The hunt for the killer

September 17th, 2012 at 10:52 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Kylee Guy is working with private investigators to find out who killed her husband and is asking anyone with new information to come forward.

was acquitted of ’s murder after a High Court trial, and Mrs Guy has now begun her own investigation.

I’d say the chances of them finding the “real” killer are at around the same level as OJ finding out who really killed Nicole.

Tags: ,

81 Responses to “The hunt for the killer”

  1. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    That’s a bit of a silly comment to make.

    Ewen MacDonald has a practically solid alibi for the killing. He wouldn’t have been found guilty even if the test was the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    Maybe they figure out a way to drain the farm’s effluent ponds and hopefully find a certain pair of dive boots.

    I think this is a nice way of saying we’re going to go over everything the cops did and maybe find some small bit of info to nail McDonald once and for all.

    If they do I hope the legal boffins can find a way to retry McDonald and keep him inside for a bit longer – might wipe the smug smile off his face.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. KH (695 comments) says:

    Go Kylee. Not likely to have a result given the big system failed to produce. But worth a try.
    David Garrett was posting last week on the mentally ill, dangerousness, and the supposed failure of community care.
    Interesting on what he might say about how the system works/doesn’t work for us in respect of Ewen MacDonald.
    Ewen is not seen as ‘mentally ill’ in the usual way we characterise it. But he’s sure not your average guy either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Maybe they figure out a way to drain the farm’s effluent ponds and hopefully find a certain pair of dive boots.

    How many rows of tread do you reckon the dive boots will have?

    I think this is a nice way of saying we’re going to go over everything the cops did and maybe find some small bit of info to nail McDonald once and for all.

    Considering what the cops “found” inidcated that Ewen didn’t commit the murders more than anything else, hoping there is some evidence that will convict him is a fool’s dream.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    I think if she wants any chance of not going to hell after she dies, then she had better start forgiving.

    Forgiveness is a huge subject and certainly one in which the Bible is not silent. In the Bible we can read about our amazing and loving Heavenly Father who forgives us of all trespasses. God calls sinners to seek Him and promises them forgiveness. It is because of His great mercy and grace that God rescues the believer from the dominion of darkness that began way back in the Garden. Jesus extends a loving invitation for forgiveness of sins which is only possible through His shed blood. He gave His life so that we may live. We are forgiven because He was forsaken – That is amazing love!

    There is no sin too big that God cannot forgive it. When Jesus died on the cross, He died to pay the penalty for all of the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2). When a person places his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, all of his sins are forgiven. That includes past, present, and future, big or small. Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins, and once they are forgiven, they are all forgiven (Colossians 1:14; Acts 10:43).

    We are all guilty of sin (Romans 3:23) and deserve eternal punishment (Romans 6:23). Jesus died for us, to pay our penalty (Romans 5:8). Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ for salvation is forgiven, no matter what sins he has committed (Romans 6:23; John 3:16). In God’s eyes, a murderer’s or adulterer’s sins are completely and permanently forgiven the moment he believes and places his faith in Christ. Jesus paid the price for his sin, so long as he repents of it, and he will be eligible for entrance into heaven! The same cannot be said for his victims, if they choose to hold on to their resentment and never admit that hating someone is as bad as murdering someone (Jesus’ words).

    It is not the size of the sin that is the determining factor here; it is the size of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. If the shed blood of the sinless Lamb of God is sufficient to cover all the sins of all the millions of people who would ever believe in Him, then there can be no limit to the size or types of sins covered. When He said, “It is finished,” sin was made an end of, full atonement and satisfaction for it were given, complete pardon was obtained, peace was made, and redemption from all sin was achieved. It was sure and certain and complete; nothing needs to be, or could be, added to it. Further, it was done entirely without the help of man, and cannot be undone.

    And let’s not forget that there are thousands of murderers every year here in New Zealand in the form of abortions. They are equally as guilty, if not more, than McDonald, because they are murdering babies.

    [DPF: 20 demerits. Off topic. Debate abortion in abortion threads or general debate]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I think if she wants any chance of not going to hell after she dies, then she had better start forgiving.

    Troll alert.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. George Patton (349 comments) says:

    Fuck off Jimmy you obnoxious arse, and take your ghost whispering and fringe nutter issues with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Jimmy… By “God” do you mean Thor? Because there is no record of Thor ever meeting Jesus, and I suspect if they had met then Thor would have killed Jesus with his mighty hammer. Thor had a short temper and would have been offended by Jesus’s hispanic name when he was actually a jewish man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    Jimmy you are a sanctimonious piece of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @Jimmy Smits

    Please go away. Your obsession with women’s reproductive organs is unhealthy and unhelpful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    [DPF: 20 demerits. Off topic. Debate abortion in abortion threads or general debate]

    Don’t worry, he’ll forgive you.

    Metcalph: Considering what the cops “found” inidcated that Ewen didn’t commit the murders more than anything else, hoping there is some evidence that will convict him is a fool’s dream.

    Yes, everyone here had a vendetta against Guy and we all have a history of psychopathic and evil behaviour including arson and beating calves to death.

    Guy had a good lawyer who convince the jury that reasonable doubt was “but what if McDonald’s vandalism and arson, and the fact he recently researched how to get away with murder, are just a coincidence, and someone else magically appeared and shot Guy for no reason”. Also, hiding the other charges from the jury was a good move from McDonald’s lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. annie (539 comments) says:

    Irrationality alert: we’re beginning to see the same pattern here as the one we see with David Bain – supporters all refer to him by his first name – ‘Ewen’ or ‘David’ as though he were a close friend or family member.

    It might pay supporters to consider what the verdict might have been if the jury had had the benefit of knowledge about the pattern of Ewen McDonald’s other crimes, or David Bain’s having told a friend what an excellent plan it would be to use a paper round to cover a rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Only 20 demerits for Jimmy?

    20 for for the abortion paragraph and 80 for general fuck wittisim I would have thought

    And – myslf and several others here have never sinned Jimmy so fuck off

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    One thing one often finds in these situations is a female who has been conned by someone who wants her money. I suspect that she has been totally and fully conned by some creep private investigator. Ill even go further and suggest that it wont be long before this investigator has put his shoes under her bed.

    Theres no doubt that the police seriously fucked up their investigation (fancy presenting your “weve got him” bit of evidence without actually checking that it was even slightly correct – like failing to count the number of tread rows….) but the chance of finding conclusive evidence that mcdonald fired the gun is about zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Guy had a good lawyer who convince the jury that reasonable doubt was “but what if McDonald’s vandalism and arson, and the fact he recently researched how to get away with murder, are just a coincidence, and someone else magically appeared and shot Guy for no reason”. Also, hiding the other charges from the jury was a good move from McDonald’s lawyer.

    What part of “alibi” do you have problems coming to terms with? At the time of the shootings, Ewen was in his house turning off the burglar alarm. There was a car leaving the scene of the crime which the police never managed to trace, the police weren’t able to convince anybody that they had the murder weapon (three shots in quick succession from a double barrelled shotgun?) and the boot impressions evidence that supposedly placed him at the scene of the crime was shot down in flames to such an extent that the expert witness looked as though he wanted to hide at the bottom of an effluent pond.

    Lastly get your facts straight. Ewen McDonald did not research how to get away with murder. That was a case in England.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Guy had a good lawyer who convince the jury that reasonable doubt was “but what if McDonald’s vandalism and arson, and the fact he recently researched how to get away with murder, are just a coincidence, and someone else magically appeared and shot Guy for no reason”.

    Which is why we don’t allow innuendo to be evidence in favour of someone committing a crime.  This effectively argues for a murder conviction based upon other offending, and without the need for actual proof.  That is a scary position to take, quite frankly.

    Also, hiding the other charges from the jury was a good move from McDonald’s lawyer.

    Go and read the Evidence Act.  There are rules for allowing other offending to be placed before the jury and this did not meet the criteria.  This was most emphatically not a case of charges being “hidden” by McDonald’s lawyer.  If you are going to criticise anyone, go after the judge for deciding that the charges were not admissible and the Crown lawyers for not being good enough to show that they were, notwithstanding the actual evidence.  

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    @ metcalph (904) Says:
    “…Ewen MacDonald has a practically solid alibi for the killing. He wouldn’t have been found guilty even if the test was the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.”

    MacDonald admitted he did not have an alibi on the morning of the killing: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7128537/Jury-shown-Macdonald-confession

    He did earlier provide alibis for the arson and the damage to the house, which he was later found guilty of: http://www.3news.co.nz/Macdonalds-account-of-finding-Guy-murdered/tabid/423/articleID/257978/Default.aspx

    I’m not sure your assertion is correct. The Guy trial is a classic case where the defendant’s other charges and history should be on the stand. If the credibility of witnesses can be challenged, so should the defendant’s. Especially when the defendant is charged with crimes that including revenge killings of animals (described by the judge as callous and brutal), two arson attacks and vandalism of the murder victim’s property.
    For such a serious crime, the defendant should be on the stand.
    As for the dive boot – I’ve heard it’s not unusual for footwear manufacturers to use different sized soles on same size uppers from time to time based on stock levels and availability over the years – it’s not reasonable to expect every manufactured product to be identical especially in the case of relatively basic goods that do not require precise production techniques. MacDonald’s wife suggested he may have thrown out some dive boots. Using other boots as the basis of comparison would not be helpful if they differed subtly from newer boots.
    So… it will be interesting to see what the investigator finds, regardless of outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    MacDonald admitted he did not have an alibi on the morning of the killing

    Wrong, he did. He was in his house turning off the burglar alarms at the very time the shots were fired several hundred metres away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Indeed, the alibi is a crucial matter in this case,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    @ metcalph (906) Says:
    “Wrong, he did. He was in his house turning off the burglar alarms at the very time the shots were fired several hundred metres away.”

    Does that mean you didn’t read the confession transcript in the link I provided?
    Understandable if it doesn’t fit your view.
    As for exactness of the time – ADT reported that somebody turned the alarm off at 5:03am, a witness reported hearing three shots ‘some time around’ 5:00am – there’s no exactness there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    @metcalph – it is impossible to determine that those events happened at the same time. Wishful thinking maybe – solid alibi no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    For such a serious crime, the defendant should be on the stand.

    He had a fairly lengthy interview with the police. That’s worth as much as giving evidence on the stand these days.

    As for the dive boot – I’ve heard it’s not unusual for footwear manufacturers to use different sized soles on same size uppers from time to time based on stock levels and availability over the years – it’s not reasonable to expect every manufactured product to be identical especially in the case of relatively basic goods that do not require precise production techniques.

    I would expect to hear evidence from the manufacturer in this regard. Have they ever changed the soles on the proline boots over the years?

    MacDonald’s wife suggested he may have thrown out some dive boots.

    Her evidence was that he had thrown out the _specific_ boots that he was photographed wearing a couple of years before the murder and that she never saw them. No mention was made of any other dive boots in the household.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    @ metcalph (907) Says:
    “He had a fairly lengthy interview with the police. That’s worth as much as giving evidence on the stand these days.”

    Well not really, it doesn’t give the prosecution the right to cross-examine the accused on the stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    And – myslf and several others here have never sinned Jimmy so fuck off

    Last time I saw somone say something that idiotic they were drunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Does that mean you didn’t read the confession transcript in the link I provided?

    I read it. McDonald was simply wrong in thinking he did not have an alibi for the killings.

    As for exactness of the time – ADT reported that somebody turned the alarm off at 5:03am, a witness reported hearing three shots ‘some time around’ 5:00am – there’s no exactness there.

    His _wife_’s evidence is that he turned off the Burglar alarms. _Three_ witnesses reported the shots at 5am. The police took three to four minutes to cycle from McDonald’s house to the murder site in broad daylight without puppies and shotgun. You need far stronger evidence to show that he could have done it than what the police/crown bothered to show in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    @metcalph – it is impossible to determine that those events happened at the same time. Wishful thinking maybe – solid alibi no.

    I stand by solid alibi. It is up to the Crown to show that the Alibi is flawed, not McDonald. The Crown didn’t show shit. And as for impossible,nobody in their right mind uses your apparent standard of beyond unreasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Well not really, it doesn’t give the prosecution the right to cross-examine the accused on the stand.

    Which the police are effectively doing in a recorded police interview.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    And metcalph puts McDonald’s photo into his hope chest.

    I think most of us know he got off because the case against him was not robust, not because he didn’t do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    And metcalph puts McDonald’s photo into his hope chest.

    That’s nice. I’ve been debating the evidence while all you’ve done is make a personal attack.

    I think most of us know he got off because the case against him was not robust, not because he didn’t do it.

    The possibility that the case against was not robust because he didn’t do it seems to have escaped you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

     For such a serious crime, the defendant should be on the stand.

    You mean the witness box.  In NZ, we don’t have stands and witnesses don’t give testimony.  They enter the witness box and they give evidence.

     Anyway, I take it you don’t believe in the right to silence?

    it doesn’t give the prosecution the right to cross-examine the accused on the stand.

    Aha, of course you don’t.  You want the defendant to be questioned by police and then have a second go at him by the Crown.  Nice one.  

    Can you give me some reaonsable reasons as to why the defendant should assist in prosecuting himself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    And metcalph puts McDonald’s photo into his hope chest.

    That’s nice. I’ve been debating the evidence while all you’ve done is make a personal attack.

    I was NOT making a personal attack. I find it quite touching.

    I think most of us know he got off because the case against him was not robust, not because he didn’t do it.

    The possibility that the case against was not robust because he didn’t do it seems to have escaped you.

    No, it did not escape me. I just think it is highly improbable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    I was NOT making a personal attack.

    And now you’ve stooped to telling lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    I was NOT making a personal attack.

    And now you’ve stooped to telling lies.

    But I left no footprints.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Hmm, three shots from a double barrel shotgun, first was it proven a double barreled shotgun was used ?
    Have a cartridge between the fingers while firing and then break and load a single would take no time at all, was the person who heard the shots an experienced shooter ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. williamsheridan (63 comments) says:

    I’m not sure how these private investigators are being paid….. but I suspect that if it was based purely on a success fee they would stop work on the job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    first was it proven a double barreled shotgun was used ?

    The only shotgun that Ewen McDonald had access to was a double barreled shotgun. It was not proven that the particular shotgun was used (that it wasn’t was far more likely to be the case).

    Have a cartridge between the fingers while firing and then break and load a single would take no time at all, was the person who heard the shots an experienced shooter ?

    The defence called in an expert witness, a yank gun nut, who said it took 7 and a half seconds to reload the shotgun in question.

    Besides it was two witnesses who hear three gun shots in rapid succession and a third who woke up suddenly and heard two shots in rapid succession.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    I take it the shotgun was auto eject when broken, 7.5 seconds is a long time to reload a single cartridge in a shotgun if you are holding it between fingers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Assuming of course that he didn’t have another gun handy and there was no double barreled gun. He is a secretive nutjob after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    I take it the shotgun was auto eject when broken

    You assume a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Assuming of course that he didn’t have another gun handy and there was no double barreled gun.

    Fortunately for us, the courts require evidence and not fanwanked handwaving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    You are becoming a real dick metcalph (for the record, that WAS a personal insult). Who said anything about the courts? I was theorizing in a blog comments section on the internet – you know – the court of public opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    lol metcalph, just like the “solid alibi” you mentioned? That sounded to me like the definition fanwanking

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    Ewen MacDonald is as innocent as our National hero David Bain…Perhaps the two could move in together and do some kind of ‘reality’ TV show?? (Though Ewen might bash the stunt mouse to death)
    That would be awesome…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chris2 (766 comments) says:

    Just for once in NZ (it happens in the USA) I’d like a member of the jury to come forward (anonymously if they choose) and tell the NZ Public what went on in the jury room and how exactly they came to all decide MacDonald was not guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    7.5 seconds, I thought a shot gun was used, not a muzzle loader

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    lol metcalph, just like the “solid alibi” you mentioned?

    The alibi is solid whether you like it or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Who said anything about the courts? I was theorizing in a blog comments section on the internet – you know – the court of public opinion.

    You were speculating as to why he should have been found guilty. That involves the courts. If you still fail to see the connection, I recommend you see a doctor for help about your retardation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Just for once in NZ (it happens in the USA) I’d like a member of the jury to come forward (anonymously if they choose) and tell the NZ Public what went on in the jury room and how exactly they came to all decide MacDonald was not guilty.

    What’s there to say? The case as presented by the Crown was manifestly insufficient to convict and should never have been brought to trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    7.5 seconds, I thought a shot gun was used, not a muzzle loader

    I’ll take the sworn testimony of an expert witness on the subject as opposed to someone whom, for all I know, has probably never handled a firearm outside playstation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I’ll take the sworn testimony of an expert witness on the subject as opposed to someone whom, for all I know, has probably never handled a firearm outside playstation.

    Takes some balls to say that to a former cop…

    Just for once in NZ (it happens in the USA) I’d like a member of the jury to come forward (anonymously if they choose) and tell the NZ Public what went on in the jury room and how exactly they came to all decide MacDonald was not guilty.

    Speaking as one who only followed this peripherally (as in, I couldn’t miss it but wasn’t interested), I saw the not guilty verdict coming fairly early.  Going on the debates I have seen on KB, there simply wasn’t enough evidence with which the Crown could obtain a conviction.  Not enough evidence to convict = a not guilty verdict.

    What your comment appears to be, Chris2, is more an exercise in jury bashing than an actual comment on the McDonald case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Balls? I’m thinking more like the retardation that he seems to know so much about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    To take 7.5 seconds to reload a shotgun you are either blind or a thaliomide victim.

    Metcalph you are sounding like a labour party politician i.e nobody can differ from you rather tenious point of view, grow up, this is a blog comments section, Guy walked shit happens, remember a jury made the decision and juries are made up of people who do no not have to submit to any sort of intelligence test, that said the police were never going to win this one, they just did’nt have the ammo and for the fact that he was charged at the time you point the finger at the Crown Solicitor, it was his decision

    I have a point of view on it but the amount of fucks I really give is similiar to how much attention I give to your comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Guy walked shit happens, remember a jury made the decision and juries are made up of people who do no not have to submit to any sort of intelligence test, that said the police were never going to win this one, they just did’nt have the ammo and for the fact that he was charged at the time you point the finger at the Crown Solicitor, it was his decision

    Best summation of the case yet.

    Perhaps we should begin debating the idea that nobody should be excused from jury duty except for genuine and unjustified hardship (or extreme hardship) to themselves or their family?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    I heard John Banks did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,130) Says:
    September 17th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    well said sir.

    I don’t know why they brought the case when they did.
    I think they should have brought him to court for all the other cases and only bring him to court for the murder if they if they knew they had a good case.

    rather have him away for 9 yrs than walk on a poor case.
    political plods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    jims_whare:Maybe they figure out a way to drain the farm’s effluent ponds and [...]

    Can it really be that difficult to drain them? Time for the engineering students and societies to have a competition perhaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. farmerdes (16 comments) says:

    dont need an engineering student, just a trash pump and or slurry tanker, with a stirrer. Very simple and easy to do, lots of farmers do it regularly. I do it twice a year, it’s fertilser gold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    If its that easy then why didn’t the police do it? As I understand it the draining has to be done delicately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    F E Smith 6.04

    They expected to him to confess, when he didn’t they thought they had enough anyway – if only that he was leading a double life unknown to his own family which painted a black picture of him, and if that wasn’t enough more would follow after the charges were laid and he was in custody. The revelation that Callum Boe had admitted a role in the other crimes I think convinced the police that MacDonald would first admit to that, and then under the pressure of that, admit to the murder. I don’t think he was even a genuine suspect early on. His denial of the murder during the video tape was very strong and didn’t, as it shouldn’t, compensate for lack of hard evidence. At that point the police should have had the file reviewed rather than charging him as it is clear they already intended to do.

    I think the talk about effluent ponds is sheer nonsense. In the event anything was found there how could it possibly be linked to MacDonald, or overcome the fact he was at home when the shots were heard. As much as his other offending was disturbing, as is his apparent ability to deceive and let down even those close to him, that doesn’t overcome the wide shortfall in the evidence against him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,

    Following your reasoning at 8.03pm, if correct then the approach was somewhat amateurish. It is easy enough to have a theory, but to take a case on an expectation or a hope is just plain silly. Still, as PEB noted, the ultimate decision on charging him rests with the Crown Solicitor for Palmerston North, so perhaps we could speculate that the Crown was somehow incentivised to progress the case rather than holding off until they had better evidence…?

    I am sure that Simon Power would say so!

    (and, yes, the ‘incentivised’ bit was tongue in cheek, but the dig at Simon Power wasn’t).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    @ metcalph (919) Says:
    “…His _wife_’s evidence is that he turned off the Burglar alarms. _Three_ witnesses reported the shots at 5am. The police took three to four minutes to cycle from McDonald’s house to the murder site in broad daylight without puppies and shotgun. You need far stronger evidence to show that he could have done it than what the police/crown bothered to show in court.”

    I’m struggling to find a link that quotes his wife’s testimony stating that it was MacDonald who deactivated the alarm, could you provide one?
    Also, please note the witness who heard the shotgun shots said she heard them ‘about’ 5:00am – there is no exactness involved here. This is not as solid an alibi as you maintain.

    @ metcalph (919) Says: ”
    ‘Well not really, it doesn’t give the prosecution the right to cross-examine the accused on the stand.’

    Which the police are effectively doing in a recorded police interview.”

    The prosecution was not given the opportunity to question him after this very initial phase of the investigation in front of a jury. You are describing the investigation and prosecution case as though they are one and the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    ‘the Crown was somehow incentivised to progress the case rather than holding off until they had better evidence…’

    I think so. And we don’t have a ‘hold on fellas this looks weak’ clause operating. Once the wheel is turned it remains turned unfortunately.

    Slightly off point. If EM was sentenced on the charges which he has been sentenced on, without the backdrop of an unsolved murder, just the sum total of what he admitted with no attendant details other than the facts of that offending – would the sentence in your opinion have been the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Also, please note the witness who heard the shotgun shots said she heard them ‘about’ 5:00am – there is no exactness involved here. This is not as solid an alibi as you maintain.

    For the last time, there were _three_ witnesses that heard the shots and said they were at 5:00 am, Not one. Three.

    The Crown says Mr Guy was shot about 4.43am, but Mr King said three neighbours were woken at 5am.

    Bonnie Fredriksson was woken by three successive bangs. She thought this was about an hour before her 6am alarm.

    Alison Rankin was woken by a loud bang. She went to the toilet and looked at her clock either before or after that. It said it was 5am.

    Fraser Langbein was woken by something at 5am.

    Derek Sharp heard two bangs. His clock said it was 5am but he thought the real time was actually 4.45am, as his clock was unreliable.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7185933/Trial-ends-for-the-day

    The unreliable clock was supposedly due to overhead power lines but the defence produced a witness that said that claim was bullshit.

    Three people said 5am and the fourth said an hour before 6am. The Crown’s case required Scott Guy to be shot at 4:43am.

    The Crown’s case is bullshit on this particular point and Ewen McDonald has a fucking solid alibi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    PEB

    To take 7.5 seconds to reload a shotgun you are either blind or a thaliomide victim.

    At top speed gunsmith and USA title holder Mitchell Maxberry said it took him seven seconds to reload a shotgun similar to the one featured in the trial.

    Mr Maxberry told the jury he had won five national titles, some long range and rapid fire competitions and had owned hundreds of guns.

    He said before the trial he testfired to see how far a wad would be shot from a gun and how fast three shots could be fired from a similar gun to the Guy family farm shotgun.

    He said the cartridges had to be physically pulled from the gun rather than ejected automatically when the gun was opened.

    Mr Maxberry said he put two rounds in the gun and could be fired in about a second.

    He said each cartridge then had to be removed and another put in and that took about seven seconds.

    He said he was doing it as fast as he could.

    He said they used the Winchester bushman ammunition similar to what was part of the trial.

    Crown prosecutor Ben Vanderkolk asked if he was being timed while he was shooting.

    Mr Maxberry said he was timed by a stopwatch.

    He said it was usual to remove both cartridges at once because only removing one could cause a jam.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7175094/Scott-Guy-murder-trial-Day-17

    Go back to your doughnut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    And we don’t have a ‘hold on fellas this looks weak’ clause operating

    Actually, we do.  It is called the Solicitor-General’s guidelines, and it sets out what is necessary for a prosecution to be undertaken.  The thing is that it is an ongoing responsibility of the prosecutor to ensure that the criteria is met at all points of the process, so if evidence that was presumed to exist fails to materialise then the Crown should either manufacture the evidence or consider whether the prosecution still has evidential sufficiency.  

    That said, the bar for evidential sufficiency in NZ is, in my opinion, applied at quite a low threshold. Perhaps that is because we have jury trial proseuctions undertaken by private firms who are incentivised to take as many cases to trial as they can (at least, applying Simon Power’s logic).  I tend to think that the Crown prosecutors take a more ethical approach, but then I also thought that defence lawyers who accepted instructions on legal aid also had generally high ethical standards until Mr Power disabused me of that notion.

    I do think that the crown prosecutors in the UK and the Aus states apply a higher standard when considering evidential sufficiency (and, ironically, those jurisdictions have government departments prosecuting rather than private firms), but that is just my opinion.

    I would like to know, however, what the Crown thought in this case provided evidential sufficiency, knowing that a jury would scrutinise the evidence with quite some rigour, given the nature of the charge.  The quicker the not guilty verdict in a serious case, the poorer the job done by the Crown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    The prosecution was not given the opportunity to question him after this very initial phase of the investigation in front of a jury. You are describing the investigation and prosecution case as though they are one and the same.

    The videoed police interview was not a “very initial phase of the investigation”. It was well to the fucking end and the police had acquired the lion’s share of the evidence that would be used in court.

    And it makes little difference from the Jury’s Point of View whether the Police or the Prosecutor does the questioning. All that matters is for the defendant to respond, if he chooses, to the charges made against him. In many ways the police interview is far better because they are now not so confrontational as a cross-examination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    I’ve always wondered about people who seem to become obsessed with the innocence of guilty people. And it seems to make no difference when those guilty people have done particular evil things. Like that screwball lawyer Davina Murray who thinks Liam Reid is just misunderstood, or people like Carolyn Davies and Joe Karam. There are even people who think Mark Lundie is innocent.

    I didn’t think the case would be the same for a creep such as McDonald. But metcalph has shown that every crim gets his fan club. What about Jules Mikus? Anyone think he’s been shafted by the cops?

    FES: Which is why we don’t allow innuendo to be evidence in favour of someone committing a crime. This effectively argues for a murder conviction based upon other offending, and without the need for actual proof. That is a scary position to take, quite frankly.

    I think it’s scary that we’re not allowed to take someone’s past into account.
    A rapist who has killed several children many years ago, and done his time in prison, moves into a small community. Two weeks later three kids are found dead. The rapist has no alibi, and had been seen stalking the house the week prior. But because he has an IQ of above 90 he has managed to avoid DNA evidence. So because the jury is brainwashed from watching CSI into thinking that crimes should have “forensics”, they declare he is not guilty because “we can’t prove it”.

    My complaint isn’t about “reasonable doubt” – I think that everyone sort of knows roughly what that’s sort of meant to mean. My problem is in the “proving”. To most people I’d imagine “proof” is of a higher standard than reasonable doubt – “proving” means 100%, like the calculus equations I vaguely remember from 7th form that end in Q.E.D or some repeatable scientific experiment. Using the word “prove” implies too high a standard of proof.

    Back to the first point, the character of a suspect is incredibly important. Nasty people do nasty things. If you were 90% sure someone did a crime, then knowing that he’d done that crime previously might make you 95% sure. It doesn’t prove it, but the jury should be allowed to use it in their decision making – it shouldn’t be hidden by some judge.

    I can’t argue law, but a psychopath getting away with murder isn’t justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    It was obvious McDonald was guilty from the interview – interviewing 101 – a guilty suspect will often pass off an accusation without an emphatic denial! There was no alibi!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Metcalph you are sounding like a labour party politician i.e nobody can differ from you rather tenious point of view, grow up, this is a blog comments section,

    Ploddie, I have been arguing facts rather than judgments. People have a legitimate right to say just how bad a piece of work is Ewen McDonald and I don’t give a damn. What they do not have is the right to make up facts and say things that are just plain untrue. No amount of blog masturbating is ever going to change the fact that Ewen a) has a solid alibi b) the shotgun claimed to be the murder weapon could not have fired the number of shots that the witness_es_ heard, c) there is no evidence placing Ewen at the scene of the murder and d) there is evidence of an unknown person leaving the scene of the murder in the car. If somebody else other that Ewen was the subject of these facts, most people would conclude that the somebody else in the car was the murderer.

    Guy walked shit happens, remember a jury made the decision and juries are made up of people who do no not have to submit to any sort of intelligence test, that said the police were never going to win this one, they just did’nt have the ammo and for the fact that he was charged at the time you point the finger at the Crown Solicitor, it was his decision

    It was the police’s decision to arrest and charge him for murder. It was the Crown’s decision to proceed to trial.

    I have a point of view on it but the amount of fucks I really give is similiar to how much attention I give to your comments.

    You’ve given my comments quite a lot of attention compared to the lack of attention you claim to give it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    But metcalph has shown that every crim gets his fan club.

    Again with the personal attacks. Why not grow half a brain and discuss the facts? But I forgot. That would require you to take the remedial logic classes that you flunked the first time around because you were too busy trying to fellate yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Random Punter (72 comments) says:

    tristanb: I think it’s scary that we’re not allowed to take someone’s past into account.

    “We” are allowed to take someone’s past into account to the extent that it’s relevant to the matter in hand. The jury were allowed to hear of the arson, vandalism, and killing of the deer because they had some bearing on the murder charge. The burning of the whare, spilling of the milk, killing of the calves etc had nothing to do with Macdonald’s actions against the Guy family. Knowledge of them would tend only to be prejudicial, not evidential, as your comments and those of many others on this thread amply demonstrate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    What solid alibi????????????????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    FFS – random people don’t turn up at 4am in the morning and shoot people! Maybe it was David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    What solid alibi????????????????

    Go back to remedial reading lessons because I’ve explained it repeatedly in the thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    You can’t use a witness recollection of the time of the shots as a solid alibi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    I think you’re just trying to annoy people on here by being a complete dick! No one could be so irrational.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I think it’s scary that we’re not allowed to take someone’s past into account.

    We are, if it is relevant to proving the offence.  That is why some of the offences were admitted into evidence.  Others were obviously not relevant and so were not admitted.

    A rapist who has killed several children many years ago, and done his time in prison, moves into a small community. Two weeks later three kids are found dead. The rapist has no alibi, and had been seen stalking the house the week prior.

    And if you don’t like the fact that the prosecution against McDonald failed, then petition Parliament to pass a law declaring him guilty and imprisoning him for life. That would be little different from the legal reforms that you suggest.

    Well, I think you mean ‘murderer’ rather than ‘rapist’, but is the lack of an alibi and previous form for a matter enough for you to put a person in prison without actually having evidence?  Now, if he was sent for trial, those previous murders would actually be admissible, but you don’t seem to understand that.

    But because he has an IQ of above 90 he has managed to avoid DNA evidence.

    I don’t know where you get that from.  It is completely wrong and sounds like hyperbole within your scenario.

    So because the jury is brainwashed from watching CSI into thinking that crimes should have “forensics”, they declare he is not guilty because “we can’t prove it”.

    I agree that CSI is a really dumb TV programme, and that there is a recognised ‘CSI Effect’ with juries, but that wouldn’t apply with your scenario.  What you are really saying seems to be that the jury would like more evidence that “he did it before therefore it must be him again, even though there is no evidence other than him ‘stalking’ the children”.  Well, that would depend on how the previous killings were carried out.  If there were similarities then you might have a case, based upon similar fact evidence. 

