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 4th June 2015, 01:43 PM   #121
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Sometimes, my logical friend, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
Ah, the Spock conundrum. That is a moral issue I will gladly argue any time.

Oh wait... I already am.
__________________
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 8th June 2015, 05:49 AM   #122
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
A face, a voice, Judith Collins

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...r-Scott-Watson
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 8th June 2015, 03:42 PM   #123
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,887
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
" McDonald interviewed the pair and concluded the new information was not "fresh" and did not raise reasonable doubt about the convictions.

She also rejected the other grounds of his application and concluded none of the new evidence was "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"



1. How can the fact that the prosecution not only lied to the jury about the existence of the 40ft ketch, but they also intentionally fudged the evidence that proves there was a ketch (by using a misleadingly cropped photograph) not be " sufficiently persuasive so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"?

2. How can the fact the two people who dropped off the missing pair on a boat, both clearly and positively testified with 100% certainly that the boat in question was not Watson's "Blade" not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

3. How can the fact that the description of the man on the boat on which the two were dropped off, matched that of the scruffy, unshaven long-haired man at Furneaux Lodge who was harassing young women, was nothing like the photographs taken of Watson on the night; short hair, well dressed and clean shaven, not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

4. How that the fact that the prosecution's theory of the crime required that Watson motored out to dump the bodies in the Cook Strait; a minimum return distance of 66 nautical miles, in three hours, which would have required "Blade" to travel at 22 kts, when the Blade maxuimum speed at full throttle was 6 kts, not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"
__________________
"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 8th June 2015, 04:17 PM   #124
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
" McDonald interviewed the pair and concluded the new information was not "fresh" and did not raise reasonable doubt about the convictions.

She also rejected the other grounds of his application and concluded none of the new evidence was "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"



1. How can the fact that the prosecution not only lied to the jury about the existence of the 40ft ketch, but they also intentionally fudged the evidence that proves there was a ketch (by using a misleadingly cropped photograph) not be " sufficiently persuasive so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"?

2. How can the fact the two people who dropped off the missing pair on a boat, both clearly and positively testified with 100% certainly that the boat in question was not Watson's "Blade" not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

3. How can the fact that the description of the man on the boat on which the two were dropped off, matched that of the scruffy, unshaven long-haired man at Furneaux Lodge who was harassing young women, was nothing like the photographs taken of Watson on the night; short hair, well dressed and clean shaven, not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"

4. How that the fact that the prosecution's theory of the crime required that Watson motored out to dump the bodies in the Cook Strait; a minimum return distance of 66 nautical miles, in three hours, which would have required "Blade" to travel at 22 kts, when the Blade maxuimum speed at full throttle was 6 kts, not be "sufficiently persuasive" so that the jury might have returned a different verdict"
I take it item 4. is researched to the point of implausibilty. Which is strange because detective (Rae from memory) seemed to rely heavily on 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 8th June 2015, 05:39 PM   #125
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,887
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I take it item 4. is researched to the point of implausibilty. Which is strange because detective (Rae from memory) seemed to rely heavily on it.

As I recall, Watson boat was seen leaving Endeavour inlet and approximately 90 min later was seen at another bay not far away. This would have been sufficient time for the Blade to have travelled only nine of the 22 nautical miles to the Cook Strait. The Crown theory of the disposal of the bodies is not just implausible, it is physically impossible!
__________________
"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 9th June 2015, 01:59 AM   #126
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
As I recall, Watson boat was seen leaving Endeavour inlet and approximately 90 min later was seen at another bay not far away. This would have been sufficient time for the Blade to have travelled only nine of the 22 nautical miles to the Cook Strait. The Crown theory of the disposal of the bodies is not just implausible, it is physically impossible!
From wikipedia

Juries are often instructed to avoid learning about the case from any source other than the trial .

Er yes, that is great for the prosecution when other sources are precluded.

There is obvious work to be done here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury

ETA
Sir Peter Williams is dead

Last edited by Samson; 9th June 2015 at 02:01 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 10th June 2015, 08:00 AM   #127
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,772
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I take it item 4. is researched to the point of implausibilty. Which is strange because detective (Rae from memory) seemed to rely heavily on it.
I always thought it strange that even though both the defence and prosecution accepted that the sightings of the boat in Cook Strait that the prosecution claimed was the Blade, and the arrival of Watson back home were fair set in concrete due to very specific things that were happening at the same time or there about (the crossing of the ferries and the start of a TV show) and yet the Judge specifically stated to the Jury that they weren't to consider that timing to be perfect because it could have been wrong. I also found the whole issue about how Watson was supposed to have returned to the party after being dropped off with Ben and Olivia, and then returning to the Blade on a second water Taxi alone to be a serious one, and yet the Judge and the Prosecution merely hand waved it away with a "he must have done somehow, but the somehow is unimportant."

I've never been at all comfortable for this conviction.
__________________

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 10th June 2015, 08:41 AM   #128
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I always thought it strange that even though both the defence and prosecution accepted that the sightings of the boat in Cook Strait that the prosecution claimed was the Blade, and the arrival of Watson back home were fair set in concrete due to very specific things that were happening at the same time or there about (the crossing of the ferries and the start of a TV show) and yet the Judge specifically stated to the Jury that they weren't to consider that timing to be perfect because it could have been wrong. I also found the whole issue about how Watson was supposed to have returned to the party after being dropped off with Ben and Olivia, and then returning to the Blade on a second water Taxi alone to be a serious one, and yet the Judge and the Prosecution merely hand waved it away with a "he must have done somehow, but the somehow is unimportant."

I've never been at all comfortable for this conviction.
I am visiting Blenheim monday.
I will be interested to hear if the locals are interested in the attempts to interview Scott Watson, and if they feel he is worthy of parole.
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 13th June 2015, 06:36 PM   #129
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
The best points the prosecutor can make.

.................................................. ....................................
In the article, Davison defended the so-called "two-trip theory" the hypothesis that, after Watson was taken to his boat by water-taxi at about 2am that night, he returned to the celebrations at Furneaux Lodge and was later taken by water-taxi driver Guy Wallace to his boat, along with Hope and Smart, about 4am.

Critics of the Crown case point out there were no witnesses to Watson having returned to shore after water-taxi driver Donald Anderson recalled having taken him to his boat at about 2am.

But Davison said how Watson got there was not crucial because there was evidence he had been ashore at about 3-3.30am.

He also suggested Wallace's descriptions of the boat he had dropped Smart and Hope at had developed over time. Wallace said it was a double-masted ketch a boat the Crown has insisted did not exist, and which he had confused in the dark with Watson's single-masted sloop.

In his first statements, he wrote the word ketch with a question mark. Davison said it was significant that Watson himself never described seeing a ketch despite his boat being moored almost exactly where Wallace said he dropped the trio.

Montages made of photographs taken that day show no ketch in the area identified by Wallace, but do show Watson's sloop

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/196691

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

He is effectively pointing out an unlikely coincidence, that Guy Wallace mistook where he dropped Ben and Olivia, and that coincided with where Watson's boat was moored, and that he turned out to be a plausible suspect.
It can be acknowledged as an unfortunate coincidence I believe, because it is extremely unlikely that a random part of the inlet harboured a boat with no alibi.
Any thoughts?
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 13th June 2015, 07:05 PM   #130
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,887
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
He also suggested Wallace's descriptions of the boat he had dropped Smart and Hope at had developed over time. Wallace said it was a double-masted ketch a boat the Crown has insisted did not exist, and which he had confused in the dark with Watson's single-masted sloop[/url]
Multiple witnesses saw that ketch, so their accounts all "developed over time"? Really?

I can understand why, in the dark, Wallace might have seen the Blade's self-steering gear and mistaken it for an aft mast IF he wasn't experienced with boats and the water.

However, it does not explain his seeing large, round, brass portholes (Blade had small, rectangular windows) and intricate rope work (of which Blade had none). It also does not explain the huge difference in freeboard (the distance from the waterline to the upper deck level) which for Blade would have meant simply stepping over onto the deck from the Naiad water taxi, as opposed to what Wallace said, that Ben and Olivia had to climb up about five feet from the Naiad to get on the deck.
__________________
"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 13th June 2015, 07:09 PM   #131
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Multiple witnesses saw that ketch, so their accounts all "developed over time"? Really?

I can understand why, in the dark, Wallace might have seen the Blade's self-steering gear and mistaken it for an aft mast IF he wasn't experienced with boats and the water.

However, it does not explain his seeing large, round, brass portholes (Blade had small, rectangular windows) and intricate rope work (of which Blade had none). It also does not explain the huge difference in freeboard (the distance from the waterline to the upper deck level) which for Blade would have meant simply stepping over onto the deck from the Naiad water taxi, as opposed to what Wallace said, that Ben and Olivia had to climb up about five feet from the Naiad to get on the deck.
Agreed, but do you see my point about the coincidence? It may be a little confusing, but when I see my brother tomorrow, who as I mentioned followed it pretty closely as a neighbour and boat broker, I expect to be challenged on any innocence theory.

Also
But Davison said how Watson got there was not crucial because there was evidence he had been ashore at about 3-3.30am.

What evidence? Is there a photograph, or trial testimony?

Last edited by Samson; 13th June 2015 at 07:57 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 16th June 2015, 03:05 AM   #132
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Scott Watson and his sister.

I could research this, but how often was his sister on his boat? Did she help him clean it after new years eve?
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 7th July 2015, 06:34 PM   #133
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Catch 22

How does Watson escape from this nightmare if he is innocent and refuses to show progress in the obviously required fashion?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7005...ts-behind-bars

According to the screening for psychopathy, Watson registered a score consistent with offenders who showed an elevated rate and speed of recidivism, particularly with violence.

Watson had not taken part in any offence-related treatment and he did not believe he was in need of any programmes on offer.

He did not agree with the psychologists, the report said.


It seems it would be wise for him to accept ideas to deal with events with which he was involved within prison, that may emanate from anger at wrongful imprisonment.
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 8th July 2015, 03:13 AM   #134
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Sounds like a lot of psycho-babble, the sort of stuff you hear in old B&W movies from the 1940's:

Quote:
"Mr Watson is assessed to present with a very high risk of violent recidivism. His level of insight, ability and motivation to manage his risk factors remain unknown," the psychologist said.

"Whilst limited information is known about his index offending, the following factors were implicated: perceived sexual rejection, ruminations upon revenge, positive affect associated with inflicting pain and distress, and disinhibition through alcohol intoxication.
"
OK, maybe the second and third factors you could tie back to the 2007 assault incident (8 years ago!), but sexual rejection and alcohol intoxication? From the original crime, 17 years ago?

Seems like it's a gibberish report just to keep him in jail.
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 8th July 2015, 04:24 AM   #135
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Sounds like a lot of psycho-babble, the sort of stuff you hear in old B&W movies from the 1940's:



OK, maybe the second and third factors you could tie back to the 2007 assault incident (8 years ago!), but sexual rejection and alcohol intoxication? From the original crime, 17 years ago?

Seems like it's a gibberish report just to keep him in jail.
The radioo NZ report

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...n-scott-watson

repeats what I heard from the only journalist at the hearing, who said he can not attend the necessary course to precede release without first admitting the crime.

The board pointed out that Watson had turned down offers to do a treatment programme to address violent tendencies.

Family rejects psychologist's comments

However Watson's father, Chris Watson, said this was because his son would need to admit to the crimes in order to take part.


He is clearly sane or innocent or both.
Both for my money. Everything in that RNZ report needs to be assessed for timelines. To mention failed drug tests 15 years ago, and an assault on a police officer just after being legally kidnapped, in the parole report, shows a system totally unable to self correct.
Time favours the truth, but it needs more New Zealanders to give a damn.

Last edited by Samson; 8th July 2015 at 04:55 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 8th July 2015, 02:05 PM   #136
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
repeats what I heard from the only journalist at the hearing, who said he can not attend the necessary course to precede release without first admitting the crime.
That is always the case - ask Peter Ellis and Teina Pora - if you don't admit the crime, you don't get put on the program, and if you don't pass through the program, you don't get out.

Every single one of Teina Pora's parole applications were turned down because he did not complete anger management programs that he needed to attend. He claimed he didn't need anger management.

He was right.

John Barlow is a good example here. He saw which side his bread was buttered on, took the programs and has been out for 5 or 6 years and is working on establishing his innocence.

Watson - and Lundy - will never be released until they admit committing the crimes. That's how life sentences work.
__________________
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 9th July 2015, 12:15 AM   #137
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Desert Fox posted this case to IA today.

Singleton said it’s a rare and risky move to argue innocence before the parole board. “When you go before the parole board they’re looking for acceptance of responsibility,” he said. ”We’re scared they’re going to take it out on her because she’s not owning responsibility.”

http://www.norwalkreflector.com/article/3567971

There is a thread here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=290917

But these fascinating threads die. These cases should be discussed at primary school. It might happen to the kids later.
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 9th July 2015, 02:34 AM   #138
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
That is always the case - ask Peter Ellis and Teina Pora - if you don't admit the crime, you don't get put on the program, and if you don't pass through the program, you don't get out.
See, that makes me angry - the courses are supposed to help with the behaviour that led to the crime that the jury convicted him of. It's not up to corrective services or the parole board to interpret guilt or innocence, that's a job for the courts. Their job is to rehabilitate the convicted. Maybe I need to go on an anger management course.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
John Barlow is a good example here. He saw which side his bread was buttered on, took the programs and has been out for 5 or 6 years and is working on establishing his innocence.
Which is what Watson should do, because he has no more appeals, does he? He can't do much to prove his innocence inside. Anyway, so if Barlow ever turns up in court with evidence that proves his innocence, does his course-taking "confession" hold any water?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Watson - and Lundy - will never be released until they admit committing the crimes. That's how life sentences work.
Essentially the justice system is deeming itself infallible, which is laughable.
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 9th July 2015, 03:11 AM   #139
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
See, that makes me angry - the courses are supposed to help with the behaviour that led to the crime that the jury convicted him of. It's not up to corrective services or the parole board to interpret guilt or innocence, that's a job for the courts. Their job is to rehabilitate the convicted. Maybe I need to go on an anger management course.

Which is what Watson should do, because he has no more appeals, does he? He can't do much to prove his innocence inside. Anyway, so if Barlow ever turns up in court with evidence that proves his innocence, does his course-taking "confession" hold any water?

Essentially the justice system is deeming itself infallible, which is laughable.
Micro justice is on trial.
Macro justice is deemed sound, and on average it is.
Scott Watson may have been killed in a car accident.
That would be an average outcome, and he could be statistically lucky to be alive in prison.

I know this post is just work in progress, but maybe someone can develop the idea that alive in prison and innocent is statistically a better outcome than being on the outside.
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 9th July 2015, 11:44 AM   #140
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
See, that makes me angry - the courses are supposed to help with the behaviour that led to the crime that the jury convicted him of. It's not up to corrective services or the parole board to interpret guilt or innocence, that's a job for the courts.
Corrections don't do parole, the courts do.

Don't blame the bloke with the keys - the job Corrections do is hard enough without expecting them to take an interest in parole. I can tell you, they have no interest at all in guilt or innocence; they're all just prisoners.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Their job is to rehabilitate the convicted.
Oh come on. Even Corrections don't believe that, and the very first thing officers are told in training that their job is not to rehabilitate, but to keep the **** level down and the prisoners banged up.

Some Scandinavian prisons attempt to rehabilitate.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Maybe I need to go on an anger management course.
Nah, you just need to get over the futility of it all and thank christ we don't have USA's prison troubles or Supermax. (Or armed prison guards. Although an improvement on the current cotton shirt for protection might be nice.)

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Which is what Watson should do, because he has no more appeals, does he? He can't do much to prove his innocence inside.
I'd tell him the same thing. He's martyring himself for himself only, which is a little counter-productive. It's not like they get Nigel Latta in to decide whether he really means the remorse.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Anyway, so if Barlow ever turns up in court with evidence that proves his innocence, does his course-taking "confession" hold any water?
None at all, how could it? If he can prove he didn't do it, he'd be pretty believable that he did it to get released.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Essentially the justice system is deeming itself infallible, which is laughable.
Can't disagree there, but then I consider the whole justice process in this country laughable. I have many pages on my site about idiotic decisions and sentences by courts in NZ.
__________________
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 9th July 2015, 11:18 PM   #141
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
None at all, how could it? If he can prove he didn't do it, he'd be pretty believable that he did it to get released.
I worded that badly. I mean, if his new evidence wasn't incontrovertible. Like when Lundy rocked up to the Court of Appeal with a witness that saw him reading a book on the Petone foreshore, the judges cast doubt about the reliability of the witness. Could the appeal judges point at Barlow's rehabilitation courses and go "well what about here when you said you did it"?
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 10th July 2015, 01:49 AM   #142
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Theoretical question only. He'd need something so compelling for it to be revisited that that question wouldn't come up.

And it would need to be new evidence.
__________________
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 10th July 2015, 02:14 AM   #143
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Theoretical question only. He'd need something so compelling for it to be revisited that that question wouldn't come up.

And it would need to be new evidence.
Atheist, are you saying Barlow is innocent? ( obviously he is part of the possible canon)
I heard him interviewed day after shootings, and he said something like, yes I am a suspect but this is what went down. 1994?
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 10th July 2015, 09:23 AM   #144
Metullus
Forum -Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,118
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Atheist, are you saying Barlow is innocent?
Barlow's factual guilt or factual innocence is, absent new and definitive evidence of innocence, irrelevant. Any confessions he made whilst in prison will confirm the opinions of those people who are convinced of his guilt and be ignored by those convinced of his innocence (just as, I suspect, you would discount any such confession by Lundy.) The intelligent thing for Lundy to do at this stage, regardless of his guilt or innocence, is to play the game that will result in his earliest release. Whatever you might think of the evidence, as with Barlow, Knox, and Charles Manson, there will always be supporters and detractors.
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus 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 10th July 2015, 02:45 PM   #145
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Atheist, are you saying Barlow is innocent? ( obviously he is part of the possible canon)
Absolutely not.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between a hypothetical question and an actual situation.

First off, Barlow isn't going to come up with new evidence.

Secondly, as Metullus says, who would care? He's out of jail.

The case is yet another convicted on circumstantial evidence, but it seems pretty good circumstantial evidence and the idea that someone murdered the Thomases with Barlow's pistol that Eugene happened to be holding at the time is a touch on the far-fetched side.

The lack of a motive is interesting, but I knew the Thomases business through my finance connections a few years before the murders and they certainly had a reputation for being ruthless.

As to guilt/innocence, I can't get too fussed about it.
__________________
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 10th July 2015, 09:17 PM   #146
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,887
The rank stupidity of the system as it stands in that a rightfully convicted actual murderer has a better chance of getting out than than an innocent person wrongfully convicted.

Where is the justice in that
__________________
"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 11th July 2015, 02:10 PM   #147
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Justice systems don't deliver justice, they deliver action in line with the law.

Which is an ass.
__________________
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 15th November 2015, 04:34 AM   #148
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Watson speaks after 17 years

In North and South tomorrow, a 17 page interview with Mike White. This should sell a few copies, since most New Zealanders know full well Scott Watson is innocent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11545849
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 15th November 2015, 12:02 PM   #149
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This should sell a few copies, since most New Zealanders know full well Scott Watson is innocent.
Here we go again....

I'd be surprised if anything more than a tiny minority believe he's innocent. Most people accept the court's decision and never give it another thought.

But yes, it might sell an extra 500 copies.

Going by the excerpt in the Herald, if there's any more information than "I didn't do it." I will be very, very surprised.
__________________
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 15th November 2015, 12:08 PM   #150
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Here we go again....

I'd be surprised if anything more than a tiny minority believe he's innocent. Most people accept the court's decision and never give it another thought.

But yes, it might sell an extra 500 copies.

Going by the excerpt in the Herald, if there's any more information than "I didn't do it." I will be very, very surprised.
Polls show 40% believe he is innocent, and this will take it over 50%. Paul Henry seems to be running a poll right now, so I will break a habit and listen to the result. Incidentally he is the only NZ media person who I have heard make a categorical assertion, "Scott Watson is innocent" before the collective morons discover the truth as they did with Pora because it became official with authority, and declare there was a miscarriage of justice.
So, as you were?

ETA 67% say he is innocent. The poll is unscientific of course, and greatly exaggerates the figure.

Last edited by Samson; 15th November 2015 at 12:15 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 15th November 2015, 02:21 PM   #151
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
ETA 67% say he is innocent. The poll is unscientific of course, and greatly exaggerates the figure.
Just as I expected - your claims are absurd.

A talkback radio poll. Wowee.

Next...

(As it happens, I think Watson is probably not guilty and should definitely have been found not guilty, but your idea of what constitutes evidence is as dodgy as the courts.)
__________________
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 15th November 2015, 02:32 PM   #152
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Just as I expected - your claims are absurd.

A talkback radio poll. Wowee.

Next...

(As it happens, I think Watson is probably not guilty and should definitely have been found not guilty, but your idea of what constitutes evidence is as dodgy as the courts.)
TV3 poll in fact. Simulbroadcast. People who respond will be encouraged by their clever contrary opinion. But you will never get to a tiny minority, so maybe a touch of humble pie....

As I stated earlier, scientific polls show close to 50% claiming he is innocent. Bill English was polled this morning by Henry, who expressed total satisfaction in process and said, the matter is settled. I strongly doubt it, and clever analysts like you are poised to make a difference. There is a cascading disaster for NZ justice and the faith of the proletariat.
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 15th November 2015, 04:53 PM   #153
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
TV3 poll in fact.
Since you're a member at an allegedly skeptics' forum, I'm going to presume you know how poorly opt-in surveys perform against reality.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
As I stated earlier, scientific polls show close to 50% claiming he is innocent.
Evidence?

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Bill English was polled this morning by Henry, who expressed total satisfaction in process and said, the matter is settled.
Which is exactly what I told you their official position would be.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I strongly doubt it, and clever analysts like you are poised to make a difference. There is a cascading disaster for NZ justice and the faith of the proletariat.
On a scale of 0 -10 of things that actually matter, where 0 is what Vladimir Putin's cat had for breakfast this morning, I rate our joke of a justice system about 0.5.
__________________
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 15th November 2015, 11:46 PM   #154
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Since you're a member at an allegedly skeptics' forum, I'm going to presume you know how poorly opt-in surveys perform against reality.



Evidence?



Which is exactly what I told you their official position would be.



On a scale of 0 -10 of things that actually matter, where 0 is what Vladimir Putin's cat had for breakfast this morning, I rate our joke of a justice system about 0.5.
Opt in surveys are hopeless, but I bought my N n S to bolster my prediction of 25% above annual average sales, place a friendly bet oh godless.
Bill English replied superbly, he is the very model of a modern major politician.
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 16th November 2015, 02:36 PM   #155
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Opt in surveys are hopeless, but I bought my N n S to bolster my prediction of 25% above annual average sales,
Heck, I'm way over at 500 extra copies then. What's their circulation? 1200?

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
place a friendly bet oh godless.
Sure, I'll have a chocolate fish on that - but you'd better be able to provide a lot better evidence than you've shown so far!
__________________
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 16th November 2015, 03:02 PM   #156
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Doesn't say anything for 18 years and then seeks out a journalist he knows thinks he is innocent
cullennz 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 16th November 2015, 03:21 PM   #157
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
He explains his silence by taking the advice of lawyers. A soundproof wall circles the law enforcement legal judicial political construct. In the US this does not happen.
Here we have Brian Edwards, Rodney Hide and others who speak once then revert to silence.
God help anyone combatting this gutless quagmire of logical morons. Even Mike White, who obviously knows they have the wrong man, feels unable to speak in a categorical fashion. Compare this with Donald Trump, justice Heavey, Steve Moore, Maria Cantwell, and a myriad of public and quasi public figures in the US. Of course this noisy brigade still find that getting points on the board is slow to impossible there.
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 16th November 2015, 05:41 PM   #158
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Doesn't say anything for 18 years and then seeks out a journalist he knows thinks he is innocent
It's not like he can ring up a reporter. Also, do note that he had to have Corrections overruled in court to allow the interview to take place.

I think you'll find he's been saying all along that he didn't do it, but there wasn't much noise about it.
__________________
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 23rd November 2015, 06:04 PM   #159
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,241
Good piece on Watson's dodgy conviction here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=11550356
__________________
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 23rd November 2015, 08:44 PM   #160
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,887
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Good piece on Watson's dodgy conviction here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=11550356


"There are also lessons for the public. With the pressure placed upon police to "find their man" it is no wonder that on occasion "blue vision" occurs.

"Blue vision" was coined by Dr Jarrod Gilbert and refers to the tendency of the police to sometimes work back from a pre-determined outcome rather than to work toward a theory from the evidence gathered."


This could apply to any number of cases where the Police have looked for evidence they thought would convict they suspect (or planted evidence if they couldn't find what they wanted), while intentionally ignoring (and sometime actively suppressing) exculpatory evidence.


Arthur Allan Thomas
Peter Ellis
Teina Pora
Mark Lundy

There is no doubt whatsoever for anyone who is willing to research this case, that the Police decided early on that Scott Watson did it, and then arranged arrange the evident to suit.
__________________
"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; 23rd November 2015 at 08:50 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
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 03:07 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.