|
The Dominion Post
August 23 2003
Give Ellis a break
Letter to the Editor
by Kelvin Brayshaw
(Levin)
My thanks to columnist Rosemary McLeod (Opinion, August 14) for her insights
into why it is hard for Peter Ellis to be perceived as innocent despite his
protestations.
How much easier it seemed for his co-accused, female workers from the same Christchurch creche
who, if I recall rightly, had charges quickly dropped. The women appear to
have blended back into their communities and been able to get on with their
lives with a minimum of public reaction.
The question of witness credibility seems to have been settled without much
fuss in their cases. Some of these witnesses must have been the same people
to give evidence against Mr Ellis.
Give him a break.
The Dominion Post
August 23 2003
Easier now to investigate
Letter to the Editor
by Richard Christie
(Christchurch)
The 17-year-old complainant in the Peter Ellis case has understandably broken
his silence (Weekend Magazine, August 16-17), despite his obvious pain, due
to the unforgivable provocation of Lynley Hood's supporters, not to mention
others who won't believe children when they disclose abuse.
"Tom" stated, "I remember lots of it vividly". This is
good news for the families of those abused, as now the issue can be put to
bed.
Tom's vivid memories might now be put before a royal inquiry. He is no longer
an inarticulate infant. As a young man his vivid memories of black leather,
witches' hats and laundry chutes should make powerful testimony indeed.
Due to the vividness of his memories, it should prove an easy matter to
cross-examine and verify the veracity of much more besides.
The Dominion Post
August 23 2003
Flamboyant, not dangerous
Letter to the Editor
by J Hayes (Northland)
It was not sexual abuse. Peter Ellis was guilty of inappropriate behaviour at
times and creche management was a little lax in monitoring the situation, but
these are not indictable offences.
Although Ellis' flamboyant nature, his outrageous sense of humour, his
teasing, the games he concocted, would have delighted most of the children
most of the time, some of these children would have found it quite scary.
It's no surprise that several children developed anxiety symptoms.
Like many people, I believed the truth would prevail in the court system. Not
so. Ellis was doomed from the start. The questioning of the children was
based on the assumption that abuse had occurred.
If the children disclosed anything, it was believed in it's entirety. If the
children didn't disclose anything, they were deemed to be in
"denial". Not one child disclosed anything during the first
interviews.
It took months to get the "evidence". The case needs to be looked
at with fresh eyes.
It needs to be reviewed by someone who is totally independent of the present
judiciary.
The Dominion Post
August 23 2003
Dismayed by Hood's dismay
Letter to the Editor
by Pye Bowden
(Roseneath)
I
write in reference to Lynley Hood's "dismay" at the statements of
the children whose evidence resulted in the Peter Ellis child abuse
convictions (August 18).
As a therapist in the so-called "sex abuse industry", I had to have
years of training and experience before I was considered qualified to
practice. The field is complex and the understanding of memory is growing all
the time.
From this background, I watch in amazement as Hood tells the children that
they did not experience what they know they did experience.
In fact, it is highly unlikely that thoughts can be implanted on such ascale,
in children from loving and stable backgrounds.
Nor is it likely they would come forth unbidden, in such a heartfelt manner
after all these years. Though memory is generally now regarded as malleable,
particularly in relation to detail and insignificant events, recent brain
research shows that memory of significant events is strongly imprinted and
tends to be stable over time.
When Van der Kolk, one of the world's leading authorities on trauma, states that
there is no evidence that traumatic memories can be simply implanted in
people's minds, one is dismayed that someone of Hood's standing should take a
stance in respect of the children.
Come to think of it, isn't interfering in the integrity of the mind just what
this process is all about?
|
