The Watson case continues into deeper fantasy.
It's important for Justice in NZ that the Court of Appeal quashes the convictions of Scott Watson for its own credibility. This case has been before the COA twice before, which makes it important the Court's decisions note that. The Court must also note that his return to the Court resulted from a rare use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy undertaken by an Appeal Court Judge who found weaknesses in critical witness evidence, something that the Crown will never overcome. The Court of Appeal heard that a senior officer had committed perjury. Each of these things is alarming, as to the safety of Scott's convictions. The hair evidence is weakened further to the point of being unreliable. No critical evidence stands unimpeached.
Scott Watson could have been a free man now if he was guilty. It's rare, even if existent, that the Court notes, that a guilty person seldom wishes to extend their imprisonment by claiming innocence. On the other hand, some public perceptions of the case remain which are damaging without being clear to the people that raise them. Reading some opinions of the case "supporting" Scott, seek further new steps, such as finding the mystery ketch, finding the bodies, and investigating things already freshly investigated. Yet all these things have happened despite some of the public being unaware of them, gripping some with anxiety.
Now there is a single reason for concern and it goes to David Tamaheri's case which was rejected by the COA when there was both fundamental new evidence and proof of malfeasance. The writer says that is not for the Court to determine but rather a Jury disabused of the false evidence, if indeed not following the precedent set in Gail Maney's case and that of Alan Hall - where a Judgement was given as to the investigation. So David should now see his convictions put aside, and a stop to picking through perjured evidence to save the police case against him.
Still, there are calls for more to be done in Scott's case by people not acquainted with the Law or the evidence as it stands now. A recognized fact is that perjury goes to the heart of a conviction so for the COA to step around that is very poor, at the very least a retrial is required and that should have happened in Tamaheri. In Scott's case, it is not the book writers, or television adaptions by investigators, that are anxious about the outcome because truth be known there are strong and cooperative links between all those sources, and if they are quiet, as they are now, it is because of confidence that every rock has been moved and looked under and while the COA could not obviously hear it all, a complete picture was given that clearly showed perjury by police.
Sadly, some years ago there were anti-Scott crusades carried out by people in support of police, and indeed ex-police, that were not well-founded and have come back against them with a bite to silence them. The shoe is on the other foot. Equally, there are crusades by allegedly pro-Scott people who heightened alarm for his supporters. While on the other hand, those that have done the work that culminates in the case for innocence as it stands now, remain quiet.
So for the many 1000s of Scott's supporters concerned about "facts" in the police case be cautious that you are not taken for a ride by gossip and rumours, note Scott's own opinion and support him that way instead of becoming involved in endless regurgitation of doom with a hint of something new happening.
Scott, his family, and core supporters need to be clear as to where his case stands, in the hope that things will be settled now, and if not now the fight will continue against a case that literally has been pulled apart right down to a hatch that couldn't be locked on a cabin from outside and where no durable evidence was produced to warrant a conviction on a boat that had a single mast instead of 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment