The Herald
July 1 2003
Justice system failures must be rectified for Ellis' sake.
by Lynley Hood
Author of A City Possessed: The Christchurch Civic Creche Case
The Herald editorial backing the Minister of Justice's refusal to
establish a royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch civic
creche case was misguided.
In this case, the justice system has failed, and failed badly, and has
been unable to self-correct.
It convicted Peter Ellis and threw Christchurch into turmoil on the
evidence of very young children, in the absence of corroborating
evidence, and despite the great majority of parents with children at
the creche finding nothing inappropriate in Ellis' behaviour.
Until there is a full inquiry by an independent judge from outside the
New Zealand jurisdiction, this case won't go away.
When Sir Thomas Eichelbaum was asked to review the case by Phil Goff
in 2000, his terms of reference were narrow and flawed. In the course
of his inquiry, he talked to some of the complainant families, and to
the Commissioner for Children.
But he failed to speak to any non-complainant families (who were the
overwhelming majority of creche parents). He did not speak to the
creche staff. He did not speak to Ellis himself.
He also did not speak to the family whose child retracted her
allegations, despite the fact that this child was the oldest and most
credible of the Crown's witnesses.
She later confessed that she had lied about Ellis because she thought
that was what her mother and the interviewer wanted her to say. Sir
Thomas did not talk to that child.
Mr Goff has said that Sir Thomas was assisted by two pre-eminent
international experts. But only one of the experts - Professor Graham
Davies, of Leicester University - was a recognised mainstream expert.
The other, Dr Louise Sas, of London, Ontario, was not.
Dr Sas believed small children could be ritually abused in day-care
centres on a huge scale without anybody noticing. Her alleged
expertise was based mainly on her involvement in some of the biggest
ritual abuse panics in North America.
Mr Goff claims that both experts supported Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's
conclusions. This is not true. Professor Davies' report does not
support Sir Thomas' conclusions.
If I were to pick on just one point that shows up the justice system's
failures, in general, and Sir Thomas' failures, in particular, it is
this: in the course of her fourth videotaped interview, a child
alleged that Ellis took her to his house where a man named Joseph
teased her with his penis.
On the basis of that allegation, Ellis was charged with being party to
an offence committed by an unknown man, at an unknown place, at an
unknown time and date. The jury found him guilty on that charge.
The jury's verdict was upheld by two Court of Appeal hearings in front
of a total of seven judges, and by Sir Thomas. He said that both he
and his experts had no doubts about the reliability of the children's
evidence.
But Professor Davies did have doubts. "There is nothing in this
interview that convinces me that this child visited Peter's house or
was assaulted by a man named Joseph," he wrote.
In fact, Professor Davies had doubts about all the allegations about
unidentified people at unidentified places outside the creche.
As for the less bizarre allegations said to have taken place at the
creche, Professor Davies advised Sir Thomas to do reality checks to
see whether, in terms of the layout of the centre and the way it
functioned, these offences could have happened.
But Sir Thomas did not do reality checks. And yet, he concluded,
without reservation or qualification, that Ellis' guilt had been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, a large number of New Zealanders have said it is time to look
again at the case. Signatories to the petition include a retired High
Court judge, nine Queen's Counsel, nine professors of law, 26 MPs
(from every party in Parliament), two former prime ministers and four
professors of psychology.
Clearly the issues raised by the case are of widespread concern. Until
they are addressed, public and professional confidence in the
judiciary will continue to be eroded.
The Minister of Justice has the constitutional authority to instruct
the Governor General to establish a royal commission. He could do it
tomorrow.
You don't need new evidence to establish a commission of inquiry. You
don't need the permission of the judiciary. All you need is moral
courage and political will.
As Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of
evil is for good men to do nothing".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Herald
June 28 2003
Goff right to reject petition on Ellis
Editorial
A book challenging the conviction of Peter Ellis on charges of child
abuse in a Christchurch creche has made a powerful impression on those
who read it. They include an impressive list of prominent people,
published in the Herald on Wednesday, who have put their names to a
petition for a commission of inquiry into the Ellis case.
So far Justice Minister Phil Goff has been unmoved. "Judicial
decisions are made by people with the skill and experience to do so,"
he said. "They are not made by politicians, authors or notable
people."
Actually, there are several lawyers and even a retired High Court
judge, Justice Laurence Greig, on the list too. But the minister has a
point and it is this:
A book, no matter how well researched and compelling its conclusions,
is ultimately one person's version of events. A criminal trial is a
different kind of inquiry. With her book, A City Possessed, Lynley
Hood has reflected a widespread view that Ellis may have been the
victim of a cause.
Nobody needs to have read the book to share an impression that social
workers and police, in their determination to prosecute child abuse,
sometimes seem too credulous where the claims of children are
concerned. Their rule of thumb has seemed to be that children have no
reason to make things up, and that if some of their stories seemed
fanciful there had to be a trigger for the child's imagination. Once
an investigator suspected abuse, no line of questioning of the child
seemed too suggestive or prejudicial.
But once a case is brought to court, leading questions can be
challenged and prejudicial assumptions excluded. Much of the concern
over the Ellis case arises by all accounts from evidence of children
that was excluded because it was simply not credible. Ellis'
supporters argue that had the jury heard it, the rest of the
children's evidence would have been received in a different light.
Lawyers, no less than authors, select the evidence they present for
its value to the case they are making. Defence counsel are
particularly selective, doing their utmost to exclude any adverse
information about the defendant that is not necessary to a bare
description of events giving rise to the charge. In this way, juries
are often denied background knowledge that most people would consider
relevant to a judgment of guilt but which the law considered
prejudicial. Prosecuting authorities are supposed to be more
even-handed in laying out their evidence, presenting what they have
gathered whether or not it supports their case.
In that respect a good book will resemble a prosecution case. In fact
a good way of assessing the author's reliability is to note whether
inconvenient comments and facts occur in the account. A book built
entirely on a defence case would be a tendentious document indeed. But
no matter how balanced a book may be, it needs to come to a clear,
convincing and preferably upsetting conclusion to warrant publication.
And no matter how balanced its case, it is one person's construction.
A courtroom, by contrast, is a testing arena for conflicting versions
of events, aimed at convincing a dispassionate judge or 12 anonymous
citizens who have no personal interest riding on their conclusion. For
that reason, the Justice Minister is right to resist an inquiry into a
case that has been judged in courtrooms several times now. He needs to
see new evidence before he could consider reopening the case. Plainly
he has not seen it in the book.
He is not impressed by the list of luminaries who have lent their
names to the cause. Their views carry no more weight than those of any
other citizens. Like us all, they know only what they have read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:57:12 +1200, Brian <brianr@no-spam> wrote:
>
>The Herald editorial backing the Minister of Justice's refusal to
>establish a royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch civic
>creche case was misguided.
>
Typical Granny Herald - from the paper that stirred things up
resulting in the then Cathlolic Archbishop Liston being tried for
sedition - he was acquitted.
peterwn@no-spam (Peter) wrote in message news:<3f015824.46934988@no-spam>...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:57:12 +1200, Brian <brianr@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >The Herald editorial backing the Minister of Justice's refusal to
> >establish a royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch civic
> >creche case was misguided.
> >
> Typical Granny Herald - from the paper that stirred things up
> resulting in the then Cathlolic Archbishop Liston being tried for
> sedition - he was acquitted.
Who actually wrote that glib, mealy-mouthed piece of crap posing as
editorial comment? David Bisman? Phil Goff? Or Lianne Dalziel? Or
the Ellis witch hunter Professor John Read from the Psych. department
at Auckland University?
I think we should be told....
Brian Sandle <bsandle@no-spam> blithered in message
news:<1057058920.874597@no-spam>...
>
> We are probably at the stage where we were with breast cancer some years
> back. To make sure that you got it all you took away a lot of good tissue,...
.... < snip confused and rambling false analogy >.....
>
> Please educate me.
Read Lynley Hood's book A CITY POSSESSED.
In nz.general Morrissey Breen <morrisseybreen@no-spam> wrote:
> Brian Sandle <bsandle@no-spam> blithered in message
> news:<1057058920.874597@no-spam>...
