Posts by Ross Francis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The war over a mystery, in reply to Simon Grigg,
I'd add Philip Sturm, another case that glared false conviction
I must confess I don't know much about this case other than what's been reported. On that basis, I wasn't aware that wrongful conviction was likely. Sturm at least had the luxury - for want of a better word - of a second trial, something denied to the likes of Ellis and Watson (among others).
-
Hard News: The war over a mystery, in reply to HORansome,
So far you've dredged up moon landing hoaxers and 9/11 Truthers, so you're doing well. As for your claim that Watson may have been fitted up but that there was possibly sufficient evidence to convict anyway, that would be up to a jury to decide, certainly not up to me, you, or the Court of Appeal. But here's what lawyer Steven Price has said of Hunter's book on the case:
Hunter asserts that those involved in securing Watson’s conviction were party to a horrendous miscarriage of justice. He says the police were deceptive and tunnel-visioned, the media helped spread damaging misinformation, and the prosecutors misled the jury. They’re serious allegations. But Hunter explains his grounds for them. His case is persuasive. The onus now, I think, is on the police and prosecution to answer it. What has Hunter got wrong? What other evidence has he missed out that should convince us that Watson is guilty? Is there a good response to his allegations of police and prosecution misconduct?
I phoned the police and asked those questions. I was told that Rob Pope, who was in charge of the Watson investigation and is now Deputy Police Commissioner, hadn’t read the book, and didn’t want to relitigate the case, which after all had been through an appeals process.
Not good enough, I say. Hunter has raised serious questions here, and they go to the heart of public confidence in the administration of justice. The fact that an innocent man may be in jail is just the beginning of what should trouble us about this case.
-
Hard News: The war over a mystery, in reply to HORansome,
HORansome,
It's unclear what you know or don't know about the Watson case. If you have read Hunter's book about the case, you might be less inclined to put so much store in the DNA evidence. I'm not sure what you're getting at when you refer to "the nature in which certain surfaces had been cleaned."
-
Keith Hunter discusses the Watson case here. During the first interview, he even confesses that some of his commentary is or may be defamatory and seems genuinely surprised that no action has been taken against him.
-
Hard News: The war over a mystery, in reply to HORansome,
HORansome,
Why was the eyewitness testimony a red herring? Various people on the night in question saw a man acting inappropriately towards women. It couldn't have been Watson because the description of the man bore no resemblance to Watson.The man was apparently dropped off on the same boat that Smart and Hope spent the night.
It's curious that a clean boat should be cause for suspicion.
-
Keith Hunter of course wrote Trial By Trickery about the Scott Watson case. Hunter has no doubts that Watson is innocent. I don't believe his book was ever "legalled". In fact, I understand one or more publishers refused to publish the book because it was potentially defamatory. Certianly, Hunter doesn't pull his punches. Interestingly, none of those involved with the investigation and prosecution of Watson have sued Hunter.