Ewen Macdonald found not guilty

[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

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

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!

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

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.