Trial by trickery or how Scott was stitched up

**ynot slow** · 16th September 2007, 10:03

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** · 16th September 2007, 10:08

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 16th September 2007, 11:02

Originally Posted by Toaster

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** · 16th September 2007, 11:58

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Pixie** · 16th September 2007, 12:14

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 16th September 2007, 13:40

Originally Posted by Pixie

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** · 16th September 2007, 14:56

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** · 16th September 2007, 17:19

Originally Posted by Aitch

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** · 16th September 2007, 17:26

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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??

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

**scumdog** · 16th September 2007, 17:31

Originally Posted by 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!!

So why WAS Watson stitched up?

Convenient patsy?

Was shagging a judges doris?

Tried to get off a speeding ticket??

**Swoop** · 16th September 2007, 17:56

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 16th September 2007, 18:18

Originally Posted by 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!

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** · 16th September 2007, 19:00

Originally Posted by Toaster

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.