David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[unstuck]

I've had a look at stuff from a few places.

To tell the truth, I don't retain info well enough to connect dots later on and make a statement with certainty anyway.

It doesn't rub me as, intentional in the Lundy case, where there is a question mark over the Bain shit.

I live, love, and bite on instinct alone. It's a gift/curse, us not so bright cunts have to work with.

Always trust your instincts dude, may save your life one day.

[Katman]

It doesn't rub me as, intentional in the Lundy case, where there is a question mark over the Bain shit.

The police used, as evidence in court, the explanation that Mark must have convinced his wife to be in bed by 7pm because he was coming home to have sex.

The notes in the detective's undisclosed notebook suggests that his wife wasn't expecting him home till Wednesday though.

Two conflicting pieces of evidence Drew - both of which originate from the police.

The one that didn't fit the police's story was withheld though.

It's certainly not hard to imagine that it may have been intentional.

[Crasherfromwayback]

that Mark must have convinced his wife to be in bed by 7pm because he was coming home to have sex.

.

Should've been convicted for that.

[Mushu]

'The NZ police always get their man'
and may settle for the wrong one to maintain an atmosphere that discourages others from murder, imagine if unsolved/unpunished murders [due to lack of evidence]were commonplace

Better they have an unsolved case than send an innocent man to prison over it, imagine if you were implicated in a murder and had no alibi (maybe sitting home watching TV that night) you'd have to be shit scared, can't really trust the police to even continue following other leads once they decide your the one.

[Katman]

I'm not convinced about the Lundy case, but it's apparent that mistakes were definitely made in the handling of the Bain murders.

Have you read the North and South article Drew?

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

Makes for very startling reading.

There has been a more recent (Dec 2012) North and South article written as well which I haven't gotten round to reading yet.

[fridayflash]

Have you read the North and South article Drew?

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

Makes for very startling reading.

There has been a more recent (Dec 2012) North and South article written as well which I haven't gotten round to reading yet.

from what ive read of the past and more recent north n south articles lundy has been stitched up
poor bugger

[Drew]

Have you read the North and South article Drew?

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

Makes for very startling reading.

There has been a more recent (Dec 2012) North and South article written as well which I haven't gotten round to reading yet.

I have now. It's an eye opener for sure.

On the evidence given that is mentioned in the article, and the refute, I really couldn't convict him were I on a jury.

If it was him, he did it after his hooker left. It's sloppy police work at best, I would say.

I'm gonna give up having an opinion on this kind of thing from now on. The fun of the argument, is outweighed severly by being made to look a fool...That I probably am.

[Erelyes]

Jeez, poor bugger indeed. Based on reading that it's a bazillion to one that Mark Lundy would have done the deed, never mind reasonable doubt.

How on earth could the court of appeal have turned that down?

[Katman]

Jeez, poor bugger indeed. Based on reading that it's a bazillion to one that Mark Lundy would have done the deed, never mind reasonable doubt.

How on earth could the court of appeal have turned that down?

Not only turned it down but added 3 years to his sentence.

[korimako1]

In light of the information now coming out about the police withholding evidence in the Mark Lundy case, has anyone got a comment to make about post #699?

Sorry I cant remember this one, but yes the police will never admit they are wrong no matter what, even when they have evidence, it gets swept away or covered up. they lie by omission. Or as in Mark Lundys case two senior officers took the stand and played the "I cant recall, I dont remember" game. well thats come back to haunt them. Grantham was at the Privy Council hearing, has he returned to NZ or has he done a Keith Murdock?

[Maha]

Police will (at times) make the evidence fit their investigation. Case in point, the Crewe Murders.

Even going to the extreme of planting a spent bullet shell, in a garden that had already been sieved previously. This particular garden was sieved initially by top two cops and a civilian. In court though, the two cops could not recall the civilian (who was a witness) helping them. Hutton needed to find a spent cartridge to put Thomas at the scene of the crime. Up until then, Hutton and his team had the killer take place inside the house. Thomas would never have been inside the house.

Fact is, a lot of evidence does not make it to court and it’s all well and good to make up your mind or indeed change your mind, after the fact.

[Katman]

Fact is, a lot of evidence does not make it to court and it’s all well and good to make up your mind or indeed change your mind, after the fact.

That's small comfort for the person who spends years inside for something they didn't do.

[Drew]

That's small comfort for the person who spends years inside for something they might not have done.

Fixed that for ya.

[Katman]

If police withhold certain evidence simply because it supports the defense rather than their case they should be charged with perverting the course of justice.

[Katman]

Fixed that for ya.

It didn't need fixing Drew.