Another one bites the Dust

          

                                            Head in the Sand Syndrome?

Today was the news that police Commissioner Richard Chambers is being investigated over allegations of sexual impropriety. The Minister of Police has expressed faith in him, in the same way these things generally progress. Ironically, I wrote to both men recently complaining about 105 recorded ketch sightings in the Watson case. I had a generic response from the Commissioner's office from nothing from the Minister's office and nothing more.

I think this indicates the very thing that is wrong in the relationship between both offices, they have routine avoidance tactics to evade public concern that we've seen rolled out before. It happened 20 years ago when the police minister Judith Collins commented about the first Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) Application into the Watson case - saying as (an expert, obviously) that the rejection of the RPOM was because the 2 hair evidence was sound.

Currently, the Watson case is getting some attention behind the scenes, there is an apparent block put on new evidence by his Counsel who say it can't go to the Supreme Court (SC) because there was a ruling on that by the SC which if it is true I haven't been able to find. They did, however, at least one of them - that is, say if the case failed at the Supreme Court it could go straight to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) about which I pointed out the obvious that the CCRC is deep trouble without a significant decision since its inception and key people resigning from its ranks.

To me, it seems numerous people are not doing their jobs. No inquiry underway that I'm aware of about the ketch sightings - and what easy investigation that would be. And the SC apparently not willing to hear the critical Mapua evidence - which has now been with Defence Counsel for 8 years.

I can say that the Mapua evidence is the most critical evidence in the case, it came from reliable witnesses who were ignored by police, just like the Commissioner and Minister of Police and previous Minister of Justice ignored critical evidence. Well, is it critical evidence? Yes, it shows witness evidence of Ben and Olivia being alive in Mapua - something commented on by now Judge Krebs that, which if true, Scott Watson is innocent. You can say that again, and add that no one in officialdom seems to want to know. Looking at the major cases here, if the record is correct, neither Lundy, Watson or the Tamihere case have ever withstood scrutiny and all 3 had prisoner witness evidence - any surprise?

The CCRC record so far:

The "Mr G" Case (First Referral): The CCRC's historic first referral involved a young refugee man (referred to as Mr G) who had been convicted of several offences in 2001. The CCRC discovered that a court clerical error had recorded his age as 17 when he was actually a 15-year-old minor. As a result of this investigation, he was wrongly sent to an adult prison. Following the CCRC's intervention, the High Court formally quashed his sentence. [1, 2, 3]

The Focus on Vulnerable People: A second early referral also involved a minor sent to an adult prison due to a birthdate mix-up. The Commission has publicly noted that cases involving the systemic mistreatment of vulnerable individuals, youth, and refugees remain a primary operational focus. [1, 2]

The Broader Caseload: High-profile applicants who have historically sought reviews from the commission include high-profile names like Mark Lundy, Scott Watson, and David Tamihere. While the CCRC has processed more than 550 applications and fully closed over 310 inquiries, the vast majority are concluded without referral because they do not meet the strict statutory definitions of an unaddressed miscarriage of justice. [1, 2, 3]

 

                                 Is Mapua the Achilles's Heel of the Watson Case?

Mapua, a quiet but beautiful tidal backwater, was not given much attention by the Operation Tam police. Already feeling confident of hiding the Ketch at Furneaux Lodge, they possibly sensed that Mapua was smaller and far less difficult to make the narrative. I think 2026 will show how wrong that under-estimation was. Police misread the people at Mapua and may have even viewed them arrogantly. I certainly didn't after an introduction there, I quickly saw they were right onto things and possibly wondering how things had gone so much askew for Scott. More so, how much they were underestimated as country hicks or similar. 

I seldom bet, but I believe that the residents and visitors to Mapua over the Christmas Holiday season of 97/98 will break the back of Scott's convictions and see him freed. A good boat builder or tradesman by the time of finishing their apprenticeship have sharpened the fact that the context of continuity may not be a tool but its part of the vision of doing a job and seeing it completed, and I think those that any experience any part of Tam operation at work in Mapua saw that it was moderately arrogant and condescending to the point that you could tell a Mapuan anything, and they would believe it. Well, hello Charlie. And thanks Mapua.

 

                                         Scott Watson Case on the Edge of Collapse?

Well, no, it's not. But evidence abounds that is yet to be presented to the Courts for one reason or another, that shows he is completely innocent. Finally, that evidence which has been gathered by various people is now combined, and the next step is to have it presented to the Supreme Court to be heard at Scott's October Supreme Court Appeal.

At this point, few people have full knowledge of that the new material is - despite that it has at times been spoken of. The difference, however, is that it's combined now and rips shreds out of the Crown case and exposes that a case against Scott never existed with reliable evidence. It was largely got across line because material evidence was hidden by police on one hand and not been fully gathered or understood on the other hand. The prison witnesses evidence, which was once the trump card, is now shredded into small pieces. That, and other things have changed and the picture that can be seen now as that the Crown case was only reliable in what it evidence it managed to hide, fortunately that's over.