Peter ELLIS : (The Press) Edwards' stance hostile - Hood
26 posts by 12 authors
 |
 |
The Press
12 September 2003
Edwards' stance hostile - Hood
NZPA
NZPA
Broadcaster Brian Edwards has been accused of ambushing Christchurch
Civic Creche case campaigner Lynley Hood in a hostile television
interview.
Civic Creche case campaigner Lynley Hood in a hostile television
interview.
A formal complaint by Ms Hood to TVNZ also alleges political links
coloured Dr Edwards' views on the controversial sex abuse case.
coloured Dr Edwards' views on the controversial sex abuse case.
She claims the veteran interviewer adopted a "hectoring, sneering
tone" during the chat show, Edwards at Large.
tone" during the chat show, Edwards at Large.
Ms Hood said Dr Edwards had led her to believe that the interview
would be "essentially sympathetic".
would be "essentially sympathetic".
Instead, she found it "unrelentingly hostile".
The Dunedin author of A City Possessed, which attacks the criminal
convictions of former creche worker Peter Ellis, said she was the
victim of "a hatchet job" that breached broadcasting standards of
balance and fairness.
convictions of former creche worker Peter Ellis, said she was the
victim of "a hatchet job" that breached broadcasting standards of
balance and fairness.
"My complaint is that I was ambushed into taking part in an interview
that was no more than a sustained attack on my character and
credibility, and that in making that attack Dr Edwards did not act as
an independent and impartial broadcaster," Ms Hood said.
that was no more than a sustained attack on my character and
credibility, and that in making that attack Dr Edwards did not act as
an independent and impartial broadcaster," Ms Hood said.
Yesterday, Dr Edwards said he was unable to discuss the complaint,
which is being investigated by TVNZ and could yet be forwarded to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority.
which is being investigated by TVNZ and could yet be forwarded to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority.
The complaint details an alleged about-face by Dr Edwards on the
creche case. Ms Hood said he emailed her in June to say he would be
"delighted" to sign a petition calling for a Royal Commission of
Inquiry.
creche case. Ms Hood said he emailed her in June to say he would be
"delighted" to sign a petition calling for a Royal Commission of
Inquiry.
He also invited her to appear on his new show.
Dr Edwards did not end up putting his name to the petition.
Ms Hood said that soon after her TV grilling on August 16, she was
told that Justice Minister Phil Goff had made negative comments to Dr
Edwards about the creche case. Growing calls for a wider inquiry have
so far been spurned by Mr Goff.
told that Justice Minister Phil Goff had made negative comments to Dr
Edwards about the creche case. Growing calls for a wider inquiry have
so far been spurned by Mr Goff.
Dr Edwards doubles as a paid media adviser to Prime Minister Helen
Clark and other government members.
Clark and other government members.
A spokesman for Mr Goff, who is visiting Mongolia, said yesterday that
Ms Hood's references to the Minister were wrong.
Ms Hood's references to the Minister were wrong.
Mr Goff's only meeting with Dr Edwards was "by chance at Auckland
Airport" as they walked together to collect their luggage on August 21
-- five days after Ms Hood's TV interview.
Airport" as they walked together to collect their luggage on August 21
-- five days after Ms Hood's TV interview.
Responding to an earlier parliamentary question from National MP Don
Brash, Mr Goff said he recalled Dr Edwards mentioning the creche case
and saying, after reading Hood's book a second time, he had
reservations about her conclusions.
Brash, Mr Goff said he recalled Dr Edwards mentioning the creche case
and saying, after reading Hood's book a second time, he had
reservations about her conclusions.
"My comments were to the effect that matters of guilt or innocence
should be decided judicially, not by politicians, journalists, or
authors," Mr Goff said.
should be decided judicially, not by politicians, journalists, or
authors," Mr Goff said.
"I also reiterated my view that because no evidence had been presented
that had not already been properly considered by the court, I had no
basis under the royal prerogative process to recommend further inquiry
into the case."
that had not already been properly considered by the court, I had no
basis under the royal prerogative process to recommend further inquiry
into the case."
Last month, ACT MP Rodney Hide laid a broadcasting standards complaint
over an interview Dr Edwards had with him -- saying an interviewer on
the Prime Minister's payroll could not be balanced and impartial to an
opposition MP.
over an interview Dr Edwards had with him -- saying an interviewer on
the Prime Minister's payroll could not be balanced and impartial to an
opposition MP.
Click here to Reply
|
> The Press
> 12 September 2003
>
> Edwards' stance hostile - Hood
> NZPA
>
> Broadcaster Brian Edwards has been accused of ambushing Christchurch
> Civic Creche case campaigner Lynley Hood in a hostile television
> interview.
>
The interview could have been so much better and could have explored so many
different angles. From the points raised by BE, I'm almost positive he has
read the book. However he seized upon what I (and several others I have
spoken to) regard as the weakest point that Hood makes in A City Pocessed.
It is a tiny section, but her theory that the flat geography of ChCh was a
factor in why the Crèche Case occurred where it did was stretching things a
bit far. My partner who grew up in ChCh found this particularly
cringe-worthy, even though she agrees with the rest of Hood's analysis.
Unfortunately, B. Edwards jumped on this and wouldn't let it go - a common
and lowly technique which to it's extreme comes down to "this part of the
argument is flawed, therefore the whole argument is flawed". The pro-gun
lobby in the US have been doing something similar in its critique of Michael
Moore's "Bowling for Columbine".
different angles. From the points raised by BE, I'm almost positive he has
read the book. However he seized upon what I (and several others I have
spoken to) regard as the weakest point that Hood makes in A City Pocessed.
It is a tiny section, but her theory that the flat geography of ChCh was a
factor in why the Crèche Case occurred where it did was stretching things a
bit far. My partner who grew up in ChCh found this particularly
cringe-worthy, even though she agrees with the rest of Hood's analysis.
Unfortunately, B. Edwards jumped on this and wouldn't let it go - a common
and lowly technique which to it's extreme comes down to "this part of the
argument is flawed, therefore the whole argument is flawed". The pro-gun
lobby in the US have been doing something similar in its critique of Michael
Moore's "Bowling for Columbine".
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:29:23 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>Edwards' stance hostile - Hood
>NZPA
>
>Broadcaster Brian Edwards has been accused of ambushing Christchurch
>Civic Creche case campaigner Lynley Hood in a hostile television
>interview.
>
>A formal complaint by Ms Hood to TVNZ also alleges political links
>coloured Dr Edwards' views on the controversial sex abuse case.
>
Minister following the John Campbell interview last year. TV3 is
appealing the 'fine' and need to make an 'announcement' to the High
Court.
If the appeal is unsuccessful, then TV1 and Brian Edwards should
equally cop it.
equally cop it.
I wondered if Lynley was muttering 'creep' under her breath as she
left the studio.
left the studio.
|
Brian wrote:
>
> Broadcaster Brian Edwards has been accused of ambushing Christchurch
> Civic Creche case campaigner Lynley Hood in a hostile television
> interview.
Am I the only one who thinks this woman doth protest too much?
>
> Broadcaster Brian Edwards has been accused of ambushing Christchurch
> Civic Creche case campaigner Lynley Hood in a hostile television
> interview.
Am I the only one who thinks this woman doth protest too much?
|
- show quoted text -
Probably not. Mainlander and Phil Goff would surely agree with you!
A L P
|
On 12 Sep 2003 14:30:47 -0700, dav...@iprolink.co.nz (David
McLoughlin) wrote:
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Karen Zelas perhaps agrees with you David.
But instead of simply dismissing her arguments, why don't you go
through Hood's analysis of the interview and ARGUE THE ISSUES that
she raises?
through Hood's analysis of the interview and ARGUE THE ISSUES that
she raises?
Her complaint, including her analysis of the transcript is on
www.peterellis.org.nz. The analysis is shown below.
www.peterellis.org.nz. The analysis is shown below.
The only problem is that the transcript on the peter ellis site does
not include the line numbers that Lynley Hood refers to. But I'm sure
you can manage that? <smile>
not include the line numbers that Lynley Hood refers to. But I'm sure
you can manage that? <smile>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynley Hood
PO Box 2041
South Dunedin
PO Box 2041
South Dunedin
Broadcasting Standards Complaint
Edwards at Large - 16 August 2003
Edwards at Large - 16 August 2003
[Appendix 3]
Edwards at Large: Analysis
Introduction (page 1, line 2):
Edwards shows his unfamiliarity with the wider issues raised by A City
Possessed by focussing solely on the guilt or innocence of Peter
Ellis.
Point 1 (page 1, line 15 - page 2, line 9):
Edwards’ first point - about the two complainants whose interviews
with a newspaper reporter were published that day - is appropriate for
a current affairs broadcast. However, instead of following up the
issues I raise - about the effects of repeated and suggestive
questioning on children’s memories, and the absurdity of some of the
children’s allegations - he simply moves on to the next point.
Edwards’ first point - about the two complainants whose interviews
with a newspaper reporter were published that day - is appropriate for
a current affairs broadcast. However, instead of following up the
issues I raise - about the effects of repeated and suggestive
questioning on children’s memories, and the absurdity of some of the
children’s allegations - he simply moves on to the next point.
