Wishart: Watson murdered with accomplice

Ian Wishart will be dishing out to media through the day on his book launch and claims about who murdered Ben Smart and Olivia Hope.

He started the day with Breakfast:

Next, it’s the double murder case that’s gripped NZ for more than 18 years. Journalist Ian Wishart is in studio next with his revelations

“Scott Watson had an accomplice in murdering Olivia Hope and Bed Smart”-Ian Wishart

“It wasn’t until I found the police file and went through the court statements that I realised we’d missed something really big”.

“I’ve always been a sceptic regarding jail house witnesses”.

“He’s hanged himself by his own hand.”

“We have never had the allegation previously that there was an accomplice… yet the evidence clearly proves it”.

Scott Watson’s father Chris Watson:

“A number of people have had that police disclosure and none have come up witha theory like that”.

“After all this time it would be hard to sort of pin the boat down”.

“I think he’ll laugh about that”-Chris Watson on how Scott Watson will react to Ian Wishart’s book.

“This accomplice thing is a dollar each way… it’s just strange”.

The onus will be on Wishart to provide a compelling argument today.

Gerald Smart (Olivia’s father) has already seen Wishart’s book and is reported as saying there is no ‘smoking gun’ in it.

 

Leave a comment

60 Comments

  1. Pantsdownbrown

     /  29th January 2016

    I’m surprised and disappointed with Wishart’s conclusion but will try to keep an open mind until I read his book, though on face value the reported 8 year old witness seeing another man on the Blade and a now-dead crims word of a confession from Watson (told to a cop working the case who never used it as evidence at the trial) seems pretty flimsy.

    However I’m already sceptical as Wishart’s scenario on what happened on the Blade and what we know in terms of DNA evidence doesn’t seem to meld:

    “Watson attacked Ben Smart and “stabbed him to death” and then “stabbed her [Olivia] to death”.

    “The only DNA evidence in the case were two blonde hairs matched to Hope from a blanket inside Blade. They were not present on the first search of 400 hairs but were found on the second search – the same day Hope’s hairbrush was present in the ESR lab”

    Reply
    • Moonie01

       /  29th January 2016

      There were 2 other witnesses to the second person on Watson’s boat. Also, the police found the boat had been cleaned so thoroughly that the Cassette player had been cleaned internally with an abrasive such as Jif.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  29th January 2016

        Thanks to an old Kiwiblog poster for this summary of the ‘thorough cleaning’ myth the police told the MSM…..(keep in mind no DNA or blood was found on Watsons boat from the 2 victims).

        “Next the cleaning of the boat. Here is some testimony from the trial by Ian Harrison, Police Fingerprint Officer to Nichola Crutchley:

        “What proportion of the surface or surfaces appear to have wipe marks …?”
        Answer: Approximately 30% of the surface had wipe marks.

        “Ok, what is the variation?”
        Answer: On the left, the port side of the boat’s bulkhead on the living cabin area, perhaps 50-70% of that surface had wipe marks, the shelf that we have just discovered in photo 63, I would put that at around 30%.

        “Right, and what about the other bulkhead?”
        Answer: The other bulkhead around 30% again.

        “And in the remainder of the flat surfaces that you have discussed?”
        Answer: Between 30 and 50

        “And on the ceiling?”
        Answer: Around 30%

        In my humble opinion, maybe Scott Watson’s exquisite cleaning skills were not quite as efficient as we have been led to believe.
        Officer Harrison also gave evidence that he examined approximately half of Scott Watson’s cassette tapes, of those examined only 50% showed signs of being wiped. So in total only 25% of the tapes had evidence of being wiped”.

        Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  29th January 2016

        It’s possible that the other 50% had…but not likely. It would make a difference if the cases had been given a wipe over or the tapes themselves, the latter would be a bit odd.

        I can’t make up my mind about the cleaning-does it mean that something in particular was being cleaned off ? It may or may not.

        Reply
  2. Timoti

     /  29th January 2016

    I had an erroneous preconceived notion Wishart’s book would name the Ketch and other persons involved in the murders.

    So Wishart’s book supports the status quo. I see Keith Hunter has threatened to sue should he confirm Wishart has said certain things about him ( interview- Radiolive-Mark Saisbury).

    Unfortunately, I will have to read the book…. should have taken the discounted offer when it was available.

    In-depth interview with Wishart- NewsTalk ZB- after 10am news.

    Reply
    • he has named A ketch, and the blonde girl seen sitting on the back of it.

      Reply
      • Timoti

         /  29th January 2016

        People don’t believe him.

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  29th January 2016

          Don’t buy it too soon, it will be in the remainder bins before too long.

          Reply
          • Timoti

             /  29th January 2016

            You wish. Still, for your sake lets hope you are right. You don’t need more grief in your life, do you.

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  29th January 2016

              I wouldn’t read it if it came free with the newspaper.

            • Timoti

               /  29th January 2016

              That’s your right. But you do strike me as miserable.

            • mrMan

               /  29th January 2016

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11581823

              It’ been pulled from the shelves under threat of defamation charges

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  29th January 2016

              Yes – very interesting – printing error the MSM reckon? Did he leave a name in there he shouldn’t have?

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  29th January 2016

              Take it back: threat of defamation by Keith Hunter…….

            • kittycatkin

               /  29th January 2016

              I am not miserable. but I am discerning about what I read as you would know if you saw my many books in floor to ceiling bookcases. I don’t want to read this because I don’t think that it will offer any real solutions.

              It’ll probably be in opshops and donated in bulk to bookfairs as The Da Vinci Code has been-a woman in one opshop said that they don’t even bother to put that out now.

            • Timoti

               /  29th January 2016

              I’m not sure about the book, but I’m pretty sure if Keith Hunter wants to take Wishart to court he will lose. In fact Wishart is angry and has hinted at legal action himself.

            • Timoti

               /  29th January 2016

              It has been pulled fron some” Whitcoull ” stores according to One News.

          • wishers keeps most op shops busy …

            Reply
  3. Blazer

     /  29th January 2016

    ‘I had an erroneous preconceived notion ‘…should be a byline of most of your posts …Uncle Tim.

    Reply
  4. I can buy the accomplice theory, as Watson’s boss at the time told the court he thought Watson may have invited another of his employees along to the party that night. I have never been a Wishart fan at all, but hearing Gerald Hope tell John Campbell that the book was assisting him to gain some closure ( or words to that effect) makes me happy.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  29th January 2016

      Keep in mind Watson was on board another boat’s party (alone) most of the night, and definitely went back from land to his boat alone (the crowns so-called ‘1st trip to the Blade’). I think Wishart may have ‘jumped the shark’ with this one.

      Reply
  5. Brown

     /  29th January 2016

    The conclusion sees Wishart accepting he was wrong before which is interesting. However, the fact remains that the police looked for evidence to fit a theory rather than just follow the evidence to see where it led. Given Wishart is usually pretty thorough I’ll buy it and read it to see how he arrives at the conclusion.

    Reply
    • Timoti

       /  29th January 2016

      His explanation for his previously held opinion was he could only go by trial notes. He had no access to police files and notes, which apparently provided a context for certain events. I would like to know how these police documents became public property.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  29th January 2016

        As that woman mentioned on radio yesterday these files used by Wishart to write his book have been around since they were given by the crown to Watson’s defense team to prepare for trial. Since then she (and others that have used them to write books supporting Watson) has had access to them and she more recently passed on her copy to Wishart. From my understanding she did so thinking Wishart would write a book confirming that Watson was innocent (her conclusion after years of going through the files) only to be shocked when Wishart told her that he had changed his mind and had come to the opposite conclusion.

        Reply
  6. Timoti

     /  29th January 2016

    I see Blosers nurse has done her rounds yet.

    Reply
  7. the NZ public has fallen in love with these narratives of innocent men framed, and the evil Police fitting them up for unknown reasons. That makes a better ‘story’ than the mundane Police usually have a nose for the guilty party, and do the work to put then away. Plus certain crusaders then get to play the hero, and we all love a hero. :-/

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  29th January 2016

      It’s happened before and will happen again. Some police wish to push themselves as heros etc as well.

      Reply
  8. Pantsdownbrown

     /  29th January 2016

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11581529

    David Fisher of the Herald isn’t exactly complimentary about Wishart’s book. Sounds like the book is more like some kind of scathing personal vendetta against Watson supporter (and fellow author/ investigator) Keith Hunter.

