|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
Convicted
child abuser Peter Ellis has protested his innocence through two trials and
four years and nine months of imprisonment. In that he is not unique. Others
who steadfastly maintain they did not commit the crime include Ross
Applegren, David Tamihere, John Barlow and David Bain. Then there was David
Dougherty who was acquitted third time around, and Arthur Allan Thomas, who
was given a pardon and $1 million for not doing it. The Ellis case
is headed down much the same path as the Thomas saga, and might well provide
a similar ending. In the Thomas case police were found to have planted
evidence; police conduct has been questioned in the A 20/20
television programme last year exposed some disturbing conduct by
investigation boss Detective Colin Eade, alleging he had psychological
problems and that he had intimate relationships with the mothers of two of
the child complainants and tried to have a relationship with a third. Links
were also made between two jurors and the crown case, and during both trials
the methods of questioning of the children and the reliability of their
evidence was called into question. Following the
television programme police launched an inquiry into their own investigation,
and five weeks ago were convinced by Ellis supporters to again visit the
crèche. Ellis applied to the Governor-General for a pardon or a rehearing in
the Court of Appeal, and was pleased when granted the latter as it gives him
the opportunity to clean his slate. His keenness
to do that was illustrated when he refused to attend his first parole hearing
-- he did not wish to leave prison on the basis he was a guilty man. If he
had been granted parole the unusual situation may have arisen of Ellis being
forced to leave prison against his will, which all adds to a perception of
innocence. A second Court
of Appeal hearing is a rare concession, yet the prosecution case has taken on
a more flimsy appearance the more it has been dissected over time. The crown
obviously considers there are sufficient new factors for the court to
consider, but this does not mean the first two hearings reached the wrong
conclusions nor that a third will mean acquittal. It is right though that
Ellis be given another opportunity. If there is a difference between the Ellis case and the other high
profile cases where innocence was strongly proclaimed, it is that real crimes
were committed in the others. If those accused did not do it, someone else
did. In the |
