|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
I cannot say
definitively that Peter Ellis is innocent or guilty of the crimes he has been
convicted of but neither can Jonathon Harper, Martin van Beynen or Lynley
Hood. Only Ellis and the children can do that. Harper (August 17)
believes that Ellis and others are "victims of hysteria" and van
Beynen (August 20) refers to "the formidable Lynley Hood" and her "meticulous
book". Hood's book is
structured around her theory of a "witch hunt",
"hysteria" and a "city possessed". In their New Zealand
Law Journal article (September 2003), entitled Christchurch Creche Case: An
Author Possessed, Auckland academics Emma Davies and Jeffrey Masson say that
the "quality of scholarship" in the first three chapters of Hood's
book is "poor" and that Hood carefully selected facts that fitted a
"story" rather than documented a history of events. They are
critical too of the way Hood uses old (1981) research to support her thesis
but ignores more recent research (1996,1999) that does not. Hood's recent
allegations on National Radio (August 9) that therapists, police and
prosecutors are "guilty of repeated misconduct" were surely hysterical
(and possibly libellous), as was her statement that sex abuse workers believe
that "all men are sexual predators and should not be allowed near women
and children". If Harper and van
Beynen are working towards "integrity" and "justice" they
are undermining their case by employing that particular book to support it. |
