More work in progress as the Watson case continues to fall apart.

The following are cited as a window to remind of the disastrous Tam police investigation and prosecution.

·       The original signed hand-written statements of Tony Kiernan in which he described the mystery ketch are gone, replaced by typed unsigned alleged statements which Tony Kiernan says in an affidavit have been edited of all information about a ketch. The job sheet which proves that veracity of his claims.

·       The statements and job sheets relating to the uncalled witness Beryl Karena altered to delete her information explaining the ‘scratches’ to the hatch cover on the Blade and her knowledge of Mr Watson’s plan to paint his boat.

·       The signed statement by Peter Firmin in which he reveals that police when interviewing him about a ketch sighting alleged that he was a drinking partner of Scott Watson and had heard Scott Watson talking about murdering woman. Information, which if Firman was willing to confirm in evidence, would mean that police would raise no objections to his release at his pending parole board hearing. There is a matter raised in Mr Firmin’s statement regarding the authenticity of job sheet/statement #11740. His name is misspelt, and his date of birth is incorrect, he disagrees with details included therein.

·       The unused Doubt documentary footage of Peter Kennedy which shows that those aboard the Sweet release on the 2^nd of January 1998 could never have seen the Alliance and therefore never mistaken it for the mystery ketch, nor indeed Mr Kennedy’s daughter for the missing Olivia Hope. Yvonne MacKay produced the Doubt documentary. She has said that the floor cuttings regarding Mr Kennedy are approx. 6 mins long and the producers felt that other footage well covered the points about ketch sightings to strike balance into the production. For Defence Counsel however the information destroys a evidence which held together the myth of no mk, but many mistaken people mixed up between an ocean going sailing ship and a flat bottomed scow.

·       Peter Kennedy has confirmed not only the interview, but his position that the Alliance had never travelled far enough on the 2^nd of January 1998 to have been sighted by those aboard ‘Sweet Release’ before turning back because of the weather – telling evidence for a jury, and total support for the Walsh’s claim.

·       The statement 20344 of Peter Kennedy in which he describes the mystery man in the Furneaux Lodge near the toilets on NYE 97 which was not Scott Watson. This evidence would be significant to a Jury and supports many other witnesses on this point.

·       The overall impact of Mr Kennedy’s statements confirms the probability that the naiad driver, Robert Mullens, was correct in his first statements that he had seen (and drawn) a mystery ketch that was not the Alliance. There is doubt that Mr Kennedy’s statements were entirely discovered to the defence.

·       The not fully disclosed material of HT1 indicating that HT1’s statement was altered and fictionalised. That HT1 only became aware of this in January 2018 when copies of original statements held on file where sent to HT1 for comment. The valuable and crucial evidence that HT1 never told the Watson Jury. Including speaking with Watson and seeing his departure from the Furneaux Lodge wharf only once. Also including noting the departure of Amelia Hope and 3 others from the wharf after Scott Watson had already gone.  

·       The full evidence and cross examination of the witness Donald Anderson by Michael Antunovic. To note the following:

“And on a two masted sailing boat …. Specifically on a two masted sailing boat if you are talking about the “Alliance” yes I did, I assume that is what I saw and my recollection.

Do you accept that the evidence that Mr Peter Kennedy gave to this court, many weeks ago now, when he gave evidence, he is the man who was on the “Alliance” and owns it, at that particular time, that they don’t have sails on … STOPPED

I DON’T THINK THAT WILL DO MR ANTUNOVIC, HE CAN’T POSSIBLY COMMENT ON WHAT A WITNESS HAS SAID EARLIER ON, HE WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN HERE I WOULD IMAGINE, HE WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN IN THE COURT, You WILL HAVE TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY…..Well that is what the evidence was sir

WELL IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUT THAT IS NOT THE BASIS OF A QUESTION, A QUESTION MUST BE SOMETHING WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS WITNESS NOT SOMETHING ELSE, WHAT YOU ARE DOING, You ARE GETTING AT THE JURY BY ASKING QUESTIONS TO THE WITNESS, You ARE MAKING A SUBMISSION IN EFFECT.  I CAN SEE WHERE You ARE COMING FROM BUT IT IS NOT APPROPRAITE…..Can you sir….TO PUT IT TO A WITNESS….well I am not coming from there at all with the greatest of respect your honour I am trying to ask this witness whether he associated these ropes with a vessel that was the same boat and I am trying to suggest to him

YES I KNOW You ARE BUT You ARE DOING IT ON THE BASIS THAT SOME OTHER WITNESS HAS SAID SOMETHING, THIS WITNESS CAN’T POSSIBLY KNOPW THAT OR SHOULDN’T KNOW THAT OR UNLESS HE HAS READ ABOUT IT AND EVEN IF HE HAS IT IS NOT FOR HIM TO COMMENT, PUT IT DIFFERENTLY….well I thought the Crown had put some evidence of other wits to wits all the time

NEVER MIND ABOUT THAT JUST COME AT IT DIFFERENTLY I AM NOT GOING TO DEBATE IT WITH You INDEFINITELY.