Here in New Zealand we have just lived through the trial of a man accused of murdering his brother-in-law in cold blood. I imagine that murder is rarely in cold blood; surely somebody had to upset the murderer to such an extent that the kill is made. Or perhaps not. I cannot imagine what would ever make me take another person’s life.
However, this trial dragged on in the courtroom, on television and in the print media. It made headlines on a daily basis in all media outlets here. I didn’t follow it as I choose what I put into my mind. I didn’t (and still don’t) need to know all the gory details.
Suffice it to say, that apparently the accused was jealous of his brother-in-law with whom he shared management of a family farm, to the extent that he vandalised a house that his BIL had built and apparently wrote offensive words on a building before shooting him to death. I don’t know the details; as I said I am not that interested.
What does interest me though is that the jury of 11 brought down a verdict of Not Guilty. This tells me that even though they sat through all the proceedings for all those days, they didn’t think that the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, they had to bring in the Not Guilty verdict. Here in New Zealand we don’t have aas they do in Scotland. This verdict as explained by our old friend Wikipedia “The result is the modern perception that the “not proven” verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant’s innocence to bring in a “not guilty” verdict.”
What bothers me about this is that today’s Dominion Post our local daily had most of its front page devoted to a survey they had mounted using 750 people. Is this a fair representation of the adult population of New Zealand? Those surveyed were asked “From what you have seen, heard or feel about the case, do you think it is more likely Ewen Macdonald is guilty or not guilty?” 48 per cent said guilty. A further 20 per cent said not guilty, 28 per cent said they were unsure, and 4 per cent of people refused to answer.
As the lawyer for MacDonald, the accused, said the jurors had looked at more than 100 hours of evidence before unanimously agreeing he was not guilty
“Not a single person who responded to the survey heard anything close to that. Most people would have heard one hour of the case, so less than 1 per cent of what the jury heard – and what they heard was someone else’s slanted opinion.” he said today.
And may I add that the jurors were not called upon to voice or consider their feelings in the case, as those surveyed were. Feelings can never be the basis on which a murder accused is tried.
I have no thought on whether or not this man is guilty. I rejoice in the fact that we have a robust court system here that allows all the evidence to be heard by a jury (usually of 12 but for whatever reason 11 in this case). The man has been tried and he has been acquitted. Apparently there are other charges outstanding against him for which he will have to appear in court. But he cannot be re-charged with this murder.
So what of the future for this man who has been acquitted of murder in a court of law? His wife has apparently left him, having sided with the prosecution in the case and wherever he goes in New Zealand he will always be known as the man who “got away with murder” if the results of this survey are anything to go by. Where is the justice in that?
And as I think about my fellow man/woman and how quick he/she is to condemn without knowing all the facts, I worry about the future of our world.
“Justice is justly represented blind because
she sees no difference in the parties concerned.
She has but one scale and weight for
rich and poor, great and small.”
William Penn, 1644 – 1718 English real estate entrepreneur, philosopher, and founder of the Province of Pennsylvania.
End of today’s rant.
- Not guilty, not proven not an option (homepaddock.wordpress.com)
- ‘Not proven’ verdict deserves consideration (stuff.co.nz)