Child Sexual Abuse Hysteria - Perpetrators

Home / Focus on People / Dr John Read /

John Readís views on the Peter Ellis case

JRead.jpg (8216 bytes)

Photo: Dr John Read
(Devonport Flagstaff).

2003 - John Read's "sympathy" for Peter Ellis

John Read has explained that his lack of sympathy for Ellis is because he believes there is insufficient concern about the separate problem of child abuse, of which he (Read) is a "survivor".
(The Herald, July 7, 2003).

In the same article he also claims that he is concerned about wrongful convictions.There is no evidence that Read has ever shown concern that Peter Ellis may have been wrongfully convicted

1997 - Concern about the conviction, or support an unsubstantiated allegation?

Read showed his bias with regard to the Ellis case following the TV3 20/20 programme in 1997, where serious concerns about the case were aired. Immediately following there was press report about further allegations against Peter, of which there were no details (and in all the years since there have been no details!).Read wrote a series of letters, three of which were published in the Sunday News, Dominion, and the Evening Post(Read, Press reports, Nov 30, 1997)

John Read writes: "If the new allegations of further child abuse by Peter Ellis are true and research shows the majority of allegations are true, then those journalists and politicians who jumped on the hysterical bandwagon created by 20/20's "documentary" need to do some serious thinking".Read's bias is clearly demonstrated in the highlighted script.

Somehow Read takes a strange leap in logic to suggest that to be concerned about the possibility of an injustice to Peter Ellis is to "ignore our children when they are brave enough to tell of their abuse"

2000 - Read shows no understanding of a wrongful conviction

If John Read has concerns about a wrongful conviction, as he says he does, what does he expect a wrongfully convicted man to do?. When Peter Ellis was released from prison, Read said "Ellis's continued protestations of innocence were further trauma for the families and children involved in the case". (NZPA, The Dominion, Feb 5, 2000)

Pat Booth has some strong words for Read: "
Dr "John Read" conveniently forgets the lessons of the Thomas case. The guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis is one issue.††† So is the credibility of the justice system. Of course the community has the greatest sympathy for the children and parents, recognising the impact the various ordeals involved have had on their lives. They are victims in this sad affair. But, the key question is whether they are victims of the judicial system rather than of Peter Ellis.††† And whether he is a victim too".(Nth Shore Times Advertiser, Feb 8, 2000)

2002 - Read's claims are: "grotesque misrepresentation, irresponsible, vindictive and wrong"

Read demonstrated how he had lost all objectivity about the Ellis case when he attacked an article written by Lynley Hood. (Read, Listener, Oct 26, 2002). Read made a number of false claims that Hood kindly refers to as "misrepresentations"

Lynley Hood responded tartly: "John Read's grotesque misrepresentation of my comments on sex abuse hysteria graphically illustrates the problems faced by anyone who calls for rational discussion of the issue. In the article I argue that sexual abuse investigators cannot reliably distinguish between true and false allegations of sexual abuse, and that the damage being caused to New Zealand society by false allegations cannot be ignored. Read's claim that I have thereby condoned sexual abuse is irresponsible, vindictive and wrong." (Hood, Listener Nov 2, 2002)

2003 - More misrepresentation and personal attack against Hood

Read must have hurt to have been rebuked so succinctly a year earlier. When Lynley Hood is awarded a PhD for her scholarship as an author, Read attacks: "Fortunately it was a doctorate for literature not science. A good story does not need to fit the facts". (Read, Herald August 12, 2003).

2003 - And more misrepresentation

Read continues to avoid criticising any of the contents of the book, A City Possessed.

He has obviously got nothing to say about the substance of her book.. He appears to treat Lynley Hood as the enemy, once again misrepresenting what she actually says:
(Read, Listener September 27, 2003).

But Read is undeterred.He has staked his reputation on the discredited beliefs and practices that made the creche case possible. So, in his desperation to attack Hood, he seizes on a couple of peripheral points (Read, Listener October 25, 2003).