When I first blogged about this trial it was out of concern for what I saw was a potential manipulation of the Jury in favour of the Crown. I said it was because of the entry and exit to the Courtroom of Anna and Kylee to give evidence - ostensibly to keep them from needing to walk past Ewen as though he was a present and constant danger even to his own wife. The other aspect was concern that hearing from distressed witnesses a number of times presents the opportunity for the situation to be seen as one where the Crown might be lacking evidence so they rely on emotion. In this case not so subtle. Neither Anna nor Kylee needed to be called back to give evidence about the puppies today, the could have done that earlier. What did happen however was that Kylee, understandably was upset, and cried - very awful for her of course. But what could be the impact on the jury, one of sympathy, something to concentrate on, giving them again the opportunity to consider that the distress was the direct responsibility of the man the 2 women needed to be protected from.
Not only that, the analysis continues of the 'atmosphere' between the witnesses and the defendant with the danger of extending into not a trial relying on evidence but one of sympathy, body language and so forth. To me the possibility of that isn't just. No where near it. From another point of view it assumes the Jury are unable to follow what is really not a complicated case. Having said that, one could argue the Crown are trying to complicate the trial with adornments and emotion. One needs to ask is this from the Crown a concession as to the weakness of their case? In all these are not questions that should be being asked. Concentration should be on the evidence or lack of it.
As I understand it the Crown have no proof of MacDonald doing anything with puppies yet they contend he did something with the puppies to throw police off the track. That bears some close consideration: the police don't know what happened to the puppies so that becomes 'evidence' against MacDonald. No one in the world appears to know what happened to the puppies and therefore that is evidence against MacDonald to go along with no motive, aged, unrelated offending, no eye witness evidence of seeing MacDonald that morning apart from seeing the light go on in his house and him emerging apparently 'fresh' from sleep despite cycling to commit an ambush murder of a person that was not guaranteed to be in the position of ambush at the correct time. All this using a weapon that 'might' be the shotgun of Bryan Guy whose evidence was that it hadn't been touched. But don't overlooked the video that was shut down right when MacDonald strongly denied he was the guilty, when he said he'd come clean about the other, aged, offending but he wasn't the killer.
Great summery. You are right, all they have for evidence is what they don't have, and are using the emotion to find a man guilty of murder. I hope the jury are as on to it as you are.
ReplyDeleteLack of evidence in Watson trial was deemed to be evidence of guilt. This trial is heading the same way but with more emotion and tears being shed to influence the Jury.
ReplyDeleteThe Jury need to be art critics, to judge the picture being painted of sod all.
I've been following the media coverage daily, but from some of the comments here I had to double check I've not been watching the wrong trial! My comment will come across very much as playing the devil's advocate, but take it for what you will.
ReplyDeleteI am largely in agreement that the police haven't been able to produce any forensic evidence specific to the murder that ties it to Ewen.
But I can't agree that there was "no motive". The family meeting in 2008 when points of difference amongst family members / business partners were aired didn't prevent Ewen and Boe from torching the old house that was being moved away so that Kylee and Scott could get their "dream house", which then Ewen and Boe saw fit to damage in February 2009, as Ewen by his own admission was still holding a grudge over differences in working hours, etc. And one year and 5 months later Scott Guy was dead. Might be a coincidence, might not be. But I don't think any objective examination of these various crimes could conclude that the arson and vandalism were "aged", nor "unrelated". I'd imagine Kylee Guy as a victim of all of these crimes would consider them "unrelated".
I also watched the video of the Ewen police interview today but didn't get the impression that the video was shut down "right when MacDonald strongly denied he was the guilty".
I also found the statement that Ewen is "looking increasingly not guilty" to be odd. He is "not guilty" to start with. He can't become "increasingly not guilty", but this is being brought into question at the trial.
Elsewhere it was mentioned that Nikki Guy's comments about Ewen telling someone Scott had been shot had not been corroborated by other witnesses. However testimony by B J Worthington would seem to indicate that this belief was misplaced as well.
