tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49094887481409420762024-03-18T18:23:01.361+13:00NOSTALGIA-NZI've started this blog to share with those that may be interested in sports, books, topical news and the justice system as it applies to cyberspace and generally.Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comBlogger1214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-41873710084950734762024-03-18T18:14:00.001+13:002024-03-18T18:22:27.016+13:00The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.<p> The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.</p><p>Literally, less than 3 months away from The Court Of Appeal's hearing into Scott's case the Crown is squirming in every way possible. It's not a good look and one could consider that the Solicitor General is trying to find a way out as Scott's case finally implodes.</p><p>I've often written here that when a wrongful conviction begins to crack it does so spectacularly. It is unprecedented for the Crown's highest official to appear to panic in every way possible. As the article by Mike White shows along with the comments of Chris Watson (Scott's dad) The Crown does not like it when it no longer holds the upper hand.</p><p>Just how poor the identification procedures are in this case has never been generally accepted because the police for so long have shown witnesses photos of a person often saying the person is the suspect and giving details of his or her behaviour and how abhorrent it has been. In other words, expressing the need for the witness to "help" the police to put the suspect away.</p><p>Readers will remember how for decades the Crown has said that its "hair evidence" was without question, proof of Scott's guilt. In fact, as I have also said before - Judith Collins when Minister of Justice in an earlier Government said the 2 hairs held the case together. Something I thought of as a challenge and an extraordinarily big call. As that was later considered by Sir Panckhurst in a Royal Prerogative of Mercy application there was a chance to continue to read and delve further into the case.</p><p>Very soon every apparently solid point of evidence was collapsing, mostly from reading the Crown's own file. As that evidence imploded it showed the points made by people such as Mike Kalaugher, Keith Hunter, Warwick Jenness and Chris Watson himself culminated in a picture of innocence once the hairs were on slippery ground. That had earlier culminated in the doco Doubt by Yvonne McKay which revealed interviews with people who saw the couple alive after they were said to be dead. A good reading of the file as to the key points against Scott showed they were doubtful at best and anything assisting him was not presented to the Courts - lost if you like in a sea of paper and perhaps an arrogance that no one would find them. But if you look on the horizon the hens are coming home to roost and particular detectives and scientists have found themselves out with corrupt practices and arrogance that they were above the Law they chose to administer.</p><p>More people came forward or were approached in what has been similar to the results of WW2 "dam busters," as the real ketch was traced and Scott was excluded as the mystery man. It would be fair to say most of that was completed by around 2020-22 and since then the Crown has tried to squirm out in every way possible and many people will believe that the Parole Board itself has acted in a retributive way toward Scott as a result.</p><p>When once the position was that Scott could not be released because of his "dangerousness" and "callous" crimes while others like Arthur Thomas, David Tamihere, Teina Pora, Gail Maney, and many more who also refused to admit crimes they did not commit were released anyway. What happens now when there are issues before the Court where evidence of Scott's innocence is being withheld by the very top Crown Law Official? Will she soon find herself in Contempt of the Court? And those she tries to protect are finally brought to Justice. If ever a case demands police pay for their crimes of wittingly imprisoning innocent people - this must be it.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350209384/crown-attempts-withhold-crucial-new-evidence-scott-watson-case?fbclid=IwAR2C18NthB1JSOpRjs5U531h3_1hlgr6Xyj29YTJshIK5OXdHU4fZWESRoA">Crown attempts to withhold crucial new evidence in Scott Watson case | The Post</a></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-43343325266761123862023-12-09T21:02:00.004+13:002023-12-09T21:09:49.081+13:00 Herbie Bradly: When the State comes along to Help.<p><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px;"> </span></p><p><span color="var(--primary-text)" style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem;">The kind chatty old fellow mentioned below was Herbie Bradley a well-known bank robber in his time, but long before that a state ward. We still have a system where children are taken from their parents, at times for their own safety. Those children are sent into at the very least an unsure life. In Herbie's case, he would end up in the criminal underworld with his brother Steven.</span></p><div class="x1e56ztr" style="animation-name: none; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" color="var(--primary-text)" style="animation-name: none; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; transition-property: none; word-break: break-word;">That really struck me when I read about Herbie's untimely death. He appears to have been prey to younger men also off the rails but at a different time of their lives. A time when they couldn't consider compassionate toward an old timer past his prime as they might be one day should they survive a similar lifestyle to that of Herbie.</span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="animation-name: none; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" color="var(--primary-text)" style="animation-name: none; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; transition-property: none; word-break: break-word;">State wards are represented highly in suicide, imprisonment, and mental health issues. While it's sad his own younger kind turned on Herbie the tragedy is for all of them in a system of injustice that seemingly can't be corrected. Well, not with punishment, violence, and an uncertain life that might be taken to the grave by someone like Herbie - a classy bank robber he once was never but never finding or being offered the chance to do better in his life.</span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="animation-name: none; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" color="var(--primary-text)" style="animation-name: none; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; transition-property: none; word-break: break-word;"></span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="animation-name: none; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" color="var(--primary-text)" style="animation-name: none; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; transition-property: none; word-break: break-word;">RIP Herbie</span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="animation-name: none; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" color="var(--primary-text)" style="animation-name: none; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; transition-property: none; word-break: break-word;"></span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="animation-name: none; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" color="var(--primary-text)" style="animation-name: none; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; transition-property: none; word-break: break-word;"><span style="animation-name: none; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none;"><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1fey0fg" href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/132926292/trial-set-for-duo-charged-with-killing-kind-chatty-old-fella-at-upper-queen-st-apartment?fbclid=IwAR3gxQeWP12_ZFVqW3dVyh3SxNEllsl1V9pbF4LfUX1-QqodWfZs8ef4oNc" rel="nofollow" role="link" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; animation-name: none; background-color: transparent; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-family: inherit; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation; transition-property: none;" tabindex="0" target="_blank">https://www.stuff.co.nz/.../trial-set-for-duo-charged...</a></span></span></div><p><span color="var(--primary-text)" style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.9375rem;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-58314204100135975622023-11-07T08:34:00.000+13:002023-11-07T08:34:34.461+13:00Scott Watson has a significant second Win.<p> </p><p> Scott Watson has a Significant Second Win</p><p><br /></p><p>Although not always the case, sometimes when wrongful convictions finally turn there are steady reversals of the Crown's case or initiatives to maintain the convictions. That has now happened for a second time in the Watson case with the Crown failing to repel new submissions regarding the "hair evidence." The NZ Court of Appeal ruled yesterday, 8/11/23, that further new evidence concerning the "2 hairs" alleged to have been found on Scott's boat the Blade but actually discovered in ESR's lab will be heard.</p><p>That causes one to wonder why the Crown so lacked confidence in its case on Appeal that it apparently feared any more new material. There is irony in the fact they would seek evidence to not be heard if they were confident in their own case. Apparently, they may not be so it is for the public and ultimately the Court to decide if they are panicking or not.</p><p>The complete irony is that while the Crown fiddles over the hair evidence there is significant further evidence not all of which will be heard before any retrial. The Crown's case is a shipwreck, its own agents have hidden and changed evidence to a remarkable extent and there is now proof of that in many new affidavits, comparisons of evidence then compared to now. Although there are many examples one significant one is that the police from early on were attempting to persuade witnesses that Scott had either stolen their dingies or been seen or heard using on the morning of the disappearance of Ben and Olivia.</p><p>Although the Crown won't pause to consider all the new evidence as it should rightly ask to do in the interests of Justice, and do that now they will continue to row their boat to the square corner of the earth they appear to feel exists and right off.</p><p>New Zealand has not learned to extract itself from blind fighting over false convictions and simply say to the other side "Well what have you got" to save both the Court time and to extract people from false imprisonment or convictions. In some ways that is meant to be the purpose of the much-lauded Criminal Convictions Review Commission. I incidentally sent a 300-page document on what had gone wrong in the Lundy and didn't receive a reply, an authority which after some 3 years appears not to have solved a single case. The Commissioners appear to be stacked along cultural lines rather than by private achievements such as people like Joe Karam, Keith Hunter, and others who've been at the coal face of wrongful convictions to the extent that it shows that Scott was wise not to continue to "wait" for the CCRC to be up and running. One might even say that he finally had some luck and chose a traditional method of having potential wrongful convictions reviewed and was successful, not once, but twice and still counting.</p><p>The idea of the Prosecution and Defence working together on false convictions is not new internationally and America is having much success in that area currently - so why not New Zealand why not Scott Watson now.</p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-9617352134359761452023-09-19T04:54:00.003+12:002023-09-19T04:54:34.996+12:00Scott Watson "tightrope" to Freedom by Parole.<p> Scott Watson's 2023 Parole Bid</p><p><br /></p><p>There will be few New Zealanders who haven't heard that admitting guilt is necessary to gaining parole. Lesser numbers will know that there is also a relatively large number who have been paroled without admitting guilt, the more notable of those would be Peter Ellis, Alan Hall, David Tamihere, Gail Maney, and Teina Pora. Gail Maney has been paroled more than once. So those named here have been able to pass through hazardous water and gain parole despite not admitting guilt. Of these 6 named above Rex Haig is now deceased, it may be that his family will continue to pursue the Solicitor General's office for an answer to the question asked of it over a decade as to whether SG had been aware of the number of confessions to having admitted the crime himself. Peter Ellis also deceased had his conviction wiped posthumously. That posthumous reversal had early been applied to Mokomoko wrong accused and hung for the death of Volkner in the 1860s.</p><p>It is clear that Scott Watson if paroled would be consistent treatment as given to those above with the exception of Peter and Mokomoko who were postshumously found innocent. There was an advance in the Watson case before his last Board appearance after Sir Panckhurst reported the Watson Royal Prerogative of Mercy plea back to the Governor General indicating he dismissed the evidence of 2 prison witnesses regarding an alleged conviction - where both men gave different details of what they claimed was the confession of Scott Watson. 1 of those 2 according to the records was never charged with a prison assault a senior ex-police officer Tom Fitzgerald was reportedly investigating the serious assault when the witness revealed the "confession" and was never charged. The 2nd man had psychiatric difficulties and recanted his recantation which was pointed out to Sir Panckhurst that fact itself showed unreliability confirmed by both men giving different accounts. It appears to this point that the PB have either never been aware of that situation or were not told.<br /></p><p>Sir Pankhurst's declaration on the evidence of the 2 men doesn't prove innocence, but what it does is to remove the "horror stories" the men told the Jury which must have had a strong influence on the Jury and remains in place though it ought to be excluded from consideration by the Parole Board and Corrections. Fair is fair. International studies show that "false confessions" are invariably embellished to get weak cases over the line. Fairness would say that those confessions should be put from the minds of the Board and not be seen as indicating treatment that Scott could need if they were true. This situation is a grave mistake, one which at least there should be a declaration about - emphatically that the Board the false claims of confessions into account, but rather dismissed them from its mind and deliberations.</p><p>Returning to the 6 named above who have never admitted guilt but were paroled anyway, 4 have been established as innocent with the remaining 2 now having their cases graduated to the Court of Appeal. A fair appraisal is that 100% of those claiming to be innocent are either now proven to be or are down the track to having their cases reviewed by the Courts. Let make no mistake any of those above could chosen the easier track of falsely saying they were guilty. </p><p>In an odd twist before Scott's next Board, there has been a call for his supporters to write to the Board rather than to his Lawyer. A real concern is that the Board may be subject to irrelevant material with no valid connection to its decision, worse it may be deliberately abused or insulted in some form by persons pretending to be supporters or even those with problems of their own. These concerns are relevant because the Board last time it sat on Scott's case spoke of some of Scott's supporters being unhelpful to him. While it is not suggested that the Board is not capable of putting irrelevant material aside the risk however is unnecessary - particularly that the pathway to fighting false convictions in New Zealand is growing stronger as the cases above show for those that were innocent and never agreed they were quilty in order to be freed.</p><p>Let us hope there is either an intervention with the letters that allows Scott's Lawyer to vet them or that the Board simply says it will only consider letters coming to it through that channel.</p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-67348919090572494912023-09-05T17:51:00.006+12:002023-09-05T17:55:27.066+12:00 1 of Scott Watson's nemesis gains from his misfortune. <p> </p><p> Kirsty McDonald QC turned down Scott Watson's RPOM in 2013: then10 years later;</p><p>Did the Lawyer Kirsty McDonald KC who turned down Scott Watson's first Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) application use material from his 2nd application in the following case. <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/alan-reay-fights-to-get-ctv-building-christchurch-earthquake-complaint-dismissed/ar-AA1gcqc0?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=62ccea86f9ff4160b196849bbbefa6ed&ei=52" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: blue;">Alan Reay fights to get CTV building Christchurch earthquake
complaint dismissed (msn.com)</span></a></p><p>Mr. Reay finds himself fighting against a historical complaint regarding the design of a building that collapsed during the Christchurch earthquakes killing 115 people. He sought Judicial Review (JR) of a decision by the complaints body Engineering New Zealand to continue with a complaint against him largely centred around a claim that his apparent decision to put another engineer in charge of the build and design of the CTV building resulted in contributing to the tragedy. He says that the claim was nonsense and the building was constructed within the safety protocols of the time and as I understand it, complied at the time of construction but not later when the standards were strengthened. Ms. McDonald points out that the police inquired into the matter and said there was insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Reay with any criminal offence. She also said that the original protocols did not include an express supervision requirement.</p><p>That police decision did not discourage Engineering New Zealand from continuing with its complaint upheld by the Court of Appeal in Mr Reay's first JR which Ms McDonald contended among things as "not being in the public" interest due to the rules of 40 years old no longer being relevant. On the face of it a sound argument even if rejected by the COA in any meaningful way. She said her client had been prejudiced by the "drawn out" complaint process. Something which apparently didn't apply to Scott when she took some 4 years to reach a decision about his first RPOM application.</p><p>In Scott's 2nd RPOM application not only was Ms. McDonald criticised for the amount of time she took in what some might consider, as certainly Scott Watson would, the "drawn out" process she implemented and no doubt was well paid for. She was also criticised for not recognizing the unfairness of the evidence that was admitted from 2 secret witnesses whom police "re-interviewed" without complaint from her doing the slow progress of her report, and after one man recanted the recantation of his trial evidence without any objection from Ms. McDonald. The significance of that was not understood by her. Amongst other things, it was also said that she was Judging Scott's application when indeed it was her job to gather a general overall opinion of the application before making a recommendation to the office of the Governor General that was balanced weighing both the pro and cons of the Application but certainly not overlooking that a secret who witness who had changed his evidence at least twice would have been an important factor for the first Jury or any subsequent Jury.</p><p>Moreover, Scott's second RPOM dealt extensively with JR and where and how it could apply - perhaps giving Ms McDonald QC a lever she might not have well understood before that time at least from the point of view of a man who did not have a fair trial.</p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-35006010663047870902023-08-20T12:23:00.002+12:002023-08-20T12:23:43.498+12:00Early Draft of the Successful Scott Watson plea for Mercy.<p>The following is an early partial draft of the successful 2017 Royal Prerogative of Mercy plea by Scott Watson to have his convictions for murder overturned. Whilst this draft is strong the final draft was more so and even that has had further telling advances that show once a case cracks open it continues to do so:</p><p> ------------------------------------------</p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> Joe Karam</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Sent:</b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> Sunday, March 19, 2017, 2:10 PM</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
<b>To:</b> 'Brian McDonald' <br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Uncompleted, rough RPOM draft March 2017 for comment and
detail if possible, please. Any help is much appreciated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;">What’s the intention here – is it to seek a judicial review of
Mcdonald's report or file a second Petition?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Tahoma",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Tahoma",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> Brian McDonald <br />
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, 19 March 2017 9:48 a.m.<br />
<b>To:</b> 'Joe Karam'<br />
<b>Subject:</b> FW: Uncompleted, rough RPOM draft March 2017 for comment and
detail if possible, please. Any help is much appreciated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Hey Joe, trust you are resting up. A little
exercise below upon which you may be able to comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Original start here:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Subject:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Watson RPOM application (2)</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Introduction; Following the previous application by Scott Watson
(SW), also referred to here as the applicant, for an exercise of The Royal
Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) in December 2008 rejected on July 2013 is herein a
second application for a fresh exercise of the RPOM.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 1. This application asserts that the declined application was
handled inconsistently with the concept of Mercy, due process, and the Bill of
Rights Act for the following reasons:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 2. Proper weight was not given to the alibi evidence provided
by Guy Wallace that SW was not the person whom he dropped off onto a ketch with
Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. Instead, Wallace's evidence was exclusively
criticised because of errors in his placement of the Ketch to the point no
proper weight was afforded his critical evidence as to the description of the
Ketch.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para3. Proper weight was not applied to evidence of a ketch and
the police failure to investigate all that evidence, some of which, supports
this application and provides a clear alibi that could result in an acquittal
if he was re-tried. New evidence suggests that it was improper and wrong for
the Crown to deny the existence of a Ketch at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 4. The onus of proof was reversed in the matter of the secret
witness who recanted his claim of a confession against SW. And was not anyway,
afforded the proper consideration of the impact of the recantation on a fresh
Jury or on prospective cross-examination of the 2<sup>nd</sup> secret witness.
This, per the reasoning of the trial Judge and the COA, may also have affected
the admissibility of the propensity evidence of Mr. and Mrs. B whom the Judge
found their evidence as consistent with the now-retracted evidence of one of
the secret witnesses. On this point, and throughout, the R v Bain 2007 Privy
Council (PC) decision is relied upon that evidence should be ‘taken together’
with surrounding evidence and not in isolation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 5. The application was not treated in a manner consistent
with the 2007 PC Decision in Bain where the PC instructed as to the limitations
of a COA assuming the role of a Jury, and is taken further in this application
in terms of the COA treatment of the Watson appeal 2002 where the Court
considered not only the position of a Jury but also the minds of Prosecuting
and Defence Counsel and took a role, as in Bain (PC), as Jurors after which the
appeal was denied. SW has never appealed the 2002 decision on these grounds as
they were unknown, or not fully appreciated by him.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 6. That the reviewer of SW’s application for the RPOM in
2009, Ms. McDonald QC, appears to have repeated the same position as the COA in
Bain and taken in SW’s appeal. She took a dual role as both inquirer and Jury
which breached both the Bain PC decision and Watson’s rights under TBORA. It also
extended her role as inquirer beyond the statutory limit of the RPOM which
affords referrals to the Courts, rather than the inquirer adopting the function
of the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 7. SW was refused permission to have counsel attend meetings
between Ms. McDonald and witnesses supporting my application in the normal
fashion of transparency. The applicant is aware that Justice Binnie when
investigating whether David Bain was innocent on the BOP, interviewed witnesses
with the option of having counsel present.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 8. Although identification was a crucial factor at the trial,
where critical witnesses have withdrawn their identifications Ms McDonald treated
that as insignificant as to what any fresh Jury might consider. However, the
Privy Council has rejected such reasoning by a COA and so it is a distortion
of Justice that an official, albeit a QC, operating in a quasi-legal way, with
rules changeable between one application and another – does not have the legal
authority to overlook what a Jury might consider of a case with key evidence
withdrawn or reduced to disfavour of the Crown. Moreover, the role of
appellant Courts or reviewers considering the minds of a jury or others is
covered in my complaints about the COA judgment later herein.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 9. Ms McDonald freely used police resources without notice to
Defence Counsel in the normal way Judicial proceedings take place with
communication to all parties. My application was not a police inquiry as the
result of a crime being reported, it was and is, in fact, an inquiry, among other
things, into police conduct into the treatment of witnesses, and not pursuing a
full investigation in the Sounds Murders. She did this without notice and
acceptance by Counsel. Mr Watson views this as one-sided, and not due process, and also as a breach of his rights to a fair hearing and consideration of the
application. Clearly the police and Crown are party to the complaints he
alleged in his previous application and this new application. While
appreciating that MS McDonald could solicit help from police, other agencies,
or take advice and so on, the applicant believes his counsel should have been
informed throughout for comment and also offered the same opportunities for
specific forensic or legal advice if required as may have occurred to Ms. McDonald, counsel for the police, The Crown, or indeed the applicant. This would
have been a constructive and fair approach to gaining a common purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 10. The review had no timetable and no structure, and counsel was
not kept within the loop whereas the police were very much so. There were long
delays that wouldn’t be tolerated in normal legal proceedings before the Court
would intervene. Included in Part 2 of this fresh application are instructions
given to Ms McDonald which Watson maintains were inadequate, and not consistent
with the principle of Mercy or TBORA.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 11. The review was unnecessarily long. Some of the delays
were explained as the difficulty in finding the secret witness B, who was in
fact never located and presumed disappeared. This belied a lack of serious effort
applied to my application which should have happened in a timely and
informative manner, not dissimilar to the recent Pora application for
compensation for wrongful imprisonment. It is understood that Witness B
remains in NZ and his whereabouts are known to police. It was open for Ms. Mc
Donald to take the clear position that the secret witness had recanted, as the
result is the same, he is no longer part of the Crown case. Accordingly, the
applicant seeks that this application confirms the same.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><u><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bayesian reasoning and inconsistencies between applications for
exercises of Executive Powers</span></u><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 12. Ms McDonald in her recommendation to reject the
application completely ignored the use of Bayesian reasoning in her report to
the then Minister, the Honourable Judith Collins.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">2 years after the decision by Judith Collins to reject the
application she rejected a claim by David Bain for compensation because it was
said that Bayesian reasoning was not used by the reviewer in that case, retired
Judge Ian Binnie. Without notice to the defence she released information to the
press as to the Binnie findings whilst not disclosing the same to the defence.
It is understood, by public comments made at the time, that the applicant was
the last to know of the decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">In Watson’s case, Judith Collins on the advice of Ms McDonald
publicly provided the reason for the application being denied as being the 2
hairs found in the ESR laboratory. As the Minister, may know, in this case, the handling of the hair samples fell below standard international practices, were
raised from a Laboratory where DNA evidence collected in Wellington was traced
to a person in the South Island who had never been in Wellington. The
Laboratory in question was situated in Auckland. Clearly, these were not conclusive anchors upon which to reject the application because of the
controversy surrounding the hairs and the safe custody chain of the evidence
could not fairly overcome the recanted confession and recanted identifications,
positive descriptions of an offender, and sightings of a ketch. In the trial,
cross-examination of the ESR Scientist, Ms Vintner, as to possible contamination
she agreed that contamination needed to be considered. It was at the very least
the matter for an informed Jury to consider in a much wider view than that
taken by the then Minister of Justice Judith Collins. It appears neither Ms
McDonald nor Ms Collins considered this point and there is also no mention of
it in the RPOM rejection summary, as indeed there is no mention of the standard
set for the consideration of fresh evidence, and evidence being taken together
as in the 2007 Bain PC decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Therefore, rather than seek Judicial Review of the Cabinet’s decision
to reject the original application, the decision is included in this fresh
application to be read with the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">That the fresh application is treated as part of the original
application with specific Judicial controls and Ministerial direction:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">That a High Court Judge oversees all matters including the final
recommendation to the Minister, after which the Judge’s recommendation to the
Minister is made available to the Crown and Watson for comment before the
Minister takes any recommendation to Cabinet. The latter has happened in
applications after Watson’s first and under a different Minister.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 13. Additional to points of contention in the first
application are affidavits, statements, videos, or information (contained herein
in Part 2) of people who saw what has been described as the mystery ketch in NZ
waters before, and after, the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope,
including some reported sightings, or possible sightings, of Ben Smart and
Olivia Hope on, and after, Jan 1st. Counsel anticipates that all such witnesses
be examined by the presiding Judge under oath where ever practical. This
information is a comprehensive alibi unavailable at the time of the trial and
COA because it was never fully investigated by police. Many of the witnesses
were not interviewed (and then only by private researchers, or news media)
until sometime after the trial and COA hearing, having been ignored by police
when they responded to the public plea for sightings of a ketch. They would
normally have been captured in a comprehensive police inquiry, the result of
which may have been that I would never have been charged. The extent to which
the Police inquiry should have been extended is sought to be scrutinized by the
examining Judicial officer in comparison to police journals' directions of such
events or any other applicable law.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Included are the links to the Bain, Lundy, and Pora Privy Council
Judgements relating to fresh evidence and additionally to the limits of a COA
(or as it follows here, a reviewer of an application under the Statutory
enactment of the ROPM acting in a quasi-legal way) to assume the role of a
Jury. Additionally, these decisions make it clear that evidence need not be new
or fresh if indicating a potential miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Evidence in an affidavit or statement form unheard by the Jury and
not investigated at all, or fully by police, as to a ketch in Endeavour Inlet
on the 31<sup>st</sup> Dec 1997 and 1<sup>st</sup> January 1998)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">The link to a 2016 report to the POTUS regarding standards of
forensic evidence, handling, safe custody, and information passed to testers by
authorities or first testers of samples. Of emphasis is this extract, from
26/174 “<i>hair – microscopic hair comparisons alone cannot lead to personal
identifications and it is crucial that this limitation be contained both in the
written report and in testimony,” </i>which could have influenced the Jury
along with other details of the 2-hairs raised here later.<i> </i>Also, there
is an analysis of forensic procedure in NZ post-2005 prepared by Sean Lundy for
the Lundy retrial, along with an earlier Ministerial Inquiry paper which
reflects directly upon the circumstances of the ‘discovery’ of the 2 hairs.
None of this material was available to the Jury, or COA.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">That of note in the inquiry/consideration by the High Court of
this application the Petitioner formally requests that the Minister fixes at
least the forgoing and following points and others which the Minister by
consultation might decide are necessary to ensure a fair and just consideration
of the application, along with any points which might be necessary to be raised
as the inquiry continues. This would avoid a recommendation of application
that did not display in any way a BOP, BRD, or Bayesian reasoning. Points
should be linked together, a sound argument to the reasoning of the ‘hairs
found on the Blade’ was neither mentioned nor analysed in the previous report,
it was simply accepted against other evidence which found no mention. There is
no BRD fairness in the report claiming that the ‘2 hairs’ hold the fractured
pieces of the case together. They do not and never have as will be set out
throughout.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That there is and has
never been unimpeachable evidence of the couple being dropped off with Watson
onto The Blade. In fact, there is total evidence that they were not from Donald
Anderson and those aboard vessels which The Blade was rafted alongside.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That there was no
forensic evidence catalogued as being found on The Blade confirming the couple
had been on board. The 2 hairs were found in a laboratory in unknown, and in a
forensically unsafe situation. They are not the glue binding this case together,
they bind together a miscarriage of justice. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That the police did
solicit sightings of a ketch, and then refused to investigate all reports from
the public. The timing of this switch is important because dates show that
Watson and The Blade became primary targets of investigators and other
information from the public was deprioritised. Lost to the jury was, as time
has shown, a complete alibi for Watson because the investigative resources
continued to be utilised in the search for the couple and perpetrator but
excluded looking for the ketch which should be recognised (considering the
attached affidavits, statements or reports) to have completely missed the
opportunity for an inquiry into the ketch that it has taken members of the
public to solve.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That late in the trial
during the closing addresses Counsel for the Crown claimed that Watson had made
a 2<sup>nd</sup> trip to the Furneaux Lodge after being dropped off to the
Blade. but were unable to provide evidence of this – because there simply is
none contained in the entire file (<b>check here the jersey referred to by
Davidson and COA</b>). This happened in the manner of a blindside that prevented
a thorough defence to that point (the 2-trip theory) in the normal manner of depositions hearing, along with witnesses providing proof of the claim during
the Crown case. No written notice was given of this.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"># Ms. Vintner of the ESR
gave evidence that potential contamination of the hairs needed to be
considered, something which the COA, Ms. McDonald, and Ms Collins overlooked
without a single comment. In view of best practices throughout Britain and the
United States, and the compilation prepared for the POTUS, these decisions were
regretful and unjust. What may have sufficed in Ms. Collin's decision was an
instruction to apply Bayes testing to the probability of the hairs being able
to be relied upon to turn down the application. The very least was a full and
considered analysis of all the matters raised here in respect of the 2
hairs and what information any new Jury would have to consider on the subject
should there be any retrial in which the ‘hair evidence’ remained
admissible.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Underpinning facts:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That executive powers
are reviewable by the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That executive powers
even where reviewing criminal convictions or offending utilise both criminal
and civil standards, being both guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt or
on the balance of probabilities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That the Minister of
Justice has the primary role in applications for an exercise of Prerogative
Powers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That the Minister of
Justice conducts a role between the Crown on the one hand and the applicant on
the other and ultimately makes a recommendation to Cabinet and that during
that disposal of any application, the Minister is open to both parties by
correspondence or contact in any other formal way, along with requests by both
parties in the knowledge that the Minister’s decisions are reviewable by the
Courts, and may be referred to the Courts on matters of Law, precedent or
procedure, before, during, and after a decision is made.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That there can be an
expectation by any applicant that the Minister whilst holding regard to due
process and the TNZBORA, shall also observe the traditional meaning of Mercy
and in particular to those imprisoned or convicted of crimes where Justice
available to the applicant may be exhausted apart from the principle of Mercy
enshrined in Law and elucidated by Lord Diplock of the PC contained within the
text following text by M. Travis:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Some
material from M. Travis, May 1998 on the RPOM in NZ.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">The whole
thing is worth reading, however, in the excerpt below is what seems to be the
answer in Pora – no limits apparent on ‘the discretion’ to exercise. And in the
final sentence, what now appears to be a ‘prophetic’ observation regarding a
current Judicial Review as, hopefully, the Courts and The Executive will ensure
that ‘Executive Powers’ are consistent with Statute, due process, and Natural
Justice – all things which must have been included in the original concepts of
the Royal Prerogative. Great observation by Lord Diplock included.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">‘The
prerogative of mercy seems limited only by the discretion of those who have the
power to exercise it – the Sovereign, and the Governor-General by way of
delegation in the Letters Patent 1983. Fortunately, a precedence has been set by
the practice of successive Home Secretaries that, in the words of Ivan Hare,
“a free pardon should only be granted in cases where it was established that
the convicted individual was both technically and morally innocent.” Although
only a precedent and in no way binding, this is most compelling and surely to
be followed by successive Governors-General. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">The only
major mechanism that has been suggested for controlling the use of this
prerogative is the possible threat of judicial review. So far there has not
been a successful appeal for review, but there are many arguments on either
side of the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">In de
Freitas v Benny [1976] (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed
that <i>“mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal
rights end.”</i> Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that “the exercise
of the prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore
not justiciable,” as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case [1985] A.C. 374.
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the Crown’s ability to pardon displays
the necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like
Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability “in favour of an examination
of the court’s capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each
case.” Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the
prerogative of mercy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">Nonetheless,
a judicial review of the prerogative has never been undertaken in a New Zealand
court. The closest thing so far was the ‘review via invitation’ in R v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bentley [1993] 2 W.L.R.
101; where the Divisional Court did not order a formal review but “[invited]
the Home Secretary to look at the matter again.” Ivan Hare saw this invitation
as attempting to “impose narrower parameters on the discretion of the Home
Secretary” via the informal mechanism of invitation, but he seems dubious as to
its ability in having any real effect. This is because it is beyond the role of
the courts to suggest a particular result and because any purported limitation
on the role of the Home Secretary is illegitimate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">The issue
is also a live one in Burt v Governor-General [1989] 3 NZLR 64, (1987-89) 7
NZAR and [1992] 3 NZLR 672, and some very important contributions to the
argument are made. In these cases, Mr. Burt sought a judicial review of the
Governor-General’s refusal to exercise the prerogative of mercy in granting him
a free pardon. Although unsuccessful, Cooke P said that: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">“It would
be inconsistent with the contemporary approach to say that, merely because [the
prerogative of mercy] is a pure and strict prerogative power, its exercise or
non-exercise must be immune from curial challenge.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">He states
that the Courts’ wish to review the refusal to exercise the prerogative is not
“absurd, extreme or contrary to principle” as it is at the very least
attempting to ensure that fair procedure has been followed. Moreso he adds that
the prerogative of mercy is not “an arbitrary monarchical right” but “an
integral element in the criminal justice system…a constitutional safeguard
against mistakes.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US">In
conclusion, the prerogative is not to be touched by the Courts or judicial
review, yet the concept is one that is winning favour amongst the Judges. It is
possible that in a few years, there will be mechanisms like judicial review to
control the use of the prerogative, but it is very unlikely that it should ever
become part of a statute.’</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That all RPOM
applications looked at since the year of the Watson convictions it is revealed
that there is no consistent pattern by which any application under the RPOM, or
application for compensation, has been handled. Rules have changed from one to
another. In Bain, as mentioned above, Binnie’s recommendation was not accepted
because it was claimed he did not use Bayesian reasoning. In Mr. Bain’s next
application, considered by retired Judge Callinan, Callinan refused to use
Bayesian reasoning at all, yet his report was accepted. There cannot be a
better (or worse) example of the perils before any applicant than this. In
Watson’s case, Bayes's reasoning was not used in such a fashion so that any
strengths of application, arising from the evidence or the inquiry were
measured together, one supporting the other. This allowed Ms McDonald to rally
points in support of the Crown case which were already controversial for not
being sound evidence. By this, the applicant refers to the 2 hairs, which the
Minister of the time, Judith Collins, repeated to the public as the reason the
application was declined despite the known controversy regarding the hairs.
Using Bayes reasoning the Crown could no longer rely on identifications of the
couple with Watson on the water taxi driven by Guy Wallace, and therefore not
being dropped off along with Watson to The Blade – in fact the essence of the
case. A point made by Justice Heron to the Jury in his closing address – if, in
the Jury’s opinion, the couple did not go aboard The Blade then the hairs were
of no moment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That there is a high
public interest In the Watson case. The public is aware that over 50 people
saw the ketch, some of whom identified what clearly could have been the couple
on board after their disappearance, thereby corroborating the testimony of Guy
Wallace. A full RPOM inquiry is in the public interest.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">#That the nature and the
very use of the word ‘Mercy’ be applied in a way with the principle set down by
Lord Diplock of the Privy Council that Mercy begins where Justice stops. It is
the overriding submission that ‘Justice stopped’ in the investigation of the
disappearances when Inspector Pope, on January 6<sup>th,</sup> 1988, suddenly
halted the search for the ketch which had featured in all advice to the public
to that point. Whether Mr. Pope had good reason to believe there was not a ketch
involved, due process required that all reports were investigated relating to
the disappearance of the couple, while this may not have produced any help for
Mr. Pope’s theory, his duty was to the victims and public interest to
investigate all information and pass it on to the Courts and defence counsel in
the event of any arrest. Indeed, it is the police's role to investigate all
evidence, not selective evidence to suit a case they may be building. That this
clear oversight was compounded when Counsel for the Crown suddenly, and without
notice or evidence in support, introduced a new theory for which the defence
was unable to fairly respond. Therefore, Watson could never have possibly had
a fair trial.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">COA Issues which it is considered were dealt with in an unfair,
unjust, and discriminatory way by the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 14. <u>Interruptions by Judge Heron of my counsel Mr
Antunovic</u>. A careful reading of the passages cited in the COA judgment
reveals an ongoing exchange between the Judge and Mr Antunovic. When discussing
this, the COA at no point considered what the impact may have been on the Jury.
It may well be unprecedented that such an argument has occurred In a murder
trial previously, or since in NZ, particularly during an opening or closing
address where protocol has meant an acceptance that is solely the time of
counsel, their opportunity to speak on behalf of the Crown or indeed a client,
statements that are often referred to by the Judge in his or her address to the
jury. Despite Mr. Antunovic making an opening address as to the witnesses he
would call and where their evidence fitted into the 14 weeks or so of the Crown
case. This was an extremely important and sensitive moment in the context of
the trial. This is the period after a time where there had been a lot of public
interest, statements by police and so on, an arrest, a depositions hearing, an
opening by the Crown, and in this case, 100s of witnesses. In fact, the first
time and opportunity for Counsel to speak on Watson’s behalf. This was a time
of anticipation, of what evidence the defence would call in response to a
sensational case that was in the public mind and had been so for a long time,
as it remains today. No doubt the Jury was also anticipating this opening because
until that point Defence counsel had been solely able to cross-examine Crown
witnesses as in the normal trial procedure. Here, on top of that anticipation, the Judge argued with the lead Defence lawyer in open Court and spoke to him in a
manner that clearly warned him, an experienced counsel and member of the bar,
as though he were committing some offence or indeed being offensive or
dishonest. This was the start to the defence and it must be considered to have
made a lasting impression on at least some of the Jury, some of who could even
have decided regarding guilt or innocence later in the trial if influenced by
the exchange. It could have been interpreted as an endorsement of the Crown case
and a criticism of the defence. While the COA may have chosen to intellectualise
responses by a Jury or consider what they may or may not think or have
thought, one thing which is clear is that a jury, by its nature, comprises
people of different backgrounds, social status, wealth, education, and so on.
But a jury remains subject to the thoughts or attitudes of each of its members
and in this case, an attitude may have formed in one or more of the jurors as to
Defence Counsel’s conduct in a negative way, which may have reflected in their
deliberations. This application submits that nobody can say with any certainty
otherwise. The COA was silent on this aspect, it appeared they too engaged in
the ‘battle’ to some degree and lost sight of the fact that the jury had been
present. If there is a cautionary point here, it is that the matter should have
gone to chambers, this was overlooked by the COA.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 15. <u>The propensity evidence by Mr. A, and Mr. and Mrs. B</u>,
this relates to evidence that Judge Heron wavered on, firstly ruling the
evidence inadmissible to only later ruling it as admissible. He conceded to allow
the Crown to have more than one application which may be unusual. From the
position of a defendant, it meant that the Judge was at times inconclusive if
looking at it in a benign way, on the other hand, another defendant in a
relatively weak circumstantial case could see it – as a call for help from the
Crown who knew their case was weak particularly so because of the Donald
Anderson evidence. The Judge (as was the COA) was silent on the period that passed
between the first and previously unreported allegation by Mr and Mrs. B,
somewhere approaching an entire year the second on the 31<sup>st</sup> of December
1997. Despite the seriousness of the allegations and the lapse between them,
one appears to take up precisely where the other finished 12 months previously.
Mrs B’s evidence was that Watson hated women in her opinion, yet in the same
breath said Watson offered to kill someone for her, a woman herself. Common
sense would say that it is certain that had Mr. and Mrs. B has been so concerned, as
they justifiably would have been if the allegations were true – that they would
not have taken celebratory drinks with Watson on New Year’s, let alone
socialise with him again. This was not traversed by either Judge Heron or the
COA, in fact, it was overlooked. In any event, this point was held by both Judge
Heron and the COA being unaware that the evidence of a secret witness had been
recanted and therefore reduced the corroborative value of both prison witnesses
in the decisions of admissibility of the propensity evidence. None of this
evidence puts a couple of Watson’s yacht nor dismisses the reports of a ketch
and should be set aside when considering this application as its prejudicial
extent is plain if but inconsistent with the surrounding known evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Para 16. In the<u> 2-trip theory</u><b>, </b>to this aspect the COA
and the trial Judge made an unintentional error as they were unaware and
therefore unable to consider new evidence ignored in the police inquiry.
Additionally, the consideration given (by Heron and the COA) that the
defence <b>must</b> have known that the trial was going to move in a new
direction (without witnesses or notice,) remains the indisputable fact if the
Crown had appreciated their witness could give evidence helpful to the defence,
as the Court says – then it remains that the Crown did absolutely nothing about
that until after all witnesses had been called. On this point, the minds of the
COA may have unwittingly gone into the minds of counsel, in a manner warned
about by the PC in respect to the minds of a jury. By any measure going into
the minds of a jury, or alternatively, officers of the Court, differs in at
least one substantial way. Both counsels were before the Court (and subsequently
the COA) and may have simply been addressed as to exactly what they had
thought. In the case of Mr Antunovic an affidavit is attached(?) with
information the COA could have asked for, without troubling its imagination.
This oversight afforded a position to the Defence which has proven to be
entirely inaccurate, clearly favoured the Crown with an unprecedented right of
not introducing evidence or speculative theories during any trial, but which
they could rely upon in its closing address. With counsel present, the Court
did not have to rely upon distant and speculative, reasoning – it should have
simply asked counsel as to their positions and their minds on the subject of
the exculpatory evidence of Anderson during the relevant times of the trial,
depositions hearing, and so on. It is submitted that would have been the only
possible fair way for the 2-trip theory to be considered as possibly admissible
in the closing address. This must be measured against the evidence of Wallace
and Anderson, Watson himself in his statement to police, and the entire
visibility that no such evidence exists. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">oooooooo</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Included here are possible jersey details although the denim
shirt seen by many others is far more certain at the time allegedly after a 2<sup>nd</sup> trip. This appears to have slipped through the net?)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Additional points to be considered (1)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">The argumentative nature of the Wallace/Tom video dated 11<sup>th</sup>
Jan 1998. In this interview, Detective Tom Fitzgerald is essentially arguing
with Wallace over Wallace's description of Wallace dropping off the couple
with a stranger onto a Ketch which he describes in detail. Police were unhappy
about the description of the Ketch which follows the January 6<sup>th</sup>
shift of the inquiry away from searching for a Ketch, indicating a departure
from prioritising finding the Ketch Wallace and others had seen. This is despite
that Wallace was the primary witness who had dropped the couple and a stranger.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Redacted, at the time a prison inmate and ex-redacted, was
interviewed in Paparua prison on the 27</span><sup style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of March 98. He had
called the police as he knew of a Ketch that he had seen in the Sounds prior to
1998. He also could describe a man who was either the owner or a crewman on the
vessel. The description appears to be very like that given by Wallace in
various interviews. Redacted also states that the man told him that he sailed in
the Pacific. An investigator has spoken to him and recorded that he said there was more to the interview than recorded in the unsigned
statement. The investigator says that redacted was told by police that there was
no interest in the Ketch anymore (and therefore the suspect) but that he, the
police officer taking the statement, Constable McDaniel, was aware that he was a friend of Watson's, that they had drunk together at times and Watson had a hate-talked woman. Redacted at this point terminated the interview without
signing the statement as shown in Part 2.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">The applicant draws attention to the timing of these interviews
being both before Watson’s arrest, and both ignoring a description of a
suspect and a ketch. The first was within days of the couple’s disappearance and
the second was approximately 8 weeks later.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore,
the OIC of Operation Tam co-operated in the writing of the book Silent Evidence
about the case researched and written by John Coulter. In this book, a Ketch
named Mea NZ is described as not being at Endeavour Inlet on either the 31<sup>st</sup>
of November 1997 or indeed the following day. These claims appear inconsistent
with police files of the time contained in Part 2 of this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Additional
points to be considered (2)</span></b><i><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Justice
Heron used alleged details of an alleged conversation between Watson and Mr and
Mrs B to deal with a possible motive at trial, he also used the same alleged
conversations to ‘support’ the 2-trip theory and it appears all to be related
to his decision to first rule the evidence inadmissible before reversing the
order. The Judge clearly did not know that Peter John Firman ex-soldier and
prison inmate had a conversation with Constable McDaniel during the taking of
a statement about a ketch Firman had seen in the Nelson Bays area in the
mid-1990s. Or that included in this conversation was a description of a crewman
of the vessel. A conversation during which Firman says it was put to him that
he was a friend of Watson's, that they had drank together, and Watson had made
comments like that alleged by Mr. and Mrs. B. Nor did Justice Heron know, Firman
denied the allegation and refused to sign the statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">It’s clear
that the decision to allow Mr. and Mrs. B's evidence was a difficult decision
for the Judge, Firman’s evidence, had it been available, could have influenced
this decision. What was likely to follow from that was that the Judge may not
have considered using the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. B to introduce a potential
motive which the Judge also extended to use as support for the 2-trip theory.
Firman can attest to witnesses being invited what to say by police and is
supported by the video of the Wallace statement made on 7/1/88. In the minds of
a Jury, this may also reflect in the changing positions of time offered by the
Eerie Bay caretaker who appears to have been given a lighter sentence for
commercial cannabis growing, and on different charges, after delaying the time
he first indicated as the day Watson visited him on 1/1/98.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">For this to
be fully considered in context is the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. B. themselves that
the couple was willing to socialise with Watson on their own boat with others
a year after the first alleged statements made by Watson that he was a hitman.
No other persons aboard Mr. and Mrs. B’s boat supported their story.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">It takes no
imagination that witnesses prepared to say that Watson had spoken about killing
people shored up a case in which the naiad driver Anderson had put Watson on
his own boat alone, something established by other witnesses, whilst Wallace
had put the couple aboard a ketch with a lot of rope work along with a man
Wallace recognised from the bar and which wasn’t Watson.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr style="height: 7.5pt; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="height: 7.5pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Both Firman and are Wallace material
witnesses in any attempt to highlight the weakness or total unreliability of
the remaining secret prison witness, along with the recantation of
Witness B.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="height: 7.5pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;"></td>
<td style="height: 7.5pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Para 17<u>.
Heron Summing up</u>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Judge Heron
after considering Vintner’s evidence should not have referred to blond hairs
being found on The Blade. He should have referred to her evidence providing,
the Jury might think, reasonable doubt that the hairs had not come from the
blanket but rather from the hair brush. The weight that could be provided to
that, the Jury might think, was the previous unsuccessful searches of the bags
for blond hairs. Also, the reconciliation by Ms. Vintner of the longest hairs
taken from the blanket on the earlier searches of the blanket and the sample
bag.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">He referred
to ’possibilities of some mix at the time of re-examination’ of the hairs. But
he does not quote directly the answer of Vintner to defence counsel regarding
contamination ‘that it would have to be considered.’ The Judge also directed to
Jury to consider a ‘mixup or inadvertent exchange’ of the hairs whereas Ms. Vintner had specifically confirmed to defence counsel that contamination would
need to be considered.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">He also
spoke ‘of all the steps that are normally taken to prevent this happening’
without being aware that the ‘normal steps of the time did not address the
British standards as pointed out in by Sean Doyle in a report commissioned for
the 2014 Lundy retrial and repeated similarly by researchers in a p cast to
the office of POTUS in September 2016. What happened in the lab in the Watson
case would not happen today, something highly relevant to a Jury’s
consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Para 18. <u>Motive
and the 2-trip theory Justice Heron</u><i>:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Heron used
alleged details of a conversation between Watson and Mr. and Mrs B. to deal with
a possible motive, he also used the same alleged conversations to ‘support’ the
2 trip theory and it appears all to be related to his decision to first of all
rule the evidence inadmissible before reversing the order. At this time the
Judge was not to know that redacted the prison inmate
was yet to reveal details of a conversation had with Constable McDaniel during
the taking of a statement about a ketch Redacted had seen in the Nelson Bays area
in the mid-1990s including his conversation with a crewman of the vessel. A
conversation during which Firman says it was put to him that he was a friend of
Watson's, that they had drank together, and Watson had made comments similar to
that alleged by Mr. and Mr. B. However, Firman denied the allegation and refused
to sign the statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">As written
earlier, it’s clear that the decision to allow Mr. and Mrs. B evidence was a
difficult decision for the Judge, Redacted's evidence, had it been available,
could have influenced this decision. What was likely to follow from that was
that the Judge may not have considered using the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. B to
introduce a potential motive which the Judge also extended to use as possible
support for the arguably improperly admitted 2 trip theory. The Firman
statement is explicit as to witnesses being invited what to say by police, and
is supported by the video of the Wallace statement made on 7/1/88. It may also
reflect in the changing positions of time offered by the Eerie Bay caretaker
who appears to have been given a lighter sentence for commercial cannabis
growing, and on different charges, after delaying the time he first indicated
as the day Watson visited him on 1/1/98.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">For this to
be fully considered in context is the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. B themselves that
the couple was willing to socialise with Watson on their own boat with others
a year after the first alleged statements made by Watson that he was a hitman.
No other persons aboard Mr. and Mrs. B’s boat supported their story.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">It takes no
imagination that witnesses prepared to say that Watson had spoken about killing
people shored up a case in which the naiad driver Anderson had put Watson on
his own boat alone, something established by other witnesses, whilst Wallace had
put the couple aboard a ketch with a lot of rope work along with a man Wallace
recognised from the bar and which wasn’t Watson. The Jury ought to have known
that police clearly preferred witnesses who had not seen a Ketch or who would
confirm that Watson allegedly hate-talked women.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
cumulative results of the changes to the Wallace, McNeilly evidence and how
when considered in the overall evidence of the case they would have affected
all these crucial aspects, the Ketch, the stranger, the conduct of Watson, the
alleged motive, the 2-trip theory. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
Supplementary Advice (as to complaints arising from her recommendation to
decline the 2011 SW application for RPOM) from K McDonald QC dated March
2013.<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Again, in
this subsequent report, as there was in the first, there is silence on the role
Mercy is to play in its finding as there was in the original. There is no
explanation as to what Mercy entails for an applicant making an Application under
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy. On the basis that the supplementary report
seeks to answer criticisms of the report proper and shares the same lack of
observation to the Bain PC reports dealing in principle with the sanctity of
the role of Jurys compared to appellant Courts (or therefore, inquiries or
reviewers of RPOM application – the full report is not dealt with here in
detail, although it may be in the event of Judicial Review)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Each
point in answer to the criticisms of her report does not refer to the view a prospective
Juror might have reacted had the new evidence been heard, nor does she look to
see the points from the Defence Counsel's point of view, and what indeed that may
have led onto. She also, in contradiction of the PC report ignores the
continuity of the evidence, in original form or in changed form taken as a whole.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">She also
does not clearly set out her role on each topic as to what was required by her
brief to do, whether or not that was achieved, or if in fact, the points in her
brief ought to have been extended or restricted in the interests of due process and the
overall capacity of S406 being capable of recommending extensions of Mercy to
an applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">There is
concern that Ms. McDonald reflects upon new evidence in a manner that seems to assume the role of the COA, when the COA is, accordingly to the
legislation, an option for the RPOM where 3 Judges rather than a reviewer
consider the matter. At times the lines are blurred between the reviewer and
the functions of the COA. This appears to lead to a Judgement role of the
reviewer beyond the role envisaged by the Legislators or per the common Law and
The BORA but already limited in extent by a brief from the Ministry that has not
been discussed with the Defence or presumably the Crown.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Indeed, Ms
McDonald refers to this situation in her supplementary report in para (24)
where she refers to her instructions to consider: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">‘only
information relied upon and submitted by Mr. Watson and his representatives it
was not appropriate for me to embark upon a wide-ranging inquiry as now seems
to be suggested by Mr. Watson’s advisors.’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Clearly, Ms. McDonald is saying that she was restricted as to what she could do and that
there appeared to her from her brief that she had no alternative. In fact, Natural Justice for any applicant would not preclude someone in Ms. McDonald’s
position from writing to all parties on some matters she thought important but which
extended, in her opinion, outside her brief. While apparently this approach may
have been viewed as novel in the year of 2013 such procedures of open
communication between all parties was beginning in the Bain case as it would
later in Pora.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">This
appears to be the crux as to why the McDonald RPOM was not treated as a potential
inquiry that begins ‘where Justice stops’ Lord Diplock of the PC. Whether Ms
McDonald saw herself as somehow prevented from addressing the new evidence as
something likely to have been of assistance to defence counsel, or the jury, at
trial must be confirmed by her having not done so. That is ultimately a matter for
the MOJ, the Minister, or Judicial Review, as time has now shown.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Again, in
para (25) Ms McDonald emphasises that in her instructions she was not asked to:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-indent: 3.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">‘embark upon a wide-ranging inquiry
as to an overall miscarriage. It is important that distinction be understood,’
she says. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">While
perhaps the words ‘wide ranging’ overstate the case the distinction is
understood and it is neither Merciful nor to the benefit of an applicant who may
have no other alternatives open to him or her. Furthermore, there is a high
public interest in this case which has never been far from the everyday news,
there are many victims directly as a consequence of everyday New Zealanders
with evidence on the case being shut out. There is also undoubtedly public
concern over other high-profile cases which would be benefited in endorsing public confidence that indeed the RPOM works as a safety net to ensure that
Courts continue to be available for extraordinary cases such as that of Watson.
It would not be unkind to describe Ms. McDonald’s response as that she either
did her job properly or was restricted from doing more.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Moving to
para (30) Ms McDonald displays (we're talking about ‘the fresh evidence of
McNeilly and Wallace’ what some may feel as considering if the material should
be referred to the COA as:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">‘reasonable
prospect the COA would uphold the appeal.’ <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Obliquely,
there is enough doubt about this case – as revealed by Ms. McDonald and the
previous Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, to hold the 2 laboratory hairs
alone as capable of upholding the conviction. Accordingly, Ms. McDonald was
wrong to hang the 2 hairs over the entire case in its weakened state to ignore
the changes in the evidence of the two primary witnesses. Indeed, in para (32)
Ms McDonald does not reflect upon the gravity of a long trial where some jurors
might well have relied upon the ‘most important’ witnesses, those that
allegedly put Watson with the couple. This in fact was the core of the Crown
case. If jurors had not heard evidence allegedly putting the group together,
coupling that with the testimony of Donald Anderson it is an incredible
assertion to claim their deliberations would not have been affected. This
however, does not stand alone because it is supported by the Wallace video in
which he refuses to deny that there was a ketch, and the Firman statement that
he was ‘invited’ to tell police that he knew Watson and when drinking with him
had heard Watson making comments that would corroborate the evidence of Mr and
Mrs B. Not one plank of the prosecution case was under pressure, but several
and Ms. McDonald, when assuming what the COA might think of it, ignored the
co-relation. Further into this point is the consideration that any new Jury
would hear from witnesses who did see the Ketch the Crown continue to deny
existed. This is the heart of the Watson case – a 2-masted Ketch did arrive in
Endeavour Inlet around 5.30 pm on 31/12/98 and left the next morning
according to witnesses now available.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">In paras
(32 and 33) Ms. McDonald wholly concentrates on the identification or
non-identification of Watson to the exclusion of his major evidence – the
ketch, of which he was never in doubt. It is highly unlikely the COA would not
have appreciated this point. It was a serious mistake for Ms McDonald to overlook
this aspect and for the MOJ not to have included in a thoughtful and open
brief that allowed flexibility to deal with important issues as they may have
occurred.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Paras (34
to 35) deal with identification aspects also, none of these reflect upon the statement
from Wallace dated? in which he swears
‘that he was honestly mistaken,’ something material for a Jury to consider –
that Wallace as id witness acknowledges honest mistakes in identifications of
people at the outset, but that he was forthright and clear as to his
identification of a ketch with extensive rope work to the rear. This statement
dated is attached in Part 2.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Soon after
in the supplementary report Ms McDonald asserts she was correct on various
issues in the first report including the timing of Watson’s departure from the
Lodge Wharf. Again, even where it is true, that departure puts Watson, according
to Anderson, and those aboard the rafted-up vessels alongside the Blade, alone
on his own yacht as he said in his first police interview. Unfortunately, Ms. McDonald appears to be Judging her own work in a manner that isn’t consistent
with due process or natural justice. This appears to demonstrate the
bureaucratic failure of the exercise of the RPOM in NZ. It may well follow that
the very complaints raised by the late and very experienced Greg King,
the equally experienced Kit Hall and ought to have been referred to the COA for
directions rather than Ms. McDonald being asked to look at it again. This would
have possibly allowed the narrowness of Ms McDonald’s brief set out in her 2<sup>nd</sup>
report into the way she had handled the RPOM application, to also have been
considered by the COA. She Judged herself and ought never to have been asked to.
The same consideration was never afforded to Justice Binnie who was in fact
publicly ridiculed. The COA is recognised in the statute as the place of
referral, an exercise that should have been employed by the Minister to answer
the criticisms.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Judicial
Review remains available to Watson, fresh evidence and procedural matters
beyond that potentially able to uphold the first report of Ms McDonald, are
included here, making it opportune for a fresh single report to cover all
the Watson matters to date, including the COA Judgement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">In (Para
60) Ms. McDonald says that she has dealt with new evidence using a test that
excludes the possibility that evidence, even if not fresh, but which may go to
the heart of conviction is admissible – Lord Kerr PC in Lundy:( Noting also the
reference to ‘bad science’, arguably the result of working within an unsafe
from the possible contamination laboratory environment.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Lord Kerr PC<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="background: #ECF3F7; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">120. The Board
considers that the proper basis on which admission of fresh</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">evidence should be decided is by the
application of a sequential series of tests. If the</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">evidence is not credible; it should not be
admitted. If it is credible, the question then</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">arises whether it is fresh in the sense that
it is evidence that could not have been</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">obtained for the trial with reasonable
diligence. If the evidence is both credible and</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">fresh, it should generally be admitted unless
the court is satisfied at that stage that, if</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">admitted, it would have no effect on the
safety of the conviction. If the evidence is</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">credible but not fresh, the court should
assess its strength and its potential impact on</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">the safety of the conviction.</span><span style="background: #FFFF80;"> If it considers that there is a risk of a
miscarriage of<br />
justice if the evidence is excluded, it should be admitted, notwithstanding
that the<br />
evidence is not fresh.</span></span><span style="background: #FFFF80; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="background: #ECF3F7; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">121. The
requirement that evidence be fresh can be of less critical importance in</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">cases involving scientific evidence. In
Wallace v R [2010] NZCA 46, a case in which</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">Page 34 </span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">it was sought to introduce new forensic
evidence, Hammond J touched on this</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">question in para 48:</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">“Before we approach the particular scientific
concerns in relation to the</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">DNA evidence, we must also consider the
appropriate principles to</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">apply on a miscarriage appeal. An appropriate
starting point is Lord</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">Judge CJ’s recent restatement of the bedrock
principle for the criminal</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">justice process: “The objective of the
criminal justice process is that</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">after a fair trial, there should be a true
verdict”. In an imperfect world,</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">something may go wrong with a trial. It
follows that, with respect to a</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">miscarriage appeal, the focus has to be on the
safety of the verdict,</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">however, a miscarriage has been caused. It must
also follow that, in</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">principle, a critical reliance on “bad
science” could lead to an unsafe or</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">wrong conviction. That seems to have been
recognised, at least in</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">principle, by the Supreme Court in granting
leave to appeal in R v</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">Gwaze. The present point is that, on a “bad
science” argument, the door</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">can never be closed even if the “better
science” is not “fresh” in the</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">conventional sense.”</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">122. The reference to “bad science” in this
passage prompted some debate on the</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">hearing of this appeal on whether various
elements of the scientific evidence given at</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">the trial on behalf of the prosecution could
be so characterised. The Board does not</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">consider it helpful to make a pre-emptive
judgment as to whether the scientific</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">evidence led by the Crown (or, for that matter
the evidence which the appellant wishes</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">to adduce) can be described as “bad science”.
In the Board’s view, Hammond J was</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">doing no more than to indicate that where a
case against an accused rested exclusively</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">or principally on scientific evidence when on
an appeal, the application is made to have</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">admitted new scientific material which
presents a significant challenge to that</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">evidence, the court should not be astute to
exclude the new material solely because it</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">might have been obtained before the trial.
This is the approach that the Board</span><br />
<span style="background: #ECF3F7;">would endorse.</span></span><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">She makes
no reflection upon the fact that Counsel was taken by surprise with the 2 trip
theory to the extent they were not afforded the opportunity to reconsider
evidence that they may have decided not to call, or questions put to witnesses,
once the evidence of Donald Anderson had been heard. It wasn’t the role of Ms. McDonald to determine what the defence case may have been and who they may have
called had they known, as the COA wrongly accepted in the Watson appeal, that
the surprise 2 trip theory must have been logically known to them – the defence.
Furthermore, the new evidence not considered by Ms. McDonald because of its
unavailability at the time, extends beyond the ‘not material’ tag Ms. McDonald
has placed on the Wallace and McNeilly identity retractions. Moreover, the
evidence of McNeilly and Wallace as to how they were either mistaken or tricked
would highly be relevant to any jury. As would new potential sightings of the
missing couple after New Year’s Day. An attempt is made to hide a narrative of
innocence by treating each part in isolation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">In (Para 61
and 62) Ms. McDonald quotes the following to put aside complaints by Watson that
the appeal point that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Sungsuwan
[2006] 1 NZLR (SC)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">[66]
There will be cases in which acts or omissions of counsel may in retrospect be
seen to have possibly affected the outcome but they were deliberately judged at
the time to be in the interests of the accused. In some cases the accused will
have agreed or acquiesced - only to complain after conviction. Where the
conduct was reasonable in the circumstances the client will not generally
succeed in asserting miscarriage of justice so as to gain the chance of
defending on a different basis on a new trial. Normally an appeal would not be
allowed simply because of a judgment made by trial counsel which could well be
made by another competent counsel in the course of a new trial. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">[67]
But there will be cases, rare cases, as was recognised in Pointon, where the
conduct of counsel, although reasonable in the circumstances in which it
occurred, nevertheless can be shown to have given rise to an irregularity in
the trial that prejudiced the accused's chance of acquittal (or conviction of a
lesser offence) such that the appeal court is satisfied there was a miscarriage
of justice. The court will always reserve the flexibility to identify and
intervene to prevent a miscarriage of justice however caused. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">[68]
Often these cases will be able to be analysed without examining the quality of the counsel's conduct. For example, where the effect was that vital evidence was
not placed before the jury it might be appropriate to enquire directly whether
that gave rise to a miscarriage of justice, although that will need to be
considered in light of principles governing the admission of further evidence
on appeal, including any explanation for its absence from the trial.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">It is
argued that this is in fact not material to only the alleged instructions and
counterclaims regarding the weight of the evidence plea but that it is materially
more important that the COA when considering the 2 trip theory that it might
have been more appropriate for the COA to enquire directly from defence counsel
as to whether or not they considered the Crown would introduce a new theory
after the close of evidence, and be allowed to do so by the Judge. And that
approval by the Judge happened to rely on the Judge himself later saying in his
closing address that Mr. and Mrs. B's evidence which he had admitted after first
rejecting it, was used by the Judge to show propensity and motive after Mr. Anderson had effectively sunk the Crown case as it was. So, in here
abandoning the complaint about the weight of evidence question as an Appeal
point, Watson says the appeal point should in fact now be as above, again
concentrated on the 2-trip theory and the COA not enquiring directly from
counsel if they anticipated such a move.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The next
heading is ‘Secret Witnesses’ In (para 65) and subsequent paras Ms McDonald
records that ordeal the 2 secret witnesses were afforded by the Defence
counsel. She says that Mr. Watson is wrong when he says there has been a
retraction from witness ‘A.’ She asserts this despite not speaking to ‘A,’ and
therefore being able to confirm that he maintains or disavows his evidence,
this leads to the unfair assumption that the evidence still stands when the
only person who can verify that has refused to do so. Looked at objectively, if
‘A’ is unwilling to stand by his evidence in the event of any retrial, the 2<sup>nd</sup>
witness’s credibility is lowered, if he indeed chose to repeat his evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">In (para
67) Ms. McDonald asserts<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-indent: 3.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">“I am satisfied that had Secret
Witnesses A and B not given evidence it cannot be fairly said the jury would
have likely reached a different verdict in view of all of the other strands of
evidence including the DNA evidence.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">From the
petitioner’s point of view, one which members of any Jury might share. ‘All’
the other strands of evidence, including the DNA evidence are shown over the
passage of time in many cases as being insignificant and no longer held
together. There is now a ketch, potential sightings of the couple alive when it
was claimed by the Crown that they were dead. The evidence of McNeilly and
Wallace support Watson in his claim of not having met the couple, and going
aboard his yacht by himself. Along with a potential explanation of why Mr. and
Mrs. B actively socially engaged with Watson a year after he was said to have
badly frightened Mrs. B. Just a few sentences show that Ms. McDonald has not
grasped the failure of the Crown case to maintain itself under public interest
and critical scrutiny.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Up to 68
(check 68 to 83 again)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;">Paras
80 -83<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Ms. McDonald
says ‘undeniably an important aspect of this concerned the correctness of the
identification of Mr. Watson made by Mr. Guy Wallace as the man with whom and
onto whose yacht Ms. Hope and Mr. Smart boarded.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">And later
in para 83, she repeats that both Mr Wallace and Ms McNeilly impressed her as
genuine in what they now say is of importance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Time has
shown that both the COA and Ms. McDonald are mistaken on this point. First, by
overlooking that Wallace was at all points in time adamant and steadfast in his
description of a ketch, he never wavered from this and does not know. With the
certainty, any Jury could now take from both Wallace and other witness evidence
(attached in Part B herein), the ketch, and not the identification of SW
becomes the most important aspect of the case. Not only is a complete alibi
raised for Mr. Watson, but it also raises the credibility of both witnesses
(McNeilly and Wallace) for any future Jury. There is no longer a missing link.
Wallace becomes arguably the most important because he is now putting the
couple on board a ketch along with a stranger that was not Watson. Ms. McNeilly
is confirmed as being correct that Watson was not the stranger in the bar with
hooded eyes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Ms. McDonald
says while important that the evidence (identifications) ‘was but part of the
case.’ However, the case is now tangentially transformed with SW completely off
the suspect list. He, as Anderson, attested was alone on the Blade. This is the
reason no occupants of the other boats the Blade was rafted alongside
heard the couple even though importantly, by time, they were awake (details
from Mike here.) Suddenly, there is a Ketch in Endeavour Bay arriving around
5.30 the previous evening, its position located clearly on a map taken from
witness descriptions offered at the trial. This ketch was seen by Wallace and
by the late Ted Walsh, his wife, and many others as sworn or referred, in Part 2
of this document. The Crown maintained there was no ketch only the Blade upon
which the couple boarded, now there is not a single person saying that the
couple were anywhere near the ketch, the truth is out. The 2-trip theory is
proven completely baseless and a critical oversight of the Trial Judge to even
consider its proposition after all evidence had been heard. The 2-trip theory
establishes, along with other oversights, including an incomplete
investigation, an actual miscarriage of Justice. In the event of the Crown
considering a retrial against the complete alibi Watson now has, could cause
the Judge to dismiss the case or to at least direct the Jury that Watson has,
as he always said, a complete alibi – the couple was never aboard the Blade
and he had never met them. Where Ms. McDonald says:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">‘that
both Mr. Wallace and Ms. McNeilly impressed her as genuine in what they now say
is of importance..’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">That
‘importance’ is critically a matter for a Jury.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">(Para 84)
concerning the trial defence to not push the identification issue of Watson or lack
thereof from Wallace or McNeilly, now there would be no hesitation. This is a point
very significant for the Jury and for this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">(Para 85): <u>Forensic
Examination</u>. Repainting of the vessel and damage to the squabs, missing
squabs and an alleged clean-up. Firstly, the trial evidence alone of Watson's
former girlfriend shows that the girlfriend in statements and evidence in chief
spoke about the interior of the boat when she was on board. She attested to
making the bed she shared with Watson in order presumably to provide evidence
that there were no damaged or missing components, however under cross-examination when it became plain to her that she had been recorded by the police
(when she was aboard the Blade in dry dock) she said she had never made the
bed, but that Watson had always done so. Ms. McDonald overstates this peripheral
evidence to apparently shore up reasons to deny a positive recommendation to
the previous RPOM. However, any new Jury would not only hear this same
evidence repeated but they would know that a Ketch had been pinpointed in the
inlet as to where the couple were dropped off. With this, they would also
realise that Watson, far from the false propensity evidence allowed, was not a
danger to women. In fact, had enjoyed a loving relationship with his former
partner as he now does with his partner of over a decade. Furthermore, and
importantly, a careful reading of the trial transcript reveals that the harbour
master waved out to SW after the Blade had been repainted, and Watson waved
back. This evidence shows 2 points. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">!/ The
Blade was recognisable to those on the water with or without new paint, as was
Watson himself.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">2/ That if
Watson somehow had fooled himself into believing he and his vessel with not
known around the local waters his behaviour in waving out to nautical officials
was hardly consistent with hiding himself or his yacht.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">(Para 86).
Ms. McDonald deals with the 2 hairs said to be found on the Blade. This was
for her, and the Justice Minister of the time, evidence that held together the
Crown case weakened in many ways since the trial, before a positive position
for the Ketch could be submitted. Unfortunately, Ms McDonald completely omitted
from her first report and supplementary that ESR changes post the Watson trial
include samples and exhibits not to be housed together let alone examined
contemporaneously. In addition: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
hairs were not found on The Blade at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
hairs were not sighted by any witness who examined The Blade for forensic
evidence, noting that ‘blond hairs,’ blood, and semen samples, would have been a
priority for searchers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
hairs were also not confirmed as found on a blanket taken from the Blade as Ms
McDonald and the Minister state.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">In the first searches of the hairs bagged, having said to have come from the blanket
the longest were 3 inches (75mm). 11 were chosen including both brown and yellow
blond hairs for DNA testing, none of which returned a positive result from the
DNA test.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">In
modern times the hairs from the blanket would have been counted and the number
recorded. Unfortunately, that did not happen in the Watson case. However, the
length of the longest hairs was recorded, allowing a specific reference point
that follows.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
‘2 hairs’ were found after the plastic bag was emptied onto a table in which
‘samples’ from a hairbrush just delivered by police from the home of Amelia
Hope were examined.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
first of the 2 hairs found was 6 inches (150mm), and the second hair was 8 inches
(200mm.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
length of any hairs not being found before the sample bag was brought to the
laboratory was consistent with no longer hairs being found during the cabin
search of the Blade.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
searches both on The Blade and in the Laboratory, would both of necessity be
looking for long blond hairs as Amelia Hope had long hair which was dyed blond.
No New Zealander would not have seen the released photos of her and Ms Vintner
would not be an exception. This presented potential ‘confirmation bias’ as set
out in the Sean Doyle report and the PCAST, which if known may have been reason
to reject the evidence or provide a warning to the Jury that the contemporary
model is that the blanket and hairs would be sent to a laboratory as being from
an anonymous source. The same would apply to the brush hairs being sent to a
different laboratory without historical evidence of source resulting in no
opportunity for confirmation bias or contamination.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
absence of DNA results of 11 hairs should be compared to 2 hairs not found
earlier which did give DNA on a probability basis. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
2-hairs were found the same day sample hairs taken from a comb in the Hope home
were delivered to the laboratory by police. These hairs were also not counted
but do have a specific reference point in that after the ‘brush’ bag was opened
on the same workspace as the blanket hairs were being re-examined the blanket
hairs were suddenly found to have contained 2 longer hairs than which had been
among those hairs that had been measured previously. The probability of 2 hairs
being found on the same day as a third search of the blanket hairs when it
happens that further hairs from a separate source were taken to the same
laboratory and resulted in a ‘fresh’ find on a 3<sup>rd</sup> search of the
blanket hairs is also a dominating fact for any probability testing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
hairs were never positively identified as coming from Amelia Hope but could
have been from her sister who ‘shared’ the same brush (check this detail) or
any other female in their same <em><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-style: normal;">mitochondrial</span></em><i> </i>line.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Hair
DNA tested is inconsistent throughout the length of a hair and according to the
area from where the hair originated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">That
Ms Vintner of the ESR in cross-examination confirmed that ‘contamination (of
the hairs) would have to be considered.’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">It will be
a just, merciful, and meaningful purpose to Bayes test the discovery of the
hairs on the facts above and any others agreed by the Crown and the Defence.
Any Bayes test or fair assessment of the 2 hairs by necessity would need to
also input the following new evidence: It would also be just for the COA to
consider their admissibility considering the following.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">ESR
Ministerial Inquiry March 2000: Details of press release attached in Part 2.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Sean
Doyle Report for Mark Lundy Retrial over forensic safety procedures 2015: Full
report attached in Part 2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">PCAST.
September 2016. Attached is Part 2.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
Ministerial Inquiry was case specific, and general, in terms of the handling of
forensic items, samples, and evidence. After the findings, new protocols were
employed in all ESR Laboratories. This shows the acknowledgment at the Ministerial
Level of the importance of safe handling and custody of forensic evidence and
samples. Had this been in force in 1998 there would have been no possibility of
contamination that Ms Vintner (the ESR scientist in the Watson case) stated in
evidence that would have to be considered. The event which led to the inquiry
was the result of DNA found at a Wellington crime scene of a Christchurch man
who had never been to Wellington. In the press release, the Director of the ESR
stated that on the balance of probabilities accidental contamination was most
likely the reason for the scientific ambiguity. Thus, the ESR implemented
the report’s recommendation of sample package handling and laboratory workstation layout. The workstation layout is specific to the situation in the
Watson case as well. This was the same situation in the Watson case and
something unknown to the Jury or presumably Judge Heron.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The Sean
Doyle report investigated forensic science practices from an evidential crisis
in the 1990s in Britain which led to Labs becoming ISO approved from the year
2005 onwards, a standard which NZ later incorporated. It also compared the
American system with that of Britain and NZ. It should be noted that the
improvements and international ratings mentioned in the Ministerial report
preceded the more stringent ISO standards of 2005 later adopted in NZ.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">PCAST. A
report to the American president in 2016 by leading American Forensic Experts specifically recommend the exclusion of forensic procedures of the kind
which breached the forensic safety chain in the Watson case and warns 26/174
about evidence from hairs with the specific warning that microscopic hair
comparisons cannot lead to personal identifications and that it is crucial that
this limitation be contained in both the written report and in testimony. The
report also notes that American Supreme Court has stated that Judges must
determine ‘whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is
Scientifically valid.’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">It is clear
from Ms. Vintner herself the problems of the 2 hairs, she cautioned about them.
It is also clear that a Ministerial Inquiry into a similar event brought
changes. The Doyle report categorises more extensive changes to reach the ISO
2005 standards whilst the 2016 PCAST extends the cautionary net. It may be that
the hair evidence in Watson could be excluded in any new trial or could result
in The Crown not proceeding.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Whilst this
information is new it is supported by other new or known evidence which would
be also input to any Bayes Test or arguments that the ‘methodology underlying’ the
collection of the hairs was ‘scientifically’ valid. Based on both the
Ministerial report and Ms Vintners' concession there are strong reasons to
consider the hair evidence would be excluded at retrial. On this point, the
Reviewer of this RPOM must, as the 2007 Bain PC decision and others, consider
the following evidence as a ‘whole’ with the disputed, disrepute evidence
surrounding the 2 hairs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
now-established fact of the known position of a ketch in Endeavour Inlet at the
time in Question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
possible identity and description of the mystery man seen with the couple.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
sightings of that Ketch before and after New Year's Day 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
sightings of a young couple on that ketch.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">A
possible sighting of Olivia Hope at a Picton Hotel in the days after her
disappearance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
frankness of Scott Watson in his first interview.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
endorsement is given to both Wallace and McNeilly by the new evidence, most
notably the ketch sighting that police pressured Wallace to exclude but upon
which he would not budge.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
evidence of Donald Anderson dropping SW off to the Blade alone.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
harbour master’s evidence of first recognising Watson’s yacht after it had been
painted, and then Watson waving to him.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
evidence of Firman about being told by police that he had been drinking with
Watson when Watson started hate-talking women.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
evidence of the unsigned statement made by Redacted on 27.3.98 wherein
he describes a ketch like that as described by Wallace and others which he
sighted in the Pelorus Sounds in 1996. He says the ketch was white, with six
portholes on each side, a distinctive stern of a round shape, 2 masts, and a lot
of ropes hanging from them. He describes the man aboard the vessel as 160-170
lbs, medium build, 5ft 9 to 5ft 10. When speaking with the man the man said he
went around the Pacific Islands.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
evidence of Mr. and Mrs. B socialising with Watson after Mrs. B’s claim that he
had been hate-talking woman.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
evidence of Watson’s former girlfriend to the fact that she had never made the
bed on the Blade.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
absence of any evidence from Watson’s former girlfriend of his hate-talking
women or being violent or threatening to her.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
situation of Watson has had a long-term relationship with a new partner that
has lasted 12 years.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
critical unlikelihood of Watson returning to the Blade alone, only to somehow
discover he was alone and head back to shore unseen.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
decimation of the 2-trip theory which at no point has ever had any material
evidence in support.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">The
2007 Bain Privy Council decision, paras 38 (a contention by the Defence that
the NZ COA had wrongly adopted the role of a Jury), 103 (cautions about a
substantial Miscarriage of Justice), 104 (that a COA [and therefore it is
contended an inquirer into a RPOM application] must take evidence together and
not in isolation, 115 (stressing the consideration of evidence is for a Jury
and not an Appellant Court), as do paras 116 and 118.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">It is
submitted here that the foregoing under the heading for Forensic Evidence can
only favour Watson’s application. Considering the 2007 Bain PC Judgement
neither the COA (although the Judgement had not been handed down at that point)
nor Ms McDonald should have looked at the ‘2 hairs’ evidence in isolation, not
only because of the points made by the PC but because of the Donald Anderson
evidence placing Watson alone on his boat and the Wallace evidence placing the
couple onto a Ketch with a stranger with hooded eyes. The Trial Judge warned
the Jury that if they did not accept that the couple went aboard The Blade then
they could dismiss the 2 hairs, with the passage of time that warning would
have necessarily been stronger, perhaps the evidence discarded.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">This is an
appropriate time to mention again the inconsistencies of the handling of the
RPOM in the 2000s and before in NZ. After the Binnie review of the Bain
compensation application, Justice Binnie was criticised for not employing Bayes's
reasoning despite that it was evident that he did. The next reviewer Justice
Callinan refused to use Baye's reasoning and was not chastised by the current
Minister for not doing so,, despite that a peer-reviewed paper in which Bayes
tested the probability of David Bain or his father Robin Bain killing 5 of the
Bain family was submitted and it concluded a probability of over 99% that the
father was guilty. The reference to the Bayes testing paper by Dimaio,
Molina, and Cave is attached in Part 2.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">(Para 89):
Ms. McDonald refers to sightings of a Ketch being led at times by the Defence.
Whereas, with the new evidence, and the freshly understood trial evidence, the
Defence could call witnesses of their own on the matter that were not available
at the trial. The Jury could consider a plan drafted by the Crown (included in
Part 2) drafted from the accounts of Crown witnesses which pinpoint the
certainty of the Ketch thus showing substantial support for the witnesses such
as the Walsh’s thereby offering a complete alibi.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">(Para 90):
Ms McDonald gives an unanswerable proposition regarding the secret witnesses
that ‘she was satisfied’ that had the witnesses not given evidence it cannot be
said the Jury would have likely reached another verdict.” First of all the PC
has instructed that it is not for an Appellant Court (and therefore an inquirer
capable of recommending a case be returned to an Appellant Court) to place
themselves in the minds of a Jury. An inquirer would Justly recognise that if
the case never required the secret witnesses to return a guilty verdict then
they ought never to have been called and subject the accused to the real
probability that he or she could be convicted on sensational and dramatic
prejudicial evidence that, according to the reviewer, need not have been called.
Why did the Crown bother calling them? Only because their case was weak and
short of telling evidence. They scrapped the barrel which is evidenced by 1
witness recanting. In any event, the recantation stands and falls at the feet of
the Crown and not the defendant. Chance failed the Crown and not the defendant,
this is submitted as the only Just and indeed Merciful way for the recantation
to be observed, particularly under an RPOM application. This, as the PC has
stated, must be looked at as part of the whole evidence, including the new
evidence, the way the Trial evidence can now be more clearly understood. These
are not single topics in isolation but in the continuity of a case filled with
doubt. A new Jury would be reminded by the Defence of the pressure put on
Wallace to change his testimony, the evidence of Firman, and Mr. and Mrs. B to
say that the surviving secret witness should not give evidence at all, or
alternatively that there no corroboration from any other witness and none at
all from the forensic evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">(Para 92:)
Here is an example where Ms. McDonald has not observed the words of Lord Diplock
of the PC. Mr. Watson did not investigate this case, it was not he that informed
the Jury that there was no Ketch in Endeavour Inlet that night when Wallace
dropped off the couple along with a stranger. A ketch with a blue stripe, brass
portholes, and ornate rope work to the stern. Ms. McDonald quotes from R v Bain
COA [2004] quote, ‘the overriding criteria is always what course would best
serve the interests of Justice.’ In fact, for Mr Watson, the public interest
and Justice would be a fair trial where the now identified ketch took shape
through the scores of witnesses who saw it, in fact not be led in cross-examination but in evidence in chief, with drawings and photographs as
contained in Part 2 which show where it was moored. They could also hear the
evidence of the persons who investigated parts of this case ignored by the
police.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;">OOOOO<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;">Also
from Mike this week: Feb/March 2017:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Hi Brian<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The following is relevant with regard to McDonald
interviewing Wallace. They both seem to have been unaware of the following
evidence on Wednesday 28 July 1999 on the Notes of Evidence from line 30 of
page 2019 to line 15 of page 2020...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">And
when you got out to the fishing boats that they wanted to go to, what can you
say about the fishing boats, was it one or more boats moored up together….yes
more</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">More
than, how many do you think were there…3 or 4</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Were there
any lights on or any sign of activity on those boats when you took the three to
it….didn’t appear to be any activity when I dropped the three off but I think
there may have been lights on</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">So the
3 climbed aboard the boat they directed you to….yes</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Was it
one of the boats on the outside of the raft or was it one tucked away in the
centre…no it was on the aft, sorry it was on the side on one of the raft up</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">You
dropped them off made your way back towards the jetty obv and arrived back at
the jetty…that’s rt</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">On your
way there or back did you see the vessel again that you had dropped the 3
people onto earlier…yes I did notice it</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">And was
it relative to the track that you took, going out or going back where was it
did you see it on your way out to the fishing boats….no</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">So you
saw it on the way back to the jetty…that’s rt</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Relative
to the track or route that you were taking where was the vessel that you
dropped the 3 people to…well off to my rt</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Off to
your rt….yes</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">And obv
closer towards the jetty than the fishing boats that you had just left from….oh
yes yes<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Second point no witnesses identified the couple as going onto the
Blade. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 2:51
PM, Mike Kalaugher</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> wrote:</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">new revised version...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">lists for Part 2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Firman
statement<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Files
showing Mea NZ being in the Sounds.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">References
for Part 2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">R
v Bain PC 207<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">COA
Decision Watson<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">McDonald
QC report Watson RPOM<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">McDonald
QC supplementary report Watson RPOM<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ministerial
report dated 2002 as to inquiry of specific case of probable DNA contamination<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sean
Doyle report in forensic safety chain for Lundy retrial 2014<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Pcast
report by various authors into forensic safety chain and critical forensic
safety flaws and advancements prepared for POTUS September 2016<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chart
plotting position of Ketch, calculated from the evidence of 3 Crown witnesses,
to which couple were dropped off with a stranger identified by witnesses
McNeilly, Wallace, and Firman as not being Watson.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">File
notes indicate a ketch Mea NZ was in the Pelorus Sounds at the time of the
couple’s disappearance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTT336784a7;">Homicide
or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTT336784a7;">A
Bayesian Approach:</span><span style="font-family: "AdvTT9bb99a42\.I"; font-size: 11.5pt;">Rowena
Cave, BSc(Hons),* Vincent J. DiMaio, MD,</span><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Þ </span><span style="font-family: "AdvTT9bb99a42\.I"; font-size: 11.5pt;">and D. Kimberley Molina, MD</span><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Þ<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">MRG videos and witness lists.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Mike Kalaugher interview with Reg McManaway and
witness lists.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Keith Hunter’s book The Blade.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Keith Hunter’s documentary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Mike Kalaugher’s book The Marlborough Mystery.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">The show from last year was introduced by the Law Professor.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Other material etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Ends-----------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: AdvTTf2e4df62; font-size: 11.5pt;">Additional matters.</span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 39.5pt;" width="53">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/tom.watson.35574" target="_blank"><span style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; color: #3b5998; padding: 0cm; text-decoration-line: none;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t"
path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="yiv6683537083Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025"
type="#_x0000_t75" alt="Image removed by sender." style='width:37.8pt;
height:37.8pt'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg"
o:href="cid:image001.jpg@01D2A0BA.7CC51E20"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img alt="Image removed by sender." border="0" height="50" src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg" style="height: .525in; width: .525in;" v:shapes="yiv6683537083Picture_x0020_1" width="50" /><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 9.0pt;" width="12">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 522.25pt;" width="696">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/tom.watson.35574" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration-line: none;">Tom Watson</span></b></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: #898f9c; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">January 22 at 1:21pm</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 7.5pt; mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="height: 7.5pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 39.5pt;" width="53">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="height: 7.5pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 9.0pt;" width="12"></td>
<td style="height: 7.5pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 522.25pt;" width="696"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 570.75pt;" width="761">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #141823; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">Brian McDonald Here is the description in court from Oliver
Perkins, he is the only one of the group who mentions a dark fisher rib
jersey, other only mention a blue shirt: Can you remember anything about
what he was wearing….I rem a blue, light blue denim kind of denim, you know
shirt, with a fisherman rib jersey, dark and dark jeans as well <br />
Where was the jersey….well the first time I spoke to him before leaving I
am pretty sure it was on him I can rem the shirt from the collar and the
cuffs, and then when I came back he may have taken the jersey off becos I
def rem the shirt<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #141823; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i> </i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>This from Mike refers to McDonald on the rejected
RPOM:<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">When
she talked to Wallace about the position of the ketch she focused solely on
whether his memory of seeing the ketch on a later Naiad trip made any
difference. Her point was that it was the position of the ketch at the
particular time when Ben and Olivia were dropped off at a yacht that is
relevant. It was not deemed relevant that the yacht might have been at a
different position at a later time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">So
the fact that Wallace's evidence about the position of the yacht was not
corroborated by anyone else was not considered The fact that it might just
be plain wrong was not considered. The fact that it was effectively
contradicted by Dyer and Morresey was not considered The fact that Wallace
gave a number of different positions was considered The fact that Dyer's
evidence about the timings of all three legs was not heard by the jury was
not presented to her either. The fact that Dyer and Morresey's evidence as
to position was consistent with each other was not considered. The fact
that the position established by Dyer and Morresey was corroborated by Ted
Walsh, Eyvonne Walsh, Bruce O'Malley, the diagram of Robin Mullen, the
original evidence of Rachel Veitch, and the evidence of Mr and Mrs McNoe
was not considered. The fact that Wallace firstly gave an erroneous
position of the yacht in the context of an erroneous description of two
Naiad trips, which was a garbled account of what was in fact one trip, was
not considered. The fact that Wallace first went part the Spirit of
Marlborough after he had dropped off all his first passengers was not
considered. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">She
has not considered the point that there are no witnesses that give a
description of the yacht that is remotely like Watson's yacht.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">There
are now no witnesses who identify Watson as being on that naiad trip.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">Two
of the three remaining people on the Naiad give a different position from
that given by Wallace.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">Wallace
signed an affidavit for me for the rpom that conceded that he had been
"honestly mistaken" about the position of the yacht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif;">((</span><i><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">First they were bleached blond, one was 6 inches
long 150mm, the other 8 inches 200mm. In previous searches of the hairs and
tiger skin blanket, the longest hairs found were 3 inches 75mm. 11 were chosen
including both brown and yellow blond hairs for DNA testing, none of which
returned a positive result from the DNA test. <br />
<br />
The only DNA test that tied the hairs to Olivia was the $70,000
mitochondrial(mDNA) tests done in the UK but it only proved the hair came from
one or other of the two girls no more. The nuclear DNA testing was useless and
in spite of some junk science, the multiplying of two totally separate tests
both with out reagents to confirm results meant the hairs could have come from
Amelia or Olivia or any other person sharing the same mDNA. <br />
<br />
The other test done, one of the hairs was microscopic comparison where the
scientist would claim that hairs matched the sample hairs from the Hope home.
Again, this is now totally discredited as DNA has resulted in exoneration's
where hair comparison was a major factor in the conviction. <br />
<br />
Tests done by the NAS for the US Dept of Justice revealed that the
"experts" could not even reliably match two halves of the same hair,
and could match hairs from totally unrelated people from different parts of the
Country. Microscopic comparison can identify between races and parts of body
hair, but head hairs vary depending on the part of the head they are from.)))</span></i><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;">Also
from Mike this week: Feb/March 2017:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Hi Brian<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The following is relevant with regard to McDonald interviewing
Wallace. They both seem to have been unaware of the floowing evidence obn
Wednesday 28 July 1999 on the Notes of Evidence from line 30 of page 2019 to
line 15 of page 2020...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">And
when you got out to the fishing boats that they wanted to go to, what can you
say about the fishing boats, was it one or more boats moored up together….yes
more</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">More
than, how many do you think were there…3 or 4</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Were
there any lights on or any sign of activity on those boats when you took the
three to it….didn’t appear to be any activity when I dropped the three off but
I think there may have been lights on</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">So the
3 climbed aboard the boat they directed you to….yes</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Was it
one of the boats on the outside of the raft or was it one tucked away in the
centre…no it was on the aft, sorry it was on the side on one of the raft up</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">You
dropped them off made your way back towards the jetty obv and arrived back at
the jetty…that’s rt</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">On your
way there or back did you see the vessel again that you had dropped the 3
people onto earlier…yes I did notice it</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">And was
it relative to the track that you took, going out or going back where was it
did you see it on your way out to the fishing boats….no</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">So you
saw it on the way back to the jetty…that’s rt</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Relative
to the track or route that you were taking where was the vessel that you
dropped the 3 people to…well off to my rt</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Off to
your rt….yes</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-AU">And obv
closer towards the jetty than the fishing boats that you had just left from….oh
yes yes<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Second point no witnesses identified the couple as going onto the
Blade. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 2:51
PM, Mike Kalaugher <</span><a href="mailto:mikekalaugher@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">mikekalaugher@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">> wrote:</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">new revised version...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica",sans-serif; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-72509813209489848862023-07-20T18:59:00.000+12:002023-07-20T18:59:00.911+12:00<p> The Watson case in a perfect Justice system?</p><p><br /></p><p>One of the things Parole requires is a perfect Justice system that makes no mistakes. We need not look far to see that New Zealand does not have a perfect justice system. The awakening to that fact was the Thomas case and unfortunately, there have been many such cases of false convictions since that time. Things did not get better, any steps to improve were slow and outpaced by changes that made things worse.</p><p>In recent years public opinion has been polled as to unsafe convictions in various cases and Scott Watson's case was one of those felt to be an unsafe conviction by the majority of those polled, in fact, he was believed to be innocent by that majority. So how does the Parole system react to prisoners who may be innocent? Well, firstly they don't recognise such a situation as even being possible. The other side of that is the public record shows long-term convictions being overturned relatively regularly. Surely those 2 things can be reconciled in some way, particularly for someone like Scott who is way past his minimum parole period, a long-term low-security prisoner who "works outside the wire."</p><p>But unfortunately in this enlightened time, there may be no way forward for some innocent prisoners who literally confirm they will never agree that they are guilty. There is no advantage achieved by a prisoner doing that, in fact, it will result in them serving longer sentences, in some cases possibly never being released.</p><p>The real flaw however may be that the Parole Boards don't budge on that, or in fact have a stated protocol by which they could deal with inmates such as Pora, Hall, Maney, and Tamihere some of who have cases still active within the "system." The writer is aware of times when the Board depending on its chairman or members might resolve such an issue by either instinct, a sense of fairness, or indeed an objective take on how much time the person has served, how they behave, etc but never forgetting that in NZ an innocent person could die in prison for denying guilt.</p><p>There are a few objective possibilities that could make things fairer for those wrongfully convicted, a release of information to either the Attorney General or some office such as the Ombudsman of new evidence found their cases that give their claims credibility, alternatively long term behaviour both of which are favourable in Scott's case with the former indeed being compelling.</p><p>In the meantime, Scott Watson's fight for Justice continues with the odds of his innocence improving daily.</p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-22353185290239401782023-03-25T09:49:00.002+13:002023-03-25T09:49:21.241+13:00<p> 2019 Look at the 2 Hairs in the Watson Case.</p><p><br /></p><p>The following is possibly close to the last look at the 2 hair evidence in the Watson case by the author as the focus now switches to ensuring every piece of malfeasance is considered both singularly but also as a sum total. The 2 hair evidence now pointing to innocence is strengthened by every aspect of the case where the proper procedure wasn't followed. Nothing happened in this prosecution that wasn't part of the deliberation intention to have Scott found guilty. Take away the questionable evidence and there is little left. But it all started with the strength of the 2 hairs and the impression that made on the public, Courts, and the Jury - in fact it was a poorly developed con right the way through. A more discerning Judiciary could have put the questionable material together at least in their minds, instead, they dismissed any concerns and went with the status quo, not rocking the system or criticising the Crown or police. </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjK0HtT9dOAvgsBhusf4tbzWxq2GRA?e=pbwN0F">https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjK0HtT9dOAvgsBhusf4tbzWxq2GRA?e=pbwN0F</a></span></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-65747781030943728932023-03-06T21:01:00.001+13:002023-03-06T21:01:14.047+13:00<p> Ardie Savea slips up.</p><p>Well, he said so himself and made no excuses for the gesture toward a Melbourne Rebels player accepting that it was wrong.</p><p><a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/chris-rattues-winners-and-losers-ardie-saveas-humiliating-act-a-disaster-on-so-many-levels/FOMSA4AM2FAYTOK2KKZ3TCYYEI/">Chris Rattue’s winners and losers: Ardie Savea’s humiliating act a disaster on so many levels - NZ Herald</a></p><p>But Chris Rattue believes it was a throat-cutting gesture and a threat to kill. My oh my, what a drama Queen Chris is. He has magnified what is sometimes part of the All Blacks haka as a threat to kill. I have heard other explanations of that before and never from the AB's point of view has it been intended to have such a meaning. Without any presumptions that the Rebels' half may have deliberately gotten under Savea's skin somehow Rattue has contrived it to be a real threat and not a reaction to perhaps being baited.</p><p>We won't see the halfback when the Union meets over this matter, and it is unlikely they'll consider that it was a threat to kill. First of all, Ardie is not that type of player and it would ultimately be unprecedented in Super Rugby in an incident where no punches were thrown and in fact remained as a contest of a bit of lip given and pushing - all carefully staying within the modern rules with a gesture that is not unprecedented during the pre-match challenges of the All Blacks.</p><p>It was silly and it was dumb, but there is little doubt it was provoked somehow and even if it wasn't it was attended by any violence nor did it show anything other than the frustration of one player successfully getting under the skin of another - which apparently doesn't attract any penalty.</p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-70352053309577135562023-02-12T12:55:00.002+13:002023-02-12T12:56:00.506+13:00<p> Wrongful Convictions Deprioritised in New Zealand?</p><p><br /></p><p> Wrongful Convictions Deprioritised in New Zealand?</p><p>Well, I'm never going to be a Judge so I will never know if there is an effort to control the dialogue in the NZ cases of wrongful convictions or some other reasons why Judges sit back when incorrect scientific facts for example are given to a Court. Or indeed when evidence that even a young child might believe as not being credible is used to uphold a conviction in a case where there may have been a wrongful conviction. It all matters - and so if not to the Court then who?</p><p>Recently I listened to a radio interview with Paul Henry in what the Herald calls a podcast. It was recorded last month and while Paul was relatively well informed there were instances where he gave details more in-depth than previously. Part of that was around the infamous 2-trip theory. Paul presented it as a spontaneous event pulled by Prosecutor Davison at the last minute. When in fact there is a tonne of evidence police were trying to prove a second trip from the outset. Why? Because there was no evidence of Scott ever being with the couple and certainly as Paul said in the Wallace Naiad with them.</p><p>I think there is a critical interest in that for those following the case who must wonder why the Court isn't. The public doesn't expect the Court to be enveloped in a vacuum, not reading about these cases or informing themselves about details before Appeals. Yet to this point, although there was always evidence police had been totally unable to prove the point of a second trip before Davison spoke to the Jury about it. I think Davison knew, as did his off-sider who reappraised all evidence before the trial in what was called the Crutchley report. That report had been done with neutrality and according to rules that apply to the Crown and its prosecutors as duties to the Court, would have meant that Davison was obliged to tell the Court well in advance that there was no proof of a second trip despite police trying to prove that since the month of the alleged murders of Ben and Olivia.</p><p>Yet even if we get past that which is a complete indulgence of the Crown's malfeasance in hiding it, there does not seem to be one NZ Court in this case that asked Davison how extensive the search had been to prove a second trip. I know how extensive it was and how people were threatened about it because it is on the file and is now followed by confirmatory information provided by people who were asked to essentially perjure themselves and provide circumstantial evidence that "proved" a second trip.</p><p>I think I have said enough about this now apart from this evidence is documented and in the hands of Scott's Lawyers but may never be heard because of limitations put on Scott's appeal. It's bloody madness. As was Paul Henry offering excuses for Pope. If Pope couldn't handle the pressure of this investigation in an honest way he should have opted out instead of leaving 25 more years of misery for Scott and his family.</p><p><br /></p><p> </p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-16502263193280335372023-02-01T18:24:00.002+13:002023-02-01T19:01:43.956+13:00Joe Parker v David Tua?<p> </p><p><br /></p><p> Joe Parker and David Tua</p><p>I think Joe may have lost his way, especially after watching the Joe Joyce fight. Joyce suddenly just looked way too big for Joe and a far bigger hitter despite that Joe's been with big men before who can hit. Increasingly Joe's been talking up his training and speaking about things he has learned when in fact Joe is a senior fighter now and has in the past shown credible efforts consistently. Joe has always been the nice guy fighter, but being a nice guy is wearing thin. The public wants to see a ruthless heavyweight with bad intentions from the time that bell rings and right up to that point. There has been talking about him being at the crossroads for years, it may be time to give up the game if he can't sort out whatever it is that is distracting him from getting the ring and fighting like his life depends on it. His last fight against the cruiserweight Jack Massey had some desperation about it as Jack fought a spoiling fight looking to avoid being knocked but Joe should have the power to go through that sort of defence.</p><p>Speaking of power, David Tua is in the shape of his life and not talking to the press - a good sign that perhaps he's negotiating, or going to try to negotiate another fight. It could be the one the public always wanted to see - against Mike Tyson. Those 2 are the "real deals" in shorter heavyweights with natural power and as I've seen others admit it's what they're craving for - perhaps that's on the cards if not straight away then after a couple of tune-up fights. For David to get in the shape he is, it's more than likely he has something serious on his mind - my 2 cents would be fireworks I hope.</p><p><br /></p><p>Cheers.</p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-47391083967833657362022-12-17T14:41:00.000+13:002022-12-17T14:41:02.747+13:00Scott Watson: who set the watchman?<p> </p><p><br /></p><p> Scott Watson: who set the watchman?</p><p>We could say that no one "set the watchman" in Scott's case, well at least apparently no one in authority. When Harper Lee wrote: <span style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">"'Go Set a Watchman' it was a character Flynt who said, '</span><b style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Somebody needs to be the moral compass of this town.</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">'" No one with the power to set a moral authority in the Watson case did, being the investigation, the publicity of it, the leaks to the press, false leads, lies, threats, and bribery while plenty in the public did and were rightly outraged at the beginning because police didn't treat them seriously or in turn just ignored them.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">The file this case needed was the answer to those people's questions and evidence. A situation where each account was recorded in detail, not a situation some 20 or more years later with people still revealing they went to the police with what appeared possibly strong evidence but were ignored. The "watchman" needed in this case was the police right up to the Commissioner and Minister. A watchman to say every bit of evidence was investigated and recorded before Scott Watson was charged. But instead, police were still tidying up their case to the time of Scott's trial and removing incriminating material that showed the possibility of not only of the real offenders but of a ketch. I know from that file the police who did the dirtry work because their work was messy or overconfident, perhaps expecting while they may have fitted up somebody they were confident that the noise would go away as more dirt was leaked against Scott, and his family.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">But it hasn't obviously, its right back at them in their faces and the questions remain as to why they turned honest people away, dismissed them as not knowing what they really saw, that the police although not present when things worth reporting happened already some how "knew" they were of no value. What was of value to police was the witnesses that could be bent and twisted to give false testimony and of no value would be a file full of people saying what they saw on the record because that would betray the intention of the inquiry to fit up Scott Watson.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">That's how big this Miscarriage of Justice is. If the police had done their job, the couple might well have still been alive, secondly the "2 hairs" would have been of no value as Scott's boat wasn't a 2-masted ketch and he went aboard alone without a single witness saying he didn't. There would have been no 2nd trip where "it didn't matter" how the couple went aboard Scott's boat because the boat they went aboard would have been found or accepted as not being a single-masted sloop.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Scott wouldn't have been in prison and it wouldn't have taken 23 years for him to have a second and hopefull fair, appeal hearing. Scott would have been unknown to the public and quite likely at least 2 men, would be serving rightfully serving life sentences. The only books, movies, or documentaries on the case would have been dealing with the truth rather than searching for it. Harper Lee's words through one her characters about a moral compass would not be on this page nor would this page exist as a testament to evil men and women prepared to send an innocent man to prison or simply look away as a "watchman" would never do.</span></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-32309584154997523442022-11-08T17:06:00.005+13:002022-11-08T17:16:41.707+13:00Deeper into the Watson False Conviction<p> </p><p> Deeper into the Watson False Conviction</p><p>John Steinbeck wrote......."The gods are fallen and safely gone. And there is one sure thing about the fall of gods: they do not fall a little; they crash and shatter or sink deeply in the green muck." There were many "gods" in Scott's case. 2 of them were presented as impeachable hairs but the "true fallen gods" were in fact those that said they had found the 2 hairs making them able to say their magic words: "Watson is guilty."<span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px;">Understanding the Watson case has always been about the 2 hairs that were said to be immovable for around 20 years, they were the glue that could not be escaped. But as Steinbeck wrote they finally did fall and it was not a little because they crashed and shattered.</span></p><div>While ESR might maintain its arguments of why the hairs were not found on the boat, why so many searches were required, and why there was re-searching, will now fall on deaf ears. Because when those "heroes" fell the truth filtered to the top. There were always sightings of the ketch right in Furneaux Inlet on the 31st and the next morning the first of January 98, but they were hidden and submerged in a web of lies built around the 2 hairs. The people that saw it were silenced in one way or another with an energy that could have found the ketch, even perhaps with the couple alive.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is not the police that have had to reconcile that they were not believed when they said they saw the ketch or saw the couple aboard. It is the people that weren't believed that have struggled with that and wondered what might have been if they had been believed and not shut down, bullied, or ignored.</div><div><br /></div><div>Photos were taken of the ketch and in at least one instance there are witnesses who saw such a photo and delivered it to someone in the family after police rejected it as important. For all those years the person that delivered the photo has wondered what happened to it and for the present, we do not know. But what we do know is that other people either surrendered photos of the ketch to the police or had police take such photos and not return them. We now know the photo file was replaced with one that makes no sense and does not reconcile with witness reports. The photo file is inconsistent with job sheets and statements which have never been altered, the information on them was mistakenly not removed when the new photo file was made. It is unavoidable truth now that photos of sightings were destroyed but not always the statements or job sheets that matched.</div><div><br /></div><div>The points made above when drawn into a single picture shows malfeasance around the reporting of the Ketch, photos of it, and its known movements in and out of Mapua. It was already identified in those places but police either did not take statements or statements were removed from the file with excuses made that they had never existed or were irrelevant, having other innocent explanations. The cover-up was huge, but also stupid. Now, this part of the case can be heard.</div><div><br /></div><div>There was a recent experience revealed where someone had sent photos to the police of a ketch but never got them back. On the face of it, that was like many other similar situations but with a distinct difference, one of the particular families had kept copies which may not have appeared important at the time. From those copies, the ketch photographed was excluded as being the ketch that went into the inlet on New Year's eve. However, it might well have been another vessel seen with the mystery ketch after New Year when one of the boats was seen dragging its ropes in the water, usually a sign of being in distress. While not realised at first, it was eventually seen as proof the photos had been given to police because of the copies retained. All photos taken or given to police were the personal property of the owners and are something else police have gotten away with, they should not have been disposed of without the owners' written consent. </div><div><br /></div><div>So what does it mean? Scott now has further proof of the file manipulation which is so poorly done that it is obvious anyway. But all those people who said they gave photos but struggled to prove it now have support because the family that sent photos kept the copies as described above. </div><div><br /></div><div>So when we look to the horizon and count how many battleships the Crown retains what do we see? The 2 hairs sinking, all police credibility on dismissing witness reports and photos of the ketch or sightings are sunk like the photo file. The good ship Fitzgerald with its witness enhancement methods also sunk, There's been no sign since 2017 of Pope or his 2nd commanding officer John Rae, who took control of the photo file late in the inquiry. In 2017 they said smugly about the second RPOM application that they had seen it all before. The difference now so has the public has seen it all before - too many times.</div>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-72808797970951693662022-10-15T09:27:00.000+13:002022-10-15T09:27:25.590+13:00Watson case cracks open even more.<p> More than one swallow for Scott Watson at last.</p><p><br /></p><p>The last post about Scott was a recognition that he is finally tasting success in his fight for freedom. It would be rare however that 2 single events have happened on just one day as they did on October 14. </p><p>Firstly the man that verballed Scott claiming he said at the time of his arrest the words "it's about time," was mentioned in the news as New Zealand's "Top Detective" retired prematurely. Looking at the facts surrounding the man one is entitled to say, as rarely happens in the police, he was pushed out as it appears was the officer in charge of the case, Pope, many years earlier. Fitzgerald claims that he will be doing further contract work for the police. The direct cause of his retirement is more likely his sudden fall from grace after the Court of Appeal rejected his system of lying to suspects in order for them to confess or reveal details when they were not cautioned that anything they might say could be used against them. The particular case was where an innocent man "confessed." I don't think he should or will get work from the police, if he does there is likely to be a public furore.</p><p>In the manner expected of such a man, Fitzgerald blamed his own staff for not applying the methods properly thus exposing his true nature of doing anything to anybody to save his own neck. My interest in the man goes back prior to 2016 when research showed that during Watson's first Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) application and at a time the case was being investigated by then QC Kirsty McDonald now of course a KC, he was permitted not only entry to Paremoremo Prison but allowed to see a secret witness who had recanted his claim that Scott had confessed. The normal protocol when an investigation was undertaken about police conduct was that police would be unable to approach the witness, but that did stop dear old Tom and as it turns out it didn't bother Kirsty either. Probably no surprise that the witness recanted his recantation allowing Kirsty to reject Scott's plea.</p><p>Things did not stop there however although they were delayed for some years until a 2nd RPOM was filed on Scott's behalf where among other issues it was pointed out that if a person says "yes, no, yes" they are unreliable, particularly having given evidence of a confession that sent a man away for life. It also reflected not on the conduct of Fitzgerald but also on the judgment of the then McDonald QC. Complicating the issue for the pair was that the RPOM pointed out that a second witness who claimed to hear a confession had a different story than the first. The 2nd man had claimed to the Jury that he was non-violent and objected to violence against women as the reason for his evidence. Later it was revealed in fact to be a violent man which was known to Fitzgerald, particularly against women who on the day he told Fitzgerald about the "confession" had just taken part in a violent assault against another inmate - something Fitzgerald didn't bother to charge him for. Those revelations in part may have driven Scott's first-ever legal success in the case since he was arrested along with issues regarding the "gold plated" hair evidence against him that has now caused his case to return to the Courts.</p><p>While the public may not know all these details police certainly will and indeed will politicians. Keeping a lid on all of that plus what is now arguably an illegal interrogation method, the public concern about Scott's case could see a feeling that any future role with police for Fitzgerald has become untenable. Furthermore, he failed to take responsibility for his own system and blamed his staff. Ms. McDonald, who was undisturbed that the mentally unwell witness who recanted after being visited by Fitzgerald also ignored that a person doesn't give variations of a "true" confession, is having some trouble of her own prosecuting the White Island case where a 2nd defendant has already been discharged despite her objections.</p><p>The second "swallow" which indicates that summer may, at last, be arriving on the Watson Miscarriage of Justice has been the release of material around which reports to the Parole Board have relied and it is expecting some clarity will emerge giving Scott the chance of parole before his appeal is heard and indeed the chance to help with it. Few of us if any can ever grasp what Scott Watson has gone through so progressing now without the fog sees him having a good chance to make it home at last.</p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-63847712164285780132022-10-06T07:35:00.002+13:002022-10-06T07:42:35.836+13:00<p> Suddenly Scott Watson has one success after another.</p><p>After 24 years of false imprisonment, Scott Watson is stringing one success together after another. Although progress has been too slow rectifying injustices in New Zealand has always been pointedly slow. That is an absolutely shameful situation and senior police as recently as 2017 were still saying that Scott was guilty. Now they are silent perhaps considering that their "gut instinct" on which they built their false case has finally been destroyed or revealed for what it is - criminal behaviour.</p><p>They deserve to go to prison.</p><p>But for now, looking back at the tide change it was something around 100 pages of submissions and many links to supporting material found by a lay person, helped by many people that was the first strike using an ancient process to correct legal processes - The Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM). It took 3 years or so and unfairly for Scott not all the material on hand was considered or he might have been out of prison by now. However, his plea for the first time in 20 years was accepted, having failed in the NZ Courts and even in the British Privy Council.</p><p>By then other work had continued to the point Scott now has a growing list of new witnesses who police deliberately ignored, changed or destroyed their statements which in total would have exonerated Scott or indeed with an honest investigation seen Scott never charged with perhaps the real truth of the case discovered. A detective who appears to have done a lot of the dirty work, Tom Fitzgerald, was recently blasted in a Court of Appeal (COA) decision for the deceitful manner in which he misused the Law in other cases. At this stage, the police hierarchy is sticking with him but we will see how long that lasts.</p><p>What the COA has yet to consider is that Fitzgerald not only managed to get false confessions or at least illegal ones, but he also bullied witnesses into lying either by threats or promises. The Watson case is littered not only with sightings of the mystery ketch hidden by police but also by witnesses who changed their stories which were kept secret from the Court.</p><p>Where once the hair "evidence" was said to be impeachable it is now just a mess of confusion and more likely deliberate falsification. Whilst the fight to have the whole case properly examined and understood after Scott is freed with people brought to account will continue, recently another glaring picture of deceit has been confirmed. Scott has been denied parole after flawed departmental reports were given to the Parole Board. He has been in prison for years when he should have been paroled and fighting his case with his freedom already intact. That too must be remedied. NZ's system of Parole is a flawed mess, Corrections has the largest financial allowance of any government agency and it has built a network of preposterous mumbo jumbo which brings us to another recent victory for Scott. He has been for years wrongly assessed as a high risk. That resulted from the use of wrong data then copied by one miscreant after another, possibly deliberately in some cases, that too must be remedied and will be.</p><p>Scott may soon have another Parole hearing with the truth on the table as to who he really is as a person, while relatively early next year his case will be back in Court and he will win. I hope by then the Crown has backed off from the hidden and changed evidence, the witnesses who lied either under immense pressure from police or for reward.</p><p>Overall it is shameful how long it takes to free innocent people and that will require work in the future. I hope part of that will be a routine investigation into the police or forensic scientists involved in a particular case, it is they after all who are the most responsible for false imprisonment.</p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-1569531688535123232022-09-28T16:49:00.004+13:002022-09-30T19:38:56.618+13:00<p> </p><p> Bob Jones says Joe Parker should retire:</p><p>While Bob Jones hasn't been infrequent with his criticism of New Zealand heavyweights Joe Parker and David Tua his latest seems unfair. Jones claims that Joe should have never taken the fight because Joe Joyce is a fighter in the style of George Foreman. I think that it is true and that it took a then aging fighter, Muhammed Ali, to stop Foreman with his "rope a dope" trick on the big man by covering up against George for most of the round before ending with a flurry of scoring punches before the bell sounded. While Ali took a battering to his body and arms he eventually caught the big man and sent him down,</p><p>This isn't to compare Joe to Ali apart from Joe in the past has shown a very quick jab and spoke about that the week before the fight. One of my criticisms of Joe is that he spoke too much when he should have been going over and over in his mind what his strategy would be and how he would change it if needed. He may have fooled himself by Joyce asking for a guarantee for a rematch before Christmas if he lost, or his lack of fights. By the middle rounds when Joe's trainer was telling him to step forward which, while promising, was still resulting in Joe taking heavy punishment albeit while scoring with a long right off his jab. That bothered Joe Joyce somewhat but he seldom stopped coming forward in a neat and compact way with quick heavy punches. Although we may have never seen Joe bob and weave that was always effective for Mike Tyson against big punchers until he got his left hook in.</p><p>Joyce was never deterred from his direct attack which is probably the point Bob Jones was making but that didn't mean Joe could not have adopted going left and right before stepping in and mixing his offense up a lot more even employing the rope a dope now and then. If Joyce's attack was predictable Joe should have looked to mix things up like getting in and pushing Joyce back in the way Evander bullied Tyson. As it is, there may still be the next time as Joe has come back and beaten fighters that have beaten him, he has a great coach and he might be more circumspect now about counting his chickens before they hatch. He also would have a sound plan against a fighter he learned a lot about last Sunday morning.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/boxing-sir-bob-jones-calls-for-joseph-parker-to-end-his-boxing-career-after-latest-defeat/BSXZRWURKF64TGHQLF52SQA6AU/">Boxing: Sir Bob Jones calls for Joseph Parker to end his boxing career after latest defeat - NZ Herald</a></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-5490106177844615452022-09-11T06:28:00.002+12:002023-01-17T09:54:10.061+13:00<p> Crown Law cheats to avoid being liable in a Civil claim against itself.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/crown-law-overturned-criminal-conviction-that-exposed-it-to-legal-liability/ar-AA11EeUI?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6f91c1f21d964c35a7ebd2ad2d1354d2">Crown Law overturned criminal conviction that exposed it to legal liability (msn.com)</a></p><p><br /></p><p>In a brilliant strategic strategy to bring a strong case against the Crown in a civil procedure for damages, the Crown with cold, deliberate intention avoided Justice using the Law supported by the Courts, Ministry of Social Development and Corrections.</p><p>A perpetrator (P) was convicted of various assaults against a young person in state care we'll call Carl. He is likely to also have been a victim that acted out the abuse upon himself by others. P was sentenced to 4.5 years for the crimes and voluntarily entered a sex offender's programme at Rolleston Prison where from the public record we know that entry to that programme required admissions of guilt as a pre-requisite of treatment. Meanwhile, Carl's lawyer Sonja Cooper filed or had filed a case for damages against the Crown for the circumstances of the offense against a person in its care - a very reasonable situation in all the circumstances but potentially leading to a flood gate bursting were 100s or even 1000s of people molested while in the care of the Crown could be justifiably paid damages.</p><p>We already know that the Crown had adopted a strategy some 3 decades ago of offering such plaintiffs or potential plaintiffs against itself meagre sums of money to essentially go away. Many of those individuals did go away either bewildered by the process or perhaps without appreciation that the damages were a pittance. However, some did not and remained fighters for the truth and correct compensation for the misery they suffered at the hands of what is identified as a fair and just Governmental entity, the top of the tree for the fair application of the Law, The Bill of Rights Act along with all fundamental protections for the public of New Zealand.</p><p>Reading the link will avail the reader of the depth to which Crown Law emerges itself in self-protection by manipulation of the Law. It hid evidence against itself by claiming hiding P's files of admissions as to his offending was in fact to protect the integrity of its Kia Marama programme for sexual offenders something accepted by the Court. Many readers will in fact feel that the cold and deliberate covering up of offending actually fatally affected the integrity of the programme. They will see that the entity charged with our care, observance of the Law, and Rights under the Law is happy to see those rights wiped from its page in circumstances where it is found out.</p><p>We will see how brave the Royal Commission into state care is in its final reports and if it will call the Crown out on this Miscarriage of Justice which is plainly evident. Those Commissioners have the whole interests of all New Zealanders in their hands that there is a Law for all of us that should never be misused as it clearly has in Carl's case with first, the sexual offense and violence against him, followed by an attack on his right to have his case fairly heard in the Courts. </p><p>The Crown is already seen to have been discriminatory in avoiding costs against itself in many 100s of cases it settled. But this net goes far wider into other Miscarriages of Justice where the Crown allows itself to hide evidence. Reg Haig before his death had sought from the Solicitor General answers to whether or not the Crown had details of something near 20 alleged confessions of murdering a man that he would go on to say that Rex had killed. There are suggestions of similar confessions by witnesses in the case against Gail Maney for a crime she could not have been involved in. But the confessions remain hidden probably on the basis that to release the information would mean that the Crown would not maintain the confidence of those that had committed crimes and were prepared to blame others. </p><p>The Scott Watson case is soon to return to the NZ Courts where much important evidence will be heard showing Scott's innocence. However other evidence clearly showing his innocence is likely to remain hidden in the meanwhile, evidence which could eventually point to the real perpetrators in that case.</p><p>Meanwhile, to Carl and his Lawyer Sonja Cooper, I say all strength to you for taking the sword to the dragon symbolic in its role of "protecting" we citizens.<br /></p><p><b>Footnote</b> The Watson defence files hold much information that possibly could lead to the real offenders and what they may choose to do with that is unknown.</p><p> </p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-750828607096576462022-08-09T14:15:00.001+12:002022-08-09T14:15:15.826+12:00<p><br /></p><p> Inside the dark web that is the Scott Watson case in 2022.</p><p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">August
2022<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To whom
it may concern<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Response
to the affidavits from Vintiner and Robertson submitted to the COA<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Ms Vintiner
(MV) has made an extensive new submission; her affidavit is in part a defence
of evidence that the Jury heard without further explanations. She has not
meaningfully addressed her agreement in front of the jury that “contamination
should be considered” as a factor in the hair evidence, or how it should be
considered, and so forth. She now appears to have reversed her position arguing
she was surprised by questions from the Defence which apparently made her
forget other facts she re-visits in her affidavit. That is a concern that she
did not have the presence of mind to appreciate a hole in a sample bag would be
of interest to the Court and require a full explanation. The fact she stumbled
for an explanation in front of the Jury and says the cause of that was defence
counsel’s question re the bag cut indicates her shortcomings in understanding the
role of a forensic examiner. The bag cut needed a full explanation for the prosecution
file, the Court, the defence, and the Jury when it was recorded as being first
noticed etc. This new response from MV would have been a question put to Sean Doyle
when Watson supporters twice fund-raised for independent reports. It is hardly
an assumption that ESR must have protocols for such situations to be investigated
and catalogued. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As to
foundation issues around the questioned hairs being found on the Blade it remains,
they were not found in the searches there or indeed on the blanket it is said
transported the hairs to the lab where they were initially bagged collectively
by Ms. Costello and an assistant but still not found. The recitation of the
claim of the hairs being found on the Blade is misleading. MV nor anyone else
(including the Court) can say with certainty that the 2 hairs were found on the
Blade or even on the blanket. It is a disservice to Scott Watson and Justice
that any expert attempts to qualify the hairs as being found on the Blade as a
fact when it is not. This claim is in its 3<sup>rd</sup> decade when the truth
of it is even less convincing than in the past as alleged confessions and other
evidence against Scott Watson falls away. It is Scott Watson’s position that
the Court clearly notes the factual data of the hair discovery with complete accuracy
not more or less.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There were
glaring mistakes by both police and ESR in understanding how to control the
alleged crime scene which now gives rise to a situation where neither party freely
admits that the crime scene process was flawed. If the hairs existed on the
Blade, then they must have been able to have been found there to be carefully
photographed in situ, but they were not. No Court should easily move forward on
speculation in this case unable to be supported by factual evidence of quality.
In para 126 MV says it would have been “a near impossible task due to the space
restrictions and the size of the blanket.” A process she says, “could cause
hairs to transfer from one place to another on the blanket or be lost from the
blanket.” To be clear hairs “lost” from the blanket in situ would remain on the
bunk or nearby – even as MV agrees, to another part of the blanket, not
suddenly disappear. The perils of hairs going to “transfer” is overstated in a small,
contained environment. There was a lot of confidence in the way the Blade was
taken from the water in full public view which may have caused some certainty of
powerful inculpatory evidence being found as described in the search warrant,
“bodies or body parts.” That was the unproven legal proposition in support of a
search warrant to Heron who would later Judge the case. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There was
the time demands MV claims that prevented her attention from searching for the
hairs, it shouldn’t be forgotten that working in a lab would have been clearly
more comfortable for an elite forensic examiner who lived and worked in
Auckland at the time. I may be incorrect but there appears to be no evidence
that MS herself ever boarded the Blade before the hairs were found in the lab.
Or indeed acted or encouraged police to act promptly in gathering hair evidence
despite what she now says of expected DNA degradation of DNA if not tested
promptly. (Photos?)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On this
point she quotes Robertson in para 113 “Managing the Forensic Examination of
Human Hairs in Contemporary Forensic Practice” 2017:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> “at the earliest opportunity select
hairs suitable for nuDNA analysis.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As a
relevant aside in terms of searching the blanket while still on the Blade in
Para 16 she says, “that many of the hairs on the blanket would be background
hairs”, that is hairs accumulated over time. That statement is inconsistent
with Prosecution's claims at trial that the Blade had been cleaned down according
to early observations by police informing both their own searches of the boat
and those of ESR. In that case, there
might be expected to be no hairs on the blanket or certainly only a few
“background hairs,” accumulated over a short time post New Years to delay or
make “difficult” searches of the blanket. That particular “difficulty” is later
expunged by the comments of Dr. Robertson in his affidavit to the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Here it is
noted that the NZ and Australia Forensic communities jointly voiced opposition
to the American reports of criticism and misuse around “hair examinations” in
the 2015 to 2017 period but now (according to MS’s affidavit and other sources)
agree that comparison methods are used less in both countries because of
improvements in DNA analysis. In Para 114 MV acknowledges <b>that ESR no longer
undertakes high-power microscopic examination of hairs, a cornerstone of
comparison methods. </b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Dr. Robertson
(DR), whose book is quoted above, simplified one of the largest issues in terms
of the hair evidence, he said the brown hairs should have been separated out.
This could have happened on the Blade, or in the pre-screening and could for a
Jury indicate a lack of experience or forensic discipline by ESR. Taking no
sample hairs from Mr. Watson complicated the process and increased time demands
that MV now says are at a premium to avoid DNA degradation. She also now says she requested hair from police
more than once. Para 75 “it is likely that either me or Mr. Peter Wilson, as the
case manager, suggested to the police that a second sample should be submitted….”
MV overlooks mentioning that any further hairs taken from the Hope household,
like the original hairs, may well have been aged and DNA deteriorated. The
“relaxed” lack of appreciation of who exactly requested further hairs, why, and
how it was recorded is another alarm bell in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There was no
more important case of the era, yet the public is expected to accept that
other work was prioritised over this case. MS says in her affidavit that time
is important because DNA can degenerate. It was ESR’s decision not to direct
other resources to parts of the screening leaving hairs without further
re-examination for many weeks. Yet in para 68 MV says the microscopic screen
took 5 hours, several months wait to do 5 hours of work seems extraordinary in
such an important case where it is claimed by the primary scientist that DNA can
degenerate making testing times a priority yet took part in speeding the
process along. It would be up to a new Jury to decide on those delays and in
fact, if the hairs were in fact searching for, not found, as it fully appears,
before further searching was initiated in the historical way many NZ injustices
show “success” after “re-searches” for evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In para 127
MV says the recovery of the blanket was undertaken in accordance with the SWGMAT
Trace Evidence Recovery Guidelines, 1999.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">5.5.5. Small or manageable items at a
crime scene that bear visible firmly attached trace evidence should be documented,
packaged intact, and transported to the laboratory for examination.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">5.5.6. Items at a crime scene that
bear visible but easily lost trace evidence or items that are impractical to
transport should be documented and the trace evidence collected by an
appropriate technique.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Whilst there
is no dispute that “firmly attached” does relatively apply to hairs held to plastic
by static electricity as MV agrees, the tiger blanket was not plastic, and
whilst blood, semen, food spill or spittle might attach firmly attach hairs to
a blanket there was no evidence recorded of that in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In para 128
MV says she did not receive reference hair samples from Mr. Watson and is not
aware of the reason they were not supplied, but unlike the earlier para where
she suggests she may have asked for more sample hairs from the home, there is no
evidence she asked for hair samples taken from SW. Without researching the date
of the relevant law allowing samples to be taken from suspects it is without a doubt that any refusal by SW to supply a hair sample would have been used
against him, if not directly to the public, then by leaks to the press which
were frequent in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Ms. Penny
Costello and her assistant did sort hairs and could have been used to separate
out the brown hairs as DR suggests as an expedient. We see demonstrations at
some points throughout MV’s statement of being proactive in requesting items
from the police and in the next claiming not to know why certain things were
not supplied to her, as the example of sample hair from Scott Watson. A Jury
would today have to accept trained ESR staff asked to sort or remove hairs into
a bag simply ignored that job as not being part of a search for blond hairs
which few people in NZ at the time would not have appreciated was the colour of
Olivia’s hair or indeed as MV now says she knew at the time of her tests possibly
shaded with peroxide. MV never told the Jury about the peroxide or the objections
by the FBI in peroxide contacted hairs to not be tested. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MV diverts by
claiming that it is difficult to measure the hair length, a lay person could do it
with ease using tweezers – which would be something for a Jury to consider from
their own experience. She simply could have taken the hairs out of the bag
using tweezers and measured them end on end against a stationary rule. Again,
MV in one breath speaks of her proactive activity while in another presents as
passive in gathering material and accurate information. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Despite MV’s
silence since the trial it became known that the hair of Olivia was contacted
with bleach/peroxide months before her disappearance, only after that
revelation to her has MV confirmed that information despite important FBI
releases regarding the effect of peroxide on human hair. In para 57 MS reconfirms
she used bleach and or ethanol to clean her bench and utensils. These were
matters for the Jury and the Court. There were videos of the hair colour of Olivia
released to the public after the trial in which her hair appeared fully coloured
in the manner of a woman the late Ted Walsh confirmed seeing on a ketch on the
second of January, there are videos of his description of that and his concerns
about it withheld from him by police even after he pointedly asked the
question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Public concerns
remain regarding the blond hairs not being found in the searches aboard the
blade or in the 2-person pre-screening at ESR. There are other concerns that a new Jury would
need to consider including MS's own hair pre-screening and her written comments
about how “hard” the process was. ESR invites criticism of itself for the lack
of camera surveillance of work in progress, its inability to manage the work
more thoroughly by screening out the hairs of SW, and for not prioritising a
significant murder or missing persons case of unprecedented public concern. It
appeared not to have an incident report procedure that would have fully
encompassed the discovery of the cut in the bag and any inquiry into that at
the time.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is not
unfair to say that a Jury might question MV’s ability to be objective in this
case. There has been high public interest in the 2 hairs and the cut in the
plastic bag for 2 decades, and more recently surrounding the peroxide. Despite
that and the 23 intervening years, MS cannot say who gave instructions for the
second gathering of samples or show the attendant paperwork. MV on the issue of
peroxide says she agrees there with Dr. Gunn that there is no lasting impact of
hydrogen peroxide on the DNA which without any qualification differs from the FBI
that any use of peroxide is notifiable to testers. There are many peer-reviewed
scientific papers on this subject.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Para 137 Dr. Gunn…..”I note Dr. Gunn concludes a point 8.4,
that in his opinion, there is no lasting impact of hydrogen on the DNA.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Any
qualifications to that claim are not clear to the writer, but MV did not answer
the FBI directive regarding not testing hairs that had been contacted with DNA.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">From para
150 MV speaks about the packaging of multiple hairs in one sample bag and
concludes that she disagrees with Dr. Gunn that such a process may severely
compromise the quality of the DNA results obtained from the tested hairs. This
is demonstrative of the defensive position taken throughout by MV, underlying
that position is raised the absurdity of her arguments against a cautious
approach not being necessary. Overall, she favours her own opinion and not
established procedure, one method, “separation”, is clearly more risk-free. MV
was the FS advisor in the Lundy case where hairs currently remain controversial.
In that instance, the officer in charge of the process, Detective Oram, collected
each hair separately from the body of Christine Lundy and stored them in that
manner having first drawn diagrams of each hair’s position. MV was the
supervising ESR representative in that case. Overall MV is arguing against a
process conducted in careful crime scene gathering in NZ, she endorses a
different process with risk. That is a matter for a Jury as is much of what MV
now says specifically around who asked for more sample hairs, how the bag cut
was not reported and left untraced, the mixture of hairs in sample bags, and so
on. A Jury would also note MV's preciseness in some areas and vagueness in others,
along with the criticism of her peers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Secondary
nature of the hair evidence following from the false identification evidence:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">One incident
in the bar saw Watson falsely accused of offering trips to Tonga in exchange
for sex and inviting young women onto his “ketch”. The Judge and prosecutor
commented adversely on that situation which can now be seen as a
misidentification and indeed was the behaviour of the skipper who owned a 2
masted ketch rather than a sloop like Watson. There remain, no sightings of SW
with the couple reducing the value of the now seldom used hair comparison even
before its own shortcomings are considered, including that FBI warning. A Jury
would have reason to acquit on the “new” overall identification issues
resulting from the conduct of police surrounding identification procedures, the
Crown itself could most unlikely not wish to proceed to a retrial because of the
hidden and changed evidence far greater in volume than the Alan Hall case with
new evidence exhibiting that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-31049243009005715712022-06-15T18:28:00.005+12:002022-06-16T13:36:40.204+12:00<p> </p><p> False narrative results in vicious summing up in the Scott Watson Trial</p><p><br /></p><p>The following summing up by Crown Prosecutor and now High Court Judge Davison resulted from the true evidence being withheld from the Jury. The Crown knew that Scott was not the person who was propositioning young women to take a trip with him on the "only 2 masted ketch in the bay." In fact, the persons who did the propositioning were Crown witnesses, and not a word was raised to the prosecution about those proposals leaving the opportunity to blame that on Scott. In fact, one of those men was a ketch owner.</p><p>As you will read the Judge also seized upon that evidence which resulted in a false and damaging attack on Scott's character that was simply untrue. Alone this material could be expected to be enough to result in Scott's freedom. However in the final analysis little is left of the false case against Scott Watson, when one wall falls they all will.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">Davison closing excerpts:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">But just you’ll remember the talk about the fact that
he had the only two- master in the bay. I come to you indirectly about that.
The person by the name of Scott had the only two-masted vessel in the bay.
What was he on about, what was he doing going about telling people he had the
only two-masted vessel in the bay? What do you think he was up to? What was he
on about? Sort of mental? What reason would there be for doing something like
that? He didn’t have the only two-masted vessel in the bay, did he? Was he
trying to get people to associate himself with a boat.?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Was he just puffing himself up? And if he was it was just
a matter of some coincidence that he’s talking about ketches. Well, he also
spoke to people about sailing to Tonga.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">“, He said we could have
Prozac tee-shirts if we were part of his crew and Amanda Edger’s said we should
pull ropes and he said sexual favours as well. 2 O’clock and he’s still on the
job, looking for a woman for sexual favours. This was confirmed by Amanda
Edger herself who gave evidence about him, and she said the man that said to
her, described himself as Scott from Wellington, aged 26, well Scott, yes,
Wellington, no, 26 yes. So two details out of three were right and one bit of
misinformation there. He said to Amanda he had the only two-masted ketch in the
bay and Amanda also witnessed what I term the Ollie Perkins incident and she
said she got back to the beach where they were sleeping, hanging out, or
whatever at about 4 a.m. And she identified Mr. Watson from Montage B. There was
also a Kara Brosnahan, she spoke about seeing him at this time, spoke to about
Tonga, Prozac, getting a crew, sexual favours and she too identified Mr Watson
from Montage B and she was taken aback by that suggestion of sexual favours as
you would expect.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The Judge's closing excerpts:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">“</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="color: red; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">And they say
they were sexual motives which had been exhibited throughout the night with a
view to being bold and forward with women with a view to getting them back onto
his boat for sexual purposes. Or, was it
perhaps, as now has been perhaps suggested, that a more immediate motive of anger
and frustration, had been rejected, which made him do what is alleged he
did. He was, the Crown says, uniformly
provocative from a sexual point of view and suggested in that respect, the
Crown says the inference is that he wished to get a female to return to his
boat. The Crown says that the other
inference to draw is that, when he had them both on his boat, that Ben
obviously would be an obstruction to any sexual intentions he had towards
Olivia and that Ben would be disabled, or killed or disabled first, then the
Crown says it is likely that Olivia was killed at a later time.”</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: 36pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Later:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="color: red; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“Wallace,
of course, hears the important words "she can come but he can't" or
something to that effect. And the Crown
says that that statement has the hallmark of Scott Watson </span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">and just think of it for a moment, it's an offer of
hospitality um made to people who are in distress, not major distress but some
distress, they had nowhere to go and it's cold and they need somewhere to sleep
and um ah I just say to you well is that what the normal hospitable person
would say? It's provocative, it might
provoke fear or apprehension, or it might just be regarded, as Wallace seemed
to treat it, as a jocular comment and so on.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="color: red; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“But
it's consistent with the bold and provocative manner that he adopted that
night, you may think, some of his behaviour was probably worse than that and
that is why, along with other reasons, that evidence was allowed. That is the evidence generally. It's important to tell you that a lot of that
evidence which we heard about the exchanges between Mr Watson and other people
at Furneaux Lodge doesn't bring his character into good repute and lowers him
in the opinion of people no doubt.</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> And I've spoken to you on more than one
occasion about this but, Mr Foreman and members of the jury, you will not be
deterred or distracted by any such thing.
Your inquiry is to whether the Crown have sufficient evidence to involve
him in this murder if that is what you find it to be. Bad character on this night, or his actions
on this night to put it more correctly, is only of importance if it goes to
perhaps suggest that these words were typical of what he might say<span style="color: red;">, as the method perhaps of identification having regard to
the way in which he was approaching women generally that night, that his motive
was, </span>as the Crown says, to get somebody on board his boat that night and
this was just the last-ditch effort to do so in the circumstances that had
presented themselves. <span style="color: red;">Thirdly, as a possible motive I suppose, that he harboured a
murderous intention</span>, if you find that to be so, he had expressed earlier ah
some weeks earlier and I'll have something to say about those
conversations shortly.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: 36pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Later:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“He characterised
him by his eyes and um
calling them untrustworthy ah that's I think ah
um not a terribly confident I
suppose um description, but nonetheless he identified
him with a photograph which others had found
ah that was suitable and
satisfactory to identify him by, you will recall, in the Ollie Perkins group of
events as part of that.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The entire evidence
relied upon by then Davison QC in his closing address ignored the truth of the
file, was deliberately picked through and melded into a false narrative. It
can perhaps be seen now why the Watson case was rejected in the NZ COA and
Privy Council as those Courts, like the jury, heard a deliberately driven false
account.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Time will reveal all
the details, but the unavoidable conclusion is that including the 2 hairs evidence
against Scott Watson was either deliberately false or suspect. Even now in 2222, the file is turning up ketch sightings a Furneaux Lodge as seen with the witness Stewart. There are possibly 100s of sightings lost or never recorded.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In the trial summing up, the Judge uses the false evidence to talk of Watson as someone with a grave
character and joins with the Prosecutor in damning Scott Watson for sleazy
behaviour in which the evidence here shows he was not involved. It is likely
this evidence had influenced the Judge to reconsider and allow the evidence of
Mr. and Mrs. C effectively preventing Watson’s right to a fair trial or fair appeals
all the way to the Privy Council. The character assassination was by then complete
and on the public record. The Crutchley report and the work of Pope, Rae,
Fitzgerald, and Rolton played a critical role in that. <o:p></o:p></span></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-7175038913151621492022-06-04T14:21:00.000+12:002022-06-04T14:21:24.089+12:00<p> Watson End Game Nears</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is another example of how evidence that couldn't be manipulated against Scott Watson was hidden instead. There is not one shred of strong evidence in the Watson case that is not now fully impeached as false.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Altered and other statements concerning
dinghies:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Police recorded dinghy sightings from the outset, examples
are Mike Huxford #30310 statement who saw a ‘clinker built’ dinghy when fishing
on 2<sup>nd</sup> or 3<sup>rd</sup> of January when heading to Awash Rock. Bill
Jenner #30294 saw dinghy anchored in small bay to the left of Perano Head. Bill
Ellis in his August 2018 letter regarding recognizing a dingy in a photo which
he had seen at Waikawa Marina – felt almost certainly the dingy was clinker
design as he was familiar with them having built one.<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mike Huxford 30310 St 2/2/98<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rxwB5_wC5j0GhPxqWv4T8z37XrxCvEaH"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rxwB5_wC5j0GhPxqWv4T8z37XrxCvEaH</span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(Format: Word Document)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">30310 St 2/2/98 Was actually made by Mike Huxford and his
partner Kristie Lennon.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">That either on 2 or 3 January
he was out fishing with Bill JENNER, Chris BROOK and Chris ? and were heading
to Awash Rock.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> It was too rough, so we went around
Perano Head.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We were there a good two
hours.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There were no other boats
there but there was a little clinker-built dinghy, the type off a yacht, 6’ at
the most which was moored 20-30’ off the shore. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Bill Jenner:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HkWBXCLJ95vdDVbwDEmIrO083V3Z4aXA"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HkWBXCLJ95vdDVbwDEmIrO083V3Z4aXA</span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(Format: Word Document)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">30294 St 27/1/95 Bill Jenner confirms sighting of dinghy at
Perano Head, confirms date of January 2<sup>nd</sup> 98.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In May 2018, Noel Reeve confirmed that he had been taken by
police from his place of work in Whangarei in an unmarked car to a police
station to save him, he was told, from any embarrassment of being seen taken
away by police. At the police station he was informed that his dinghy had been
stolen by Scott Watson who he knew casually from Picton and from working in
various boat yards. He told police he had not had a dingy stolen. In 2018 Noel
Reeve was sent his statement in which there is no reference at all to a dingy,
the main point of the inquiry from him. Reading his statement #10231 there is
little of substance mentioned. Noel had not been in the Endeavour Inlet at New
Years, had only a passing acquaintance with Watson (although he did lend Watson
a drill which was returned whilst at Whangarei) and had little to contribute to
the inquiry apart from being told his dinghy had been stolen. Noel Reeve
provides another example in the Tam inquiry where information helpful to the
defence is gone. His evidence shows some possible police attempt to fabricate
an answer to overcome the problem of Watson going aboard his boat alone at
around 3am and not making a 2<sup>nd</sup> trip ashore, as the Crown belatedly
claimed. In 2018 it was discovered that in Operation Tam handwritten signed
statements became unsigned typed statements with changes. Noel Reeve’s
statement from the file is typed and unsigned, it also has inconsistent dates
entered. Altering statements as they were transcribed from written to typed is
a feature of this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A second aspect consistent with the importance of a dinghy
to police was made available from the witness Dave Mahony, skipper of the
charter boat Mina Cornelia - part of the 3 boats raft up that contained the
Watson yacht Blade and the vessel Bianco. After consistent talk that police had
put it to Mahony that he heard Watson start up his outboard and leave the raft
up in his dingy he was approached by the defence in 2018. That dingy trip, had
it happened, would have circumvented the fundamental problem of the Crown case
– Watson returning to the Blade alone, and never, according to any witness,
being seen with the couple before or after their disappearance. When contacted
on the 5/5/18, Dave Mahony confirmed the police putting to him hearing Watson
start up his outboard – he also confirmed that he had told police the
allegation was not true and rejected the claim. He told the writer he thought
that Watson did not have an outboard. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Reading Mr Mahony’s statements there is no mention of the
dinghy trip or the accusation, that conversation is abridged to only mention
the condition of the dingy and nothing about it leaving or having an outboard.
Many times. in his various statements Mahony said the Watson dinghy was in a
rundown condition. A point to consider here is the Huxton and Ellis information
re a ‘clinker built’ dingy – according to Bill Ellis in immaculate condition. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mr Mahony’s statements reflect a consistent story, leaving
a question as to why he was approached so many times. Including late one
evening #10677 when he and his wife had just returned from hospital after she
had been released following major surgery. Mr Mahoney confirmed again on the 7/5/18
the assertions by police about the dingy, he wasn’t sure during which interview
it was or how many times it happened. At the time he said that he was happy to
be contacted by the reviewer of the RPOM which was indicated to him as likely
being a retired or serving High Court Judge. Unfortunately, the Reviewer had
not received the information before his report was completed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mahony remains clear that he was not frightened or
intimidated by Scott Watson as police kept asking him and pointed out that he
went aboard the Blade for a chat and that he knew the late Bev Watson (Scott’s
mother) from school. His statements and evidence offered Watson a complete
defence against the 2-trip theory. Defence Counsel were entitled to know of
Mahony denying that Watson had not left on a dinghy after his return to the
Blade to cross examine him fully on the subject. Counsel could have planned to
enlarge that picture across the case, of the police dealing with witnesses –
some who changed their accounts through their statements and many whose
statements were not faithfully recorded, some in fact fully or partly deleted.
Counsel would have told the Jury that the police had done everything possible
to try to put Watson back ashore in a dinghy to prove their case and failed. Those
various omissions, when fully considered, makes a fatal impact on the 2-trip
theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">When Whangarei police took Noel Reeve from his place of
work, he was told that the dinghy Watson had stolen from him was rundown –
arguably an extension of the comments by Dave Mahony. Moreover, there is no
explanation why police approached Reeve and said his dingy had been stolen. Mr
Reeve has said that the situation was disturbing for him and that his denial of
having his dinghy stolen not warmly welcomed. Plain clothes detectives do not
investigate unreported thefts of dinghies.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Defence counsel and the Jury at the time of the trial did
not know about the Mahony account of police putting to him of hearing Watson’s
start an outboard after returning to the Blade. They also did not know Mr Reeve
had been told by police that Watson had stolen his dinghy. At no time
prior to the Crown’s closing address did defence counsel or the Jury know that
the Crown would allege a 2<sup>nd</sup> trip ashore by Watson. After the Mahony
and Anderson evidence the defence may have considered that Mr Watson would be
acquitted – they were not to know what is understood today, that police and the
Crown charged Mr Watson knowing that he gone aboard the Blade alone and that
there was no proof that he had left his yacht again in Endeavour Inlet that
morning, the 1<sup>st</sup> of January 1998. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Notwithstanding that Scott Watson pleaded guilty to theft
of a recovered dinghy in 1999 which police had been aware of since the previous
year, the Mahony and Ellis omitted information is supportive in showing that
the Crown and police deliberately hid, or in other ways deleted material
helpful to Mr Watson’s Defence from understanding the case as it can be today.
This material indicates police failing to find any evidence supporting the 2-
trip theory well before Watson was charged. The Jury did not hear the
considerable evidence that shows evidence fabrication and deletions in this
case. A Jury today would also have the benefit of the IPCA report which
summarised the danger of witnesses giving untruthful evidence because of
methods employed by police a point recently noted by the COA in 2022.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It would be expected that the Court of Appeal today would
acknowledge the mistake in law of its predecessor regarding the 2-trip theory.
The Court would also be able to consider the failure of the practical efforts
by police before the trial to show Mr Watson made a second trip and whether it
was appropriate for him to have been charged upon the failure of those efforts.
Had Sir Graham been aware of the information around the dingy when considering
the second RPOM he may have made the decision to recommended that Scott Watson
be pardoned.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Defence, had they had the undisturbed statements of
Mahony, Noel Reeve and others reflecting the actual interviews would have had a
strong case for Mr Watson to be discharged once the Mahony and Anderson
evidence had been given.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Similarly, had the Ministry of Justice sought an update on
both advances in forensic science hair evidence, and the original procedures
used in the Watson case – the Minister and Reviewer would not have been able to
have relied on the ‘2 hair’ evidence to say the weakened case against Mr Watson
was held together by the 2 hairs. Neither the Ministry nor the reviewer of the
1<sup>st</sup> Watson RPOM found any evidence of Watson going ashore a second
time, just as the police failed to find any such evidence - yet that is exactly
what the Jury heard, the first Appeal Court and the Privy Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Photo of Mystery Ketch and Dinghy:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">At the time of Tam inquiry Helen Ellis was working in the
information Centre in Picton. She took a phone call from a frustrated witness
which she explained in her 2018 statement/letter. That call resulted in a photo
of a ketch sighted in Pelorus Sounds as the relevant times towing a dinghy
being sent to her office. She in response to the sender of the photo’s request,
gave the photo to her husband Bill to pass on to the father of Ben Smart, John
Smart – a business associate of Bill Ellis. During this process, Mr
Ellis on seeing the dinghy in the photo, believed he had seen the dinghy
previously at Waikawa Marina in Picton. Also, that it was likely to have been
‘clinker’ built.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><br /></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-70966588293960014902022-05-30T07:27:00.000+12:002022-05-30T07:27:53.906+12:00<p> </p><p> Watson: what a Miscarriage of Justice looks like from the inside.</p><p>(Format is from another document hence the reproduction difficulties)</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Chris Bishman #10055, 12/1/98 <span style="color: red;">(Did
not give evidence)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jSJtEzr_s_j2Ijak1nLkT1hS2YQNIBI2">https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jSJtEzr_s_j2Ijak1nLkT1hS2YQNIBI2</a><span style="color: red;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(Format: Word Document)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">10055 St 12/1/98 Bishman is one of the people Perkins
describes as able to back up his story. His description differs from that of
Perkins but does say the person has 2 days of growth and may have been wearing a
denim shirt. He does not identify Watson. He refers to conversations about
Tonga and Amanda Egden. Spoke to the person for some length of time but the
person did not speak about yachts or trips overseas. Was shown both compusketch
pictures and said neither looked like the person. This however does not lead to
a fresh compusketch being made a clear demonstration that the trail of the potentially
real offender is being ignored. Besides not identifying Scott Watson, Bishman
said the conversation went to 4am which the reader will know coincides with the
evidence of many others and includes the stranger in the Wallace Naiad around 4am,
along with Ben, Oliva, Morressy and Dyer. Again we have exclusion of Watson as
the offender by a witness not called to give evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Bishman job sheet
#40958 29/4/98<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1b0Mp8Wkol8G_kQCpU6LNMQEf6Btryw_p">https://drive.google.com/open?id=1b0Mp8Wkol8G_kQCpU6LNMQEf6Btryw_p</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(Format: Word Document)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">40958 JS 29/4/98 Bishman 4 months after failing to identify
Scott Watson he identifies Watson from montage ‘B’ ‘blink photo.’ See Trial by
Trickery pg. 114 to learn that not one witness identified Watson from montage
‘A’ and it was only after the ‘blink photo’ was utilised in montage ‘B’ that he
was identified by anybody. Also, note the hair difference.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Tim Everist, 8/1/98 Statement 20022 at 11 am. <span style="color: red;">(Did not give evidence)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:76.2pt;
height:49.8pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.emz"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img border="0" height="66" src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png" v:shapes="_x0000_i1025" width="102" /><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Word.Document.8" ShapeID="_x0000_i1025"
DrawAspect="Icon" ObjectID="_1715401705">
<o:WordFieldCodes>\s</o:WordFieldCodes>
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">20022 ST 8/1/98 (11am) Tim was part of a large group of teenagers
who had headed to the Lodge to see in the new year. By the various accounts, they had been drinking before their arrival and continued once arriving. On
page 2 he says he was talking to a man in the bar he says didn’t hear anything
about a yacht when he was talking to him. He speaks about a “whole lot of 5<sup>th</sup>
formers” advancing on the man over comments he had made. On page 3 he repeats
that he never heard anything about a ketch from “this guy.” He says he can’t
recall what the man was wearing but that he may have had a <span style="color: red;">checkered shirt</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:76.2pt;height:49.8pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.emz"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img border="0" height="66" src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.png" v:shapes="_x0000_i1026" width="102" /><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Word.Document.8" ShapeID="_x0000_i1026"
DrawAspect="Icon" ObjectID="_1715401706">
<o:WordFieldCodes>\s</o:WordFieldCodes>
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">1016 ST 8/1/98 (1.45am) Everist. Shown a photograph and
identifies somebody.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1027" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:76.2pt;height:49.8pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image005.emz"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img border="0" height="66" src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image006.png" v:shapes="_x0000_i1027" width="102" /><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Word.Document.8" ShapeID="_x0000_i1027"
DrawAspect="Icon" ObjectID="_1715401707">
<o:WordFieldCodes>\s</o:WordFieldCodes>
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">11557 JS 19/2/98 Everist says “I never said he had a ketch.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of boat he had.” He was referring to his
first 2 statements on the same day. This was a phone call where Everist must
have been told that he had said that the man had a ketch, he denies any
knowledge of that. Everist would be an important witness in the event of a retrial
– his experience clearly was that police wanted him to “repeat” something had
previously said and he was clearly adamant that he would not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1028" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:76.2pt;height:49.8pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image007.emz"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img border="0" height="66" src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image008.png" v:shapes="_x0000_i1028" width="102" /><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Word.Document.8" ShapeID="_x0000_i1028"
DrawAspect="Icon" ObjectID="_1715401708">
<o:WordFieldCodes>\s</o:WordFieldCodes>
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">11863 ST 19/3/98 Everist shows Montage B and identifies photograph
3 as the person he identifies in his statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1029" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:76.2pt;height:49.8pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image009.emz"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img border="0" height="66" src="file:///C:/Users/brian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image010.png" v:shapes="_x0000_i1029" width="102" /><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Word.Document.8" ShapeID="_x0000_i1029"
DrawAspect="Icon" ObjectID="_1715401709">
<o:WordFieldCodes>\s</o:WordFieldCodes>
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">13360 JS 14/9/98 Everist now refers to the person as Watson.
Detective Fitzgerald completes JS<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">No mention of “ketch to Tonga’ in any of Everist’s
statements.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The last recorded police interaction with Everist appears
to be this job sheet where the name Watson is mentioned for the first time in
any paperwork or job sheet attributed to contact with Tim Everist. The job
sheet is signed by Detective Fitzgerald, who among other events in operation
Tam, his dealings with the witness (suppressed) are recorded in the RPOM proper
where Fitzgerald claimed that it was unlikely that Watson would have had much
to do with (suppressed) or indeed trust him, over a period (including a deleted
statement which the defence was, fortunately, able to refresh) (suppressed)
somehow became a confidant of Mr. Watson. Furthermore, <b>the video interview of Guy Wallace is also included in the second RPOM where
it is recorded</b> Fitzgerald repeatedly lying to Wallace to: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Make
him believe that he was a suspect with evidence held against him, also <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To
make him deny having seen the mystery ketch or face the music of a murder
charge. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As pointed out in the second RPOM Detective Fitzgerald
failed to inform the Court that secret witness ‘B’ had confessed a crime to him
but was never charged and went on to give evidence for the Crown at the Watson
trial. Mr. Fitzgerald’s attempt to have Everist nominate Watson as the person
who invited people aboard his “two-masted ketch” etc appears to have failed
because Everist did not give evidence and never provided the support for Perkin’s claims identifications of Watson as the “sleazy and creepy”
stranger. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Moreover, investigators did not pause from their
determination to convict Watson at all costs by finding the mystery ketch and
the stranger to exclude both from the inquiry. There were no public pleas to
find the stranger after the fresh descriptions in January (see here the
McNeilly affidavit including in the first RPOM) and indeed the search for a
ketch was stopped as both the file and Mike Chappell (affidavit in the second RPOM)
show. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">People that rang in with reports were ignored despite the fact that
Watson was not arrested for a further 5 months, the inquiry was shut down to a
single focus that looked for ‘2 hairs’ many times until finding them. ‘2 hairs’
that now present as planted evidence without support, or indeed able to survive
critical forensic analysis of both the scientific standards of the time and
now.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There is a real possibility that Everist’s statement where
he allegedly mentioned a yacht was either re-written or altered by police.
Alterations to statements could extend to identifications or any other matter whatsoever
as is reported in the second RPOM, or indeed be fully deleted. The material
herein provides proof of incidences where witnesses say both such things
happened. The second RPOM mentioned the high number of deletions, now several
years later many can be put together, some coinciding with the “Crutchley
report.” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is a blight on NZ police and the Crown that these
documents show that the file was being manipulated right up until the time of
the trial and whilst it took place. The defence is now aware of the methodology of
the Tam computer file, who entered material, who had the power to seek or make
changes, that entries were saved each day and the system backed up once a week
– but the integrity of the file has deliberately impinged as the paperwork
shows.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-70399690812962715882022-05-25T11:13:00.000+12:002022-05-25T11:13:58.205+12:00<p> </p><p> More work in progress as the Watson case continues to fall apart.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The following are cited as a window to remind
of the disastrous Tam police investigation and prosecution.<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
original signed hand-written statements of Tony Kiernan in which he described
the mystery ketch are gone, replaced by typed unsigned alleged statements which
Tony Kiernan says in an affidavit have been edited of all information about a
ketch. The job sheet which proves that veracity of his claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
statements and job sheets relating to the uncalled witness Beryl Karena altered
to delete her information explaining the ‘scratches’ to the hatch cover on the
Blade and her knowledge of Mr Watson’s plan to paint his boat.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
signed statement by Peter Firmin in which he reveals that police when
interviewing him about a ketch sighting alleged that he was a drinking partner
of Scott Watson and had heard Scott Watson talking about murdering woman.
Information, which if Firman was willing to confirm in evidence, would mean
that police would raise no objections to his release at his pending parole
board hearing. There is a matter raised in Mr Firmin’s statement regarding the
authenticity of job sheet/statement #11740. His name is misspelt, and his date
of birth is incorrect, he disagrees with details included therein.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
unused Doubt documentary footage of Peter Kennedy which shows that those aboard
the Sweet release on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of January 1998 could never have seen
the Alliance and therefore never mistaken it for the mystery ketch, nor indeed
Mr Kennedy’s daughter for the missing Olivia Hope. Yvonne MacKay produced the
Doubt documentary. She has said that the floor cuttings regarding Mr Kennedy
are approx. 6 mins long and the producers felt that other footage well covered
the points about ketch sightings to strike balance into the production. For
Defence Counsel however the information destroys a evidence which held together
the myth of no mk, but many mistaken people mixed up between an ocean going
sailing ship and a flat bottomed scow. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Peter
Kennedy has confirmed not only the interview, but his position that the Alliance
had never travelled far enough on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of January 1998 to have
been sighted by those aboard ‘Sweet Release’ before turning back because of the
weather – telling evidence for a jury, and total support for the Walsh’s claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
statement 20344 of Peter Kennedy in which he describes the mystery man in the
Furneaux Lodge near the toilets on NYE 97 which was not Scott Watson. This
evidence would be significant to a Jury and supports many other witnesses on
this point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
overall impact of Mr Kennedy’s statements confirms the probability that the
naiad driver, Robert Mullens, was correct in his first statements that he had
seen (and drawn) a mystery ketch that was not the Alliance. There is doubt that
Mr Kennedy’s statements were entirely discovered to the defence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
not fully disclosed material of HT1 indicating that HT1’s statement was altered
and fictionalised. That HT1 only became aware of this in January 2018 when
copies of original statements held on file where sent to HT1 for comment. The
valuable and crucial evidence that HT1 never told the Watson Jury. Including speaking
with Watson and seeing his departure from the Furneaux Lodge wharf only once.
Also including noting the departure of Amelia Hope and 3 others from the wharf
after Scott Watson had already gone. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
full evidence and cross examination of the witness Donald Anderson by Michael
Antunovic. To note the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">“And on a two masted sailing
boat …. Specifically on a two masted sailing boat if you are talking about the
“Alliance” yes I did, I assume that is what I saw and my recollection.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Do you accept that the
evidence that Mr Peter Kennedy gave to this court, many weeks ago now, when he
gave evidence, he is the man who was on the “Alliance” and owns it, at that
particular time, that they don’t have sails on … STOPPED<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I DON’T THINK THAT WILL DO MR
ANTUNOVIC, HE CAN’T POSSIBLY COMMENT ON WHAT A WITNESS HAS SAID EARLIER ON, HE
WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN HERE I WOULD IMAGINE, HE WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN IN THE COURT,
You WILL HAVE TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY…..Well that is what the evidence was sir<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">WELL IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUT
THAT IS NOT THE BASIS OF A QUESTION, A QUESTION MUST BE SOMETHING WITHIN THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THIS WITNESS NOT SOMETHING ELSE, WHAT YOU ARE DOING, You ARE
GETTING AT THE JURY BY ASKING QUESTIONS TO THE WITNESS, You ARE MAKING A
SUBMISSION IN EFFECT. I CAN SEE WHERE
You ARE COMING FROM BUT IT IS NOT APPROPRAITE…..Can you sir….TO PUT IT TO A
WITNESS….well I am not coming from there at all with the greatest of respect
your honour I am trying to ask this witness whether he associated these ropes
with a vessel that was the same boat and I am trying to suggest to him<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">YES I KNOW You ARE BUT You ARE
DOING IT ON THE BASIS THAT SOME OTHER WITNESS HAS SAID SOMETHING, THIS WITNESS
CAN’T POSSIBLY KNOPW THAT OR SHOULDN’T KNOW THAT OR UNLESS HE HAS READ ABOUT IT
AND EVEN IF HE HAS IT IS NOT FOR HIM TO COMMENT, PUT IT DIFFERENTLY….well I
thought the Crown had put some evidence of other wits to wits all the time<o:p></o:p></span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">NEVER MIND ABOUT THAT JUST
COME AT IT DIFFERENTLY I AM NOT GOING TO DEBATE IT WITH You INDEFINITELY.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-71032624705545212502022-03-05T10:51:00.001+13:002022-03-05T10:51:25.388+13:00Out of the Scott Watson Archives, some work is in progress.<p> Out of the Scott Watson Archives, some work is in progress.</p><p><br /></p><p>It is expected that the result of this week's appeal to the Court of Appeal over what evidence can be produced at Scott's full appeal later this year will take some time to be decided.</p><p>Here is an indication of some of the new material which in the interests of Justice should be included and hopefully will. The Watson convictions are in big trouble and that he remains in prison is added to the travesty.</p><p>Meanwhile an insight here:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Peter Firmin statement is insightful as to the type of
‘help’ offered to witnesses who would repeat perjury for the Crown to earn a
get out of gaol card free or to preserve a professional career as with Mr. and
Mrs. C. Sir Graham took that into account in his Report with the 2 prison secret
witnesses. There is a reason he should have gone further taking the very real
risk out of the evidence of Mrs. C bolstered by reading Peter Firmin’s account of how
false evidence was offered to be bought.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">More witnesses have come forward. It is also of moment that
the affidavit of the former police officer Mike Chappell attached to the RPOM
proper becomes supported in a way that must be considered as part of this plea.
Due to that happening a further affidavit is attached to show how the file was
able to be manipulated – then more instances of how that could happen. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There is a fresh affidavit of Tony Kiernan who gave
evidence in the first trial and whose video interview has been submitted. Mr. Kiernan has spoken of 20 years of regret for not having spoken out fully at the
trial and feeling somehow responsible for police inquiry he had no control over.
Sir Graham noted the Kiernan position in his report so the further examples here
of the same police misconduct should push the matter further to impact the
Scott Watson plea. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Days after reading an ‘opinion’ piece by a Ms. Brotherston
who claimed to have been a journalist at the Watson trial that made claims that
there was no mystery ketch and backed that up with the claim that there was not
a single photo of the ketch – Mr. Kiernan revealed information about photos
taken of the ketch. Others included here, have also spoken about photos and indeed
videos of the ketch. Already submitted in the RPOM proper is a series of ‘Close
Up’ interviews regarding both ketch sightings and a video of the ketch. Mr
Watson needed to have those viewed along with all other material he has
submitted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mr. Kiernan is aware that photos of the ketch were taken
from his boat Nugget by people aboard. Their names are included in his new
affidavit. What is striking about Mr. Kiernan’s affidavit is that it conflicts
with his statements and trial evidence, he previously identified the Alliance
as being the mystery ketch, something which he now retracts, although he says
at one point, he did tell police about the mystery ketch in details consistent
with his new affidavit. All Mr. Kiernan’s known statements and a job sheet
relating to those are attached. The job sheet differs in content to the
statements in material ways which support Mr. Kiernan’s claim of saying in his
first statement that he saw the mystery ketch and indeed drew a picture for
police of the ketch. Furthermore, job sheet #1414 makes it clear that from
the outset Mr. Kiernan told police he knew the scow the Alliance which he
confirmed to police when he was shown a photo of the Alliance at the time of
his first interview. Mr. Kiernan need not have sketched the mystery ketch if, in
fact, it was the Alliance because he both knew the boat and police had shown him a photo of the boat at the time of his first interview.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mr. Kiernan insists he made his first statement at Furneaux
Lodge to Picton police who wrote it out by hand before he signed it. He made a
second statement at Waikawa Bay Picton to 2 Christchurch Detectives which was
recorded in writing by 1 of the detectives and which he signed. He has asked
for these statements but never received them. As part of this inquiry, the Trial
evidence of Mr. Kiernan and all documentation held by the defence on this matter was sent to him. It appears the significance of job sheet #1414 was missed by the
defense for 20 years. No information was recorded in handwriting; one document
was deleted, critical parts of his first statements were replaced by retyped,
unsigned statements. This document transmission to Mr. Kiernan included job
sheet #14144 which mentions an instruction from Ms. Crutchley, one of the Crown
Prosecutors in this case. On that sheet is confirmed what is not confirmed in
any of the other paperwork. Namely, Mr. Kiernan in his first interview
where he had answered a plea for witnesses to come forward said he saw a ketch
in Endeavour Inlet on NYE, also confirmed he knew the Alliance from its Waikawa
Bay mooring and its recent history, also that he drew a sketch of the Mystery
Ketch for police in his first interview/statement. That statement is missing,
in the confusion, (and pressure on witnesses) along with Mr. Kiernan’s
unfamiliarity with the Court system resulted in his vital information not being
put before the Jury. His affidavit says that he felt intimidated by police just
before and during his evidence having been told the ketch he saw had been
eliminated from the inquiry.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The petitioner notes that instructions, as recorded on
job sheet #14144, will be referred to the prosecution and remain on file.
That being the case it appears reasonable to conclude that the prosecutors knew
that Mr. Kiernan had both reported a mystery ketch and drawn a sketch of it, and
had also said that he knew the scow, the Alliance, very well. None of this was revealed
to the defence or Jury, that is malfeasance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Where once the authorities were able to deny the claims of
single witnesses such as Mr. Kiernan and Mr. Chappell with implications made
about their motivation, now by the sheer volume of others saying the same, or
similar things soundly promote their credibilities such as the number of them
and the consistency in what they reveal. It is shameful for the NZ Justice
system that so many people were ignored, threatened, or bullied in the name of Justice.
There have been criminal behaviour by police as high as the level of ex-Deputy
Commissioner Rob Pope in his role as OIC of this case. The means of how the manipulation
was undertaken is now shown. A broad section of New Zealanders attempted to do
their civic duty, yet their evidence was never heard<o:p></o:p></span></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-50301661852510123432022-02-28T13:15:00.000+13:002022-02-28T13:15:04.958+13:00<p> More "tricks" are found in the Watson case.</p><p><br /></p><div class="bi6gxh9e" data-block="true" data-editor="7lskj" data-offset-key="c9lkg-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none !important; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="c9lkg-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; transition-property: none !important;"><span data-offset-key="c9lkg-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;">With the gold 2-hair evidence now tarnished by time and science, there is the chance to continue to investigate further alleged evidence against Scott by firstly adding it to the demise of the hair evidence that the RPOM reviewer (Sir Graham: SG) set aside, as he did with the hatch cover scratches and "neutralise" the secret prison </span><span style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;">informer</span><span data-offset-key="c9lkg-2-0" style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;"> evidence.</span></div></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" data-block="true" data-editor="7lskj" data-offset-key="1q3hb-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none !important; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1q3hb-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; transition-property: none !important;"><span data-offset-key="1q3hb-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;">That's a big start that Scott has never had before. As mentioned, recently I have been going over evidence not heard by the Jury that includes the scow the Alliance which the Crown said was the "ketch" witnesses saw at Furneaux Lodge. One witness, a naiad driver actually identified the Alliance in a first statement/job sheet as well as the MK. He drew the MK as can be seen in the Doubt doco where he is shown in footage giving evidence.</span></div></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" data-block="true" data-editor="7lskj" data-offset-key="7j7fp-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none !important; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7j7fp-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; transition-property: none !important;"><span data-offset-key="7j7fp-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;">The witness had eventually changed his account dramatically. His new account apparently passed all scrutiny - except for at least 2 things. The Alliance had a "dog house" steering cabin at the extreme aft of the boat which was 2metres high. He saw a couple of people sitting on the "dog house" when there was a party going on around midnight.</span></div></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" data-block="true" data-editor="7lskj" data-offset-key="68ck3-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none !important; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="68ck3-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; transition-property: none !important;"><span data-offset-key="68ck3-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;">When amongst the 50 or so people who saw the suspect ketch many described its cabin as low, to the stern but forward of the rear of the boat where the couple was seen sitting. None of those people described a dog house which no international ketch of any era had. Nor was there room between the dog house and the aft end of the boat for 2 people to sit.</span></div></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" data-block="true" data-editor="7lskj" data-offset-key="dl9cd-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none !important; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="dl9cd-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; transition-property: none !important;"><span data-offset-key="dl9cd-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;">It's clear the naiad driver was indeed mistaken between the Alliance and the MK on which someone could easily sit on the cabin with their feet on stable wood below them and able to get to their feet by simply standing, also a place where a couple could be sitting behind the low cabin whilst the boat traveled throughout the Sounds noticed by a number of witnesses. Some witnesses also said that the couple sat with their hands behind their backs. By a twist of bad luck some of those statements were "lost", but the record of them being given to police remains.</span></div></div><p></p><div class="bi6gxh9e" data-block="true" data-editor="7lskj" data-offset-key="2gn03-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; transition-property: none !important; white-space: pre-wrap;"></div><p></p><div class="bi6gxh9e" data-block="true" data-editor="7lskj" data-offset-key="6ec7a-0-0" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; animation-name: none !important; background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; transition-property: none !important; white-space: pre-wrap; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6ec7a-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-align: left; transition-property: none !important; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span data-offset-key="6ec7a-0-0" style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;"><span data-text="true" style="animation-name: none !important; font-family: inherit; transition-property: none !important;">Tricks like this will never be used in the Watson case again in the rare likelihood it is simply not just thrown out, but rather returns for a retrial where the Crown case will be ripped to bits.</span></span></div></div>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-83790367528452944642022-02-12T09:24:00.003+13:002022-02-12T09:24:53.056+13:00More Hidden Evidence in the Watson Case<p> More Hidden Evidence in the Watson Case.</p><p><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">At Trial:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Mr. Antunovic exposed from Mr. Anderson the very real
likelihood that Mr. Anderson was mixed up between the mystery ketch and the much
different looking scow the Alliance, with its lack of sails and ropework of an
international yacht. The Judge appears to reject Mr. Antunovic’s s claim of a
disparity between what the defence could employ to lead witnesses, compared to
the Crown. Reading the notes of evidence tends to swing the argument in favour
of Mr. Antunovic. Set out in the RPOM proper indicates that there was a tension
in the trial that was not always inert. An example was the interruption by the
Judge of the opening address by the defence. The reversal of his decision to
not allow the highly prejudicial evidence of Mr. and Mr. C. The information by
Peter Firmin could have caused Judge Heron to maintain the embargo on the
evidence of Mr. and Mr. C and place one on the secret witness A and B (the prison
inmates.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Also, noteworthy from the Anderson cross-examination was
his admission that he had met with a prosecutor before the trial for an hour
or ‘maybe’ more. This continues the suggested pattern of Ms. Crutchley, having
been named in a job sheet which exposed deleted and amended statements in the
Tony Kiernan file, as being within the knowledge of the prosecution,
specifically that Mr. Anderson was not going to ‘shift’ on his evidence of
putting Mr. Watson on the Blade alone – the fundamental problem for the
prosecution. Note the number of times police went back and back to Anderson. Also, where Mr. Kiernan attests now, that he
(as the job sheet discloses) had not only claimed to have seen a ketch but also
drew it for police who removed all trace of this, apart from (importantly for
Mr. Watson) the job sheet which proves Kiernan’s claim of stating the original
existence of the mystery ketch, and his denouncement of it not being the
Alliance. It was suggested by police to Mr. Mc Noe (another person, who along
with his wife saw the ketch) just before he gave evidence that a long time had passed,
and he should forget about the ketch (see Doubt doco). There is good evidence
to show across a range of witnesses’ material being deleted and changed. There
is also now the confirmation of the pressure put on Ted and Eyvonne Walsh to
say there was no ketch, in fact, Mr. Walsh had indicated to him, the same as
it was to Guy Wallace, that the pair were suspects unless they changed their
ketch evidence. Another job sheet cited earlier mentions ‘questions’ to
witnesses before the trial from the prosecution indicating the depth of the
prosecution's involvement with witnesses whose testimony changed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The new affidavit of Eyvonne Walsh in which Eyvonne
describes that her late husband was told by police that he was one of the 3Ws,
that is Watson, Wallace, and Walsh who were the killers or accomplice’s and that
he needed to essentially co-operate by forgetting about the ketch to save his
own skin. Note here the re-examination of Ted Walsh at the trial, its powerful
and lucid finish. The details in Eyvonne’s affidavit of pictures of a ketch
taken on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of January 1998 were taken from her and Ted but
never returned.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Rachel McKay appeared on the Doubt documentary saying that
after her police statement was released she found that her information that had
been contained in it, mentioning a ketch, the possible missing couple, and the
possible mystery man, was deleted. Rachel McKay has since forwarded a copy of
the statement and included a letter giving details of her actual evidence given
to the police and the accidental nature of acquiring her statement in recent
years. This is found in the attachments and provides further evidence of secret
‘cleansing’ of information from the police and prosecution files along with her
explanation why she asked for her statement many years later, as being part of the preparation for her appearance in the Doubt documentary. Junior police were not
acting without direction, long after the inquiry was over Mr. Pope, by then a
Deputy Commissioner had more direct control of deflecting legitimate inquiries
or information away. The letter to the MRG appears to be a deliberate lie he
misunderstood the potential consequences of, he also failed to report on the
investigation he instructed Mr. and Mrs. Futter he would give them an update
about. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The unexplainable #13727 document filed by ex-Detective John
Rae recording dialogue alleged to have happened with a David Smith about a
ketch sighting involving the boarding of the missing couple:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In this document, Mr. Rae reports a conversation about a
statement that is not known to have been discovered to the defence. The
conversation/job sheet is dated 14/12/98 and oddly refers to a statement
alleged to be hearsay with no explanation why another police officer would have
recorded a hearsay statement. Mr. Rae goes into detail with David Smith that the
described ketch was, apparently like Mr. Smith, not in Furneaux over the new
year period and says the shape of the stern ‘as described (by who, where and
when is not mentioned)’ as the ‘inability to bend wood to match this
description.’ And says He told him about the ‘Hans Anderson boats.’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mr. Rae reports that Mr. Smith said the ketch was pretty old
looking to him and that he, Mr Rae, ‘explained that they were made of
fiberglass but made to look like wood.’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It finishes with ‘He accepted the explanation as given.’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Why Mr. Rae would take the time to speak to one witness when
many 100s were simply ignored requires examination, as does the oddness of the
job sheet itself. The ability to bend wood is at least centuries old and
remains an established craft.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Some of Donald Anderson's information was deleted, one whole
deletion was the undated doc # 13696. Which by number could date that document
as being possible after the Watson arrest but before the end of the same year.
The applicant can never know what was deleted in the 945 fully deleted
documents, the reviewer may also never know but the applicant expects there
will be a vigorous effort made to find deleted and changed material. The
applicant considers that the Reviewer will comment on the practice of deleted
documents rather than saving them to the file as it is common in miscarriages
and a practice that must stop. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Anderson doc #20470 was said to show to Bruce Davidson
with the deletions in that document intact. It was a document filed by Mr. Fitzgerald on 5/8/98. The only confirmation for that on file is from ex-police
member Mr. Rae.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Doc #40977 29/4/98 Anderson
interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Fitzgerald put to Anderson that he had not mentioned taking
a person out to the Blade in the first 3 statements, #10070 5/1/98, #10065 8/1/98,
#10406 201/1/98. In fact, Mr. Anderson had not been asked about that. He had
been asked about a ketch primarily and the missing couple. In his first
statement, he said ‘I can recall the ketch that you are looking for, although I
couldn’t give you a description as I didn’t take much notice of it. In his
second statement, he said ‘I can vaguely remember seeing the double masted
sailing boat. It was anchored on its own about 30 metres from the raft of boats
which included the Nugget (same relative place as described by Robert Mullens
and near the Kalaugher/Kirkwood mystery ketch plotted position). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">‘I can recall going around the
back and seeing a lot of gear on the stern’ In his 3<sup>rd</sup> statement
Anderson says, ‘I am sure the vessel I was thinking of was definitely the
Alliance.’ <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There was no emphasis on the point about the Blade or Mr. Watson. It should be noted again that Alliance was a motor-powered scow with
flat sides, a flat bottom able to negotiate shallow water moorings, and no
rails but a rather low bulwark. It did not have a lot of ropework to the rear.
The Alliance was known to many locals including those working at the Lodge.
There appears to be no explanation why Fitzgerald would put to Anderson as
having left out of his first 3 statements something that had never been put to
him. Fitzgerald asks Mr. Anderson to show him the photographs of the yachts
where he had ‘taken the male to’. Anderson indicates an area around Mina
Cornelia and Rippa (where the Blade was agreed by the Defence and Prosecution
to have been rafted up.) Fitzgerald writes that he explained to Anderson that
he still believed it unusual that he had not mentioned this trip in any of his
first 3 statements, despite that he had not taken the statements and the
purpose of the statements are clear to any reader. The Crown or police did not
want Mr. Watson being put back on his sloop alone, for the Crown case he needed
to be the mystery man with the couple, and for the ketch to be the blade.
Fitzgerald did not prevail in seeking Anderson to change his statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In an earlier statement taken from Guy Wallace #20931 on
6/3/98, Mr. Fitzgerald placed a pen over the portholes of the ketch that Wallace
had drawn and his hand over the rear mast before showing Wallace a photo of
Watson’s yacht. He asked if they looked similar. He reported that Mr. Wallace: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">‘Stated that they looked very
similar, but added that to take the mast and portholes out was too much of a
difference and that he knows he dropped them off to a ketch’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mr. Fitzgerald was pointedly engaged in having one witness
say he had not dropped off Mr. Watson alone (because he had never mentioned that
in his first 3 statements) to the Blade and another witness to ‘imagine’ that
the ketch without one mast and portholes looked the same as the Blade. That
certain police (including Mr. Fitzgerald in many examples) sought to have
witnesses change their statements is evident. The question for the Reviewer is
to determine why and the legitimacy of such behaviour.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The (name suppressed) deletions referred to the RPOM proper where job
sheets by Mr. Fitzgerald record changes (and deletions) during which the course
of interviews with Mr. Fitzgerald the witness substantially changes his
statements to disfavour Mr. Watson.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">At the end of the Kalaugher/Wallace interview (tape3) where Mr. Wallace speaks of his dealings with police during the Watson case, and where he
reveals an NZ police officer visited him in Cairns in 2001 seeking him to agree
to sign documentation that he had never seen the Ketch. At the end of tape 3, Mr. Wallace mentions hearing a scream around the time of 5am, as the Reviewer will
know there are many witnesses recorded in the RPOM proper as having heard a
scream at approximately the same time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The affidavit/statement of Eyvonne Walsh gives details of
what she and Ted endured because of maintaining they saw the mystery ketch. She
also mentions photographing the mystery ketch on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of January
turning the photos and negatives over to the police and never seeing them again.
This is not 2 prisoners singing for their supper, but rather a collection of
honest people recollecting events from which a clear pattern emerges of a ketch
and Mr. Watson returning to his sloop alone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The burying of the Futter, McKay, and Karena
evidence helpful to Scott Watson.<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The reviewer is asked to reflect that there was no tangible
evidence against Mr. Watson at the stage, witnesses were still reporting having
seen a 2 masted ketch with brass portholes and being pressured or ignored for
doing so, the search for a ketch had been long shut down according to the material
here, in the RPOM proper, and according to comments in the IPCA reports. That
gives pause to consider if police were driven to prove a case against Mr. Watson
and no one else despite a dearth of evidence. In the coming months of 1998 entire
statements would disappear or be changed. The forgoing situations with
statements and job sheets, only detrimentally impact one person – Scott Watson.
A Miscarriage of Justice is apparent, the case is shot with no prospect of ever
proceeding again against Mr. Watson – as it should never have done 20 years ago
when Donald Anderson persisted with the truth that he dropped off Scott Watson
alone, and when Noel Reeves denied Watson had stolen is dingy and Dave Mahony
refused to say he heard an outboard in or near the raft up in the small hours.
There was no second trip by Mr. Watson and at least 2 men refused to lie about
that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Important Note<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The reviewer has the MRG report, Doubt documentary, and
other footage of John and Karen Futter who rang police after a disturbing
sighting of what may have been the couple on the 5<sup>th</sup> of January in an
isolated part of the sounds. This sighting is recalled in detail on pages 51-53
of the MRG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The report notes that John and Karen were told by police when
asking for an update on the outcome of their evidence being investigated that
they had never called the police. They quickly prove they had. The report later
records that in 2005 John wrote to police recording his information again. In
due course, he heard from Mr. Pope that on the completion of his inquiry he would
formally respond. The promised response from Mr. Pope never materialised.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Reviewer should note page 56 of the current MRG report
detailing a report by an international psychic, Margaret Birkin who indicated
the bodies of the missing couple were lying in about 100ft of water directly
between Maud Island and Tawhitinui Island in the Tawhitinui Reach, Pelorous
Sound. The exact coordinates she gave were latitude 41.02.472S and longitude
173.50.440E. Other details are revealed which include that bodies were said to
be wrapped in sail and weighted down with a chain and an anchor. A computer
engineer, Peter Luke, dragged a metal detector over the area of the
coordinates when the metal detector went off the scale.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mr. Pope according to the current MRG report appears to have
misled MRG researchers as to documentation he claimed to have discovered to the
defence as copies of letters in the RPOM proper show. His indication to Mr. and
Mrs. Futter that they would be notified of the outcome of their complaint/report
to police in 2005 was not honoured.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Police undertook a search of Cook Strait for bodies on
fundamentally flawed data. In the circumstances of this case, the search may
have been orchestrated to implant in the public mind that the bodies were
dumped in Cook Strait despite police not finding them That was a prejudicial
implication against the Petitioner whose boat was alleged to have been seen
there.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Petitioner believes he has fully demonstrated his
complete innocence but considers that if police, as it appears, undertook a
search to purportedly both satisfy the families of the missing couple and the
public, then it would appear logical that searches should be considered in the
areas identified by the Futter’s and by Peter Luke. Whilst Peter Luke undertook
his metallic scan because of information from a psychic, something police have
done over the years, he had specific coordinates and did strike a reading. The
Futter’s meanwhile is credible folk, very clear about their recollections and
supported by having sent their information to police with other information
revealed in the MRG report and the media. It must be fully expected that the
petitioner sees the police inactivity of the Futter, and similar files, as the
continuing unwillingness for police to listen to witnesses and potential
witnesses, even today when all evidence points away from your Petitioner.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Petitioner’s plea does not rely on the lost couple’s
bodies or traces of them being found in a position or found at all, but he
points out that police only undertook a search supportive of their false case
against him. For the benefit of the Hope and Smart families, and the public
generally, he asks if is not time that information unsuitable to the case made
against himself, should be thoroughly investigated with the same vigour he
expects to be applied to the tampered with evidence and evidence manipulation
by police and Prosecution which resulted in his 20 years of imprisonment. It
may take specially sworn constables to do this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.com4