Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Sounds "Murder" again

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Barry Lennox

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 7:31:42 PM11/13/07
to

Here's a good link to the latest "North & South" mag article on Scott
Watson and the Sounds "Murder" ("Murder" cos there ain't no bodies)

http://www.speedyshare.com/899457723.html (it's 1.2 Meg for those
on dial-up)

Once again, it raises very serious doubt about the conviction of
Watson. It's interesting that the copper-in-charge (Rob Pope) refused
to read the recent book "Trial by Trickery" ; but not having read it,
he says there's nothing new in it WTF ? Nothing like a closed mind
Eh? and; That Gerald Hope is now beginning to have doubts about the
trial and the conviction.


george

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 9:26:20 PM11/13/07
to

The day they said that the boaties couldn't ident a two masted ketch
from a one masted little yacht was the day I knew they were lying

Brent Faraway

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 11:32:31 PM11/13/07
to

Keith Hunter's site has some pretty good stuff.
http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/index.htm

I liked reading the letters Hunter threw at officialdom:
http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/news.htm

Roger Dewhurst

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 12:53:11 AM11/14/07
to

"Barry Lennox" <bt.l....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:dvfkj3lgmptrat7bp...@4ax.com...

I have to wonder whether the prosecution challeged potential jurors with
criminal records, as the court was lead to believe, or challenged those who
knew something about boats. Just think on that.

R
>
>


peterwn

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 3:07:57 AM11/14/07
to
On Nov 14, 6:53 pm, "Roger Dewhurst" <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
> "Barry Lennox" <bt.l.bar...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message

>
> I have to wonder whether the prosecution challeged potential jurors with
> criminal records, as the court was lead to believe, or challenged those who
> knew something about boats. Just think on that.
>

Each side can challenge 6 prospective jurors without reason. Beyond
that the lawyer must give a reason. So a lawyer could
challenge up to 6 prospective jurors who knew something about boats
and get away with it.

Prospective jurors are disqualified if they have been sentenced to 3+
years jail at any time, ot 3+ months jail in the last 5 years.

I do not know how this is enforced, possibly there is provision to run
the list of prospective jurors against the LES (was Wanganui Computer
Centre).

The thing to remember with criminal trial evidence - it is more like a
rope than a chain. A weak link affects the integrity of a chain. A
rope may be frayed (an analogy to weak and problematical aspects of
prosecution evidence) but could well be sufficiently strong to support
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Peter Ashby

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 6:06:35 AM11/15/07
to
peterwn <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

Agreed, having sat on a jury. No one piece of evidence alone proved
guilt, but guilty he was. In the referenced N&S article I perked up on
the dna from hair bit, until I read about the problems with it. In my
professional opinion that makes it inadmissible. I have worked with dna
and contamination is a perennial problem, seen colleagues take
extraordinary steps to get rid of it, even moving to benches in other
labs. In my first lab there was so much of one plasmid in use you could
clone it out of the air, put DI water in your transformation and get a
couple of colonies resulting, all the same plasmid. If there is a hint
of contamination and the N&S article says there was far more than a hint
then the evidence is not worth squat. That is reasonable doubt.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Peter Metcalfe

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 6:02:44 PM11/15/07
to
In article <1i7m9bj.1732xmoh9ltgzN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>,
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk says...

> In the referenced N&S article I perked up on
> the dna from hair bit, until I read about the problems with it. In my
> professional opinion that makes it inadmissible. I have worked with dna
> and contamination is a perennial problem, seen colleagues take
> extraordinary steps to get rid of it, even moving to benches in other
> labs.

This contamination of DNA is so strange that it just so happens to
replicate the DNA of every prime suspect who alleges that he wasn't
there or that of the victim that was supposedly never near the place.
One would have thought that contamination be far more likely to cause
the formation of DNA that resembled a third party that had nothing
to do with the case.

--Peter Metcalfe

a_l_p

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 7:07:47 PM11/15/07
to

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Contamination of DNA in
situations where it is not required for public presentation is not going to hit
the headlines, so how would anyone know if what you say above is true or false?

The DNA of a third party that had nothing to do with the case would not be
examined for matching, would it? And if s/he's certainly known not to be
involved, any DNA found would be interpreted as irrelevant and probably having
got onto the carpet, car or whatever previous to the commission of the crime,
wouldn't it?

A L P

Peter Ashby

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 6:54:04 AM11/16/07
to
Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:

Except that in this case no dna from either Ben Smart or Olivia Hope was
found on the blanket until AFTER hair from Olivia Hope entered the
laboratory, in a bag that happened to have a slit in it. Add to that
that there was no counting of the hairs in the bag and the whole thing
becomes in best possible interpretation a mess from which nothing can be
concluded.

Ginger Bear

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 7:21:52 AM11/16/07
to

Those that believe the hair is genuine evidence of Hope's one time
presence in the Blade are (no apology) fools.
No competent forensic scientist would miss the presence of 15 -25 cm
and longer strikingly blonde hairs on such a blanket "first time
around".
Absolutely no other such personal genetic material materialised on the
boat.
If it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck it is a duck.

Those hairs were planted by the police or their agents. All logic
points to it.

People pussyfoot around such a conclusion because it disturbs their
world view of PC Plod as honest protector of the common bloke. Yeah
right, just as Hutton looked out for Arthur Thomas.

Contamination issues are a red herring.

Peter Ashby

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 8:41:32 AM11/16/07
to
Ginger Bear <Rid...@Hood.corp> wrote:

Which is why I said 'best possible interpretation', I was trying to
imply what you said explicitly. At the very, very least the forensic
analyst (I hesitate to call them a scientist) should have called foul
themselves instead of proceeding with what they knew must have been a
dodgy analysis. That they did not do this pushes you inevitably towards
collusion and yes, planting or at least deliberately dangerous
activities (whoops! I nearly put this bag of hairs on the blanket.
Shake, shake). It stinks to high heaven and I am at a loss as to why
experienced appeal court judges can't smell the stink of it.

Roger Dewhurst

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 2:47:35 PM11/16/07
to

"Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote in message
news:1i7ob5v.19wpjnk68v1yjN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk...

Common sense and reason are not on their agenda. They are obsessed with the
niceties of the law and have lost sight of the intent of the law to provide
justice.

Both the Ellis case and the Scott Watson case require a commission of
enquiry headed by someone from far afield as in the A A Thomas case. Given
that Crutchley is now in Queensland, Australia is not far enough. Canada
perhaps? Muldoon had balls enough to order the enquiry into the Thomas case
but where in this government are such balls to be found? Certainly not in
Clark or Goff, figuratively and/or otherwise.

R


colp

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 6:16:03 PM11/16/07
to
On Nov 17, 2:41 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:

> It stinks to high heaven and I am at a loss as to why
> experienced appeal court judges can't smell the stink of it.

You don't get be be a judge by being stupid or gullible. So what
explanation could there be for the judges turning a blind eye to
official malfeasance?

One explanation is an oath of brotherhood; i.e. a solemn promise made
not to act against anther member of a fratertiny. Another explanation
is allegience to the status quo, or an unwillingness to undermine
public confidence in the system by highlighting serious official
misconduct.

Peter Ashby

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 2:09:38 AM11/17/07
to
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:

That seems most likely, they don't seem to realise that one of the
functions of a judiciary should be to keep an eye on the police and to
protect innocent citizens from being fitted up by overzealous coppers
with one eye on promotion. Which is exactly what seems to have happened
to Scott Watson.

Ginger Bear

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 4:57:27 AM11/17/07
to

I don't know if it's one of their functions or not, but as you observe
they don't seem to take it very seriously.
Watch out for NZLawJournal in December, rumor has it that an article
will raise serious issues regarding Ellis case, with more to follow..

Roger Dewhurst

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 3:01:18 PM11/17/07
to

"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:74f1655d-4d0c-4d33...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 17, 2:41 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>> It stinks to high heaven and I am at a loss as to why
>> experienced appeal court judges can't smell the stink of it.
>
> You don't get be be a judge by being stupid or gullible.

Do not count on that!

0 new messages