MEDIAWATCH: Post Me Too vs Peter Ellis


The complexity of the Peter Ellis case has just been compounded by new allegations of abuse by a woman…

New evidence against sex offender Peter Ellis questioned

Allegations Peter Ellis abused a girl before the high-profile Civic Creche offences he was jailed for lack reliability and credibility, his lawyer says.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court was told a woman approached police in February last year to make allegations about Ellis sexually abusing her in 1982 at her home.

The Crown first heard about the new complaint in September last year. The woman’s name is suppressed as is the name of her sister, who has given a corroborating statement.

TDB Recommends

The new complainant swore an affidavit this week.

…Ellis was convicted after touring evangelical Christians visited Christchurch and convinced  the city in town hall meetings that a global satanic cult child sex ring was sexually abusing children.

The horror of how biased Police investigating the case went on to have sexual relationships with the solo mothers of the children abused, the horror of how leading questions were used to elicit compromised answers from the children and the horror of how the evidence was incentivised with ACC payments for any child who was ‘abused’ all combined to create one of the the worst miscarriages of justice ever in this country.

But now Peter Ellis has to also combat the new Post Me Too world where due process is a white cis heteronormative male privilege, where anything a woman says must be believed no matter what and where the evidential threshold is something a person says on Twitter.

I’ll skip the unlikeliness of a Gay male sexually abusing a girl to one side but it seems even in death Peter Ellis can’t get no justice.

Of course any serious allegation of misconduct most be taken seriously and investigated appropriately but this new woke mantra of ‘#IBelieve’ creates an almost religious faith structure rather than the pursuit of the truth and justice.

The Greens want to change the sexual assault courts so that they are designed to find more people guilty of the charges, note they don’t want a better quality of justice, they just want more convictions. Purposely twisting the Court process to create more convictions hasn’t really been pointed out to the majority of NZers yet, but expect this to become a new flash point of the culture wars if Labour attempt to progress this.

I never thought there was anywhere near enough evidence to ever have convicted Peter Ellis and that he was the victim of a hysterical lynch mob.

These days I honestly can’t tell the difference between the Sensible Sentencing Trust get tough on crime lynch mobs and the social media cancel culture woke lynch mobs.


Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice going into this pandemic and 2020 election – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.


    • Even white heteronormitive males are not immune to wrongful conviction in a system where the burden of proof is placed on the accused, and the threshold for prosciution is the making of allegations (even ones that are impossible to be substantiated)

  1. Yes it is Trev its called a sensitive claim, do you think that was her motive she wants a payment. But its a very long drawn out process to get any money you have to go to at least 10 counselling sessions and then you have to see a government appointed psychologist who assesses you level of impairment. And your level has to be above a certain level to be eligible for any payment and then your counsellors report is also factored into the impairment assessment. And then the person could get bugger all unless you can afford lawyer to fight your case.

  2. “The woman was in counselling at the time she complained in 2007 and the counsellor had refused to continue therapy until she made a complaint to the police.”

    That’s about all you need to know.

  3. “I never thought there was anywhere near enough evidence to ever have convicted Peter Ellis and that he was the victim of a hysterical lynch mob.”
    Totally agree. They needed a scapegoat for the lynch mob.

  4. The performance of Una Jugose at the abuse in care inquiry, left a lot to be desired. As if she couldn’t be bothered caring enough to even give the matters, which admittedly preceded her by decades, any significant thought, when she’s the Solicitor General. Her performance, following on from her fervently fighting to stop the continuation of the Peter Ellis proceedings, left a lot to be desired. What is her performance being judged on, because if her performance is judged on her performance, then is it even adequate? Luckily her position is doubly protected, with her being both female and a public servant.

    It must have been disappointing, when the supreme court first allowed the proceedings to clear Mr Ellis’ name to continue, since the Crown may have hoped, that having delayed for years, they’d won the day by outliving Mr Ellis. Probably the reasoning they delayed so long in the first place.
    Will any of the bureaucrats with failures in these matters, face any sanction – anything – anything at all – not even a stern talking to. Will the supervisors of the institutions who turned a blind eye to goings on, and just transferred problems elsewhere, as happened in the catholic church, be held to account. Will anyone at MOH or child services be held to account by the abuse in care inquiry? Or is it that public servants doing the Crown’s bidding will never be called to account, while Mr Ellis at a private childcare facility, deserved the full hysteria of the Crown.

