Ewen MacDonald: Police impressions of guilt.

In my first blog on the subject of the Ewen MacDonald trial I was critical of the 'witness parade' when we heard of the Crown's plans to have a trial by 'episode' where witnesses rather than giving evidence once came back as the trial reached a new episode 'stage' that would require a witness to give testimony usually given in a lump sum or one parcel. The concern was the distressed witnesses such as Kylee Guy and Anna MacDonald along with Bryan Guy and his wife. I felt that it could be seen to amplifying the distress factor in a trial that lacked evidence. The first question is was it necessary, the simple answer is no - this step isn't needed in NZ courts - the witnesses don't need it, the jury don't need and the public should be rightfully concerned that it is an attempt to garnish guilt in the jury's mind by perhaps raising sympathy and focusing on the accused as the reason for the witnesses distress. The Jury in this trial got a full measure of that, but before deciding on that consider the next feature

Kylee and Anna were brought through a side door which no other witnesses  entered through, a entrance that allowed them the opportunity not to walk past EM. Impression? that EM was dangerous and the women were frightened of him. If there are any doubts about this suggestion then see in news clips the officer in charge of the case ushering the women. Such is usually the job of a registrar but here the Officer In Charge of the case laying on the drama in my opinion. Right from the beginning, an interesting, if disturbing, question was always going to be how much had the police attempted to split the family or indeed the families including the MacDonalds. How much work had been put into undermining relationships in order to turn the family against the man whom they had little proof of guilt. We know enough of the answers of those questions now, but more will come, in fact more came this week courtesy of the MacDonald parent's in their sole interview.

But before we get to that, what convinced Kylee of MacDonald's guilt. Was it the crimes he had committed, 1 in particular that was certainly directed at her and her late husband? In her situation I wonder if that would have been convincing enough - it certainly wasn't for the Jury. No doubt Kylee was befriended by the police and perhaps one of them following the 'excitement' of the arrest may have mentioned the now discredited dive boot evidence, on the face of that evidence, had it been true, may have convinced Kylee. Could that be the reason why the two women were not led past EM in the Court Room? By then had they been convinced that EM was both the killer and angry with them? Admittedly, from all reports Anna appeared open minded and unbiased toward EM. Then again somebody was 'talking' to her about her evidence about when the dive boots were thrown out or last seen, and which she changed after an adjournment

There is no doubt Kylee was convinced EM was guilty, she screamed as much when he was found not guilty. During the trial she also said that she 'couldn't' look at him. Some might think that is understandable but contrast that with Bryan Guy and what he said following the verdict. He, simply accepted the verdict despite the turmoil of having given evidence at the trial of the father of his grandchildren for the murder of his own son. Something was, and is, driving Kylee's conviction that EM is guilty, something other than the evidence which was insubstantial against him, an impression of guilt, cultivated by the police.

First of all is the 'witness parade' for no purpose other than, in my opinion, to prejudice the Jury. Anna MacDonald showed how capable and forthright she was  when giving evidence against her husband, showing she could have done so by only being called to the witness box once. We have the ushering into the Court by separate door by the OIC of the case. We know the likely prospect of the impact of Ewen's shoe 'print' being found awash in Scott Guy's blood. Now this week we know that there was a request by police for the guys not to go to some of the hearings because it made it 'look' like they were supporting their relative by marriage. A series of 'look's if you like, in the absence of evidence.


Why should the police have any interest in 'sides' or who was supporting who? Their obligation is to the truth and to Justice, not to how things 'look,' or engineering the same. As we've seen there was pure engineering in this case as to how things should 'look' for the Jury, but worse in splitting or dividing the family in words that came from the police themselves - the Guys were not to 'look' like they 'supported' Ewen, presumably because doing so would make the Jury and the public think that EM might not 'look' guilty. Anything to be grateful there? I don't think so, apart from the fact that EM was found not guilty of evidence which doesn't exist and on which, in its absence, there is an argument he should never have been charged for murdering his brother in law Scott Guy.  In another breath, folks have heard of the good guy, bad guy, cop - seen it on TV or read about it perhaps. Some maybe even have heard about 'good looking' cop, maybe a sympathetic, concerned cop tasked with taking the 'edges' off an inquiry where there is a lot of sentiment afloat. A situation where perhaps distressed young women could be vulnerable to some sympathy or encouragement to look out for themselves rather than a cheating partner, someone who had let them down. A person 'good looking' might make subtle or less than subtle hints about - somebody adding to the impression of guilt. He might even befriend them.