Scott Watson



  • The old thread seems to be lost but for those that have followed this closely it was interesting to read that Gerald Hope finally had his sit down meeting with Scott Watson and came away unconvinced of his innocence.
    I think Hope has been the most level headed human being I can think of through this whole ordeal of his daughter being missing presumed murdered and he seems to have gone into this meeting open minded.
    Basically he say there were questions he raised about some of the circumstantial or unexplained evidence that Watson (in his view) then became very quiet or distant about as if he didn't have an answer for. Hope was judging his reactions to these questions probably more than the answers themselves.
    Watson's father has now spoken up in defence of the situation claiming that Scott is very unaware of detail regarding some of the questions that have been raised as he hasn't had anywhere near the same access to theories and information that someone on that outside does. Probably a fair call and I have no idea what Watson has been allowed to read or see since being convicted.
    I do think that Hope has been such a reasonable man over such a long period that he genuinely would speak out if he though Watson satisfactorily had answers. I have no reason to doubt his conclusion.
    I still come back to the arguments I made in the past thread though that I really do think the prosecution story is so far off beam that Watson believes he is hard done by.
    I do think Watson was involved somehow though and has something to hide. He just possibly knows that he didn't actually murder Ben and Olivia so thinks he has been wrongfully convicted. He probably thought the police case was such a fairytale that he would get off (I seem to recall reading that was the view of his lawyers) but is also unable to tell the truth without admitting being an accessory and/or seriously being in danger from those that did it.
    Both the prosecution and defence stories have massive holes in them which make me think the truth lies somewhere in between (or off to the side).
    Same goes with Mark Lundy, he probably truly believes he has been wrongfully convicted because he knows he didn't actually do the deed. But he also can't explain away the holes in his alibi without implicating himself.



  • I've seen a few case studies on this at various courses I went on, and it leaves me with little doubt he did it. Obviously they're fairly one sided case studies, given who was running the courses haha.

    For me, the salient points are:

    • He and his sister cleaning the boat from top to bottom the day after they were reported missing
    • The bits of squab and material having been cut from inside the boat.
    • Her hair being found inside the boat (always clutching at straws when your defence is that it was planted or got there by mistake)
    • probably fingernail scratches inside the hatch
    • the water taxi operators original statement putting him with them.
    • Watson's behaviour on the night
    • Watson's leaving super early the followin morning (who does that after a night on the piss?)
    • Recent psychologist report suggesting he poses threats to the community because of motivations of revenge and sexual rejection etc. Interesting for a guy who is innocent

    The water taxi driver is interesting in that he gives a comprehensive statement pointing the finger at Watson when it is fresh in his memory but has since come out saying it wasn't. Human memory and therefore witness testimony is very unreliable, so the fact he had thought about it since and now isn't sure isn't really a game changer for me.

    The fact that Gerald Hope believes his answers were rehearsed, having previously suggested he might be innocent is quite big for me. However Watson's supporters have brushed it off as "comments made in the heat of the moment by Hope."

    I'm pretty sure Hope would have thought it through long and hard. It's his kid who was killed after all.



  • I don't disagree with you AW re his behaviour but many of the evidential points you bring up are the very keys that have been disproven. The fingernails thing is rubbish. The hair is a mitochondrial match that could be from 1000s (this was early days of DNA and juries were bamboozled by it). The boat driver only said it was Watson when the photo he was shown was of the suspect and not of Watson.
    I'm not saying he is completely innocent, I'm just saying this was one of those things where cops close to the situation are pretty sure they have the right guy but their case seems to have been 'proven' mainly because of incompetent defence followed by the intricacies of the legal system the make it very difficult to reverse.
    I would be fairly certain that the same case brought fresh to court with everyone knowing what is now known would not get proven and possibly for good reason.
    In my mind whatever went down was not the story put forward by the prosecution and the sad thing is that the families look like they will simply never know what happened.



  • True, but then plenty of cases are built on circumstantial evidence. Prisons are full of people who claim they are innocent remember.

    I dont disagree that the police investigation was average at best, as it was with the Bain case. That doesn't mean it was a stitch up job and a jury found him guilty. But his behaviour for me is extremely suspicious given two people had just been reported missing. I'm pretty sure the guy has significant previous history, was acting like a sex pest on the night (not unusual on new years however), left the scene straight away and cleaned his boat from top to bottom, with patches missing from the mattresses for no good reason. That's really hard to get past for me in light of the fact two people are dead.

    A homicide investigation will always be tough without bodies being found, but its been through appeal after appeal and I'm still pretty happy that he is where he is. Particularly in light of a parole board psychologist (who normally make shocking decisions) saying that hes a high risk to the community.

    It's worth noting that I'm fairly biased though.



  • I'm not saying he is completely innocent, I'm just saying this was one of those things where cops close to the situation are pretty sure they have the right guy but their case seems to have been 'proven' mainly because of incompetent defence followed by the intricacies of the legal system the make it very difficult to reverse.

    I tend to disagree that it's difficult to reverse. The appeal system is run by highly respected judges who would be well aware of what shit investigations look like. Bain and Lundy both got retrials on the back of such allegations. I trust those judges over the people who comment on the comments part of the Herald and stuff.co.nz Facebook pages any day.

    I generally dont bother reading the Scott Watson stories anymore, but it would seem to me that he doesn't have a heap of law experts backing his claims of innocence like Pora, Bain etc did? I could be wrong, because as I've not read a lot on it, of course.



  • I think the cries are more for wrongful conviction (which gets confused with innocence)

    As I'm sure you are aware, appeals are only based on overturning certain points through permitted new evidence, they aren't retrials.
    There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence toward not guilty in this case. Eg how do you murder two young people in the very confined space of a small metal hulled boat rafted to other boats in the dead quiet of night without a single person hearing anything? If you start the engines to move off and murder them elsewhere how did you not wake them when the racket would be huge?
    The whole ketch thing is still not properly explained with so many witness sightings (including ones with the victims descriptions) yet the police insist it didn't even exist.
    I just think that although he is a creep and fits the bill, taking everything into account I wouldn't convict him beyond reasonable doubt. That 'everything ' has never been placed together in front of a jury.



  • Crucial, what's your explanation for cleaning the boat and leaving so early?



  • @Crucial said in Scott Watson:

    I think the cries are more for wrongful conviction (which gets confused with innocence)

    As I'm sure you are aware, appeals are only based on overturning certain points through permitted new evidence, they aren't retrials.
    There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence toward not guilty in this case. Eg how do you murder two young people in the very confined space of a small metal hulled boat rafted to other boats in the dead quiet of night without a single person hearing anything?

    I've worked on cases where people have killed other people in a house where others are in the room next door and no one has heard. Add intoxication into that, and the fact one of them was a female and I wouldn't think it adds anything to a defence.

    You're right, it is about overturning points of evidence, which if substantial enough would order a retrial. For example, the stomach content stuff in the Lundy trial. Presumably all these things have been put before the highest courts and they have decided that they're not significant enough points of evidence to quash the rest of the conviction.

    I'd be quite happy to see a retrial to be honest. It would shut people up one way or another so I don't have to see the guy's mug on the front page of the paper every other day. It would also give it a chance for the evidence to be aired out in court again, rather than just the lopsided arguments from either side.

    I just re-read the article on the NZ Herald about Watson and Hope's prison meeting, which apparently Scott Watson had been all for. ()

    Interesting that Hope felt Watson was being elusive about his movements on the 1st of January and a number of other points he was completely silent on. Really? When Watson wanted the meeting as much as Hope did. Just seems mighty fishy to me. It smacks of a guy who can have a public campaign behind him but when he is actually asked to prove it wasn't him, he can't do it.

    In the end, he either killed them or he didn't. If he didn't kill them, I'm unsure why he would be elusive about it to Hope. If he got Hope in behind him saying he thought he was innocent, that would provide massive momentum to his case.

    Either way, I'm definitely not as well read on this case as I am on the Bain case, so I'm probably the wrong person to be arguing the intricacies of it. My main point is, the guy seems dodgy as hell, and eluding giving the truth. If it were me sitting in there innocent, I'd be screaming to anyone who would listen, not avoiding questions.


Log in to reply