Ewen Macdonald found not guilty

[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/Journal..._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!

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]