Scott Watson

[98tls]

Man, that's bollocks too; supersonic cracks are impossible to locate aurally.

So much bollocks... ah well, if madly theorising about wildly unlikely conspiracies keeps a bunch of bored Murkns happy, I suppose it does no harm.

Mate ive no idea really on the ins/outs of it just relating what i watched in the doco.Been shooting pigs for most of my life and would have to say i believe i would notice the difference if some prick shot from directly behind me as opposed to away and high up to my left,fwiw.

[jrandom]

just relating what i watched in the doco.

Far too many TV 'documentaries' are complete rubbish, just thrown together to get ratings. Wasn't there a 'documentary' about the moon landings being faked?

i believe i would notice the difference if some prick shot from directly behind me as opposed to away and high up to my left,fwiw.

Course you would. But, try listening to some shots sometime at a similar distance and elevation but different directions. A supersonic bullet cracking along really fucks up your ears' direction finding.

Ho hum, it all depends I guess. Honestly, it beats me why so many people around the world are so interested in the topic. Seems like there's so many other more important and/or fascinating things to worry about.

[SARGE]

Course you would. But, try listening to some shots sometime at a similar distance and elevation but different directions. A supersonic bullet cracking along really fucks up your ears' direction finding.

.

successive shots however allows you to get a bearing..

shoot and move.. shoot and move

[jrandom]

successive shots however allows you to get a bearing..

Mm true true.

But, given the situation, passage of time, various motivations and whatnot, I really have very little faith in any reports of people hearing JFK's assassination shots from 'different directions'.

Beats me why people feel compelled to complicate everything.

[SARGE]

Mm true true.

But, given the situation, passage of time, various motivations and whatnot, I really have very little faith in any reports of people hearing JFK's assassination shots from 'different directions'.

Beats me why people feel compelled to complicate everything.

it was the Freemasons....


seriously though.. in Lebanon.. we were under constant sniper fire.. ..you tend to get a bearing very fast when they buzz past your ear..

[Pussy]

Rubbish. JFK's head flopped backwards as half of its contents sprayed out of the exit wound in the front of it.

Try shooting something in the head sometime and watching what happens.

I've probably shot more deer/pigs/goats than you've had hot dinners.
Kennedy's head clearly goes back and left

[jrandom]

I've probably shot more deer/pigs/goats than you've had hot dinners.

Well then!

Kennedy's head clearly goes back and left

Yes... but not necessarily from a bullet hitting it from the front, au.

[Skyryder]

Talking of conspiracy theories mine is that the Justice system made such amonumental cockup that too many reputations would be sullied if Watson conviction was successfuly appealed.

My bold insertions.

Court of Appeal
The following letter was sent to the three judges of the Court of Appeal, copied to the Chief Justice, on 26 August. There has been neither acknowledgment or response of any sort. A followup letter will be sent to the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal on Monday 29 October and posted here the following day, 30 October .
26 August 2007
Sir Ivor Richardson
Court of Appeal
PO Box 1606
Wellington
cc Dame Sian Elias, Chief Justice
Dear Sir Ivor
Re: The Appeal in R v Watson, 1999.
I am the author and publisher of Trial By Trickery, a book on the justice system and its treatment of Scott Watson. I enclose a copy. I also enclose a DVD copy of the television documentary Murder On The Blade?, which was broadcast on Television One on 7 November 2003.
I write in respect of your part in declining Watson’s appeal in 1999.
While there are many matters I would draw your attention to, I refer you in particular to chapters Six and Eight of the book and to Part Three of the Film. The book chapters relate to ‘The Two Trip Theory’ and to Watson’s appeal, and the film segment to identification issues.
I remind you first that in your judgment you stated:
In summing up, the trial Judge clearly treated the Wallace evidence as visual identifications of the appellant not only on the water taxi but also on earlier occasions at the Lodge. It therefore becomes apparent that the Crown, defence, and the trial Judge all regarded (Guy) Wallace as having made a visual identification of the appellant. It is beyond question that the case against him depended substantially on the correctness of those identifications, because if they were incorrect the Crown case was seriously undermined .
I ask that you then consider the following passage in Part Three of the film, where eyewitness Guy Wallace makes the following answers, in person, to questions posed by the film:
NARRATOR: If someone had pointed, not at the photograph in Montage B but at Watson himself in court and then asked Guy Wallace if this was the mystery man what would he have said?
WALLACE “I would have said obviously not”
NARRATOR Why?
WALLACE “Because he is not the mystery man..”
NARRATOR Was Scott Watson the man in the water taxi that night or not?
WALLACE “Definitely not.”
You will find elsewhere, in both film and book, a discussion of identification issues and the retraction by Wallace and other key eyewitness of their testimony at trial on the grounds that they were misled by what is essentially a trick photograph.

Secondly, please note the following passage in your judgment:

The two trip theory must have been a possible Crown contention from the outset, and certainly became so as matters developed in the way the defence anticipated they might. Mr Antunovic submitted that the so-called late acknowledgement by the Crown on this point impacted adversely on the defence. It was suggested that more extensive cross-examination of the witnesses who were on board the "Mina Cornelia" and the "Bianco" as to the timing of the appellant’s return with Mr Anderson would have been undertaken. Similarly as regards the witnesses to the Perkins incident ashore, and the absence of evidence as to how the appellant may have returned to the shore. But an examination of the transcript shows that there was extensive cross-examination on those issues.

Your final statement above, ‘… an examination of the transcript shows that there was extensive cross-examination on those issues..’ is incorrect. There is no such cross examination at all. In particular, the question of a return by Watson to shore is entirely absent from the transcript of the trial. It is to be found only in the final address to the jury by the Crown Prosecutor, and there only in the words the prosecutor spoke on the second and final day of that address. An examination of the transcript shows in fact that Watson was convicted on a murder scenario of which neither he nor the jury had been aware until that moment.
Scott Watson’s conviction, by your own judgment, has been ‘seriously undermined’ by Guy Wallace on nationwide television. Even more importantly, he was convicted after being kept unaware, throughout his whole trial, of what he was alleged to have done. For that reason only, he had not mounted a defence against it. The book shows that in fact evidence was available which readily absolves him. Instead, he was tried and convicted on a secret charge. I’m sure you will agree that there can be no greater evil in any justice system than this.
I’m also sure you will find Watson’s continued imprisonment unacceptable in view of these and other issues raised in book and film, and that you will take immediate steps to have Scott Watson treated with the justice he has so far been denied.
I look forward to your response to this letter and its information to you. The letter has also been sent to your colleagues who sat with you in R v Watson, Gault J and Henry J, and has also been copied along with the book and film to the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias. It will be posted on the website trialbytrickery.com along with any response you care to make.
Yours Faithfully,

Keith Hunter


I'll let you guys figure out if there was a conspiracy or not. This one is closer to home.


Skyryder

[98tls]

I've probably shot more deer/pigs/goats than you've had hot dinners.
Kennedy's head clearly goes back and left

Maybe he just fessed up to shagging Marilyn and Jackie gave him a slappin.

[Big Dave]

it was the Freemasons....

[pete376403]

I've probably shot more deer/pigs/goats than you've had hot dinners.
Kennedy's head clearly goes back and left

Jackie Kennedy climbs up out of the seat and retrieves head matter off the boot of the car - *something* caused his brains to end up there and a shot from the front seems a likely contender.
(disclaimer - have never shot anything, let alone a president)

[Boob Johnson]

I've probably shot more deer/pigs/goats than you've had hot dinners.

Oh brother, here he goes again

[Boob Johnson]

One theory of why he was shot was due to his opposition to the Vietnam war. Well known the US has to have a war every so often to keep its economy going. US & UK are the top arms dealers in the world I believe.


Don't believe you need much if any shooting experience to know the general direction the head shot came from, common sense should prevail.

[sels1]

Anyone who can drive a Falcon from Welly to Palmy and back that quickly and still hatchet a family deserves a V8 Supercar drive.

But isnt it funny that his cellphone was clicked at several cellphone sites along the way while he was supposed to be at a motel????

[Pixie]

Course you would. But, try listening to some shots sometime at a similar distance and elevation but different directions. A supersonic bullet cracking along really fucks up your ears' direction finding.

You are absolutely right.The "crack" is what each individual observer hears as the shock wave (sonic boom) sweeps past his ears.
So, effectively,the origin is at the observer's location.