Trial by trickery or how Scott was stitched up

[Skyryder]

Just finished reading TRIAL BY TRICKERY by Keith Hunter on the sounds murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. No doubt in my mind of Watson's innocent. Anyone else read this book?

Skyryder

[Finn]

Just finished reading TRIAL BY TRICKERY by Keith Hunter on the sounds murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. No doubt in my mind of Watson's innocent. Anyone else read this book?

Skyryder

I'm 3/4 way through it and always had doubts about how the police and prosecutors handled the case.

Free Scott Watson... and Winja... and give me back my functionality on KB.

[MSTRS]

Not read the book, but did see the doco on the box a while back. Was full of undisputed evidence that was never presented in court. Another stitch-up ala AAT....

[Storm]

Hey folks be reasonable. There was a a crime, and someone got locked up for it- isnt that the point of it?

Sad to say(even though its been said many, many times): wouldnt be the first time this kind of thing has happened

[Finn]

Hey folks be reasonable. There was a a crime, and someone got locked up for it- isnt that the point of it?

Yeah, it's important that whenever a crime is committed someone gets locked up, even if they're not guilty.

[Lias]

Yeah, it's important that whenever a crime is committed someone gets locked up, even if they're not guilty.

Your being sarcastic I know my friend, but I'd personally rather have innocents locked up every now and then than criminals possibly let loose.

Besides which even if he wasnt guilty of those murders, he was still a shady piece of shit and he was guilty of SOMETHING :-P

[Krusti]

Your being sarcastic I know my friend, but I'd personally rather have innocents locked up every now and then than criminals possibly let loose.

Besides which even if he wasnt guilty of those murders, he was still a shady piece of shit and he was guilty of SOMETHING :-P

Only problem with that is that when an innocent person is locked up they stop looking for the guilty one.

[Beemer]

Only problem with that is that when an innocent person is locked up they stop looking for the guilty one.

Don't let Joe Karam hear you say that! I agree that Watson was dodgy, don't know enough about the case (nor am I interested enough to want to know more) to make a call on his guilt or innocence.

[marty]

afaik watson is still under investigation for the disappearance (and suspected death) of a writer who lived on great barrier island, back in about 1998. he has been placed in his boat in (the inaccessable by road) bay that this writer lived in, at the time of her disappearance.

[Drunken Monkey]

I didn't know the book existed, but I would be interested to read it.

I'm not sure I would go as far as saying I beleive Scott Watson is innocent, although I firmly beleive that the justice system did not work the way it is supposed to.

Obviously something amiss has occured. It is most likely Ben Smart and Olivia hope are indeed deceased. I think, by a process of elimination, that Scott Watson likely had something to do with it. However I don't see how the jury could convict Watson with the evidence put forward to them. There is more than enough reasonable doubt to aquit. You can't just put someone in prison because of a gut feeling, it's not right.

This case makes me giggle (proverbially, of course) every time I see a film where someone says "no body, no crime" - I think "Tell that to Mr Watson".

[Drunken Monkey]

In addendum, I think this is case-in-point for scrapping the many hundred years old Roman/Greek legal system we have. In this day an age a Jury needs to be professional. They need to be highly knowledgable in police procedure, case law, psychological profiling and a range of other relevant skill sets. "Jury of peers" is archaic. It worked fine in ancient Rome when your peers were other educated professionals, typically politicians and merchants. These days juries are made up predominantly of people who are either too stupid to get out of jury duty or have nothing better to do.

The professional jurers could then be tested from time to time, checking they are keeping their knowledge up to date. They can also be profiled to see if there are any 'glitches' in their findings. Reward them well for their time in education and effort on the job and minimise the risk of bribery.

[Lias]

In addendum, I think this is case-in-point for scrapping the many hundred years old Roman/Greek legal system we have. In this day an age a Jury needs to be professional. They need to be highly knowledgable in police procedure, case law, psychological profiling and a range of other relevant skill sets. "Jury of peers" is archaic. It worked fine in ancient Rome when your peers were other educated professionals, typically politicians and merchants. These days juries are made up predominantly of people who are either too stupid to get out of jury duty or have nothing better to do.

The professional jurers could then be tested from time to time, checking they are keeping their knowledge up to date. They can also be profiled to see if there are any 'glitches' in their findings. Reward them well for their time in education and effort on the job and minimise the risk of bribery.

I vote we move to the Judge system (aka Judge Dread).. Now that would be great :-)

[Ixion]

Trial by jury is not Graeco Roman (though other aspects of our judicial system are). It's actually a Norman adaptation of a Teutonic ritual. Beats Trial of Battle I guess.

France follows the Roman system.

[Hitcher]

I followed closely the Scott Watson trial. I think that he is an evil bugger who is probably in the right location, but I don't think that he was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[sels1]

Your being sarcastic I know my friend, but I'd personally rather have innocents locked up every now and then than criminals possibly let loose.

I expect you mean its ok so long as it isn't you who is the innocent locked up...


Besides which even if he wasnt guilty of those murders, he was still a shady piece of shit and he was guilty of SOMETHING :-P

lol, I have heard the odd resident of Picton say that as well - appears he wasnt the most popular bloke in town. Of course that doesnt necessarily mean he did this particular deed....I hope the cops got it right but part of me is not totally convinced

[Skyryder]

I followed closely the Scott Watson trial. I think that he is an evil bugger who is probably in the right location, but I don't think that he was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

That is one of the many myths perpetrated by the media with help from the Police. For example the Dominion noted on the 14 January the police have seized a yacht owned by a Picton man Scot Watson. They wore plastic gloves and were looking for traces of blood. The report went on and said that the police (Pope) were talking to (Watson's) associates. Hitcher crims and gangs have 'associates.' You and I have friends and acquaintances. At the time of this article that the Police did not have any suspects. On that basis Watson was a witness. So we have the head of the enquiry saying that they are talking to 'associates' of a witness. That Hitch is just two weeks after Smart and Hope went missing. Within a period of 14 days Pope was painting Watson as an 'evil bugger' and with no evidence whatsoever that Watson had anything to do with Smart and Hope's disappearance. Only 'evil buggers' have associates, not people like you and I.

Skyryder

[Finn]

That is one of the many myths perpetrated by the media with help from the Police. For example the Dominion noted on the 14 January the police have seized a yacht owned by a Picton man Scot Watson. They wore plastic gloves and were looking for traces of blood. The report went on and said that the police (Pope) were talking to (Watson's) associates. Hitcher crims and gangs have 'associates.' You and I have friends and acquaintances. At the time of this article that the Police did not have any suspects. On that basis Watson was a witness. So we have the head of the enquiry saying that they are talking to 'associates' of a witness. That Hitch is just two weeks after Smart and Hope went missing. Within a period of 14 days Pope was painting Watson as an 'evil bugger' and with no evidence whatsoever that Watson had anything to do with Smart and Hope's disappearance. Only 'evil buggers' have associates, not people like you and I.

Skyryder

For once we agree on something. I'm glad because I always thought you were a stupid idiot.

You're still ugly though but at least not so stupid.

[Skyryder]

Free Scott Watson... and Winja... and give me back my functionality on KB.

Ditto

Skyryder

PS

That's what I told my doctor I want my fucktionality back.

[Finn]

There are many facts that were distorted and ignored during the case.

The facts that stand out for me are:

1. While it was true that the boat was scrubbed clean, it was done so a week or so BEFORE the murders.

2. The police said that Watson's boat didn't have a anchor on it and that it was "probably" used to sink the bodies. The boat did have an anchor on it visible in a photograph.

3. Scott Watson did not leave for land until 10pm that night yet he was somehow causing problems ashore before this.

4. Over 12 people reported seeing a Ketch but the police called them all liars.

5. Everybody (apart from Olivia's sister who never saw his face) gave a TOTALLY different description of the person last seen with Ben & Olivia.

6. For weeks, no traces of any DNA matching Ben or Olivia were ever found. Then mysteriously, 6 weeks later they found a hair. Remember Arthur Alan Thomas?

7. The way Pope mislead and manipulated the media meant Watson never stood the chance of a fair trial.

There's heaps more but that's all I can remember for now.

[Hitcher]

Hitcher crims and gangs have 'associates.' You and I have friends and acquaintances.

I've missed something. I thought my post was reasonably clear. What point are you trying to make at my expense?

[Ixion]

6. For weeks, no traces of any DNA matching Ben or Olivia were ever found. Then mysteriously, 6 weeks later they found a hair. Remember Arthur Alan Thomas?

.

And when forensic first went over the hairs taken from Watson's boat, they didn't find anything DNA traceable to the missing people. Then , when the police, much later , sent the packet of hair (and other stuff) back to them and asked them to have another look - lo and behold they found a number of hairs that came from Olivia. And, a mysterious little slit in the sealed packet. Strange that.

[Finn]

I've missed something. I thought my post was reasonably clear. What point are you trying to make at my expense?

Even though I'm not talking to you, I will explain what my new ugly friend Skyryder was trying to get across, which I thought was quite clear.

It was the choice of words that Dope continually used when describing anything to do with Scott Watson. From the 3rd day Dope took over the case, he portrayed Watson as an evil bugger, even without having ANY evidence to link Watson to the murders.

[doc]

I'm reading this book too, finding it a bit hard going haven't found anything about bikes yet. Bit frightening the way he was fitted into being the suspect for the media to spread. I'd be pretty scared if I was under investigation for a serious crime in NZ. I thought the "Arthur Allan Thomas" case changed the way where the prosecution was prohibited from witholding evidence that would give an advantage to the defence. Here they seem to have successfully found him guilty using the media before it got to trial.
Currently the perception by many is that there is nothing wrong with the dna data base being established because it would prove your innocence. Looks like if it did they wouldn't release the results as they are inconclusive.

[Finn]

I'd be pretty scared if I was under investigation for a serious crime in NZ.

You're just lucky that it's difficult to pull prints from avocado's. So where were you on the morning of the 01/01/98 and why do have a ketch buried in your back yard?

[doc]

You're just lucky that it's difficult to pull prints from avocado's. So where were you on the morning of the 01/01/98 and why do have a ketch buried in your back yard?
It sank entering my drive and was full of Avocardos Mr Pope. You do actually look like him. Just shorter.
P.S They didn't get them all. I maybe passing Sat evening if the weather is OK

[Scouse]

Just finished reading TRIAL BY TRICKERY by Keith Hunter on the sounds murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. No doubt in my mind of Watson's innocent. Anyone else read this book?

SkyryderNow you see if Watson had of had Clit Rickards Jury he prolly would have gotten off
but yea I was suprised at the time that he was found guity "reasonable doubt" and all

[RantyDave]

4. Over 12 people reported seeing a Ketch but the police called them all liars.
Exactly. The driver of the water taxi said he dropped them off at a Ketch.

Ketch = 2 masts.
Sloop = 1 mast.

And here is a nice picture of Scott Watson's boat - http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/homepage/red.jpg - note the conspicuous absence of an eighty foot aluminium construction towards the back of the boat. Not exactly Sherlock Holmes territory, is it?

Dave

[Finn]

Now you see if Watson had of had Clit Rickards Jury he prolly would have gotten off
but yea I was suprised at the time that he was found guity "reasonable doubt" and all

Not to forget he was arrested 6 months after the murders.

[doc]

For once we agree on something. I'm glad because I always thought you were a stupid idiot.

You're still ugly though but at least not so stupid.
Just cos someone agrees with you it does not make them your friend. OK

[SPman]

Even the media were pretty insistent, at the time, that it was a ketch they were looking for - then - suddenly, despite all the witnesses, no, it was just a little yacht that looked nothing like all the witnesses description.

Why do some police always try and make the "facts", fit their theory and to hell with the truth. A bit like object fixation, really......

[doc]

afaik watson is still under investigation for the disappearance (and suspected death) of a writer who lived on great barrier island, back in about 1998. he has been placed in his boat in (the inaccessable by road) bay that this writer lived in, at the time of her disappearance.
That is debunked in the book too

[MisterD]

Only 'evil buggers' have associates, not people like you and I.

Skyryder

Disagree Skyryder, someone you meet socially is an "aquiantance", someone you meet professionally is an associate. IMO, FWIW

[marty]

i haven't read the book. only know what i know. i talked with watson about it in 98 or 99 (can't recall off top of my head).

[Skyryder]

Disagree Skyryder, someone you meet socially is an "aquiantance", someone you meet professionally is an associate. IMO, FWIW

Watson had no profession or professional associates. He was on the bones of his arse most of the time. As Finn rightly speculates Pope's use of the word was too publicly denigrate Watson. Associate(s) as used in terms of gangs, criminals or other indaviduals that the Police have an 'interest' in is deliberate and not in the context of professional useage.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Now you see if Watson had of had Clit Rickards Jury he prolly would have gotten off
but yea I was suprised at the time that he was found guity "reasonable doubt" and all


Finn has not got to this yet but the trial judge (Heron) in allowing the prosecution to vet the Jury broke the law. The Juries Act 1981 in clauses 6,7 and 8 lays out who can serve on juries. Everyone on the electoral roll between the ages of 20 and 65 with few exceptions are eligable. People with criminal backgrounds are eligable unless they have convictions that have resulted in prison terms of three or more years or have convictions less than five years old. Yet Justice Heron states in Ruling (No. 2) Of Heron J (Jury Lists.) It is in the overall interests of justice to have persons without convictions sitting as jurors................ This is in direct opposition of the act that was passed lawfully by the parlimentary process. Heron on his own believed otherwise. Given the fact that the crown used two prisoners to state that Watson confessed to them in cirumstances that 'honest' jurors would have had no way of knowing the veracity of the confessions by the two witneesses that had been incarcerated .............is but one example of the miscarriage of justice that I and many others now believe.

Skyryder

[Forest]

My mate in the prison service reckon he's guilty as sin. And I'm happy to believe him (my mate's a top bloke)

[candor]

He had Judge Herron. A filthy unprincipled swine. Worse than Watson even if Watson is guilty and thank God the devil spawn is dead and deactivated.

That Judge was too pally with some fairly ruthless cops in that area late 80's onwards. That Judge always rigged trials so the cards would fall a particular way - innocents got convicted and guilty as sin were given the judges protection as he pulled rank on prosecutors (evidence disallowed / twisted etc).

Whichever way was politically convenient or personally beneficial he spun his trials. Like if a gang member went up on something fairly serious and the cops had struck a deal of their freedom for drug info, then the Judge was known to whisper in the prosecutors ear 'don't push this one too hard'.

A prosecutor clearing her conscience for complicity told this to a waitress at the Chateau Marlborough whose sister was on a Herron jury and bothered by proceedings. Another prosecutor told me that Judge Heron was internally investigated. I don't know the outcome of what they do with arseholes but I do know that several of his trials were found to have concerning irregularities. Of the sort noted here in cited book.

I know of another similar case featuring Herron (may he burn in hell). I also know he prevented a private prosecution against a perjurer used in one of his crooked trials too (by preventing release oftrial notes for 7 years which were vital evidence of the perjury).

One problem for the legal system is that trial notes are a Judges personal property and they can prevent people accessing them so can cover their backs. Watsons lawyer is aware of the judges complete lack of honesty. But I think its an angle they can't pursue as any internal investigation findings ar prolly sealed for 50 years - until a time no-one will care about the many evil doings of this Judge.

So in sum total, I'd stake my life that this maggoty dead Judge knowingly complied with a stitch up. He was without conscience, power mad and likely prone to greed and other vices that may have made him vulnerable to manipulation from other info I have gathered.

There can be no confidence Watson got a fair trial knowing the Judge and his improper conduct. I would like for the killerto be located if not Watson (which it sems is quite possibly not him - I give him 40% odds) as I think the victims deserve to have the truth known.

Tho my odds meter has just risen a bit mybe to 60% by what Marty said. If he was closely linked to the other killing then I can support the Police decision to stitch him up. Swings and roundabouts.

[The_Dover]

He had Judge Herron. A filthy unprincipled swine. Worse than Watson even if Watson is guilty and thank God the devil spawn is dead and deactivated.

That Judge was too pally with some fairly ruthless cops in that area late 80's onwards. That Judge always rigged trials so the cards would fall a particular way - innocents got convicted and guilty as sin were given the judges protection as he pulled rank on prosecutors (evidence disallowed / twisted etc).

Whichever way was politically convenient or personally beneficial he spun his trials. Like if a gang member went up on something fairly serious and the cops had struck a deal of their freedom for drug info, then the Judge was known to whisper in the prosecutors ear 'don't push this one too hard'.

A prosecutor clearing her conscience for complicity told this to a waitress at the Chateau Marlborough whose sister was on a Herron jury and bothered by proceedings. Another prosecutor told me that Judge Heron was internally investigated. I don't know the outcome of what they do with arseholes but I do know that several of his trials were found to have concerning irregularities. Of the sort noted here in cited book.

I know of another similar case featuring Herron (may he burn in hell). I also know he prevented a private prosecution against a perjurer used in one of his crooked trials too (by preventing release oftrial notes for 7 years which were vital evidence of the perjury).

One problem for the legal system is that trial notes are a Judges personal property and they can prevent people accessing them so can cover their backs. Watsons lawyer is aware of the judges complete lack of honesty. But I think its an angle they can't pursue as any internal investigation findings ar prolly sealed for 50 years - until a time no-one will care about the many evil doings of this Judge.

So in sum total, I'd stake my life that this maggoty dead Judge knowingly complied with a stitch up. He was without conscience, power mad and likely prone to greed and other vices that may have made him vulnerable to manipulation from other info I have gathered.

There can be no confidence Watson got a fair trial knowing the Judge and his improper conduct. I would like for the killerto be located if not Watson (which it sems is quite possibly not him - I give him 40% odds) as I think the victims deserve to have the truth known.

Tho my odds meter has just risen a bit mybe to 60% by what Marty said. If he was closely linked to the other killing then I can support the Police decision to stitch him up. Swings and roundabouts.

you've got some serious issues with justice and retribution.

get over it cos you are one twisted bitch by the sounds of it.

[Finn]

My mate in the prison service reckon he's guilty as sin. And I'm happy to believe him (my mate's a top bloke)

Finally after 9 long years, the truth comes out and it took a Prison employee to solve the crime. Will he get a badge?

[MSTRS]

i haven't read the book. only know what i know. i talked with watson about it in 98 or 99 (can't recall off top of my head).

and......?

[marty]

hardly matters now if it's been debunked in the book

[pete376403]

Intersting that Rob Pope seems to be associated with the dubious convictions - Scott Watson, David Bain, could be others. Maybe he's a little keen to obtain the convictions that will propell him into upper management- only one step from the top job now.

[The_Dover]

Intersting that Rob Pope seems to be associated with the dubious convictions - Scott Watson, David Bain, could be others. Maybe he's a little keen to obtain the convictions that will propell him into upper management- only one step from the top job now.

I bet he was a demon with the ticket book too.

[Deano]

An ex cop and Police prosecutor I once studied under told our class that some/most cases are predetermined by the Judge, prosecuting and defense attorneys who meet beforehand to decide on guilt and an appropriate sentence.

The rest is just courtroom drama.

He went on to add they all drink at the same pubs together and generally hang in the same circles.

[Patrick]

An ex cop and Police prosecutor I once studied under told our class that some/most cases are predetermined by the Judge, prosecuting and defense attorneys who meet beforehand to decide on guilt and an appropriate sentence.

The rest is just courtroom drama.

He went on to add they all drink at the same pubs together and generally hang in the same circles.

Maybe for him, but definitely not the norm...

Sounds more like you are talking about a Pre Trial Conference where all sides basically say what evidence they have got. Judge gives an "indication" of sentence "if" found guilty... Next choice is up to the defendant... change plea to guilty or have a defended hearing, where nothing is predetermined....

[SPman]

Intersting that Rob Pope seems to be associated with the dubious convictions - Scott Watson, David Bain, could be others. Maybe he's a little keen to obtain the convictions that will propell him into upper management- only one step from the top job now.
David Bain as well!
He wasn't involved in the Peter Ellis case as well, was he?
Travesties of justice, all!

[Patrick]

Funny how book writers can clear crims of any crime....

[onearmedbandit]

Funny how book writers can clear crims of any crime....

Ummm, what would be the point of writing the book otherwise?

[candor]

An ex cop and Police prosecutor I once studied under told our class that some/most cases are predetermined by the Judge, prosecuting and defense attorneys who meet beforehand to decide on guilt and an appropriate sentence.

The rest is just courtroom drama.

He went on to add they all drink at the same pubs together and generally hang in the same circles.

Thats about the sum of it.

Re book - agreed, not everything a researcher might present s necessarily true or in ccontext / significant.

Dover. Twisted, no, I just have a special place in my heart for Heron. Actually celebrated the day he died, lol. As has been identified by others - apart from myself here I see, he was a law breaker and crooked scum.

I'm so glad to see that this has gone down in history, thanks to Scott Watsons supporters. He was indeed a spectacularly bad Judge and one very sad human being so that is exactly how he should be remembered.

PS - I dont call u twisted for cop bashing now do I. Not all bad people are convicted crims - the worst are those that play virtuous :innocent: .

[candor]

David Bain as well!
He wasn't involved in the Peter Ellis case as well, was he?
Travesties of justice, all!

You forgot to mention Tamihere.

[ynot slow]

the best part of trial which i have doubts over the guilty verdict was the speed the cops said the ketch could travel,from one part of the sound to another, after dumping the bodies etc,the fact that people in the bar couldn't id the guy was suspect,agree the cops seem to need to find a perpertrator,and get the guilty verdict for their own kudos.:gob:

[terbang]

Besides which even if he wasnt guilty of those murders, he was still a shady piece of shit and he was guilty of SOMETHING :-P

Perhaps antisocial hippy bashing...!

[Patrick]

You forgot to mention Tamihere.

Wrong... said he would have coughed if the O/C Investigation was someone he liked.. he just didn't like John HUGHES coz HUGHES had him by the balls, ...again....

[laRIKin]

Well first I did not want to read this thread.

And when I did I was shocked by some of the comments.

I do not know or have ever spoken to Scott.
I know his brother and use to ride with him and his wife often and consider him a friend.
And have seen what this has done to their family.

Scott was no angle and is not as bad as some would like to paint him.
The Police, so wanted to get a conviction against him they they got blinded and let the real killer get away.

Even one of the parents now has doubts.

I have also worked with a guy that knows the water taxi driver and he says and keep on saying that it was not Scott.

I feel sorry for ALL THREE families, and all the hell they have all been though due this very sad time.

Here is their site (Watson's)
http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/homepage.htm

[Hitcher]

Scott was no angle

But he was acute guy...

[laRIKin]

The trouble with spell check is, you get the wrong word spelt correctly.

[Skyryder]

I've just got back from a North Island ride and was staying Kawerau looking up some of my old haunts. While I was was staying in the pub I got talking to and ex cop who grew up in my neighbourhood. One thing led to another and the Scot Watson case came up. Now get this. This ex cop told me that THE POLICE KNEW OF A SIGHTING OF THE MYSTERY KETCH IN OAMARU. IT WAS REPORTED IN THE PORT TWO DAYS AFTER NEW YEARS DAY.

Skyryder

[dangerous]

Scott Watsons brother is also a riding mate of mine, so I can relate to what Lemans is saying, I also have spent many a year in Picton.

Now I have no idea if scott did it or not, but what I do know is to what extent the cops set Scott up, its beyond me how some one can be put away when theres no bodys.
The boat in question mores 5mins away from where I am curently working, and I can say this... the water taxi guy said the two missing had to clim a ladder to get onto the boat... Scotts boat sits very low to the water line.

Scott was a right wanker in Picton stealing, making trouble ect... not to many people liked him, he was easy pray for the cops, and the cops involved back then were some of the shadiest pricks around.
Scotts brother and family are nice people and to see there determation to free Scott tells me something.

[spudchucka]

Ummm, what would be the point of writing the book otherwise?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

[onearmedbandit]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

No, there would be none of those if the book was about a convicted killer, who everyone knew was guilty, and the book detailed events of why he was guilty. No one, well not many, would buy that book. So your dollars argument falls flat. However, when there is a convicted killer who a good percentage of the population doubted his guilt, where the police case was thought to have had many holes, when there is a judge that many, both members of the public and fellow judges, whoever, consider to be dishonest, that's when you will sell many copies, and make dollars.

[KATWYN]

but I'd personally rather have innocents locked up every now and then than criminals possibly let loose.

:-P


...except of course if it was yourself or a family member that was one of the innocents?!

[candor]

...except of course if it was yourself or a family member that was one of the innocents?!

Nah. I like Lias approach. I'd rather have 5 Graham burtons and me or the innocent jerk next door locked up :bye: than....

Me or the neighbour free and only three or 4 of the Burton types outta sight and outta mind.

We do tend too far to caution. But on the other hand, when a juries verdict is clearly worthy of a panel of dunces its a real pity nothing can be done.

Watsons verdict was not safe. Not saying hes innocent but hell there was reasonable doubt. Why do Police feel they have to get A guy in cases like this at any cost. Other Police forces bide their time if they haven't got shit and then often after 10 yrs a cold case comes alive when people blab about the true offender given different circumstances.

Its egg on face when the wrong guy was first convicted. I think it just may have been some sick rich pervs on that other boat - professionals.... CR types etc. Theres not just one area that casts doubt but a few here. Too many just to be meaningless 'glitches'

[spudchucka]

No, there would be none of those if the book was about a convicted killer, who everyone knew was guilty, and the book detailed events of why he was guilty. No one, well not many, would buy that book. So your dollars argument falls flat.

Anyone ever write a book about Charles Manson? I wonder how many copies sold?

[Forest]

Finally after 9 long years, the truth comes out and it took a Prison employee to solve the crime. Will he get a badge?

From what I've seen, working in the prison service turns you into a pretty good judge of character. So I'm happy to go with my mate's assessment of Watson's guilt.

[SPman]

His guilt in general- as has been said, he was no angle (sic), or his guilt in this particular case. I know a few guys who are shifty toerags, petty thieves etc, but its a big jump to say, that, because a person is guilty of petty crimes, by his demeanour, he is guilty of a major crime.

[onearmedbandit]

Anyone ever write a book about Charles Manson? I wonder how many copies sold?

Yeah, because Scott Watson ranks right up there with Manson :rolleyes: . I expected you'd understand what I'm saying, obviously I'm wasting my time.

[Hitcher]

Watson. Scott Watson.

[Finn]

From what I've seen, working in the prison service turns you into a pretty good judge of character.

And a great Vodafone reseller.

[spudchucka]

Yeah, because Scott Wilson ranks right up there with Manson :rolleyes: . I expected you'd understand what I'm saying, obviously I'm wasting my time.

Of course I understand what you are saying. However, the point I was trying to make was that authors won't write books about murderers unless there is a strong public interest in the case. So, they will either write about cases like Watson's & Bain's where there is a cloud of doubt over the conviction or they will write about notorious cases like Manson's, where there is also a large public interest even though there is no doubt as to his guilt. Either way, publishers won't touch it unless they are sure they will sell sufficient copies in order to achieve their desired financial rewards.

[onearmedbandit]

Exactly. Without public interest the books go nowhere. In the case of Scott Watson the public interest lies in whether he is guilty or not, not how he 'masterminded' the murders.

[spudchucka]

So there has to be money in it for the book to get published in the first place, right?

[Patrick]

Just wondering here folks....

Was this thread started because of the half hour tv show aired recently, where a mock jury decide the case, all in the space of a half hour, where the actual case was heard over months of hearings in courts???

Half hour tv verses whole court casde?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..................

[Hitcher]

Half hour tv verses whole court casde?

What is a "casde"?

[Patrick]

What is a "casde"?

Damn... CASE!!!

[MSTRS]

Damn... CASE!!!

No need to shout, we're right here and not deaf,you know.

[Patrick]

No need to shout, we're right here and not deaf,you know.

Sorry... case

[Hitcher]

But the whole damned case is necessary to provide a potted summary for the hand-picked jury to reach agreement on in an edited commercial half-hour of television.

[onearmedbandit]

Just wondering here folks....

Was this thread started because of the half hour tv show aired recently, where a mock jury decide the case, all in the space of a half hour, where the actual case was heard over months of hearings in courts???

Half hour tv verses whole court casde?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..................

You know what, I don't think it was....

[dangerous]

Just wondering here folks....
Was this thread started because of the half hour tv show aired recently,

Rather simple to answer you actually... try reading the opening post on this thread...


Just finished reading TRIAL BY TRICKERY by Keith Hunter on the sounds murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. No doubt in my mind of Watson's innocent. Anyone else read this book?

Skyryder

[doc]

Rather simple to answer you actually... try reading the opening post on this thread...
Yeah I'm still reading this book. If the Author is correct, there is a "serious miscarriage of justice" in this case. Instead of tv having a jury retry this case how about. Mr Pope and the Author have an honest debate on live TV where you can phone in questions. This whole case stinks, if you have read the book ? Just like to know how the judicial system backs it up when questioned in the public forum . Much worse than some of the unresolved issues in the Bain trial, like the Policewoman being able to change her statement on the time she saw Bain, afterwards type issues.

[dangerous]

Yeah I'm still reading this book. If the Author is correct, there is a "serious miscarriage of justice" in this case. IIRC, the "serious miscarriage of justice" goes a long way up the ladder :yes:

[Patrick]

Rather simple to answer you actually... try reading the opening post on this thread...

I did... just happened that the half hour TV show was also on just recently...

[Swoop]

Whether anyone has posted the website associated with this book:
www.//trialbytrickery.com

[Joni]

KB just received an email from the books author, he has requested this gets posted up on his behalf :yes:

I am the author of Trial By Trickery. I reply to the queries posted on this website:

The book was written after four years research into the written record of the Watson case. These records include all the statements made to the police during their inquiry, all the transcripts of evidence given at the trial, all of the submissions made to the Court of Appeal and all of the judgments made in the case. I also spoke to all the principal witnesses in the case, all of whom say Watson is the wrong man and that his boat ‘Blade’ is the wrong boat. These witnesses all appear in the film described below.

The book was written after the refusal of the justice system to pay any heed to my film ‘Murder On The Blade?”. This was not one of the ‘half hours’ one of the correspondents refers to here. It was a 93 minute documentary which I researched, wrote, directed, presented and produced and which was broadcast on TV One between 7.30pm and 9.30pm on Friday 7 November 2003. The documentary won the best documentary award for the years 2003 & 2004 at the NZ Screen Awards in 2005. After it was broadcast a Herald poll showed that 15% of the population had changed their minds about Watson’s guilt.

The book was taken up by Penguin Books in October 2004. However, after having it for a year and a half and after consulting two sets of media lawyers in that time, Penguin gave it back to me in April 2006 on the grounds that it was too dangerous legally and that those criticized in it would have no choice but to sue. Consequently I published it myself, on 12 March this year. No one has sued. This is because the claims in the book are true. Anyone suing could only lose in a case which would cause all the facts to be presented on a wider scale than a book can achieve. The result would be disastrous not just for the lawyers, policemen and judges attacked but for the system they represent as well.

The book says the police lied and the prosecutors, the trial judge and three judges of the Court of Appeal all misquoted the evidence and misinformed the public repeatedly. The question the book raises is whether or not they all lied or are blatantly incompetent. My view is that they all lied, because they all had access to the truth, because it is their job to know it and it is impossible for them not to have known it.

Despite the book listing, literally, a blatant scam by ‘the authorities’ on every page, there has been no response to it from any of the police, the lawyers, or the judges who are called liars or incompetents in the book. They are waiting for it to go away, as they did with the film. On the other hand I am determined it will not go away this time. The book’s website will see to that.

A copy of the book was sent to every Member of Parliament on 9 March. So far just two have read it to my knowledge, Nandor Tanczos (justice spokesman for the Greens), and Simon Power (justice spokesman for National). Nandor visited me on 23 April and vowed to raise questions about the issues in Parliament.

The book was no.2 in the booksellers’ lists for nonfiction in March and has now repaid the cost of publishing but I have no expectation that it will pay me a fee for the two years it took to write it. I wrote it because I believe New Zealand needs to know what sort of a ‘justice system’ we have and because Scott Watson should obviously be freed immediately and replaced in prison by the liars and incompetents who put him there. The book suggests that they, not Watson, are the criminals, and if they were not so exalted and therefore above the law they would undoubtedly be charged with perjury and conspiracy to pervert justice.

If there is anyone who claims Watson is guilty let him please supply evidence for it and not just rely on the verdict of a jury which was deliberately misled and misinformed.

Further information about both book and film is available on the website trialbytrickery.com

Keith Hunter

[Skyryder]

Thanks for the post Joni. All I can add is to read the book and make up your own minds after you have read it. It is very scary stuff. For my part I have no doubt about Scot Watson's innocent whatsoever.

Skyryder

[candor]

The book says the police lied and the prosecutors, the trial judge and three judges of the Court of Appeal all misquoted the evidence and misinformed the public repeatedly. The question the book raises is whether or not they all lied or are blatantly incompetent. My view is that they all lied, because they all had access to the truth, because it is their job to know it and it is impossible for them not to have known it.

...I am determined it will not go away this time. The book’s website will see to that..... I wrote it because I believe New Zealand needs to know what sort of a ‘justice system’ we have....

and because Scott Watson should obviously be freed immediately and replaced in prison by the liars and incompetents who put him there. The book suggests that they, not Watson, are the criminals, and if they were not so exalted and therefore above the law they would undoubtedly be charged with perjury and conspiracy to pervert justice.

Keith Hunter

It is a wider issue than Scot Watson. The perjuring lawyers, judge scum and witnesses (if any) were not strangers to corruption. They just got caught out cos someone ie this author took an interest.

He is determined it will not go away - he is brave, Look what happened to a winebox case witness who had the ability to make things come out in the open that powerful people did not want to.

As far as NZ needing to know what sort of a Justice system I d not think many could conceive of how truly crooked our legal system is - it's that bad.
Getting belief will be hard. As you say the doco only shifted 16%. The resistance to believing things could be crooked is strong as people like to believe the world is largely as it should be - especially in 'exalted' circles.

Wholly improperly run trials are concealed all the time by Judges rewriting transcripts I believe. I know Judge Heron did it in at least one case, and I know it for sure as I have evidence. It has just come out in todays news that another transcript (for a rape trial I think ) was tampered with.

It seems to have been standard practise. Warp the trial, rewrite the records so it can never come to light - then prevent access to the notes by interested parties until memories fade.

Judge Heron or Police also used the local Police Dr to do crooked stuff too. I heard him perjure myself. I wonder if that Dr (Dr V - still alive) had anything to do with Watsons stitch up. I guess once someone has been convinced to partake in corruption they can be called upon to repeat the performance anytime - as they are vulnerable then.

I could not agree more that the legal scum should be charged and skewered. Nothing gets up my nose more than crooks in wigs. At least those wearing patches are not phoney about what they are.

Maybe they cut free from the privy council so they would never ever again have to fear exposure in this land of kangaroo courts.

My interest is in how the corruption is organised now. If 3 judges on the court of appeal can be convinced to get their hands dirty then who is orchestrating it. Is the rank closing within the Justice system or is it ordered from higher up? Because if it is ordered from higher up then there is no hope we can ever effectively purge the dirty lawyers.

Police and nurses are expendable and its no skin off anyones nose to investigate, name and shame them. But Drs and lawyers seem to indeed be above reproach.

The question I have to ask though - why, after being investigated for foul play before the Watson trial, was Heron still allowed to continue in a position of abusable power.

(The now) Judge Saunders and I discussed the matter late 1980s or early 1990s in his CHCH office. I remember the whole conversation. There was no question Heron had a cloud over him way back then.

Perhaps the way to bring the public round is to expose the fact judicial corruption is quite prevalent and a theme in many local high court cases.
Two or three cases with similar M.O's is surely better than one.

I believe a book on judicial corruption, perhaps using 5 cases with recurring themes of bent tactics, though a big project could be in order.

[Littleman]

Gee, if I read the bible once will I believe everything in it? Can I please?
I'm lost and disaffected wanting some meaning in my life other than the status quo. I need some disaffected poor soul to give me personal hope and if I can undermine the system I will feel empowered. And that man is... Scott WATSON. A truely great and wronged individual.

God bless Scott.

I'm absolutely certain no one has made any money from Scotts predicament to further themselves. I'm sure the author and legal funded tax sucking lawyers did it because Scotty was such and engaging fella and they owed him for back dated baby sitting duties involving their own darling kids.

Its an absolute tragedy that girls born just prior to 1995 never had a chance to bed him, being the gentleman he is and all.

[pritch]

I followed closely the Scott Watson trial. I think that he is an evil bugger who is probably in the right location, but I don't think that he was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I find trial reports depressing so I don't pay close attention. I'd far rather spend my time chuckling at the amusing gems (intentional and otherwise) to be found on KB.:whistle:

One slight concern about the trial though was the water taxi driver's mention of a ketch being present in the bay at the time of the disappearance. One assumes a guy who spends all day on the water to have some knowledge of boats. He would presumably know a ketch from a sloop, a yawl, or a schooner. (For the benefit of inquiring minds it's about the number and placement of the masts.)

So when he says there was a ketch there I have to believe him. The Police though apparently did not think this significant.

[young1]

I have also read the book and was quite disturbed at what I learnt. This could have been any of us stitched up - scary thought!!

[Wolf]

Gee, if I read the bible once will I believe everything in it? Can I please?
I'm lost and disaffected wanting some meaning in my life other than the status quo. I need some disaffected poor soul to give me personal hope and if I can undermine the system I will feel empowered. And that man is... Scott WATSON. A truely great and wronged individual.

God bless Scott.

I'm absolutely certain no one has made any money from Scotts predicament to further themselves. I'm sure the author and legal funded tax sucking lawyers did it because Scotty was such and engaging fella and they owed him for back dated baby sitting duties involving their own darling kids.

Its an absolute tragedy that girls born just prior to 1995 never had a chance to bed him, being the gentleman he is and all.
The trick to making an intelligent post is to read more posts than you write.

Like reading the entire thread, including all the assessments of Scott as a person and the author's own email supplied by Joni, before posting.

[ynot slow]

Agree with pritch,same thing if at an accident a witness (biker)said it was a sportsbike and cops said the crim on trial was on a harley.Especially if the biker had several years in the industry say a mechanic,or salesman.

[Toaster]

Just finished reading TRIAL BY TRICKERY by Keith Hunter on the sounds murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. No doubt in my mind of Watson's innocent. Anyone else read this book?

Skyryder

So you think (just for starters) the dna and uminol testing finding their blood all over the interior cabin of his boat which he was on just got their all by itself?

He has an extensive 'history' and was not even close to the goody too-shoes he is made out to be.... the book is onesided and controverial just like all other 'conspiracy' theorist crap. Full facts first then make a call I say.....

[Skyryder]

So you think (just for starters) the dna and uminol testing finding their blood all over the interior cabin of his boat which he was on just got their all by itself?

He has an extensive 'history' and was not even close to the goody too-shoes he is made out to be.... the book is onesided and controverial just like all other 'conspiracy' theorist crap. Full facts first then make a call I say.....



What is this extensive history. Details.

As for one sided as far as I am aware there has been no in depth rebuttal of TRIAL BY TRICKERY. Your comments of the the book being one sided and controversial do not amount to a rebuttal.

I have no information of blood all over the cabin as you assert. Info in this please. There has been a lot of misinformation about Watson cleaning his boat.

Beryl Karena stated in an intereview in Jan 03 that Watson had cleaned his boat after sailing through a storm. This happened some time before Christmas. But when it came to the trial it was stated by the Assistant Prosecutor Crutchley that when Watson had cleaned his boat it was after New Years Day. So why was this statement made when the Police were well aware that they had evidence that Watson had cleaned his boat some time before the murders took place? I could go on about this subject but on the basis of the above sentence I see no need.

One of the best cleaners is bleach based products. Bleach when sprayed with (l)uminol glows under fluorescent light in the same manner as blood.

Forget about the mans past look at the 'facts.'


Skyryder

[Fatjim]

In addendum, I think this is case-in-point for scrapping the many hundred years old Roman/Greek legal system we have. In this day an age a Jury needs to be professional. They need to be highly knowledgable in police procedure, case law, psychological profiling and a range of other relevant skill sets. "Jury of peers" is archaic. It worked fine in ancient Rome when your peers were other educated professionals, typically politicians and merchants. These days juries are made up predominantly of people who are either too stupid to get out of jury duty or have nothing better to do.

The professional jurers could then be tested from time to time, checking they are keeping their knowledge up to date. They can also be profiled to see if there are any 'glitches' in their findings. Reward them well for their time in education and effort on the job and minimise the risk of bribery.

This is the silliest fuckin thing I've ever heard.

[Pixie]

One of the best cleaners is bleach based products. Bleach when sprayed with (l)uminol glows under fluorescent light in the same manner as blood.




Skyryder

You are correct about the bleach,but have fallen for CSI bullshit regarding the use of UV light to view Luminol.

Luminol is chemiluminescent.It produces light when oxidised,like a glow worm's bum.
Various substances such as iron in blood,faeces,mucus ,or copper in antifouling paints,brass or other copper containing marine items found in a boat,will catalyse the oxidative reaction.

UV is not used with luminol

The reason we see UV light used on CSI is that real luminol is very dim and only lasts 30 seconds.
So they splash some fluorescence ink around and shine a UV light on it.



Luminol has some drawbacks that may limit its use in a crime scene investigation:

* Luminol also fluoresces in the presence of copper or an alloy of copper, horseradish, and certain bleaches; and as result if a crime scene is thoroughly cleaned with a weak bleach solution (5-6 drops per L), residual bleach will cause the entire crime scene to fluoresce, effectively camouflaging any organic evidence, such as blood.
* Luminol will also detect the small amounts of blood present in urine and it can be distorted if animal blood was present in the room that is being tested.
* Luminol reacts with fecal matter, causing the same glow as if it were blood.
* Luminol's presence may prevent other tests from being performed on a piece of evidence. However, it has been shown that DNA can be successfully extracted from samples treated with luminol reagent.[4]
* Luminol is a possible carcinogen, but has not yet been proven as such.

[Skyryder]

You are correct about the bleach,but have fallen for CSI bullshit regarding the use of UV light to view Luminol.

Luminol is chemiluminescent.It produces light when oxidised,like a glow worm's bum.
Various substances such as iron in blood,faeces,mucus ,or copper in antifouling paints,brass or other copper containing marine items found in a boat,will catalyse the oxidative reaction.

UV is not used with luminol

The reason we see UV light used on CSI is that real luminol is very dim and only lasts 30 seconds.
So they splash some fluorescence ink around and shine a UV light on it.



Luminol has some drawbacks that may limit its use in a crime scene investigation:

* Luminol also fluoresces in the presence of copper or an alloy of copper, horseradish, and certain bleaches; and as result if a crime scene is thoroughly cleaned with a weak bleach solution (5-6 drops per L), residual bleach will cause the entire crime scene to fluoresce, effectively camouflaging any organic evidence, such as blood.
* Luminol will also detect the small amounts of blood present in urine and it can be distorted if animal blood was present in the room that is being tested.
* Luminol reacts with fecal matter, causing the same glow as if it were blood.
* Luminol's presence may prevent other tests from being performed on a piece of evidence. However, it has been shown that DNA can be successfully extracted from samples treated with luminol reagent.[4]
* Luminol is a possible carcinogen, but has not yet been proven as such.

Yes I should have written "chemoluminescence") Too much tv.

[Aitch]

Belonging to Olivia were planted on the blanket in his boat, and the scratches inside the hatchcover were done by kids.
And he scrubbed his boat inside and out (including inside the cassette tape covers) for fun.
This piece of crap is guilty as sin.
Show the families some respect for god's sake!

[Hitcher]

Show the families some respect for god's sake!

Whose families? And why should "respect" for them take precedence over allowing a person access to a fair trial? Using such logic I'm surprised Scott Watson wasn't done for murdering Kirsty Bentley and Mona Blades.

[scumdog]

Whose families? And why should "respect" for them take precedence over allowing a person access to a fair trial? Using such logic I'm surprised Scott Watson wasn't done for murdering Kirsty Bentley and Mona Blades.


Watson killed Blades and Bentley too??:blink::gob:

Probably him and not Stan Graham over on the coast as well...:whistle:

[scumdog]

I have also read the book and was quite disturbed at what I learnt. This could have been any of us stitched up - scary thought!!

So why WAS Watson stitched up?

Convenient patsy?

Was shagging a judges doris?

Tried to get off a speeding ticket??

[Swoop]

There has been a lot of misinformation about Watson cleaning his boat.

Beryl Karena stated in an intereview in Jan 03 that Watson had cleaned his boat after sailing through a storm. This happened some time before Christmas.

Forget about the mans past look at the 'facts.'
It is quite interesting with this case, that experienced sailors have been ignored with their evidence.

Keeping a vessel clean and "ship shape" can be more than an obsession with some skippers.


Who else here received the magazine "AA Directions"???
Did you look at the photograph of the yacht with the person diving into the water???

Who else thought of the Scott Watson case when viewing a ketch with a blue and white paint scheme??????????

It matches the description of the "mystery yacht" quite well.

[Skyryder]

Belonging to Olivia were planted on the blanket in his boat, and the scratches inside the hatchcover were done by kids.
And he scrubbed his boat inside and out (including inside the cassette tape covers) for fun.
This piece of crap is guilty as sin.
Show the families some respect for god's sake!

Cassette tapes.

More misinformation. Crutchley informed the trial that Watsons collection of cassette tapes had been cleaned. The collection implies all. Yet Officers Harrisons testimony stated that only 25% of the collection had been cleaned.

I'm not in a position to give reasaons only why 25% of the tapes had been cleaned. It may be that these were ones that had been exposed to salt water contamination I don't know. What is undisputable is that the Crown said (implied) that all to the collection had been cleaned when in fact testimony had been given that only 25% had been.

I do not accept that my belief in Watson's innocent is in anyway disrespectful to the families.

Skyryder

[dangerous]

So you think (just for starters) the dna and uminol testing finding their blood all over the interior cabin of his boat which he was on just got their all by itself?

He has an extensive 'history' and was not even close to the goody too-shoes he is made out to be.... the book is onesided and controverial just like all other 'conspiracy' theorist crap. Full facts first then make a call I say.....

What would you know? this thread is all about how Watson WAS stiched up... no the so called blood wouldent have got anywere by its self a dumbarse can work that out... 'was there ever any blood" "he was framed"

Yes he was a shit head at times, the odd breakin etc as he was NOT a "goddie too shoes" he was easy pickings... :full facts? ya not thinking again man, the so called facts on the prosicuters side are mostly all made up bullshit eg: his boat was seen at point 'a' (suposedly dumping the bodys) then later seen at point 'b' CRAP it has been proven that its not possible to get that tub a shit from a to b in that given time not even close.

[Hitcher]

he was NOT a "goddie too shoes"

"Goodie two shoes". I'll let the rest go.

[dangerous]

"Goodie two shoes". I'll let the rest go.

I fucking knew it Hitch... but as toaster spelt it too I figered he knew what he was talking about :rolleyes: so I changed the 'w' to a 'o' god I such a dumbarse

[doc]

"Goodie two shoes". I'll let the rest go.All one can say about the NZ justice system is "FREE SADDAM." NZ legal system would have, and Iraq would be one of our prefered immigrant countries. In this whole case justice was not seen to be done. Which is all it's about really, he was guilty before he went to trial because of the media and police manipulating the pre trial releases. I wasn't interested in the whole trial , never paid it any attention but now wonder how the F..k secret witnesses who contadict each other can be taken seriously. Cmon doesn't the system itimate that it is better one guilty person go free than to hang an innocent one . He didn't even ride a Honda.

[dangerous]

All one can say about the NZ justice system is "FREE SADDAM." NZ legal system would have, and Iraq would be one of our prefered immigrant countries. In this whole case justice was not seen to be done. Which is all it's about really, he was guilty before he went to trial because of the media and police manipulating the pre trial releases. I wasn't interested in the whole trial , never paid it any attention but now wonder how the F..k secret witnesses who contadict each other can be taken seriously. Cmon doesn't the system itimate that it is better one guilty person go free than to hang an innocent one . He didn't even ride a Honda.

very true Doc, very true... but his brother rides a Guzzi :niceone:

[doc]

very true Doc, very true... but his brother rides a Guzzi :niceone:
Guilty then aye.

[dangerous]

Guilty then aye.

I dont honestly know... but knowing the family Id say NOT GUILTY, either way its a fucking crock a shit the way Scott was delt with, the NZ police force has a lot to answer to.

[pete376403]

So why WAS Watson stitched up?

Convenient patsy?

Was shagging a judges doris?

Tried to get off a speeding ticket??
Rob Popes resume looks better with successful convictions?? As with the David Bain case, it appears Rob is a bit too prepared to cut corners to get the desired result. And it certainly doesn't appear to have hurt his rise up the system.

[Skyryder]

Rob Popes resume looks better with successful convictions?? As with the David Bain case, it appears Rob is a bit too prepared to cut corners to get the desired result. And it certainly doesn't appear to have hurt his rise up the system.

I was going to reply to SD's question myself but refrained from doing so as I think he was taking the piss.

Anyway some years back I occasionally ran into a now retired Detective Inspector mainly through plunket and playgroup connections. His wife was connected to the same group as my wife etc. I'll never forget a comment he made when we were discussing the Arther Allan Thomas case.

You don't get promotions if you lose trials. In retrospect I think promotion in the police force is a bit more involved but it was an off the cuff remark, without much thought.

Experiance over the years has taught me to take a great deal of notice of off the cuff remarks. Usually there is some truth in them.

Two million dollars, lot of money to spend with no result.

Don't take a rocket scientist to come to the obvious conclusion. Even the Judge discarded the law.

Skyryder

[scumdog]

I was going to reply to SD's question myself but refrained from doing so as I think he was taking the piss.

You don't get promotions if you lose trials. In retrospect I think promotion in the police force is a bit more involved but it was an off the cuff remark, without much thought.
Skyryder

Hence why I have no desire to climb any higher in rank.

I shudder when I look at some that have got to inspector........

[Finn]

Hence why I have no desire to climb any higher in rank.

So it would be fair to say you're content being the type that just goes "to the market".

[Pixie]

So why WAS Watson stitched up?

Convenient patsy?

Was shagging a judges doris?

Tried to get off a speeding ticket??

The same reason David Bain and That gay dude at the chch creche was:

A successful conviction is a feather in some cop's cap.

[peasea]

Hence why I have no desire to climb any higher in rank.

I shudder when I look at some that have got to inspector........

Not poking the Borax, but; could you expand on those comments?

You don't want rise higher you say; why? Is it because you don't want to run the risk of having the finger pointed at you for (hypothetically speaking) conjuring up shonky convictions to score brownie points, or is it that you don't want to rub shoulders with those already a rung or two further up the ladder? Or both?

How many dodgey inspectors spring to mind when you're shuddering and why don't you dob them in? Surely if the police force is harbouring inspectors who are nailing innocent people (or tampering with evidence, making it up, whatever) then the best way to clean things up is from the inside, right? Us mere mortals haven't got a snowball's chance in hell even when it comes to questioning traffic tickets, what show would we have of proving a bent copper to be bent?

Where does one draw the line? If you know someone is doing something wrong and you do nothing, then are you, or are you not, as guilty as that someone?

[Lteejay]

Your being sarcastic I know my friend, but I'd personally rather have innocents locked up every now and then than criminals possibly let loose.

I hope those words give you solace if your ever in that situation.

[Lias]

I hope those words give you solace if your ever in that situation.

Would it suck be that person? Sure. But for society overall is locking up a few innocents by mistake better than the potential damage caused by letting the guilty run free? I think so.

[scumdog]

Not poking the Borax, but; could you expand on those comments?

You don't want rise higher you say; why? Is it because you don't want to run the risk of having the finger pointed at you for (hypothetically speaking) conjuring up shonky convictions to score brownie points, or is it that you don't want to rub shoulders with those already a rung or two further up the ladder? Or both?

How many dodgey inspectors spring to mind when you're shuddering and why don't you dob them in? Surely if the police force is harbouring inspectors who are nailing innocent people (or tampering with evidence, making it up, whatever) then the best way to clean things up is from the inside, right? Us mere mortals haven't got a snowball's chance in hell even when it comes to questioning traffic tickets, what show would we have of proving a bent copper to be bent?

Where does one draw the line? If you know someone is doing something wrong and you do nothing, then are you, or are you not, as guilty as that someone?


Whoa, whoa dude, the paranoia will eat you up grasshopper, I was refering to incompetence and poor judgement rather than something more sinister.

Do you really think if innocent people are getting 'nailed' by inspectors that they would make it obvious let alone allow fellow workers know about it??

My comment was based on having no desire to rub shoulders with some who see the job as a way of grand-standing, pay increases and distancing themselves from the coal face.
And making dumb-arsed decisions.

[Wolf]

Would it suck be that person? Sure. But for society overall is locking up a few innocents by mistake better than the potential damage caused by letting the guilty run free? I think so.
Trouble is, for every innocent locked up, there is at least one guilty person running free as an innocent is in clink instead of him/her/them.

As has been pointed out - they pen the innocent, they stop looking for the real villain... If they knew who the real guilty party was, there'd be no need to lock up the innocent (unless the guilty party was someone with enough influence in the "right sectors", of course...)

[Toaster]

I fucking knew it Hitch... but as toaster spelt it too I figered he knew what he was talking about :rolleyes: so I changed the 'w' to a 'o' god I such a dumbarse

Hehe I guess we both got busted by the spelling-police!

[Jantar]

The worst part of the Scott Watson case is that there is absolutely no evidence that the young couple are even dead, let alone that a murder has taken place.

I do believe that they are dead, and by foul play. So far though, there has been no evidence at all in that direction. It is possible that they have been abducted and shipped off to Asia as sex slaves. It is possible that they ran off together and are living happily in Timbukto. It is likely that they are dead, but where is the proof? It is probable that they were taken aboard a ketch; a type of boat that Scott Watson didn't own.

[Sanx]

Would it suck be that person? Sure. But for society overall is locking up a few innocents by mistake better than the potential damage caused by letting the guilty run free? I think so.

And there is the number one argument against the death penalty. At least you can release someone who's wrongly locked up...

[peasea]

Whoa, whoa dude, the paranoia will eat you up grasshopper, I was refering to incompetence and poor judgement rather than something more sinister.

Do you really think if innocent people are getting 'nailed' by inspectors that they would make it obvious let alone allow fellow workers know about it??

My comment was based on having no desire to rub shoulders with some who see the job as a way of grand-standing, pay increases and distancing themselves from the coal face.
And making dumb-arsed decisions.

Well, that clears that up somewhat.

Much better to have incompetent inspectors with poor judgement than something more 'sinister'.

They're still bad eggs.

[SPman]

It is a wider issue than Scot Watson. ...
As far as NZ needing to know what sort of a Justice system I d not think many could conceive of how truly crooked our legal system is - it's that bad.
.......

I believe a book on judicial corruption, perhaps using 5 cases with recurring themes of bent tactics, though a big project could be in order.
There is at least one web site pushing this view. Knowing a couple of high level judicial people, I would tend to beleive there is something in it.
http://www.stiassny.org/index.html

[peasea]

There is at least one web site pushing this view. Knowing a couple of high level judicial people, I would tend to beleive there is something in it.
http://www.stiassny.org/index.html

I've had a quick look and nothing surprises me. I've also saved it to my favourites so that I can digest it at a later date but I doubt I'll be amused. Thanks for the link and the perpetuation of conspiracy theories, paranoia and dead horse flogging. (Or is it just passing on some home truths, perhaps?)

Global warming, bent judges, no more free speech, a cash hungry highway patrol.....where will it all end? The crematorium at The Church of Sister Mary Gearchange?

Form a queue.

[Skyryder]

There is at least one web site pushing this view. Knowing a couple of high level judicial people, I would tend to beleive there is something in it.
http://www.stiassny.org/index.html

Just bookmarked the link. Intersting link. Will be keeping an eye on developments with this.

Skyryder

[SPman]

Global warming, bent judges, no more free speech, a cash hungry highway patrol.....where will it all end? The crematorium at The Church of Sister Mary Gearchange?
Form a queue.


Just life as usual......the faces change, the events remain the same......

Nah - I've got a nice little tree on a hill picked out - of course, it would have to be a midnight dig, but, what the hell..........

[marty]

Not poking the Borax, but; could you expand on those comments?

You don't want rise higher you say; why? Is it because you don't want to run the risk of having the finger pointed at you for (hypothetically speaking) conjuring up shonky convictions to score brownie points, or is it that you don't want to rub shoulders with those already a rung or two further up the ladder? Or both?

How many dodgey inspectors spring to mind when you're shuddering and why don't you dob them in? Surely if the police force is harbouring inspectors who are nailing innocent people (or tampering with evidence, making it up, whatever) then the best way to clean things up is from the inside, right? Us mere mortals haven't got a snowball's chance in hell even when it comes to questioning traffic tickets, what show would we have of proving a bent copper to be bent?

Where does one draw the line? If you know someone is doing something wrong and you do nothing, then are you, or are you not, as guilty as that someone?

Oh good grief - you should have taken the red pill dude. You're the sort of attitude I used to love coming up against. Some of us just enjoyed kicking arses on the street, instead of playing the hurry up and wait/clean-up squad approach of those further up the food chain.

I don't see you down at parliament pushing for all those parlimentarians that have been larging it up on dubiously funded excursions and projects the taxpayer is paying for, to be kicked out - surely by your way of thinking you should be starting at the top? Or are you, by association, and the fact that you aren't doing anything about it, just as guilty as they are?

[dangerous]

Oh good grief - you should have taken the red pill dude. You're the sort of attitude I used to love coming up against. Some of us just enjoyed kicking arses on the street, instead of playing the hurry up and wait/clean-up squad approach of those further up the food chain.

I don't see you down at parliament pushing for all those parlimentarians that have been larging it up on dubiously funded excursions and projects the taxpayer is paying for, to be kicked out - surely by your way of thinking you should be starting at the top? Or are you, by association, and the fact that you aren't doing anything about it, just as guilty as they are?

The Harly rider answered your question in the post you quoted... and you say he has an attude, so do you reading the 1st paragragh. :headbang:

[peasea]

Oh good grief - you should have taken the red pill dude. You're the sort of attitude I used to love coming up against. Some of us just enjoyed kicking arses on the street, instead of playing the hurry up and wait/clean-up squad approach of those further up the food chain.

I don't see you down at parliament pushing for all those parlimentarians that have been larging it up on dubiously funded excursions and projects the taxpayer is paying for, to be kicked out - surely by your way of thinking you should be starting at the top? Or are you, by association, and the fact that you aren't doing anything about it, just as guilty as they are?

As it happens I have marched on Parliament and who said I wasn't doing anything?

Attitude? Me? have a look in the mirror sonny jim.

[peasea]

The Harly rider answered your question in the post you quoted... and you say he has an attude, so do you reading the 1st paragragh. :headbang:

It sounds like it should have been HIM taking the pills. If that's the attitude "on the street" then perhaps there's an ounce of truth in my piss-takes and cynicism?

[Swoop]

Will be keeping an eye on developments with this.

Another very interesting development...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10476734

[Patrick]

Damn... May eat humble pie yet?

He is still an arsehole....

[Wolf]

Another very interesting development...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10476734
So when Watson is finally released he can hook up with Arthur Allan Thomas and David Bain - I'm sure they'd all have a lot to talk about...

[Skyryder]

So when Watson is finally released he can hook up with Arthur Allan Thomas and David Bain - I'm sure they'd all have a lot to talk about...

Well they will all be rich men. If Bain is found not guilty watch the dollars roll in and rightly so too.

I have sneaking suspician that this is why the Politicians have no interest in the Watson case. There has been a serious miscarriage of justice here and that's gives him grounds for litigation against the state. I have no doubt that he will eventually be freed but the money he recieves in compensation will in all probaility be confidential. I just hope he keeps himself clean and makes no cockups in the meantime. Getting married while in the slammer was not a smart move.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

So- what have we got? Two people who spoke to a man on a ketch in Auckland, two months afterwards....... No name for the person, no name for the boat.


Hmmmm......can't see that persuading the Supreme Court to order a retrial.

[Skyryder]

So- what have we got? Two people who spoke to a man on a ketch in Auckland, two months afterwards....... No name for the person, no name for the boat.


Hmmmm......can't see that persuading the Supreme Court to order a retrial.

Probably not but it's two more people who are convinced of Watson's innocent. These people, like myself, don't have any ifs or maybes about Watrson's guilt. Most who look into his case become convinced that an innocent man has been found guilty. That might not be significant in the Court of Appeal but in the Court of Public Opinion it is. You just watch the politicians jump on the bandwagon when it suits them to do so.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

Most who look into his case become convinced that an innocent man has been found guilty. That might not be significant in the Court of Appeal but in the Court of Public Opinion it is.
Skyryder

Agreed but happily that is why we don't have trial by public opinion.

Lets pause for a moment and consider something. A jury of twelve people convicted Watson of murder. Have you ever tried to convince twelve people of anything? It is very hard to convince that many individuals of anything at all, which is why jury trial is a good bet for an accused.

In this case there were no bodies which made it even harder to convince the jury. Yet they convicted Watson.

[Patrick]

Well they will all be rich men. If Bain is found not guilty watch the dollars roll in and rightly so too.

Skyryder

Only IF he is not guilty.... note the big IF.


A jury of twelve people convicted Watson of murder. Have you ever tried to convince twelve people of anything? It is very hard to convince that many individuals of anything at all, which is why jury trial is a good bet for an accused.

In this case there were no bodies which made it even harder to convince the jury. Yet they convicted Watson.

Surely the defence raised the issue of the mystery boat too, for a reasonable doubt.... and still couldn't convince the jury... As you were... Guilty still...

[MSTRS]

Lets pause for a moment and consider something. A jury of twelve people convicted Watson of murder. Have you ever tried to convince twelve people of anything? It is very hard to convince that many individuals of anything at all, which is why jury trial is a good bet for an accused.

In this case there were no bodies which made it even harder to convince the jury. Yet they convicted Watson.


Only IF he is not guilty.... note the big IF.

Surely the defence raised the issue of the mystery boat too, for a reasonable doubt.... and still couldn't convince the jury... As you were... Guilty still...
The thing that is easy to forget is that the jury often do not get to hear all the facts due to clever legal manouevring stopping some damning or refuting evidence being allowed presentation...

[Drunken Monkey]

...A jury of twelve people convicted Watson of murder. Have you ever tried to convince twelve people of anything? It is very hard to convince that many individuals of anything at all, ...

Adolf Hitler convinced many more seemingly intelligent and moderate individuals that the NAZI party was a good thing. 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty should be a piece of piss...

[Patrick]

The thing that is easy to forget is that the jury often do not get to hear all the facts due to clever legal manouevring stopping some damning or refuting evidence being allowed presentation...

Yeah... them damned defence lawyers... stopping all the good stuff.....

Like the murderer admitting the killing of that girl up north the other night... the "admission," on video, was ruled inadmissable and he got off...

[MSTRS]

Yeah... them damned defence lawyers... stopping all the good stuff.....



Oh no, not just the defence. They're all trying to do whatever appears to 'help' their case, and the whole truth suffers because of it

[Swoop]

Latest news from the Harold. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10485398)

Revealed: the new Hope-Smart evidence

Scott Watson's boat. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Scott Watson is willing to take the stand to give evidence if the Governor-General orders a retrial over the murders of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart, say his lawyers.

Defence counsel Greg King and Mike Antunovic are preparing to file a petition this year to the Governor-General who, in consultation with the Ministry of Justice, can recommend Watson be pardoned or the case be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

Watson has told King he would testify in court if needed but the high-profile defence lawyer said new evidence produced since the last trial was the key to overturning Watson's convictions.

King says these include:

* Key police witnesses Guy Wallace and Roz McNeilly have since retracted their evidence of picking Watson from a photo montage.

* A secret witness has retracted his evidence that Watson confessed to him while in jail.

* Sailing speed tests show it is impossible for Watson to have been sighted in the Cook Strait when police say he was.

* Forensics show that scratches on the hatch of Watson's boat Blade could only have been made when open.

* No evidence to prove Watson made two trips to shore on the night Ben and Olivia disappeared, a theory that the Crown revealed on the last day of a 13-week trial.

* Another witness initially told police he saw Watson between 10am and midday on New Year's Day. That estimate changed to 5pm the same day the man was sentenced for cannabis cultivation.

"You can pick over the bones of the trial but the jury accepted that evidence," said King. "But can you say that the outcome would be the same, had all this information been fully explored in front of a jury in the first trial? Categorically, no.

"But doesn't it say it all when the father of Olivia Hope, who sat through the entire trial and bawled his eyes out, goes public with serious reservations about the convictions?"

King was referring to recent coverage in the Herald on Sunday and North & South magazine, which have raised serious questions about the police case and the trial.

"What we got was a conviction but we never got the truth. And that's the part that still really rips me up," said Gerald Hope, the father of Olivia.

"I'm not saying [Scott Watson] is not guilty. What I'm saying is let's clear up the doubt."

Hope was equally amazed that nobody - especially politicians - had responded to allegations made in Trial by Trickery, a book by Auckland journalist Keith Hunter, in which he makes a stinging attack on those who put Watson away.

In an eight-page article based on the police case in last week's Listener, lead Crown prosecutor Paul Davison, QC, said the criticism was "nonsense" and "sensationalist" journalism.

King praised Davison for speaking out on such a high-profile case but was disappointed the QC had not canvassed the new evidence found since the trial. "There's nothing new in it [the Listener article]. But what he states as fact, is in my view, completely open to interpretation," said King. "He has not been prepared to enter that debate, he is still relying on what they had 10 years ago. But the things that, to this day he keeps harping on about, have been completely rebutted and that is our case to the Governor-General."

Mike Antunovic, Watson's original lawyer from the trial, said he stopped reading the Listener article half way through in anger.

"Like so much I've read about the Scott Watson case over the years, some of it was correct, some of it was completely wrong," said Antunovic. "The Crown played with that evidence. Fancy words put together to make a lovely story which they managed to get a jury to swallow. That's how I feel about it, frankly."

If the Governor-General ordered a retrial, Watson was willing to take the stand, said King.

"I've spoken to Scott Watson and I'd have no qualms from calling him. He has always, at all stages, maintained his innocence," said King.

"The danger with putting someone on the stand in a complex, circumstantial case is that it takes the focus away from the evidence."

Barely a week goes by without another credible sighting of the "mystery ketch", said King, which he described as like the Loch Ness monster. "That won't reopen the case. But when police officers come out and say they were concerned with the investigation, when the father of the deceased speaks out, that has to ring alarm bells."

Rob Pope, head of Operation Tam and now deputy police commissioner, has refused to be interviewed by the Herald on Sunday since November.

Key points to Governor-General

1. Water-taxi driver Guy Wallace and Furneaux Lodge bar manager Roz McNeilly were key police witnesses.

Police showed them an image of Scott Watson midway through a blink, mimicking their description of the mystery man whom they saw at Furneaux Lodge on the night Ben and Olivia disappeared.

They were never shown a photo of Watson taken on New Year's Eve, in which he was clean shaven with cropped hair.

Wallace and McNeilly now say they were pressured by police and have retracted their evidence.

2. The two criminals who claimed that Watson had confessed to the murders in prison were also key to the police case. Secret witness A recanted his testimony in 2000, saying he'd lied, then retracted his recantation when re-interviewed by police, then recanted his retraction. Watson had been warned about jailhouse snitches and kept his silence throughout the investigation, even to his girlfriend, who was secretly reporting to police.

Secret witness B claims Watson told him, a virtual stranger, about murdering Ben and Olivia.

The pair never shared a cell, the confession was supposedly through a peephole, and despite claims to the contrary, witness B received a phone and car from police. The career criminal also received a light sentence for the charges he was facing.

3. Police say Watson took Ben and Olivia's bodies into Cook Strait on New Year's Day, dumped them, returned to Erie Bay and lied about the time he arrived. Watson says he was in Erie Bay by 10am; police say it was 5pm.

A man who gave Watson paint for his boat initially said he arrived between 10am and midday. Those estimates gradually changed until he and his children said Watson arrived at 5pm. The man was sentenced for cannabis cultivation the same day he told police it was 5pm. A father and son on an interisland ferry are the only people who say they saw Watson's boat in Cook Strait at 4.30pm. However, author and investigative journalist Keith Hunter recreated the trip from where they saw it to Erie Bay.

That trip took two hours, 30 minutes - therefore impossible to have Watson arriving before 7pm even if the police theory is correct.

4. Extensive scratching of rubber inside the forward hatch of Watson's boat was evidence of Olivia Hope desperately trying to escape, the Crown said.

However, the marks go right to the edge of the foam, which means the scratches could only have been made when the hatch was open. The hatch can only be fastened from the inside, unless a heavy object weighed it down.

Watson and his sister maintain his nieces scratched the hatch. The scratches were so faint that the police failed to find them until March 1998 despite scouring the boat for evidence.

5. The Crown case was that Watson returned from Furneaux Lodge around 4am with water-taxi driver Guy Wallace, invited Ben and Olivia to his yacht, and then murdered them. Drunk and without a watch, Watson told police he thought he returned to his boat at 2am, leaving Furneaux after an altercation with Ollie Perkins.

Other witnesses said that altercation happened between 3.30am and 3.45am.

However, another water-taxi driver, Donald Anderson, told the court that he took Watson to his yacht between 2am and 4am, confirmed by occupants of boats rafted to the Blade.

So the defence was confident Watson didn't come back with Wallace, as argued by the Crown.

But on the last day of the three-month trial, the prosecution said Watson had made two trips back to his yacht - at 2am with Anderson then 4am with Wallace.

Even the trial judge was surprised, as earlier the Crown had challenged the 2am trip with Anderson and had not questioned any of the 500 witnesses about seeing Watson go back to shore.

Lawyer Greg King says there is not "one iota" of evidence to back the Crown's theory of a second trip, as the theory was raised after all witnesses had given their evidence, "ambushing" the defence.

[Pixie]

The sooner the NZ Police pass crime investigation on to a private organistion the better.
They should stick to that which they do well - The sterling job they do making each year's road toll lower than the last. :devil2:

[Badcat]

Your being sarcastic I know my friend, but I'd personally rather have innocents locked up every now and then than criminals possibly let loose.

Besides which even if he wasnt guilty of those murders, he was still a shady piece of shit and he was guilty of SOMETHING :-P


i'm pretty sure if the innocent person locked up was you - or one of your family, you'd have a different view....

[oldrider]

Try to say Scott Watson murderer and Rob Pope Police Commissioner in the same sentence and see which one leaves a worst taste in your mouth. :doh: John.

Bet you can still taste Pope's duplicity long after Watson's evil taste has gone.

[ElCoyote]

Even though I'm not talking to you, I will explain what my new ugly friend Skyryder was trying to get across, which I thought was quite clear.

It was the choice of words that Dope continually used when describing anything to do with Scott Watson. From the 3rd day Dope took over the case, he portrayed Watson as an evil bugger, even without having ANY evidence to link Watson to the murders.

This is a crucial aspect that is overlooked when people accuse the court and or jury in this case anyway. Dope did a superb hatchet job on Watson that the crown prosecutor would have been proud to take credit for. Agreed Watson was shady but trial by media by a distraught relative should not happen in NZ.

The police fell way short of the expected impartiality by refusing to acknowledge that the "ketch" existed.

Edit: I confused myself with Hope and Pope. Gerald Hope used his public position to vilify Watson in the media and Pope tried to outdo Inspector Bruce Hutton with making the evidence fit the crime. Both are as bad as each other.

What about Peter Ellis and secret dungeons and rituals. :bash:

[Lias]

i'm pretty sure if the innocent person locked up was you - or one of your family, you'd have a different view....

I'm sure I would be, but it doesnt change the fact that for society as a whole its better to kill 1 innocent person than let 9 others back into society. That being said, I'd vote for a watered down death penalty which only allowed it with DNA proof, which alot more people would support I expect. Pity they'll never put me in charge.. I'd make the judicidal system so mean they'd rather die than goto jail :-)

[Winston001]

The thing that is easy to forget is that the jury often do not get to hear all the facts due to clever legal manouevring stopping some damning or refuting evidence being allowed presentation...

This works virtually entirely in favour of the defence. All of the pre-trial arguments are usually about the defence trying to get evidence suppressed as prejudicial to a fair trial. I can't even think of a circumstance where the Crown would try to suppress evidence.

[Winston001]

The trial took twelve weeks - juries are likely to acquit after long trials, partly to punish the prosecution for taking so long. They are also usually so confused after that length of time that they cannot agree on a guilty verdict.

Scott Watson was convicted on a totality of evidence. He was not convicted on the hatch cover scratches, nor on Olivias hair which the prosecution acknowledged at trial might have, on a very long shot, come from him brushing past her onshore. But it was on his boat.

The boat had a patch of barnacles rubbed off its bottom as if something had been rubbing against it in the water.

The water taxi chap Wallace insisted he saw a ketch - but he also insisted it was Watson he delivered - along with Ben and Olivia, to exactly where Watson's boat was moored. The only variation is the type of boat.

Furthermore when first interviewed Wallace drew a picture of a yacht with the word "ketch?" after it. So he was quite uncertain at that point and only firmed up his memory later when questioned by journalists. Wallace is an honest man who has made a mistake.

As for the police ignoring the "ketch" - absolute nonsence. There were something like 200 photographs taken of the bay and there is no ketch anywhere. The police asked for sightings etc but it was never found - because it never existed.

[Jantar]

A ketch is a yacht, but not all yachts are ketches. Just like a cruiser is a motorcycle, but not all motocycles are cruisers. For Wallace to mix up a ketch and a sloop would be like a professional motorcycle mixing up a commuter and a sports bike.

[Swoop]

I'm sure I would be, but it doesnt change the fact that for society as a whole its better to kill 1 innocent person than let 9 others back into society. That being said, I'd vote for a watered down death penalty which only allowed it with DNA proof, which alot more people would support I expect. Pity they'll never put me in charge.. I'd make the judicidal system so mean they'd rather die than goto jail :-)

A recent item:
"So far more than 200 convicts have been released from U.S. prisons after DNA testing proved them innocent, the Wall Street Journal reported last month. A study of 60 such "exonerees" showed each had been imprisoned for an average of 12 years."

[Winston001]

The worst part of the Scott Watson case is that there is absolutely no evidence that the young couple are even dead, let alone that a murder has taken place.


Exactly - so that shows how strong the Crown case against Watson was.

Watson was convicted upon the totality of evidence - not just a hair and not just because he was there. Whatever Wallace says about a ketch in his completely honest way - and I'm sure he believes it - he also says he delivered Ben, Olivia, and Watson to the exact spot where Watson's yacht was moored. It was at the end of a line of boats rafted together.

[rwh]

... he also says he delivered Ben, Olivia, and Watson to the exact spot where Watson's yacht was moored. It was at the end of a line of boats rafted together.

I hadn't heard that before, but I have been on a yacht moored in such a raft, in the sounds.

If the mystery ketch had been moored temporarily to Watson's yacht, it would then be on the end of the line - and only a few metres away. And Watson would have happily climbed aboard and crossed it to get to his own; it'd be the easiest way to get there. You'd think he'd say so in court ... but he was drunk at the time, right? Many people seem unable to remember how they got home after a night on the booze.

Richard

[Lias]

A recent item:
"So far more than 200 convicts have been released from U.S. prisons after DNA testing proved them innocent, the Wall Street Journal reported last month. A study of 60 such "exonerees" showed each had been imprisoned for an average of 12 years."

Everyone knows the US justice system is pretty shit.. its retardedly easy to qualify as law enforcement over there. I think ours is alot more robust (but still far from perfect). That being said the US currently has 2.2 MILLION inmates behind bars.. 200 innocent out of that lot is still a tiny tiny tiny drop in the bucket. Theres 3350 on death row.. 200 is only 6 percent of THAT (and I doubt all 200 were on death row).. of the total prison population 200 is like .0001 percent.

[MSTRS]

The thing that is easy to forget is that the jury often do not get to hear all the facts due to clever legal manouevring stopping some damning or refuting evidence being allowed presentation...This works virtually entirely in favour of the defence. All of the pre-trial arguments are usually about the defence trying to get evidence suppressed as prejudicial to a fair trial. I can't even think of a circumstance where the Crown would try to suppress evidence.
You what? Where did I say that the prosecution would suppress damning evidence? The defence would of course, but the prosecution would be after throwing out evidence against their case. It's what lawyers do.



Watson was convicted upon the totality of evidence -

That much is probably true. The thing about this case is that the police were very quick to decide that Watson was the guilty party and set about ensuring that all and sundry believed them. 'Evidence', like statistics, can be made to say whatever is wanted by clever folks. Nowhere is it written that the interpretation of that evidence has to be true and correct. It is up to a jury in these cases to decide which lawyer was the most believeable, not which one was right.
As has happened before, the prosecution's case was believed at the time, but subsequent evidence gave another picture, as is happening here.

[dangerous]

ya know its also funny how the taxi guy droped the couple off and they climed up a ladder to the boat, watsons boat Is mored not far from were I live... its deck is damn near at water line, it wasnt his boat the taxi driver drope the couple off at.

Watson was seen out in the straight, some say thats were he dumped the bodys, he was then seen in a bay in the sounds, both times and dates are ssuposed to be documented... well watsons old man took watsons boat to were it was seen in the straight and sailed it at full noise with tail wind to were it was next seen... his best effort was 2hrs out, thers no way that boat could have been in either or both places at the times stated.

[SPman]

...... That being said the US currently has 2.2 MILLION inmates behind bars.. 200 innocent out of that lot is still a tiny tiny tiny drop in the bucket. Theres 3350 on death row.. 200 is only 6 percent of THAT (and I doubt all 200 were on death row).. of the total prison population 200 is like .0001 percent.
Yes, but they aren't testing the entire prison population, mainly a small selection of mainly death row and lifers, and where DNA is available to do the tests.

That being said the US currently has 2.2 MILLION inmates behind bars. and that says a lot about their society for a start