Pod Insights True Crime All The Time Scott Watson About this episode 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/truecrimeallthetime
Visit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation information
An Emash Digital production
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Transcript 10,663 words · 4 speakers
0:00 Speaker 00 This message is sponsored by Raycon. You know, folks, it's almost Black Friday and this year the decision is easy because you get up to 50% off sitewide, no overthinking it. And Raycon just upgraded my favorite earbuds, the Everyday Open Earbuds. They now adjust in two directions for a better fit and have a real button for volume and skipping tracks. They have great sound and all-day comfort. These earbuds sit just outside your ear canal, so you get a really clear sound, but you can actually hear what's going on around you, too. And they're light and the ear hook part rotates, so they actually stay in. Raycon has over 3 million customers and the sound quality is just as good as
0:41 Speaker 00 the way more expensive brands. And if you don't like them, they have a 30-day guarantee. I've been wearing these every day since I've got them. They are the most comfortable earbuds I've ever owned. They have a 35-hour battery life. You can connect to multiple devices and switch seamlessly without hassle. Honestly, they've just become part of my daily routine. Go to BuyRaycon.com/TCatOpen to get up to 50% off sitewide during Raycon's Black Friday sales. Thanks to Raycon for sponsoring.
1:47 Speaker 00 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. Gimi, how are you?
1:58 Speaker 01 Hey, I'm doing good. How about you?
1:59 Speaker 00 Doing great.
2:00 Speaker 01 Good.
2:00 Speaker 00 And I just had a little dinner.
2:02 Speaker 01 We did.
2:03 Speaker 00 Which is always a fun part of my week.
2:05 Speaker 01 Dinner with me?
2:06 Speaker 00 Dinner with you.
2:07 Speaker 01 Yeah.
2:08 Speaker 00 But when the kids aren't here, it's not as fun.
2:11 Speaker 01 It is not.
2:12 Speaker 00 And it's a heck of a lot less entertaining.
2:15 Speaker 01 I try. I'm just, you know, I can't be them. I just can't.
2:19 Speaker 00 They always have funny stories.
2:21 Speaker 01 Oh, my gosh. Just, just to be a fly on the wall and sit back and watch is all I need to do.
2:27 Speaker 00 Yep. I know you get a kick out of it.
2:28 Speaker 01 I do.
2:29 Speaker 00 Let's go ahead and give our Patreon shout outs. We had Rachel Deegan.
2:32 Speaker 01 Hey, Rachel.
2:33 Speaker 00 Ebony Ott.
2:34 Speaker 01 What's going on, Ott?
2:35 Speaker 00 Mary Elaine Henderson.
2:37 Speaker 01 Henderson.
2:38 Speaker 00 Angie.
2:39 Speaker 01 Good old Angie.
2:40 Speaker 00 Lisa Marquez.
2:41 Speaker 01 Hey, Lisa.
2:42 Speaker 00 Linda Stiles.
2:43 Speaker 01 Thanks, Linda.
2:44 Speaker 00 Justina Jarboe.
2:46 Speaker 01 I like that Jarboe.
2:47 Speaker 00 Yeah, it's an interesting last name. Renee Nykinen.
2:51 Speaker 01 Wow, easy for you to say.
2:53 Speaker 00 It's not. It's not at all. Cedric Garren.
2:56 Speaker 01 Hey Cedric.
2:56 Speaker 00 And last but not least, Andrea Brennan.
2:59 Speaker 01 What up, Andrea?
2:59 Speaker 00 And then if we go back into the vault.
3:03 Speaker 00 This week, we selected Claire Siroe Melvin.
3:06 Speaker 01 Thanks, Claire.
3:07 Speaker 00 So appreciate the new support, the continued support. It's all amazing.
3:11 Speaker 01 It is.
3:12 Speaker 00 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, there's a lot to look forward to.
3:28 Speaker 01 Who?
3:29 Speaker 00 Morph.
3:30 Speaker 01 Who's this?
3:30 Speaker 00 Who is this Morph guy?
3:32 Speaker 01 What's that about?
3:33 Speaker 00 So make sure you check that out. All right, buddy. Are you ready to get into this episode of True Crime All The Time?
3:39 Speaker 01 I'm ready.
3:40 Speaker 00 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, 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.
4:13 Speaker 01 Oh.
4:14 Speaker 00 There are still a lot of people who believe that Scott Peterson is innocent.
4:19 Speaker 01 That's what I was just thinking.
4:20 Speaker 00 A lot of people.
4:21 Speaker 01 Yeah.
4:22 Speaker 00 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.
4:55 Speaker 01 You know, law school is not easy. That's a good goal to have.
5:00 Speaker 00 Well, it's definitely not easy when you're 13, like as you were.
5:05 Speaker 01 Well.
5:05 Speaker 00 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.
5:15 Speaker 01 I'm an achiever. Simple. I'm just an achiever. Some might say an overachiever.
5:21 Speaker 00 Yeah, I was gonna 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.
5:37 Speaker 01 Sounds like he had a new plan for the new year. Go work for his dad's engineering firm.
5:43 Speaker 00 Could you have an old plan for the new year? I'm just wondering.
5:48 Speaker 01 You could have been the old, the plan for the previous year didn't work out.
5:52 Speaker 00 Could you have a new plan for the old year? No, because that's already passed you by. Olivia left her parents' home in Grove Town Marlboro District to drive to Watamanga Bay in Queen Charlotte Sound on the afternoon of December 30th, 1997. Watamanga Bay.
6:11 Speaker 01 Sounds like a fun place.
6:12 Speaker 00 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 Tamarack. 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.
6:30 Speaker 01 Yeah, just a little.
6:31 Speaker 00 Dinghy.
6:32 Speaker 01 Dinghy.
6:34 Speaker 01 You knew you had me set up to say that, didn't you?
6:37 Speaker 00 The fact that you were gonna 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 Endeavour 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.
7:06 Speaker 01 Yeah, it sounds like quite the adventure.
7:09 Speaker 00 Yeah, you're chartering a yacht. You've got a bunch of people. You're, you know, 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 Furno Lodge as a legendary party spot, and it was said that there were anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 people at the party.
7:41 Speaker 01 Sounds like a good place to hang.
7:42 Speaker 00 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 Cove. Olivia and Ben left the party in the early morning hours of January 1st, 1998. They took a water taxi back to the Tamarack, intending to sleep there, but they found that all the beds were occupied. Olivia picked up her backpacks, sleeping bags, and other belongings because she and Ben intended to find somewhere else to sleep.
8:17 Speaker 01 I'd be kind of pissed if I got back to my yacht and didn't have a place to lay down.
8:20 Speaker 00 Well, especially if you were the one that chartered the yacht, as it was described, her and her sister chartered the yacht. Whoever gets the beds first.
8:32 Speaker 01 That's why you tied the sock around the door, not right?
8:34 Speaker 00 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.
8:56 Speaker 01 Yeah.
8:57 Speaker 00 And that's what they did. It was between four and 5 a.m. The same water taxi returned to the Tamarack. 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 in a water taxi.
9:27 Speaker 01 Can you imagine being the only sober person at that place?
9:31 Speaker 00 I actually can because I've said it before. I don't drink anymore. I used to tie, 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 Dyke. 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, is going to come back around.
10:11 Speaker 00 You know, anytime you have an unidentified person in a case, it's usually a harbinger of, of something to come later. When Wallace returned to the Tamarack, he found Ben and Olivia waiting. They said they needed a ride to shore to find somewhere to sleep. And it was this mystery man who offered them a bed on his boat and Ben and Olivia accepted.
10:37 Speaker 01 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.
10:43 Speaker 00 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.
10:54 Speaker 01 What a bit feral looks like.
10:57 Speaker 00 Well, feral usually means like you've been living out in the woods like an animal.
11:01 Speaker 01 Hair is messy and just.
11:04 Speaker 00 Unkempt. I don't, yeah, I don't know.
11:06 Speaker 01 Unkempt?
11:07 Speaker 00 Am I using words you've never heard?
11:10 Speaker 01 Is it unkempt?
11:11 Speaker 00 No, it's unkempt.
11:16 Speaker 00 This is not the time for you to upgrade your vocabulary. But Wallace also said that he was checking out Olivia and acting sleazy towards her. These are the exact words that he used.
11:33 Speaker 01 Kind of gross.
11:33 Speaker 00 Well, you're, you're really getting a sense or an image of this guy. You know, when you use the word checking out, sleazy.
11:44 Speaker 01 Yeah.
11:45 Speaker 00 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 attractive. Wallace also said that he was unshaven with long, messy, wavy hair. You could probably even use the word unkempt.
12:09 Speaker 01 Or?
12:09 Speaker 00 Or unkempt.
12:12 Speaker 00 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 hull and hemp ropes. So 12 meters, it's not a small boat.
12:38 Speaker 01 No, it's fairly decent.
12:40 Speaker 00 Yeah, I guess it's not what I was thinking when I heard the, the word yacht.
12:45 Speaker 01 Yeah.
12:46 Speaker 00 I guess yacht can be, uh, used for a lot of different types of boats.
12:51 Speaker 01 Yeah, it's not going to be close to my 36 meter, but you know.
12:55 Speaker 00 Not everybody has that kind of dough, but it was said that it was docked with about 160 other yachts.
13:02 Speaker 01 Wow.
13:02 Speaker 00 All there for these, the New Year's celebrations.
13:07 Speaker 01 Like a good time right there.
13:08 Speaker 00 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 discussed 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'd have just done this? What if I'd have done that?
13:43 Speaker 01 If I just gave my bet up, they'd still be here.
13:45 Speaker 00 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 unsolved.
14:06 Speaker 01 It does.
14:07 Speaker 00 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 Tan.
14:34 Speaker 01 Okay.
14:35 Speaker 00 The police ramped up their searches as time passed because they believe 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?
14:50 Speaker 01 Yeah. I mean, I think it's natural for you to go ahead and consider that.
14:55 Speaker 00 Guy Wallace was interrogated by detectives who suggested he was responsible for their disappearance. Locals in the area turned on Wallace told the New Zealand Herald, it was horrible. I walked into the Waikiawa 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.
15:19 Speaker 01 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.
15:33 Speaker 00 Well, unfortunately, that's what happens when the police believe you had something to do.
15:39 Speaker 01 Yeah.
15:40 Speaker 00 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.
16:06 Speaker 01 But how much damage does it do by the time it does get lifted, right?
16:10 Speaker 00 Oh, yeah, you've ruined relationships, you've lost friends, marriages, all kinds of stuff.
16:15 Speaker 01 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 can still be buddies. I'd be like, no, I can't be buddies with you ever again.
16:34 Speaker 00 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.
16:48 Speaker 01 There's a lot of pressure to solve these cases, not allow them to linger.
16:52 Speaker 00 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.
17:25 Speaker 01 Well, it is an island surrounded by ocean. So maybe that's just what you need to have, if you live on the coast.
17:33 Speaker 00 I just like the fact that you called it an island and then gave the definition of an island.
17:41 Speaker 00 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.
17:53 Speaker 01 I think so.
17:54 Speaker 00 Now, you and I are a little landlocked.
17:57 Speaker 01 For sure.
17:58 Speaker 00 Where we live.
17:59 Speaker 01 Yeah.
18:00 Speaker 00 But, you know, if you lived in some of these places where you could get out on the seas a little bit, to have a boat and just sail around, that would be pretty cool.
18:13 Speaker 01 Let's take the boat this weekend.
18:15 Speaker 00 But I, but I also have seen Castaway.
18:17 Speaker 01 Yeah.
18:18 Speaker 00 So that does scare me.
18:19 Speaker 01 Well, yeah, don't want to be stranded on an island.
18:22 Speaker 00 Yes. According to Chris, Scott was a troubled teen 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.
18:35 Speaker 01 Pretty hefty.
18:37 Speaker 00 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.
18:49 Speaker 01 Build your own boat. Impressive.
18:51 Speaker 00 Again, you know, what are we calling a yacht? Because in my world, you can't build a yacht yourself in your, in the backyard.
19:00 Speaker 01 Yeah, I think you should think of these yachts as boats.
19:06 Speaker 00 Boats.
19:06 Speaker 01 Yeah.
19:07 Speaker 00 Growing up, a yacht was what you would see on lifestyles of the rich and famous. That's what I always thought of.
19:13 Speaker 01 Yeah.
19:14 Speaker 00 So the police believe 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.
19:47 Speaker 01 Right.
19:47 Speaker 00 Right? If Scott wasn't in there, I would be in there.
19:51 Speaker 01 Right.
19:52 Speaker 00 They had to get someone.
19:54 Speaker 01 It's going to be one of us.
19:55 Speaker 00 So what, 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.
20:05 Speaker 01 I think so.
20:06 Speaker 00 Wallace had seen Watson's photo at least three times and denied that he was the mystery man. And we said, right? He, he took this guy.
20:17 Speaker 01 If anybody's going to be able to recognize him, it should be him.
20:20 Speaker 00 Because he not only saw the mystery man in the water taxi, he claimed that he and bar manager Roz 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. So apparently that was a part of the mystery man's description. He had hooded eyes.
20:50 Speaker 01 Hooded eyes.
20:51 Speaker 00 Have you ever seen someone whose eyes kind of?
20:55 Speaker 01 Yeah.
20:55 Speaker 00 Go over a little bit. They, they don't open as fully as maybe.
21:00 Speaker 01 Cause they're hooded.
21:01 Speaker 00 Because they're hooded.
21:02 Speaker 01 Yeah.
21:03 Speaker 00 Based on this photo, Guy Wallace and Roz McNeely 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.
21:23 Speaker 01 Complete opposites.
21:24 Speaker 00 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.
21:41 Speaker 01 I remember Wallace said that the boat that he dropped him off on was a two mast and the one that Scott billed was a one mast.
21:52 Speaker 00 So it seems to be a kind of another discrepancy.
21:57 Speaker 00 When was the last time you woke up actually feeling rested? Or got through a day without feeling totally stressed out? Yeah, over 50% of adults say they'd feel better if they got more sleep. And stress is often the biggest barrier. That's why CBD from CB Distillery makes so much sense. CB Distillery has natural solutions for sleep and stress. They can help break that vicious stress sleep cycle. And everything from CB Distillery is premium quality, third-party tested, and free from artificial dyes or fillers. They're the source I trust, and so do 2 million other happy customers. You can shop by benefit, whether you want better sleep, less stress, improved focus, pain relief after workouts, or even something for your pets.
22:42 Speaker 00 It's all right there. And the one product I can't live without are their sleep gummies. They're my go-to. So if you're ready to start sleeping better, stressing less, and just feeling good again, check out CB Distillery. Visit CBDistillery.com and use our code TCAT for 25% off. That's CBDistillery.com code T-C-A-T-T. CBDistillery.com.
23:08 Speaker 00 Wallace told The Herald 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 film 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...
23:41 Speaker 01 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.
23:51 Speaker 00 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.
24:02 Speaker 01 You're right.
24:03 Speaker 00 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.
24:27 Speaker 01 It does.
24:28 Speaker 00 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.
24:52 Speaker 01 That's not good.
24:54 Speaker 00 No, that 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 blond hairs believed to be Olivia's on the blanket.
25:17 Speaker 01 400 hairs, that'd be...
25:18 Speaker 00 Seems like a lot of hair.
25:21 Speaker 01 Your whole head.
25:22 Speaker 00 It would be, but it seems like a lot of hair to be on one blanket.
25:25 Speaker 01 It would be.
25:26 Speaker 00 But, so two of them are blond hairs that they believe are Olivia's. Now, you and I have talked about hair before.
25:36 Speaker 01 We have.
25:37 Speaker 00 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 juries thought.
25:51 Speaker 01 Yes.
25:54 Speaker 00 Scott Watson was arrested and charged 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.
26:11 Speaker 01 But I don't even think the two hairs are that strong.
26:14 Speaker 00 Unless they come forward with some science that proves that it, that the hairs belong to Olivia, then yeah, they are circumstantial.
26:26 Speaker 00 They argued that Scott Watson murdered Ben Smart and Olivia Hope on his yacht, The Blade, and dumped their bodies in the Cook Strait. He then tried to disguise his boat with a new paint job. They claim 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
27:08 Speaker 00 a lighter sentence. But then, as weeks passed, 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.
27:29 Speaker 01 Did he change his eyewitness account because it benefited him?
27:35 Speaker 00 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 Herald 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.
28:05 Speaker 01 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.
28:17 Speaker 00 It's a big change.
28:18 Speaker 01 Yeah.
28:19 Speaker 00 Now, if you said, it was around 10 o'clock, and then you later said, no, it's probably closer to 10:30. Okay.
28:26 Speaker 01 Yeah.
28:27 Speaker 00 I get that.
28:28 Speaker 01 Right.
28:28 Speaker 00 But 10:00 in the morning to 5:00, you know, in the late, late afternoon, that's seven hours.
28:38 Speaker 01 It is.
28:38 Speaker 00 That's a big difference. Chris also said that Scott arranged for the paint weeks in advance.
28:45 Speaker 01 You should be able to confirm that.
28:48 Speaker 00 The prosecution also said marks on the hull were made when Scott lowered the bodies into the water, but Chris said those marks are consistent with a scrubbing brush.
28:59 Speaker 01 I'm not really sure how you decide what marks on your hull look like from lowering bodies down it. I don't know how you would determine that. Seems pretty non-scientific.
29:11 Speaker 00 Well, in the prosecution said, 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 surfaces 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.
29:53 Speaker 01 So it sounds like there's a response for everything the police considers potential evidence.
30:00 Speaker 00 Yeah, because like I said, I, to me, this is kind of flimsy stuff.
30:05 Speaker 01 Yeah.
30:06 Speaker 00 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.
30:48 Speaker 00 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 masts. Scott was docked beside other yachts that night, and it was possible. His boat could have appeared to have two masts at certain angles. And I get that. That is true.
31:12 Speaker 01 It is.
31:13 Speaker 00 But you're saying it's possible. You're also kind of cherry picking a little bit when you say, well, you know, when he picked the photo out of the lineup, that was correct. But when he said the boat had two masts, he was incorrect.
31:28 Speaker 01 Yeah, you're trying to make it fit your narrative.
31:30 Speaker 00 Sure. Absolutely.
31:32 Speaker 01 I'd also say Guy's probably somebody that understands boats pretty good.
31:36 Speaker 00 Yeah, I would say so. So probably a lot of people in and around that area do and did.
31:42 Speaker 01 Yeah. And if he was sober, I'm thinking he probably knows what he saw.
31:47 Speaker 00 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 2:00 and 4:00 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 onboard his water taxi between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. when he dropped off Ben and Olivia. They believed he somehow got back to shore, but
32:32 Speaker 00 they couldn't prove how he did it. There was evidence he got into an altercation on shore about 3:30 a.m.
32:41 Speaker 01 I mean, if they have him on shore at 3:30, does it matter how he got back?
32:45 Speaker 00 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?
33:04 Speaker 01 Yeah.
33:04 Speaker 00 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 lab. 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.
33:50 Speaker 01 So possible contamination.
33:52 Speaker 00 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.
34:21 Speaker 01 No.
34:22 Speaker 00 But when you match one to Olivia through DNA, that's very powerful.
34:30 Speaker 01 It is, if it was found on there without being contaminated by the hairs that were sent in.
34:36 Speaker 00 Which the defense, you know, is going to question. And they did. They raised the possibility of accidental contamination. Forensic biologist Susan Kathleen Bintiner 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 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
35:19 Speaker 00 on the same table where you have her known hairs.
35:24 Speaker 01 Yeah, not good.
35:25 Speaker 00 In a bag. 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.
35:55 Speaker 01 It's kind of serious there.
35:56 Speaker 00 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."
36:24 Speaker 01 Okay, kind of mysterious.
36:27 Speaker 00 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 Endeavor Inland. Mrs. B went below deck 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.
37:07 Speaker 01 Okay, definitely creepy.
37:08 Speaker 00 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?
37:19 Speaker 01 Right.
37:20 Speaker 00 I don't know.
37:21 Speaker 01 Next thing you know, he's gonna say he had a, he has a K bar and, you know, some cousins.
37:26 Speaker 00 Very, very specific training. Two prison informants also testified against Scott. Witness A testified that he and Scott shared 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 gonna try to do that in a New Zealand accent, but I couldn't swing it.
37:51 Speaker 01 Yeah, mate.
37:53 Speaker 00 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 and 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.
38:35 Speaker 00 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, it's, that's nasty.
38:45 Speaker 01 Yeah, it's really sick.
38:46 Speaker 00 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.
39:04 Speaker 01 I mean, when you hear all that, I mean, I know it's all.
39:07 Speaker 00 Hearsay, yeah.
39:09 Speaker 01 But then he makes you think, maybe he did do this.
39:14 Speaker 00 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.
39:33 Speaker 01 Right.
39:34 Speaker 00 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's been sitting over there throughout the trial and he is responsible for the deaths,
40:19 Speaker 00 the murders and the killing of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope."
40:27 Speaker 00 Scott Watson was convicted of murder on September 11th, 1999. In November, he was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum non-proel period of 17 years.
40:39 Speaker 01 So the jury believed the prosecution?
40:42 Speaker 00 And the witnesses?
40:44 Speaker 01 I think the witness statements are pretty powerful in this case.
40:49 Speaker 00 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. Cause if you think about the DNA, that is probably the most.
41:17 Speaker 00 I don't think probably it is would have been the most damning piece of evidence that they had. Everything else was very circumstantial.
41:25 Speaker 01 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.
41:33 Speaker 00 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.
41:46 Speaker 01 Yeah.
41:47 Speaker 00 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. Sniff, snap, sniff, snap, sniff, snap.
42:01 Speaker 01 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 mean, this has no value anymore. Right?
42:11 Speaker 00 No.
42:11 Speaker 01 You can't, can't use that for anything.
42:13 Speaker 00 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.
42:26 Speaker 01 Oh, true love right there.
42:28 Speaker 00 Well, you know, we just had Valentine's Day and 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.
43:07 Speaker 01 Okay, now, if you would know that as a juror, you probably looked differently at what he said.
43:14 Speaker 00 Oh, I'm sure they didn't know that at the time.
43:16 Speaker 01 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?
43:24 Speaker 00 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?
43:40 Speaker 01 I don't know.
43:41 Speaker 00 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 2003. 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 neighbor 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.
44:25 Speaker 01 I think it'd be hard to have a relationship with somebody in prison.
44:28 Speaker 00 Well, it would be hard if you had a relationship with someone who then went to prison.
44:35 Speaker 01 That would be rough, too.
44:36 Speaker 00 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 face is splashed all over, and you develop a relationship. I think that would be hard, too.
44:52 Speaker 01 Kind of meeting them for the wrong reason.
44:54 Speaker 00 At their, at their worst.
44:56 Speaker 01 Yeah.
44:56 Speaker 00 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 Hauraki 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 Herald, "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."
45:36 Speaker 00 It was bloody suspicious behavior that would raise the hackles of anybody.
45:42 Speaker 01 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.
45:54 Speaker 00 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.
46:19 Speaker 01 Why would they be looking? They already think they have, who?
46:22 Speaker 00 Well, I think that's what he's 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 Wallace. 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.
46:55 Speaker 01 This is kind of sad, really.
46:56 Speaker 00 It is. If, 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?
47:26 Speaker 01 I just think you owe it to the, the investigation to look into this stuff.
47:32 Speaker 00 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.
47:59 Speaker 01 It could have been.
48:00 Speaker 00 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.
48:10 Speaker 01 Yeah, it's bizarre. Hello, Operation TAM? Yes, I have some very interesting news for you. Sorry, click.
48:19 Speaker 00 I don't, 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 Roz McNeely 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 board a catch that night.
49:00 Speaker 00 He said the only similarity between the mystery catch and Scott Watson's boat was that they both float. That was the only similarity.
49:09 Speaker 01 That's cut and dry right there, right?
49:11 Speaker 00 Yeah, one mast, two masts, different colors. In 2009, Christie 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.
49:40 Speaker 01 Yeah.
49:41 Speaker 00 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.
49:56 Speaker 01 So is she saying because it was already brought up during that trial, it's irrelevant now?
50:01 Speaker 00 Yeah, the jury already heard it.
50:03 Speaker 01 Wasn't the deciding factor.
50:05 Speaker 00 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 at trial. And I could see that. I mean, he already denied it in the trial.
50:25 Speaker 01 Yes.
50:26 Speaker 00 So saying that Scott is not the mystery man again, again, is not really new evidence.
50:34 Speaker 01 Just rehashing the same.
50:36 Speaker 00 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.
50:56 Speaker 01 Yeah, because you have to ask, how did that hair get there? She must have been on your boat.
51:00 Speaker 00 Well, and it's also DNA, right? Juries look at DNA as kind of the bombshell type evidence.
51:09 Speaker 01 Yeah.
51:09 Speaker 00 On July 9th, 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 answer seemed rehearsed. His response was absolute silence on some of the more circumstantial elements of the prosecution's case.
51:53 Speaker 00 When confronted with this, he was mute, unemotional, disconnected.
51:58 Speaker 00 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.
52:11 Speaker 01 Yeah.
52:12 Speaker 00 It's gonna be tough.
52:13 Speaker 01 Really tough.
52:14 Speaker 00 Watson was denied parole again in 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.
52:42 Speaker 01 Well, he's been convicted, what, at this time, 49, 50 times in his life?
52:48 Speaker 00 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 Scot is very manipulative, withdraws into himself, is 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.
53:28 Speaker 01 Right.
53:29 Speaker 00 But when you think about killers especially, I think they often have two sides.
53:36 Speaker 01 Yeah.
53:37 Speaker 00 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 gotta keep that secret because that's some deep, dark, nasty stuff.
53:50 Speaker 01 Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde stuff.
53:52 Speaker 00 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 Herald, 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 gonna just tell you my son is innocent because, hey, I'm his dad.
54:32 Speaker 01 Right, right.
54:33 Speaker 00 I'm looking at the evidence, and I don't think the evidence proves that he did it. And I'm gonna tell you right now, we'll talk about it more in the wrap-up, outside of these hairs.
54:44 Speaker 01 Right.
54:45 Speaker 00 There's not a lot of evidence. I'm, that's the way I'm feeling.
54:49 Speaker 01 It's pretty hard to feel otherwise.
54:51 Speaker 00 In 2017, Watson filed a second application for a royal prerogative of mercy. His application argued that the discovery and testing of the hairs was questionable. Scott's application was reviewed by retired High Court Judge Sir Graham Pankhurst, 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
55:33 Speaker 00 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. Sort of like a strange side story.
55:48 Speaker 01 That really is.
55:50 Speaker 00 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.
56:30 Speaker 01 Well, that's true.
56:31 Speaker 00 I don't know. Scott returned to court on June 10th, 2024, to have his case heard 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.
57:09 Speaker 01 True.
57:09 Speaker 00 And we can't forget about that. I mean, it was reported that at the time all of this happened, Scott Watson was clean shaven. He had short hair.
57:22 Speaker 01 Big difference.
57:23 Speaker 00 Wells 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 13th, 1998, "He was really just a shadow.
58:08 Speaker 00 I couldn't see him." Wells argued Morrissey's description was more accurate because he was not shown a photo of Watson, unlike Wallace.
58:19 Speaker 01 So what do you make of that?
58:20 Speaker 00 Well, one of the things that 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 the lineup. Why? Why was that?
58:43 Speaker 01 Yeah.
58:43 Speaker 00 I don't know the answer, but there's, there's a number of reasons. The photo, you know, was him with his eyes closed, or maybe he was being pressured.
58:54 Speaker 01 Which can happen.
58:55 Speaker 00 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.
59:36 Speaker 00 It was also possible that the hairs could have gotten into the boat by transference, as acknowledged by forensic biologist Susan Bintiner 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 bag, 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.
1:00:07 Speaker 01 That's one possibility.
1:00:09 Speaker 00 Is it possible that he walked by her, brushed up against her at the bar? I don't know.
1:00:16 Speaker 01 It's possible.
1:00:18 Speaker 00 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 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.
1:00:46 Speaker 01 Yeah, I mean, two strands, it's really not a lot of hair.
1:00:50 Speaker 00 It's a lot for a guy like me, but no, I get, I see what you're getting at.
1:00:55 Speaker 01 I mean, I leave DNA here every time I'm here.
1:00:57 Speaker 00 And I've asked you not to repeatedly, but you keep doing it anyway.
1:01:02 Speaker 01 Strands of hair here, there is what I'm referring to.
1:01:05 Speaker 00 Susan Vintiner 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 in 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 16th, 2024, Justice Christine French, speaking on behalf of the
1:01:50 Speaker 00 panel, said, any decision could be months away. And as far as I know, they're still waiting on that decision.
1:01:57 Speaker 01 Many months away is probably what she wanted to say.
1:02:00 Speaker 00 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.
1:02:26 Speaker 01 Yeah, no bodies, no.
1:02:29 Speaker 00 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?
1:02:51 Speaker 00 I don't know the answer to that.
1:02:53 Speaker 01 Yeah, we don't.
1:02:54 Speaker 00 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.
1:03:08 Speaker 01 Yeah, is it legitimate? You know, and I feel bad for the parents, you know, Ben and 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 them?
1:03:30 Speaker 00 Well, it's New Zealand, right? So we said it, he got life in prison, but was up for parole after 17 years.
1:03:38 Speaker 01 Right.
1:03:39 Speaker 00 Which we're not used to seeing here in the US. It would, it probably at a minimum be 25 and sometimes no parole whatsoever.
1:03:48 Speaker 01 Especially for a double murder.
1:03:49 Speaker 00 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, 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.
1:04:18 Speaker 01 Absolutely.
1:04:19 Speaker 00 I don't think there's any doubt about that.
1:04:20 Speaker 01 Yeah, I don't feel good about the conviction.
1:04:23 Speaker 00 Not based on everything we know.
1:04:26 Speaker 01 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.
1:04:33 Speaker 00 Well, and you might have jurors who would say, you know, after sitting through that trial. Hey, if we didn't known some of this stuff, that would have changed things.
1:04:45 Speaker 01 Yeah.
1:04:45 Speaker 00 But again, you know, we weren't in that jury room. We don't know.
1:04:49 Speaker 01 We don't.
1:04:49 Speaker 00 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, I think there's no doubt he, he will be released at some point.
1:05:02 Speaker 01 Yeah.
1:05:03 Speaker 00 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.
1:05:15 Speaker 01 It would.
1:05:16 Speaker 00 And I think one of the issues is, how are you going to prove that he didn't do it? Cause what you, what they used to prove he did do it, you know, was thin.
1:05:27 Speaker 01 Sure was.
1:05:27 Speaker 00 It was enough for a jury, but it was thin. It was light. Let's, 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.
1:05:42 Speaker 01 Right. I just wish they would have looked into those two sightings.
1:05:46 Speaker 00 Yeah, that, that did bother me.
1:05:48 Speaker 01 Yeah.
1:05:48 Speaker 00 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, a boater who says they saw this. They call into Operation Tam.
1:06:01 Speaker 01 Right.
1:06:01 Speaker 00 You're giving it a name. You might as well look into it.
1:06:05 Speaker 01 At least look into it and check it off the bo-, you know, check the box that it's, doesn't apply.
1:06:10 Speaker 00 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.
1:06:22 Speaker 01 Yeah.
1:06:22 Speaker 00 Like you and I just said, though, we don't know if he did it or not, but this is one of the lighter evidentiary cases I've seen or we've covered.
1:06:34 Speaker 01 But just tragic to think about these two young victims, you know, what, 21 and 17?
1:06:40 Speaker 00 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.
1:06:49 Speaker 01 Still out there, maybe.
1:06:50 Speaker 00 You know, is it this thin, scraggly haired guy that multiple people claimed to have seen? Did he kill other people?
1:06:58 Speaker 01 Right.
1:06:59 Speaker 00 I don't know. But that's it for our episode on, on Scott Watson. Definitely a little bit different for TCAT, for sure. We've got some voicemails though, Gibbs. You want to check those out?
1:07:08 Speaker 01 Let's hear them.
1:07:09 Speaker 02 This is the first, I'm calling back a third time. These are some kick ass episodes that you're doing this week. I particularly am enjoying the sleepwalking episode where Mike says, "I don't sleepwalk, I sleep spoon." And I've already told my husband this and he's confused, but I have my dog usually every night at like 2 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 kinda like being hypnotized. We don't think that you'll do anything during that episode that you wouldn't do when you were awake.
1:07:49 Speaker 02 So, also, sleepwalking and sleep activities are why we don't prescribe Ambien 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.
1:08:10 Speaker 00 All right. Love the voicemails, some great information. Lot of communication about the sleepwalking episode. Oh yeah. Lot of people. Actually, the next voicemail's about it as well.
1:08:22 Speaker 03 Hi, Mike and Giddy. This is Danielle from Cleveland, Ohio. I have been an avid listener of you guys for quite a few years now. I'm just listening to your latest one on Steven 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 watch me try to eat before that and I still constantly sleep eating sleepwalkery once in a while. And I will say, do not wake them up. Step Brothers was 100% accurate on, you do not wake up a sleepwalker like that because they will swing and freak the hell out. Anyway, keep your own time ticking. Love you guys and enjoy. Thanks for having me here.
1:09:00 Speaker 01 It's so weird to live with a sleepwalker.
1:09:04 Speaker 00 You said it is or it would be?
1:09:06 Speaker 01 Would be.
1:09:06 Speaker 00 Oh, okay. I thought like you were getting ready to give some
1:09:10 Speaker 01 No.
1:09:12 Speaker 00 information that I was not aware of.
1:09:13 Speaker 01 No, no, no.
1:09:14 Speaker 00 Well, first of all, I just assumed that Step Brothers, everything in it was 100% accurate.
1:09:20 Speaker 01 Of course.
1:09:21 Speaker 00 Including the sleepwalking.
1:09:22 Speaker 01 Yeah.
1:09:23 Speaker 00 The clown has no penis. But no, we appreciate the information for sure.
1:09:28 Speaker 01 It's good stuff.
1:09:29 Speaker 00 All right, buddy. That is it for another episode of True Crime All The Time. So for Mike.
1:09:34 Speaker 01 And Gabby.
1:09:35 Speaker 00 Stay safe and keep your own time ticking.
Previous Stephen Reitz Next Bernard Finch and Carole Tregoff Page updated November 4, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated