ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags murder cases , New Zealand cases , Scott Watson

Reply
Old 1st May 2015, 07:03 PM   #41
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Not to mention the uncomfortable history of hair DNA matches being overstated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...310_story.html
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2015, 01:33 PM   #42
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,018
I dug this up when you first mentioned this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJv2vmH8Nd8

Question. At 13:33, is it normal for NZ cops to lean on a witness like this? Or is just a bit of fanciful dialogue for a tv show? If it's the normal way of acquiring witness testimony-is it any wonder why NZ seems to have problems with murder investigations.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2015, 04:28 PM   #43
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
I dug this up when you first mentioned this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJv2vmH8Nd8

Question. At 13:33, is it normal for NZ cops to lean on a witness like this? Or is just a bit of fanciful dialogue for a tv show? If it's the normal way of acquiring witness testimony-is it any wonder why NZ seems to have problems with murder investigations.
Kiwi cops are the same as cops everywhere: [some/many are] arrogant, over-bearing, opinionated, sexist, racist and carrying a mien of entitlement they haven't earned.

Whether that particular episode is likely I can't say because I'm not going to watch 25 minutes of Youtube to see it. Give me a time point and I'll have a look.

I am fairly familiar with police tactics from both sides of the fence.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2015, 04:36 PM   #44
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,018
I did.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2015, 06:25 PM   #45
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
So you did!

My apologies - it must have been too early in the morning.

I'd go with that being a mild treatment.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2015, 03:53 AM   #46
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Scott Watson criminal history

This is what is in the public record:

In fact he has no history of sexual misbehaviour at all. As for violence, while he had a youthful criminal record it was all but entirely non-violent. At the time Ben and Olivia went missing it was also historic, the record of a young man who had had a difficult adolescence and had put it behind him. At one time it was just called adolescent delinquency and addressed as such. In Watson’s case it lasted from age sixteen to age eighteen and a half. At New Year 1997 he was twenty six and his period of delinquency almost eight years in the past. His record of violence was a single conviction for ‘common assault’ ten years earlier at age sixteen, penalty a $250 fine.

For the most part, his youthful misbehaviour was confined to the consumption of marijuana and the illicit use of other people’s cars - and bicycles.

................

The description all but entirely non-violent could be seen as partial, but a $250 fine for common assault suggests mitigating circumstances.

This is the link.

http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/?...cle=defamation
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2015, 03:46 PM   #47
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
This is one of the best examples in New Zealand of a Police investigation where they did an effective job of using a willing media to demonize their prime suspect in order to poison any possible jury pool. Its not hard to do in a country where this sort of murder/disappearance makes national headlines.

The Police even went as far as to trawl through all the video they had of Scott Watson, frame by frame until they found a single frame that caught him blinking, which gave him a "menacing" appearance, and made him look remotely like the description of the "scruffy" man that had got on the ketch with Ben and Olivia.

This was the photo they used as their official police photo of Watson, and the one that was used in their media releases on the investigation.



Witnesses identified this as similar to the man they saw, but later, when they were shown this photo of Scott Watson....



... every single witness recanted their testimony and said this was not the man they saw!!

This case is also probably the best example in a New Zealand trial where the prosecution intentionally misled the jury. They stated that the Police could find no-one other than Guy Wallace who saw the mystery ketch; this was a blatant lie. The Police in fact had dozens of witnesses who saw it and reported it, but their accounts (even though they were remarkably similar) were dismissed. They even had the eye-witness testimony of a boat designer who was so fascinated by its design that he paid a great deal of attention to it, and was able to draw a detailed sketch from memory, including all the mast fittings.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2015, 03:59 PM   #48
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This is one of the best examples in New Zealand of a Police investigation where they did an effective job of using a willing media to demonize their prime suspect in order to poison any possible jury pool. Its not hard to do in a country where this sort of murder/disappearance makes national headlines.

The Police even went as far as to trawl through all the video they had of Scott Watson, frame by frame until they found a single frame that caught him blinking, which gave him a "menacing" appearance, and made him look remotely like the description of the "scruffy" man that had got on the ketch with Ben and Olivia.

This was the photo they used as their official police photo of Watson, and the one that was used in their media releases on the investigation.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...REF/photo2.jpg

Witnesses identified this as similar to the man they saw, but later, when they were shown this photo of Scott Watson....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...REF/photo1.jpg

... every single witness recanted their testimony and said this was not the man they saw!!

This case is also probably the best example in a New Zealand trial where the prosecution intentionally misled the jury. They stated that the Police could find no-one other than Guy Wallace who saw the mystery ketch; this was a blatant lie. The Police in fact had dozens of witnesses who saw it and reported it, but their accounts (even though they were remarkably similar) were dismissed. They even had the eye-witness testimony of a boat designer who was so fascinated by its design that he paid a great deal of attention to it, and was able to draw a detailed sketch from memory, including all the mast fittings.
Couldn't the defense have put that guy on the stand?

This case does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I don't understand why the police focused on Watson to begin with, and I don't see how the prosecutor was able to overcome witness testimony pointing to someone completely unlike Watson, with a much larger and different boat.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2015, 07:15 PM   #49
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Couldn't the defence have put that guy on the stand?

This case does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I don't understand why the police focused on Watson to begin with, and I don't see how the prosecutor was able to overcome witness testimony pointing to someone completely unlike Watson, with a much larger and different boat.
You have to remember that that Ben and Olivia disappeared from a place where almost everyone were visitors. Those who were there on the night in question were long gone by the time this came to trial, many of them from other parts of New Zealand, and even overseas. Tracking down witnesses would have been a very difficult task for the defence.

Also, unlike places like the USA and Canada, NZ's pre-trial discovery rules are appallingly slack. It would not be overstating the case to say that the Police are not under any obligation to reveal to the defence anything they have in their possession, even exculpatory evidence. For example, in the Arthur Thomas case, the police had a witness who lived near the Crewe farm who heard gunshots ring out in the early evening at a time when Thomas had a clear alibi. The Police suppressed that evidence through both trials, and consequently, the witness (Julie Priest) was never called to testify at either trial. In the USA, that is exculpatory, and if the prosecution failed to reveal this at discovery, not only it would be grounds for immediate reversal of any conviction, but the prosecutor who failed to reveal it in discovery would very likely find himself charged with Prosecutorial Misconduct.

That witness was found by David Yallop ("Beyond Reasonable Doubt") and was one of the key pieces of evidence that got the Thomas conviction quashed.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 3rd May 2015 at 07:16 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2015, 07:44 PM   #50
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Gunshots? I was recently persuaded the Pat Booth theory was plausible that Jeanette shot Harvey after he broke her nose, which would have been one shot, followed with her father assisting disposing of his body, and she later committed suicide, and he found her and disposed of her body......

I was unaware of the perilous position innocent citizens are in, but it helps explain all these cases, including David Tamihere, and why they are rotting in jail. How incredibly lucky was Ewan McDonald to escape the fate.

Last edited by Samson; 3rd May 2015 at 07:45 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2015, 09:39 PM   #51
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You have to remember that that Ben and Olivia disappeared from a place where almost everyone were visitors. Those who were there on the night in question were long gone by the time this came to trial, many of them from other parts of New Zealand, and even overseas. Tracking down witnesses would have been a very difficult task for the defence.

Also, unlike places like the USA and Canada, NZ's pre-trial discovery rules are appallingly slack. It would not be overstating the case to say that the Police are not under any obligation to reveal to the defence anything they have in their possession, even exculpatory evidence. For example, in the Arthur Thomas case, the police had a witness who lived near the Crewe farm who heard gunshots ring out in the early evening at a time when Thomas had a clear alibi. The Police suppressed that evidence through both trials, and consequently, the witness (Julie Priest) was never called to testify at either trial. In the USA, that is exculpatory, and if the prosecution failed to reveal this at discovery, not only it would be grounds for immediate reversal of any conviction, but the prosecutor who failed to reveal it in discovery would very likely find himself charged with Prosecutorial Misconduct.

That witness was found by David Yallop ("Beyond Reasonable Doubt") and was one of the key pieces of evidence that got the Thomas conviction quashed.
Well, sure, if the cops can legally withhold that kind of information, they can win every time, because they are the ones who do the investigation. The defendant can seldom afford to fund his/her own investigation.

In this case though, it seems like the defense could have tracked down that one individual and gotten a deposition from him.

It just seems ridiculous... people described a bearded guy with a 40-foot ketch vs. clean-shaven Watson and his tiny sloop, and yet the cops investigated Watson, and the jury convicted him.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2015, 02:07 AM   #52
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Gunshots? I was recently persuaded the Pat Booth theory was plausible that Jeanette shot Harvey after he broke her nose, which would have been one shot, followed with her father assisting disposing of his body, and she later committed suicide, and he found her and disposed of her body......

Nah, forget all the murder suicide rubbish. It doesn't fit the conclusive evidence that the kill shots were taken from outside the house, not inside.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2015, 02:13 AM   #53
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Nah, forget all the murder suicide rubbish. It doesn't fit the conclusive evidence that the kill shots were taken from outside the house, not inside.
So after years of intensive study how could Pat Booth get that as wrong as the police look like they got Scott Watson wrong?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2015, 01:33 PM   #54
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
So after years of intensive study how could Pat Booth get that as wrong as the police look like they got Scott Watson wrong?
I don't know, but the theory is convoluted and implausible. It is far more likely that someone killed both these people at the same time, for personal cause. Presumably he disposed of the bodies to delay discovery of the crime, impede the investigation, and with the hope that the bodies would never be found. It was therefore someone who knew he might become a suspect. I don't think it was the woman's father.

People make these basic theoretical blunders because they get focused on a given suspect and construct a wild scenario from that, instead of looking at the overall crime to establish what probably happened.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2015, 02:57 PM   #55
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I don't know, but the theory is convoluted and implausible. It is far more likely that someone killed both these people at the same time, for personal cause. Presumably he disposed of the bodies to delay discovery of the crime, impede the investigation, and with the hope that the bodies would never be found. It was therefore someone who knew he might become a suspect. I don't think it was the woman's father.

People make these basic theoretical blunders because they get focused on a given suspect and construct a wild scenario from that, instead of looking at the overall crime to establish what probably happened.
If the ballistics exclude the theory fair enough.
However it covers the strong sighting of a woman feeding the baby a few days later, and the absence of an obviously local suspect . And as Booth points out, Demmler allows an innocent man to got to trial because he will be acquitted. (He is innocent, we acquit innocent men.)
I am not well versed in the detail as others obviously are, but Booth devoted many years.
As to your question why Scott Watson, I am not sure there is an answer. My brother is local, was there at the time watching the sloop lifted out. Last time we discussed the case he was comfortable with Watson as culprit, so I will pose your questions, in due course. Through the ISF lens they do look curly ones.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2015, 04:56 PM   #56
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Watson goes on the front foot

" " "Watson is seeking a judicial review of a decision by the chief executive of Corrections to refuse him a meeting with North and South journalist Mike White." " "

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11443534

Also

Watson was also denied a pardon by the Governor-General.

On the advice of the most disgraceful minister of justice New Zealand has had.
Judith Collins
She has played god with David Bain's independent Canadian judge, Justice Binnie.
She declared that Teina Pora getting his case heard by the privy council showed the system working, but failed to mention that this was exclusively due to the hard work of unpaid volunteers.
She was silent when he was exonerated.

She has aspirations to be New Zealand's next prime minister.