>>
>> We are probably at the stage where we were with breast cancer some years
>> back. To make sure that you got it all you took away a lot of good tissue,...
> .... < snip confused and rambling false analogy >.....
>>
>> Please educate me.
> Read Lynley Hood's book A CITY POSSESSED.
Does she deal with all those issues I raised?
Brian Sandle <bsandle@no-spam> wrote in message news:<1057058920.874597@no-spam>...
> In nz.general Brian <brianr@no-spam> wrote:
> > As Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of
> > evil is for good men to do nothing".
>
> We are probably at the stage where we were with breast cancer some years
> back. To make sure that you got it all you took away a lot of good tissue,
> too, muscle and glands - radical mastectomy. Now sometimes the treatment
> is more to the lump itself.
>
> I think we need a different system of justice for educational situations.
> The teachers' college might train the teacher to never be alone with fewer
> than 3 pupils. If there are two pupils only, the second will back up what
> the first says. But a third will help to bring some truth in. So then the
> teacher could be penalised for being alone with fewer than three pupils.
>
> Should it all be taped as in shops?
>
[snip]
I would hate to see this: it smacks of a cure that's worse than the
disease - seeing that the "disease" affects very few children and
teachers, and a "cure" such as you are suggesting would affect them
all.
There was an article in the DomPost the other day (ref would be
useless, even if I had it, because it's probably over the horizon at
the website, but I took a copy if anyone's interested) saying (not for
the first time) that male primary school teachers are scared of being
seen to be too close to or affectionate with children, and surmising
that the lack of male primary teachers may be contributing to the
relatively poor educational performance of boys (lack of male role
models, etc).
I'd certainly be prepared to believe that by stifling affection and
normal human caring and courtesy, this hysteria over potential and
fictional child molestation has at least some negative effect on our
education, and on our national "psyche".
Will we reach the stage where the job of half the people in the
country is to mount surveillance on the other half because (as a
police officer said stopping me and my two young daughters) "we can't
be too careful"?
Enough is enough; and adult-to-child ratios and video cameras
everywhere is certainly too much IMO.
Steve B.
On 1 Jul 2003 22:25:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
<bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>In nz.general Morrissey Breen <morrisseybreen@no-spam> wrote:
>> Brian Sandle <bsandle@no-spam> blithered in message
>> news:<1057058920.874597@no-spam>...
>
>>>
>>> We are probably at the stage where we were with breast cancer some years
>>> back. To make sure that you got it all you took away a lot of good tissue,...
>
>> .... < snip confused and rambling false analogy >.....
>
>>>
>>> Please educate me.
>
>> Read Lynley Hood's book A CITY POSSESSED.
>
>Does she deal with all those issues I raised?
Read it and find out.
It may even change the issues you want to raise.
Brian
Brian Sandle <bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
In nz.general Steve Bell <s.bell@no-spam> wrote:
>>> Enough is enough; and adult-to-child ratios
>
>`Don't be alone with fewer than 3 kids' had been advocated by one
>TC lecturer in the 60s, that is for secondary schools.
>
>Some adolescents can be exploring dominance.
>
>and video cameras
>> everywhere is certainly too much IMO.
>
>Hmm, so a bit more freedom and severer penalties if things go wrong, and
>we don't know whose fault. Perhaps teachers could be given the choice?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dont know whether its general amnesia or what but at the time of the
original trial where Peter Ellis was charged re the christchurch
creche sexual offences.....
He was also on another separate sexual assult charge that the
crown did not take any further because the christchurch creche case
was allready before the court.....And the Herald is simply reporting
the truth that their is no new evidence to change the original
decision..but the legal people " lawyers/ barristers will continue to
try and create/present so called evidence to bring before the court..
because its all on Legal Aid and they are earning hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fees.And as to the writer she,s flogging a
book and with all the media circus she will also earn heaps...Hell
what about Scot Watson and the lawyers have dredged up a friend of his
to talk about so called new evidence that will bring in heaps of Legal
Aid cheeeeeeeee and then theres David Bane more Legal Aid ???
do feel free to do some research..........Regards Te Kahuta........
In article <3f04d215.13997058@no-spam>, hopkinsonb@no-spam
says...
> Dont know whether its general amnesia or what but at the time of the
>
> original trial where Peter Ellis was charged re the christchurch
> creche sexual offences.....
>
> He was also on another separate sexual assult charge that the
>
> crown did not take any further because the christchurch creche case
>
> was allready before the court.....
No there is not general amnesia but every time the Peter Ellis case comes
up in the media, your friends on behalf of defending the incompetent
Christchurch Police force and probably the Police Association as well,
try to silence Ellis by bringing this matter up and last time they called
him in for re questioning on this "new allegation" which they have
harrassed him with ever since.
> the truth that their is no new evidence to change the original
>
> decision..but the legal people " lawyers/ barristers will continue to
>
> try and create/present so called evidence to bring before the court..
>
> because its all on Legal Aid and they are earning hundreds of
>
> thousands of dollars in fees.And as to the writer she,s flogging a
>
> book and with all the media circus she will also earn heaps...Hell
>
> what about Scot Watson and the lawyers have dredged up a friend of his
>
>
> to talk about so called new evidence that will bring in heaps of Legal
>
>
> Aid cheeeeeeeee and then theres David Bane more Legal Aid ???
>
> do feel free to do some research..........Regards Te Kahuta........
In the case of the police force they have their perks and their perf
scheme and their super and all the rest of the stuff that goes with their
job and rank to protect, we also have the spectacle of Greg Mather,
hounded by the police into bankruptcy through the laying of charges based
on evidence that did not stand up in court, subsequently his case was
dismissed when an investigator showed up the holes in the police case. We
also have Christchurch businessman David Tipple who sued the police for
harrassment against his business and won. The Police Association will
defend any policeman no matter how incompetent, because they are a trade
union.
On 6 Jul 2003 11:06:48 GMT, Brian Sandle
<bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>For parents to have confidence in the preschool system it doesn't quite
>work if teachers are under doubt. That must be the case in a system which
>only convicts beyond doubt.
The point of Lynley Hood's book seems to be that the evidence was
manipulated and te procedures exploited so as to falsely create for
the jury the perception at that time that there was no doubt.
There is now, and always should have been enormous doubt.
>I think we need a different system of justice for educational situations.
I vigorously disagree. As a person in the education system, I am as
entitled to be protected from false accusations and manipulated
evidence as any other person in the country.
Are you seriously saying that because an accused is in a position of
trust, a lower standard of legal integrity is required in the process?
>When a person is in authority of some sort, the client has to be
>absolutely able to trust, don't they?
No. If you are dependent on humans there can be no absolutes.
>To what degree should buyer beware
>come in with health workers' caring of patients?
Exactly as much as in any other human endeavour.
>Do you leave it to
>patients to do the avoiding individually until you have definite proof
>against a trangressor?
It's a tough world full of uncertainties. Why on earth (indeed how on
earth) do you expect to eliminate uncertainty?
>I am afraid I am left a bit cold by all the legal arguments. The law is
>not cut out to answer this case. What is?
Of course you are, because it is not your life that has been ruined by
a gigantic miscarriage of justice.`
>So what would the book subsitute for those concerns?
I wouldn't bother because I think your concerns seem entirely
irrelevant to the subject matter ... whether or not Peter Ellis was
wrongly convicted.
--
Brian M. Harmer
In nz.general Brian Harmer <brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2003 11:06:48 GMT, Brian Sandle
> <bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>>For parents to have confidence in the preschool system it doesn't quite
>>work if teachers are under doubt. That must be the case in a system which
>>only convicts beyond doubt.
> The point of Lynley Hood's book seems to be that the evidence was
> manipulated and te procedures exploited so as to falsely create for
> the jury the perception at that time that there was no doubt.
> There is now, and always should have been enormous doubt.
If you are employing a child care worker how much doubt about sexual abuse
swirling around them would you want?
>>I think we need a different system of justice for educational situations.
> I vigorously disagree. As a person in the education system, I am as
> entitled to be protected from false accusations and manipulated
> evidence as any other person in the country.
I don't think the current legal system works quite so well in education.
> Are you seriously saying that because an accused is in a position of
> trust, a lower standard of legal integrity is required in the process?
I feel that this conviction may have been a statement which I am not sure
could be made any other way under the current system.
>>When a person is in authority of some sort, the client has to be
>>absolutely able to trust, don't they?
> No. If you are dependent on humans there can be no absolutes.
Well pretty much.
>>To what degree should buyer beware
>>come in with health workers' caring of patients?
> Exactly as much as in any other human endeavour.
>>Do you leave it to
>>patients to do the avoiding individually until you have definite proof
>>against a trangressor?
> It's a tough world full of uncertainties. Why on earth (indeed how on
> earth) do you expect to eliminate uncertainty?
>>I am afraid I am left a bit cold by all the legal arguments. The law is
>>not cut out to answer this case. What is?
> Of course you are, because it is not your life that has been ruined by
> a gigantic miscarriage of justice.`
>>So what would the book subsitute for those concerns?
> I wouldn't bother because I think your concerns seem entirely
> irrelevant to the subject matter ... whether or not Peter Ellis was
> wrongly convicted.
Thankyou for confirming that.
So now I have expressed my concerns and pointed out that the conviction
could be a statement along those lines, you appear to say no statement was
needed. A certain amount of doubt is acceptible.
Teachers used to be allowed to cane pupils. Women teachers who married
were asked to leave. There have been different standards for teachers.
Teachers spend a lot of time with the same children and so there is more
hazard of affections developing inappropriately. For a teacher to allow
that is already tending to abuse, isn't it? So I think a set of guidelines
is needed for teachers. Airline pilots have to adhere to stricter
guidelines of health than some workers.
On 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 GMT, Brian Sandle
<bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>In nz.general Brian Harmer <brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2003 11:06:48 GMT, Brian Sandle
>> <bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
(snip)
>If you are employing a child care worker how much doubt about sexual abuse
>swirling around them would you want?
Protection of the innocent kids is one thing. It is unreasonable to
extend that to slapping teachers or child care workers in jail on a
lower standard of proof than in other cases, which is what you appear
to be advocating.
>>>I think we need a different system of justice for educational situations.
>
>> I vigorously disagree. As a person in the education system, I am as
>> entitled to be protected from false accusations and manipulated
>> evidence as any other person in the country.
>I don't think the current legal system works quite so well in education.
Why? How? Examples?
>> Are you seriously saying that because an accused is in a position of
>> trust, a lower standard of legal integrity is required in the process?
>I feel that this conviction may have been a statement which I am not sure
>could be made any other way under the current system.
I thought I read English quite well but I don't understand what you
are saying above.
>>>When a person is in authority of some sort, the client has to be
>>>absolutely able to trust, don't they?
>
>> No. If you are dependent on humans there can be no absolutes.
>
>Well pretty much.
Very cryptic ... and incomprehensible
(Snip)
>
>>>I am afraid I am left a bit cold by all the legal arguments. The law is
>>>not cut out to answer this case. What is?
>
>> Of course you are, because it is not your life that has been ruined by
>> a gigantic miscarriage of justice.`
>
>>>So what would the book subsitute for those concerns?
>> I wouldn't bother because I think your concerns seem entirely
>> irrelevant to the subject matter ... whether or not Peter Ellis was
>> wrongly convicted.
>Thankyou for confirming that.
>So now I have expressed my concerns and pointed out that the conviction
>could be a statement along those lines, you appear to say no statement was
>needed. A certain amount of doubt is acceptible.
Your concerns seem to have nothing to do with the soundness or
otherwise of the Ellis trials. I cannot see any conviction in terms
of a statement of anything other than guilt or innocence. You can't
convict someone purely as an expression of your desire to protect
children. You have to prove by means of an unassailably just process
that the person did something illegal.
>Teachers used to be allowed to cane pupils. Women teachers who married
>were asked to leave. There have been different standards for teachers.
Women teachers asked to leave? How far back are you going? Not in my
lifetime in any school I ever heard of. I don't accept that there have
been different standards for teachers.
>Teachers spend a lot of time with the same children and so there is more
>hazard of affections developing inappropriately. For a teacher to allow
>that is already tending to abuse, isn't it? So I think a set of guidelines
>is needed for teachers. Airline pilots have to adhere to stricter
>guidelines of health than some workers.
But even airline pilots, when on trial, are entitled to exactly the
same rigorous standards of integrity in the legal process as anyone
else. You don't lower the standards of proof or manipulate the
evidence just because the accused is a pilot. Why would you want to do
so for a teacher.
I have no difficulty with the concept that the highest standards of
behaviour are expected from teachers. I do object to the idea that
mere suspicions and doubt should then be sufficient to convict.
--
Brian M. Harmer
"Brian Harmer" <brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:0jjhgvoh9hgp7jspfkmgcaafucq1b7savv@no-spam
> On 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 GMT, Brian Sandle
> <bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >> Are you seriously saying that because an accused is in a position of
> >> trust, a lower standard of legal integrity is required in the process?
>
> >I feel that this conviction may have been a statement which I am not sure
> >could be made any other way under the current system.
>
> I thought I read English quite well but I don't understand what you
> are saying above.
>
> --
> Brian M. Harmer
LOL
Best reply I've seen for a while.
On a side note, I would've said, "I could read", just to add to the well
hitting punch line. :-)
E. Scrooge
On 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 GMT, Brian Sandle
<bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>In nz.general Brian Harmer <brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2003 11:06:48 GMT, Brian Sandle
>> <bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>>For parents to have confidence in the preschool system it doesn't quite
>>>work if teachers are under doubt. That must be the case in a system which
>>>only convicts beyond doubt.
>
>> The point of Lynley Hood's book seems to be that the evidence was
>> manipulated and te procedures exploited so as to falsely create for
>> the jury the perception at that time that there was no doubt.
>
>> There is now, and always should have been enormous doubt.
>
>If you are employing a child care worker how much doubt about sexual abuse
>swirling around them would you want?
Out of curiosity, in NZ, is there any legal requirement for anyone
looking after kids ie: madatory cpr class with emphasis on children;
background check; registering with a local authority etc?
From my experience years ago, there was nothing then.
Only because a neighbour saw the list of replies I had to an advert in
the paper for after-school care for my child, was it brought to my
attention that one of the women was the woman who had recently
appeared in Court [name suppressed] for putting her kid's hands on a
hot stove.
I had another care-giver who made my son eat any left over lunch down
the back of her yard as she didn't want her littlies and the other kid
she looked after seeing him eat - needless to say she got the chop
bloody quickly.
We trusted people to be good care-givers but there was no way we knew
a thing about them.
Cath
In nz.general E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@no-spam (*21)> wrote:
> "Brian Harmer" <brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:0jjhgvoh9hgp7jspfkmgcaafucq1b7savv@no-spam
>> On 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 GMT, Brian Sandle
>> <bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >> Are you seriously saying that because an accused is in a position of
>> >> trust, a lower standard of legal integrity is required in the process?
>>
>> >I feel that this conviction may have been a statement which I am not sure
>> >could be made any other way under the current system.
>>
>> I thought I read English quite well but I don't understand what you
>> are saying above.
Courts make _policy_statements_.
A judge may not just resolve a dispute, they may also set a precedent,
i.e. they make a policy statement which others follow. Same with juries.
But juries are not trained extensively in law, so their statements are
related to feelings and fears of ordinary people. "Let it be known that
though we cannot judge guilt beyond every doubt given the evidence we
heard, a better policy is to risk the wrongful conviction of one teacher
rather than risk effects on lives of many children."
>>
>> --
>> Brian M. Harmer
> LOL
> Best reply I've seen for a while.
> On a side note, I would've said, "I could read", just to add to the well
> hitting punch line. :-)
Better improve on laughing it off, Scrooge.
In nz.general Brian Harmer <brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 GMT, Brian Sandle
> <bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
>>In nz.general Brian Harmer <brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote:
>>> On 6 Jul 2003 11:06:48 GMT, Brian Sandle
>>> <bsandle@no-spam> wrote:
> (snip)
>>If you are employing a child care worker how much doubt about sexual abuse
>>swirling around them would you want?
