We've heard that MacDonald keeps his head down, that his wife and sister-in-law enter and depart the Court through a different door in order not to walk past MacDonald.
On page 1 of today's Herald Andrew Koubaridis reports 'that it was clear to some who worked on the Guy farm that something wasn't right between Scott Guy and Ewen MacDonald.' I guess we are to presume this is news or new evidence despite at the opening of the Crown case a 'motive' was presented that MacDonald took his brothers-in-law's life in order to get hold of the farm. Since then we've heard there might have been some jealousy between the pair and that their relationship was hot and cold. Additionally, we know that MacDonald revealed what most people know that a shogun shot is not traceable, that he believed whoever shot Scott Guy should get the death sentence. Other headline pieces have said that the men were competitive.
Of course, a reporter trying to write a headline needs to put his or her head in the sand at some time and make something out of nothing. So far, there has been a lot made out of nothing. Many people are competitive, either in family, work, or sports situations. Brothers-in-law may not necessarily get on all the time, they don't necessarily like one another because after it all it was their partners they were attracted to, not their partner's siblings. Similarly, there would hardly be an adult alive in NZ that hasn't had some experience or heard of 'family troubles' over estates, inheritances, and so forth - in fact, unfortunately, it's pretty much par for the course in many families. For that reason this case so far, in week 2, hasn't really 'got going' against Ewen MacDonald despite the news bites and headlines. If anything he might now be regarded as a hard worker, an excellent farmer, a good workmate, and so on, not the makings of a man driven by greed or jealous rage.
I was interested in his demeanor following the discovery of Scott's body, by all reports he was shocked, crying on occasion, to this point no suggestion that he was 'acting' out a role. Consider Len Demler advising neighbours that there were better things for them to be doing than looking for the bodies of his slain daughter and son-in-law, off-hand, detached. There are seldom murders for gain of the type the Crown suggests here in NZ, even less so where the 'advantage' is not readily apparent by direct evidence against a suspect. To date from reports that I've read, Greg King, MacDonald's lawyer, has either blunted suggestions of 'circumstantial motive' or indeed seen them delivered by way of cross-examination to being negated.. King said it was a 'who dunnit,' clichéd language it seemed at the time, but as things process appearing more and more accurate while reporters continue to try and make something from nothing. It's an interesting case to this point, horrible for those concerned of course, but generally, abroad I think is the idea that people don't know if MacDonald is guilty and are waiting for that evidence to make it clear before forming the opinions we are all entitled to have of public trials.
Instead, we are seeing a type of parade, almost theatre, connived by interpretation of looks, which doors witnesses use, eye contact, and lack of eye contact. Will it take a month for us to see revealed how it was that MacDonald 'allegedly' knew that his brother-in-law had been shot, or to have his actions explained in attempting to frighten his sister-in-law, and stealing stock? Because to this point hearing that if one, of the two men, got a tattoo or a new car, the other did is not scratching the surface of guilt. No violence, no violent arguments, threats of violence, a 'may be the shotgun' used is not the substance of good reporting - but far more importantly and observation of the openness of Justice seeing to be done in a democracy. Perhaps there are 'accomplices' to come and spill the beans for no 'apparent gain.'
What evidence did the police have that made them arrest Ewan Macdonald?
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I've been thinking. I keep waiting to here some evidence. Any evidence. Surely, it can't have gone all the way to trial without any actual evidence can it? Hey, I don't know if the guy did it or not, but you'd think the cops would have something a bit better than "oh, they were competitive", "sometimes they argued" etc. Even this whole thing about whether he knew scott had been shot or not. They are billing it like it is somehow proof he did it if they can say he knew before others. It could be that the guy is just a very experienced hunter and he's shot enough animals in his time to recognize a gun shot wound in the neck. Not something everyone would recognize - but an experienced hunter maybe would.
ReplyDeleteEwen's mother-in-law has given evidence that she 'thinks' she heard him say that Scott had been shot. This in contrast with other evidence, and very understandable taking into account that morning. Most significantly is whether Ewen, by all accounts an excellent farmer and farm manger, would have been compelled to repeat information incriminating to him after what is described as a carefully planned murder - I don't think so.
DeleteIt was put to a number of witnesses that Ewen told them Scott had been shot. All but two of them said, in evidence, that they didn't hear that from Ewen, but from other people. Nikki Guy said she heard Ewen tell people that Scott was shot, but we haven't heard evidence from any of those people. Jo Guy (Scott's mum) initially stated in court that Ewen told her that Scott had been shot. It was pointed out that in her initial statement to the police she said that she asked Ewen if Scott had been shot, and that Ewen replied "I don't know, I don't know, I think so". Under cross examination she agreed that this was in fact the correct version of events.
DeleteSo we have one witness (Nikki) who overheard Ewen say to someone else that Scott was shot. However the prosecution has not produced one person who claims that Ewen said this to them directly. In fact the witnesses have spoken of other people who were present at the scene telling them that Scott had been shot. So in reality a number of people (possibly including Ewen) were talking about Scott having been shot.
Given that is the case, can the prosecution reliably claim that Ewen had information that no one at the time was aware of? I don't think so.
Isn't it weird that Anna testified (according to the Herald) "She was at home getting herself and four children ready for the day when her sister, Nikki Guy, banged on the door.
DeleteShe came inside saying, "It's Scott, It's Scott, he's dead, he's been shot."
"She was pretty spaced out ... [She just said] Scott had been shot and didn't go into anything else.
Within minutes, Ewen Macdonald came "jogging" into the washhouse.
"He was really pale and shaking and had been crying."
He asked her if she was okay.
"I asked what was going on. I thought someone must have got it wrong.""
So the morning of the murder, Nikki was saying Scott was shot (and Ewen wasn't present at that point). So why is she trying to say everyone thought his throat was cut, when Nikki herself said he was shot directly after being at the scene??
I suppose she could have been repeating what she claimed Ewen said at the murder scene behind the cordon. But equally Ewen said in his statement to the Police that he was only 'certain' the day following the shooting that Scott Guy had been shot. We probably need to accept there were people in shock that morning, and things that were later suggested to them or they heard became their memory of particular events.
DeleteHowever, Anna's description of Ewen is consistent with the witness who saw him turn the light on and leave his house that morning and said he looked like he'd just woken. Also consistent with the casual atmosphere between the men over Scott being late for work. Contrast that with 'really pale and shaking and had been crying.' I don't think Ewen possesses the required character, or lack of humanity, to have been able to appear on the one hand as 'having just got up' a short time after killings his brother-in-law, while soon after not appearing panicked, sweating or distracted. I can't see it, not of a man whose wife said that at the time they were in a very good or perfect place. Also he had nothing to gain. The Crown are unsuccessfully, imo, arguing he had something to lose - in fact we see he had nothing to gain but a lot to lose.
This trial is all to familiar. Same tactics by the crown, find a box, put someone in it, and fill it with any little piece that might help make a good story into a guilty verdict.
ReplyDeleteBy all accounts from what I've hear about Guy he tended to be an obnoxious prat who took great delight in getting up the noses of his sister and brother-in-law and anyone else who he considered to be inferior to him. He could be a nice guy, but could also be a right 'A-hole'. Of course he didn't deserve to die, but so far, there has been no evidence sufficient to convict anyone. Either way, Macdonald's life is ruined - I sense another flakey verdict and more tax payer expense due to a shoddy investigation. (Why wasn't the farm shotgun seized that day, and why did the old man lie - his son had just been killed, surely that supercedes any bad feeling people might have felt because he didn't keep his gun locked away. You can't tell if the shotgun was the weapon, but you can tell if it was recently fired. Something is not right?
Sure, there was tension between the two. Fundamentally it seems one was a hard worker and the other expected indulgences and maybe money to grow on trees - nothing in that of any sinister moment.
DeleteI didn't know about the 'recent firing' situation. I don't know that the farm shotgun wasn't seized that day, I assumed it was?
I'm concerned about the belated admission by the father about where the shotgun was after Ewen McDonald's arrest, such things are always a worry because invariably in all cases it 'just happens' to be of benefit to the prosecution. That poor family.
From what I can glean the police weren't aware of the gun until after Macdonald was arrested. It then occurred to Bryan Guy that the fact there was a gun behind a cabinet in the farm office might be of relevance! Having said that, he said in evidence that no one was aware the gun was in the office and it was hidden from view, and that on the day of the shooting when he locked it away it had not been disturbed.