Last edited by Samson; 4th May 2015 at 05:11 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2015, 07:27 PM   #57
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
She has aspirations not a snowball's chance in the Sahara desert of be New Zealand's next prime minister.
Fixed that for you.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2015, 11:58 PM   #58
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Fixed that for you.
I agree, the certainty that crusher Collins' political aspirations are circumscribed by negative popularity ratings is a badly kept secret.
I am looking forward to the day when this serial malfeasance by the political judicial and law enforcement divisions of NZ society is well understood, catalogued, and fully described.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2015, 09:03 PM   #59
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
More discomfort for the system

"In picking Mr White, Watson didn't just pick anyone, Mr Cook said.
"He's picked someone who's been involved in the case from the start, someone who's respected in their field, and who's from a reputable magazine.
"This is important because it's not tabloid drivel written by a pen for hire whose interest is not in facts and justice."
However, the Chief Executive of Corrections has maintained his refusal to allow Watson to meet White, saying the decision was made in line with the law and balanced with other factors."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11451819
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 01:46 AM   #60
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Quote:
Lawyer for Corrections, Paul Rishworth, told the court the CEO was directed by the regulations to consider the interests of the victims.

"He balanced those interests, he balanced freedom of expression, miscarriage of justice concerns, and made a decision that was his to make," he said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11451819
The victims are (presumably) dead, I'm not sure what interests they would have. Methinks his main "concern" is not getting the public wound up to the point where difficult questions might be asked and a miscarriage of justice might actually be proved by someone.

Anyway, isn't Scott Watson about due for release? He was sentenced in 1999 to 17 years, theoretically he should be out next year.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 04:10 AM   #61
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Anyway, isn't Scott Watson about due for release? He was sentenced in 1999 to 17 years, theoretically he should be out next year.
I thought he got life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. Parole is not a given and sometimes, inmates who continue to maintain their innocence are not granted parole at the first try.

I have to wonder why the authorities don't want Watson being interviewed... perhaps they have something to hide
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 04:48 AM   #62
Annella
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The victims are (presumably) dead, I'm not sure what interests they would have. Methinks his main "concern" is not getting the public wound up to the point where difficult questions might be asked and a miscarriage of justice might actually be proved by someone.

Anyway, isn't Scott Watson about due for release? He was sentenced in 1999 to 17 years, theoretically he should be out next year.
Im pretty sure Rishworth was against 'victims family' not the victims ( obviously) being subjected to Watson's words possibly being heard via the Nth & Sth journo.
Watson has consistently held his not guilty position and as he is due for parole very soon, he is running out of time very quickly to prove his innocence as once freed, AFAIK, he cannot then contest his case and expect compensation.
I believe he should most definitely be permitted to talk with this journalist.

Last edited by Annella; 20th May 2015 at 04:52 AM.
Annella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 05:32 AM   #63
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The victims are (presumably) dead, I'm not sure what interests they would have. Methinks his main "concern" is not getting the public wound up to the point where difficult questions might be asked and a miscarriage of justice might actually be proved by someone.

Anyway, isn't Scott Watson about due for release? He was sentenced in 1999 to 17 years, theoretically he should be out next year.
Originally Posted by Annella View Post
Im pretty sure Rishworth was against 'victims family' not the victims ( obviously) being subjected to Watson's words possibly being heard via the Nth & Sth journo.
Watson has consistently held his not guilty position and as he is due for parole very soon, he is running out of time very quickly to prove his innocence as once freed, AFAIK, he cannot then contest his case and expect compensation.
I believe he should most definitely be permitted to talk with this journalist.
Those not paying attention are now few.
This case and others are dynamite for attending to a disgracefull few decades that have hoodwinked a gullible small nation.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 12:38 PM   #64
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Annella View Post
Watson has consistently held his not guilty position and as he is due for parole very soon, he is running out of time very quickly to prove his innocence as once freed, AFAIK, he cannot then contest his case and expect compensation.
Really, he can't contest his conviction once he has been paroled or his sentence served? That seems very unfair. What happens if he finds some piece of evidence that proves his innocence? There should be no statute of limitations on him clearing his name.

