Peter ELLIS: - Creche kid says 'I am sick of being called a liar', DomPost 16 Aug 03
Fred
Wellington, New Zealand
Saturday August 16 2003.
Magazine
Pages: F4-F4.
'I AM SICK OF BEING CALLED A LIAR'
A decade after the Christchurch Civic Creche sex abuse trial, two of
the children whose evidence has now been called into question by
supporters of Peter Ellis tell LINLEY BONIFACE why they feel betrayed.
TOM and Katrina went to creche together. This is the first time
they've seen each other in a decade, and the two 17-year-olds have a
lot to catch up on. But their conversation isn't about friends, or
cars, or schools; it's about things that happened to them in toilets,
and bathtubs, and other secret places. Most of all, it's about
memories - memories they've been struggling to make sense of since
they were little.
"Do you remember the black jackets and the hats?" says Katrina,
leaning forward on the sofa at Tom's parents' house and crossing her
arms across her chest. "I keep remembering these - yeah, they're black
- black jackets and these hats. Do you remember them? Do you?"
Later, she looks at Tom again. "Did you use to have nightmares? I had
nightmares for a long time."
Tom and Katrina are not their real names, which cannot be used for
legal reasons. If you've read Lynley Hood's book, A City Possessed:
The Christchurch Civic Creche Case, you'll recognise them as Bart
Dogwood and Kari Lacebark. If you saw the double page advertisement in
the Sunday Star-Times earlier this month, headlined The Toddler
Testimonies, you'll know them as B and K. And the "he" Tom refers to
is, of course, Peter Ellis, who is, depending on your viewpoint,
either a ruthless and unrepentant convicted child molester or the
victim of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in New Zealand's
history.
The campaign to clear Ellis is gaining momentum: more than 800 people
have signed a petition calling for a royal commission of inquiry into
the case. The petition is to go before a select committee hearing at
Parliament later this month.
Tom and Katrina were pivotal to the Crown case against Ellis. In June
1993, Ellis was found guilty of 16 out of 25 charges of sexual abuse
of seven young children (three of the convictions were quashed a year
later, when one child withdrew her allegations). Three of the
convictions related to Tom and four related to Katrina. Ellis was
sentenced to 10 years in prison, and served seven.
There was no physical evidence, and there were no adult eyewitnesses
to the abuse; Ellis was found guilty on the basis of the children's
evidential interviews and courtroom testimony. The jury's decision
that such young children could be trusted to give an accurate report
of what had happened to them has polarised commentators ever since.
Do young children lie? And, if so, do they lie about something as
serious as sexual abuse? Can they draw the line between fact and
fantasy, between memory and imagination? And, most importantly, can
they be manipulated by those they trust into believing the unreal is
real?
The children in the Christchurch Civic Creche case have grown into
teenagers. They no longer need to be told the difference between a
truth and a lie; they don't need an interpreter to help them describe
parts of their bodies, or sexual acts or the way they feel. They have
found their voices.
The Dominion Post was present when Tom and Katrina met up a week ago,
at Tom's house in Christchurch. It was the first time they had seen
each other since the end of the High Court trial. They had spoken on
the phone a few days previously, when Tom told Katrina he was thinking
of breaking his 10-year silence by talking to a reporter about the
case. Katrina said she'd like to take part in the interview, too.
It was not an easy meeting. Tom and Katrina felt understandably
anxious and uncertain; we spoke for almost four hours, and by the end
of the evening they looked exhausted and shaky. Both teenagers were so
tired the next day that they were allowed to stay home from school.
Also present were Tom's parents, Jill and Michael, and Katrina's
parents, Sarah and Gavin. Their names have also been changed to
protect the identities of the children. Tom and Katrina were asked a
final few further questions at the end of the evening, when they were
talking together in Tom's room.
For the first half hour, it was like any meeting between people who
had known each other well a long time ago but had since lost touch:
the parents exclaimed over how much each other's children had grown,
and exchanged the usual anecdotes about the trials of raising
teenagers. Then the conversation took a darker turn.
First of all, Tom wanted to say why he'd agreed to the interview. He
had been thinking about talking for some time, he said, but the
catalyst had been the much-heralded advertisement in the Sunday
Star-Times on August 3. The ad was paid for by publisher Barry Colman,
who called the children's evidential interviews "gibberish" and said
they would show Ellis was the victim of a hysterical witch-hunt.
"I would have been happy to never talk about the abuse ever again. I
want to forget it. But I'm sick of being called a liar. And if I don't
say anything, Peter Ellis will keep going around saying he's innocent
and more people will believe him," says Tom.
"The only thing that ad did was to make it harder for me and Katrina
and for all the other kids to live with what happened. If someone had
told me when I was six that everything I said would end up all over
the papers 10 years later, I wouldn't have wanted to testify. I feel
like my trust has been betrayed."
The ad featured transcripts of interviews with Tom and Katrina, some
of which were not played to the jury (Justice Minister Phil Goff has
said the Crown Law Office assured him the ad contained no new
evidence, and that all transcripts had been made available to defence
lawyers to use in cross-examinations before the jury convicted Ellis).
Katrina believed the ad made her look "like an idiot", and she was
particularly angry that a highlighted quote misrepresented what she
had said.
The highlighted quote read:
Q When his penis touched you there, were your clothes on or off?
A On.
Q They were on. What about his clothes?
A They were on.
. . .
A I want to go. How long have I been here now?
The quote implies Katrina claimed Ellis touched her with his penis
while he was fully clothed. The missing part of the excerpt between
"They were on" and "I want to go", which was featured in much smaller
type in the body of the text, runs as follows:
Q They were on, too?
A Yeah, but not his trousers.
In a second highlighted quote, one of the children referred to going
to the "womble area" - which, to those unfamiliar with the creche,
would suggest the child had confused aspects of the case with a TV
cartoon. In fact, younger children at Christchurch Civic Creche were
known as Wombles, and pre-schoolers were Big Kids. Comments like this
were put into context during the trial.
The Colman ad also claimed the children's evidence changed markedly
over the course of their interviews. In Tom's first interview, it
said, "all B [Tom] could come up with was a memory of Ellis cleaning
him up on the creche changing table. The contrast between that story
and the bizarre allegations in his later interviews (recorded after
months of parental questioning and sexual abuse therapy) is
extraordinary".
This accusation - that parents and counsellors manipulated the
children into making up the allegations of abuse - is the cornerstone
of Lynley Hood's book. It infuriates Tom: "It's bullshit that we were
told what to say The parents had nothing to do with what we said; all
my parents ever said to me was that I should tell the truth.
"Of course we didn't say much at our first interview. Would you? I
didn't want to say anything to anyone I didn't trust. I was real
scared of Peter Ellis."
Katrina: "How would a five-year-old know about ejaculation? My parents
had never talked about that to me. I was able to describe it because
of what Peter Ellis did to me, not because anyone had told me about
it"
KATRINA'S dad, Gavin, says he finds it frustrating that transcripts
can be taken out of context, without any of the intense scrutiny that
occurred during the judicial process. "The jury was able to see the
children giving evidence on video. They watched very young children go
through the anxiety of remembering things that were very painful to
them. They didn't just hear the words; they were able to see the
children's body language. They were also able to see that the children
backed up each other's stories."
Much has been made of the number of interviews the children were
subjected to. Tom and Katrina say the experience was indeed very
distressing - Katrina asked her mother to check every toilet and look
behind every door in the building where the interviews took place -
but they do not believe they were pushed into saying anything they
didn't want to say.
During our interview, the parents' relationships with Tom and Katrina
appeared supportive and caring. Gavin, Sarah, Jill and Michael did not
attempt to speak on behalf of their children, or tell them what to
say, and there was no evidence of coaching. Indeed, if there was a
surprise it was that the two sets of parents seemed very different to
the way they were portrayed in A City Possessed.
In Hood's book, one mother-who she called Ms Magnolia - is described
as the instigator of the abuse accusations. Hood says it was "probably
inevitable" that Ms Magnolia would accuse Peter Ellis of abusing her
son, and implies that other parents who made complaints on behalf of
their children simply got caught up in the witch hunt.
The language used to describe the parents is often dismissive. When
describing Sarah's initial concerns that her daughter had been abused,
she says: "The next of Ms Magnolia's supporters to spring into action
was Ms Lacebark." Jill and Michael's questioning of their son is an
"interrogation"; when Tom reveals the location of an alleged incident
of abuse, he has "hit the jackpot". After Tom had given his evidence
in court, said Hood, "the rest of the kids seemed tame".
Tom and Katrina's parents have a rather different recollection of the
whole affair. For starters, far from jumping on the abuse bandwagon,
they say they wanted to believe it wasn't true. Both mothers felt sure
their kids would have told them if anyone was hurting them.
Sarah had worried for months about a persistent red rash around
Katrina's genital area. She had suspected abuse for a fleeting moment,
but immediately dismissed the thought as ridiculous. The idea that she
could have been abused at the creche was unthinkable to Sarah, who
served on the management committee.
Jill and Michael say they missed the first signs that Tom was in
trouble. "One night when Michael had an old high school mate over for
dinner, Tom put his fork in the carrots and said, 'This looks just
like a big fat penis that you put in your mouth.' We sent him to his
room and told him he couldn't come out till he'd apologised."
Michael: "When Tom did finally start telling us what had happened, I
kept saying, 'Are you sure about that?' I didn't really want to
believe him."
MANY of the children involved in the case were said to have suffered
behavioural problems, including nightmares, tantrums, bedwetting,
separation anxiety, fear of men, sexual disorders and toileting
problems. For a year and a half before the abuse was uncovered,
Katrina was terrified of going to the toilet. She also lost her
coordination. "I used to play ball with Dad, but I froze up. I
couldn't catch a ball, and I couldn't kick a ball, and I couldn't
climb the bars. I'd call Mum out to watch me on the bars, but I'd just
hang there without being able to move my hands," says Katrina.
The day after Katrina told her parents she was being abused, she
called her parents outside to watch her on the bars again. Her mother
assumed that, as always, she'd be unable to move. "But I was
wrong-that day she was able to move," Sarah remembers.
"For a week after her disclosures, we had our happy, jocular little
girl back again. Then it got worse. And then she told us she wanted to
kill herself because she was so frightened."
Like Katrina, Tom was frightened of going to the toilet - the smell of
toilets was, for a long time, unbearable to him. He had eating
problems, insisted on being fully dressed at all times and became a
perfectionist. He was terrified of baths-Ellis was convicted of
abusing him in a bath - and found large groups of children and certain
children's games extremely frightening.
But is it the memory of the abuse that frightened him, or just the
recollection of being told he had been abused? Now, at 17, can he
honestly say that he remembers the abuse
itself?
"Yeah. I remember lots of it vividly," says Tom.
Tom's testimony was the most controversial of all the children's
because some of it was so bizarre and disturbing. His allegations of
ritual abuse in particular have become a focus of attention for Ellis'
supporters. Does Tom still believe everything he said was true?
Yes, says Tom. "I stand by everything I said when I was little. I
didn't make anything up. But back then I believed everything I was
told. Now 1 can make more sense of it . . . for example, I was told I
was put down a trap door. Now I think it was just a laundry chute with
cushions at the bottom. But when you're a little kid, you think adults
are always telling you the truth."
Jill shows me a picture Tom drew when he was seven. The picture is of
a graveyard. Children are buried in coffins under the earth; there are
speech bubbles coming from their mouths saying "help". A stick figure
man with big eyes and a big smile is standing above them. "Peter is
laughing," reads the caption.
The graveyard theme emerged from another source during Ellis' trial.
Childcare worker Tracy O'Connor said Ellis had come up with the idea
of taking "staged" photos of a children's party at the creche. Ellis
told a boy to lie on the ground on his back with his hands crossed
over his chest, as though he were dead. A spade had been placed so it
appeared to be impaling him.
Katrina is equally vehement when asked if she remembers the abuse. "I
remember lots of it. Most of all, I remember how scared it made me."
TOM and Katrina are bright, articulate, attractive teenagers. They do,
however, seem older than their years, and the decade since the trial
has clearly not been easy for either of them.
For Tom, his love of sport and the support of his family - especially
his older brothers - helped him to feel safe again. He has a
girlfriend and lots of friends, not one of whom knows he went to
Christchurch Civic Creche.
Katrina seems to have found it harder to cope. For a long time, she
used to vomit whenever she talked about Ellis. She saw him once, in a
shop, and felt sick all over again.
She has a boyfriend, but even the thought of sex triggers flashbacks.
Sport has been very important to Katrina, and has been a great healer.
Friends have also been crucial to her recovery.
"I've got an awesome bunch of friends. I always try to have a group of
good friends now, because when I was little I lost all my friends. I
don't know anyone I went to preschool with.
"I think I grew up too quickly You know, my friends often say how much
they loved being little. I didn't; I hated being little. But I've done
with crying. I just want to be a normal teenager now."
Most of the parents of the Christchurch Civic Creche children have
lost contact with each other. There was an obvious breach between
those who supported Ellis and those who didn't, but parents who
believed their children had been abused were discouraged from
talking to each other for fear of contaminating the evidence. Some
have found it too painful to stay in touch; some have left
Christchurch; some thought it best for their children if the creche
was never mentioned again.
One father who left Christchurch said a teacher advised him to erase
the name of his son's old crčche from his school files. "That was one
of the best pieces of advice I've ever been given," he says.
Tom and Katrina's parents have only told their most trusted friends of
their involvement in the case. They often hear workmates say they
believe Ellis is innocent. Sarah and Gavin have had enough now:
they're thinking about leaving New Zealand for good.
Both families ask repeatedly why everyone seems to believe Ellis,
despite the fact that his case has already been through a jury trial,
two appeals and a ministerial inquiry And they ask why so many
journalists seem happy to report everything Ellis and his supporters
say without bothering to ask the victims' families for comment.
They also point out the irony in the fact that Ellis has a well-run
and well-bankrolled campaign behind him, while the families don't even
have a legal representative.
The families believe A City Possessed tells only half the story
-Ellis' half - and were particularly angered by a recent comment by
Hood that the children deserved to "know the truth and go forward into
adulthood with the whole thing sorted".
Tom says the matter is sorted already "We were there, we know it
happened. It's not easy to live with, but I could live with it if
everyone didn't keep bringing it up all the time. The only closure I
want is for Peter Ellis to admit he did it."
At the end of the evening, Tom and Katrina give each other a hug. They
are like typical teenagers now, talking about mobile phones and mutual
friends and parties. Then Tom says how great it is to have someone who
knows his background; how it makes him feel less alone.
"It was good that our parents talked for us when we were little, but
we can speak up for ourselves now. We can do our own talking," says
Tom. "If Peter Ellis is reading this, I'd like him to know that I'm
not a scared little boy any longer."
Morrissey Breen
sympathetic to these two young liars that have re-emerged from
deserved obscurity. Dominion Post writer Linley Boniface has made a
real fool of herself too. And a nitwit named Fred <fre...@nomind.net>
apparently approves of the Dominion Post's latest attack on Peter
Ellis, judging from what he posted up in message
news:<339sjvs0fun9edmm4...@4ax.com>...
>
> 'I AM SICK OF BEING CALLED A LIAR'
This writer humbly suggests that these two stop telling lies then.
>
> Most of all, it's about memories - memories they've been struggling to make sense of
> since they were little.
Let's get this straight: as shown with perfect clarity in A City
Possessed, the "memories" are the fevered imaginations of some
"counsellors", together with their gullible, loving parents.
>
> Do young children lie?
Yes. But the real villains are the ADULTS - especially the police and
counsellors - who lied.
>
> And, if so, do they lie about something as serious as sexual abuse?
Clearly they did. So might anyone when subjected to such brutal,
relentless questioning as that of Karen Zealous.
>
> Can they draw the line between fact and fantasy, between memory and imagination?
Obviously they cannot.
>
> The children in the Christchurch Civic Creche case have grown into
> teenagers. They no longer need to be told the difference between a
> truth and a lie;
Yes they do. As does the Dominion Post's reporter, obviously.
>
>..... by the end of the evening they looked exhausted and shaky.
They must have felt like they did when they were begging Karen Zealous
to stop asking them questions and let them go home when they were
tiny.
>
> "I would have been happy to never talk about the abuse ever again. I
> want to forget it. But I'm sick of being called a liar."
He IS a liar. One can forgive a child, perhaps. But a 17 year old
maliciously repeating those lies is surely culpable.
>
> "The only thing that ad did was to make it harder for me and Katrina
> and for all the other kids to live with what happened.
Nothing happened. This teenager KNOWS nothing happened. Why is he
still lying?
>
> Katrina believed the ad made her look "like an idiot",
No, the ad makes the corrupt and zealous "counsellors" look like
idiots. What makes Katrina (NOT HER REAL NAME!) look like an idiot is
her continuing to tell these lies.
>
> Tom: "It's bullshit that we were told what to say. The parents had nothing to do with
> what we said; all my parents ever said to me was that I should tell the truth."
This young fellow clearly loves his parents and wants to protect them
from the consequences of their folly. Hence his lying.
>
> KATRINA'S dad, Gavin, says he finds it frustrating that transcripts
> can be taken out of context, ... <SNIP BLATHER>.....
Unfortunately for Gavin (NOT HIS REAL NAME) the whole idiotic fantasy
that is the "case" against Ellis is up on the net. It is also
thoroughly covered in Lynley Hood's book.
>
> "Yeah. I remember lots of it vividly," says Tom.
Liar.
>
> Tom's testimony was the most controversial of all the children's
> because some of it was so bizarre and disturbing. His allegations of
> ritual abuse in particular have become a focus of attention for Ellis'
> supporters. Does Tom still believe everything he said was true?
>
> Yes, says Tom. "I stand by everything I said when I was little. I
> didn't make anything up. But back then I believed everything I was told."
Don't beat yourself up about it kid. Your parents believed eveything
THEY were told too - and they were supposed to be adults.
>
> Katrina is equally vehement when asked if she remembers the abuse. "I
> remember lots of it. Most of all, I remember how scared it made me."
She is talking about the "psychologists" - right?
>
>...parents who believed their children had been abused were
discouraged from talking
> to each other for fear of contaminating the evidence.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Now THAT might just be the funniest lie anyone has
told this year!
>
> They often hear workmates say they
> believe Ellis is innocent. Sarah and Gavin have had enough now:
> they're thinking about leaving New Zealand for good.
Good. We need disturbed fantasists telling sick implanted lies in
this country like we need another Roger mcClay as Children's
Commisioner. Could they take their abusers with them?
>
> Both families ask repeatedly why everyone seems to believe Ellis,
> despite the fact that his case has already been through a jury trial,
> two appeals and a ministerial inquiry And they ask why so many
> journalists seem happy to report everything Ellis and his supporters
> say without bothering to ask the victims' families for comment.
More lies. They refused to speak to Lynley Hood.
>
> They also point out the irony in the fact that Ellis has a well-run
> and well-bankrolled campaign behind him, while the families don't even
> have a legal representative.
Their lies were backed by all the force and authority of the state.
Their lies are still being covered up by the state. When will the
inert Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, DO something?
.......< SNIP ignorant lies about Ms hood's book being unfair to them.
>......
......< SNIP risible praise of credulous Dominion Post mis-reporter
Boniface.>......
*****************************************************************************
Little Katrina (aged 6): "I want to go. How long have I been here
now?"
*****************************************************************************
Brian
On 16 Aug 2003 12:47:05 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
>Looks like Brian Edwards is not the only journalist (so-called) to be
>sympathetic to these two young liars that have re-emerged from
>deserved obscurity. Dominion Post writer Linley Boniface has made a
>real fool of herself too. And a nitwit named Fred <fre...@nomind.net>
>apparently approves of the Dominion Post's latest attack on Peter
>Ellis, judging from what he posted up in message
>news:<339sjvs0fun9edmm4...@4ax.com>...
I do not think he is a nitwit for posting Linley Boniface's article.
The case needs exposure from all angles.
I do think that Brian Edwards showed that he has little appreciation
of the issues involved. The first half of the interview almost
descended into the banal. A little more intelligent discussion
followed.
>
>>
>> 'I AM SICK OF BEING CALLED A LIAR'
>This writer humbly suggests that these two stop telling lies then.
I think it's important to note that these two teenagers are not liars.
They almost definitely are saying what they now truly believe to have
happened. The sincerity with which such children talk, is the stuff
of which has sent too many men to prison.
(Their statements may also be largely motivated by embarrassment.
People in general - not just these children - almost invariably spend
a great deal of energy in justifying their previous statements,
reserach etc. It's a very difficult and embarrassing ask for anybody
to turn 180 degrees on any position)
The children's sincerity and beliefs ARE important evidence. But such
evidence needs to be looked at in conjunction with how and when they
came to those views. As Lynley Hood said last night, the people who do
need to be focussed on are the parents and the child interviewers.
>
>>
>> Most of all, it's about memories - memories they've been struggling to make sense of
>> since they were little.
>Let's get this straight: as shown with perfect clarity in A City
>Possessed, the "memories" are the fevered imaginations of some
>"counsellors", together with their gullible, loving parents.
Yes.
>
>>
>> Do young children lie?
>Yes. But the real villains are the ADULTS - especially the police and
>counsellors - who lied.
Again. Please leave out the word "lie". Even the adults, the
interviewers did not "lie". They were misguided, for sure, but were
also acting out of deeply held beliefs, and a justified outrage over
the subject of sexual abuse in general. They were caught up
personally in the prevailing sexual abuse hysteria - and many of such
counsellors etc were sexual abuse victims themselves.
What they failed to do was differentiate between their outrage over
sexual abuse and their ability to consider that an accused man might
actually be innocent.
This was not just a failing in the Peter Ellis case. It happened
throughout the country, and is one of the reasons why a Royal
Commission of Inquiry is so important.
>> And, if so, do they lie about something as serious as sexual abuse?
>Clearly they did. So might anyone when subjected to such brutal,
>relentless questioning as that of Karen Zealous.
>
>>
>> Can they draw the line between fact and fantasy, between memory and imagination?
>
>Obviously they cannot.
Important to understand the nature of memory. We are all subject to
hold false memories. The tragedy in the Ellis case (and in many
other cases of false allegations of sexual abuse in New Zealand) is
that false memories were unwittingly propagated - and in a subject
that affected scores of innocent men.
>>
>> The children in the Christchurch Civic Creche case have grown into
>> teenagers. They no longer need to be told the difference between a
>> truth and a lie;
>Yes they do. As does the Dominion Post's reporter, obviously.
The Dominion Post's reporter could have done much better, surely.
>>
>>..... by the end of the evening they looked exhausted and shaky.
>They must have felt like they did when they were begging Karen Zealous
>to stop asking them questions and let them go home when they were
>tiny.
>
>>
>> "I would have been happy to never talk about the abuse ever again. I
>> want to forget it. But I'm sick of being called a liar."
>He IS a liar. One can forgive a child, perhaps. But a 17 year old
>maliciously repeating those lies is surely culpable.
No .... Not lies.
No .... Not malicious.
Defending their beliefs
Defending themselves against embarrassment probably
Defending their parents, perhaps
Defending the money they received, possibly
>>
>> "The only thing that ad did was to make it harder for me and Katrina
>> and for all the other kids to live with what happened.
>
>Nothing happened. This teenager KNOWS nothing happened. Why is he
>still lying?
Because he actually believes what he is saying
>
>>
>> Katrina believed the ad made her look "like an idiot",
>
>No, the ad makes the corrupt and zealous "counsellors" look like
>idiots.
Yes.
>What makes Katrina (NOT HER REAL NAME!) look like an idiot is
>her continuing to tell these lies.
I do not think she is being made to look an idiot.
>> Tom: "It's bullshit that we were told what to say. The parents had nothing to do with
>> what we said; all my parents ever said to me was that I should tell the truth."
>
>This young fellow clearly loves his parents and wants to protect them
>from the consequences of their folly.
Yes
> Hence his lying.
Comments as above
>> KATRINA'S dad, Gavin, says he finds it frustrating that transcripts
>> can be taken out of context, ... <SNIP BLATHER>.....
>Unfortunately for Gavin (NOT HIS REAL NAME) the whole idiotic fantasy
>that is the "case" against Ellis is up on the net. It is also
>thoroughly covered in Lynley Hood's book.
Smile
<snip remainder>
Brian
paulsy
>'I AM SICK OF BEING CALLED A LIAR'
>
>A decade after the Christchurch Civic Creche sex abuse trial, two of
>the children whose evidence has now been called into question by
>supporters of Peter Ellis tell LINLEY BONIFACE why they feel betrayed.
Liar, Liar
Bum on fire!
robi...@btinternet.com
>"THE DOMINION POST"
>Wellington, New Zealand
>Saturday August 16 2003.
>Magazine
>Pages: F4-F4.
>
>'I AM SICK OF BEING CALLED A LIAR'
>
>A decade after the Christchurch Civic Creche sex abuse trial, two of
>the children whose evidence has now been called into question by
>supporters of Peter Ellis tell LINLEY BONIFACE why they feel betrayed.
In a previous post I commented unfavourably on the Evening Post,
having mistakenly only read the other article about the application
for legal aid, and not realising that this was the main article. This
article does not suffer from the problems I accused it of. It does not
hide from the difficulties of determining just what is true from early
childhood 'memories'. I suspect that 'Tom' and 'Karina' wlil have read
this article and felt that they have been treated fairly, but to those
aware of how easy it is to affect a childs memory, it will confirm
concerns that in todays terms Peter Ellis' trial was 'unsafe',
resulting from total lack of any proof of any of the crimes of which
he and others were accused, and indeed clear evidence that the
purported 'victims' had been manipulated to believe untruths. Children
in this situation are not liars, but victims of a different crime.
<most of article snipped>
I found the conclusion most interesting:
>"It was good that our parents talked for us when we were little, but
>we can speak up for ourselves now. We can do our own talking," says
>Tom. "If Peter Ellis is reading this, I'd like him to know that I'm
>not a scared little boy any longer."
It is good that Tom is no longer scared - being told as often as he
had what had supposedly been done to him would scare any small boy. It
is good too that his parents no longer speak for him - although in
establishing his beliefs they have given him a lasting legacy of harm,
for which the parents have not been charged or imprisoned, but paid
and sympathetically counselled.
ER
The Observer
Operative word - paid. How much was paid, and to whom?
How NZ works - The Observer - http://nz.realisticpolitics.com
The Observer
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Who paid how much to the parents?
Who paid how much to the 'experts'?
Who will contribute to a prosecution of those who DID interfere with the
children? Every single sicko who touched them in the course of
'examinations'. It needs a lawyer with guts, possibly John Rowan QC, who
took on killer cop Keith Abbott. The state won't. $100 for starters
here, to a suitable and credible trust fund.
Karen Hayward-King
On 16 Aug 2003 12:47:05 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
>> 'I AM SICK OF BEING CALLED A LIAR'
>This writer humbly suggests that these two stop telling lies then.
>
I don't think that these kids are liars. They probably think that what
they remember and what they have been told is the truth.
>> Most of all, it's about memories - memories they've been struggling to make sense of
>> since they were little.
>Let's get this straight: as shown with perfect clarity in A City
>Possessed, the "memories" are the fevered imaginations of some
>"counsellors", together with their gullible, loving parents.
>
Exactly.
Unfortunately, these 'counselors' and the parents have shored up and
validated these 'memories' over the years.
>> Do young children lie?
>Yes. But the real villains are the ADULTS - especially the police and
>counsellors - who lied.
>
Yes, young children do lie. In this case though, I don't think it was
so much that the kids lied...more that they were manipulated by people
who had varying agendas. You have to be very careful when interviewing
young children in disclosure interviews. Young kids have wonderful
imaginations and are often very eager to please. It's very easy for an
interviewer to manipulate a kid into telling stuff that will fit an
interviewer's preconceived ideas of what happened.
<snip>
>>
>> The children in the Christchurch Civic Creche case have grown into
>> teenagers. They no longer need to be told the difference between a
>> truth and a lie;
>Yes they do. As does the Dominion Post's reporter, obviously.
>
But I don't think that they believe that what they are saying is a
lie.
>>..... by the end of the evening they looked exhausted and shaky.
>They must have felt like they did when they were begging Karen Zealous
>to stop asking them questions and let them go home when they were
>tiny.
>
>>
>> "I would have been happy to never talk about the abuse ever again. I
>> want to forget it. But I'm sick of being called a liar."
>He IS a liar. One can forgive a child, perhaps. But a 17 year old
>maliciously repeating those lies is surely culpable.
No, I don't believe that he is a liar.
You have to remember that this is the son, I believe, of 'Joy Bander'.
This is the kid who has had the video tapes of his disclosure played
to him over and over again while he was going through *therapy*. He's
also heard his mother repeat, over and over again, the graphic detail
of his *abuse*. David McLoughlin wrote in one of his North and South?
articles about an interview he did with 'Joy Bander' and how this
little boy was sitting near them listening to her tell all the details
of how he'd been *abused*. David talks about the look on this little
boy's face as he listen to his Mum. he talks about the little boys
eyes 'bulging'. His description on this kid's reaction made me feel
heartsick.
>>
>> "The only thing that ad did was to make it harder for me and Katrina
>> and for all the other kids to live with what happened.
>
>Nothing happened. This teenager KNOWS nothing happened. Why is he
>still lying?
>
He's not...not in his mind, anyway.
>> Katrina believed the ad made her look "like an idiot",
>
>No, the ad makes the corrupt and zealous "counsellors" look like
>idiots. What makes Katrina (NOT HER REAL NAME!) look like an idiot is
>her continuing to tell these lies.
>
No, she's not. She's simply repeating what she believes to be the
truth.
>> Tom: "It's bullshit that we were told what to say. The parents had nothing to do with
>> what we said; all my parents ever said to me was that I should tell the truth."
>
>This young fellow clearly loves his parents and wants to protect them
>from the consequences of their folly. Hence his lying.
>
Again , no. I don't think that it is anyway helpful to Peter Ellis's
case, to try to demonise the children. From what I have read about
him, I suspect that is not what he wants either..
<snip>
>>
>> "Yeah. I remember lots of it vividly," says Tom.
>Liar.
Of course he would remember it vividly. His mother wrote a book about
it....she has talked about it to reporters, etc in front of
him....he's had the video tapes of his disclosures played to him
repeatedly. Is it any surprise that his memories are vivid?
--
Karen Hayward-King
"I try to be as philosophical as the old lady
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
David McLoughlin
<bons...@orcon.net.nz> wrote > > > 'I AM SICK OF BEING CALLED A LIAR'
> > This writer humbly suggests that these two stop telling lies then.
None of those little kids told lies. They really believed what their
parents primed them to say. Even their parents believed the tales
they were telling. Ellis never said they lied, just that they were
mistaken. The only person who said they lied was Justice Williams.
Dersu
"Fred" <fre...@nevermind.net> wrote in message
Most of all, it's about
> memories - memories they've been struggling to make sense of since
> they were little.
Of course the poor kids have been "struggling to make sense" of memories
that were implanted by sick and delusional people who were uncaring of the
catastrophic effect their brainwashing might have on little children. One
can only hope these kids will have the guts to put this wicked abuse by
their parents and social workers behind them and get on with their lives.
They will be fools to themselves if they allow the culture of victimhood to
blight their lives. They are, after all, alive and physically undamaged and
the world is waiting for them.
D.
Morrissey Breen
tone it down in message
news:<temtjv8h5kft7m1f2...@4ax.com>...
>
> Again , no. I don't think that it is anyway helpful to Peter Ellis's
> case, to try to demonise the children. From what I have read about
> him, I suspect that is not what he wants either...
Point taken. However, I think that these children are being indulged
greatly here. There are other children who have had the courage to
retract the nonsense they were forced to spout by Karen Zealous and
her team. Why can these two not do the same?
