Jump to content

Talk:Peter Ellis (childcare worker)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R.christie (talk | contribs) at 09:13, 30 April 2006 (→Paragraph integration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Peter Ellis (New Zealand)

Nominated on 22 April 2006, needs 2 votes by 30 April 2006

This is the guy who was convicted on child sexual assault charges in 1993. He was released after serving seven years in prison, and has always maintained his innocence. It's topical because he's still pushing for a Privy Council hearing. Many New Zealanders believe he was innocent, and his name is very well known, but we currently have no article at all. To create a good article, we'll need a number of editors from different points of view working together.-gadfium 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we start this, this Sunday (23 April) (i.e. End voting Sunday, Make this The COTF from Monday) What do you think ? Brian | (Talk) 13:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds grand, although I'm a bit disappointed there have been no other nominations. I'll be away until Monday night (going to a wedding in Queenstown), so I look forward to seeing the start of an article when I get back.-gadfium 19:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some quick google searches, and have come up with some links we could use:

  • [3] Ten or so articles, mostly media items, contains alot of background on the case
  • [4] Offical Report - Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's report into the peter ellis case
  • [5] Info, histoty, background.
  • [6] Peter Ellis Org : Seeking Justice for Peter Ellis

Links to thousands of web pages about Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Creche case

  • [7] Essential preliminary reading about the Ellis case
  • [8] Thousands of news reports (including opinion articles) year by year to 2006
  • [9] Official Documents, letters, petitions etc relating to the Ellis case year by year, Some trial transcripts (more will be coming), The Thorp Report, Eichelbaum report etc.
  • [10] The toddler testimonies - transcripts of the interrogations of the children.
  • [11] [12] lots of info on the case
  • [13] info, media stuff, calls for 1999 inquiry.
  • [14] BSA upholds Nine to Noon complaint
  • [[15] ASAH news letter, has an article on the case (PDF)
  • [[16] info about Drawing Out Children’s False Memories, refers to the case (PDF)
  • [17] intresting little article
  • [18] media
  • [19] media
  • [20] media
  • [21] media
  • [22] [23] blog
  • [24] Book review- but has some basic info
  • [25] Dozens more book reviews

Could someone with abit of know-how remove the quotation marks fromthe following reference: London, Kamala, Maggie Bruck, Stephen J. Ceci, and Daniel W. Shuman (2005). "Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell? Psychology, Public Policy and the Law" 11 (1): 194-226

I've moved the journal title to its own field in the template. Is that what you wanted? See {{cite journal}} (talk) for details of how this template works.-gadfium 04:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Category:Moral panics might be an a category that some people will place him under, and others would not (depending on whether they think he is innocent or guilty respectively). I remember my sociology lecturer talking about this case as being part of a moral panic. But would placing the article in this article compromise the NPOV policy? What do people think? --Midnighttonight 07:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Also Category:Day care sexual abuse hysteria is questionable. Is this hysteria? Is it hysteria if he is guilty? --Midnighttonight 07:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If his is guility it is still part of the hysteria, the fact that he has an article and the hundreds of other child abuse cases in NZ don't shows that. Are we going to cover everything about the case here or is there going to be a seperate article on the Christchurch Civic Crèche abuse case? - SimonLyall 09:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think, for now keep them as one article, if later this gets to big, we split them up, I don't think it warrents it own article yet Brian | (Talk) 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I would like to rename the article Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis, as suggested by gadfium above. Does anyone object? -- Avenue 11:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead :) (I just stared it, as Peter Ellis (New Zealand) untill we came up with a better title) Brian | (Talk) 16:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eichelbaum

People might want to have a look at this related article. I'm not sure it is strightly NPOV. - SimonLyall 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved most of the recent additions to that article by Nz researcher into this article, because I think this would be a better place for them. -- Avenue 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reverted User:Nz researcher twice in this article and he just keeps putting the POV stuff back. no luck with geting him to respond on his talk page or anything. Thoughts? - SimonLyall 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is User:Nz researcher is a mask for someone pushing a certain POV, but unwilling to do it under their normal user ID. At the moment the article is being looked at enough to be fine, but I'm more worried about when the article is no longer the Collaboration. People will need to keep a watch on it. We don't want this article getting to be POV. --Midnighttonight 10:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to this on the discussion page. NZ Researcher is my normal user ID, so I have no idea what you are referring to. --NZ Researcher

Great

The article has taken shape, well done to everyone who has partook in it so far. Nice to see what can happen when a whole lot of kiwis work together :) Brian | (Talk) 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Test>, I would like to participate in this article via this discussion , I have joined wikipedia and given my email. Another site for source material, especially psychological considerations of the ellis case is: 

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/r.christie/

Can a current contributer to article contact me by email as to how I should access this discussion in more usual manner. Thanks, 

Richard Christie
Welcome Richard. I have put a message on your user talk page, so you should see a "You have new messages" sign near the top of your screen until you click on the sign.-gadfium 08:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

add?

