John Dewar, the former head of Rotorua’s CIB, convicted and imprisoned for covering up police rape allegations, is planning to challenge his convictions and calls his accuser an “imposter”. Dewar served 19 months of a 4½- year prison term for trying to cover up alleged sexual offending by serving police officers against former Rotorua woman Louise Nicholas. He was paroled in May last year and is mounting an application for leave to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court.

In the article, Dewar says

“She needs to accept the jury’s decision. She was not a rape victim, no-one has ever been convicted, the woman is an imposter.”

Then later goes on to say, in regards to his motivation for appealing his conviction

“I am a victim – the courts don’t always get it right, juries don’t always get it right.”

So, Dewar doesn’t think the courts get it right when it comes to him, and how he is a victim, but when it comes to Louise, the courts totally got it right and she was not a rape victim? Naturally. It’s so hard for men to get a break in society these days, always being wronged by the system and all that.

(Aside from the hideously inconsistent views of the court system he seems to have, I find it offensive that he says, flat out, “she was not a rape victim”. Like somehow he gets to tell her (and all the rest of us) what she was? Bro, please. You don’t get to proclaim things with that kind of authority. (Yes, I am aware of the outcome of the case, but what I am trying to get at is, Dewar can’t tell us, with supreme authority, what Louise is or isn’t, because we aren’t talking about something that happened to him. And when he is claiming he was wronged by the courts, but acting like she couldn’t have been? That’s a pretty good example of inconsistency and denial, to say the least).


  1. ms p says:

    Totally agree with your post. That article had me fuming…

  2. AnneE says:

    Yes, thank you. Your point about the inconsistency is brilliant.

  3. Boganette says:

    Well said. It’s bullshit. And Dewar is a stupid fuckbag.

  4. Amanda says:

    Yeah, slandering Nicholas and defending your little power heirachy still makes you look guilty as, bro.

  5. steph says:

    It’s not even a subtle example of extreme dissonance: it’s like “accept the jury’s decision”, then almost immediately after, “juries don’t always get it right”.