Point 2 (page 2, line 11-44):
With reckless disregard for the facts, Edwards turns his second point
- about the number of reviews to which the Ellis case has been subject
- into an attack on me. The gist of his attack is that the calls for a
commission of inquiry are unreasonable, and are all my fault. ‘You
wonder how much is going to happen before people like you are going to
be satisfied... How much more do you need?’ (Lines 11-12 & 16)
With reckless disregard for the facts, Edwards turns his second point
- about the number of reviews to which the Ellis case has been subject
- into an attack on me. The gist of his attack is that the calls for a
commission of inquiry are unreasonable, and are all my fault. ‘You
wonder how much is going to happen before people like you are going to
be satisfied... How much more do you need?’ (Lines 11-12 & 16)
When I point out: ‘..it is not just me who - you know - there are a
raft of law professors and QCs saying that in this case the justice
system has failed’ (line 18-21), he ignores my point and continues his
accusatory line. ‘...it’s you who’ve kicked it off... you got the ball
rolling’ (line 23-42).
raft of law professors and QCs saying that in this case the justice
system has failed’ (line 18-21), he ignores my point and continues his
accusatory line. ‘...it’s you who’ve kicked it off... you got the ball
rolling’ (line 23-42).
At line 33-42, I outline my reason for writing the book, and my
approach to the topic. ‘I thought there has got to be a story here ...
I was just saying, read it and make up your own minds..’ Had Edwards
done his homework, he would have found ample confirmation of the truth
of my account. Instead, he shows his ignorance (and arrogance and
hostility) by flatly rejecting my account, and moving on to his next
attack. ‘I find it a little bit hard to believe that you started off
just to tell the story. Because, it seems to me that you started off
with an absolute mind set.’ (Line 44-45)
approach to the topic. ‘I thought there has got to be a story here ...
I was just saying, read it and make up your own minds..’ Had Edwards
done his homework, he would have found ample confirmation of the truth
of my account. Instead, he shows his ignorance (and arrogance and
hostility) by flatly rejecting my account, and moving on to his next
attack. ‘I find it a little bit hard to believe that you started off
just to tell the story. Because, it seems to me that you started off
with an absolute mind set.’ (Line 44-45)
Point 3 (page 2, line 44 - page 3, line 27)
Edwards attack on my scholarly independence - that I approached the
book with ‘an absolute mindset’ - is without foundation, but he
hammers it relentlessly, while at the same time ignoring or rejecting
my efforts to correct him.
Edwards attack on my scholarly independence - that I approached the
book with ‘an absolute mindset’ - is without foundation, but he
hammers it relentlessly, while at the same time ignoring or rejecting
my efforts to correct him.
‘...you started off with an absolute mind set (page 2, line 45) ...
You started off with that mind set, didn’t you?’ (Page 2, line 48)
.... ‘So there was that mind set before you started writing’ (page 3,
line 23).
You started off with that mind set, didn’t you?’ (Page 2, line 48)
.... ‘So there was that mind set before you started writing’ (page 3,
line 23).
When I explain: ‘But even the prosecutors and crown witnesses were
saying there was mass hysteria. I mean I wasn’t - they told me - and
that is what I went to examine as to what the social dynamic of it
was’ - he ignores me and moves on to the next point. (Page 3, line
25-27)
saying there was mass hysteria. I mean I wasn’t - they told me - and
that is what I went to examine as to what the social dynamic of it
was’ - he ignores me and moves on to the next point. (Page 3, line
25-27)
Had I been given the opportunity, I would have pointed out that, as
with my work on Minnie Dean (the only woman hanged for murder in New
Zealand), I distinguished between the moral panic surrounding her case
on the one hand, and the facts of her case on the other. A century on
from the Dean case, I was able to examine the evidence closely and
conclude that Minnie had indeed killed one of the babies she was
accused of murdering. I examined the evidence in the creche case even
more closely (including evidence not presented in court). If there was
any reliable evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by anyone accused in
the case, there was a high likelihood that I would have found it, and
a certainty that I would have written about it.
Had I been given the opportunity, I would also have pointed out that,
if my intention was to assist the Ellis cause, I would have published
a partisan potboiler while his case was still making its way through
the courts, and I would have shared my research findings with his
defence team. But, as Edwards would have known if he had read A City
Possessed, I refused to compromise my independence and impartiality,
even when faced with the threat of jail (A City Possessed, p.
591-596).
if my intention was to assist the Ellis cause, I would have published
a partisan potboiler while his case was still making its way through
the courts, and I would have shared my research findings with his
defence team. But, as Edwards would have known if he had read A City
Possessed, I refused to compromise my independence and impartiality,
even when faced with the threat of jail (A City Possessed, p.
591-596).
Point 4 (page 2, lines 45-47 & page 3, line 29 - page 4, line 32)
Edwards grossly and persistently misrepresents my comments about
Christchurch. ‘You spent the first two hundred pages of your book
basically telling the reader what a dreadful place Christchurch is..’
(Page 2, lines 45-47). In fact, I spent two and a half pages on a
brief but irreverent description of the city (p.115-117 A City
Possessed). At no stage did I suggest that Christchurch is, or was, a
dreadful place.
Edwards grossly and persistently misrepresents my comments about
Christchurch. ‘You spent the first two hundred pages of your book
basically telling the reader what a dreadful place Christchurch is..’
(Page 2, lines 45-47). In fact, I spent two and a half pages on a
brief but irreverent description of the city (p.115-117 A City
Possessed). At no stage did I suggest that Christchurch is, or was, a
dreadful place.
In A City Possessed, I note Christchurch’s reputation as a place where
social movements take root and flourish, and list some of the curious
reasons I had been offered for the city’s characteristics (the hot
nor’wester, the smog, the lead content in the air, the flatness). I
reflect, in passing, that there could be an element of truth to the
flatness theory - in so far as it is easier for like-minded people to
get together in a flat city than a hilly one. I did not invent the
flatness theory, and I did not use it to explain anything, least of
all the conviction of Peter Ellis. It was simply one of many theories
about Christchurch offered to me in the course of my research. I found
these theories amusing, and I passed them on for the entertainment of
readers.
Edwards repeatedly and falsely claims that I blamed the flatness of
Christchurch for the conviction of Peter Ellis: ‘What on earth can the
flatness of the city have to do with Peter Ellis’s guilt or
innocence?’ (Page 3, lines 44-45) ‘..don’t you see an element of
absurdity in what you are telling me here... That the flatness of the
city gives us - some indication of Peter Ellis’s chances of getting a
fair trial.’ (Page 4, line 16-25)
Christchurch for the conviction of Peter Ellis: ‘What on earth can the
flatness of the city have to do with Peter Ellis’s guilt or
innocence?’ (Page 3, lines 44-45) ‘..don’t you see an element of
absurdity in what you are telling me here... That the flatness of the
city gives us - some indication of Peter Ellis’s chances of getting a
fair trial.’ (Page 4, line 16-25)
My attempts to correct Edwards’ bizarre assertion are talked over,
ignored, rejected or disparaged. (Page 3, line 42 - page 4, line 25).
When I finally manage to explain: ‘No. I am not. I am not making that
leap at all’ (Page 4, line 27) He acknowledges my point with a
dismissive ‘OK’ (page 4, line 29), and then goes on to imply that my
answer is suspect: ‘During the commercial break, I am going to try and
think about that one...’ (Page 4, line 34).
ignored, rejected or disparaged. (Page 3, line 42 - page 4, line 25).
When I finally manage to explain: ‘No. I am not. I am not making that
leap at all’ (Page 4, line 27) He acknowledges my point with a
dismissive ‘OK’ (page 4, line 29), and then goes on to imply that my
answer is suspect: ‘During the commercial break, I am going to try and
think about that one...’ (Page 4, line 34).
If Edwards had read A City Possessed, he would have known that, in the
social climate of the early ‘90s, a ritual abuse case could have
happened anywhere in New Zealand, but there were aspects of
Christchurch that increased the risk. At that time, Christchurch was a
centre for national initiatives in the investigation and prosecution
of child sexual abuse, and a belief that a phantom paedophile ring was
operating in the city was one of the prevailing urban myths. It was
these factors - examined in depth in A City Possessed (Chap 4 & 5) -
which increased the risk that a mass-allegation, ritual-abuse case
would occur in Christchurch.
social climate of the early ‘90s, a ritual abuse case could have
happened anywhere in New Zealand, but there were aspects of
Christchurch that increased the risk. At that time, Christchurch was a
centre for national initiatives in the investigation and prosecution
of child sexual abuse, and a belief that a phantom paedophile ring was
operating in the city was one of the prevailing urban myths. It was
these factors - examined in depth in A City Possessed (Chap 4 & 5) -
which increased the risk that a mass-allegation, ritual-abuse case
would occur in Christchurch.
Point 5 (page 4, line 39 - page 5, line 1)
In the two years since the publication of A City Possessed, my account
of the court proceedings related to the creche case has been endorsed
by legal authorities nationwide. Futhermore, none of the professionals
whose work is scrutinised in the book have challenged anything I have
written.
In the two years since the publication of A City Possessed, my account
of the court proceedings related to the creche case has been endorsed
by legal authorities nationwide. Futhermore, none of the professionals
whose work is scrutinised in the book have challenged anything I have
written.
Nonetheless, Edwards attempts to discredit my analysis of the trial on
a trivial, and ultimately irrelevant, point. ‘..there is one, it seems
to me, critical piece of information you didn’t have... you were not
present at any of these trials ... You weren’t there.’ (Page 4, line
39-43)
a trivial, and ultimately irrelevant, point. ‘..there is one, it seems
to me, critical piece of information you didn’t have... you were not
present at any of these trials ... You weren’t there.’ (Page 4, line
39-43)
If this argument had any validity, no history would ever get written.
In any event, when I outline the extent of my research (described by
commentators as ‘thorough’, ‘meticulous’ and ‘painstaking’) Edwards is
disparaging: ‘That’s not the same.’ (Page 4, line 47). ‘That is not
the same.’ (Page 5, line 1)
In any event, when I outline the extent of my research (described by
commentators as ‘thorough’, ‘meticulous’ and ‘painstaking’) Edwards is
disparaging: ‘That’s not the same.’ (Page 4, line 47). ‘That is not
the same.’ (Page 5, line 1)
Point 6 (page 5, line 8-27)
One of the messages of A City Possessed is that while lay people can
and do make unsubstantiated allegations, responsibility for the ways
in which these allegations are handled rests with the authorities.
Consequently when I say ‘I also interviewed them all, at length,
everybody involved’ (page 5, line 3 & 8), I have the professionals in
mind.
One of the messages of A City Possessed is that while lay people can
and do make unsubstantiated allegations, responsibility for the ways
in which these allegations are handled rests with the authorities.
Consequently when I say ‘I also interviewed them all, at length,
everybody involved’ (page 5, line 3 & 8), I have the professionals in
mind.
This statement gives Edwards the opportunity for another attack (‘No,
you didn’t’ [line 10]), which he persists with, despite my concession.
you didn’t’ [line 10]), which he persists with, despite my concession.
H: ‘Well, almost everybody.’ (Line 12)
E: ‘No you haven’t. You haven’t interviewed all the parents.’ (Line
14)
E: ‘No you haven’t. You haven’t interviewed all the parents.’ (Line
14)
When I make the entirely reasonable point (‘..that is not my fault. I
gave them every opportunity’ [line 16]) his only response is to repeat
the attack: ‘..nonetheless, you haven’t interviewed all the parents.’
(Line 18)
gave them every opportunity’ [line 16]) his only response is to repeat
the attack: ‘..nonetheless, you haven’t interviewed all the parents.’
(Line 18)
When I list my many sources of information about the experiences and
opinions of the few parents who declined to speak to me, Edwards
ignores my comments and moves on to the next point. When I break in to
add: ‘I have read the book that one of them has written’ (line 27),
his response is a dismissive ‘Oh, all right.’ (Line 29)
opinions of the few parents who declined to speak to me, Edwards
ignores my comments and moves on to the next point. When I break in to
add: ‘I have read the book that one of them has written’ (line 27),
his response is a dismissive ‘Oh, all right.’ (Line 29)
Point 7 (page 5, line 29 - page 6, line 3)
For the remainder of the interview, Edwards is clearly out of his
depth. He has not read A City Possessed. He does not know what he was
talking about. His only response to my comments on the context in
which the offences were said to have occurred is to move on to his
next point, where he again shows his ignorance.
For the remainder of the interview, Edwards is clearly out of his
depth. He has not read A City Possessed. He does not know what he was
talking about. His only response to my comments on the context in
which the offences were said to have occurred is to move on to his
next point, where he again shows his ignorance.
E: ‘... You have I think seven children who say that they were
indecently assaulted... Seven kids say that.’ (Page 6, line 5-7)
indecently assaulted... Seven kids say that.’ (Page 6, line 5-7)
H: ‘One of them retracted completely (line 9) ... she was the oldest
and most credible child (line 13) ... she said she had said those
things because she thought that is what her mother and the interviewer
wanted her to say (line 17-18)
and most credible child (line 13) ... she said she had said those
things because she thought that is what her mother and the interviewer
wanted her to say (line 17-18)
E: ‘Alright, so you have six children who say that Peter Ellis did
these things.’ (Line 20)
these things.’ (Line 20)
H: ‘Well, we’ve only got two who are still saying it as far as we
know.’
know.’
When he finds himself unable to attack my facts, Edwards makes a
pathetic attempt to attack my colloquial use of the English language
when I hypothesize about the mother who organised for the two children
to speak to the media (‘laying money is not a scientific approach’
[line 41]).
pathetic attempt to attack my colloquial use of the English language
when I hypothesize about the mother who organised for the two children
to speak to the media (‘laying money is not a scientific approach’
[line 41]).
Point 8 (page 7, line 35-page 8, line 29)
For this point, Edwards makes a scurrilous allegation: ‘.. another
thing that concerns me about your book is the amount of which you
might call ad hominem attack on people you disagree with in your
book.’ (Page 7, line 35-36).
For this point, Edwards makes a scurrilous allegation: ‘.. another
thing that concerns me about your book is the amount of which you
might call ad hominem attack on people you disagree with in your
book.’ (Page 7, line 35-36).
Had he read A City Possessed, Edwards would know that, where it was
relevant to do so, I described the backgrounds of people involved in
the creche case without fear or favour. I provided a warts and all
description of Peter Ellis. The picture I painted of his lawyer Judith
Ablett Kerr QC is not particularly flattering. The backgrounds of many
of the people whose conduct is called into question in the book are
presented in positive terms. Here are a few examples -
relevant to do so, I described the backgrounds of people involved in
the creche case without fear or favour. I provided a warts and all
description of Peter Ellis. The picture I painted of his lawyer Judith
Ablett Kerr QC is not particularly flattering. The backgrounds of many
of the people whose conduct is called into question in the book are
presented in positive terms. Here are a few examples -
Of John Gray, the official who closed the creche without explanation,
I wrote (A City Possessed, p. 397):
In 1992, John Gray was in his forty-second year as a local body
administrator, and in his nineteenth year as Chief Executive Officer
of of the Christchurch City Council. For his decades of service to
local government and the territorial army he had been awarded an OBE
(Military Division) in 1969, and a CBE (Civil Division) in 1989. When
local body restructuring was introduced in 1989, Gray had more than
4000 employees on his payroll. By the time he retired in 1993, less
than 2000 remained. Throughout the reorganisation, Gray won respect
for his consultative management style and his willingness to front up
when staff were made redundant.
administrator, and in his nineteenth year as Chief Executive Officer
of of the Christchurch City Council. For his decades of service to
local government and the territorial army he had been awarded an OBE
(Military Division) in 1969, and a CBE (Civil Division) in 1989. When
local body restructuring was introduced in 1989, Gray had more than
4000 employees on his payroll. By the time he retired in 1993, less
than 2000 remained. Throughout the reorganisation, Gray won respect
for his consultative management style and his willingness to front up
when staff were made redundant.
Of Justice Neil Williamson, judge at the trial of Peter Ellis, I wrote
(A City Possessed, p. 459):
Williamson was admitted to the bar in 1961, and became a partner in
Raymond Donnelly & Co in 1965. He was appointed Crown Solicitor in
1968, and the the High Court Bench in 1985. He was well-liked and
well-respected in Christchurch, both as a judge and as a member of the
community.
‘I’d appeared before him in a couple of civil cases. I knew him to be
fair,’ Rob Harrison [counsel for Ellis] observed.
Williamson’s greatest strength, and his greatest weakness, was his
concern for the interests of children. In his years as Crown Solicitor
he worked closely with Dr Karen Zelas on child protection issues. In
his private life, he often brought needy children into his family
home. When he died suddenly in 1996, liberal theologian Father Jim
Consedine told the thousand people who gathered for his requiem mass
that Williamson would be remembered as a man who lived by his Catholic
faith.
Raymond Donnelly & Co in 1965. He was appointed Crown Solicitor in
1968, and the the High Court Bench in 1985. He was well-liked and
well-respected in Christchurch, both as a judge and as a member of the
community.
‘I’d appeared before him in a couple of civil cases. I knew him to be
fair,’ Rob Harrison [counsel for Ellis] observed.
Williamson’s greatest strength, and his greatest weakness, was his
concern for the interests of children. In his years as Crown Solicitor
he worked closely with Dr Karen Zelas on child protection issues. In
his private life, he often brought needy children into his family
home. When he died suddenly in 1996, liberal theologian Father Jim
Consedine told the thousand people who gathered for his requiem mass
that Williamson would be remembered as a man who lived by his Catholic
faith.
Of Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, who conducted a ministerial inquiry into the
Ellis case, I wrote (A City Possessed, p. 603-4):
In his choice of inquiry head, Phil Goff could not have appointed a
more authoritative jurist. Thomas Eichelbaum graduated in law from
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, in 1954. He was
appointed Queens Counsel in 1978, to the High Court bench in 1982, and
Chief Justice in 1989. In the latter role he also presided in the
Criminal Appeal Division of the Court of Appeal. As a barrister
Eichelbaum appeared as counsel in a number of Commissions of Inquiry.
Following his retirement in 1999 he served on two Ministerial
Inquiries and chaired a Royal Commission. During Sir Thomas’s ten
years as Chief Justice, the laws relating to child sexual abuse were
changed, child sexual abuse convictions escalated and controversy over
the investigation and prosecution of the Christchurch Civic Creche
case raged nationwide.
more authoritative jurist. Thomas Eichelbaum graduated in law from
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, in 1954. He was
appointed Queens Counsel in 1978, to the High Court bench in 1982, and
Chief Justice in 1989. In the latter role he also presided in the
Criminal Appeal Division of the Court of Appeal. As a barrister
Eichelbaum appeared as counsel in a number of Commissions of Inquiry.
Following his retirement in 1999 he served on two Ministerial
Inquiries and chaired a Royal Commission. During Sir Thomas’s ten
years as Chief Justice, the laws relating to child sexual abuse were
changed, child sexual abuse convictions escalated and controversy over
the investigation and prosecution of the Christchurch Civic Creche
case raged nationwide.
Of my description of the background of Dr Karen Zelas, Edwards
alleges, with reckless disregard for the facts: ‘..you actually go
through all the letters she’s got after her name. All her
qualifications, and you dismiss them one by one. You say well this is
nothing, that is nothing, that doesn’t mean anything.’ (page 7, line
41-44). Then he compounds the injustice by giving me no opportunity to
respond before proceeding to accuse me, equally unjustly, of making
personal attacks on the parents. (Page 7, line 47 - page 8, line 3).
