I suspect the reporting on this trial will just get worse

In 2003, a woman was brutally attacked and raped. A couple of years later a police trainee gave his fingerprints during training and they matched a fingerprint at the scene. That man is now on trial.

I think I have to give Radio NZ’s reporter points for trying (listen here). She emphasised the fact that no-one was denying that the woman had been attacked and raped.

But TV3 gets no points for this:

It is alleged the rape happened in 2003

The rape did take place in 2003, ‘it is alleged’ that this man was the attacker. Is it that hard to grasp?

Action in Christchurch

Jo reports on the Christchurch demo at the start of the John Dewar trial.

Not about sex #7893478

“Arrest in sex case”

I’ve said it all already.

Untold stories

Accused teacher says life shattered

Now I know there will be issues with what the media can report, but even so there is a huge disparity in this article between the teacher’s viewpoint and that of the girl. We hear all about his “supporters” and how this has shattered his life and his (rather short sighted) assertion that this is “anyone’s worst nightmare”.

So what about her. How has this affected her life. Can she sleep at night? Does she have nightmares? Is she still at school or is she too afraid? Is she ostracised there? Is she able to concentrate? Are her parents supporting her? Is she being blamed for what happened to her? How does she feel being accused of lying?

Because these are the stories that so often go untold.

We believe Louise Nicholas!

Protests at the start of John Dewar’s trial – be there!

(Please forward to your networks. Apologies for cross posting.)

In the early 1990s John Dewar persuaded Louise Nicholas not to make a formal complaint against Bob Schollum, Brad Shipton and Clint Rickards.

He has now been charged with attempting to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. His trial will begin on Tuesday 24th June.

Come along and protest this cover-up and show your support for Louise Nicholas and other survivors of police rape.

Wellington
Rally 12pm, Tuesday 24th July outside the High Court, Molesworth Street (opposite parliament)

Organised by Wellington Action Against Rape. For more information contact gracemaiamillar@gmail.com

Auckland
Picket 5pm, Tuesday 24th July outside Britomart

Contact Ruth Amato on 021 253 0118

Christchurch

Information and interactive street theatre 12pm, Tuesday 24th July outside Police Centre, Cathedral Square.

____________________________________

Who is John Dewar?
John Dewar was the head of the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) of Rotorua police in the early 1990s.

What is he being charged with?
John Dewar is being charged with four charges of attempting to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice between 1993 and 1994.

When is his trial?
His trial will begin on Tuesday July 24th.  He has pleaded ‘not guilty’.

What are the charges about?
In the early 1990s John Dewar persuaded Louise Nicholas not to make a formal complaint against Bob Schollum, Brad Shipton and Clint Rickards.  He did not investigate the complaint properly.  Judge Lance criticised his conduct: “I am of the view [John Dewar's] failure to record and detail these allegations was not only remarkable, it was utterly incredible. [...] After all, here was an experienced detective inspector investigating allegations of serious sexual offending. During his interview with the complainant, he is told of allegations of potentially serious sexual offending by three other named and currently serving police officers.”

Weren’t Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton found innocent?
They were found not guilty – there wasn’t enough evidence 20 years later.  If John Dewar hadn’t tried to protect his mates, and investigated the complaints properly the trials might have gone very differently.

Why does this matter?
Women who were raped by police in Rotorua in the 1980s didn’t make complaints, because they thought no-one would believe them.  What happened when Louise Nicholas tried to make a complaint showed that they were right.  When the police protect their own from accusations of rape, as John Dewar did in this case, then you are giving police a license to act with impunity.

What can people who believe Louise Nicholas do?
There will be pickets outside the High Court in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch on the first day of the trial, Tuesday 24. The details are:

Wellington
Rally 12pm, Tuesday 24th July outside the High Court, Molesworth Street (opposite parliament)

Organised by Wellington Action Against Rape. For more information contact gracemaiamillar@gmail.com

Auckland
Picket 5pm, Tuesday 24th July outside Britomart

Contact Ruth Amato on 021 253 0118

Christchurch

Information and interactive street theatre 12pm, Tuesday 24th July outside Police Centre, Cathedral Square.

This headline says it all

‘Court hears details of alleged sexual assault of murdered girl’

In other words, they accept the murder happened but not the sexual assault. I wrote about this type of discrepancy here.

…but men can’t control themselves

This article isn’t directly about sexual assault, but the opinions quoted are evidence of the thinking behind victim blaming: that if women wear revealing or “sexy” clothes then they are responsible for how men react, not the men themselves.

Frankly, if the driver can’t deal with distractions he shouldn’t be driving a vehicle.

“Too sexy for my bus”, German woman told

Reuters | Tuesday, 17 July 2007

A German bus driver threatened to throw a 20-year-old sales clerk off his bus in the southern town of Lindau because he said she was too sexy, a newspaper has reported. “Suddenly he stopped the bus,” the woman named Debora C. told Bild newspaper. “He opened the door and shouted at me ‘Your cleavage is distracting me every time I look into my mirror and I can’t concentrate on the traffic. If you don’t sit somewhere else, I’m going to have to throw you off the bus.’”

The woman, pictured in Bild wearing her snug-fitting summer clothes with the plunging neckline, said she moved to another seat but was humiliated by the bus driver.

A spokesman for the bus company defended the driver.

“The bus driver is allowed to do that and he did the right thing,” the spokesman said. “A bus driver cannot be distracted because it’s a danger to the safety of all the passengers.”

This article isn’t bad, the opinions stated are quoted, rather than presented as those of the article/news source/author, but I really would have liked to see this addressed more critically, and treated as evidence of widespread, sexist attitudes, rather than filed under ‘Oddstuff’ as something quirky.

Allegedly again

Unfortunately this article doesn’t seem to be following the lead of this one. Every mention of abuse is preceded by “allegedly” or words to that effect.

I’ve outlined the problems with this here, but I think it’s worth noting other examples.

A positive example

Here’s a positive example of how newspapers can – and should – not question the veracity of what happened to the person who was sexually assaulted, but at the same time not assume the guilt of the perpetrator.

If only more journalists did the same.

A 54-year-old car salesman is to appear in court today on charges relating to the abduction and sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in West Auckland two weeks ago.

So the article assumes the events have happened, but states that the man has been charged with them, not that he did them.

The girl was walking along West Coast Rd in Glen Eden on her way to visit a friend when she was lured into a car.

She was sexually and physically abused during her 45-minute ordeal in West Auckland.

So there is no use of the word allegedly here, that these events happened is not questioned.

The man had allegedly asked the teenager for directions, then insisted she get into his car to show him the way.

Here the word allegedly is used, and whilst it’s not the ideal phrasing it is only done here because it is describing his involvement in what happened, rather than just what happened.

The man will appear in the Rotorua District Court to face charges of abduction, sexual violation, and assault with intent to commit sexual violation of a girl aged between 12 and 16 years.

A straightforward statement of fact, with no judgement implied on either his guilt or her truthfulness/reliability.

How it could be done

This article has nothing to do with rape, but these lines stood out:

The owner of New Zealand’s largest kennel and cattery has been charged with animal cruelty – but he claims he’s the victim, not the animals he cares for.

Two cat owners returned from their holidays and claim their pets – Choco, a purebred Tonkinese, had a dislocated hip and a ginger cat called Basil was dehydrated – were injured in Sean Cleary’s care.

What the author has done is reported the harm done to the animals without assuming the guilt/responsibility of the accused.

I’ve written here about the use of the word ‘allegedly’, and how in rape cases it’s often used not just to not imply the guilt of the perpetrator, but to question whether the event actually occurred. The above article is an indication of how that issue could be tackled.