|
2000-0308 Val Sim - letter to - Thomas Eichelbaum
"We enclose draft terms of reference for the
Ellis inquiry"
|
peterellis.org.nz:
Val Sim's role in the inquiry starts
and continues to be crucial to the inquiry outcome.
|
2000-0309 Val Sim - letter to - Thomas Eichelbaum
"Further to our recent telephone discussion, I
enclose a further draft of the proposed terms of reference"
2000-0512 - Thomas Eichelbaum - letter
to - Val Sim
"I do not see that the Terms of
Reference envisage that I will be restricted only to the publications set out
in the Terms. It would be foreseen that I would read other publicly available
material. A distinction may be drawn however with regard to material that is
not publicly available. The Thorp report might be in this category?"
2000-0525
- Val Sim - letter to - Thomas Eichelbaum
"Thank you for your comments on the
additional material that we thought might possibly be sent to the other
interested parties. When the terms of reference for the inquiry were
originally drafted, we thought it desirable to confine the material that was
included in the schedule to those documents that the Court of Appeal
indicated might more appropriately be considered by an inquiry. Amongst other
reasons, this was because we were concerned that the inclusion of other
material, that was otherwise properly considered by the Court, might encroach
upon the Court's jurisdiction.
In our opinion, the safest course would be to maintain this approach in
relation to the material that is not publicly available, including documents
such as Sir Thomas Thorp's report.
|
peterellis.org.nz:
Val Sim, together with Eichelbaum's earlier letter, provides evidence that
Thorp's report was not publicly available, despite the later statements by
Justice Minister Phil Goff that it always had been, when the Thorp report
was leaked
In any event, Val Sim appears to support keeping Thorp out of the
Eichelbaum inquiry, restricting the scope of the inquiry, especially
considering Thorp's misgivings.
To make the inquiry restrictive on the basis that to "include material
that was properly considered by the Court might encroach upon the Court's
jurisdiction" is mischievious - given that all material has been
"properly considered" - the question is whether it was adequately
considered.
|
2000-0529 - Thomas Eichelbaum -
- letter to - Michael Petherick
"I write to request 3 copies of each
of the Master tapes of interviews with child complainants who gave evidence
at the High Court trial"
2000-0602 - Val Sim - Letter to - Thomas Eichelbaum
·
Cover Sheet (35K)
·
Letter (293K)
·
Appendix - Goodman (401K)
·
Appendix - Poole (114K)
·
Appendix - Davies (309K)
|
peterellis.org.nz:
A letter which sets up the inherent bias in the whole inquiry. By discounting all experts suggested by
the defence - and "any experts with a close publishing association
with them" those advising Eichelbaum managed to stack the inquiry with
"experts" who would act against Ellis.
Eichelbaum role as an independent investigator was compromised by accepting
such bias.
Val
Sim provides this advice. She does not provide any evidence that her advice
has been informed by anybody who has expertise in the field of memory and
child suggestibility.
|
"We have identified three possible
candidates":.
Professor Gail Goodman, Professor
Graham Davies, Dr Debra Poole.
"We
have discounted possible candidates because of their controversial public
profile"
"We
have discounted a number of experts who displayed an overly academic focus in
the relevant subject area"
"We have discounted those experts
who have had previous involvement in the case
Dr Constance Dalenberg;
Professor Ray Bull;
Dr Michael Lamb;
Professor Maggie Bruck; and
Dr Parsonson
"We
have discounted Professor Ceci who has expressed a view on Mr Ellis' case in
the NZ media"
"We
have discounted any experts who have a close publishing association with any
of these individuals"
2000-0607 - Thomas
Eichelbaum - Letter to - Val Sim
"Attached is a list of the experts
nominated or recommended. I will telephone you discuss the next move."
|
peterellis.org.nz
Eichelbaum appears willing to be reliant on the advice of Val Sim. He provides
no indication that he has done any independent investigation of his own
|
2000-0608 - Val Sim - Letter to - Thomas
Eichelbaum
Opinion on whether leave should be
sought from Court prior to sending information to overseas experts
2000-0613 Michael Petherick - file note, meeting with
Sim and Eichelbaum (htm
file)
Sim and Petherick, two officials in the Ministry of Justice,
nominate Louise Sas and Kim Oates as expert psychology witnesses
|
peterellis.org.nz
: An extraordinary meeting:
Sim and Petherick
explain to Eichelbaum the difference between research psychologists/
psychiatrists/practitioner clinicians. The
need for such an explanation provides a demonstration of the basic level of
understanding that Eichelbaum has at this stage
But that does not stop Eichelbaum being able to "discount" Professors Ceci
and Goodman on the basis of their high profile and research direction over
the last 15 years.
Why should being "high profile" be an obstacle
to being selected? In discounting Professor Ceci because of
his "research direction" Eichelbaum sets himself up as the expert
in the field, something he is arguably clearly not qualified to be.
The nomination of Sas and Oates as impartial "experts" is a
further example of bias. These so called "experts" are not
necessarily impartial.
Val
Sim's further suggestion that Eichelbaum contact Prof. Thomas Lyon and ask
Lyon for suggestions for possible experts warrants close scrutiny. Prof
Thomas Lyon is himself not impartial.
The inquiry has now discounted Ceci, the principal
nominee requested by the defence.
But the inquiry, most extraordinarily, considers it appropriate to ask
advice of Thomas Lyon, who is one of the most outspoken critics of Ceci.
The
inquiry, by design, or by accident, is clearly not independent.
|
2000-0613 Thomas Eichelbaum - letter to -
Submissioners
"The time for all interested parties is now
extended to 24 July 2000. Submissions must be in my hands by that date."
2000-0623 Michael Petherick - letter to - Thomas
Eichelbaum
"Professor Thomas Lyon's telephone and email
address: …….. We have been able to contact the majority
of the experts discussed at our meeting of 13 June 2000. I will email their
details to you …"
|
peterellis.org.nz
In accepting Val Sim's earlier recommendation to contact Prof Thomas Lyon
as an impartial expert, Eichelbaum takes responsibility for the direction
of the inquiry.
Perhaps Eichelbaum placed too much value
upon Lyon's qualifications in the field of law.
Perhaps Eichelbaum is unaware that Thomas Lyon
is an outspoken critic of the defence nominee Stephen Ceci.
Perhaps Eichelbaum considers it appropriate
to discount the principal defence nominee, Stephen Ceci, and at the same
time seek advice from an outspoken critic of Ceci.
This site considers the
independence of the inquiry was compromised by such action.
|
2000-0624 Thomas Eichelbaum - letter to - Michael
Petherick
"I was able to speak to Prof Lyon today…….He
seemed to show some interest in possibly taking the role of expert advisor
himself - if he offered, what would your and Val's reaction be?"
|
peterellis.org.nz
Eichelbaum shows himself clearly reliant on Sim and Petherick as the
investigators.
He asks for their reaction. Why should he
care what their reaction is?
Neither of these Justice Department
officials have qualifications in the field required of the impartial expert
witness. Why did Eichelbaum not make
his own independent inquiries as to the suitability of Lyon?
This
letter provides further evidence of the shortcomings of the inquiry, and of
the crucial role of the Justice Department officials, Val Sim and Michael Petherick.
|
2000-0627 Thomas Eichelbaum - letter to - Michael
Petherick
Michael, I had a helpful discussion with Professor
Lyon this afternoon. He did not offer himself as a candidate . He gave me
comments on the names I had forwarded, and I can discuss these with you….. I
would like to explore two new names he recommended: James Wood and Amy
Warren"
|
peterellis.org.nz
Eichelbaum's inquiry is being undertaken on the basis that Thomas Lyon is
an impartial expert, and not in one "camp" of a significant
academic debate.
Eichelbaum appears completely unaware that
he is dealing with a group of like minded potential experts.
He has by this stage "discounted"
the possibility of receiving advice from anybody who could act as an
advocate for the academic arguments that are crucial to the Ellis defence.
Eichelbaum appears, by accident or design to
be carrying out an inquiry by receiving advice from
·
the Crown, (presenting the case
for the prosecution);
·
the parents of the complainants (supporting
the prosecution)
·
the Commissioner for Children (who
has also supported the prosecution)
·
and selected expertise who like
Thomas Lyon who has written (Cornell Law Review) that "an
acute awareness of true cases of abuse and the difficulty abused children
have in revealing abuse" affects his analysis.
At the same time, Eichelbaum accepts a submission from
Peter Ellis, but discounts expert witnesses who may support Ellis'
position.
The
basis of the inquiry is unfair.
|
2000-0704 Judith Ablett-Kerr - letter to - Thomas
Eichelbaum
"I have received your advice of the 29th of
June and respond as follows: Your
indication, that you feel unable to appoint any of the three international
experts nominated by Mr Ellis causes considerable concern. I doubt that it could be seriously
challenged that Professor Ceci and Bruck are the two leading experts in the
field of child interviewing…….."
|
peterellis.org.nz
Ablett Kerr, counsel for Peter Ellis, very much understates the problem by
saying that Eichelbaum's unwillingness to appoint any experts nominated by
Ellis "causes considerable concern"
The
success and credibility of the inquiry depends on consensus amongst all
parties of the "expert" witnesses who are chosen.
Eichelbaum ignores the concerns of Ablett Kerr.
|
2000-0704 Val Sim
letter to - Thomas Eichelbaum
"We enclose brief biographies of Professor Amye
Warren and Associate Professor James Wood. In our opinion, both of these
psychologists appear to be well suited to provising opinions as part of the
Ellis inquiry. We would also note
that, from the literature we have examined, neither Professor Warren nor
Associate Professor Wood appear to belong to either of the "camps"
that are traditionally associated with the research on child
suggestibility."
|
peterellis.org.nz
Val Sim, shows by her advice that she is well aware that there is a
significant academic debate over the subject of child suggestibility.
Val Sim has in previous correspondence provided
advice that Eichelbaum obtain advice from "one camp" (Thomas Lyon)
and discount the leading figure from the other "camp" (Stephen
Ceci). It is inconceivable, for a
person who has done a rudimentary examination of the literature not to have
been aware of the respective positions of these academics.
If Eichelbaum really wished to follow
through with selecting independent experts who were in neither
"camp", the least he could have done was obtain consensus from
both prosecution and defence submissions for the inquiry.
Val Sim's advice appears biased
in that defence nominated experts are being labelled as being in an
"unacceptable camp" but the same scrutiny is not applied to other
nominations.
|
2000-0705 Thomas Eichelbaum - letter to - Michael
Petherick
"Attached for your and Ms Sim's consideration
is a fax received from Mrs Ablett Kerr.
"the problem I see with [Professor Ceci] is that he has already
stated his position on the main issues which I am to investigate, and on which
I have to obtain the views of overseas experts. Appointing him to advise
would seem unfair to the other parties, and would detract from the
credibility of my own report."
|
peterellis.org.nz
Eichelabaum spells out why his report will not be credible:
Eichelbaum
says to appoint a recommended expert from the defence would be unfair on
the other parties, and would detract from the report credibility. Eichelbaum appears oblivious that the
report credibility will be just as much compromised by not appointing ANY expert
acceptable to the defence. The basis of a credible independent inquiry is
fairness to all parties.
In any event, whatever opinion that Ceci has provided on particular issues
does not preclude him from providing opinion and the basis for that opinion
on any issue. The real question is
whether he is a credible expert.
Even if Eichelbaum's (implicit) suggestion that Ceci is not capable of
providing unbiased recommendations (because Ceci has already provided some
opinion) is true, why is that any worse than accepting the bias of those
who have not given any opinion?
|
2000-0707 Michael Petherick - letter to - Thomas
Eichelbaum
"The contact details for Professor Karen
Saywitz are:
"The contact details for Professor Graeme Davies are:
"I hope to have Professor Warren's contact details to you early next
week
2000-0712 Michael Petherick - letter to - Thomas
Eichelbaum
"Professor Karen Saywitz email address is….
"Professor Amye Warren's contact details are:
"Professor James Wood's email address is …
2000-0713 Thomas Eichelbaum - letter to - Michael
Petherick
"Michael,
the following is the reply received from Professor Saywitz"
"Professor Saywitz obviously is one of the top people in the
field."
|
peterellis.org.nz
Eichelbaum has already taken the extraordinary step of "discounting"
Stephen Ceci, arguably the top person in the field. By this
action of discounting Ceci, Eichelbaum shows his limited understanding of
the field.
Any inquiry commissioner would wish to have their inquiry informed by the
very best expertise, to add credibility to the inquiry findings.
Eichelbaum, however, provides no basis for
declaring his potential advisor, Saywitz, to be "obviously" one
of the "top people".
|
2000-0714 Michael Petherick - letter to - Thomas
Eichelbaum
"I received your email relating to Professor
Saywitz this morning, and hope to discuss it with Val at around 10:30am. In
the meantime, I spoke with Dr Louise Sas early this morning. Here are her
contact details…"
|
peterellis.org.nz
There is no justification provided for the suggestion that Sas may be
deemed to be a suitable "expert".
The suggestion that Sas could be deemed to be a suitable expert in
the field of memory and child suggestibility - being the main issues
confronting Eichelbaum - is astounding.
There is no doubt that Sas could act as an
advocate for child victims of sexual abuse. But the purpose of the inquiry into the
Christchurch Crèche case was to determine whether there were in fact any
such victims.
Significantly,
documentation provided by the Justice Department leaves out any information
on where Sas name mysteriously came from.
Once again Eichelbaum ignored the possibility of consulting the defence
team in an effort to gain consensus.
|
2000-0719 Michael Petherick - letter to - Thomas
Eichelbaum
"I have spoken with Court officials …in
relation to tape XXXX. According to
officials, the unrelated disclosure interview you observed was accidentally
recorded …."
"You may be interested to know that….because the initial section of XXXX
interview was wiped prior to trial, the tape was not shown to the jury."
2000-0721 Karen Saywitz - letter to - Thomas
Eichelbaum
"I regret that I will not be able to
participate in this important endeavour"
2000-0724 Thomas Eichelbaum - letter to - Michael
Petherick
"I'm sorry to pass on the message from
Professor Saywitz, turning us down. Subject to your views I suggest I now try
Warren and Sas, simultaneously. Could you let me have your reaction as soon
as you can."
|
peterellis.org.nz
There is starting to appear the hint of panic in the "expert"
selection, trying to find somebody who could act as an expert with some
connection to the field.
Time is passing on and the choice of experts
is required urgently. The selection process is presumably difficult, given
that the criteria has effectively discounted the pre-eminent people in the
field, such as Stephen Ceci, and "anybody expert with a close
publishing association" to Ceci.
What "reaction" is Eichelbaum now wanting from Justice Minister
Goff's staff?
|
|