Because Dr Zelas played a central role in the Ellis case, I provided a
detailed account of her career and her reputation in A City Possessed
(p. 120-121). Of her reputation, I wrote:
detailed account of her career and her reputation in A City Possessed
(p. 120-121). Of her reputation, I wrote:
In a 1994 Court of Appeal test case on sentencing for incest, the
court commissioned its own report from Dr Zelas (‘a leading consultant
psychiatrist in the field in New Zealand’) and received oral evidence
from her. In his 24-page judgment, Sir Robin Cooke mentioned Zelas
approvingly 20 times, and quoted extensively from her submission.
In 1996, a judge told me: ‘She’s extremely able ... Her qualifications
run to about three pages ... She is regarded as one of the authorities
in the field of sexual abuse and child abuse in New Zealand ... She’s
published a lot of research ...’
court commissioned its own report from Dr Zelas (‘a leading consultant
psychiatrist in the field in New Zealand’) and received oral evidence
from her. In his 24-page judgment, Sir Robin Cooke mentioned Zelas
approvingly 20 times, and quoted extensively from her submission.
In 1996, a judge told me: ‘She’s extremely able ... Her qualifications
run to about three pages ... She is regarded as one of the authorities
in the field of sexual abuse and child abuse in New Zealand ... She’s
published a lot of research ...’
As part of my research, I checked Dr Zelas’s qualifications and
research history. I found that she had conducted no research, and that
the letters after her name did not mean as much as the judiciary
seemed to believe. I reported my findings dispassionately. In no way
can anything I have written about Dr Zelas be regarded as an ad
hominem attack.
As with the professionals, where the backgrounds of creche parents
were relevant to their involvement in the case, I described their
backgrounds without fear or favour. A City Possessed contains brief
accounts of the backgrounds and life histories of many key parents on
both sides of the case. In the course of my research, I discovered
that the mother who sparked the creche inquiry had a history of mental
instability, and had made sexual abuse allegations against many men in
her life. Furthermore, a few months after accusing Peter Ellis, she
accused another male childcare worker at another creche of abusing her
son. I also discovered that the child who made the most bizarre
allegations came from a deeply dysfunctional family. In so far as this
information was accurate and relevant, I included it in the book.
Edwards’ allegation that I made ad hominem attacks on these or any
other parents is without foundation.
were relevant to their involvement in the case, I described their
backgrounds without fear or favour. A City Possessed contains brief
accounts of the backgrounds and life histories of many key parents on
both sides of the case. In the course of my research, I discovered
that the mother who sparked the creche inquiry had a history of mental
instability, and had made sexual abuse allegations against many men in
her life. Furthermore, a few months after accusing Peter Ellis, she
accused another male childcare worker at another creche of abusing her
son. I also discovered that the child who made the most bizarre
allegations came from a deeply dysfunctional family. In so far as this
information was accurate and relevant, I included it in the book.
Edwards’ allegation that I made ad hominem attacks on these or any
other parents is without foundation.
|
On 12 Sep 2003 14:30:47 -0700, dav...@iprolink.co.nz (David
McLoughlin) wrote:
McLoughlin) wrote:
>Brian wrote:
- show quoted text -
I do not agree with you.
Nik
|
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>Had I been given the opportunity, I would have pointed out that, as
>with my work on Minnie Dean (the only woman hanged for murder in New
>Zealand), I distinguished between the moral panic surrounding her case
>on the one hand, and the facts of her case on the other. A century on
>from the Dean case, I was able to examine the evidence closely and
>conclude that Minnie had indeed killed one of the babies she was
>accused of murdering. I examined the evidence in the creche case even
>more closely (including evidence not presented in court). If there was
>any reliable evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by anyone accused in
>the case, there was a high likelihood that I would have found it, and
>a certainty that I would have written about it.
[ Other two NZ groups snipped, nz.general set for followups ]
>On 12 Sep 2003 14:30:47 -0700, dav...@iprolink.co.nz (David
>McLoughlin) wrote:
>>> Broadcaster Brian Edwards has been accused of ambushing Christchurch
>>> Civic Creche case campaigner Lynley Hood in a hostile television
>>> interview.
>>Am I the only one who thinks this woman doth protest too much?
>
>McLoughlin) wrote:
>>> Broadcaster Brian Edwards has been accused of ambushing Christchurch
>>> Civic Creche case campaigner Lynley Hood in a hostile television
>>> interview.
>>Am I the only one who thinks this woman doth protest too much?
>
>But instead of simply dismissing her arguments, why don't you go
>through Hood's analysis of the interview and ARGUE THE ISSUES that
>she raises?
>
>Her complaint, including her analysis of the transcript is on
>www.peterellis.org.nz. The analysis is shown below.
>through Hood's analysis of the interview and ARGUE THE ISSUES that
>she raises?
>
>Her complaint, including her analysis of the transcript is on
>www.peterellis.org.nz. The analysis is shown below.
Giant snip...
>Had I been given the opportunity, I would have pointed out that, as
>with my work on Minnie Dean (the only woman hanged for murder in New
>Zealand), I distinguished between the moral panic surrounding her case
>on the one hand, and the facts of her case on the other. A century on
>from the Dean case, I was able to examine the evidence closely and
>conclude that Minnie had indeed killed one of the babies she was
>accused of murdering. I examined the evidence in the creche case even
>more closely (including evidence not presented in court). If there was
>any reliable evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by anyone accused in
>the case, there was a high likelihood that I would have found it, and
>a certainty that I would have written about it.
I don't know Ms Hood's skills, but from the above abstract I conclude:-
- she's an expert forensic and crimimal investigator.
- prepared to validate decisions made decades ago after examining
" the evidence " ( seances anyone? - some of the witnesses for the Minnie
Dean case probably have died, so their evidence is no longer available,
other than what is recorded in the court and police files ).
- "evidence not presented in court" can mean anything, including totally
irrelevant information.
- she's omnipotent and always correct.
I'm not sure how any of this closely relates to defects in the Edwards
interview, when he chose to focus on a couple of apparently strange claims
in her book.
- she's an expert forensic and crimimal investigator.
- prepared to validate decisions made decades ago after examining
" the evidence " ( seances anyone? - some of the witnesses for the Minnie
Dean case probably have died, so their evidence is no longer available,
other than what is recorded in the court and police files ).
- "evidence not presented in court" can mean anything, including totally
irrelevant information.
- she's omnipotent and always correct.
I'm not sure how any of this closely relates to defects in the Edwards
interview, when he chose to focus on a couple of apparently strange claims
in her book.
Bruce Hamilton
|
dav...@iprolink.co.nz (David McLoughlin) wrote in message news:<aaf3c914.0309121330.
- show quoted text -
Aren't you one of the most trenchant critics of this whole ludicrous
false accusation and corrupt prosecution? Why on earth would you
write such a contemptuous, dismissive and frivolous comment about
Lynley Hood?
false accusation and corrupt prosecution? Why on earth would you
write such a contemptuous, dismissive and frivolous comment about
Lynley Hood?
|
In article <3f612f32...@news.
pet...@parazzdise.net.nz (Peter) wrote:
> I wondered if Lynley was muttering 'creep' under her breath as she
> left the studio.
pet...@parazzdise.net.nz (Peter) wrote:
> I wondered if Lynley was muttering 'creep' under her breath as she
> left the studio.
What most disgusted me about that interview was the cowardice on display
by Edwards when he asked Hood what would satisfy "people like you." What
does that mean? What sort of people, exactly? Why won't he tell us? The
implication is that there is something so awful about such people that
he won't even stoop to identify who or what they are (People who like
paedophiles? People who don't care about victims of sexual abuse?)
by Edwards when he asked Hood what would satisfy "people like you." What
does that mean? What sort of people, exactly? Why won't he tell us? The
implication is that there is something so awful about such people that
he won't even stoop to identify who or what they are (People who like
paedophiles? People who don't care about victims of sexual abuse?)
|
On 13 Sep 2003 01:59:34 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Perhaps someone should organise her to respond to the book that HAD to
be written because we have sunk into third world justice as well as
socially.
Fears *
Breen) wrote:
- show quoted text -
He would rather defend the trainer of the woman who lunched a thousand
to get supporters compared to the one who launched a protest against
the injustice of false accusations and the arrogance of Helen Clarke's
Minister of Injustice.
When the public have to revolt against tryanny and injustice it shows
that we have descended to the depths of the third world that allows
the rich and the arrogant to abuse the defenceless.
Phil Goff and Helen Clarke are now inflicting abuse on the innocent.
Children or the falsely accused - it does not matter, their abuse goes
on.
We indeed have the best Politicians that our tax money can buy.
We need politicians that have not been brought by money.
Jan Buckingham paid the price for those who denied justice, how many
have to suffer the same fate, or does Helen Clarke and her mate Goff
intend to wait until it is 'appropriate' to give out posthumous
apologies.
This action no doubt would be applauded by Marian Hobbs and her
selected counsellor who was snotted twice at court success at the
falsely accused.
Fears for the health of our justice system. *
to get supporters compared to the one who launched a protest against
the injustice of false accusations and the arrogance of Helen Clarke's
Minister of Injustice.
When the public have to revolt against tryanny and injustice it shows
that we have descended to the depths of the third world that allows
the rich and the arrogant to abuse the defenceless.
Phil Goff and Helen Clarke are now inflicting abuse on the innocent.
Children or the falsely accused - it does not matter, their abuse goes
on.
We indeed have the best Politicians that our tax money can buy.
We need politicians that have not been brought by money.
