Why they were found not guilty

Peter Metcalf has done a post explaining why he thinks the three ex-cops were found not guilty in both of the last two trials. He doesn’t express an opinion as to whether or not they did it, but says neither should have been prosecuted as they were unwinnable.

He says both complainants lacked credibility (that doesn’t mean they were not telling the truth) with Nicholas having lied about a previous rape allegation, and the latest complainant having killed her own case when she said “I know poor Louise Nicholas lost her case and I am trying damn hard to make sure these guys are done”.

He is also very critical of the prosecution’s desperate attempt to discredit Rickards as a “practised liar” as he had been an undercover cop. That prosecutor will never be able to prosecute a case involving undercover cops again, or his own words will be used against him.

I just think it is a pity complaints were not made at the time, when there would have been a better chance of convictions if the rapes did occur. Having said that though, I can understand the reluctance to go to the Police, when you are complaining about three officers,

Comments (64)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment