Scott Watson
-
@crucial said in Scott Watson:
I found this blog/site https://free-scottwatson.com/ which among a rambling repetitive spiel and conspiratorial conclusions had actually done some digging among police records and described some quite interesting facts that I hadn't heard about.
tl;dr version? I got to 'Was Scott Watson just an innocent bystander set-up by a relentless corrupt police force, or does it go much deeper than that?' and closed that tab.
-
@antipodean said in Scott Watson:
@crucial said in Scott Watson:
I found this blog/site https://free-scottwatson.com/ which among a rambling repetitive spiel and conspiratorial conclusions had actually done some digging among police records and described some quite interesting facts that I hadn't heard about.
tl;dr version? I got to 'Was Scott Watson just an innocent bystander set-up by a relentless corrupt police force, or does it go much deeper than that?' and closed that tab.
I did warn you of that.
It’s not that difficult to pick out the factual parts though. They are referenced to police files (although we don’t know what is omitted) -
-
-
@mn5 said in Scott Watson:
So how come Lundy got a retrial and Watson never has ?
I don’t think it’s are-trial as such but an appeal based on “new” evidence and/or disputed evidence from the trial.
The way it works though is that you don’t redo the whole trial but the points raised are looked at to see if they would have likely caused a different outcome.
Watson had a really shit defence team at his trial. So much of what has come out later they didn’t contest or didn’t see and now he has to prove he didn’t do it rather than provide doubt.
Shit thrown sticks as shown earlier in the thread where posters still refer to the scratches on the hatch which the prosecution used to paint an awful picture of some clawing in desperation to escape. As shown later the hatch didn’t even have a catch, the marks were never shown to be fingernails, the marks were made with the hatch open and witnesses had signed after Davids that their kids had done the damage earlier and Watson had hit them up for repairs.
The appeal judge decided that the defence had ample opportunities to make those points so there was no error in the trial. Also that if they had done so it wasn’t a key piece of evidence that would change the outcome.
They don’t seem to take into account that in a circumstantial case all the little things add up which is odd.
The latest appeal is around DNA because that potentially was a cornerstone of the case and knowledge on the subject has changed since the original trial.
I know some Pictonites that swear he is guilty mainly because they knew of him and he was by most accounts a jerk. He fits the bill nicely. Sounds like Wallace may have been similar.
With Watson though, he left the scene, had opportunity to dispose of the bodies etc so the argument is that he was easier to make a case against. He couldn’t prove he didn’t do something.
As I said in the OP it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he knows something about what really happened but also knows that the story he has been prosecuted under is far from the truth. -
The more I read the more I'm convinced that there was something else happening there that night which has muddied things. Possibly it was this stuff that was the police deliberately ignored in order to get a clear line to the missing couple.
There are just too many things discovered by investigators and journos since that are unexplained but if you throw them in the mix don't clear Watson, they just cast doubt around witnesses or make their statements wrong. -
@mn5 said in Scott Watson:
So how come Lundy got a retrial and Watson never has ?
In Lundy's case, the original prosecution case was physically impossible, so eventually the courts didn't have much choice.
David Bain was another where each appeal failed, but eventually the last one succeeded on the totality of the case - basically the Privy Council said that individual appeals may not have had enough, but when all the new material and arguments were combined, they
formed Captain Planetmade it hard to conclude that the original conviction was still safe. Notably, and like Lundy, they still ordered a retrial when quashing the conviction as there was still a case to answer, just that it was not clear what the outcome would be and it should be put in front another jury to decide. -
@godder said in Scott Watson:
@mn5 said in Scott Watson:
So how come Lundy got a retrial and Watson never has ?
In Lundy's case, the original prosecution case was physically impossible, so eventually the courts didn't have much choice.
... which begs the question fo how the hell you got a prosecution.
I have a dark sense of humour, but the Lundy Five Hundy was a quality pisstake road race. Pity it got canned.
-
@nzzp said in Scott Watson:
@godder said in Scott Watson:
@mn5 said in Scott Watson:
So how come Lundy got a retrial and Watson never has ?
In Lundy's case, the original prosecution case was physically impossible, so eventually the courts didn't have much choice.
... which begs the question fo how the hell you got a prosecution.
