Peter Ellis Case
Brian
Young) wrote:
>Excuse me, let's not start this interminable did he/didn't he debate
>all over again. Some would say
translation : "Craig would say"
> that the Ellis debate is a dead dodo,
There is no evidence for such an assertion, Craig. It can only be a
dead dodo when Peter Ellis gets justice, exoneration, and huge
compensation for what he has gone through
>given that he's been released
Released is not the same as exoneration and compensation for what has
been done to him
> and far too much time has now elapsed since the initial
>investigation, conviction etc.
That is absurd. The police are willing to prosecute people for
crimes allegedly carried out decades ago.
The Civic Creche bebacle was only ten years ago, and information has
been well documented in Hood's book.
> Let's restrict this to nz.general, shall we?
NO.
I've added
nz.general,
(important enough for all NZ'ers to be concerned)
nz.soc.queer,
(The case arguably involved elements of homophobia)
nz.politics,
(the case and relevant issues needs the input of politicians)
soc.culture.new-zealand.
(the case is only one of several world wide of a similar nature)
The Ellis case is a sore of huge magnitude and has direct relevance to
ALL of the above groups.
> Many of us have divergent opinions on this matter, and we
> should agree to disagree with civility on the matter.
To you, it may only be your opinion. Good coffee table chatter.
For a person who has suffered injustice, it's quite another matter.
For those concerned about the justice system in New Zeaalnd, and it's
apparent unwillingness to correct what it has done wrong, is also
another matter.
Peter Ellis : Victim of New Zealand "Justice"
Brian
Phélan
> On 8 Feb 2003 19:10:14 -0800, lavendarm...@yahoo.com (Craig
> Young) wrote:
>
>
> snip
> For those concerned about the justice system in New Zeaalnd, and it's
> apparent unwillingness to correct what it has done wrong, is also
> another matter.
>
>
> Peter Ellis : Victim of New Zealand "Justice"
>
>
can't find the original post, can you re post it ?
Phil
It undermines the fondations of the criminal justice system.
SCHLONG
Praise the father.
Peter
wrote:
>This sad Blight on New Zealand needs to be dealt with soon.
>It undermines the fondations of the criminal justice system.
>
The new Supreme Court will be an even greater blight if it is set up
the way that Margaret Wilson wants.
SCHLONG
"Col" <C...@thebardrunk.com> wrote in message
news:ZMpGPslglQ9lvGz3Hl+Gw5VBa=6...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:58:43 +1300, "SCHLONG" <SCH...@EMAIL.COM.NZ>
wrote:
>
> >Let the lord cure you of your homo-sexual ness.
> >
> >Praise the father.
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Col
>
> Col's law.
> Thinly sliced cabbage..
I pray for you.
mcfly
Greg Dowle is it ?
Brian
wrote:
> As someone who knows some of the victims,
Which ones? Peter Ellis, or the women who were charged?
(nz.general, nz.politics added)
Brian
Mental As Anything
bri...@wave.co.nz says...
> On 10 Feb 2003 13:40:47 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
>
> > As someone who knows some of the victims,
>
> Which ones? Peter Ellis, or the women who were charged?
According to him the only victims are the children.
David Bisman
> On 10 Feb 2003 13:40:47 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
>
> > As someone who knows some of the victims,
>
> Which ones? Peter Ellis, or the women who were charged?
No. The victims
> (nz.general, nz.politics added)
Why?
Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand
Brian
Peter Ellis and his co-workers were certainly once children, but were
not at the time they became victims of Bonker Eade et al.
Brian
wrote:
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:<pndg4vshc7k8fb933...@4ax.com>...
>> On 10 Feb 2003 13:40:47 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > As someone who knows some of the victims,
>>
>> Which ones? Peter Ellis, or the women who were charged?
>
>No.
You obviously do not know any of the victims, David. You could I
guess be accurately referring to New Zealanders collectively, because
we are all victims of having a justice system that inadequately
protected an innocent man.
>> (nz.general, nz.politics added)
>
>Why?
The Christchurch Creche case is a blight on New Zealand in very many
ways. All those ways could be part of the Commission of Inquiry that
people concerned with the injustice done to Ellis are calling for.
It is a case that is directly relevant to nz.queer, because of the
elements of homophobia that precipitated the victimisation of Ellis.
It is case that deserves to be discussed in a more general sense,
because of the issues associated with child sexual abuse hysteria,
police and social welfare incompetence, counselling practices,
feminism etc.
It is also a case that needs to remain part of the NZ political stage
- until Goff or his successors show the courage to do something about
(1) the injustice done to Ellis and (2) do something about the
problems that Lynley Hood has well identified in our system of
justice.
A case could be argued for also including discussions on the Ellis
injustice on soc.culture.new-zealand, because this group attracts more
overseas readers - and the problems of the Christchurch Creche were
copy-cat problems that originated in several other countries in the
mid-eighties and early 90s.
Brian.
jonnie
Tomas (mispelt?) case. Mum and Dad used to go on and on about it years ago
and I've read a book (can't remember the author) which went into great
details about Jeanette and Harvey Crewe (another typo??) back axles of cars,
noises etc, etc. I still have no idea either way what might have happened
but this case strikes me as being quite like the Peter Ellis case.
jonnie
David Bisman
> On 10 Feb 2003 19:56:39 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> >Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:<pndg4vshc7k8fb933...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 10 Feb 2003 13:40:47 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > As someone who knows some of the victims,
> >>
> >> Which ones? Peter Ellis, or the women who were charged?
> >
> >No.
>
> You obviously do not know any of the victims, David. You could I
> guess be accurately referring to New Zealanders collectively, because
> we are all victims of having a justice system that inadequately
> protected an innocent man.
>
I obviously know no victims yet all New Zealanders are victims then it
must follow that I obviously know no New Zealanders - including
myself! In fact I know several of the children that were abused by
Ellis and his cronies.
>
> >> (nz.general, nz.politics added)
> >
> >Why?
>
>
> The Christchurch Creche case is a blight on New Zealand in very many
> ways. All those ways could be part of the Commission of Inquiry that
> people concerned with the injustice done to Ellis are calling for.
>
> It is a case that is directly relevant to nz.queer, because of the
> elements of homophobia that precipitated the victimisation of Ellis.
Would you care to elucidate? I am queer and was in Christchurch at the
time and experienced no homophobia before during or after the Civic
Creche case.
> It is case that deserves to be discussed in a more general sense,
> because of the issues associated with child sexual abuse hysteria,
> police and social welfare incompetence, counselling practices,
> feminism etc.
>
> It is also a case that needs to remain part of the NZ political stage
> - until Goff or his successors show the courage to do something about
> (1) the injustice done to Ellis and (2) do something about the
> problems that Lynley Hood has well identified in our system of
> justice.
I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
> A case could be argued for also including discussions on the Ellis
> injustice on soc.culture.new-zealand, because this group attracts more
> overseas readers - and the problems of the Christchurch Creche were
> copy-cat problems that originated in several other countries in the
> mid-eighties and early 90s.
You have clearly made up your mind...I apologise for confusing you
with the facts.
Mental As Anything
dbi...@hotmail.com says...
Has there been any other case before or since
* That presumes that witnesses are incapable of lying?
* That has involved such controversy in the gathering of evidence?
* That admits as evidence claims of religious ritualistic abuse
in NZ?
Kerry
wrote:
.
>
>I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
>paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
Who was the murdered child, Andrew? Why has no one ever missed him?
Where were the children suspended in a basket high above the ground?
Where are the extensive networks of tunnels under Christchurch?
Is Peter Ellis' penis really black?
If you don;t know the answers to these questions, but believe them to
be true, how do you 'know' they are true?
If you do not think this accusations are true, but have a group of
accusations you believe to be true, how do you distinguish between the
truths and fantasies in this case? In what way qualified are you to
distinguish between these truths?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after,
so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too
late: the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect.
Jonathan Swift
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Morrissey Breen
objectionable stuff and some plain bizarre stuff in message
news:<d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>...
BIZARRE:
> >
> If I obviously know no victims yet all New Zealanders are victims then it
> must follow that I obviously know no New Zealanders - including
> myself!
(Would that be the most moronic sentence posted in google groups this
year? It has to be a contender.)
OFFENSIVE:
>
>In fact I know several of the children that were abused by Ellis and
his cronies.
Those children were abused by their parents and some zealous child
psychologists. Are you one of those, by any chance?
BIZARRE:
>
> I am queer and was in Christchurch at the time and experienced no homophobia
> before during or after the Civic Creche case.
So what? Queers are as capable of cruel and stupid behaviour as
anyone else. Your obvious hatred of Ellis (for whatever reason)
would no doubt have won you the approval of those lying psychologists
and of those parents gullible enough or bigoted enough to believe
them. Having a queer on board - are you a screamer? - is just the
perfect touch when you're a lynch mob going after a queer.
OFFENSIVE:
>
> I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
> paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
Once again, the only abuse of those children was by the parents and
the psychologists. And the police. Of course, you know this
perfectly well, too. But you choose to keep telling these lies.
Just what IS your motivation?
David Bisman
Neither was the Ellis case. He was tried in a New Zealand court under
New Zealand law. No such instruction was given by the Judge at any
time. You are the one lying. Why?
> * That has involved such controversy in the gathering of evidence?
>
The gathering of evidence for trials is almost always controversial.
Attempting to DNA test several hundred men in the North Island a few
years ago was certainly controversial but it eventually bagged a man
who had molested and murdered a child. The method of gathering the
evidence says nothing regarding the validity of the evidence. It is a
red herring. Why do you bring it up?
> * That admits as evidence claims of religious ritualistic abuse
>
> in NZ?
Anything that any witness or defendant says in court is admitted as
evidence. That does not mean to say that it is all given equal weight
when juries deliberate. And certainly, such absurd claims have been
made in many other cases - some won and some lost - why do you ask?
David Bisman
> On 11 Feb 2003 16:57:58 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> .
> >
> >I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
> >paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
>
> Who was the murdered child, Andrew? Why has no one ever missed him?
>
> Where were the children suspended in a basket high above the ground?
>
> Where are the extensive networks of tunnels under Christchurch?
>
> Is Peter Ellis' penis really black?
>
> If you don;t know the answers to these questions, but believe them to
> be true, how do you 'know' they are true?
>
> If you do not think this accusations are true, but have a group of
> accusations you believe to be true, how do you distinguish between the
> truths and fantasies in this case? In what way qualified are you to
> distinguish between these truths?
>
victims from receiving justice for the actual crimes that were
committed against them then no criminal could ever be convicted in
this country! Why do you apply a higher standard to Ellis' victims
than to the victims of ANY OTHER crime in New Zealand?
David Bisman
> A smarmy git called dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman) writes some
> objectionable stuff and some plain bizarre stuff in message
> news:<d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>
> BIZARRE:
> > >
> > If I obviously know no victims yet all New Zealanders are victims then it
> > must follow that I obviously know no New Zealanders - including
> > myself!
>
> (Would that be the most moronic sentence posted in google groups this
> year? It has to be a contender.)
Yes. It does appear bizarre out of its context. I assume that is why
you removed the context... in order to make a reasonable person seem
bizarre. Such gratuitous attacks on those who support children seem
typical of those who support paederasts.
> OFFENSIVE:
>
> >
> >In fact I know several of the children that were abused by Ellis and
> his cronies.
>
> Those children were abused by their parents and some zealous child
> psychologists. Are you one of those, by any chance?
You seem to be sure. What are your qualifications for making such a
judgement that flies in the face of the entire New Zealand legal
system? And no, I am not an abuser of children I am someone who openly
advocates capital punishment for those who do and those who assist
them.
> BIZARRE:
>
> >
> > I am queer and was in Christchurch at the time and experienced no homophobia
> > before during or after the Civic Creche case.
>
> So what? Queers are as capable of cruel and stupid behaviour as
> anyone else. Your obvious hatred of Ellis (for whatever reason)
> would no doubt have won you the approval of those lying psychologists
> and of those parents gullible enough or bigoted enough to believe
> them. Having a queer on board - are you a screamer? - is just the
> perfect touch when you're a lynch mob going after a queer.
My "hatred" od Ellis is non-existant. I wish to see him (and all
paederasts) excised from the human race but I hate no human. And I am
not a "screamer" for the record. Finally, my comment was responding to
one of the Ellisophiles who insisted that homophobia was ramped up in
Christchurch in the wake of the case. This is, in fact, a lie and I
was pointing out this fact and how I knew it.
> OFFENSIVE:
>
> >
> > I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
> > paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
>
> Once again, the only abuse of those children was by the parents and
> the psychologists. And the police. Of course, you know this
> perfectly well, too. But you choose to keep telling these lies.
> Just what IS your motivation?
My motivation is the truth. What is your motivation for supporting a
child abuser rather than the children he abused? And he did abuse them
- as is obvious to anyone who bothers to investigate the case.
one236
Read the Book " The Civic Crech Case" by Lindley Hood it will answer the
questions
Mental As Anything
dbi...@hotmail.com says...
> Mental As Anything <_@_._> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b4a3361...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
> > In article <d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > dbi...@hotmail.com says...
> > > You have clearly made up your mind...I apologise for confusing you
> > > with the facts.
> >
> > Has there been any other case before or since
> >
> > * That presumes that witnesses are incapable of lying?
>
> Neither was the Ellis case. He was tried in a New Zealand court under
> New Zealand law. No such instruction was given by the Judge at any
> time. You are the one lying. Why?
I am not lying.
The basis for all of the evidential interviewing of child witnesses by
Department of Social Welfare interviewers was that children could not
lie.
> > * That has involved such controversy in the gathering of evidence?
> >
> The gathering of evidence for trials is almost always controversial.
> Attempting to DNA test several hundred men in the North Island a few
> years ago was certainly controversial but it eventually bagged a man
> who had molested and murdered a child. The method of gathering the
> evidence says nothing regarding the validity of the evidence. It is a
> red herring. Why do you bring it up?
Because it isn't a red herring. The DNA thing was not in the same league.
