• 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 thought that you seemed so antagonistic to Wishart that you must be Michael Fay.

Ah.

No, I'm that antagonistic and more to any and all liars and frauds, which, as I have a strong interest in financial markets and economics, means that I've personally been at least as nasty to Rich White thieves like Michael Fay as I am to Ian Wishart.

Shameful.

While I seriously doubt your analytical ability with rugby players, I'll take your word on this one, because these bloody things are always on TV at the wrong time for me.
 
I've personally been at least as nasty to Rich White thieves like Michael Fay as I am to Ian Wishart.

I saw what you did there... clever!

While I seriously doubt your analytical ability with rugby players, I'll take your word on this one, because these bloody things are always on TV at the wrong time for me.

I recorded it on MySky.

If you would you like a DVD, PM me a postal address and I'll burn one and send you a copy.
 
Last edited:
Ah.

No, I'm that antagonistic and more to any and all liars and frauds, which, as I have a strong interest in financial markets and economics, means that I've personally been at least as nasty to Rich White thieves like Michael Fay as I am to Ian Wishart.



While I seriously doubt your analytical ability with rugby players, I'll take your word on this one, because these bloody things are always on TV at the wrong time for me.


Available on demand

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/content/tvnz/ondemand/shows/d/doubt-the-scott-watson-case/special/e0.html

No wonder you didn't catch on to my oblique reference because I was wrong. As I said I hadn't read TPC and it was IEP not Rich White thieves that was central to the enquiry so I owe Sir Michael an apology and here it is. I was wrong, sorry my mistake.
 
48 hours after Guy Wallace plied the waterway at 4 to 5 am, he stated

The guy on this ketch would have been about 5 9 tall wiry build. He was unshaven but didn't have a moustache. He had short dark wavy hair and smelled like a bottle of bourbon. It would have been very near 5 am or just after when I dropped these people off.

AJ Saunders
Detective Constable D279
3 January 1998.

Here is the key to this testimony.
Guy Wallace was ear witness to an angry Olivia Hope describing occupiers to the bed she had paid for on Tamarak, she was the principal lessor.
Guy Wallace would have recall according to the import of the events and people, and in straightforward terms, when he asks Olivia and Ben if they are OK with climbing on board with a stranger, he will remember with some strong memory fixation the appearance and demeanour of this stranger.
Blade was moored to many boats, things look larger in the dark, and there are multiple masts, but indelible is

SHORT DARK wavy HAIR.

Come on everyone, please don't be fooled by this case.

There was just one water taxi on the water.
 
48 hours after Guy Wallace plied the waterway at 4 to 5 am, he stated

The guy on this ketch would have been about 5 9 tall wiry build. He was unshaven but didn't have a moustache. He had short dark wavy hair and smelled like a bottle of bourbon. It would have been very near 5 am or just after when I dropped these people off.

AJ Saunders
Detective Constable D279
3 January 1998.

Here is the key to this testimony.
Guy Wallace was ear witness to an angry Olivia Hope describing occupiers to the bed she had paid for on Tamarak, she was the principal lessor.
Guy Wallace would have recall according to the import of the events and people, and in straightforward terms, when he asks Olivia and Ben if they are OK with climbing on board with a stranger, he will remember with some strong memory fixation the appearance and demeanour of this stranger.
Blade was moored to many boats, things look larger in the dark, and there are multiple masts, but indelible is

SHORT DARK wavy HAIR.

Come on everyone, please don't be fooled by this case.

There was just one water taxi on the water.


Samson, you are completely ignoring some crucial evidence and witness testimony!

1.
Scott Watson was still on the Mina Cornelia at 9:30 pm (verified by numerous witnesses who were also present on the Mina Cornelia at the same time). He was encountered by Eyvonne Walsh outside the bar when he came ashore at around 10pm and was told to finish or dispose of his alcohol, which he did. The Mystery Man was already at the bar at 8 pm, his lecherous behaviour was clearly observed by numerous witnesses in the bar. He was served alcohol by Guy Wallace.

2. The witnesses at the bar all described the Mystery Man as scruffy, shabbily dressed, with long wavy shoulder length hair. The photo of Watson taken on the Mina Cornelia at around 9:30 pm shows him smartly dressed, clean shaven with short cropped, straight hair, yet the police insisted that the Mystery Man was Scott Watson. On what planet can a person have two entirely different descriptions and be in two different places at the same time?

It is also noteworthy that Amelia Hope (Olivia's sister), when giving evidence in court, pointed to a different man when she was indicating the forelock of the Mystery man...

Watson-AmeliaIDCourt.png

This is a still from the court footage. She is pointing to photo #1, yet Scott Watson is right there in photo #3 and she doesn't identify him!

3. Guy Wallace was adamant (and is still adamant to this day), as were the other witnesses on the Naiad, that he dropped off Olivia and Ben and the Mystery Man (i.e. the man he had served alcohol to earlier and NOT Scott Watson) onto a ketch....
Watson-BladevKetch.png


And here is a visual comparison
Watson-SloopvKetch.png

Note the difference in freeboard (the distance between the water line and the deck). The inflatable sides of a Naiad are about 18" to 2' above the waterline; the freeboard of the Blade is 3' 2", so for a person standing on the floor of the Naiad, the deck of the Blade would be lower than hip height; if they stood on the top of the sides of the Naiad, the deck of the Blade would be below knee height. Yet those three people were dropped off on a boat that required them to climb up onto a deck that was al least chest high as described by Wallace and the other two witnesses.

Everything might look bigger at night Samson, but not that much bigger. Confusing these two yachts would be like mixing up a 6-seater minivan and an 80-seater touring bus. Wallace said that the only thing the two boats had in common was that they both floated!

4. Over a dozen people on Ted Walsh's charter boat saw a young couple at the stern of a ketch that matched the description of the Mystery Yacht. They also saw an older long-haired man working the boat. They did not twig that it might be Ben and Olivia they saw because all the publicity photos showed her as a redhead. It was only after the trial was over that Ted Walsh saw footage of Olivia at Furneaux Lodge and realised that she had long blonde hair, then he realised the girl on the back of the ketch was Olivia, something that he maintained until the day he died.

There were other independent witnesses who saw the ketch with these three people in other parts of the Sounds as well as an Mapua Wharf, Nelson and Post Tarakohe in Golden Bay.


NOTE: Those, like Wishart, who think that the ketch was the Alliance, need to think again. Wishart is wrong, and so are any others who believe him. The Alliance is a modern ketch with a typical feature of that style of yacht; the mizzen mast (aft) is noticeably shorter than the main mast (this is sometimes incorrectly referred to as a "fractionally rigged ketch"). In the case of the Alliance, the mizzen mast is 4/5ths the height of the main mast. as can be seen here...
Watson-Alliance-300x200.jpg


However, the Mystery Yacht was an older style ketch of 1940s - 1950s design; both of its masts were the same height; its one of the reasons why it got the attention of so many old yachties in the area. Alliance also lacks the intricate hemp "ladder" rigging that was so distinctive on the Mystery yacht. There are also a number of yachties who actually knew the Alliance very well, so knew that it was not the yacht they saw.

Alliance was definitely NOT the Mystery Yacht.
 
Last edited:
There was just one water taxi on the water.

This part seems incorrect to me because there was another one, driven by Donald Anderson.

From the Sunday Star...

3: THE TIMING AND THE "TWO-TRIP THEORY"

Another water taxi driver, Donald Anderson, says he took Scott Watson to his boat in the early hours of New Year's Day. Watson, who does not wear a watch, told police he thought it was "about 2am. I'm not exactly sure". Anderson was vague about the timing and other aspects of the trip.

The trip is a crucial issue. If Watson was back on his boat and did not return to shore, he could not have been the man whom Guy Wallace took, with Ben and Olivia, to a yacht at 3.30 or 4am. So he could not be the murderer.

The Crown took Watson's hazy estimate of the time 2am as an accurate one.

However, Watson was definitely ashore at about 3am, because he was involved in an ugly incident at that time with 17-year-old Ollie Perkins, who was wearing his sister's necklace. Watson's presence on shore at this time is not disputed.

This suggests two possibilities. Either Watson's guess of 2am was much too early and he in fact returned to his boat after the 3am altercation. Or he indeed returned to the boat at 2am but returned to shore between then and 3am.

Prosecutor Davison argued in his summing-up to the jury that Watson must have returned to shore after his earlier trip to the Blade. How he did so was not important. It was "a short row" to shore. "Does it matter?"

The critics say it matters very much, and that Davison's last-minute floating of the two-trip theory was unfair. Because the two-trip theory was not stated explicitly during the trial, it could not be tested. The hundreds of witnesses who were asked about their movements that night were not asked whether they had seen Watson making his way ashore.

Journalist Keith Hunter, however, says Watson could not have been on the Blade at the earlier time. The yachts Mina Cornelia and Bianca were moored alongside the Blade. When the drunken Watson returned to his boat he clambered across to both boats and made a nuisance of himself, wanting to party. One woman on the Mina Cornelia was awake until about 2.45am and says she heard nothing. So Watson's noisy return to his boat must have happened some time after this. Another woman on the Bianca remembers being woken by the ruckus Watson caused and not going back to sleep for half an hour afterwards. It was a quiet night and the boats were next to each other. "Had Watson gone back to shore she could not have failed to hear it," Hunter writes.

This would mean that by 3.30am there was still no sign of Watson on his boat. And witnesses agree that by now he was involved in the altercation on shore with Perkins. So his trip to the Blade must have been later.

Hunter believes this proves that Watson is innocent. He could not have made two trips; he must have gone to the Blade after 3.30am; and he could not have been the man on Guy Wallace's water taxi.

Certainly this raises big questions about the Crown theory, but they may not be decisive. The theory relies on some fairly exact recollections of the time by people who had been partying till late. Journalists Jayson Rhodes and Ian Wishart, in Ben and Olivia: What Really Happened, a book published just after the trial, show the dangers of this. One witness "was hazy about times when he was giving evidence. [Prosecutor] Nicola Crutchley asked him what time he got up on New Year's Day. His response? `I'm buggered if I know haven't you been to a New Year's party?"

I'd also note that while is was "a quiet night and the boats were next to each other" and that "the drunken Watson returned to his boat he clambered across to both boats and made a nuisance of himself" resulting in another witness 'being woken by the ruckus Watson caused and not going back to sleep for half an hour afterwards." No-one that was there when Watson got back reported hearing anyone with him. Only Watson clambered over the boats to the Blade, and no one else was talking. On top of that, Watson wanted to party, why wake up people and ask to party when he had two other people right there? And why not mention them when asking for the party to carry on, wouldn't that make sense?
 
The problem arises that Watson was confirmed to be on shore much later when only one taxi was operating, that by Guy Wallace. The passenger count and identities is not challenged except that of the one man alleged to be Watson.
Othe matters are relevant, such as the recollection of Wallace's that the position of the boat he dropped Ben Olivia and the man at was consistent with the position of Blade. He then took the last two passengers ashore.
If everyone could understand that Wishart makes his case with initial witness statements, there is no need to read an original word by Mr Wishart.
 
Samson, you are completely ignoring some crucial evidence and witness testimony!

1.
Scott Watson was still on the Mina Cornelia at 9:30 pm (verified by numerous witnesses who were also present on the Mina Cornelia at the same time). He was encountered by Eyvonne Walsh outside the bar when he came ashore at around 10pm and was told to finish or dispose of his alcohol, which he did. The Mystery Man was already at the bar at 8 pm, his lecherous behaviour was clearly observed by numerous witnesses in the bar. He was served alcohol by Guy Wallace.

2. The witnesses at the bar all described the Mystery Man as scruffy, shabbily dressed, with long wavy shoulder length hair. The photo of Watson taken on the Mina Cornelia at around 9:30 pm shows him smartly dressed, clean shaven with short cropped, straight hair, yet the police insisted that the Mystery Man was Scott Watson. On what planet can a person have two entirely different descriptions and be in two different places at the same time?

It is also noteworthy that Amelia Hope (Olivia's sister), when giving evidence in court, pointed to a different man when she was indicating the forelock of the Mystery man...

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Watson-AmeliaIDCourt.png[/qimg]
This is a still from the court footage. She is pointing to photo #1, yet Scott Watson is right there in photo #3 and she doesn't identify him!

3. Guy Wallace was adamant (and is still adamant to this day), as were the other witnesses on the Naiad, that he dropped off Olivia and Ben and the Mystery Man (i.e. the man he had served alcohol to earlier and NOT Scott Watson) onto a ketch....
[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Watson-BladevKetch.png[/qimg]

And here is a visual comparison
[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Watson-SloopvKetch.png[/qimg]
Note the difference in freeboard (the distance between the water line and the deck). The inflatable sides of a Naiad are about 18" to 2' above the waterline; the freeboard of the Blade is 3' 2", so for a person standing on the floor of the Naiad, the deck of the Blade would be lower than hip height; if they stood on the top of the sides of the Naiad, the deck of the Blade would be below knee height. Yet those three people were dropped off on a boat that required them to climb up onto a deck that was al least chest high as described by Wallace and the other two witnesses.

Everything might look bigger at night Samson, but not that much bigger. Confusing these two yachts would be like mixing up a 6-seater minivan and an 80-seater touring bus. Wallace said that the only thing the two boats had in common was that they both floated!

4. Over a dozen people on Ted Walsh's charter boat saw a young couple at the stern of a ketch that matched the description of the Mystery Yacht. They also saw an older long-haired man working the boat. They did not twig that it might be Ben and Olivia they saw because all the publicity photos showed her as a redhead. It was only after the trial was over that Ted Walsh saw footage of Olivia at Furneaux Lodge and realised that she had long blonde hair, then he realised the girl on the back of the ketch was Olivia, something that he maintained until the day he died.

There were other independent witnesses who saw the ketch with these three people in other parts of the Sounds as well as an Mapua Wharf, Nelson and Post Tarakohe in Golden Bay.


NOTE: Those, like Wishart, who think that the ketch was the Alliance, need to think again. Wishart is wrong, and so are any others who believe him. The Alliance is a modern ketch with a typical feature of that style of yacht; the mizzen mast (aft) is noticeably shorter than the main mast (this is sometimes incorrectly referred to as a "fractionally rigged ketch"). In the case of the Alliance, the mizzen mast is 4/5ths the height of the main mast. as can be seen here...
[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Watson-Alliance-300x200.jpg[/qimg]

However, the Mystery Yacht was an older style ketch of 1940s - 1950s design; both of its masts were the same height; its one of the reasons why it got the attention of so many old yachties in the area. Alliance also lacks the intricate hemp "ladder" rigging that was so distinctive on the Mystery yacht. There are also a number of yachties who actually knew the Alliance very well, so knew that it was not the yacht they saw.

Alliance was definitely NOT the Mystery Yacht.
I can only repeat that Wishart makes his case by going to source documents. There are key datapoints resulting in the identities of Watson and the shaggy stranger converging.

The identity of Blade versus ketch is handled admirably by Wishart, the mechanics of boarding "Blade" are actually consistent with the rail heights, deck height and other matters. I will have to get the e books to explain better with testimony and shall. I am happy to be wrong.
Regrettably I consider this documentary another New Zealand hoax.
 
One of Wishart's 'almost' source documents, apparently an important one because it was part of the finish to the book, was to report an alleged conversation he was told of by a detective, where a man now conveniently dead, told the detective he had covered up for Watson because Watson had threatened to rape his daughter if he opened his mouth. Now you could take that as meaning something, if you were thick, but certainly not it emerged from:) a source document.
 
