More "tricks" are found in the Watson case.

With the gold 2-hair evidence now tarnished by time and science, there is the chance to continue to investigate further alleged evidence against Scott by firstly adding it to the demise of the hair evidence that the RPOM reviewer (Sir Graham: SG) set aside, as he did with the hatch cover scratches and "neutralise" the secret prison informer evidence.

That's a big start that Scott has never had before. As mentioned, recently I have been going over evidence not heard by the Jury that includes the scow the Alliance which the Crown said was the "ketch" witnesses saw at Furneaux Lodge. One witness, a naiad driver actually identified the Alliance in a first statement/job sheet as well as the MK. He drew the MK as can be seen in the Doubt doco where he is shown in footage giving evidence.

The witness had eventually changed his account dramatically. His new account apparently passed all scrutiny - except for at least 2 things. The Alliance had a "dog house" steering cabin at the extreme aft of the boat which was 2metres high. He saw a couple of people sitting on the "dog house" when there was a party going on around midnight.

When amongst the 50 or so people who saw the suspect ketch many described its cabin as low, to the stern but forward of the rear of the boat where the couple was seen sitting. None of those people described a dog house which no international ketch of any era had. Nor was there room between the dog house and the aft end of the boat for 2 people to sit.

It's clear the naiad driver was indeed mistaken between the Alliance and the MK on which someone could easily sit on the cabin with their feet on stable wood below them and able to get to their feet by simply standing, also a place where a couple could be sitting behind the low cabin whilst the boat traveled throughout the Sounds noticed by a number of witnesses. Some witnesses also said that the couple sat with their hands behind their backs. By a twist of bad luck some of those statements were "lost", but the record of them being given to police remains.

Tricks like this will never be used in the Watson case again in the rare likelihood it is simply not just thrown out, but rather returns for a retrial where the Crown case will be ripped to bits.

More Hidden Evidence in the Watson Case

                                              More Hidden Evidence in the Watson Case.

At Trial:

Mr. Antunovic exposed from Mr. Anderson the very real likelihood that Mr. Anderson was mixed up between the mystery ketch and the much different looking scow the Alliance, with its lack of sails and ropework of an international yacht. The Judge appears to reject Mr. Antunovic’s s claim of a disparity between what the defence could employ to lead witnesses, compared to the Crown. Reading the notes of evidence tends to swing the argument in favour of Mr. Antunovic. Set out in the RPOM proper indicates that there was a tension in the trial that was not always inert. An example was the interruption by the Judge of the opening address by the defence. The reversal of his decision to not allow the highly prejudicial evidence of Mr. and Mr. C. The information by Peter Firmin could have caused Judge Heron to maintain the embargo on the evidence of Mr. and Mr. C and place one on the secret witness A and B (the prison inmates.)

Also, noteworthy from the Anderson cross-examination was his admission that he had met with a prosecutor before the trial for an hour or ‘maybe’ more. This continues the suggested pattern of Ms. Crutchley, having been named in a job sheet which exposed deleted and amended statements in the Tony Kiernan file, as being within the knowledge of the prosecution, specifically that Mr. Anderson was not going to ‘shift’ on his evidence of putting Mr. Watson on the Blade alone – the fundamental problem for the prosecution. Note the number of times police went back and back to Anderson.  Also, where Mr. Kiernan attests now, that he (as the job sheet discloses) had not only claimed to have seen a ketch but also drew it for police who removed all trace of this, apart from (importantly for Mr. Watson) the job sheet which proves Kiernan’s claim of stating the original existence of the mystery ketch, and his denouncement of it not being the Alliance. It was suggested by police to Mr. Mc Noe (another person, who along with his wife saw the ketch) just before he gave evidence that a long time had passed, and he should forget about the ketch (see Doubt doco). There is good evidence to show across a range of witnesses’ material being deleted and changed. There is also now the confirmation of the pressure put on Ted and Eyvonne Walsh to say there was no ketch, in fact, Mr. Walsh had indicated to him, the same as it was to Guy Wallace, that the pair were suspects unless they changed their ketch evidence. Another job sheet cited earlier mentions ‘questions’ to witnesses before the trial from the prosecution indicating the depth of the prosecution's involvement with witnesses whose testimony changed.

The new affidavit of Eyvonne Walsh in which Eyvonne describes that her late husband was told by police that he was one of the 3Ws, that is Watson, Wallace, and Walsh who were the killers or accomplice’s and that he needed to essentially co-operate by forgetting about the ketch to save his own skin. Note here the re-examination of Ted Walsh at the trial, its powerful and lucid finish. The details in Eyvonne’s affidavit of pictures of a ketch taken on the 2^nd of January 1998 were taken from her and Ted but never returned.

