Another one bites the Dust

          

                                            Head in the Sand Syndrome?

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

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

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

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

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

The CCRC record so far:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

                                         Scott Watson Case on the Edge of Collapse?

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

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

       Police redesign restraint chair after death of prisoner Jaye Taueli from brain bleed | RNZ News

A quick read of this shows how lead footed the authorities reactions to a crisis are. My experience has been to look for a diversion to help the person out of the crisis they feel they are in. In other words, look for the safety valve and level out the talk as being person to person rather than sides, in which one has all the power.

Frankly, restraining a person in the way Jaye was restrained was a reinforcement of power, an unwillingness to get on the same wave link. It is a 'refinement' of chaining a person to the wall to take whatever is bothering him from them to depart the pressure of being shackled in an already darkening world, perhaps without realising that it may have reinforced to the person of their whole life and that this was indeed the final "resolution," and hope or kindness was gone.

Jaye should have been encouraged to realise he was safe and could talk, indeed that the authorities would quickly find someone to speak with him, just any sort of talk to make Jaye feel better, released from what was bothering him, to know there were people that could be trusted, and who could help him. People that were not against him but with him and wishing to travel in the same direction until Jaye was dealing with something new in life - his own identity on his terms, his right to speak about it and perhaps explain what would be better.

He needed to know the person was not there to judge him, but that they had a job when he was ready, and that was to listen to him when everybody else may not have been listening. Somebody that perhaps asked him questions that surprised him and moved his thinking into a different place, identify a problem they both eventually see and be on the same side of as to understanding that, and what Jaye thought could be done. He needed somebody to agree with what he was saying, not chain him to the walk to reinforce the idea that was worthless, couldn't sit at the same table and talk maybe about something that he felt needed to be talked about. Knowing that someone was there to listen, and your job was to listen and understand, not strap into a chair. But perhaps discuss something in common, about a similar place. Not just a physical place but somewhere the mind might go at times, where things could be broken and misunderstood, look for a way of putting something back together, discuss what he thought it needed to be. 

If Jaye got somewhere near what he was asking for, or wanted to be, that would be a step, a first step. Jaye could feel he got somewhere, just a beginning and things could change, and he would part of it. Something or somewhere he could feel better, make him feel happy because he had been listened to. 

What was done to Jaye was so backward, I've heard this type of plea before with too few people knowing how to listen, turn the volume down, talk, walk side by side. Jaye was worth it.

(second draft)

Rex Haig: police help the guilty man frame Rex Haig?

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/crime/rex-haig-case-concerns-over-how-immunity-was-granted-to-crewmates/

It has taken me a couple of days to absorb the news in the link above, which is a report from investigative journalist Mike White. In the modern era the New Zealand public generally realise that police in New Zealand do sometimes frame the innocent, albeit police may well think the accused person is guilty because of 'gut instinct' and all the other factors that may contribute. I am aware of one case where police gave immunity to 2 men to provide evidence against a 3rd, who police argued was the principal offender. The result was the jury finding the man guilty as a party, indicating the jury's belief that one of the 2 provided with immunity was the main offender who never went to prison whilst the lesser offender was sentenced to life imprisonment. To put that in context compared to what happened to the late Rex Haig it has to be absorbed that according to the paperwork obtained by Mike White through the Official Information Act police knew that one of the persons they gave immunity to in the Haig case had 'confessed' to the murder police attributed to Haig.

That alleged confession wasn't to a single person, but rather to up to a dozen different people - ordinarily, in most cases more than enough to prove guilt. That's what has taken me time to absorb, it is almost too evil to comprehend it could happen in NZ. Of course, if it has happened once, it more than likely has happened before. As the article shows one man who heard the confession was killed, Hogan, the immunity witness and probable killer according to those he had confessed to, was never even interviewed about the death of Anton Sherlock a witness to the confession of Hogan and a man who had said he has been threatened by Hogan if he revealed Hogan's confession. 9 days before Sherlock was due to provide evidence, he was found murdered - a killing which police also attributed to Rex Haig. Just going over that again - police believed that Haig killed a man who had exculpatory evidence for Rex Haig. Later another man, Nigel Johnson, would be convicted of the murder of Sherlock, despite protesting his innocence.

Sometime later when an internal police inquiry looked to deal with the death of Anton Sherlock, the investigator Detective Inspector Winter would dismiss Hogan's involvement using the following extraordinary reasoning:

“If killing Sherlock to stop him providing evidence was the motive, then there was David Barr and at least 12 other people who were potential victims who lined up to give affidavit evidence prejudicial to Hogan,” Winter wrote. “As Barr and some of these others are now deceased, perhaps it is suggested that Hogan has had a hand in those deaths also?”

It seems DI Winter did not consider that Hogan, who according to others had already killed 1 man, and threatened to kill a 2nd if that person (Sherlock) revealed Hogan's confession, did not appreciate that the at least 12 people who claimed to have also heard the Hogan confession might well have felt it was too dangerous to cross Hogan.

Collapse of the Watson Case?

 

                              Have the First Signs of the Collapse of the Watson

                                                       Case Emerged?

It's been very clean for a long time that Scott Watson was framed. Well, clear to many of the public, but without a way ahead to collapse it. That is, until around 10 years ago when the author considered the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, a fairly ancient part of the Lawyer with its own history of Petitioning for Mercy. Mercy in itself been an ancient concept that one, particularly a King or Queen, could be swayed toward being merciful for a subject who had befallen unfortunate times and may indeed have been innocent of a crime he or she was convicted of and could take a case to the King or Queen who might find reason in their explanation or indeed see that a misfortune had befallen the person who wished to illustrate why they could not be guilty of for example a capital crime that brought with it a death sentence. Or alternatively that it was an accident of some sort or a life and death arisen in some manner.

The history is far deeper and more real than can be explained here returning to Scott Watson it was the King or Queen's men who had picked him out as someone expendable and distanced him from any feeling they might have that they were about to commit a crime almost as severe as the ones they would convince themselves, somewhat was guilty, was that type and therefore expendable for reasons we may yet find out in Scott Watson's case because clues abound.

Around that time, I was interested in some international cases that were discussed online and "met" so to speak to Americans, one was Professor Chris Halkides who was working with another man "Charlie," his name will come to me on the Elizabeth Knox case which they tore to shreds with logic and from memory found the actual offender. While Chris work in the institutions teaching how Miscarriages of Justice might happen - Charlie came from another spectrum, the type that reasoned things through and was only happy when he could understand the situation.

It was Charlie that first said the very obvious thing about the Watson case, the couple could never have been killed on a boat in a raft up without the alarm going off and the couple fighting back, and certainly not in the way 2 prisoner "witnesses" would claim. This was over one Xmas around the new year and so I decided to write to some of the people whom I knew were involved in fighting the case. Somewhat to my surprise they all responded and when I might be first personal meeting with Keith Hunter and Neville Munro at a coffee shop in the city, Keith on having read a one-page letter I wrote about the use of the RPOM said, putting the document on the table, "this could work."

