-
Feilding farmer Scott Guy -
Watch Video
-
Related
Ewen Macdonald is not guilty.
In the eyes of the jury, and in mine.
We will never know what reasons the jury had for their decision.
Their deliberations are private, always will be, and rightly
so.
But having sat in court for every day of the month-long hearing
(bar one, out of sickness) I can say what evidence they didn't
consider, simply because it wasn't presented.
First, no witness to say they saw who shot Scott Guy in the early
hours of 8 July 2012.
No DNA evidence worth the candle; only possible traces (along with
other people's) on the farm shotgun that could have got there
before or after the murder.
No murder weapon; only the Crown claim that the farm shotgun could
not be excluded as the weapon. Along with any other 12-gauge
shotgun in the country.
Increasingly, as the trial went on, no motive. As Ewen Macdonald
himself pointed out during his police interview, if he was
aggrieved at how little work Scott Guy did on the farm, what sense
did it make to kill him? As a result, he was working harder than he
ever had.
No forensic evidence. Not a labrador puppy hair, not a fingerprint,
not a fibre. Even the dive boot evidence - meant to be a Crown
trump card - was inconclusive.
The Crown placed much emphasis on Ewen Macdonald allegedly saying
Scott Guy had been shot when everyone thought his throat had been
cut. But only one witness could recall it, and that was after his
arrest, with the benefit of long hindsight.
The defence didn't call many witnesses. They didn't have to. They
had only to put doubt in the minds of the jury, and they did that
at every key point in the trial.
Ewen Macdonald didn't take the stand to protest his innocence.
Again, he didn't need to. By the time the defence began, it was
clear that the trial was going his way.
So what of the man in the dock?
A man of average build and appearance, Ewen Macdonald spent much of
his time with his eyes down. Reportedly on the advice of his legal
team, he took copious notes. Intentional or not, this served the
purpose of preventing cameras getting clear shots of his
expression.
When he did look up, he often seemed nervous, especially at the
start of the day. His eyes darted from side to side, and he had a
habit of rolling or licking his lips. In no way did this convey
anything other than an awkward man facing the scrutiny of the
court, media and public gallery.
Famously, his composure did break as his wife Anna described their
idyllic life before the murder. I was sitting two metres away,
close enough that I could have passed him a box of tissues, as he
sobbed. There is no doubt in my mind that his distress was
genuine.
So too was Kylee Guy's. Scott Guy's widow could barely
contain her grief, bursting into tears within minutes, once within
seconds, of taking the stand. Glamorous, well dressed and groomed,
much of her evidence was given in pin-drop silence. She was a
movie-star witness in a trial that was too unbelievable for the
movies.
Anna Macdonald cut a very different figure. Despite the almost
unimaginable situation of having her husband accused of her
brother's murder, she was often light-hearted and endearingly
self-deprecating. At times it was hard to believe she was giving
evidence, as she laughed and joked in the witness box.
The two lawyers at centre stage were also a study in
contrasts.
Greg King, Ewen Macdonald's ebullient lawyer, carried himself with
a swagger and a smile that extended to court staff, reporters,
witnesses and the public.
He told me two weeks into the trial that he was supremely
confident. The conversation was off the record but he won't mind me
repeating it now that he's a winner.
He told me the Crown's case was "non-existent" and he had never
been more confident of an acquittal.
That was evident throughout the trial, as he turned Crown witness
after witness to his advantage, dismantling and raising doubts
about their evidence.
It's hard to imagine anyone who enjoys the audience as much as Greg
King.
In court at intervals he would pace to one side, mentally
rehearsing his examination of the next witness. Frequently, he
would stray to the press bench to make quips and asides.
Often, he actively sought out reporters to canvass their opinions.
One time he playfully threw punches at me over a line in a story
that he hadn't liked. Despite being a non-smoker, he would often be
found in the "smokers' corner" outside court chatting to
journalists, with his stainless steel coffee cup in hand.
By contrast, prosecutor Ben Vanderkolk cut a more reserved figure.
Tall and immaculately dressed, he carried himself with aloofness
and dignity. In repose his face had a glum set, but in a more
relaxed mood the clouds lifted and he flashed a brilliant
smile.
Surprisingly, for a man of his experience and position, he also
frequently seemed tongue-tied in court, often having to re-phrase
his questions, occasionally with a self-conscious chuckle.
His finest moment was in his closing argument, appearing calm,
thorough and composed for the first time since the opening
day.
Much has been made of the crowds that came to the court. By
consensus, there'd been nothing like it in recent memory. I covered
the Scott Watson murder case from the South Island, and never came
to court, but reporters who were in court for that famous case say
that was the only one that came close.
As momentum built during the trial, it was not unusual to find 100
people waiting for seats in the public gallery. I asked several
what the appeal was; most agreed that it was the "family feud"
aspect of the case.
Others were law students, coming for a lesson they could never get
in the lecture room.
Some brought children, some had taken annual leave.
Several compared the case to a Shakespearean plot. It was an
analogy that's easy to understand. The wise ruler trying to keep
the peace between the two warring heirs.
Even the Crown used the term the "flaw of fairness" in Bryan Guy;
that in trying to treat both men equally a tragic situation
developed.
Ewen Macdonald remains in custody. So he probably will for some
time, as he pays the price for the crimes of arson, vandalism and
poaching that he's admitted committing.
But whatever else he may be, he will never carry the tag of
murderer. And that, to my mind, is entirely correct. Justice has
been served.
Read more Simon Bradwell opinion here