It never made sense. There's no reason for the killer to have worn soft soled shoes for stealth, because if it is as said an ambush, the shotgun provided the means for the killer not to have to silently approached Scott - he merely could have fired upon him from a distance. The other aspect is the grass, walking on grass in any type of footwear can be silent. Also as I've read elsewhere the dive boots would be extremely hard on the feet if walking on a metal road as was the farm road, road metal anyway is noisy underfoot whatever the type of shoes. Of course the hunting companion of MacDonald said he never wore his stalking because they were awkward and caused him to fall over.
For all we know somebody may have arranged to meet Scott that morning, for early risers meeting someone early is not extraordinary. The killer could merely have stood waiting with the shotgun tucked to one side. Scott wouldn't have suspected anything one could presume, other that it was someone known to him. The fact he took shot to the arm raised in protection shows that he knew at some point the shotgun was levelled at him. The gate may not have been closed until the killer left the property. It didn't have to be a burglary gone wrong, it may have been a deliberate 'settling' of scores. Because we now know the killer wasn't wearing a pro line dive boot size 9, it may have been a sand shoe type with a soft sole and the correct number of sole waves as I saw in the photos sent to me.
Prosecution witnesses - "there were three consecutive shots 'bang bang bang'. But the farm gun wasn't an automatic. It that was used the best that could have been achieved would be "bang bang" 10 second break (at the least) then another bang.
ReplyDeleteIt also seems it was Scott who was annoyed because he thought he should inherit the farm, and was not happy that he would only get an equal share.
Why didn't the Prosecution or the defence address the tyre prints found at the scene?
I guess we'll have time to learn those things at the retrial - presuming the jury will be stupid enough to buy into the Crown's sob story.
There's debate about the number of shots I understand. All the defence need to show is that 3 shots couldn't be made so quickly with a over/under shotgun in support of the evidence that says there were 3. It's for the Crown to prove otherwise and it doesn't look like they have.
DeleteGreg King is saying Scott was annoyed not to be inheriting the farm and that is a legitimate proposition.
As for the tyre prints the Crown needed to eliminate them, as I'm sure they tried. Although initially they would have treated them as coming from the likely killer's vehicle. The defence, as is their right, need only point out that the Crown doesn't have an answer for the tyre prints nor does it have bicycle prints - to prove, what no witness saw, that the killer rode a bicycle.
Scenario: Burglar, wearing size 10/11 dive boots because they are quiet footwear. They park their car at the top of the drive and walk down to the house (tyre marks found but not investigated by police), which is why they needed the dive boots. Scott comes up the drive and disturbs them (normally he would have been gone by this time, but he was running late). BANG BANG BANG - using his automatic shotgun, the burglar shoots three times, then drives off. The burgler's stationwagon is seen by the other farm worker, and reported, but police ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit their suspect.
ReplyDeleteThe only people that should be locked up is our increasingly incompetent police force.
I don't necessarily go for the burglar scenario. The house was occupied. Burglars don't carry shotguns generally - it's too difficult for the their task. Similarly, there was no need to shoot Guy, they, or he, merely needed to give an explanation or flee. That is why a shotgun complicates a situation that otherwise might be explained away.
DeleteHowever, there were burglaries in the area, and any burglar could have been a psycho p freak. None of which overcomes evidence that EM was on his farm when the shooting took place.
At this time I don't blame the police, apart from the fact I see the arrest of EM as premature. The file needed to be audited by some one at least semi-independent of the inquiry. The Police should have put the brakes on when EM didn't do as they suspected, confess. However, they charged ahead and whether EM is convicted or not there is a dearth of evidence against him, in fact more supporting his innocence.
I said that burglars don't generally carry shotguns. However, the burglar of the police suspect list, was known to have access to firearms. He was out the morning of killing and was involved in the burglary in which the cigarettes were stolen of the same type as the packet found on the driveway. He was a man with a vehicle and also a p habit, along with his wife - who said he came home at 4am but couldn't be sure. The suspects car is the same one that Scott Guy rang 111 to report the suspect's car near the Oroua river boundary of the family farm. More evidence against this guy in a few minutes of the summing up than in the whole 5 week long Crown case against EM.
DeleteNot to forget that the tyre marks at the death scene along with a shoe print that casts were never taken from - hard evidence seemingly ignored, along with no checks on the farm shotguns till the next year.
Really? Where did you hear all that about the burglar having the same car as the one Scott called about? Was it near the river or in the river? So was it still being driven around?
ReplyDeleteIs it the same car as Matthew Ireland saw the morning of shooting?
And is that burglar the same man that turned up to Scott's old house looking for him?
Wonder if any of those eye-witness events have been investigated as being linked?
Do the tyre marks match that burglar's car? (Although very high chance they would use a stolen vehicle to commit that sort of crime).
Would the burglar have access to semi-automatic gun?
Does that burglar have dive boots or does he have any accomplices with them?
Is the burglar's DNA on the cigarette packet? What size are his feet?
Does he have Winchester ammo? Did he have dog DNA in his car?
All very curious...
Greg King described the car as a 'shitter.' It was near the river when reported by Scott Guy. It may have been the same car as that which Mathew Ireland saw.
DeleteIn Greg King's summary to the Jury he said that the tyre prints had not be kept. This particular burglar did have access to a firearm - again see King's summing up in the Taranaki paper.
I don't have the answers to the rest of your questions.
Some answers from the media coverage:
DeleteThe burglar being the owner of the Sedan was reported in the Manawatu standard in their coverage of the defence summing up. It's *similar* to the car Matthew Ireland saw, but no one knows if it's the *same*; nor does anyone know if it's the same person who turned up looking for Scott as these two things haven't been identified.
The police don't seem to have investigated the tyre marks to rule out that car or in any other way.
Recent local burglaries had involved the theft of 7 shotguns (including semi-automatics) and 800 rounds of ammunition.
It is unknown whether the burglar had shoes that matched the imprints found (not necessarily dive boots) but that doesn't seem to have been investigated. There *were* accomplices to the burglaries.
The cigarette packet doesn't have appear to have been DNA tested (or tested in any other way) because, the cops said, it looked 'old'. But it was the same limited edition pack as were stolen.
The burglar was not followed up, said the police, because his partner, also out of her head on P, said he was with her at the time, so the cops considered him ruled out as a suspect.
Yes. Manawatu Standard reported that. I think the burglar's wife said he arrived home at 4am, but wasn't sure.
DeleteThe accomplices might have provided evidence in 'support' of the burglar - but if that was the case I would have assumed the police would have called them to give evidence, along with the burglar. Perhaps the police weren't too confident in that particular bunch of crooks.
Simon Asplin. Greg King used him as an example of how easy it is to build a persuasive 'story' on circumstantial evidence alone. His foot size fits the boot prints; he had a very long history of antipathy towards Scott Guy and attempts to 'split' guy and MacDonald; he acted strangely that morning; he was at work earlier than usual; he drove a saloon... Greg King said he was not accusing Simon; that wasn't his role.
ReplyDeleteBut there are at least two 'stories' in this case as persuasive as that constructed by the Police about MacDonald: Asplin and the p-high burglar. Sure, MacDonald did the arson and vandalism. But did he murder? There is NO evidence, NONE, that he did. He may have done. So may Asplin, of the burglar, or someone else. There is something badly wrong with our justice system that this made it to court; and if this gets a conviction we will have watched a miscarriage of justice.
But...grounds for appeal will be difficult. There is no process for appealing a jury decision: only evidence and process. This is a major gap in our system.
I have heard of Jury decisions being appealed as against the weight of evidence, but generally it might be the summing up, or maybe issues to do with the Trial.
DeleteGood to see the same old, doing the usual on the TM MB. http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=1062224&topic=7
ReplyDelete