I too find your last post very clear Smart Cooky, Apart from the deletions about who was lying (this comes from the “never ascribe to malice what can be best explained by stupidity,” theory I mentioned.) I wonder what is being done. This case makes me impatient because there is no one in their swinging haymakers at those that dance on pins. A new, concise, public appealing, RPOM application that amongst tight and clear points asks for a Court directive as the position in Law as to recanted evidence fundamental to a conviction. I know that an application of this type is not directed to the Court but I think that is where it is accepted now those turned down for RPOM can go, accordingly asking for such points or directives on Law is important from the outset. RPOM applications are traditionally cap in hand and that is not their design because the Magna Carta dispensed with such royal prerogatives and denial to the Courts. if a petitioner has valid legal points it shouldn't be for the cabinet of the day to pick over them, but to send them on. I think it also important that SW faces a further injustice, being required to admit guilt before leaving prison, this to is also a reason why he should be be allowed to take new evidence to the Court for it to be judged in the way the PC have set down what new evidence actually is. Would be interesting to know if anything similar has been to the PC in reference to being denied the opportunity for release in case that has relied on evidence which has been recanted, along with other cases where science has progressed opinions and methods superseded by time.
Scott Watson
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,383
In the court of public opinion, only 23% of Kiwis think Scott Watson did it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11754860
If only there were a system where people could vote for things they believe in...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11754860
If only there were a system where people could vote for things they believe in...
The idiocy of lay crime watchers in New Zealand is boundless.
I am a slow learner, I am just catching up.
By the way, the only panel worth watching would be Scott Watson, Donald Anderson and Guy Wallace.
Everyone involved in analysing this case agrees Scott Watson was on shore at 3 30 am, and Everyone involved in analysing this case agrees there were only two men who might drive water taxis at this time or later.
Everyone agrees Scott Watson was on his boat before dawn.
Go figure how tough this one is to crack.
Denied parole again. He never met them (so can show no remorse) claims Watson.
What was he doing on january 1. Witnesses saw him sail in to Eerie Bay in a blue and white boat January 2 if Wishart is to be believed.
Gerald Hope found him evasive about his activities January 1.
Who do we believe in this extended saga?
What was he doing on january 1. Witnesses saw him sail in to Eerie Bay in a blue and white boat January 2 if Wishart is to be believed.
Gerald Hope found him evasive about his activities January 1.
Who do we believe in this extended saga?
Fixit sent me this for comment
(Para 86). Ms McDonald deals with the 2 hairs said to be have found on the Blade. This was for her, and the Justice Minister of the time, evidence that held together the Crown case weakened in many ways since the trial, before a positive position for the Ketch could be submitted. Unfortunately, Ms McDonald completely omitted from her first report and supplementary that ESR changes post the Watson trial include samples and exhibits not to housed together let alone examined contemporaneously. In addition:
The hairs were not found on The Blade at all.
The hairs were not sighted by any witness who examined The Blade for forensic evidence, noting that ‘blond hairs,’ blood, semen samples, would have been a priority for searchers.
The hairs were also not confirmed as found on a blanket taken from the Blade as Ms McDonald and the Minister state.
In first searches of the hairs bagged, having said to have come from the blanket the longest were 3inches (75mm). 11 were chosen including both brown and yellow blond hairs for DNA testing, none of which returned a positive result from the DNA test.
In modern times the hairs from the blanket would have been counted and the number recorded. Unfortunately, that did not happen in the Watson case. However, the length of the longest hairs was recorded, allowing a specific reference point which follows.
The ‘2 hairs’ were found after the plastic bag was emptied onto a table in which ‘samples’ from a hair brush just delivered by police from the home of Amelia Hope were examined.
The first of the 2 hairs found was 6inches (150mm), the second hair was 8 inches (200mm.)
The length of any hairs not being found before the sample bag was brought to the laboratory was consistent with no longer hairs being found during the cabin search of the Blade.
The searches both on The Blade and in the Laboratory, would both of necessity be looking for long blond hairs as Amelia Hope had long hair which was dyed blond. No New Zealander would not have seen the released photos of her and Ms Vintner would not be an exception. This presented potential ‘confirmation bias’ as set out in the Sean Doyle report and the PCAST, which if known may have been reason to reject the evidence or provide a warning to the Jury that the contemporary model is that the blanket and hairs would be sent to a laboratory as being from an anonymous source. The same would apply to the brush hairs being sent to a different laboratory without historical evidence of source resulting in no opportunity for confirmation bias or contamination.
The absence on DNA results of 11 hairs should be compared to 2 hairs not found earlier which did give DNA on a probability basis.
The 2-hairs were found the same day sample hairs taken from a comb in the Hope home were delivered to the laboratory by police. These hairs were also not counted but do have a specific reference point in that after the ‘brush’ bag was opened on the same work space as the blanket hairs were being re-examined the blanket hairs were suddenly found to have contained 2 longer hairs than which had been among those hairs that had been measured previously. The probability of 2 hairs being found on the same day as a third search of the blanket hairs when it happens that further hairs from a separate source were taken to the same laboratory and resulted in a ‘fresh’ find on a 3rd search of the blanket hairs is also a dominating fact for any probability testing.
The hairs were never positively identified as coming from Amelia Hope but could have been from her sister who ‘shared’ the same brush (check this detail) or any other female in their same mitochondrial line.
Hair DNA tested is inconsistent throughout the length of a hair and according to the area from where the hair originated.
That Ms Vintner of the ESR in cross examination confirmed that ‘contamination (of the hairs) would have to be considered.’
From a correspondent:
First they were bleached blond, one was 6 inches long 150mm, the other 8 inches 200mm. In previous searches of the hairs and tiger skin blanket, the longest hairs found were 3 inches 75mm. 11 were chosen including both brown and yellow blond hairs for DNA testing, none of which returned a positive result from the DNA test.
The only DNA test that tied the hairs to Olivia was the $70,000 mitochondrial(mDNA) tests done in the UK but it only proved the hair came from one or other of the two girls no more. The nuclear DNA testing was useless and in spite of some junk science, the multiplying of two totally separate tests both with out reagents to confirm results meant the hairs could have come from Amelia or Olivia or any other person sharing the same mDNA.
The other test done, one of the hairs was microscopic comparison where the scientist would claim that hairs matched the sample hairs from the Hope home. Again, this is now totally discredited as DNA has resulted in exoneration's where hair comparison was a major factor in the conviction.
Tests done by the NAS for the US Dept of Justice revealed that the "experts" could not even reliably match two halves of the same hair, and could match hairs from totally unrelated people from different parts of the Country. Microscopic comparison can identify between races and parts of body hair, but head hairs vary depending on the part of the head they are from.)))
(Para 86). Ms McDonald deals with the 2 hairs said to be have found on the Blade. This was for her, and the Justice Minister of the time, evidence that held together the Crown case weakened in many ways since the trial, before a positive position for the Ketch could be submitted. Unfortunately, Ms McDonald completely omitted from her first report and supplementary that ESR changes post the Watson trial include samples and exhibits not to housed together let alone examined contemporaneously. In addition:
The hairs were not found on The Blade at all.
The hairs were not sighted by any witness who examined The Blade for forensic evidence, noting that ‘blond hairs,’ blood, semen samples, would have been a priority for searchers.
The hairs were also not confirmed as found on a blanket taken from the Blade as Ms McDonald and the Minister state.
In first searches of the hairs bagged, having said to have come from the blanket the longest were 3inches (75mm). 11 were chosen including both brown and yellow blond hairs for DNA testing, none of which returned a positive result from the DNA test.
In modern times the hairs from the blanket would have been counted and the number recorded. Unfortunately, that did not happen in the Watson case. However, the length of the longest hairs was recorded, allowing a specific reference point which follows.
The ‘2 hairs’ were found after the plastic bag was emptied onto a table in which ‘samples’ from a hair brush just delivered by police from the home of Amelia Hope were examined.
The first of the 2 hairs found was 6inches (150mm), the second hair was 8 inches (200mm.)
The length of any hairs not being found before the sample bag was brought to the laboratory was consistent with no longer hairs being found during the cabin search of the Blade.
The searches both on The Blade and in the Laboratory, would both of necessity be looking for long blond hairs as Amelia Hope had long hair which was dyed blond. No New Zealander would not have seen the released photos of her and Ms Vintner would not be an exception. This presented potential ‘confirmation bias’ as set out in the Sean Doyle report and the PCAST, which if known may have been reason to reject the evidence or provide a warning to the Jury that the contemporary model is that the blanket and hairs would be sent to a laboratory as being from an anonymous source. The same would apply to the brush hairs being sent to a different laboratory without historical evidence of source resulting in no opportunity for confirmation bias or contamination.
The absence on DNA results of 11 hairs should be compared to 2 hairs not found earlier which did give DNA on a probability basis.
The 2-hairs were found the same day sample hairs taken from a comb in the Hope home were delivered to the laboratory by police. These hairs were also not counted but do have a specific reference point in that after the ‘brush’ bag was opened on the same work space as the blanket hairs were being re-examined the blanket hairs were suddenly found to have contained 2 longer hairs than which had been among those hairs that had been measured previously. The probability of 2 hairs being found on the same day as a third search of the blanket hairs when it happens that further hairs from a separate source were taken to the same laboratory and resulted in a ‘fresh’ find on a 3rd search of the blanket hairs is also a dominating fact for any probability testing.
The hairs were never positively identified as coming from Amelia Hope but could have been from her sister who ‘shared’ the same brush (check this detail) or any other female in their same mitochondrial line.
Hair DNA tested is inconsistent throughout the length of a hair and according to the area from where the hair originated.
That Ms Vintner of the ESR in cross examination confirmed that ‘contamination (of the hairs) would have to be considered.’
From a correspondent:
First they were bleached blond, one was 6 inches long 150mm, the other 8 inches 200mm. In previous searches of the hairs and tiger skin blanket, the longest hairs found were 3 inches 75mm. 11 were chosen including both brown and yellow blond hairs for DNA testing, none of which returned a positive result from the DNA test.
The only DNA test that tied the hairs to Olivia was the $70,000 mitochondrial(mDNA) tests done in the UK but it only proved the hair came from one or other of the two girls no more. The nuclear DNA testing was useless and in spite of some junk science, the multiplying of two totally separate tests both with out reagents to confirm results meant the hairs could have come from Amelia or Olivia or any other person sharing the same mDNA.
The other test done, one of the hairs was microscopic comparison where the scientist would claim that hairs matched the sample hairs from the Hope home. Again, this is now totally discredited as DNA has resulted in exoneration's where hair comparison was a major factor in the conviction.
Tests done by the NAS for the US Dept of Justice revealed that the "experts" could not even reliably match two halves of the same hair, and could match hairs from totally unrelated people from different parts of the Country. Microscopic comparison can identify between races and parts of body hair, but head hairs vary depending on the part of the head they are from.)))
‘Are peer reviewed tests on DNA identification from a lab acceptable as evidence if the controls are unavailable from the original Lab tests? Also, is it significant information to provide the reviewer with any possible concerns/issues about the possibility of contamination arising at the time of original testing, or evidence gathering?’
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
More from Mike Kalaugher
He (Mike Kalaugher) reviewed the statements and sketches of the other witnesses on the water taxi and compared them to the known positions of certain objects, such as the jetties and the Tamarack.
One of the witnesses, told police about how long it took to travel between the various points. "Assuming a reasonably straight track between points and a consistent speed of the Naiad it is possible to convert times to distances," Kirkwood swore in an affidavit. Based on those estimates, he calculated the speed of the water taxi as being around three knots, which was consistent with what Wallace said. "This lends weight to her [the witness's] estimates."
By using that speed and the time she said it took to get from the Tamarack to the mystery yacht (three and a half minutes) and then on to Doctor's Jetty where she and her partner were dropped at (two minutes), Kirkwood was able to draw arcs from the known points of the Tamarack and the jetty.
Where those arcs overlapped gave an area where the mystery yacht should be - and it was not where the Blade was.
Kirkwood also examined the sketch and statements of the other witness on the water taxi. It showed the track of the water taxi from the Furneaux jetty to the Tamarack as being on a 70-degree angle. "The actual track is 80 degrees, making [his] estimate only 10 degrees in error. This shows his bearings are good estimates."
The witness's sketch then plotted a 55-degree path from the Tamarack to the mystery yacht - a path which took the water taxi "well seaward" of the Blade, by a minimum of 95m.
What's more, the paths both witnesses described matched each other.
"In summary, the positions for the unidentified yacht as given by both [witnesses] are consistent with each other, they exclude the yacht Blade and point to an area appreciably to the seaward of the yacht Blade," wrote Kirkwood.
This case keeps getting worse and worse.
He (Mike Kalaugher) reviewed the statements and sketches of the other witnesses on the water taxi and compared them to the known positions of certain objects, such as the jetties and the Tamarack.
One of the witnesses, told police about how long it took to travel between the various points. "Assuming a reasonably straight track between points and a consistent speed of the Naiad it is possible to convert times to distances," Kirkwood swore in an affidavit. Based on those estimates, he calculated the speed of the water taxi as being around three knots, which was consistent with what Wallace said. "This lends weight to her [the witness's] estimates."
By using that speed and the time she said it took to get from the Tamarack to the mystery yacht (three and a half minutes) and then on to Doctor's Jetty where she and her partner were dropped at (two minutes), Kirkwood was able to draw arcs from the known points of the Tamarack and the jetty.
Where those arcs overlapped gave an area where the mystery yacht should be - and it was not where the Blade was.
Kirkwood also examined the sketch and statements of the other witness on the water taxi. It showed the track of the water taxi from the Furneaux jetty to the Tamarack as being on a 70-degree angle. "The actual track is 80 degrees, making [his] estimate only 10 degrees in error. This shows his bearings are good estimates."
The witness's sketch then plotted a 55-degree path from the Tamarack to the mystery yacht - a path which took the water taxi "well seaward" of the Blade, by a minimum of 95m.
What's more, the paths both witnesses described matched each other.
"In summary, the positions for the unidentified yacht as given by both [witnesses] are consistent with each other, they exclude the yacht Blade and point to an area appreciably to the seaward of the yacht Blade," wrote Kirkwood.
This case keeps getting worse and worse.
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
They just do not seem interested in getting it right, no matter how many people come out and show them how they got it wrong.
They could have at least given him parole last year, ffs.
They could have at least given him parole last year, ffs.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,383
Like Mark Lundy, Teina Pora and Peter Ellis, being innocent is actually a major barrier to getting parole, because you have to admit the crime and say sorry, which genuinely innocent people refuse to do.
Add David Tamihere to that. His story never changed, at last New Zealanders see how that hoax was perpetrated.
No one will ask Watson the questions he should answer. Gerald Hope had the chance but he asked meaningless questions.
It's hard for either man to objective on the subject more than any of us can understand. With time, as details of the case continue to become plainer that will change. SW was set up big time, from beginning to end. The hair evidence is now a wreck, a ketch is the inlet, no one puts the couple aboard the Blade.
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
Apparently, this Maritime Research Group did an in-depth investigation on the mystery ketch. There is a 3 video series on you tube about the report. It is really dry, but the information is remarkable. Why isn't this getting any traction?
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
And the Maritime Research Group's report was debunked by none other than Ian Wishart:
and
and
as well as more debunking. Here is the entire article.
To quote Samson's analogy from a different thread, I feel like I am at a tennis match, watching one side hit the ball and then the other side hit it back.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,383
I have to agree with you there. Corrupt cops again.
For some reason, Scott Watson hasn't drawn the sympathy of the public in the way David Bain did.
Which is quite ironic given Baino being guilty and Watson not.
Provocative.
Baino is innocent.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,383
Nonsense. Watson's supporters have hardly made a ripple, exactly unlike Baino, whose publicity and support was the only one you could compare to AAT's.
Terrible comparison.