Scott Watson

[The Atheist]

Sometimes, my logical friend, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

Ah, the Spock conundrum. That is a moral issue I will gladly argue any time.

Oh wait... I already am.

 

[Samson]

A face, a voice, Judith Collins

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8896097/No-royal-pardon-for-Scott-Watson

 

[smartcooky]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8896097/No-royal-pardon-for-Scott-Watson

" McDonald interviewed the pair and concluded the new information was not "fresh" and did not raise reasonable doubt about the convictions.

She also rejected the other grounds of his application and concluded none of the new evidence was "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"


1. How can the fact that the prosecution not only lied to the jury about the existence of the 40ft ketch, but they also intentionally fudged the evidence that proves there was a ketch (by using a misleadingly cropped photograph) not be " sufficiently persuasive so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"?

2. How can the fact the two people who dropped off the missing pair on a boat, both clearly and positively testified with 100% certainly that the boat in question was not Watson's "Blade" not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

3. How can the fact that the description of the man on the boat on which the two were dropped off, matched that of the scruffy, unshaven long-haired man at Furneaux Lodge who was harassing young women, was nothing like the photographs taken of Watson on the night; short hair, well dressed and clean shaven, not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

4. How that the fact that the prosecution's theory of the crime required that Watson motored out to dump the bodies in the Cook Strait; a minimum return distance of 66 nautical miles, in three hours, which would have required "Blade" to travel at 22 kts, when the Blade maxuimum speed at full throttle was 6 kts, not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

 

[Samson]

" McDonald interviewed the pair and concluded the new information was not "fresh" and did not raise reasonable doubt about the convictions.

She also rejected the other grounds of his application and concluded none of the new evidence was "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"


1. How can the fact that the prosecution not only lied to the jury about the existence of the 40ft ketch, but they also intentionally fudged the evidence that proves there was a ketch (by using a misleadingly cropped photograph) not be " sufficiently persuasive so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"?

2. How can the fact the two people who dropped off the missing pair on a boat, both clearly and positively testified with 100% certainly that the boat in question was not Watson's "Blade" not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

3. How can the fact that the description of the man on the boat on which the two were dropped off, matched that of the scruffy, unshaven long-haired man at Furneaux Lodge who was harassing young women, was nothing like the photographs taken of Watson on the night; short hair, well dressed and clean shaven, not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

4. How that the fact that the prosecution's theory of the crime required that Watson motored out to dump the bodies in the Cook Strait; a minimum return distance of 66 nautical miles, in three hours, which would have required "Blade" to travel at 22 kts, when the Blade maxuimum speed at full throttle was 6 kts, not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

I take it item 4. is researched to the point of implausibilty. Which is strange because detective (Rae from memory) seemed to rely heavily on it.

 

[smartcooky]

I take it item 4. is researched to the point of implausibilty. Which is strange because detective (Rae from memory) seemed to rely heavily on it.

As I recall, Watson boat was seen leaving Endeavour inlet and approximately 90 min later was seen at another bay not far away. This would have been sufficient time for the Blade to have travelled only nine of the 22 nautical miles to the Cook Strait. The Crown theory of the disposal of the bodies is not just implausible, it is physically impossible!

 

[Samson]

As I recall, Watson boat was seen leaving Endeavour inlet and approximately 90 min later was seen at another bay not far away. This would have been sufficient time for the Blade to have travelled only nine of the 22 nautical miles to the Cook Strait. The Crown theory of the disposal of the bodies is not just implausible, it is physically impossible!

From wikipedia

Juries are often instructed to avoid learning about the case from any source other than the trial .

Er yes, that is great for the prosecution when other sources are precluded.

There is obvious work to be done here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury

ETA
Sir Peter Williams is dead

 

[PhantomWolf]

I take it item 4. is researched to the point of implausibilty. Which is strange because detective (Rae from memory) seemed to rely heavily on it.

I always thought it strange that even though both the defence and prosecution accepted that the sightings of the boat in Cook Strait that the prosecution claimed was the Blade, and the arrival of Watson back home were fair set in concrete due to very specific things that were happening at the same time or there about (the crossing of the ferries and the start of a TV show) and yet the Judge specifically stated to the Jury that they weren't to consider that timing to be perfect because it could have been wrong. I also found the whole issue about how Watson was supposed to have returned to the party after being dropped off with Ben and Olivia, and then returning to the Blade on a second water Taxi alone to be a serious one, and yet the Judge and the Prosecution merely hand waved it away with a "he must have done somehow, but the somehow is unimportant."

I've never been at all comfortable for this conviction.

 

[Samson]

I always thought it strange that even though both the defence and prosecution accepted that the sightings of the boat in Cook Strait that the prosecution claimed was the Blade, and the arrival of Watson back home were fair set in concrete due to very specific things that were happening at the same time or there about (the crossing of the ferries and the start of a TV show) and yet the Judge specifically stated to the Jury that they weren't to consider that timing to be perfect because it could have been wrong. I also found the whole issue about how Watson was supposed to have returned to the party after being dropped off with Ben and Olivia, and then returning to the Blade on a second water Taxi alone to be a serious one, and yet the Judge and the Prosecution merely hand waved it away with a "he must have done somehow, but the somehow is unimportant."

I've never been at all comfortable for this conviction.

I am visiting Blenheim monday.
I will be interested to hear if the locals are interested in the attempts to interview Scott Watson, and if they feel he is worthy of parole.

 

[Samson]

The best points the prosecutor can make.

......................................................................................
In the article, Davison defended the so-called "two-trip theory" the hypothesis that, after Watson was taken to his boat by water-taxi at about 2am that night, he returned to the celebrations at Furneaux Lodge and was later taken by water-taxi driver Guy Wallace to his boat, along with Hope and Smart, about 4am.

Critics of the Crown case point out there were no witnesses to Watson having returned to shore after water-taxi driver Donald Anderson recalled having taken him to his boat at about 2am.

But Davison said how Watson got there was not crucial because there was evidence he had been ashore at about 3-3.30am.

He also suggested Wallace's descriptions of the boat he had dropped Smart and Hope at had developed over time. Wallace said it was a double-masted ketch a boat the Crown has insisted did not exist, and which he had confused in the dark with Watson's single-masted sloop.

In his first statements, he wrote the word ketch with a question mark. Davison said it was significant that Watson himself never described seeing a ketch despite his boat being moored almost exactly where Wallace said he dropped the trio.

Montages made of photographs taken that day show no ketch in the area identified by Wallace, but do show Watson's sloop

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/196691

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

He is effectively pointing out an unlikely coincidence, that Guy Wallace mistook where he dropped Ben and Olivia, and that coincided with where Watson's boat was moored, and that he turned out to be a plausible suspect.
It can be acknowledged as an unfortunate coincidence I believe, because it is extremely unlikely that a random part of the inlet harboured a boat with no alibi.
Any thoughts?

 

[smartcooky]

He also suggested Wallace's descriptions of the boat he had dropped Smart and Hope at had developed over time. Wallace said it was a double-masted ketch a boat the Crown has insisted did not exist, and which he had confused in the dark with Watson's single-masted sloop[/url]

Multiple witnesses saw that ketch, so their accounts all "developed over time"? Really?

I can understand why, in the dark, Wallace might have seen the Blade's self-steering gear and mistaken it for an aft mast IF he wasn't experienced with boats and the water.

However, it does not explain his seeing large, round, brass portholes (Blade had small, rectangular windows) and intricate rope work (of which Blade had none). It also does not explain the huge difference in freeboard (the distance from the waterline to the upper deck level) which for Blade would have meant simply stepping over onto the deck from the Naiad water taxi, as opposed to what Wallace said, that Ben and Olivia had to climb up about five feet from the Naiad to get on the deck.

 

[Samson]

Multiple witnesses saw that ketch, so their accounts all "developed over time"? Really?

I can understand why, in the dark, Wallace might have seen the Blade's self-steering gear and mistaken it for an aft mast IF he wasn't experienced with boats and the water.

However, it does not explain his seeing large, round, brass portholes (Blade had small, rectangular windows) and intricate rope work (of which Blade had none). It also does not explain the huge difference in freeboard (the distance from the waterline to the upper deck level) which for Blade would have meant simply stepping over onto the deck from the Naiad water taxi, as opposed to what Wallace said, that Ben and Olivia had to climb up about five feet from the Naiad to get on the deck.

Agreed, but do you see my point about the coincidence? It may be a little confusing, but when I see my brother tomorrow, who as I mentioned followed it pretty closely as a neighbour and boat broker, I expect to be challenged on any innocence theory.

Also
But Davison said how Watson got there was not crucial because there was evidence he had been ashore at about 3-3.30am.

What evidence? Is there a photograph, or trial testimony?

 

[Samson]

Scott Watson and his sister.

I could research this, but how often was his sister on his boat? Did she help him clean it after new years eve?

 

[Samson]

Catch 22

How does Watson escape from this nightmare if he is innocent and refuses to show progress in the obviously required fashion?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/70058691/scott-watson-failed-two-drug-tests-behind-bars

According to the screening for psychopathy, Watson registered a score consistent with offenders who showed an elevated rate and speed of recidivism, particularly with violence.

Watson had not taken part in any offence-related treatment and he did not believe he was in need of any programmes on offer.

He did not agree with the psychologists, the report said.

It seems it would be wise for him to accept ideas to deal with events with which he was involved within prison, that may emanate from anger at wrongful imprisonment.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Sounds like a lot of psycho-babble, the sort of stuff you hear in old B&W movies from the 1940's:

"Mr Watson is assessed to present with a very high risk of violent recidivism. His level of insight, ability and motivation to manage his risk factors remain unknown," the psychologist said.

"Whilst limited information is known about his index offending, the following factors were implicated: perceived sexual rejection, ruminations upon revenge, positive affect associated with inflicting pain and distress, and disinhibition through alcohol intoxication."

OK, maybe the second and third factors you could tie back to the 2007 assault incident (8 years ago!), but sexual rejection and alcohol intoxication? From the original crime, 17 years ago?

Seems like it's a gibberish report just to keep him in jail.

 

[Samson]

Sounds like a lot of psycho-babble, the sort of stuff you hear in old B&W movies from the 1940's:



OK, maybe the second and third factors you could tie back to the 2007 assault incident (8 years ago!), but sexual rejection and alcohol intoxication? From the original crime, 17 years ago?

Seems like it's a gibberish report just to keep him in jail.

The radioo NZ report

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/278260/parole-board-turns-down-scott-watson

repeats what I heard from the only journalist at the hearing, who said he can not attend the necessary course to precede release without first admitting the crime.

The board pointed out that Watson had turned down offers to do a treatment programme to address violent tendencies.

Family rejects psychologist's comments

However Watson's father, Chris Watson, said this was because his son would need to admit to the crimes in order to take part.

He is clearly sane or innocent or both.
Both for my money. Everything in that RNZ report needs to be assessed for timelines. To mention failed drug tests 15 years ago, and an assault on a police officer just after being legally kidnapped, in the parole report, shows a system totally unable to self correct.
Time favours the truth, but it needs more New Zealanders to give a damn.

 

[The Atheist]

repeats what I heard from the only journalist at the hearing, who said he can not attend the necessary course to precede release without first admitting the crime.

That is always the case - ask Peter Ellis and Teina Pora - if you don't admit the crime, you don't get put on the program, and if you don't pass through the program, you don't get out.

Every single one of Teina Pora's parole applications were turned down because he did not complete anger management programs that he needed to attend. He claimed he didn't need anger management.

He was right.

John Barlow is a good example here. He saw which side his bread was buttered on, took the programs and has been out for 5 or 6 years and is working on establishing his innocence.

Watson - and Lundy - will never be released until they admit committing the crimes. That's how life sentences work.

 

[Samson]

Desert Fox posted this case to IA today.

Singleton said it’s a rare and risky move to argue innocence before the parole board. “When you go before the parole board they’re looking for acceptance of responsibility,” he said. ”We’re scared they’re going to take it out on her because she’s not owning responsibility.”

http://www.norwalkreflector.com/article/3567971

There is a thread here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290917

But these fascinating threads die. These cases should be discussed at primary school. It might happen to the kids later.

 

[Hard Cheese]

That is always the case - ask Peter Ellis and Teina Pora - if you don't admit the crime, you don't get put on the program, and if you don't pass through the program, you don't get out.

See, that makes me angry - the courses are supposed to help with the behaviour that led to the crime that the jury convicted him of. It's not up to corrective services or the parole board to interpret guilt or innocence, that's a job for the courts. Their job is to rehabilitate the convicted. Maybe I need to go on an anger management course.

John Barlow is a good example here. He saw which side his bread was buttered on, took the programs and has been out for 5 or 6 years and is working on establishing his innocence.

Which is what Watson should do, because he has no more appeals, does he? He can't do much to prove his innocence inside. Anyway, so if Barlow ever turns up in court with evidence that proves his innocence, does his course-taking "confession" hold any water?

Watson - and Lundy - will never be released until they admit committing the crimes. That's how life sentences work.

Essentially the justice system is deeming itself infallible, which is laughable.

 

[Samson]

See, that makes me angry - the courses are supposed to help with the behaviour that led to the crime that the jury convicted him of. It's not up to corrective services or the parole board to interpret guilt or innocence, that's a job for the courts. Their job is to rehabilitate the convicted. Maybe I need to go on an anger management course.

Which is what Watson should do, because he has no more appeals, does he? He can't do much to prove his innocence inside. Anyway, so if Barlow ever turns up in court with evidence that proves his innocence, does his course-taking "confession" hold any water?

Essentially the justice system is deeming itself infallible, which is laughable.

Micro justice is on trial.
Macro justice is deemed sound, and on average it is.
Scott Watson may have been killed in a car accident.
That would be an average outcome, and he could be statistically lucky to be alive in prison.

I know this post is just work in progress, but maybe someone can develop the idea that alive in prison and innocent is statistically a better outcome than being on the outside.

 

[The Atheist]

See, that makes me angry - the courses are supposed to help with the behaviour that led to the crime that the jury convicted him of. It's not up to corrective services or the parole board to interpret guilt or innocence, that's a job for the courts.

Corrections don't do parole, the courts do.

Don't blame the bloke with the keys - the job Corrections do is hard enough without expecting them to take an interest in parole. I can tell you, they have no interest at all in guilt or innocence; they're all just prisoners.

Their job is to rehabilitate the convicted.

Oh come on. Even Corrections don't believe that, and the very first thing officers are told in training that their job is not to rehabilitate, but to keep the **** level down and the prisoners banged up.

Some Scandinavian prisons attempt to rehabilitate.

Maybe I need to go on an anger management course.

Nah, you just need to get over the futility of it all and thank christ we don't have USA's prison troubles or Supermax. (Or armed prison guards. Although an improvement on the current cotton shirt for protection might be nice.)

Which is what Watson should do, because he has no more appeals, does he? He can't do much to prove his innocence inside.

I'd tell him the same thing. He's martyring himself for himself only, which is a little counter-productive. It's not like they get Nigel Latta in to decide whether he really means the remorse.

Anyway, so if Barlow ever turns up in court with evidence that proves his innocence, does his course-taking "confession" hold any water?

None at all, how could it? If he can prove he didn't do it, he'd be pretty believable that he did it to get released.

Essentially the justice system is deeming itself infallible, which is laughable.

Can't disagree there, but then I consider the whole justice process in this country laughable. I have many pages on my site about idiotic decisions and sentences by courts in NZ.