• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scott Watson

I wonder if the hairs turn the case.
Did the cartridge case in Thomas allow him to do a crime where he had no motive no means or opportunity.
Did the infamous Lundy polo shirt explain the supreme court claiming a petrol guzzling car could do 36 mpg?
New Zealand judges are an international disgrace.
 
PhantomWolf said:
It is entirely plausible that Olivia likewise transferred some hairs to a chair at the Lodge and then Watson later sat in the same chair, transferring the hairs to his clothing, and from there transferred them to the blanket on the boat entirely innocently.
Click to expand...

I know exactly how that works. My daughter has long, blonde hair and gets ever-bloody-where. I imagine there are blokes in Australia trying to explain how Barbie hair got on their suits.

It does make for a convenient alibi if I ever I want to get a mistress - just make sure she has long, blonde hair.

Samson said:
New Zealand judges are an international disgrace.
Click to expand...

It's not just NZ.

At least we don't execute the innocent.
 
The Atheist said:
I know exactly how that works. My daughter has long, blonde hair and gets ever-bloody-where. I imagine there are blokes in Australia trying to explain how Barbie hair got on their suits.

It does make for a convenient alibi if I ever I want to get a mistress - just make sure she has long, blonde hair.



It's not just NZ.

At least we don't execute the innocent.
Click to expand...
Neither does USA generally.
Cameron Todd Willingham and Larry Swearingen are both innocent and there was one more under question, but their supreme court allowed the executions to go forward without comment or conflating bare faced lies in support. Our supreme court exercises no such caution.
 
Samson said:
What heads the list after the hairs?
Click to expand...

According to a previous Minister of Justice the case was held together by the hair evidence. The reliable sightings of the ketch with the couple aboard after they were said to be dead rates highly.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Even if the hairs were Olivia's, and were actually on the blanket, it still doesn't mean that she was ever on the boat.

I have told his story before and will likely do again at some stage, but I have a female friend and I have previously found her hair in my bed. The doesn't mean that she was ever in my bed, but that case could be made based on the evidence. In reality I spent time at her house and sat in chairs that she had previously sat in. Her hair had transferred to the chair when she was in it, then to my clothing when I was, and I carried it on my clothing to my bed, transferring it when I sat on it.

It is entirely plausible that Olivia likewise transferred some hairs to a chair at the Lodge and then Watson later sat in the same chair, transferring the hairs to his clothing, and from there transferred them to the blanket on the boat entirely innocently.

The case has too many holes in it, his lawyer also screwed up but not putting on a defense. The Judge made a few gaffs too. As a whole the entire thing was a sham and a shambles.
Click to expand...

The question is now whether they were Olivia's hairs, a lot different to how they apparently got found in the lab which was the argument for 20 years plus.
 
The Atheist said:
Months even, wasn't it?

Regardless of where they were found, the idea was always nonsense, but your average Kiwi hears DNA and thinks it's a holy grail.

Except it's not.
Click to expand...

It was a 1 in 28,000 probability DNA match - hardly conclusive, and that range would include Olivia's sister Amelia, who was also at Furneaux Lodge that night.

In fact, it isn't just average Kiwi's who think that. Remember, it was DNA that helped to convict David Dougherty - DNA that actually excluded him, but thanks to a completely incorrect direction to the jury from the stupid, ignorant Judge, he was wrongfully convicted.
 
smartcooky said:
It was a 1 in 28,000 probability DNA match...
Click to expand...

That's the bit that was never dealt with properly.

If I had the time to again work out how many pairs of hair DNA were at Furneaux, with 1000 people present, I could give you an exact answer, but I seem to recall it was about 30. The defence needed to call a statistician to blow that crap out of the water.

1 in 28,000 is nothing. People hear DNA and think it's 1 in billions.
 
The Atheist said:
Good analysis here of the case, evidence and appeal.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/122287072/scott-watson-says-hell-never-get-justice

More evidence that "Ministry of Justice" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

"Sir Graham Panckhurst and others suggest the camera’s flash has made it look this way, and he actually had considerable stubble."

This is just complete and utter BS. If anything, a camera flash will accentuate the appearance of unshaven stubble because it dramatically increases the contrast of the photo. The areas of the face pointing directly at the camera become shiny because of skin reflection, especially if there is sweat present, but anything at an angle to the flash dircetion, such as hairs, cast small shadows that create little black spots and make the stubble more obvious.

Pankhurst has created this fantasy out of whole cloth.
 
This is such a disgraceful account it doesn't matter whether Watson is guilty, the judiciary have plumbed unfathomable depths with this garbage recrafting the science of photography to make hirsute a bald face.
Rot in **** Pankhurst.
 
smartcooky said:
"Sir Graham Panckhurst and others suggest the camera’s flash has made it look this way, and he actually had considerable stubble."

This is just complete and utter BS.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm pleased they reported that, because it's insane and a deliberate attempt to fit him up. Aside from the point that as a description "unshaven" doesn't mean "didn't shave this morning".

What the hell is wrong with our judges?
 
this simplest explanation of there being no evidence

From Mike White's linked article, "For example, in considering whether there was evidence that Watson cleaned up his yacht after supposedly murdering Ben and Olivia, Panckhurst says, 'the evidence of wiped surfaces free of fingerprints is, save for those of Mr Watson and his sister, sinister.'"

This boggles the mind, even disregarding the next paragraph of the article. If Mr. Watson is innocent, why would there be other fingerprints in his craft?
 
Last edited:
If they'd found the victims' fingerprints, that would be proof he'd done it.

The fact that they didn't find their fingerprints just proves he not only did it, he also tried to cover it up! Surely that's an extra crime that he should be sentenced for!
 
The clever partial clean up!
Where the invisible is perfectly divined by the mortal.
Now where is that concept suggested on this forum?

Incorruptible smartass New Zealand, don't get fooled.
 
Samson said:
The clever partial clean up!
Click to expand...

Like CH, that truly blew me away. It reads as though Watson deliberately removed fingerprints from Ben & Olivia and left the others.

Even Baldrick wouldn't have a plan that cunning.
 
The Atheist said:
Guy Wallace appears to have killed himself: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/30...witness-guy-wallace-dies-in-suspected-suicide

Interesting quote from his dad:

“He seemed to want to please everyone, whoever he was speaking to. Whenever someone in a suit got to him, he would sort of go with them.”
Click to expand...

Actually he resisted all efforts post the trial by police to bang any more nails in the coffin, including after he recanted as did the bar maid when she saw the an actual photo of Scott when he wasn't blinking. Think that was the order. Can't remember her name at the moment. It's all fairly irrelevant now because the cat is out of the bag with the science.
 
The Atheist said:
Wow, this is a revelation: Guy Wallace was due to face several charges of underage sexual assault just before he killed himself. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cr...ess-allegedly-indecently-assaulted-young-girl

That's got to raise the question of whether Wallace ever took them anywhere other than his own boat.
Click to expand...
That doesn't work as the boat started with 5 and 3 were left on including Wallace after Smart and Hope disembarked.
I wonder if he would have taken his life without the anticipation of particular focus on his case.

I would argue posthumous identification was unethical.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom