Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[FJRider]

A lot of testimony in this case ....

TRUE ...








Your quoting skills need work.

[husaberg]

yep still the same old shit - can't answer a question

He can, he just won't.

[Maha]

No I don't drink. Do you??

He use to, but then he'd have to log in the next morning and express his sorry to the females that took to that horrid place, fun times indeed.

[Katman]

He use to, but then he'd have to log in the next morning and express his sorry to the females that took to that horrid place, fun times indeed.

The females flocked to it Mark.

[IkieBikie]

He use to, but then he'd have to log in the next morning and express his sorry to the females that took to that horrid place, fun times indeed.

Not princessbandit???

[Katman]

Not princessbandit???

Princess, give up while you're behind.

Leave the internet to the grown-ups.

[husaberg]

Not princessbandit???

That's his sister dude..............

[husaberg]

Princess, give up while you're behind.

Leave the internet to grown-ups.

Grown up's can answer straight questions though, you have a habit of avoiding them.

[FJRider]

A lot of testimony in this case was refuted and had doubt cast on it by the defence because of time and whether evidence could have been tainted cross contaminated

Key words ... Could have ..

Only if you are proven guilty

FOUND guilty ... proven guilty ... is another matter.

I disagreed when axelohole said I was your Bumbuddy once, I disagree with the barely but I will accept Subhuman

There are some things you post I DO agree with. Your reputation stats will concur ...

No they are not evidence is impartial
It is not clutching at straws is pointing out that the evidence that the defence so rubbished as being faulty

Rubbish in the opinion of the defense ... of course ...

What am I accused of?

Hopeful rhetoric ... ???

No read the summary of facts you can't just rubbish it then use it, without looking a little contrite.
What I never liked about it regardless was that is was based on a sensory perception Smell

A persons perception of smell is not legal

[QUOTE=husaberg;1130851720]No but he is an expect on behaviour, Not sure how much he gets paid but he's worth it

Experts on behavior are paid better ... what he expects is his issue ...

I think you are underselling him he expresses a lot of stuff esp by Rep comments

Don't start thinking ... it only confuses you ..

We?

Ok ... ya got me ... I do ...



.. really ..

[Maha]

Not princessbandit???

No no no... wasn't a family thing at all. Number One/Trudes and Mom.

[husaberg]

Key words ... Could have ..

Yes could the jury believed what they wished to, but his supporters seem to use this lag as evidence to his innocence it paints a gasping at all inconsistencies picture puzzle.
The jury were presented all the rhetoric of how it could have been tainted they chose to not believe that it was.

FOUND guilty ... proven guilty ... is another matter.

He was proven and found guilty just because some still believe his innocence does not change that its a fact

Rubbish in the opinion of the defense ... of course ...

I think you got me before I finished there what I am trying to say is they rubbished it at the first trial then tried to use it at the second.
I never liked the time of death in the first neither did most others

A persons perception of smell is not legal

The time of death initially giving was pretty much all based on a lack of smell.
its subjective, yet so much was based on it.

Don't start thinking ... it only confuses you ..

Maybe my thinking does confuse you FJ

.. really ..

?

[FJRider]

No but he is an expect on behaviour, Not sure how much he gets paid but he's worth it

I've never called myself an expect on behavior ... ARE YOU DRUNK .. ???

[husaberg]

I've never called myself an expect on behavior ... ARE YOU DRUNK .. ???

LOL Missed that, you missed out the end quote on the multiquote though too.
I type pretty fast though and autocorrect is on.
He is a real clinical psychologist and a bloody insightful one. I have not seen the episode but was it damming?
did he perchance also suggest that Lundy was a sociopath.
I can't find it on Google there are other episodes though.

lets break this down to stuff that is not disagreed on.
Someone killed Amber and Christine.
Up close and personal in cold blood.
it was a extremely violent frenzied attack on a women and child.
They took a weapon so there was a premeditation factor.
The motive does not appear to be rape or burglary.
Everyone agreed on that?

[FJRider]

Missed that, you missed out the end quote on the multiquote though too .
I type pretty fast though and autocorrect is on.
He is a real clinical psychologist and a bloody insightful one. I have not seen the episode but was it daming did he perchance also suggest that Lundy was a sociopath.
I can't find it on Google there are other episodes though.

I didn't MISS it ... just didn't reply. My option .... my choice.

SLOW DOWN .... and get it right. (you look better if you get it right)

Lundy was HUMAN. End of story ... and aren't we ALL. But we don't all kill our wife and daughter.

Episodes ... ??? I'm waiting for the movie ...

[husaberg]

I didn't MISS it ... just didn't reply. My option .... my choice.

SLOW DOWN .... and get it right. (you look better if you get it right)

Lundy was HUMAN. End of story ... and aren't we ALL. But we don't all kill our wife and daughter.

Episodes ... ??? I'm waiting for the movie ...

No I missed the spelling silly. But you missed the end of the quote in post 731 have a look middle of your post. you tried to quote me but it looks like your post.
No come on no wiggle room here. You seen it I didn't.

Did a clinical psychologist suggest that Lundy was a sociopath?
Not all Sociopaths are killers probably 90 percent of them are not.

By Episode I mean of of beyond the darkness?