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.


Gerald Hope on Wishart’s book

This was posted by Pantsdownbrown about Gerald Hope’s comments on Radio New Zealand about Ian Wishart’s book due to be released tomorrow.

What I took from Gerald Hope’s comments (considering he is reading Wishart’s book right now)

  • The book doesn’t ‘solve’ the case but essentially makes the case for Scott Watson being innocent more clear.
  • In the book’s conclusion Wishart has an unproven theory on what happened that night based on all the information that has come out since the trial – there is no smoking gun.
  • This ‘clarity’ of information has been enough to make Gerald Hope more doubtful as to Watson’s guilt to the point he has made himself available to the media for the next 24 hours and has again requested a personal meeting with Scott Watson.

Here’s the interview (audio): Olivia Hope’s father still wants answers after photo released:

A grainy photograph, supposedly taken of Olivia Hope days after police say that she was murdered raises questions about just what happened to the 17-year-old and her boyfriend, Ben Smart.

I’ll have a go at transcribing that later and posting it here.


Sounds murders – competing claims

Tomorrow Ian Wishart is launching “The book that solves an 18 year long murder mystery”.

Possibly trying to beat Wishart to a killer blow to the case the Herald has an ‘exclusive’ (that I first saw on TV1’s Breakfast):

Exclusive: Report blames Sounds murders on drugs syndicate

A confidential report into the murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope has emerged with the startling claim the infamous “mystery ketch” has been identified, with those on board, and the infamous crime had nothing to do with Scott Watson, now serving 19 years inside for the double-killing.

It’s not very confidential now.

The report is the latest public investigative effort into a disappearance. It was written based on research by commercial pilot, engineer and sailor Warwick Jenness with help from yachtie Mike Kalaugher and Keith Hunter, who wrote Trial By Trickery about the case.

The group’s report was leaked to the Herald – the authors have not sought to make its findings public.

It claims to have identified the ketch first thought by police to be linked to the Hope/Smart disappearance, based on the description by a water taxi operator who dropped them off early on January 1, 1998.

The report includes a distant and grainy snap of a woman the authors say is Hope, 17, taken at Marys Bay five days after she and Smart, 21, were said to have been killed following a 1997 New Year’s Eve party.

The report claims this photograph shows Olivia Hope at Marys Bay five days after her supposed death. Photo / Supplied

But Wishart disagrees.

The emergence of the report by the self-styled Maritime Research Group comes ahead of the publication tomorrow of a new book by author and investigative journalist Ian Wishart, which also claims to have identified the ketch, initially the focus of police inquiries.

Last night, Wishart said he knew of the Maritime Research Group report. But he said his book, Elementary, “reaches a different conclusion”.

Presumably they can’t both be right. And there seems to be a third opinion – the police.

A police spokesperson confirmed last night it was “aware of this group and their theories regarding the case”.

“There is nothing in their correspondence that convinces police that anyone other than Scott Watson was responsible for the deaths of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope.”

So I expect the debate will continue.

The report paints the ketch as having a central role in the smuggling of cocaine. At least one of those named in the report and linked to the ketch is serving a lengthy prison term in the Oceania region after being caught at sea with a lot of cocaine.

The report again pits police against the yachting community.

“Any yachtie who looks at the practical side of what happened quickly comes to the conclusion this case presented by the police could never have happened … it’s full of holes,” said Mr Jenness.

Wishart’s book tomorrow may bust the case open. Or it may be disputed, like this report.


“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



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.

Absolute Power, Hollow Men and authors

I found a post on Kiwiblog on a review of Ian Wishart’s Absolute Power (on Helen Clark). This is from 2008 but has some relevance now in relation to Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics.

Farrar posted Review of Absolute Power.

Ian Llewellyn of NZPA has done a review of the Helen Clark biography “Absolute Power” by Ian Wishart. It’s a fair and balanced review in my opinion.

From the review:

The book, released last week, is a collection of articles which attempt to prove Wishart’s thesis that the current Government is corrupt and Prime Minister Helen Clark entered Parliament under false pretences to push a hidden agenda.

The book is similar in many ways to Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men, and they share many of the same strengths as well as flaws.

They also both reveal as much as about the author’s world view as they do about their subjects.

Both gathered exhaustive (and in places exhausting) material and did meticulous research, but the impression is the evidence has been gathered and presented to reach a pre-determined position.

In Hager’s case it was that National was controlled and driven by dark forces ranging from big business, the religious right and foreign interests.

Wishart aims at the other end of the political spectrum and sees Miss Clark as someone who would do anything to get into power and do anything to hold on to it, all in order to push a hidden feminist, socialist agenda on an unsuspecting New Zealand.

It is unclear whether political blindness or naivety colours both authors’ views as they often see quite ordinary political processes as something far more sinister.

In Hager’s case, the lobbying of big business and internal caucus power struggles were proof of conspiracy. …

The fact that people join or lobby political parties to push a view that they believe is a better way for the world seems to be lost upon both authors.

Much of the book is spent on Wishart’s arguments over whether it is ethical to get into the personal lives of politicians.

He concludes that it is necessary to expose hypocrisy.

Some of the material is an interesting take on political events, such as the downfall of former police commissioner Peter Doone and similar events.

It also documents the habit of many politicians to say one thing in opposition and another in government.

Wishart believes his book portrays a pattern of behaviour that makes Labour and Miss Clark unfit to hold office.

For his followers and those who dislike the current administration, the book will be a gospel.

Miss Clark’s supporters will dismiss it as the ravings of an obsessed individual.

The vast majority of the population will simply not care either way as they accept things are not black and white; instead there are many shades of grey.

Most people accept that others are prone to make mistakes and get things wrong, as much as they get things right.

In the end Absolute Power is not Absolute Gospel, but neither is it entirely Absolute Nonsense.

Farrar’s responses:

 Ian Wishart didn’t just form a view as he started to put his book together that Helen Clark was no good – he has been of that view for some time.

I can’t agree too strongly here. Hager would have you believe that every business donor and supporter is motivated by self interest and greed, rather than a genuine belief in their views and policies being best for NZ. Likewise Wishart does fall down when he reads too much into fairly predictable stuff such as the PMs Office not being very helpful too him.

This is not to say that Wishart’s compilation of all the scandals under Clark is not valuable. People have become so used to them, they hardly register now, and the one thing they all have in common is that in almost every case Clark or her coterie lied and covered up – from paintergate to corngate to speedgate (yes I know all those gates sound lame but they make for easy reference) to doongate.

NZPA should be congratulated for doing a review of the book, rather than just ignore it. I suspect those on the left will not like the comparisons to Hager’s book (which is treated like the Koran by some Labour Ministers as they refer to it daily), but likewise some on the right will not like the dismissal of much of the book as reading too much into everyday politics.

Books that attack parties in power will always be controversial.

NARK blog – Report One

This is a guest blog post as requested by the contributor and is the opinion of the contributor only. 

Report One into the allegations swarming around in regards to NARK.

So far names and groups of those involved in the smear campaign against NARK and some personally involved have been collected.  These findings indicate some if not a large number elected to the Interim Working Party of NARK were in fact from the Boycotters of the Breaking Silence, the Kahui Book face book pages and the anti Ian Wishart campaign.

That is a rather disturbing revelation and that being said, then joining NARK, is in complete and total contrast to the cause and foundation principle of NARK.  Whether you disagree or agree with the book, it’s being on sale or if you want to read the book or not, that is irrelevant to the fact it is, in line with taking a stand against Child Abuse in that particular case, and is speaking out.  In essence, also trying to help raise awareness on the issue of child abuse in NZ via that one story, whether you agree with it or not.

For the record I have no views on the book or what it contains. I do however question the misaligned moral logic of members from the anti Breaking Silence campaign and Facebook groups whom hold the opposite core principle to NARK, then wanting to jump on board NARK.  That only begs the questions, where was their moral alignment or care of duty, to this fledgling organization while being in both camps?  This could only result in bringing disrepute to one or the other if not both efforts, to raise awareness to the child abuse issue, in NZ.  This indeed has been the result thus far, let alone to them.

Investigation finding some ex-members comments on other face book pages can only conclude the situation with NARK today, in itself, is a direct cause and also a direct result of this moral divide and or dilemma(s) of said ex-members feet, being in both camps.  This moral divide, willingly or unwittingly, has brought disrepute to a fledgling organization which raised the profile of Child abuse in NZ almost overnight.

This subject was bought out into the open and got people talking about a much taboo subject in NZ society and that focus, has now shifted.  My findings are that these morally divided folk have not seen their misaligned moral judgments or the damage it is causing, while they are striking out instead, of reviewing their own stance and views, of being on either, one side of the other, not both.

This can only beg the following questions. Are they helping or hindering the core need in New Zealandof finding resolution to the issue of Child Abuse?  Are they after some similar media attention and spot-light afforded to Cherie and NARK?  If they become involved in other such similar organizations should they be supported or thoroughly investigated?   My findings and learning of other fund raising efforts they have partaken, in a similar unstructured vain in which resulted in accusations against NARK, would suggest that the same scrutiny is warranted there, and possibly more fitting.

There is need for further investigation here due to collected evidence of some involved giving misleading information on the subject of fund raising.   Never the less, the behavior witnessed is only prudent of why there is more of a need for such an awareness campaign in New Zealandon child abuse, while raising more issues in need of attention.

This situation of using the internet and social medium to harass accuse abuse and bully NARK, aligns well with the Cyber Bulling Legislation currently being looked at in Parliament.  The whole picture including various NARK accusation pages set up via Facebook is a clear demonstration and the example Government needed to validate why this legislation is urgently needed in regards to curb cyber bullying. There is an urgent need, as this clearly demonstrates by this campaign of accusers and why better monitoring as to who can access this medium, and for what purpose.  The mis-use of a telephone line springs to mind and could be the platform to look at further widening of charges in regards to cyber bullying. Either way, Government now has a case to look at, is the findings here.

