Inside the dark web that is the Scott Watson case in 2022.

August 2022

To whom it may concern

Response to the affidavits from Vintiner and Robertson submitted to the COA

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.

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^rd 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.

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.

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?)

On this point she quotes Robertson in para 113 “Managing the Forensic Examination of Human Hairs in Contemporary Forensic Practice” 2017:

            “at the earliest opportunity select hairs suitable for nuDNA analysis.”

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.

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 that ESR no longer undertakes high-power microscopic examination of hairs, a cornerstone of comparison methods.

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.

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.  

In para 127 MV says the recovery of the blanket was undertaken in accordance with the SWGMAT Trace Evidence Recovery Guidelines, 1999.

·       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.

·       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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Secondary nature of the hair evidence following from the false identification evidence:

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.

 

 

            False narrative results in vicious summing up in the Scott Watson Trial

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.

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.

Davison closing excerpts:

“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.?

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.”

“, 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.”

The Judge's closing excerpts:

“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.”

Later:

“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 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.”

“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.  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, as the method perhaps of identification having regard to the way in which he was approaching women generally that night, that his motive was, 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.  Thirdly, as a possible motive I suppose, that he harboured a murderous intention, 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.”

Later:

“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.”

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.

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.

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. 

                                                        Watson End Game Nears

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.

 

Altered and other statements concerning dinghies:

Police recorded dinghy sightings from the outset, examples are Mike Huxford #30310 statement who saw a ‘clinker built’ dinghy when fishing on 2^nd or 3^rd 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.

Mike Huxford 30310 St 2/2/98

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rxwB5_wC5j0GhPxqWv4T8z37XrxCvEaH

(Format: Word Document)

30310 St 2/2/98 Was actually made by Mike Huxford and his partner Kristie Lennon.

That either on 2 or 3 January he was out fishing with Bill JENNER, Chris BROOK and Chris ? and were heading to Awash Rock.

          It was too rough, so we went around Perano Head.

We were there a good two hours.

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.

Bill Jenner:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HkWBXCLJ95vdDVbwDEmIrO083V3Z4aXA

(Format: Word Document)

30294 St 27/1/95 Bill Jenner confirms sighting of dinghy at Perano Head, confirms date of January 2^nd 98.

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^nd 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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^nd 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^st of January 1998.

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.

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.

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.

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^st 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.

Photo of Mystery Ketch and Dinghy:

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.

 

                         Watson: what a Miscarriage of Justice looks like from the inside.

(Format is from another document hence the reproduction difficulties)

Chris Bishman #10055, 12/1/98 (Did not give evidence)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jSJtEzr_s_j2Ijak1nLkT1hS2YQNIBI2

(Format: Word Document)

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.

Bishman   job sheet #40958 29/4/98

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1b0Mp8Wkol8G_kQCpU6LNMQEf6Btryw_p

(Format: Word Document)

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.

Tim Everist, 8/1/98 Statement 20022 at 11 am. (Did not give evidence)

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^th 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 checkered shirt.

1016 ST 8/1/98 (1.45am) Everist. Shown a photograph and identifies somebody.

 

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.

 

11863 ST 19/3/98 Everist shows Montage B and identifies photograph 3 as the person he identifies in his statement.

 

13360 JS 14/9/98 Everist now refers to the person as Watson. Detective Fitzgerald completes JS

No mention of “ketch to Tonga’ in any of Everist’s statements.

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, the video interview of Guy Wallace is also included in the second RPOM where it is recorded Fitzgerald repeatedly lying to Wallace to:

·       Make him believe that he was a suspect with evidence held against him, also

·       To make him deny having seen the mystery ketch or face the music of a murder charge.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

 

                        More work in progress as the Watson case continues to fall apart.

The following are cited as a window to remind of the disastrous Tam police investigation and prosecution.

·       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.

·       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.

·       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.

·       The unused Doubt documentary footage of Peter Kennedy which shows that those aboard the Sweet release on the 2^nd 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.

·       Peter Kennedy has confirmed not only the interview, but his position that the Alliance had never travelled far enough on the 2^nd 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.

·       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.

·       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.

·       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.  

·       The full evidence and cross examination of the witness Donald Anderson by Michael Antunovic. To note the following:

“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.

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

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

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

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

NEVER MIND ABOUT THAT JUST COME AT IT DIFFERENTLY I AM NOT GOING TO DEBATE IT WITH You INDEFINITELY.

Out of the Scott Watson Archives, some work is in progress.

                                 Out of the Scott Watson Archives, some work is in progress.

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.

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.

Meanwhile an insight here:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

                                       More "tricks" are found in the Watson case.

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 informer evidence.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.