The collection of evidence from children, the methods used to collect
that, was extremely controversial. There was no forensic evidence, such
as DNA, in this case.
> > * That admits as evidence claims of religious ritualistic abuse
> >
> > in NZ?
>
> Anything that any witness or defendant says in court is admitted as
> evidence. That does not mean to say that it is all given equal weight
> when juries deliberate. And certainly, such absurd claims have been
> made in many other cases - some won and some lost - why do you ask?
The claims that were made and mentioned elsewhere in this thread. For
example against the four women against whom charges were later dropped.
Apart from the suspect testimony of some of the children there was not a
shred of evidence against them. Against Ellis's mother, suspect testimony
but not a shred of other evidence. Claims of a satanic ring molesting
children for the purposes of pornography, not corroborated - based in
part on suspect children's evidence. The involvement of wierd people
making accusations against childcare workers without any evidence. And so
on.
Mental As Anything
persi...@tree.on says...
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:42:50 +1300, "one236" <one...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
>
> >
> >Read the Book " The Civic Crech Case" by Lindley Hood it will answer the
> >questions
>
> motives for writing the book for example.
So that Scooter can do away with his paedophiles under the bed nightmare
Kerry
wrote:
>ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz (Kerry) wrote in message news:<3e49e1a7...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>...
>> On 11 Feb 2003 16:57:58 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> .
>> >
>> >I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
>> >paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
>>
>> Who was the murdered child, Andrew? Why has no one ever missed him?
>>
>> Where were the children suspended in a basket high above the ground?
>>
>> Where are the extensive networks of tunnels under Christchurch?
>>
>> Is Peter Ellis' penis really black?
>>
>> If you don;t know the answers to these questions, but believe them to
>> be true, how do you 'know' they are true?
>>
>> If you do not think this accusations are true, but have a group of
>> accusations you believe to be true, how do you distinguish between the
>> truths and fantasies in this case? In what way qualified are you to
>> distinguish between these truths?
>>
>If the mistaken accusations of victims of crimes disqualify those
>victims from receiving justice for the actual crimes that were
>committed against them then no criminal could ever be convicted in
>this country!
Mistaken accusations?
Making accusations that one was sexually abused by a man who one also
saw murder a child does not cast a shred of doubt upon either of those
claims?
You are being ridiculous
Outrageous claims from the children were not submitted to the court
because it was known they were fantastical in the extreme, and would
cast doubt on the evidence that suited the prosecution.
How can one believe the claims that suit one, with no eveidence at
all, whilst disregarding large parts of the same childs evidence
because it was fantastical? That is not ethical.
>Why do you apply a higher standard to Ellis' victims
>than to the victims of ANY OTHER crime in New Zealand?
I believe that in many other cases I have witnessed the lying of
witnesses in one area casts grave doubts on their testimonies in
others, particularly when the only evidence is the testomony of said
unreliable witness
There is no logic in your argument
joe bloggs
(David Bisman wrote:
>I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
>>paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
I wrote:
[I have read some absolute rubbish on the nett, but this would take
the cake, the plate, and the table.
His University education and a wide knowledge may be seen by some to
be blessing, but I would rather stay as I am, average but with the
commonsense to desire to see the facts, to examine the facts and
determine the truth.
someone wrote:
>Who was the murdered child, Andrew? Why has no one ever missed him?
Where were the children suspended in a basket high above the ground?
Where are the extensive networks of tunnels under Christchurch?
Is Peter Ellis' penis really black?
etc
I wrote
Has anyone seen the complete list of all the accusations that were
generated against Peter and the other co-accused women?
Interesting to see the development, the enlarging, the source and the
groups that they evolved from and then the cross contamination.
Where did the children get these100’s of other wacky and outrageous
claims?
The origin was from a book imported from America ‘Ritual Child Abuse -
discovery, diagnosis and treatment.’
This book didn’t expose Ritual Abuse, it started it!
The sally to attack was then started and the wacky and outrageous
claims were released along with a large dose of generated hysteria to
ensure they had the desired result.
Symptoms of 'Ritual Child Abuse' were claims of:
locked in a cage,
claiming that their parents, pets or younger siblings would be killed
if they told anyone of the abuse.
buried in the ground in coffins
held underwater,
threatened with guns or knives
injected with needles, bled and drugged
photographed during abuse
tied upside down etc
Perpetrators wearing black robes, masks
participated in mock marriage
defecated and urinated upon
observed animals killed
observed torture and molestation of other children
saw children and babies killed
had blood poured on their heads
taken to churches, other day care settings, peoples’ homes, and
graveyards for the ritual abuse
Why did none of these claims occur before this book was read in
Christchurch before the sally sullied forth?
Why wasn’t a proper reality check on the insisters of abuse made very
early in the investigations?
Why wasn’t a sane and commonsense investigation into the group called
START made?
Why had Peter and the women been with these children for 3 years at
least before the eruption of these claims, and not one claim had been
made before this book was put into practice?
Why had not one parent among the thousands over this time seen any of
the urination and defecation that is supposed to have occurred?
Why were the cages never seen by the adults?
Why were the claims from certain parents children the same, and yet
not from the children whose parents wern’t in the little house group?
Why was the cross contamination caused by Detective Colin Eade?
Why were the children interviewed so often,
Karen Zelas who had been involved with the corrupt Ward 24
abuse, knew that this was one of the errors they made in that family
destroying saga?
Why did the allegations grow more bizarre each time the same children
were interviewed?
Why was the jury deprived of all the claims of the children being
given to them?
Did censorship of evidence compromise the truth?
etc.
The first allegation came from a boy who told his mother he didn’t
like Peter’s black penis, reality check needed?
The first child interview allegation was by a child WHO had not ever
attended the creche? in the few moments she had waited while her
mother picked up her little brother the indecent touching was supposed
to happen; why wasn’t a reality check then about contamination and
suggestion of claims made?
That children recanted, the lack of corroboration, the error of
multiple interviews by others, including Karen Zelas who had already
been told this was wrong and therefore could hide the truth, raises
huge doubts on reliability of children and especially the reliability
and the political agenda of these particular ‘professional’ child
interviewers.
Believe the child??????????????????????????????????????
Where was the corroboration to support the claims, even the City
Council ladder was missing, or did it never exist like all the other
claims the children made?
The missing City Council ladder that Peter Ellis placed at the top of
two tall buildings so far up in the clouds that people could never see
it, but so as the children could go from one building to another off
to the tunnels and then back to the cages hanging from the ceilings
that nobody else ever saw?.
Sex sex sex and more sex, but not by Peter or the children, no that
was between the professionals and hysterical generating accusers.
Judge Eric Anderson have a good long think, reflect, stand up and be a
man and start putting it right.
How many Zelous Eades, Greigs, Crawfords etc, have to appear before
you, before you are moved to do something about it. Your court or the
peoples court, a court where the professional liars and deceivers are
protected and allowed back again for another stream of deceit or a
court which will put an end to their perverting the course of justice
and actually the accused to have a say in his own defense - it would
be good if you chose the latter next time.
Better to use common sense to examine the claims and the facts, rather
than an emotive and knee jerk claim to believe the indoctrinated
children and the constant errors made by the professionals. Until the
authorities admit that the errors need to be faced up to and then
corrected, the same abuse of the innocent continues.
ie
Cathy Crawford who claimed ‘the reason why I believe the child is
because she is so consistent, no girl could tell these stories unless
she had experienced them,’ [police hiding in trees, police abducting
her etc etc,] and then she blatantly lies to Judge Eric Anderson when
she appears before him again - a whimper from Judge Eric Anderson.
Karen Zelas with the customary gobbledegook got her bit in.
The only difference this time was the dysfunctional Detective Colin
Eade replaced with the dysfunctional lying Sergeant Tony Greig and
Sergeant Parkes as the prosecutor who hadn’t even read a third of the
evidence.
Sergeant Greig who refused to get the evidence he was told of, lied to
the Judge and to the accused, false statements, broken property,
withholding of evidence, etc etc. and the result? the customary legal
aid bill to the accused to ensure the farce that is referred to as our
justice system is well fed to attack the next falsely accused.
The Police Complaints is the answer?
Think again - the corrupt Rob Pope procrastination, coverup and
refusal to investigate, the arrogance that ensures no apology and no
changes, but perf payout and protection, sounds like the maffia?.
The Police look after their own, and Rob Pope is a prime example.
When is the voice of Judge Eric Anderson going to be heard saying no
more police lies or their witnesses lies in my court. When is the
truth going to be allowed to be spoken by the falsely accused in his
court, maybe when hell has frozen over?
When is the voice of David Close, who knew from his experience of Ward
24 and its Karen Zelas input, that the same abuse and mistakes was
being made again.
When are our lawyers going to speak up and get the injustice exposed.
Has the sally forth of those who have sullied their integrity made
them eunuchs. Whimpers from Judges is an abuse Eric, and when Sergeant
Tony Greig and the prosecutor Sergeant Parkes, exit your court room
with only their tails left between their legs, bemoaning that their
masculinity has been removed and that Cathy Crawford runs the
Christchurch Police Sex Accuse Department. Never mind Rob Pope will
ensure they are never called to account for Police Abuse.
When he left it appears Sandra Manderson had a real Joker to take over
the abuse of the falsely accused.
joe bloggs
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:42:50 +1300, "one236" <one...@yahoo.com>
>wrote
>
>>
>>Read the Book " The Civic Crech Case" by Lindley Hood it will answer the
>>questions
>
>I have and it hasn't, it raises more questions, like the true
>motives for writing the book for example.
Her true motives are well stated. Writing a book of such depth and
research is very time consuming. Consider her income for the hours
spent and efforts gathering the information and putting it in such a
clear manner as against the Judge and his INCOME, already on a salary
and subsidised heavily by the taxpayer, how much did he make for
rubber stamping the material he had supplied to
him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Did he interview Cathy Crawford as to her evidence, did he interview
Colin Eade, or ask for a report as to his ability to be able to carry
out a proper investigation. Did he examine all aspects of the case.
NO, NO, NO, NO,NO only the evidence that was allowed,
deja vu? same as the jury.
What is more important is the motives of those that CAUSED the need
for the book to be published.
1, if Pamela Hudsons book had never been imported from America, the
claims of Ritual Child Abuse would probably not have surfaced.
When you read this book and realise that the accusations were of a
ritual almost Satanic Abuse theme. When you know some of the parents
and here from them the pressure that was applied on them by Detective
Colin Eade, when you speak to parents who visited the creche day after
day, and who point out with common sense, that the claims could not
have happened with all the people round about, the staff ratio and you
know the layout of the place, and then see the deceit in the way the
police prepared the photographs with a dreadful bent to distort the
reality of the layout and the activities so claimed could take place
with no one seeing them.
When you talk to such people as David Close who had seen the errors of
the Ward 24 fiasco occurring again by the same Karen Zelas, when you
have been lied to quite blatantly by Cathy Crawford, when you have
heard her deliberately deceive Judge Eric Anderson and all he gives is
an emasculated whimper, you start to realise, it is not the motives of
Lynley Hood, but the motives of Phil Goff and his cronies and their
relatives, who did very well thank you, pity about the kids.
When you examine all the plans drawn up at the expense of the public
to try to give the impression that the trap doors and tunnels were a
real thing, and realise that the firm has trouble spelling their own
name let alone producing any corroboration to support the childrens
claims or especially the suggestive feeding of SOME [not all] parents.
Their children were fodder, fortunately common sense settled down for
the majority of those parents whose children were questioned, and even
those whose children were subjected to multiple questioning for hours.
Those people have my full admiration for protecting their children
from the professionals.
We should be able to trust the professionals to tell the truth, not
lie, not cross contaminate the evidence, and not abuse the children
unnecessarily. The blessing is the children did not realise they were
being used, they were too young, except because the older one that
recanted. Well done these parents and I hope they as a family are
getting on well.
Motives that should be questioned - Judges who don't KNOW that when a
child RECANTS, she is RECANTING.
Motives that should be questioned - the refusal to allow a full
inquiry to determine the truth.
Motives that should be questioned - the police that allowed Detective
Colin Eade to run his investigation unsupervised, and because this
stupidity [when you examine his motives and why the sexual activity -
was it so they wouldn't pull out before he did?] had not been
corrected we had Sergeant Tony Greig, proclaiming so often he was in
charge, it was his decision to arrest, NO CHECKS, only Cathy Crawford
filling his chicken brain, that he kept saying he had open, with
chicken shit.
The rooster in the CYPFS hen house sits on the bottom rung, and the
most pathetic feathered uniform you ever saw, but he didn't have the
guts or the honesty to tell the truth and face the consequences,
rather lies to the Dominion paper and on Liberty Radio.
The motives of Rob Pope need to be questioned, why the
procrastination, why the cover up, why the refusal to investigate.
The motives of those in positions of power constantly need to be
examined, especially the Rob Popes, the Phil Goffs, from some people's
EXPERIENCE.
Arrogance and refusal to tell and disclose the truth is the very
corruption we don't need.
Examine the 1500 pages of documentation, listen to the five hours of
tape, read Ritual Child Abuse, get to the truth, don't make your
belief on emotion. And if you actually have any evidence that you
believe is not known expose it. This case needs to have a final and
honorable end BEFORE we can put it behind us and also to ensure it
doesn't happen again.
WARD 24
GLENELG HEALTH CAMP
BANKS AVENUE
CIVIC CRECHE CASE
The authorities haven't corrected the mistakes or acknowledged them
THEY WILL HAPPEN AGAIN
joe bloggs
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:42:50 +1300, "one236" <one...@yahoo.com>
>wrote
>
>>
>>Read the Book " The Civic Crech Case" by Lindley Hood it will answer the
>>questions
>
David Bisman
> In article <d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> dbi...@hotmail.com says...
> > Mental As Anything <_@_._> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b4a3361...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
> > > In article <d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > > dbi...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > You have clearly made up your mind...I apologise for confusing you
> > > > with the facts.
> > >
> > > Has there been any other case before or since
> > >
> > > * That presumes that witnesses are incapable of lying?
> >
> > Neither was the Ellis case. He was tried in a New Zealand court under
> > New Zealand law. No such instruction was given by the Judge at any
> > time. You are the one lying. Why?
>
> I am not lying.
>
> The basis for all of the evidential interviewing of child witnesses by
> Department of Social Welfare interviewers was that children could not
> lie.
How do you know this? Were you there? Or do you believe those with a
vested interest in lying about this case?
> > > * That has involved such controversy in the gathering of evidence?
> > >
> > The gathering of evidence for trials is almost always controversial.
> > Attempting to DNA test several hundred men in the North Island a few
> > years ago was certainly controversial but it eventually bagged a man
> > who had molested and murdered a child. The method of gathering the
> > evidence says nothing regarding the validity of the evidence. It is a
> > red herring. Why do you bring it up?
>
> Because it isn't a red herring. The DNA thing was not in the same league.
> The collection of evidence from children, the methods used to collect
> that, was extremely controversial. There was no forensic evidence, such
> as DNA, in this case.
When children are the victims of crimes then there is no alternative
to gathering evidence from them. The only possible reason for
objecting to this fact is if you want paederasts to get away with
their child abuse. Why do you want this to happen.
> > > * That admits as evidence claims of religious ritualistic abuse
> > >
> > > in NZ?
> >
> > Anything that any witness or defendant says in court is admitted as
> > evidence. That does not mean to say that it is all given equal weight
> > when juries deliberate. And certainly, such absurd claims have been
> > made in many other cases - some won and some lost - why do you ask?
>
> The claims that were made and mentioned elsewhere in this thread. For
> example against the four women against whom charges were later dropped.
> Apart from the suspect testimony of some of the children there was not a
> shred of evidence against them. Against Ellis's mother, suspect testimony
> but not a shred of other evidence. Claims of a satanic ring molesting
> children for the purposes of pornography, not corroborated - based in
> part on suspect children's evidence. The involvement of wierd people
> making accusations against childcare workers without any evidence. And so
> on.
As none of what you mention above was part of the Ellis court case
thyis simply shows that, despite your claims to the contrary, you are
lying. And you are lying in an attempt to exonerate a child abuser!
Why?
BTW, the charges against the women were NOT dropped. Their case did
not proceed from depositions to trial because the judge did not think
a jury would convict them at that time - the charges stand and they
can be brought to trial at such time as the "child abuse is all false"
hysteria dies down.
David Bisman
> On 12 Feb 2003 13:21:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> >ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz (Kerry) wrote in message news:<3e49e1a7...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>...
> >> On 11 Feb 2003 16:57:58 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> .
> >> >
> >> >I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
> >> >paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
> >>
> >> Who was the murdered child, Andrew? Why has no one ever missed him?
> >>
> >> Where were the children suspended in a basket high above the ground?
> >>
> >> Where are the extensive networks of tunnels under Christchurch?
> >>
> >> Is Peter Ellis' penis really black?
> >>
> >> If you don;t know the answers to these questions, but believe them to
> >> be true, how do you 'know' they are true?
> >>
> >> If you do not think this accusations are true, but have a group of
> >> accusations you believe to be true, how do you distinguish between the
> >> truths and fantasies in this case? In what way qualified are you to
> >> distinguish between these truths?
> >>
> >If the mistaken accusations of victims of crimes disqualify those
> >victims from receiving justice for the actual crimes that were
> >committed against them then no criminal could ever be convicted in
> >this country!
>
> Mistaken accusations?
When dealing with very young children a determined, perverted and
theatrical man such as Ellis was would have no trouble convincing them
that he had killed a man. As a ploy to try to ensure that everything
they say sounds as fantastical it works on the stupid.
> Making accusations that one was sexually abused by a man who one also
> saw murder a child does not cast a shred of doubt upon either of those
> claims?
As I said, making the children believe that would not be hard. Any
adult with an IQ in at least double digits should understand this.
> You are being ridiculous
>
> Outrageous claims from the children were not submitted to the court
> because it was known they were fantastical in the extreme, and would
> cast doubt on the evidence that suited the prosecution.
That they were not submitted in court is a matter of record. The
reasons for this are something that you are making up. Why, for
instance, did not Ellis' lawyer introduce them (legally it could
easily have been done)? All those who seek to champion the child
abuser side step this point. The fact is that to any thinking adult
(such as the jury were) the obvious answer that Ellis and his cronies
had faked certain fantastical things to confuse the children would
have shone through. It is all one with his physical and psychological
abuse of the children.
> How can one believe the claims that suit one, with no eveidence at
> all, whilst disregarding large parts of the same childs evidence
> because it was fantastical? That is not ethical.
No it would not be. However, in the Ellis case there is evidence and I
do not disbelieve the fantastical BECAUSE it is fantastical. So this
simply does not apply.
> >Why do you apply a higher standard to Ellis' victims
> >than to the victims of ANY OTHER crime in New Zealand?
>
> I believe that in many other cases I have witnessed the lying of
> witnesses in one area casts grave doubts on their testimonies in
> others, particularly when the only evidence is the testomony of said
> unreliable witness
Yes it does, but it does not automatically lead to the dismissal of
their evidence. Why do you want this to happen regarding Ellis'
victims.
> There is no logic in your argument
>
You understanding of the discipline of logic is as sadly lacking as
your understanding of the rudiments of jurisprudence.
David Bisman
> On 12 Feb 2003 13:21:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com
>
> (David Bisman wrote:
> >I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
> >>paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
>
> I wrote:
> [I have read some absolute rubbish on the nett, but this would take
> the cake, the plate, and the table.
> His University education and a wide knowledge may be seen by some to
> be blessing, but I would rather stay as I am, average but with the
> commonsense to desire to see the facts, to examine the facts and
> determine the truth.
Rather than actually entering into the discussion you hide behind
anonymity and engage in personal abuse. No wonder you champion Ellis!
<snip long and insane ravings regarding riual abuse which was not what
the case was about>
Yawn!
David Bisman
> Read the Book " The Civic Crech Case" by Lindley Hood it will answer the
> questions
You mean the book called "A City Possessed". I have read it - it does
not.
Lynley has done a wonderful job of research but no book can give the
complete picture.
KiwiBrian
> You mean the book called "A City Possessed". I have read it - it does
> not.
> Lynley has done a wonderful job of research but no book can give the
> complete picture.
Are you able to quote or refer to any significant factual errors in the
book?
Brian Tozer
joe bloggs
wrote:
>joe bloggs <somewhere.dot.net> wrote in message news:<v02n4v08k18bc5pvu...@4ax.com>...
>> On 12 Feb 2003 13:21:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com
>>
>> (David Bisman wrote:
>> >I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
>> >>paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
>>
>> I wrote:
>> [I have read some absolute rubbish on the nett, but this would take
>> the cake, the plate, and the table.
>> His University education and a wide knowledge may be seen by some to
>> be blessing, but I would rather stay as I am, average but with the
>> commonsense to desire to see the facts, to examine the facts and
>> determine the truth.
>he wrote
>Rather than actually entering into the discussion you hide behind
>anonymity and engage in personal abuse. No wonder you champion Ellis!
I wrote
When someone throws a childish tantrum and destroys a list of facts it
doesn't like to read by snipping, and then snipes that because of
anonymity a discussion has not been entered into, I see no reason to
alter my comments either before or after the cake has been taken.
A desire to have a full factual discussion means that facts have to be
fully presented, examined and considered.
Brian Field often used to say "a text without a context is a pretext."
The childrens and their parents claims, need to be examined in its
context.
Where did they come from, what was their origin, what other evidence
needs to be considered etc.
I don't champion Ellis. I have never met, written, or spoken to him.
What my concern is that the injustice of our justice system continues,
from one false accusation to another.
Until we have the corrupt Rob Pope procrastination and coverups
admitted and addressed, the same abuse of the innocent goes on.
We have Judge Eric Andersons wimping away, but no ordering the lying
Sergeant Tony Greigs' and the lying paid professional Cathy Crawfords'
from his court. A wimper will not stop the rot of false accusations
being taken to court without the evidence being PROPERLY examined
before the arrests.
The abuse by the police and their 'specialist witnesses' on innocent
people will continue. The professional abuses of Ward 24, Glenelg
Health Camp, Banks Avenue, Civic Creche Case continue again and again.
When prosecutors such as Sergeant Parkes haven't even read a third of
the evidence they are using to gain a conviction, when the police
refuse to get the evidence they are told, when Judges don't allow the
accused to speak in their own defence and tell the truth of what has
been going on - WE HAVE CORRUPT PROSECUTIONS - and they will be
allowed to continue by those whose political motives and actions are
not motivated with integrity, accountability or honesty.
I do not Champion Ellis as you falsely claim, my fight is against the
corruption and lies that he also faced.
Please understand this very thoroughly if you get nothing else from
this -
I DO NOT CHAMPION PETER ELLIS.
I DO FIGHT AGAINST INJUSTICE
I DO FIGHT AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY JUSTICE TO THOSE INJUSTICED
I DO STAND AGAINST LYING POLICE AND THEIR LYING PROFESSIONALS.
I DO STAND AGAINST THE CORRUPT ROB POPE COVERUPS
I DO STAND AGAINST THE PHIL GOFFS WITH THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS and
ARROGANCE THAT WONT ALLOW THE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE TO BE EXPOSED.
I reinsert your snip and snipe
><snip long and insane ravings regarding riual abuse which was not what
>the case was about>
>Yawn!
I re insert and assert what I and maybe others regard as facts, that
need to be considered and discussed.
I could be wrong on some of the facts but childish acts by people who
can't accept, and wont accept, the possibility they may be wrong and
have nothing more to learn, is not desirable in anyone
Why wasn’t a sane and common sense investigation into the group called
************
Yes Christchurch was to have the biggest play performed in its
hysteria [sorry history].
An American theme, gleaned from an imported book 'Ritual Child Abuse',
by a person interested [obsessed] in the subject..
The theme rewritten suitable for a New Zealand setting but still
incorporating the American touch.
The task of selecting suitable performers made, then down to
rehearsals. The children picked up the new dialogue, props suggested -
cages, tunnels, children being killed etc - but the public may think
this a bit over the top and not believe, better hide them from sight,
just alude to them.
Of course other children were bought in as needed to enhance the
performance.
After the initial rehearsels, then the opening for the public viewing,
assisted by a policeman, who managed to find time between his sexual
conquests to assist in presenting the big act. {If you burn the candle
at that end as well it takes a lot out of you}.The choreographers had
done their job well. The stage was well set up and the performers
delivered their rehearsed deliverences [practise makes perfect].
A few professional performers were employed to enhance the story line,
and to ensure that it all flowed together so as the audeience could
follow the cast. It would have had a huge cast but most of those who
were invited to take part refused - they didn't believe in the theme,
but a few Judges seemed to and they got so carried away by the emotion
and hysteria, they quite forgot that fantasy is not reality as they
delivered their verdict at the end of the performance.
The public enthused more than bemused, went away caught up in the
moment, but after a while the dust of obscausion settled and those
with commonsense realised they had been connned by a superb
performance by the drama queens and a troup of professional mime
artists [no substance, no corroboration].
A sequel was under way when one of the major performers in the Civic
Creche Case found another male creche worker as a victim [it had
worked before, lets try again?] but this time they didn't have Colin
Eade to be caught with his pants down.
The false claims were stopped by the police.
Lets have the critics report
Kerry
wrote:
>ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz (Kerry) wrote in message news:<3e4b7a73...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>...
>> On 12 Feb 2003 13:21:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
>> wrote:
>> >If the mistaken accusations of victims of crimes disqualify those
>> >victims from receiving justice for the actual crimes that were
>> >committed against them then no criminal could ever be convicted in
>> >this country!
>>
>> Mistaken accusations?
>
>When dealing with very young children a determined, perverted and
>theatrical man such as Ellis was would have no trouble convincing them
>that he had killed a man. As a ploy to try to ensure that everything
>they say sounds as fantastical it works on the stupid.
The 'witness' you are talking about, one whose evidence was used as a
basis for conviciting Ellis, clearly stated they saw a child murdered.
Where is that child? How can you fail to accept the veracity of one
part of the statement but accept the rest unquestioningly?
>
>> Making accusations that one was sexually abused by a man who one also
>> saw murder a child does not cast a shred of doubt upon either of those
>> claims?
>
>As I said, making the children believe that would not be hard. Any
>adult with an IQ in at least double digits should understand this.
Making the children see it would appear harder to me.
For someone who apparently knows all about it and *knows* Ellis is
guilty you seem to grasp few of the well-known facts about the case
Not in your interests to?
David Bisman
I would not try. And I have not said that there are any. Why do you ask?
Mental As Anything
dbi...@hotmail.com says...
> Mental As Anything <_@_._> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b5f40f4...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
> > In article <d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > dbi...@hotmail.com says...
> > > Mental As Anything <_@_._> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b4a3361...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
> > > > In article <d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > dbi...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > > > You have clearly made up your mind...I apologise for confusing you
> > > > > with the facts.
> > > >
> > > > Has there been any other case before or since
> > > >
> > > > * That presumes that witnesses are incapable of lying?
> > >
> > > Neither was the Ellis case. He was tried in a New Zealand court under
> > > New Zealand law. No such instruction was given by the Judge at any
> > > time. You are the one lying. Why?
> >
> > I am not lying.
> >
> > The basis for all of the evidential interviewing of child witnesses by
> > Department of Social Welfare interviewers was that children could not
> > lie.
>
> How do you know this? Were you there? Or do you believe those with a
> vested interest in lying about this case?
Who has a vested interest in lying about this case?
> > Because it isn't a red herring. The DNA thing was not in the same league.
> > The collection of evidence from children, the methods used to collect
> > that, was extremely controversial. There was no forensic evidence, such
> > as DNA, in this case.
>
> When children are the victims of crimes then there is no alternative
> to gathering evidence from them. The only possible reason for
> objecting to this fact is if you want paederasts to get away with
> their child abuse. Why do you want this to happen.
The main objection is that the manner of collection left many questions
as to the quality and accuracy of the evidence and there are legitimate
grounds for objection on the basis of questioning the validity of that
evidence. In this case, some of the evidence has since been retracted.
> > > Anything that any witness or defendant says in court is admitted as
> > > evidence. That does not mean to say that it is all given equal weight
> > > when juries deliberate. And certainly, such absurd claims have been
> > > made in many other cases - some won and some lost - why do you ask?
> >
> > The claims that were made and mentioned elsewhere in this thread. For
> > example against the four women against whom charges were later dropped.
> > Apart from the suspect testimony of some of the children there was not a
> > shred of evidence against them. Against Ellis's mother, suspect testimony
> > but not a shred of other evidence. Claims of a satanic ring molesting
> > children for the purposes of pornography, not corroborated - based in
> > part on suspect children's evidence. The involvement of wierd people
> > making accusations against childcare workers without any evidence. And so
> > on.
>
> As none of what you mention above was part of the Ellis court case
> thyis simply shows that, despite your claims to the contrary, you are
> lying. And you are lying in an attempt to exonerate a child abuser!
> Why?
No I am not lying. The connections with the Ellis case are real and the
claims were investigated as they involved people whom Ellis worked with
or was otherwise associated with. Ellis's fellow workers at the creche
were charged by the police, and they were proposing to charge Ellis's
mother on the basis of some of the more fanciful claims made by child
witnesses. These claims also included the tunnels, hanging from the
ceiling and children being killed allegations.
> BTW, the charges against the women were NOT dropped. Their case did
> not proceed from depositions to trial because the judge did not think
> a jury would convict them at that time - the charges stand and they
> can be brought to trial at such time as the "child abuse is all false"
> hysteria dies down.
I think that is rather a semantical point and the police will never bring
them to trial, certainly not in Christchurch where it would be almost
impossible to get an impartial hearing.
Mental As Anything
dbi...@hotmail.com says...
All those who have read the record of the case know that Ellis's lawyer
did try to get this evidence brought before the court but it was
disallowed by the judge.
KiwiBrian
> > "David Bisman" <dbi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > You mean the book called "A City Possessed". I have read it - it does
> > > not.
> > > Lynley has done a wonderful job of research but no book can give the
> > > complete picture.
> > Are you able to quote or refer to any significant factual errors in the
> > book?
> I would not try. And I have not said that there are any. Why do you ask?
Because I wanted to know the answer, and because in all other subjects I
have the highest respect for your point of view.
I consider that your answer added to my perceptions respecting matters
relating to this case.
Thankyou for responding.
Brian Tozer
aliveunwed
The Ellis case wasn't about "riual [sic] abuse"? What was it about then, prey?
Fresh fruit?
B.
David Bisman
> On 13 Feb 2003 12:29:29 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> >ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz (Kerry) wrote in message news:<3e4b7a73...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>...
> >> On 12 Feb 2003 13:21:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >If the mistaken accusations of victims of crimes disqualify those
> >> >victims from receiving justice for the actual crimes that were
> >> >committed against them then no criminal could ever be convicted in
> >> >this country!
> >>
> >> Mistaken accusations?
> >
> >When dealing with very young children a determined, perverted and
> >theatrical man such as Ellis was would have no trouble convincing them
> >that he had killed a man. As a ploy to try to ensure that everything
> >they say sounds as fantastical it works on the stupid.
>
>
> The 'witness' you are talking about, one whose evidence was used as a
> basis for conviciting Ellis, clearly stated they saw a child murdered.
> Where is that child? How can you fail to accept the veracity of one
> part of the statement but accept the rest unquestioningly?
>
commas? Do you not understand plain English. As to your question: that
is what courts do every day of the week (with the exception, as here,
of being unquestioning)! Who, by the way, said I accepted anything
unquestioningly? I do not.
> >
> >> Making accusations that one was sexually abused by a man who one also
> >> saw murder a child does not cast a shred of doubt upon either of those
> >> claims?
> >
> >As I said, making the children believe that would not be hard. Any
> >adult with an IQ in at least double digits should understand this.
>
> Making the children see it would appear harder to me.
See above.
>
> For someone who apparently knows all about it and *knows* Ellis is
> guilty you seem to grasp few of the well-known facts about the case
I 'grasp' all the salient ones - clearly you do not.
> Not in your interests to?
My interest is the truth - what is yours?
David Bisman
Clearly you have read some other 'record' than the court transcript!
What is your evidence for this remarkable statement?
David Bisman
> On 13 Feb 2003 12:34:05 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> >joe bloggs <somewhere.dot.net> wrote in message news:<v02n4v08k18bc5pvu...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 12 Feb 2003 13:21:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com
> >>
> >> (David Bisman wrote:
> >> >I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
> >> >>paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
> >>
> >> I wrote:
> >> [I have read some absolute rubbish on the nett, but this would take
> >> the cake, the plate, and the table.
> >> His University education and a wide knowledge may be seen by some to
> >> be blessing, but I would rather stay as I am, average but with the
> >> commonsense to desire to see the facts, to examine the facts and
> >> determine the truth.
>
> >he wrote
> >Rather than actually entering into the discussion you hide behind
> >anonymity and engage in personal abuse. No wonder you champion Ellis!
>
champions Ellis ... and, it would appear, any paederast, rather than
the victims and therefore will continue to be ridiculed and/or ignored
but who, in a perfect world, should be prosecuted and executed>
David Bisman
Mental As Anything
<d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>, David Bisman
(dbi...@hotmail.com) says...
Quoting from David McLoughlin's North and South article in 1996:
http://www4.wave.co.nz/~brianr/PeterEllis/1991-1996/1996-08
_NorthAndSouth_SecondThoughtsOnTheCrecheCase.htm
The Crown's determination to spare the jury the bizarre allegations
didn’t stop the defence from trying to raise them in defence. Defence
counsel Rob Harrison sought to show the jury the tapes in which children
who were the subject of more credible charges went on in subsequent tapes
to describe such incredible events as being suspended in cages from
rafters and having lighted paper stuck in their backsides.
Harrison wanted the jury to see tapes because he believed they would cast
reasonable doubt on the more credible testimony. He regarded this as the
crux of the defence case. But Justice Williamson ruled that such crucial
tapes were not relevant to the charges against Ellis and he placed such
strict limitations on playing them that Harrison believed the defence was
mortally handicapped.
Kerry
wrote:
>joe bloggs <somewhere.dot.net> wrote in message news:<7eso4vo194u4s8udb...@4ax.com>...
>> >he wrote
>> >Rather than actually entering into the discussion you hide behind
>> >anonymity and engage in personal abuse. No wonder you champion Ellis!
>>
><snip - even longer and just as insane ramblings from someone who
>champions Ellis ... and, it would appear, any paederast, rather than
>the victims and therefore will continue to be ridiculed and/or ignored
>but who, in a perfect world, should be prosecuted and executed>
>
>Cheers
>David Bisman
>Dunedin
>New Zealand
You seem uninterested in fact David
A characterist rampant amongst those who want Peter Ellis dead, or
back in prison at the very least
I am interested in discussing anything but fact with you. Instead of
responding to any actual questions you resort to responses that can be
summed up with the phrase "I know that Peter Ellis is guilty, and am
uninterested in any kind of thinking that may alter my point of view"
Pointless
Kerry
wrote:
A truth that appears somewhat divorced from the reality you claim.
Get that head out of the sand man
David Bisman
Oh, come on! McLoughlin is another Ellis apologist. Another who is
convinced he knows more and better than the Police, the Courts and the
victims themselves. I would not build any case based on such an
obviously biased source!
Mental As Anything
And you are an Ellis hater.
> Another who is
> convinced he knows more and better than the Police, the Courts and the
> victims themselves. I would not build any case based on such an
> obviously biased source!
Well you're biased source, are we supposed to believe you.
The sole rationale for your dismissal seems to be on the strength of it
being reported by David McLoughlin. Not on the basis of the facts
contained in his article.
The sole basis of your debating technique appears to be to rubbish
everyone opposed to your POV.
David Bisman
No. I do not hate any human being but I do hate child abuse.
> > Another who is
> > convinced he knows more and better than the Police, the Courts and the
> > victims themselves. I would not build any case based on such an
> > obviously biased source!
>
> Well you're biased source, are we supposed to believe you.
Yes I am. No. You should examine the facts for yourself and not rely
on others to do your thinking for you.
> The sole rationale for your dismissal seems to be on the strength of it
> being reported by David McLoughlin. Not on the basis of the facts
> contained in his article.
In this particular case. Yes. Although so few facts ever appear in his
writings that I tend to dismiss them all without corroborating
evidence such as trial transcripts.
> The sole basis of your debating technique appears to be to rubbish
> everyone opposed to your POV.
You are free to believe what you will. I will continue to evaluate the
evidence and make up my mind based on it.
David Bisman
> In article <d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> dbi...@hotmail.com says...
> > Mental As Anything <_@_._> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b5f40f4...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
> > > In article <d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > > dbi...@hotmail.com says...
> > > > Mental As Anything <_@_._> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b4a3361...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
> > > > > In article <d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > > dbi...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > > > You have clearly made up your mind...I apologise for confusing you
> > > > > > with the facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Has there been any other case before or since
> > > > >
> > > > > * That presumes that witnesses are incapable of lying?
> > > >
> > > > Neither was the Ellis case. He was tried in a New Zealand court under
> > > > New Zealand law. No such instruction was given by the Judge at any
> > > > time. You are the one lying. Why?
> > >
> > > I am not lying.
> > >
> > > The basis for all of the evidential interviewing of child witnesses by
> > > Department of Social Welfare interviewers was that children could not
> > > lie.
> >
> > How do you know this? Were you there? Or do you believe those with a
> > vested interest in lying about this case?
>
> Who has a vested interest in lying about this case?
The guilty parties and their supporters.
> > > Because it isn't a red herring. The DNA thing was not in the same league.
> > > The collection of evidence from children, the methods used to collect
> > > that, was extremely controversial. There was no forensic evidence, such
> > > as DNA, in this case.
> >
> > When children are the victims of crimes then there is no alternative
> > to gathering evidence from them. The only possible reason for
> > objecting to this fact is if you want paederasts to get away with
> > their child abuse. Why do you want this to happen.
>
> The main objection is that the manner of collection left many questions
> as to the quality and accuracy of the evidence and there are legitimate
> grounds for objection on the basis of questioning the validity of that
> evidence. In this case, some of the evidence has since been retracted.
OK. Then question the methodology but not the action. However, even
with flawed techniques enough of the truth came to light to at least
convict one of the perpetrators.
> > > > Anything that any witness or defendant says in court is admitted as
> > > > evidence. That does not mean to say that it is all given equal weight
> > > > when juries deliberate. And certainly, such absurd claims have been
> > > > made in many other cases - some won and some lost - why do you ask?
> > >
> > > The claims that were made and mentioned elsewhere in this thread. For
> > > example against the four women against whom charges were later dropped.
> > > Apart from the suspect testimony of some of the children there was not a
> > > shred of evidence against them. Against Ellis's mother, suspect testimony
> > > but not a shred of other evidence. Claims of a satanic ring molesting
> > > children for the purposes of pornography, not corroborated - based in
> > > part on suspect children's evidence. The involvement of wierd people
> > > making accusations against childcare workers without any evidence. And so
> > > on.
> >
> > As none of what you mention above was part of the Ellis court case
> > thyis simply shows that, despite your claims to the contrary, you are
> > lying. And you are lying in an attempt to exonerate a child abuser!
> > Why?
>
> No I am not lying. The connections with the Ellis case are real and the
> claims were investigated as they involved people whom Ellis worked with
> or was otherwise associated with. Ellis's fellow workers at the creche
> were charged by the police, and they were proposing to charge Ellis's
> mother on the basis of some of the more fanciful claims made by child
> witnesses. These claims also included the tunnels, hanging from the
> ceiling and children being killed allegations.
But we were discussing the court case and this was no part of it.
> > BTW, the charges against the women were NOT dropped. Their case did
> > not proceed from depositions to trial because the judge did not think
> > a jury would convict them at that time - the charges stand and they
> > can be brought to trial at such time as the "child abuse is all false"
> > hysteria dies down.
>
> I think that is rather a semantical point and the police will never bring
> them to trial, certainly not in Christchurch where it would be almost
> impossible to get an impartial hearing.
Sadly, I think you are right and they will get off scot free. However,
the point I make is legal rather than 'semantical' (if there even is
such a word).
Brian
wrote:
>
>> Who has a vested interest in lying about this case?
>
>The guilty parties and their supporters.
They received their $10,000 handouts according to the law, David, and
so I would not call them "guilty" - at least in the strict legal
sense.
>OK. Then question the methodology but not the action. However, even
>with flawed techniques enough of the truth came to light to at least
>convict one of the perpetrators.
Insufficient of the truth came out, David, to prevent Peter Ellis from
being convicted.
>
>> > As none of what you mention above was part of the Ellis court case
>> > thyis simply shows that, despite your claims to the contrary, you are
>> > lying. And you are lying in an attempt to exonerate a child abuser!
>> > Why?
>>
>> No I am not lying. The connections with the Ellis case are real and the
>> claims were investigated as they involved people whom Ellis worked with
>> or was otherwise associated with. Ellis's fellow workers at the creche
>> were charged by the police, and they were proposing to charge Ellis's
>> mother on the basis of some of the more fanciful claims made by child
>> witnesses. These claims also included the tunnels, hanging from the
>> ceiling and children being killed allegations.
>
>But we were discussing the court case and this was no part of it.
You're getting to the crux of the problem of the injustice done to
Ellis, now David. There were many significant issues that were not
part of the court case. If the court case had considered all the
issues, or any of the subsequent appeals considered all the
significant issues, Peter Ellis would by now be long exonerated.
>> I think that is rather a semantical point and the police will never bring
>> them to trial, certainly not in Christchurch where it would be almost
>> impossible to get an impartial hearing.
>
>Sadly, I think you are right and they will get off scot free. However,
>the point I make is legal rather than 'semantical' (if there even is
>such a word).
The police are also not likely to bring you to trial for your role in
the case, David.
But, then, with police still involved who have not understood their
reseponsibilities sufficiently to have apologised for the actions of
Bonker Eade .... anything is possible.
The police after all were willing to bring charges against an innocent
man.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>> Quoting from David McLoughlin's North and South article in 1996:
>> http://www4.wave.co.nz/~brianr/PeterEllis/1991-1996/1996-08
>> _NorthAndSouth_SecondThoughtsOnTheCrecheCase.htm
>>
>>
>> The Crown's determination to spare the jury the bizarre allegations
>> didn't stop the defence from trying to raise them in defence. Defence
>> counsel Rob Harrison sought to show the jury the tapes in which children
>> who were the subject of more credible charges went on in subsequent tapes
>> to describe such incredible events as being suspended in cages from
>> rafters and having lighted paper stuck in their backsides.
>>
>> Harrison wanted the jury to see tapes because he believed they would cast
>> reasonable doubt on the more credible testimony. He regarded this as the
>> crux of the defence case. But Justice Williamson ruled that such crucial
>> tapes were not relevant to the charges against Ellis and he placed such
>> strict limitations on playing them that Harrison believed the defence was
>> mortally handicapped.
>
>
>Oh, come on! McLoughlin is another Ellis apologist. Another who is
>convinced he knows more and better than the Police, the Courts and the
>victims themselves. I would not build any case based on such an
>obviously biased source!
When confronted with the facts, all you can do is to make an ad
hominem attack against the writer.
David McLoughlin's article was an amazing piece of journalism -
especially for the time it was written - when the child sexual abuse
hysteria was still in full swing.
It was therefore also a brave piece of journalism - and the facts
presented in David's article have never been disputed to my knowledge.
Brian
Brian
<persi...@tree.too.three> wrote:
>It will be a frosty day in hell when David McLoughlin is quoted as
>an authority on anything
I've often spoken of David McLoughlin as an authority on the
Christchurch Creche Case.
His 1996 North and South article stands as a testiment to that.
McLoughlin should be extremely proud of that article.
David McLoughlin has also shown, by his public writings that he has an
extremely good grasp of the issues associated with the child sexual
abuse witch hunt of the 1990s, of which the Christchurch Creche case
played a good part.
David McLoughlin has written on a wide range of topics in a thoroughly
professional manner.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>No. I do not hate any human being but I do hate child abuse.
You and Peter Ellis share a common view.
>> The sole rationale for your dismissal seems to be on the strength of it
>> being reported by David McLoughlin. Not on the basis of the facts
>> contained in his article.
>
>In this particular case. Yes. Although so few facts ever appear in his
>writings .....
You should read David McLoughlin's 1996 North and South article on the
Christchurch Creche case, then David. You'll discover an article
crammed full of facts.
Brian
joe bloggs
veges which are good for him, but turns his head from side to side,
trying to evade the food, and if the mother that has the childs good
at heart does actually get some into the mouth the protesting child
spits it out.
Sanity and common sense is not exhibited while the child is throwing a
tantrum and spitting out what is good for it.
Eventually the child will grow up and face reality and truth, but will
David?
On 14 Feb 2003 07:13:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:
YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT
DONT BE ARROGANT
READ the CLAIMS I MAKE,
and STATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE LIES
Discuss without chicanery, the points I have made, don't obfuscate
accused to speak in their own defense and tell the truth of what has
Yes Christchurch was to have the biggest play performed in its
hysteria [sorry history].
An American theme, gleaned from an imported book 'Ritual Child Abuse',
by a person interested [obsessed] in the subject..
The theme rewritten suitable for a New Zealand setting but still
incorporating the American touch.
The task of selecting suitable performers made, then down to
rehearsals. The children picked up the new dialogue, props suggested -
cages, tunnels, children being killed etc - but the public may think
this a bit over the top and not believe, better hide them from sight,
just alude to them.
Of course other children were bought in as needed to enhance the
performance.
After the initial rehearsels, then the opening for the public viewing,
assisted by a policeman, who managed to find time between his sexual
conquests to assist in presenting the big act. [If you burn the candle
at that end as well it takes a lot out of you}.The choreographers had
done their job well. The stage was well set up and the performers
delivered their rehearsed deliverences [practise makes perfect].
A few professional performers were employed to enhance the story line,
and to ensure that it all flowed together so as the audience could
follow the cast. It would have had a huge cast but most of those who
were invited to take part refused - they didn't believe in the theme,
but a few Judges seemed to and they got so carried away by the emotion
and hysteria, they quite forgot that fantasy is not reality as they
delivered their verdict at the end of the performance.
The public enthused more than bemused, went away caught up in the
moment, but after a while the dust of obscausion settled and those
with commonsense realised they had been connned by a superb
performance by the drama queens and a troup of professional mime
artists [no substance, no corroboration].
A sequel was under way when one of the major performers in the Civic
Creche Case found another male creche worker as a victim [it had
worked before, lets try again?] but this time they didn't have Colin
Eade to be caught with his pants down.
The false claims were stopped by the police.
For those who have the integrity and desire the truth consider all the
evidence, don't be swayed by hysteria or drama queen performances, and
most important of all, look at the agenda of the participants -
children and adults and especially the adulterers.
ie the children - were they just saying what they though would put an
end to the incessant , zelous questioning?
Colin Eade - what was his investment
Cathy Crawford - did she tell the truth, or did she claim - the reason
why I believe the children is they were so consistent, no children
could tell those stories and not have experienced them
ie
Who was the murdered child, Andrew? Why has no one ever missed him?
Where were the children suspended in a basket high above the ground?
Where are the extensive networks of tunnels under Christchurch?
Is Peter Ellis' penis really black?
etc
oh dear we are back to the start and that is a very good place to
start
Remember as an astute Christchurch lawyer always maintained,
A text without a context is a pretext.
Start off from where the claims started and continue to the end with
integrity and honesty and then and only then can you have credibility
as an exponent of the truth, but when you snip the evidence you can't
handle, such as David Bisman or Phil Goff, and especially any tired
Judge who takes on the responsibility to ascertain if any injustice
has been done and then doesn't consider ALL the evidence, then he has
my utter contempt, as to whether he was paid 4c or $400,000
Honesty and accountability rather than arrogance and corruption.
ANYONE falsely accused has the right to a proper investigation into
their complaint rather than the Rob Pope form of procrastination and
coverup as he protects his own!!!!!!!!!11
joe bloggs
<jon...@spamout.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>I know nothing of the Peter Ellis case but it reminds me of the Arthur Allan
>Tomas (mispelt?) case. Mum and Dad used to go on and on about it years ago
>and I've read a book (can't remember the author) which went into great
>details about Jeanette and Harvey Crewe (another typo??) back axles of cars,
>noises etc, etc. I still have no idea either way what might have happened
>but this case strikes me as being quite like the Peter Ellis case.
>
>jonnie
>
Correct;
Arthur Alan Thomas - read Beyond Reasonable Doubt, by David A Yallop,
The Thomas Case ABC of Injustice by Jim Sprott and Pat Booth, and the
Royal Commission
Similarities, A policeman who planted evidence to get a conviction.
Arthur Alan Thomas eventually cleared by Rob Muldoon who had the balls
to correct an injustice. Unfortunately the corrupt cop was never
charged with anything let alone perverting the course of Justice.
THEY LOOK AFTER THEIR OWN
Christchurch Civic Creche - read Lynley Hoods Book, A City Possessed
Similarities:
A policeman who inseminated his seed as well as cross contaminating
the evidence and failed to actually get the truth.
Once again the Police have no problem with one of their own
dysfunctioning members, even though his member was apparently
functioning very well according to two of the accusing mothers and
apparently a paid professional also decided to test the testimony of
the two mothers, but for the falsely accused, it would have been
better for the paid professional to have tested their court evidence
rather than their bed testimony.
The Major dissimilarity is that Phil Goff hasn't got the balls to
correct an injustice, let alone admit that their was one.
The Judges and our justice system is in the same unique eunuch
experience.
Morrissey Breen
message news:<v02n4v08k18bc5pvu...@4ax.com> is
astonished by the absurd, obnoxious, untruthful hounding of Peter
Ellis, by one David Bisman, who had written....
>>
> >I find it interesting that none of the supporters of the convicted
> >>paederast, Ellis, ever calls for support for the children he abused!
Mr Bloggs writes in reply:
>
> [I have read some absolute rubbish on the nett, but this would take
> the cake, the plate, and the table.
And who could disagree with that? But then Mr Bloggs goes on...
>
> His University education and a wide knowledge may be seen by some to
> be blessing....
I can see no evidence in his posts that this fellow Bisman has either
a wide knowledge or a University education. Certainly he has not
learned to construct a cogent or credible argument, and he failed to
turn up to his ethics classes. (That is, assuming any Ellis lynch-mob
fanatic has even heard of the concept.)
joe bloggs
joe bloggs
veges which are good for him, but turns his head from side to side,
trying to evade the food, and if the mother that has the childs good
at heart does actually get some into the mouth the protesting child
spits it out.
Sanity and common sense is not exhibited while the child is throwing a
tantrum and spitting out what is good for it.
Eventually the child will grow up and face reality and truth, but will
David?
On 14 Feb 2003 07:13:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:
YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT
David Bisman
> On 14 Feb 2003 07:13:15 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> >joe bloggs <somewhere.dot.net> wrote in message news:<7eso4vo194u4s8udb...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> >he wrote
> >> >Rather than actually entering into the discussion you hide behind
> >> >anonymity and engage in personal abuse. No wonder you champion Ellis!
> >>
> ><snip - even longer and just as insane ramblings from someone who
> >champions Ellis ... and, it would appear, any paederast, rather than
> >the victims and therefore will continue to be ridiculed and/or ignored
> >but who, in a perfect world, should be prosecuted and executed>
> >
> >Cheers
> >David Bisman
> >Dunedin
> >New Zealand
>
> You seem uninterested in fact David
>
> A characterist rampant amongst those who want Peter Ellis dead, or
> back in prison at the very least
>
> I am interested in discussing anything but fact with you. Instead of
> responding to any actual questions you resort to responses that can be
> summed up with the phrase "I know that Peter Ellis is guilty, and am
> uninterested in any kind of thinking that may alter my point of view"
>
> Pointless
>
and not lunatic speculation and the perennial red herring of SRA that
the more unhinged of the Ellis supporters always return to (without
fail and without purpose).
David Bisman
Don't bother shouting and don't try ordering me around. You have
neither the moral nor the actual authority so to do. As a matter of
fact I have read the claims you make and have dismissed them as the
typical red herrings of those who seek to discredit Ellis' victims and
exonerate the paederast. If it will shut up you insane maunderings I
shall detail some of the reasons why they are red herrings.
> I wrote
> When someone throws a childish tantrum and destroys a list of facts it
> doesn't like to read by snipping, and then snipes that because of
> anonymity a discussion has not been entered into, I see no reason to
> alter my comments either before or after the cake has been taken.
Should that ever happen I would agree with you 100%. However, that is
NOT what happened when I snipped your deluded ramblings - I snipped
them because they were irrelevant and attempting to sidetrack the
discussion from the facts of the case. I still think that you hiding
behind anonymity while championing those whoo abuse children in scary
and I very much hope that the Police regularly monitor these
discussions.
> A desire to have a full factual discussion means that facts have to be
> fully presented, examined and considered.
Then why introduce all the irrelevant material? This is one of the
lies of which I spoke.
> Brian Field often used to say "a text without a context is a pretext."
Cute but essentially wrong.
> The childrens and their parents claims, need to be examined in its
> context.
The context is that the children were abused by Peter Ellis and his
cronies. That is the established and legal FACT. Nothing else is a
fact that is relevant to the case.
> Where did they come from, what was their origin, what other evidence
> needs to be considered etc.
They came from the abuse. Their origin was the abuse. The further
counts of abuse.
> I don't champion Ellis. I have never met, written, or spoken to him.
Nevertheless you champion him in this very post! Another (and
particularly blatant) lie.
> What my concern is that the injustice of our justice system continues,
> from one false accusation to another.
The only injustice is that the other offenders have thus far escaped
prosecution and that paederast supporters like you keep trying to
exonerate your heroo thus forcing his victims to live in continual
fear that you will succeed. This, by the way, is why I favour capital
punishment for paederasts AND their supporters.
> Until we have the corrupt Rob Pope procrastination and coverups
> admitted and addressed, the same abuse of the innocent goes on.
Now you are making allegations that are your opinions only. They are
also extremely effective as you try to paint the abuser as the victim.
Another reason for not really wanting to do this detailed stuff on
your posts is that it makes me want to vomit.
> We have Judge Eric Andersons wimping away, but no ordering the lying
> Sergeant Tony Greigs' and the lying paid professional Cathy Crawfords'
> from his court. A wimper will not stop the rot of false accusations
> being taken to court without the evidence being PROPERLY examined
> before the arrests.
Your opinions and massive ignorance of jurisprudence again.
> The abuse by the police and their 'specialist witnesses' on innocent
> people will continue. The professional abuses of Ward 24, Glenelg
> Health Camp, Banks Avenue, Civic Creche Case continue again and again.
> When prosecutors such as Sergeant Parkes haven't even read a third of
> the evidence they are using to gain a conviction, when the police
> refuse to get the evidence they are told, when Judges don't allow the
> accused to speak in their own defense and tell the truth of what has
> been going on - WE HAVE CORRUPT PROSECUTIONS - and they will be
> allowed to continue by those whose political motives and actions are
> not motivated with integrity, accountability or honesty.
You are ranting, making defamatory statements and showing your total
ignorance of jurisprudence.
> I do not Champion Ellis as you falsely claim, my fight is against the
> corruption and lies that he also faced.
You champion him above, applying words such as "innocent" and "victim"
to this convicted abuser of children and attaching significant and
defamatory pejoratives to all those involved with prosecuting the
monster. You continue in the lie.
> Please understand this very thoroughly if you get nothing else from
> this -
> I DO NOT CHAMPION PETER ELLIS.
Shouting does not alter the fact that you do champion him.
> I DO FIGHT AGAINST INJUSTICE
Except when its victims are children and you can champion the
paederast instead.
> I DO FIGHT AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY JUSTICE TO THOSE INJUSTICED
Except when you can chamion their abusers as you do with Ellis. (And
you make up absurd words where perfectly adequate ones already exist
in the English language).
> I DO STAND AGAINST LYING POLICE AND THEIR LYING PROFESSIONALS.
Hmmmmn. As does the entire legal system - BTW what "professionals" do
the Police own that are not Police?
> I DO STAND AGAINST THE CORRUPT ROB POPE COVERUPS
Offensive, defamatory, ad hominem, and a massive red herring.
> I DO STAND AGAINST THE PHIL GOFFS WITH THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS and
> ARROGANCE THAT WONT ALLOW THE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE TO BE EXPOSED.
Shock horror! Alert the media! Stop the Presses! Who would have
thought it possible? (sorry, I'll turn the sarcasm off). Where to
start? There is only one Phil Goff; he is an elected politician so OF
COURSE he has a political agenda. He holds a post that was previously
held by others in other parties. In keeping with the PC crusade of
this left-wing government he called for and received a complete report
into the Ellis case. And decided against further political
intervention. So, the Police, several courts, successive Ministers of
Justice, and the actual victims all got it wrong and only you and your
Hero, Peter Ellis the paederast are right? No. I don't think so.
> I reinsert your snip and snipe
> ><snip long and insane ravings regarding riual abuse which was not what
> >the case was about>
> >Yawn!
I stand by this and will not discuss SRA in this thread because it is
irrelevant and tries to deflect attention from the real abuse that
Ellis and his cronies carried out. I will not be a party to that.
> I re insert and assert what I and maybe others regard as facts, that
> need to be considered and discussed.
I disagree with you for the stated reasons.
> I could be wrong on some of the facts but childish acts by people who
> can't accept, and wont accept, the possibility they may be wrong and
> have nothing more to learn, is not desirable in anyone
Forget could be. You are. On the entire basis of the argument - which,
BTW, I shall snip again.
<snip>
>
> oh dear we are back to the start and that is a very good place to
> start
It is only the start that you assert. The courts found otherwise and I
believe the New Zealand court system over an anonymous champion oof
child abusers any day.
> Remember as an astute Christchurch lawyer always maintained,
> A text without a context is a pretext.
And, typically, it is both nearly meaningless and quite wrong.
> Start off from where the claims started and continue to the end with
> integrity and honesty and then and only then can you have credibility
> as an exponent of the truth, but when you snip the evidence you can't
> handle, such as David Bisman or Phil Goff, and especially any tired
> Judge who takes on the responsibility to ascertain if any injustice
> has been done and then doesn't consider ALL the evidence, then he has
> my utter contempt, as to whether he was paid 4c or $400,000
> Honesty and accountability rather than arrogance and corruption.
> ANYONE falsely accused has the right to a proper investigation into
> their complaint rather than the Rob Pope form of procrastination and
> coverup as he protects his own!!!!!!!!!11
Your ranting becomes more insane, more offensive and more ignorant the
more you champion paederasts. Give it up. That you ascribe (false)
motivations to my actions when you cannot be in a position to know one
way or the other is indicative of your whole approach to this case:
You have made up your mind and now you shall continue to be confused
by any facts you accidentally stumble across. Give it up.
David Bisman
> On 14 Feb 2003 22:43:00 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> >No. I do not hate any human being but I do hate child abuse.
>
> You and Peter Ellis share a common view.
>
>
> >> The sole rationale for your dismissal seems to be on the strength of it
> >> being reported by David McLoughlin. Not on the basis of the facts
> >> contained in his article.
> >
> >In this particular case. Yes. Although so few facts ever appear in his
> >writings .....
>
>
> You should read David McLoughlin's 1996 North and South article on the
> Christchurch Creche case, then David. You'll discover an article
> crammed full of facts.
I have read it - the facts are selectively quoted and the bias is more
than is usual even in that rag.
David Bisman
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:09:56 +1300, Perce Simmons
> <persi...@tree.too.three> wrote:
>
> >It will be a frosty day in hell when David McLoughlin is quoted as
> >an authority on anything
>
> I've often spoken of David McLoughlin as an authority on the
> Christchurch Creche Case.
Which probably explains your bias on the subject.
> His 1996 North and South article stands as a testiment to that.
> McLoughlin should be extremely proud of that article.
>
> David McLoughlin has also shown, by his public writings that he has an
> extremely good grasp of the issues associated with the child sexual
> abuse witch hunt of the 1990s, of which the Christchurch Creche case
> played a good part.
The clear bias in that sentence demonstrates what I am talking about.
> David McLoughlin has written on a wide range of topics in a thoroughly
> professional manner.
>
He is what passes for a journalist in these ultra-PC times under the
increasingly autocratic and anti-justice rule of Helengrad.
David Bisman
> On 14 Feb 2003 19:19:16 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> >> Quoting from David McLoughlin's North and South article in 1996:
> >> http://www4.wave.co.nz/~brianr/PeterEllis/1991-1996/1996-08
> >> _NorthAndSouth_SecondThoughtsOnTheCrecheCase.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> The Crown's determination to spare the jury the bizarre allegations
> >> didn't stop the defence from trying to raise them in defence. Defence
> >> counsel Rob Harrison sought to show the jury the tapes in which children
> >> who were the subject of more credible charges went on in subsequent tapes
> >> to describe such incredible events as being suspended in cages from
> >> rafters and having lighted paper stuck in their backsides.
> >>
> >> Harrison wanted the jury to see tapes because he believed they would cast
> >> reasonable doubt on the more credible testimony. He regarded this as the
> >> crux of the defence case. But Justice Williamson ruled that such crucial
> >> tapes were not relevant to the charges against Ellis and he placed such
> >> strict limitations on playing them that Harrison believed the defence was
> >> mortally handicapped.
> >
> >
> >Oh, come on! McLoughlin is another Ellis apologist. Another who is
> >convinced he knows more and better than the Police, the Courts and the
> >victims themselves. I would not build any case based on such an
> >obviously biased source!
>
>
> When confronted with the facts, all you can do is to make an ad
> hominem attack against the writer.
Much like his style of "journalism"
> David McLoughlin's article was an amazing piece of journalism -
> especially for the time it was written - when the child sexual abuse
> hysteria was still in full swing.
"Amazing" is also a word I would use to describe it but "journalism"
is stretching the truth of the case - try "propaganda" it is closer to
the actual truth (although a fan of McLoughlin's might not actually
know what that is.
> It was therefore also a brave piece of journalism - and the facts
> presented in David's article have never been disputed to my knowledge.
Oh yes, very brave to re-abuse the children and get paid for it - God
deliver me from such bravery!
David Bisman
<snip>
> >> Not in your interests to?
> >
> >My interest is the truth - what is yours?
> >
>
> A truth that appears somewhat divorced from the reality you claim.
Clearly you are interested in something that is divorced from reality
- I wonder why?
> Get that head out of the sand man
>
Physician heal thyself.
Brian
wrote:
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:<f51s4vktk426pr961...@4ax.com>...
>> On 14 Feb 2003 22:43:00 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >No. I do not hate any human being but I do hate child abuse.
>>
>> You and Peter Ellis share a common view.
>>
>Quite probably, just not that one.
Peter Ellis hates child abuse. Do not share his view?
>> >> The sole rationale for your dismissal seems to be on the strength of it
>> >> being reported by David McLoughlin. Not on the basis of the facts
>> >> contained in his article.
>> >
>> >In this particular case. Yes. Although so few facts ever appear in his
>> >writings .....
>>
>>
>> You should read David McLoughlin's 1996 North and South article on the
>> Christchurch Creche case, then David. You'll discover an article
>> crammed full of facts.
>
>I have read it - the facts are selectively quoted and the bias is more
>than is usual even in that rag.
I meant read the body of the article and not just the title, David.
Which facts are you referring to, David? Or will answering this
question take you far too long?
When you think you can find quotes that are "selective" please share
them with us, together with your reasons
When you think that you can find anything unjustified, please share
them with us, together with your reasons.
David McLoughlin's article will stand in history as one of the most
important pieces of journalism ever written. David McLoughlin was
brave to have written it, as the child sexual abuse hysteria was then
in full cry. Views such as Bismans were then even in the majority,
in much the same way as the majority once thought the world was flat.
In some ways, David McLoughlin's article signalled the beginning of
the end of the hysteria. It became acceptable to voice the private
concerns that many people were already thinking.
Brian
David Bisman
> On 14 Feb 2003 22:50:17 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Who has a vested interest in lying about this case?
> >
> >The guilty parties and their supporters.
>
>
> They received their $10,000 handouts according to the law, David, and
> so I would not call them "guilty" - at least in the strict legal
> sense.
Very typically of those who champion paederasts and paederasty they
always attempt to paint the abuser as victim and the victim as
aggressor. You sicken me.
>
> >OK. Then question the methodology but not the action. However, even
> >with flawed techniques enough of the truth came to light to at least
> >convict one of the perpetrators.
>
> Insufficient of the truth came out, David, to prevent Peter Ellis from
> being convicted.
And so you continue to champion the abuser at the expense of his
victims.
>
> >> > As none of what you mention above was part of the Ellis court case
> >> > thyis simply shows that, despite your claims to the contrary, you are
> >> > lying. And you are lying in an attempt to exonerate a child abuser!
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> No I am not lying. The connections with the Ellis case are real and the
> >> claims were investigated as they involved people whom Ellis worked with
> >> or was otherwise associated with. Ellis's fellow workers at the creche
> >> were charged by the police, and they were proposing to charge Ellis's
> >> mother on the basis of some of the more fanciful claims made by child
> >> witnesses. These claims also included the tunnels, hanging from the
> >> ceiling and children being killed allegations.
> >
> >But we were discussing the court case and this was no part of it.
>
> You're getting to the crux of the problem of the injustice done to
> Ellis, now David. There were many significant issues that were not
> part of the court case. If the court case had considered all the
> issues, or any of the subsequent appeals considered all the
> significant issues, Peter Ellis would by now be long exonerated.
>
Of course, if the law was different there would have been a different
outcome. D'uh! However, the law was what it was and Ellis was tried
under the same laws as everyone else thus charged and not under some
special law designed to exonerate paederasts. So he was found guilty
and sentenced accordingly.
>
> >> I think that is rather a semantical point and the police will never bring
> >> them to trial, certainly not in Christchurch where it would be almost
> >> impossible to get an impartial hearing.
> >
> >Sadly, I think you are right and they will get off scot free. However,
> >the point I make is legal rather than 'semantical' (if there even is
> >such a word).
>
> The police are also not likely to bring you to trial for your role in
> the case, David.
Cheap and quite irrelevant. The women who were originally charged also
abused the children and have got off scot free because of the ultra PC
nation in which we live whereby different rules apply to men and
women.
> But, then, with police still involved who have not understood their
> reseponsibilities sufficiently to have apologised for the actions of
> Bonker Eade .... anything is possible.
Petty name calling exposes your arguments for their self-evident
intellectual bankruptcy.
> The police after all were willing to bring charges against an innocent
> man.
So you say - the law and the facts say differently - I know which side
I am on.
Brian
wrote:
>> YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT
>> DONT BE ARROGANT
>> READ the CLAIMS I MAKE,
>> and STATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE LIES
>> Discuss without chicanery, the points I have made, don't obfuscate
>
>Don't bother shouting and don't try ordering me around.
David, you are quite free to to answer questions if you wish. Your
mock indignation at capital letters being used appears only as a
deliberate smokescreen.
>You have neither the moral nor the actual authority so to do.
More obfuscation, David. Nobody writing here claims to have
authority to demand anything of anybody.
> As a matter of fact
That is waffle, David.
> I have read the claims you make and have dismissed them
Which claims have you dismissed, David?
> as the typical red herrings
This appears to be one of your favorite smakescreens, David. If you
cannot answer a question, or do not understand, you appear to respond
with the "red herring" defence.
> of those who seek to discredit Ellis' victims
It is hard to discredit those who do not exist, David.
> and
>exonerate the paederast. If it will shut up you insane maunderings I
>shall detail some of the reasons why they are red herrings.
Your requesting, David, that somebody "shut up" before you can
present your views is the mark of a weak argument. David, you appear
to be saying that you will only present the case for the prosecution
if the defence agrees to withdraw it's case. Remarkable.
>> The childrens and their parents claims, need to be examined in its
>> context.
>
>The context is that the children were abused by Peter Ellis and his
>cronies. That is the established and legal FACT.
It was also a legal FACT that Arthur Allan Thomas was a murderer.
_Twice_ convicted. Until his innocence was established and police
corruption identified.
The fact that Ellis was wrongly convicted, has nothing to do with the
urgent need for the childrens and the parents claims to be examined in
the context of all the facts of the case that have _never_ been seen
in their entirety - at the original trial, or in any of the subsequent
appeals.
>Nothing else is a fact that is relevant to the case.
Inconvenient for you, David, to look at any evidence that sits outside
your beliefs, eh?
>
>> Where did they come from, what was their origin, what other evidence
>> needs to be considered etc.
>
>They came from the abuse. Their origin was the abuse. The further
>counts of abuse.
If you read Lynley Hood's book, David, you'll quickly discover why
your view is as likely as the Loch Ness Monster being responsible.
>The only injustice is that the other offenders have thus far escaped
>prosecution
Who are you refrring to, David?
<snip>
>I stand by this and will not discuss SRA in this thread because it is
>irrelevant
Satanic Ritual abuse was central to the police investigations, the
beliefs of the police and the social welfare interrogators, and some
of the loony Sallys.
I can understand that you, David, do not wish to discuss SRA, because
to do so would expose the weakness of the claims that Peter Ellis'
conviction was safe.
If you David would like to understand a little more about SRA, and
it's role in the child sex abuse hysteria, it's role in other day care
cases similar to the Creche (eg McMartin), and how this related to the
Christchurch Creche I could give you a few references to get you
started. Let me know if you would like some help.
But in the meantime, read "A City Possessed" by Lynley Hood. It's
the very best reference for understanding how Peter Ellis was wrongly
convicted, and _all_ of the relevant background, condensed necessarily
to fit into a book.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:<u30s4vodo7po9bsvl...@4ax.com>...
>> On 14 Feb 2003 22:50:17 -0800, dbi...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Who has a vested interest in lying about this case?
>> >
>> >The guilty parties and their supporters.
>>
>>
>> They received their $10,000 handouts according to the law, David, and
>> so I would not call them "guilty" - at least in the strict legal
>> sense.
>
>Very typically of those who champion paederasts and paederasty
To call somebody a pedaphile in it's varying forms has been the mark
of the child sexual abuse hysteria from the beginning. Very similar
to Salem in the USA, where to be accused as a witch was a terrifying
accusation for those so marked.
The tactic worked in the early 1990s, but ever since David
McLoughlin's brave North and South article was printed in 1996, those
so accused have not been as intimidated
Nice try, David, but no cigar.
> they always attempt to paint the abuser as victim and the victim as
>aggressor.
You need to reread what I actually wrote, David. You have completely
misunderstood what I wrote. I was saying that those who collected
their $10,000 lucky ACC handouts were NOT technically legally guilty.
They won their money fairly according to the generous policies of the
times, when anybody who was willing to say they were a victim of
sexual abuse could get the bonus. It was a remarkable gravy train,
eh?
> You sicken me.
I expect you will change your mind when you realise I'm not saying
that those who collected the ACC money were guilty of any crime.
(Just morally corrupt)
>>
>> >OK. Then question the methodology but not the action. However, even
>> >with flawed techniques enough of the truth came to light to at least
>> >convict one of the perpetrators.
>>
>> Insufficient of the truth came out, David, to prevent Peter Ellis from
>> being convicted.
>
>And so you continue to champion the abuser at the expense of his
>victims.
That's not what I said, David. All I said was that iInsufficient of
the truth came out to prevent Peter Ellis from being convicted.
>> You're getting to the crux of the problem of the injustice done to
>> Ellis, now David. There were many significant issues that were not
>> part of the court case. If the court case had considered all the
>> issues, or any of the subsequent appeals considered all the
>> significant issues, Peter Ellis would by now be long exonerated.
>>
>Of course, if the law was different there would have been a different
>outcome. D'uh! However, the law was what it was and Ellis was tried
>under the same laws as everyone else thus charged and not under some
>special law designed to exonerate paederasts. So he was found guilty
>and sentenced accordingly.
Nobody is disputing that Ellis was convicted, David. Simply that in
the year 2003, it is obvious to everybody except the $10,000
recipients and their "friends" that conviction was in error.
>> >> I think that is rather a semantical point and the police will never bring
>> >> them to trial, certainly not in Christchurch where it would be almost
>> >> impossible to get an impartial hearing.
>> >
>> >Sadly, I think you are right and they will get off scot free. However,
>> >the point I make is legal rather than 'semantical' (if there even is
>> >such a word).
>>
>> The police are also not likely to bring you to trial for your role in
>> the case, David.
>
>Cheap and quite irrelevant.
No, it's very relevant, David. Ellis was innocent and brought to
trial. It is just as likely that millions of other innocent people
could be charged with their role in the alleged crime or crimes.
People such as yourself who have an acknowledged interest in the case
have a greater statistical likelihood of being considered by the
police.
>The women who were originally charged also abused the children
No evidence for that has ever been presented, David. No evidence for
that has ever existed, as the police finally recognised.
>and have got off scot free
All innocent people should get off "scot free", David.
> because of the ultra PC nation in which we live
In some ways I'm inclined to believe that we are an ultra PC nation,
too David. But in this case it is not PC, in my opinion, to consider
a person innocent until proven guilty. For that reason I still
consider you innocent of the Creche "crimes", David. Even if you
were one of the hundreds of people mentioned in all of the children's
bizarre allegations.
> whereby different rules apply to men and women.
Perhaps homophobia was acting, David. I still find it bizarre, too
that the charges against Peter Ellis were not dropped at the same
time as the charges against the women were dropped.
>
>> But, then, with police still involved who have not understood their
>> reseponsibilities sufficiently to have apologised for the actions of
>> Bonker Eade .... anything is possible.
>
>Petty name calling exposes your arguments for their self-evident
>intellectual bankruptcy.
The role of Bonker Eade has been well documented, David.
>
>> The police after all were willing to bring charges against an innocent
>> man.
>
>So you say - the law and the facts say differently
I agree David. The law found Peter Ellis guilty. The facts say
differently. Perhaps we have reached consensus?
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:<kt0s4v80gn5eqqv1h...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:09:56 +1300, Perce Simmons
>> <persi...@tree.too.three> wrote:
>>
>> >It will be a frosty day in hell when David McLoughlin is quoted as
>> >an authority on anything
>>
>> I've often spoken of David McLoughlin as an authority on the
>> Christchurch Creche Case.
>
>Which probably explains your bias on the subject.
Have you, or anybody else ever shown anything that David McLoughlin
has written on the subject to be wrong?
Not that I am aware of, David.
ANd therefore I'm quite comfortable in making the assertion that David
McLoughlin is an authority on the subject.
>
>> His 1996 North and South article stands as a testiment to that.
>> McLoughlin should be extremely proud of that article.
>>
>> David McLoughlin has also shown, by his public writings that he has an
>> extremely good grasp of the issues associated with the child sexual
>> abuse witch hunt of the 1990s, of which the Christchurch Creche case
>> played a good part.
>
>The clear bias in that sentence demonstrates what I am talking about.
Could you please explain the "bias" that you refer to, David?
>
>> David McLoughlin has written on a wide range of topics in a thoroughly
>> professional manner.
>>
>He is what passes for a journalist in these ultra-PC times under the
>increasingly autocratic and anti-justice rule of Helengrad.
He does not simply "pass" as a journalist. He is invariably a bloody
good journalist - although I've criticised him, even strongly, on at
least one occasion.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>> >Oh, come on! McLoughlin is another Ellis apologist. Another who is
>> >convinced he knows more and better than the Police, the Courts and the
>> >victims themselves. I would not build any case based on such an
>> >obviously biased source!
>>
>>
>> When confronted with the facts, all you can do is to make an ad
>> hominem attack against the writer.
>
>Much like his style of "journalism"
No completely different from his style of journalism, David. Can you
show me any extract of David McLoughlin's writings which involve as
much ad hominem attack, as you contributed in the paragraph above?
>
>> David McLoughlin's article was an amazing piece of journalism -
>> especially for the time it was written - when the child sexual abuse
>> hysteria was still in full swing.
>
>"Amazing" is also a word I would use to describe it but "journalism"
>is stretching the truth of the case - try "propaganda" it is closer to
>the actual truth (although a fan of McLoughlin's might not actually
>know what that is
You have never presented your case for where the truth has been
"stretched", so your claims appear to be more rant than substance.
I welcome reasoned disagreements, but your repeated claims of bias,
stretched truth, etc etc without any justification for your beliefs
make you sound more nutter than debater, David.
>
>> It was therefore also a brave piece of journalism - and the facts
>> presented in David's article have never been disputed to my knowledge.
>
>Oh yes, very brave to re-abuse the children and get paid for it - God
>deliver me from such bravery!
David's aricle may not have been _the_ catalyst for a greater level of
understanding of the child sexual abuse hysteria in New Zealand - but
it was at least _a_ catalyst.
To present such facts, at the height of the hysteria was extremely
brave. I would expect that he has paid a heavy price for that
bravery in the intervening years, even if in the year 2003, his role
is better recognised.
Brian
Dave Joll
> Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > His 1996 North and South article stands as a testiment to that.
> > McLoughlin should be extremely proud of that article.
> He is what passes for a journalist in these ultra-PC times under the
> increasingly autocratic and anti-justice rule of Helengrad.
So Helen Clark was Prime Minister in 1996? Riiiight...
- Dave
--
Lowering the tone of Usenet since 1997...
Please send replies to New Zealand instead of Zanzibar.
Sorry, but the spam is just getting a little too much...
joe bloggs
wrote:
Oh dear its nappy changing time, terrible mess and lots of diarrhoea..
David you seem to have an upset tummy, evidently you should have been
fed Heinz rather than strong food
Your delicate condition has not been able to absorb the facts.
Never mind, just keep taking the dinnefords.When you are a lttle
stronger and have grown up, then we may talk about more mature things.
Just listen to a fairy tale or two before going to bed, and dont worry
about stories that have fact, leave that to the rest of us.
Dianne Smith
wrote:
For fux sake Blow. We're getting lost in your long convoluted
rabbiting. The discussion was about Peter Ellis. Shorten things up
and get to the points pertinent to Ellis.
You go on about not championing Peter Ellis and his cronies.
You say you have never spoken to or met him.
David Bisman says that he knows many of the victims and families.
David said way back that he assisted the police in the early stages of
the Ellis inquiry.
Who do we believe knows more about the Ellis case, you or David?
Dianne Smith
KiwiBrian
> David Bisman says that he knows many of the victims and families.
> David said way back that he assisted the police in the early stages of
> the Ellis inquiry.
> Who do we believe knows more about the Ellis case, you or David?
Many of us have been waiting for David to provide some factual input to the
discussion.
We are still waiting.
Brian Tozer
Geoff McCaughan
> Mental As Anything <_@_._> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b7551ba...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
>> Who has a vested interest in lying about this case?
> The guilty parties and their supporters.
You mean Sally Denly and the rest of her coven?
Geoff McCaughan
> If the mistaken accusations of victims of crimes disqualify those
> victims from receiving justice for the actual crimes that were
> committed against them
How do you "know" and "actual crimes" were committed against them? There was
absolutely no evidence presented at trial that any of the alleged crimes had
ever occured!
> then no criminal could ever be convicted in this country! Why do you apply
> a higher standard to Ellis' victims than to the victims of ANY OTHER crime
> in New Zealand?
Before deciding who is the victim and who is the offender, you have to
determine if a crime has occured.
Geoff McCaughan
>>
>> Quoting from David McLoughlin's North and South article in 1996:
>> http://www4.wave.co.nz/~brianr/PeterEllis/1991-1996/1996-08
>> _NorthAndSouth_SecondThoughtsOnTheCrecheCase.htm
>>
>>
>> The Crown's determination to spare the jury the bizarre allegations
>> didn't stop the defence from trying to raise them in defence. Defence
>> counsel Rob Harrison sought to show the jury the tapes in which children
>> who were the subject of more credible charges went on in subsequent tapes
>> to describe such incredible events as being suspended in cages from
>> rafters and having lighted paper stuck in their backsides.
>>
>> Harrison wanted the jury to see tapes because he believed they would cast
>> reasonable doubt on the more credible testimony. He regarded this as the
>> crux of the defence case. But Justice Williamson ruled that such crucial
>> tapes were not relevant to the charges against Ellis and he placed such
>> strict limitations on playing them that Harrison believed the defence was
>> mortally handicapped.
> Oh, come on! McLoughlin is another Ellis apologist. Another who is
> convinced he knows more and better than the Police, the Courts and the
> victims themselves. I would not build any case based on such an
> obviously biased source!
Do you have any evidence to dispute the facts as stated in the quotation, or
is ad-hominem the full strength of your "argument"?
Geoff McCaughan
> And he did abuse them as is obvious to anyone who bothers to investigate
> - the case.
Oh look at that - everyone is out of step except David.
joe bloggs
For fux sake Blow.
[bad language, bad up bringing!]
We're getting lost in your long convoluted
rabbiting. The discussion was about Peter Ellis. Shorten things up
and get to the points pertinent to Ellis.
Lets start at the beginning, a very good place to start:
Peter Ellis or the women also accused were not the first to suffer at
the hands of the zelas claiming that they could identify child abuse
and who did it.
Ward 24 aftermath findings stated that multiple child interviews was
wrong and dangerous if the truth was to be found.
Karen Zelas and her cohorts [almost forgot to type the 't']
deliberately disobeyed this finding [were they paid by the interview
or the job lot?]. Was she trustworthy, what was her agenda?
Was Cathy Crawford a reliable trustworthy interviewer who would not
lie to the parents or to Judge Eric Anderson? The answer to that
question is, NO, she lied to the parents and to Judge Eric Anderson.
This is not convoluted rabbiting, the latter is able to be proved in
court, ask quondam Sergeant Tony Greig.
The professional paid witnesses were not trustworthy to elicit the
truth, which is one main reason why there has never been allowed a
full public independent inquiry.
The book of 'End Ritual abuse' with its 16 points was used by the
accusers.
The point: that so many of the 'evidence pointers' claimed, ie cages,
surfaced because of the input by the accusers.
The origin of the 'stories' was tainted, suspect, corrupt. And that
for months and years no claims that set alarm bells ringing?
That the policeman in charge was being 'entertained' so well that he
failed and refused to study the reliability, honesty and integrity of
those who were 'finding' these allegations and that goes for the
professional witnesses as previously pointed out.
Colin Eade was not able to control his urges or himself.
Stressed, fatigued, people who are not in control of themselves should
not be allowed to be in control of an inquiry of this magnitude. [snap
Tony Greig another dysfunctional policeman - out of control]
Just as I have pointed out the start of this case and stated official
knowledge, of the faults, they are still allowed to continue - The
dysfunctional lying Sergeant Tony Greig replaced Colin Eade, and Rob
Pope the policeman who had asked Tony Greig to stay on, took on the
police practice of procrastination, cover up and refused to carry out
a proper investigation. The same mistakes are still being carried out,
case after case in Christchurch and elsewhere. At the very least an
independent inquiry was needed.
Cathy Crawford and her attempts to [figuratively speaking] perform an
orchidectomy on the investigating officer Sergeant Tony Greig.
Colin Eade may have liked the experience but Sergeant Tony Greig
didn't.
Mr Greig made a note for the service's evidential interviewer to the
effect that he had concerns about the complainant's truthfulness.
He says the interviewer did not ask him about the reasons for his
concern but complained to the other [female] sergeant on the child
abuse team.
She was `furious' that he doubted the girl's word, and that he had
spoken to her at all.
Mr Greig says no one queried the interviewees decision to complain, or
her failure to ask his reasons for doubting the girl: "They agreed
that it was completely unacceptable for the officer in charge of the
case to query truthfulness."
Mr Greig says his concern is that the natural anxiety to protect
victims of abuse may have resulted in the process of gathering
evidence, and the law, being slanted in favour of the accuser rather
than the accused. He says he has no regrets about going public and
rejects any suggestion that he has done it to soothe his conscience.
[ha ha ha] The issue, he says, 'concerns justice. "I'm concerned that
truth may be being subverted by political correctness."
He says the service's evidential team functions well in most cases
but, because there is an assumption that abuse has occurred and that a
child tells the truth, when one comes along who is not, there is a
strong chance it won't be picked up.
...if she had subsequently recanted, no one was going to go to court
and say so because that would have been in confidence."...
There is concern among defense lawyers that people are being charged
when there is insufficient evidence to warrant it and that they are
then vulnerable because recent law changes have significantly weakened
safeguards in sex abuse cases.
In 1985 an amendment to the Evidence Act abolished the requirement for
judges to warn juries that it was dangerous to convict on the
uncorroborated word of complainants. A 1989 amendment stopped the
practice, in cases which depended on the evidence of young children,
of judges giving general warnings to juries to carefully scrutinise
the child's evidence before relying on it.
Canterbury University law professor Gerry Orchard says judges would
usually explain that in the experience of the court children had a
tendency to invent or distort. The changes made it easier for the
evidence of children to be accepted and changes to procedures - such
as allowing evidence to be given behind screens or on videotape, made
it easier for them to give evidence.
Mr Nation and Mr Panckhurst, both former prosecutors, say that, taken
together, these changes make for a `potent mix' which works against
the accused.
Children in the Christchurch, creche case were interviewed several
times with some who became key prosecution witnesses undergoing five
or six sessions despite overseas research showing the accuracy of
information becomes less reliable the more often children are
interviewed.' British guidelines, which were overhauled in the wake of
scandals in Cleveland, England, and the Orkney Islands, Scotland,
where hundreds of children were removed from their homes after abuse
was wrongly suspected, restrict the, number of interviews to one or,
in special circumstances, two.
"If you applied those criteria here the creche case would not have got
off the ground," Mr Panckhurst says.
The New Zealand Children and Young Persons Service's own `draft'
guidelines say there should be only ONE evidential, interview `unless
there are special circumstances'.
.... Mr Nation says children aged five or six were questioned about
events alleged to have happened one or two years earlier: and
interviews were sometimes held over several months. In interviews the
child would be encouraged, coaxed, sometimes, led to talk about abuse
on the assumption that it occurred.
Mr Nation says his experience of defending the four woman creche
workers has affected his confidence in the system. He, along with Mr
Panckhurst, will continue to seek an inquiry.
Dianne, my point is the system is basically flawed.
Where was the corroborative evidence against Peter?
I am willing to consider true facts that I am not aware of, but please
corroborative evidence, not alludes etc.
Perhaps David would like to supply true facts, that I do not have that
will cause me to reflect and see if or where I have been wrong.
I don't need to know if David's friends were those that Colin Eade
was having sex with, or those that he didn't, but if he knows
something that the police are covering up, front up, tell the truth,
not innuendoes, stop always alluding but never coming to the truth,
lets get the guilty whoever they are.
You go on about not championing Peter Ellis and his cronies.
[now you are adding to what I said, but that's ok, are you referring
to the four women?]
You say you have never spoken to or met him.
[true and I haven't yet read 'The City Possessed.']
But I have seen the 'stolen' police papers, seen the plans of the
supposed tunnels, seen the photos, listened to Bill Crookston, talked
to a few parents [admittedly they were not the ones going for the
$10,000 pay outs of the taxpayers money, talked to David Close and
various others who new what was going on and the set up.
'Dianne you say'
David Bisman says that he knows many of the victims and families.
David said way back that he assisted the police in the early stages of
the Ellis inquiry.
What did David do?, assisting the police with their inquiries is
normally a phrase that means they have very good reason for believing
you guilty.
What did they suspect him of, I hope the accusations weren't false,
they are very nasty and cause a lot of damage.
Maybe he did a courier service and ensured that the stories were
right?
We had Craig Peter Bullen, helping Tony Greig in this manner, ensuring
the story is 'right' to ensure a conviction. Evidence contamination
was not restricted to the Civic Creche Case.
L E told me he assisted the police also, interesting!
'Dianne you say'
Who do we believe knows more about the Ellis case, you or David?
It doesn't matter as to whether David or I know more about the Civic
Creche Case, what is important is to gather all the evidence, from the
beginning to the end.
Truth, should be un bendable, unshakable, influenced only by the
physical evidence when it has all been collected, tested beside our
knowledge and then we present our findings and conclusions to each
other in such a way that others can understand the PARAMETERS and the
implications of the truth they are hearing.
Quondam Sergeant Tony Greig, now a lawyer, THIS very day in the
Christchurch Court, [Monday pre 11am] asked me how I was going. I
didn't answer at the time, and tell him about the effect, emotionally
and financially that his abuse of the truth and his effort to pervert
the course of justice in the way he conducted the prosecution or his
mate Sergeant Parkes
If he was genuinely concerned with how I was he would go to the
Commissioner and state that the Rob Pope Police Inquiry Report was a
pack of untruths, half truths,lies and omissions.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and given
without fear or favour is not the characteristic we have experienced
from Rob Pope, or Tony Greig. Quite the reverse.
Just as in the Civic Creche Case it is important for the investigating
officer to get to the real truth, and that involves going back to the
beginning, so Tony Greig needed to question the stories and
reliability of Craig Peter Bullen and the other witnesses, the lying
foster parent, the false victim impact report, or Pam Walkinshaw the
CYPS worker that has the power of veto over family court Judges.
Any inquiry into the Civic Creche needs the same.
Dianne Smith, truth is a scarce commodity in this world, it does not
come easily, or at times without cost, but the first thing to ensure
is that we are using our common sense, rather than emotions.
[No need for the strawshaping]
When I tried to get an investigation into our complaints and the
unjustified expenses we had, I approached Merv Derecourt, his
response, [the typical CHCH response when informing them of their
abuse]
You got name suppression, aren't you satisfied, turned his back and
walked away!
And just so everyone knows what I feel and why I will email this to
Tony Greig,
if anyone wants to email it to Rob Robinson or Phil Goff, by all
means, it will save me doing it later.
Eventually we hope the independent public inquiry that was never
allowed for Ward 24, Glenelg, Banks Avenue Civic Creche will one day
be held and abuse of the course of justice by the likes of Colin Eade,
Tony Greig, Sergeant Parkes and the Rob Popes etc will be far and few
between.
The first thing necessary is the admittance of their abuse and lies
and then safeguards put in place to help stop the reoccurence.
[ps I have not reread what I have typed but I believe the only
mistakes will be spelling or grammer.
Mental As Anything
<kt0s4v80gn5eqqv1h...@4ax.com>, Brian (bri...@wave.co.nz)
says...
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:09:56 +1300, Perce Simmons
> <persi...@tree.too.three> wrote:
>
> >It will be a frosty day in hell when David McLoughlin is quoted as
> >an authority on anything
>
> I've often spoken of David McLoughlin as an authority on the
> Christchurch Creche Case.
>
> McLoughlin should be extremely proud of that article.
>
> extremely good grasp of the issues associated with the child sexual
> abuse witch hunt of the 1990s, of which the Christchurch Creche case
> played a good part.
>
> professional manner.
The guy you are talking to is called Scooter.
If you look up Dave McL's postings on Google about Scooter this should
give you some background to his comments in this thread.
Mental As Anything
<d7d9f309.03021...@posting.google.com>, David Bisman
(dbi...@hotmail.com) says...
Um, I don't think so. McLoughlin has no sympathy for the Labour Party or
left politics.
David Bisman
I am sorry you think that way Brian but I have decided that there is
no future in attempting to conduct a rational discussion in this forum
where so many people hide behind anonynimity in order to attempt to
exonerate paederasts and re-victimise the victims. I have tried to
keep the discussion to the facts but so many of Ellis' supporters
insist on introducing irrelevancies and clouding the issues with
falsehoods about SRA and the such that it is hard to keep up. Also
most of them are woefully ignorant of matters legal and judicial so
they are prone to nonsensical claims regarding evidential rules and
the such. Among the most pernicious of their lies are the claims of
homophobic hysteria pervading Christchurch at the time (although,
despite repeated requests, not one shred of evidence to back up such a
claim has been advanced) and the claim that the perpetrators were the
victims. Finally, I am sick and tired of the personal abuse from
anonymous idiots - when they take the trouble to read my posts on this
subject they will discover that I have read the infamous N&S article
by McLoughlin and "A City Possessed" by Lynley Hood. I found the
former lacking in credibility and pandering to the PC commissars under
whom we live and the latter excellent research and scholarship, but
with conclusions with which I could not agree. Repeated entreaties to
read these things waste both my time and the time of those making
them.
Brian
wrote:
>"KiwiBrian" <bria...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<b2p7mm$b7d$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
>> "Dianne Smith" <d...@idonttakemail.net.nz> wrote >
>>
>> > David Bisman says that he knows many of the victims and families.
>> > David said way back that he assisted the police in the early stages of
>> > the Ellis inquiry.
>> > Who do we believe knows more about the Ellis case, you or David?
>>
>> Many of us have been waiting for David to provide some factual input to the
>> discussion.
>> We are still waiting.
>>
>> Brian Tozer
>
>I am sorry you think that way Brian but I have decided that there is
>no future in attempting to conduct a rational discussion in this forum
You have never contributed to a rational discussion, David. All you
have written are simple ad hominem attacks - calling people names when
you have no argument with the facts.
>where so many people hide behind anonynimity
Why does this stop you, David, from providing facts to support your
prejudices?
>in order to attempt to
>exonerate paederasts and re-victimise the victims. I have tried to
>keep the discussion to the facts
David, you have told us that Ellis was found guilty, but most people
were previously aware of that. I'm not sure what other "facts" you
have contributed: I cannot think of any that you have.
>but so many of Ellis' supporters
>insist on introducing irrelevancies and clouding the issues with
>falsehoods about SRA and the such that it is hard to keep up.
If the facts do not support your prejudices, David, you call them
irrelevant, and clouding your prejudice! What "falsehood" about SRA
has anybody contributed? I have not seen anything false.
>Also
>most of them are woefully ignorant of matters legal and judicial so
>they are prone to nonsensical claims regarding evidential rules and
>the such.
David, if you have supporting evidence for your views why do you not
contribute them?
>Among the most pernicious of their lies are the claims of
>homophobic hysteria pervading Christchurch at the time (although,
>despite repeated requests, not one shred of evidence to back up such a
>claim has been advanced)
I'll start with one shred, David: that an innocent homosexual (Ellis)
was charged with a crime. Very similar to the Hamilton Edgar case
years later. The way that Ellis was victimised certainly is the
shred you're looking for.
>and the claim that the perpetrators were the victims.
I've never made that claim, David. I've always believed that the
perpetrators were the police (eg Bonker Eade), the social welfare
interviewers (eg Cathy Crawford), the Ritual Abuse Group people (such
as Stapp), the American imports spreading hysteria, and the justice
system that allowed an innocent man to be convicted.
I certainly do not claim any of them were victims, David.
>Finally, I am sick and tired of the personal abuse from
>anonymous idiots - when they take the trouble to read my posts on this
>subject they will discover that I have read the infamous N&S article
>by McLoughlin and "A City Possessed" by Lynley Hood.
There is no evidence to suggest that you have done anything other than
look at the titles, David. You have not disagreed with any statement
in either article or book, and yet you have been willing to criticise
them. Seems a significant bias from where I'm sitting.
> I found the
>former lacking in credibility
This is an example of you criticising, David, with no substantiation
for your beliefs.
> and pandering to the PC commissars
This is another example of you attacking those who disagree with you,
David, and not what they have said.
>under
>whom we live and the latter excellent research and scholarship, but
>with conclusions with which I could not agree. Repeated entreaties to
>read these things waste both my time and the time of those making
>them.
You'll continue to have the North and South article and Lynley Hood's
book thrust in front of you, David, as long as you persist in
criticising them without even attempting to justify your criticisms.
That's the way debating works, David.
I'm aware from what you have said, David, that you are friends with
somebody who won the $10,000 ACC bonus handout. You may feel that you
are showing your "loyalty" to your friends, and that you are helping
them keep their cash - but really there is no need. I cannot see the
Government ever demanding it back, even if Peter Ellis is eventually
given the massive compensation he deserves.
Brian
Mental As Anything
> > "Dianne Smith" <d...@idonttakemail.net.nz> wrote >
> >
> > > David Bisman says that he knows many of the victims and families.
> > > David said way back that he assisted the police in the early stages of
> > > the Ellis inquiry.
> > > Who do we believe knows more about the Ellis case, you or David?
> >
> > Many of us have been waiting for David to provide some factual input to the
> > discussion.
> > We are still waiting.
> >
> > Brian Tozer
>
> I am sorry you think that way Brian but I have decided that there is
> no future in attempting to conduct a rational discussion in this forum
> where so many people hide behind anonynimity in order to attempt to
> exonerate paederasts and re-victimise the victims. I have tried to
You are so black and white. That is problem for many people who are sick
of the villification, and that's a good reason for anonymity.
> subject they will discover that I have read the infamous N&S article
> by McLoughlin and "A City Possessed" by Lynley Hood. I found the
> former lacking in credibility and pandering to the PC commissars under
Slight problem. It was written in 1996. Also it is known that many in
Labour support your POV.