Ewen MacDonald escapes police trap.

While part of the country continue to believe Ewen MacDonald escaped life imprisonment the evidence continues to stack up that he didn't, even to the point of questioning why he was charged. It has emerged that the scientist who examined the number of waves of the sole of size 9 dive boots knew that the boots MacDonald was claimed to have worn didn't match the number of waves found on the prints lifted from the scene, that the lifted prints were from a shoe 2 sizes larger. How the Crown couldn't know that when it's own scientist David Neale recorded it in his own notes is impossible to accept other than that the scientist and the police didn't want the truth, they already had revealed. Will Neale be sanctioned, prosecuted, with the Crown Prosecutor be brought to task?

It was no mistake but deliberate. Just as it was deliberate that the Crown never disclosed 100s of phone tapes recorded under warrant none which revealed anything other than than the fact there were no admissions of any sort implicating MacDonald. Imagine how important any admission would have been to the Crown case, or even a slip of talking about a shotgun, another crime, discarding clothing, puppies or anything connected with the murder. But when there was nothing the police deliberately chose to hide that despite the rules that required them to reveal such information which the defence would use to convincing effect on the Jury. So no admission the knew that the boot prints didn't belong to MacDonald, no admission that in 100s of conversations MacDonald said nothing that in anyway pointed to having been involved in the murder of his brother-in-law Scott Guy. Yet still they proceeded with the case, knowing that their single piece of 'critical' forensic evidence against MacDonald didn't incriminate him but in fact absolved him of blame.

Let's go a little further the Crown prosecutor, Ben Vanderkolk, in material that he did disclose, the equivalent of 200 east-light folders, 2000 interviews provided to the defence in a  PDF format they couldn't down load. He held out on making it available on a format that could be unloaded to the point where MacDonald's lead defence counsel, the late Greg King was unable to properly prepare. It took a year for Vanderkolk to relent and release, then only under pressure from the defence that they would seek a trial adjournment and obviously advise the Court of the reason. Vanderkolk released the material in an accessible format only one month before the trial. Accidental, or like the hidden confirmation that the boot print at the murder scene wasn't MacDonalds, and the hours of phone conversations recorded of an unsuspecting MacDonald none of which the Crown revealed in the normal order of discovery.

Fast forward to the trial. Now we know that members of the community were approached by Police not to sign defence papers supporting the  assertion that MacDonald was unlikely to get a fair trial in his own district. Why would the police wish to avoid the Courts being able to properly assess the fairness or unfairness of MacDonald being tried in his own district. Well Vanderkolk and the officer in charge Schwalger know why because they were issuing the orders for police to intercede in the due process, of course again something to favour the police who had worked hard in the community on the basis that MacDonald was guilty, confidentiality and all that wink and nudge stuff.

So MacDonald not getting a fair trial seemed to be an ambition of the Crown well before it started. Then on the opening and conduct of the Trial we got to see a range of other 'events' which I wrote about at the outset and said were designed to influence the Jury. The parade of distressed witnesses, in some case attractive and sad women, being called many times to offer tearful testimony that could have been given on a single occasion - intention? To accumulate the misery and distress of those witnesses against the defendant, theatre indeed. We even got to see Sue Schwalger shepherding particular witnesses through a 'side' door so as for them not to have to walk  past MacDonald - deliberate impression? That he was dangerous and the witnesses were fearful of him and therefore even in the absence of proof he was guilty.

We very nearly saw a Miscarriage of Justice work against Ewen MacDonald, and it wasn't through lack of trying on the police and Crown's behalf - essentially they tried everything they could to prejudice the case against him; most importantly burying evidence that he hadn't been at the murder scene and trying to fudge proof that he'd been at home, seen by others at the time of Scott's death. All this before the bizarre murder on a bicycle scenario. One that had MacDonald biking to the murder scene carrying a shotgun without a shoulder strap and returning from there with the same shotgun and 3 puppies - truly the crime narration of idiots. Dangerous and ruthless idiots however, folks willing to overlook proof of MacDonald's clear innocence, overlook anything apparently, discovery, procedure, bias and anything else one should expect from the Justice system in order not to falsely convict an innocent man. Will Schwalger, Neale and Vanderkolk be asked to explain, or will this case fall on the final words of Schwalger's attempt to indicate they'd got the right man and really there was no one else to look for. Sure.

Ewen MacDonald: What's left?

I think what is left after the acquittal of EM and following his sentence on other charges has been best summed up by his ex wife Anna Guy. She has told the country that she supports the Jury's decision because they, unlike her and the rest of the country, heard all the evidence against EM. She has also said that she doesn't know whether her ex husband killed her brother Scott, precisely explaining the same situation every other New Zealander is in except for one, and or/any accomplices the killer may have had.

What Anna told those that watched 60 minutes on Sunday night was of the conflicted character of Ewen MacDonald, she spoke about his double life, his resolute decision making from which in her experience, he would never alter. Once he had made up his mind that was it. She succinctly and with humour explained away the rumours spread throughout the country about EM, whilst also speaking of her personal betrayal by him. Most astoundingly, and quite remarkably given her situation, she did not convolute the betrayal she felt into a belief therefore that EM was guilty. She also spoke of her father Bryan and her decision, to attend the trial with an open mind. Interestingly, telling us in the process that other witnesses, presumably including some from within her family, gave evidence believing EM was guilty. Anna told us precisely that; some in her family, by not being included in those that had not made up their minds, thought EM was guilty for reasons clearly not attached to evidence but more to emotion. I think we saw that by some of the hostility shown toward EM when evidence was given and in the aftermath of the trial. Who could ultimately blame those witnesses for being unable to withhold judgement when in the wider community the Jury's decision was met with hysteria by some others who, like those family members, didn't know whether EM was guilty or not but were prepared, willing in fact, to proclaim his guilt anyway.

There is a micro-dot of reality that Anna Guy has unwillingly displayed to the public of New Zealand at large about where decisions of guilt or innocence are decided. I use the word unwillingly because she, and I'm sure  the majority would agree, would far more willingly have preferred not to have been touched by this tragedy. But that's not all she has provided the public of New Zealand, because she spoke about the pain of having to give evidence, underlying in my opinion the lack of consideration shown to her and other witnesses by calling them to the dock not once, but several times. Those witnesses, as we've since seen, were all hugely capable of giving evidence once and in sharp detail. As I've written earlier I feel the Crown had been unable to resist the potential of having distraught witnesses called a number of times to engender sympathy for them, and prejudice against EM as being responsible for that distress. There was no need for it, these weren't professional police witnesses but real people who were under going a type of hell few will ever experience.

I think we also saw that the Crown were 'at work' inside the family, trying to split them apart and I can recall writing about a request from the Crown that the Guy's didn't attend some hearings for fear that it looked like they were supporting EM. Obviously with a weak case the Crown were looking for perceptions of guilt to carry the day where evidence fell short. Real Justice, for the family or the public? Not in my opinion. One could easily argue that MacDonald should never have been charged and the Crown relied on factors beyond evidence in the hope of bringing a conviction home. Whatever the efforts of the Crown or police may have  or not have been, I doubt they would escape the analysis of one of the victims herself - Anna Guy, that she didn't know if her ex husband was guilty and that it was for a Jury to decide who had heard all the evidence.

I can imagine that it would have been quite easy for someone of a different make-up and character than that of Anna and her father, to become absorbed by what they didn't know and allow the product of that to become that they were sure that EM was guilty. That would have provided them to 'escape' by hating someone for being guilty even when not sure of the guilt. We see Anna unwilling to hate somebody without sure reason and could fairly assume that she may be among the rare few that don't hate at all - with or without reason perhaps because she understands to hate others invariably lets a beast through the doors. So I asked a question 'What's left?' I think we see for at least two of the parties savaged by the death of Scott Guy, that it isn't hate.....

Ewen MacDonald: The worm turns.

Probably the single event of the unfolding story  is the point when there was a clash in the dialogue of the case against Ewen MacDonald was on the day he was acquitted. Kylee Guy ran from the courts with an entourage to a car waiting outside screaming that EM had killed her late husband. Until that point she had been mostly tearful, and by my impression, paraded before the Jury many times in order to raise sympathy for her and animosity toward EM. Much earlier I actually questioned whether it was a trial of 'dramatic effect' relying on something other than evidence to gain a conviction.

Thing is Kylee doesn't know the truth of who killed her husband and she may long ago have been influenced by learning of the attack against her home by EM and Boe, or by being told that the police had foot print evidence that proved EM was the killer. If there was something she was holding back we would have known before now. What we know is that Kylee has left the farm, relinquished her share in some way, has a media manager and an internet site in the 3 years since her husband Guy was shot and killed on the driveway outside their home. Just on that departure from Court, that was clearly choreographed, attendants in a huddle around her limousine waiting by the side walk cameras at the ready. Whether the 'demonstration' was for the waiting media can only be speculated upon but the message seemed to be to them.

Callum Boe's lawyer told the Court at the time of his sentencing that a defining moment in the relationship with Ewen was when they attacked 19 bobby calves with a ball pein hammer. Up to that time Callum obviously hadn't considered poaching prize deer off neighbouring farms, carrying their heads away as trophies was anything more than a general evening past time. It was at that point, the lawyer said, that Boe had realised, having help kill the calves, 'that MacDonald was capable of doing anything.' Then he became afraid of him. A watershed moment, for the young farmer to feel empathy with one kind of dead animal but not another. In context it may have been exactly the line police had hoped Callum Boe could be encouraged to tell the jury. We don't know why Callum Boe didn't give evidence but there are indications that he got a relatively light sentence, co-operated with the police and there was some anticipation that he would give 'dramatic' evidence against EM, not about the charges he faced but about how evil EM was. Of course that was a 'conditional' evil and nothing to do with the murder other than by drawing a long bow. The person who was going to reveal EM's evilness was his long term mate, confidant and partner in poaching missions and revenge attacks. Not quite the Minister's son from the local church.

I'd say that statement was going to go into evidence at EM's trial if the Court had allowed it so I wonder why it is released to the public now when the case is before the High Court. I think that is because the picture drawn of this case never mirrored a crime of murder but provision of hope that it might do so if attended by enough unsettling diversions. That statement would have been wrung for every small drop of it's worth. The prosecutor would have hammered it home in order to overcome the lack of evidence against MacDonald. It would have been another dramatic piece, Callum Boe no doubt brought through a side door and surrounded by police to heighten the effect - the good bad guy, entering the Court suddenly fearful of his mate of many years. Evidence of murder, no. Kylee Guy announcing that she 'knew' that EM had killed her husband, evidence, no.

Well, the worm has turned or will be turning for many. The country seldom if ever has had a murder case of this type before. Not in the time of the internet anyway. We've never seen victim's families commission media management or launch appeals for money for themselves. It's new territory and takes a little getting use to. Whereas there has normally been a natural, kiwi-type, circumspection to be reserved and not look too closely or comment upon publicly it seems that there has been a type of invitation into the world of the families concerned that will continue to fire opinion for years, maybe longer. I think that is unfortunate, something like the floodgates being opened not in anticipation that flooding will go further than was intended or calculated, effect others, and maybe never stop.

Look back for a minute at the 'style' and substance of the trial, the 'props' deliberately placed to make it one of high theatre rather than of serious and emotionless control that one assumes should attends such a grave matter. That wasn't Kylee Guy's choice, or that of her mother and fathers-in-law, that was a tactic and style introduced to substitute for evidence that didn't exist. I've seen else where some of the original Bain hate-siters reforming their witch patrols, grasping at single words to concoct a campaign against Ewen MacDonald. Yet again they're the puppets to another kind of control, one of rumour, and being 'all knowing and informed.' By who, one might ask. The answer is by the Crown that brought a case that didn't exist and attended it with a reality tv type drama, who had 'evidence' from a stalker and thief that EM wasn't a nice man even though that had been laid on thick at the trial. Has there been any benefit? I don't think so because we've lurched toward trial by dramatic turn, 'public jury' decisions by on-line polls. Criticism of the Courts and the Law. For what, for a family that still has no answers and children to grow.

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.

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.

Ewen MacDonald: Tragedies are never kind.

If anyone needed reminding, that unlike soap box television or a novel, we see in the EM case what we all know, that tragedies are never kind. There is no order to them, no satisfying final scene or last few words on a page to touch the heart. Some of my friends held hope that everyone touched by the tragedy of Scott Guy's death would have room to move once the trial was finished, the opportunity to move on. Of course life is seldom, if ever, like that no matter how much goodwill we may wish upon the lives of others.

I've read elsewhere the reactions of some to Kylee Guy being involved in the setting up of a benefit fund for herself and 2 boys, along with the negative comment that has brought in some quarters even when actually it is no one's business except her own until the decision was to made to make it public. That was followed by announcement, more of the type usually attending sport stars, that Kylee had retained a media-publicity manager. Then more recently in the North and South magazine the revelation that Kylee wasn't going to let things go 'until Scotty was resting in peace.' I don't want to be offensive to anybody but I cannot comprehend language or ideas that suggest the dead rest peacefully or un-peacefully, in fact in anyway other than as dead, gone, in the beliefs of some to a better place. Yet still there can be nothing  tidy found in this case, or seemingly left in privacy.

I'm not sure how to feel about the revelations from Mr and Mrs MacDonald in the North and South article for they seem to have been the last to break the silence despite how very obvious it was to the country the destruction on their own lives, that of their son and their grandchildren. I remember again what Pat Booth wrote a couple of weeks ago about in his time allowing people the dignity of their own privacy. Mr and Mrs MacDonald, like others in the aftermath are entitled no less to have their say, construct the pain and delusion that can come from seeing a family change shape in such away that it may never reform into the bright happy thing it once was. They didn't need to make it clear how upset they were that Anna had  formed another relationship without telling their son Ewen, or indeed revealing it in any public way until they apparently found out and insisted Anna tell Ewen.

While many will be gripped with the twists and turns, others may show no on going interest beyond EM being a bastard and therefore 'guilty.' A lot will have a 'simple' interest in the law, and a satisfaction that it worked properly in this case despite the elements of anger, sympathy and emotion that lurked near the door. But there will be not to few nzers who will have hoped for something else, something potentially more satisfying for the heart, at least a semblance of things being put back together again as best they could. One person I know when reading the headline the Herald had swooped on in his 'scoop' borrowed' from North and South was to ask the question, 'what about the children.' No doubt, the 4 MacDonald youngsters she meant, which reminded me something of the anguish of all the grandparents.

Kerry MacDonald spoke about getting the news of Ewen's arrest and how the officer in charge didn't even have a card to offer the family for victim support. Understanding the cold face of policing that shows the uneasy nature and relationship between the participants of a police inquiry was obviously a shock to Kerry, to go along with a series of other shocks he's had which we may or may not ever know about. Yet it seems clearly that it was his wife, Marlene, who insisted Anna tell Ewen that she had effectively left the marriage and was in a relationship despite not telling the imprisoned man.

There seems no stopping the fallout now, not before time resolves some of the interest yet even then we can anticipate others speaking out, perhaps the children of their thoughts who what it meant to them at the time or later when they more properly were able to understand things. However, nothing will change the fact that tragedies are not made to order with some, happier, than could be expected ending, or that all the characters will perform or speak as required by the writer or scriptwriter. Yet it seems a natural characteristic to pick over that which is better settled rather than to extend privacy or comfort to the distraught.

Ewen MacDonald: Another idiot wants to rewrite the Law.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10817417

Typically after the Ewen MacDonald trial we have knee jerks from the knitting brigade. In this case someone whom I gather is a reporter takes umbrage at the right to remain silent. Interestingly, this dude has got his wires crossed as much as his knitting needles. In recent memory we've had the Law changed to remove provocation as a defence on a murder charge. That resulted from the 'Weatherston' case where Weatherston  unsuccessfully attempted to employ the defence but saw it rejected by the Jury. Slowly on that one, the Law worked properly, recognising that no provocation existed in that particular case, but the Law was changed anyway the result being that a beaten spouse, or an abused person has no defence of provocation if they somehow caused the death of their assailant during, or in proximity of some attack, of some kind, on them. Hard for me to follow that 'improvement'.

Above Stevenson makes out his case to dismantle the Law largely using emotion, a proposition that the average person is sophisticated, of sound mind and competency not to accidentally incriminate themselves at the hand of a skilled interrogator. Unfortunately Stevenson destroys his own, pleading, argument by overlooking that in the MacDonald case EM in fact was interrogated by his own choice. EM, whose brother is a senior detective, no doubt understood when read his rights that he anything he may have said could have been used against him. He in fact said that he was told by his family that he could expect a 'good grilling' and that 's what he got. The video interview lasting some where near 4 hours, conducted by a detective no doubt who had been briefed on at least some aspects by Crown Law. 'The grilling' was played to the Jury, I can't imagine any other question could have been asked about MacDonald's actions before or after the death of his brother-in-law. The inquisition was complete and MacDonald came through it in many commentators point of view strongly, as strongly as a man telling the truth in a situation where he understood his adult life depended on it and for which he knew he need not have answered a single question. So the system worked, but a busy knitter frets none the same.

I doubt any lawyer would have advised MacDonald to undertake that grilling. Though, having known the man, perhaps might have encouraged him to do the interview perhaps even sitting in with him. Stevenson makes 'his' list of how the law must be changed to prevent something which (like the Weatherson case) didn't happen. He scoffs at centuries of Law without even acquainting himself with the facts of the case he is critical of and my goodness he's not even a politician, as far as I know, trying to whip up public anxiety to erode our civil rights. It might have been worth taking a critical look at some of the points arriving from the wonder mind of Stevenson had he been able to assemble the facts of the MacDonald case into his argument. He chose to deliberately ignore them just as he should be ignored.

At a time when Watson, Teina Paora and others remain in prison, when the investigation into the Crewe murders remains incomplete, whilst the public await the report in the compensation application by David Bain, while Alan Hall's bid to have his murder conviction quashed we need less anxiety. We need to let the police do their job without pressure to do some things which might be impossible, we probably need an independent or semi-independent review authority of more complex cases considered for suitability for prosecution. On that point I've wondered more at the expression of  Ben Vanderkolk when the boot 'evidence' was destroyed in the MacDonald trial and perhaps we glimpsed for a moment a man feeling let down, perhaps even 'pushed' into a prosecution role of a case where he understood the evidence was marginal if not weak. However, that sits with other issues that need attention and a more positive attitude than the whining from Wellington.

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.

Ewen MacDonald - We wait.

No verdict today. I'm a little surprised by that for reasons I've set out before. I think the trial has been constructed so that a Jury might well swim in speculation rather than facts. I note the Judge gave the required warnings not to pay attention to some evidence other than in a certain way, also to not extrapolate from certain evidence other possibilities. In my opinion a very confusing area for a Jury whom are told they're there as a cross-section of society to bring their experiences in order to judge one of their own kind. I think that all gets jumbled when a Jury are asked to ignore things, put things from their minds, not to use their life experience in reaching a reasonable conclusion but rather in some aspects simply shut things out.

I don't like it and I can hear those that say so what? I could say simply say experience, but I've read boards and public opinion sites in the last few weeks on this subject and there are not a few that voice their opinions based on the arson and so forth. To me that's a clear demonstration in what needed to be avoided in this trial, for the sake of the accused and for the sake of the families. My experience tells me that every effort in the world was made to have Callum Boe reveal some 'inner' details of the earlier crimes, the way EM acted and what he said - a whole speculative discourse to compare crimes of no violence other than to inanimate objects with another in which a man was killed on his own driveway. I believe the Jury needed not to look at things they would be told later to consider in another way than that which they might have first considered. I believe they needed incriminating facts analysed from that morning, not look elsewhere when there were none to be found.

The prosecutor warned the Jury not to look too closely at the evidence (or imo the lack of it) but use common sense, why possibly wouldn't a Juror accept that as an indication that the prosecutor 'knew' something that wasn't contained in the evidence that might be encompassed in the evidence the Judge would instruct them to ignore, and so it goes on. I repeat what I have said earlier if the Crown didn't have the evidence, and I still believe they don't, why proceed with the charges. Particularly in a manner so fraught with danger for the accused. As a country we need to have a broader belief in freedom and not in the anxiety to solve a crime, that might never be solved, or indeed be in danger of being 'solved' by a Miscarriage of Justice.

Names settle in the darkness tonight, like those of Arthur Thomas, Louise Nicholas and the baby Azaria where pictures were painted, primary evidence hidden, or produced from thin air. So tonight many close to this case will traverse a tightrope of emotions, most likely all not knowing the truth though some imagining for reasons of their own, and others told what it was - told in a way not supported by evidence. That's Justice fragile as it might be at times, and something to be learnt from and improved upon

Ewen MacDonald - the dive boot theory.

It never made sense. There's no reason for the killer to have worn  soft soled shoes for stealth, because if it is as said an ambush, the shotgun provided the means for the killer not to have to silently approached Scott - he merely could have fired upon him from a distance. The other aspect is the grass, walking on grass in any type of footwear can be silent. Also as I've read elsewhere the dive boots would be extremely hard on the feet if walking on a metal road as was the farm road, road metal anyway is noisy underfoot whatever the type of shoes.  Of course the hunting companion of MacDonald said he never wore his stalking because they were awkward and caused him to fall over.

For all we know somebody may have arranged to meet Scott that morning, for early risers meeting someone early is not extraordinary. The killer could merely have stood waiting with the shotgun tucked to one side. Scott wouldn't have suspected anything one could presume, other that it was someone known to him. The fact he took shot to the arm raised in protection shows that he knew at some point the shotgun was levelled at him. The gate may not have been closed until the killer left the property. It didn't have to be a burglary gone wrong, it may have been a deliberate 'settling' of scores. Because we now know the killer wasn't wearing a pro line dive boot size 9, it may have been a sand shoe type with a soft sole and the correct number of sole waves as I saw in the photos sent to me.

Ewen MacDonald - a pundit's view

After correspondence about the shotgun ammunition:

Exactly.

So we have:

Means:

1)      ‘Similar’ ammunition but of a common type – very tenuous link, doesn’t rule out.

2)      A shotgun was used and shotguns available – very tenuous link, doesn’t rule out.

Motive

1)      Past history: lying and vandalism and arson and poaching, antipathy between the men – quite compelling reason for suspecting him.

2)      No history of violence or threats – nothing of value either way.

3)      Recent statement that someone would have to go manage another farm or go sharemilking. Ewen did most of the work on the farm, plus wife and four kids – more settled; plus had worked the farm longer; so he would be the logical one to keep. But Scott was the son. – possible motive but weak.

Opportunity

4)      Timing is very tricky. Possible but very close. Light seen going on at house at regular alarm time & Ewen coming out shortly after – no reason to suspect this as anything other than it appears to be.

5)      Nothing to tie Ewen to the murder. No witnesses, no certain id other than footprints. Nothing else out of the ordinary until Scott found.

Evidence

6)      Ewen owned (in the past) dive boots which had similar soles to the prints but not the same, of a possibly similar size. Nothing to show he still owned them, no certainty of size, no certainty of prints being made by dive boots – very tenuous link, doesn’t rule out.

7)      Puppies – gone missing is all: unaccounted for – doesn’t mean anything.

8)      Cigarette packet: matches those stolen previous night, limited edition. unaccounted for.

9)      Smelly stranger looking for Scott previous night. Unaccounted for.

10)   Strange car in river – unaccounted for.

11)   7 recent burglaries involving theft of guns and ammo – police say not related.

12)   Marijuana crop destroyed by Scott – police say not related.

Have I missed anything? How on earth did this get to court?

Ewen MacDonald - where to now?

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.

Ewen MacDonald - the cigarette packet.

The word is that the prosecution case against MacDonald finishes today. Like many others I anticipate there is some bewilderment that the Crown case hasn't been more conclusive. Yesterday we heard further details about the cigarette packet found on the road near the body. It seems to be a significant piece of evidence, a detective has already confirmed that it cannot be excluded as having come from a burglary some few days earlier. The package had exclusive markings which suggest from Greg King's cross-examination of the detective, he may have a witness able to make some confirmation tying that package to the burglary.

I think the case by the Prosecution hoped to rely on a confession, or some evidence from Boe or someone else putting a shotgun in the hands of MacDonald. The lack of that evidence, in many other jurisdictions such as the States, would have probably seen no charges brought against MacDonald. Instead we see the Crown linking together a chain of events which have other possible explanations as evidence against MacDonald. However, we all 'event's that no one knows have happen used against MacDonald, the puppies, Bryan Guy's shotgun and so on. That's why I think the cigarette packet is very significant, it exists, it's not MacDonald's, it was at the murder scene, it can be speculated upon with some certainty.

We saw yesterday some enormous figures of searches for 'matches' to the dive boots. But in reality they were 'matches' to the type of boot, rather that the boot that made the footprints either before or during the murder. But no such extensive search was revealed as to the background of the cigarette packet which, unlike the boots, was found. I could say we don't know anything other than not necessarily linked crimes by MacDonald the year previous to the killing, then 2 years previous and a third on property no longer connected to Scott Guy 4 years earlier. We know the police were unable to put a shotgun in the hands of MacDonald, we know not a single witness described his reaction that morning to finding out about the shooting as anything other than real. We have our own opinions of a scenario that requires events to work perfectly by time for MacDonald to have appeared 'just woken' when emerging from the farmhouse that morning.

Some readers will recall another case of a farmer killed in recent years which resulted in a trial and an aquittal. We know of burglaries in the district near the Guy farm, and also of the drunk man arriving at the home just previous to the murders, we've heard some talk of drugs and other farmers contemplating that it might have been an event were Scott was mistaken for them. Now we'll hear the defence case, but perhaps first or at some point before the end of the Trial an application by defence counsel to dismiss the charge through want of evidence.

Ewen MacDonald - looking inside.

What do we know about him and how does that fit with his guilt or innocence? First of all we know he was reckless to the extreme in burning the old house on the trailers. However, as we know that house was sold and perhaps MacDonald was so thick he didn't realise that the trailers, worth a great deal, would be badly damaged. In context of the murder charge he faces, the burning of the house can't be connected. It can't have been seen as a direct attack on Scott and Kylee Guy because they didn't own the house. The arson may have been unsettling but it would have been so for all living on the farm. Ewen thought the situation was a joke, maybe he is that stupid. The problem with stupidity and intelligence, scheming and conniving in committing a crime is that they easily fit together. For this murder MacDonald has to have been, by the Crown's account so far, deliberate and smart. Busting up the new home of  Kylee and Scott wasn't smart, but maybe the effort to portray that their marriage wasn't solid was.

Except that we see MacDonald rather that 'fuel the fire' that might have flamed a possibility of a love 'mismatch' infidelity, a jilted former suitor and so forth, 'dumbly' says that the marriage was good, no problems that he knew. Similarly, when it came to the prospect that drugs were involved, cannabis growing on the farm - another sure false track from MacDonald if he was the killer, he says he didn't know of anything of that nature. You could argue I suppose that the denials of the prospect or support of potential false trails was actually super bright, but I tend to think MacDonald's own confidence that his mate Boe wouldn't sell him down the river for the arson shows that MacDonald is at least naive and probably a bit thick. That's the conflict the Crown must resolve, having first provided something tying MacDonald to the murder in a substantial way.

Of course in the coming week, the announcement is made, as though the trial is indeed a multi-scene drama, that expert evidence will be given on the dive boot footprints. Fair enough, apart from the problem that from various accounts the boots had been thrown out, weren't in the house, that one was still around that a key was kept in and so forth. Anna MacDonald on Friday was no longer sure that the boots had been thrown out whereas in earlier evidence she had been absolute. Make no mistake folks, the other aspect of the revolving witness stand, is that the police will be auto-cuing evidence where they can, having the opportunity to go over the next day's evidence with the witness in advance. None of us should be naive enough to not realise the connection when witnesses change, enhance, or dilute testimony after an adjournment. Auto-cuing was exactly the thing that Anna suggested of MacDonald asking if she recalled the dive boots being thrown out onto a trailer during one of the family shifts. Now that is seen to work 'against' MacDonald but the evidence still remain 'unsure.'

Think now of the 'smart' MacDonald carefully laying his plans. Was he so thick that he didn't know the surface would leave footprints and that therefore he should have worn boots a size or 2 large. So bright on the other hand to be able to transport a shotgun of a bike while also foolish enough to expect Scott would be on time when he was frequently late - a big issue in the differences between the 2 men. I went out on a limb of my belief of the innocence of David Bain and more recently George Gwaze and others mentioned elsewhere in this blog. I'm not there with this case, but I am the point that I don't believe I've seen the evidence so far to convict Ewen MacDonald, of being stupid, naively honest - yes, murder no.

Ewen MacDonald: the arson - what was he thinking?

A few points to ponder on the arson and vandalism.

The Arson: MacDonald's explanation to the police and his wife was that it was a joke. It certainly wasn't a joke in way, shape, or form. At least one of those trailers was a purpose hydraulic assisted unit. I saw a 2nd hand one go at auction recently for just under $300,000. The house was obviously been moved for sale, otherwise it wouldn't have been on the house-movers trailer. I don't know who owned it but possibly it was the property of the house movers or someone else who had brought it. All together replacement costs of 2 trailers and a removable house could have been approaching between 6 to 8 hundred thousand, only idiots would start a fire like that and not expect to destroy the trailers. Saying that it was a joke isn't an acceptable explanation and it's pretty obvious MacDonald will be looking at some fairly substantial prison time for that offence which he has admitted. There has been evidence of 'how he was' after the 3 events, the arson, vandalism and murder - cool on the first two distressed on the third. The cool on the first two shows some unusual characteristics to the man, going on with those you have acted against as though nothing has happened. Yet Anna said that the vandalism resulted in a change in Ewen's attitude toward Kylee in that it improved, perhaps that was guilt - there can be little other reason for that because he wasn't considered to be involved at that point in 2008.

The graffiti, vandalism and letters: Kylee didn't read those letters. They exist only as a report which surfaced after Ewen's arrest. We don't know what happened to them but they didn't reach their intended target, Greg King has challenged whether they existed. Whether they existed or not, Kylee never read them. In his interviews with the police MacDonald was adamant that the relationship between Kylee and her husband was good. One could have expected that if MacDonald was the author of those letters, or knew, or was told about the contents, he might have seen that it was an opportunity to 'steer' the hunt away from himself, as he has been accused with the missing puppies. As I understand it the graffiti didn't seek to impart a difficulty in Scott's and Kylee's marriage whereas the letters did. I could see the letters as counter productive to MacDonald's 'cause' by virtue of the reason they may have been likely to cause a difficulty in the marriage possibly driving Kylee away but leaving Scott on the farm. The 'letters' remain a mystery, one possibly that clearly doesn't support 'driving' the couple away, but rather unsettling the marriage - though of course it could be argued that 'slapper' and 'whore' - the graffiti of MacDonald and Boe could be seen as a 'similar' if less direct design toward the same purpose.

The vandalism was a direct act against the couple orchestrated by MacDonald a year earlier than the murder. A correspondent has written that I'm attempting to broaden that distance, perhaps I'm am unwittingly but a year remains a year - a long time in the dynamics of a family relationship and 'competition' between 2 men. MacDonald has caused himself a lot of problems because of those acts and unless we hear from him before the end on the trial his explanation remains that which he gave in his interview and to his wife. The person perhaps capable of shedding some more light on the subject isn't going to give evidence at the trial, and has also been ruled out as a suspect in the murder. So again we have a half a dozen of one six of another situation. Boe was a co-offender in a serious arson, trusted to the point that MacDonald at first covered for him (and himself of course) when questioned by police in the video - but he's been cleared of the murder. So wasn't involved despite being MacDonald's being apparent willing backup in a crime that carries 14 years in prison.

Then back to the less speculative evidence. Today MacDonald's mother confirmed that MacDonald was distressed and crying when he rang her on the morning of the murder, saying that Scott had his throat cut but couldn't be sure. She also said that she hadn't seen the dive boots when she'd been on the farm for several weeks in 2010. While Anna MacDonald was sure they'd been thrown out in 2008, 2 years before the murder. Things that should be working for the Crown don't seem to be unless they're speculative or noted as 'what the Crown says' rather than what a witness or evidence says. MacDonald's father, a gun dealer, was absolutely certain that MacDonald hadn't accessed a shotgun, joining MacDonald's father-in-law with the same certainty that his shotgun had been accessed. Then we go to the 'mystery' man Boe, not Riddick but Callum, the mission accomplice, the co-offender. No information from him that he'd seen his mate with a shotgun that might have been of easy access, the very thing the police needed. Somehow I think if the murder was going to 'break' it might be expected to have done so around Callum Boe. In the absence of that we wait.

Again looking at Callum Boe's and Ewen's  offending, nasty and foolish, but remote from targeting anyone with violence, unlike the killer that morning whoever he or she was.

Ewen MacDonald: trial of dramatic effect?

When I first blogged about this trial it was out of concern for what I saw was a potential manipulation of the Jury in favour of the Crown. I said it was because of the entry and exit to the Courtroom of Anna and Kylee to give evidence - ostensibly to keep them from needing to walk past Ewen as though he was a present and constant danger even to his own wife. The other aspect was concern that hearing from distressed witnesses a number of times presents the opportunity for the situation to be seen as one where the Crown might be lacking evidence so they rely on emotion. In this case not so subtle. Neither Anna nor Kylee needed to be called back to give evidence about the puppies today, the could have done that earlier. What did happen however was that Kylee, understandably was upset, and cried - very awful for her of course. But  what could be the impact on the jury, one of sympathy, something to concentrate on, giving them again the opportunity to consider that the distress was the direct responsibility of the man the 2 women needed to be protected from.

Not only that, the analysis continues of the 'atmosphere' between the witnesses and the defendant with the danger of extending into not a trial relying on evidence but one of sympathy, body language and so forth. To me the possibility of that isn't just. No where near it. From another point of view it assumes the Jury are unable to follow what is really not a complicated case. Having said that, one could argue the Crown are trying to complicate the trial with adornments and emotion. One needs to ask is this from the Crown a concession as to the weakness of their case? In all these are not questions that should be being asked. Concentration should be on the evidence or lack of it.

As I understand it the Crown have no proof of MacDonald doing anything with puppies yet they contend he did something with the puppies to throw police off the track. That bears some close consideration: the police don't know what happened to the puppies so that becomes 'evidence' against MacDonald. No one in the world appears to know what happened to the puppies and therefore that is evidence against MacDonald to go along with no motive, aged, unrelated offending, no eye witness evidence of seeing MacDonald that morning apart from seeing the light go on in his house and him emerging apparently 'fresh' from sleep despite cycling to commit an ambush murder of a person that was not guaranteed to be in the position of ambush at the correct time. All this using a weapon that 'might' be the shotgun of Bryan Guy whose evidence was that it hadn't been touched. But don't overlooked the video that was shut down right when MacDonald strongly denied he was the guilty, when he said he'd come clean about the other, aged, offending but he wasn't the killer.

Ewen MacDonald - is he getting a fair go?

No, he isn't. Not if you take into account the ex police officers whose convictions were hidden from the Auckland High Court Jury during the Louise Nicholas trial. Those convictions related to exactly the same type of criminal behaviour for which they were on trial.

In MacDonald's case he, along with an off-sider, killed 2 deer from a neighbour's property in 2006, 4 years before the murder of Scott Guy. In 2008 he burned what has variously been described as a derelict house or a house on a trailer for removal from the Scott farm, 3 years before the murder. In 2009 he, with the same off-sider put graffiti on Guy's home, the year before the murder. It's hard for me to fathom why this evidence was allowed. It appears police deliberately ensured that the events were on the video statement made by MacDonald so that it could be later argued that the entire tape should be played to the Jury to maximise the negative impact of the other events. Overall it's clear that police had 2 options running. The 1st that MacDonald when confronted with Callum Boe (his co-offender in the arson, graffiti) would admit the whole sorry mess, including the murder. If he didn't, the police would still have a different picture of MacDonald in front of the Jury, their second and less preferred option. I happen to think they failed, not so much with the prejudicial impact, but by the response of MacDonald to the allegation of murder. He was firm on that,  responding to a police request to fess up, saying that 'it' (admitting to a murder he didn't do) 'wouldn't be the right thing to do.' That strong statement appearing to prompt the police to halt the interview.

Take a look at it. Callum Boe (although he may still do so yet) would have been under immense pressure and inducement from the police to implicate MacDonald in the murder, was probably accused of being an accessory and sweetened with the idea that a little 'inexplicit' statement configuring blame against MacDonald could be worth Boe being looked after, maybe not charged with the other crimes, potentially money, immunity, the list goes on - but, so far - nothing. Nothing to take this floundering case any further. A lot of people didn't like the fact Schollum and Shipton's previous offending of the same type was kept from the Nicholas jury, I wonder what the same people think of this farmer having a yoke put around his neck for which a jury will be asked to 'put from their minds' crime's, some petty, of a dissimilar nature to that for which he is tried.

It will be interesting if Callum Boe is called to give evidence, if he's not called by the Crown that will reflect poorly on their case in my opinion. One thing for sure is that the farmer is getting no apparent favours by having the jury hear of the graffiti etc when we now know that by 2010 things had improved between Scott and Ewen - thanks largely to Bryan Guy making it clear there would no inheritance of the farm and that the men should work together knowing that the value of their 10% share each of the farm could increase and they would have the opportunity to buy more. On the subject of work, MacDonald was a very hard worker, apparently not at all flash but down to earth and determined. Farmers aren't angels, and nobody said Ewen is one but he's looking increasingly not guilty to me.