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