Jan Buckingham paid the price for those who denied justice, how many
have to suffer the same fate, or does Helen Clarke and her mate Goff
intend to wait until it is 'appropriate' to give out posthumous
apologies.
This action no doubt would be applauded by Marian Hobbs and her
selected counsellor who was snotted twice at court success at the
falsely accused.
Fears for the health of our justice system. *
Perhaps someone should organise her to respond to the book that HAD to
be written because we have sunk into third world justice as well as
socially.
Fears *
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:13:47 +1200, Bruce Hamilton
<B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
Bruce Hamilton's reply is repeated with newsgroups he has removed
reinstated.
reinstated.
Bruce Hamilton may consider the issue is not political, but the case
of Peter Ellis is inextricably linked with current new zealand
politics.
of Peter Ellis is inextricably linked with current new zealand
politics.
Bruce Hamilton may consider the issue is not a queer issue, but the
case of Peter Ellis is inextricably linked with issues of homophobia
at the time that Peter was arrested and convicted.
case of Peter Ellis is inextricably linked with issues of homophobia
at the time that Peter was arrested and convicted.
- show quoted text -
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:13:47 +1200, Bruce Hamilton
<B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
<B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
>I don't know Ms Hood's skills, but from the above abstract I conclude:-
>- she's an expert forensic and crimimal investigator.
Hood makes no claim to be a forensic and criminal investigator. There
are plenty of people that would claim that by publishing her book that
she is an excellent investigative writer. She has even received a
high academic award as a recognition of the scholarly nature of her
work.
are plenty of people that would claim that by publishing her book that
she is an excellent investigative writer. She has even received a
high academic award as a recognition of the scholarly nature of her
work.
>- prepared to validate decisions made decades ago after examining
>" the evidence " ( seances anyone? - some of the witnesses for the Minnie
>Dean case probably have died, so their evidence is no longer available,
>other than what is recorded in the court and police files ).
Your smart and sneering tone ("seances" anyone?) would suggest that
examination of the issues long after the events can never be done.
examination of the issues long after the events can never be done.
Moral panics and hysteria can not easily be taken into account at the
time they occur. We should have learned from the hanging at Salem.
Plenty of injustice has been recognised with the benefit of hindsight
- but it was little good to Evans, hung many years before.
time they occur. We should have learned from the hanging at Salem.
Plenty of injustice has been recognised with the benefit of hindsight
- but it was little good to Evans, hung many years before.
Of course, it would be much better to have all of the witnesses in
person - and I hope for that reason that the injustice done to Ellis
does not have to wait until this crop of politicians are gone, before
it can be more closely examined.
person - and I hope for that reason that the injustice done to Ellis
does not have to wait until this crop of politicians are gone, before
it can be more closely examined.
>- "evidence not presented in court" can mean anything, including totally
>irrelevant information.
>irrelevant information.
No. It cannot mean anything. The word evidence suggests that it is
not irrelevant.
not irrelevant.
Of course evidence presented _can_ be considered as irrelevant by the
jury. But anybody presenting "evidence" is suggesting that it is
relevant.
jury. But anybody presenting "evidence" is suggesting that it is
relevant.
Hood's book has been published now for a long time. And of any
criticism it has received, irrelevancy has never been a factor - that
is until Edwards seized upon the "flatness" of Christchurch, and like
a dog with a bone, never let go.
criticism it has received, irrelevancy has never been a factor - that
is until Edwards seized upon the "flatness" of Christchurch, and like
a dog with a bone, never let go.
>- she's omnipotent and always correct.
And here you simply show your bias and prejudice.
Attack the person, and not the evidence.
Attack the person, and not the evidence.
It's amateur politician stuff.
Too few New Zealanders understand science, I fear.
irl ?? !!!!
Too few New Zealanders understand science, I fear.
irl ?? !!!!
>I'm not sure how any of this closely relates to defects in the Edwards
>interview, when he chose to focus on a couple of apparently strange claims
>in her book.
Think about the relationship between the first part of your sentence
and the last part, and you may gain some clues. There are plenty of
clues elsewhere.
and the last part, and you may gain some clues. There are plenty of
clues elsewhere.
I think that the real issue behind the Edwards interview is the
political influence that went on that shaped the way the interview
went. We have Edwards actually _supporting_ Hood's petition until
just before the interview, and then an about face (supposedly from
"unease after a second reading of A City Possessed).
I guess it will be "watch this space" as the answers to Brash's
questions in Parliament are scheduled for reply by Goff on the 19
September.
questions in Parliament are scheduled for reply by Goff on the 19
September.
Brian
|
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote
> Aren't you one of the most trenchant critics of this whole ludicrous
> false accusation and corrupt prosecution?
Yes.
Nothing happened at the Civic, but the children and their parents
genuinely believed what was claimed.
> Aren't you one of the most trenchant critics of this whole ludicrous
> false accusation and corrupt prosecution?
Yes.
> Why on earth would you
> write such a contemptuous, dismissive and frivolous comment about
> Lynley Hood?
> write such a contemptuous, dismissive and frivolous comment about
> Lynley Hood?
Perhaps because I know this case inside out and I don't like seeing
children being attacked like this.
children being attacked like this.
I have met many of these people. I do not doubt their integrity. Like
Peter and Gaye and the other falsely-accused Civic workers, I do not
call them liars or label them "the sex abuse industry." That went
beyond the pale for me.
Peter and Gaye and the other falsely-accused Civic workers, I do not
call them liars or label them "the sex abuse industry." That went
beyond the pale for me.
Nothing happened at the Civic, but the children and their parents
genuinely believed what was claimed.
|
On 13 Sep 2003 18:03:32 -0700, dav...@iprolink.co.nz (David
McLoughlin) wrote:
You keep repeating this assertion.
McLoughlin) wrote:
>morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote
>
>
>> Aren't you one of the most trenchant critics of this whole ludicrous
>> false accusation and corrupt prosecution?
>
>
>Yes.
>
>> Why on earth would you
>> write such a contemptuous, dismissive and frivolous comment about
>> Lynley Hood?
>
>Perhaps because I know this case inside out and I don't like seeing
>children being attacked like this.
>
>I have met many of these people. I do not doubt their integrity. Like
>Peter and Gaye and the other falsely-accused Civic workers, I do not
>call them liars or label them "the sex abuse industry." That went
>beyond the pale for me.
>
>
>> Aren't you one of the most trenchant critics of this whole ludicrous
>> false accusation and corrupt prosecution?
>
>
>Yes.
>
>> Why on earth would you
>> write such a contemptuous, dismissive and frivolous comment about
>> Lynley Hood?
>
>Perhaps because I know this case inside out and I don't like seeing
>children being attacked like this.
>
>I have met many of these people. I do not doubt their integrity. Like
>Peter and Gaye and the other falsely-accused Civic workers, I do not
>call them liars or label them "the sex abuse industry." That went
>beyond the pale for me.
You keep repeating this assertion.
As far as I am aware, it is untrue. I too, like Morrissey Breen,
wonder why you would write such contemptuous comment about
Lynley Hood?
wonder why you would write such contemptuous comment about
Lynley Hood?
Please provide the evidence for your accusation.
Brian
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:19:03 +1200, Redbaiter <do...@email.me> wrote:
>would have rejected this offer, and any they did would at least
>have retained some credibility.
Brian
>David McLoughlin says...
>>
>> Nothing happened at the Civic, but the children and their parents
>> genuinely believed what was claimed.
>>
>They took money for their testimony. Anyone who really cared>> Nothing happened at the Civic, but the children and their parents
>> genuinely believed what was claimed.
>>
>would have rejected this offer, and any they did would at least
>have retained some credibility.
I'm sure that what David McLoughlin said is right, in that the parents
who had children who testified, genuinely believed that their children
were abused.
who had children who testified, genuinely believed that their children
were abused.
As far as that is true, I do not agree with your statement that
"anyone who really cared would have rejected (the ACC $10,000)"
"anyone who really cared would have rejected (the ACC $10,000)"
The fact that money can induce some fraudulent to make claims, is
another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
The fact that parents were victims of believing their children had
been abused, is largely as a result of the growing sex abuse industry
of the time: The large numbers of counsellors, therapists etc who
derived their income from sex abuse, and forcefully ignored concerns
that some accusations may indeed be false.
been abused, is largely as a result of the growing sex abuse industry
of the time: The large numbers of counsellors, therapists etc who
derived their income from sex abuse, and forcefully ignored concerns
that some accusations may indeed be false.
That sex abuse industry still thrives. I had thought that the
nonsense had largely stopped - based on the dwindling reports of false
accusations. But I found different from one evening attending a
public meeting on sex abuse in June. Scary stuff. A good cause - an
excellent cause - but without restraint.
nonsense had largely stopped - based on the dwindling reports of false
accusations. But I found different from one evening attending a
public meeting on sex abuse in June. Scary stuff. A good cause - an
excellent cause - but without restraint.
The sex abuse industry now largely follows public opinion, thank
goodness, rather than in leading it.
goodness, rather than in leading it.
>When people are financially rewarded to give evidence, the whole
>case becomes unavoidably tainted.
>case becomes unavoidably tainted.
They were not financially rewarded to give evidence. The ACC paid
money to many more families than those that had children who
testified.
money to many more families than those that had children who
testified.
Brian
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:53:48 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:19:03 +1200, Redbaiter <do...@email.me> wrote:
>
>>David McLoughlin says...
>
>>>
>>> Nothing happened at the Civic, but the children and their parents
>>> genuinely believed what was claimed.
>>>
>>They took money for their testimony. Anyone who really cared
>>would have rejected this offer, and any they did would at least
>>have retained some credibility.
