Mark Lundy

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:55 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:The JonBenet Ramsey case caused me to do some reading into the forensic use of fingernail DNA. I am still reviewing the more recent literature, with the hope of clarifying the difference between intimate partners versus people who are cohabitating. It would be helpful to have the laboratory reports in the Lundy case.

However, I thought I would share what I have found so far, much of which is covered in Peter Gill's 2014 book, "Misleading DNA Evidence" on pagers 43-46 and 68-80. The three paragraphs below are primarily drawn from his book, augmented by some additional reading of the papers he cited, and the authors and year of citations to the primary literature are indicated. Often one just observes self DNA, and if a second profile is observed, it is sometimes a partial profile. If only a few alleles are observed, the profile is not of sufficient completeness to report, but number of alleles needed may possibly be different, depending upon the jurisdiction. My tentative conclusion is that the presence of foreign DNA is exculpatory evidence, although I would not say that it exonerates Mr. Lundy beyond all doubt.

Cerri and coworkers (2009) observed DNA mixtures 5% of the time. Cook and Dixon (2007) reported observing reportable mixtures 6% of the time, although 13% had some foreign DNA. Matte and coworkers (2012) found foreign DNA 19% of the time, and 7% were reportable. They observed that about 2/3 of these mixtures produced poor quality, low level DNA. Henderson and coworkers (2004) found foreign DNA 8% of the time, but they did not subdivide it into reportable and non-reportable mixtures.

In a study of couples by Malsom and coworkers (2009), 37% of the samples produced mixtures and 19% were reportable. Most of the foreign DNA was from the partner. The amount of DNA varied between 20:1 and 1:1, and they used autosomal and Y chromosomal testing.

Matte and coworkers studied suspected or known scratching from actual casework, and they found foreign DNA 33% of the time, versus having found it 19% of the time in the general populace. They also performed simulated scratching experiments, which produced 37% foreign DNA with 17% reportable. More vigorous scratching produced 30% reportable profiles (in other words the quality of the profiles increased). Finally, they also studied the persistence of DNA over a 7-day period. IIRC they found that normal activity over a six-hour period reduced the percentage of foreign DNA considerably.


Hi Chris. I had to read this a few times to fully understand. A very interesting find in the literature. I expect that you may be the first who has looked deeper into this aspect. I foolishly fell into the category that because there was no apparent fuss made about the foreign dna found under Christine's nails that it didn't matter but it most certainly does.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Mon Sep 26, 2016 4:33 am

So the debate on kiwi blog went like this:

I am genuinely interested in debating this here. Few contributors but many readers.

Thumb up 5 Thumb down 28 REPLY REPORTSEPTEMBER 25, 2016 8:55AM

There was not one question or reply that involved the topic.
This is a blog that is run by David Farrar, who is a good guy, and has the contract to do National Party polling.
John Key, Judith Collins and Amy Adams , ministers prime, corrections and justice respectively, all are on public record for being vehemently opposed to a CCRC style independent body.
They state the system is working fine as it stands.

John Key on the last Lundy result.

Prime Minister John Key said the jury had heard all the evidence and had "spoken quite clearly".

When asked by reporters in Wellington today about the number of cases that had been overturned by the Privy Council, Mr Key said: "Any of these kind of cases, whether it is Teina Pora or David Bain or Mark Lundy ... are high-profile cases and they get a lot of attention.

"But the stats show that the vast overwhelming bulk of decisions that are made by courts and judges and juries are correct."

Mr Key said New Zealanders could have "tremendous confidence" in the justice system.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11426348
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:51 am

It was an interesting day in the high court.
The case is Arthur Taylor vs secret witness C who lied to convict David Tamihere on the instructions and being bribed by Detective John Hughes. Hughes did exactly the same thing to destroy Arthur Thomas a decade earlier. The conduct of these cases is unravelling fast.
Due to suppression orders I will be reticent for now.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:21 am

This document is seen as important in the Lundy case.

file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

ETA OK that doesn't work as a link I will try to fix it

President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Mr. President:
We are pleased to send you this PCAST report on Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific
Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. The study that led to the report was a response to your
question to PCAST, in 2015, as to whether there are additional steps on the scientific side, beyond those
already taken by the Administration in the aftermath of the highly critical 2009 National Research
Council report on the state of the forensic sciences, that could help ensure the validity of forensic
evidence used in the Nation’s legal system.
PCAST concluded that there are two important gaps: (1) the need for clarity about the scientific
standards for the validity and reliability of forensic methods and (2) the need to evaluate specific
forensic methods to determine whether they have been scientifically established to be valid and
reliable. Our study aimed to help close these gaps for a number of forensic “feature-comparison”
methods—specifically, methods for comparing DNA samples, bitemarks, latent fingerprints, firearm
marks, footwear, and hair.
Our study, which included an extensive literature review, was also informed by inputs from forensic
researchers at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology as well as from many other forensic scientists and practitioners, judges, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, academic researchers, criminal-justice-reform advocates, and representatives of
Federal agencies. The findings and recommendations conveyed in this report, of course, are PCAST’s
alone.
Our report reviews previous studies relating to forensic practice and Federal actions currently underway
to strengthen forensic science; discusses the role of scientific validity within the legal system; explains
the criteria by which the scientific validity of feature-comparison forensic methods can be judged; and
applies those criteria to the selected feature-comparison methods.
Based on our findings concerning the “foundational validity” of the indicated methods as well as their
“validity as applied” in practice in the courts, we offer recommendations on actions that could be taken
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory to strengthen the scientific underpinnings of the forensic
disciplines, as well as on actions that could be taken by the Attorney General and the judiciary to
promote the more rigorous use of these disciplines in the courtroom.
Sincerely,
John P. Holdren Eric S. Lander
Co-Chair Co-Chair
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:34 pm

There is plenty in this judgement of interest for those watching the serial undressing of the NZ "system"

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/tay ... leDecision
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:23 am

Hi guys,

Just catching up now but this is an impressive discussion. Picks up nicely on the all-in/all-out/both incorrect approaches to the stomach contents evidence and the terrible one-eyedness with which the case was investigated. Either way the prosecution want it, their timeline is contradicted, it's a pity this was glossed over and the forensic evidence was simplified to stupid brain-shirt quips and a terrible line the prosecution pinched from contemporaneous Australian gay tryst murder ("who is this incredibly unlucky man...?"). All falsely accused are unlucky and it doesn't make their bad luck any less real.

Anyway, keep up the good work. I hope Geoff, Mark and his legal team are paying attention.

Cheers,

kiwiburner
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:11 pm

kiwiburner wrote:Hi guys,

Just catching up now but this is an impressive discussion. Picks up nicely on the all-in/all-out/both incorrect approaches to the stomach contents evidence and the terrible one-eyedness with which the case was investigated. Either way the prosecution want it, their timeline is contradicted, it's a pity this was glossed over and the forensic evidence was simplified to stupid brain-shirt quips and a terrible line the prosecution pinched from contemporaneous Australian gay tryst murder ("who is this incredibly unlucky man...?"). All falsely accused are unlucky and it doesn't make their bad luck any less real.

Anyway, keep up the good work. I hope Geoff, Mark and his legal team are paying attention.

