Jump to content


Photo

Scott Watson case again


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,890 posts

Posted 26 September 2017 - 05:44 AM

I knew Guy a little. He was a good friend of another friend of mine who hppens to be the exact same name as yours. Although I have not seen Guy again in all those years. But I can definitely say Wishart is wrong there. Guy is a good bloke. He is also very intelligent and knows Boats. I would like to know how Wishart came to that conclusion and what he means by " sleazy" as well.
   Remember that both these guys were young men at the time. No different to any other young bloke. Probably did the same silly things as many of us here.
   Chris Watson, the Father, whom I know the better of them all, is a very quiet soft spoken shy kind of guy. Once you get to know Chis, you understand the personality of Scott. Whom as a result of the quiet reserved Family, probably did not have the best of Social skills, maybe a little lonely and perhaps slightly a " try too hard" kind of guy when it comes to getting a Lady and I guess that could come across as sleazy. But that is only lacking social skills as many shy young men did and does not lead anyone toward being a murderer than it does any of the rest of us.
    But even looking at this case differently, lets say Watson was a real bad thing and has the ability to murder. The point is, none of the Facts of this case stack up. There are far too many impossibles and as well all know, it is supposed to be a result of " beyond all reasonable doubt and I just can't see how the Jury could have arisen to the decision it made.

We have one fundamental flaw in our Judiciary system in NZ. That is that the Police only have to table the evidence they want to make the best possible case to make a conviction. They do not have to table all evidence. They do not have to provide all evidence to the Defense. And as they are the ones that do the investigation, that is rather one sided and very unfair. The Defence does not really know the facts they have to defend till they are presented. In this case, it has been very evident in the fact that when the case was over and the Jury heard more of the story, all the Fury have changed their minds as to what they would have voted.
 


  • 1

#22 smithy09

smithy09

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,595 posts
  • LocationMairangi Bay

Posted 26 September 2017 - 06:03 AM

You have to read the book Wheels. He goes off interviews of various old flatmates and others. Neither Scott nor Guy come out smelling of roses!! Very interesting what you say about their characters. Totally at odds to what he has written.

 

I agree with you though. If Scott did it, he somehow committed almost the perfect crime, disposing of the bodies and almost all evidence nearly perfectly. Even the hairs found on his blanket are extremely suspect. This just doesn't ring true with the character being portrayed.. Not smart or thorough enough. Never mind the whole 20 knot capable Blade.....


  • 0

Want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans!.


#23 DanInEurope

DanInEurope

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 26 September 2017 - 06:24 AM

We have one fundamental flaw in our Judiciary system in NZ. That is that the Police only have to table the evidence they want to make the best possible case to make a conviction. They do not have to table all evidence. They do not have to provide all evidence to the Defense. And as they are the ones that do the investigation, that is rather one sided and very unfair. The Defence does not really know the facts they have to defend till they are presented. In this case, it has been very evident in the fact that when the case was over and the Jury heard more of the story, all the Fury have changed their minds as to what they would have voted.
 

 

I'm no expert on NZ law, but even I know this isn't true.  All evidence held by the police must disclosed and not to do so, or to wait until trial and produce it without notice will cause a retrial. Procedures are contained in the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

 

Not sure what the law was at Watson's trial. although the two acts above were mainly tidying up rights that existed in common law and other pieces of legislation rather than anything new.  

Don't know what happened at the original trial, but with the subsequent reviews the Watson evidence has been pretty well looked at now.

 

I don't have an opinion on whether Watson did it or not, but I'm suspicious of the theories coming out now which are cherry picking evidence.  I would like to see the whole body evidence presented to the court and at reviews, but so far haven't seen that - although I haven't dug that deep because it would take weeks if not months to go through - which is another reason why I'm suspicious of these fag packet theories!


