Lynley Hood
PO Box 2041
South Dunedin

Broadcasting Standards Complaint
Edwards at Large - 16 August 2003

[Appendix 3]

Edwards at Large: Analysis




Introduction (page 1, line 2):
Edwards shows his unfamiliarity with the wider issues raised by A City Possessed by focussing solely on the guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis.



Point 1 (page 1, line 15 - page 2, line 9):
Edwards’ first point - about the two complainants whose interviews with a newspaper reporter were published that day - is appropriate for a current affairs broadcast. However, instead of following up the issues I raise - about the effects of repeated and suggestive questioning on children’s memories, and the absurdity of some of the children’s allegations - he simply moves on to the next point.



Point 2 (page 2, line 11-44):
With reckless disregard for the facts, Edwards turns his second point - about the number of reviews to which the Ellis case has been subject - into an attack on me. The gist of his attack is that the calls for a commission of inquiry are unreasonable, and are all my fault. ‘You wonder how much is going to happen before people like you are going to be satisfied... How much more do you need?’ (Lines 11-12 & 16)

When I point out: ‘..it is not just me who - you know - there are a raft of law professors and QCs saying that in this case the justice system has failed’ (line 18-21), he ignores my point and continues his accusatory line. ‘...it’s you who’ve kicked it off... you got the ball rolling’ (line 23-42).

At line 33-42, I outline my reason for writing the book, and my approach to the topic. ‘I thought there has got to be a story here ... I was just saying, read it and make up your own minds..’ Had Edwards done his homework, he would have found ample confirmation of the truth of my account. Instead, he shows his ignorance (and arrogance and hostility) by flatly rejecting my account, and moving on to his next attack. ‘I find it a little bit hard to believe that you started off just to tell the story. Because, it seems to me that you started off with an absolute mind set.’ (Line 44-45)



Point 3 (page 2, line 44 - page 3, line 27)
Edwards attack on my scholarly independence - that I approached the book with ‘an absolute mindset’ - is without foundation, but he hammers it relentlessly, while at the same time ignoring or rejecting my efforts to correct him.

‘...you started off with an absolute mind set (page 2, line 45) ... You started off with that mind set, didn’t you?’ (Page 2, line 48) .... ‘So there was that mind set before you started writing’ (page 3, line 23).

When I explain: ‘But even the prosecutors and crown witnesses were saying there was mass hysteria. I mean I wasn’t - they told me - and that is what I went to examine as to what the social dynamic of it was’ - he ignores me and moves on to the next point. (Page 3, line 25-27)

Had I been given the opportunity, I would have pointed out that, as with my work on Minnie Dean (the only woman hanged for murder in New Zealand), I distinguished between the moral panic surrounding her case on the one hand, and the facts of her case on the other. A century on from the Dean case, I was able to examine the evidence closely and conclude that Minnie had indeed killed one of the babies she was accused of murdering. I examined the evidence in the creche case even more closely (including evidence not presented in court). If there was any reliable evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by anyone accused in the case, there was a high likelihood that I would have found it, and a certainty that I would have written about it.

Had I been given the opportunity, I would also have pointed out that, if my intention was to assist the Ellis cause, I would have published a partisan potboiler while his case was still making its way through the courts, and I would have shared my research findings with his defence team. But, as Edwards would have known if he had read A City Possessed, I refused to compromise my independence and impartiality, even when faced with the threat of jail (A City Possessed, p. 591-596).



Point 4 (page 2, lines 45-47 & page 3, line 29 - page 4, line 32)
Edwards grossly and persistently misrepresents my comments about Christchurch. ‘You spent the first two hundred pages of your book basically telling the reader what a dreadful place Christchurch is..’ (Page 2, lines 45-47). In fact, I spent two and a half pages on a brief but irreverent description of the city (p.115-117 A City Possessed). At no stage did I suggest that Christchurch is, or was, a dreadful place.

In A City Possessed, I note Christchurch’s reputation as a place where social movements take root and flourish, and list some of the curious reasons I had been offered for the city’s characteristics (the hot nor’wester, the smog, the lead content in the air, the flatness). I reflect, in passing, that there could be an element of truth to the flatness theory - in so far as it is easier for like-minded people to get together in a flat city than a hilly one. I did not invent the flatness theory, and I did not use it to explain anything, least of all the conviction of Peter Ellis. It was simply one of many theories about Christchurch offered to me in the course of my research. I found these theories amusing, and I passed them on for the entertainment of readers.

Edwards repeatedly and falsely claims that I blamed the flatness of Christchurch for the conviction of Peter Ellis: ‘What on earth can the flatness of the city have to do with Peter Ellis’s guilt or innocence?’ (Page 3, lines 44-45) ‘..don’t you see an element of absurdity in what you are telling me here... That the flatness of the city gives us - some indication of Peter Ellis’s chances of getting a fair trial.’ (Page 4, line 16-25)

My attempts to correct Edwards’ bizarre assertion are talked over, ignored, rejected or disparaged. (Page 3, line 42 - page 4, line 25). When I finally manage to explain: ‘No. I am not. I am not making that leap at all’ (Page 4, line 27) He acknowledges my point with a dismissive ‘OK’ (page 4, line 29), and then goes on to imply that my answer is suspect: ‘During the commercial break, I am going to try and think about that one...’ (Page 4, line 34).

If Edwards had read A City Possessed, he would have known that, in the social climate of the early ‘90s, a ritual abuse case could have happened anywhere in New Zealand, but there were aspects of Christchurch that increased the risk. At that time, Christchurch was a centre for national initiatives in the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse, and a belief that a phantom paedophile ring was operating in the city was one of the prevailing urban myths. It was these factors - examined in depth in A City Possessed (Chap 4 & 5) - which increased the risk that a mass-allegation, ritual-abuse case would occur in Christchurch.



Point 5 (page 4, line 39 - page 5, line 1)
In the two years since the publication of A City Possessed, my account of the court proceedings related to the creche case has been endorsed by legal authorities nationwide. Futhermore, none of the professionals whose work is scrutinised in the book have challenged anything I have written.

Nonetheless, Edwards attempts to discredit my analysis of the trial on a trivial, and ultimately irrelevant, point. ‘..there is one, it seems to me, critical piece of information you didn’t have... you were not present at any of these trials ... You weren’t there.’ (Page 4, line 39-43)

If this argument had any validity, no history would ever get written. In any event, when I outline the extent of my research (described by commentators as ‘thorough’, ‘meticulous’ and ‘painstaking’) Edwards is disparaging: ‘That’s not the same.’ (Page 4, line 47). ‘That is not the same.’ (Page 5, line 1)



Point 6 (page 5, line 8-27)
One of the messages of A City Possessed is that while lay people can and do make unsubstantiated allegations, responsibility for the ways in which these allegations are handled rests with the authorities. Consequently when I say ‘I also interviewed them all, at length, everybody involved’ (page 5, line 3 & 8), I have the professionals in mind.

This statement gives Edwards the opportunity for another attack (‘No, you didn’t’ [line 10]), which he persists with, despite my concession.

H: ‘Well, almost everybody.’ (Line 12)
E: ‘No you haven’t. You haven’t interviewed all the parents.’ (Line 14)

When I make the entirely reasonable point (‘..that is not my fault. I gave them every opportunity’ [line 16]) his only response is to repeat the attack: ‘..nonetheless, you haven’t interviewed all the parents.’ (Line 18)

When I list my many sources of information about the experiences and opinions of the few parents who declined to speak to me, Edwards ignores my comments and moves on to the next point. When I break in to add: ‘I have read the book that one of them has written’ (line 27), his response is a dismissive ‘Oh, all right.’ (Line 29)



Point 7 (page 5, line 29 - page 6, line 3)
For the remainder of the interview, Edwards is clearly out of his depth. He has not read A City Possessed. He does not know what he was talking about. His only response to my comments on the context in which the offences were said to have occurred is to move on to his next point, where he again shows his ignorance.

E: ‘... You have I think seven children who say that they were indecently assaulted... Seven kids say that.’ (Page 6, line 5-7)

H: ‘One of them retracted completely (line 9) ... she was the oldest and most credible child (line 13) ... she said she had said those things because she thought that is what her mother and the interviewer wanted her to say (line 17-18)

E: ‘Alright, so you have six children who say that Peter Ellis did these things.’ (Line 20)

H: ‘Well, we’ve only got two who are still saying it as far as we know.’

When he finds himself unable to attack my facts, Edwards makes a pathetic attempt to attack my colloquial use of the English language when I hypothesize about the mother who organised for the two children to speak to the media (‘laying money is not a scientific approach’ [line 41]).



Point 8 (page 7, line 35-page 8, line 29)
For this point, Edwards makes a scurrilous allegation: ‘.. another thing that concerns me about your book is the amount of which you might call ad hominem attack on people you disagree with in your book.’ (Page 7, line 35-36).

