|
|
Allegations of Abuse in
Institutions |
|
by John Keast and Helen Murdoch John Gainsford worked the long
fingers of his right hand into the tanned skin of his face as complainants
gave evidence against him. It was as though he was trying to
remember. Or forget. Day after day it was the same, as
the evidence became more graphic – and damning – Gainsford began to knead his
face, averting his eyes. He listened to eight complainants,
seven women and a man, tell of their time at the old Bramwell Booth
children's home in South Canterbury. One by one they described a
catalogue of offending and misery that is difficult to comprehend. The jury rejected the evidence of
Gainsford, who ran the Temuka home from January 1973 to January 1975. Gainsford's contention was that he
did touch four girls indecently – he pleaded guilty to four counts of
indecency – but he denied the offending went further. The Crown had a different view;
that Gainsford created a fiefdom in which he was able to pick his victims,
abusing them sexually and, in some cases, beating them. In any event the jury rejected
Gainsford's view of events, except on one count in which there was a dispute
over whether an alleged indecency took place at Pleasant Point or Geraldine. They found him guilty on 22
counts, possibly ending any chance of freedom for a man of 69. That will be decided by Justice
Fogarty at 11am on December 11, when Gainsford appears for sentence. But if Gainsford was surprised by
the gravity of the offending alleged from the witness box, he also had a
surprise from the body of the court. It came as he was led to the rear
of the court when a man caught Gainsford's attention and then whispered:
"You lying pack of s..." That man used to live at Bramwell
Booth as a boy. Raymond, not his real name,
recalls seeing Gainsford enter a building at night with girls, and no lights
going on. He also remembers beatings. They did not come from Gainsford,
he says, but from a later staff member who has since died. Raymond says it took him all his
will not to strike Gainsford, who had just told the court that a cane was
never used at Bramwell Booth. Not so, says Raymond. He says he
was caned mercilessly, and kicked and punched. He believes it was punishment for
seeing a staff member "doing what you should be doing with your wife
with another staff member". After that, he says, life was
hell. He entered Bramwell Booth as a boy
of four, staying there until he was 11. His nose was smashed and kicked so
hard the staff member hurt his foot. The beatings, he says, happened
almost daily. And Gainsford, he says, had a
penchant for piggybacking the girls – a key part of the evidence in court. Each complainant said the same:
Gainsford, the man whose job it was to protect them, would support them on
his back, touching them indecently as he did so. There was evidence that he did
that while talking to adults, although he denied that was the case. But although Raymond says he was
aware of the sexual abuse, it was the beatings that ruined his life. He knew he was bright, but regular
beatings did little to enhance his will to learn. After Bramwell Booth, Raymond
drifted into rebellion. And Raymond, now 40, says he has
only brought some sense to his life in the past five years. Staff at the home were told of the
abuse and did nothing. But Raymond, unlike many other
victims, is no supporter of an official inquiry into what went on in various
Salvation Army homes. He says he has no wish to drag the
army through the mud as his issues are with particular staff. But Raymond says that for all his
problems – for which he was paid $40,000 in compensation by the Salvation
Army – he can only imagine the pain felt by those Gainsford was found guilty
of sexually abusing. Raymond wants the army to look
after its victims, not just pay them off. "They are an organisation
that looks after people. Well, look after them." Lives were ruined and the
Salvation Army should address the issue. And one of Gainsford's sex victims
says his victims tried to speak out, but no-one listened. The woman, who cannot be named,
said "I told one Salvationist and one lay person at the home of the
abuse. One was horrified and one was horrified I was telling them, but both
said I was lying. "And so I always thought
no-one cared, no-one listened, but when she (surprise witness Christina
Cullen) came forward again I realised that someone had stopped and
listened." Cullen approached police after
reading day-one evidence in the Gainsford case. She told the court that she took
action (probably the catalyst for Gainsford being removed) after being told
of home secrets by girls she took to a barbecue. One said she did not want to go
back to the home, and wanted to live with her. The complainant says the sexual
abuse was one issue, but there was also physical abuse. "They would hit you with a
strap, but put your head through a wooden chair so when you jerked up you hit
your head as well," she says. She says she has no sympathy for
Gainsford, but felt for his family, who are also victims. "When he looked at me in court
and smiled I wanted to run – I am scared of no man and he is the only person
in my life I have ever run from. "There was no safe place and
when we heard another child crying at night we were glad because it wasn't
us," the witness says. Paraparaumu woman Jan Lowe,
spokeswoman for the Salvation Army Abuse Survivors Group, says a public
inquiry is needed to uncover the truth. |
