|
|
The |
|
|
|
|
Peterellis.org.nz spokesman
Richard Christie reports that new research into the Peter Ellis case casts
doubt on the safety of Ellis' convictions. The research reveals that Sir
Thomas Eichelbaum's Inquiry was carried out in a
manner designed to bury rather than examine doubts previously raised by three
of the world's foremost experts on children’s testimony. It calls into
question the conduct of officials and has ensured that the case will not be
going away anytime soon. The New Zealand Law Journal
recently published a two-part paper entitled New
evidence in the Peter Ellis case, [1] by researcher Ross Francis. The
author refers to the latest research into child sexual abuse and cites
documents which have been released only in the last year. Ross Francis exposes the lengths
to which the then Attorney-General, the Hon Margaret Wilson, went in order to
prevent an inquiry into the Peter Ellis case. Wilson’s efforts may have been
a factor in Cabinet’s decision to establish a ministerial inquiry rather than
a Commission of Inquiry. The research paper exposes how the
ministerial inquiry was manipulated by Justice Ministry officials, in particular
by its then-chief legal counsel Val Sim. Among the new revelations: ·
Eichelbaum accepted Sim’s advice to
“discount” Sir Thomas Thorp’s Opinion
for the Secretary for Justice [2] (1999) regarding the case. Thorp had
expressed strong concern about the case. On Sim’s
advice Thorp’s report was not publicly released until after Eichelbaum’s report had been released. ·
Eichelbaum accepted Sim’s advice to reject
three of the world’s leading experts on child testimony, each of whom had
been nominated by Ellis’ legal counsel. ·
Eichelbaum accepted Sim’s advice to reject
any expert who had a “close publishing history” with each of the experts
nominated by Ellis’ counsel. ·
Eichelbaum accepted Sim’s advice to talk to
American law professor Thomas Lyon. Lyon’s views in regard to child sexual
abuse have been subject to strong academic criticism. ·
The name of Louise Sas, a little-known
Canadian psychologist and child advocate, was supplied to Eichelbaum. The
Justice Ministry has been unable to explain how Sas’
name came to his attention. None of the parties to the inquiry nominated Sas ·
Sas had published no peer-reviewed research on the
interviewing of child abuse victims yet Val Sim and officials led Eichelbaum
to believe that she had “high standing”. ·
Officials advised Phil Goff that “about six” experts were likely to be
appointed as advisors to the inquiry. Although Eichelbaum was aware of this
advice, he selected only two experts. ·
Eichelbaum advised the then Justice Minister, the Hon Phil Goff, that
both international experts believed the children’s evidence was reliable.
That was incorrect. He also claimed that allegations arising out of the
conviction children’s later interviews generally did not result in charges.
That too, was incorrect. ·
Justice Ministry officials cannot produce a number of important and
sensitive documents pertaining to the Peter Ellis case.
A Royal commission of inquiry into
the case must be urgently conducted. [1] <https://www.peterellis.co.nz/docs/2007/new_evidence.pdf>
[2] <https://www.peterellis.co.nz/docs/1999/Thorp/index.htm> |
