Talk:Thomas Eichelbaum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Report on Peter Ellis case

Please do not add screeds of criticism of Eichelbaum's report on the Peter Ellis case to this article. This is not appropriate to a biographical article like this one, especially when we have a better place to discuss the report, namely the Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis article. Duplicating content in both places is also unwise; it simply makes more work for everyone involved. -- Avenue 03:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What 'screeds of criticism' are you talking about? This is a short document and I have added little information. What information I have added is factual, conforms to NPOV and has been referenced accordingly. The only work it makes for people is if such information is deleted and has to be reinstated. -- User:NZ Researcher

I think "screeds of criticism" was an appropriate description of your earlier contributions to the 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC) version. These comprised 508 words, all critical, out of a 615 word article.
I agree "screeds" is too strong a word for your recent additions, although they still amount to around a third of the article (excluding notes and references). I don't think this is really an appropriate proportion to describe a single report (even if somewhat controversial) out of a long judicial career, especially when the information is available in another article. -- Avenue 12:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the bit about the report is still too POV. The paragraph says he did a report and then reports several negative "facts" about what was in it. To even it out we will probably have to put in as much material again in which case we are duplicating the main Peter Ellis article. How about a one sentence summary like: "The report has recieve much criticism from Ellis supporters for it's limited terms of reference which lead to what they believe to be an erronious support of Ellis' criginal conviction". A lot shorter, more NPOV and pointing someone to the Ellis article to find more. Thoughts? - SimonLyall 10:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the recent additions do not conform to NPOV. But I also believe that criticisms of the report go beyond just the terms of reference, to include the choice of experts and the judgements reached from their advice. Briefly quoting a particular critic would let us present more criticisms without breaking NPOV. How about this: 'In 2001, he conducted a ministerial inquiry reviewing children's evidence in the controversial Peter Ellis case. His report has been widely criticised, with a New Zealand Law Journal editorial stating that either the review was too limited, or that "with respect, his judgment is at fault."' -- Avenue 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Perhaps with a proper references section but optherwise ok. - SimonLyall 13:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is exactly. This is a short document. The subject has retired and indeed is almost 75, so I suspect that not a lot more is going to be written about him. I think it is important to refer to Sir Thomas Thorp's report because Thorp looked at much the same evidence that Eichelbaum looked at, but Thorp came to quite a different conclusion. Thorp also made several recommendations to try to resolve the case, which have been mostly ignored. The fact that Eichelbaum was advised to ignore the Thorp report is significant. It raises issues of bias and/or incompetence and there seems to me to be no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. By all means, quote the New Zealand Law Journal as well. NZ Researcher
In case I was unclear, I was suggesting using the New Zealand Law Journal quote as a way of briefly indicating the types of criticisms, while abiding by NPOV by simply reporting what others have said. I strongly oppose adding the quote to an argument critising the report when the argument should not be in this article in the first place. This would just worsen the problem. -- Avenue 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this article is not the place to go into specific problems about the report, There is a whole section of the Ellis article for it. There is no way we can go into any sort of detail of such a complicated case. Statements like " the children's evidence is reliable" simplify a lot into 5 words. - SimonLyall 13:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Simon, I don't report several "negative" facts at all. What's negative about saying that Eichelbaum exonerates the children's interviewers, and he found the children's evidence to be reliable? What is it about this statement that you find so hard to stomach? NZ Researcher
You follow each of these statements up with sentences ( "despite acknowledging" and "This is in contrast" ) that imply that the Judge was totally illogical (I struggle to find a nicer word) in drawing these conclusions from the other facts. This sort of stuff is for the main article on the case, here we should make people aware of the controversy and that he was been widely criticised by reputable people to give a strong hint that something wasn't kosher and where they can find out more. - SimonLyall 13:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment since Simon's last post, I will replace the current version with my suggestion (and try to tidy up the referencing). See the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors for further support. -- Avenue 11:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon says "('This is in contrast') that imply that the Judge was totally illogical". No, I don't imply that at all. As I've already made clear, both Eichelbaum and Thorp essentially looked at the same evidence. Each came to different conclusions. If you want to be pedantic, maybe you could word it differently, but that won't change the fact that the reports are very different. BTW, the reference to Val Sim advising Eichelbaum to ignore Thorp's rperort has been removed from here and is not found on the Ellis article either. I will put it back here if it's not going to be put on the Ellis article. 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher
I have reverted you edit. The advice to ignore the other report doesn't belong here. Please discuss. Please discuss wording changes here first before you change things again. Details about the Ellis case and report do not belong in this article. - SimonLyall 02:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I have discussed it already. There is no reason why the changes I've referred to don't belong here. User:NZ Researcher
We have given the reasons. You are adding material to this page that belongs elsewhere and remving material like the law journal article that was agreed apon. What we have now is what is agreed. If you have other suggestions then make them on the talk page first and let others discuss and agree on them before you make the change. We are trying to create a good article here. Details of the report goes in the main Peter Ellis page. In case you havn't noticed this is an Neutral encyclopedia here, not a "Free Peter Ellis" website and you have to play by the rules, everybody here is going well out of their way to accomodate your views and you are just bulldozing your POV into these articles. - SimonLyall 08:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"In case you havn't noticed this is an Neutral encyclopedia here, not a 'Free Peter Ellis' website and you have to play by the rules, everybody here is going well out of their way to accomodate your views and you are just bulldozing your POV into these articles". Thanks for finally giving us your POV, but nothing was ever "agreed upon". So bulldozing your POV is OK? Please explain. There was nothing in the reference to the Thorp report that was non-neutral. You've had opportunities to explain how it is non-neutral but you haven't been able to. BTW, I hate stating the obvious but Peter Ellis is already free. 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher
I've added a discuss on the wording below. please participate in a positive fashon. - SimonLyall 08:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
NZ Researcher, you'll know from the guidelines I referred to above that our coverage of the criticisms should not "appear to side with the critics' material". The fact that Simon can interpret your edits as "bulldozing your POV into these articles" should therefore be enough to make you stop and have a good hard look at what you're writing. Do you see how your contributions might appear to side with critics of the report? -- Avenue 09:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing warning comments