    But that is not really what you are arguing, is it? What you seem to be suggesting is simply allowing the prosecution to say “this is a bad person, find him guilty based upon what he has done even though we have no evidence other than he actually did anything”.  I presume that even if you took the stalking part out of your scenario, you would still happily convict simply based upon previous form. 

    Let’s use a less emotive topic: a person who has a half dozen burglary convictions from 10 years ago moves in a certain area.  Two years after he moves in, there is a burglary of a house down a street.  There is no evidence against him, but he does have those convictions.  Do you prosecute/convict?  After all, he has form so he must be guilty…

    My complaint isn’t about “reasonable doubt” – I think that everyone sort of knows roughly what that’s sort of meant to mean. My problem is in the “proving”. To most people I’d imagine “proof” is of a higher standard than reasonable doubt – “proving” means 100%, like the calculus equations I vaguely remember from 7th form that end in Q.E.D or some repeatable scientific experiment. Using the word “prove” implies too high a standard of proof.

    That makes no sense.  Juries are told quite clearly that the standard for the word ‘prove’ is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.  The phrase defines the term.  If you have a problem with that then either the concept of proving on the balance of probabilities must give you nightmares, or you are simply complaining about your own definition of words and phrases.

    you were 90% sure someone did a crime, then knowing that he’d done that crime previously might make you 95% sure.

    Does nobody read the Evidence Act before making an argument that is already covered by that Act?  Seriously?  A situation as you describe is admissible.  Bad character is admissible in certain situations.   You are leveling criticism and suggesting solutions that already exist.  What you cannot do is use proof that a person previously stole a chocolate bar to be evidence that they carried out a murder. 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    F E Smith 10.57

    Thanks. That seems to be getting close to the ‘weak point’ of some prosecutions proceeding when they shouldn’t. Not only the low thresh hold but also the ‘ambition’ of some of the parties. I’d like to see it more absolute black and white decision making. Perhaps there is a check list I don’t know. There are many benefits from a tougher scrutiny, something which might be also achieved (if it doesn’t happen – which it seems it doesn’t) about the validity of some evidence, or how and when it arose. Quite often critical ‘evidence’ arrives late in an inquiry in circumstances that don’t seem water tight. An independent analysis should take such questions into account, otherwise some are entitled to the view that it is the police and Crown Law working together by ignoring what might be obvious reasons for concern – the shell in garden in the Thomas case.

    I think that would be helpful to the Court as well – because the Court too becomes involved in the scrutiny of what went ‘wrong’ because they didn’t voice concern about such particular evidence, or perhaps reject it or warn the Jury about it. I’m probably going a little too far for your liking F E Smith. If you decide to reply I’d be interested in what you have to say on this aspect which is distinguished in the MacDonald case, no firearm in his hands, no sighting, alibi, another suspect, etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,

    I note your suggestions, but I would counter that they are not necessary in NZ simply because, for the most part, Crown prosecutors do their job impartially and disinterestedly. Not always, but usually. Moreover, most jury trials are founded on clear evidence that presents a good prima facie case to answer for the defendant.

    While commenters on KB do get all worked up about perceived injustices in the system, they are really only responding to media beat-ups over a tiny percentage of defended cases in NZ. There will always be mistakes over the criteria, but the system is set up to do its best to avoid miscarriages of justice that might come out of such mistakes. Again, many commenters get worked up about that, too, but it the safeguards are there in recognition that we are all human and therefore do make mistakes.

    I tend to think that the McDonald case is simply an example of over-eagerness on the part of the Police/Crown (and the Crown must take overall responsibility here, as PEB has previously pointed out) to progress the case, even when it wasn’t particularly strong.

    I am not sure that the Court does need to get involved, simply because it isn’t the place of the Court to do so. The Courts are an independent adjudication body, not an party to the proceedings. Sure, get the judges in on a general review of the standard of evidential sufficiency, but not on a per case basis.

    So, if I have understood your point correctly, I think that it is a good idea but not really needed at this point in time. If NZ had a lot of issues of this nature then ok, but it just doesn’t happen often enough for us to really worry about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    Interesting to see someone who entirely disregards opposing points of view while batting away any questions of their own assertions.
    Would be nice if people sought truth over opinion. Not that they’d argue their opinion was anything other than the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Good Points F E Smith.

    I think the point in time is reached, one case is one too many but in fact there is currently more that just a few. If just a small number of ships sink compared to the great volume of shipping we still maintain safety and good housekeeping rather than rely on the hope we won’t be on the next one that goes down. Exactly the area which should be the domain of an alert and independent judiciary.

    Yes the MacDonald case was seemingly a display of over eagerness – which should have been reined in by Crown Law in the first instance. I seems it was probably left to chance that the other crimes, and the manner of the trial with revolving witnesses could have sheeted a conviction home. That’s one view anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote