Open Letter to Dr Brian Edwards
33 posts by 15 authors
 |
 |
After watching the Prime Minister's poisonous "media adviser" trying
to unsettle the superior Lynley Hood in his "pedestrian harassment,
suggestive comment and light chat" TV programme, this writer sat down
and penned the following epistle.....
to unsettle the superior Lynley Hood in his "pedestrian harassment,
suggestive comment and light chat" TV programme, this writer sat down
and penned the following epistle.....
******************************
Chez Breen
Northcote Point
AUCKLAND
Northcote Point
AUCKLAND
16 August 2003
Dear Dr Edwards,
After your zealously playing devil's advocate in your
interview with Lynley Hood tonight, will you now have
the inert Minister of Justice, Mr Goff, on your
programme as well? And will you be as hostile toward
him as you were to Ms Hood?
interview with Lynley Hood tonight, will you now have
the inert Minister of Justice, Mr Goff, on your
programme as well? And will you be as hostile toward
him as you were to Ms Hood?
Yours sincerely,
Morrissey Breen
******************************
Oddly, Dr Edwards has not replied.
Click here to Reply
|
The letter wasn't hostile enough. :-)
Regards,
Mark
Mark
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.0308241039.
news:fb3a0456.0308241039.
- show quoted text -
|
- show quoted text -
Not that odd. It's probably not worth the effort to say "No" twice.
|
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.0308241039.
- show quoted text -
Programme this morning after the nine am news when Kim Hill interviewed one
of the creche children who was abused but not part of the police
investigation, nor was interviewed by the "so called expert" and thus not
contaminated by others. I am now convinced that justice was at least in
part done. I now believe that Peter Ellis was guilty, and proably guilty of
far more than came to light during his trial.
While the rial may hve been a little suspect, the final result was nearer to
being a just result than would have been the case if he were discharged as
"Not Guilty"!
being a just result than would have been the case if he were discharged as
"Not Guilty"!
This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
Regards
John Fulton
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
>my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
days?
after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
days?
Do you believe that a dozen women creche workers were all in a
conspiracy to abuse kids, including their own kids, in the year before
Ellis worked there?
conspiracy to abuse kids, including their own kids, in the year before
Ellis worked there?
Why did Nathan's mother not speak up at the time of the initial police
investigation, since she had so many complaints about the creche in
the interview this morning?
investigation, since she had so many complaints about the creche in
the interview this morning?
What about all the other kids who were at the creche in the year
before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
|
"John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Mri2b.13706$9f7.1647402@
> "Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fb3a0456.0308241039.
news:Mri2b.13706$9f7.1647402@
> "Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fb3a0456.0308241039.
> > Oddly, Dr Edwards has not replied.After listening to the National
NB John, try not to start your post on the last line of the one you're
replying to. It makes it hard to tell who says what.
replying to. It makes it hard to tell who says what.
> Programme this morning after the nine am news when Kim Hill interviewed
one
one
Kim Hill?? She's only on Saturdays I thought.
> of the creche children who was abused but not part of the police
> investigation, nor was interviewed by the "so called expert" and thus not
> contaminated by others. I am now convinced that justice was at least in
> part done. I now believe that Peter Ellis was guilty, and proably guilty
of
> far more than came to light during his trial.
>
> While the rial may hve been a little suspect, the final result was nearer
to
> being a just result than would have been the case if he were discharged as
> "Not Guilty"!
>
> This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It
changed
> my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>
> investigation, nor was interviewed by the "so called expert" and thus not
> contaminated by others. I am now convinced that justice was at least in
> part done. I now believe that Peter Ellis was guilty, and proably guilty
of
> far more than came to light during his trial.
>
> While the rial may hve been a little suspect, the final result was nearer
to
> being a just result than would have been the case if he were discharged as
> "Not Guilty"!
>
> This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It
changed
> my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>
I didn't hear it. What in particular did you find convincing?
|
"John Fulton" wrote
> This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It
changed
> my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
changed
> my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
John was this really from you?
Your characteristic sign off line was missing.
Regardless of that, will you still be just as convinced if you find that
Peter Ellis was not working at the creche at that time or for months
afterwards?
Your characteristic sign off line was missing.
Regardless of that, will you still be just as convinced if you find that
Peter Ellis was not working at the creche at that time or for months
afterwards?
Brian Tozer
|
"KiwiBrian" <bria...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bicfvp$pej$1@lust.ihug.
- show quoted text -
Did you listen to the interview? This point was brought up in the interview
and was answered by saying that he was associated with the creche at that
stage but not employed. He was present much earlier than the time of his
employment. I think that this point was even accepted by the police who
talked to Nathan at his interview.
and was answered by saying that he was associated with the creche at that
stage but not employed. He was present much earlier than the time of his
employment. I think that this point was even accepted by the police who
talked to Nathan at his interview.
Regards to you all
John Fulton
|
"Jason M" <jma...@very.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f49bb22.35033488@news.
- show quoted text -
to have happened. The points that you raise were adequately answered in the
interview to my satisfaction.
- show quoted text -
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:56:33 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Brian
wrote:
>
- show quoted text -
I think you'll find that the "association" of Peter Ellis with the
Creche in 1985, and the "association" of the monster with Loch Ness
have a lot in common.
Creche in 1985, and the "association" of the monster with Loch Ness
have a lot in common.
But it all makes a good story ..... and a few red faces to come
<smile>.
<smile>.
The police, unfortunately "accepted" a lot of things in the Peter
Ellis case - and they have not yet apologised to Peter Ellis (and the
New Zealand public) for their stupidity.
Ellis case - and they have not yet apologised to Peter Ellis (and the
New Zealand public) for their stupidity.
Brian
|
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bicem3$nv0$1@lust.ihug.
> "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Mri2b.13706$9f7.1647402@
> > "Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:fb3a0456.0308241039.
>
> > > Oddly, Dr Edwards has not replied.After listening to the National
>
> NB John, try not to start your post on the last line of the one you're
> replying to. It makes it hard to tell who says what.
>
> > Programme this morning after the nine am news when Kim Hill interviewed
> one
>
> Kim Hill?? She's only on Saturdays I thought.
You are right it was Linda Clark - not Kim Hill!
>
> > of the creche children who was abused but not part of the police
> > investigation, nor was interviewed by the "so called expert" and thus
not
> > contaminated by others. I am now convinced that justice was at least in
> > part done. I now believe that Peter Ellis was guilty, and proably
guilty
> of
> > far more than came to light during his trial.
> >
> > While the rial may hve been a little suspect, the final result was
nearer
> to
> > being a just result than would have been the case if he were discharged
as
> > "Not Guilty"!
> >
> > This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It
> changed
> > my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
> >
>
> I didn't hear it. What in particular did you find convincing?
It was the tone of the young man giving his recollections, and the tone of
the mother describing her recollection of the time when Peter Ellis and
someone else delivered her son back to her shop before 5:00pm.
the mother describing her recollection of the time when Peter Ellis and
someone else delivered her son back to her shop before 5:00pm.
The whole interview sounded right to me. I had serious doubts about his
guilt before I heard the interview, but I have now changed my mind. The
young man was very convincing, and as far as I can tell had not been
"contanoinated by other interviewers" when the original problems were
investigated.
guilt before I heard the interview, but I have now changed my mind. The
young man was very convincing, and as far as I can tell had not been
"contanoinated by other interviewers" when the original problems were
investigated.
If you want to get to 100% certainty you will never get it. But the
appearance of this man certainly knocks very large holes in his claim to
innocence!
appearance of this man certainly knocks very large holes in his claim to
innocence!
Regards to you all
John Fulton
|
- show quoted text -
The more that I see hand held communicators (cell phones) the more
believable that a large Starship called Enterprise does in fact exist...
believable that a large Starship called Enterprise does in fact exist...
John? Are you still there john?
What's the bet that John has just been teleported away?
Why wouldn't any kid that Ellis had possible contact with at the creche at
that time not be interviewed by the police investigators at the time? If
you don't think that the radio show was suspect, instead of believing
someone's guilt or innocence from simply listening to a radio show. I find
that a bit hard to believe even if it is true that you believe everything
that hear on the radio.
that time not be interviewed by the police investigators at the time? If
you don't think that the radio show was suspect, instead of believing
someone's guilt or innocence from simply listening to a radio show. I find
that a bit hard to believe even if it is true that you believe everything
that hear on the radio.
E. Scrooge
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:06:22 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>The whole interview sounded right to me. I had serious doubts about his
>guilt before I heard the interview, but I have now changed my mind. The
>young man was very convincing, and as far as I can tell had not been
>"contanoinated by other interviewers" when the original problems were
>investigated.
>If you want to get to 100% certainty you will never get it. But the
>appearance of this man certainly knocks very large holes in his claim to
>innocence!
Brian
wrote:
>>> This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing.
>>> It changed my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as
>>> guilty as sin!
>>> It changed my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as
>>> guilty as sin!
>> I didn't hear it. What in particular did you find convincing?
> It was the tone of the young man giving his recollections, and the
> tone of the mother describing her recollection of the time when
> Peter Ellis and someone else delivered her son back to her
> shop before 5:00pm.
> It was the tone of the young man giving his recollections, and the
> tone of the mother describing her recollection of the time when
> Peter Ellis and someone else delivered her son back to her
> shop before 5:00pm.
One of the biggest problems in sex abuse trials is the willingness of
jurors to believe that they can detect guilt or innocence by the tone
of the witnesses. complainant and accused - especially where there is
no other evidence.
jurors to believe that they can detect guilt or innocence by the tone
of the witnesses. complainant and accused - especially where there is
no other evidence.
Trials can often degenerate into who sounds the most convincing - or
worse how much preparation the witnesses have had from the defence or
prosecution.
worse how much preparation the witnesses have had from the defence or
prosecution.
Complainants with recovered memories make very convincing witnesses.
They are not lying - as they actually believe the fantasies they
deliver. And they often deliver vivid details which also sound very
convincing.
They are not lying - as they actually believe the fantasies they
deliver. And they often deliver vivid details which also sound very
convincing.
Of course real victims can sound much the same.
The point is that jurors need to understand that as much as their ego
would like to think that they can tell when people are lying, they
often cannot.
would like to think that they can tell when people are lying, they
often cannot.
It's why most crimes (except crimes of a sexual nature) require
corroborating evidence.
corroborating evidence.
To make a determination of the truth or otherwise of Nathan's story
based on his "tone" is a little foolish, in my opinion.
based on his "tone" is a little foolish, in my opinion.
>The whole interview sounded right to me. I had serious doubts about his
>guilt before I heard the interview, but I have now changed my mind. The
>young man was very convincing, and as far as I can tell had not been
>"contanoinated by other interviewers" when the original problems were
>investigated.
Rosemary McLeod has spouted this line as well. That all the
contamination came from the interviewers. In fact few believe that to
be the case. Even Karen Zelas (prosecution "expert" witness) was
aware of the evidence contamination from the parents. (refer to
www.peterellis.org.nz )
contamination came from the interviewers. In fact few believe that to
be the case. Even Karen Zelas (prosecution "expert" witness) was
aware of the evidence contamination from the parents. (refer to
www.peterellis.org.nz )
>If you want to get to 100% certainty you will never get it. But the
>appearance of this man certainly knocks very large holes in his claim to
>innocence!
Well, I agree with you. From the point of view of a bacteria, those
holes look very large.
holes look very large.
But I think even a cockroach might have trouble navigating through
your holes, John.
your holes, John.
And I think the "evidence" antibiotics will knock those nasty bugs for
a six too, in mighty quick time.
a six too, in mighty quick time.
Brian
|
"John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
- show quoted text -
Why did he wait until now while the media circus is chewing the Ellis case
over?
over?
How did the police miss that kid at the time? If there's any truth, then
why didn't the kid go to the police about it.
why didn't the kid go to the police about it.
Stories about Ellis are going to be quite profitable for quite some time.
Good on L. Hood for making some very easy money out of it. It doesn't take
a book to prove that his trial was a very suspect one with the way a lot of
the evidence was obtained. It might as well have all been teleported down
from your Starship.
Good on L. Hood for making some very easy money out of it. It doesn't take
a book to prove that his trial was a very suspect one with the way a lot of
the evidence was obtained. It might as well have all been teleported down
from your Starship.
E. Scrooge
|
In article <3f49bb22...@news.akl.
jma...@very.hotmail.com says...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
> >my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>
> Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
> after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
> non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
> days?
jma...@very.hotmail.com says...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
> >my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>
> Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
> after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
> non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
> days?
Ellis was at the Creche on a community work sentence prior to his actual
time of employment there.
time of employment there.
> Do you believe that a dozen women creche workers were all in a
> conspiracy to abuse kids, including their own kids, in the year before
> Ellis worked there?
> conspiracy to abuse kids, including their own kids, in the year before
> Ellis worked there?
There would have been opportunity outside the creche site.
> Why did Nathan's mother not speak up at the time of the initial police
> investigation, since she had so many complaints about the creche in
> the interview this morning?
> investigation, since she had so many complaints about the creche in
> the interview this morning?
Because he apparently didn't disclose until his teens and for some reason
he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
> What about all the other kids who were at the creche in the year
> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
Irrelevamt, see above.
|
In article <Aak2b.13722$9f7.1...@
says...
says...
- show quoted text -
It certainly was, because Ellis was actually at the creche. He did a
sentence of community work there, prior to being formally employed.
sentence of community work there, prior to being formally employed.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Ellis started his community work.
Then if you wouldn't mind place this date in context when this child
[why the parent wanted NZ to know his name completely bewilders me]
was at the creche.
I would like this point clarified.
Too many people are swayed by the drama 'queens' and their
performances.
People need evidence. Even Phil Goff calls for evidence.
Just the facts man. *
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
>In article <3f49bb22...@news.akl.
>jma...@very.hotmail.com says...
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
>> >my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>>
>> Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
>> after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
>> non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
>> days?
>
>Ellis was at the Creche on a community work sentence prior to his actual
>time of employment there.
>
See Ellis' Employment issues here, looks real enough>jma...@very.hotmail.com says...
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
>> >my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>>
>> Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
>> after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
>> non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
>> days?
>
>Ellis was at the Creche on a community work sentence prior to his actual
>time of employment there.
>
www.peterellis.org.nz
"Late Aug 1986 Began 80 hours community service…..
"10 Sept 1986 Appointed relieving childcare worker…..
"28 Mar 1987 Appointed to permanent position …..
Interviewed by: Kate Ord, Joey Calder, Gaye Davidson.
Referees: Dora Reinfeld, Marcia Stirling.
"10 Sept 1986 Appointed relieving childcare worker…..
"28 Mar 1987 Appointed to permanent position …..
Interviewed by: Kate Ord, Joey Calder, Gaye Davidson.
Referees: Dora Reinfeld, Marcia Stirling.
>> Do you believe that a dozen women creche workers were all in a
>> conspiracy to abuse kids, including their own kids, in the year before
>> Ellis worked there?
>
>There would have been opportunity outside the creche site.
>
>> Why did Nathan's mother not speak up at the time of the initial police
>> investigation, since she had so many complaints about the creche in
>> the interview this morning?
>
>Because he apparently didn't disclose until his teens and for some reason
>he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
>
>> What about all the other kids who were at the creche in the year
>> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
>
>Irrelevamt, see above.
>> conspiracy to abuse kids, including their own kids, in the year before
>> Ellis worked there?
>
>There would have been opportunity outside the creche site.
>
>> Why did Nathan's mother not speak up at the time of the initial police
>> investigation, since she had so many complaints about the creche in
>> the interview this morning?
>
>Because he apparently didn't disclose until his teens and for some reason
>he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
>
>> What about all the other kids who were at the creche in the year
>> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
>
>Irrelevamt, see above.
See Ellis' Employment issues here, looks real enough
www.peterellis.org.nz
www.peterellis.org.nz
"Late Aug 1986 Began 80 hours community service…..
"10 Sept 1986 Appointed relieving childcare worker…..
"28 Mar 1987 Appointed to permanent position …..
Interviewed by: Kate Ord, Joey Calder, Gaye Davidson.
Referees: Dora Reinfeld, Marcia Stirling.
"10 Sept 1986 Appointed relieving childcare worker…..
"28 Mar 1987 Appointed to permanent position …..
Interviewed by: Kate Ord, Joey Calder, Gaye Davidson.
Referees: Dora Reinfeld, Marcia Stirling.
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:03:40 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
- show quoted text -
See Ellis' Employment issues here, looks real enough
www.peterellis.org.nz
"Late Aug 1986 Began 80 hours community service…..
"10 Sept 1986 Appointed relieving childcare worker…..
"28 Mar 1987 Appointed to permanent position …..
Interviewed by: Kate Ord, Joey Calder, Gaye Davidson.
Referees: Dora Reinfeld, Marcia Stirling.
"10 Sept 1986 Appointed relieving childcare worker…..
"28 Mar 1987 Appointed to permanent position …..
Interviewed by: Kate Ord, Joey Calder, Gaye Davidson.
Referees: Dora Reinfeld, Marcia Stirling.
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:03:40 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
- show quoted text -
In late August 1996....
--
Karen Hayward-King
Karen Hayward-King
"I try to be as philosophical as the old lady
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:46:32 -0700, Karen Hayward-King
<kiwi...@yellowsub.net> wrote:
<kiwi...@yellowsub.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:03:40 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
>
>>In article <Aak2b.13722$9f7.1...@
>>says...
>>>
>>> "KiwiBrian" <bria...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:bicfvp$pej$1@lust.ihug.
>>> > "John Fulton" wrote
>>> >
>>> > > This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It
>>> > changed
>>> > > my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>>> >
>>> > John was this really from you?
>>> > Your characteristic sign off line was missing.
>>> > Regardless of that, will you still be just as convinced if you find that
>>> > Peter Ellis was not working at the creche at that time or for months
>>> > afterwards?
>>>
>>> Did you listen to the interview? This point was brought up in the interview
>>> and was answered by saying that he was associated with the creche at that
>>> stage but not employed. He was present much earlier than the time of his
>>> employment. I think that this point was even accepted by the police who
>>> talked to Nathan at his interview.
>>
>>It certainly was, because Ellis was actually at the creche. He did a
>>sentence of community work there, prior to being formally employed.
>
>In late August 1996....
>
>>In article <Aak2b.13722$9f7.1...@
>>says...
>>>
>>> "KiwiBrian" <bria...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:bicfvp$pej$1@lust.ihug.
>>> > "John Fulton" wrote
>>> >
>>> > > This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It
>>> > changed
>>> > > my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>>> >
>>> > John was this really from you?
>>> > Your characteristic sign off line was missing.
>>> > Regardless of that, will you still be just as convinced if you find that
>>> > Peter Ellis was not working at the creche at that time or for months
>>> > afterwards?
>>>
>>> Did you listen to the interview? This point was brought up in the interview
>>> and was answered by saying that he was associated with the creche at that
>>> stage but not employed. He was present much earlier than the time of his
>>> employment. I think that this point was even accepted by the police who
>>> talked to Nathan at his interview.
>>
>>It certainly was, because Ellis was actually at the creche. He did a
>>sentence of community work there, prior to being formally employed.
>
>In late August 1996....
Ummmm.... I think theres a typo there <grin>
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
>In article <3f49bb22...@news.akl.
>jma...@very.hotmail.com says...
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
>> >my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>>
>> Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
>> after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
>> non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
>> days?
>
>Ellis was at the Creche on a community work sentence prior to his actual
>time of employment there.
>jma...@very.hotmail.com says...
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
>> >my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
>>
>> Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
>> after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
>> non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
>> days?
>
>Ellis was at the Creche on a community work sentence prior to his actual
>time of employment there.
Yes he was. But that is quite irrelevant to this issue. The
community work started in August 1996 for a couple of weeks. That was
at least eight months AFTER the recovered memories of Nathan.
community work started in August 1996 for a couple of weeks. That was
at least eight months AFTER the recovered memories of Nathan.
Refer www.peterellis.org.nz
The problem with recovered memories, is that they are long on
vividness, and very long on emotion, but they slip up on accuracy.
vividness, and very long on emotion, but they slip up on accuracy.
>
>> Do you believe that a dozen women creche workers were all in a
>> conspiracy to abuse kids, including their own kids, in the year before
>> Ellis worked there?
>
>There would have been opportunity outside the creche site.
>
>> Why did Nathan's mother not speak up at the time of the initial police
>> investigation, since she had so many complaints about the creche in
>> the interview this morning?
>
>Because he apparently didn't disclose until his teens and for some reason
>he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
>> Do you believe that a dozen women creche workers were all in a
>> conspiracy to abuse kids, including their own kids, in the year before
>> Ellis worked there?
>
>There would have been opportunity outside the creche site.
>
>> Why did Nathan's mother not speak up at the time of the initial police
>> investigation, since she had so many complaints about the creche in
>> the interview this morning?
>
>Because he apparently didn't disclose until his teens and for some reason
>he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
He didn't disclose till his teens?
According to what he said, he didn't even THINK he was abused until he
had some sort of feeling when he was 14.
had some sort of feeling when he was 14.
He came to think "what his mother had always believed" (that he had
been abused at the creche) because he thought he reacted to his
hormones differently to other kids.
been abused at the creche) because he thought he reacted to his
hormones differently to other kids.
Of course the fact that all the other kids were struggling with their
own hormone problems seems to have been overlooked.
own hormone problems seems to have been overlooked.
>> What about all the other kids who were at the creche in the year
>> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
>
>Irrelevamt, see above.
>> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
>
>Irrelevamt, see above.
Irrelevant? Sheesh no. Nathan said that he was abused by others!
Who were these others?
Note that while Gaye Davidson was there, the other adults were a
different generation of workers to the other women who were to be
later charged.
different generation of workers to the other women who were to be
later charged.
Nathan says that other children were involved. Given that the police
have had four years to flush out evidence of any of this, I'm
surprised that there is not a teaspoon full of evidence!
have had four years to flush out evidence of any of this, I'm
surprised that there is not a teaspoon full of evidence!
The question I have for the police is why they did not tell Nathan
and his Mum that their story was wasting police time. Instead of
pussy footing around, being oh so nice, and saying they were not
proceeding because "half the country thought Ellis was innocent".
Since when have the police used public opinion to decide the merits of
their investigations?
and his Mum that their story was wasting police time. Instead of
pussy footing around, being oh so nice, and saying they were not
proceeding because "half the country thought Ellis was innocent".
Since when have the police used public opinion to decide the merits of
their investigations?
As a consequence of their not being brutally honest with Nathan and
his Mum, the police have encouraged the pair to make fools of
themselves.
his Mum, the police have encouraged the pair to make fools of
themselves.
Brian
Brian
|
A gullible twit called "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com> blithered in
message news:<Mri2b.13706$9f7.1...@
>
> After listening to the National
> Programme this morning after the nine am news when Kim Hill
notice!
message news:<Mri2b.13706$9f7.1...@
>
> After listening to the National
> Programme this morning after the nine am news when Kim Hill
[sic!]
>
> interviewed one of the creche children who was abused
Note how easily this dupe just writes that as if the rest of us won't> interviewed one of the creche children who was abused
notice!
>
> but not part of the police
> investigation, nor was interviewed by the "so called expert" and thus not
> contaminated by others. I am now convinced that justice was at least in part done.
> I now believe that Peter Ellis was guilty, and proably guilty of
> far more than came to light during his trial.
> but not part of the police
> investigation, nor was interviewed by the "so called expert" and thus not
> contaminated by others. I am now convinced that justice was at least in part done.
> I now believe that Peter Ellis was guilty, and proably guilty of
> far more than came to light during his trial.
Note that there was not a skerrick of evidence that this deeply
distubed, sniffling young man had been abused at the Civic Creche or,
as "John Fulton" no doubt believes, in an underground cave while the
pet giraffe looked on!
>
> While the rial
[sic!]
distubed, sniffling young man had been abused at the Civic Creche or,
as "John Fulton" no doubt believes, in an underground cave while the
pet giraffe looked on!
>
> While the rial
[sic!]
>
> may hve
> may hve
[sic!]
>
> been a little suspect, the final result was nearer to
> being a just result than would have been the case if he were discharged as
> "Not Guilty"!
>
> This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing.
> been a little suspect, the final result was nearer to
> being a just result than would have been the case if he were discharged as
> "Not Guilty"!
>
> This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing.
Only to someone who was easily led.
>
> It changed my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
> It changed my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
Hmmmm... one has to wonder if this "John Fulton" is really Sir Thomas
("Ask the hard questions") Eichelbaum....
("Ask the hard questions") Eichelbaum....
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Oops!!!
1986, 1986, 1986......... :-)
BTW...do you know when he was at Motueka kindergarten? There appears
to have been no problems there...
to have been no problems there...
--
Karen Hayward-King
Karen Hayward-King
"I try to be as philosophical as the old lady
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
|
Karen Hayward-King wrote:
>
> >>In late August 1996....
> >
> >Ummmm.... I think theres a typo there <grin>
> >
>
> Oops!!!
>
> 1986, 1986, 1986......... :-)
>
> BTW...do you know when he was at Motueka kindergarten? There appears
> to have been no problems there...
> >>In late August 1996....
> >
> >Ummmm.... I think theres a typo there <grin>
> >
>
> Oops!!!
>
> 1986, 1986, 1986......... :-)
>
> BTW...do you know when he was at Motueka kindergarten? There appears
> to have been no problems there...
There will be now.
JC
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:10:19 +1200, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
--
Karen Hayward-King
wrote:
>Karen Hayward-King wrote:
>
>>
>> >>In late August 1996....
>> >
>> >Ummmm.... I think theres a typo there <grin>
>> >
>>
>> Oops!!!
>>
>> 1986, 1986, 1986......... :-)
>>
>> BTW...do you know when he was at Motueka kindergarten? There appears
>> to have been no problems there...
>
>There will be now.
>
>>
>> >>In late August 1996....
>> >
>> >Ummmm.... I think theres a typo there <grin>
>> >
>>
>> Oops!!!
>>
>> 1986, 1986, 1986......... :-)
>>
>> BTW...do you know when he was at Motueka kindergarten? There appears
>> to have been no problems there...
>
>There will be now.
I would be surprised if there was. The Ellis case has been in the news
for around a decade now.
for around a decade now.
I'd tend to be more than a little suspicious of any allegations from
that direction, at this point. Same goes for the latest allegations
concerning 'Nathan'....it simply does not add up.
that direction, at this point. Same goes for the latest allegations
concerning 'Nathan'....it simply does not add up.
--
Karen Hayward-King
"I try to be as philosophical as the old lady
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
|
In article <trikkvc49kf4gkj68mitjo4d795lp
bri...@wave.co.nz says...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
>
> >In article <3f49bb22...@news.akl.
> >jma...@very.hotmail.com says...
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
> >> >my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
> >>
> >> Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
> >> after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
> >> non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
> >> days?
> >
> >Ellis was at the Creche on a community work sentence prior to his actual
> >time of employment there.
>
> Yes he was. But that is quite irrelevant to this issue. The
> community work started in August 1996 for a couple of weeks. That was
> at least eight months AFTER the recovered memories of Nathan.
>
> Refer www.peterellis.org.nz
>
> The problem with recovered memories, is that they are long on
> vividness, and very long on emotion, but they slip up on accuracy.
bri...@wave.co.nz says...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
>
> >In article <3f49bb22...@news.akl.
> >jma...@very.hotmail.com says...
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:05:14 +1200, "John Fulton" <jfu...@nospam.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >This morning's interview was heart rending and very convincing. It changed
> >> >my mind on Peter Ellis who I now believe to be as guilty as sin!
> >>
> >> Even though Peter Ellis was not employed at the creche until the year
> >> after that? Do you really believe that a creche would allow any
> >> non-employee visitor unsupervised access at a creche, even in those
> >> days?
> >
> >Ellis was at the Creche on a community work sentence prior to his actual
> >time of employment there.
>
> Yes he was. But that is quite irrelevant to this issue. The
> community work started in August 1996 for a couple of weeks. That was
> at least eight months AFTER the recovered memories of Nathan.
>
> Refer www.peterellis.org.nz
>
> The problem with recovered memories, is that they are long on
> vividness, and very long on emotion, but they slip up on accuracy.
I see. Among all your many other munificent qualifications, you now have
the ability to tell, on the basis of listening to or reading a radio
interview of a person you have never met, that they have false memory
recovery syndrome.
the ability to tell, on the basis of listening to or reading a radio
interview of a person you have never met, that they have false memory
recovery syndrome.
Has it occurred to you that these memories might actually not be false?
> >Because he apparently didn't disclose until his teens and for some reason
> >he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
>
> He didn't disclose till his teens?
>
> According to what he said, he didn't even THINK he was abused until he
> had some sort of feeling when he was 14.
> >he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
>
> He didn't disclose till his teens?
>
> According to what he said, he didn't even THINK he was abused until he
> had some sort of feeling when he was 14.
Some people don't disclose until years later. It's a fact of life.
>
> He came to think "what his mother had always believed" (that he had
> been abused at the creche) because he thought he reacted to his
> hormones differently to other kids.
> He came to think "what his mother had always believed" (that he had
> been abused at the creche) because he thought he reacted to his
> hormones differently to other kids.
Again your apparent clairvoyant ability. I suppose such a qualification
is about up to the same standard as some of the evidence presented at the
original case.
is about up to the same standard as some of the evidence presented at the
original case.
> Of course the fact that all the other kids were struggling with their
> own hormone problems seems to have been overlooked.
> own hormone problems seems to have been overlooked.
Since he wasn't more specific it is difficult to qualify exactly what he
might have meant.
might have meant.
> >> What about all the other kids who were at the creche in the year
> >> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
> >
> >Irrelevamt, see above.
>
>
> Irrelevant? Sheesh no. Nathan said that he was abused by others!
> Who were these others?
> >> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
> >
> >Irrelevamt, see above.
>
>
> Irrelevant? Sheesh no. Nathan said that he was abused by others!
> Who were these others?
No, he said he was abused by Ellis and the family claimed the police had
told them Ellis was associating with creche staff at the time. If any
other such cases came forward each of them would have to prove on their
own basis that Ellis was at the creche at the time, whatever that time
frame might be.
told them Ellis was associating with creche staff at the time. If any
other such cases came forward each of them would have to prove on their
own basis that Ellis was at the creche at the time, whatever that time
frame might be.
> Note that while Gaye Davidson was there, the other adults were a
> different generation of workers to the other women who were to be
> later charged.
>
> Nathan says that other children were involved. Given that the police
> have had four years to flush out evidence of any of this, I'm
> surprised that there is not a teaspoon full of evidence!
>
> The question I have for the police is why they did not tell Nathan
> and his Mum that their story was wasting police time. Instead of
> pussy footing around, being oh so nice, and saying they were not
> proceeding because "half the country thought Ellis was innocent".
> Since when have the police used public opinion to decide the merits of
> their investigations?
> different generation of workers to the other women who were to be
> later charged.
>
> Nathan says that other children were involved. Given that the police
> have had four years to flush out evidence of any of this, I'm
> surprised that there is not a teaspoon full of evidence!
>
> The question I have for the police is why they did not tell Nathan
> and his Mum that their story was wasting police time. Instead of
> pussy footing around, being oh so nice, and saying they were not
> proceeding because "half the country thought Ellis was innocent".
> Since when have the police used public opinion to decide the merits of
> their investigations?
I believe the opinion was that of the Crown Prosecutor who is actually
charged with assessing the likelihood of a conviction. If the evidence
was forwarded to the CP then the police must have felt they could
possibly have enough evidence to lay charges.
charged with assessing the likelihood of a conviction. If the evidence
was forwarded to the CP then the police must have felt they could
possibly have enough evidence to lay charges.
|
In article <fb3a0456.0308...@
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> Hmmmm... one has to wonder if this "John Fulton" is really Sir Thomas
> ("Ask the hard questions") Eichelbaum....
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> Hmmmm... one has to wonder if this "John Fulton" is really Sir Thomas
> ("Ask the hard questions") Eichelbaum....
We have to ask whether you are Steve "Deny the truth" Withers :)
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
The best thing to do Mainlander, is keep looking for evidence.
But what I've said about recovered memories is correct. That they
are often associated with a lot of emotion and full of vividness - but
often short on accuracy.
are often associated with a lot of emotion and full of vividness - but
often short on accuracy.
That is NOT the same thing as saying that all recovered memories are
false.
false.
But as I've said, look for corroborating evidence. At the moment all
the evidence points to either Nathan having a false recovered memory,
or alternatively he is lying. I cannot see any reason for him to
deliberately lie. Perhaps something else will jump out of the
woodwork in the next few days. Who knows?
the evidence points to either Nathan having a false recovered memory,
or alternatively he is lying. I cannot see any reason for him to
deliberately lie. Perhaps something else will jump out of the
woodwork in the next few days. Who knows?
>
>> >Because he apparently didn't disclose until his teens and for some reason
>> >he wasn't interviewed with the other children.
>>
>> He didn't disclose till his teens?
>>
>> According to what he said, he didn't even THINK he was abused until he
>> had some sort of feeling when he was 14.
>
>Some people don't disclose until years later. It's a fact of life.
Ah, yes. But this was not just a matter of not disclosing until later
in life. Nathan was not even begin to think that he had been abused
until he was 14 when he thought that he felt different to how he
thought other people felt.
in life. Nathan was not even begin to think that he had been abused
until he was 14 when he thought that he felt different to how he
thought other people felt.
Most people at age 14 feel awkward with all of the hormonal stuff
going on in their bodies. They celebrate becoming an adult, as they
struggle with the changes at the same time. Nathan had the inbuilt
idea that it was all due to sex abuse ("it's what you've always
suspected Mum")
going on in their bodies. They celebrate becoming an adult, as they
struggle with the changes at the same time. Nathan had the inbuilt
idea that it was all due to sex abuse ("it's what you've always
suspected Mum")
>> He came to think "what his mother had always believed" (that he had
>> been abused at the creche) because he thought he reacted to his
>> hormones differently to other kids.
>
>Again your apparent clairvoyant ability. I suppose such a qualification
>is about up to the same standard as some of the evidence presented at the
>original case.
>> been abused at the creche) because he thought he reacted to his
>> hormones differently to other kids.
>
>Again your apparent clairvoyant ability. I suppose such a qualification
>is about up to the same standard as some of the evidence presented at the
>original case.
Go to the transcript for yourself, Mainlander, and read:
www.peterellis.org.nz Read what was actually said.
www.peterellis.org.nz Read what was actually said.
>> Of course the fact that all the other kids were struggling with their
>> own hormone problems seems to have been overlooked.
>
>Since he wasn't more specific it is difficult to qualify exactly what he
>might have meant.
>> own hormone problems seems to have been overlooked.
>
>Since he wasn't more specific it is difficult to qualify exactly what he
>might have meant.
There are a lot of difficult things about the serious allegations that
he made.
he made.
>> >> What about all the other kids who were at the creche in the year
>> >> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
>> >
>> >Irrelevamt, see above.
>> >> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
>> >
>> >Irrelevamt, see above.
Corroborating evidence is vital. Especially where there are
recovered memories, as Nathan had. Especially where there are serious
allegations that Nathan made involving supposedly multiple
perpetrators and multiple victims.
recovered memories, as Nathan had. Especially where there are serious
allegations that Nathan made involving supposedly multiple
perpetrators and multiple victims.
>> Irrelevant? Sheesh no. Nathan said that he was abused by others!
>> Who were these others?
>
>No, he said he was abused by Ellis
Read the transcripts, Mainlander. Read: (From www.peterellis.org.nz )
Linda Clark: Were you abused by more than Ellis?
Nathan: Yeah, yep.
Linda Clark: Were other children there at the same time?
Nathan: Yep.
Nathan: Yeah, yep.
Linda Clark: Were other children there at the same time?
Nathan: Yep.
|
In article <qvqnkv40cjgfnj6lhjmq2cdcdhdk6
bri...@wave.co.nz says...
bri...@wave.co.nz says...
- show quoted text -
The only way to actually test his evidence is to place it before a court.
Until then you are on pretty shaky ground saying that he has either a
false recovered memory or is lying.
Until then you are on pretty shaky ground saying that he has either a
false recovered memory or is lying.
> >Some people don't disclose until years later. It's a fact of life.
>
> Ah, yes. But this was not just a matter of not disclosing until later
> in life. Nathan was not even begin to think that he had been abused
> until he was 14 when he thought that he felt different to how he
> thought other people felt.
>
> Most people at age 14 feel awkward with all of the hormonal stuff
> going on in their bodies. They celebrate becoming an adult, as they
> struggle with the changes at the same time. Nathan had the inbuilt
> idea that it was all due to sex abuse ("it's what you've always
> suspected Mum")
>
>
> Ah, yes. But this was not just a matter of not disclosing until later
> in life. Nathan was not even begin to think that he had been abused
> until he was 14 when he thought that he felt different to how he
> thought other people felt.
>
> Most people at age 14 feel awkward with all of the hormonal stuff
> going on in their bodies. They celebrate becoming an adult, as they
> struggle with the changes at the same time. Nathan had the inbuilt
> idea that it was all due to sex abuse ("it's what you've always
> suspected Mum")
>
But you really have no idea how he felt, only the little that he shared
in the interview. In fact your whole case is based on the little bit of
information given in that interview, without having met the guy or his
family.
in the interview. In fact your whole case is based on the little bit of
information given in that interview, without having met the guy or his
family.
It is like saying that the newspaper reports of a case are sufficient
grounds to determine yourself whether a defendant is innocent or guilty.
Without being in the courtroom during a trial and hearing all the
evidence, and crucially being able to observe the demeanour of
defendants, hear all of the evidence not the selected bits published in
the newspapers, and observe the cross examination of witnesses, one could
not possibly claim to have the ability to form an opinion - unless one
presupposed an opinion based on one's own bias.
grounds to determine yourself whether a defendant is innocent or guilty.
Without being in the courtroom during a trial and hearing all the
evidence, and crucially being able to observe the demeanour of
defendants, hear all of the evidence not the selected bits published in
the newspapers, and observe the cross examination of witnesses, one could
not possibly claim to have the ability to form an opinion - unless one
presupposed an opinion based on one's own bias.
So in not having met this young man, having the opportunity to speak with
him at some length to fill in some of the gaps in what he said in the
interview, or information that he was unwilling to divulge in a public
sitation, the opportunity to observe his demeanour when speaking about
the events, the opportunity to examine all of his evidence and not just
the small part that has been made public, you are in no position to make
an objective judgement of the veracity of his evidence.
him at some length to fill in some of the gaps in what he said in the
interview, or information that he was unwilling to divulge in a public
sitation, the opportunity to observe his demeanour when speaking about
the events, the opportunity to examine all of his evidence and not just
the small part that has been made public, you are in no position to make
an objective judgement of the veracity of his evidence.
> >> He came to think "what his mother had always believed" (that he had
> >> been abused at the creche) because he thought he reacted to his
> >> hormones differently to other kids.
> >
> >Again your apparent clairvoyant ability. I suppose such a qualification
> >is about up to the same standard as some of the evidence presented at the
> >original case.
>
> Go to the transcript for yourself, Mainlander, and read:
> www.peterellis.org.nz Read what was actually said.
> >> been abused at the creche) because he thought he reacted to his
> >> hormones differently to other kids.
> >
> >Again your apparent clairvoyant ability. I suppose such a qualification
> >is about up to the same standard as some of the evidence presented at the
> >original case.
>
> Go to the transcript for yourself, Mainlander, and read:
> www.peterellis.org.nz Read what was actually said.
I bet it doesn't mention hormones, so how did that get into the
discussion?
discussion?
As you have never met this young man, and he has only revealed a little
bit of information, and you are as far as I know not a qualified
professional in any related field, your speculations are pure supposition
based on your automatic assumption that Ellis must be innocent.
bit of information, and you are as far as I know not a qualified
professional in any related field, your speculations are pure supposition
based on your automatic assumption that Ellis must be innocent.
> >> >> What about all the other kids who were at the creche in the year
> >> >> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevamt, see above.
>
> Corroborating evidence is vital. Especially where there are
> recovered memories, as Nathan had. Especially where there are serious
> allegations that Nathan made involving supposedly multiple
> perpetrators and multiple victims.
> >> >> before Ellis worked there. Are we going to hear from them now?
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevamt, see above.
>
> Corroborating evidence is vital. Especially where there are
> recovered memories, as Nathan had. Especially where there are serious
> allegations that Nathan made involving supposedly multiple
> perpetrators and multiple victims.
Not what I am referring to at all. Police have suggested that Ellis was
associated with the creche at the time that the young man claims he was
there. But there must be other kids who were there before any time when
Ellis could have possibly been involved with the creche.
associated with the creche at the time that the young man claims he was
there. But there must be other kids who were there before any time when
Ellis could have possibly been involved with the creche.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Where do the police suggest Ellis was associated with the creche
before he started employment there?
before he started employment there?
Quote the source.
Have you actually met Nathan?
Felicitations 2 u all.
Felicity
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Police suggested there were over a hundred children abused by Peter
didn't they?
Police not only suggested, but arrested the women - - - - - - - -.
I never trust a policeman when he suggests something.
Unless of course he suggests that he is lying.
Cheers *
didn't they?
Police not only suggested, but arrested the women - - - - - - - -.
I never trust a policeman when he suggests something.
Unless of course he suggests that he is lying.
Cheers *
|
>>
>> Corroborating evidence is vital. Especially where there are
>> recovered memories, as Nathan had. Especially where there are serious
>> allegations that Nathan made involving supposedly multiple
>> perpetrators and multiple victims.
>
>Not what I am referring to at all. Police have suggested that Ellis was
>associated with the creche at the time that the young man claims he was
>there. But there must be other kids who were there before any time when
>Ellis could have possibly been involved with the creche.
>> Corroborating evidence is vital. Especially where there are
>> recovered memories, as Nathan had. Especially where there are serious
>> allegations that Nathan made involving supposedly multiple
>> perpetrators and multiple victims.
>
>Not what I am referring to at all. Police have suggested that Ellis was
>associated with the creche at the time that the young man claims he was
>there. But there must be other kids who were there before any time when
>Ellis could have possibly been involved with the creche.
I wonder if Nathan's claims have been made in an effort to fill Phil
Goffs void. Show me new evidence.
Is this the new evidence that Phil Goff needs.
A few more outrageous statements that are not supported, a few more
parrot claims and he will have no option but to admit that parent
networking has done what police interviewing didn't.
The case was a real sham, just like our justice system.
Cheers *
Goffs void. Show me new evidence.
Is this the new evidence that Phil Goff needs.
A few more outrageous statements that are not supported, a few more
parrot claims and he will have no option but to admit that parent
networking has done what police interviewing didn't.
The case was a real sham, just like our justice system.
Cheers *
No comments:
Post a Comment