One of Wishart's 'almost' source documents, apparently an important one because it was part of the finish to the book, was to report an alleged conversation he was told of by a detective, where a man now conveniently dead, told the detective he had covered up for Watson because Watson had threatened to rape his daughter if he opened his mouth. Now you could take that as meaning something, if you were thick, but certainly not it emerged from:) a source document.
Wishart's approach in both the Tamihere and Watson books is to establish his best account of the case facts, which in the case of Watson is compelling in getting Ben and Olivia on board his boat, in fact it is uncomplicated as long as Watson is ashore at 4 am. Now Keith Hunter concedes that. There is little left to prove. By the same token he shows convincingly Tamihere broke into the car after the killing of Urban 74 kms away. Case closed.
We have one body and three presumed homicides after this, and theories as to where those 3 bodies are continue, and Wishart has Heidi on Kawau island, and Ben and Olivia taken by car after being unloaded at Shakespeare Bay.
But these details are not what we are discussing.
 
I can only repeat that Wishart makes his case by going to source documents. There are key datapoints resulting in the identities of Watson and the shaggy stranger converging.

Of you believe that Watson and the Mystery Man are one and the same, then you MUST explain a few things.

1. How dozens of people in the Furneaux Lodge Bar put him in that bar at 8pm, while Ernst Rutte Snr, Ernst Rutte Jnr, Marcel Rutte, Monica Rutte, Dave Mahoney, Larry McKay, Stefan Zakowski and Debbie Corless put him with them on the Mina Cornelia from midafternoon until they went ashore at 9:45, and how Eyvonne Walsh meets him as he comes ashore at 10pm

2. Why does Guy Watson describe the man he drops off as unshaven and with wavy hair when Watson is clean shaven and has short, tidy hair

3. Amelia Hope was in the FL Bar at the time the Mystery Man was behaving badly, and she saw him. So, if this man was Watson, how did she not identify him in the photo montage when she was on the witness stand at the trial?

None of this can be just handwaved away, it needs to be addressed and explained. If it cannot be satisfactorily explained, then the Mystery Man cannot be Scott Watson.

The identity of Blade versus ketch is handled admirably by Wishart, the mechanics of boarding "Blade" are actually consistent with the rail heights, deck height and other matters.

No, they are not handled well at all. Wishart makes a number of glaring errors, including

1. Failed to address the 15+ other witnesses who saw the Ketch, many of whom are experienced yachties and boat builders who have lived in the Sounds most of their lives

2. Failed to address the first real big elephant in the room... the round, brass portholes. They were clearly seen by Guy Wallace and the two other passengers in the naiad. No such portholes exist on the Blade.

3. Failed to address the intricate ropework, reported by Wallace and the other two on the naiad, No such ropework exists on the Blade

This is more evidence that simply cannot be handwaved away!

Regrettably I consider this documentary another New Zealand hoax.

On the contrary, Chris Gallivan's documentary deals only in facts, actual witness statements and interviews with the relevant witnesses. Most importantly, Gallivan does NOT impart his own spin or opinion on any of the facts or issues discussed, except where he deals sole with matters of Law and its application (he is a Criminal Law expert after all.

However Wishart is a known Conspiracy Theorist, and true to form for that personalty type, he uses half-truths and unverifiable reports and statements, and substitution of his own personal intituion for facts. When he does actually use verified reports, he embellishes them with his own biased opinions. He twists facts to suit his preconceived notions, ignores evidence that doesn't fit (just like the Police did in this case) and proffers lay opinions on subjects for when he has no qualifications to speak, such as psychology.
 
Of you believe that Watson and the Mystery Man are one and the same, then you MUST explain a few things.

1. How dozens of people in the Furneaux Lodge Bar put him in that bar at 8pm, while Ernst Rutte Snr, Ernst Rutte Jnr, Marcel Rutte, Monica Rutte, Dave Mahoney, Larry McKay, Stefan Zakowski and Debbie Corless put him with them on the Mina Cornelia from midafternoon until they went ashore at 9:45, and how Eyvonne Walsh meets him as he comes ashore at 10pm

2. Why does Guy Watson describe the man he drops off as unshaven and with wavy hair when Watson is clean shaven and has short, tidy hair

3. Amelia Hope was in the FL Bar at the time the Mystery Man was behaving badly, and she saw him. So, if this man was Watson, how did she not identify him in the photo montage when she was on the witness stand at the trial?

None of this can be just handwaved away, it needs to be addressed and explained. If it cannot be satisfactorily explained, then the Mystery Man cannot be Scott Watson.



No, they are not handled well at all. Wishart makes a number of glaring errors, including

1. Failed to address the 15+ other witnesses who saw the Ketch, many of whom are experienced yachties and boat builders who have lived in the Sounds most of their lives

2. Failed to address the first real big elephant in the room... the round, brass portholes. They were clearly seen by Guy Wallace and the two other passengers in the naiad. No such portholes exist on the Blade.

3. Failed to address the intricate ropework, reported by Wallace and the other two on the naiad, No such ropework exists on the Blade

This is more evidence that simply cannot be handwaved away!



On the contrary, Chris Gallivan's documentary deals only in facts, actual witness statements and interviews with the relevant witnesses. Most importantly, Gallivan does NOT impart his own spin or opinion on any of the facts or issues discussed, except where he deals sole with matters of Law and its application (he is a Criminal Law expert after all.

However Wishart is a known Conspiracy Theorist, and true to form for that personalty type, he uses half-truths and unverifiable reports and statements, and substitution of his own personal intituion for facts. When he does actually use verified reports, he embellishes them with his own biased opinions. He twists facts to suit his preconceived notions, ignores evidence that doesn't fit (just like the Police did in this case) and proffers lay opinions on subjects for when he has no qualifications to speak, such as psychology.
I can only revert to source, I think Wishart is a disciplined analyst. I am puzzled by the reluctance of people to suspend the personal views and focus on the message. Sometimes con artists are telling the truth like the stopped clock as Atheist charmingly observes.
There is much more behind this case than yachties and identifying boats, there is underlying fundamental data that snares Watson.
I am happy to be prove wrong rather than declared wrong.
 
I can only revert to source, I think Wishart is a disciplined analyst. I am puzzled by the reluctance of people to suspend the personal views and focus on the message. Sometimes con artists are telling the truth like the stopped clock as Atheist charmingly observes.
There is much more behind this case than yachties and identifying boats, there is underlying fundamental data that snares Watson.
I am happy to be prove wrong rather than declared wrong.

If there is evidence that is exculpatory (and there is) then no matter how disciplined a researcher you might consider Wishart to be, any underlying data, no matter how convincing it might seem, is utterly worthless. If Wishart is such a disciplined analyst, how did he come to such different conclusions his first book on the case? Is he correct now, or was he correct then? How would we know?

The fact remains that Watson cannot be the murderer unless it can be proven that he was also the Mystery Man in the FL bar at 8pm (because that is the man that Guy Wallace identified as the man he dropped off on a yacht with Ben and Olivia when they were last seen) and since the Mystery Man was in one place (as witnessed by a bar full of people) while Scott Watson was in another place (as witnessed by a boat load of people) there is no possible way that they are the same man unless a large number of people are mistaken or lying.

NOTE: I have my suspicions as to why Wishart wrote this book and came to the conclusions he did. He likes to be a Big Shot, and people who like to be Big Shots hate it when someone else looks like being a Bigger Shot. IMO, Wishart was and is jealous of the attention that Keith Hunter garnered with his book and TV documentary
 
Although I believe that Keith is right I can't use that in an argument to support him and his opinions, but I do use that he is a good bastard:).
 
There is much more behind this case than yachties and identifying boats...

Incorrect - that is the entirety of the case.

NOTE: I have my suspicions as to why Wishart wrote this book and came to the conclusions he did. He likes to be a Big Shot, and people who like to be Big Shots hate it when someone else looks like being a Bigger Shot. IMO, Wishart was and is jealous of the attention that Keith Hunter garnered with his book and TV documentary

I'd say that is nailed 100%.
 
Keith Hunter: page 207 Trial by Trickery
"Watson was known to have been involved in an incident ashore between about 2 45 and 3 30 am."

Therefore since John Mullen was back on his boat before the earlier of those times, John Mullen was not the old guy who took him alone to Blade.
Furthermore they were up and about on Mila Cornelius at 2 am but when Watson got there they were asleep.
Therefore there were no two trips as crown suggested, but one trip for Watson after 3 30 am.

On which Boat navigated by which driver?

Only Guy Wallace was available, and all other data becomes irrelevant including Ketch settings dotted around the Sounds Nelson precinct like stars in the night for days after.

Unfortunately this Watson hoax is doing damage to the real causes by invoking the all the usual suspects are at it clause.
 
Samson, I think you don't understand that this is not a case of one lot of circumstantial evidence v another lot of circumstantial evidence. When exculpatory evidence shows up, it immediately trumps ALL other evidence, no matter how conclusive or damning that evidence might seem. Let me give you an example

A friend and business partner of Smartcooky's, Fred Bloggs, a resident of Invercargill, has been shot to death in his house. Neighbours heard the shots and saw a man hurrying out of Fred's house, dispose of something in a nearby dumpster, and then drive away in a white station wagon. The neighbours rush to Fred's house and find him on the floor, still alive, but he dies before he can tell them who his killer was.

The time of the killing was 3:00 pm Friday afternoon. Witnesses confirm that time, as do calls to the Police and ambulance, and time of death established by the coroner.

The Crime Scene Unit do the usual scene examination, the Police find the gun in the dumpster, a 9mm Glock 19 Gen 4, and the CSU does all the usual stuff they do.

Forensics
1. The Gun is registered to me, Smartcooky.
2. The bullets from Fred's body match the gun.
3. My fingerprints are found on the gun, and in Fred's house
4. My fingerprints and touch DNA are found at Fred's house
5. My blood is found on the underside of the slide, and I have a corresponding injury on the top of my left hand beside the thumb knuckle joint.
5. I shoot rifles and handguns left-handed

Witnesses
1. I fit the description of the man seen leaving the scene
2. I own a white Subaru Outback

Smartcooky's story
1. Fred was my friend and business partner, I was regular visitor to his house, so finding DNA and fingerprints would be expected
1. I loaned the gun to Fred two days before
2. My hand injury happened when I it fired at the range before loaning it to Fred. I forgot to clean it.

Its all adding up, and things are not looking good for me. It looks like my goose is cooked; my gun is the murder weapon (ballistics match), my prints, DNA and blood are on the gun, my prints & DNA are at the crime scene, witness description fit me and my car

However, at 2:53 pm on that same Friday, I was getting a speeding ticket on the side of the road, in Auckland.... over 1000 km away. This is known as exculpatory evidence.

It doesn't matter how overwhelming the circumstantial evidence against me is.

It doesn't matter that I might have had a motive, and the means.

It doesn't matter even if there are a hundred threads of evidence pointing directly at me

It only takes ONE piece of exculpatory evidence to trump ALL of it - a traffic cop puts me over 1000 km away when Fred is shot - it is impossible for the man who pulled the trigger, and was seen leaving the house, to have been me..

So, back to the real murder...

► The Mystery Man seen in the bar at 8pm was the last person seen with Ben Smart and Olivia Hope before they vanished after Guy Wallace dropped them off at a ketch

► That Mystery Man was identified as being the same man Guy Wallace served drinks to earlier at the bar when he was there at 8pm

► At the same time dozens of eye witnesses put the Mystery Man in the bar, a boat load of witnesses on the Mina Cornelia put Scott Watson on the boat with them from mid- afternoon until 9:45pm

This is exculpatory evidence.

The Mystery Man MUST be the murderer
The Mystery man CANNOT be Scott Watson

ergo, Scott Watson is not, cannot be, the murderer
 
Last edited:
Keith Hunter: page 207 Trial by Trickery
"Watson was known to have been involved in an incident ashore between about 2 45 and 3 30 am."

Therefore since John Mullen was back on his boat before the earlier of those times, John Mullen was not the old guy who took him alone to Blade.
Furthermore they were up and about on Mila Cornelius at 2 am but when Watson got there they were asleep.
Therefore there were no two trips as crown suggested, but one trip for Watson after 3 30 am.

On which Boat navigated by which driver?
Only Guy Wallace was available, and all other data becomes irrelevant including Ketch settings dotted around the Sounds Nelson precinct like stars in the night for days after.