Originally Posted by Annella View Post
I believe he should most definitely be permitted to talk with this journalist.
I completely agree. There's something not right in a system where a person can't maintain their innocence and be denied freedom of speech. Worse yet, their parole being tied to not maintaining their innocence.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 12:55 PM   #65
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Originally Posted by Annella View Post
AFAIK, he cannot then contest his case and expect compensation.
Of course he can. There is no statute of limitations in effect and Peter Ellis is still seeking his rightful justice despite his sentence finishing years ago.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 01:01 PM   #66
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I thought he got life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. Parole is not a given and sometimes, inmates who continue to maintain their innocence are not granted parole at the first try.
Sorry, you're right - life with 17 year non-parole. Maintenance of innocence should never be a consideration in parole, it's an arrogant justice system that believes itself infallible and forces the convicted to agree with that belief.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I have to wonder why the authorities don't want Watson being interviewed... perhaps they have something to hide
They have a multi million dollar payout on their hands if his dodgy conviction is overturned, they want as few people poking their noses into the case as possible. And I'm sure it is about protecting the public image of the police and the justice system, rather than allowing questions to be asked about what really happened.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 03:41 PM   #67
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Sean Plunkett just read an email saying the ketch was The Lone Bird, scuttled in Gisborne and sunk as an artificial reef in 2003 off Young Nick's Head. The owner is now serving a life sentence in Australia. The ketch was involved in drug smuggling.

I have heard the same caller twice in two days giving testimony that he had a brand new video camera, and videoed everything, including Scott Watson's boat, and two ketches, one of which matched the one described by Guy Wallace leaving the inlet at 6 am on new years day. He spent 3 and a half hours being grilled by the police. They kept his film, of which he had not made a copy, and said they would return it. He asked three times for it, they fobbed him off and he never saw it again.

The police say there was no ketch in the inlet on new years eve. They are lying

This case is getting huge media traction in New Zealand right now, and is a case before the new commission.

Mike White is trying to get that interview. Corrections say he can conduct it by letter, but letters are censored. This is not an option for him. Gerald Hope is keen for the interview but wants to be present. Mary Smart opposes the interview.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 03:49 PM   #68
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This case is getting huge media traction in New Zealand right now, and is a case before the new commission.
Good grief, I wish you'd drop the hyperbole.

The case has been in the news, primarily because Watson is in court right now, but it is not gaining any traction at all and has already been consigned to back pages.

Interest in Watson is nil. The number of people who care whether he lives or dies is probably still in two digits.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 05:42 PM   #69
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Good grief, I wish you'd drop the hyperbole.

The case has been in the news, primarily because Watson is in court right now, but it is not gaining any traction at all and has already been consigned to back pages.

Interest in Watson is nil. The number of people who care whether he lives or dies is probably still in two digits.
Better grief, interest in Watson was intense on the station I listened to, 3 hours of eyewitness and other accounts.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 08:21 PM   #70
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Let me guess, talkback?

Yep, talkback radio achieves a lot and is mainstream.

Sounds legit.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 09:05 PM   #71
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
I listen to radio live, Sean Plunkett is a blowhard who knows everything. He tried Watson this morning, judge only, and got verdict of probably guilty, and declared Mike White was out to sell magazines, and so on.
I find people often ring with some inside knowledge on their subject.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2015, 09:44 PM   #72
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Let me guess, talkback?

Yep, talkback radio achieves a lot and is mainstream.

Sounds legit.
Talkback radio gets between 20 and 30% of the audience share in NZ Radio. (Newstalk ZB gets 12 - 18% on its own).

IMO, that is significant (1 in every 3 to 5 listeners listen to talkback) makes it very much mainstream.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2015, 02:22 AM   #73
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Oh my god.

You're defending talkback radio as though it was something other than a bad joke?

Jaysus. I was going to make a joke about change.org petitions, but they're a marvel of common sense compared to talkback radio.

Give me one example of anything talk radio has achieved anywhere in the world in the history of radio.

Just one.

Kerry Woodham (or whatever her name is now), John Tamihere, Leighton Smith, Danny Watson... yep, some of NZ's real intellectual giants are in talk radio.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2015, 02:35 AM   #74
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Oh my god.

You're defending talkback radio as though it was something other than a bad joke?

Jaysus. I was going to make a joke about change.org petitions, but they're a marvel of common sense compared to talkback radio.

Give me one example of anything talk radio has achieved anywhere in the world in the history of radio.

Just one.

Kerry Woodham (or whatever her name is now), John Tamihere, Leighton Smith, Danny Watson... yep, some of NZ's real intellectual giants are in talk radio.
John Tamihere is OK. Now describe the logic path that the police used to prove his brother David killed Urban Hoglin and Heidi Pakonnen.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2015, 04:39 AM   #75
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Oh my god.

You're defending talkback radio as though it was something other than a bad joke?

Jaysus. I was going to make a joke about change.org petitions, but they're a marvel of common sense compared to talkback radio.

Give me one example of anything talk radio has achieved anywhere in the world in the history of radio.

Just one.

Kerry Woodham (or whatever her name is now), John Tamihere, Leighton Smith, Danny Watson... yep, some of NZ's real intellectual giants are in talk radio.

Why does any type of radio have to "achieve" something. What has the "Concert" programme "achieved"? The"National" programme, the "Edge", "Classic Hits", "Harvest Radio"

There is no requirement for radio to change the world. Its job is to entertain, and inform; nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2015, 01:59 PM   #76
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
John Tamihere is OK.
Yeah, I forgot - he's a good guy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11231114

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11234710

https://tewhareporahou.wordpress.com...hn-and-willie/

Jeez, I'd hate to see who else you think is OK.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Now describe the logic path that the police used to prove his brother David killed Urban Hoglin and Heidi Pakonnen.
No interest whatsoever.

Even if he didn't kill them, the cops aren't going to find the real murderer, and in David Tamihere's case, he is a piece of human excrement with a long list of serious violent crime in his CV, so it's not like a Lundy or Watson.

He got caught with their gear, so again, it's not like the cops didn't have good reason to suspect him.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2015, 02:05 PM   #77
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Why does any type of radio have to "achieve" something. What has the "Concert" programme "achieved"? The"National" programme, the "Edge", "Classic Hits", "Harvest Radio"

There is no requirement for radio to change the world. Its job is to entertain, and inform; nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for the confirmation - that is exactly what I was saying.

On a side note, I'd argue that the National and Concert programs achieve something - they ensure money is directed to less-commercial music.

My point was that talkback radio is useles, and you agree, so the subject seems closed.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2015, 02:37 PM   #78
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yeah, I forgot - he's a good guy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11231114

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11234710

https://tewhareporahou.wordpress.com...hn-and-willie/

Jeez, I'd hate to see who else you think is OK.



No interest whatsoever.

Even if he didn't kill them, the cops aren't going to find the real murderer, and in David Tamihere's case, he is a piece of human excrement with a long list of serious violent crime in his CV, so it's not like a Lundy or Watson.

He got caught with their gear, so again, it's not like the cops didn't have good reason to suspect him.
You should engage your brain before attacking the keyboard. The murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakonen, Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, Christine and Amber Lundy, and Scott Guy are all unsolved. The police have stopped investigating them. How safe does that make the public?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2015, 07:04 PM   #79
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,242
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
You should engage your brain before attacking the keyboard.
Irony levels reaching 100% there, matey.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakonen, Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, Christine and Amber Lundy, and Scott Guy are all unsolved. The police have stopped investigating them. How safe does that make the public?
Who the hell mentioned public safety?

Jeez, you are certainly one for pulling straw people from your hat.

I have no concerns about those murderers, and I have even more certainty that the cops aren't going to find them, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject you were responding to, which is that John Tamihere is a twat at best, and a criminal at worst.

Nice of you to concede those points by completely ignoring them.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2015, 10:34 PM   #80
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Irony levels reaching 100% there, matey.



Who the hell mentioned public safety?

Jeez, you are certainly one for pulling straw people from your hat.

I have no concerns about those murderers, and I have even more certainty that the cops aren't going to find them, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject you were responding to, which is that John Tamihere is a twat at best, and a criminal at worst.

Nice of you to concede those points by completely ignoring them.
We should use the Tamihere thread to discuss the two brothers' crime wave.

Three unsolved murders within 10 miles and 10 years the crooked or dopey cops stopped investigating, and the locals swallowed both hoaxes hook line and sinker....
Auckland good Palmy bad.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.