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: 1169
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: 1913
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: 1913
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: 1913
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: 1913
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: 7
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: 1913
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: 1913
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: 1913
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: 1760
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: 1913
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: 1760
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: 1913
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: 1760
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: 1913
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: 1992
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: 1992
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: 1913
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: 1913
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: 1913
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: 1992
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: 1913
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: 1992
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: 1913
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: 1992
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: 1913
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: 1992
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: 1913
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: 1913
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: 1760
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: 1913
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: 7
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: 1913
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: 4453
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: 1913
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: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:35 am

Here is the first media release I have seen

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9 ... in-october

The police have been approached for comment.
I wonder if they comprehend the trouble coming down the pike.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:17 pm

Samson wrote:Here is the first media release I have seen

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9 ... in-october

The police have been approached for comment.
I wonder if they comprehend the trouble coming down the pike.



Thanks for posting this.
"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: 4453
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:42 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Samson wrote:Here is the first media release I have seen

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9 ... in-october

The police have been approached for comment.
I wonder if they comprehend the trouble coming down the pike.



Thanks for posting this.

For context (off topic but I hope to get away with it here),
a summary from a just released appeal in New Zealand:

" "Ms Devoy was the beneficiary of a very fair and competent judicial evaluation of charges to which she had no credible defence," the Court of Appeal judges said.

"We repeat that the evidence of Ms Devoy's guilt is overwhelming. She has no rational basis for continuing to deny criminal liability. She cannot possibly claim that justice has miscarried in her case," they said when dismissing her appeals against conviction and sentence."

If we substitute Mr Lundy for Ms Devoy in the above,
HOW does it SOUND?

Or are there degrees to which we can state the above?
If we cannot say it as above, when does doubt creep in?
Just saying....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11869583
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:03 am

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zea ... rt-6275852
Quotes from law school dean Chris Gallovan: They will likely hone in on evidence about stains found on Lundy's shirt, which the Crown claims contain traces of Christine's brain matter.
"That was quite controversial. The defence really pulled in some big guns that really cut at the base of the Crown's evidence.
"[They'll be looking at] whether that cut to the core to such an extent that that became inadmissable."
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Broseph » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:37 am

Samson wrote:
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.


When you write "we", to whom are you referring? Are you part of the legal team?
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:44 am

Broseph wrote:
Samson wrote:
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.


When you write "we", to whom are you referring? Are you part of the legal team?

No, but there is information out there readily available for people who wish to understand this case.
Essentially it seems the data exists in various formats that is useable by computer experts with a lot of time to spend.

Do you have a specific interest in the case Broseph?
People on this forum certainly do.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Annella » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:15 am

Watching with much interest..... and you have done great supporting work Samson!
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:32 am

Annella wrote:Watching with much interest..... and you have done great supporting work Samson!

Annella, I am of the strong belief that there are few outstanding cases like this one, so I am convinced the case will be resolved.
A huge problem is the Palmerston North citizenry, who were lied to by Mike Cummings, editor of the Manawatu Standard, in cahoots with the local police. They enjoyed a cozy relationship which will serve the people well when evidence and crime are correlated.
But this case is an unmitigated catastrophe for the community, you can list the issues, here are a few.

1. Mark Lundy's dad died soon after the trial, he believed in the son he raised, correctly.
2. Other principals changed their names, left town and so on, for their own reasons.
3. The police ultimately persuaded Mark's friends to retrofit their beliefs to deny a distraught man at a funeral where he is seeing the last of his wife and daughter free expression. Even those who physically held him in support have turned.

You might say, Police, you know not what you do.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Broseph » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:01 am

Samson wrote:
Broseph wrote:
Samson wrote:
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.


When you write "we", to whom are you referring? Are you part of the legal team?

No


But if you're not on the defense team, you have no standing upon which to "ask" for anything from the courts or the state, let alone e-grams.
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Broseph » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:08 am

Annella wrote:Watching with much interest..... and you have done great supporting work Samson!


Seems you, too, were misled by "Samson's" bit about "WE have asked for the [e-grams]".

I'm not sure why "Samson" put it that way, but he has since admitted he is not doing any "work" for the defense.
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Broseph » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:20 pm

I see this same word choice ("work") being thrown around on ISF as well. It seems some people have a peculiar definition of "work".
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Broseph » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:23 pm

Another thing that becomes apparent after reading here and at ISF is that there is a certain type of person who thinks the police are ALWAYS wrong and that EVERY conviction must be reversed. I wonder what made them this way.
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:04 pm

Broseph wrote:
Samson wrote:
Broseph wrote:
Samson wrote:
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.


When you write "we", to whom are you referring? Are you part of the legal team?

No


But if you're not on the defense team, you have no standing upon which to "ask" for anything from the courts or the state, let alone e-grams.

I made a phone call and arranged for a computer scientist to search the file dump the police gave the defence. I am not sure if it achieved anything.
I am more interested in your reason to post on the case.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Broseph » Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:46 pm

The defense team turned over evidence to YOU, so that YOU could find experts to analyse it?!
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:52 pm

Broseph wrote:The defense team turned over evidence to YOU, so that YOU could find experts to analyse it?!

No the defence team did not turn anything over to me. Inevitably the material the police would like kept concealed finds it's way to parties who are trying to get an innocent man released before he dies of old age.

What is your interest in the case?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Broseph » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:29 pm

I'm just browsing and curious as to how you came to have such a dim view of the police. Are you one of those people that makes a hobby out of slamming the police even though they're the first people you'd call when the shit hits the fan? Or perhaps you or someone close to you has been the target of a police investigation?

Personally, I trust the police. I am aware that there are cases of corruption and/or incompetence here and there, but, for the most part, I think the police are far more worthy of my trust and respect than many if not most of my fellow citizens.
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:14 pm

Broseph wrote:I'm just browsing and curious as to how you came to have such a dim view of the police. Are you one of those people that makes a hobby out of slamming the police even though they're the first people you'd call when the shit hits the fan? Or perhaps you or someone close to you has been the target of a police investigation?

Personally, I trust the police. I am aware that there are cases of corruption and/or incompetence here and there, but, for the most part, I think the police are far more worthy of my trust and respect than many if not most of my fellow citizens.

Normally the job is straightforward.
In the Lundy case we have 140 pages of close typed foolscap detailing the police work, and because they got the wrong man, every thing they found is exculpatory reconfigured to mislead. The police notebooks are at massive variance to the court testimony, and they shopped for a forensic result, ending by paying a king's ransom to a corrupt little Texan called Rod Miller from Propath laboratories. No one else in the world would touch the endeavour.
It is unravelling though.
So in this case the police lied repeatedly at every step. It is impossible to herd an innocent man into jail without a litany of lies. All the good work you rejoice in is compromised and breeds malContents like me.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:43 pm

Jimmy Ellingham has been pretty close to the case. This article sets the tone and the likely mood for the appeal. I believe Jimmy has been acquainted with a lot more detail than some other hacks in his office.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standar ... snt-matter

Jono Galushka attended every day of the last trial. He is understood to have formed the view that

"if the brain tissue is gone the crown case is gone".

He writes
"But the Crown managed to hold on to a key piece of evidence - the tissue on the shirt.

Scientists confirmed at a pre-trial hearing the tissue was from the central nervous system of something. They could not say what - a dog; a cat; a human - but it was undeniably there.

Dutch forensic scientist Laetetia Sijen​ was adamant there were obvious signs of human brain on the shirt, but a different forensic expert said Sijen's testing was unfit for forensic work.

The tissue had low levels of cow, pig and sheep DNA in the stains. It also had large quantities of high quality DNA from Christine Lundy""

This seems a responsible summary. For those who like a reasonable explanation for all the evidence, like me for example, the notion that the substance was stubborn in a cold water wash, and there followed an attempt to rub it out by Christine Lundy at the laundry folding stage, would seem plausible.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9 ... -acquittal
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:12 am

Christine's DNA could be there from contact with Lundy or the shirt, or if it was laundered with articles of her clothing. Do you know how the prosecution managed to wave away the animal DNA?
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:16 am

Broseph wrote:
Samson wrote:
Broseph wrote:
Samson wrote:
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.


When you write "we", to whom are you referring? Are you part of the legal team?

No


But if you're not on the defense team, you have no standing upon which to "ask" for anything from the courts or the state, let alone e-grams.


You clearly haven't heard of the Official Information Act. You seem to be a stirrer.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:17 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:Christine's DNA could be there from contact with Lundy or the shirt, or if it was laundered with articles of her clothing. Do you know how the prosecution managed to wave away the animal DNA?

Without resorting to any case but this one, the jury is a black box, particularly in New Zealand.
Hence it is unknowable but by inference what they considered.

The prosecution never addressed the animal dna, nor the unknown male dna under the fingernails of Christine Lundy, despite the autopsy describing in detail all wounds to Christine, and calling them defensive.

In summing up the trial judge talked neither of animal dna in the substance on shirt (check), or of unknown male dna under the fingernails, but he did invite prosecution and defence to draw his attention to any matters he may have missed, both were silent, so no issues.

eta

The point is the high concentration of Christine dna on the spot. This is clearly applied dna, and rubbing on the spot is a perfect vector.
It seems that here is a case where everyone can see a duck or a rabbit.

Impossible to handwave away the mammalian cns in same locale as Christine dna. Rabbit.
But if cns is animal and Christine aspires to get rid of it by rubbing it, Duck.

Pays your money takes your chances.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:19 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:Christine's DNA could be there from contact with Lundy or the shirt, or if it was laundered with articles of her clothing. Do you know how the prosecution managed to wave away the animal DNA?


Refuted as not being true and went with Miller's analysis I think.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:21 am

Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:Christine's DNA could be there from contact with Lundy or the shirt, or if it was laundered with articles of her clothing. Do you know how the prosecution managed to wave away the animal DNA?

Without resorting to any case but this one, the jury is a black box, particularly in New Zealand.
Hence it is unknowable but by inference what they considered.

The prosecution never addressed the animal dna, nor the unknown male dna under the fingernails of Christine Lundy, despite the autopsy describing in detail all wounds to Christine, and calling them defensive.

In summing up the trial judge talked neither of animal dna in the substance on shirt (check), or of unknown male dna under the fingernails, but he did invite prosecution and defence to draw his attention to any matters he may have missed, both were silent, so no issues.


Not sure that strikes to the head are defensive. Arms, hands etc, yes.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:04 am

Nostalgia-NZ wrote:
Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:Christine's DNA could be there from contact with Lundy or the shirt, or if it was laundered with articles of her clothing. Do you know how the prosecution managed to wave away the animal DNA?

Without resorting to any case but this one, the jury is a black box, particularly in New Zealand.
Hence it is unknowable but by inference what they considered.

The prosecution never addressed the animal dna, nor the unknown male dna under the fingernails of Christine Lundy, despite the autopsy describing in detail all wounds to Christine, and calling them defensive.

In summing up the trial judge talked neither of animal dna in the substance on shirt (check), or of unknown male dna under the fingernails, but he did invite prosecution and defence to draw his attention to any matters he may have missed, both were silent, so no issues.


Not sure that strikes to the head are defensive. Arms, hands etc, yes.

I've been adding to my post meanwhile :)

Let us be quite clear that some of Christine's wounds were defined by the autopsy as defensive. The report stated in black and white.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 am

Samson wrote:
Nostalgia-NZ wrote:
Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:Christine's DNA could be there from contact with Lundy or the shirt, or if it was laundered with articles of her clothing. Do you know how the prosecution managed to wave away the animal DNA?

Without resorting to any case but this one, the jury is a black box, particularly in New Zealand.
Hence it is unknowable but by inference what they considered.

The prosecution never addressed the animal dna, nor the unknown male dna under the fingernails of Christine Lundy, despite the autopsy describing in detail all wounds to Christine, and calling them defensive.

In summing up the trial judge talked neither of animal dna in the substance on shirt (check), or of unknown male dna under the fingernails, but he did invite prosecution and defence to draw his attention to any matters he may have missed, both were silent, so no issues.


Not sure that strikes to the head are defensive. Arms, hands etc, yes.

I've been adding to my post meanwhile :)

Let us be quite clear that some of Christine's wounds were defined by the autopsy as defensive. The report stated in black and white.


Ok. Tell me how a wound to the head is defensive?
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:20 am

Oh, I see you've qualified it with 'some.'
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:27 am

Nostalgia-NZ wrote:Oh, I see you've qualified it with 'some.'

Yes, the autopsy stated the wounds were defensive.
She was awake.
I find it reprehensible that France j said she was asleep. There seems no doubt she was awake, she placed her glasses in the case and turned out the lights.
This was the signal for the gangsters to move.

They are now convinced that maximum vulnerability prevails, and Lundy will know what is going on, maybe after the threats to the crooked business partner earlier in the day.

But Lundy is in Petone, and Christine reacts to a home invasion with vehemence.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:04 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:Christine's DNA could be there from contact with Lundy or the shirt, or if it was laundered with articles of her clothing. Do you know how the prosecution managed to wave away the animal DNA?

This is a very important issue. If you have two unlike samples of DNA, then it is not clear which one is associated with the stain. It is not inconceivable that the stain is not associated with either sample of DNA. Arguments based upon the notion that the amount of animal DNA was small are dubious.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:25 am

Samson wrote:
Nostalgia-NZ wrote:Oh, I see you've qualified it with 'some.'

Yes, the autopsy stated the wounds were defensive.
She was awake.
I find it reprehensible that France j said she was asleep. There seems no doubt she was awake, she placed her glasses in the case and turned out the lights.
This was the signal for the gangsters to move.

They are now convinced that maximum vulnerability prevails, and Lundy will know what is going on, maybe after the threats to the crooked business partner earlier in the day.

But Lundy is in Petone, and Christine reacts to a home invasion with vehemence.


Placing her glasses and turning out the lights was always going to precede sleep. She may have been asleep but she certainly woke and tried to defend herself that's all we know.

Saying the ML knew what was going on is nonsense. Has been silent to ensure he was imprisoned, I doubt it.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:38 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:Christine's DNA could be there from contact with Lundy or the shirt, or if it was laundered with articles of her clothing. Do you know how the prosecution managed to wave away the animal DNA?

This is a very important issue. If you have two unlike samples of DNA, then it is not clear which one is associated with the stain. It is not inconceivable that the stain is not associated with either sample of DNA. Arguments based upon the notion that the amount of animal DNA was small are dubious.


The more I know about DNA, the more I understand it is like dust that may settle anywhere even if borne by liquid. Time cannot be fixed to it, apart from fingernail DNA which is also an issue here. Samson was given some anecdotal 'evidence' of woman's husband's DNA being found in her care even though he had never been inside it. Likewise, there is no reason to suspect the stain is linked to any of the DNA found on the shirt. In the case of the man whose DNA was in his wife's car that could have been used against him in Court had she been murdered there. A wife's DNA on her husband's shirt is of no moment in this case.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:06 am

Some quick thoughts before I have to run off for some hours. It is an axiom of DNA profiling that the existence of a DNA profile does not provide the time that it was deposited* or the means (primary, secondary, etc.) of transfer. In the case of clothing, there is an interesting recent study by Peter Gill and coworkers. It shows that proximity is enough to transfer DNA (possibly airborne?). The prosecution should have done substrate controls.
*DNA profiles can decay with time. However, inferring the time of deposition from a decayed sample could only be done if one knew the rate of degradation, which is exceedingly difficult.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:53 pm

I have often mentioned the Melissa Mooney case on this forum. In that case, multiple samples of the ex-husband/suspect's DNA were found in the room where she was killed, but he had never been there.

But he didn't do it and was eventually cleared.

I think Chris has cited the case of Lukis Anderson, who was charged after his DNA was found on a murder victim. But alas the prosecutor had a slight problem... Anderson was passed out drunk in a hospital ER, under the watchful eye of medical staff, when the murder took place. It turns out paramedics treated Anderson earlier in the day and transferred his DNA to the murder victim.

So, yeah, DNA gets spread around. A wife's DNA on a husband's shirt means nothing. Cow, pig AND sheep DNA, however... that ought to raise some eyebrows.

ETA: Actually I suppose sheep DNA might be ordinary substrate in NZ. :)
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:48 pm

I am going to have to look the Mooney case up. I was just looking up the Patrick Waring case today. IIUC there was DNA from the young woman on Patrick's jeans but another man's DNA was found in her underwear and perhaps elsewhere. "After a 3 week trial in the District Court, Patrick was found not guilty on all charges. The article reports that, in court, police conceded that they had not followed best practice in the case. For example, various officers acknowledged that the crime scene, a local park, had been left unguarded from 1.25 am on the night, it was a week before it was searched, and the same officers had visited the homes of the girl and the accused which allowed for contamination of evidence."
http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/an ... ing-in-wa/

There seem to have been other problems in the handling of evidence. "But Napper quickly discovered a litany of basic policing errors, starting with the night of Patrick's arrest. ''The police had broken every forensic rule in the book,'' Napper says. ''They took the girl in the clothes she said she had been attacked in, put her in the back of a general-purpose police vehicle and drove her to where she said the crime actually happened. That is a complete no-no.''

"Police cars are so full of contamination as to render the girl's clothes worthless as forensic evidence. The police then did the same with Patrick: rather than remove the clothes he said he'd been wearing, they drove him to the station in a general-purpose vehicle."
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv- ... -wyxx.html

Apparently there is a documentary on the case. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andre ... da5eb68bce
http://michaelmuntz.com/Canberra_Times_EFN_b.pdf
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:13 pm

If I take this case to the appeal court I know they are looking any way they can to deny the appeal. Tipping and Glazebrooke did it in 2002 with the false statement a man can average 120 km/hr in rush hour traffic, before being knighted and promoted to the supreme court.

So:
1. The substance was mashed in.
2. There was a high quality sample of Christine's dna there.
3. She does the laundry in cold water surf then folds it. (check)

Therefore I want to tell these appeal court judges a real world possibility, Christine rubbed the spot.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:21 am

I am rereading the Privy Council judgement of Lord Kerr, many points of interest, par 121 says:

121. The requirement that evidence be fresh can be of less critical importance in
cases involving scientific evidence. In Wallace v R [2010] NZCA 46, a case in which
it was sought to introduce new forensic evidence, Hammond J touched on this
question in para 48:
“Before we approach the particular scientific concerns in relation to the
DNA evidence, we must also consider the appropriate principles to
apply on a miscarriage appeal. An appropriate starting point is Lord
Judge CJ’s recent restatement of the bedrock principle for the criminal
justice process: “The objective of the criminal justice process is that
after a fair trial there should be a true verdict”. In an imperfect world,
something may go wrong with a trial. It follows that, with respect to a
miscarriage appeal, the focus has to be on the safety of the verdict,
however a miscarriage has been caused. It must also follow that, in
principle, a critical reliance on “bad science” could lead to an unsafe or
wrong conviction. That seems to have been recognised, at least in
principle, by the Supreme Court in granting leave to appeal in R v
Gwaze. The present point is that, on a “bad science” argument, the door
can never be closed even if the “better science” is not “fresh” in the
conventional sense.”
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:50 am

Hi Samson,

I recall a series of appeals on the admissibility of the forensics stuff in preparation for the 2015 retrial.

What was the final position? I recall that various stuff was included and excluded together with a concluding comment from the bench to the effect that any unsafe evidence that gets included as a result can always be challenged by appeal on the retrial. Struck me as hugely flippant given the timescales involved.

If there was a series of links to the judgments in those pre-trial hearings somewhere in this thread, that would be a helpful quick reference point.

Cheers,

kiwi
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:04 am

I think Broseph is just being mischievous/"trolling", but in terms of how the police and prosecution have conducted themselves, in convicting Lundy twice they have relied (among other things) on:

a) a physically impossible 130 km/h return trip between Petone and Palmy, knowing this was physically impossible in peak hour, and secured convictions and won appeals on this faulty lie (cured in the retrial);
b) a patchwork of forensic tests, some more problematic than others, which taken together indicate various things but did not entitle the prosecution to suggest in their retrial closing: "No husband should have their wife's brain on their shirt" -- because the evidence did not establish the material was Christine's brain (the jury, however, were bamboozled by the patchwork of tests as was almost everyone involved);
c) a psychic who claimed she'd seen a fat man dressed in a blonde wig as a woman running from the home, who she identified as Lundy;
d) stomach contents evidence they knew to be faulty but dishonestly presented to fit with their theory of the case -- a bold-faced lie;
e) ignoring of downplaying petrol consumption/purchase records to imply Lundy returned from Petone to Palmerston North in the middle of the night, despite being unable to reproduce the petrol use records through their own repeated testing; and
f) hinted (darkly) at a life insurance scam, and continued to suggest this was a motive for killing his family, when they knew for a fact that Lundy hadn't extended his life insurance coverage and wasn't aware of what was being done with it anyway.

The list goes on. I only pick up on the things I find most striking about their conduct/case.

So -- have they acted in good faith? Does Mark Lundy deserve supporters who question the conduct of the police in this case?
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:30 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:I have often mentioned the Melissa Mooney case on this forum. In that case, multiple samples of the ex-husband/suspect's DNA were found in the room where she was killed, but he had never been there.

But he didn't do it and was eventually cleared.

I think Chris has cited the case of Lukis Anderson, who was charged after his DNA was found on a murder victim. But alas the prosecutor had a slight problem... Anderson was passed out drunk in a hospital ER, under the watchful eye of medical staff, when the murder took place. It turns out paramedics treated Anderson earlier in the day and transferred his DNA to the murder victim.

So, yeah, DNA gets spread around. A wife's DNA on a husband's shirt means nothing. Cow, pig AND sheep DNA, however... that ought to raise some eyebrows.

ETA: Actually I suppose sheep DNA might be ordinary substrate in NZ. :)

A fair point.

I do declare, there were times when I was so lonesome
I took some comfort there.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:46 am

kiwiburner wrote:Hi Samson,

I recall a series of appeals on the admissibility of the forensics stuff in preparation for the 2015 retrial.

What was the final position? I recall that various stuff was included and excluded together with a concluding comment from the bench to the effect that any unsafe evidence that gets included as a result can always be challenged by appeal on the retrial. Struck me as hugely flippant given the timescales involved.

If there was a series of links to the judgments in those pre-trial hearings somewhere in this thread, that would be a helpful quick reference point.

Cheers,

kiwi

Somehow I missed this query.
Admissibility of the "damn spot" went 344A high court, appeal court, supreme court.
At the appeal court Kos j wrote the majority judgement, but Ellie France, now dame and supreme court judge wrote a vigorous dissenting view.
The supreme court said let the jury hounds do their best precision surgery, so back to jail for Mark.

I recall I requisitioned the supreme court judgement and posted upthread.
I will try to recover from my emails.

Nostalgia-nz is an advocate for the dissenting view of Dame Ellie France as being potentially vital to further court actions.

ETA it appears Kos J was at different court to Ellie France.
This reminds me that fact beats anecdote. I have been sure that Kos wrote that judgement Ellie France dissented from.

For anyone interested I attended the appeal court Wellington hearing where Arthur Taylor from jail cell by video appealed John Fogarty's decision to continue name suppression of double killer witness C in the David Wayne Tamihere prosecution for the deaths of Urban Hoglin and the presumed death of Heidi Paakonnen.
Witness C was coached by John Hughes, and David Morris (fine scottish lad except for being a crooked sonofabitch), who prosecuted Tamihere.
The high court trial in August dissects cases that include Thomas, Tamihere AND LUNDY.
kiwiburner, you may or may not be aware that Tamihere did not kill those Swedish tourists, Huia George Foley did.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:46 am

Here is a 5 page supreme court decision:

ORDER PROHIBITING PU BLICATION OF THE JUD GMENT AND ANY
PART OF THE PROCEEDI NGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS
MEDIA OR ON THE INTE RNET OR OTHER PUBLIC LY AVAILABLE
DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRI AL. PUBLICATION IN
LAW REPORT OR LAW DI GEST PERMITTED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF N EW Z EALAND
SC 131/2014
[2014] NZSC 184
BETWEEN MARK EDWARD LUNDY
App licant
AND THE QUEEN
Respondent
Court: William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel: D S Hislop QC, A R Burns, J - A Kincade and M D Birdling for
Applicant
P J Morgan QC and J C Pike QC for Respondent
Judgment: 1 1 December 2014
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part
of the procee dings (including the r esult) in news media or on
the i nternet or other publicly available database until final
disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest
permitted.
____________________________________________________________________MARK EDWARD LUNDY v R [2014] NZSC 184 [11 December 2014]

REASONS
[1] Mr Lundy faces a retrial on charges of murder of his wife and daughter in
2000. 1 The Crown applied under s 344A of the Crimes Act 1961 for orders that
certain scientific evidence is admissible at the retrial. In relation to the evidence to
which the present application relates, the High Court ruled it was admissible 2 and
that ruling was upheld in a majority decision of the Court of Appeal. 3 Mr Lundy
seeks leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision. The factual background
is set out in the Court of Appeal decision. 4
[2] The evidence in issue relates to two stai ns that were found on a shirt that had
been worn by Mr Lundy on the day of the deaths of his wife and daughter. The
Crown will contend that they contain Mrs Lundy’s DNA along with central nervous
system (CNS) tissue which is probably human in origin. It is now accepted that the
stains contain Mrs Lundy’s DNA and CNS tissue. The Crown seeks to adduce
evidence that the CNS tissue is probably human. 5 The evidence is analysis by
scientists from the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) involving RNA (a molec ular
substance found in cells). 6 One of those scientists, Dr Laetitia Sijen, gave evidence
at the High Court hearing.
[3] Counsel for Mr Lundy called evidence in the High Court from
Dr Marielle Vennemann, a scientist from the institute of Legal Medicine at th e
University of Münster, who witnessed the testing at the NFI. She gave evidence that
the NFI testing involved novel methods that were not independently validated and
expressed doubts as to the reliability of the results of the NFI testing.
1 He was convicted in 2002 and his appeal to the Court of Appeal failed. In October 2013, the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council allowed his appeal against the Court of Appeal decision
and ordered a retrial: Lundy v R [2014] UKPC 28, [2014] 2 NZLR 273. 2 R v Lundy [2014] NZHC 2527 [High Court decision].
3 Lundy v R [2014] NZCA 576 (Ellen France P, Harrison and French JJ) [Court of Appeal
decision]. Ellen France P dissented. 4 At [1] – [12] per Ellen France P.
5 The science cannot provide a basis for determining whether the CNS tissue is Mrs Lundy’s:
High Court decision, above n 2 , at [12]. 6 The evidence is described in the Court of Appeal decision, above n 3 , at [14] – [38] per Ellen
France P.

[4] In the Court o f Appeal, counsel for Mr Lundy applied for leave to adduce
new evidence from an expert in gene expression, Professor Stephen Bustin, of
Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom, criticising the testing methods adopted
by NFI. Counsel said the need for thi s evidence emerged only during the course of
the High Court hearing. The new evidence application was not pursued in the Court
of Appeal because Professor Bustin’s affidavit was based on a misreading of aspects
of Dr Sijen’s evidence. The Court of Appeal refused to adjourn the hearing of the
appeal to enable a fresh affidavit to be obtained from Professor Bustin and dismissed
the application to adduce new evidence. It considered the matters raised by
Professor Bustin had been traversed in the High Court hearing. It did not need to
resolve whether it had jurisdiction to hear new evidence in a pre - trial appeal. But it
observed that “it would not be ideal for this Court ... to be hearing complicated
scientific evidence effectively as a court of first instanc e”. 7
[5] The Court of Appeal recorded that there was “no dispute ... about the legal
principles applicable” to a decision as to admissibility of expert evidence of the kind
in issue. 8 The difference of view among the Court of Appeal judges was not a
difference in principle. Rather, Ellen France P considered the probative value of the
evidence in issue was outweighed by its prejudicial effect and it was therefore
inadmissible in terms of s 8 of the Evidence Act 2006. The majority took the
opposite view.
[6] As the Court of Appeal decision was on an interlocutory matter, s 13(4) of the
Supreme Court Act 2003 applies. The Court’s approach to such appeals was set out
in R v Hamed [Leave] as follows: 9
[12] In most cases where an arguable point of general or public
impo rtance arises on an interlocutory application, it will not be “necessary in
the interests of justice” to hear the proposed appeal before the proceeding in
which the order is made is concluded if the appeal point is open to be taken
after the proceedings ar e concluded. That will usually be the case where
evidential rulings are made against the accused in pretrial rulings in criminal
cases. In such cases, as has already been mentioned, s 344A(4) makes it
clear that first instance rulings are provisional and may be reconsidered by
the trial judge.
7 At [103] per Harrison and French JJ. 8 At [41] per Ellen France P, adopted by Harrison and French JJ at [71].
9 R v Hamed [Leave] [2011] NZSC 27, [2011] 3 NZLR 725.

[13] The requirement that entertaining an appeal before the proceeding is
concluded is “necessary in the interests of justice” sets a significant
threshold. In s 13(4) those words are to be given their ordinary mea ning,
rather than the meaning defined by s 13(2) for the purposes of general leave.
The threshold may more readily be passed where correction by appeal
following conclusion of the hearing is not available. The statutory stricture
is also consistent with the proper reluctance of final courts of appeal to
supplant the responsibility of the intermediate court of appeal in supervising
trial practice, a responsibility that must be exercised with some expedition.
In the case of the s 344A jurisdiction, the pro visional basis of such rulings,
which may be overtaken by reassessment in the context of trial, prompts
appellate caution pretrial. There is risk in coming to conclusions dependent
on a factual assessment without the advantage of trial context. The
conse quences of inadequate context are amplified in the case of a court of
final appeal.
[7] The issues highlighted in the application for leave are:
(a) whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in concluding the
evidence was sufficiently reliable to be consid ered by a jury (in
particular in its application of s 25 of the Evidence Act to the
evidence) and/or that the probative value of the evidence outweighed
its prejudicial effect;
(b) whether fresh evidence should now be admitted to assist with a just
determinati on of the appeal. This involves a consideration of the
existence or otherwise of jurisdiction for an appellate court to admit
fresh evidence in a pre - trial appeal.
[8] The appellant’s submission is that the admissibility of the evidence should be
decided with the benefit of Professor Bustin’s evidence. If that evidence were
admitted, the Crown may seek to cross - examine Professor Bustin and to adduce
evidence from its own expert. The Court of Appeal’s concern at hearing such
evidence effectively as a court of first instance applies with even greater force to this
Court. In effect, this Court would be both the first and last court to consider the
evidence and determine the admissibility issue.
[9] In our view, if there is to be a revisiting of the decision that th e evidence is
admissible in the light of new evidence from Professor Bustin and any other
witnesses, that would be better done by the trial judge. The High Court is the

appropriate venue for the testing of any such new evidence. Its decision can be
revie wed on appeal in the event Mr Lundy is convicted. We do not see any necessity
for this Court to review the Court of Appeal decision at this stage, given that the
principles to be applied were not in dispute: in effect we are being asked to
undertake an er ror - correction role. That is not an appropriate role for this Court,
especially in the context of an appeal to which s 13(4) applies.
[10] We conclude that it not necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to
hear and determine the proposed appeal be fore Mr Lundy’s trial. The application for
leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office , Wellington for Respondent
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:34 am

And this should be highlighted.

[9] In our view, if there is to be a revisiting of the decision that the evidence is
admissible in the light of new evidence from Professor Bustin and any other
witnesses, that would be better done by the trial judge. The High Court is the

appropriate venue for the testing of any such new evidence. Its decision can be
reviewed on appeal in the event Mr Lundy is convicted.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:57 am

Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:I have often mentioned the Melissa Mooney case on this forum. In that case, multiple samples of the ex-husband/suspect's DNA were found in the room where she was killed, but he had never been there.

But he didn't do it and was eventually cleared.

I think Chris has cited the case of Lukis Anderson, who was charged after his DNA was found on a murder victim. But alas the prosecutor had a slight problem... Anderson was passed out drunk in a hospital ER, under the watchful eye of medical staff, when the murder took place. It turns out paramedics treated Anderson earlier in the day and transferred his DNA to the murder victim.

So, yeah, DNA gets spread around. A wife's DNA on a husband's shirt means nothing. Cow, pig AND sheep DNA, however... that ought to raise some eyebrows.

ETA: Actually I suppose sheep DNA might be ordinary substrate in NZ. :)

A fair point.

I do declare, there were times when I was so lonesome
I took some comfort there.


I understand customs and regulations vary from one locale to the next...

Image
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:19 am

Samson wrote:And this should be highlighted.

[9] In our view, if there is to be a revisiting of the decision that the evidence is
admissible in the light of new evidence from Professor Bustin and any other
witnesses, that would be better done by the trial judge. The High Court is the

appropriate venue for the testing of any such new evidence. Its decision can be
reviewed on appeal in the event Mr Lundy is convicted.


This is normal as it is a interlocutory decision. I can't find the exact section as the Crimes Act had 334a repealed I found online but that information remained available.

Also the 344a was brought by the Crown not the defence.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:13 am

Yes, thanks Samson/Nostalgia-NZ.

So surely, full frontal assault (ehm, perhaps not appropriate given the details of the crime) on the patchwork of testing and the prosecution's mischaracterisation of it ("No husband should have their wife's brain on their shirt") is a keystone of the appeal? I mean, given that the prosecution aren't meant to be so zealous and given that the summary of the forensic evidence prepared by Simon France J and supplied to the jury didn't support that conclusion, it seemed like a leap and an outrageous comment to make in their closing.

I remembered pulling that Supreme Court pre-trial appeal off the net some time in 2015 after the trial, and I was surprised to find it (and the Court of Appeal evidentiary decision) both gone when I looked recently. I wondered whether they had again become subject to suppression for some reason or other related to the pending appeal.

As for Tamihere stuff, I'm not aware of where things stand. He's never been acquitted, has he? I have been involved in a matter featuring Arthur Taylor and suffice to say despite his string of successes I don't think he owes it to a fine legal mind... just damned persistence and a personality disorder-related lack of conscience (sorry Arthur).
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:42 am

kiwiburner wrote:Yes, thanks Samson/Nostalgia-NZ.

So surely, full frontal assault (ehm, perhaps not appropriate given the details of the crime) on the patchwork of testing and the prosecution's mischaracterisation of it ("No husband should have their wife's brain on their shirt") is a keystone of the appeal? I mean, given that the prosecution aren't meant to be so zealous and given that the summary of the forensic evidence prepared by Simon France J and supplied to the jury didn't support that conclusion, it seemed like a leap and an outrageous comment to make in their closing.

I remembered pulling that Supreme Court pre-trial appeal off the net some time in 2015 after the trial, and I was surprised to find it (and the Court of Appeal evidentiary decision) both gone when I looked recently. I wondered whether they had again become subject to suppression for some reason or other related to the pending appeal.

As for Tamihere stuff, I'm not aware of where things stand. He's never been acquitted, has he? I have been involved in a matter featuring Arthur Taylor and suffice to say despite his string of successes I don't think he owes it to a fine legal mind... just damned persistence and a personality disorder-related lack of conscience (sorry Arthur).

Tamihere was denied an appeal and after failing to get to the privy council that was about the end of it.


Of course Arthur is wiping the floor with Witness C, and we are awaiting the Wellington High Court to probably continue name suppression after appeal. I attended the hearing and he did very well indeed before Kos j I thought from a jail cell by video. His legal mind looks fine to me.
The logistics of body discovery and Tamihere's known movements completely annihilate the crown case, but that would not stop a 5 judge panel from fabricating an appeal denial, which earned a stern rebuke later from one of their colleagues. Tamihere should be retried and the family of Urban Hoglin told who did try to saw his head off with a knife after stabbing him to death, because that is what happened and it most definitely was not Tamihere, bad guy though he was.
The perjury trial next month should require a reworking of the judicial landscape and secret witnesses. They kept trying to nail Lundy, but witness X was busted by Ross Burns conclusively in 2015. I've probably said all this before.

To reprise, the significance of Secret witness C to Lundy is he offered his services again, claiming Lundy confessed to him in the chapel in Linton Prison way back. The inference to be drawn is entirely from the fact the police DID NOT USE HIM. This fact was keenly noted by judge Fogarty at the hearing last year where Arthur first tried to have witness C named, and as he pointed out this was strong propensity evidence that witness C is a serial snitch and liar.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:07 pm

Samson wrote:
kiwiburner wrote:Yes, thanks Samson/Nostalgia-NZ.

So surely, full frontal assault (ehm, perhaps not appropriate given the details of the crime) on the patchwork of testing and the prosecution's mischaracterisation of it ("No husband should have their wife's brain on their shirt") is a keystone of the appeal? I mean, given that the prosecution aren't meant to be so zealous and given that the summary of the forensic evidence prepared by Simon France J and supplied to the jury didn't support that conclusion, it seemed like a leap and an outrageous comment to make in their closing.

I remembered pulling that Supreme Court pre-trial appeal off the net some time in 2015 after the trial, and I was surprised to find it (and the Court of Appeal evidentiary decision) both gone when I looked recently. I wondered whether they had again become subject to suppression for some reason or other related to the pending appeal.

As for Tamihere stuff, I'm not aware of where things stand. He's never been acquitted, has he? I have been involved in a matter featuring Arthur Taylor and suffice to say despite his string of successes I don't think he owes it to a fine legal mind... just damned persistence and a personality disorder-related lack of conscience (sorry Arthur).

Tamihere was denied an appeal and after failing to get to the privy council that was about the end of it.


Of course Arthur is wiping the floor with Witness C, and we are awaiting the Wellington High Court to probably continue name suppression after appeal. I attended the hearing and he did very well indeed before Kos j I thought from a jail cell by video. His legal mind looks fine to me.
The logistics of body discovery and Tamihere's known movements completely annihilate the crown case, but that would not stop a 5 judge panel from fabricating an appeal denial, which earned a stern rebuke later from one of their colleagues. Tamihere should be retried and the family of Urban Hoglin told who did try to saw his head off with a knife after stabbing him to death, because that is what happened and it most definitely was not Tamihere, bad guy though he was.
The perjury trial next month should require a reworking of the judicial landscape and secret witnesses. They kept trying to nail Lundy, but witness X was busted by Ross Burns conclusively in 2015. I've probably said all this before.

To reprise, the significance of Secret witness C to Lundy is he offered his services again, claiming Lundy confessed to him in the chapel in Linton Prison way back. The inference to be drawn is entirely from the fact the police DID NOT USE HIM. This fact was keenly noted by judge Fogarty at the hearing last year where Arthur first tried to have witness C named, and as he pointed out this was strong propensity evidence that witness C is a serial snitch and liar.


Hi KB. Agree with you to some extent about Arthur. Although he does have a photographic memory which helps his cause, and I do rate his legal mind as well as the persistence you mention. I think the disorder is something he can move on from, he needs to disengage from the fray somewhat. I hope he can do that.

As for the circuitous route of the secret witness exposure, it's worthwhile but unfortunate for Arthur perhaps in view of his wishing to gain parole sooner rather than later. Witness C is of no moment to the Lundy case in my opinion, nothing to be banked from that. Certainly the science stays alive, one of those cases where it will not be set aside as readily as the Crown have imagined. My view for what is worth is that the Crown dragged the case away from where it should have shown ML's guilt if it is they are correct - the crime scene. Like many cases of MOJ's the battle is held far from where it matters and is submerged in irrelevant detail that is difficult to follow anyway. As well as the shirt I want answers as to the stranger DNA under Christine and Amber's nails.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:43 am

The high court trial for Witness C begins next month, slated for 2 weeks.
In typically slowfooted fashion the New Zealand media plod behind history in the making. David Tamihere was eliminated as a suspect when a body of one of two missing tourists was found in a remote location completely at odds with any prosecution theory. Disgracefully, 5 appeal court judges paid homage to finality, and made unnerringly false statements to keep Tamihere behind bars for a further 20 years, knowing of course that this violent man on the lam had no public backing, and the families back in Sweden, for whom the detail has not huge significance, one bad man or another, had still lost their offspring.
They were lied to, and no one on this forum will exercise outrage, a story too common place.
Now the truth looms close as Arthur Taylor takes this (hapless) criminal, to task.

This man offered his services in the Lundy case in 2014, stating that he confessed in Linton prison chapel,to killing his wife and child.
The police checked the plausibility, and clearly concluded this was impossible, electing to use another bare faced liar, witness X to locate Lundy the confessor in a prison yard while awaiting trial. In a rare moment of usefulness in Lundy's defence Ross Burns QC busted X's story as also being impossible, all details were wrong, and the police story dissolved. No one has been held to account for this mendacity nor ever will be.

Here is a limp story

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11891422

The police know Tamihere was innocent and George Huia Foley killed them.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:24 am

Steve Braunias wrote:

"Ross Burns spoke for the defence....2015
The stain on his shirt may not be human, and why was it that there was no blood splatter on his glasses, watch, shoes, or anywhere in his car? And then he, too, announced that he had something new. Evidence gathered in 2014 showed that DNA of two unknown men had been found beneath Christine’s and Amber’s fingernails. I remember sitting in court when Burns made that revelation, and thinking: God almighty. Was it possible that Lundy actually was innocent, that Christine and Amber were killed by brute or brutes unknown? A new horror came to mind — two men, two strangers, two monsters, who broke into their home and went at Christine and Amber in the middle of the night......

But the findings about the mysterious DNA beneath their fingernails was only ever referred to during the trial in passing, as a minor detail, nothing to really concern anyone........."

The prosecution never mentioned it or cross examined the expert witness Muriel Venneman who described it in court.
Justice France did not mention it in summing up.
David Hislop for the defence was invited to draw to France's attention any omission in summing up.
Silence, the jury retired and convicted Lundy. Did they think about other men at the crime scene?
Will the appeal board be interested or will they do their duty?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:33 am

I don't think there's any suggestion that Witness X's evidence was anything other than thoroughly debunked by Ross Burns' cross-examination. Shame on the police for even presenting it. If I recall correctly, Simon France J addressed its unreliability in his summary to the jury. I do not expect it to be an issue at appeal, but it's a damned shame it was presented in the first place, since everything forms part of the picture before an incompetent and bamboozled jury.

Good on AT for keeping busy. I'm not familiar with the snitch evidence re: Tamihere or the strength of the evidence regarding the guy you've fingered, but let me be clear:

AT, admirably persistent though he is, is quite chillingly disordered. He appears to have no ethical qualms about misrepresenting a factual position to a court, and I have seen him lie (as in, lie about things I know the objective truth) under oath. He is a charming guy but also an unrepentant rascal. EDIT -- deleted. Probably unwise to discuss his criminal past] His proclivity for that kind of narcissistic offending, from what I know, remains undiminished, and that accounts for his ~40 years or so he has spent in prison to date (i.e., pretty much his entire adult life).

That does not affect the considerable respect I have for him for his work on prisoner rights, especially challenging the prisoner voting ban, for which I can only offer him kudos.

Completely unrelatedly (and not intended to imply any dark hints whatsoever), does anyone know how his wife Carolyn died? Arthur made passing reference to this in a post on the Daily Blog not long ago.
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:40 pm

Samson wrote:The high court trial for Witness C begins next month, slated for 2 weeks.
In typically slowfooted fashion the New Zealand media plod behind history in the making. David Tamihere was eliminated as a suspect when a body of one of two missing tourists was found in a remote location completely at odds with any prosecution theory. Disgracefully, 5 appeal court judges paid homage to finality, and made unnerringly false statements to keep Tamihere behind bars for a further 20 years, knowing of course that this violent man on the lam had no public backing, and the families back in Sweden, for whom the detail has not huge significance, one bad man or another, had still lost their offspring.
They were lied to, and no one on this forum will exercise outrage, a story too common place.
Now the truth looms close as Arthur Taylor takes this (hapless) criminal, to task.

This man offered his services in the Lundy case in 2014, stating that he confessed in Linton prison chapel,to killing his wife and child.
The police checked the plausibility, and clearly concluded this was impossible, electing to use another bare faced liar, witness X to locate Lundy the confessor in a prison yard while awaiting trial. In a rare moment of usefulness in Lundy's defence Ross Burns QC busted X's story as also being impossible, all details were wrong, and the police story dissolved. No one has been held to account for this mendacity nor ever will be.

Here is a limp story

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11891422

The police know Tamihere was innocent and George Huia Foley killed them.


I think it is ridiculous to claim you that you know what police know.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:51 pm

kiwiburner wrote:I don't think there's any suggestion that Witness X's evidence was anything other than thoroughly debunked by Ross Burns' cross-examination. Shame on the police for even presenting it. If I recall correctly, Simon France J addressed its unreliability in his summary to the jury. I do not expect it to be an issue at appeal, but it's a damned shame it was presented in the first place, since everything forms part of the picture before an incompetent and bamboozled jury.

Good on AT for keeping busy. I'm not familiar with the snitch evidence re: Tamihere or the strength of the evidence regarding the guy you've fingered, but let me be clear:

AT, admirably persistent though he is, is quite chillingly disordered. He appears to have no ethical qualms about misrepresenting a factual position to a court, and I have seen him lie (as in, lie about things I know the objective truth) under oath. He is a charming guy but also an unrepentant rascal. EDIT -- deleted. Probably unwise to discuss his criminal past] His proclivity for that kind of narcissistic offending, from what I know, remains undiminished, and that accounts for his ~40 years or so he has spent in prison to date (i.e., pretty much his entire adult life).

That does not affect the considerable respect I have for him for his work on prisoner rights, especially challenging the prisoner voting ban, for which I can only offer him kudos.

Completely unrelatedly (and not intended to imply any dark hints whatsoever), does anyone know how his wife Carolyn died? Arthur made passing reference to this in a post on the Daily Blog not long ago.


Yes I believe his wife did die. I have read that somewhere.

I've not known him to lie, though if he were defending himself on some charge that might change the situation. In that regard he would be no different from some police supporting false evidence with lies. I don't think in those circumstances he could be expected to be like a honest lamb to the slaughter. I think despite his faults, he is receptive to fresh ideas right now and leaving his past behind him. In some ways he needs to trust guidance on that which will be difficult for a man who has been through what he has, but far from impossible.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Annella » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:12 pm

'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:29 pm


There is some attempt being made to suspend distribution of this book. Temple Camp will be exposed in any event as completely out of date on the case.
The only path that I can see working is to delete the chapter and reprint. Harper Collins is the publisher, it was legally checked through from Sydney, it is I suppose unsurprising they would not spot the egregious lie that brain matter was found on a shirt. Did you happen on it watching the AM show Annella?

Ok I see that is the stuff article. Here is the TV3 interview

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/201 ... -book.html
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anonshy and 5 guests