Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[Murray]

The one armed man did it!!

[korimako1]

The one armed man did it!!

yeah he did do it, based on Sam Sheppard a doctor who was convicted then found innocent of murdering his wife. (actually a bushy haired man,changed for Tv to one armed man) We laugh and use flippant remarks but there are some serious miscarriages of justice in NZ and not all of them are at the high end of offending either.

[Winston001]

Bloody hell. This will set the cat among the pigeons. The Privy Council have set aside Lundy's murder convictions which means a new trial. I'm no expert on this case although it has bothered me. New evidential methods raise doubts about evidence at the original trial - so start again.

From the judgement:


"Since the trial a substantial body of evidence from reputable consultants has cast doubt on the methods the Crown had relied on to establish the time of death based of the post mortem examination of the victims," The Privy Council said.

"Furthermore the use of the particular method used to identify the tissue as central nervous system tissue is controversial, both in criminal trials generally, because it is relatively untested in that context and in the particular circumstances of this case, where there is at least reason to doubt the accuracy of the testing given the state of the samples.

"Finally, evidence produced by the appellant suggested the tampering to the computer had an innocent explanation in that it had been caused by a virus that had not been detected by the Crown's witness."

[Hitcher]

This will get social media chattering.

I think that that Lundy did it on balance of probability. I think that the original jury probably did too.

This is one occasion where the cost of "justice" should probably be weighed against the risk of the accused reoffending. Do we, the taxpayers, really want to pay the cost of a retrial? It won't be cheap.

[Drew]

I hadn't thought of it that way Brett.

I think he did it, and I would love to think that justice will always be served. But I like to think I'm quite pragmatic too, in ordinary life, so I'm a tad torn.

[awa355]

How much time has he served to date? Must have done the mandatory 10 years before his 1st parole hearing. If they retry him and he's found guilty again, I cant see him getting a second life sentence.

[Grumph]

This will get social media chattering.

I think that that Lundy did it on balance of probability. I think that the original jury probably did too.

This is one occasion where the cost of "justice" should probably be weighed against the risk of the accused reoffending. Do we, the taxpayers, really want to pay the cost of a retrial? It won't be cheap.

I think you've got it in a nutshell....I see it's been reported (though not confirmed) that he has cancer.

I'd expect to see the law move even slower than usual.

[Oscar]

This will get social media chattering.

I think that that Lundy did it on balance of probability. I think that the original jury probably did too.

This is one occasion where the cost of "justice" should probably be weighed against the risk of the accused reoffending. Do we, the taxpayers, really want to pay the cost of a retrial? It won't be cheap.

He might well have done it, but this is another case of police bumbling that means it's going to cost the taxpayers either way.
The Police seem to have had a habit of finding the most likely suspect and re-arranging the case to suit (going all the way back to the Crewes).

[Banditbandit]

This will get social media chattering.

I think that that Lundy did it on balance of probability. I think that the original jury probably did too.

This is one occasion where the cost of "justice" should probably be weighed against the risk of the accused reoffending. Do we, the taxpayers, really want to pay the cost of a retrial? It won't be cheap.

Unfortunately, the balance of probability is not good enough for a murder conviction - or any sort of conviction ...

Yes, we will have to pay .. but what price is justice?

How much time has he served to date? Must have done the mandatory 10 years before his 1st parole hearing. If they retry him and he's found guilty again, I cant see him getting a second life sentence.

He won't get a new sentence - if he's convicted again then time served will count ...

Note he has not been released .. the Privy Council recommended he remain in custody .. which indicates they think he may be guilty - but the retrial needs to happen ... because there are evidential mistakes ... strong enough to matter ... if they truly thought there had been a miscarriage of justice then they would have him released pending a new trial ...

He is well passed the first parole date .. but the board will not release him if he continues to claim he is innocent .. one of the requirements of parole is that you take responsibility for your actions, admit guilt and say sorry .. won't happen while people maintain their innocence ..

[Paul in NZ]

He might well have done it, but this is another case of police bumbling that means it's going to cost the taxpayers either way.
The Police seem to have had a habit of finding the most likely suspect and re-arranging the case to suit (going all the way back to the Crewes).

It could well be but I'm not sure. I thought it was more a case of the Police relying on a scientific test that is now discreditied or shown to be not as reliable as once thought. Given that there was so little evidence it raised the spectre of resonable doubt... Its a shitty case to prove though...

[Swoop]

Given that there was so little evidence it raised the spectre of resonable doubt... Its a shitty case to prove though...

It is an(other) interesting case. I will be interested to see what the jury is presented with and the verdict they return.

The N&S article raised quite a few points, especially the time required to do the 300km dash.
The cellphone records are also interesting. I was led to believe, when the case was new, that they backed up the story of the high-speed dash, but it appears they do not.

Hmmm.

[awa355]

I think they have to re try the guy. Otherwise, without a legally proven conviction he will be eligible for compensation for unlawful incarceration.

Either way it is going to cost the public a heap of money.

[Drew]

It is an(other) interesting case. I will be interested to see what the jury is presented with and the verdict they return.

The N&S article raised quite a few points, especially the time required to do the 300km dash.
The cellphone records are also interesting. I was led to believe, when the case was new, that they backed up the story of the high-speed dash, but it appears they do not.

Hmmm.

This has been well discussed. The high speed dash theory was not the cops first or best thinking. But since the pathologist was a retard and made up his own sniff test to give time of death, (as well as ignore normal and proven methods), the cops had to try and make the mad dash the most likely.

That right there is the crux of the issue. The silly old cow that fingered Lundy running past her in drag, should be ignored by all I think.

Does anyone know, do the police have to present the same case again? They'll lose if they do. I know that changing the prosecution is an admission of being wrong the first time an' all that, but fuck, do they want the guy let out over pride?

[Oscar]

I think they have to re try the guy. Otherwise, without a legally proven conviction he will be eligible for compensation for unlawful incarceration.

Either way it is going to cost the public a heap of money.

This has been well discussed. The high speed dash theory was not the cops first or best thinking. But since the pathologist was a retard and made up his own sniff test to give time of death, (as well as ignore normal and proven methods), the cops had to try and make the mad dash the most likely.

That right there is the crux of the issue. The silly old cow that fingered Lundy running past her in drag, should be ignored by all I think.

Does anyone know, do the police have to present the same case again? They'll lose if they do. I know that changing the prosecution is an admission of being wrong the first time an' all that, but fuck, do they want the guy let out over pride?

And there's the problem.
Take out the "eye witness", the "brain matter", and the Petone Grand Prix, the Police don't have a case.
If they come up with new evidence (which they are allowed to do), it would have to be pretty good to get a conviction.

[Jantar]

I think that that Lundy did it on balance of probability. I think that the original jury probably did too.....

Unfortunately, the balance of probability is not good enough for a murder conviction - or any sort of conviction ........

This sums up my own feelings. On the balance of probability I also believe he is guilty, but on the evidence presented by the media I feel that there is suffient doubt that, had I been on the Jury, I would have had to vote Not Guilty.

Its a pity that we don't have the old Scottish verdict of Not Proven available here in New Zealand. That would mean that he remains under suspicion until either the police find new evidence to hold a new trial, or until the defence can prove innocence and apply to the court for a not guilty verdict.