tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post3296313757797834103..comments2024-03-20T18:05:50.971+13:00Comments on NOSTALGIA-NZ: Wishart's book Elementary? Not so much.Nostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-75115864573065511892017-01-06T08:04:04.713+13:002017-01-06T08:04:04.713+13:00What aload of bollocks!! There is no dispute among...What aload of bollocks!! There is no dispute among the witnesses THAT WERE THERE that ben and Olivia got on to a boat much larger than Scott's, with a stripe, and a wooden hull. Scott's has no stripe, and a steel hull. there is no credible evidence he was in a hurry to leave, nor any credible evidence he painted it 'on the move'<br /><br />The clothes 'never found' weren't found because they were the clothes worn by the 'mystery man' , not Scott. As to bags being unloaded, there is no credible evidence that was Scott unloading them. You've been suckered in by Wishart's cherry picked 'evidence' There's no credible evidence Ben and Olivia were ever on Scott's boat, or ever even met him. Don't forget Scott's boat was subject to the most intensive forensic search, yet no blood, body fluids, or signs Ben and Olivia were ever on it, apart from two hairs, found in a lab.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-847091566522379912017-01-05T22:13:03.101+13:002017-01-05T22:13:03.101+13:00There were two witnesses who saw Olivia and Ben ge...There were two witnesses who saw Olivia and Ben getting onto what was likely Watson's boat after being offered a place to stay the night - that is not in dispute.<br /><br />They were tired by then and may well have gone straight to sleep hence Watson checking the next door boat - or that could have been to alibi himself.<br /><br />What was the hurry to get away the next morning and then get the boat painted - while on the move?<br /><br />Why were Watson's clothes from that night never found? Why did Watson lie about his whereabouts in the next few days. Why was the boat so clean? <br /><br />Why did the witnesses who saw the unloading of the bags say how difficult it appeared to be? Surely some has in a sail wouldn't have been that difficult to handle?<br /><br />Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05382213408305953914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-45051266530738604272016-10-11T09:35:51.725+13:002016-10-11T09:35:51.725+13:00Check out the Blog on here 'Scott Watson innoc...Check out the Blog on here 'Scott Watson innocent in Kiwi language' for some interesting information lately emerged from the States. Rather than being the strongest evidence against him, as according to Judith Collins, it's the most dodgiest and weakest - by virtue of the material above about the searches etc but also the fallibility of DNA evidence and biased testing procedures.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-2794574700126720442016-10-11T08:50:26.561+13:002016-10-11T08:50:26.561+13:00I have since learnt that the two blond hairs may n...I have since learnt that the two blond hairs may not have had follicles either...as the DNA analysis done in the end was a mitochondrial DNA analysis, which only requires the hair shaftAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-35850651532079563872016-10-11T05:35:31.654+13:002016-10-11T05:35:31.654+13:00I am going to check that out. I would appreciate a...I am going to check that out. I would appreciate any supporting information you may have. You can send it to me as a comment if you want it kept private and I read it but not publish, you may choose.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-64924459684296093022016-10-10T23:05:07.810+13:002016-10-10T23:05:07.810+13:00What really disturbs me? The hairs were actually e...What really disturbs me? The hairs were actually examined twice, on 19/1/98 and 21/1/98 with 'nothing of interest found". They were counted and examined for follicles attached (required for DNA analysis. Miraculously on a third examination, not only were two long blond (15cm and 20cm) hairs found, they both had follicles attached.<br /><br />What are the odds of that? 400+ hairs, no folicles, 2 hairs both with folliclesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-74389625150580651352016-10-10T17:06:05.545+13:002016-10-10T17:06:05.545+13:00The answer to your first question is that there se...The answer to your first question is that there seems no reason why the mystery ketch was so difficult to find. That was really the job of police, from the recent show 'Doubt' and Wishart's book there is little detail of any search at all for the ketch. Some witnesses were told pointedly that they were mistaken and that no ketch existed, taken that to it's extreme if either of us refused to look into the sky because no moon existed the correct statement would be that we didn't look for the ketch because we knew it didn't exist and we would both be wrong.<br /><br />There is a picture of a ketch on here sent along by a correspondent who also provided a back story for it. The only reason I assume that he sent it to me is because either the police had ignored him had let them know, or because he didn't bother because of their public denials that it existed.