Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[scumdog]

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.

Sure, he COULD have been.

Had that been the only evidence..

[idb]

Sure, he COULD have been.

Had that been the only evidence..

The article's actually worth a read SD.

[HenryDorsetCase]

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?

thats the fun of circumstantial evidence. its really easy to pick the eyes out of tiny little bits of it (and we get back to that thing of raising a reasonable doubt again): so the defence team pull on any little thing they can, like you pick at the loose thread in the jumper your Nana knitted you, the defence hopes that by doing that, the whole jersey unravels, and all of a sudden Nana is shouting "You little bastard, I spent ages knitting that, and now this bastard Lundy has gotten off".

But the Crowns process goes:

who benefited from her death at the hands of another (He did: he insured her fairly close to the TOD, but he doesnt collect if he kills her). He was also having money problems (business failing IIRC). The Crown and Pleece first port of call in a murder is the significant other, because, well, lots of times, they did it.....

did they get on OK? were either of them having it off with anyone else?

does another suspect present (we'll take it as read they looked)

what does the scene tell us? (a LOT.. not all CSI stuff is crap, thats where your paint flakes come in, as does the absence of a tool he was known to own, with no explanation as to why it wasnt there, and with wounds on the bodies consistent with the missing weapon.

then you get into what all the players say (which is where his defence basically came from: "I was in Petone banging a hooker"** )

now a jury is presented with ALL this stuff (and presumably some rebuttal from the defence (like the eyewitness: but shes 90 in the shade, and has bad eyes....) Interestingly, eyewitness testimony is about the LEAST reliable testimony there is: I read an article about it in a publication at Uni: (I should have been reading something else but this caught my attention. The results are heavily skewed by the race of the observer and the observed, and it turns out there is some validity to that racist line "All them [insert race here] look alike to me anyway." I digress.)

Anyway, the jury decided as arbiter of the facts that the crown had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Lundy had done it. Thank you and good night. We havent seen anything like what they saw, or heard the countervailing arguments, all we have is some journo with an axe to grind.

My view: He did it. no doubt.



** also: thats his defence? What a guy!

etc etc.

[Gareth51]

Everyone in the Kitchen industry were well and truly sucked in.First thing we heard was via a fax from his supplier about the sad news,we had no reason not to belive him,was always talking about the family when he came into work.We have been to his house to pick up bowls and they always seem like a happy family
He cell phone might have been in Petone but he wasn't and he couldn't run 500m if he tried

[HenryDorsetCase]

Wonder if he would have become a d/c judge if he had destroyed the crowns case?
Not suggesting for a minute that he got the job as payment for services rendered or anything. Or that the justice dept likes compliant judges. Or nything like that.

and yet a cynic might think that was exactly what you meant, you twat.

[spudchucka]

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

All good. As we were.

It is proof, just not conclusive proof in isolation of other evidence.

[Lucy]

That would not surprise me at all (or the scenario where he pays someone to do it), but the cops couldn't prove it. As I said before, lately the cops seem to find a guy that must have done it, and then present the case to fit that theory.

Lately? Haven't they always done that?

[idb]

thats the fun of circumstantial evidence. its really easy to pick the eyes out of tiny little bits of it (and we get back to that thing of raising a reasonable doubt again): so the defence team pull on any little thing they can, like you pick at the loose thread in the jumper your Nana knitted you, the defence hopes that by doing that, the whole jersey unravels, and all of a sudden Nana is shouting "You little bastard, I spent ages knitting that, and now this bastard Lundy has gotten off".

That goes both ways of course

[spudchucka]

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

Does he have a motive? Anyone know on this.

Skyryder

He was a million or so in the cart over some vineyard deal that never paid off. A week or so before the murders they increased their life insurance to $500,000. They had tried to boost it to a million or more but got turned down because they were both so unhealthy, (fat).

[HenryDorsetCase]

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?

Its quite long because I tried to explain it all there. I was talking about how the system is designed and what it tries to do. you will see if you read it that I also acknowledge it is designed and operated by fallible humans.

I don't do court work. there is no money in it. I have, however, some knowledge of our legal system, its origins and present structure, which I was trying to impart. Part of that "ivory tower" I spent so long in so I could escape the "real world".

Your use of the term "happy" victim presupposes an answer and suggests you might have an axe to grind.

I have not met Barry Hart, or Messrs Mansfield or Comesky.

what is your point in asking?

[scumdog]

That goes both ways of course

From my experience the defence know all the evidence the prosecution is going to present and how to rebutt it.

But converesely the prosecution has no real idea what lines of defence will be presented by the defence and how to counter it..

[idb]

From my experience the defence know all the evidence the prosecution is going to present and how to rebutt it.

But converesely the prosecution has no real idea what lines of defence will be presented by the defence and how to counter it..

True or not, but according to the article it was the evidence that the prosecution didn't present that puts the verdict into question.

[HenryDorsetCase]

He was a million or so in the cart over some vineyard deal that never paid off. A week or so before the murders they increased their life insurance to $500,000. They had tried to boost it to a million or more but got turned down because they were both so unhealthy, (fat).

THAT's right. I thought I remembered something like that.

IIRC the Crowns case was that he pretended to be in Petone to establish an alibi, popped back home, offed the wife, daughter walks in, she is old enough to remember (6 I think) and dob him in, so he offed her as well, zips back to Petone, then comes home Ohhh Ahhhh my family has been kilt.

[pete376403]

He was a million or so in the cart over some vineyard deal that never paid off. A week or so before the murders they increased their life insurance to $500,000. They had tried to boost it to a million or more but got turned down because they were both so unhealthy, (fat).

Nice spin but not exactly correct, according to this:
http://www.lundytruth.com/northandsouth.html
"Guerin’s insurance argument was largely refuted in Court. If Lundy has to come up with $3.5 million (his figure) in finance, how would $200,000 help? Lundy had issued a proper prospectus through the Public Trustee seeking investors, and he was way, way more than $200,000 short. He also asks if the increased insurance was “a premeditated action”. The increase in insurance was at the instigation and recommendation of the broker. The broker phoned the Lundy’s, not vice versa. The broker recommended that the Lundy’s increase their cover from $200k to $1 million. The Lundy’s said no because they couldn’t afford the monthly premium. (Thought: why would Lundy be worried about the monthly premium if he was planning to collect all the loot when he murdered Christine?). It was agreed with the broker that the policy be increased to $500k. The increase had not been accepted at the time of the murders"

and

"The motive alleged was that Mark was in serious financial trouble, and murdered his wife for the insurance money.

In actual fact,

When the company Marchris Enterprises was wound up, there was sufficient money to pay all creditors, with some debtors uncollected.

The Salu Vino project had investor's money secured in a trust account without any deductions.

The land he was trying to purchase for the vineyard project fell through without him being committed for the $2,000,000 purchase at Maraekakaho in Hawkes Bay.

The insurance policy increase was not at Mark's request, and nor was he the person that instigated any claim on the policy"

[scumdog]

So, at the end of the day who else would have benefitted from the deaths??