|
Sunday News
November 30, 1997
Letter to the Editor
Television ratings shouldn't come first
by Dr John Read
If the new allegations of further child abuse by Peter Ellis are true and
research shows the majority of allegations are true, then those journalists
and politicians who jumped on the hysterical bandwagon created by 20/20's
"documentary" need to do some serious thinking.
TV3 needs to choose between responsible, balanced journalism and the
furthering of careers and ratings regardless of the costs to society. The
programme was one-sided `journalism'.
The only person interviewed who believed the jury and court of appeal had got
it right was the police officer who the `journalists' diagnosed as mentally
unstable (on the basis his job was stressful!)
I can think of no better example of that tendency to ignore our children when
they are brave enough to tell of their abuse than the response of 20/20 to
the new allegations. They simply repeated the story and pretended nothing had
happened! Do they think, like so many of us, that if we ignore child abuse it
will go away?
Perhaps our TV journalists might like to demonstrate a balanced approach by
highlighting the research showing 32 percent of New Zealand women are sexually
abused as children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Dominion
December 1, 1997
Letter to the Editor
Ellis case
by John Read
If the new allegations of further child abuse by Peter Ellis are true, and
research shows that the vast majority of allegations are true, then those
journalists and politicians who jumped on the hysterical bandwagon created by
20-20's "documentary" need to do some serious thinking.
TV3 needs to choose between responsible, balanced journalism and the
furthering of careers and ratings regardless of the costs to society. Its
programme is the most one-sided "journalism" imaginable.
The only person interviewed who believed that the jury and Court of Appeal
had got it right was the police officer who the "journalists"
diagnosed as mentally unstable (on the basis that his job was stressful!).
I can think of no better example of that tendency to ignore our children when
they are brave enough to tell of their abuse than the response of 20-20 to
the new allegations. It simply repeated its story and pretended nothing had
happened! Do they think, like so many of us, that if we ignore child abuse it
will go away?
Perhaps our television journalists might like to demonstrate a balanced
approach by highlighting the research showing that 32 per cent of New Zealand women are sexually
abused as children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Evening Post
December 2, 1997
Letter to the Editor
One-sided journalism
by Dr John Read
If new
allegations of further child abuse by Peter Ellis are true, and research
shows that the vast majority of allegations are true, then those journalists
and politicians who jumped on the hysterical bandwagon created by 20/20's
"documentary" need to do some serious thinking.
TV3 needs to choose between responsible, balanced journalism and the
furthering of careers and ratings, regardless of the costs to society. Their
programme was the most one-sided journalism imaginable. The only person
interviewed who believed that the jury and the Court of Appeal had got it
right was the police officer who the "journalists" diagnosed as
mentally unstable (on the basis that his job was stressful!).
I can think of no better example of that tendency to ignore our children when
they are brave enough to tell of their abuse than the response of 20/20 to
the new allegations. They simply repeated their story and pretended nothing
had happened! Do they think, like so many, that if we ignore child abuse it
will go away?
Perhaps our TV journalists might like to demonstrate a balanced approach by
highlighting the research showing that 32 percent of New Zealand women are sexually
abused as children.
|
Sunday News
December 7, 1997
Letter to the Editor
Ellis case was a waste of so much
by E Williams, Christchurch
The
only new-old allegations against Peter Ellis to warrant yet another
"hysterical bandwagon" against him will be proof he really was
"the Devil incarnate."
So Dr Read (Sunday News Nov 30) need not leap on that particular bandwagon.
Melanie Reid and David McLoughlin are both
reputable journalists who were involved in this case from the beginning and
doing their own investigations gained first-hand knowledge - not second-hand
from text books and the writings of others.
It seems only those who believe are on the side of the angels and those who
doubt are in denial and those who disagree with the logic are in league with
the Devil. If the police, public, parents, psychologists and councillors had
not jumped on that first bandwagon, created by hysteria imported from the US
we could have been spared hundreds of hours of agony, millions of dollars and
multi millions of words and hundreds of shattered lives
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COSA Vol 4 No 10
December 1997
Editorial
Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Crèche Case
Felicity
Goodyear-Smith
This is certainly the hot story for this month. Last year North & South magazine journalist David
McLoughlin published an excellent exposé about the
inadequacies and injustices of the Christchurch Civic Crèche case. Details of
this case have also been outlined regularly in COSA newsletters. On 16
November, TV3's 20/20, screened Melanie Reid’s Special Report on the
Christchurch Civic Crèche fiasco. These two great pieces of journalism have
brought this case again to the public attention. There has always been a
general unease about Ellis’ guilt by the public at large.
