Talk of wish to kill 'should not be jury's silver bullet'

By Alison Horwood and Eugene Bingham

WELLINGTON - Evidence that Scott Watson talked of wanting to kill a woman should not become the "magic silver bullet" to decide whether he murdered Olivia Hope and Ben Smart, Justice Heron told jurors yesterday.

The case was built on circumstantial evidence and no single strand should be looked at alone, he said during a four-hour summing-up in the High Court at Wellington.

The jurors should treat carefully the evidence of three people who said Watson had spoken of wanting to kill a woman before Olivia and Ben disappeared on New Year's morning 1998.

"The evidence of these three is not a magic silver bullet ... The evidence can't be used as a substitute for identification. You have to be sure it was him with Olivia and Ben. The circumstantial evidence must be so compelling and kosher as to convince you there is no alternative hypothesis other than murder by Scott Watson."

Watson, aged 28, has denied murdering Olivia Hope, 17, and Ben Smart, 21, in the Marlborough Sounds or Cook Strait on or about January 1, 1998.

They disappeared after New Year celebrations at Furneaux Lodge in Endeavour Inlet.

Justice Heron said that although some evidence referred to hairs said to belong to Olivia, it was natural to assume Olivia and Ben both met the same fate. "The last sighting of these two people was together."

The judge said it was of "critical importance" for the jury to be cautious about identification of the accused. People could make errors, exaggerate, persuade themselves or be influenced by the media.

Of barman and water-taxi driver Guy Wallace, Justice Heron said jurors might consider that a bartender was in a good position to see people at close range.

He had identified Watson from a police montage of photographs, although jurors might think he was "not terrifically confident."

The jury needed to consider Mr Wallace's evidence of a comment, "You can come but he can't," to Olivia in the water taxi Naiad. "Is that what a normal hospitable person would say? It's provocative and it may invoke ... apprehension."

Some evidence about Watson's behaviour showed him in a bad light, but it served only to help to identify him and substantiate his motive of sexual lust, the judge said.

Referring to the two hairs claimed to be Olivia's which were found on Watson's bedding, Justice Heron said the jury needed to bear in mind the chance of a laboratory mixup. Also, the hairs were not found until scientist Susan Vintiner made a second examination.

However, "if these hairs were on the blanket and the blanket was on the boat and they didn't come about accidentally, then they have very strong probative force."

His final words to the jury were: "It would be, of course, of considerable benefit if you could put this dreadful event in the life of our country to finality by a verdict according to law, but only according to the oath you have made."

At 2.57 pm, on the 55th day of the trial, the jury of seven men and five women filed out to begin their deliberations.