The Christchurch Civic Crèche Case
A City Possessed:
Lynley Hood's book A City Possessed appears to have inspired a petition, a $100,000 reward for information and a paid advertisement of excerpts from interviews of child complainants (Sunday Star-Times, 8 August 2003). Unlike some of the petitioners, we cannot comment on the guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis, but if the research of the first three chapters of Lynley Hood's book is anything to go by, one should be cautious about the neutrality of her analysis. Weaving a story and selecting facts to fit the story is not the same as carefully documenting the history of events.
Hood describes herself, over and over, as objective. She promises to write (p 31) "as fairly, accurately and sensitively" as she can. She claims (p 32) that she "steered a steady course through the shoals and tempests of the controversy, illuminating the context along the way providing a balanced picture of the apparently conflicting, but presumably equally valid, points of view". She declares that she especially does not want to "oversimplify the world around us".
Our comments relate to the first three chapters of her book, the theoretical foundation for her later statements. , These chapters are devoted to explaining the issues around child abuse. Hood writes (p 34): "At the core of these arguments are questions that must be addressed: Just how widespread is child sexual abuse, and just how serious are the consequences? (Or, to put it another way: what exactly does the research say, and what exactly does it mean?)". We agree. These questions are crucial.
She asks: "Is the true prevalence of child sexual abuse higher than one in four, lower than one in 1,000 or somewhere between?... Clearly the only answer is: we don't know (italics in original)." But in 1994, Professor David Finkelhor published a review of prevalence studies with large samples in 19 countries, including New Zealand ("The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse", (1994) 18 Child Abuse & Neglect 409). He found that the variability was between seven and 36 per cent for women and three and 29 per cent for men.
In the 1990s, two New Zealand prevalence studies were published in peer reviewed scientific journals. In a University of Otago study by Jessie Anderson and colleagues, 32 per cent of a random sample of 3000 adult women (up to 65 years old) stated they had unwanted sexual experiences before they turned 16 ("Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse experiences in a community sample of women",  Jo of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 911). Twenty per cent reported unwanted touching of their genitals, or attempted or completed sexual intercourse.
Professor David Fergusson and colleagues' research on a birth cohort of 1,019 18-year-olds in the Christchurch urban area found that 17.3 per cent of girls disclosed unwanted sexual experiences prior to sixteen with 12.6 per cent reporting genital stimulation and 5.6 per cent vaginal, oral or anal intercourse ("Childhood sexual abuse and psychiatric disorder in young adulthood",  JAACAP 1355). Fergusson and his colleagues describe their data as a "lower level estimate", explaining "it may be that the estimates in this study were influenced by underreporting and it may be that, at age 18 years, a number of those exposed to abuse may not have been emotionally ready to disclose CSA [child sexual abuse]". Despite this, one in 20 young women described attempted or completed vaginal, oral or anal intercourse.
Two years before the publication of A City Possessed, David Fergusson and Paul Mullen published an evidence- based review of childhood sexual abuse research (Childhood Sexual Abuse - An Evidence Based Perspective 1999. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications p 28). They concluded that despite methodological limitations of individual studies, "exposure to some form of unwanted sexual attention during childhood is all too common.... The majority of studies suggesting prevalence [for females] somewhere in the interval between 15% and 30%...with most estimates for males lying within the interval between 3% to 15%. Of perhaps greater concern is the number of children who report being exposed to acts of sexual abuse that involve sexual penetration. The estimates suggest that up to 13 % of females and 11.3% of males may report abuse of this severity, with the majority of studies reporting prevalence figures in the range of 5% to 10%".
Data from incidence studies (commonly the number of reported cases in a set period of time) are not directly comparable to these prevalence surveys (commonly the proportion of population recalling abuse over their lifetime). They each offer different lenses on the extent of child sexual abuse. Hood chooses not to clarify the distinction, highlighting whichever produces the lower number. She selectively emphasises the 1981 American National Study of Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect (p 69), which found the incidence of sexual abuse among American children to be 1 in 500 (Washington DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services). Why 1981? After all, she was writing in 2000. Why did she not visit the US Government Department of Health and Human Services website and find the 1996 study, which showed "substantial and significant increases in the incidence of child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence study was conducted" (Sedlak & Broadhurst, Third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. US DHHS).
Hood states that it is not known whether "most women who were molested as children experience some difficulties in their adult life, or is sexual abuse just one of many adverse childhood experiences that may or may not cause lasting harm?" A review by Kendall-Tackett and colleagues of 45 studies of the effects of child sexual abuse shows that sexually abused children have more symptoms than non-abused children, with abuse compared to other adverse childhood experiences accounting for 15-45 per cent of the variance in symptoms ((1993) 113 Psychological Bulletin 154). Symptoms included fears, behaviour problems, sexualised behaviours and poor self-esteem with no one symptom characterising abused children.
In the longer term, although some survivors show no ill effects according to the measures used, many experience serious problems throughout life, particularly when the abuser is a family member, when there are multiple incidents of abuse and when the abuse involves attempted or actual intercourse. Even in studies that control for other adverse childhood experiences, child sexual abuse has been linked to suicide, depression, psychiatric admissions, drug abuse and eating disorders (See Fergusson & Mullen 1999; Neuman et al. "The long-term sequelae of childhood sexual abuse in women: A meta-analytic review", Child Maltreatment 1996; 6-16 and Putman,"Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse"  JAACAP 369).
Abuse survivors are ill more often and have surgery more often (Felitti et al. "Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults",  Am Jo of Preventive Medicine 245). As Anna Salter, a prominent forensic psychologist, recently commented: "I had not read the literature on the impact of child sexual abuse carefully for some time ... I initially planned on reading ALL the literature on the sequelae of child sexual abuse, but that grandiose plan faded as I read for months on end without being able to tap into all the research. At the end of several months, however, I was convinced of one thing. Child sexual abuse was like getting bitten by a rattlesnake: Some kids recovered completely, and some didn't; but it wasn't good for anybody" (Predators, Paedophiles, Rapists, and other Sex Offenders 2003. New York: Basic Books, p 63).
While Hood is of course entitled to her personal opinion, she cannot justifiably claim her conclusions to be robust or balanced. She seems intent on minimising the extent and consequences of child sexual abuse. Her caricatures of the work of Diana Russell, Roland Summit and Miriam Saphira are unhelpful to those seeking a fair and reasoned understanding of child sexual abuse.
Russell's study of the prevalence of sexual abuse of girls was based on a random sample of 930 adult women in San Francisco ("The incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse of female children",  Child Abuse & Neglect 133). This was one of the first such surveys on this scale. The results and methodology were so compelling, that university-based researchers attempted something similar in many other countries.
Russell's definition of sexual abuse within the family was: "any kind of exploitative sexual contact that occurred between relatives before the victim turned 18. Experiences involving sexual contact with a relative that were wanted and with a peer [age difference of less than five years] were regarded as non-exploitive". Her results: 28 per cent of the 940 women reported at least one experience of sexual abuse within the family before the age of 18; 12 per cent reported same before 14.
Twenty-three per cent of all incidents of abuse within the family were classified as Very Serious: there were defined as completed and attempted vaginal, oral, anal intercourse, cunnilingus, analingus, forced and unforced. In just one instance, Russell classified "unwanted but non-forceful kissing by a cousin" as sexual abuse. Hood's often-subtle bias becomes starkly transparent when she writes: "Russell's definition included everyday aspects of family life like unwanted hugs and kisses". Hood's misuse of one isolated case seems inconsistent with her stated goal of objectivity.
For well over a hundred years no mental health system, never mind society at large, was willing to recognise the reality and seriousness of child sexual abuse (see Seymour, "Memory and childhood abuse",  Waikato L R 155). However, Hood (p 30) is sceptical about "the bad old days when victims were disbelieved" and says that this is "a self-serving myth". Her source? Sixty-five years of the New Zealand Truth shows that "children's complaints of sexual molestation were taken seriously".
Summit was the head physician for the Community Consultation Service and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Harbor-UCLA medical center when he wrote a paper on the process of disclosure of child sexual abuse ("The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome",  Child Abuse & Neglect 190). Hood states that Summit described this paper as "highly impressionistic". The paper is actually based on clinical experience "derived from the collective experience of dozens of sexual abuse treatment centers in dealing with thousands of reports or complaints of adult victimisation of young children". Such clinical experience contributes another lens onto our understanding of child sexual abuse.
Hood, continuing her unhelpful game of heroes and villains, introduces Dr Alfred Kinsey (p 52), as a "husband and father of irreproachable personal conservatism". Kmsey's biographers James Jones (Alfred C Kinsey: A Public/Private Life New York: WW Norton 1997) and Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy (Sex the Measure of All Things: A life of Alfred C. Kinsey Indiana University Press 2000) do not agree. According to Jones (p 512), Kinsey allegedly used paedophiles to bring children to orgasm and then record the number they could achieve: "Children gasping for breath, sobbing, screaming in pain, fainting, and desperately struggling to fight off the assailants Kinsey dignified as 'partners' - these were descriptions of hapless victims". While Kinsey was convinced the victims derived pleasure, Jones commented: "how reliable was the testimony of paedophiles about the children they molested? Not very."
Much attention is given to discrediting the work of Hood's arch-villain, Dr Miriam Saphira. The statistics from the 1970's Women's Weekly survey are ridiculed. Yet the key messages that "the man will usually know the child" and "one in five child molesters will be the father, stepfather or foster father", are not as far from academic research findings as Hood chooses to believe. Nor is the widely quoted "one out of four girls will be molested before she turns eighteen". Twenty-five per cent (one in four) is within the accepted range of prevalence data (Fergusson & Mullen, 1999; Finkelhor, 1994). While this may seem unbelievable, it includes one-off incidents at the lower end of the spectrum of sexual abuse. The University of Otago and Fergusson's study found that men known to the children perpetrate most child sexual abuse (Anderson et al. 1993 and Fergusson et al. 1996). In Fergusson's study, 23.5 per cent of the perpetrators were family members. In Anderson's study, 38.3 per cent were family members and 16 per cent of abusers were relatives living with the child. In 18.5 per cent of children's allegations of sexual abuse reported to Child, Youth and Family in 1999, the alleged abuser was a father or a stepfather (Basher, "Children who talk on tape: The facts behind the pictures", (1999) 12 Social Work Now 12). Stepfathers are at a higher risk of being perpetrators than biological fathers (Fergusson & Mullen, 1999 p 51).
Hood writes (p 95): "To encourage the child protection movement to close ranks, the Geddis-led National Advisory Committee on the Prevention of Child Abuse recommended that all abuse allegations be investigated by "specialised personnel, trained and working together". The literature is consistent in the importance of the use of multi-disciplinary trained teams, not to close ranks, as Hood puts it, but to improve practice. Each discipline has different knowledge bases and skills to contribute to the investigative process (Myers, "Keep the lifeboat afloat", (2002) 26 Child Abuse & Neglect 561). Such teams help to increase professionals' and agencies' accountability for their practice, by being more open to the scrutiny of their colleagues from other agencies, the opposite of what Hood proposes.
While glamorising the good old days, Hood is equally misleading in her statement that the passing of the Evidence Amendment Act 1989 meant that (p 113): "child complainants no longer had to appear in Court in person. They were no longer required to deliver their evidence-in- chief without leading or coaxing. Their evidence was no longer tested by unhampered cross-examination. Instead juries viewed pre-recorded interviews with child complainants conducted by interviewers trained in the beliefs and methods of the child protection movement, and observed cross-examinations conducted via videolink".
Hood fails to mention the advantages of videotaped evidential interviews of children for the Court. Specialised interviewers are under scrutiny. If they ask poor questions, those questions are there for all to see and hear in the courtroom. Videotapes also provide a record of what the child said much nearer to the disclosure than the trial, which may be more than a year later. They also enable the jury to see the child complainant on tape at an age nearer to when the events allegedly took place. In one or two years, children can look quite different. As children are less stressed, their testimony is likely to be clearer (See Cashmore, Children's evidence research paper 1: The use of closed-circuit television for child witnesses in the ACT. Sydney: Australia Law Reform Commission, 1992; Davies & Noon. An evaluation of the live link for child witnesses. London: Home Office 1991; and Murray, Live Television Link: An evaluation of its use by child witnesses in Scottish criminal trials. The Scottish Office 1995).
