|
Allegations of abuse by
NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 1 - 2007 Trial of
Rickards, Shipton, Schollum Week 1 |
|
|
Woman wants conviction for 'poor Louise' The woman at the centre of
historic sex allegations against suspended assistant commissioner Clint
Rickards and two other former policemen has told the court she is trying
"damn hard" to make sure they are convicted, after "poor
Louise Nicholas" lost her case. Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob
Schollum face one charge each of kidnapping and one charge each of indecent
assault on the then 16-year-old girl, in Rotorua between November 1983 and
August 1984. The three men were acquitted by a
High Court jury last March of the rape, sexual violation and indecent assault
of Mrs Nicholas when she was a Rotorua teenager in the 1980s. Schollum's lawyer Paul Mabey QC
asked the woman about discrepancies in the statements she made when she first
contacted police in 2004, and more recent comments. Mr Mabey asked the woman why in
2004 she had not mentioned she had three or four drinks at the house where
she alleged the incident took place. Under strained testimony, the
woman said she had many things going on in her life at the time, including
looking after children and dealing with the breakup of a relationship, for
which she had been receiving counselling. "You come here to court, to
this trial ... you give this jury very detailed accounts of things you say
occurred. "I'm interested to know why
you did not give police that detail when you had the chance," Mr Mabey
said. The woman replied the police had
not asked her how much she had had to drink, but if she had been asked she
would have told them. Mr Mabey asked why her
recollection during this trial was different to earlier comments she had
made. The woman said "poor Louise
Nicholas" had lost her case, and "I'm trying damn hard to make sure
these guys are done for what they've done." Mr Mabey asked if that included
making things up. She responded that she would only
say the truth. Mr Mabey said her evidence was
embellishment and lies in the wake of the Nicholas verdict. He said her evidence was a
"lie by you to impress these people (the jury)". She replied, "No, it's
not". Cross-examination was expected to
continue for most of the day. |
