smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Pretty much we know most of this.
Interesting to get an American's take though
Scott Watson
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
Pretty much we know most of this.
Interesting to get an American's take though
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
"How did Scott Watson get back to his yacht Blade, moored off Furneaux Lodge, just before 4am on New Year’s Day, 1998?"
Wishart calls this "the question that Scott Watson cannot answer". He uses the follwing "logic" (and I use the term loosely!)
PREMISE ONE Watson arrived at jetty after 3.30am
PREMISE TWO: Only two water taxi drivers were still on duty, Robert Mullen and Guy Wallace
PREMISE THREE: Mullen says he definitely did not take Watson to Blade
CONCLUSION: Only Guy Wallace could have taken Watson to Blade.
Premise One is probably correct
Premise Two is wrong. Donald Anderson was also still operating a water taxi after 3am, and he says that he took Scott Watson to the Blade in the early hours of New Year's Day. He stated that the man was on his own. He remembered the boat’s name reminded him of a sharp edged weapon. Anderson said that the lone man had approached him at the wharf between 2 and 4am. Defence counsel, Mike Antunovic, asked if the man had said to him: “Any chance of a ride to the Blade?” Anderson replied, “ I recall that may have been what he said to me, yes.”
Anderson identified Watson’s photo out of a group of police photographs shown to him as the man that most closely resembled his lone passenger on that early New Year’s Day.
Premise Three is wrong. Robert Mullen wasn't sure if the man he took back to a boat was Scott Watson. Its irrelevant anyway because Donald Anderson did.
Conclusion is therefore wrong. If Donald Anderson he is not lying or mistaken (and there is no reason to think that he is) then Watson could not have been the man whom Guy Wallace took, with Ben and Olivia, to a yacht at 3.30 or 4am. ergo - Scott Watson could not be the murderer.
Well Mr Wishart, Scott may not be able to answer it, but I have, and what's more, that information has been known for years, and is freely available to anyone who wants to put in the tiniest bit of research (I found it in five minutes)
This does not say a lot for your alleged reputation as a "disciplined researcher" does it Mr Wishart!
Wishart calls this "the question that Scott Watson cannot answer". He uses the follwing "logic" (and I use the term loosely!)
PREMISE ONE Watson arrived at jetty after 3.30am
PREMISE TWO: Only two water taxi drivers were still on duty, Robert Mullen and Guy Wallace
PREMISE THREE: Mullen says he definitely did not take Watson to Blade
CONCLUSION: Only Guy Wallace could have taken Watson to Blade.
Premise One is probably correct
Premise Two is wrong. Donald Anderson was also still operating a water taxi after 3am, and he says that he took Scott Watson to the Blade in the early hours of New Year's Day. He stated that the man was on his own. He remembered the boat’s name reminded him of a sharp edged weapon. Anderson said that the lone man had approached him at the wharf between 2 and 4am. Defence counsel, Mike Antunovic, asked if the man had said to him: “Any chance of a ride to the Blade?” Anderson replied, “ I recall that may have been what he said to me, yes.”
Anderson identified Watson’s photo out of a group of police photographs shown to him as the man that most closely resembled his lone passenger on that early New Year’s Day.
Premise Three is wrong. Robert Mullen wasn't sure if the man he took back to a boat was Scott Watson. Its irrelevant anyway because Donald Anderson did.
Conclusion is therefore wrong. If Donald Anderson he is not lying or mistaken (and there is no reason to think that he is) then Watson could not have been the man whom Guy Wallace took, with Ben and Olivia, to a yacht at 3.30 or 4am. ergo - Scott Watson could not be the murderer.
Well Mr Wishart, Scott may not be able to answer it, but I have, and what's more, that information has been known for years, and is freely available to anyone who wants to put in the tiniest bit of research (I found it in five minutes)
This does not say a lot for your alleged reputation as a "disciplined researcher" does it Mr Wishart!
Last edited:
Got the following interesting comment. Anyone able to provide any further details?
AnonymousOctober 10, 2016 at 11:05 PM
What really disturbs me? The hairs were actually examined twice, on 19/1/98 and 21/1/98 with 'nothing of interest found". They were counted and examined for follicles attached (required for DNA analysis. Miraculously on a third examination, not only were two long blond (15cm and 20cm) hairs found, they both had follicles attached.
What are the odds of that? 400+ hairs, no folicles, 2 hairs both with follicles
AnonymousOctober 10, 2016 at 11:05 PM
What really disturbs me? The hairs were actually examined twice, on 19/1/98 and 21/1/98 with 'nothing of interest found". They were counted and examined for follicles attached (required for DNA analysis. Miraculously on a third examination, not only were two long blond (15cm and 20cm) hairs found, they both had follicles attached.
What are the odds of that? 400+ hairs, no folicles, 2 hairs both with follicles
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
From Keith Hunter's website:
www.hunterproductions.co.nz/?page=news&article=news-txt
More choice examples:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Even worse, there were no blonde hairs found at all in the first two examinations, and the third examination was made immediately after an examination of exemplar hairs from Olivia's bedroom ON THE SAME TABLE and by the same person!!! Further, the plastic pack of Olivia's exemplars had a cut in it near the bottom.
This is shoddy forensic work and a complete failure to follow the most basic of protocols in handling trace evidence. The incompetence of these people its matched only by the incompetence of the forensic personnel in the David Bain and Mark Lundy cases. It borders in criminal negligence IMO.
Donald Anderson first statement 5 january.
""I recall dropping John Mullen back to his boat "Southern Comfort" at about 2 to 2 30 am. This was about the same time Matt left the wharf.
I stayed on the wharf until about 4 am where I aboard "Foam". It was tied to the wharf. I stayed inside "Foam" and saw Guy come down.""
So, he forgot he dropped Scott Watson alone back to his boat between 2 30 and 4 am?
Maybe he did do it, but one solo trip is a big miss within 4 days of the disappearance. And it was Anderson or no one.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Only needs one.
For the man with Guy Wallace to have been Watson, FOUR people, including two water taxi drivers, had to have been mistaken! Sorry, not buying it!
I guess you have now retracted your earlier assertion that only one Water Taxi driver was operating at the time?
Have you ever been at Furneaux Lodge on a New Year's Eve. I have, and it is bedlam - 1,500 to 1,800 people partying. Water taxi drivers are busy with dozens of trips all afternoon. and well into the evening. I would not be surprised if Anderson didn't initially remember taking Watson, until later when he heard the name of Watson's boat "Blade" mentioned and that triggered the memory
Remember, Ben and Olivia weren't report missing until the afternoon of January 2, 36 hours after they were last seen.
Remember also, that the Police focused on Watson very quickly, within days
Last edited:
At least there is a binary solution.
Donald Anderson delivered Watson alone, after the 2 45 to 3 30 pub incident to Blade, or Guy Wallace did with the 5 passenger solution.
The descriptions in the mixed bad light of hair length and boat length become irrelevant under this examination of crucial evidence.
I have now read his detailed February 6 recollection of the trip, 2 30 to 3 am that he recalled when asked to, including what Watson wore and so on. Wishart in one of the books debunks this memory, which of course is pivotal.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,377
I heard some interesting police scuttlebutt at the time.
The allegation was the pigs had a hard-on for Watson when they knew he was there because they'd failed to pin something earlier on him - a rape or murder, also in the Sounds.
It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect them to do.
Some questions from a correspondent. Anyone know the answers, or the details of the search of The Blade.
'A few questions spring to mind ….
How many total hairs did she find in the first search vs the second search vs the 3rd search.
Were the blonde hairs found together or were they on different parts of the blanket?
What was her method for collecting hairs from the blanket? For example did she divide the blanket into grids and use an eyeglass of some sort to find the hairs?Did she photograph the hairs on the blanket before removing them?Were other hairs also found on the blanket during her 3rd search?Where was the blanket stored between searches ? Why did she allow the plastic bag containing hairs from the brush to get anywhere near the blanket? Long blonde hairs would surely stand out on the blanket compared to the many short dark hairs that she found, what is her explanation for missing them in the first 2 searches.
It all seems so dodgy to me.'
'A few questions spring to mind ….
How many total hairs did she find in the first search vs the second search vs the 3rd search.
Were the blonde hairs found together or were they on different parts of the blanket?
What was her method for collecting hairs from the blanket? For example did she divide the blanket into grids and use an eyeglass of some sort to find the hairs?Did she photograph the hairs on the blanket before removing them?Were other hairs also found on the blanket during her 3rd search?Where was the blanket stored between searches ? Why did she allow the plastic bag containing hairs from the brush to get anywhere near the blanket? Long blonde hairs would surely stand out on the blanket compared to the many short dark hairs that she found, what is her explanation for missing them in the first 2 searches.
It all seems so dodgy to me.'
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
As I understand it, the Tiger Blanket was only physically searched for hairs and loose fibres once. All the hairs and fibres (AFAIK, hundreds) were collected (not examined) and bagged, and then later on they were searched for the first time. During that search, no blonde hairs were found
During the second search (at some later date) no blond hairs were found.
Then (at another later date) a bag of exemplar hairs from Olivia was searched for hairs that might have follicles still attached. After that search, the examiner noticed there was a cut in the bottom of the bag.
Finally the third search was done immediately after the exemplar search, and on the same table.... and magically, two long blonde hairs were found.
You don't have to be Gil Grissom to work out what happened there!
This is noble cause corruption. One of the more bizarre aspects of wrongful convictions since Thomas is the idea "you know perfectly well we would never dare try that trick again".