    Covering up while also going overboard is a fine balancing act, and may be the reason Mr Little is now Minister of Health, to bat off historic proceedings. These are continuing failures, to even deal properly with past failures, which means present failures are just going to continue, if they won’t be addressed properly in the future. It’s keystone cops. Having such normalised impropriety baked in, with no specific anti corruption agency being deemed necessary, unlike most of the developed world. Or an IPCA that actually functions, instead of disfunctions, only giving adverse findings in matters referred to them by the authorities, but never giving adverse findings in matters raised by the ordinary public.

    Judith may have been onto something, with her idea to expand the SFO to include corruption as well as fraud. It’s almost as if the Crown needs a certain amount of corruption and lack of oversight built into the wheels of bureaucracy, and it’s only occasionally that true oversight occurs, when persons such as Mr Hager provide it. But the Crown repays Mr Hager and similar investigative journalism in Australia by illegally searching their homes and threatening gaol – gaol for telling the truth, while military generals lie, and the Crown lies, acting with impropriety to cover up past impropriety. You could just as easily be discussing the mafia!

    And the latest allegation against Mr Ellis shows the depths of this judicial hysteria, since an allegation of child abuse is difficult to defend against at any time, let alone after the accused person has passed away. An accuser should not be entitled to continuing anonymity, if they are making continuing accusations. And in this case, the accused isn’t even around any more to defend themselves. Can you even remember what you were doing on a specific date in 1983? What a wicked web is being weaved, because the accuser could now throw in all manner of other impropriety for good measure. Perhaps treason or criminal copyright infringement or if that doesn’t stick, later changing it to copyright fraud.

    Will the next Crown informant be bringing credible information from a séance. Why is it so important for the Crown to try to disprove, that they destroyed someone’s life due to a witch hunt they took part in? Why doesn’t the Crown just accept their role in this hysteria, instead of spending more public funds, to continue the besmirchment? The Crown is wearing no clothes here. During this saga, it was Mr Ellis who acted with dignity, while facing sickening collective hysteria, that for most of us would be too much, and it’s the Crown who are now attempting to hide their failings behind years of delaying tactics and fancy legal tricks. Does the Crown feel the need to do this, because they represent society, and to not go along with the hysteria, would be admitting to the sickness in society, to the sickness in us all?

    Notably Una Jugose was herself in charge of the department of questionable legalities, while she now opines on legality, when she was previously head of the secret service, during the time they completely failed to monitor white supremacism. Does our secret service, teach the infamous clandestine methods such as sex honeytraps + false accusations + blackmail + leverage, that are part of secret service repertoire, as well as their usual stalking and peeping tom activities? Would these methods be taught at the Wellington HQ or outsourced?
    It’s beyond bullying by the Crown, when they are so intent on getting someone, like a shark that’s sensed blood, that they will make up stuff as they go along. It’s completely possible that persons (imagine being in someone else’s shoes) such as Mr Ellis or Arthur Thomas have never committed a single serious crime in their entire lives, but have been victims of circumstance. But could this possibility enter Una Jugose’s consciousness, even for a nanosecond? This is not one law for all.

    Mr Ellis was understandably obsessed with clearing his name, since out of all the people originally accused, for some reason he was the only one charged. And I’m not sure Yoda could work out how that decision was made, but Mr Ellis was the only male, so one wonders who would have been charged if the original accused were all females. All of them, or none of them? Very strange, and in need of some sunlight that will probably never be shone. Has the Human Rights Commissioner had anything to say on this? But it’s more difficult to understand Una Jugose’s ongoing fervor with wanting to keep his name besmirched. Perhaps she’d gain clearer understanding if she visited where they incarcerated him. Why is the Solicitor General not interested in seeking the truth. Why didn’t she show such fervor at the abuse in care inquiry? Her fervor now appears to be in covering up, rather than enlightening.

    These improprieties seem ongoing. It’s almost like when the Crown does or is responsible for something dubious, that’s supposed to make it either right, or legal, or infinitely suppressible by the enormous litigatory powers of the Crown, until those who have been wronged are either ground into submission, impoverished or perished, or some investigative journalist manages to blow the whistle, by standing up and stating the obvious. Why aren’t people who think like Mr Hager put in charge of agencies that provide oversight, instead of the usual hacks? What is the Crown afraid of? You need people who know the real difference between right and wrong, and who won’t just fall into line with the Crown’s version.

  5. Those same sex crime evangelists were hired by social welfare to teach social workers about ritual abuse. Their theories were transparently bogus but a majority of NZ’s social workers were tought about them.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.