"My mate Peter was leading Watson back down to the cells when he said something to him, Pete didn't catch what he said so lent towards Watson, that's when Watson head butted Pete, smashing his nose, then hissed in his ear, 'You will never find the f----king bodies'."
Part One of "Doubt?" above
Click button at right for Part Two
As an average Kiwi, I am interested in cases like this, and have always been confused by the seemingly conflicting evidence around the Watson trial. I saw the TV documentary recently and was then fairly convinced that he was innocent, or at least could be. I couldn't see the webinar last night but started listening this morning. I've only seen/heard 41 minutes, and will see the rest this evening, presumably as captivating as what I have heard already. Bloody hell, I've already changed my mind 100%, the bugger is guilty. Well done Ian, this is an amazing piece of very clear and specific journalism. I'm in awe of your ability.
It needs a much wider audience as a 'counter-spin' if you will 😉. why don't you get a million from NZ On Air to turn your analysis into another TV show.?
John Lordan, LordanARTS
I have found some compelling arguments online about his guilt
What you'll learn:
Want to Watch The FULL Video Now? Get the whole 102 minute version when you register below. Get Started Now.
If you think Watson's innocent, watch this and then decide...
We'll send you a link to the full video PLUS key slides used in the presentation as a BONUS. Simply enter your email below.
Shock poll shows Scott Watson supporters deserting his "innocence" campaign after watching movie length Ian Wishart video on case
A new poll shows this week's TV documentary "Doubt: the Scott Watson Case" has taken a shock credibility hit from a movie length video by Ian Wishart responding to it, with a massive slide in belief in Watson's innocence after viewers had watched both videos.
Six hundred people registered to watch Wishart present evidence that wasn't covered in the TV docudrama "Doubt". The poll shows 80.4% of those who attended had watched the docudrama, and of those 29.7% came away from "Doubt" last Sunday thinking Watson was innocent compared with 27% who felt he was guilty and a massive 37.8% who said they still were not sure one way or the other.
Wishart, who criticised "Doubt" as unbalanced "smoke and mirrors TV" that had failed to address the evidence of Watson's guilt, offered up his own 102 minute video presentation in response to the taxpayer-funded million dollar TV1 show.
The poll results are damning, he says:
"Of the Doubt viewers who came into my webinar video all thinking Watson was innocent...an hour and a half later nearly 82% of them were now satisfied he was guilty. That tells me that when flash goes head to head with substance, substance wins."
Compared with their beliefs after watching the TV show, a participant survey taken after the screening of Wishart's webinar "Doubt?" with a questionmark shows the TV viewers now overwhelmingly believe Watson is guilty, with 83.8% of Doubt viewers choosing "guilty" compared with only 27% before they watched the webinar. The massive "not sure" vote slumped from 37.8% to 16.2%, and - most incredibly of all - the 29.7% belief in Watson's innocence disappeared totally, to zero.
"82% of Doubt viewers proclaiming Watson's innocence switched their verdict to guilty as a result of watching the webinar, and none of those surveyed were now prepared to say he was innocent," Wishart said. "That's what happens when you give people real evidence to chew on."
The outspoken investigative journalist has written three of the six books published on the case, and created national headlines earlier this year when his book "Elementary" revealed he'd abandoned his own belief in Watson's innocence after obtaining the actual police witness statements about the movements of Watson and the so-called mystery man.
"Watson and the mystery man are one and the same, the "Doubt?" webinar has the photos and statements that prove it, and you could literally feel the audience's jaws drop when the evidence was presented on screen.
"That's why I was so disappointed in the TV docudrama. Scott Watson's actor looked nothing like Watson did on the night, and the mystery man they portrayed looked nothing like the actual eyewitness accounts, so Chris Gallavin's show was dishonest in my view."
Wishart is making the video recording of his webinar free to watch online.
"People who think Watson is innocent because of the TV programme should watch the other side of the story and then they'll be in a better position to judge," he said.