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 22nd May 2015, 02:51 AM   #81
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
We should use the Tamihere thread to discuss the two brothers' crime wave.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you raise the subject of David Tamihere?

Accordingly, don't be telling me where and what to discuss.

You really need a lesson in forum etiquette. I get the impression you're an earnest young man. If so, bully for you, but please try to be a little more decorous when discussing a subject.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?

The numbers are so minute as to be irrelevant. There are 1.4 million people live up here, and everywhere has the odd unsolved murder. Do you worry they're going to come and get you?

Regardless of the stupidity and bias of police - and I am no supporter of any police force - they catch the majority of murderers and lock them away, because the murderers are stupid.

If you want to worry about unsolved murders, try looking into the central North Island murders of Olive Walker, Mona Blades, Kirsa Jensen and maybe another one or two. Even Jeanette Beard? The cops never stated why they didn't think a serial killer was on the loose. I don't think Olive Walker was the same as the others, but there are some similarities in the other cases and the timing and area is good.

I used to live in that area and my old man was actually questioned by the cops when he advised them he'd driven the road Mona Blades disappeared from on the day she went missing.

Pretty well the entire country was in on that one, and they got nada.

Yes, the cops fabricate evidence; yes, they are dishonest, but if you have a better option, bring it on.

As cullennz said a while back, the only murder I'd really like to see solved is the Kahui one.

And it never will be.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 22nd May 2015, 03:06 AM   #82
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you raise the subject of David Tamihere?

Accordingly, don't be telling me where and what to discuss.

You really need a lesson in forum etiquette. I get the impression you're an earnest young man. If so, bully for you, but please try to be a little more decorous when discussing a subject.

Thanks.



What on earth is that supposed to mean?

The numbers are so minute as to be irrelevant. There are 1.4 million people live up here, and everywhere has the odd unsolved murder. Do you worry they're going to come and get you?

Regardless of the stupidity and bias of police - and I am no supporter of any police force - they catch the majority of murderers and lock them away, because the murderers are stupid.

If you want to worry about unsolved murders, try looking into the central North Island murders of Olive Walker, Mona Blades, Kirsa Jensen and maybe another one or two. Even Jeanette Beard? The cops never stated why they didn't think a serial killer was on the loose. I don't think Olive Walker was the same as the others, but there are some similarities in the other cases and the timing and area is good.

I used to live in that area and my old man was actually questioned by the cops when he advised them he'd driven the road Mona Blades disappeared from on the day she went missing.

Pretty well the entire country was in on that one, and they got nada.

Yes, the cops fabricate evidence; yes, they are dishonest, but if you have a better option, bring it on.

As cullennz said a while back, the only murder I'd really like to see solved is the Kahui one.

And it never will be.
Your forum etiquette is simply outstanding. There is a Tamihere thread that seems an ideal place to discuss Tamihere bros before forum management takes over.
Since we discussed your rugby career with Tony de Malmanche, who is 50, that is a good guide to your age, as may be the fact I grew up following the Thomas case a guide to mine.
The kahui twins were beaten to death by a family of maori, but the NZ police are turning a blind eye.
For Chrissakes, grow up.
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 22nd May 2015, 01:52 PM   #83
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Your forum etiquette is simply outstanding. There is a Tamihere thread that seems an ideal place to discuss Tamihere bros before forum management takes over.
The why did you raise the subject in this thread?

You do realise it was you who mentioned David Tamihere? I raised John in the context of talkback radio, which was 100% relevant to the thread because you seemed to think it had some relevance to the real world.

It does not.

As for the growing up nonsense, the irony is deep. I had been allowing you some leeway on the logical fallacies and hyperbole until it became just too bad to ignore. I will cease that immediately.

I repeat something I've said before: please leave the defence of Lundy, Watson, et al, to people who know how to present facts. Chris Halkides has done a remarkable of job of doing so and all you do is muddy the waters with posts containing dishonesty, false information and red herrings.

You're not a cop, are you?

If you want to get back to the subject of Scott Watson, be my guest.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 22nd May 2015, 02:36 PM   #84
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The why did you raise the subject in this thread?

You do realise it was you who mentioned David Tamihere? I raised John in the context of talkback radio, which was 100% relevant to the thread because you seemed to think it had some relevance to the real world.

It does not.

As for the growing up nonsense, the irony is deep. I had been allowing you some leeway on the logical fallacies and hyperbole until it became just too bad to ignore. I will cease that immediately.

I repeat something I've said before: please leave the defence of Lundy, Watson, et al, to people who know how to present facts. Chris Halkides has done a remarkable of job of doing so and all you do is muddy the waters with posts containing dishonesty, false information and red herrings.

You're not a cop, are you?

