Rae on Watson – will kill again

May 10th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Press reports:

There are four murderers Detective Senior Sergeant John Rae has locked up who he believes are evil enough to kill again.

is one of them.

“I believe he’s a psychopath. He could kill again, easily.”

Rae was second in charge of the homicide investigation dubbed Operation Tam – launched after Ben Smart, 21, and Olivia Hope, 17, both from Blenheim, disappeared from Endeavour Inlet in the Marlborough Sounds on New Year’s Day 1998. The pair were never seen again.

Watson was found guilty of the double murder and jailed for a minimum of 17 years.

He is scheduled to appear before the Parole Board for the first time next year.

Speaking publicly about the case for the first time, Rae told The Press this week that Watson should never be released from prison.

“He [Watson] has got no social conscience at all and if he doesn’t get his own way he could kill someone.

I tend to agree.

Worth remembering he had 48 previous convictions before the double murder.

Tags:

256 Responses to “Rae on Watson – will kill again”

  1. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    Is Rae an expert psychologist? If not then his opinion is irrelevant.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    I was working in Picton around the time he was arrested. All the locals seemed to have the same opinion of Watson and commonly said if he wasn’t guilty of this he was definitely guilty of a bunch of other things.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    “I was working in Picton around the time he was arrested. All the locals seemed to have the same opinion of Watson and commonly said if he wasn’t guilty of this he was definitely guilty of a bunch of other things.”

    If he was definitely guilty of a bunch of other things does that justify him being in jail for a double murder if he is innocent?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    I wonder Rae never, ever, attempt to find the actual boat that Olivia and Ben boarded ? If he had, he might have found the actual murderer, who is in the meantime, out there fee to kill again. Hint, it was a ketch, not a sloop, and despite Rae’s denial there are several witness that the police refuse to interview who saw it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    Yeah Watson gave me the creeps. If possible id like to be reminded of what those other convictions were.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    No, Rae is not a psychologist, he is someone who has professional and personal integrity to lose if he is wrong – therefore no surprises he is going to such trouble to convince everyone how ‘right’ he is.

    Let’s not forget, he supports a force that thinks Hutton was a man of great integrity – presumably an accolade earned when he planted evidence to ensure a conviction.

    @ Southern Raider (1,396 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 11:16 am

    So it doesn’t matter if he was guilty of murder or not, the fact he had committed other offences (in their opinion) meant he deserved to be convicted? Wow, southerners are harsh!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    Judith
    Im a northerner and im glad, since no one else was found, that hes being off the streets. Hes bad, give him some drink and i suspect he would be an even nastier man who does delibeate crimes on others as evident by his string of convictions

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. lilman (968 comments) says:

    UGLY are you a resident physiologist?,if not then your opinion is irreverent

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Is Rae an expert psychologist? If not then his opinion is irrelevant.

    Nonsense. He deals with psychopaths every day/week. He is well versed to offer an opinion on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. SGA (1,144 comments) says:

    martinh at 11:42 am

    If possible id like to be reminded of what those other convictions were.

    A quick google search wasn’t much more informative sorry –

    http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/watson-scott.htm
    Watson had 48 prior convictions, including some for theft and assault, and was subsequently convicted for one more assault while in prison.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=13767
    Though his criminal record is devoid of serious offences, Watson was jailed for repeat assaults and thefts. He had 48 previous convictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tvb (4,519 comments) says:

    I think Rae is covering his tracks in what is a very controversial conviction. But there is that forensic evidence which if the defence cannot convince a jury it is suspect then what is the jury supposed to conclude. Watson was a petty criminal to be sure mainly property offending I believe. I do not think he had anything like a conviction that suggests he is a psychopath any more than your average crime is one.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Joseph Thompson’s conviction history was devoid of serious offences too until he was convicted of 129 sexual offences including countless Rapes.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Viking2 (11,579 comments) says:

    Only 48. A mere learner when put alongside the 70 I saw reported the other day.
    hopefully he will disappear into the never land like his lanky boss.
    there was something rotten about them fella’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    How did the two hairs from Olivia Hope get on the blanket.

    Watson’s team ran the only plausible defence they could at trial – the cops were corrupt/and or incompetent.

    And the jury decided beyond reasonable doubt that was not plausible in the circumstances. And NOTHING else has materialised since to throw that key material evidence into doubt.

    Everything else – sloops and ketches, cleaning the bota, the cops setting out to give watson negative publicity before the trial – is a distraction.

    Other than the highly doubtful possibility there was accidental transference of the hairs in the crowd that night at Ferneaux Lodge (only Hope’s hairs?! And thn she goes then she goes missing?! That’s almost as bad a set of coincidences as accumulated against David Bain!), Watson is out of cards to play.

    Common sense say he is guilty.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. peterwn (3,314 comments) says:

    Nor was the judge an expert psychologist but his view at sentencing was that he was unlikely to be released ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    Some expert psychologist was responsible for the jailing of Peter Ellis.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    SGA
    Thanks for looking that up, i assume that some of those he assaulted wouldnt call them not serious

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    Nor was the judge an expert psychologist but his view at sentencing was that he was unlikely to be released ever.

    Neither were the jury – but instead, as with every trial it was their sworn duty to sift through the evidence presented, some from experts in their field, and deliver a verdict.

    There: Problem sorted.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    “Common sense say he is guilty”

    What a load of rubbish, there is no convincing evidence in this case at all and no evidence of Watsons involvement, Watson was stitched up by Pope because he needed to convict someone of the crime and had no other suspects.
    His previous convictions are irrelevant, Rae is just toeing the police line that he ‘must’ be guilty because the jury said so and they ‘never’ convict the wrong man, therefore he is ‘evil’. Read Keith Hunters Trial by Trickery where he shows that there is no case against Watson at all, re the hairs, how come they were not found in the initial search and then mysteriously show up after another search? coincidence again!
    Also after reading Kristy McDonalds report from the RPOM application, this is academic rubbish much like Robert Fishers academic essay on Binnie.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    What a load of rubbish, there is no convincing evidence in this case at all…

    As per my previous post

    …Olivia Hope’s hairs on the blanket found in Scott Watson’s boat.

    THAT is what convicted him.

    His previous convictions are irrelevant

    Indeed. Which is why they were never presented to the jury…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    For some reason I thought rather than being Hope’s hairs they were from the same genetic pool. However, after a thorough ‘investigation’ by Kirsty McDonald who was not able to reconcile the evidence of the bar manager or water taxi driver’s identification to line up with the Crown case, or able to ‘locate’ the prisoner who had recanted a ‘fantastic’ confession joyfully given to him as a stranger by Watson, Ms McDonald was able to find him guilty anyway without affording him the slightest doubt individually or collectively as to the hairs, the identifications, or the paid for ‘confession.’ That’s how the Royal Prerogative works in NZ these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    Was real bad timing on Watson’s behalf that he decided to ‘refurbish’ his yacht the next day! (What a’bad look’)
    Also bloody unfortunate coincidence that some of the missing girl’s hair turned up near the scratch marks on his boat…
    That guy is as unlucky as David Bain…

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    Ms McDonald was able to find him guilty anyway without affording him the slightest doubt individually or collectively as to the hairs

    And here was me thinking it was a JURY that found Watson guilty…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Sean (301 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo

    The jury convicted on the evidence presented to them. Which is not the same thing as all the evidence. Have a look at Trial by Trickery to see what the police decided was inconvenient to their version of events. A bit like the police disposing of the cartridge case in the Thomas case, because they ‘needed the space’ – but they kept the axle…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    “That’s almost as bad a set of coincidences as accumulated against David Bain!”

    More accurately described as ‘spin and conjecture’ The real set of coincidences would be on how anyone other than Robin Bain himself managed to shoot Robin, hence case solved as there is no disagreement between prosecution and defence that there was only one killer.

    “..Olivia Hope’s hairs on the blanket found in Scott Watson’s boat.”

    Conveniently found on a second search, why not on the first one? Watson somehow miraculously wiped all trace of forensic evidence from his boat apart from these ‘2 hairs’ yet it was estimated that the surfaces were only 40-50% wiped down.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    Was real bad timing on Watson’s behalf that he decided to ‘refurbish’ his yacht the next day! (What a’bad look’)
    Also bloody unfortunate coincidence that some of the missing girl’s hair turned up near the scratch marks on his boat…
    That guy is as unlucky as David Bain…

    Yeah, um – I can understand that on a boat you have to clean regularly. Apparently Watson’s relatives confirm he had told them he was intending to do so on that day. Mind you, on New Years Day after a piss up the night before when you know you will be suffering from a hang over and/or having scored the night before is a bit odd. So you can maybe take their testimony with a grain of salt. Nevertheless…

    Also, the scratch marks don’t prove much in and of themselves, nor necessarily in the Smart/Hope case. Could have got there any old how.

    But you are right. It is the hairs. Ties Hope to the boat and Watson.

    Like I said earlier, everything else is distraction. Until Watson’s supporters conclusively knock over that, then their man is guilty, guilty, guilty…

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    As guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Worth remembering he had 48 previous convictions before the double murder.

    All of which appear to have been for bog standard young hoon larrikinism. Burglary, fighting and the like. By the time of the murders Watson had been out of trouble for years (because that’s what usually happens – guys like that grow out of it – those sorts of crimes are a young man’s game).

    Watson had never, as far as I can determine, been arrested, suspected or convicted of a sexual crime before. He’s no Dean Wickliffe, and even a career criminal like Wickliffe was not a sex criminal.

    If a man commits a rape, statistics show that it is overwhelmingly likely that he’s committed multiple rapes. As I said, I’ve heard no evidence of Watson being accused of sex crimes, so he just doesn’t fit the profile. Nor is there evidence of psychopathy. Watson seems to have been a high spirited bogan rather than a person driven by cruelty.

    I’ve always thought his conviction was lame, because you cannot square his tiny little boat with the big one that the witnesses saw.

    My guess is that some boat quietly slipped in to that bay in the dark, and quietly slipped out. Those kids are somewhere at the bottom of the Tasman. The police fixed on Watson because they had nobody else and because that girl was the daughter of a local toff.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    But you are right. It is the hairs. Ties Hope to the boat and watson.

    I guess Thomas was guilty owing to the discovery of the shell casings, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I mean look at David Tamahere. It’s hard not to think he was capable of killing those tourists because he had a long history of sexually motivated violence.

    The person who killed Smart and Hope was almost certainly someone like him rather than someone like Watson.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    I guess everyone convicted by the courts is “guilty” based on Kimbos reasoning, what does this make Mark Lundy? the PC found that there were substantial flaws in this case (not making the claim that he is innocent) or Pora, Kimbos logic sounds like Malcolm Burgess’s 3rd degree interview on Pora, “2 juries convicted him so therefore its legally not possible” (that he’s innocent) I think Burgess should present this argument to the law lords when the case is heard. He is a joke, in his two interviews last year on Campbell Live and 3rd Degree there were quite a few own goals scored.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    I guess Thomas was guilty owing to the discovery of the shell casings, too.

    I wondered who would be the first to make that connection :)

    Like I said earlier, Watson’s lawyer DID argue that line to the jury. Which, when you think about it, when there is a damning incontrovertible incriminating piece of evidence, is about the ONLY defence anyone can reasonably muster.

    Which, IF it was generally accepted as a defence, would mean that NO physical eveidence could EVER convict ANYONE. At this point common sense has left the launch pad, and we are well on the way to the planet “Idiocy” in the space Shuttle Shuttle, “Any doubt will do”

    But as no caped crusader has come forward like Jim Sprott and shown HOW the hairs were supposedly planted/accidentally transferred, or WHY they are not what the Crown claimed,

    …and the jury accepted what they were

    …while Watson’s supporters still stuff around with peripheral issues like sloops and ketches

    …I sleep secure at nights secure in the knowledge Watson IS guilty beyond REASONABLE doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    I guess everyone convicted by the courts is “guilty” based on Kimbos reasoning, what does this make Mark Lundy? the PC found that there were substantial flaws in this case (not making the claim that he is innocent) or Pora,…

    Pretty hard to plead innocence when you admit to the crime (as Pora did).

    I think the nature of his admission is now dubious, but it wasn’t so back then.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    I guess everyone convicted by the courts is “guilty” based on Kimbos reasoning, what does this make Mark Lundy…

    Actually, they ARE guilty until the conviction is quashed. Which is why I can’t say that David Bain IS, even though IMHO…

    But it is VERY simple to overturn Watson’s conviction, just as it was for Lundy, or to at least make the case conclusively.

    ONE piece of evidence is crucial, just as it was for Arthur Thomas.

    Where is the Jim Sprott in the Watson case who can show conclusively that the evidence presented to the jury was NOT, as the Crown claimed it was, Olivia Hope’s hairs

    …or there is new evidence that the jury did not consider, that they were planted?

    Over to you…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Like I said earlier, Watson’s lawyer DID argue that line to the jury. Which, when you think about it, when there is an damning incontrovertible piece of incriminating piece of evidence, is about the ONLY defence anyone can reasonably muster.

    Which nevertheless doesn’t prevent it from being true.

    Which, IF it was generally accepted as a defence, would mean that NO physical eveidence could EVER convict ANYONE.

    This is a ridiculous piece of reasoning. You can’t be serious. I mean what have you been smoking?

    The rational view is that we accept the physical evidence unless good reason to suspect it’s provenance due to other evidence. Supporters of Watson are arguing that in his case, the hair evidence is so out of whack with the rest of the evidence, that it should come into doubt. Thomas’ supporters could make a similar case.

    One of the reasons that cases like Thomas, Bain, and Watson bother people is that the overall explanation for the crime doesn’t add up.

    The state expected us to believe that Arthur Thomas had a long term obsession with Jeanette Crewe, based on the fact he’d fancied her years previously and given her a gift. They had no evidence of him stalking her, or bothering her, or any of the usual behaviour that marks an erotic obsession. They focused on evidential minutiae because their overall theory of the crime was potty.

    Same with Bain. Crimes of family annihilation are almost always committed by the father. The state’s theory of that crime was that David Bain had briefly “gone bonkers” long enough to commit the crime despite no evidence to suggest he suffered from serious mental illness before or after the crime. That doesn’t add up. The police focused on evidential minutiae because their overall theory of the crime was potty.

    Same with Watson. He’s just not the right sort of offender, and none of the evidence used to convict him apart from the hair seems to be any good.

    It’s reasonable for people to doubt the Watson conviction. They might be wrong (I don’t know myself), but it’s not unreasonable to doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    ONE piece of evidence is crucial, just as it was for Arthur Thomas.

    NZ law doesn’t work that way according to critics of Binnie (I don’t think he did what they said he did, but the point holds).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    Not sure why people are saying that his crimes mean he didnt do it as they dont have a sexual nature to them.
    Saying that means the people saying that suspect this was a sexually motivated attack.
    Who knows what could of driven a man to kill them, ive had a knife pulled on me before by mocking a guys argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    NZ law doesn’t work that way according to critics of Binnie

    Uh, uh.

    Wrong analogy.

    There was never any ONE piece of incontrovertible physical evidence that convicted David Bain, and the Crown in that case never argued there was.

    Instead, it was the unlikely ACCUMULATION of a whole bunch or REALLY bad coincidences that saw Bain convicted at his first trial. Which is what the Prosecutor meant when he summed up, “If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck…”.

    And those same unlikely coincidences were STILL there at the second trial. Only in the interim the Defence had 14 years to get a piece of hearsay regharding Robin Bain supposedly molesting Laniet into the public domain, so it was impossible to keep it out of the trial. But good luck to Reed, Karam, and Bain…

    But either way, the case against Watson still rests on primarily on that ONE piece of physical evidence…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    There was never any ONE piece of incontrovertible physical evidence that convicted David Bain, and the Crown in that case never argued there was.

    The hair evidence wasn’t incontrovertible in the same way that the shells weren’t in the Thomas case.

    Are you going to retract your ridiculous statement about physical evidence. I should hope so.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Tom, unfortunately your argument that “the police might have planted a cartridge case 40 years ago in a garden so different police officers working on a different investigation under entirely different circumstances, both legal and factual, must have also planted Olivia’s hairs on Watson’s boat because that’s what police do” is stretching very……………………………………….thin.

    If you can’t use Scott Watson’s background then please stop reverting to the Thomas case (and therefore the “background” of the police).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Not sure why people are saying that his crimes mean he didnt do it as they dont have a sexual nature to them.
    Saying that means the people saying that suspect this was a sexually motivated attack.
    Who knows what could of driven a man to kill them, ive had a knife pulled on me before by mocking a guys argument.

    Girl like that. What do you think is most likely?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom, unfortunately your argument that “the police might have planted a cartridge case 40 years ago in a garden so different police officers working on a different investigation under entirely different circumstances, both legal and factual, must have also planted Olivia’s hairs on Watson’s boat because that’s what police do” is stretching very……………………………………….thin.

    That’s not my actual argument, but go mad if you want to.

    Laters.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    Like I said earlier, Watson’s lawyer DID argue that line to the jury. Which, when you think about it, when there is an damning incontrovertible piece of incriminating piece of evidence, is about the ONLY defence anyone can reasonably muster.

    Which nevertheless doesn’t prevent it from being true.

    Indeed.

    But that DOES put the onus on Watson supporters to PROVE it! Call me a bit of a stickler, but as we pour millions into the justice system, and accord folks like Watson the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and demand that the Prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt before a jury of his peers, while supplying him the opportunity for a Defence conducted by a legal profession – often funded at tax-payer expense

    …I kinda think our nation is best served by the verdict remaining in place. Or at least it should, rather than the sometimes illogical arguments of folks posting in webland being the agreed acceptable level of deciding judicial facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    Tom
    I dont know whats likely, too many possible reasons people can go bad for especially after drink

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    The rational view is that we accept the physical evidence unless good reason to suspect it’s provenance due to other evidence.

    Great, so we agree. Which is precisely how the jury reached the decision it did.

    Supporters of Watson are arguing that in his case, the hair evidence is so out of whack with the rest of the evidence, that it should come into doubt. Thomas’ supporters could make a similar case.

    Out of whack? Sorry Perry Mason, but I don’t see any evidence to back up that spurious phrase.

    Hair matching that of Hope found on blanket in Watson’s boat. Simple.

    Focus on that instead of any web of special pleading about how it doesn’t fit into the “rest of the evidence”. By that I take it you mean we have to go chasing after mystery ketches?

    No thanks. And neither did the jury.

    Unless you are now arguing that IF a piece of physical evidence is SO damning, it is TOO GOOD to be true?!

    I don’t think that is an unfair summation of the argument in your last post – just as my previous summation that as all evidence can be planted so therefore it must be dismissed was a fair summation of your appeal to the relevance of the Thomas case. No, I’m not smoking anything, but I suspect you are…

    The hairs are the sine qua non of the Prosecution case. Everything else Watson’s supporters argue in response is a shell game.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Michael (912 comments) says:

    Ever since Arthur Allan Thomas we’ve had the defendants lawyers trot out this allegation of crooked police planting evidence. But unlike the Arthur Allan Thomas planting, there is no evidence found to support the planting of evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    The hair evidence wasn’t incontrovertible in the same way that the shells weren’t in the Thomas case

    I note you give no facts to back up that assertion. No wonder you are a bit poor at this “making a legal argument” thing!

    In both cases it was clear, unambiguous evidence that tied the Accused to the victim at the time they died.

    BOTH cases revolved around it.

    With Thomas it was (as you noted when you injected it into the thread) the shell cases, and with Watson it is the hairs.

    Accused. Victim. Same Place at time of death. Those are the BIG ROCKS. Everything else is stones and pebbles of varying sizes.

    Which means stuff like Thomas knowing Jeanette Crewe, the gift of the brush set, the cleaning of the bloody watch,

    …and Watson’s demeanour that night at Furneaux, sloops and ketches, and the opportunity Watson had the next day to dispose of any bodies

    …are corroboration of varying degrees of value.

    Which is why, when Sprott demonstrated conclusively that the cartridge cases COULD NOT have come from the batch of bullets available to Thomas, the entire case against him crumbled, because the “evidence” was clearly and demonstrably PLANTED.

    NO ONE has done that for Watson. So the same BIG ROCKS that caused his conviction remain in place.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Hair matching that of Hope found on blanket in Watson’s boat. Simple.

    Focus on that instead of any web of special pleading about how it doesn’t fit into the “rest of the evidence”. By that I take it you mean we have to go chasing after mystery ketches?

    Yes, exactly. One piece of forensic evidence is worth any amount eye witness testimony by people trying to recall something they weren’t paying much attention to at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    Judith,

    “Let’s not forget, he supports a force that thinks Hutton was a man of great integrity – presumably an accolade earned when he planted evidence to ensure a conviction.”

    Which police force .? Or was it an individual , namely a certain Commissioner of Police who said “Hutton was a man of Integrity “?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    Tom JJackson,

    Same with Bain. Crimes of family annihilation are almost always committed by the father. The state’s theory of that crime was that David Bain had briefly “gone bonkers” long enough to commit the crime despite no evidence to suggest he suffered from serious mental illness before or after the crime. That doesn’t add up. The police focused on evidential minutiae because their overall theory of the crime was potty.??

    “Crimes of family annihilation are almost always committed by the father.” ??

    What are your factual grounds for making such a claim .?
    There are a number of examples of young male adults who have annihilated their families But two come to mind- Jeremy Bamber and Sef Gonzales.
    Yes there may be no evidence that David Bain suffered a mental illness but there is no evidence that he did not have a predisposition to murder as claimed by Mr Justice Iain Binnie.
    BTW , there was no evidence that his father Robin Bain suffered from depression. Also the fallacy and simple silliness that because you look depressed and untidy therefore that makes you a murderer.!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    stephieboy asks:

    Which police force .? Or was it an individual , namely a certain Commissioner of Police

    When I found my political colleagues were about to act corruptly in lying to the public I abandoned my career and got out, doing what I could to blow the whistle. Every single one of them who remained did so either because they were materially advantaged to keep their mouths shut (unknown incompetents were suddenly elevated to Ministerial office) or to preserve the track their own careers were on.

    Everyone who fails to repudiate corruption is themselves corrupt. Even if it means the end of your career, in most jobs – and certainly one which impacts on the public good – you have a higher duty than yourself and the sort of pack loyalty best demonstrated by gangs.

    As for the “the Thomas case was 40 years ago” argument… precisely. We’re supposed to believe there has never been another incidence of noble corruption in all that time? That other commenters are asking “where is the Jim Sprott in this case?” shows how inured we have become to doubtful convictions… we wait for some knight in shining armour to give up a huge chunk of their life to independently investigate matters that we should have been able to trust, first, the police and, second, the statutory inquiry mechanisms, to properly undertake.

    Just pray that none if you end up sitting in a cell hoping a latter day Jim Sprott will decide you’re worthy of attention.

    [The foregoing is a general observation, not an opinion on Watson’s guilt as I simply haven’t read enough to form a considered opinion].

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Calling attention to Watson’s creepy personality is about all his detractors and police have, given the absence of evidence. The conduct of the police prosecution reached a new low with that one. The cops were comfortable stitching him up because they believed he had done other things they could not find enough evidence for to secure a conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    Just pray that none if you end up sitting in a cell hoping a latter day Jim Sprott will decide you’re worthy of attention.

    [The foregoing is a general observation, not an opinion on Watson’s guilt as I simply haven’t read enough to form a considered opinion].

    A fair and good point, as always, Rex.

    And I note in the case of Scott Watson there are already many in the public domain seeking to act as knights in shining armour for the sake of his cause.

    However, I think the facts of the case as we know them mean their efforts are more akin to latter-day Don Quixotes tilting at windmills…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    RW, Judith appeared to make a generic claim that the police force support the notion that Hutton was a man of integrity . Certain individuals might think that , a commissioner of police did state that but its wrong to say” all ” Police in the NZ force think like that.
    That was my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    Birdbrain, our resident chronic know it all. You have , naturally , have documented evidence, that the ” cops were comfortable in stitching him up… ” ? or is it yet another piece of your tedious narcissistic items of rhetoric .?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    stupidboy, you were doing okay there, for a while, and now you have blown it by not thinking. Why did you not ask others about their evidence for all sorts of things they alluded to ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    Sticking with the point that the 2 hairs were from the same genetic pool as Olivia, that they had somehow been missed in an earlier search, and that a hairbrush containing hairs was delivered for testing around the same approximate time is one point that was supported by the ‘positive’ identifications of Watson and by his ‘confessions.’ When one is weakened it doesn’t follow that all 3 are, in this case all 3 are now weakened. No where in the report by Kirsty McDonald does she evaluate that singularly or collectively to favour Watson. She holds them in isolation, unlike a prosecution where they are described like strands of a rope. Moreover, a Court would be asked to consider that a Jury may have reached a different verdict none of that happened with Watson’s review. There would definitely be grounds to have the ‘confession’ struck out all together, particularly because it followed a ‘pattern’ that when ‘confessions’ are made up they invariably have flaws and are often exaggerated in the narrative to have maximum affect on a Jury, particularly where other evidence is circumstantial or weak.

    I’d agree about the hairs if they hadn’t been somehow missed earlier and if they were from Olivia rather than the possibility of the wider family genetic pool. Any doubts of that might be erased by ‘positive’ sightings or a genuine confession. That the bar manager now says she wouldn’t have identified Watson, the doubts about stepping up rather than down from the water taxi, the ‘disappearance’ of the prisoner who recanted the ‘confession’ put this case as one Kirsty McDonald should have recommended go back to the COA. The Prerogative of Mercy is not working in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. muggins (3,816 comments) says:

    I see Rowan seems to believe Scott Watson didn’t murder Olivia and Ben, no surprise there as he also believes David Bain didn’t murder his family.
    Certainly there is not a great deal of evidence pointing to Watson as being the perpetrator, take those hairs out of the equation and everything else is circumstantial. Of course his supporters will say that those hairs somehow got mixed up at the lab, but then they would say that.
    So far as David Bain is concerned there is plenty of evidence that points to him as being the perpetrator.
    A lens from the glasses that he told his lawyer he had been wearing the previous evening was found in his brother’s room.
    How did it get there?
    His brother’s blood was found on his clothes. How did it get there?
    He had three bruises on his head that the doctor who examined him at around 11.30am on the Monday morning said were between 7 and 13 hours old. How did they get there?
    He had bruises or scratches on his torso. How did they get there?
    And so on and so on.
    There was no evidence that pointed to Robin Bain as being the killer.
    Watson did at least have a couple of hairs that pointed to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    I have to say this case has always troubled me…The “mystery ketch” which so many people – but most importantly the water taxi driver – saw, but the Police say never existed is the main thing…yachtie types could never ever mistake an old wooden ketch (two masts) for a steel hulled sloop…well, one or two horribly pissed ones might, but the water taxi driver was sober, or claimed he was, and he is adamant he dropped the victims on the ketch…So either he was in on it from the outset – which I don’t think has ever been seriously suggested – or the focus on Watson’s boat was wrong from the beginning.

    Watson was always going to be a suspect…by all accounts a sleazy bastard around young women; a guy who had been seen hitting on several women that night; a guy with a heap of convictions…Police focus was always going to be on on him as a likely suspect…

    Then on the other side (Watson’s guilt) there is the “coincidental” thorough cleaning of the boat – on New Years Day…who the hell does that? Such a thorough cleaning that bits of squabs are cut out, and the inside of cassette boxes are wiped clean? The sailing away and repainting of the boat that day also (or was in a day or so later?)

    I dunno….but then I never sat through the trial and heard all the evidence, and the jury did.

    As for Assistant Commissioner Pope…During my time in Parliament I was told by [censored], a person who was near the top of the tree, that he was never going to be made Commissioner for various unspecified reasons, and in fact would be retired out as soon as possible…and that’s what happened.

    Margaret Killer: You have a fucking nerve commenting here at all, but piously commenting on a double murder case shows YOU are a fucking psychopath…Dont come out this weekend, my kids are here….

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Jack5 (5,167 comments) says:

    Kea (3.06 post) weighs in on Watson’s side, and I don’t think Watson’s even a Muslim.

    The endless, boring, public “retrialling” of people found guilty of murder may be the best argument yet in favour of the death penalty.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. muggins (3,816 comments) says:

    David,
    Yeah,
    Watson was always going to be the most likely suspect, but that doesn’t mean that he did it. And Guy Wallace, the water taxi driver ,who knew a fair bit about boats was adamant he dropped the victims on a ketch. Blotted his copybook to a certain extent by making up a story that he had seen that ketch elsewhere, but still.
    And it appears that the inside of the boat wasn’t thoroughly cleaned.
    I agree re the double killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    The endless, boring, public “retrialling” of people found guilty of murder may be the best argument yet in favour of the death penalty.

    Nah – then it would provide even more reason for fervid crusading to abolish capital punishment.

    But you make a good point why the media just LOVE these sort of case, because it gives them two bites at the cherry.

    First time round it is all the lurid details of the murder, especially framing the accussed as the “villain” or “misfit” – car-thief and parole avoider David Tamihere, nasty rapist Teina Pora sneaking into white women’s houses, weirdo David Bain and his collection of bad taste jersies, nasty Scott Watson pissed off he didn’t look like he was going to score that New Year’s, fat and ugly over-actor Mark Lundy greedily plotting to pocket the insurance money, Ewen McDonald within the family circle sneaking around vindictively vandalising property and feeding a grudge…

    THEN if they do get convicted, there is the endless loop replays of the case while a whole bunch of amateur detectives get to introduce all sorts of weird and wonderful angles – the likes of which the Crown, bound by the principles of juris prudence, would never EVER have been able to introduce at trial, and usually peddling a bunch of “facts” the jury in question never got to hear and consider.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Jack5: What a foolish thing to say…I am a one time advocate of the death penalty, and I am appalled that there are so many cases in our tiny country where there is even the suspicion that the wrong man has been convicted

    I personally believe Bain and Lundy are guilty as sin, and Teina Pora almost certainly is guilty only of being thick as a plank…but my opinion is no more valid than the next reasonably well informed person who knows a bit about the criminal law…the fact that there ARE so many cases is what should be concerning to everyone.

    Compare with the UK…There were about 800 executions in the 20th Century, plus a few hundred reprieves…so around 1000 in all…TWO of those cases are now considered either suspect, or in the case of Timothy Evans, definitely a mistake. James Hanratty’s case was pressed for years by champions who believe he was a “wrong man” – until his corpse was disinterred and his DNA matched to that on a handkerchief found on the victim…

    In the 20th century we executed perhaps 100 people…and fifty years after abolition we have Thomas, who was definitely fitted up with bogie evidence and perjury, and those mentioned above and others…These potential errors are not the reason I have changed my view on CP, but they certainly reinforce my view that I was mistaken to see it as a sensible change to our law in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    But back to Watson…I am not intimately familiar with the case…did he ever undergo a psych examination? IIRC he didn’t give evidence (as of course he was entitled not to do) so that’s probably unlikely…The prosecution would have no interest in even possibly establishing he was mentally ill…

    If he didnt have a psych evaluation done I wonder on what basis this Rae fellow concludes Watson is a psychopath? “Cop’s Nose” perhaps? That’s what convinces Chester “all they need is love” Borrows that I had some hitherto undisclosed sinister reason for foolishly obtaining a false passport 30 years ago.

    As a crim with plenty of “form” I imagine Watson said little or nothing to them after he realised he had moved from “person of interest” to “main suspect”…Perhaps he smiled while they tried to question him? You’d need a fair bit more than “cop’s nose” and smiling silence to convince me the man is a pyschopath…unlike for example a certain Double Killer who thinks anyone who mentions his victims is “whiny” and has never once expressed the slightest remorse for ending a 17 year old girls life…

    Muggins: I was unaware Wallace had said he had seen the ketch elsewhere…but why could he not have, if it existed?

    And has it been proved that Watson DIDNT thoroughly clean the boat, including cassette boxes, as the Crown argued??

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    David, I doubt he was expressing a clinical assessment of his state of mind, more a “I’ve been around 30 years and I’ve seen mad, bad and downright psycopathic” states of mind. I trust his observation (which I think is all it really is).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Nick: Yes…but as I say, Borrows has decided on the basis of his “cop’s nose” that there was some sinister reason I stupidly got the passport in 1984…I know damn well stupidity is the only reason… but telling him that never convinced Borrows…so with respect to you, I have my doubts about cops’ judgments…(There are other reasons I have that view, but I’ll tell you those when we next meet)

    Do you know Rae?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    “BTW , there was no evidence that his father Robin Bain suffered from depression.”

    Stupidboy
    There is plenty of witnesses at the retrial who gave evidence otherwise, just because you choose to conveniently overlook these because they don’t fit your fantasy theory doesn’t change this so you are factually incorrect by spouting your “no evidence” bs
    Same with the broken record @ 3.36, there is plenty of evidence re Robin and a lot of theories and conjecture re David which you idiots like to call “evidence”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ stephieboy (1,352 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    When you are the head, or deputy head of an organisation, and are speaking at something like funeral in that role – then yes, whatever you say is a representation of that organisation, in the same way everything JK says reflects on National, Cunnliffe on Labour and so on.

    So again, yes, whether individual police officers feel different, the Police has a whole, expressed their opinion that Hutton was a man of great integrity when one of their heads said so at Hutton’s funeral.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Unity (611 comments) says:

    Wow!! This case certainly polarised opinion.

    Well for me, there is no way ever that I will believe Scott Watson is guilty. I’ve taken an interest in the case ever since the identikit picture was given out showing a man with hooded eyes and very shaggy longish brown hair. I saw a photo of Scott Watson taken earlier the same night as well as security camera pics taken at the Supermarket earlier that day and he had very dark hair closely cropped. WRONG MAN!!

    The witnesses in the water taxi described in great detail the boat to which Ben and Olivia were taken that night. It was a ketch (two masts) blue and white with portholes along the sides and lots of rope work and they had to climb UP into it. Scott Watson’s boat was a tiny little one masted sloop with no portholes or rope work and you would have to climb DOWN into it. WRONG BOAT!! How they ever proceeded after that I will never know. Also, I know and also heard of several people who reported to Police their sighting of the ketch up to 2 days after their disappearance. THE POLICE DIDN’T WANT TO KNOW!!

    His convictions related to his teenage years when he himself described himself as a bit of a tearaway but he matured and grew out of it. He was 26 and long out of trouble when Ben and Olivia disappeared.

    He is very innocent but the Police will do all in their power to discredit him. Actually they did do this as soon as he was in their sights. He wasn’t the bad man at 26 they said he was. Heads should role and I was disgusted when Rob Pope became a Police Commissioner. There is definitely corruption in our Police force.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Do you know Rae?

    Nope. And cops who have been in the “system” for many years are deeply suspicious people in general, and so Chester probably hasn’t shaken that deep suspicion from him with respect to your faux pas.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You have been given answers to these questions hundreds of times, they are attributable in either scenario (killer vs finder) and do not point one way or another.
    Yet in your delusional mind the only answer that makes sense to you is that “he must have been the killer” but this is a weak and shallow argument and unsupported by any physical evidence

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. nasska (11,827 comments) says:

    There would be few things more hazardous to encounter than a cop who gets a feeling about something. They’re often right but not always yet their powers to decide what evidence to gather & present to a court are open to abuse.

    We are fortunate in that corruption within NZ’s police is rare but the pressure the public & the MSM put on them to solve every crime inside 24 hours encourages tunnel vision & an overuse of profiling.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Unity: Jesus…take a valium ….Rob Pope never became Commissioner…in fact he was passed over for that post because of disquiet in high places about his actions on several cases…

    Judith: Second time I have praised you today…You are dead right about Bush and his eulogy for Hutton…he was voicing “the Police view” which for forty years has been and remains that Thomas done it, and wilful blindness towards the actions of Hutton and Johnstone…I find it incomprehensible that the Police as an organization remain convinced of Thomas’ guilt – but in 40 years have never leaked whatever evidence they have to support that view through some sympathetic journo…

    NK: You are an ex cop whose view I respect…You would have been too young to work on the case, but you would have mixed with guys who did…do you know why there is such institutional certainty among the Police that Thomas is guilty? And why they reject the clearly correct findings of the Royal Commission?

    Nasska: Well said…and you are old enough to remember the huge pressure to solve the Crewe murders…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    Nosty
    You are right re the confession, also Guy Wallace’s so called ‘identification’ should similarly be struck out as it was totally manipulated with the ‘blink’ photo where he identified a photo based on the eyes being similar. At no stage did he ever identify Watson or Blade as the mystery man or the boat he dropped them of at that night. This case to me highlights the need for a NZ criminal cases review commission as Kristy McDonald in the RPOM basically wrote an academic written to prescription essay to support the crowns position, sound familiar?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    NK: You are an ex cop whose view I respect…You would have been too young to work on the case, but you would have mixed with guys who did…do you know why there is such institutional certainty among the Police that Thomas is guilty? And why they reject the clearly correct findings of the Royal Commission?

    My dad worked on it as part of a search team (I think), but not *the* search team. He shares the Royal Commission’s view.

    I think generally this “open mind” theory is just that: A theory. Once you’ve got a suspect or three, you have a bloody closed mind. In fact, you’ve got to have a single-minded dogmatic mind to get the evidence and the conviction. I think it’s that doggedness that lets them down. And also, police, at least about 99.5% of them, are not corrupt and certainly do not plant evidence. So when one is accused of it the troops just don’t believe it because we don’t have that sort of police force here in NZ (thank goodness). They’re clean, loyal and do a damn good job and so I think individual police think all others are like that, and most are.

    But a few aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Jack5 (5,167 comments) says:

    David Garrett (4.03) on the death penalty.

    David, is it always so much better to keep a person locked up like a lab. rat for the bulk of their life, than to kill that person?

    So should we rule out life sentences because occasionally (and probably rarely) people serving them may later be proved to be innocent?

    I don’t suggest capital punishment is justified on the ground of vengeance, and I am unsure about its value as a deterrent, but think there is a case for it for heinous offenders because:

    First, I don’t agree that it is somehow inherently unacceptable – few wouldn’t accept that people such as Himmler, Beria, Pol Pot, and probably Mao deserved execution;

    Second, statistics – given the very low rate of likely innocence after an accused has been through the appeal layers, capital punishment in an efficient and fair Western justice system will entail a minimal error rate in killing people later proved innocent (yes, such calamitous mistakes are unfair, but there are many accidental death rates in society, many or most of them also preventable);

    Third, executions can be done fairly humanely, at least as humanely as keeping a person in a cell until they die;

    Fourth, they solve the problem of possible recidivism;

    Fifth, capital punishment signals there is an ultimate penalty society is prepared to impose for unconscionable behaviour;

    Sixth, capital punishment is likely cheaper than life imprisonment for societies with huge demands on tax money for welfare, health and education. The price of perfect justice is probably prohibitive;

    Seventh, I have never been a policeman or prison guard but wonder about their present safety when dealing with lifers who know that if they kill these people nothing more can be done to them in punishment; and,

    Eighth, capital punishment might end the morbid entertainment of the mob by endless MSM and blog retrials.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Jack5, you might like it in places like Iran & Saudi Arabia Insha’Allah. They sound like your sort of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    NK
    I agree with you on corruption within the NZ force, around 99% of cops are clean but the few that aren’t make the police look bad. I think the actions of Rob Pope in the original investigation and subsequent conviction were corrupt, and that Watson was stitched up as there was no other suspect, the Pora and Bain cases the investigation was incompetent as opposed to corrupt and the Thomas case very corrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Jack5 (5,167 comments) says:

    Kea, 5.26:

    Wow, you are the person who defends Islamic justice. Don’t ruin your reputation by turning into a liberal.

    Belief in capital punishment doesn’t necessarily entail burying adulterers up to their neck and stoning them to death, or hacking off the arms of thieves.

    Would you have supported the death penalty for Himmler, or would you have preferred weekend community work and compulsory attendance at murderers anonymous?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Nick: Good comment….I can recall my late father’s utter bewilderment when it became clear that the cartridge case was planted, and Hutton and Johnstone had committed perjury…for a long time he just couldnt believe it, because for men of his generation (born 1921) the NZ Police just didnt do that sort of thing..

    Which for me makes it all the more puzzling why some Commissioner since has not had the courage to come out and say a variation of what you have just said: “99.9% of the NZ Police are men and women of integrity…forty years ago there were at least two rotten apples who planted evidence and committed perjury in the case of R v. Thomas. Those people are all now dead. We do not condone that behaviour now, and we didnt condone it then. The NZ Police as an organization apologises to Mr A A Thomas for the wrongs done to him.”

    What the hell is so hard about that?? We have governments apologising for real or supposed wrongs done to various iwi 150 years ago almost every week…

    Jack5: All good arguments…I think you must have read a certain book published 15 years ago…I will respond in more detail when I have cooked my kids’ dinner..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Pora admitted his involvement. Bain is as guilty as a mouse stealing cheese. Thomas is likely innocent. And Watson is guilty – the investigation was lengthy and very very detailed. I am confident they have the right man.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    David, I know Mike Bush quite well. I sent him a congratulatory note when he was made commissioner and he replied. And I did the same when Mallard and Labour started their standard smear campaign, and again he replied and thanked me for my support. He’s a super guy. I just don’t think you can start off your role as commissioner apologising for the Thomas case – it would define his five years and it’s just too controversial I think. It might come, who knows. But it shouldn’t be the first thing he does.

    There’s also a lot of politics in the top brass of police. I’m sure you know what that is!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. nasska (11,827 comments) says:

    David G.

    For a few years after the mid 1970 Crewe murders half the pine trees felled in NZ were used as newsprint to cover the case. It had it all….respectable victims, no obvious motive & of course the mystery feeding of the baby. It was probably NZ’s first real “whodunnit” & the MSM milked it for everything they had.

    Maybe the cops had it right all & the planting of the cartridge case was a case of overegging the omelet…..after this long we’ll never know for sure.

    What we can be sure of is that their actions cost the NZ Police the respect of countless citizens who up to that point would have followed their local policeman into Hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    Wasn’t your supposedly ‘angelic’ hero Scott Watson sending pictures of his dick to random strangers from behind bars a year or two ago?
    Are these not the actions of a dirty sex pervert??

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    NK, the most corruption I have seen has been from arse kissers. Just sayin.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Longknives, so anyone sending selfies of their dick is a double murderer ? How about when women do it, as so many do now days ? How about guys who film a girl sucking them off and post it on the net ? Are they sex offender murderers too… or just Watson ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Jack5: (Kids dont want dinner yet)

    Adopting your point format, here are the some of reasons I have changed my mind on CP, in no particular order:

    1. There are too many cases in NZ where there has been good evidence emerging later that the wrong man has been convicted. If he has been executed you cannot right that wrong;

    2. Because we as a society have become such woofters, juries would tend not to convict in many cases of murder even when the evidence amply supported such a finding if death was even a possible sentence. In other words, we would have a plethora of what lawyers call perverse verdicts: convictions of manslaughter or out and out acquittals when the proper verdict was murder.

    3. As you rightly note, 40 or 50 years in a cage is probably a great deal more onerous than the 20 seconds of terror the condemned underwent in the time between when Albert Pierrepoint entered the condemned cell and the killer was dead on the rope.

    4. We now effectively have three or even four degrees of murder so the punishment can far better fit the many different shades of “murder”…from the mercy killing of a much loved spouse who was in unbearable pain to what the Double Killer who inhabits this blog did.

    But as I said, all of your points are good ones, and ones I made myself 15 years ago. In a couple of sentences, I guess I have come around to Greg Newbold’s view: “there is nothing wrong with CP as a concept, and many crimes deserve death. But as a matter of public policy there are too many reasons not to adopt it, the chief of them the chance of getting it wrong. And there have been too many cases in NZ where the Police arguably got it wrong.”

    Nasska: Very well said again. My late father was one who would have “followed the Police into hell.” After he read the Royal Commissions report he wouldn’t have followed them to the supermarket.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    I just thought it was time someone threw a bit of balance into the discussion- sick of reading about what a great guy this supposedly ‘framed’ individual is…
    * And if it’s only 1% of cops who are corrupt then bloody unlucky for Watson,Bain and Lundy (all of whom have at some point claimed that Police planted evidence etc) that that tiny percentile worked on their cases!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Longknives, I accept the Police’s view that Watson was a scumbag. I am restricting myself to the facts of this one case.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    There are two reasons Watson may show no conscience or remorse:

    1. He is a psychopath.

    2. He is innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    ‘Knives: I am not sure anyone is saying Watson is “a great guy” (I am certainly not) and I for one am not even saying he has been fitted up …see my original post at 3.41…

    And I am not aware of Lundy at least alleging evidence was planted….as I understand it, his appeal is based on a huge flaw in the cops’ theory of the case, to whit the impossibility of him driving from Wellington and back in the time…and that in turn is based on the pathologists evidence on when the victims last ate…which I think will result in Lundy being acquitted….wrongly.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    What on earth makes people think that Watson is a psychopath?

    Watson may have had previous convictions, but there was nothing that indicated psychopathic tendencies.

    Without knowing how the victims died, without knowing how the murders were planned and those plans executed, you cannot lay claims about about the type of person that was responsible, just because the suspect (or convicted person) has a criminal history, or because there was more than one victim.

    Some people have watched too much television!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    from http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz, totally agree with Keith on this.

    The Queen v Scott Watson

    New Zealand’s most blatantly dishonest prosecution

    Introduction

    R v Watson is the legal description of perhaps New Zealand’s most infamous murder case: a prosecution involving a 5 month police inquiry in 1998, a three month trial in 1999, and an Appeal against Conviction in 2000, all involving the blatant deceiving of the public by high-ranking police and legal officials.

    The case is infamous because it wasn’t a genuine murder investigation, trial and appeal at all. It held the country’s attention for two and a half years, but what the public didn’t know was that it was a two and a half year fraud on the part of the Crown figures who controlled it. By the use of lies, misinformation, and false argument, the jury’s verdict, and public opinion, was effectively moulded within and without the courtroom, from the beginning of the enquiry by the Police, through false information knowingly advanced by the prosecution in court, and through the support of the trial judge who instructed the jury to vote ‘Guilty’. It was later confirmed and sealed by three judges of the Court of Appeal with an equally false appeal judgment. As a result a man was convicted of two murders and is in prison for the rest of his life for one reason only: none of those entrusted by the state with the task of uncovering the truth and administering justice in the case bothered with either truth or justice.

    These are not just wild accusations. They were first advanced indirectly in the 2003 Television One documentary Murder On The Blade? and may now be publicly stated with impunity, since in three years none of those so accused in the film has challenged them. The accused include the most prominent of prosecuting QCs, the longest serving High Court Judge (now deceased), a policeman now all but of the highest rank, a judicial civil servant all but of the highest rank, and three appeal judges: the then President of the Court of Appeal, his successor as President, and a third judge of the Supreme Court.

    The book Trial by Trickery goes beyond the film to describe the Judicial system’s fakery directly and in meticulous detail. The fakery involves all of the august figures alluded to above. Just as none challenged the assertions of the film, no-one has challenged the book’s claims either. So the book’s claims are not only undeniable, they have not been denied!

    The basic facts:
    On New Year’s Eve 1997, young holiday-makers Ben Smart and Olivia Hope disappeared from a party at a seaside resort, and were last seen boarding a mystery yacht with a mystery man. Five months later 26-year old Scott Watson was arrested and convicted of their murders. He is now serving a life sentence.

    Is Watson guilty? Not according to the evidence. The evidence says ‘innocent’, emphatically. It says – emphatically – that Scott Watson is in prison because the key evidence was not identified and presented to the court by the only people who all along knew what it was – the Crown Prosecutors.

    Instead the Prosecutors misrepresented and misquoted the facts, the evidence and the arguments in court, over and over and over again.

    Why? Were they just playing a game – the game of law? Did they view the destruction of a man’s reputation, life and liberty as their prize for winning a competition? Until the judicial system addresses the questions raised in the book, the answers to these questions must be ‘yes’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Kimbo (1,096 comments) says:

    What on earth makes people think that Watson is a psychopath?

    Umm, the fact he was found guilty of two murders?!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Judith: It appears that people are concluding that Watson is a psychopath because one Det. Senior Sgt. Rae says he is one…For the third time today (this is becoming a worry) I agree with you…

    But of course he may not be a psycopath and still have done it, or not have done it, and still been a first class sleazebag…as you would know with your vast experience…

    Kimbo: No…most murderers are NOT psychos…they are ordinary men and women who broke under pressure….but it is vastly more likely that a Double Murderer is a psycho…or a repeat killer like the POS who comments freely here…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (5,280 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Exactly, it has become the popular thing to do, I guess because we like to distance ourselves from that sort of crime, believing that only a sick psychopathic mind could be capable of such things.

    The very vast majority of murders are not carried out by psychopaths, and not all psychopaths murder.

    And like it or not – we are all capable of murder should we ever be tested to our individual limit!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. mikenmild (11,798 comments) says:

    Jeepers Rowan. Are there any actual murderers in our prisons or have they all been fitted up by a corrupt system?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mikenmild (11,798 comments) says:

    Judith
    It has been said before: you are most likely to encounter a psychopath in your boss’s office.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Viking2 (11,579 comments) says:

    Isn’t it interesting.
    Clear cut cases with upfront evidence simply do not attract the debate these cases have.Surely this tells us something.
    Whilst a Jury of 12 hear what the prosecution wants them to hear and what the defence wants to either draw out or question or rebut the forum that develops after these trial canvases a lot more.
    If we look at Hunter’s efforts to check the police reasoning its clear that they are simply not right.( the police).
    So if the case was heard with all evidence being presented and cross examined to establish guilt or innocence by the jury without out recourse to the unnatural fight between lawyers then what would the result be?
    The with holding of evidence and the manipulating of evidence and the lack of evidence are hall marks of our trial system.
    Doesn’t give one much confidence at all.

    On the ketch.
    DG is correct. boaties know their boats just as car buffs know their cars and so on.

    In February after the disappearance of the two a ketch matching the description was moored in the Ohiwa Harbour at Ohope.
    Saw the ketch on several days and reported it. Was ignored.
    Later a ketch of similar description turned up in Gisbourne. That ketch was owned by a notorious drug pedlar and after some goings on was eventually towed to sea and sunk.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10487749

    In this article Watson Senior claims it isn’t the ketch involved but points to the need for further investigation into the owner and his proximity to Picton at the time the two went missing, including being there in another ketch.( have a read)

    Ketches are distinctive. Old style ketches even more so.

    I remain a long way from convinced that Watson should be in jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    “or a repeat killer like the POS who comments freely here”

    Many psychopaths are not creepy and present well in daily life. They use that skill to gain appreciation and power over others.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    Many screws tell us that Watson acts like a man in prison for something he didn’t do. Rae is full of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo (496 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Then you have very little understanding of psychopathy. It is not the number of victims that determines whether a person is a psychopath.

    Clayton Weatherston only killed one, but although I don’t know if psychopathy has been confirmed or not, I would strongly suspect he is. Not because he killed, but because of the manner in which he killed – and how his frenzy seemed to increase when he knew he had an audience (the mother banging and listening at the door), together with the manner in which he conducted himself prior to the murder and during the trial, including his social life, friendships etc. His psyche reports would make interesting reading, I suspect.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (9,178 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    LOL, being self employed I’m a bit concerned about that comment!! :-)

    But yes Mike, I would agree with that comment, some of the most efficient bosses do well in psychopathic profiling.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Viking: I am a little unclear…are you one of the people who claims to have seen the ketch in the Sounds, and who the Police have not bothered to interview? Is it well known (and known to the Police) that the ketch you refer to was owned by “a notorious drug pedlar”??

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Acting like a “man” pretty much screws you in our justice [sic] system anyway.

    If a women did it she could have called the hate group – Womens Refugee= to help bury the bodies, and then spent her sentence writing a book portraying her as the victim and slagging off the people she killed while they rot in their graves silenced. Now that is a REAL psychopath. All supported by the msm.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Milky: You make a good point re all the “innocent” murderers…To put things in perspective, even with the currently falling crime rate we still have about 50-70 homicides a year (the number varies so much because of our small population). So Since Watson was convicted there have been about 950 homicides (which can be either murder or manslaughter, or acquittals). Here we are talking about three or four cases…if we include Bain then there have been 1500 or so homicides since his initial conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    mikenmild
    Yes 90+% of convictions are safe, the recent Helen Milner trial is a good example of the system getting it right. Watson, Pora, Bain et al shows the very worst of our criminal justice system and why we need to improve it by putting into place a NZ Criminal Cases Review Commission

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Viking2 (11,579 comments) says:

    DG. No I,saw one matching the description in Ohiwa Harbour, Ohope, Whakatane. The article describes the Ketch in Gisbourne and who owned it.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10487749

    One of the legal professions finest paymasters I beleive.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. nasska (11,827 comments) says:

    Kea

    I’ve asked this before & no one seems to be much wiser than me on the subject.

    How the Hell did the ghoulish members of the sisterhood who helped to bury the body escape conviction? If there ever was a clearer case of aiding & abetting a crime I have not heard of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    Kea
    Gaye Oakes is hardly a psychopath, she was in a terrible situation. Yes murdering him was wrong as was her covering up her actions afterwards by burying him in the backyard. This does not make her a psychopath, more a desperate women trying to escape from her abusive husband. Yes she went about it the wrong way and was punished accordingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. mikenmild (11,798 comments) says:

    I still have a guilty chuckle about Gaye Oakes’s husband being named Doug Gardiner, when he ended up being dug into the garden.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    Not even Gerald Hope is convinced that this is a safe conviction, how much doubt does there need to be for it to be “reasonable doubt”?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    Lundy’s appeal was nothing to do with the implausibility of the drive. It’s about the fact the Crown had an opinion before the trial that the DNA was too downgraded to be used in evidence, following which a now disgraced Texas scientist used a ‘new’ method to analyse the so called DNA. There is also a major problem with the assessment of ‘smelling’ of the stomach contents to determine the time of death. Not knowing what you are talking about is fashionable obviously. Apart from that no one here can point to any evidence that the hairs found on the blanket were those of Olivia. Reading again, the hairs were not discovered in 2 earlier searches rather than the 1 I earlier said. Even Kristy McDonald didn’t claim that the hairs were those of Olivia in direct language. They came from the same wider gene pool and arrived there in an uncertain manner that escaped 2 searches. Those still supporting the failed Bain case as always avoid explain why Robin Bain had blood smears on his palms and why his fresh blood was found on a towel in the Laundry, instead talking about a ‘jersey’ collection that didn’t exist and what a disgraced Lawyer claimed about an aspect not material to the actual crime. Lesson from the PC in both the Bain and Lundy cases that were found to be MOJs, the points of reference were not singular, when a MOJ creeps into a case it isn’t a single event in isolation. We’ll see the same in Pora or read about Alan Hall for a less noted example.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Viking2 (11,579 comments) says:

    I think its probably fair to say the these days the police do a better job.
    More education and much more reliance on trained people from ESR.
    Not sure of the control of a crime scene but it seems that much more care is taken to get all the evidence. Unlike the Bain one where the house was burnt down in an indecent hurry.

    And just to get an argument going, IF David didn’t do it and Robin didn’t do it then who?
    Who was embarrassed enough about the family behavoir to do this? Who benefited from the proceeds?
    Never been satisfied with this one either.

    Bains were up in Papua and were regarded as strange as. Especially Mrs B. who was incidentally a Cullen. They were a family embarrassment and I suspect if we knew the truth about the relationships outside of the family then others would fit the frame. but much of that was destroyed with the house burning down as they had their man.

    Dunedin is and remains a strange place.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. nasska (11,827 comments) says:

    Gaye Oakes may or may not be a psychopath but for certain she is a scheming, manipulative bitch. Her reason for killing Gardiner wasn’t because he was knocking her around…..rather that he was going to leave her.

    When the Parole Board released her after serving a pitifully lenient part of her sentence they devalued the life of every man in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Margaret’s Killer: Fuck off back to your hole…yep I am “whining” again… about you taking a young girl’s life in the most brutal fashion, and never expressing one word of remorse for it…at least not here…

    You commenting on a murder case – particularly a double murder – is nothing short of indecent…Now fuck off…

    Viking: I dont know how you base your conclusion that “nowadays the police do a better job”…I am very familar with capital cases in NZ prior to abolition in 1961, and NONE of them are thought to be suspect… at least not among people who know anything about them…since Thomas there have been at least half a dozen where it is thought the convicted prisoner at least may have been innocent…to me that suggests the old time cops got it right far more often than todays…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. SPC (5,787 comments) says:

    As someone who has observed Scott Watson in person, I remain non-committal on the issue of his guilt.

    I shared my observation with Mike Antonovic after the conviction.

    I won’t say anymore, as what happens in Wellington brothels (April 2007), should remain a private matter – unless relevant to some crime (such as soliciting when this was still illegal).

    I will simply say it involved him inviting an 18 year old blonde back to his boat in the harbour. The most interesting thing was what his companion said about him to the blonde – someone who had done time for using a knife in a fight and for dealing in dope (neither actual offences he has been convicted of) – it spoke to how he liked to be seen – someone who could fight and who was financially self-reliant. He was warning the blonde about Scott, but to Scott’s ears it was praise.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    More bullshit from the little fella. Internet tough guys who get knocked over outside pubs and whinge about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    Cases like this always generate interest. But to me one the facts that genuinely troubles me about the case is that after the water taxi driver quite specifically identified a ketch as the boat that the two missing people were dropped off at. Now he may have been mistaken, but the police *should* have at least followed up on the ketch. Several witnesses have come forward and stated that they saw a ketch in the area at that time, but the police refuse to interview or take evidence form every one of those. That is, the police quite specifically REFUSE to view any evidence about a ketch. If they were straight they would deal with this as an investigation should, a primary witness identifies a boat, try to find it, but it isn’t that they can’t find it, they won’t try. I have to ask, why not ?

    And yes, the hairs are critical, and they only turn up immediately after additional samples of Olivia’s hair are delivered to the same lab. You don’t have to believe in a conspiracy, cross contamination is simple to achieve.

    And just for interest, the scratches. They go under the edge of the hatch itself, and as a killer, that hatch was only lockable from the inside and opened upwards. Kind of difficult to trap someone inside so they scratch to get out if they control the lock.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Any time Killer…Kanohi Road Kaukapakapa…but not this weekend, my kids are here…but then that probably wouldnt stop a POS like you…

    My aim is to get you recalled…and I have become a very patient man…And as for being ” a little fella” I am 5’9″…about four inches taller than you I am told…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Ed: Very good points…I believe the Police’s view that there was no ketch is based on analysis of photos taken of yachts moored in the area over the relevant time period…Like you, I have always wondered why the Police had such tunnel vision on this issue…as I said upthread, the only other theory that makes sense is that the Water Taxi driver was somehow in on it, and to the best of my knowledge that has never been alleged or even suggested…

    Someone else will know better than me, but there are a number of people who say they say a ketch resembling that which Wallace says he dropped the victims onto…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Viking2 (11,579 comments) says:

    Viking: I dont know how you base your conclusion that “nowadays the police do a better job”…I am very familar with capital cases in NZ prior to abolition in 1961, and NONE of them are thought to be suspect… at least not among people who know anything about them…since Thomas there have been at least half a dozen where it is thought the convicted prisoner at least may have been innocent…to me that suggests the old time cops got it right far more often than todays…

    =========================================
    DG, I think that is more because it was more straight forward. People were not as mobile nor were they as educated in deceit and deceiving as they are now. Nor probably in the manner in which they committed the crimes.
    Life is much more complicated as you have found out.
    More records exist. More is known or can be found than it could back them.

    A getaway car for example probably did 50mph. Not any more.

    The issue comes from the analysis of the evidence. In some cases from manipulating, withholding or ignoring it or simply not collecting it either by default or neglect or incompetence.

    I consider that its wise to have ESR collect the details and wonder if crime scenes have ESR appointed controllers rather than Police. While it is the police job to uphold the law I’m dubious that they will ever be impartial every time when crime is committed and evidence is shared.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Kea
    Gaye Oakes is hardly a psychopath

    Rowan. She planed and murdered her husband. She conspired to dispose of the body. She wrote a book attempting to manipulate others into seeing her as a victim/hero. She shows no remorse. If that does not qualify as a psychopath what does in your view ? Being a man ?

    It is disgusting she got parole given her well proven lack of remorse and very public victim blaming.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    What got me interested in the case was the police so actively attacking his character in a blatant attempt to influence public opinion and a potential jury decision. I had never seen anything like it. I expected some damming evidence to emerge, but it never did.

    I am not saying he did not kill them. I am saying the police did not find sufficient evidence, though the jury thought otherwise, after listening to what the police told the media to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Viking: I still disagree with you…get a book called “Guilty on the gallows” by Sherwood Young from your local library…He deals with a number of capital cases from the 19th century to the last, that of Walter James Bolton in 1957…There have been arguments that Bolton was innocent (he poisoned the missus with arsenic) but Young makes a very good case that he was in fact guilty as charged..

    Many of the cases Young covers were far from simple to solve…there was even a repeat killing, like the POS who inhabits this blog: Bill Bayley in 1934…he was suspected of killing his sister some years before he killed a famer and his wife..The picture Young paints is of a very methodical and careful Police Force, determined to not only get their man, but to get the RIGHT one…

    Kea: If you had “never seen anything like it” I suggest you read the Royal Commission’s report on AA Thomas,,,,the Police not only bogied the evidence but used an early version of the Police Computer to select a nice compliant jury as well…twice…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Griff has a boat
    a blue and white ketch of 13m…….looks like fibreglass.
    with a bowsprit and granny bars.

    ng hahhahahhahhahahhahahhahhah !

    anyone wants to come for a quite little sail with their girlfriend and Griff one way to wherever………..nice forward cabin and hatch with a big lock outside the door.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    Kea
    Women can be psychopaths, the recent Helen Milner case illustrates this, you have no evidence to suggest that Gay Oakes planned the killing, this is entirely speculation. I have heard her sharing some of her journey and she most certainly is not a ‘pyschopath’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    “sharing some of her journey”…puh-leeze as they used to say…

    I hate to break this to you Rowan my dear…but one of the defining characteristics of psychopaths is often that they seem perfectly normal…even charming and gregarious… google Ted Bundy…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    Viking
    No 3rd party in the Bain case, from the evidence as it is known there is absolutely no evidence of any other party being the killer of Robin Bain than himself. It was accurately shown at the retrial that it was very feasible and quite simple for him to have done so. The crown could not explain how it was ‘murder’ so avoided it at all costs. There is only one killer so suicide makes the Every St murderer clearly Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Notwithstanding any other matter related to this case, there is absolutely no doubt, that had Watson’s defence done their homework into the physiology of the human hair follicle and presented expert testimony, they could have easily constructed compelling arguments to cast considerable doubt on the Crowns evidence, and upon which no reasonable jury could convict

    I care less whether Watson is guilty or not, but it is one of NZ greatest travesties of justice, that he has been incarcerated for a crime in which there is not one iota of compelling and irrefutable evidence, that links him to the disappearance of Hope and Smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    from the evidence as it is known

    I am sure there isn’t a third party either, however, the investigation of that particular case was so shockingly performed, that in all likelihood, there could have been third party evidence that was ignored and went up in smoke, with much of the other evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Whilst it is true that psychopaths can be ‘charming’ people that fool many into trusting them, from what I’ve read of the Gaye Oaks case, she doesn’t present as a psychopathic, or doesn’t present with sufficient indicators to suggest she could be. Of course until one undergoes the correct testing it is difficult to be 100% sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Paul M: With respect, you clearly do not know the law very well…in cases which hinge on circumstantial evidence – as a great many do – it is common for there to be no one – or even several – piece of evidence upon which guilt can be found or inferred…prosecutors usually sum up such cases by telling juries that the evidence are strands of a rope, no one of which is capable of bearing the burden of proof of guilt…but which when taken together more than amply do…

    I am not saying I believe Watson to be guilty – I really don’t know…but it is quite incorrect to say there is “not one iota of …compelling evidence”

    Judith: (Since everything is so peace and love tonight) I am not suggesting Oakes was a pscyho either…really just pointing out that they dont have “psychopath” tattooed on their foreheads…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    “Thomas is likely innocent.”

    So are you Nick. Is that Bush view as well? Did you and bush have as good an alibi as Thomas?

    It is not wonder police get a bad name when police and former police cannot accept the Thomas did not murder the Crews, Pora is not murderer and Peter Ellis was not a kiddy fiddler.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    Watson was always going to be a suspect…by all accounts a sleazy bastard around young women; a guy who had been seen hitting on several women that night; a guy with a heap of convictions…Police focus was always going to be on on him as a likely suspect…

    Then on the other side (Watson’s guilt) there is the “coincidental” thorough cleaning of the boat – on New Years Day…who the hell does that? Such a thorough cleaning that bits of squabs are cut out, and the inside of cassette boxes are wiped clean? The sailing away and repainting of the boat that day also (or was in a day or so later?)

    Maybe his New Year’s resolution was to clean it up a bit to improve his chances with women?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. SPC (5,787 comments) says:

    David Garrett, the prosecution case spent a lot of time profiling Watson to the jury as the obvious suspect, as if this would provide a sufficient supporting strand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    SPC: I have already said 1) I am no expert on the Watson case; and 2) Like many others, I have considerable disquiet regarding what I do know of it…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @David Garrett (5,290 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    Oh exactly – many people don’t connect the dots until a crisis forces them to take a second look.

    I just get a bit peeved off with psychopathy being applied to all such situations. It seems to have become a popular mis-comprehension that for someone to kill, they must be one. And that is so untrue.

    I’ve often said that I’m not intimidated by many people, but the psychopaths I’ve met scare the living daylights out of me. And not in a Hanabil Lector type of way, but because some of them make a frightening kind of sense. They have a great ability to justify their extreme actions that almost sounds ‘sane’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    I disagree David. Aside from the hair strands, there is no compelling evidence. Excuse the pun, but all the other evidence presented by the Crown is hogwash, as witnesess attest. That matter aside, the police have yet to tell us how Watson slaughted Hope and Smart. If Hope and Smart had stepped foot on Watson’s vessel, it would be awash with their DNA. In fact, some of it would still be there today. (Finger nail cuticle embedded in the hatch cover for example)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Paul: As I said….but the Police dont need to prove how Watson killed them…as you are probably aware, they dont even need a body – as indeed they didnt have in this case.

    To say anything more would be simply to repeat what I have already said…let me put it this way….if I had been responsible for reintroducing CP rather than 3S, I would feel distinctly uneasy about Watson having been hanged…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Johnboy (17,092 comments) says:

    We should seriously consider a 15kg weight and a bit of chain as an ecological form of of CP.

    Much cheaper than life in prison at $90,000 a year! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. SPC (5,787 comments) says:

    Since no one else has said it … . Without the hair strand the case lacked evidential heft, it was necessary for a prosecution to go ahead. So when the “contamination” word is used, are we really talking about an accident?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Since we have been talking about psychopaths…Here is an extract from Young’s book about Bill Bayley, executed for double murder in 1934…He almost certainly had also killed his cousin in 1928…The account is from the prison chaplain who attended Bayley prior to and at his execution:

    “…his mind was shrewd and practical and rather humourless – all qualities that have made great generals as well as great murderers; but he lacked breadth and vision- deficiencies that reduced his character to the commonplace…”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Since Watson has not been diagnosed as a psychopath, I wonder if he has grounds to take a defamation case against Rae..??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. SPC (5,787 comments) says:

    As to my opinion on the police case.

    One, they searched the boat because he was someone there who had priors.

    But the jury was led through this, via the alternative route of the negative profiling of the suspect – as to why the police searched the boat.

    Two, did they find evidence. Nothing but the hair.

    Police had two options, wonder if this was contamination as there was so little DNA evidence or whether this was because of the cleaning and the trip out to sea (it was a boat, not a land based scene).

    They obviously decided to go ahead and leave it to the defence to raise the question of the chance that the hair evidence was via contamination.

    Of course those who think the suspect was not proven guilty have to question the hair evidence veracity. Thus its either some expert evidence as to contamination, or otherwise the word plant.

    The word plant infers a deliberate conspiracy, but it only takes only one person to plant and lead the investigation to its conclusion. And only one mistake when evidence is gathered for examination.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Paul: Ah…no…to succeed in defamation you first have to show that you have a good character “in the minds of right thinking people” and that the defendant’s (the defamer’s) words have eroded or damaged that perception.

    Someone with 48 previous convictions is unlikely to have a good characther in the first place…although there have been some interesting cases where criminals have successfully sued….right here in NZ a few years ago Helen Clark falsely referred to one Mr Yelich as “a murderer” when he had been convicted of manslaughter…she settled out of court for an undisclosed sum..

    In England a criminal with a history was wrongly identified as having sexual convictions..he recovered token damages…

    Now I come to think about it, some “human rights” a.k.a “criminals’ rights” lawyer might have a go…I have one particularly odious sweaty individual in mind..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    I understand that there are a number of judges in NZ whom have privately expressed their concern about the safety of Watson’s conviction. How does this contrast with Rae’s opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. SPC (5,787 comments) says:

    My post at 6.47pm should have been dated April 1997 (Sunday 6 April to be exact).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Paul M: Short answer? Neither the private opinions of a couple of judges or some cop have any relevance…I think Watson’s case is to be considered by the Privy Council isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    Interesting comment on SST Facebook about Rae.

    This man is one of the 4 major players who failed to do their job in the 1st failed investigation into my brothers murder by “The Blackwidow”……

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    DG: Of course that is the appropiate forum, but no matter what walk of life you come from, it is hard not to accept that Watson’s conviction is unsafe. It would put Watson through hell again but personally, I would like to see a re-trial, so NZ can learn from this traversty.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Jack5 (5,167 comments) says:

    Is Watson due for release any time soon?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    There is one striking similarity between Watson’s case and Thomas’s case (which I have never seen before in my lifetime), and that is the intense, public pressure upon the police for an arrest and a conviction. If I was representing the accused (Watson), I would not however, explore that proposition or, advance an argument that the police planted the hair strands, but on science and other probabilities. I would be confident enough to argue strongly on these two basis alone, to have Watson acquitted.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Viking2 (11,579 comments) says:

    Fortunatley this phsycopath is staying a while longer. Two and possibly 3 times killer.

    http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/71651-convicted-killer-denied-parole.html

    “He had been consuming illicit substances over the preceding four or five days and had not had any sleep. He didn’t intend to stop at the victim’s place but was passing there in the early hours of the morning.” –

    Which is utter garbage. The road is a dead end and he went down a driveway into a cottage in a gully.

    Physcopath he is. Almost certainly killed the publican at Maramarua Tavern. Well his mates say so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Chuck, I can accept all three. What do I need an alibi for? I was 2 yrs old when the Crewes were killed!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. michael_s2 (3 comments) says:

    There is reasonable doubt about Watson’s conviction.

    Police search his boat, find no evidence of Olivia Hope having been on boat.They then visit Hope home and take possession of Olivia’s hair brush. Then they visit Watson boat again, and lo, they find two of Olivia’s hairs. What a coincidence!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Unity (611 comments) says:

    Rowan, I totally agree with what you have said about Watson’s case. Also, wasn’t the hair examined and nothing found, only to have it examined again and found to be Olivia’s hair? I also believe there was a later found to be a slit in the bag.

    Sorry, DG, I did make a mistake about Rob Pope being the Police Commissioner but wasn’t he the Assistant Commissioner? He certainly held a high post. It’s a while ago now. I certainly don’t need any valium thank you.

    A big problem with our justice (or is it injustice?) system is that we have the adversarial system where it seems to be virtually won on whose lawyer is the cleverest with so much relevant information being inadmissable. I feel we should have the inquisatorial system which focusses on getting to the truth.

    As for witnesses to the ketch, it wasn’t only the water taxi driver who said he dropped them off on a ketch, but also other passengers in the water taxi confirmed this as well. I firmly believe it was a ketch which is vastly different to a sloop.

    I also believe that Watson’s convictions have been vastly over dramatised. They were more for burglary and car conversion rather than brutal affairs which might prove him to be a thug. They were also incurred while he was a tearaway teen but he was 26 when the murders were committed. There is a lot of misinformation out there and I think much of it has been put out by the Police trying to cast the impression he was a ‘bad-un’ anyway. I don’t believe half of what I read.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Jack5 (5,167 comments) says:

    Unity posted at 10.49:

    A big problem with our justice (or is it injustice?) system is that we have the adversarial system ..

    Can you have a jury without an adversarial system? What would be the point?

    Are you saying we should scrap juries?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    NK, maybe you are a good guy, but I doubt it. Any position you take professionally is weighed up against your career goals. You do what is best for NK. The fantasy of NZ’s justice system being corruption free is based upon direct monetary corruption as the measure. The fact is weasels like you are deeply corrupt and are a dime a dozen in the “system”. Your slimy denials will only fool those who have had no exposure to our justice system from the inside, but not the informed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    “Chuck, I can accept all three. What do I need an alibi for? I was 2 yrs old when the Crewes were killed!”

    That does not matter. The likelihood of you being the killer is much the same as Thomas. The fact that there are a number of older cops and retired cops who still think Thomas is guilty is a real worry.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird, it does not matter what they “think”. It matters what can be proven. The trouble starts when they do the thinking before the proving is concluded. If the police “think” you did it, they may bend the rules a bit to secure a conviction. They justify it by telling themselves the defendant is guilty anyway. I do not believe they do it to convict (in their minds) innocent people.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    I agree Kea. My was about now not then. It is appalling that some cops and former cops still think Thomas guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    Unity, Adversrial vs Inquistorial .? Moot point really as there are plenty examples of acquittals for murder under the former and I don’t think e.g the Bain supporters are complaining about it.
    BTW in France they do have a Jury system with their Inquisitorial system where the the trial Judge sits with the jury during their deliberations but I doubt if it’s bullet proof perfect.There always the human factor and that is not the exclusive domain of the Prosecution or the Police.
    And another thing that Watson had in his favour is the onus of proof which, as we know is ,on the Prosecution.Then there is the Right of silence which David Bain was able to use to his considerable advantage in his retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Unity (611 comments) says:

    I’m not saying we shouldn’t have a Jury but my interest is in presenting all the facts, many of which are suppressed under the adversarial system because they might colour the Jury’s judgement, and other factors. We should be solely interested in getting at the truth and, I’m sorry, but many prosecution lawyers use very devious means to convict a person. Equally I suppose it could be said that defence lawyers probably do the same. The whole emphasis should be on whether or not the person ‘did it’ or not. Too often they are obviously as guilty as sin but get off on a technicality, or an innocent person gets convicted because some important information that could refute something is not admissable for one reason or another.

    Sometimes I do wonder if Juries don’t always have the intelligence to judge these matters, given that often the highly intelligent manage to be excused from Jury service one way or the other. Perhaps we really should have a debate on this issue as to whether several Judges should be what is necessary to sit in judgement especially in cases which are of a very technical nature. I know this is a radical change from what we have always had, but given the large number of convictions of innocent people, our system certainly has many faults. Surely there must be a better way.

    France and some other European countries have the inquisatorial system. It would be interesting to look at their systems in depth and see if there is a better way than what we have at the moment.

    Having said I believe there is corruption within the Police, I do think many of them get a mind-set and then everything is coloured by this mind-set, even to the point of discounting important evidence which says the person is the wrong one, and beefing up circumstantial evidence that might point to the person’s guilt. Circumstantial evidence can virtually make anyone appear guilty but when you hear another side, it’s not that way at all. This is happening over and over again.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    NK, maybe you are a good guy, but I doubt it. Any position you take professionally is weighed up against your career goals. You do what is best for NK. The fantasy of NZ’s justice system being corruption free is based upon direct monetary corruption as the measure. The fact is weasels like you are deeply corrupt and are a dime a dozen in the “system”. Your slimy denials will only fool those who have had no exposure to our justice system from the inside, but not the informed.

    Kea, I left the police 18 years ago. I don’t have any career goals that taint my opinion. I’ve told you here that I think Thomas, Pora and Ellis are all innocent. I believe the cartridge case was planted. And I think the Ellis case is a disgrace.

    I never said the justice system “corruption free”. But world survey after world survey shows our police force and justice system to be one of the most corrupt free in the world. It was actually a lot worse in the Thomas days, when DIs like John Hughes were operating. But it is a lot, lot better now. There are more police prosecuted now than ever before. So grow up.

    And your comment that “weasels like me are deeply corrupt” is not only pathetic and slimy in itself, it is a disgraceful fucking smear and outright bullshit. If you had any courage at all (which I doubt) you would write that in your own name, rather than behind an anonymous pseudonym.

    Chuck does, and I respect his opinions. Yours are nothing more than drivel.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    NK, I would happily write in my own name if I could. I apologise, I should not have targeted you to make my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Crusader (323 comments) says:

    lilman (717 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 11:51 am

    UGLY are you a resident physiologist?,if not then your opinion is irreverent

    Physiology is the study of living systems, e.g. how the body works, the respiratory system, the circulatory system, etc.

    Psychology is the study of the mind and behaviours.

    Just FYI.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    NK, your comments about kea are spot on and he is certainly sliding down the pathway to another banning if he carrys on like that , an apology notwithstanding .
    No reasonable person needs to put up with that kind of smear.Actually that one is likely highly defamatory .!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    When ever corruption occurs there are people who know it is happening, but say nothing. The need to fit-in is common to all workplaces and is especially strong in the police. That unity is essential and useful in many areas of police work. It can however lead things in the wrong direction when it involves legal rights and responsibilities.

    The history of policing around the world is one of violence and corruption. Every single despot and tyrant has been supported by the police force of that country. They do not serve the public, they serve who is in POWER. Whether they do good or bad is simply an accident of who is in power at the time. It makes no difference to them if it is Hitler or the Dalai Lama.

    All self evident truths to those who stop and think.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    stupidboy, how do you “smear” someone writing under an assumed name that no one knows ?

    I really do wish you would think before you write stupidboy. And don’t you think it is a bit cheeky for a foul mouthed lying little creep like you to be taking the moral high ground and pretending to be all offended ? Do not assume others are as stupid as you boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    NK, I would happily write in my own name if I could. I apologise, I should not have targeted you to make my point.

    Accepted. Thanks. Let’s move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    NK, I am not anti the police. That is actually laughably wrong. But we need to tell it how it is in order to raise the standard. It is not that the police are corrupt as individuals. Most are pretty grounded decent folk. The problem is in the culture and with human behaviour. It happens in other places with statutory powers too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Kea, one of the reasons that led me to leaving the police was the way it is managed and the culture and the way the middle “managers” behave toward lower ranked officers. I couldn’t stand it. The private sector is much better in that regard, but not perfect itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    NK, I used to think that statements about the scum floating to the top was all sour grapes. However, and sadly, I no longer think that. Many rise not through merit, but through politics. The police are not unique in that, it just has a greater impact on society than if it were a private company. We have one of the better police forces in the world, but to keep it that way we need to be open about the problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Kea, I actually think that part of the problem is that the middle “managers” are anything but managers – they are trained policeman. Expecting them to somehow act like a corporate manager or team leader is the antithesis of what they have spent 15 years training to do. That is why I am in favour of bringing in non sworn staff to management positions within the police and leaving police to investigate and solve crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    NK, yes but that solution brings problems of its own. I am not sure what the solution is. A good start is open discussion within the police at all levels. The fact the police get so much media attention, and the political aspect, hampers that to some degree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,745 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 7:30 pm
    Viking
    No 3rd party in the Bain case, from the evidence as it is known there is absolutely no evidence of any other party being the killer of Robin Bain than himself. It was accurately shown at the retrial that it was very feasible and quite simple for him to have done so. The crown could not explain how it was ‘murder’ so avoided it at all costs. There is only one killer so suicide makes the Every St murderer clearly Robin.

    Vote: 2  5
    The most laughable and inane post on this thread and a valuable reminder why his son struggles to get even a cent in compensation as a consequence of the fallout and implosion from the Binnie Report.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Kea: I am glad you apologised to NK, who is a person I have the greatest respect for…if you hadn’t done so I would have to have become really quite annoyed with you…

    But seriously…Nick’s comments are very revealing…especially if one is familar with the Police of 20-30 years ago and the luminaries of the time.

    Nick: I would be interested in your opinion of Tamihere’s guilt or innocence..My (very unlawyerly) view of the whole sordid business was that Tamihere was such an evil bastard I didn’t care as much as I should have that Hughes “found” evidence in a small whare that had already been searched, and that they paraded Tamihere past TV cams, thus prejudicing identifications. But that was before one of the bodies turned up 75 k’s from where the Police theory of the case said it should be, and the watch allegedly given to the son was still on the body..

    What is your view?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    David Garret, Wayne Tamiherw.? Like most criminal cases, as Rosemary McLeod observied ,often have discrepancies and anomalies that maybe difficult to reconcile or account for, but does not necessarily mean the accused is not guilty.
    What I do find interesting and can’t account for is why there is no major public campaign either intiated by Wayne or especially his brother John, has materialized .John Tamihere did express deep anguish and misgivings about his brother’s conviction sometime ago, but surprisingly , nothing has come of it.
    It would be interesting to know why.?
    Thoughts.?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Well Stephie, for a start his name is David Tamihere (although his middle name is Wayne)…But I think you are being a little mischievous…why would you think a high profile person like John Tamihere might be reluctant to start a campaign proclaiming his wronged brother’s innocence?

    I’ll give you a hint…Tamihere’s first homicide was in 1972 when he “accidentally” beat a prostitute to death with the butt of a rifle…at the time of the murder of the Swedish tourists he was on bail for a particularly nasty rape – to which he had already pleaded guilty

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Nick: I would be interested in your opinion of Tamihere’s guilt or innocence..My (very unlawyerly) view of the whole sordid business was that Tamihere was such an evil bastard I didn’t care as much as I should have that Hughes “found” evidence in a small whare that had already been searched, and that they paraded Tamihere past TV cams, thus prejudicing identifications. But that was before one of the bodies turned up 75 k’s from where the Police theory of the case said it should be, and the watch allegedly given to the son was still on the body..

    What is your view?

    Much as yours David. The courts tested that ID evidence carefully and found it wasn’t prejudicial. I don’t criticise the police for pushing the boundaries on things like that as long as courts deal with the issue, and they did. The fact that some don’t like the court decision is just tough.

    But like Lundy & Watson, if it wasn’t Tamihere then who was it? Supposedly there are three murderers (and in the Watson and Tamihere cases, double murderers) out there being completely ignored by the police. I never subscribe to the view that the police “just want a conviction”. On the contrary, they want to catch bad guys, so it makes no sense they would target good, innocent New Zealanders, and leave the bad guys out in society free to commit more heinous crimes.

    With Tamihere, it would be a highly improbable that two bad-ass double murderers were in the Coromandel at the same time and they have the wrong one! I’m in no way saying police should consider high improbabilities in their investigation techniques, not at all, but I can consider them when trying to sleep at night in cases like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Nick: Yeah, I am pretty close to you…my concern about Lundy is that he will be acquitted because the Police theory of the case – depending as it does on the pathologist’s evidence of the time of the victims’ last meal – will be shown to be highly improbable if not impossible.

    I think of all the cases we’ve been talking about, the question “If not him, then who?” applies most to Lundy: Noone else had a shred of motive for killing an ordinary looking overweight woman and her equally overweight young daughter…but I think the prick will walk…

    As for Watson….I dunno….I have known a lot of boat people, and I own a fizz boat myself…I would never mistake an old wooden ketch for a steel hulled sloop, and none of the “sailboat” people I know would either… Effectively Watson was convicted on his sleazy behaviour, scratches on the hatch cover, and two hairs allegedly found in his boat…As I said upthread, if I had been responsbile for reintroducing CP I would feel very uneasy about Watson having hanged…

    As for Bain…my belief in the jury system is sorely tested in that case…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    I believe I can smell Margaret’s Killer here…Well here’s your chance champ…show some expression of remorse for robbing a 17 year old girl of her life…

    I promised Tai Hobson’s children I would do all in my power to prevent Bell ever getting parole…one of my missions in life is to have YOU recalled to serve your life sentence…Your alias here and elsewhere on the ‘net is well known…there are a lot of people waiting patiently for you to put a foot wrong…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    DG, yeah I was out of order with NK. I was trying to make a point and looking for a target. I am pretty fired up about corruption in the govt service right now, for reasons I dearly wish I could reveal. I am frustrated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Kea: Nick has graciously accepted your apology…I think that particular bogie has been put to bed..mine with the unremorseful Killer won’t be put to bed until he his back where he belongs, in a cage in Pare…

    I put on record that I am extremely fearful of Margaret’s Killer, being very mindful of the fact that he has killed twice.. if he ever turned up here – particularly if my children were around – I would feel extremely frightened of him and what he might do…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. nasska (11,827 comments) says:

    David G

    Since the arsehole in question will be on life parole what sort of offenses would qualify for a lengthy recall?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Ever since Arthur Allan Thomas we’ve had the defendants lawyers trot out this allegation of crooked police planting evidence. But unlike the Arthur Allan Thomas planting, there is no evidence found to support the planting of evidence.”

    What most people overlook or forget is that the cops and the forensic scientists who studied the blanket didn’t find any blonde hairs on it until AFTER the police had been to Olivia Hope’s home and had taken an unknown (probably two) number blonde of hairs from her hair brush.

    “I used to trust the Police but not now, now I wouldn’t trust them two yards.” Guy Wallace’s father.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Nasska: Anything involving violence or threats of violence…he is very careful in what he says and doesn’t say here…on other forums he is not so careful…He has made telephone threats which have been reported to the Police…

    By his complete lack of expressed remorse I would bet dollars to donuts HE is a psycopath…he got parole many years ago; if he ever gets recalled he probably wouldn’t get it again…After Burton’s rampage in 2007 the Parole Board became much more reluctant to grant parole…

    jack: Are you sure that’s right about the timing of the hair evidence being “found”?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    David Garrett, yes he is a very disturbing individual and shows no remorse at all. If a normal person killed someone accidentally they would be haunted by it. Yet he has done it twice and seems unaffected.

    It would be remiss for anyone not to take measures to protect themselves and others, particularly when the killer has shown such animosity and hatred towards them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. nasska (11,827 comments) says:

    If anything trips him DG, his arrogance will kick start the action.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. wikiriwhis business (4,135 comments) says:

    Judging by the TV programme of the Scott Watson’s court case and the way the judge subverted the evidence I think the detectives comments are all malicious

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Kea: There is absolutely no question of his second killing being other than deliberate…although he probably got the wrong person. As for his first killing, he was a short arsed and short fused asshole with a knife…manslaughter may have been the correct verdict…

    As you say, he has never (to my knowledge) expressed one word of remorse on here…and when I suggest he might wish to, he refers to my stature (rather amusing given his) and says I am “whiny”….

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “jack: Are you sure that’s right about the timing of the hair evidence being “found”?”

    “Watson was sexually motivated, Rae said. He lured the tired young couple on to his yacht with the offer of a berth for the night. When they were asleep he cast off and quietly motored away.”

    I am as sure of the timing of the hair evidence being “found” as I am that it is impossible to “quietly” motor a single banger diesel boat motor and that anyone who says you can is a LIAR. In that tin can of a boat the noise would have been hellish. Anyone who believes a word that RAE bastard says needs his head read!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. stephieboy (3,414 comments) says:

    Wiki, the judge subverting the evidence.? In what way precisely.? If it was the case strong grounds for a mistrial I would of thought.?
    David Garrett , I thought , judging by previous comments , we have to disreguard Tamihere’s prior convictions when considering his, or Watson’s culpability.?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    stevieboy, a question mark very conveniently comes with its own full-stop. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but being a punctuation rebel probably isn’t going to net you a large group of admirers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Stephie: Are you trying to be funny? The JURY at Tamihere’s trial for the Swede’s murders would have been told to disregard anything they had heard about him – and in that pre internet age you can be pretty sure no-one would have known about his first killing 15 years earlier…We here are discussing his life and times…including his (presumed) THREE killings years after his trial…or is that distinction too much for you??

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Johnboy (17,092 comments) says:

    A dreadful old cop said Watson did it. End of story. Nothing to see here folks. Move on! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    Stupidboy @ 11.25
    Again more smoke and mirrors from you Stupidboy, I see you have still have no answer to how Robins death was a ‘murder’ yet you still think you know better than Boyce, and that Marzukas comedy clip is accurate. That is the real joke!! absolute comedy. If you think that Boyces demonstration is inaccurate then provide the explanation for daddys death scene that the crown couldn’t. To suggest that Robin allowed the rifle to be held in close contact with his head and allowed his killer 2 go’s at shooting him is laughable but we already know that don’t we?
    I would like it to have been directly put to Dr Dempster at the retrial what the odds of a murder given an upward trajectory close contact shot to the temple of a standing victim. I would put this at less than 1% but then of course you know better don’t you Stupidboy!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Unity (611 comments) says:

    I totally agree with you, Jack. Everything was tested previous to them later finding Olivia’s hair and this is what convicted Scott Watson. Also, I understand the bag that contained those that had previously been tested with nothing incriminating found, had a slit in it?! The sloop was low in the water, very plain and had only one mast.

    Also as said above, anyone who was had spent a bit of time around boats would never mistake a ketch for a sloop or vice versa. Witnesses were adamant that it was a ketch, giving a detailed description and a drawing was also done featuring the 2 masts, portholes and intricate ropework.

    Even the identikit picture (man with hooded eyes, shaggy longish brown hair) didn’t remotely resemble Scott Watson, so it’s quite beyond my comprehension as to why the Police even looked at him after seeing his little sloop and also his closely cut very dark hair. It’s at this point that ‘corruption’ comes to mind. What else could it be?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    Some expert psychologist was responsible for the jailing of Peter Ellis

    Well, the jury was responsible for convicting Ellis, but Karen Zelas certainly had plenty to say to jurors, some of it false and prejudicial to a fair trial.

    But your point is valid: Rae’s opinion isn’t worth a pinch of salt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Rowan (2,542 comments) says:

    “I think of all the cases we’ve been talking about, the question “If not him, then who?” applies most to Lundy:”

    DG
    This is a ridiculous assertion, that no one else could have killed Christine and Amber Lundy (I have no idea whether or not Lundy is the killer) but to say that he must have done it because you (or I) don’t know anyone else with a motive that doesn’t make Lundy the default killer. Maybe it was someone with a grudge against him who sent someone around to teach Mark a lesson and finding him not home butchered them, maybe Mark hired someone or left his cellphone with a friend near Wgtn, yes this is speculation but for it to be Lundy you still have to place him in PN and back in Wellington within the time frames which is very problamatic and certainly didnot occur in the 3 hour timeslot proposed by the police. I think Lundy will walk as there isn’t enough evidence to convict, the truth of what really happened is unlikely to ever really be known.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    Unity, also the witnesses who reported seeing a ketch and the police weren’t interested.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. SGA (1,144 comments) says:

    So, one of the police officers instrumental in Scott Watson’s conviction thinks he’s guilty and dangerous. Well… why is this even a story? If he was now saying that he thought they’d got the wrong guy, then that would be newsworthy.

    FWIW, I’ve no strong views on Watson’s guilt (or not). I’ve never had much confidence in confessions to jailhouse informants though (Watson’s case involved one of those, I think).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Unity (611 comments) says:

    Absolutely Ugly Truth, and there were quite a number, including someone I know personally. There was also a documentary about it and the people in it saw the ketch, reported it, but nothing was done. It’s not as if no-one ever saw the ketch – they did on a number of occasions. I would say Scott Watson was quickly in their sights and they discounted everything else to make him fit. Shocking and rather unbelievable if it wasn’t for the other cases of wrongful convictions!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    Yesterday Lundy’s appeal had been allowed on the point of the car trip, once that proved to be another daydream then he’s guilty because ‘know it all’ doesn’t know who has it might have been. Got it.

    On the Watson case. When Collins worked against the Binnie report the main allegation was that he didn’t step back and look at the overall picture. Of course many believe he did and that is shown in the report itself, that issue will be now be decided by the Courts. When reading the Kirsty McDonald report on Watson one of the glaring oversights is that she doesn’t ‘step back’ to look at the identification errors which favour Watson, the absence of proof from that the highly unlikely ‘confession’ claimed against Watson by an inmate still stands – as the report is that he has recanted the confession, thirdly she doesn’t put in perspective that the dna evidence may have come from others from the same dna pool, or consider how the hairs arrived after being ‘missed’ in 2 earlier searches.

    One immediate area of concern is that Witness A (the former inmate) was the Crown’s witness and it was therefore up to The Crown to produce him or simply agree to the withdrawal of his evidence. Instead Kirsty McDonald apparently went looking for him. In a case as controversial as the Watson case where such controversial ‘evidence’ is given it shouldn’t be contingent on the defence to do anything more than provide the proof that the evidence has been recanted. Instead she looked for proof that it had indeed been recanted – very unfair to Watson and a reversal of the onus of proof. Significant for any Jury.

    The same goes for the identification where one important witness now says they would never have identified Watson as being in the company of Olivia. In itself a significant consideration for any fresh Jury or indeed the original Jury.

    The third contradicts the first. While Kristy McDonald went looking for Witness A, she didn’t commission any investigation into the DNA or how it arrived on the blanket in circumstances few people with doubts about Watson’s conviction feel happy with. The DNA remains as from the same genetic pool as Olivia, but not necessarily her own.

    If Kirsty McDonald had of adopted the formula, Judith Collins claims didn’t happen in Binnie’s inquiry of stepping back, she would have at least asked, or recommended the COA consider these 3 things linked together. A definite statement by one witness that Watson was not identified with Olivia when earlier it had been said he was identified. A withdrawal of a fairly outrageous by detail confession claimed against Watson or at least the ‘awkward’ position of Witness A, if he was found, to have either confirmed he lied at the outset about the confession or at some point since. Lastly, the now well known ‘fact’s about the 2 hairs on the blanket. That is was K McD failed to do, and what the Minister made no objections about in this case but certainly did in the Compensation Claim by David Bain. Those 3 things, and no doubt more, unknown generally should have been matters considered by the COA and thereafter presumably a fresh Jury.

    Put another way The Minister, by definition of what the Prerogative of Mercy is meant to entitle those who have exhausted rights of Appeal should have insisted that those valid 3 points and maybe others, which I don’t know about, or have overlooked, be considered together as an overall picture. Secondly, ordered, as is in her capacity, a deeper scientific inquiry into the 2 hairs along with the possible variations of their transmission onto the blanket. The later, is at the very least is of significant public interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Johnboy (17,092 comments) says:

    Say what you like Nosti. We all know you could kill again…….if you could get your bottle up! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    Unity, did your acquaintance ever see a photo of the Lonebird? It was a ketch/twin masted schooner with portholes and a lot of ropework.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Dead men tell no tales, but their hair strands will. I’m astounded that the defence never subjected the alleged hair stands of Hope (at the time) to an analysis, which would have (and probably still will, if indeed they are Hope’s), rule out the possibility that the strands where planted by the Police (or otherwise)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Paul: You have been watching far too much CSI…unless the follicle is attached, hair is relatively poor probative evidence…the best that can be said is it is “consistent/not consistent” with the comparison sample…if the follicle is attached then DNA may be able to be extracted from it…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    If Mr. Rae can point me to some irrefutable evidence linking Watson to the disappearance of Hope and Smart, I will consider his opinion as nothing more than psycho-babble. In the meantime, does anyone know the status of his relationship with Pope?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    DG: If Hope’s, the hair strands will present evidence of the environment that night. i.e. perfumes, hairsprays, salt spray, cooking residues and so on.

    If the papilla derma is still attached, it will also be possible to determine whether these strands detached from Hope’s scalp through trauma or, otherwise.

    Not hard to construct an arguement perhaps against the Crown’s evidence, if you have this information..??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    Speaking about long distance analysis of psychopathy did you ever respond to the family from the down the line who say they’d never heard from you Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden have you seen any record that the 2 hairs came from Olivia and not her extended gene pool? You’re quoting it as if it is true that they are Olivia’s. I’ve read otherwise and nothing in the Kirsty McDonald report confirms otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Johnboy (17,092 comments) says:

    Nothing quite as pathetic as the crim turned legal eagle really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    [Deleted by DPF] Actually yes I did…As I suspected they were wrongly reported when the shit hit the fan in 2010….I wrote letters expressing my remorse at the time I faced my charge, in 2005…Those letters were sent by the Police to the mother (she was then still alive) and the sister…

    and I express my deep remorse here again…at the time I obtained the passport I gave no thought at all to any impact on the family..or anyone for that matter…I am on record as saying I was deeply shocked when I saw the VIS written in the shaky hand of an old woman…

    [Deleted by DPF and 30 demerits. Do not try and “out” other posters]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    You obviously need help Garrett, counting your misfortunes is obviously unsettling for you. You’re writing as if you have fallen off the wagon, again.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    I am advancing an arguement that the hair strands are indeed, from Hope’s scalp. If the derma papilla is attached, then a DNA match can be made that is conclusive. I’m not interested in McDonald’s report. Watson’s defence team need to seek the informed opinions of scientists who are better informed than the Crown’s expert witnesses

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Nostradamus (3,439 comments) says:

    Serve – return – half-volley – hits it up – smash! I’m clearly a late arrival to this tennis match. This article (which apparently relies on information in the public domain) seems to have a passing relevance to this thread – or have I missed something?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    The children are really excited now. I was cautioned not to feed the melodramatic one who craves attention and approval. My bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    Don’t follow where you are going with that Paul Marsden. Funding is a major for the defence in the first instance, but secondly the K McD report is reviewable so why not the later if the first is not possible. Besides I have read something that says the only forensic conclusion is the same pool, rather than definitely Olivia and at no point in her report does she claim otherwise. Have you read the report, I haven’t for a few months. Why wouldn’t a Minister approve funding to shed light on a case that many are disturbed with. The tests may be less cost than a single further year in prison. Instead we are left with Rae’s impression and an argument against Watson that primarily resolves around his character and not the id, sloop, and so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Unity (611 comments) says:

    UT, it was all so long ago that I was told and I didn’t ask for specifics at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    NK (956 comments) says:
    May 10th, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Nonsense. He deals with psychopaths every day/week. He is well versed to offer an opinion on it.

    I’ve got no problem with Rae expressing an opinion. My point is that unless he is an expert in the field then his opinion has no evidential value, which is what I meant when I said that it was irrelevant.

    The idea that someone thought that Rae’s opinion was somehow newsworthy is beyond bizarre, in the context of Collins’ troubles I think that the article was just a puff piece written to offset the recent bad press.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    Unity, no problem. All I know about the mystery ketch is rumours, I was hoping to be able to confirm that it wasn’t the Lonebird, which had a ferrocement hull, not a wooden one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Nostradamus (3,439 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    [I]n the context of Collins’ troubles I think that the article was just a puff piece written to offset the recent bad press.

    Blair Ensor is a senior reporter covering crime and justice for The Press.

    So your idea of a “puff piece” is an article written by a journalist (who writes for The Press) to “offset” articles written by other journalists (presumably those who write for other newspaper publications). Now, for your idea to have any basis in reality, one of two things had to happen: Mr Ensor decided he needed to “offset” those articles; or Mr Ensor was directed by someone influential to do so.

    Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Nost: Perhaps because Watson’s defence team are not informed enough as to the significance of information, that a scientifc analysis but suitably qualified scienctists would yield.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    Mr Ensor decided he needed to “offset” those articles; or Mr Ensor was directed by someone influential to do so.

    Why would Ensor need to do that? There’s no reason for him to be threatened by the situation.
    It could simply be his idea of journalistic balance.

    Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

    Not quite as ridiculous as the idea that the police would frame Arthur Alan Thomas back in the day?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    David Garrett, like this you mean ?

    http://i607.photobucket.com/albums/tt159/darkcrisis123/300061.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Nostradamus (3,439 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    This particular issue has nothing to do with Arthur Alan Thomas.

    Focus on the article. It was written by Blair Ensor – not by Detective Senior Sergeant John Rae John Rae. Mr Ensor covers crime and justice issues. He may be a great journalist (I have no idea), but I’m sure even he would admit to having limits when it comes to influencing public debate on political issues.

    I very much doubt that he decided to write a “puff piece” to offset recent publicity about Judith Collins.

    Note the distinction between writing an article about something and writing an article about something with the specific purpose of diverting the reader’s mind away from another issue. But the latter part of that distinction is what you suggested he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    You’re grovelling apology was pretty special this morning Kea. You have more legs on your belly than a centipede, I guess that goes with your secret service background.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (5,314 comments) says:
    May 11th, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    That is not him, it is me down ticking you for being a prize prat.

    Just a hint – an extremely fearful person does not go about taunting, goading, and inciting violence from the person they state they are fearful of, and they certainly do not post their address details and state how they can be found if they are fearful of that person.

    Which proves Mr Garrett, that you are clearly not fearful of that person at all, and are bullshitting – either with the aim of attention seeking, or working to another agenda, neither of which are admirable under the circumstances in which you have decided to carry out your campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Gosh DG he is targeting me now ! You would think he would do a better job of connecting with all the practice he has had.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Judith, now now you will make David Bain jealous getting all cuddly with Nosty and you DONT want David mad AGAIN do you !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. goldnkiwi (1,552 comments) says:

    I see ‘Mother’ has arrived, appropriate on Mothers Day of course. Muggins would enjoy this party, someone should invite him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    Who brought donkeys up, I hope it wasn’t someone pissed in a lotto shop.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Nostalgia-NZ (5,283 comments) says:

    Are you claiming that’s what DPF told you Garrett, or is it just more bs? Try to tell the truth, for once.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    This particular issue has nothing to do with Arthur Alan Thomas.

    The common theme is faith in the system. I used that case because it shows that landmark events can occur which change the level of trust which people have in the system.

    In other words if Ensor was intentionally misleading the public about a miscarriage of justice then it wouldn’t be the first time. Or there could be a more innocent explanation, that he was attempting to introduce balance by writing the article.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. goldnkiwi (1,552 comments) says:

    I feel sorry for Nostradamus at times like this. Perhaps they should be referred to in their entirety not foreshortened as I have seen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. David Farrar (1,902 comments) says:

    David Garrett: This is not the thread for a vendetta. I’ve deleted 10 of your comments. Stop it now, or you’ll get banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Unity (611 comments) says:

    Who better to tell us all about Scott Watson than Keith Hunter who has done intensive meticulous research as well as writing a book ‘Trial by Trickery’. His comments are as follows –

    QUOTE:
    ‘The principal reason for Watson’s conviction was that the prosecutors didn’t tell him what they accused him of doing until the last day of their closing speech to the jury. Because his lawyers didn’t know the Crown’s actual case, they defended him against the wrong scenario throughout the entire trial. In fact the crown’s scenario was plainly contradicted by the pretrial statements of the people on the yacht he was moored up to. Their evidence completely exonerated him but because his lawyers didn’t know the Crown’s murder scenario they paid little attention to it. If they had known it they could easily have acquired a not guilty verdict. The Crown’s scam became known as “The Two Trip Theory” and was unknown to the defence, the judge and the jury until Davison announced it in his final contribution to the provision of ‘justice’ to Watson in the High Court – on the last day of the Crown’s involvement in the case. Watsons’ lawyers told the Court of Appeal they were unaware of it until then. Perhaps some of those who find him guilty can find some justice in this. I can’t.

    As for the hairs and the likelihood they were planted, consider that there were 389 hairs found on the blanket from Watson’s yacht, that they were taken from the blanket and put into two plastic bags by the ESR in mid January, that 94 percent of them were short dark body and pubic hairs, 4 percent were longer brown hairs and five hairs were blonde, that the two hairs from Olivia were blonde and 8 and 10 inches long, that the ESR scientist examined the bags of hair in late January and didn’t notice the two long blonde hairs amongst the short black ones despite that fact she was looking for Olivia’s hair and knew she had long blonde hair, and that the scientist for some reason looked in the bags again in March again and found the two long blonde hairs then – along with a hair from Watson’s sister she hadn’t found the first time. Some might have thought that the long blonde hairs would have been the first ones to be seen and picked out if they had actually been there.

    Observers might note that there’s a funny pattern in these things, a pattern in which tiny items of forensic evidence turn up unexpectedly late in police murder investigations, when the police are struggling to put a case together against their chosen suspects. With Watson it was two hairs carrying DNA evidence found two months after the police investigation began, with Lundy it was microscopic DNA/’brain matter’ found two months after the police investigation on a shirt that hadn’t featured in the case before, and with Thomas it was the famous cartridge case. Strange, eh?

    There’s much mythology about Watson on the Kiwiblog site that would benefit from a fit of accuracy. For instance Watson didn’t clean his yacht up the next day. He cleaned up the yacht several weeks earlier after a storm. He painted the exterior of the cabin the following day, changing it from the innocent colour red to the guilty colour blue.. A prominent Crown witness told the court he had discussed painting the boat a week earlier. Watson’s convictions were principally for using other people’s cars and bicycles and a few for burglary. None were for violence and all were committed between the ages of 16 and 18. At the time of the Sounds case he had not bothered the police for 8 years.

    The Christchurch Press has quoted the retiring Snr Sgt Rae as saying that ‘A mystery ketch identified by a key witness early in the investigation was located and inquiries found it was not in Endeavour Inlet when Hope and Smart disappeared, he said. “There’s nothing new that’s come up since the presentation of that case – not a jolly sausage.” Mr Rae’s integrity can be assessed in the light of those words. It was an essential part of the police case that the ketch was never found and that there was therefore no ketch at all. Prosecutor Davison actual words to the jury were “There never was a mystery ketch. The Mystery ketch is a fiction really, the label given to this description that Mr Wallace came up with, and the mystery ketch is a term of the media, mystery ketch is something the defence has used as a term but there isn’t any mystery ketch I suggest to you, any more”. Mr Rae’s words as quoted are false. What then his opinions?

    UNQUOTE:

    I would say that says it all really. Scott watson is innocent and I will never believe otherwise. His continued incarceration is a huge miscarriage of justice. His character has been much maligned by the Police themselves who have tried very hard to make him out to be a dreadful person who deserves to be locked up anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    @NK

    I never said the justice system “corruption free”. But world survey after world survey shows our police force and justice system to be one of the most corrupt free in the world. It was actually a lot worse in the Thomas days, when DIs like John Hughes were operating. But it is a lot, lot better now. There are more police prosecuted now than ever before. So grow up.

    I would largely agree with you Nick. Some people misinterpret low corruption by world standards to mean no corruption. I am sure you could not agree with me as a lawyer but there are also corrupt judges as is the case in every country in the world. Judges are not legally obliged to state if they know one of the parties in a civil dispute as jury would be expected to do.

    Justice should not only be done but be seen to be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    Watson was a bad bugger who used his boat to get around the islands of the Sounds, where he grew dope that he then sold to the Headhunters, amongst other things.

    But his boat was a sloop, not a ketch, and Rae is a bent cop who put a man away for a double murder he didn’t commit.

    One day Watson will get his freedom and eventually his compo, which will be up in seven figures as it should be.

    I have all the time in the world for the Police but I hope Rae gets his comeuppance in this world before he gets in the next. Alzheimers would be appropriate; losing your mind and your memories as punishment for stealing a man’s life.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. tearoha (5 comments) says:

    Where oh where is that Belladonna rose
    That sailed the seas into the void
    Lillie Langtry would be proud

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “I have all the time in the world for the Police”

    Not me, I hate the lot of them. Porky bastards!

    http://bcops.wordpress.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Unity (611 comments) says:

    I agree, Boris. I really don’t know how Rae, and Pope for that matter, sleep at night. Have they no conscience at all? I can’t imagine anything worse than being incarcerated for something I didn’t do, especially for a lengthy period. Also, I can’t imagine how his parents must also be feeling. It’s criminal to put it mildly. Goodness knows what sort of man Watson will be once he finally gets out. Many could be very bitter and twisted but amazingly David Bain seems to be a decent fellow in spite of everything. I’ve actually met him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. tearoha (5 comments) says:

    Im just today a newbie but I see many old avatars here from trademe notably justice haters and ex police whose opinion is cemented in concrete to justify illegality and whitewashs.
    Having personally held much of the evidence given in this trial I can confidently express my opinion a ketch yacht did exist not the sloop Watson was accused and framed for to appease the public.
    I had a list of the yachts present and many of their photographs but to me there are only a couple which stand out for further investigation but that time has well gone now..but public concern could if managed right attain a retrial where possibly truth would prevail

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Can anybody assist me in directing me to a copy of Kirsty McDonald’s report on-line please? Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    tearoha (2 comments) says:

    May 12th, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Retain the originals and send copies to Watson’s defence team in Christchuch. Please send copies to Keith Hunter also. Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    tearoha: Can you also send copies here to Mr. Farrar?. I have no doubt he will publish them on this site, if they are interesting enough

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    tearoha, if you’ve been sitting on vital information since day one you’re an arsehole but I suspect that you’re actually fantasist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. tearoha (5 comments) says:

    How would I have vital information since day one.. I mearly was able to read a substantive amount of the discovery forwarded by a third party.
    There were many yachts listed and by far most I could account for either in that discovery or searching online to find a photo of any particular yacht .
    Many people even above are still under the impression the Lonebird was involved or the subsequent boat used in smuggling to Australia the Ngaire Wha but they were not.
    Two yachts I could not discount as I could find no information nor photos to match
    One was being used by Christopher Greig whom later went on a year later to do do a home invasion and murder it was listed as a schooner Ladybird of course the only reference I could find to that yacht is the famous Peter Blake yacht so initially I dismissed that as ludicrous but when I saw his partner in crimes brother owned Mcmanaway I wasnt sure and that the yacht had been seen in suspicious circumstances in Kawhia harbour after sailing from Auckland.
    The second yacht was listed as owned by a supreme court judge named Jersey Lily hence my hint above in reference to Lillie Langty and belladonna.
    It was taken the following year to Thailand refitted and subsequently sold.
    So jack no fantasy just insight

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. tearoha (5 comments) says:

    When police spoke to Greig and co on the schooner Ladybird in Kawhia harbour his mate Mcmanaway was not on board.
    To me this infers Greig did not just manage to gain control over Mcmanaways clients boats solely with his mates approval and that the brother and owner of Mcmanaway marine had a direct connection with Greig as well whereby he could gain control and authority over any numerous number of yachts or even boats.
    Dt Sgt Rae doesnt seem to query Mcmanaway why Greig was even in control of their clients yachts not being as employee or any others he had been in control over during that time.
    So the Ladybird was most likely not the sole yacht lent out to Greig on that or other occasions.

    I have no idea what Greig looks like but I have heard mention he was a skinhead and the person he killed was a maori activist
    He walked into the house a year after the sounds disappearance and assasinated Keri Stephens point blank without a shred of concern as if he either didnt care if caught or felt he was beyond it.

    The passengers on the boat Amelia and the couple were insistent at trial the unknown man had first a crew cut then over a few days became short dark hair.
    This to me is why the jury convicted Scott his similar appearance.
    It was only Guy Wallace that has now maintained it was the scruffy longer haired man from the bar earlier whom had been drunk and annoying other patrons.He could well have mixed the two up after all he would have seen hundreds of people that night.
    The defence jumped into the search of this scruffy individual maintaining he was the one tied to the missing ketch.
    But to me there may well be no connection
    But being a boatie I have no doubt whatsoever Wallace was correct in the description of a ketch and not a sloop.

    If the defence had looked for a clean cut individual similar to Scott and in control of a ketch or schooner not a sloop
    history may well have been different.
    I believe a fresh investigation is needed before any retrial could even be considered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. tearoha (5 comments) says:

    And I can find nothing in regard to the other schooner or whom was in control of it only the name
    and that the owner was a judge.
    In ending I am mearly another armchair critic disgusted in the judicial system in NZ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Sporteone (52 comments) says:

    I am always amazed at the comments that appear on these blogs, especially from people who actually know very little about the matter. I know Watson has been convicted and serving time, but when are the Police going to be held accountable for ignoring facts and sightings after the date that Hope and Smart are supposed to be dead. On the 6th January Hope was seen in Picton by an ex school friend, but the Police ignored this sighting because they said she was to drunk to recognise her. Also what about the fact that the Picture of Hope that was being publicised did not look anything like she was at the time she disappeared.

    Believe me I do know what I am talking about as there is a report out there that has been completed by the Maritime Research Group that plots the 2 masted ketch. Oh but sorry, it did not exist according to the Police

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Unity (611 comments) says:

    Wel said, Sporteone. I’m with you on this one. I absolutely believe in Scott Watson’s innocent and feel heads should roll within the Police who were either totally inept or corrupt. It’s quite beyond belief how he was ever convicted given that he didn’t resemble one iota the identikit photo given by witnesses and Watson’s boat was a little one masted sloop but the water taxi driver took Ben and Olivia out to a much larger fancy two masted yacht. End of story – or it should have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    @Sporteone

    I also am unhappy with the way the police handled this investigation but I think that Hope was seen in Picton on 6 January would be extremely remote. What scenario would you suggest that her drucken ex school friend was correct? Why did she not speak to her? Where was Ben? I could suggest many more questions but I would not blame the police for not wasting time on this unlikely lead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Sporteone (52 comments) says:

    I am also stunned at his arrogance and his naivety of Rae, given that a Parole Board hearing is pending, and he has nothing to base his psychopath/socio-path labels on other than his subjective layman’s assessment – mind you, I’m sure that its caused some ripples behind the scene – I always judge cops on their willingness to make provocative statements and gutsy stances whilst they’re still in the job, rather than belatedly over their shoulder when they’re leaving or after they’ve left … Such as in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote