Ewen MacDonald - evidence still lacking.

The jury got to hear a large part of the video taped interview of  Ewen MacDonald today, some 3 hours gone and one or so more hours to be heard tomorrow. But no confession of any sort to this point, and if there is one in remaining tape, we would have heard about it in the opening address.

In that opening address the Crown highlighted the much earlier acts of vandalism, the burning of a house under transport, poaching that MacDonald has since admitted. He denied those acts in his interview but has since admitted them. I commented earlier that there must have been evidence found against MacDonald for those acts from some accomplice or acquaintance. I offered that person might be selling some admission regarding the murder he or she could have claimed MacDonald made, but that doesn't appear to be the case now. The jury are not sitting on a vandalism or arson trial, rather one of murder - yet evidence of MacDonald's guilt  remains lacking.

One witness today spoke of the efforts of MacDonald on the farm as driving the profit. Another reason that Ewen would have appreciated, that not only was he a shareholder of the farm, but also a capable farmer able to return a profit. Someone able to rely on his skill and hard work for the benefit of himself and family not only on the Guy farm, but on any other farm to which they might consider to move.

Bryan Guy gave evidence which included how after the murder Ewen's salary was increased. Bryan Guy, is of course, Ewen's father in law, the grandfather of the young man's four children. It was Bryan whose shotgun was said to have been potentially used in the killing, a man who had lost his son, who lived on the same farming enterprise. Obviously nothing appeared to Bryan which might have been of concern about Ewen's alleged involvement in the murder.

Today appeared to be the day to 'mark' the forward movement of the case against MacDonald, but we still haven't seen it. We've looked fairly deeply into the lives of this family, seen the common things in any family such as of rivalry, but we haven't seen any admission from Ewen, we've haven't seen a shotgun in his hand, nothing to explain, or evidence to show that he hadn't risen at his normal time, come out to meet his workmate and looked liked he just woken - despite the Crown's unproven assertions.

Ewen MacDonald - the big gap.

The prosecution have said the timing in this case was critical. One correspondent has already said that there wasn't enough time for MacDonald to leave the marital home bike to Scott Guys house, wait for Scott to drive to the gate and be shot while getting out of the car to open the gate that had been closed for the purpose of the killing. But there is a massive gap in time and credibility of the police account there. Where was the shotgun taken from and when was it returned.?

I don't know of shotguns having shoulder straps on them, maybe some do. But even with a shoulder strap it would be a hell of a job riding a bike carrying a shotgun over one's shoulder, provided that is that he (MacDonald) not only knew where the shotgun was, but that he could uplift it and return that morning to the farm office. More time in that, whatever way you look at it - accepting that MacDonald or the actual killer didn't want to be seen on the road that morning at all, and definitely not with a shotgun. Too dangerous for MacDonald to travel in that manner, that morning. I'd say implausible.

If you are not convinced recall the early days of the trial, indeed recall this week - Act 2, in the drama without a plot. The jury were told by witnesses that Guy was unreliable, particularly with time. The other men joked that morning about his sleeping in again, obviously a well known and ordered routine. Factor that into the timing. Not only did MacDonald need to transport the shotgun while riding the bike on a public road, or go into the farm office and assemble the shotgun which there is no proof that he knew was there, but he also needed to kill Guy return the shotgun, disassemble and hide it in such particular fashion that Bryan  Guy would say in evidence that he had never been touched from the time he'd hidden until the time he recovered it and locked it away into the firearm safe. Mistake free, hard work to time, according to the Crown. But then there is another big leap in 'faith' we have to believe that MacDonald was not mindful of the obvious fact that Scott Guy would not necessarily be on time that morning, or even going to work.

Put that together in a credible way if you can, and complete your scenario of the witness that saw the light go on at Ewen's house for him to emerge shortly after pale as though having just woken. A bloody big gap in this story.

Ewen MacDonald - what motive?

At the outset we heard the motive was that Scott Guy wanted to inherit the farm, presuming therefore that this would have caused the 'exceptional event' of MacDonald to kill his brother-in-law. But both Mrs and Mrs Guy said that while Scott brought the subject up they told him unequivocally that as the farm had come into their hands by purchasing it that was how their shares would be disposed of. They pointed out that both Scott and Ewen were already shareholders. Ewen therefore would have been satisfied that his share of the farm could only be brought from him and not gifted away.

Ewen was in fact in a strong position in terms of the property. He had the opportunity to sell his shares or make an offer to buy more, that is a very satisfactory arrangement and far from one, portrayed here, that it could have been taken from him. His wife confirmed the couple had been a little reluctant to enter the partnership and so one must conclude they would not be necessarily be reluctant to sell their shares and moved on. The couples greatest asset appears to be the high quality farmer that Ewen was, one witnesses saying that he could have got a job 'anywhere.' No motive exists under the Crowns scenario because the major shareholders of the farm have already told the Jury the financial arrangements of the farm. Ewen McDonald and is family were poised to take other opportunities if they so decided, they weren't over committed or in debt, there was no chance of them losing their share - in fact by Ewen's good management they had no doubt increased the value of that share. One could argue the farm needed that MacDonald family more than the MacDonald family necessarily needed the farm.

Yesterday a police officer gave evidence that various scenarios that MacDonald had advanced as the murder scenario were all incorrect. The real story is that those questions were a type of entrapment. Why and how could MacDonald have anything other than an opinion, yet his answers now form some 'guilt' against him - I don't think so. To this point we are seeing one prejudicial point built on another, then repeated  as though to make it a truth. Today we 'learn' that police were able to discount 'drugs or robbery' as a factor. In fact they might have not discovered reasons to believe drugs or robbery was involved, but by the same token that doesn't discount them - purely coincides that they didn't make such a discovery. This, of course implies, because that no such discovery was made, then there must be another reason - look no further than the defendant

So no motive, and still no shotgun in MacDonald's possession, indeed Bryan Guy saying that his shotgun in the farm office had not been touched. You know the one, the one that 'might' have been the murder weapon.

Ewen MacDonald Trial: some unusual reporting.

We've heard that MacDonald keeps his head down, that his wife and sister-in-law enter and depart the Court through a different door in order not to walk past MacDonald.

On page 1 of today's Herald Andrew Koubaridis reports 'that it was clear to some who worked on the Guy farm that something wasn't right between Scott Guy and Ewen MacDonald.' I guess we are to presume this is news or new evidence despite at the opening of the Crown case a 'motive' was presented that MacDonald took his brothers-in-law's life in order to get hold of the farm. Since then we've heard there might have been some jealousy between the pair and that their relationship was hot and cold. Additionally, we know that MacDonald revealed what most people know that a shogun shot is not traceable, that he believed whoever shot Scott Guy should get the death sentence. Other headline pieces have said that the men were competitive.

Of course, a reporter trying to write a headline needs to put his or her head in the sand at some time and make something out of nothing. So far, there has been a lot made out of nothing. Many people are competitive, either in family, work, or sports situations. Brothers-in-law may not necessarily get on all the time, they don't necessarily like one another because after it all it was their partners they were attracted to, not their partner's siblings. Similarly, there would hardly be an adult alive in NZ that hasn't had some experience or heard of 'family troubles' over estates, inheritances, and so forth - in fact, unfortunately, it's pretty much par for the course in many families. For that reason this case so far, in week 2, hasn't really 'got going' against Ewen MacDonald despite the news bites and headlines. If anything he might now be regarded as a hard worker, an excellent farmer, a good workmate, and so on, not the makings of a man driven by greed or jealous rage.

I was interested in his demeanor following the discovery of Scott's body, by all reports he was shocked, crying on occasion, to this point no suggestion that he was 'acting' out a role. Consider Len Demler advising neighbours that there were better things for them to be doing than looking for the bodies of his slain daughter and son-in-law, off-hand, detached. There are seldom murders for gain of the type the Crown suggests here in NZ, even less so where the 'advantage' is not readily apparent by direct evidence against a suspect. To date from reports that I've read, Greg King, MacDonald's lawyer, has either blunted suggestions of 'circumstantial motive' or indeed seen them delivered by way of cross-examination to being negated.. King said it was a 'who dunnit,' clichéd language it seemed at the time, but as things process appearing more and more accurate while reporters continue to try and make something from nothing. It's an interesting case to this point, horrible for those concerned of course, but generally, abroad I think is the idea that people don't know if MacDonald is guilty and are waiting for that evidence to make it clear before forming the opinions we are all entitled to have of public trials.

Instead, we are seeing a type of parade, almost theatre, connived by interpretation of looks, which doors witnesses use, eye contact, and lack of eye contact. Will it take a month for us to see revealed how it was that MacDonald 'allegedly' knew that his brother-in-law had been shot, or to have his actions explained in attempting to frighten his sister-in-law, and stealing stock? Because to this point hearing that if one, of the two men, got a tattoo or a new car, the other did is not scratching the surface of guilt. No violence, no violent arguments, threats of violence, a 'may be the shotgun' used is not the substance of good reporting - but far more importantly and observation of the openness of Justice seeing to be done in a democracy. Perhaps there are 'accomplices' to come and spill the beans for no 'apparent gain.'

Ewen MacDonald Trial

To note that calling his wife and sisters-in-law to give evidence up to 5 different times throughout the duration of the trial is fairly unprecedented. I recall this being used in the Bain trail with some police officers, where it might be argued that it was used to lessen the effect in the juror's mind of what the police said on the first occasion under cross examination as compared to less telling cross examination later on less searching evidence.

In the MacDonald trial however, it is possible to view the chronological order of evidence as reinforcing the women's apparent distress in a way that it could be argued was intended to impact a greater impression on the Jury dis favourable to the defendant. This impression is heightened by reports that the two women enter and exit the court by a different door when they are to give evidence, in so doing they avoid walking past MacDonald I think it is. These reports speak about lack of eye contact and so forth, MacDonald keeping his head down. It's a worry that these impressions are potentially brought into the Court room when they could be avoided. Not only is there the stress on the 2 women, but the 'reminders' to the Jury throughout the trial of their understandable distress and the potential impression they feel 'unsafe' walking past MacDonald or are in fact are unsafe being created in the Jury's mind. The continued exposure, and apparent 'distance' between the individuals could lead to the concept that the women somehow 'know' more than what they are allowed or are giving evidence about - another concern, particularly where it must be considered the different approach jurors might bring to their tasks and what impressions might have been made on them in the Court room.

Added to the fact that it was some extended period time, and after Ewen McDonald's arrest, that his father-in-law corrected his version he told the police at the outset as to where the shotgun 'possibly' used in the murder had been kept. I trust Greg King and the Court will be mindful of both situations at the time of summing up. The danger is that Ewen McDonald has acknowledged some form of intimidation against that part of his family before the shooting, that could merely be the answer to the apparent chill in the relationship, but whatever the case, the entire family are entitled to the truth and a fair trial with crisp lines of evidence which avoid innuendo, emotion, hate or pity.