|
Photo: Dr John Read
(Devonport Flagstaff).
2003 -
John Read's "sympathy" for Peter Ellis
John Read has explained that his
lack of sympathy for Ellis is because he believes there is insufficient
concern about the separate problem of child abuse, of which he (Read) is a
"survivor".
(The Herald, July 7, 2003).
In the same article he also claims that he is concerned about wrongful
convictions. There is no evidence that
Read has ever shown concern that Peter Ellis may have been wrongfully
convicted
1997 - Concern about the
conviction, or support an unsubstantiated allegation?
Read showed his bias with regard
to the Ellis case following the TV3 20/20 programme in 1997, where serious
concerns about the case were aired. Immediately following there was press
report about further allegations against Peter, of which there were no
details (and in all the years since there have been no details!). Read wrote a series of letters, three of
which were published in the Sunday News, Dominion, and the Evening Post (Read, Press reports, Nov
30, 1997)
John Read writes: "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". Read's
bias is clearly demonstrated in the highlighted script.
Somehow Read takes a strange leap in logic to suggest that to be concerned
about the possibility of an injustice to Peter Ellis is to "ignore our children when they are
brave enough to tell of their abuse"
2000 - Read shows no
understanding of a wrongful conviction
If John Read has concerns about a
wrongful conviction, as he says he does, what does he expect a wrongfully
convicted man to do?. When Peter Ellis was released from prison, Read said
"Ellis's continued protestations of innocence were further trauma for
the families and children involved in the case". (NZPA, The Dominion,
Feb 5, 2000)
Pat Booth has some strong words for Read: "Dr "John Read" conveniently forgets
the lessons of the Thomas case. The guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis is one
issue. So is the credibility of the
justice system. Of course the community has the greatest sympathy for the
children and parents, recognising the impact the various ordeals involved
have had on their lives. They are victims in this sad affair. But, the key
question is whether they are victims of the judicial system rather than of
Peter Ellis. And whether he is a
victim too". (Nth Shore Times
Advertiser, Feb 8, 2000)
2002
- Read's claims are: "grotesque misrepresentation, irresponsible,
vindictive and wrong"
Read demonstrated how he had lost
all objectivity about the Ellis case when he attacked an article written by
Lynley Hood. (Read,
Listener, Oct 26, 2002). Read made a number of false claims that Hood
kindly refers to as "misrepresentations"
Lynley Hood responded tartly: "John
Read's grotesque misrepresentation of my comments on sex abuse hysteria
graphically illustrates the problems faced by anyone who calls for rational
discussion of the issue. In the article I argue that sexual abuse investigators
cannot reliably distinguish between true and false allegations of sexual
abuse, and that the damage being caused to New Zealand society by false
allegations cannot be ignored. Read's claim that I have thereby condoned
sexual abuse is irresponsible, vindictive and wrong." (Hood, Listener Nov 2, 2002)
2003 -
More misrepresentation and personal attack against Hood
Read must have hurt to have been
rebuked so succinctly a year earlier. When Lynley Hood is awarded a PhD for
her scholarship as an author, Read attacks: "Fortunately it was a doctorate for literature not science. A good
story does not need to fit the facts". (Read, Herald August 12, 2003).
2003 - And
more misrepresentation
Read continues to avoid
criticising any of the contents of
the book, A City Possessed.
He has obviously got nothing to say about the substance of her book.. He
appears to treat Lynley Hood as the enemy, once again misrepresenting what
she actually says:
(Read, Listener
September 27, 2003).
But Read is undeterred. He has staked
his reputation on the discredited beliefs and practices that made the creche
case possible. So, in his desperation to attack Hood, he seizes on a couple
of peripheral points (Read,
Listener October 25, 2003).
|