>
>I'm sure that what David McLoughlin said is right, in that the parents
>who had children who testified, genuinely believed that their children
>were abused.
>
>As far as that is true, I do not agree with your statement that
>"anyone who really cared would have rejected (the ACC $10,000)"
>
>The fact that money can induce some fraudulent to make claims, is
>another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
>motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
>
>>David McLoughlin says...
>
>>>
>>> Nothing happened at the Civic, but the children and their parents
>>> genuinely believed what was claimed.
>>>
>>They took money for their testimony. Anyone who really cared
>>would have rejected this offer, and any they did would at least
>>have retained some credibility.
>
>I'm sure that what David McLoughlin said is right, in that the parents
>who had children who testified, genuinely believed that their children
>were abused.
>
>As far as that is true, I do not agree with your statement that
>"anyone who really cared would have rejected (the ACC $10,000)"
>
>The fact that money can induce some fraudulent to make claims, is
>another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
>motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
Whoops.
Page 199.
Brian
|
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>> ... A century on from the Dean case, I was able to examine the
>>- she's omnipotent and always correct.
>And here you simply show your bias and prejudice.
>Attack the person, and not the evidence.
>>I'm not sure how any of this closely relates to defects in the Edwards
>>interview, when he chose to focus on a couple of apparently strange claims
>>in her book.
>Think about the relationship between the first part of your sentence
>and the last part, and you may gain some clues. There are plenty of
>clues elsewhere.
>I think that the real issue behind the Edwards interview is the
>political influence that went on that shaped the way the interview
>went.
nz.general only, followups set again. Continue your abuse of Usenet if
you wish, but it will be without my help. Usenet guidances are quite
explicit, post to the minimal number of groups.
you wish, but it will be without my help. Usenet guidances are quite
explicit, post to the minimal number of groups.
Peter Ellis's biggest hurdle for review may no longer be convincing the
public that an injustice has occurred, but the intransigent and
ill-considered behaviour of his "supporters" alienating those people
who worry about the apparent fragility of the case against him, and
believe that an injustice may have occured.
public that an injustice has occurred, but the intransigent and
ill-considered behaviour of his "supporters" alienating those people
who worry about the apparent fragility of the case against him, and
believe that an injustice may have occured.
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:13:47 +1200, Bruce Hamilton
><B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
>>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:><B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
>>> ... A century on from the Dean case, I was able to examine the
>>> evidence closely and conclude that Minnie had indeed killed one
>>> of the babies she was accused of murdering.
>>> of the babies she was accused of murdering.
>>I don't know Ms Hood's skills, but from the above abstract I conclude:-
>>- she's an expert forensic and crimimal investigator.
>Hood makes no claim to be a forensic and criminal investigator.
>>- she's an expert forensic and crimimal investigator.
>Hood makes no claim to be a forensic and criminal investigator.
Really?. How did she arrive at the above "conclusion" then?.
>>- prepared to validate decisions made decades ago after examining
>>" the evidence " ( seances anyone? - some of the witnesses for the Minnie
>>Dean case probably have died, so their evidence is no longer available,
>>other than what is recorded in the court and police files ).
>Your smart and sneering tone ("seances" anyone?) would suggest that
>examination of the issues long after the events can never be done.
>>" the evidence " ( seances anyone? - some of the witnesses for the Minnie
>>Dean case probably have died, so their evidence is no longer available,
>>other than what is recorded in the court and police files ).
>Your smart and sneering tone ("seances" anyone?) would suggest that
>examination of the issues long after the events can never be done.
My tone suggested nothing of the sort. Your response placed
an invalid interpretation on my conclusion. Stick, wrong end.
an invalid interpretation on my conclusion. Stick, wrong end.
Forensic Science is all about piecing together the past. The late Stephen
Jay Gould was an expert practitioner of forensic science from events
millions of years in the past, as well as events only decades old.
Jay Gould was an expert practitioner of forensic science from events
millions of years in the past, as well as events only decades old.
>>- "evidence not presented in court" can mean anything, including totally
>>irrelevant information.
>No. It cannot mean anything. The word evidence suggests that it is
>not irrelevant.
>>irrelevant information.
>No. It cannot mean anything. The word evidence suggests that it is
>not irrelevant.
Not in my world. Evidence has several meanings, including the basis for belief
or disbelief, making something obvious, and the means of proving or disproving
an alleged fact during judicial proceedings.
or disbelief, making something obvious, and the means of proving or disproving
an alleged fact during judicial proceedings.
The electric law library lexicon.... http://www.lectlaw.com/def/
defines evidence as " In law, various things presented in court for the purpose
of proving or disproving a question under inquiry...."
defines evidence as " In law, various things presented in court for the purpose
of proving or disproving a question under inquiry...."
The point I was making above was that evidence can be qualified further as
relevant ( material ) or irrelevant ( immaterial ) to the specific issue under
consideration. Calling something " evidence not presented in court " doesn't
confer any credibility on that item - because it has not been tested and
reviewed in court as being relevant to the issues of concern.
relevant ( material ) or irrelevant ( immaterial ) to the specific issue under
consideration. Calling something " evidence not presented in court " doesn't
confer any credibility on that item - because it has not been tested and
reviewed in court as being relevant to the issues of concern.
>>- she's omnipotent and always correct.
>And here you simply show your bias and prejudice.
>Attack the person, and not the evidence.
Hey, *you* provided her self-satisfied quote above "able to conclude that"
What about other people who may have reviewed the same evidence and
came to a different conclusion?. You posted the 400 lines of her
complaint, I waded through it on a rainy afternoon, and posted my
comment - that's Usenet.
What about other people who may have reviewed the same evidence and
came to a different conclusion?. You posted the 400 lines of her
complaint, I waded through it on a rainy afternoon, and posted my
comment - that's Usenet.
Her prior history on the Minnie Dean case appears no more relevant
to the complaint than would be Brian Edwards' historical roles
as broadcaster and radio talkback host.
to the complaint than would be Brian Edwards' historical roles
as broadcaster and radio talkback host.
With regard to the issue of attacking the person, what of the labelling
of the Peter Ellis complainants and their supporters as " liars " and
" sex abuse industry "?. These people, for whatever reason, presumably
believe their claims, and have convinced juries of the validity of their
complaints. " Liar " implies they know what they claim is wrong, and I've
seen no evidence of that.
of the Peter Ellis complainants and their supporters as " liars " and
" sex abuse industry "?. These people, for whatever reason, presumably
believe their claims, and have convinced juries of the validity of their
complaints. " Liar " implies they know what they claim is wrong, and I've
seen no evidence of that.
>>I'm not sure how any of this closely relates to defects in the Edwards
>>interview, when he chose to focus on a couple of apparently strange claims
>>in her book.
>Think about the relationship between the first part of your sentence
>and the last part, and you may gain some clues. There are plenty of
>clues elsewhere.
No, there aren't. He focussed on some apparent statements that appeared
strange to him, such as the flatness of christchurch and her claim that
she wrote the book with an open mind, and badgered her for a meaningful
explanation.
strange to him, such as the flatness of christchurch and her claim that
she wrote the book with an open mind, and badgered her for a meaningful
explanation.
Where does Minnie Dean fit into the complaint, other than as a
tenuous claim for credibility by Lynley Hood?.
tenuous claim for credibility by Lynley Hood?.
>I think that the real issue behind the Edwards interview is the
>political influence that went on that shaped the way the interview
>went.
Nowhere do I recall reading in the complaint that there was political
influence exerted on Dr Brian Edwards. Are you making this up as
you go along?. I don't think such claims will help Peter Ellis one
iota.
influence exerted on Dr Brian Edwards. Are you making this up as
you go along?. I don't think such claims will help Peter Ellis one
iota.
> We have Edwards actually _supporting_ Hood's petition until
>just before the interview, and then an about face (supposedly from
>"unease after a second reading of A City Possessed).
>just before the interview, and then an about face (supposedly from
>"unease after a second reading of A City Possessed).
Note that in the complaint you posted, Lynley Hood says several times
( of Dr Edwards )" Had he read A City Possessed ". If Dr Edwards has
read it at least once..
( of Dr Edwards )" Had he read A City Possessed ". If Dr Edwards has
read it at least once..
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the complaint, but it
has little relevance to the fundamental legal issues of the apparent
fragility of the case against Peter Ellis.
has little relevance to the fundamental legal issues of the apparent
fragility of the case against Peter Ellis.
Bruce Hamilton
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:03:07 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
>>As far as that is true, I do not agree with your statement that
>>"anyone who really cared would have rejected (the ACC $10,000)"
>>
>>The fact that money can induce some fraudulent to make claims, is
>>another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
>>motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
>
>
>Whoops.
>
>Page 199.
>
>Brian
<snip>
>>As far as that is true, I do not agree with your statement that
>>"anyone who really cared would have rejected (the ACC $10,000)"
>>
>>The fact that money can induce some fraudulent to make claims, is
>>another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
>>motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
>
>
>Whoops.
>
>Page 199.
>
>Brian
Care to explain Page 199. Brian?
Cheers
Rich
Rich
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:25:00 +1200, Bruce Hamilton
<B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:13:47 +1200, Bruce Hamilton
>><B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
>>>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> ... A century on from the Dean case, I was able to examine the
>>>> evidence closely and conclude that Minnie had indeed killed one
>>>> of the babies she was accused of murdering.
>>>I don't know Ms Hood's skills, but from the above abstract I conclude:-
>>>- she's an expert forensic and crimimal investigator.
>>Hood makes no claim to be a forensic and criminal investigator.
>
>Really?. How did she arrive at the above "conclusion" then?.
>Forensic Science is all about piecing together the past. The late Stephen
>Jay Gould was an expert practitioner of forensic science from events
>millions of years in the past, as well as events only decades old.
>>>- "evidence not presented in court" can mean anything, including totally
>>>irrelevant information.
>The electric law library lexicon.... http://www.lectlaw.com/def/
>defines evidence as " In law, various things presented in court for the purpose
>of proving or disproving a question under inquiry...."
>
>The point I was making above was that evidence can be qualified further as
>relevant ( material ) or irrelevant ( immaterial ) to the specific issue under
>consideration. Calling something " evidence not presented in court " doesn't
>confer any credibility on that item - because it has not been tested and
>reviewed in court as being relevant to the issues of concern.
And the new evidence, published on www.peterellis.org.nz outlining
Zelas opinions to the police. It sure was never tested in a court of
law. The defence was never aware that it existed. It's interesting
that Frank Haden is the only person to have publicly referred to that
evidence. Goff's "supporters" are staying very quiet.
>>>- she's omnipotent and always correct.
>You posted the 400 lines of her complaint,
>I waded through it on a rainy afternoon, and posted my
>comment - that's Usenet.
>Her prior history on the Minnie Dean case appears no more relevant
>to the complaint than would be Brian Edwards' historical roles
>as broadcaster and radio talkback host.
>
>With regard to the issue of attacking the person, what of the labelling
>of the Peter Ellis complainants and their supporters as " liars " and
>" sex abuse industry "?.
>These people, for whatever reason, presumably
>>>I'm not sure how any of this closely relates to defects in the Edwards
>>>interview, when he chose to focus on a couple of apparently strange claims
>>>in her book.
>>Think about the relationship between the first part of your sentence
>>and the last part, and you may gain some clues. There are plenty of
>>clues elsewhere.
>
>No, there aren't. He focussed on some apparent statements that appeared
>strange to him, such as the flatness of christchurch and her claim that
>she wrote the book with an open mind, and badgered her for a meaningful
>explanation.
>
>Where does Minnie Dean fit into the complaint, other than as a
>tenuous claim for credibility by Lynley Hood?.
>
>>I think that the real issue behind the Edwards interview is the
>>political influence that went on that shaped the way the interview
>>went.
>
>Nowhere do I recall reading in the complaint that there was political
>influence exerted on Dr Brian Edwards. Are you making this up as
>you go along?.
Making it up? You wish.
> I don't think such claims will help Peter Ellis one
> iota.
You may have been better to say "in my opinion it has little relevance
....."
<B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>nz.general only, followups set again. Continue your abuse of Usenet if
>you wish, but it will be without my help. Usenet guidances are quite
>explicit, post to the minimal number of groups.
>
>nz.general only, followups set again. Continue your abuse of Usenet if
>you wish, but it will be without my help. Usenet guidances are quite
>explicit, post to the minimal number of groups.
I always post only to relevant groups.
>Peter Ellis's biggest hurdle for review may no longer be convincing the
>public that an injustice has occurred, but the intransigent and
>ill-considered behaviour of his "supporters" alienating those people
>who worry about the apparent fragility of the case against him, and
>believe that an injustice may have occured.
>public that an injustice has occurred, but the intransigent and
>ill-considered behaviour of his "supporters" alienating those people
>who worry about the apparent fragility of the case against him, and
>believe that an injustice may have occured.
And how exactly do you think that supporters of Ellis should
compromise, Bruce? Agree that he is just a little guilty perhaps?
Yeah right.
compromise, Bruce? Agree that he is just a little guilty perhaps?
Yeah right.
There are a lot of people who think that Ellis' supporters display
ill-considered behaviour. They're mostly associated with the
counsellors etc who are fighting for their professional reputation
with regard to the Ellis case.
ill-considered behaviour. They're mostly associated with the
counsellors etc who are fighting for their professional reputation
with regard to the Ellis case.
But it's nice of you to set the tone of your reply. Smart stuff -
labels of intransigence and ill-considered behaviour. No specific
examples - but that would spoil the effect, wouldn't it?
labels of intransigence and ill-considered behaviour. No specific
examples - but that would spoil the effect, wouldn't it?
What you say is entirely untrue, anyway. I've watched the support for
Ellis growing on an exponential curve. There is far too much at stake
for too many reasons than for support to suddenly stop, because
somebody such as yourself resorts to ad hominem attacking of Ellis'
supporters. It's silly as well to label suppoters as if they are a
definable group. They're probably over half the population by now.
Ellis growing on an exponential curve. There is far too much at stake
for too many reasons than for support to suddenly stop, because
somebody such as yourself resorts to ad hominem attacking of Ellis'
supporters. It's silly as well to label suppoters as if they are a
definable group. They're probably over half the population by now.
>
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:13:47 +1200, Bruce Hamilton
>><B.Ha...@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
>>>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> ... A century on from the Dean case, I was able to examine the
>>>> evidence closely and conclude that Minnie had indeed killed one
>>>> of the babies she was accused of murdering.
>>>I don't know Ms Hood's skills, but from the above abstract I conclude:-
>>>- she's an expert forensic and crimimal investigator.
>>Hood makes no claim to be a forensic and criminal investigator.
>
>Really?. How did she arrive at the above "conclusion" then?.
Read what you snipped.
>>>- prepared to validate decisions made decades ago after examining
>>>" the evidence " ( seances anyone? - some of the witnesses for the Minnie
>>>Dean case probably have died, so their evidence is no longer available,
>>>other than what is recorded in the court and police files ).
>>>" the evidence " ( seances anyone? - some of the witnesses for the Minnie
>>>Dean case probably have died, so their evidence is no longer available,
>>>other than what is recorded in the court and police files ).
>>Your smart and sneering tone ("seances" anyone?) would suggest that
>>examination of the issues long after the events can never be done.
>
>My tone suggested nothing of the sort. Your response placed
>an invalid interpretation on my conclusion. Stick, wrong end.
>>examination of the issues long after the events can never be done.
>
>My tone suggested nothing of the sort. Your response placed
>an invalid interpretation on my conclusion. Stick, wrong end.
Seances anyone?
>Forensic Science is all about piecing together the past. The late Stephen
>Jay Gould was an expert practitioner of forensic science from events
>millions of years in the past, as well as events only decades old.
The late Robert Muldoon was Prime Minister of New Zealand.
>>>- "evidence not presented in court" can mean anything, including totally
>>>irrelevant information.
>>No. It cannot mean anything. The word evidence suggests that it is
>>not irrelevant.
>
>Not in my world. Evidence has several meanings, including the basis for belief
>or disbelief, making something obvious, and the means of proving or disproving
>an alleged fact during judicial proceedings.
>>not irrelevant.
>
>Not in my world. Evidence has several meanings, including the basis for belief
>or disbelief, making something obvious, and the means of proving or disproving
>an alleged fact during judicial proceedings.
I'm not so impressed with your world, Bruce. The direct implication
of your earlier smear was that Hood was presenting irrelevant
information. Of course you didn't define what you thought was
irrelevant.
of your earlier smear was that Hood was presenting irrelevant
information. Of course you didn't define what you thought was
irrelevant.
>The electric law library lexicon.... http://www.lectlaw.com/def/
>defines evidence as " In law, various things presented in court for the purpose
>of proving or disproving a question under inquiry...."
>
>The point I was making above was that evidence can be qualified further as
>relevant ( material ) or irrelevant ( immaterial ) to the specific issue under
>consideration. Calling something " evidence not presented in court " doesn't
>confer any credibility on that item - because it has not been tested and
>reviewed in court as being relevant to the issues of concern.
That's of course why those involved with the Creche case desperately
wanted the Toddler Testimonies suppressed. They could continue the
line that the "untested in court testimony" was not relevant.
wanted the Toddler Testimonies suppressed. They could continue the
line that the "untested in court testimony" was not relevant.
Oh the power of publishing. It has now not been tested in a law
court, but it sure is being tested in the court of public opinion.
court, but it sure is being tested in the court of public opinion.
And the new evidence, published on www.peterellis.org.nz outlining
Zelas opinions to the police. It sure was never tested in a court of
law. The defence was never aware that it existed. It's interesting
that Frank Haden is the only person to have publicly referred to that
evidence. Goff's "supporters" are staying very quiet.
>>>- she's omnipotent and always correct.
>>And here you simply show your bias and prejudice.
>>Attack the person, and not the evidence.
>
>Hey, *you* provided her self-satisfied quote above "able to conclude that"
>What about other people who may have reviewed the same evidence and
>came to a different conclusion?.
>>Attack the person, and not the evidence.
>
>Hey, *you* provided her self-satisfied quote above "able to conclude that"
>What about other people who may have reviewed the same evidence and
>came to a different conclusion?.
And that !!!! is the basis for your claim that "she's omnipotent and
always correct"?
always correct"?
Coming to conclusions is the everyday stuff of science, Bruce. I've
never heard anybody else who has made the statement that they are able
to conclude something being labelled omnipotent as a result. Or do
you reserve such a label just for Hood?
never heard anybody else who has made the statement that they are able
to conclude something being labelled omnipotent as a result. Or do
you reserve such a label just for Hood?
There is nothing wrong with presenting your evidence, and then
presenting your conclusions. That evidence and the conclusions may
then be challenged.
presenting your conclusions. That evidence and the conclusions may
then be challenged.
Easier to place labels huh?
>You posted the 400 lines of her complaint,
Struggling for ammunition, Bruce?
Now a problem with the number of lines!
Now a problem with the number of lines!
>I waded through it on a rainy afternoon, and posted my
>comment - that's Usenet.
More interesting choice of language. Waded.
It's usenet, Bruce. Your choice.
It's usenet, Bruce. Your choice.
>Her prior history on the Minnie Dean case appears no more relevant
>to the complaint than would be Brian Edwards' historical roles
>as broadcaster and radio talkback host.
>
>With regard to the issue of attacking the person, what of the labelling
>of the Peter Ellis complainants and their supporters as " liars " and
>" sex abuse industry "?.
>These people, for whatever reason, presumably
I'm glad you've used the word "presumably".
>believe their claims, and have convinced juries of the validity of their
>complaints. " Liar " implies they know what they claim is wrong, and I've
>seen no evidence of that.
>complaints. " Liar " implies they know what they claim is wrong, and I've
>seen no evidence of that.
And nor have I. I agree with your definition of what the word
"liar" implies, but the use of the word is not restricted to that
sense.
"liar" implies, but the use of the word is not restricted to that
sense.
There is no easy way to salvage pride for people who are deluded. One
cannot continue saying that a complainant is telling the truth, and
also claim that what they are saying is not the truth.
cannot continue saying that a complainant is telling the truth, and
also claim that what they are saying is not the truth.
There is not a lot of language around the area. It is after all only
in the last ten years that there has been a recognition of false
memory as a real problem.
in the last ten years that there has been a recognition of false
memory as a real problem.
I don't really see anything wrong with even using the word "liar" as
long as that is followed by a narrative that explicitly makes clear
that the person telling the lie is telling her own "narrative truth",
long as that is followed by a narrative that explicitly makes clear
that the person telling the lie is telling her own "narrative truth",
>>>I'm not sure how any of this closely relates to defects in the Edwards
>>>interview, when he chose to focus on a couple of apparently strange claims
>>>in her book.
>>Think about the relationship between the first part of your sentence
>>and the last part, and you may gain some clues. There are plenty of
>>clues elsewhere.
>
>No, there aren't. He focussed on some apparent statements that appeared
>strange to him, such as the flatness of christchurch and her claim that
>she wrote the book with an open mind, and badgered her for a meaningful
>explanation.
That's an interesting "summary" of Hood's analysis. I hope those
responsible for considering the complaint go just a tad deeper.
responsible for considering the complaint go just a tad deeper.
>
>Where does Minnie Dean fit into the complaint, other than as a
>tenuous claim for credibility by Lynley Hood?.
>
>>I think that the real issue behind the Edwards interview is the
>>political influence that went on that shaped the way the interview
>>went.
>
>Nowhere do I recall reading in the complaint that there was political
>influence exerted on Dr Brian Edwards. Are you making this up as
>you go along?.
Making it up? You wish.
I did not claim that Hood's complaint referred to political influence.
That's your interpretation.
That's your interpretation.
The questions that Brash is asking of Goff in Parliament are there for
all of us to see, Bruce. The initial questions were asked before
Hood's complaint.
all of us to see, Bruce. The initial questions were asked before
Hood's complaint.
We've had one round of questions.
Goff avoided the point in Round 1, started 28 August.
But we are currently in Round 2, started 11 September.
Goff avoided the point in Round 1, started 28 August.
But we are currently in Round 2, started 11 September.
> I don't think such claims will help Peter Ellis one
> iota.
Somehow you seem to be concerned now about helping Peter Ellis! Don't
be offended if your offers of help are turned down Bruce.
be offended if your offers of help are turned down Bruce.
>
>> We have Edwards actually _supporting_ Hood's petition until
>>just before the interview, and then an about face (supposedly from
>>"unease after a second reading of A City Possessed).
>
>Note that in the complaint you posted, Lynley Hood says several times
>( of Dr Edwards )" Had he read A City Possessed ". If Dr Edwards has
>read it at least once..
>
>It will be interesting to see the outcome of the complaint, but it
>has little relevance to the fundamental legal issues of the apparent
>fragility of the case against Peter Ellis.
>> We have Edwards actually _supporting_ Hood's petition until
>>just before the interview, and then an about face (supposedly from
>>"unease after a second reading of A City Possessed).
>
>Note that in the complaint you posted, Lynley Hood says several times
>( of Dr Edwards )" Had he read A City Possessed ". If Dr Edwards has
>read it at least once..
>
>It will be interesting to see the outcome of the complaint, but it
>has little relevance to the fundamental legal issues of the apparent
>fragility of the case against Peter Ellis.
You may have been better to say "in my opinion it has little relevance
....."
And you _may_ be right.
Brian
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:51:56 +1200, rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:03:07 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>The fact that money can induce some fraudulent to make claims, is
>>>another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
>>>motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
>> Whoops.
>> Page 199.
>> Page 199.
> Care to explain Page 199. Brian?
Read it : www.peterellis.org.nz
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
What a bloody beauty.
Fuck me, and ACC let this lying bitch Heather off with pinching, by
her own admission to Hood, 10,000 smackers. Heather needs 10,000
smacks where it hurts.
her own admission to Hood, 10,000 smackers. Heather needs 10,000
smacks where it hurts.
Think of all the poor buggers with legitimate injuries that ACC renege
on and put through the hoops in a big way, and this bitch gets away
with a bundle.
on and put through the hoops in a big way, and this bitch gets away
with a bundle.
Can she still be prosecuted for fraud?
I'd bet that ACC, the police, Crown Law and co would be hoping they
would never have to handle such a case.
would never have to handle such a case.
Oh, yeh, I like the bit in her Dear Peter letter where she is dreading
looking after her little one.
looking after her little one.
What a cold, careless and calculating bitch that Heather was.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
A solo mother - whose child never disclosed any sexual abuse by any
creche worker - recalled her response to the compensation offer:
This counsellor said, ‘You know you can claim $ 10,000 from ACC.’ She
didn’t even say ‘up to’, she just said ‘$10,000’. I was on the benefit
and that was a lot of money. Everyone was doing it. I didn’t have a
problem. Where do I sign? No problem. None whatsoever. The counsellor
put in a report saying that my daughter was completely screwed up. I
wondered if she’d got the kids muddled up, or maybe she wrote the same
report for everyone. Anyway, the money came through really quickly.35
creche worker - recalled her response to the compensation offer:
This counsellor said, ‘You know you can claim $ 10,000 from ACC.’ She
didn’t even say ‘up to’, she just said ‘$10,000’. I was on the benefit
and that was a lot of money. Everyone was doing it. I didn’t have a
problem. Where do I sign? No problem. None whatsoever. The counsellor
put in a report saying that my daughter was completely screwed up. I
wondered if she’d got the kids muddled up, or maybe she wrote the same
report for everyone. Anyway, the money came through really quickly.35
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
But remember for the few who ripped the system off, for the few who
wern't sure but said thanks,
but remember it was Detective Colin Eade who was claiming up to 400
children had been abused by Peter.
They tried there hardest to get to their target, even bribes of
McDonald's weren't enough for some kids, who knew the truth and stood
their ground. They were not going to lie or add to the deception.
Yes there were parents who had integrity and it showed that they had
taught it to their children even at this early age.
For the parents who turned down the $10,000's that were being
constantly flashed in their faces - congratulations.
The stress caused to them because of the corrupt and weak interviewing
techniques of the authorities and the abuse of truth by those who
networked should allow for compensation to these families that showed
commonsense instead of greed and hysteria.
Peter and the women are still waiting for Justice to be carried out
just as these families.
Phil Goff needs to remove the blind fold and the ear muffs.
First step - a full independent inquiry!
Let justice be seen to be done.
Cheers *
children had been abused by Peter.
They tried there hardest to get to their target, even bribes of
McDonald's weren't enough for some kids, who knew the truth and stood
their ground. They were not going to lie or add to the deception.
Yes there were parents who had integrity and it showed that they had
taught it to their children even at this early age.
For the parents who turned down the $10,000's that were being
constantly flashed in their faces - congratulations.
The stress caused to them because of the corrupt and weak interviewing
techniques of the authorities and the abuse of truth by those who
networked should allow for compensation to these families that showed
commonsense instead of greed and hysteria.
Peter and the women are still waiting for Justice to be carried out
just as these families.
Phil Goff needs to remove the blind fold and the ear muffs.
First step - a full independent inquiry!
Let justice be seen to be done.
Cheers *
|
Joe Bloggs wrote:
>
> but remember it was Detective Colin Eade who was claiming up to 400
> children had been abused by Peter.
That many? Sheesh. I thought it was only 128.
>
> but remember it was Detective Colin Eade who was claiming up to 400
> children had been abused by Peter.
That many? Sheesh. I thought it was only 128.
Where on earth did he find the time??????????????????????????
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:33:21 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:51:56 +1200, rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:03:07 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>>>The fact that money can induce some fraudulent to make claims, is
>>>>another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
>>>>motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
>
>>> Whoops.
>>> Page 199.
>
>> Care to explain Page 199. Brian?
>
>
>Read it : www.peterellis.org.nz
>
>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:03:07 +1200, Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>>>The fact that money can induce some fraudulent to make claims, is
>>>>another story. There is no evidence that any particular parent was
>>>>motivated to make the claim solely on the basis of money.
>
>>> Whoops.
>>> Page 199.
>
>> Care to explain Page 199. Brian?
>
>
>Read it : www.peterellis.org.nz
thanks. I didn't see it on a quick look but have now. As you can guess
I haven't read Lynley Hood's book either.
I haven't read Lynley Hood's book either.
The picture presented is disgraceful - if this material was not
presented to the jury then surely it counts as 'new evidence'!
presented to the jury then surely it counts as 'new evidence'!
Rich
No comments:
Post a Comment