Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[Deano]

It can take as little as 35 minutes to get from Petone to Waikanae, prob quicker if you drove with no regard at all.

And I know you can get from Waikanae to Palmy in 45 minutes.

[Manxman]

The weapon was never found but the wounds indicated that it was a tomahawk or small axe.

Lundy painted all his tools with a blue and orange paint combination. Guess what was found in all the wounds..... blue and orange paint flakes. The paint flakes were matched to the paint on the other tools in his shed and also to the pots of blue and orange paint that were still in his garage.

I'm neither pro, nor con (no pun intended) on this one....but, does this prove that he wielded the said blue & orange weapons on the night???

Sure, he owned them. Sure, he painted them a weird colour. But how does that prove his actually used them to commit murder?

[pete376403]

driving with no regard tends to get you noticed by cops or concerned citizens. If Lundy was trying to get to P/N to commit murder he would probably not wanted to have get noticed.

[spudchucka]

I'm neither pro, nor con (no pun intended) on this one....but, does this prove that he wielded the said blue & orange weapons on the night???

Sure, he owned them. Sure, he painted them a weird colour. But how does that prove his actually used them to commit murder?

The trial ran for about six weeks from memory so you can rest assured that there was other evidence too.

[Deano]

driving with no regard tends to get you noticed by cops or concerned citizens. If Lundy was trying to get to P/N to commit murder he would probably not wanted to have get noticed.

I'm just saying it's possible to get there and back in the time stated. Not a lot of it is main highway either so less traffic to upset. (Haywards, Piecock and back roads from Levin to Palmy)

[Deano]

The trial ran for about six weeks from memory so you can rest assured that there was other evidence too.

Yeah but this is KB remember.

[riffer]

The weapon was never found but the wounds indicated that it was a tomahawk or small axe.

Lundy painted all his tools with a blue and orange paint combination. Guess what was found in all the wounds..... blue and orange paint flakes. The paint flakes were matched to the paint on the other tools in his shed and also to the pots of blue and orange paint that were still in his garage.

Still doesn't preclude the possibility that someone other than Lundy took one of his tools from his tool shed. The fact that someone's tool was used doesn't necessarily incriminate the owner...

still leaves a possibility he was set up.

[Littleman]

Oh, and quite often the accused person is in fact guilty, as it turns out.

Its not like I am some wide eyed idealist fresh out of Lor school, brimming with the milk of human kindness and a crusading desire to help the oppressed. Oh no, I am a cynical grumpy middle aged man just trying to eke out a living until I move into the rest home where I can spend my last days raving about how quick I used to be on a motorbike and how the yoof of today have no respect, until the colostomy bag fills up and I drown, or I run out of cat food and starve to death.

How do you explain your post # 55 then?

Stepped into a courtroom or ever spoken to a happy victim after 'due process' was done?

Met HART, MANSFIELD or COMESKY have we?

[Manxman]

The trial ran for about six weeks from memory so you can rest assured that there was other evidence too.

Sure. Understand that, but the post suggested that the paint thing was proof in itself.

All good. As we were.

[White trash]

It really pisses me off when people equate in their minds the criminal defence lawyer with their client. Even the most loathsome client deserves the best defence, because as soon as you don't allow that defence, and as soon as you undermine that system (which has been 500 years in the making) you are undermining some very basic concepts about this society and its structure, without really thinking about it.

Your post is awesome, you have a much better understanding of the law than I do. However, I need to ask this very question of defence lawyers and their ethics if I may (and it's way off topic I'm sorry)

My partner, as a paramedic, was assualted by a patient. The police were already in attendance, as was her colleague. Now during the defence, this low-lifes lawyer puts my partner on the stand and argues that she's a lyer, she's making this up. Because, it's obviously easy to twist your own wrist so violently behind your back as to cause substantial damage requiring 10 months off work and surgery to correct. This smug arsehole even had the audacity to sit next to Sue in the courtroom and try and intimidate her while I was out moving the car.

After he was found quilty, it transpires this piece of shit has at least 7 other convictions of assualt and violence against women! Don't tell me this defence lawyer didn't know this prior. And to imply defence lawyers do their job because they like the challenge and rooting for the under dog is quite frankly disgusting, they're no better than the criminals they represent.

Rest assured, had this fucker been found "not quilty", and in doing so we're made to look like liars, I'd simply take matters into my own hands and shit wouldn't be pretty.

Now back to the issue in discussion, with a slightly different approach. I wonder if perhaps Mr Lundy's legal team knew he was a guilty piece of slime, perhaps they could have had him proven on "reasonable doubt" but realised to do so was a disgusting travesty of justice. And so he rots in jail.

[Winston001]

In one breath I hear many of you say “Journalists, don't believe / trust a word they say” yet what appears in here seems to be the complete opposite!

Come on we all know journalists will build an article, feature or programme around something, then construct this report, put it out to the public for entertainment or news.....

Knowing what modern media is like I'm surprised so many people actually believe whats been written in this N&S article.
Did the journo in this article cover all view points? Cover everything in this case that is fact, ......?

Modern media have a huge responsibility and un-fortunately a massive influence on the general public, yet they use this in the weirdest way and on some of the stupidest stuff!....

Nice post. I think journalists often fail us, particularly on television. Shallow, histrionic, one-sided etc etc. However in the print media, N&S is usually respected and at the high end of the reliability scale, along with the Listener. Counterarguments were given but they were basically outright denials.

I commenced reading the Lundy article as a confirmed cynic.....and ended with a distinct feeling of unease. Unlike the critics I don't blame the police or anyone else - its just maybe they got it wrong this time.

[Skyryder]

I'd need more convincing other than time trip bit.

Does he have a motive? Anyone know on this.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

My partner, as a paramedic, was assaulted by a patient. The police were already in attendance, as was her colleague. Now during the defence, this low-lifes lawyer puts my partner on the stand and argues that she's a liar, she's making this up...... This smug arsehole even had the audacity to sit next to Sue in the courtroom and try and intimidate her while I was out moving the car.

After he was found quilty, it transpires this piece of shit has at least 7 other convictions of assualt and violence against women! Don't tell me this defence lawyer didn't know this prior. And to imply defence lawyers do their job because they like the challenge and rooting for the under dog is quite frankly disgusting, they're no better than the criminals they represent.

If it happened to my wife I'd be just as angry as you. Perfectly understandable.

I'll give it a go. Refer back to Henry's post - don't mistake the lawyer for the client/accused. The person who deserves your anger is the criminal, he's the one who told his lawyer your partner was lying.

Everyone is entitled to a good defence - and to be listened to by his lawyer. Unless a defendant is talking about blue flying saucers and spacemen, he's entitled to have his version of events put before the court. That means cross-examining witnesses and it can be an awful experience for a witness. However usually they know their story will be questioned so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Previous convictions: just because you have 7 speeding tickets in the past does that mean you are automatically guilty from now on? Each charge needs to be proved on its own. The only relevance of previous convictions is at the time of penalty.

Lawyers seldom "know" their clients are guilty - crims don't confess. But if a defendant tells his lawyer he did commit the crime, then his lawyer's hands are bound. He cannot suggest anyone else did the crime, all he can do is question the police evidence and raise a doubt.

[idb]

I'd need more convincing other than time trip bit.

Does he have a motive? Anyone know on this.

Skyryder

Insurance, according to N&S.

[Meanie]

Insurance, according to N&S.

He certainly needed the money, i believe he owed shit loads on a property deal for a vineyard that he couldnt honour because he couldnt pay for it.
He got the insurance money and i believe went out and purchased a Harley and proceeded to show it off all round town. Thats grief for ya