The thing with child abuse is that quite often abused children will not want to remember what happened to them and it's not until they become adults that they may decide it's worth telling someone.
I've known several adults that were abused as children and all of them did not tell anyone about what happened until they grew up. And it was only after they started to have problems related to the abuse that they realised they needed to get it out. That not dealing with it was causing them real problems.
Therefore, it would not surprise me that given the number of children already known to have been abused in the Peter Ellis case, that in the future there will most probably be more adults coming forward to tell their stories.
For that reason, it's imperative for the pro-Peter Ellis people to get some sort of official verdict exonerating him in order to make future complainants less likely. The more obstacles to adults coming forward, the better.
Related Link: Presenter Linda Clark with Nathan and his mother : Nathan had been abused by Peter Ellis at the Christchurch creche when he was 4 years old, but had not told his mother until he was 16 years old and having real problems at school and in his life. He had not been involved in the case against Peter Ellis at all.
I've known several adults that were abused as children and all of them did not tell anyone about what happened until they grew up. And it was only after they started to have problems related to the abuse that they realised they needed to get it out. That not dealing with it was causing them real problems.
Therefore, it would not surprise me that given the number of children already known to have been abused in the Peter Ellis case, that in the future there will most probably be more adults coming forward to tell their stories.
For that reason, it's imperative for the pro-Peter Ellis people to get some sort of official verdict exonerating him in order to make future complainants less likely. The more obstacles to adults coming forward, the better.
Related Link: Presenter Linda Clark with Nathan and his mother : Nathan had been abused by Peter Ellis at the Christchurch creche when he was 4 years old, but had not told his mother until he was 16 years old and having real problems at school and in his life. He had not been involved in the case against Peter Ellis at all.
Er, the "Nathan" allegations were a complete fabrication. Ellis didn't start work at the Civic till well after "Nathan" had left.
ReplyDeleteNo child was abused by anyone at the Civic. Nothing happened there at all, except hysteria on the part of some parents.
Poneke,
ReplyDeleteEr, the "Nathan" allegations were a complete fabrication.
And you know this how?
Ellis didn't start work at the Civic till well after "Nathan" had left.
That's what Nathan's mother said as well. However, Ellis hung around the creche before he started working there.
For that reason, it's imperative for the pro-Peter Ellis people to get some sort of official verdict exonerating him in order to make future complainants less likely. The more obstacles to adults coming forward, the better.
ReplyDeleteBecause, er, because... why, exactly? Because we're all child-molesters ourselves and trying to discredit people who might want to reveal our hideous crimes? Honestly, I'm stumped - unless this is what you actually believe about us, I'm at a loss how to account for the above paragraph.
I don't get your interpretation Psycho Milt. To explain her point, it would be easier to first address Poneke's point perhaps.
ReplyDelete1. Poneke makes a statement with no proof (at this stage)
2. Poneke follows with a supposed fact. However, this fact is not in dispute. Ellis not being an official employee of the creche does not mean he was not around in some way, given the testimony of Nathan.
Why are people so quick to discredit Nathan? What is his motive for lying? Why would he have a "false memory" if he was not part of the interview group?
It seems to be the case that when pedophiles/pederasts are named, more people come forward after the fact, as they do not feel so alone in making the claim. It is painful, and being called a liar and being exposed to a tough public environment (given the evidence of this to date) would make coming forward even scarier if he has been exonerated.
It's a tough situation. If you are innocent you need to fight. If you are guilty you also need to fight - it minimises the evidence stacking up against you.
"It's a tough situation" I was referring to Peter Ellis.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it would seem to me, having read Nathan's account, that his personal situation is also extremely tough. He was very realistic about his reasons for not prosecuting.
So what do others think of Nathan's testimony? For the Pro Ellis camp, how do you rationalize it given you are certain Peter Ellis is innocent?
Back when Poneke was a journalist he wrote a number of celebrated articles about the Ellis case - its probably safe to assume he knows what he's talking about.
ReplyDeleteAs regards 'Nathan', Ellis took a complaint to the BSA over the interview Lucyna linked to. Radio New Zealand were found to have defamed Peter Ellis, they withdrew Nathan's allegations, apologised to Ellis and paid him an undisclosed sum. They were lucky not to get sued.
I was referring to Lucyna's paragraph that I quoted, Zen. It implies something pretty unpleasant about the motives of Ellis' supporters, and I'd like to know whether that really is implied, or if not, what is actually meant by it.
ReplyDeleteRe Nathan's claims, I don't know whether they're true or not, but given the (literal) witchhunt against Ellis and his colleagues and the plainly coached testimony it produced, I'm inclined not to take it very seriously. It certainly wouldn't be the first or last time someone's been wrongly persuaded that their personal problems are not their own responsibility but an indication they were sexually abused as a child. I can tell you that when I was 16 I was also socially a mess, having trouble at school, scared of girls and their ability to easily subject me to crippling ridicule, etc - and also very much hankering after the dramatic and everyone feeling sorry for me and putting me at the centre of events. Frankly, I think this version's as likely as any other.
Danyl, just because some-one writes an article as a journalist, doesn't make them the judge, jury and executioner.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, that is entirely the point isn't it?
It may not be the first time the courts have got things wrong, but equally, not the first time the public have backed the wrong horse.
Your point that Ellis threatened to sue National Radio is irrelevant to the veracity of Nathan's testimony.
PM, I know what you were referring to. That's why I said what I said. You take the words as accusations of something more serious, and you may be wrong, just as I could take the impression Danyl is calling 'Nathan' a liar. Is he? Would calling all of the complainants liars be something we should assume of the Pro-Ellis camp? Of course not, many will be able to consider other reasons without assuming the worst possible motives of the complainants. Perhaps you can do the same here?
Your interpretation of his story seems to start with age 16. His actual story was about nightmares and throwing up having nightmares at a much younger age, and being uncommonly scared at age 4 of being taken to creche, and having memories of being taken to another house, apparently true, as the mother reacted to that information by pulling her son from the creche.
Frankly, your situation and Nathan's appear poles apart.
ReplyDeleteYour point that Ellis threatened to sue National Radio is irrelevant to the veracity of Nathan's testimony.
You really do bring an impressive quality of bad faith to these little debates don't you Zen?
Ellis did NOT threaten to sue National Radio, he did make a complaint to the BSA, they upheld it, Radio New Zealand admitted that Nathan's allegations were false, apologised to Ellis and paid him some money. That is all HIGHLY relevant to the veracity of Nathan's testimony.
My mistake. A complaint to the BSA then.
ReplyDeleteBut speaking of bad faith, why on earth do you think Radio New Zealand would "admit" Nathan's allegations are false? How would they know? Did they collude with Nathan and manufacture this story?
Show me the evidence. What I suspect we will find is that they hosted a comment by some-one that was defamatory. They saw the legal implications of that post the fact, and paid out.
That would not change the veracity of the story, just that you cannot necessarily speak the truth if it cannot be backed up in the courts. As mentioned in the interview, the Police counseled Nathan from a court case advising that given the publicity and the history, it would be hard to win this case.
If you cannot point to evidence that Radio New Zealand some-how knew Nathan was lying, it is you sir arguing in bad faith.
Let's make it easy for you Danyl. I've found the BSA Decision.
ReplyDeleteI can't find anywhere that Radio New Zealand admit they were wrong. They make their case for defence, they lose. That's not a confirmation of them saying the story was false, (to quote you):
Radio New Zealand admitted that Nathan's allegations were false
Could you please provide evidence of your claim? Maybe I missed something here.
BSA Decision
BTW, my interpretation of a law suit was a reflection on the material I had been skim reading, not your comment specifically.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I cannot remember where I saw the reference that triggered that comment.
As luck would have it, there is something similar in the BSA link cited above around section 14 when discussing 'Nathan':
Ellis won’t comment on the latest allegations because his legal counsel is preparing defamation proceedings against Radio New Zealand.
My point is I am not trying to deliberately argue in bad faith, as you interpreted. There's just a lot of stuff out there on this, with strong opinions either way.
I have read a number of transcripts of the witnesses interviews.
ReplyDeleteThey are highly disturbing reading.
Not because of what they accused Ellis of doing but in that they text book examples of coaching, leading and repeatedly asking a question until the desired answer is suppilied.
No one could have survived a court proceeding with that standard of evidence presented against him.
Murray the same professionals involved still brainwash and coach the kids into making up a story. Police prosecution use very odd people to interview the children.Many psychologists involved should be in prison.
ReplyDeleteLucyna, I am not sure if you will see this post, but if you do, please take a look at this link -
ReplyDeletehttp://whatstheharm.net/satanicritualabuse.html
You will find a disturbing mumber of cases, all similar to Peter Ellis's, and all based on lies and deception.