Is Joy Bander (NOT HER REAL NAME) that scary that her grown child is
afraid to cross her?
Brian
Breen) wrote:
It is not a question of courage. If they _honestly_ believe that they
have been sexually abused, they will have no inclination to "retract
the nonsense"
These children are only doing the same thing that many other children
have done in the last decade (with the assistance of the sex abuse
industry practitioners). The family suffering in New Zealand has
been huge as a result.
Many of these children are now retracting - but as with all beliefs,
people have to work things out for themselves. Do their OWN reality
checking, rather than being told what they supposedly should believe.
The younger the children are when brainwashed, the less the chances of
that happening. But for many men, caught up with the false
accusations of older children, teenagers and young adults, the
situation has much more hope. Those accusers are far more likely to
retract - often when they come out from the influence of those that
have "assisted" them to recover their stories of abuse - almost always
there are counsellors involved.
Note that I've been referring to false accusations above. I am not
trying to suggest that there are not real victims of abuse.
Brian
Joe
Breen) wrote:
Wasn't it over 12 sodden agonising pages of absolute oral garbage
later?
I can't be bothered going over my copies of the transcripts at the
moment, so I may be wrong.
I leave it to my learned counsel to inform us.
Sheesh anyone would be more learned than Cathy Crawford,
Everthing was beyond her expertise, even the ability to tell the truth
from my experience.
Cheers, but fears that Goff will ever have a reality check.
*
Joe
Its not how good the defence is that counts,
Its how bad those who dispense our justice are!
Fears *
Kerry
Breen) wrote:
>Karen Hayward-King <kiwi...@yellowsub.net> tells this writer (moi) to
>tone it down in message
>news:<temtjv8h5kft7m1f2...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> Again , no. I don't think that it is anyway helpful to Peter Ellis's
>> case, to try to demonise the children. From what I have read about
>> him, I suspect that is not what he wants either...
>
>Point taken. However, I think that these children are being indulged
>greatly here. There are other children who have had the courage to
>retract the nonsense they were forced to spout by Karen Zealous and
>her team. Why can these two not do the same?
Because they believe their memories?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nik
Breen) wrote:
>Looks like Brian Edwards is not the only journalist (so-called) to be
>sympathetic to these two young liars that have re-emerged from
>deserved obscurity.
Your argument is reduced in the eyes of opponents when you make such
accusations. Lying involves a deliberate attempt to deceive on the
part of the person claiming a fact. Being misguided and reporting on
one's misguided beliefs does NOT make one a liar. The persons referred
to may well have been, we probably both agree that they have, lied to
by other agencies...
This is an important debate please don't trivialise/endanger it by
being unreasonable.
> Dominion Post writer Linley Boniface has made a
>real fool of herself too.
Accusing mistaken persons of lying when there is no attempt to
deceive, on their parts, will make our argument look foolish also.
Which, of course, it isn't.
Nik
Karen Hayward-King
Breen) wrote:
>Karen Hayward-King <kiwi...@yellowsub.net> tells this writer (moi) to
>tone it down in message
>news:<temtjv8h5kft7m1f2...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> Again , no. I don't think that it is anyway helpful to Peter Ellis's
>> case, to try to demonise the children. From what I have read about
>> him, I suspect that is not what he wants either...
>
>Point taken. However, I think that these children are being indulged
>greatly here.
These kids believe that the abuse happened to them. I think that
letting them tell their stories could very well be helpful to the
Ellis's case.
>There are other children who have had the courage to
>retract the nonsense they were forced to spout by Karen Zealous and
>her team. Why can these two not do the same?
Because they don't think that they are lying....as I said above, I
believe that they honestly think that they were abused.
These two particular kids have been told for years that they have been
abused. They have had those beliefs reinforced by intense parental
involvement.... such as, a book being written about the case by one of
the mothers, one being shown videotapes of his disclosures, the other
mother wrote a booklet for her daughter about what happened to her and
so on. I doubt that the discussions have stopped over the years, as
witnessed by these two kids coming forward with their parents.
It's possible that the other kids (actually I think there was only
one, but I may be wrong) recanted, because they didn't have that type
of intense reinforcement.
As I have said before, while I believe that Peter Ellis is innocent
and I very much hope that he will eventually be cleared, I really fear
for these two kids in particular if and when that happens. They are as
much victims as Ellis is...and in many ways they are much more
vulnerable.
>Is Joy Bander (NOT HER REAL NAME) that scary that her grown child is
>afraid to cross her?
I said a year or so back, that I seriously wonder if *Joy Bander* was
suffering from a form of Munchausen by Proxy syndrome.
From all that I read and heard about her...and especially from her
book....I think that she is very involved in the *Cult of Victimhood*.
I think she sees herself as a victim in life...I think that she sees
what she believes happened to her son, as not only making him a
victim, but herself as well. I don't think that she sees herself or
her son as a survivor. I don't think that she has made that transition
from victim to survivor...I'm not even sure if she is capable of doing
that. Sadly, her beliefs and ways of dealing with life are reflected
back on her son.
Does that make her 'scary'? Possibly....
Karen Hayward-King
>Many of these children are now retracting - but as with all beliefs,
>people have to work things out for themselves. Do their OWN reality
>checking, rather than being told what they supposedly should believe.
Yes...but as you mention below, it really depends on how young the
children were at the time. Makes it even harder when there is a long
period of intense reinforcement, as I believe there has been in the
case of the two kids that appeared in the Dom article.
>
>The younger the children are when brainwashed, the less the chances of
>that happening. But for many men, caught up with the false
>accusations of older children, teenagers and young adults, the
>situation has much more hope. Those accusers are far more likely to
>retract - often when they come out from the influence of those that
>have "assisted" them to recover their stories of abuse - almost always
>there are counsellors involved.
Sadly, many of those counselors actually believed in what they were
doing. I was involved in the field around the time of the Ellis case
and I remember the *belief* system as being very rigid. Men 'did these
sorts of things' and 'a child should always be believed' and if a
woman was found to have made a false accusation then 'there must have
been some type of abuse that she was still covering up' or 'something
must have happened to her'.
I was removed for actively questioning these beliefs.....and 'liking
men too much', amongst other things. :-)
Brian
<kiwi...@yellowsub.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:23:18 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>Many of these children are now retracting - but as with all beliefs,
>>people have to work things out for themselves. Do their OWN reality
>>checking, rather than being told what they supposedly should believe.
>
>Yes...but as you mention below, it really depends on how young the
>children were at the time. Makes it even harder when there is a long
>period of intense reinforcement, as I believe there has been in the
>case of the two kids that appeared in the Dom article.
I think you are right, with regard to the creche kids.
I similarly look sadly at cases of parental alienation where there has
been an acrimonious divorce - especially when the children are
toddlers. Fathers (mostly) are shut out of those children's lives -
and even worse are being brought up with a distorted opinion of men
and fathers.
>
>>
>>The younger the children are when brainwashed, the less the chances of
>>that happening. But for many men, caught up with the false
>>accusations of older children, teenagers and young adults, the
>>situation has much more hope. Those accusers are far more likely to
>>retract - often when they come out from the influence of those that
>>have "assisted" them to recover their stories of abuse - almost always
>>there are counsellors involved.
>
>Sadly, many of those counselors actually believed in what they were
>doing. I was involved in the field around the time of the Ellis case
>and I remember the *belief* system as being very rigid. Men 'did these
>sorts of things' and 'a child should always be believed' and if a
>woman was found to have made a false accusation then 'there must have
>been some type of abuse that she was still covering up' or 'something
>must have happened to her'.
The problem of false accusations is now much smaller - so the army of
counsellors who then actually believed what they were doing has
largely disappeared.
But I was dismayed to find that the rhetoric has not changed at
source. At a public meeting, hosted by Parentline a couple of months
ago, the same old rhetoric was being presented, in the same way that
you report things happened 10 years ago..
Organisations like Parentline/DSAC etc are dangerous.
They undoubtably do good work when they find children who have truly
been abused (and sadly the size of that task is far too big) - but
they have no ability or skills - or even motivation to get the skills
- to distinguish between true and false accusations.
>I was removed for actively questioning these beliefs.....and 'liking
>men too much', amongst other things. :-)
I've said often before that the worthiness of a cause does not justify
harm done in the name of that (worthy) cause. At the time, anybody
who questioned the process was seen to be part of the problem.
But is that any different from Salem in 1692, or the McCarthy years in
the early 50s?
Brian
Kerry
>Organisations like Parentline/DSAC etc are dangerous.
Why?
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:32:23 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Organisations like Parentline/DSAC etc are dangerous.
>
>Why?
The answer was in the following paragraph that you snipped.
But you may prefer an analogy. A brain surgeon would be an extremely
dangerous person if he were given the job of diagnosing and carrying
out surgery for your heart problem - and he insisted on carrying out
his surgery in your head.
I'd rather prefer a surgeon who recognised the possibility of heart
disease.
Brian
Joe
<kiwi...@yellowsub.net> wrote:
Thank you for this exposure that others experienced Karen.
Cheers *
Kerry
Which DSAC do you mean?
Kerry
I'd like some specifics, not opinion, on why Doctors for Sexual Abuse
Care and Parentline are dangerous
Joe
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:29:15 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:55:46 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>>(Kerry) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:32:23 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Organisations like Parentline/DSAC etc are dangerous.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>>The answer was in the following paragraph that you snipped.
>>
>>But you may prefer an analogy. A brain surgeon would be an extremely
>>dangerous person if he were given the job of diagnosing and carrying
>>out surgery for your heart problem - and he insisted on carrying out
>>his surgery in your head.
>>
>>I'd rather prefer a surgeon who recognised the possibility of heart
>>disease.
>>
>>
>
>I'd like some specifics, not opinion, on why Doctors for Sexual Abuse
>Care and Parentline are dangerous
>
Because they are unwilling to hold an open forum to back up their
beliefs and practices perhaps is one reason.
Ignorance or stubborness can be very dangerous characteristics when
leading people through life.
Felicity Goodyear-Smith is one person that is qualified to make the
warning of the practises, actions and opinions of DSAC can and are
dangerous.
Parentline certainly has its victims who can testify that they are
dangerous.
Experience is specific.
Cheers *
Kerry
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:17:33 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:29:15 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:55:46 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>>>(Kerry) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:32:23 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Organisations like Parentline/DSAC etc are dangerous.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>I'd like some specifics, not opinion, on why Doctors for Sexual Abuse
>>Care and Parentline are dangerous
>>
>Because they are unwilling to hold an open forum to back up their
>beliefs and practices perhaps is one reason.
DSAC?
What forum are you talking about? What are the specifics of their
'refusing to hold a forum'?
>Ignorance or stubborness can be very dangerous characteristics when
>leading people through life.
>Felicity Goodyear-Smith is one person that is qualified to make the
>warning of the practises, actions and opinions of DSAC can and are
>dangerous.
Why?
What are the facts?
Do you know what DSAC is and do you know what they do?
Are you parroting something you know nothing about, or are there
actual facts lurking here?
>Parentline certainly has its victims who can testify that they are
>dangerous.
Facts man, the facts
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:29:15 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:55:46 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>>(Kerry) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:32:23 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Organisations like Parentline/DSAC etc are dangerous.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>>The answer was in the following paragraph that you snipped.
>>
>>But you may prefer an analogy. A brain surgeon would be an extremely
>>dangerous person if he were given the job of diagnosing and carrying
>>out surgery for your heart problem - and he insisted on carrying out
>>his surgery in your head.
>>
>>I'd rather prefer a surgeon who recognised the possibility of heart
>>disease.
>>
>>
>>Brian
>
>Which DSAC do you mean?
The same one that you've referred to in your second reply to my post.
Brian
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:29:15 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:55:46 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>>(Kerry) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:32:23 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Organisations like Parentline/DSAC etc are dangerous.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>>The answer was in the following paragraph that you snipped.
>>
>>But you may prefer an analogy. A brain surgeon would be an extremely
>>dangerous person if he were given the job of diagnosing and carrying
>>out surgery for your heart problem - and he insisted on carrying out
>>his surgery in your head.
>>
>>I'd rather prefer a surgeon who recognised the possibility of heart
>>disease.
>>
>>
>
>I'd like some specifics, not opinion, on why Doctors for Sexual Abuse
>Care and Parentline are dangerous
Number 3.
Any organisation that supposedly cares about sex abuse and shows no
appreciation or understanding of false sex abuse accusations - or even
cares about the subject, is dangerous.
If you have any evidence that either organisation has EVER said
anything sensible about the subject, I'll be pleased to see it.
Quality assurance, it's called.
Brian.
Kerry
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:17:33 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry) wrote:
>
>>I'd like some specifics, not opinion, on why Doctors for Sexual Abuse
>>Care and Parentline are dangerous
>
>
>Number 3.
>
>Any organisation that supposedly cares about sex abuse and shows no
>appreciation or understanding of false sex abuse accusations - or even
>cares about the subject, is dangerous.
>
That's an opinion
>If you have any evidence that either organisation has EVER said
>anything sensible about the subject, I'll be pleased to see it.
>
>Quality assurance, it's called.
>
You're nuts
DSAC is the organisation that provides *medical*care to the victims of
child sexual abuse.
They have no brief to comment on alleged false allegations and
convictions of child sexual abuse, any more than they need to comment
on the quality of chesses in Woolworths deli
You subscribe to their literature? You go to their meetings? You
KNOW this how?
Brian calling an organisation dangerous for something it doesn't do,
soemthing it is not required to do, is more than a little ....extreme
JJ Williams
"Kerry" <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3f4151c3...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz...
> They have no brief to comment on alleged false allegations and
> convictions of child sexual abuse, any more than they need to comment
> on the quality of chesses in Woolworths deli
But one instinctively feels that the quality of chess played in Woolworths
deli would not be of the very highest.
J
Kerry
Hahahaha
Joe
Omision to ensure the truth is revealed is just as much a crime as
concealing the truth.
*
Joe
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.
Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong
conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in
his belief.
We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which
people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed
through the most devastating attacks.
Michael A. Simpson,
"Gullible's Travels, or the importance of being multiple"
Dissociative Identity Disorder:
Theoretical and Treatment Controversies
(Editors: Cohen, Berzoff & Elin), Jason Aronson
JJ Williams
"Joe" <JoeB...@Home.nz> wrote in message
news:e953kvsnfspk9mfir...@4ax.com...
So they DO have to sort out the cheese situation at Woollies?
J
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:35:37 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>I'd like some specifics, not opinion, on why Doctors for Sexual Abuse
>>>Care and Parentline are dangerous
>>Number 3.
>>Any organisation that supposedly cares about sex abuse and shows no
>>appreciation or understanding of false sex abuse accusations - or even
>>cares about the subject, is dangerous.
>That's an opinion
Certainly. But certainly a contestable opinion. But I wager it'll
be a cold night in hell before anybody is able to contest it with
evidence otherwise. I'll welcome being wrong.
>>If you have any evidence that either organisation has EVER said
>>anything sensible about the subject, I'll be pleased to see it.
>>Quality assurance, it's called.
>You're nuts
Thank you.
>DSAC is the organisation that provides *medical*care to the victims of
>child sexual abuse.
>
>They have no brief to comment on alleged false allegations and
>convictions of child sexual abuse, any more than they need to comment
>on the quality of chesses in Woolworths deli
The credibility of DSAC fell to rock bottom when they cancelled the
honorary membership that Felicity Goodyear-Smith had previously been
awarded. This was "providing *medical care*? I think that action
by itself shows where the organisation sits - firmly as a group of
true believers.
DSAC have been responsible for bringing out a succession of American
"experts" to preach - of the same ilk that helped cause the Ellis
fiasco. This was "providing *medical care*?
I did not claim that they had a "brief to comment on alleged false
allegations and convictions of child sexual abuse". Those are your
words and your claims.
But I do expect that an organisation where members are called upon to
provide care to victims of sexual abuse should be able to consider
that what they are dealing with, may not actually be sexual abuse.
A Brain surgeon may be very skilled at brain surgery, but I'm sure
that I do not extend my willingness for such a surgeon to carry out
brain surgery on a patient with heart disease.
>Brian calling an organisation dangerous for something it doesn't do,
>soemthing it is not required to do, is more than a little ....extreme
The organisation is dangerous for precisely what it does NOT do. I
make no apologies for saying so.
Brian
Hugh Young
said:
>
>"Fred" <fre...@nevermind.net> wrote in message
>
> Most of all, it's about
>> memories - memories they've been struggling to make sense of since
>> they were little.
>
>Of course the poor kids have been "struggling to make sense" of memories
>that were implanted by sick and delusional people who were uncaring of the
>catastrophic effect their brainwashing might have on little children. One
>can only hope these kids will have the guts to put this wicked abuse by
>their parents and social workers behind them and get on with their lives.
>They will be fools to themselves if they allow the culture of victimhood to
>blight their lives. They are, after all, alive and physically undamaged and
>the world is waiting for them.
Not only that, but Peter Ellis spent years in gaol for what they said
he did to them. No-one can ever take that away from them. If he were
now exonerated, how would they be harmed?
It seems to me that if their stories were true, they would not want to
come back into the limelight to have it all thrashed out again. But if
their "memories" are in fact false, then they need all the
reinforcement they can get.
Joe
>>DSAC is the organisation that provides *medical*care to the victims of
>>child sexual abuse.
>>
>>They have no brief to comment on alleged false allegations and
>>convictions of child sexual abuse, any more than they need to comment
>>on the quality of chesses in Woolworths deli
>
>The credibility of DSAC fell to rock bottom when they cancelled the
>honorary membership that Felicity Goodyear-Smith had previously been
>awarded. This was "providing *medical care*? I think that action
>by itself shows where the organisation sits - firmly as a group of
>true believers.
>
>DSAC have been responsible for bringing out a succession of American
>"experts" to preach - of the same ilk that helped cause the Ellis
>fiasco. This was "providing *medical care*?
>
>The organisation is dangerous for precisely what it does NOT do. I
>make no apologies for saying so.
>
>Brian
Controversy over visit of Prof Elizabeth Loftus to address the NZ
Psychological Society’s Annual Conference, August 2000.
Interview : 09:05am, August 7th, 2000: Radio New Zealand.
Kim Hill Interviews Dr John Read and Murray Hahn.
John Read - lecturer of psychology Auckland University·
Murray Hahn - chair of psychological board organising committee·
Controversy over visit of Elizabeth Loftus.
KIM HILL
(Elizabeth Loftus) is a world authority on the memory capabilities of
children and in fact she was one of the first to question the belief
of child abuse therapists and counsellors that adults could recover
memories of sexual abuse inflicted on them at a very young age. Now,
she’s been invited to address the NZ Psychological Society’s annual
conference. Dr John Read is a senior lecturer at Auckland
University’s psychological department and he has resigned from the
psychological society in protest at it’s refusal to revoke it’s
invitation to Professor Loftus to speak at the conference. In a
moment I’ll talk to Dr Read and also to Murray Hahn, who is
chairperson of the conference organising committee. Dr Read however
joins me now. Good Morning.
JOHN READ
Good Morning Kim
KIM HILL
Let’s start off by your resignation. Is it a fact that you’ve
resigned in protest at the Society’s refusal to take back it’s
invitation to Professor Loftus?
JOHN READ
Well first off, I haven’t resigned from the society. I’ve resigned
merely from the role of the Director of Scientific affairs
KIM HILL
Yes
JOHN READ
Yes, that is directly related to the decision to invite Elizabeth
Loftus and the important thing here is that the last thing NZ needs at
the moment as it is grappling with a horrific stories of abuse sexual
and physical that we’ve been confronted with over the last few weeks
is a leading member of that movement which minimises abuse - Which
says that it isn’t happening at the extent to which it is - That says
that children make it up.- That’s not exactly going to move us forward
in our moment of national crisis. And, I’ve got no problem with her
coming and speaking. It was the prominence to which we were going to
give her - to have her be a keynote speaker and not to have anyone
representing the children who have been abused and those who work with
them to put the opposite side. Something we did propose to the
conference committee. That’s their right to decide that. I do
believe in academic freedom. I also believe that there are some issues
where you have to take a stand and this is an issue I’m fully prepared
to take a stand. My concern is the thousands of children who are
being abused in New Zealand and the hundreds of mental health
professionals, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, who work
with them who are constantly being belittled by the False Memory
Syndrome brigade of whom Loftus is a leading member.
KIM HILL
I don’t think that Professor Loftus has ever denied that child abuse
takes place, however, has she?
JOHN READ
She hasn’t said it takes place, but by arguing consistently in the
court that children make up child abuse on a massive scale hardly
makes it easy for people to either disclose abuse for fear of being
disbelieved, nor does it make it easy for people whose job it is such
as GP’s and mental health professionals and social workers to ask
properly about abuse. People are being scared off at the moment by
this sort of propaganda from asking about abuse. Our research shows
that the more professionals believe that false allegations are
rampant, which they are not, the less likely they are to ask. So we
now have a situation where people whose job it is to find out whether
their clients and patients have been abused are scared to do so
because of the very effective and powerful propaganda of this
organisation.
KIM HILL
However, her main interest of course and her main speciality focusses
on the recovered memory syndrome so called - Not whether children make
it up or don’t make it up but whether years and years and years later
people can, under therapy, recover a memory of child abuse and that
leads to court cases of course as we’ve seen in the United States
primarily
JOHN READ
Precisely, and that’s where she’s doing the damage. Of course people
can forget about their abuse. It’s such a painful thing that people
regularly, and research documents this quite clearly. People who have
been abused regularly have periods of their lives where they forget
about the abuse. It’s adaptive and functional to forget about such
horrific things happening to you and if years later when somebody asks
you about it you manage to remember it , I think that’s a good thing,
and it happens frequently, and the idea that there is no such thing as
repressed memory is absolute scientific nonsense.
KIM HILL
You have, according to reports, been offered an hour after Professor
Loftus’s speech for a forum to comment. In other words there may be
some vibrant discussion no doubt, some kind of rebuttal, whatever. Is
that not sufficient?
JOHN READ
The many many people who were opposed to Loftus being a keynote
speaker, and I stress we have no problem with her being just an
ordinary speaker, but the prominence being given to her that we
objected to … did not feel that it was appropriate for us to debate on
her territory around her research. We want time to raise the real
issues which is about the underfunding of child abuse police teams,
the underfunding of CYPS, the need for more training for psychologists
to know how to ask about abuse. The sorts of things that I spend my
time doing, training mental health professionals. I don’t want to
spend my time actually debating Loftus’s research which is actually
irrelevant to the issue of abuse. It’s analogue research which means
it’s research several times removed from the real situation. It has
to be because it is unethical to actually produce trauma in children
or adults and then see what they can remember
KIM HILL
Of course that highlights the difficulty, that highlights the
difficulty of finding out …
JOHN READ
Absolutely
KIM HILL
.... the truth of whatever, doesn’t it?
JOHN READ
No, it highlights the difficulty of researching, of demonstrating the
claim made by the false memory syndrome people that people never
repress their memories of abuse. You can’t research that ethically
and Loftus hasn’t done, yet she stands up in Court on a regular basis
in the United States, makes a huge living out of doing so - out of
discrediting people who have been abused. In fact when several people
complained, several abuse survivors complained to her professional
organisation, the American Psychological Association about what she
was doing and how she was misrepresenting them, she rather than face
those complaints, she resigned from her professional organisation.
Now in NZ that is not acceptable practice. If there are complaints
made against you must stand and face them. You cannot resign because
you are being accused of unethical practice. You must stand and face
them Loftus chose not to do that.
KIM HILL
You have no objection to her speaking. You just don’t want her to be
a keynote speaker.
JOHN READ
I don’t want her to be a keynote speaker
KIM HILL
In effect what is the difference?
JOHN READ
There is a huge difference because she is a very skilled propagandist
and she and her few supporters here in New Zealand will take the fact
that she is a keynote speaker at our conference and use that to add
credibility to the cause
KIM HILL
So she can get up and deliver the same speech, but if she’s not called
a keynote speaker, then that’s OK?
JOHN READ
Well the issues around the conference are not the real issues. The
issues are the damage that Loftus and her brigade will do
KIM HILL
No, I understand that and I think
JOHN READ
But that’s what I want to talk about. It’s not my dispute with NZPS
They have done an awful lot and will continue to do an awful lot for
abused children and for those who work with them
KIM HILL
I understand that. I’m trying to explore the interesting dilemma
really in your position, in that you don’t object to her coming and
you don’t object to her speaking
JOHN READ
Oh, I’d much rather she stayed in America. She’s doing enough damage
over there. We don’t actually need … New Zealand is in a crisis over
abuse. We are trying to deal with find some proper solutions to reduce
the amount of murders of children and and sexual abuse of children,
and we’ve got a lot of moral outrage at the moment. All the newspaper
editors are saying the right things. The politicians are saying the
right things. We need to move on from that and find some actual
positive solutions. To have Loftus arrive and stir up all this
nonsense about people don’t repress their memories and counsellors and
psychologists are planting these memories is not going to help us. I
mean, we have enough to do without sitting around persuading people
that they’ve been abused. We are dealing with genuine abuse cases in
their thousands and the public is asked to believe that we’re actually
creating more abuse. It’s just nonsense. Just to make one point in
NZ you have to have disclosed abuse to somebody else before you gain
access to an ACC counsellor. Do you understand the point I’m
making?
KIM HILL
Yes I do
JOHN READ
Because they are claiming that all this abuse is merely the
fabrication that comes about from counsellors and psychologists
telling their clients that they’ve been abused. You can’t get access
to an abuse counsellor in New Zealand until you’ve disclosed to
somebody else
KIM HILL
Look, I can understand why you think that it’s kind of unwise, or off
the game if you like to invite her to talk, because the issue in New
Zealand at the moment is not the issue of recovered memory. The issue
in New Zealand at the moment is the very real maiming and killing of
children, about which there can be no debate. All right?
JOHN READ
It’s the same issue. Every time someone who stands up as an adult
and says these horrific things happened to me as a child and then they
are discredited by lawyers. It’s their job to do that. I respect the
lawyers who stand up and do that It is the psychologists who are
providing pseudo research to support the discrediting of people who
are trying …. it is a very brave thing to do to go to Court, to take
an abuse case to court, and when you get there and you are faced with
so-called experts saying that you’re making it up, or your counsellor
told you that it happened. I find that distasteful. I find it really
painful, because my job, and the job of all the people who have
protested against Loftus, and there is many of us, Our job is trying
to make it safe for people to disclose abuse, to get them to where
they can get some help. It is the same issue, Kim, because every time
a genuine abuse victim is discredited in the press or in Court and
made out to look like they’ve made it up or were so stupid that
they’ve let a counsellor convince them that they’ve been abused. That
moves us backwards into the dark ages again where no one wants to talk
about abuse. No one will disclose abuse for fear of being disbelieved.
KIM HILL
Does the very painful, does the very undoubtedly painful reality of
child abuse mean that it has to be treated in a way that is quite
different from the normal robust academic debate?
JOHN READ
No absolutely not I’m now talking to you. I’m having that debate
with you, and this debate will go on while Loftus is here. I will be
at the forefront of that, and so will many other people. Abuse
survivors will be speaking out. People who work with abuse survivors
will be speaking out. The debate is on.
KIM HILL
But the debate is on in a way in which you have already demonised one
of the leading proponents of somebody of a case that’s happens to be
at odds with what you believe.
JOHN READ
How have I demonised her?
KIM HILL
Well, for heavens sake,
JOHN READ
I disagree
KIM HILL
You’ve just spent the last ten minutes calling her unprofessional to
say the least.
JOHN READ
I have reported some facts about her not being willing to face
complaints to her professional organisation. Yes, all right if that’s
demonising her, then that’s demonising her.
KIM HILL
And given the very very politicised nature of this debate
JOHN READ
Yep,
KIM HILL
It’s unexpected It’s not natural to expect her to deal with those
kind of complaints in anything other than the way she’s done, is it?
I mean she’s been demonised here, She’s been demonised in the United
States. She for her part may well have demonised other people. This is
the state of the debate. But it’s not freedom of expression, and it’s
not an academic rigour is it?
JOHN READ
Why isn’t it freedom of expression?
KIM HILL
Because you are saying this woman is causing damage to something I
believe in. Therefore she is wrong. Aren’t you?
JOHN READ
No, I’m saying she is wrong because her research doesn’t relate to the
issues. It’s pseudo research in terms of whether it’s actually
relevant to whether people can remember whether they can repress or
forget their abuse memories, and I am saying that the backlash. Look
it was 25 years ago when, only 25 years ago when leading psychiatric
textbooks said that the incidence of incest was one per million. We
have clawed our way forward with some excellent New Zealand research
for instance showing that the rate of sexual abuse of women in New
Zealand as children sits around the 20-30% mark. We have clawed our
way forward. We have a backlash
KIM HILL
Isn’t that still arguable though, Dr Read. Those statistics are still
in debate.
JOHN READ
No, we have research from all over the world producing that sort of
incidence, and I do understand that it is very very hard for people to
take that in. It is such a painful thing to take in. It’s as painful
as taking in what we’ve seen over the last two weeks in our newspapers
and people understandably will cling onto anything that will help them
believe that we are not treating our children so badly. One of the
things that people wish to cling onto is the sort of propaganda that
is produced by those people who wish to, for whatever reason personal,
political or whatever, wish to minimise the extent of abuse and we
cannot afford to do that in New Zealand at the moment. We now have a
momentum. For the most horrible of reasons we now have a momentum
where people are all together as a nation facing in the right
direction. What we’re looking for is some answers as to what to do
about that rather than to go backwards into a debate about whether
people are having these ideas of abuse planted in their heads by
counsellors and so forth. I mean when this little kid that we just
heard on the news a few minutes ago in thirty years time tells someone
about what happened to them, someones going to stand up and say “Oh
well your counsellor just convinced you that happened” and I find
that very sad, Kim. I really find it sad and I am comfortable taking a
stand on those sorts of things.
KIM HILL
What little kid? No but hang on Dr Read. What little kid are you
referring to?
JOHN READ
On the news just a while ago
KIM HILL
Hine?
JOHN READ
About the
KIM HILL
Well its going to be extremely unlikely that that child is going to be
able to be contradicted by anybody. That’s not what we’re talking
about.
JOHN READ
That’s a very rare case when it gets that amount of publicity. There
are hundreds of children where that’s happening to them right now
around New Zealand where it will be covered up in silence in all our
communities, not just Maori. In all our communities and then later on
somebody might ask that child why they are in such a bad state as a 20
or 30 year old. And that person might then remember. People do, you
have to to survive. Many people do put behind them literally put into
their unconscious. Bury those very painful memories.
KIM HILL
Look, I absolutely understand.
JOHN READ
So many people ask them later what’s going on, and I think it’s a
shame that’s so often discredited. That’s all I’m saying
KIM HILL
I absolutely understand what you’re saying. However, and I don’t want
you to be offended by this, but it’s the only comparison I can grab at
short notice. What makes you think that you are different from the
Spanish Inquisition at the time of Galileo?
JOHN READ
Oh, Kim
KIM HILL
No listen. Listen. Galileo for all they knew was telling the truth,
but the truth was going to be more damaging and so it was necessary to
get rid of it. Now I’m not suggesting that kind of extremity, but you
know what I mean
JOHN READ
I know. I know what you mean. It is a fair point. People do get very
heated over this issue, myself included. When you have sat and
listened to hundreds of people as adults tell you about what happened
to them as a child, and then tell you that nobody has ever asked them
about that for years, they’ve had no support for years and they are
terrified of going to court because somebody is going to stand up and
accuse them of lying, of making it up. Of course you couldn’t have
forgotten it for all that time, could you? They’re going to lose the
case. They’re going to be retraumatised. It is, It is an extremely
sad situation. And yes I think that when people bring over these
so-called experts from America, to promulgate that position, I think
that sets us back, and I and all the other people who have protested
about it are quite happy to stand up and say so.
KIM HILL
And what’s going to happen when she arrives?
JOHN READ
She’s going to say what she has to say.
KIM HILL
And is there going to be a protest? Are you going to turn your back?
JOHN READ
I shant be there
KIM HILL
You wont be there?
JOHN READ
No. I shall be going down two days later to present my research about
the link between child abuse and psychosis and schizophrenia.
KIM HILL
Right. So you don’t even want to hear what she says?
JOHN READ
I know what she says. I’ve read what she says. I don’t want to hear
it again.
KIM HILL
And so you will deliberately boycott her presentation?
JOHN READ
No. I wasn’t planning going that day in the first place.
KIM HILL
All Right. Murray Hahn is also with us. He is chairperson of the
conference organising committee. Morning, Mr Hahn
MURRAY HAHN
Good morning Kim.
KIM HILL
Was it inept? Was it inappropriate? Was it deliberately provocative to
invite Elizabeth Loftus to come and give a keynote address here?
MURRAY HAHN
It was none of those things, Kim
KIM HILL
What were you thinking of then?
MURRAY HAHN
Um, well, personally and the committee was.. we were unaware of this
controversy that was actually raging
KIM HILL
You were unaware! Hello! You were unaware that Elizabeth Loftus was a
controversial figure?
MURRAY HAHN
We knew that there was some controversy. We didn’t know about the sort
of strength there of feeling that some members of the society had.
KIM HILL
Good Lord! I mean she is controversial wherever she goes. She is an
absolutely lightening rod figure in the world of psychology!
MURRAY HAHN
Well, I think there are people who see differences but she has
research that she has undertaken that is significant. She has had
awards for that research. Seems appropriate that someone who has those
sorts of views should be allowed to voice them and I wasn’t aware
that we should not have people speaking because they are
controversial, or people disagree with those particular views.
KIM HILL
How many of you were on the committee who decided that she should be
invited not only to speak but to be keynote speaker?
MURRAY HAHN
Oh, hang on, I’d have to count up, but there is about eight of us
KIM HILL
And it was a unanimous decision?
MURRAY HAHN
It was unanimous, and it was also discussed with the President of the
Society who thought that it was an appropriate action to take.
KIM HILL
Now, Dr Read has argued eloquently that at a time in New Zealand where
we are grappling with the very real incidence of child abuse, the very
real dreadful injuries that are carried out on our children by the,
you know, close families it is inappropriate to say the least to
invite somebody like Elizabeth Loftus over to take a position which
risks diluting concern about child abuse.
MURRAY HAHN
Well, first of all, Kim, Elizabeth Loftus has come into the country
before and anyway and it was an offer made to us about her to come and
speak, which we took up
KIM HILL
She was coming to the country anyway?
MURRAY HAHN
She was coming to the country anyway…
KIM HILL
Ok
MURRAY HAHN
… to meet with colleagues of hers in Victoria and Otago Universities,
so we didn’t invite her. She was there. We took the opportunity to
have someone who was in the country to provide what we thought was a
talk on the research, not on the controversy.
KIM HILL
How many keynote speakers have you got?
MURRAY HAHN
We’ve got six keynote speakers.
KIM HILL
And, so, she is not the keynote speaker, she is a keynote speaker.
MURRAY HAHN
She is one keynote speaker, Kim
KIM HILL
Do you accept that, if you didn’t make her a keynote speaker, you just
made her another speaker, and lowered her status, you may be able to
defuse an argument without impinging on academic freedom?
MURRAY HAHN
Um..
KIM HILL
Or is this now a matter of principle for you?
MURRAY HAHN
I don’t think it is a matter of principle. I mean, we made an
invitation to go and speak. Whether she was called a keynote speaker
or did a speech in another position I think people would still have
the same objections. We made an invitation. We don’t see that is
appropriate to withdraw that invitation. It sort of, it then starts
sort of smacking of censorship, I would have thought, in terms of
taking away, I guess, the status of the speech.
KIM HILL
Well, censorship law is an interesting issue. Ok. If we accept what Dr
Read has said. Then perhaps some things ought to be, lets choose a
word other than censored, given less prominence - not taken notice
of...
MURRAY HAHN
Well, maybe. But the committee’s view and certainly mine, was that
whether we had her as a keynote speaker, or just as another speaker,
she would have still attracted some controversy, because there are
people who position and who make others sort of feel differently and
we’ve had other speakers talk to the conference who have had views
that have been quite different to Dr Loftus’s and views that other
people haven’t agreed with. I mean, it is one of the parts of, I
guess, academic freedom is that people have an opportunity to express
things, and that they should actually be able to be heard.
KIM HILL
Is there any kind of forum at the conference for Professor Loftus to
debate with people who do actually support the concept of recovered
memories?
MURRAY HAHN
No. There is no forum. We had offered a forum. It was decided .. the
people who we were trying to provide this sort of opportunity chose
not to have that particular forum.
KIM HILL
You are referring to the offer to Dr Read of a full hour after
Professor Loftus’ speech for a forum to comment?
MURRAY HAHN
That’s right. We thought that might give that particular group of
people, and those of us who sort of sit somewhere in between, who have
no fixed view an opportunity to hear both sides.
KIM HILL
The problem, is of course, is that this is not science. It’s politics,
right?
MURRAY HAHN
I think that’s a good way to put it, and I suspect that some of this
is about politics, yes..
KIM HILL
Well, you knew that Professor Loftus was a political figure, when you
invited her to give the keynote speech.
MURRAY HAHN
I found out afterwards, she was a political figure, yes.
KIM HILL
I can’t believe.
JOHN READ
Can I chip in there, Kim?
KIM HILL
Yes.
JOHN READ
Because I fully accept Murray’s position on it and the position of the
committee and I fully believe that they genuinely weren’t aware of
extent of politics around that issue, and it was only afterwards that
we raised the concerns that none of us were actually in the picture at
that point. So I’ve got no beef with the NZPS as an organisation.
Murray’s got a difficult job. He’s had people blasting his ear from
both sides and they’ve taken the position that they don’t want to go
down the line of anything that could look like censorship.
KIM HILL
Which you can understand.
JOHN READ
I’m saying, I fully accept that.
KIM HILL
Ok
JOHN READ
I will, in my slot at the conference deal with the issues in the way
that I choose to. Loftus will have a chance to do that in her
session, and so be it. That’s ok. All I want to is stay focussed on
the issues of child abuse, and under resourcing of child abuse
services.
KIM HILL
All Right.
JOHN READ
And I think Murray and his committee have made a decision, and that’s
the end of that, now we’ve to get on and try and do something about
child abuse.
KIM HILL
It doesn’t leave the public with very much to go on now though does
it? Because we are talking about politics. We’re not talking about
science.
JOHN READ
I’m afraid it is somewhat naïve to believe that science exists
somewhere separate from politics. Science is not some sort of pure
objective thing that happens in a vacuum. The issues that scientists
deal with certainly in our field of psychology, and clinical
psychology and child abuse are full of politics, and I don’t see how
it could be any other way. It’s a very emotive issue. Child abuse
always will be an emotive issue. I hope it’s always an emotive issue.
People do take sides on it. There are people who do wish to minimise
it. I think that’s a political position, and we have to try and bring
our scientific research to bear on those issues. But you can never
separate out science from politics.
KIM HILL
Because it’s such an emotive issue, however, do you accept that some
times people end up being convicted of things that they did not do,
because nobody is prepared to stand up, as for example Elizabeth
Loftus has stood out in the United States, and say hang on a minute,
What is the evidence for this?
JOHN READ
Yes, I do believe that happens, and I think that’s absolutely tragic
and devastating for the individuals and to the families when that
happens. For every one case where that happens, there are probably
several hundred cases of genuine abuse that never get reported to
anybody, and of those few that get to court, I mean it’s so tiny the
number that actually get to court. So yes, there are false, there are
are false allegations of everything, burglaries, rape, you name it,
and it’s tragic when that happens. What I object to, is people
taking those individual tragic cases, and using them to claim that
there are many many other cases like this where in fact it’s genuine
abuse. So it’s hundred times greater the number of genuine cases of
abuse that are not getting dealt with at all, because there are
practically no child abuse police teams in this country, because CYPS
is so massively underfunded. So I wouldn’t for a second take away the
awfulness of when somebody makes a false allegation. If there are
professionals that are asking about abuse in an unprofessional,
leading and repetitive way that’s equally unforgivable. We haven’t any
evidence of that in New Zealand but it does happen occasionally in
America. When it happens it’s seized upon, by the media, and Loftus
and her crew make sure it’s seized upon.. That’s their job. That’s
their job. They do it well, and they will do it well while they are in
New Zealand. Our job, those of us who are genuinely concerned about
child abuse and the people who work with them, who are constantly
denigrated and called the sexual abuse industry and so forth - Our
job is to stand up to those people and to keep it in perspective. To
point out for every case of false allegation there are hundreds of
genuine cases of abuse that are not being reported to anybody
KIM HILL
It’s nice to talk to you. Perhaps we’ll speak again closer to the
time. Dr John Read of Auckland University, and Murray Hahn who is
chairperson of the conference organising committee. The conference in
question of course is the Psychological Society’s Annual conference
later this month. And I can tell you that we’ll be talking to
Professor Loftus on August 29th.
Kim Hill certainly had trouble at believing Read was being honest with
Read. How she kept a straight face through his parody of truth, I
don't know but certainly she was the only professional thinking
clearly, lucidly and rationally during this air space.
Cheers *
Brian
>Controversy over visit of Prof Elizabeth Loftus to address the NZ
>Psychological Society’s Annual Conference, August 2000.
>Interview : 09:05am, August 7th, 2000: Radio New Zealand.
>Kim Hill Interviews Dr John Read and Murray Hahn.
>John Read - lecturer of psychology Auckland University·
>Murray Hahn - chair of psychological board organising committee·
>Controversy over visit of Elizabeth Loftus.
John Read surely hasn't joined DSAC has he? I know his
qualifications are secret and not publicly available, but this is the
first time I've had any inkling that they may be medical.
Brian
Joe
Correct as usual Brian, but what I was doing was showing the symptoms
that make DSAC dangerous at times.
Yes like a lot of groups DSAC, including the police do not always get
it right, but their arrogance to admit when they get it wrong and
learn from their mistakes is the greatest danger to truth and justice.
Their refusal to be observant and willing to improve on getting and
giving correct diagnosis of abuse is very dangerous for those that can
and do become innocent victims when DSAC swings into attack.
The selfincest that they practise only weakens them as a body if they
wish to be credible for and employed to be part of the truth and
justice system of New Zealand.
Read gave a classic example of DSAC's mind thought and practise.
A list of overseas experts that have been sponsored to New Zealand by
DSAC over the past few years.
This choir of experts have dribbled across here one by one since 1989.
1989 Astrid Heger
1991 Astrid Heger
1991 Dick Sosbey
1992 Astrid Heger
1992 Dick Sosbey
1992 Lucy Berliner
1992 Ingrid van Beek
1993 Judith Myers-Avis
1993 Toni Cavanagh Johnson
1993 Jonathan Ross
1994 Roland Summit
1994 Jon Conte
1994 Michael O’Brien
1995 Judith Herman
1995 John Briere
1995 Astrid Heger
1995 Arno & Marianne Bentovin
1996 Toni Cavanagh Johnson
1996 Mary Koss
1996 Marlene Young
1996 William Fredrich
1996 Bessell van der Kolk
1996 Astrid Heger
1997 Bruce Perry
1997 Christine Courtois
1997 John Briere
1998 Constance Dalenberg
The problem is not any particular person. The problem is more
associated with the fact that DSAC have an obvious bias, associated
with a topic that is within the field of psychology extremely
controversial.
I would expect a group like DSAC to bring a range of speakers who can
present all sides of controversy, so that participants in these series
of seminars can make up their own minds.
But I am extremely unhappy that the list of people does not fairly
represent, if it represents at all, other professionals who are
critics of some of the theories and practices of people who are
listed. An international controversy is raging. It is concerned about
practices that have led to terrible injustices for many men such as
Peter Ellis, the Christchurch Creche worker.
And DSAC thumbs its nose at professionals who disagree with their
official policies. Is it any wonder, that counsellors in New Zealand,
who are not being exposed sufficiently to professional and scientific
developments overseas, are continuing to do harm to many of their
clients, and to promote a rash of false accusations?
DSAC should be promoting the efforts of Felicity Goodyear-Smith, and
not trying to discredit her. As well as their favourite speakers, they
should be balancing the list with speakers such as Felicity, and
international authorities on memory (such as Elizabeth Loftus), the
head of organisations that speak for the falsely accused (such as
Peter Freyd), people who have dealt with both the truly abused and the
accused (such as Hollida Wakefield), people who have spoken up about
psychiatric testimony (such as Margaret Hagen), retractors who have
come to realise that their so called memories of sexual abuse were
only a fantasy (such as Donna Anderson), and so on.
DSAC’s favorite ‘expert’ is Astrid Hegar. They have brought her out
from the United States to NZ six times in the last decade. Heger is
deeply implicated in the first Californian day care sexual abuse
fiasco: the infamous McMartin Day Care case of 1983 to 1990. Along
with Kee MacFarlane, she worked for Children’s Institute International
(CII), which was responsible for the interviewing of about 350
children.
The damage that was caused on Sept 11th will impact the Americans for
a long time to come.
The damage that was caused to the innocent because of the events of
November 1991 will also have a long impact and effect.
The terrorists who had no regard for life of the innocent in the USA
had no conscience at the carnage they caused.
Pearce, Hardie, Eade, Heath and the others who claim they scrutinised
and provided advice throughout this 'investigation' and prosecution
did not kill the innocent, but the life sentence they put on the
innocent is still not excusable.
DSAC's sponsored selected speaker Dr Astrid Heger came to Christchurch
and delivered a lecture on 19th and 20th of November on Sexual Abuse.
The other clatamistic event was also delivered on the 19th of November
- the abolishing of the ACC handout.
Like a Billy Graham convert the trip to the altar to claim for the
$10,000 had to be made soon.
All of a sudden Peter Ellis was credited with having a black penis.
And so events were set in motion
Fears that the guilty will ever be charged for perverting the cause of
justice, *
David McLoughlin
>
> Do you know what DSAC is and do you know what they do?
I certainly do. I even have their manuals. Some years ago I wrote a
magazine article about their campaign to stop Felicity Goodyear Smith
talking anywhere in New Zealand (they leant on any institution or
organisation that offered her a speaking slot). They leant on the
magazine editor so hard that the story was never run, the first time
that has ever happened to me.
They regularly bring American "experts" on sexual abuse here to speak
to judges at their forums. They object strongly to anyone who tries to
counter the hard ideological line they push.
David McLoughlin
>
> Do you know what DSAC is and do you know what they do?
I certainly do. I even have their manuals. Some years ago I wrote a
Kerry
McLoughlin) wrote:
You doubt the expertise of their 'experts'?
David McLoughlin
> You doubt the expertise of their 'experts'?
I doubt the objectivity of DSAC and those experts it has brought here
from America when it comes to the evidence of small children in abuse
cases.
I was disturbed by the lengths DSAC would go to to stop public debate
by those opposed to its very clear and simple line on such cases. I
mean they even stopped a magazine article about their campaign to stop
Felicity Goodyear Smith talking anywhere, as she was arguing that some
allegations of abuse, particularly those gathered from the now
well-discredited "recovered memory" technique, were false and that
some innocent men were being jailed as a result.
Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
inconsistent with abuse."
That's not science, it's ideology.
Maybe they have changed in the past couple of years since I last had a
very good look at them. I hope so.
Ashley
"David McLoughlin" <dav...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote in message
news:aaf3c914.0308...@posting.google.com...
> Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
> physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
> young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
> inconsistent with abuse."
>
> That's not science, it's ideology.
Do you believe that sexual abuse consists only of penile penetration and
that the hymen is always broken??????
