|
The
Press
March 19, 2004
Ellis case
Letter to the Editor
by J J Small, Moncks Spur
Jonathon Harper’s
contribution to the Peter Ellis case (March 15), timely though it is, merits
a caution.
In the New York Review of Books (March 11) Frederick Crews examines two
recent books on opposite sides of the issue that is central to the Ellis
case, namely, recovered memories.
Crews does not completely exonerate the American Psychological Association
from blame (as Harper does), saying that it bowed to pressure to recognize
the validity of this alleged phenomenon, which resulted from the APA’s 1971
concession to some programmes that omitted any scientific training. He also
notes the APA's endorsements (in 1993 and l995) of two distinctly dodgy books
supporting the recovered memory theory. On balance though, the psychological
profession fares much better than the psychiatric, which, as Lynley Hood
showed, was a powerful influence in the Ellis case.
It is to be hoped that any inquiry will examine this theory as carefully as
Crewes does.
The
Press
March 19, 2004
Ellis case
Letter to the Editor
by Chris Watson, Picton
Your Perspective
article (March 15) shows up the flaws in the Eichelbaum report on the Ellis
case. To put this in perspective, one needs to delve into a number of sources
– Law Commission reports, appeal decisions, even ministerial correspondence.
A recurring theme is the confidence that the public must have in the justice
system. The logic seems to go like this: the public must have confidence in
the system; if the system makes a mistake this confidence is affected;
therefore the system makes no mistakes; therefore the public has confidence
in the system.
As long as these reports and judgments have as a first priority the
maintenance of public confidence there will be no finality for our learned
friends.
I will have somewhat more confidence when one of these learned men
voluntarily says “Sorry, mate, I’ll fix it”.
|
