Ewen MacDonald - a day later.

Well Ewen is not a free man today, in custody awaiting sentence on the arson and other charges. He's already been in custody in horrendous circumstances and I expect the Court to remit time for that. In fact I thought he may have been bailed yesterday in recognition of the less than substantial quality of the failed charge brought against him. He's been acquitted of the murder in what I greet as an excellent effort by the Jury to put aside the dramatics of the trial allowed by the Court. Weeping and distraught family members are real but Justice is not to observe emotion but to seek the truth unencumbered by feeling or emotion.

We must be very wary of surrendering to open Justice where efforts are made to influence opinion and potentially even the Jury. We saw it here, the OIC ushering the two wives into the Court through a side door.  Deliberate, in my opinion, to impress the Jury with the 'danger' MacDonald presented, to also be seen as sympathetic to  the women's plight - a friend against the emotional event. But what sort of 'friend' seeks to extend the number of times that the 'sympathy' walk is taken. One without good evidence I suggest. Apparently there is some new term for witnesses to be recalled to give evidence on each 'episode' of their evidence. New and dangerous territory to me and one which suggests a Jury might not otherwise follow the proceeding, patronising at best - manipulative at worst.

In the last 24 hrs we have seen the OIC defending her inquiry as though something had been achieved when in fact a lot of money was spent and a family in distress were further distressed. What price restraint? In this case restraint would have avoided an unnecessary trial and wouldn't have made resident in the family unnecessary conflict over an unprovable allegation. Ewen MacDonald wouldn't have escaped the charges he has pleaded guilty to, but the 'connection' to Scott's death would not have been the issue that has been so destructive as has proven. When Kylee left the Court screaming that EM had killed her husband the fact was that she didn't know that he did, but rather that she had been convinced that he did. Who may have convinced if not the police and their single piece of 'forensic' evidence, the boot print which eventually exonerated MacDonald rather than proved him guilty.

I doubt the Court will reflect upon it's decision to allow evidence of the poaching into the trial to show 'that MacDonald was a competent night hunter.' A decision that overlooked the type of weapon used in the killing as being one that required only basic competency to use to hit a target. While the prosecutor to whom much of the failure of the case rests at his feet, may be considering his 'conclusive' evidence of the pro line dive boots size 9. From which he did not have the adroitness to recover from even in his closing address. When he still insisted the boots were size 9 and were pro line. When in fact he had the 'opportunity' to say that MacDonald's boots quite likely were bigger, and that when he wore them he wore extra socks which may not be uncommon for hunters. But no he insisted the boot type and size were not what his own witness conceded under cross examination. If a Jury were to feel used, or indulged upon with lies, that may have been the time, if not by the procession of the family members required to trudge back into the Court many times each to give evidence that could have been given at one time.

The OIC Schwalager when commenting that the police had followed every lead made no mention of why the farm wasn't shut down at the outset, all firearms seized and individual statements taken as a matter of course. She also didn't reveal why Bryan Guy's shotgun was not examined until the following year, yet she maintained a position that a thorough investigation had taken place. Much like the detectives who gave self-praising evidence that they 'reduced' their suspect list from over 100 to 1. Need it be said now, the wrong 1.