• 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

Elagabalus said:
In my exhaustive research about this case I recall someone commenting (either on Kiwiblog or perhaps the comments section of N&S) that it was definitely not The Lone Bird as it was too large to be the ketch in question. IIRC, I believe Scott Watson's dad had gone out to take a look at it or showed pictures of it to his son.


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

Keith Hunter shows the picture that the police used on the day or day after to identify all the boats in the bay. Claiming that the picture proves there was no ketch. The only problem is that the mystery ketch isn't in that picture because it is anchored just out of frame of the picture according to Guy Wallace.

The kiwiblog link:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/did_paul_watson_do_it.html
Click to expand...


The important thing is not just that picture, its that several, separate people described the ketch independently and all their descriptions match to a high degree of accuracy. Among them was a yacht designer who was fascinated by the design, and was even able to sketch it accurately including the fixtures and mast fittings. They all described a 35 to 40 foot ketch (two masts) with intricate rope work, a wooden hull and wooden decks, and six to eight round brass portholes set in a blue stripe along the side. And yet, the prosecution outright lied to the court and the jury and said there was no ketch. They claimed that the witnesses were mistaken and what they saw was Watson's single masted sloop Blade; which is only 26ft long, has a steel hull and steel decks, has no intricate rope work, two narrow rectangular windows on the side and no blue stripe.

The most compelling testimony was that of Guy Wallace who stated that when Ben and Olivia boarded the yacht, they had to climb onto the deck because the yacht's freeboard was about 3 feet higher than his Naiad water taxi. The Blade's,freeboard was the same height as the Naiad, so you could step over onto it without climbing up. This is not something that an experienced water taxi is likely to get wrong.
 
smartcooky said:
The important thing is not just that picture, its that several, separate people described the ketch independently and all their descriptions match to a high degree of accuracy. Among them was a yacht designer who was fascinated by the design, and was even able to sketch it accurately including the fixtures and mast fittings. They all described a 35 to 40 foot ketch (two masts) with intricate rope work, a wooden hull and wooden decks, and six to eight round brass portholes set in a blue stripe along the side. And yet, the prosecution outright lied to the court and the jury and said there was no ketch. They claimed that the witnesses were mistaken and what they saw was Watson's single masted sloop Blade; which is only 26ft long, has a steel hull and steel decks, has no intricate rope work, two narrow rectangular windows on the side and no blue stripe.

The most compelling testimony was that of Guy Wallace who stated that when Ben and Olivia boarded the yacht, they had to climb onto the deck because the yacht's freeboard was about 3 feet higher than his Naiad water taxi. The Blade's,freeboard was the same height as the Naiad, so you could step over onto it without climbing up. This is not something that an experienced water taxi is likely to get wrong.
Click to expand...
A quick perusal of DF's kiwiblog shows he makes a fence post look bright as a button. I must check more, Watson guilty, Lundy guilty, John Banks knew nothing about the donations to Dotcom. huh?

Keith Hunter's film is extremely detailed and well researched, redolent of the quality one might expect of the paid experts, the police, ahem. I question the idea the ketch was cruising the Sounds days after the disappearances though. I struggle with a rationale with an intensive inquiry in progress. Maybe you have an idea smartcooky.

Of course this is supposing the mysterious catatonic pretty girl was Olivia, which really seems impossible to make sense of.
 
Last edited:
A post from David Farrars blog

linz (61 comments) says:

July 20th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
It is a considerable time since David Farrar reinforced his belief in the infallibility of Paul Davison QC and his complete and utter honesty. this is the man who said at the trial of one of New Zealand’s moneyed people for Dishonesty offences “Instead of investigating Police start with the answer and collect evidence to match it.” In his blog on this topic He name dropped that John Coulter was his boss in Jenny Shipley’s office. Have read the book and all the others as well I can honestly say of all the books it is the most convincing of Scott Watson’s innocence. It is lightweight superficial coverage and revels many of the police shortcomings in the inquiry specially the extreme tunnel vision of DI Rob Pope. I guess it is not the blogger way to do any research but if Farrar had spent even half an hour online he would have found much material to show himself how easy it is for a police officer who has “gut feelings” is the most dangerous person in society as they are so convinced they are right and all others wrong that they can and do convince others they and only they are right. Pope had what is politely called noble cause corruption but corruption it is. He withheld evidence that did not suit his case, he lied in affidavits to the High Court, He manipulated the media, this is confirmed by Cate Brett in her monograph written for her doctorate at Canterbury University. I have spent 3 years studying several aspects of the case and can identify one glaring shortcoming. The Identification process Police used was totally inadequate biased and fell so far short of even worst practise if it wasn’t so serious it would be a joke. The normal practise is for police to assemble photos of people who closely resemble the WITNESS descriptions. In this case Police assembled photos who matched more closely their idea of who was guilty SCOTT WATSON. They had a photo of Scott Watson taken on New Years Eve around 9:30pm They never showed any witnesses that photo apart from Guy Wallace who was emphatic it was not the man He repeated this at Depositions and during the trial and Paul Davison belittled him for it. Rozlyn McNielly first saw the photo in Coulters book and knew instantly she had been lied to repeatedly by police who told her the man she picked as looked most like the man she remembered was Scott Watson This is totally against the best way of identifying alleged offenders. Photo montages are known to be the absolute worst method of photo identification with no redeeming features except it is the cheapest method. looking at a group of photos allows the witness to compare the faces and pick the one that most closely matches the face they remember. If it is a feature they remember like eyes then they will pick the eyes and ignore the rest of the face. That happened in this case, people remembered the half closed eyes of the long haired unshaven man. Police in the over one hundred photos taken of Scott Watson on January 12 found one of him half way through a blink. and from that Scott was identified by first McNielly the over a month later by Guy Wallace. Not one person picked Watson from the firs two montages that had on the first a normal photo and the second a photo taken (taken January 8 ) with a fish eye lens(taken January 12) the first photo ID was in mid March after many photos of Scott had been published and many defamatory storys appeared in the media and if Gerald Hope and Cate Brett are to be believe almost all came from DI Rob Pope in his meetings with his tame reporters and family liaison officers who were in the inner group of Pope pet policemen. Google Gary Wells to find some good info on police ID methods The system used here has about a 15-20% success rate, the method used iin many parts of the world now 85-90% success. This is the keystone cops type of investigation favoured by many on the right as it gets results and it does not matter if its not the righ result just create the evidence to suit. DI Pope did it and it worked and John Coulter PR man to the right wing praised him as a great Cop.

Jenira is correct in that Lonebird was not at Furneaux Lodge NYE 1997 but she was at Punga Cove about 3 miles away. Also at that time she did not belong to Sir Thomas Fry either He did not buy it until March.

ETA this link concerns other matters.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/stephen-cook/news/article.cfm?a_id=137&objectid=10499666
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
"Perhaps there was a mix-up of the hairs at the ESR laboratory? ESR's record is not unblemished, and there was an unexplained 1cm-long cut in the plastic bag that contained hairs taken as reference samples from Olivia's bedroom. Perhaps the reference hairs from Olivia's hairbrush became the incriminating hairs supposedly found on the rug.

Finally, there is the possibility that the hairs were planted. Again, this has happened before an incriminating cartridge was famously planted in the Crewe murder case. And when the ESR scientist first examined the hairs, including hundreds of dark ones, she did not find the blonde ones. She found them only during a second inspection seven weeks later." link

The cut bag and the fact that this was a second inspection make it plausible that the hair evidence was planted by someone who wanted to help the conviction along. IIUC this kind of forensic fraud would be called noble-cause corruption. I don't know whether he is guilty or innocent, but I am inclined to say that this is a questionable conviction.
Click to expand...
Chris, returning to your early post on the thread of March 9 above is interesting, because it was not till April 18 this story surfaced

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html?hpid=z1

concerning the forensic unreliability of hair matches.

I have been reading a lot of posts from individuals on this case in different media, covering the years, and the universal theme is that the hair match persuaded people, and once locked in, there was no further accomodation, or space in the mind to debate witnesses, sloops, ketches and so on. These perfectly convinced minds deemed such debate or evidence irrelevant.

The pattern is no doubt common, but cases we discuss here are.

1. The Thomas cartridge case.
2. The Olivia Hope hairs.
3. The Lundy stains on the shirt.
4. The Sollecito dna on the bra clasp.
5. No doubt the blood in the Chamberlain car boot.

In all these cases the evidence was missed at the first pass, and discovered much later, strongly disputed by qualified scientists, and yet necessary for conviction.

In this case, the hair may well have been planted, and may well have been forensically unsound. One comment I read declared the hairs to be of the same gene pool rather than from Olivia Hope.

The pattern is clear, a crime which is unlikely to impossible for psychological, logistical and time line reasons, but convictions entered for slight and late biological evidence, or in Thomas, planted evidence.

