Peter Ellis child sex abuse appeal
The appeal into sexual abuse convictions arising from the Christchurch Creche case has begun in the Supreme Court. The defence will focus on four issues:
- the children’s evidence was contaminated, and obtained using improper techniques.
- expert testimony by psychiatrists mislead the jury.
- an expert witness gave evidence about symptoms of sexual abuse which had no scientific validity.
- the prosecution failed to “tell the whole truth”. The evidence was cherry-picked then ‘sanitised’.
The actual, real psychological abuse of these children by over-zealous and ideologically driven interviewers was all recorded on video. Most of this material has never been presented to a jury. If the Supreme Court decides to finally address what is arguably New Zealand’s worst miscarriage of justice, there will need to be a proper investigation which includes examining ALL the evidence. Unless, of course, it turns out that the videos have been ‘lost’ during the many years that justice has been delayed.
Some links to recent news items:
Interview with law professor Bill Hodge
Ellis’ historic child sex abuse appeal begins in Supreme Court report by Emma Hatton.
First day focuses on child’s evidence – report by Jake McKee.
Let’s hope this outrageous injustice is finally corrected. It’s easy to say that it’s pointless, after the sad death of Peter Ellis, but overturning his conviction sets an essential precedent that just may help the cause of other innocent men still in prison after wrongful convictions for sexual crimes. They are the inevitable false positives that result from a “ring of truth” in a complainant’s testimony, and there are more of them than most people realise.
Very interesting arguments in this case.
The experts, are exposing serous flaws.
How did this happen.
Ellis was arrested in March 1992 and his trial started in April the next year. The jury eventually found Ellis guilty of 16 charges of abusing seven children in his care and he was sentenced to 10 years’ jail. Five of the parents of the seven children worked in the sex abuse field.
5 parents working in the sexual abuse field.
0% of them noticing anything.
Until a false allegation was made by a 4 year old boy.
20 suggestive events later.
Endless parental questions.
As many leading questions later.
Charges dropped on all the female workers.
Even though accusations included others.
No adult ever saw anything.
No physical evidence ever found.
No abuse injuries, found.
Since one child has said the accusations were not true.
How did they make untrue statements, at the time.
The process applied to them, was applied to all the children.
The process of examining the interviews failed.
It failed to see the false testimony, presenting it at trial.
And even had false testimony from children.
Things made up so badly, they couldn’t include it.
The experts are all saying, the interviews would not be allowed today.
How then can the Crown present any evidence.
Justice can only be served if charges are levied against the people who committed crimes under the Crimes Act 1961.
1. The police interviewer is imprisoned for perverting the course of justice.
2. The psychiatrists are imprisoned for misleading and perverting the course of justice.
3. The expert witness who gave evidence about symptoms of sexual abuse that had no scientific validity is imprisoned for perverting the course of justice.
4. The prosecution person or police who failed to tell the whole truth by cherry-picking then sanitised is imprisoned for perverting the course of justice.
116 Conspiring to defeat justice.
117. Wilfully attempts in any other way to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.
But that is never going to happen unless a Judge has the balls or ovaries to do it.
What is interesting reading is the independent inquiry following the Salem Witch Hunt.
The final conclusion appeared to somewhat vague as to what might have brought about that level of temporary insanity in one place.
Arguably you could say we’re experiencing something similar ourselves much to the horror/amusement/interest of the world audience processing our Covid response.
I think the fundamental flaw here is the unwillingness to go to how the case occurred – A serving Police officer who was having a relationship with one of the mother’s of the children concerned. It can only make it to court if there are Police charges. Where is the accountability for this?
Does the case achieve beyond reasonable doubt.
It did when he was tried.
So if applied to that standard, that jury.
Would that still be achieved.
Or should it apply to what would happen today.
Today we would recognise, things are crazy.
And beyond reasonable doubt exists.
That things may not have happened.
Do you prove the positive, or the negative.
The prosecution can get beyond reasonable doubt, he did it.
Positive he is guilty.
Certainly, many victims, is an indication of guilt.
And the defendant can get beyond reasonable doubt, he may not have.
Negative he is guilty.
Certainly many experts, have exposed flaws.
Should he then be guilty.
So a thousand more like him, can be prosecuted.
To the same standard.
Was there a conspiracy to create guilt?
Was his innocence lost to someone’s silence?
Was it insanity?