Rachel McKay appeared on the Doubt documentary saying that after her police statement was released she found that her information that had been contained in it, mentioning a ketch, the possible missing couple, and the possible mystery man, was deleted. Rachel McKay has since forwarded a copy of the statement and included a letter giving details of her actual evidence given to the police and the accidental nature of acquiring her statement in recent years. This is found in the attachments and provides further evidence of secret ‘cleansing’ of information from the police and prosecution files along with her explanation why she asked for her statement many years later, as being part of the preparation for her appearance in the Doubt documentary. Junior police were not acting without direction, long after the inquiry was over Mr. Pope, by then a Deputy Commissioner had more direct control of deflecting legitimate inquiries or information away. The letter to the MRG appears to be a deliberate lie he misunderstood the potential consequences of, he also failed to report on the investigation he instructed Mr. and Mrs. Futter he would give them an update about.

The unexplainable #13727 document filed by ex-Detective John Rae recording dialogue alleged to have happened with a David Smith about a ketch sighting involving the boarding of the missing couple:

In this document, Mr. Rae reports a conversation about a statement that is not known to have been discovered to the defence. The conversation/job sheet is dated 14/12/98 and oddly refers to a statement alleged to be hearsay with no explanation why another police officer would have recorded a hearsay statement. Mr. Rae goes into detail with David Smith that the described ketch was, apparently like Mr. Smith, not in Furneaux over the new year period and says the shape of the stern ‘as described (by who, where and when is not mentioned)’ as the ‘inability to bend wood to match this description.’ And says He told him about the ‘Hans Anderson boats.’

Mr. Rae reports that Mr. Smith said the ketch was pretty old looking to him and that he, Mr Rae, ‘explained that they were made of fiberglass but made to look like wood.’

It finishes with ‘He accepted the explanation as given.’

Why Mr. Rae would take the time to speak to one witness when many 100s were simply ignored requires examination, as does the oddness of the job sheet itself. The ability to bend wood is at least centuries old and remains an established craft.

Some of Donald Anderson's information was deleted, one whole deletion was the undated doc # 13696. Which by number could date that document as being possible after the Watson arrest but before the end of the same year. The applicant can never know what was deleted in the 945 fully deleted documents, the reviewer may also never know but the applicant expects there will be a vigorous effort made to find deleted and changed material. The applicant considers that the Reviewer will comment on the practice of deleted documents rather than saving them to the file as it is common in miscarriages and a practice that must stop.

The Anderson doc #20470 was said to show to Bruce Davidson with the deletions in that document intact. It was a document filed by Mr. Fitzgerald on 5/8/98. The only confirmation for that on file is from ex-police member Mr. Rae.

Doc #40977 29/4/98 Anderson interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald

Fitzgerald put to Anderson that he had not mentioned taking a person out to the Blade in the first 3 statements, #10070 5/1/98, #10065 8/1/98, #10406 201/1/98. In fact, Mr. Anderson had not been asked about that. He had been asked about a ketch primarily and the missing couple. In his first statement, he said ‘I can recall the ketch that you are looking for, although I couldn’t give you a description as I didn’t take much notice of it. In his second statement, he said ‘I can vaguely remember seeing the double masted sailing boat. It was anchored on its own about 30 metres from the raft of boats which included the Nugget (same relative place as described by Robert Mullens and near the Kalaugher/Kirkwood mystery ketch plotted position).

‘I can recall going around the back and seeing a lot of gear on the stern’ In his 3^rd statement Anderson says, ‘I am sure the vessel I was thinking of was definitely the Alliance.’

There was no emphasis on the point about the Blade or Mr. Watson. It should be noted again that Alliance was a motor-powered scow with flat sides, a flat bottom able to negotiate shallow water moorings, and no rails but a rather low bulwark. It did not have a lot of ropework to the rear. The Alliance was known to many locals including those working at the Lodge. There appears to be no explanation why Fitzgerald would put to Anderson as having left out of his first 3 statements something that had never been put to him. Fitzgerald asks Mr. Anderson to show him the photographs of the yachts where he had ‘taken the male to’. Anderson indicates an area around Mina Cornelia and Rippa (where the Blade was agreed by the Defence and Prosecution to have been rafted up.) Fitzgerald writes that he explained to Anderson that he still believed it unusual that he had not mentioned this trip in any of his first 3 statements, despite that he had not taken the statements and the purpose of the statements are clear to any reader. The Crown or police did not want Mr. Watson being put back on his sloop alone, for the Crown case he needed to be the mystery man with the couple, and for the ketch to be the blade. Fitzgerald did not prevail in seeking Anderson to change his statement.

