Ewen Macdonald found not guilty

[sil3nt]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7204130/Ewen-Macdonald-found-not-guilty
:crazy:

Crown fucked this one up big time!

[Maha]

Reasonable doubt is all it takes.


He also called American shooting champion Mitchell Maxberry as an expert witness, who said it would take him seven seconds to fire two shots, reload and fire a third shot with a double-barrelled shotgun, like the one the Crown said Macdonald used to kill Guy.

Two Crown witnesses told the Court they heard three shots in succession.

King said that was too quick for the farm shotgun, and a semi-automatic gun would have been used.

That is reasonable doubt.

[Swoop]

Crown fucked this one up big time!
Nothing new there.

I see the crown law office is contracting out the fuck-up they have made of the Dotcom fiasco.:facepalm:
MORE taxpayer money wasted.

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7204130/Ewen-Macdonald-found-not-guilty
:crazy:

Crown fucked this one up big time!

I think they got the right guy...but they had fuck all to go on. What can you do if you have no witnesses, or real hard proof? He was smart enough to use a shotgun etc...fucking hard to pin it to him I would've thought.

[Madness]

Kylie Guy is guilty of being smoking hot :yes:

[sil3nt]

I think they got the right guy...but they had fuck all to go on. What can you do if you have no witnesses, or real hard proof? He was smart enough to use a shotgun etc...fucking hard to pin it to him I would've thought.Yep I was waiting for the crown to drop a bombshell but it never came.

[98tls]

Dont think we have heard the end of this to be honest.

[superman]

I think they got the right guy...but they had fuck all to go on. What can you do if you have no witnesses, or real hard proof? He was smart enough to use a shotgun etc...fucking hard to pin it to him I would've thought.

Well he'll likely get a few years for the arson and vandalism anyway, so hopefully while he's away the Crown can find some better evidence. Like you I think it's rather likely that it was him... if he is truly innocent he must be one extremely unlucky dude to have someone he was harassing turn up dead.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Kylie Guy is guilty of being smoking hot :yes:

Don't tell me...you'd like to shoot her.

With your porridge gun.

[Madness]

Don't tell me...you'd like to shoot her.

With your porridge gun.

I'd even wear rubber booties if she asked.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I'd even wear rubber booties if she asked.

With a distinctive wave pattern for her pleasure.

[Road kill]

I don't think life is about to become good for him just because the cops had nothing solid on him.
He only looks lucky right now,bet it don't last.

[Murray]

The bit I find strange is when he was interviewed by police he stated "find the guy who did the arson and vandelism and you will find the killer"

Is that a confession?????

[Crasherfromwayback]

I don't think life is about to become good for him just because the cops had nothing solid on him.
He only looks lucky right now,bet it don't last.

I remember seeing him as a pall-bearer and he looked like he had a smirk on. I'm thinking the fuzz will be pretty pissed about this one.

[Crasherfromwayback]

The bit I find strange is when he was interviewed by police he stated "find the guy who did the arson and vandelism and you will find the killer"

Is that a confession?????

Bit like him correcting people by saying "no, he was shot". This...before even the police inspecting the body knew this. Or saying he remembers seeing Scotts ute headlights through the closed gate? Can only know that, or have seen that if you were the killer or there at the time.

[Str8 Jacket]

In my opinion this case should never have gone to court without some SOLID evidence. The case was too flimsy, they just could not have found him guilty, not without a shadow of doubt. Not that I don't think that he didn't do it.....

[merv]

"Not Guilty" means he can't be tried again doesn't it even if new evidence comes to light?

[Murray]

Bloody Farma's - six mumpths ago I couldnt evn spel it now I is one

[skippa1]

Kylie Guy is guilty of being smoking pot :yes:

hope shes not on a benefit:pinch:

[Maki]

Another stupid foul up and waste of time. If they had no evidence, why take him to court and waste my tax $ trying to pin a crime on him that there was zero proof that he committed. I can't understand what took the jury so long...

[Winston001]

There is no reason to say the Crown or the police made any mistakes. They were faced with a deliberate murder and did their best to identify the offender. The trial relied upon circumstantial evidence but that isn't unusual or surprising. Many crimes are not witnessed.

Once MacDonald was caught lying and then confessed to the arson etc, he looked good for this crime. Means motive and opportunity.

Not Guilty means not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean "he didn't do it".

To be accurate, he is presumed innocent now but he still faces prison and his life will be a mess for a long time.

[SMOKEU]

"Not Guilty" means he can't be tried again doesn't it even if new evidence comes to light?

I'm pretty sure he can be retried at a later date.

[merv]

I'm pretty sure he can be retried at a later date.
OK Mrs was just saying to me too she thought that law had changed as you say and they can be tried again. My memory was just a bit out of date.

[Str8 Jacket]

My memory was just a bit out of date.

Is that a flash way of saying that you're old?! :p

[tigertim20]

Ive been following this for a while, and its no surprise to me at all that he was found not guilty.
dunno if I think he did it or not, but the crown case never looked anything more than feeble.

[scumdog]

Crown fucked this one up big time!

How?:scratch:

[Quasievil]

Who gives a fuck

[Paul in NZ]

So he didn't quite get off Scott free then?

Ah hem...

I think the Police got it right but if half the shit I've heard is true they were tripped up at the last minute by a bombshell witness who decided not to testify. That would have provided plenty of motive.

[merv]

Is that a flash way of saying that you're old?! :p

Yeah must be. You know, on a % basis you're getting closer to my age every day :woohoo:

[Quasievil]

Ive been following this for a while, and its no surprise to me at all that he was found not guilty.
.

You follow alot of stuff you dont know fuck all about then make Judgements so no surprise there toolhead :motu:

[scumdog]

So he didn't quite get off Scott free then?

Ah hem...

I think the Police got it right but if half the shit I've heard is true they were tripped up at the last minute by a bombshell witness who decided not to testify. That would have provided plenty of motive.

You're onto something Paul...;)

[oneofsix]

So he didn't quite get off Scott free then?

Ah hem...

I think the Police got it right but if half the shit I've heard is true they were tripped up at the last minute by a bombshell witness who decided not to testify. That would have provided plenty of motive.

if that is the case then it is a pity they can't charge that witness with being an accessory after the crime. They either mis-lead the police into charging the wrong person or assisted the right person getting off by not testifying, either way they assisted the murder.

[Str8 Jacket]

Ive been following this for a while, and its no surprise to me at all that he was found not guilty.
dunno if I think he did it or not, but the crown case never looked anything more than feeble.

If the rumours that PaulNZ refer to are correct then I can see (now) why they might have been confident. I am wondering when this witness backtracked, or at least if they did have some solid evidence but later found that they could not use it in court why they could not have stopped the trial.... Guess this is the real world not TV

[GTRMAN]

I guess the thing is that the crown had to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that he was guilty. The jury felt that they didn't do that.

That is not the same as being found innocent.

But none of us were in in the court room hearing all the evidence, we saw and heard what the media wanted to show us, generally with a heap of slant on it.

I feel for the two sisters, both of their lives are stuffed. How do you continue with a man who has been tried for killing your sisters husband? There is no happy ending for anyone here...

[tigertim20]

So he didn't quite get off Scott free then?

Ah hem...

I think the Police got it right but if half the shit I've heard is true they were tripped up at the last minute by a bombshell witness who decided not to testify. That would have provided plenty of motive.
I have friends in the legal community, the rumour there was that the dude was having a homosexual relationship, mr guy found out and said, if yyou dont tell your wife, I will, so he shot him. tis but a rumour though

You follow alot of stuff you dont know fuck all about then make Judgements so no surprise there toolhead :motu:

awww waaaaaahhh. Id love to have a battle of wits with you, but you appear to be unarmed, and my mother told me its not nice to pick on retards.
p.s. will qmoto gear actually have triple stitching now that its not being run by an incompetent brainless cunt? Hope so - no doubt theyll make more money that your ego and attitude ever allowed you to!

[Crasherfromwayback]

, the rumour there was that the dude was having a homosexual relationship, . tis but !

I see what you did there!

[merv]

I think Mrs merv is right, they can retrial now with new evidence as per this section of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360264.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation% 40deemedreg_retrial_resel_25_h&p=1

[Hitcher]

so hopefully while he's away the Crown can find some better evidence.

I think you'll find that most countries' justice systems don't work that way, including New Zealand's.

[Hitcher]

"Not Guilty" means he can't be tried again doesn't it even if new evidence comes to light?

Indeed Merv.

[Hitcher]

I think Mrs merv is right, they can retrial now with new evidence as per this section of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360264.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation% 40deemedreg_retrial_resel_25_h&p=1

One should sometimes start reading threads from the bottom up.

[gsxr]

Or ????


Section 26 of the Bill of Rights Act is as follows:

Retroactive offences and double jeopardy

No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred.
No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again.

[gsxr]

Source

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-guidelines-on-the-new-zealand-bill-of-rights-act-1990-a-guide-to-the-rights-and-freedoms-in-the-bill-of-rights-act-for-the-public-sector/section-26-retroactive-penalties-and-double-jeopardy

[Flip]

I think that what ever the jury came up with it was the right decision.

This tryal by media stuff really pisses me off.

No matter what comes up later its still the right decision at the time. Fuck TVNZ!

[short-circuit]

I have friends in the legal community, the rumour there was that the dude was having a homosexual relationship, mr guy found out and said, if yyou dont tell your wife, I will, so he shot him. tis but a rumour though


This is what I heard too (friends in the journo community)

[Pussy]

I reckon a Dingo did it.....

[Hitcher]

This is what I heard too (friends in the journo community)

Repeating an unsubstantiated rumour doesn't make it true, as many a former New Zealand cricketer will attest.

[short-circuit]

Repeating an unsubstantiated rumour doesn't make it true, as many a former New Zealand cricketer will attest.

Still interesting given that it has emerged in several contexts

[scott411]

I think that what ever the jury came up with it was the right decision.

This tryal by media stuff really pisses me off.

No matter what comes up later its still the right decision at the time. Fuck TVNZ!

agree totally, a 8 hour court day gets put into 5 minutes for news, i hate the way the media crowd and rush the families as well,

[placidfemme]

I have friends in the legal community, the rumour there was that the dude was having a homosexual relationship, mr guy found out and said, if yyou dont tell your wife, I will, so he shot him. tis but a rumour though

:tugger:

More hear-say. More motive bullshit... fuck all evidence. :bash:

If that is all they have it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.

[Woodman]

So now that he has been proven not guilty of the murde,r the police will have to get off their asses and find out who did it.

[HenryDorsetCase]

if that is the case then it is a pity they can't charge that witness with being an accessory after the crime. They either mis-lead the police into charging the wrong person or assisted the right person getting off by not testifying, either way they assisted the murder.
Or subpoena that person and treat them as hostile.

i think we still have the rule that a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband though?

[Ocean1]

i think we still have the rule that a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband though?

Believe that was changed a few years ago.

The Scots have "not proven" as an option, few other European systems too. Bit ridiculous to require a definitive guilty/not guilty when you consider the evidence may well not support either.

[tigertim20]

I see what you did there!
and there I was thinking subtlety was lost on you lot!!

I think that what ever the jury came up with it was the right decision.

This tryal by media stuff really pisses me off.

No matter what comes up later its still the right decision at the time. Fuck TVNZ!
true, Theres a shitload that gets said and discussed in 6+ hours in a courtroom that never gets mentioned in the 200 word write up on stuff, or the 2 minute blurb on the news.

This is what I heard too (friends in the journo community)
its an interesting rumour!

:tugger:

More hear-say. More motive bullshit... fuck all evidence. :bash:

If that is all they have it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.

yes but life would be boring if we couldnt speculate!

[Paul in NZ]

Or subpoena that person and treat them as hostile.

i think we still have the rule that a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband though?

No - thats gone now. Wife can be made to testify.

The homosexual thing would provide the one thing that was really missing, motive to kill. If a homosexual affair was exposed by (say) a fellow employee as he other party then it would be compelling. If exposed he would loose everything, including any share in the farm as it would go to the daughter and thus have a reason to commit murder. The case as presented lacked it.

Tough job for the Police.....

Hope that rumour is false though....

[tigertim20]

No - thats gone now. Wife can be made to testify.

The homosexual thing would provide the one thing that was really missing, motive to kill. If a homosexual affair was exposed by (say) a fellow employee as he other party then it would be compelling. If exposed he would loose everything, including any share in the farm as it would go to the daughter and thus have a reason to commit murder. The case as presented lacked it.

Tough job for the Police.....

Hope that rumour is false though....

yep, be nice to know what evidence wasnt presented!

[BigAl]

Another stupid foul up and waste of time. If they had no evidence, why take him to court and waste my tax $ trying to pin a crime on him that there was zero proof that he committed......

Aw well back to catching speeding motorcyclists then.

$$ that he did it but not enough evidence, prolly hoping for a confession in early stages of investigation.

[Winston001]

No - thats gone now. Wife can be made to testify.



Correct. Evidence Act 2006.

[98tls]

I reckon a Dingo did it.....

Called Arthur.

[Winston001]

Believe that was changed a few years ago.

The Scots have "not proven" as an option, few other European systems too. Bit ridiculous to require a definitive guilty/not guilty when you consider the evidence may well not support either.

The "Not Proven" verdict allows for a new trial if more evidence is found.

Technically we have that already but its a tough hurdle for the Crown to cross. Very very rare. The only case I can think of is George Gwaze who was acquitted for a second time in Christchurch.

To be honest, I thought autrefois acquit meant you'd never be retried but the Crimes Act has had that provision since 1961. Its so rare law school lecturers don't even mention it.

[Winston001]

Or subpoena that person and treat them as hostile.



Yeup.

But I suspicion the "mystery witness" could only repeat hearsay and if he was scared couldn't give any direct evidence of value.

Lets imagine Scott Guy said something like "I'm going to tell your wife" to MacDonald, who later repeated that to the witness. That's hearsay - the witness wasn't there to hear the original words. It's third-hand.

Thats the only explanation for why the Crown didn't compell him to give evidence. Or maybe he was so flakey they knew he'd be torn apart on cross.

[Edbear]

agree totally, a 8 hour court day gets put into 5 minutes for news, i hate the way the media crowd and rush the families as well,

Everyone should know by now that the media do not just report the news, haven't for years. The ratings war means the media do their best to make the news and present the bits that sensationalise to promote viewing their channel.

Fairness and accuracy has long gone in the chase for ratings and the dollar.

Silly thing is, so many people are knee-jerk reactionists they don't hesitate to believe what they see and hear and don't exercise skepticism and patience until the truth/real story comes out.

Significantly, the Police spokeswoman said they were not looking for anyone else or pursuing any other line of enquiry, and would be looking at any new evidence found.

[oneofsix]

Everyone should know by now that the media do not just report the news, haven't for years. The ratings war means the media do their best to make the news and present the bits that sensationalise to promote viewing their channel.

Fairness and accuracy has long gone in the chase for ratings and the dollar.

Silly thing is, so many people are knee-jerk reactionists they don't hesitate to believe what they see and hear and don't exercise skepticism and patience until the truth/real story comes out.

Significantly, the Police spokeswoman said they were not looking for anyone else or pursuing any other line of enquiry, and would be looking at any new evidence found.

Did the media ever just report the news? I suspect that we have just become more suspicious with the internet etc allowing us access to more differing views.

The thing that scares me the most is the lynch mobs that so easily form based on the media reports, knee-jerk reactionists as you termed them.

[Haggis2]

I have friends in the legal community, the rumour there was that the dude was having a homosexual relationship, mr guy found out and said, if yyou dont tell your wife, I will, so he shot him. tis but a rumour though


awww waaaaaahhh. Id love to have a battle of wits with you, but you appear to be unarmed, and my mother told me its not nice to pick on retards.
p.s. will qmoto gear actually have triple stitching now that its not being run by an incompetent brainless cunt? Hope so - no doubt theyll make more money that your ego and attitude ever allowed you to!

Maybe MacDonald and David Bain could get together then.... :buggerd:

Battle of wits = crackup

[MisterD]

No - thats gone now. Wife can be made to testify.

Yeah, but the one person in the room that knows for sure if he did it or not, can avoid getting up on the stand. That needs to change, or at least the jury ought to be able to draw the conclusion I draw from him failing to give evidence in his own defence.

[Hinny]

Young MacDonald had a farm,
He Lied, He Lied, He Lied.

[Hinny]

Fuck farming for him now.
He has been offered a job with a local butcher, specialising in home kills.

[Hinny]

266116

Had to happen.

[Berries]

Had to happen.
More of the same.

[slowpoke]

Yeah, but the one person in the room that knows for sure if he did it or not, can avoid getting up on the stand. That needs to change, or at least the jury ought to be able to draw the conclusion I draw from him failing to give evidence in his own defence.

How is not saying something classed as "evidence"? Sorry, but that's got knobs on it. No way should anyone's life be at the mercy of some smug lawyer playing word games with a nervous/scared/flustered defendant in front of a packed court room.

But all the same you know very little about the case, and you've already decided he's guilty until proven innocent. Nice.

I don't think you understand the concept of evidence: you could put him on the stand and he could contradict himself left right and centre but you are no further towards lynching him. Until something actually puts him at the scene, and/or an appropriate weapon is found and connected to him there is still reasonable doubt. Any other conclusion is just based on probability, and be fucked if people should be convicted because they "probably" did it.

[oneofsix]

How is not saying something classed as "evidence"? Sorry, but that's got knobs on it. No way should anyone's life be at the mercy of some smug lawyer playing word games with a nervous/scared/flustered defendant in front of a packed court room.

But all the same you know very little about the case, and you've already decided he's guilty until proven innocent. Nice.

I don't think you understand the concept of evidence: you could put him on the stand and he could contradict himself left right and centre but you are no further towards lynching him. Until something actually puts him at the scene, and/or an appropriate weapon is found and connected to him there is still reasonable doubt. Any other conclusion is just based on probability, and be fucked if people should be convicted because they "probably" did it.


Benjamin Franklin thought "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."


Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," 2 says English jurist William Blackstone.

Neither apply on KB. Here, it seems it is better to hang draw and quarter ten innocent people than risk letting one guilty one go free.
I suspect McDonald did it but the case wasn't proven to the jury so he is not guilty. The people of the area will know if he did it and if he did his life there is over. Actually that was the original concept of the jury, it was people of your area that knew what sort of person your were, now it seems to be the thing to avoid.


A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.
Benjamin Franklin
Just added that one because I like the image it paints.

[Swoop]

That needs to change, or at least the jury ought to be able to draw the conclusion I draw from him failing to give evidence in his own defence.

I see your point but this removes "Innocent until proven guilty".
It is entirely up to the prosecution to prove guilt and thankfully not the other way round.

Unfortunately, proof of guilt can be provided by the police planting "evidence" aka Arthur Allan Thomas, to get shonky convictions.
“It is far better that 10 guilty men go free, than for one innocent man to hang".
http://laudafinem.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/the-scott-guy-murder-trail-and-the-arthur-allen-thomas-factor-trust-in-police-integrity-forever-gone/

[Bald Eagle]

stiil flogging that old,"planted evidence" dead horse

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

[Swoop]

stiil flogging that old,"planted evidence" dead horse

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2
Why not? Are you 100% certain that it ISN'T being done today?

[oneofsix]

Why not? Are you 100% certain that it ISN'T being done today?

Afraid the Dotcom fiasco breaths life into that dead horse, Scott Watson and Peter Ellis also gave it a boost although they remain guilty and Bain did it no harm.

[oldrider]

The bit I find strange is when he was interviewed by police he stated "find the guy who did the arson and vandelism and you will find the killer"

Is that a confession?????

Thought so too but didn't he have an accomplice on those two activities?

I believe the verdict was correct on the evidence presented but that doesn't mean he didn't do it!

Maybe he was saying his accomplice did!

Rust never sleeps and neither should the police ... they have no right to make statements like that "they are finished with case" FFS!

IMO the police should never have charged him if that's all they had to offer!! Just a waste of taxpayer money! (again) :brick:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Why not? Are you 100% certain that it ISN'T being done today?


the logical fallacy in your argument is that you seek to prove a negative.

When in fact all that can be proven (to the requisite standard) is X Y or Z did happen.

For example, you can't prove that aliens didnt land in Scott Guys driveway (that accounts for the lights) and they shot him with an alien weapon that appears in this dimension to impart wounds that look like shotgun inflicted them. And their feet have a rippled pattern because they are amphibious on their home planet. they just look kind of like the ridges you get on the sole of a dive boot.

[Virago]

stiil flogging that old,"planted evidence" dead horse


Why not? Are you 100% certain that it ISN'T being done today?

Who knows? Are you suggesting that in that regard the police are guilty until proved innocent? :innocent:

[SimJen]

not guilty does not mean innocence!
Interesting turn of events:
his wife left him early on and now shacked up with someone else
scott's wife believes he did it
he's incriminated himself with all the other actions, arson, damage etc
his brother is a detective, be interesting to hear his views on all this or infact if he has intervened at all?

It'll be interesting to see what the other 3 charges are for.
Personally I think he did it based on his previous behaviour, but until evidence proves that, he's not guilty of the murder.

[HenryDorsetCase]

not guilty does not mean innocence!
Interesting turn of events:
his wife left him early on and now shacked up with someone else
scott's wife believes he did it
he's incriminated himself with all the other actions, arson, damage etc
his brother is a detective, be interesting to hear his views on all this or infact if he has intervened at all?

It'll be interesting to see what the other 3 charges are for.
Personally I think he did it based on his previous behaviour, but until evidence proves that he's not guilty of the murder.

Oooooh, excellent goss.

[Swoop]

Are you suggesting that in that regard the police are guilty until proved innocent?
One hopes that the constabulary behaves themselves and acts with impeccable morals and upstanding character.
How many were convicted over the past few years and what is Clint Rickards up to now?

...but until evidence proves that he's not guilty of the murder.
I hope you never have to stand in court and prove that you are not guilty of something.

[SimJen]

I hope you never have to stand in court and prove that you are not guilty of something.

Typo now corrected:
"Personally I think he did it based on his previous behaviour, but until evidence proves that, he's not guilty of the murder.

[oneofsix]

One hopes that the constabulary behaves themselves and acts with impeccable morals and upstanding character.
How many were convicted over the past few years and what is Clint Rickards up to now?

I hope you never have to stand in court and prove that you are not guilty of something.

Clint has joint a group less critical of his many talents and that puts him in a better position to defend himself. :shutup:

[HenryDorsetCase]

One hopes that the constabulary behaves themselves and acts with impeccable morals and upstanding character.
How many were convicted over the past few years and what is Clint Rickards up to now?

I hope you never have to stand in court and prove that you are not guilty of something.

Uh, no one does (well except in very limited circumstances, and thats not in Court as such: thinking of the David Dougherty compensation scenario). I believe the SFO too might have some powers like that. But dont quote me.

[Crasherfromwayback]

his brother is a detective, be interesting to hear his views on all this or infact if he has intervened at all?

.

His brother (Blair) is a really nice chap. I sold him a blue 955i Daytona. He's a very professional guy, and down to earth. I doubt very much he'd interfere or intervene in any way.

[SimJen]

His brother (Blair) is a really nice chap. I sold him a blue 955i Daytona. He's a very professional guy, and down to earth. I doubt very much he'd interfere or intervene in any way.

I doubt it too, his take on it would be insightful :-)

[Motu]

his wife left him early on and now shacked up with someone else


Bugger - I was going to give her a little bit of time to come to grips with things before making my move... and some bastard just jumped straight in ! I don't think that's fair, eveyone is should be able have a chance to score.

[rustic101]

Never to let facts get in the way, but, did any of the experts on here watch Sunday last night when they interviewed his lawyer?

Just saying.....

[Road kill]

Yeah I did.
But I'm not an expert.

[Berries]

I was going to give her a little bit of time to come to grips with things before making my move...
If it involves giving her three brown puppies as a present I'd forget it.

[Tigadee]

Have you read a good book lately?

[Deano]

Have you read a good book lately?

i'm intrigued as to what the dude has gotten away over his lifetime if these are just examples of recent events

[Deano]

Never to let facts get in the way, but, did any of the experts on here watch Sunday last night when they interviewed his lawyer?

Just saying.....

king didn't endear himself to me at all, but not many defense lawyers have.

"he (mcdonald) is just a typical kiwi bloke"

that'd make a great tui ad

[SimJen]

king didn't endear himself to me at all, but not many defense lawyers have.

"he (mcdonald) is just a typical kiwi bloke"

that'd make a great tui ad

A typical kiwi bloke that maliciously uses an axe to vandalize houses before setting fire to them!

[HenryDorsetCase]

A typical kiwi bloke that maliciously uses an axe to vandalize houses before setting fire to them!

Well, to be fair it was just the one house. Well, two: (the old one burned, the new one vandalised). But only one property. Statistically as long as you arent married to his sister, you'll be fine.

[fuknK1W1]

Have you read a good book lately?

That would be funny if...

[Coldrider]

i'm intrigued as to what the dude has gotten away over his lifetimehomework, after all who can't spell 'fuken bitch slappr' correctly.

[PrincessBandit]

And according to the latest "poll" commented on in stuff's homepage, only 1 in 5 NZ'ers think he didn't murder his bro in law.

[Berries]

All polls are rubbish though, I have never told the truth in one. And to be fair, 'only' 48% thought he did kill him.

[scott411]

And according to the latest "poll" commented on in stuff's homepage, only 1 in 5 NZ'ers think he didn't murder his bro in law.

thank fuck they do not convict people on telephone polls,

do not even see the public interest in having a poll like this, really the only poeple that mattered were the Jury that sat though a month of tetomony, and came back not guilty, the trail by media even after the real trail is finished is over the top,

[oneofsix]

thank fuck they do not convict people on telephone polls,

do not even see the public interest in having a poll like this, really the only poeple that mattered were the Jury that sat though a month of tetomony, and came back not guilty, the trail by media even after the real trail is finished is over the top,

+1 proves nothing. I think he probably did it but I also think it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt and therefore realise I could be wrong. In that poll I would have been one of the ones saying he did it but if I had to have been the 12th person on the jury I would have had to agree with the other 11 and that is based on the 1% of the evidence the public got to see.

Not proven where they can be re-charged could be an option but would have to be considered without the emotion of a recent case. Could "not proven" also mean that innocent people have to live under the stress of being retried on bullshit charges after having already gone through it?

As to being forced to give evidence that is just lynch mob bullshit. The case should be able to be proven without the defendant getting on the stand. It allows mis-carriages such as a foul mouth biker being more likely to be found guilty just because he swore and didn't present well on the stand and upset our "moral standards".

[scott411]

As to being forced to give evidence that is just lynch mob bullshit. The case should be able to be proven without the defendant getting on the stand. It allows mis-carriages such as a foul mouth biker being more likely to be found guilty just because he swore and didn't present well on the stand and upset our "moral standards".

i agree with not having to go on the stand in your own defence, if this was to happen it would be open season with well educated lawyers taking on laymen and confusing them,

the not proven verdict could draw out already long running cases, with the prosecuter having unlimited access to funds to keep cases going,

I think a 11-1 verdict is a good comprimise when it seems clear all but one jury member agrees

[oneofsix]

i agree with not having to go on the stand in your own defence, if this was to happen it would be open season with well educated lawyers taking on laymen and confusing them,

the not proven verdict could draw out already long running cases, with the prosecuter having unlimited access to funds to keep cases going,

I think a 11-1 verdict is a good comprimise when it seems clear all but one jury member agrees

This wasn't an 11-1, they only had 11 so it was unanimous.

[HenryDorsetCase]

i agree with not having to go on the stand in your own defence, if this was to happen it would be open season with well educated lawyers taking on laymen and confusing them,


You say that like its a bad thing...

[oldrider]

NZ Police seem to suffer from "target fixation", with the same results that inexperienced motorcyclists suffer! :doh:

[oneofsix]

NZ Police seem to suffer from "target fixation", with the same results that inexperienced motorcyclists suffer! :doh:

Not just NZ Police. It is a common world wide problem arising from the methodology used.

[98tls]

And according to the latest "poll" commented on in stuff's homepage, only 1 in 5 NZ'ers think he didn't murder his bro in law.

To be fair P theres only 1 in 5 that have anything to think with.

[GTRMAN]

thank fuck they do not convict people on telephone polls,

do not even see the public interest in having a poll like this, really the only poeple that mattered were the Jury that sat though a month of tetomony, and came back not guilty, the trail by media even after the real trail is finished is over the top,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

It would seem the majority of journalists in this country are drinking from the Rupert Murdoch "anything to sell the story" cup. I mean, why is this even news? The jury found him not guilty, they are the only ones privy to ALL the given evidence.

[Woodman]

NZ Police seem to suffer from "target fixation", with the same results that inexperienced motorcyclists suffer! :doh:

This is what bugs me.

Maybe when someone is found not guilty the Police should have another team somehow completely removed from the original team investigate the murder with no preconceptions to the original case .

The methodoligy used now seems to be find a suspect and gather evidence that points at the suspect to prove him guilty whereas it should be to gather evidence and then see who it points at. For example Scott watson just happened to be about the only person in the marlborough sounds who had no alibi or witnesses to his movements. Doesn't mean he did it, just means he couldn't prove he didn't.

[Littleman]

It's important that not all cases Police put before courts result in guilty verdicts. It shows that the Police aren't completely corrupt and just alter evidence to suit their veiw. One would have to ask some serious questions of Police if they acheived 100 percent convictions in all homicide enquiries.

Some people seem to assume that because someone was found not guilty, Police should be looking for someone else. A rather black and white view. The judicial system really isn't a process of elimination.

[Road kill]

I think his deer stalking mate done it,,an got paid in puppys.

[Winston001]

As to being forced to give evidence that is just lynch mob bullshit. The case should be able to be proven without the defendant getting on the stand.

That is a misunderstanding of the argument. Nobody argues that a defendant should be compelled to take the witness stand. Instead prosecutors and the judge should be able to comment and draw inferences where the defendant remains silent. That is the situation in England.

Interestingly, MacDonald is not one of those cases. The jury were able to watch a four hour police interview tape in which MacDonald openly lied and then had to admit the vandalism, arson etc. So the jury did get to see and hear what he had to say.

[Winston001]

This is what bugs me.

The methodoligy used now seems to be find a suspect and gather evidence that points at the suspect to prove him guilty...

No.

In fact case theory requires the opposite. Gather evidence and then see where it points. In this particular matter the police had no suspects for 8 months and only got on to MacDonald when his accomplice dobbed him in. Its a very good example of the police not picking their suspect before they had the evidence.

If it were otherwise MacDonald would have been arrested at the start.

[Winston001]

It is entirely up to the prosecution to prove guilt and thankfully not the other way round.




Uh, no one does (well except in very limited circumstances, and thats not in Court as such: thinking of the David Dougherty compensation scenario). I believe the SFO too might have some powers like that.

Actually there is another sorta common exception: IRD prosecutions. If the Commissioner in his infinite wisdom claims you have failed to pay tax then the law (Income Tax Act 2006) says you are guilty. You have to prove your innocence.

[tigertim20]

Yeah, but the one person in the room that knows for sure if he did it or not, can avoid getting up on the stand. That needs to change, or at least the jury ought to be able to draw the conclusion I draw from him failing to give evidence in his own defence.

I dont agree with the sentiment here.
why should he have to get on the stand? what is that going to achieve? He said he didnt do it, he isnt going to get up there and say 'oh, actually, yeah I shot the cunt' just for laughs is he?

He provided enough evidence to be declared not guilty.
the police failed to provide enough evidence to prove guilt.

whether he gets on the stand or not makes absolutely zero difference at all IMO.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I reckon if his wife truly though he didn't do it she'd still be with him.

[Asher]

I reckon if his wife truly though he didn't do it she'd still be with him.

Well he may not be a murderer but he is still a lying, thieving, vandal, arsonist and sociopath.

[oldrider]

I reckon if his wife truly though he didn't do it she'd still be with him.

That must have been well under way before the murder ... didn't take her too long to get shacked up again!

That Guy family seems to have a funny way of laughing, or Macdonald had blown his family inclusion case well and truly long long ago!

If I was a cop on the case I would still be keeping an open mind on every other possibility as well as Macdonald though!

Cops, like rust, should never sleep, it's what they do and what we expect them to do! ... I don't mind paying tax to support a "good" Police force!

I don't like being taxed to support a piss poor sloppy Justice and corrections department either but we are! :( Fuck it!

[Robert Taylor]

I still think Craig Shirriffs did it, under contract

[MD]

This thread is useless without hotty pics of the two spunky MILFs

[Madness]

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1340600508/665/7167665.jpg

[tigertim20]

that is a pretty spunky widow right there

[Virago]

that is a pretty spunky widow right there

She's one helluva MILF.

WILF doesn't really sound quite as appealing though, eh?

[jellywrestler]

I still think Craig Shirriffs did it, under contract

nah he never goes out after dark; ever...

[tigertim20]

She's one helluva MILF.

WILF doesn't really sound quite as appealing though, eh?

Im keen to try something new, bring on the WILFs!

[awa355]

Personaly, I think the killer was the Lab bitch that had her pups stolen. And she was known to be a 'Gundog'. :sleep:

[Toaster]

His brother (Blair) is a really nice chap. I sold him a blue 955i Daytona. He's a very professional guy, and down to earth. I doubt very much he'd interfere or intervene in any way.

Blair is a great detective and a very good friend of mine. Both families have been through utter hell and have a long road ahead of them as they rebuild their very publicly damaged lives.

The families and especially the children in both families now without their dads will need all the support they can get.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Blair is a great detective and a very good friend of mine. Both families have been through utter hell and have a long road ahead of them as they rebuild their very publicly damaged lives.

The families and especially the children in both families now without their dads will need all the support they can get.

Agree with all of that 100%.

[Edbear]

Agree with all of that 100%.

+1... Nobody wins!

[Hinny]

+1... Nobody wins!

Pretty sure someone won.
Candidate for the Star Chamber?

[Madness]

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suppressions-lifted-ewen-macdonald-s-charges-5000890


ONE News can now reveal several other charges Macdonald confessed to, including one involving the brutal killing of livestock. It has been revealed that Macdonald went into a cattle pen under the cover of darkness and killed 19 calves with what is believed to be a ball-peen hammer in August 2007.

No wonder his missus left him. Murdering cunt.

P.S The correct spelling is Ball Pein Hammer.

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suppressions-lifted-ewen-macdonald-s-charges-5000890

No wonder his missus left him. Murdering cunt.

After the trial his dad said something like " It's a huge leap from setting fire to a house to pulling a trigger"

Well he used bashing the heads of 19 young claves in with a ball peen hammer as a stepping stone perhaps.

Fucker was smirking like fuck leaving the doc too. Nothing to smirk about that I've seen MoFo.

[merv]

Prick :mad::mad::mad:

[SMOKEU]

The silly cunt should have at least killed the calves humanely instead of brutally killing them with a hammer. I hope he gets sent to jail for that fact alone.

[tigertim20]

. Nothing to smirk about that I've seen MoFo.

If I had literally walked away from a courtroom having got away with murder, Id be smirking too if all I was going to do was serve a little time for other relatively minor offences, I would probably smirk too

Funnily enough, I recall reading an article a while back saying that you can get a longer incarceration for cruelty to animals, than an assault on a human being, so maybe (assuming he DID do it) he isnt as smart as he thinks he is

[rustic101]

The silly cunt should have at least killed the calves humanely instead of brutally killing them with a hammer. I hope he gets sent to jail for that fact alone.

I'm sure, and I could be wrong buts hes already locked up!!
How much time has he already served?
I think you'll find at Sentencing that will be deducted from his overall final punishment.
To offer an example the person(s) that killed the dogs en mass got Home D, and that was 34 dogs I think.
So a few calfs, and couple of bonfires would be what, five years?
Well at least the chap his ex is with at the moment will keep her safe, :oi-grr:

[Hitcher]

The silly cunt should have at least killed the calves humanely instead of brutally killing them with a hammer. I hope he gets sent to jail for that fact alone.

Without wishing to belittle Mr Macdonald's crimes, you clearly have no knowledge of how to use a hammer to humanely kill calves. Mr Macdonald may also have a similar lack of knowledge.

[oldrider]

Macdonald is obviously one sick puppy and found not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt at his trial for (allegedly) murdering Scott Guy!

The Crown case against him was pathetic and it makes one wonder why it was ever put before the court in the first place!

Now it seems he can only be charged and tried on a series of lesser charges that apparently he has already confessed to!

Probably will get off those by reason of insanity and will be walking about a free man by Christmas!

$millions?? of taxpayer dollars will be fattening lawyers pockets by the time it is all over and Macdonald will be a rich man from his compensation pay out!

NZ law is part of the problem rather than part of the solution to all this crap IMHO! :crazy:

[munster]

Without wishing to belittle Mr Macdonald's crimes, you clearly have no knowledge of how to use a hammer to humanely kill calves. Mr Macdonald may also have a similar lack of knowledge.
There is a difference though having to put down a sick calf with a hammer and killing 19 healthy calves with a hammer.

[Berries]

There is a difference though having to put down a sick calf with a hammer and killing 19 healthy calves with a hammer.
"You're gonna need a bigger hammer."

[SMOKEU]

Without wishing to belittle Mr Macdonald's crimes, you clearly have no knowledge of how to use a hammer to humanely kill calves. Mr Macdonald may also have a similar lack of knowledge.

A bullet to the head from a gun would be a lot more humane to kill an animal, or use a bolt pistol to knock it out then cut the throat.

[Brett]

If that article portrays the situation fairly...then Ewen is one strange, mental man. His actions show a man who is not really in charge of his emotions. It is just my opinion, but while he may have not been found guilty due to lack of evidence, that prick did the deed on Scott Guy...or at least he knows who did, most likely the former. A bit scary for the family, a bit like letting a wolf in amongst the sheep.

[Road kill]

The silly cunt should have at least killed the calves humanely instead of brutally killing them with a hammer. I hope he gets sent to jail for that fact alone.

I know that to somebody not involved with animals on a farming level that killing with a ballpean hammer sounds bad,but it is in fact instant.
Don't know anybody that's killed a calf like that because their always sold on reguardless of age,but pigs up to about 50kg and unwanted kid goats don't even blink an eye.
In fact it's probably a lot more humane than cutting their throats,,which most informed people don't seem to have an issue with.
He will no doubt do time for it,but it will be based on value "$$$" and the fact he's gotten away with killing his BIL.
It won't be because it was cruel or in humane,and I sure have mixed feelings on that in this particular case.

Oops sorry,should of read the other replies,
as you were.

[Madness]

It's ball pein.

[Road kill]

Macdonald is obviously one sick puppy and found not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt at his trial for (allegedly) murdering Scott Guy!

The Crown case against him was pathetic and it makes one wonder why it was ever put before the court in the first place!

Now it seems he can only be charged and tried on a series of lesser charges that apparently he has already confessed to!

Probably will get off those by reason of insanity and will be walking about a free man by Christmas!

$millions?? of taxpayer dollars will be fattening lawyers pockets by the time it is all over and Macdonald will be a rich man from his compensation pay out!

NZ law is part of the problem rather than part of the solution to all this crap IMHO! :crazy:

Something that still puzzles me,because there's only been passing reference to him.
What about the guys off sider ?,,,his usual partner in crime that's said to have given him up.
I've heard nothing of him,no mention that I recall during the little of the trial shown on TV.
I kind of get the idea the police might of made some sort of deal with that fella but,,,,what of the guy?
As to Mc donald being charged with these other crimes,,,I think he might be suprised at how vengefull our justice system can be when he gets the maximum sentence on every charge.
After all,if it works for Tuhoe I reckon it might work for him as well;)

[98tls]

Plenty of induced calves suffer a similar fate every year fwiw,could never bring myself to do it to be honest.Best outcome would be someone pushes the prick down some stairs in the big house,hes some piece of work.

[Madness]

Best outcome would be someone pushes the prick down some stairs in the big house,hes some piece of work.

Be ironic if he had an accident in the engineering workshop, say with a hammer.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Be ironic if he had an accident in the engineering workshop, say with a hammer.

Or maybe his house burnt down while he was in it sort of thing.

[Katman]

It's ball pein.

You should probably get that looked at.

[BigAl]

I think he might be suprised at how vengefull our justice system can be when he gets the maximum sentence on every charge.

Yeah but the sentences will be concurrent and given the 12 months or so he's already been inside what's the chances he'll be out in a year or so?

Wouldn't want the be the Guy family looking over my shoulder every day......

[MIXONE]

Wouldn't want the be the Guy family looking over my shoulder every day......

Or the guy that's hooked up with his ex.

[Berries]

It's ball pein.
I've been getting that occasionally. Should I see a doctor?

[PrincessBandit]

Well you can see why that info wouldn't have been made known to the jury - chances are the emotional reaction to those crimes would have rendered him guilty based on his ability to commit such dreadful actions rather than the cold hard facts of the case being tried. Again, I personally reckon he did it, but at the end of the day how many trials go ahead with juries not in full possession of other incriminating information? How many guilty crims have walked away free because the of the picture painted of them by their lawyer and the suppression of telling character traits which probably would colour jury's judgement?
I feel sorry for his parents (and whanau) that they now have to live with the knowledge of what their son has done, assuming they were oblivious to his sadistic nature.

[Maha]

Well you can see why that info wouldn't have been made known to the jury - chances are the emotional reaction to those crimes would have rendered him guilty based on his ability to commit such dreadful actions rather than the cold hard facts of the case being tried. Again, I personally reckon he did it, but at the end of the day how many trials go ahead with juries not in full possession of other incriminating information? How many guilty crims have walked away free because the of the picture painted of them by their lawyer and the suppression of telling character traits which probably would colour jury's judgement?
I feel sorry for his parents (and whanau) that they now have to live with the knowledge of what their son has done, assuming they were oblivious to his sadistic nature.

Which in hindsight, could offer a truer outcome at any trial but not necessarily sway the jury.

I was on a jury once where, there was evidence of the accused being heavily involved with drugs...but we could only find him not guilty.
He had scales/a briefcase full of cash/small brown envelopes/small snap lock bags and was arrested with drugs on him.
Our job was to find him guilty/not guilty of supply.
The defence had the better case...even though I knew in my heart of hearts, that this guy ''probably'' was a dealer/supplier.
The judge instructed us that ''even if it is found that the accused shared his drugs with someone else (at the party) that is deemed supply.''

[MSTRS]

I was on a jury once where, there was evidence of the accused being heavily involved with drugs...but we could only find him not guilty....

Churr bro, I never did know who to thank...


I think most of us would be happy if that piece of dirt got the maximum on each charge, and had to serve consecutively.

[Maha]

Churr bro, I never did know who to thank...


I think most of us would be happy if that piece of dirt got the maximum on each charge, and had to serve consecutively.

This character was from parts just north of you and ...was (at the time) involved with sidecar racing.
The money was explained away as...''cash for a replacement motor for the bike that he was on his way to buy in Auckland''...

[MSTRS]

This character was from parts just north of you and ...was (at the time) involved with sidecar racing.
The money was explained away as...''cash for a replacement motor for the bike that he was on his way to buy in Auckland''...

Were you wagging the day they did comprehension? :lol:

Ewan McDonald has, what? 6? separate charges with sentencing pending. Give the bastard the maximum jailtime on each, run them one after the other. Even with time served and 'good behaviour' he'd still be where he belonged for a long time.

[Swoop]

It's ball pein.
Correct.
Where are the BDOTGNZP when you need them?

[Edbear]

Correct.
Where are the BDOTGNZP when you need them?

Probably being BDOTGNZA... ;)

[Madness]

Years ago I worked at the District Court at Wellington and used to often have a few social drinks on a Friday before catching the train home to the Huttness. One night I was on the platform waiting for the doors to open allowing passengers to board. There was a derelict scumbag there making lewd comments & in appropriate advances to young women, the railways boys gave him a serve up & I thought nothing more about it. The following Monday I was sitting in a sentencing court & one of the crims on the list was awaiting sentence for sexual offences against underage girls. His lawyer addressed the court and spoke of his client being remorseful & a model citizen whilst on bail. He got what I remember being a very light sentence in relation to the charges & on recognizing the man as the same I had observed on the train station only days before I felt rather sick. Justice shmustice.

[Deano]

Years ago I worked at the District Court at Wellington and used to often have a few social drinks on a Friday before catching the train home to the Huttness. One night I was on the platform waiting for the doors to open allowing passengers to board. There was a derelict scumbag there making lewd comments & in appropriate advances to young women, the railways boys gave him a serve up & I thought nothing more about it. The following Monday I was sitting in a sentencing court & one of the crims on the list was awaiting sentence for sexual offences against underage girls. His lawyer addressed the court and spoke of his client being remorseful & a model citizen whilst on bail. He got what I remember being a very light sentence in relation to the charges & on recognizing the man as the same I had observed on the train station only days before I felt rather sick. Justice shmustice.

Yep, its a shame you couldn't have stood up and sought leave to address the court or something. Ask the lawyer on what basis does he make his claims about his client being a remorseful and model citizen, before putting hi in his place by stating what you observed. I really do despise some defence liars, I mean lawyers.

[Madness]

Yep, its a shame you couldn't have stood up and sought leave to address the court or something. Ask the lawyer on what basis does he make his claims about his client being a remorseful and model citizen, before putting hi in his place by stating what you observed. I really do despise some defence liars, I mean lawyers.

I was very young relative to my position & would like to think I'd be better equipped to handle the situation differently these days. It's a bloody interesting place to work for a 16-year old. I remember dealing with some of the Wellington trannies and being amused when this tall skanky ho replied something like "Bruce" when I asked their name :eek5: Lots of stories for sure.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Well you can see why that info wouldn't have been made known to the jury - chances are the emotional reaction to those crimes would have rendered him guilty based on his ability to commit such dreadful actions rather than the cold hard facts of the case being tried. .

I fully understand the reasoning behind that logic, but I have a problem with this...If a woman was pressing charges of rape, the defence laywer could quite easily drag her reputation through the mud.

" So Ms 'A'...is it true on three seperate occasions the week before the alleged offence, you went to your local tavern, got drunk, and took three different men home, and had consensual sex with them?"

This is making her out as a slut to the jury, and is quite ok in such cases.

What's the difference?

[rustic101]

[QUOTE=Crasherfromwayback;1130369506

What's the difference?[/QUOTE]

No difference that already happens, its their job to discredit the Defence Witness and the same applies for the Prosecution to erode the Accused. However indirect actions or activity can be discounted or suppressed

[Crasherfromwayback]

No difference that already happens, its their job to discredit the Defence Witness and the same applies for the Prosecution to erode the Accused. However indirect actions or activity can be discounted or suppressed

I don't see the difference. Making her out as a slut taints the jury's view, telling the jury he's a calf murdering cunt does likewise. One's allowed, one's not. What's the difference?

[Madness]

I don't see the difference.

I agree 100% The Guy family must be gutted beyond belief.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I agree 100% The Guy family must be gutted beyond belief.

Yeah you know...they still wouldn't have had enough hard evidence to take him down...but I think they should be allowed to show him for what he is. A severly disturbed cunt.

[Winston001]

I fully understand the reasoning behind that logic, but I have a problem with this...If a woman was pressing charges of rape, the defence laywer could quite easily drag her reputation through the mud.



Nope. You cannot attack a rape victim's reputation.




"The Evidence Act 2006 protects complainants from certain questions and evidence about their reputation and past sexual experience. Section 44 of the Act states:



In a sexual case, no evidence can be given and no question can be put to a witness relating directly or indirectly to the sexual experience of the complainant with any person other than the defendant, except with the permission of the Judge.
In a sexual case, no evidence can be given and no question can be put to a witness that relates directly or indirectly to the reputation of the complainant in sexual matters.
In an application for permission under subsection (1), the Judge must not grant permission unless satisfied that the evidence or question is of such direct relevance to facts in issue in the proceeding, or the issue of the appropriate sentence, that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to exclude it."



Its called a rape shield law and exists in Australia, the USA, Britain and many other jurisdictions.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Nope. You cannot attack a rape victim's reputation.




"The Evidence Act 2006 protects complainants from certain questions and evidence about their reputation and past sexual experience. Section 44 of the Act states:



In a sexual case, no evidence can be given and no question can be put to a witness relating directly or indirectly to the sexual experience of the complainant with any person other than the defendant, except with the permission of the Judge.
In a sexual case, no evidence can be given and no question can be put to a witness that relates directly or indirectly to the reputation of the complainant in sexual matters.
In an application for permission under subsection (1), the Judge must not grant permission unless satisfied that the evidence or question is of such direct relevance to facts in issue in the proceeding, or the issue of the appropriate sentence, that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to exclude it."



Its called a rape shield law and exists in Australia, the USA, Britain and many other jurisdictions.

I'm pleased to see that then. I was sure I'd read about a case where the poor girl's reputation was being badly sullied.

[gammaguy]

Without wishing to belittle Mr Macdonald's crimes, you clearly have no knowledge of how to use a hammer to humanely kill calves. Mr Macdonald may also have a similar lack of knowledge.

it is a well known and inescapeable fact that people who are cruel or inhumane to animals are capable (or more likely already have been) cruel to other humans as well

This serves to reconfirm my suspicions that the scum killed Scott Guy.

[oldrider]

it is a well known and inescapeable fact that people who are cruel or inhumane to animals are capable (or more likely already have been) cruel to other humans as well

This serves to reconfirm my suspicions that the scum killed Scott Guy.

True!

Macdonald seems to believe he is too smart for the cops and so far he has been a step or two in front but it's their job and rust should never sleep!

They "will" get him, time is on their side and so should we be! :Police:

[tigertim20]

I fully understand the reasoning behind that logic, but I have a problem with this...If a woman was pressing charges of rape, the defence laywer could quite easily drag her reputation through the mud.

" So Ms 'A'...is it true on three seperate occasions the week before the alleged offence, you went to your local tavern, got drunk, and took three different men home, and had consensual sex with them?"

This is making her out as a slut to the jury, and is quite ok in such cases.

What's the difference?


I don't see the difference. Making her out as a slut taints the jury's view, telling the jury he's a calf murdering cunt does likewise. One's allowed, one's not. What's the difference?

as above, regarding bringing a persons sex life into question.
hiwever what you were basically asking was 'how come you can refer to a witnesses past actions but not the accused's past actions?' am I correct?

If so then (to play devils advocate), there is definitely a difference.

questioning the witnesses past actions is/can be important in determining whether or not they are a, reliable b, honest, c, whether they have an ulterior motive in giving evidence. in addition to this, even if you make a witness look like a drugged up slut with loose morals, she will not get a conviction, receive a fine, potentially lose her job, possibly go to jail, and suffer the financial repercussions of jail time / fines / loss of employment, where the defendant faces those risks if found guilty.

so the difference is basically that the defendants life has a greater potential to suffer damage than the witnesses.

as a side note, I was present for a friends court case a couple years ago as a witness on his behalf- the police prosecutor asked questions he was not legally entitled to ask, the defence immediately objected, the judge agreed, and told the jury to strike the comment from their minds. The problem is you cant tell a person something, then force them to pretend they never heard it - it isnt in human nature to work like that, so despite the prosecution getting a telling off, they acheived their goal of painting his character in a negative light.

It is a practice that is not all that uncommon.

[Maha]

Its questionable that neither Anna (MacDonalds wife) and/or the wider family, knew nothing of his criminal activity during the 5 years previous to the shooting of Brother in Law.

[Madness]

I'm fairly confident the Guys wouldn't have known it was him that set fire to their house. The killing of the calves was said in reports to be one of many "midnight missions". Being a farmer there's every chance he was getting up to all sorts unbeknown to his family, maybe more than has come to light even.

[Maha]

I'm fairly confident the Guys wouldn't have known it was him that set fire to their house. The killing of the calves was said in reports to be one of many "midnight missions". Being a farmer there's every chance he was getting up to all sorts unbeknown to his family, maybe more than has come to light even.

Not a close family/husband wife unit then?
I guess if he was a habitual ''away man'' then yeah...goes unnoticed.
But most of the offending took place, not in the farm area...but in Himatangi, some 45 kms away, which would take more time than say...going to milk the cows.

[Crasherfromwayback]

...but in Himatangi, some 45 kms away, which would take more time than say...going to milk the cows.

Didn't he live out that way a while back?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Its questionable that neither Anna (MacDonalds wife) and/or the wider family, knew nothing of his criminal activity during the 5 years previous to the shooting of Brother in Law.

Disagree. The person who knew most about it was Callum Boe, it seems like: I am sure the conversations were "Oh Anna, sorry you are 8 months up the duff, but me and Callum are going hunting this weekend" "Whatever, it means you won't be pestering me for the back passage this weekend, go for it"

[Littleman]

A little bit of karma.

[GTRMAN]

A little bit of karma.


Oh do fuck off, it is a statute of law in this country that everyone has a right to a defence. How is it Karma that the lawyer has died? Are you happy he is dead? Are you happy that a man who supported his community is gone? Are you happy that a man may have taken his own life? Are you happy that his two small children now have to grow up without a father? Grow up.

[oldrider]

as a side note, I was present for a friends court case a couple years ago as a witness on his behalf- the police prosecutor asked questions he was not legally entitled to ask, the defence immediately objected, the judge agreed, and told the jury to strike the comment from their minds. The problem is you cant tell a person something, then force them to pretend they never heard it - it isnt in human nature to work like that, so despite the prosecution getting a telling off, they acheived their goal of painting his character in a negative light.

It is a practice that is not all that uncommon.

True! Very old saying ... "I withdraw the comment your Honour but of course the stain remains."