Two views in the papers today.
Author Keith Hunter is in the HOS claiming more flaws in the case.
The SST article focuses more on the QC who prosecuted rubbishing the claims. A key part for me is:
Davison said it was significant that Watson himself never described seeing a ketch despite his boat being moored almost exactly where Wallace said he dropped the trio.
Montages made of photographs taken that day show no ketch in the area identified by Wallace, but do show Watson’s sloop.
When combined with the evidence of Watson’s sexually aggressive behaviour on the night, his earlier statements that he wanted to kill, and his subsequent actions in cleaning and changing the appearance of his boat, the case was compelling, he said.
The fact that the “mystery ketch” doesn’t exist in a single photograph undermines the ketch theory in my opinion.