|
NZ
Listener
Vol 190 No 3302
August 23-29, 2003
Published August 16, 2003
Eichelbaum's Report
Letter to the Editor
by Richard Christie, (Christchurch)
Aside from
repeating his irrelevant call for new evidence, Phil Goff places weight upon
Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's conclusions in his narrow inquiry into the Ellis
case. Eichelbaum's inquiry is deeply flawed and the flaws extend well beyond
his terms of reference.
For example, Eichelbaum states in his summary of salient facts: "... the
experts and I independently reached the view that the children's evidence in
the conviction cases was reliable".
However, one of his experts, Professor Graham Davies, stated quite clearly in
his report to the inquiry: "My report will not attempt to pass judgment
[sic] on the guilt or otherwise of Mr Ellis nor to pronounce on the
reliability of individual children's accounts."
However, Davies did later state that some of the children's evidence was
"credible" (ie, capable of being believed) and ought to be examined
in the wider context of the investigation, which Eichelbaum failed to do.
How did Eichelbaum manage to transform "credible" to
"reliable"? The process is convoluted. Bernard Robertson, editor of
the NZ Law Journal, suggested that in general Eichelbaum's reasoning might
have been flawed.
It is apposite here to quote Professor Davies (the Lancet, May 2000) in
response to a question as to whether he supported capital punishment.
"No. I have investigated too many miscarriages of justice to have any
faith in the capacity of the legal system to make accurate decisions."
Eichelbaum's report can be viewed and downloaded from the Ministry of
Justice's website.
|
