Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[Winston001]

Anybody read the North and Saouth article just out? I'm always a bit sus about journalists investigating cases after the trial but sometimes difficult questions arise.

In this case there is one fundamental fact which the prosecution never proved - Mark Lundy's high speed journey from Petone -> Palmerston North -> Petone in 3 hours. Beginning in peak hour traffic. Parking and running 500m, brutally murdering his wife and daughter, grabbing a jewellery box, and running back 500m to the car. All completed in 3 hours.

The police could not duplicate this journey. They did drive fast times outside peak traffic but even then, no time remained to carry out the murders.

[Oscar]

Anybody read the North and Saouth article just out? I'm always a bit sus about journalists investigating cases after the trial but sometimes difficult questions arise.

In this case there is one fundamental fact which the prosecution never proved - Mark Lundy's high speed journey from Petone -> Palmerston North -> Petone in 3 hours. Beginning in peak hour traffic. Parking and running 500m, brutally murdering his wife and daughter, grabbing a jewellery box, and running back 500m to the car. All completed in 3 hours.

The police could not duplicate this journey. They did drive fast times outside peak traffic but even then, no time remained to carry out the murders.

Yeah, I read that.
As well as the driving time, the crown had a very suspect witness.
Some little old lady, who swore she saw Lundy running by in the twilight dressed as a woman.
The same old Dear later wrote to the local newspaper, thanking the folks at the hospital after her eye operation, and saying as how she'd been blind as a bat for 60 years...

[Maha]

He still did it... how? only he knows I guess. Probably thought for a while that he had got away with it but, in my opinion, the Police have the right man in this case.

[Oscar]

He still did it... how? only he knows I guess. Probabaly thought for a while that he had got away with it but, in my opinion, the Police have the right man in this case.

I dunno, it looks awfully like the police only ever had one suspect and the case was gonna fit him.

Not the first time they've done that.

[Murray]

He still did it... how? only he knows I guess. Probably thought for a while that he had got away with it but, in my opinion, the Police have the right man in this case.

And what leads you to that conclusion???? Also of note no blood found in the car or any clothes between the house and the where car was supposed to be, yet blood was splattered all over the scene??

I think the police have got the man they"think" did it, and made sure of it. Wisps of Scott Watson me thinks.

[mdnzz]

Arthur Allan Thomas, Peter Ellise? Not saying they stitched Lundy up, but mistakes have been made before and will continue too, they are only human and prone to emotions

[Maha]

I dunno, it looks awfully like the police only ever had one suspect and the case was gonna fit him.

Not the first time they've done that.

You are absolutely right... Thomas/Dougherty etc but...take Watson and Tamahere, now theres two case's that have me in two minds. I really feel that Tamahere killed the Swedes but theres evidence to suggest otherwise. The watch being one, so what if he had their car, makes him a thief not killer.

Watson?.... mmm yeah, dont beleive he's guilty of murder, based on the evidence that has come to light after the fact.

Lundy though....I personally beleive he killed his wife and daughter.
They will need more that a 'time frame' to convince me that he is not.

[Ixion]

Yes. I looked at that distance at the time. And thought "Would a smart man arrange a crime where his alibi depended not only on driving at an average speed that would be VERY difficult to maintain let alone guarantee. But which would also ensure that any cop that saw you would stop you - and then your alibi is toast". Be one HELL of a risk to run.

[Clivoris]

I've always been very suspect of the time they reckon it took to drive to the crime and back again. There is no way someone could have managed that without drawing some serious attention. We never heard about any members of the public saying they remembered being passed at speed. He would have had to hit some big speed on the open road to make up for getting out of town traffic.

[Maha]

Yes. I looked at that distance at the time. And thought "Would a smart man arrange a crime where his alibi depended not only on driving at an average speed that would be VERY difficult to maintain let alone guarantee. But which would also ensure that any cop that saw you would stop you - and then your alibi is toast". Be one HELL of a risk to run.

I think that the police should look closer at his alibi....it is possible that he was not at Petone at all but in Palmerston North the whole time.

[Ixion]

Just so. And as the whole of it depended on no-one knowing he'd driven it, it would have only taken a passing cop , or someone *555ing him, and he's done for. Improbable indeed. And I'd lay money that the cops tried VERY hard to find a witness who would say they saw him driving like a maniac. And, obviously, couldn't

[MSTRS]

His behaviour during the period after being told and being arrested says he did it. Or arranged it to be done.

[Maha]

Just so. And as the whole of it depended on no-one knowing he'd driven it, it would have only taken a passing cop , or someone *555ing him, and he's done for. Improbable indeed. And I'd lay money that the cops tried VERY hard to find a witness who would say they saw him driving like a maniac. And, obviously, couldn't

Thats beacuse it probably did not happen.
Na the Poilce have the right man, they have got it wrong a few times over the years but Lundy (IMO) is where he should be.

The Thomas case?... there are those that firmly beleive Len Demler did it. I dont, I beleive he knew how the Crews died but he didnt kill them. My belief is that it was Murder/Suicide....Janette killed Harvey and a few days later, killed herself.

[Oscar]

I think that the police should look closer at his alibi....it is possible that he was not at Petone at all but in Palmerston North the whole time.

That would not surprise me at all (or the scenario where he pays someone to do it), but the cops couldn't prove it. As I said before, lately the cops seem to find a guy that must have done it, and then present the case to fit that theory.

[Murray]

Thats beacuse it probably did not happen.
Na the Poilce have the right man, they have got it wrong a few times over the years but Lundy (IMO) is where he should be.


You still have not stated why you are so strong in your beliefs. Is it because hes a fat middle aged man???

[Ixion]

Thats beacuse it probably did not happen.
Na the Poilce have the right man, they have got it wrong a few times over the years but Lundy (IMO) is where he should be.

The Thomas case?... there are those that firmly beleive Len Demler did it. I dont, I beleive he knew how the Crews died but he didnt kill them. My belief is that it was Murder/Suicide....Janette killed Harvey and a few days later, killed herself.


I am not all that familiar with the details of the case, I really only noted the improbability of that journey. But my understanding was that the whole police case rested on their argument that he *did* do it? If he didnt do it he wasnt there at all.

[Finn]

Heaps of stuff here. http://www.lundytruth.com

[Maha]

That would not surprise me at all (or the scenario where he pays someone to do it), but the cops couldn't prove it. As I said before, lately the cops seem to find a guy that must have done it, and then present the case to fit that theory.

Beyond reasonable Doubt is all it takes.

I sat on a jury once, we were instructed by the Judge to find the defendant guilty or not guilty of supply of Speed. The accused looked the part, he had drugs on him at the time of the arrest, he had snap lock bags in his brief case, he had a huga amount of cash, he had scales.

We let him go.
Why? because the prosecution could not prove he was a supplier, not to us anyway. The way a case unfolds in a court room is amazing.

[Maha]

You still have not stated why you are so strong in your beliefs. Is it because hes a fat middle aged man???

Nowhere did I say my beliefs are 'strong'....if at some point they quash his conviction then all good, my belief in the case would be wrong. And no, its not because he is a fat middle aged man, its because he wears glasses :clap:

[Oscar]

Beyond reasonable Doubt is all it takes.

I sat on a jury once, we were instructed by the Judge to find the defendant guilty or not guilty of supply of Speed. The accused looked the part, he had drugs on him at the time of the arrest, he had snap lock bags in his brief case, he had a huga amount of cash, he had scales.

We let him go.
Why? because the prosecution could not prove he was a supplier, not to us anyway. The way a case unfolds in a court room is amazing.

Exactly.
So why did this jury find him guilty?

[Maha]

Exactly.
So why did this jury find him guilty?

Because the prosecution had the better case?

Mark Lundys Lawyer must have sucked!!!

[Skunk]

Heaps of stuff here. http://www.lundytruth.com
Link not worky

[Murray]

He still did it... how? , in my opinion, the Police have the right man in this case.


Lundy though....I personally beleive he killed his wife and daughter.
They will need more that a 'time frame' to convince me that he is not.


Thats beacuse it probably did not happen.
Na the Poilce have the right man, they have got it wrong a few times over the years but Lundy (IMO) is where he should be.



Because the prosecution had the better case?

Mark Lundys Lawyer must have sucked!!!

Are you getting confused (I am) they have the right man accordinging to you in the above quotes (Seem pretty strong beliefs to me) and now you state with a reasonable lawyer he should have got off??? Is that because there is doubt??

[Oscar]

Because the prosecution had the better case?

Mark Lundys Lawyer must have sucked!!!

That is my conclusion after reading the article.

[Colapop]

What part of the evidence proves the timeframe accurately?

[Maha]

Are you getting confused (I am) they have the right man accordinging to you in the above quotes (Seem pretty strong beliefs to me) and now you state with a reasonable lawyer he should have got off??? Is that because there is doubt??


No, not all...apologies if you feel confused...

Stop adding words to my mine if you would.
and now you state with a reasonable lawyer he should have got off
Where did you get that from?...I said
Mark Lundys Lawyer must have sucked!!! ...and he must have, because Mark Lundy is doing time for the Murder of his wife and his daughetr.

[Maha]

That is my conclusion after reading the article.

Thank you Oscar....at least you get it!!!....unlike Murray.

[Mully]

Link not worky

Worky for me.

[Murray]

Stop adding words to my mine if you would.
and now you state with a reasonable lawyer he should have got off
Where did you get that from?...I said
Mark Lundys Lawyer must have sucked!!! ...and he must have, because Mark Lundy is doing time for the Murder of his wife and his daughetr.

Entirely my fault interpreting your comment that "Mark Lundys lawyer must have sucked" with me thinking it meant something like if he had a reasonable lawyer he would have got off.

Really don't know how I could have come to that conclusion????

So what did you mean with the sucked comment???

Please enlighten me

[Colapop]

Probably means his lawyer was rubbish. I'd guess that you could infer that if he had a good lawyer he might have got off. But then again he might not have even with a good lawyer. Maybe that's what he meant?

[spudchucka]

Anybody read the North and Saouth article just out? I'm always a bit sus about journalists investigating cases after the trial but sometimes difficult questions arise.

In this case there is one fundamental fact which the prosecution never proved - Mark Lundy's high speed journey from Petone -> Palmerston North -> Petone in 3 hours. Beginning in peak hour traffic. Parking and running 500m, brutally murdering his wife and daughter, grabbing a jewellery box, and running back 500m to the car. All completed in 3 hours.

The police could not duplicate this journey. They did drive fast times outside peak traffic but even then, no time remained to carry out the murders.

Its a bit hard to explain how you got your wife's brain matter on your T-shirt regardless of how fast he may have driven his car. There is nobody more guilty than Mark Lundy.

[JimO]

Its a bit hard to explain how you got your wife's brain matter on your T-shirt regardless of how fast he may have driven his car. There is nobody more guilty than Mark Lundy.

that would be the tshirt that was covered with several other layers of clothing???

[spudchucka]

Probably means his lawyer was rubbish. I'd guess that you could infer that if he had a good lawyer he might have got off. But then again he might not have even with a good lawyer. Maybe that's what he meant?

He was defended by Mike Behrens, who was a very high profile defence lawyer in Palmerston North at the time. He is now a district court judge.

[Murray]

that would be the tshirt that was covered with several other layers of clothing???

And also checked into police safety. And the policeman that went to the site that night unattended and then went into the police evidence room without signing in never touched it??

And the witness who saw him said he had a tie on under his overalls (that mysteriously vanished) and last I knew it was not fashionable to wear ties with tee shirts???

smelly fishies here

[Finn]

I'm going with Spud on this. Mark Lundy murdered his wife and kids.

[Mom]

All the prosecution have to do to get a guilty verdict is to make a case to present to the jury. All the defense have to do is get the jury to have a reasonable doubt about guilt and the verdict is not guilty.

The defense in this case did not present anything that gave the jury room to have a reasonalbe doubt.

GUILTY. Simple really. We have not got the evidence that was [resented in the court to make any informed comment, all we can go on is the media reporting.

[spudchucka]

that would be the tshirt that was covered with several other layers of clothing???

It was found in the boot of his car, presumably with other clothes and personal belongings. Regardless of where it was found how can you explain the presence of your wife's brain matter on your shirt a day after she has been found in her bed with her head and face stoved in?

Any doubt that may have existed due to the questions around the timing of the alleged journey I'm sure would have been totally overshadowed by the presence of this brain matter on his shirt.

[Patrick]

As soon as I saw his "performance" at the funerals on the news, I knew it was him....

There is distraught, and then there was Lundy's "faking it..." There really is a difference.

[Mom]

As soon as I saw his "performance" at the funerals on the news, I knew it was him....

There is distraught, and then there was Lundy's "faking it..." There really is a difference.

And what performance it was too! I am with you all the way here.

[spudchucka]

And also checked into police safety. And the policeman that went to the site that night unattended and then went into the police evidence room without signing in never touched it??

Basic police work mate, anyone that was at the scene does not have contact with exhibits found at any other location. There is no cross contamination in this case, which was proven at the trial.

[Murray]

Any doubt that may have existed due to the questions around the timing of the alleged journey I'm sure would have been totally overshadowed by the presence of this brain matter on his shirt.

Did you not read this re blood matter

http://www.lundytruth.com
__________________

[spudchucka]

Did you not read this re blood matter

http://www.lundytruth.com
__________________

I read through that years ago. I also have intimate knowledge of the entire case that I'm not able to share publicly, nothing there makes a zot of difference to my opinion of this case.

[Winston001]

Regardless of where it was found how can you explain the presence of your wife's brain matter on your shirt a day after she has been found in her bed with her head and face stoved in?

Any doubt that may have existed due to the questions around the timing of the alleged journey I'm sure would have been totally overshadowed by the presence of this brain matter on his shirt.

Good question and pretty damning at the time. It now transpires that the respected Texas scientist who detected neural cells, did so from 6 month old samples. Neural cells won't usually last that long. Futhermore he used a new testing method which had not been peer reviewed or accepted in forensic science.

It sounds like a guy who is highly capable and got carried away with his own innovation. It would be interesting to know if his methodology has been tested elsewhere. The point is, other scientists are incredulous that the tests were done and produced to a Court as 100% correct.

[Laava]

He's just misunderstood!

[Mully]

Heaps of stuff here. http://www.lundytruth.com

That's an interesting read - whether or not he is guilty, reading through that website indicates that his lawyer should certainly have been able to introduce reasonable doubt.

[Murray]

I read through that years ago. I also have intimate knowledge of the entire case that I'm not able to share publicly, nothing there makes a zot of difference to my opinion of this case.

And were others looked at as suspects. Sorry I just believe that theres 2 many grey areas!!

[Maha]

Entirely my fault interpreting your comment that "Mark Lundys lawyer must have sucked" with me thinking it meant something like if he had a reasonable lawyer he would have got off.

Really don't know how I could have come to that conclusion????

So what did you mean with the sucked comment???

Please enlighten me

I will try...
A Defence Lawyers soul objective is to defend the accused (I am sure you will agree on that)
A Defence Lawyer will have a fair idea as to how strong his case is before going into court .
In the Mark Lundy case...the Defence failed to defend his case, proof being, Lundy is in jail, no denying that.
I will however, give a wee bit credit to Lundys Lawyer....must a bastard of a job trying to defend a quilty man, but he gave it a go.

[Finn]

And was the Real estate guy who suicided a couple of weeks later (who was having a relationship with Ms Lundy) ever looked at as a suspect

Real Estate agents stab you in the back, not the front.

[Monie]

He still did it... how? only he knows I guess. Probably thought for a while that he had got away with it but, in my opinion, the Police have the right man in this case.

i agree
have read everyones post and yes he did it that is what i think...

[Mully]

I read through that years ago. I also have intimate knowledge of the entire case that I'm not able to share publicly, nothing there makes a zot of difference to my opinion of this case.

Shouldn't all the information in this case be Public Record now?? Or an I getting confused??

And didn't someone on here say that they (personally) had duplicated the drive he was supposed to have made? (may have been you, spudchucka). Seems one of their key points is that doing the drive, and the murders would be impossible.

[Monie]

but as someone said was he really in petone ...

[Murray]

was he??? A call was made from his cell phone in Petone?? doesnt mean it was him though. Just another grey area

[spudchucka]

Shouldn't all the information in this case be Public Record now?? Or an I getting confused??

Anything that was in the trial and wasn't suppressed will be in the public arena. I'm not necessarily talking about the trial though.

[Maha]

I think that the police should look closer at his alibi....it is possible that he was not at Petone at all but in Palmerston North the whole time.


was he??? A call was made from his cell phone in Petone?? doesnt mean it was him though. Just another grey area

I mentioned that earlier, that piece of evidence probably worked against him. So much for that alibi.

[HenryDorsetCase]

what a defence lawyer does is test the prosecution's case.

These are fundamental concepts to the way we structure our society and the way that the rule of law works. Its a system that works mostly, though being set up and maintained by humans. there are bound to be glitches, cockups and the occasional hilarity.

I am amazed at how often I have to explain this to people but here we go:

an accused person is innocent, until they are proven guilty.

In a criminal proceeding that proof is "beyond reasonable doubt"

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is is they absolutely did it, not "he is more likely than not" to have done it. (i.e. 99% probability, not 51%). Dont get hung up on the number or the 1% its just illustrative: your results may vary)

So in any given criminal proceeding we have the Pleece, who investigate, and then prosecute an accused person (if its serious then the Crown instructs lawyers to do its work for it: these are the Crown Prosecutors and they make out like bandits). That accused person is entitled to a fair trial and in that trial the Judge decides the law, but the jury decides the facts

What the defence lawyer does is try and see if the prosecution's case stands up: to raise that reasonable doubt if you will: lay people think of this as "getting off on a technicality" but in fact it is fundamental to the way the system works. If there is a technicality there to be gotten off on, it means someone has fucked up on the prosecution side, simple as that.

People that i know that do criminal defence work do it not because of their desire to work long hours for little pay, arguing for every bean from the Legal Aid people, but because they do have some concept of wanting the system to work as it should, plus they absolutely live for the challenge of the game. Every time they win, its like the Makos winning the Ranfurly Shield (to adopt a metaphor you all understand but I have no clue about): i.e. the underdog wins.

It really pisses me off when people equate in their minds the criminal defence lawyer with their client. Even the most loathsome client deserves the best defence, because as soon as you don't allow that defence, and as soon as you undermine that system (which has been 500 years in the making) you are undermining some very basic concepts about this society and its structure, without really thinking about it.

Of course, if it is established that some miscreant has committed some heinous act, then the question is what as a society do we do about that? But thats a different debate (and one which you will not be surprised to hear that I have very definite opinions about as well).

The key concept here is that the loss of personal liberty, and sanction by the state is such an imposition on the liberty of its citizens that it is better to have the system "weighted" (if you like) in favour of the defendant.

Now, having said all that, all this rhetoric about "hang em high" and "burn them on sight" and "crush their cars" and whatever is a very long way from the liberal democracy you thought you lived in.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Oh, and Lundy? He did it no question in my mind.

[Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)]

The C*#t did it alright - my ex husband knew him well - the only reason he didn't go to the funeral was he's a workaholic and a selfish prick. Our Friend Al was the one holding Lundy up during his performance - Al is a good guy and was devastated afterwards. Lundy drank very heavily as well, the guy's a big fat loser. I don't believe he was in Petone either. That guy Lundy has always given me the creeps. That is one jury I would have hated to be on.

[skidMark]

he didnt take the car he took a motorbike. thats how.

[Winston001]

Mark Lundys Lawyer must have sucked!!!

Yeah, that's a tempting but hollow call, which HDC has answered eloquently above.

The thing is, one defence lawyer on limited legal aid is up against the whole system. Crown prosecutors, police prosecutors, senior detectives, case officers, CRI scientists, police computer experts, overseas forensic scientists, there is no end to the amount of money and manpower which can be brought against an accused person.

I'm confident Lundy was well represented. If the N&S article is accurate then the defence simply didn't have the ability to question stuff which only now looks unreliable. Hindsight is wonderful.

I should also say that convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is bloody difficult. Try getting 12 people together and make them agree on something. I think Lundy was convicted on the totality of evidence and the brain cells must have been crucial. If they are suspect.......??

[Skyryder]

The real problem with high profile murder cases is that when it comes to experts and differing opinions on evidence the jury in most cases will believe the prosecutions. While there are exceptions to this there are far too many guilty verdicts that later on appear to be doubtfull.

For me the concern is that the law does not seem able or willing to correct it's mistakes. It takes private indaviduals a great deal of time and money not too mention public opinion before the justice system starts taking notes on the possibility of a miscarrage of justice.

By the time this happens those involved are either dead or in retirement and any one who bays for their blood is ridiculed.


Skyryder

[Finn]

The real problem with high profile murder cases is that when it comes to experts and differing opinions on evidence the jury in most cases will believe the prosecutions. While there are exceptions to this there are far too many guilty verdicts that later on appear to be doubtfull.

That's because by the time the accused is on the stand, there's normally a very good reason for it.

[idb]

I read the article and if I'd had that information presented to me on a jury there would certainly have been doubt in my mind.

Wasn't he identified by a prostitute as being in Petone, or is my memory faulty on that?

[HenryDorsetCase]

That's because by the time the accused is on the stand, there's normally a very good reason for it.


Uh, isnt the point of the trial to test whether or not the reasons are good?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Oh, and quite often the accused person is in fact guilty, as it turns out.

Its not like I am some wide eyed idealist fresh out of Lor school, brimming with the milk of human kindness and a crusading desire to help the oppressed. Oh no, I am a cynical grumpy middle aged man just trying to eke out a living until I move into the rest home where I can spend my last days raving about how quick I used to be on a motorbike and how the yoof of today have no respect, until the colostomy bag fills up and I drown, or I run out of cat food and starve to death.

[idb]

.....I am a cynical grumpy middle aged man just trying to eke out a living until I move into the rest home where I can spend my last days raving about how quick I used to be on a motorbike and how the yoof of today have no respect, until the colostomy bag fills up and I drown, or I run out of cat food and starve to death.

We should get together and swap notes!

[Maha]

Yeah, that's a tempting but hollow call, which HDC has answered eloquently above.



I am quilty as charged. :innocent:

[Owl]

As soon as I saw his "performance" at the funerals on the news, I knew it was him....

There is distraught, and then there was Lundy's "faking it..." There really is a difference.

I guess his stage acting never paid off!:no:

[Forest]

The North & South article was very well researched.

The biggest surprise to me was the doubt which has now been placed on the forensic evidence.

[Owl]

Wasn't the suspected murder weapon a hatchet or something?

It was an item Lundy apparently denied ever owning, yet I've spoken to someone that know's for a fact that he owned the item in question! I've just got a shit memory and can't remember exactly what it was.:(

[mikeey01]

In one breath I hear many of you say “Journalists, don't believe / trust a word they say” yet what appears in here seems to be the complete opposite!

Come on we all know journalists will build an article, feature or programme around something, then construct this report, put it out to the public for entertainment or news. Many a media article has developed into healthy discussions, such as this thread. (that's what they are for)

Knowing what modern media is like I'm surprised so many people actually believe whats been written in this N&S article.
Did the journo in this article cover all view points? Cover everything in this case that is fact, allegations made, prime witness statements (both crown and defense) all evidence produced and a complete picture of the case, both for the crown and defence? Does the article appear to be partially biased with lacking information in certain areas or only enough for you to have some doubt?

Modern media have a huge responsibility and un-fortunately a massive influence on the general public, yet they use this in the weirdest way and on some of the stupidest stuff!

You can guarantee tomorrow nights news will be much like tonights, a little bit of shock and ore, some bad stuff, some more bad stuff that's happened somewhere else around the world, followed by some other bad stuff locally, near the end is a feel good story and the weather. Same shit different day.

As for Mark Lundy, he has been judged by a jury of his pairs and found guilty based on the facts and evidence presented, the case was argued and an answer we all know. What we don't know is... was all or some of the evidence presented, time will tell.

[Patrick]

That's an interesting read - whether or not he is guilty, reading through that website indicates that his lawyer should certainly have been able to introduce reasonable doubt.

He did... regularly... Cross contamination of exhibits, planting of the brain matter, Police corruption, you name it... the jury didn't buy it.

[spudchucka]

Wasn't the suspected murder weapon a hatchet or something?

It was an item Lundy apparently denied ever owning, yet I've spoken to someone that know's for a fact that he owned the item in question! I've just got a shit memory and can't remember exactly what it was.:(

The weapon was never found but the wounds indicated that it was a tomahawk or small axe.

Lundy painted all his tools with a blue and orange paint combination. Guess what was found in all the wounds..... blue and orange paint flakes. The paint flakes were matched to the paint on the other tools in his shed and also to the pots of blue and orange paint that were still in his garage.

[ElCoyote]

but as someone said was he really in petone ...

It appears that his penis was but how reliable is a ho. Regardless, I regularly traveled that route and he could not have done it in the time he was alleged to have done should he actually have been bonking firstly. His phone may have been there but was his body. Still too much doubt in my mind and too many alternatives that may not have been investigated in depth.

[pete376403]

He was defended by Mike Behrens, who was a very high profile defence lawyer in Palmerston North at the time. He is now a district court judge.


Wonder if he would have become a d/c judge if he had destroyed the crowns case?
Not suggesting for a minute that he got the job as payment for services rendered or anything. Or that the justice dept likes compliant judges. Or nything like that.

[spudchucka]

Wonder if he would have become a d/c judge if he had destroyed the crowns case?
Not suggesting for a minute that he got the job as payment for services rendered or anything. Or that the justice dept likes compliant judges. Or nything like that.

Why not suggest it, this site often seems to be the home of lame conspiracy theories.

[Deano]

It can take as little as 35 minutes to get from Petone to Waikanae, prob quicker if you drove with no regard at all.

And I know you can get from Waikanae to Palmy in 45 minutes.

[Manxman]

The weapon was never found but the wounds indicated that it was a tomahawk or small axe.

Lundy painted all his tools with a blue and orange paint combination. Guess what was found in all the wounds..... blue and orange paint flakes. The paint flakes were matched to the paint on the other tools in his shed and also to the pots of blue and orange paint that were still in his garage.

I'm neither pro, nor con (no pun intended) on this one....but, does this prove that he wielded the said blue & orange weapons on the night???

Sure, he owned them. Sure, he painted them a weird colour. But how does that prove his actually used them to commit murder?

[pete376403]

driving with no regard tends to get you noticed by cops or concerned citizens. If Lundy was trying to get to P/N to commit murder he would probably not wanted to have get noticed.

[spudchucka]

I'm neither pro, nor con (no pun intended) on this one....but, does this prove that he wielded the said blue & orange weapons on the night???

Sure, he owned them. Sure, he painted them a weird colour. But how does that prove his actually used them to commit murder?

The trial ran for about six weeks from memory so you can rest assured that there was other evidence too.

[Deano]

driving with no regard tends to get you noticed by cops or concerned citizens. If Lundy was trying to get to P/N to commit murder he would probably not wanted to have get noticed.

I'm just saying it's possible to get there and back in the time stated. Not a lot of it is main highway either so less traffic to upset. (Haywards, Piecock and back roads from Levin to Palmy)

[Deano]

The trial ran for about six weeks from memory so you can rest assured that there was other evidence too.

Yeah but this is KB remember.

[riffer]

The weapon was never found but the wounds indicated that it was a tomahawk or small axe.

Lundy painted all his tools with a blue and orange paint combination. Guess what was found in all the wounds..... blue and orange paint flakes. The paint flakes were matched to the paint on the other tools in his shed and also to the pots of blue and orange paint that were still in his garage.

Still doesn't preclude the possibility that someone other than Lundy took one of his tools from his tool shed. The fact that someone's tool was used doesn't necessarily incriminate the owner...

still leaves a possibility he was set up.

[Littleman]

Oh, and quite often the accused person is in fact guilty, as it turns out.

Its not like I am some wide eyed idealist fresh out of Lor school, brimming with the milk of human kindness and a crusading desire to help the oppressed. Oh no, I am a cynical grumpy middle aged man just trying to eke out a living until I move into the rest home where I can spend my last days raving about how quick I used to be on a motorbike and how the yoof of today have no respect, until the colostomy bag fills up and I drown, or I run out of cat food and starve to death.

How do you explain your post # 55 then?

Stepped into a courtroom or ever spoken to a happy victim after 'due process' was done?

Met HART, MANSFIELD or COMESKY have we?

[Manxman]

The trial ran for about six weeks from memory so you can rest assured that there was other evidence too.

Sure. Understand that, but the post suggested that the paint thing was proof in itself.

All good. As we were.:msn-wink:

[White trash]

It really pisses me off when people equate in their minds the criminal defence lawyer with their client. Even the most loathsome client deserves the best defence, because as soon as you don't allow that defence, and as soon as you undermine that system (which has been 500 years in the making) you are undermining some very basic concepts about this society and its structure, without really thinking about it.

Your post is awesome, you have a much better understanding of the law than I do. However, I need to ask this very question of defence lawyers and their ethics if I may (and it's way off topic I'm sorry)

My partner, as a paramedic, was assualted by a patient. The police were already in attendance, as was her colleague. Now during the defence, this low-lifes lawyer puts my partner on the stand and argues that she's a lyer, she's making this up. Because, it's obviously easy to twist your own wrist so violently behind your back as to cause substantial damage requiring 10 months off work and surgery to correct. This smug arsehole even had the audacity to sit next to Sue in the courtroom and try and intimidate her while I was out moving the car.

After he was found quilty, it transpires this piece of shit has at least 7 other convictions of assualt and violence against women! Don't tell me this defence lawyer didn't know this prior. And to imply defence lawyers do their job because they like the challenge and rooting for the under dog is quite frankly disgusting, they're no better than the criminals they represent.

Rest assured, had this fucker been found "not quilty", and in doing so we're made to look like liars, I'd simply take matters into my own hands and shit wouldn't be pretty.

Now back to the issue in discussion, with a slightly different approach. I wonder if perhaps Mr Lundy's legal team knew he was a guilty piece of slime, perhaps they could have had him proven on "reasonable doubt" but realised to do so was a disgusting travesty of justice. And so he rots in jail.

[Winston001]

In one breath I hear many of you say “Journalists, don't believe / trust a word they say” yet what appears in here seems to be the complete opposite!

Come on we all know journalists will build an article, feature or programme around something, then construct this report, put it out to the public for entertainment or news.....

Knowing what modern media is like I'm surprised so many people actually believe whats been written in this N&S article.
Did the journo in this article cover all view points? Cover everything in this case that is fact, ......?

Modern media have a huge responsibility and un-fortunately a massive influence on the general public, yet they use this in the weirdest way and on some of the stupidest stuff!....



Nice post. I think journalists often fail us, particularly on television. Shallow, histrionic, one-sided etc etc. However in the print media, N&S is usually respected and at the high end of the reliability scale, along with the Listener. Counterarguments were given but they were basically outright denials.

I commenced reading the Lundy article as a confirmed cynic.....and ended with a distinct feeling of unease. Unlike the critics I don't blame the police or anyone else - its just maybe they got it wrong this time.

[Skyryder]

I'd need more convincing other than time trip bit.

Does he have a motive? Anyone know on this.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

My partner, as a paramedic, was assaulted by a patient. The police were already in attendance, as was her colleague. Now during the defence, this low-lifes lawyer puts my partner on the stand and argues that she's a liar, she's making this up...... This smug arsehole even had the audacity to sit next to Sue in the courtroom and try and intimidate her while I was out moving the car.

After he was found quilty, it transpires this piece of shit has at least 7 other convictions of assualt and violence against women! Don't tell me this defence lawyer didn't know this prior. And to imply defence lawyers do their job because they like the challenge and rooting for the under dog is quite frankly disgusting, they're no better than the criminals they represent.


If it happened to my wife I'd be just as angry as you. Perfectly understandable.

I'll give it a go. Refer back to Henry's post - don't mistake the lawyer for the client/accused. The person who deserves your anger is the criminal, he's the one who told his lawyer your partner was lying.

Everyone is entitled to a good defence - and to be listened to by his lawyer. Unless a defendant is talking about blue flying saucers and spacemen, he's entitled to have his version of events put before the court. That means cross-examining witnesses and it can be an awful experience for a witness. However usually they know their story will be questioned so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Previous convictions: just because you have 7 speeding tickets in the past does that mean you are automatically guilty from now on? Each charge needs to be proved on its own. The only relevance of previous convictions is at the time of penalty.

Lawyers seldom "know" their clients are guilty - crims don't confess. But if a defendant tells his lawyer he did commit the crime, then his lawyer's hands are bound. He cannot suggest anyone else did the crime, all he can do is question the police evidence and raise a doubt.

[idb]

I'd need more convincing other than time trip bit.

Does he have a motive? Anyone know on this.

Skyryder

Insurance, according to N&S.

[Meanie]

Insurance, according to N&S.

He certainly needed the money, i believe he owed shit loads on a property deal for a vineyard that he couldnt honour because he couldnt pay for it.
He got the insurance money and i believe went out and purchased a Harley and proceeded to show it off all round town. Thats grief for ya

[scumdog]

Still doesn't preclude the possibility that someone other than Lundy took one of his tools from his tool shed. The fact that someone's tool was used doesn't necessarily incriminate the owner...

still leaves a possibility he was set up.

Sure, he COULD have been.

Had that been the only evidence..

[idb]

Sure, he COULD have been.

Had that been the only evidence..

The article's actually worth a read SD.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I'm neither pro, nor con (no pun intended) on this one....but, does this prove that he wielded the said blue & orange weapons on the night???

Sure, he owned them. Sure, he painted them a weird colour. But how does that prove his actually used them to commit murder?


thats the fun of circumstantial evidence. its really easy to pick the eyes out of tiny little bits of it (and we get back to that thing of raising a reasonable doubt again): so the defence team pull on any little thing they can, like you pick at the loose thread in the jumper your Nana knitted you, the defence hopes that by doing that, the whole jersey unravels, and all of a sudden Nana is shouting "You little bastard, I spent ages knitting that, and now this bastard Lundy has gotten off".

But the Crowns process goes:

who benefited from her death at the hands of another (He did: he insured her fairly close to the TOD, but he doesnt collect if he kills her). He was also having money problems (business failing IIRC). The Crown and Pleece first port of call in a murder is the significant other, because, well, lots of times, they did it.....

did they get on OK? were either of them having it off with anyone else?

does another suspect present (we'll take it as read they looked)

what does the scene tell us? (a LOT.. not all CSI stuff is crap, thats where your paint flakes come in, as does the absence of a tool he was known to own, with no explanation as to why it wasnt there, and with wounds on the bodies consistent with the missing weapon.

then you get into what all the players say (which is where his defence basically came from: "I was in Petone banging a hooker"** )

now a jury is presented with ALL this stuff (and presumably some rebuttal from the defence (like the eyewitness: but shes 90 in the shade, and has bad eyes....) Interestingly, eyewitness testimony is about the LEAST reliable testimony there is: I read an article about it in a publication at Uni: (I should have been reading something else but this caught my attention. The results are heavily skewed by the race of the observer and the observed, and it turns out there is some validity to that racist line "All them [insert race here] look alike to me anyway." I digress.)

Anyway, the jury decided as arbiter of the facts that the crown had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Lundy had done it. Thank you and good night. We havent seen anything like what they saw, or heard the countervailing arguments, all we have is some journo with an axe to grind.

My view: He did it. no doubt.



** also: thats his defence? What a guy!

etc etc.

[Gareth51]

Everyone in the Kitchen industry were well and truly sucked in.First thing we heard was via a fax from his supplier about the sad news,we had no reason not to belive him,was always talking about the family when he came into work.We have been to his house to pick up bowls and they always seem like a happy family
He cell phone might have been in Petone but he wasn't and he couldn't run 500m if he tried

[HenryDorsetCase]

Wonder if he would have become a d/c judge if he had destroyed the crowns case?
Not suggesting for a minute that he got the job as payment for services rendered or anything. Or that the justice dept likes compliant judges. Or nything like that.

and yet a cynic might think that was exactly what you meant, you twat.

[spudchucka]

Sure. Understand that, but the post suggested that the paint thing was proof in itself.

All good. As we were.:msn-wink:

It is proof, just not conclusive proof in isolation of other evidence.

[Lucy]

That would not surprise me at all (or the scenario where he pays someone to do it), but the cops couldn't prove it. As I said before, lately the cops seem to find a guy that must have done it, and then present the case to fit that theory.

Lately? Haven't they always done that?

[idb]

thats the fun of circumstantial evidence. its really easy to pick the eyes out of tiny little bits of it (and we get back to that thing of raising a reasonable doubt again): so the defence team pull on any little thing they can, like you pick at the loose thread in the jumper your Nana knitted you, the defence hopes that by doing that, the whole jersey unravels, and all of a sudden Nana is shouting "You little bastard, I spent ages knitting that, and now this bastard Lundy has gotten off".

That goes both ways of course

[spudchucka]

I'd need more convincing other than time trip bit.

Does he have a motive? Anyone know on this.

Skyryder

He was a million or so in the cart over some vineyard deal that never paid off. A week or so before the murders they increased their life insurance to $500,000. They had tried to boost it to a million or more but got turned down because they were both so unhealthy, (fat).

[HenryDorsetCase]

How do you explain your post # 55 then?

Stepped into a courtroom or ever spoken to a happy victim after 'due process' was done?

Met HART, MANSFIELD or COMESKY have we?

Its quite long because I tried to explain it all there. I was talking about how the system is designed and what it tries to do. you will see if you read it that I also acknowledge it is designed and operated by fallible humans.

I don't do court work. there is no money in it. I have, however, some knowledge of our legal system, its origins and present structure, which I was trying to impart. Part of that "ivory tower" I spent so long in so I could escape the "real world".

Your use of the term "happy" victim presupposes an answer and suggests you might have an axe to grind.

I have not met Barry Hart, or Messrs Mansfield or Comesky.

what is your point in asking?

[scumdog]

That goes both ways of course

From my experience the defence know all the evidence the prosecution is going to present and how to rebutt it.

But converesely the prosecution has no real idea what lines of defence will be presented by the defence and how to counter it..

[idb]

From my experience the defence know all the evidence the prosecution is going to present and how to rebutt it.

But converesely the prosecution has no real idea what lines of defence will be presented by the defence and how to counter it..

True or not, but according to the article it was the evidence that the prosecution didn't present that puts the verdict into question.

[HenryDorsetCase]

He was a million or so in the cart over some vineyard deal that never paid off. A week or so before the murders they increased their life insurance to $500,000. They had tried to boost it to a million or more but got turned down because they were both so unhealthy, (fat).


THAT's right. I thought I remembered something like that.

IIRC the Crowns case was that he pretended to be in Petone to establish an alibi, popped back home, offed the wife, daughter walks in, she is old enough to remember (6 I think) and dob him in, so he offed her as well, zips back to Petone, then comes home Ohhh Ahhhh my family has been kilt.

[pete376403]

He was a million or so in the cart over some vineyard deal that never paid off. A week or so before the murders they increased their life insurance to $500,000. They had tried to boost it to a million or more but got turned down because they were both so unhealthy, (fat).

Nice spin but not exactly correct, according to this:
http://www.lundytruth.com/northandsouth.html
"Guerin’s insurance argument was largely refuted in Court. If Lundy has to come up with $3.5 million (his figure) in finance, how would $200,000 help? Lundy had issued a proper prospectus through the Public Trustee seeking investors, and he was way, way more than $200,000 short. He also asks if the increased insurance was “a premeditated action”. The increase in insurance was at the instigation and recommendation of the broker. The broker phoned the Lundy’s, not vice versa. The broker recommended that the Lundy’s increase their cover from $200k to $1 million. The Lundy’s said no because they couldn’t afford the monthly premium. (Thought: why would Lundy be worried about the monthly premium if he was planning to collect all the loot when he murdered Christine?). It was agreed with the broker that the policy be increased to $500k. The increase had not been accepted at the time of the murders"

and

"The motive alleged was that Mark was in serious financial trouble, and murdered his wife for the insurance money.

In actual fact,

When the company Marchris Enterprises was wound up, there was sufficient money to pay all creditors, with some debtors uncollected.

The Salu Vino project had investor's money secured in a trust account without any deductions.

The land he was trying to purchase for the vineyard project fell through without him being committed for the $2,000,000 purchase at Maraekakaho in Hawkes Bay.

The insurance policy increase was not at Mark's request, and nor was he the person that instigated any claim on the policy"

[scumdog]

So, at the end of the day who else would have benefitted from the deaths??

[riffer]

True or not, but according to the article it was the evidence that the prosecution didn't present that puts the verdict into question.

No obligation for prosecution to present all evidence. They present everything they think they need to secure a prosecution. Better to keep it simple. The defence will do their best to obfuscate anyway.

[Jantar]

It can take as little as 35 minutes to get from Petone to Waikanae, prob quicker if you drove with no regard at all.

And I know you can get from Waikanae to Palmy in 45 minutes.

OK, so that leaves him 20 minutes to dress as a woman, put on overalls, run 500 meters, get an axe from his shed, enter the house, kill hi swife, kill his daughter, run 500 meters, take off the overalls take off the female clothes, dispose of the weapon, the overalls and the clothes. That is some doing. Then it begs the questions about the tie and T-shirt.

On the evidence given, I would have to vote "Not Guilty", although my gut reaction is "Guilty". There is just too much doubt, and all evidence is either circumstantial or un-verified (eg the brain matter).

[idb]

No obligation for prosecution to present all evidence. They present everything they think they need to secure a prosecution. Better to keep it simple. The defence will do their best to obfuscate anyway.

True, but much of the evidence and scenarios (according to the article) were of dubious worth.
Fair enough that this should have been picked up by the defense but it still suggests that the conviction may be dodgy.

[SixPackBack]

From my experience the defence know all the evidence the prosecution is going to present and how to rebutt it.

But converesely the prosecution has no real idea what lines of defence will be presented by the defence and how to counter it..

From my experience both the prosecution and the defence play a figurative game of 'hide and seek' in order to win. The truth is the first thing to suffer.

An observation [not a dig] about the comments from KB coppers when threads such as these come up, either:

Extra information is available to you we do not see and you do not comment on, OR
You take the side of the prosecution through feelings of solidarity, Or [and most likely]
Dealing with low life leads to you adopting an extremely cynical view of the world.
Another comment!

To those that have never been to court:
Recently I attended court over a minor speeding ticket and found that while the Judge, Police and Lawyers acted in a manner that seemed appropriate, the courts practices with information management are mired in the 15 century. Information is lost, defendents have not been informed of their court date, the affected copper is not there........generally every case I observed was a paper mess with court officials, police, defence etc all acting out a merry dance of confusion. The court system is as much about creating work and money as it is about truth and justice.

[James Deuce]

The court system is as much about creating work and money as it is about truth and justice.
What about the American Way?

[Beemer]

Read the article last night and found it quite fascinating, especially the bit about four suspects who were only able to give one alibi (not quite sure what they meant by requiring two...) and that a total of 30 people were originally suspects. There seems to be quite a bit of evidence concealment and/or confusion and the expert DNA witness doesn't have many people agreeing with him.

I always thought he was guilty, but after reading this, I do have a few doubts. I think the fairest thing would be to have a retrial and present all this new or concealed evidence and see what the outcome is.

The time frame has always seemed dodgy to me - I live north of Levin and it takes me about an hour and a quarter to get to Lower Hutt if there is little traffic, and 30 minutes minimum to get to PN from here, so it certainly didn't leave him any room for error.

[Deano]

OK, so that leaves him 20 minutes to dress as a woman, put on overalls, run 500 meters, get an axe from his shed, enter the house, kill hi swife, kill his daughter, run 500 meters, take off the overalls take off the female clothes, dispose of the weapon, the overalls and the clothes. That is some doing. Then it begs the questions about the tie and T-shirt.

On the evidence given, I would have to vote "Not Guilty", although my gut reaction is "Guilty". There is just too much doubt, and all evidence is either circumstantial or un-verified (eg the brain matter).

I don't know whether he did it or not. I don't know half the facts of the case so am not prepared to speculate. I do know that the distance travelled in that time is more than possible.

Could he have put the dress on before he left ? I don't know.

But were any of the bush lawyers in here actually in court watching and listening to proceedings and all the evidence ?

If not, pure speculation on their part.

And circumstantial evidence is legitimate by the way. Several threads of circumstantial evidence can weigh up to a guilty verdict.

Oh - ask any crim behind bars the question and at least 90% are innocent......bwahahaha

[Winston001]

That would not surprise me at all (or the scenario where he pays someone to do it), but the cops couldn't prove it. As I said before, lately the cops seem to find a guy that must have done it, and then present the case to fit that theory.

Ah yes, the Theory of the Case. Originally an American jurisprudential idea, there are whole books dedicated to the concept of understanding criminal acts. That is because it works.

The police and the Crown develop a theory from the known facts about the crime. That theory points to the most likely offender. If the offender doesn't have an alibi or excuse, then he is going to be the prime suspect. However there won't be charges without evidence and the Case Theory remains a best guess.

Nothing wrong with the police loking hard at Lundy. Most crimes against the person are committed by someone the victim knows. The idea that we are all at risk from maniacal strangers is a myth.

The police had about 30 "persons of interest" but eventually Lundy came out on top. Even so, the doubts raised in the article are worrying.

Incidentally, its not obvious that exculpatory evidence was hidden from the Court. A couple of police notebooks were missed, not a good look, but not exactly critical. The biggest questions arise over the scientific evidence and the time frame.

And Lundy wasn't bonking the prostitute at the time of the murder, or even shortly after. He's supposed to have returned to Petone by 8:30pm and called the lady of the night at 11:00pm.

[DougieNZ]

I always read these things with interest..

Watson
Bain
Lundy

etc

Generally the story will select certain pieces of evidence and use them out of context in an attempt to discredit the WHOLE prosecution case. I have never seen any of these articles list the evidence that would count against the defendant.

What they forget (and what we all should remember) is that a unanimous decision was made by a jury in there cases. This isn't a group of police officers, media representatives or lawyers. They are ordinary people who listen to and weigh ALL the evidence before coming to a decision. not just pick out bits that suit them and ignore the rest.

What about the brain matter belonging to the deceased found on Lundy's clothing? Anyone want to comment on that?

In the Bain case... you have just found your whole family dead. What is the first thing you would do?

1. Yell for help
2. Go to a neighbour
3. Dial 111

or

4. Put your clothing in the washing machine and turn it on

I would put it to you that most normal people would do 1-3

The question is - why did Bain do 4?

There is also the fact that Bain had injuries consistent to being in a fight with his brother - his father did not. Bain was also the only one who had a key for the trigger lock on the gun.

Now the police in these cases very rarely comment. But they do and will get their day in court.

[Mully]

What about the brain matter belonging to the deceased found on Lundy's clothing? Anyone want to comment on that?


This was a really good post - with regard to this point, go have a look at www.lundytruth.com, they explain their theory about this.

Also, does anyone have the N&S article? I don't want to buy the magazine to get a look.

[Murray]

I do know that the distance travelled in that time is more than possible.


Not when leaving Wellington in a car between 5.00 and 5.30pm on a working day.

As per returning according to the link that has been put up numerous times he would have had to average 132kms per hour to get back. Tell me how that is possible???

[Maha]

The question is - why did Bain do 4?


Perhaps he didn't kill 4.
Perhaps he only killed one.
If the police charged him with the murder of his father (which is understandable and the most likely senario) then maybe he would still be behind bars?
They charged him killing the whole family, which is probably not correct.

[DougieNZ]

This was a really good post - with regard to this point, go have a look at www.lundytruth.com (http://www.lundytruth.com), they explain their theory about this.

Also, does anyone have the N&S article? I don't want to buy the magazine to get a look.

Yes.. and that is the whole point. It is another theory that has never been put before a jury. Nor have the prosecution been given the oppurtunity to refute it! But I'll bet it sells magazines!

The other Theory is that is was brain matter and he was guilty! :yes:

[DougieNZ]

Not when leaving Wellington in a car between 5.00 and 5.30pm on a working day.

As per returning according to the link that has been put up numerous times he would have had to average 132kms per hour to get back. Tell me how that is possible???

Eye Witness: "As soon as I saw the picture of Mark LUNDY on the television it caught my eye and I immediately recognised him as the person I had seen running. I am certain that the male person I saw running on Rhodes Drive towards Hillcrest Drive at 7.15pm on Tuesday the 29th of August 2000 was Mark LUNDY."


Much has been made of the timing thing...

But, once again, this evidence was put behind a jury. The defence argued that it couldn't be done - in front of the jury. The jury rejected the defence argument - why?

How do we know that the recording s of all the times were/are accurate? How do we know that LUNDY made the phone call in Petone? We know it was his phonme, but how do we KNOW it was him that made the call? How do we know that the eye witness had her times right.

Why would she lie about saying that it was Lundy she saw?

Once again - there is another "theory". IT WAS LUNDY!

[Deano]

Not when leaving Wellington in a car between 5.00 and 5.30pm on a working day.

As per returning according to the link that has been put up numerous times he would have had to average 132kms per hour to get back. Tell me how that is possible???

Did you see him try ? It may be improbable, granted.

Stranger things have happened - thats all I have to say.

[Winston001]

Much has been made of the timing thing...

But, once again, this evidence was put behind a jury. The defence argued that it couldn't be done - in front of the jury. The jury rejected the defence argument - why?


Good posts and generally I agree with you. The trouble is, on rare occasions people are wrongfully convicted. Nothing wrong with us considering new arguments.

Juries are human, they get tired, confused, and emotional. This was a 6 week trial. The Crown case was strong with a mass of scientific evidence. It was a bloody and nasty murder for which someone needed to be convicted. The jury would not remember every point made and may have felt compelled by the size of the Crown case to convict.

Hopefully the Listener will publish a counter-article, just as they did with Scott Watson.

[HenryDorsetCase]

What was the evidence that established the three hour timeframe in which Lundy was AWOL? (not fishing, I dont know): i am going to go buy that North and south though (and lets not forget: the objective of the magazine is to SELL MAGAZINES.......) the new ed wants to crusade on this case because they had a (justified as it turns out) win in the Docherty case.

Here is another thought: the fact that errors and injustices occur in some (hopefully small) percentage of cases is almost a given (because this is a fallible system designed built and maintained by fallible people... they dont TRY and get it wrong, but sometimes it happens.)

But the fact that years later people can pick up the cudgels, can crusade, can nit-pick and can perhaps get a re-trail and get an injustice corrected is PROOF THAT THE SYSTEM IN FACT WORKS.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Actually it seems that the whole timeline is critical. Who was where when, what happened at what time seems to be critical to the whole case.

Some of the stuff on that Lundy site is ludicrous. (like "How do they know it wasnt some P-head on a robbery gone bad"? without dealing with any of the evidence pointing to Lundy)

[Winston001]

Actually it seems that the whole timeline is critical. Who was where when, what happened at what time seems to be critical to the whole case.

Some of the stuff on that Lundy site is ludicrous. (like "How do they know it wasnt some P-head on a robbery gone bad"? without dealing with any of the evidence pointing to Lundy)

Yes, I think his defence made a tactical mistake in alleging deliberate police contamination of evidence regarding the neural cells. His case isn't helped now by looney explanations. They don't need a conspiracy or any dishonesty, simply focus on the science - and the journey.

Can't remember why the Crown accepted he was in Petone at 5:30pm and at 8:30pm but they did. It would have helped the Crown case to say that someone else used Lundy's phone because that gave him more time. They didn't.

[Mully]

Well, he looks a bit dodgy in this photo

"yes, I'm coming to murder you"

[Beemer]

How do we know that the recording s of all the times were/are accurate? How do we know that LUNDY made the phone call in Petone? We know it was his phonme, but how do we KNOW it was him that made the call? How do we know that the eye witness had her times right.

That's a good point - we only have his word for the fact he spoke to his wife and daughter and now they are dead, we have no way of knowing if he paid someone to make a call from his phone or whether he really did make the call himself.

I do think there are some things that perhaps need a closer look, but I agree with the person who said these stories always paint the convicted person in a favourable light and rarely mention "oh, by the way, he MAY have done it because of this, that and the other".

After seeing juries in action (by serving on one myself) I do question the ability of your 'peers' deciding your fate. On the case I was judging, one elderly lady who only appeared to be there for the biscuits said the white accused MUST be guilty because he was hanging around with MAORIS...

[jrandom]

... one elderly lady who only appeared to be there for the biscuits said the white accused MUST be guilty because he was hanging around with MAORIS...

Fair call.

What sort of biscuits did they have?

[Beemer]

Fair call.

What sort of biscuits did they have?

Nothing flash from memory, maybe chocolate wheaten? It's a wonder she ate them in that case, as they were covered with DARK chocolate!

[jrandom]

Nothing flash from memory, maybe chocolate wheaten? It's a wonder she ate them in that case, as they were covered with DARK chocolate!

Dark chocolate isn't grossly overrepresented in NZ's crime statistics.

She wasn't talking about colour; she was talking about social reality.

[Mully]

On the case I was judging, one elderly lady who only appeared to be there for the biscuits said the white accused MUST be guilty because he was hanging around with MAORIS...

That's the burden of proof, isn't it?

And was the "elderly lady" you? C'mon, you can tell us.

[Beemer]

Dark chocolate isn't grossly overrepresented in NZ's crime statistics.

She wasn't talking about colour; she was talking about social reality.

I beg to disagree - do you have ANY idea how many thighs it's fattened?

[jrandom]

I beg to disagree - do you have ANY idea how many thighs it's fattened?

If being fat ever becomes a criminal offence, I'm emigrating.

Anyway, it's much better for you than milk chocolate.

[Beemer]

That's the burden of proof, isn't it?

And was the "elderly lady" you? C'mon, you can tell us.

You cheeky bastard! Nope, at that stage she was the one in the nylon dress and I was the one in leathers... that's probably reversed now, but that's beside the point!

[Mully]

You cheeky bastard!

Guilty as charged.

Unless the forensic evidence can be challenged. In which case, "It wasn't me, it was the one-armed man"

[Maha]

After seeing juries in action (by serving on one myself) I do question the ability of your 'peers' deciding your fate. On the case I was judging, one elderly lady who only appeared to be there for the biscuits said the white accused MUST be guilty because he was hanging around with MAORIS...


An earlier post of mine was about a jury that I was once involving a drug case.
There was this lady right,
At our very first recess she said '' I dont care what they say out there, hes quilty in my books, I had a nephew die from drugs''.

We had a show of hands so the foreman could get an idea of where we all were with it at that time.

That lady was very set in her ways and wasn't going to change her mind, even though those who had earlier voted guilty, had now voted the other way.
She eventually changed her mind and we could all go home....

[Beemer]

An earlier post of mine was about a jury that I was once involving a drug case.

This was a drug case too, he was charged with 'aiding and abetting the sale of class [whatever class cannabis is] drugs to an off-duty police officer, code named Brownie" - he was a big Maori guy! But as far as this woman was concerned, before she'd even heard any evidence, he was guilty because he hung around with 'that lot'.

It's quite scary that you can't legislate or protect people from prejudice - no matter what form it takes - race, age, gender, what the charge is (such as drugs when they have lost someone to drugs), etc.

[SixPackBack]

What about the American Way?

You really think our system is measurably better?

[peasea]

That's the burden of proof, isn't it?

And was the "elderly lady" you? C'mon, you can tell us.

Mmmm, elderly ladies.......mmm

[Beemer]

Mmmm, elderly ladies.......mmm

Shit, now I'm REALLy pleased I'm not an elderly lady... well, not until March 3...

[James Deuce]

You really think our system is measurably better?Awwww! It's Superman's catch phrase, you big silly!

"Fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American way!"

[peasea]

Shit, now I'm REALLy pleased I'm not an elderly lady... well, not until March 3...

That's a Tuesday, I'm free.

[Lucy]

I always read these things with interest..

Watson
Bain
Lundy

etc
.

Hey, those guys are all white! Does anyone take an interest in brown guys and whether they did or didn't 'do it'?

[jrandom]

Hey, those guys are all white! Does anyone take an interest in brown guys and whether they did or didn't 'do it'?

Have you ever met a brown guy who didn't do it?

[Lucy]

Have you ever met a brown guy ?

You're funny

[Beemer]

That's a Tuesday, I'm free.

Damn, I'm not, just ask my husband, he says I'm bloody expensive!

[MsKABC]

Bump.

So....the doco on TV suggests a time of death in the early hours of the morning, meaning it's completely feasible Lundy could have done it. It fits with other evidence too.

Looks like the right man is in jail.

[Jantar]

Maybe. But that hypothesis was not presented to the jury. So on the evidence presented it would still have to be Not Guilty.

[MsKABC]

Maybe. But that hypothesis was not presented to the jury. So on the evidence presented it would still have to be Not Guilty.

There was other very damning evidence though. The jury obviously felt it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the return trip from Wgtn to Palmy in that timeframe wasn't impossible.

[Jantar]

If the journey "wasn't impossible" why has no-one else been able to travel the distance in the time, and still be able to run 2 x 500m trips and change their clothes?

Unless we were on the jury (which I wasn't) we can only go on the court evidence as presented in the media. That evidence leaves a lot of doubt. Just before tonight's program I commented to my wife that if it had been presented that the murders occurred between 3:00 and 4:00 am then I would find a guilty verdict much more plausible, but that wasn't sugested, and the defence were not able to refute it, so we are left with an impossible drive, run, murder, change of clothes, dispose of evidence, all in under 3 hours.

[Winston001]

Agreed Jantar.

But. There is an uncomfortable fact about crime which we aren't really aware of. We are so used to tv detectives rolling out full solutions in an hour. I'm told by experienced criminal lawyers and police officers that in many cases there are unanswered loose ends. Illogical pieces which don't fit. Naturally the defence try to lever these to gain a reasonable doubt.

Ultimately the jury hear and see the evidence. It takes a helleva lot to pursuade 12 people to agree on anything. Anything. Try it sometime - two people are all you need for complete disagreement.

So, a jury looks at the totality of evidence and if it overwhelms the unanswered bits, then they will convict. Its beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100% certainty.

I've swung back to believing Lundy was safely convicted. And if the pathologist was wrong about the time of death, that is bad news for Lundy.

[MsKABC]

If the journey "wasn't impossible" why has no-one else been able to travel the distance in the time, and still be able to run 2 x 500m trips and change their clothes?

Unless we were on the jury (which I wasn't) we can only go on the court evidence as presented in the media. That evidence leaves a lot of doubt. Just before tonight's program I commented to my wife that if it had been presented that the murders occurred between 3:00 and 4:00 am then I would find a guilty verdict much more plausible, but that wasn't sugested, and the defence were not able to refute it, so we are left with an impossible drive, run, murder, change of clothes, dispose of evidence, all in under 3 hours.

Apparently the jury were instructed that they should not consider the crown's case to be totally dependant on the plausibility of that 3 hour trip. (Or words to that effect - I can't remember what was said exactly.)

Like the doco maker said: Maybe Lundy does deserve a retrial, but it looks pretty certain he did it, so I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[davereid]

Police almost blew this one.

They got hung up on the opinion of a pathologist that the time of death was 7pm, and focussed the balance of the investigation around this belief.

If we accept the time of death was 7pm then we have to accept that Lundy is amongst the world best drivers.

We also have to accept that he was able to budgeon his little girl 7 times, then, an hour later put it out of his mind, and have sex.

I'm afraid that for me at least, images of my hacked up wife and daughter would fill my mind, rather than the images of titties that make sex a runner !

Had I been on the jury, I would have found him not guilty.

Police never considered a different time of death, as they just accepted the pathologists estimate as accurate.

However had they given the jury a WINDOW of time, then Lundy could easily have done it.

I think the judge saw that, and was trying to tell the jury "don't get hung up on the three hour thing".

IMHO the right man has been convicted, but it was sloppy work by the pathologist that almost gave him an exit route.

[Jantar]

Apparently the jury were instructed that they should not consider the crown's case to be totally dependant on the plausibility of that 3 hour trip. (Or words to that effect - I can't remember what was said exactly.)

Like the doco maker said: Maybe Lundy does deserve a retrial, but it looks pretty certain he did it, so I'm not losing any sleep over it.
This is another one of those cases where the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" would be appropriate. It means the defendent is probably guilty, but there is just one or two points that stand out and need to be proved. The defendent can be called back to trial should that proof or further evidence come to light, and the defendant can recall the trial if he has further evidence to establish his innocence.

[Headbanger]

Put a bullet in the back of his head and all the thousand shades of grey become redundant.

Let people debate the Scottish fluff over his grave.

[korimako1]

Well, lots of people here think ML is guilty but now we have a police officer who deliberately withheld evidence, for 12 years, that quite clearly sheds doubt on the brain tissue evidence. Privy Council accepts hearing. Crown admitted evidence should have been disclosed and wasnt. A dodgy conviction. so many people here willing to believe all the bad stuff that the media threw out there with scant regard to the truth. The defence team werent up to it because of the complex nature of the science and of course they were MISLEAD by police.
Will everyone here recant their opinions or hang on to half truths, rumours, lies and misinformation to satisfay their, I must be right egos.

[Banditbandit]

Naaa .. so one small piece of evidence that was not crucial has been found to be flawed ...

Lundy did it ...

[scissorhands]

brand new member
diversion tactics

[scumdog]

:rolleyes::corn::corn::violin:

[Virago]

...Will everyone here recant their opinions or hang on to half truths, rumours, lies and misinformation to satisfay their, I must be right egos.

No. He did it.

[Maha]

He is not innocent, just like that other stupid looking prick.

[Banditbandit]

He is not innocent, just like that other stupid looking prick.

Scott Watson ???

[Maha]

Yeah probably.

[Gremlin]

brand new member
diversion tactics
At least the person is in NZ.... Rotorua / BOP area.

[Crasherfromwayback]

There was other very damning evidence though. The jury obviously felt it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the return trip from Wgtn to Palmy in that timeframe wasn't impossible.


If the journey "wasn't impossible" why has no-one else been able to travel the distance in the time, and still be able to run 2 x 500m trips and change their clothes?

.

I can 100% honestly state that it is indeed quite possible. I've driven a Holden Commodore complete with a trailer carrying two motorcycles from Lower Hutt (basically Petone) to Palmerston North in 1 hour 10 mins. My guess is he drove like a lunatic on the way there (if he got busted he hadn't committed a serious crime at that point), so as to be able to take it a lil easier on the way home once the crime had been committed. He had no way of explaining the full fuel tank being empty the day after filling it and only driving a very short distance. But you'd certainly use a full tank doing that trip.

[Crasherfromwayback]

We also have to accept that he was able to budgeon his little girl 7 times, then, an hour later put it out of his mind, and have sex.

.

You mean like how he was putting on such an act at the funeral when the camera's were on him...yet when he got what he thought to be out of sight he perked right on up and looked almost happy? That sort of guy?+ It's well known that a burglar may hit the home owner once or twice in the head with a tommahawk...but to do so some 20 odd times (wannit) show's hate and purpose. I don't for a min believe he planned on killing his daughter. BUt I think she caught him in the act and disguise or not would've know it was him. So she had to go too.

[Mom]

You mean like how he was putting on such an act at the funeral when the camera's were on him...

I think that is what sealed my mind on his guilt frankly. Impossible to be that animated while totally consumed by your grief. Yes, you cry, and yes you can smile, and laugh, but that looked to me like an amateur
theatre version of what overwhelming grief looks like.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I think that is what sealed my mind on his guilt frankly. Impossible to be that animated while totally consumed by your grief. Yes, you cry, and yes you can smile, and laugh, but that looked to me like an amateur
theatre version of what overwhelming grief looks like.

Wasn't even good enough for Shortland St. Didn't he have hookers again right after the funeral?

[Drew]

I think that is what sealed my mind on his guilt frankly. Impossible to be that animated while totally consumed by your grief. Yes, you cry, and yes you can smile, and laugh, but that looked to me like an amateur
theatre version of what overwhelming grief looks like.Been trying to read up a bit before I spout off the last couple days, this is what I found regarding this specific part of his behavior.

Criminal psychologist Nigel Latta reviewed Mark Lundy's behaviour at the funeral, and noted need to be physically supported by two friends as he emerged towards the hearse, noting that he exhibited signs of what Latta described as "limb-specific grief", in which Lundy's arms were able to carry his weight, but not his legs. Latta described this behaviour by Lundy as a "wilful and deliberate act of deception".

But it's possible he was feeling completely numb, legitimately I suppose. Put on that bullshit act out of not knowing what he was meant to do?

I dunno, I wasn't there.

[Drew]

Closer inspection.

Brain matter on his shirt, that was meant to still be inside his wife's head. Proved later than original pathology, in Texas of all places.

Mutherfucker did it!

[Mom]

But it's possible he was feeling completely numb, legitimately I suppose. Put on that bullshit act out of not knowing what he was meant to do?

I dunno, I wasn't there.

I was not there either, but I can comment on devastating grief. I have seen what happens to someone that has lost the love of their lives. I have supported them at the funerals of their mates. Twice. Both handled things completely differently, but were both bereft, utterly bereft. One male, one female. I have witnessed that total melt down, it sounds and looks so much different.


Numb grief makes you very considered in your behaviour in my own experience of it. Just get through what needs to be done, let go completely on your own, or in the company, or with the support of people that care.

I heard what Nigel Latter said about Lundy too.

I was not on the jury, but happy to call him guilty as charged and convicted!

[Drew]

I was not there either, but I can comment on devastating grief. I have seen what happens to someone that has lost the love of their lives. I have supported them at the funerals of their mates. Twice. Both handled things completely differently, but were both bereft, utterly bereft. One male, one female. I have witnessed that total melt down, it sounds and looks so much different.

Bloody melt downs.

Maori women who wail like all fuck at funerals? I mean, they go all out!

Now it always looks fake to me, but it's not like I can ever ask them about it. So I still don't know.

[awa355]

Bloody melt downs.

Maori women who wail like all fuck at funerals? I mean, they go all out!

Now it always looks fake to me, but it's not like I can ever ask them about it. So I still don't know.

No one can hold a candle to the North Koreans when it comes to PC grieving.

I guess people all have their own ways of handling death.

[korimako1]

Naaa .. so one small piece of evidence that was not crucial has been found to be flawed ...

Lundy did it ...

that small piece of evidence WAS the only thing that was crucial, and now we know it was flawed. all the rest was circumstantial and a load of smoke and mirrors by the cops. Hope you never have to judge me. near enough is good enough, jail for life, thanks mate.

[korimako1]

I've always been very suspect of the time they reckon it took to drive to the crime and back again. There is no way someone could have managed that without drawing some serious attention. We never heard about any members of the public saying they remembered being passed at speed. He would have had to hit some big speed on the open road to make up for getting out of town traffic.

yes i saw it said somewhere he must have AVERAGED speeds in excess of 150 kmph. impossible. V8 supercars cant even do that around pukekohe. To average 150 speeds in excess if 230kmph would have to be achieved in a car governed to max 180. its a load of rubbish.

[Crasherfromwayback]

yes i saw it said somewhere he must have AVERAGED speeds in excess of 150 kmph. impossible. .

See post #164

[korimako1]

Thats beacuse it probably did not happen.
Na the Poilce have the right man, they have got it wrong a few times over the years but Lundy (IMO) is where he should be.

The Thomas case?... there are those that firmly beleive Len Demler did it. I dont, I beleive he knew how the Crews died but he didnt kill them. My belief is that it was Murder/Suicide....Janette killed Harvey and a few days later, killed herself.

do you know what reasonble doubt is?

[korimako1]

Exactly.
So why did this jury find him guilty?

because they werent presented with the FACTS and the defence were MISLEAD by the police. the defence then had to make concessions which were totally wrong, and then a MISINFORMED jury made a decision on emotions not FACT.

[korimako1]

Because the prosecution had the better case?

Mark Lundys Lawyer must have sucked!!!

Mark Lundys lawyers were mislead by the Police. non disclosure is illegal.

[Drew]

yes i saw it said somewhere he must have AVERAGED speeds in excess of 150 kmph. impossible. V8 supercars cant even do that around pukekohe. To average 150 speeds in excess if 230kmph would have to be achieved in a car governed to max 180. its a load of rubbish.

Average speed needed to be 117kph I think you'll find.

[unstuck]

Mark Lundys lawyers were mislead by the Police. non disclosure is illegal.

Katman is that you?:laugh::Punk::Punk:

[korimako1]

Its a bit hard to explain how you got your wife's brain matter on your T-shirt regardless of how fast he may have driven his car. There is nobody more guilty than Mark Lundy.

we now know its not brain tissue. Privy Council june 2013.

[korimako1]

I will try...
A Defence Lawyers soul objective is to defend the accused (I am sure you will agree on that)
A Defence Lawyer will have a fair idea as to how strong his case is before going into court .
In the Mark Lundy case...the Defence failed to defend his case, proof being, Lundy is in jail, no denying that.
I will however, give a wee bit credit to Lundys Lawyer....must a bastard of a job trying to defend a quilty man, but he gave it a go.

lundys lawyers were MISINFORMED by Police withholding documents, illegal acts by Police. nondisclosure. FACT.

[Katman]

The weapon was never found but the wounds indicated that it was a tomahawk or small axe.

Lundy painted all his tools with a blue and orange paint combination. Guess what was found in all the wounds..... blue and orange paint flakes. The paint flakes were matched to the paint on the other tools in his shed and also to the pots of blue and orange paint that were still in his garage.

I am gob-smacked that you could suggest that that is any sort of conclusive proof.

It merely suggests that the murder weapon came from the Lundy's shed. Anyone could have been into the shed prior to entering the house. The implement used may have even already been inside the house.

Please tell me your statement isn't indicative of the investigative skills of the New Zealand Police.

[korimako1]

was he??? A call was made from his cell phone in Petone?? doesnt mean it was him though. Just another grey area

Police never disputed he was in Petone.

[korimako1]

what a defence lawyer does is test the prosecution's case.

These are fundamental concepts to the way we structure our society and the way that the rule of law works. Its a system that works mostly, though being set up and maintained by humans. there are bound to be glitches, cockups and the occasional hilarity.

I am amazed at how often I have to explain this to people but here we go:

an accused person is innocent, until they are proven guilty.

In a criminal proceeding that proof is "beyond reasonable doubt"

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is is they absolutely did it, not "he is more likely than not" to have done it. (i.e. 99% probability, not 51%). Dont get hung up on the number or the 1% its just illustrative: your results may vary)

So in any given criminal proceeding we have the Pleece, who investigate, and then prosecute an accused person (if its serious then the Crown instructs lawyers to do its work for it: these are the Crown Prosecutors and they make out like bandits). That accused person is entitled to a fair trial and in that trial the Judge decides the law, but the jury decides the facts

What the defence lawyer does is try and see if the prosecution's case stands up: to raise that reasonable doubt if you will: lay people think of this as "getting off on a technicality" but in fact it is fundamental to the way the system works. If there is a technicality there to be gotten off on, it means someone has fucked up on the prosecution side, simple as that.

People that i know that do criminal defence work do it not because of their desire to work long hours for little pay, arguing for every bean from the Legal Aid people, but because they do have some concept of wanting the system to work as it should, plus they absolutely live for the challenge of the game. Every time they win, its like the Makos winning the Ranfurly Shield (to adopt a metaphor you all understand but I have no clue about): i.e. the underdog wins.

It really pisses me off when people equate in their minds the criminal defence lawyer with their client. Even the most loathsome client deserves the best defence, because as soon as you don't allow that defence, and as soon as you undermine that system (which has been 500 years in the making) you are undermining some very basic concepts about this society and its structure, without really thinking about it.

Of course, if it is established that some miscreant has committed some heinous act, then the question is what as a society do we do about that? But thats a different debate (and one which you will not be surprised to hear that I have very definite opinions about as well).

The key concept here is that the loss of personal liberty, and sanction by the state is such an imposition on the liberty of its citizens that it is better to have the system "weighted" (if you like) in favour of the defendant.

Now, having said all that, all this rhetoric about "hang em high" and "burn them on sight" and "crush their cars" and whatever is a very long way from the liberal democracy you thought you lived in.

All well and good but the police collect all the evidence and decide who they think is Guilty. they arrest that person then the public have that person offered up as the guilty party. the Defence is entitled to ALL the facts the Police or Crown have against you, basic human right, including repeat including any items of fact that may prove you are innocent of the crime. The system only works correctly when this happens. We now know that important information was withheld from Mark Lundys lawyers. So if you recieve incorrect information you make a incorrect decisions. Mark Lundys lawyers made incorrect decision and so did the Jury based on misinformation.

[korimako1]

Yeah, that's a tempting but hollow call, which HDC has answered eloquently above.

The thing is, one defence lawyer on limited legal aid is up against the whole system. Crown prosecutors, police prosecutors, senior detectives, case officers, CRI scientists, police computer experts, overseas forensic scientists, there is no end to the amount of money and manpower which can be brought against an accused person.

I'm confident Lundy was well represented. If the N&S article is accurate then the defence simply didn't have the ability to question stuff which only now looks unreliable. Hindsight is wonderful.

I should also say that convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is bloody difficult. Try getting 12 people together and make them agree on something. I think Lundy was convicted on the totality of evidence and the brain cells must have been crucial. If they are suspect.......??

NON DISCLOSURE by Police illegal. only tell them what we want them to know. its should be a level playing field but its not. And its the Police who squeal (LOL) the loudest when they get caught out.

[Edbear]

Average speed needed to be 117kph I think you'll find.

Surely you are not suggesting people find out the facts before making criticisms are you..? :rolleyes:

[scissorhands]

How may class action suits have been taken against Johos for paedophilia?

[unstuck]

How may class action suits have been taken against Johos for paedophilia?

What does that have to do with the Mark Lundy case. Dude, leave the mindless trolling to the ones who are actually good at it.:love:

[Katman]

Some of the stuff on that Lundy site is ludicrous. (like "How do they know it wasnt some P-head on a robbery gone bad"? without dealing with any of the evidence pointing to Lundy)

I read through the entire section about the doubts surrounding the case and didn't actually find anything that I would describe as ludicrous. In fact it came across as very level-headed and succinctly put.

The idea of a P hit on a mistaken identity is not outside the realms of possibility. I personally know someone who had to get an unlisted number due to phone harassment over some P deal gone bad that the person hadn't the faintest idea about.

[Katman]

So the police, yet again, withhold information that could have potentially destroyed their case.

The police's explanation for Christine being in bed at 7pm (when she would normally have been watching Shortland Street) was that in the phone conversation that she had with Mark that night he had convinced her to get into bed because he was coming home to have sex with her.

However, according to the North & South article.......

Julie Burnett, who rang Christine at 6.56pm
that Tuesday, inquired whether Mark would
be at wine club the following week. At trial,
she merely said Christine told her Mark was
out. But in a previously undisclosed notebook
from an interview with Burnett, Detective
Melinda Rix writes: “CL tells JB ML out and
will be back in town Wed” – not that she was
expecting him home any moment.

[Maha]

do you know what reasonble doubt is?

Yip, been on a jury before today, defendant was on a charge of 'supply a class b drug' he was caught with small snap lock bags/a small scale/ a briefcase full of cash/brown wage envelopes and we the jury found him not guilty of supply because the prosecution could not cast reasonable doubt. Oh he was guilty alright, but it could not be proven. He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.

In a court of law, the jury takes direction/instrution by the judge, and I remember him saying that ''even if it is found that the defendant had shared his drugs with someone else at the party, it was deemed as supply''.

[Katman]

Yip, been on a jury before today, defendant was on a charge of 'supply a class b drug' he was caught with small snap lock bags/a small scale/ a briefcase full of cash/brown wage envelopes and we the jury found him not guilty of supply because the prosecution could not cast reasonable doubt.

The prosecution tries to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense tries to cast reasonable doubt.

[sugilite]

Bloody melt downs.

Maori women who wail like all fuck at funerals? I mean, they go all out!

Now it always looks fake to me, but it's not like I can ever ask them about it. So I still don't know.

I was deeply immersed in a very large Maori family for 26 years, still kinda are with my 4 kids having their blood, and yeah, the wailing is a cultural thing. Maoris are no different from other races, where some are genuine, and some are not. I've seen cases of both. Some were so heart felt, it had the effect of fair yanking tears from my eyes. Others I have seen walking along like dum, de dum, dum dum, then walk around the corner into the marae and WAHHHHHHHHH.

I watched naf all TV or read papers about the time of the Lundy murders, but I did catch the funeral footage on the news, and the 1st thing that hit me (like a sledge hammer) when I saw him wailing was "Fuck, he murdered his wife and kid".

[scumdog]

I am gob-smacked that you could suggest that that is any sort of conclusive proof.

It merely suggests that the murder weapon came from the Lundy's shed. Anyone could have been into the shed prior to entering the house. The implement used may have even already been inside the house.

Please tell me your statement isn't indicative of the investigative skills of the New Zealand Police.

Well it sure as hell fits in with what the ding-bat ranters on KB refer to as 'evidence' - you included...:rolleyes:

[Katman]

Well it sure as hell fits in with what the ding-bat ranters on KB refer to as 'evidence' - you included...:rolleyes:

You wouldn't recognise evidence if it fucked you up the arse.

[Drew]

You wouldn't recognise evidence if it fucked you up the arse.Bro, are you autistic?

[Drew]

You wouldn't recognise evidence if it fucked you up the arse.Wait, what if the evidence was a strap on?

Or, what if the evidence was a big black dog?

Oh oh oh, what if the evidence was a bull in spring time?

I reckon he'd know what it was. Raises an interesting quandry though, what with the evidence tampering with him!

[Katman]

Bro, are you autistic?

Nah, I can't draw for shit.

[korimako1]

Been trying to read up a bit before I spout off the last couple days, this is what I found regarding this specific part of his behavior.

Criminal psychologist Nigel Latta reviewed Mark Lundy's behaviour at the funeral, and noted need to be physically supported by two friends as he emerged towards the hearse, noting that he exhibited signs of what Latta described as "limb-specific grief", in which Lundy's arms were able to carry his weight, but not his legs. Latta described this behaviour by Lundy as a "wilful and deliberate act of deception".

But it's possible he was feeling completely numb, legitimately I suppose. Put on that bullshit act out of not knowing what he was meant to do?

I dunno, I wasn't there.

nigel latta, some else trying to prove himself on Tv with asumptions and guesswork. has he ever spoken to Lundy, i dont think so, but makes opinions on biased Tv coverage that only showed a 5 second clip, not the whole event. Just like the papers as well only showing the rolling of the eyes or a bad look. never a smile or a happy picture, not that he had anything to smile about or be happy after losing his family and then getting fitted up for it.

[Drew]

nigel latta, some else trying to prove himself on Tv with asumptions and guesswork. has he ever spoken to Lundy, i dont think so, but makes opinions on biased Tv coverage that only showed a 5 second clip, not the whole event. Just like the papers as well only showing the rolling of the eyes or a bad look. never a smile or a happy picture, not that he had anything to smile about or be happy after losing his family and then getting fitted up for it.You didn't read my whole post did you?

I said I wasn't there, and even gave a possible motivation for hamming it up.

You say a lot for someone with a zero post count....:confused:

[korimako1]

Police almost blew this one.

They got hung up on the opinion of a pathologist that the time of death was 7pm, and focussed the balance of the investigation around this belief.

If we accept the time of death was 7pm then we have to accept that Lundy is amongst the world best drivers.

We also have to accept that he was able to budgeon his little girl 7 times, then, an hour later put it out of his mind, and have sex.

I'm afraid that for me at least, images of my hacked up wife and daughter would fill my mind, rather than the images of titties that make sex a runner !

Had I been on the jury, I would have found him not guilty.

Police never considered a different time of death, as they just accepted the pathologists estimate as accurate.

However had they given the jury a WINDOW of time, then Lundy could easily have done it.

I think the judge saw that, and was trying to tell the jury "don't get hung up on the three hour thing".

IMHO the right man has been convicted, but it was sloppy work by the pathologist that almost gave him an exit route.

If you actually read the pathologists report and you are aware of TOD regarding stomach contents and you interpret the report correctly, when TOD most likely occurred Mark Lundy was in Petone. There was no other window, the police had to squeeze it in to 7 pm which is false. Brian Bruces Tv show got it wrong as well. stomach contents rule out 7pm and also rule out a 3am scenerio.

[Trade_nancy]

[QUOTE=korimako1;1130576955]nigel latta, some else trying to prove himself on Tv with asumptions and guesswork. has he ever spoken to Lundy, i dont think so,


Isn't this comment of YOURS an assumption? I believe he actually did interview/speak to Lundy.

[Maha]

You didn't read my whole post did you?



Must a Tauporian thing....:rolleyes:

[Banditbandit]

nigel latta, some else trying to prove himself on Tv with asumptions and guesswork. has he ever spoken to Lundy, i dont think so, but makes opinions on biased Tv coverage that only showed a 5 second clip, not the whole event.


If you actually read the pathologists report and you are aware of TOD regarding stomach contents and you interpret the report correctly, when TOD most likely occurred Mark Lundy was in Petone. There was no other window, the police had to squeeze it in to 7 pm which is false. Brian Bruces Tv show got it wrong as well. stomach contents rule out 7pm and also rule out a 3am scenerio.

Mark ?? Mark - is that you? Are you on the internet again in the prisoner's computer wing ??

[Edbear]

[QUOTE=korimako1;1130576955]nigel latta, some else trying to prove himself on Tv with asumptions and guesswork. has he ever spoken to Lundy, i dont think so,


Isn't this comment of YOURS an assumption? I believe he actually did interview/speak to Lundy.

KB..? Members making assumptions..? Never happens! :lol:

[scumdog]

You wouldn't recognise evidence if it fucked you up the arse.

I rest my case....:rolleyes:

[Drew]

I rest my case....:rolleyes:

Oh no, you made a court reference. That's the rest of Katmans afternoon fucked, typing endlessly about cops and courts!

Won't someone think of his customers?!!!

[Edbear]

Oh no, you made a court reference. That's the rest of Katmans afternoon fucked, typing endlessly about cops and courts!

Won't someone think of his customers?!!!



He has customers..?

[Drew]

He has customers..?That's the word. Happy ones it seems, though I haven't spoken to them all. And I have no idea if there was a non disclosure agrrement at time of payment.

[korimako1]

[QUOTE=korimako1;1130576955]nigel latta, some else trying to prove himself on Tv with asumptions and guesswork. has he ever spoken to Lundy, i dont think so,


Isn't this comment of YOURS an assumption? I believe he actually did interview/speak to Lundy.

No he has never spoken to or interviewed Mark. he only spoke to people who wanted their 15 seconds of fame and were prepared to tell him negative things about Mark, anyone who spoke in favour of Mark only made it to the cutting room floor.

[korimako1]

You didn't read my whole post did you?

I said I wasn't there, and even gave a possible motivation for hamming it up.

You say a lot for someone with a zero post count....:confused:

Sorry I didnt realise that I have to have a number of posts before I can reply to other peoples posts. there is so much misinformation out there, just trying to help.

[Drew]

Sorry I didnt realise that I have to have a number of posts before I can reply to other peoples posts. there is so much misinformation out there, just trying to help.

The last line of my post, was more about my confusion that your post count doesn't climb from zero.

[MisterD]

The last line of my post, was more about my confusion that your post count doesn't climb from zero.

Posts in R&R don't count towards your tally

[Katman]

For anyone that hasn't read the North & South article.....

http://www.lundytruth.com/files/NS-lundy.pdf

[Crasherfromwayback]

For anyone that hasn't read the North & South article.....

http://www.lundytruth.com/files/NS-lundy.pdf

It's a good read. I guess the time of death due to the food's state means Lundy could've done it well later though?

[Katman]

It's a good read. I guess the time of death due to the food's state means Lundy could've done it well later though?

Except for the cellphone data placing him back in Wellington at 8.30

There was also evidence given that there was a light on in the Lundy's house at 11 that night.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Except for the cellphone data placing him back in Wellington at 8.30

There was also evidence given that there was a light on in the Lundy's house at 11 that night.

Yeah Iwas wondering if maybe he could've done it after banging the hooker. Perhaps Christine was still up at 11 hence the light being on...

[Katman]

Yeah Iwas wondering if maybe he could've done it after banging the hooker. Perhaps Christine was still up at 11 hence the light being on...

That would certainly make the eye witness's evidence worthless.

[Crasherfromwayback]

That would certainly make the eye witness's evidence worthless.

Sounded like BS to me anyway.

[Katman]

Sounded like BS to me anyway.

Absolutely.

How the prosecution presented that evidence with a straight face is beyond me.

[Drew]

Absolutely.

How the prosecution presented that evidence with a straight face is beyond me.How the blind old clairvoyant presented her evidence with a straight face, is beyond me.

There must have been some investigation into the possibility that he nailed the hooker, then went home to kill them. Mind you, if the cops took the evidence of the pathologist as gospel, maybe not.

[Maha]

It's my opinion that on the ‘did he/didn’t’ debate, the Police got the right people (but one) for NZ's six most well-known murder mysteries.

David Bain/Scott Watson/Mark Lundy/David Tamahere and Ewen MacDonald.

They only got it wrong with Arthur Thomas, where corruption and pressure to find a killer overrode factual evidence.
Right up until several days before arresting Thomas, Hutton and his team had the killer inside the house. That scenario did not suit a Thomas conviction, hence the concocted ‘outside through the louvre windows’ scenario.

[White trash]

For anyone that hasn't read the North & South article.....

http://www.lundytruth.com/files/NS-lundy.pdf

Fuck that's a long article. Casts pretty serious doubts though.

[Maha]

Fuck that's a long article. Casts pretty serious doubts though.

A juror will come to a decision after hearing (and based on) what's presented on Court by both sides, all very well to reassess after the fact.....innit?

[Drew]

A juror will come to a decision after hearing (and based on) what's presented on Court by both sides, all very well to reassess after the fact.....innit?There's no questioning the Jury in this case Mark. All question marks should be directed to police and prosecution.

Perhaps not all, the defense must have been pretty stupid not to question the validity of the prosecutions expert's opinions.

[Katman]

A juror will come to a decision after hearing (and based on) what's presented on Court by both sides, all very well to reassess after the fact.....innit?

Even the people trying to clear Mark Lundy's name are not criticising the jury.

It is the integrity of the police investigation that is being questioned.

[Maha]

There's no questioning the Jury in this case Mark. All question marks should be directed to police and prosecution.

Perhaps not all, the defense must have been pretty stupid not to question the validity of the prosecutions expert's opinions.

Earlier I posted ''Yip, been on a jury before today, defendant was on a charge of 'supply a class b drug' he was caught with small snap lock bags/a small scale/ a briefcase full of cash/brown wage envelopes and we the jury found him not guilty of supply because the prosecution could not cast reasonable doubt. Oh he was guilty alright, but it could not be proven. He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.''

Just to add to that, at our first recess a jury foreman was elected, his first question, to the rest of us was '' a show of hands please, guilty or not guilty. It were nine that were leaning on the guilty?
By the end of the hearing, it was unanimous. not guilty. Both police failed and the subsequently, the prosecution had little to work with.

Interest though, he was a sidecar racer :corn:

[Maha]

Even the people trying to clear Mark Lundy's name are not criticising the jury.

It is the integrity of the police investigation that is being questioned.

So the jury got it right? based on the slack police work? thanks for pointing that out.

[Drew]

Interest though, he was a sidecar racer :corn:I fucken knew Scrivy wasa drug dealer! His house is too nice, for how big a devo he is!

[Maha]

I fucken knew Scrivy wasa drug dealer! His house is too nice, for how big a devo he is!

Is Scrivy a big ugly bugger with a shaved head and ginga ZZ Top type beard? :(

[Drew]

Is Scrivy a big ugly bugger with a shaved head and ginga ZZ Top type beard? :(He is not. But I'm not gonna let a little thing like that stop me from spreading rumors.

[Katman]

So the jury got it right? based on the slack police work? thanks for pointing that out.

I wouldn't say "got it right" Mark.

They gave the verdict that almost anyone would be expected to give - given the heavily biased and seemingly deceptive evidence presented to them by the police and the prosecution.

It seriously makes one wonder just how safe our liberty is these days.

[Katman]

Earlier I posted ''Yip, been on a jury before today, defendant was on a charge of 'supply a class b drug' he was caught with small snap lock bags/a small scale/ a briefcase full of cash/brown wage envelopes and we the jury found him not guilty of supply because the prosecution could not cast reasonable doubt. Oh he was guilty alright, but it could not be proven. He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.''

Just to add to that, at our first recess a jury foreman was elected, his first question, to the rest of us was '' a show of hands please, guilty or not guilty. It were nine that were leaning on the guilty?
By the end of the hearing, it was unanimous. not guilty. Both police failed and the subsequently, the prosecution had little to work with.

Interest though, he was a sidecar racer :corn:

Did he have any quantity of drugs on him - along with the snap lock bags, scales and cash?

[Drew]

Did he have any quantity of drugs on him - along with the snap lock bags, scales and cash?Are you wondering where Scrivy fucked off to with your gear?

[Katman]

Are you wondering where Scrivy fucked off to with your gear?

He'll be back.

[Swoop]

Just to add to that, at our first recess a jury foreman was elected, his first question, to the rest of us was '' a show of hands please, guilty or not guilty.

Most bizarre. The foreman is elected at the beginning of a trial, prior to the trial getting underway. The presiding judge instructs the jury to go and elect a forman before the case commencing. For that person to ask for a vote of G/NG at that stage is pure lunacy.

[Maha]

Did he have any quantity of drugs on him - along with the snap lock bags, scales and cash?

Yes, as I pointed out in the post, ''He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.'' they (the previous jury) couldn't decide on the supply charge.

[Maha]

Most bizarre. The foreman is elected at the beginning of a trial, prior to the trial getting underway. The presiding judge instructs the jury to go and elect a forman before the case commencing. For that person to ask for a vote of G/NG at that stage is pure lunacy.

You are correct, we were selected, then given an outline of the charges etc and how the court session will go, then asked to go an elect a jury forman..
It may have been at the first recess that the question was asked, interesting though, I remember an older Maori lady saying ''As far as I am concerned, if he has anything to do with drugs, he is guilty''.

[Katman]

Yes, as I pointed out in the post, ''He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.'' they (the previous jury) couldn't decide on the supply charge.

So he had a quantity of drugs on him, along with snap lock bags, scales and a briefcase of money, and you found him not guilty of supply?

Must have been a phenomenal defense team - or a retarded prosecution.

[Crasherfromwayback]

So he had a quantity of drugs on him, along with snap lock bags, scales and a briefcase of money, and you found him not guilty of supply?

Must have been a phenomenal defense team - or a retarded prosecution.

He would've been fucked if his hooch was in the seperate snap lock bags at the time of getting busted!

[scumdog]

So he had a quantity of drugs on him, along with snap lock bags, scales and a briefcase of money, and you found him not guilty of supply?

Must have been a phenomenal defense team - or a retarded prosecution.

I bet Lundy wishes HE had a defense team like that...;)

[Maha]

So he had a quantity of drugs on him, along with snap lock bags, scales and a briefcase of money, and you found him not guilty of supply?

Must have been a phenomenal defense team - or a retarded prosecution.

Defendant said the money in the case was for a motorcycle motor he was buying in Auckland...we were instructed by the Judge that we could ONLY find him guilty of supply if there was evidence to suggest that he shared his drugs with others at the party where he was arrested. The Police had followed this character from the Hawkes Bay to Papamoa where he was arrested. I believed (at the beginning of the trial) that the police had a water tight case, they knew what they were after...and who. But failed to provide (in the end) clear evidence that he was a supplier. Job Done.

[Drew]

I bet Lundy wishes HE had a defense team like that...;)Are you allowed to weigh in, and give us your opinion of the specific case?

[scumdog]

Are you allowed to weigh in, and give us your opinion of the specific case?

Uh-uh:no:

It would be a no win for me regardless which side I took..:shutup:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Uh-uh:no:

It would be a no win for me regardless which side I took..:shutup:

Be a win if you'd just confiscated it in the first place...:innocent:

[Drew]

Uh-uh:no:

It would be a no win for me regardless which side I took..:shutup:

Yeah, that makes sense.

[korimako1]

How the blind old clairvoyant presented her evidence with a straight face, is beyond me.

There must have been some investigation into the possibility that he nailed the hooker, then went home to kill them. Mind you, if the cops took the evidence of the pathologist as gospel, maybe not.

I am sure they would have checked that. but the pathologists evidence, flawed as it was, also eliminated a TOD around 2am or later. Hey they withheld documents from the defence about the stuff on his shirt so whatelse have they withheld?

[korimako1]

Did the journo in this article cover all view points? Cover everything in this case that is fact, allegations made, prime witness statements (both crown and defense) all evidence produced and a complete picture of the case, both for the crown and defence?.
Actually I know Mike White, and yes he did all of the above before writing the article.

[korimako1]

From my experience the defence know all the evidence the prosecution is going to present and how to rebutt it.

Yes, but only when the police actually disclose all the evidence.