Scott Watson trapped in the Justice "Machine."
Just when the pathway ahead finally promised freedom, Scott has again fallen foul of the Justice Machine. For the first time he has complete evidence to show his innocence, the proof of which has finally come from the Crown's own files and supports independently gathered evidence from around a decade ago. It is so simple and brief it is now a 14-page submission, with an addendum of around 25 pages of affidavits, Job Sheets and Statements from the police files some that appear to have been hidden for the entirety of Scott's false imprisonment.
I was aware that choosing to send it to the Supreme Court could be difficult, but I wrongly supposed that the peak of our Judicial system would not be troubled to read something that could be achieved in 20 minutes or so compared to Scott's 28 years in prison - equally, less reading time, than a minute per year. I was wrong. Likewise, I was told I had no status despite that I was the one who wrote Scott's first successful reversal being his second Royal Prerogative of Mercy Application (RPOM). And that "no status", by implication to me at least, meant those of my family that arrived here among the first, and who would later mix with others and fight in every war this country has been involved in - meant nothing, some being awarded among the highest of military honours and others never returning home leaving gaps still unfilled.
So I have to think where was the korero, the chance to message that one man was alone and imprisoned for a crime it is now shown he can't have committed. It was not at Gallipoli, Belgium, the Somme, Malaysia, Vietnam or Afghanistan. Not in the Tapu Cemetery or a field of Daffodils. And certainly not in the Supreme Court. I still however know, that those fallen silent on foreign battlefields never fought to reduce an innocent man's right to speak straight, or have another speak on his behalf even if they were not a "Party." So here is what is said for Scott Watson, a man who fell asleep on his yacht alone and in the morning did not see a cloud of deceit that had already begun to be built around him. He did not understand, what others might eventually plot to do in the name of the Law.
In the Supreme Court of New Zealand
Wellington Registry
SC 109/2029
Date of transmission: 23rd September 2026
BETWEEN
SCOTT WATSON
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent
Electronic Service:
Application under
Rule 40 of the Supreme Court Rules
·
The Supreme Court of New Zealand
supremecourt@justice.govt.nz
·
Kerry Cook KC KC@bridgestone.co.nz
·
Nick Chisnall KC nick@nickchisnall.co.nz
·
Crown Law: criminal@crownlaw.govt.nz
·
publicprosecutionunit@crownlaw.govt.nz
·
Please
confirm receipt of this attached Rule 40 Supreme Court application and fresh
evidence addendum.
The Core Principle of Hall
In the Alan Hall case, the Supreme
Court addressed a severe miscarriage of justice caused by long-standing
non-disclosure of material evidence and the alteration of witness statements by
authorities. The key holdings and principles emerging from Hall
establish that:
- Continuous and Ongoing Duty: The
Crown and investigative agencies have a continuous, non-negotiable duty to
disclose all material information—both inculpatory and exculpatory—to the
defence.
- Impact of Suppression: The
deliberate or negligent withholding of evidence that undermines the
prosecution's narrative or supports an alternative suspect/theory creates
an inherent, substantial miscarriage of justice.
- Constitutional Accountability: The
state cannot escape responsibility for lost or degraded evidentiary trails
when institutional delay or improper handling by investigators is the root
cause.
Applicant’s Status and Standing:
“Where a Royal Prerogative of Mercy referral reaches the Court of Appeal, but
the appeal fails as being unfair because crucial fresh evidence was not heard
or did not reach the reviewer in time, the applicant may seek leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court. New, unreferred material cannot simply be added; the
applicable legal criteria must be met.”
Applicable Legal Criteria:
I wrote Mr Watson’s 2017 RPOM2 application. After its submission I
approached Jonathan Krebs for help with the case and continued following active
leads some of which resulted in affidavits that I forwarded onto now Judge
Krebs expecting they would go to Sir Graham. It was later established that this
transmission did not occur.
Defence Counsel stated in June 2026, that the new material provided to
Judge Krebs, will not be advanced to the Supreme Court but will go to the CCRC,
if necessary. On the 4th of July 2026 however, I received new Mapua evidence
in the form of undisclosed job sheets and statements, which synchronize with the
affidavits not presented to Sir Graham or the COA.
Because this newest material is from the police files, it fits within
the Supreme Courts 2022 Hall decision as to importance of proper discovery to
the Defence. The Ketch that was allegedly not seen at Furneaux (despite both
Crown and Defence witnesses who gave evidence that it was), was seen at Mapua
with the couple alive. Later, on the 4/1/98, they were seen again by at least 2
other witnesses (the Futters) who called *555 in response to police calls for
help finding the ketch or the couple, after seeing them sitting in the rear of
a “runabout.”
This newest evidence shows primary witnesses rang the police to report
the ketch at Mapua and others formally gave their evidence to police which was not discovered to the Defence. It is
accepted that this new material will be unknown to the current Crown officials.
The Watson case now has proven consistence with the Supreme Court’s
ruling in Hall 2022 - that the Crown’s discovery obligation is continuous
and ongoing. Police and the Crown were obliged to discover to the
Defence all the Crown material raised in this Petition and whatever other
material that has not yet been discovered, or which cannot be traced at this
point. The 2017 RPOM2 noted over 900 file deletions which was the
strongest clue that evidence had been hidden or destroyed. The New material may
be some of those deletions or relate to them providing further doorways, clues,
or deductions.
The Court, should this documented evidence be accepted in good faith and
in the interests of Justice, will be herein made aware of the discovered
evidence of a very young, Crown Witness, (name withheld here) showing
chronological statements inversion with his original statement accidentally
left behind on the file – and totally inconsistent with all his other
statements surrounding it, as work continued in hiding the ketch.
The combined new evidence would have resulted in a different outcome
from Mr Watson’s trial; had he been charged. Which was possibly inevitable
because of the prison stoolies evidence, that was false and which is no longer
viable for the Crown because of the Law Commission’s 2024 recommendation of
inadmissibility of such evidence, also because of the data contained herein
disproving its possibility of being true. It would have also seen Defence
Counsel and Mr Chris Watson, Scott’s father (who hired a private detective) able
to fully investigate the material and what may have followed from it, and
indeed what can be seen to have followed from it now – Mr Watson’s complete
evidence. Lastly, is the non-disclosure of the Futter’s evidence, whatever its
value, and the fact while it was superficially investigated it remains evident
that it was done with the clear intention of silencing the evidence.
Mr Watson’s case is believed to fit within The
Supreme Court’s precedent R v Hall Decision ruling. It’s
prosecution fits within The Law Commissions (TLC) 2024 report on
“stoolies” evidence where it is stated that the default position on prisoner
witnesses is that they should not give evidence. Additional to both those matters
is the “line up” identification caution expressed as a warning by the CCRC
and the infamous “blink photo” a signature of Mr Watson’s false convictions.
In the vernacular, the Crown threw
everything at an innocent man and his family including the kitchen sink and
paid for witness testimony to suit.
The Police and Crown’s duty was to discover to the
Defence all the Crown material now raised in this Petition, and more that may
not be able to be discovered because of the probable destruction of over 900 files, or
information never put to paper. The enclosed, combined new evidence would have
resulted in a different outcome from Mr Watson’s trial; had he been charged, or
had any charges not been disposed of at the Deposition’s Hearing. The Court
will note that the non-disclosure in Mr Watson’s case is widespread and
deliberate. We start in the Crown’s file with the chronological statements
inversion of the witness (name withheld).
📑 PILLAR 1: THE GENESIS — FURNEAUX LODGE &
FILE MANIPULATION
This section establishes that the Operation Celt
database actively altered or deleted ketch evidence from the outset to an
extent that may never be known but which now ought to be fully investigated in
similar cases, where false evidence has been engineered with gifts, threats, or
both.
EXHIBIT A-1: The (Name withheld)
Chronological Statement Inversion
· Document Description: Contemporary police database printouts
comparing Statement 10062 (taken by R. Rackliff on 8 January 1998 noting the
MK) against Statement 10067 (taken by A.J. Saunders on January 5, 1998,
omitting the ketch). It is noted here that this was discovered soon after the
submission of Mr Watson’s second RPOM, RPOM2. However, the full consequences
appear not to have been fully considered at that time, unfortunately for Mr
Watson. It has only been the new Mapua material discovered on the 4th
of July 2026 that has finally pushed that fact home.
· Evidentiary Purpose: This demonstrates police replacing evidence
of a ketch that police consequently failed to remove all the details of and of
which evidence was given to, at Mr Watson’s trial. The prosecution was then
swamped by the falsely generated evidence of stoolies and informers willing
used by the Crown. One officer in particular drove that with the support of
other senior officers, and the Crown of the time, who it might be said where
too closely involved. There is a clear track to that, which need not be
discussed here, as the outcome is now clear.
· Petitioner’s Extension Notes: The 10062/10067 “swap” failure is early
standing notice that file material was either deleted or not discovered and
sometimes false arising from pressure on witnesses. In this instance, fortunately
for Mr Watson evidence intended to be swapped “out” was left on the file. It
may never be known how many other times that happened and which may remain
undiscovered. However, it will need to be investigated fully. The photo file is
strong evidence pointing to hidden ketch photos. The manner in which false
evidence was raised, and in other example, how it was resisted are seen in the
later attached affidavits.
· EXHIBIT A-2: The Furneaux Bar Witness Exclusion
Matrix
Document
Description: Transcripts and affidavits
from frontline witnesses at the venue establish a factual profile mismatch.
1.
Roz McNeilly (1) took police’s word that the person at the bar
being discussed as the mystery man (MM) was Scott Watson until she saw his
photo after the trial and realised she’d been misled—this constitutes fresh
evidence. Her 2005 affidavit is attached. In which she says: “However I
did say to police at that time that the man had longer and more straggly hair
than that of the photo and had one, or two-days facial growth. I did not notice
any fingers missing….. “
2.
The late Guy Wallace (2)
did not identify Mr Watson when he was working in the bar or later when he was
working on the Naiads. In his 2005 affidavit he says, “The man I
delivered to a yacht with Ben Smart Olivia Hope was not Scott Watson,” said
the later bullied witness, who held his ground against threats of being charged
as one of the 3Ws – Watson, Walsh, and Wallace, a complete picture that Eyvonne
Walsh evidentially retains, along with who in particular, it was driven by. The
same applies to Tony Kiernan.
3.
Peter
Kennedy, his daughter, and her friend
(5)— left Furneaux in part because of their unease about the MM near the
bar toilets— none of the 3 identified
that man as Mr Watson. More details to this follow.
4.
Matthew
Sommerville-Smith watched the MM while his sister
(7) used the toilets because of concern about the man’s apparent
interest in her - neither identified that person as Mr Watson.
5.
Reg
McManaway (8) who complained to
security about the MM, who for a period took over his table in “Reg’s corner”,
as it was then colloquially called by locals. Reg never connected Scott Watson
to that event, even when he called out to him the next morning that he had seen
Mr Watson’s boat and would not hit it as Reg carefully manoeuvred past on his
way to take clients fishing.
6.
Sarah
Holland (9) St 1042 who saw Mr Watson on the wharf in an
argument with security over his rum bottle and said that she never saw
him again. She later commented about a “creepy man”
in the bar that was not Mr Watson.
· Evidentiary Purpose: To explicitly document that multiple
eyewitnesses excluded Scott Watson as matching the physical appearance,
clothing, and profile of the "mystery man" near the bar and its
toilets. As noted above are the recent CCRC’s concerns about identification
“line ups” from which the Crown presented its “blink” photo of Mr Watson giving
him a temporary “hooded eyes look,” described by witnesses
to another person never identified. But to whom strong clues point.
· Petitioner’s Extension Notes: Roz McNeilly and Guy Wallace’s 2006
affidavits are attached in the New Evidence Addendum.
Additional
Point: Roz
McNeilly (Witness 40330,405587) MRG 19 Rozlyn McNeilly remembers serving
a lone male Caucasian who drank double bourbons and coke steadily all night.
He was dressed like a fisherman or tradesman. He did not have any
noticeable accent. He was of slim build with near shoulder straggly hair.
The most noticeable thing about him was his slanted droopy eyes,
as if he was very drunk or stoned. It is of note in the file that Scott Watson
usually drank rum, not bourbon. Guy Wallace commented about a similar, or
indeed, the same man, dropped off to the MK, “that smelt like a bottle of
bourbon.”
