The money (about $60,000) seems to be able to be found when they need more evidence to bolster a shaky case. Investigator Tim McKinnel September 2025
Stitching up the suspect
An opinion piece by Roger Childs
The disappearance of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart in the Marlborough Sounds was the big news story of 1998. Now 27 years later the case against Scott Watson went back to the Court of Appeal.
Watson was the main suspect for the police from early on in the investigation, and he was subsequently tried and sentenced, for a crime he didn’t commit.
This is possibly the worst case of police duplicity in New Zealand history. Pope and his team
~ twisted, and in some cases falsified, the evidence to fit their prime suspect
~ ignored possible leads and evidence linking a mystery man to the crime
~ harassed Watson family members and bugged their homes
~ pressured witnesses into changing their stories
~ manipulated the media.
A 2016 docudrama Doubt: The Scott Watson Case, showed up what people, who had studied the case closely, had known from the start. Then a detailed article in the January 2017 edition of North and South provided further reinforcement of Watson’s innocence. Hopefully the new Appeal Court 2025 proceedings will see justice done at last. The latest parole hearing was cut short in March, however The Court of Appeal is expected to provide a verdict soon.
In mid June 2025 Jonathan Harper re-examined the case and quoted two expert American pyschologists who cast doubt on the eye-witness evidence used to convict Watson. (New Zealand Listener June 7-13 2025.)
One of the worst outcomes of this case, is that the person(s) responsible for the abduction got away with it, and may well be living in Australia or beyond.
No substantive evidence
Scott Watson was not a “Mr Nice Guy” and at the time of the disappearance of the young couple already had a significant police record, mainly from his teenage years. However there were no sexual misdemeaours. He freely admits that was a little shit when he was younger.
He was at Furneaux Lodge on the fateful night, had a single-masted sloop moored there and was involved in some boorish behaviour during the New Year’s Party.
He did leave early the following morning, but could not have had the young couple on board because they had been delivered by water taxi driver Guy Wallace to a two-masted ketch the night before.
A large number of people testified that a “mystery man” with long hair was present at the party and that he climbed up on to his ketch along with the couple.
The police pressurized Guy Wallace to change his evidence, but the water taxi driver, and four other people in Wallace’s boat, were adamant that it was definitely a ketch that Ben Smart and Olivia Hope were delivered to. (See the box Detective Sergeant Fitzgerald leaning on water-taxi Guy Wallace)
Detective Sergeant Fitzgerald leaning on water-taxi driver Guy Wallace
F. The mystery man you described to me … he doesn’t exist … Perhaps you haven’t been telling the truth Guy. I know what happened.
W. Well … do you want to know what I think? I think you guys can’t find them, you’re looking for a reason so you’re going to put it on me.
F. Tell me the truth, I don’t want to have to talk to you again.
W. You’re just trying to put words into my mouth, it might be police procedure mate but it sucks.
( Wallace commited suicide in 2021.)
A large ketch becomes a small sloop!
In the weeks that followed, there were over a hundred sightings of a two-masted ketch, and the people who saw it duly reported their evidence to the authorities. Some claim they actually saw the two young people on board.
Many commented, as Guy Wallace did, about the brass work around the portholes and the blue strip of paint along the outside. (Watson’s sloop had no portholes and was partly painted red at the time.)
But the police were seemingly not interested in any other lines of inquiry, as they were convinced they had their man. Their case was built on the young couple leaving the waters off Furneaux Lodge in Watson’s small one-masted sloop “Blade”, not on an inconvenient two-masted ketch.
The police constantly said they had no interest in the ketch and Inspector Pope claimed it didn’t exist!
This is equivalent to a hundred witnesses saying that someone was run over by a large four door Mercedes, and the authorities saying No, it was a two door Volkswagen.
Beyond belief and reasonable doubt
North and South’s 2017 in-depth article put a strong case for Scott Watson’s innocence. This investigative piece emphasised that:
~ it was the ketch rather than a sloop that should have been the focus of inquiries,
~ there were some dodgy witnesses involved in the court case, including a secret prison witness who later retracted his story,
~ there had been pressure put on others to change their stories, based on being shown a photo of a dishevelled Watson taken later while he was in custody. (On New Year’s Eve at Furneaux Lodge, Watson had tidy short hair and police did have another photo of him on the night.)
Two key witnesses at the trial were unnamed prisoners, who testified that Watson confessed to them in jail that he had committed the crime. (Watson has always maintained his innocence.) One of these “secret witnesses” later admitted that he had lied and the other was bribed by the authorities.
