Watson: what a Miscarriage of Justice looks like from the inside.
(Format is from another document hence the reproduction difficulties)
Chris Bishman #10055, 12/1/98 (Did
not give evidence)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jSJtEzr_s_j2Ijak1nLkT1hS2YQNIBI2
(Format: Word Document)
10055 St 12/1/98 Bishman is one of the people Perkins
describes as able to back up his story. His description differs from that of
Perkins but does say the person has 2 days of growth and may have been wearing a
denim shirt. He does not identify Watson. He refers to conversations about
Tonga and Amanda Egden. Spoke to the person for some length of time but the
person did not speak about yachts or trips overseas. Was shown both compusketch
pictures and said neither looked like the person. This however does not lead to
a fresh compusketch being made a clear demonstration that the trail of the potentially
real offender is being ignored. Besides not identifying Scott Watson, Bishman
said the conversation went to 4am which the reader will know coincides with the
evidence of many others and includes the stranger in the Wallace Naiad around 4am,
along with Ben, Oliva, Morressy and Dyer. Again we have exclusion of Watson as
the offender by a witness not called to give evidence.
Bishman job sheet
#40958 29/4/98
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1b0Mp8Wkol8G_kQCpU6LNMQEf6Btryw_p
(Format: Word Document)
40958 JS 29/4/98 Bishman 4 months after failing to identify
Scott Watson he identifies Watson from montage ‘B’ ‘blink photo.’ See Trial by
Trickery pg. 114 to learn that not one witness identified Watson from montage
‘A’ and it was only after the ‘blink photo’ was utilised in montage ‘B’ that he
was identified by anybody. Also, note the hair difference.
Tim Everist, 8/1/98 Statement 20022 at 11 am. (Did not give evidence)
20022 ST 8/1/98 (11am) Tim was part of a large group of teenagers
who had headed to the Lodge to see in the new year. By the various accounts, they had been drinking before their arrival and continued once arriving. On
page 2 he says he was talking to a man in the bar he says didn’t hear anything
about a yacht when he was talking to him. He speaks about a “whole lot of 5th
formers” advancing on the man over comments he had made. On page 3 he repeats
that he never heard anything about a ketch from “this guy.” He says he can’t
recall what the man was wearing but that he may have had a checkered shirt.
1016 ST 8/1/98 (1.45am) Everist. Shown a photograph and
identifies somebody.
11557 JS 19/2/98 Everist says “I never said he had a ketch.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of boat he had.” He was referring to his
first 2 statements on the same day. This was a phone call where Everist must
have been told that he had said that the man had a ketch, he denies any
knowledge of that. Everist would be an important witness in the event of a retrial
– his experience clearly was that police wanted him to “repeat” something had
previously said and he was clearly adamant that he would not.
11863 ST 19/3/98 Everist shows Montage B and identifies photograph
3 as the person he identifies in his statement.
13360 JS 14/9/98 Everist now refers to the person as Watson.
Detective Fitzgerald completes JS
No mention of “ketch to Tonga’ in any of Everist’s
statements.
The last recorded police interaction with Everist appears
to be this job sheet where the name Watson is mentioned for the first time in
any paperwork or job sheet attributed to contact with Tim Everist. The job
sheet is signed by Detective Fitzgerald, who among other events in operation
Tam, his dealings with the witness (suppressed) are recorded in the RPOM proper
where Fitzgerald claimed that it was unlikely that Watson would have had much
to do with (suppressed) or indeed trust him, over a period (including a deleted
statement which the defence was, fortunately, able to refresh) (suppressed)
somehow became a confidant of Mr. Watson. Furthermore, the video interview of Guy Wallace is also included in the second RPOM where
it is recorded Fitzgerald repeatedly lying to Wallace to:
· Make
him believe that he was a suspect with evidence held against him, also
· To
make him deny having seen the mystery ketch or face the music of a murder
charge.
As pointed out in the second RPOM Detective Fitzgerald
failed to inform the Court that secret witness ‘B’ had confessed a crime to him
but was never charged and went on to give evidence for the Crown at the Watson
trial. Mr. Fitzgerald’s attempt to have Everist nominate Watson as the person
who invited people aboard his “two-masted ketch” etc appears to have failed
because Everist did not give evidence and never provided the support for Perkin’s claims identifications of Watson as the “sleazy and creepy”
stranger.
Moreover, investigators did not pause from their
determination to convict Watson at all costs by finding the mystery ketch and
the stranger to exclude both from the inquiry. There were no public pleas to
find the stranger after the fresh descriptions in January (see here the
McNeilly affidavit including in the first RPOM) and indeed the search for a
ketch was stopped as both the file and Mike Chappell (affidavit in the second RPOM)
show.
People that rang in with reports were ignored despite the fact that
Watson was not arrested for a further 5 months, the inquiry was shut down to a
single focus that looked for ‘2 hairs’ many times until finding them. ‘2 hairs’
that now present as planted evidence without support, or indeed able to survive
critical forensic analysis of both the scientific standards of the time and
now.
There is a real possibility that Everist’s statement where
he allegedly mentioned a yacht was either re-written or altered by police.
Alterations to statements could extend to identifications or any other matter whatsoever
as is reported in the second RPOM, or indeed be fully deleted. The material
herein provides proof of incidences where witnesses say both such things
happened. The second RPOM mentioned the high number of deletions, now several
years later many can be put together, some coinciding with the “Crutchley
report.”
It is a blight on NZ police and the Crown that these
documents show that the file was being manipulated right up until the time of
the trial and whilst it took place. The defence is now aware of the methodology of
the Tam computer file, who entered material, who had the power to seek or make
changes, that entries were saved each day and the system backed up once a week
– but the integrity of the file has deliberately impinged as the paperwork
shows.
