No, he isn't. Not if you take into account the ex police officers whose convictions were hidden from the Auckland High Court Jury during the Louise Nicholas trial. Those convictions related to exactly the same type of criminal behaviour for which they were on trial.
In MacDonald's case he, along with an off-sider, killed 2 deer from a neighbour's property in 2006, 4 years before the murder of Scott Guy. In 2008 he burned what has variously been described as a derelict house or a house on a trailer for removal from the Scott farm, 3 years before the murder. In 2009 he, with the same off-sider put graffiti on Guy's home, the year before the murder. It's hard for me to fathom why this evidence was allowed. It appears police deliberately ensured that the events were on the video statement made by MacDonald so that it could be later argued that the entire tape should be played to the Jury to maximise the negative impact of the other events. Overall it's clear that police had 2 options running. The 1st that MacDonald when confronted with Callum Boe (his co-offender in the arson, graffiti) would admit the whole sorry mess, including the murder. If he didn't, the police would still have a different picture of MacDonald in front of the Jury, their second and less preferred option. I happen to think they failed, not so much with the prejudicial impact, but by the response of MacDonald to the allegation of murder. He was firm on that, responding to a police request to fess up, saying that 'it' (admitting to a murder he didn't do) 'wouldn't be the right thing to do.' That strong statement appearing to prompt the police to halt the interview.
Take a look at it. Callum Boe (although he may still do so yet) would have been under immense pressure and inducement from the police to implicate MacDonald in the murder, was probably accused of being an accessory and sweetened with the idea that a little 'inexplicit' statement configuring blame against MacDonald could be worth Boe being looked after, maybe not charged with the other crimes, potentially money, immunity, the list goes on - but, so far - nothing. Nothing to take this floundering case any further. A lot of people didn't like the fact Schollum and Shipton's previous offending of the same type was kept from the Nicholas jury, I wonder what the same people think of this farmer having a yoke put around his neck for which a jury will be asked to 'put from their minds' crime's, some petty, of a dissimilar nature to that for which he is tried.
It will be interesting if Callum Boe is called to give evidence, if he's not called by the Crown that will reflect poorly on their case in my opinion. One thing for sure is that the farmer is getting no apparent favours by having the jury hear of the graffiti etc when we now know that by 2010 things had improved between Scott and Ewen - thanks largely to Bryan Guy making it clear there would no inheritance of the farm and that the men should work together knowing that the value of their 10% share each of the farm could increase and they would have the opportunity to buy more. On the subject of work, MacDonald was a very hard worker, apparently not at all flash but down to earth and determined. Farmers aren't angels, and nobody said Ewen is one but he's looking increasingly not guilty to me.
Well said. Ewen did some stupid things several years ago, at a time when there was animosity between Guy and himself. However since then the relationship seemed to have improved, and concerns Ewen had about Scott inheriting the farm and pulling his weight in the business had been adressed and resolved. So I accept that Ewen did those things years ago and (even though it's no reason to have committed those crimes) I understand what his motive was.
ReplyDeleteBut Scott's murder took place several years later, when the issues cited as 'motive' had been lain to rest. So we have an abatement of the motive and a massive escalation in the nature of the crime. That doesn't seem to follow!
What we are being presented with are some old crimes and the historical motives Ewen had at the time. The prosecution have not even attempted to make a link between then and now. Their case seems to be 'he did that back then so he must be guilty now'. It's an argument that falls so short of the mark that I'm amazed the judge has allowd it to proceed. Their actions in showing the videotape yesterday and today I think are clearly prejudicial. Nothing of any value has come out of it.
Nikki Guy 'overheard' Ewen correct two people and say that Scott had been shot. Where are they? Why haven't they appeared in court to give evidence directly? We know all the people who were present at the cordon that day - it must have been one of them? Where is Callum Boe - what does he have to say about all this?
Why hasn't Jo Guy been charged - by her own admission on the morning of the murder she said to Ewen 'whats happened has he been shot'. How could she have known that? I could go on...!
Almost two weeks into the trial, and as far as I can see not even one peice of evidence that the defence has even had to work hard to demolish. Unless the prosecution are going to pull a rabbit out of a hat in the next two weeks then there can only be one outcome. But I'm beginning to suspect the police or the prosecution have a hat or a rabbit between them.
It's shambles. Any rank amateur can see that (at this stage anyhow) there just isn't a case. I too am coming to the conclusion that on the balance of probability it wasn't Mcdonald who pulled the trigger. But someone did. And yet again while a farce of a trial proceeds the perpetrator is out there and the trail of evidence is fast going cold.
As it is a criminal trial (as opposed to a civil case) you need more than "on the balance of probabilities" you need "beyond reasonable doubt". I agree that based on the evidence to date, it is very unlikely that all members of the jury will come to this conclusion.
DeleteBalance of probabilities is a lower standard isn't it? Perhaps Chris was suggesting the evidence didn't even breach that test.
DeleteIt seems to me the prosecution are just hoping that motive is enough for a conviction. If it isn't, then rather than look for the real perpetrator they will do what they have done in previous cases like this one. They will forever say "we charged the right man, he just got away with it" "We know he did it, we just couldn't make it stick".
ReplyDeleteWe have seen this with A A Thomas & David Bain. Even in the Farmer case they never bothered to investigate further after he was pardoned and compensated.
I can see why the police think Ewen did it after watching the interviews, but their hunches have been wrong before; and so much of the supposed 'evidence' is not in fact evidence at all, it's merely suspicion. And the trouble is that almost any one of us in such circumstances could have things we say or things in our past framed so that they look suspicious.
ReplyDeleteNikki Guy said she overheard Ewen correct people and say Scott had been shot. But the person corrected (Berry) couldn't remember who had said this, and said it wasn't Ewen, it was a female voice, a friend of Kylee Guy's. The Police must have known this so it seems a bit unfair to present Nikki's evidence unqualified by this. Memory is notoriously corruptible by later information.
A forensic scientist should be able to determine the weight of the person who made the footprints - has this been done? And the fact that Ewen once owned such boots is not enough to say that he still did, and that he left the prints, without further proof.
And then there is the puppies. Ewen was the one who fed them, and that seems consistent with his role on the farm - the hard worker, the one who kept things going. That is not suspicious in itself. He found some missing and told the police and was 'animated' by the find. Well, yes, he would be. If any of the others had found the puppies missing they would have been 'animated' too. No reason for suspicion there either.
This is about much more than whether Ewen MacDonald killed Scott Guy. It's about whether the Police need to start operating in a different way, on something more than suspicions and hunches.
The cigarette butt on the driveway - was that collected? DNA tested? The sack on the driveway - had the puppies been in that sack? Was that possible? Was it tested for? Did Scott perhaps disturb someone stealing some puppies and get shot for his pains?
'The Police must have known this so it seems a bit unfair to present Nikki's evidence unqualified..'
DeleteIt's the Prosecution presenting it in this way. I don't like it because it becomes a headline and then a fact. There have been too many in this case already. The 'motive' has lost it's way, as has what Nikki claim. There's no suggestion that she isn't being truthful, it's the accuracy in question given rise by other witness accounts. It may have been fair to say that 'Nikki Guy recalls Ewen saying that Guy had been shot' but even that would be marginal.
Having MacDonald commenting on supposition by his father shouldn't have been allowed as evidence to my belief. What son is going to disagree with his father necessarily, however it was speculation by his father nothing more - just like saying 'the weather shouldn't be too bad tomorrow.' Guesswork.
I don't know about butt or the sack. But a sack to carry puppies makes sense.
I find the whole 'mcDonald said Guy had been shot, how could he have known?' argument a bit odd. By implication, if McDonald had been correcting people by saying 'no he was stabbed' would that have made him innocent?
DeleteI think in this case we would have heard the police claim that MacDonald 'knew' that Guy had been shot but he claimed he been stabbed to put them off the trail. Something like puppies, the police don't know what happened to them therefore MacDonald did something with them.
DeleteCircumstantial evidence is evidence. McDonald lies about many crimes one which is extremely serious, arson that lands you in prison. He disposed of evidence over the hula falls, how can anyone believe a word he says. Why did Callum Boe assist him? Was there something to this relationship?
ReplyDeleteThe information about the police officers convictions in the Louise Nicholas trial didn't come out until after the jury reached a verdict. How do you know there isn't evidence being hidden from this jury as well?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. But what we all know is, that unlike the Shipton Schollum trial, evidence very detrimental to this defendant was aired before the Jury.
DeleteI agree the police did not build a very good case, but that does not mean that Ewen Mcdonald is innocent. I suggest you look up the characteristics of a sociopath. Even then not all sociopaths are capable of murder. Historical crimes are important in understanding the accused, regardless of the nature of those crimes. To say that the recent history of an amicable relationship between Scott and Ewen is significant, can be argued against. How can you possible know that it was genuine on Ewen's side. If you were planning to murder a close family member and did not want to be implicated, you would want to act in a way that was positive towards that person. Hopefully the TRUTH will someday be revealed. Then everyone will now that Ewen McDonald killed Scott Guy. Whether he arranged the murder or shot him himself, he is guilty.
ReplyDeleteI can say that it was genuine on the basis that there is no reason to suspect that it was not. Evidence implicating him in the murder was needed before suspecting whether he was genuine in his relationship with Scott. On the other hand he may not have been totally genuine, however that alone doesn't overcome the lack of evidence. As to your final sentiment he has been found not guilty, not because of evidence or lack of evidence as to his character but on the absence of proof that he killed Scott.
ReplyDelete