Author Topic: Mark Lundy  (Read 1929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2017, 07:08:PM »
Getting you're wifes brain on you're shirt while frying sausages. It does happen.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11420678

Online Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2017, 07:27:PM »
It was not his wife's brain, it was not anyone's brain, it was not animal brain.
The test used to call it brain was immunohistochemistry.
The fda prohibits its use in forensics. It is used when the body tissue is known, eg take a biopsy of liver, put it in formaldehyde, and test to identify what if any specific variety of cancer presents in the sample.
You must not take a fried spot on a shirt and try to establish what that spot is with immunohistochemistry. It is disappointing when you lot wade in with assertions in a case you have not studied, especially when I offer the material that settles the facts, if not the judicial proceedings.
I have done some study today which has only confirmed me in my belief of Mark Lundy's guilt. Dr. Rodney Miller of the ProPath Laboratory, Dallas, Texas states:

"I can say with 100% certainty that the tissue on Mr. Lundy's shirt was central nervous system tissue. Not 99.999 per cent certainty-100 per cent. Any appropriately trained pathologist or other scientist who examined the evidence that I did and reviewed the immunostains that I performed would come to the same conclusion that I did. If they did not, they are either incompetent, hopelessly naïve or unwilling to believe the truth."

Online Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2017, 07:31:PM »
I have done some study today which has only confirmed me in my belief of Mark Lundy's guilt. Dr. Rodney Miller of the ProPath Laboratory, Dallas, Texas states:

"I can say with 100% certainty that the tissue on Mr. Lundy's shirt was central nervous system tissue. Not 99.999 per cent certainty-100 per cent. Any appropriately trained pathologist or other scientist who examined the evidence that I did and reviewed the immunostains that I performed would come to the same conclusion that I did. If they did not, they are either incompetent, hopelessly naïve or unwilling to believe the truth."
Samson might I enquire into which category above you fall..
« Last Edit: January 30, 2017, 07:31:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2017, 08:33:PM »
Samson might I enquire into which category above you fall..
I am mainly interested in cases where an innocent person has been prosecuted and acquitted, or prosecuted and jailed.
The dossier on Mark Lundy is explosive in revealing police corruption and perjuring on the stand.
I keep offering you the document and you ignore it. Steve Braunias has read it, as has Mike White, and I can absolutely assure you they know he is innocent, however they phrase it in the media. I know the key activist extremely well, so do they.
I have no idea why you want him to be guilty, because he is not. He had been invoiced for 550k by a man who was developing rootstock for his vineyard but that debt was not yet due. This man told his creditors, of which he had several, that he would pay them when Mark Lundy paid him. His debts were around 700k. One of these creditors, probably the largest one, decided to encourage Mark Lundy to pay this man so he would get paid. He contracted debt collectors to visit Lundy to speed things up, but he was in Petone. Lundy's wife perceived this as a home invasion, screamed for help, and she was axed to stop the screaming before the neighbours would investigate.
Rod Miller is a crook, the test he did was illegal in his home country.
These are the stark facts, which few are acquainted with. This research has been conducted over 15 years by people, and he will be released later this year. You should debate matters in which you have done the appropriate research don't you think? I have read the Lundy thread here, and have already tried to correct David1819 on IA.
This Lundy case is one I have spent thousands of hours on, not so much to discover what happened, that is straightforward, but to work on ways to educate the people and the courts.

Online Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2017, 09:12:PM »
I am mainly interested in cases where an innocent person has been prosecuted and acquitted, or prosecuted and jailed.
The dossier on Mark Lundy is explosive in revealing police corruption and perjuring on the stand.
I keep offering you the document and you ignore it. Steve Braunias has read it, as has Mike White, and I can absolutely assure you they know he is innocent, however they phrase it in the media. I know the key activist extremely well, so do they.
I have no idea why you want him to be guilty, because he is not. He had been invoiced for 550k by a man who was developing rootstock for his vineyard but that debt was not yet due. This man told his creditors, of which he had several, that he would pay them when Mark Lundy paid him. His debts were around 700k. One of these creditors, probably the largest one, decided to encourage Mark Lundy to pay this man so he would get paid. He contracted debt collectors to visit Lundy to speed things up, but he was in Petone. Lundy's wife perceived this as a home invasion, screamed for help, and she was axed to stop the screaming before the neighbours would investigate.
Rod Miller is a crook, the test he did was illegal in his home country.
These are the stark facts, which few are acquainted with. This research has been conducted over 15 years by people, and he will be released later this year. You should debate matters in which you have done the appropriate research don't you think? I have read the Lundy thread here, and have already tried to correct David1819 on IA.
This Lundy case is one I have spent thousands of hours on, not so much to discover what happened, that is straightforward, but to work on ways to educate the people and the courts.
I don't know the documents to which you allude and if I have missed them I apologize, but could you post them again here for the members' benefit? Nobody takes any joy in realizing that an innocent man has been incarcerated which is why I support Mike and Lookout in their endeavours, even though I believe them to be misguided and correct them when I can.

As for Mark Lundy please acknowledge or explain:

1) It's strange that the murders occurred at the only time in a two-week period that he embarked on a business trip. It would be the only time he could possibly be away from the scene of the crime.

2) There was nobody to vouch for Lundy's whereabouts from the time the prostitute took the taxi at 12:48am to 7:00am the same morning when Lundy asked the motel manager for some batteries for his razor.

3) Pathologist Bjorn Sutherland found tiny red particles on the polo shirt, one of which tested positive for blood. There was a "probable indication that blood was present, though not conclusive." There was a strong suggestion that Amber's DNA was on the shirt.

4) The immunohistochemistry tests are hard to understand, but from what I made out when the brain tissue is analysed antibodies are produced which attach themselves to antigens and the proteins recognize brain and deep nerve tissue. Whether you dismiss Dr. Rodney Miller as arrogant or simply that America has higher standards and outcomes than New Zealand I will let the reader make up his or her own mind.

5) There were 10 litres of a 68 litre capacity left in the tank on Wednesday August 30 2000, but the journey from Wellington to Palmerston North would not have consumed 58 litres. The suggestion is that Lundy stopped off somewhere to bury the tomahawk, coveralls and jewellery box.

6) The paint flecks on Christine's body could be matched to the paint pots in the garage and on some of Lundy's tools.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 01:16:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2017, 09:25:PM »
I don't know the documents to which you allude and if I have missed them I apologize, but could you post them again here for the members' benefit? Nobody takes any joy in realizing that an innocent man has been incarcerated which is why I support Mike and Lookout in their endeavours, even though I believe them to be misguided and correct them when I can.

As for Mark Lundy please acknowledge or explain:

1) It's strange that the murders occurred at the only time in a two-week period that he embarked on a business trip. It would be the only time he could possibly be away from the scene of the crime.

2) There was nobody to vouch for Lundy's whereabouts from the time the prostitute took the taxi at 12:48am to 7:00am the next morning when Lundy asked the motel manager for some batteries for his razor.

3) Pathologist Bjorn Sutherland found tiny red particles on the polo shirt, one of which tested positive for blood. There was a "probable indication that blood was present, though not conclusive." There was a strong suggestion that Amber's DNA was on the shirt.

4) The immunohistochemistry tests are hard to understand, but from what I made out when the brain tissue is analysed antibodies are produced which attach themselves to antigens and the proteins recognize brain and deep nerve tissue. Whether you dismiss Dr. Rodney Miller as arrogant or simply that America has higher standards and outcomes than New Zealand I will let the reader make up his or her own mind.

5) There were 10 litres of a 68 litre capacity left in the tank on Wednesday August 30 2000, but the journey from Wellington to Palmerston North would not have consumed 58 litres. The suggestion is that Lundy stopped off somewhere to bury the tomahawk, coveralls and jewellery box.

6) The paint flecks on Christine's body could be matched to the paint pots in the garage and on some of Lundy's tools.
Each of these points is covered in the dossier.
The car he drove can consume 50 liters per 100km. In fact the trip home consumed 28 liters per 100. Philip Morgan made false statement after false statement in summing up. He accounted for the residual petrol by describing a very careful return trip between 1 and 7 am, but he is still stymied by the trip home when he was told they were dead, in which he managed to average 90 km/h, which is fair hoofing it between Johnsonville roundabout and Palmerston North. In fact Grantham falsely stated the times in court, to deliberately show how fast he could drive, and managed to push this to 104 kmph, which is completely impossible.
When his appeal was denied, Andrew Tipping lied again, saying the jury were entitled to believe that he could average 120 km/h in the original 7 15pm time of the murders the prosecution falsely alleged. This is precluded by maths and science. 90 km/h is the maximum, so an appeal court judge can make a 33% error to keep a man in jail with no consequences, and I do not hold that this is an honest mistake, the stakes are far too high and he knows this.

His return journey could have been accomplished in the remaining one hour and 15 minutes. In the circumstances the jury could reasonably have concluded that he drove back to Petone at breakneck speed so as to make his absence as short as possible. The distance between the Lundy home in Palmerston North and the motel in Petone was measured at between 147 and 150km depending on the exact route. To drive that distance in 75 minutes involves an average speed of about 120kpm. The jury were, in our view, entitled to conclude that this was by no means an impossibility, particularly bearing in mind the circumstances in which the journey took place.

In fact that original premise is what got Geoff Levick going, he knew the crown was making an impossible claim.

The other points I will probably deal with on the Lundy  thread here when I have time..
« Last Edit: January 30, 2017, 09:35:PM by Samson »

Online Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2017, 09:49:PM »
Each of these points is covered in the dossier.
The car he drove can consume 50 liters per 100km. In fact the trip home consumed 28 liters per 100. Philip Morgan made false statement after false statement in summing up. He accounted for the residual petrol by describing a very careful return trip between 1 and 7 am, but he is still stymied by the trip home when he was told they were dead, in which he managed to average 90 km/h, which is fair hoofing it between Johnsonville roundabout and Palmerston North. In fact Grantham falsely stated the times in court, to deliberately show how fast he could drive, and managed to push this to 104 kmph, which is completely impossible.
When his appeal was denied, Andrew Tipping lied again, saying the jury were entitled to believe that he could average 120 km/h in the original 7 15pm time of the murders the prosecution falsely alleged. This is precluded by maths and science. 90 km/h is the maximum, so an appeal court judge can make a 33% error to keep a man in jail with no consequences, and I do not hold that this is an honest mistake, the stakes are far too high and he knows this.

His return journey could have been accomplished in the remaining one hour and 15 minutes. In the circumstances the jury could reasonably have concluded that he drove back to Petone at breakneck speed so as to make his absence as short as possible. The distance between the Lundy home in Palmerston North and the motel in Petone was measured at between 147 and 150km depending on the exact route. To drive that distance in 75 minutes involves an average speed of about 120kpm. The jury were, in our view, entitled to conclude that this was by no means an impossibility, particularly bearing in mind the circumstances in which the journey took place.

In fact that original premise is what got Geoff Levick going, he knew the crown was making an impossible claim.

The other points I will probably deal with on the Lundy  thread here when I have time..
I don't know if we're discussing the first or the second trial now, but when the Prosecution changed their case for the retrial it's patently obvious that Lundy had time to complete the round trip with ease under more favourable driving conditions.

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2017, 10:34:PM »
I don't know if we're discussing the first or the second trial now, but when the Prosecution changed their case for the retrial it's patently obvious that Lundy had time to complete the round trip with ease under more favourable driving conditions.
They allege three trips in the second trial. There back and there again. The trip home was using maximum fuel. There was 30 liters too little.
In the first appeal hearing Tipping said informally he would have carried extra petrol, but this was never put by the crown in either trial. Therefore the crown case is false, it was impossible to get there after 3 trips with 11 liters left in the tank.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 06:03:PM by Samson »

Online notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2017, 07:47:PM »
I have done some study today which has only confirmed me in my belief of Mark Lundy's guilt. Dr. Rodney Miller of the ProPath Laboratory, Dallas, Texas states:

"I can say with 100% certainty that the tissue on Mr. Lundy's shirt was central nervous system tissue. Not 99.999 per cent certainty-100 per cent. Any appropriately trained pathologist or other scientist who examined the evidence that I did and reviewed the immunostains that I performed would come to the same conclusion that I did. If they did not, they are either incompetent, hopelessly naïve or unwilling to believe the truth."

He was a pathologist though steve wasn't he not a forensic scientist

Wasn't he also the only one in the world who agreed to do the test. All other experts said no

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18898
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2017, 09:23:PM »
Don't know much about this case but the phone calls seem suspicious. Perhaps he hired someone to kill them and used the calls as an alibi? (That rings a bell  :o ;D)
What is the face of a coward? The back of his head as he runs out the door and abandons his principles.

Online Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2017, 11:04:PM »
Don't know much about this case but the phone calls seem suspicious. Perhaps he hired someone to kill them and used the calls as an alibi? (That rings a bell  :o ;D)
Indeed Caroline: telephoning your wife and leaving messages on an answerphone is redolent of the Michael Blagg case.  https://youtu.be/lImbcBvgj3I

The above link should work now.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 11:06:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18898
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2017, 11:38:PM »
Indeed Caroline: telephoning your wife and leaving messages on an answerphone is redolent of the Michael Blagg case.  https://youtu.be/lImbcBvgj3I

The above link should work now.

Thanks Steve. It also allowed the mobile signal mast to pick up that he was out of the area. He called from the mobile 3 times with the 3 calls spread across the evening, That rings alarm bells for me!.
What is the face of a coward? The back of his head as he runs out the door and abandons his principles.

Online Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2017, 11:57:PM »
He was a pathologist though steve wasn't he not a forensic scientist

Wasn't he also the only one in the world who agreed to do the test. All other experts said no
But the Defence could have countered about the two minute specks of brain tissue found on the left sleeve and left-hand chest pocket of the polo shirt. Bjorn Sutherland found particles strongly suggestive of blood, though not conclusive. Lundy still has no alibi for those six hours. Why park your car in the street and not in the main motel car park if you are staying overnight and don't want to wake guests with the revving of a car engine?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67190535/smear-on-mark-lundys-shirt-absolutely-brain-tissue-pathologist-says
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 11:58:PM by Steve_uk »

Online notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2017, 12:22:AM »
But the Defence could have countered about the two minute specks of brain tissue found on the left sleeve and left-hand chest pocket of the polo shirt. Bjorn Sutherland found particles strongly suggestive of blood, though not conclusive. Lundy still has no alibi for those six hours. Why park your car in the street and not in the main motel car park if you are staying overnight and don't want to wake guests with the revving of a car engine?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67190535/smear-on-mark-lundys-shirt-absolutely-brain-tissue-pathologist-says

His alibi was that he was in bed asleep . They had to scour the world to find someone that would say it was brain tissue, no oneelse would and they still wwon't.

Then of course the prosecution did a complete turn around and said he didn't comits the murders at 7pm it was 3am. But that doesn't match up with the stomach contents does it.

It seems to me that the jury didn't follow the evidence but followed thier gut instincts because of his behaviour.he was another amanda knox in that department wasnt he.


Online Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8295
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2017, 12:39:AM »
His alibi was that he was in bed asleep . They had to scour the world to find someone that would say it was brain tissue, no oneelse would and they still wwon't.

Then of course the prosecution did a complete turn around and said he didn't comits the murders at 7pm it was 3am. But that doesn't match up with the stomach contents does it.

It seems to me that the jury didn't follow the evidence but followed thier gut instincts because of his behaviour.he was another amanda knox in that department wasnt he.
He said he was reading a book in his car.  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11424337


 It's true that at the first trial Dr. Pang said death was within one hour of eating the McDonald's meal and had to admit in the second trial that this could no longer be relied on.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67412495/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-evidence-changes
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 12:56:AM by Steve_uk »