Ewen Macdonald.......

[Guest Christopher Thomson]

Since moving to Melbourne and reading about this case I followed it with interest.

I can see his latest application for parole was rejected.

My question is because he was found not guilty of Scott Guy's murder does this mean they are still hunting the killer?

I'd be interested to hear Mr Tannahill's thoughts on this case.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

No they've given up trying(well that's essentially what the top Cop said after his trial)

 

Given half the people they release on parole I reckon those Parole Board Chappies think he committed the murder and are going to make him serve his full time as a punishment

[Chevy50 103]

No they've given up trying(well that's essentially what the top Cop said after his trial)

 

Given half the people they release on parole I reckon those Parole Board Chappies think he committed the murder and are going to make him serve his full time as a punishment

The problem rests with the judiciary! Pankhurst( Bain re-trial) and France (MacDonald) were asked by both juries to define "reasonable doubt" and Pankhurst declared "it is not enough that it is likely he committed the crime, it is not enough that he was highly likely to have carried it out, you MUST BE SURE". This mantra was parroted exactly by France and in both cases the juries found that threshold too high to scale. Of course it is. NO ONE can be sure unless they were present at the scene. So a few judges have re-defined "reasonable doubt" to mean "Beyond ALL doubt". "Highly likely" would do it for me. 95% of the evidence with MacDonald put him in the frame until the nonsense over the dive boots. The tread was that of a size 11 boot and the defence was that he took a size 9 shoe. Anybody even slightly savy on the use of dive boots while hunting knows that hunters use them "oversized" so they can accommodate thick woolen socks.

[trakdap 390]

Why they sent him to the South Island god only Knows. We don't want him released down here. Take him back to the North Island where his family is..

[Chevy50 103]

Why they sent him to the South Island god only Knows. We don't want him released down here. Take him back to the North Island where his family is..

He has been out on work detail felling trees--hopefully one will fall on the piece of shite!--karma for the calves.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

He has been out on work detail felling trees--hopefully one will fall on the piece of shite!--karma for the calves.

Settle down

 

'Karma for the calves?'

 

I'm not saying Macdonald is guilty or not guilty - the bottom line is the Police didn't do sufficient homework and Greg King was too good for them.

 

But this thing with the calves - you might be horrified by it but Dairy Farmers do it all the time.  They hit bobby claves that are too small for the truck on the head with a hammer.  It is a reality of (particularly) dairy farm life.  What horrifies the public is second nature to those people.

 

As for the other things he did well they were a bit bizarre and he does deserve to have spent time behind bars but for God's sake David Ross robbed $400m off innocent people and got what? 10 years?  Well I hate to say it but the comparative crime(and I am not talking about the Scott Guy murder) and sentence doesn't compute.

 

Ross will be out in five - his victims have a life sentence

[Chevy50 103]

Settle down

 

'Karma for the calves?'

 

I'm not saying Macdonald is guilty or not guilty - the bottom line is the Police didn't do sufficient homework and Greg King was too good for them.

 

But this thing with the calves - you might be horrified by it but Dairy Farmers do it all the time.  They hit bobby claves that are too small for the truck on the head with a hammer.  It is a reality of (particularly) dairy farm life.  What horrifies the public is second nature to those people.

 

As for the other things he did well they were a bit bizarre and he does deserve to have spent time behind bars but for God's sake David Ross robbed $400m off innocent people and got what? 10 years?  Well I hate to say it but the comparative crime(and I am not talking about the Scott Guy murder) and sentence doesn't compute.

 

Ross will be out in five - his victims have a life sentence

"A bit bizarre"?? World of Wearable Art is bizarre, whereas MacDonald is a sociopath! Obviously Ross got away with a bit of your greenstone Tom.

[hedley 1,900]

Thanks Chevy

 

" The problem rests with the judiciary! Pankhurst( Bain re-trial) and France (MacDonald) were asked by both juries to define "reasonable doubt" and Pankhurst declared "it is not enough that it is likely he committed the crime, it is not enough that he was highly likely to have carried it out, you MUST BE SURE". This mantra was parroted exactly by France and in both cases the juries found that threshold too high to scale. Of course it is. NO ONE can be sure unless they were present at the scene. So a few judges have re-defined "reasonable doubt" to mean "Beyond ALL doubt". "

 

..where was this judiciary insistance for Scott~Watson

[hedley 1,900]

..riling isn't it Tom!

 

" for God's sake David Ross robbed $400m off innocent people and got what? 10 years?  Well I hate to say it but the comparative crime(and I am not talking about the Scott Guy murder) and sentence doesn't compute.

 

Ross will be out in five - his victims have a life sentence "

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

"A bit bizarre"?? World of Wearable Art is bizarre, whereas MacDonald is a sociopath! Obviously Ross got away with a bit of your greenstone Tom.

I haven't got any greenstone Chevy

 

But you lot(in your own minds) have convicted this bloke of the Guy murder and are determined he is going to be punished for that

 

Your argument lies with the Police for not making sure all their i's were dotted and t's crossed.  It looks awfully likely Macdonald did it but you cannot convict someone if you fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt

 

That's the rules.  If they weren't Arthur Alan Thomas would probably have served his full sentence and still have the murderer label around his neck

[Chevy50 103]

I haven't got any greenstone Chevy

 

But you lot(in your own minds) have convicted this bloke of the Guy murder and are determined he is going to be punished for that

 

Your argument lies with the Police for not making sure all their i's were dotted and t's crossed.  It looks awfully likely Macdonald did it but you cannot convict someone if you fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt

 

That's the rules.  If they weren't Arthur Alan Thomas would probably have served his full sentence and still have the murderer label around his neck

I was speaking metaphorically about the greenstone Tom! Anyway, back to MacDonald-he proffered in a police interview that whoever committed the arson and vandalism was the likely killer--that would do for me as a latent confession. I guess you are one of those that thinks the dingo shot Scott Guy!

[rumpole 483]

Since moving to Melbourne and reading about this case I followed it with interest.

I can see his latest application for parole was rejected.

My question is because he was found not guilty of Scott Guy's murder does this mean they are still hunting the killer?

I'd be interested to hear Mr Tannahill's thoughts on this case.

 

 

 

 

 

Well as far as I am concerned he should have got parole yesterday

they are punishing him for being acquitted of murder

Greg King told me he would have him out for xmas on parole  that was last Xmas

i said to Greg they will make him do another year

McDonald has done another year

 

The make up of the Parole Board is questionable especially the chair the woman judge

 

This topic has nothing to do with horses

 

Ewan McDonald did not kill Scott Guy but he might know who did??

 

 

Barlow did not kill the Thomas father and son but he knows who did

 

 

Free Scott Watson  he should never have been convicted

[Ashoka 1,179]

Rumpole...

 

What is the evidence upon which you base your opinion regarding John Barlow?

I followed this case in the media, along with most Wellingtonians, I think, and found the evidence against Mr Barlow to be manifestly in favour of a guilty verdict, finding it hard to understand why it took three trials to get it.

 

I have had discussions with people who disagree with the eventual verdict but, without exception, these people could not provide evidence to back their stance and were all basing their opinion on their feelings about the man himself.

 

I realise that you may not want to comment but my question is asked in genuine curiosity.

 

All the best.

Ashoka

[trakdap 390]

Well as far as I am concerned he should have got parole yesterday

they are punishing him for being acquitted of murder

Greg King told me he would have him out for xmas on parole  that was last Xmas

i said to Greg they will make him do another year

McDonald has done another year

 

The make up of the Parole Board is questionable especially the chair the woman judge

 

This topic has nothing to do with horses

 

Ewan McDonald did not kill Scott Guy but he might know who did??

 

 

Barlow did not kill the Thomas father and son but he knows who did

 

 

Free Scott Watson  he should never have been convicted

Maybe in the eyes of the Law none of these are guilty, BUT???

If we are to believe everyone in prison is innocent WHY have prisons?

[Holly 18]

I agree with Tom(the other zzzzz) and Rumpole - I had even had this discussion at home - he was not convicted of the murder - but they seem to be giving him a longer punishment for this crime.  People have received lesser punishments for what I see as greater crimes (not to diminish what McDonald did in anyway).  What happens to the time he spend in prison pending his murder trial? for which he was not convicted. I am not sure about the murder and his guilt but he has been acquitted by a jury.  This should be treated completely different to the murder charge.  Unless of course he behaviour in prison is raising issues we as the general public are not privvy to.

 

As for Scott Watson - I believe he may be a "bad egg" but he did not commit murder.

 

Same opinion for Tamihere "bad egg" in the wrong place at the wrong time and implicated himself by stealing the car.

[allaboveboard 179]

Is there a difference between someone being found not guilty and someone being innocent? In terms of probabilities I felt MacDonald was absolutely guilty of murdering Scott Guy. The prosecution have to prove 100% that he murdered the victim in order to convict him. Thousands of murderers have been rightfully found guilty of murder with a lot less evidence against them than MacDonald had against him.

 

The defence don't have to 100% prove the offender is innocent. They just need to offer up enough of a defence to create enough doubt to stop "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"  MacDonalds lawyer was brilliant at doing that very thing. What percentage does that "reasonable" doubt need to be? 50/50?  5% doubt? 1% doubt?

 

MacDonalds lawyer later took his own life. Many believe rightly or wrongly the lawyer doing what he does to help people like MacDonald finally became too much for him.

 

MacDonald had an extremely good lawyer. O J Simpson also had a brilliant legal team. Given the evidence what percentage of the world would find Simpson guilty of murder if no racial bias either way came into play? At a guess I'd say 98% + would find him guilty yet Simpson is innocent right?

 

What sort of human being could do the sort of vandalism MacDonald was found guilty of? Human excrement who takes great pleasure in creating fear and causing distress and pain. Somebody who gets off on it in fact. Somebody completely devoid of that all important human personal attribute "empathy".

 

What sort of human being could kill numerous young defenseless trapped vulnerable heifers by systematically smashing in their skulls with a hammer while all the others watched on waiting for their turn? It must have been the most horrendous scene. Only a worthless sack of shit in desperate need of being killed himself could do such a thing. The worst and most dangerous form of human life is the man who kills for the pleasure of killing. That situation amplified if the method of killing is the most barbaric you could imagine. Only a piece of human excrement totally devoid of empathy could do such a thing.

 

That type of offending around the same time Scott Guy was murdered is entirely consistent with the sort of person and mindset of the man who arrogantly and cowardly murdered Scott Guy.

 

Personality analysis on MacDonald in prison highlight a manipulator devoid of integrity.

 

I believe one of the worst blunders ever made in our legal system was to find MacDonald the human excrement not guilty of murder. The second worst would be to release him from prison. I appreciate he cant be kept in prison for the offence is was found not guilty of but they can damn well make sure he serves every day of the maximum sentence handed down on him on the other charges.

 

MacDonald deserves NO consideration whatsoever. His ex wife and family along with Guy's family and the community deserve FULL consideration.

[fermoy 226]

Is there a difference between someone being found not guilty and someone being innocent? In terms of probabilities I felt MacDonald was absolutely guilty of murdering Scott Guy. The prosecution have to prove 100% that he murdered the victim in order to convict him. Thousands of murderers have been rightfully found guilty of murder with a lot less evidence against them than MacDonald had against him.

 

The defence don't have to 100% prove the offender is innocent. They just need to offer up enough of a defence to create enough doubt to stop "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"  MacDonalds lawyer was brilliant at doing that very thing. What percentage does that "reasonable" doubt need to be? 50/50?  5% doubt? 1% doubt?

 

MacDonalds lawyer later took his own life. Many believe rightly or wrongly the lawyer doing what he does to help people like MacDonald finally became too much for him.

 

MacDonald had an extremely good lawyer. O J Simpson also had a brilliant legal team. Given the evidence what percentage of the world would find Simpson guilty of murder if no racial bias either way came into play? At a guess I'd say 98% + would find him guilty yet Simpson is innocent right?

 

What sort of human being could do the sort of vandalism MacDonald was found guilty of? Human excrement who takes great pleasure in creating fear and causing distress and pain. Somebody who gets off on it in fact. Somebody completely devoid of that all important human personal attribute "empathy".

