Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[mossy1200]

if she made it onto the jury, the judge was quite clear about not using face book, twitter and sites like this.

Nah the call up was almost 2 months ago and when she was told 8-10 weeks she wrote in and got removed from list. We didn't know what case it was just a date and probable time period.

[korimako1]

Thought she'd disturbed the killer doing the bizz? If she was in or near the doorway I've no doubt she'd have been sprayed. And why wouldn't traces of it be in his boot? You never get anything out of the boot of your car? What possible motivation did the Bro have? And where did Lundies full tank of fuel go over night?

he said he never touched Christine, although what you say about the blood transfer from mother to daughter is fair enough, but he only felt her wrist for a pulse. He was in his truck. How did blood get in the boot of his car. as for motivation, covering up an inappropriate relationship with his niece is right up there. His older brother, Neil, went to jail for sexual assault on his step daughter, she said it was also uncle Glenn.
evidence about fuel is still to come

[Crasherfromwayback]

he said he never touched Christine, and he was in his truck. How did blood get in the boot of his car.

See post # 496

[Crasherfromwayback]

.
evidence about fuel is still to come

I'll look forward to hearing about it.

[Bassmatt]

See post # 496

Yeah, nah, post #496 doesn't explain how the blood got in the boot of his car.
His car wasn't there.
If it was a case of him contaminating the boot with blood because he got something out of it or put something in there at the time, he would have an explanation - he can't explain how it got there.

[korimako1]

If there is no other evidence supporting the brother as the killer, does the blood provide reasonable doubt for Lundy?

Wouldn't like to have to make the cool.

well you would think so, blood at your house, blood in the boot of your car. whereas nothing found on Lundy, in his car, anywhere. a speck of something found on his shirt, evidence to be heard about that. reasonable doubt definitely

[oldrider]

Sounds to me that this re-trial might be worth the money - interesting to say the least! :shifty:

[Hitcher]

It's Mark Lundy who is on trial, not Glenn Weggery.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yeah, nah, post #496 doesn't explain how the blood got in the boot of his car.
His car wasn't there.
If it was a case of him contaminating the boot with blood because he got something out of it or put something in there at the time, he would have an explanation - he can't explain how it got there.

Yeah I hear ya. No reason why something he contaminated in his truck didn't end up in his car later is there?

[korimako1]

It's Mark Lundy who is on trial, not Glenn Weggery.

correct, but as the question so frequently asked on this site and others, if not ML then who? now you have a viable alternative. Even the cops thought so till they were blinded by science.

[Bassmatt]

Yeah I hear ya. No reason why something he contaminated in his truck didn't end up in his car later is there?

Should he not be able to explain that?
And how would it be enough blood to it too "light up like a glowworm".

[Crasherfromwayback]

Should he not be able to explain that?
And how would it be enough blood to it too "light up like a glowworm".

Yeah that amount would seem odd. If that actually happened.

[Laava]

Should he not be able to explain that?
And how would it be enough blood to it too "light up like a glowworm".

Think the defence lawyer might be a bit of a drama queen on that issue

[Bassmatt]

Think the defence lawyer might be a bit of a drama queen on that issue

Yeah I'm sure he's talking it up, but it would seem a reasonable assumption from that description that it was more than trace amounts. And he has no explanation, nothing, nada, zip, . I wonder if he can even point to a time where one of the victims would have any reason to access his boot. It would seem not.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yeah I'm sure he's talking it up, but it would seem a reasonable assumption from that description that it was more than trace amounts. And he has no explanation, nothing, nada, zip, . I wonder if he can even point to a time where one of the victims would have any reason to access his boot. It would seem not.

Has Lundy got any explanation for having his wife's spinal matter on his shirt?

[korimako1]

Has Lundy got any explanation for having his wife's spinal matter on his shirt?

that evidence is still to come

[F5 Dave]

And whether it was actually spinal matter from flecks

[oldrider]

So the brother had DNA of both the wife and the daughter under his fingernails - blood in his car boot - on a towel - and a bit of previous on child sex?

Then the police focused on Lundy? --------------------------------------- yes - that makes a lot of sense! :wacko:

[Jantar]

Has Lundy got any explanation for having his wife's spinal matter on his shirt?
That was the main reason the PC threw the conviction out. It wasn't confirmed as brain or spinal matter, and wasn't from his wife. Hence no explanation needed.

[Crasherfromwayback]

That was the main reason the PC threw the conviction out. It wasn't confirmed as brain or spinal matter, and wasn't from his wife. Hence no explanation needed.

I've obviously missed that! I thought they'd tried to discredit it, didn't know they had.

[F5 Dave]

It's not often you see the defence go after another party, you'd want to be pretty sure or desperately immoral.

One thing for sure I'd I certainly don't know. My early thoughts were based on media reports of the time and they seem a bit lacking.

If Lundy had just done the honourable thing and just admitted guilt it would have made the poor detectives jobs easier than trying to prove it with facts one way or t`other.

[Reckless]

I've obviously missed that! I thought they'd tried to discredit it, didn't know they had.

Its the crown embellishing things bigger than they are to get their man again, today they are saying DNA traces??

• DNA traces on a polo shirt Lundy wore on August 29 look set to be a key piece of evidence. The Crown says they contain Christine Lundy's brain matter but the defence disputes that.

Lundy camps response?
2. Brain Tissue on the Shirt
Is the 'pin head sized' speck of tissue irrefutably Christine's brain or spinal tissue? Multiple forensic laboratories around the world advised that the chance of successfully determining this was near zero. A Texan pathologist used a new procedure based on an experiment with a fresh chicken just one week earlier, and testified based on this work



I dunno if he did it or not but the web site puts things into a lot of grey areas.
All I know is there seems to be a mounting list of cases where the police seem to have chosen their man and then seemingly collected the evidence to convict him?
After reading through that web site I'm not so sure??

The cops seem to have changed quite a few key facts this time round like the time of murder??
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11398755

[Banditbandit]

So the brother had DNA of both the wife and the daughter under his fingernails - blood in his car boot - on a towel - and a bit of previous on child sex?

Then the police focused on Lundy? --------------------------------------- yes - that makes a lot of sense! :wacko:

The "previous on child sex" was an allegation - the police followed it up but never proved anything - he was never charged.

[oldrider]

The "previous on child sex" was an allegation - the police followed it up but never proved anything - he was never charged.

Police performance doesn't look too promising in that area - they didn't seem to follow up very much on anything that guy is involved with!

Spose I shouldn't really talk like that but you know what I mean - this is KB after all! :crazy:

[Crasherfromwayback]

That was the main reason the PC threw the conviction out. It wasn't confirmed as brain or spinal matter, and wasn't from his wife. Hence no explanation needed.

I see today they're still talking about it though?

[jasonu]

However, they are using the brain and spinal cord material in the current trial ... It's hard to get passed. There's no way it could have got on the shirt unless the shirt was there .. and if the shirt was there then there's a very high chance that Mark Lundy was there too.

From what I have just read (this entire thread and the N&S article all in one sitting) the tissue issue is a no go. The way it was incorrectly stored for more than 50 days and washed with water twice then improperly transported to Texas for testing that has since been poopooed by several scientists and scientific organizations with way more feathers than the guy that actually did the tests means it shouldn't be too hard for the defense to discredit the tissue samples.

[Edbear]

So the brother had DNA of both the wife and the daughter under his fingernails - blood in his car boot - on a towel - and a bit of previous on child sex?

Then the police focused on Lundy? --------------------------------------- yes - that makes a lot of sense! :wacko:

That could be explained by the fact that he found them and may have touched them to see if they were alive. He might have turned them over or something. Wiped his hands afterward. Whatever the case it's going to grip the country again.

[oldrider]

Quote from Bain thread:
hey happy to talk on that thread

Haven't got anything to say about it but have noticed that it seems to have gone quiet in the MSM of late!

[korimako1]

Quote from Bain thread:

Haven't got anything to say about it but have noticed that it seems to have gone quiet in the MSM of late!

yes, could it be that everyone is rethinking there position!!!!! Its a retrial, but the crown have changed from their original position, gone is the amazing drive, gone is the first time of death, gone is the eyewitness who turned off her psychic powers, but they have kept the hooker, and the stupid business decisions. smoke and mirror machine about the insurance. Dodgy fuel consumption.
I see the Police on the news evading questions from the defence with the old "I cant recall", I wonder how many times we will hear that before this trial is over. Probably the most high profile case they have or will ever work on, and now they have memory lapses. Bet they can remember around the BBQ with their Police mates.
Its bloody disgusting, if we did that it would be contempt of court or attempting to pervert the course of justice. They lie by omission.
Oh and they cocked up the original inquiry didn't they, I know a lot about this case and can answer most questions about it, but a suspect who had blood on a towel in his bathroom, identified as the victims, blood in the boot of his car, some admissions by his family as to some previous dodgy stuff, physical injuries on him, that was new to me, and they look the other way, brilliant police work, not.
Lundys car scoured and nothing but a bracelet no one can identify, except lundy saying it was probably in a handful of jewellery Christine grabbed 2 weeks earlier. a reasonable answer I would have thought. But not in original photos of car then found,removed and placed back, shades of some .22 cartridges here methinks.

It will be interesting next week, more Police with dodgy memories I would think.

[oldrider]

Just watching the media reporting TV papers etc the investigation incompetence level (if completely true) is shocking! :shifty:

A bit like those silly TV programs on MAF border control! :facepalm:

Watching them - there were always going to be infestations like we are experiencing in Auckland right now FFS! :scratch:

[korimako1]

Just watching the media reporting TV papers etc the investigation incompetence level (if completely true) is shocking! :shifty:

A bit like those silly TV programs on MAF border control! :facepalm:

Watching them - there were always going to be infestations like we are experiencing in Auckland right now FFS! :scratch:

Yes, you are correct, the incompetence level you are seeing reported is just the tip of the iceberg. there is plenty more to come. lots of coppers with early onset Alzheimer's.
they must have a manual (yellow and black cover) how to investigate a murder for dummies that they probably haven't read because they keep making the same mistakes. the coppers got hammered for not wearing protective clothing and last night on TV, the murder shooting in Hamilton, yes wearing protective gear but not correctly, hair exposed no safety glasses and no booties. they are not very quick on the uptake are they. is it arrogance or what?

Study Bain, Barlow, Ellis, Tamahere, Watson, Lundy and of course Thomas and you see a recurring theme of incompetence.
And that's not even mentioning all the police who have been charged with various serious crimes over the last few years. how can the public have confidence in a Police force in turmoil. they are more interested in fining you for 4 kms over the speed limit.
They need to get their own house in order.

sorry about the rant, but I get furious, we are supposed to be able to trust a Policeman to tell the truth and do the right thing, hasn't been happening though has it.

[FJRider]

Just watching the media reporting TV papers etc the investigation incompetence level (if completely true) is shocking! :shifty:

A bit like those silly TV programs on MAF border control! :facepalm:

Watching them - there were always going to be infestations like we are experiencing in Auckland right now FFS! :scratch:

Reality TV is great ... eh .. !!! and ... unless YOU are in Auckland ... "We" won't be experiencing it ... :shifty:



The good news is ... it's an Auckland problem. And an Auckland economy that may suffer.

With the perceived issue Aussie has with OUR apple imports ... I'm still surprise we allow ANY Aussie fruit imports ... <_<

[oldrider]

Reality TV is great ... eh .. !!! and ... unless YOU are in Auckland ... "We" won't be experiencing it ... :shifty:



The good news is ... it's an Auckland problem. And an Auckland economy that may suffer.

With the perceived issue Aussie has with OUR apple imports ... I'm still surprise we allow ANY Aussie fruit imports ... <_<

Unfortunately Auckland is us like it or not! - Agree with you entirely on the Aussie thing! :yes:

[Hitcher]

Prediction: Lundy will walk free. The Police have nothing that proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not saying he's innocent.

Us taxpayers better start getting our heads around what his compensation will be. I suspect a lot more than a total loss life insurance claim on his missus.

[pete376403]

If Lundy gets compensation how could they continue to deny Bain? Or will the minister of justice continue to have judicial reviews until they get the result they want?

[Crasherfromwayback]

. I suspect a lot more than a total loss life insurance claim on his missus.

Which I guess they'll have to pay out too?

[oldrider]

Which I guess they'll have to pay out too?

The insurance company will be well protected by small print or even new print if it suits them!

Lets not forget or lose sight of the fact that this was an horrific event for an innocent mother and an even more innocent little girl!

I certainly hope the perpetrator is clearly identified and punished - if ever a fitting punishment could be contrived!

Same with Bain case - five murdered people seem to be forgotten - it would be nice to see justice done in the end for them too!

[Oscar]

The insurance company will be well protected by small print or even new print if it suits them!



So you're an expert in this area?
Or is this another one of your half baked opinions?

As a matter of fact, a life insurance contract is one of the simplest legal contracts out there.
If the insurer declined on the basis of the conviction, and that conviction is overturned, I can't see how they could avoid paying.

[Crasherfromwayback]

If the insurer declined on the basis of the conviction, and that conviction is overturned, I can't see how they could avoid paying.

That's what I would've thought.

[Oscar]

That's what I would've thought.

That's coz you're a really clever bastid...



Like me:woohoo:

[madbikeboy]

Yes, you are correct, the incompetence level you are seeing reported is just the tip of the iceberg. there is plenty more to come. lots of coppers with early onset Alzheimer's.
they must have a manual (yellow and black cover) how to investigate a murder for dummies that they probably haven't read because they keep making the same mistakes. the coppers got hammered for not wearing protective clothing and last night on TV, the murder shooting in Hamilton, yes wearing protective gear but not correctly, hair exposed no safety glasses and no booties. they are not very quick on the uptake are they. is it arrogance or what?

Study Bain, Barlow, Ellis, Tamahere, Watson, Lundy and of course Thomas and you see a recurring theme of incompetence.
And that's not even mentioning all the police who have been charged with various serious crimes over the last few years. how can the public have confidence in a Police force in turmoil. they are more interested in fining you for 4 kms over the speed limit.
They need to get their own house in order.

sorry about the rant, but I get furious, we are supposed to be able to trust a Policeman to tell the truth and do the right thing, hasn't been happening though has it.

I'm going to summon some written elegance, since I've been back on KB, I've been writing too many expletive laden posts to Cassina.

I have a different position from most on KB, being as I don't really care if Lundy is guilty or innocent. What I care about is the erosion of trust in the police's investigative ability, and the general perception of lack of trust in the correct outcome in any major case. Aside from the obvious cases where the killer is standing over the corpse with a knife, have we had any excellent investigations here? Perhaps as a result of seeing CSI on a weekly basis, we expect out police force to have excellent investigations, with outcomes that we can trust. We have DNA analysis that's spectacular, we have blood splatter analysis that can determine heights of killers, we have huge amounts of CCTV, GPS, etc.

And yet, when there's a major case, do we trust the result? Name one case where we do trust the outcome.

I believe that the police have had further erosions of trust with the Rotorua Sex club debacle, the Bain case, the Lundy case, and the horrific legal standing of the fat German's case. Personally, I don't give a rat's about any of them - but my own personal interactions with the cops in the last 5 years (after a cager assaulted me with his car, and when I had trouble with youths fighting on my property, or with the Ginger cop in Helensville's creative speed claims) have completely removed my faith. In part, my move overseas was because of these situations; I like living overseas, and yes, while there is corruption at a high level, the average street cop deals with situations with a more satisfactory outcome; and unlike with Dotcom, they follow the correct legal process. There seems to be a sense that when the cops turn up, they actually do something with the bad guys (yes, I realise that the judicial system is responsible for the outcomes, but please take my intended point).

So, point is, a fundamental foundation for society is trust in the police force, trust in the judicial system, and trust in the democracy that underlies the whole process. When the ministers of Police can shop around for opinions they like, and when no one trusts the outcome in the first place - then values erode as a result.

Regardless of all the friendly reality TV programmes that read like cheap PR stunts dreamed up by some retarded agency, I'm not sure that Joe Average has any more trust than I do.

[oldrider]

I'm going to summon some written elegance, since I've been back on KB, I've been writing too many expletive laden posts to Cassina.

I have a different position from most on KB, being as I don't really care if Lundy is guilty or innocent. What I care about is the erosion of trust in the police's investigative ability, and the general perception of lack of trust in the correct outcome in any major case. Aside from the obvious cases where the killer is standing over the corpse with a knife, have we had any excellent investigations here? Perhaps as a result of seeing CSI on a weekly basis, we expect out police force to have excellent investigations, with outcomes that we can trust. We have DNA analysis that's spectacular, we have blood splatter analysis that can determine heights of killers, we have huge amounts of CCTV, GPS, etc.

And yet, when there's a major case, do we trust the result? Name one case where we do trust the outcome.

I believe that the police have had further erosions of trust with the Rotorua Sex club debacle, the Bain case, the Lundy case, and the horrific legal standing of the fat German's case. Personally, I don't give a rat's about any of them - but my own personal interactions with the cops in the last 5 years (after a cager assaulted me with his car, and when I had trouble with youths fighting on my property, or with the Ginger cop in Helensville's creative speed claims) have completely removed my faith. In part, my move overseas was because of these situations; I like living overseas, and yes, while there is corruption at a high level, the average street cop deals with situations with a more satisfactory outcome; and unlike with Dotcom, they follow the correct legal process. There seems to be a sense that when the cops turn up, they actually do something with the bad guys (yes, I realise that the judicial system is responsible for the outcomes, but please take my intended point).

So, point is, a fundamental foundation for society is trust in the police force, trust in the judicial system, and trust in the democracy that underlies the whole process. When the ministers of Police can shop around for opinions they like, and when no one trusts the outcome in the first place - then values erode as a result.

Regardless of all the friendly reality TV programmes that read like cheap PR stunts dreamed up by some retarded agency, I'm not sure that Joe Average has any more trust than I do.

True but all these things that are deteriorating as you say - belong to us - the taxpaying citizens - why do we allow and tolerate these downward drifts in standards?

[madbikeboy]

True but all these things that are deteriorating as you say - belong to us - the taxpaying citizens - why do we allow and tolerate these downward drifts in standards?

Good question. Is it apathy? Is it a lack of trust in the politics that lie beneath? (Mis)quoting Joseph de Maistre, we do get the government we deserve. We're apparently all rich on the back of sky-rocketing house prices, a rock star economy (that only seems to be real to the rich people). Why would we slaughter the fat hog? This is apparently why we're tolerant of dirty politics and a PM that does what he wants with no accountability.

I'm representative of a certain age and type of Kiwi. I got my education, I worked hard, and I got nowhere fast here. I moved overseas, and there is massive opportunity and interesting projects. I meet a lot of Kiwi's in Sydney, Melbourne, San Francisco - all of whom are quietly homesick for somewhere that doesn't really exist for us anymore. We vote by moving overseas. We're not the ones who return, and if we do (like I am at the moment), it's to sell up everything here to make the overseas move forever.

The people remaining are being eroded by politics that suck, by economics that work only for the rich, and for the massive increase in nationalities from places that eat rice, curry, and sand.

[RDJ]

We don't want or opt to tolerate these deteriorating standards. We are forced to because thanks to politically correct media and self-appointed JournoLists' media whores, sunlight is no longer a disinfectant. The truth is drowned in the effluent of biased non-investigative journowhores.

[caspernz]

No idea whether Mark Lundy is guilty, nor do I really care. With several high profile cases in recent years being rehashed, I have perhaps an odd outlook on this topic. Take in the weaknesses in police investigative practices, and I can't help but think along the lines of...depending on ones' background/training in a previous lifetime...one could surmise it's kinda straightforward to get away with all manner of dodgy stuff in NZ.

[oldrider]

So you're an expert in this area?
Or is this another one of your half baked opinions?

As a matter of fact, a life insurance contract is one of the simplest legal contracts out there.
If the insurer declined on the basis of the conviction, and that conviction is overturned, I can't see how they could avoid paying.

Time will tell I guess - depending on the final outcome!

[Oscar]

Time will tell I guess - depending on the final outcome!

So you're saying that you'd rather not back up your (half-baked) opinion?
Do you have any thoughts on which part of the policy will be used to decline cover?
Or are you talking out of your dementia riddled arse?

[oldrider]

So you're saying that you'd rather not back up your (half-baked) opinion?
Do you have any thoughts on which part of the policy will be used to decline cover?
Or are you talking out of your dementia riddled arse?

Oh yes I love you too Oscar! :love: (are you not getting enough attention didums)

[korimako1]

So you're an expert in this area?
Or is this another one of your half baked opinions?

As a matter of fact, a life insurance contract is one of the simplest legal contracts out there.
If the insurer declined on the basis of the conviction, and that conviction is overturned, I can't see how they could avoid paying.

Hey people, I wasn't going to comment but just to stop people getting carried away, the insurance policy was paid out to Christine Lundys estate. $200,000 the original policy, not the $500,000 as it hadn't been processed supposedly , her mother was the recipient of that. She went to court and had Mark Lundy removed from the Will. (All reported in the papers). After her death it would have distributed among her remaining children, Glenn Weggery being one. That's food for thought.

[Oscar]

Hey people, I wasn't going to comment but just to stop people getting carried away, the insurance policy was paid out to Christine Lundys estate. $200,000 the original policy, not the $500,000 as it hadn't been processed supposedly , her mother was the recipient of that. She went to court and had Mark Lundy removed from the Will. (All reported in the papers). After her death it would have distributed among her remaining children, Glenn Weggery being one. That's food for thought.

That's jolly interesting.
There's been some crap reporting about this aspect of the case.

[korimako1]

That's jolly interesting.
There's been some crap reporting about this aspect of the case.

oh yeah, they are a little more focussed this time around but still some very selective reporting at times. I suppose you don't want to annoy your most prolific news source by saying bad things about them.

[Paul in NZ]

No idea whether Mark Lundy is guilty, nor do I really care. With several high profile cases in recent years being rehashed, I have perhaps an odd outlook on this topic. Take in the weaknesses in police investigative practices, and I can't help but think along the lines of...depending on ones' background/training in a previous lifetime...one could surmise it's kinda straightforward to get away with all manner of dodgy stuff in NZ.

Or perhaps when some crimes are committed by cunning folks with good planning and an ounce of luck its a little harder than one thinks to prove it...

[pete376403]

Yes, you are correct, the incompetence level you are seeing reported is just the tip of the iceberg. there is plenty more to come. lots of coppers with early onset Alzheimer's.

Study Bain, Barlow, Ellis, Tamahere, Watson, Lundy and of course Thomas and you see a recurring theme of incompetence..

Looks like Teina Pora can be added to that list.

[Katman]

Looks like Teina Pora can be added to that list.

The Privy Council must be thoroughly sick of having to sit through reviews of New Zealand's judicial fuck ups.

[korimako1]

Looks like Teina Pora can be added to that list.

Yes , most definitely. my apologies, I should have included him.
After all these cases, surely a criminal cases review commission has to be established. we are talking about serious miscarriages of justice here, not failure to stop at a stop sign.

[Katman]

After all these cases, surely a criminal cases review commission has to be established. we are talking about serious miscarriages of justice here, not failure to stop at a stop sign.

We should start by ditching the adversarial system we currently use and adopt the inquisitorial system as used in many other countries.

[jasonu]

The good news is ... it's an Auckland problem. And an Auckland economy that may suffer.
<_<

If Auckland's economy goes down the rest of the country will go with it.

[korimako1]

We should start by ditching the adversarial system we currently use and adopt the inquisitorial system as used in many other countries.

yes I may have to agree with you, but the inquisitorial system has its share of problems as well.

[korimako1]

well well well, a jail house snitch, last time it was an eyewitness psychic woman, now a sudden flashback from some turkey. His Swansong or psychic abilities, you choose.
She seemed the most credible. what are the crown and police playing at.

[pete376403]

Lundys defence should be able to find someone who was in prison at the same time who remembers that Lundy told this person that he (Lundy) didn't do it. Better still, find TWO people who recall this. Their statements should more than cancel out "Witness X".

[scumdog]

well well well, a jail house snitch, .

Yup, the epitome of reliability and truth...:rolleyes:

[Reckless]

Jeepers I just watched that program "I am innocent" what a fucken fuck up that case was, and still is.
According to the TV they where actually told who really did it?

Then there's Mark Lundy that seems to have been cocked up from start to finish

Then theres the David Bain thing.

Then they fuckup their image over this 1k-4k tolerance thing.

I never ride with any alcohol, but this 1/2 ing of the drink limit is targeting the wrong people that's another cock up.

Then there's the big apology over the Roast busters thing today?

I aint no Police basher but the whole thing is a bloody mess isn't it??
Bloody sad the Police have made so many serious cocks ups they can make a whole TV series on them.

Would have started a new thread but this is KB?? Just sayin

[jasonu]

Well there ya go, he did it again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11426348

[Crasherfromwayback]

Well there ya go, he did it again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11426348

Some here will never believe it.

[Reckless]

Some here will never believe it.

ya Probably got to after 2nd time around. Reads like the brain matter on him still fried him.

Another Herald article here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11426570

[Mo NZ]

Guilty and sentenced to Life. With a minimum non parole period of 20 years. That's 7 more years to serve or so.

[Crasherfromwayback]

ya Probably got to after 2nd time around. ]

I've never doubted it, but the Po po certainly fucked the case up. Surprised they made it stick

[Oscar]

I've never doubted it, but the Po po certainly fucked the case up. Surprised they made it stick

Yeah, I figured that he'd get off this time because of the burden of doubt put into the case by police fuck ups.
Like David Bain.

[oldrider]

Hmmm -- perhaps the jury had already made up their minds from the last (first?) trial? - I would never elect trial by jury in this country!

That is of course if I had the option! - they call it judged by 12 of your peers? - fuck that! :oi-grr: Not from what I have seen personally in Christchurch!

[Katman]

Hmmm -- perhaps the jury had already made up their minds from the last (first?) trial? - I would never elect trial by jury in this country!

That is of course if I had the option! - they call it judged by 12 of your peers? - fuck that! :oi-grr: Not from what I have seen personally in Christchurch!

Could you imagine a jury of 12 Eds?

[awa355]

There is bound to be an appeal at some stage.

