Scott Watson

[smartcooky]

The arresting interview is meaningless really if cannot account for the exculpatory evidence. There are plenty of innocent people who have been bullied, browbeaten, intimidated and badgered into confessing crimes that they have not committed (Taina Pora is a good example) so I would not be at all surprised if Watson was dismantled under pressure. Remember this is the same Police who;

- Intimidated Guy Wallace into signing off an an identikit picture that he was not happy with and which he later retracted.

- Threatened Guy Wallace that they were going to charge him with the murders if he didn't change his story.

- Bullied Roz McNeiilly when she tried to tell Police that the Mystery Man was not Scott Watson.

- Intimidated the Watson family's neighbours to try to isolate the Watson's from their community

- Intimidated Sandy Watson (Scott's sister) by threatening her with having her children taken away if she didn't tell the truth.

- Threatened the Erie Cove caretaker with jail time for cannabis cultivation if he didn't change his story about when Watson and Blade arrived there.

- Told at least a dozen people who reported the mystery ketch that there was no ketch and they they were not interested in hearing about sightings.

- Pressured a jailhouse informants to perjure themselves in the witness box. (one informant later retracted their testimony, the other one was rewarded with a car and a mobile phone)

So,

I don't trust anything the Police say, particularly Rob Pope who flat out lied to the public over this case.
I don't trust the Police not to "embellish" the information they have given Wishart
I don't trust Wishart full stop. He is a known liar and conspiracy theorist and in my household, his credibility is zero!

The criminal investigative sections of the NZ Police are rotten to the core!!

 

[cullennz]

Wishart is a prick.

But it's been through trial, appeal, privy said nope.

What do people actually want?

 

[cullennz]

The arresting interview is meaningless really if cannot account for the exculpatory evidence. There are plenty of innocent people who have been bullied, browbeaten, intimidated and badgered into confessing crimes that they have not committed (Taina Pora is a good example) so I would not be at all surprised if Watson was dismantled under pressure. Remember this is the same Police who;

- Intimidated Guy Wallace into signing off an an identikit picture that he was not happy with and which he later retracted.

- Threatened Guy Wallace that they were going to charge him with the murders if he didn't change his story.

- Bullied Roz McNeiilly when she tried to tell Police that the Mystery Man was not Scott Watson.

- Intimidated the Watson family's neighbours to try to isolate the Watson's from their community

- Intimidated Sandy Watson (Scott's sister) by threatening her with having her children taken away if she didn't tell the truth.

- Threatened the Erie Cove caretaker with jail time for cannabis cultivation if he didn't change his story about when Watson and Blade arrived there.

- Told at least a dozen people who reported the mystery ketch that there was no ketch and they they were not interested in hearing about sightings.

- Pressured a jailhouse informants to perjure themselves in the witness box. (one informant later retracted their testimony, the other one was rewarded with a car and a mobile phone)

So,

I don't trust anything the Police say, particularly Rob Pope who flat out lied to the public over this case.
I don't trust the Police not to "embellish" the information they have given Wishart
I don't trust Wishart full stop. He is a known liar and conspiracy theorist and in my household, his credibility is zero!

The criminal investigative sections of the NZ Police are rotten to the core!!

I fail to see that many kiwis being that intimidated

 

[smartcooky]

I fail to see that many kiwis being that intimidated

Wait till you find yourself in the interrogation room with an arrogant bully of a cop (I've been there).

Its no picnic mate

 

[cullennz]

Wait till you find yourself in the interrogation room with an arrogant bully of a cop (I've been there).

Its no picnic mate

So have I

What do you want going forward for this case?

Specifically

 

[smartcooky]

So have I

What do you want going forward for this case?

Specifically

A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the conviction of Scott Watson, along similar lines to that which was held into the Arthur Thomas case, and which found that serious Police misconduct took place.

The Commission should investigate the failure of the Police to follow "best practice" during the investigation into the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, the conduct of the Crown Prosecutors, and the conduct of the trial judge

Of particular concern are;

1. The failure of the Police forensic team to follow basic, fundamental protocols during the examination of the "Tiger Blanket" taken from Watson's yacht, in that the ESR examiner committed egregious errors of procedure that resulted in a very high risk of cross contamination.

2. The dishonest way in which the head of the Police inquiry, Inspector Rob Pope dealt with the public. His continual public lying about the Mystery Ketch in effect discouraged the public from reporting sightings of the ketch.

3. The ignoring of an important line of inquiry (the Mystery Ketch) which, despite Police attempts to dissuade the public, nonetheless brought in at least a dozen reliable sightings.

4. The ignoring of numerous witnesses whose stores covered various aspect of this cases, and of which much would have exculpated Watson.

5. The immediate focus on Scott Watson as the prime suspect to the exclusion of all others, and then the subsequent dismissing and ignoring of exclupatory evidence from key witnesses.

6. The systematic misuse of the media to create a situation where Watson was subject to "Trial by media" and convicted and found guilty in the court of public opinion. This completely tainted any potential jury pool.

7. The continual harassment of Watson's neighbours in an attempt to isolate the family from their community, and the harassment of Watson's family in an attempt to intimidate them into changing their stories. This, IMO, was time wasted that that might have been better spent investigating the Mystery Ketch

8. The use of coercion and intimidation to get key witnesses to change their stories, and the bullying and threats against those who stuck to their story

9. The complete evaporation of almost all of the main threads of evidence on which Watson was convicted. For example, the two main identification witnesses for the Crown, Wallace and McNeilly have stated that they were tricked by the police into making a wrongful identification of Watson. As a consequence, they have retracted their evidence. Additionally, the jailhouse informant known as "Secret Witness A", retracted his evidence 12 months after the trial, saying that under pressure from the Police, he made up his story of Watson confessing to him.

10. The Crown Prosecutor lied to the jury when he stated that "there was no ketch" , when he must have known that dozens of people reported it

11. The Crown Prosecutor presented facts not in evidence to the jury with their last minute representation of the "two-trip theory"

12. The conduct of the trial judge in allowing the Prosecutor to present the "two trip theory" at the last moment, which denied the defense any chance to examine the theory for rebuttal.


....... specific enough?

 

[Samson]

A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the conviction of Scott Watson, along similar lines to that which was held into the Arthur Thomas case, and which found that serious Police misconduct took place.

The Commission should investigate the failure of the Police to follow "best practice" during the investigation into the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, the conduct of the Crown Prosecutors, and the conduct of the trial judge

Of particular concern are;

1. The failure of the Police forensic team to follow basic, fundamental protocols during the examination of the "Tiger Blanket" taken from Watson's yacht, in that the ESR examiner committed egregious errors of procedure that resulted in a very high risk of cross contamination.

2. The dishonest way in which the head of the Police inquiry, Inspector Rob Pope dealt with the public. His continual public lying about the Mystery Ketch in effect discouraged the public from reporting sightings of the ketch.

3. The ignoring of an important line of inquiry (the Mystery Ketch) which, despite Police attempts to dissuade the public, nonetheless brought in at least a dozen reliable sightings.

4. The ignoring of numerous witnesses whose stores covered various aspect of this cases, and of which much would have exculpated Watson.

5. The immediate focus on Scott Watson as the prime suspect to the exclusion of all others, and then the subsequent dismissing and ignoring of exclupatory evidence from key witnesses.

6. The systematic misuse of the media to create a situation where Watson was subject to "Trial by media" and convicted and found guilty in the court of public opinion. This completely tainted any potential jury pool.

7. The continual harassment of Watson's neighbours in an attempt to isolate the family from their community, and the harassment of Watson's family in an attempt to intimidate them into changing their stories. This, IMO, was time wasted that that might have been better spent investigating the Mystery Ketch

8. The use of coercion and intimidation to get key witnesses to change their stories, and the bullying and threats against those who stuck to their story

9. The complete evaporation of almost all of the main threads of evidence on which Watson was convicted. For example, the two main identification witnesses for the Crown, Wallace and McNeilly have stated that they were tricked by the police into making a wrongful identification of Watson. As a consequence, they have retracted their evidence. Additionally, the jailhouse informant known as "Secret Witness A", retracted his evidence 12 months after the trial, saying that under pressure from the Police, he made up his story of Watson confessing to him.

10. The Crown Prosecutor lied to the jury when he stated that "there was no ketch" , when he must have known that dozens of people reported it

11. The Crown Prosecutor presented facts not in evidence to the jury with their last minute representation of the "two-trip theory"

12. The conduct of the trial judge in allowing the Prosecutor to present the "two trip theory" at the last moment, which denied the defense any chance to examine the theory for rebuttal.


....... specific enough?

That is an impressive list.
Ketch sightings succumb to facts, most were Alliance. Evonne Walsh described Alliance exactly.
I am confident the hairs were planted, which makes that testimony relied upon by the jury and Nicola Crutchley unreliable.

Unfortunately it is a red herring.

Watson was the shaggy haired mystery man. Both were a boat builder from Picton who were a butt pain obsessing about drugs and breasts.

 

[smartcooky]

Watson was the shaggy haired mystery man.

Not only "shaggy haired" but "unshaven" and "scruffily dressed" as well, so how do you explain his short haired, clean shaven tidily dressed appearance at 9:30 pm on New Year's eve when this photo was taken.

.. the answer is that you cannot. You keep faithfully regurgitating Wishart's flawed diatribe without explaining the evidence presented. You seem to be so taken with Wishart's nonsense that you have forgotten how to critically question evidence.

For Watson to be the Mystery Man, DOZENS of witnesses have to be wrong about seeing him as early at 8pm when it was still daylight, because it is absolutely definite that Watson did not come ashore until after the above photo was taken, which was after dark. Its not as if the Mystery Man was some nondescript person sitting in a dimly lit corner of public bar minding his own business. It was daylight, and the man was acting strangely and crudely, so much so that a lot of people noticed.

 

[Samson]

Not only "shaggy haired" but "unshaven" and "scruffily dressed" as well, so how do you explain his short haired, clean shaven tidily dressed appearance at 9:30 pm on New Year's eve when this photo was taken.

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/watsonaboardminacornelia.jpg[/qimg][qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Watson-CleanShaven.png[/qimg]
.. the answer is that you cannot. You keep faithfully regurgitating Wishart's flawed diatribe without explaining the evidence presented. You seem to be so taken with Wishart's nonsense that you have forgotten how to critically question evidence.

For Watson to be the Mystery Man, DOZENS of witnesses have to be wrong about seeing him as early at 8pm when it was still daylight, because it is absolutely definite that Watson did not come ashore until after the above photo was taken, which was after dark. Its not as if the Mystery Man was some nondescript person sitting in a dimly lit corner of public bar minding his own business. It was daylight, and the man was acting strangely and crudely, so much so that a lot of people noticed.

I thought he was innocent but changed my mind.
There seems to be a lot of vested interest built up to exonerate Watson, I am curious why you seem to be aligned, maybe I sense this because you are a local. People I know in Blenheim are in no doubt he is guilty, and reading Wishart hardly changes their minds. Gerald Hope's willingness to meet Watson does not make a lot of sense to me, he opposed parole, and that can only be because he has a case view.
These cases are binary, true or false, I see the Watson case regrettably draining resources better applied to the Tamihere and Lundy cases.
I wish he were innocent, and hope he is. I found it painful to adjust and fear the worst, mainly for his good father's sake.

 

[cullennz]

Not only "shaggy haired" but "unshaven" and "scruffily dressed" as well, so how do you explain his short haired, clean shaven tidily dressed appearance at 9:30 pm on New Year's eve when this photo was taken.

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/watsonaboardminacornelia.jpg[/qimg][qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Watson-CleanShaven.png[/qimg]
.. the answer is that you cannot. You keep faithfully regurgitating Wishart's flawed diatribe without explaining the evidence presented. You seem to be so taken with Wishart's nonsense that you have forgotten how to critically question evidence.

For Watson to be the Mystery Man, DOZENS of witnesses have to be wrong about seeing him as early at 8pm when it was still daylight, because it is absolutely definite that Watson did not come ashore until after the above photo was taken, which was after dark. Its not as if the Mystery Man was some nondescript person sitting in a dimly lit corner of public bar minding his own business. It was daylight, and the man was acting strangely and crudely, so much so that a lot of people noticed.

"Dozens"?

Please clarify

 

[smartcooky]

I thought he was innocent but changed my mind.
There seems to be a lot of vested interest built up to exonerate Watson, I am curious why you seem to be aligned, maybe I sense this because you are a local.

I am aligned for the same reasons I am aligned in the Lundy case; because I see evidence that clearly exculpates the convicted man being ignored. While you can argue about witness testimony, times and recollections, you cannot argue with the photographs taken in this case; one in partuclar. That photograph of Watson taken on the Mina Cornelia clearly shows Watson clean shaven, tidily dressed and with short hair. The people he was with testified to the fact that this is what his appearance was really like. They also testified to the time the photo was taken (after 9:30 pm on New Year's Eve) and that Watson did not go ashore until after that time, when it was dark

IMO, that photograph trumps any and all witness testimony as regards Watson's appearance on New Year's Eve, particularly when that testimony is conflicting and sketchy and given by people who had been drinking. The photograph, doesn't forget, doesn't get details wrong and doesn't get drunk.

Chris Watson complained about this to Police.....(excerpts from the "Review of Detective Inspector Pinkham’s Report into the Mr C
Watson Complaint Regarding Operation TAM Affidavit" dated 11 December 2008)

"This complaint challenges paragraphs 8.26 (1) and (2) of Detective Inspector Pope’s affidavit on the basis that there existed photographic evidence that clearly showed that Scott Watson was short haired and clean shaven, but for natural growth. Mr Watson contends that there were three such photographs taken 31 December 1997, 8 and 12 January 1998 to illustrate his point."

The Police reply was...

"Notwithstanding the existence of photographs the list of witnesses as described above (complaint 3) provided various descriptions of the third person, believed by the enquiry team to be Watson, as having facial hair of varying length. Additionally, at least three witnesses spoken to by the enquiry team stated that they believed Watson had tidied himself up early in the new-year. Those witnesses include: Charlie Proctor, David Coard and Garry Kenny"

"Notwithstanding the existence of photographs". In other words, they handwaved the photo away because it conflicted with the witness testimony (from witnesses who were admittedly drunk on the night and making their recollections days later) that described Watson unshaven, scruffy and shabbily dressed i.e. selecting the evidence that fits the outcome they want. Of course, the Police dismissed any witness testimony (from witnesses who were likely just as drunk as the ones they believed) when they said that the Mystery Man they saw was in the bar at 8pm (in the daytime)

People I know in Blenheim are in no doubt he is guilty, and reading Wishart hardly changes their minds.

I was stationed at RNZAF Woodbourne at the time this all went down. I used to spend a fair bit of my weekend time in and around Picton, Waikawa and Ngakuta Bay (I had a fizzboat which I kept at a friends place in Waikawa). While I do not know, or (to my knowledge) have ever met Scott Watson, I do know a number of people who were interviewed by the Police and who knew him. For the most part, they tell me he was a bad boy, was right into growing cannabis and was not a person they would trust, but they do not believe his crimes would ever extend to murder. He simply was not the type.

"Dozens"?

Please clarify

Scott Watson claims to have been clean-shaven over 31 December 1997/1 January 1998 while approximately 23 witnesses describe the "third person", believed to be Watson, as unshaven. Watson is known personally to several of these witnesses.

The witnesses variously described that person as ‘unshaven, a little unshaven, had stubble or had two days growth’. Some of these persons either knew Watson, were introduced to him, or he introduced himself to them. On that basis at the time the affidavit was constructed there was a basis upon which Detective Inspector Pope could reasonably justify his comments at paragraph 8.9, notwithstanding that some of those witnesses had previously failed to identify Watson via photographic montage.


Once again, the Police handwaved away witness testimony that did not fit with their preconceived conclusion of Watson's guilt. There are also a large number of people over and above the 23 who were interviewed informally by the Police and who were not listed in any witness lists. I know this because I know some of them personally. In each case (of the ones I know) they say that the Police lost interest in what they had to say when they said they had seen the scruffy man in the bar at any time before about 9pm.

cullennz - I can provide you with the names of all formally interviewed 23 witnesses via PM if you wish. I will indicate which witnesses know Watson personally, which witnesses met Watson for the first time on the New Year's Eve, the dates they were interviewed by the Police, and which ones I know personally.

 

[Samson]

We come from opposing principals.
First, there are three suggestions for the taxi
1. John Mullens
2. Donald Anderson
3. Guy Wallace.

If 3 then guilty.
Keith Hunter uses testimony years after the event to claim it was John Mullens but this is impossible because he was back on his boat.
Smartcooky, you claim it is Donald Anderson so innocent.
Wishart claims it is Guy Wallace so guilty.

Are you with that so far?

 

[Fixit]

'Scott Watson claims to have been clean-shaven over 31 December 1997/1 January 1998 while approximately 23 witnesses describe the "third person", believed to be Watson, as unshaven. Watson is known personally to several of these witnesses.'

Hi smartcooky. Has anything ever been done about those witnesses you mention who knew Watson and who also identified a 'mystery man' at the bar. Were any of them called by the Crown to give evidence, alternatively were any of their names provided to the defence before the trial?

 

[smartcooky]

We come from opposing principals.
First, there are three suggestions for the taxi
1. John Mullens
2. Donald Anderson
3. Guy Wallace.

If 3 then guilty.
Keith Hunter uses testimony years after the event to claim it was John Mullens but this is impossible because he was back on his boat.
Smartcooky, you claim it is Donald Anderson so innocent.
Wishart claims it is Guy Wallace so guilty.

Are you with that so far?

IMO

a. Donald Anderson took Watson to the Blade. It approximately fits Watson's claimed timeline, and Anderson remembered that the boat had the name of a weapon that he could not immediately recall.

b. Guy Wallace took the Mystery Man with Ben and Olivia and two others to boats. the first three boarded Mystery Ketch.

So you have two experienced water taxi drivers, and two eye-witnesses who all have to be wrong for Watson to not be exculpated by their testimony.

Another couple of important considerations are that...

1. Blade was rafted with Mina Cornelia and Biancaand reasonably close to shore (within 80m IIRC). I don't know if you have ever slept on a boat rafted to other boats in the dead of a clear, calm night, but I promise you that cannot make the slightest noise without people on the next boat hearing you. I find it unbelievable that one drunk (and probably stoned) man would have been able to overpower two young people so silently that the people in the boats next door would not have heard.

2. The most common reported mooring position of the mystery ketch was 250-300m offshore. Guy Wallace would surely have known if he had only gone 80m as opposed to three to four times as far.

 

[smartcooky]

'Scott Watson claims to have been clean-shaven over 31 December 1997/1 January 1998 while approximately 23 witnesses describe the "third person", believed to be Watson, as unshaven. Watson is known personally to several of these witnesses.'

Hi smartcooky. Has anything ever been done about those witnesses you mention who knew Watson and who also identified a 'mystery man' at the bar. Were any of them called by the Crown to give evidence, alternatively were any of their names provided to the defense before the trial?

Not as far as I know.

The Crown's key identification witnesses were Guy Wallace and Roz McNeilly. They were both working behind the bar at Furneaux Lodge so they got a good look at the mystery man. Both claim that the Police pressured and tricked them into identifying the Mystery Man as Scott Watson, and they have both since recanted their testimony.

 

[Samson]

IMO

a. Donald Anderson took Watson to the Blade. It approximately fits Watson's claimed timeline, and Anderson remembered that the boat had the name of a weapon that he could not immediately recall.

b. Guy Wallace took the Mystery Man with Ben and Olivia and two others to boats. the first three boarded Mystery Ketch.

So you have two experienced water taxi drivers, and two eye-witnesses who all have to be wrong for Watson to not be exculpated by their testimony.

Another couple of important considerations are that...

1. Blade was rafted with Mina Cornelia and Biancaand reasonably close to shore (within 80m IIRC). I don't know if you have ever slept on a boat rafted to other boats in the dead of a clear, calm night, but I promise you that cannot make the slightest noise without people on the next boat hearing you. I find it unbelievable that one drunk (and probably stoned) man would have been able to overpower two young people so silently that the people in the boats next door would not have heard.

2. The most common reported mooring position of the mystery ketch was 250-300m offshore. Guy Wallace would surely have known if he had only gone 80m as opposed to three to four times as far.

I understand the conundrums. Watson did walk on rafted boats, no argument. It is certainly surprising an angry Olivia would collapse asleep, she was clearly and correctly angry. But maybe she did.
Low tide was 5 though surprisingly Wishart says 4. Watson returned to Blade after failing to party on the rafted boats, cast loose, drifted out till the tide turned, instead of starting the old clanger set the sails, and the rest is unrecorded history.
No ketch, no bushy haired stranger...

You see, something happened.

But far more problematic is the confluence of boat builders from Picton using the same language as Watson and the stranger.
They converge.

 

[cullennz]

OK. I can't hold it in any longer.

I was the hairy stranger.

I thought why not make it look so obvious this Watson did it so even though I could have just gone I could have a laugh

 

[Elagabalus]

I understand the conundrums. Watson did walk on rafted boats, no argument. It is certainly surprising an angry Olivia would collapse asleep, she was clearly and correctly angry. But maybe she did.
Low tide was 5 though surprisingly Wishart says 4. Watson returned to Blade after failing to party on the rafted boats, cast loose, drifted out till the tide turned, instead of starting the old clanger set the sails, and the rest is unrecorded history.
No ketch, no bushy haired stranger...

You see, something happened.

But far more problematic is the confluence of boat builders from Picton using the same language as Watson and the stranger.
They converge.

The police don't even buy Wishart's timeline:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640082

Are you basing your guilty verdict on Mark Lundy's lawyer?

http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/03...-reviews-ian-wisharts-book-on-ben-and-olivia/

 

[Samson]

The police don't even buy Wishart's timeline:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640082

Are you basing your guilty verdict on Mark Lundy's lawyer?

http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/03...-reviews-ian-wisharts-book-on-ben-and-olivia/

The police timeline doesn't work and they never need to with juries. The key is to get the case past that first jury and most of the heavy lifting is done.
This worked with Thomas Tamihere Pora Bain and Lundy, and probably nearly with MacDonald. All the aforementioned are innocent so the timelines didn't matter a damn to 12 foolish citizens and true.
Ross Burns wrote a reasonable review, surprising because he was an indolent defender of Lundy, that is well documented. But ultimately the worst form of public discourse is describing people as having views and opinions.
These cases are driven by hard facts.
It would be foolish to have an opinion whether Donald Anderson took Watson to Blade, it is a fact one way or another, and the case is settled when we discover what that fact is.

 

[smartcooky]

Here is an interesting interview by Mike Kalagher with Reg McManaway.



Mr McManaway saw the Mystery Ketch arrive just after he arrived around 4pm.

He saw the scruffy Mystery Man working the boat

He saw that same man again later in the bar annoying Ben and Olivia.

He says that the Ketch was already gone when he got up at 7am the next morning,

He saw Scott Watson on the Blade and spoke to him before he left at around 7:30 am (so much for the lying Police who said he left at 5am)

So here we have a witness who saw both Watson and the Mystery man, and identified them as different people. More importantly, he put Ben and Olivia in contact with the scruffy Mystery Man well before they went on Guy Wallace's Naiad!