I always admired his stance in the sense he said if he met Watson and Watson convinced him that he didn't do it, Hope would then join the bandwagon of those who claim the justice system got the wrong man and he needed letting out.
So I assume the outcome of the meeting must be a blow to Watson - who, by the way, is up for parole again with a decision due in January. But my understanding is he's in a tricky position given one of the conditions of parole is you need to basically have owned up to the crime.
And given he hasn't, the rules state you can't get let out.
But i have also been asking myself, beyond the Hope aspect of the meeting: what has been the point of all this?
What advantage has there been in terms of tangible change?
Even if Hope had come out and said, "I can't believe it. The man is innocent." Would anything have changed?
People in prison protesting their innocence isn't new.
People supporting people in prison claiming they didn't do it isn't new either.
I think a couple of important things need to be pointed out.
Generally, our justice system works.
And, generally, if something is truly awry, it's picked up. Cases are argued and decisions are made.
In this case it hasn't happened.
This is no David Bain. It has been to the Appeal Court.
It's been to the Privy Council. They turned it down.
So all we are really left with is a bloke who claims he didn't do it and a bunch of people who support him. You need more than that.
Would Gerald Hope have been that circuit breaker? No.
Because justice is not served up based on opinion. It's based on evidence and fact.
A meeting with a dad, no matter what he may or may not think , adds no fact or evidence.
It merely, as I say, hopefully in some sort of way adds closure.
Having been through what Gerald Hope has been through, hopefully it's partially reassuring to him and his family they have the right man.
Mike Hosking hosts the Mike Hosking Breakfast on Newstalk ZB
