Scott Watson

[The Atheist]

We should use the Tamihere thread to discuss the two brothers' crime wave.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you raise the subject of David Tamihere?

Accordingly, don't be telling me where and what to discuss.

You really need a lesson in forum etiquette. I get the impression you're an earnest young man. If so, bully for you, but please try to be a little more decorous when discussing a subject.

Thanks.

Three unsolved murders within 10 miles and 10 years the crooked or dopey cops stopped investigating, and the locals swallowed both hoaxes hook line and sinker....
Auckland good Palmy bad.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

The numbers are so minute as to be irrelevant. There are 1.4 million people live up here, and everywhere has the odd unsolved murder. Do you worry they're going to come and get you?

Regardless of the stupidity and bias of police - and I am no supporter of any police force - they catch the majority of murderers and lock them away, because the murderers are stupid.

If you want to worry about unsolved murders, try looking into the central North Island murders of Olive Walker, Mona Blades, Kirsa Jensen and maybe another one or two. Even Jeanette Beard? The cops never stated why they didn't think a serial killer was on the loose. I don't think Olive Walker was the same as the others, but there are some similarities in the other cases and the timing and area is good.

I used to live in that area and my old man was actually questioned by the cops when he advised them he'd driven the road Mona Blades disappeared from on the day she went missing.

Pretty well the entire country was in on that one, and they got nada.

Yes, the cops fabricate evidence; yes, they are dishonest, but if you have a better option, bring it on.

As cullennz said a while back, the only murder I'd really like to see solved is the Kahui one.

And it never will be.

 

[Samson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you raise the subject of David Tamihere?

Accordingly, don't be telling me where and what to discuss.

You really need a lesson in forum etiquette. I get the impression you're an earnest young man. If so, bully for you, but please try to be a little more decorous when discussing a subject.

Thanks.



What on earth is that supposed to mean?

The numbers are so minute as to be irrelevant. There are 1.4 million people live up here, and everywhere has the odd unsolved murder. Do you worry they're going to come and get you?

Regardless of the stupidity and bias of police - and I am no supporter of any police force - they catch the majority of murderers and lock them away, because the murderers are stupid.

If you want to worry about unsolved murders, try looking into the central North Island murders of Olive Walker, Mona Blades, Kirsa Jensen and maybe another one or two. Even Jeanette Beard? The cops never stated why they didn't think a serial killer was on the loose. I don't think Olive Walker was the same as the others, but there are some similarities in the other cases and the timing and area is good.

I used to live in that area and my old man was actually questioned by the cops when he advised them he'd driven the road Mona Blades disappeared from on the day she went missing.

Pretty well the entire country was in on that one, and they got nada.

Yes, the cops fabricate evidence; yes, they are dishonest, but if you have a better option, bring it on.

As cullennz said a while back, the only murder I'd really like to see solved is the Kahui one.

And it never will be.

Your forum etiquette is simply outstanding. There is a Tamihere thread that seems an ideal place to discuss Tamihere bros before forum management takes over.
Since we discussed your rugby career with Tony de Malmanche, who is 50, that is a good guide to your age, as may be the fact I grew up following the Thomas case a guide to mine.
The kahui twins were beaten to death by a family of maori, but the NZ police are turning a blind eye.
For Chrissakes, grow up.

 

[The Atheist]

Your forum etiquette is simply outstanding. There is a Tamihere thread that seems an ideal place to discuss Tamihere bros before forum management takes over.

The why did you raise the subject in this thread?

You do realise it was you who mentioned David Tamihere? I raised John in the context of talkback radio, which was 100% relevant to the thread because you seemed to think it had some relevance to the real world.

It does not.

As for the growing up nonsense, the irony is deep. I had been allowing you some leeway on the logical fallacies and hyperbole until it became just too bad to ignore. I will cease that immediately.

I repeat something I've said before: please leave the defence of Lundy, Watson, et al, to people who know how to present facts. Chris Halkides has done a remarkable of job of doing so and all you do is muddy the waters with posts containing dishonesty, false information and red herrings.

You're not a cop, are you?

If you want to get back to the subject of Scott Watson, be my guest.

 

[Samson]

The why did you raise the subject in this thread?

You do realise it was you who mentioned David Tamihere? I raised John in the context of talkback radio, which was 100% relevant to the thread because you seemed to think it had some relevance to the real world.

It does not.

As for the growing up nonsense, the irony is deep. I had been allowing you some leeway on the logical fallacies and hyperbole until it became just too bad to ignore. I will cease that immediately.

I repeat something I've said before: please leave the defence of Lundy, Watson, et al, to people who know how to present facts. Chris Halkides has done a remarkable of job of doing so and all you do is muddy the waters with posts containing dishonesty, false information and red herrings.

You're not a cop, are you?

If you want to get back to the subject of Scott Watson, be my guest.

I thought it was reasonable to leave the defence of Mark Lundy to a lot of people starting with the police who are paid to keep him safe, but this leaving seems to not work so well for him. You are right that no one cares, and Amy Adams cares less than most in leaving her system to defend him.
Moving on to Watson, I thought it was reasonable to leave the defence of Scott Watson to a lot of people starting with the police who are paid to keep him safe, but this leaving seems to not work so well for him. You are right that no one cares, and Amy Adams cares less than most in leaving her system to defend him.
Why would you think I'm a cop? We are discussing these cases as reasonable people, and they are employed in a range of activities.

Now: could you be specific by naming one example of dishonesty, one of false information, and one red herring I have posted on this thread? More than one of each is fine.

On the subject of talk back radio, were you aware that a man had his video of ketches kept by the police? If it was not returned does that seem reasonable on their part? Does this have nothing to do with the real world? Would you be interested in his video? etc.

 

[The Atheist]

I thought it was reasonable to leave the defence of Mark Lundy to a lot of people starting with the police who are paid to keep him safe,....

Moving on to Watson, I thought it was reasonable to leave the defence of Scott Watson to a lot of people starting with the police who are paid to keep him safe....

Now I see your simple mistake. Leaving the defence to the police is a lot like leaving the lion to watch the lambs.

There's a connection between this thread and one of RandFan's. I said to him that if you want a corruption-free police department, you'd better figure out a completely new system of justice, because when all police see is bad guys, everyone soon looks like a bad guy.

The problem is with society.

We get the police we deserve.

Why would you think I'm a cop?

I was utterly certain you weren't and was being facetious.

Now: could you be specific by naming one example of dishonesty, one of false information, and one red herring I have posted on this thread? More than one of each is fine.

Nope.

I've already done that for you in the thread, so I'm not doing it twice.

Somewhere in the back pages you will find a post of mine where I pointed out examples of fallacies and misinformation you had already posted, so check back and find that.

Along with that, I found these in seconds, just scanning the current page. Each one is an example of things that are not evidence, but are red herrings, hyperbole or logical fallacy.

How safe does that make the public?
Sean Plunkett is a blowhard who knows everything
This case is getting huge media traction in New Zealand right now
I was unaware of the perilous position innocent citizens are in

If you want me to explain which is which and why, please just ask.

On the subject of talk back radio, were you aware that a man had his video of ketches kept by the police? If it was not returned does that seem reasonable on their part? Does this have nothing to do with the real world? Would you be interested in his video? etc.

This is what really grinds my gears about your continual use of shocking logic and hyperbole - if that is true, then it would indeed be a valuable piece of information, but you hide it in amongst a load of nonsense.

However, right now, it's just another of your unsupported allegations.

Please provide further details.

 

[Samson]

Now I see your simple mistake. Leaving the defence to the police is a lot like leaving the lion to watch the lambs.

There's a connection between this thread and one of RandFan's. I said to him that if you want a corruption-free police department, you'd better figure out a completely new system of justice, because when all police see is bad guys, everyone soon looks like a bad guy.

The problem is with society.

We get the police we deserve.



I was utterly certain you weren't and was being facetious.



Nope.

I've already done that for you in the thread, so I'm not doing it twice.

Somewhere in the back pages you will find a post of mine where I pointed out examples of fallacies and misinformation you had already posted, so check back and find that.

Along with that, I found these in seconds, just scanning the current page. Each one is an example of things that are not evidence, but are red herrings, hyperbole or logical fallacy.

How safe does that make the public?
Sean Plunkett is a blowhard who knows everything
This case is getting huge media traction in New Zealand right now
I was unaware of the perilous position innocent citizens are in

If you want me to explain which is which and why, please just ask.



This is what really grinds my gears about your continual use of shocking logic and hyperbole - if that is true, then it would indeed be a valuable piece of information, but you hide it in amongst a load of nonsense.

However, right now, it's just another of your unsupported allegations.

Please provide further details.

He rang Duncan Garner, then had another go with the same story to Plunkett

This I wrote

"I have heard the same caller twice in two days giving testimony that he had a brand new video camera, and videoed everything, including Scott Watson's boat, and two ketches, one of which matched the one described by Guy Wallace leaving the inlet at 6 am on new years day. He spent 3 and a half hours being grilled by the police. They kept his film, of which he had not made a copy, and said they would return it. He asked three times for it, they fobbed him off and he never saw it again."

To be honest you are a bid of a wild man on the ISF forum, but I am more live and let live without criticising the way you criticise me, which is fine anyway. We should take the bits that make sense, and ignore the rest.

Since you are the only kiwi I've known to have heard of Onewhero, I find it hard to hold a grudge.

 

[The Atheist]

"I have heard the same caller twice in two days giving testimony that he had a brand new video camera, and videoed everything, including Scott Watson's boat, and two ketches, one of which matched the one described by Guy Wallace leaving the inlet at 6 am on new years day. He spent 3 and a half hours being grilled by the police. They kept his film, of which he had not made a copy, and said they would return it. He asked three times for it, they fobbed him off and he never saw it again."

Or, to put it correctly, an unsubstantiated allegation made on talkback radio.

I'd put the value of the information on firm par with the jailbird who gave evidence at the Lundy trial, yet you seem to have swallowed this one hook, line and sinker.

Don't you find it odd that this bloke had never brought his alleged tape up in the past 20 years?

 

[Samson]

Or, to put it correctly, an unsubstantiated allegation made on talkback radio.

I'd put the value of the information on firm par with the jailbird who gave evidence at the Lundy trial, yet you seem to have swallowed this one hook, line and sinker.

Don't you find it odd that this bloke had never brought his alleged tape up in the past 20 years?

No not at all. I am trying to find whether the police claim there was no ketch in the inlet that night, because if that is their claim it is open and shut. This guy was Waiting to be Heard. They stole his video.

 

[The Atheist]

And it never occurred to him to say this at the time of Watson's arrest or trial.

Colour me sceptical.

 

[Samson]

And it never occurred to him to say this at the time of Watson's arrest or trial.

Colour me sceptical.

Let us assume he tells truth, does it surprise you after your experince from "both sides" that they "lost" this crucial evidence?

There is nothing surprising because we
1. Know he was dropped on a ketch.
2. The police say the ketch does not exist.
3. A man videos two ketches on new years eve, and one sailing out of the inlet at 6am.
4. He spends 3 hours showing the police.
5. They refuse to return the video and convict Watson of a murder because they suspect him of a rape.

Which of that sequence do you challenge?

 

[The Atheist]

Let us assume ...

I have a much better idea: let's not.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the rule about assumptions. Google "assumption is the mother of ...": and get back to me.

 

[Samson]

I have a much better idea: let's not.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the rule about assumptions. Google "assumption is the mother of ...": and get back to me.

I think you've chucked the towel in like the polis. Sad.

 

[The Atheist]

What is that I was saying about logical fallacies?

How is refusing to assume something "throwing in the towel"?

You were the biggest detractor of people assuming things about Lundy in that thread, yet you embrace assumptions yourself to the point of denigrating people who won't play the assumption game with you.

That appears to be highly hypocritical.

 

[Samson]

What is that I was saying about logical fallacies?

How is refusing to assume something "throwing in the towel"?

You were the biggest detractor of people assuming things about Lundy in that thread, yet you embrace assumptions yourself to the point of denigrating people who won't play the assumption game with you.

That appears to be highly hypocritical.

If we think of the case as devolving to a standard model, the lunatic fringe is in denial, including Amy Adams and Rob Pope, but the ordinary citizens that include names like Dr Brian Edwards, Rodney Hide, Chris Gallavin, Mike White and so on embrace the two mystery principle.
1. What happened to Ben Smart and Olivia Hope?
2. Why did the police arrest a man who had a rock solid alibi and manage to keep him incommunicado for 17 years?

I know Charlie Wilkes among others is intrigued, and I cite him because he is obviously independent.

 

[The Atheist]

2. Why did the police arrest a man who had a rock solid alibi ...

The scuttlebutt I heard - via a cop in Wellington - was that they had a hard-on for him because they believed he was responsible for another crime they couldn't pin on him, which sounds quite plausible.

...and manage to keep him incommunicado for 17 years?

Which raises an interesting point. If he was so keen to talk to someone outside, maybe he would have been better served communicating instead of sending dick pics.

 

[Elagabalus]

Sean Plunkett just read an email saying the ketch was The Lone Bird, scuttled in Gisborne and sunk as an artificial reef in 2003 off Young Nick's Head. The owner is now serving a life sentence in Australia. The ketch was involved in drug smuggling...

In my exhaustive research about this case I recall someone commenting (either on Kiwiblog or perhaps the comments section of N&S) that it was definitely not The Lone Bird as it was too large to be the ketch in question. IIRC, I believe Scott Watson's dad had gone out to take a look at it or showed pictures of it to his son.


If you watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJv2vmH8Nd8

Keith Hunter shows the picture that the police used on the day or day after to identify all the boats in the bay. Claiming that the picture proves there was no ketch. The only problem is that the mystery ketch isn't in that picture because it is anchored just out of frame of the picture according to Guy Wallace.

The kiwiblog link:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/did_paul_watson_do_it.html

 

[Samson]

In my exhaustive research about this case I recall someone commenting (either on Kiwiblog or perhaps the comments section of N&S) that it was definitely not The Lone Bird as it was too large to be the ketch in question. IIRC, I believe Scott Watson's dad had gone out to take a look at it or showed pictures of it to his son.


If you watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJv2vmH8Nd8

Keith Hunter shows the picture that the police used on the day or day after to identify all the boats in the bay. Claiming that the picture proves there was no ketch. The only problem is that the mystery ketch isn't in that picture because it is anchored just out of frame of the picture according to Guy Wallace.

This lonebird idea was refuted in a further email by someone else, so no argument there. Briefly what are the conclusions of your extensive research?

I just heard the editor of the sunday star times, Jonathan Milne tell Mark Sainsbury he supported corrections in denying access to an interview, as he had been found guilty in repeated court processes.
And yet no one even attempts to explain why he was arrested.

 

[Elagabalus]

This lonebird idea was refuted in a further email by someone else, so no argument there. Briefly what are the conclusions of your extensive research?

I just heard the editor of the sunday star times, Jonathan Milne tell Mark Sainsbury he supported corrections in denying access to an interview, as he had been found guilty in repeated court processes.
And yet no one even attempts to explain why he was arrested.

The exhaustive research was suppose to be a joke (I knew I should have put a smiley next to it). It does seem that the police decided Scott Watson was the perp and decided not to investigate anyone else rather quickly-too quickly IMO.

I find it odd that NZ is not allowing Mike White access to Scott Watson in prison.

 

[Samson]

The exhaustive research was suppose to be a joke (I knew I should have put a smiley next to it). It does seem that the police decided Scott Watson was the perp and decided not to investigate anyone else rather quickly-too quickly IMO.

I find it odd that NZ is not allowing Mike White access to Scott Watson in prison.

I watched the video, which represents as exhaustive research as necessary to explain the case. I recommend it, not much more required to explain this execrable miscarriage. Whether the ketch seen later is the same one is irrelevant, it is crystal clear they were dropped on a ketch and Watson was elsewhere, and had nothing to do with it. The editors of all the main news papers are complicit, the way they kowtow to authority in this case, the Lundy case, the Scott Guy and Teina Pora cases before.
The new commission will no doubt make a finding that will require further action.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

an explanation is in order

Lawyer for Corrections, Paul Rishworth, told the court the CEO was directed by the regulations to consider the interests of the victims.

"He balanced those interests, he balanced freedom of expression, miscarriage of justice concerns, and made a decision that was his to make," he said.

"He made the decision that the law requires of him." link

This passage is in reference to the refusal to allow a reporter (Mike White) access to Mr. Watson. Before giving my opinion of this decision (and probably breaking the MA in the process), I would like for someone to explain just what the interests of the victims are and are not, according to the law. I would also like to add parenthetically that the victims do have an interest in correcting a wrongful conviction, if that is what has happened here.