Unfortunately this Watson hoax is doing damage to the real causes by invoking the all the usual suspects are at it clause.

We already have an answer to this. Donald Anderson.

Since we know that Donald Anderson took him back, which was the entire reason to concoct the 2-Trip theory anyways, if you discount and disprove the two trip theory, then the answer is that Donald Anderson took him back to the Blade.

Also while Watson thought he'd gone back about 2am, there is no prove of that and he didn't have a watch. Also since the incident onshore occurred between 2:45am and 3:30am, Watson could have just as easily have returned at 3am with the incident having been at 2:45am, as after 3:30am. You can't say "It might have been as late as 3:30am, therefore he must have not left before 3:30am." You can only say that he was onshore at 2:45am.
 
Samson, I think you don't understand that this is not a case of one lot of circumstantial evidence v another lot of circumstantial evidence. When exculpatory evidence shows up, it immediately trumps ALL other evidence, no matter how conclusive or damning that evidence might seem. Let me give you an example

A friend and business partner of Smartcooky's, Fred Bloggs, a resident of Invercargill, has been shot to death in his house. Neighbours heard the shots and saw a man hurrying out of Fred's house, dispose of something in a nearby dumpster, and then drive away in a white station wagon. The neighbours rush to Fred's house and find him on the floor, still alive, but he dies before he can tell them who his killer was.

The time of the killing was 3:00 pm Friday afternoon. Witnesses confirm that time, as do calls to the Police and ambulance, and time of death established by the coroner.

The Crime Scene Unit do the usual scene examination, the Police find the gun in the dumpster, a 9mm Glock 19 Gen 4, and the CSU does all the usual stuff they do.

Forensics
1. The Gun is registered to me, Smartcooky.
2. The bullets from Fred's body match the gun.
3. My fingerprints are found on the gun, and in Fred's house
4. My fingerprints and touch DNA are found at Fred's house
5. My blood is found on the underside of the slide, and I have a corresponding injury on the top of my left hand beside the thumb knuckle joint.
5. I shoot rifles and handguns left-handed

Witnesses
1. I fit the description of the man seen leaving the scene
2. I own a white Subaru Outback

Smartcooky's story
1. Fred was my friend and business partner, I was regular visitor to his house, so finding DNA and fingerprints would be expected
1. I loaned the gun to Fred two days before
2. My hand injury happened when I it fired at the range before loaning it to Fred. I forgot to clean it.

Its all adding up, and things are not looking good for me. It looks like my goose is cooked; my gun is the murder weapon (ballistics match), my prints, DNA and blood are on the gun, my prints & DNA are at the crime scene, witness description fit me and my car

However, at 2:53 pm on that same Friday, I was getting a speeding ticket on the side of the road, in Auckland.... over 1000 km away. This is known as exculpatory evidence.

It doesn't matter how overwhelming the circumstantial evidence against me is.

It doesn't matter that I might have had a motive, and the means.

It doesn't matter even if there are a hundred threads of evidence pointing directly at me

It only takes ONE piece of exculpatory evidence to trump ALL of it - a traffic cop puts me over 1000 km away when Fred is shot - it is impossible for the man who pulled the trigger, and was seen leaving the house, to have been me..

So, back to the real murder...

► The Mystery Man seen in the bar at 8pm was the last person seen with Ben Smart and Olivia Hope before they vanished after Guy Wallace dropped them off at a ketch

► That Mystery Man was identified as being the same man Guy Wallace served drinks to earlier at the bar when he was there at 8pm

► At the same time dozens of eye witnesses put the Mystery Man in the bar, a boat load of witnesses on the Mina Cornelia put Scott Watson on the boat with them from mid- afternoon until 9:45pm

This is exculpatory evidence.

The Mystery Man MUST be the murderer
The Mystery man CANNOT be Scott Watson

ergo, Scott Watson is not, cannot be, the murderer
Smartcooky I have all respect for stalwart supporters and particularly analysis that compells scrutiny.
In my opinion this is an argument from false analogy.
I will return with a detailed reply.
 

Back
Top Bottom