Crown case in Watson running on empty?

It has been a busy few weeks, dragging into months after the Court of Appeal (COA) rejected Scott's appeal, which one could say is quite a mystery. There would be few people in New Zealand that were not comfortable about the prison witnesses A and B in Scott's case. Yet surprisingly little note has been taken of that by the Court, at the very least.

There is nothing in the Judgement that deals with it as a separate issue, as one would expect because it was the most significant evidence of the Crown case - confessions that the Crown clearly felt were necessary because of the overall weakness in its case. Now however the case needs to stand on his own 2 feet which upon inspection is particularly weak evidence. The concern is why didn't Scott qualify for a retrial at the very least with the "strongest" evidence gone? Is it because the COA hearing was limited as to what could be heard? The answer is yes. A 390-page judgement avoids the topic, the likely impact of the secret witness evidence is ignored, as is the impact it made on the Jury and therefore if it had been a fair trial.

Only the Crown and Court appear to believe it was, and if it indeed was, why did they call evidence that was ultimately rejected? I think I know, and it is because the Crown case is weak without it. Rightly or wrongly, the Court appears to be circling the horses to help out the Crown instead of acknowledging they got the wrong man, and it was dicey evidence that saw him found guilty. To summarise the remaining evidence;

    No definite identification of Scott as the mystery man.

    No proof of the second trip ashore.

    Floundering evidence as to the time of arrival at Eerie Bay.

    Very suspect evidence of a trip to Cook Strait in fact, science working against it.

    The prisoner evidence rejected.

    The hair evidence questionable and without support from any of the above points.

Now there is a petition planned for the Supreme Court explaining the above and why it should be factored into Scott's appeal.

Onwards and upwards.