I find it odd think that people are able to form such strong opinions without all the testimony even being heard. With various people already having posted their opinions conceived prior to all of the evidence being presented, unfortunately I have to observe that those who initially posted their opinions may have developed an undue attachment to them, which may be difficult to walk away from irrespective of what evidence may yet be to come.
Fair comment. Without checking I think your date as to the meeting from which the differences were addressed was 2010 rather than 2008. I'll check that later, because those dates are important to the immediacy of the 'motive.'
DeleteYour point about Kylee as victim is true, regardless of the dates but the 'shift' from arson to murder is enormous and needs some attendant, and more immediate detonator in my view. In this case either Kylee, Anna or some other witness, recorded that there was an improvement in the relationship after the meeting - that's significant because it goes to the mind of MacDonald at the time and what he might have 'hoped' to have achieved. In reality knowing that the farm was not going to be abruptly 'gifted' to Guy, when after all Ewen and Anna held a 10% share, was very significant I think.
Your interpretation of the ending of the video is different to mine. Overall, I thought the interview had an element of entrapment that hasn't necessarily been dealt with properly - and I used the case of Schollum and Shipton to partly explain why.
The comment 'looking increasingly not guilty' is legitimate if one takes the view that the Crown case is that MacDonald is guilty 'we have proof.' As the trial continues, if that proof is not being provided - it's a observation that starting from the Crown's perspective they're not producing evidence required to sustain their claim therefore making MacDonald look increasingly innocent or not guilty.
The comments about the 'shot' or 'stabbed' have to be placed in perspective because of the shock that morning. In all it's inconclusive at best, without wondering why MacDonald would possibly incriminate himself in that way while at the same time showing shock that nobody has claimed wasn't genuine.
You are right about it being odd that people are showing strong opinions. From my point of view that could be quite normal when the internet is allowing a discussion of opinion, another side of that is that the questions and observations made are healthy when we have had a number of cases gone wrong in recent years, that the public can be aware of some of the controversy in a more immediate way. I think that could heighten the need for transparent justice so others, such as yourself and me, can take a critical interest in the subtext.
Anyway thanks for that. I hope to check out that date later in the day.
Not the meeting but the conference. The following from yahoo today, showing an improved relationship between the men a mere month before the murder.
Delete'The court has previously heard that the men's tensions had eased following the conference, with both planning for the farms future.'
Anonymous June 22, 2012 2:54 AM uses the family arguments as a motive for murder? Many families, especially those involved in family farms etc argue and have bad feeling. It's not an uncommon event, and it doesn't usually lead to murder, but is often characterised by actions of vandalisim and verbal violence between parties.
ReplyDeleteWhat was Macdonald to benefit from by killing Scott? He, as son in law was not going to be given more shares - Scott's shares would always go to Kylie - infact, killing Scott would simply involve Macdonald more with Kylie, who would then become a shareholder, inheriting Scott's share, something he clearly wouldn't want. With Scott gone, Ewen would have to do even more of the work - so there was nothing to benefit there. Macdonald had nothing to gain by killing Scott, and according to prosecution, if he did it had to have been a premeditated carefully timed (almost impossibily timed) event. Why would he, when it was only going to provide him with more hassel, it was obvious the parent's were never goingt to put him in charge.
If you remove the emotion, which of course you are going to get from two young women in the impossible situation they are in, the prosecution has nothing of any substance. There simply wasn't enough time, the police have not answered many questions such as the person who was seen by the neighbours etc. If Ewen Macdonald is convicted on what has been shown so far, it will be a very unsafe conviction and won't survive the appeal process. We will be paying for another trial.
I think a man who can confront his wife with the statement "how could you think I would do that" and later confesses after finding his cohort had admitted they had, shows someone who's very manipulative and knows how to play people.His words intended her to feel guilty for doubting his honesty & integrity. A man who sets in motion a campaign of arson, theft, intimidation against his wifes brothers & sister in-law in my opinion lacks honesty & integrity.Would he have admitted the murder if he'd had an accomplice who had come clean? He'd frequently bad mouth Scott Guy to other workers but his wife had no idea how huge his grudge against her brother was. I would be very wary of contact with someone who shows such calculating behaviour.
ReplyDeleteFair comment. However both men and women employ such language to cover a whole raft of reasons. I think we now know the arson not to have been a direct target against the couple as the old house had already been sold.
DeleteOf course there is no answer to the question of 'if he'd had an accomplice' and so MacDonald won't be judged on that.
In terms of the bad mouthing it had been going on for a while from both 'sides,' however, had dissipated according to witnesses including MacDonald's wife and Scott's wife.
Like you, we all want to see that Justice is seen to be done.
Experience has shown me "how can you think that" is usually used to divert attention from the issue and more often than not it's because the person has indeed done what they're accused of or being questioned about.
DeleteI disagree the arson wasnt directed at the Guys,they had only been paid a deposit and the arson did delay matters for them as well as frighten Kylee Guy which I think he admitted was his intention.The vandalism on the Guys house might be able to be explained away as "fun" by juvenilles but by a 30 something year old man, it doesnt make sense. His actions were cruel & dangerous.
Anna MacDonald said after some of the events Ewen outed of character by buying a gift for Kylee, he started getting involved in the community via his children/school.I didnt think this was a show of remorse but of deviousness, trying to portray himself as a "good guy" so he wouldnt look like he what he was, in fact a quite dangerous man. (some of us would call it covering his tracks :) )
I think my main reason for doubting his innocence is the lengths he went to to try and drive them away from the farm, he appeared to have got away with all those attempts so his confidence would have been building but unfortunately it didnt have the desired effect.They were still there. After the conference in Invercargill Scott Guy was full of enthusiasm for the future of the farm so his involvement rather than lessening would be increasing.That was the last thing Ewen MacDonald wanted. He may have appeared to have come to terms with some of the animosity between him & Scott Guy but he also convinced his wife he had nothing to do with any of the vandalism so I'm skeptical. (He later criticised Scott Guys number of texts to his wife while on the conference,so I think he may have been hiding it well but the resentment was still there)The Guys relationship wasnt his business but it seems he frequently passed judgement on them.
Who else had a motive? Despite all the attempts to make it look like the Guys (mostly Kylee) had terrible enemies who were out to get them, which all turned out to be Ewen MacDonald, there isnt anyone.
I believe Ewen MacDonald worked extremely hard on the farm and maybe Scott Guys interest & work ethic wasnt equal to his but without him pointing out to everyone how lazy Scott was would anyone have thought so? Just wondering.
The bottom line in all this is Kylee Guy has lost her loved husband,their little boys are going to grow up without their doting Dad & the Guy family have lost a son & brother. The only person to be shown with grudges & grievances against Scott Guy is Ewen MacDonald.
If Callum Boe hadnt confessed to their involvement in the vandalism & theft Ewen MacDonald would still be denying any involvement and portaying himself as the grieving hard working brother-in-law.
Well, EM was definitely trying to divert guilt away from himself, of that there is no doubt.
ReplyDeleteI agree the act of arson wasn't a joke. It remains however that the house had been sold, the financial implications fell on the new owner, I don't see that the intention was specific toward Kylee or Scott. It was still idiotic at best.
We don't know exactly what his intentions were when he acted 'out of character,' they may have been genuine or they may not have been.
Your being sceptical is not misplaced, but proof isn't layers of scepticism. I think we would find both families would have seen themselves to have objections to the other's chances of success at their own cost. However, we know from evidence MacDonald was willing to move on, perhaps while even remaining a share holder and still employed on the farm in some way. I could say dramatically say 'why would he murder, take that risk, when he had so many other opportunities to even consider killing his brother-in-law.' The two men had a history of being friends before their individual marriages.
We don't know who else had a motive, that fact alone doesn't weigh against MacDonald. If the police say he is 'the only one' against whom we have found a motive, first of all that motive must be tested, but secondly there can be no concession if that motive fails to hold water or is suspect, there may still be another or others that may have a motive but remain unknown. In essence the Crown use that here, they say MacDonald disposed of the puppies but without showing proof. There were the 'footprints' which time has proven were not what the Crown said they were.
Kylee has lost her husband, and the children their father. We are all terribly sad about that but I don't think we can apportion blame without proof. The 'proof' so far has failed, but you are entitled to your own opinion on that.