• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scott Watson

I dug this up when you first mentioned this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJv2vmH8Nd8

Question. At 13:33, is it normal for NZ cops to lean on a witness like this? Or is just a bit of fanciful dialogue for a tv show? If it's the normal way of acquiring witness testimony-is it any wonder why NZ seems to have problems with murder investigations.
 
Elagabalus said:
I dug this up when you first mentioned this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJv2vmH8Nd8

Question. At 13:33, is it normal for NZ cops to lean on a witness like this? Or is just a bit of fanciful dialogue for a tv show? If it's the normal way of acquiring witness testimony-is it any wonder why NZ seems to have problems with murder investigations.
Click to expand...

Kiwi cops are the same as cops everywhere: [some/many are] arrogant, over-bearing, opinionated, sexist, racist and carrying a mien of entitlement they haven't earned.

Whether that particular episode is likely I can't say because I'm not going to watch 25 minutes of Youtube to see it. Give me a time point and I'll have a look.

I am fairly familiar with police tactics from both sides of the fence.
 
So you did!

My apologies - it must have been too early in the morning.

I'd go with that being a mild treatment.
 
Scott Watson criminal history

This is what is in the public record:

In fact he has no history of sexual misbehaviour at all. As for violence, while he had a youthful criminal record it was all but entirely non-violent. At the time Ben and Olivia went missing it was also historic, the record of a young man who had had a difficult adolescence and had put it behind him. At one time it was just called adolescent delinquency and addressed as such. In Watson’s case it lasted from age sixteen to age eighteen and a half. At New Year 1997 he was twenty six and his period of delinquency almost eight years in the past. His record of violence was a single conviction for ‘common assault’ ten years earlier at age sixteen, penalty a $250 fine.

For the most part, his youthful misbehaviour was confined to the consumption of marijuana and the illicit use of other people’s cars - and bicycles.

................

The description all but entirely non-violent could be seen as partial, but a $250 fine for common assault suggests mitigating circumstances.

This is the link.

http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/?page=trial-by-trickery&article=defamation
 
This is one of the best examples in New Zealand of a Police investigation where they did an effective job of using a willing media to demonize their prime suspect in order to poison any possible jury pool. Its not hard to do in a country where this sort of murder/disappearance makes national headlines.

The Police even went as far as to trawl through all the video they had of Scott Watson, frame by frame until they found a single frame that caught him blinking, which gave him a "menacing" appearance, and made him look remotely like the description of the "scruffy" man that had got on the ketch with Ben and Olivia.

This was the photo they used as their official police photo of Watson, and the one that was used in their media releases on the investigation.

photo2.jpg


Witnesses identified this as similar to the man they saw, but later, when they were shown this photo of Scott Watson....

photo1.jpg


... every single witness recanted their testimony and said this was not the man they saw!!

This case is also probably the best example in a New Zealand trial where the prosecution intentionally misled the jury. They stated that the Police could find no-one other than Guy Wallace who saw the mystery ketch; this was a blatant lie. The Police in fact had dozens of witnesses who saw it and reported it, but their accounts (even though they were remarkably similar) were dismissed. They even had the eye-witness testimony of a boat designer who was so fascinated by its design that he paid a great deal of attention to it, and was able to draw a detailed sketch from memory, including all the mast fittings.
 
smartcooky said:
This is one of the best examples in New Zealand of a Police investigation where they did an effective job of using a willing media to demonize their prime suspect in order to poison any possible jury pool. Its not hard to do in a country where this sort of murder/disappearance makes national headlines.

The Police even went as far as to trawl through all the video they had of Scott Watson, frame by frame until they found a single frame that caught him blinking, which gave him a "menacing" appearance, and made him look remotely like the description of the "scruffy" man that had got on the ketch with Ben and Olivia.

This was the photo they used as their official police photo of Watson, and the one that was used in their media releases on the investigation.

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/photo2.jpg[/qimg]

Witnesses identified this as similar to the man they saw, but later, when they were shown this photo of Scott Watson....

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/photo1.jpg[/qimg]

... every single witness recanted their testimony and said this was not the man they saw!!

This case is also probably the best example in a New Zealand trial where the prosecution intentionally misled the jury. They stated that the Police could find no-one other than Guy Wallace who saw the mystery ketch; this was a blatant lie. The Police in fact had dozens of witnesses who saw it and reported it, but their accounts (even though they were remarkably similar) were dismissed. They even had the eye-witness testimony of a boat designer who was so fascinated by its design that he paid a great deal of attention to it, and was able to draw a detailed sketch from memory, including all the mast fittings.
Click to expand...

Couldn't the defense have put that guy on the stand?

This case does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I don't understand why the police focused on Watson to begin with, and I don't see how the prosecutor was able to overcome witness testimony pointing to someone completely unlike Watson, with a much larger and different boat.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Couldn't the defence have put that guy on the stand?

This case does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I don't understand why the police focused on Watson to begin with, and I don't see how the prosecutor was able to overcome witness testimony pointing to someone completely unlike Watson, with a much larger and different boat.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that that Ben and Olivia disappeared from a place where almost everyone were visitors. Those who were there on the night in question were long gone by the time this came to trial, many of them from other parts of New Zealand, and even overseas. Tracking down witnesses would have been a very difficult task for the defence.

Also, unlike places like the USA and Canada, NZ's pre-trial discovery rules are appallingly slack. It would not be overstating the case to say that the Police are not under any obligation to reveal to the defence anything they have in their possession, even exculpatory evidence. For example, in the Arthur Thomas case, the police had a witness who lived near the Crewe farm who heard gunshots ring out in the early evening at a time when Thomas had a clear alibi. The Police suppressed that evidence through both trials, and consequently, the witness (Julie Priest) was never called to testify at either trial. In the USA, that is exculpatory, and if the prosecution failed to reveal this at discovery, not only it would be grounds for immediate reversal of any conviction, but the prosecutor who failed to reveal it in discovery would very likely find himself charged with Prosecutorial Misconduct.

That witness was found by David Yallop ("Beyond Reasonable Doubt") and was one of the key pieces of evidence that got the Thomas conviction quashed.
 
Last edited:
Gunshots? I was recently persuaded the Pat Booth theory was plausible that Jeanette shot Harvey after he broke her nose, which would have been one shot, followed with her father assisting disposing of his body, and she later committed suicide, and he found her and disposed of her body......

I was unaware of the perilous position innocent citizens are in, but it helps explain all these cases, including David Tamihere, and why they are rotting in jail. How incredibly lucky was Ewan McDonald to escape the fate.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You have to remember that that Ben and Olivia disappeared from a place where almost everyone were visitors. Those who were there on the night in question were long gone by the time this came to trial, many of them from other parts of New Zealand, and even overseas. Tracking down witnesses would have been a very difficult task for the defence.

Also, unlike places like the USA and Canada, NZ's pre-trial discovery rules are appallingly slack. It would not be overstating the case to say that the Police are not under any obligation to reveal to the defence anything they have in their possession, even exculpatory evidence. For example, in the Arthur Thomas case, the police had a witness who lived near the Crewe farm who heard gunshots ring out in the early evening at a time when Thomas had a clear alibi. The Police suppressed that evidence through both trials, and consequently, the witness (Julie Priest) was never called to testify at either trial. In the USA, that is exculpatory, and if the prosecution failed to reveal this at discovery, not only it would be grounds for immediate reversal of any conviction, but the prosecutor who failed to reveal it in discovery would very likely find himself charged with Prosecutorial Misconduct.

That witness was found by David Yallop ("Beyond Reasonable Doubt") and was one of the key pieces of evidence that got the Thomas conviction quashed.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, if the cops can legally withhold that kind of information, they can win every time, because they are the ones who do the investigation. The defendant can seldom afford to fund his/her own investigation.

In this case though, it seems like the defense could have tracked down that one individual and gotten a deposition from him.

It just seems ridiculous... people described a bearded guy with a 40-foot ketch vs. clean-shaven Watson and his tiny sloop, and yet the cops investigated Watson, and the jury convicted him.
 
Samson said:
Gunshots? I was recently persuaded the Pat Booth theory was plausible that Jeanette shot Harvey after he broke her nose, which would have been one shot, followed with her father assisting disposing of his body, and she later committed suicide, and he found her and disposed of her body......
Click to expand...


Nah, forget all the murder suicide rubbish. It doesn't fit the conclusive evidence that the kill shots were taken from outside the house, not inside.
 
smartcooky said:
Nah, forget all the murder suicide rubbish. It doesn't fit the conclusive evidence that the kill shots were taken from outside the house, not inside.
Click to expand...
So after years of intensive study how could Pat Booth get that as wrong as the police look like they got Scott Watson wrong?
 
Samson said:
So after years of intensive study how could Pat Booth get that as wrong as the police look like they got Scott Watson wrong?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but the theory is convoluted and implausible. It is far more likely that someone killed both these people at the same time, for personal cause. Presumably he disposed of the bodies to delay discovery of the crime, impede the investigation, and with the hope that the bodies would never be found. It was therefore someone who knew he might become a suspect. I don't think it was the woman's father.

People make these basic theoretical blunders because they get focused on a given suspect and construct a wild scenario from that, instead of looking at the overall crime to establish what probably happened.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I don't know, but the theory is convoluted and implausible. It is far more likely that someone killed both these people at the same time, for personal cause. Presumably he disposed of the bodies to delay discovery of the crime, impede the investigation, and with the hope that the bodies would never be found. It was therefore someone who knew he might become a suspect. I don't think it was the woman's father.

People make these basic theoretical blunders because they get focused on a given suspect and construct a wild scenario from that, instead of looking at the overall crime to establish what probably happened.
Click to expand...
If the ballistics exclude the theory fair enough.
However it covers the strong sighting of a woman feeding the baby a few days later, and the absence of an obviously local suspect . And as Booth points out, Demmler allows an innocent man to got to trial because he will be acquitted. (He is innocent, we acquit innocent men.)
I am not well versed in the detail as others obviously are, but Booth devoted many years.
As to your question why Scott Watson, I am not sure there is an answer. My brother is local, was there at the time watching the sloop lifted out. Last time we discussed the case he was comfortable with Watson as culprit, so I will pose your questions, in due course. Through the ISF lens they do look curly ones.
 
Watson goes on the front foot

" " "Watson is seeking a judicial review of a decision by the chief executive of Corrections to refuse him a meeting with North and South journalist Mike White." " "

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11443534

Also

Watson was also denied a pardon by the Governor-General.

On the advice of the most disgraceful minister of justice New Zealand has had.
Judith Collins
She has played god with David Bain's independent Canadian judge, Justice Binnie.
She declared that Teina Pora getting his case heard by the privy council showed the system working, but failed to mention that this was exclusively due to the hard work of unpaid volunteers.
She was silent when he was exonerated.

She has aspirations to be New Zealand's next prime minister.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...
I agree, the certainty that crusher Collins' political aspirations are circumscribed by negative popularity ratings is a badly kept secret.
I am looking forward to the day when this serial malfeasance by the political judicial and law enforcement divisions of NZ society is well understood, catalogued, and fully described.
 
More discomfort for the system

"In picking Mr White, Watson didn't just pick anyone, Mr Cook said.
"He's picked someone who's been involved in the case from the start, someone who's respected in their field, and who's from a reputable magazine.
"This is important because it's not tabloid drivel written by a pen for hire whose interest is not in facts and justice."
However, the Chief Executive of Corrections has maintained his refusal to allow Watson to meet White, saying the decision was made in line with the law and balanced with other factors."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11451819
 
Lawyer for Corrections, Paul Rishworth, told the court the CEO was directed by the regulations to consider the interests of the victims.

"He balanced those interests, he balanced freedom of expression, miscarriage of justice concerns, and made a decision that was his to make," he said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11451819
Click to expand...

The victims are (presumably) dead, I'm not sure what interests they would have. Methinks his main "concern" is not getting the public wound up to the point where difficult questions might be asked and a miscarriage of justice might actually be proved by someone.

Anyway, isn't Scott Watson about due for release? He was sentenced in 1999 to 17 years, theoretically he should be out next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom