Scott Watson

[Hard Cheese]

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.

I worded that badly. I mean, if his new evidence wasn't incontrovertible. Like when Lundy rocked up to the Court of Appeal with a witness that saw him reading a book on the Petone foreshore, the judges cast doubt about the reliability of the witness. Could the appeal judges point at Barlow's rehabilitation courses and go "well what about here when you said you did it"?

 

[The Atheist]

Theoretical question only. He'd need something so compelling for it to be revisited that that question wouldn't come up.

And it would need to be new evidence.

 

[Samson]

Theoretical question only. He'd need something so compelling for it to be revisited that that question wouldn't come up.

And it would need to be new evidence.

Atheist, are you saying Barlow is innocent? ( obviously he is part of the possible canon)
I heard him interviewed day after shootings, and he said something like, yes I am a suspect but this is what went down. 1994?

 

[Metullus]

Atheist, are you saying Barlow is innocent?

Barlow's factual guilt or factual innocence is, absent new and definitive evidence of innocence, irrelevant. Any confessions he made whilst in prison will confirm the opinions of those people who are convinced of his guilt and be ignored by those convinced of his innocence (just as, I suspect, you would discount any such confession by Lundy.) The intelligent thing for Lundy to do at this stage, regardless of his guilt or innocence, is to play the game that will result in his earliest release. Whatever you might think of the evidence, as with Barlow, Knox, and Charles Manson, there will always be supporters and detractors.

 

[The Atheist]

Atheist, are you saying Barlow is innocent? ( obviously he is part of the possible canon)

Absolutely not.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between a hypothetical question and an actual situation.

First off, Barlow isn't going to come up with new evidence.

Secondly, as Metullus says, who would care? He's out of jail.

The case is yet another convicted on circumstantial evidence, but it seems pretty good circumstantial evidence and the idea that someone murdered the Thomases with Barlow's pistol that Eugene happened to be holding at the time is a touch on the far-fetched side.

The lack of a motive is interesting, but I knew the Thomases business through my finance connections a few years before the murders and they certainly had a reputation for being ruthless.

As to guilt/innocence, I can't get too fussed about it.

 

[smartcooky]

The rank stupidity of the system as it stands in that a rightfully convicted actual murderer has a better chance of getting out than than an innocent person wrongfully convicted.

Where is the justice in that

 

[The Atheist]

Justice systems don't deliver justice, they deliver action in line with the law.

Which is an ass.

 

[Samson]

Watson speaks after 17 years

In North and South tomorrow, a 17 page interview with Mike White. This should sell a few copies, since most New Zealanders know full well Scott Watson is innocent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11545849

 

[The Atheist]

This should sell a few copies, since most New Zealanders know full well Scott Watson is innocent.

Here we go again....

I'd be surprised if anything more than a tiny minority believe he's innocent. Most people accept the court's decision and never give it another thought.

But yes, it might sell an extra 500 copies.

Going by the excerpt in the Herald, if there's any more information than "I didn't do it." I will be very, very surprised.

 

[Samson]

Here we go again....

I'd be surprised if anything more than a tiny minority believe he's innocent. Most people accept the court's decision and never give it another thought.

But yes, it might sell an extra 500 copies.

Going by the excerpt in the Herald, if there's any more information than "I didn't do it." I will be very, very surprised.

Polls show 40% believe he is innocent, and this will take it over 50%. Paul Henry seems to be running a poll right now, so I will break a habit and listen to the result. Incidentally he is the only NZ media person who I have heard make a categorical assertion, "Scott Watson is innocent" before the collective morons discover the truth as they did with Pora because it became official with authority, and declare there was a miscarriage of justice.
So, as you were?

ETA 67% say he is innocent. The poll is unscientific of course, and greatly exaggerates the figure.

 

[The Atheist]

ETA 67% say he is innocent. The poll is unscientific of course, and greatly exaggerates the figure.

Just as I expected - your claims are absurd.

A talkback radio poll. Wowee.

Next...

(As it happens, I think Watson is probably not guilty and should definitely have been found not guilty, but your idea of what constitutes evidence is as dodgy as the courts.)

 

[Samson]

Just as I expected - your claims are absurd.

