The other Ellis
Once again, the Peter Ellis (no relation) case has another twist with an academic saying that the evidence against Ellis was unreliable.
Peter Ellis has had a trial, appeal, inquiry, Ministerial inquiry, and media trial. In the trial, appeal, inquiry and Ministerial inquiry Ellis has been found to be guilty. It would have taken any one of these to find sufficient doubt to quash all the convictions, but they have stood. Only the media trial (in which claims can be speculative, not factual) has Ellis had doubt raised.
The last I heard of this case was that Peter Ellis wants to appeal to the Privy Council. That is his right (and rightly so) and he can pursue it to his hearts content. But until I hear a competent tribunal declare the Ellis is not quilty, I won't pretend to think he is innocent.
Peter Ellis has had a trial, appeal, inquiry, Ministerial inquiry, and media trial. In the trial, appeal, inquiry and Ministerial inquiry Ellis has been found to be guilty. It would have taken any one of these to find sufficient doubt to quash all the convictions, but they have stood. Only the media trial (in which claims can be speculative, not factual) has Ellis had doubt raised.
The last I heard of this case was that Peter Ellis wants to appeal to the Privy Council. That is his right (and rightly so) and he can pursue it to his hearts content. But until I hear a competent tribunal declare the Ellis is not quilty, I won't pretend to think he is innocent.
posted by Michael at
7:50 PM
19 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 1:33 PM
Sorry, I'm not in any hurry to be sued for defamation - So that comment gets deleted as it has baseless allegations with no evidence.
In case you're wondering, it claims (and names) a number of officials that delibrately interfered to ensure a conviction was entered, and that they have continued to do so through the appeals process, and in Parliament.
By
Michael, at 5:11 PM
I believe the issue is that Mr ellis and the woman co-accused have never had their case presented to a competent tribunal.
It is easy for us to believe in guilt when we are not accused. The Nazi's used their legal system to condemn, jail and liquidate countless people, if these courts were competent for their time and ideology I figure you would have supported them too.
By
maeroero, at 12:14 AM
Michael,
What exactly do you know about the Ellis case? Your comments suggest you know very little - which begs the question: why comment on something about which you are ignorant? I suggest you go to peterellis.org.nz and check out the new evidence, published earlier this month in the NZ Law Journal, and then comment on the case.
By
Anonymous, at 12:23 PM
Michael wrote "In the trial, appeal, inquiry and Ministerial inquiry Ellis has been found to be guilty."
Michael's comment reveals a very basic ignorance of the appeals process. Contrary to his statement, Peter Ellis was found guilty of the charges against him once, and once only. All subsequent examinations were very narrowly focused upon various aspects of the proceedures that were used to try and convict Ellis. These appeals have never re-examined the case, infact, the case surrounding Ellis has never been examined in its entirety, and certainly wasn't at the original trial.
By
Anonymous, at 2:28 PM
Anon I - Because I disagree with you I am uiniformed? Hmmm, if that passes as your arguement against my view then I think I win easily.
Maeroero - Godwin's Law applies.
Anon II -
Peter Ellis had ample oppurtunity to present his case in the original trial, and he lost. Since then he has used the media to portray his innocence, not the courts.
I am friendly with one of Mr Ellis' lawyers, who belives he is innocent.
Perhaps you are not aware that Ellis had some of his convictions reversed on appeal already becuase the evidence rerlating to those convictions was shown (subsequent to the trial) to be unreliable. But the remaining evidence and convictions still stand.
I await the outcome of the Privy Council appeal - if they find him not guilty then I will have to accept that he might not have done it.
But in the meantime, I will not accept trial by media as a competent tribunal.
By
Michael, at 3:46 PM
Again, you expose your superficial of the case. Ellis was convicted solely upon uncorroborated allegations made by young children. The convictions that were overturned (three counts) resulted from retractions of allegations, now, you might try and argue that that is the same finding the evidence unreliable, but that suffers from two problems, firstly that allegations are allegations, they are not evidence as such, secondly the complete absence of such allegations is a little more serious than merely being found "unreliable".
It is you who might be not be aware that the withdrawn allegations were made by the oldest (at age 9yrs she about about 3 years older than most other complainants) and the most credible child (if the case as presented by the Crown is taken a guide, let alone she was probably the only child fully aware of what was going on).
Availing oneself of the huge quantity of data and research into the case that is now available hardly constitutes trial by media. I suggest you try it.
Anon II
By
Anonymous, at 4:57 PM
Who cares what you accept, mate? You may know something about the case, but nothing you have said so far shows that you do. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we must assume your opinion is without any foundation apart from your ridiculously naive belief that New Zealand courts are infallible. (So heavens knows why we even bother to have appeal provisions.)
Alan Wilkinson
By
Alan, at 8:25 PM
Alan - You obviously do, and so do the thousands who read this blog.
By
Michael, at 9:30 PM
Michael,
I don't know why you are willing to make a fool of yourself about this case. Why don't you do some reading - have you read the article to which I referred? It is called "New evidence in the Peter Ellis case".
Tell me, after reading this article, if you believe Peter Ellis has received a fair go.
By the way, would you mind disclosing your credentials which allow you to say that the evidence is reliable. Then we can compare them with the credentials of Prof Harlene Hayne, Dr Michael Lamb, Prof Stephen Ceci and Dr Barry Parsonson, all of whom have studied transcripts and/or videotapes of the children's formal interviews and concluded that the children's allegations are unreliable.
By
Anonymous, at 6:20 AM
Oh, and would you mind explaining how many appeals Arthur Allan Thomas had to endure before his conviction was quashed - not by the courts but by politicians.
By
Anonymous, at 6:22 AM
I put my trust in:
Juror Number 1 and Juror Number 2 and Juror Number 3 ...
All who sat in a courtroom, swore (or affirmed) that they would not consider any outside influence, and only the evidence presented, and listened to the all evidence presented in court by the prosecution and the defense, and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to doubt that he did it.
And the children (now adults) who still stand by there claims of abuse, and were willing to do so publicly.
Perhaps then you should ponder this - would you trust Mr Ellis (a convicted sex offender) with your children unsupervised? I wouldn't.
By
Michael, at 7:45 AM
So you trust Juror Number 1 and Juror Number 2 and Juror Number 3 ...
Well, that just shows how naive you are. In the Arthur Thomas case, two juries convicted Thomas of double murder. That's a total of 24 jurors. Each one of them got it horribly wrong. How could that happen? And the Privy Council wouldn't even grant Thomas leave to appeal his conviction. It was primiarly due to the work of Messrs Sprott, Booth and a British writer, David Yallop, that saw Thomas' conviction overturned - but not before Thomas had spent more than 8 years in prison.
Then you say: "And the children (now adults) who still stand by there (sic) claims of abuse, and were willing to do so publicly".
Once again, you show your naivete. Of course, some of the former children stand by their claims of abuse. They genuinely believe they were abused. Here's a few quotes from the article to which I have suggested you read but which you seem to not want to read:
"To quote leading child sexual abuse expert Debra Poole:
Studies have shown that children will vehemently defend the veracity of implanted memories. They recall reporting them, and those reports produce mental images of the events that these individuals cannot distinguish from their real experiences. But the kids are not responsible for that. The interviews are.
In 2003, Tommy, then 17, reportedly told journalist Linley Boniface that "all my parents ever said to me was that I should tell the truth". He added:
I stand by everything I said when I was little. I didn't make anything up. But back then I believed everything I was told.…when you're a little kid, you think adults are always telling you the truth.
It is believed that between 1995-2003, Tommy was able to watch his videotaped evidential interviews. His mother told the High Court, when requesting copies of the tapes, that Tommy could not heal unless he saw the interviews. The Court agreed.
In 1992, the then six-year-old reportedly said that: four female creche workers had watched as sharp sticks and burning paper were inserted into his anus; Ellis' mother had hung five cages, in which there were children, from cables attached to the ceiling of the creche; three female creche workers had inserted needles into his penis; he had been forced to kill a boy. He revealed the first names of eleven women who he claimed had physically or sexually abused him. He made similar accusations against several men and five teenagers.
Whilst some of the complainants may have appeared credible, the question was whether their evidence was accurate. This did not mean that they had lied. Indeed, young children typically have an undeveloped understanding of deception and lies. It is for this reason that they can pose difficulties as witnesses: they can be both sincere and incorrect.
[Dr] Lamb cited research by Gail Goodman showing that a significant minority of young children were error-prone when asked specific abuse-related questions. When questioned in a laboratory setting, between 20-35 per cent of 3- to 4-year-olds falsely assented to questions such as "Did he try to kiss you?", "Did he keep his clothes on?" and "He took your clothes off, didn’t he?". Studies have found that false and potentially troublesome claims can also be elicited from pre-school and school-age children, even when asked non-leading questions.
Contrary to popular belief, abused children are unlikely to deny abuse when asked...Also contrary to popular belief, children generally do not need to be prodded to disclose abuse.
What can be said of Tommy Bander’s abuse status? He denied having been abused when (repeatedly) questioned by his parents and oldest brother. He did not make a clear disclosure during his first formal interview. However, although most sexually abused children do not deny the abuse, younger children do not appear to be as forthcoming as older children. On the other hand, false allegations can be elicited from young children within five minutes of improper questioning. On one occasion Tommy was questioned by his parents for two and half hours.
Tommy’s memory of the alleged events was weak. During his fourth formal interview, he said that three female creche workers had stuck needles into his penis. When asked "so what stopped you from telling me [about that] yesterday?", he replied: "Oh, I just remembered today"."
And you then ask: "would you trust Mr Ellis (a convicted sex offender) with your children unsupervised?"
If you knew anything about Ellis, you would know that he has said he would not put himself in such a situation. If he's innocent, can you blame him?
By
Anonymous, at 9:55 AM
No, Michael. I don't give a rat's proverbial what you think about the Ellis case since your ignorance is clearly profound. However I do care what you say about it since my wife worked at the Christchurch Civic Creche along with all the other women who were falsely charged along with Peter Ellis and who subsequently lost their jobs and careers.
We know these people were lovely, honest, dedicated and totally trustworthy. The judge's grudging and prejudicial remarks when dismissing the case against them supposedly for lack of sufficient evidence were a disgrace to New Zealand justice. The same false allegations levelled against them were later used to convict Peter Ellis.
I will not stand by and see good honest and innocent people libelled by fools no matter what their supposed status or qualifications.
Alan Wilkinson
By
Alan, at 1:02 PM
Personally, I'm a little amused that this has got out to this on my blog - nothing said has made me want to change my mind from the original post. There is a legal process to be followed - and that excludes taking media headlines, or one-sided supporters statements.
My original statement is:
"But until I hear a competent tribunal declare the Ellis is not guilty, I won't pretend to think he is innocent."
If Ellis is innocent, then the Privy Council is the correct avenue. Not this blog, or another website, or sensationalist newspaper articles - "Ellis is innocent because an expert says so!"
I've sat through a murder trial from after jury selection to sentencing. Before the trial I was convinced that the accused would get the jury to accept a reduced verdict of manslaughter (the main facts not being in dispute) but watched as prosecution built a compelling case for the murder conviction. The defense was making an emotional plea for the manslaughter finding.
The more I read of your anon comments, the more I am convinced that you believe the NZ Criminal system is flawed, and are using Ellis to push your case, rather than a genuine case of being concerned about him.
(And I know my English grammer isn't good - I've commented on it several times on this blog.)
Personally, I suspect that the Privy Council will quash the convictions and order a retrial.
Then Crown Law will then decline to prosecute as Ellis has already served a substantial sentence.
By
Michael, at 5:40 PM
Well that outcome would leave you in an intellectual vacuum wouldn't it?
You are already sure he's guilty soley because you've been assured so by 12 tired people who only got to hear half the story.
What a dilemmma, you wouldn't know what to think then would you?
Let's face it, people can be put into two broad categories, those happy to have their thinking done for them by others, often the natural followers of authority; and others who prefer to seek out and weigh the evidence themselves and don't blindly regard authority as infallible.
If it thinks like a mushroom, writes like a mushroom then it's probably happy to stay in the dark and be fed sh*t.
Anon ll
By
Anonymous, at 10:57 PM
What I find interesting is your refusal to look at the facts, and your refusal to answer even the most basic of questions. You haven't attempted to explain how 24 jurors were fooled in the Thomas case. Why don't you give it a go?
I'm also interested that you seem to believe Tommy Bander's claims of being abused by eleven women, several men and five teenagers. Not to mention that he alleges that he killed a boy, whose body - unsurprisingly - has never been recovered. That says that you are not only an intellectual lightweight but also guillible. Maybe the Ellis jurors were just as guillible.
"But until I hear a competent tribunal declare the Ellis is not guilty, I won't pretend to think he is innocent."
Are you implying that a competent tribunal hasn't seen and heard all the evidence thus far?
But as to Ellis' innocence, no competent tribunal can ever say that Ellis is innocent. As Prof Stephen Ceci has said, only God and Mr Ellis know of his innocence or otherwise. You cannot prove a negative, so Ellis will never be able to "prove" his innocence. But, of course, he is not required to. He only needs to show that his conviction is unsafe.
"Ellis is innocent because an expert says so!"
Show me an expert who says Ellis is innocent!!! You cannot, because an expert worth their salt wouldn't make such a comment. Prof Harlene Hayne and others have said the evidence is unreliable.
"Personally, I suspect that the Privy Council will quash the convictions and order a retrial".
Really? So you haven't read reports from officials, from Sir Thomas Eichelbaum and from previous Justice Ministers saying that a retrial isn't an option? Apparently not.
By
Anonymous, at 7:04 AM
You might like to check out these recent press releases. They suggest that the ministerial inquiry in 2000 was nothing more than a sham and that a wide-ranging inquiry is required.
'New evidence reveals Peter Ellis inquiry a sham',
http://tinyurl.com/3yd5cr
'Inquiry into Ellis case hard to resist',
http://tinyurl.com/2ptam5
By
Anonymous, at 7:19 AM
I do not know if Peter Ellis is innocent. However I do know that the women he worked with are innocent, trustworthy and truthful. And they all say he is innocent.
In my view that is where the simple truth lies in this case. Not in some manipulating courtroom where no-one knows the people involved - and that includes the presumed experts.
Alan Wilkinson
By
Alan, at 5:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home