Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[Katman]

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

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

[husaberg]

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

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

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

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

[Swoop]

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

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

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

[korimako1]

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

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

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

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

[oldrider]

[QUOTE=korimako1;1130851282]

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

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

[husaberg]

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

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

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

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

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

[husaberg]

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

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

[oldrider]

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

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

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

Sorry if I quoted you out of context!

[husaberg]

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

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

Sorry if I quoted you out of context!

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

[oldrider]

Yeah Husa see what you mean on the quote thingy!

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

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

[korimako1]

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

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

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

[husaberg]

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

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

[korimako1]

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

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

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

[husaberg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Katman]

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

Are you that naive?

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