Who Killed Scott Guy? Read Online Free PDF

crime itself.
    Back at the lab, he carried out test-firings using a number of shotguns to ascertain the likely spread of the pellets after they left the gun’s barrel. While firearms and ammunition vary, and often the two barrels on a shotgun are manufactured to give a different spread, Walsh’s experiments were designed to give him a clear picture of how close the killer had been to Scott and where he was likely to have been standing. At the end of his work, Walsh concluded the murderer had fired two shots from a 12-gauge shotgun, from between 2 and 6 metres—but most likely 3 to 4 metres away. He couldn’t rule out that there were other shots—but nothing he found at the scene suggested that and, importantly, only two wads had been discovered.
    In Walsh’s opinion, the second wad, found two days after Scott’s murder, had struck the fence and fallen down beside it. If a third shot had been fired and missed everything, it was conceivable the wad may have ended up beyond the immediate scene in an adjoining paddock. Searches were carried out in the paddock, but nothing was found. However, the difficulty locating the second wad beside the fence showed it was impossible to be certain there wasn’t another undiscovered wad, given there were horses and sheep in the neighbouring paddock that could easily have trodden it into the soft soil well before the searches began.
    While this may have seemed unimportant to police at this stage, the possibility of more than two shots having been fired became a critical and arguably deciding point in the case. But for the moment, police were concentrating on working out the basic facts of the killing.
    Crucially, Walsh was able to suggest the direction the shots had been fired from, positing that the killer had been standing to Scott’s right—or to the left of the driveway if looking in from Aorangi Road—where the gravel of the driveway met the roadside grass, near the left-hand gatepost. This would have put the killer just outside the arc of the headlights from the ute when Scott pulled up to open the gates.
    At 4.35 am on Monday, 12 July 2010, police reconstructed the events before Scott’s death, driving his Hilux down the driveway with the lights on high and low beam. Photos taken during the reconstruction showed a narrow zone illuminated in front of the vehicle with little visible outside this, including the area just beyond the gatepost where Walsh suggested the killer fired from. Police also estimated that the time from Scott leaving the house to arriving at the gates was just under two minutes. Given he finished using his computer at about 4.41 am they surmised the murder occurred at 4.43 am.
    In Walsh’s view, the first shot hit Scott fully in the throat and led to his death. The second blast was not as accurate and struck Scott as he was already falling backwards, accounting for the upward path of pellets found in his body. Pellets from this shot also hit his left arm and hand, which Walsh deduced was raised near his face, while other pellets carried on, lodging in the fence and sapling.
    Thus the police scenario was that the murderer was waiting for Scott at the end of the driveway, having closed the gates to ensure he stopped and got out of his vehicle. When Scott did this, the gunman stepped out of the shadows and moved towards Scott, firing at him twice. After walking up to Scott’s body to be certain he was dead, the killer was briefly silhouetted in the beam of the ute’s headlights before once more disappearing into darkness.

    Almost immediately, the crime became a source of public fascination and speculation. A well-liked young farmer, gunned down at his front gate on a dark country road for no clear reason: it was as bizarre as it was brutal. When it became known that Scott left behind a young wife and son—and, even more heart-wrenchingly, an unborn son who would never lay eyes on his father or feel his arms around him—sympathy naturally stretched beyond