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.