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.

Scott Watson: "The Price of Justice."

 

                                    Scott Watson: "The Price of Justice."

Some years after Scott Watson's second Royal Prerogative of Mercy Application (RPOM) was successful and resulted in a return to the Court of Appeal I recently took the opportunity to read it fully because of other work on the case. Yes, sure, Scott got his referral but the weaknesses in the arguments given by the retired Court of Appeal Judge Sir Panckhurst (P) are evident.

While met with relief to have Scott's case back in the Courts, it remains that many of Panckhurt's findings are far from incisive. Before talking specifically about his decision on the secret witnesses I will point out some of the short-comings.

P gave a list of ketch sightings but not one was taken account of in a fair way. He described the persons who saw the ketch and where. However in a case where the Crown said there was no ketch P needed to make stronger comments as to why that was not a reason (with others that follow here) not to recommend that Scott Watson be pardoned or have his convictions quashed. P was also incorrect in determining what time Watson sailed on New Year's Day despite having video evidence of an interview with the late Reg (of Reg's corner in the bar) saying at around 7.30 Scott from the "raft up". Scott had been concerned that Reg may have hit his boat and called out to him. Reg said he knew Scott by sight and called back that he had seen Scott's boat and would not hit it. Another thing missing comment was the Kalaugher/Kirkwood plotted position of the ketch at Fureaux which was consistent with any number of sightings.

I make the assumption that P did not get the video of Reg's interview although it was mentioned in the paperwork. The time of Scott's departure was critical as to whether he could have sailed to the Cook Strait to allegedly dump bodies in the time allowed before arriving at Erie Bay, or not. The average speed of Scott's boat under sail said he could not. While mentioning time trails one by the harbour master, and another by Keith Hunter with a press representative aboard he wasn't critical of the harbour master's time, which was not only inconsistent with the Hunter time trial, but also another conducted by Chris Watson (Scott's dad) with an independent observer. The departure time from Furneaux Lodge was critical as no one aboard on any nearby boat, (Watson's was tied in a raft up with 2 other boats), heard any screams or similar that one would expect with 2 people killed or incapacitated - with one a big strong young man and the other a feisty teenager who had abused those upon the charter boat where she was due to sleep but could not due to non paying guests taking her berth.

P was forced to acknowledge that the " hatch scratches" on which the Crown dined out, as the couple trying to escape were not able to be done with the hatch closed as the Crown case required. In itself, important evidence wrongly put to the Jury. Already we have 4 or 5 allowances given to the Crown - actual ketch sightings when it was said there were none, a later departure time from the mooring at Furneaux Lodge, an allowance that the couple somehow co-operated in their own deaths by remaining silent with the large young man Ben Smart meekly not fighting back, the absence of available time to reach Erie Bay, the changing accounts of the people there, including the man who had been sprung with a marijuana crop.

The latter brings me back to the secret witnesses and the "con" that was allowed. The Crown was allowed to use the secret prison snitches, despite that their accounts were different, one was withdrawn then confirmed again after the visit to the man in Auckland prison during the investigation into Scott's first RPOM application by Tom Fitzgerald, the police officer called for perjury at the recent Court of Appeal hearing into Scott's case in 2024. P ran through all the reasons why the 2 men shouldn't have given evidence because the prosecutor Davison (once expected to become a high ranking Judge in the Court of Appeal - but stalled in the role of a High Court Judge - a lower position by far) pointed out to the Jury the "dangers" of prison narks and the Judge repeated that. However, the "confessions" were totally damaging.

For a Jury to be warned to consider that the prisoners might be lying (not least because both gave different accounts) presumes more of the capacity of anyone to put aside some horror that has been revealed to them by being told that they should treat it with caution. The fact is that "warnings" are of immeasurable advantage because of prejudicial value that holds real and present danger to create bias against the person at trial. Both men were gang members, and P knew of the lies they told the Jury and commented on them. He also mentioned money and a car given to one and the fragile personality of the other who had mental health issues. Both were addicts.

Meanwhile, the paperwork revealed that the reviewer of the first RPOM, somewhat a Crown "hitman/woman", had spoken to Guy Wallace in a lift before he was to be interviewed and said directly to him, according to her own account that because he had said one thing at trial and was about to say something different that he "had effectively given false evidence." So the woman who was happy with the apparent false evidence of the 2 prisoners, "reminded" a man who had wanted to correct the account of his evidence that he had given "false evidence" no matter the circumstances, memory, pressure from police or so on. But "false." When she interviewed the reliable false narrator Tom Fitzgerald, who is likely to be charged with perjury in the future, about a conversation in the Court House lift where it was claimed he told Guy Wallace to forget certain things resulting in Guy not telling the truth as he knew it, the dear ex tough guy cop rolled out the textbook reply that he couldn't recall that.

As it happens Guy was reported by McDonald as no longer wanting to "change" his evidence, and that is partly how false convictions are created or maintained. As I have written before Fitzgerald is likely to take a big fall, but will Ms McDonald who played the role of "reminding" Guy he had given false evidence whether under threats or not, also be held accountable. Remember she ignored a similar thing that P ignored also, that the 2 police witnesses gave differing accounts of an alleged confession.

As much as there is dirty work in the Watson case so there is charitable and strong work. Scott was well represented at the first trial which in most jurisdictions would be seen as a miscarriage of Justice because of the prison witnesses and the prejudicial value they were for the Crown despite the Crown acknowledging it in a very slick move by the now stranded Davison, undone in his bid to become a top Judge. The use of "prison stoolies" on the proviso that their evidence was highly suspect was an abuse of power in whichever way it is viewed, and even if P may have said the same thing another way, it was a weak decision by him to overlook that the prison witnesses alone resulted in a Miscarriage of Justice in this case.

The late Greg King unsuccessfully took Scott's case to the Privy Council, and but for his passing may have by now seen Scott freed. It was of great interest to the writer to learn that Jonathan Krebs who took the case on despite being told there was no money had fought so hard in presenting the 2nd RPOM. Although he was eventually state-funded he was in boots and all. The RPOM Judgement recalls the now Judge Krebs saying "there was a concerted effort by police to suppress evidence" that was "tantamount to allegations of incitement to commit perjury." Fitzgerald's name is writ large in the writer's mind as one of those Krebs was speaking of, who when he left the case to take a role as a Judge in the District Court did so abruptly raising some unfounded concerns to the writer and most likely Scott as well - however the man was true to Justice as we both thought.

Where with the Watson case go now? Well, never away until his convictions are quashed which may well be the result of his current appeal which will be decided this year and whether indeed there is any need for a retrial. Alternatively, the case will go onto the Supreme Court, but never away.

Materially Altered.

                                                  Materially Altered 

                                                      

Congratulations to Alan and his family for finally overcoming his false conviction. Much is the shame that his mother has passed as she always appeared to be Alan's greatest champion.

In a significant move, the Police Commissioner has spoken of evidence that was materially altered. In theory that could become the term for planted evidence or indeed physical descriptions of things. Many people who support Scott Watson feel that ketch sightings were materially altered to become Scott's sloop. Even descriptions of a mystery man in the bar were "materially altered" to become an identity of Scott and the list goes on.

It will be noteworthy to determine what evidence the Police Commissioner was talking about and that we should discover when the case against the 3 accused men is revealed. In the meantime a big kick in the right direction. And good luck to Alan for hanging in when he was written off and recalled back to prison for a crime he had not committed.

Police Commissioner Andrew Coster apologises to Alan Hall for wrongful imprisonment on murder of Arthur Easton - NZ Herald

 

                                                       Good news and bad

Former cops, Crown prosecutor ordered to appear in court after ‘methodical’ investigation into Alan Hall miscarriage of justice - NZ Herald

As the Alan Hall case begins to be looked at deeply, not about Alan, but about what happened to him, and who was responsible, New Zealand as a country finally has another moment to look into if not just one, then many false convictions for the first time since the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case some four decades ago. It was not that long after that Alan Hall was framed by police and the Crown just passed the very time when many New Zealanders believed Justice was finally done with the recognition of the planted shell case manufactured after the deaths of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe.

But it was not. There was no drop off from the pace of the innocent being wrongly convicted. In fact, as we see today with our higher Courts somewhat jammed with suspect convictions - bad convictions were suddenly powered by rocket fuel. So what was missing, there were apologies, compensation talk about how such cases should or couldn't ever happen again when in fact some police involved remained in the police and rather than blink accelerated their methods of creating false convictions with the assistance of the Crown. The people who apologised were fakes, and in many cases involved in false convictions themselves as they continued to be buried in their dark work.

There were generational changes, John Hughes who was a junior detective on the Thomas would in 20 years be the senior detective in other cases like that of David Tamihere where John's underworld name was the "planter". He would increase the cultivation of false convictions. One of his cohorts was Bryan Rowe who rose to Superintendent, that was another internal police message to staff that framing people was "ok" when necessary. It was Rowe's "work" with immunity where he only got the Solicitor's General's permission to give witnesses immunity after he already had done so, and police and the Crown were criticised for that by the Privy Council recognizing the danger of giving guilty people the chance to lie, with police help, their way of being convicted for a crime. "lying to save your neck" was suddenly all the rage with drug smugglers and other offenders, even those who killed.

Things kept going the wrong way. Police under Rowe kept on buying witnesses by promising, or giving them gifts, money, time out of prison, or no prison sentence at all when they were clearly guilty of some crime. In the Gail Maney case it appears after the Privy Council case where the issuing of police immunity was criticised, Rowe continued to have it employed. It was officers under his control who offered immunity at least with the witnesses against, Gail and also earlier in the Tamihere case where the planter was still at work. Not to be outdone Christchurch police made an art of getting witnesses to say what they wanted, by bribery, threats, or whatever else might work.

Those 3 cases are still high profile and not going away. Though it appears Gail will have her convictions quashed very soon. and while Scott's case should also fall into that category his supporters are ready to fight on with bringing possible private prosecutions against police if necessary. All the evidence for that was revealed at Scott's recent appeal. David on the other hand, is likely to go to the Supreme Court which, like its lower Court, does not have the consistency of common sense. Or a golden rule - if police conduct was unlawful, charge the culprits and free the prisoner without making the error of trying to fill the cracks or brush over the rot that began the slide into a false conviction. Even with the apparently guilty, or so the Court may think, of the shaky and blurred canvas a false conviction can become, The Court must be consistent in its rejection of fake evidence. This is something Canada did decades ago, along with many States of America have achieved while NZ, and possibly in an even worse manner, Australia continues to ignore. Now is the time.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crown-admits-it-has-no-case-against-convicted-murderer-gail-maney/THMLSJODMVGPBK773JT7WSRE7

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.