Ewen Macdonald found not guilty

[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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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!

[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."