Is Scott Watson Closer Than Ever To Freedom?

                                  Is Scott Watson Closer Than Ever To Freedom?

The following report that a witness's evidence helpful to Scott has not been admitted in Scott's appeal next month is arguably not critical because other witnesses giving evidence at the Court of Appeal essentially say the same thing as the witness whose evidence was declined.

It's disappointing to see the press still repeating the myth about the 2 hairs being found on Scott's both when they were in fact found in the lab and were said to have come from Scott's boat.

On another front, Scott is well prepared for his next Parole Board, without revealing details it appears he has been treated fairly for the first time in a manner he is relatively relaxed about.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2024/05/convicted-murderer-scott-watson-s-bid-to-use-academic-report-on-eyewitness-memory-in-appeal-thrown-out.html

Count down to the Court of Appeal for Scott Watson

 

                                      Count down to the Court of Appeal for Scott Watson

It won't be difficult for the Court of Appeal to acknowledge that the identification evidence of Scott was flawed. It also will not be ground-breaking to agree that the previously "platinum" hair evidence is not up to scratch and never was. Furthermore the "prison confessions" it is alleged Scott made are gone.

So what remains? One thing is an institutionalized prejudice against Scott from police, Prosecutors, also for many years the Courts, Corrections, and the Parole Board. Whilst there is no way to determine how much of that is intact there are a few things that have changed in the 20 plus, years since Scott's arrest.

Forensic Science has marched forward and the "hair collection" in Scott's case was amateur at best purposefully negligent, careless, and most likely the major part of Scott being fitted up. That is no longer really an obstacle in a fair Justice System. The key police who ran the case are basically all gone apart from Tom Fitzgerald who it is doubtful any prosecutor would rely on again such are the activities he's been exposed for in recent years.

Less clear is why the Prosecution is holding on to that dead fish which is essentially its case now. There could be 2 reasons for that with the first being a misguided sense that the Solicitor General believes there is a chance to avoid the criticism the Crown clearly deserves or that it was possibly a mistake not to have shared with the Crown all the new evidence. "New", being mostly because it had previously been hidden in plain sight or not been melded into a narrative of complete innocence as it is now.

For that reason, Scott's evidence of innocence will not disappear for years whether the Court finds in his favour; or not - whether now or later. As his, was the most brittle of set-ups with so much left evident, including credible witnesses, ketch sightings,  mystery man at the pool table who has now been identified as not being Scott or the offender. People that were frightened, or bribed into silence by police while others were emboldened as possible leads that led to them were lost or covered up.

And what does all this mean you may wonder. Well, firstly Scott should win, and secondly if he doesn't he won't be going away as there are many other doors open for him.

Goodwill in the Scott Watson Case in 2024?

                                 

        Anonymous asks if the Crown will fall on its Sword in the Scott Watson  Case

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.":

The big question here : Can the Crown fall on their sword and admit they were wrong after all this time.

I think the above important question by Anonymous deserves a full answer. But firstly yes the Crown can fall on its sword if that is the way it thinks proper Justice unfolds, as if it is a battle without rules or indeed decency.

The "battle" only exists in the minds of those who see a questionable conviction to be something to battle against or to maintain. As long as the battle complex is maintained cases like Scotts will endure for years before they fall over in some way which is seldom by the exercise of both good will and adherence to facts rather than personalities.

So looking behind that situation it is often the police and indeed the Crown that are obstructive to Justice being "seen to be done" words often used by Arthur Thomas. Thinking about this morning I remembered the story of Joe Karam going to the police Commissioner of the time to show evidence that Joe thought showed David Bain's innocence only to find police did not want to know. What better description of bitterness to uphold a false conviction could there be? No "we'll look into it", or "I'll get someone onto this." But rather the chill that might surround an executioner. 

The best steps forward away from that are visible today is Tim McKinnell, ex-police detective who first helped pull the Teina Pora case apart through its obvious to most, flaws, and has progressed a long way on Gail Maney's conviction which has also got obvious flaws. But even Tim with his already grown credibility must endure the laborious path through silent ghosts that police and Justice officials tend to become when someone threatens the status quo.

That's pretty dumb. By feeling the status quo is under threat one's mind is immediately closed and defensive at Joe Karam discovered to his surprise. So firstly "can" creates or in fact endorses that there is something to be frightened of when officials are faced with what may be a wrongful conviction. It appears a threat is immediately sensed and walls go up to confirm it is indeed a bastion and will be defended - even against new evidence, or old evidence that has been misinterpreted.

My thoughts after reading the Panckhurst RPOM response was a pleasure because Panckhurst had virtually said the 2 secret prison witnesses were liars, recognized that they gave different stories and so on which had always been obvious.

On the other hand. I was disappointed that a lot of new evidence hadn't reached his hands that was likely to have turned the case into one of considering a pardon. After the Crown agreed to the conviction of Alan Hall being quashed because of evidence that was by then 30 years old - I thought that the tide had finally turned and the Crown saw their role as ensuring Justice and not trying to bury false convictions.

I wrote to Scott's lawyers suggesting to share the new evidence but unfortunately, they didn't have my same optimism that the Courts are meant to places of Justice where "sides" go out the door and let Justice walk in when there is clear evidence of a Miscarriage of Justice.

So I should answer Anonymous's question by saying yes the Crown can and should fall on its case, but give that another description of doing its duty to the Court and to Justice in the sight of overwhelming evidence of Scott's innocence.

The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.

                          The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.

Literally, less than 3 months away from The Court Of Appeal's hearing into Scott's case the Crown is squirming in every way possible. It's not a good look and one could consider that the Solicitor General is trying to find a way out as Scott's case finally implodes.

I've often written here that when a wrongful conviction begins to crack it does so spectacularly. It is unprecedented for the Crown's highest official to appear to panic in every way possible. As the article by Mike White shows along with the comments of Chris Watson (Scott's dad) The Crown does not like it when it no longer holds the upper hand.

Just how poor the identification procedures are in this case has never been generally accepted because the police for so long have shown witnesses photos of a person often saying the person is the suspect and giving details of his or her behaviour and how abhorrent it has been. In other words, expressing the need for the witness to "help" the police to put the suspect away.

Readers will remember how for decades the Crown has said that its "hair evidence" was without question, proof of Scott's guilt. In fact, as I have also said before - Judith Collins when Minister of Justice in an earlier Government said the 2 hairs held the case together. Something I thought of as a challenge and an extraordinarily big call. As that was later considered by Sir Panckhurst in a Royal Prerogative of Mercy application there was a chance to continue to read and delve further into the case.

Very soon every apparently solid point of evidence was collapsing, mostly from reading the Crown's own file. As that evidence imploded it showed the points made by people such as Mike Kalaugher, Keith Hunter, Warwick Jenness and Chris Watson himself culminated in a picture of innocence once the hairs were on slippery ground. That had earlier culminated in the doco Doubt by Yvonne McKay which revealed interviews with people who saw the couple alive after they were said to be dead. A good reading of the file as to the key points against Scott showed they were doubtful at best and anything assisting him was not presented to the Courts - lost if you like in a sea of paper and perhaps an arrogance that no one would find them. But if you look on the horizon the hens are coming home to roost and particular detectives and scientists have found themselves out with corrupt practices and arrogance that they were above the Law they chose to administer.

More people came forward or were approached in what has been similar to the results of WW2 "dam busters," as the real ketch was traced and Scott was excluded as the mystery man. It would be fair to say most of that was completed by around 2020-22 and since then the Crown has tried to squirm out in every way possible and many people will believe that the Parole Board itself has acted in a retributive way toward Scott as a result.

When once the position was that Scott could not be released because of his "dangerousness" and "callous" crimes while others like Arthur Thomas, David Tamihere, Teina Pora,  Gail Maney, and many more who also refused to admit crimes they did not commit were released anyway. What happens now when there are issues before the Court where evidence of Scott's innocence is being withheld by the very top Crown Law Official? Will she soon find herself in Contempt of the Court? And those she tries to protect are finally brought to Justice. If ever a case demands police pay for their crimes of wittingly imprisoning innocent people - this must be it.

Crown attempts to withhold crucial new evidence in Scott Watson case | The Post

Herbie Bradly: When the State comes along to Help.

                                                                       

The kind chatty old fellow mentioned below was Herbie Bradley a well-known bank robber in his time, but long before that a state ward. We still have a system where children are taken from their parents, at times for their own safety. Those children are sent into at the very least an unsure life. In Herbie's case, he would end up in the criminal underworld with his brother Steven.

That really struck me when I read about Herbie's untimely death. He appears to have been prey to younger men also off the rails but at a different time of their lives. A time when they couldn't consider compassionate toward an old timer past his prime as they might be one day should they survive a similar lifestyle to that of Herbie.

State wards are represented highly in suicide, imprisonment, and mental health issues. While it's sad his own younger kind turned on Herbie the tragedy is for all of them in a system of injustice that seemingly can't be corrected. Well, not with punishment, violence, and an uncertain life that might be taken to the grave by someone like Herbie - a classy bank robber he once was never but never finding or being offered the chance to do better in his life.

RIP Herbie

https://www.stuff.co.nz/.../trial-set-for-duo-charged...

Scott Watson has a significant second Win.

 

                                      Scott Watson has a Significant Second Win

Although not always the case, sometimes when wrongful convictions finally turn there are steady reversals of the Crown's case or initiatives to maintain the convictions. That has now happened for a second time in the Watson case with the Crown failing to repel new submissions regarding the "hair evidence." The NZ Court of Appeal ruled yesterday, 8/11/23, that further new evidence concerning the "2 hairs" alleged to have been found on Scott's boat the Blade but actually discovered in ESR's lab will be heard.

That causes one to wonder why the Crown so lacked confidence in its case on Appeal that it apparently feared any more new material. There is irony in the fact they would seek evidence to not be heard if they were confident in their own case. Apparently, they may not be so it is for the public and ultimately the Court to decide if they are panicking or not.

The complete irony is that while the Crown fiddles over the hair evidence there is significant further evidence not all of which will be heard before any retrial. The Crown's case is a shipwreck, its own agents have hidden and changed evidence to a remarkable extent and there is now proof of that in many new affidavits, comparisons of evidence then compared to now. Although there are many examples one significant one is that the police from early on were attempting to persuade witnesses that Scott had either stolen their dingies or been seen or heard using on the morning of the disappearance of Ben and Olivia.

Although the Crown won't pause to consider all the new evidence as it should rightly ask to do in the interests of Justice, and do that now they will continue to row their boat to the square corner of the earth they appear to feel exists and right off.

New Zealand has not learned to extract itself from blind fighting over false convictions and simply say to the other side "Well what have you got" to save both the Court time and to extract people from false imprisonment or convictions. In some ways that is meant to be the purpose of the much-lauded Criminal Convictions Review Commission. I incidentally sent a 300-page document on what had gone wrong in the Lundy and didn't receive a reply, an authority which after some 3 years appears not to have solved a single case. The Commissioners appear to be stacked along cultural lines rather than by private achievements such as people like Joe Karam, Keith Hunter, and others who've been at the coal face of wrongful convictions to the extent that it shows that Scott was wise not to continue to "wait" for the CCRC to be up and running. One might even say that he finally had some luck and chose a traditional method of having potential wrongful convictions reviewed and was successful, not once, but twice and still counting.

The idea of the Prosecution and Defence working together on false convictions is not new internationally and America is having much success in that area currently - so why not New Zealand why not Scott Watson now.

Scott Watson "tightrope" to Freedom by Parole.

                                                   Scott Watson's 2023 Parole Bid

There will be few New Zealanders who haven't heard that admitting guilt is necessary to gaining parole. Lesser numbers will know that there is also a relatively large number who have been paroled without admitting guilt, the more notable of those would be Peter Ellis, Alan Hall, David Tamihere, Gail Maney, and Teina Pora. Gail Maney has been paroled more than once. So those named here have been able to pass through hazardous water and gain parole despite not admitting guilt. Of these 6 named above Rex Haig is now deceased, it may be that his family will continue to pursue the Solicitor General's office for an answer to the question asked of it over a decade as to whether SG had been aware of the number of confessions to having admitted the crime himself. Peter Ellis also deceased had his conviction wiped posthumously. That posthumous reversal had early been applied to Mokomoko wrong accused and hung for the death of Volkner in the 1860s.

It is clear that Scott Watson if paroled would be consistent treatment as given to those above with the exception of Peter and Mokomoko who were postshumously found innocent. There was an advance in the Watson case before his last Board appearance after Sir Panckhurst reported the Watson Royal Prerogative of Mercy plea back to the Governor General indicating he dismissed the evidence of 2 prison witnesses regarding an alleged conviction - where both men gave different details of what they claimed was the confession of Scott Watson. 1 of those 2 according to the records was never charged with a prison assault a senior ex-police officer Tom Fitzgerald was reportedly investigating the serious assault when the witness revealed the "confession" and was never charged. The 2nd man had psychiatric difficulties and recanted his recantation which was pointed out to Sir Panckhurst that fact itself showed unreliability confirmed by both men giving different accounts. It appears to this point that the PB have either never been aware of that situation or were not told.

Sir Pankhurst's declaration on the evidence of the 2 men doesn't prove innocence, but what it does is to remove the "horror stories" the men told the Jury which must have had a strong influence on the Jury and remains in place though it ought to be excluded from consideration by the  Parole Board and Corrections. Fair is fair. International studies show that "false confessions" are invariably embellished to get weak cases over the line. Fairness would say that those confessions should be put from the minds of the Board and not be seen as indicating treatment that Scott could need if they were true. This situation is a grave mistake, one which at least there should be a declaration about - emphatically that the Board the false claims of confessions into account, but rather dismissed them from its mind and deliberations.

Returning to the 6 named above who have never admitted guilt but were paroled anyway, 4 have been established as innocent with the remaining 2 now having their cases graduated to the Court of Appeal. A fair appraisal is that 100% of those claiming to be innocent are either now proven to be or are down the track to having their cases reviewed by the Courts. Let make no mistake any of those above could chosen the easier track of falsely saying they were guilty. 

In an odd twist before Scott's next Board, there has been a call for his supporters to write to the Board rather than to his Lawyer. A real concern is that the Board may be subject to irrelevant material with no valid connection to its decision, worse it may be deliberately abused or insulted in some form by persons pretending to be supporters or even those with problems of their own. These concerns are relevant because the Board last time it sat on Scott's case spoke of some of Scott's supporters being unhelpful to him. While it is not suggested that the Board is not capable of putting irrelevant material aside the risk however is unnecessary - particularly that the pathway to fighting false convictions in New Zealand is growing stronger as the cases above show for those that were innocent and never agreed they were quilty in order to be freed.

Let us hope there is either an intervention with the letters that allows Scott's Lawyer to vet them or that the Board simply says it will only consider letters coming to it through that channel.