Case 341: The Christchurch Civic Creche

For early access and ad-free episodes, check out our Patreon, Apple Premium and Spotify subscription memberships. Our episodes deal with serious and often distressing incidents. If you feel at any time you need support, please contact your local crisis centre. For suggested phone numbers for confidential support and for a more detailed list of content warnings, please see the show notes for this episode on your app or on our website. This episode features distressing subject matter pertaining to the sexual abuse of children. It will not be suitable for all listeners. The names of several witnesses have been changed. In November of 1976, the Christchurch Civic Cresce on the South Island of New Zealand opened its doors for the first time and welcomed in children aged from 18 months to 5 years old. As an increasing number of women in New Zealand were returning to work after having children, there was a growing demand for early childhood education. There was a growing demand for early childhood education in the City Council and the Christchurch Technical Institute. Located in the heart of the city, the Cresce was a collaborative undertaking by the City Council and the Christchurch Technical Institute. Over the next decade and a half, the Cresce became so popular that parents would add their babies' names to a waiting list upon birth in the hopes they would be accepted when they were old enough to attend. It was particularly popular with parents who worked in the many non-profit organisations that were based near Bethlehem. The Cresce attracted families who tended to be middle-class professionals with politically liberal attitudes. It was open between 7:30am and 5pm Monday to Friday and could take children on either a part or full day basis. A brochure published in 1989 described the Civic Cresce as providing: Quality childcare for children from many different racial, cultural, social and economic backgrounds. A full range of stimulating and creative activities are offered, with a special extension program for the four-year-olds. The Cresce's central location meant that educators could take children on excursions to the Botanical Gardens, the Avon River, a local wildlife park, the Town Hall and other Christchurch attractions. to the Botanical Gardens, the Avon River, a local wildlife park, the Town Hall and other Christchurch attractions. Children participated in both free play and more structured activities and they had a Taha Marui program to teach the children about New Zealand's indigenous culture. Every week, the creche highlighted a different theme which was determined by the staff members at their monthly meetings. By 1991, there were 11 permanent staff that ranged in age from 20 to 53. All had at least one qualification that enabled them to work there. The creche's supervisor was Gay Davidson who had a reputation for being kind and approachable. On Wednesday November 20 1991, Gay was contacted by the mother of a three-year-old who attended the creche. The mother said that she suspected her son had been sexually abused by the creche's only male child care worker. The mother, who would later become known by the pseudonym of Ms Magnolia, informed Gay Davidson that she would be keeping her son Geoffrey, not his real name, home from the creche until the male employee was removed. Gay Davidson immediately leapt into action. She sought advice from the City Council Administration and paid a visit to the Magnolia family home alongside a council personnel officer. Gay Davidson was then called to the creche by the council and was called to the official officer that same day. Speaking to Ms Magnolia and her husband, Gay received a clear report of what had unfolded. Their three-year-old son Geoffrey had been exhibiting troubling behaviour for some time. He could be prone to tantrums, sometimes woke with pain in his legs and could be fussy about his clothes. Sometimes he didn't want to go to creche. He used the words penis and vagina as insults. Ms Magnolia had also noticed occasional redness around his anus. About a month earlier, Geoffrey had said to his father, I don't like Peter's black penis. Peter seemed to refer to Peter Ellis, the male child care worker at Geoffrey's creche, but 33-year-old Peter wasn't black. Geoffrey's father asked if he'd seen Peter's penis or was he just telling a story. Geoffrey answered the latter, so his father dropped the subject. But Geoffrey made a similar remark to his mother on Sunday November 17 while having a bath. Like her husband, Ms Magnolia probed Geoffrey with follow-up questions. Again, Geoffrey said he hadn't seen Peter's penis. On Tuesday November 19, Geoffrey told his grandmother that he didn't want to go to creche that day because he didn't like it. Geoffrey said he didn't want to go to creche that day because he didn't like it. By now, Ms Magnolia was highly concerned. She herself was a survivor of sexual abuse and was now a social worker who had written a handbook on the subject. Her son's repeated comments, combined with his sometimes troubling behaviour, suggested he may have been the victim of abuse. That night, she questioned Geoffrey again. Will you tell me what happened with Peter and his wife? Will you tell me what happened with Peter and his penis? She asked. She asked. She asked. No, I won't, said Geoffrey. Did Peter hurt you? Did Peter hurt you? Did Peter hurt you? No. Did Peter scare you? No. Did Peter scare you? Yes. Yes. Yes. Geoffrey told his mother he didn't want to go to creche anymore, but he'd go if Peter was no longer there. Then his mother asked: Then his mother asked: Then his mother asked: "Was Peter's penis scary?" "Was Peter's penis scary?" "Was Peter's penis scary?" "It was darky scary," Geoffrey said. "It was darky scary," Geoffrey said. "If Peter came to this house, he would be a monster. If he was a monster and he was here, you'd be asleep, mum, in your bed, and you'd wake up and see the monster, and you'd be surprised." "If Peter came to this house, he would be a monster and he'd wake up and see the monster, and you'd be surprised." The Magnolias were asked to submit their complaint in writing so that the council could initiate proper proceedings. Once they had the written complaint, they would pass it on to Peter Ellis and his union and hold a hearing within four days. In the meantime, Peter would be suspended on paid leave. The couple submitted their written complaint that same day, concluding it by concluding it by concluding it by adding that they were worried for the safety adding that they were worried for the safety adding that they were worried for the safety of other children at the creche as well. of other children at the creche as well. Gay Davidson was shocked and confused by Gay Davidson was shocked and confused by Gay Davidson was shocked and confused by the allegations. the allegations. the allegations. She couldn't believe Peter Ellis could She couldn't believe Peter Ellis could She couldn't believe Peter Ellis could be capable of harming a child, be capable of harming a child, be capable of harming a child, but at the same time she wondered, but at the same time she wondered, but at the same time she wondered, had something happened? had something happened? Peter had worked at the Christ Church Peter had worked at the Christ Church Peter had worked at the Christ Church civic creche since 1986 when he was 28 civic creche since 1986 when he was 28 civic creche since 1986 when he was 28 years old. years old. years old. His career in early childhood education His career in early childhood education His career in early childhood education had come about in an unorthodox way. had come about in an unorthodox way. Peter had previously been employed at a Peter had previously been employed at a Peter had previously been employed at a bakery and was also receiving dole bakery and was also receiving dole bakery and was also receiving dole payments from the government. payments from the government. When the New Zealand authorities When the New Zealand authorities When the New Zealand authorities realised Peter had received more money realised Peter had received more money realised Peter had received more money than he was entitled to, he was charged than he was entitled to, he was charged than he was entitled to, he was charged with misleading a social welfare officer with misleading a social welfare officer with misleading a social welfare officer and sentenced to 80 hours community and sentenced to 80 hours community and sentenced to 80 hours community service. service. service. Peter was given the option of Peter was given the option of Peter was given the option of completing his community service at an completing his community service at an completing his community service at an animal shelter or a creche. animal shelter or a creche. He chose the latter. He chose the latter. He chose the latter. Peter soon began his service at the Peter soon began his service at the Peter soon began his service at the Christchurch civic creche, which was just Christchurch civic creche, which was just a 20-minute walk from the large boarding a 20-minute walk from the large boarding a 20-minute walk from the large boarding house where he lived. house where he lived. Because the creche had a philosophy of Because the creche had a philosophy of Because the creche had a philosophy of giving everyone a fair go, there was no giving everyone a fair go, there was no giving everyone a fair go, there was no stigma associated with Peter's sentence. stigma associated with Peter's sentence. He hadn't committed a violent crime and He hadn't committed a violent crime and He hadn't committed a violent crime and his offending wasn't of a serious nature. his offending wasn't of a serious nature. There were no barriers to him working There were no barriers to him working with children. with children. with children. But there had still been some initial But there had still been some initial But there had still been some initial concerns that Peter might not fit in or concerns that Peter might not fit in or concerns that Peter might not fit in or be accepted at the creche. be accepted at the creche. Peter was bisexual during a time when it Peter was bisexual during a time when it Peter was bisexual during a time when it had recently been legal to discriminate had recently been legal to discriminate had recently been legal to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. against people based on their sexuality. He also expressed himself in an open way He also expressed himself in an open way He also expressed himself in an open way where others might have opted to be where others might have opted to be where others might have opted to be more muted. more muted. more muted. Often described as flamboyant, Peter had Often described as flamboyant, Peter had Often described as flamboyant, Peter had a long hair, wore brightly coloured a long hair, wore brightly coloured a long hair, wore brightly coloured clothes and applied makeup. clothes and applied makeup. His fingers had long nails and were His fingers had long nails and were His fingers had long nails and were adorned with rings. adorned with rings. adorned with rings. And he was loud, with a biting sense of And he was loud, with a biting sense of And he was loud, with a biting sense of humour. humour. humour. But the creche's accepting community But the creche's accepting community But the creche's accepting community welcomed Peter, and he became a welcomed Peter, and he became a welcomed Peter, and he became a favourite of some parents and favourite of some parents and favourite of some parents and children alike. children alike. children alike. Peter loved kids, and they returned Peter loved kids, and they returned Peter loved kids, and they returned that affection, often begging him to that affection, often begging him to that affection, often begging him to play their favourite games. One mother was so impressed with Peter that she employed him to babysit her three-and-a-half-year-old daughter as well. Keen to stay on after his community service had concluded, Peter applied for the New Zealand Child Care Association's training course and in March 1987, Gay Davidson recommended him for a permanent position. However, there had been some issues that Gay had to pull Peter up on. Although he was renowned for his sharp wit, sometimes his jokes verged on mean, particularly when directed at his colleagues. He was fond of a drink and had been known to sometimes drink too much. He loved his job but had trouble with authority sometimes. And while he enjoyed playing games with the kids, he had a tendency to overdo it at times. Peter became known for the mattress game, an activity where, he laid a mattress on the floor and lined children up in front of it. Then, he'd hurl another mattress at them, tossing them backwards to be sandwiched between the two mattresses. The kids loved it and begged Peter to play the game. But, after a couple of children knocked heads, Gay Davidson told Peter to stop. That wasn't the only boisterous game Peter initiated. Another time, he'd hung a little boy off the creche's picket fence, by his overalls, while a group of other kids clamoured for him to hang them up too. Again, Gay told him that such activities weren't appropriate. He was great with kids and knew how to make them laugh, but he didn't always have the most sensitive approach. In February 1989, Peter had been issued a warning for not consoling a child who was crying, for using excessive physical force, and for being overly sarcastic in a way that confused children. Peter disputed the details of this warning, and there were no further issues after that. Overall, Gay had been very happy with Peter as a colleague. Now, she found herself torn between wanting to support him and wondering whether there might be a reason she shouldn't. Peter Ellis was notified of the allegations and put on leave, while a hearing was scheduled for the following Monday, November 25. There was a strict protocol that had to be followed, which meant that no one who knew about the complaint was permitted to say anything about it to anyone else, including creche staff or parents. Peter Ellis adamantly denied any wrongdoing. He told others he couldn't understand why Geoffrey Magnolia would make such a strange remark, and wondered if it had something to do with a puppy Peter had recently sold to the family. Peter loved animals, and sometimes bred them. Two months earlier, in September, Ms Magnolia had visited Peter Ellis' home with Geoffrey to buy a black puppy he was selling. Geoffrey mentioned that he wanted to name the puppy Blossom, so Peter turned the puppy over to show Geoffrey that it was male. Pointing to the dog's genitalia, he said, "Look, it's a boy." Others speculated that Geoffrey might have overheard something he shouldn't have, as Peter was known for making crude jokes about his private life to his colleagues. He liked to shock the women he worked with by telling them outrageous things, like how he participated in golden showers, a sexual practice where one would urinate on one's partner. A couple of creche workers remembered that a few months earlier in August, Peter had told them how he had used black markers to colour in his dog's hair. Peter told them how he had used black markers to colour in his dog's hair. They suspected the little boy had overheard this conversation and, not understanding it, was troubled. Peter retained a lawyer and met with a union representative, who advised Peter not to attend the hearing. Any allegations of possible sexual abuse was a matter for the police to investigate, not the council. Meanwhile, a two-person team from the education review office visited the creche every day to closely monitor the goings-on. They also interviewed between 20 to 30 parents and city council officials. They found nothing untoward and gave the creche a positive review, noting that the children appeared happy, inquisitive and sociable, and had high self-esteem. On Monday November 25, Geoffrey Magnolia was interviewed as part of the council's investigation. The little boy made no disclosures about sexual abuse or Peter Ellis. The lack of evidence against Peter meant the council was leaning towards reinstating him. Geoffrey's parents refused to accept this, however, and continued to pressure the council to fire Peter. One council official warned Ms Magnolia that spreading word of the allegation at this stage would be both "defamatory" and "inflammatory" but suggested that he should be put on trial. Ms Magnolia replied that she already had. She had phoned Christchurch's child abuse unit on the same day as Geoffrey's interview and spoken to a detective named Colin Eade. She had also spoken to other creche parents about the matter, despite being told not to, later explaining, quote: "I intentionally didn't listen to that because I have a strong belief that secrecy in sexual abuse cases keeps it happening and I felt it needed to be talked about. I rang the parents of friends that Geoff played with because I was concerned for those kids." In response to Ms Magnolia's report, Detective Colin Eade began looking into the accusations. Soon he'd received complaints from three further parents. The detective didn't like the sound of Peter Ellis, and he was particularly suspicious of the way he'd obtained a position at the creche in the first place. By all reports, Peter Ellis loved animals and owned many pets. Why then, when given the option of completing his community service at an animal shelter, had he opted to volunteer at a creche instead? It sounded like the action of a potential predator seeking easy access to vulnerable children. Within a week of obtaining the complaint, Detective Eade advised the city council that he believed he was onto something big. On Detective Eade's advice, an urgent meeting was planned to alert all creche parents that a staff member was under suspicion, despite the council's stance that the allegations should be withheld pending a full investigation. As it was, word had already gotten out to some parents who had been calling social welfare agencies for answers. Detective Eade attended the meeting, which was held at the creche on Monday December 2. Word of the meeting was somehow leaked to Christchurch newspaper The Press, which ran a story that same day about Ellis' suspension, with the headline: "Allegations of Abuse". Roughly 100 parents attended the meeting, most of whom had been completely oblivious as to the allegations. When Ms Magnolia arrived, she paused in the doorway and burst into tears. A couple of other parents rushed over to support her, escorting her to a seat. Concerns spread amongst the others present upon witnessing this scene. Detective Eade addressed the group, assuring them there was no need for alarm, but there were some concerns. A staff member had been suspended. Based on Peter Ellis' absence from the meeting, everyone quickly deduced that he was the staff member in question. An employee of the Department of Social Welfare, or DSW, also spoke at the meeting. While she wouldn't discuss the allegations that had been made, she told parents about warning signs they should watch out for in their children. Nightmares, tantrums, clinginess, and bedwetting. Physical symptoms to monitor included rashes and abrasions. They should also pay attention if their child was starting to exhibit any general behavioural changes, especially behaviour that seemed sexual in nature. She recommended books parents could read to their children that addressed sexual abuse in an age-appropriate manner, such as the 1983 publication A Very Touching Book by therapist Jan Hindman. But parents were not to question their children themselves. Interviewing children, parents were not to question their children themselves. Interviewing children about sexual abuse required the expertise of trained specialists. Over the course of the meeting, the mood became more volatile, with some parents shouting that the council would have to pay for what had happened. Other parents took the opposite stance, with one father remarking: "There's an assumption of guilt here that I find very disturbing." A few people abruptly stood and left, describing the situation as a witch hunt. From that moment on, the community was split into two camps: those who were that abuse had taken place, and those who weren't. Supporters of the creche suspected that Peter Ellis was being unfairly targeted due to homophobia and was being scapegoated. Following the meeting, parents began to observe their children closely for the signs listed by the DSW employee. Upon seeing them, some parents couldn't resist asking more direct questions. None of the children made any disclosures about sexual abuse, though some complained about Peter's roughhousing. Sue Seide, an employee with the DSW, conducted formal interviews with a number of the children as well. None of them disclosed any inappropriate touching from any creche staff members, though Sue felt cause for concern for six of the children. Detective Colin Eade had provided parents with his contact details so they could reach out with any questions or concerns. He was only called by one parent after the meeting. On Friday December 20, exactly one month after Ms Magnolia had first raised the alarm about Peter Ellis, Detective Eade closed the investigation, noting in his report: "It is unlikely that these children will disclose sexual abuse. The investigation is complete as far as the police are concerned. If anything further develops in 1992, I will advise you." Casefile will be back shortly. Thank you for supporting us by listening to this episode's sponsors. Thank you for listening to this episode's ads. By supporting our sponsors, you support our work. If you want to support our work, please subscribe to our YouTube channel, and support Casefile to continue to deliver quality content. Despite the closure of the investigation, Peter Ellis was not reinstated at the creche. Although Detective Colin Eade never met with Peter Ellis or interviewed him, he had notified the council that he was concerned by reports of Peter's rough behaviour with the children. Quote: "It is clear to me that Peter Ellis should not be involved in any way in the supervision or care of children. I believe that we were very lucky to have this brought to our attention at this stage. If he had continued on at the centre, things could have got worse." Moreover, rumours were persisting and two parents had unenrolled their children from the civic creche, including Ms Magnolia. She and a number of other parents had formed a support group and continued to worry about children who had been in Peter's care, including four children whom he was known to have babysat outside of the creche. They kept questioning their own children about Peter and encouraged other parents to do the same. They read aloud from the books that the DSW worker had suggested. At least one mother told her daughter that Peter had been very naughty and was probably going to jail. On Thursday January 30, a little over a month after the police investigation into the allegations against Peter Ellis was closed, one child disclosed something to her mother. Seven-year-old Mandy, not her real name, had never attended the creche, but her younger siblings had. Her mother, referred to by the pseudonym of Miss Arbutus, was a social worker. She'd been an early supporter of Ms Magnolia and had helped organise the parents' meeting two months earlier. Sometimes Mandy visited the creche with her mother to collect her siblings. Mandy told her mother that Peter Ellis had abused her during some of these 5-10 minute windows. An interview with DSW worker Sue Sidey was arranged. Mandy told Sue Sidey that she'd been in the area of the creche for older children playing a xylophone, when Peter Ellis approached her on stilts. When Sue interrupted to clarify if Peter was really on stilts, Mandy amended her description and said he wasn't, before continuing: "He came along and he touched, touched, touched, touched me, touched, touched. Then I said no, and then I ran away, and so did him, because he didn't want to be caught, because I always knew it was him." Mandy indicated that Peter had touched her under her clothing and attempted to digitally penetrate her. Mandy's disclosure had an immediate effect and resulted in Detective Colin Eade launching a second investigation. More disclosures soon followed. By late February, more and more children were making allegations, which grew increasingly shocking in nature. Some alleged that Peter Ellis had shown them his penis and forced them to perform oral sex. Others said he had touched their genitals. He had poured water from a hose into a cup before ejaculating into it and making the children drink it. He also forced them to drink his urine and eat his faeces. One girl said the reason she hadn't reported the abuse until now was because… he just said, "Don't tell your parents," or, "If you tell your parents, don't tell your parents." She had seen Peter eat gherkins before. Once, she'd had one in her lunchbox, and Peter had come along and stolen it. As the children disclosed these alleged abuses, some were referred for specialist paediatric examinations. None of these medical examinations resulted in definitive evidence of sexual abuse, and none of the children were found to have any sexually transmitted illnesses. One child reportedly had possible scarring around her anus, which the examiner said was supportive of the allegation of sexual abuse. A few children were described as having redness, inflammation, and minor irritation. By the end of March, five children had made formal allegations of sexual abuse by Peter Ellis. Jeffrey Magnolia, the child whose comments had sparked the initial investigation, was not one of them. Despite never obtaining a disclosure from the original complainant, Detective Colin Eade was ready to make an arrest. Monday March 30 1992 was Peter Ellis' 34th birthday. That morning, Detective Eade and four other officers from the child abuse unit arrived on his doorstep armed with a search warrant. Peter was arrested, while officers began searching his home for documents, photographs, photographs, and other documents. Peter was also arrested for his saw videos relating to the sexual abuse of children. They recovered nothing, despite returning again on another occasion to rip up the floorboards. While Peter's home was being searched for evidence, he was transferred to the police station for questioning. Peter informed the police that he couldn't help them, before calling his lawyer. In the presence of his attorney, he answered more questions and listened as details of the allegations were put before him. Peter pointed out some errors in the children's claims, such as one girl describing him as wearing pairs of striped and spotted shorts, which he didn't own. Detective Colony disregarded this, stating, So she hasn't got the clothes completely right. That still takes us to the statements about the touching of her vagina. Did you ever do that? No, Peter replied. How long do you think it might take to touch a child's vaginal area? The detective continued. I wouldn't know, because I have never done anything like that, Peter retorted. Despite his denials, Peter Ellis was charged with sexually abusing the five separate complainants. He was granted bail the following day, while being ordered to stay away from children and away from the creche, as well as to observe a strict 7pm-7am period. That same evening of Tuesday March 31, roughly 250 current and former Christchurch Civic Creche parents crowded into a church hall for another meeting about the case. There was a heavy police presence outside the building and the city's entire child abuse unit inside, including Detective Colony. Hanging over everybody present was a heavy sense of anxiety and fear. Parents were updated about the arrest of Peter Ellis, though investigators were cagey when asked what had actually happened, simply stating that the matter was now before the courts and couldn't be discussed. But they assured parents that counselling was available for anyone who required it and recommended that they have their children formally interviewed. Parents were also encouraged to go home and ask their children questions about possible abuse, while not being too specific. If a child did disclose an offence, parents should thank them for sharing, reassure them that they hadn't done anything wrong and notify DWI. US immediately. Sue Seide again listed symptoms of abuse that parents should watch out for and spoke in a very emotional fashion. This added to the overall atmosphere of anger and panic. Some parents began to ask questions that suggested they felt they were being lied to by the council. One parent demanded to know if other staff members had been involved. A four-page booklet was passed out to attendees as they left, providing them with information about child sexual abuse as well as information about counselling, medical examinations and possible compensation. In the days that followed this meeting, roughly 60 parents phoned a specially coordinated police hotline to request videotaped interviews for their children. It would take DSW employees and detectives several months to get the information they needed. months to conduct them all, with up to five children being interviewed each day. By the end of May 1992, police had uncovered eight new complainants, bringing the total number to 13. One new complainant was a former student called Eli Laurel, not his real name, who'd left the creche to attend school that year after turning five in 1991. He started out by talking about people's feelings for him. He said, Peter was known for sometimes dipping the children's hair in paddling pools and water troughs on a hot day. Gradually, Eli disclosed more, saying that Peter did wheeze in people's faces and placed his penis in Eli's mouth. Another new complainant was Zelda Cypress, not her real name, who was also a former student and the oldest of the complainants at nine years old. Zelda had attended the Christchurch Civic Creche for two years and had also been babysat by Peter Ellis around Christmas of 1986, shortly after he'd started working there. Zelda gradually revealed that Peter had abused her while babysitting her at his home. He'd exposed himself, and Zelda said, Zelda later said he'd touched her inappropriately as well. More children made additional disclosures about Peter making them consume urine and feces and touching their genitalia. One girl said Peter had raped her. The thirteenth complainant was a little boy who would become known by the pseudonym of Bart Dogwood, who started attending the creche in 1989 when he was almost three. Initially, when his mother had asked if Peter had ever touched him inappropriately, Bart had replied, Peter wouldn't do that to me. He's my friend. But over the coming weeks, after he was questioned again, Bart said Peter had touched his penis while cleaning him up after he went to the toilet. More social workers and experts had been added to the case as it grew. In May of 1992, a DSW social worker named Jan Galandas was tasked with supporting the families who would be involved in court proceedings. Jen Crossan, a nurse with social work experience, was appointed to support past and present creche families who were not going to court. The two women would spend much of the next year visiting families, liaising with investigators and therapists, and attending the meetings of various support groups that had sprung up around the case. They also provided families with information about child sexual abuse, pulling together a range of helpful books on the subject. The presence of Jan Galandas and Jen Crossan led to some families who'd initially refused the offer of interviews to change their minds. The case had also become a big news story. An initial suppression order that had kept Peter Ellis' name out of the media had been dropped, and stories, regularly ran about him. Throughout winter, the number of complainants continued to grow until there were 20. Roughly 8,000 pages of evidence had been received, with more to come. Geoffrey Magnolia, the child whose initial comments sparked the case, had clammed up about the subject when interviewed by police, so he wasn't a complainant. But he would occasionally still refer to Peter when talking to, his mother. One day in late June, he was walking with his parents when they passed the Masonic Lodge. Geoffrey pointed at the building and said that Peter had taken him there. A short while later, he pointed at a manhole cover on the road, remarking that Peter had pushed children inside to where there were caged gorillas underground. Ms Magnolia was concerned about these remarks. She began to keep her mouth shut, to keep lists of things such as this that Geoffrey said, and notified detectives. At the end of July, she walked Geoffrey past the Masonic Lodge again. Once more, Geoffrey said he'd been there, along with a number of other places. The Botanic Gardens, car parks, some hotels, hospitals and bridges, amongst many more. Ms Magnolia noted all of these places on her lists, as well as some of the places she'd been to. Descriptions of other people who had supposedly participated in the abuse. These included bad men, some women, Maori men, a man with a ponytail, and Peter Ellis' mother. Now, fear was starting to spread that Peter Ellis hadn't acted alone. Another meeting was held where Detective Collin Eade and a colleague spoke to parents. They would need more information before they could identify any other possible perpetrators. Copies of Ms Magnolia's lists were distributed so that parents could ask their children about the places and people described. By early August 1992, another child was making disclosures in line with Geoffrey Magnolia's. Bart Dogwood had previously stated that Peter had molested him while he was in the hospital. Bart Dogwood had previously stated that Peter had molested him while tidying him up after he went to the toilet. He'd disclosed this almost 15 months after he'd stopped attending the creche, after his concerned mother began questioning him. When she received the lists of possible other locations where abuse had taken place, she took Bart to the large boarding house that had previously been Peter Ellis' home and parked outside. Observing her son as he looked at the building, she was certain that he recognised it and took him back for another DSW interview. There, Bart said that he'd taken a bath with Peter in a house. Peter had sworn at him, threatened his family, raped him, made Bart masturbate him, and forced the boy to eat his faeces. There had been some other men present, but Bart didn't know who they were. Bart's parents were sure that more had happened. Over the past few months, Bart had been experiencing behavioural issues. He was refusing to use the toilet, instead soiling himself, and had mood swings. Certain he'd experienced more than he'd revealed, they continued to question their son at home. Two days later, on Thursday August 6, they took him back for another interview, where he spoke in more detail about abuses he'd experienced in Peter Ellis' flat. 20 adults had been present, including Peter and his mother. There were also 15 men that Bart described as Asian in appearance. They were dressed in black and white costumes and danced in a circle around several naked children in some kind of ritual act. There were also three other women present who participated in the abuse. Two of the women undressed and pretended to have sex, while Peter and his mother took photos. Unlike the Asian men, Bart knew who these women were. They were other childcare workers from the creche. Their names were Gay Davidson, Marie Keyes, and Janice Buckingham. Bart had also named some of the children present at this bizarre scene. As word of news, there was no mention of any children present at this bizarre scene. Worried parents grilled their kids and took them on field trips to the same locations, trying to prompt any recollections. Some of the other complainants began making similar reports to Bart. They agreed that they had been harmed at Peter Ellis' home and the Masonic Lodge other victims had identified. And they also echoed Bart's description of the Asian men who had danced around naked children, which became known as the Serbs. incident. New details of various assaults kept coming. Adults had taken photographs, pricked them with needles and drugged them with pills. Fingers, food and sticks were inserted into the children's orifices. Once, Peter had swung a child around a prickle bush by his penis. Animals featured heavily in some disclosures. There were descriptions of Peter killing and cooking kittens, then feeding them to the children. He kept a pet giraffe at his house, and sometimes he would tie up the children and confine them in cages alongside lions. Once, he turned a child into a frog and a cat. This reference to a supposed spell wasn't the only allegation of occult-like behaviour. Children said they had to chant, perform mock marriages, and were buried in graveyards. They had blood poured over their heads and were forced to consume what they thought was human flesh. Bart would later say that he had also been forced to kill another little boy named Andrew. The adults and other children had looked on as Bart used a knife to stab Andrew, who'd been placed inside a coffin. No trace of Andrew was ever found. More complainants named… Gay and Marie as perpetrators, and said they'd seen them at the Masonic Lodge where there were trapdoors, underground tunnels, and cameras. Another staff member named Debbie Gillespie was also accused. The naming of the female creche workers didn't come as a surprise to police. There had been suspicions about some of the women who worked at the creche from early in the investigation, but these were initially dismissed after the women presented well in interviews. However, a recent report had caused detectives to rethink things. After the allegations against Peter Ellis were first made, Christchurch City Council had commissioned a review of management practices at the creche. The review would be undertaken by Rosemary Smart, a registered psychologist who'd trained in education and social work and was assigned as an independent outsider. Smart's role wasn't to be seen as a problem, but to be seen as a problem. Smart's role wasn't to be seen as a problem. Smart's role wasn't to determine whether there had been any abuse. Instead, she was looking at the creche's management and policies. The council hoped the report would restore the creche's excellent reputation. Smart first met with creche staff in March of 1992 and spent time observing them at work on a number of occasions. She interviewed each of them one-on-one and was given access to statements they'd provided to the police. She never met with the creche staff, and she never met with Peter Ellis or observed him working with children. By the end of August 1992, Smart was ready to deliver her completed report. Although Peter Ellis was yet to stand trial, the report spoke of the abuse and his guilt as though both had been confirmed. It also contained detailed accounts of his deviant lifestyle, which she had allegedly been told about by his colleagues. Smart was also critical of the creche's female childcare workers, writing, On the one hand, all but one staff member was struggling to believe Ellis had abused anyone and frankly could not accept such abuse could have happened at the creche. And yet, individually, each one carried information about his behaviour that would send alarm bells screaming in the head of anyone with the slightest clue about child sex abuse. Smart was also critical of the creche's female childcare workers, writing, Some of the remarks divulged by Peter's colleagues included concerns about Peter's drinking and his ability to babysit children outside of work. He had reportedly mentioned that an uncle had abused him when he was eight years old, but it was okay because he knew what he was doing. There were reports that Peter had made inappropriate comments about children's bodies and the size of the boys' penises. I thought he was perverted, one employee said. He told me explicit details of the men and women he slept with. He likes to flaunt his sex life. Smart suggested, Because he behaved and spoke somewhat outrageously and possibly because he was bisexual, he was seen as different. Therefore, for both staff and parents, the usual boundaries did not seem to apply. Smart was critical of the sex life of his children. The staff, for what she believed, was their total lack of training in sexual abuse prevention and detection. She also quoted research from a 1987 book by American sociologist David Finkelhor, titled Nursery Crimes. Finkelhor's book deals with the issue of child sexual abuse within daycare centres, with a particular emphasis on ritual abuse and abuse by female workers. It had become something of a concern for her, something of a go-to manual on the topic for social workers and sexual abuse experts. Christchurch Police had received a copy of Smart's report at around the same time that children started naming the female Kreisch employees as perpetrators alongside Peter Ellis. Investigators had looked into Peter's mother, Leslie Ellis, after some of the children included her in their accusations. But, they ultimately concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to implicate her. They narrowed their focus to the other Kreisch workers instead, with Smart's work going some way to convincing the child abuse unit detectives that they needed to investigate the women there. They also needed to take action to prevent the abuse of any more children. Four women's names had come up during disclosures, and all four still worked at the Kreisch. On Thursday September 3 1992, the Christchurch Civic Kreisch was abruptly and permanently closed by the Ministry of Education. All 13 of its staff members were made redundant. By now, the case had become a media circus. Rumours about what had been going on at the Kreisch were running rampant. Some reporters heard that Kreisch employees had been importing live snakes from Australia for use in rituals and stealing terminated fetuses from an abortion clinic, then eating them. It was said that children were being trafficked for "Asian sex rings". Peter Ellis and now his female colleagues became the targets of public rage. One Kreisch employee who was in her early twenties was told of the supermarket that she and everyone else who'd worked at the Kreisch should have the words "child molester" tattooed. He was told that she and everyone else who'd worked at the Kreisch should have the words "child molester" tattooed. Police from the Child Abuse Unit obtained search warrants for the homes of the four female Kreisch workers who had been implicated in the abuse as well as another employee who hadn't been. Rather than go to the district court nearby, they opted to travel to the Christchurch suburbs to obtain permission from an elderly judge. He signed their warrants, which indicated that they would be looking for address books, pornography, and the remainder of their work. He also said that the remains of human babies, amongst other things. Nothing of significance was found, though at Debbie Gillespie's house, police recovered a handwritten note that joked about children watching through a home's window at a couple having sex. In Gay Davidson's office at the Kreisch, police found two letters, both of which were declining job applications. One of the letters joked that, as the Kreisch already employed one pedophile, they could not be found in the house, and that they could not be found in the house. Despite the lack of physical evidence, all four female suspects were arrested on Thursday October 1 in publicly televised events. Not wanting any of their former colleagues to fall under suspicion, the four female suspects opted against having their names suppressed. Their faces were splashed across newspapers and the daily news, revealing that they all looked very different from one another. 39-year-old Gay Davidson was a mother of two with streaked hair who'd worked at the Kreisch for eight years and had been its supervisor for the last four. Marie Keys, 44 years old, was the assistant supervisor and had two teenage daughters. She was petite, described as kindly, and dressed conservatively. Mother of four, Janice Buckingham, was also 44, with a tall, strong build. Debbie Gillespie was 29 years old and wore long, flowing dresses. She had been at the Kreisch for four years and was the head of its nursery, looking after the youngest children. Although three of these women were mothers, they were never investigated for possible abuse against their own children, nor deemed unsafe for their children to be around. On Monday November 2 1992, one month after the women's arrest, a deposition hearing for all five defendants began. Both sides cases before a judge who would determine if there was enough evidence to proceed to the High Court. The defendants were facing a total of 60 charges of sexual offending against 20 children. Peter Ellis had been charged with 26 counts of indecent assault, 12 counts of sexual violation, 6 counts of inducing an indecent act, and 1 count of performing an indecent act in a public place. Gay Davidson, Marie Keyes, and Janice Buckingham were each facing 3 counts of indecent assault and 1 count of sexual violation for assaulting children during the Circle incident. Debbie Gillespie was charged with 1 count of indecent assault, 1 of sexual violation, and 1 of public indecency. It had been alleged by a child that she and Peter Ellis had had sex on the creche's bathroom floor. An angry crowd had gathered outside the court to make their feelings about the defendants known. There was no doubt in their minds that all five were guilty of unspeakable acts. But inside the court, very few people were present. There were so many potential witnesses in the case that most people even tangentially connected to it were expecting to be called as witnesses. They wouldn't be able to sit in the public gallery until the court. They had given their evidence. But the media was allowed to stay. In the end, only 47 out of 92 potential Crown witnesses were called to give evidence, meaning almost half wouldn't be testifying. Nevertheless, it took 11 weeks to complete the deposition hearing, which was a slow and arduous process. It began with roughly 40 hours of videotaped interviews of the children being screened in court. Then the DSW interviewers were called upon to give evidence. Four medical practitioners testified about examinations they'd performed on the children, stating that they hadn't found anything that definitively proved or ruled out sexual abuse. They testified to identifying symptoms consistent with abuse, though their findings were inconclusive and sometimes contradictory. During one examination, a doctor found that. a female complainant's hymen appeared to have been penetrated. But in a follow-up appointment, she later found the child's hymen showed no such thing. Police officers also testified about their investigations. They addressed something that people had long speculated about. How was Peter Ellis supposed to have abused these children in a busy crèche where people were always coming and going without anyone ever seeing anything? More than 70 families used the crèche each week, and parents were known to show up at random throughout the day. No adults, no colleagues or parents had ever seen Peter abuse a child. The police testified that there were areas Peter had access to where he could abuse children uninterrupted, like the toilets and in a kitchen area that required a key to access. Police also alleged that he had taken the child to the hospital. alleged that he had taken children out on walks to his home. Peter vehemently denied this allegation. Two staff members were almost always present on walks outside of the creche. In addition to being questioned by the Crown attorneys, every witness was cross-examined by Peter Ellis' defence team and the four women's lawyers, who established that no physical evidence had been found to support any of the allegations. Following up on children's claims, investigators had searched the creche and other identified buildings for trap doors, secret tunnels, cages and child abuse material. They found nothing, nor had any graveyards been disturbed or links been uncovered to any other suspects, such as a group of Asian men. All four female defendants dressed conservatively for the hearing, while Peter Ellis wore his usual casual clothes, which made him look somewhat eccentric. The group passed notes between themselves throughout the hearing. Sometimes they made jokes and Peter drew comical cartoons about the proceedings. One message read, 'The possibilities are endless.' The sound of muffled giggling that sometimes emanated from the defence table angered others present. In closing addresses, the defence attorneys argued that a jury trial could not proceed as there wasn't enough material evidence against their clients. On Thursday February 11 1993, the judge delivered his ruling. All five defence attorneys were put on trial, and the defendants would be committed to trial. The judge dismissed four of the charges, including the one of public indecency that related to Peter Ellis and Debbie Gillespie allegedly having sex at the creche. But Peter and his four colleagues would have to answer for all the other charges in front of a jury. From the back of the courtroom, someone was heard remarking, 'Hang the bitches.' As the Crown began to prepare for trial, they had to decide exactly what evidence would be presented before a jury. That job fell to Crown Solicitor Brent Stanaway. He began going over the evidence, assessing what was reliable and admissible as well as likely to result in a conviction. Stanaway ultimately decided against calling upon six of the twenty complainant children, whose claims had either been dismissed at the Deposition hearing or were determined to be too weak. A couple of the complainants were also withdrawn from the case by their mothers. This led to no charges remaining against Debbie Gillespie, as her two remaining charges related to one of these children. The case against Debbie was dropped, and on Friday March 5 1993, she was officially discharged. Brent Stanaway also reduced the number of charges remaining that related to other complainants. Some multiple charges were blended into a single charge. This led to the three equal charges against Gaye Davidson, Marie Keys and Janice Buckingham being reduced into just one charge. With his clients now facing a single charge, the Women's Defence Attorney applied to have their case dismissed, arguing that no charges were being made against Debbie Gillespie. It was then decided that no jury properly directed could find them guilty. Justice Neil Williamson, who was presiding over the trial, accepted this submission. On Tuesday April 6, the charge against the three women was dropped, with Justice Williamson finding the evidence against them "of insufficient weight" to justify their trial. That left Peter Ellis to stand trial alone. His charges had been significantly reduced during the preliminary trial process as well. The 45 charges he'd originally faced were whittled down to 28, and the number of complainants had dropped from 20 to 13. He was accused of having abused these children over five years, from 1986 to 1991. The Crown's court had offered to cancel all of the sexual violation charges if Peter agreed to plead guilty to one or two representational charges per complainant, but Peter had refused. His trial began on Monday April 26 1993. Some of the most bizarre accusations made by the complainants had not been included in the charges, such as the claims of animal torture, murder and satanic-style rituals. With no corroborating or material evidence to support these claims, the prosecution concluded that airing them might undermine their case or prove off-putting to the jury. However, the Circle incident would still be included, with the Crown alleging that Peter Ellis had abused children at an unknown location in the presence of others, and had provided other adults with children to abuse. Peter Ellis' defence barrister, Rob Harrison, said: "The judge, Rob Harrison, wanted the children's videotaped interviews played in full. He hoped that if the jury heard their wilder allegations, then it would cast a reasonable doubt on their testimony and the case. To Harrison's disappointment, the judge ruled that the tapes were not relevant and were therefore inadmissible." The Crown would first be calling on the 13 complainants, all of whom were aged between 3 and a half to 9 years old. The court ruled that the court would not be able to determine whether the children were abused or not, and that the court would not be able to determine whether the children were abused or not. experts. The first witness was nine-year-old Zelda, the eldest of the complainants. She alleged that Peter Ellis had touched her vagina while babysitting her in 1986, had done so again at the creche, and had also forced her to touch his penis. The following two witnesses were girls who alleged that Peter had touched their genitals at the creche while they were fully dressed. The complainants who followed made increasingly violent allegations. Four said that Peter had urinated on them. One said he had touched her bottom with a needle. There were accusations that Peter had made children bathe with him, had hit and kicked them, attempted oral and penetrative rape, placed food against a child's anus, and forced them to drink urine. The prosecution shared these allegations with the court by airing excerpts, then questioning the children briefly via video link. After this, Peter Ellis' defence barrister cross-examined them. Rob Harrison asked about positive memories the children had of Peter and tried to expose ways that their evidence might have been contaminated by outside sources, such as the abuse-themed books provided to parents or conversations they might have overheard in the community. When asked if Peter had touched her vagina, the prosecution said that Peter had touched her bottom with a needle. When Harrison told the children that Peter denied ever harming them, their responses were mixed. That's not true, one said. He did, said another. But one responded, It's very hard to remember. I know very well some are true, and then I think, is that one true or what? While questioning the eighth complainant, Harrison asked her, Can you remember the first two tapes you made with DWS interviewer Kathy Crawford? We first learnt about all the things Peter did, and then we came on screen and did it, the girl replied. You learnt it all before you came on the screen, Harrison clarified. Yes. Who taught it to you before you came on the screen? The girl answered, Kathy, and she told me, what Peter did. Following this, the judge discharged Ellis of the counts relating to this particular child. The prosecution's expert witness was a child psychiatrist named Karen Zellis, who had supervised the social workers responsible for the children's interviews. She provided the court with a list of behaviours that were characteristic of child sexual abuse, including sleep disturbances, nightmares, toileting issues, mood changes, headaches, stomach aches, sadness, crying, separation anxiety, sexualised play, and others. She explained that most children who had been sexually abused failed to disclose at the time the abuse was happening, and would initially deny when later questioned about it. According to Dr Zellis, the complainants in this case were credible, and their behaviour was consistent with having been sexually abused. The court decided that the child's behaviour was similar to that of a child who had been sexually abused. Under cross-examination, Rob Harrison asked Dr Zellis about a television interview she'd done about the case a year earlier, in which she'd been asked if there was a danger parents might start imagining behavioural changes in their child after fear of sexual abuse spread. Dr Zellis had answered, yes, there is. Questioned in the courtroom, she claimed not to remember this interview. To counter Dr Zellis, the defence called Australian psychiatrist Keith LaPage, who said the behavioural changes described weren't exclusive to suffering sexual abuse, and could be all part of normal child development. Some of Peter's former colleagues testified for the defence, as did seven Kreisch parents who still supported him. Moore had wanted to, but felt unable to do so given the heated nature of the case. Some had felt pressure from their community to have their children interviewed, and later regretted giving in, feeling that the interviews themselves were the only trauma their children experienced related to the Kreisch. Peter Ellis also sat in the witness box to answer the charges laid against him. He spoke at length about his work at the Kreisch and the children there. Under an extensive cross-examination, the Crown attacked his daughter, and the children were not allowed to speak. His credibility by pointing out apparent inconsistencies in his testimony, and drew the jury's attention to opportunities he'd had to be alone with children. They queried Peter about conversations he'd had with colleagues relating to sexual matters, such as him once telling Janice Buckingham that he used a Polaroid camera to make pornography. Peter Ellis explained that he liked to have people on, and would bait them with provocative claims. His defence barrister pointed out that not one of the children in the case had made a spontaneous disclosure of abuse. They had only said they were abused after repeated questioning by authority figures. Nor had any parents noticed any signs of trauma or evidence of abuse such as blood or injuries. The jury retired to consider their verdict on Thursday June 3 and spent almost three days deliberating. Peter Ellis said that he had not been able to find any evidence of abuse in the case. They returned with the decision at 3.30pm on Saturday June 5. They had found Peter Ellis guilty on 16 out of 25 counts, and accepted that he had sexually abused seven children, including those known by the pseudonyms of Zelda Cypress and Bart Dogwood. This abuse was sometimes committed in the presence of others at locations outside of the creche, and Peter had also provided children for abuse by others. In sentencing, Justice Williamson described the jury's verdict as obviously correct, before informing Peter Ellis that he would be going to prison for 10 years. Casefile will be back shortly. Thank you for supporting us by listening to this episode's ads. By supporting our sponsors, you support Casefile to continue to deliver quality content. In the wake of Peter Ellis' conviction, feelings throughout Christchurch were mixed. As far as some were concerned, a huge miscarriage of justice had just taken place, and it was the result of a dangerous trend occurring both at home and more broadly around the world. Thanks to a number of social shifts that had been taking place from the 1970s onwards, the issue of child sexual abuse was being addressed and acknowledged more than it ever had been before. The activism of second-wave feminists had shone a spotlight on topics that were previously hidden behind closed doors. Domestic violence, marital rape, incest, and sexual assault. This created space for survivors to speak out and reframed the offences as a societal problem. This affected the attitude surrounding crimes against children too. In the mid-20th century, some influential psychiatric theories had minimised or doubted children's reports of sexual abuse. Between the 1940s and 60s, child sexual abuse wasn't believed to be one of the main causes of child sexual abuse. It was believed that child sexual abuse was not to be widespread and was thought to only affect certain social groups. Some people even believed that abuse caused no lasting harm. But by the 1970s and 1980s, attitudes were changing. Believed that children became a rallying cry for child advocates around the world and it was becoming widely accepted and understood that there were predators out there who specifically targeted minors. Legal reforms started to strengthen child protection agencies and more professionals were trained to detect abuse indicators and interview child victims. At the same time that social progress was bringing these issues to light and granting more rights to women and children, a cultural anxiety kicked in during the 1980s. With more women returning to work after having children, fears spread about what that meant for changing family structures. Some of these fears centred around a service that was now being used by more and more families - daycare. For the first time, many children were being cared for by relative strangers outside of the home. As awareness grew around child sexual abuse, suspicion began to land on those tasked with providing child care. Over time, this anxiety resulted in a moral panic that became known as "daycare sex abuse hysteria". It led to criminal investigations and trials in United States, England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where daycare providers were accused of committing extensive sexual abuse. These cases often began with one parent's concerns and grew as a kind of contagion swept through a community. A fear that abuse might be missed led to child protection workers and law enforcement officers treating initial suspicions as potentially massive conspiracies. Although there have been cases of child care workers sexually abusing children, cases that fell under the umbrella of daycare sex abuse hysteria were often marked by a lack of physical evidence, an incredibly large number of victims that only began to disclose under repeated questioning and pressure, and typically featured bizarre, implausible scenarios. Because child abuse was still becoming understood, investigators hadn't honed their interview techniques when it came to potential victims. In several cases, children were interviewed many times over months, with interviewers sometimes asking leading or forced answer questions. Children who eventually confirmed abuse were rewarded with praise and attention, while those who said nothing had happened often weren't believed. Instead, they were questioned over and over, being pressured to disclose. Moreover, the panic that spread through a community when rumours of abuse took hold was known to cause what was called 'contamination' in interviews. Children's answers could be influenced by conversations they'd had with their parents, friends, or that they'd overheard. Research later showed that the interviewing styles used in many of the daycare sex abuse hysteria cases could increase false reports, distort memory, encourage children to guess, and create narrative escalations, where a story grew increasingly wild. Developmental psychologists have found that young children are highly suggestible, especially under repeated questioning by authority figures. Cambridge University professor Michael Lamb, an expert on interviewing child abuse victims, has said that while children can be competent witnesses, they are susceptible to making errors during interviews when they infer that an interviewer is looking for a particular answer. Sometimes they want to help, but can't understand the questions they are being asked. They can also become confused about the source of their memories for particular events. Interviewers during the 1980s and early 1990s also made use of anatomically correct dolls, which children could use to demonstrate abuse that they might struggle to describe verbally. These dolls were used in the Christchurch Civic Crash case. They later became controversial for several reasons. Anatomically correct dolls could increase suggestibility, leading children to guess at what an interviewer wanted when they handed them a doll that had genitals and asked them to describe touching. They can also lead to an interviewer guessing at a child's demonstrations, which may merely be a form of play or an ambiguous action. Daycare sex abuse hysteria also intersected with another moral anxiety taking place at the same time - the Satanic Panic. Beginning in the USA in the 1980s, the Satanic Panic originated with the publication of a book titled "Michelle Remembers". Co-authored by a Canadian psychiatrist and his patient Michelle, whom he later married, the book detailed how Michelle recovered memories of extreme physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her mother, who worshipped Satan. Much of these claims were later debunked, but the book ignited a spark throughout the US and the world. Conspiracy theories spread about so-called Satanic cults abusing and murdering children en masse, with daycare centres seen as the base for many such groups. Social workers, police investigators, child advocates, and therapists began attending seminars by "experts" who taught them how to identify cases of occult and ritual abuse. The children they questioned began to reflect what these professionals had been taught, describing outlandish and extreme events that couldn't be substantiated, were often impossible, and had no basis in reality. Many trials resulted in convictions that were later overturned or not-guilty verdicts due to a lack of evidence. In the wake of these events, major reforms were made to interview techniques in child abuse cases. These included the use of more open-ended questions such as "Tell me what happened". Leading questions were avoided, as were repeat interviews. And praise for giving particular answers was dropped. When Peter Ellis was arrested, New Zealand, and especially Christchurch, had been experiencing a kind of Satanic panic for a while. Christchurch was a conservative city known for its grand cathedral, English-style gardens, and Edwardian architecture. Religious groups such as the Christian Heritage Party were vocal in their opposition to social change. But new influences were slowly changing the face of Christchurch, including a strong counterculture and artistic scene. At the same time, fear that had cropped up overseas about Satanic cults was spreading throughout New Zealand. Books, magazines, and other media shared stories about occult abuse, and individuals working in relevant fields began hearing more about the topic from overseas colleagues. An American therapist named Pamela Cline, who was a witness in a number of ritual abuse cases in the US, spoke at a conference in Wellington about diagnosing ritual abuse. She was later found to have exaggerated and even falsified her qualifications. In September 1991, 11 weeks before Ms Magnolia called the creche to report a possible case of abuse, Christchurch was hosting a family violence conference. Included in the schedule were some workshops about ritual abuse. Two councillors from the city of Wellington told attendees that there were middle-class pedophile rings operating throughout the country. Even though no actual cases had been uncovered, they had interviewed three victims and 20 others had sought help. They pointed to similar cases in the United States where there was talk of Satanic ritual abuse taking place on a grand scale. On the same night that the conference began, New Zealand's 60 Minutes program ran a story about a pedophile ring that was rumoured to be present in Christchurch. The rumours dated back to 1988 when a doctor first reported that child patients were telling horrific stories about sexual abuse perpetrated by multiple offenders against groups of victims. After repeated interviews with the police, the children began to report being taken to private homes and gay bars where they were abused, filmed and threatened. Lots of adults were present, as well as lots of other children. They described vehicles driven by the offenders and gave physical descriptions of their abuses. Principals of schools throughout the city were warned that their students were possibly being recruited for a "child pornography ring". In August 1988, 30 police officers executed simultaneous search warrants at six different properties. An elderly man at one residence was found to possess naked photos of underage girls and was subsequently arrested. None of the other searches produced results. Although police worked hard, they couldn't find any evidence of the pedophile ring everyone was talking about. But rumours of the ring continued to circulate, with some Christchurch residents certain that there was an underground community of gay men who were producing and distributing child abuse material. This persisted, despite the police reassuring them that they had investigated the case extensively and had even looked into a number of high-profile businessmen whose names had been reported. The case was still sending fear through the community in 1991, prompting 60 Minutes to cover the case. Journalist Melanie Reid spoke to various experts who assured her there was a serious problem, though they were unable to provide evidence of the pedophile ring in question. The episode added to the climate of fear that had parents convinced that there was a well-organised, well-hidden group of child molesters operating with impunity throughout their city. Less than three months later, the Christchurch civic crèche would be investigated for crimes that sounded a lot like these. The subject of ritual abuse was one that a number of parents in the civic crèche case were familiar with. Quite a few of the complainant parents worked in child abuse-related professions, such as social work, therapy and counselling. Of the seven complainants whose evidence resulted in convictions, three had one or more parents who worked in those fields. In a climate of heightened awareness, parents with these backgrounds may have been more inclined to interpret certain child behaviours through an abuse lens. Moreover, in these circles, there was the possibility of a professional consensus developing that abuse was definitely happening. Ms Magnolia, the mother who initially alleged that Peter Ellis had molested her son Geoffrey, was seen by some to have a fixation with sexual abuse. She had recovered memories of her own childhood abuse and went on to write a pamphlet that warned about the epidemic of child abuse. Because Geoffrey never made any allegations of abuse by his mother, she was not able to explain why Peter to the police - he wasn't one of the complainants at Peter's trial. But his mother had made sure to get Geoffrey far away from Peter and the other Creche employees, withdrawing him from the Christchurch Civic Creche at the end of 1991. She subsequently enrolled Geoffrey at another Creche, with workers there noting Ms Magnolia's extreme fear and paranoia. She would ask the childcare workers there not to let Geoffrey play near the fence, but would not let her play near the fence and would not let her play near the fence because there's a pedophile ring and they're out to get us. The employees took her concerns seriously, listening to her and reassuring her. But then, in September 1992, she accused a male worker of sexually abusing Geoffrey. This complaint was handled very differently to the Christchurch Civic Creche case, with detectives and Creche administrators keeping the matter tightly under wraps while it was investigated. There were no public meetings or calls from Ms Magnolia to other parents. After detectives looked into the case, they found no evidence to support the complaint and it was dropped. Detective Collin Eade was not involved in that case. A closer examination of his involvement with the Christchurch Civic Creche case led to a number of concerns. His first notes written when he took down Ms Magnolia's complaint featured a comment about Peter Ellis. Quote, "He is apparently homosexual. From the outset, he appeared to consider Peter Ellis a dangerous man despite no physical evidence that he had harmed any children." Although Ms Magnolia's complaint didn't lead anywhere, the case was reopened after a second child known as Mandy Arbutus made a disclosure. Although Mandy hadn't attended the creche, she said she was abused when she and her mother went to pick up her younger siblings. Detective Eade found this allegation particularly alarming and thought it looked "really serious". But Mandy's claims never resulted in any charges against Peter Ellis. Her mother withdrew Mandy from the case and made a complaint to the police at the same time. She reported that Detective Eade had "propositioned" her. He later admitted to this, saying that he'd returned home after drinking heavily and received a phone call from Ms Arbutus. During that call he, quote, "stupidly propositioned her". The next day, he'd tried to pass it off as a joke, but he had meant it. Detective Eade later went on to have romantic relationships with two other mothers involved in the case, though he said these occurred "without consent" and "without consent" in the case. Though, he said these occurred well after Peter Ellis' trial and incarceration. Peter Ellis had faced a lot of harassment and intimidation ever since the allegations against him first aired. His life was repeatedly threatened and a bullet was even mailed to him. On one occasion, he was physically jumped and beaten up by four men who broke into his home. After he was incarcerated, he was taken to the police station, where he was arrested. After he was incarcerated, it was expected that the danger would only increase. For the first month that he was incarcerated in Christchurch Men's Prison, commonly referred to as Paparua, Peter received constant abuse from other inmates. They taunted him to hang himself 24 hours a day. But by the end of August, the situation had calmed somewhat as the other men at Paparua got to know Peter. A number of them were familiar with the case and didn't think Peter was guilty. One notorious individual who'd watched the trial coverage on the news was overheard remarking, "That poor fuck has been set up." One day, a fellow inmate approached Peter and said, "My mum thinks you're innocent." Peter said, "I don't think so." Peter said, "I think you're innocent." Some of the guards were sympathetic as well. One in particular told Peter he didn't belong in Paparua, before letting him out of his cell to do some odd jobs on the sly. Peter had never doubted that the entire matter would eventually be resolved in his favour. From the moment he'd learnt that a child had made a comment about not liking his black penis, he assumed everyone would have to see that there was no case at all. Even when he found himself in trial in the High Court, Peter was certain his name would be cleared. He never could have imagined that the end result would be a decade in prison, and still couldn't believe anyone would think him capable of molesting children. Although some had thought it suspicious that he'd opted to work in a creche over an animal shelter when he was a known animal lover, Peter had chosen the creche because it was an easy walk from his house. The animal shelter would require him to walk through the creche every day, which he couldn't afford at the time. It was true that he sometimes had inappropriate conversations with colleagues at work and occasionally faced reprimands for being too boisterous with the children, but overall, Peter had been a popular and beloved member of the creche community. Some of the accusations made against him, like the claims that he had locked children in cages with lions and killed a boy named Andrew, were so patently false that they weren't mentioned at trial. But even less outlandish claims could be refuted by basic facts. Several children had identified an old boarding house where Peter had lived as a place where he'd abused them after parents had taken them there. But Peter had moved out of that house years earlier, in some cases, years before the complainant children were even born. In fact, only one complainant had attended the creche when Peter had lived there. Four of the complainants said Peter had driven them in his car to various locations where they were abused. But Peter didn't own a car and couldn't drive. And although police had pointed to areas inside the creche where he could have abused children out of sight, the actual layout of those locations made such abuse highly unlikely. The toilets where he was alleged to have abused kids were tiny, child-sized spaces. Although the adult creche workers would go in there to assist small children in using the toilet, there was no room for them to hide and they could be easily seen by other employees inside the creche. A kitchen where he was thought to have committed crimes was equally difficult to access without witnesses. Plus, the seven complainants whose accusations resulted in his conviction had named 21 other children as survivors or participants. Yet, none of those 21 children ever confirmed any of the allegations. Peter Ellis and his supporters were hoping that these facts and others would help him find a way out of prison. In late July 1994, Peter appealed his conviction on the basis that none of the 21 children cited by complainants as witnesses ever verified the allegations. Peter Ellis and his supporters, as well as a number of other people who were involved in the case, were the ones who were accused of the crime. Representing Peter was barrister Graham Pankhurst, QC, who argued that the guilty verdicts were unreasonable because the complainant's evidence wasn't credible. He pointed out all of the inconsistencies in the children's testimony and allegations. Pankhurst also argued that there had been a general miscarriage of justice. The trial judge had limited the videotaped evidence and allowed the jury to keep transcripts of the children's interviews that had been edited by the Crown. But shortly after the appeal began, it was abruptly paused due to a bombshell revelation. Zelda Cypress, the eldest of the complainants and widely seen as the most credible, had retracted her allegations. After learning that Peter was appealing his conviction, Zelda's mother had told her daughter that Peter was saying that the children had lied. To Ms Cypress's mind, it was further evidence that Peter Ellis was a bad person. But she noticed that when she told Zelda this, her daughter was silent. Zelda, who was now a pre-teen, said that she'd wanted to tell her mother the truth for a while. She was just waiting for the right opportunity. It finally presented itself after Zelda got into an argument with a friend at school which led to the two girls' mothers having a heated phone conversation. The other girl's mother called Zelda a liar. After Miss Cypress hung up the phone, she had a heart-to-heart conversation with Zelda about the importance of telling the truth. Zelda grew visibly distressed and said, I want to tell you about Peter, and they were lies. According to Zelda, during her interviews, she had said the things she thought her mother had wanted to hear. The lies had started out small, but grew progressively bigger. Zelda wanted to share her retraction with the court to help Peter. Upon learning this news, Peter asked his lawyers, Is she alright? Are her parents supporting her? Although Zelda's new testimony was entered into evidence, the appellate judges rejected her new statements. Such retraction was not a good thing. Zelda's mother said, Retractions were common in child abuse cases, they said. Zelda was most likely in denial and had convinced herself that she'd lied during the interviews as a way to remove the traumatic case from her life. Still, they quashed Peter Ellis' three convictions that related to Zelda. They upheld all 13 of his remaining convictions and his 10-year prison sentence. Since this date, Zelda Cypress has always maintained, that she lied about Peter abusing her due to feeling pressure. She and her family say they were pressured by the police and the Crown Prosecutor in an unprofessional way and said New Zealand's Ministry of Justice has never contacted them about Zelda's retraction. In February 1999, almost six years into his sentence, Peter Ellis became eligible for parole. Appearing before the Parole Board, Peter stated, In light of this statement, the Parole Board had no choice but to refuse parole. Five months later, Peter Ellis tried for a second appeal. The court found that while there was no certainty that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, some of the issues raised, such as the reliability of the children's interviews and whether they might have been contaminated by parents' questions, might benefit from a royal commission in the future. The court found that, while there was no certainty that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, there was no certainty that a miscarriage of justice had taken place. The court found that, while there was no certainty that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, The court found that, while there was no certainty that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, there was no certainty that a miscarriage of justice had taken place. A royal commission wasn't called, but in March 2000, New Zealand's then Minister of Justice established a ministerial inquiry into the conduct of the children's interviews. This was somewhat more limited in scope than a royal commission, and wouldn't allow for witnesses to be compelled to testify or cross-examine the new. The inquiry would be led by Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, a judge who'd previously served as the Chief Justice of New Zealand. One year later, the Eichelbaum report was delivered. Sir Eichelbaum found that while the children's interviews hadn't been perfect, they were generally of good quality, especially for the time. In fact, New Zealand's interviewing approach for child victims in 1991 was sometimes ahead of overseas practices. While there were some weaknesses in the investigation, particularly regarding the way some parents were treated, Sir Eichelbaum concluded this hadn't significantly affected the case's outcome. One international expert who assisted with the report found that the key complainants hadn't been seriously affected by contamination, that is, by hearing other children's stories via parents, or general conversations that might have influenced their own statements. In conclusion, the inquiry did not find grounds to believe that the children's interviews were of good quality. read in part. The trauma of not being believed over the years takes its toll. The court of public opinion is often ill-informed and the facts are lost. Our children deserved to be safe in the care of adults. They were not. For the complainants and their families, the ongoing focus on the Civic Raish case was often re-traumatising. As public opinion swayed in favour of Peter Ellis, some individuals lost any trust they might have had in the media and felt totally silenced. In May 2022, as Peter Ellis' appeal was underway before the Supreme Court, a female complainant now aged in her 30s spoke to journalist Jo Malcolm about her suffering. She attended the Raish from 18 months to 5 years old and said, she still had many clear memories of Peter and how he made her feel. Not being believed is very difficult and I lean on the fact the courts have believed me and I get some reassurance from that. Disclosing was a scary and vulnerable thing that I did somewhat reluctantly. It's certainly not my experience that I was led by my parents, we never ever discussed it and it certainly wasn't discussed with each other as children as has been claimed. It was like an unwritten agreement. We didn't talk about it. This complainant told Jo Malcolm that the abuse continued to impact her as an adult, affecting her relationships and making her feel voiceless. In 2003, the complainant known as Bart Dogwood told the Dominion Post, We were there. We know it happened. It's not easy, to live with, but I could live with it if everyone didn't keep bringing it up all the time. The only closure I want is for Peter Ellis to admit he did it. Some people close to the case have wondered if some children who did disclose abuse had been sexually assaulted, but by a person other than Peter Ellis. In the podcast series Delve by journalist Melanie Reid, Gay Davidson, the creche's supervisor, spoke of something troubling she saw while reviewing the children's videotaped interviews. One girl who took part in six hour-long interviews and disclosed abuse by Peter seemed relaxed and disinterested when asked about the creche. The interviewers then questioned her older brother, who had never attended the creche, and he disclosed that he had been abused. The interviewers brought the girl back in for a final, ten-minute interview where they asked about her uncle. The girl sat frozen and spoke in a low voice as she disclosed that her uncle had abused her too. To Gay Davidson, there was a stark difference between her relaxed demeanour in the creche interviews and her scared one in this final conversation. According to Gay's recollection, the girl's family opted against charging the uncle with anything as they didn't want their child to be a multi-abuse victim. They chose to focus on the charges relating to abuse at the creche instead. This complainant's allegations against Peter Ellis were discharged at the trial. The four women who were charged alongside Peter had their lives permanently affected also, despite not being convicted. They had to leave careers they loved and give up working with children. They faced discrimination from members of the public, finding themselves shunned and judged despite having their charges dropped. The closure of the creche impacted other employees too, as well as an entire community that depended on it. In March 1995, the four women and six other colleagues who also lost their jobs were arrested. The four women and six other colleagues who also lost their jobs were awarded $1 million by the Employment Court for unjustified dismissal. This was later reduced to $80,000, which in some cases wasn't enough to cover legal costs. Carol Evans was a Christchurch city councillor from 1986 until 2007 and was serving on the council at the time of Peter Ellis' trial. In 2015, as debate was raging about the case once more, Carol called a local talkback radio show to share her personal regrets. "At times, I was the city council representative on the creche committee, and I just believed that he was innocent all the time. I met him, I knew him, I'd seen him in action. He was flamboyant, he was colourful. But I always believed he was innocent." When the radio host asked why she hadn't spoken up at the time if she believed in Peter's innocence, Carol replied, "Because we were told not to. I just felt if I don't ring now, I'm going to wear this guilt for the rest of my life." Reflecting on what she would say to Peter Ellis if given the chance, Carol said, "I guess I'd say that I'm sorry on behalf of the city. It's a pity that some of us didn't speak out. I just have always felt sorry every time it raises its head." And I guess, the more you look at the case, it was just pure panic, pure conjecture, and people consolidated themselves one way or the other into two groups. Those who believed, and those who didn't. And I think that's what we're all about. I think that's what we're all about. I think that's what we're all about.