No doubt there are many more, but these will do to help to understand the Watson conviction.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
concerning the forensic unreliability of hair matches..
Click to expand...

Let me tell you a short, true story.

One of my pastimes is that I am an official at Equestrian events. I am a qualified NZPCA (Pony Club) and Equestrian New Zealand Technical Delegate and Cross Country Judge. Last Saturday, I was officiating at a One Day Event, when a young girl crashed heavily at a jump quite close to where I was. A few of us ran to see if she was OK while the ambulance was called. She was sitting up, but a bit shocked, and it was clear that she had cracked or broken a rib. She was very cold and shivering so I took off my jacket and wrapped it around her shoulders to keep her warm and after we put her in the ambulance, one of the paramedics gave me my jacket back and I put it on again.

Fast forward to later in the day when I arrived home, I took my jacket off and dropped it on the bed. That night, my partner found a long, blonde hair in our bed. She's a redhead, and there are no blondes in our family..... awkward to say the least, but I am 100% sure that it got there through contact transfer, and a quick check of my jacket confirmed several more long blonde hairs on the inside back.

The lesson here is that I was able to work it out pretty quickly because the hair was found within a couple of hours of me getting home. What might have happened if the hair wasn't found for a week or two, or if it was found in my car a month or two later, or I didn't put the jacket on by bed when I got home, but did so a few months later the next time I wore it? Not so easy to make the connection then.

IMO, human hair should not be routinely allowed as forensic evidence; it is too easy for human hair to transfer undetected from person to person. What if I had put my jacket on the passenger seat, and then picked it up when I gave someone else a ride, and the hair transferred to them and they took it home to their place. That would not a lot more difficult for them to explain.
 
some generalities about forensics

Smart Cookie,

You make an excellent point about how easy it is to transfer hair. Now consider how easily one nanogram of DNA or RNA might be inadvertently transferred. That is why I am a stickler when it comes to questions of laboratory technique.

Samson,

There are two distinct but related problems, and I think that the examples we have seen in this thread and others fall into both categories. When a critical mass of people within law enforcement think a person is guilty, they have a temptation to help the case along. One way is by planting evidence. The other way is by performing or interpreting forensic evidence in a biased way.
 
smartcooky said:
Let me tell you a short, true story.

One of my pastimes is that I am an official at Equestrian events. I am a qualified NZPCA (Pony Club) and Equestrian New Zealand Technical Delegate and Cross Country Judge. Last Saturday, I was officiating at a One Day Event, when a young girl crashed heavily at a jump quite close to where I was. A few of us ran to see if she was OK while the ambulance was called. She was sitting up, but a bit shocked, and it was clear that she had cracked or broken a rib. She was very cold and shivering so I took off my jacket and wrapped it around her shoulders to keep her warm and after we put her in the ambulance, one of the paramedics gave me my jacket back and I put it on again.

Fast forward to later in the day when I arrived home, I took my jacket off and dropped it on the bed. That night, my partner found a long, blonde hair in our bed. She's a redhead, and there are no blondes in our family..... awkward to say the least, but I am 100% sure that it got there through contact transfer, and a quick check of my jacket confirmed several more long blonde hairs on the inside back.

The lesson here is that I was able to work it out pretty quickly because the hair was found within a couple of hours of me getting home. What might have happened if the hair wasn't found for a week or two, or if it was found in my car a month or two later, or I didn't put the jacket on by bed when I got home, but did so a few months later the next time I wore it? Not so easy to make the connection then.

IMO, human hair should not be routinely allowed as forensic evidence; it is too easy for human hair to transfer undetected from person to person. What if I had put my jacket on the passenger seat, and then picked it up when I gave someone else a ride, and the hair transferred to them and they took it home to their place. That would not a lot more difficult for them to explain.
Click to expand...

Yes, I recounted similar previously...

PhantomWolf said:
The whole hair thing has been a bugbear too. The claim that the 'only' way they could have gotten there was by Olivia being on the boat is garbage. Hair is, for want of a better word, grabby. Olivia should have easily sat in a chair, deposited the hair on the chair, later to be sat on by Watson who had the hair transfer to him, and then via him deposit on his boat. This isn't far fetch, in fact I have had it happen to me, where a friend's hair ended up in my bed though she'd never at that point even visited my home.
Click to expand...

I personally believe that his lawyer screwed up. I think that he believed he had sown enough doubt during the Prosecution's case that he'd done enough, but he didn't drive it home by proving a few of the claims. He should have called Watson's sister to explain the clean up and so on. I think the lack of a defence side damaged the case a lot in the Jury's eyes.

The thing that puzzles me the most about the current issue, is to why Mr Hope has been denied access to speak with Watson. You can hardly claim that it is to protect the victim's family, when it is the victim's family that wants to do it. Very Strange.
 
smartcooky said:
I thought he got life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. Parole is not a given and sometimes, inmates who continue to maintain their innocence are not granted parole at the first try.

I have to wonder why the authorities don't want Watson being interviewed... perhaps they have something to hide
Click to expand...

Somewhere I saw a release date of July 2016. I'm not sure where, as I've been reading many, many places about this case.

Also, further up thread someone asked how they got from a scruffy unshaven guy to Watson. I saw where in the narrative that occurred because it made me shake my head. Someone at the party told the cops there was a man pestering girls and that he looked creepy. The cops automatically assumed that guy and the ketch guy were one and the same. Bad move, very bad assumption and horrendous police work.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Somewhere I saw a release date of July 2016. I'm not sure where, as I've been reading many, many places about this case.

Also, further up thread someone asked how they got from a scruffy unshaven guy to Watson. I saw where in the narrative that occurred because it made me shake my head. Someone at the party told the cops there was a man pestering girls and that he looked creepy. The cops automatically assumed that guy and the ketch guy were one and the same. Bad move, very bad assumption and horrendous police work.
Click to expand...
He comes up for parole in June. This will be denied because he will not express remorse for a crime committed by others, that is how it works every time. The innocent prisoner's dilemma, there is a thread on this sub forum. For Teina Pora it was an extra 5 years, and he was released only because the British privy council took control and declared him innocent. This makes no difference to "the system" here. We have abandoned that council, and just keep them in jail. Ask Scott Watson in five years. Thank you Amy Adams and the deplorable editors of the main papers. Are you listening Jonathan Milne of the sunday star times?.
 
Rodney Hide

Rodney Hide is a true lateral and independent thinker. From a link I posted earlier, I think this should be on the record.

" "Convicted murderer Scott Watson's father Chris and Act leader Rodney Hide are demanding answers about the investigation - and what appears to have unfolded since.

Until now, the understanding was that the allegations against Pope were the subject only of a Police Complaints Authority investigation. But the Herald on Sunday can confirm police are carrying out separate inquiries.

The police inquiries, handled by southern crimes manager Ross Pinkham, follows a complaint lodged under section 108 of the Crimes Act with Blenheim police four years ago by Chris Watson. He has since written to police to voice his concerns that the inquiries are being conducted by "one of Pope's subordinates" rather than an officer of the same or higher rank.

Police Minister Annette King has been drawn into the controversy, with Hide submitting a written question to Parliament asking if she knew Pope was the subject of a "criminal investigation" when he was appointed deputy commissioner in 2006.

Last week police national headquarters denied they were carrying out any such investigation, but statements from the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) and two letters from police - including one from Assistant Commissioner Gavin Jones a fortnight ago - confirm there are other inquiries.

In a letter to Chris Watson dated March 11, Jones confirms that Pinkham is "conducting inquiries into one specific area of the investigation - that is the affidavit sworn by Mr Pope and related issues".

A spokesman for King said yesterday that Pope was appointed after a "robust and thorough" process undertaken by State Services Commissioner Dr Mark Prebble on behalf of the Government." "

I voted for Hide each time I could in my local electorate, long before I realised he saw straight through the wrongful Watson and Lundy convictions.

I realise there are other opinions politically, but it is stunning how few public figures will state obvious truths, including journalists.
In New Zealand even the brave fear the parapet. I have no idea why, and am endeavouring to find out how this cultural fear has become endemic.
 
As it's still Towel Day in USA, I feel compelled to note: "Oh no, not again!"

Samson said:
Rodney Hide is a true lateral and independent thinker.
Click to expand...

Is there another Tui billboard contest on?

Your statement is nonsense, and Hide has proven it to be nonsense over many years. If, on this occasion, Rodders is right, it's just the stopped clock syndrome.

Oh, I forgot, he's been spied on by the SIS.

Were you unaware that Hide is a climate change denier?

1

2

3

Hide is as bad any US Conservative - all he's missing is the church.

Your championing of him as a sane voice just will not work.


Samson said:
I realise there are other opinions politically, but it is stunning how few public figures will state obvious truths, including journalists.
Click to expand...

All that does is show your naivety about journalism circa 2000 AD. Journos are required to write stories people want to read.

Nobody wants to read about Lundy or Watson's innocence.

Yet, despite that - and your continued bashing of NZ media - you yourself have linked to many articles favouring Lundy's innocence that have appeared in....

The New Zealand media.

Also, just FYI, Hide has about the same level of public appeal as Lundy when he was 180kg. An appearance on Dancing with the Stars doesn't make him a popular or sane person.
 
The Atheist said:
As it's still Towel Day in USA, I feel compelled to note: "Oh no, not again!"



Is there another Tui billboard contest on?

Your statement is nonsense, and Hide has proven it to be nonsense over many years. If, on this occasion, Rodders is right, it's just the stopped clock syndrome.

Oh, I forgot, he's been spied on by the SIS.

Were you unaware that Hide is a climate change denier?

1

2

3

Hide is as bad any US Conservative - all he's missing is the church.

Your championing of him as a sane voice just will not work.




All that does is show your naivety about journalism circa 2000 AD. Journos are required to write stories people want to read.

Nobody wants to read about Lundy or Watson's innocence.

Yet, despite that - and your continued bashing of NZ media - you yourself have linked to many articles favouring Lundy's innocence that have appeared in....

The New Zealand media.

Also, just FYI, Hide has about the same level of public appeal as Lundy when he was 180kg. An appearance on Dancing with the Stars doesn't make him a popular or sane person.
Click to expand...

I like him and what he says.
You are right, most people are uninterested, which is strange because they were randomly selected to win the inverse of the lottery jackpot, and carted away with them are their families.

It wasn't till I saw the very well catalogued pain, suffering and brutal financial and metaphysical destruction of the Knox and Sollecito families by a corrupt country and an even fouler pack of local Seattlites that I thought about it. Why blithely let it happen at a place near you without a murmur?

Ah climate warming. Tell Arrowtown. I jest because I have not studied it but I will see if The Thread has sorted it.
 
Questions about this case:

1. Is there anywhere to read trial testimony? I've spent the better part of 24 hours reading about this case, however the information available is sketchy. I read where Watson's sister helped him clean the boat on the next day, but is that what she testified to? It was a single line in one of the sources I was reading and I haven't come across it again anywhere.

2. Is there a transcript of the audio tapes anywhere? In the article I was reading which essentially summarized each day of trial, the day they were to listen to the tapes they never did and the next page in the series starts with the defense. Poof... The audio tapes are never mentioned again. Do we know what Watson's answers were to the questions posed to him?

3. What are the best sources for information about this case? I read crime.co.nz and stuff.co.nz and others, but I haven't really come across anywhere which is very detailed.
 
Samson said:
I like him and what he says.
Click to expand...

Each to their own, but I reserve a special place in my heart for antivaxers and climate deniers.

One lot is playing with other children's health, the other is playing with the future of the planet. Both are equally morally repugnant to me.

I used to really like and admire David Bellamy and Brian Leyland. Since both became deniers, I despise them as misanthropes of the worst and lowest order.

Luckily for Hide, I didn't like him to start off, but this bit does interest me:

Samson said:
Ah climate warming. Tell Arrowtown. I jest because I have not studied it but I will see if The Thread has sorted it.
Click to expand...

Oh please.

The climate thread is thataway: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10672290#post10672290
 
The Atheist said:
Each to their own, but I reserve a special place in my heart for antivaxers and climate deniers.

One lot is playing with other children's health, the other is playing with the future of the planet. Both are equally morally repugnant to me.

I used to really like and admire David Bellamy and Brian Leyland. Since both became deniers, I despise them as misanthropes of the worst and lowest order.

Luckily for Hide, I didn't like him to start off, but this bit does interest me:



Oh please.

The climate thread is thataway: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10672290#post10672290
Click to expand...
Moral repugnance is tricky, and rather final though. I currently harbour those feelings towards New Zealand society generally for being judgemental before analytical. It is surprisingly easy to unsettle people, people carefully selected of course due to their obligations to occasionally share xmases, with detail they never collided with. Climate warming is not something I would risk friendships over yet.
 
The Atheist said:
I find that quite amusing in the context of your outrage concerning the lives of very few.
Click to expand...
So far we can all live safely with global warming, but only some of us with sins of commission against individuals and their families. I wonder how deeply engaged Chris Watson is with GW.
 
Finally a little bit of sanity in this case, Watson will get to do his interview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom