|
|
The Christchurch Civic Crèche Case |
|
|
|
|
A City Possessed: Lynley Hood's book A City
Possessed appears to have inspired a petition, a $100,000 reward for
information and a paid advertisement of excerpts from interviews of child
complainants (Sunday Star-Times, 8 August 2003). Unlike some of the
petitioners, we cannot comment on the guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis, but
if the research of the first three chapters of Lynley Hood's book is anything
to go by, one should be cautious about the neutrality of her analysis.
Weaving a story and selecting facts to fit the story is not the same as
carefully documenting the history of events. Hood describes herself, over and over, as objective. She
promises to write (p 31) "as fairly, accurately and sensitively" as
she can. She claims (p 32) that she "steered a steady course through the
shoals and tempests of the controversy, illuminating the context along the
way providing a balanced picture of the apparently conflicting, but
presumably equally valid, points of view". She declares that she
especially does not want to "oversimplify the world around us". Our comments relate to the first three chapters of her
book, the theoretical foundation for her later statements. , These chapters
are devoted to explaining the issues around child abuse. Hood writes (p 34):
"At the core of these arguments are questions that must be addressed:
Just how widespread is child sexual abuse, and just how serious are the
consequences? (Or, to put it another way: what exactly does the research say,
and what exactly does it mean?)". We agree. These questions are crucial. She asks: "Is the true prevalence of child sexual
abuse higher than one in four, lower than one in 1,000 or somewhere
between?... Clearly the only answer is: we don't know (italics in
original)." But in 1994, Professor David Finkelhor published a review of
prevalence studies with large samples in 19 countries, including New Zealand
("The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse", (1994) 18
Child Abuse & Neglect 409). He found that the variability was between
seven and 36 per cent for women and three and 29 per cent for men. In the 1990s, two New Zealand prevalence studies were
published in peer reviewed scientific journals. In a University of Otago
study by Jessie Anderson and colleagues, 32 per cent of a random sample of
3000 adult women (up to 65 years old) stated they had unwanted sexual
experiences before they turned 16 ("Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse
experiences in a community sample of women", [1993] Jo of American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 911). Twenty per cent reported
unwanted touching of their genitals, or attempted or completed sexual
intercourse. Professor David Fergusson and colleagues' research on a
birth cohort of 1,019 18-year-olds in the Christchurch urban area found that
17.3 per cent of girls disclosed unwanted sexual experiences prior to sixteen
with 12.6 per cent reporting genital stimulation and 5.6 per cent vaginal,
oral or anal intercourse ("Childhood sexual abuse and psychiatric
disorder in young adulthood", [1996] JAACAP 1355). Fergusson and his
colleagues describe their data as a "lower level estimate",
explaining "it may be that the estimates in this study were influenced
by underreporting and it may be that, at age 18 years, a number of those
exposed to abuse may not have been emotionally ready to disclose CSA [child
sexual abuse]". Despite this, one in 20 young women described attempted
or completed vaginal, oral or anal intercourse. Two years before the publication of A City Possessed,
David Fergusson and Paul Mullen published an evidence- based review of
childhood sexual abuse research (Childhood Sexual Abuse - An Evidence Based
Perspective 1999. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications p 28). They concluded that
despite methodological limitations of individual studies, "exposure to
some form of unwanted sexual attention during childhood is all too common....
The majority of studies suggesting prevalence [for females] somewhere in the
interval between 15% and 30%...with most estimates for males lying within the
interval between 3% to 15%. Of perhaps greater concern is the number of
children who report being exposed to acts of sexual abuse that involve sexual
penetration. The estimates suggest that up to 13 % of females and 11.3% of
males may report abuse of this severity, with the majority of studies
reporting prevalence figures in the range of 5% to 10%". Data from incidence studies (commonly the number of
reported cases in a set period of time) are not directly comparable to these
prevalence surveys (commonly the proportion of population recalling abuse
over their lifetime). They each offer different lenses on the extent of child
sexual abuse. Hood chooses not to clarify the distinction, highlighting
whichever produces the lower number. She selectively emphasises the 1981
American National Study of Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect
(p 69), which found the incidence of sexual abuse among American children to
be 1 in 500 (Washington DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services). Why 1981?
After all, she was writing in 2000. Why did she not visit the US Government
Department of Health and Human Services website and find the 1996 study,
which showed "substantial and significant increases in the incidence of
child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence study was
conducted" (Sedlak & Broadhurst, Third national incidence study of
child abuse and neglect. US DHHS). Hood states that it is not known whether "most women
who were molested as children experience some difficulties in their adult
life, or is sexual abuse just one of many adverse childhood experiences that
may or may not cause lasting harm?" A review by Kendall-Tackett and
colleagues of 45 studies of the effects of child sexual abuse shows that
sexually abused children have more symptoms than non-abused children, with
abuse compared to other adverse childhood experiences accounting for 15-45
per cent of the variance in symptoms ((1993) 113 Psychological Bulletin 154).
Symptoms included fears, behaviour problems, sexualised behaviours and poor
self-esteem with no one symptom characterising abused children. In the longer term, although some survivors show no ill
effects according to the measures used, many experience serious problems
throughout life, particularly when the abuser is a family member, when there
are multiple incidents of abuse and when the abuse involves attempted or
actual intercourse. Even in studies that control for other adverse childhood
experiences, child sexual abuse has been linked to suicide, depression,
psychiatric admissions, drug abuse and eating disorders (See Fergusson &
Mullen 1999; Neuman et al. "The long-term sequelae of childhood sexual
abuse in women: A meta-analytic review", Child Maltreatment 1996; 6-16
and Putman,"Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse"
[2003] JAACAP 369). Abuse survivors are ill more often and have surgery more
often (Felitti et al. "Relationship of childhood abuse and household
dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults", [1998] Am
Jo of Preventive Medicine 245). As Anna Salter, a prominent forensic
psychologist, recently commented: "I had not read the literature on the
impact of child sexual abuse carefully for some time ... I initially planned
on reading ALL the literature on the sequelae of child sexual abuse, but that
grandiose plan faded as I read for months on end without being able to tap
into all the research. At the end of several months, however, I was convinced
of one thing. Child sexual abuse was like getting bitten by a rattlesnake:
Some kids recovered completely, and some didn't; but it wasn't good for
anybody" (Predators, Paedophiles, Rapists, and other Sex Offenders 2003.
New York: Basic Books, p 63). While Hood is of course entitled to her personal opinion,
she cannot justifiably claim her conclusions to be robust or balanced. She
seems intent on minimising the extent and consequences of child sexual abuse.
Her caricatures of the work of Diana Russell, Roland Summit and Miriam
Saphira are unhelpful to those seeking a fair and reasoned understanding of
child sexual abuse. Russell's study of the prevalence of sexual abuse of girls
was based on a random sample of 930 adult women in San Francisco ("The
incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse of
female children", [1983] Child Abuse & Neglect 133). This was one of
the first such surveys on this scale. The results and methodology were so
compelling, that university-based researchers attempted something similar in
many other countries. Russell's definition of sexual abuse within the family
was: "any kind of exploitative sexual contact that occurred between
relatives before the victim turned 18. Experiences involving sexual contact
with a relative that were wanted and with a peer [age difference of less than
five years] were regarded as non-exploitive". Her results: 28 per cent
of the 940 women reported at least one experience of sexual abuse within the
family before the age of 18; 12 per cent reported same before 14. Twenty-three per cent of all incidents of abuse within the
family were classified as Very Serious: there were defined as completed and
attempted vaginal, oral, anal intercourse, cunnilingus, analingus, forced and
unforced. In just one instance, Russell classified "unwanted but
non-forceful kissing by a cousin" as sexual abuse. Hood's often-subtle
bias becomes starkly transparent when she writes: "Russell's definition
included everyday aspects of family life like unwanted hugs and kisses".
Hood's misuse of one isolated case seems inconsistent with her stated goal of
objectivity. For well over a hundred years no mental health system,
never mind society at large, was willing to recognise the reality and
seriousness of child sexual abuse (see Seymour, "Memory and childhood
abuse", [1996] Waikato L R 155). However, Hood (p 30) is sceptical about
"the bad old days when victims were disbelieved" and says that this
is "a self-serving myth". Her source? Sixty-five years of the New
Zealand Truth shows that "children's complaints of sexual molestation
were taken seriously". Summit was the head physician for the Community
Consultation Service and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at
Harbor-UCLA medical center when he wrote a paper on the process of disclosure
of child sexual abuse ("The child sexual abuse accommodation
syndrome", [1983] Child Abuse & Neglect 190). Hood states that
Summit described this paper as "highly impressionistic". The paper
is actually based on clinical experience "derived from the collective
experience of dozens of sexual abuse treatment centers in dealing with
thousands of reports or complaints of adult victimisation of young
children". Such clinical experience contributes another lens onto our understanding
of child sexual abuse. Hood, continuing her unhelpful game of heroes and
villains, introduces Dr Alfred Kinsey (p 52), as a "husband and father
of irreproachable personal conservatism". Kmsey's biographers James
Jones (Alfred C Kinsey: A Public/Private Life New York: WW Norton 1997) and
Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy (Sex the Measure of All Things: A life of Alfred C.
Kinsey Indiana University Press 2000) do not agree. According to Jones (p
512), Kinsey allegedly used paedophiles to bring children to orgasm and then
record the number they could achieve: "Children gasping for breath,
sobbing, screaming in pain, fainting, and desperately struggling to fight off
the assailants Kinsey dignified as 'partners' - these were descriptions of
hapless victims". While Kinsey was convinced the victims derived
pleasure, Jones commented: "how reliable was the testimony of
paedophiles about the children they molested? Not very." Much attention is given to discrediting the work of Hood's
arch-villain, Dr Miriam Saphira. The statistics from the 1970's Women's
Weekly survey are ridiculed. Yet the key messages that "the man will
usually know the child" and "one in five child molesters will be
the father, stepfather or foster father", are not as far from academic research
findings as Hood chooses to believe. Nor is the widely quoted "one out
of four girls will be molested before she turns eighteen". Twenty-five
per cent (one in four) is within the accepted range of prevalence data
(Fergusson & Mullen, 1999; Finkelhor, 1994). While this may seem
unbelievable, it includes one-off incidents at the lower end of the spectrum
of sexual abuse. The University of Otago and Fergusson's study found that men
known to the children perpetrate most child sexual abuse (Anderson et al.
1993 and Fergusson et al. 1996). In Fergusson's study, 23.5 per cent of the
perpetrators were family members. In Anderson's study, 38.3 per cent were
family members and 16 per cent of abusers were relatives living with the
child. In 18.5 per cent of children's allegations of sexual abuse reported to
Child, Youth and Family in 1999, the alleged abuser was a father or a
stepfather (Basher, "Children who talk on tape: The facts behind the
pictures", (1999) 12 Social Work Now 12). Stepfathers are at a higher
risk of being perpetrators than biological fathers (Fergusson & Mullen,
1999 p 51). Hood writes (p 95): "To encourage the child
protection movement to close ranks, the Geddis-led National Advisory
Committee on the Prevention of Child Abuse recommended that all abuse
allegations be investigated by "specialised personnel, trained and
working together". The literature is consistent in the importance of the
use of multi-disciplinary trained teams, not to close ranks, as Hood puts it,
but to improve practice. Each discipline has different knowledge bases and
skills to contribute to the investigative process (Myers, "Keep the
lifeboat afloat", (2002) 26 Child Abuse & Neglect 561). Such teams
help to increase professionals' and agencies' accountability for their practice,
by being more open to the scrutiny of their colleagues from other agencies,
the opposite of what Hood proposes. While glamorising the good old days, Hood is equally
misleading in her statement that the passing of the Evidence Amendment Act
1989 meant that (p 113): "child complainants no longer had to appear in
Court in person. They were no longer required to deliver their evidence-in-
chief without leading or coaxing. Their evidence was no longer tested by
unhampered cross-examination. Instead juries viewed pre-recorded interviews
with child complainants conducted by interviewers trained in the beliefs and
methods of the child protection movement, and observed cross-examinations
conducted via videolink". Hood fails to mention the advantages of videotaped
evidential interviews of children for the Court. Specialised interviewers are
under scrutiny. If they ask poor questions, those questions are there for all
to see and hear in the courtroom. Videotapes also provide a record of what
the child said much nearer to the disclosure than the trial, which may be
more than a year later. They also enable the jury to see the child
complainant on tape at an age nearer to when the events allegedly took place.
In one or two years, children can look quite different. As children are less stressed,
their testimony is likely to be clearer (See Cashmore, Children's evidence
research paper 1: The use of closed-circuit television for child witnesses in
the ACT. Sydney: Australia Law Reform Commission, 1992; Davies & Noon. An
evaluation of the live link for child witnesses. London: Home Office 1991;
and Murray, Live Television Link: An evaluation of its use by child witnesses
in Scottish criminal trials. The Scottish Office 1995). There is no evidence to substantiate that lawyers are more
skilled at questioning children than specialised interviewers. There is some
evidence to the contrary. One of us (ED) developed a coding system with Fred
Seymour for analysis of the types of questions asked of children in Court.
