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 2nd October 2016, 12:11 PM   #241
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,217
Originally Posted by acementhead View Post
I thought that you seemed so antagonistic to Wishart that you must be Michael Fay.
Ah.

No, I'm that antagonistic and more to any and all liars and frauds, which, as I have a strong interest in financial markets and economics, means that I've personally been at least as nasty to Rich White thieves like Michael Fay as I am to Ian Wishart.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Shameful.
While I seriously doubt your analytical ability with rugby players, I'll take your word on this one, because these bloody things are always on TV at the wrong time for 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 2nd October 2016, 01:51 PM   #242
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I've personally been at least as nasty to Rich White thieves like Michael Fay as I am to Ian Wishart.
I saw what you did there... clever!

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
While I seriously doubt your analytical ability with rugby players, I'll take your word on this one, because these bloody things are always on TV at the wrong time for me.
I recorded it on MySky.

If you would you like a DVD, PM me a postal address and I'll burn one and send you a copy.
__________________
"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; 2nd October 2016 at 01:53 PM.
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 2nd October 2016, 02:23 PM   #243
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,992
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I saw what you did there... clever!



I recorded it on MySky.

If you would you like a DVD, PM me a postal address and I'll burn one and send you a copy.
Don't forget to sign up for IW's free webinar tonight!

Free tickets to watch it online are available here http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz...-registration/
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 05:25 PM   #244
acementhead
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Ah.

No, I'm that antagonistic and more to any and all liars and frauds, which, as I have a strong interest in financial markets and economics, means that I've personally been at least as nasty to Rich White thieves like Michael Fay as I am to Ian Wishart.



While I seriously doubt your analytical ability with rugby players, I'll take your word on this one, because these bloody things are always on TV at the wrong time for me.

Available on demand

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/content/tvnz/...pecial/e0.html

No wonder you didn't catch on to my oblique reference because I was wrong. As I said I hadn't read TPC and it was IEP not Rich White thieves that was central to the enquiry so I owe Sir Michael an apology and here it is. I was wrong, sorry my mistake.
acementhead 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 October 2016, 03:45 AM   #245
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
48 hours after Guy Wallace plied the waterway at 4 to 5 am, he stated

The guy on this ketch would have been about 5 9 tall wiry build. He was unshaven but didn't have a moustache. He had short dark wavy hair and smelled like a bottle of bourbon. It would have been very near 5 am or just after when I dropped these people off.

AJ Saunders
Detective Constable D279
3 January 1998.

Here is the key to this testimony.
Guy Wallace was ear witness to an angry Olivia Hope describing occupiers to the bed she had paid for on Tamarak, she was the principal lessor.
Guy Wallace would have recall according to the import of the events and people, and in straightforward terms, when he asks Olivia and Ben if they are OK with climbing on board with a stranger, he will remember with some strong memory fixation the appearance and demeanour of this stranger.
Blade was moored to many boats, things look larger in the dark, and there are multiple masts, but indelible is

SHORT DARK wavy HAIR.

Come on everyone, please don't be fooled by this case.

There was just one water taxi on the water.
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 October 2016, 09:02 PM   #246
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
48 hours after Guy Wallace plied the waterway at 4 to 5 am, he stated

The guy on this ketch would have been about 5 9 tall wiry build. He was unshaven but didn't have a moustache. He had short dark wavy hair and smelled like a bottle of bourbon. It would have been very near 5 am or just after when I dropped these people off.

AJ Saunders
Detective Constable D279
3 January 1998.

Here is the key to this testimony.
Guy Wallace was ear witness to an angry Olivia Hope describing occupiers to the bed she had paid for on Tamarak, she was the principal lessor.
Guy Wallace would have recall according to the import of the events and people, and in straightforward terms, when he asks Olivia and Ben if they are OK with climbing on board with a stranger, he will remember with some strong memory fixation the appearance and demeanour of this stranger.
Blade was moored to many boats, things look larger in the dark, and there are multiple masts, but indelible is

SHORT DARK wavy HAIR.

Come on everyone, please don't be fooled by this case.

There was just one water taxi on the water.

Samson, you are completely ignoring some crucial evidence and witness testimony!

1.
Scott Watson was still on the Mina Cornelia at 9:30 pm (verified by numerous witnesses who were also present on the Mina Cornelia at the same time). He was encountered by Eyvonne Walsh outside the bar when he came ashore at around 10pm and was told to finish or dispose of his alcohol, which he did. The Mystery Man was already at the bar at 8 pm, his lecherous behaviour was clearly observed by numerous witnesses in the bar. He was served alcohol by Guy Wallace.

2. The witnesses at the bar all described the Mystery Man as scruffy, shabbily dressed, with long wavy shoulder length hair. The photo of Watson taken on the Mina Cornelia at around 9:30 pm shows him smartly dressed, clean shaven with short cropped, straight hair, yet the police insisted that the Mystery Man was Scott Watson. On what planet can a person have two entirely different descriptions and be in two different places at the same time?

It is also noteworthy that Amelia Hope (Olivia's sister), when giving evidence in court, pointed to a different man when she was indicating the forelock of the Mystery man...


This is a still from the court footage. She is pointing to photo #1, yet Scott Watson is right there in photo #3 and she doesn't identify him!

3. Guy Wallace was adamant (and is still adamant to this day), as were the other witnesses on the Naiad, that he dropped off Olivia and Ben and the Mystery Man (i.e. the man he had served alcohol to earlier and NOT Scott Watson) onto a ketch....


And here is a visual comparison

Note the difference in freeboard (the distance between the water line and the deck). The inflatable sides of a Naiad are about 18" to 2' above the waterline; the freeboard of the Blade is 3' 2", so for a person standing on the floor of the Naiad, the deck of the Blade would be lower than hip height; if they stood on the top of the sides of the Naiad, the deck of the Blade would be below knee height. Yet those three people were dropped off on a boat that required them to climb up onto a deck that was al least chest high as described by Wallace and the other two witnesses.

Everything might look bigger at night Samson, but not that much bigger. Confusing these two yachts would be like mixing up a 6-seater minivan and an 80-seater touring bus. Wallace said that the only thing the two boats had in common was that they both floated!

4. Over a dozen people on Ted Walsh's charter boat saw a young couple at the stern of a ketch that matched the description of the Mystery Yacht. They also saw an older long-haired man working the boat. They did not twig that it might be Ben and Olivia they saw because all the publicity photos showed her as a redhead. It was only after the trial was over that Ted Walsh saw footage of Olivia at Furneaux Lodge and realised that she had long blonde hair, then he realised the girl on the back of the ketch was Olivia, something that he maintained until the day he died.

There were other independent witnesses who saw the ketch with these three people in other parts of the Sounds as well as an Mapua Wharf, Nelson and Post Tarakohe in Golden Bay.


NOTE: Those, like Wishart, who think that the ketch was the Alliance, need to think again. Wishart is wrong, and so are any others who believe him. The Alliance is a modern ketch with a typical feature of that style of yacht; the mizzen mast (aft) is noticeably shorter than the main mast (this is sometimes incorrectly referred to as a "fractionally rigged ketch"). In the case of the Alliance, the mizzen mast is 4/5ths the height of the main mast. as can be seen here...


However, the Mystery Yacht was an older style ketch of 1940s - 1950s design; both of its masts were the same height; its one of the reasons why it got the attention of so many old yachties in the area. Alliance also lacks the intricate hemp "ladder" rigging that was so distinctive on the Mystery yacht. There are also a number of yachties who actually knew the Alliance very well, so knew that it was not the yacht they saw.

Alliance was definitely NOT the Mystery Yacht.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

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

Last edited by smartcooky; 3rd October 2016 at 09:19 PM.
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 3rd October 2016, 09:54 PM   #247
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,771
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There was just one water taxi on the water.
This part seems incorrect to me because there was another one, driven by Donald Anderson.

From the Sunday Star...

Quote:
3: THE TIMING AND THE "TWO-TRIP THEORY"

Another water taxi driver, Donald Anderson, says he took Scott Watson to his boat in the early hours of New Year's Day. Watson, who does not wear a watch, told police he thought it was "about 2am. I'm not exactly sure". Anderson was vague about the timing and other aspects of the trip.

The trip is a crucial issue. If Watson was back on his boat and did not return to shore, he could not have been the man whom Guy Wallace took, with Ben and Olivia, to a yacht at 3.30 or 4am. So he could not be the murderer.

The Crown took Watson's hazy estimate of the time 2am as an accurate one.

However, Watson was definitely ashore at about 3am, because he was involved in an ugly incident at that time with 17-year-old Ollie Perkins, who was wearing his sister's necklace. Watson's presence on shore at this time is not disputed.

This suggests two possibilities. Either Watson's guess of 2am was much too early and he in fact returned to his boat after the 3am altercation. Or he indeed returned to the boat at 2am but returned to shore between then and 3am.

Prosecutor Davison argued in his summing-up to the jury that Watson must have returned to shore after his earlier trip to the Blade. How he did so was not important. It was "a short row" to shore. "Does it matter?"

The critics say it matters very much, and that Davison's last-minute floating of the two-trip theory was unfair. Because the two-trip theory was not stated explicitly during the trial, it could not be tested. The hundreds of witnesses who were asked about their movements that night were not asked whether they had seen Watson making his way ashore.

Journalist Keith Hunter, however, says Watson could not have been on the Blade at the earlier time. The yachts Mina Cornelia and Bianca were moored alongside the Blade. When the drunken Watson returned to his boat he clambered across to both boats and made a nuisance of himself, wanting to party. One woman on the Mina Cornelia was awake until about 2.45am and says she heard nothing. So Watson's noisy return to his boat must have happened some time after this. Another woman on the Bianca remembers being woken by the ruckus Watson caused and not going back to sleep for half an hour afterwards. It was a quiet night and the boats were next to each other. "Had Watson gone back to shore she could not have failed to hear it," Hunter writes.

This would mean that by 3.30am there was still no sign of Watson on his boat. And witnesses agree that by now he was involved in the altercation on shore with Perkins. So his trip to the Blade must have been later.

Hunter believes this proves that Watson is innocent. He could not have made two trips; he must have gone to the Blade after 3.30am; and he could not have been the man on Guy Wallace's water taxi.

Certainly this raises big questions about the Crown theory, but they may not be decisive. The theory relies on some fairly exact recollections of the time by people who had been partying till late. Journalists Jayson Rhodes and Ian Wishart, in Ben and Olivia: What Really Happened, a book published just after the trial, show the dangers of this. One witness "was hazy about times when he was giving evidence. [Prosecutor] Nicola Crutchley asked him what time he got up on New Year's Day. His response? `I'm buggered if I know haven't you been to a New Year's party?"
I'd also note that while is was "a quiet night and the boats were next to each other" and that "the drunken Watson returned to his boat he clambered across to both boats and made a nuisance of himself" resulting in another witness 'being woken by the ruckus Watson caused and not going back to sleep for half an hour afterwards." No-one that was there when Watson got back reported hearing anyone with him. Only Watson clambered over the boats to the Blade, and no one else was talking. On top of that, Watson wanted to party, why wake up people and ask to party when he had two other people right there? And why not mention them when asking for the party to carry on, wouldn't that make sense?
__________________

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 4th October 2016, 01:46 AM   #248
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
The problem arises that Watson was confirmed to be on shore much later when only one taxi was operating, that by Guy Wallace. The passenger count and identities is not challenged except that of the one man alleged to be Watson.
Othe matters are relevant, such as the recollection of Wallace's that the position of the boat he dropped Ben Olivia and the man at was consistent with the position of Blade. He then took the last two passengers ashore.
If everyone could understand that Wishart makes his case with initial witness statements, there is no need to read an original word by Mr Wishart.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 01:52 AM   #249
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Samson, you are completely ignoring some crucial evidence and witness testimony!

1.
Scott Watson was still on the Mina Cornelia at 9:30 pm (verified by numerous witnesses who were also present on the Mina Cornelia at the same time). He was encountered by Eyvonne Walsh outside the bar when he came ashore at around 10pm and was told to finish or dispose of his alcohol, which he did. The Mystery Man was already at the bar at 8 pm, his lecherous behaviour was clearly observed by numerous witnesses in the bar. He was served alcohol by Guy Wallace.

2. The witnesses at the bar all described the Mystery Man as scruffy, shabbily dressed, with long wavy shoulder length hair. The photo of Watson taken on the Mina Cornelia at around 9:30 pm shows him smartly dressed, clean shaven with short cropped, straight hair, yet the police insisted that the Mystery Man was Scott Watson. On what planet can a person have two entirely different descriptions and be in two different places at the same time?

It is also noteworthy that Amelia Hope (Olivia's sister), when giving evidence in court, pointed to a different man when she was indicating the forelock of the Mystery man...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...liaIDCourt.png
This is a still from the court footage. She is pointing to photo #1, yet Scott Watson is right there in photo #3 and she doesn't identify him!

3. Guy Wallace was adamant (and is still adamant to this day), as were the other witnesses on the Naiad, that he dropped off Olivia and Ben and the Mystery Man (i.e. the man he had served alcohol to earlier and NOT Scott Watson) onto a ketch....
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ladevKetch.png

And here is a visual comparison
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...loopvKetch.png
Note the difference in freeboard (the distance between the water line and the deck). The inflatable sides of a Naiad are about 18" to 2' above the waterline; the freeboard of the Blade is 3' 2", so for a person standing on the floor of the Naiad, the deck of the Blade would be lower than hip height; if they stood on the top of the sides of the Naiad, the deck of the Blade would be below knee height. Yet those three people were dropped off on a boat that required them to climb up onto a deck that was al least chest high as described by Wallace and the other two witnesses.

Everything might look bigger at night Samson, but not that much bigger. Confusing these two yachts would be like mixing up a 6-seater minivan and an 80-seater touring bus. Wallace said that the only thing the two boats had in common was that they both floated!

4. Over a dozen people on Ted Walsh's charter boat saw a young couple at the stern of a ketch that matched the description of the Mystery Yacht. They also saw an older long-haired man working the boat. They did not twig that it might be Ben and Olivia they saw because all the publicity photos showed her as a redhead. It was only after the trial was over that Ted Walsh saw footage of Olivia at Furneaux Lodge and realised that she had long blonde hair, then he realised the girl on the back of the ketch was Olivia, something that he maintained until the day he died.

There were other independent witnesses who saw the ketch with these three people in other parts of the Sounds as well as an Mapua Wharf, Nelson and Post Tarakohe in Golden Bay.


NOTE: Those, like Wishart, who think that the ketch was the Alliance, need to think again. Wishart is wrong, and so are any others who believe him. The Alliance is a modern ketch with a typical feature of that style of yacht; the mizzen mast (aft) is noticeably shorter than the main mast (this is sometimes incorrectly referred to as a "fractionally rigged ketch"). In the case of the Alliance, the mizzen mast is 4/5ths the height of the main mast. as can be seen here...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ce-300x200.jpg

However, the Mystery Yacht was an older style ketch of 1940s - 1950s design; both of its masts were the same height; its one of the reasons why it got the attention of so many old yachties in the area. Alliance also lacks the intricate hemp "ladder" rigging that was so distinctive on the Mystery yacht. There are also a number of yachties who actually knew the Alliance very well, so knew that it was not the yacht they saw.

Alliance was definitely NOT the Mystery Yacht.
I can only repeat that Wishart makes his case by going to source documents. There are key datapoints resulting in the identities of Watson and the shaggy stranger converging.

The identity of Blade versus ketch is handled admirably by Wishart, the mechanics of boarding "Blade" are actually consistent with the rail heights, deck height and other matters. I will have to get the e books to explain better with testimony and shall. I am happy to be wrong.
Regrettably I consider this documentary another New Zealand hoax.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 02:43 AM   #250
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
One of Wishart's 'almost' source documents, apparently an important one because it was part of the finish to the book, was to report an alleged conversation he was told of by a detective, where a man now conveniently dead, told the detective he had covered up for Watson because Watson had threatened to rape his daughter if he opened his mouth. Now you could take that as meaning something, if you were thick, but certainly not it emerged from a source document.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 03:11 AM   #251
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
One of Wishart's 'almost' source documents, apparently an important one because it was part of the finish to the book, was to report an alleged conversation he was told of by a detective, where a man now conveniently dead, told the detective he had covered up for Watson because Watson had threatened to rape his daughter if he opened his mouth. Now you could take that as meaning something, if you were thick, but certainly not it emerged from a source document.
Wishart's approach in both the Tamihere and Watson books is to establish his best account of the case facts, which in the case of Watson is compelling in getting Ben and Olivia on board his boat, in fact it is uncomplicated as long as Watson is ashore at 4 am. Now Keith Hunter concedes that. There is little left to prove. By the same token he shows convincingly Tamihere broke into the car after the killing of Urban 74 kms away. Case closed.
We have one body and three presumed homicides after this, and theories as to where those 3 bodies are continue, and Wishart has Heidi on Kawau island, and Ben and Olivia taken by car after being unloaded at Shakespeare Bay.
But these details are not what we are discussing.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 05:12 AM   #252
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I can only repeat that Wishart makes his case by going to source documents. There are key datapoints resulting in the identities of Watson and the shaggy stranger converging.
Of you believe that Watson and the Mystery Man are one and the same, then you MUST explain a few things.

1. How dozens of people in the Furneaux Lodge Bar put him in that bar at 8pm, while Ernst Rutte Snr, Ernst Rutte Jnr, Marcel Rutte, Monica Rutte, Dave Mahoney, Larry McKay, Stefan Zakowski and Debbie Corless put him with them on the Mina Cornelia from midafternoon until they went ashore at 9:45, and how Eyvonne Walsh meets him as he comes ashore at 10pm

2. Why does Guy Watson describe the man he drops off as unshaven and with wavy hair when Watson is clean shaven and has short, tidy hair

3. Amelia Hope was in the FL Bar at the time the Mystery Man was behaving badly, and she saw him. So, if this man was Watson, how did she not identify him in the photo montage when she was on the witness stand at the trial?

None of this can be just handwaved away, it needs to be addressed and explained. If it cannot be satisfactorily explained, then the Mystery Man cannot be Scott Watson.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The identity of Blade versus ketch is handled admirably by Wishart, the mechanics of boarding "Blade" are actually consistent with the rail heights, deck height and other matters.
No, they are not handled well at all. Wishart makes a number of glaring errors, including

1. Failed to address the 15+ other witnesses who saw the Ketch, many of whom are experienced yachties and boat builders who have lived in the Sounds most of their lives

2. Failed to address the first real big elephant in the room... the round, brass portholes. They were clearly seen by Guy Wallace and the two other passengers in the naiad. No such portholes exist on the Blade.

3. Failed to address the intricate ropework, reported by Wallace and the other two on the naiad, No such ropework exists on the Blade

This is more evidence that simply cannot be handwaved away!

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Regrettably I consider this documentary another New Zealand hoax.
On the contrary, Chris Gallivan's documentary deals only in facts, actual witness statements and interviews with the relevant witnesses. Most importantly, Gallivan does NOT impart his own spin or opinion on any of the facts or issues discussed, except where he deals sole with matters of Law and its application (he is a Criminal Law expert after all.

However Wishart is a known Conspiracy Theorist, and true to form for that personalty type, he uses half-truths and unverifiable reports and statements, and substitution of his own personal intituion for facts. When he does actually use verified reports, he embellishes them with his own biased opinions. He twists facts to suit his preconceived notions, ignores evidence that doesn't fit (just like the Police did in this case) and proffers lay opinions on subjects for when he has no qualifications to speak, such as psychology.
__________________
"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 4th October 2016, 06:47 PM   #253
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Of you believe that Watson and the Mystery Man are one and the same, then you MUST explain a few things.

1. How dozens of people in the Furneaux Lodge Bar put him in that bar at 8pm, while Ernst Rutte Snr, Ernst Rutte Jnr, Marcel Rutte, Monica Rutte, Dave Mahoney, Larry McKay, Stefan Zakowski and Debbie Corless put him with them on the Mina Cornelia from midafternoon until they went ashore at 9:45, and how Eyvonne Walsh meets him as he comes ashore at 10pm

2. Why does Guy Watson describe the man he drops off as unshaven and with wavy hair when Watson is clean shaven and has short, tidy hair

3. Amelia Hope was in the FL Bar at the time the Mystery Man was behaving badly, and she saw him. So, if this man was Watson, how did she not identify him in the photo montage when she was on the witness stand at the trial?

None of this can be just handwaved away, it needs to be addressed and explained. If it cannot be satisfactorily explained, then the Mystery Man cannot be Scott Watson.



No, they are not handled well at all. Wishart makes a number of glaring errors, including

1. Failed to address the 15+ other witnesses who saw the Ketch, many of whom are experienced yachties and boat builders who have lived in the Sounds most of their lives

2. Failed to address the first real big elephant in the room... the round, brass portholes. They were clearly seen by Guy Wallace and the two other passengers in the naiad. No such portholes exist on the Blade.

3. Failed to address the intricate ropework, reported by Wallace and the other two on the naiad, No such ropework exists on the Blade

This is more evidence that simply cannot be handwaved away!



On the contrary, Chris Gallivan's documentary deals only in facts, actual witness statements and interviews with the relevant witnesses. Most importantly, Gallivan does NOT impart his own spin or opinion on any of the facts or issues discussed, except where he deals sole with matters of Law and its application (he is a Criminal Law expert after all.

However Wishart is a known Conspiracy Theorist, and true to form for that personalty type, he uses half-truths and unverifiable reports and statements, and substitution of his own personal intituion for facts. When he does actually use verified reports, he embellishes them with his own biased opinions. He twists facts to suit his preconceived notions, ignores evidence that doesn't fit (just like the Police did in this case) and proffers lay opinions on subjects for when he has no qualifications to speak, such as psychology.
I can only revert to source, I think Wishart is a disciplined analyst. I am puzzled by the reluctance of people to suspend the personal views and focus on the message. Sometimes con artists are telling the truth like the stopped clock as Atheist charmingly observes.
There is much more behind this case than yachties and identifying boats, there is underlying fundamental data that snares Watson.
I am happy to be prove wrong rather than declared wrong.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 09:24 PM   #254
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I can only revert to source, I think Wishart is a disciplined analyst. I am puzzled by the reluctance of people to suspend the personal views and focus on the message. Sometimes con artists are telling the truth like the stopped clock as Atheist charmingly observes.
There is much more behind this case than yachties and identifying boats, there is underlying fundamental data that snares Watson.
I am happy to be prove wrong rather than declared wrong.
If there is evidence that is exculpatory (and there is) then no matter how disciplined a researcher you might consider Wishart to be, any underlying data, no matter how convincing it might seem, is utterly worthless. If Wishart is such a disciplined analyst, how did he come to such different conclusions his first book on the case? Is he correct now, or was he correct then? How would we know?

The fact remains that Watson cannot be the murderer unless it can be proven that he was also the Mystery Man in the FL bar at 8pm (because that is the man that Guy Wallace identified as the man he dropped off on a yacht with Ben and Olivia when they were last seen) and since the Mystery Man was in one place (as witnessed by a bar full of people) while Scott Watson was in another place (as witnessed by a boat load of people) there is no possible way that they are the same man unless a large number of people are mistaken or lying.

NOTE: I have my suspicions as to why Wishart wrote this book and came to the conclusions he did. He likes to be a Big Shot, and people who like to be Big Shots hate it when someone else looks like being a Bigger Shot. IMO, Wishart was and is jealous of the attention that Keith Hunter garnered with his book and TV documentary
__________________
"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 5th October 2016, 01:17 AM   #255
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Although I believe that Keith is right I can't use that in an argument to support him and his opinions, but I do use that he is a good bastard.
Fixit 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 5th October 2016, 01:39 AM   #256
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,217
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There is much more behind this case than yachties and identifying boats...
Incorrect - that is the entirety of the case.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
NOTE: I have my suspicions as to why Wishart wrote this book and came to the conclusions he did. He likes to be a Big Shot, and people who like to be Big Shots hate it when someone else looks like being a Bigger Shot. IMO, Wishart was and is jealous of the attention that Keith Hunter garnered with his book and TV documentary
I'd say that is nailed 100%.
__________________
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 5th October 2016, 07:50 PM   #257
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Keith Hunter: page 207 Trial by Trickery
"Watson was known to have been involved in an incident ashore between about 2 45 and 3 30 am."

Therefore since John Mullen was back on his boat before the earlier of those times, John Mullen was not the old guy who took him alone to Blade.
Furthermore they were up and about on Mila Cornelius at 2 am but when Watson got there they were asleep.
Therefore there were no two trips as crown suggested, but one trip for Watson after 3 30 am.

On which Boat navigated by which driver?

Only Guy Wallace was available, and all other data becomes irrelevant including Ketch settings dotted around the Sounds Nelson precinct like stars in the night for days after.

Unfortunately this Watson hoax is doing damage to the real causes by invoking the all the usual suspects are at it clause.
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 5th October 2016, 09:50 PM   #258
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Samson, I think you don't understand that this is not a case of one lot of circumstantial evidence v another lot of circumstantial evidence. When exculpatory evidence shows up, it immediately trumps ALL other evidence, no matter how conclusive or damning that evidence might seem. Let me give you an example

A friend and business partner of Smartcooky's, Fred Bloggs, a resident of Invercargill, has been shot to death in his house. Neighbours heard the shots and saw a man hurrying out of Fred's house, dispose of something in a nearby dumpster, and then drive away in a white station wagon. The neighbours rush to Fred's house and find him on the floor, still alive, but he dies before he can tell them who his killer was.

The time of the killing was 3:00 pm Friday afternoon. Witnesses confirm that time, as do calls to the Police and ambulance, and time of death established by the coroner.

The Crime Scene Unit do the usual scene examination, the Police find the gun in the dumpster, a 9mm Glock 19 Gen 4, and the CSU does all the usual stuff they do.

Forensics
1. The Gun is registered to me, Smartcooky.
2. The bullets from Fred's body match the gun.
3. My fingerprints are found on the gun, and in Fred's house
4. My fingerprints and touch DNA are found at Fred's house
5. My blood is found on the underside of the slide, and I have a corresponding injury on the top of my left hand beside the thumb knuckle joint.
5. I shoot rifles and handguns left-handed

Witnesses
1. I fit the description of the man seen leaving the scene
2. I own a white Subaru Outback

Smartcooky's story
1. Fred was my friend and business partner, I was regular visitor to his house, so finding DNA and fingerprints would be expected
1. I loaned the gun to Fred two days before
2. My hand injury happened when I it fired at the range before loaning it to Fred. I forgot to clean it.

Its all adding up, and things are not looking good for me. It looks like my goose is cooked; my gun is the murder weapon (ballistics match), my prints, DNA and blood are on the gun, my prints & DNA are at the crime scene, witness description fit me and my car

However, at 2:53 pm on that same Friday, I was getting a speeding ticket on the side of the road, in Auckland.... over 1000 km away. This is known as exculpatory evidence.

It doesn't matter how overwhelming the circumstantial evidence against me is.

It doesn't matter that I might have had a motive, and the means.

It doesn't matter even if there are a hundred threads of evidence pointing directly at me

It only takes ONE piece of exculpatory evidence to trump ALL of it - a traffic cop puts me over 1000 km away when Fred is shot - it is impossible for the man who pulled the trigger, and was seen leaving the house, to have been me..

So, back to the real murder...

► The Mystery Man seen in the bar at 8pm was the last person seen with Ben Smart and Olivia Hope before they vanished after Guy Wallace dropped them off at a ketch

► That Mystery Man was identified as being the same man Guy Wallace served drinks to earlier at the bar when he was there at 8pm

► At the same time dozens of eye witnesses put the Mystery Man in the bar, a boat load of witnesses on the Mina Cornelia put Scott Watson on the boat with them from mid- afternoon until 9:45pm

This is exculpatory evidence.

The Mystery Man MUST be the murderer
The Mystery man CANNOT be Scott Watson

ergo, Scott Watson is not, cannot be, the murderer
__________________
"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; 5th October 2016 at 09:55 PM.
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 5th October 2016, 09:55 PM   #259
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,771
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Keith Hunter: page 207 Trial by Trickery
"Watson was known to have been involved in an incident ashore between about 2 45 and 3 30 am."

Therefore since John Mullen was back on his boat before the earlier of those times, John Mullen was not the old guy who took him alone to Blade.
Furthermore they were up and about on Mila Cornelius at 2 am but when Watson got there they were asleep.
Therefore there were no two trips as crown suggested, but one trip for Watson after 3 30 am.

On which Boat navigated by which driver?

Only Guy Wallace was available, and all other data becomes irrelevant including Ketch settings dotted around the Sounds Nelson precinct like stars in the night for days after.

Unfortunately this Watson hoax is doing damage to the real causes by invoking the all the usual suspects are at it clause.
We already have an answer to this. Donald Anderson.

Since we know that Donald Anderson took him back, which was the entire reason to concoct the 2-Trip theory anyways, if you discount and disprove the two trip theory, then the answer is that Donald Anderson took him back to the Blade.

Also while Watson thought he'd gone back about 2am, there is no prove of that and he didn't have a watch. Also since the incident onshore occurred between 2:45am and 3:30am, Watson could have just as easily have returned at 3am with the incident having been at 2:45am, as after 3:30am. You can't say "It might have been as late as 3:30am, therefore he must have not left before 3:30am." You can only say that he was onshore at 2:45am.
__________________

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 5th October 2016, 11:27 PM   #260
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Samson, I think you don't understand that this is not a case of one lot of circumstantial evidence v another lot of circumstantial evidence. When exculpatory evidence shows up, it immediately trumps ALL other evidence, no matter how conclusive or damning that evidence might seem. Let me give you an example

A friend and business partner of Smartcooky's, Fred Bloggs, a resident of Invercargill, has been shot to death in his house. Neighbours heard the shots and saw a man hurrying out of Fred's house, dispose of something in a nearby dumpster, and then drive away in a white station wagon. The neighbours rush to Fred's house and find him on the floor, still alive, but he dies before he can tell them who his killer was.

The time of the killing was 3:00 pm Friday afternoon. Witnesses confirm that time, as do calls to the Police and ambulance, and time of death established by the coroner.

The Crime Scene Unit do the usual scene examination, the Police find the gun in the dumpster, a 9mm Glock 19 Gen 4, and the CSU does all the usual stuff they do.

Forensics
1. The Gun is registered to me, Smartcooky.
2. The bullets from Fred's body match the gun.
3. My fingerprints are found on the gun, and in Fred's house
4. My fingerprints and touch DNA are found at Fred's house
5. My blood is found on the underside of the slide, and I have a corresponding injury on the top of my left hand beside the thumb knuckle joint.
5. I shoot rifles and handguns left-handed

Witnesses
1. I fit the description of the man seen leaving the scene
2. I own a white Subaru Outback

Smartcooky's story
1. Fred was my friend and business partner, I was regular visitor to his house, so finding DNA and fingerprints would be expected
1. I loaned the gun to Fred two days before
2. My hand injury happened when I it fired at the range before loaning it to Fred. I forgot to clean it.

Its all adding up, and things are not looking good for me. It looks like my goose is cooked; my gun is the murder weapon (ballistics match), my prints, DNA and blood are on the gun, my prints & DNA are at the crime scene, witness description fit me and my car

However, at 2:53 pm on that same Friday, I was getting a speeding ticket on the side of the road, in Auckland.... over 1000 km away. This is known as exculpatory evidence.

It doesn't matter how overwhelming the circumstantial evidence against me is.

It doesn't matter that I might have had a motive, and the means.

It doesn't matter even if there are a hundred threads of evidence pointing directly at me

It only takes ONE piece of exculpatory evidence to trump ALL of it - a traffic cop puts me over 1000 km away when Fred is shot - it is impossible for the man who pulled the trigger, and was seen leaving the house, to have been me..

So, back to the real murder...

► The Mystery Man seen in the bar at 8pm was the last person seen with Ben Smart and Olivia Hope before they vanished after Guy Wallace dropped them off at a ketch

► That Mystery Man was identified as being the same man Guy Wallace served drinks to earlier at the bar when he was there at 8pm

► At the same time dozens of eye witnesses put the Mystery Man in the bar, a boat load of witnesses on the Mina Cornelia put Scott Watson on the boat with them from mid- afternoon until 9:45pm

This is exculpatory evidence.

The Mystery Man MUST be the murderer
The Mystery man CANNOT be Scott Watson

ergo, Scott Watson is not, cannot be, the murderer
Smartcooky I have all respect for stalwart supporters and particularly analysis that compells scrutiny.
In my opinion this is an argument from false analogy.
I will return with a detailed reply.
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 October 2016, 12:33 AM   #261
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Pretty much we know most of this.

Interesting to get an American's take though
__________________
"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 8th October 2016, 01:10 AM   #262
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
"How did Scott Watson get back to his yacht Blade, moored off Furneaux Lodge, just before 4am on New Year’s Day, 1998?"

Wishart calls this "the question that Scott Watson cannot answer". He uses the follwing "logic" (and I use the term loosely!)

PREMISE ONE Watson arrived at jetty after 3.30am

PREMISE TWO: Only two water taxi drivers were still on duty, Robert Mullen and Guy Wallace

PREMISE THREE: Mullen says he definitely did not take Watson to Blade

CONCLUSION: Only Guy Wallace could have taken Watson to Blade.


Premise One is probably correct

Premise Two is wrong. Donald Anderson was also still operating a water taxi after 3am, and he says that he took Scott Watson to the Blade in the early hours of New Year's Day. He stated that the man was on his own. He remembered the boat’s name reminded him of a sharp edged weapon. Anderson said that the lone man had approached him at the wharf between 2 and 4am. Defence counsel, Mike Antunovic, asked if the man had said to him: “Any chance of a ride to the Blade?” Anderson replied, “ I recall that may have been what he said to me, yes.”

Anderson identified Watson’s photo out of a group of police photographs shown to him as the man that most closely resembled his lone passenger on that early New Year’s Day.

Premise Three is wrong. Robert Mullen wasn't sure if the man he took back to a boat was Scott Watson. Its irrelevant anyway because Donald Anderson did.

Conclusion is therefore wrong. If Donald Anderson he is not lying or mistaken (and there is no reason to think that he is) then Watson could not have been the man whom Guy Wallace took, with Ben and Olivia, to a yacht at 3.30 or 4am. ergo - Scott Watson could not be the murderer.

Well Mr Wishart, Scott may not be able to answer it, but I have, and what's more, that information has been known for years, and is freely available to anyone who wants to put in the tiniest bit of research (I found it in five minutes)

This does not say a lot for your alleged reputation as a "disciplined researcher" does it Mr Wishart!
__________________
"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; 8th October 2016 at 01:17 AM.
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 10th October 2016, 12:28 PM   #263
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Got the following interesting comment. Anyone able to provide any further details?

AnonymousOctober 10, 2016 at 11:05 PM
What really disturbs me? The hairs were actually examined twice, on 19/1/98 and 21/1/98 with 'nothing of interest found". They were counted and examined for follicles attached (required for DNA analysis. Miraculously on a third examination, not only were two long blond (15cm and 20cm) hairs found, they both had follicles attached.

What are the odds of that? 400+ hairs, no folicles, 2 hairs both with follicles
Fixit 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 October 2016, 01:48 PM   #264
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,992
Quote:
The real problem with Wishart’s scenario is that it’s not just inconsistent and stupid. It’s inane and stupid...
From Keith Hunter's website:

http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/?...ticle=news-txt

More choice examples:

Quote:
To describe Shakespeare Bay as ‘near Waikawa’ is to disguise its location and its close proximity to a population centre - Picton. Shakespeare Bay is not ‘near Waikawa’. It’s near Picton...

Quote:
So - rather dump the bodies of his two victims five miles out in Cook Strait, where his boat was completely alone except for the five or ten minutes when the interisland ferry went past and disappeared into Tory Channel, Watson decided to offload them a few metres off the beach at Picton...
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 10th October 2016, 05:41 PM   #265
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Got the following interesting comment. Anyone able to provide any further details?

AnonymousOctober 10, 2016 at 11:05 PM
What really disturbs me? The hairs were actually examined twice, on 19/1/98 and 21/1/98 with 'nothing of interest found". They were counted and examined for follicles attached (required for DNA analysis. Miraculously on a third examination, not only were two long blond (15cm and 20cm) hairs found, they both had follicles attached.

What are the odds of that? 400+ hairs, no folicles, 2 hairs both with follicles
Even worse, there were no blonde hairs found at all in the first two examinations, and the third examination was made immediately after an examination of exemplar hairs from Olivia's bedroom ON THE SAME TABLE and by the same person!!! Further, the plastic pack of Olivia's exemplars had a cut in it near the bottom.

This is shoddy forensic work and a complete failure to follow the most basic of protocols in handling trace evidence. The incompetence of these people its matched only by the incompetence of the forensic personnel in the David Bain and Mark Lundy cases. It borders in criminal negligence IMO.
__________________
"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 10th October 2016, 05:54 PM   #266
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
"How did Scott Watson get back to his yacht Blade, moored off Furneaux Lodge, just before 4am on New Year’s Day, 1998?"

Wishart calls this "the question that Scott Watson cannot answer". He uses the follwing "logic" (and I use the term loosely!)

PREMISE ONE Watson arrived at jetty after 3.30am

PREMISE TWO: Only two water taxi drivers were still on duty, Robert Mullen and Guy Wallace

PREMISE THREE: Mullen says he definitely did not take Watson to Blade

CONCLUSION: Only Guy Wallace could have taken Watson to Blade.


Premise One is probably correct

Premise Two is wrong. Donald Anderson was also still operating a water taxi after 3am, and he says that he took Scott Watson to the Blade in the early hours of New Year's Day. He stated that the man was on his own. He remembered the boat’s name reminded him of a sharp edged weapon. Anderson said that the lone man had approached him at the wharf between 2 and 4am. Defence counsel, Mike Antunovic, asked if the man had said to him: “Any chance of a ride to the Blade?” Anderson replied, “ I recall that may have been what he said to me, yes.”

Anderson identified Watson’s photo out of a group of police photographs shown to him as the man that most closely resembled his lone passenger on that early New Year’s Day.

Premise Three is wrong. Robert Mullen wasn't sure if the man he took back to a boat was Scott Watson. Its irrelevant anyway because Donald Anderson did.

Conclusion is therefore wrong. If Donald Anderson he is not lying or mistaken (and there is no reason to think that he is) then Watson could not have been the man whom Guy Wallace took, with Ben and Olivia, to a yacht at 3.30 or 4am. ergo - Scott Watson could not be the murderer.

Well Mr Wishart, Scott may not be able to answer it, but I have, and what's more, that information has been known for years, and is freely available to anyone who wants to put in the tiniest bit of research (I found it in five minutes)

This does not say a lot for your alleged reputation as a "disciplined researcher" does it Mr Wishart!
Donald Anderson first statement 5 january.

""I recall dropping John Mullen back to his boat "Southern Comfort" at about 2 to 2 30 am. This was about the same time Matt left the wharf.
I stayed on the wharf until about 4 am where I aboard "Foam". It was tied to the wharf. I stayed inside "Foam" and saw Guy come down.""

So, he forgot he dropped Scott Watson alone back to his boat between 2 30 and 4 am?

Maybe he did do it, but one solo trip is a big miss within 4 days of the disappearance. And it was Anderson or no one.
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 October 2016, 06:35 PM   #267
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Donald Anderson first statement 5 january.

""I recall dropping John Mullen back to his boat "Southern Comfort" at about 2 to 2 30 am. This was about the same time Matt left the wharf.
I stayed on the wharf until about 4 am where I aboard "Foam". It was tied to the wharf. I stayed inside "Foam" and saw Guy come down.""

So, he forgot he dropped Scott Watson alone back to his boat between 2 30 and 4 am?

Maybe he did do it, but one solo trip is a big miss within 4 days of the disappearance. And it was Anderson or no one.
Only needs one.

For the man with Guy Wallace to have been Watson, FOUR people, including two water taxi drivers, had to have been mistaken! Sorry, not buying it!

I guess you have now retracted your earlier assertion that only one Water Taxi driver was operating at the time?

Have you ever been at Furneaux Lodge on a New Year's Eve. I have, and it is bedlam - 1,500 to 1,800 people partying. Water taxi drivers are busy with dozens of trips all afternoon. and well into the evening. I would not be surprised if Anderson didn't initially remember taking Watson, until later when he heard the name of Watson's boat "Blade" mentioned and that triggered the memory

Remember, Ben and Olivia weren't report missing until the afternoon of January 2, 36 hours after they were last seen.

Remember also, that the Police focused on Watson very quickly, within days
__________________
"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; 10th October 2016 at 06:38 PM.
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 10th October 2016, 07:06 PM   #268
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Only needs one.

For the man with Guy Wallace to have been Watson, FOUR people, including two water taxi drivers, had to have been mistaken! Sorry, not buying it!

I guess you have now retracted your earlier assertion that only one Water Taxi driver was operating at the time?

Have you ever been at Furneaux Lodge on a New Year's Eve. I have, and it is bedlam - 1,500 to 1,800 people partying. Water taxi drivers are busy with dozens of trips all afternoon. and well into the evening. I would not be surprised if Anderson didn't initially remember taking Watson, until later when he heard the name of Watson's boat "Blade" mentioned and that triggered the memory

Remember, Ben and Olivia weren't report missing until the afternoon of January 2, 36 hours after they were last seen.

Remember also, that the Police focused on Watson very quickly, within days
At least there is a binary solution.

Donald Anderson delivered Watson alone, after the 2 45 to 3 30 pub incident to Blade, or Guy Wallace did with the 5 passenger solution.
The descriptions in the mixed bad light of hair length and boat length become irrelevant under this examination of crucial evidence.
I have now read his detailed February 6 recollection of the trip, 2 30 to 3 am that he recalled when asked to, including what Watson wore and so on. Wishart in one of the books debunks this memory, which of course is pivotal.
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 October 2016, 08:48 PM   #269
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,217
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Remember also, that the Police focused on Watson very quickly, within days
I heard some interesting police scuttlebutt at the time.

The allegation was the pigs had a hard-on for Watson when they knew he was there because they'd failed to pin something earlier on him - a rape or murder, also in the Sounds.

It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect them to do.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 12:50 AM   #270
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Some questions from a correspondent. Anyone know the answers, or the details of the search of The Blade.

'A few questions spring to mind ….
How many total hairs did she find in the first search vs the second search vs the 3rd search.
Were the blonde hairs found together or were they on different parts of the blanket?
What was her method for collecting hairs from the blanket? For example did she divide the blanket into grids and use an eyeglass of some sort to find the hairs?Did she photograph the hairs on the blanket before removing them?Were other hairs also found on the blanket during her 3rd search?Where was the blanket stored between searches ? Why did she allow the plastic bag containing hairs from the brush to get anywhere near the blanket? Long blonde hairs would surely stand out on the blanket compared to the many short dark hairs that she found, what is her explanation for missing them in the first 2 searches.
It all seems so dodgy to me.'
Fixit 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 October 2016, 02:27 PM   #271
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Some questions from a correspondent. Anyone know the answers, or the details of the search of The Blade.

'A few questions spring to mind ….
How many total hairs did she find in the first search vs the second search vs the 3rd search.
Were the blonde hairs found together or were they on different parts of the blanket?
What was her method for collecting hairs from the blanket? For example did she divide the blanket into grids and use an eyeglass of some sort to find the hairs?Did she photograph the hairs on the blanket before removing them?Were other hairs also found on the blanket during her 3rd search?Where was the blanket stored between searches ? Why did she allow the plastic bag containing hairs from the brush to get anywhere near the blanket? Long blonde hairs would surely stand out on the blanket compared to the many short dark hairs that she found, what is her explanation for missing them in the first 2 searches.
It all seems so dodgy to me.'
As I understand it, the Tiger Blanket was only physically searched for hairs and loose fibres once. All the hairs and fibres (AFAIK, hundreds) were collected (not examined) and bagged, and then later on they were searched for the first time. During that search, no blonde hairs were found

During the second search (at some later date) no blond hairs were found.

Then (at another later date) a bag of exemplar hairs from Olivia was searched for hairs that might have follicles still attached. After that search, the examiner noticed there was a cut in the bottom of the bag.

Finally the third search was done immediately after the exemplar search, and on the same table.... and magically, two long blonde hairs were found.

You don't have to be Gil Grissom to work out what happened there!
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 03:01 PM   #272
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
This is noble cause corruption. One of the more bizarre aspects of wrongful convictions since Thomas is the idea "you know perfectly well we would never dare try that trick again".
They did. In Tamihere with witness C, Pora with the earrings evidence, and Lundy with missing notebooks and deleted stomach photographs.

Of course if it is truly noble, he is still guilty.
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 11th October 2016, 03:20 PM   #273
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This is noble cause corruption. One of the more bizarre aspects of wrongful convictions since Thomas is the idea "you know perfectly well we would never dare try that trick again".
They did. In Tamihere with witness C, Pora with the earrings evidence, and Lundy with missing notebooks and deleted stomach photographs.

Of course if it is truly noble, he is still guilty.
I don't get why you are so convinced, given that every single thread used to convict him has been broken.

I can only imagine that you are such a brainwashed Wishart fan-boy that if you admit he got it wrong in the Watson case, he might also have got it wrong with your pet subject of David Tamihere.
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 03:47 PM   #274
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I don't get why you are so convinced, given that every single thread used to convict him has been broken.

I can only imagine that you are such a brainwashed Wishart fan-boy that if you admit he got it wrong in the Watson case, he might also have got it wrong with your pet subject of David Tamihere.
The if might be wrongly located. I have two W and the Hunter books to hand, and I am keen to analyse the Donald Anderson claim further. Nothing else matters, because it was Anderson or Wallace. Innocent or guilty.
I meant if he is guilty, and the hairs are planted, it is noble cause corruption, so then if that was the only way to guarantee him behind bars, we have another raging debate.
As for Wishart, why not regard him as any messenger, and accept that if he is right, he deserves all the praise for taking on deeply unpopular causes.
On the innocence of Tamihere I am 100% certain.
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 11th October 2016, 04:54 PM   #275
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,992
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The if might be wrongly located. I have two W and the Hunter books to hand, and I am keen to analyse the Donald Anderson claim further. Nothing else matters, because it was Anderson or Wallace. Innocent or guilty.
I meant if he is guilty, and the hairs are planted, it is noble cause corruption, so then if that was the only way to guarantee him behind bars, we have another raging debate.
As for Wishart, why not regard him as any messenger, and accept that if he is right, he deserves all the praise for taking on deeply unpopular causes.
On the innocence of Tamihere I am 100% certain.

***SIGH***
It's not binary. Wishart is so obsessed with Hunter that he agrees with Hunter's timeline and then tries to show why that points to Watson but Hunter's timeline might not be correct either! The times from the witness statements are all over the place.

And quite frankly, just perusing Wishart's books on Amazon, I see no reason to trust his cherry-picking of quotes to suite his narrative.

Don't get me wrong, if Watson's Police interrogation reads like the CIC interrogation of Jeffery MacDonald then he's guilty. I would like to read just the file with no Wishart cherry-picking/interpretation.
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 11th October 2016, 06:57 PM   #276
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
***SIGH***
It's not binary. Wishart is so obsessed with Hunter that he agrees with Hunter's timeline and then tries to show why that points to Watson but Hunter's timeline might not be correct either! The times from the witness statements are all over the place.

And quite frankly, just perusing Wishart's books on Amazon, I see no reason to trust his cherry-picking of quotes to suite his narrative.

Don't get me wrong, if Watson's Police interrogation reads like the CIC interrogation of Jeffery MacDonald then he's guilty. I would like to read just the file with no Wishart cherry-picking/interpretation.
Wishart reports Watson's arrest interview in full.
I have read several arresting interviews of men who turned out to be innocent. This one is quite different, under advice, Watson says I have nothing to say or no comment.
eg
Fitzgerald: So throughout New Years Eve, prior to New Year's Eve or at any time, have you ever met Ben Smart or Olivia Hope Scott?
Watson: I have nothing to say.

There is a strong pattern for defendants to testify when later proved innocent. Thomas, Tamihere, Bain, Lundy.
Thomas Bain and Lundy would naturally do so as innocents with no criminal record. It is understandable MacDonald didn't with a **** recent record the prosecution would have worked in, but Watson's crimes were old.
If he caught Anderson's water taxi that would be case closed, he would recount it, he would describe the journey the way it happened, and there would be no opening left for the crown, due to the known operators at these pre dawn hours.
There are difficulties for Watson that don't exist for men innocent in my opinion.
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 11th October 2016, 06:59 PM   #277
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,079
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
***SIGH***
It's not binary. Wishart is so obsessed with Hunter that he agrees with Hunter's timeline and then tries to show why that points to Watson but Hunter's timeline might not be correct either! The times from the witness statements are all over the place.

And quite frankly, just perusing Wishart's books on Amazon, I see no reason to trust his cherry-picking of quotes to suite his narrative.

Don't get me wrong, if Watson's Police interrogation reads like the CIC interrogation of Jeffery MacDonald then he's guilty. I would like to read just the file with no Wishart cherry-picking/interpretation.
Yes, I would too. I would like the court transcripts from the trial too.
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 11th October 2016, 07:03 PM   #278
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Yes, I would too. I would like the court transcripts from the trial too.
I suggest going straight to Elementary 2. Buy e book for about 15 green backs. Read it carefully and see what you think. There are plenty of witness statements which you can read before figuring if the trial adds anything. I am a bit over trial transcripts, they take weeks to work through material not just irrelevant but insulting to people with IQ above mean Arctic temperature.
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 11th October 2016, 09:17 PM   #279
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,853
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
***SIGH***
It's not binary. Wishart is so obsessed with Hunter that he agrees with Hunter's timeline and then tries to show why that points to Watson but Hunter's timeline might not be correct either! The times from the witness statements are all over the place.
Yes, they are but there are sufficient statements about when the Mystery Man was in the bar that must be accurate enough. They saw him in the bar when it was still light outside, but the witnesses on the Mina Cornelia are very reliable, are sure about the time, and testified that it was dark outside when they took the photograph prior to Watson going ashore. The evening of December 31st, 1997 was clear & sunny (as evidenced by the video taken that evening outside Furneaux Lodge). Sunset was at 8:57 pm in Wellington (Endeavour Inlet is 0.6° longitude west of Wellington and almost due west, so it would be about 2˝ minutes later at 8:59). Now people might be unsure about exact times, but there is no way they would be unsure about something visual like, whether it was daytime or night-time!!

The cornerstone of the Police theory of the crime is that the Mystery Man committed the murders, and that the Mystery man was Scott Watson, therefore, the murders were committed by Scott Watson. However, Watson simply cannot have been in that bar at 8pm. Not only was he confirmed as being in another place at that time, he did not even remotely resemble the man that witnesses saw there; long, shoulder-length hair v short cropped hair, unshaven v clean shaven, scruffily dressed v tidily dressed.

All this talk about which water taxi driver was where is irrelevant. Donald Anderson swears that he dropped Watson off at the Blade (the ship's name triggered the memory for him because Watson had asked him "Any chance of a lift to the Blade?", while Guy Wallace swears to this day that the man he took with Ben and Olivia to the ketch was NOT Scott Watson, he was a scruffy, unshaven man with shoulder length hair, a description backed up by two other people on the water taxi.

Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
And quite frankly, just perusing Wishart's books on Amazon, I see no reason to trust his cherry-picking of quotes to suit his narrative.
Its his MO.

Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Don't get me wrong, if Watson's Police interrogation reads like the CIC interrogation of Jeffery MacDonald then he's guilty. I would like to read just the file with no Wishart cherry-picking/interpretation.
Wishart claims (assuming of course that the Police are not lying and withholding anything) to have had access to ALL of the original Police files including all of the transcripts of the interviews with Watson
If so, why does he not release it. Answer? Probably because doing so would make information available that undermines his conclusions.
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 09:27 PM   #280
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yes, they are but there are sufficient statements about when the Mystery Man was in the bar that must be accurate enough. They saw him in the bar when it was still light outside, but the witnesses on the Mina Cornelia are very reliable, are sure about the time, and testified that it was dark outside when they took the photograph prior to Watson going ashore. The evening of December 31st, 1997 was clear & sunny (as evidenced by the video taken that evening outside Furneaux Lodge). Sunset was at 8:57 pm in Wellington (Endeavour Inlet is 0.6° longitude west of Wellington and almost due west, so it would be about 2˝ minutes later at 8:59). Now people might be unsure about exact times, but there is no way they would be unsure about something visual like, whether it was daytime or night-time!!

The cornerstone of the Police theory of the crime is that the Mystery Man committed the murders, and that the Mystery man was Scott Watson, therefore, the murders were committed by Scott Watson. However, Watson simply cannot have been in that bar at 8pm. Not only was he confirmed as being in another place at that time, he did not even remotely resemble the man that witnesses saw there; long, shoulder-length hair v short cropped hair, unshaven v clean shaven, scruffily dressed v tidily dressed.

All this talk about which water taxi driver was where is irrelevant. Donald Anderson swears that he dropped Watson off at the Blade (the ship's name triggered the memory for him because Watson had asked him "Any chance of a lift to the Blade?", while Guy Wallace swears to this day that the man he took with Ben and Olivia to the ketch was NOT Scott Watson, he was a scruffy, unshaven man with shoulder length hair, a description backed up by two other people on the water taxi.



Its his MO.



Wishart claims (assuming of course that the Police are not lying and withholding anything) to have had access to ALL of the original Police files including all of the transcripts of the interviews with Watson
If so, why does he not release it. Answer? Probably because doing so would make information available that undermines his conclusions.
Wishart publishes the twenty page arresting interview.
After reading it I became convinced Scott Watson equals Mystery Man.
I will suggest to Wishart he supplies a link for easy access.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 PM.
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.