Anna MacDonald told the Court yesterday that Ewen had discussed moving to another farm to expand their business prospects, additionally that her mother had confided in her that she was not to be worried because they (she and Bryan) had some positive plans for the future of the family farm (and therefore the shareholders, of whom Anna and Ewen were 2.)
But it is the 'only forensic evidence' the Crown would call as proof positive against MacDonald, the dive boot print, that has become to this point the most revealing evidence of the trial that was of most interest. The boot that made the print was not a size 9 pro-line dive boot, it was either a larger or smaller size, in fact it may not have even been a pro-line dive boot at all. This after the Crown shadowing it's 'dramatic' evidence for weeks. The Crown had to watch as their own witness counted the sole waves on the footprint and compare them to the sole waves on a size 9 pro-line boot. This witness had the previous day told of searching over 30,000 data banks and other sources for a sole pattern that would correspond with the uplifted and preserved print from the crime scene. Sounded good, but I wonder why in the intricate analysis of the match the basic count of shoe waves was not included. The result is now the Crown have a shoe print that wasn't MacDonald's on the evidence the Crown said they would call. The Crown evidence actually exculpates MacDonald, shows that he wasn't the gunman.
Before considering that too deeply, think about the expert testimony. In particular the search of data bases etc. There isn't a nz adult alive that doesn't know of copies arising from Asia and elsewhere of most manufactured goods, accordingly there would be no expectation that those goods would be on a database anywhere. There is also the problem in establishing that the shoe pattern is exclusive to pro line dive boots and on that point somebody sent photos to me that show there were similar or identical patterns on fairly common sand shoes able to be brought within NZ. Then of course there is no direct evidence that MacDonald still had his dive boots on the morning of the shooting or after. Evidence which, in culmination, does not take the Crown case forward even before we reach the cross-examination to find that the print pattern was not the same as MacDonald's dive boot anyway.
Quite surprisingly evidence emerged yesterday that Bryan Guy's shotgun wasn't examined or seized at the time of the murder, something that had been raised in earlier evidence. That can only once again indicate that the police always focused on a stranger, or somewhat beyond the family having committed the murder. Then most likely only on the circumstances of Callum Boe confessing to arson, and so forth, turned their attention to MacDonald. It was then that police started to piece evidence together against MacDonald, which doesn't include testimony from Boe, using a number of events, and pieces of evidence, that I believe we saw yesterday, don't fit together, never did and never will.
At the moment I can't really imagine how the families are handling the fact that the 'significant' evidence against MacDonald has resulted in being the most significant evidence pointing to his innocence. I hope this family haven't been used. I said at the outset of these blogs, that it looked to be the case, because of the
revolving door of the same witnesses, now I see an even more significant reason - the family may have believed it was Ewen's footprint when clearly it is not. I think it might be a bridge too far of hope that the Crown might now say that Ewen was wearing other shoes, which, like the puppies, were never found. This trial has taken a very disturbing turn - there is a present danger that a Jury is going to be asked to convict MacDonald on evidence which doesn't exist.
This case appears to be a typical one which should have never gone to court - no evidence has been presented that directly links MacDonald directly to the murder and the jury should take no longer than 5 minutes to acquit him. The problem lies in the deposition hearings where we should perhaps get a jury to decide (like a couple of centuries ago) whether the evidence suffices or not and save the taxpayer lots of money and defendants from hardship. It appears that the justice system often goes wrong when a decision to prosecute is made on evidence which later turns out to be incorrect such as with the recent Urewera trial and most probably with the coming Dotcom as well. These decisions are often made at the top which shows we need better educated and experienced people in the top positions e.g. the Attorney General’s office.
ReplyDeleteI think a system of independent decisions on prosecutions of cases of a certain type would be very helpful to all. Particularly to the police, I think the present system puts the police under an unrealistic pressure that sees them taking a role beyond evidence gatherers and makers of a prosecution file that goes to Crown Law. Maybe that file going through a semi-independent or independent screening would take the pressure of both agencies and public attention away from the police which in some cases is very high pressure.
ReplyDeleteI should add. This case is far from over. I'm waiting for the result.
DeleteWe need -
Delete1. A state prosecutor office independent of the police similar to the USA.
2. Proper disposition hearings.
3. A serious rethink about judges sitting in court rooms doing almost nothing except determine sentences whilst the jury decides on guilt - we can have much cheaper persons presiding in jury court cases or alternatively get rid of the jury and let judge(s) decide everything (Juries did not determine guilt originally in any case and in highly technical cases the members of the jury may not have sufficient brain power to decide anyway).