Cheers,

kiwiburner

Hi kiwi burner, welcome, I missed your post.

Here is a document Geoff is encouraging defence to use to battle the wrongful use of immunohistochemistry.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... r_2014.pdf
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:41 pm

If Lundy is going to have any chance of being acquitted. The defence is going have to produce an alternative suspect. The suspect must have at least one well grounded provable connection to the offence, and cannot simply be in the realm of speculation.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:56 am

David1819 wrote:If Lundy is going to have any chance of being acquitted. The defence is going have to produce an alternative suspect. The suspect must have at least one well grounded provable connection to the offence, and cannot simply be in the realm of speculation.

I actually agree. There are 4 uncleared suspects. There are 37 clothing fabric fibres under the fingernails of both Christine and Amber, and all attempts to connect them with Lundy forensically failed.
How did they come to be under fingernails of a 38 year old woman and her 7 year old daughter?

I believe you have the analytical skills to venture an opinion.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Sat Nov 19, 2016 3:40 pm

Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:If Lundy is going to have any chance of being acquitted. The defence is going have to produce an alternative suspect. The suspect must have at least one well grounded provable connection to the offence, and cannot simply be in the realm of speculation.

I actually agree. There are 4 uncleared suspects. There are 37 clothing fabric fibres under the fingernails of both Christine and Amber, and all attempts to connect them with Lundy forensically failed.
How did they come to be under fingernails of a 38 year old woman and her 7 year old daughter?

I believe you have the analytical skills to venture an opinion.



Considering Christine was attacked while asleep in bed and Amber would stand little chance of inflicting any scratch marks on the killer in her defence. Its unlikely those fibres are related to the killer or the event.

Did any fingernails contain under them traces of skin and blood not belonging to the victims? that would raise problems for the prosecution as there were no reported scratch marks on Mark Lundy. If that's not the case I cannot see the evidence from under the fingernails being of any significance in my opinion.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:57 pm

David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:If Lundy is going to have any chance of being acquitted. The defence is going have to produce an alternative suspect. The suspect must have at least one well grounded provable connection to the offence, and cannot simply be in the realm of speculation.

I actually agree. There are 4 uncleared suspects. There are 37 clothing fabric fibres under the fingernails of both Christine and Amber, and all attempts to connect them with Lundy forensically failed.
How did they come to be under fingernails of a 38 year old woman and her 7 year old daughter?

I believe you have the analytical skills to venture an opinion.



Considering Christine was attacked while asleep in bed and Amber would stand little chance of inflicting any scratch marks on the killer in her defence. Its unlikely those fibres are related to the killer or the event.

Did any fingernails contain under them traces of skin and blood not belonging to the victims? that would raise problems for the prosecution as there were no reported scratch marks on Mark Lundy. If that's not the case I cannot see the evidence from under the fingernails being of any significance in my opinion.

There is foreign male dna under Christine's finger nails. But I believe it may have been referenced as 2 males, which is problematic, as clearly she would only get to one assailant.
I understand it is thought the foreign fibres are more relevant to a defence argument than dna, I am not entirely clear why.
Anyway, the theory is simple.
Amber is woken from a deep sleep by very loud screaming by her mother. It takes plenty to wake a 7 year old. She sees the back of an assailant attacking Christine and grabs his clothing from behind to try to drag him off. He turns, and she runs but is killed in the doorway.
We need crime scene photographs.

Chris is working on dna under finger nails, he might have some ideas. I am not sure if he is aware of the fibres.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:05 pm

David1819 wrote:Considering Christine was attacked while asleep in bed and Amber would stand little chance of inflicting any scratch marks on the killer in her defence. Its unlikely those fibres are related to the killer or the event.

Did any fingernails contain under them traces of skin and blood not belonging to the victims? that would raise problems for the prosecution as there were no reported scratch marks on Mark Lundy. If that's not the case I cannot see the evidence from under the fingernails being of any significance in my opinion.

Christine may have awoken. The fingernail DNA is important because foreign DNA is uncommon, and it does not persist very long (presumably due to ordinary household activities, including hand washing). I have a more extensive comment upthread about this. If there were blood underneath someone's fingernails, the most common way to identify it would be using DNA profiling.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:40 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:
David1819 wrote:Considering Christine was attacked while asleep in bed and Amber would stand little chance of inflicting any scratch marks on the killer in her defence. Its unlikely those fibres are related to the killer or the event.

Did any fingernails contain under them traces of skin and blood not belonging to the victims? that would raise problems for the prosecution as there were no reported scratch marks on Mark Lundy. If that's not the case I cannot see the evidence from under the fingernails being of any significance in my opinion.

Christine may have awoken. The fingernail DNA is important because foreign DNA is uncommon, and it does not persist very long (presumably due to ordinary household activities, including hand washing). I have a more extensive comment upthread about this. If there were blood underneath someone's fingernails, the most common way to identify it would be using DNA profiling.

If we could get the complete records of that dna would there be simple analysis possible Chris? I am not sure where they are, and how and if more than one profile affects this.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Nov 21, 2016 4:38 pm

I don't have the profiles, and they may not be easy to obtain.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:05 am

I have come across a case that seems to have forensic evidence very comparable to that of the Lundy case. Professor William Douglas was convicted in 1984 of second degree murder. They found brain tissue of the victim on his jacket that was hanging in the closet.

"Although her body was never found, Professor Douglas admitted to bashing her head in
with a sledgehammer, “pounding her so hard that her skull crumpled and he could see deep
inside her head.” In 1984 he was convicted and sent to prison for 18 to 20 years"

The Consequences of Arbitrary and Selective Enforcement of Prostitution Laws 1994

Below is from the November 1st 1983 Montreal Gazette. 
Image

Evidence available online seems very limited. But it might be worth digging deeper if your interested in this case. It would be interesting to obtain the forensic files on the jacket.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:16 am

David1819 wrote:I have come across a case that seems to have forensic evidence very comparable to that of the Lundy case. Professor William Douglas was convicted in 1984 of second degree murder. They found brain tissue of the victim on his jacket that was hanging in the closet.

"Although her body was never found, Professor Douglas admitted to bashing her head in
with a sledgehammer, “pounding her so hard that her skull crumpled and he could see deep
inside her head.” In 1984 he was convicted and sent to prison for 18 to 20 years"

The Consequences of Arbitrary and Selective Enforcement of Prostitution Laws 1994

Below is from the November 1st 1983 Montreal Gazette. 
Image

Evidence available online seems very limited. But it might be worth digging deeper if your interested in this case. It would be interesting to obtain the forensic files on the jacket.

The fact he admitted to the crime sets it apart from the general field here. This is not a false confession that bedevils the forum.

The Lundy case will catch fire in 2017. The issue can be isolated to a few key points.

1.The immunohistochemistry test is designed to confirm the type of cancer a cell exhibits.
2. The origin of which part of the body the cell comes from is always known.

In the Lundy case, neither 1 or 2 conformed to the testing procedure, and in fact the presumptive test failed to reveal that there were cells being seen.
The matter tested was amorphous gunk.
This is the heart of the matter, no pun intended.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:34 am

Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:I have come across a case that seems to have forensic evidence very comparable to that of the Lundy case. Professor William Douglas was convicted in 1984 of second degree murder. They found brain tissue of the victim on his jacket that was hanging in the closet.

"Although her body was never found, Professor Douglas admitted to bashing her head in
with a sledgehammer, “pounding her so hard that her skull crumpled and he could see deep
inside her head.” In 1984 he was convicted and sent to prison for 18 to 20 years"

The Consequences of Arbitrary and Selective Enforcement of Prostitution Laws 1994

Below is from the November 1st 1983 Montreal Gazette. 
Image

Evidence available online seems very limited. But it might be worth digging deeper if your interested in this case. It would be interesting to obtain the forensic files on the jacket.

The fact he admitted to the crime sets it apart from the general field here. This is not a false confession that bedevils the forum.

The Lundy case will catch fire in 2017. The issue can be isolated to a few key points.

1.The immunohistochemistry test is designed to confirm the type of cancer a cell exhibits.
2. The origin of which part of the body the cell comes from is always known.

In the Lundy case, neither 1 or 2 conformed to the testing procedure, and in fact the presumptive test failed to reveal that there were cells being seen.
The matter tested was amorphous gunk.
This is the heart of the matter, no pun intended.


I disagree. We have clothing and brain tissue combined with an identical method of killing the victim. I would recommend this be pursued because the brain tissue and jacket evidence from the Douglas case could potentially either strengthen or undermine the evidence in the Lundy case.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:31 pm

Is it possible by any chance to get some crime scene photos on here? I would like to see semi-censored photo's of the scene were Christine Lundy was found.

I say semi-censored whereby the body is blacked out but the rest of the scene is visible. The blood stains could hold some important clues. I cannot imagine the body of Christine would tell us anything we don't already know hence there is no justifiable reason for it to be shown here. specially considering the nature of the attack.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:07 pm

David1819,

With all due respect, you are begging the question. It is, to put it mildly, highly disputed that the material on the shirt is brain or CNS tissue from Christina. Also, no murder weapon was recovered.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:34 am

My understanding is that David1819 is now in receipt of extensive case material that will afford a good path to consider how a miscarriage can be designed/eventuate without planting evidence.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:09 am

David1819 wrote:Is it possible by any chance to get some crime scene photos on here? I would like to see semi-censored photo's of the scene were Christine Lundy was found.

I say semi-censored whereby the body is blacked out but the rest of the scene is visible. The blood stains could hold some important clues. I cannot imagine the body of Christine would tell us anything we don't already know hence there is no justifiable reason for it to be shown here. specially considering the nature of the attack.


I'd like crime scene photos as well. But this is a case where a description of the method is enough to surmise a targeted execution rather than a domestic homicide.

Think about it. Even if you assume Lundy was brutal enough not only to murder his wife, but also a daughter whom he seemed to love dearly, why would he go about it this way? He was in a situation where he could approach his wife without arousing suspicion, catch her off her guard and strangle her.

Take a look at a sampling of cases where men kill their wives as a premeditated act as opposed to the heat of the moment. Some use guns, many use strangulation or suffocation, some will drug the wife and make it look like a bathtub drowning, and some will indeed use blunt force trauma, but they go about it differently than in the Lundy case. A murdering husband does not stand over a wife who is sleeping in bed and splatter her brains out with a hatchet. He has no need to do that.

That is the work of someone who was not close to the victim, who required the element of surprise. And once you know the details of Lundy's business activities just before the murders, it becomes clear why that happened.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:40 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:David1819,

With all due respect, you are begging the question. It is, to put it mildly, highly disputed that the material on the shirt is brain or CNS tissue from Christina. Also, no murder weapon was recovered.


My reasons for wanting to examine the crime scene has nothing to do with CNS tissue or a murder weapon.

From what I have gathered from the written descriptions of the scene and the nature of the attack, it may be possible to determine if the killer was left or right handed via cast off blood spatter and void patters on the wall and floor.

I also have forensic photo enhancement software on my computer. It could be very helpful.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:45 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:Is it possible by any chance to get some crime scene photos on here? I would like to see semi-censored photo's of the scene were Christine Lundy was found.

I say semi-censored whereby the body is blacked out but the rest of the scene is visible. The blood stains could hold some important clues. I cannot imagine the body of Christine would tell us anything we don't already know hence there is no justifiable reason for it to be shown here. specially considering the nature of the attack.


I'd like crime scene photos as well. But this is a case where a description of the method is enough to surmise a targeted execution rather than a domestic homicide.

Think about it. Even if you assume Lundy was brutal enough not only to murder his wife, but also a daughter whom he seemed to love dearly, why would he go about it this way? He was in a situation where he could approach his wife without arousing suspicion, catch her off her guard and strangle her.

Take a look at a sampling of cases where men kill their wives as a premeditated act as opposed to the heat of the moment. Some use guns, many use strangulation or suffocation, some will drug the wife and make it look like a bathtub drowning, and some will indeed use blunt force trauma, but they go about it differently than in the Lundy case. A murdering husband does not stand over a wife who is sleeping in bed and splatter her brains out with a hatchet.He has no need to do that.

snip


Really?

"Sick husband murders wife with a hammer while she slept so he could go on Thailand sex holiday"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2217414/sick-husband-murders-wife-with-a-hammer-while-she-slept-so-he-could-go-on-thailand-sex-holiday/
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:16 am

David1819 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:Is it possible by any chance to get some crime scene photos on here? I would like to see semi-censored photo's of the scene were Christine Lundy was found.

I say semi-censored whereby the body is blacked out but the rest of the scene is visible. The blood stains could hold some important clues. I cannot imagine the body of Christine would tell us anything we don't already know hence there is no justifiable reason for it to be shown here. specially considering the nature of the attack.


I'd like crime scene photos as well. But this is a case where a description of the method is enough to surmise a targeted execution rather than a domestic homicide.

Think about it. Even if you assume Lundy was brutal enough not only to murder his wife, but also a daughter whom he seemed to love dearly, why would he go about it this way? He was in a situation where he could approach his wife without arousing suspicion, catch her off her guard and strangle her.

Take a look at a sampling of cases where men kill their wives as a premeditated act as opposed to the heat of the moment. Some use guns, many use strangulation or suffocation, some will drug the wife and make it look like a bathtub drowning, and some will indeed use blunt force trauma, but they go about it differently than in the Lundy case. A murdering husband does not stand over a wife who is sleeping in bed and splatter her brains out with a hatchet.He has no need to do that.

snip


Really?

"Sick husband murders wife with a hammer while she slept so he could go on Thailand sex holiday"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2217414/sick-husband-murders-wife-with-a-hammer-while-she-slept-so-he-could-go-on-thailand-sex-holiday/


Heh. OK, you got me. But I wonder... they didn't catch up with this guy for weeks, and probably did not have a crime scene to process, so they had to infer the crime scene and the nature of the attack.

In any case, I'm confident the attack against Christine and Amber Lundy was a gangster hit, not a domestic homicide or a random lunatic. Google "Wonderland murders" as an example.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:53 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:Is it possible by any chance to get some crime scene photos on here? I would like to see semi-censored photo's of the scene were Christine Lundy was found.

I say semi-censored whereby the body is blacked out but the rest of the scene is visible. The blood stains could hold some important clues. I cannot imagine the body of Christine would tell us anything we don't already know hence there is no justifiable reason for it to be shown here. specially considering the nature of the attack.


I'd like crime scene photos as well. But this is a case where a description of the method is enough to surmise a targeted execution rather than a domestic homicide.

Think about it. Even if you assume Lundy was brutal enough not only to murder his wife, but also a daughter whom he seemed to love dearly, why would he go about it this way? He was in a situation where he could approach his wife without arousing suspicion, catch her off her guard and strangle her.

Take a look at a sampling of cases where men kill their wives as a premeditated act as opposed to the heat of the moment. Some use guns, many use strangulation or suffocation, some will drug the wife and make it look like a bathtub drowning, and some will indeed use blunt force trauma, but they go about it differently than in the Lundy case. A murdering husband does not stand over a wife who is sleeping in bed and splatter her brains out with a hatchet.He has no need to do that.

snip


Really?

"Sick husband murders wife with a hammer while she slept so he could go on Thailand sex holiday"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2217414/sick-husband-murders-wife-with-a-hammer-while-she-slept-so-he-could-go-on-thailand-sex-holiday/


Heh. OK, you got me. But I wonder... they didn't catch up with this guy for weeks, and probably did not have a crime scene to process, so they had to infer the crime scene and the nature of the attack.

In any case, I'm confident the attack against Christine and Amber Lundy was a gangster hit, not a domestic homicide or a random lunatic. Google "Wonderland murders" as an example.


The crime scene suggests otherwise. We have Christine attacked while she was asleep in bed. The attacker struck her excessively more times than necessary indicating it was personal. You then have Amber Lundy in the doorway lying face down. This indicates Amber woke up entered her parents room and witnesses the perpetrator. Amber retreats but the perpetrator quickly disposes of her either because she can identify him, she could contact the police or scream for help.

This to me implicates either Mark Lundy or someone else who had it in for Christine.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:13 pm

David1819 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:Is it possible by any chance to get some crime scene photos on here? I would like to see semi-censored photo's of the scene were Christine Lundy was found.

I say semi-censored whereby the body is blacked out but the rest of the scene is visible. The blood stains could hold some important clues. I cannot imagine the body of Christine would tell us anything we don't already know hence there is no justifiable reason for it to be shown here. specially considering the nature of the attack.


I'd like crime scene photos as well. But this is a case where a description of the method is enough to surmise a targeted execution rather than a domestic homicide.

Think about it. Even if you assume Lundy was brutal enough not only to murder his wife, but also a daughter whom he seemed to love dearly, why would he go about it this way? He was in a situation where he could approach his wife without arousing suspicion, catch her off her guard and strangle her.

Take a look at a sampling of cases where men kill their wives as a premeditated act as opposed to the heat of the moment. Some use guns, many use strangulation or suffocation, some will drug the wife and make it look like a bathtub drowning, and some will indeed use blunt force trauma, but they go about it differently than in the Lundy case. A murdering husband does not stand over a wife who is sleeping in bed and splatter her brains out with a hatchet.He has no need to do that.

snip


Really?

"Sick husband murders wife with a hammer while she slept so he could go on Thailand sex holiday"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2217414/sick-husband-murders-wife-with-a-hammer-while-she-slept-so-he-could-go-on-thailand-sex-holiday/


Heh. OK, you got me. But I wonder... they didn't catch up with this guy for weeks, and probably did not have a crime scene to process, so they had to infer the crime scene and the nature of the attack.

In any case, I'm confident the attack against Christine and Amber Lundy was a gangster hit, not a domestic homicide or a random lunatic. Google "Wonderland murders" as an example.


The crime scene suggests otherwise. We have Christine attacked while she was asleep in bed. The attacker struck her excessively more times than necessary indicating it was personal. You then have Amber Lundy in the doorway lying face down. This indicates Amber woke up entered her parents room and witnesses the perpetrator. Amber retreats but the perpetrator quickly disposes of her either because she can identify him, she could contact the police or scream for help.

This to me implicates either Mark Lundy or someone else who had it in for Christine.

Wrong.

Christine was definitely not asleep.
This is starkly obvious when considering the weapon was sharp enough to cleave hair follicles.
She was killed to stop her screaming.

Read the book I sent you then wade in to this case.

I have considered this case and drawn the following conclusions.

The attacker expected Mark Lundy to be home.
His wife experienced what she considered to be a home invasion.
She screamed, and was killed to stop scaring the neighbours.
Amber was killed because she awoke due to the high noise level.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:21 pm

Samson wrote:Wrong.

Christine was definitely not asleep.
This is starkly obvious when considering the weapon was sharp enough to cleave hair follicles.
She was killed to stop her screaming.

Read the book I sent you then wade in to this case.

I have considered this case and drawn the following conclusions.

The attacker expected Mark Lundy to be home.
His wife experienced what she considered to be a home invasion.
She screamed, and was killed to stop scaring the neighbours.
Amber was killed because she awoke due to the high noise level.


Christine was asleep. She had very poor eyesight and depended on her glasses a lot. Her body was found in the bed with her glasses folded on the bedside table.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:34 pm

David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:Wrong.

Christine was definitely not asleep.
This is starkly obvious when considering the weapon was sharp enough to cleave hair follicles.
She was killed to stop her screaming.

Read the book I sent you then wade in to this case.

I have considered this case and drawn the following conclusions.

The attacker expected Mark Lundy to be home.
His wife experienced what she considered to be a home invasion.
She screamed, and was killed to stop scaring the neighbours.
Amber was killed because she awoke due to the high noise level.


Christine was asleep. She had very poor eyesight and depended on her glasses a lot. Her body was found in the bed with her glasses folded on the bedside table.

Wrong, she was not asleep by the time she was attacked. She has multiple defensive wounds. The pathologist stated any individual blow with the extremely sharp tomahawk like weapon would kill.

Why do you state obvious false hoods like the trial judge in summing up?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:52 pm

Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:Wrong.

Christine was definitely not asleep.
This is starkly obvious when considering the weapon was sharp enough to cleave hair follicles.
She was killed to stop her screaming.

Read the book I sent you then wade in to this case.

I have considered this case and drawn the following conclusions.

The attacker expected Mark Lundy to be home.
His wife experienced what she considered to be a home invasion.
She screamed, and was killed to stop scaring the neighbours.
Amber was killed because she awoke due to the high noise level.


Christine was asleep. She had very poor eyesight and depended on her glasses a lot. Her body was found in the bed with her glasses folded on the bedside table.

Wrong, she was not asleep by the time she was attacked. She has multiple defensive wounds. The pathologist stated any individual blow with the extremely sharp tomahawk like weapon would kill.

Why do you state obvious false hoods like the trial judge in summing up?


I'm not saying she was necessarily asleep at the very moment of death. Just generally speaking she was asleep in bed as the events begin and the killer approaches.

I found this interesting.

Blood traces in Mr Weggery's house were an 83 per cent match with Mrs Lundy's DNA and an 88 per cent match with Amber's
Even though Mark Lundy is accused of the murder of his wife and daughter, it was his brother-in-law who was in the spotlight today after defence lawyers pinned the crime on him.
Glenn Weggery - Christine Lundy's brother - spent most of the day in the witness box under intense scrutiny from Lundy's lawyer David Hislop, QC.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11399418
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:57 pm

David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:Wrong.

Christine was definitely not asleep.
This is starkly obvious when considering the weapon was sharp enough to cleave hair follicles.
She was killed to stop her screaming.

Read the book I sent you then wade in to this case.

I have considered this case and drawn the following conclusions.

The attacker expected Mark Lundy to be home.
His wife experienced what she considered to be a home invasion.
She screamed, and was killed to stop scaring the neighbours.
Amber was killed because she awoke due to the high noise level.


Christine was asleep. She had very poor eyesight and depended on her glasses a lot. Her body was found in the bed with her glasses folded on the bedside table.

Wrong, she was not asleep by the time she was attacked. She has multiple defensive wounds. The pathologist stated any individual blow with the extremely sharp tomahawk like weapon would kill.

Why do you state obvious false hoods like the trial judge in summing up?


I'm not saying she was necessarily asleep at the very moment of death. Just generally speaking she was asleep in bed as the events begin and the killer approaches.

I found this interesting.

Blood traces in Mr Weggery's house were an 83 per cent match with Mrs Lundy's DNA and an 88 per cent match with Amber's
Even though Mark Lundy is accused of the murder of his wife and daughter, it was his brother-in-law who was in the spotlight today after defence lawyers pinned the crime on him.
Glenn Weggery - Christine Lundy's brother - spent most of the day in the witness box under intense scrutiny from Lundy's lawyer David Hislop, QC.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11399418

Yes unfortunately defence lawyer David Hislop made this absurd allegation which he knew to be false, to create an example.
The obvious solution that it was an attack related to debts Lundy and the middleman were discussing at 8 30 that evening on the telephone was ignored.
The trial was a disgrace by all parties. No better or worse than the Bamber trial.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:44 am

David1819 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:Is it possible by any chance to get some crime scene photos on here? I would like to see semi-censored photo's of the scene were Christine Lundy was found.

I say semi-censored whereby the body is blacked out but the rest of the scene is visible. The blood stains could hold some important clues. I cannot imagine the body of Christine would tell us anything we don't already know hence there is no justifiable reason for it to be shown here. specially considering the nature of the attack.


I'd like crime scene photos as well. But this is a case where a description of the method is enough to surmise a targeted execution rather than a domestic homicide.

Think about it. Even if you assume Lundy was brutal enough not only to murder his wife, but also a daughter whom he seemed to love dearly, why would he go about it this way? He was in a situation where he could approach his wife without arousing suspicion, catch her off her guard and strangle her.

Take a look at a sampling of cases where men kill their wives as a premeditated act as opposed to the heat of the moment. Some use guns, many use strangulation or suffocation, some will drug the wife and make it look like a bathtub drowning, and some will indeed use blunt force trauma, but they go about it differently than in the Lundy case. A murdering husband does not stand over a wife who is sleeping in bed and splatter her brains out with a hatchet.He has no need to do that.

snip


Really?

"Sick husband murders wife with a hammer while she slept so he could go on Thailand sex holiday"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2217414/sick-husband-murders-wife-with-a-hammer-while-she-slept-so-he-could-go-on-thailand-sex-holiday/


Heh. OK, you got me. But I wonder... they didn't catch up with this guy for weeks, and probably did not have a crime scene to process, so they had to infer the crime scene and the nature of the attack.

In any case, I'm confident the attack against Christine and Amber Lundy was a gangster hit, not a domestic homicide or a random lunatic. Google "Wonderland murders" as an example.


The crime scene suggests otherwise. We have Christine attacked while she was asleep in bed. The attacker struck her excessively more times than necessary indicating it was personal. You then have Amber Lundy in the doorway lying face down. This indicates Amber woke up entered her parents room and witnesses the perpetrator. Amber retreats but the perpetrator quickly disposes of her either because she can identify him, she could contact the police or scream for help.

This to me implicates either Mark Lundy or someone else who had it in for Christine.


It was done to settle a score over an unpaid debt.

It's a good idea to step back and assess the totality of a scenario. If the prosecution is correct, Lundy carried out a plan flawlessly, as follows: (a) drive home after 1 a.m., (b) kill wife and daughter, (c) return to motel, and (d) show up in motel office at 8 in the morning, looking and behaving normally.

Think about yourself doing that crime. Would you use a hatchet? You'd leave the crime scene drenched with blood and have a huge cleaning and disposal project on your hands. This is why accusers have to conjure up a phantom hazmat suit for which no evidence exists.

BUT, if you are a stranger, breaking in while the people are asleep, the hatchet is a good way to strike silently with the element of surprise, which is why gangsters use that method. They don't have to worry about the mess, because they won't become suspects immediately, if ever. They have plenty of time to clean up and dispose of evidence.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:23 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
David1819 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
I'd like crime scene photos as well. But this is a case where a description of the method is enough to surmise a targeted execution rather than a domestic homicide.

Think about it. Even if you assume Lundy was brutal enough not only to murder his wife, but also a daughter whom he seemed to love dearly, why would he go about it this way? He was in a situation where he could approach his wife without arousing suspicion, catch her off her guard and strangle her.

Take a look at a sampling of cases where men kill their wives as a premeditated act as opposed to the heat of the moment. Some use guns, many use strangulation or suffocation, some will drug the wife and make it look like a bathtub drowning, and some will indeed use blunt force trauma, but they go about it differently than in the Lundy case. A murdering husband does not stand over a wife who is sleeping in bed and splatter her brains out with a hatchet.He has no need to do that.

snip


Really?

"Sick husband murders wife with a hammer while she slept so he could go on Thailand sex holiday"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2217414/sick-husband-murders-wife-with-a-hammer-while-she-slept-so-he-could-go-on-thailand-sex-holiday/


Heh. OK, you got me. But I wonder... they didn't catch up with this guy for weeks, and probably did not have a crime scene to process, so they had to infer the crime scene and the nature of the attack.

In any case, I'm confident the attack against Christine and Amber Lundy was a gangster hit, not a domestic homicide or a random lunatic. Google "Wonderland murders" as an example.


The crime scene suggests otherwise. We have Christine attacked while she was asleep in bed. The attacker struck her excessively more times than necessary indicating it was personal. You then have Amber Lundy in the doorway lying face down. This indicates Amber woke up entered her parents room and witnesses the perpetrator. Amber retreats but the perpetrator quickly disposes of her either because she can identify him, she could contact the police or scream for help.

This to me implicates either Mark Lundy or someone else who had it in for Christine.


It was done to settle a score over an unpaid debt.

It's a good idea to step back and assess the totality of a scenario. If the prosecution is correct, Lundy carried out a plan flawlessly, as follows: (a) drive home after 1 a.m., (b) kill wife and daughter, (c) return to motel, and (d) show up in motel office at 8 in the morning, looking and behaving normally.

Think about yourself doing that crime. Would you use a hatchet? You'd leave the crime scene drenched with blood and have a huge cleaning and disposal project on your hands. This is why accusers have to conjure up a phantom hazmat suit for which no evidence exists.

BUT, if you are a stranger, breaking in while the people are asleep, the hatchet is a good way to strike silently with the element of surprise, which is why gangsters use that method. They don't have to worry about the mess, because they won't become suspects immediately, if ever. They have plenty of time to clean up and dispose of evidence.

I still think the assailant expected Mark Lundy to be home.
The creditor who commissioned the gangsters was not the rootcutting suppliers but someone else.

The name suppressed middleman who spoke to Lundy at 8 30pm had a range of creditors, all of whom he was reassuring would be paid when Lundy paid him the 500k plus he had invoiced him for.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:56 pm

Samson wrote:I still think the assailant expected Mark Lundy to be home.
The creditor who commissioned the gangsters was not the rootcutting suppliers but someone else.

The name suppressed middleman who spoke to Lundy at 8 30pm had a range of creditors, all of whom he was reassuring would be paid when Lundy paid him the 500k plus he had invoiced him for.


That is interesting. Does Geoff know which creditor it was?

I have always thought that nailing down that story, with credible testimony or other evidence, would be the surest way to get Lundy out. But it presents dangers.

I don't doubt the killer(s) expected Lundy to be home, but I suspect their intent was always to kill rather than intimidate or negotiate. They figured by killing Lundy, they would frighten the middleman into scraping up the money, and it sounds like that is what happened.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:16 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
Samson wrote:I still think the assailant expected Mark Lundy to be home.
The creditor who commissioned the gangsters was not the rootcutting suppliers but someone else.

The name suppressed middleman who spoke to Lundy at 8 30pm had a range of creditors, all of whom he was reassuring would be paid when Lundy paid him the 500k plus he had invoiced him for.


That is interesting. Does Geoff know which creditor it was?

I have always thought that nailing down that story, with credible testimony or other evidence, would be the surest way to get Lundy out. But it presents dangers.

I don't doubt the killer(s) expected Lundy to be home, but I suspect their intent was always to kill rather than intimidate or negotiate. They figured by killing Lundy, they would frighten the middleman into scraping up the money, and it sounds like that is what happened.

No he does not know, but he does think it was a scene that "got out of hand". He says find where the money went, and the crime is solved. The brother of the middleman should know because he found the money.
The reason I say it was not the root cuttings father and son team is because the police were called to that altercation by middleman's wife, and I just can't see them instructing the visitation after that. Don't you agree? They could not know that the police would not file a report, which they did not do, probably to avoid paperwork after a "resolved" situation. (the three said it was a commercial matter, resolved, by the time police arrived)

Why do you think the intent was to kill? Is it because the weapon was extremely sharp, so it was either
1. An intent to kill?
2. A preparedness to kill if necessary?

Clearly when the gangsters killed Scott Guy, 10 kilometers away and 10 years later, they intended to kill. The best theory by far is the target was Ewan MacDonald.
But taking out others than their own seems unusual nevertheless, in the NZ context. It draws extreme attention, and usually gets a correct conviction.
I guess it doesn't matter, but for completeness it would be interesting to know.

Here is a wikipedia entry FYI

Other theories of the murders[edit]
G**** L*****, who runs a campaign to have Lundy's conviction overturned, believes Lundy is innocent largely based on the time needed to travel from Petone to Lundy's house and return. He speculates that a creditor of Lundy's paid someone to go to Lundy's house to "teach him a lesson", but Lundy was not there and matters "got out of hand"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:25 pm

Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:Wrong.

Christine was definitely not asleep.
This is starkly obvious when considering the weapon was sharp enough to cleave hair follicles.
She was killed to stop her screaming.

Read the book I sent you then wade in to this case.

I have considered this case and drawn the following conclusions.

The attacker expected Mark Lundy to be home.
His wife experienced what she considered to be a home invasion.
She screamed, and was killed to stop scaring the neighbours.
Amber was killed because she awoke due to the high noise level.


Christine was asleep. She had very poor eyesight and depended on her glasses a lot. Her body was found in the bed with her glasses folded on the bedside table.

Wrong, she was not asleep by the time she was attacked. She has multiple defensive wounds. The pathologist stated any individual blow with the extremely sharp tomahawk like weapon would kill.

Why do you state obvious false hoods like the trial judge in summing up?


I'm not saying she was necessarily asleep at the very moment of death. Just generally speaking she was asleep in bed as the events begin and the killer approaches.

I found this interesting.

Blood traces in Mr Weggery's house were an 83 per cent match with Mrs Lundy's DNA and an 88 per cent match with Amber's
Even though Mark Lundy is accused of the murder of his wife and daughter, it was his brother-in-law who was in the spotlight today after defence lawyers pinned the crime on him.
Glenn Weggery - Christine Lundy's brother - spent most of the day in the witness box under intense scrutiny from Lundy's lawyer David Hislop, QC.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11399418

Yes unfortunately defence lawyer David Hislop made this absurd allegation which he knew to be false, to create an example.
The obvious solution that it was an attack related to debts Lundy and the middleman were discussing at 8 30 that evening on the telephone was ignored.
The trial was a disgrace by all parties. No better or worse than the Bamber trial.


What precludes his brother in law being the murderer?
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:41 pm

Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Samson wrote:I still think the assailant expected Mark Lundy to be home.
The creditor who commissioned the gangsters was not the rootcutting suppliers but someone else.

The name suppressed middleman who spoke to Lundy at 8 30pm had a range of creditors, all of whom he was reassuring would be paid when Lundy paid him the 500k plus he had invoiced him for.


That is interesting. Does Geoff know which creditor it was?

I have always thought that nailing down that story, with credible testimony or other evidence, would be the surest way to get Lundy out. But it presents dangers.

I don't doubt the killer(s) expected Lundy to be home, but I suspect their intent was always to kill rather than intimidate or negotiate. They figured by killing Lundy, they would frighten the middleman into scraping up the money, and it sounds like that is what happened.

No he does not know, but he does think it was a scene that "got out of hand". He says find where the money went, and the crime is solved. The brother of the middleman should know because he found the money.
The reason I say it was not the root cuttings father and son team is because the police were called to that altercation by middleman's wife, and I just can't see them instructing the visitation after that. Don't you agree? They could not know that the police would not file a report, which they did not do, probably to avoid paperwork after a "resolved" situation. (the three said it was a commercial matter, resolved, by the time police arrived)

Why do you think the intent was to kill? Is it because the weapon was extremely sharp, so it was either
1. An intent to kill?
2. A preparedness to kill if necessary?

Clearly when the gangsters killed Scott Guy, 10 kilometers away and 10 years later, they intended to kill. The best theory by far is the target was Ewan MacDonald.
But taking out others than their own seems unusual nevertheless, in the NZ context. It draws extreme attention, and usually gets a correct conviction.
I guess it doesn't matter, but for completeness it would be interesting to know.

Here is a wikipedia entry FYI

Other theories of the murders[edit]
G**** L*****, who runs a campaign to have Lundy's conviction overturned, believes Lundy is innocent largely based on the time needed to travel from Petone to Lundy's house and return. He speculates that a creditor of Lundy's paid someone to go to Lundy's house to "teach him a lesson", but Lundy was not there and matters "got out of hand"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders


I would not assume the angry creditors were intimidated by the police call and therefore unwilling to escalate. On the contrary. The police call just hours before the murders makes them prime suspects in my opinion. Criminals are criminals in part because they are brazen.

But they may not have done it themselves.

I think the intent was to murder rather than apply pressure because it seems they broke in and blitzed Christine Lundy when she was sleeping. A hatchet or blunt instrument is the right kind of weapon for doing that, but it is not a good choice if the intent is to force someone's compliance.

The creditors may have realized Lundy didn't have the money or any way to get it.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:34 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Samson wrote:I still think the assailant expected Mark Lundy to be home.
The creditor who commissioned the gangsters was not the rootcutting suppliers but someone else.

The name suppressed middleman who spoke to Lundy at 8 30pm had a range of creditors, all of whom he was reassuring would be paid when Lundy paid him the 500k plus he had invoiced him for.


That is interesting. Does Geoff know which creditor it was?

I have always thought that nailing down that story, with credible testimony or other evidence, would be the surest way to get Lundy out. But it presents dangers.

I don't doubt the killer(s) expected Lundy to be home, but I suspect their intent was always to kill rather than intimidate or negotiate. They figured by killing Lundy, they would frighten the middleman into scraping up the money, and it sounds like that is what happened.

No he does not know, but he does think it was a scene that "got out of hand". He says find where the money went, and the crime is solved. The brother of the middleman should know because he found the money.
The reason I say it was not the root cuttings father and son team is because the police were called to that altercation by middleman's wife, and I just can't see them instructing the visitation after that. Don't you agree? They could not know that the police would not file a report, which they did not do, probably to avoid paperwork after a "resolved" situation. (the three said it was a commercial matter, resolved, by the time police arrived)

Why do you think the intent was to kill? Is it because the weapon was extremely sharp, so it was either
1. An intent to kill?
2. A preparedness to kill if necessary?

Clearly when the gangsters killed Scott Guy, 10 kilometers away and 10 years later, they intended to kill. The best theory by far is the target was Ewan MacDonald.
But taking out others than their own seems unusual nevertheless, in the NZ context. It draws extreme attention, and usually gets a correct conviction.
I guess it doesn't matter, but for completeness it would be interesting to know.

Here is a wikipedia entry FYI

Other theories of the murders[edit]
G**** L*****, who runs a campaign to have Lundy's conviction overturned, believes Lundy is innocent largely based on the time needed to travel from Petone to Lundy's house and return. He speculates that a creditor of Lundy's paid someone to go to Lundy's house to "teach him a lesson", but Lundy was not there and matters "got out of hand"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders


I would not assume the angry creditors were intimidated by the police call and therefore unwilling to escalate. On the contrary. The police call just hours before the murders makes them prime suspects in my opinion. Criminals are criminals in part because they are brazen.

But they may not have done it themselves.

I think the intent was to murder rather than apply pressure because it seems they broke in and blitzed Christine Lundy when she was sleeping. A hatchet or blunt instrument is the right kind of weapon for doing that, but it is not a good choice if the intent is to force someone's compliance.

The creditors may have realized Lundy didn't have the money or any way to get it.

All the autopsy evidence demonstrates Christine was awake and fighting before she was killed, and the noise of arguing woke Amber, thus this proposition from Geoff.

As intro, Hislop summing up for the defence.

" And it might provide an explanation also, might it not, for the unidentified footprint? It might, might it not, provide and explanation for the fibres under both Christine and Amber Lundy’s fingernails, inconsistent with Mark Lundy’s clothing? It might, might it not, be consistent, this impossibility be consistent and provide some explanation as to why it is that Amber Lundy and Christine Lundy have the Y-STR of a male stranger underneath their nails, and that's the consequences of the impossibilities."

Scenario:
Christine was fighting her attacker from a prone position, the arguing and noise woke the daughter and she tried to drag him from her mum!
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:24 pm

Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Samson wrote:I still think the assailant expected Mark Lundy to be home.
The creditor who commissioned the gangsters was not the rootcutting suppliers but someone else.

The name suppressed middleman who spoke to Lundy at 8 30pm had a range of creditors, all of whom he was reassuring would be paid when Lundy paid him the 500k plus he had invoiced him for.


That is interesting. Does Geoff know which creditor it was?

I have always thought that nailing down that story, with credible testimony or other evidence, would be the surest way to get Lundy out. But it presents dangers.

I don't doubt the killer(s) expected Lundy to be home, but I suspect their intent was always to kill rather than intimidate or negotiate. They figured by killing Lundy, they would frighten the middleman into scraping up the money, and it sounds like that is what happened.

No he does not know, but he does think it was a scene that "got out of hand". He says find where the money went, and the crime is solved. The brother of the middleman should know because he found the money.
The reason I say it was not the root cuttings father and son team is because the police were called to that altercation by middleman's wife, and I just can't see them instructing the visitation after that. Don't you agree? They could not know that the police would not file a report, which they did not do, probably to avoid paperwork after a "resolved" situation. (the three said it was a commercial matter, resolved, by the time police arrived)

Why do you think the intent was to kill? Is it because the weapon was extremely sharp, so it was either
1. An intent to kill?
2. A preparedness to kill if necessary?

Clearly when the gangsters killed Scott Guy, 10 kilometers away and 10 years later, they intended to kill. The best theory by far is the target was Ewan MacDonald.
But taking out others than their own seems unusual nevertheless, in the NZ context. It draws extreme attention, and usually gets a correct conviction.
I guess it doesn't matter, but for completeness it would be interesting to know.

Here is a wikipedia entry FYI

Other theories of the murders[edit]
G**** L*****, who runs a campaign to have Lundy's conviction overturned, believes Lundy is innocent largely based on the time needed to travel from Petone to Lundy's house and return. He speculates that a creditor of Lundy's paid someone to go to Lundy's house to "teach him a lesson", but Lundy was not there and matters "got out of hand"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders


I would not assume the angry creditors were intimidated by the police call and therefore unwilling to escalate. On the contrary. The police call just hours before the murders makes them prime suspects in my opinion. Criminals are criminals in part because they are brazen.

But they may not have done it themselves.

I think the intent was to murder rather than apply pressure because it seems they broke in and blitzed Christine Lundy when she was sleeping. A hatchet or blunt instrument is the right kind of weapon for doing that, but it is not a good choice if the intent is to force someone's compliance.

The creditors may have realized Lundy didn't have the money or any way to get it.

All the autopsy evidence demonstrates Christine was awake and fighting before she was killed, and the noise of arguing woke Amber, thus this proposition from Geoff.

As intro, Hislop summing up for the defence.

" And it might provide an explanation also, might it not, for the unidentified footprint? It might, might it not, provide and explanation for the fibres under both Christine and Amber Lundy’s fingernails, inconsistent with Mark Lundy’s clothing? It might, might it not, be consistent, this impossibility be consistent and provide some explanation as to why it is that Amber Lundy and Christine Lundy have the Y-STR of a male stranger underneath their nails, and that's the consequences of the impossibilities."

Scenario:
Christine was fighting her attacker from a prone position, the arguing and noise woke the daughter and she tried to drag him from her mum!


Yes, I agree, but I doubt any discussion or argument took place. I think the killer(s) got into the house without waking her, but she woke up and screamed when he entered her bedroom. He attacked her before she could get out of bed. The scream woke up the child, she ran to her mother's room, and she got killed too.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:10 am

Here is what appears to be all the official transcript for fingernail dna.
Venneman expert and Hislop for defence.

The prosecution did not seem to have cross examined her on this.



A. Yes, okay.

Q. Because what I want to do now is move to a different topic please, and

that is the top of Y-STR, and this is your report of the

30th of January 2015.

A. Yes, okay.

15 Q. Now if I could take you please first to page 4 of 6?

A. Yes.

Q. You were investigating the results of scraping found under the

fingernails of Christine Lundy and Amber Lundy, is that right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. And the analysis that you were looking at is something called “Y-STR

testing”, is that right?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And if you could explain perhaps in a sentence, if it’s possible, exactly

how this testing works?

25 A. This testing addresses genetic polymorphisms known as short tandem

repeats, which are located on the Y chromosome. What makes this test

so special is that it detects male DNA only because only male persons

have a Y chromosome and females don’t have a Y chromosome, so this

is the Y-STRs in a nutshell, so to say.

30 Q. And you were able to come to some findings about what you found first

under Christine Lundy’s fingernails?

A. Yes, that is correct. You want me to explain what we saw there or...

Q. Yes, we would.

1245

2415

Q v M LUNDY– CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

A. Okay, yes. There results here are extracted from an ESR case file and

we see that we have three in two PCRs so two tests, and several

electropherograms, so several capillary electrophoresis analysis of

these PCRs.

5 Q. Right.

A. What we see in the profile is that, or in the results is that we see

differences in these individual analysis and it is a bit difficult to clearly

see from the case file what the differences actually are. So we have

some analysis which have more information than the others. However,

10 we can extract some information from this analysis, for example, for the

scrapings on the fingernails found by, at Christine Lundy’s body was

that we have a possible, that we have at least two male persons who

contributed their DNA into the stain. There is a possibility that there

might be a third male person in this, however, we only have one

15 analysis indicating a third person, so we do have at least two persons.

We see that some of the characteristics that are also present in

Mr Mark Lundy’s reference profile are present in the mixture. So as I

just explained, I cannot exclude with the necessary confidence him or

any man related to him in a paternal line as being one of the

20 contributors.

Q. And just pausing for a moment before we go on.

A. Yes.

Q. As far as finding the possibility of Mark Lundy’s DNA under the

fingernails of his wife is that an expected or an unexpected result given

25 their living arrangements?

A. Let's say if people live close together it is expected to see some DNA in

their, on their body if they have personal contact with each other. So,

yes, it would be an expected finding.

Q. But you found not only the possibility of his but you found other male

30 DNA?

A. Yes, that is correct. In this stain there is at least one more person.

Q. Okay, and what about Amber Lundy?

A. Okay, in Amber Lundy’s, in the sample that derived from Amber Lundy’s

fingernails we see at least three unrelated male persons who must have

2416

Q v M LUNDY– CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

contributed to this mixture. We see all the characteristics that we also

see in Mr Mark Lundy’s reference profile so again we cannot exclude

him, but we see at least two more males, male persons in this profile.

Q. And was there any similarity between the, if you like, unidentified male

5 DNA in Christine Lundy’s hands or fingernails on the one hand and the

fingernails of Amber Lundy on the other?

A. Yes there is some similarity. If I look at my table there is some

similarity, if we see Mr Mark Lundy’s profile then, for example, for the

first marker we have in an 11 and a 12 result for the first marker, maybe

10 we also have a 10. So we might have 10, 11, 12 or 11, 12 in

Christine Lundy’s fingernails and we have 10 and 11, or a 10 and 11

and 12 in Amber Lundy’s fingernails. Mr Mark Lundy has a

characteristic which is 12, so we still have a 10 and 11 which is the

same in both profiles.

15 1250

Q. Right, so –

A. We can go through the profile, yeah.

Q. Sorry, no, no, don’t let me interrupt you.

A. No. We can go through the profile in a similar way and we see that

20 there is some similarity between these.

Q. So there is unidentified male DNA under Christine Lundy’s fingernails,

under Amber Lundy’s fingernails and there is a similarity between the

unidentified male under each. Does that sum it up accurately?

A. Yes that's right. There is some similarity, yes.

25 Q. Now moving on to a different topic, and very briefly
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:06 am

I am trying to work out what Venneman is including and excluding.
Chris Halkides, if you have time to decipher this

What is going on here?
Should we have all the raw data to decipher this?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:11 pm

It's a little unclear what is going on. The electropherograms would help.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:34 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:It's a little unclear what is going on. The electropherograms would help.

Clearly the data exists, we have now asked for it.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Fri May 12, 2017 6:51 am

Feel like Hislop stopped the x-exam short here, either because he was losing focus or he was afraid of what the answers would be.

BUT, it sounds like:

DNA of 2+ males was found:

Mark is there (as having the "12" characteristic) -- to conclude there are 2 other unidentified males, you have to be clear he did not have the "10" or "11" characteristic.
There is the DNA of a male who has both the "10" and "11" characteristic and it appears under both Amber and Christine's fingernails.

If Mark had the "10" and "11" markers, they wouldn't be able to say there is DNA of a separate person or persons.
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri May 19, 2017 4:40 pm

The appeal is set down for october 17/18, filing of documents expected by mid june.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat May 20, 2017 10:48 am

We are launching a new webcast on YouTube shortly.I would like to highlight this case once again ahead of the appeal. It's a fascinating case.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4432
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat May 20, 2017 6:37 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:We are launching a new webcast on YouTube shortly.I would like to highlight this case once again ahead of the appeal. It's a fascinating case.

Bruce, we will have a meeting midweek and discuss this and other media matters. The case is off the radar in New Zealand at the moment, and ideally this would change before this appeal.
With what I understand is being put forward at this appeal, I think it will be impossible to write up with an appeal denial, yet we also know how very rare it is for a murder conviction to be set aside at first direct appeal.
Fascinating indeed.

Despite this appeal date being set the only recent media reference is in this link

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike ... or-police/

and here is a transcript of the relevant passage

"We've had high profile cases where we've had fair trials in the past, and David Bain's a good example, Lundy, Clayton Weatherston's another one where all the arguments saying it couldn't possibly be a fair trial because of the media coverage, that's not really been an impediment in those cases....but here it's an open and shut case against Malcolm Rewa...."

Note that the David Bain acquittal verdict is scientifically and factually correct, Weatherston not an issue as he was caught literally red handed, so Lundy stands as a notable exception in Gallavin's examples.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Sun May 21, 2017 8:46 pm

kiwiburner wrote:Feel like Hislop stopped the x-exam short here, either because he was losing focus or he was afraid of what the answers would be.

BUT, it sounds like:

DNA of 2+ males was found:

Mark is there (as having the "12" characteristic) -- to conclude there are 2 other unidentified males, you have to be clear he did not have the "10" or "11" characteristic.
There is the DNA of a male who has both the "10" and "11" characteristic and it appears under both Amber and Christine's fingernails.

If Mark had the "10" and "11" markers, they wouldn't be able to say there is DNA of a separate person or persons.


This seems to be knocking right on the door.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Previous

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests