|
The
Press
August 30, 2003.
Ellis case
Letter to the Editor
by Elizabeth Smyth (Waltham Aug 28)
Three
young adults have recently come forward to tell of their experience at the
hands of a man convicted by jury of child abuse.
Their attempts to speak are denied immediately by the pro-Ellis campaign.
Their ongoing memories of child abuse are met with allegations of
manipulation and false memories by a list of the fashionable and famous.
What are the credentials of those who discuss these family's backgrounds and
history? Why is Hood's book seen as the true story when it is based on the
analysis of children and families whom she has never met or interviewed?
To disregard children's allegations of abuse, plays into the hands of those
who abuse. Paedophiles can also harbour "false memories". They have
much to gain — the ongoing support of family and friends, or their own
wellbeing at the hands of fellow prisoners.
The
Press
August 30, 2003.
Ellis case
Letter to the Editor
by N Buchanan (Papanui, Aug 20)
Why is it that the glut of pro-Ellis articles get the large headline and
page-lead treatment, yet when the victims and their families are finally
goaded into responding they are given small headlines and relegated to the
bottom of the page?
I am not at all surprised that the children chose to speak to the Wellington paper and
not to The Press.
Meanwhile, Lynley Hood's comments to the children are extremely patronising
and she doesn't seem able to consider the idea that she might be wrong. This
is not about repressed memory, recovered memory, or "implanted"
memory. This is a backlash against children as witnesses.
Those children knew what happened to them at the time and they know now. The
only positive thing to come of all this coverage is that every man and woman
knows who Ellis is and what he looks like and thus can keep their children
well clear.
I look forward, in hope, to a more balanced approach from The Press.
|
