An official inquiry into the Olivia Hope and Ben Smart murders says failures by detectives working on the case "exposed the integrity of the investigation to justifiable criticism".
It also states police motives to convict Scott Watson of the murders could be seen with suspicion because detectives broke so many internal rules trying to tie him to Hope and Smart the night they went missing.
The report of the Independent Police Conduct Authority is the first official investigation into the way the police pursued Watson.
The IPCA was forced to release a press release about the report on Friday after questions from the Herald on Sunday. It sent a press release stating there were three areas of concern but that the investigation was conducted "reasonably and rationally".
However, the detail of the report - obtained by this newspaper - is in striking contrast to the press release.
The report reveals that IPCA head Justice Lowell Goddard was actually sharply critical of aspects of the investigation, led by present Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope.
Defenders of Scott Watson will be pleased by this outcome. We have mixed feelings on this case. We reckon that Watson could well be the murderer of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, but we're not convinced that the Crown proved that he was. Justice Lowell Goddard's findings after quite a lengthy inquiry are likely to provoke more questions than they provide answers.
There are bound to be plenty more media stories in the wake of this report, and we'll be following those with interest. We wonder when Police Minister Judith Collins will be having a little chat with Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope, along the lines of the one she had with Howard Broad telling him his term of office was coming to an end. It's not a good look for the police when one of their most senior officers headed an investigation where "some actions of police fell short of best practice, and at their most serious, had the potential to influence witnesses".
12 comments:
As far as I am concerned the crown proved it's case to the 12 people who count.
The jury. They are the only ones who count.
Anyway, If Watsons' defence was so good why was it not put to the jury?
Alex - I followed the case fairly closely, and at the time, I reckoned the jury got it right. Now, I'm not quite so sure. I have this lingering feeling that the police decided early on that Watson was their man, and built a case to suit. These days, I feel far more confident of Lundy's guilt than I do about Watson's.
This and the Bain case are for me, the strongest signal that we should look at separating the evidence gathering and prosecution aspects of the system. I suppose human nature being what it is, prejudices will never be eliminated, but I think Justice would be better served if the Police were exclusively concerned with gathering evidence, and the prosecution left to an independent (of the Police) entity.
Er, the prosecution was independent of the police.
Lead counsel was Paul Davison QC who I know doesn't moonlight as a police officer.
Mr Davison was supported by the Wellington Crown Solicitors.
I attended some of the prosecution sittings and all the defense offering of the Watson trial and was satisfied with the outcome as a citizen.
Mr Watson was present at the new years eve action.
The quite valuable, in the context of the defendants circumstances, anchor chain purchased in Northland not long before the murders and missing when the boat was seized and not really accounted for.
The fact that so much of the recall of witnesses as to what was observed around Furneaux was alcohol and sleep deprivation affected.
The movement of his boat to very deep water after New Year.
The out of character repaint early in the New Year.
The Hatchcover.
The unpresented evidence as to the whereabouts of the defendant when other suspicious mishaps of young women in Bay of Islands and Hobart in previous times.
The hair from Miss Hope.
That is just recall of some of the case by a curious layman who also attended most of the third "Barlow Trial"
As to the media beatup on the Lundy verdict re the time taken to drive from Petone to Palmy and return was complete bollocks. He had a very quick car and with a little luck a man who did the miles he did in his work that included the roads he would have used, could have achieved it with ease. The subsequent Nigel Latta program on that verdict with the personal inputs from family and acquaintances supported that verdict and a similar one on Mr Watson would be very interesting.
It is all too easy for a subsequent documentary on such cases to portray what an agenda driven creator using selective evidence to pick holes in any criminal verdict.
Alex M summed it up with his observations on the 12 jury members and Mr Watson's defense team.
I think there is a case to separate the evidence gathering and prosecution functions of our justice system further than at present
12 people, who swore to listen only to the evidence and decide upon that, found him guilty.
The defence could not provide any reasonable doubt to those 12 people. Therefore, the verdict is sound.
Yep and we all know from the Bain trial that is incredibly easy for Defence lawyers to convince a Jury that the world is flat and that their client could never have done it, despite all the damning evidence stating that it was him.
Reasonable doubt is a very easy thing to create, the fact that they failed in doing and coupled with Watson refusing to answer questions before the court much like Bain points towards a correct verdict.
Watson, Lundy, and Bain each have a small area of defence which some people cling to, against a considerable amount of evidence which points to their involvement.
The defenders concentrate on these small areas, drawing the attention away from the long list of damning evidence, such as that referred to by gravedodger in Watson's case.
Off topic a bit, but for instance in Bain's case, the bloody sock prints matched Robin's footlength (even though he had clean socks), and David apparently left no footprints despite having bloody socks and having walked in the rooms where the bodies were.
In Hawkes Bay, the murder of a young girl went unsolved for many years because the Police case hinged on a time frame during which the culprit, untimately convicted on DNA evidence, had a watertight alibi.
David
Alex, I was under the impression that the Police had significant control over the direction of an inquiry, in essence handing over a constructed case for the Crown to prosecute; is this not so?
Ciaron, that is so but invariably the police take advice from the crown solicitors prior laying charges to as to whether the case is strong enough to take to trial.
If they are told the case is rubbish then things stop. If not then the accused is indicted.
Thanks for the clear up. I now realize what I first posted may not have bee too clear, I was proposing a mechanism where the police make no such assumptions, and act solely as keepers of the peace and gather evidence, which would hopefully avoid any temptations to distort or omit evidence on the part of the Police.
just a thought... what do you think?
Earning money online never been this easy and transparent. You would find great tips on how to make that dream amount every month. So go ahead and click here for more details and open floodgates to your online income. All the best.
Post a Comment