There is no evidence to substantiate that lawyers are more skilled at questioning children than specialised interviewers. There is some evidence to the contrary. One of us (ED) developed a coding system with Fred Seymour for analysis of the types of questions asked of children in Court. Having checked the coding system for inter-rater reliability, we analysed transcripts of the evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of child complainants of sexual abuse, including transcripts of evidential interviews of the younger of these complainants ("Questioning child complainants of sexual abuse: Analysis of criminal Court transcripts in New Zealand", (1998) 5 Psychiatry, Psychology & Law 47). We found that evidential interviewers used significantly more careful neutral (open, non-loaded) questions than prosecutors, who used significantly more neutral questions than defence lawyers. Evidential interviewers also asked significantly more age- appropriate questions than lawyers. Children being asked questions that they do not understand is not in the interests of those seeking the truth.
Children who give evidence-in-chief via videotape are still cross-examined live in austere Court buildings, even if it is via closed-circuit television (CCTV). Hood again omits the advantages for the Court. There is some evidence that children appear to be more comprehensive, more forthcoming, louder, more resistant to leading questions and more fluent when giving evidence on closed circuit television compared to open Court (Davies & Westcott 1995, "The child witness in the Courtroom: Empowerment or protection?" In Zaragoza Graham Hall Hirschman Ben- Porath (Eds) Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp 199-213). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage). Lawyers in the UK and Australia have been observed to use more age- appropriate questions through CCTV than in open Court (see Cashmore). There is no evidence that the use of CCTV increases the chances of conviction (See Tobey et al. 1995, "Balancing the rights of children and defendants: Effects of closed-circuit television on children's accuracy and jurors' perceptions." in Zaragoza et al; and Ross et al. 1994, "The impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on conviction rates in a simulated trial of child sexual abuse", (1994) 18 Law & Human Behaviour 553). If by "unhampered cross-examination" of a child, Hood means a flurry of juxtapositions and multi-faceted questions designed to confuse, then this might be so, although this seems contrary to the interests of justice.
An abridged version of this article was published in The New Zealand Herald (11 August 2003). Hood's response (13 August 2003): "As befits supporters of recovered memory therapy (now known euphemistically as abuse- focused therapy), Jeffrey Masson and Emma Davies rely on statistics that have been either discredited or misrepresented to support their otherwise insupportable beliefs. Nonetheless, it is pleasing to see that some members of the sex-abuse industry have been reading A City Possessed."
Which statistics have been "discredited" or "misrepresented" by whom and where? The term "sex abuse industry" is a meaningless derogatory term used to denigrate those who research or work within the child protection system or with survivors of abuse. What did recovered memory have to do with it? Our critique did not mention it. Besides, one of us (JM) has actually written a book Against Therapy, in which all forms of professionalised therapy are criticised. The other (ED) has never been a therapist nor has she ever made a public statement on recovered memory.
Hood's response to our critique reinforces our view that she is untrustworthy in her analysis of the issues involved in child sexual abuse. In claiming that "recovered memory therapy" is the same as "abuse focused therapy", Hood once again misconstrues the literature (Seymour, 1996). In her book, Hood boldly states that cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus wins "hands down" the scientific debate about whether recovered memory exists (p 55). Three prominent cognitive psychologists have recently reached a more measured conclusion (Sivers Schooler Freyd, "Recovered memories", In Ramachandran. (2002) 4 Encyclopedia of the Human Brain 169). Hood omits that the false memory in Loftus's infamous analogue study was not for abuse. It was about being lost in the mall when one was a small child (Loftus & Pickrell, "The formation of false memories", (1995) 25 Psychiatric Annals 720). Analogue studies like these can never replicate the conditions of abuse. Nonetheless, a considerable body of experimental research has shown that young children can provide accurate recall of salient events (Eisen, Quas & Goodman 2002, Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview, New Jersey: LEA Publishers).
Since Hood mentions recovered memory, we will briefly clarify our understanding of the implications of research, although we are at a loss to see its relevance to young children. A well-designed prospective study by Linda Williams showed that some sexually abused adults have periods in their lives when they do not remember being abused ("Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective study of women's memories of child sexual abuse", (1994) 62 Jo of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1167). Even Loftus herself believes "it is possible to lose contact with memories for long periods of time". She merely disputes that the correct term to describe this is "repression" (Ceci & Loftus 1994, "A royal road to false memories?" quoted in Seymour 1996).
With regard to therapy, cognitive experimental psychologists, Read and Lindsay, are quite clear in their concerns about specific techniques, for example hypnosis ("Moving toward a middle ground on the false memory debate" (1994) 8 Applied Cognitive Psychology 407). They clarify: "there is little reason to fear that a few suggestive questions will lead psychotherapy clients to conjure up vivid and compelling illusory memory of childhood sexual abuse". And "not all or even most memories recovered in therapy are false ... our comments focused exclusively on approaches that make extensive use of suggestive memory recovery techniques". These techniques are appropriately treated with caution in the guidelines of professional psychological associations. (Seymour, 1996)
Hood's supposedly balanced book has been used to steer public attention to one case, from which we are encouraged to draw all sorts of spurious generalisations. New Zealanders concerned with a fair and reasonable approach to child abuse need to maintain a broader focus. Where is the public demand for the outcomes from the work based on the Ministerial Inquiry into Child Protection in 2000? Where is the parallel debate about how to prevent child sexual abuse? How can careful interviewing practice be strengthened? How can young children's safe access to the criminal justice system be ensured?
The standard of scholarship of the first three chapters of Lynley Hood's book is poor. At the beginning of chapter 4 it gets no better: "The flatness of the city makes it easy for anyone with a bright idea to gather together enough like- minded people to turn any theory - be it dazzingly enlightened or downright flaky - into action. And for more than 100 years that is exactly what Christchurch people have been doing". As Brian Edwards asked on TV1 (15 August 2003) don't you see an element of absurdity in what you're telling me here?" Hood: "No".
Her ability to stereotype, distort and denigrate groups of people and bodies of scientific research undermines her credibility. Her support of the recent publication of carefully selected excerpts of children's testimony is consistent with her carefully selected version of reality evident in the first few chapters of her book. Her tendency to vilify those she doesn't respect as members of the "sex-abuse industry", "zealots", "lesbian radical feminists", or inhabitants of a particular city, seems to mirror the witch-hunt she appears to have sought and found. Her analysis in the foundation chapters is more akin to story telling than the presentation of evidence. We suggest that those who signed the petition on the basis of Hood's book might wish to think again
"Reasoned and accurate" was my first impression
of Emma Davies and Jeffrey Masson's critique of Lynley Hood's A City
Possessed. Hood inexplicably uses dated research and her sources are somewhat
suspect. But as I continued reading their critique, especially following
Hood's reply to them, I was struck by their choice of sources and their apparent
I have no statistics regarding the size of the sex abuse industry in this country. However, in 2002/03, the Accident Compensation Corporation had 4894 new sensitive claims and 7351 ongoing sensitive claims. Sensitive claims "are where the claimant suffered an injury as a result of being the victim of specific types of criminal behaviour...[t]hey relate mostly to sexual crimes...[c]onviction does not have to result" (ACC Injury Statistics 2003, para 13.1). The cost of sensitive claims in 2002/03 was $22.048 million or $1800 per claim. Interestingly, ACC says that conviction is unnecessary but that claims are the result of criminal behaviour. If there has been no conviction, how can ACC be sure that any criminal behaviour has occurred?
Davies and Masson can barely conceal their disdain for renowned memory expert and psychologist Elizabeth Loftus. Three psychologists cited by Davies and Masson are referred to as "prominent". No so Loftus. Loftus is a former member of the American Psychological Association. Interestingly, she resigned from the APA and joined the American Psychological Society - she was its President between 1998/99 - because she believed the latter valued science more highly and more consistently. She is a Distinguished Professor at the University of California, Irvine. She has published 20 books and more than 350 articles. She has received four honorary doctorates for her research. In 2002 the Review of General Psychology listed Loftus among the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century and she was ranked the highest woman. She has appeared as an expert witness in many criminal trials. Given her credentials, and those of Davies and Masson, the authors' attitude towards her seems to be, understandably, one of envy.
Lynley Hood, say D-M, "omits that the false memory in Loftus's infamous analogue study was not for abuse". Hood simply states that Loftus' research shows that children can have false memories of traumatic events (assuming that being lost in a mall is a traumatic event). Why do D-M have a problem with this statement? Curiously, D-M refer to Loftus' study as "infamous". Why? It cannot be infamous on the basis of its conclusions because they have been replicated by many other studies. Maybe it is infamous because of its implications for cases of alleged child sexual abuse (see the case of "Nathan" below). If so, I think ground-breaking might be a more accurate term.
Loftus generally doubts the existence of recovered memory, especially where traumatic events are concerned. Davies and Masson argue that Sivers et al "have reached a more measured conclusion". Their more measured conclusion is simply one of hope, that in the future more can be learned about recovered memory. This ignores the fact that much is already known about recovered memory. Recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse should be able to be verified and falsified. Not to mention corroborated. How many are?
D-M then go on to quote two more psychologists, Read and Lindsay, who say that there is little reason to think that suggestive questions by mental health experts will lead to false memories of childhood sexual abuse. Has this been tested? Corroborated? Verified? What of the millions of dollars that US Courts have awarded victims of false memories resulting from lawsuits against their therapists? How have these victims acquired their false memories if not through suggestive questioning?
Recently, "Nathan", who is in his early 20s, spoke of being abused by Peter Ellis during his time at the Civic Creche. Nathan was four at the time of his alleged abuse. Nathan says he knows he was abused because he was different from other teenagers. At age 14 or 15 he would "freak out" if a girl tried to touch or kiss him. He also felt uncomfortable changing clothes in front of other boys. He discovered that he had been abused when he was 14 and told his parents when he was 16. He complained to the police last year. Why did it take him ten years to remember the abuse and what caused him to remember it?
According to his mother, Nathan saw Ellis on television after Ellis had been charged with sexual abuse at the Civic Crèche. Afterwards, she asked Nathan if anything had "happened" to him when he was at the crèche. He replied "no". His mother, however, believed that something had happened to him. Consequently, she contacted police soon after Ellis was charged in 1992. Nathan did not like the Civic Creche. Maybe his mother questioned him to see if he had been sexually abused. She possibly had concerns based on his dislike of the crèche and the fact that she believed he was there when Peter Ellis worked there. Maybe Nathan came to believe he had been abused because he wanted to please his mother. She had, after all, removed him from the Civic. Maybe he thought she would remove him from his new crèche, which he liked, if he didn't tell her what she wanted to hear. It seems as plausible an hypothesis as the one put forward by Nathan.
According to Nathan's mother, Nathan was abused in late-1985. According to Peter Ellis' supervisor, Dora Reinfeld, Ellis was not at the Civic Creche in any capacity until late-August 1986. The police have decided not to charge Ellis regarding Nathan's allegations. Given his strongly held belief that he was sexually abused, charging Nathan with laying a false complaint would seem inappropriate.
Davies and Masson say that A City Possessed "has been used to steer public attention to one case, from which we are encouraged to draw all sorts of spurious generalisations". What spurious generalisations are we encouraged to draw? That there are few, if any, specific behavioural indicators of child sexual abuse? That children can, if exposed to suggestive and leading questioning, recall events that did not occur? That multiple interviews of child witnesses can produce unreliable testimony? That experts can and do get it horribly wrong? These aren't generalisations; these are facts! D-M should be grateful that Lynley Hood has provided the public with an insight into child sexual abuse and the methods used to evaluate it.
If Davies and Masson had read the remaining thirteen chapters, and not just the first three, of A City Possessed, they would be able to comment on the guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis. They have certainly had no difficulty passing comment on Lynley Hood. "Untrustworthy", they call her. That is a term that could just as easily be applied to them. They have made no attempt to verify the allegations of child sexual abuse at the Civic Creche. Yet the authors profess their deep concern for children. "Where is the parallel debate about how to prevent child sexual abuse?" they ask rhetorically. Before preventing child sexual abuse, one must first be able to prove that it has occurred. Since Peter Ellis was first charged, nobody has been able to do