New book finds Watson guilty.

I guess it is breaking news that a book by Ian Wishart due for release today claims that Watson is guilty along with 1 another of the murder of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart. It is only in recent weeks that the existence of the book have been revealed. I read about it on Kiwi Blog where, not unexpectedly, many commentators lined up with their favored positions - in particular those in the Watson guilty camp decried Wishart's ability to find the truth while many on the other side presumed that Wishart would conclude Watson's innocence. Having been around a little myself my only comment was that the findings would be of interest and my hope was that they were evidenced based,

At this point I don't know. What I do know from a press release by David Fisher is a fairly contradictory position taken by Wishart which apparently claims that Watson is not the public persona that he has been portrayed to be (an odd position because it public persona has most often been portrayed as his being particularly evil and dangerous) as a decent bloke whereas Wishart says the opposite. I think the coin gets flipped on that - any analysis of a person's character in a controversial case should never over shadow evidence, even when it is clear that the accused's character is of concern Justice cannot jump to conclusions one way or the other. The test foremost always remains the evidence.

Wishart is also reported to claim that the police botched the investigation, so immediately there is no side of the for and against Watson arguments that emerge with credibility. On the face of it, and for no small reason that Wishart claims that Watson is guilty with 1 other person, the case made by police is now under attack because they apparently did not discover 1 other guilty offender. It may of course be deeper than that, Wishart may be claiming police knew about the second person and overlooked it for some reason. From history in some controversial cases that is not exactly uncommon, most recently Teina Pora's false imprisonment for 20 years showed evidence of that, as did the David Bain conviction.

At this early stage Wishart looks to have uncovered some controversial material which could indeed confirm Watson's guilt and the details of a 2nd offender, who may now be dead but who was at least according to Wishart either deliberately ignored by police or possibly even a fortunate escapee from police attention because of ineptitude.

Really what the Wishart book will need to show to benefit either, or both sides, of the argument of Watson's guilt or evidence will be answers to what has fallen apart since Watson's trial. That he was never put with the couple in any conclusive matter apart from witnesses who said they were duped by police and withdrew their identification of Watson with the couple. He will have to explain the mystery ketch, which could be part of Wishart's theory. Wishart may say that the couple were taken to the mystery ketch after all and Watson and another were eventually there with them after which the couple were killed. If anything like this is expounded upon the hairs found on the blanket in the laboratory said to link Watson to Olivia will need a clear explanation because their appearance was not only shady (the hairs not being found on an earlier search by a scientist despite being distinctively blond and long) but if it is claimed that Olivia was not on Watson's boat but on another - then how the hairs fit in becomes even more dubious.

Of course there is a recanted confession said to have been made by Watson to a stranger he met in prison and who he allegedly confessed to - the new theory may also contradict that alleged conversation relied upon by the Crown.

Frankly I'm cynical, as one should be with emotion put aside. But I remain very interested in any new facts relied upon by Wishart in order to analyse what affect they might have on the Watson conviction but not necessarily on the theory of Wishart. All cases of false convictions or allegations have 'leap of faith' components that get white washed by the horror of crime, or distaste or sympathy for the accused. Ultimately lets look at the evidence, see if disquiet about the Watson conviction is reasonably satisfied or in fact, in cool deliberation, becomes of even greater concern. Any such concern is not allayed by serious proof that the police botched the case, because after all a discerning observer might see the mistakes as overall favoring Watson and the claims of another offender supporting this. Anyway, more on this in due course.