Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[husaberg]

Are you that naive?

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

on the contrary, It would be extremely naïve to suggest because there is a very small number of actually cases that are always the same ones brought up and extremely well publicised because of their actual rarity.
Where this has actually happened, to then suggest it is the rule. That just because it has happened a few times That it is either common or always does occur or did occur in this case.
For you to prove yourself not naïve or biased you would have to prove it is the normal process.

[korimako1]

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.

correct the police are not there when the crime occurs, they gather evidence. What we are saying is that some of the evidence they gathered was ignored, is still not explained, or disregarded because it didn't fit what or who the Police had decided was responsible.
The accused doesn't have to prove anything, the police and crown have to, with documented proof, from witnesses and experts. Normally not that difficult in most cases. But this was a circumstantial case where they put together a scenario of what they "thought" happened.
there are too many holes in this case, the experts couldn't agree, new science again (even after privy council ruled the science unsafe) they introduced more new science.
dodgy fuel consumption figures, Time of death between 7.00pm and when the bodies discovered ( no shit Sherlock), stomach contents, they were full at autopsy. Police say lundy did the drive commencing at around 1.00am, this time a sedate drive instead of driving like a maniac. so they didn't digest there food at all for 8 hours. I can go on and on.
I know this case extremely well, I will never except the guilty verdict. it is not beyond reasonable doubt.

[husaberg]

correct the police are not there when the crime occurs, they gather evidence. What we are saying is that some of the evidence they gathered was ignored, is still not explained, or disregarded because it didn't fit what or who the Police had decided was responsible.
The accused doesn't have to prove anything, the police and crown have to, with documented proof, from witnesses and experts. Normally not that difficult in most cases. But this was a circumstantial case where they put together a scenario of what they "thought" happened.
there are too many holes in this case, the experts couldn't agree, new science again (even after privy council ruled the science unsafe) they introduced more new science.
dodgy fuel consumption figures, Time of death between 7.00pm and when the bodies discovered ( no shit Sherlock), stomach contents, they were full at autopsy. Police say lundy did the drive commencing at around 1.00am, this time a sedate drive instead of driving like a maniac. so they didn't digest there food at all for 8 hours. I can go on and on.
I know this case extremely well, I will never except the guilty verdict. it is not beyond reasonable doubt.

Only think is about 22 people that have viewed all the evidence presented to them by both the defence and the prosecution including unsubstantiated claims that where made by the defence.
Don't agree with you at all.
That food science that you hold as being the reason that he was not guilty, was challenged with huge vigour to why he was innocent in the first trial by the defence. That has proved to be no where near an exact science.
Yet it is used by the defence advocates as to why he must be innocent.
The police look at all the evidence make calls on what happened peruse multiple lines of enquiry and potential suspects.
They have always lead to Lundy.
Lundy by every thing I have read and seen about him appears to display pretty text book traits of a sociopath.
Of course that doesn't make him a murderer, Most are not, but it does raise a lot of questions.
I don't think the media or the NZ police did intend make him out to be one, as I doubt most the NZ public are savvy enough to aware of what all the traits are of one.

Oh Nigel Latta did an episode on Lundy I have not seen that. Have You?
Can anyone find a link to it? I guess it was removed for the trial.
Yes I can see past the sinister music that will be in it.

[Katman]

on the contrary, It would be extremely naïve to suggest because there is a very small number of actually cases that are always the same ones brought up and extremely well publicised because of their actual rarity.
Where this has actually happened, to then suggest it is the rule. That just because it has happened a few times That it is either common or always does occur or did occur in this case.
For you to prove yourself not naïve or biased you would have to prove it is the normal process.

I haven't suggested it's the rule.

Your previous post suggests that you refuse to believe that the police are ever anything less than totally honest, reliable and diligent.

There are plenty of cases that blow that theory out of the water though.

[husaberg]

I haven't suggested it's the rule.

Your previous post suggests that you refuse to believe that the police are ever anything less than totally honest, reliable and diligent.

There are plenty of cases that blow that theory out of the water though.

I have always said it is not perfect, that there will always be humans and Human nature, bad apples, bad seeds. but to suggest overwhelmingly vast majority of them are not on the criminal side of the ledger is extremely naive of you.
You own posts suggest the very opposite you have suggested that one bad example proves you can have no trust at all.
But there are and will always be conversely far far more cases that blow your own theory out of the water, including your own example you gave.
About what happened to you. Your own example proved the system generally works.

[Katman]

I have always said it is not perfect, that there will always be humans and Human nature, bad apples, bad seeds. but to suggest overwhelmingly vast majority of them are not on the criminal side of the ledger is extremely naive of you.
You own posts suggest the very opposite you have suggested that one bad example proves you can have no trust at all.
But there are and will always be conversely far far more cases that blow your own theory out of the water, including your own example you gave.
About what happened to you. Your own example proved the system generally works.

Read this slowly dumb fuck.....

I haven't said that every court case involves dodgy police work.

I am merely saying that there have been enough cases of exactly that happening, that to suggest there is absolutely no possibility of it having occurred in this instance is very naive.

[husaberg]

Read this slowly dumb fuck.....

I haven't said that every court case involves dodgy police work.

I am merely saying that there have been enough cases of exactly that happening, that to suggest there is absolutely no possibility of it having occurred in this instance is very naive.

When adults have a discussion they actually don't open the sentence with statements if they want to be taken in anyway seriously unless they are that much of an obnoxious cretin to believe their own twaddle and hate having there obvious inconsistencies pointed out to them.
The very fact that you are getting worked up enough to have to continually resort to abuse indicates that your point is neither strong and your own ability to substantiate it weak.
So by all means continue to do it. As it only further illustrates my point further.

[Katman]

When adults have a discussion....

Let me know when you make it there.

[husaberg]

Let me know when you make it there.

Pg 41 would be a good place for you to start looking, but it might pay for you not to look at your own posts with any degree any impartiality though.(just to keep things going with the same theme as the thrust of the rest of your posts)
So feel free to continue to ignore anything that doesn't suit your own views or makes your augment look obviously self serving.
Also once it become obvious that you are backed into a corner by your own words just start to abuse anyone that points out these errors in your thought process and rationality, because that will work.

[Katman]

Pg 41 would be a good place for you to start looking, but it might pay for you not to look at your own posts with any degree any impartiality though.(just to keep things going with the same theme as the thrust of the rest of your posts)
So feel free to continue to ignore anything that doesn't suit your own views or makes your augment look obviously self serving.
Also once it become obvious that you are backed into a corner by your own words just start to abuse anyone that points out these errors in your thought process and rationality, because that will work.

You seem to be the only one struggling to understand what it is I'm actually saying.

See if you can find someone to explain the words to you.

[husaberg]

Don't try to polish a turd Winston.

The police fixated on an easy conviction rather than pursuing a logical truth.

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.

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.

Malcolm Rewa didn't make a confession.

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.

The fact that he couldn't identify the crime scene should have been sufficient for the police to question the validity of his confession.

The other holes in his story and the changing of that story should have had alarm bells ringing.

But instead, due to the accusatorial system our court operates under, the police see any conviction as a win for them - regardless of whether they've got the right person.

(And if they don't have to do too much work to gain that conviction - all the better for them).

Read this slowly....

It is not good enough that the police simply take the course of least resistance when they investigate and prosecute a case. If a confession is made the police should still be expected to investigate the veracity of that confession.

When holes appear in the confession the investigation needs to become considerably more thorough and, if need be, taken back to step one rather than blindly stumbling on with the best they've got.

If that procedure is not followed than we have the risk of precisely what we got - a rapist/murderer being allowed to carry on raping for a few more years.

And that's why I have no faith (or hope) in our justice system.

There are too many people out there like yourself with a 'close enough is good enough' attitude that the justice system doesn't feel any need to improve.

It's been proven time and again that police will not investigate anything that jeopardises their case.

How can we have faith in something that seeks a conviction before truth?

I was handed a speeding ticket on the way to the Cold Kiwi some years ago. I didn't take any notice of the ticket until later when I noticed that my name, date of birth and license number had been scribbled over the top of someone else's. I decided to defend the charge on the grounds that there was serious question as to who the ticket was actually intended for. (A ticket for 116kph). Knowing this, the police chose to pursue the charge. On the day in court, when I asked him to tell me who else's name was on the ticket, the police officer stated under oath that there was no-one else's name on the ticket and my name had been re-written over my own name because of his pen running out of ink. When I expressed surprise at his response the JP quickly glanced at the ticket and agreed that there was no other name there. She found me guilty.

With one look, the judge at my appeal hearing awarded a rehearing.

The police withdrew the charge and I laid a complaint of perjury.

It got me wondering though just what degree of integrity the justice system has, when a police officer can concoct such a ridiculous story (having had it spelled out to him well before the hearing what my defense was going to be) and then lie under oath - all the while relying on the JP to support his ridiculous story and ignore his blatant lying.

It's a clear example of the police focusing solely on obtaining a conviction without the slightest consideration for any of the details of the case. (And an example of an area of our justice system which the police appear to rely upon to support their dodgy dealings).

Even one is one too many.

(And I doubt I found New Zealands only corrupt cop).

'Eventually' being the operative word - and then only because I was prepared to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

The system has many inherent faults in it.

We have corrupt cops who will lie under oath, we have corrupt JPs (and possibly even judges) who are prepared to support lying cops and we have jury members who actually couldn't give a fuck whether they fulfill their duty to the best possible standard.

There have been numerous high profile cases that have shown considerable police incompetance.

How many small profile cases have seen the defendant similarly shafted?

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?

Are you that naive?

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

Read this slowly dumb fuck.....

I haven't said that every court case involves dodgy police work.

I am merely saying that there have been enough cases of exactly that happening, that to suggest there is absolutely no possibility of it having occurred in this instance is very naive.

You seem to be the only one struggling to understand what it is I'm actually saying.

See if you can find someone to explain the words to you.

I have no idea why you are regarded as KB dimmest conspiracy theorist I doubt anyone would be able to explain that one to me either.
Dam that lack of sarcasm font........
https://youtu.be/qZG9lBpATxw

[korimako1]

Only think is about 22 people that have viewed all the evidence presented to them by both the defence and the prosecution including unsubstantiated claims that where made by the defence.
Don't agree with you at all.
That food science that you hold as being the reason that he was not guilty, was challenged with huge vigour to why he was innocent in the first trial by the defence. That has proved to be no where near an exact science.
Yet it is used by the defence advocates as to why he must be innocent.
The police look at all the evidence make calls on what happened peruse multiple lines of enquiry and potential suspects.
They have always lead to Lundy.
Lundy by every thing I have read and seen about him appears to display pretty text book traits of a sociopath.
Of course that doesn't make him a murderer, Most are not, but it does raise a lot of questions.
I don't think the media or the NZ police did intend make him out to be one, as I doubt most the NZ public are savvy enough to aware of what all the traits are of one.

Oh Nigel Latta did an episode on Lundy I have not seen that. Have You?
Can anyone find a link to it? I guess it was removed for the trial.
Yes I can see past the sinister music that will be in it.

do you understand beyond reasonable doubt? re read your post. what unsubstantiated claims by the defence? stomach contents is not an exact science but the defence had world experts on that subject, smarter people than you or I and they refuted the 3.00am TOD on digestion. the crown abandoned the 7.00pm TOD. you cant have it both ways.

Give up you know nothing about this case, you clutch at straws, only believing what bias media say.
Nigel Latta is a prime example, yes I have seen the program, he needs to decide whether he wants to be a comedian or a psychologist, he is crap at both.
Also 22 people, I think your math is out, 12 people on a Jury x 2 is 24. whoops you may be right at least 2 of the Jury were asleep through the last trial. well they were when I was there.

I suggest you leave Katman alone, he is far more savy about this case than you ever will be.

[IkieBikie]

I was handed a speeding ticket on the way to the Cold Kiwi some years ago.

Where you speeding???

Supposedly.

I was told they weren't allowed to tell me what form the officer's censure took though.

Hopefully he's still on the Siberia shift.

Where you speeding??

It got me wondering though just what degree of integrity the justice system has, when a police officer can concoct such a ridiculous story (having had it spelled out to him well before the hearing what my defense was going to be) and then lie under oath - all the while relying on the JP to support his ridiculous story and ignore his blatant lying.

It's a clear example of the police focusing solely on obtaining a conviction without the slightest consideration for any of the details of the case. (And an example of an area of our justice system which the police appear to rely upon to support their dodgy dealings).

Were you speeding and were you asked if you were? If you were not what would you have said if you were asked?? Looking at the way you fought the ticket you would have lied - if so what do we think of you then???

[Katman]

I suggest you leave Katman alone....

Dude, seriously.

I'd be lonely without this crowd.

[Katman]

....if so what do we think of you then???

You're new here, aren't you?