Often lost or omitted, however, from the continued claims about Watson's innocence
are some key points raised during the trial that perhaps show why the jury chose to accept that Watson must have killed Hope
and Smart.
These include:
* Before the murder, he talked to three
people about killing people, especially women.
The Three E (talk of murder) evidence was so prejudicial
and thin on fact that the judge considered telling the jury to disregard it.
* His account of his movements on New
Year's Day, 1998, were difficult to reconcile with the evidence and have been described by one journalist who covered the
trial as clearly being a "pack of lies".
The account of movements on January 1, 1998 (lies) takes
on a softer hue when the conviction and suspended sentence (for growing 250 pot plants) of the Erie Bay caretaker is considered
with those statements.
* Before the police seized his boat,
Watson, uncharacteristically, cleaned the interior of the yacht scrupulously.
Who says the yacht was cleaned uncharacteristically and when
was it cleaned? And how scrupulously could it have been cleaned when the police witness had to admit that only 30 per cent
to 50% of the hard areas had been wiped down, and how were the hull (carpet) and cabin sole (carpet) cleaned to a forensic
standard without access to a vacuum cleaner and electricity?
* He painted the roof and deck of the
yacht in the days after the murder.
Crown evidence was the painting had been planned before
New Year. In fact he only painted the cabin sides, NOT the decks
* Two of the yacht's bunk squabs had
recently had pieces cut or ripped out of them. A corresponding hole in the cover of one of the squabs was found, but when
first seen the cover had been reversed so as to obscure the hole in the squab.
The squabs? What connection was shown with Hope or Smart?
Lack of evidence became evidence of murder.
* Watson gave differing explanations
for burn marks on the edges of the hole in the squab cover and on the foam.
Differing explanations as the two holes were caused in different ways. One was a cigarette burn (verified
forensically) the ot5her was a paint spill which hardened so he cut the paint
out. One squab the cover fitted both ways the other because if it shape the hole would visible as rhe cover could not be turned
around.
* The anchor chain of the yacht was missing
a length.
A witness gave evidence explaining the “missing anchor
and chain” and where they were and they were not “missing”
* None of the clothes Watson was seen
wearing on the night at Furneaux Lodge were found.
This is incorrect the only piece
of clothing the police could not account for was the Blue Shirt and in spite of several searches of the family homes where they searched wardrobes with blue denim shirts in them in Scott’s size
they never found it. In fact they found the same shirt at least twice in two different houses.
The shirt disappeared off the police inventory in the time they held Blade having initially been on it. It took something
over three weeks to provide the inventory, this is illegal it must be given as the items are seized. The is no proof that
the police did not ‘loss’ the shirt in fact this is the most likely fate of the shirt as they most definitely
originally had it.
* Watson still has one legal avenue left.
This is because New Zealand is unique in not have a crime
and corruption Commission
* His lawyers are preparing a case to
present to the Governor- General under legislation that allows the Governor-General to issue a pardon or refer the case back
to the Court of Appeal.
This petition has been lodged
* Watson was refused leave to appeal
to the Privy Council in November 2003 and the Court of Appeal threw out his appeal in May 2000.
The petition was heard by the last New Zealand on the PC after the Government made a major constitutional change without a mandate from the
people. The Appeal Court hearing was a farce as the LJ were able to find evidence no one has seen since and the decision based
on personal friendship rather than matters of law. The Court makes it clear it does not want to hear appeals on matters of
fact and it is a foolish Barrister who would raise matters of fact before the
bench. The Court of Appeal Specifically sets out that it is to hear appeals on
matters of fact but the court has taken it upon itself to usurp the the powers of Parliament and refuse to hear matters of
fact and this has been supported by the new Supreme Court who have place themselves above the Law.
* The strongest evidence against Watson
resulted from the discovery of two strands of blonde hair on a blanket recovered from Watson's little sloop called Blade,
confiscated by police on January 12, 1998.
* Testing showed the hairs had to have
come from Hope or from someone of her maternal bloodline.
This didn’t really narrow the field a lot as
the maternal line could extend back 10,000 years and includes both male and females.
The nuclear DNA did not provide positive results as the hairs were contaminated
(frequent with hairs from a hair brush)
* The evidence should have been the king
hit, the cornerstone of the Crown case, but it was compromised by a strange twist.
* When the blanket was first examined,
the forensic expert found 400 strands of hair, but not the two long strands that have played such a crucial role in the case.
* They were found only after samples
of Hope's hair, taken from her hair brush, were sent to the Environmental Science and Research laboratory.
They were taken by police NOT SENT and were inspected on the bench by the scientist who was a few minutes later to find the long blond hairs and one
long red/brown hair The blanket samples twice previous searched for long blond
hairs found no long hairs of any colour
* Clearly, contamination cannot be
ruled out, although no real evidence has been presented to show contamination occurred.
There again no real evidence has been presented to show contamination
has not occurred but following the logic of the crown regarding the lack of evidence on the Blade was in fact evidence of
contamination
