Anonymous asks if the Crown will fall on its Sword in the Scott Watson Case
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.":
The big question here : Can the Crown fall on their sword and admit they were wrong after all this time.
I think the above important question by Anonymous deserves a full answer. But firstly yes the Crown can fall on its sword if that is the way it thinks proper Justice unfolds, as if it is a battle without rules or indeed decency.
The "battle" only exists in the minds of those who see a questionable conviction to be something to battle against or to maintain. As long as the battle complex is maintained cases like Scotts will endure for years before they fall over in some way which is seldom by the exercise of both good will and adherence to facts rather than personalities.
So looking behind that situation it is often the police and indeed the Crown that are obstructive to Justice being "seen to be done" words often used by Arthur Thomas. Thinking about this morning I remembered the story of Joe Karam going to the police Commissioner of the time to show evidence that Joe thought showed David Bain's innocence only to find police did not want to know. What better description of bitterness to uphold a false conviction could there be? No "we'll look into it", or "I'll get someone onto this." But rather the chill that might surround an executioner.
The best steps forward away from that are visible today is Tim McKinnell, ex-police detective who first helped pull the Teina Pora case apart through its obvious to most, flaws, and has progressed a long way on Gail Maney's conviction which has also got obvious flaws. But even Tim with his already grown credibility must endure the laborious path through silent ghosts that police and Justice officials tend to become when someone threatens the status quo.
That's pretty dumb. By feeling the status quo is under threat one's mind is immediately closed and defensive at Joe Karam discovered to his surprise. So firstly "can" creates or in fact endorses that there is something to be frightened of when officials are faced with what may be a wrongful conviction. It appears a threat is immediately sensed and walls go up to confirm it is indeed a bastion and will be defended - even against new evidence, or old evidence that has been misinterpreted.
My thoughts after reading the Panckhurst RPOM response was a pleasure because Panckhurst had virtually said the 2 secret prison witnesses were liars, recognized that they gave different stories and so on which had always been obvious.
On the other hand. I was disappointed that a lot of new evidence hadn't reached his hands that was likely to have turned the case into one of considering a pardon. After the Crown agreed to the conviction of Alan Hall being quashed because of evidence that was by then 30 years old - I thought that the tide had finally turned and the Crown saw their role as ensuring Justice and not trying to bury false convictions.
I wrote to Scott's lawyers suggesting to share the new evidence but unfortunately, they didn't have my same optimism that the Courts are meant to places of Justice where "sides" go out the door and let Justice walk in when there is clear evidence of a Miscarriage of Justice.
So I should answer Anonymous's question by saying yes the Crown can and should fall on its case, but give that another description of doing its duty to the Court and to Justice in the sight of overwhelming evidence of Scott's innocence.
