Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[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

[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?