A REPLY TO THE NUMEROUS MISS REPORTING BY THE TELEGRAPH
The description paedophile seems to trip on the journalistic tongue like a verbal masturbation. In referring to Graham Ovenden as a paedophilic artist the Telegraph suggests that all aspects of his art come under this category. Since Mr Ovenden is most well known as a painter of nature and a follower of Pan, is the Telegraph suggesting that we now put forward to the world The School of Paedophillic Landscapers?
Firstly it should be noted that the Telegraph has placed before the public a series of inaccurate 'facts'. Since a Telegraph journalist was at the Roscoe hearing there is no excuse for her misinterpretation of the two day process. The second hearing appeal, held some six months later (on this occasion heard by a senior male Judge and Two Female JPs) overturned a considerable number of Judge Roscoe's original dictates, some sixty items being judged NOT INDECENT and returned to Ovenden. These included both Ovenden's work and historical items such as Pierre Louys.
It is most important to note that three quarters of the charges against Graham Ovenden were manufactured in the court by Judge Graham Cottle. When EE refused to accuse Ovenden of any wrong doing between them the prosecution announced that the next day they would be dropping all charges against him in regards to her. Judge Cottle (who was noticeably furious) then announced that if Mr Ovenden could not be prosecuted on the original charges, directed the prosecution council to find other charges to lay against him. The next day Cottle allowed charges against Ovenden of taking indecent photographs of EE over a six year period … not a single piece of new evidence was submitted to the jury to back up this claim. Thus three quarters of the eventual charges against Ovenden can only be described as spurious. None of the serious charges against Ovenden were proven and no doubt if the Telegraph and other major newspapers had removed their posteriors to Truro Crown Court a greater understanding and truth of the situation may have come to the fore.
To return to the destruction hearings, they are dealt with in greater detail in other sections of this internet site. What is most important to understand is that all photographic and graphic works of art (except four items) were returned by the police to Graham Ovenden. This was witnessed by such eminent individuals as Robin Hanbury-Tenison. There were no swathes of Mr Ovenden's art sent to the furnaces. If items were destroyed their duplicates and triplicates remain.