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 11th October 2016, 10:09 PM   #281
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
The arresting interview is meaningless really if cannot account for the exculpatory evidence. There are plenty of innocent people who have been bullied, browbeaten, intimidated and badgered into confessing crimes that they have not committed (Taina Pora is a good example) so I would not be at all surprised if Watson was dismantled under pressure. Remember this is the same Police who;

- Intimidated Guy Wallace into signing off an an identikit picture that he was not happy with and which he later retracted.

- Threatened Guy Wallace that they were going to charge him with the murders if he didn't change his story.

- Bullied Roz McNeiilly when she tried to tell Police that the Mystery Man was not Scott Watson.

- Intimidated the Watson family's neighbours to try to isolate the Watson's from their community

- Intimidated Sandy Watson (Scott's sister) by threatening her with having her children taken away if she didn't tell the truth.

- Threatened the Erie Cove caretaker with jail time for cannabis cultivation if he didn't change his story about when Watson and Blade arrived there.

- Told at least a dozen people who reported the mystery ketch that there was no ketch and they they were not interested in hearing about sightings.

- Pressured a jailhouse informants to perjure themselves in the witness box. (one informant later retracted their testimony, the other one was rewarded with a car and a mobile phone)

So,

I don't trust anything the Police say, particularly Rob Pope who flat out lied to the public over this case.
I don't trust the Police not to "embellish" the information they have given Wishart
I don't trust Wishart full stop. He is a known liar and conspiracy theorist and in my household, his credibility is zero!

The criminal investigative sections of the NZ Police are rotten to the core!!
__________________
"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 12th October 2016, 12:25 AM   #282
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Wishart is a prick.

But it's been through trial, appeal, privy said nope.

What do people actually want?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
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 12th October 2016, 12:26 AM   #283
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The arresting interview is meaningless really if cannot account for the exculpatory evidence. There are plenty of innocent people who have been bullied, browbeaten, intimidated and badgered into confessing crimes that they have not committed (Taina Pora is a good example) so I would not be at all surprised if Watson was dismantled under pressure. Remember this is the same Police who;

- Intimidated Guy Wallace into signing off an an identikit picture that he was not happy with and which he later retracted.

- Threatened Guy Wallace that they were going to charge him with the murders if he didn't change his story.

- Bullied Roz McNeiilly when she tried to tell Police that the Mystery Man was not Scott Watson.

- Intimidated the Watson family's neighbours to try to isolate the Watson's from their community

- Intimidated Sandy Watson (Scott's sister) by threatening her with having her children taken away if she didn't tell the truth.

- Threatened the Erie Cove caretaker with jail time for cannabis cultivation if he didn't change his story about when Watson and Blade arrived there.

- Told at least a dozen people who reported the mystery ketch that there was no ketch and they they were not interested in hearing about sightings.

- Pressured a jailhouse informants to perjure themselves in the witness box. (one informant later retracted their testimony, the other one was rewarded with a car and a mobile phone)

So,

I don't trust anything the Police say, particularly Rob Pope who flat out lied to the public over this case.
I don't trust the Police not to "embellish" the information they have given Wishart
I don't trust Wishart full stop. He is a known liar and conspiracy theorist and in my household, his credibility is zero!

The criminal investigative sections of the NZ Police are rotten to the core!!
I fail to see that many kiwis being that intimidated
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
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 12th October 2016, 02:35 AM   #284
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I fail to see that many kiwis being that intimidated
Wait till you find yourself in the interrogation room with an arrogant bully of a cop (I've been there).

Its no picnic mate
__________________
"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 12th October 2016, 02:45 AM   #285
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Wait till you find yourself in the interrogation room with an arrogant bully of a cop (I've been there).

Its no picnic mate
So have I

What do you want going forward for this case?

Specifically
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
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 12th October 2016, 05:12 AM   #286
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
So have I

What do you want going forward for this case?

Specifically
A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the conviction of Scott Watson, along similar lines to that which was held into the Arthur Thomas case, and which found that serious Police misconduct took place.

The Commission should investigate the failure of the Police to follow "best practice" during the investigation into the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, the conduct of the Crown Prosecutors, and the conduct of the trial judge

Of particular concern are;

1. The failure of the Police forensic team to follow basic, fundamental protocols during the examination of the "Tiger Blanket" taken from Watson's yacht, in that the ESR examiner committed egregious errors of procedure that resulted in a very high risk of cross contamination.

2. The dishonest way in which the head of the Police inquiry, Inspector Rob Pope dealt with the public. His continual public lying about the Mystery Ketch in effect discouraged the public from reporting sightings of the ketch.

3. The ignoring of an important line of inquiry (the Mystery Ketch) which, despite Police attempts to dissuade the public, nonetheless brought in at least a dozen reliable sightings.

4. The ignoring of numerous witnesses whose stores covered various aspect of this cases, and of which much would have exculpated Watson.

5. The immediate focus on Scott Watson as the prime suspect to the exclusion of all others, and then the subsequent dismissing and ignoring of exclupatory evidence from key witnesses.

6. The systematic misuse of the media to create a situation where Watson was subject to "Trial by media" and convicted and found guilty in the court of public opinion. This completely tainted any potential jury pool.

7. The continual harassment of Watson's neighbours in an attempt to isolate the family from their community, and the harassment of Watson's family in an attempt to intimidate them into changing their stories. This, IMO, was time wasted that that might have been better spent investigating the Mystery Ketch

8. The use of coercion and intimidation to get key witnesses to change their stories, and the bullying and threats against those who stuck to their story

9. The complete evaporation of almost all of the main threads of evidence on which Watson was convicted. For example, the two main identification witnesses for the Crown, Wallace and McNeilly have stated that they were tricked by the police into making a wrongful identification of Watson. As a consequence, they have retracted their evidence. Additionally, the jailhouse informant known as "Secret Witness A", retracted his evidence 12 months after the trial, saying that under pressure from the Police, he made up his story of Watson confessing to him.

10. The Crown Prosecutor lied to the jury when he stated that "there was no ketch" , when he must have known that dozens of people reported it

11. The Crown Prosecutor presented facts not in evidence to the jury with their last minute representation of the "two-trip theory"

12. The conduct of the trial judge in allowing the Prosecutor to present the "two trip theory" at the last moment, which denied the defense any chance to examine the theory for rebuttal.


....... specific enough?
__________________
"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 October 2016, 02:02 AM   #287
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the conviction of Scott Watson, along similar lines to that which was held into the Arthur Thomas case, and which found that serious Police misconduct took place.

The Commission should investigate the failure of the Police to follow "best practice" during the investigation into the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, the conduct of the Crown Prosecutors, and the conduct of the trial judge

Of particular concern are;

1. The failure of the Police forensic team to follow basic, fundamental protocols during the examination of the "Tiger Blanket" taken from Watson's yacht, in that the ESR examiner committed egregious errors of procedure that resulted in a very high risk of cross contamination.

2. The dishonest way in which the head of the Police inquiry, Inspector Rob Pope dealt with the public. His continual public lying about the Mystery Ketch in effect discouraged the public from reporting sightings of the ketch.

3. The ignoring of an important line of inquiry (the Mystery Ketch) which, despite Police attempts to dissuade the public, nonetheless brought in at least a dozen reliable sightings.

4. The ignoring of numerous witnesses whose stores covered various aspect of this cases, and of which much would have exculpated Watson.

5. The immediate focus on Scott Watson as the prime suspect to the exclusion of all others, and then the subsequent dismissing and ignoring of exclupatory evidence from key witnesses.

6. The systematic misuse of the media to create a situation where Watson was subject to "Trial by media" and convicted and found guilty in the court of public opinion. This completely tainted any potential jury pool.

7. The continual harassment of Watson's neighbours in an attempt to isolate the family from their community, and the harassment of Watson's family in an attempt to intimidate them into changing their stories. This, IMO, was time wasted that that might have been better spent investigating the Mystery Ketch

8. The use of coercion and intimidation to get key witnesses to change their stories, and the bullying and threats against those who stuck to their story

9. The complete evaporation of almost all of the main threads of evidence on which Watson was convicted. For example, the two main identification witnesses for the Crown, Wallace and McNeilly have stated that they were tricked by the police into making a wrongful identification of Watson. As a consequence, they have retracted their evidence. Additionally, the jailhouse informant known as "Secret Witness A", retracted his evidence 12 months after the trial, saying that under pressure from the Police, he made up his story of Watson confessing to him.

10. The Crown Prosecutor lied to the jury when he stated that "there was no ketch" , when he must have known that dozens of people reported it

11. The Crown Prosecutor presented facts not in evidence to the jury with their last minute representation of the "two-trip theory"

12. The conduct of the trial judge in allowing the Prosecutor to present the "two trip theory" at the last moment, which denied the defense any chance to examine the theory for rebuttal.


....... specific enough?
That is an impressive list.
Ketch sightings succumb to facts, most were Alliance. Evonne Walsh described Alliance exactly.
I am confident the hairs were planted, which makes that testimony relied upon by the jury and Nicola Crutchley unreliable.

Unfortunately it is a red herring.

Watson was the shaggy haired mystery man. Both were a boat builder from Picton who were a butt pain obsessing about drugs and breasts.
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 October 2016, 03:03 AM   #288
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Watson was the shaggy haired mystery man.
Not only "shaggy haired" but "unshaven" and "scruffily dressed" as well, so how do you explain his short haired, clean shaven tidily dressed appearance at 9:30 pm on New Year's eve when this photo was taken.


.. the answer is that you cannot. You keep faithfully regurgitating Wishart's flawed diatribe without explaining the evidence presented. You seem to be so taken with Wishart's nonsense that you have forgotten how to critically question evidence.

For Watson to be the Mystery Man, DOZENS of witnesses have to be wrong about seeing him as early at 8pm when it was still daylight, because it is absolutely definite that Watson did not come ashore until after the above photo was taken, which was after dark. Its not as if the Mystery Man was some nondescript person sitting in a dimly lit corner of public bar minding his own business. It was daylight, and the man was acting strangely and crudely, so much so that a lot of people noticed.
__________________
"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 October 2016, 03:33 AM   #289
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Not only "shaggy haired" but "unshaven" and "scruffily dressed" as well, so how do you explain his short haired, clean shaven tidily dressed appearance at 9:30 pm on New Year's eve when this photo was taken.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...nacornelia.jpghttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...leanShaven.png
.. the answer is that you cannot. You keep faithfully regurgitating Wishart's flawed diatribe without explaining the evidence presented. You seem to be so taken with Wishart's nonsense that you have forgotten how to critically question evidence.

For Watson to be the Mystery Man, DOZENS of witnesses have to be wrong about seeing him as early at 8pm when it was still daylight, because it is absolutely definite that Watson did not come ashore until after the above photo was taken, which was after dark. Its not as if the Mystery Man was some nondescript person sitting in a dimly lit corner of public bar minding his own business. It was daylight, and the man was acting strangely and crudely, so much so that a lot of people noticed.
I thought he was innocent but changed my mind.
There seems to be a lot of vested interest built up to exonerate Watson, I am curious why you seem to be aligned, maybe I sense this because you are a local. People I know in Blenheim are in no doubt he is guilty, and reading Wishart hardly changes their minds. Gerald Hope's willingness to meet Watson does not make a lot of sense to me, he opposed parole, and that can only be because he has a case view.
These cases are binary, true or false, I see the Watson case regrettably draining resources better applied to the Tamihere and Lundy cases.
I wish he were innocent, and hope he is. I found it painful to adjust and fear the worst, mainly for his good father's sake.

Last edited by Samson; 13th October 2016 at 03:39 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 13th October 2016, 04:49 PM   #290
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Not only "shaggy haired" but "unshaven" and "scruffily dressed" as well, so how do you explain his short haired, clean shaven tidily dressed appearance at 9:30 pm on New Year's eve when this photo was taken.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...nacornelia.jpghttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...leanShaven.png
.. the answer is that you cannot. You keep faithfully regurgitating Wishart's flawed diatribe without explaining the evidence presented. You seem to be so taken with Wishart's nonsense that you have forgotten how to critically question evidence.

For Watson to be the Mystery Man, DOZENS of witnesses have to be wrong about seeing him as early at 8pm when it was still daylight, because it is absolutely definite that Watson did not come ashore until after the above photo was taken, which was after dark. Its not as if the Mystery Man was some nondescript person sitting in a dimly lit corner of public bar minding his own business. It was daylight, and the man was acting strangely and crudely, so much so that a lot of people noticed.
"Dozens"?

Please clarify
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
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 13th October 2016, 06:56 PM   #291
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I thought he was innocent but changed my mind.
There seems to be a lot of vested interest built up to exonerate Watson, I am curious why you seem to be aligned, maybe I sense this because you are a local.
I am aligned for the same reasons I am aligned in the Lundy case; because I see evidence that clearly exculpates the convicted man being ignored. While you can argue about witness testimony, times and recollections, you cannot argue with the photographs taken in this case; one in partuclar. That photograph of Watson taken on the Mina Cornelia clearly shows Watson clean shaven, tidily dressed and with short hair. The people he was with testified to the fact that this is what his appearance was really like. They also testified to the time the photo was taken (after 9:30 pm on New Year's Eve) and that Watson did not go ashore until after that time, when it was dark

IMO, that photograph trumps any and all witness testimony as regards Watson's appearance on New Year's Eve, particularly when that testimony is conflicting and sketchy and given by people who had been drinking. The photograph, doesn't forget, doesn't get details wrong and doesn't get drunk.

Chris Watson complained about this to Police.....(excerpts from the "Review of Detective Inspector Pinkham’s Report into the Mr C
Watson Complaint Regarding Operation TAM Affidavit"
dated 11 December 2008)

"This complaint challenges paragraphs 8.26 (1) and (2) of Detective Inspector Pope’s affidavit on the basis that there existed photographic evidence that clearly showed that Scott Watson was short haired and clean shaven, but for natural growth. Mr Watson contends that there were three such photographs taken 31 December 1997, 8 and 12 January 1998 to illustrate his point."

The Police reply was...

"Notwithstanding the existence of photographs the list of witnesses as described above (complaint 3) provided various descriptions of the third person, believed by the enquiry team to be Watson, as having facial hair of varying length. Additionally, at least three witnesses spoken to by the enquiry team stated that they believed Watson had tidied himself up early in the new-year. Those witnesses include: Charlie Proctor, David Coard and Garry Kenny"

"Notwithstanding the existence of photographs". In other words, they handwaved the photo away because it conflicted with the witness testimony (from witnesses who were admittedly drunk on the night and making their recollections days later) that described Watson unshaven, scruffy and shabbily dressed i.e. selecting the evidence that fits the outcome they want. Of course, the Police dismissed any witness testimony (from witnesses who were likely just as drunk as the ones they believed) when they said that the Mystery Man they saw was in the bar at 8pm (in the daytime)


Quote:
People I know in Blenheim are in no doubt he is guilty, and reading Wishart hardly changes their minds.
I was stationed at RNZAF Woodbourne at the time this all went down. I used to spend a fair bit of my weekend time in and around Picton, Waikawa and Ngakuta Bay (I had a fizzboat which I kept at a friends place in Waikawa). While I do not know, or (to my knowledge) have ever met Scott Watson, I do know a number of people who were interviewed by the Police and who knew him. For the most part, they tell me he was a bad boy, was right into growing cannabis and was not a person they would trust, but they do not believe his crimes would ever extend to murder. He simply was not the type.

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
"Dozens"?

Please clarify
Scott Watson claims to have been clean-shaven over 31 December 1997/1 January 1998 while approximately 23 witnesses describe the "third person", believed to be Watson, as unshaven. Watson is known personally to several of these witnesses.

The witnesses variously described that person as ‘unshaven, a little unshaven, had stubble or had two days growth’. Some of these persons either knew Watson, were introduced to him, or he introduced himself to them. On that basis at the time the affidavit was constructed there was a basis upon which Detective Inspector Pope could reasonably justify his comments at paragraph 8.9, notwithstanding that some of those witnesses had previously failed to identify Watson via photographic montage.


Once again, the Police handwaved away witness testimony that did not fit with their preconceived conclusion of Watson's guilt. There are also a large number of people over and above the 23 who were interviewed informally by the Police and who were not listed in any witness lists. I know this because I know some of them personally. In each case (of the ones I know) they say that the Police lost interest in what they had to say when they said they had seen the scruffy man in the bar at any time before about 9pm.

cullennz - I can provide you with the names of all formally interviewed 23 witnesses via PM if you wish. I will indicate which witnesses know Watson personally, which witnesses met Watson for the first time on the New Year's Eve, the dates they were interviewed by the Police, and which ones I know personally.
__________________
"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; 13th October 2016 at 07:13 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2016, 10:58 PM   #292
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
We come from opposing principals.
First, there are three suggestions for the taxi
1. John Mullens
2. Donald Anderson
3. Guy Wallace.

If 3 then guilty.
Keith Hunter uses testimony years after the event to claim it was John Mullens but this is impossible because he was back on his boat.
Smartcooky, you claim it is Donald Anderson so innocent.
Wishart claims it is Guy Wallace so guilty.

Are you with that so far?
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 October 2016, 11:01 PM   #293
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
'Scott Watson claims to have been clean-shaven over 31 December 1997/1 January 1998 while approximately 23 witnesses describe the "third person", believed to be Watson, as unshaven. Watson is known personally to several of these witnesses.'

Hi smartcooky. Has anything ever been done about those witnesses you mention who knew Watson and who also identified a 'mystery man' at the bar. Were any of them called by the Crown to give evidence, alternatively were any of their names provided to the defence before the trial?
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 14th October 2016, 02:23 AM   #294
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
We come from opposing principals.
First, there are three suggestions for the taxi
1. John Mullens
2. Donald Anderson
3. Guy Wallace.

If 3 then guilty.
Keith Hunter uses testimony years after the event to claim it was John Mullens but this is impossible because he was back on his boat.
Smartcooky, you claim it is Donald Anderson so innocent.
Wishart claims it is Guy Wallace so guilty.

Are you with that so far?

IMO

a. Donald Anderson took Watson to the Blade. It approximately fits Watson's claimed timeline, and Anderson remembered that the boat had the name of a weapon that he could not immediately recall.

b. Guy Wallace took the Mystery Man with Ben and Olivia and two others to boats. the first three boarded Mystery Ketch.

So you have two experienced water taxi drivers, and two eye-witnesses who all have to be wrong for Watson to not be exculpated by their testimony.

Another couple of important considerations are that...

1. Blade was rafted with Mina Cornelia and Biancaand reasonably close to shore (within 80m IIRC). I don't know if you have ever slept on a boat rafted to other boats in the dead of a clear, calm night, but I promise you that cannot make the slightest noise without people on the next boat hearing you. I find it unbelievable that one drunk (and probably stoned) man would have been able to overpower two young people so silently that the people in the boats next door would not have heard.

2. The most common reported mooring position of the mystery ketch was 250-300m offshore. Guy Wallace would surely have known if he had only gone 80m as opposed to three to four times as far.
__________________
"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 14th October 2016, 02:31 AM   #295
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
'Scott Watson claims to have been clean-shaven over 31 December 1997/1 January 1998 while approximately 23 witnesses describe the "third person", believed to be Watson, as unshaven. Watson is known personally to several of these witnesses.'

Hi smartcooky. Has anything ever been done about those witnesses you mention who knew Watson and who also identified a 'mystery man' at the bar. Were any of them called by the Crown to give evidence, alternatively were any of their names provided to the defense before the trial?
Not as far as I know.

The Crown's key identification witnesses were Guy Wallace and Roz McNeilly. They were both working behind the bar at Furneaux Lodge so they got a good look at the mystery man. Both claim that the Police pressured and tricked them into identifying the Mystery Man as Scott Watson, and they have both since recanted their testimony.
__________________
"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 14th October 2016, 02:32 AM   #296
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
IMO

a. Donald Anderson took Watson to the Blade. It approximately fits Watson's claimed timeline, and Anderson remembered that the boat had the name of a weapon that he could not immediately recall.

b. Guy Wallace took the Mystery Man with Ben and Olivia and two others to boats. the first three boarded Mystery Ketch.

So you have two experienced water taxi drivers, and two eye-witnesses who all have to be wrong for Watson to not be exculpated by their testimony.

Another couple of important considerations are that...

1. Blade was rafted with Mina Cornelia and Biancaand reasonably close to shore (within 80m IIRC). I don't know if you have ever slept on a boat rafted to other boats in the dead of a clear, calm night, but I promise you that cannot make the slightest noise without people on the next boat hearing you. I find it unbelievable that one drunk (and probably stoned) man would have been able to overpower two young people so silently that the people in the boats next door would not have heard.

2. The most common reported mooring position of the mystery ketch was 250-300m offshore. Guy Wallace would surely have known if he had only gone 80m as opposed to three to four times as far.
I understand the conundrums. Watson did walk on rafted boats, no argument. It is certainly surprising an angry Olivia would collapse asleep, she was clearly and correctly angry. But maybe she did.
Low tide was 5 though surprisingly Wishart says 4. Watson returned to Blade after failing to party on the rafted boats, cast loose, drifted out till the tide turned, instead of starting the old clanger set the sails, and the rest is unrecorded history.
No ketch, no bushy haired stranger...

You see, something happened.

But far more problematic is the confluence of boat builders from Picton using the same language as Watson and the stranger.
They converge.

Last edited by Samson; 14th October 2016 at 02:36 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 14th October 2016, 02:37 AM   #297
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
OK. I can't hold it in any longer.

I was the hairy stranger.

I thought why not make it look so obvious this Watson did it so even though I could have just gone I could have a laugh
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
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 14th October 2016, 03:46 PM   #298
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,022
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I understand the conundrums. Watson did walk on rafted boats, no argument. It is certainly surprising an angry Olivia would collapse asleep, she was clearly and correctly angry. But maybe she did.
Low tide was 5 though surprisingly Wishart says 4. Watson returned to Blade after failing to party on the rafted boats, cast loose, drifted out till the tide turned, instead of starting the old clanger set the sails, and the rest is unrecorded history.
No ketch, no bushy haired stranger...

You see, something happened.

But far more problematic is the confluence of boat builders from Picton using the same language as Watson and the stranger.
They converge.
The police don't even buy Wishart's timeline:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11640082

Are you basing your guilty verdict on Mark Lundy's lawyer?

http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/03-...en-and-olivia/

Last edited by Elagabalus; 14th October 2016 at 03:56 PM.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 05:56 PM   #299
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
The police don't even buy Wishart's timeline:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11640082

Are you basing your guilty verdict on Mark Lundy's lawyer?

http://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/03-...en-and-olivia/
The police timeline doesn't work and they never need to with juries. The key is to get the case past that first jury and most of the heavy lifting is done.
This worked with Thomas Tamihere Pora Bain and Lundy, and probably nearly with MacDonald. All the aforementioned are innocent so the timelines didn't matter a damn to 12 foolish citizens and true.
Ross Burns wrote a reasonable review, surprising because he was an indolent defender of Lundy, that is well documented. But ultimately the worst form of public discourse is describing people as having views and opinions.
These cases are driven by hard facts.
It would be foolish to have an opinion whether Donald Anderson took Watson to Blade, it is a fact one way or another, and the case is settled when we discover what that fact is.
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 October 2016, 12:46 AM   #300
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Here is an interesting interview by Mike Kalagher with Reg McManaway.

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


Mr McManaway saw the Mystery Ketch arrive just after he arrived around 4pm.

He saw the scruffy Mystery Man working the boat

He saw that same man again later in the bar annoying Ben and Olivia.

He says that the Ketch was already gone when he got up at 7am the next morning,

He saw Scott Watson on the Blade and spoke to him before he left at around 7:30 am (so much for the lying Police who said he left at 5am)

So here we have a witness who saw both Watson and the Mystery man, and identified them as different people. More importantly, he put Ben and Olivia in contact with the scruffy Mystery Man well before they went on Guy Wallace's Naiad!
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 04:13 AM   #301
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Here is an interesting interview by Mike Kalagher with Reg McManaway.

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


Mr McManaway saw the Mystery Ketch arrive just after he arrived around 4pm.

He saw the scruffy Mystery Man working the boat

He saw that same man again later in the bar annoying Ben and Olivia.

He says that the Ketch was already gone when he got up at 7am the next morning,

He saw Scott Watson on the Blade and spoke to him before he left at around 7:30 am (so much for the lying Police who said he left at 5am)

So here we have a witness who saw both Watson and the Mystery man, and identified them as different people. More importantly, he put Ben and Olivia in contact with the scruffy Mystery Man well before they went on Guy Wallace's Naiad!
So one dude
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
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 15th October 2016, 05:15 AM   #302
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
So one dude
One dude?

He's one person (now unfortunately deceased) whose story adds to all other other "one dudes" who are telling a story that differs from both the Police and Wishart's BS narrative.

Have you been actually reading this thread? Do you know anything at all about this case, or are you just going to continue to make stupid, pointless comments?
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 11:14 AM   #303
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,249
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So here we have a witness who saw both Watson and the Mystery man, and identified them as different people. More importantly, he put Ben and Olivia in contact with the scruffy Mystery Man well before they went on Guy Wallace's Naiad!
That is *********** breathtaking.

It does go to show how much evidence the cops will deliberately ignore when they have a hard-on for someone.

It isn't easy being a cop.
__________________
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 15th October 2016, 12:52 PM   #304
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Here is an interesting interview by Mike Kalagher with Reg McManaway.

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


Mr McManaway saw the Mystery Ketch arrive just after he arrived around 4pm.

He saw the scruffy Mystery Man working the boat

He saw that same man again later in the bar annoying Ben and Olivia.

He says that the Ketch was already gone when he got up at 7am the next morning,

He saw Scott Watson on the Blade and spoke to him before he left at around 7:30 am (so much for the lying Police who said he left at 5am)

So here we have a witness who saw both Watson and the Mystery man, and identified them as different people. More importantly, he put Ben and Olivia in contact with the scruffy Mystery Man well before they went on Guy Wallace's Naiad!
Same question, did the defence know about this pre-trial? Do you know when the tape was made. It's not only compelling in its detail but it distinguished between the 2 men according to someone or saw them both.
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 15th October 2016, 01:17 PM   #305
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Same question, did the defence know about this pre-trial? Do you know when the tape was made. It's not only compelling in its detail but it distinguished between the 2 men according to someone or saw them both.

As far as i know, the defense never knew about this, but I will ask.

The Police, of course, did know. It was yet another eye-witness to the reality of the ketch, but since it pointed away from the person they want to convict, they were not interested.
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 09:39 PM   #306
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
In the mean time, here is a excellent analysis, a blow-by-blow description of the case, that shows just how flawed this investigation was.

http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/optam.htm
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 10:42 PM   #307
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In the mean time, here is a excellent analysis, a blow-by-blow description of the case, that shows just how flawed this investigation was.

http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/optam.htm
Useful information on the hairs there. Would like to use part ofthat, and the interview with McManaway?
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 15th October 2016, 11:49 PM   #308
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Useful information on the hairs there. Would like to use part ofthat, and the interview with McManaway?

Can you PM me with what you want to do, I will will arrange it.
__________________
"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 16th October 2016, 12:12 AM   #309
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Can you PM me with what you want to do, I will will arrange it.
Think I managed it.

Cheers.
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 16th October 2016, 01:43 AM   #310
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Same question, did the defence know about this pre-trial? Do you know when the tape was made. It's not only compelling in its detail but it distinguished between the 2 men according to someone or saw them both.

OK, I have just received a reply...

"No he didn't. The police weren't interested and he wasn't called to testify. It was just buried with all the other evidence they buried."


As for when it was made, I think it was around 2005

Still waiting for a reply to your other request.
__________________
"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 16th October 2016, 01:58 AM   #311
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
OK, I have just received a reply...

"No he didn't. The police weren't interested and he wasn't called to testify. It was just buried with all the other evidence they buried."


As for when it was made, I think it was around 2005

Still waiting for a reply to your other request.
Who is your source?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
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 October 2016, 02:17 AM   #312
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
OK, I have just received a reply...

"No he didn't. The police weren't interested and he wasn't called to testify. It was just buried with all the other evidence they buried."


As for when it was made, I think it was around 2005

Still waiting for a reply to your other request.
Even from the little I understand it is very helpful to Watson and should have been made known to the defence. Furthermore it appears to be something relevant to reasonable doubt that a COA is not entitled to consider, but rather a Jury.
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 16th October 2016, 02:50 AM   #313
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Here is an interesting interview by Mike Kalagher with Reg McManaway.

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


Mr McManaway saw the Mystery Ketch arrive just after he arrived around 4pm.

He saw the scruffy Mystery Man working the boat

He saw that same man again later in the bar annoying Ben and Olivia.

He says that the Ketch was already gone when he got up at 7am the next morning,

He saw Scott Watson on the Blade and spoke to him before he left at around 7:30 am (so much for the lying Police who said he left at 5am)

So here we have a witness who saw both Watson and the Mystery man, and identified them as different people. More importantly, he put Ben and Olivia in contact with the scruffy Mystery Man well before they went on Guy Wallace's Naiad!
Reg describes a scruffy beard at 35 seconds, I'm not sure if this can be reconciled.
Wallace, as sober driver, describes his man as having short dark wavy hair.
The further issues are Reg knows Watson's boat but not Watson. Ben and Olivia were on Tamarak before supposedly first sighting the mystery man, but Reg has them engaging in the pub. I will watch a few more times to figure 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 16th October 2016, 05:37 AM   #314
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Reg describes a scruffy beard at 35 seconds, I'm not sure if this can be reconciled.
Wallace, as sober driver, describes his man as having short dark wavy hair.
The further issues are Reg knows Watson's boat but not Watson. Ben and Olivia were on Tamarak before supposedly first sighting the mystery man, but Reg has them engaging in the pub. I will watch a few more times to figure it.
No, he describes him as having long wavy hair, not short hair at all
__________________
"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 16th October 2016, 05:45 AM   #315
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Who is your source?

The interviewer
__________________
"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 16th October 2016, 01:52 PM   #316
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Useful information on the hairs there. Would like to use part ofthat, and the interview with McManaway?
I specific point about the forensics here is very helpful, simple but helpful the more I think about it.
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 16th October 2016, 02:15 PM   #317
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
I specific point about the forensics here is very helpful, simple but helpful the more I think about it.
All the reading I have done and every source I can find says the "Tiger Blanket" was only searched once, with all hairs and fibres being bagged and that subsequent searches were done of the contents of the bag.

The forensics procedures (and I use that last term very loosely) as regards the hair searches were haphazard and frankly, utterly appalling. Searching that bag twice, then later, searching the exemplars from Olivia and then a third search of the bagged hair immediately afterwards, on the same work table, by the same ESR examiner must surely border on criminal negligence. The hair evidence would be thrown out in almost any court in the world as soon as the ESR examiner admitted to what she did on the witness stand.
__________________
"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 17th October 2016, 11:26 AM   #318
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
All the reading I have done and every source I can find says the "Tiger Blanket" was only searched once, with all hairs and fibres being bagged and that subsequent searches were done of the contents of the bag.

The forensics procedures (and I use that last term very loosely) as regards the hair searches were haphazard and frankly, utterly appalling. Searching that bag twice, then later, searching the exemplars from Olivia and then a third search of the bagged hair immediately afterwards, on the same work table, by the same ESR examiner must surely border on criminal negligence. The hair evidence would be thrown out in almost any court in the world as soon as the ESR examiner admitted to what she did on the witness stand.
Yes, I have been told the same about the Tiger Blanket only being searched once with all the hairs and fibres being bagged and that subsequent searches were done of the contents of the bag. Someone has asked if they were counted, on each occasion including after the hair brush hairs were introduced, you may know that - however, myself and those discussing this don't believe it was done. In the first instance, how it was taken from the yacht, whether there was photographing and careful searches done there, or not, is also a big issue.

This point of description has been reached in terms of how it might have led to contamination “never ascribe to malice what can be best explained by stupidity,” where also the size of the blanket and a large number of possible events within the laboratory might have led to innocent contamination. Finally, the standards of isolation and testing have since been changed, and there was the case mentioned in your link above where DNA was discovered pointing to the guilt of a man in Chch for 2 murders in the North Island where he had never been. Moreover, there is a copy of a September 2016 letter on here posted by Desert Fox on a separate thread - which identifies errors in dna recognition on hairs runs at around 11% in controlled conditions of a much higher standard than that employed in Watson and since abandoned. This is where the emphasis must go and fairly forcefully, also the video of Reg McManaway and any others like it have to be shoved in front of the Courts. Throwing away millions of words and pages of evidence leaves such evidence crucial and clear. One advance could be to look at best practice now and ask a testing laboratory an opinion - comparing best practice in the past, compared to now, and attempt to apply Bayes testing to the probability of contamination. I could possibly advise of someone to help with the later if there is available a large enough data base - in fact I will check on that.

Cheers.
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 17th October 2016, 07:28 PM   #319
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,911
There are a number of observers, Sampson and Wishart included, who seriously underestimate the importance of the Mystery Ketch, or rather, the lack of this ketch, to the Police & Crown case against Watson. If the ketch does not exist, then it would mean Guy Wallace must be mistaken about where he took Ben & Olivia, and since every other yacht had been eliminated, that would only leave Blade. However, if the ketch did exist, then Guy Wallace's testimony becomes key in blowing a gaping hole in the Crown's case.

It is not surprising that both the Police and the Crown wanted to discount the existence of the ketch. They had a report of a yacht leaving at around 5 am on New Year's Day (which I will get to later), and they wanted to make sure that it was not the Ketch. They did this by contacting each of the boat owners who had been at Endeavour Inlet on New Year's Eve, and checking their departure times. This, they believed, would eliminate every yacht, leaving only Watson's Blade, which they then concluded, must be the 5 am departure. However, it was not enough. They kept receiving inconvenient reports of a ketch, so they were forced to go to extraordinary lengths to deny its existence; those lengths included;

1. The "loss" of evidence submitted to Police by people who saw it. This includes photographs, negatives and video footage of the Mystery Ketch, none of which the Police ever returned to their owners despite numerous requests to do so.

2. The failure to turn over important interview documents to the defence and the failure to present those documents at trial.

3. The failure to follow up on public sightings of the ketch despite numerous reports. When people contacted the Police with information, they were told that Police "already had the boat they were looking for and their information wasn't needed"

4. Lying to the public by saying they were looking for any sighting of the ketch when they clearly were not interested.

5. Both of the Crown prosecutors lying to the jury, telling them the ketch did not exist when they must have known that it did.

Here are the first two documents that the defence never saw and that were never presented at trial;

Document 1


Document 2


The owner of the vessel ‘Unicorn’ had a fox terrier called Jazz.

The ‘Trooper’ had only two people aboard and did not leave until after 8 am.

These times accord well with Scott Watson's own Police statement about the time he left...

Document 3


So we have the owner of the Yacht (Watson) saying that he left between 6 and 7, and two independent witnesses who corroborated that time. Add to that the statement by Reg McManaway, and that is three.

We also have none of the boat owners who testified at trial (about 150 of them) saying that they left at that time, and that means the yacht that the Document 1 and Document 2 witnesses saw is unaccounted for. If its not the Blade, then its another unaccounted for yacht!

Of course, these people could be mistaken, so the Crown Solicitor requested the Police to check on this...

Document 4


So we have confirmation that the Document 1 witness was seeing "Trooper", and that the times were cross-confirmed as being between 6 am and 7 am. This was not looking good for the Crown case. If this yacht was Blade, then the 5am departure could only be a another yacht which they had not accounted for. No wonder the Crown suppressed this evidence!!

Finally, we get to another witness interview, which again was not given to the defence, and again the witness was never called to testify at trial

Document 5


- 40 foot ship (Blade is 26 feet)
- a coloured stripe (Blade had no stripe)
- possibly two masts (Blade has only one mast)
- a masthead light (Blade was not fitted with a masthead light)

Anyone thinking that this 5 am departure time was wrong should understand that You can't see a masthead light in daytime. Sunrise on Endeavour Inlet on New Year's Day 1998 was a 5:54 am. At 5am it was still dark, at 6:30 the sun is well up.

Clearly the Police's contention that Watson took Blade out of Endeavour Inlet at 5 am was false This lie was told, not so much to make Watson appear as if he was "getting out of town" but to discount another unknown yacht from being the 5 am departure.

When Crown Prosecutor Nicola Crutchley opened the trial by saying “The police began to find out all the names of all the people who had been at Furneaux Lodge on New Years eve, and who had arrived by boat…… These investigations were to follow up every such boat and their occupants” she was lying.

When Crown Prosecutor Paul Davidson QC said during the trial “No need to look over the horizon for a mystery ketch. Never was one. Its a fiction,”

When Crown Prosecutor Paul Davidson QC said in his closing "Now I won’t go into all of the evidence by which the crown says other boats at Furneaux can be eliminated. But one of the core circumstantial planks of the crown case is the elimination of all the other boats that can be identified as being there.” he was lying.
__________________
"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; 17th October 2016 at 07:37 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 01:55 AM   #320
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
There are a number of observers, Sampson and Wishart included, who seriously underestimate the importance of the Mystery Ketch, or rather, the lack of this ketch, to the Police & Crown case against Watson. If the ketch does not exist, then it would mean Guy Wallace must be mistaken about where he took Ben & Olivia, and since every other yacht had been eliminated, that would only leave Blade. However, if the ketch did exist, then Guy Wallace's testimony becomes key in blowing a gaping hole in the Crown's case.

It is not surprising that both the Police and the Crown wanted to discount the existence of the ketch. They had a report of a yacht leaving at around 5 am on New Year's Day (which I will get to later), and they wanted to make sure that it was not the Ketch. They did this by contacting each of the boat owners who had been at Endeavour Inlet on New Year's Eve, and checking their departure times. This, they believed, would eliminate every yacht, leaving only Watson's Blade, which they then concluded, must be the 5 am departure. However, it was not enough. They kept receiving inconvenient reports of a ketch, so they were forced to go to extraordinary lengths to deny its existence; those lengths included;

1. The "loss" of evidence submitted to Police by people who saw it. This includes photographs, negatives and video footage of the Mystery Ketch, none of which the Police ever returned to their owners despite numerous requests to do so.

2. The failure to turn over important interview documents to the defence and the failure to present those documents at trial.

3. The failure to follow up on public sightings of the ketch despite numerous reports. When people contacted the Police with information, they were told that Police "already had the boat they were looking for and their information wasn't needed"

4. Lying to the public by saying they were looking for any sighting of the ketch when they clearly were not interested.

5. Both of the Crown prosecutors lying to the jury, telling them the ketch did not exist when they must have known that it did.

Here are the first two documents that the defence never saw and that were never presented at trial;

Document 1


Document 2


The owner of the vessel ‘Unicorn’ had a fox terrier called Jazz.

The ‘Trooper’ had only two people aboard and did not leave until after 8 am.

These times accord well with Scott Watson's own Police statement about the time he left...

Document 3


So we have the owner of the Yacht (Watson) saying that he left between 6 and 7, and two independent witnesses who corroborated that time. Add to that the statement by Reg McManaway, and that is three.

We also have none of the boat owners who testified at trial (about 150 of them) saying that they left at that time, and that means the yacht that the Document 1 and Document 2 witnesses saw is unaccounted for. If its not the Blade, then its another unaccounted for yacht!

Of course, these people could be mistaken, so the Crown Solicitor requested the Police to check on this...

Document 4


So we have confirmation that the Document 1 witness was seeing "Trooper", and that the times were cross-confirmed as being between 6 am and 7 am. This was not looking good for the Crown case. If this yacht was Blade, then the 5am departure could only be a another yacht which they had not accounted for. No wonder the Crown suppressed this evidence!!

Finally, we get to another witness interview, which again was not given to the defence, and again the witness was never called to testify at trial

Document 5


- 40 foot ship (Blade is 26 feet)
- a coloured stripe (Blade had no stripe)
- possibly two masts (Blade has only one mast)
- a masthead light (Blade was not fitted with a masthead light)

Anyone thinking that this 5 am departure time was wrong should understand that You can't see a masthead light in daytime. Sunrise on Endeavour Inlet on New Year's Day 1998 was a 5:54 am. At 5am it was still dark, at 6:30 the sun is well up.

Clearly the Police's contention that Watson took Blade out of Endeavour Inlet at 5 am was false This lie was told, not so much to make Watson appear as if he was "getting out of town" but to discount another unknown yacht from being the 5 am departure.

When Crown Prosecutor Nicola Crutchley opened the trial by saying “The police began to find out all the names of all the people who had been at Furneaux Lodge on New Years eve, and who had arrived by boat…… These investigations were to follow up every such boat and their occupants” she was lying.

When Crown Prosecutor Paul Davidson QC said during the trial “No need to look over the horizon for a mystery ketch. Never was one. Its a fiction,”

When Crown Prosecutor Paul Davidson QC said in his closing "Now I won’t go into all of the evidence by which the crown says other boats at Furneaux can be eliminated. But one of the core circumstantial planks of the crown case is the elimination of all the other boats that can be identified as being there.” he was lying.
There is constructive detail in your post, and the simplest crime theory keeps Watson out of it.
Getting rid of bodies is essentially impossible with the weighting resources available.
I have spoken to Wishart and his crime requires Watson to gather in an accomplice on the boat, and more on land to remove bodies in Shakespeare Bay.
He is certain of his repainting near Waikawa with the accomplice later New Years day. He reassigns the Donald Anderson trip with Watson to pre midnight.

I must agree that the above scenario is a spectacular result, buying so much silence as a loner.

On the other hand the character cast at 4 am in Furneau was down to a handful.
I thought the case was solved, but will add your Ws's to the mix.
I personally hope Watson is innocent because it adds strongly to the proposition all recent ministers of justice should burn in hell.
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 04:47 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.