Not being acquainted with the whole file I find it disappointing that when part of the dialogue was commenced with the Coroner after the trial, the main points made were that Scott was convicted, that there was no ketch, a statement qualified with the proviso that a ketch had been seen by the water taxi driver (Wallace) and another water taxi driver (Walsh) but that no one else saw this craft either.
So here we have a great example, 2 witnesses or even 1 are often sufficient for a critical sighting that might turn a murder trial but here 2 witnesses confirming something the Crown wants denied and it is said that nobody else confirmed seeing a ketch despite what the witnesses saw. Of course others saw a ketch, many others, but 2 men right at the 'coal front' of this case are not to be believed because no one else (that the Crown cared to call) saw a ketch. Great work. That's how a fabrication or denial of evidence becomes more important than evidence itself, 'Nobody else saw Mr Jones that morning [despite the fact that evidence was given that Mr Jones was indoors]' and so it goes, 2 people saw the ketch, but others didn't so there was no ketch. How can anyone win against that, it isn't logical and it isn't just.
But to the point of the communication with the Coroner, no ketch only 2 sightings of it (at least!) Then moving onto the 'evidence' as to the deaths of the couple which gave details from yes, 2 prison inmates - effectively paid artists of deception, one of whom was able to give details of Olivia's death, well, in fact how she didn't die. I quote 'As part of the prosecution evidence another inmate (2 is better, one liar giving another credibility and sharing in the proceeds - my addition) related to the Court how Watson 'told' him that he put the bodies in deep water. When it was put to Watson that the deaths had been the result of being hit with a solid object and then a strangling he said that it was not how it was done.' Consider that, a man on trial for murder, 'confessing' to a stool pigeon. And if you don't believe he was a stool pigeon why was he putting to Scott (as though he, the stooly, was either a police officer or a prosecutor) that it was a strangling after a bashing? Only one reason, to give the jury an picture of what happened, and it's negative confirmation that Scott 'apparently' denied it - of course for a Jury, they simply needed to think 'yes, of course he would deny it,' when in fact the assertion was never made, nor did the conversation take place.
But there we have it, among important things to be written to the Coroner, the conviction (which can't be denied,) no ketch (except that confirmed by 2 witnesses who gave evidence and many others not called.) And additionally the way in which Olivia was killed, but which 'of course' was denied by the cunning killer who was spilling his guts to an informer to ensure he would get convicted, and for the informer to ensure he would get paid. Right, got it. Makes sense.
Not much else in the communication, just as there is little weight for the conviction against Scott Watson. But to underline that, is the information that the 2'secret guys' and how the officer would be 'extremely reluctant' to call them to give evidence at the Coroner's hearing because of difficulties 'maintaining the anonymity and safety of these people.' Well, I'll swallow anything, not even questioning if the 2 stoolies by then were proving difficult, or if giving evidence in the 'Coroner's Court' was beyond their brief for which they were paid. I'd rather go for 'that it was adduced' at trial how a 'fellow' prison inmate was told by Watson how he 'killed' Olivia. 'It was during a struggle where she was fighting him inside the yacht and he strangled her.' Hold on, the other guy said he didn't strangle her. Take your pick it's all macabre, gruesome, and coming at you from paid informants. And it fits with a aged strategy for the police grooming evidence from stoolies, that the evidence is not consistent (in that both were saying exactly the same thing) but which however hold the same message - Scott denied killing in a particular way to 1 witness and said the opposite to the other. We don't want the impression witnesses were being schoold do we?
Though the reality remains, the evidence against Scott was that there was 'no ketch' that is apart from the one identified by Crown witnesses. Getting a headache? No wonder they needed a trial that went on for months - they had nothing more to say, than that, there was no ketch, and 2 paid informers. That's what the Police wrote to the Coroner, in the similar language on which the whole trial was developed, weasel words, prejudice, and an over abundance of evidence that meant nothing, and didn't nor could ever, confirm that there wasn't a ketch seen that day, before or afterwards, and that of 2 'men' one could say how Olivia's death happened, and one couldn't even though they weren't there and were singing for their supper.
No comments:
Post a Comment