Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Ewen MacDonald: The torment.

I think it would have to be admitted that the torment over EM's aquittal continues. The Herald has had the Court file released to it and to this point they've only found some evidence that was withheld  alleging what Scott Guy had told his sister one day when he was possibly drunk and stoned. Greg King, EM's senior counsel, argued that the value of the evidence was not greater than the potential harm of the analysis of Scott's behaviour that day.

It must be frustration that keeps the debate alive as though some where, some how there is something to discover which will prove the theory that Ewen was guilty of the murder after all, and that the discovery will be encapsulated in some form that will show how truly inefficient our system of Justice, lawyers or Judges are. In reality the only thing that would make any differences is some evidence which to this point doesn't exist, if it exists at all. That's why a not guilty verdict was returned. A not guilty verdict wasn't returned because Mac Donald is a poacher, an arsonist and so on, in fact the Jury already knew that he was. Clearly the didn't know that he and an accomplice killed 30 bobby calves and drained 1000s of litres of milk waiting to be taken off a neighbour's farm. There has been apparent outrage about this newer information none of which has taken the failed case against EM as step further. Animals are being poached, slaughtered in freezing works in 1000s across New Zealand every day. No doubt acts of vandalism are taking place at the moment.

Looking at the situation another way Callum Boe the accomplice in some, perhaps all of these acts, has been released from prison after 12 months of a 2 year sentence. Already EM, who has pleaded guilty to the charges, has served around 2 years on remand, consequently he may not be required to serve any extra time. No doubt the details of Callum Boe's sentence will be scrutinised and put into context when Ewen is sentenced in the High Court. The High Court is obliged not to note anything about the failed murder charges other than the time spent in custody. Some could argue that isn't fair on the basis that EM had been charged with a murder and the Jury didn't know that he was an arsonist, a poacher and vandal - well of course they did. I would probably argue that the case against MacDonald in other circumstances (were he not facing other charges) could have resulted in him being on bail from the outset of the murder charge being laid. Of course by his own hand he has lost his marriage and the chance to live as a family with his children.

It's fair to say that EM might never have faced the other, historical, charges had Scott Guy not been killed. They may simply have been relegated to thick files along with 1000s of other unsolved crimes in the district. Certainly it can be argued that a more circumspect review of the prosecution case may have led to a decision not to lay charges. Of course the police did lay charges in a bit of a rush when it probably anticipated that other evidence would surface to go with the admission of EM of the charges he and Boe would face - a premature decision to say the least. Of course to this point the only forensic against EM, the footprint from a size 9 dive boot ultimately exculpated EM from the crime scene. Leaving the critical question of if the footprint tipped the decision to prosecute a weak case then isn't the situation that police, obviously, prosecuted the case on the basis of evidence that didn't exist against Mac Donald. This seems to me to be getting nearer the truth of the trial of EM.

The cries to change the system overlook not only that the Jury (something I didn't agree with) were allowed to know about EM's 'character' in terms of the poaching etc, but also the fact that it was a weak case that had to rely on what I believe to be prejudicial evidence of EM's character. Some will argue against that. However, it is not EM who was responsible for finding evidence against himself even though the police clearly wanted to charge him. Nor was he responsible that further evidence didn't fall out of the cupboard to support his guilt. So in some ways EM is punished because he isn't guilty of the murder whereas some of the public want him punished because of that lack of proof, relying on the 'fact' that he is guilty of other crimes.

What's happening out there? Suddenly people must be guilty of crimes for which there is no proof of guilt. Looking at it another way, EM had he been the killer with all the falling out of the cupboard evidence to prove it, there is serious doubt that the Crown would have sought to have details of the other charges admitted into the trial or that the Judge would have allowed that to be the case. As we proceed toward sentencing there are some issues of particular interest to me, for example did EM ever act alone on any of these missions, did the missions in fact stop when Callum Boe left the scene - these facts, if they are revealed, will tell us more than endless speculation about the system and what's might be wrong with it - merely because it in fact worked despite being loaded with a bias against an accused person.


Footnote added  9/8/12

It is now revealed that Callum Boe was a co-offender of EM on all six charges he is waiting for sentence on. Probably fair to say by this that EM appears never to have offended other than in the company of Callum Boe or since Boe left the scene. Probably understandably Boe mitigated his position at sentencing by blaming
EM. He particular comments about the slain calves claiming that this 'changed' his opinion of EM although he freely took part. Else where in the script he refers to 'we,' clearly accepting that his participation was obviously on his own free will and that some of the attacks were for 'revenge.' Still no impression provided other that the Jury reached the right verdict in the murder trial.


No comments:

Post a Comment