Basically there was no solid evidence that Watson was the abductor: he had no motive, no access, no weapon, no bodies, no scratches and was on the wrong boat.
The crown case was based on very flimsy threads such as:
~ two hairs, that might have been Olivia’s, on a blanket in Watson’s boat. These were only discovered after the prosecution insisted on the forensic expert having a second look at the evidence. How could she fail the first time, to miss the two fair hairs among the black, which her eagle eyes would have searching for?
~ scratches on the hatch cover of Blade that were claimed to be Olivia’s work attempting to escape. However, it was explained that the scratches went right to the edge of the cover which was inaccessible when closed.
~ Watson repainting his boat early in 1998.
People watching the 2016 docudrama, who were not in New Zealand at the time of the case or who had not studied it, would have been incredulous about the outcome of the trial.
Keith Hunter in his book Trial by Trickery – concluded that the case against Watson was not only unconvincing, but inexplicable.
No-one saw the couple getting on Watson’s boat, but a large number of people saw them get into the water taxi heading for the ketch, and five testified that the two young people actually climbed onto that boat with an unknown long-haired man.
To have abducted the pair, Watson would have had to come back from his boat and entice Olivia and Ben off the ketch!
The Police and the prosecution were in a world of fantasy and Justice Mahan’s comment from the Erebus inquiry comes to mind: ... an orchestrated litany of lies.
A miscarriage of justice
Scott Watson had been in trouble with the police many times in the 1980s and1990s, and seemed like an obvious suspect. However, on the basis of the evidence outlined above, he should have been quickly eliminated as the probable perpetrator of the crime.
However, the police were under a lot of pressure from the media and the public to come up with a culprit for the crime of abducting the two students.
As Olivia’s father Gerald said: The police were out to get their man; we were out to get the man; everybody was focusing on the conviction and they did what it took to do it.
This was a shocking case of getting the evidence, by fair means or foul, to fit the suspect. Watson didn’t have a motive, the opportunity or the access to the young couple who were on a different boat at the time.
Only one person knows for sure what happened to Olivia Hope and Ben Smart, and that is the mystery man who got away scot free.
One telling element of the docudrama was that the police were not prepared to take part and justify their findings. For them the case is closed: end of story.
But this story will not go away until a man who has been wrongfully imprisoned for more than 24 years is exonerated. But the three judges deliberating on the case in the Court of Appeal have recently compounded the injustice and in their latest judgement concluded that the jury got it right and that Watson got a fair trial. It is difficult to understand how they reached this conclusion. Hopefully the Supreme Court will get it right.
Roger Childs is a writer and freelance journalist. He is a former history and geography teacher, who wrote or co-authored 10 school textbooks.
38 comments:
Bent cops, nah mate-this is New Zealand, 'serve & protect' (themselves).
If anyone ever gets to be with a bunch of ex-cops and/or serving, behind safe closed doors, enjoy.........?
Excellent article, Roger.
As you say Scott Watson "could not have had the young couple on board because they had been delivered by water taxi driver Guy Wallace to a two-masted ketch the night before. "
The fact is that ALL witnesses who saw the pair getting on the boat told the police that it was a two masted vessel that Ben and Olivia had to reach up to to board it.
Watson is INNOCENT. He was framed by corrupt Police.
And now we see the Courts of New Zealand are continuing the blatant miscarraige of justice by endorsing the framing and the falsification of evidence.
Not to forget that Pope was also lead on the very dodgy Peter Ellis case, that the very first time police visited Olivia's room when she was reported missing they took her hair brush, and that (if I recall correctly) there were two trials with hung juries before finally a 'successful' conviction. Whatever his merits, Pope's severe tunnel vision provided terrible outcomes in at least these two cases.
At the time of the trial, the ONLY direct evidence that linked Watson to Olivia and Ben were the blond hairs found on his "tiger" blanket. That was the ONLY direct evidence. But did the hairs actually come from Olivia ??
From the Post September 2025, here is the verdict on the hairs:-
"over the last year, police have twice tested hairs taken from Watson’s yacht, in an attempt to further connect him to Olivia Hope and Ben Smart, who went missing from a New Year’s party in 1998.
But in tests of 30 hairs, no DNA from Hope or Smart has been found.
However, one hair was shown to have come from a scientist at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) who was involved with the recent testing, in a case of contamination within the laboratory. over the last year, police have twice tested hairs taken from Watson’s yacht, in an attempt to further connect him to Olivia Hope and Ben Smart, who went missing from a New Year’s party in 1998.
But in tests of 30 hairs, no DNA from Hope or Smart has been found.
However, one hair was shown to have come from a scientist at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) who was involved with the recent testing, in a case of contamination within the laboratory.
in tests of 30 hairs, NO DNA FROM HOPE OR SMART HAS BEEN FOUND.
In my school years I could never understand why people were reluctant to assist police with basic enquiries.
Movies and television only compounded my confusion.
As a young adult I quickly learned why.
Adding to several firsthand interactions and a growing list of well documented infamous investigations...and a pandemic.
I would never freely talk to a police officer without a lawyer.
Thanks for posting this Roger. Watson is clearly innocent. He was given trial by media and the behaviour of the Police once again is thoroughly dishonest. The Judiciary are a joke and deserve nothing but contempt from the NZ public.
But we are told we must respect and trust our Public institutions?????
Why would any thinking person do that?
Indeed, Roger, a most despicable finding by our second highest Court, and an exercise that likely cost the taxpayer something in the order of $1M - $2M. Despite all the eye-witness accounts and the basic practicalities of the case being against Watson being the culprit, he's ultimately locked away to rot - essentially based on the finding of two blonde hairs (approx 15 & 25cm long) that were somehow 'missed' in a bag of predominantly shorter dark hairs. And these 'finds' only after a second examination of a bag that had a cut in it and also in a potentially compromised examination environment. And not only that, there was a second lab technician involved who was never identified nor cross-examined, and the hairs only coming to light after the Police had conducted a search of Olivia's bedroom and taken samples from her hairbrush that were never counted! And anyone with a smidgen of boating knowledge would have dismissed the hatch scratches as a nonsense. Like a window, they are designed to keep the weather (and people, when berthed) 'out' - not people 'in', with any locking mechanism typically on the inside. And then the skullduggery would have first required a reputedly intoxicated Watson to make another trip back to the lodge (how precisely?) and then, against the witness accounts of who got off with whom, when, and on to what, undertaken his deeds all in silence while rafted up to two other vessels. Three people (who had all been partying) getting on to such a small, steel-hulled vessel (two of whom had never been on it before), made zero commotion, nor held any audible discussion as to where and how they would sleep, nor toilet themselves - all in the dead of night on water, and no-one nearby heard a sound. Yeah right!
The whole case stinks to high heaven, but I won't be holding out any hope from our Supreme Court unless, perhaps, they see another opportunity to introduce and reinforce tikanga.
Our Police investigation efforts have a great deal to answer for, and our legal system seems corrupt from top to bottom - just look at the two recent findings involving gang patch returns. They appear as a law unto themselves, and are a long way from dispensing justice and deserving our respect.
There is an excellent book by John Grisham and Jim McCloskey titled FRAMED !!
The book has ten examples from USA of cases where the police have been under pressure to solve a murder and had deliberately framed innocent people.
The similarities to the Scott Watson framing are incredible. The American police (just like that cop Pope) decide early on who to blame for the crime and proceed to ignore any evidence that points elsewhere.
The Book "Framed" is Excellent. Highly recommended.
Finishing a career with a high profile gotcha case.
Entirely agree there is no proven case against Watson - but how to put this apalling situation right, in the face of what? corruption, apathy, stupidity. I am ashamed of NZ.
To those who have read & applied a comment - you forgot another Legal case - of murder - Arthur Allan Thomas & the Crewe murders and the 'shenanigans' of Police during both investigation & first trial that got Thomas 9 years in jail, repeated Court Appearances for re-trial - then 9 years later pardon on the basis of " inaccurate investigation issues, evidence (evidence being destroyed was one factor) & Police interference" - to which a newspaper journalist, based in Auckland, spent many years 'delving into' - the end result of 'digging' leading to an acquittal.
To a more recent event - Tom Phillips - can we assume from 4 years of "investigation" that the Police had/have sufficient evidence to prove "intent" - you would think so after the Police Commissioner's comments a Press Conference.
If Phillips had been "arrested" I hate to think what would have followed.
How could any judge re confirm the conviction of Scott Watson as being safe or "correct"?
ALL of us who have studied the case and seen the Police frame him, and now having seen that the ONLY actual evidence against Watson - the tiger blanket hairs - have been shown to NOT HAVE COME FROM BEN OR OLIVIA !
How can these judges look in the mirror and say - "Yes he is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt"?
