|
www.peterellis.co.nz
March 12, 2004
More on the Eichelbaum Report Scandal.
Editorial/Opinion
On the 13 June,
2000, an
extraordinary meeting took place with a couple of Ministry Justice
Officials (Val Sim and Michael Petherick) and Thomas Eichelbaum
(a) The Appointment of Louise Sas
-
The two Justice
Officials gave Eichelbaum some information about a couple of prospective
people to fulfil the role of a world expert on child suggestibility.
The name of Louise Sas, (who was later appointed) first appears. Sas had not been nominated by any of the
parties involved in the case.
It seems these backroom justice bureaucrats, were an integral part of the
process in the extraordinary decision of the Commissioner to use a little
known Canadian as supposedly a "world expert" in psychology and child
suggestibility.
This site queries how Sim and Petherick came to provide the information on
Sas, and how Sas became at that meeting one of Eichelbaum's preferred
choices.
(b)
Justice Officials "explain" to Eichelbaum the difference between
research psychologists and practitioner clinicians -
Given Eichelbaum's years as a judge the need for such an explanation is
extraordinary in itself, but it highlights the limited knowledge that
Eichelbaum had about the field he was working in.
(c)
Eichelbaum "discounts" Professors Ceci and Goodman on the basis of
their high profile and research direction over the last 15 years! -
This site finds Eichelbaum's actions extremely surprising and
disturbing.
It is like "discounting" Nelson Mandela as an expert on South Africa,
and appointing Phil Goff - because of Mandela's "high profile" and
Goff's expertise in foreign affairs.
It should have taken Eichelbaum only a couple of hours of his time to
determine that Ceci's "high profile", for example, and
"research direction" has made him the world's foremost expert on
child suggestibility. .
This site says that the person responsible for such an Inquiry is duty bound
to carry out sufficient research to understand the subject. Eichelbaum did not.
A few minutes before he was having explained to him the difference between
different types of psychologists. His willingness to then
"discount" experts on the basis he did suggests that Eichelbaum's
only independent investigation was to take the word of the two Justice officials. His analysis appears grossly incompetent.
(d)
Eichelbaum selects his preferred candidates as expert advisors on child
suggestibility -
Eichelbaum was appointed in March. After three months of paying him
to do the report, Eichelbaum selects his list of preferred experts. There are four of them. One of them was Louise Sas, who was not
nominated by any of the parties to the Inquiry, and information on her was
first provided to Eichelbaum at that same meeting.
What had Eichelbaum been doing in the preceding months?
This site would expect a person responsible for an inquiry to place a
priority on learning enough about the subject to be able to make an informed
choice of expert.
Eichelbaum's willingness to be led by the nose and place Louise Sas on his
list of four experts, without having done sufficient of his own homework,
suggests incompetence.
(e) Justice official Val Sim suggested that Sir
Thomas may also wish to contact Professor Lyon and ask for suggestions for
impartial experts. Sir Thomas agreed!
If there was
any further need to assess whether Thomas Eichelbaum was simply an easily
played chess piece of Val Sim and Michael Petherick, this was it.
Val Sim had recommended that Ceci be discounted. Thomas Eichelbaum appeared
to readily agree on the basis of Ceci's "high profile and research
direction"
And yet Eichelbaum was willing to listen to Thomas Lyon, to obtain
independent or "impartial" advice
If dirty tricks were involved in getting Ceci "discounted" in the
first place, this action of involving Lyon
adds insult to injury.
Lyon was already nominated by parties
supporting the conviction of Ellis. Lyon was also one of the few people that could have
been found in the world who was an open critic of the work of Ceci.
Eichelbaum should have known this.
The scientific debate is serious and is best understood by reading
"Court Review" The Journal of the American Judges Association, Vol 38, Issue 3, Fall
2001.
The journal presents an overview of the debate in a pair of articles: firstly
by forensic psychologist David Martindale who defends the Ceci-Bruck
research, and a response by Lyon.
If Eichelbaum wanted impartiality the least he could have done was to
appoint both Lyon and Ceci (or their
nominated suggestions) - or to "discount" them both similarly. Eichelbaum also had the brief, if he had so
chosen to select more than two experts.
He chose not to.
Eichelbaum however appears to have swallowed the appallingly bad advice of
Val SIm.
Eichelbaum's willingness to select the experts on the basis he did, injected
an unacceptable degree of bias into the Inquiry from it's start.
His obvious shortcomings into the
process of simply selecting experts, brings into question the safety of
Eichelbaum's conclusions on the total report.
|