Since when did digital penetration and fondling break hymens, David?
Brian
You make a fair point that sexual abuse does not have to involve
penile penetration etc. But I see no implication in David's post
that David thinks otherwise.
The issue that I see in David's post is that a LACK of ANY evidence
does not stop some "expert" witnesses making the claim that "this is
not inconsistent with abuse". If the "expert" cannot answer what
IS inconsistent with abuse, in the absence of any evidence, such Alice
in Wonderland type of testimony should be barred.
It's a great tool for the prosecution - if getting a conviction is
more important than punishing the right person.
Brian
Joe
Example:
her hymen was oestrogenised 9thickened by the hormonal effects of
puberty) and concentric (central),. There was a transection (tear) in
the hymen at 180.
In addition the hymen was attenuated (absent) from 90 to 170. In other
words, the hymen was obliterated for a quarter of its total.
.......... The genital injuries are definitive findings of sexual
abuse and are consistent with the given history of repeated
penetrating injuries. Furthermore, the extent of hymenal damage is
suggestive of pre-pubertal repeated penetrating injury.
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and it
has been made by me knowing that it may be admitted as evidence in
criminal proceedings.
Signed by Doctor Linda Ruth Exton.
MBChB Dip Obst
MRNZCAP.
Our lawyer arranged an independent report from another specialist.
Their interpretation was so far to the other end of the scale, I can
only state that medical claims and statements of the condition of the
hymen are totally unreliable as to when, where or how often sex did or
did not occur.
The only person admitting to having sex with this 14 year old was the
26 year old male Craig Peter Bullen.
Falsely accused by the two who were having sex and breaking the law.
Falsely investigated by a lying policeman who withheld evidence and
refused to carry out a full investigative inquiry.
The prosecution 'assisted' by such farcical medical interpretations
that fitted 'the given history' only cause me great concern.
Others who are innocent and falsely accused, cannot rely on the truth
to come to the fore when the Exton's, Crawford's, Zelas's, Alison
Locke's, Sergeant Greig's are allowed to continue to be used by those
whose duty it is to get the truth, not a conviction.
Hymen intact or not intact - beware men of women!
Cheers *
Ashley
"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:la49kv8ddk15ohljn...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:51 +1200, "Ashley"
> <ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David McLoughlin" <dav...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:aaf3c914.0308...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >> Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
> >> physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
> >> young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
> >> inconsistent with abuse."
> >>
> >> That's not science, it's ideology.
> >
> >
> >Do you believe that sexual abuse consists only of penile penetration and
> >that the hymen is always broken??????
> >
> >Since when did digital penetration and fondling break hymens, David?
>
>
> You make a fair point that sexual abuse does not have to involve
> penile penetration etc. But I see no implication in David's post
> that David thinks otherwise.
Of course you don't. That's your ideology.
>
> The issue that I see in David's post is that a LACK of ANY evidence
> does not stop some "expert" witnesses making the claim that "this is
> not inconsistent with abuse".
No. The point in David's post is lack of *physical* evidence, of which he
singles out an intact hymen for special mention.
If the "expert" cannot answer what
> IS inconsistent with abuse, in the absence of any evidence, such Alice
> in Wonderland type of testimony should be barred.
>
Perhaps that might be because the whole area of sexual abuse is, by its very
nature, full of individual cases.
But you stick to your ideology Brian.
> It's a great tool for the prosecution - if getting a conviction is
> more important than punishing the right person.
I have to say that what I see emerging in certain quarters of this debate
(talking generally, not just usenet) could be classified as hysteria and a
witchhunt. Makes you think, doesn't it?
Brian
<ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:la49kv8ddk15ohljn...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:51 +1200, "Ashley"
>> <ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"David McLoughlin" <dav...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:aaf3c914.0308...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> >> Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
>> >> physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
>> >> young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
>> >> inconsistent with abuse."
>> >>
>> >> That's not science, it's ideology.
>> >
>> >Do you believe that sexual abuse consists only of penile penetration and
>> >that the hymen is always broken??????
>> >
>> >Since when did digital penetration and fondling break hymens, David?
>>
>>
>> You make a fair point that sexual abuse does not have to involve
>> penile penetration etc. But I see no implication in David's post
>> that David thinks otherwise.
>
>Of course you don't. That's your ideology.
It appears your ideology is that sexual abuse such as "digital
penetration and fondling" (Your words) should automatically be
suspected in a case where (quote) "there is absolutely no physical
evidence"
Does your ideology also suggest that such a LACK OF EVIDENCE should
mean that there is a likelihood that the child has been involved in
satanic ritual abuse ceremonies with giraffes down secret trap doors
while in cages on the roof as well?
You keep your ideology. It smells rotten.
>> The issue that I see in David's post is that a LACK of ANY evidence
>> does not stop some "expert" witnesses making the claim that "this is
>> not inconsistent with abuse".
>
>No. The point in David's post is lack of *physical* evidence, of which he
>singles out an intact hymen for special mention.
It appears your ideology singles out an "intact hymen" as evidence of
"digital penetration and fondling" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you once have a job as a Creche interrogator?
>> If the "expert" cannot answer what
>> IS inconsistent with abuse, in the absence of any evidence, such Alice
>> in Wonderland type of testimony should be barred.
>Perhaps that might be because the whole area of sexual abuse is, by its very
>nature, full of individual cases.
>
>But you stick to your ideology Brian.
My ideology says that accusations of a serious crime such as sexual
abuse should not rest on some simple minded cretin suggesting that
sufficient proof of guilt is a LACK of physical evidence.
>> It's a great tool for the prosecution - if getting a conviction is
>> more important than punishing the right person.
>
>I have to say that what I see emerging in certain quarters of this debate
>(talking generally, not just usenet) could be classified as hysteria and a
>witchhunt. Makes you think, doesn't it?
I've thought about it for quite a while. Your direct contribution to
the problem is very much unappreciated.
I sympathise with people who are abused, and have insufficient
evidence to support a prosecution. I can understand the anger that
comes with knowing that the perpetrator walks free.
But the moment where sympathy for any complainant (note that I've not
used the word "victim") extends to a demand for a conviction without
any evidence I get angry. That's the stuff of the Peter Ellis
case.
To those people who label themselves as "survivors" I say: Please do
not compound the terrible hurt and harm that has been done to you by
ignoring the needs for civilised standards of justice, and allowing
another innocent person to needlessly suffer.
Brian
brazen
No, you are deliberately misreading what Ashley said. She is not suggesting
"automatically" anything.
>
> Does your ideology also suggest that such a LACK OF EVIDENCE should
> mean that there is a likelihood that the child has been involved in
> satanic ritual abuse ceremonies with giraffes down secret trap doors
> while in cages on the roof as well?
No again you are misreading it - the discussion hasnt said "lack of
evidence", we are talking about a "lack of physical evidence". Very
different. There are lots of other non-physical types of evidence that can
(and should be) taken into consideration in potential abuse cases. Physical
evidence is only part of the picture.
Gay
Brian
<g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>No again you are misreading it - the discussion hasnt said "lack of
>evidence", we are talking about a "lack of physical evidence". Very
>different. There are lots of other non-physical types of evidence that can
>(and should be) taken into consideration in potential abuse cases. Physical
>evidence is only part of the picture.
The argument is the same.
A _LACK_ of physical evidence does not suggest a likelihood of other
evidence.
Remember that Ashley was indignantly trying to justify the "expert"
witness being prepared to say that a lack of physical evidence is "not
inconsistent with abuse"
Ashley's question to David was: "Do you believe that sexual abuse
consists only of penile penetration and that the hymen is always
broken??????" David had given her no justification for such an
insulting question.
Of course there may be evidence of abuse other than physical evidence.
A good police investigator considering sexual abuse should
automatically consider the possibility of other evidence where there
is no physical evidence.
But the thread has never been referring to an expert witness saying "I
have looked for physical evidence and there was none. But I then
followed up that investigation, and have other non physical evidence
- X - which IS consistent with abuse"
The concern was about an expert witness, who has no physical evidence
to report saying "The lack of physical evidence IS NOT inconsistent
with abuse"
That's a reasonable statement to consider in the course of an
investigation. But such a statement from an "expert" in front of a
jury is simply prejudicial. Juries are entitled to expect more than
prejudice from experts.
Brian
Brian Harmer
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:10:00 +1200, "brazen"
><g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>>No again you are misreading it - the discussion hasnt said "lack of
>>evidence", we are talking about a "lack of physical evidence". Very
>>different. There are lots of other non-physical types of evidence that can
>>(and should be) taken into consideration in potential abuse cases. Physical
>>evidence is only part of the picture.
>
>The argument is the same.
>
>A _LACK_ of physical evidence does not suggest a likelihood of other
>evidence.
Well hello!
I seem to recall you have recently employed exactly that technique
when judging the reliability of WYSIWYG news.
brazen
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:10:00 +1200, "brazen"
> <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> >No again you are misreading it - the discussion hasnt said "lack of
> >evidence", we are talking about a "lack of physical evidence". Very
> >different. There are lots of other non-physical types of evidence that
can
> >(and should be) taken into consideration in potential abuse cases.
Physical
> >evidence is only part of the picture.
>
> The argument is the same.
>
> A _LACK_ of physical evidence does not suggest a likelihood of other
> evidence.
>
> Remember that Ashley was indignantly trying to justify the "expert"
> witness being prepared to say that a lack of physical evidence is "not
> inconsistent with abuse"
Well I dont see the problem with the experts statement, myself. The expert
would be quite wrong to say that "a lack of physical evidence *is*
inconsistent with abuse". Davids statement implies that without physical
evidence, the experts should be saying something different other than what
they do, which is (I'll paraphrase) yes it is still possible that this child
has been abused.
And no-one has suggested that no physical evidence means there is a
*likelihood* of any other evidence, certainly not Ashley or the "experts"
statement.
As we both agree, physical evidence is not the only evidence that should be
considered. If it isnt present it should not be automatically assumed that
no abuse has occurred.
Ah - so many negatives - hard to keep up, isnt it!
Gay
Brian
Hello to you too, Brian!
When I've referred to "reliable" I have previously explained I meant
in the sense of being able to rely on the news source to obtain all
significant developments on the case. And the word "significant" is
clearly my opinion. I have apologised before about the unintended
meaning that what is actually published may not be reliable news.
I'm not sure why you continue to quote what I originally said,
without making clear that I have since (sincerely) apologised for the
unintended meaning. If you have not seen that apology before, I do
not mind repeating it.
In the case of what WYSIWYG news has published, there IS physical
evidence. What it has published, and what has been published
elsewhere can be researched clearly by anybody interested.
You have previously explained where your WYSIWYG news is selected
from. Your source is of course as "good as what you can get" on any
topic. All news editors have to make a selection of the news
based on what they receive, and what they think is important. WYSIWYG
news is a MUCH better place to get news of the Peter Ellis problem,
than say "NZ House and Garden".
I can understand you smarting from any suggested meaning that the
information you publish in WYSIWYG is not reliable information. But
I can less understand your concern that anybody should provide an
opinion that your news service does not necessarily carry all
significant developments on any particular issue. Others have
rightly pointed out that it is not the mission of WYSIWYG to be a
crusader on any issue.
Brian
Brian Harmer
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:05:37 +1200, Brian Harmer
><brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:41:01 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>> A _LACK_ of physical evidence does not suggest a
>>> likelihood of other evidence.
>>Well hello!
>>I seem to recall you have recently employed exactly that technique
>>when judging the reliability of WYSIWYG news.
>
>
>Hello to you too, Brian!
(apology received and snipped)
Brian,
I acknowledge and thank you for the apology. However, my point was a
different one. It was that in at least two, and maybe three occasions
in the recent past of which WYSIWYG was only one, you seem to have
drawn what I regarded as unsupportable conclusions from the *inaction*
of others. This seems at odds with your stance above.
Brian
<g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>Well I dont see the problem with the experts statement, myself. The expert
>would be quite wrong to say that "a lack of physical evidence *is*
>inconsistent with abuse". Davids statement implies that without physical
>evidence, the experts should be saying something different other than what
>they do, which is (I'll paraphrase) yes it is still possible that this child
>has been abused.
Ah, we're getting closer to common ground, or at least agreeing to
disagree ..... possibly....... <smile>
The expert testimony is not "wrong", and therefore I understand you
seeing "no problem"
The problem lies, in my opinion, that the testimony comes from an
expert, and not a lay person. And the use of negatives in such a way
is confusing to a jury. If the defence counsel is not sharp, and
takes the opportunity to discuss the subject more fully, a not
unnatural and quick reaction for a jury member is remove the double
negative - and change what they hear:
"The evidence is not inconsistent with abuse"
into what they process as:
"The evidence is consistent with abuse"
>And no-one has suggested that no physical evidence means there is a
>*likelihood* of any other evidence, certainly not Ashley or the "experts"
>statement.
I'll stand by my opinion of Ashley's question of David that I've
discussed earlier.
>As we both agree, physical evidence is not the only evidence that should be
>considered. If it isnt present it should not be automatically assumed that
>no abuse has occurred.
Of course not.
>Ah - so many negatives - hard to keep up, isnt it!
They can be a trap. I've at times fallen into the trap of saying
something I haven't meant in a number of ways - including double
negatives (And that word "reliable"!)
Too many negatives - may be an innocent mistake, or may be employed
deliberately by the unscrupulous.
The issue of expert witnesses using the phrase "the evidence is not
inconsistent with abuse" has been employed in too many cases for me
not to consider that it maybe a deliberate prosecution tactic.
Brian
Brian
<brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:02:39 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:05:37 +1200, Brian Harmer
>><brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:41:01 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>> A _LACK_ of physical evidence does not suggest a
>>>> likelihood of other evidence.
>
>>>Well hello!
>>>I seem to recall you have recently employed exactly that technique
>>>when judging the reliability of WYSIWYG news.
>>
>>
>>Hello to you too, Brian!
>
>(apology received and snipped)
>
>I acknowledge and thank you for the apology. However, my point was a
>different one. It was that in at least two, and maybe three occasions
>in the recent past of which WYSIWYG was only one, you seem to have
>drawn what I regarded as unsupportable conclusions from the *inaction*
>of others. This seems at odds with your stance above.
The rest of my last post explained why my comments re WYSIWYG are
able to be supported (ignoring the unintended meaning of "reliable"
for which I've apologised).
What were the other two occasions? Were they subject to discussion
at the time? It's very possible in this quick method of
communication that I have "drawn unsupportable conclusions". Without
knowing what you refer to, it's hard to judge.
Brian
brazen
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:23:37 +1200, "brazen"
> <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Well I dont see the problem with the experts statement, myself. The
expert
> >would be quite wrong to say that "a lack of physical evidence *is*
> >inconsistent with abuse". Davids statement implies that without physical
> >evidence, the experts should be saying something different other than
what
> >they do, which is (I'll paraphrase) yes it is still possible that this
child
> >has been abused.
>
> Ah, we're getting closer to common ground, or at least agreeing to
> disagree ..... possibly....... <smile>
>
> The expert testimony is not "wrong", and therefore I understand you
> seeing "no problem"
>
> The problem lies, in my opinion, that the testimony comes from an
> expert, and not a lay person. And the use of negatives in such a way
> is confusing to a jury. If the defence counsel is not sharp, and
> takes the opportunity to discuss the subject more fully,
Well you can "if" forever. A defence counsel on an abuse case where the is
no physical evidence would be primed ready such an "expert" statement, and
would pick it to pieces. That would probably be the crux of their defence,
as physical evidence carries such weight. If they have a crap defence
counsel then that is another matter.
You were pushing the view that the double negative statement in this case
implies "likelihood" that abuse has occurred and that the defendant is
"automatically suspected" of abuse. Even when you remove it to "the evidence
is consistent with abuse" it doesnt say that at all, just that it is
consistent with abuse. Consistent doenst mean an absolute, it means
compatible.
Gay
David McLoughlin
> David McLoughlin wrote:
> > Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
> > physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
> > young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
> > inconsistent with abuse."