Having checked the coding system for inter-rater reliability, we analysed
transcripts of the evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of child
complainants of sexual abuse, including transcripts of evidential interviews
of the younger of these complainants ("Questioning child complainants of
sexual abuse: Analysis of criminal Court transcripts in New Zealand",
(1998) 5 Psychiatry, Psychology & Law 47). We found that evidential
interviewers used significantly more careful neutral (open, non-loaded)
questions than prosecutors, who used significantly more neutral questions
than defence lawyers. Evidential interviewers also asked significantly more
age- appropriate questions than lawyers. Children being asked questions that
they do not understand is not in the interests of those seeking the truth. Children who give evidence-in-chief via videotape are
still cross-examined live in austere Court buildings, even if it is via
closed-circuit television (CCTV). Hood again omits the advantages for the
Court. There is some evidence that children appear to be more comprehensive,
more forthcoming, louder, more resistant to leading questions and more fluent
when giving evidence on closed circuit television compared to open Court
(Davies & Westcott 1995, "The child witness in the Courtroom:
Empowerment or protection?" In Zaragoza Graham Hall Hirschman Ben-
Porath (Eds) Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp 199-213). Thousand
Oaks CA: Sage). Lawyers in the UK and Australia have been observed to use
more age- appropriate questions through CCTV than in open Court (see
Cashmore). There is no evidence that the use of CCTV increases the chances of
conviction (See Tobey et al. 1995, "Balancing the rights of children and
defendants: Effects of closed-circuit television on children's accuracy and
jurors' perceptions." in Zaragoza et al; and Ross et al. 1994, "The
impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on conviction rates in a
simulated trial of child sexual abuse", (1994) 18 Law & Human
Behaviour 553). If by "unhampered cross-examination" of a child, Hood
means a flurry of juxtapositions and multi-faceted questions designed to
confuse, then this might be so, although this seems contrary to the interests
of justice. An abridged version of this article was published in The
New Zealand Herald (11 August 2003). Hood's response (13 August 2003):
"As befits supporters of recovered memory therapy (now known
euphemistically as abuse- focused therapy), Jeffrey Masson and Emma Davies
rely on statistics that have been either discredited or misrepresented to
support their otherwise insupportable beliefs. Nonetheless, it is pleasing to
see that some members of the sex-abuse industry have been reading A City
Possessed." Which statistics have been "discredited" or
"misrepresented" by whom and where? The term "sex abuse
industry" is a meaningless derogatory term used to denigrate those who
research or work within the child protection system or with survivors of
abuse. What did recovered memory have to do with it? Our critique did not
mention it. Besides, one of us (JM) has actually written a book Against
Therapy, in which all forms of professionalised therapy are criticised. The
other (ED) has never been a therapist nor has she ever made a public
statement on recovered memory. Hood's response to our critique reinforces our view that
she is untrustworthy in her analysis of the issues involved in child sexual
abuse. In claiming that "recovered memory therapy" is the same as
"abuse focused therapy", Hood once again misconstrues the
literature (Seymour, 1996). In her book, Hood boldly states that cognitive
psychologist Elizabeth Loftus wins "hands down" the scientific
debate about whether recovered memory exists (p 55). Three prominent
cognitive psychologists have recently reached a more measured conclusion
(Sivers Schooler Freyd, "Recovered memories", In Ramachandran.
(2002) 4 Encyclopedia of the Human Brain 169). Hood omits that the false
memory in Loftus's infamous analogue study was not for abuse. It was about
being lost in the mall when one was a small child (Loftus & Pickrell,
"The formation of false memories", (1995) 25 Psychiatric Annals
720). Analogue studies like these can never replicate the conditions of
abuse. Nonetheless, a considerable body of experimental research has shown
that young children can provide accurate recall of salient events (Eisen,
Quas & Goodman 2002, Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview,
New Jersey: LEA Publishers). Since Hood mentions recovered memory, we will briefly
clarify our understanding of the implications of research, although we are at
a loss to see its relevance to young children. A well-designed prospective
study by Linda Williams showed that some sexually abused adults have periods
in their lives when they do not remember being abused ("Recall of
childhood trauma: A prospective study of women's memories of child sexual
abuse", (1994) 62 Jo of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1167). Even
Loftus herself believes "it is possible to lose contact with memories
for long periods of time". She merely disputes that the correct term to
describe this is "repression" (Ceci & Loftus 1994, "A
royal road to false memories?" quoted in Seymour 1996). With regard to therapy, cognitive experimental
psychologists, Read and Lindsay, are quite clear in their concerns about
specific techniques, for example hypnosis ("Moving toward a middle
ground on the false memory debate" (1994) 8 Applied Cognitive Psychology
407). They clarify: "there is little reason to fear that a few
suggestive questions will lead psychotherapy clients to conjure up vivid and
compelling illusory memory of childhood sexual abuse". And "not all
or even most memories recovered in therapy are false ... our comments focused
exclusively on approaches that make extensive use of suggestive memory
recovery techniques". These techniques are appropriately treated with
caution in the guidelines of professional psychological associations.
(Seymour, 1996) Hood's supposedly balanced book has been used to steer
public attention to one case, from which we are encouraged to draw all sorts
of spurious generalisations. New Zealanders concerned with a fair and
reasonable approach to child abuse need to maintain a broader focus. Where is
the public demand for the outcomes from the work based on the Ministerial
Inquiry into Child Protection in 2000? Where is the parallel debate about how
to prevent child sexual abuse? How can careful interviewing practice be
strengthened? How can young children's safe access to the criminal justice
system be ensured? The standard of scholarship of the first three chapters of
Lynley Hood's book is poor. At the beginning of chapter 4 it gets no better:
"The flatness of the city makes it easy for anyone with a bright idea to
gather together enough like- minded people to turn any theory - be it
dazzingly enlightened or downright flaky - into action. And for more than 100
years that is exactly what Christchurch people have been doing". As
Brian Edwards asked on TV1 (15 August 2003) don't you see an element of
absurdity in what you're telling me here?" Hood: "No". Her ability to stereotype, distort and denigrate groups of
people and bodies of scientific research undermines her credibility. Her
support of the recent publication of carefully selected excerpts of
children's testimony is consistent with her carefully selected version of
reality evident in the first few chapters of her book. Her tendency to vilify
those she doesn't respect as members of the "sex-abuse industry",
"zealots", "lesbian radical feminists", or inhabitants of
a particular city, seems to mirror the witch-hunt she appears to have sought
and found. Her analysis in the foundation chapters is more akin to story
telling than the presentation of evidence. We suggest that those who signed
the petition on the basis of Hood's book might wish to think again
"Reasoned and accurate" was my first impression
of Emma Davies and Jeffrey Masson's critique of Lynley Hood's A City
Possessed. Hood inexplicably uses dated research and her sources are somewhat
suspect. But as I continued reading their critique, especially following
Hood's reply to them, I was struck by their choice of sources and their apparent
bias. I have no statistics regarding the size of the sex abuse
industry in this country. However, in 2002/03, the Accident Compensation
Corporation had 4894 new sensitive claims and 7351 ongoing sensitive claims.
Sensitive claims "are where the claimant suffered an injury as a result
of being the victim of specific types of criminal behaviour...[t]hey relate
mostly to sexual crimes...[c]onviction does not have to result" (ACC
Injury Statistics 2003, para 13.1). The cost of sensitive claims in 2002/03
was $22.048 million or $1800 per claim. Interestingly, ACC says that
conviction is unnecessary but that claims are the result of criminal
behaviour. If there has been no conviction, how can ACC be sure that any
criminal behaviour has occurred? Davies and Masson can barely conceal their disdain for
renowned memory expert and psychologist Elizabeth Loftus. Three psychologists
cited by Davies and Masson are referred to as "prominent". No so
Loftus. Loftus is a former member of the American Psychological Association.
Interestingly, she resigned from the APA and joined the American
Psychological Society - she was its President between 1998/99 - because she
believed the latter valued science more highly and more consistently. She is
a Distinguished Professor at the University of California, Irvine. She has
published 20 books and more than 350 articles. She has received four honorary
doctorates for her research. In 2002 the Review of General Psychology listed
Loftus among the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century and she
was ranked the highest woman. She has appeared as an expert witness in many
criminal trials. Given her credentials, and those of Davies and Masson, the
authors' attitude towards her seems to be, understandably, one of envy. Lynley Hood, say D-M, "omits that the false memory in
Loftus's infamous analogue study was not for abuse". Hood simply states
that Loftus' research shows that children can have false memories of
traumatic events (assuming that being lost in a mall is a traumatic event).
Why do D-M have a problem with this statement? Curiously, D-M refer to
Loftus' study as "infamous". Why? It cannot be infamous on the
basis of its conclusions because they have been replicated by many other
studies. Maybe it is infamous because of its implications for cases of
alleged child sexual abuse (see the case of "Nathan" below). If so,
I think ground-breaking might be a more accurate term. Loftus generally doubts the existence of recovered memory,
especially where traumatic events are concerned. Davies and Masson argue that
Sivers et al "have reached a more measured conclusion". Their more
measured conclusion is simply one of hope, that in the future more can be
learned about recovered memory. This ignores the fact that much is already
known about recovered memory. Recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse
should be able to be verified and falsified. Not to mention corroborated. How
many are? D-M then go on to quote two more psychologists, Read and
Lindsay, who say that there is little reason to think that suggestive
questions by mental health experts will lead to false memories of childhood
sexual abuse. Has this been tested? Corroborated? Verified? What of the
millions of dollars that US Courts have awarded victims of false memories
resulting from lawsuits against their therapists? How have these victims
acquired their false memories if not through suggestive questioning? Recently, "Nathan", who is in his early 20s,
spoke of being abused by Peter Ellis during his time at the Civic Creche.
Nathan was four at the time of his alleged abuse. Nathan says he knows he was
abused because he was different from other teenagers. At age 14 or 15 he
would "freak out" if a girl tried to touch or kiss him. He also
felt uncomfortable changing clothes in front of other boys. He discovered
that he had been abused when he was 14 and told his parents when he was 16.
He complained to the police last year. Why did it take him ten years to
remember the abuse and what caused him to remember it? According to his mother, Nathan saw Ellis on television
after Ellis had been charged with sexual abuse at the Civic Crèche.
Afterwards, she asked Nathan if anything had "happened" to him when
he was at the crèche. He replied "no". His mother, however,
believed that something had happened to him. Consequently, she contacted
police soon after Ellis was charged in 1992. Nathan did not like the Civic
Creche. Maybe his mother questioned him to see if he had been sexually
abused. She possibly had concerns based on his dislike of the crèche and the
fact that she believed he was there when Peter Ellis worked there. Maybe
Nathan came to believe he had been abused because he wanted to please his
mother. She had, after all, removed him from the Civic. Maybe he thought she
would remove him from his new crèche, which he liked, if he didn't tell her
what she wanted to hear. It seems as plausible an hypothesis as the one put
forward by Nathan. According to Nathan's mother, Nathan was abused in
late-1985. According to Peter Ellis' supervisor, Dora Reinfeld, Ellis was not
at the Civic Creche in any capacity until late-August 1986. The police have
decided not to charge Ellis regarding Nathan's allegations. Given his
strongly held belief that he was sexually abused, charging Nathan with laying
a false complaint would seem inappropriate. Davies and Masson say that A City Possessed "has been
used to steer public attention to one case, from which we are encouraged to
draw all sorts of spurious generalisations". What spurious
generalisations are we encouraged to draw? That there are few, if any,
specific behavioural indicators of child sexual abuse? That children can, if exposed
to suggestive and leading questioning, recall events that did not occur? That
multiple interviews of child witnesses can produce unreliable testimony? That
experts can and do get it horribly wrong? These aren't generalisations; these
are facts! D-M should be grateful that Lynley Hood has provided the public
with an insight into child sexual abuse and the methods used to evaluate it. If Davies and Masson had read the remaining thirteen
chapters, and not just the first three, of A City Possessed, they would be
able to comment on the guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis. They have certainly
had no difficulty passing comment on Lynley Hood. "Untrustworthy",
they call her. That is a term that could just as easily be applied to them.
They have made no attempt to verify the allegations of child sexual abuse at
the Civic Creche. Yet the authors profess their deep concern for children.
"Where is the parallel debate about how to prevent child sexual
abuse?" they ask rhetorically. Before preventing child sexual abuse, one
must first be able to prove that it has occurred. Since Peter Ellis was first
charged, nobody has been able to do
|
