Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. … Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten, except in folklore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way society conceives itself.

But in troubled times, when people are anxious and in need of a scapegoat, a potent brew of folktales – one that may have been simmering away harmlessly for years – can boil over into a ‘moral panic’.

Throughout history, people have used accusations of infanticide, cannibalism and sexual orgies to dehumanise the fellow mortals they hate and wish to destroy.

US statistics were collected annually by the American Humane Association. … These showed that the astronomical rise in suspected child abuse cases was accompanied by an equally astronomical rise in false allegations.

The love and a closeness which Peter continued to feel for the children contrasts with the abuser who at some level will regard children as objects.

The first is that making children drink urine is not something that real-life paedophiles ever do.

Typically he gets his partner to urinate directly in his mouth, with no cups or other utensils.

My own survey of the child sexual abuse literature suggests that a belief that paedophiles are interested in perversions involving urine and faeces exists only in the fevered imaginations of ritual abuse investigators.

Ceci and Bruck discovered that the problems of everyday adult–child conversations were magnified when topics with legal implications were discussed, and that the magnification was compounded whenever a child was re-interviewed on the same topic, and whenever anatomically correct dolls were introduced into the conversation. … Interviewers (be they parents, police officers or specialist interviewers) with a priori beliefs about what had happened were found to use repeated, suggestive and leading questions to encourage children to provide the answers they expected.

The ‘drinking urine from a cup’ story was a fantasy that existed only in the overheated imaginations of ritual abuse believers. … Yet (with the exception of Judge Anderson, who was not required to evaluate the credibility of the evidence) every professional who passed that fantasy along its five-stage journey to the Ellis trial took it seriously.

Doctors were told to avoid statements like ‘the examination was normal’ or ‘no evidence of sexual abuse exists’. … Instead, the phrase ‘this examination is consistent with the allegation of sexual abuse’ was recommended.

Zelas’s Holmes interview effectively validated the sexual abuse panic that was engulfing the crèche. … For a professional who regarded herself as a rational and dispassionate expert, it was a deeply compromising performance.

At the time of the crèche case, attempts were made and influences were exerted to suppress information that was already in the professional journals about how children can provide false information and fabricate stories.

We haven’t learnt from the crèche case because there’s been no discussion.

Behind the anger and the blame, was the fear. … ‘The women crèche workers were absolutely petrified,’ Ellis’s solicitor Chris Knight told me. ‘It was like a police state thing closing in. They were all under suspicion. Enquiries were being made of friends and neighbours. It was a terrifying time for everyone on the periphery who felt they could be drawn into the vortex.’

From Bruce’s home, the police seized more than 80 videotapes. … None of the adult tapes were of any use to the prosecution, but one has become part of the crèche case mythology.

The concerns expressed by Nation and Stokes failed to halt, or even slow, the momentum of the crèche case. … When I sought comment from the Crown Solicitor’s office on this outcome, I received three, mutually contradictory explanations, all from the same person.

Reducing the charges in that way allowed the Crown to explain away the discrepancies between the violent and bloody abuse the children said they had suffered, and the lack of physical and behavioural evidence of penetration by needles, sticks, penises and fingers, by claiming that the children were confused about what had really happened.

There was a risk that the jury would think: 28 counts, he’s got to be guilty of something.

I wanted them to see children that appeared to be talking about what they were doing with dolls, rather than describing what had happened to them.

Under the guise of information on ‘the general development level of children’, Stanaway explained away every aspect of the children’s evidence that the jury was likely to find ‘bizarre or unbelievable or unconvincing’.

At the time, and in his closing address, Stanaway presented that apparent stumble as evidence that Ellis was an unreliable witness.

These checks and balances help ensure that neither party wields power in an oppressive or arbitrary manner. They also mean that, when there is a widespread perception that the justice system has failed, and the public is demanding that politicians do something, any response that smacks of political interference in the justice system is bound to be viewed by those affected as a major threat.

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of democratic government: parliament makes the laws; the courts enforce them. In the normal course of events, each party jealously guards its patch. Judges keep the power of parliament in check by ensuring that government officials act lawfully and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, but they may not comment on government policy, or on the merits of any law.

This indicates that, in forming their opinions, the experts – and possibly also Sir Thomas – did not take into account all the trial evidence.

Another crucial block of evidence that Sir Thomas and his experts failed to mention (even though it was clearly relevant under the inquiry’s terms of reference) was that relating to Zelda Cypress. Zelda was the oldest and most believable child witness. Her allegations were credible. As her baby sitter, Peter Ellis had the opportunity to offend. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all her charges. Two years after the trial, she retracted her allegations. Thereafter, she never wavered from her retraction.

It tells us that, if a child does not disclose, there is every likelihood that he or she has not been abused.

When viewed in this light the ‘best practice’ models endorsed by Eichelbaum, Davies and Sas – that allow interviewers to coerce non-disclosing children into disclosing abuse – may seem in themselves to be forms of abuse.

But Sir Thomas Eichelbaum’s inquiry was both narrow and flawed. His terms of reference failed to address many issues of public concern (such as the soundness of the decision to arrest the women, the sanitising of the charges against Peter Ellis, and the fairness of his trial).