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