|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
Tim Barnett says: "I am proud of
this report. It was criticised from all sides. I am sure that I sound like a
dumbarse politician when I say that suggests we may just have got it
right?" You're right Tim, you
do sound like a dumbarse politician and the report lends strength to those
who believe that there is more to your light weight conclusions than meets
the eye. The report leaves Peter Ellis in limbo! You have avoided the
main issue in the case, namely that apart from evidence that Peter Ellis
worked at the Creche, no other credible evidence was adduced at the trial. There was no tangible
evidence of soiling or damage to clothing or person following the alleged
scatological incidents, no clinical evidence of the physical injury that
might be expected from the activities alleged, no corroboration. There was
much to suggest that opportunity never existed and that the bizarre
activities alleged, had they occurred, could not have remained undetected. The convictions appear
to have hinged on controversial video interviews recorded by children under
hectoring and stressful conditions, and the evidence of ‘experts’ admitted
under the dubious section 23G of the Evidence Act. It is difficult to see
what more is needed to illustrate how unsafe was the conviction and to compel
an enquiry. In a fair world,
parliament would send back your report for further consideration, but I'm not
holding my breath. Look out for another, larger, petition! Thanks
for the opportunity to comment... |
