Sunday, August 19, 2018

Watson convictions failed.

I have good reason to believe the Watson convictions are dead in the water. To some extent I can offer an insiders point of view as to why the convictions are unlikely to be able to be sustained. A year ago the foremost reason would have been the failure of the forensic procedures used to 'recover' the 2 hairs, and later to distinguish whether, as offered by the Crown, they even belong to the missing teenager Olivia Hope. The doubts are beyond reasonable that first of all the 2 hairs came off Watson's boat (they were never seen or photographed their in a thorough forensic examination by scientists), then secondly and more importantly, that they were even Olivia's hair. There were approved standards for the recovery and examination of questioned hair from crime scenes, and sample hairs from other sources - everyone was broken in this case and what followed was a now discredit hair analysis 'system' whereby a 'trained' scientist uses extraordinary (and hoax) comparisons of the questioned hair and sample hairs. Such methods resulted in a 98% failure rate of convictions in the USA which used similar systems. In short no one has that infallible ability to compare hair so finely that can be relied upon as evidence - it is subjective trickery, a tool of the devil.

There are other devils in this case a few of which are discussed here.

Propensity evidence: Loosely described as a defendant who has an alleged propensity to commit a certain type of crime. In Watson we had a number of people who claimed that Scott had spoken about killing women or indeed confessed to doing so. The problem with that evidence is that the witnesses didn't say such things at the outset but developed their opinions over a number of police interviews as other hard evidence couldn't be found. Scott now has one man who was offered his freedom if he would agree that he was a drinking buddy of Scott's and who heard Scott make such claims. We'll call this guy Rambo. Rambo was made angry by the suggestion and told the police officer what he thought of him, which wasn't much. Rambo kept notes of the conversation and we now know the reason why the statement written out for Rambo wasn't signed. So not a single witness who wasn't bribed, bullied or cajoled to tell lies about SW's so called hidden violent tendencies.

The 2-trip theory: The secret trip Scott is alleged to have taken back to shore after being delivered to his own boat alone.  This evidence was dropped on the Jury after the close of evidence by now High Court Judge Paul Davison, the same man who prosecuted the innocent Teina Pora. A man who told the Jury that a positive sighting of a ketch by an excellent witness O Malley, a helicopter pilot, was not backed up by anyone else on the boat - when indeed the skipper of the boat had confirmed the sighting but was never called to give evidence. So that unconfirmed 2nd trip has been a topic of conversation for 2 decades. Now however, Scott has proof that police looked for evidence of the 2nd trip as early as January 98 and for the next 18 months to trial found none, in fact still have none now - the very reason Davison could call evidence to back up his claim.

Possibly the 3rd heading for now could be ketch sightings and the mystery man. Both of which police said never existed - everyone dreamed it up or were mistaken. This allowed the police to move from a two masted sailing ketch to a Watson's small sloop and indeed to a man who was on his boat alone and vulnerable to allegations by paid witnesses and those with torches held to their feet. The police aided this enterprise by deleting evidence, 100s of time. This is not conjecture but something that has been proved. Overall however, do not forget if there was no mystery ketch or no mystery man, the ketch and the man that scores of people saw should have been discounted from this inquiry 20 years ago. Remember that there is a list of over 60 people who more than likely saw the ketch, some even touched it, or rowed around it in appreciation of it's fine style.

As for those deletions it is now proven that they didn't only happen with statements and reports but also with the Photo File. Photos of the ketch are missing. The forensic file was tampered with, witness statements were tampered with and so was the Photo file. The proof is at hand, I and others have seen it - the majority of it is with this Government with more to come.

Corrupted file, corrupted witness statements and evidence, tampered with forensic evidence, photographic and video evidence negates the Watson convictions as does the fact that there is absolutely no proof, and never will be, that Scott did not go back to his boat alone, and the same absolute proof that the missing couple Ben and Olivia were never on the Blade, let alone aboard it in a raft up off three boats with nearly a dozen people aboard. That's the facts, or just a few them from a vast file defending Scott Watson. Watch this space.


23 comments:

  1. I thought O`mally conceded ,that it was Alliance he and the crew saw. And made a statement to say so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No again, O Malley only caught a glimpse of the ketch which he indicated in the Court as about the distance of Court wall away. He narrowed the time down to late afternoon early evening He, like many others that saw the mystery ketch, distinctly remembered it. He was a helecoptor pilot with a sharp eye no doubt.

      Delete
  2. O`mally also stated the ketch was there for two days at the lodge over NY Its not possible thats the mystery ketch ! There are plenty of photos and video prior to 12pm NYE that show no mystery ketch but show Alliance was there for those two days .:)

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, in fact the skipper of the Yolande recalled seeing the Mystery Ketch and told police - but he was deliberately not called.

    ReplyDelete
  4. O`mally wasn`t called either....Sorry, im reading O`mally`s statements .. Where are you getting your info from..? O`mally stated, they saw the Mystery ketch arrive about 2.30pm NYE, this coincides with the arrival of Alliance at 3pm NYE. This is against all that the MRG have stated. They say the MM arrived late at night under darkness. Also noted , was the witnesses from Yolande who said, `the ketch was there for two days. Also against MRG and other supporters. I dont get where your coming from here ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right out of your depth. O'Malley gave evidence at page 3193 of the notes of evidence. The skipper of the boat he was on also saw the 'double ended, canoe-style ketch, passed it on the portside at 6pm. Don't guess or try to misinform people. No guests on the Yolande said the ketch was there for 2 days, you are just making up lies.

      Delete
  5. No, the skipper and O`mally said it was there for two days. That makes it impossible for it to be a mystery ketch. Further they state, ` we saw it about 2pm NYE coming into Furno`. Just sailing past all the other boats and water taxis, as you do. This is completely against what the MRG report is stating who say, `the ketch arrived under darkness NYE`. Alliance arrived 3pm NYE from fishing and had been there for two days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mystery ketch as per above by Greg Taylor was not in Endeavour Inlet at 2pm, you're dreaming.

      Delete
  6. Just reading police statements Greg Taylor made. `we were just rounded Marine head into Endeavour inlet.`The boat was heading in at the same time as us, it was on our left ,travelling under power. No sails up.....Then describes the blue stripe , portholes and hull etc. Reasonable conclusion is , he saw Alliance, including some gold paint ( It name lettering).. This is from his statement and backed by Omally...True

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've just published above his exact words in describing the mystery ketch and you have the time wrong as well. Unfortunately you have no idea of what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The witness was Greg Taylor , as i was only discussing O`Mally at the time. Your reply is a bit aggressive, implying im making up lies....You could just ask what file or information i have . :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, tell me what file you have? Taylor was not a witness BTW - deliberately left out because he would have confirmed the O'Malley account.

      Delete
  9. 14th of January (4 days after his 1st statement) Taylor said he said boat he had seen was 'a very distinctive older-style wooden boat (of an)old sailing ship design.........35 to 40 feet long...with a wide blue stripe and portholes.'The shape of its hull was 'an old design with the stern as a round double end as shown in the police sketch.' Check out pg 130 Trial by Trickery for the trick police fooled the jury with - until now.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have nothing wrong, i have just stated what they have stated to police. Perhaps thats why the defence didn`t call them to the stand ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Crown called O'Malley. No one called Taylor - he would have damaged the case for the Crown and we can surmise in the massive file the defence did not know about him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Taylor was a witness, just because he didn`t appear in court doesn`t mean he hasn`t made a statement. Both saw the same thing at the same time. Or the defence didn`t call hime because it sounded like Alliance. They must of known about him if they knew about O`Mally... Alliance im sure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I didn't say he hadn't made a statement in fact I quoted from one above where he reveals he saw the mystery ketch. I'll tell you again O Malley gave evidence, it was referred to the Davison's closing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. when i say witness, i mean a witness to seeing the vessel we are talking about. And the defence did know about both men sighting the vessel. This was clearly proof , if they wernt giving a close description of Alliance. Its the timings of Alliance , MRG , and Yolande.. that show its not the MK

      Delete
  14. You don't know what the defence knew and you don't have the evidence you are just guessing - or trying reinstate the bull crap that the Alliance was the MK, when many of the witnesses who saw it also knew the Alliance. I am not going to publish anymore posts from you that lack evidence, not what you imagine or think you know what people- thought, but documented evidence from the file - stating paper or page numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Im only talking about these two men and their statements . If my reasoning is correct i believe calling Taylor wasnt a good option for the defence, or they would of called him. They were desperate for ketch witnesses . Are you not open to another opinion, or is the blog just what you want people to see ? Its a logical conclusion that a jury would not be able to tell if these men had seen Alliance or saw the mystery ketch. As there was only ever a rough sketch.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am open to the facts, you are simply playing a tired tune for which there is no evidence. You stared off with the 'saw the Alliance' theme and can't accept that the evidence, including that given in the Court does not support that. You then guess as to why the defence didn't call Taylor - you're dreaming.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This tired tune you refer to , is the crux of the case. The mystery ketch ! Can i correct you in saying O`mally and Taylor were not called as witnesses by the crown. The two ( from Yolande ) who were called did not see the ketch.. O`mally and Taylor only saw one ketch NYE blue with portholes and gold lettering. That with the early arrival time of 3pm makes it near certain that it is Alliance. And of course Alliance`s name is in gold lettering. The mystery ketch did not arrive until after dark .9 pmish (MRG) Also, at 3pm so many boats were just sitting on the swing, near impossible to not notice another distinctive ketch. But no..... no one saw another ketch.You need to read thru Omally and Taylors statements...Timing is all wrong

    ReplyDelete
  18. Timing is exactly wrong. You are wasting time:

    "On one of the two trips back to Furneaux I passed a ketch that was a double-ended old “barge tender” identical to the photo in the paper.

    I have had a lot of experience with the sea and know that they designed the double-ended ketches so that if the vessel turns on its mooring, it doesn’t get swamped by the sea.

    I’d previously heard the description of the suspect vessel but it hadn’t registered until I saw the sketch in the news and then I realised the connection.

    The vessel I saw had the double-ended bow, identical to the sketch.

    I didn’t take much notice of the ketch and passed it about 100 metres away. I can’t remember whether it had twin masts or not. I don’t recall a name for the vessel.

    I can’t remember if I saw the ketch on the first trip back to Furneaux at 2.00 pm or the second trip at 6.00 pm when Bruce O’MALLEY would have been on board. If he saw the ketch, then it would have been the second trip.

    When I saw the ketch, I passed it on the portside. It was in the middle of the channel heading towards Furneaux Lodge. It was motoring in, travelling at about 5 knots. At a guess, travelling at that speed, it would take about 20 minutes from where I saw it (Marine Head) to reach Furneaux.

    The ketch was definitely heading towards Furneaux. I never saw anybody on board the ketch.

    I don’t know whether any of the passengers on board would have seen the ketch or taken much notice of it. None are really yachties" And so much for the 2 Crown witnesses when the skipper said the above.

    ReplyDelete