-------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: Scott Watson’s father, Chris Watson, said it was ironic that, given ESR’s forensic testing of hairs from the tiger blanket had always been central to concerns about the case, further testing of the hairs had seen two mistakes exposed. “It’s starting to look like they’re pretty slap-dash in their dealings with exhibits.” Given the controversy around the original tiger-blanket hair testing, Chris Watson said it might have been expected ESR would do everything it could this time to avoid any criticism. “But they’re producing more concerns. The eyelash produced concerns - now this is even more.” Instead of validating the original testing, the latest tests had simply raised further questions, both in the contamination events, and the fact no DNA from Hope and Smart was found, Chris Watson said."
------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The most crucial evidence against Watson was two hairs police said were found on a tiger-patterned blanket on Watson’s yacht, which analysis showed came from Hope. However, the testing of these hairs in 1998 was riddled with questions and controversy that hasn’t gone away, despite Watson’s conviction. Watson has always maintained his innocence, but remains in prison after more than 27 years. In the lead up to his latest appeal in 2024, police decided to try and bolster the forensic link between Watson, and Hope and Smart, and eventually spent more than $55,000 testing 30 other hairs from the “tiger blanket”. None showed any connection with Hope or Smart. But in July, the Sunday Star-Times revealed that during the recent DNA testing, a hair from an ESR scientist became mixed with the tiger blanket hairs and was analysed. It was an eyelash from the scientist that transferred to the sample when she took off her glasses to look through a high-power microscope. ESR notified police and the Crown of the error. However, the Sunday Star-Times can now reveal there was another forensic bungle during the testing process, which ESR had not previously acknowledged."
————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "When the hair samples that had been in storage were being sent from an ESR facility in Wellington, to Auckland for testing, the tubes they were contained in were emptied out of a self-sealing plastic bag in a non-laboratory environment. The tubes selected for testing were then taken to an office in preparation for sending to Auckland, but were then handled by at least one staff member not wearing gloves. While the tubes themselves had not been opened, concerns were raised that other DNA could be mistakenly transferred on the tubes, and once the errors were discovered, staff were forced to clean the tubes before testing commenced."
------------------------------------------
STORY: "Second forensic blunder revealed in Scott Watson case," by Investigative Reporter Mike White, published by The Post, on December 13, 2025. (Mike White is a senior writer and columnist specialising in feature writing including criminal justice investigations.)
PHOTO CAPTION: "Scott Watson, who has always denied murdering Marlborough friends Ben Smart and Olivia Hope.."
GIST: "Further mistakes have been revealed in the testing of forensic samples at the heart of Scott Watson’s conviction for murdering Olivia Hope and Ben Smart.
PHF Science, formerly ESR, has acknowledged that not only did a staff member’s eyelash end up among hairs taken from Watson’s yacht during testing in 2024, but tubes containing vital samples were handled in a non-laboratory environment, and touched by at least one staff member not wearing gloves.
Watson was convicted of murdering friends Hope, 17, and Smart, 21, after a New Year’s party at Furneaux Lodge in the Marlborough Sounds in January 1998.
Their bodies have never been found, and the case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.
The most crucial evidence against Watson was two hairs police said were found on a tiger-patterned blanket on Watson’s yacht, which analysis showed came from Hope.
However, the testing of these hairs in 1998 was riddled with questions and controversy that hasn’t gone away, despite Watson’s conviction.
Watson has always maintained his innocence, but remains in prison after more than 27 years.
In the lead up to his latest appeal in 2024, police decided to try and bolster the forensic link between Watson, and Hope and Smart, and eventually spent more than $55,000 testing 30 other hairs from the “tiger blanket”.
None showed any connection with Hope or Smart.
But in July, the Sunday Star-Times revealed that during the recent DNA testing, a hair from an ESR scientist became mixed with the tiger blanket hairs and was analysed.
It was an eyelash from the scientist that transferred to the sample when she took off her glasses to look through a high-power microscope.
ESR notified police and the Crown of the error.
However, the Sunday Star-Times can now reveal there was another forensic bungle during the testing process, which ESR had not previously acknowledged.
When the hair samples that had been in storage were being sent from an ESR facility in Wellington, to Auckland for testing, the tubes they were contained in were emptied out of a self-sealing plastic bag in a non-laboratory environment.
The tubes selected for testing were then taken to an office in preparation for sending to Auckland, but were then handled by at least one staff member not wearing gloves.
While the tubes themselves had not been opened, concerns were raised that other DNA could be mistakenly transferred on the tubes, and once the errors were discovered, staff were forced to clean the tubes before testing commenced.
Tanja van Peer, acting general manager of PHF Science’s Forensic Business Group, said the organisation took its responsibility to provide forensic services for New Zealand very seriously “and stands by the integrity of its processes and the professionalism of its staff”.
She stressed the two incidents were identified by staff, and didn’t affect the outcome of the testing.
The fact they were picked up was “a sign that our quality systems are working”, van Peer said.
When asked whether the mistakes should have happened in the first place, van Peer said in any highly technical scientific environment, avoiding contamination was a primary consideration, and they tried to minimise this through stringent anti-contamination protocols.
She stressed PHF Science was accredited to international standards, and underwent regular reviews and audits. However, it does not appear that PHF Science has reported the recent incidents to its accrediting body.
Scott Watson’s convictions for murder are among the most controversial in New Zealand history.
In the case of handling the sample tubes outside a laboratory and without gloves, documents obtained by the Star-Times under the Official Information Act show the cause was described as “Personnel/Inattention” by PHF Science.
“In retrospect, I should have searched for the required samples in the lab with full PPE (personal protective equipment),” one of the staff members involved stated.
“If I ever have to send samples like this again, I will be sure they are packaged in the laboratory first.”
In the documents, van Peer said staff involved with examining the hairs prior to the eyelash incident “took exceptional measures to mitigate risk, including tape-lifting themselves before proceeding on this work.
“It was simply an unfortunate incident.”
But prominent forensic scientist Anna Sandiford said describing the contamination event as an unfortunate incident was “inappropriate in a forensic setting”, and appeared to minimise the significance of the issue.
“Laboratory contamination is a defined quality-control failure, and its description should be factual and precise to accurately reflect its potential impact on the reliability of the results.”
However, she accepted the eyelash falling out during examination of the tiger blanket hairs could not reasonably have been anticipated, and the laboratory’s systems worked as they should in detecting that the DNA came from a staff member.
But Sandiford said handling sample tubes without gloves was a clear system failure.
It created the potential for contamination not only from staff DNA, but also from any biological material present on their hands or on surfaces contacted by the tubes. Any subsequent analyst handling the tubes could then have transferred this DNA further.
Given the sensitivity of current DNA testing, which could detect very small amounts of cellular material, Sandiford said contamination was expected occasionally, so strict adherence to handling procedures was essential.
And while the incident was dealt with appropriately by ESR, “it shouldn’t have happened in the first place,” Sandiford said.
Scott Watson’s father, Chris Watson, said it was ironic that, given ESR’s forensic testing of hairs from the tiger blanket had always been central to concerns about the case, further testing of the hairs had seen two mistakes exposed.
“It’s starting to look like they’re pretty slap-dash in their dealings with exhibits.”
Given the controversy around the original tiger-blanket hair testing, Chris Watson said it might have been expected ESR would do everything it could this time to avoid any criticism.
“But they’re producing more concerns. The eyelash produced concerns - now this is even more.”
Instead of validating the original testing, the latest tests had simply raised further questions, both in the contamination events, and the fact no DNA from Hope and Smart was found, Chris Watson said."
Watson has been in prison since 1998, and been rejected for parole four times.
His latest appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal in September, with the three judges saying “the Crown presented a compelling circumstantial case to prove that only Mr Watson could have been the lone man who murdered Olivia and Ben.
“The evidence was carefully presented, challenged, and subjected to submission and analysis. It was a fair trial.”
In reaching its decision, the judges dismissed suggestions of mistakes by ESR in handling the hair samples in 1998, and that there could have been contamination of the two crucial hairs during DNA testing, saying this was “extremely unlikely”.
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision, Watson applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal there, and is currently waiting to see if this is granted.
Watson is due to have his next parole board hearing early in 2026."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360912148/second-forensic-blunder-revealed-scott-watson-case
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
