At the outset we heard the motive was that Scott Guy wanted to inherit the farm, presuming therefore that this would have caused the 'exceptional event' of MacDonald to kill his brother-in-law. But both Mrs and Mrs Guy said that while Scott brought the subject up they told him unequivocally that as the farm had come into their hands by purchasing it that was how their shares would be disposed of. They pointed out that both Scott and Ewen were already shareholders. Ewen therefore would have been satisfied that his share of the farm could only be brought from him and not gifted away.
Ewen was in fact in a strong position in terms of the property. He had the opportunity to sell his shares or make an offer to buy more, that is a very satisfactory arrangement and far from one, portrayed here, that it could have been taken from him. His wife confirmed the couple had been a little reluctant to enter the partnership and so one must conclude they would not be necessarily be reluctant to sell their shares and moved on. The couples greatest asset appears to be the high quality farmer that Ewen was, one witnesses saying that he could have got a job 'anywhere.' No motive exists under the Crowns scenario because the major shareholders of the farm have already told the Jury the financial arrangements of the farm. Ewen McDonald and is family were poised to take other opportunities if they so decided, they weren't over committed or in debt, there was no chance of them losing their share - in fact by Ewen's good management they had no doubt increased the value of that share. One could argue the farm needed that MacDonald family more than the MacDonald family necessarily needed the farm.
Yesterday a police officer gave evidence that various scenarios that MacDonald had advanced as the murder scenario were all incorrect. The real story is that those questions were a type of entrapment. Why and how could MacDonald have anything other than an opinion, yet his answers now form some 'guilt' against him - I don't think so. To this point we are seeing one prejudicial point built on another, then repeated as though to make it a truth. Today we 'learn' that police were able to discount 'drugs or robbery' as a factor. In fact they might have not discovered reasons to believe drugs or robbery was involved, but by the same token that doesn't discount them - purely coincides that they didn't make such a discovery. This, of course implies, because that no such discovery was made, then there must be another reason - look no further than the defendant
So no motive, and still no shotgun in MacDonald's possession, indeed Bryan Guy saying that his shotgun in the farm office had not been touched. You know the one, the one that 'might' have been the murder weapon.
The one thing that bugs me more than anything about this case is that the father decided not to tell police about the shot-gun, in order to protect the fact he hadn't been keeping it under lock and key. This man's son had just been shot, one would think his 'reputation' would have been the last thing on his mind.
ReplyDeleteI believe from lay-people that although a shot gun can not be identifyable as the actual weapon that killed, it can be determined, if examined soon enough, whether it had be fired recently. Surely if Mr Guy snr would have been predisposed to assisting the investigation by ensuring the police examined that gun early enough to rule it out.
You have to love the media's presentation of this case - anyone would think 'ol' lynch mob Van Beynan' was in charge of that too.
You might be being generous about that reason. His belated admission also 'apparently' puts the 'use' of the shotgun by MacDonald as a possibility, that worries me. You also touched on a significant point about the inquiry: all the shotguns off the property should have been seized, when a friend asked me why today, I said that because it may have been a domestic killing but regardless of that it needed to be ruled out as the murder weapon. As I wrote earlier, this also shows that what the police now regard as suspicious events and relationships was of no concern to them at the outset, but now they want it accepted as significant. The fact they overlooked a possible domestic killing means they effectively had made up their minds not to collect certain evidence or to follow certain lines of inquiry - that ain't textbook.
ReplyDeleteOn Thursday we got our first real insight into how the prosecution's case came to be. One of the police officers said that 'solving who did the graffiti and damage to the house was the key to solving the murder'.
ReplyDeleteI think that the police had it fixed in their minds that the person who did this must have committed the murder. Once they established that Ewen was responsible, the case was solved. From then on all the other circumstances have just been interpreted by them to fit their theory.
This explains why the 'evidence' we have heard so far doesn't really stack up. It's not evidence, just a manipulation of the facts and the story to fit their theory.
The gun - the puppies - the boots - the 'how did Ewen know Scot had been shot' .... there doesn't seem to be any evidence pointing at Ewen. The prosecution are at best clutching at anything that supports these thories, and in several cases not even producing any evidence at all.
The evidence should be the primary feature, leading police to the perpetrator. This is looking more and more the other way around - that they decided who was the perpetrator and are now trying (in my view very unsuccessfully) to make the evidence fit their theory.
I'm still not saying that Ewen is innocent - I just don't know at this point. But with a police investigation and prosecution case which seems full of holes his defence lawyer won't need to work too hard - the prosecution seem to be doing all the work for him!
There was a self-congratulatory element in the statement 'solving who did the graffiti and damage to the house was the key to solving the murder.' But that is only an unsupported assertion, for it to have any credence - a connection must be shown between the events otherwise they remain random and unconnected to the murder. They could at a stretch be suspicious, but the crown needs more than suspicion to prove murder. The timing between the events also weakens the assertion but even without that it is only proof that the police have no proof. Later when police referred to a large suspect list finally narrowed down to MacDonald this was also an assertion - of, 'believe us because we had a 100 suspects and only one remains' Again that is not evidence, in this case it only shows that is inconclusive evidence and suspicion against the remaining suspect while the real killer may not have even been on the suspect list. There are a whole lot of things wrong about this case so far.
DeleteHeadlines in the media are misleading too. The Press web site this afternoon says 'Scott Guy murder-accused told police the first he knew it was a shooting was the next day, contradicting other witness accounts'.
ReplyDeleteContradicting other witness accounts? Not one person gave evidence to say that on the day of the murder Ewen said that Scott had been shot. A few people said in evidence that they were told that Scott had been shot, but were emphatic that it wasn't Ewen who told them. Nikki Scott said in evidence that she overheard Ewen say that Scott had been shot, and that he corrected two other people who said his throat was cut - he even argued about it. But these two individuals haven't been identified or appeared in court to give evidence.
So what Ewen said at the time isn't contradicted by witness accounts at all! It's contradicted by what one witness claims to have overheard.
Moreover it is her statement which has been contradicted - everyone at the scene has said in evidence that Ewen didn't tell them that Scott had been shot.
Appaling tactics by the proescution, and reporting which is either careless or a mistrepresentation of what happened.
I too am concerned about the 'boots' issue. Many farmers and people who work in damp conditions have taken to wearing that type of footwear in the last few years. But, regardless of whether they were Macdonalds boot prints or not, it does not prove murder. Macdonald had every reason to have his foot prints in those boots, in that area. They may have been around the body, but of course, due to the pressure of the body, we will never know if they were also underneath the body. The same with the puppies, they have no evidence they were taken, and disposed of, but for some reason, if they say it, it becomes a legitimate claim.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I don't know if Macdonald is innocent or not, but so far, I haven't seen anything that proves his guilt. I am highly sceptical of a policeforce that excuses their shoddy work because they didn't want to 'tip off' their suspect.
Let's just hope there are at least two people on that jury with an ounce of common sense, and the skill to determine fact, from highly reputable fiction.
I'm not so sure that it was that they didn't want to 'tip him off,' it could have been that they wanted to keep him talking, hoping he'd contradict himself or make a mistake. At this point we don't know if he'd even taken legal advice before these interviews. The police would have preferred that. Along with the several reports that Ewen's relationship with Guy was improving, that there wasn't any issue about the farm being inherited there is a distinctive note that these charges, along with their lack of evidence, don't make sense. I called some of this theatre early on, that's beginning to look more and more the situation.
DeleteUnless there is some actual evidence rather than amateur psychology from the Police then I can't see that there is a case against Ewen at all. I find it incredible that the case was found sufficiently strong to bring a prosecution - no wonder our court system is overloaded!
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps this is all a build-up to revealing what actual evidence there is for the prosecution. If the police are relying on profiling,then they should be using expert professional profiling and the court should hear from the experts: the investigating cops have only hunches, it seems so far.
The boots are an example: the Crown placed much importance on the dive boots. But there is no evidence that Ewen currently owned dive boots - if he was a hunter then surely there could be evidence from people he went hunting with recently as to what footwear he wore? All we have so far is that he once owned such boots but that they were thrown out years before the murder. Sure, he might have had others, and might have disposed of them, but there is no evidence of that. The Police case is (so far) yet again structured on a core belief in Ewen's guilt: the murderer left those footprints, Ewen was the murderer, so he must have had some of those boots. Can't find them? Doesn't matter, we know he had them because he was the murderer. They were thrown out? Doesn't matter, he must have had others because we know he was the murderer.
It may be that the police do have some actual evidence. However I doubt it because it would be sensible to have the strong stuff up front as a solid base on which to build. They did this with the vandalism and graffiti, so I suspect that is their core evidence: that is all they really have.
There is a myriad of alternatives which don't appear to have been considered. Like the Bain case, they haven't eliminated alternatives satisfactorily...because they 'know' who did it.
Police and lawyers grumble about the CSI effect on people's expectations of forensic science. Perhaps there is a similar effect of detective shows where we, the viewers, see 'good' cops carefully investigating and following up leads and eliminating suspects, so we now expect the real cops to do the same, and to do it properly, instead of trusting blindly.
But maybe they do have something more definite: something that makes it worth destroying and already assaulted family. We shall see...
the key is....
ReplyDeletewhat sort of person would graffiti and vandalise a house??
would you? what would make you do such a thing??
You see.. only de ranged person would do that. Only a person who thinks he can get away with it. The same person who thought they got away with it also thought they could get away with the murder.
to solve this who dunnit.. you have to think like the murderer. The murderer is the vandal and the graffiti artist.
case closed.
I gather you are visiting from the 17th Century, notice many changes? How's the broomstick holding out? Despite being able to 'think like the murderer' I don't believe either the Crown or defence will need your evidence but thanks for your interest.
Deletehe did it, we know he did it. But that means nothing. there was enough evidence to bring it to trial but not enough to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt - that is what our justice system is all about. The police and prosecution did their best.....with what they had, there was never a "smoking gun", or some mind blowing CSI evidence...just circumstantial evidence which prima facie was enough to put the case before the court. The defence counsel did an outstanding job too, he had more to work with than the prosecution at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteNo I disagree, there is no evidence of his guilt. I don't even accept the charge should have been brought to Court. The police relied on a lot of prejudicial evidence which I believe shouldn't have been admitted, and they relied on a 'key' piece of evidence that proved MacDonald hadn't been at the murder scene.
DeleteDefence counsel did do a good job, however, I'm sure they'd agree with or without their superb efforts MacDonald was not guilty on the basis of lack of evidence.