Really scary that dishonesty by the police could frame any of us.
The good thing about the future Aotearoa, which is inevitable, is we will not have to worry about the police any more we will be ruled by the gentle and nurturing forces of tikanga. Police are a colonial concept.
Paul Davison prosecuted the Watson case. He was also the lead prosecutor in the Teina Pora case – overturned after a huge effort by supporters. Rob Pope was the lead detective on the infamous Chch Poisoned Professor case – thrown out by the second jury. Pope was also involved with the Peter Ellis case.
There were too many dodgy features in the Watson case. The jury was taken on an expensive and fancy day trip to the Sounds, to help them get the feel and vibe of the environment. We’ve given you this entertaining day out – you have to find him guilty.
Pope’s case was that Watson had cleaned the inside of the boat afterwards. Afterwards? After what? That was a total fabrication. Watson and his sister had cleaned the inside of the boat BEFORE he went to the Sounds.
Pope also maintained that Watson painted his boat to change its appearance. Not so. Watson had pre-planned repainting part of the superstructure and had discussed this with others prior to New Year.
Passengers on a Cook Strait ferry saw a “boat” somewhere further out from Picton or the Sounds. The prosecution alleged the boat was Watson’s – where he would supposedly have disposed of the bodies. A few years later it was proved, with Watson’s actual boat, that it could not possibly in the time available have got back to a landing. Ergo, the ferry witnesses sighting was a distraction.
Then there was the secret prison witness – said to have been rewarded in some way by Police. Later recanted on his testimony.
Roger and commenters here have pointed out many other serious anomalies in the case.
Best book: “Trial by Trickery”, Keith Hunter (2006). A classic in all respects. Point after point demolishing the prosecution case.
Fabricate: – (Dictionary definition) Invent in order to deceive.
Well said, Eamon. All your points are right on.
The book Trial by Trickery is excellent as you say.
To me a MAJOR issue is that ALL witnesses said that Ben and Olivia were delivered by mini ferry to a two masted ketch with porthole and blue coloring along the side and a heap of ropes, etc visible in the back of the vessel. The person offering them this was a scruffy, long haired individual with scraggly face.
(Scott Watson had short, tidy hair and was clean shaven that night)
However the police bullied, threatened and intimidated all witnesses to change their description of the vessel to Watson's single masted smaller vessel.
Never mind the eye witnesses purported sightings of B&O in the following days, but what color boat did the watertaxi occupants say they got on to? White with a blue stripe. What color was Blade, white with brownie/red trim. And what colour did Watson change the trim to after the reputed event? Blue. The 'painting' was just another 'perversion' to suggest Watson was trying to hide something. If it was of any moment, it just again supported that B&O never got on Watson's boat. What a travesty of justice.
Yeah - not funny!
To Anon @4:38AM 20Sept - "Those gentle naturing/souls that will form tikanga style policing - will the 'troops' come from either Black Power 0r Mongrel Mob[s]"?
When the African National congress (ANC) took control of South Africa, they to introduced 'a nurturing police force' - except they became a radicalized bunch of thugs - and it was interesting to note that many of the 'people who received their tender, loving care - were those from other African tribes'.
Will that apply in the future Aotearoa?
The nurturing will be led by Duvalierist style leaders and a mixed race ,,maori,, Tonton Macoute
Disagree, he is guilty. But like all 13000 has prisoners not one of them ever committed their crime, they were framed by the police. Yeh right. There are a lot of photos of the boats moored during the day, at dusk and the morning.....none include the mystery boat that was claimed......because it doesn't exist. Even after extensive searches the few days after. Watson is where he deserves to be. I feel for the victims families tho. So should some of you....
For: “Anonymous Sept 20 @ 5.07pm”.
If you read the book I referred to in my comment above you would find there were quite a number of witnesses describing a ketch (two masts) with port holes, blue coloured trim, and a lot of rope work attached. A craft much larger than Watson’s smaller sloop (one mast). The ketch was sighted both on the night in question and on a number of occasions days later.
Police and prosecutors said the ketch did not exist. That was one of the major fabrications constructed in the case against Watson. To put it in more blunt terms, there was a lot of truth in the minds of the Police and Prosecution but none of it ever came out.
As Ben and Olivia were never on Watson’s sloop how did blonde coloured hairs come to be found on the Watson blanket in the laboratory?
Watson’s evidence was that he was on a water taxi, BUT not on one at the same time carrying Ben and Olivia. They were, it was confirmed, on a water taxi operated by Guy Wallace. Watson went back to his boat on a second water taxi, different operator. Also Watson was said to be alone when he returned to his boat. That was confirmed by occupants of the boats tied up, all close together, with Watson’s boat.
I am sorry to have to ask you this, Anonymous Sept 20 @ 5.07pm, but how much of the information regarding this case have you read up on?
For: “Anonymous Sept 20 @ 5.07pm”
Anon needs to look at the FACTS quoted above.
The couple we never near Watson's boat.
It amazes me how AI can now prepare a Court case in legalese that does not have the limitation of bias or dishonesty. Perhaps for a limited cost the historical Legal and evidence documents should be introduced to the AI system for a peer review of the evidence and judgements . Seems there would be support to assist in the undertaking that does not need to have the encumbrance of legal costs .
To Doug and Eamon, we will have to disagree, an innocent man would never cut chunks out of his foam bedding or clean the inside of cassette cases.....but he's not innocent, i believe justice has been served. .....
The problem the police have is that they are dealing with people. 50 people will give 50 different versions of the 'truth'.
I kept a very open mind and I believe you both have also, but you have decided he's innocent, and found all that you can to back up your views. I think the opposite, he's guilty and while possibly not perfect, the police got the right guy. He's not a nice chap and the public are better off with him where he is. The only doubt in my mind is the role of the water taxi driver, guy Wallace, I doubt he told the full story either. We will never know now though. My thoughts are my opinion only.
You are welcome to your opinion, Anon, if that's how you decide guilt or innocence.
However our opinion that Watson is innocent (and was framed by the Police) is based upon facts:-
a/ Olivia and Ben boarded a large two masted vessel, NOT Watson's smaller lower single masted sloop. This was confirmed by all witnesses in the water taxi who were present.
b/ Scott Watson was taken by water taxi and boarded his boat alone.
c/ The hairs found on Watson's blanket were DNA tested. The hairs DID NOT belong to Ben or Olivia.
d/ Cutting a piece of burnt foam out is NOT evidence of a double murder.
Also, Anon. Wiping cassettes clean in small yacht when there have been high seas is standard practice for all yacht owners at sea. It is to remove the salt spray deposits that would destroy the tapes if left unwiped.
i.e. - it's NOT evidence of a double murder !.
For: “Anonymous Sept 20 @ 5.07pm”.
AND “Anonymous Sept 21 @ 8.20 pm”.
Presuming you are one and the same. How would we know? As we don’t have evidence of any kind, for now we shall assume you are one and the same. You have partly answered the question of how much had you read up on the Watson case.
I have a fair amount of material on the case and can recall many of the major issues. For detail I have relied on Keith Hunter’s book. There were so many questionable arguments in the prosecution case and Keith Hunter has taken the case apart inch by inch. He worked from and quotes directly from the trial transcripts. Was there any better source to demonstrate how the jury was led by the nose, fooled and bamboozled by a smooth talking prosecutor?
Back to your issue regarding cassette tapes. Those were cleaned as were parts of the boat interior BEFORE New Year. Repeat BEFORE New Year. Watson’s boat had been through a storm along the Wairarapa coast prior to New Year.
Repeating from my earlier comment. Fabricate: – (Dictionary definition) Invent in order to deceive.
Best book: “Trial by Trickery”, Keith Hunter (2006). A classic in all respects. Point after point demolishing the prosecution case.
WELL SAID, Eamon !!
I also highly recommend the book "Framed" by John Grisham and Jim McCloskey. You will be gobsmacked and outraged at the accounts of Police framing innocent people.
Thanks Doug and Eamon. Yes I am the one who posted at those times Eamon. We will have to disagree here. I believe Watson appeal has been thrown out which is probably a good thing imo. Assume that there has been no miscarriage of justice then? If they had found something, or new evidence then the appeal would have been given more air, correct?
Admin, I posted a response to Eamon and doug, which has not been published. Please advise why? I don't believe it was untoward. ??
I vaguely recall that response, Anon 622. I okayed it and don't understand why it didn't go through. Try resending.
Eamon I have no issues with you (or doug) what so ever. I'm enjoying your posts and it's bringing back a few memories of that bizarre Xmas and new year 27 ish years ago.
You ask what do I know about the case and then try to belittle me a bit by alluding to ' not much'.
Well that is partly true, I was NOT in the sounds that Xmas or new year. But our extended family own a bit of land there and we often congregate down there over that time, we still do to this day.
That particular year there were about 20 of our family at the bachs (adults and kids). They were at the lodge that fateful night and one of my cousins was a suspect as he looked very much like Watson. He was questioned for hours despite having a rock solid alibi.
Now this is the part where it's gets interesting. Half the family think he's guilty and half don't. Some think they saw the mystery boat, some can't recall anything of the sort. These are all decent respectable professional individuals that were REALLY THERE!. None are what I would deem 'flakes' or 'unreliable '.
I have little or no emotion when I say he's guilty, but certainly haven't read up on it in recent years. It usually gets brought up over Xmas and NY get to gethers tho as most of us were actually there.
Thanks moderator for your response.
Well, let's just look at the facts. I'm repeating myself here:-
a/ Olivia and Ben boarded a large two masted vessel with blue panels on the side, and portholes and a large heap of ropes in the stern. NOT Watson's smaller lower single masted sloop. This was confirmed by all witnesses in the water taxi who were present.
b/ Scott Watson was taken by water taxi and boarded his boat alone.
c/ The hairs found on Watson's blanket were DNA tested. The hairs DID NOT belong to Ben or Olivia.
There is NO EVIDENCE that Ben and Olivia were on Watson's little boat.
They were on the bigger, two masted vessel that ALL witnesses saw them get on.
Doug, you may well think that. The appeal courts disagree with you. For the last time, find the boat everyone claims was there. My aunt took a photo of the bay on dusk, the police have that Pic, no such boat was there, at that point in time. However, some of my family believe they did see such a boat despite no evidence. You keep claiming to look at the evidence despite ignoring it. Prove the boat was there. The evidence suggests otherwise. There were lots of photos of the boats , just none containing the boat everyone claims was there. FACT. Just because someone says something was there doesn't make it a fact. We will just agree to disagree. I won't be commenting any further on this matter. All the best.
To Doug and other submitters who have given compelling and passionate opinions to this longstanding Court matter. Has there been any consideration of requesting a declatory judgement from the Court? A declatory judgement is NOT binding but gives clear guidance towards the relative position of the evidence that has been discussed in this forum before taking the next available legal step.
For: “Anonymous Sept 20 @ 5.07pm”.
“Anonymous Sept 21 @ 8.20 pm”.
“Anonymous Sept 22 @ 10.22 pm”
“Anonymous Sept 23 @ 11.03 am”
We seem to be going around in circles here with our friend Anonymous. I believe that all of Watson’s avenues of appeal have not been exhausted. The Supreme Court will now probably follow the recent Court of Appeal. After that possibly a final appeal back to the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. The Arthur Alan Thomas case of years ago would serve as a precedent. Where an investigator independent from the Court broke the case open resulting in the pardon exercise, followed by a Royal Commission. Police were found to have planted a 22 calibre cartridge case in the garden area.
A few final thoughts. If we took the ketch out of the equation entirely it leaves us with Watson’s boat OR some other boat. A boat which might show up in photos. Ketch or no ketch, the point here is that there was no absolute evidence from anyone of Ben and Olivia being seen or heard on Watson’s boat. Memo: Watson returned to his boat alone (see previous comments).
Repeating ad nauseam, and we have been here before: The water taxi driver’s evidence was that Ben and Olivia went onto a boat much higher in the water than Watson’s boat. You would need to read Keith Hunter’s book to understand the deceptive and underhand tactics used by Police in questioning Guy Wallace. There is a transcript of one interview where the detective trys to drive Wallace into changing his evidence.
As to the matter of hairs “found” on the blanket. Could this be a repeat of the “cartridge case effect”, accidental or otherwise.
Finally to Anonymous. The challenge to you is to delve much further into this case dispassionately and come back to us with an opinion.
You say: Only one person knows for sure what happened to Olivia Hope and Ben Smart. That the defence lawyerw under-emphasised this fact is a shame.
Like almost all utterances on their disappearance, including the whole of the present article, this assertion neglects the fact that we do NOT know that Olivia & Ben died.
There may be several people who know what became of them. Effective disappearances (e.g to Australia) can occur.
For Robert Mann: You are on target in saying that the prosecution never proved that a murder took place. The prosecution case was a house of cards, built on the very flimsy foundation of so-called circumstantial evidence – Bayes Theorem to some people. All I can say is that Bayes Theorem is just that, a theorem which some will use to propose that the world is flat.
I have started threading my way through the Appeal Court decision and already can see where the three judges have simply dressed up and parroted the prosecution’s theories, speculations and character assassinations.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.