Call for Power to launch inquiry into Peter Ellis case
December 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe Press reports that Justice Minister Simon Power has been urged by his former colleagues Katherine Rich and Don Brash (and author Lynley Hood) to launch a commission of inquiry into the Peter Ellis case.
They ask Power to consider appointing an Australian judge to reconsider the case, believing it would be difficult for a New Zealand judge to approach it without prior knowledge or involvement.
The trio also ask that a judge be given the power to recommend a pardon for Ellis if he or she found that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Rich said an inquiry into the Ellis case was essential. “Two former prime ministers, 12 law professors, 10 Queen’s Counsel and thousands of other petitioners have already expressed their concerns. This case will not go away until a final review is done.”
Phil Goff expressed support for an inquiry in Opposition, but did little in Government but rubberstamp what the Ministry of Justice advised. This is a real opportunity for Simon Power to show some leadership.
I am not normally a sceptic of juries finding people guilty. I think they got it right with Watson, Bain, Lundy, that antiques dealer etc etc. In fact normally I think juries find too many people not guilty.
But with Peter Ellis, I am aghast at how he was found guilty. I have read many many articles and the Hood book on the case, and each time I am staggered at how flawed the process was.
Simon Power has a great opportunity to restore faith in the justice system. I hope he takes it up.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Yep, hold an inquiry, when Ellis is found to be innocent and paid a small fortune (as he should) then they should turn on the bastards who started and continued this witch hunt, it is time these feminist/socialist maggots were exposed.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Also agree there has to be a proper inquiry.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Long overdue. Big kudos to Rich and Brash. As they appear to have nothing to gain from this personally they show themselves to be principled people. I’d be astounded if Power doesn’t make it a priority.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I fail to see how a Commission comprising an Australian Judge can restore faith in the NZ Justice system by possibly coming to a different conclusion to that of a former NZ Chief Justice. The fact that legal academics and and sundry politicians disagree mainly on the basis of reading a book is also of little account. If a Juries assessment of the facts presented is to be overturned by a Commission 16 years later then I would suggest it would be in order and more beneficial to Justice to re-assess the verdict in the Chris Kahui case
[DPF: The Chief Justice had a narrow brief, not the powers of a full Commission of Inquiry]
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I am wondering why the Police still aren’t looking for that murdered child all the child witnesses spoke about.
Seriously, this whole case was and is a joke. Some of the families received tens of thousands fo dollars of ACC money for each “instance” of abuse. It was a money making scam right from the start in my opinion.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
DPF:
“……But with Peter Ellis, I am aghast at how he was found guilty. I have read many many articles and the Hood book on the case, and each time I am staggered at how flawed the process was…..”
Well called, DPF. You are exactly representative of decent middle NZ on this.
And big bruv:
“…..it is time these feminist/socialist maggots were exposed…..”
That is indeed a disturbing aspect of this case; exactly how much clout has “the sisterhood” achieved when it comes to family law and sexual assault accusations and the like, where there is opportunity for man-hatred to overwhelm justice? D4J?
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The Ellis case was at the time a victory for the screeching sisterhood after 20 years of manipulating and poisoning society against men. Now nearly another 20 years on we not only need an international independent Commission to examine the Ellis case it also needs to examine the part Clark Wilson Dyson Street et al played not only in this case but in their venal attacks on men.
Time to face to music for the feminazis and be shown as the evil force of hatred they really are
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I think that there is a wider need for an Innocence project, like there is in other countries. The sending of an innocent person to gaol is abhorrent, especially for the worst crimes. The Ellis case is but one example of a case that would benefit from such a project. There isn’t sufficient interest from the various institutions (MOJ, Police) to correct injustice when it occurs, so an independent body should be able to look into those cases where significant doubt exists over convictions.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Not before time.
It is worth remembering that this case only happened because of the widespread world wide hysteria about Satanic rituals at the time.
Who hears about Satanic rituals now?
We now have a similar hysteria about Global warming which soon too will be forgotten.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
big bruv said: …they should turn on the bastards who started and continued this witch hunt, it is time these feminist/socialist maggots were exposed.
bruv, I can assure you there are rather a lot of feminists and socialists – and a good number of Greens, including me – who feel very uncomfortable about Peter Ellis’ conviction.
Ranting on about “the screeching sisterhood”, “femonazis”, “man-hatred” etc, as some commenters are on this thread doesn’t actually help. It is that type of bigotry (“gay men are child molesters”) that probably helped convict Peter Ellis in the first place.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“I fail to see how a Commission comprising an Australian Judge can restore faith in the NZ Justice system”
It helped in the Crewe murders inquiry, and that after two juries had found Arthur Thomas guilty.
“by possibly coming to a different conclusion to that of a former NZ Chief Justice”
Like DPF said, the remit of that inquiry was so tight that there was only ever one answer going to be given. Don’t forget the ‘guidance’ provided by Val Sim, now a Law Commissioner, and the Crown Law counsel who said that the EFA was not inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights Act!
“The fact that legal academics and and sundry politicians disagree mainly on the basis of reading a book is also of little account.”
But many in the legal community disagree with it based on a pretty good knowledge of the case. This case is seriously flawed and I can say with some confidence that the result would be different if it were being tried for the first time today.
“If a Juries assessment of the facts presented is to be overturned by a Commission 16 years later then I would suggest it would be in order and more beneficial to Justice to re-assess the verdict in the Chris Kahui case”
I have sitting next to me the Report of the Royal Commission on the murders of David and Jeanette Crewe. As I said, that inquiry came after Thomas had served some 9 years in prison and had two murder trials, both ending in guilty verdicts. Yet I would venture to say that most of New Zealand thinks the report is correct in its findings. We should never be frightened to look at the safety of convictions, even after many years, if the evidence fails to stack up.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Toad
Bigotry is indeed what convicted Ellis but you cannot brush off the evil nature of that bigotry so easily just because it happened to come from the man hating side of the feminist movement.
Those bastards wanted to “get men”, I imagine it would have been better for them had it been a heterosexual male but they realised they were not in a position to choose so Ellis just happened to be the poor sod they picked on.
Evil has many faces Toad and we should not forgive or forget evil just because it was done in the name of the feminist movement, the maggots behind this should be locked up for a very long time.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
If nothing else Ellis was guilty of having a penis.
Thats enough to some.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
We’re a lot more discreet these days.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It’s a while since I read Lynley Hood’s book, but I recall she details considerable manipulation of what evidence was allowed to be presented to the court. For example by withdrawing complainants with more fanciful stories. The book is well worth a read, some of it was just hilarious. Like the police climbing up on a kitchen bench then through the (very dusty) ceiling space to another room in the building to demonstrate it could have happened. I feel a Tui ad coming on …
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Was told just a couple of weeks ago by a person close to the case that it was driven by the Lesbian satanics.
Vote:It was always an unsafe verdict and there are members and former members of the police who are implicated inthe misuse of evidence. Which brings me to the Watson case. DPF, its clear that you must have never looked at the evidence nor the mind bending of the information enacted by Pope. Have a good read over Xmas of Trial by Trickery. No one who reads that could possibly believe that Watson should have been convicted on either the evidence gathered nor the evidence presented. The truth was never ascertained, which is the major problem with our adversarial system.
It took four years under Labour for the Police to meet with Watson senior and apologize for the delay in looking at his complaint about Popes making a false evidential statement. Once again the action has happened since the Nats. have taken the reigns.
There is an evil connection between the Urewera Raids, Watson, Ellis and Bain. and the latest revelations about spying on activists. All policemen.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Viking2, let’s not conveniently ignore another one – David Tamihere.
His case is seldom raised among lists of unsafe conviction. I suspect this is because he was a rather unsavory character – a self-confessed rapist. But his conviction for the Swedish tourist murders, which he denies to this day, is also fundamentally unsafe and should be investigated.
BTW, I think the Ellis case is very likely the ONLY time my signature and Don Brash’s would have been on the same petition – this type of case transcends the usual political divides.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
On what basis Toad?
Vote:D Tamihere and Watson are as guilty as sin and were convicted on the evidence. I loved the defence in the Watson case: “the mystery ketch”. As good a defence concoction and red herring without the Jury being fooled.
The Ellis case is quite different. It was essentially a sham. Ellis will get his Justice in due course and hopefully there will be a full investigation and the perpetrators of this injustice held to account.
The Bain case needs a retrial because there was enough evidence to prove David is guilty (unless he can somehow come up with a reasonable case that it was the father casting enough doubt on the verdict). However, the way the police handled this case was poor at best and disgraceful at worst and how embarrassing for the Dunedin police force at the time to stuff up what really should be a conviction (now a miscarriage of justice) with their own incompetence. And I dont care that Bain has already served most of his sentence, its the principle of justice that is important and I want to see a new trial.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Viking not everyone is innocent! The Police usually do an adequate job of investigating crimes, but should be accountable and heads should roll when a Bain, AA Thomas or Ellis type investigation is revealed.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Hmmm – A high Court jury and TWO Appeal Court Judges beg to differ, but what is that against the views of such luminaries as Don Brash & Catherine Rich?
Hey I know – why don’t we get rid of this corrupt, feminist-infested, Labour-controlled old boy’s network of a Bench we’ve got, and instead appoint distinguished former political figures like Brash and Rich hear all serious trials? They obviously know what’s what. Now THAT would be a good system! All these old legal types are so out of touch….
[DPF: Your hatred of National really turns your brain cells off at times. It's bloody brave of Katherine and Don to champion a man convicted of child abuse. They stand to gain nothing from this - just their desire to see a just outcome. And I bet you, you haven't read the Lynley Hood book which details through more than 1,000 pages why the convictions are unsound. But hey let's not care about that, so long as you can sneer as normal]
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Paedophiles have a rough time in NZ prisons. They are regularly and frequently beaten up and bruised.
Vote:Peter Ellis was never touched by any inmate during his 7 years of incarceration.
Not a single inmate believed that he was a paedophile.
He deserves an apology and a pardon.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
MarkS.
The Innocence Project New Zealand and a Kiwiblog post about Ponekes post about Peter Ellis.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
It is not at all brave. The Peter Ellis miscarriage of justice has been a cause celebre for some time now. There is nothing particularly daring about saying someone should hold an inquiry into whether something was right or wrong.
And yes I do tend to sneer, when the public laps up the evidence presented in bestselling paperbacks by self-appointed people’s champions, and comes to the (author’s) conclusion that these dottery old Appeal Court Judges who sit through the evidence somehow don’t know what they’re talking about!
[DPF: The Appeal Court Judges had a narrow mandate. You obviously know stuff all about the case. And contrary to what you say, I happen to know that MPs who have supported an inquiry get some very nasty stuff thrown at them]
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Well done Mr Farrar for highlighting the Ellis case again.