A talkback radio poll. Wowee.

Next...

(As it happens, I think Watson is probably not guilty and should definitely have been found not guilty, but your idea of what constitutes evidence is as dodgy as the courts.)

TV3 poll in fact. Simulbroadcast. People who respond will be encouraged by their clever contrary opinion. But you will never get to a tiny minority, so maybe a touch of humble pie....

As I stated earlier, scientific polls show close to 50% claiming he is innocent. Bill English was polled this morning by Henry, who expressed total satisfaction in process and said, the matter is settled. I strongly doubt it, and clever analysts like you are poised to make a difference. There is a cascading disaster for NZ justice and the faith of the proletariat.

 

[The Atheist]

TV3 poll in fact.

Since you're a member at an allegedly skeptics' forum, I'm going to presume you know how poorly opt-in surveys perform against reality.

As I stated earlier, scientific polls show close to 50% claiming he is innocent.

Evidence?

Bill English was polled this morning by Henry, who expressed total satisfaction in process and said, the matter is settled.

Which is exactly what I told you their official position would be.

I strongly doubt it, and clever analysts like you are poised to make a difference. There is a cascading disaster for NZ justice and the faith of the proletariat.

On a scale of 0 -10 of things that actually matter, where 0 is what Vladimir Putin's cat had for breakfast this morning, I rate our joke of a justice system about 0.5.

 

[Samson]

Since you're a member at an allegedly skeptics' forum, I'm going to presume you know how poorly opt-in surveys perform against reality.



Evidence?



Which is exactly what I told you their official position would be.



On a scale of 0 -10 of things that actually matter, where 0 is what Vladimir Putin's cat had for breakfast this morning, I rate our joke of a justice system about 0.5.

Opt in surveys are hopeless, but I bought my N n S to bolster my prediction of 25% above annual average sales, place a friendly bet oh godless.
Bill English replied superbly, he is the very model of a modern major politician.

 

[The Atheist]

Opt in surveys are hopeless, but I bought my N n S to bolster my prediction of 25% above annual average sales,

Heck, I'm way over at 500 extra copies then. What's their circulation? 1200?

place a friendly bet oh godless.

Sure, I'll have a chocolate fish on that - but you'd better be able to provide a lot better evidence than you've shown so far!

 

[cullennz]

Doesn't say anything for 18 years and then seeks out a journalist he knows thinks he is innocent

 

[Samson]

He explains his silence by taking the advice of lawyers. A soundproof wall circles the law enforcement legal judicial political construct. In the US this does not happen.
Here we have Brian Edwards, Rodney Hide and others who speak once then revert to silence.
God help anyone combatting this gutless quagmire of logical morons. Even Mike White, who obviously knows they have the wrong man, feels unable to speak in a categorical fashion. Compare this with Donald Trump, justice Heavey, Steve Moore, Maria Cantwell, and a myriad of public and quasi public figures in the US. Of course this noisy brigade still find that getting points on the board is slow to impossible there.

 

[The Atheist]

Doesn't say anything for 18 years and then seeks out a journalist he knows thinks he is innocent

It's not like he can ring up a reporter. Also, do note that he had to have Corrections overruled in court to allow the interview to take place.

I think you'll find he's been saying all along that he didn't do it, but there wasn't much noise about it.

 

[The Atheist]

Good piece on Watson's dodgy conviction here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11550356

 

[smartcooky]

Good piece on Watson's dodgy conviction here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11550356

"There are also lessons for the public. With the pressure placed upon police to "find their man" it is no wonder that on occasion "blue vision" occurs.

"Blue vision" was coined by Dr Jarrod Gilbert and refers to the tendency of the police to sometimes work back from a pre-determined outcome rather than to work toward a theory from the evidence gathered."

This could apply to any number of cases where the Police have looked for evidence they thought would convict they suspect (or planted evidence if they couldn't find what they wanted), while intentionally ignoring (and sometime actively suppressing) exculpatory evidence.


Arthur Allan Thomas
Peter Ellis
Teina Pora
Mark Lundy

There is no doubt whatsoever for anyone who is willing to research this case, that the Police decided early on that Scott Watson did it, and then arranged arrange the evident to suit.