True Crime All The Time - Scott Watson

Episode Date: February 17, 2025

The disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope is one of New Zealand’s most high-profile and controversial true crime cases. Scott Watson was convicted of the murders, but Watson has spent years appealing the verdict and has many supporters who believe in his innocence. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss Scott Watson and the murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. Watson has his fair share of supporters who do not believe there was enough evidence to prove his guilt. You be the judge. You can support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 422 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson and with me as always is my partner in true crime. Mike Gibson, how are you? Hey, I'm doing good about you. Doing great. Good. You and I just had a little dinner.

We did. Which is always a fun part of my week. Dinner with me? Dinner with you. Yeah. But when the kids aren't here, it's not as fun. It is not. And it's a heck of a lot less entertaining.

I try. I'm just, you know what? I can't be them. I just can't. They always have funny stories. Oh my gosh. Just to be a fly on the wall and sit back and watch is all I need to do. Yep.

I know you get a kick out of it. I do. Let's go ahead and give our Patreon shoutouts. We had Rachel Deacon. Hey, Rachel. Ebony Ott. What's going on, Ott? Mary Elaine Henderson.

Henderson. Angie. Good old Angie. Lisa Marquez. Hey, Lisa. Linda Stiles. Thanks, Linda. Justina Jarbo.

I like that. Jambo. Yeah, it's an interesting last name. Renee Nykenon. Well, easy for you to say. It's not. It's not at all. Cedric Garin.

Hey, Cedric. And last but not least, Andrea Brennan. What up, Andrea? And then if we go back into the vault, this week we selected Claire Seiro Melvin. Thanks, Claire. So appreciate the new support to continued support.

It's all amazing. It is. We have an episode out right now on True Crime All the Time Unsolved. it's part three and the last part of our coverage of the Zodiac Killer. We get into suspects and we have Morph on. So there's a lot to look forward to. Who? Morph.

Who is this? Who is this Morph guy? Yeah. What's that about? So make sure you check that out. All right, buddy. Are you ready to get into this episode of true crime all the time? I'm ready.

We're talking about Scott Watson. The disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. is one of New Zealand's most high profile and controversial true crime cases. Scott Watson was convicted of the murders, but he spent years appealing the verdict, and he's got a lot of supporters who believe in his innocence. So it's a little bit of a different type of episode. Wouldn't be the first time that, you know, someone is thought to possibly be innocent.

Oh. there are still a lot of people who believe that Scott Peterson is innocent. That's what I was just thinking. A lot of people. Yeah. And there are other high profile cases where, you know, people just aren't sure that what happened to the person or, you know, what a jury decided is correct. Olivia Hope was just 17 years old when she went missing. Her father, Gerald, described her as a realistic young woman with a strong inner strength.

And she was on track for success. She was involved in school leadership. She was a talented pianist and intended on going to law school. You know, law school is not easy. That's a good goal to have. Well, it's definitely not easy when you're 13, like as you were. Well. And doing law school and medical school at the same time at the age of 13, 14,

I really don't know how you pulled it off. I'm an achiever. Simple. I'm just an achiever. Some might say an overachiever. Yeah, I was going to say, I don't think that's just an achiever if you were able to do all that. Now, Ben Smart was just 21.

He was a musician and he had plans to start working at his father's engineering firm on January 5th, 1998. So it's like you had a new plan for the new year. go work for his dad's engineering firm. Could you have an old plan for the new year? I'm just wondering. It could have been the plan for the previous year. It didn't work out.

Could you have a new plan for the old year? No, because that's already passed you by. Olivia left her parents home in Grovetown, Marlboro District, to drive to Whatamonga Bay in Queen Charlotte Sound on the afternoon of December 30th, 1997. What Amonga Bay. Sounds like a fun place. It does. Sounds like a water park.

I'm sure it's not, but I'm sure it's a lot of fun. Olivia and her sister Amelia chartered a yacht called the Tamarang. There were nine people on board, including Olivia and her sister. I know you don't have to charter a yacht. You own a yacht. Yeah, just a little dingy. Dingy. You knew you had me set up to say that, didn't you?

The fact that you were going to say it just played right into my hands. On December 31st, the Tamarack picked up three more people and picked in another town in the Marlboro region. They docked the yacht in Endeavor Inlet, a large inlet of the Queen Charlotte Sound with plans to attend a large New Year's Eve party. So, I mean, let's just talk about this. This sounds like a really cool idea, fun time. Yeah, sounds like quite the adventure. Yeah, you're chartering a yacht. You've got a bunch of people.

You're going to a New Year's Eve party. That afternoon, Olivia and her friends took a water taxi from the yacht to Furno Lodge, a historic hotel on the edge of the inlet, which has no road access per the New Zealand Herald. The Herald described Ferno Lodge as a legendary party spot. And it was said that there were anywhere. from 1,500 to 2,000 people at the party. Sounds like a good place to hang.

That's a pretty big New Year's Eve party. At the party, Olivia hung out with her longtime friend, Ben Smart, who was staying at nearby Punga Cote. Olivia and Bitt left the party in the early morning hours of January 1st, 1998. They took a water taxi back to the Tamarang, intending to sleep there, but they found that all the beds were occupied. Olivia picked up her backpack, sleeping bags,

and other belongings because she and Ben intended to find somewhere else to sleep. I'd be kind of pissed if I got back to my yacht and didn't have a place to lay down. Well, especially if, uh, you were the one that chartered the yacht,

as it was described. Her and her sister chartered the yacht. Whoever gets the beds first. That's why you tied the sock around the door not, right? It's sometimes how it goes. But it's a strange situation. You're having to take a water taxi out to this bigger yacht. You get out there, you find, hey, we don't have a place to sleep.