[korimako1]

Hmmm -- perhaps the jury had already made up their minds from the last (first?) trial? - I would never elect trial by jury in this country!

That is of course if I had the option! - they call it judged by 12 of your peers? - fuck that! :oi-grr: Not from what I have seen personally in Christchurch!

Gutted with this decision. You are right of course. This case was far too complex for Joe average. I observed for a couple of days, Jurors yawning, fiddling with their nails, not paying attention during vital evidence and even dosing off on two occasions by more than one juror while I was there. They where thoroughly bored by the whole event. Prejudged maybe, biased probably. Suffering from the same tunnel vision as the Police, you decide. Perhaps a panel of 5 judges would have been fairer. At least they would have understood the legal and scientific arguments and reasonable doubt.

[Katman]

Gutted with this decision. You are right of course. This case was far too complex for Joe average. I observed for a couple of days, Jurors yawning, fiddling with their nails, not paying attention during vital evidence and even dosing off on two occasions by more than one juror while I was there. They where thoroughly bored by the whole event. Prejudged maybe, biased probably. Suffering from the same tunnel vision as the Police, you decide. Perhaps a panel of 5 judges would have been fairer. At least they would have understood the legal and scientific arguments and reasonable doubt.

I served on a jury many years ago where one of the members (an old guy) sat there slurping on a bottle of cough medicine every day. It was clearly the only way he could legally get alcohol into his system while performing his civic duty.

At the end of the trial the total sum of his contribution to the deliberation was "They're all guilty, can I go home now?"

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/67586684/mark-lundy-and-the-story-of-the-unluckiest-man-in-the-world

[Katman]

Hey, and we all know the police never plant evidence, right?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Hey, and we all know the police never plant evidence, right?

Hell no! Have you been watching *I'm innocent* on the telly?

[Katman]

Hell no! Have you been watching *I'm innocent* on the telly?

Sure did.

Doesn't give one much faith in our justice system.

[Maha]

Hey, and we all know the police never plant evidence, right?

Incorrect,

When a few motorcyclists act like wankers on the road, and the general public lump all bikers into the same category, are they (the general public) correct in doing so?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Sure did.

Doesn't give one much faith in our justice system.

Ditto. Last nights one was a shocker. The officer involved should be done for perverting the course of justice as well as perjury!

[Flip]

I was very dissapointed with the rozza also.

Who would want to end up in jail because they crashed a company car/rozzamobile?

[Katman]

Incorrect,

When a few motorcyclists act like wankers on the road, and the general public lump all bikers into the same category, are they (the general public) correct in doing so?

What's your point?

[Reckless]

There is a dedicated thread for I am Innocent
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/173903-I-am-innocent-part-2

well 2 actually maybe a mod can merge them
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/173843-I-am-Innocent

[Katman]

There is a dedicated thread for I am Innocent
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/173903-I-am-innocent-part-2

well 2 actually maybe a mod can merge them
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/173843-I-am-Innocent

What are you? The KB police?

[Reckless]

What are you? The KB police?

HA If I where you for one would be headed straight for my padded cell :Police:

Where Cassina would whip your ass and Azle could mess even more with your brain :bleh:

[Maha]

What's your point?

That your statement was incorrect, what part did you miss exactly?

[Katman]

That your statement was incorrect, what part did you miss exactly?

Can you not recognise sarcasm even when it smacks you in the face?

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67594817/mark-lundys-interview

[oldrider]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67594817/mark-lundys-interview

The trouble with all these cases in NZ is the opinionated hearsay evidence that gets bandied around in the media and even in the courts themselves!

Not knowing of course whether Lundy did it or not and having absolutely no claim to think I know one way or the other - this case (among others) has left me feeling very uncomfortable about NZ policing and justice system!

The Privy Counselors found reason to be totally dissatisfied with the first trial - I wonder what conclusion they would come to over this one? :shifty:

If Lundy didn't do it I feel very sorry for the poor bastard - If he did do it he has got off far too lightly - but if he didn't do it who did?

Nobody seems to want to explore any further down that path - just like the Bain case - just like Scott Watson - just like? etc etc etc! :facepalm:

[AllanB]

I feel sorry for the deceased Mrs L.


F that photo they show of her is horrid!



How come the sit did not get another full life sentence? Given the first case was dismissed surely he starts the term a fresh and has to serve another life? Arse topped his 7 year old as well .......................

[Winston001]

The Privy Counselors found reason to be totally dissatisfied with the first trial - I wonder what conclusion they would come to over this one?



Well no John. The Privy Council decided on a narrow point that one scientist's view (late in the piece) that the t-shirt testing was questionable - not wrong, but arguable, should have been passed on to the defence.

The Privy Council did not criticise the prosecution case at all - they simply said as a matter of disclosure and with the presumption of innocence the Crown had an obligation to pass on exculpatory evidence.

[oldrider]

Well no John. The Privy Council decided on a narrow point that one scientist's view (late in the piece) that the t-shirt testing was questionable - not wrong, but arguable, should have been passed on to the defence.

The Privy Council did not criticise the prosecution case at all - they simply said as a matter of disclosure and with the presumption of innocence the Crown had an obligation to pass on exculpatory evidence.

Thank you Winston! - It's a pity Helen Clark got rid of the Privy counsel - it seems we need it more now than ever!

[Edbear]

The second trial settled very clearly, any doubts about the first. Having followed both I am very pleased with the result.

[Edbear]

Thank you Winston! - It's a pity Helen Clark got rid of the Privy counsel - it seems we need it more now than ever!

Last night's doco about the young fella who got stitched up by the offending cop does show what can be achieved by persistence and hard work.

[Laava]

Same................

[Winston001]

Thank you Winston! - It's a pity Helen Clark got rid of the Privy counsel - it seems we need it more now than ever!

Agreed.

Moving away from the Privy Council was a subversive move towards republicanism; politically driven rather than for a good reason.


Britain lies at the heart of our law, not just here but in OZ, the Commonwealth, and the USA. There are ten times the number of legal thinkers in the UK and they have some very sharp minds.

Why the hell we abandoned a free court of geniuses is beyond me. The British taxpayer picked up most of the tab.

[oldrider]

Agreed. Why the hell we abandoned a free court of geniuses is beyond me. The British taxpayer picked up most of the tab.

The first significant action John Key took on attaining office was to restore the Honours system - pity he didn't do something more useful and restore the Privy Counsel.

Maybe the Honours system was more about his own secret ambitions - for a man who already has everything - Arise Sir John would do it for him! - Pretty cool eh? :cool:

[korimako1]

[QUOTE=oldrider;1130848148]The trouble with all these cases in NZ is the opinionated hearsay evidence that gets bandied around in the media and even in the courts themselves!

Not knowing of course whether Lundy did it or not and having absolutely no claim to think I know one way or the other - this case (among others) has left me feeling very uncomfortable about NZ policing and justice system!

The Privy Counselors found reason to be totally dissatisfied with the first trial - I wonder what conclusion they would come to over this one? :shifty:

If Lundy didn't do it I feel very sorry for the poor bastard - If he did do it he has got off far too lightly - but if he didn't do it who did?



I agree with you,
but if he didn't do it who did always seems to be the question which everyone wants answered. This time the defence put up two likely "other" options, there where at least 4 other scenarios that could have been placed before the jury. Would it have placed any further doubt in this juries mind, I doubt it.

This jury had an immense amount of scientific evidence placed in front of them, even the experts couldn't agree with each other.
All of them covering there arses, changing their evidence and patting each other on the back at the same time.

This continued with the Police and Crown, say no more.

Did this Jury forget about, as instructed, the first trial. probably not. Was it already holding prejudice's, probably.

Interestingly, the media buzz was a Not Guilty verdict, but they eat their young, so no surprises how quickly the U-turn was.

[oldrider]

[QUOTE=oldrider;1130848148]The trouble with all these cases in NZ is the opinionated hearsay evidence that gets bandied around in the media and even in the courts themselves!

Not knowing of course whether Lundy did it or not and having absolutely no claim to think I know one way or the other - this case (among others) has left me feeling very uncomfortable about NZ policing and justice system!

The Privy Counselors found reason to be totally dissatisfied with the first trial - I wonder what conclusion they would come to over this one? :shifty:

If Lundy didn't do it I feel very sorry for the poor bastard - If he did do it he has got off far too lightly - but if he didn't do it who did?



I agree with you,
but if he didn't do it who did always seems to be the question which everyone wants answered. This time the defence put up two likely "other" options, there where at least 4 other scenarios that could have been placed before the jury. Would it have placed any further doubt in this juries mind, I doubt it.

This jury had an immense amount of scientific evidence placed in front of them, even the experts couldn't agree with each other.
All of them covering there arses, changing their evidence and patting each other on the back at the same time.

This continued with the Police and Crown, say no more.

Did this Jury forget about, as instructed, the first trial. probably not. Was it already holding prejudice's, probably.

Interestingly, the media buzz was a Not Guilty verdict, but they eat their young, so no surprises how quickly the U-turn was.

Looks like the Easter break was fast approaching and the jury had already made up their mind before the trial which was longer than they could concentrate anyway!

Beyond all reasonable doubt? - justice? - will we ever really know?

Typical TV mentality - change the channel and lets get the hell out of here!

[Luckylegs]

Could you imagine a jury of 12 Eds?

Could be worse...

11 ed's and a cassina

[Katman]

Could be worse...

11 ed's and a cassina

In front of Justice Husaberg.

:wacko:

[ruaphu]

Ah well, on the positive side.

At least liddle ole Marky is over hump day, with only another eight years till he's allowed out.

He will most probably spend his time improving on his funeral theatric skills for when he finds his boyfriend murdered with a blunt object on coming home from another hooker 'lay'-den sink sales trip, and making sure he ain't got brain matter on his $4 work shirt.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[korimako1]

[QUOTE=korimako1;1130848326]

Looks like the Easter break was fast approaching and the jury had already made up their mind before the trial which was longer than they could concentrate anyway!

Beyond all reasonable doubt? - justice? - will we ever really know?

Typical TV mentality - change the channel and lets get the hell out of here!

Yes, you are right, we will never really know. unfortunately this trial has raised even more questions.

[Genie]

Miscarriage of money more like. He's cost this country thousands .... the only one that knows what happened and is still living, is the murderer. Whether that was Mark Lundy or not, I do not know.

I pray that his wife and daughter, sadly, his name I remember, but not theirs. That is wrong, their names should be remembered, anyway, I pray their souls have peace and have well and truly moved on to a better existence.

[oldrider]

[QUOTE=oldrider;1130848344]

Yes, you are right, we will never really know. unfortunately this trial has raised even more questions.

Winston001 said it all really - the privy counsel simply told them to go back and do the job properly - unfortunately, the question still remains!

Did they do it right this time? - Lundy still has the right of appeal but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one! - more $$$$$$$ and closed minds? :wait:

[FJRider]

Winston001 said it all really - the privy counsel simply told them to go back and do the job properly - unfortunately, the question still remains!

Did they do it right this time? - Lundy still has the right of appeal but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one! - more $$$$$$$ and closed minds? :wait:

If the full due process of New Zealand law was followed in the recent trial ... (with the same result as the last one) no more questions are left to be asked.

[Crasherfromwayback]

sadly, his name I remember, but not theirs. .

Christine and Amber.

[korimako1]

If the full due process of New Zealand law was followed in the recent trial ... (with the same result as the last one) no more questions are left to be asked.

I understand what you are saying, but I think there are plenty of questions to be asked. Teina Pora was convicted twice what a bloody shambles that was.
Jury trials make a mockery of the system, this case highlights that.

[Winston001]

I understand what you are saying, but I think there are plenty of questions to be asked.

Teina Pora was convicted twice what a bloody shambles that was.

Jury trials make a mockery of the system, this case highlights that.

Lets not overegg the cake. Teina Pora admitted in statements to the police that he was involved in the murder of Susan Burdett - statements made a full year after her death. It would have been incomprehensible to anyone if the police then just released him and sent him on his way.

Tragedy heaped on tragedy. Turns out Teina Pora was not the sharpest knife in the drawer and went along with accusations suggested to him. Sad but not the fault of the police or the prosecution.

[Katman]

Lets not overegg the cake. Teina Pora admitted in statements to the police that he was involved in the murder of Susan Burdett - statements made a full year after her death. It would have been incomprehensible to anyone if the police then just released him and sent him on his way.

Tragedy heaped on tragedy. Turns out Teina Pora was not the sharpest knife in the drawer and went along with accusations suggested to him. Sad but not the fault of the police or the prosecution.

Don't try to polish a turd Winston.

The police fixated on an easy conviction rather than pursuing a logical truth.

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67609100/mark-lundy-seemed-contrived-even-14-years-ago-says-photographer

[98tls]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67609100/mark-lundy-seemed-contrived-even-14-years-ago-says-photographer

About sums it up nicely i reckon,hope the prick gets one up the arse daily until released.

[husaberg]

In front of Justice Husaberg.

:wacko:


Lets not overegg the cake. Teina Pora admitted in statements to the police that he was involved in the murder of Susan Burdett - statements made a full year after her death. It would have been incomprehensible to anyone if the police then just released him and sent him on his way.

Tragedy heaped on tragedy. Turns out Teina Pora was not the sharpest knife in the drawer and went along with accusations suggested to him. Sad but not the fault of the police or the prosecution.


Don't try to polish a turd Winston.

The police fixated on an easy conviction rather than pursuing a logical truth.

At least justice husaberg is smart enough to realise.

That the Police Association officially called for a review of Pora's conviction, citing "sufficient concern among some senior detectives to warrant an inquiry"

That he was convicted twice not by the police, but the NZ justice system

That he was seemingly very poorly represented by his defence council in both trials which included his lawyer not seeing fit to pursue that fact he suffered from erectile dysfunction.

But as Winston said what was against him was that fact that he made confessions to it. As in spite of what you see on TV people very rarely confess to crimes they don't commit.

In fact if you ask any corrections officer they will tell you very very few people in prison will ever admit they were guilty of any crime.


After initially claiming he acted as a lookout for the two Mongrel Mob members,
he later said he went into the house after "hearing noises and seeing the crimes being carried out".
Still later, he said he held Burdett down by the arms while the others raped her.
In 1995, once Pora was in prison, he provided three more names to police after they offered him another $50,000 and said they would help when he came up for parole

[oldrider]

In fact if you ask any corrections officer they will tell you very very few people in prison will ever admit they were guilty of any crime.

Really husa? - Funny how Crown Prosecution was happy to believe the claim of a dead beat jail inmate that Lundy confessed to him as part of their case then! :scratch:

[husaberg]

Really husa? - Funny how Crown Prosecution was happy to believe the claim of a dead beat jail inmate that Lundy confessed to him as part of their case then! :scratch:

Really yes, ask any corrections officer..........
Pretty much no one in prison will ever admit to any guilt for what they have been convicted of, (to a corrections officer anyway.)
I can't speak of what they say to each other, but I get the impression it is not really spoken about much.
Almost as if it a code of conduct between the inmates.
On the other hand there is no honour amongst thieves either is there........

I'm pretty sure Lundy was not convicted solely on any prison inmates testimony.
It certainly never swayed me much.
Then again I never thought he was innocent prior to that.
Setting aside the physical evidence.

Lundy's testimonies and accounts of his behaviour had a huge number of contradictions from witness accounts of his behaviour.
Both prior and subsequent to the murders.
That fact that his defence sought to attack and accuse witnesses of the murder during the trial was in itself also pretty damming for Mr Lundy.

Pora on the other hand I hope he gets some decent compensation.

[korimako1]

That fact that his defence sought to attack and accuse witnesses of the murder during the trial was in itself also pretty damming for Mr Lundy.



That witness had more evidence on him pointing to an involvement than lundy.
80 plus suspects 5 not eliminated at the first trial, all on a 7pm timeframe. Police claim they reinvestigated and examined all the suspects again. do you believe that, and the timeframe now for time of death was between 2.30am and 4.30am. oh yes they still had full stomachs at the autopsy from the 6pm Mcdonalds meal. wow indigestible, the Verdict as well as the food

[Katman]

But as Winston said what was against him was that fact that he made confessions to it. As in spite of what you see on TV people very rarely confess to crimes they don't commit.



Making a false confession is not an entirely unheard of phenomenon.

But when there are gaping holes in that confession the police should be duty bound to investigate those holes - not just run with whatever story gets them home in time for Shortland Street.

[husaberg]

That witness had more evidence on him pointing to an involvement than lundy.
80 plus suspects 5 not eliminated at the first trial, all on a 7pm timeframe. Police claim they reinvestigated and examined all the suspects again. do you believe that, and the timeframe now for time of death was between 2.30am and 4.30am. oh yes they still had full stomachs at the autopsy from the 6pm Mcdonalds meal. wow indigestible, the Verdict as well as the food

That witness or others were not on trial though.

Making a false confession is not an entirely unheard of phenomenon.

But when there are gaping holes in that confession the police should be duty bound to investigate those holes - not just run with whatever story gets them home in time for Shortland Street.
Not unheard of but bloody rare almost never occurs on anything but Shortland street.

What did not help Pora is his family had went to police suggesting they thought he had did it (this is also very rare for an innocent persons family to implicate their own family)

Pora was let down by his defence and it seems his own intellect, I often wonder how it was he was allowed to be questioned for so long without legal council.
I guess he waived it, but I doubt he was intellectually capable of understanding the situation.
Thus it should have been supressed.
Often when people make confession it is exactly how Pora did it, first minimising then slowly revealing his involvement and implicating himself further. It is human nature
Just as it is human nature for the Police to believe confessions that are made, that implicate the person making them.

I have heard it on pretty good authority from a number of sources that there was a confession made in another extremely high profile murder.
This confession was permanently suppressed and has never been allowed to be discussed.
but in this case he had much better representation. but I think that is why he will never get compensation.
Even though the other high profile one was later found to be not guilty.

With Pora It was made out at the time of the second trail of Pora that there was a connection with him and Rewa that they were connected or related or similar.
But his defence should have been shouting the rival gangs theme and it seems there is no connection. That is discussed anywhere i see.
I was under the understanding Rewa was his uncle, yet I can find no evidence of this.
Like I said IMO Pora was very much let down by his defence.

[Katman]

Often when people make confession it is exactly how Pora did it, first minimising then slowly revealing his involvement and implicating himself further. It is human nature
Just as it is human nature for the Police to believe confessions that are made, that implicate the person making them.



The dude couldn't even identify the house that the murder took place in.

[Katman]

I understand what you are saying, but I think there are plenty of questions to be asked. Teina Pora was convicted twice what a bloody shambles that was.
Jury trials make a mockery of the system, this case highlights that.

Let's not forget that Arthur Allan Thomas was also convicted a second time after the Court of Appeal quashed his first conviction.

Fucked if I'd want my fate placed in the hands of a jury.

[husaberg]

The dude couldn't even identify the house that the murder took place in.

Neither would Malcolm Rewa...........

[Katman]

Neither would Malcolm Rewa...........

Malcolm Rewa didn't make a confession.

[husaberg]

malcolm rewa didn't make a confession.

qed.............

[Katman]

qed.............

Fuck me, you need everything spelled out for you, don't you?

Teina Pora gave a false confession which the police should have been suspicious of when he couldn't identify the murder scene.

Malcolm Rewa never gave any sort of confession because the cop chose not to pursue him as a suspect.

[scumdog]

That witness had more evidence on him pointing to an involvement than lundy.
80 plus suspects 5 not eliminated at the first trial, all on a 7pm timeframe. Police claim they reinvestigated and examined all the suspects again. do you believe that, and the timeframe now for time of death was between 2.30am and 4.30am. oh yes they still had full stomachs at the autopsy from the 6pm Mcdonalds meal. wow indigestible, the Verdict as well as the food

YOU should get 8 years for poor grammar!

[husaberg]

Fuck me, you need everything spelled out for you, don't you?

Teina Pora gave a false confession which the police should have been suspicious of when he couldn't identify the murder scene.

Malcolm Rewa never gave any sort of confession because the cop chose not to pursue him as a suspect.

You are missing the point.
you are that stubbornly persisting in pursuing the course of action you had already chosen, So vehemently that you are not actually reading what I wrote. Thus you not seeing what is in front of you.
Go back a few pages and look at what I have written.
Have a coffee and a biscuit mull it over like it was written by someone else.
Can you not see then why the police initially did the exact same thing as you have just done.
Its pretty basic human nature.

[PrincessBandit]

I'm afraid I could never take Mark Lundy seriously after watching his appalling attempt at grief at the funeral. I know everyone displays emotions different ways but come on, there was something totally sus about the performance he put on.
I would've struggled to put that out of my mind if I'd been a jury member (I'm lucky enough to have gotten to the age I am without ever having to do jury duty).

[Katman]

You are missing the point.


The point is that your post at #620 is completely irrelevant to my point.

Malcolm Rewa clearly wouldn't have wanted to identify the murder scene because he wasn't the one confessing to the crime.

[husaberg]

I'm afraid I could never take Mark Lundy seriously after watching his appalling attempt at grief at the funeral. I know everyone displays emotions different ways but come on, there was something totally sus about the performance he put on.
I would've struggled to put that out of my mind if I'd been a jury member (I'm lucky enough to have gotten to the age I am without ever having to do jury duty).

The kicker for me was his highly detailed accounts of his behaviour that he said he done which were not corroborated by the police that had him under surveillance.

He said he would go to the graves and pour a wine for his wife and a fizzy drink for his child. Yet it appears he did not.
Its the why would he see the need to add these details. It paints me a picture.

A reporter and a photographer gave an account of what they seen at his home its pretty stereotypical of a sociopathic display, rather than someone grieving.
That in itself is obviously not damming but when taken into account all the rest it would be hard for me to think he is innocent.

Someone said a few pages back that they can't remember (Christine's or Ambers) names, but can only remember Marks, that is the tragedy here.
310524



http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67609100/mark-lundy-seemed-contrived-even-14-years-ago-says-photographer


During that interview in 2000, Lundy told Johns how, since his wife's death, he would go to the cemetery with a bottle of her favourite wine: Alpha Domus sauvignon blanc. He would sit at the grave and pour two glasses, taking a sip from each one. Amber was not left out. He took some fizzy drink for her. "And while I was out there, a woman put her hand on my shoulder and said, 'Mark, the whole of Palmerston North is with you'."

He barely left the home for the guilt since his family had left, he claimed.

But, at his first trial, the juries heard a very different story. It was revealed that, far from being a recluse, Lundy was planning a second 21st birthday and was regularly seen drunk at social events after murdering his family. Six weeks after their death, he even found time for the services of a prostitute.

As for the graveside toast, police tracking his movements disproved his regular visits to the cemetery. He had never poured a wine by his wife grave. It was simply another part of the act.

[husaberg]

The point is that your post at #620 is completely irrelevant to my point.

Malcolm Rewa clearly wouldn't have wanted to identify the murder scene because he wasn't the one confessing to the crime.

I said go back a couple of pages try 612 and work your way forward, but only after you have had a biscuit.:msn-wink:
See what I meant by only seeing what it is you want to see.
How easy it is to continue to plough forward on a chosen path.

[awa355]

I'm afraid I could never take Mark Lundy seriously after watching his appalling attempt at grief at the funeral. I know everyone displays emotions different ways but come on, there was something totally sus about the performance he put on.
I would've struggled to put that out of my mind if I'd been a jury member (I'm lucky enough to have gotten to the age I am without ever having to do jury duty).

That funeral performance had me thinking, 'This guy can't act for shit'.

[Katman]

I said go back a couple of pages try 612 and work your way forward, but only after you have had a biscuit.:msn-wink:

Your post at #612 was addressed at #618.

Since then you've just prattled on about Malcolm Rewa not identifying the crime scene either.

As I've said, that's completely irrelevant to my point that someone confessing to a crime should probably be expected to be able to identify the crime scene.

[husaberg]

Your post at #612 was addressed at #618.

Since then you've just prattled on about Malcolm Rewa not identifying the crime scene either.

As I've said, that's completely irrelevant to my point that someone confessing to a crime should probably be expected to be able to identify the crime scene.

The reason you can't see it, is you consider it to be irrelevant.
Its because you have already decided that you know the outcome, that you want to reach.

Thus anything that is said, is to you irrelevant, (your words prattle)this is exactly what I believe happened in this case. Hence the QED.
The police followed a course of action that was in front of them.

FYI people who confess usually don't confess to all details regardless there is always a very real element of minimisation or not recalling.
Highly detailed accounts are very rare. They rarely lead people to where the bodies are, or fully confess to all their crimes.
The Pora case is a rare example of a set of exceptional circumstances imo.

[Katman]

Thus anything that is said, is to you irrelevant, (your words prattle)this is exactly what I believe happened in this case. Hence the QED.
The police followed a course of action that was in front of them.


The fact that he couldn't identify the crime scene should have been sufficient for the police to question the validity of his confession.

The other holes in his story and the changing of that story should have had alarm bells ringing.

But instead, due to the accusatorial system our court operates under, the police see any conviction as a win for them - regardless of whether they've got the right person.

(And if they don't have to do too much work to gain that conviction - all the better for them).

[husaberg]

The fact that he couldn't identify the crime scene should have been sufficient for the police to question the validity of his confession.

The other holes in his story and the changing of that story should have had alarm bells ringing.

But instead, due to the accusatorial system our court operates under, the police see any conviction as a win for them - regardless of whether they've got the right person.

(And if they don't have to do too much work to gain that conviction - all the better for them).

Yes but look at your posts I clearly suggested why it is they followed the path, Yet because you were too tied up in your thoughts of what they should have done you missed that bit.
For reasons that it did not suit, what it was you were trying to achieve.
See now what I am trying to show you.
You have suggested the police should have known better. Are you willing to cast that same spotlight on yourself, neither would they. Human nature.
The legal system we operate under is adversarial.
Its not perfect, but like I said I believe he was let down more by his defence, Police don't convict people they present what evidence they have, they are not infallible which is why we have a legal system and courts.

[Swoop]

How come the sit did not get another full life sentence? Given the first case was dismissed surely he starts the term a fresh and has to serve another life?

He did.

Remember that the first time around was quashed by the Privy Council. (He gets a credit note for time served though).

This time he gets the sentence and hands over the credit note, that time is now deducted from this (new) lag.
If found innocent, he would then take the credit note to the gubbinment and make a $$'s claim.



There will be something about penalties applicable at the time of the crime as well, but perhaps we had better not go into that...

[scumdog]

.... to my point that someone confessing to a crime should probably be expected to be able to identify the crime scene.

Hmm...you're expecting a lot from the criminal numpties out there - some I've met couldn't even say what street they had been on let alone what house - or what they had taken. As for what sort of car they had been in? - "Aw, it was Joeys car, it's sort of red and the handbrake doesn't work much good".

[Katman]

You have suggested the police should have known better. Are you willing to cast that same spotlight on yourself, neither would they. Human nature.


Read this slowly....

It is not good enough that the police simply take the course of least resistance when they investigate and prosecute a case. If a confession is made the police should still be expected to investigate the veracity of that confession.

When holes appear in the confession the investigation needs to become considerably more thorough and, if need be, taken back to step one rather than blindly stumbling on with the best they've got.

If that procedure is not followed than we have the risk of precisely what we got - a rapist/murderer being allowed to carry on raping for a few more years.

[husaberg]

Read this slowly....

It is not good enough that the police simply take the course of least resistance when they investigate and prosecute a case. If a confession is made the police should still be expected to investigate the veracity of that confession.

When holes appear in the confession the investigation needs to become considerably more thorough.

If that procedure is not followed than we have the risk of precisely what we got - a rapist/murderer being allowed to carry on raping for a few more years.

Read this slower
Are you seriously suggesting that you know that you are smarter than the police are.
because you just did exactly the same thing you said that they shouldn't have.
Hindsight is 20/20.
They would still have not caught Rewa they were not zeroing in on him till three years later they had about over 140000 odd suspects they were also at the time dealing with Joe Thompson (SASR) remember.
Police work and processes have got better since, that's what happens.

[Katman]

Read this slower
Are you seriously suggesting that you know that you are smarter than the police are.
because you just did exactly the same thing you said that they shouldn't have.
Hindsight is 20/20.
They would still have not caught Rewa they were not zeroing in on him till three years later they had about over 140000 odd suspects they were also at the time dealing with Joe Thompson (SASR) remember.
Police work and processes have got better since, that's what happens.

And that's why I have no faith (or hope) in our justice system.

There are too many people out there like yourself with a 'close enough is good enough' attitude that the justice system doesn't feel any need to improve.

[husaberg]

And that's why I have no faith in our justice system.

There are too many people out there like yourself with a 'close enough is good enough' attitude that the justice system doesn't feel any need to improve.
Police are human they I hope they all try to do that best they can, with the resources they have.
I would say if anything more 10000 times more guilty people are found not guilty than anyone that is innocent is ever found guilty in NZ's court system.
Maybe your expectations are a little to high.

The Police Association officially called for a review of Pora's conviction, citing "sufficient concern among some senior detectives to warrant an inquiry.


Malcolm Rewa was found guilty of the majority of charges that he was up against but the jury could not agree to the murder and rape of Papatoetoe accounts clerk Susan Burdett in her home in March 1992.
Rewa had alleged that he had been having any affair with the woman and the reason Rewa’s semen was found on her body, was that they had slept together at his house the evening of her death before she left to go bowling.
(Rewa was finally convicted of the rape of Susan Burdett in Dec 1998.)

The Monday following the trail, Rewa’s lawyers read an apology live on the Holmes show indicating that Rewa was remorseful but only for the rapes he had confessed to, not those that he had been found guilty of that he didn’t confess to.

Malcolm Rewa, Auckland Serial rapist is serving a sentence of preventive detention with a 22-year minimum non-parole period for 24 rapes committed between 1987-1996 plus 14 years to be served concurrently for the rape of Susan Burdett.

I guess you never did have that biscuit.

[Katman]

Hindsight is 20/20.


Pora's second conviction was after Rewa had been identified in the case.

Yet the police still went on to pursue a conviction based on a highly questionable confession.

Do you think that's good enough?

[husaberg]

Pora's second conviction was after Rewa had been identified in the case.

They still went on to pursue a conviction based on a highly questionable confession.

Do you think that's good enough?

Pora was not convicted by police, yet the same system that you are so appalled for finding Pora guilty also found Rewa innocent when very compelling evidence was presented by Police (DNA)
Pora was only ever in the spotlight because a member of his family actually put him their. Of her own volition.
Then he after being questioned on his own volition he then confessed to it.
He was as I have said was then incredibly poorly represented at both trials, that both times found him guilty.
The police themselves later suggested they were unhappy with his conviction.

the Police Association officially called for a review of Pora's conviction, citing "sufficient concern among some senior detectives to warrant an inquiry
We could go around in circles but I have shown you why it likely happened.

You yourself over the last few pages even helped to demonstrate how observer expectancy effect works. :innocent:

Its like target fixation and yet even with extensive training professional pilots still crash into each over with huge areas of sky available.

So considering the planes are flown by humans maybe you should not fly either.

[Katman]

The police themselves later suggested they were unhappy with his conviction.


Yet they pursued his conviction.

Do you understand?

[husaberg]

Yet they pursued his conviction.

Do you understand?

LATER said 20/20.
Consider my plane analogy.
See how they improve safety. Is it from stuff that goes well?

Some of the best lessons we ever learn are learned from past mistakes. The error of the past is the wisdom and success of the future.

[Katman]

It's been proven time and again that police will not investigate anything that jeopardises their case.

How can we have faith in something that seeks a conviction before truth?

[Katman]

I was handed a speeding ticket on the way to the Cold Kiwi some years ago. I didn't take any notice of the ticket until later when I noticed that my name, date of birth and license number had been scribbled over the top of someone else's. I decided to defend the charge on the grounds that there was serious question as to who the ticket was actually intended for. (A ticket for 116kph). Knowing this, the police chose to pursue the charge. On the day in court, when I asked him to tell me who else's name was on the ticket, the police officer stated under oath that there was no-one else's name on the ticket and my name had been re-written over my own name because of his pen running out of ink. When I expressed surprise at his response the JP quickly glanced at the ticket and agreed that there was no other name there. She found me guilty.

With one look, the judge at my appeal hearing awarded a rehearing.

The police withdrew the charge and I laid a complaint of perjury.

[pete376403]

Katman, did you complaint get acted upon? Tui moment?

[Katman]

Katman, did you complaint get acted upon? Tui moment?

Supposedly.

I was told they weren't allowed to tell me what form the officer's censure took though.

Hopefully he's still on the Siberia shift.

[Katman]

It got me wondering though just what degree of integrity the justice system has, when a police officer can concoct such a ridiculous story (having had it spelled out to him well before the hearing what my defense was going to be) and then lie under oath - all the while relying on the JP to support his ridiculous story and ignore his blatant lying.

It's a clear example of the police focusing solely on obtaining a conviction without the slightest consideration for any of the details of the case. (And an example of an area of our justice system which the police appear to rely upon to support their dodgy dealings).

[Flip]

I am becomming very concerned that a lot of the Police seem to be corrupt.

They are certanly not the bastions of socioety they once were in NZ.

[oldrider]

I am becomming very concerned that a lot of the Police seem to be corrupt.

They are certanly not the bastions of socioety they once were in NZ.

They are all we have got and we do collectively own the service! - I Don't think anybody else is going to fix it for us either! - :facepalm:

[scumdog]

I am becomming very concerned that a lot of the Police seem to be corrupt.

They are certanly not the bastions of socioety they once were in NZ.


'a lot'?
C'mon Flip, I expected better from you.

(Or has the real Flip been abducted by aliems???:shutup:)

[Katman]

'a lot'?
C'mon Flip, I expected better from you.


Even one is one too many.

(And I doubt I found New Zealands only corrupt cop).

[FJRider]

Even one is one too many.

Even one suzuki rider that rides like a dickhead is too many ... in ANY group there will be some (even one) that is different to the majority ..

The stupid see the different one as being the same as all the others ... so don't be stupid.


(And I doubt I found New Zealands only corrupt cop).

Reality check ... we really don't care how many you have found.

THEY/He/she found YOU ... which in turn makes US happy.

[husaberg]

Well I do feel a little sympathy for what Katman has wrote happened.
but here's the kicker I have had many speeding tickets.
I can honestly say I deserved every single one of them. Plus many many more.
I have always been polite honest and respectful on the occasions I have been stopped.
The officers are after all are simply doing their job.

Granted around where I live, a number of years back there was a very small element of improper conduct amongst a very small element of the local force.
It made the telly the papers the court of appeals etc.
I noted they were all subsequently driven out of the force.

But just because I found a bad apple in a bag of fruit it doesn't necessarily mean they are all rotten does it?
Just as, if I say got ripped off at a bike dealer, it doesn't mean they are therefor all rip off merchants does it.

The whole legal system is a balancing act but the scales are certainly tipped it the favour of reasonable doubt in NZ.

[Katman]

But just because I found a bad apple in a bag of fruit it doesn't necessarily mean they are all rotten does it?


Have you and FJ been reading a different language?

Where have I said that all cops are corrupt?

[husaberg]

Have you and FJ been reading a different language?

Where have I said that all cops are corrupt?

Never thought you did, but I don't think you can say, one is one to many, esp when the dude who may have wrote your ticket might have had been having the exact same thought about you right before he wrote the ticket for you.
I think your experience as you relayed it actually means the system did eventually work for you.
In the case of Pora I can pretty accurately surmise that he wouldn't have been convicted of rape/murder, if he had not have given a false confession and had the mental acuity to realise what he was doing by giving the false confession.

[Katman]

I think your experience actually means the system did eventually work.


'Eventually' being the operative word - and then only because I was prepared to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

The system has many inherent faults in it.

We have corrupt cops who will lie under oath, we have corrupt JPs (and possibly even judges) who are prepared to support lying cops and we have jury members who actually couldn't give a fuck whether they fulfill their duty to the best possible standard.

There have been numerous high profile cases that have shown considerable police incompetance.

How many small profile cases have seen the defendant similarly shafted?

[husaberg]

'Eventually' being the operative word - and then only because I was prepared to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

The system has many inherent faults in it.

We have corrupt cops who will lie under oath, we have corrupt JPs (and possibly even judges) who are prepared to support lying cops and we have jury members who actually couldn't give a fuck whether they fulfill their duty to the best possible standard.

There have been numerous high profile cases that have shown considerable police incompetance.

How many small profile cases have seen the defendant similarly shafted?

I see a pretty common theme in that they are all human, even yourself.
Unless we are all going to be micro chipped, DNA tested, our every move recorded and audited on our every decision by robots I can't see how that can be fixed.
The fact you have heard of these high profile cases seems to suggest people want to get stuff right.
Processes improve, techniques change, improved protocols are put in place.
There is always going to be corrupt people, idiots and people who do half arsed jobs, But remember not all of them are always corrupt or are all policeman or Judges or juries either, some of them are defendants.

[Flip]

'a lot'?
C'mon Flip, I expected better from you.

(Or has the real Flip been abducted by aliems???:shutup:)

Scrotes and assholes was a good friend of mine. I am becomming concerned that the standard I would like to see from the rozza is slipping. The media may be pointing out and making examples of the bad apples at the moment but there is no smoke without fire.

The rozza have always been very polite with me, probably because it says known gang associate and has an e cat fire arms licence on my file. I was once searched on the side of the road by some cunty but that was many years ago before I got nasty and old.

[Katman]

It raises the old question - who is the judge or JP going to believe? The defendant or the police officer?

And where does it leave us if we can't trust the police to tell the truth?

[husaberg]

It raises the old question - who is the judge or JP going to believe? The defendant or the police officer?

And where does it leave us if we can't trust the police to tell the truth?

Judges make a decision based on what they believe, weighed on the sum of evidence that is presented in front of them, that is why we have them as a sperate entity.
It will be human nature to generally give more credence to the person testimony with the fewer vested interests in proceedings granted, but the burden of proof is always in the defendants favour,
your accuser have to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after all.

As for trust, can you trust the defendants all either........... The truth is a series of events that can be viewed from two different sides sometimes.
I often find in quite a few disagreements, About half way between two parties conflicting versions of event generally lies the actual truth of what occurred.

[Swoop]

It raises the old question - who is the judge or JP going to believe? The defendant or the police officer?

And where does it leave us if we can't trust the police to tell the truth?

Sadly the JP's part of proceedings is a rubber-stamping exercise. Nothing more.
Never expect anything to happen with them apart from pushing "stuff" up the legal food chain.

[korimako1]

[QUOTE=husaberg;1130849626]That witness or others was not on trial though.

Correct, but the defence was trying to show that the Police had tunnel vision and that other suspects were ignored even when viable evidence was present pointing to other suspects.
13 years ago Police cocked up.
They prosecuted the wrong man because they were not clever enough to deduce who actually did it. They made the evidence fit, manipulated timeframes and experts evidence. Broke the law by not disclosing key evidence, and ignored fingerprints, hairs, fibres, footprints, palm prints and blood. none of which belonged to M/L.
At retrial, whoops we cant use that now, they have answers for that. I know said some clown, they will believe us if we change everything. And they did. Amazing how gullible that Jury was.
The majority of the media have been just as gullible, save a few. But don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Just an observation, having read through the threads. There are lots of comments on M/Ls behaviour after the deaths of his wife and child. He drank a lot before the deaths, he drank a lot after the deaths. No change there. Before he was arrested the funeral footage was used and quoted as a man in deep grief at the tragic loss of his family. After his arrest, what a shocking display of bad acting. Go figure.
The media kept playing clips of the funeral footage even after a Judges ruling that it should not be shown, TV3 especially. Jurors were sent home every night. Did they see this prejudicial footage probably.

Did they return an innocent man back to Jail, The Crown must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is responsible for the crime. That jury had no concept of the term.

[oldrider]

[QUOTE=husaberg;1130849626]Did they return an innocent man back to Jail, The Crown must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is responsible for the crime. That jury had no concept of the term.

Innocent? - :scratch: - Nah - of course he did it - at that point their minds were firmly fixed on getting ready for the Easter break - so much to do so little time! - :corn:

[husaberg]

Correct, but the defence was trying to show that the Police had tunnel vision and that other suspects were ignored even when viable evidence was present pointing to other suspects.
13 years ago Police cocked up.
They prosecuted the wrong man because they were not clever enough to deduce who actually did it. They made the evidence fit, manipulated timeframes and experts evidence. Broke the law by not disclosing key evidence, and ignored fingerprints, hairs, fibres, footprints, palm prints and blood. none of which belonged to M/L.
At retrial, whoops we cant use that now, they have answers for that. I know said some clown, they will believe us if we change everything. And they did. Amazing how gullible that Jury was.
The majority of the media have been just as gullible, save a few. But don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Just an observation, having read through the threads. There are lots of comments on M/Ls behaviour after the deaths of his wife and child. He drank a lot before the deaths, he drank a lot after the deaths. No change there. Before he was arrested the funeral footage was used and quoted as a man in deep grief at the tragic loss of his family. After his arrest, what a shocking display of bad acting. Go figure.
The media kept playing clips of the funeral footage even after a Judges ruling that it should not be shown, TV3 especially. Jurors were sent home every night. Did they see this prejudicial footage probably.

Did they return an innocent man back to Jail, The Crown must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is responsible for the crime. That jury had no concept of the term.

Ignored evidence is a pretty strong allegation.........
Are you aware how a defence is generally conducted for a innocent man.
If the defence was trying to mount a credible defence, it would have been as part of the defence, you prove all this stuff thoroughly with actual evidence rather than accusations to witnesses called for the prosecution.

I don't actually remember the footage haven't watched it subsequently either.
What I do give credence to is ML added in details of his behaviour after the funeral which he had no reason at all to do, if he was actually innocent.
He was followed observed during his visits to the graves
The devil is in the details.
I get you believe he is innocent, yet two juries that viewed all the evidence, disagreed. if one of them did not, the result would have been different.
Juries on the whole are far more likely to give more than reasonable doubt to defendants that's why jury trials tend to be favoured by defendants.

[husaberg]

Innocent? - :scratch: - Nah - of course he did it - at that point their minds were firmly fixed on getting ready for the Easter break - so much to do so little time! - :corn:

Your quote that you have attributed to me is well different from what I said in any way shape or form?
weird stuff happening here............ there is it appears some quote problems with the thread?

[oldrider]

Your quote that you have attributed to me is well different from what I said in any way shape or form?
weird stuff happening here............ there is it appears some quote problems with the thread?

No I was busting for a pee - wasn't fully focussed at the time - think I was focussing on whether they (the jury) thought he was innocent or not!

Don't reckon they even thought about it too much to be honest! :scratch:

Sorry if I quoted you out of context!

[husaberg]

No I was busting for a pee - wasn't fully focussed at the time - think I was focussing on whether they (the jury) thought he was innocent or not!

Don't reckon they even thought about it too much to be honest! :scratch:

Sorry if I quoted you out of context!

Have a look at where you quoted me it has some script of mine mixed in then edit it out I think that KB is experiencing some quote script issues at the moment.:hug:
I am however pretty sure the jury considered all of what was produced as evidence. The judge would have advised them what they should consider or not in regards to the law.
The jury then weighed up what evidence they seen and then found him guilty, IMO the speed reflects the certainty they had in the verdict.

[oldrider]

Yeah Husa see what you mean on the quote thingy!

I thought the speed of their decision was that they went in there convinced beforehand and didn't do too much thinking about the new trial evidence etc.

No confidence in bloody juries - wouldn't like my freedom hanging on the say so from any I have ever seen! :no: - :facepalm:

[korimako1]

Ignored evidence is a pretty strong allegation.........
Are you aware how a defence is generally conducted for a innocent man.
If the defence was trying to mount a credible defence, it would have been as part of the defence, you prove all this stuff thoroughly with actual evidence rather than accusations to witnesses called for the prosecution.

I don't actually remember the footage haven't watched it subsequently either.
What I do give credence to is ML added in details of his behaviour after the funeral which he had no reason at all to do, if he was actually innocent.
He was followed observed during his visits to the graves
The devil is in the details.
I get you believe he is innocent, yet two juries that viewed all the evidence, disagreed. if one of them did not, the result would have been different.
Juries on the whole are far more likely to give more than reasonable doubt to defendants that's why jury trials tend to be favoured by defendants.


I don't believe they understood the science.
ML tried to assist the Police because he was naïve, he answered questions that were turned on him later as him adding details. also your quote: He was followed observed during his visits to the graves: when questioned on this the police could not provide evidence that they actually did this. A fabrication to try and make ML look like a liar and bad in the publics eye.
this happened at the first trial, oh that's right the whole first trial was a sham.

[husaberg]

I don't believe they understood the science.
ML tried to assist the Police because he was naïve, he answered questions that were turned on him later as him adding details. also your quote: He was followed observed during his visits to the graves: when questioned on this the police could not provide evidence that they actually did this. A fabrication to try and make ML look like a liar and bad in the publics eye.
this happened at the first trial, oh that's right the whole first trial was a sham.

Ok say everything you said is true and categorically thus proves his total innocence.
Her brother allowed the same.
Actually show me where it is refuted of either his admissions of the graveside visits with wine, or the police saying they did not follow him and seen or did not see it. Humour me.
Because otherwise he could be making a lot of money suing the print media, more than enough to fund a few appeals.
My understanding was the police never keep records rather than it didn't happen which is a bi difference unless you are suggesting that they would make up evidence?
The only refuting I have seen of it was in a pro Lundy report on what was wrong with the first trial.
Which has never been subjected the same amount of scrutiny as what it was that the juror's have ruled on.

[korimako1]

Ok say everything you said is true and categorically thus proves his total innocence.
Her brother allowed the same.
Actually show me where it is refuted of either his admissions of the graveside visits with wine, or the police saying they did not follow him and seen or did not see it. Humour me.
Because otherwise he could be making a lot of money suing the print media, more than enough to fund a few appeals.
My understanding was the police never keep records rather than it didn't happen which is a bi difference unless you are suggesting that they would make up evidence?
The only refuting I have seen of it was in a pro Lundy report on what was wrong with the first trial.
Which has never been subjected the same amount of scrutiny as what it was that the juror's have ruled on.

ok, her brother is allowed the same. would his behaviour hold up under the same scrutiny by police? (if they weren't covering their arses)
the police never kept records rather than it didn't happen!!!!!! excuse me but if they didn't keep records, job sheets, video or any other type of records then it didn't happen. It is only word of the police and I am afraid their track record in that area is not great.
You are getting side tracked on stupid issues that do not have any bearing on what happened this time around.

The Police and Crown came up with a fanciful scenario at the first trial which they sold to a Jury, that was quashed by the Privy Council, an unsafe conviction, so the Police and Crown shat themselves and came up with another fanciful scenario and somehow sold that to another Jury using the same bullshit tactics they used in the first trial.

[husaberg]

ok, her brother is allowed the same. would his behaviour hold up under the same scrutiny by police? (if they weren't covering their arses)
the police never kept records rather than it didn't happen!!!!!! excuse me but if they didn't keep records, job sheets, video or any other type of records then it didn't happen. It is only word of the police and I am afraid their track record in that area is not great.
You are getting side tracked on stupid issues that do not have any bearing on what happened this time around.

The Police and Crown came up with a fanciful scenario at the first trial which they sold to a Jury, that was quashed by the Privy Council, an unsafe conviction, so the Police and Crown shat themselves and came up with another fanciful scenario and somehow sold that to another Jury using the same bullshit tactics they used in the first trial.


Her brother did hold up to full Police scrutiny, That Is why he was never charged and twice convicted.
See this is how stuff works
The police are not there when murders or many other crimes occur. (generally)
So they gather evidence some of which is hidden covered etc they then piece it together as best as they can, they can't ever get every detail right.
Over time more evidence come forth technologies improve. Gaps will be filled

You are confusing not getting all details right with oh he must then be innocent.

Did lundy keep a note book. yet you automatically believe his testimony over many others, that are not accused of murder.
Let's clear up one thing here I have no emotional attachment to him being convicted again, can you honestly say the same thing?

Like I said if it was made up as all the stuff the media supposedly have that have sold him as guilty he will win an appeal he will sue the media and he will win won't he.

[Katman]

.... unless you are suggesting that they would make up evidence?

Are you that naive?

How many examples of police fabricating or planting evidence and lying under oath do you need?

[husaberg]

Are you that naive?

How many examples of police fabricating or planting evidence and lying under oath do you need?
on the contrary, It would be extremely naïve to suggest because there is a very small number of actually cases that are always the same ones brought up and extremely well publicised because of their actual rarity.
Where this has actually happened, to then suggest it is the rule. That just because it has happened a few times That it is either common or always does occur or did occur in this case.
For you to prove yourself not naïve or biased you would have to prove it is the normal process.

[korimako1]

See this is how stuff works
The police are not there when murders or many other crimes occur. (generally)
So they gather evidence some of which is hidden covered etc they then piece it together as best as they can, they can't ever get every detail right.
Over time more evidence come forth technologies improve. Gaps will be filled

You are confusing not getting all details right with oh he must then be innocent.

Did lundy keep a note book. yet you automatically believe his testimony over many others that are not accused of murder.
Let's clear up one thing here I have no emotional attachment to him being convicted again, can you honestly say the same thing?

Like I said if it was made up as all the stuff the media supposedly have that have sold him as guilty he will win an appeal he will sue the media and he will win won't he.

correct the police are not there when the crime occurs, they gather evidence. What we are saying is that some of the evidence they gathered was ignored, is still not explained, or disregarded because it didn't fit what or who the Police had decided was responsible.
The accused doesn't have to prove anything, the police and crown have to, with documented proof, from witnesses and experts. Normally not that difficult in most cases. But this was a circumstantial case where they put together a scenario of what they "thought" happened.
there are too many holes in this case, the experts couldn't agree, new science again (even after privy council ruled the science unsafe) they introduced more new science.
dodgy fuel consumption figures, Time of death between 7.00pm and when the bodies discovered ( no shit Sherlock), stomach contents, they were full at autopsy. Police say lundy did the drive commencing at around 1.00am, this time a sedate drive instead of driving like a maniac. so they didn't digest there food at all for 8 hours. I can go on and on.
I know this case extremely well, I will never except the guilty verdict. it is not beyond reasonable doubt.

[husaberg]

correct the police are not there when the crime occurs, they gather evidence. What we are saying is that some of the evidence they gathered was ignored, is still not explained, or disregarded because it didn't fit what or who the Police had decided was responsible.
The accused doesn't have to prove anything, the police and crown have to, with documented proof, from witnesses and experts. Normally not that difficult in most cases. But this was a circumstantial case where they put together a scenario of what they "thought" happened.
there are too many holes in this case, the experts couldn't agree, new science again (even after privy council ruled the science unsafe) they introduced more new science.
dodgy fuel consumption figures, Time of death between 7.00pm and when the bodies discovered ( no shit Sherlock), stomach contents, they were full at autopsy. Police say lundy did the drive commencing at around 1.00am, this time a sedate drive instead of driving like a maniac. so they didn't digest there food at all for 8 hours. I can go on and on.
I know this case extremely well, I will never except the guilty verdict. it is not beyond reasonable doubt.

Only think is about 22 people that have viewed all the evidence presented to them by both the defence and the prosecution including unsubstantiated claims that where made by the defence.
Don't agree with you at all.
That food science that you hold as being the reason that he was not guilty, was challenged with huge vigour to why he was innocent in the first trial by the defence. That has proved to be no where near an exact science.
Yet it is used by the defence advocates as to why he must be innocent.
The police look at all the evidence make calls on what happened peruse multiple lines of enquiry and potential suspects.
They have always lead to Lundy.
Lundy by every thing I have read and seen about him appears to display pretty text book traits of a sociopath.
Of course that doesn't make him a murderer, Most are not, but it does raise a lot of questions.
I don't think the media or the NZ police did intend make him out to be one, as I doubt most the NZ public are savvy enough to aware of what all the traits are of one.

Oh Nigel Latta did an episode on Lundy I have not seen that. Have You?
Can anyone find a link to it? I guess it was removed for the trial.
Yes I can see past the sinister music that will be in it.

[Katman]

on the contrary, It would be extremely naïve to suggest because there is a very small number of actually cases that are always the same ones brought up and extremely well publicised because of their actual rarity.
Where this has actually happened, to then suggest it is the rule. That just because it has happened a few times That it is either common or always does occur or did occur in this case.
For you to prove yourself not naïve or biased you would have to prove it is the normal process.

I haven't suggested it's the rule.

Your previous post suggests that you refuse to believe that the police are ever anything less than totally honest, reliable and diligent.

There are plenty of cases that blow that theory out of the water though.

[husaberg]

I haven't suggested it's the rule.

Your previous post suggests that you refuse to believe that the police are ever anything less than totally honest, reliable and diligent.

There are plenty of cases that blow that theory out of the water though.
I have always said it is not perfect, that there will always be humans and Human nature, bad apples, bad seeds. but to suggest overwhelmingly vast majority of them are not on the criminal side of the ledger is extremely naive of you.
You own posts suggest the very opposite you have suggested that one bad example proves you can have no trust at all.
But there are and will always be conversely far far more cases that blow your own theory out of the water, including your own example you gave.
About what happened to you. Your own example proved the system generally works.

[Katman]

I have always said it is not perfect, that there will always be humans and Human nature, bad apples, bad seeds. but to suggest overwhelmingly vast majority of them are not on the criminal side of the ledger is extremely naive of you.
You own posts suggest the very opposite you have suggested that one bad example proves you can have no trust at all.
But there are and will always be conversely far far more cases that blow your own theory out of the water, including your own example you gave.
About what happened to you. Your own example proved the system generally works.

Read this slowly dumb fuck.....

I haven't said that every court case involves dodgy police work.

I am merely saying that there have been enough cases of exactly that happening, that to suggest there is absolutely no possibility of it having occurred in this instance is very naive.

[husaberg]

Read this slowly dumb fuck.....

I haven't said that every court case involves dodgy police work.

I am merely saying that there have been enough cases of exactly that happening, that to suggest there is absolutely no possibility of it having occurred in this instance is very naive.

When adults have a discussion they actually don't open the sentence with statements if they want to be taken in anyway seriously unless they are that much of an obnoxious cretin to believe their own twaddle and hate having there obvious inconsistencies pointed out to them.:nya:
The very fact that you are getting worked up enough to have to continually resort to abuse indicates that your point is neither strong and your own ability to substantiate it weak.
So by all means continue to do it. As it only further illustrates my point further.

[Katman]

When adults have a discussion....

Let me know when you make it there.

[husaberg]

Let me know when you make it there.

Pg 41 would be a good place for you to start looking, but it might pay for you not to look at your own posts with any degree any impartiality though.(just to keep things going with the same theme as the thrust of the rest of your posts)
So feel free to continue to ignore anything that doesn't suit your own views or makes your augment look obviously self serving.
Also once it become obvious that you are backed into a corner by your own words just start to abuse anyone that points out these errors in your thought process and rationality, because that will work.:killingme

[Katman]

Pg 41 would be a good place for you to start looking, but it might pay for you not to look at your own posts with any degree any impartiality though.(just to keep things going with the same theme as the thrust of the rest of your posts)
So feel free to continue to ignore anything that doesn't suit your own views or makes your augment look obviously self serving.
Also once it become obvious that you are backed into a corner by your own words just start to abuse anyone that points out these errors in your thought process and rationality, because that will work.:killingme

You seem to be the only one struggling to understand what it is I'm actually saying.

See if you can find someone to explain the words to you.

[husaberg]

Don't try to polish a turd Winston.

The police fixated on an easy conviction rather than pursuing a logical truth.


Making a false confession is not an entirely unheard of phenomenon.

But when there are gaping holes in that confession the police should be duty bound to investigate those holes - not just run with whatever story gets them home in time for Shortland Street.


Let's not forget that Arthur Allan Thomas was also convicted a second time after the Court of Appeal quashed his first conviction.

Fucked if I'd want my fate placed in the hands of a jury.


Malcolm Rewa didn't make a confession.


Fuck me, you need everything spelled out for you, don't you?

Teina Pora gave a false confession which the police should have been suspicious of when he couldn't identify the murder scene.

Malcolm Rewa never gave any sort of confession because the cop chose not to pursue him as a suspect.


The fact that he couldn't identify the crime scene should have been sufficient for the police to question the validity of his confession.

The other holes in his story and the changing of that story should have had alarm bells ringing.

But instead, due to the accusatorial system our court operates under, the police see any conviction as a win for them - regardless of whether they've got the right person.

(And if they don't have to do too much work to gain that conviction - all the better for them).


Read this slowly....

It is not good enough that the police simply take the course of least resistance when they investigate and prosecute a case. If a confession is made the police should still be expected to investigate the veracity of that confession.

When holes appear in the confession the investigation needs to become considerably more thorough and, if need be, taken back to step one rather than blindly stumbling on with the best they've got.

If that procedure is not followed than we have the risk of precisely what we got - a rapist/murderer being allowed to carry on raping for a few more years.


And that's why I have no faith (or hope) in our justice system.

There are too many people out there like yourself with a 'close enough is good enough' attitude that the justice system doesn't feel any need to improve.


It's been proven time and again that police will not investigate anything that jeopardises their case.

How can we have faith in something that seeks a conviction before truth?


I was handed a speeding ticket on the way to the Cold Kiwi some years ago. I didn't take any notice of the ticket until later when I noticed that my name, date of birth and license number had been scribbled over the top of someone else's. I decided to defend the charge on the grounds that there was serious question as to who the ticket was actually intended for. (A ticket for 116kph). Knowing this, the police chose to pursue the charge. On the day in court, when I asked him to tell me who else's name was on the ticket, the police officer stated under oath that there was no-one else's name on the ticket and my name had been re-written over my own name because of his pen running out of ink. When I expressed surprise at his response the JP quickly glanced at the ticket and agreed that there was no other name there. She found me guilty.

With one look, the judge at my appeal hearing awarded a rehearing.

The police withdrew the charge and I laid a complaint of perjury.


It got me wondering though just what degree of integrity the justice system has, when a police officer can concoct such a ridiculous story (having had it spelled out to him well before the hearing what my defense was going to be) and then lie under oath - all the while relying on the JP to support his ridiculous story and ignore his blatant lying.

It's a clear example of the police focusing solely on obtaining a conviction without the slightest consideration for any of the details of the case. (And an example of an area of our justice system which the police appear to rely upon to support their dodgy dealings).


Even one is one too many.

(And I doubt I found New Zealands only corrupt cop).


'Eventually' being the operative word - and then only because I was prepared to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

The system has many inherent faults in it.

We have corrupt cops who will lie under oath, we have corrupt JPs (and possibly even judges) who are prepared to support lying cops and we have jury members who actually couldn't give a fuck whether they fulfill their duty to the best possible standard.

There have been numerous high profile cases that have shown considerable police incompetance.

How many small profile cases have seen the defendant similarly shafted?


It raises the old question - who is the judge or JP going to believe? The defendant or the police officer?

And where does it leave us if we can't trust the police to tell the truth?


Are you that naive?

How many examples of police fabricating or planting evidence and lying under oath do you need?




Read this slowly dumb fuck.....

I haven't said that every court case involves dodgy police work.

I am merely saying that there have been enough cases of exactly that happening, that to suggest there is absolutely no possibility of it having occurred in this instance is very naive.


You seem to be the only one struggling to understand what it is I'm actually saying.

See if you can find someone to explain the words to you.


I have no idea why you are regarded as KB dimmest conspiracy theorist I doubt anyone would be able to explain that one to me either.
Dam that lack of sarcasm font........

https://youtu.be/qZG9lBpATxw

[korimako1]

Only think is about 22 people that have viewed all the evidence presented to them by both the defence and the prosecution including unsubstantiated claims that where made by the defence.
Don't agree with you at all.
That food science that you hold as being the reason that he was not guilty, was challenged with huge vigour to why he was innocent in the first trial by the defence. That has proved to be no where near an exact science.
Yet it is used by the defence advocates as to why he must be innocent.
The police look at all the evidence make calls on what happened peruse multiple lines of enquiry and potential suspects.
They have always lead to Lundy.
Lundy by every thing I have read and seen about him appears to display pretty text book traits of a sociopath.
Of course that doesn't make him a murderer, Most are not, but it does raise a lot of questions.
I don't think the media or the NZ police did intend make him out to be one, as I doubt most the NZ public are savvy enough to aware of what all the traits are of one.

Oh Nigel Latta did an episode on Lundy I have not seen that. Have You?
Can anyone find a link to it? I guess it was removed for the trial.
Yes I can see past the sinister music that will be in it.

do you understand beyond reasonable doubt? re read your post. what unsubstantiated claims by the defence? stomach contents is not an exact science but the defence had world experts on that subject, smarter people than you or I and they refuted the 3.00am TOD on digestion. the crown abandoned the 7.00pm TOD. you cant have it both ways.

Give up you know nothing about this case, you clutch at straws, only believing what bias media say.
Nigel Latta is a prime example, yes I have seen the program, he needs to decide whether he wants to be a comedian or a psychologist, he is crap at both.
Also 22 people, I think your math is out, 12 people on a Jury x 2 is 24. whoops you may be right at least 2 of the Jury were asleep through the last trial. well they were when I was there.

I suggest you leave Katman alone, he is far more savy about this case than you ever will be.

[IkieBikie]

I was handed a speeding ticket on the way to the Cold Kiwi some years ago.

Where you speeding???


Supposedly.

I was told they weren't allowed to tell me what form the officer's censure took though.

Hopefully he's still on the Siberia shift.

Where you speeding??


It got me wondering though just what degree of integrity the justice system has, when a police officer can concoct such a ridiculous story (having had it spelled out to him well before the hearing what my defense was going to be) and then lie under oath - all the while relying on the JP to support his ridiculous story and ignore his blatant lying.

It's a clear example of the police focusing solely on obtaining a conviction without the slightest consideration for any of the details of the case. (And an example of an area of our justice system which the police appear to rely upon to support their dodgy dealings).

Were you speeding and were you asked if you were? If you were not what would you have said if you were asked?? Looking at the way you fought the ticket you would have lied - if so what do we think of you then???

[Katman]

I suggest you leave Katman alone....

Dude, seriously.

I'd be lonely without this crowd.

[Katman]

....if so what do we think of you then???

You're new here, aren't you?

[FJRider]

I have no idea why you are regarded as KB dimmest conspiracy theorist I doubt anyone would be able to explain that one to me either.
Dam that lack of sarcasm font........


Has he invited you to suck his cock yet .... ????? if not ... you have not succeeded on KB yet. :calm:



I also have failed ... :calm:

[husaberg]

do you understand beyond reasonable doubt? re read your post. what unsubstantiated claims by the defence? stomach contents is not an exact science but the defence had world experts on that subject, smarter people than you or I and they refuted the 3.00am TOD on digestion. the crown abandoned the 7.00pm TOD. you cant have it both ways.

Give up you know nothing about this case, you clutch at straws, only believing what bias media say.
Nigel Latta is a prime example, yes I have seen the program, he needs to decide whether he wants to be a comedian or a psychologist, he is crap at both.
Also 22 people, I think your math is out, 12 people on a Jury x 2 is 24. whoops you may be right at least 2 of the Jury were asleep through the last trial. well they were when I was there.

I suggest you leave Katman alone, he is far more savy about this case than you ever will be.

I do understand reasonable doubt, as the accused it was all in his favour he had years to come up with a stellar defence, access to all the police files, plenty of time and free resources.
The Lundy team also had the advantage of fading memories of events.
Yet he was still again found guilty.
I know a heck of a lot more about human nature and behaviour science than you ever will, I look at the facts as presented weigh up the evidence and base my decisions on them exclusive of emotion.
The fact that you attended the trail suggests you were not an impartial observer. were you impartial at all to the evidence, like the jury were
It is not clutching at straws is pointing out that the evidence that the defence so rubbished as being faulty, was later used by them as a glowing example of his innocence.
Nigel Latta whilst being entertaining is also a clinical psychologist, He is funny, but so is human nature.
The thought that you think I am picking on Katman by expressing a differing opinion or that he is especially savvy as he agrees with you is rather telling.
Like I keep saying if this massive miscarriage of justice occurred again. I will await the appeal that results in him receiving his freedom. but I will not be holding my breath.
ps 22 was a typo

[Katman]

I also have failed ...

Don't look at it that way.

See yourself as a winner.

[Katman]

I know a heck of a lot more about human nature and behaviour science than you ever will, I look at the facts as presented weigh up the evidence and base my decisions on them exclusive of emotion.


You're Ed and Bogan's triplet, aren't you?

[FJRider]

Don't look at it that way.

See yourself as a winner.

Partial quotes are an instant fail. better luck next time ...

















suzuki riders ... :no:

[bogan]

You're Ed and Bogan's triplet, aren't you?

You still bitter about my blatant superiority eh? :laugh:

[Katman]

You still bitter about my blatant superiority eh? :laugh:

If I close my eyes that could sound like Ed.

[IkieBikie]

You're new here, aren't you?

Check my registered date ( you do know how to do that don't you??) I usually ignore most of the crap on here but hearing you slagging of the police because you were so cool to find a discrepancy (while speeding) merely confirms that you are still a tosser as you were when I first registered with this site. By the way if you had had an accident while you were speeding whose fault would it have been???

[Katman]

Check my registered date ( you do know how to do that don't you??)

Who are you again?

[husaberg]

Has he invited you to suck his cock yet .... ????? if not ... you have not succeeded on KB yet. :calm:


I also have failed ... :calm:

Don't go there most of his rep comments to me are invitations to fornicate which is interesting considering his online moniker is a pussy.


You're Ed and Bogan's triplet, aren't you?

Maybe you should get your sister to teach you how to play harp or maybe the violin.......
Odd though I thought I was meant to be Jantars daughter last week.
All three of us might be part a conspiracy against you.

[Katman]

All three of us might be part a conspiracy against you.

I should probably kill myself now.

[husaberg]

I should probably kill myself now.
Have a biscuit instead

https://youtu.be/qYNH1baA_7k

[IkieBikie]

Who are you again?

Were you speeding?? - still can't answer a straight forward question can you??

[Katman]

Were you speeding??

I haven't done that shit in years.

[FJRider]

I do understand reasonable doubt

I doubt that ...


The Lundy team also had the advantage of fading memories of events.

To prove a case you need evidence ... not memories.


Yet he was still again found guilty.

Such is the NZ legal system. Actual guilt is irrelevant ...


I know a heck of a lot more about human nature and behaviour science than you ever will, I look at the facts as presented weigh up the evidence and base my decisions on them exclusive of emotion.

BULLSHIT ... you argue with azzhole. He's barely human ... and obtuse in nature ... ??


The fact that you attended the trail suggests you were not an impartial observer. were you impartial at all to the evidence, like the jury were

Impartial ... and evidence .... are contradictory ...

[/QUOTE=husaberg;1130851720]]It is not clutching at straws is pointing out that the evidence that the defence so rubbished as being faulty[/QUOTE]

Sounds like more of YOUR defence ...


Nigel Latta whilst being entertaining is also a clinical psychologist, He is funny, but so is human nature.

HE gets paid more than all of us. Does that make him wrong ... ???


The thought that you think I am picking on Katman by expressing a differing opinion or that he is especially savvy as he agrees with you is rather telling.

He doesn't think. Just expresses his opinion. Any agreement is pure luck.


Like I keep saying if this massive miscarriage of justice occurred again. I will await the appeal that results in him receiving his freedom. but I will not be holding my breath.

Please DO ...


ps 22 was a typo

we believe ya ... ;)

[IkieBikie]

I haven't done that shit in years.

yep still the same old shit - can't answer a question

[husaberg]

Where you speeding???

Where you speeding??

Were you speeding and were you asked if you were? If you were not what would you have said if you were asked?? Looking at the way you fought the ticket you would have lied - if so what do we think of you then???


Check my registered date ( you do know how to do that don't you??) I usually ignore most of the crap on here but hearing you slagging of the police because you were so cool to find a discrepancy (while speeding) merely confirms that you are still a tosser as you were when I first registered with this site. By the way if you had had an accident while you were speeding whose fault would it have been???


Who are you again?


Were you speeding?? - still can't answer a straight forward question can you??


I haven't done that shit in years.


I was handed a speeding ticket on the way to the Cold Kiwi some years ago. I didn't take any notice of the ticket until later when I noticed that my name, date of birth and license number had been scribbled over the top of someone else's. I decided to defend the charge on the grounds that there was serious question as to who the ticket was actually intended for. (A ticket for 116kph). Knowing this, the police chose to pursue the charge. .

Omission....... Not based on the fact I wasn't speeding no, that's a detail I won't answer at all. "I decided to defend the charge on the grounds that there was serious question as to who the ticket was actually intended for"

[Katman]

This place is over-run with fucking retards.

[Kickaha]

This place is over-run with fucking retards.

I thought you were their leader? although IkieBikie is closing in fast

[FJRider]

I should probably kill myself now.

Who am I to argue ... :calm:

[Katman]

I thought you were their leader?

I resign .

[IkieBikie]

I thought you were their leader? although IkieBikie is closing in fast

Thanks for that - merely asking questions of Mr I know it all and its all your fault and I get labelled like that -cool

[FJRider]

This place is over-run with fucking retards.

Speak for yourself then ...






Ooop's .... you did .. :facepalm:

[Katman]

Thanks for that - merely asking questions of Mr I know it all and its all your fault and I get labelled like that -cool

You should be grateful.

I'd label you worse.

[IkieBikie]

I resign .

another say something do another? Please do!

[Katman]

another say something do another? Please do!

Have you been drinking?

[IkieBikie]

Have you been drinking?

No I don't drink. Do you??

[husaberg]

I doubt that ... ...



To prove a case you need evidence ... not memories....

A lot of testimony in this case was refuted and had doubt cast on it by the defence because of time and whether evidence could have been tainted cross contaminated



Such is the NZ legal system. Actual guilt is irrelevant ......
Only if you are proven guilty



BULLSHIT ... you argue with azzhole. He's barely human ... and obtuse in nature ... ??...
I disagreed when axelohole said I was your Bumbuddy once, I disagree with the barely but I will accept Subhuman



Impartial ... and evidence .... are contradictory ...
No they are not, evidence is impartial. its facts, it can be interpreted a number of ways though, sometimes
It is not clutching at straws is pointing out that the evidence that the defence so rubbished as being faulty


Sounds like more of YOUR defence ...
What am I accused of?

No read the summary of facts you can't just rubbish it then use it, without looking a little contrite.
What I never liked about it regardless was that is was based on a sensory perception Smell


HE gets paid more than all of us. Does that make him wrong ... ???
No but he is an expect on behaviour, Not sure how much he gets paid but he's worth it




He doesn't think. Just expresses his opinion. Any agreement is pure luck.
I think you are underselling him he expresses a lot of stuff esp by Rep comments



Please DO ...:shifty: :shifty:





we believe ya ... ;) We?

[Katman]

No I don't drink. Do you??

Only tea .

[FJRider]

I'd label you worse.

Some resent the label "suzuki rider" .... :eek5:


But ... what's in a label ... ;)

[FJRider]

A lot of testimony in this case ....

TRUE ...








Your quoting skills need work.

[husaberg]

yep still the same old shit - can't answer a question

He can, he just won't.:laugh:

[Maha]

No I don't drink. Do you??

He use to, but then he'd have to log in the next morning and express his sorry to the females that took to that horrid place, fun times indeed.

[Katman]

He use to, but then he'd have to log in the next morning and express his sorry to the females that took to that horrid place, fun times indeed.

The females flocked to it Mark.

[IkieBikie]

He use to, but then he'd have to log in the next morning and express his sorry to the females that took to that horrid place, fun times indeed.

Not princessbandit???

[Katman]

Not princessbandit???

Princess, give up while you're behind.

Leave the internet to the grown-ups.

[husaberg]

Not princessbandit???

That's his sister dude..............

[husaberg]

Princess, give up while you're behind.

Leave the internet to grown-ups.

Grown up's can answer straight questions though, you have a habit of avoiding them.

[FJRider]

A lot of testimony in this case was refuted and had doubt cast on it by the defence because of time and whether evidence could have been tainted cross contaminated

Key words ... Could have ..


Only if you are proven guilty

FOUND guilty ... proven guilty ... is another matter.


I disagreed when axelohole said I was your Bumbuddy once, I disagree with the barely but I will accept Subhuman

There are some things you post I DO agree with. Your reputation stats will concur ...


No they are not evidence is impartial
It is not clutching at straws is pointing out that the evidence that the defence so rubbished as being faulty

Rubbish in the opinion of the defense ... of course ...


What am I accused of?

Hopeful rhetoric ... ???


No read the summary of facts you can't just rubbish it then use it, without looking a little contrite.
What I never liked about it regardless was that is was based on a sensory perception Smell

A persons perception of smell is not legal


No but he is an expect on behaviour, Not sure how much he gets paid but he's worth it

Experts on behavior are paid better ... what he expects is his issue ...

[QUOTE=husaberg;1130851720]I think you are underselling him he expresses a lot of stuff esp by Rep comments


:shifty:

Don't start thinking ... it only confuses you ..



We?


Ok ... ya got me ... I do ...



.. really .. <_<

[Maha]

Not princessbandit???

No no no... wasn't a family thing at all. Number One/Trudes and Mom.

[husaberg]

Key words ... Could have ..
Yes could the jury believed what they wished to, but his supporters seem to use this lag as evidence to his innocence it paints a gasping at all inconsistencies picture puzzle.
The jury were presented all the rhetoric of how it could have been tainted they chose to not believe that it was.



FOUND guilty ... proven guilty ... is another matter.
He was proven and found guilty just because some still believe his innocence does not change that its a fact


Rubbish in the opinion of the defense ... of course ...

I think you got me before I finished there what I am trying to say is they rubbished it at the first trial then tried to use it at the second.
I never liked the time of death in the first neither did most others



A persons perception of smell is not legal
The time of death initially giving was pretty much all based on a lack of smell.
its subjective, yet so much was based on it.



Don't start thinking ... it only confuses you ..

Maybe my thinking does confuse you FJ


.. really .. <_<

?

[FJRider]

No but he is an expect on behaviour, Not sure how much he gets paid but he's worth it


I've never called myself an expect on behavior ... ARE YOU DRUNK .. ???

[husaberg]

I've never called myself an expect on behavior ... ARE YOU DRUNK .. ???

LOL Missed that, you missed out the end quote on the multiquote though too.
I type pretty fast though and autocorrect is on.
He is a real clinical psychologist and a bloody insightful one. I have not seen the episode but was it damming?
did he perchance also suggest that Lundy was a sociopath.
I can't find it on Google there are other episodes though.

lets break this down to stuff that is not disagreed on.
Someone killed Amber and Christine.
Up close and personal in cold blood.
it was a extremely violent frenzied attack on a women and child.
They took a weapon so there was a premeditation factor.
The motive does not appear to be rape or burglary.
Everyone agreed on that?

[FJRider]

Missed that, you missed out the end quote on the multiquote though too .
I type pretty fast though and autocorrect is on.
He is a real clinical psychologist and a bloody insightful one. I have not seen the episode but was it daming did he perchance also suggest that Lundy was a sociopath.
I can't find it on Google there are other episodes though.

I didn't MISS it ... just didn't reply. My option .... my choice.

SLOW DOWN .... and get it right. (you look better if you get it right)

Lundy was HUMAN. End of story ... and aren't we ALL. But we don't all kill our wife and daughter.

Episodes ... ??? I'm waiting for the movie ...

[husaberg]

I didn't MISS it ... just didn't reply. My option .... my choice.

SLOW DOWN .... and get it right. (you look better if you get it right)

Lundy was HUMAN. End of story ... and aren't we ALL. But we don't all kill our wife and daughter.

Episodes ... ??? I'm waiting for the movie ...
No I missed the spelling silly. But you missed the end of the quote in post 731 have a look middle of your post. you tried to quote me but it looks like your post.
No come on no wiggle room here. You seen it I didn't.

Did a clinical psychologist suggest that Lundy was a sociopath?
Not all Sociopaths are killers probably 90 percent of them are not.

By Episode I mean of of beyond the darkness?

[FJRider]

By Episode I mean of of beyond the darkness?

This is KB ... I enjoy the DARK side ... do you not .. ????



There is a beyond ... ??? :calm:

[husaberg]

This is KB ... I enjoy the DARK side ... do you not .. ????



There is a beyond ... ??? :calm:

Has Katman hacked your account

[Kickaha]

Only tea .

You didn't have any at your shop when I called in arsewipe

[FJRider]

Has Katman hacked your account

have you got a life yet ... ????

[husaberg]

have you got a life yet ... ????

I haven't gotten a life, nor claimed another's, Amber Lundy is dead, Christine Lundy is dead. but Mark Lundy got convicted twice of taking two life's

[Katman]

You didn't have any at your shop when I called in arsewipe

:psst: Don't tell Ikiebikie, but I was lying about the tea.

[Katman]

....but hearing you slagging of the police because you were so cool to find a discrepancy (while speeding) merely confirms that you are still a tosser.....

Do you think my dissatisfaction with the police and our justice system is because I got a speeding ticket with a discrepancy on it?

:facepalm:

[oldrider]

I haven't gotten a life, nor claimed another's, Amber Lundy is dead, Christine Lundy is dead. but Mark Lundy got convicted twice of taking two life's

Don't forget husa there are five more (unaccounted for?) dead people down at Dunedin to think about along with the Lundys!

Quite a crowd from little NZ when you add them all up over the years - not a good look! :no:

[FJRider]

This place is over-run with fucking retards.

Some with 8278 posts ...

[FJRider]

Don't forget husa there are five more (unaccounted for?) dead people down at Dunedin to think about along with the Lundys!

Quite a crowd from little NZ when you add them all up over the years - not a good look! :no:

Don't forget the one's that are yet to be proven to have died from the hands of their own parents/caregivers ...

[Madness]

No I don't drink.

Perhaps you should?

[FJRider]

No I don't drink. Do you??

It's not that bad really ... you still hold the same opinions ... just care less. (stage 1)


Drink enough ... and you stop caring. (stage 2)


There are times when I attempt to find that third stage ... (unsuccessful so far)

[Katman]

Some with 8278 posts ...

And some with even more.