“The book that solves an 18 year long murder mystery”

Ian Wishart is doing some full on promotion of the release of his book Elementary next Friday (29 January).

He claims to have solved the case involving the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in the Marlborough Sounds in 1998.

If evidence clears convicted murderer Scott Watson as Wishart implies are book sales more important than justice for Scott Watson?

The Herald reports Wishart: Sounds case solved

Publisher Ian Wishart says a new book will finally solve the infamous Marlborough Sounds murder case.

Wishart will next week publish the book, Elementary — The Explosive File on Scott Watson and the Disappearance of Ben and Olivia.

Wishart said he was “pitching” the book as “solving the case”.

“Finally we know the truth, solving an 18-year-long mystery,” he told the Herald on Sunday.

He also distributed a press release stating: “A new book on the controversial Scott Watson case will be released on Friday, with never-before published information on the killings and what happened to Ben and Olivia.

“A news conference will be scheduled for Friday morning, and details will be provided this week.

“No further information is being released at this point, beyond what is contained in a video trailer that went live this afternoon.”

The video trailer:

Wishart’s Investigate site promotion:

Elementary by Ian Wishart

ElementaryCoverWb

$38.99

The book that finally identifies the “mystery ketch”. The book that finally cracks the case. Ben Smart. Olivia Hope. Scott Watson. Unmissable. Unprecedented. Unexpected.

All other details about what’s in this book remain confidential until the moment of its release in a fortnight. No hints. No exceptions.

So we will find out of Wishart’s hype stacks up next Friday, perhaps.

One comment on doing this by book – while commercial interests and seeking attention for himself may be Wishart’s primary aim if he does ‘crack the case’ he will have had the evidence for some time.

Scott Watson remains in prison while Wishart has written, printed and now promotes his book.

Sales and self promotion seem to be taking precedent over timely justice, if that in fact justice can be achieved by whatever evidence Wishart has.

55 Comments

  1. mrMan

     /  24th January 2016

    Straight off the bat, that trailer was never filmed in the Marlborough Sounds. Small quibble maybe, but it doesn’t bode well. Wishart is such a kook, there will be smoke, there will be mirrors, there will be a resoundingly flat ending.

    • Timoti

       /  24th January 2016

      You may be right. He has no wriggle room given this trailer. This book will either make him God, or consign him to a redundancy worse than Hagers.

      I see you call him a kook. What kooky thing made you think he is, well…… kooky?

    • We may find out on Friday, unless it requires checking and counter investigations.

      Putting all the emphasis on a ra ra book length does make me a bit suspicious, as does the author’s record.

      If someone had case breaking evidence how likely would it be that they keep it secret except for revealing everything to a controversial investigator/author?

      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  24th January 2016

        “If someone had case breaking evidence how likely would it be that they keep it secret except for revealing everything to a controversial investigator/author?”

        Depends if you believe the police were actually so fixated on Scott Watson being the murderer that any evidence saying otherwise was discounted, or actively discouraged……..it took a book to get the Crewe case against AA Thomas thrown out.

    • Steve Flaunty

       /  24th January 2016

      How do you know it wasn’t filmed in the sounds…all you can see is open water and distant shots of the horizon…it could have been just outside the heads where the prosecution claimed he sailed to dump the bodies, or since it looks like a sunset, just outside Queen Charlotte sound looking west.

      Naturally this event brings out all the detractors but I would prefer to wait and just see what is exposed. Whatever the case it was always an investigation by the police that was highly questionable on many fronts and the fact that DS Pope took over the reins to try and recover some lost reputation after the failed poison professor ( Crown V Calder) case in Christchurch a few years earlier, doesn’t give, myself at least, much faith in the neutrality of the police’s probing and fact finding.

      If this case case was tried today on the same evidence then it would have been fatal to the prosecution. New Zealand’s rules of evidence in criminal procedure have changed dramatically in the last few years. The Criminal Disclosures Act 2008 changed the game plan. It codifies the terms of disclosure and balances the scales. Today, every written account from every witness interviewed in connection with the investigation, signed or not, whether the witness appears for the Crown or not, must be disclosed to the defence. It is in stark contrast to the previous rules with only evidence from witnesses appearing for the Crown, and by default, favourable to the Crown’s case, being disclosed to the defence.

      Sometimes, the truth can be stranger than fiction……

  2. Brown

     /  24th January 2016

    Wishart’s been saying it wasn’t Watson for years and has published articles on other options in Investigate. Kooky or not at least he’s trying to do the job the useless police didn’t. The ketch exists and was seen by many. An investigator plotted its passage out of the sounds by way of interviews of witnesses and only when the police knew there was someone looking at that and there was evidence did they take the ketch issue seriously.

  3. Klik Bate

     /  24th January 2016

    We should never forget the strange case of Auckland computer dealer Paul White, who died in mysterious circumstances when his ‘brakes failed’ on the Harbor Bridge.

    This was brought to light in Wisharts controversial book ‘The Paradise Conspiracy’. (A film, based on the book, was later made in New Zealand called ‘Spooked’)

    The book is still well worth a read today.

  4. Timoti

     /  24th January 2016

    Ben & Olivia: What Really Happened? by Ian Wishart (Author), Jayson Rhodes (Author)
    4 out of 5 stars 3 customer reviews

    Worst review:

    ‘Unfortunately, this book was a major disappointment to this True Crime reader. I was thrilled when I first read a little of the first chapter but it quickly went down hill after that! I figured there would be more facts stated in the book that would let the reader come to a definite opinion of guilty or not guilty but this did not happen for this reader. I do not understand, in the least bit, how a jury was able to arrive at the conclusion that did. But it proves once again that there really are innocent people sitting behind bars without concrete proof to put them there! ”

    Wishart replies:

    Hi Beryl,

    “Interesting point you make…yes the Watson case was difficult to get a handle on, although there is no way Watson should have been convicted based on that evidence. As a True Crime enthusiast, I guarantee you will find some of my other books more visceral and conclusive – Missing Pieces, Breaking Silence and The Inside Story. Let me know if you’d like a review copy. ”

    Given this edition is dated May 6, 2015, what was the point of reissuing this 1999 edition on kindle when his new book is due out.?

    • Blazer

       /  24th January 2016

      if theres juice in the orange…keep squeezing it.

      • Brown

         /  24th January 2016

        At least you don’t have to be squeezed so I, for one, don’t care. I don’t much like the term “explosive” on the cover though. It makes me think its a copy of a critique on the Quran or something but in the secular world usually indicates the contents are wet and unlikely to go off.

        • kittycatkin

           /  24th January 2016

          You might care if you’d been in prison for nearly 20 years for a crime you didn’t commit.

          The remark about the Quran is irrelevant. I certainly don’t think that when I see the word ‘explosive’, I just think that it’s an overworked word that is used when a writer wants to make their book sound more exciting that it probably is.It’s a cliche, like sizzling and blockbuster.

  5. Joe Bloggs

     /  24th January 2016

    All well and good for Wishart’s wallet.

    Unless he has:
    – evidence that stands up in the Supreme Court (because that’s where any appeal will end up)
    – incontrovertible affidavits from eyewitnesses (plural) as to whodunnit
    – a plausible explanation of Watson’s innocence
    then this is just so much speculation.

  6. Ross

     /  24th January 2016

    Joe Bloggs

    I don’t think the Supreme Court would be involved, more like the Privy Council.

    Of course if the evidence is cogent and compelling, the Justice Minister could pardon Watson. Then again, the evidence was fairly compelling in the Teina Pora case, yet it took 20 odd years for justice to be done. Never rely on the Justice Minister to do the right thing.

    • Blazer

       /  24th January 2016

      Didn’t think NZers could still utilise the Privy Council.

      • Brown

         /  24th January 2016

        I suspect you are right – a very sad loss of a venue to have things reviewed outside the small and incestuous club that is the law in NZ. Thanks Helen.

        • Blazer

           /  24th January 2016

          the Natz brought back Knighthoods for Doug Myers and co….probably not bothered about the P.C.

      • Robbers Dog

         /  24th January 2016

        I believe it depends on the year of conviction so if convicted prior to the Supreme Courts advent, then appeals to the Privy Council can be made. Similar to Bain’s appeal.

      • Steve Flaunty

         /  24th January 2016

        They don’t but if the case was decided before 2004 ( When the Supreme Court Act 2003 came into play) then it goes over to London where it gets tested by some of the greatest legal minds on the planet.

    • John Schmidt

       /  24th January 2016

      Watson legal team took their case to the Privy Council in 2003. The Privy Council rejected the appeal. There was no grey in their ruling. For Watson to be found not guilty means the original jury got it wrong, The appeal court judge got it wrong, The inquiry into Police behaviour during the investigation got it wrong and finally the Privy Council got it wrong and his appeal for a pardon was rejected by the Governor General. That’s a heck of a lot of people of the highest possible standing to have got it wrong. The probability of an injustice is about the odds of winning lotto.
      However people do win lotto so if the book is able to win lotto for Watson then good on it. If I was a betting person I would not be betting for Watson simply because of the odds.
      For Watson to be freed now involves Parliament because all legal avenues have been completed.

