KEY POINTS:
The trial of Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Clint Rickards ended explosively last week with the acquittal of all three men on abduction and indecency charges, followed by the revealation that Shipton and Schollum were already serving time for rape and kidnapping.
I would question just how many
people were surprised to hear of the men's prior convictions.
Although suppression orders have been in place since Shipton and Schollum's sentencing in 2005, this is a small country, and these were high-profile men.
The internet tends to make a mockery of any suppression order, and certainly the supporters of Louise Nicholas did their level best to inform the public of the convictions.
And given that neither Shipton nor Schollum arrived at the trial through the front doors of the court - surely the jury might have had some inkling that all was not as it appeared.
I suppose in light of the fact that these trials came down to a question of credibility, it's only natural that some people are demanding people's criminal records be made available to jury members to help them make a decision on the trustworthiness of a defendant.
In historic cases like this one, where there is no, or very little, forensic evidence, it comes down to a question of who the jury believes.
I would be totally against the removal of one of the fundamental principles of our justice system - that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
Each and every case must be tried on its merits, and if the evidence in one case is not sufficient to convict, then it would be very wrong to convict purely on the basis of an earlier trial.
You can't be tried for the same crime twice, and allowing the records of criminals into court would, in effect, be doing that.
Perhaps a fairer system would be to introduce the Scottish verdict of "not proven" in cases where it comes down to a "she said, he said".
Historic crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute, and if the evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt, a jury must acquit under our justice system.
In the Scottish system, if a jury finds there is not enough evidence to warrant a conviction but jury members have doubts about the innocence of the defendant, they can bring in a verdict of not proven, in effect telling the defendant that they may have got away with it technically, but they didn't pull the wool over the eyes of the jury.
Other people have called for a statute of limitations on the laying of charges. Again, I wouldn't support the introduction of a time limit.
It might take time for a man or woman to gather the courage and strength they need to lay a complaint and go through the court system, and no one would deny that there are a number of dirtbags inside who absolutely deserve to be there who must have thought they'd got away with it.
The reporting of these trials has made for gruesome reading. The 80s was a time of huge social upheaval and change.
All the constraints came off - economically, socially and morally - and while it was a time of excitement and exhilaration, there was a dark side, too. And we've been unwilling spectators to the dark side over the last couple of years.
Predatory men, group sex, sad, pathetic young women - it doesn't paint a pretty picture.
Now there's just the Bazley report to come before a curtain can be drawn on that unsavoury chapter in our past.
And I suppose there'll be more to come on Clint Rickards' battle to get back to work as assistant police commissioner.
I don't really see how he can. His triumphalist chest beating, branding the women who levelled accusations against him as liars and attacking the investigating officers who brought the charges against him may have been understandable, given the pressure he was under, but it probably didn't help his case.
A thoughtful, considered statement along the lines of how being on the other side of the system can only help him become a better officer might have been a wiser option to take. But then, we don't always take the wise option, do we?
And some people end up paying a heavy price many years later.