What do you think?
Rate this book
Elementary: The Explosive File On Scott Watson And The Disappearance Of Ben & Olivia: What Haven't They Told You?
The book that finally identifies the “mystery ketch”. The book that finally cracks the case. Ben Smart. Olivia Hope. Scott Watson. Unmissable. Undeniable. Unprecedented. Unexpected.
Note from author: "This book contains quotes from original police witness statements. No two witnesses ever see the crime from exactly the same angle, so differences between statements are expected. Sometimes one statement can have a crucial detail that others have missed. That's why I included what appear to be 'repetitive' statements by a number of witnesses. So you can see the overall similarities and weight of evidence, but also any unique details.
Sometimes witness statements are relevant to different parts of the story, so just as in a murder trial, readers may find a statement being referred to more than once.
In a crime story, the devil can be in the detail. The statements are quoted in the authentic spelling of the witness - as important legal records they don't get 'proofed'. The court trial lasted 12 weeks and involved 30,000 pages of documents. I have distilled that down to 372 pages but it is still a complex story. Think of yourself as a juror, sifting the evidence.
"Previous books on this case have concentrated on picking apart the police version of events given in Court. That's a legalistic technique of creating 'doubt'. I ask a different question: Forget about the court case, do the original witness statements including ones never used in court show us what happened? The answer, I suggest, is "Yes", and you are about to find out for yourself..."
Note from author: "This book contains quotes from original police witness statements. No two witnesses ever see the crime from exactly the same angle, so differences between statements are expected. Sometimes one statement can have a crucial detail that others have missed. That's why I included what appear to be 'repetitive' statements by a number of witnesses. So you can see the overall similarities and weight of evidence, but also any unique details.
Sometimes witness statements are relevant to different parts of the story, so just as in a murder trial, readers may find a statement being referred to more than once.
In a crime story, the devil can be in the detail. The statements are quoted in the authentic spelling of the witness - as important legal records they don't get 'proofed'. The court trial lasted 12 weeks and involved 30,000 pages of documents. I have distilled that down to 372 pages but it is still a complex story. Think of yourself as a juror, sifting the evidence.
"Previous books on this case have concentrated on picking apart the police version of events given in Court. That's a legalistic technique of creating 'doubt'. I ask a different question: Forget about the court case, do the original witness statements including ones never used in court show us what happened? The answer, I suggest, is "Yes", and you are about to find out for yourself..."
- GenresCrimeTrue Crime
285 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 30, 2016
23 people are currently reading
46 people want to read
About the author
Ian Wishart
46 books19 followersIan Wishart is a multi-award winning investigative journalist and bestselling author of more than 20 books, who's now in his fourth decade in the news business. His writing style has often been compared to John Grisham by reviewers.
He's been a radio News Director, a Chief of Staff for TV3 News and a magazine editor. His work has featured in the Times of London, Daily Mail, New Zealand Herald and America's massive Coast to Coast radio programme - to name a few. His books Totalitaria, Air Con and Vitamin D became Amazon bestsellers worldwide.
While writing his first book, The Paradise Conspiracy, Wishart's TVNZ office was discovered to have been bugged, his home was broken into, the manuscript for the book stolen, and an attempt was made on his life. Needless to say, he survived to write the story.
The first four chapters of The Paradise Conspiracy inspired movie director Geoff Murphy ("Young Guns II", "Under Siege 2") to produce the movie "Spooked" starring Cliff Curtis ("Runaway Jury", "Live Free or Die Hard") in a loose portrayal of Wishart's role as an investigative journalist.
He's been shot at, tear-gassed and stalked, but Wishart says his motivation remains telling the stories that "need to be told", whether its new leads on cold case murders, or government espionage.
As well as writing books, Wishart also divides his time between operating the http://www.investigatedaily.com and http://www.ianwishartpublishing.com websites - the latter catering to his writing and publishing clients.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
August 28, 2016
Scott Watson is a New Zealander currently serving time in prison for the murders of 21 year old Ben Smart and 17 year old Olivia Hope in the early hours of New Year's Day, 1998. Ben and Olivia were last seen around 4am when a water taxi driver dropped them off at a yacht with another man (whom Wishart identifies as Scott Watson). By daybreak the yacht had vanished and Ben and Olivia were never seen again. Nor have their bodies ever been found. The case has been controversial in New Zealand with numerous people believing that Scott Watson is innocent or at least was never given a fair trial.
In this book Ian Wishart attempts to pull together all the available evidence to make a compelling case once and for all regarding Watson's guilt. And I suppose he does so, but my goodness this is a frustrating book to read. It loops back and forth, repeats material, assumes that the reader already has significant knowledge about many aspects of the case, goes for Dan Brown-style cliffhanger chapter endings and at times appears more interested in proving other journalists wrong than in making a case in its own right. It's written in a chatty and colloquial style, as if Wishart has you pinned up against a bar and isn't going to let you go home until you agree with him.
As an example of its convoluted structure: one would expect that the first chapter would lay down what we know to be true about the case and give the reader some kind of background. Instead, Wishart jumps into the definition of "what is a psychopath" and then spends the next 2-3 chapters trying to prove an armchair diagnosis that Watson is a psychopath. It feels like a very odd way to kick off a book of this nature. I can see the workings, the way he's building a case in our minds, but it's extremely irritating to read.
I guess Wishart would put me down as a win given that I've finished the book thinking that his case makes sense, but I can't in all honesty rate this trainwreck of a book more than 2 stars. It was my assigned reading for my book club and that is the only reason I persevered with it.
In this book Ian Wishart attempts to pull together all the available evidence to make a compelling case once and for all regarding Watson's guilt. And I suppose he does so, but my goodness this is a frustrating book to read. It loops back and forth, repeats material, assumes that the reader already has significant knowledge about many aspects of the case, goes for Dan Brown-style cliffhanger chapter endings and at times appears more interested in proving other journalists wrong than in making a case in its own right. It's written in a chatty and colloquial style, as if Wishart has you pinned up against a bar and isn't going to let you go home until you agree with him.
As an example of its convoluted structure: one would expect that the first chapter would lay down what we know to be true about the case and give the reader some kind of background. Instead, Wishart jumps into the definition of "what is a psychopath" and then spends the next 2-3 chapters trying to prove an armchair diagnosis that Watson is a psychopath. It feels like a very odd way to kick off a book of this nature. I can see the workings, the way he's building a case in our minds, but it's extremely irritating to read.
I guess Wishart would put me down as a win given that I've finished the book thinking that his case makes sense, but I can't in all honesty rate this trainwreck of a book more than 2 stars. It was my assigned reading for my book club and that is the only reason I persevered with it.
February 7, 2017
Wishart has thoroughly cross-referenced witness statements from the early stages of the police enquiry. It allows him to paint us a highly plausible timeline of events on that New Year's Eve which leaves no holes and no doubt that the crime at Endeavour Inlet could have been committed by anyone other than Watson. The "mystery man" and "mystery ketch" myths can finally be dispelled. Watson is proven to be a despicable psychopath who is totally capable of impulsive murder.
The book does get repetitive with many statements mentioned several times, but Wishart appears to do this with a purpose and for me it didn't hinder the reading experience. I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much without refamiliarising myself with the case beforehand, so I'd recommend doing that to avoid feeling bogged down by details in some chapters.
Great read - sheds new light on the mystery and will be of interest to anyone with an opinion on the case.
The book does get repetitive with many statements mentioned several times, but Wishart appears to do this with a purpose and for me it didn't hinder the reading experience. I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much without refamiliarising myself with the case beforehand, so I'd recommend doing that to avoid feeling bogged down by details in some chapters.
Great read - sheds new light on the mystery and will be of interest to anyone with an opinion on the case.
June 23, 2016
Very interesting presentation and interpretation of the facts surrounding the disappearance on January 1st, 1998, of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. Ian Wishart doesn't outright say that Scott Watson did the crime but the breakdown and analysis of all of the hundreds of interviews and sightings collected by police during the investigation definitely point that way.
What is clear is that the media at the time definitely wasn't privy to the kind of information the police had gathered as the majority of the details in this book were all new to me. I never had much of a feeling one way or the other on this case, mostly because I never knew enough to make an informed opinion, but what is clear to me is that Watson is a violent liar and thief, who has had convictions in the past and a history of treating women as things he had every right to possess. Most women who met him that night described him as sleazy, direct with his suggestions, and scary.
By the end of the book, all I could think of was about those poor kids and what might have happened to them. I don't normally read this kind of book but I feel this is an important case and one thats
unsolved nature has had a massive effect on the whole of New Zealand, not just the families. If this kind of offering gives even the slightest new shred of hope that answers might be found, then I'm all for it, no matter how hard it is to read.
What is clear is that the media at the time definitely wasn't privy to the kind of information the police had gathered as the majority of the details in this book were all new to me. I never had much of a feeling one way or the other on this case, mostly because I never knew enough to make an informed opinion, but what is clear to me is that Watson is a violent liar and thief, who has had convictions in the past and a history of treating women as things he had every right to possess. Most women who met him that night described him as sleazy, direct with his suggestions, and scary.
By the end of the book, all I could think of was about those poor kids and what might have happened to them. I don't normally read this kind of book but I feel this is an important case and one thats
unsolved nature has had a massive effect on the whole of New Zealand, not just the families. If this kind of offering gives even the slightest new shred of hope that answers might be found, then I'm all for it, no matter how hard it is to read.
February 15, 2016
I really enjoyed this book as it was on a topic that I knew about - but not at a detailed level.
I was impressed with the level of analysis and the author's access to documents and witnesses. And interesting in that Wishart has cleared changed his view on the innocence of Scott Watson from his previous book.
The only thing that detracted from my overall enjoyment was the constant references to Keith Hunter's flawed research/presentation. Wishart is a quality investigative journalist who has clearly put together a coherent and thorough analysis of the facts. His views stand alone - didn't need to continue to poke holes in Hunter's work.
That said, will recommend book to others as it is certainly informative - and in doing so, horrifying that the case had so much doubt surrounding it!
I was impressed with the level of analysis and the author's access to documents and witnesses. And interesting in that Wishart has cleared changed his view on the innocence of Scott Watson from his previous book.
The only thing that detracted from my overall enjoyment was the constant references to Keith Hunter's flawed research/presentation. Wishart is a quality investigative journalist who has clearly put together a coherent and thorough analysis of the facts. His views stand alone - didn't need to continue to poke holes in Hunter's work.
That said, will recommend book to others as it is certainly informative - and in doing so, horrifying that the case had so much doubt surrounding it!
November 4, 2017
This book was interesting but frustrating - it felt like you were obviously meant to think Scott Watson was guilty and therefore everything was written to prove this, it certainly wasn't an unbiased portrayal. It does raise some interesting points though.
January 15, 2026
Review: Elementary by Ian Wishart
Having read Trial by Trickery by Keith Hunter beforehand proved to be a distinct advantage when approaching Elementary. Wishart makes frequent reference to Hunter’s work, often directly addressing and challenging Hunter’s interpretations of key aspects of the case. In many instances, Elementary positions itself as a rebuttal—methodical rather than reactive.
Where Trial by Trickery relies heavily on trial testimony, Elementary takes a more evidentially secure approach by prioritising early witness statements. Wishart gives considerable attention to the well-documented problems associated with human memory and recall, particularly as time passes. He explains how memory can be contaminated, reshaped by suggestion, and influenced by cross-examination—factors that can significantly distort evidence by the time it reaches a courtroom. These issues, central to understanding many criminal cases, are largely neglected in Hunter’s analysis.
Like other authors who have examined this case, Wishart also identifies flaws in the police investigation and raises compelling points about critical evidence that may have been sidelined in favour of trial strategy. This is an uncomfortable but important reality in many complex prosecutions, and Wishart does not shy away from addressing it.
My overall impression is that Elementary is written with less overt bias, even though the author is clear about his conclusions. The tone feels more analytical than adversarial, with a stronger emphasis on process, evidence, and reliability rather than persuasion.
Elementary will likely appeal to readers with an open mind who enjoy New Zealand true crime, unsolved mysteries, or books that challenge how evidence is formed, remembered, and ultimately presented as truth.
Having read Trial by Trickery by Keith Hunter beforehand proved to be a distinct advantage when approaching Elementary. Wishart makes frequent reference to Hunter’s work, often directly addressing and challenging Hunter’s interpretations of key aspects of the case. In many instances, Elementary positions itself as a rebuttal—methodical rather than reactive.
Where Trial by Trickery relies heavily on trial testimony, Elementary takes a more evidentially secure approach by prioritising early witness statements. Wishart gives considerable attention to the well-documented problems associated with human memory and recall, particularly as time passes. He explains how memory can be contaminated, reshaped by suggestion, and influenced by cross-examination—factors that can significantly distort evidence by the time it reaches a courtroom. These issues, central to understanding many criminal cases, are largely neglected in Hunter’s analysis.
Like other authors who have examined this case, Wishart also identifies flaws in the police investigation and raises compelling points about critical evidence that may have been sidelined in favour of trial strategy. This is an uncomfortable but important reality in many complex prosecutions, and Wishart does not shy away from addressing it.
My overall impression is that Elementary is written with less overt bias, even though the author is clear about his conclusions. The tone feels more analytical than adversarial, with a stronger emphasis on process, evidence, and reliability rather than persuasion.
Elementary will likely appeal to readers with an open mind who enjoy New Zealand true crime, unsolved mysteries, or books that challenge how evidence is formed, remembered, and ultimately presented as truth.
December 11, 2017
Wishart has presented such a spanner in the works. After watching a TV programme stating Watson was innocent, I think I bought the story. But now after reading this book I feel the opposite. The book highlights some sloppy police work and witness statements that are vitally important being left out of the trial. There were so many witness accounts that pin it on him, so much evidence, esp the painting of the boat. The real kicker coming in the last few pages based on three different witness accounts. I thought it was a great read. My only criticism is I found it hard to follow in parts where many different witness statements were being discussed, but I was enthralled with the majority of the content. Excellent.
February 4, 2018
A terrible injustice has been done to Scott Watson. This great book tells it al
January 13, 2021
This book is a mess. Hasn't been proof read or edited. Very confusing and jumbled. A nightmare really BUT I read the whole thing. If you have followed the case and it continues to grab you then you will read this book with interest even though it is appallingly badly written.
December 9, 2016
The fact the he's changed his mind makes this an interesting read. He certainly asks the questions and references his work. While he doesn't explicitly say who he believes did it, his analysis leads the reader to only one conclusion. Again Wishart let's himself and the reader down with some difficult / unusual, overly colloquial and at times awkward phrasing. This has been a characteristic of his other books and is evidence that all writers, no matter who they are, need editors / proof readers.
I do believe that Wishart is a bit of a conspiracy theorist and this has come through in all the books, of his I've read, that deal with the authorities or the political establishment. I do question whether this has a negative effect on the objectivity of his work.
Ok summer read but not highly recommended.
I do believe that Wishart is a bit of a conspiracy theorist and this has come through in all the books, of his I've read, that deal with the authorities or the political establishment. I do question whether this has a negative effect on the objectivity of his work.
Ok summer read but not highly recommended.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 2, 2016
Very interesting read from the onset. The author went into detail to make evidence logical and used it to come to his conclusion. The author is also very critical of previous investigative journalists that have investigated the case, such as Keith Hunter. It was a very exciting read, keeping me engaged throughout. I'm still not entirely convinced in the author's conclusion however, with some evidence being heavily criticised, while other evidence not scrutinised enough. All in all, a great read! Would recommend.
March 9, 2016
I found it difficult to read in places due to the changing witness statements and I don't understand boats. It has brought some things to light which need further investigation. I entered into reading this with a completely open mind and I will not ruin for others. I don't know how much further they can get 18 yrs after the murders but I pray that the end result gives the family closure. There are a number of key areas that could possibly be filled in and need to be filled in eg. the missing day. However like I said 18 yrs later....
January 30, 2016
Repetitive to the point of tedium. Endless quoting of witness statements, could have footnoted these. Could have been written in fewer words. Reads like an atonement for earlier naivety whilst dragging down Hunter. Overall very interesting and yes somewhat explosive. I feel for the Hope and Smart families.
July 8, 2016
Having grown up in New Zealand seeing and hearing about this case in the media this was a very insightful read. While in parts it can be repetitive, it was entertaining none the less and certainly helps one form a more informed view of what likely occurred that NYE. I just hope the Smart and Hope families get closure one day
February 22, 2016
An excellent insight into a crime that has haunted kiwis for years. I was only 4 when Ben and Olivia went missing, but I had heard about the case from people over the years. I went into this book without any preconceived notions about Scott Watson, but I came out thinking it was highly likely he was the man who committed the crimes. An interesting read.
December 27, 2016
Interesting take on a murder mystery in NZ. I do like the way he has focussed on original witness statements. He deals with the mystery man and the mystery ketch, and finishes with a surprising argument on what may have happened to the bodies based on some possible sightings I had never heard about before.
There were some proof reading errors in the text.
There were some proof reading errors in the text.
March 4, 2016
This is one of the most frustrating and boing books that I have read. While I have read other Ian Wishart books and throughly enjoyed them, this book was a real struggle to get through as his repetitive narration was extremely annoying. I would not recommend this book.
June 26, 2016
I didn't like the way this book was written - quotes were repeated, and you had to refer to footnotes to see who was saying what.
In saying that, it was an interesting book, providing a valid hypothesis of events even though i disagreed with some statements made.
In saying that, it was an interesting book, providing a valid hypothesis of events even though i disagreed with some statements made.
November 23, 2016
The last chapter of the book talks about two 'bodies' - these are in fact sails. The painting at sea is in fact a boat named "RB" and the rest of it it just character assassination and side issues. The only use of the book are the statements of witnesses.
February 17, 2016
Finally I have been able to find the detail I've been looking for for so long. There are no doubts the right man is in jail
April 26, 2016
Read it. It's an eye opener.
April 3, 2016
A compelling read... Thank you, Ian Wishart, for putting this into layman's language (not legalese) so that the general public can be informed. This book was hard to put down.
April 18, 2016
2.5/5
April 12, 2017
While I struggled with the huge cast of characters and range of nautical terms I'm not familiar with, this was still a surprisingly quick read (over and done in just over a day). My only other significant issue with it is that most of the images have absolutely no descriptions to go with them. While the author references them on occassion, it is never with a page or image number, so you are left guessing what image you should be looking at.
Pulling apart some key testimony by going back to original witness transcripts means this book has come to a rather different conclusion to several others on the case, including the authors original work. The first few pages had me expecting otherwise. While he doesn't come out and specify whether he thinks Scott Watson was or wasn't guilty, with the evidence he has stacked up, there is no other conclusion you could come to from this book.
While I personally have leaned more to the side of "he did it" since the first trial, I was prepared to learn new facts in the case that may have changed my mind. I definitely discovered a whole raft of new facts about the case, including that Ben and Olivia weren't the squeaky clean teenagers I had pictured (being only a couple of years older than me at the time it happened, I guess I transposed some of my own life experience on to them when they vanished, as they seemed clean-cut kids in their photos).
The why, what exactly, and where are still out there to be answered, but presuming this book isn't still hiding evidence, it makes a fairly clear case as to who did it and what their timeline was based on the evidence presented, and some well supported arguments as to the likelihood of "nearly identical" people and boats both being in the same place, doing the same thing, at the same time, without ever being seen together.
Pulling apart some key testimony by going back to original witness transcripts means this book has come to a rather different conclusion to several others on the case, including the authors original work. The first few pages had me expecting otherwise. While he doesn't come out and specify whether he thinks Scott Watson was or wasn't guilty, with the evidence he has stacked up, there is no other conclusion you could come to from this book.
While I personally have leaned more to the side of "he did it" since the first trial, I was prepared to learn new facts in the case that may have changed my mind. I definitely discovered a whole raft of new facts about the case, including that Ben and Olivia weren't the squeaky clean teenagers I had pictured (being only a couple of years older than me at the time it happened, I guess I transposed some of my own life experience on to them when they vanished, as they seemed clean-cut kids in their photos).
The why, what exactly, and where are still out there to be answered, but presuming this book isn't still hiding evidence, it makes a fairly clear case as to who did it and what their timeline was based on the evidence presented, and some well supported arguments as to the likelihood of "nearly identical" people and boats both being in the same place, doing the same thing, at the same time, without ever being seen together.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews