Reported in the NZ Herald that Ian Wishart is being investigated by Marlborough Police for breaching suppression orders in a recent book Elementary which deemed to reinvestigate the Sounds murder case resulting from the death of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. In his book IW concluded that Scott Watson, currently serving a life term for the murders, was guilty. I critiqued the book shortly after its release and found it far short of compelling. In fact I thought it was bloody hopeless, an opinion I later realised which was shared with Jim Lovering a successful investigator/campaigner in the Amanda Knox case. Jim Lovering was struck by a the same particular criticisms I had of Elementary in particular the confusion over the identifications of Watson, which IW somehow could not discern were basically flawed beyond being useful, and a second and more important point that apparently was entirely missed by IW that 2 witnesses spoke about Watson coming aboard their boat in the early looking to party and propositioning the female when by IW's account he had Ben and Olivia either asleep or dead on his yacht which where he invited the young woman to join him. That was particularly odd. As was Wishart accusing the family of Scott Watson for attempting to cover up for Watson. For this view IW relied on previously unreleased police tapes, which oddly enough indicated that far from helping Watson cover up the murders, his family didn't believe that either Ben Smart and Olivia Hope were dead, and spoke about when they would turn up again to the embarrassment of police. I thought it all very wacko, particularly from an author who has done some excellent investigations in the past.
The article can be googled and is reported by David Fisher. However, if the book was off beam then so are the following comments allegedly reported from Wishart in rubishing the claims made against him by Chris Watson, the father of Scott.
The article can be googled and is reported by David Fisher. However, if the book was off beam then so are the following comments allegedly reported from Wishart in rubishing the claims made against him by Chris Watson, the father of Scott.
Mr Wishart dismissed the complaint, saying he did not believe he had breached suppression because the information he relied on existed outside the court process.
"The High Court can suppress everything that is given it for the purpose of court reporting but it can't suppress the universe. If you're doing a story that's not reporting the court proceedings, it's not an issue of suppression."
He said it also had to be considered why the suppression order was initially granted because the reasons for it might no longer be relevant.
I don't know if IW was drunk at the time or had consumed some mind altering medication but it's fairly clear that a Court doesn't try to suppress the universe, it actually suppresses names including those of defendants at times, sometimes victims and other witnesses for a variety of reasons. Suppression orders do not lapse if they are infinite, the information may in fact exist outside the court process but publication of those suppressed names is prohibited.
I'm also certain that suppression orders don't lapse because they may no longer be relevant according to a journalist. An order of the Court which is infinite can only be lifted by the Court not because a reporter (who may not even know the reasons for the suppression order) thinks it may no longer be relevant.
I suppose on the basis of the rather odd logic of Wishart's comments a reader is entitled to understand why he so badly misunderstands the Watson case so much that he needed to rely on becoming an amatuer psychiatrist in order to convince his readers that he was right on his conclusions about the Watson case and if they had any doubts they could rely on Wishart's diagnosis of Watson's personality type.
Even more bizarre are his comments that he wasn't reporting Court proceedings when in fact he referred to witness statements and indeed the intercepted taped conversations from the Watson household. Perhaps the man is having some kind of psychotic episode that first began to manifest itself in Elementary before taking full flight where he has become one with the universe and shall not be suppressed by mere mortals.
Full article follows below:
A police investigation is underway into alleged breaches of name suppression by author Ian Wishart in his recent book on the Scott Watson case.
The complaint by Watson's dad Chris Watson, made this week with Blenheim police, claims Mr Wishart included the names of three witnesses whose details were suppressed at the 1999 murder trial.
Name suppression is a court-ordered protection of identity which forbids the use of identifying details of evidence or people drawn into the judicial process.
In his letter to police, Chris Watson alleged breaches in Elementary, the book Mr Wishart published earlier this year on the murders of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart who went missing on New Year's Day in 1998.
Scott Watson was convicted of the murders but has maintained his innocence since being sentenced to a minimum 17 years in prison.
Mr Wishart's book stated Watson was guilty and was based on police information released through the court's discovery process, including evidence not produced at trial.
Watson said he reviewed the books and was surprised to see it contained the names of people he knew had been granted name suppression.
"I've scrupulously obeyed the law for over 18 years (since Scott Watson became a focus of police inquiries) and I don't see why anybody else should be exempt."
Continued below.
Related Content
Watson has previously raised questions over suppression - the last occasion was after a speech on the case by Paul Davison QC (now a High Court judge) was put online by another party and included the names of people whose identities had been suppressed.
On that occasion, the speech was taken down.
"Paul Davison had the good graces to withdrawn his - I wonder if Mr Wishart has the same," said Watson.
Mr Wishart dismissed the complaint, saying he did not believe he had breached suppression because the information he relied on existed outside the court process.
"The High Court can suppress everything that is given it for the purpose of court reporting but it can't suppress the universe. If you're doing a story that's not reporting the court proceedings, it's not an issue of suppression."
He said it also had to be considered why the suppression order was initially granted because the reasons for it might no longer be relevant.
An emailed statement from police headquarters confirmed a complaint had been received.
"This is currently being investigated by Marlborough Police. We are unable to comment further while the investigation is underway."
No comments:
Post a Comment