What do we know about him and how does that fit with his guilt or innocence? First of all we know he was reckless to the extreme in burning the old house on the trailers. However, as we know that house was sold and perhaps MacDonald was so thick he didn't realise that the trailers, worth a great deal, would be badly damaged. In context of the murder charge he faces, the burning of the house can't be connected. It can't have been seen as a direct attack on Scott and Kylee Guy because they didn't own the house. The arson may have been unsettling but it would have been so for all living on the farm. Ewen thought the situation was a joke, maybe he is that stupid. The problem with stupidity and intelligence, scheming and conniving in committing a crime is that they easily fit together. For this murder MacDonald has to have been, by the Crown's account so far, deliberate and smart. Busting up the new home of Kylee and Scott wasn't smart, but maybe the effort to portray that their marriage wasn't solid was.
Except that we see MacDonald rather that 'fuel the fire' that might have flamed a possibility of a love 'mismatch' infidelity, a jilted former suitor and so forth, 'dumbly' says that the marriage was good, no problems that he knew. Similarly, when it came to the prospect that drugs were involved, cannabis growing on the farm - another sure false track from MacDonald if he was the killer, he says he didn't know of anything of that nature. You could argue I suppose that the denials of the prospect or support of potential false trails was actually super bright, but I tend to think MacDonald's own confidence that his mate Boe wouldn't sell him down the river for the arson shows that MacDonald is at least naive and probably a bit thick. That's the conflict the Crown must resolve, having first provided something tying MacDonald to the murder in a substantial way.
Of course in the coming week, the announcement is made, as though the trial is indeed a multi-scene drama, that expert evidence will be given on the dive boot footprints. Fair enough, apart from the problem that from various accounts the boots had been thrown out, weren't in the house, that one was still around that a key was kept in and so forth. Anna MacDonald on Friday was no longer sure that the boots had been thrown out whereas in earlier evidence she had been absolute. Make no mistake folks, the other aspect of the revolving witness stand, is that the police will be auto-cuing evidence where they can, having the opportunity to go over the next day's evidence with the witness in advance. None of us should be naive enough to not realise the connection when witnesses change, enhance, or dilute testimony after an adjournment. Auto-cuing was exactly the thing that Anna suggested of MacDonald asking if she recalled the dive boots being thrown out onto a trailer during one of the family shifts. Now that is seen to work 'against' MacDonald but the evidence still remain 'unsure.'
Think now of the 'smart' MacDonald carefully laying his plans. Was he so thick that he didn't know the surface would leave footprints and that therefore he should have worn boots a size or 2 large. So bright on the other hand to be able to transport a shotgun of a bike while also foolish enough to expect Scott would be on time when he was frequently late - a big issue in the differences between the 2 men. I went out on a limb of my belief of the innocence of David Bain and more recently George Gwaze and others mentioned elsewhere in this blog. I'm not there with this case, but I am the point that I don't believe I've seen the evidence so far to convict Ewen MacDonald, of being stupid, naively honest - yes, murder no.
No comments:
Post a Comment