> Protection of the innocent kids is one thing. It is unreasonable to
> extend that to slapping teachers or child care workers in jail on a
> lower standard of proof than in other cases, which is what you appear
> to be advocating.
No I think the system needs to change.
I put forward a feeler about video cameras in classrooms, but Steve
disapproved. We are so used to being in fromt of video camerass in shops,
why not in the classroom? They might even be used to analyse teaching
technique.
>
>>>>I think we need a different system of justice for educational situations.
>>
>>> I vigorously disagree. As a person in the education system, I am as
>>> entitled to be protected from false accusations and manipulated
>>> evidence as any other person in the country.
>
>>I don't think the current legal system works quite so well in education.
>
> Why? How? Examples?
In education the teachers have such powers over students. We need a system
which early picks up anything which could develop into transgressions.
>>> Are you seriously saying that because an accused is in a position of
>>> trust, a lower standard of legal integrity is required in the process?
>
>>I feel that this conviction may have been a statement which I am not sure
>>could be made any other way under the current system.
>
> I thought I read English quite well but I don't understand what you
> are saying above.
In addition to what I said on a previous article, how can the people
officially sound a warning bell?
>>>>When a person is in authority of some sort, the client has to be
>>>>absolutely able to trust, don't they?
>>
>>> No. If you are dependent on humans there can be no absolutes.
>>
>>Well pretty much.
>
> Very cryptic ... and incomprehensible
Yes I see that mentally handicapped people are not being convicted equally
for the same amount of harm.
> (Snip)
>>
>
>>>>I am afraid I am left a bit cold by all the legal arguments. The law is
>>>>not cut out to answer this case. What is?
>>
>>> Of course you are, because it is not your life that has been ruined by
>>> a gigantic miscarriage of justice.`
>>
>>>>So what would the book subsitute for those concerns?
>
>>> I wouldn't bother because I think your concerns seem entirely
>>> irrelevant to the subject matter ... whether or not Peter Ellis was
>>> wrongly convicted.
>
>>Thankyou for confirming that.
>
>>So now I have expressed my concerns and pointed out that the conviction
>>could be a statement along those lines, you appear to say no statement was
>>needed. A certain amount of doubt is acceptible.
>
> Your concerns seem to have nothing to do with the soundness or
> otherwise of the Ellis trials. I cannot see any conviction in terms
> of a statement of anything other than guilt or innocence. You can't
> convict someone purely as an expression of your desire to protect
> children. You have to prove by means of an unassailably just process
> that the person did something illegal.
And of course I do not know how the jury deliberated. And they do not have
to say. I just put forward a hypothesis. And the Judge did not overturn
their verdict.
>>Teachers used to be allowed to cane pupils. Women teachers who married
>>were asked to leave. There have been different standards for teachers.
>
> Women teachers asked to leave? How far back are you going? Not in my
> lifetime in any school I ever heard of. I don't accept that there have
> been different standards for teachers.
Last night on Jim Sullivan's National Radio program it was mentioned.
Teachers who married might bring the stresses of motherhood to the
classroom. Things were changing in Wellington Teachers' College by the mid
60s, but in 1967 I knew a woman student who was not allow to continue at
Teachers' College in Christchurch when marrying, which she had come to
Christchurch to do.
>>Teachers spend a lot of time with the same children and so there is more
>>hazard of affections developing inappropriately. For a teacher to allow
>>that is already tending to abuse, isn't it? So I think a set of guidelines
>>is needed for teachers. Airline pilots have to adhere to stricter
>>guidelines of health than some workers.
> But even airline pilots, when on trial, are entitled to exactly the
> same rigorous standards of integrity in the legal process as anyone
> else. You don't lower the standards of proof or manipulate the
> evidence just because the accused is a pilot. Why would you want to do
> so for a teacher.
For the pilots there are frequent checks.
> I have no difficulty with the concept that the highest standards of
> behaviour are expected from teachers. I do object to the idea that
> mere suspicions and doubt should then be sufficient to convict.
Yes and the jury system in USA has freed `kluxers'.
It needs looking at.