False narrative results in vicious summing up in the Scott Watson Trial

The following summing up by Crown Prosecutor and now High Court Judge Davison resulted from the true evidence being withheld from the Jury. The Crown knew that Scott was not the person who was propositioning young women to take a trip with him on the "only 2 masted ketch in the bay." In fact, the persons who did the propositioning were Crown witnesses, and not a word was raised to the prosecution about those proposals leaving the opportunity to blame that on Scott. In fact, one of those men was a ketch owner.

As you will read the Judge also seized upon that evidence which resulted in a false and damaging attack on Scott's character that was simply untrue. Alone this material could be expected to be enough to result in Scott's freedom. However in the final analysis little is left of the false case against Scott Watson, when one wall falls they all will.

Davison closing excerpts:

“But just you’ll remember the talk about the fact that he had the only two- master in the bay. I come to you indirectly about that. The person by the name of Scott had the only two-masted vessel in the bay. What was he on about, what was he doing going about telling people he had the only two-masted vessel in the bay? What do you think he was up to? What was he on about? Sort of mental? What reason would there be for doing something like that? He didn’t have the only two-masted vessel in the bay, did he? Was he trying to get people to associate himself with a boat.?

Was he just puffing himself up? And if he was it was just a matter of some coincidence that he’s talking about ketches. Well, he also spoke to people about sailing to Tonga.”

“, He said we could have Prozac tee-shirts if we were part of his crew and Amanda Edger’s said we should pull ropes and he said sexual favours as well. 2 O’clock and he’s still on the job, looking for a woman for sexual favours. This was confirmed by Amanda Edger herself who gave evidence about him, and she said the man that said to her, described himself as Scott from Wellington, aged 26, well Scott, yes, Wellington, no, 26 yes. So two details out of three were right and one bit of misinformation there. He said to Amanda he had the only two-masted ketch in the bay and Amanda also witnessed what I term the Ollie Perkins incident and she said she got back to the beach where they were sleeping, hanging out, or whatever at about 4 a.m. And she identified Mr. Watson from Montage B. There was also a Kara Brosnahan, she spoke about seeing him at this time, spoke to about Tonga, Prozac, getting a crew, sexual favours and she too identified Mr Watson from Montage B and she was taken aback by that suggestion of sexual favours as you would expect.”

The Judge's closing excerpts:

“And they say they were sexual motives which had been exhibited throughout the night with a view to being bold and forward with women with a view to getting them back onto his boat for sexual purposes.  Or, was it perhaps, as now has been perhaps suggested, that a more immediate motive of anger and frustration, had been rejected, which made him do what is alleged he did.  He was, the Crown says, uniformly provocative from a sexual point of view and suggested in that respect, the Crown says the inference is that he wished to get a female to return to his boat.  The Crown says that the other inference to draw is that, when he had them both on his boat, that Ben obviously would be an obstruction to any sexual intentions he had towards Olivia and that Ben would be disabled, or killed or disabled first, then the Crown says it is likely that Olivia was killed at a later time.”

Later:

“Wallace, of course, hears the important words "she can come but he can't" or something to that effect.  And the Crown says that that statement has the hallmark of Scott Watson and just think of it for a moment, it's an offer of hospitality um made to people who are in distress, not major distress but some distress, they had nowhere to go and it's cold and they need somewhere to sleep and um ah I just say to you well is that what the normal hospitable person would say?  It's provocative, it might provoke fear or apprehension, or it might just be regarded, as Wallace seemed to treat it, as a jocular comment and so on.”

“But it's consistent with the bold and provocative manner that he adopted that night, you may think, some of his behaviour was probably worse than that and that is why, along with other reasons, that evidence was allowed.  That is the evidence generally.  It's important to tell you that a lot of that evidence which we heard about the exchanges between Mr Watson and other people at Furneaux Lodge doesn't bring his character into good repute and lowers him in the opinion of people no doubt.  And I've spoken to you on more than one occasion about this but, Mr Foreman and members of the jury, you will not be deterred or distracted by any such thing.  Your inquiry is to whether the Crown have sufficient evidence to involve him in this murder if that is what you find it to be.  Bad character on this night, or his actions on this night to put it more correctly, is only of importance if it goes to perhaps suggest that these words were typical of what he might say, as the method perhaps of identification having regard to the way in which he was approaching women generally that night, that his motive was, as the Crown says, to get somebody on board his boat that night and this was just the last-ditch effort to do so in the circumstances that had presented themselves.  Thirdly, as a possible motive I suppose, that he harboured a murderous intention, if you find that to be so, he had expressed earlier   ah   some weeks earlier and I'll have something to say about those conversations shortly.”

Later:

“He characterised him by his eyes   and   um   calling them untrustworthy   ah   that's I think   ah  um   not a terribly confident I suppose   um   description, but nonetheless he identified him with a photograph which others had found   ah   that was suitable and satisfactory to identify him by, you will recall, in the Ollie Perkins group of events as part of that.”

The entire evidence relied upon by then Davison QC in his closing address ignored the truth of the file, was deliberately picked through and melded into a false narrative. It can perhaps be seen now why the Watson case was rejected in the NZ COA and Privy Council as those Courts, like the jury, heard a deliberately driven false account.

Time will reveal all the details, but the unavoidable conclusion is that including the 2 hairs evidence against Scott Watson was either deliberately false or suspect. Even now in 2222, the file is turning up ketch sightings a Furneaux Lodge as seen with the witness Stewart. There are possibly 100s of sightings lost or never recorded.

In the trial summing up, the Judge uses the false evidence to talk of Watson as someone with a grave character and joins with the Prosecutor in damning Scott Watson for sleazy behaviour in which the evidence here shows he was not involved. It is likely this evidence had influenced the Judge to reconsider and allow the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. C effectively preventing Watson’s right to a fair trial or fair appeals all the way to the Privy Council. The character assassination was by then complete and on the public record. The Crutchley report and the work of Pope, Rae, Fitzgerald, and Rolton played a critical role in that.