A worker in the crèche, Ellis, was found guilty in 1993 of 16 out of 25
charges of abusing children in his care. This was a sensational case,
involving satanic ritual abuse allegations by a number of children, and
accusations made also made against many of the women workers (four were also
arrested but later discharged). Ellis has always maintained his innocence. He
has nearly 4 years out of a 10 year sentence. In 1994 an appeal was rejected
by the Court of Appeal, even though 3 charges were dismissed because one of
the key witnesses had recanted.
New details were revealed in the 20/20 documentary. Firstly two jurors in the
case had relationships with people involved in the case which had not been
disclosed to the court. The jury foreman, a Christchurch
clergyman, had been the marriage celebrant for the Crown prosecutor, Brent
Stanaway, and another juror was the lesbian partner of a woman who shared a
small office (at an adjoining desk) with the mother of one of the key
complainants. Secondly the detective on the case, Colin Eade, admitted that
he was mentally unwell during the investigation and that he later required
treatment for depression. During the case he had made a sexual proposition to
one of the mothers, who had objected and withdrawn her child from the case.
He subsequently formed sexual relationships with the mothers of two of the
child complainants. It was later also revealed that he also had a sexual
relationship with one of the chief child investigators of the case.
It was also admitted that most or all of the children who made allegations
against Ellis had withdrawn their accusations at various times in the past
but that this was treated as a symptom of ‘denial’.
In the past fortnight since the documentary screening, there has been a
flurry of media activity about this case. The public appears to be strongly
on the side of Ellis’s probable innocence. Every day a new story appears
about the case in the newspapers, on radio or television. Very few
commentators suggest that he really is guilty.
A rare exception is that of Robyn Fancourt,
previous DSAC President and now in charge of an advocacy organisation called
‘Children’s Agenda’. Fancourt is complaining to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority about the airing of the 20/20 programme
because of ‘the hysteria’ that has resulted. In the past, Fancourt
has been quoted as saying that she has ‘never known a false
allegation get through’. Police Association president Greg O'Connor
also is convinced of Ellis’ guilt, because ‘the conviction of Ellis as a
paedophile was upheld on appeal’, and senior lecturer in clinical psychology
at Auckland University, John Read, berated the TV programme as one-sided and an example of
how people ‘ignore our children when they are brave enough to tell of their
abuse’.
A number of politicians are speaking on Ellis’ behalf. These include Labour
MP and Opposition Justice Spokesperson Phil Goff; NZ First chief whip Ron
Mark, (a list MP from Christchurch); and Alliance list MP Rod Donald. Even John Banks, who has decried Ellis as a
horrendous child abuser in the past, is now saying that he believes he is
innocent.
The solicitor-general is reported to have ordered an investigation into the
jury. Ellis's counsel, Judith Ablett-Kerr, is to petition Governor-General
Sir Michael Hardie Boys for a pardon. Police
Commissioner Peter Doone has agreed to hold an
inquiry into investigations that led to the conviction.
New Zealand First MP Rana Waitai, a former police
commander of 31 years' experience, and chairman of Parliament's justice and
law reform committee, backs the inquiry. Mr Waitai
said that Ellis could be the victim of "an almost unbelievably bizarre
abortion of justice"… If half of what was on the (20/20) programme is
true, Peter Ellis must immediately be released and hugely compensated for the
devastation that has been done to his life. The normal rules of evidence
appear to have been suspended. The normal rules of investigation appear to
have been suspended.
Had the full claims (regarding ritual abuse), by the children been put to the
jury, they may have had a better insight into the claims. That the jury was
denied this is an outrage to justice. And most damning of all we learned from
the detective-in-charge (that) not only had a witness recanted their claim,
but probably all seven of the final witnesses had also by now recanted their
claim."
Another aspect of the trial that disturbed him was that medical evidence or
corroboration was not sought by the police nor
prosecution. At the time of the Ellis trial, a new "politically
correct" attitude had arisen toward sexual abuse, he said. "This
spawned what one could describe as a sexual abuse industry and that industry
had certain tenets that were beyond examination.
The first was: a child who complains of sexual molestation never lies, never
mistakes the nature of what they're talking about and must be believed
totally.
The second tenet was that all men are rapists and if they had not yet been
caught it was just that they hadn't.
At the same time, ritual abuse claims were made about several harmless organisations
merely because they had elements of rituals in the way they operated. And the
same people who made sexual abuse claims with such ferocity were also
connected with ritual abuse claims. The children who claimed sexual
molestation also claimed Peter Ellis had cooked kittens and a whole series of
other bizarre ritual abuse. What was put forward was a sanitised version.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the law will know that is not good
justice."
It is promising to hear a senior politician making these statements. While
COSA is heartened that the TV3 documentary has roused a public response, it
is important to recognise that the injustice in this case relates to a lot
more important issues that whether the makeup of the jury was less than objective
and that the investigating police offer had intimate relationships with a
number of the key players.
Each of the concerning aspects of the Ellis case should not be evaluated in
isolation. It is the sequence of events, the overall picture that is the key
to understanding what has happened here. There is over-whelming evidence that
justice was not served in this case, and that the investigative and judicial
processes were neither objective nor competently performed.
Of particular concern is that children who did not initially disclose abuse
began to do so in subsequent interviews by investigators who were committed
to the belief that these children had been victims. Considerable
contamination of testimony was likely, given the parents’ active support group
and the questioning of their children over a long period of time, let alone
the ongoing contact between the children excited by all the drama around
them. Much of the interrogation of the children involved suggestive and
leading questioning, and the highly suggestive ‘anatomical dolls’ were used.
The allegations got progressively more bizarre and unlikely and some were
clearly fantasy. This is an expected consequence of non-abused children
undergoing repeated interviews by people in authority who believe the
children have undergone sexual trauma that they are too scared to reveal.
Although some of the investigators seem to have believed everything the
children said, even the most bizarre claims including those involving satanic
ritual abuse and multiple perpetrators, the Crown prosecutor, Brent Stanaway,
must had had some doubts, because he narrowed down the charges and the
complainants to those appearing to be the most credible. The more incredible
and bizarre stories were excluded as evidence, as these would have
discredited the child witnesses immediately. However the bizarre claims came
from the same interviews as the ‘more credible’ ones, a fact that must throw
considerable doubt on the reliability of the latter.
The primary source of the error is the prevailing belief by those working in
the sexual abuse field that first, sexual abuse is the most likely cause of
an child or adult psychological problem; and second, that while women and
children might be reluctant to ‘disclose’, they must always be believed when
they make a sexual allegation. Over the past 13 years I have accumulated
evidence which demonstrates how these beliefs have influenced practices,
policies and legislation to operate on a presumption of guilt (every
complainant is presumed to be genuine) leading to the generation of many
false complaints. COSA now has on record dozens of cases where like Peter
Ellis, men have been convicted on the basis of similar although
less-sensational testimony, often obtained through coercive or suggestive interviewing
and counselling practices. Many languish in prison with no means to obtain
justice.
Evidence is over-whelming that Peter Ellis was not proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. He was convicted on the basis of uncorroborated testimony
with the complicity of professionals who believe that women and children
always tell the truth when they say they have been sexually abused. These
professionals do not believe women and children if they say they have not
been abused. To them, anyone who retracts an allegation must be "in
denial".
In their defence, CYPS and the Police have recently said that in the past few
years, they have considerably improved their interviewing practices; that
anatomically correct dolls are no longer used; that care is taken to avoid
leading questions; and that guidelines recommend only one evidential
interview. While I agree that from the cases I have seen, there does appear
to be improvement, I still see many cases where there is clear evidence of
damage caused by the uncritical acceptance of allegations produced in the
course of suggestive interviews or therapy. However the admission by the
police and others that that the interviewing practices used in the Crèche
case were seriously defective is a further indication that a miscarriage of
justice has occurred.
The affair is not a case in isolation. Behind Peter Ellis stand many other
innocent men and women, falsely accused under the same misguided policies and
practices which fuelled the Christchurch Crèche case. If the authorities are
admitting that those earlier practices were flawed, then all who have been
charged and convicted on this basis should also have their cases re-examined.
The rise in false sexual allegations that has occurred over the past one to
two decades is the result of ideological-driven practices which believe that
false allegations rarely if ever happen (all alleged victims should be
uncritically believed) and that all men are potentially rapists.
There is widespread public unease regarding the Crèche case. Justice has not
been seen to be done. Given this plus the facts of the case, a full
Commission of Inquiry is required. Since this would involve assessment of the
part the courts played in this case, such an Inquiry should be presided over
by senior judge from overseas. This Inquiry should not focus solely on the
Peter Ellis case but should examine the underlying processes and polices
which have resulted in this case. COSA submits that this Inquiry should be
conducted for all those convicted of sexual offences on the basis of
uncorroborated testimony. The Inquiry should look into the role of police,
CYPS social workers, ACC-accredited therapists and DSAC (Doctors for Sexual
Abuse Care) doctors who operate from the assumption that false allegations
rarely if ever happen, and hence do not approach cases from a place of
neutrality. It also should examine the distorting effect of ACC providing
large cash pay-outs (now discontinued) and state-funded counselling for
anyone alleging past sexual abuse, with no corroboration required.
.
|