Should we add, about that $300,000 was paid out by ACC to the victims before the case went to trial? (NB it was a total payout of $300,000)Brian | (Talk) 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we can cite a source for the information, I don't see any great problem with that. It seems arguably relevant. It would be even better if we could cite someone discussing it in connection to the case, so that we are not seen as casting new aspersions on people's motives. -- Avenue 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found a site [26] quote: "Up to $10,000 can be awarded in sexual abuse cases and the Accident Compensation Commission paid $300,000 to crèche parents before the trial" Brian | (Talk) 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I've cited David McLoughlin's work. He mentions a figure in excess of $500,000. User:NZ Researcher

Picture

This article needs a few pictures. These will probably have to be found on the net and carefully checked for copyright stuff. Is there anyone in Christchurch who could take a photo of the creche? That would be a good start. Also, the front cover of "A City Possessed", or a pic by Lynley Hood. And, most importantly, a pic of Peter Ellis himself is key. --Midnighttonight 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to post such a request.-gadfium 09:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask as-well :) Brian | (Talk) 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may be able to assist with photos of Creche. Allow me a day or two. Richard 05:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:North_wall1.JPG

This is of north wall taken by me Jan 2006 through windows from outside the building. The door to toilet lobby is clealy visible and unchanged from 1991. It was kept open in day to day operation of creche, also note glass window in door. As you can see the centre still operates as a day care centre and the toilet plan appears unchanged, one would have thought such an area, where horrific acts could so easily be concealed might have been redesigned. A detailed plan of the centre is available on peterellis.org.nz and simple layout drawing here http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/r.christie/2.html#centre_layout Richard 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it may have been redesigned, can't tell from outside the building. Richard 03:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that picture is a good start, and I've added it to the article, although the caption needs a bit of tweaking.

Any chance of a picture of Peter Ellis? There must be pictures taken by people who are involved in pro-Ellis campaigns, and people here on Wikipedia who have contact with those people who can ask them to release the picture under a free licence.-gadfium 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can ask the two original sources of the photos on the Ellis website. TV1 News and Ch Ch Press. Those photos have been up there for years without the sources complaining. I've no photos of the fellow. Richard 06:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information resource

I'm thrilled that people have started this project. The main information resources for the project should include "A City Possessed" and the thousands of web pages at www.peterellis.org.nz. Richard Christie has also provided an important link.

The peterellis site should provide all available news reports, opinion pieces, and documents associated with the case. If an article is NOT on the ellis site, please send me a copy! While the site has a definite position on the innocence of Peter Ellis, it has not deviated from the policy of including ALL opinion, regardless of what that opinion is.

If you find an article on the ellis site that has been copied from elsewhere, please use the original reference.

This project has the opportunity to re present the information available in a different structured way: The Ellis site for example has collated news reports and opinion articles in a chronological order - the encyclopaedia approach allows subjects to be tackled separately - eg, off the top of my head "The Women's employment Case", "The police investigation", etc etc. There are certainly quite a few summaries of the case. Those who get involved studying Ellis invariably get drawn into the wider issues of "What factors caused the case" "The Satanic ritual abuse scare (of the late 80s and early 90s)", "True and false allegations of abuse" etc (A good example are the introductory chapters of A City Possessed, that Lynley Hood thought to be an essential integral part of the Ellis story.)

(brianr) 18:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)~~

Article name revisited

I'm very upset with your title however. Probably the majority of New Zealanders now consider Peter Ellis to be innocent and to be New Zealand's most well known person who has been wrongfully convicted. (There are obviously many people who have strong views the other way)

We do not generally refer to people by all their names unless they are accused or criminals. Peter is of course convicted, but the name does provide a reinforcement of his guilty status, when most New Zealanders now do not think he is. Calling him by all of his names provides an unnecessary implicit statement that he is a criminal.

Perhaps he could be permitted to be "humanised" a little more and called by his ordinary name: "Peter Ellis" as all other Peter Ellis are on Wikipedia:

Peter Ellis (actor)

Peter Ellis (CHP politician)

Peter Ellis (Green Party candidate)

Peter Ellis (Controversially convicted in NZ Christchurch Creche case)

Peter Ellis (architect)


brianr@wave.co.nz

We have debated the article title; see above under "Peter Ellis (New Zealand)" and "Rename". This title was intended to be absolutely neutral. The practice of calling criminals by their full name was not considered when we named the article.
Because Peter Ellis is a moderately common name, and there are even other New Zealanders with this name who may eventually have articles in Wikipedia, the original article name of Peter Ellis (New Zealand) was not considered a good one. We very definitely didn't want a POV title such as "Peter Ellis (witch hunt martyr)". In Wikipedia, we normally differentiate between people with the same name by their occupation, their nationality, or adding middle names or initials. I'd be happy to see further suggestions for renaming the article. "Peter Ellis (Controversially convicted in NZ Christchurch Creche case)" is rather unweildy. "Peter Ellis (child care worker)" doesn't seem right. "Peter Ellis (accused pedophile)" feels very wrong. "Peter Ellis (Christchurch Creche case)" I could live with.
On the other hand, while we don't yet have an article on Arthur Allan Thomas, that's the name that most New Zealanders (or at least the older ones) would recognise, and most people would not consider calling the article by his full name to be an implication of anything. -gadfium 19:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the article's name, and I had no intention of implying he was a criminal by using his full name. I'm sorry for any upset this has caused. As gadfium says, the idea was to make the the article name unambiguous, and using his previous occupation didn't seem right. I have no objection to changing it to "Peter Ellis (Christchurch Creche case)". Does anyone have any other concerns or suggestions? -- Avenue 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think refering to people by their full name implies they are a criminal either - Martin Luther King for instance is not a criminal. While I sympathise with your beliefs that he is not a crimial, he was found guilty in a court of law and is, legally, a criminal. While Wikipedia aims to be neutral, it is a legal fact that he is guilty, until overturned be a court. Furthermore, I would like to see evidence that "most New Zealanders" believe he is innocent (for what it is worth, I don't care that much but tend to side with the law for various reasons).
I recommend new Wikipedians attracted to this page read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Midnighttonight 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the article, "Ongoing influence", where I added a public opinion poll which said 51% believe him innocent. This is so close to 50% (within the margin of error), that I'd say "many" rather then "most" New Zealanders believe he is innocent.-gadfium 01:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note however that twice as many regard him as innocent c.f. guilty. That's hardly in realm of the margin of error, all the 'don't knows' would have to come down on guilty side of the fence for that to happen. Lies, damn lies and statistics ;-) Richard 04:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read the official reports into the case. They don't come close to NPOV. But I'm guessing we can still cite them, right? NZ Researcher

yes they can still be cited, so to can pro-innocence texts. The article itself must be NPOV however. If it falls out of line too much, I will stick a {{NPOV}} tag on to it. I should add that my main concern is that this page is NPOV, as I don't really have too much else to add to this article in terms of info. --Midnighttonight 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that there is a discussion on what is "neutral". The Ellis site publishes ALL points of view. So that if 100 people have a story with one opinion, and one person has a different story with another opinion, all stories are given equal weight. There is no attempt to give "equal" weight to the two different opinions.

brianr


"Peter H. M. Ellis" or "Peter Ellis (creche worker)" Both short and neutral. Richard Christie Richard 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly happy with either the current name or with "Peter H. M. Ellis". I'm not objecting to "Peter Ellis (creche worker)" but I prefer the former two.-gadfium 01:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I favour Peter Ellis (creche worker) or Peter Ellis (Christchurch Creche case)mentioned earlier.

brianr

On further thought, I do have a minor objection to "Peter Ellis (Christchurch Creche case)". The capitalisation is incorrect, because the usual name of the creche was Christchurch Civic Creche, not Christchurch Creche. "Peter Ellis (Christchurch creche case)" (using lower case for creche) would also be correct, and I think it reads better than "Peter Ellis (Christchurch Civic Creche case)".
"Peter Ellis (creche worker)" may be neutral, but I believe it's no longer correct. And "Peter Ellis (former creche worker)" seems ugly.
I'd be happy with "Peter Ellis (Christchurch creche case)", "Peter H. M. Ellis", or the current name. -- Avenue 10:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay the current name IMO, or if need be Peter H. M. Ellis will do. I dislike putting creche in Brian | (Talk) 11:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was the Christchurch Civic Child Care Centre. It may seem trivial but the staff objected to it being referred to as a creche (i.e. not having an educational focus). Unlike BrianR whose opinions I regard highly, I have no objection to current name but feel perhaps only one person can determine whether the current name dehumanises Mr Ellis, and that person lives 15 minutes drive north of Christchurch. No, I don't have his phone number._ Richard 11:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another complaint against Ellis - this needs to be mentioned

"A young Christchurch man laid a formal complaint with police in January 2001 alleging he was sexually abused by Ellis and others when he attended the Christchurch Civic Childcare Centre." Police get no help from Ellis on complaint By: VAN BEYNEN Martin THE PRESS, 5 SEP 2002, Edition 2, Page 4. --Midnighttonight 08:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (copyrighted material removed)[reply]

Yes indeed, it should be included along with reference to Ellis's employment records that show the complaint had no foundation in reality. Ellis first had contact with the creche a year after the complainant put him there. This paragraph should include how the Police reactivated this "unresolved allegation" each time author L Hood had positive publicity eg winning of Montana Book Awards. Also be sure to include the complainant's debut on Linda Clark's RNZ programme that resulted in the most humiliating censure and fine in RNZ's history. Richard 08:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



08:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC) This story has me laughing. The "further complaint" against Ellis were trotted out for several years, every time some new publicity occurred about Ellis. The public were permitted to find out about the "complaint" when it was exposed by Linda Clark on Radio New Zealand in August 2003.

The complainant was supposedly abused by Ellis months before Ellis was even at the Creche! Needless to say the so called "complainant" has never been heard of again - probably hiding his head in shame - and Radio New Zealand were forced to apologise to Peter.

brianr

Can you provide references for that? I'm not doubting you, it would just be handy so that we can have a paragraph on that incident. this is the problem with doing database searches of news items I suppose, I only hit somethings and miss others. (PS, can you sign with --~~~~ instead?) --Midnighttonight 08:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BSA Ruling: http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2004/2004-115.htm , Employment history http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/1986/index.htm , Nine to Noon transcript: http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/2003-0825_RadioNZ_NineToNoon.htm .

You're welcome :-)_Richard 12:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the primary focus upon this Collaboration is obviously this article, it is also important that we get other articles linking in to this one. From a look at the "what links here", the vast bulk are from the Collaboration template or the Community Portal. Some articles are getting linked in, and we just need to keep them coming. --Midnighttonight 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The children still feel as though they've been molested

Extracts from:THE DOMINION POST, 16 AUG 2003, Edition 2, Page 1. CHRISTCHURCH CIVIC CRECHE CHILDREN SPEAK OUT By: BONIFACE Linley

"I would have been happy to never talk about the abuse ever again. I want to forget it. But I'm sick of being called a liar. And if I don't say anything, Peter Ellis will keep going around saying he's innocent and more people will believe him," - 'Tom'
"How would a five-year-old know about ejaculation? My parents had never talked about that to me. I was able to describe it because of what Peter Ellis did to me, not because anyone had told me about it." - 'Katrina'
"I stand by everything I said when I was little. I didn't make anything up. But back then I believed everything I was told. Now I can make more sense of it . . . for example, I was told I was put down a trap door. Now I think it was just a laundry chute with cushions at the bottom. But when you're a little kid, you think adults are always telling you the truth." - 'Tom'

The fact that the children still stand by what they said is important. These qoutes should go somewhere in the article. --Midnighttonight 09:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of these children, "Tommy", is the son of Joy Bander (pseudonym) who wrote a book in mid 1990's entitled "A Mother's Story". After the case senior police involved in the investigation (IIRC Hardie and/or Det Jenkins) expressed view that this child's allegations were nonsense, I can dig up cites if required. Both of these children were at centre of Satanic Ritual Abuse allegations set at an "unknown address" (but clearly 404 Hereford St). Crown witness K Zelas had no confidence in his disclosures, nor did his interviewer S Sidey. Even Eichelbaum's expert G Davies has no confidence in the allegations made by thesetwo children set outside the creche. This info should be included with any quotes from above. Go here: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/r.christie/5.html#C5_1_1_Contamination_by_parents for examples of process "Tommy" was put through as he "recovered" his "vivid" memories of satanic abuse, the quotes are his mother's, BTW her book is still available for a price of less than $20.00- read it and understand how the case came about!

..Richard 09:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown's Expert witness, Dr Karen Zelas on the disclosures of Tom and Katrina, also known as the "smoking gun" letter. http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/1992/1992-0828_KarenZelas_LetterToPolice.htm

_ Richard 11:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means quote the children, then we can all see just how unreliable they are. "This accusation — that parents and counsellors manipulated the children into making up the allegations of abuse — is the cornerstone of Lynley Hood's book. It infuriates Tom: "It's bullshit that we were told what to say The parents had nothing to do with what we said; all my parents ever said to me was that I should tell the truth". This is quite different from what expert witness and psychiatrist, Karen Zelas, had to say about Tom and Katrina's allegations and how they emerged. See above for the story. Despite Zelas’s doubts about how these children’s allegations emerged, Zelas testified at the trial that both children were credible! The jury never got to see her letter.

There is a particularly illuminating evidential interview with Katrina where she is shown a doll that has pubic hair. Here is an excerpt, from Katrina’ 4th interview:

Q: What’s that? A: I don’t know, that black thing? Q: Yeah, what’s the black thing? A: I don’t know. Q: Okay. A: What is it? Q: Have you ever seen that before on a? A: No. Q: Near a penis? A: No. What is it? Q: What do you think it is? A: I don’t know. Q: Do mummies and daddies have that stuff or not? A: No, what’s this? It’s all on it. What is it? Q: Well, it’s like, you know what mummies and daddies have on their penises and vaginas. A: My mum and dad don’t have one or my mum or my daddies, or [male name]. Q: Have you seen your mum and dad’s, have you seen your dad’s penis before? A: Yeah, I’m not scared of it.

…….

Q: Show me with this doll how the man teased you with his penis. What did he do? A: Oh, I don’t want to do that. Q: Just show me.

The link below refers to a girl called Rachel, who has retracted her allegations. This is another child who has retracted, in addition to the oldest complainant who retracted in 1994.

http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2003/2003-0628_ThePress_ComplainantSeeksInquiryIntoEllisCase.htm

NZ Researcher

Worried

I'm getting worried here. Wikipedia strives towards having a neutral POV (see NPOV). Yet, this article is predominately being written by people seeking to either clear Ellis's name or hold some form of retrail. Statements on this talk page worry me - "by all means quote the children, then we can all see just how unreliable they are"; "This story has me laughing." There are numerous Weasel words in the main article and there is a lack of balance in some sections (such as on the Ministerial Inquiry). The evidence should be prevented on face value and allow people to decide for themselves (The Adolf Hitler article doesn't start of by saying "Hitler was a bad man", the neutral dissemination of ideas should be enough for people to decide that). While I welcome our new editors and thank them for the valued contribution in getting sources (and they have really put a lot of info on this article), I would like to remind them of the responsibility of Wikipedia to be NPOV. This page should not end up being cited as a failing of Wikipedia, as Helen Clark current is by Russell Brown. --Midnighttonight 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so worried. People are debating on the talk page, which is exactly what it's for. Edits to the article have slowed right down, because we've covered most of the basic ground, and I think people are hoping to get some agreement here before adding much more.
I would like to see a bit about Ellis' life before he worked at the creche. One of the documents cited here ([27]) said he was doing community service after being convicted of defrauding Social Welfare. That should go in the article, but I'd like more details. Most biographies have a paragraph at least about the person before they became famous. Was he born in Christchurch? Where did he go to school? Is there any of this basic biographical stuff available online?-gadfium 23:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly best source is L Hood pages 200-218. The Ch Ch Press ran an interesting feature written sometime in 2003 by a former classmate of Ellis’ about him as a child in Nelson/Motueka? Unfortunately I didn’t keep it and it never appeared on the Ellis website, the only reasonably major feature that I know of to have escaped BrianR’s net. Off the top of my head I can’t recall any other accessible sources. _Richard 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I got a copy of Hood's book this afternoon. I'll add a section on his earlier life tonight or tomorrow.-gadfium 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Midnighttonight, you say that "this article is predominately being written by people seeking to either clear Ellis's name or hold some form of retrial". I am trying to do neither. What I'm trying to do is highlight the flaws in the case, which I believe is perfectly reasonable if done so in a factual manner. It has been documented, by some of the world's leading experts, that the children's evidence is unreliable. I'm sorry if you don't like that fact. Maybe you should state your reason for complaining. Do you have a vested interest? Have you read any of the material that has been supplied here? It would be helpful if you read it all before commenting. The article on Hitler mentions that his racial policies led to the deaths of 11 million people including 6 million Jews - hardly complimentary of the man. If you think there is too much information sympathetic of Peter Ellis, there is nothing to stop you from inserting factual information that is less sympathetic of him. There is more information to be added to the article and I will attempt to do so over the weekend. NZ Researcher
Let me put my hand up as actively striving to clear Mr Ellis' name. It is a position I have arrived at after spending thousands of hours in personal research on this case. I have read almost everything on the ellis website and much more besides, often that is not in public domain for various reasons. However that should not disqualify me from editorial input, I think my edits thus far are highly neutral. To do otherwise would be to devalue the article. However I do agree with midnight that there is material here that is presented in a not-strictly-balanced matter and it is in the areas he identifies. It is not so much the information inherent, which I assure you is verifiable but probably requires a small book in order to so do, but it is presented as fact without sufficient citation or argument. Therein is the problem, L Hood spent eight years researching her book. The topic is expansive, I can already ascertain that some contributers have only a minimal grasp on the issues and even on the history of the case. It is very brave to assume one can write an article on Ellis within a fortnight. It took me two years of research into the psychological aspects alone to believe I had started to get a handle on them. I don't want to throw cold water on this endeavour but ask you to consider following, I happen to know Nz Researcher has also spent hundreds of hours on research, quite independant of myself, L Hood, and BrianR etc so there is a high probability that what he writes (I assume from comment that he contributed much of what Midnight has concerns over) has strong foundation in research. It is very difficult to put this research into an article of such scope without it appearing as pure opinion. Can those concerned be specific as to what worries them. Nz Researcher might also like to use these talk pages more fully to point others in direction to justify any new or previous material. But I warn you all, if you haven't at the very least read Hood's book or alternatively the Appeal Court judgments, Eichelbaum and Thorp Reports, then you have a VERY steep learning curve to climb in regard to this article._Richard 00:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a synopsis of Hood's book in Appendix B of the Justice and Electoral Committee Report. Of course it's better to read the book itself, but this seems to be a useful summary. -- Avenue 00:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to back up Richard's comments that there is a lot of material involved with this case and it should be read if you want to make an informed contribution to this article. I have indeed spent a lot of time researching the case. I have communicated with some of the experts that I have cited. They have provided me with much information, little of which I have placed on here. How would I refer to this information, most of it in the form of emails, by asking you to trust me? What is on here is only the tip of the iceberg. But I agree that specific concerns should be raised so they can be debated and, hopefully, resolved. NZ Researcher
My main concern is that while highlighting the flaws in the case, the evidence which convicted Ellis is going to get subsumed. Lynley Hood's book is, in my opinion, the case for the defence in the trial and not an objective discussion of the case.
    • Your statement needs some justification. There are dozens of reviews of the book available -http://www.peterellis.org.nz/CityPossessed/Reviews/index.htm Two reviews by Masson and Davies argue details of the first three chapters of the book, dealing with an analysis of the social environment of the time (which have in turn been critiqued); but all other reviews are extremely favorable.
      • eg Alison Jones - "Ms. Hood is clearly interested in the truth, and in careful research, rather than holding a view and sticking with it through thick and thin. This is an important book - clearly written, well-researched, assiduously referenced, and a compelling read"
      • eg Dr Jim Hefford (for NZ GP) - "Anyone reading this book would have to agree there remains no further need for any new examination of the Peter Ellis case. Hood, a scientist, has done it for them - exhaustively over seven years - with the result compressed into these 600 pages"
      • eg John Prebble (Professor of Law) - "I thought the book a remarkable piece of work. It showed that the verdicts weren't safe"
      • eg Bernard Robertson (Editorial NZ Law Journal) "One of Lynley Hood’s achievements, as a non-lawyer, is an astute criticism of the shortcomings of the various methods available to review criminal convictions. Each of the reviews and appeals suffered from some limitation, self-imposed or otherwise. A City Possessed is the first attempt at a review of the whole case from the investigation onwards"
    • I know of NO criticism that has detailed how the book is not objective in any way in it's description of the details of the case. You are entitled to your opinion, and you may not like the obvious conclusions from the book, but an article in Wikipedia should not be influenced by opinion that may have no objective basis. - Brianr at wave 02:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, being involved in promoting one side of the case does not prohibit you from editing, it just means you should be aware of that, and aim to just present the facts.

    • Those involved in seeking justice for concerns are almost fastidious in ensuring all the facts are presented. It's part of the reason that the Ellis site presents news reports and opinion from everybody. A significant issue in the case is that suppression of information - eg some of the more unbelievable claims against Ellis - contributed towards his conviction. - Brianr at wave 02:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that in the case of the Helen Clark article, there is a very good discussion on the talk page over changes (see the long, long talk on the Doonegate paragraph for instance). My concern is POV, I know I have one, and have breached it on the article, but that happens. I am after all, human (ish). Anyway, keep working at it. It is a huge achievement in such a short period of time, and I do thank you for the valued contribution you've made to Wikipedia (p.s., the news guys should have a look around and get into editing other things - I presume you'll have an interest in the court system and so forth, so find those pages and edit them!) --Midnighttonight 23:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My main concern is that while highlighting the flaws in the case, the evidence which convicted Ellis is going to get subsumed. Lynley Hood's book is, in my opinion, the case for the defence in the trial and not an objective discussion of the case". Well, that is your opinion. Maybe you would like to give us some facts to support your opinion. The evidence that convicted Ellis would be a good place to start. As has been documented, the case has more to do with moral panic and hysteria than evidence. NZ Researcher

POV

I find comparison the two edits 22.25 27 April 'Nz researcher' and 21.51 27 April 'Midnighttonight' highly illuminating in regard to POV._Richard 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits are [28] and [29]. I agree that neither edit quite achieves NPOV.-gadfium 00:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to Gadfium. I pointed out that one of the children has said that his parents did not interview him during the initial inquiry. That is demonstrably false, but this was not mentioned in the edit by Midnighttonight. Posters should try to read ALL of the available information before posting. NZ Researcher
::we are referring to this:
The continued effort on attempting to prove Ellis as being innocent has angered the molested children, and their parents. "I would have been happy to never talk about the abuse ever again..- vs -The continued effort in attempting to clear Ellis' name has angered at least two of the complainants and their parents. "I would have been happy to never talk about the abuse ever again.. _ Richard 01:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second edit to that paragraph reduced the POV in the paragraph but possibly went the other way just a little bit. The wording ended up a little bit awkward, so I changed it.-gadfium 03:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was having a lot of trouble with it being akward, I thought I got somewhere near a balance, but obviously didn't. I know it seems a bit hypocritical of me, and I agree, but everyone has a POV, including me. --Midnighttonight 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bander

I am unsure of bander reference in article as it stands.

1 Is it necc to get so specific? After all there was so much scandal in acse that even Hood had to omit volumes.

2 Readers won't know who she is . Richard 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the priming of interviewers was not confined to this child alone. The edit made makes it appear so. I think the paragraph should be on general poor practice identfied by almost every expert who has examined the interviews INCLUDING Sas and Davies who both identified all these faults although Sas just excused them all.

Suggestions: Make article shorter and fix intro.

A couple of suggestions:

1. The introductory has to say a little bit about the controversy. It should be an abstract for the rest of the article. Imagine that someby just reads that and nothing else. Contrast that with the intro paragraph in Adolf Hitler which gives all the basic details.

2. This case is huge, we can't go into a process of listing everything to do with the case. There are huge external rsources that people are already using. We should possible just reference those with shorter summaries. Giving a blow by blow account of everythign won't work I feel. Also are there external resources that lean towards Ellis' guilt that we can point to or reference. - SimonLyall 13:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Could you please provide the external resources that lean towards Ellis' guilt? (I'm not aware of any external resources that are not already on www.peterellis.org.nz - except for what is (imo) an excellent critique of Eichelbaum on Christie's site, and books about the case (eg A City Possessed)
  • If you look through the news reports section of the Ellis site you will see reports at the time of the trial, that give some indication of why Ellis was found guilty. This review will not do the subject justice unless it is able in some way to also provide the real reason why many people believe a jury was able to find him guilty - and that was the "moral panic" operating at that time. That is why, I suspect, that Lynley Hood found it necessary to include her introductory chapters in her book.
  • This review article will have difficulty presenting all information as coming from "one side" or the "other side". More often the interpretation of the evidence tells us more about the reader. As an example the Toddler Testimonies (so called from the publication of such evidence by Barry Colman in the SST and then the Ellis site) gives actual transcripts of the interrogations of the children. My guess is that information in those interviews will be read by different people as providing evidence of guilt - and by other people as providing evidence of innocence. This conundrum lies at the heart of the case - Brianr at wave 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simon said that the case is huge, we can't go into a process of listing everything to do with the case. Well, I wouldn't even attempt to do that and I don't think anyone here would either. Besides, I think Hood has already done that. However, I think it's important that we provide a lot of details as to why Ellis was charged, found guilty, and why it's apparent to many of us that there's been a miscarriage of justice. More details are still to be added, so I would suggest that we wait until we agree there is no more to add before we pass comment on the article. NZ Researhcer
I like Simon's idea regarding an abstract, but would then make the rest of the article longer, not shorter. Richard 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the introduction is poor at present, and needs to be revised to become a good lead section. I'm not so worried about people adding too much detail, since we can always hive off the longer sections into their own articles, following summary style. In fact, I think we could already improve the article by doing this for the Minsterial Inquiry section. -- Avenue 00:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the links that support Ellis's guilt - there aren't many (if any). But that's not to say that there aren't people that don't think he is guilty - they just don't have a motivation to write books, create websites and so forth on that. Thus, there aren't really that many. The most people do is blog post whenever something happens (eg David Farrar. But, where is the initial judgement and sentencing blurb? They would have that "Ellis is guilty" info for you.
Also, is it worth pointing out that the Select Committee inquiry was limited by the constitution convention that prevents MPs from making comments on cases before the courts and prevents direct criticism of the judicary? That does give an insight into limitations of the Select Committee. --Midnighttonight 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one here has denied that some believe Ellis is guilty and what I am going to write next isn't POV, it is fact. This case was built in its entirety upon the allegations of young children. That is why the enviroment from which the allegations arose and how they were obtained and interpreted was/is so important. There was no physical or corroborative evidence for the offences whatsover except for innuendo and suspicion. Colossal effort went into obtaining corroborating and the result was absolutely nothing unless character assassination, such as evidence of private conversations between adults on unrelated sexual practices, counts as corroborative evidence. Richard 01:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the trial judgment doesn't include much info at all except for discription of the count and the returned verdicts. The sentencing blurb is a little more detailed but it is really only an endorsement of the verdicts from Neil Williamson J's POV. But if you refer to the trial transcripts you must consider that the courts have supressed publication of any information that may identify complainants and their families. That makes reference to such material highly problematic, Hood did a good job though. I venture that it is not the Ellis supporters that have most to loose from its publication. You might apply to the High Court Registrar if you wish to read them.

Nz Researcher

When you edit might you please include a brief description of your edits in the dialogue (?) box below the editing block as it makes keeping track of changes much much easier, Thanks Richard 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry don't understand what you mean. What sort of description and where? NZ Researcher

How to describe your edits is explained here: Help:Edit summary. -- Avenue 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See this page: Help:Edit_summary , it you can see what we mean by clicking the history tab at the top of articles ( or follow this link for a sample). You need to give a rough idea what each edit you make is doing. - SimonLyall 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to do is to make the article more coherent, fix grammar, add relevant facts, tc. Surely I don't need to write that every time I edit? NZ Researcher
Yes, it all helps. For instance you have on occasion deleted material without explanation, I happened to think some of it was important e.g. that there are no behavioural symptoms SPECIFIC to sexual abuse, you removed that, no explanation and that important distinction is currently not in the article. That is what the History tab is for. If anyone wants to review changes or revisit them with regard to restating etc they don't have to wade through dozens of irrelevant edits. Also I believe it pays to review all recent changes to article before editing anything, I can choose to ignore sp and gr and m if they are tagged. Richard 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life

Is there anyone who knows much about Peter Ellis's early life? For instance, the Helen Clark article has a section entitled Early life. We should create such a bit as this is, technically, a biography on Ellis. --Midnighttonight 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium is also researching this based in part from Hood's book. Here is a paragraph from McLoughlin's article 1996
Ellis is the eldest of four children whose parents separated when he was nine. He picked tobacco in Motueka after leaving school, then went overseas for two years, on his return holding a number of jobs, some of them responsible positions which he apparently found stressful and set him drinking heavily. He had been unemployed for some time when he arrived at the Civic in September 1986 on a two week community service order for benefit fraud, his only prior conviction. He liked the creche and staff, children and parents liked him, so he stayed, completing a childcare certificate on the job between 1987 and 1989.
The fact that he was qualified (I'll check on what certificate) needs to be added
Richard 01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Currently the sections are quite long and not clear. I propose a new structure for the article.

  • Intro
pretty much what is there at the moment
  • Early life
once we have this info
  • Allegations of abuse
what did the children say, the psychology evidence for being accurate each way
  • Trial
what evidence was/wasnt allowed, suppression, sentence, etc
  • Ministerial inquiry
What was found and the criticisms of the inquiry
  • Release from prison
What has he done since etc
  • Ongoing debate
calls for more inquiries, on going influences, and so forth

What do people think? If this is liked, then please implement it or adjust it. --Midnighttonight 10:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection but off top of head I at least believe another section necc
  • The Investigation
Richard 11:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the intro and created internal links, but it needs to occur throughout the article. I can literally scroll to parts and not see any internal links on the page. For those new to Wikipedia place the square brackets around the word you want to link. Thus [[link]] will create link. It does get more complicated, the main other one is [[article being linked|what you want to say]], e.g. [[New Zealand general election, 2005|the 2005 election]] produces the 2005 election. --Midnighttonight 10:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work automatically? or does one need to supply url? If not, what happens there is no internal target available? Richard 11:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no internal target, then you get a red-link. This is essentially an invitation for someone to start writing that article. Only add red-links when you think it is reasonable that Wikipedia should have an article on the topic, and use another browser window to try a few alternative phrasings to see if we have a suitable article to link to already.-gadfium 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draft lead section to replace current.

Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis (born March 30, 1959) is a former Christchurch, New Zealand child care worker. In June 1993 he was found guilty on 16 counts of sexual offences involving children in his care at the Christchurch Civic Creche and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

The Ellis case is highly controversial, with many New Zealanders believing he is innocent of the charges (Ellis has maintained his innocence throughout). The case has been subject to a Ministerial Inquiry, 2 petitions, a book and numerious articles with suppoters of Ellis continuing to press against what they believe to be a miscarrage of justice.


Include dates Trial 1993, Eichelbaum 2001, two public petitions 2003 and don't forget two Court of Appeal hearings (1994, 1999) (and what about Thorp's report to secretary of justice - then Phil Goff I pressume? - , how it can be decribed I don't know)

Actually at least four petitions have been lodged, Thorp advised on the second.

Richard 04:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking this subject up

I don't have the time to work on this right now, but looking at this article for the first time gave me a headache because of long sections that desperately need breaking up. Anyone have any suggestions as to how to do this? PageantUpdater 03:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why not wait until it is more complete? I did advise the topic is expansive, the article as it stands barely scrapes the surface, plenty to come yet. <smile> Richard 04:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

latest Bander additions

Although illuminating I don't think they belong in article, especially where they currently sit, they look too much like an attmpt to belittle Tom's press statement. No matter what POV is taken by readers always remember that in one way or another the children were victims. Richard 04:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry, I was rushing when I put up that new lead, I did not meen to put the "draft" part up :) Brian | (Talk) 04:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph integration

The paragraphs (Section: 'The Case') beginning below are badly integrated

  • "Ellis’ supporters have raised many concerns about how the trial was conducted..."
  • "Then recent changes in New Zealand law meant that the complainant children's testimony was provided to the court by two separate means:..."


The second serves as good into to the discussion about problems with the interviews but the first paragraph would benefit at that point by including the same info about how the kiddies gave their evidence.

I'm a musician not a writer. <smile> Richard 08:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've since applied a bold scalpel Richard 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Ellis_(childcare_worker)&oldid=50866665"