Now that NZ Researcher has entered the discussion here on the talk page, I'm going to delete both of the warning comments from the article. If those statements need to be made, the talk page is a better place for them. -- Avenue 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with current wording.

Current working is:

In 2001, he conducted a ministerial inquiry reviewing children's evidence in the controversial Peter Ellis case, which is widely to believed to be a miscarriage of justice. It stands in contrast to Sir Thomas Thorp's report, which expressed misigivings with the case. Eichelbaum was advised by his officials to ignore the Thorp report during the course of his inquiry.

alternative wording is:

In 2001, he conducted a ministerial inquiry reviewing children's evidence in the controversial Peter Ellis case. His report has been widely criticised, with a New Zealand Law Journal editorial stating that either the review was too limited, or that "with respect, his judgment is at fault."[2]

1. "which is widely to believed to be a miscarriage of justice" doesn't belong since it could almost be read that his report was the "miscarriage of justice" . Even if it is not then details of the subject of the report are not important.

2. The contrast to Thorp's report is meaningless since the reader would have no idea what is better. eg for Thorpe's article I could easily write something like:

It stands in contrast to Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's report, which upheald the evidence in the original case.

In other words it is just two reports by different judges people which reached different conclusions. On the other hand the Law Jornal article has some weight, is exact in it's criticisms and a correct reference.

3. The fact that he was told to ignore the Thorp report could mean anything, it actually appears that it was on legal grounds but the implication might be that he was told to "get the opposite" result. Which doesn't appear to be the case (at least publicly).

I thus think the alternative wording is better since it is more exact, has a reference, actually says that important people had a problem with his report, gives more information to someone who knows nothign about the case and also avoids implying incorrect (or unsupported) information.

Thoughts? , please discuss here before editing article. - SimonLyall 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


The first few times I read the "miscarriage of justice" comment, I interpreted it as referring to the report, and it's only lately that I've read it differently. Ambiguous statements like this should be improved or removed.
Although it might be true that the Peter Ellis case is widely believed to be a miscarriage of justice, no citation is given. For all the reader knows, this could be just the opinion of the last person to edit the article.
Anyway, this is not an article on Peter Ellis. It is a biographical article on Thomas Eichelbaum. No evidence has been given that the ministerial inquiry was a particularly notable event in Eichelbaum's career, and we need to be careful not to give it undue weight.
We should absolutely not be forcing the reader to plow through tangential material about the Ellis case; we should use a wikilink instead. These allow the reader to investigate side issues if they are intrigued, without bogging down others who are not interested. In the same way, it would not be appropriate to discuss the Nazi persecution of Jews at length in this article; a simple link is enough.
I agree completely with Simon about the Thorp report. The current wording begs several questions, and would need to be expanded substantially to make a proper comparison. But this article is not the right place to do that. Take it to the Peter Ellis article.
Are there any problems with the alternative version? I just reread the earlier discussions and didn't see any specific concerns being expressed. -- Avenue 09:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


It is fairly clear what the "miscarriage of justice" refers to. It comes directly after the Peter Ellis case. The fact that it is widely believed, means it doesn't require a citation. Or do you disagree that it is widely believed to be a miscarriage of justice?

The comparison with the Thorp report will have meaning because I will soon be providing a link to Thorp and the contents of his report.

There were no legal grounds for Eichelbaum to ignore the Thorp report. Have you read the correspondence between Val Sim and Eichelbaum? Eichelbaum suggests to Sim that he might be able to ignore the Thorp report because it is not a public document. Of course, Sim could have made the document public if she'd wanted to (and indeed a member of the public requested a copy of the Thorp report before the Eichelbaum inquiry had began; the request was refused). Sim also refers to the Court of Appeal in order that Eichelbaum can ignore the Thorp report. The fact is that several of the issues raised by Thorp were beyond the scope of the CoA and Sim would have known this. Phil Goff later claimed that Eichelbaum had been given a copy of the Thorp report. What exactly does this mean given that Sim advised Eichelbaum to ignore it? The implication is that Goff was embarrassed that a report which had raised concerns with aspects of the case would not be traversed by Eichelbaum's inquiry. Goff was apparently trying to reassure the public that Eichelbaum had indeed taken notice of Thorp's concerns. Clearly that's not correct.

Simon says that "details of the subject of the report are not important". That is your POV. I disagree. When two people are looking at the same issue and they come to different conclusions, it is pertinent to look at how they came to those conclusions. I'm sure readers would like to know how Eichelbaum concluded that Ellis' conviction is safe, especially when a retired Chief Judge holds an apparently contradictory view. BTW, I have included only a couple of lines about Thorp, even though there is much more to say about him. That will be done later when I provide a link to him.

Avenue says "We should absolutely not be forcing the reader to plow through tangential material about the Ellis case". I agree. But placing a couple of lines about the Thorp report doesn't cause a problem to readers. How long does it take to read two lines? And providing a link to Thorp will allow readers to view that if they want to. 01:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

Let us imagine that he wrote a report on another case, say about Smith the jailhouse informant in the trial of Johnson for murder:
In 2002, he conducted a ministerial inquiry reviewing Smith's evidence in the controversial Johnson case, which is widely to believed to be a miscarriage of justice. It stands in contrast to Jones's report, which expressed misigivings with the case. Eichelbaum was advised by his officials to ignore the Jones' report during the course of his inquiry.
All I have done is change names in your paragraph. Not very hard hitting now is it? Do you know what Smith's evidence was? was it important? What it the main reason for conviction? What was the other evidence? Did Jones have problems with Smiths evidence or the other evidenc? Was Jones perhaps more concerned with bribary of the Jury? Who is Jones anyway? Some guy with a website? A private detective? Was he advised to ignore it for a good reason? Did Eichelbaum perhaps find Smith's evidence bad but the rest of the case okay? (due to the bodies and confession?).
By contrast Avenue's words say:
  • He wrote a report about the children's evidence Ellis case
  • The Ellis case is controversial
  • His report has been widely criticised
  • The New Zealand Law Journal editorial said is review was limited and his judgement at fault.
The last two lines are the important ones, they say that his report has been widely criticised and list an important source of those criticisms. Your wording on the other hand doesn't work well unless somebody knows something about the case. Remember you have to assume somebody reading this article knows nothing about the Ellis case at all. They don't know why the children's evidence is important let alone why anyone would find anything wrong with it.
You have to make sure you don't get carried away with specific problems with his report and the case. Thorp's report doesn't need to be mentioned, to bring it up you have to say why it is important, why it is better than Eichelbaum's, Eichelbaum being told to ignore it, if Eichelbaum ignored it and why, Was Thorp's report about the children's evidence or something else to do with the case, why it mattered that he ignored it, etc, etc. It also doesn't matter that Ellis was a "miscarriage of justice", You just have to say that he wrote a widely criticised report on a specific case.
In summary I think you lines while pushing buttons of people who know the case don't say anything to a casual reader unless they read supporting material to see why they are important. Avenue's wording is actually harder hitting, more NPOV and has better references while being short and not taking up too much of the article. - SimonLyall 09:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with NZ Researcher that including one or two lines on the Thorp report would not necessarily be too much of a burden on our readers. But (and this is a big but) these two lines would need to establish why Thorp's report is relevant to criticisms of Eichelman's inquiry, and give evidence that it was better. If we also mention his being told to ignore Thorp's report, we have to explain why he was told to do this, whether this instruction could have been legitimate, and what effect it had on his inquiry. NZ Researcher's latest version didn't come close to doing this, and I'm doubtful whether we can do all this in a couple of lines. -- Avenue 11:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Simon:

