This is without a doubt one of the strangest books I have ever read. It seems to have been written in a rush, and unedited or reviewed by anyone other than the author. The writing style is quite odd at times – I'm not sure how to describe it, but it certainly isn't written in the articulate, succinct or clear manner that you would expect.

The arguments proposed by the author based on witness interviews are at times contradictory and often the interpretation seems manipulated to fit with the author's propo­sition, as opposed to critically and objectively analysing information available.

While I know that manipulation of information is fairly normal and to be expected where someone is trying to justify their conclusion, I think perhaps the strangest thing with this book is that the author seems to focus much of his energy on discrediting Keith Hunter, particularly for failing to adequately assess/investigate, and for taking a very specific direction (i.e. Not guilty) and tailoring the evidence to fit that theory. Ironically, Wishart seems to do everything that he criticizes Hunter for (making the evidence fit the author's desired outcome). I am guessing from the way this is written that there is no love lost between Wishart and Hunter.

The book jumps round, is often repetitive, and the author has very definite views about what happened and who was involved yet doesn't begin to allude to what he considers possible answers for any of his proposed theories – surely the author's conclu­sion, if valid, would trigger new angles of investigation by the police- I appreciate that there will be unanswered questions but I think it is strange to reach such definite (and new) conclusions without even offering an opinion on when/where/why/who.

Overall I would say very strong statements and conclusions with very little solid evidence or argument to convince me the theory is accurate. I would be interested to see more of the police/witness interview transcripts as I find it fascinating that almost all witnesses the author quotes use exactly the same adjectives and are so specific about certain physical features (eg height) – what were they asked in interview to elicit such similar (often identical) responses-

I have no fixed views on innocence or not, and like everyone else, have no idea what happened one way or another. All I can say is this book hasn't done anything to influence my thinking, but just makes me question whether this book, particularly taking into account all the teasers before release, is nothing more than a money maker.

It would have been good if the author had focused his energy on finding some information of substance to support his claims, as opposed to spending so much time trying to discredit other investigators and key witnesses.

I wouldn't recommend spending your money on this one!

If you have ever experienced being lied to and the injustice of not being believed when in fact everything that you disclosed was truth then you will understand the author's careful investigation of witnesses and police file to come up with this presentation. Ian Wishart carefully exposes the characteristics of a psychopath and then breaks down the Police files revealing missed pointers that were obvious when put into context of witnesses and tides. Carefully extracting every pointer and overlooked witnesses he now reveals the mystery man and the mystery ketch that have caught the imagination of the NZ public for nearly 2 decades. Reading with an open mind the reader will be disappointed to learn the truth regarding Scott Watson and put to death the lie that most NZers have believed. My hope now is that the bodies of Ben and Olivia will be recovered and the grief of their parents and friends will come to a place of healing. Thank you Ian for your very thorough investigative journalism.

Very poorly written. Even calls Guy Wallace, Guy Watson at one point. Inconsistent spelling of other witness names. Poor structure. Interesting read though. No in depth discussion of Chris Watson's ‘evidence’. While the ‘evidence’ discussed is captivating and damning there's still reasonable doubt.