I have a dark sense of humour, but the Lundy Five Hundy was a quality pisstake road race. Pity it got canned.
The initial Lundy case was based heavily on science which at the time was considered groundbreaking but has since been disproved around the amount of McDonalds (I presume a hefty amount) found in Christine Lundy's stomach on the night of her murder, and basically working out a time of death based on decomposition. When factored with other stuff such as the DNA evidence on his tools, his precarious financial position and her life insurance policy, I guess the jury just accepted that he drove like a madman but wasn't spotted by many/any witnesses to get there.
Once the initial science was rebuffed, the window of opportunity for him to have done the murder widened significantly, which then arguably made the case against him stronger, once the prosecution owned up to the past screw ups and reliance on science which at the time they didn't know was faulty.
On the Scott Watson note, I still agree with most of my sentiments above, although concede the fingernail thing maybe is no longer a pillar of that as someone quite clearly rebutted the point earlier, and I hadn't read that much about it. Still for mine, leaving early on New Years day, doing a timely deep clean of the boat etc is dodgy as shit.
Interestingly enough, we had a lecture at a course I was on, and the senior officer who gave it painted Guy Wallace, the water taxi driver as a really strange rooster, and one of those people who wanted to continually inject themselves into the inquiry in an ongoing basis - particularly around miraculous memories he came up with later in the investigation which completely changed from his statement given in the early days of the inquiry. I see Wallace topped himself earlier this year, and it has since come to light that he was facing indecent assault charges (obviously never tested in court).
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/125158076/sounds-murders-key-witness-allegedly-indecently-assaulted-young-girlNot admitting to a crime isn't completely fatal to getting parole, but it also clearly doesn't help one's cause - David Tamahere never admitted murdering the two Swedish tourists, but was deemed low enough risk to be paroled in due course (incidentally, from my knowledge of that case, this is a far less secure conviction than Watson, albeit Tamahere was a piece of trash who raped an elderly lady prior to the murders). From memory, Watson fell into the "high risk" category a few years back when assessed by a psychiatrist, which would cover a much wider span of risk than whether he admitted it or not.
-
@aucklandwarlord I've been reading through old material and trial summaries to try and understand more of what really happened rather than the tainted views after years of people writing books and theories.
What is absolutely clear as day is that Watson was/is a piece of shit. I have no doubt that one way or the other he would have ended up inside.At the time I seem to remember that evidence being tainted slightly by police actions that amounted to a smear campaign which provided a bit of sympathy in his direction and the possibility of him being a fall guy for a tunnel vision investigation.
I am forming a fairly clear picture that the case itself (like Lundy) was extremely lucky to get a conviction and that key 'evidence' to support the pillars of the case were misrepresented (I not claiming wrongdoing just that they were overstated and it was up to the jury to decide on, which they did). I expect the DNA evidence to be declared of little value.
I'm still getting through stuff but the other clear thing is that Wallace is unreliable. Very unreliable. He changes his story early on then changes his changes later. I don't think he initially realised what a key piece of the case his statements were going to be. To me that throws a lot of doubt on his timings and descriptions.
The parallels with Lundy and Bain are quite strong. Possibly right man, wrong story somehow gets past first jury despite a crap prosecution (partly due to a crap defence) then provides endless debate because case has so many holes.
-
@crucial said in Scott Watson:
The parallels with Lundy and Bain are quite strong. Possibly right man, wrong story somehow gets past first jury despite a crap prosecution (partly due to a crap defence) then provides endless debate because case has so many holes.
For mine, Bain walked because of shoddy police work more than anything (it should be noted I'm generally loath to criticise the police but in this case I genuinely believe a poor job was done - a firearms residue swab of his hands within 6 hours of the murder would have made it an open and shut case). The Crown case didn't materially change between trials. It seemed a genuine case of not being able to polish a turd when it came to the second trial. Almost all evidence supporting Bain was circumstantial at best, but he got a friendly jury as well, which happens.
I feel Lundy got his retrial primarily because of the significant changes in science more so than anything. From following his retrial closely, it didn't seem that the police investigation was particularly poor, they just hung their hat on science they thought they were told by experts that they could rely on, and then the rest of the evidence pointed to the most obvious suspect.
I definitely think Scott Watson is the most likely of these three to be wrongfully imprisoned though, if I had to choose.
-
@aucklandwarlord said in Scott Watson:
@crucial said in Scott Watson:
The parallels with Lundy and Bain are quite strong. Possibly right man, wrong story somehow gets past first jury despite a crap prosecution (partly due to a crap defence) then provides endless debate because case has so many holes.
For mine, Bain walked because of shoddy police work more than anything (it should be noted I'm generally loath to criticise the police but in this case I genuinely believe a poor job was done - a firearms residue swab of his hands within 6 hours of the murder would have made it an open and shut case). The Crown case didn't materially change between trials. It seemed a genuine case of not being able to polish a turd when it came to the second trial. Almost all evidence supporting Bain was circumstantial at best, but he got a friendly jury as well, which happens.
I feel Lundy got his retrial primarily because of the significant changes in science more so than anything. From following his retrial closely, it didn't seem that the police investigation was particularly poor, they just hung their hat on science they thought they were told by experts that they could rely on, and then the rest of the evidence pointed to the most obvious suspect.
I definitely think Scott Watson is the most likely of these three to be wrongfully imprisoned though, if I had to choose.
Same - Lundy didn't really have an alternative option, David Bain's defence hung on the police not being able to disprove Robin Bain as the possible killer, so I can see how the jury decided that was reasonable doubt, while Watson's looks pretty weak compared to the other two. In theory a defendant isn't required to prove someone else may have done it, but if there's a strong circumstantial case, an alternative theory can be the best defence available.
-
@godder said in Scott Watson:
@aucklandwarlord said in Scott Watson:
@crucial said in Scott Watson:
The parallels with Lundy and Bain are quite strong. Possibly right man, wrong story somehow gets past first jury despite a crap prosecution (partly due to a crap defence) then provides endless debate because case has so many holes.
For mine, Bain walked because of shoddy police work more than anything (it should be noted I'm generally loath to criticise the police but in this case I genuinely believe a poor job was done - a firearms residue swab of his hands within 6 hours of the murder would have made it an open and shut case). The Crown case didn't materially change between trials. It seemed a genuine case of not being able to polish a turd when it came to the second trial. Almost all evidence supporting Bain was circumstantial at best, but he got a friendly jury as well, which happens.
I feel Lundy got his retrial primarily because of the significant changes in science more so than anything. From following his retrial closely, it didn't seem that the police investigation was particularly poor, they just hung their hat on science they thought they were told by experts that they could rely on, and then the rest of the evidence pointed to the most obvious suspect.
I definitely think Scott Watson is the most likely of these three to be wrongfully imprisoned though, if I had to choose.
Same - Lundy didn't really have an alternative option, David Bain's defence hung on the police not being able to disprove Robin Bain as the possible killer, so I can see how the jury decided that was reasonable doubt, while Watson's looks pretty weak compared to the other two. In theory a defendant isn't required to prove someone else may have done it, but if there's a strong circumstantial case, an alternative theory can be the best defence available.
Agree. Ewen McDonald was a perfect example of that - the theory behind the random burglar(s) shooting the farmer, as opposed to the deranged brother-in-law doing it because he wanted the family farm worked in that instance. I can see how the jury got to where they did in that case, even though I think they probably got it wrong, given McDonald's past behaviour toward Guy and his family.
-
In between wind down work I have managed to trawl through most of what I can find on the internet from during the original trial and some of the arguments since in the vain hope that I can gather enough info to form a clear opinion. This is probably a TLDR for most but I wanted to write down my thoughts.
The character
Watson did have his character presented in a negative way that possibly overstated aspects to draw a certain picture (as all prosecutions will). However, I can't find anything that remotely negates that he was a bit of an arse. I think it is quite fair to say he wasn't the most likeable person and he definitely had some bad traits. Was a creep around women and seemed to want to paint himself as some kind of bad boy by using gang language he had picked up. The flip side is that there was no evidence of violence or previous dodgy action just talk. He thought himself a bit clever and was mouthy, even telling people he was smart enough to get away with murder.
Was he someone that could have done it? More like you couldn't say that he wasn't.One important piece that is often overlooked is that the court heard hours of phone tap evidence between him and an ex. The public has never heard this or seen a transcript but journalists that were at the court did. One wrote that the conversations were very damning not by anything he said but by what he didn't and by the way he talked about the subject. He never once said that he didn't kill them and his attitude was more 'they've got nothing on me'.
The prosecution case
A mess. They presented so much contradictory evidence that they tangled themselves in knots and had to change their whole theory at the last minute with no evidence to support it. There were a couple of things that saved them with the jury though. The DNA evidence and the lack of an alternative. In the juries minds it would have been too coincidental that this creep in front of them had never said 'I didn't kill them' and possibly had opportunity to both do it and dispose of the bodies added to some hairs on his boat.
Most of the other so called evidence that gets picked though (sometimes quite rightly) can be stripped away and those things remain. Much of the evidence was contradictory or twisted and was a clear tactic of throwing lots of mud to create an impression of 'weight of evidence'. It's no wonder that conspiracy theorists have had a field day as so much can be disproved or heavily debated.
The timings and 'eye-witness' evidence is really unreliable. Trying to pick out solid fact from muddled memories is really difficult and so many red herrings are created. There are no definitive sightings of Watson and the missing pair together and no strong evidence that they were offloaded at his boat. There is some very rough joining of possibles that he was the person on Wallace's boat with them but also to believe that you also have to ignore what are probably the clearest recollections and timings from all of the identification and movement evidence (The worker that dropped him off at the Blade alone in conjunction with two people from boats he was rafted to that confirm the timing). The theory off him then going back to shore has no supporting evidence at all.The Defence
Consists almost entirely of arguing against the mass of unreliable prosecution evidence and trying to put up a mystery ketch scenario which isn't supported strongly.
The outcome
I can fully understand how the jury concluded guilt. If you strip away all of the disputed stuff (mystery man, mystery ketch, identification etc) to remove reasonable doubt you are left with the basic questions of motive, means and opportunity added to 'is this person 'the type'?
Motive - he stated to people he was going there to pick up women, he spent the night unsuccessfully trying. Not that unusual in male behaviour and doesn't make him a rapist/murderer but there were also corroborated signs of him getting frustrated as the night went on and he hung around late as if waiting for opportunity.
Means - he was on a boat that could 'isolate' itself very easily
Opportunity - If the couple ended up on his boat he had a presented opportunity to isolate them. Who knows what then happened.
Was he the type? Yeah. Not a great character as shown by behaviours both before and after for long periods of time.Then you have the lack of a viable alternative. I'm not saying that there wasn't another explanation but no one came up with any other well evidenced explanation. The police could show a lot of effort into the ketch theory including interpol, satellite picture analysis, etc etc with no results. The defence couldn't show anything strong to indicate that the police failed or didn't do their job.
Prosecution case was weak but the DNA evidence was the real nail.
Since the trial
I fully expect the DNA evidence to be debunked or have a lot of doubt placed on it. Not to the level of inadmissibility but because it is weaker and the only solid incriminating evidence presented at the trial there may be a desire to see if a re-trial finds that the prosecution case is still strong enough to convict.
On the other hand over all of this time no one has 'solved' what happened if it wasn't Watson. There is plenty of doubt thrown on parts of the prosecution case but if you remove all of that stuff and place doubt on the DNA what are you left with? That person(s) unknown had motive, means and opportunity to commit the crime but not one lead, hint or leak has since emergedMy opinion
The police work was quite single focused too early, that some of the evidence (witness identification) was manipulated, stretched or omitted but that this is noise that be removed. I would rather that they were told to make a better case and remove some of the bullshit from the start. They were under pressure to get a result and career climbing rule benders were in charge.
Time however has also been their friend. That no alternative has emerged over all of this time is quite a strong point.Then there is one thing that although circumstantial bugs me. The fact that clearest alibi Watson could have had would have been if he didn't disappear early in the morning (at best four hours sleep after a night on the piss). I can see that he may possibly have woken and couldn't be arsed going back to sleep but so much of his other documented behaviour around people was him trying to impress them to the point of beig a piston wristed gibbon about it. He may have been a loner in some aspects but around others he was a try hard. The situation doesn't really add up.
What does add up though is him taking an opportunity to sail off and be in control over these two kids that hopped on his boat. What happened after that is anybodies guess but I suspect that it didn't go down they way everyone thinks which has increased his arrogance about the 'truth'.All in all a clusterfuck.
