Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

**Katman** · 2nd April 2015, 15:36

Originally Posted by Maha

That your statement was incorrect, what part did you miss exactly?

Can you not recognise sarcasm even when it smacks you in the face?

**Crasherfromwayback** · 2nd April 2015, 17:44

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...ndys-interview

**oldrider** · 2nd April 2015, 20:26

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...ndys-interview

The trouble with all these cases in NZ is the opinionated hearsay evidence that gets bandied around in the media and even in the courts themselves!

Not knowing of course whether Lundy did it or not and having absolutely no claim to think I know one way or the other - this case (among others) has left me feeling very uncomfortable about NZ policing and justice system!

The Privy Counselors found reason to be totally dissatisfied with the first trial - I wonder what conclusion they would come to over this one?

If Lundy didn't do it I feel very sorry for the poor bastard - If he did do it he has got off far too lightly - but if he didn't do it who did?

Nobody seems to want to explore any further down that path - just like the Bain case - just like Scott Watson - just like? etc etc etc!

**AllanB** · 2nd April 2015, 20:30

I feel sorry for the deceased Mrs L.

F that photo they show of her is horrid!

How come the sit did not get another full life sentence? Given the first case was dismissed surely he starts the term a fresh and has to serve another life? Arse topped his 7 year old as well .......................

**Winston001** · 2nd April 2015, 21:42

Originally Posted by oldrider

The Privy Counselors found reason to be totally dissatisfied with the first trial - I wonder what conclusion they would come to over this one?

Well no John. The Privy Council decided on a narrow point that one scientist's view (late in the piece) that the t-shirt testing was questionable - not wrong, but arguable, should have been passed on to the defence.

The Privy Council did not criticise the prosecution case at all - they simply said as a matter of disclosure and with the presumption of innocence the Crown had an obligation to pass on exculpatory evidence.

**oldrider** · 2nd April 2015, 21:58

Originally Posted by Winston001

Well no John. The Privy Council decided on a narrow point that one scientist's view (late in the piece) that the t-shirt testing was questionable - not wrong, but arguable, should have been passed on to the defence.

The Privy Council did not criticise the prosecution case at all - they simply said as a matter of disclosure and with the presumption of innocence the Crown had an obligation to pass on exculpatory evidence.

Thank you Winston! - It's a pity Helen Clark got rid of the Privy counsel - it seems we need it more now than ever!

**Edbear** · 2nd April 2015, 22:17

The second trial settled very clearly, any doubts about the first. Having followed both I am very pleased with the result.

**Edbear** · 2nd April 2015, 22:20

Originally Posted by oldrider

Thank you Winston! - It's a pity Helen Clark got rid of the Privy counsel - it seems we need it more now than ever!

Last night's doco about the young fella who got stitched up by the offending cop does show what can be achieved by persistence and hard work.

**Laava** · 2nd April 2015, 22:20

Same................

**Winston001** · 2nd April 2015, 22:57

Originally Posted by oldrider

Thank you Winston! - It's a pity Helen Clark got rid of the Privy counsel - it seems we need it more now than ever!

Agreed.

Moving away from the Privy Council was a subversive move towards republicanism; politically driven rather than for a good reason.

Britain lies at the heart of our law, not just here but in OZ, the Commonwealth, and the USA. There are ten times the number of legal thinkers in the UK and they have some very sharp minds.

Why the hell we abandoned a free court of geniuses is beyond me. The British taxpayer picked up most of the tab.

**oldrider** · 3rd April 2015, 02:44

Originally Posted by Winston001

Agreed. Why the hell we abandoned a free court of geniuses is beyond me. The British taxpayer picked up most of the tab.

The first significant action John Key took on attaining office was to restore the Honours system - pity he didn't do something more useful and restore the Privy Counsel.

Maybe the Honours system was more about his own secret ambitions - for a man who already has everything - Arise Sir John would do it for him! - Pretty cool eh?

**korimako1** · 3rd April 2015, 08:16

[QUOTE=oldrider;1130848148]The trouble with all these cases in NZ is the opinionated hearsay evidence that gets bandied around in the media and even in the courts themselves!

Not knowing of course whether Lundy did it or not and having absolutely no claim to think I know one way or the other - this case (among others) has left me feeling very uncomfortable about NZ policing and justice system!

The Privy Counselors found reason to be totally dissatisfied with the first trial - I wonder what conclusion they would come to over this one?

If Lundy didn't do it I feel very sorry for the poor bastard - If he did do it he has got off far too lightly - but if he didn't do it who did?

I agree with you,
but if he didn't do it who did always seems to be the question which everyone wants answered. This time the defence put up two likely "other" options, there where at least 4 other scenarios that could have been placed before the jury. Would it have placed any further doubt in this juries mind, I doubt it.

This jury had an immense amount of scientific evidence placed in front of them, even the experts couldn't agree with each other.
All of them covering there arses, changing their evidence and patting each other on the back at the same time.

This continued with the Police and Crown, say no more.

Did this Jury forget about, as instructed, the first trial. probably not. Was it already holding prejudice's, probably.

Interestingly, the media buzz was a Not Guilty verdict, but they eat their young, so no surprises how quickly the U-turn was.

**oldrider** · 3rd April 2015, 08:57

[QUOTE=korimako1;1130848326]

Originally Posted by oldrider

The trouble with all these cases in NZ is the opinionated hearsay evidence that gets bandied around in the media and even in the courts themselves!

Not knowing of course whether Lundy did it or not and having absolutely no claim to think I know one way or the other - this case (among others) has left me feeling very uncomfortable about NZ policing and justice system!

The Privy Counselors found reason to be totally dissatisfied with the first trial - I wonder what conclusion they would come to over this one?

If Lundy didn't do it I feel very sorry for the poor bastard - If he did do it he has got off far too lightly - but if he didn't do it who did?

I agree with you,
but if he didn't do it who did always seems to be the question which everyone wants answered. This time the defence put up two likely "other" options, there where at least 4 other scenarios that could have been placed before the jury. Would it have placed any further doubt in this juries mind, I doubt it.

This jury had an immense amount of scientific evidence placed in front of them, even the experts couldn't agree with each other.
All of them covering there arses, changing their evidence and patting each other on the back at the same time.

This continued with the Police and Crown, say no more.

Did this Jury forget about, as instructed, the first trial. probably not. Was it already holding prejudice's, probably.

Interestingly, the media buzz was a Not Guilty verdict, but they eat their young, so no surprises how quickly the U-turn was.

Looks like the Easter break was fast approaching and the jury had already made up their mind before the trial which was longer than they could concentrate anyway!

Beyond all reasonable doubt? - justice? - will we ever really know?

Typical TV mentality - change the channel and lets get the hell out of here!