Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[riffer]

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

No obligation for prosecution to present all evidence. They present everything they think they need to secure a prosecution. Better to keep it simple. The defence will do their best to obfuscate anyway.

[Jantar]

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.

OK, so that leaves him 20 minutes to dress as a woman, put on overalls, run 500 meters, get an axe from his shed, enter the house, kill hi swife, kill his daughter, run 500 meters, take off the overalls take off the female clothes, dispose of the weapon, the overalls and the clothes. That is some doing. Then it begs the questions about the tie and T-shirt.

On the evidence given, I would have to vote "Not Guilty", although my gut reaction is "Guilty". There is just too much doubt, and all evidence is either circumstantial or un-verified (eg the brain matter).

[idb]

No obligation for prosecution to present all evidence. They present everything they think they need to secure a prosecution. Better to keep it simple. The defence will do their best to obfuscate anyway.

True, but much of the evidence and scenarios (according to the article) were of dubious worth.
Fair enough that this should have been picked up by the defense but it still suggests that the conviction may be dodgy.

[SixPackBack]

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..

From my experience both the prosecution and the defence play a figurative game of 'hide and seek' in order to win. The truth is the first thing to suffer.

An observation [not a dig] about the comments from KB coppers when threads such as these come up, either:

• Extra information is available to you we do not see and you do not comment on, OR
• You take the side of the prosecution through feelings of solidarity, Or [and most likely]
• Dealing with low life leads to you adopting an extremely cynical view of the world.

Another comment!

To those that have never been to court:
Recently I attended court over a minor speeding ticket and found that while the Judge, Police and Lawyers acted in a manner that seemed appropriate, the courts practices with information management are mired in the 15 century. Information is lost, defendents have not been informed of their court date, the affected copper is not there........generally every case I observed was a paper mess with court officials, police, defence etc all acting out a merry dance of confusion. The court system is as much about creating work and money as it is about truth and justice.

[James Deuce]

The court system is as much about creating work and money as it is about truth and justice.

What about the American Way?

[Beemer]

Read the article last night and found it quite fascinating, especially the bit about four suspects who were only able to give one alibi (not quite sure what they meant by requiring two...) and that a total of 30 people were originally suspects. There seems to be quite a bit of evidence concealment and/or confusion and the expert DNA witness doesn't have many people agreeing with him.

I always thought he was guilty, but after reading this, I do have a few doubts. I think the fairest thing would be to have a retrial and present all this new or concealed evidence and see what the outcome is.

The time frame has always seemed dodgy to me - I live north of Levin and it takes me about an hour and a quarter to get to Lower Hutt if there is little traffic, and 30 minutes minimum to get to PN from here, so it certainly didn't leave him any room for error.

[Deano]

OK, so that leaves him 20 minutes to dress as a woman, put on overalls, run 500 meters, get an axe from his shed, enter the house, kill hi swife, kill his daughter, run 500 meters, take off the overalls take off the female clothes, dispose of the weapon, the overalls and the clothes. That is some doing. Then it begs the questions about the tie and T-shirt.

On the evidence given, I would have to vote "Not Guilty", although my gut reaction is "Guilty". There is just too much doubt, and all evidence is either circumstantial or un-verified (eg the brain matter).

I don't know whether he did it or not. I don't know half the facts of the case so am not prepared to speculate. I do know that the distance travelled in that time is more than possible.

Could he have put the dress on before he left ? I don't know.

But were any of the bush lawyers in here actually in court watching and listening to proceedings and all the evidence ?

If not, pure speculation on their part.

And circumstantial evidence is legitimate by the way. Several threads of circumstantial evidence can weigh up to a guilty verdict.

Oh - ask any crim behind bars the question and at least 90% are innocent......bwahahaha

[Winston001]

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.

Ah yes, the Theory of the Case. Originally an American jurisprudential idea, there are whole books dedicated to the concept of understanding criminal acts. That is because it works.

The police and the Crown develop a theory from the known facts about the crime. That theory points to the most likely offender. If the offender doesn't have an alibi or excuse, then he is going to be the prime suspect. However there won't be charges without evidence and the Case Theory remains a best guess.

Nothing wrong with the police loking hard at Lundy. Most crimes against the person are committed by someone the victim knows. The idea that we are all at risk from maniacal strangers is a myth.

The police had about 30 "persons of interest" but eventually Lundy came out on top. Even so, the doubts raised in the article are worrying.

Incidentally, its not obvious that exculpatory evidence was hidden from the Court. A couple of police notebooks were missed, not a good look, but not exactly critical. The biggest questions arise over the scientific evidence and the time frame.

And Lundy wasn't bonking the prostitute at the time of the murder, or even shortly after. He's supposed to have returned to Petone by 8:30pm and called the lady of the night at 11:00pm.

[DougieNZ]

I always read these things with interest..

Watson
Bain
Lundy

etc

Generally the story will select certain pieces of evidence and use them out of context in an attempt to discredit the WHOLE prosecution case. I have never seen any of these articles list the evidence that would count against the defendant.

What they forget (and what we all should remember) is that a unanimous decision was made by a jury in there cases. This isn't a group of police officers, media representatives or lawyers. They are ordinary people who listen to and weigh ALL the evidence before coming to a decision. not just pick out bits that suit them and ignore the rest.

What about the brain matter belonging to the deceased found on Lundy's clothing? Anyone want to comment on that?

In the Bain case... you have just found your whole family dead. What is the first thing you would do?

1. Yell for help
2. Go to a neighbour
3. Dial 111

or

4. Put your clothing in the washing machine and turn it on

I would put it to you that most normal people would do 1-3

The question is - why did Bain do 4?

There is also the fact that Bain had injuries consistent to being in a fight with his brother - his father did not. Bain was also the only one who had a key for the trigger lock on the gun.

Now the police in these cases very rarely comment. But they do and will get their day in court.

[Mully]

What about the brain matter belonging to the deceased found on Lundy's clothing? Anyone want to comment on that?

This was a really good post - with regard to this point, go have a look at www.lundytruth.com, they explain their theory about this.

Also, does anyone have the N&S article? I don't want to buy the magazine to get a look.

[Murray]

I do know that the distance travelled in that time is more than possible.

Not when leaving Wellington in a car between 5.00 and 5.30pm on a working day.

As per returning according to the link that has been put up numerous times he would have had to average 132kms per hour to get back. Tell me how that is possible???

[Maha]

The question is - why did Bain do 4?

Perhaps he didn't kill 4.
Perhaps he only killed one.
If the police charged him with the murder of his father (which is understandable and the most likely senario) then maybe he would still be behind bars?
They charged him killing the whole family, which is probably not correct.

[DougieNZ]

This was a really good post - with regard to this point, go have a look at www.lundytruth.com, they explain their theory about this.

Also, does anyone have the N&S article? I don't want to buy the magazine to get a look.

Yes.. and that is the whole point. It is another theory that has never been put before a jury. Nor have the prosecution been given the oppurtunity to refute it! But I'll bet it sells magazines!

The other Theory is that is was brain matter and he was guilty!

[DougieNZ]

Not when leaving Wellington in a car between 5.00 and 5.30pm on a working day.

As per returning according to the link that has been put up numerous times he would have had to average 132kms per hour to get back. Tell me how that is possible???

Eye Witness: "As soon as I saw the picture of Mark LUNDY on the television it caught my eye and I immediately recognised him as the person I had seen running. I am certain that the male person I saw running on Rhodes Drive towards Hillcrest Drive at 7.15pm on Tuesday the 29th of August 2000 was Mark LUNDY."


Much has been made of the timing thing...

But, once again, this evidence was put behind a jury. The defence argued that it couldn't be done - in front of the jury. The jury rejected the defence argument - why?

How do we know that the recording s of all the times were/are accurate? How do we know that LUNDY made the phone call in Petone? We know it was his phonme, but how do we KNOW it was him that made the call? How do we know that the eye witness had her times right.

Why would she lie about saying that it was Lundy she saw?

Once again - there is another "theory". IT WAS LUNDY!

[Deano]

Not when leaving Wellington in a car between 5.00 and 5.30pm on a working day.

As per returning according to the link that has been put up numerous times he would have had to average 132kms per hour to get back. Tell me how that is possible???

Did you see him try ? It may be improbable, granted.

Stranger things have happened - thats all I have to say.