      • Do you understand how appeals work? They are not deciding on the facts of the case themselves, but whether the process itself was sound, or whether the case can be overturned on points of law.

        All the appeals clearly decided that the case was fairly and legally tried, but that doesn’t mean that the original jury decision is consequently reinforced. It means those courts were happy that due process was followed. Doesn’t at all mean that the jury made a good decision.

        • John Schmidt

           /  24th January 2016

          Yes understand the process.
          Read the appeal court ruling and the defence raised a number of issues that essentially form the basis of today’s call for Watson’s release. The three apeal judges rulled that there was no foundation to any of the defence claims. I.e new evidence and different interpretations of events introduced by the defense were rejected as unproven by the three apeal judges. The same happened at the Privy Council apeal.
          As I said the odds of all the people involved getting it wrong is remote, into the Lotto odds if you look at it in a objective way rather than subjective. However I also accept that some people win lotto so if Wishart is able to win lotto for Watson then good on him.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  24th January 2016

            Or just provide new evidence. Not easy. DNA or a body or a photo of the ketch on the bay that night.

            • kittycatkin

               /  24th January 2016

              My word about a ketch would be dubious as I don’t know boats, but friends of friends do and they said that it was one. Or wasn’t, whichever way round it was claimed to be. Scott Watson seems to be a very unpleasant person, but it he didn’t do it, he deserves to be cleared.

          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  24th January 2016

            I think if the case was heard today, with the evidence now available, Watson would not have been convicted HOWEVER as he has already been convicted it is going to take some major new evidence to see him on the way to release.

        • Steve Flaunty

           /  24th January 2016

          Dead right Blair, it needs a revelation of substantial new evidence…which to date hasn’t appeared. However I do believe if this case was tried today with the Criminal Disclosures Act 2008 now in force then the outcome would have been the reverse.

      • Bain got two cracks at the Privy Council, Watson might too. As for Justice Ministers doing the right thing, yeah Phil Goff (much as I like the man) really stuffed up not letting the Bain matter reach it’s natural conclusion, all those years ago 😦

  7. Ross

     /  24th January 2016

    Blazer

    Yes certain cases can be heard by the Privy Council as long as the conviction was prior to 2004. Watson was convicted in 1999.

    But as I say, the Justice Minister could pardon Watson. I wouldn’t be holding my breath.

    • Timoti

       /  24th January 2016

      People forget how courageous Muldoon was to Pardon Arthur Allen Thomas. The easy thing to have done was nothing.

      • Yes, that was one of Muldoon’s few good interventions.

        • Steve Flaunty

           /  24th January 2016

          He had a lot of good interventions. He just lost the plot politically in the last few years when whisky took over and society around him was changing dramatically.

    • If Watson had something that could clear his name- or could point to someone who did -, then it’s odd that he didn’t mention in in the recent hyped up Mike White interview.

  8. Mike C

     /  24th January 2016

    “All other details about what’s in this book remain confidential until it’s release in a fortnight. No hints. No exceptions”

    Sounds like the sort of thing that Hagers Book Publisher would release … to try to encourage people to buy it 🙂

    • Timoti

       /  24th January 2016

      I think Wishart publishes his own books, so he can hype to the max.. You mention Hager in the same breath as Wishart!!!!! Shame and pestilence upon you.

      • Mike C

         /  24th January 2016

        @Timoti

        I went off Wishart about 12 months ago when he was with Staufer on Radio Live on Friday nights for a very short period of time.

        Staufer was a total out of control dick on air … and Wishart and him have been close friends for about 20 or 30 years.

        That put me off Wishart 🙂

      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  24th January 2016

        Hager and Wishart don’t see eye to eye after Hager was used as a witness against Wishart that saw him lose a high profile & costly defamation case (which Wishart recently had overturned – so much for Hager being correct…..).

        As an aside Hager showed his hypocrisy in this statement at the trial: “I would of course [have] confronted the person about whom these allegations are being made,” Hager told the court. Funny how he never gave that opportunity to Slater, Hide, Collins etc in the book ‘Dirty Politics’.

        • Mike C

           /  24th January 2016

          @PantsDown

          Interesting … I didn’t know that about Hager and Wishart.

            • kittycatkin

               /  24th January 2016

              Wishart has been known to sign himself ‘Wishart’, which he can’t do unless he is a peer of the realm-which I don’t think he is. I went off him ages ago, as he seemed to be an opinionated scaremonger making a little go a long way.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  24th January 2016

              I have mixed feelings on Wishart – I agree with him probably 50% of the time.

              His absolute belief in God (he also says nothing in the bible can be proved to be false) is to me at odds with some of his more analytical investigations elsewhere. He is a strong debater though (whether you agree with his opinion or not), and he does tackle some issues that the MSM gloss over (importance of Vitamin D, Climate change alarmists, Treaty of Waitangi falsehoods), thus providing an alternative view.

            • kittycatkin

               /  25th January 2016

              There are things in the Bible that can be proved to be false, alas. But human error and mistranslation don’t make it less true in one sense.

      • agree, cos Hager is not a kook like Wishart

        • Timoti

           /  25th January 2016

          True…he’s a f-wit, and a receiver of stolen property.

          • Rob

             /  25th January 2016

            “True…he’s a f-wit, and a receiver of stolen property.” This from a “master of a quick internet search” who can’t even follow links from the frickin garbage scary mooslim sites you put in here to actually see where they get their garbage from. Hager has more credibility in his little finger than you and Wishart combined. Were you crying about him when he wrote Seeds of Distrust bagging Labour? You probably don’t even know what I’m talking about do you “master”. Talk about a fuckwit.

            • Timoti

               /  25th January 2016

              Your dribbling again,Rob. Pour a cool one, and think of how you can better contribute to this site. Telling the truth would be a great start.
              You know what truth is, don’t you, Robby?

            • Rob

               /  25th January 2016

              Robby? I prefer Rob and what truths are you looking for from me Timoti?

            • Timoti

               /  25th January 2016

              “Were you crying about him when he wrote Seeds of Distrust bagging Labour? You probably don’t even know what I’m talking about do you “master”. Talk about a fuckwit.”

              “This from a “master of a quick internet search”

              So many assumptions, and one lie.

              At least my comment had one opinion and a fact.

              “True…he’s a f-wit, and a receiver of stolen property.”

  9. John Schmidt

     /  24th January 2016

    Solving the case means not only proving that Watson did not do it, it also means you accuse someone else of the murder and have the proof sufficent to survive court scrutiny otherwise you cannot claim to have solved the case.
    I suspect this is following the same pathway as “The Big Reveal” big advertising promising the world then releasing the book/information making claims and accusations that do not survive scrutiny.
    So be prepared for much sensationalisum followed up by the hang on a minute moments when close scrutiny undoes the sensationalisum.

  10. Pantsdownbrown

     /  24th January 2016

    I’m still picking that Wishart is dragging up this old story (maybe with more evidence)………http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10487749

  11. Nelly Smickers

     /  24th January 2016

    Gosh, I wonder if Ian has been talking to our old fishing buddies the Arlidge’s?

    Remember, they were that lovely couple who were adamant the ‘mystery ketch’ was birthed right next to them at Bayswater Marina?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10476734

    ‘ELEMENTARY’ my dear Watson – call now to order your copy on 0800 747 007 (that’s 0800 JUMBO JET JAMES BOND)

    • Timoti

       /  24th January 2016

      Remembering the impact of crime.

      Gerald Hope, by his own admission was a typical liberal. Losing his daughter made him re asses his world-view. While he’s no card carrying member of the SST, he isn’t a soft liberal anymore. You can see it in his eyes. That glint, for those who can read signs, means: FK with me and I will hand you your balls before you hit the ground. While I’m a great fan of that attitude, its not an attitude Hope should ever had have foisted on him. He should have been able to live as a soft liberal, and die as a soft liberal. And have a daughter.

      Crime is never the number 1 priority of any government.

      http://www.greenstonetv.com/programmes/documentaries/people-true-stories/ben-olivia-the-search-for-truth/

      • Timoti

         /  24th January 2016

        Sorry Nelly girl. That was meant to be a general post.

        • Nelly Smickers

           /  24th January 2016

          As it said on my T-Shirt Timoti on my very last day at St Mary’s, “no wukkin’ furries”

          🙂

  12. Graham Sutherland

     /  29th January 2016

    Elementary:
    The ‘explosive book’ or the ‘brain explosion’?
    A book that confuses itself with so much information it cannot maintain a clear line of sight.It finds a twin masted ketch and loses its significance.It finds a daylight body disposal method and loses reality. It finds guilt from Police files and loses credibility.