    Reply
  9. I have always been on the fence about Scott Watson, and yet also worried about Rob Pope’s handling. A few things still bother me; Watson didn’t take the stand. His sister didn’t take the stand. Watson had no smoking gun to provide Mike White with. Mike White is still on the fence after interviewing Watson. But most of all, in recent times, this ; Watson has declined, twice now, to meet with Gerald Hope who has expressed desire to look him in the eye as he asks the hard questions. Why would Watson refuse to let Hope do that?- unless he can not take the scrutiny.

    Reply
  10. Pantsdownbrown

     /  29th January 2016

    Wishart not too convincing on ZB at the moment – he only changed his mind on Watson in November 2015 when he received the full file.

    That’s an extremely quick turn-around from ‘I think Scott Watson is innocent’ to ‘I’ve released a book saying Scott Watson is guilty’. Less than three months in building a case? Really?? People who write books like this spend years checking and rechecking their facts. Yes – Wishart had already completed a book on the subject thus had a head start but less than three months to fully investigate/put out a book??

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  29th January 2016

      To add Wishart has admitted his book is based entirely on this hard drive file, he hasn’t actually interviewed any of the witnesses that he uses to place Watson in Picton moving bodies, or any of the other witnesses that apparently saw Blade elsewhere. He admitted he didn’t even bother to try to talk with Watson. In fact he hasn’t personally interviewed ANYBODY over his new theory – no wonder he pumped the book out so quickly.

      Reply
      • Rob

         /  29th January 2016

        Sounds like a bit of a farce to me. Never thought much of Wishart as an ‘investigative’ reporter, perhaps I was right.

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  29th January 2016

          Apart from his ‘the bible has no untruths’ belief I always thought he was pretty methodical in his approach, but I can’t believe how quick he has put a book out considering he says he got access to over “7000 extra documents” in only Nov 2015.

          For a guy so certain in his theory of an accomplice I find his media prelude statement about the book a bit of a shocker as well (Capital letters my emphasis); “An associate of Scott Watson is out there somewhere who MAY be involved in the killings and MAY know where the bodies of Ben and Olivia are.”

          Reply
          • Timoti

             /  29th January 2016

            He was asked that question, and answered it in the interview.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  29th January 2016

              Yes – 5 computers going at once looking for ‘key’ words – not a rush job then…….Keith Hunter etc spent years reading all this stuff, who’s in a better position to come to a conclusion from that information?

            • Timoti

               /  29th January 2016

              That’s a good question. The retorts to Wisharts book will answer that question. Don’t forget he had fundamentals of the case and previous research. So that would narrow his focus down to new evidence. Sometimes tired eyes can be just as limiting as a rush job.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  29th January 2016

              Good point – however in handpicking bits and pieces out of order you have a real risk of the evidence losing context in terms of how they relate to each other.

  11. Rob

     /  29th January 2016

    I don’t know if I’d speak to him either. He may well see him as one of the perpetrators of an injustice, (if it was one) and see no point or hold a grudge. Perhaps he was told by his lawyer he shouldn’t take the stand.

    Reply
  12. Pantsdownbrown

     /  29th January 2016

    Wishart in his ZB interview said the photo that later turned up showing Scott Watson ‘cleanly shaven’ on the night in question was due to the low-res camera being used. He says Scott Watson was in fact unshaven like the witnesses said the murderer was. Be interested in people’s opinion on this, have a look: http://www.freescottwatson.org/homepage/scottmina.jpg

    Reply
    • Timoti

       /  29th January 2016

      Looks clean shaven to me. But, enlarge the picture and look at Watson’s upper-lip. Is that a wispy moustache, and is there a tuff under his lower lip? Remember, Watson is in the light. Compare him to the two chaps in the shadows on the Left, centre and side of the picture. Do they have beards, or is that shadows? Compare the women’s upper lip who is next to Watson. Looks like a 2-4 mega pixel photo.

      What about Guy Wallace admitting to the police he didn’t see the stern of the supposed Ketch. If I knew that my doubts about Watson’s conviction would not have been so strong.

      Ironical, some people aren’t happy with Wisharts conclusions. No drug runners, police corruption or an innocent Watson. I bet he is getting shite inside at the moment. Don’t be surprised if you hear he has been in a fight

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  29th January 2016

        Yep – hint of a small wispy mo and possible an underlip triangle of facial hair but his cheeks are definitely not ‘unshaven’. Note his hair doesn’t seem to be ‘long & scruffy’ that the witnesses of the suspect talked about.

        Wishart will find himself in the strange position that the police and the pro-Scott Watson brigade will both be out to discredit his book. The police will say their original conclusion and theory of what Watson did was correct (with no accomplice), whilst the pro-Scott Watson lot will say Wishart reached the wrong conclusion.

        Reply
        • Timoti

           /  29th January 2016

          He’s a doomed man.

          Reply
          • Nelly Smickers

             /  29th January 2016

            I well recall from my days at boarding school, the Nuns would always drum into us Proverbs 13:20, saying, “Listen girls, remember you will be judged by the company you keep”.

            I mean, seeing that photo of Scott in PDB’s post, he seems to be surrounded by some real dodgy looking bastards. Otherwise, why would they all have those masks on?.

            Reply
            • Timoti

               /  29th January 2016

              The guy with the big hands looks dodgy. Its plain to see his fake beard fell off leaving just that big bushy mo. You never thought of becoming a nun?

            • Nelly Smickers

               /  29th January 2016

              Too many bad Habits 🙂

      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  29th January 2016

        CCTV footage at the supermarket of Watson on the day in question also shows Watson with short hair and clean-shaven. Are we supposed to believe that too is wrong like Wishart suggests about the photo? I think he is pushing the realms of possibility there…..

        Reply
        • Timoti

           /  29th January 2016

          The CCTV footage would probably have worse resolution then the picture in your previous link.
          However, I can’t really comment because I haven’t seen the footage. Could you provide a link?

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  29th January 2016

            Don’t have it/ can’t find it sorry – from memory the Hunter book had photos?

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  29th January 2016

              I remember something about his hair and possibly a beard-it was long after it had been short and it wouldn’t have been possible to grow it in that time.

    • Grumpy

       /  29th January 2016

      Interesting…..the police painstakingly identified everyone at Furneaux that night. Not too hard as 75% were known to them

      Reply
  13. Brown

     /  29th January 2016

    I thought the radio interview enlightening really and can see why the change of view. Why the police elected to present some evidence and not other is unknown but it appears a probably guilty man got darned close to getting off. The rapid degradation of witness recall over time is well known and its clear the early statements are easily the most reliable with later recall being very poor as evidence. Its nice the ketch was identified – it always existed irrespective of it being material or not at the end of the day. It was also interesting to hear evidence that the bodies are on land.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  29th January 2016

      There is no evidence provided by Wishart that the bodies are on land? He only quotes some guys in Picton seeing some suspect cargo being taken off a boat – who knows where that cargo went to from there? Could’ve been loaded back on a boat? Obviously those guys couldn’t identify Scott Watson or the Blade or else the police would have had to follow up on it. In terms of the ketch that Wishart thinks is the mystery ketch I’ll be keen to see if it has the brass portholes, extensive ropework etc witnesses attest to. Remember he has the same info the police had yet the police came to the conclusion that there was no mystery ketch.

      Reply
      • Brown

         /  29th January 2016

        The police were wrong about the ketch. It may not be material but it existed. They only began to take it seriously when they knew someone else was taking statements from people and plotting its course out of the sounds.

        Reply
  14. kittycatkin

     /  29th January 2016

    It’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that it’s gripped NZ for 18 years.

    Reply
  15. Pete Kane

     /  29th January 2016

    The Herald has posted this vid of the extended Smith ZB interview this morning (no adds).

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=157404

    Reply
  16. the book has already been pulled from shelves due to a legal threat by Keith Hunter.

    Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  29th January 2016

      NO WUCKEN FURRIES!!

      You can order it direct by calling 0800 747 007

      Remember, the easy way to remember the number, is 0800 JUMBO JET JAMES BOND…..and get a free copy of AirCon.:)

      Reply
  17. have been reading on Facebook, both the Ian Wishart and the Free Scott Watson pages. Ian has copped quite a bit of abuse from the FSW group, but they have so far not been able to offer a proper critique of his book, (most appear not to have read it, and say they will not). He is issuing challenges to them to ‘find one error’ and no go so far.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s