Not only do people want to know about real tragedies, they enjoy them so much they'll follow the travails of fictional people too, from star-crossed lovers to rotten states of affairs in Denmark.

For me, the fact that this story is news, is not news at all.

FWIW, I can find out about stories like the Ellison trial anywhere. I come to the Tyee for the stories I can't get from the usual sources, or at least a fresh or different perspective on them.

Don't dilute your brand by trying to be all things to all people.

I was told that the reason the Sun gave the Tom Ellison story such heavy coverage is that one of the complainants is married to a Sun manager. Has anyone else heard this rumour?

this one in which my friend and former collague Trish Audette breaks the record

Should that be colleague? Sorry, just nit-picking.

I wasn't that interested in the Ellison trial, but I do like to read fluff stories in newspapers and from online news sources. I find it a relief to briefly get away from all the big news stories being reported. It's also like a signal that only a few bad things have happened today that need to be reported on, so there's room for the fluff. I take that as a good sign.

I do agree with Stump though when he says he comes to the Tyee for different and fresh stories, not to find the same old stuff. I'd like the Tyee to stay unique too.

All my news comes from tv news coverage, The Tyee, and the internet, no news papers ( news print)
My view and opinion of Tom Ellison, egotistical and a predator.

i for one was very glad that Ellison was found guilty. i followed the story and was appalled that his defence was that it was ok back then 'cause there didn't appear to be a law against it. he was a ruthless exploiter of young women, some very vulnerable and didn't give a dam what happened to them after their so called "romantic encounters". i don't know if this will serve as a warning or a deterent to anyone else but it sure looks like this selfish **** is going to jail for a long time!
as for the discussion if the Tyee should carry stories that get a lot of media attention anyways....for certain stories it makes sense especially it stimulates a discussion on the effect of such stories/events in the community.

I hate stories like this one.

I've been off the grid, along with several hundred thousands of other victims of the weather and Accenture's cost cutting measures, which sort of remind me of their last job at Enron.

So I have seen very little coverage, but what I heard was this. A retired teacher is on trial for actions decades ago that weren't illegal at the time. Am I right about this?

I have questions.

How does he come to court at all? If he committed no crime.

How was the charge worded? Did somebody pass a retroactive law?

God help us all if somebody decides they can bring charges against everybody they didn't like in the 70s. Or did like, for that matter.

How is the guy found guilty, if the offence didn't exist?

Granted the behaviour reported was probably unethical, and the guy was clearly a jerk of some variety, but being an unethical jerk isn't even illegal now, much less decades ago.

If it were, we could find good charges for all our current and past politicians, and most of the troubles of the world could be solved like that.

And most of us would be vulnerable to the suspect memories of all those other jerks we used to know back then.

Bailey.
How long were you without power?

Haven't followed the story. I think the charges he's been convicted of were for indecent and common assault.

The laws were extant at the time of the crime.

As to how he came to be charged, that is an interesting question. It would appear that some of the young persons (as they then were) have come forward to make accusations they'd held more or less to themselves for some time.

Certainly not unheard of in this kind of case....but, one wonders (as a commenter above here - and Warnica's story hints at) if other forces were at work.

Here's the judge's decision.
It would appear to me that Mr. Ellison may have been unwise to testify in his own defence - he certainly failed to impress the judge with the suavity that, some decades earlier, he'd used with his 'victims'.

[136] I have found him guilty of gross indecency as alleged in Counts 2 and 6 but because they rely on the same transactions as alleged in Counts 3 and 7, they are subject to the rule against multiple convictions and I order the clerk to not record the convictions.

[137] I have found Mr. Ellison guilty of gross indecency as alleged in counts 4 and 5.

[138] I have found Mr. Ellison not guilty of indecent assault as alleged in Count 12 but guilty of the included offence of common assault.

[139] I have found Mr. Ellison not guilty of the remaining counts in the Information.

Power was out from Monday to Thursday. Phones are still out, but the internet service came on this afternoon.

So, this involved sexual activity with underaged females in the 70s? Thanks for the quote. I still must wonder at the reliability of testimony of people who've had thirty odd years to chew over their memories.

Do we not have a statute of limitations?

The statute of limitations varies in its application. There are legitimate questions about this case and the reliability of remembered testimony.

The judge seemed to think Ellison was a particularly narcissistic individual who somehow thought his 'relationship' with these young girls was 'good' for them.

Even the "underaged" is in question relative to consent - which was, as I see it, the core of his defence. He was, however, in loco parentis when the activities took place. I think he used incredibly poor judgment. Why the organizers permitted such a situation to evolve in this program is a real mystery as well.

A jury would have likely convicted him of all counts.

Bailey, there is no doubt that the incidents took place and, with the exception of one or two of the complainants' accounts, Tom Ellison did not deny this fact at trial. Ellison's claim was that the offences with which he was charged were not illegal at the time he committed them. The judge -- an expert in the law, unlike us punters -- disagreed and found him guilty, not on the basis of today's law but of the law at the time of Ellison's actions.

Yes, that's what is important. He was found guilty on the basis of laws that existed AT THE TIME of the offenses.

The sheer number of the complainants speaks volumes.

No, it doesn't. Or at least, what it speaks to is the fact that a number of people regretted what passed in their pasts. Not surprizing where the man in their past is such a creep.

But good cases make bad law.

I dislike both these charges, gross indecency and indecent assault, not because anybody should condone the behaviours they seem to apply to, but because they're just vague.

They don't define a particular crime, but because they don't, they leave themselves open to shotgun applications. Whatever behaviour, sexual behaviour in this case, some judge disapproves of but doesn't know how to draft a law about without violating everybody's rights, can be dragged into a charge like this.

In Texas and Michigan at present, these laws are being challenged on the grounds that they are being used to discriminate against gays.

Canada is far ahead of Texas and Michigan. Indecent assault and gross indecency were removed from the Canadian criminal code in the 1980s, but after Tom Ellison had sex with his high school students. If he had committed the same acts today, he could be charged with sexual exploitation, which is described in Section 153 of the Code:

(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or

(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

It seems to me we are reaching pretty deep into the barrel. There is no doubt the guy is a jerk, arrogant and a predator. However at the time he would seem to have not been breaking any laws. Some of the testiony carries creditable foundation and some much less. Take for example the girl who continued her sexual involvment for 13 years after. For the most part I intend to sit on the sidelines and see the sentace handed out and compare it for instance to those dealt to Priests and educators from native Communites. This guy was teaching at a presigeous school so it will be intersting. The case is horrible but the publics thirst for details is even more scary. I cant wait to see the law suits against Vancouver School district which will certainly come after. Perhaps even the book and the movie.

Good point Tom Lal

The Crown has pursued this case and gathered all the evidence, etc.

The overall strategy may, in fact, be a Civil lawsuit next and based on what the Crown's case has uncovered and provided.

The benchmarks for successful Civil lawsuits are far more liberal.

If it is both filed and successful, ultimately we , the taxpayer, will foot the bill and it could be a pretty steep one. Justice? Yeah right!

Stay tuned.

This comment has been removed because it contained libelous content.

Please refer to our commenting rules: http://thetyee.ca/Comments/FAQ/#7

7. What are the rules of conduct for commenting on Tyee stories?

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The Tyee reserves the right to remove, edit, move or close the comments on a story for any reason.

You may also want to review BC's libel laws outlined here: http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/L/96263_01.htm

thank you
Site Manager

Ellison's "assaults" on willing victims who sought him out would have affected each one of them in different ways. Some loved it and never regretted it, some were emotionally damaged, some think they might get something out of this, some have forgotten it, and one 40-something woman who appeared at his first court date told the Globe reporter they "should all get over it after all this time". Maybe that one was in the first category and came to have another exciting look at him. Most young women, way back when, experienced what is now called a sexual assault and we either got mad, struck back, or avoided the creep. It wasn't a big deal, but could have been very damaging for someone who already had problems. Ellison's a creep and he'll get what he gets from the judge, then he'll appeal and get off. I'd rather not see his name in the paper again:It's National Enquirer stuff.

The Crown has pursued this case and gathered all the evidence,

You know this for a fact, maestro?

What is up with the quote formatter?

'1 blog reaction' - where the heck did that come from?

Ellison sounds like a perfect bloody idiot - he belongs in jail.

There you go, Alcibides. That expresses my uneasiness perfectly.

Ellison sounds like a perfect idiot. Moreover a very badly behaved idiot.

Everybody who hears what there is to hear thinks this guy ought to be smacked. But if we start using our legal system to smack idiots without well crafted specific laws to define and justify what we do, we run the risk of prosecuting changing fashions of political correctness rather than even handly enforcing justice under law.

ALCi

not sure about your "1 blog reaction" cyber problem.

For clarification of your question...

The Crown has pursued this case and with it acquired a body of evidence. This evidence can be carried over to a Civil suit.

Without getting into details...there is a case of alleged embezzlement going on in a local volunteer group. The choice is to file (i) a Criminal charge ...(ii) a Civil suit or (iii) File Both.

If a criminal charge is pursued, the Crown becomes involved. This is apparently the current choice. A separate Civil suit involves a huge separate legal bill.

After the criminal charges and all the evidence gathering by the Crown, and a court case proceeds, a Civil trial can also commence afterwards using the relevant evident the Crown has acquired from the criminal charge.

The only problem is that the defendant are often broke or protected their assets, but at least the post- Criminal trial is the cheaper route to take if one is considering a Civil suit on the same basic allegation.

Try wrapping a quote and you'll get a 1 blog reaction in a box...like this--->
The Crown has pursued this case

What I wanted in the 'quote' box were the words - "The Crown has pursued this case"

Get the picture?

Bailey,
I understand completely where you're coming from and I realize it may seem politically correct to write what I did about Ellison.

But, in my defence I'd say :
1. the justice system ought to have some positive effect on behavior; and
2. if it's going to do that effectively, once this case became public knowledge, it had to go the distance.
3. Therefore Ellison has to face some sanction.
4. I’d be happy if some other public figures were more careful about mixing the personal and the professional, and
5. If this case leads to some more care in schools and the workplace about the impropriety of mixing business and pleasure then I think it may be marginally positive in the end.
6. All of which doesn’t dispel my concerns as expressed below to Maestro – this stuff did happen a long time ago and the silence in the interim has been deafening.

My problem stems from some significant doubt about what maestro wrote about 'The Crown' pursuing this case.

I sense it was not the 'crown' who began this process and I'm curious about who did, and why. Were there other dynamics involved here and if so, what were they?

Maestro:
I'd suggest that any civil lawsuits over this case may well be statute barred.

Furthermore, I believe several of the victims - the ones I've heard commenting in the media - have made a strong point that their testimony was not about personal reward. Perhaps you think they'll now change their minds.

Well, a civil suit would have left me happier. No concerns there about statutes of limitations, no questions about what prompted the timing now, or what was going on in the interim.

Then evidence of testimony could be evaluated regardless of the skill of defence counsel. As to reliability after so many decades and so forth.

And the question of possible compensation could be seen from the start. I do not like the idea of the crown being used to create the basis of a civil suit to enrich people thirty five years after they made a stupid decision. Even if they were talked into it, which would be pretty hard to know with any certainty at this distance.

The question is, in the end, why did the 'victims' wait so long to tell their stories and act on them? Were they induced to come forward by other parties with axes to grind.

I write this out of no desire to excuse Ellison's behavior, which was despicable, but to try and understand the behavior of the others.

Alcibiades
My understanding is that one of them started it and rounded up the others.Globe.

He's married to one of them who stands by him.

No, the question is why the crown waited so long to press charges. As you can see from the Sun's timeline of events, the first police complaint from one of Ellison's victims was made in 1993:

March, 1993: Tupman files a police complaint against Ellison. Three other women file similar complaints and Ellison is investigated but not charged.

2000: Bridget Ross, a former girlfriend of Ellison, contacts police and the investigation is reopened.

June, 2004: Police charge Ellison with six counts of gross indecency and indecent assault involving six former students.

Sept. 15, 2006: Police lay six more gross indecency charges, another indecent assault charge and a sexual assault charge, although the latter is later changed to indecent assault. There are now 12 complainants.

Dear notamused and aorangi, thank you for that timeline and information.

So, twenty years after Ms.Tupman and Ms. Anderson slept with the same guy, they discovered the fact in conversation.

Then after some months of thinking about it, one of them files a complaint, which the police investigate. No charges would seem to indicate insufficient grounds.

Then after seven years of working this up, charges are laid, and they are somewhat anomolous and odd, but quite serious. By this time 12 women have been brought into this crusade, but his wife, who was approached to join up, declined.

Is this a fair interpretation of your information?

You don't have any concerns about this process?

It was 10 or 15 years, not 20.

I never said I didn't have concerns about the process. I'm just trying to provide facts where you've been offering speculation.

I see. Again, thank you for the information.

What’s the problem there Bailey, have some skeletons of your own in a closet somewhere.

ALCi

After I wrote my last comment, I read in the paper that the VSB has hired a lawyer in the anticipation of potential Civil Actions. However, not sure about the Statute of Limitations in these cases.

Re the time frame taken for investigation....my guess is the Crown , after being informed of the circumstances, felt it wanted a strong case and that likely every female that ever registered in the Quest program was a potential victim, and were probably tracked down, interviewed, and given the offer to press charges.

Many likely declined for fear of the publicity. The Crown's aim was to probably make this a single trial comprised of all the victim's that were willing to testify. It probably took years to complete all the aforementioned, hence the long time frame.

However, if Civil Suits commence, my guess is once hesitant victims may come forward, perhaps in droves.

wow - it sure is tough watching people debate your motives online...yes - *I* was a complainant in the Tom Ellison trial

Will you people please stop asking why it took so long for the complainants to come forward! It has been reported many times. I did not purue Mr. Ellison - he pursued me and completely manipulated and controlled me for months until I was able to break away from him. In doing this, he caused me untold psychological damage that has lasted for years - no decades! I never did have the courage to come forward because I didn't want to tell my family - I was somewhat ashamed. I also didn't want to face the scorn of the leagues of "Ex-Questers" who would surely hate me for outing their hero. It was guilt that finally forced me to come forward in the end and it was the police who decided to press charges. Once I came forward, my hands were washed of guilt and it was the job of the police to decide whether charges were appropriate. And - there was no "rounding up" as you say. The initial few women came forward independently and then more came forward many years later. If there was any "rounding up" is was on the part of the police, who were only doing their job!
Please have some understanding at how difficult this whole trial process was. At no point did I think about a civil suit - money was NEVER my motivation!
I am weary of this trial. Let's let it go!

Anon

Ignore the people here who think that Ellison didn't deserve to be tried and found guilty. He did deserve it, and I can perfectly understand why it took a long time to gather the courage to come forward. Good luck to you.

What about some of the other school officials? Surely some of them must have known what was going on. Why wasn't Ellison stopped before he'd had a chance to violate the trust and affect the lives of all these young women over such a long period of time?

Anon:

Congrats and kudos for stepping forward, it took a lot of guts. For the record, I had two family members victimized by sexual assault. I have absolutely no patience for Ellison types. He had the option to simply plead guilty or perhaps plea bargain, and not subject the original victims to re -victimization via the trial and all it's inevitable publicity.

His lawyer seemed to have a "ready" defence, but as the trial wore on, the fractures got wider , it seemed to be all a bluff and they were simply treading water. The desperation became more and more apparent. The Criminal vs moral/ ethical arguments are bogus...to me it was wrong P-E-R-I-O-D... not into that self -serving relativism.

As one story noted, his current business still gave him the potential to be a repeat offender.

If he was such a Casanova, he should have found people his own age, not 1/2 his age. That's a predator in my book.

RE: Civil Suit(?)... is simply potential, not unheard of after these criminal cases conclude. No one is claiming a "shallow money grab"...some may, in fact, be owed the compensation given the impact this matter has had on them and their lives.

Finally, the Law also sends a message, and those of you that had the COURAGE to step forward help send the societal message to other potential Ellison's out there. The others who turned a blind eye in this and similar cases are the ones that need to look in the mirror each day.

Take Care.

G West stated
What about some of the other school officials? Surely some of them must have known what was going on.

Good question, to me the back ground in this case is reminiscent to the Robert Noyes case in the 80s. Im also curious as to whether the Ellison defense lawyer, was also paid for by the BC Teachers Fed as in the Robert Noyes trail.
The address below speaks of the Robert Noyes trail and back ground, the thoughts and excuses of fellow staff members and officials appears to run parallel to this case. Eyes wide shut!!

http://www.thenownews.com/issues05/023105/news/023105nn3.html

What I find most disturbing about cases like this, is that the victims of sexual predation feel compelled to remain anonymous.

Whatever the merits of the Ellison case, what does it say about our society, about our values, when a Jane Doe who is raped or otherwise abused is afraid or ashamed to come out of the shadows of her crime?

It's an indictment on us all . .

All you have to do is read some of the comments here to see why sexual assault victims are hesitant to come forward. Many people blame the victim (as some have here) and maybe it took years til they realize how it has affected them to finally speak up. About the gross indecency charge - I am under the understanding he was tried by what was acceptable behavior at that time in society, and I don't believe teachers having sex with students was EVER acceptable. I hope he gets jail time, and I hope the former students sue the a** of the VSB - they deserve to be compensated, and shame on the teachers/people in charge who knew or suspected something and did nothing.

Good point Woody:

I wonder WHO "really" footed the Ellison Defence Bill ?

This was a long drawn out saga...and I seriously doubt Ellison had the resources to pay. Just the " Discovery " in all these cases must have cost a fortune.

I doubt the defence lawyer would have taken it on except for an assured fee payment. Given past practice, I wouldn't be surprised of Ellison's ex -Union funded much of it.

However, Criminal matters are not generally the responsibility of the representative body , are they ? My understanding is Gov't officials cannot access Public Funds on Criminal charges...only if the case is based on the normal course of their duties.

Unfortunately, the old "Solicitor -Client" privelege often kicks in to keep this a secret.

Olivia, I guess what I'm getting at about anonymity, is that as long as the victims remain in the shadows, it perpetuates the idea that they have done something shameful.

And it actually helps the perpetrator because it diminishes the impact of the charge.

I find it strange, as well, that when we see or read stories about rape victims in Darfur, the Congo, or other parts of the world, we see their faces and learn their names. Of course, they are the "other" and we feel no need to "protect" them from their shame.

There's a profound double standard at work here.

Meanwhile, I applaud those victimized by Ellison who identified themselves.

Thanks to all those who have written words of support. I am feeling a bit better now! For the record - I am one of the three women who went public for the very reason that was stated above. I felt that our story had no "teeth" and wanted people to know the name/face behind it. It was a very hard decision, but I felt it was the right one.

Now - as I finally get on with my life after 29 years of waiting, I feel much better.

Who exactly blamed any victims in these comments?

I've read several statements, which made that accusation against numerous posters.

I've read back over the stuff written here and I don't see it.

I do see legitimate questions, most have been routinely answered and those answers acknowledged - but as to anyone blaming the victim. I don't think so.

Does anyone think Ellison wasn't entitled to a trial and a fair hearing relative to these events that took place as much as 30 years in the past?

Has no one heard of false memory syndrome and induced trauma? I don't think asking questions and demanding clarification in a case like the one discussed here amounts to 'blaming the victim'. Sorry.

I'm sure Ellison is going to spend several years in jail to pay for his crimes but the lessons here aren't just for people like Ellison. The dynamics which led to these sordid events are not one-dimensional and a lot of other people facilitated and looked the other way while Ellison plied his trade. We live in a sexualized world and it's not just guys like Tom Ellison who are responsible for that.

Comments above suggest that these women came forward because they changed their minds about consensual sexual relations, years after the event, or because their real motive was to extract huge amounts of money in a civil lawsuit. Those are all forms of blaming the victim, if not for the actual assault, then for coming forward and making a formal complaint about what Ellison did.

Going back to the question at the end of the column, I followed the case in the newspaper with great interest because I was at Prince of Wales the first year that Tom Ellison taught there. I do not believe the official statements by former Prince of Wales administrators that they did not know about his behavior. If the kids in the school knew about it (and rumours were rampant even then), I find it hard to believe that the administration didn't - they just did what schools usually do with teachers who shouldn't be in the classroom - tried to transfer him to another school. At that point Ellison resigned.

I also want to say to the women who came forward, Bravo to you for standing up and speaking out. I admire and applaud your actions.

That's hardly blaming the victim. Those are legitimate questions, questions which have now been resolved in a court of law.

TO suggest those kinds of points can't be raised in a controversial case that began more than two decades ago is political correctness of the most outstanding kind, in my view.

I do, however, find your description (if it's accurate and I have no reason to say that it isn't) of the circumstances relative to the school administration very relevant.

If these kinds of things are going to be prevented - and in my view they should have been - the administration in public schools (principals and vice principals) have to do their jobs much more diligently and responsibly AND the ministry (where the legal work on such cases is always sent) needs to be much more active in making sure that questionable behavior is nipped in the bud.

I have a strong suspicion that there are numerous files somewhere on 'teachers' like Tom Ellison that have never been acted upon.

None of this should ever have been allowed to happen in the first place and there should be an independent inquiry set up to determine how it did.

The VSB is doing an enquiry

But is that enough anon? I doubt they have the power to compel testimony - I think it needs to be a provincially appointed body that can look at the whole situation of how complaints about teacher behavior is handled.

I don't believe that the BCTF - or teachers today - want people like Ellison in classsrooms. No way. The thought of them footing the bill for someone who is not a teacher - and therefore not even in their union - scares me. What would scasre me more is a teacher not reporting this behaviour. And what would scare me more than that would be a principal not reporting it, and or a superintendent transfering or giving a golden handshake to someone (because it is easier???) who has been proven to be crossing the boundaries of proper behaviour with children.

I don't think this inquiry can be restricted to the school or the district.
If it is, nothing wil change fundamentally.

The ministry runs education in this province and nothing is done (or not done) without their say so.

I don't think this has anything whatever to do with the BCTF.

On the topic of " Who knew???" and the " Code of Silence ".

There is an academic paper out there called " Ambushed by the Principal (ABTP)" by Dr.Dawn Benson, who is also a Superintendent in an BC Interior school district

It is based on the power structure within schools and between the Principal, Staff, and parents/students . Suffice it to say, if anyone is under the delusion that the management of a school (Principal etc.) is into " customer service ", and that the parents and students interests supercede all others, GUESS AGAIN , and I ALSO have a bridge to sell you.

When the Ellison story unfolded, I had similar questions like ALCi and others alluded to. WHO knew and WHAT did THEY do about it ? The Prince of Wales Principal back then seemed to be into seriously waffling.

If one reads ABTP and also reads about the Ellison case, it shows the underbelly of how public schools are ACTUALLY run when the shite hits the fan. The Principal will often not step on toes on school staff and fears the wrath of the BCTF. Happy staff are in their best professional -career interests, parents are transitional and are often blown off.

The Principals have spent years in the district and it is an Old Boys Club given the working relationships and professional comaraderie built -up over the years. The exit strategy is often transfers of the problems elsewhere.

They realize that the taxpayer will have to ultimately pay for this, hence no sweat off their backs or bank accounts.

This same "F" -you attitude to parents and students applies right up to the Superintendents office. AGAIN, If anyone thinks any paid school district employee or even School Trustee will advocate for the lowly parent or student, I have another bridge to sell you. Your only real options are filing a complaint with the BC College of Teachers or the Police.

One has to realize that the Public System is often very incestuous and insular. Those in the system may know, but it is often not in their interests to do the right thing and act on it in the parents or students interests. I am not aware there actually are any sanctions rendered for School officials KNOWING yet NOT acting, other than a Guilty Conscience and Public scorn. They all seem to shrug shoulders and claim ignorance , or waffle, and never held out as being quasi- accomplices.

Anyone with common sense should verify rumours , something must be going on,..and if they also have some basic decency they would act on it. Unfortunately, not often the case.

Conclusion: There are many more Ellison -type stories out there, buried, till the victims have had enough and go outside the system to seek true justice.

Bet on it.

maestro
You also ought to look a little closer at what Alci posted.
This isn't just a local administration thing. Believe me. Sometimes shit does move uphill.

G West:

FTR, I am speaking from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with the system. Some day, in fact, I may write a book.

If you are alluding to ALCi's comment about the Ministry...as well as implying shit moves uphill to the Minister of Educations' and the Premiers' lap ...yes I read that comment,... BUT short answer = FORGET IT.

The School Districts are structured to be very autonomous bodies. Their own policies and other ways of doing business are determined "in -house", and will vary from district to district, (as long as they comply with the basics of the BC School Act ).

With very very few exceptions, from top to bottom, and given seniority provisions, it's one big professional "family". Superintendents are not neutral arms -length "managers", but often ex -teachers who have moved up the ranks and inevitably forge alliances to get the golden Supt's plum. However, Superintendents that DO wish to be Pro-Active are often ambushed by status-quo Old Boys club peers and sent packing with big severance packages. Often , if a Superintendent is brought in from outside the district, there is internal resentment, they prefer one of their own. FTR they often sign contracts, and I have a copy of one.

The BCTF actually had a " harassment clause " included in a past collective agreement...which basically keeps any school administrators(ie Principals) on a leash. An administrator that dares to question a teacher can be deemed "harassing" them... and don't kid yourself the administrator cannot be blackballed,and moved by Staff, they are not protected by the union.

However, if an administrator screws up...its almost impossible to fire them, the School Act has provision that they will be returned to the classroom...so there is ultimately very little incentive to step on toes, in fact, there is more incentive to ass kiss peers and tell parents to screw off and further maintain/entrench the edu- mafia status- quo.

The irony is that if your child comes to school with bruises or other visual injuries, they Staff are obligated to investigate and possibly report it . However, staff misconduct is a whole different matter.

Respect much of what you say, G West, but that IS the way the Public School System actually works. Most Premiers and other politicians would rather walk barefoot on a one mile long strip of hot coals than even remotely touch the Public School System and the snakepit that entails when certain lines are crossed, regardless of right or wrong. Additionally any Education Minister has been a relatively short term stay, its more a No -Win than even trying to get to First Base on a Win - Win front.

Again the RCMP or the College of Teachers are one's LAST if not ONLY resort for a parent/student. Thus , in mnay cases forget the school's administration...forget the School Trustees, ....forget the Superintendent, ....forget the Minister of Education...... forget the Premier.

You are often left on your own, not for the timid, but kudos to those who do a gut- check , perservere and often triumph.

meastro
I speak from personal experience too.
I can't post the details here but if you want to send me an email I'll fill you in.

This has nothing to do with the union.

Thanks to anon for her courage in finally dealing with her abuse by making a formal complaint and sharing her views with us.

Speculation is not wrong, but we inevitably fall back on that when we lack info to make a coherent picture.

I do know current VSB policy is to move principals around every five years, but I don't know the policy at the time Ellison was 'teaching'. That would definitely stir up the networks posters are referring to. At my child's school, we got a new principal at the beginning of 2006. I'm an involved parent and can tell you it takes a long time for the principal to get to know the staff, the students and parents.

I read one report where a school official at the time claimed a parent phoned to complain about Ellison sexually touching his/her daughter, but they declined to identify themselves or make a formal complaint. After that, Ellison was moved out of the Quest program and PoW school.

I don't follow the mainstream media very much. Most of my news came from the radio or the web. I will post some further comments later.

G West:

BTW Thanks for the offer, I may contact you later.

Likewise, my "situation" at our school does NOT involve the Union...ie does not involve BCTF members, many of whom I have a very good parent - teacher relationships with for the past several years, and like Dave49 posted above, I also am an active parent at my children's school.

As you and I discussed on a previous TYEE topic, you mentioned that you were moving forward on some pro-active initiatives you wished to keep confidential. Likewise, so am I on my own situation. Rather than vent and rant, it's instead actually inspired me to do a lot of due - diligence to understand what (legally)empowers the school system (or any given system) and how it all ultimately works and unfolds in practice. That is a strongly- advised important step to first pursue.

Unfortunately, it is my experience many don't really understand the Public School system and how it works, and either accept it at face value ,or maintain a code of blindness/ignorance, or left twisting in the wind when the shite hits the fan.

Of course, this is NOT at all an indictment of the entire system, as, like most things , there exists mostly GOOD apples in the majority , but unfortunately "some" BAD apples in the minority .

However, in my view, how any given system or organization actively deals with the BAD apples is the most critical indicator and a major reflection of the entire organization from TOP to BOTTOM.

Hiding or moving the BAD apples versus REmoving them gives anyone justifiable suspicions as to what other BAD apples do exist or will exist soon, and this simple point seems to escape many WITHIN the given system, in this case the Public(ie OUR) School system . Early evidence of an Old Boys Club is often the first early warning sign, as one is often up against both a deer -in- headlight's denial and also an agenda to frustrate you to quit.

However, for others, it's just more fire -in- the-belly, and Knowledge IS Power, if one actively chooses to pursue this path.

save the address - I check it every other day or so.

I believe the 5-year rotation policy for principals was in place during Ellison's time at PW but I don't think it had much of an effect until the principal who got rid of Ellison came along.

I was a student there during Tom's time at PW and I have an anecdote from my days there that is much less serious than the events of the Ellison story but which I think illustrates well the attitude of the school administration of the time.

In Grade 11, there was a particular science class in which the "teacher" would show up at the beginning of the class (or close to it -- he was often late), write the homework questions on the chalkboard, and then proceed to the parking lot where he would spend the remainder of the hour smoking with his buddies. As a result of his lack of teaching, I took to skipping his class even though it was important for graduation.

When I was finally caught skipping the class I was sent to see the principal, who asked me why I was skipping this class. I told him "because we don't do anything in class", to which the principal replied, "I don't want to hear about that" and assigned me a day's garbage duty. The lesson I learned that day: don't get caught and, if you do, don't bother talking.

Notamused:

Anecdotally, I have heard rumours of such indiscretions such as Ellison in my own school district..ie teacher/s caught sleeping with a student...simply get moved on.

Actually, you DID learn something from that delinquent teacher, how the real world works in some closed "public" systems, it may serve you well in the future. I myself wasn't aware of it(ie how the system REALLY works) till decades after my own graduation and then later with my own children in the Public System.

I am not saying this is an epidemic problem , but remember the Principal often hires the staff, not always but often does. In my view Principals should be moved every 5 years as POLICY...this inevitably weeds out the BAD ones while the other schools get their turn at a GOOD ones. A BAD one can get buried via entrenchment and parents aren't the wiser...they don't have anything to compare to and feel what they see is gospel truth .

The Joker in the deck is possibly the Union that protects bad staff who are moved throughout the system to attempt to hide these deficiencies , or those who have seniority and get moved to job vacancy-openings in schools without the Principal having much say.

Regardless, people, in my view, have little understanding of the power a Principal really has...or can abuse.

Finally as a "tip" really research such schools , if not simply avoid, those schools with Principal's with more than a Master degree, (if you catch my drift)...they are often over-qualified,often out- to -lunch and may use the school as some sort of closed experiment.

My point was not that I have not since learned something about the way schools function. I'm in my 40s, have two kids in the B.C. public system and am much more involved in my kids' education than my parents were.

My point was that as a 16-year old when I complained to the principal about a relatively minor incident I was not taken seriously by the principal and I don't imagine any girls who might have complained about Tom Ellison's behaviour would have had much of a chance to make their case either.

Notamused

No problem, got your point. I am just comparing notes to see how much more you may have learned about the Public School systems inner workings now that you are a Parent and an involved one as well.

My own epiphany came much much later than your own early one at the age of 16.
Like many of us, we thought it was an almost perfect world and the staff and the system can do no wrong.

One had to think about being in Ellison's victims shoes back then...given the role and subsequent respect of authority figures at the time. (i) Who would believe them? , and (ii) there were probably repercussions for disobedience..talk about being caught between a real rock and a hard place back then. Even in these so-called more enlightened days it must still be a very tough call to formally complain.

Where did you grow up, maestro?

Those were the good old days, eh...G West.

A bit of hyperbole, nothin' more.

Just for everyone's info - a number of the complainants in the case *did* complain to administration - at least the admin. predating John Chalk. Basically they were brushed off - one was even told that she would never be beleived so it would be useless to pursue anything. Also, many staff complained too. I know of at least one instance of another staff member complaining so loudly that the complaining teacher was "forced out" of the school. Please do NOT blame Mr. Chalk. He was brought in late in the picture and was the only administrator who actually managed to do something about Ellison. Many of the teachers from those days (all retired) have been following the case with great interest and I assure you, they are celebrating Tom Ellison's convictions now as much as the complainants are! So - do not paint all the staff with the same brush as the few boorish staff and admin that chose to turn a blind eye to the whole rumour.

Thanks for listening...

Anon:

Thanks for the expansion on the discussion.

I have a daughter in high school and she came home on day and told me they actually discussed the Ellison case in one of her classes...ie the teacher engaged them in a discussion on the topic . From what she tells me it was getting into hair-splitting legal semantics ie the so called law at the time, and then it seemed to get into more "moral relativity" , etc etc. It may have been an intellectual discussion, but then again I didn't think it very appropriate given what she told me.

I am also curious s to why the legal term "Statutory Rape" isn't part of the case and its' overall discussions. I was aware of the term and the definition since a BC High School student. My understanding is that mutual consent as a defence is irrelevant, it was a Law put in place to make sex with underage minors illegal P-E-R-I-O-D in black and white UNambiguous terms.

You are correct,Anon, it is unfair to blame a particular individual or individuals caught up in the midst of this case and long after the events have transpired in epidemic fashion.

I guess the eternal question is "WHO" knew and could have intervened early to stop and prevent this, I guess only they know and have that burden on their consciences . How would THEY have felt if it was THEIR children ?

( ALSO....As noted in my past TYEE posts above , I am more than personally aware of an " edu - mafia " in the Public School System. It is not a pleasant sight/experience). I can't be the only one, in fact , I know I am not).

If this was Joe Average with a small business etc. or employed in the Public Sector , it would likely mean " tars and feathers " much earlier on...but the fact Ellison was paid on the "Gov't = all of us" dime as a Public Servant makes it more appalling in my view.

Again, Congratulations,...what you and your Prince of Wales peers did took a lot of intestinal fortitude , ie a lot guts ,...and in my view you have nothing to be ashamed of. Wrong IS Wrong ! Each of us have our own tolerance point and epiphanies, and when we all feel it's time to " do the right thing" . You actually did what few actually do, and who knows how many others out there are in similar situations ? , but you greatly helped Society be choosing the direction you did.

Justice has many goals, some of which are to punish the perpetrator .... to send a message to society that this perpetrated act is wrong, ...and that Justice is done and also seen to be done.

We all ultimately benefit from this, and thanks to you and your peers for contributing to that !!!

Hopefully this can be passed on to your Prince of Wales peers, and that as John Lennon said ,in essence , ...it'll hopefully end up making each of you a stronger person and a better person.

Sesaon's Greetings ....and all the best to you and yours ...and Take Care !!!

Error:

Sorry , in my last post ....meant to say in the 7th paragraph re: Joe Average

" If it was Joe Average with a small business etc. or employed in the PRIVATE sector "...., (not "Public" sector ).

I knew him a bit when he was building his boat and outfitting it. I used to see all these young girls coming down to the dock to help him. Wonder if they were the same girls involved in case?

I hear the police are expanding their investigation to look into the involvment 0f several others in Ellison's little scheme - and about time too.

There's a dearth of female comment here - just all you guys huffing and puffing defending 17 year-olds who excitedly headed for Ellison's boat, sunbathed naked on the deck, expected nothing to happen and when it did returned over and over again - in 1975. Now in 2006 they're all victimized, lives ruined. One says that after 29 years she can now "get on with my life". Has she been in therapy since 1977? Certainly Ellison as a teacher was a creep and a lecher but there were as many horny, precocious 17 year-olds then as there are now and maybe there should be a few balancing facts introduced here. Some with other problems in their lives could have been damaged, but were they all? The Ellison victim who said it's been 25 years for God's sake, might have had a point.
Now that more teachers are going to be charged and dozens more blameless victims appear this thread can go on for ever. Have faith in the Courts. As I said before, National Enquirer stuff, National Enquirer.

You've got it backwards, aorangi. Ellison was the defendant, not the women. There's no need for the women -- no matter how "horny and precocious" they were as teenagers -- to defend their behaviour because Ellison should have been smart enough to know that sex with his students constituted an egregious abuse of the authority with which he was charged.

We can explore such things as primal urges and all sorts of factors that lead into a side discussion of mutual consent...or if nothing else, by supposed absence of force, thus its " OK " ,and/or " it takes two to tango"...???

However,we have to keep in mind that perhaps if these victims were simply 2 - 3 years older,...no longer 15 - 17 years old and in High School....ie instead were 19 years old and had GRADUATED, this case likely wouldn't exist. The all important "environment" would have changed.

Ellison's OTHER scenario would be have been meeting, or having to meet these women in the outside world,outside of school...not preying on young women in a closed system by which he had a quasi -key. I highly doubt he would have had the same opportunity to engage in his type of conduct if he was a 7 - 11 clerk near the school, or a person who lived near the school, etc. etc. A school environment is like another home or office,...and all the special and more distinct "environmental" opportunities that it provides .

"Some" victims may have been so-called "sophisticated enough" to handle such a relationship with him, just like some 15 year olds can probably become good drivers or make good choices in voting. However, to protect the interests of all, it has to be rather Black and White, and a line in the sand has historically been drawn, which is very often AGE specific. Ellison crossed it, continually ignored it, tried to erase it, and will now pay the consequences.

The fact that some victims have come out later, decades after it happened is often EXACTLY the point,...it is not unheard of that parties will reflect back and consider what went on in the past as best re-defined as abuse and quasi-rape , thus SEX in High School with one's authority figure is WRONG, and all the psychological trauma etc. that ensues later when "consensual" is then re-evaluated to "victim".

From what I gather in the paper, some victims seemed to feel at the time they were the ONLY ones , that they felt they were "Special" to Ellison, and only found out years later this was not the case, but were actually one of many, and looked him as now "properly re-defined" as a Predator as opposed to any sort of Don Juan.

It appears , since my last post, more complainants are coming forward...as noted by other TYEE posters, and this could be the tip of the iceberg, in fact quite possibly an avalanche of other separate cases.

It was wrong then...it is wrong now...and is still wrong...and that message should be sent and is being sent.

No-one's arguing that Ellison isn't wrong and isn't a predator: He betrayed his profession and betrayed his students. Notwithstanding the mores of the day, teachers were not allowed to seduce students in the seventies because their age and the power imbalance forbade it. Same as today and it will always hold true. That the girls tolerated and encouraged his behaviour can surely be mentioned as it was part of the circumstances surrounding the affair. It dosen't accuse them, it dosen't mitigate Ellison. It simply puts the offence in perspective.

What is perplexing is the inordinate length of time between the offence and the rebuttals. How can you nurse such a thing from youth into middle age? Why would you want to drag up a nasty piece of your past, redefine it under modern law and live it all over again detail by detail in the public forum? I don't see this as a way to achieve closure.

I hope for the victims' sake this isn't the prelude to a flood of civil cases. It's up to them, of course.

In my view, most, if not all of us, base many of our comments on our own experiences and handles/takes on human nature.

I think Civil Suits, objectively speaking, are inevitable, at least by some victims. Another unfortunate thing, besides just the ORIGINAL crimes, is that when it involves employees of the Public...the Public ultimately pays.

Coming forward may or may not result in closure, but we have seen this already in other societal institutions where the events happened decades ago.

My own view is that another side of the coin is that its also not the Victims role to subsidize the Perpetrator's crime/s with a code of silence , and each victim has the legal right (and perhaps moral right as well) when they personally feel
the time has indeed arrived that they feel comfortable filing a complaint.

Old Dogs don't often learn new tricks, and who knows how many other more recent victims exist out there?

maestro:
Why do you keep bringing up civil suits?

Is that the only criteria you use to judge success?

If there isn't a pay-off there's no closure?

I just can't understand why you keep bringing it up - no one else does?

And this:

Surely not!

Think about that for a minute. There have to be some objective criteria for evaluating what people 'feel' personally or otherwise…and how much time can elapse before ‘memories’ are very unreliable witnesses.

I'm afraid I'm with aorangi on this one.

The fundamental critique, that I haven't seen in any of this stuff, ought to be directed at the organizers and enablers of a program that permitted anyone (especially a narcissistic sociopath like Ellison) to be in unsupervised contact with all these young women.

What were they thinking? For God's sake people, they have adult chaperones at dances in elementary school - and always have had from my experience. Somebody screwed up here, royally and serially, and it wasn't just Ellison and the girls.

Why indeed? Isn't it obvious that no person would do something like that unless they felt they had no choice. And why does everyone have to bring up the "closure" bit? Why does that matter. All that really matters is that Mr. Ellison be prevented from victimizing any more young girls!

Ok - I should know not to bother reading these sort of posts anymore. It is horrifying to read what people are thinking about my motives in the JTom Ellison case. Frankly, again, if you haven't ever had this sort of thing happen to you, you could NEVER understand why it would take a person so long to come forward. And, again, I did NOT go after Tom Ellison, he went after ME - as he did in most of the complainant's cases. He was VERY aggressive and VERY difficult to say no to. He just wouldn't take no for an answer - contrary to his testimony in the court room.

Also: as I have stated before on this message board, my ONLY motivation so many years ago when I went to the police was to stop Tom Ellison from victimizing any more young girls. I thought he might still be "active" with his pursuits and I was very worried about that. As a 17 year old, I had no courage to report him. As a 32 year old, I felt a little stronger, but believe me, it took about 4 months of counselling to work out all my issues well enough to have the courage to go to the police.

I will also say this: My motivation has NEVER been about money - and I still feel the same way. Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I could never see myself being involved in a civil case. This past court experience has been more than I can deal with itself!

Now - hopefully, I can stop myself from reading this thread anymore! It certainly hasn't helped me any...

G West:

You may or may not be aware of this, but there is such a thing as P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T.

I don't make the news, simply stating what I see as a pattern and potential.

This case in my view falls under the category of "Institutional Abuse". Ie abuse within an institutional setting , not a " one - of " with ,say, a serial perpetrator on the random prowl for victims from different walks of life.

I have NOT said anywhere that this Ellison case is full of civil litigants waiting to cash in, simply the potential exists and I feel there is a probability there will be some.

However, as I mentioned earlier, and AFTER we started discussing this topic, the newspaper(NOT ME) reported that the VSB has had legal advisors reviewing this issue in ANTICIPATION of possible civil litigation.

However, I will agree with your inference that this issue has many cracks and fissures in the chain of authority , command and responsibility....the dreaded "WHO KNEW"??? /CODE OF SILENCE.

My own " editorial " comment was that when I first started reading about this case, I still can't understand how a system/ " Institution " would not insist that at minimum at least one adult FEMALE was present as a chaperone on these Quest outings far from home.

My further editorial comment is that this Ellison case could open up a HUGE can of worms , re: the internal politics and mechanisms of how Public Schools are run, and from my OWN experience it is, at times, not at all a very pretty sight.

In fact, while the Ellison case is quite shocking, the more I read about it and compare notes, in some ways it doesn't suprise me given the way the edu-mafia works. If one really understood the dynamics etc. of the Public Education system,(or in fact many public institutions) one would come to very similar conclusions.

Further to the point of " when is the time right to report something ???....when one feels comfortable etc.???".....

Years ago, while I was in High School, our extended family convened for a family function. I began conversing with an adult , a female, who normally was quite social, yet she was very quiet at this family function and seemed avoid saying much, which I found very strange, but accepted it as her not in the mood to talk...so be it.

When I mentioned this to my parents....days later I was told this aformentioned female had been sexually assaulted just prior to the family function. The perpetrator was captured, charged, imprisoned, and apparently " got his" in prison as well.

However, the event had major consequences for the family, and their children,years of counselling, but the marriage has survived.

A victim is first subjected to the crime, then an "internal judiciary" likely ensues..Ie they ask themselves was it their fault ?, ....2 nd guessing? , re-living the events.???... and an awareness from the media of similar trials and how the defence works, ie to blame the victims.... and all the publicity and continual media reporting....denial, ie just look at Ellison and his entourage of supporters.

After the victim's own INTERNAL judiciary system has made a decision which path to pursue , one makes the decision to consider the cost/benefit to (i) oneself and (ii) of society in proceeding to the EXTERNAL judiciary system we call the Law Court System . That is a very VERY personal decision.

In my view, time is irrelevant, other than any/all Statutes of Limitations that may be in effect. I myself am not going to judge when ANYONE ELSE's personal epiphany time has arrived or should arrive. A crime is a crime is a crime , it has no best before date ....OR best after... OR best during date. There are myriad events going on in any given person's life...everyone has their OWN individual personal comfort zone,...it may be one minute, ....OR one week, ......OR one year,....OR a decade + AFTER the event. I think the older we get the more we realize this, and when one is younger one's OWN individual comfort zone is still growing, evolving, developing etc.

I think the Ellison case was an overwhelming one for the Prosecution, to me it seemed the Defence was in bluff mode, waiting for "tents to fold" which never happened. Ellison himself appeared to be in Alfred E Neuman mode throughout the trial , " What? Me Worry?". Well, as I was out driving a few weeks back,..and the case was discussed, one radio show replayed listener comments...and one of the callers referred to Ellison as claiming he was teaching the students a " real world experience", and the caller then ended with a comment that "Bubba in prison" may teach Ellison another type of real world experience when sentencing time arrives.

Again, back on the subject of time...we'll see if "Justice is both done and seen to be done"...time, as always, will tell.

Dear anon; I'm very sorry this is hard for you. It's a true thing that we often find it very hard to do the one thing our lives bring us to. The right thing.

Never easy. Sometimes impossible. Most people avoid it like the plague.

In my own life, looking backward I can see all the moments, the singular decisions that changed everything. And in every case I can say that beforehand, they were invisible.

You can only see what these things will bring when you look at them over your shoulder, never when they're in front of you.

I hope it's not presumptious of me to say I'm proud of you. I understand the pain and the uncertainty and how hard it must be to face the people's hard questions with such personal answers. And know all the time that the chance of success was small.

But maybe success at convincing others is not really where closure will lie for you. Maybe it will turn out to be in just coming out with your secret. Bringing the important truths of your life out of the darkness into the full light of day.

Many people feel that the law owes them a certain outcome, but it really doesn't. It owes them a hearing, in public, and a finding based on evidence. It seems to be giving you that.

Whatever else comes to you, I hope when you finally put it behind you, as you sooner or later must, it will prove to have been a decision that brought you healing. And when you're looking at it over your shoulder, you see a crowd of good things that flowed from it.

Maestro:
I suggest you do some research on false memory syndrome and suggestion before you take that thesis to the publisher.

Things are not always as they seem and memory is a very unreliable witness.

Moreover, time cannot be ignored as a factor – particularly if there is money involved – although it seems in this case (to this point) to have been irrelevant.

Anon: I certainly respect your brave decision to come forward but I don’t believe in ‘closure’ – it’s the kind of things counsellors talk a lot about but it has very little meaning in the real world.

Best of luck – seems to me you’re doing very well - hope it continues to be so.

I think not reading this stuff is a good idea.

G West
No mention of memory loss by the Judge, therefore no reason why you need be concerned about it.
Here is a sample of what the Judge said in his reasons for judgement,

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE

HONOURABLE JUDGE TAKAHASHI

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2006/05/p06_0549.htm

woody

Bud, you're not paying attention. Cruise right on up to the top of this thread and look for a post from moi to Bailey's attention.

My point was a general one addressed to maestro's equally general comments. The fact it appears on a thread dealing with Ellison is just coincidental.

You have a good Christmas, hear!

G west, Im not paying attention, your comment to Baily was seven days ago, I had read your comment, but, there is a limit to my memory bank and the exact usage of your words.
My point was meant to be general also, intended for those who haven’t read as “yet” the Judges’ decision. Enjoy your Christmas.

G West:

With all due respect comrade, your past and present extrapolations of my TYEE comments is bordering on the truly bizarre.

False Memory Syndrome(FMS)???? Huh???

When I first heard of this so -called FMS phenomenon, my view, whether it be gut feel or simple logic, was that IT was ripe for abuse. Hasn't FMS been widely discredited?, and why didn't the Ellison defence bring it up? , I don't seem to recall it even mentioned in this case.

It was quite obvious that, with a past review of FMS, a "thought seed" could be planted and nurtured that literally any human being could be tried and convicted on the basis of what could amount to nothing but subtle hints and stretched inferences by another party...isn't that how fortune tellers work?...good at reading another parties body language to the point they have the other party believing ?

ALSO Quit the grammar critique... BTW I received "A" 's in English amongst other subjects... within the good " old " BC school system, and I might suggest you please learn to " read " or take a refresher course.

Otherwise, comrade, you have your own version of FMS...you "think" you read it, or "imagined " you understood it...

One more time..I don't make the news, I read it, reflect on it, and see applicable precedent/s that exists elsewhere, and Ellison has had many witness/victims,...how many do you need ? ....often it only takes ONE.

Again....I categorize this as Institutional abuse, my educated guess is future civil suits, and the VSB itself is apparently anticipating this.

Case closed on this premise , at least for now.

You go ahead and think exactly what you want to maestro. But this:

is what you posted.

And also this:

Now you might like to pretend that situations haven't existed where people have used so-called 'memories' to take advantage of perfectly innocent people and dragged them through hell and the legal system to boot, but I won't sit still while you indulge in overly general sophistry like you have.

I'm not talking about Ellison and neither were you. You were saying it's just fine to bring something forward whenever and however the 'victim thinks it is.

Read those words again. They contain a lack of ambiguity and nuance wide enough to drive a truck through. Either you weren't thinking or you weren't writing very carefully.

Those remarks are generalizations and they are garbage.

I don't imagine things. I do imagine that people ought to think about what they're saying before they open their mouths.

My reaction to you was directed toward your failure to recognize that no system of justice can countenance people just 'showing' up with egregious accusations years after something which may well not have happened at all.

This is especially the case where young children are involved.

You might want to look up some of the jurisprudence:

US cases: Kelly Michaels case (State v. Michaels, 1994) and the McMartin case (Montoya, 1993), involved large numbers of preschoolers in a day care center; in Canada, the Martinsville, Saskatchewan case (Roberts, 1995) emphasized the potential dangers of accepting children’s accounts of abuse when inappropriate and suggestive interviews had taken place before court.
These cases, as well as criticisms of other investigations abroad (R v. Ellis, 1994), have led to social science research focusing its attention on the troublesome issue of children’s suggestibility in response to suggestive and leading questions in forensic interviews. Many studies examining the potential for contamination of children’s reports by interviewers and the suggestibility of children’s memories have been conducted (e.g., Bruck, Hembrooke, & Ceci, 1997; Ceci & Bruck, 1993, 1995; Lyon, 1999; Poole & Lindsay, 1997, 2001).

Now the case is closed.

G West:

There was a case right here in BC ,within the GVRD, which vividly outlined the dangers of FMS. It took a final appeal for the case to be thrown out and the accused party exhonerated.

Unlike your vast research team of primates doing what you consider " due - diligence " to allow you to be undisputed Darth Vader of the TYEE, I will post my comments like anyone else...solo. The fact you often take my posts (and others' posts as well) out of context is not my fault nor my problem.

You are denigrating the Ellison victims with your usual hair- splitting shite - disturbing . If the Ellison victims waited another 10 years ...or 20 years ...it would not detract from the basic issue and their specific case.

Is there any evidence of FMS that will exhonerate Ellison , G West ?
Your hair -splitting shite- disturbing is implying that Ellison's victims are lying, making this up and perjuring themselves in order to nail an innocent person, right G West ?

OTHER cases are based on their merits.

I made no reference to any OTHER case, so give your primate research team the day off.

Why don't you get a Law degree and defend scumbags ??? ....seems to be where your head is really at these days.

Maestro
Not only are you incapable of writing a decent sentence, you don't read your own material. You didn't have to mention any 'other' case. Your words are not capable of any other interpretation as I demonstrated clearly by quoting them back to you. Which, below, I'll do again now.

I'm not writing about, and haven't been for some time, the Ellison case. I've been referring to a system that is in danger of being corrupted and used for purposes other than justice if the concept contained in your words were to be adopted mutatis mutandis.

If these words of yours aren't addressing a 'general' case in a most irresponsible way then I'm very sorry for you. How do you manage to decipher your wife's grocery list?

If those remarks aren't general, and crying out for some kind of acknowledgment that events many years 'after' the fact cannot be accepted with the same alacrity as they would in the present instant, then there is simply no further point in talking to you.

You're more interested in some kind of idle spastic exercise of word spinning than actually exploring and discussing an issue.

In areas of epiphanies after all, the nature of the experience is always, and always should be, subjected to the most withering scrutiny.

G West:

Ok...I will give you credit...you must already be on your way to a Law Degree. Someone has to replace the infamous late Johnny Cochrane.

You are continually entering some bizarre nether world with your TYEE discussions...now it appears you are squatting in it.

--You "think" you know what others are saying or trying to say.

--You "think" you speak for others.

--You "think" you know what you are talking about.

---Even worse, you "think" you speak for yourself. Maybe ask yourself first if you speak for yourself, get that straight at the interim. Maybe even get it in writing. As a Law Student, you may know that.

Then bill yourself, but you do have the right to go to the Law Society and challenge the fee. You will probably win, re: that you charged yourself too much.

PS Bananas are on sale....go feed the crew.

Now....Go back to defending scumbags.

maestro
You don’t even have the integrity to understand when you're wrong - based on your own 'sloppy' writing.

The fact of the matter is that if we were in a face-to-face conversation these kinds of misunderstandings wouldn't happen because I'd ask for clarification of a statement that went too far and you'd backtrack and say what you really meant.

In epistolary form there's no other way to pin someone down except by referring to the actual words they've written.

That's all I did. I'm not defending anyone; I'm just insisting that people understand the implications of their words.

In addition, I try to do it without the childishness - I guess it's too much to ask you to understand and reciprocate.

I'm not a 'student' of any kind.

As this TYEE topic soon moves into the archives....time to move on...but thou G West are becoming far too predictable in saying everything and yet saying nothing.

Anon:

.....If you are still reading this topic:

Thanks for sharing with us what is a obviously a very difficult and very personal topic.

I hope my posts indicate I myself was clearly in both yourself AND your Prince of Wales peers' corner, and I was also highly supportive of what you all did in finding the strength to pursue some semblance of justice.

( I won't necessarily speak for the others' on the TYEE and their comments , but unfortunately many TYEE comments on this and other topics do end up in strange tangents and bizarre themes, and at times quite disrespectful).

Take Care, All the Best, Peace, Continued Strength , and Seasons' Greetings.

M.

You were not clear at all maestro, as your own words illustrate very clearly. And this final attempt at pandering proves that you aren't really interested in anything but giving people the 'impression' that you're an understanding and outgoing guy.

Baloney, you're a phony and a prevaricator - don't pretend you’d like to apologize for anyone else, let alone for other Tyee posters whose own words speak for themselves.

Your pandering is more disrespectful than anything else I've read on this thread and your reluctance to stand by the ordinary and plain meaning of your own words is the only thing anyone should be apologizing for.

To Anon

If you are still reading I would also like to thank you and all the women who came forward to testify against Ellison. I know very well how hard it is. The child of a close friend of mine was molested by someone within her close circle when she was around 12 but the didn't disclose it until her late teens, and only after years of self-harm, suicide attempts, and repeated hospitalizations. The perp made much the same arguments as Ellison. She wanted it as much as him, she led him on, he couldn't help himself, he really cared about her and just got carried away with the romance of it, she would be in trouble if she told, it would wreck their families, people wouldn't understand - blah, blah, blah. This was a 12 year old who was physically immature. Pedophiles all say the same thing - whether the victim is 3 or 16. They are completely deluded. If there is any false memory going on it is theirs. Because of the secrecy, the child has noone that they can confide in about the "wrongness" of what is going on - only the perp, who lies to them.

The abuse and the subsequent disclosures have put this girl and her family through hell. The girl and her family were not interested in going to the police but once a counsellor got hold of the information there was no turning back. The police hounded them and laid guilt trips on them about other possible victims until the girl finally agreed to press charges. It was the right thing to do - but not in any way positive or healthy for the girl. It almost killed her. Her mother told me that almost every fourth person she has talked to has had their own similar story and they NEVER told anyone. Even if the sex was consensual (whatever that means when the instigator is 2 or 3 times your age, in authority over you and twice your size) it has had a deeply troubling and damaging influence on their lives.

It's time for people like Ellison to start paying for the damage they've done - not just to their victims and their families but to our sense of trust in our institutions. I can imagine what this has cost you but I want you to know that there are some of us who are very grateful for your example.

When I say "this was a 12 year old child" I mean the victim, not the perp. THe perp was 45 and in a position of trust and authority.