>
> Do you believe that sexual abuse consists only of penile penetration and
> that the hymen is always broken??????
Of course not, that's absurd. I was talking about the DSAC manual
section on vaginal penetration of very young girls. A four year old
who was raped would have massive identifiable injuries from this and
that has been shown in many court cases where the perpetrator has been
found guilty.
> Since when did digital penetration and fondling break hymens, David?
Quite often Ashley. Even riding horses can do it.
Ashley
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:10:00 +1200, "brazen"
> <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> >No again you are misreading it - the discussion hasnt said "lack of
> >evidence", we are talking about a "lack of physical evidence". Very
> >different. There are lots of other non-physical types of evidence that
can
> >(and should be) taken into consideration in potential abuse cases.
Physical
> >evidence is only part of the picture.
>
> The argument is the same.
>
No it's not.
> A _LACK_ of physical evidence does not suggest a likelihood of other
> evidence.
>
Has anyone suggested it does? If you believe they have, please quote
verbatim the extract that suggests this and explain why your interpretation
is correct.
> Remember that Ashley was indignantly trying to justify the "expert"
> witness being prepared to say that a lack of physical evidence is "not
> inconsistent with abuse"
A lack of physical evidence is not inconsistent with abuse. Do you have
difficulty distinguishing between the phrase "is not inconsistent with" and
the word "suggests"?
> Ashley's question to David was: "Do you believe that sexual abuse
> consists only of penile penetration and that the hymen is always
> broken??????" David had given her no justification for such an
> insulting question.
>
David suggested incredulity that a lack of physical evidence was not
inconsistent with physical abuse. His incredulity suggests he believes there
can be no proven sexual abuse if there is no physical evidence. The reality
is there can. When there is physical evidence, the case for abuse is proven
without doubt and few of us have any difficulty with the outcome.
But the lack of physical evidence is not conclusive proof that abuse did not
occur.
> Of course there may be evidence of abuse other than physical evidence.
> A good police investigator considering sexual abuse should
> automatically consider the possibility of other evidence where there
> is no physical evidence.
>
>
> But the thread has never been referring to an expert witness saying "I
> have looked for physical evidence and there was none. But I then
> followed up that investigation, and have other non physical evidence
> - X - which IS consistent with abuse"
>
> The concern was about an expert witness, who has no physical evidence
> to report saying "The lack of physical evidence IS NOT inconsistent
> with abuse"
>
And that is an entirely true statement.
>
> That's a reasonable statement to consider in the course of an
> investigation. But such a statement from an "expert" in front of a
> jury is simply prejudicial.
Bullshit.
Juries are entitled to expect more than
> prejudice from experts.
How dumb do you think juries are?
Ashley
> Ashley wrote:
>
> > David McLoughlin wrote:
>
>
> > > Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
> > > physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
> > > young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
> > > inconsistent with abuse."
>
> >
> > Do you believe that sexual abuse consists only of penile penetration and
> > that the hymen is always broken??????
>
> Of course not, that's absurd. I was talking about the DSAC manual
> section on vaginal penetration of very young girls. A four year old
> who was raped would have massive identifiable injuries from this and
> that has been shown in many court cases where the perpetrator has been
> found guilty.
>
OK, now you've clarified that you're referring to vaginal penetration that
puts an entirely different spin on it. You didn't specifiy that in your
original post. I would be interested to read the exact wording of said
manual, in context.
> > Since when did digital penetration and fondling break hymens, David?
>
> Quite often Ashley. Even riding horses can do it.
But surprisingly enough, tampons mostly don't. And when they are extracted,
they are the width of a fairly significant finger.
Kerry
McLoughlin) wrote:
>Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
>physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
>young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
>inconsistent with abuse."
>
>That's not science, it's ideology.
Where do you get your evidence for that statement?
You subscribe to the myth that you can look at the vulva of a child
and determine she has been abused?
You believe (must be a belief, because it sure aint a fact) that fully
intact hymens mean a child cannot have been sexually abused?
David the ideology is yours. The science lies elsewhere. There are
many many doctors, paediatricians, who deal in child sexual abuse,
outside DSAC. There can be absolutely no physical evidence for child
sexual abuse that is known to have occurred. It is a specialist area,
people by specialists outside organisations like DSAC.
Kerry
<ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
The first statment is an oft retold myth, known not to be true.
Kerry
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:10:00 +1200, "brazen"
><g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>>No again you are misreading it - the discussion hasnt said "lack of
>>evidence", we are talking about a "lack of physical evidence". Very
>>different. There are lots of other non-physical types of evidence that can
>>(and should be) taken into consideration in potential abuse cases. Physical
>>evidence is only part of the picture.
>
>The argument is the same.
>
>A _LACK_ of physical evidence does not suggest a likelihood of other
>evidence.
A lack of physical evidence does not mean a child was not sexually
abused. In fact most often there is not physical evidence of
penetration. There are other forms of evidence though, like witnesses
and confessions of perpetrators.
Children can have been sexually abused, and yet have no physical signs
of such abuse. That does not mean they were not abused. That
reflects the well known scientific fact that children commonly do not
display physical evidence of penetration. Even when it is known to
have happened
Kerry
McLoughlin) wrote:
>Ashley wrote:
>
>> David McLoughlin wrote:
>
>
>> > Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
>> > physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
>> > young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
>> > inconsistent with abuse."
>
>>
>> Do you believe that sexual abuse consists only of penile penetration and
>> that the hymen is always broken??????
>
>Of course not, that's absurd. I was talking about the DSAC manual
>section on vaginal penetration of very young girls. A four year old
>who was raped would have massive identifiable injuries from this and
>that has been shown in many court cases where the perpetrator has been
>found guilty.
What is your evidence for that belief David?
Kerry
McLoughlin) wrote:
>Their manuals are very clear that even when there is absolutely no
>physical evidence of sexual abuse, such as fully intact hymens in
>young girls, that their doctors are to say in court that "this is not
>inconsistent with abuse."
>
>That's not science, it's ideology.
Nope, it's science
A summary of the collective wisdom, based upon the scientific studies:
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Sexual Abuse of Children: Subject
Review (RE9819)
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
The diagnosis of child sexual abuse often can be made based on a
child's history. Physical examination alone is infrequently diagnostic
in the absence of a history and/or specific laboratory findings.
Physical findings are often absent even when the perpetrator admits to
penetration of the child's genitalia. Many types of abuse leave no
physical evidence, and mucosal injuries often heal rapidly.
Muram D. Child sexual abuse: relationship between sexual acts and
genital findings. Child Abuse Negl. 1989;13:211-216
Kerns DL, Ritter ML. Medical findings in child sexual abuse cases with
perpetrator confessions. Am J Dis Child. 1992;146:494
Adams JA, Harper K, Knudson S, Revilla J. Examination findings in
legally confirmed child sexual abuse: it's normal to be normal.
Pediatrics. 1994;94:310 -317
Finkel MA. Anogenital trauma in sexually abused children. Pediatrics.
1989;84:317-322
McCann J, Voris J, Simon M. Genital injuries resulting from sexual
abuse: a longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 1992;89:307-317
McCann J, Voris J. Perianal injuries resulting from sexual abuse: a
longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 1993;91:390 -397
David McLoughlin
> Well I dont see the problem with the experts statement, myself. The expert
> would be quite wrong to say that "a lack of physical evidence *is*
> inconsistent with abuse". Davids statement implies that without physical
> evidence, the experts should be saying something different other than what
> they do, which is (I'll paraphrase) yes it is still possible that this child
> has been abused.
Of course it's still possible. What I was trying to say was that DSAC
doctors who find no physical evidence whatsoever are not allowed to
say that their findings might be evidence that there was not, for
example, a rape. The whole manual is directed to ensuring a guilty
finding. It was written with the best of intentions but it is still
an ideology that is blinkered at the prospect that a child might not
have been abused.
David Dougherty was convicted on the evidence of an ESR scientist at a
time such scientists were instructed to say that "the dna of the
accused can not be excluded" from that found on the victim, even if
there was no positive result. Dougherty's DNA was not there, Nicholas
Reekie's was, as was later proved. By then, the scientists were no
longer required to say that someone's DNA could not be excluded, they
had to say if their was a positive match and give supporting evidence.
I hope DSAC has or will soon catch up with this kind of development.
In the Civic case, the Crown realised that its charges of rape and
sodomy by Ellis of three and four year olds would not stand up in
court because the children were subjected to multiple physical
examinations by doctors who found no evidence of rape or sodomy. They
jury might have bought the line that one kid was raped but there was
no physical sign, but not a procession of them. So the charges were
changed to Ellis placing his penis against a vagina or anus.
Kerry
McLoughlin) wrote:
>Gay wrote:
>
>> Well I dont see the problem with the experts statement, myself. The expert
>> would be quite wrong to say that "a lack of physical evidence *is*
>> inconsistent with abuse". Davids statement implies that without physical
>> evidence, the experts should be saying something different other than what
>> they do, which is (I'll paraphrase) yes it is still possible that this child
>> has been abused.
>
>Of course it's still possible. What I was trying to say was that DSAC
>doctors who find no physical evidence whatsoever are not allowed to
>say that their findings might be evidence that there was not, for
>example, a rape. The whole manual is directed to ensuring a guilty
>finding. It was written with the best of intentions but it is still
>an ideology that is blinkered at the prospect that a child might not
>have been abused.
This is a misrepresentation of the known facts
Children can have been sexually abused, even in the absence of
physical findings. The anogenital mucosa heals very rapidly, and
often without scarring.
There are many variations in the 'norm' of children's perineums
There are characteristic scarrings that may be present also. It takes
lots of training to know the difference
Kerry
McLoughlin) wrote:
>Gay wrote:
>
>> Well I dont see the problem with the experts statement, myself. The expert
>> would be quite wrong to say that "a lack of physical evidence *is*
>> inconsistent with abuse". Davids statement implies that without physical
>> evidence, the experts should be saying something different other than what
>> they do, which is (I'll paraphrase) yes it is still possible that this child
>> has been abused.
>
>Of course it's still possible. What I was trying to say was that DSAC
>doctors who find no physical evidence whatsoever are not allowed to
>say that their findings might be evidence that there was not, for
>example, a rape. The whole manual is directed to ensuring a guilty
>finding. It was written with the best of intentions but it is still
>an ideology that is blinkered at the prospect that a child might not
>have been abused.
As a doctor presented with a child that is claiming to have been
abused, it is not your job to make any judgement about why that may or
may not have happened.
It is your job to handle the child sensitively and with care, and to
perform the very best evidentiary examination possible. That is to
look objectively, to be completely thorough, to describe what you do
and do not see, to take all the samples possible in as 'clean' a way
as possible,without contaminating any evidence.
It is not your job to decide if the child has or has not been abused,
he or she may have been, that is why you are being asked to perform
the examination.
Scientific evidence has shown that there may be absolutely no
physical evidence of abuse that has happened. If asked in a court of
law you have to have examined throughly enough to be able to recount
your findings objectively. If asked by a lawyer if no findings at all
are inconsistent with abuse having occurred a doctor would have to say
no, because we know there may be no physical remnants of sexual abuse.
The manual is written to advise doctors how to do the best evidentiary
examinations possible, always looking for any evidence at all that
abuse may have occurred. If there is any evidence you don't want to
miss it, that protects the child. No physical scarring does not mean
a child has not been sexually abused
Hugh Young
"Do you believe in witches?"
"Naught proves the non-existence of the bitches."
- Marlowe (I think)
There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
consistent with abuse not having occurred. In other words, that the
physical examination produced NOTHING of any assistance to the
prosecution. Otherwise we are getting into the traditional stuff of
witch trials, "if she sank, she was innocent".
There's some other physical evidence that the cops seem to have made
no effort to look for. According to one of the kids, Ellis spilt a
kid's blood on the floor. It would have been impossible to remove it
all. Now that would have been at least circumstantial corroborative
evidence of a kind this case is otherwise completely devoid of.
Kerry
wrote:
>There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
>abuse may still have occured.
Correct
Ashley
"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
> There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
> abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
> they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
> consistent with abuse not having occurred.
You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person on
the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has been
no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
In other words, that the
> physical examination produced NOTHING of any assistance to the
> prosecution.
Or the defence. And that is precisely the point. The absence of physical
evidence proves nothing.
Kerry
<ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
>news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
>
>> There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
>> abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
>> they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
>> consistent with abuse not having occurred.
>
>You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person on
>the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has been
>no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
>
>I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
>
Abuse is often reported late Ashley, years late sometimes
Kerry
<ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
>news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
>
>> There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
>> abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
>> they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
>> consistent with abuse not having occurred.
>
>You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person on
>the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has been
>no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
>
>I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
PS I misread, so disregard my previous reply
Nights...pah
Ashley
"Kerry" <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3f46edfc...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:25:33 +1200, "Ashley"
> <ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
> >news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
> >
> >> There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
> >> abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
> >> they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
> >> consistent with abuse not having occurred.
> >
> >You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person
on
> >the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has
been
> >no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
> >
> >I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
> >
>
> Abuse is often reported late Ashley, years late sometimes
Believe me, I am entirely aware of that. The point I was making is that
nobody needs explaining to them that if there has been no abuse, there will
be no physical evidence of abuse. Hugh seems to think that this needs to be
stated explicitly to juries. I don't think they're that dumb.
I actually, wouldn't have a problem with an expert witness saying "The lack
of evidence is consistent with both there having been and not having been
abuse, it proves nothing in itself."
But if a witness is asked, if the lack of evidence suggests there has been
no abuse, I also have no problem with them saying "The lack of evidence is
not inconsistent with abuse", as that is answering the question asked.
David McLoughlin
> There's a lot of that going on, Julia. That's what I find sad about this
> whole thing - in trying to prove a witch hunt another is being conducted.
> The demonising going on is unbelievable.
Who's being demonised, Ashley? Seriously. Aaah I don't know anyone who
has seriously looked at this case who does not believe the complainant
kids and their parents believed what was alleged actually happened.
They were told by experts it happened. What parent wouldn't believe
what an expert told them? I am a parent and I know what I would think
if told one of my three littlies had been abused by a kindy teacher. I
would have believed the allegation and been horrified by it. I even
believe that the police and welfare staff involved believed what they
were saying. I've never said otherwise.
Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it false. But questioning this very
questionable case doesn't make it demonising anyone.
My three littlies don't believe Ellis was guilty of what he was
convicted of, as they have told me consistently for a decade, from the
age they each reached when the Civic case happened to the kids
concerned. They don't believe kids even at age three and four as the
Civic ones were, would stay silent in such large numbers if they were
all being raped, sodomised, defacated and urinated on and all the
other stuff alleged. All of mine said, when they were four or five,
and since, that they would have told their parents at once. Doesn't
mean all the Civic kids (118 were interviewed) would have, but surely
some would have. None did.
My youngest who was five when Ellis was arrested, told me then, if she
had seen a teacher poo or wee on a kid in front of the class, as Ellis
was convicted multiply of doing, that she would have come home that
very day and said: "Hey dad, mum, you wouldn't believe what happened
today. A teacher pooed in a girl's hair."
Poos and wees are very much on the mind of kids of that age, they talk
about it all the time, and they are fascinated by the differences
between girls and boys (ie penises and vaginas) especially when they
have liberal parents like so many kids today, and so many Civic kids
(and my kids) who openly reply to questions about how they were born
and who bathe them together so they see the differences at a young
age.
A lot was made in the Ellis trial of kids knowing terms like penis and
vagina. Well that is what me and just about every parent I know have
raised our kids to describe their genitals. I've never used a
euphemism and nor do I believe have many parents I know.
That daughter of mine was in the same primary class as a former Civic
complainant for every year she was in primary school (not that she
knows this even now). The complainant girl, I am happy to say, was a
normal girl who seemed to have no problems at all from her time at the
Civic despite her mother's belief she had been seriously abused.
There was not one unprompted allegation against Ellis, and no sign
whatever that he was doing any of this, not a single kid was ever seen
with urine or shit in hair or clothes, yet Ellis was convicted
multiple times of pissing and shitting on three and four year olds.