So, all right, we're getting sleeping bags. I'm not sure why you have sleeping bags because you're on the yacht, but they had them. And we're going to take the water taxi somewhere else. Yeah. And that's what they did. It was between 4 and 5 a.m. The same water taxi returned to the Tamaract. The driver that night was Guy Wallace. Guy told the New Zealand Herald that he was most likely one of the only sober people.

At Furno Lodge that night, he worked as the bartender throughout the party around 4 a.m. He was picking up trash when a young couple asked if he could take them to their beach house and a water taxi. Can you imagine being the only sober person at that place? I actually can because I've said it before. I don't drink anymore. I used to tie it on with the best of them. But for whatever reason, I just don't drink much,

hardly at all, anymore. But this couple was identified as Hayden, Morrissey, and Sarah Dye. Wallace picked up three more passengers before he left, Amelia Hope and Rick Goddard, who needed a ride to the Tamarack and a single man who remains unidentified. And I imagine Gibbs, this unidentified man is going to come back around. You know, anytime you have an unidentified person in a case,

it's usually a harbinger of something to come later. When Wallace returned to the Tamara, he found Ben and Olivia waiting. They said they needed a ride to short to find somewhere to sleep. And it was this mystery man who offered them a bed on his, boat and Ben and Olivia accepted. That's what you do there, I guess, right? Hey, you need a place to sleep?

I got a yacht over here. Come on over. Everybody's got a yacht. I got a yacht. You got a yacht. Wallace recalled that the man looked a bit feral. That's what he said. A bit feral.

What a bit feral looks like? Well, feral usually means like you've been living out in the woods like an animal. Hears messy and. Just unkempt. I don't, yeah, I don't know. Unkempt? Am I using words you've never heard? Is it unkept?

No, it's unkempt. This is not the time for you to upgrade your vocabulary. Yeah. But Wallace also said that he was checking out Olivia and acting sleazy towards her. These are the exact words that he used. Kind of gross. Well, you're really getting a sense or an image of this guy. You know, when you use the word checking out, sleazy.

Yeah. You know, he didn't say it, but you could add the word like leering or, you know, other words like that. Obviously, he was interested in Olivia. He thought she was attracted. Wallace also said that he was unshaven with long, messy, wavy hair. You could probably even use the word unkempt. Or unkept.

Wallace dropped Ben Olivia and the stranger off at a 12-meter wooden catch, which is a two-masted boat. Wallace was adamant. He saw a catch describing it as an old style, two-masted timber yacht with brass portholes. It had a blue stripe on the whole. hull and hemp ropes. So 12 meters, it's not a small boat.

No, it's fairly decent. Yeah, I guess it's not what I was thinking when I heard the word yacht. Yeah. I guess yacht can be used for a lot of different types of boats. Yeah, it's not going to be close to my 36 meter, but you know. Not everybody has that kind of dough. But it was said that it was docked with about 160 other yachts. Wow.

all there for the New Year's celebration. It's like a good time right there. It's a lot of boats. Wallace felt like something was off that night, but he couldn't put his finger on it. He told the New Zealand Herald, I think about that moment all the time. If I just said, take my bet.

And you and I discuss this a lot, right? You have someone who is involved in some type of situation that later they find out, you know, someone is murdered or someone disappears. And there's that feeling that people get. What if I had just done this? What if I'd have done that? But it just gave my bed up. They still be here. The yacht was gone from its spot by 8.30 a.m. on New Year's Day. Ben and Olivia were never seen again. And their bodies have never been found. It's interesting because as we're going through this, it sounds very much.

like an episode of true crime all the time on salt. It does. Like these people have disappeared and the rest of the story is going to be about finding them or what happened or asking the question what happened to them. Olivia's sister became worried when she didn't rejoin the Tamarack on January 1st. Her parents reported her missing on the second and the police initiated a major investigation called Operation Tamp. Okay. The police ramped up their searches as time passed because they believed something terrible

happened to Olivia and Ben. And how could you not? After so much time goes by and you don't hear from someone. What else can you think? Yeah, I mean, I think it's natural for you to go ahead and consider that. Guy Wallace was interrogated by detectives who suggested he was responsible for their disappearance, locals in the area turned on me. Wallace told the New Zealand Herald, it was horrible. I walked into the Waikawa cruising club and you could have heard a pin drop.

Everyone just shut up. People I'd known for a long time just shunned me. They thought I was guilty. Isn't that terrible that assuming you haven't done anything wrong, but the public feels like you have, even your good friends and people you know, just kind of turn their back to you. Well, unfortunately, that's what happens when the police believe you had something to do. Yeah. With, you know, someone's disappearance or a murder or anything like that, you know, we've talked about it many times. You walk around under a cloud of suspicion.

And when does it get lifted? Does it ever get lifted? Now, for Guy Wallace, it'll get lifted. But for some people, especially in unsolved cases, it never does. But how much damage does it do by the time it does get lifted, right? Oh, yeah. You've ruined relationships. You've lost friends, marriages, all kinds of stuff.

Yeah, because for me, it would be hard to down the road and they're like, oh, I'm sorry we thought you did it. You know, now we know you didn't. and just wanted to let you know, you know, hopefully we could still be buddies. I'd be like, no, I can't be buddies with you ever again. The police were under immense pressure to make an arrest. Wallace said, I know in my heart of hearts, if Scott wasn't in there, I'd be doing time.

It's just that simple. They had to get someone. There's a lot of pressure to solve these cases, not allow them to linger. Yeah, I mean, I think police, departments all over the world are put under tremendous pressure to solve disappearances to solve murders 27 year old Scott Watson a man from Picton was identified as a suspect within days of detective inspector Rob Pope taking over the

case Watson owned a single masted yacht called the blade okay apparently everyone owns a yacht in New Zealand I was not aware of that fact Well, it is a island surrounded by ocean. So maybe that's just what you need to have if you live on the coast. I just like the fact that you called it an island and then gave the definition of an island. Scott's father, Chris Watson taught him to love the water. Scott and his family spent 12 years traveling around New Zealand on their boat. And to be honest with you, that would be a lot of fun.

I think so. Now, you and I are a little landlocked where we live. Yeah. But, you know, if you lived in some of these places where, you know, you could get out on the seas a little bit to have a boat and just sail around, that would be pretty cool. Let's take the boat this weekend. But I also have seen castaway. Yeah. So that does scare me.

Well, yeah, don't want to be stranded on an island. Yes. According to Chris, Scott was a troubled team and he had 48 convictions. Okay. For a 27 year old, that's quite a number. I mean, I guess for anybody, that's quite a number, but... Pretty hefty. Scott purchased his first yacht at age 20 and later built the blade from scratch in his backyard.

He planned to sail overseas before he was charged with murder. Build your own boat. Impressive. again, you know, what are we calling a yacht? Because in my world, you can't build a yacht yourself in the backyard. Yeah, I think you should think of these yachts as boats. Boats. Yeah.

Growing up, a yacht was what you would see on lifestyles of the rich and famous. That's what I always thought. Yeah. Yeah. So the police believed that Scott Watson was the mystery man and that he murdered Ben and Olivia and dumped their bodies at sea. However, by April 1998, no one on board Guy Wallace's water taxi had been able to identify him as the stranger. So it's,

this is kind of a, a strange story. I told you it was a different type of story for TCAT, but you know, you heard Guy Wallace and what he said. Right. Right. If Scott wasn't in there,

I would be in there. there. Right. They had to get someone. It's going to be one of us. So what does that mean? It's without saying it, he's almost kind of like, I don't know that he's the right person, but better him than me. I think so. Wallace had seen Watson's photo at least three times and denied that he was the mystery man. And we said, right, he took this guy. Yeah, if anybody's going to be able to recognize them, it should be him. Because he not only. saw the mystery man in the water taxi, he claimed that he and bar manager Rosm McNeely had also served him drinks during the party. The police eventually showed Wallace a new image of Scott Watson.

In an eight photo lineup, Watson was in the act of blinking when the photo was taken, which made his eyes appear hooded like the mystery man's. So apparently that was a part of the mystery man's description. He had hooded eyes. Litted eyes. Have you ever seen someone whose eyes kind of go over a little bit? They don't open as fully as maybe. Because they're hooded. Because they're hooded.

Based on this photo, Guy Wallace and Ross McNeeley identified Scott Watson as the mystery man. They both noted that the mystery man had facial hair and wavy, unkempt hair. A photo of Scott Watson taken on New Year's Eve showed him, clean-shaven with short hair. Complete opposites. But Wallace and McNeely were not shown this photo, per the New Zealand herald. And maybe we're starting to get an idea of why there are people in Scott Watson's camp who don't believe he should be in prison.

I remember Wallace said that the boat that he dropped him off on was a two-mask. and the one that Scott built was a one mass. So it seems to be a kind of another discrepancy. Wallace told the Harold, he felt like he was tricked by the police. He said, yeah, I picked him out. It was only the blink photo. And how many photos did they take or filmed to go through to get that shot? Because I mentioned the guy had squinty eyes.

I know Scott wasn't the mystery man. He was totally different. So it is kind of strange, right? He's saying, I know this wasn't him. But he and another person did pick him out of a photo lineup. I get it. The photo was him blinking, but. Yeah, but also, would you be biased picking a photo out of a lineup if you knew that if you didn't help them find somebody, they might be coming back at you pretty hard?

It's kind of a good question. It really is because he did say they were looking at him. but it also sounds like he has some remorse about it. You're right. A 2010 report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority criticized the photo montage, calling it highly undesirable, particularly given the importance of suspect identification in this case. And it does seem strange that the only photo they had of this guy was him with his eyes

closed, it seems a little weird. It does. The IPCA also noted that poor record keeping made it difficult to determine whether there was deliberate misconduct during the investigation. Various failures to adhere to the law and police manuals exposed the integrity of the investigation to justifiable criticism and to the drawing of inferences about intention and motivation. That's not good. No, this is not good for the police.

Scott Watson's boat was seized early in the investigation. Investigators conducted a detailed forensic search and collected about 400 hairs from a blanket found on the boat. Forensic scientists found two blonde hairs believed to be Olivia's on the blanket. 400 hairs, that'd be... Seems like a hair. Your whole head. It wouldn't be. But it seems like a lot of hair.

to be on one blanket. It would be. But so two of them are blonde hairs that they believe are Libyans. Now, you and I have talked about hair before. We have. And how it was used in years past. Not always the most reliable pieces of evidence. Or at least not nearly as reliable as some of the jury's thought.

Yes. Scott Watson was arrested in charge with murder on June 15th, 1998. His trial lasted from June to September 1999. The Crown acknowledged that outside of the two hairs, their case was mostly circumstantial. Well, I don't even think the two hairs are that strong. Unless they come forward with some science that proves that it, that the hairs belong to Olivia, then yeah.

They are circumstantial. They argued that Scott Watson murdered Ben Smart and Olivia Hope on his yacht to blade and dumped their bodies in the Cook Strait. He then tried to disguise his boat with a new paint job. They claimed Scott lied about what time he arrived in Erie Bay to pick up the paint. Scott told the police he spent most of January 1st at Erie Bay. According to the New Zealand Herald, the man who gave Watson the paint, for his boat, originally told the police he arrived between 10 a.m. and midday.

The man's children corroborated his statement. The Herald noted that this man had cannabis, growing charges against him, and received a lighter sentence. But then as weeks past, he changed his estimate, saying Watson did not arrive in Erie Bay to get the paint until 5 p.m. This fit better with the prosecution's narrative, as they had a witness who claimed they saw Watson in the Cook Strait around 4.30 p.m. Did he change his eyewitness account because it benefited him? Well, he did receive a lighter sentence, so I'm sure a lot of people could look at it that way. Chris Watson, who has decades of boating experience, told the Harold, that if Scott was really seen in the Cook Strait at 4.30 p.m.,

it would be impossible for him to get to Erie Bay at 5 p.m. Chris timed the trip under similar conditions to the day in question, which the police never did. It took him about two and a half hours. I just think it's strange. If someone said, hey, I seen him around 10, 11 o'clock that day and then say, no, you know what? I saw him around 5 o'clock that evening.

It's a big stretch for me. It's a big change. Yeah. Now, if you said, it was around 10 o'clock. And then you later said, now it's probably closer to 10.30. Okay. Yeah. I get that.

Right. But 10 in the morning to 5, you know, in the late, late afternoon, that's seven hours. It is. That's a big difference. Chris also said that Scott arranged for the paint weeks in advance. You should be able to confirm that. The prosecution also. said marks on the hole were made when Scott lowered the bodies into the water, but Chris said those marks

are consistent with a scrubbing brush. I'm not really sure how you decide what marks on your hall look like from lowering bodies down it. I don't know how you would determine that. Seems pretty non-scientific. Well, in the prosecution set, right, their case was mostly circumstantial. it's definitely circumstantial and it seems at least at this point in the story that it's really flimsy. The prosecution pointed out that the inside of Scott's boat had been thoroughly cleaned and cassette tapes had been wiped out. In actuality, only about half the hard services in the cabin were wiped down. Scott said he did this after a stormy boating trip in December 1997.

Chris Watson told the herald that it was normal for boaters to wipe down their cassette tapes because salt can ruin a cassette player. So sounds like there's a response for everything the police considers potential evidence. Yeah, because like I said, to me, this is kind of flimsy stuff. Yeah. The prosecution argued that the scratching of rubber material inside the forward hatch was evidence of Olivia trying to escape. but the scratch marks go to the edge of the foam, which is impossible to scratch if the hatch is shut, suggesting the marks were made when it was open. The defense maintained that Watson's nieces scratched the hatch. Chris Watson explained to the herald years later, it's impossible

to lock the hatch from the outside. It would be frowned upon in boating circles if you could because it's your escape hatch. If you're in trouble, you'd need to get out quickly, which would make sense, right? You don't want somebody locking you down in there. The prosecution argued that water taxi driver Guy Wallace was correct in his identification, but wrong in his description of the boat. He was most likely confused about the yacht having two masks. Scott was docked beside other yachts at night, and it was possible. His boat could have appeared to have two mass at certain angles. And I get that. That is true. It is. But you're saying it's, It's possible.

You're also kind of cherry picking a little bit when you say, well, you know, when he picked a photo out of the lineup, that was correct. But when he said the boat had two masks, he was incorrect. Yeah, you're trying to make it fit your narrative. Sure. Absolutely. I'd also say guys, probably somebody understands boats pretty good. Yeah, I would say so.

So. Probably a lot of people in and around that area do and did. Yeah. And if he was sober, I'm thinking he probably knows what he saw. In addition to Scott being at the party at Furno Lodge, there were reports that he behaved inappropriately. Towards several young women that night, the prosecution proposed a two-trip theory. A water taxi driver claimed he took a single man to a small, single-masted yacht between 2 and 4 a.m. On January 1st, occupants of nearby yachts described

being woken up by Scott in the early morning hours, he was still looking to party. But the prosecution believed that Guy Wallace had Scott on board his water taxi between 4 and 5 a.m. When he dropped off Ben and Olivia, they believed he somehow got back to shore. But they couldn't prove how he did it. There was evidence he got into an altercation on shore about 3.30 a.m.

I mean, if they have him on shore at 3.30 a.m. 30. Does it matter how he got back? No, but I think as the prosecution, you want to be able to prove all the different parts of the timeline. And I think it also depends on what the evidence of that was. Was it just someone saying they saw him? Therefore, proving that he made the trip back kind of backs that up. Yeah. And without it, maybe it's not as strong. And we've already talked about the hair that was collected from the blanket, found on Scott's boat, what we haven't said is that during the first examination in January 1998, no blonde hairs were found among the 400 strands taken from the blanket. In March 1998, known samples of Olivia's hair were sent to the left. The hair strands from the blanket were checked again. They were examined on the same day by the same forensic scientists on the same table as the reference hairs. Additionally, there was a perforation in the bag that held Olivia's known

hair sample. So possible contamination. I think that's kind of where the defense is heading for sure because it was during the second examination that two blonde hairs were found among the 400 strands. DNA testing matched one of those strands to Olivia. And I also talked about, you know, how circumstantial it was to say that you had two blonde hairs that appeared as though they were Olivia's. Okay, that's not much to go on. No. But when you match one to Olivia through DNA, that's very powerful. It is if it was found on there without being contaminated by the hairs that were sent in.

Which the defense you know is going to question. And they did. They raised the possibility of accidental contamination. Forensic biologist Susan Kathleen Ben Tyner testified that she did two examinations to ensure she didn't miss anything. She compared the DNA from one of the blonde hairs found during the second search to Olivia's blood sample taken at birth. And I get what she's saying. It still seems awful strange, right? No blonde hairs found. in the initial search, at the very least, you would say it seems like a bad protocol to retest the hairs on this blanket on the same table where you have her known hairs. Yeah, not good.

In a back. Susan said she gave up looking for hairs belonging to Ben Smart because most of the hairs on the blanket were brown or dark hair similar to both Ben and Scott Watson's hair color. She did not think she could microscopically identify Ben's hairs. Three witnesses testified that Scott expressed the desire or willingness to kill people. Okay, three people. Three different people testified to this. It's kind of serious there. One witness listed as Mr. A said Scott made concerning statements a year before the

disappearances. They were discussing their personal difficulties. Scott expressed almost like a hatred towards women. That's what Mr. A said. Scott talked about killing a woman but did not refer to anyone in particular. When Mr. A suggested he was talking rubbish, Scott shouted, Just keep an eye on the papers then.

Okay, kind of mysterious. The second incident occurred on December 31st, 1997. Scott went over to the yacht of a married couple, identified as Mr. and Mrs. B. who were anchored in Endeavour Inland. Mrs. B went below debt shortly after Scott arrived because she felt uncomfortable around him. Due to an incident that occurred a month earlier,

Scott and her husband went out for drinks and returned to their home. Scott said he could have killed a woman who was annoying them. He continued to talk about killing people and asked Mrs. B. if there was anyone she wanted killed because he knew how to do it. And definitely creepy. It's creepy,

but how conclusive is it? You know, is this just someone who's been drinking and is talking a bunch of shit? Right. I don't know. Next thing you know, he's going to say he has a K bar and, you know,

some cousins. Very specific training. Two prison informants also testified against Scott. Witness A testified that he and Scott cheered a cell for several weeks. According to the New Zealand herald, he freaked out. When Scott screamed in his sleep, he asked, are those people haunting you? And Scott replied, yeah, mate, I was going to try to do that in a New Zealand accent, but I couldn't swing it.

Yeah, might. One night they were in their cells and he asked Scott if he committed the murders. Witness A testified that Scott said, the bitch kept on punching in his head. kicking him. He said she was fighting back heaps. He showed how he pulled her down. Scott allegedly said he grabbed the young woman around the top of the chest with one arm, held her arm with his other arm, and forced one of his legs between hers. She was eventually strangled. Watson also told him he cleaned his boat and was freaked out when the police found Harris. Witness B testified that he and Watson had a good friendship. One night,

he asked Scott if he committed the murders. Scott allegedly said, you know, I can't tell you that, but I'm still having wet dreams about it. Okay, if that is something that he actually said, that's nasty. Yeah, it's really sick. Witness B claimed that after he gave Watson

some Valium tablets, he admitted to the murders and said the police had nothing on him. He allegedly said he dumped the bodies in the Cook Strait. Scott also allegedly discussed selling his story to the media if he was found guilty. I mean, when you hear all that, I mean, I know it's all hearsay, yeah. But then it makes you think maybe he did do this.

But that's the thing about a trial, right? You've got some evidence. How strong is that evidence? What does it really mean? You have all these people saying that someone said something. Are they being truthful? You know, I'm not a big fan of the, prison informant.

Right. And I've talked about it before. It's because there's always something in it for them. And there's a reason for them to come forward and potentially say something that the prosecution would love for them to say. Now, why these other people would say some of this stuff, you know, it could be that Scott really did say these things. But what does it mean?

You know, is it just blowing smoke or is he talking about killing? These two people. Prosecutor Paul Davison said in his closing address, per the New Zealand herald, there is no mystery catch. There is no mystery man. The man is Mr. Watson. He has been sitting over there throughout the trial and he is responsible for the deaths, the murders, and the killing of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope.

Scott Watson was convicted of murder on September 11, 1999. In November, he was sentenced to life in prison. prison with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. So the jury believed a prosecution. And the witnesses. I think the witness statements are pretty powerful in this case. Well, I don't know how powerful they were in reality. I think they must have been pretty powerful to the jury.

Because let's be honest, there's not a ton of evidence here. You know, the jury also must have believed that there was no contamination regarding the hairs. Because if you think about the DNA, that is probably the most, I don't think probably, it would have been the most damning piece of evidence that they had. Everything else was very circumstantial. Yeah, I mean, the hair, if you believe that it was there from get-go, puts her on that boat because that's where they found the blanket. Yeah.

So you would have to think the jury believed that it was there. It came from the boat. She was on the boat. And therefore, Scott murdered Olivia and Ben. Yeah. Witness A recanted his testimony in 2000, but then retracted his recantation when the police spoke to him a second time. He then recanted the retraction.

Snipsnap, Snipsnap, Snipsnap. Snipsnap. It's like one of those kids trying to tell you, you know, I didn't do it. No, I did do it. No, I didn't do it. Yeah, I did. I mean, this has no value anymore, right? No.

You can't use that for anything. The Herald reported that Scott had been warned about jailhouse snitches and chose to keep silent most of the time, not even speaking to his girlfriend, who was secretly working with the police. Oh, true love right there. Well, you know, we just had Valentine's Day. You know, you kind of hope that if you were in a bind that your significant other wouldn't immediately start working with the police against you. But this whole thing about him not talking to people, especially his cellmates, it does cast a little bit of doubt, I guess, on the testimony of Witness B, who claimed he was friends

with Scott, despite him being a stranger and never even sharing a cell with him. The herald reported that the witness received a phone, a car, and a lighter sentence. Okay. Now, if you would know that as a juror, you probably look differently at what he said. Oh, I'm sure they didn't know that at the time. No, I know. But, I mean, you're like, oh, well, why would I believe what you have to say if you somehow got a lighter sentence and a phone and a car? No, what are we talking about?

The prosecution is buying phones and cars? Or, I mean, I get it. They could help give him a, get him a lighter sentence, but they're not buying cars for people, right? Are they? I don't know. In 2003, Scott applied for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council in London, which was previously New Zealand's highest court of appeal. New Zealand now has a Supreme Court, which was established in 2004.

Watson's application was denied in November, 2000. On May 28, 2004, Scott married Coral Branch, a single mother of four who had been visiting him in prison. She sent him letters and clothing packages. Coral's neighbors said she was defensive about her relationship with Watson. She had tried to marry him for some time. But they were denied by prison authorities. The couple later separated in 2007. It could be hard to have a relationship with somebody in prison.

Well, it would be hard if you had a relationship with someone who then went to prison. That would be rough, too. I think it's very hard to somehow meet someone while they're in prison, maybe because they're in the papers, they're famous, their faces splashed all over, and you develop a relationship. I think that would be hard, too. Kind of meeting them for the wrong reason. At their, at their worst. Yeah. In February 2008, former police officer John Gower told the New Zealand Herald that the police ignored his sighting of the mystery catch.

He anchored beside a catch that matched the police description in the Haraki Gulf. In February 1998, a thin, unkempt man with dark, scraggly hair, looked at him from the hatch and began acting suspiciously. He told the Harold, I yelled out, high and he ducked his head again peering out of portholes that is so strange it just doesn't happen on the water i just don't imagine stuff it was bloody suspicious behavior that would raise the hackles of anybody yeah i'm thinking if you're out on the water people are probably pretty friendly for someone to act like this it probably like strange and then how he was peeping out and all that kind of stuff, bizarre. And this is not just a citizen. This is a police officer saying this.

He said he called the Coast Guard and asked them to alert the Marine Police, but was told no one was available. He later submitted a police job sheet. This is like their interview notes and records, I guess, but was told officers were not looking for a catch. Why would they be looking? They already think they have who'd. Well, I think that's what he saying, right? They ignored what he saw. Boder Ross Parker also claimed detectives ignored his sighting of the mystery catch at West Haven Marina in March 1998. He saw a 12 meter catch with a blue stripe on the side and portholes identical to the description from Guy Wallis. Parker called the Harbor police, but they never showed up. Parker also said he called Operation Tam when they appealed for

information but was ignored. This is kind of sad, really. It is if both of these are true and you kind of have to ask yourself, why would these people lie? Why would this police officer lie? Why would this boater lie? I can make

a case for why a police informant, a jailhouse snitch would lie. Because there is something in it for them. Whether it's a lighter sentence, somehow a car, it's like you know Oprah's giving out cars to everyone and he gets one i just think you owe it to the

the investigation to look into this stuff but that's what we see in so many unsolved right the way it should work and you do hear detectives talk about this all the time is you follow the evidence where it leads you what you don't want to do is get tunnel vision and then exclude everything outside of that, which could potentially be very important evidence. Yeah, it could have been. I also don't know why you're having an entire operation named Tam if you're not going to respond to people after your appeal for information. Yeah, it's bizarre. Hello, Operation Tam. Yes. I have some very interesting news for you. Sorry, click. I don't get it.

In November 2008, Scott's legal team filed an application for the royal prerogative of mercy, which traditionally allows a monarch to grant pardons. In New Zealand, the governor general has the power to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy. Both Guy Wallace and Ross McNeeley signed affidavits in support of Watson's application. Wallace said he made a mistake. in his identification under police pressure. He was adamant that Scott Watson was not the mystery man and that he saw Ben and Olivia bore to catch that night.

He said the only similarity between the mystery catch and Scott Watson's boat was that they both float. That was the only similarity. That's cut and dry right there, right? Yeah. One mast, two masks, different colors. In 2009, Christy McDonald QC. was appointed to re-interview key witnesses as part of Scott's application.

Her report found that most of the issues raised in the application did not constitute fresh evidence. And I understand that. It's not like the stuff that we're talking about are new revelations. Yeah. McDonald noted that Wallace said under cross-examination at trial that Scott Watson could not have been the mystery man. This allowed the defense to challenge his initial identification, which they did at trial. So was she saying because it was already brought up during that trial,

it's irrelevant now? Yeah, the jury already heard it. Wasn't a deciding factor. And it wouldn't change anything because it's not new. In his interview with McDonald, Wallace said that if asked in court, he would deny Watson was the mystery man. McDonald was not convinced this changed the evidence he gave it trial. And I could see that. I mean, he already denied it in the trial. Yes.

So saying that Scott is not the mystery man again, again, it's not really new evidence. Just rehashing the same. Yeah. McDonald noted that there was other evidence that led the jury to convict Watson. The most compelling evidence was the blonde hairs found on Watson's boat. And you and I both talked about that. I would think that would be to a jury the most compelling evidence. Yeah, because you have to ask, how did that hair get there?

She must have been on your boat. Well, and it's also DNA, right? Yeah. Juries look at DNA as kind of the bombshell type evidence. Yeah. On July 9, 2013, Scott Watson was denied a royal pardon. Scott was denied parole for the first time in, 2015, Olivia's father, Gerald Hope, met Watson in prison. In November 2016, he'd been trying to meet

Watson for over a decade. Hope released his final statement in December and said he no longer wanted to be interviewed. Watson failed to convince him. He was innocent of murder. He said he believed Watson was elusive. When asked about his movements that day, his answers seemed rehearsed. His response was absolute silence on some of the more circumstantial elements of the prosecution's case. When confronted with this, he was mute, unemotional, disconnected. Well, I think it would be hard. If you're the father of a murdered 17-year-old girl for the person convicted of her murder to convince you that he didn't do it.

Yeah. It's going to be tough. Really tough. Watson was denied parole again in December. December 2016, the board determined the person who committed these crimes was a cold-blooded killer. His victims must have died in terrible circumstances. Mr. Watson has been found to be that man beyond a reasonable doubt. The board also ruled that because of Watson's mistrust for the justice system, there could be

trouble forming a relationship with his counselor. Well, he's been convicted, what, at this time, 49, 50 times? in his life. Oh, yeah, I forgot. He had 48 prior convictions. One prison officer who's known Watson for years said, there are two Scots. One is happy, go lucky, very helpful, and not a threat to us in the unit or to other prisoners when things are going his way. But the other Scott is very manipulative, withdraws into himself, his standoffish, and doesn't tend to engage unless he has a support person with him. And that's an interesting statement because when you look at, I think a lot of people, they have a couple of sides to them. Right. But when you think about killers especially,

I think they often have two sides. Yeah. You know, they have this one side that they're projecting to those who know them. And then there's the other side, which is, you know, you got to keep that secret because that's some deep, dark, nasty stuff. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde stuff. Yeah. In 2017, Ben Smart's mother, Mary, told the New Zealand Herald, she believed Watson was innately evil. Chris Watson has professed his son's innocence over the years.

He told the Harold, I don't believe Scott has it in him to do that, but I'm not going to go down the track of being the emotional parent who's going to back his son no matter what, Chris said he preferred to focus on the evidence. And he does not believe the evidence supports the conviction. And I thought that was a very interesting statement by a dad. You know, I'm not going to just tell you my son is innocent because, hey, I'm his dad. Right, right. I'm looking at the evidence. And I don't think the evidence proves that he did it. And I'm going to tell you right now, we'll talk about it more in the wrap up, outside of these hairs. Right. Right. And There's not a lot of evidence.

That's the way I'm feeling. It's pretty hard to feel otherwise. In 2017, Watson filed a second application for a royal prerogative of mercy. His application argued that the discovery and testing of the Harris was questionable. Scott's application was reviewed by retired high court judge Sir Graham Pinker's, whose advice was sent to the justice minister and governor general. on June 26, 2020. His case was sent back to the Court of Appeal.

In December 2020, Watson was denied parole a third time. Critical Witness Guy Wallace died of suicide in March 2021. He was about to stand trial on charges of indecent assault against an underage teen girl. He wrote a suicide note on March 19th and denied the allegations against him. he also wrote his feelings about Watson's conviction. So like a strange side story. That really is. In November 2021, Scott Watson was denied parole for a fourth time.

In May 2022, the Court of Appeals ruled Watson could challenge the photo identification used against him at trial. In May 2024, Watson's latest parole hearing was adjourned to give the parole board time, to get more details about his risk of reoffending. Psychological reports over four years varied. Some labeling him as high risk for reoffending, others labeling him low risk. And maybe it depended on which of his sides he showed that day.

Well, that's true. I don't know. Scott returned to court on June 10th, 2004, to have his case hurt by the court of appeal. The defense said, they weren't asking for a retrial because too much time had passed and too much evidence was contaminated. eyewitness identification expert Dr. Gary Wells told the court that Guy Wallace's identification of Watson had little to no probative value.

The only person Wallace remembered properly was a man with long, scraggly hair, which did not match Watson's description at the time. True. forget about that. No. I mean, it was reported that at the time all of this happened. Scott Watson was clean-shaven. He had short hair. Big difference. Well said that Wallace was shown a photo of Watson. Just days after Ben and Olivia disappeared, he said Wallace was not the mystery man. Wallace identified Watson after he was exposed to his photo in the media. And again, you wonder,

how much of this the jury knew about, heard about, how much of this was known, the Crown argued that Dr. Wells overstated Wallace's unreliability, and parts of his report were misleading. Wells relied on the evidence from water taxi passenger Hayden Morrissey, who admitted he only saw the mystery man from behind. Morrissey told the police on January 13, 1998. He was really just a shadow. I couldn't see him. Wells argued Morrissey's description was more accurate because he was not shown a photo of Watson, unlike Wallace. So what do you make of that? Well, one of the things that it does bother me is that it does seem as though, you know, this Wallace guy at first said, no, no, Scott Watson is not the mystery man. But later on,

then did pick his photo out of a lineup. Why? Why was that? I don't know the answer. But there's a number of reasons. The photo, you know, was him with his eyes closed. Or maybe he was being pressured. Which can happen.

It can and has. We just don't know. Forensic scientist Paige McElhaney reviewed the forensic examination for the defense and said, the court could not exclude the possibility. that the hairs were taken on board the blade by accident. We know that PPE was worn, but it's what they did while wearing the PPE. In past scene examinations that I've been at,

it's been let's all sit in the car and have lunch, with overalls tied around the waist, so it's beyond just PPE was worn. But how was it worn? Was it changed daily or every time they got off the boat and got back on? That information isn't there. It was also possible that the hairs could have gotten into the boat by transference, as acknowledged by forensic biologist Susan Ben Tyner at the original trial.

They could have been picked up on Watson's clothing at the party. It was also possible that the hairs from Olivia Hope's bedroom fell out of the back, which had a slit in it. And it's kind of what we talked about. You know, is it possible that there was contamination on the table? sure it's a possibility that's one possibility is it possible that he walked by her brushed up against her at the bar i don't know it's possible i think if you just take it you know that evidence in a vacuum her hair was found on his boat okay he's guilty dna proves that it's her hair he's guilty

and i'm sure there are some jurors who thought that and that could be true he could be true he could be guilty. I don't know. But unlike most cases, there is a lot. I think that is, at the very least, you'd say you'd have to question. Yeah. I mean, two strands. It's really not a lot of hair. It's a lot for a guy like me, but no, I get, I see what you're getting at. I mean, I leave DNA here every time I'm here. And I've asked you not to repeatedly. But you keep doing it anyway. Strands of hair here, there's what I'm referring to. Susan Ventiner attended the hearing and was asked whether she should have been more clear about the possibility of transference. She said, no, I don't accept that.

Under cross-examination, she said she didn't know. The bag containing the hair was perforated and admitted it may have been present during her initial examination. The court also heard from forensic scientist Sean Doyle, who wrote a report for the defense, claiming there were weaknesses. and how the lab handled the hair and identified the DNA. The report states that the evidence falls short of current standards and in some ways the standards of the time. On June 16, 2004, Justice Christine French, speaking on behalf of the panel, said any decision could be months away.

And as far as I know, they're still waiting on that decision. Many months away is probably what she wanted to say. many months away. But, you know, as we wrapped this up, I said it in the beginning, this is one of the most controversial murder cases in New Zealand's history. And I think we can see why, you know, the evidence against Scott Watson. Let's take away the hair for a minute. And I think if you took away the hair, there were, there would be a lot of prosecutors who wouldn't even take that to trial. Yeah, no bodies, no prison informants. you know, it's just, it's flimsy. I've said that before. Now, the hair, that's a different story.

What is up in the air, though, about that is, you know, how was it handled? Was it handled correctly? Could it have fallen out of that bag onto the blanket during the second examination? I don't know the answer to that. Yeah, we don't. But you could see how a defense attorney could make the argument. that that's not the way you should do it. And therefore, you then have to question the results. Yeah, is it legitimate? You know, and I feel bad for the parents,

you know, have been in the parents of Olivia. Because I believe that they feel like the right person's in prison, but I'm sure they hear all this controversy and wonder, you know. Is he going to get out? Is he going to be set free? And what does that mean for that?

him. Well, it's New Zealand, right? So we said it. He got life in prison, but was up for parole after 17 years. Right. Which we're not used to seeing here in the U.S. It would probably at a minimum be 25 and sometimes no parole whatsoever. Especially for a double murder. For a double murder. But, you know, again, this is such a different case. There's very few cases that we do on true crime all the time where at the end of, all of the research. I'm not pretty convinced that the person is guilty. They're right where they're supposed to be. I'm not saying the jury got it wrong because I don't know that. What I am saying is that there are more questions in this case than most cases you and I talk about.

Absolutely. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Yeah. I don't feel good about the conviction. Not based on everything we know. Yeah. I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm just saying, I don't know if I,

feel that comfortable with how it was decided. Well, and you might have jurors who would say, you know, after sitting through that trial, hey, if we didn't know some of this stuff, that would have changed things. Yeah. But again, you know, we weren't in that jury room. We don't know. We don't. It's very possible that the court of appeal will make a decision sometime this year and that Scott Watson could be released from prison.

I think there's no doubt. out, he will be released at some point. Yeah. I don't know when that will be. But, you know, I, I want to hypothesize here for a minute. Let's say he didn't do it. Obviously, that would be terrible for him to have spent as long as he did in prison. It would.

And I think one of the issues is, how are you going to prove that he didn't do it? Because what they used to prove he did do it, you know, was thin. Sure it was. It was enough for a jury, but it was thin. It was light. Let's call it that. I don't know how in the world they would ever prove he didn't do it or someone else did it thereby, you know, proving he didn't do it. Right. I just wish they would have looked into those two sightings. Yeah, that did bother me. Yeah. I mean, one was a police officer. You're not going to look into information provided by a police officer. Then you've got a boater who says they saw this. They call in to, Operation Tam. Right.

You're giving it a name. You might as well look into it. I mean, at least look into it and check it off the box, you know, check the box that it's doesn't apply. But again, as we wrap this one up, man, I, I'm conflicted. I can very much understand why there are so many people who support Scott Watson. Yeah. Like you and I just said, though, we don't know if he did or not.

But this is one of the lighter. evidentiary cases I've seen or we've covered. But just tragic to think about these two young victims, you know, what, 21 and 17? Yeah. And you said you feel bad for their parents. You know, let's say he didn't do it. That means the person who did it got away with it. Still out there maybe.

You know, is it this thin, scraggly-haired guy that multiple people claimed to have seen? Did he kill other people? right i don't know but that's it for our episode on on scott watson definitely a little bit different for teacat for sure we got some voicemels though gibbs you want check those out let's hear them this first i'm calling back a third time here's some kick-ass episodes that you're doing this week i particularly am enjoying the sleep-walking episode where mike says i don't sleep walk i sleep spoon and i've already told my husband this and he's confused but i'm my dog usually every night at like o'clock when I start spooning on it. Also, from a medical standpoint, we do not believe that people

will kill other people when they're sleepwalking. Sleepwalking is kind of like being hypnotized. We don't think that you'll do anything during that episode that you wouldn't do when you were awake. Also, sleep blocking and sleep activities are why we don't prescribe ambient anymore because too many people driving cars, sleep eating, sleep relapsing, sleep robbing their neighbors and things like that have happened. So love you guys. Have a great rest of your week and looking forward to hearing more next week. Bye. All right. Love the voicemails. Some great information. A lot of communication about the sleepwalking episode. Oh yeah. A lot of people. Actually, the next voicemail is about as well. My thing, Giddy, this is Danielle from Cleveland, Ohio. I have been an

A bit of a listener of you guys for quite a few years now. And just listen to your latest one on Stephen Wright. On the sleepwalking matter, it is 100% true. I've been a sleepwalker since I was a child. My parents had to put an alarm system on the house. My neighbors would have to wash my tried to leave before that. And I still constantly sleep in sleepwalkering once in a while. And I will say, do not wake them up.

Strip others was 100% accurate on you do not wake up a sleepwalker like that because we will swing and freak the hell out. So anyway, keep your own time ticking. Love you guys and enjoy watching this. It'd be so weird to live with a sleepwalker. You said it is or it would be? Would be. Oh, okay.

I thought like you were getting ready to give some... No. Information that I was not aware of. No, no, no. Well, first of all, I just assumed that stepbrothers, everything in it was 100% accurate. Of course. Including the sleepwalk.

Yeah. The clown has no penis. but no we appreciate the information for sure it's good stuff all right buddy that is it for another episode of true crime all the time so for mike and gabie stay safe and keep your own time ticking