If you want to get back to the subject of Scott Watson, be my guest.
I thought it was reasonable to leave the defence of Mark Lundy to a lot of people starting with the police who are paid to keep him safe, but this leaving seems to not work so well for him. You are right that no one cares, and Amy Adams cares less than most in leaving her system to defend him.
Moving on to Watson, I thought it was reasonable to leave the defence of Scott Watson to a lot of people starting with the police who are paid to keep him safe, but this leaving seems to not work so well for him. You are right that no one cares, and Amy Adams cares less than most in leaving her system to defend him.
Why would you think I'm a cop? We are discussing these cases as reasonable people, and they are employed in a range of activities.

Now: could you be specific by naming one example of dishonesty, one of false information, and one red herring I have posted on this thread? More than one of each is fine.

On the subject of talk back radio, were you aware that a man had his video of ketches kept by the police? If it was not returned does that seem reasonable on their part? Does this have nothing to do with the real world? Would you be interested in his video? etc.
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 22nd May 2015, 03:39 PM   #85
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I thought it was reasonable to leave the defence of Mark Lundy to a lot of people starting with the police who are paid to keep him safe,....

Moving on to Watson, I thought it was reasonable to leave the defence of Scott Watson to a lot of people starting with the police who are paid to keep him safe....
Now I see your simple mistake. Leaving the defence to the police is a lot like leaving the lion to watch the lambs.

There's a connection between this thread and one of RandFan's. I said to him that if you want a corruption-free police department, you'd better figure out a completely new system of justice, because when all police see is bad guys, everyone soon looks like a bad guy.

The problem is with society.

We get the police we deserve.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Why would you think I'm a cop?
I was utterly certain you weren't and was being facetious.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Now: could you be specific by naming one example of dishonesty, one of false information, and one red herring I have posted on this thread? More than one of each is fine.
Nope.

I've already done that for you in the thread, so I'm not doing it twice.

Somewhere in the back pages you will find a post of mine where I pointed out examples of fallacies and misinformation you had already posted, so check back and find that.

Along with that, I found these in seconds, just scanning the current page. Each one is an example of things that are not evidence, but are red herrings, hyperbole or logical fallacy.

How safe does that make the public?
Sean Plunkett is a blowhard who knows everything
This case is getting huge media traction in New Zealand right now
I was unaware of the perilous position innocent citizens are in


If you want me to explain which is which and why, please just ask.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
On the subject of talk back radio, were you aware that a man had his video of ketches kept by the police? If it was not returned does that seem reasonable on their part? Does this have nothing to do with the real world? Would you be interested in his video? etc.
This is what really grinds my gears about your continual use of shocking logic and hyperbole - if that is true, then it would indeed be a valuable piece of information, but you hide it in amongst a load of nonsense.

However, right now, it's just another of your unsupported allegations.

Please provide further details.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 22nd May 2015, 05:02 PM   #86
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Now I see your simple mistake. Leaving the defence to the police is a lot like leaving the lion to watch the lambs.

There's a connection between this thread and one of RandFan's. I said to him that if you want a corruption-free police department, you'd better figure out a completely new system of justice, because when all police see is bad guys, everyone soon looks like a bad guy.

The problem is with society.

We get the police we deserve.



I was utterly certain you weren't and was being facetious.



Nope.

I've already done that for you in the thread, so I'm not doing it twice.

Somewhere in the back pages you will find a post of mine where I pointed out examples of fallacies and misinformation you had already posted, so check back and find that.

Along with that, I found these in seconds, just scanning the current page. Each one is an example of things that are not evidence, but are red herrings, hyperbole or logical fallacy.

How safe does that make the public?
Sean Plunkett is a blowhard who knows everything
This case is getting huge media traction in New Zealand right now
I was unaware of the perilous position innocent citizens are in


If you want me to explain which is which and why, please just ask.



This is what really grinds my gears about your continual use of shocking logic and hyperbole - if that is true, then it would indeed be a valuable piece of information, but you hide it in amongst a load of nonsense.

However, right now, it's just another of your unsupported allegations.

Please provide further details.
He rang Duncan Garner, then had another go with the same story to Plunkett

This I wrote

"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."

To be honest you are a bid of a wild man on the ISF forum, but I am more live and let live without criticising the way you criticise me, which is fine anyway. We should take the bits that make sense, and ignore the rest.

Since you are the only kiwi I've known to have heard of Onewhero, I find it hard to hold a grudge.
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 22nd May 2015, 05:28 PM   #87
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
"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."
Or, to put it correctly, an unsubstantiated allegation made on talkback radio.

I'd put the value of the information on firm par with the jailbird who gave evidence at the Lundy trial, yet you seem to have swallowed this one hook, line and sinker.

Don't you find it odd that this bloke had never brought his alleged tape up in the past 20 years?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 22nd May 2015, 06:22 PM   #88
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Or, to put it correctly, an unsubstantiated allegation made on talkback radio.

I'd put the value of the information on firm par with the jailbird who gave evidence at the Lundy trial, yet you seem to have swallowed this one hook, line and sinker.

Don't you find it odd that this bloke had never brought his alleged tape up in the past 20 years?
No not at all. I am trying to find whether the police claim there was no ketch in the inlet that night, because if that is their claim it is open and shut. This guy was Waiting to be Heard. They stole his video.

Last edited by Samson; 22nd May 2015 at 06:25 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 22nd May 2015, 08:18 PM   #89
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
And it never occurred to him to say this at the time of Watson's arrest or trial.

Colour me sceptical.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 22nd May 2015, 08:37 PM   #90
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
And it never occurred to him to say this at the time of Watson's arrest or trial.

Colour me sceptical.
Let us assume he tells truth, does it surprise you after your experince from "both sides" that they "lost" this crucial evidence?

There is nothing surprising because we
1. Know he was dropped on a ketch.
2. The police say the ketch does not exist.
3. A man videos two ketches on new years eve, and one sailing out of the inlet at 6am.
4. He spends 3 hours showing the police.
5. They refuse to return the video and convict Watson of a murder because they suspect him of a rape.

Which of that sequence do you challenge?

Last edited by Samson; 22nd May 2015 at 08:42 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 22nd May 2015, 09:10 PM   #91
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Let us assume ...
I have a much better idea: let's not.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the rule about assumptions. Google "assumption is the mother of ...": and get back to me.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 22nd May 2015, 09:21 PM   #92
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I have a much better idea: let's not.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the rule about assumptions. Google "assumption is the mother of ...": and get back to me.
I think you've chucked the towel in like the polis. Sad.
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 22nd May 2015, 10:53 PM   #93
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
What is that I was saying about logical fallacies?

How is refusing to assume something "throwing in the towel"?

You were the biggest detractor of people assuming things about Lundy in that thread, yet you embrace assumptions yourself to the point of denigrating people who won't play the assumption game with you.

That appears to be highly hypocritical.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 23rd May 2015, 12:04 AM   #94
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
What is that I was saying about logical fallacies?

How is refusing to assume something "throwing in the towel"?

You were the biggest detractor of people assuming things about Lundy in that thread, yet you embrace assumptions yourself to the point of denigrating people who won't play the assumption game with you.

That appears to be highly hypocritical.
If we think of the case as devolving to a standard model, the lunatic fringe is in denial, including Amy Adams and Rob Pope, but the ordinary citizens that include names like Dr Brian Edwards, Rodney Hide, Chris Gallavin, Mike White and so on embrace the two mystery principle.
1. What happened to Ben Smart and Olivia Hope?
2. Why did the police arrest a man who had a rock solid alibi and manage to keep him incommunicado for 17 years?

I know Charlie Wilkes among others is intrigued, and I cite him because he is obviously independent.

Last edited by Samson; 23rd May 2015 at 12:06 AM.
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 23rd May 2015, 01:11 AM   #95
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
2. Why did the police arrest a man who had a rock solid alibi ...
The scuttlebutt I heard - via a cop in Wellington - was that they had a hard-on for him because they believed he was responsible for another crime they couldn't pin on him, which sounds quite plausible.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
...and manage to keep him incommunicado for 17 years?
Which raises an interesting point. If he was so keen to talk to someone outside, maybe he would have been better served communicating instead of sending dick pics.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 23rd May 2015, 01:40 PM   #96
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,018
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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...
In my exhaustive research about this case I recall someone commenting (either on Kiwiblog or perhaps the comments section of N&S) that it was definitely not The Lone Bird as it was too large to be the ketch in question. IIRC, I believe Scott Watson's dad had gone out to take a look at it or showed pictures of it to his son.


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

Keith Hunter shows the picture that the police used on the day or day after to identify all the boats in the bay. Claiming that the picture proves there was no ketch. The only problem is that the mystery ketch isn't in that picture because it is anchored just out of frame of the picture according to Guy Wallace.

The kiwiblog link:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/di...son_do_it.html

Last edited by Elagabalus; 23rd May 2015 at 01:57 PM.
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 23rd May 2015, 02:02 PM   #97
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
In my exhaustive research about this case I recall someone commenting (either on Kiwiblog or perhaps the comments section of N&S) that it was definitely not The Lone Bird as it was too large to be the ketch in question. IIRC, I believe Scott Watson's dad had gone out to take a look at it or showed pictures of it to his son.


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

Keith Hunter shows the picture that the police used on the day or day after to identify all the boats in the bay. Claiming that the picture proves there was no ketch. The only problem is that the mystery ketch isn't in that picture because it is anchored just out of frame of the picture according to Guy Wallace.
This lonebird idea was refuted in a further email by someone else, so no argument there. Briefly what are the conclusions of your extensive research?

I just heard the editor of the sunday star times, Jonathan Milne tell Mark Sainsbury he supported corrections in denying access to an interview, as he had been found guilty in repeated court processes.
And yet no one even attempts to explain why he was arrested.
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 23rd May 2015, 02:17 PM   #98
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,018
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This lonebird idea was refuted in a further email by someone else, so no argument there. Briefly what are the conclusions of your extensive research?

I just heard the editor of the sunday star times, Jonathan Milne tell Mark Sainsbury he supported corrections in denying access to an interview, as he had been found guilty in repeated court processes.
And yet no one even attempts to explain why he was arrested.
The exhaustive research was suppose to be a joke (I knew I should have put a smiley next to it). It does seem that the police decided Scott Watson was the perp and decided not to investigate anyone else rather quickly-too quickly IMO.

I find it odd that NZ is not allowing Mike White access to Scott Watson in prison.
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 23rd May 2015, 02:40 PM   #99
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
The exhaustive research was suppose to be a joke (I knew I should have put a smiley next to it). It does seem that the police decided Scott Watson was the perp and decided not to investigate anyone else rather quickly-too quickly IMO.

I find it odd that NZ is not allowing Mike White access to Scott Watson in prison.
I watched the video, which represents as exhaustive research as necessary to explain the case. I recommend it, not much more required to explain this execrable miscarriage. Whether the ketch seen later is the same one is irrelevant, it is crystal clear they were dropped on a ketch and Watson was elsewhere, and had nothing to do with it. The editors of all the main news papers are complicit, the way they kowtow to authority in this case, the Lundy case, the Scott Guy and Teina Pora cases before.
The new commission will no doubt make a finding that will require further action.

Last edited by Samson; 23rd May 2015 at 02:44 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 23rd May 2015, 03:24 PM   #100
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,779
an explanation is in order

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.

"He made the decision that the law requires of him." link

This passage is in reference to the refusal to allow a reporter (Mike White) access to Mr. Watson. Before giving my opinion of this decision (and probably breaking the MA in the process), I would like for someone to explain just what the interests of the victims are and are not, according to the law. I would also like to add parenthetically that the victims do have an interest in correcting a wrongful conviction, if that is what has happened here.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 23rd May 2015 at 03:30 PM.
Chris_Halkides 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 23rd May 2015, 04:16 PM   #101
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Letters called for the parole board

American born Chris Watson is appealing for letters to help his son.

" "He and his son's legal team were starting to collect letters of support for the parole hearing, including "clergymen, doctors, lawyers and millionaires"." "

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...id-for-freedom
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 24th May 2015, 12:12 AM   #102
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
In my exhaustive research about this case I recall someone commenting (either on Kiwiblog or perhaps the comments section of N&S) that it was definitely not The Lone Bird as it was too large to be the ketch in question. IIRC, I believe Scott Watson's dad had gone out to take a look at it or showed pictures of it to his son.


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

Keith Hunter shows the picture that the police used on the day or day after to identify all the boats in the bay. Claiming that the picture proves there was no ketch. The only problem is that the mystery ketch isn't in that picture because it is anchored just out of frame of the picture according to Guy Wallace.

The kiwiblog link:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/di...son_do_it.html

The important thing is not just that picture, its that several, separate people described the ketch independently and all their descriptions match to a high degree of accuracy. Among them was a yacht designer who was fascinated by the design, and was even able to sketch it accurately including the fixtures and mast fittings. They all described a 35 to 40 foot ketch (two masts) with intricate rope work, a wooden hull and wooden decks, and six to eight round brass portholes set in a blue stripe along the side. And yet, the prosecution outright lied to the court and the jury and said there was no ketch. They claimed that the witnesses were mistaken and what they saw was Watson's single masted sloop Blade; which is only 26ft long, has a steel hull and steel decks, has no intricate rope work, two narrow rectangular windows on the side and no blue stripe.

The most compelling testimony was that of Guy Wallace who stated that when Ben and Olivia boarded the yacht, they had to climb onto the deck because the yacht's freeboard was about 3 feet higher than his Naiad water taxi. The Blade's,freeboard was the same height as the Naiad, so you could step over onto it without climbing up. This is not something that an experienced water taxi is likely to get wrong.
__________________
"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 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 24th May 2015, 12:51 AM   #103
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The important thing is not just that picture, its that several, separate people described the ketch independently and all their descriptions match to a high degree of accuracy. Among them was a yacht designer who was fascinated by the design, and was even able to sketch it accurately including the fixtures and mast fittings. They all described a 35 to 40 foot ketch (two masts) with intricate rope work, a wooden hull and wooden decks, and six to eight round brass portholes set in a blue stripe along the side. And yet, the prosecution outright lied to the court and the jury and said there was no ketch. They claimed that the witnesses were mistaken and what they saw was Watson's single masted sloop Blade; which is only 26ft long, has a steel hull and steel decks, has no intricate rope work, two narrow rectangular windows on the side and no blue stripe.

The most compelling testimony was that of Guy Wallace who stated that when Ben and Olivia boarded the yacht, they had to climb onto the deck because the yacht's freeboard was about 3 feet higher than his Naiad water taxi. The Blade's,freeboard was the same height as the Naiad, so you could step over onto it without climbing up. This is not something that an experienced water taxi is likely to get wrong.
A quick perusal of DF's kiwiblog shows he makes a fence post look bright as a button. I must check more, Watson guilty, Lundy guilty, John Banks knew nothing about the donations to Dotcom. huh?

Keith Hunter's film is extremely detailed and well researched, redolent of the quality one might expect of the paid experts, the police, ahem. I question the idea the ketch was cruising the Sounds days after the disappearances though. I struggle with a rationale with an intensive inquiry in progress. Maybe you have an idea smartcooky.

Of course this is supposing the mysterious catatonic pretty girl was Olivia, which really seems impossible to make sense of.

Last edited by Samson; 24th May 2015 at 01:16 AM.
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 24th May 2015, 02:12 AM   #104
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
A post from David Farrars blog

linz (61 comments) says:

July 20th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
It is a considerable time since David Farrar reinforced his belief in the infallibility of Paul Davison QC and his complete and utter honesty. this is the man who said at the trial of one of New Zealand’s moneyed people for Dishonesty offences “Instead of investigating Police start with the answer and collect evidence to match it.” In his blog on this topic He name dropped that John Coulter was his boss in Jenny Shipley’s office. Have read the book and all the others as well I can honestly say of all the books it is the most convincing of Scott Watson’s innocence. It is lightweight superficial coverage and revels many of the police shortcomings in the inquiry specially the extreme tunnel vision of DI Rob Pope. I guess it is not the blogger way to do any research but if Farrar had spent even half an hour online he would have found much material to show himself how easy it is for a police officer who has “gut feelings” is the most dangerous person in society as they are so convinced they are right and all others wrong that they can and do convince others they and only they are right. Pope had what is politely called noble cause corruption but corruption it is. He withheld evidence that did not suit his case, he lied in affidavits to the High Court, He manipulated the media, this is confirmed by Cate Brett in her monograph written for her doctorate at Canterbury University. I have spent 3 years studying several aspects of the case and can identify one glaring shortcoming. The Identification process Police used was totally inadequate biased and fell so far short of even worst practise if it wasn’t so serious it would be a joke. The normal practise is for police to assemble photos of people who closely resemble the WITNESS descriptions. In this case Police assembled photos who matched more closely their idea of who was guilty SCOTT WATSON. They had a photo of Scott Watson taken on New Years Eve around 9:30pm They never showed any witnesses that photo apart from Guy Wallace who was emphatic it was not the man He repeated this at Depositions and during the trial and Paul Davison belittled him for it. Rozlyn McNielly first saw the photo in Coulters book and knew instantly she had been lied to repeatedly by police who told her the man she picked as looked most like the man she remembered was Scott Watson This is totally against the best way of identifying alleged offenders. Photo montages are known to be the absolute worst method of photo identification with no redeeming features except it is the cheapest method. looking at a group of photos allows the witness to compare the faces and pick the one that most closely matches the face they remember. If it is a feature they remember like eyes then they will pick the eyes and ignore the rest of the face. That happened in this case, people remembered the half closed eyes of the long haired unshaven man. Police in the over one hundred photos taken of Scott Watson on January 12 found one of him half way through a blink. and from that Scott was identified by first McNielly the over a month later by Guy Wallace. Not one person picked Watson from the firs two montages that had on the first a normal photo and the second a photo taken (taken January 8 ) with a fish eye lens(taken January 12) the first photo ID was in mid March after many photos of Scott had been published and many defamatory storys appeared in the media and if Gerald Hope and Cate Brett are to be believe almost all came from DI Rob Pope in his meetings with his tame reporters and family liaison officers who were in the inner group of Pope pet policemen. Google Gary Wells to find some good info on police ID methods The system used here has about a 15-20% success rate, the method used iin many parts of the world now 85-90% success. This is the keystone cops type of investigation favoured by many on the right as it gets results and it does not matter if its not the righ result just create the evidence to suit. DI Pope did it and it worked and John Coulter PR man to the right wing praised him as a great Cop.

Jenira is correct in that Lonebird was not at Furneaux Lodge NYE 1997 but she was at Punga Cove about 3 miles away. Also at that time she did not belong to Sir Thomas Fry either He did not buy it until March.

ETA this link concerns other matters.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/stephen-cook...ectid=10499666

Last edited by Samson; 24th May 2015 at 02:25 AM.
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 24th May 2015, 04:55 AM   #105
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"Perhaps there was a mix-up of the hairs at the ESR laboratory? ESR's record is not unblemished, and there was an unexplained 1cm-long cut in the plastic bag that contained hairs taken as reference samples from Olivia's bedroom. Perhaps the reference hairs from Olivia's hairbrush became the incriminating hairs supposedly found on the rug.

Finally, there is the possibility that the hairs were planted. Again, this has happened before an incriminating cartridge was famously planted in the Crewe murder case. And when the ESR scientist first examined the hairs, including hundreds of dark ones, she did not find the blonde ones. She found them only during a second inspection seven weeks later." link

The cut bag and the fact that this was a second inspection make it plausible that the hair evidence was planted by someone who wanted to help the conviction along. IIUC this kind of forensic fraud would be called noble-cause corruption. I don't know whether he is guilty or innocent, but I am inclined to say that this is a questionable conviction.
Chris, returning to your early post on the thread of March 9 above is interesting, because it was not till April 18 this story surfaced

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...y.html?hpid=z1

concerning the forensic unreliability of hair matches.

I have been reading a lot of posts from individuals on this case in different media, covering the years, and the universal theme is that the hair match persuaded people, and once locked in, there was no further accomodation, or space in the mind to debate witnesses, sloops, ketches and so on. These perfectly convinced minds deemed such debate or evidence irrelevant.

The pattern is no doubt common, but cases we discuss here are.

1. The Thomas cartridge case.
2. The Olivia Hope hairs.
3. The Lundy stains on the shirt.
4. The Sollecito dna on the bra clasp.
5. No doubt the blood in the Chamberlain car boot.

In all these cases the evidence was missed at the first pass, and discovered much later, strongly disputed by qualified scientists, and yet necessary for conviction.

In this case, the hair may well have been planted, and may well have been forensically unsound. One comment I read declared the hairs to be of the same gene pool rather than from Olivia Hope.

The pattern is clear, a crime which is unlikely to impossible for psychological, logistical and time line reasons, but convictions entered for slight and late biological evidence, or in Thomas, planted evidence.

No doubt there are many more, but these will do to help to understand the Watson conviction.

Last edited by Samson; 24th May 2015 at 04:59 AM.
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 24th May 2015, 05:53 AM   #106
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
concerning the forensic unreliability of hair matches..
Let me tell you a short, true story.

One of my pastimes is that I am an official at Equestrian events. I am a qualified NZPCA (Pony Club) and Equestrian New Zealand Technical Delegate and Cross Country Judge. Last Saturday, I was officiating at a One Day Event, when a young girl crashed heavily at a jump quite close to where I was. A few of us ran to see if she was OK while the ambulance was called. She was sitting up, but a bit shocked, and it was clear that she had cracked or broken a rib. She was very cold and shivering so I took off my jacket and wrapped it around her shoulders to keep her warm and after we put her in the ambulance, one of the paramedics gave me my jacket back and I put it on again.

Fast forward to later in the day when I arrived home, I took my jacket off and dropped it on the bed. That night, my partner found a long, blonde hair in our bed. She's a redhead, and there are no blondes in our family..... awkward to say the least, but I am 100% sure that it got there through contact transfer, and a quick check of my jacket confirmed several more long blonde hairs on the inside back.

The lesson here is that I was able to work it out pretty quickly because the hair was found within a couple of hours of me getting home. What might have happened if the hair wasn't found for a week or two, or if it was found in my car a month or two later, or I didn't put the jacket on by bed when I got home, but did so a few months later the next time I wore it? Not so easy to make the connection then.

IMO, human hair should not be routinely allowed as forensic evidence; it is too easy for human hair to transfer undetected from person to person. What if I had put my jacket on the passenger seat, and then picked it up when I gave someone else a ride, and the hair transferred to them and they took it home to their place. That would not a lot more difficult for them to explain.
__________________
"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 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 24th May 2015, 03:22 PM   #107
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,779
some generalities about forensics

Smart Cookie,

You make an excellent point about how easy it is to transfer hair. Now consider how easily one nanogram of DNA or RNA might be inadvertently transferred. That is why I am a stickler when it comes to questions of laboratory technique.

Samson,

There are two distinct but related problems, and I think that the examples we have seen in this thread and others fall into both categories. When a critical mass of people within law enforcement think a person is guilty, they have a temptation to help the case along. One way is by planting evidence. The other way is by performing or interpreting forensic evidence in a biased way.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides 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 24th May 2015, 06:36 PM   #108
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,772
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Let me tell you a short, true story.

One of my pastimes is that I am an official at Equestrian events. I am a qualified NZPCA (Pony Club) and Equestrian New Zealand Technical Delegate and Cross Country Judge. Last Saturday, I was officiating at a One Day Event, when a young girl crashed heavily at a jump quite close to where I was. A few of us ran to see if she was OK while the ambulance was called. She was sitting up, but a bit shocked, and it was clear that she had cracked or broken a rib. She was very cold and shivering so I took off my jacket and wrapped it around her shoulders to keep her warm and after we put her in the ambulance, one of the paramedics gave me my jacket back and I put it on again.

Fast forward to later in the day when I arrived home, I took my jacket off and dropped it on the bed. That night, my partner found a long, blonde hair in our bed. She's a redhead, and there are no blondes in our family..... awkward to say the least, but I am 100% sure that it got there through contact transfer, and a quick check of my jacket confirmed several more long blonde hairs on the inside back.

The lesson here is that I was able to work it out pretty quickly because the hair was found within a couple of hours of me getting home. What might have happened if the hair wasn't found for a week or two, or if it was found in my car a month or two later, or I didn't put the jacket on by bed when I got home, but did so a few months later the next time I wore it? Not so easy to make the connection then.

IMO, human hair should not be routinely allowed as forensic evidence; it is too easy for human hair to transfer undetected from person to person. What if I had put my jacket on the passenger seat, and then picked it up when I gave someone else a ride, and the hair transferred to them and they took it home to their place. That would not a lot more difficult for them to explain.
Yes, I recounted similar previously...

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The whole hair thing has been a bugbear too. The claim that the 'only' way they could have gotten there was by Olivia being on the boat is garbage. Hair is, for want of a better word, grabby. Olivia should have easily sat in a chair, deposited the hair on the chair, later to be sat on by Watson who had the hair transfer to him, and then via him deposit on his boat. This isn't far fetch, in fact I have had it happen to me, where a friend's hair ended up in my bed though she'd never at that point even visited my home.
I personally believe that his lawyer screwed up. I think that he believed he had sown enough doubt during the Prosecution's case that he'd done enough, but he didn't drive it home by proving a few of the claims. He should have called Watson's sister to explain the clean up and so on. I think the lack of a defence side damaged the case a lot in the Jury's eyes.

The thing that puzzles me the most about the current issue, is to why Mr Hope has been denied access to speak with Watson. You can hardly claim that it is to protect the victim's family, when it is the victim's family that wants to do it. Very Strange.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 24th May 2015, 07:00 PM   #109
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,081
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.

I have to wonder why the authorities don't want Watson being interviewed... perhaps they have something to hide
Somewhere I saw a release date of July 2016. I'm not sure where, as I've been reading many, many places about this case.

Also, further up thread someone asked how they got from a scruffy unshaven guy to Watson. I saw where in the narrative that occurred because it made me shake my head. Someone at the party told the cops there was a man pestering girls and that he looked creepy. The cops automatically assumed that guy and the ketch guy were one and the same. Bad move, very bad assumption and horrendous police work.
Ampulla of Vater 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 24th May 2015, 10:16 PM   #110
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Somewhere I saw a release date of July 2016. I'm not sure where, as I've been reading many, many places about this case.

Also, further up thread someone asked how they got from a scruffy unshaven guy to Watson. I saw where in the narrative that occurred because it made me shake my head. Someone at the party told the cops there was a man pestering girls and that he looked creepy. The cops automatically assumed that guy and the ketch guy were one and the same. Bad move, very bad assumption and horrendous police work.
He comes up for parole in June. This will be denied because he will not express remorse for a crime committed by others, that is how it works every time. The innocent prisoner's dilemma, there is a thread on this sub forum. For Teina Pora it was an extra 5 years, and he was released only because the British privy council took control and declared him innocent. This makes no difference to "the system" here. We have abandoned that council, and just keep them in jail. Ask Scott Watson in five years. Thank you Amy Adams and the deplorable editors of the main papers. Are you listening Jonathan Milne of the sunday star times?.
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 25th May 2015, 05:06 AM   #111
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Rodney Hide

Rodney Hide is a true lateral and independent thinker. From a link I posted earlier, I think this should be on the record.

" "Convicted murderer Scott Watson's father Chris and Act leader Rodney Hide are demanding answers about the investigation - and what appears to have unfolded since.

Until now, the understanding was that the allegations against Pope were the subject only of a Police Complaints Authority investigation. But the Herald on Sunday can confirm police are carrying out separate inquiries.

The police inquiries, handled by southern crimes manager Ross Pinkham, follows a complaint lodged under section 108 of the Crimes Act with Blenheim police four years ago by Chris Watson. He has since written to police to voice his concerns that the inquiries are being conducted by "one of Pope's subordinates" rather than an officer of the same or higher rank.

Police Minister Annette King has been drawn into the controversy, with Hide submitting a written question to Parliament asking if she knew Pope was the subject of a "criminal investigation" when he was appointed deputy commissioner in 2006.

Last week police national headquarters denied they were carrying out any such investigation, but statements from the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) and two letters from police - including one from Assistant Commissioner Gavin Jones a fortnight ago - confirm there are other inquiries.

In a letter to Chris Watson dated March 11, Jones confirms that Pinkham is "conducting inquiries into one specific area of the investigation - that is the affidavit sworn by Mr Pope and related issues".

A spokesman for King said yesterday that Pope was appointed after a "robust and thorough" process undertaken by State Services Commissioner Dr Mark Prebble on behalf of the Government." "

I voted for Hide each time I could in my local electorate, long before I realised he saw straight through the wrongful Watson and Lundy convictions.

I realise there are other opinions politically, but it is stunning how few public figures will state obvious truths, including journalists.
In New Zealand even the brave fear the parapet. I have no idea why, and am endeavouring to find out how this cultural fear has become endemic.
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 25th May 2015, 02:31 PM   #112
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
As it's still Towel Day in USA, I feel compelled to note: "Oh no, not again!"

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Rodney Hide is a true lateral and independent thinker.
Is there another Tui billboard contest on?

Your statement is nonsense, and Hide has proven it to be nonsense over many years. If, on this occasion, Rodders is right, it's just the stopped clock syndrome.

Oh, I forgot, he's been spied on by the SIS.

Were you unaware that Hide is a climate change denier?

1

2

3

Hide is as bad any US Conservative - all he's missing is the church.

Your championing of him as a sane voice just will not work.


Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I realise there are other opinions politically, but it is stunning how few public figures will state obvious truths, including journalists.
All that does is show your naivety about journalism circa 2000 AD. Journos are required to write stories people want to read.

Nobody wants to read about Lundy or Watson's innocence.

Yet, despite that - and your continued bashing of NZ media - you yourself have linked to many articles favouring Lundy's innocence that have appeared in....

The New Zealand media.

Also, just FYI, Hide has about the same level of public appeal as Lundy when he was 180kg. An appearance on Dancing with the Stars doesn't make him a popular or sane person.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 25th May 2015, 02:47 PM   #113
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
As it's still Towel Day in USA, I feel compelled to note: "Oh no, not again!"



Is there another Tui billboard contest on?

Your statement is nonsense, and Hide has proven it to be nonsense over many years. If, on this occasion, Rodders is right, it's just the stopped clock syndrome.

Oh, I forgot, he's been spied on by the SIS.

Were you unaware that Hide is a climate change denier?

1

2

3

Hide is as bad any US Conservative - all he's missing is the church.

Your championing of him as a sane voice just will not work.




All that does is show your naivety about journalism circa 2000 AD. Journos are required to write stories people want to read.

Nobody wants to read about Lundy or Watson's innocence.

Yet, despite that - and your continued bashing of NZ media - you yourself have linked to many articles favouring Lundy's innocence that have appeared in....

The New Zealand media.

Also, just FYI, Hide has about the same level of public appeal as Lundy when he was 180kg. An appearance on Dancing with the Stars doesn't make him a popular or sane person.
I like him and what he says.
You are right, most people are uninterested, which is strange because they were randomly selected to win the inverse of the lottery jackpot, and carted away with them are their families.

It wasn't till I saw the very well catalogued pain, suffering and brutal financial and metaphysical destruction of the Knox and Sollecito families by a corrupt country and an even fouler pack of local Seattlites that I thought about it. Why blithely let it happen at a place near you without a murmur?

Ah climate warming. Tell Arrowtown. I jest because I have not studied it but I will see if The Thread has sorted it.
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 25th May 2015, 05:35 PM   #114
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,081
Questions about this case:

1. Is there anywhere to read trial testimony? I've spent the better part of 24 hours reading about this case, however the information available is sketchy. I read where Watson's sister helped him clean the boat on the next day, but is that what she testified to? It was a single line in one of the sources I was reading and I haven't come across it again anywhere.

2. Is there a transcript of the audio tapes anywhere? In the article I was reading which essentially summarized each day of trial, the day they were to listen to the tapes they never did and the next page in the series starts with the defense. Poof... The audio tapes are never mentioned again. Do we know what Watson's answers were to the questions posed to him?

3. What are the best sources for information about this case? I read crime.co.nz and stuff.co.nz and others, but I haven't really come across anywhere which is very detailed.
Ampulla of Vater 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 25th May 2015, 05:42 PM   #115
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I like him and what he says.
Each to their own, but I reserve a special place in my heart for antivaxers and climate deniers.

One lot is playing with other children's health, the other is playing with the future of the planet. Both are equally morally repugnant to me.

I used to really like and admire David Bellamy and Brian Leyland. Since both became deniers, I despise them as misanthropes of the worst and lowest order.

Luckily for Hide, I didn't like him to start off, but this bit does interest me:

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Ah climate warming. Tell Arrowtown. I jest because I have not studied it but I will see if The Thread has sorted it.
Oh please.

The climate thread is thataway: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post10672290
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 25th May 2015, 11:29 PM   #116
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Each to their own, but I reserve a special place in my heart for antivaxers and climate deniers.

One lot is playing with other children's health, the other is playing with the future of the planet. Both are equally morally repugnant to me.

I used to really like and admire David Bellamy and Brian Leyland. Since both became deniers, I despise them as misanthropes of the worst and lowest order.

Luckily for Hide, I didn't like him to start off, but this bit does interest me:



Oh please.

The climate thread is thataway: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post10672290
Moral repugnance is tricky, and rather final though. I currently harbour those feelings towards New Zealand society generally for being judgemental before analytical. It is surprisingly easy to unsettle people, people carefully selected of course due to their obligations to occasionally share xmases, with detail they never collided with. Climate warming is not something I would risk friendships over yet.
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 26th May 2015, 02:56 AM   #117
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Climate warming is not something I would risk friendships over yet.
I find that quite amusing in the context of your outrage concerning the lives of very few.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 26th May 2015, 04:27 AM   #118
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I find that quite amusing in the context of your outrage concerning the lives of very few.
So far we can all live safely with global warming, but only some of us with sins of commission against individuals and their families. I wonder how deeply engaged Chris Watson is with GW.
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 June 2015, 05:44 PM   #119
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,772
Finally a little bit of sanity in this case, Watson will get to do his interview.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 June 2015, 08:32 PM   #120
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I find that quite amusing in the context of your outrage concerning the lives of very few.

Sometimes, my logical friend, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
__________________
"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 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
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 03:20 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.