Scott Watson pictured in 2015. He continues his fight to clear his name. Photo / Pool
Scott Watson pictured in 2015. He continues his fight to clear his name. Photo / Pool
“There is no mystery ketch. 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, the killing of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope.”
So ended the closing address of lead prosecutor Paul Davison, QC, in Watson’s marathon 1999 trial.
Davison’s closing address alone ran to 30,000 words. The defence waited two-and-a-half months to address the jury while the Crown made their case.
Police and the Crown freely admitted their case against Watson was a largely circumstantial one that involved casting a net over the area in the Sounds where the young couple met their end on New Year’s Day 1998 and eliminating every other possible suspect.
But prosecutors successfully made the case that there was no other candidate in the area who could have killed the young couple.
The piece of actual hard evidence they relied upon most strongly was two hairs found on a blanket taken from Watson’s yacht.
The Crown case also drew on past comments by Watson, before Smart and Hope disappeared, where three witnesses said he had expressed a desire or willingness to kill people.
One witness said the comments came when he and Watson were commiserating over their personal difficulties about a year before Smart and Hope disappeared.
The Witness, dubbed Mr A in a summary of the trial evidence provided in Justice John Henry’s judgment delivered following Watson’s first unsuccessful appeal in 2000, said Watson reported he had “almost like a hatred towards women”.
“He went on to talk about killing a woman but without referring to any particular woman,” the judgment said.
“He was described as very angry, and when Mr A suggested he was talking rubbish the appellant responded, shouting ‘just keep an eye on the papers then’.”
The second incident came on New Year’s Eve 1997. Watson went over to the yacht of a married couple, Mr and Mrs B, who had also anchored in Endeavour Inlet, for a few drinks.
Shortly after Watson’s arrival Mrs B went below deck.
The Endeavour Inlet. The disappearance of Ben Smart, 21 and Olivia Hope, 17, from Furneaux Lodge on New Years day 1998, 20 years ago, has been one of the most controversial murder cases in New Zealand history. Photo / Mike Scott
She felt uncomfortable in his company after an incident the month before when Watson had been drinking with her husband at a pub then returned to their home.
Watson had said he should have killed a woman who was annoying them at the hotel, Mrs B said.
“He continued to talk about killing people and asked Mrs B if there was anyone she wanted killed, [and] that he knew how to do it,” the judgment said.
“His ability to carry out the killing and avoid detection was implicit.”
The Crown case also rested on the “two-trip” theory frequently criticised by Watson’s supporters.
A water taxi driver said he had taken a lone male matching his description back to Watson’s small single-masted yacht Blade between 2am and 4am on January 1, 1998.
Occupants of nearby yachts, Mina Cornelia and Bianco, described being woken by the appellant looking for a partyin the early hours.
The Crown relied on Watson having somehow returned to shore, but could not prove how he did it.
There is evidence he was on shore about 3.30am when he was involved in an altercation with a man wearing his sister’s necklace.
Davison, the prosecutor, is now a High Court judge and, as a result, unable to be interviewed.
But when he was still a lawyer in 2007 he gave an extensive interview to the Listener, telling the magazine it was not important how Watson got back to shore, but saying the evidence was that he did return to shore.
“In the nature of criminal activity, a great deal is done by people who wish to avoid detection,” Davison said.
“I’m not suggesting Mr Watson made his way to shore in some secretive way – who knows? But the Crown case is based, as of necessity it must be, on the evidence that happens to be available, and there was not a witness who could account for Mr Watson returning to shore. In all these cases there are gaps in the mosaic of the picture you create.”
The evidence at trial was that Hope and Smart were taken back about 4am to the yacht Tamarack, where Hope had a berth booked, but there was no room.
She asked to be taken back to shore but Hope and Smart were offered accommodation by a man on the water taxi, whom the driver identified as Watson.
They accepted and were taken back to the man’s yacht, later described by the driver as a two-masted ketch. Watson’s yacht Blade was a single-masted sloop.
This identification was strongly challenged by the defence and remains mired in controversy.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal ruled Watson would be allowed to challenge this identification at appeal. It was based on a montage of photos including one where Watson had his eyes closed, similar to descriptions of a “mystery man” who had hooded eyes. The appeal hearing is scheduled for May 2023.
Scott Watson, convicted killer of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, who were last seen in the Marlborough Sounds early on New Year's Day 1998.
Davison would go on to say the driver was correct in his identification of Watson but wrong in his description of the yacht.
The Crown said the driver was confused and mistaken in the dark, and on the water, about the man’s yacht having two masts.
Blade was moored beside other yachts and it is possible it could have appeared to have two masts with other masts in the background, from certain angles.
At the trial, the jury also heard evidence that, along with the aggressive behaviour towards a young man, Watson had behaved inappropriately in several advances to a number of young women.
Davison told the Listener that the evidence of his behaviour on the night, coupled with the fact he afterwards cleaned and changed the appearance of Blade, made the case against him strong.
He also stood by the two long blonde hairs found on a blanket recovered from Watson’s yacht, which DNA testing found were most likely from Hope.
“We told the jury, ‘Don’t get too distracted by the mystery ketch’,” Davison said.
“Because look at all the rest of the evidence which is actual and compelling and which you can evaluate and which presents a very powerful case against Mr Watson.”
