anyone read Wishart's new book on the Ben Smart and Olivia Hope case?

[TravelerFarAwayFromHome]

haven't read it

but he is making some serious accusations

I really want to get my hands on one as soon as possible and see for myself if the new evidences he raised in his book "strongly" support his conclusion

especially in the face of all the evidences that seem to suggest otherwise

either way, he will be a rich man after this

given all the publicity the book has been getting.

 

[Anguspure]

haven't read it

but he is making some serious accusations

I really want to get my hands on one as soon as possible and see for myself if the new evidences he raised in his book "strongly" support his conclusion

especially in the face of all the evidences that seem to suggest otherwise

either way, he will be a rich man after this

given all the publicity the book has been getting.

Yep, read it and remain undecided.

Most of the evidence Wishart presents, and the way in which he develops the case is quite compelling and gave answer to a number of questions I had. But the last chapter came across as very blunt which I think is a little uncalled for given the grounds of the concluding evidence. Nevertheless if this evidence is genuine, and given the rest of the case, Wishart may well be right and Watson is not an innocent man.

Although the worst thing about the book from my point of view is how pig ignorant New Zealanders (including Wishart) seem to be on maritime matters, considering we are a maritime nation that depends upon maritime trade for our existence. Reading the stuff about yachts, boats, tides and wind etc in the book was a little bit painful to say the least.

I see you posted this about a year ago. Have you had a chance to read it yourself?

 

[Armoured]

Who?

 

[Anguspure]

Who?

Ian Wishart's new claims about Ben Smart and Olivia Hope disappearance wrong - police

 

[Armoured]

Not heard of that one. Thanks

 

[TravelerFarAwayFromHome]

Yep, read it and remain undecided.

Most of the evidence Wishart presents, and the way in which he develops the case is quite compelling and gave answer to a number of questions I had. But the last chapter came across as very blunt which I think is a little uncalled for given the grounds of the concluding evidence. Nevertheless if this evidence is genuine, and given the rest of the case, Wishart may well be right and Watson is not an innocent man.

Although the worst thing about the book from my point of view is how pig ignorant New Zealanders (including Wishart) seem to be on maritime matters, considering we are a maritime nation that depends upon maritime trade for our existence. Reading the stuff about yachts, boats, tides and wind etc in the book was a little bit painful to say the least.

I see you posted this about a year ago. Have you had a chance to read it yourself?

i have not the chance to read it

but i was kind of wondering to mine self what kind of new evidence he presented, and do those evidences supports his theory, but more importantly, do they contradict existing evidences that seems to undermine the Crown's case and hence might create reasonable double for Watson.

 

[Anguspure]

Most of the evidence he presents is from the Police file and much of it wasn't presented in the court case for reasons unknown.

 

[TravelerFarAwayFromHome]

Most of the evidence he presents is from the Police file and much of it wasn't presented in the court case for reasons unknown.

oh ok, though i wondered if those evidences are enoght for him to say conclusively that Scott did it.

which was mine impression.

either way, i felt he would have been extremely irresponsible if those evidences don't add up to a 100 % certain conclusion, or even beyond reasonable doubts

it would be slanderous in fact.

 

[Anguspure]

oh ok, though i wondered if those evidences are enoght for him to say conclusively that Scott did it.

which was mine impression.

either way, i felt he would have been extremely irresponsible if those evidences don't add up to a 100 % certain conclusion, or even beyond reasonable doubts

it would be slanderous in fact.

The evidence that IW presented in the closing part of his book (the knock out blow) would probably have been quite damning in court, especially in the light of the rest of the circumstances. But this evidence was not presented, for reasons unknown.

The evidence relates to witnesses, located above Shakespeare bay, who watched heavy, floppy objects being offloaded, by 2 persons, from a small yacht into a dinghy immediately after the disappearances.

I agree that if IW is uncertain it would be irresponsible for him to hold a public opinion that opposes the court decision, however the tone of the book has portrays a sense of disbelief that the evidence was not followed in what appears to be the obvious direction.

That said, I am a little incredulous that our system is so completely incompetent, and so for now I am reserving my thoughts pending an explanatory response from authorities (although I am not holding my breath, would be long dead by now).

 

[TravelerFarAwayFromHome]

The evidence that IW presented in the closing part of his book (the knock out blow) would probably have been quite damning in court, especially in the light of the rest of the circumstances. But this evidence was not presented, for reasons unknown.

The evidence relates to witnesses, located above Shakespeare bay, who watched heavy, floppy objects being offloaded, by 2 persons, from a small yacht into a dinghy immediately after the disappearances.

I agree that if IW is uncertain it would be irresponsible for him to hold a public opinion that opposes the court decision, however the tone of the book has portrays a sense of disbelief that the evidence was not followed in what appears to be the obvious direction.

That said, I am a little incredulous that our system is so completely incompetent, and so for now I am reserving my thoughts pending an explanatory response from authorities (although I am not holding my breath, would be long dead by now).

wow maybe I can find a way to get hold of the book somehow

it is interesting you mentioned the evidence were not presented

because as I recall, the persecutors handles the case were considered the best of the best.

if I remember correctly, both of them were QCs

also do you think it might possible that IW simply did a good job to present his version in a good narrative?

in another word, he only presented evidences that favors his conclusion, and left out evidences that would contradict his conclusion?

 

[Anguspure]

wow maybe I can find a way to get hold of the book somehow

it is interesting you mentioned the evidence were not presented

because as I recall, the persecutors handles the case were considered the best of the best.

if I remember correctly, both of them were QCs

also do you think it might possible that IW simply did a good job to present his version in a good narrative?

in another word, he only presented evidences that favors his conclusion, and left out evidences that would contradict his conclusion?

I have a kindle copy: https://www.amazon.com/Elementary-E...F8&qid=1489386325&sr=8-2&keywords=ian+wishart

I was actually surprised that Wishart went down the track of considering Watson guilty, given his track record of over turning the establishment ruling. The point of this book seems to be that Watson is guilty but that the Crown case was shonky and that it is surprising that he was judged guilty on the grounds of it.

Also if Wishart could be considered to bias the evidence it would be surprising, again, considering his track record thus far.

Although I must admit to getting the feeling that he was bashing the point home rather hard, but perhaps that is more of a measure of his conviction in the picture that has been revealed than any predisposing bias.

As for a QC, they may be very good at law (and so gain a conviction on any grounds), but like any expert they are only an expert in their own field. In any other field they are just an average noddy, and perhaps, because of their more focused expertise, well below average in some respects. I find this as apparent (as I mentioned previously) in a number of areas in this case, and including in Elementary, that had a strong bearing on the outcome of the case and the story that was told.