So one dude
Scott Watson
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
One dude?
He's one person (now unfortunately deceased) whose story adds to all other other "one dudes" who are telling a story that differs from both the Police and Wishart's BS narrative.
Have you been actually reading this thread? Do you know anything at all about this case, or are you just going to continue to make stupid, pointless comments?
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,377
That is *********** breathtaking.
It does go to show how much evidence the cops will deliberately ignore when they have a hard-on for someone.
It isn't easy being a cop.
Same question, did the defence know about this pre-trial? Do you know when the tape was made. It's not only compelling in its detail but it distinguished between the 2 men according to someone or saw them both.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
As far as i know, the defense never knew about this, but I will ask.
The Police, of course, did know. It was yet another eye-witness to the reality of the ketch, but since it pointed away from the person they want to convict, they were not interested.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
In the mean time, here is a excellent analysis, a blow-by-blow description of the case, that shows just how flawed this investigation was.
http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/optam.htm
http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/optam.htm
Useful information on the hairs there. Would like to use part ofthat, and the interview with McManaway?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
OK, I have just received a reply...
"No he didn't. The police weren't interested and he wasn't called to testify. It was just buried with all the other evidence they buried."
As for when it was made, I think it was around 2005
Still waiting for a reply to your other request.
Who is your source?
Even from the little I understand it is very helpful to Watson and should have been made known to the defence. Furthermore it appears to be something relevant to reasonable doubt that a COA is not entitled to consider, but rather a Jury.
Reg describes a scruffy beard at 35 seconds, I'm not sure if this can be reconciled.
Wallace, as sober driver, describes his man as having short dark wavy hair.
The further issues are Reg knows Watson's boat but not Watson. Ben and Olivia were on Tamarak before supposedly first sighting the mystery man, but Reg has them engaging in the pub. I will watch a few more times to figure it.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No, he describes him as having long wavy hair, not short hair at all
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I specific point about the forensics here is very helpful, simple but helpful the more I think about it.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
All the reading I have done and every source I can find says the "Tiger Blanket" was only searched once, with all hairs and fibres being bagged and that subsequent searches were done of the contents of the bag.
The forensics procedures (and I use that last term very loosely) as regards the hair searches were haphazard and frankly, utterly appalling. Searching that bag twice, then later, searching the exemplars from Olivia and then a third search of the bagged hair immediately afterwards, on the same work table, by the same ESR examiner must surely border on criminal negligence. The hair evidence would be thrown out in almost any court in the world as soon as the ESR examiner admitted to what she did on the witness stand.
Yes, I have been told the same about the Tiger Blanket only being searched once with all the hairs and fibres being bagged and that subsequent searches were done of the contents of the bag. Someone has asked if they were counted, on each occasion including after the hair brush hairs were introduced, you may know that - however, myself and those discussing this don't believe it was done. In the first instance, how it was taken from the yacht, whether there was photographing and careful searches done there, or not, is also a big issue.
This point of description has been reached in terms of how it might have led to contamination “never ascribe to malice what can be best explained by stupidity,” where also the size of the blanket and a large number of possible events within the laboratory might have led to innocent contamination. Finally, the standards of isolation and testing have since been changed, and there was the case mentioned in your link above where DNA was discovered pointing to the guilt of a man in Chch for 2 murders in the North Island where he had never been. Moreover, there is a copy of a September 2016 letter on here posted by Desert Fox on a separate thread - which identifies errors in dna recognition on hairs runs at around 11% in controlled conditions of a much higher standard than that employed in Watson and since abandoned. This is where the emphasis must go and fairly forcefully, also the video of Reg McManaway and any others like it have to be shoved in front of the Courts. Throwing away millions of words and pages of evidence leaves such evidence crucial and clear. One advance could be to look at best practice now and ask a testing laboratory an opinion - comparing best practice in the past, compared to now, and attempt to apply Bayes testing to the probability of contamination. I could possibly advise of someone to help with the later if there is available a large enough data base - in fact I will check on that.
Cheers.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
There are a number of observers, Sampson and Wishart included, who seriously underestimate the importance of the Mystery Ketch, or rather, the lack of this ketch, to the Police & Crown case against Watson. If the ketch does not exist, then it would mean Guy Wallace must be mistaken about where he took Ben & Olivia, and since every other yacht had been eliminated, that would only leave Blade. However, if the ketch did exist, then Guy Wallace's testimony becomes key in blowing a gaping hole in the Crown's case.
It is not surprising that both the Police and the Crown wanted to discount the existence of the ketch. They had a report of a yacht leaving at around 5 am on New Year's Day (which I will get to later), and they wanted to make sure that it was not the Ketch. They did this by contacting each of the boat owners who had been at Endeavour Inlet on New Year's Eve, and checking their departure times. This, they believed, would eliminate every yacht, leaving only Watson's Blade, which they then concluded, must be the 5 am departure. However, it was not enough. They kept receiving inconvenient reports of a ketch, so they were forced to go to extraordinary lengths to deny its existence; those lengths included;
1. The "loss" of evidence submitted to Police by people who saw it. This includes photographs, negatives and video footage of the Mystery Ketch, none of which the Police ever returned to their owners despite numerous requests to do so.
2. The failure to turn over important interview documents to the defence and the failure to present those documents at trial.
3. The failure to follow up on public sightings of the ketch despite numerous reports. When people contacted the Police with information, they were told that Police "already had the boat they were looking for and their information wasn't needed"
4. Lying to the public by saying they were looking for any sighting of the ketch when they clearly were not interested.
5. Both of the Crown prosecutors lying to the jury, telling them the ketch did not exist when they must have known that it did.
Here are the first two documents that the defence never saw and that were never presented at trial;
Document 1
Document 2
The owner of the vessel ‘Unicorn’ had a fox terrier called Jazz.
The ‘Trooper’ had only two people aboard and did not leave until after 8 am.
These times accord well with Scott Watson's own Police statement about the time he left...
Document 3
So we have the owner of the Yacht (Watson) saying that he left between 6 and 7, and two independent witnesses who corroborated that time. Add to that the statement by Reg McManaway, and that is three.
We also have none of the boat owners who testified at trial (about 150 of them) saying that they left at that time, and that means the yacht that the Document 1 and Document 2 witnesses saw is unaccounted for. If its not the Blade, then its another unaccounted for yacht!
Of course, these people could be mistaken, so the Crown Solicitor requested the Police to check on this...
Document 4
So we have confirmation that the Document 1 witness was seeing "Trooper", and that the times were cross-confirmed as being between 6 am and 7 am. This was not looking good for the Crown case. If this yacht was Blade, then the 5am departure could only be a another yacht which they had not accounted for. No wonder the Crown suppressed this evidence!!
Finally, we get to another witness interview, which again was not given to the defence, and again the witness was never called to testify at trial
Document 5
- 40 foot ship (Blade is 26 feet)
- a coloured stripe (Blade had no stripe)
- possibly two masts (Blade has only one mast)
- a masthead light (Blade was not fitted with a masthead light)
Anyone thinking that this 5 am departure time was wrong should understand that You can't see a masthead light in daytime. Sunrise on Endeavour Inlet on New Year's Day 1998 was a 5:54 am. At 5am it was still dark, at 6:30 the sun is well up.
Clearly the Police's contention that Watson took Blade out of Endeavour Inlet at 5 am was false This lie was told, not so much to make Watson appear as if he was "getting out of town" but to discount another unknown yacht from being the 5 am departure.
When Crown Prosecutor Nicola Crutchley opened the trial by saying “The police began to find out all the names of all the people who had been at Furneaux Lodge on New Years eve, and who had arrived by boat…… These investigations were to follow up every such boat and their occupants” she was lying.
When Crown Prosecutor Paul Davidson QC said during the trial “No need to look over the horizon for a mystery ketch. Never was one. Its a fiction,”
When Crown Prosecutor Paul Davidson QC said in his closing "Now I won’t go into all of the evidence by which the crown says other boats at Furneaux can be eliminated. But one of the core circumstantial planks of the crown case is the elimination of all the other boats that can be identified as being there.” he was lying.
It is not surprising that both the Police and the Crown wanted to discount the existence of the ketch. They had a report of a yacht leaving at around 5 am on New Year's Day (which I will get to later), and they wanted to make sure that it was not the Ketch. They did this by contacting each of the boat owners who had been at Endeavour Inlet on New Year's Eve, and checking their departure times. This, they believed, would eliminate every yacht, leaving only Watson's Blade, which they then concluded, must be the 5 am departure. However, it was not enough. They kept receiving inconvenient reports of a ketch, so they were forced to go to extraordinary lengths to deny its existence; those lengths included;
1. The "loss" of evidence submitted to Police by people who saw it. This includes photographs, negatives and video footage of the Mystery Ketch, none of which the Police ever returned to their owners despite numerous requests to do so.
2. The failure to turn over important interview documents to the defence and the failure to present those documents at trial.
3. The failure to follow up on public sightings of the ketch despite numerous reports. When people contacted the Police with information, they were told that Police "already had the boat they were looking for and their information wasn't needed"
4. Lying to the public by saying they were looking for any sighting of the ketch when they clearly were not interested.
5. Both of the Crown prosecutors lying to the jury, telling them the ketch did not exist when they must have known that it did.
Here are the first two documents that the defence never saw and that were never presented at trial;
Document 1
Document 2
The owner of the vessel ‘Unicorn’ had a fox terrier called Jazz.
The ‘Trooper’ had only two people aboard and did not leave until after 8 am.
These times accord well with Scott Watson's own Police statement about the time he left...
Document 3
So we have the owner of the Yacht (Watson) saying that he left between 6 and 7, and two independent witnesses who corroborated that time. Add to that the statement by Reg McManaway, and that is three.
We also have none of the boat owners who testified at trial (about 150 of them) saying that they left at that time, and that means the yacht that the Document 1 and Document 2 witnesses saw is unaccounted for. If its not the Blade, then its another unaccounted for yacht!
Of course, these people could be mistaken, so the Crown Solicitor requested the Police to check on this...
Document 4
So we have confirmation that the Document 1 witness was seeing "Trooper", and that the times were cross-confirmed as being between 6 am and 7 am. This was not looking good for the Crown case. If this yacht was Blade, then the 5am departure could only be a another yacht which they had not accounted for. No wonder the Crown suppressed this evidence!!
Finally, we get to another witness interview, which again was not given to the defence, and again the witness was never called to testify at trial
Document 5
- 40 foot ship (Blade is 26 feet)
- a coloured stripe (Blade had no stripe)
- possibly two masts (Blade has only one mast)
- a masthead light (Blade was not fitted with a masthead light)
Anyone thinking that this 5 am departure time was wrong should understand that You can't see a masthead light in daytime. Sunrise on Endeavour Inlet on New Year's Day 1998 was a 5:54 am. At 5am it was still dark, at 6:30 the sun is well up.
Clearly the Police's contention that Watson took Blade out of Endeavour Inlet at 5 am was false This lie was told, not so much to make Watson appear as if he was "getting out of town" but to discount another unknown yacht from being the 5 am departure.
When Crown Prosecutor Nicola Crutchley opened the trial by saying “The police began to find out all the names of all the people who had been at Furneaux Lodge on New Years eve, and who had arrived by boat…… These investigations were to follow up every such boat and their occupants” she was lying.
When Crown Prosecutor Paul Davidson QC said during the trial “No need to look over the horizon for a mystery ketch. Never was one. Its a fiction,”
When Crown Prosecutor Paul Davidson QC said in his closing "Now I won’t go into all of the evidence by which the crown says other boats at Furneaux can be eliminated. But one of the core circumstantial planks of the crown case is the elimination of all the other boats that can be identified as being there.” he was lying.
Last edited:
There is constructive detail in your post, and the simplest crime theory keeps Watson out of it.
Getting rid of bodies is essentially impossible with the weighting resources available.
I have spoken to Wishart and his crime requires Watson to gather in an accomplice on the boat, and more on land to remove bodies in Shakespeare Bay.
He is certain of his repainting near Waikawa with the accomplice later New Years day. He reassigns the Donald Anderson trip with Watson to pre midnight.
I must agree that the above scenario is a spectacular result, buying so much silence as a loner.
On the other hand the character cast at 4 am in Furneau was down to a handful.
I thought the case was solved, but will add your Ws's to the mix.
I personally hope Watson is innocent because it adds strongly to the proposition all recent ministers of justice should burn in hell.