise's trial, you remember that trial, the one where they got off scott free?

 
At 20/2/07 5:04 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

Which is of course reason to completely overturn established rules of evidence...goood reasoning there. Hey maybe we can just have good old lynch mob justice Bomber Styles...

At the end of the day I think they are guilty, but what sort of justice situation do we have if we don't follow correct procedure?

 
At 20/2/07 5:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should there be guilty verdicts what would an appropriate punishment (revenge) be.

Personally I am not against prison but I know some people are and constantly campaign against criminals going there. Those same people sneer and spit at organisations set up to support victims.

If these offences are proved I hope significant prison sentences are given and I also hope any victims receive genuine, ongoing support.

I am of the retribution persuasion and much hated by those who see their rehab views as so superior. Odd how some usual views have been put on hold in this instance – a little inconsistent, prejudiced and hypocritical I would have thought.

Prison is about much more than punishment, although I believe that is an important role. More importantly it gives out a message to society and victims about what and who matters.

For example to see people in NZ convicted of serious child pornography offences getting fines or probation make me shudder, it gives the message that it is not a serious offence and the children involved don’t really matter

In many countries (i.e. the UK) such offences are taken more seriously and 10 years or more in the slammer can be the outcome. In the US such predators are hunted and punished much more vigorously – rightly in my opinion.

I would suggest most jobs/professions/careers to some extent represent society and a certain percentage in any group will be criminals/perverts whatever. Of course some organisations protect the boys more than others, the catholics did well at protecting their rapists and child abusers.

I used to enjoy Target, although it was disturbing to see those plumbers/electricians et-al doing strange thing with women’s underwear every week. However it didn’t cause me to begin a hate rampage against tradesmen, may have made me a little more careful though.

A little balance and fairness is required perhaps.

 
At 20/2/07 5:13 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Well I would sugest allowing a sexual crimes MO to be able to be used in Court as evidence - the person who complains has their sexual history embarrassingly examined to the public - but the sexual histories of the person being accussed remains secret? I'm sorry, but is the system you want to protect so tightly actually producing justice?

 
At 20/2/07 5:28 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Should there be guilty verdicts what would an appropriate punishment (revenge) be. Personally I am not against prison but I know some people are and constantly campaign against criminals going there. Those same people sneer and spit at organisations set up to support victims. If these offences are proved I hope significant prison sentences are given and I also hope any victims receive genuine, ongoing support. I am of the retribution persuasion and much hated by those who see their rehab views as so superior.

r-i-g-h-t

Where to start – where did I say that I wanted these Police men (if found guilty) hurt or beaten up in prison? Where did I say that? Cops get an even harsher time inside, and getting beaten up every day isn’t in any way going to help them with their power arrogant cop god issues now is it Anon? Just because I think its bloody important that Police are seen to be within the power of the law, suddenly I want them tortured? Lift your game Anon, you spent half that post huffing and puffing for no reason, and as for hypocrisy – aren’t you the one who everytime I talk about the need to change the environment in prisons so that rehabilitation can actually happen scream at me about ‘victim rights’ – dude you are in position to be pulling that high horse stuff.

Oh BTW – what do you think about all those corrupt prison staff – you used to work at a prison didn’t you Anon?

 
At 20/2/07 6:28 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

Fuck the posts on this site amaze me. Here you have a group of SERIAL SEXUAL PREDITORS, and people are trying to defend them?!?!?

Bomber is 100% right on this on. Sometimes, when you give some people a uniform, and "power" it goes to their head. They think that they are invincible, that they are above the law.

An example needs to be made, and I for one hope these bastards receive a harsher sentence, because as police officers they should know better.

 
At 20/2/07 11:13 pm, Anonymous deano said...

But importantly, what are the root causes of these rapes? Root causes, root causes people! Maybe these men were abused as children, or grew up poor. Rickards is Maori, so no doubt he was just rebelling against the loss of his culture. Maybe these men felt powerless growing up with strong mothers. That must be it. Offenders and victims... they are all victims.

They should not go to prison, because prison is bad. That is something I have learnt from reading this blog. It will make them worse. How about restorative justice and family conferencing? Rehabilitation is the key. Maybe Rickards can weave baskets and learn the haka. Then we can make him a cabinet minister.

 
At 21/2/07 1:27 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I woudlnt be suprised if the 3 crooks got off not guilty when they have all the taxpayers money in the world to spend on their defence and legal aid. So far this has amounted to + $250,000.

Fair and Just yeah right.

For all you down to the Tee law abiding Citizens just remember it was not that long ago when the courts wouldn't recognise rape in marriage. Just because its law and the rules doesn't make it right.

 
At 21/2/07 1:15 pm, Anonymous jo said...

for the record Louise Nicholas supports the women who leaked and handed out/emailed the suppressed info, she called to thank me for doing so. She knows that the justice system (old and tired adversarial questioning methods etc) was at fault for the acquittal of these rapist cops...and what makes it so bad is that these womens stories were hidden for so long with the Police Complaints Authority. ARGGHHH...

 
At 21/2/07 1:16 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

legal aid?? umm no anon, only broken asses are eligible for that..you know, dole bludgers.

 
At 21/2/07 2:13 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

I'm a little out of practice Bomber, but as far as I can remember a complainant isn't allowed to have their entire sexual history revealed to the public in cross examination, there may be some minor exceptions to this rule, such as whether the accused has ever had consensual intercourse with one of the alleged offenders, but I am pretty sure it is impermissable for defence to cross examine with a view to portraying the complainant as 'a slut/promiscuous" etc. Stand to be corrected if anyone recalls this better however.

 
At 21/2/07 2:15 pm, Anonymous Fukuoka Gym Nazi said...

Good point Deano. Am pretty sure the institutional faults of capitalism were also at fault.

 
At 21/2/07 2:48 pm, Anonymous jr said...

Hope these b***** get lengthy prison sentences...don't think they will, but the b***** deserve it!!

 
At 21/2/07 5:29 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TJ is correct. See section 23A of the Evidence Act 1908.

 
At 21/2/07 10:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous who said "legal aid?? umm no anon, only broken asses are eligible for that..you know, dole bludgers."


Also broken ass criminals such as rapists who are already in prison are entitled to legal aid.

So tell me why are Mr Shipton and Schollum getting legal aid if they arent dole bludgers????

"Rape trial cops used $250,000
Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 18 February 2007

Two former policemen acquitted of raping Louise Nicholas - and who will face a different trial tomorrow along with Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards - have received about $250,000 in legal aid.


The Legal Services Agency revealed the top 10 amounts of cash paid out in legal aid, excluding GST, during the 2005-2006 year. Waitangi Tribunal cases were not included.

The agency said among the top 10 was $132,050 in legal aid paid to lawyers representing Brad Shipton.

Lawyers representing Bob Schollum have received $116,626.

These costs may include aid for lawyers, expert witnesses, forensic tests, investigators, office expenses and aid to defend subsequent charges.

Shipton, Schollum and Rickards were acquitted of raping Nicholas last March by a High Court jury.

The trio will appear in the High Court at Auckland tomorrow to face charges relating to sexual offending against another woman in the 1980s. Her name is suppressed.

Two weeks have been set aside for the jury trial - much of which is covered by suppression orders.

The Legal Services Agency's top 10 sums paid out during the 2005-06 year ranged from $109,586 to $408,623.

The top sum was given in the Janice Pou case, a now deceased lung cancer victim who tried to sue an international tobacco giant. "

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3965899a6442.html

 
At 23/2/07 12:24 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is lying Mr Rickards???

"Rickards says sex claims accuser lying - Suspended assistant police commissioner Clint Rickards told a court in Auckland a woman at the centre of historic sex allegations was lying as he had never met her."

"Rickards, 46, and former policemen Brad Shipton, 48, and Bob Schollum, 54, deny kidnapping and indecently assaulting the then 16-year-old girl between November 1983 and August 1984."

"Rickards also said he did not get to know Shipton until 1984. "

"Rickards said he did not remember meeting Schollum until 1984 but he was not a "friend who I would go out socialising with".

Under cross-examination Mrs Shipton described the relationship between themselves, Schollum and his wife Judy and the Rickards at the time as "good friends"."

http://stuff.co.nz/3970917a10.html


So who is the lier??? Mrs Shipton or Mr Rickards as Mr Rickards said they weren't mates at the time but Mrs Shipton says they were.....

 

Post a Comment

<< Home