They did. In Tamihere with witness C, Pora with the earrings evidence, and Lundy with missing notebooks and deleted stomach photographs.
Of course if it is truly noble, he is still guilty.
They did. In Tamihere with witness C, Pora with the earrings evidence, and Lundy with missing notebooks and deleted stomach photographs.
Of course if it is truly noble, he is still guilty.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I don't get why you are so convinced, given that every single thread used to convict him has been broken.
I can only imagine that you are such a brainwashed Wishart fan-boy that if you admit he got it wrong in the Watson case, he might also have got it wrong with your pet subject of David Tamihere.
The if might be wrongly located. I have two W and the Hunter books to hand, and I am keen to analyse the Donald Anderson claim further. Nothing else matters, because it was Anderson or Wallace. Innocent or guilty.
I meant if he is guilty, and the hairs are planted, it is noble cause corruption, so then if that was the only way to guarantee him behind bars, we have another raging debate.
As for Wishart, why not regard him as any messenger, and accept that if he is right, he deserves all the praise for taking on deeply unpopular causes.
On the innocence of Tamihere I am 100% certain.
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
***SIGH***
It's not binary. Wishart is so obsessed with Hunter that he agrees with Hunter's timeline and then tries to show why that points to Watson but Hunter's timeline might not be correct either! The times from the witness statements are all over the place.
And quite frankly, just perusing Wishart's books on Amazon, I see no reason to trust his cherry-picking of quotes to suite his narrative.
Don't get me wrong, if Watson's Police interrogation reads like the CIC interrogation of Jeffery MacDonald then he's guilty. I would like to read just the file with no Wishart cherry-picking/interpretation.
Wishart reports Watson's arrest interview in full.
I have read several arresting interviews of men who turned out to be innocent. This one is quite different, under advice, Watson says I have nothing to say or no comment.
eg
Fitzgerald: So throughout New Years Eve, prior to New Year's Eve or at any time, have you ever met Ben Smart or Olivia Hope Scott?
Watson: I have nothing to say.
There is a strong pattern for defendants to testify when later proved innocent. Thomas, Tamihere, Bain, Lundy.
Thomas Bain and Lundy would naturally do so as innocents with no criminal record. It is understandable MacDonald didn't with a **** recent record the prosecution would have worked in, but Watson's crimes were old.
If he caught Anderson's water taxi that would be case closed, he would recount it, he would describe the journey the way it happened, and there would be no opening left for the crown, due to the known operators at these pre dawn hours.
There are difficulties for Watson that don't exist for men innocent in my opinion.
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
Yes, I would too. I would like the court transcripts from the trial too.
I suggest going straight to Elementary 2. Buy e book for about 15 green backs. Read it carefully and see what you think. There are plenty of witness statements which you can read before figuring if the trial adds anything. I am a bit over trial transcripts, they take weeks to work through material not just irrelevant but insulting to people with IQ above mean Arctic temperature.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, they are but there are sufficient statements about when the Mystery Man was in the bar that must be accurate enough. They saw him in the bar when it was still light outside, but the witnesses on the Mina Cornelia are very reliable, are sure about the time, and testified that it was dark outside when they took the photograph prior to Watson going ashore. The evening of December 31st, 1997 was clear & sunny (as evidenced by the video taken that evening outside Furneaux Lodge). Sunset was at 8:57 pm in Wellington (Endeavour Inlet is 0.6° longitude west of Wellington and almost due west, so it would be about 2½ minutes later at 8:59). Now people might be unsure about exact times, but there is no way they would be unsure about something visual like, whether it was daytime or night-time!!
The cornerstone of the Police theory of the crime is that the Mystery Man committed the murders, and that the Mystery man was Scott Watson, therefore, the murders were committed by Scott Watson. However, Watson simply cannot have been in that bar at 8pm. Not only was he confirmed as being in another place at that time, he did not even remotely resemble the man that witnesses saw there; long, shoulder-length hair v short cropped hair, unshaven v clean shaven, scruffily dressed v tidily dressed.
All this talk about which water taxi driver was where is irrelevant. Donald Anderson swears that he dropped Watson off at the Blade (the ship's name triggered the memory for him because Watson had asked him "Any chance of a lift to the Blade?", while Guy Wallace swears to this day that the man he took with Ben and Olivia to the ketch was NOT Scott Watson, he was a scruffy, unshaven man with shoulder length hair, a description backed up by two other people on the water taxi.
Its his MO.
Wishart claims (assuming of course that the Police are not lying and withholding anything) to have had access to ALL of the original Police files including all of the transcripts of the interviews with Watson
If so, why does he not release it. Answer? Probably because doing so would make information available that undermines his conclusions.
Wishart publishes the twenty page arresting interview.
After reading it I became convinced Scott Watson equals Mystery Man.
I will suggest to Wishart he supplies a link for easy access.