|
www.peterellis.co.nz
March 7 2004
The Eichelbaum Report Scandal
3 March 2004
Third World Justice in New
Zealand.
Eichelbaum acknowledges that the Thorp report (that Phil Goff has
insisted was always public) was indeed not public. He asks Sim if he should ignore that Report
(May 12, 2000; Eichelbaum to Val Sim)
Val Sim replies, and surprise, surprise, agrees that the "safest
course" will be to ignore Thorp. Readers can now understand better by
reading (on this site) the Thorp report themselves
(May 25, 2000: Val Sim to Eichelbaum)
How Eichelbaum was hoodwinked by the Ministry of Justice with reasons to
"discount" any expert who may have disagreed with the Crown. This report sounds more and more like a
Communist "free election".
(June 2, 2000: Val Sim to Eichelbaum)
Eichelbaum lists recommended experts; writes to Sim: "I'll telephone to
discuss the next move". (No paper trail)
This guy was supposedly independent! More evidence that the Inquiry was
orchestrated, and Eichelbaum was a pawn.
(June 7, 2000; Eichelbaum to Val Sim)
Refer Documents Eichelbaum Report Files
7
March 2004
Eichelbaum Inquiry Correspondence revealed
Read about the process of appointing the "experts" to
Eichelbaum's "Inquiry"
Read about the mystery of the appointment of Louise Sas: With no nomination, or known recommendation
from anybody, the name Louise Sas appears out of the woodwork, and in a few
days she is appointed as supposedly one of the top two experts in the field
in the world! What Dirty Tricks
were involved?
Read how Eichelbaum, supposedly one of the top judges in New Zealand, and
responsible for the Inquiry, appeared willing to be led by Val Sim and
Michael Petherick - a couple of officials within the Ministry of Justice.
Read how Val Sim justified "discounting" all the experts that she
didn't want to advise Eichelbaum!
Read what Ablett Kerr had to say about Eichelbaum's rejection of Ceci and
Bruck as experts.
Read of the influence of Professor Thomas Lyon as advisor to Eichelbaum.
Eichelbaum presumably was ignorant of the controversial nature of the work of
Lyon.
This site says that the credibility of Eichelbaum's report lies in
tatters. Was the whole process a
setup? And if so, by who?
|
