CRITIQUE OF THE EICHELBAUM REPORT AND MATTERS
ARISING FROM THE PETER ELLIS CONVICTIONS
Download Document [Features:
active table of contents, book-marked, printable (formatted for binding). pdf
0.875MB]. Right-click link, choose "Save target as".
Links to
following downloadable PDF and mp3 files, Right-click link, choose
"Save target as":
NEW LINK!
October 2009. Peter Ellis: The
Case for a Commission of Inquiry by Ross Francis, author of NEW EVIDENCE IN THE
PETER ELLIS CASE Zealand Law Journal; November, December 2007
Former
MP Michael Laws reveals previously hidden political connections to Ellis case.
Michael Laws names current and former cabinet
ministers Nick Smith and Lianne Dalziel, saying both have close familial
connections to the case. Radio Live December16 2008. (mp3 file)
DISCLOSURE OF CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell?. K.London, M. Bruck, S.J. Ceci, D.W. Shuman, American Psychological Association,
Psychology Public Policy and Law 2005, Vol 11, No 1, 194-226.
NEW EVIDENCE IN THE PETER ELLIS
CASE Ross Francis, New Zealand Law Journal; November, December 2007
Report of the Royal
Commission to Inquire into the Circumstances of the Convictions of Arthur Allan
Thomas for the Murders of David Harvey Crewe and Jeanette Lenore Crewe 1980
Paper
for presentation at The Second International Conference on Children Exposed to
Family Violence – London Ontario 1997 Wendy Ball, The University of Waikato.
(See section 1.7 iii)
PDF files require Adobe acrobat to open, for free software visit www.Adobe.com
or click link:
Wikipedia article
on Civic Crèche and Peter Ellis case
“Whenever a judicial inquiry is set up it has a particular purpose. That
purpose is not to make a public crisis of confidence deeper. It is to shore up
a government which might otherwise be under threat. One does not have to be a
fiery radical, an anarchist or a subversive to arrive at this conclusion. Just
such a view was stated boldly at the beginning of an article in last week’s
Economist: ‘When prime ministers are in trouble they call for a judge to bail
them out.’’
Author
Richard Webster, August 2003 [ www.richardwebster.net ]
Section Contents
Title
Page
Disclaimer
Preface
Acknowledgements
Document Contents includes update information
Next Section
Document Contents | Intro
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | References | Appendices
|
CRITIQUE OF THE EICHELBAUM
REPORT AND MATTERS ARISING FROM THE ELLIS CONVICTIONS
Written
and researched by Jonathon Harper M.A. (Psychology) B.A. (Philosophy and
Psychology) Dip.Tchg. (previous member of the Social Worker Association of New
Zealand – ex -DSW social worker and ex - schoolteacher)
Edited and assisted by Richard Christie
Revision number 23 (January 2006)
Download Document [Features:
active table of contents, book-marked, printable (formatted for binding). pdf
0.875MB]. Right-click link, choose "Save target as".
This document can be regarded as a work in progress. Until it is formally
published, new information may be added as it comes to hand, and corrections
may be made. All suggestions are welcome and can be made to Jonathon.harper@xtra.co.nz
The Eichelbaum Report is the report of the ministerial inquiry into the
reliability of the convictions against Peter Ellis for child abuse, prepared
for the Honourable Phil Goff, completed in February 2001, released in March
2001.
Eichelbaum's Report into the Peter Ellis case can be read and downloaded
from the Ministry of Justice website:
http:/www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/s/sir-thomas-eichelbaums-report-into-the-peter-ellis-case/?searchterm=Peter%20Ellis
Additional documentation pertaining to the selection of international experts for the inquiry -
Official correspondence between Eichelbaum and Ministry Justice advisers;
Submissions by the Crown, Parents, Commissioner for Children, J Ablett Kerr (counsel
for Peter Ellis); Justice Minister's advice to Governor General can be accessed
on this website: Link
Disclaimer
The author does not claim that anyone mentioned in this document has acted
out of malice or in bad faith, although he has concluded that serious and
avoidable mistakes were made in the course of the Christchurch Civic Child Care
Centre (often referred to as the Civic Crèche) case. Therefore, let no one
claim that he says otherwise. All opinions, unless quoted directly are the
author’s, any errors of fact are inadvertent.
In particular, the motives of all the parents of the children involved in the
course of the case will not be maligned in this document. Their genuine concern
for their children’s well-being is acknowledged by the author.
Back to section contents
Preface
Sir Thomas Eichelbaum found that the way the child interviews in this case were
conducted was "of a good overall quality" even by present day
standards. He reported that one of his two overseas experts Dr Louise Sas
concluded that the contamination of evidence by the parent’s prior questioning
of the children was not significant. The other expert, Professor. Graham
Davies, did not report a conclusion on this point. Eichelbaum concluded that
all remaining convictions are safe. This report evaluates the Eichelbaum report
from a scientific viewpoint, looking at relevant findings published in
reputable journals. It was prepared in consultation with a number of leading
experts within
Good science is also based on sound philosophy and the use of logic. Section
(1) of this report, on bias, includes a short analysis of logic and what
constitutes good scientific protocol.
The primary issue examined in this report is the safety or otherwise of all the
convictions against Peter Ellis. I examined whatever information I consider has
bearing on this, as no one had imposed any terms of reference upon me.
Furthermore, and regardless of the conclusions made in regard to the safety of
the convictions, there were secondary issues that arose as a result of this
analysis. These issues are of public importance. I include a discussion
section, after the formal conclusions of the report, which looks at issues
raised in terms of our legal system. I discuss possible law changes that may be
needed for the better resolution of similar cases in the future.
Back to section contents
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to the following people who have provided encouragement,
suggestions and some of the material: Auckland University professor of
psychology, Michael Corballis ONZM (especially for his comments on the nature
of memory) Richard Christie (who brought the document back to life), and Dr
Barry Kirkwood, who opened my mind to the reality of "major systemic
failure" and the immature state of psychology as a science.
I thank
I am also grateful to Raymond Ahipene-Mercer (Wellington City Councillor) for
his general support and encouragement.
I gratefully acknowledge the meticulous record contained in Hood’s landmark
book, A City Possessed (2001). Excepting direct quotes from Hood, any
interpretations given of her findings are my own.
Jonathon Harper, October 2003.
Back to section contents
Note on pseudonyms
Publication of
the identities of the complainants in the Ellis case is prohibited by court
order. This document uses dual aliases in reference to complainants and
families. Official court documentation
and Eichelbaum’s report utilise single letters O,P,Z etc as ciphers for the
complainant children. These codes are matched in this document to the
pseudonyms used within
Document Contents
Revised October 2004 (minor changes to text and structure - changes not detailed)
Download Document [Features:
active table of contents, book-marked, printable (formatted for binding). pdf
0.875MB]. Right-click link, choose "Save target as".
(1) The Document Structure - an overview of the
sections:
Title Page; Preface; Acknowledgements; Contents
Introduction
(1) A priori bias
(2) The corroborating forensic evidence
(3) The Evidential Child Interviews
(4) Changes in "best practice."
(5) A scientific analysis of other factors affecting
reliability of the testimony
(6) A Fair Trial?
(7) The Appeals
(8) Expert Opinion
(9) Conclusions
(10) Discussion – consequences
References
Appendices
(2) Content of the sections:
Disclaimer
Preface
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Summary of the case history
Public Criticism of
the case and verdicts
The Eichelbaum Report
The Terms of
Reference
The central issue
(1) A priori bias
(1)
A priori bias
(1.1)
Terminology
. Disclosure
. Consistent with
. Mass Child Abuse
. In Denial
(1.2) Child Protection
Movement
(1.3) Satanic Ritual Abuse
(1.4) The Evidential Interviews
. Selectivity bias
. The evidential
interviewing team
(1.5) Bias within Institutions
. (i) The Ministry of Justice
. (ii) The Christchurch City Council
. (iii) The Police
(1.6) Justice Williamson
(1.7) Bias evident within the
Eichelbaum Report
. (i) Graham Davies’ contribution
. (ii) Louise Sas’s contribution
. (iii) Eichelbaum
(1.8) Conclusions
(2) The corroborating forensic
evidence
(2) The corroborating forensic evidence
(2.1) Bodily Signs
(2.2) Toilet Layout
. Figure 1. Christchurch Civic Child Care Centre
layout
(2.3) Homes Searched
(2.4) The Great Video Hunt
(2.5) ERO Report
(2.6) Window of opportunity
(2.7) Other parents and children
(2.8) Conclusions
(3) The Evidential Child
Interviews
(3) The Evidential Child
Interviews
(3.1) An effective
"truth" test
(3.2) Open and closed questions
(3.3) Repeating a question
(3.4) Length of interviews
(3.5) Number of interviews
(3.6) Use of imagination to
"aid recall"
(3.7) Little challenging
of the children’s statements (source monitoring)
(3.8) Leading questions
(3.9) The use of body-part charts
(3.10) Anatomically correct
dolls
(3.11) Accepting denial
(3.12) Verbal and
non-verbal reinforcers
(3.13) Priming of Interviewers
(3.14) Conclusions
(4) Changes in "best
practice."
(4) Changes in Best Practice
(4.1) The Prue Vincent case
(4.2) Non-verbal leakage and lie detection
(4.3) Truth testing
(4.4) The official word in changes to
interview protocols
(4.5) Continuing inaction from the
NZ Psychological Society
(4.6) Elizabeth Loftus’s
recommendations
(4.7) Conclusions
(5) A scientific analysis of
other factors affecting reliability of the testimony
(5) A Scientific analysis of other
factors affecting the reliability of the evidence
(5.1) Memory distortion
and memory construction through contamination
. (i) The Evidence for
Contamination by parents
. (ii) Contamination by
Children
. (iii) Contamination by Police
. (iv) Contamination
by Child Therapists
. (v) Contamination by Adult Counsellors
. (vi) Contamination by Social workers
(5.2) The significance of delay
between the alleged events and the allegations
(5.3) The significance of the ages
of the children
. (i) Infantile amnesia and memory
recall in young children
. (ii) Spontaneous false
allegations in young children
. (iii) Children in the
courtroom
(5.4) Suggestibility in young children
(5.5) Do the children’s
"symptoms" of abuse have any scientific validity?
(5.6) Is consistency
proof of reliability?
(5.7) Coercion
(5.8) A statistical analysis of the
reliability of the experts’ evaluation of the evidence
(5.9) The effect on
reliability of the proportion of impossible and unlikely allegations
(5.10) The retracted evidence
(5.11) Repressed Memory and Child Sexual Abuse
Accommodation Syndrome
(5.12) Comparison with overseas cases
(5.13) Conclusions
(6) A Fair Trial?
(6) A Fair Trial?
(6.1) The City Possessed
. (i) SRA as a Mass Hysteria
. (ii) The Civic Child Care Centre
case as a Satanic Ritual Abuse Scare
. (iii) Other SRA cases
. (iv) The Media’s role
in fanning hysteria
(6.2) The effect on the trial of depositions
pre-trial rulings
(6.3) The appointment of expert witnesses
(6.4) The conduct of
Justice Williamson
. (i) Williamson’s interactions
with Zelas
. (ii) The biased and unfair
influence of Zelas
. (iii) Warning to the Jury about
children’s evidence
. (iv) Ruling on parental
questioning and meetings
. (v) Indulgence with
parent witnesses
. (vi) Indulgence with the
prosecution
. (vii) Sentencing
. (viii) Williamson's health
(6.5) Incomplete review
of evidence
. (i) Videotapes of the interviews
. (ii) Alternative
Explanations
(6.6) Paedophile profile
(6.7) Unbalanced and
unscientific interpretations of evidence
. (i) Contamination ignored
. (ii) "Symptoms of Abuse"
(6.8) The case against the women
(6.9) Comparison with New Zealand MVMO
Case
(6.10) Police misconduct
(6.11) A conviction illustrating
the preceding points
(6.12) Conclusions
(7) The Appeals
The First Appeal (1994)
The Second Appeal (1999)
(8) Expert Opinion
(8) Expert Opinion
(8.1) Opinion
in favour of Royal Commission of Inquiry into the case and/or those holding
doubts in regard to the safety of the verdicts
(8.2) Those
in favour of the convictions
(8.3) Experts
who have not yet given a professional opinion
(9) Conclusions
1. A
Serious Moral Panic Existed
2. Media
hysteria was unacceptable
3. Absence of spontaneous allegation
4. The evidence was contaminated
5. Children
can and do lie
6. Absence
of hard evidence and corroboration
7. The
time delays made the children’s testimony useless
8. The
abuse "symptom" syndrome does not exist
9. The child interviews were substandard
10. Paedophile
profile
11. Bias
12. The
trial was unfair
13. The
"Experts" were not scientifically thorough in their analysis
14. The
women were not guilty
15. Post
trial revelations
16. Final
Verdict
(10) Discussion – consequences
(10) Discussion
(10.1) The
treatment of other accused childcare workers
(10.2) Psychological science and forensic
interviewing system
(10.3) Psychological science and forensic
interviewing individuals
(10.4) Other
sexual abuse workers
(10.5) Appointment of expert witnesses
(10.6) The 1989 Evidence Act amendments
(10.7) The terms of reference – Civic Child Care Centre layout
(10.8) The statute of limitations
(10.9) Eichelbaum
(10.10) Other documents for review
(10.11) Overturning the convictions
(10.12) Ministry of Justice failures
(10.13) Why
did the legal appeals fail?
(10.14) A
history of injustices
(10.15) The Unfair Dismissal claim
(10.16) Improving the Safety Net
(10.17) Final
note
References
Appendices
Appendix 1
The genesis of this report
Appendix 2
Aliases, ages, verdict and interview data
Appendix 3
Other possible NZ cases
Appendix 4
Draft table of currently supported good interview practices for pre-school
children.
Appendix 5
The Terms of Reference
End
of Section
Back to section contents
Back to document contents
Download Document [Features:
active table of contents, book-marked, printable (formatted for binding). pdf
0.875MB]. Right-click link, choose "Save target as".
Additional documentation pertaining to the selection of international experts for the inquiry -
Official correspondence between Eichelbaum and Ministry Justice advisers;
Submissions by the Crown, Parents, Commissioner for Children, J Ablett Kerr
(counsel for Peter Ellis); Justice Minister's advice to Governor General can be
accessed on this website: Link
Link to pdf 135KB:
DISCLOSURE OF CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell?. K.London, M. Bruck, S.J. Ceci, D.W. Shuman, American Psychological Association,
Psychology Public Policy and Law 2005, Vol 11, No 1, 194-226.