Though why anyone would want to piss and shit on a child is beyond me.
It is not pedophile behaviour. Pedophiles want to have sexual
relations with children. People who want to shit and piss on people
are deviants (in the academic sense of that word) who in all the
literature on deviancy I have seen want to do that with adults. There
are venues even in New Zealand where men will lie down in a urinal for
others to piss on them. I've even read about them in nz.soc.queer.
It's another world to me. All to their own, it's not illegal, but it's
not pedophile behaviour from what I know.
None of those things Ellis was charged and conviucted with ever
happened, IMO. Whether Ellis molested any kids in lesser ways is
something only he knows.
Ellis continues to be demonised, along with the four women Civic
workers who were charged with assisting him in his alleged abuse. But
as I said, nobody is demonising the children or their parents. And
Ellis has nothing to do with the campaigns by Colman and Hood about
this case, as far as I know (I did ask him).
I don't think Colman and Hood are doing Ellis any good, to be honest.
Hugh Young
>
>"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
>news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
>
>> There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
>> abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
>> they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
>> consistent with abuse not having occurred.
>
>You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person on
>the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has been
>no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
>
>I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
I think they should have been reminded of it, given the atmosphere
whipped up in Chch about this case.
>In other words, that the
>> physical examination produced NOTHING of any assistance to the
>> prosecution.
>
>Or the defence.
In our law, anyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Lack of
evidence for the prosecution IS evidence for the defence.
> And that is precisely the point. The absence of physical
>evidence proves nothing.
And "physical evidence" could be misinterpreted, as it has been
overseas.
Hugh Young
(Kerry) said:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:25:33 +1200, "Ashley"
><ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
>>news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
>>
>>> There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
>>> abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
>>> they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
>>> consistent with abuse not having occurred.
>>
>>You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person on
>>the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has been
>>no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
>>
>>I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
>>
>
>Abuse is often reported late Ashley, years late sometimes
If you follow this argument to its logical conclusion, you need no
physical evidence (because absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence) nor any complaint from the children (because abuse is often
reported late). You can just lock up any man (or woman) on the basis
that they might have abused someone. And of course they might, but
that is not how the law works.
Kerry
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 04:31:14 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
You apparently can, the Ellis case being a case in point EXCEPT there
are other forms of evidence, there is witnessed evidence, there is
self report, there is the evidence of a victim.
Often in the courts it becomes a case of one person's word against
anothers, with no actual physical evidence. In many different types
of cases too.
But yes, taken to an extreme position you are right. But even the the
Ellis case it was the word of some against the word of others that led
to conviction, not physical evidence
Kerry
McLoughlin) wrote:
>Ashley wrote:
>
>My three littlies don't believe Ellis was guilty of what he was
>convicted of, as they have told me consistently for a decade, from the
>age they each reached when the Civic case happened to the kids
>concerned. They don't believe kids even at age three and four as the
>Civic ones were, would stay silent in such large numbers if they were
>all being raped, sodomised, defacated and urinated on and all the
>other stuff alleged. All of mine said, when they were four or five,
>and since, that they would have told their parents at once.
But David children say those sorts of things. Children, and adults,
have no idea how they would act in any circumstance of sbuse. Abusers
can and do terrify children into believingthey will kill them or their
families,
Your children weren't abused, I'd suggest that your children at 4 or 5
or 6 had no idea what they would actually do.
What your children believe would be the behaviour of abused children,
what you would believe would be the behaviour of abused
children....well I don't believe they really know.
We would both like to think they would do as they said, I'd like to
think that about mine as well. But your children, like mine, would
always say what they thought you (or I) wanted to hear. Children are
eaily manipulated. This I know
Ashley
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:25:33 +1200, "Ashley"
> <ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> said:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
> >news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
> >
> >> There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
> >> abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
> >> they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
> >> consistent with abuse not having occurred.
> >
> >You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person
on
> >the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has
been
> >no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
> >
> >I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
>
> I think they should have been reminded of it, given the atmosphere
> whipped up in Chch about this case.
>
I am not denying there was hysteria. And I wouldn't have a problem with any
jury being reminded of it. What I do have a problem with is people treating
witnesses who give an honest and truthful response as being somehow wrong
and deceitful.
> In our law, anyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Lack of
> evidence for the prosecution IS evidence for the defence.
But it still proves nothing.
Ashley
> Ashley wrote:
>
> > There's a lot of that going on, Julia. That's what I find sad about this
> > whole thing - in trying to prove a witch hunt another is being
conducted.
> > The demonising going on is unbelievable.
>
> Who's being demonised, Ashley? Seriously.
David, you just need to look at some of the posts in this thread, to see the
names of parents, professional witnesses, police and fellow posters who have
said they believe Ellis to be guilty, to see who is being demonised.
And if you don't see the language and tone used as demonisation, then I
would suggest you are not looking objectively.
For the record: I happen to believe Ellis should not have been convicted. I
am also close to several people who have been involved in this case and who
believe he is guilty as sin. Those people are not conducting a witchhunt,
they are honestly and thoughtfully reflecting on the evidence available to
them (much of which is not available and can never be available to others)
and reaching an honest conclusion.
I happen to think they're wrong. But I also happen to think they don't
deserve the virulent condemnation being meeted out to them.
charmed
groups and are getting this message 5 times...not criticizing the topic,
same with other topics....
"Ashley" <ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:wXD1b.124477$JA5.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003
Simon
<ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
>news:3f46f3af...@news.buzz.net.nz...
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:25:33 +1200, "Ashley"
>> <ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> said:
>>
>> >
>> >"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
>> >
>> >> There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
>> >> abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
>> >> they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
>> >> consistent with abuse not having occurred.
>> >
>> >You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person
>on
>> >the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has
>been
>> >no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
>> >
>> >I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
>>
>> I think they should have been reminded of it, given the atmosphere
>> whipped up in Chch about this case.
>>
>
>I am not denying there was hysteria. And I wouldn't have a problem with any
>jury being reminded of it. What I do have a problem with is people treating
>witnesses who give an honest and truthful response as being somehow wrong
>and deceitful.
>
For a while the psychiatrist Dr Karen Zelas thought there was
something wrong with the kids and their parents. She thought the
parents were a bit manipulative towards the kids, or at least a
couple.
Were these two kids the feature of last Saturday's Dominion Post
article?
Hop in here and have a look at what Dr Zelas had to say:
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/ZelasLetter_28Aug1992.pdf
Simon
I think Dr Karen Zelas should be looked at.. From expressing
doubts to the police early in the investigation then at trial (I
presume) turning her doubts to facts is rater sinister.
A L P
> "Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
> news:3f46e00c...@news.buzz.net.nz...
>
>
>>There either is physical evidence or there isn't. If there isn't,
>>abuse may still have occured. But a witness should make it clear (and
>>they don't seem to have) that if there is no evidence, that is also
>>consistent with abuse not having occurred.
>
>
> You are, of course, assuming there is a danger that the ordinary person on
> the street (or in the jury) was unaware that in cases where there has been
> no abuse, there would be no physical evidence of abuse.
>
> I have a strange suspcion this is not the case.
>
If we were all as sensible as we would like to think ourselves we would
never EVER, not for an instant, think "He must have done *something* or
he wouldn't be there in front of a jury." And yet that seems to be an
instinctive reaction that has to be overruled by the rational self. Are
all people's rational selves in full working order all the time?
A L P
A L P
answers where broad answers would throw more light on the facts, is a
trap. It allows untruths to be suggested, as in
"News Flash: John Banks Not Supporting Pauline Hanson Now, alleges
neighbour"
A L P
Ashley
"A L P" <sacrific...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3f47...@clear.net.nz...
> If we were all as sensible as we would like to think ourselves we would
> never EVER, not for an instant, think "He must have done *something* or
> he wouldn't be there in front of a jury." And yet that seems to be an
> instinctive reaction that has to be overruled by the rational self. Are
> all people's rational selves in full working order all the time?
Shit no. Mine seems seldom to be working! But put me in a jury and tell me I
have to think rationally and see what happens.
Ashley
> That's where the way of asking questions, making witnesses give narrow
> answers where broad answers would throw more light on the facts, is a
> trap. It allows untruths to be suggested, as in
But there is no untruth in "a lack of physical evidence is not inconsistent
with abuse".
A L P
Exactly. But as Hugh says it would be crystal-clear if they phrased it
more fully, and if discovering the truth were the goal then clarity
would be important. Getting away from physical evidence of sexual abuse
as the sole topic, I think in the present court system statements in the
form of the above are used by the lawyers to sway the jury towards the
view that because something is not completely impossible, because
sometimes a dog might not bark in the night, there is "reasonable doubt".
A L P
Brian
<ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>I am not denying there was hysteria. And I wouldn't have a problem with any
>jury being reminded of it. What I do have a problem with is people treating
>witnesses who give an honest and truthful response as being somehow wrong
>and deceitful.
I agree.
But what I also have a problem with is people treating witnesses who
give a wrong and deceitful response as being somehow honest and
truthful.
Prejudice is bad, whichever way it works.
Brian
Kerry
That's the way the law works Brian.
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:12:35 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:33:45 +1200, "Ashley"
>><ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am not denying there was hysteria. And I wouldn't have a problem with any
>>>jury being reminded of it. What I do have a problem with is people treating
>>>witnesses who give an honest and truthful response as being somehow wrong
>>>and deceitful.
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>But what I also have a problem with is people treating witnesses who
>>give a wrong and deceitful response as being somehow honest and
>>truthful.
>>
>
>That's the way the law works Brian.
Which "law" are you referring to Kerry?
Kerry
THE law. People can turn up in a courtroom and say what they like.
They know this, it is the job of the judge and or jury to evaluate the
truth of the matter. IF they tell lies and convince the judge +/-
jury they are telling the truth, they win
David McLoughlin
> There's some other physical evidence that the cops seem to have made
> no effort to look for. According to one of the kids, Ellis spilt a
> kid's blood on the floor. It would have been impossible to remove it
> all. Now that would have been at least circumstantial corroborative
> evidence of a kind this case is otherwise completely devoid of.
I think you are mixing that up with the little boy Andrew, who the
person now called "Tom" in the DomPost articles was forced to kill
with a knife while the other kids were strung in cages from the roof
of the Great Hall in the Cranmer Centre.
The cops did investigate this, very seriously. They spent a lot of
time looking for Andrew's body, even to digging up sites in the
Barbadoes Street cemetery, but they never found it. The poor wee kid
was never even reported missing, so the allegation was that he was
bred as a sacrifice and his birth was never registered.
But "Tom" in the article published last weekend was adamant that he
remembers everything that happened and it was all true, so he must
have killed Andrew.
The police looked extensively for physical evidence to coroborate the
stories. For example they went through the ceilings in the Cranmer
Centre where Ellis allegedly took the kids through on the way to the
Great Hall. There were no fingerprints up there or any other sign
that anyone had been in there in years, and one cop even put his foot
right through the ceiling into the marriage guidance office
underneath. Interesting that those terrified kids never fell through
the ceilings, and that nobody in MG heard their screams and footsteps
above them, nor saw them entering the roof cavity via the ladder that
was positioned 6m above ground level over the courtyard from the
building opposite. It was incredibly lucky none of the terrified kids
fell off that narrow ladder.
The cops raided houses all over Christchurch seeking evidence but
despite seizing huge quantities of things such as videos and photo
albums, found nothing that was ever presented at the trial. They found
two silly little letters, one at the Civic and one at Debbie
Gillespie's house, one that joked about having sex and one claiming to
be an application form from a pedophile for a job. These were
produced at depositions but never used at the trial. AFAICR, those
were the only two items that even came close to being used as evidence
at trial from the thousands of items seized.
Kerry
McLoughlin) wrote:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>
>> There's some other physical evidence that the cops seem to have made
>> no effort to look for. According to one of the kids, Ellis spilt a
>> kid's blood on the floor. It would have been impossible to remove it
>> all. Now that would have been at least circumstantial corroborative
>> evidence of a kind this case is otherwise completely devoid of.
>
>I think you are mixing that up with the little boy Andrew, who the
>person now called "Tom" in the DomPost articles was forced to kill
>with a knife while the other kids were strung in cages from the roof
>of the Great Hall in the Cranmer Centre.
>
I didn;t realise Tom killed him. He didn;t mention that in the paper
last week
robi...@btinternet.com
For an expert witness to use such a phrase must however be at or close
to unprofessional. A statement by a professional may be seen by a jury
as having more weight than an ordinary witness, and they therefore
should have an obligation to use words in a way that makes their
meaning clear. If lack of physical evidence neither supports nor
negates a proposition that there has been abuse, then they should not
imply only one side of that statement. Being a police officer is not
inconsistent with abuse either, but sucha statement would I suspect
quite reasonably be ruled out of order. Hence if the phrase is used it
may indicate bias or prejudice rather than an impartial expert.
Surely however a good barrister will pick up the nonsense of such
statements in cross-examination - or is that just shutting the door
after the horse has bolted?
E
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:21:58 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 03:16:39 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>>(Kerry) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:12:35 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:33:45 +1200, "Ashley"
>>>><ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am not denying there was hysteria. And I wouldn't have a problem with any
>>>>>jury being reminded of it. What I do have a problem with is people treating
>>>>>witnesses who give an honest and truthful response as being somehow wrong
>>>>>and deceitful.
>>>>
>>>>I agree.
>>>>
>>>>But what I also have a problem with is people treating witnesses who
>>>>give a wrong and deceitful response as being somehow honest and
>>>>truthful.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's the way the law works Brian.
>>
>>
>>Which "law" are you referring to Kerry?
>THE law.
Oh. OK. Sorta like the bible, huh?
Jason M
McLoughlin) wrote:
>I think you are mixing that up with the little boy Andrew, who the
>person now called "Tom" in the DomPost articles was forced to kill
>with a knife while the other kids were strung in cages from the roof
>of the Great Hall in the Cranmer Centre.
>
>The cops did investigate this, very seriously. They spent a lot of
>time looking for Andrew's body, even to digging up sites in the
>Barbadoes Street cemetery, but they never found it. The poor wee kid
>was never even reported missing, so the allegation was that he was
>bred as a sacrifice and his birth was never registered.
>
>But "Tom" in the article published last weekend was adamant that he
>remembers everything that happened and it was all true, so he must
>have killed Andrew.
Does this now grown up "Tom" still say that everything happened they
way that he said when he was interviewed as a child? If they really
happened he should be able to fill in a few more details, since the
stories are so horrific that they'd be burned into his mind.
Ashley
<robi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:eaggkvcs4ss2p5525...@4ax.com...
> For an expert witness to use such a phrase must however be at or close
> to unprofessional. A statement by a professional may be seen by a jury
> as having more weight than an ordinary witness, and they therefore
> should have an obligation to use words in a way that makes their
> meaning clear. If lack of physical evidence neither supports nor
> negates a proposition that there has been abuse, then they should not
> imply only one side of that statement.
I'm assuming you believe the same should apply to the defence.
Hugh Young
>Hugh Young wrote:
>
>> There's some other physical evidence that the cops seem to have made
>> no effort to look for. According to one of the kids, Ellis spilt a
>> kid's blood on the floor. It would have been impossible to remove it
>> all. Now that would have been at least circumstantial corroborative
>> evidence of a kind this case is otherwise completely devoid of.
>
>I think you are mixing that up with the little boy Andrew, who the
>person now called "Tom" in the DomPost articles was forced to kill
>with a knife while the other kids were strung in cages from the roof
>of the Great Hall in the Cranmer Centre.
No I was referring to "B" aged 6, 3rd i/v recorded 5/8/92, not played
to jury (p2, col1, 15cm down on the Sunday Star-Times reprint)
Q: What did it feel like on your poo hole?
A: It feeled, made it bleed.
Q: Where did the blood go?
A: On the floor and he done and he cleaned it up and he done that five
times and he stuck a burning piece of paper up my bum five times so
that means it bleed, um, 10 times.
This was on the second floor of "the building with the library and the
trap door."