DeleteGiven it was months between the shooting and the existence of the gun coming to light, combined with the absence of the spent cartridges, I'm guessing there would be little forensic evidence available. There has been talk of amunition lying around on the farm. Shot pellets would have been recovered from Scott's body (and possibly traces of sulphites and other chemicals if he was shot at very close range) and it would not be difficult to identify if they match the ammunition at the farm. Given this wasn't mentioned in the prosecution's opening, I'd guess they were not able to demonstrate a match. (I can't beleive that the forensic analysis wasn't done, but in this case who knows!).
Just checked that, the police were aware on the day of the murder about Bryan Guy's shotgun. He told them it was securely locked away when in fact it was in the farm office according to him in pieces. He later secured it. So by that it seems the police didn't routinely collect all the firearms that may have been among the family in short order. In fact it seems they didn't check Bryan Guy's shotgun for some time, even that Bryan Guy admitted he 'lied' about where the shotgun was that morning only after Ewen's arrest, par for the course with such things, it is detrimental to Ewen and not to the Crown.
DeleteAll of this indicates that a protocol of determining whether the shooting was domestic related or not was overlooked. Not only that, all which is now 'suspicious' wasn't held to be suspicious by the police at the outset - so much so that they didn't routinely seize all firearms on the farm and probably didn't search workers homes and so on for firearms. Very, very odd.
It's become apparent that there is a problem between Nikki and Ewen of some sort. All the other family witnesses have been fairly conservative in their language yet she is adamant of something no other witness is: that Ewen said that Guy was shot. She has also dramatised the fact that there was only room for one of them on the farm, evidence at odds with her parents who held an entirely different view. One could suspect she's been influenced against him or might have very negative feelings toward him, without knowing if he is guilty or not.
I have been following the trial as closely as one can via the media (accounts on different websites seem to differ...?!) but I haven't seen one shred of evidence to support any part of the Crown's case.
ReplyDeleteIf anything the picture being painted is of Macdonald being the more mature, capable individual and Scott Guy being only half committed to life and work on the farm. Scott may have thought he should inherit the farm but his parents had made it clear that this wasn't going to happen, and there were plans in place to increase both Scott and Ewen's share in the farm from 10 to 20%. So the suggestion that 'Ewen thought Scott would inherit the farm' would seem to be pure fiction.
From the testimonies we have heard so far, I can understand why Ewen felt that Guy was not pulling his weight and felt some animosity towards him. But it is a huge leap to go from there, to suggesting that Ewen put a gun to his throat and shot him.
I am amazed that the shotgun is even admissable in court - they are not even suggesting there is any evidence linking him to that gun. Why not produce and parade every shotgun in the Manawatu? Bryan Guy said in evidence that Macdonald didn't know the gun was hidden in the office, and when he checked it on the day of the murder it was undisturbed. So we can be fairly confident it wasn't the murder weapon.
The'rivalry' seems to have been nothing more than pretty standard stuff that one might see between business partners and in-laws. The family squabbles are no worse than those between many family members. Spraying obscenities on an empty house is one thing, but it's a big leap to get from there to murder, and there seems to be no suggestion of any history of violence towards any individual by Mcdonald.
The timings look questionable too. If Mcdonald shot Scott sometime between 4.41am (when Scott closed down his computer) and 5.03am (when he unset the alarm at the farm), he had to get back home, dispose of the murder weapon and the spent casings, go back in to his house, turn a light on at his usual wake up time of 4.50am all right under the nose of Matthew Ireland who was parked at the farm waiting for work.
Very interesting comments Chris.
DeleteYes, I don't like the shotgun used as a type of 'potential' piece of evidence, seeing it broken down and re-assembled by Scott's brother is nothing but prejudicial theatre.
I read that about the farm shares, and clearly as you say there seems no basis to say 'Scott would inherit the farm' as there were shares already distributed and others anticipated to be distributed. Mrs Guy was quite clear on that.
Human's by nature are rivals in much they undertake, the way this is being repeated speaks less loudly of motive but more of lack of motive - that's not withstanding the share situation which makes a lie of the 'inheriting' the farm. It's rather odd that Scott would be upset about his sister's family moving into the old house when he had a new house himself.
Not only did Ewen need to achieve all those things in perfect timing - he also had to appear as though he'd just woken up. No man having committed murder would be capable of that I suspect, or joking about Scott being late. It's preposterous that one of the others should suggest leaving the milking shed to wake Scott when they were already a man short. Those parts of the morning are not working for me, along with the lack of substantial evidence I'm concerned this trial is another destruction on those poor families.
I am glad I'm not alone.... I cannot believe how everyone I talk to is so quick to accuse him guilty. Yes he did some dumb things but I can imagine as the non blood family member it would be infuriating to put up with and you'd feel like you could hardly say anything much about it. I think if it were Ewen shot dead we'd see Scott on trial...because they didn't get along well. Scott's wife I'm sure is struggling but I wonder if it were her husband on trial just how quick to blame she'd be.
ReplyDeleteIt is Anna who I feel for the most and the couples children . What a disaster and I hope she has some great supportive friends. Don't get me wrong I feel terrible for Kylie too.
So do I think he's guilty of the murder... Absolutely not! Show me some evidence. I think I would be looking for the unsavory character in a mystery car that Scott Guy had called 111 about. I praise the police for what they manage to find, but it seems because they cannot track that person down they just go back to pointing the finger at the last person who argued with Scott. I think the police perhaps know more than they are letting on to the public thus far and perhaps they are looking at some others.
I think the silly things he did to annoy and scare Scott and Kylie were indeed stupid, I'm sure he feels total embarrassment at being exposed as the culprit, but this was obviously how he vented that day. To judge the way he stands,looks etc.... I admit I was trying to get a feeling from that too until I thought about it a bit more.... This guy is living a nightmare, he is at the mercy of others no matter if he did it or not. He would be used to a structured farm routine, a loving wife and children, a comfortable bed, roast dinner, the outdoors..... Now he's been locked up for a couple years, probably seen some terrible things, who knows what he has endured in prison, he must miss his children painfully and the love of his wife will be killing the man. So if it were you.... How would you act? Without the physical work and outdoors I think it would have to be expected that he seems a bit different.
I hope true justice comes of this and we don't see a man behind bars who is not guilty, with a perfectly good marriage ruined because there wasn't anybody else they could think of to blame. I can't see how it could have been him, I hope the family will be forgiving to him over the petty things when this is all over.
I too was thinking that there seems to be a distinct lack of evidence. But alot of circumstantial stuff. One has to ask, what kind of person steals, shoots and buries 2 prize deer. What was the motivation? Was that also to scare the sister in law or was that out of jealousy of the neighbouring farmer?
ReplyDeleteI'm still unconvinced there is enough evidence to convict, unless some more witnesses come forward with startling revelations. But one thing is certain, Ewen Macdonald is pretty sick... stealing and killing deers, arson, grafite. He's not the full quid. There's some anger in there.
Only MacDonald can account for the actions you describe and which he has admitted. To this point the vandalism and graffiti are not linked in any way to the charge he faces. In other cases we might have expected that evidence (of the other offending) to be left out thereby ensuring the jury were not influenced by it. Crime is not nice as we would all agree, but few of us should reasonably expect anyone charged with a crime has led a blameless life, or should have if they were not guilty of a particular crime of which they're judged. Life being what it is, we sometimes associate feelings to matters of fact in order to satisfy ourselves of something to justify considering that a person is guilty or not. The reality is however that the essence of a crime and who participated in it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt no matter who the person is that has been charged.
DeleteAll that said, there is something of a dark side to events in that area at the time of the crime. Many people saying that perhaps they'd been the target and so on, but none of that accumulates against MacDonald as guilt - although perhaps we see rural Taranaki a little clearer, some Harley Davidson's, poaching, and dope growing near the river. But we shouldn't forget the need for evidence against this man must be of his clear involvement in the murder of Scott Guy. I haven't seen that yet.
Generally, people who mirder people violently have a history of violent crimes. But Ewen has none of these characteristics. When he did want to vent his frustrations, he did so on the house - an inanimate object. And we haven't heard a single example of him raising his voice - let alone his fists - to anyone in the past. The picture I have seen painted doesn't sound like one of a violent killer.
ReplyDelete