At another time, I will perhaps write more about this, and in better detail and with a clearer memory of one man who came with Mike Kalaugher to my house with the news he'd seen the ketch in Milford Marina, I think it was - and that in itself is another story of how a door opened in relation to that. Relatively quickly I would meet the people who had the paperwork I wanted, and information I needed, and I got to write. I had always liked the concept that you could write yourself out of prison, and therefore write another person out of prison - that in itself leads to a big story, but for now, this remains about the heading above.

About 9 months I had a petition almost finished and had either written to Scott about or given him a copy before I visited him to ask if I could submit the RPOM, that day I also met his dad Chris and Scott said "put it in" speaking to the draft I'd given him.

It took 3 more months or so, and it did go in, and another fight began. A fight to justify a Miscarriage of Justice that was never going to lose, despite the fight from police still in power. They had chosen their side and I had chosen mine, outnumbered to heck.

Here it is 2026, and if the truth is the currency I'm no longer out numbered to heck thanks to support and help from all over New Zealand, the Kraken has woken, and the truth has flown free. I will Petition the King, well, the modern version of it the Supreme Court, that may turn the Petition of one man for another away, or they may read instead of more than a 100 people who say they saw a boat, they'll never forget, and some who even saw Ben and Olivia on it and that's what matters.

More Mysteries in the Watson case revealed

 

2053 JS 10/1/98 Taylor confirms sighting of mystery ketch, says double ended so won’t get flooded if it turns on its mooring. Says he has a lot of experience with such boats.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sELASoI23UdfO1EsCm3Yrn-mZMkSZBJJ

(Format: Word Document)

12350 JS 10/1/98 Same day as Taylor’s JS 2053 and appears to be the same statement.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LWBFqvrAL1oj7w9tIONqeXkwSKf0KzV4

(Format: Word Document)

14752 JS 10.1.98 This is the earliest communication from Taylor 9.45 and it appears 2053JS is homicide police calling him back. Confirms ketch sighting and that is the one he saw in the paper and calls it a “double ender.” He thinks that it arrived at either 3 or 6, a similar time to Kiernan and others who said the ketch arrived late in the day.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YQk2-AjkNcmEke3iMSEl_iQYJPzpqiPo

(Format: Word Document)

An undated questionnaire in which the questioner decides that O’Malley may be confused with the Alliance but says that Taylor is adamant it was a double-ended ketch. They both recognize a sketch shown to them as the ketch. It could be suggested the questionnaire help police decide who to not call. Clearly both witnesses were very strong in the identifications but somehow the witness who “might” be susceptible to agreeing that he had mistaken the Alliance for the ketch was called, while the man apparently ‘adamant’ about seeing the ketch was not called, showing another way to disappear the ketch.

Sir Graham in his report to the Governor General believed then Prosecutor Davison’s claim that only O Malley aboard the Yolland had seen the Ketch. Now we know that the skipper Taylor also saw the ketch and the questioner says that Taylor was adamant, he had seen the ketch, yet he was never called. That fits were a very visible pattern in this case, hiding strong ketch sightings and claiming that others were mistaken. It has been an unjust police deception that has worked “satisfactorily” for 2 decades.

Hayden Morrissey,

Post-trial statement re deck material and yacht rails where Hayden is very clear about a wooden and rope rails: Hayden Morrissey gave evidence.

 

 

 

 

Crutchley Document:

 

Bruce McLachlan EIC (police chief search officer for boats Endeavour Inlet and elsewhere.) Reveals details of the ‘Crutchley document.’ Confirms belated search for Chinese Junk immediately before trial as well as inspecting file notes, statements etc re ketch sightings. Gave evidence.

NOE begins page 2929, 19/8/98:

View outlook message:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10X_6ayG_NchHjVLT2Dna0FJttvYMOc9y               ok

(Format: Word Document)

The deleted ‘Crutchley report.’

(Accidental deletion here of Link 18/11/25. Should be in other copies.)

According to job sheets this ‘revised’ material should have included the Gerald Brown sighting of a ketch departing Furneaux Inlet and the various other sightings of the mk. Instead, it appears to have ‘looked’ for departing smaller boats only, although 18 months after the mk was dismissed as not existing the June 98 revision seeks reports of a ‘junk style’ ketch from residents within the Endeavour Inlet. Even today (March 2026) the file turns up exculpatory material for Watson which was either ignored or deleted from the ‘Crutchley doc.’ (DELETED)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s_Rl9hpiNABSndE_MIRq4D12XicQRSSk        FULL DELETION

(Format: Word Document)

The June 1999 job sheet #14338 of VE Gave evidence (name suppressed) regarding boats leaving on the morning of the 1^st of January 1998 and considered by timeline to have been part of the ‘Crutchley report.’ Notable is the departure time of a boat Eastgate does not identify in comparison to the Reg McManaway video (part of the RPOM proper) recording seeing the Blade preparing to break moorings around 7 to 7.30 the same morning. If that is correct it adds to the concern of what material was deleted in the ‘Crutchley report’ and the only assumption is, that like all other deleted material in this case, it exculpated the applicant. While Sir Graham accepted the neutrality of the prison witnesses’ evidence he mistakenly overlooked the concern of VE credibility by both her actions and what she claimed in her changing statements. It is likely she was pressured over her involvement with cannabis smoking at what may have resulted to her career had she been charged, accordingly that the embargo on her and her husband’s evidence should have remained.

An author’s note here such men as Reg McManaway a charter skipper had a job in which he had the safety of others in the same way a pilot ship master. Like other skippers, those working on the wharves and even the security staff had a dedication to public safety that is easily overlooked by the fact there was a “Reg’s Corner” in the bar and other such things denoting casualness when in fact like pilots they sailed with care, noted possible hazards, judged the weather and other factors that an observer from afar may not appreciate, a thirty to forty foot boat in a tight mooring space and on a turning tide require skill and care, a reminder of that is Reg calling out to SW that he’d seen his boat, just as he noted the MM in the bar that brought concern to Peter                and the much younger Mathew Sommerville Smith both of who concerned about their charges did not identify the man they watched clearly in the bar as Mr Watson. A person the trusting Roz McNeilly, at the time, believed police despite not showing her his photo, when she has asked to see it for certainty, that the MM was indeed Mr Watson – and was lied to.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XLdsAtySAW73pp1DWcwrW7WeBrUhsJgk

(Format: Word Document)

14338 JS 8/6/99 Ms E (name suppressed) job sheet confirms a yacht leaving at 7.30 (the time when McManaway calls out to Watson that he has seen the Blade and won’t hit it, but she does not identify the yacht. It would have been very easy for investigators to confirm that it was Watson’s yacht which Ms C referred to and may have done such are the number of changes and deletions; had it not later been necessary to make Watson’s departure time to attempt to provide for the Cook Strait trip. The proximity to the trial indicates this was a late change to the file during the period of the Crutchley Report. The fact police could not confirm that it was another yacht that left at the time is persuasive.

The June 1999 job sheet was compiled by B McLachlan D 6952

Ken Martin (skipper of Jane Maria) 14188JS, 26/5/99 (Part of the deleted Crutchley report):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10LPKEkcDdU_NdWYye95wtjnGpBWmLs3o

(Format: Word Document)

14188 JS 26/5/99 Another late JS which refers to Crutchley doc no 14066. This job sheet just before the trial is entered here because it names its purpose – the deleted (Crutchley report.) It was taken by Paul Merrett Det C 692. As will be seen later Ken Martin inadvertently played a significant role in demonstrating that the police displayed no real interest in concentrating on finding the mystery man. Police were zeroed in only on Scott Watson to the exclusion of all others from very early in the investigation.

The Jeremy Brown statement records a ketch leaving the inlet and continues a pattern of misidentifications that follow events in the Furneaux Lodge bar where Watson was incorrectly identified by some patrons as owning a ketch and inviting people aboard his “ketch” to sail to Tonga the next day. Or to have a beer on the boat that “cannot be missed” as it is the “only” such vessel in the inlet. This manipulation of evidence provided details of behaviour wrongly attributed to Scott Watson, falsely painted him as a predator. There are several mentions of a stranger that was not Watson, despite this, police did not complete new identikit pictures or search for the man or those that may have known him and left the trail to go cold.

                                            Crown case in Watson running on empty?

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

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

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

    No definite identification of Scott as the mystery man.

    No proof of the second trip ashore.

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

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

    The prisoner evidence rejected.

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

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

Onwards and upwards.

     

                                                Finally, the keys to Scott's cell doors

I can't recall at the moment who put this link together, but it is brilliant, and it will open the Petition. The Petition has links throughout, but with funding. I would hope to put at least one (for The Court in as full prints, particularly this part, because of its visual impact. Then print the rest of this part with all the links open. Following this start is the affidavit of Tony Kiernan, which deals with the Ketch's arrival. One of the many interesting parts is the ketch shown at night alongside Scott's boat, the Blade.

And following it will be an insight into the elements that prove this is a Miscarriage of Justice. Although I'm unsure how long I've had it for. I endeavour to show how a complaint by Chris Watson, which was exactly on the mark about Pope in particular, was evaded in an "independent" inquiry by a retired Deputy Commissioner who claimed Pope made a mistake. Yeah right, and Scott went to prison for 26 years.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RX1C_bVd99DtBIDuXuT7DB7b5DRdJ0ww/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RX1C_bVd99DtBIDuXuT7DB7b5DRdJ0ww/view?usp=sharing

 Interesting Article

                                       Scandal in The Police Commissioner's Office

The following article is an indication of a big shake-up in Police Headquarters. The first indication of probems at Police Headquarters was after the Arthur Thomas convictions were overturned. I personally had heard of some concerns when working on the Scott Watson case, however at that point, I didn't have time to consider the situation. Fortunately, I remember the person's name and will try to make contact.

It's fairly plain to me that there was a lot that went wrong at the top of the tree in Scott's case, and following that, there was little surprise that Pope and Fitzgerald gained promotions there. It looks like that too will implode in short order, much to the relief of not only supporters of Scott but also those who feel that there is little accountability at the top of the police ranks when it comes to wrongful convictions.

                                                    ---------------------------------------------------

Geoffrey Palmer: The McSkimming scandal shows we need a whole new Policing Act Geoffrey Palmer Published in The Spin Off November 18th 2025 Democracy requires a trusted system to uphold the rule of law. In this instance, the rule of law has been polluted at its source, argues former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer KC. Recent events uncovering police failings and serious misconduct have wider implications for our democracy that need to be addressed urgently. I cannot recall an issue in the life of this government that has more far-reaching constitutional consequences: it goes to the heart of the protection that the rule of law provides for New Zealand’s democratic framework. To say the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s scathing report into how the force handled claims of sexual offending against disgraced former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming has been scandalous is an understatement. It found serious misconduct at the highest levels of police. Seldom in the annals of public policy has New Zealand suffered a worse failure of public officials. The report made a series of recommendations for NZ Police and the government, all of which have been accepted. A former police officer himself, police minister Mark Mitchell has said the public will see “big changes”. Public service minister Judith Collins promises it “must never happen again”. Unfortunately, we have seen this before: whistle-blower Louise Nicholas was not believed as a teenager accusing officers of rape, her complaints were buried and only decades later was the policeman handling the case found guilty of obstructing justice. That should have been warning enough. In April 2007 came the release of Dame Margaret Bazley’s Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. She uncovered 313 complaints of sexual assault against 222 officers over 25 years, revealing a culture of silence shielding offending officers. There was a considerable amount of praise by the authorities, then, that they had solved the problem. But recent events show clearly this was not the case. Rot and decay has crept into the New Zealand democratic framework. Public service minister Judith Collins, police commissioner Richard Chambers and police minister Mark Mitchell arriving for a press conference at parliament in response to the release of the IPCA report on November 11, 2025 (Photo: Mark Mitchell/New Zealand Herald via Getty Images) In order to understand how serious these events are, it is necessary to understand the functions and powers entrusted to the police. New Zealand has a nationwide police force, unlike federal countries where law and order is split between state and federal governments. Clearly, a strong nationwide police force can be a potential danger when something goes wrong, as it has done here. The police are a disciplined force organised under a strict hierarchy in which orders are given and are carried out by subordinates. That fact itself means that wrongful orders can pervert the whole system. The New Zealand police have something close to a monopoly on the coercive legal powers they have over people. They have the power of arrest. They have the power to investigate suspected criminal offences. They have the power to bring prosecutions, under the general supervision of crown prosecutors. The force was first established here in 1886 and has existed continuously under various statutes ever since. Currently, police work under a detailed statute, the Policing Act 2008, the purpose of which is to “provide for policing services in New Zealand and to state the functions and provide for the governance and administration of the New Zealand Police”. The Policing Act sets out, in sections 8 and 9, the principles upon which the act is based and then the functions of the police. The principles are: (a) principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law; (b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence; (c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus; (d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights; (e) policing services are provided independently and impartially; (f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity. The functions are: (a) keeping the peace; (b) maintaining public safety; (c) law enforcement; (d) crime prevention; (e) community support and reassurance; (f) national security; (g) participation in policing activities outside New Zealand; (h) emergency management. These general principles and functions were plainly inadequate to prevent what occurred in recent events. The whole act should be reconsidered now, not merely amended. Former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming leaving Wellington District Court after pleading guilty to eight charges of possessing objectionable publications on November 6, 2025 (Photo: Mark Mitchell/New Zealand Herald via Getty Images) The police are invested with great powers, so the consequences for democracy are serious where those powers are not properly exercised or they are abused. Clearly, they have been abused here. Democracy requires a trusted system to uphold the rule of law. In this instance the rule of law has been polluted at its source, when the higher echelons have divided into groups and become immersed in issues of personal advantage rather than executing their responsibilities according to law. Putting right the profound failures that have occurred is an issue of vital importance. The prime minister should be centrally involved here, articulating the serious nature of these issues and how to fix them. So far, he has been a bystander. The cure here will not emanate from a discredited senior police elite. It is ministers who must take responsibility for the failures, rectify them and drive the legislation that will be required. A policy process of the highest quality the government machine can produce is what is needed. The 135-page IPCA report stands as a colossus over the whole series of these events, and is a document that people should read. New Zealand is fortunate that this agency stood up and performed in an exemplary way. Its advice must be followed in all respects. It is a remorseless and detailed analysis of serious wrong-doing. So careful is the analysis that it seems impossible on the facts it lays out to be in any doubt as to the serious nature of the abuses it exposes. It makes many detailed recommendations: 13 for police and a further two for the government regarding police oversight. All have been accepted. Ministers have made strong statements about remedial action, including proposing appointing an inspector-general to give the highest level of independent oversight of police. Questions remain over how this will be implemented. The steps necessary to perfect the remedial action are perhaps more elaborate than has so far been contemplated. Getting it right this time is imperative. The record on these issues is deplorable. Unless real care and rigour are employed there is a risk of push-back from the rotten police culture so clearly at work in the existing system. This may be seen earlier rather than later. All the recommendations must be given statutory teeth. Much care is needed in the legislative process, where much can be lost between cup and lip. The cabinet paper approving legislative policy should be published after it has been made so that there can be some assurance that efforts to clean the Augean stables of the New Zealand Police do not have to be addressed again in the future. The present act was entirely ineffectual to prevent these deplorable events which must be unable to recur. It would seem appropriate to enact a whole new Policing Act in light of these events. The rule of law deserves stern protection

The Watson case turned inside out.

 

                Scott Watson, one of the worst Judicial Failures in New Zealand

Furthermore, the hidden material now revealed is destructive to the entire police inquiry and prosecution. To overcome future Miscarriages of Justice, the Courts must be unforgiving as to even minor malfeasance that sees evidence lost or altered, and encourage inquiries and prosecutions into even the smallest transgressions. New Zealand has seen at least over150 years of false imprisonment in just a few of the current or recently resolved cases. Perhaps the Maney case being the most obvious and blatant. There is also blatant malfeasance abroad in the Watson case from the outset.  That estimated 150 years of relatively recent false imprisonment does not record the 150 odd years to the 1950s where innocent prisoners were hanged. One example being Mokomoko. And arguably the very young Te Whiu, and John Bolton in which it was found post-mortem the farm well had heightened levels of arsenic as he did himself.

 

[875] Contrary to the defence submission at trial that it was equivocal, we consider the evidence of the drop-off location did undermine the plausibility of the defence theory that the lone man’s boat was a ketch. The yacht, on Mr Wallace’s evidence as the driver of the Naiad, was in a raft of three to five boats in the vicinity of the Spirit of Marlborough, which was large and distinctive. Behind the lone man’s boat was what Mr Wallace called a “gin palace launch”, a “great big [boat] like a Markline”. That description appears consistent with the Naiad approaching Blade and seeing the Kaela Rose behind it.273 Mr Wallace’s evidence as to the drop-off location was corroborated by the evidence of Hayden Morresey and Sarah Dyer as to the direction the Naiad travelled when it left the Tamarack.

 

The difficulty with the above logic, is that Hayden and Sarah did not identify Mr Watson as the mystery man.

 

[876] That drop-off location responds to the ketch theory because, based on our review of the evidence, nobody other than Mr Wallace and Mr Morresey said they saw a ketch in that area. It was a matter for the jury to consider the likelihood that a ketch could have come into that location, been rafted to another boat or anchored on its own for the time the lone man was at Furneaux Lodge, then left without being seen. 273 See the photograph at [846] above.

 

This is also wrong. There are many consistent sightings of the ketch in that area.

 

[877] We repeat that Mr Perkins and Ms Egden said Mr Watson told them that night that he had a ketch.274 There is no doubt Mr Perkins and Ms Egden were referring to Mr Watson because they were involved in and witnessed respectively the Perkins incident, which Mr Watson admitted he was involved in.275 Mr Perkins’ evidence that Mr Watson told him he had a “double masted ketch” was not challenged in cross-examination. Although Amanda Egden was challenged about her evidence, there was no suggestion the man who made the comment was different from the man she had otherwise encountered and who we know was Mr Watson. Those consistencies also apply to Ms MacFarlane. It would be a remarkable coincidence if somebody who was described using the same descriptors as were used to describe Mr Watson (scruffy, shaggy hair, stubble) was also at Furneaux Lodge and also suggesting he had a ketch, describing it as “the only double masted yacht out in the bay”.

 

There are now suggestions of whom the man was at the pool table, and he in fact did have a “double masted” ketch.

 

The Court appears not to have considered the “new” information regarding the Ketch the Toroa and the likeness of its skipper to an older version of Mr Watson, including tattoos. Mr Watson had no reason to claim he had a Ketch, but the Toroa owner did. One might consider the uncontested fact that Olivia flatly refused to go aboard the hire craft, and if expecting to be going to a ketch, why she would silently and suddenly passively accept a berth on a much smaller boat. It is clear from other evidence that the photo file has been tampered with, photos removed and so on. The time stamp may not be correct either, but the accepted evidence of Olivia’s rejection of going aboard the Tamarack and instead preferring a smaller boat in a raft up tests the Court’s credibility. The Court, for all its work on the file, overlooked, or did not consider the file was doctored, which factually is the case.

 

There was absolutely no evidence from persons in the “raft up,” that support the Crown’s case, it was ludicrous proposition to accept without single witness in support.

 

There is little doubt that from the 4 numbered paras directly above 874 through 877, the Court with the full gambit of evidence now available around Queen Charlotte Sound would have had to accept the file evidence and the new evidence that supports ketch sightings. Because at this point in the Judgement the Court is establishing its reasons to dismiss Mr Watson’s appeal both new and old evidence combined (including the evidence it did not see) would have needed the narrative to be interrupted with highly pertinent material that remains unknown to it. In fact a steady stream of material reporting the ketch’s arrival at Furneaux, anchoring, leaving there. Henceforth, the decision by Mr Pope to abandon the ketch search and focus the attention on a much smaller boat could be seen at the least as unfortunate,  or at its unfortunate best for Mr Watson to echo Mr Pope’s verbalised thoughts regarding Mr Watson being of the right pedigree. Mr Watson did not conjure up the witnesses that help his case for innocence, it was not Mr Watson that deleted material from 2 statements helpful to him about this very matter. He had no control over that. It was not him that called for all sightings of ketches to be disregarded and for that to be publicised. A prudent investigator would have kept on track with both options and leave “gut instinct” or “prejudice” aside. Resulting from that would have seen the police investigation enlarge at Mapua, where another witness recalls for the Court, speaking to those aboard the Ketch at Mapua and soon after contacting police who would eventually investigate and lead to the confusion between the MK and the Ses Walker in another mishap in this case.

 

Writing of this, on this day the 5th of October 2025, echoes a call by one woman to police to see her statements years after it was made only find it altered, and another to receive her statement after roughly the same passage of time and find it had also had been altered. Earlier there was a suggestion of a doctored file, one of these revelations was time present when the couple were alive, the other simply to close another door on unpalatable evidence for the Crown on its mission to convict Mr Watson and stifle, or rid itself of evidence exculpating him. That hasn’t been successful, but arguably now it can be fully presented to the Supreme Court for the Judiciary to look into itself and the role it has played in this false conviction. There has somewhat been a battle of experts that would not have been required to the same extent if the heart of the fully hidden, or partly hidden evidence of material relevant to this case was heard if not earlier, then at least in 2024.

 

The two-trip theory

 

The recent Court of Appeal decision is a tragedy for all the families involved. Whilst the Judgement of 2025 is reminiscent of the first Court of Appeal decision in that it is bereft of advancement of the full understanding of the case today, notwithstanding the hair evidence. Much of the “new” material has arisen from police files or elsewhere, then supported by careful consideration of the files. That should have been the priority for the Court of Appeal, but something has gone wrong. There is evidence of the file being “cleansed” in a very amateur way, what may have been more may have covertly removed may never be known.

 

For the families involved, the 2025 COA Judgement is not based on the substantial new evidence presented to Counsel before the 2017 RPOM Application and the time before it was fully finalised. There is an example in the COA’s para 10 repeated below where we see in the highlighted red that the OIC in charge of the boat phase accepts late arriving boats may not have been seen. However, a late in the day arriving boat has now been identified as a ketch, it’s arrival time noted, its parked position noted along with its leaving time and is indeed stated to be outside the 300m range described by the OIC. Extensive new evidence likely to influence a Jury was not before the COA.

 

 

No Ketch Right?

 

                                                   No Ketch in the Watson case?

This is one of many affidavits attesting to a Ketch being sighted 1st of January 1988. Details are removed for anonymity purposes

Affidavit of                                     ,                                  Officer.

of                                                    

To whom it may concern:

On the morning of 1 January 1998, I was travelling up Queen Charlotte Sound in my                                                                      At approximately 9.30 am I saw a ketch just south of Endeavour Inlet, off Snake Point. It had a small raised coach roof cabin, a lot of ropework, a blue stripe and portholes. It was a very distinctive yacht, like a 1960s vintage design. It was heading very slowly in the direction of Picton. It was on my starboard side and I had to go around it. I was doing about 6-7knots. There are several memorable matters which I recall clearly. As I motored close to it down its port side I saw an unshaven -man standing amidships by the mast. I waved to the man but he did not wave back. He just stood there and stared back at me. I recall this in particular because it is unusual behaviour. I also recall looking towards the helm to see who was sailing the yacht but there was no one there, nor anywhere else on deck. 1 assumed it was being steered by autopilot. the companionway hatch was closed and this too is unusual for a vessel underway.

I did not report this sighting at first, assuming there have been many sightings and that I would be just "one of hundreds" reporting it. About two weeks later I considered it my civic duty to report what I had seen and so I rang Operation TAM's advertised number in Blenheim. My call was answered by a woman who told me the police were not all that interested in that sighting. I heard no more about it.

Sworn                                    etc

 

                                              Scott Watson, is this the big falling down?

As many readers will be aware, there appears to be a substantial change regarding the "key" evidence in the Watson case - the 2 hairs found in the lab and said to be from the blanket discovered on Scott's boat. The various problems with the magic hairs continue.

I say magic because they were invisible when Scott's boat Blade was searched, they were also invisible when hairs were taken 1 by 1 from a blanket taken off the Blade in the Lab. Only to become visible after there was a second visit to the Hope household when more hairs were recovered. How convenient for the Crown. Apparently, lost hairs are showing up again, but they don't test as having come from Ben or Olivia. A "new" Scientist has appeared in the lab working during the time of the critical hair examinations but not taking notes.

And also, how inconvenient for the Crown the arrival of the Blade at Eerie Bay on New Year's Day shifted from late morning to early evening, after the father and marijuana grower suddenly recovered his memory and noted that he recalled the arrival time because of a horse race run late in the day. What was not convenient however, was the statement of a young person that police left in the file who saw the Blade from another vessel when passing Eerie Bay in the morning.

We can also now consider the evidence of the mystery ketch being seen late in the afternoon on New Years Eve, and of the photo file being cleansed and evidence of the mystery ketch disappearing. And the list goes on and on, until there is nothing left pointing at Scott ever meeting the couple or of they meeting him. The conversants around the pool table now disprove the claim that Scott was even playing pool and inviting young women to take a trip on his ketch to Tonga. We know the name of that man now and the name of his boat, which was indeed a ketch. 

The singing prison "stoolies" sing no more, we find out ex-Detective Fitzgerald "forgot" to charge one of them for a serious assault. There are witnesses to show Ben and Olivia were seen alive at Mapua Wharf when they were said to be dead, and witnesses that saw the ketch there with the young couple aboard. We've heard from a ex-soldier being offered to be let out of prison if he gave evidence against Scott. In short, the case is an unholy mess and that has been known for some years but still has not fully reached the Court because of rules around "new" evidence and appeals that penalise the innocent for decades as we have seen in recent time, with Alan Hall and Gail Maney and those falsely charged with her.

It's time to swap the magic for the truth, and treat potential Miscarriages of Justice as emergencies, and not fart about for years with a system that punishes the innocent.

                                                        Heckler Crisis Alert

The following has a nonsense assertion in it from an Employment Lawyer who says because the man was wearing a Tonkin and Taylor T Shirt when he engaged with Winston Peters he brought his employer into disrepute.

Firstly, Tonkin and Taylor who apologised on behalf of the man threw in under the bus. No doubt that do get Government work so free speech is out the window. I doubt even Winston took such a narrow view. He gets as good as he gets and most people see him relishing in such situations. He's even been ordered out of Parliament over the years.

This Lawyer seems like a publicity hunter and how better to make the press than by trying to cross a person's personal views with that of his employer. She needs to grow up or as Winston might say as someone who should get some big person's pants.

Publicity hunters these days, so dramatic and frantic:

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/peters-heckling-it-is-absolutely-a-sackable-offence-employment-lawyer/ar-AA1FaLsx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=074d68a01e3446d9a26cc32f2b86d83e&ei=58

Scott Watson Third Royal Prerogative of Mercy Application?

Dated 3/4/25

Her Excellency: The Rt Hon Dame Cindy Kiro Governor General

 

PS please delete my earlier email, it was a rushed effort before heading to work. My apologies for that and may I have an acknowledgement of receipt of this email please.

 

I make this request under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy Statute  S 406 of the Crimes Act.

 

The background here is that in 2017 I applied for what was a successful Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy for serving prisoner Scott Watson. The application was made to your predecessor Dame Patsy Reddy. The reviewer appointed was Sir Graham Panckhurst KC.

 

I had been premature with the application submission largely because of the enthusiasm of Mr Watson, whom I have only met once after I sent him a draft of the final document, to have it submitted. But more importantly later, because of an abundance of fresh information regarding the case which resulted in further exculpatory material from members of the public whose contact details I was given, or who contacted me post the submission and later its outcome. There were others I contacted directly resulting from information from the file as well as new information provided voluntarily.

 

When that additional information was completed, I took it to now Judge Jonathan Krebs, then practising privately, who having read it commented that particular information around a ketch having been sighted at Mapua in the South Island on the 3rd of January 1998, meant that Scott must be innocent because the foundation of the Crown case was that the missing couple, Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, had been determined by police and the prosecution to have been killed on January the 1st. There are several affidavits in support of the Mapua sighting including from the equivalent to (withheld) who was tipped off (by a local business) about the ketch being tied up at the wharf and others who had seen it with the couple aboard after they were said to be dead by the Crown. The (withheld) chatted with the crew on the ketch tied up at the wharf. When returning home he made the effort to ring police which he explains in his affidavit.

 

For some reason, I was not sent a copy of Sir Graham’s written response to the RPOM  until approx. 2 years after the announcement was made that his finding was that the case was to be sent back to the Court of Appeal. In those passing years, I often wondered why Scott had not been pardoned as the Mapua evidence I believed was crucial. Later, I became concerned that Sir Graham had not seen the additional evidence, and remain unsure why.

 

On a careful reading of Sir Graham’s finding there were significant things found in Scott’s favour,  the 2 prisoner witnesses’ testimony was rejected. The Crown claim that the couple were able to be locked in the cabin was finally exposed as an impossibility because the Lock was on the inner side of the hatch. And also that scratches made on the inner side of the hatch could not have been made by the couple because the scratches extended past the point, where if the hatch was closed, they could not have reached the outer edge. There was evidence at the trial of the children of Mr Watson’s sister doing that damage months earlier, which along with Sir Graham’s observations was destructive to the Crown case and the claim by the Prosecutor, (Now Judge Davison of the High Court), that it didn’t matter how Watson got back to the shore after being returned to his boat alone – the fact was, according to Davison, just that Watson did - and it was unimportant how. He quite properly may have been relying on the accounts of those in charge of gathering and storing evidence while later removing exculpatory material from the file. I expect in the fullness of time criminal charges will be laid for that with other examples in the latest evidence which will also warrant investigation.

 

It must be hard for Mr Watson to know all this “new” material is at hand but it apparently has no significance to his release on Parole as the case continues to wind through the Courts.

This situation appears as a disastrous failure in the system which has seen what will turn out, like others before him, to be innocent prisoners held for years, even decades longer, than those properly convicted of similar crimes. Neither the Parole Board nor Corrections seem to have a satisfactory method with which to deal with the few in the system who claim at great cost to themselves and their families, to be innocent.

 

I write to you in confidence that Mr Watson has the proof of his innocence, part of which could not be heard at the COA because I understand possibly that it was outside the scope of the RPOM findings. Furthermore, Mr Watson struggles to be paroled on what is outdated or superseded material on his file relating to the murders alleged against him. Whilst Sir Graham dismissed the 2 Watson prisoner secret witnesses accounts, I understand their evidence remains part of the case against Mr Watson’s parole – if not still directly, possibly floating in the minds of the earliest psychologists who put pen to paper regarding assessments of Mr Watson and his prison behaviour. I have correspondence which shows Corrections were unaware of the 2 primary Witness's evidence being set aside, the 2 witness's evidence does not even have the basics of matching – something it was implied Mr Watson was responsible for as well.

 

My understanding of the working of an RPOM application was from a description given by a celebrated Privy Councillor, Lord Diplock, who said that where Justice stops the RPOM (mercy) begins. Could you please intervene in Mr Watson’s case by seeking either Sir Graham or another such person to look at the material that did not reach him when he considered Scott Watson’s RPOM, or recommend any such other act that binds Crown officials such as a special investigator to look at matters around the Watson file being cleansed of exculpatory material – photos are gone, and solid citizens indicate their statements were changed when later they were forwarded to them. Doing so would set a clear precedent as to where the Justice stopped in this particular case. Secondly, would you seek that neutral consideration is given to Scott Watson (and others like him protesting innocence) the small dignity of Parole Boards and Corrections accepting certain prisoners who with some strong basis of pleas for innocence are not kept longer in prison than the guilty because they do not admit their guilt. There is no advantage for a long term prisoner to take the route of claiming innocence, because it most likely will increase their time spent in prison on occasion as we have seen by decades. It must be very few prisoners, who would consider that, apart from the innocent. Whilst clearly it is inevitable that some innocent prisoners have in vernacular terms, just “copped it” to ensure being released.

 

As it is, you already have on your files that Mr Watson has given me permission to represent his pleas for the ROPM. I expect you will have no objections to me letting his Counsel know, along with the public in due course the details of this matter. On your advice, I will submit the further exculpatory material files not seen by Sir Graeme or indeed Corrections or you may seek them directly from his Lawyers who are likely to have further additions to it.

 

I have used RPOM 3 for the subject matter here. Please see below the link to the radio interview with the former Chair of the NZ Parole Board Ron Young in which Mr Young frankly says the Parole Board treat everyone as guilty.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Brian McDonald

 

PS please excuse again the mis-drafted earlier email.

 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rnz.co.nz%2Fnational%2Fprogrammes%2Fninetonoon%2Faudio%2F2018981321%2Fretiring-parole-board-chair-on-how-the-prison-system-is-working%3Ffbclid%3DIwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2j7_1hFtrIiz0j33IzgP0LuQL7ew8X31j5U2sTmDo31CUtO0vfyTt6GPs_aem_VU7i0Mk-bR6Au3tkryv2Ug&h=AT2dDLpXTSivTFJDn2G0yY01Byz8oYEUfK-phQpjKQ4uwBv49KaN88ZFuMj6PFv4oPBugzcF0YIIUj26RQJPsnD_UrZl_3jIX-LkVEqxBfplLp9PbwqTxszbF3zl_Rq2c5AH61jKFk6sjMUO&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT0wFGRU44jcObM61SGR7L4NkggslBsYC0RAPAOR9zP5tt1uAtJdpGB-LrkUAJ1UavDWGv9SmTBghhJ289haaI0wrXNPhaHLmgVCxXTjYsR2crlR0RtfO8P6AopwmQRdiPRxGzmAqiPOAg13SExD61tQc3_l4ZonsYgvFwf1ZQhqX9HNHPX47jLZcRlcZOu2iixaI2VBnVmon1aMDPZ7gSpEwR-_

How do cases of wrongful convictions fare in New Zealand

 

                           Corrections and the Parole Board Crisis in New Zealand

As the majority of posts here, have been about the Scott Watson case it's a good place to start but certainly does not overlook a raft of other cases of wrongful convictions including 2 other current ones, that of DavidTamihere, and Mark Lundy. As it happens 2 involved double murders, and the third, Scott's, an alleged double murder, where unlike the former two, bodies were not discovered. But this is not to forget the explosiveness of the Gail Maney case that leaves all but one of the alleged participants discharged by the Court, with only 1, Stephen Stone, remaining convicted despite all his alleged accomplices or parties to the crimes for which he was convicted declared innocent - the vagaries of our Laws and Court decisions.

Briefly, in Tamihere it was said that he killed Urban Hoglen and Heidi Paakkonen and disposed of the 2 bodies at sea according to a Crown witness. Later one body was found buried with a watch still attached. The "same" watch had been found in the room of David's son and was presented at trial as being given to the son after having been taken from the body of Urban. Since the trial, a now-deceased, "witness" was found guilty of perjury in the case by way of a private prosecution. That conviction shredded the credibility of the entire case but an appeal was rejected in the Court of Appeal, it now heads off to the Supreme Court. The deceased witness was Bob Harris revealed as a lifetime informer who killed a young couple and later described it as like eating an ice cream and is indicative of another factor, certain police continued to frame people in difficult cases, using whatever method possible. For example, Teina Pora having been convicted of killing Susan Burdett from evidence by a person called Malcolm Rewa who was later found guilty of the crime himself when acting as a lone rapist. Police stalled the hunt for Rewa so that it looked like Pora was the alleged "South Auckland Rapist." Meanwhile, Rewa continued his crime spree.

The enormity of the effort to convict Mark Lundy is probably unparalleled anywhere in the world. However, it does have a viable suspect which to my knowledge was never investigated. Mark spent some 2 years or so on bail after winning a retrial at the Privy Council before being found guilty again on particularly weak and dicey MRNA evidence. Now he is much like Scott caught within a Justice System and a Parole Board (PB), that has no defined manner within which to treat prisoners who take the rare stand of claiming innocence. Doing so, can, and does create far longer imprisonment. With close scrutiny, the case readily falls apart but is an enormous file that takes much work and patience to simplify into a Miscarriage of Justice.

Returning to the Watson convictions key evidence was destroyed by police and Crown Law that has not been translated in any viable way, either by Corrections all the PB. Both those parties, may not have fully understood or accepted that a key event that described the alleged death of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope is destroyed. The couple had to be on Scott's boat to have been killed by him there, but there is no evidence they were ever there but strong evidence they were not.

I'll list the things from memory:

1/ Alleged confessions made by Scott to 2 prison stoolies - since rejected by Sir Graham Panckhurst (SG) when finding in favour of Scott's second Royal Prerogative of Mercy Application (RPOM.a)

2/ Scratches to the inner hatch of the Watson boat the Blade, said to have arrived there when the couple tried to escape by opening the hatch, the lock for it was inside the cabin and only able to be locked from the inside. The scratches were rejected y SG as having been made by the couple.

3/ The couple being killed or restrained while the Blade was rafted to 2 other boats with people on board, some of who Scott asked to continue to party on that New Years. One must ask where the couple were going to go as Scott brazenly made a move to party with one of the women in the raft up.

4/ The "2 trip theory" which was also never proven, needed Scott to go back ashore without anyway of being able to do so, also requiring him to be unseen before returning with the couple who remained silently in the cabin despite it being unable to be locked from the outside. The couple could have simply gone to another boat in the raft up to raise the alarm even by rocking or kicking the hull with Scott locked out.

5/ The alleged cleaning of the Blade which left fish blood, while an alleged wipe down for fingerprints left many intact, along with their being an explanation for CD tapes to be free of fingerprints after earlier being wiped down after a severe storm in Cook Strait.

6/ 2 hairs said to be Olivia's alleged to have been found on the Blade but never photographed their in situ in the manner potential critical evidence always is in a homicide. The 2 hairs are no longer likely to have been even if not found in "extra" searches of the Hope household.

7/ A scientist for the Crown's evidence supporting the defence regarding the 2 hairs said to hold the case together.

8/ The argument there was no 2 masted ketch in the bay where Scott was moored and people being pressured to say it wasn't there or ignored and discredited if they wouldn't.

9/ Police threats to people who insisted they saw the ketch.

10/ Evidence showing the entire file was "cleansed" of evidence showing Scott's innocence such as sightings, and photos taken from the file.

11/ Bribes given to witnesses and threats made against others to forget what they had seen that night, or in the following days and months.

Most reasonable people would see the problems with the Watson convictions on the above points alone and there are 100s more. It is what was "alleged" to have happened aboard the Blade that holds Scott in custody and stops his parole so far. So the question is why isn't there a safe method to deal with parole for people in Scott's situation? And indeed that of Mark Lundy who is said to be a model prisoner and whose case is at the CCRC. One might suspect that it is because the Department of Corrections and Parole Board are bonding to link with the police, but that, while doubtful, is happening inadvertently.

But more so, why isn't there a plan, legislated if necessary to prevent people who claim innocence with good cause and support they are innocent. It's bad enough being in prison for a crime you are shown not to have committed without being punished for that reminds of the days where innocent people may have been tortured to death if they could withstand the torture only to die by torture if they denied it. I cite that from the middleages, witch burning, and so forth. Yet it's hard to see any difference now because it is torture for the wrongfully convicted made worse for not admitting it. New Zealand and the world can do better on this though I'm sure some Justice systems are sophisticated enough to have dealt with this problem of not saying you're guilty when you're not and spend extra years in prison for not co-operating in your own false imprisonment.

Scott Watson: time to pause the grief in the expectation of Justice, at last.

 

                                     The Watson case continues into deeper fantasy.

It's important for Justice in NZ that the Court of Appeal quashes the convictions of Scott Watson for its own credibility. This case has been before the COA twice before, which makes it important the Court's decisions note that. The Court must also note that his return to the Court resulted from a rare use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy undertaken by an Appeal Court Judge who found weaknesses in critical witness evidence, something that the Crown will never overcome. The Court of Appeal heard that a senior officer had committed perjury. Each of these things is alarming, as to the safety of Scott's convictions. The hair evidence is weakened further to the point of being unreliable. No critical evidence stands unimpeached.

Scott Watson could have been a free man now if he was guilty. It's rare, even if existent, that the Court notes, that a guilty person seldom wishes to extend their imprisonment by claiming innocence. On the other hand, some public perceptions of the case remain which are damaging without being clear to the people that raise them. Reading some opinions of the case "supporting" Scott, seek further new steps, such as finding the mystery ketch, finding the bodies, and investigating things already freshly investigated. Yet all these things have happened despite some of the public being unaware of them, gripping some with anxiety.

Now there is a single reason for concern and it goes to David Tamaheri's case which was rejected by the COA when there was both fundamental new evidence and proof of malfeasance. The writer says that is not for the Court to determine but rather a Jury disabused of the false evidence, if indeed not following the precedent set in Gail Maney's case and that of Alan Hall - where a Judgement was given as to the investigation. So David should now see his convictions put aside, and a stop to picking through perjured evidence to save the police case against him.

Still, there are calls for more to be done in Scott's case by people not acquainted with the Law or the evidence as it stands now. A recognized fact is that perjury goes to the heart of a conviction so for the COA to step around that is very poor, at the very least a retrial is required and that should have happened in Tamaheri. In Scott's case, it is not the book writers, or television adaptions by investigators, that are anxious about the outcome because truth be known there are strong and cooperative links between all those sources, and if they are quiet, as they are now, it is because of confidence that every rock has been moved and looked under and while the COA could not obviously hear it all, a complete picture was given that clearly showed perjury by police.

Sadly, some years ago there were anti-Scott crusades carried out by people in support of police, and indeed ex-police, that were not well-founded and have come back against them with a bite to silence them. The shoe is on the other foot. Equally, there are crusades by allegedly pro-Scott people who heightened alarm for his supporters. While on the other hand, those that have done the work that culminates in the case for innocence as it stands now, remain quiet.

So for the many 1000s of Scott's supporters concerned about "facts" in the police case be cautious that you are not taken for a ride by gossip and rumours, note Scott's own opinion and support him that way instead of becoming involved in endless regurgitation of doom with a hint of something new happening. 

Scott, his family, and core supporters need to be clear as to where his case stands, in the hope that things will be settled now, and if not now the fight will continue against a case that literally has been pulled apart right down to a hatch that couldn't be locked on a cabin from outside and where no durable evidence was produced to warrant a conviction on a boat that had a single mast instead of 2.

The Crown's case against Scott Watson wrecked.

                             The case against Scott Watson - credible or nonsense?

Following along from recent work on the nature of Scott's conviction to see how it could be reviewed by the Parole Board after the absolute weakness of the secret witness testimony from 2 prisoners was finally recognized, it strikes home how preposterous the case was against Scott. There is no strong evidence of Ben and Oliva going onto Scott's boat. The former evidence was supported by the 2 prisoners and the hair evidence, now, both are sunk.

Most people will know that there is evidence Scott returned to his own boat alone as the only passenger aboard the Anderson Naiad, following which, according to the Crown, he went back ashore with the Prosecutor saying it didn't matter how because it just happened even if the Crown could not explain the details. The first problem is Scott not being seen ashore a second time which remains a fatal difficulty. But let's think about the other known evidence.

Firstly, there is no contest Scott went back to the Blade alone. There is also no contest there is only one recorded event of him having returned to the raft up which the Blade was in with 2 other boats. Soon after, he was waking people on other boats asking for them to continue to drink with him and invited one woman to come aboard his sloop after her partner turned down the offer to party. He was smartly rebuffed.

Common sense says that Ben and Olivia cannot have been with him at that time, because he is required to go back ashore in the Crown case, because he has been turned down for both drinking or sleeping partners by others in the raft up. He would not have done that had the couple already been with him. That is the reason the Crown dreamed up the second trip after the Naiad driver Anderson said, and maintained under pressure that Scott was alone on a single trip to the raft up. So according to the Crown, he's gone back alone and failed to find anyone to drink with him or come aboard his own yacht so despite it being early morning he's gone back to shore - unseen this time.

Much was made of Scott's behaviour at Furneaux Lodge which he has said himself was obnoxious and probably not unlike a lot of other young men that night worse for wear from alcohol or smoking drugs. That being the case he was successfully blamed for inviting young women onto what he is alleged to have said, was the only ketch in the Bay that night to sail to Tonga according to witnesses. In fact, there were up to 3 ketches in the bay that night if you don't take into account the flat-bottomed Alliance as not being a ketch but rather a flat-bottomed barge. However, it was the skipper of one of the ketches, a married man, around Scott's build but older with tattoos, who was inviting the young ladies at the table to take the trip with him. 

He was also not a tall man but was with his wife and a friend that night playing on the pool table and one stage with students and young women. Out of earshot of his wife, the man invited the young ladies to sail to Tonga with him as being on the "only ketch in the Bay," the Toranui. which the man was not shy of mentioning by name. He was joking of course and most of the group saw that and later described the man differently than Scott, apart from one. She was the only one called to give that evidence.

There is no proof that the second trip was made but much proof of the alternative that Scott stayed on the Blade alone as you've already read above. Scott didn't have the couple locked on the Blade when he went to see others in the raft up, because how was going to take a female companion back to the Blade with Ben and Olivia already there, supposedly locked inside the cabin, which has since been agreed by Sir Panckhurst as impossible because the hatch only locked from the inside, another critical part of the case now dust.

Looking further at it, we must remember that Olivia was upset when her berth on the Tamarack was taken by non-paying freeloaders and left angrily with Ben to go back to the wharf and take another Naiad to what others say was a ketch, not a boat in raft up which with one look, and seeing it was only a single cabin sloop showed no concern that she had when going on the Tamarack among friends and finding her berth had been pinched.

As began soon after the investigation started a ketch had become a sloop with a lone man aboard possibly around the same time Scott was getting back to shore unseen and able to convince the young couple he had a sloop which they found out 10 minutes later was a lie still went aboard with him, and either waited silently as he went aboard other boats in the raft up or did not object to having been lied to and found themselves in a worse position than going aboard the Tamarack but made no noise about it to the Naiad driver Wallace, and meekly boarded.

Repeat they did not ask to be taken away when they saw the "ketch" was a sloop and the only people able to confirm the story of them leaving the naiad it was agreed by Crown witnesses were in the Wallace naiad, 2 remaining in the naiad while Ben and Olivia went aboard a ketch with a man never identified as Scott by having a ketch and not a sloop.

Reading the Panckhurst report there was a situation presented by which the defence was offered to have the investigation broadened in terms of the fresh evidence of Tony Kiernan. For reasons unknown, the defence turned that down, most probably because of the weakening of the entire case being enough for the RPOM to succeed but only time will reveal those reasons.

In summary, the emotion-rendering evidence of the prison witnesses held up the shortfalls in the hair evidence and vice versa. Now however both are weakened allowing the supposed second trip as unbelievable when standing on its own merits not confused by the hair evidence or claims about Scott's behaviour. With the full truth known the case was always weak but the propaganda, lies and dirty tricks enabled the Crown to have its day. Now it has nowhere to hide. So Scott did not return to the shore unseen only to come back with the couple, it's absolute nonsense that should never have been allowed to have been heard in a Court, just like the rest of the case.