3. Acceptance of guilt or self incrimination should not be taken as "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" - too many people are convicted where no evidence was produced.
The case is over and the prosecution's evidence was, to put it mildly, a joke. I mean, how do you fire 3X shots in quick succession from a double barrel O & U shot gun - any fire arm user will tell you it�s impossible (and the guy that heard 2X shots was woken up by the 1st shot - what else woke him up?)
ReplyDeleteAnd because that makes the likelihood of it being a semi-auto that distances EM even further from the prospect of having access to such a weapon that morning.
DeleteOne persons's evedence, there were 3 shots. Who's counting when you're asleep you dead fuck... Kylee was less than 200 metras away and heard nothing.
DeleteWell obviously Kylee wasn't counting. And Crown called the evidence of 3 shots so take it up with them after you wash your mouth out with soap.
DeleteI think the answer to the murder is with Scott – blue eyed son with blond hair from a wealthy family with huge body tattoos? – Does not add up! – And quite a few photos of him showing his face red & puffed up (alcohol or drugs?) and watery eyes. Where is the mean looking character that came to a neighbour a few days before asking for Scott? Scott's dad, mum & sisters should have been asked, while they were on the stand, whether he has ever been involved with drugs.
ReplyDeleteI've wondered why Scott destroyed the marijuana plants rather than call the police. Also something unusual about his 111 call. Perhaps sometime we might found out the results of toxicity tests from the pm.
DeleteThere was also something very whacky about the man made lake project Scott proposed. When you're a struggling you stick with the 'knitting' or the task at hand - don't look outside for something that has to be built from scratch. That was a very odd suggestion he made.
DeleteAlthough we are supposedly a classless society, the friction between the men probably started when MacDonald as a young (poor) farm hand started to court the daughter of a wealthy farmer and it reached a crescent when MacDonald got (equal?) shares in the farming operation. The other Guy sister also does not like MacDonald (this is an understatement) – is it possible that she wanted to marry MacDonald instead and hated him for not doing so……… .The tragic end to all this is that, whatever the outcome, MacDonald and his wife/kids and the Guys will be separated forever - wonder how the farm shares will be handled and/or how the family trusts will be re arranged.
DeleteHer hostility was fairly apparent. In the SST a few weeks ago it was revealed that the 10% shares held by the 2 parties no longer exist. The older sister now holds a 10% share.
DeleteA woman scorned "mutabile varibileque femina est" which Aeneas uttered when he left Dido - Question - Does she know how to handle a semi-auto or pump shotgun?
ReplyDeleteShe, like the others, is just caught in this horrible tragedy.
DeleteNikki Guy had beef with Ewen on two counts.
ReplyDelete1. Regarding her former boyfriend. Ewen and Anna didn't approve of her Fijian boyfriend, and when she turned up with him unexpectedly at their house one night to babysit Ewen told her he couldn't stay.
2. Ewen 'completely ruined' Nikki's celebratory 5 years in business dinner by having a go at Scott for leaving work early- hence Scott and Kylee storming off. She was disgusted that Ewen just sat there with his arms crossed and didn't appear to care what he'd caused.
Possibly a murder committed to frame Ewen? and Ewen spent all this time in jail to reduce the total jail time for the previous offences? Has he been in court & found guilty of the previous offences?
ReplyDeleteYes, I think Nikki Guy has been the momentum behind this wrongful arrest. Either way the family is stuffed. I doubt even if found not guilty they will allow him to see his kids, and poor Kylie will be guided by what seems like a very manipulative and gameplaying family. A not guilty verdict means nothing to many people, who will continue to think he is guilty, especially because the police will refuse to look for anyone else. What a mess.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote earlier I think the police told the family there was a match on the 'dive' boot print - which would have been convincing had it been true.
ReplyDeleteA match with a size 11-12 boot sank the boot evidence and placed someone else at the murder scene, which was overlooked by the Police. As before, the Police evidence did not stack up (this is an understatement! Seriously lacking would be a better word! And then we have a local MP congratulating the Police on TV! Why do us New Zealanders accept mediocre performance from anybody and praise them afterwards?). We desperately need a state prosecutor dept with qualified & experienced people to carry out the job (the recent high profile Urewera & Dotcom cases prove we have an attorney general office with staff that do not know what they are doing). Now on another note - rumours have it that there were apparently gang connections, also apparently well known that weed was grown on the farm and recently overheard amongst the media - "I have never seen a family with so many dark secrets". And Scott's wife's entry/exit into the court without the Guy family at her side when the jury's verdict was heard, speaks out loudly .........looks like both in-laws are going to “depart” from the Guy family.
ReplyDeleteI still have the impression that these families were used by the police and prosecution.
ReplyDeleteThe question that the defence lawyers should have asked (but did not? why not?) of all the Guy family members was whether Scott had any previous dealings with drugs (as a user, pusher etc.) or gangs in the past. Better still, the defence should have consulted with the local gang bosses and get first-hand knowledge. I suppose one can also ask Ewen (after his sentencing at the end of this month) because he was sure to know what was going on. The Policewoman stating that they are not looking for anybody else is making fools of the Police - start looking for someone with a size 11-12 boot!
ReplyDeleteI think those questions were asked, and any leads pursued. Members of the family don't necessarily know what the others are up to, drugs in particular not being a morning tea chit chat subject.
DeleteI agree about the boot. While I still don't see why more pressure wasn't brought to bear on the armed offender who had been operating in the area, or his wife. Police seem to have let that sit, while pushing ahead with something we now know didn't match the crime.
"I have never seen a family with so many dark secrets"... What bollocks! Seriously, has that person been living in a monestery? Really the only 'dark secrets' we have heard of is what Ewen was up to. The rest of the family appeared to be pretty good god-fearing honest to goodness farming stock. Issues over farm succession and keeping all children including the non-farming siblings will always be a minefield for parents, but all we heard was how hard Bryan and Jo were trying to make everyone aware what the plan was and were open in any way possible to bring fairness and equality to all. Some old school farmers would not have been so concerned or even aware of what their kids were busy plotting in their own heads.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know whether Scott lived a squeaky clean life while he was away, I don't think rodeo boys are always known for being on best behaviour, but unless its pertinant to solving the case we don't need to know.
The only person whose character was on trial and completely analysed and torn to shreds was Ewens.
Some of the vitriol and one-eyed self righteous comments I have seen on blogs and news sites just astound me. Let's hope those people have never made any terrible errors or have any dark secrets in their lives that may one day be put on trial for the whole country to judge and persecute.
I agree about the dark secrets being hyperbole. I feel in particular for Bryan Guy doing the right thing is always foremost in his mind. It was said that fairness was his fatal flaw but few would probably agree with that. No one has a map for life's twist and turns or a key to the inner workings of others minds, so starting from a point of fairness is the mark of the man imo.
DeleteQuestion re the dive boot that's bugging me... Hope someone can clear this up. Do we know for a fact that the dive boots Ewen bought from his dad's shop were actually size 9? I've looked back for reports and see where they've said there were 5 pairs of size 9's at the store, but was it recorded as size 9 he took? Although his normal shoe/ boot size is size 9 maybe he got a bigger size to fit them with socks on when around camp. So therefore he may have owned a size 10/11/12 pair which would in fact fit the prints. (someone made comment on another site re divers wear them snug but hunters would likely wear with socks) . ESP peddling in them you'd want some padding
ReplyDeleteNo we don't know. Among those sold in the shop were size 9 and Ewen's feet were size nine. From the defence point of view the Crown made that claim about the boot, Ewen's feet were size 9 and the prints were agreed not to have been from a size 9.
DeleteSimply they were not the conclusive evidence the Crown needed. Even if the prints were size 9 that didn't necessarily show that Ewen had his boots at that time or that he would have warn them. A correspondent sent me a print that matched the Crown's exhibit by pattern, they were from a sand shoe - the possibilities are endless. The probably of wearing dive boots could very well have been given a more accurate description of wearing soft soled shoes, but whose shoes? Of course evidence showed Ewen to be at home when the shotgun blasts were heard and so it goes on, each consideration weakening the case against him.
Did you see this article? Very curious to know what those " alleged activities or proclivities of some family members" were.
ReplyDeletewhathttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10817503
Meanwhile, in another previously-suppressed element, a private investigator hired by Macdonald's defence team spoke to residents of Feilding and Palmerston North to discover what they'd heard about the case.
Of the twelve people interviewed, nine filed affidavits of their responses and Justice France said they showed "rumours were rife" about the "alleged dynamics within the Guy and Macdonald families, and about the alleged activities or proclivities of some family members".
"It was quite notable that two rumours in particular were repeated by several of the deponents; remarkably one of them by six of the nine people who filed affidavits."
The judge said the rumours "do not accord at all" with the Crown theory of the case and their subject matter would not arise in evidence.
I should have entered that somebody sent on one of the local theories here which I decided not to print. In essence it was far removed from any evidence of EM's involvement and was simply a 'rumoured' reason/motive of a prejudicial nature.
DeleteWhatever they were 'Open Mind' they certainly had taken hold in the public mind. It's where we still are as a species.
ReplyDelete