Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Scott Watson: What is Collins and Kristy McDonald's answer to this?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Scott Watson and being Judith.":

Probability in nDNA is based on matching 9 of 13 loci in one chromosome then calculating the number of searches needed to find another person on a population the same 9 of 13 matching loci. For instance,if you start with 65,000 people and do a pairwise match of all of them, you are actually making over 2 billion separate comparisons (65,000 * 64,999/2)or a probability 2 billion to 1. If you aren’t just looking for a match on 9 specific loci, but rather on any 9 of 13 loci, then for each of those pairs of people there are over 700 different combinations that are being searched, so all told, you end up doing about 1.4 trillion searches!
The probability in the Sounds nDNA was given 28,000 to 1 or 28 thousand searches so given an unrelated population [female] of 2 million the number of matching locus was likely only 2-3 of 13 possible matches so in fact the DNA evidence is very weak as there would be several thousand females who would match at 2 loci. To find two unrelated people who matched at all 13 loci would be 114 trillion to 1 Only Identical Twins have identical nDNA though siblings can be identified and biological relationship to a parent identified because the number of locus likely to be the same is known but in forensic science DNA testing it is never to be assumed the sample and control are related as that eliminates the need to search multiple times. All the tests in the sounds testing proved was that the hair alleged to have been found on Blade was from Olivia OR Amelia Hope as the Mitochondrial DNA [mDNA]testing and they were both their mothers daughters. The mDNA was contaminated by foreign nDNA and as the same hairs were nDNA tested those tests contaminated as well. The usual source of hair contamination is a shared comb or hair brush. Given the control hairs were also contaminated it is very likely they had a common source, Olivia hair brush where the control samples were from and was delivered to the ESR lab about a half hour before the hairs were "found".

Okay, I don't know who anonymous is. But one thing I can tell is that he or she knows what they're talking about. I have previously read about the possibility of the 2 hairs belonging to either Olivia or her sister, also about the cross contamination by shared brush or comb. I know from evidence that the hairs were 'missed' on an earlier search but found on a subsequent search after 'samples' were delivered to the ESR lab. What I didn't know was the claim that the samples had so shortly been in the possession of the ESR when the hairs were 'found' on the blanket. I have read about the sample bag being 'split.' I'm going to ask a friend to apply under the OIC Act requesting the times relevant to the delivery of the samples and the 'new' blanket search.

I'll just touch on a few 'knowns' here, but Minister Collins and Ms McDonald QC have publicly stated after a recent review using the powers of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the 2 'hairs' are the bonding agent which holds 'together' the case against Watson. Both the Watson case and that of Pora share the same prosecutor. The Watson case, along with those of David Bain and Arthur Thomas share the common fact of critical 'evidence' being found on subsequent searches that was apparently missed earlier. Earlier on this blog a photo is produced of a yacht that could match the one that didn't 'exist' according to OIC of the Sounds Inquiry: Pope. Most of the country understands that both the description and identification of Watson have been recanted by the original witnesses, also that the evidence of the 'scratches' under the cabin hatch, the 'fresh' painting of The Blade, the 'complete' wiping down of The Blade subsequent to the disappearance of the couple have strong replies from those defending Watson. So strong in fact that the Minister appears to be forced to 'rely' on 2 hairs - which it can be argued 'appeared' just when police needed them and by sheer co-incidence just after they'd gathered more evidence that happens, as we see, to be the evidence which our Minister relies upon.

For those interested in reading about the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy try M Travis, May 1998 for RPOM in NZ. Here is one extract that our Minister and certainly not her 'advisor' McDonald appear to comprehend, firstly of the nature of the test of RPOM, how it is in fact reviewable and not just merely a opportunity of the Minister of the day to sweep a public safe guard under the carpet, treat it with contempt, nor the applicant or indeed public interest....

'In de Freitas v Benny [1976] (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed that “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.” Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that “the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore not justiciable,” as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case [1985] A.C. 374. Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Crown’s ability to pardon displays the necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability “in favour of an examination of the court’s capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each case.” Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the prerogative of mercy.'


  1. Considering that yacht shown prior on your blog was owned by a high court judge at the time of their disappearance and was known to be in the sounds at that time..
    one has to wonder why or why not its picture was ever shown to witnesses..
    Incredibly also the schooner Ladybird (I have been unable to confirm if this was the Peter Blake yacht or not ) was also in the sounds at that time sailed by two men one of whoms brother owned a marine brokers hence the yacht who then 2 years later went on to become home invaders and murderers..check out greig and mcmanaway
    These facts re the connections of these 2 yachts in my opinion makes this case a political nightmare so thereby suppressed..

  2. I swore I would not get interested in this case in order to retain the small amount of faith I had left in the system, however it appears that is impossible to do. Reading of the mistakes, (can we call them that when they are deliberate?) it is dejavu. How long will the NZ public continue to put up with this? Why aren't the people rioting in the streets? Do they not know the value of their freedom?

    We object slightly to the GCSB Bill, but as we are told, if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about ... well Thomas, Watson, Bain, Dougherty, Farmer, Haig, etc, weren't doing anything wrong either... we should all be worried.

  3. In Kristy McDonald's report on Scott Watson's case, she uses phrases like "in terms of the strength and cogency of the evidence I am not satisfied that had it been before the Jury it would have affected the overall result".

    Have they learned nothing from the PC ruling on Bain? The appeal court was strongly criticised by the PC for not sticking to their job, but instead going to the extent of deciding what the jury would have made of evidence. Now McDonald is doing the same thing - not evaluating whether the evidence, put before the jury, 'could' have made a difference, but taking it upon herself to require convincing that it 'would' have done.

    It is fair enough for the appeal court to get caught up in their own superior judgment...once. But for a QC who works for Crown Law to blatantly disregard that ruling and repeat the same injustice is, well, amateurish!

    1. I'm currently still reading the report. I'm certainly unimpressed by the comments she has made repeated in your first paragraph above. Not once, at least in her opening, has she 'stepped back' and looked at the totality of the evidence and how it might be effected by a number of the issues raised in the petition cumulatively. That position is the very same thing that Collins and Fisher accused Binnie of having done.