<br /><br />I am aware of 1 person in contact with Scott Watson and I shall send your advice about the Australian Lie Detector test onto him. That's a good idea, however I fear the NZ authorities would not give him permission.<br /><br />Cheers.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-23983747211383794242016-10-10T15:07:15.407+13:002016-10-10T15:07:15.407+13:00Firstly, why is the 'mystery ketch' so dif...Firstly, why is the 'mystery ketch' so difficult to find? There's no mention that the scruffy haired mystery man at the bar (and later on the water taxi) that night had a foreign accent - so in all likelihood the mystery ketch was either a NZ or an Australian-based boat. A distinctive ketch that size should not be difficult to find. It is not a small ship. I'm a former boatie and know that sailors always notice the distinctive ships that they sail pass - so where are the recent sightings of that ketch? Secondly, if Scott Watson wants to be taken seriously he should agree to take the Australian Police Lie Detector test as it is said to have a 99.9% accuracy rate. If I was accused of even a minor crime (and knew that I was innocent) I would be loudly screaming for this test and not just passively accepting my fate, of wasting away in prison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-48960825132635735712016-10-01T21:16:36.035+13:002016-10-01T21:16:36.035+13:00Yes, 'Elementary' did raise more doubt abo...Yes, 'Elementary' did raise more doubt about SW's conviction. IW tried to do too much with too little, when IW had SW waving out to passing yachties he knew, or who knew him, it exposed that Scott wasn't trying to hide. This also made a mockery of the claim that painting The Blade was an attempt to disguise the vessel. <br /><br />I'm not clear on the witnesses ID's any longer, I do remember controversy over photo montages and the selection of personnel for 'line ups' which resulted in new protocols. Positive ID's appear worthless in this case to incriminate SW, particularly with Roz McNeilly and Guy Wallace now saying that Scott wasn't the person they saw with the couple, that in itself indicates a Miscarriage of Justice in this case and should have resulted in a retrial. I note the a 2nd person on duty in the bar that night has never at any point identified SW, so the Crown's id witnesses are all but gone and all there is to rely upon are 2 hairs, found, much like the Thomas cartridge case, and Bain glasses lens, after a 'special' mission re-search.<br /><br />I remain very disappointed that Scott's Application for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy has not been tested with Judicial Review. McDonald's report was pathetic and I doubt would withstand Judicial scrutiny.<br /><br />Finally how can the evidence of the couple on the Blanco be ignored in the continuity of the narrative that indicates SW's innocence. The case is so badly fractured now, and will be further if Arthur Taylor's private prosecution sheds light on the employment of secret witnesses who were part of Pope's dirty tactics pack.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-27676047968501044222016-10-01T15:19:12.113+13:002016-10-01T15:19:12.113+13:00Really interesting blog - IW 'Elementary' ...Really interesting blog - IW 'Elementary' added info that was useful - more in throwing doubt on the 'proof' of Watson's guilt and the wide range of witness accuracy on the 'Mystery man'. Both Police and IW bend over backward to combine all descriptions into Watson - while failing to consider there could have been numerous 'loners'. Did anyone notice top of p251 where apparently SW told a witness that he had a "double -masted ketch" and invited her on it. Could that have been another person? likely.<br />In Trial by Trickery p78, Hunter explains that a 2004 TV 'Sunday' doco claimed Watson had said 'I'll get into your pants before the nights over....' when it was actually a bearded mystery man! But the one question that gets me is why the police never used live people in their witness IDs for Watson? they relied on bogus confusing misleading photos then claimed their witnesses such as Roz McNeilly and Wallace had 'identified' Watson from photo montages. Rubbish. their were obviously several unidentified males around, just like there were possibly boats that came and went that were not photographed. Hope the doco this sunday can raise some good points. this case should be re-examined by impartial experts - without a motive or a grudge or rights to sell a book. thanks JC <br />johnnyboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-74961795941309925912016-05-05T22:26:12.023+12:002016-05-05T22:26:12.023+12:00If you weren't convinced by Ian's relentle...If you weren't convinced by Ian's relentless repetitions about descriptions, how Watson said something to someone on a yacht one time about carrying a knife, or how he shouted out from the wharf to someone aboard a yacht anchored there or nearby, unfortunately I don't think the last, un-provable nonsense that completed his job by reporting that a dead man allegedly once said to a cop - who just happened to repeat it to Ian when he was doing his Sherlock impersonation, that he covered up for Watson because Watson had threatened.... wait for it, to rape his daughter. There could no greater attempt to persuade a reader by rumour and unfounded allegations than the end of Ian's book. Didn't work for me, what a dead man may, or may not have said to a police officer years after a case that won't go away presents a clear opportunity to think that Ian was feeding a story of someone else's design. A story as overdone as it's original version. Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-25243249853255695112016-05-05T22:03:45.770+12:002016-05-05T22:03:45.770+12:00I actually found Wishart's book helpful in man...I actually found Wishart's book helpful in many ways. Despite what his intentions may have been he helped configure the confusion of the night, the doubt. He also, perhaps mistakenly for his cause, revealed the lie against the Watson family when he tried to say they were involved in someway in covering up. It was clear from his book that the Watson family didn't believe, according to the not so secret tapes that good old Ian revealed, that Olivia was dead at the outset of her disappearance and for sometime later. How you could imply a conspiracy of silence against a family saying they were covering up a murder that they didn't think had happened - sure takes some beating. Speaking of beating, that's appears to be exactly what Ian did to himself, by setting out to prove that Watson was the killer, that his family were his co-conspirators in silence, that Guy Wallace wasn't to be trusted and that Ian, according to his psychiatric self - just to bridge any difficulties in the narrative of his story, was able to determine that hello! Watson was a psychopath. Laying it on too thick really - no well thought through. Wishart had a plan, but not an open or inquiring mind that might have alerted him to the shortfalls in his story book.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-29169156027267546102016-05-05T20:58:41.472+12:002016-05-05T20:58:41.472+12:00Answer for Ian.Re-The question supporters cannot a...Answer for Ian.Re-The question supporters cannot answer .<br />'A logical proof is a statement whose conclusion must be true if certain preconditions (premises) are met' writes Ian Wishart.<br />Premise One- Scott Watson arrived at Jetty after 3.30am<br />Premise Two- Only two water taxi drivers were still on duty.<br />Premis three- Mullen says he definitely did not take Scott Watson to Blade.<br />Well Premise two falls apart as there were three taxi drivers operating. This is proven at trial.Donald Anderson is the third driver, he has dropped off fellow work mate (John Mullen) after 2.30am. He then dropped off Scott Watson at approximately 3.55am-Mina Cornelia (Mahony court testiment) puts Watson aboard Blade around 4.00am.Although Anderson had finished for the night ,whilst having a cup of coffee on board a boat moored at the jetty he is asked by a lone man for a lift out to his yacht which at first he decided not to do but relented as the man had been waiting patiently. Anderson returned to the Jetty after delivering Scott to the Blade where he was then asked by Dyer and Morrisey for a lift and is relieved by Guy Wallace who offered to do a couple of runs for him. Racheal Vietch confirms Wallace's offer and 'shut up shop' so to speak, shortly before 5am.<br /> Anderson had a short conversation with this man on way whom told him name of his yacht which later he could not recall but said -” I was expecting a large,sleek yacht because of its' name -a weapon of some sort”.In all likelihood Scott Watson was the last to be dropped off at a changeover of drivers which probably wasn't rostered but occurred nontheless.<br /> We have Vietch,Wallace and Anderson attesting to this swap of drivers.Dyer and Morrisey would support it too -afterall they assumed he was working and asked for a ride with Anderson repling “I am due for a coffee break” and refusing them.<br /> Scott wasn't on Guys trip he was on Andersons and the time frame supports this as Anderson was still on Jetty when Dyer asked for lift ,indeed he watched the assembled group gathering for ride.<br /> Evidence of Scotts behaviour once back is numerous in the trial ,it's dark,one set of footsteps, etc,he woke up sleeping people,they checked the time no doubt, as you do.<br /> I would in turn like the two trip theory explained and also why was it left until summing up during trial?Oops that's right- we now wouldn't have a two trip theory if the lone man on taxi with Amelia,Richard,Hayden and Sarah was Scott.<br /> I don't know if Scott is guilty as sin or innocent as a lamb but there does exist reasonable doubt.Brennynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-48228622824034673022016-05-05T16:37:08.958+12:002016-05-05T16:37:08.958+12:00‘I’ve just noticed Samson’s comment “I found mysel...‘I’ve just noticed Samson’s comment “I found myself persuaded the yacht in the position Hunter placed the mystery ketch was in fact the family ketch The Alliance, and all sightings followed from that, before and after the events”’. Then his American expert analyst says “Wishart does an excellent job of solving the ketch mystery and discrediting the statements and testimony of the water taxi operator, Guy Wallace. He also explains why Watson would have stood out as a plausible suspect in the eyes of police. So there goes Watson's sure claim of innocence”. <br /><br />Samson and his American expert might have had a different view had Wishart included all the relevant evidence in his book. Both should check pp132-3 of my book Trial By Trickery. There they’ll find an aerial photo and three maps hand-drawn at the time by witnesses to the presence of the ketch at Furneaux. All four witnesses place the ketch in the same position off the little Solitude wharf, some 300 metres out from shore to the left of the Furneaux jetty,. Two others, water taxi driver Guy Wallace (eventually) and launch operator Ted Walsh placed it in the same place. <br /><br />Two of the witness maps in my book refer to both the ketch and Alliance. They place Alliance where it is known to have been from those aboard her, from multiple eyewitness accounts and from police files. She was moored 150 metres out from shore to the right of the Furneaux jetty.<br /><br />The colour plates after p 112 in TxT include a police map of the mooring area. In it the locations of both Alliance and ketch, as described by the witnesses and the evidence, are clear. They are about three hundred metres apart.<br /><br />I didn’t “place the mystery ketch” anywhere at all. The witnesses did all the placing and it was nowhere near Alliance.. What on earth led Samson to believe otherwise?. Was it because Wishart’s book relies on false argument and omissions to make his points?’<br />The first section of my film, ‘Murder On The Blade?’ locates the ketch. It’s available free on the internet at:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJv2vmH8Nd8 ‘<br /><br />(Ends) <br /><br />Cheers<br />Keith Hunter<br /><br />Keith Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-45032831019194784102016-02-18T22:21:45.207+13:002016-02-18T22:21:45.207+13:00Your review was an exercise in misquoting by yours...Your review was an exercise in misquoting by yourself, so I took the opportunity to respond.<br /><br />http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/18280/attacked-by-an-amateur-fisking-an-agenda-driven-review-of-elementary/Ian Wisharthttp://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/18280/attacked-by-an-amateur-fisking-an-agenda-driven-review-of-elementary/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-67608661816901303732016-02-18T19:27:10.163+13:002016-02-18T19:27:10.163+13:00Actually Binnie referred to the evidence in detail...Actually Binnie referred to the evidence in detail as well as in continuity. He clearly did that and it was Fisher who claimed that he hadn't. Regardless of that debate, there is no doubt the McDonald report neglected the collective view of evidence totally. I would rather the Watson camp had sought a review on that rather than the prison interview. Perhaps that could still reviewed, but with all new evidence of material value a new application might prove a better option with it spelt out in detail how all the evidence must be looked at as a whole as well as individually. Unfortunately, I don't know if the recorded statements of the couple on The Blanco were heard at the trial, I assume not - they look extremely important now with McNeillys, Wallace's and the secret witness now of more value to Watson than the Crown.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-73488406722138110992016-02-18T11:51:51.997+13:002016-02-18T11:51:51.997+13:00The interesting thing is that the main thrust of t...The interesting thing is that the main thrust of the Fisher report on Justice Binnie's report on the Bain case was that Binnie committed a fundamental error by looking at evidence piece by piece, not as a whole. Exactly the problem with the absurd McDonald report on Scott's appeal to the Governor General.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185745423225971292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-79261936172764360942016-02-18T09:35:36.558+13:002016-02-18T09:35:36.558+13:00Thanks David. This is the sort of information that...Thanks David. This is the sort of information that DW should have weighed in his book. I don't recall this particular siting being mentioned in the recent Watson Application For The Royal Prerogative of Mercy. It should have been included as well as should the evidence of Ted Walsh someone sent here below. Where the consideration of that report failed was that each part of the application was only looked at separately, this is wrong in law as far as I know. It also needed to be looked at collectively, in which case a reasonable assumption would have been a recommendation for it to be sent to the Appeal Court. A case can't be judged on single events to the exclusion of an overall picture this information from you and your wife is part of that picture. Regards.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-18423125700631607692016-02-18T00:59:42.116+13:002016-02-18T00:59:42.116+13:00The'mystery ketch'....My wife and I saw a ...The'mystery ketch'....My wife and I saw a 40-45 foot ketch moored right next to us at Bayswater Marina in early 1998'. It precisely matched the general description of the 'mystery ketch'-with a white hull, a wide blue stripe on the hull with round bronze portholes in it, and very obvious, very distinctive rope work, and we spoke to the skipper. He said he was at Furneaux Lodge that 1997 New Year's eve. So for my money the 'mystery ketch' absolutely exists. See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10476734 for more details. The story of my attempts to establish the details of the subsequent Police investigation of our sighting is very interesting in its own right, but ultimately we never received any useful feedback from them. <br /><br />BTW, 'Alliance' was absolutely not the ketch we saw, nor does it accurately match any of the key witnesses descriptions of the 'mystery ketch'Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185745423225971292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-67626659716370588642016-02-16T22:10:46.081+13:002016-02-16T22:10:46.081+13:00Thanks for that. In such a large body of evidence ...Thanks for that. In such a large body of evidence it's easy for those such as myself who don't know all the details to overlook, or simply not know, such things. It remains that there is no consistent evidence that the couple went aboard The Blade.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-828334853937028372016-02-16T13:57:04.439+13:002016-02-16T13:57:04.439+13:00"Alliance owner Mr Kennedy at the trial"..."Alliance owner Mr Kennedy at the trial"<br /><br />http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=8798<br /><br />“By 9.30 am Alliance began to drag anchor, so they left for Tawa Bay, then to Punga Cove, where they spent the next night. On January 2, they returned to Waikawa Bay in Picton, where Alliance is berthed”<br /><br />Ted Walsh (and others on his boat Sweet Release) saw ketch with light blond haired girl at Cannibal Cove 10:30 am Jan 2nd.<br />Cannibal Cove is not between Punga Cove & Waikawa marina. It is in the other direction on the way out of the sound towards Cook Strait.<br /><br />Ted Walsh did not know Olivia & sister had bleached their hair for the NYE party until long after the trial. Then he became adamant the girl he saw Jan 2nd with light blond hair was Olivia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-17558323443415569062016-02-07T10:28:44.273+13:002016-02-07T10:28:44.273+13:00Like this reply Samson. Thanks for sending it alon...Like this reply Samson. Thanks for sending it along.<br /><br />What is also 'stupid and improbable' with the accomplice theory is that it could be argued that Watson was doing everything possible to bring attention to himself. Had he been capable of enlisting an elaborate plan that included an accomplice it is incongruous with his drunkenness, waking up other those on nearby boats, even being at the Lodge that night. Think of Malcom Rewa's crimes, a serial rapist and killer, worked alone and in stealth.<br /><br />I think the profile of Watson being a rough neck is over played. He is a relatively small man, arguably with a big mouth when drunk or with friends - not easy on being foul mouthed. Being desperate for 'company' was probably a common component with most of the young, single men at the Lodge that night. Somebody more serious and with a different mindset is required and not a 'drunken idiot' as your correspondent refers.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-13114413638518098292016-02-07T09:52:41.396+13:002016-02-07T09:52:41.396+13:00I'm not sure I can agree that a ketch is neede...I'm not sure I can agree that a ketch is needed. Much as the identifications at the Lodge are confused, so also are details surrounding the Ketch. I think Watson has to be put with the couple beyond reasonable doubt going onto The Blade. Not only is there doubt regarding this but it deepens when considering the behavior after Watson went aboard his own yacht according to the witnesses on Blanco. Right now that appears to be the most important evidence, it may have been well known to others before the book Elementary but I was unaware of its existence. I note in the witness reports of the conversation Watson was asking one witness to essentially borrow the witness's partner. In another case from the evidence Watson (or someone that could have been Watson) was said to be saying he had a bed for Olivia but not for Ben. This is stuff for the Courts. A jury could believe that Olivia and Ben didn't go aboard with Watson and that Watson was alone when he was waking up other sleepers on neighboring boats, even propositioning them - with either bodies on board his own yacht or a couple there. It's difficult to reconcile.<br /><br />At this stage The Crown's fall back, well, at least in the recent application by Watson for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, are the 2 hairs found on a blanket which most people now know where from Olivia's hereditary line. There is a problem with the hairs of course, no other evidence of dna either from Ben or Olivia on the blanket, and the hairs - despite being long and blond, not found on an initial search. A jury could well accept (particularly because of the Guy Wallace retraction) and that of the witnesses on Blanco that the Watson defence has overcome this Crown fallback - particularly in the totality of the evidence.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-88660464691682827592016-02-05T23:59:45.159+13:002016-02-05T23:59:45.159+13:00I asked an independent American analyst to check t...I asked an independent American analyst to check the book, and he just posted this. I think you will be interested in his take.<br /><br />OK, I have gone through this book.<br /><br />Wishart does an excellent job of solving the ketch mystery and discrediting the statements and testimony of the water taxi operator, Guy Wallace. He also explains why Watson would have stood out as a plausible suspect in the eyes of police.<br /><br />So there goes Watson's sure claim of innocence. So far, so good. Wishart should have stopped there. He thinks he has solved the crime and proved Watson's guilt. Bullshit. All he has proved, with his review and analysis, is that it is impossible to solve this crime with the information we have.<br /><br />The "evidence" in this case comes down to the recollections of people at a raucous, spread-out, summertime party, many of whom were intoxicated to some degree. They tell shifting stories of events they barely noticed at the time, involving people they did not know or did not know well. Accounts of Watson or someone who may have been Watson have him dressed in two, distinctively different ways during the course of the evening. I therefore submit that Watson may not have been the only drunken idiot who was pestering women at that bar, no one was really paying attention, and it doesn't prove a damn thing anyway.<br /><br />Wishart's theory is that Watson lured the victims aboard his boat and killed them. At some point during or after the commission of this crime, Watson somehow acquired an accomplice. The two of them disposed of the bodies on land, after which they disposed of other evidence by casting it into a bay in front of people who were watching from their homes on shore.<br /><br />That is a stupid and improbable theory.<br /><br />Much is made of the people who claim to have seen Watson or someone painting the cabin on his boat while under way. But what purpose would that serve in connection with the crime? Why would a murderer draw attention to himself that way?<br /><br />This "Keating" character is assumed to have lied for Watson, and gotten both his children to do the same, so as to provide Watson with an alibi. I seriously doubt it. No version of this guy's story gives Watson a meaningful alibi for the time when the murders would have occurred.<br /><br />Interestingly, Wishart does not suggest Wallace was lying to cover for Watson, even though his accounts vary at least as much, and are at least as provably wrong on certain points, as are those of "Keating." Is it possible both witnesses were trying to remember as best they could, but were all mixed up, from the very start, about what they saw, when they saw it, and the order in which events occurred? If so they would be no more inaccurate or complicit in any crime than were the subjects of von Liszt's famous experiment in 1902. That experiment has been repeated many times, under different conditions, always with the same results. Witnesses are spectacularly wrong about basic facts, even when questioned moments after an event occurs.<br /><br />One seemingly reliable, shared recollection is that Watson came back from his revelry on shore and disturbed several people who were sleeping, because he wanted to keep the party going. That seems unlikely for someone with amorous or criminal designs on a woman whom he had just brought aboard his boat. But who knows? Watson might well have done this crime. He might just as well be completely innocent. I don't think there will ever be any way to know. Any theory will involve guesswork far too tenuous to sustain a reasonable conviction. <br /><br />But no one can expect to sell a book if that's the only fair conclusion they can reach in the end. Hence we have this mess - a useful analysis combined with a bogus attempt to solve the mystery.<br /><br /><br /><br />Samsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04163383074949695927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-68701563158183893862016-02-05T21:17:47.994+13:002016-02-05T21:17:47.994+13:00Nostalgia-NZ, I will have to reread the appropriat...Nostalgia-NZ, I will have to reread the appropriate parts, but I found myself persuaded the yacht in the position Hunter placed the mystery ketch was in fact the family ketch The Alliance, and all sightings followed from that, before and after the events. I also thought his arguments about the Eerie Bay arrival being on the second had some traction. Without a mystery ketch, the mystery deepens immensely. I heard Greg O'Connor police commissioner explain the police established there were men unloading sails in bags, not bodies in bags. How Wishart could put that garbage in his book is beyond me, but we still need a ketch. I will reread parts when time, meanwhile I have that other info coming shortly.Samsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04163383074949695927noreply@blogger.com