In an earlier statement taken from Guy Wallace #20931 on 6/3/98, Mr. Fitzgerald placed a pen over the portholes of the ketch that Wallace had drawn and his hand over the rear mast before showing Wallace a photo of Watson’s yacht. He asked if they looked similar. He reported that Mr. Wallace:

‘Stated that they looked very similar, but added that to take the mast and portholes out was too much of a difference and that he knows he dropped them off to a ketch’

Mr. Fitzgerald was pointedly engaged in having one witness say he had not dropped off Mr. Watson alone (because he had never mentioned that in his first 3 statements) to the Blade and another witness to ‘imagine’ that the ketch without one mast and portholes looked the same as the Blade. That certain police (including Mr. Fitzgerald in many examples) sought to have witnesses change their statements is evident. The question for the Reviewer is to determine why and the legitimacy of such behaviour.

The (name suppressed) deletions referred to the RPOM proper where job sheets by Mr. Fitzgerald record changes (and deletions) during which the course of interviews with Mr. Fitzgerald the witness substantially changes his statements to disfavour Mr. Watson.

At the end of the Kalaugher/Wallace interview (tape3) where Mr. Wallace speaks of his dealings with police during the Watson case, and where he reveals an NZ police officer visited him in Cairns in 2001 seeking him to agree to sign documentation that he had never seen the Ketch. At the end of tape 3, Mr. Wallace mentions hearing a scream around the time of 5am, as the Reviewer will know there are many witnesses recorded in the RPOM proper as having heard a scream at approximately the same time.

The affidavit/statement of Eyvonne Walsh gives details of what she and Ted endured because of maintaining they saw the mystery ketch. She also mentions photographing the mystery ketch on the 2^nd of January turning the photos and negatives over to the police and never seeing them again. This is not 2 prisoners singing for their supper, but rather a collection of honest people recollecting events from which a clear pattern emerges of a ketch and Mr. Watson returning to his sloop alone.

The burying of the Futter, McKay, and Karena evidence helpful to Scott Watson.

The reviewer is asked to reflect that there was no tangible evidence against Mr. Watson at the stage, witnesses were still reporting having seen a 2 masted ketch with brass portholes and being pressured or ignored for doing so, the search for a ketch had been long shut down according to the material here, in the RPOM proper, and according to comments in the IPCA reports. That gives pause to consider if police were driven to prove a case against Mr. Watson and no one else despite a dearth of evidence. In the coming months of 1998 entire statements would disappear or be changed. The forgoing situations with statements and job sheets, only detrimentally impact one person – Scott Watson. A Miscarriage of Justice is apparent, the case is shot with no prospect of ever proceeding again against Mr. Watson – as it should never have done 20 years ago when Donald Anderson persisted with the truth that he dropped off Scott Watson alone, and when Noel Reeves denied Watson had stolen is dingy and Dave Mahony refused to say he heard an outboard in or near the raft up in the small hours. There was no second trip by Mr. Watson and at least 2 men refused to lie about that.

Important Note

The reviewer has the MRG report, Doubt documentary, and other footage of John and Karen Futter who rang police after a disturbing sighting of what may have been the couple on the 5^th of January in an isolated part of the sounds. This sighting is recalled in detail on pages 51-53 of the MRG.

The report notes that John and Karen were told by police when asking for an update on the outcome of their evidence being investigated that they had never called the police. They quickly prove they had. The report later records that in 2005 John wrote to police recording his information again. In due course, he heard from Mr. Pope that on the completion of his inquiry he would formally respond. The promised response from Mr. Pope never materialised.

The Reviewer should note page 56 of the current MRG report detailing a report by an international psychic, Margaret Birkin who indicated the bodies of the missing couple were lying in about 100ft of water directly between Maud Island and Tawhitinui Island in the Tawhitinui Reach, Pelorous Sound. The exact coordinates she gave were latitude 41.02.472S and longitude 173.50.440E. Other details are revealed which include that bodies were said to be wrapped in sail and weighted down with a chain and an anchor. A computer engineer, Peter Luke, dragged a metal detector over the area of the coordinates when the metal detector went off the scale.

Mr. Pope according to the current MRG report appears to have misled MRG researchers as to documentation he claimed to have discovered to the defence as copies of letters in the RPOM proper show. His indication to Mr. and Mrs. Futter that they would be notified of the outcome of their complaint/report to police in 2005 was not honoured.

Police undertook a search of Cook Strait for bodies on fundamentally flawed data. In the circumstances of this case, the search may have been orchestrated to implant in the public mind that the bodies were dumped in Cook Strait despite police not finding them That was a prejudicial implication against the Petitioner whose boat was alleged to have been seen there.

The Petitioner believes he has fully demonstrated his complete innocence but considers that if police, as it appears, undertook a search to purportedly both satisfy the families of the missing couple and the public, then it would appear logical that searches should be considered in the areas identified by the Futter’s and by Peter Luke. Whilst Peter Luke undertook his metallic scan because of information from a psychic, something police have done over the years, he had specific coordinates and did strike a reading. The Futter’s meanwhile is credible folk, very clear about their recollections and supported by having sent their information to police with other information revealed in the MRG report and the media. It must be fully expected that the petitioner sees the police inactivity of the Futter, and similar files, as the continuing unwillingness for police to listen to witnesses and potential witnesses, even today when all evidence points away from your Petitioner.

The Petitioner’s plea does not rely on the lost couple’s bodies or traces of them being found in a position or found at all, but he points out that police only undertook a search supportive of their false case against him. For the benefit of the Hope and Smart families, and the public generally, he asks if is not time that information unsuitable to the case made against himself, should be thoroughly investigated with the same vigour he expects to be applied to the tampered with evidence and evidence manipulation by police and Prosecution which resulted in his 20 years of imprisonment. It may take specially sworn constables to do this.

Some of the missing material from Scott Watson's second RPOM

Here follows a small example of how police were not concentrating on finding a ketch but said they were. It also demonstrates their lack of interest in a lone sailor on a ketch that was not Scott Watson who owned a sloop. This and other material was critical for the reviewer of Scott's 2nd RPOM to consider, as it shows not only the nature of the inquiry but how potential evidence that couldn't be attributed to Scott was ignored at a point when the public still believed police were looking for a Ketch. Some electronic links and one name is removed from the following which is only the tip of the iceberg of strong evidence supporting Scott Watson that wasn't considered by Sir Graham Panckhurst. Once again Scott Watson didn't get a fair go and unless there is a miracle a heap of new evidence won't be considered by the Court of Appeal. 

RPOM Supplementary Material 6/1/18

Late Material

As noted earlier information helpful to Mr. Watson has emerged since the beginning of the New Year. This has made it necessary to draw a line at some point with material supporting the RPOM proper.

Today (6/1/18) more information arrived as per the below links, which is apparent as needing to be included. 

Withheld:

The ‘Waves.doc’ is a copy of a seizure warrant application by police on the 22^nd of January 1998 of a 2 masted ketch ‘Waves’ on that date moored in Nelson but which was at Endeavour Inlet on NYE 1997. It is unknown to the defence if any warrant was in fact issued, although it is known the owner, Withheld, was interviewed by police on the 27/98. He was a lone yachtsman who had not contacted police, he fitted the profile of interest to the inquiry team. After NYE he continued sailing the sounds alone, his ketch was never searched. The report on the interview was recorded:

          When spoken to he answered all questions in an open manner.  He showed no signs of being deceitful when answering questions.

 CRAIG states that he does not know either the victims or Scott WATSON and has not seen the yacht ‘Blade'.

Conclusion:

In the absence of any further information and the facts obtained to date,  I am of the opinion that David Brian CRAIG should be eliminated from this enquiry as a suspect.

A quick look at the Wallace statement #30380 above reveals that the 22^nd of January 98 was a Saturday, the same day when Ms. Vintiner’s search of the 2 bags holding the ‘blanket hairs’ revealed no blond hairs (as recorded in the Doyle report sequence of events and the RPOM proper). Essentially this was the point in time when the Petitioner should have been excluded from the inquiry. Nothing on the Blade and nothing from the blanket, no witnesses putting him with the couple, clear evidence that he had been dropped off to the Blade alone. A day earlier, #30380 tells us that Guy Wallace went to Nelson after a report of ketches there, one of which may have matched the mystery ketch he had drawn but, which he was being told vehemently, never existed. No doubt he was considering the potential ‘murder rap’ as being one of the alleged 3 Ws, would be resolved if indeed one of the ketches in Nelson was the one, he saw in Endeavour Inlet. He could shout out he’d found it and police could go to hell. His statement records he reported this to police by phone but was told, no, they were no longer looking for ketches.

The link here provides that Jan 21 and 22 1998 were Wednesday and Thursday respectively. This has not been verified independently.

Withheld:

The fact is the police, at least those who completed the warrant for ‘bodies and body parts, were still looking for a ketch. They were also looking for a ‘lone yachtsman.’ It is surprising Mr. Withheld could be excluded because of his open manner, shown by the ‘subjective’ impression of no ‘signs of deceit’ when answering questions. This despite that he didn’t contact the police and was a lone sailor on a 2 masted white ketch. It remains, however, that on the critical day when no blond hairs were found from the bag searches by Ms. Vintiner, a search was felt not deemed necessary of a yacht that fitted the description of the mystery ketch. The police were having it both ways. Tony Kiernan also the owner of a 2 masted ketch did not have his yacht the Nugget searched when 2 detectives came aboard in Picton to take the 2nd statement from him.

According to the record, there were 7,500 known discovered files in the Watson case. The prospective ability to have the defence comprehend the case, note all the fine detail of material in the discovered files was not the priority for police or the prosecution, despite that the prosecution were Officers of the Court. The fact is that material information that was deleted, altered, or hidden was known to them, and was never brought to the attention of the Court. It is well understood now the Crown benefited from this malfeasance and appears to have taken part in it. This should be able to be concluded, to determine if it was police and/or the Crown who broke the law, also if there was collusion between them to wrongly convict Mr. Watson with ‘doctored’ and ‘cleansed files’. Job sheets show the prosecution was asking police to speak to witnesses again whose stories would change, whose statements were altered. Potential witnesses with critical information for the Jury such as Beryl Karena and Rachel McKay had their statements neutered, and the help they would obviously be for the defence case was not discovered as required. 

It is apparent the defense has had obvious resource difficulties and, as in most cases of Miscarriages of Justice, underfunded and being unable to screen properly every document discovered to them.  Over the years there has been the need for the wrongly imprisoned to rely on individuals volunteering their time and money. On receipt of the Waves warrant the writer immediately contacted the 3 of the 4 major researchers of the case Mike Kalaugher, Keith Hunter, and Warwick Jenness. The warrant was news to them. Keith recalled the Wallace doc that corresponded with the warrant and sent it immediately. Mike recalled the vessel, its owner, and where it is now. Warwick had the statement on hand, along with photos of the Wave.

At this early time of appreciating this new information, certain points can be made as to the dates 21/1/98 and 22/1/98

# Progress was stalled, with no evidence found against Scott Watson, he was in the clear. Ms. Vintiner was calling it a ‘hard’ case, the type she didn’t ‘like’.

#A warrant was considered to search a 2 masted white ketch with blue running through the white. A ketch Guy Wallace later said he ultimately realized wasn’t the one he’d seen in Endeavour Inlet which the couple and a stranger had been dropped off onto. This presents again the blindness and tunnel vision of investigators to all possibilities and potential breadth of the investigation. Wallace was told bluntly on the phone that police were not looking for a ketch and impatiently asked if there was anything else the police could help him with, on that day he had not told the woman on the phone his name.

#The very existence of the seizure warrant, sworn or otherwise, is new evidence despite that it may have laid in discovered documents for 20 years. The defence could have made great purchase of this doc, in a case where police had said there was no mystery ketch but had prepared to pull a sloop from the water to look for bodies and body parts. As only one person had been on Waves, the defence could point out to the Jury how a 2 masted ketch was not searched because the owner was ‘decided’ not to be deceitful. The defence could argue about the pressure put on those who insisted they’d seen a ketch while police had said there wasn’t one at the same time as preparing to pull one from the water. They could have said that police had no clue what was going on but had stuck with the ‘hope’ of some miracle evidence after ‘searching again’ – like that taken from a bag with 1 ‘accidental’ cut when it should have had 4 cuts.

Of course, Defence would have had months to make something of this material, which could have been alerted to them as a priority point of interest in the discovered file, but police, in this case, didn’t do that, they hid and changed things instead, pressured witnesses into confusion, or to tell downright lies.

The ketch Waves were a vessel moored alone, it had the similarity to the mystery ketch that the Blade did not, it showed green on police map 8, had 2 masts instead of one, white primary colour with blue. It also had a lone person on board. It was displaced from the calculated position of the mystery ketch, in the same way, the Blade was, but unlike the Blade was not in a raft up with 2 other vessels with 11 people aboard. There is no suggestion that Withheld was the abductor of the couple despite that he and his ketch fitted the criteria identified by many witnesses, while SW and the Blade fitted only one, that he was alone – yet not a single witness put him with the couple or indeed with Amelia Hope, her partner, Wallace, Morrissey, and Dyer. Nor did HT1 who’d seen Watson leave the jetty and never come back.