Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

**Crasherfromwayback** · 18th October 2013, 08:35

Originally Posted by korimako1

we had our own there as well, Dame Sian Elias. NZ Chief Justice

When are you gonna tell us how you know for a fact Lundy didn't do it? You're pretty good at calling other people dreamers and asking for proof. Your turn now. Let's hear it.

**korimako1** · 18th October 2013, 08:44

Originally Posted by oldrider

Have read quite a lot of material about this and while still deep in the dark a few things remain in my mind like if it was not Lundy, what sort of person could it be?

The killer might have been (well) known to Mrs Lundy and the child and very familiar with the layout of the home including Lundy's tool shed.

The house had been rigged to appear as if there had been a break in and Mrs Lundy had not been unduly disturbed or in the process of resistance.

There would have been considerable mess from the killing action and the child appeared to have been retreating from the room as if she had surprised the attacker.

The weapon was never found but paint matching that which Lundy had used to paint his tools was found in the wound areas of the victims.

A jewellery box was the only thing that was apparently missing.

When Lundy could get no response on the phone in the morning he asked her brother to go round and check on them. (about 09.00hrs)

The brother had to break into the house to gain access.

Why would a random burglar/killer who had broken into the house and randomly killed two people leave in an orderly manner and lock and secure the house?

There is even suggestion that the computer clocks had been tampered with to give conflicting evidential information hardly random.

Hardly the panicky actions of a random burglar/killer who was unfamiliar with house and who would obviously be in an highly emotionally excited state of mind!

Just reading the reports available on the net and thinking if it wasn't Lundy, who could it be and how would they behave or think in the circumstances.

Cant find anything about other suspects and their alibis, I hope the police have given that as thorough a work over as they have given Lundy!

I am only commenting on information that is freely available to anyone to read on the internet nothing else!

Be careful about believing media reports and misinformation. you wont find anything about other suspects without a OIA request to Police.
The police got this badly wrong, couldnt solve it and then set M/L up for the fall. They will now fight tooth and nail to cover up there mistakes and botch ups and non-disclosure. The win at all costs mentality, never mind the truth, is a cancer inside the Police that just keeps growing and festering.

**oldrider** · 18th October 2013, 08:59

Originally Posted by korimako1

Be careful about believing media reports and misinformation. you wont find anything about other suspects without a OIA request to Police.
The police got this badly wrong, couldnt solve it and then set M/L up for the fall. They will now fight tooth and nail to cover up there mistakes and botch ups and non-disclosure. The win at all costs mentality, never mind the truth, is a cancer inside the Police that just keeps growing and festering.

I didn't say I believed anything ... I don't know ... I said I was just reading everything that I could find on the internet.

If you are so sure that Mark Lundy didn't do it ... do you know who did do it? ... Somebody did that is a fact for sure!

Funny thing is who supports Lundy and who doesn't especially the closer they are to him ... I find that curious if nothing else!

**korimako1** · 18th October 2013, 09:06

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

When are you gonna tell us how you know for a fact Lundy didn't do it? You're pretty good at calling other people dreamers and asking for proof. Your turn now. Let's hear it.

I said, correct, he didnt do it.
I have read the full trial transcript, the privy council decision, and I am not swayed by media. Facts quite clearly tell me M/L did not commit this crime. FACTS.
Dreams are free keep aiming for the sky buddy.

**scott411** · 18th October 2013, 09:14

Originally Posted by korimako1

I said, correct, he didnt do it.
I have read the full trial transcript, the privy council decision, and I am not swayed by media. Facts quite clearly tell me M/L did not commit this crime. FACTS.
Dreams are free keep aiming for the sky buddy.

a quick version of those facts would be nice, you still have not answered why,

**Paul in NZ** · 18th October 2013, 09:15

Originally Posted by korimako1

I said, correct, he didnt do it.
I have read the full trial transcript, the privy council decision, and I am not swayed by media. Facts quite clearly tell me M/L did not commit this crime. FACTS.
Dreams are free keep aiming for the sky buddy.

Well not quite...

I suspect what you mean is that the information presented as 'facts' are arguable and as presented add up to reasonable doubt that M/L was the guilty party.

There is likely a lot of undisclosed/undiscovered/miss interpreted info out there that may prove the case either way.

The biggest problem for the prosecution now is building either a higher level of proof that he did do it or finding the person who did. Its gaulling that in this era we still can't solve some crimes either because the crime is so random or that some criminals are still too clever.