  • 0

#24 Beccara

Beccara

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • LocationWhangarei

Posted 26 September 2017 - 07:54 AM

I know personally in a civil matter at least that both sides must hand over all documents and evidence in their possession to the other side prior to the actual trial starting


  • 0

#25 DanInEurope

DanInEurope

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 26 September 2017 - 08:07 AM

I know personally in a civil matter at least that both sides must hand over all documents and evidence in their possession to the other side prior to the actual trial starting

 

Fill your boots with this (esp if you have trouble sleeping), all the ins and outs of NZ Criminal Disclosure as supplied to police and prosecutors:

 

http://www.crownlaw....elines-2013.pdf


  • 0

#26 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,890 posts

Posted 26 November 2017 - 07:45 AM

A new appeal has been lodged on behalf of convicted killer Scott Watson with fresh evidence challenging the "two hair theory" that helped seal his controversial conviction. 

A Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) application was filed on Watson's behalf earlier this month to Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy.
https://www.stuff.co...er-scott-watson

i am not holding my breath. I am not sure why this would be considered as "new" evidence. There are many other points of the case that have been presented again with new viewpoints, but all have been pushed aside as not being new evidence. For instance, the yacht in the Strait sighted by Ferry passengers was later proven to another boat. The trip by the Reporter and Chris proving that it was impossible for Blade to be where sightings were supposedly made. Both pushed aside stating they were not new evidence. But hey, I am no lawyer.


  • 0

#27 harrytom

harrytom

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 26 November 2017 - 09:24 AM

Ha Ha " Wheels"  I found some cat fur on my boat,yet the cat has not been onboard,what does that mean??

Obviously I have brushed up to cat and transferred the fur onboard,same as the 2 hairs found on "Scotts"vessel.

Does not mean my cat or in Scotts case that the victims were onboard.

 

Ian Whishard was originally in the "scott watson" camp,but late last year or early this year come out with a new book. Remember his income from the sell of books,whether fact or non truths.


  • 0
The boss said "see you in the morning"didnt know he liked sailing

#28 lateral

lateral

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Locationauckland

Posted 26 November 2017 - 10:55 AM

"Defence does not really know the facts they have to defend till they are presented."


Not as I understand. This just leads to adjournment or jury dismissal.
SW lawyer should have been all over this fiasco of a trial. So many hypotheticalities & conflicting evidence. Unfortunately, no smokin gun as with that asshole Who rymthms with mutton.
Just a bent cop with giant ego. RIT
FC & complicit mates.
  • 0

#29 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 27 November 2017 - 06:03 AM

Seems to be some quite serious holes/doubts in the police investigation.

 

I'm guessing Rob Pope did a lot of good work during his career but not sure that applies to this case.

 

Although two eyewitness withdrew their identification of Scott Watson as the mystery man, the hair evidence was strong enough to counter those withdrawals and ensure that the convictions stood.

"The 'hair comparison' process used by ESR resulted in 95 percent of 'hair comparison' cases where convictions were entered being overturned for the 20-year period to 2015. At any re-trial, the two hair evidence would be sought to be ruled inadmissible as unreliable or too dangerous to be put to a fresh jury," he said.

Mr McDonald said the hairs were not found on the home built sloop, but three months later in the lab when evidentary hairs and sample hairs were examined at the same time, breaching accreditation protocols


  • 0

#30 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,890 posts

Posted 27 November 2017 - 06:29 AM

 

Ian Whishard was originally in the "scott watson" camp,but late last year or early this year come out with a new book. Remember his income from the sell of books,whether fact or non truths.

I have never read any of his books. Are they worth reading? What point/s of the case changed his mind?
     The more I have looked at this case, the more questions there are in my mind. And several key points are strongly in favour of Watson. Such as the travel times, the sightings and the times of sightings during that travel. None of it stacks up. In fact, out of all the points argued in the case, only one, being the Hairs, have actually stacked up in favour of the Police's case. And now that is being disputed as a possible era in handling.

A question to anybody that may be in the know. The Hairs were tested and DNA suggested a very high chance they were Olvia's. That is the only way I have heard the answer to the DNA test put.
So? were the hairs ever tested against the two little girls DNA? Is it possible the DNA of both have never been looked at and that the Hairs could still have a very high chance of being the little girls also. One would hope they were tested. I would be stunned if that was not done. But nothing much surprises me in this case anymore.

 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users