And after following Cha’s pointer to the Poneke post on the subject I thoroughly commend that blogger’s comment and there is also good information in the reader comments.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Without a doubt Peter Ellis is a far better human being then I, I would have gone “hunting” for my protagonists years ago.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
# MarkS (56) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 0 Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“I think that there is a wider need for an Innocence project, like there is in other countries.”
There is one. DPF posted on it almost a year ago http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/the_innocence_project.html
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Appeal Court judges do not sit through the evidence. Only the trial judge does that and the trial judge does not make any determinations of fact.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
glubbster: In Tamihere’s case: -
No murder scene
No eyewitnesses who positively identified Tamihere and Heidi Paakkonen together
Eyewitnesses unable to identify Tamihere from photographs, but did so when in Court
Woman seen as with someone described as being possibly Tamihere described as wearing makeup – Paakkonen known to have worn none
Tamihere’s previous criminal record leaked to the media at a crucial point just before the trial
Secret witnesses who gave conflicting testimony of cellmate “confessions”
Urban Hoglin’s body being found in 1991 at a location 70km from where police argued Tamihere committed the crime
No forensic evidence in Hoglin & Paakkonen’s car that it had been used to transport his body
Post-conviction Tamihere demonstrated he could break into the car without a key in the manner he described, despite prosecution evidence at trial that it was not possible
That enough, glubbster? There is also something about Urban Hoglin’s watch, but I can’t remember that bit. Remember, the standard of proof is beyond reassonable doubt.
As for Watson, take Viking2′s advice and read Trial by tricker over the summer hols.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
In a somewhat longer view, we can hardly “move on” as some like to put it, in areas like male teachers in primary schools or other places from which they have been driven by fear of allegations, if we don’t clean up the Ellis case.
I might add that over the years I’ve bookmarked some alarming comments and some statistics by senior police and others on the quite horrific prevalence of false allegations against NZ men. Couple that with some unchallenged surveys in the US (which seems to be similar in allegations to us) and DNA evidence, and there’s a picture that possibly most sexual allegations are unfounded and based on spite, fear of getting caught and plain nuttiness.
Clearing up the Ellis case allegations would be a good start to rolling back the myth that all children and women/girls tell the truth in sexual allegations. We need to do it for other reasons too.. like the so called facts about bullying here which say we are close to the worst in the world.. the media present no evidence, no identification of types doing the bullying or the criteria for deciding what is real bullying.
JC
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I have to wonder why Ratbiter is so worried about this case going to a commission of inquiry, perhaps he is scared that the hands of Klark is all over this case given her strident support for all things feminist.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Ellis: Not guilty, set up by the femenazi’s.
Watson: Don’t give a toss, even if he did not do it he is in the right place, call it Karma if you must but I simply don’t care.
Tamahere: Read same as for Watson.
Bain: Guilty as sin, its back to prison for you sonny under the preventative detention rules I hope.
Barlow: Dunno, this is one that needs looking into a lot more.
Lundy: I want him to be guilty however anybody who has made the drive from Wellington to Palmerston North on a Friday evening will tell you it cannot be done in that time frame without being noticed.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
big bruv: Watson: Don’t give a toss, even if he did not do it he is in the right place, call it Karma if you must but I simply don’t care.
Tamahere: Read same as for Watson.
That’s a very disturbing attitude bruv. Whether someone is convicted of a crime should depend on whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt they have committed it, not what else they may have done or whether they are nice people or not. BTW, what do you think about Shipton and Schollum getting out so early, and you you think their past convictions should have been leaked by the Police in the Louise Nicholas case just as Tamihere’s were.
Barlow: I agree does need looking into a lot more. I find it strange that after two hung juries, he was convicted by a third. I suspect a lot of what was in the jurors’ subconscious was that if he was being tried a third time he really must be guilty or the Police would have given up.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Toad
Any conviction based on the evidence of a proven liar like Louise Nicholas is unsafe.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Well thanks for cleraring all that up toad.
Good news everybody, Hoglin & Paakkonen’s are still alive.
You guys ever considering not champoning scum at all? Just a thought.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
It was said Tamihere had it in his possessiopn when arrested – but when Urban’s body was found it was still wearing the watch.
And Lundy… I’m sure he did it, but I don’t know how (is there anyway to spoof the cellphone signal?), so that he had time to drive at less than Warp 10.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I have been involved in a trial as a member of the victims family.knowing the truth,I had to sit through lie after lie from the defense.It has taught me that there is no such thing a fair justice.Just stories from the prosecution and stories from the defence.It is up to the jury to sift through this stuff. I believe Ellis is innocent and that there are too many holes in the Watson case.Where has common sense gone?
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
llew
Like you I am sure that Lundy did it, I suspect that our useless Police department made a balls up of the times and got to the point where they just stuck to their story irrespective of the irrefutable fact that you cannot drive that far on a busy Friday night.
For Lundy to have done as the Police say he would have had…
1. To drive at an average speed of around 140km and not be noticed by anybody, somehow I cannot see him going that quick through Paraparaumu, Waikanae, Levin, Otaki and Foxton without be seen by somebody.
2. Not stopped for fuel, food or a piss
3. Encountered the lightest traffic in living memory.
He bloody did it alright and the cops were lucky that they got a jury who thought the same way otherwise we would have a another murderer walking free among us simply because our Police fucked up.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
BRUV:…………..He could go through Shannon then virtually deserted backroad missing out Foxton/ Levin , not sure about Otaki.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Without sifting through trial transcripts and evidence I’ll apply Occam’s razor to the cases mentioned above (Tamihere, Lundy, Watson, Bain, Barlow) and rely on my peers and the appeals process in having established justice.
Were they the most likely suspects? Yes, although Bain’s motive is questionable. Has sufficient evidence been presented through the media to establish prima facie guilt? Yes. Am I satisfied that significant miscarriages have not occurred? Yes, although the Bain retrial is going to be interesting (motive is a problem for me but how could he not account for the abrasions on his face?)
Don’t know about Ellis, although I have an uneasy feeling. Can the suggestive questioning of very young children realise believable facts to a degree beyond reasonable doubt? Or does the fact that some of the kids stories were embellished therefore render all of their testimony as fantasy? And if the stories were unsound then why hasn’t any of the complainants recanted their versions in the last seventeen years? In saying that though some of the allegations seem preposterous. I only hope the victims can maintain their recall of events as I can with the more major aspects of my own childhood.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Ilew & big bruv – it wasn’t a Friday night when Lundy topped his wife and daughter – it was midweek. And the brain tissue on his shirt was hard to explain away. Guilty.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
DPF said : The Chief Justice had a narrow brief, not the powers of a full Commission of Inquiry
A brief that also decided to overlook Sir Thomas Thorp’s report expressing doubts about the safety of the convictions
Artemisia said : The book is well worth a read, some of it was just hilarious.
Vote:I can’t say I thought any of the book was hilarious to be honest – scary and downright sad were the feelings I had as I read it.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Good stuff Don Brash, as we all know the Peter Ellis case highlights the corrupt Canterbury judiciary. Man that felt good, you slimy pigs and twisted keystone prosecution crown law scum. I mean to say they hired the kid fucker Capill. Have another pill Kath. Blonds are the go to elected as a Judge. Hi Jane. Feminist scum.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
IV2
I stand corrected, however it matters not, you cannot make that trip in such a short time frame and not be noticed.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
baxter
Good point and he would save a bit of time however he still has to go through Otaki, Para, Waikanae etc..
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
D4J
Ever thought that you might be blinded by hatred when it comes to the cops?
While I am sure there is the odd bad egg they are not all as you describe.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Oh yes big bruv – been bashed by cops have you bro? Had her Mrs smashed over by 4 Ashurton pigs ?My experience with police is rather unsavory and unfair. Get real mate, rotten pigs are never accountable to nobody. Eh SS Kelly !! The police corruption in Canterbury is fucking unbelievable, just look at the rape appeals next year in the Court of Appeal. Feminazi Detectives taint the force. Lots of falsely accused rot in Paparoa Prison bruv !! Get facts before you run with me big bruv. Suck it up, you don’t know everything and you dead wrong about Bain.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I’ve been reading the transcripts of the child interviews today, and, there is no way Peter Ellis is innocent. For children do not know the sort of stuff that is in those transcripts. They don’t imagine it – at all – so cannot make it up.
To champion Peter Ellis is idiocy.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Lucyna – the people who conducted those interviews with the children are not credible people.
Vote:Not to mention the INVESTIGATING Detective was bonking one of the children’s mum! You filth.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
D4J
Gee, given your anger problems is it any wonder you have been “bashed” by the Police, I suppose you are going to tell me that they gave you “the bash” for no good reason.
And as for Bain, give it a break, he has been found guilty once and will be found guilty again, Bain is a mass murderer and should never be let out of prison.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Lucyna
Your ignorance of the Ellis case is breathtaking, stop now before you make a complete fool of yourself.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
D4J and Big Bruv,
Children. Do. Not. Make. That. Sort. Of. Shit. Up. Period.
Unless they have been abused by someone.
I’ve known a number of adults who were abused as children, so no fool here.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Lucyna
“Children. Do. Not. Make. That. Sort. Of. Shit. Up. Period.”
Oh really?, then how do you account for those kids (now adults) who have now retracted their stories?
Ellis is just some poor smuck who happened to be guilty of nothing more than being a male who got in the way of the feminist movement.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Fuck up about anger problems big bruv you cowardly jerk. You are a queer dude full of shit . What do you know about my injustice? I am sick of you putting the shit in about things you know nothing about.
Lucyna – do you know that the children were brainwashed so the crown could seek a conviction.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Big Bruv,
Quite likely, they just want to move on with their lives and forget it all ever happened.
D4J
Brainwashed by whom? And if that were the case, that person ought to be tracked down and prosecuted and the key thrown away – because the damage you do to get those sorts of thoughts into kid’s head is just horrendous. The person would have to be a pervert of the highest order to do that. It just doesn’t sound credible, really.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Of course the kids made it up. The interviewers and the psychologists basically spoon-fed the shit to them so eventually the children believed they had been abused and why some of them continue to believe they were abused. The simple truth is you seem completely ignorant about things and you should be ashamed Lucyna
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Lucyna, it didn’t happen. Look at the names of the psychologists involved and there is the clue. They are still twisting children against men. Fact. I have many recent examples. Appeal conditions do not allow me to publish cases on here.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Lucyna,
“Children. Do. Not. Make. That. Sort. Of. Shit. Up. Period.”
The claim isn’t that the kids made the stuff up out of thin air. It is that a combination of parental and interviewer suggestion led the kids to claim that things happened when they actually didn’t. There’s plenty of psychology research that indicates that this can occur, and plenty to suggest it did occur in the Ellis case.
We’ll never know for sure whether Ellis did/did not abuse kids. What we can know is whether the process that convicted him was safe. I rather think it wasn’t.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
D4J
The entire fucking blog sphere has heard of your so called “injustices”, have you ever stopped for one second and thought that it might be YOU who has issues that need addressing?
You really should see somebody about your anger issues.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
big bruv – a true coward wanking on about anger. What a freak. How about a meeting face to face?
Got a email address or blog so we can carry this discussion off line? Yeah right big blouse.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
lucyna, maybe kids don’t make that shit up. maybe you’re right.
But if it wasn’t made up, why were the charges against the other creche workers dropped. Same kids. Same, or similar, allegations. But the charges against all the others originally accused were dropped. Spot the difference. Charges dropped = women. Prosecution and conviction = male.
I suggest you look at the work being done by people like Elizabeth Loftus, et al.
Start here
Vote:http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm, and then remember, google is your friend.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I suggest you check out Mary de Young’s, “The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic”. An excellent book about the experience of a family-run creche in the United States that faced many of the same problems. The male in particular having charges brought against him. The most interesting thing, is the same Psychologist here also worked with the children in the Peter Ellis case.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
dad4justice (4501) Vote: 0 0 Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
big bruv – a true coward wanking on about anger. What a freak. How about a meeting face to face?
Don’t bother, bb, he never shows up.
Vote:Just ask Stan, fugley, rogernome, and many many others he wants to meet “face to face”.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
AG & Ginger
Just last year I served on a jury where we had to watch taped interviews with a young child who was supposedly sexually assaulted by her father.
The case was pursued by CYFS despite the protestations of the Mother and quite naturally the father, I watched firstly in amazement and then growing anger at the suggestions this so called expert put into the kids head, despite the suggestions that ‘daddy had put his hands here etc..” the child kept saying no he (the father) had not done so.
Needless to say the deliberations were short and sweet and this time we were able to return a not guilty verdict but I often wonder how we might have got on had there been one of the man hating sisterhood on our jury or one of those people who are naive enough to think that kids suffer from the now discredited recovered memory syndrome.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
BB: “have you ever stopped for one second and thought that it might be YOU who has issues that need addressing?”
D4J: “big bruv – a true coward wanking on about anger. What a freak. How about a meeting face to face?”
QED.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I watched a case where the complainant a teenage girl, said that “she made the rape allegations up because mum and the lady detective told her too”. The father was convicted and got four years? Justice is sick in New Zealand.
AG = pathetic substandard retard.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
D4J.
Cup of tea and a lie down, I think. But definitely no coffee.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Lucyna – much as I respect your views, I believe you might have got this one wrong. Have a read of these articles from the New Zealand Law Journal, and you will see that there have been some massive abuses of process in the Peter Ellis case.
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2007/2007_francis_new_evidence.pdf
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“Cup of tea and a lie down, I think. But definitely no coffee.”
You lefty commies are humourless pricks aren’t you? As funny as a mouthful of rotten watermelon. What a wimpish comment.
Vote:Peter Ellis is innocent.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“You lefty commies are humourless pricks aren’t you?”
Not at all. We’ve been laughing at you for quite some time.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
D4J
I think you may find that AG agrees with you re Ellis, perhaps if you take AG’s advice about the cup of tea you might be able to see through the red mist.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Pardon Peter Elllis
Jail Peter Burns
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
big bruv – you are demerits bait. Are you a women? Goodbye coward. Catch up ONE Day. big bruv and billy bonker = bb wimps who hide behind anonymity. Real weak New Zealanders. Internet creeps without a life.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
# Lucyna (31) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“D4J…….Brainwashed by whom? And if that were the case, that person ought to be tracked down and prosecuted and the key thrown away – because the damage you do to get those sorts of thoughts into kid’s head is just horrendous. The person would have to be a pervert of the highest order to do that. It just doesn’t sound credible, really.”
I know, Lucyna, things that people like D4J claim are going on in NZ with the full resources of the State backing it up, sound just too horrific to be true……..BUT……….that is one of the reasons the feminazis are getting away with it. Good on Muriel Newman and Heather Roy, for example, there are not many like them making a cause out of the need to rein in the “Family Court” and its various agents. Look, more fuss is made in the western world about the rights of suspected terrorists than about fathers accused of one thing or another. The Yanks should just bring out some kids to accuse Rashid Khalidi and all those guys of abusing them, and hand them over to the Family Court in the USA, they’d be out of circulation quicker and with no-one giving a stuff about them.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Lucyna:
“Brainwashed by whom? And if that were the case, that person ought to be tracked down and prosecuted and the key thrown away – because the damage you do to get those sorts of thoughts into kid’s head is just horrendous. The person would have to be a pervert of the highest order to do that. It just doesn’t sound credible, really.”
Have you actually, you know, taken the time to READ any of the post case evidence on the way the interviews were conducted? If you have actually read it, did you allow it time to process?
Are you AT ALL familiar with the satanic ritual abuse syndrome MO?
Actually, to be perfectly frank Lucyna I’m not entirely sure you’re one to be talking too much about credibility when you believe in the big unquestionable sky wizard. Perhaps that’s why you’d like to believe that satanic ritual abuse was real?
I apoligise if I’m being offensive, but damn, that’s one hell of a suspension of disbelief you’ve got going on there.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
D4J
I do not post anything here with the intention of causing you to obtain demerits, you seem quiet capable of that all on your own.
Vote:The very fact that you seem to think that others are on some sort of mission to have you banned says a lot about your state of mind and perhaps this might be one of the reasons our Police force approach you with extreme caution, from what I have read here they would be well advised to treat you in such a manner.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Sorry big bruv gave up talking to cowardly internet creeps ages ago.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I hate to see people like BigBruv and D4J who are both valuable warriors in the war against the Cultural Marxists, at each other instead of the common enemy.
BigBruv, I think D4J’s anger is not without justification, you need the patience of a saint to just take the sort of stuff that our subverted agencies of the State have put him and many others through, lying down. There really is a lot of rot even in agencies like the police that we really really depend apon to be able to trust. We need to be awake to that reality.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
For once I agree with Toad. Claiming Watson is guilty without bothering to read Trial By Trickery is a display of poor knowledge and a closed mind. There was a mystery ketch and simply on the time and activity basis on the night concerened Watson would have had to have been a very busy fellow. Further watson has so far been convicted of a non crime. There is simply no evidence of anybody being killed. Certainly two people are missing, that’s clear but no evidence that any person has committed any crime.
The lengths Pope went to to misrepresent Watson is extraordinary and his blatant efforts to feed the press misinformation most certainly require inquiry.
Tamahere, I haven’t an opinion on but it does seem that maybe there are grounds for doubt.
Bain raises considerable doubt ands suspicion. My suspicions are aroused because of the haste with which the house was burnt down. No the police must have been complicit in that action and so one is left with nagging doubts given the poor quality of the evidence and detective work.
Ellis, it is inconceivable that Ellis could have done all he is accused of, particularly when he is supposed to have done so with a bunch of women in close proximity. If you doubt me try getting up to mischief among a group of women and see how quickly you get spotted. Women have a great deal of intuition (which most men including big bruv) don’t understand and fairly quickly spot something wrong.
The best way to understand what happens here is this. We have an adversarial justice system. It is motivated by the need of the opposing lawyers to “win” in court. It is not motivated by the inquiry for the truth as the French system is and clearly evidence is manipulated to the cause of winning.
Further the police (the people whose are tasked with collecting the evidence)are wed to the Prosecution Service which is in the next room, so we have a group whose sole goal is to convict people. Now that is not the job of the police. Their job is to uphold the maintenance of law and order. It is prosecutions role to present the case to court but because they and the police are one and the same there is no separation of functions.
I suggested a couple of weeks ago that the prosecution service should be separated from the police and the police should be required to convince the Prosecutor they have satisfactory evidence to go to court. The are a lot of juristicions that do this including some of the States in Australia.
There are a lot of benefits to doing this, including removing the probable collusion between police and prosecutor. It would also allow Prosecutors to be engaged from the wider legal profession rather than the few from the police. and to my mind the greatest benefit would be that any body that had sufficient information about a crime could take that information to a prosecutor who could then act to take the case to court. Particularly, where someone say is caught stealing from their company, say the evidence is recorded by a PI but the Police are simply too busy to be bothered, then the company could take the evidence to the prosecutor who could then decide to proceed to court. Presently these crimes go nowhere because the police do not have the resources and never will. Think of the effect that the increased risk of going to court would have on a lot of people who commit crimes that presently go unpunished.
Vote:NZer’s are adept at using the legal wording of the law to get their own way. Today we have the appalling behavior of a lawyer ( no doubt receiving buckets of taxpayer legal aid) defending the worst of scum who killed a policeman using the legal niceties to protect the scum from exposure. It time we stopped that nonsense and reclaimed NZ for the good people, but that goes for both sides of the system.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
The really sad thing is these children were abused. Not by Peter Ellis but by the system. The police, the experts, the legal system and society.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
PhilBest
Have you not heard of the saying “don’t get mad get even”?
Quiet some time ago I came to the realisation that I do not function as well when angered, accordingly I take great steps to avoid getting into that state of mind.
My point to D4J stands, he needs to get some help as erupting into a frothing mass of anger is not going to do him (or his cause) any bloody good at all.
Dealing with those who appose you is a lot like training a dog, if you yell and scream at the animal you will get nowhere, if you remain calm and assertive you get amazing results.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Give it a rest big blouse. How immature.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
The fact about the Peter Ellis case is that only evidence that could be substantiated was presented to the court. The more outlandish statements, such as the murder of a child, the use of trapdoors and suspended cages, were never presented to the jury simply because of the incredible nature of these stories.
Ponder the origin of the word incredible at this point.
Also never underestimate the imagination of a small child. The whole issue started because one child said to a mother that he had seen Peters black penis. Now my boy knows what a penis is. He has one. He has seen his father’s. He cannot put that into a sexual context. He may have seen something that Peter had that was black and may look like a penis. He may have wanted to shock his mother who seems to be the sort of person who could be so shocked.
Four year old children do know how to push the right buttons.
In any case the subsequent questions that were overtly sexual in nature, could be the catalyst for placing other information in the same context. Take fairy tales for example. A pre-schooler is told that if Peter showed him his penis, then that is bad and the grown-ups need to know. When the child tells the grown-up what the grown-up wants to hear, he is validated. Seeking more validation, the child fills in the gaps from his own imagination.
If that child is familiar with say, Hansel and Gretel, where witches kill and eat children who had been put in cages, what would the child say to a grown-up who wants to hear from a child how bad this person is?
Lucyna, your attitude and belief that children do not make this stuff up is naive at best and dangerous at worst.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I know someone who worked part time at the creche at the time of the abuse. She was gobsmacked when they prossicuted and convicted him as he was loved by all the kids. She said he was one of the few that had empathy for the kids. Her description of the head teachers was “cold fish”
She has been ignored by the cpos…I wonder why???
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
D4j listen to Big bruv, I guess you are very pissed off but sometimes getting angry isn’t the answer, it helps but it also stops you from thinking clear. Stop hating and start thinking.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
http://poneke.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/ellis-in-wonderland/
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
The following extract comes from an academic paper published last year by Stephen Ceci, Maggie Bruck et al. Both Ceci and Bruck have supported Ellis and have raised serious doubts about the safety of his conviction. The extract explains why it is wrong to assume that children who say they’ve been abused have actually been abused. It should be noted that some adults have confessed, after police coercion, to murders that they haven’t committed. Children are considered more suggestible than adults.
In a Jordan, Minnesota, case, Andy Meyers, an 11-year-old child, was removed from the family home and placed across town in an emergency foster placement because his father was suspected of abusing him. He steadfastly denied that his parents, or anyone else, had abused him. However, after three months of almost daily interrogations, he finally reported that he had been abused. He claimed that his parents held orgies in the woods and killed babies and then dumped them in a nearby river. His charges, along with those of 39 other children against 24 adults (many of whom were their parents), formed the basis of a long number of indictments that eventually were dropped because of the suggestive manner in which the children had been interviewed. Approximately nine years after making these charges, Andy described his disclosures to a journalist as follows:
Andy: I finally just said (to investigators) “fine, yeah that happened.”
Vote:Journalist: Why did you say “yes” that day?
Andy: I have no idea. Probably cause I was just sick of being badgered. I didn’t think I was ever going home. I mean, I figured if this is gonna be the way life is, I might as well make it a little more tolerable for myself.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Where to start?
Glubbster: “I loved the defence in the Watson case: “the mystery ketch”. As good a defence concoction and red herring without the Jury being fooled.”
Firstly, lawyers do not make up defence facts. Full stop. We take what the Police give us in disclosure and what our client tells us and determine if there is a defence. Sometimes there isn’t, but the client is bloodyminded enough to defend anyway. That is embarrasing, but we have to act on instructions. But we do not make up facts. That is just asking for a prison sentence.
The ‘mystery ketch’ came out of Police disclosure, not from the fantasies of the defence. The Police just didn’t want to know about it. Which is odd, because a mate of mine saw it and reported it, only to have the Police tell him it was no longer a part of their enquiries.
Lucyna: you are wrong, kids do make it up. For all sorts of reasons. By the way, did you read the stuff that the Prosecution (all lawyers, by the way) withheld from the jury? That makes some simply weird reading.
Viking: “It is motivated by the need of the opposing lawyers to “win” in court. It is not motivated by the inquiry for the truth as the French system is and clearly evidence is manipulated to the cause of winning.”
The system is not motivated by a need to ‘win’ in court, it is in fact after the truth. What we are seeing these days is are Crown Prosecutors who forget the rules of professional conduct require them to be disppasionate ministers of justice and instead go all out to win. In my experience, the worst offenders are relatively new female prosecutors with no defence experience. With the defence it is a bit difference, as we have an obligation to effectively defend our clients.
The French system sucks and we shouldn’t try to import it.
“I suggested a couple of weeks ago that the prosecution service should be separated from the police and the police should be required to convince the Prosecutor they have satisfactory evidence to go to court.”
The Crown Solicitors are independent from the Police and each region’s Crown Solicitor is only answerable to the Solicitor General about the charges laid on indictment. But each Crown Solicitor’s firm is there to make money from the Crown purse, and make money they do. A Crown Solicitor’s warrant is a wonderful thing to have if you want to enrich your firm. Don’t think they do it out of altruism. If you gave them only legal aid rates they would surrender the warrants very quickly.
“Today we have the appalling behavior of a lawyer ( no doubt receiving buckets of taxpayer legal aid) defending the worst of scum who killed a policeman using the legal niceties to protect the scum from exposure.”
First, we are legally and ethically obliged to defend any who ask us to if it is within our field of practice. The only way to stop us from doing this is to abolish defence lawyers (and many of us won’t worry if you do). But until then the ‘cab rank’ rule applies and we must take all comers. Secondly, we don’t receive buckets of taxpayer legal aid. The rates are appalling and the Agency limits us very effectively. Don’t think we do legal aid to get rich, we don’t. We do legal aid because we believe that everybody deserves the chance to have legal assistance. Doesn’t matter what the charge is, nor who the person is. We will even assist you, if you should need it.
“There are a lot of benefits to doing this, including removing the probable collusion between police and prosecutor. It would also allow Prosecutors to be engaged from the wider legal profession rather than the few from the police. and to my mind the greatest benefit would be that any body that had sufficient information about a crime could take that information to a prosecutor who could then act to take the case to court.”
Much as I often dislike the crusading of many of our prosecutors, I completely disagree with this. I do not believe that there is collusion between Police and Crown. Or Police and the Police Prosecution Service, those who work in that section often are far more impartial than many a Crown Prosecutor. If you are suggesting a Crown Prosecution Service as they have in the UK, then you will have support from me. But that body only comes into play once the Police have made an arrest, so your plan still wouldn’t work.
I suppose that what we are missing here is that whilst we have cases that have had fundamental questions raised about the safety of the convictions involved, then our justice system will always have questions over it. My own view is that we would benefit from a review body like the Criminal Cases Review Commission in the UK to look over cases such as those mentioned today. So far they have had a frightening success rate in their reviews.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
The following link provides access to a very good article about similar cases in the US. Most convictions for mass allegation abuse cases have been overturned.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_4_34/ai_n25466116/pg_1
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 7:06 am
F E Smith. Sorry but the system is definitely about winning in court and certainly not about airing all the truth. Fundamental to that is this. As a witness one is required to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (Accepting that everybody has their own truth as they assess it.)
Vote:The lawyers who partake in the trial process have no such requirement. They can use or disregard the truth according to their needs in any given case. That is not getting to the truth. When every piece of information is on the table then the truth can be determined but while any party can avoid that but simply not addressing the issue then we don’t have the truth.
There is no law or ethics in the world that make you compulsorily defend anyone. You do it for either the money or the qudos, there is no altruistic motive in defending scum of the likes of that fellow nor “p” makers etc. Last I saw the defenders of the worst drug purveyors in NZ ever are raking in huge sums of money from the taxpayer doing just that, including one whom I know.
If we canned legal aid and these people had to defend themselves we would have more money to spend where it should be spent and the scum would finish up where they belong at a lot less cost and for longer. And don’t bother with all the bleeding heart rubbish that has got us to where we are currently. Most of us good citizens are sick of hearing it, constantly at our cost.
Have to go to earn a dollar but may say more tonight.
Clearly our injustice system is creaking at the foundations when the victims are permanently victimized and the perpetrators and their little helpers get the good life.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Just a thought.
It would be an interesting exercise to investigate the beliefs of those prosecuting and presiding over the whole process.
There is an underlying belief that satanic ritual was part and parcel of life at the civic creche. What sort of people put stock in this idea? Predominantly fundamentalist people I would say. These people have very structured ideas of what is right and wrong, and Homosexuality falls on the wrong side of that ledger in their purview.
This is why Ellis was convicted.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 8:38 am
More an unholy (no pun intended) alliance between a bunch of dim, nasty, gullible and utterly misguided fundamentalists and feminists, with a few opportunistic police and health “professionals” stirring the pot.
The star “expert witness” from Ellis’s trial has log since slunk off to attempt a career as a “creative writer”. Not only should Ellis be thoroughly exonerated, those who carried out the inquisition should be flushed out from under their rocks and held to account.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Viking:
ouch. the system is indeed about determing the truth. The participants might think/act otherwise. Witnesses are indeed required to tell the truth, and swear an oath accordingly. Many do not. But that is what the adversarial system is about, to allow questioning in order to assist the finder of fact to discern the truth.
“The lawyers who partake in the trial process have no such requirement. They can use or disregard the truth according to their needs in any given case.”
That is just the most ridiculous statement. The lawyers who partake in the process have many, many rules that require them to tell the truth. They have obligations to the Court, to the Law Society, to their colleagues. It is the gravest offence you can accuse a lawyer of to say they have mislead the Court. The lawyer is no free to disregard the truth according to their needs. The lawyer, both proseuctor and defence, have no ‘needs’ in a case. It is not their case, it always belongs to and affects others. That is why it is such a responsibility and why the occpuation of criminal lawyer is such a stressful one.
“When every piece of information is on the table then the truth can be determined but while any party can avoid that but simply not addressing the issue then we don’t have the truth.”
There is never the time when every piece of information is on the table. There are so many rules that of evidence that it can never happen. The Police never reveal everything to the defence. The jury never hears everything either. But those rules are in place because over the hundreds of years that the jury trial has been used, these rules have been found to be necessary to give a fair trial that is not influenced by matters unconnected with the facts in issue. And that goes for both the prosecution and the defence.
“There is no law or ethics in the world that make you compulsorily defend anyone. You do it for either the money or the qudos, there is no altruistic motive in defending scum of the likes of that fellow nor “p” makers etc.”
No, the defence lawyers are not compelled to defend anyone. They can choose not to be defence lawyers at all, in which case nobody will force them to take on a criminal case. But if the lawyer chooses to be a defence lawyer, whether as a speciality or within his/her practice, then they are forbidden by the rules of the Law Society, which are part of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act and therefore part of our legislation, to act for any person that requests their assistance. I am ethically and legally obliged to represent all who come to me who face criminal charges (unless they cannot pay!) regardless of whether they are murderers, rapists, drug dealers, child abusers, burglars or any other sort of ‘scum’. Defence lawyers in this country cannot pick and choose their clients. They can in the USA, but not here.
I really don’t care if you get rid of legal aid. The resources are biased toward the Police anyway, so why complain about the situation? Of course, you are then saying that only the rich can be defended by lawyers. Well, ok, if you want. <Many people already plead guilty even if they have a defence (you don’t believe only guilty people are charged, do you?) simply because they cannot afford to hire a lawyer and cannot do it themselves. There are so many people out there with mental illnesses, illiteracy, learning disabilities and other difficulties that mean they simply cannot defend themselves. Trust me, the Courts know full well that they could not properly operate in the criminal jurisdiction without defence lawyers present.
I am sad that you have such a bad view of the criminal bar. I assume it applies equally to prosecutors and defence lawyers as you don’t seem to have made a distinction. But we often do this because we believe that our fellow man deserves to have a person to stand up for them when they cannot. Don’t get me wrong, I can earn a lot more money doing other than criminal work. This is not about the money. Sometimes I wish it was.
Slightlyrighty: I have had dealings with some of the people who prosecuted Peter Ellis, both Police and Crown. I am sure that they did it out of a sense of duty and, for most, a belief that he was guilty. I am sure that the Crown prosecutors still believe that he is guilty. That said, a belief in the justice of your case is never a requirement to prosecute. The issue is whether you are of the opinion that you can prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. But none of the ones I met are fundamentalist other than being passionately pro-Crown!
I think that enough rope makes the correct point in the post at 8:38am- it was driven by an expert who is now discredited but the Justice Department is not willing to admit that it could have got it wrong.
Vote: