Scott Watson file...

Watson's father Chris said the IPCA report went further than he expected and was official condemnation of the police investigation.
He said police should be concerned about the issues raised over the way witnesses were handled to identify Watson.
"It goes right to the foundation of it - if they had done their job properly, would they have had enough for an arrest?"
He said there were avenues the IPCA could have pursue

The above comments are an interesting insight into Chris Watson and what appears to be his belief that the police failed to investigate properly the murders for which his son has been convicted. Chris's beliefs probably stem from a straight forward, down to earth response of a man with faith that the world, and the police in particular, are fundamentally incapable of repeating what has happened with Farmer, Bain, Dougherty, Ellis, Thomas and others. All those cases of course have featured police breaking the rules in pursuit of a conviction.

To be most specific they are cases where the evidence 'sought' was that supporting an overview that the suspect was guilty to the exclusion of others and the evidence to prove that needed to be prioritised. But again, as I've written about before, someone pulled the strings, someone turned a 'blind eye' to improper investigating, overlooked the ambiguity of evidence being found on 're-searches' etc. Indeed someone requested the completion of those tasks and it was the Officer In Charge whose staff, for whatever reason, complied - no doubt some of whom were hand picked for such work.

Ultimately it appears that Chris Watson remains a believer in the system as did Aaron Farmer's mother who wrote letter after letter believing that someone would do something to free her innocent boy from prison. Chris Watson seems to believe that the system will answer to itself willingly and in good time and who could blame him. But I hope Chris also sees that the system protects itself with limited lines of inquiry, the lines of which the inquirer may not have the bravery or consciousness to step over. From that point Chris's beliefs could come back to a closer truth - one that the Courts should observe without failure that when the evidence offered toward a conviction fails the test of credibility, or lawfulness, the case should be dismissed. And not be viewed as an 'opportunity' to rely on other evidence, as in the Watson case, such as the tales of 'convenient' cell mate to cell mate 'confession,' particularly so when the helpful witness has already admitted being a liar.

Cases like this, would get chucked out in many jurisdictions, not necessarily for a single reason (although a sufficiently strong one would do) but where issues of identification are prejudicial, where evidence missed the first time is miraculously found on second 'search' where a case in constructed in the public mind even before an arrest or trial - those failures must be grouped together to dismiss the case or pardon the prisoner already convicted. The longer NZ allows repeat after repeat of cases like the Watson case and those mentioned above, and sit on their hands or at least preserve a mostly inert, or grudging response we are all poorer for it.

In most cases in normal life mistakes are accept, deliberate false imprisonments fall outside that category except for one respect, that the public continue to rightfully expect that the 'system' performs for the Public Interest and not to 'self-protect.' Scott Watson should have been let go a long time ago, the case against him has been found wanting by an independent investigation by IPCA, and further abroad there remains incredulity that a conviction was even sought against a man primarily targeted as fitting a profile induced in the mind of Rob Pope. Let the man go.