**HenryDorsetCase** · 18th October 2013, 09:15

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Lord Cooke of Thorndon ??? Certainly looks like an aristo to me (off with his head !!!) I do realise there is a difference between hereditary aristos and appointed/risen aristos ... the difference is only in the number of generations ..

Not really. I am dredging Lors 101 from like 1988 here but while the appointment to the Privy council proper is/was based on the aristocracy and inherited wealth, and originally the Judicial Committee was comprised of a bunch of chinless wonders who were more or less talented amateurs, the current incarnation of the Judicial Committee of the PC is the top lawyers in the jurisdictions. Its one of the reasons why we should never have gotten rid of it, in my view.

IIRC the original function of the PC was as the kings advisers and they were literally the last stop and advised the monarch about exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (and you thought RPM stood for revolutions per minute).

It is reflective of the twin strains of lor we inherited from mother England: Law and Equity... which had their own courts and stuff.

http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/about/role-of-the-jcpc.html

**korimako1** · 18th October 2013, 09:18

Originally Posted by oldrider

I didn't say I believed anything ... I don't know ... I said I was just reading everything that I could find on the internet.

If you are so sure that Mark Lundy didn't do it ... do you know who did do it? ... Somebody did that is a fact for sure!

Funny thing is who supports Lundy and who doesn't especially the closer they are to him ... I find that curious if nothing else!

OK fair enough, there is some shocking false claims and information on the net. I agree somebody did do it but the FACTS, some of which have only now come out through Privy Council, quite clearly show M/L conviction was unsafe. And perhaps I should have said, in my opinion, to appease the dreamers out there,(hes quite touchy about being called a dreamer, must have issues) that I am convinced M/L didnt do it.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 18th October 2013, 09:18

Originally Posted by korimako1

I said, correct, he didnt do it.
I have read the full trial transcript, the privy council decision, and I am not swayed by media. Facts quite clearly tell me M/L did not commit this crime. FACTS.
Dreams are free keep aiming for the sky buddy.

As I thought. Just another retard that can't comprehend the meaning of the word *fact*. Get back to me when you do understand the meaning of it dropkick. And supply me some. Until then...go fuck yourself.

**Banditbandit** · 18th October 2013, 09:27

No-one has all the facts - that's the problem

The Privy Council do nmot have all the facts (all they've said is what they saw are not facts to convict on)

The news media certainly does not have all the facts ..

The police may have a lot of facts - but they are not telling everything they know ... and may not have all the facts anyway ...

So how the hell are any of us to decide Lundy's guilt or innocence? I have no idea whether he did it - I think there's a bloody good chance he did .. but I'm not convinced of that ... but I also know it's a bloody big step to go from the Privy Council saying "the conviction was unsafe" to "he did not do it" ...

**Crasherfromwayback** · 18th October 2013, 09:30

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

No-one has all the facts - that's the problem

The Privy Council do nmot have all the facts (all they've said is what they saw are not facts to convict on)

The news media certainly does not have all the facts ..

The police may have a lot of facts - but they are not telling everything they know ... and may not have all the facts anyway ...

So how the hell are any of us to decide Lundy's guilt or innocence? I have no idea whether he did it - I think there's a bloody good chance he did .. but I'm not convinced of that ... but I also know it's a bloody big step to go from the Privy Council saying "the conviction was unsafe" to "he did not do it" ...

Correct. And it's why I've only ever said I think he did it. But like Scott Watson's case, I was very surprised he went down for it.

**Banditbandit** · 18th October 2013, 09:35

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Correct. And it's why I've only ever said I think he did it. But like Scott Watson's case, I was very surprised he went down for it.

Naaa ... I've sat through enough murder trials to think that if you are accussed of murder there's a good chance you will be convicted - even if you did not do it ...

The "12 good men and true" are too easily swayed by "murderer" ... Do you think you'd have a chance of a not guilty verdicty if 12 members of KBer were on the jury? I would not like to bet it .. get the wrong 12 and you'd be gone ...

**oldrider** · 18th October 2013, 09:39

God save us from the jury system ... that's my experience and my honest opinion ... take a look who are "always available" for jury service!

**Crasherfromwayback** · 18th October 2013, 09:45

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Do you think you'd have a chance of a not guilty verdicty if 12 members of KBer were on the jury? I would not like to bet it .. get the wrong 12 and you'd be gone ...

Not if the twelve members are the simpletons that don't know what facts are.