Author Topic: Mark Lundy  (Read 2198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
Mark Lundy
« on: September 08, 2016, 01:55:AM »
This is an interesting case I looked into a while ago. Many believe the man is innocent but in my opinion its a solved case.

The evidence against Lundy is overwhelming.

  • The family business was heavily in debt
  • Mark Lundy tries to increase the life insurance on his wife to $1,000,000 the same year of the murders.
  • The car journeys are long but barely possible, showing Lundy travelled the distance as fast as he could.
  • Wife's Jewellery box goes missing but some of Wife's Jewellery is found in his car
  • Lundy colour codes his construction tools, the same shades of the same two colours are found on the victims
  • Lundy's tool box was found locked in the garage an intruder could not have used the weapon.
  • The victims took major blows to the head, Brain tissue is found on Lundy's top.
  • The brain tissue on Lundy's top is in the exact same spot his Wife's DNA was found.
  • Christine's dies in bed and Amber's was on the floor in the doorway of that room, Showing the wife was the intended target and Amber was an accidental witness.

More can be read here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders

http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lundy-mark.htm

Here is his support site
http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/


This is him a the funeral. Very bad acting if you ask me  ::)
https://youtu.be/4u9WGGBQ4Kc?t=33m41s

"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2016, 11:20:PM »
This is an interesting case I looked into a while ago. Many believe the man is innocent but in my opinion its a solved case.

The evidence against Lundy is overwhelming.

  • The family business was heavily in debt
  • Mark Lundy tries to increase the life insurance on his wife to $1,000,000 the same year of the murders.
  • The car journeys are long but barely possible, showing Lundy travelled the distance as fast as he could.
  • Wife's Jewellery box goes missing but some of Wife's Jewellery is found in his car
  • Lundy colour codes his construction tools, the same shades of the same two colours are found on the victims
  • Lundy's tool box was found locked in the garage an intruder could not have used the weapon.
  • The victims took major blows to the head, Brain tissue is found on Lundy's top.
  • The brain tissue on Lundy's top is in the exact same spot his Wife's DNA was found.
  • Christine's dies in bed and Amber's was on the floor in the doorway of that room, Showing the wife was the intended target and Amber was an accidental witness.

More can be read here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders

http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lundy-mark.htm

Here is his support site
http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/


This is him a the funeral. Very bad acting if you ask me  ::)
https://youtu.be/4u9WGGBQ4Kc?t=33m41s
Yes, and the ability to switch emotions on and off at will reminds one of the Bamber funerals and overtones of the Russ Faria case. A nonentity vaudevillian who was bullied at school and who always desired power over others, the classic narcissist who beat his wife to death with overkill and his daughter just enough to ensure death. He was spotted running from the scene of the crime by an eyewitness, which along with the DNA evidence was enough to convict.  http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/eye-witness-report.html
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 11:54:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2016, 02:31:AM »
Yes, and the ability to switch emotions on and off at will reminds one of the Bamber funerals and overtones of the Russ Faria case. A nonentity vaudevillian who was bullied at school and who always desired power over others, the classic narcissist who beat his wife to death with overkill and his daughter just enough to ensure death. He was spotted running from the scene of the crime by an eyewitness, which along with the DNA evidence was enough to convict.  http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/eye-witness-report.html

There are no similarities with the Bamber case IMO. The sunglasses and the moaning like a ghost nonstop just seems like bad acting to me.

The alternative theories his supporters come up with are silly. One is that is was a debt collection gone wrong. What debt collector sneaks into a house in the middle of the night with an axe, approach the payee while in their bed asleep and slaughter them?

At least the NZ government gave him a retrial when the evidence was ruled unsafe in the first trial. Found guilty again only last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEQJ2Ly2Acg
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2016, 07:26:PM »
There are no similarities with the Bamber case IMO. The sunglasses and the moaning like a ghost nonstop just seems like bad acting to me.

The alternative theories his supporters come up with are silly. One is that is was a debt collection gone wrong. What debt collector sneaks into a house in the middle of the night with an axe, approach the payee while in their bed asleep and slaughter them?

At least the NZ government gave him a retrial when the evidence was ruled unsafe in the first trial. Found guilty again only last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEQJ2Ly2Acg
With reference to the Jeremy Bamber case I won't comment on the part in bold. However as you say he was granted a retrial where he was found guilty for a second time, though surprisingly and possibly disturbingly on a whole different set of evidence, which the Crown was able to introduce simply because the original conviction was quashed. Maybe I should comment on the similarity between the two cases after all, namely that where there are parts of the evidence which do require further scrutiny I have no doubt that the verdict reached was a correct one.

For those who are interested further in the case and have a spare hour and a half there's more detail here:  https://youtu.be/iwQvI8Eq0mE

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2016, 08:41:PM »
With reference to the Jeremy Bamber case I won't comment on the part in bold. However as you say he was granted a retrial where he was found guilty for a second time, though surprisingly and possibly disturbingly on a whole different set of evidence, which the Crown was able to introduce simply because the original conviction was quashed. Maybe I should comment on the similarity between the two cases after all, namely that where there are parts of the evidence which do require further scrutiny I have no doubt that the verdict reached was a correct one.

For those who are interested further in the case and have a spare hour and a half there's more detail here:  https://youtu.be/iwQvI8Eq0mE

The only difference in the second trial was the times of death.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2016, 09:06:PM »
The only difference in the second trial was the times of death.
But that was a huge difference as the Crown had to ditch Lundy driving through rush hour traffic and it had concomitant consequences such as the pathologist's evidence regarding the digestion of the McDonald's meal, the elderly eyewitness's account which wasn't used and the computer manipulation evidence, where it was seemingly impossible to change the time, only the date.  Additionally the Defence claimed the brain tissue could have been of animal extraction and therefore got there by contact with cooked sausages.

However it seems that Lundy going with a prostitute stuck in the jurors' minds and discredited his credibility as one of a family man, and I've no doubt the correct decision was reached.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 09:07:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2016, 09:13:PM »
But that was a huge difference as the Crown had to ditch Lundy driving through rush hour traffic and it had concomitant consequences such as the pathologist's evidence regarding the digestion of the McDonald's meal, the elderly eyewitness's account which wasn't used and the computer manipulation evidence, where it was seemingly impossible to change the time, only the date.  Additionally the Defence claimed the brain tissue could have been of animal extraction and therefore got there by contact with cooked sausages.

However it seems that Lundy going with a prostitute stuck in the jurors' minds and discredited his credibility as one of a family man, and I've no doubt the correct decision was reached.

You have to assume that they ate the food when they got home, they could have saved it for later or ate more food before they went to bed. On top of that stomach contents is very unreliable to nail the time of death and varies depending on what was eaten and drunk.

For Lundy to be innocent would mean that the two shades of orange and light blue paint that Lundy happened to colour code his axe happened to get on the victims coincidentally or the alternative suspect happens to paint his axe the same shades of both colours.

For Lundy to be innocent would mean he happens to eat meat were the producers mistakenly left traces of animal brain tissue in their product. He happens to get this food on his polo top and never washes the top

For Lundy to be innocent would mean Christine Lundy's DNA somehow got into the same fabric containing the central nervous system tissue from food spillage that no one bothered to clean. Or did Christine Lundy snease on his top after he spilled meat contaminated CNS tissue on himself shortly before the murders?   ::)

The sausage theory is stupid if you ask me. They only put animal brains in pet food
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2016, 09:29:PM »
You have to assume that they ate the food when they got home, they could have saved it for later or ate more food before they went to bed. On top of that stomach contents is very unreliable to nail the time of death and varies depending on what was eaten and drunk.

For Lundy to be innocent would mean that the two shades of orange and light blue paint that Lundy happened to colour code his axe happened to get on the victims coincidentally or the alternative suspect happens to paint his axe the same shades of both colours.

For Lundy to be innocent would mean he happens to eat meat were the producers mistakenly left traces of animal brain tissue in their product. He happens to get this food on his polo top and never washes the top

For Lundy to be innocent would mean Christine Lundy's DNA somehow got into the same fabric containing the central nervous system tissue from food spillage that no one bothered to clean. Or did Christine Lundy snease on his top after he spilled meat contaminated CNS tissue on himself shortly before the murders?   ::)

The sausage theory is stupid if you ask me. They only put animal brains in pet food
But didn't the original pathologist swear on oath that the victims had been killed within one hour of eating the McDonald's meal? In the second trial this couldn't be mentioned at all, let alone relied upon as evidence.

Where do you get this colour coding stuff and garage tool evidence? I can't find it anywhere.


Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2016, 09:45:PM »
But didn't the original pathologist swear on oath that the victims had been killed within one hour of eating the McDonald's meal? In the second trial this couldn't be mentioned at all, let alone relied upon as evidence.

Where do you get this colour coding stuff and garage tool evidence? I can't find it anywhere.


Lundy (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of New Zealand


"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2016, 10:34:PM »

Lundy (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Gosh we're back to Peter Vanezis and Bernard Knight again. It's a small world.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2016, 10:49:PM »
Gosh we're back to Peter Vanezis and Bernard Knight again. It's a small world.

I don't understand  :-\
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2016, 11:05:PM »
I don't understand  :-\
They must have testified at the original trial because they were quoted by Lundy's Appeal Defence Team.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2016, 11:17:PM »
They must have testified at the original trial because they were quoted by Lundy's Appeal Defence Team.

One of the experts used an extract from Professor Bernard Knight’s published work. Another expert consulted Vanezis for advice. They were not directly involved. specially knight.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2016, 11:22:PM »
Bernard Knight has expressed doubts over Bamber's guilt long after the trial by the way Steve.

"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2016, 11:48:PM »
This has been discussed but as I can't read the copies I'll just have to take your word for it.  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7008.0.html