Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[Katman]

But as Winston said what was against him was that fact that he made confessions to it. As in spite of what you see on TV people very rarely confess to crimes they don't commit.

Making a false confession is not an entirely unheard of phenomenon.

But when there are gaping holes in that confession the police should be duty bound to investigate those holes - not just run with whatever story gets them home in time for Shortland Street.

[husaberg]

That witness had more evidence on him pointing to an involvement than lundy.
80 plus suspects 5 not eliminated at the first trial, all on a 7pm timeframe. Police claim they reinvestigated and examined all the suspects again. do you believe that, and the timeframe now for time of death was between 2.30am and 4.30am. oh yes they still had full stomachs at the autopsy from the 6pm Mcdonalds meal. wow indigestible, the Verdict as well as the food

That witness or others were not on trial though.

Making a false confession is not an entirely unheard of phenomenon.

But when there are gaping holes in that confession the police should be duty bound to investigate those holes - not just run with whatever story gets them home in time for Shortland Street.

Not unheard of but bloody rare almost never occurs on anything but Shortland street.

What did not help Pora is his family had went to police suggesting they thought he had did it (this is also very rare for an innocent persons family to implicate their own family)

Pora was let down by his defence and it seems his own intellect, I often wonder how it was he was allowed to be questioned for so long without legal council.
I guess he waived it, but I doubt he was intellectually capable of understanding the situation.
Thus it should have been supressed.
Often when people make confession it is exactly how Pora did it, first minimising then slowly revealing his involvement and implicating himself further. It is human nature
Just as it is human nature for the Police to believe confessions that are made, that implicate the person making them.

I have heard it on pretty good authority from a number of sources that there was a confession made in another extremely high profile murder.
This confession was permanently suppressed and has never been allowed to be discussed.
but in this case he had much better representation. but I think that is why he will never get compensation.
Even though the other high profile one was later found to be not guilty.

With Pora It was made out at the time of the second trail of Pora that there was a connection with him and Rewa that they were connected or related or similar.
But his defence should have been shouting the rival gangs theme and it seems there is no connection. That is discussed anywhere i see.
I was under the understanding Rewa was his uncle, yet I can find no evidence of this.
Like I said IMO Pora was very much let down by his defence.

[Katman]

Often when people make confession it is exactly how Pora did it, first minimising then slowly revealing his involvement and implicating himself further. It is human nature
Just as it is human nature for the Police to believe confessions that are made, that implicate the person making them.

The dude couldn't even identify the house that the murder took place in.

[Katman]

I understand what you are saying, but I think there are plenty of questions to be asked. Teina Pora was convicted twice what a bloody shambles that was.
Jury trials make a mockery of the system, this case highlights that.

Let's not forget that Arthur Allan Thomas was also convicted a second time after the Court of Appeal quashed his first conviction.

Fucked if I'd want my fate placed in the hands of a jury.

[husaberg]

The dude couldn't even identify the house that the murder took place in.

Neither would Malcolm Rewa...........

[Katman]

Neither would Malcolm Rewa...........

Malcolm Rewa didn't make a confession.

[husaberg]

malcolm rewa didn't make a confession.

qed.............

[Katman]

qed.............

Fuck me, you need everything spelled out for you, don't you?

Teina Pora gave a false confession which the police should have been suspicious of when he couldn't identify the murder scene.

Malcolm Rewa never gave any sort of confession because the cop chose not to pursue him as a suspect.

[scumdog]

That witness had more evidence on him pointing to an involvement than lundy.
80 plus suspects 5 not eliminated at the first trial, all on a 7pm timeframe. Police claim they reinvestigated and examined all the suspects again. do you believe that, and the timeframe now for time of death was between 2.30am and 4.30am. oh yes they still had full stomachs at the autopsy from the 6pm Mcdonalds meal. wow indigestible, the Verdict as well as the food

YOU should get 8 years for poor grammar!

[husaberg]

Fuck me, you need everything spelled out for you, don't you?

Teina Pora gave a false confession which the police should have been suspicious of when he couldn't identify the murder scene.

Malcolm Rewa never gave any sort of confession because the cop chose not to pursue him as a suspect.

You are missing the point.
you are that stubbornly persisting in pursuing the course of action you had already chosen, So vehemently that you are not actually reading what I wrote. Thus you not seeing what is in front of you.
Go back a few pages and look at what I have written.
Have a coffee and a biscuit mull it over like it was written by someone else.
Can you not see then why the police initially did the exact same thing as you have just done.
Its pretty basic human nature.

[PrincessBandit]

I'm afraid I could never take Mark Lundy seriously after watching his appalling attempt at grief at the funeral. I know everyone displays emotions different ways but come on, there was something totally sus about the performance he put on.
I would've struggled to put that out of my mind if I'd been a jury member (I'm lucky enough to have gotten to the age I am without ever having to do jury duty).

[Katman]

You are missing the point.

The point is that your post at #620 is completely irrelevant to my point.

Malcolm Rewa clearly wouldn't have wanted to identify the murder scene because he wasn't the one confessing to the crime.

[husaberg]

I'm afraid I could never take Mark Lundy seriously after watching his appalling attempt at grief at the funeral. I know everyone displays emotions different ways but come on, there was something totally sus about the performance he put on.
I would've struggled to put that out of my mind if I'd been a jury member (I'm lucky enough to have gotten to the age I am without ever having to do jury duty).

The kicker for me was his highly detailed accounts of his behaviour that he said he done which were not corroborated by the police that had him under surveillance.

He said he would go to the graves and pour a wine for his wife and a fizzy drink for his child. Yet it appears he did not.
Its the why would he see the need to add these details. It paints me a picture.

A reporter and a photographer gave an account of what they seen at his home its pretty stereotypical of a sociopathic display, rather than someone grieving.
That in itself is obviously not damming but when taken into account all the rest it would be hard for me to think he is innocent.

Someone said a few pages back that they can't remember (Christine's or Ambers) names, but can only remember Marks, that is the tragedy here.




http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...s-photographer

During that interview in 2000, Lundy told Johns how, since his wife's death, he would go to the cemetery with a bottle of her favourite wine: Alpha Domus sauvignon blanc. He would sit at the grave and pour two glasses, taking a sip from each one. Amber was not left out. He took some fizzy drink for her. "And while I was out there, a woman put her hand on my shoulder and said, 'Mark, the whole of Palmerston North is with you'."

He barely left the home for the guilt since his family had left, he claimed.

But, at his first trial, the juries heard a very different story. It was revealed that, far from being a recluse, Lundy was planning a second 21st birthday and was regularly seen drunk at social events after murdering his family. Six weeks after their death, he even found time for the services of a prostitute.

As for the graveside toast, police tracking his movements disproved his regular visits to the cemetery. He had never poured a wine by his wife grave. It was simply another part of the act.

[husaberg]

The point is that your post at #620 is completely irrelevant to my point.

Malcolm Rewa clearly wouldn't have wanted to identify the murder scene because he wasn't the one confessing to the crime.

I said go back a couple of pages try 612 and work your way forward, but only after you have had a biscuit.
See what I meant by only seeing what it is you want to see.
How easy it is to continue to plough forward on a chosen path.

[awa355]

I'm afraid I could never take Mark Lundy seriously after watching his appalling attempt at grief at the funeral. I know everyone displays emotions different ways but come on, there was something totally sus about the performance he put on.
I would've struggled to put that out of my mind if I'd been a jury member (I'm lucky enough to have gotten to the age I am without ever having to do jury duty).

That funeral performance had me thinking, 'This guy can't act for shit'.