 

What sort of human being could kill numerous young defenseless trapped vulnerable heifers by systematically smashing in their skulls with a hammer while all the others watched on waiting for their turn? It must have been the most horrendous scene. Only a worthless sack of shit in desperate need of being killed himself could do such a thing. The worst and most dangerous form of human life is the man who kills for the pleasure of killing. That situation amplified if the method of killing is the most barbaric you could imagine. Only a piece of human excrement totally devoid of empathy could do such a thing.

 

That type of offending around the same time Scott Guy was murdered is entirely consistent with the sort of person and mindset of the man who arrogantly and cowardly murdered Scott Guy.

 

Personality analysis on MacDonald in prison highlight a manipulator devoid of integrity.

 

I believe one of the worst blunders ever made in our legal system was to find MacDonald the human excrement not guilty of murder. The second worst would be to release him from prison. I appreciate he cant be kept in prison for the offence is was found not guilty of but they can damn well make sure he serves every day of the maximum sentence handed down on him on the other charges.

 

MacDonald deserves NO consideration whatsoever. His ex wife and family along with Guy's family and the community deserve FULL consideration.

crikey mate.did you not read what tom said in post 6?hitting a calf on the head with a hammer which renders it unconscious from blow 1 is the most humane way of ending its life,and possible suffering if its born premature or has an incurable disease and happens in nz on thousands of occasions every spring.And, if you really think that in the middle of a dark night the rest in the pen know that they are next you are crazy.

a dna test of the excrement could have nipped the whole thing in the bud a lot earlier i wouldve thought.

who was the mystery man in a white vehicle by the river bank on guys farm that scott guy had been worried about in the days leading up to the murder?the car was apparently in the area on the morning of the murder and a packet of benson and hedges cigarettes stolen in a burglary in palmy the night before were found near the scene of the murder.

too much doubt i believe.hes done his time for arson etc.let him out,is my opinion.

[trakdap 390]

Fermoy

As long as he can live next to you, let him out. A caution/warning, don't piss him off.

[allaboveboard 179]

crikey mate.did you not read what tom said in post 6?hitting a calf on the head with a hammer which renders it unconscious from blow 1 is the most humane way of ending its life,and possible suffering if its born premature or has an incurable disease and happens in nz on thousands of occasions every spring.And, if you really think that in the middle of a dark night the rest in the pen know that they are next you are crazy.

a dna test of the excrement could have nipped the whole thing in the bud a lot earlier i wouldve thought.

who was the mystery man in a white vehicle by the river bank on guys farm that scott guy had been worried about in the days leading up to the murder?the car was apparently in the area on the morning of the murder and a packet of benson and hedges cigarettes stolen in a burglary in palmy the night before were found near the scene of the murder.

too much doubt i believe.hes done his time for arson etc.let him out,is my opinion.

 

 

Didn't read post 6. Glad I didn't. Who the fark decides hitting a calf on the head with a hammer is humane? It's diabolical sickening animal abuse in this context. I find it extremely difficult to believe that bashing any animals skull in is the most humane way of dispatching it. Cheapest perhaps and most convenient but hardly humane. If an animal is suffering and sorting out a more humane way of dispatching it would cause more suffering for the animal then a hammer is as good as anything else but surely that should only be reserved for the most extreme situations of suffering. 

 

Why do almost all farmers prefer home killed meat to works meat? STRESS. The animals killed at the works are highly stressed. They hear the sounds that expedite death. They smell blood. They become stressed. 

 

Dollars to donuts all the young animals confined in that pen knew something farking terrible was happening. Humane? Do me a favour mate! As for the animals not knowing what was happening because it was dark. You cant be serious? If that is the case then how could anyone know their actions were humane when they couldn't even farking see what they were doing? You cant have it both ways.

 

Even if your brain is the size of a sultana nobody believes what MacDonald did to those calves was humane. It was horrific animal abuse committed by human excrement who enjoys every moment of the killing. Experts agree that sort of person the most dangerous individual on planet earth.

 

If you're looking for something to use in an attempt to create at least some doubt about a murder you will always find a broken branch,a footprint,a cigarette butt,a car that drove past the neighbours looking a bit suspect the previous week etc etc. All very likely red herrings that lawyers are brilliant at finding.

 

In my opinion MacDonald deserves no consideration. All his victims do. I don't know one person who would be comfortable having him live in their street or even visit for that matter. Your wife daughter sister not safe. Your husband son father brother not safe. Your animals not safe. Your property not safe. 

 

I think he's best suited to being submarine deck cargo or as certain organised Italian families call it "sleeping with the fishes"

[fermoy 226]

Fermoy

As long as he can live next to you, let him out. A caution/warning, don't piss him off.

haha there are plenty walking round who've been convicted for doing much worse than he has been convicted of,,,,

[fermoy 226]

Didn't read post 6. Glad I didn't. Who the fark decides hitting a calf on the head with a hammer is humane? It's diabolical sickening animal abuse in this context. I find it extremely difficult to believe that bashing any animals skull in is the most humane way of dispatching it. Cheapest perhaps and most convenient but hardly humane. If an animal is suffering and sorting out a more humane way of dispatching it would cause more suffering for the animal then a hammer is as good as anything else but surely that should only be reserved for the most extreme situations of suffering. 

 

Why do almost all farmers prefer home killed meat to works meat? STRESS. The animals killed at the works are highly stressed. They hear the sounds that expedite death. They smell blood. They become stressed. 

 

Dollars to donuts all the young animals confined in that pen knew something farking terrible was happening. Humane? Do me a favour mate! As for the animals not knowing what was happening because it was dark. You cant be serious? If that is the case then how could anyone know their actions were humane when they couldn't even farking see what they were doing? You cant have it both ways.

 

Even if your brain is the size of a sultana nobody believes what MacDonald did to those calves was humane. It was horrific animal abuse committed by human excrement who enjoys every moment of the killing. Experts agree that sort of person the most dangerous individual on planet earth.

 

If you're looking for something to use in an attempt to create at least some doubt about a murder you will always find a broken branch,a footprint,a cigarette butt,a car that drove past the neighbours looking a bit suspect the previous week etc etc. All very likely red herrings that lawyers are brilliant at finding.

 

In my opinion MacDonald deserves no consideration. All his victims do. I don't know one person who would be comfortable having him live in their street or even visit for that matter. Your wife daughter sister not safe. Your husband son father brother not safe. Your animals not safe. Your property not safe. 

 

I think he's best suited to being submarine deck cargo or as certain organised Italian families call it "sleeping with the fishes"

submarine deck cargo??haha.now that would be inhumane.are you one of those greenies that worry more about how animals are treated than humans??lol.

[allaboveboard 179]

Me a Greenie? Hilarious Thank you. Nothing like a bit of humour to start your day.

 

On a more serious note. I feel I should break your question into several answers.

 

Do I worry about the way animals are treated / mistreated? Yes

Do I worry about the way many people are treated? Yes

Do I worry about the way MacDonald is treated? No!

Do I worry about the way MacDonald killed those calves? Yes

Do I worry more about those calves than I do MacDonald? Yes absolutely 

Do I worry more about a possum run over on the road than MacDonald? Yes 

 

If the above makes me a "Greenie" then I guess I'm a Greenie

 

I feel I should draw a parallel between your examples of humane and inhumane. Earlier in this thread you spoke of how it was considered humane to kill calves by caving in their skull with a hammer. You even went further and claimed that action is not only considered humane but it's the most humane way of killing a calf.  My contention is that's horse shit.

 

There are many who say "drowning" is considered to be a desirable peaceful way for a human being to meet their maker. That being the case perhaps I should change MacDonalds method of meeting his maker from drowning on the deck of a submarine to having his skull caved in with a hammer?

 

Would the same also apply to a human patient with an incurable disease?  

 

Some years ago I watched a doco called Faces of death. They showed men being executed via the electric chair. Very difficult to watch regardless of the diabolical offences the condemned had committed. Since then they have devised a far more humane way of executing human beings. They put them to sleep basically.

 

The method used to euthanize race horses that break their leg in race is now considerably more human than it was in previous decades.

 

I do possess the human attribute of "empathy" I'm convinced MacDonald does not and never will.

 

My paradox is that I feel considerable empathy for the many victims of MacDonald both human and animal but no empathy whatsoever for MacDonald. If someone told me today that another prisoner had caved in his skull with a hammer I would say good farking job! Pity it wasn't done sooner and save the family even more distress than what they have encountered recently by his potential release.

 

Who knows after reading your input I may even now believe the fellow prisoner who hypothetically killed him by caving in his skull with a hammer did so humanly and should then qualify for an early release for good bahaviour.

[Uriah Heap 481]

The problem rests with the judiciary! Pankhurst( Bain re-trial) and France (MacDonald) were asked by both juries to define "reasonable doubt" and Pankhurst declared "it is not enough that it is likely he committed the crime, it is not enough that he was highly likely to have carried it out, you MUST BE SURE". This mantra was parroted exactly by France and in both cases the juries found that threshold too high to scale. Of course it is. NO ONE can be sure unless they were present at the scene. So a few judges have re-defined "reasonable doubt" to mean "Beyond ALL doubt". "Highly likely" would do it for me. 95% of the evidence with MacDonald put him in the frame until the nonsense over the dive boots. The tread was that of a size 11 boot and the defence was that he took a size 9 shoe. Anybody even slightly savy on the use of dive boots while hunting knows that hunters use them "oversized" so they can accommodate thick woolen socks.

 

This is "Post of the Week" by Chevrolet 50.

"The problem rests with the Judiciary". Or the current judicial mindset.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" has always been there, but it is now being emphasised far more stringently and is to the forefront of the jurors minds.

Thus defence lawyers are now following a similar formula.

1. The defendant is not called to the stand. (Thus he cannot be cross examined).

2. Introduce other scenarios no matter how unlikely (thus placing some "doubt" in the jurors minds).

3. Trawl the world for overseas experts to counter any evidence given by the Prosecuter's experts (who are usually local).

 

Once the defence have done this the Jurors start to have doubts and thus we get "Not Guilty" findings for MacDonald, Bain, Kahui and the fellow accused of killing Nicholson, up in the Bay.

The problem for Watson, Lundy and Tamahere was that their trials predated this new ethos.

I don't believe any of these three would be found guilty if their trials were heard in 2013. In fact with all three, the evidence presented by Police is far less compelling than MacDonald, Bain, Kahui etc.

 

In summary - If you are not caught red handed and you follow the formula, then you will work free of a murder charge in this day and age.

[Mike Martin 200]

Well as far as I am concerned he should have got parole yesterday

they are punishing him for being acquitted of murder

Greg King told me he would have him out for xmas on parole  that was last Xmas

i said to Greg they will make him do another year

McDonald has done another year

 

The make up of the Parole Board is questionable especially the chair the woman judge

 

This topic has nothing to do with horses

 

Ewan McDonald did not kill Scott Guy but he might know who did??

 

 

Barlow did not kill the Thomas father and son but he knows who did

 

 

Free Scott Watson  he should never have been convicted

 

 

  Of course Ewan McDonald knew who did it. He even told the police it was the person responsible for the other incidents, it was his alter ego, the one who crept about in the night like a cowardly phantom, the one who had got away with horrific sickening crimes over a long period of time, the one who believed he was capable of getting away with whatever he wished, the one who hated his brother in law so much he tried to blow his frickin head off 

[Uriah Heap 481]

  Of course Ewan McDonald knew who did it. He even told the police it was the person responsible for the other incidents, it was his alter ego, the one who crept about in the night like a cowardly phantom, the one who had got away with horrific sickening crimes over a long period of time, the one who believed he was capable of getting away with whatever he wished, the one who hated his brother in law so much he tried to blow his frickin head off 

 

If by "alter ego" you mean his other personality (like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) then I'd dispute this. This is how he would describe himself and it provides him a convenient excuse for his actions.

He has no other personality, he has one personality that is always present, but he manages to keep it hidden behind a veneer of social correctness.

I doubt very much that he is genuinely remorseful for anything he may have done. The Parole Board know this (cause the Psychs will have told them) so good on them for making him see out his sentence.