1. Why talk about hypotheticals when we have facts?

2. My wording was that the Peter Ellis case is "widely believed to be a miscarriage of justice", which is hardly controversial. Opinion polls support this comment.

3. Who is the casual reader? Someone who knows enough about Eichelbaum to read the article but has not heard of Peter Ellis, even though Ellis has been in the news at various times during the last 14 years? I seriously doubt it. I suggest the casual reader has to know about the Ellis case for the Law Journal quote to make any sense.

4. This isn't a limited biography and nor should it be. The article on Helen Clark doesn't say that she is the PM and that's all she is. It mentions controversies with which she's been involved and goes into some detail describing them.

5. The Ministerial Inquiry into the Ellis case has been controversial. Bernard Robertson, the editor of the NZ Law Journal, says that the inquiry has been "rubbished" by every scholar.

6. We shouldn't sanitise facts just because we may not like them.

7. Writing two or three lines about the fact that Eichelbaum's report is in contrast to Thorp's and that the Ellis case is widely believed to be a miscarriage of justice cannot qualify as "getting carried away".

8. As I've said, I will be providing a link to Thorp in due course, so the casual reader can find out who Thorp is and what his conclusions were.

9. The fact that you ask questions about the Thorp report indicates you have not read it. Please read it and all the correspondence relating to the Ministerial Inquiry. Please also read Eichelbaum's report. I don't think we can have a discussion about these matters when you are not properly informed. 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

Avenue,

"these two lines would need to establish why Thorp's report is relevant to criticisms of Eichelman's inquiry, and give evidence that it was better".

Why does Thorp's report need to be shown to be better than Eichelbaum's? Why not the other way around? I am merely pointing out that they came to different conclusions despite looking at the same evidence and issues. I would have thought that was highly relevant.

You obviously think the Law Journal quote, which is critical of Eichelbaum's inquiry, is relevant. Is it any more relevant than Thorp's report? I wouldn't have thought so. 00:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

First, thank you for editing the "alternative" version to yours, and not just replacing it with your version. This makes me more hopeful that we can collaborate and come up with a version we can all live with.
Regarding relevance, I agree that a comparison of the two reports could be relevant to criticisms of Eichelbaum. I'm still not sure if this can be done well without getting too far off-track, but perhaps we should try it and see. (I do still think that the NZLJ editorial is more relevant, given that it comments directly on Eichelbaum's report, but let's leave that aside for now.)
I don't agree that Thorp looked at the same issues as Eichelbaum. Thorp's brief was to examine Ellis's second petition for pardon, and decide whether it "contains any further issues, which ought to be referred back to the Court of Appeal." While these issues included some surrounding the children's evidence (the focus of the Eichelbaum inquiry), they were much broader than this. Compare the five headings at the top of this page with the terms of reference listed here.
On your point 3 above, it's quite possible that a reader could arrive here because they're interested in Eichelbaum for other reasons. For example, they could be looking at Knights Grand Cross of the British Empire, or at articles that link to our article on The Holocaust.
On point 4, there has been a lot of debate over the Helen Clark article, and especially the Controversies section, earlier this year when this section made up about one fifth of the article. Many editors felt this coverage was disproportionate. Note that this section covered all Clark's controversies, not just one. The article is still under a POV-check tag. -- Avenue 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I am happy with the current version. I have tweaked the grammar slightly but I don't intend to make any other changes.
Have you read Thorp's report? Thorp looked at the children's evidence and possibly looked at it more deeply than Eichelbaum did. Thorp had serious concerns over the lack of corroboration of the children's claims. Eichelbaum seemed to have no concerns over the lack of corroboration even though one of his experts, Graham Davies, wanted to know if their claims could be corroborated. Davies implied that if there was corroboration, he would be inclined to believe the allegations (at least that's my reading of Davies).
I have started an article on Sir Thomas Thorp which ties in with this article. I will try to add a little more about his report into the Ellis case but I don't want to write too much especially when there is already an article (Peter Ellis) which is fairly comprehensive.
01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

[edit] Bernard Robertson quote

Although I agree with the quote I don't think this is necc. a good ref at all for the encyclopedia. It is ONLY Bernard Robertson's opinion. It appeared in an editorial, not in an academic paper. Robertson is certainly qualified in law but just because it was a NZLR editorial doesn't give it much more weight than opinion of any other lawyer etc who might comment on the case as an observer. By all this I mean to say it does not, in my view, represent any official position. All the same I think it right to have the controversy mentioned, and the Thorp comparison gives adequate reason. To those who say the Thorp comparison is too vague or invites questions, well so does the statement that rugby officials resigned, no complaints about that one. Eichelbaum may well be mostly remembered by posterity for his efforts on Ellis, a cross for him to bear, he gets no sympathy from me. Richard 23:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Robertson quote was the most relevant independent opinion I could find at the time. I know nothing about Robertson, but I suspect the editor of a legal journal would be more prominent than some random lawyer. Of course, a comment from Sian Elias would be better, and you're certainly welcome to add a better quote if you have one. I agree something giving an official position on his report would be good.
We should aim for a neutral portrayal of Eichelbaum, not a sympathetic or unsympathetic one. -- Avenue 00:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough but if Robertson's opinion is included why not Val Sim's from MOJ, she certainly wouldn't agree with Robertson. The point is, comparing E's report to Thorp's is comparing oranges with oranges or very close. Bernard's editorial is another subject matter, it is an example of the sort of controversy generated and isn't balanced in article despite it being opinion. It also has a taint of ad hominem in it that I don't think is fair as it stands. Richard 01:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe Robertson attempts to argue in his editorial that the NZ justice system is being damaged by how the Ellis case has been handled, and therefore doesn't present an entirely balanced view of the case. But he is being quoted here precisely as an example of how Eichelbaum's report has been criticised, so I don't think that really matters.
Which opinion of Sim were you meaning? Most of her commentary on the report seems pretty bland, and certainly not critical.
I agree that comparing the two reports is difficult, and that is one reason why I have felt we should be cautious about doing so. However I think most of the argument here was prompted by the way the comparison was originally presented, more than the comparison itself. -- Avenue 03:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I won't tread all over your work here thus far. I had no quote from Sim specifically in mind, but point out that reading her submissions to P&E cmmttee make interesting reading given she was so closely involved in setting E's inquiry up. I have a drawer-full (only slight exaggeration) of letters from Minister of justice's office (both Goff and Burton) regarding Ellis, the fall back every time on E's report as the last word is tedious. Did you know that Goff in 2003 claimed that Prof Davies found the CONVICTIONS to be safe. That is a gross misrepresentation of Davies' position. This claim has been made by the Minister to hundreds of NZ citizens in basically cut-and-paste form letters. This error was pointed out to Goff in 2003 and he promised to correct it. It was still being made in ministerial correspondence Nov 2005. Another promise, for what it is worth, has recently been made to amend it. People accuse Ellis supporters of using weasel words! I have personal confirmation from Prof Davies that that was not his position. By the by, I have been sidetracked I meant to illustrate out that there are many who rely on E's report to shore up their position, something, no doubt, you already appreciate.

Richard 07:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)