Had he read A City Possessed, Edwards would know that, where it was relevant to do so, I described the backgrounds of people involved in the creche case without fear or favour. I provided a warts and all description of Peter Ellis. The picture I painted of his lawyer Judith Ablett Kerr QC is not particularly flattering. The backgrounds of many of the people whose conduct is called into question in the book are presented in positive terms. Here are a few examples -


Of John Gray, the official who closed the creche without explanation, I wrote (A City Possessed, p. 397):

In 1992, John Gray was in his forty-second year as a local body administrator, and in his nineteenth year as Chief Executive Officer of of the Christchurch City Council. For his decades of service to local government and the territorial army he had been awarded an OBE (Military Division) in 1969, and a CBE (Civil Division) in 1989. When local body restructuring was introduced in 1989, Gray had more than 4000 employees on his payroll. By the time he retired in 1993, less than 2000 remained. Throughout the reorganisation, Gray won respect for his consultative management style and his willingness to front up when staff were made redundant.

Of Justice Neil Williamson, judge at the trial of Peter Ellis, I wrote (A City Possessed, p. 459):

Williamson was admitted to the bar in 1961, and became a partner in Raymond Donnelly & Co in 1965. He was appointed Crown Solicitor in 1968, and the the High Court Bench in 1985. He was well-liked and well-respected in Christchurch, both as a judge and as a member of the community.
‘I’d appeared before him in a couple of civil cases. I knew him to be fair,’ Rob Harrison [counsel for Ellis] observed.
Williamson’s greatest strength, and his greatest weakness, was his concern for the interests of children. In his years as Crown Solicitor he worked closely with Dr Karen Zelas on child protection issues. In his private life, he often brought needy children into his family home. When he died suddenly in 1996, liberal theologian Father Jim Consedine told the thousand people who gathered for his requiem mass that Williamson would be remembered as a man who lived by his Catholic faith.

Of Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, who conducted a ministerial inquiry into the Ellis case, I wrote (A City Possessed, p. 603-4):

In his choice of inquiry head, Phil Goff could not have appointed a more authoritative jurist. Thomas Eichelbaum graduated in law from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, in 1954. He was appointed Queens Counsel in 1978, to the High Court bench in 1982, and Chief Justice in 1989. In the latter role he also presided in the Criminal Appeal Division of the Court of Appeal. As a barrister Eichelbaum appeared as counsel in a number of Commissions of Inquiry. Following his retirement in 1999 he served on two Ministerial Inquiries and chaired a Royal Commission. During Sir Thomas’s ten years as Chief Justice, the laws relating to child sexual abuse were changed, child sexual abuse convictions escalated and controversy over the investigation and prosecution of the Christchurch Civic Creche case raged nationwide.

Of my description of the background of Dr Karen Zelas, Edwards alleges, with reckless disregard for the facts: ‘..you actually go through all the letters she’s got after her name. All her qualifications, and you dismiss them one by one. You say well this is nothing, that is nothing, that doesn’t mean anything.’ (page 7, line 41-44). Then he compounds the injustice by giving me no opportunity to respond before proceeding to accuse me, equally unjustly, of making personal attacks on the parents. (Page 7, line 47 - page 8, line 3).

Because Dr Zelas played a central role in the Ellis case, I provided a detailed account of her career and her reputation in A City Possessed (p. 120-121). Of her reputation, I wrote:

In a 1994 Court of Appeal test case on sentencing for incest, the court commissioned its own report from Dr Zelas (‘a leading consultant psychiatrist in the field in New Zealand’) and received oral evidence from her. In his 24-page judgment, Sir Robin Cooke mentioned Zelas approvingly 20 times, and quoted extensively from her submission.
In 1996, a judge told me: ‘She’s extremely able ... Her qualifications run to about three pages ... She is regarded as one of the authorities in the field of sexual abuse and child abuse in New Zealand ... She’s published a lot of research ...’

As part of my research, I checked Dr Zelas’s qualifications and research history. I found that she had conducted no research, and that the letters after her name did not mean as much as the judiciary seemed to believe. I reported my findings dispassionately. In no way can anything I have written about Dr Zelas be regarded as an ad hominem attack.

As with the professionals, where the backgrounds of creche parents were relevant to their involvement in the case, I described their backgrounds without fear or favour. A City Possessed contains brief accounts of the backgrounds and life histories of many key parents on both sides of the case. In the course of my research, I discovered that the mother who sparked the creche inquiry had a history of mental instability, and had made sexual abuse allegations against many men in her life. Furthermore, a few months after accusing Peter Ellis, she accused another male childcare worker at another creche of abusing her son. I also discovered that the child who made the most bizarre allegations came from a deeply dysfunctional family. In so far as this information was accurate and relevant, I included it in the book. Edwards’ allegation that I made ad hominem attacks on these or any other parents is without foundation.