Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[Winston001]

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?

Good posts and generally I agree with you. The trouble is, on rare occasions people are wrongfully convicted. Nothing wrong with us considering new arguments.

Juries are human, they get tired, confused, and emotional. This was a 6 week trial. The Crown case was strong with a mass of scientific evidence. It was a bloody and nasty murder for which someone needed to be convicted. The jury would not remember every point made and may have felt compelled by the size of the Crown case to convict.

Hopefully the Listener will publish a counter-article, just as they did with Scott Watson.

[HenryDorsetCase]

What was the evidence that established the three hour timeframe in which Lundy was AWOL? (not fishing, I dont know): i am going to go buy that North and south though (and lets not forget: the objective of the magazine is to SELL MAGAZINES.......) the new ed wants to crusade on this case because they had a (justified as it turns out) win in the Docherty case.

Here is another thought: the fact that errors and injustices occur in some (hopefully small) percentage of cases is almost a given (because this is a fallible system designed built and maintained by fallible people... they dont TRY and get it wrong, but sometimes it happens.)

But the fact that years later people can pick up the cudgels, can crusade, can nit-pick and can perhaps get a re-trail and get an injustice corrected is PROOF THAT THE SYSTEM IN FACT WORKS.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Actually it seems that the whole timeline is critical. Who was where when, what happened at what time seems to be critical to the whole case.

Some of the stuff on that Lundy site is ludicrous. (like "How do they know it wasnt some P-head on a robbery gone bad"? without dealing with any of the evidence pointing to Lundy)

[Winston001]

Actually it seems that the whole timeline is critical. Who was where when, what happened at what time seems to be critical to the whole case.

Some of the stuff on that Lundy site is ludicrous. (like "How do they know it wasnt some P-head on a robbery gone bad"? without dealing with any of the evidence pointing to Lundy)

Yes, I think his defence made a tactical mistake in alleging deliberate police contamination of evidence regarding the neural cells. His case isn't helped now by looney explanations. They don't need a conspiracy or any dishonesty, simply focus on the science - and the journey.

Can't remember why the Crown accepted he was in Petone at 5:30pm and at 8:30pm but they did. It would have helped the Crown case to say that someone else used Lundy's phone because that gave him more time. They didn't.

[Mully]

Well, he looks a bit dodgy in this photo

"yes, I'm coming to murder you"

[Beemer]

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.

That's a good point - we only have his word for the fact he spoke to his wife and daughter and now they are dead, we have no way of knowing if he paid someone to make a call from his phone or whether he really did make the call himself.

I do think there are some things that perhaps need a closer look, but I agree with the person who said these stories always paint the convicted person in a favourable light and rarely mention "oh, by the way, he MAY have done it because of this, that and the other".

After seeing juries in action (by serving on one myself) I do question the ability of your 'peers' deciding your fate. On the case I was judging, one elderly lady who only appeared to be there for the biscuits said the white accused MUST be guilty because he was hanging around with MAORIS...

[jrandom]

... one elderly lady who only appeared to be there for the biscuits said the white accused MUST be guilty because he was hanging around with MAORIS...

Fair call.

What sort of biscuits did they have?

[Beemer]

Fair call.

What sort of biscuits did they have?

Nothing flash from memory, maybe chocolate wheaten? It's a wonder she ate them in that case, as they were covered with DARK chocolate!

[jrandom]

Nothing flash from memory, maybe chocolate wheaten? It's a wonder she ate them in that case, as they were covered with DARK chocolate!

Dark chocolate isn't grossly overrepresented in NZ's crime statistics.

She wasn't talking about colour; she was talking about social reality.

[Mully]

On the case I was judging, one elderly lady who only appeared to be there for the biscuits said the white accused MUST be guilty because he was hanging around with MAORIS...

That's the burden of proof, isn't it?

And was the "elderly lady" you? C'mon, you can tell us.

[Beemer]

Dark chocolate isn't grossly overrepresented in NZ's crime statistics.

She wasn't talking about colour; she was talking about social reality.

I beg to disagree - do you have ANY idea how many thighs it's fattened?

[jrandom]

I beg to disagree - do you have ANY idea how many thighs it's fattened?

If being fat ever becomes a criminal offence, I'm emigrating.

Anyway, it's much better for you than milk chocolate.

[Beemer]

That's the burden of proof, isn't it?

And was the "elderly lady" you? C'mon, you can tell us.

You cheeky bastard! Nope, at that stage she was the one in the nylon dress and I was the one in leathers... that's probably reversed now, but that's beside the point!

[Mully]

You cheeky bastard!

Guilty as charged.

Unless the forensic evidence can be challenged. In which case, "It wasn't me, it was the one-armed man"

[Maha]

After seeing juries in action (by serving on one myself) I do question the ability of your 'peers' deciding your fate. On the case I was judging, one elderly lady who only appeared to be there for the biscuits said the white accused MUST be guilty because he was hanging around with MAORIS...

An earlier post of mine was about a jury that I was once involving a drug case.
There was this lady right,
At our very first recess she said '' I dont care what they say out there, hes quilty in my books, I had a nephew die from drugs''.

We had a show of hands so the foreman could get an idea of where we all were with it at that time.

That lady was very set in her ways and wasn't going to change her mind, even though those who had earlier voted guilty, had now voted the other way.
She eventually changed her mind and we could all go home....