Irrelevant you may say??  Actually, it is very relevant. Why?? You may ask. There are children around you, witnessing this behavior whether you are a parent, a grandparent, foster caregiver, aunt uncle brother sister parent friend or neighbor. No matter what side you are on.  Children are most certainly being exposed to this venom abuse and accusations via the use of the internet in their own homes, towards NARK.

I find it ironic and stupefying that children could very well be and possibly are being neglected while these accusers spread their accusations sitting on the internet instead of spending quality time with their children or nieces nephew’s grandchildren etc.  This may also be putting more children at risk or worse still, see them follow suit with acting in a similar fashion of bullying in the play ground or street harassing another child needlessly because he/she doesn’t have the right label pants on.

The fact my investigations reveal many of the accusers and abusers hurling accusation at NARK have children in their home find and can only conclude, these actions and behaviors are totally and immorally, bankrupt.  The choices you are now giving your own children is to follow suit. They could already be following the behavior of the parent abuser/accusers example and could well now, become abusers themselves. As they say, child leads by example and this isn’t a good example seen by many who are watching the goings on, on these accusation based, face book pages.

The mind boggles.  That thought is truly daunting and not the prudent actions of any, child abuse campaign supporter.  I dare say again, here is the same moral divide of being in both camps and their own actions born of that divide yet to be considered nor realized, sadly, while causing a lot of angst and misery for others while they, attention seek.  Further investigations reveal this could be a thought process disorder.

This bares the next question. Should Government now be expected to undertake an investigation into all these organizations claiming to represent children or client, given this example, is possibly the moral fiber and background of some of these folk in other, such similar organization to NARK?   Further investigations reveal some of which have spring boarded off the back of NARK and house some of these NARK accusers and abusers.

The findings suggest this would be prudent and perhaps stop and or prevent needless and possibly dubious interactions of these morally divided, interacting with some at risk children, quite possibly and not to mention their own.  Perhaps this would also save the Government revenue and wasted time on nit-picking accusations wasting valuable time effort and  money on fruitless investigations derived out of spite and malice and divided logic, revenue which is much needed, else where.

In regards to the allegations against NARK, this investigation reveals this fledgling organization has been extremely transparent while others, not so much and perhaps should be before casting stones.  Suggestion would be that the founder of this organization puts notice up to anyone interested or wanting any further information; they can do so by way of written request under the Official Information Act.  Accusers, stop trying to steal the lime-light while you attention seek at this organizations and supporters expense and give NARK some breathing room to get on with the tasks given to them, cleaning up the mess left  by some of the anti Breaking Silence campaign supporters, exit of  NARK.

This investigation will most certainly continue with hope the next installment reports adults behaving more like adults and setting a good example for their own children to follow with sound moral fiber in regard to gossiping and passing judgments.  This is very much needed for the task of changing the face of child abuse and abuse in general in New Zealand and without, is a lost cause as has been demonstrated, and not the way forward.

Which begs the last questions of this report and hopefully something for you to think about: Is this the New Zealandway?? Is this the way to demonstrate building brighter communities for children’s safer futures???  Where is the mutual respect???

Where is the Team work???  Where in this debacle are any of you thinking of the Children inNew Zealand???   How counter-productive to the cause with this smear campaign can you be???  How many Children are being neglected put at risk and abused by these actions while you ignore your own children????  Lastly, how on earth can you call yourselves child abuse campaigners when you act in this manner???

Please put some prospective on it.  Kia kaha NZ Children.

What to do Macsyna King?

Once again Macsyna King has been publicly vilified after it became known Ian Wishart has written a book about her relative to  the death of her twin (Kahui) twins. There’s been a crowd of criticism and abuse of King, and significant protest action over the yet to be released book.

Is this the best we can do?

There is a lot of justified public dissatisfaction over the lack of a desired judicial over the death of the twins. The  inquest hasn’t been  completed yet, it’s widely believed  some degree of abuse and neglect was involved. The general mood is that someone must pay for for it and should go down. If they don’t go down in a criminal sense then the public will put them down – them being anyone considered to be culpable.

Wishart has a right to write the book. King has a right to answer questions and say what she likes about the case of her twins, and she has a right not to say what she doesn’t want to say. The police have a duty to do what they can to find and charge who was responsible for the deaths.

What’s the best we can do about this? Anger and frustration  is understandable. How is the energy and passion of these feelings best used?

We can keep trying to flog a judicial horse that seems to have left the stable. That won’t fix the anger and frustration.

We can keep trying to knock Macsyna King down – not that it seems she has much further to go below the  sadly low life she seems to have experienced already.

Wouldn’t it be better if we spent our energy  looking at the Kahui case, and looking at Macsyna King’s involvement, and trying to learn of it so we can better address the terrible level of child abuse that is prevalent in New Zealand?

Would we be better to look to Macsyna King so we can learn from her experiences, and from the experiences of the many people living similar lives to her, and trying to find some solutions?

Maybe Macsyna King could help us learn. Maybe she can help us find some solutions. Wishart’s book  won’t reveal everything but maybe it can help.