·
Sarah Holland St 1042 “I have been shown two identikit
photographs. The person in photograph 1 resembled a man that I’d seen at
Furneaux. Joanna and I saw a guy at
Furneaux walk into the garden bar at around 11.00 pm. He was alone and we both looked at him. He was scruffy looking. He was about a metre away from us when he
walked past. He was a male Caucasian, aged about 30 years, about 5’9” tall,
slim to medium build, brownish, straight longish hair, a couple of days
growth. Wearing a khaki green shirt with
pockets and buttons down the front. I can’t describe him further. He didn’t
speak to us. He looked creepy.”
·
Lining up with the above is an affidavit (enclosed)
sworn by Rachel Mackay on the 24th of September. Para 12: weren’t
doing anything. He didn’t make any eye contact or acknowledge That there was
a scruffy older guy at the bow of the boat, working. He wasn’t interacting with
the young couple at all. I was surprised he was doing everything by himself,
and the young couple weren’t doing anything. He didn’t make any eye contact or acknowledge
the people waving. I can’t remember exactly what he was wearing. He had
mid length hair (over his ears) and facial hair. Not a full beard but a few
days growth.
·
It could be said that women in particular, were
more aware of this particular male, or men concern about younger female
relatives or friends.
·
Peter Kennedy in his 11-page statement 20344 (dated 16 January 1998)
(page 7) records that Mr Peter Kennedy noticed a man in the bar who ‘caught
his eye’ while
he was being protective of the girls in his group. Mr Kennedy described this
man as being alone, leaning on the bar near the toilets, appearing ‘strange,’
possibly in his forties, and possibly having tattoos on his arms. Mr Kennedy
made clear that this man was not Mr Watson. Earlier in his statement, Mr
Kennedy also recorded that the portholes on the Alliance were ‘round
wooden ones,’ which differs from the brass‑framed portholes
described by witnesses who observed the mystery ketch. Mr Kennedy is another
witness who did not identify Mr Watsons as the MM in the bar. His daughter and
friend also did not identify Mr Watson as the MM.
EXHIBIT A-3: The 2018 Sworn
Affidavit of Coerced Trial Testimony Document Description:
· Tony Kiernan swore in his attached 2018 affidavit
that he had perjured himself at Trial because of pressure from police,
who told him at the Court to forget about seeing the ketch (Affidavit is in the
New Evidence Addendum). He has mentioned some earlier statements/job sheets
that appear to be no longer available.
· Evidentiary Purpose: Direct proof of suborned perjury which under
binding R v Hall principles, shows that primary witness memory was pressured and modified by
investigative handlers to fit a pre-determined suspect.
·
Petitioner’s
Extension Notes: Tony Kiernan said at the
bottom of page 2 of his affidavit that when he got to Court he was called into
a side room by 2 detectives who said not to mention the ketch. “When I
was in Court one of the detectives was watching me and when I got asked about
the ketch, I lost my bottle and I must live with that.”
📑 PILLAR II: THE CORE TRANSIT — THE MĀPUA PORT
DISCLOSURES
This section tracks the physical movement of the
alternative vessel and the living victims through the Tasman district, verified
directly by newly uncovered internal police logs.
EXHIBIT B-1: The Suppressed 2 January 1998 Māpua
Wharf Sighting Log:
· Document Description: Internal police job sheets and phone logs
from the Crown database were discovered to the Applicant on the 4th
of July 2026 concerning Māpua Wharf Officials, which include Graham Hay –
who despite being a Council Employee, firefighter and Council employee with
responsibilities for the wharf, was never contacted again after ringing police
on the 2/1/98 saying that the Ketch was at the wharf and that he had seen it.
Rachel Mackay, also provided accounts to police.
· Evidentiary Purpose: To document that an official port figure,
Graham Hay, reported a two-masted vessel matching the ketch description, which
was deliberately withheld from trial disclosure, and which had a compatible
similarity to the ketch police said they were looking for. Indeed, Mr Hay when
he called police said that the boat/ketch the “police were looking for,”
was on the wharf. At that point, police had not released the reason why it was
searching for a ketch.
· Petitioner’s Extension Notes: Graham Hay who held several civil roles in
Māpua when he was rung by a business on the wharf to report the ketch police
were “looking for” had arrived. Mr Hay checked it out after
walking to the wharf, seeing the ketch and speaking to 2 men aboard. He left,
went home rang police and reported the sighting. Police, however, did not
respond with a visit to Māpua until the next day and never followed up Graham’s
call with him in person, or spoke to him again. Similarly, the Wells family,
who all made affidavits, were never spoken to again after Helen Wells reported
to police the ketch they had all seen on the wharf and pointed out it had never
paid its wharf fees. A fine detail in a blunt, coarse, Miscarriage of Justice.
As are the new details of witnesses describing the after end of the ketch and
rope they saw at Mapua, an unmistakable detail, like a signature – hidden from
the Court. The rope described is hemp, not its modern counterpart nylon.
· It should be noted, that Graham Satherley, mentioned herein – quickly
revealed new evidence to the Applicant and introduced other contacts that led
to more verified Mapua information. I didn’t note that he would have been
forthcoming with police as his own statements show. All Mapua witnesses were
the same – wanting to reveal the truth. With many taking using their own
initiative to have the affidavit sworn.
EXHIBIT B-2: The Rachel Mackay
Sworn Sighting Affidavit:
Document Description: Affidavit detailing the holiday sighting of a
traditional ketch passing through the Māpua Cutting with a motionless young
couple on deck matching Ben and Olivia.
·
Evidentiary
Purpose: To provide a synchronized
alibi track showing the victims alive after the Crown's assumed timeline of
death, specifically identifying the vessel characteristics ("round
portholes and a lot of rope").
·
Petitioner’s
Extension Notes: Rachel Mackay is an
excellent and persistent witness. Who, like Graham Hay and the Well’s family,
was never followed up on after she reported the ketch. The fact these evasive
styles of response began so early in the case indicates a particular pattern
that cannot be justified in a fair investigation. Graham Hay’s affidavit points
out that he was not asked to return to the wharf, to watch the ketch, showing
his experience as a firefighter in dealing with extraordinary situations – such
as where witnesses are asked to observe a situation until police or emergency
crews arrive. His affidavit implies that he expected to be asked to go back to
the wharf and watch the ketch until police arrived. He does not recall if
reasons had been given at that point why police were looking for the ketch. The
Court will be aware of the relatively brief drive to Mapua from the main
centres not far from it with fully manned police stations and to who Mr Hay
himself and the local fire fighters network would have been available – had
they known.
EXHIBIT B-3: The 2 January 1998 Walsh Commercial
Charter Tracking Log:
Document Description: Navigational charts, client logs, and the
fresh affidavit of Eyvonne Walsh, wife of the late Ted, regarding the 2nd of
January 1998 sighting from their commercial fishing charter vessel.
·
Evidentiary
Purpose: To dismantle the
Crown's Alliance substitution strategy by applying
distance to Peter Kennedy's navigational boundary, of where he turned Alliance
around on the second of January, because of bad weather, and documenting the
physical impossibility of the Alliance's two-metre doghouse
layout allowing a couple to sit behind it. (See comparison photos in the New Evidence
Addendum attached).
·
Petitioner’s
Extension Notes: Eyvonne Walsh said in her
affidavit “I know the Alliance which is low in the water. Ted
knew the owner Peter Kennedy. The ketch I saw was not the Alliance,
although the police later pressured me to say it was. Two days later we
were fishing on our other boat Sweet Release on board we had
seventeen people, the ketch had been moored off Furneaux Lodge on New Year’s
Eve went past us. There were three people on board, one a blond girl and two
guys. At the time we did not know that the police were looking for a ketch. My
first interview was around the 8th of January with the police; this was after
we heard they were looking for a ketch. Ted had been talking to the owner of
Furneaux Lodge at the time, Rick McCloud about the ketch. He had told us to
find the police and tell them. We found the police. This interview was done at
Furneaux Lodge. I was very nervous as I had never dealt with police before and
wanted to try and help them. That interview wasn’t too bad. Then on our second
interview things were different. We were called into the Picton police station,
and things got scary for me…… I am older now and I still don’t know why I was
treated the way I was, I want to say now, THAT KETCH WAS THERE ON NEW YEAR'S
EVE AND THE SAME KETCH WENT PASSED US ON THE SECOND, and just like my husband
I’ll take it to my grave. AND THAT KETCH WAS NOT THE ALLIANCE.” (Abridged)
📑 PILLAR III: — THE PELORUS SOUND CAPTIVITY
TRACK
This section proves the identical playbook of
institutional filtration, ignoring real-time alerts, and denying emergency
records occurred to witnesses in the Sounds days after the disappearance.
EXHIBIT C-1: The 5th of January 1998
Statement of John and Karen Futter:
Document Description: Attached in The New Evidence File is a
contemporaneous statement and correspondence logs detailing the sighting from
the yacht Shibbeen near Mary's Bay / Tawa Bay.
·
Evidentiary
Purpose: Direct eyewitness proof of
the missing couple alive and under clear duress (probable bound hands) on a
fast runabout five days after the disappearance.
·
Petitioner’s
Extension Notes: John and Karen’s attached report,
again like Eyvonne Walsh and other witnesses speaks to photos not returned –
the very essence of the - photograph proof, was concealed by police from the
outset. And is reason for a very close look at the photograph file held by
police and its decimation by numbers of photos that disappeared after the
officer in charge of the file removed photos that were not returned to their
owners.
EXHIBIT C-2: The Verified Telecom Cellular
Billing Invoice
Document Description: Physical copy of the 5 January 1998 Telecom
cellular account statement for the Futter household, tracking the real-time
emergency was shown to police on a visit the Futters' home, after the police
claimed there was no record of their call (the shutting down phase of evidence
inconvenient to Mr Watson’s convictions).
·
Evidentiary
Purpose: physical data exposing the
police's attempt to deny the existence of the Futter’s *555 call, proving an
intentional "phone off the hook" filtration of the archive and its
implication, like that of Graeme Hay and Rachel Mackay silencing both to the immediate
safety of the couple and indeed Mr Watson becoming earmarked for allegedly
having “the right pedigree,” as the OIC told the press.
·
Petitioner’s
Extension Notes: Section of Futter’s
account: “We had listened to the news on the radio while in Kenepuru
Sound and heard about the missing couple. After leaving Dillon Bell we motored
up Pelorus Sound on route to Maud Island (we thought we’d do some fishing
there). As we passed a bay, I noticed a ketch moored in it (We had passed the
bay when Karen noticed the ketch and on her insistence we turned back). The
police were asking the public to report sightings of any ketches. I was a bit
afraid to go too close because of both the mussel rafts and I did not want to
alert anyone to our presence and the fact that I was taking a photo.”
·
The ketch seen was “Shoeless
Joe,” not the MK being looked for at the time. The importance, for the present
situation, is as to who the young couple were.
EXHIBIT C-3: The Maritime Research Group (MRG)
Suppressed Photographic Track:
Document Description: Low-resolution photographic frames extracted
from page 51 of the confidential MRG report, are currently with Sean Shadbolt
at Auckland University for enhancement. It is expected that work will continue
with that until it is completed.
·
Evidentiary
Purpose: Visual baseline data
perfectly mapping onto the Futter tracking timeline, where the degradation of
the master negatives is legally attributed to state delay under the Alan
Hall precedent.
·
Petitioner’s
Extension Notes: The state cannot escape
its constitutional responsibility for archival degradation when its own
deliberate investigatory delays allowed original negatives and photographic
chains to break or disappear. This anticipates that the photos not returned by
police have been destroyed, along with denial of phone calls as to the
whereabouts of the couple when they were still apparently alive.
·
There was a
particular officer: in charge of the photographic
file who gave evidence at Trial. There have been others sent to Mapua in
subsequent inquiries sought by Mr Chris Watson, who ignored evidence the
applicant was able to receipt in 2017/18, and that has since increased with the
5th of July 2026 that fully syncs with the earlier Mapua affidavits.
📑 PILLAR IV: — THE 4th of JULY 2026 DISCOVERED
MĀPUA POLICE FILES
This fresh material finally emerged less than two
months before Mr Watson’s Supreme Court Appeal. It will strike a deep sadness
for Mr Watson, his family, and his supporters to know that in the just-passed
COA proceedings, Mr Watson again faced a significant judicial process while
Crown evidence continued to be hidden. Among the separate docs attached are several
good descriptions of the ketch consistent with Furneaux witnesses and distinguishing
it from a second ketch the Sess Walker, a fake lead implanted by police
regarding a totally different ketch at Mapua. Comparison photos and a sketch
from witness accounts - are enclosed with the new evidence data.
EXHIBIT D-1: The Hidden Māpua Evidence Discovered
in the Form of Job Sheets and Statements
Document Description: Internal police database printouts,
statements, and contemporaneous job sheets extracted from the Crown archive
which arrived to me on the 4th of July 2026.
Evidentiary Purpose: To establish a pattern of institutional
suppression and provide official state corroboration for the alternative vessel,
its movement and witness sightings that the prosecution denied existed.
The first job sheet of 9 Job Sheets/statement
attached is 10839: in this 14.01.98 JS Graham SATHERLY, never called as
a witness, says,
“On Saturday 3 January 1998 at 3.30pm I
observed a yacht at Mapua Wharf. It had a rounded stern; it was a ketch
and definitely blue and white. It had a rail around the back with a canvas
screen below it. There was a lot of rope all over it.
The second job sheet 12808, 22.01.98
Graham SATHERLEY says,
“Unknown Vessel
·
40ft,
ketch, bulbous double rounded
·
Stern, very
unusual (not a canoe bow/stern or double ender/stern, rounded upwards, outwards
and backwards
·
2 masts –
wooden
·
White hull
with blue strip around middle, portholes in strip
·
No sail
covers
·
Name on
stern on rounded piece
·
Dirty white
cabin”
Petitioner’s Evidence Notes: Whilst the Petitioner only discovered in June
2026 that Mr Watson’s Supreme Court Appeal, like all the Courts before it,
would not hear Mr Watson’s new evidence—Mr Watson does not yet know the full
significance of the July 4th, 2026, new material, it will be sent to
him via express courier simultaneously with the filing of this document. The
new Māpua evidence supports and enlarges upon the still-unheard evidence that
found its way into affidavit form. The new material acknowledges known players
who were excluded previously for deliberate reasons “helpful” to the Crown.
What the Court will see from the new evidence in the attachments, is that while
the Crown maintained, there was no ketch at Furneaux and therefore Mapua,
simultaneously its witnesses the Walshes, Wallace, the Mc Noes, “name withheld”
and defence witnesses provided evidence as to the ketch. Mr Kiernan’s affidavit
shows it cannot be determined how many witnesses like him were silenced or
ignored as Mr Hay was in a different manner – simply ignored. The same would be
true of other Māpua witnesses and any other general witness, never previously
disclosed to the defence. While the Futters were able to say what they saw and
how it was hidden by police.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian McDonald
Originator of the 2017 Royal Prerogative of Mercy Petition
Attached Material:
Link showing Mr Watson’s
boat, the Alliance and a Ketch drafted to witness evidence: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RX1C_bVd99DtBIDuXuT7DB7b5DRdJ0ww/view
1.
Two affidavits and job sheet of Rachel
Margaret Mackay saw couple: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JtgcpdyxnwdgQxeUuXn4bk0b4CYs_C4m/view?usp=drive_link
2.
Affidavit of Cynthia Fowler Mapua Resident: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-AEfhZVSuMx5brjp19BXhpK8RsvyFluz/view?usp=drive_link
3.
Affidavit of Graeme Hay; President Mapua Boat
Club, Launch Warden, Senior Fire Fighter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xN0P8sg033erAnfWK6Re_hI7JxXgqo8R/view?usp=drive_link
4.
Affidavit of Julie Wells (worked on Mapua
Wharf) saw couple: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yaAbgjv5e07RpqW3tOfZEMzCFtg0cSpp/view?usp=drive_link
5.
Affidavit of Helen Wells (deceased) VHF radio
operator for Boat Club. Asked to ring police: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ERA0Dz30l_uesYR8ZnDAWXdDtU0cbXIw/view?usp=drive_link
6.
Affidavit of Graeme Wells (deceased)
Commodore Mapua Boat Club: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IABXZWPsANd0stkte-Jfvm0AaMBucc3l/view?usp=drive_link
7.
Anthony Kiernan owner of Ketch Nugget,
bullied into silence: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17hiFvxH4yGRh_sntpf5LiBxzIbqAhVmH/view?usp=drive_link
8.
Eyvonne Walsh extensive information saw couple
alive on 2nd of January 1998: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T1yOMQqKHDPtT2oruSe2mBGh7cS5Nh1b/view?usp=drive_link
9.
Peter Firman rejected police offer to give
false evidence: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sF5T8ZUtQu0s7ZAcvHbeHRkYAjCfe6oe/view?usp=drive_link
10. Helen
Ellis Picton Information Centre took call about ketch photo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K6jDQZeH7i5bma5N5ImX7fnolfOjabCj/view?usp=drive_link
11. William
Ellis husband of Helen – past photo to John Smart – Ben’s father: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Qijheoju-AfavRrLpTH4MgUx8FKpB8V/view?usp=drive_link
12. Affidavit
of Roslyn Kathleen McNeilly: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxEgPvh374byqlcjolpdZHECPsa6SuH1/view?usp=drive_link
13. Affidavit
of Guy Wallace: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vYUOTeLgaeI-H5hKpdEglYtCFJcydrBM/view?usp=drive_link
14. Mapua
Docs received 4/7/26 JS 10839 14.1.98 Graham Satherley, observed
yacht consistent with MK Mapua Wharf: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HiHn5F2JfZqo82CwVx3HtcDZKwXylJqQ/view?usp=drive_link
15. Mapua
Docs received 4/7/26 JS 12808 22.1.98 Graham Satherley Describes
MK Mapua wharf 3/1/98: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZWprzpGNRG7oEys_YTcOy0-hAutjx5Bz/view?usp=drive_link
16. Mapua
Docs received 4/7/26 JS
12503 21.1.98 Paul Smith Describes MK Mapua Wharf 3.1.98. (more to add): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zgMM7L5uor_kctPC6fpFry8D-JiVbBjt/view?usp=drive_link
17. Mapua
Docs received 4/7/26 St 11599 9.2.98 Jeffery Sword statement
describing MK: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dnEm4W_giern1LXx7AvPn4aSrhU_YXJj/view?usp=drive_link
18. Mapua
Docs received 4/7/26 Phone/Fax
12758 Phone/Fax John Nancekivell sees
two masted boat January 2nd arriving Mapua low tide or thereabouts.
White bluish rails, sailing towards wharf: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cRiM6EAz39l5EveHlmTBF_h6yuxO6TEU/view?usp=drive_link
19. Mapua
Docs received 4/7/26 Fax 12694 Graeme and Helen Wells report
ketch Sess Walker: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q5uHVYSs9j3YkcO1i5rzmNsT-CmIqIN6/view?usp=drive_link
20. Mapua
Docs received 4/7/26 JS
20058 Kingama/Geart owner of ketch Sess Walker unsuccessfully substituted as
being the MK. Also blended with witness: Mitchel/John/David _ journalist of
Mapua who briefly looked in the Sess Walker (no date): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CuV9ztCAZr-3qUd12p4-ezGySY4ytVz5/view?usp=drive_link
21. Mapua
Docs received 4/7/26 JS 12767 Peter Fairhall sees white ketch
with blue stripe Mapua Harbour: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fslp4VXaN9jj592pyyP_JA0p9cCLbGkt/view?usp=drive_link
22. JS30932
Kate Batten (SAR Member) reports her father saw a sailing ketch
towards Marijhau, Mapua, notes she is carrying the Hope/Smart missing person
flyer to show and question those enroute with customers walking from Ship Cove
to Furneaux: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rheOT8ZPdij7TCqkTJKbhn2zXf8wJUWj/view?usp=drive_link
23. Relevant
Newspaper clipping
re 4 men who say they saw the MK, Peter Beadle, Graham Satherley, Bob Melrose
and Mike Kelly and Waihi investigator Peter Keeton. The 4 men circled the MK in
their own boat as reported by Peter Keeton (retired Lawyer): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xR7sVwqCsy99emQwOMoOiACqEt2Z--Dn/view?usp=drive_link
24. 5.1.98 Photo taken by John Futter
showing unrelated ketch and to the left the runabout the Futter’s believe they
saw the couple in. This photo uplifted from the MRG report is now with Sean
Shadbolt of Auckland University for enhancement techniques to be applied: https://drive.google.com/file/d/158dcVBTe2ywTP0Wqb5DQzezu1hsaUjJ1/view?usp=drive_link
25. 105
Ketch Sightings: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fmVMfAEVCms68IJrVRzVVbjA5e0zKsDo/view?usp=drive_link
The Futter’s Statement: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B-usLfPr1zeZpxR71yWqAoopzcqhdgXF/view?usp=drive_link
