Exactly.
So we
have:
Means:
1)
‘Similar’ ammunition but of a
common type – very tenuous link, doesn’t rule out.
2)
A shotgun was used and
shotguns available – very tenuous link, doesn’t rule out.
Motive
1)
Past history: lying and
vandalism and arson and poaching, antipathy between the men – quite compelling
reason for suspecting him.
2)
No history of violence or
threats – nothing of value either way.
3)
Recent statement that someone
would have to go manage another farm or go sharemilking. Ewen did most of the
work on the farm, plus wife and four kids – more settled; plus had worked the
farm longer; so he would be the logical one to keep. But Scott was the son. –
possible motive but weak.
Opportunity
4)
Timing is very tricky.
Possible but very close. Light seen going on at house at regular alarm
time & Ewen coming out shortly after – no reason to suspect this as anything
other than it appears to be.
5)
Nothing to tie Ewen to the
murder. No witnesses, no certain id other than footprints. Nothing else out of
the ordinary until Scott found.
Evidence
6)
Ewen owned (in the past) dive
boots which had similar soles to the prints but not the same, of a possibly
similar size. Nothing to show he still owned them, no certainty of size, no
certainty of prints being made by dive boots – very tenuous link, doesn’t rule
out.
7)
Puppies – gone missing is all:
unaccounted for – doesn’t mean anything.
8)
Cigarette packet: matches
those stolen previous night, limited edition. unaccounted
for.
9)
Smelly stranger looking for
Scott previous night. Unaccounted for.
10)
Strange car in river –
unaccounted for.
11)
7 recent burglaries involving
theft of guns and ammo – police say not related.
12)
Marijuana crop destroyed by
Scott – police say not related.
Have I missed anything? How on
earth did this get to court?
Could be over by the weekend. Whatever happens, there are lives irreparably ruined and there will always be those who think he’s guilty.
ReplyDeleteI echo this question: How did this get to court?
Perhaps 2 reasons no independent audit of the file prior to prosecution, particularly in a case relying on mainly circumstantial evidence. The 2nd being the unhelpful pressure on Police to make arrests. A high proportion of crimes are solved however some won't be, the public need to accept that - otherwise there are cases (as this one could be) where elements other than evidence crept in, and, sometimes as we've seen, also evidence that is suspected as being manufactured.
DeleteI have a different idea about 'why', having read the report of the Crown closing. Vanderkolk told the jury "don't be scared to find him guilty"; and don't be "drawn into a discussion about all the individual facts, but rather the larger picture." In this he is tacitly acknowledging that the evidence doesn't stack up, but telling them to bring a guilty verdict anyway.
DeleteIn other words, just trust the picture the police have painted, and don't think too hard about whether the evidence used to paint that picture is valid and reliable. This is exactly like the Bain case. And a lot of others. Before the Bain retrial, The Police Association published a piece saying, in effect, that it didn't matter what the outcome of the trial was but the importance was that the public should know the picture the police had painted.
If these reflect the Police/crown attitude (as surely they must!), this is *seriously* dangerous to society. It means that the prosecutors (ie the police and those prosecuting the cases) are setting themselves up as quasi-vigilantes: that they believe they have some special insight or sixth sense that allows them to determine guilt without strong evidence as long as they can construct a cohesive 'story'. This attitude inevitably leads to neglect and arrogance - neglect of the painstaking diligence in collecting and testing evidence, verifying information and so-on; and an essential arrogance that they 'know' the 'truth' and that if a jury doesn't find the accused guilty it's a duff jury or corrupt/wily/immoral/self-serving defence. The whole thing is a house of cards...
And it explains why you get people convinced of guilt of people who are acquitted - look at the number of people who maintain AAT and Bain etc are guilty. You read the Counterspinner's superficial reasoning, and the coverage of people like Van Beynen, and they have all bought into this mythology: they imbue the police with some sort of mystical superior understanding and they go along with the 'big picture' painted by the prosecution and discount the fact that the elements of that big picture are flaky and unsupportable.
These are not just miscarriages of justice; this is surrogate justice, artificial justice with police as inseminators and prosecutors as midwives, producing mewling unhealthy offspring that people can coo over and ignore the fact that our future is being rendered unsafe.
So a genuinely independent audit body (one with autonomy) could only do good - if enough cases of this nature were rejected as not meeting adequate standards, the arrogance would be undermined, and the police would be forced to become more diligent. More diligence would lead to better evidence and, one would hope, fewer wrong convictions and more identification of the correct perpetrators.
Remember David Bain's trial? Most people thought he must've been guilty because he looked a bit dorky, was in a choir, wore über dorky hand knitted jersey, was an adult paperboy and had an odd family situation. It almost made convicting him too easy. Compare that to Ewen MacDonald, well dressed, from good family, married into good farming stock, worked hard, good husband and Dad, no known weird behaviour to date... But then suddenly he is thrust into this murder charge and all his nasty past gets aired, as does his wife's family's financial situation. Why would anyone be rooting for Ewen? Is it just because the Crown's physical evidence is a bit weak, or because Ewen seemed like a pretty decent bloke who got fired up about some unjust arrangements and mostly repressed it from his wife and her family, supposedly out of respect for her and them, which lead him to express it in a completely inappropriate way via vandalism etc. Would a man who has worked his whole life to build up a life within this family and farm just blow it all away one day because he didn't want a waterpark or to share a salary with his brother in law? They were both earning $100k, that's seriously good coin for Feilding where houses are cheap and u live on a farm with probably cheap expenses and a shareholding to boot.
ReplyDeleteYes he committed nasty, stupid acts, but does everyone who commits nasty acts against their partners, family, friends, colleagues, business associates etc suddenly escalate to the level of pre-meditated killer?
No, I don't think he would have blown it all in such a reckless way as alleged. He was looking further afield and had the confidence of being a top farmer, perhaps on another farm that may have been struggling less with finances.
DeleteWhat bothers me is the prospect that the police convinced the family of his guilt by saying they'd matched the footprints to his shoe - when that was either a deliberate lie or completely wrong and poorly examined by the expert.
It won't be over by the weekend. If Ewen Macdonald is found guilty it will only be the end of the beginning. It will be a very unsafe conviction that can be challenged on many levels. Sad for the family, and sad for all New Zealanders, but anything short of a not guilty verdict is going to result in yet another raft of legal actions to clear a 'stupid and immature', but innocent man.
ReplyDeleteThat is by far the saddest prospect, a destructive fightback from an unsafe verdict.
Delete